Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Submission + - Uber Lowers Drunk Driving Arrests in S.F.–Dramatically (

schwit1 writes: There were only two drunken driving arrests last New Year's Eve in San Francisco, the lowest since 2009, according to crime statistics from the San Francisco Police Department provided to the Ferenstein Wire.

The recent data comes on the heels of a new study revealing that the introduction of Uber's low-cost service, UberX, reduces drunk driving deaths all over California.

Temple University's Brad Greenwood and Sunil Wattal published a new paper which finds that (not surprisingly) cheap taxi-like options make it easier for people to make the safer decision and call an Uber or Lyft rather than driving home themselves.

If the benefits of Uber in California were extended to the entire country, ride-sharing would save billions of dollars and hundreds of lives.

Comment Re:Level the playing field (Score 1) 715

So... those who need the least help should get the most help, and those who need the most help should get the least amount of help?

How about those who actually want the help, and who display that want by working hard in reaction to receiving it, get the help? You can't help someone who doesn't want it, and if education is given a low priority by the child's parents, the child tends to mirror this.

Comment Re:Level the playing field (Score 1) 715

Obviously something schools aren't teaching well is the scientific method and intellectual skepticism. "They are because I say they are" is not an argument.

That depends entirely upon the size and threat of the individual making the statement compared to yourself. This is a lesson often learned in school, even if not taught by the faculty.

Submission + - Net Neutrality struck down by Court ( 1

Bobfrankly1 writes: An appeals court stuck down the FCC's net neutrality rules basing their decision on the FCC's choice of classification of broadband carriers stating: "Because the Commission has failed to establish that the anti-discrimination and anti-blocking rules do not impose per se common carrier obligations, we vacate those portions of the Open Internet Order."

Comment Re:lol - it's funny... (Score 1) 716

Don't forget the content creators earn money through those advertisements. Essentially bypassing the ads, rips of the artists directly (if you can call YouTube creators that) and cost Google money directly for streaming for free.


I can't imagine the RIAA and the MPAA are looking at Microsoft with warm regards at this moment either. This is Napster territory.

Oh please...

Comment Re:I can't wait to see this battle (Score 1) 716

Maybe they're just presenting the web site in a different way than intended by the maker. In how far is one obliged to follow the HTML standard when displaying a page? To run all the javascript? Get all third-party bits and pieces (e.g. advertisements)? Many Firefox add-ons change how a page looks like, by adding things, or blocking things. AdBlockPlus is a thorn in the eye of many advertisers, yet it seems they can't do much against it.

Call my argumentation ridiculous - I know it is. But it is that kind of interpretation is what opens up mazes in the law, and if you have your argumentation right, you may very well be within your legal rights.

Not ridiculous at all. If they had to leave out some *features* to get youtube to display correctly on their device in absence of an API, then oh well. "We have no objection to creating an app that will achieve Google's requests, but we simply don't know how. Despite out best attempts at negotiating, Google has thusfar been unwilling to share the details required to achieve their requests. We've simply created a patchwork browser that enables Youtube viewing in the interim."

The only thing I see going against them is the downloading function. That does require extra effort, and was perhaps included as a middle finger against Google...

Comment Re:Depends... (Score 1) 329

If you can afford to replace the device being covered, than they don't make sense.

This isn't as simple an equation as you'd like to make it. You need to look at more then just cost of replacement. Look at your use (high-risk? low-risk?) and the terms of their plan (covers all, covers most, covers only slight warping during a full moon?). For instance, there was an electronics retailer that would offer extended service plans on headphones, even the $9.99 variety, for roughly $3.00. The store's policy allowed for items covered by warranty to be simply replaced if they were under a certain cost, say $40. If you treated your headphones immaculately, then the extended warranty is a waste like you say. But if you use them while jogging and destroy headphones monthly (though impact, sweat, etc) then the $3.00 warranty saves ten dollars (after the first instance) each month it's in effect.

It could be made into a flowchart along the lines of:
1: "Am I likely to need one or more replacements within the warrenty period. If yes:
2: Why.
3: Then compare the reasons to the terms of the extended warranty, and the cost of the extended warranty to the number of replacements you're likely to need. If it comes out "close", then you're probably safe in ignoring the extended warranty. If the cost of replacement is a multiple of the extended warranty, then it's a good investment.
4: Also, make sure the warranty isn't a duplication of the manufacturer's warranty, caught a few sales people on that one.

Comment Re:Here's the deal... (Score 2) 329

My rule of thumb is that the harder the sales pitch is the more likely it's not a good idea to buy.

I used to hold the same view before I put a couple years in at an electronic retail store. Corporate wanted us to push extended warranties, but often we simply offered them when they showed up on the screen, even though selling them would boost our paycheck.

There were just a few products in the store that I actually pushed the warranty on, simply because I knew the store policy would actually be to replace on the spot, or because I knew the product was prone to failure from past returns. In the second instance, the product were uncommon, very difficult to come by, so there weren't any alternatives, even at competitors.

For these products, I viewed the extended warranty as a good plan, so I did made a harder pitch then I normally would, because I knew the chances were high that the customer would end up using the plan, and then coming back to buy something else because they'd realize I was looking out for them. It was really less about the simple sale, and more about not having to deal with angry/upset customers down the line.

The unfortunate part is that for every salesperson out there who is actually trying to look out for the customer (even though it's motivated by self-interest), there's at least ten sales people who either don't know, or do know and don't care. If you find that one that knows what the hell he's talking about and tells it like it is, get his card and name, and stick to him til he moves on to another job (which he will).

Slashdot Top Deals

Uncertain fortune is thoroughly mastered by the equity of the calculation. - Blaise Pascal