Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Independent contractor? (Score 1) 150

Except the more control that Uber puts over drivers, the more likely they are to cross from "contractor" to "employee".

Certain types of control get into a gray area, yes. Regulating the type of cars allowed would likely cross that line. Regulating the the cars must meet certain minimum standers likely shouldn't. Regulating the services provided is fundamental to the business. The standard of the service is too. Guidelines on sexual contact isn't in that gray area. Actually not regulating this would likely raise safe workplace environment issues. The list of the regulations that would cross over to employee is list below. Please explain how rules on sexual contact between contractors and customers could be shoehorned in.

  1. When and where to do the work.
  2. What tools or equipment to use.
  3. What workers to hire or to assist with the work.
  4. Where to purchase supplies and services.
  5. What work must be performed by a specified individual.
  6. What order or sequence to follow when performing the work.

Putting all that aside, the idiots suing over this are pretty much going to kill the goose. The only one who benefits are the lawyers. If they're employees suddenly Uber/Lyft gets to control much much more of how and when they work. That kinda destroys the whole attraction of driving for Uber. Also looking over your own page I'm not seeing where Uber crosses any of the lines towards employee.

Comment Re:Independent contractor? (Score 4, Informative) 150

But if drivers really were contractors, it would be none of Uber's business if flirtation or consensual sex were on the menu of services offered.

Ummm, that's just stupid. They're contractors. There's a contract between the drivers and Uber. Both sides have to agree to and abide by the terms of the contract. Uber sets all kinds of conditions in the contract. Including this condition is no different than condition regulating the type of car or anything else.

In other words your argument is completely fallacious both logically and legally.

Comment Re:Maybe, but not from us (Score 1) 531

Remember that the "great men" in Rand were born that way and the ones that got somewhere on their own ability like the slimy little chief scientist are figures to hold in contempt and be bullied by the "great men".

I'm thinking you read some different books than I did. That's pretty much the opposite of what I took from Rand's writing.

Comment Re:So then Hillary is the warmonger (Score 1) 531

No, Trump is bringing to light that most NATO countries aren't paying their share of the deal.

That may be the case but the answer to that problem most definitely isn't to appease Russian aggression. The only result there would be an exponentially increasing cost to stop them as each act of aggression is appeased.

Comment Re:So then Hillary is the warmonger (Score 1) 531

You'd do well to read up on what actually happened regarding Chamberlain, appeasement, and the ramping up pre-war manufacturing under his watch rather than believing the shit you've been spoon-fed in school, mostly due to his political opponents at the time.

I have. His guaranty of Poland and at least standing up at that point took some backbone. The problem is it was too late then. German had caught France and Britain in base strength and surpassed them in production at that point. He probably takes more blame than he deserves primarily because he was being provided bad information about pre-war manufacturing ramping. The facts at that time were Germany was ramping up much faster than England and France combined and was starting from a much lower base. Chamberlain was told England wasn't ready for war in 1938 and needed time wherein he brought home the Munich accord. The problem is Germany was even less ready than England and France at that point and that year (really 2) allowed Germany to surpass England and France. It also threw away a strong allied force in Czechoslovakia. If either had said 'Boo' during the re-occupation of the Rhineland or the Sudetenland crisis Germany would have been forced to back down or get run over. At that point even the incompetent French military leadership, especially with Czechoslovakian help, almost certainly could have rolled over the scrap of a German army that existed then. Now I realize this is all hindsight but it doesn't lessen the fact that the Munich accord was a disastrously bad case of appeasement diplomacy.

Comment Re:Maybe, but not from us (Score 4, Insightful) 531

That is inevitable at this point anyway because Russia has not been countered for eight years.

If that had even an inkling of truth to it the Ukraine and Baltic States would have been gone years ago. The Crimea was a difficult one to oppose. Historically it was never a part of the Ukraine and even after it was assigned to the Ukraine in 1954 (by the Soviet government) it retained a certain level of autonomy. Add to that the native population of the Crimea was relocated and/or killed after WWII for Nazi collaboration so the population was close to 50% pro-Russian. On top of all that Putin performed a fairly masterful job of brinkmanship maneuvering to split it off. Yes the West was badly out maneuvered but it was also a bit of a wake up call. And key, the Ukraine is not a member of NATO.

But regardless it wouldn't be AMERICA starting the war, as it would be under Hillary.

If you mean Hillary would actually oppose a Russian invasion of say Latvia rather than sit blindly on the side as Trump has hinted he might, I would back Hillary 100% in that. Trump's appeasement stance would result in a situation much like that which occurred in WWII. At some point you would have to oppose him. Do you do so when he invades Latvia? Or do you wait until he goes into Poland? Or even wait until he crosses the German border? The longer you wait the stronger his the position will be and the weaker the West's will be.

Comment Re:This will be interesting (Score 1) 531

Good, this sort of thing is supposed to be their job. Given that they've been so focused on domestic surveillance since 9-11-01, let's see how well they do at it.

Come on. They're way too focused on SERIOUS domestic threats like OWS and Black Lives Matter to squander resources on stopping foreign spying and misinformation campaigns inside the US. Besides, spying on innocent US citizens and coercing half wits into FBI originated terror plots is far easier than catching foreign spies. It gets them bigger headlines too.

Comment Re:So then Hillary is the warmonger (Score 4, Insightful) 531

The media try to paint Trump as some kind of warmonger, but he's not even sure about backing all NATO countries!

Wow. You Trump supporters are terrifyingly ignorant. It should be obvious (at least to anyone who's read even a bit of history) that Trump's wishy washy support of NATO is far more likely result in war in Europe than strong support for NATO would. If or when the US participates is another question but I would strongly suggest you read about a little period of recent history in the 1930's. Putin wants his Empire back and one requirement to accomplishing that is the weakening of NATO to the point they don't oppose Putin when he starts taking it back. You sound like you would be a Neville Chamberlain fan. You might ask him how well an appeasement policy against an aggressive state works out. You'll see how well a weak Western Europe and an isolationist US turned out last time. The most efficient and effective time to oppose an aggressive state is before their tanks start rolling through neighboring countries.

Comment Re:The only way the public will learn... (Score 2) 95

show everyone how undermining the security measures of the global tech. economy and culture is tantamount to shooting yourself in the foot.

Are you kidding? The powers that be will spin this as proving their point:

If it weren't for all this evil encryption they would have no problem catching the villainous hackers that perpetrated these crimes against humanity by these supporters of terrorism and child pornography for the children. It's only because of un-backdoored evil encryption that the angelic powers of all good failed to stop these terroristic endeavours which exposed this good company that has help the FBI foil 1 million terrorist plots by providing means of accessing evilly encrypted systems.

Comment Re:Drone It (Score 2) 843

I honestly don't think a real "organized" war of that kind is likely to ever happen again. We have long since passed the point where the major actors are just too big and powerful to risk war with eachother, so they engage in little more than proxy wars against eachother's minor interests.

Even that doesn't really seem to describe the present day since the major powers major interests are so aligned they don't even proxy war with eachother so much as with the fallout from the decades worth of mess they made with their proxy wars.

Man are you out of touch with what's happening in the world. It's exactly that type of thinking which predominated prior to WW I and is considered a major contributing factor to it starting. Putin's rhetoric and brinkmanship likely has the risk of a major war closer now than it was during the cold war.

Comment Re:Liberty? (Score 1) 241

I feel for the guy--his job is to prevent another 9/11. He gets the call if a city blows up. And he probably really cares about defending liberty.

Bullshit. They've got you brainwashed by the "terrorism" threat also. You're misunderstanding the whole function of his job. He is not trying to protect the American people. The FBI/NSA/CIA strayed from that goal long ago. Their job is to protect the government from anyone who opposes it including the American people. The kind of access they're asking for could serve no other purpose than to find and neutralize anyone who might oppose the powers that control the government. If the desired goal was to thwart "terrorism" their resources should be much more focused. Unless you consider things like OWS or protests against the police "terrorism".

But unfortunately, pervasive surveillance without amazingly well-engineered procedural oversight and security will inevitably lead to tyranny.

With the level of information gathering and access they're asking for absolutely no amount of well-engineered procedural oversight and security will prevent tyranny. It supplies WAY to much power.

Comment Re: Well, then I guess (Score 1) 284

What is the rationale for treating real property differently than other property?

The rational for the value of real property is scarcity. There is only so much and only one person can use it at a time. It cost time and money to produce more in the case of goods and services.

Then again, copyright and patents are like real property.

No they're are not. Scarcity is what gives property value. Copyright and patents are a way to artificially create scarcity. In a market economy the the price of a good or service should approach it's marginal cost over time. Copyright and patents prevent that. Copyrights are an artifact from a bygone age where publishing creative works was expensive and difficult. The current copyright laws address a 20th century problem. The rapid evolution of most technological areas means patents primary function is to retard advancement and provide rents for unproductive entities. I neither case are these the intended functions of there respective laws. There intended (and in the US only Constitutional purpose) should be to encourage advancement.

Slashdot Top Deals

I just need enough to tide me over until I need more. -- Bill Hoest