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 ×

Comment Re:Not quite (Score 1) 837

This is the modern version of Pascal's Wager. Just as with the original, the modern version fails because it underestimates the downside of accepting the wager. Radical restrictions on the use of fossil fuels would push the world into recession, and foreclose any possibility that the truly poor, in their billions, will have any hope of approaching the comfortable lives we take for granted in the developed world. Fossil fuels have impacted human life in an immeasurably positive way, and removing them would be painful for the developed world, but catastrophic for the "developing" world (which would be developing no more due to the lack of reliable, plentiful, affordable energy).

Comment Uber drivers are NOT taxi drivers (Score 1) 180

Time and again we see the claim that Uber is a taxi company, despite the obvious differences between Uber and traditional taxi companies. What you are saying is that the differences between taxis and Uber are inconsequential and irrelevant, hence "Uber drivers are taxi drivers". You are entitled to your opinion about the differences between Uber and taxis, but that doesn't mean that everyone has to agree with you. I find the differences between Uber and taxis to be both relevant and consequential, so I believe that Uber drivers are NOT taxi drivers. As for Uber being a monopoly, I fear that you have not really looked closely enough into the market that Uber serves. There is significant competition to Uber, and if Uber falters in its remarkable record of satisfying its customers, its competitors will swoop in to claim its market share.

Comment Re: fair competition (Score 1) 239

A driver who "cuts corners" and puts third parties in peril also puts the passengers in peril. Centuries ago, the only way to deal with this problem might have been regulation. With Uber, such driver behavior would rapidly earn bad ratings, and such drivers would either reform themselves or be forced to quit. How is an abritrarily difficult commercial licensing scheme superior to this, especially given the overwhelming tendency for regulatory systems to be captured by the industries they regulate?

Comment Infringement is not stealing (Score 1) 408

This is the usual content-industry twaddle, trying to muddle the distinction between taking tangible property ("stealing") and violating legal rights in intangible goods ("infringment"). They yell and scream that infringement is totally, absolutely and completely the same thing as stealing, yet screaming doesn't make it so. Stealing has been intuitively understood as wrong from time immemorial. Infringement is a modern invention, with none of that moral underpinning. The content industry seeks to confuse the issue by baldly asserting that two different things are actually the same. The common person, in his internal moral calculus, will realize this and continue to reject the intellectual-property maximalists such as a Bell Media.

Comment Re:No business sense (Score 1) 287

This is a silly distortion of the truth, popular in certain political quarters. No justice voted that a corporation is human. No justice voted that a corporation (a "legal person") has the rights of a human (a "natural person"). A corporation is a "person" (a term of legal art) but not a human.

Comment Who destroys all their personal correspondence? (Score 2) 609

We are being asked to believe that Hilary Clinton (or some unspecified persons working for her) separated "personal" from "official" e-mails, sent paper printouts of all the official e-mails to the State Department, and DESTROYED all of the personal e-mails. Why would she do that? Who destroys all their personal e-mails, and why? Isn't it much more likely that the "personal" e-mails were destroyed so that sorting process could not be reviewed, because inconvenient official e-mails somehow got destroyed along with them?

Comment Re:Good... (Score 1) 312

No one denies that Germany has the right to make the rules within its jurisdiction. We do, however, reserve the right to laugh at those rules if they are silly. For example, if German law required carriage of passengers for hire to be done in horse-drawn vehicles, the problem would not be Germany's right to make such a law, but its complete absurdity. Outlawing Uber is similarly absurd.

Comment Re:manucturer dealers could be worse (Score 1) 455

If a manufacturer wants to screw itself by preventing its customers from experiencing the orgiastic joy of buying their cars from a dealer, why stop them? It's not 'monopolistic' since sensible customers can pass up the cars sold by the evil direct-sales model and flock to other manufacturers who let them buy through their fair, pure, and utterly ethical car dealerships. :-)

Comment Re:This order cannot stand (Score 1) 248

I'm not suggesting that anyone move anywhere. I'm just saying that just as Google pulled out of mainland China to escape an intolerable legal system, it would pull out of Canada if this order were allowed to stand. One presumes that most of the Google Canada employees would look for jobs at other companies in Canada, and that Canadians would switch from to (or perhaps to Everyone would be the poorer for this.

Slashdot Top Deals

"If truth is beauty, how come no one has their hair done in the library?" -- Lily Tomlin