patrick.net

DieBankOfAmericaPhukkingDie says

In a lot of countries in the EU, a national CERT can't even give IP address to their own national police investigators

really, send Obozo over there, he will have everybody's record in a few months.

Without being an Uber fan, it's the same with Fixed. The SFMTA is now blocking them from accessing their website so they cannot submit parking ticket contests on your behalf. Imagine they would do that to random personal lawyers. Pure government tyranny.

That's true, but unless the laws address what ever laws that currently keeps taxis regulated that only a few Monopoly Taxi companies in the whole US control almost every market.
If Uber can do it, then I should be able to go down to the Toy Store pick up a Ferrari and go to the Airport trolling for rich fares. If I so saw a neiche in doing so.
But as it is now, the Limo or Taxi driver would be on the horn so fast, calling the office, then the manager of the office, would call some guy on Wall Street who then would have to call some guy getting a rub and tug in a Russian brothel, who then would have to call the Senator, who would call the Mayor, and he'd be down there personally to write said menace a $1200 ticket, and kick him in the nuts for Boris.

I don't feel no love for giving Uber exceptional rights. At the end of the day, there's a Boris that will have the Mayor kick you in the nuts if you try to muscle in on his territory.
The only way you get play is by abusing your car on their terms.

In France, where two Uber executives have been arrested and face jail time, laws require Uber drivers to wait fifteen minutes between receiving a reservation and picking up passengers, and banned the use of geolocation to see nearby cars, along with ride-sharing by drivers who lack professional (ie taxi) licenses. How is this supposed to help passengers?

This is a perfect example of why jury nullification should be routinely practiced.

Dan8267 says

This is a perfect example of why jury nullification should be routinely practiced.

WTF are you talking about? There's no jury or anything yet. It's not until febuary. A judge could just as easily nullify a jury decision in favor of uber.

Bob, don't get your panties in a bunch. If you don't understand what I'm saying, take a deep breath and ask someone smarter than you. It's not that hard to figure out.

Dan8267 says

If you don't understand what I'm saying, take a deep breath and ask someone smarter than you.

Other than the captain the number of nonsense speakers is very limited.

"yup, that's it in a nutshell "

What a silly law. Designed to inconvenience everyone, just to keep competition at bay to help an obsolete industry that cannot compete.
All the stagecoach drivers lost their jobs a hundred years ago when they could not compete with the automobiles. Now it's the taxi drivers turn. Why should I pay more just to help taxi drivers? Would they be willing to pay more to help travel agents who lost their jobs?
I want progress.

Last weekend we signed up with Rover.com a dog sitting service.
We went to Monterey for the weekend, and left our dog with a family. We were thrilled.
We went with a family that had booked a house with an ocean view through a service similar to airbnb. We were thrilled.
Uber, Airbnb, Rover.com, Angie's List, zipcars, and the thousand other services that are sure to give a blow to traditional forms of business.
" Lead follow or get the fuck out of the way"

Except none of these businesses endanger the powerful: Lawyers (who fight tooth and nail against paralegals filing forms), Financial Firms (imagine reducing some of the requirements for entry, ha! They'd never allow it), Banking, Landlords, etc.

How about repealing the California laws that ban people from saving by sleeping in their vehicles?

All of these generally target independent contractors and small business owners.

Once AirBNB gets to the next level popular, scum will start using it, causing a ruckus, breaking shit, smoking crack - expect to see "No AirBNB" in leases and condo/homeowners assoc. rules

That industry is filled with artificially created entry barriers designed to keep people from entering it, and keep existing companies making more money.

FortWayne says

That industry is filled with artificially created entry barriers designed to keep people from entering it, and keep existing companies making more money.

Every mature industry is filled with artificially created entry barriers designed to keep people from entering it and keep existing companies making more money.

I wonder who paid lots of money to get those laws passed? Must be a libby thing. You think?

Here's another one: Car Dealerships. Thanks to blue sky'd franchise laws, it is illegal for new cars to be sold directly from the Manufacturer or by any but an (all but impossible to obtain) licensed Car Dealership.

Dealerships are now in their 3-4th Generation on hand-me-down since the original laws were passed after WW2.

bob2356 says

I wonder who paid lots of money to get those laws passed? Must be a libby thing. You think?

At least half the time if not more.

FortWayne says

bob2356 says

I wonder who paid lots of money to get those laws passed? Must be a libby thing. You think?

At least half the time if not more.

Only in your weird distorted world.

A Sharing/Uber Economy works...but only when the cost of living is very low.

Take two situations:

Seattle 1985. Still "depopulated" from the Boeing layoffs. Apartments and houses are dirty cheap, but permanent jobs are hard to come by. You get either low salary jobs and part time work. But even that is enough for you to afford your rent. Food and other entertainments are also extremely cheap. You might not have Obamacare, but you're young and healthy. It is an Uber Economy.

Seattle 2015: The city is overcrowded. A treehouse is jokingly classified as a luxury loft. Sears craftsmen, once housing for people who worked in a coal plant, now sell for the price of a luxury mansion. Even fulltime jobs, working 60 hours a week or more, are not enough to afford a good apartment or home and people have to double-up in group homes well into their 30s. Supposedly you now get to living a "Real City" where eventhe lunch special at a Thai restaurant can set you back an hour's pay.This is a Liberal Economy.

I ask. Which is better.

syrian refugee uber drivers in the near future?

John Bailo says

Seattle 2015: The city is overcrowded. A treehouse is jokingly classified as a luxury loft. Sears craftsmen, once housing for people who worked in a coal plant, now sell for the price of a luxury mansion. Even fulltime jobs, working 60 hours a week or more, are not enough to afford a good apartment or home and people have to double-up in group homes well into their 30s. Supposedly you now get to living a "Real City" where eventhe lunch special at a Thai restaurant can set you back an hour's pay.This is a Liberal Economy.

Why is the city overcrowded? Maybe because so many people want to live in a liberal economy. Each and every one has an equal opportunity every single day to move to Alabama, buy a double wide, and enjoy the american dream. But they don't. Why is that? Why are you there? Part of the problem, not part of the solution it would appear. Oh, right I forgot it's all those other people that are the problem.

bob2356 says

Why is the city overcrowded? Maybe because so many people want to live in a liberal economy.

That is an assumption. They want to live there because that is where the money is. Only the most successful cities can afford such onerous government. It sure as fuck is not the cause of the success. It is just a meeting place for high tech talent as such attracts a lot of IPO money. Cities everywhere have such qualities, NYC and finance, LA and movie making, The Bay Area and high tech.

John Bailo says

Seattle 1985. Still "depopulated" from the Boeing layoffs. Apartments and houses are dirty cheap, but permanent jobs are hard to come by. You get either low salary jobs and part time work. But even that is enough for you to afford your rent. Food and other entertainments are also extremely cheap. You might not have Obamacare, but you're young and healthy. It is an Uber Economy.

Seattle 2015: The city is overcrowded. A treehouse is jokingly classified as a luxury loft. Sears craftsmen, once housing for people who worked in a coal plant, now sell for the price of a luxury mansion. Even fulltime jobs, working 60 hours a week or more, are not enough to afford a good apartment or home and people have to double-up in group homes well into their 30s. Supposedly you now get to living a "Real City" where eventhe lunch special at a Thai restaurant can set you back an hour's pay.This is a Liberal Economy.

I ask. Which is better.

Number 2 is better. But Uber and the rest can thrive just as much. Most people are middle-class, and they are the ones who are very likely to use Uber and Airbnb.
My experience with Uber has been nothing short of delightful. Today, we are off to San Diego, to experience Airbnb.
If you think about it.....car rentals and hotels are part of the sharing economy too.

bob2356 says

Why is the city overcrowded? Maybe because so many people want to live in a liberal economy. Each and every one has an equal opportunity every single day to move to Alabama, buy a double wide, and enjoy the american dream. But they don't. Why is that? Why are you there? Part of the problem, not part of the solution it would appear.

There is hope for you Bob. Doubt if it will last more than 2 hours.

It’s supposed to help the existing cartels. Passengers be damned.

Yes, but this oversimplifies the situation.

If you are going to allow a new way with new technology to totally destroy the previous way, that is destrying the ability of taxi cab drivers to make a decent living, and taxi cab comapies to survive, then you want to be sure that the public will be served as well with Uber.

That is you better be sure that at all times of day, in all the area and neighborhoods and all volumes of rides needed in airports and the busiest parts of cities, that the new model will provide as good or better service than the taxi cab model.

Yes, we know that for some situations that Uber is better. I love it in Los Angeles (when I needed it). And I am not defending france or those that would protect the taxi cab drivers. But there are aspects to this that you aren't considering.

What if they allow Uber to run free, and cab companies and cab drivers to fail. And then eventually after the new monopopoly settles, Uber ends up making more sense as a part time job than a full time job, and maybe uber even adjusts the percentage that drivers get.

What if the end result is that in some places at some times, it is MUCH MUCH harder to get an Uber than it is to get a cab now ?

I'm not saying that is the case. I'm only saying that the question of just saying "okay, the cab model be damned" is not quite as simple as I believe you think it is.

WE are talking about a monopoly taking over what is now done by competing cab companies. I would want to be careful about that. Maybe give the cab companies a few minutes to incorporate technology that utilizes mobile phones. And then slowly allow Uber better competition.

marcus says

That is you better be sure that at all times of day, in all the area and neighborhoods and all volumes of rides needed in airports and the busiest parts of cities, that the new model will provide as good or better service than the taxi cab model.

It's already way WAY better than the old taxi model. Obviously, every day, every minute, there are more Uber cars and they are cheaper, friendlier, you know where they are on a map, you know the driver's name and have his photo, etc.

And Uber's not the only game in town either.

The taxi companies, their medallions, and the general unavailability of taxis in San Francisco are a really horrible experience for the passenger, and a horrible abuse of our political system. Expensive physical mediallions to deliberately restrict competition are an abomination.

Wouldn't lower taxes at the very highest levels of income completely eliminate the power of entrenched interests with wealth and influence?

It's already way WAY better than the old taxi model.

IF you know that, then you didn't comprehend my point. Please take a moment to at least comprehend it before dismissing it.

marcus says

If you are going to allow a new way with new technology to totally destroy the previous way, that is destrying the ability of taxi cab drivers to make a decent living, and taxi cab comapies to survive, then you want to be sure that the public will be served as well with Uber.

That is you better be sure that at all times of day, in all the area and neighborhoods and all volumes of rides needed in airports and the busiest parts of cities, that the new model will provide as good or better service than the taxi cab model.

Yes, we know that for some situations that Uber is better. I love it in Los Angeles (when I needed it). And I am not defending france or those that would protect the taxi cab drivers. But there are aspects to this that you aren't considering.

What if they allow Uber to run free, and cab companies and cab drivers to fail. And then eventually after the new monopopoly settles, Uber ends up making more sense as a part time job than a full time job, and maybe uber even adjusts the percentage that drivers get.

What if the end result is that in some places at some times, it is MUCH MUCH harder to get an Uber than it is to get a cab now ?

Is it that your emotion enables you to magically know the answer to these questions ?

Expensive physical mediallions to deliberately restrict competition are an abomination.

That's probalby true. I'm not sure I fully understand the different sides of that issue. D.C has cabs without medallions and a much much higher number of cabs. I'm assuming rides are cheaper, and that a lot of people live without owning a car. I'm also assuming (maybe incorrectly) that it's harder to make a living driving a cab in DC than it is in SanFranscisco.

I wonder where cab drivers in SF live ? Where can they afford to live ?

marcus says

I'm also assuming (maybe incorrectly) that it's harder to make a living driving a cab in DC than it is in SanFranscisco.

If you want to give people money, then just give them money, maybe even some basic income guarantee.

If you want good cab service, let the free market work.

But don't attempt to make taxi services a way to transfer money from the public to a favored group of workers.

Looking at the graph, if the medallion system restricts the number of cabs, why doesn't Minneapolis or Denver have a way higher per capita number of cabs ?

If you want good cab service, let the free market work.

Built in to this statement is your magical ability to infer that a model that is based on part time drivers, that may well get a lower cut after the taxi model dies, will manage to provide as good service to the public in high traffic urban areas where people often don't even own a car, as taxis do now.

I wish that I too were able to magically make such inferences.

You might be right, but I would rather see cabs at least given a chance to catch up. Or if not, allow the transition to happen in a way where it isn't primarily one company winning out.

Patents may make that difficult. And this is a good example of how messed up that is.

indigenous says

That is an assumption. They want to live there because that is where the money is. Only the most successful cities can afford such onerous government. It sure as fuck is not the cause of the success. It is just a meeting place for high tech talent as such attracts a lot of IPO money. Cities everywhere have such qualities, NYC and finance, LA and movie making, The Bay Area and high tech.

That is a joke, apparently tongue in cheek doesn't translate well to libertarian nonsense speak. On the other hand I'd be very curious to know where are all the wealthy cities populated by libertarians and teabaggers are. Since libertarians don't believe in using any kind of quantified measurements then lets go with a priori which is the only thing you do believe in. Cities have wealth, cities are liberal, liberal causes wealth. Geez, thats a lot easier than looking up a bunch of shit, actually reading it, and working at understanding it.

bob2356 says

Cities have wealth, cities are liberal, liberal causes wealth.

Non Sequitur.

Logically the wealth comes about because of the wealth creators (not governments), it will not occur without the wealth. Again Say's law that you remain willfully oblivious to...

indigenous says

bob2356 says

Cities have wealth, cities are liberal, liberal causes wealth.

Non Sequitur.

Logically the wealth comes about because of the wealth creators (not governments), it will not occur without the wealth.

Everything you write is non sequitur, I get to have a couple, especially when it's more goof.

Weath will not occur without the wealth. In the words of the immortal cheech and chong, that's heavy shit man.

bob2356 says

Weath will not occur without the wealth

Once again you demonstrate you inability to comprehend. The line was "wealth comes about because of the wealth creators" there is a difference which might explain your stupidity.

indigenous says

Once again you demonstrate you inability to comprehend. The line was "wealth comes about because of the wealth creators" there is a difference which might explain your stupidity.

In the words of the immortal cheech and chong, that's heavy shit man. Are you going to get into the sun rising in the east thing next?

bob2356 says

In the words of the immortal cheech and chong, that's heavy shit man. Are you going to get into the sun rising in the east thing next?

By definition Libby mean economic illiteracy...

indigenous says

By definition Libby mean economic illiteracy...

Since I'm not a liberal I don't have to worry about that. Oh right not libertarian=liberal, got it. Wait, it's libby, how cute. If the only tool you have is a hammer then the whole world is a nail.

Have you been getting punctuation lessons from CIC? How cute.

Sure you are a Libby, every argument you have is a Libby argument... Here you are arguing that the Bay Area is successful because of the infrastructure provided by the city. That is as Libby as it gets.

indigenous says

Here you are arguing that the Bay Area is successful because of the infrastructure provided by the city.

And you're arguing about it on the Internet which, if the U.S. Government hadn't built it, would either not exist or be a subnet of Comcast.

indigenous says

Sure you are a Libby, every argument you have is a Libby argument... Here you are arguing that the Bay Area is successful because of the infrastructure provided by the city. That is as Libby as it gets

I haven't mentioned infrastructure or the bay area at all. Apparently when the only tool you have is a hammer you even see imaginary nails.

Now that you mention it. The San Francisco was doing very nicely with an economy based on gambling, crime, and prostitution. Then some libby government types drove through a railroad allowing the city to flourish as a port. Population increased from 25k to 300k, banks and businesses went up like crazy, huge numbers of Victorians were built. In less than 20 years SF went from small town to the 8th largest city in pre 20th century america. Sad really how the libbies spoil everything.

Obligatory:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/7ZSZsVM_cBo

bob2356 says

indigenous says

By definition Libby mean economic illiteracy...

Since I'm not a liberal I don't have to worry about that. Oh right not libertarian=liberal, got it. Wait, it's libby, how cute. If the only tool you have is a hammer then the whole world is a nail.

Have you been getting punctuation lessons from CIC? How cute.