jmcdiesel

In that document, it states over and over that the vast majority does not have a problem and is responsible.

Laws will not weed out irresponsible people.

The key points here arent that there is a potential for danger. The point is that the extra laws (which just so happen to come with a price and generate revenue for the state) don't prevent those problems.

They could pass a law requiring that drivers drive less than 40 hours a week. Does that really fix anything? Is there any way to determine that the driver who drove 10 hours this week didnt do so after staying awake for 3 days straight?

While the more you drive would statistically make you more likely to get in an accident, that still doesn't affect passenger safety. You can argue that the more you drive, the safer you drive, as well. The more experience you have driving, the more inbuilt habit/reaction you have as body memory.

The more you ride would be what affected passenger safety.

Ok, how do these regulations help that?

Taking someone somewhere against their will is already illegal, which of these extra laws (and taxes) prevent that?

The result would be the same in either case - the driver would be held accountable for, basically, kidnapping and extortion, and you'll be left either short more money or stranded 60 miles out of town. A regulation in place isnt going to prevent someone from doing that. Regulations would have no impact on that case.

Ok, so what laws that are in place do anything to control the speed of the driver (Aside from laws that would apply regardless of driving for fee or not)

Does the safety somehow diminish when you pay for the ride?

If I give you a ride to work, for free --- then give you a ride to work, but you pay me, what is the functional difference requiring more regulation on the second part?

Is your safety affected any different? Aside from the basic protections built in to any business when it comes to collecting money, etc, what extra rules need to be in place.

From a purely pragmatic standpoint, what is different about the experience that requires all the extra crap?

For example, in many cities where they were losing the legal fight, Uber offered free rides... and were legally allowed to do so, because they weren't charging the customer. Explain to me what was different in that scenario that made it any safer for the passengers?

All of this Uber/Lyft stuff has me wondering...

Instead of making it harder to be an Uber/Lyft to match Taxis, why not make it easier to be a taxi? Driving someone around shouldn't be so complicated.

Regulation, when necessary, is good... but most of what I see around taxi regulation is just money gouging on the part of the state.

Thats why sidewalks are included... having conduit with all new sidewalks would definitely ease the last mile

$3B is pretty small on the large scale. Especially when you consider the cost of adding them later (while it may not be paid for up front by the government, costs of doing construction, like closures, do add to gov't costs)

And it is.

Every single action you take is opt-in, right?

Devil's advocate though : you can choose to not be affected by them by simply not running red lights. So.. while I agree on the unconstitutional part (im on your side), the other side of this, its an opt-in system, in practice

While I find the camera's themselves to be... undesirable..

Why is there a need for a grace period? The yellow is all the grace period you need. If you speed up for or ignore the yellow with time to stop, you're already breaking the law...

Not that I'm a fan of the system at all - just, if you're going to do it, do it ... u know?

But a storm surge would be unpredictable, right?

How do the physics of "crushing" a boat by raising water level in a confined space work?

I think its a great question to ponder on, and I think anyone making a claim in either direction is wrong...

To claim it is a simulation is just overreaching, because there is no real evidence.

To claim its not, that its not possible, is hubris - just because we can't simulate it now doesn't mean in a million years a society following ours wouldn't be able to, and if you say even a society in a billion years would be able to, then you're saying its possible, and if its possible, than you can't say we're not.

I love unanswerable questions. Especially with a little sativa in my bowl. :)

IBM is so weird.

I haven't worked for them, but I work with 2 former IBM Engineers in Austin... both of them say the same weird things.. like, you can't get two monitors (when one asked, he was declined, then his boss pulled an old CRT out of a closet and gave it too him... a 640x480 CRT from what must have been 184 years ago) ... And other weird tales that just seem antithetical to a tech company..

Does the intent (or source) of the Girl's Statue matter if it's drawing the right kind of attention and sending the right message?

Not taking sides - just feel like, the fact that it was marketing doesn't really change its effect..

I guess I'm just simpleminded and think that you should just pay your debt that you agreed to acquire..

And thus, VRML was reborn!!!!!

Seriously, anyone remember VRML? It was so cool... it was technically junk and implemented horribly, but it was awesome still somehow. Like goat simulator.

Is it me, or is this just a massive projection?

Set a short-term goal (a month) and set aside some time (weekly?) to spend focusing on the task of discovering your long-term goals? :)

Saying phones ARE computers is being completely pedantic.

Of course they are. So are microwaves at this point. So are toilets at this point.

I fail to believe that you just "missed" the real point, that the form factor and the user interface are (and need to be) quite different from a phone to a desktop.

3. 3 laptops, broken when I wasn't even there from a family member or child or pet running by snagging the valve and ripping t out. 2 were just rendered unchargable, the third shattered the screen. I'm far from alone in that, as well. It's rather presimptuous on your part, don't you think?

It says a lot.

The desktop isnt a phone. Forcing phone features into a desktop and slowly turning the desktop into iOS is not a good thing.

We were just fine without an app store. Just fine. I cant think of any of the "use this mobile feature on your desktop" that provides any real value...

I used to be hardcore windows guy...

Then 10 years ago I got a mac. I never went back..

But what am I saving money for right now? To build a nice PC again.

Mostly because of the exact reasons in the article.

I have a fondness for apple... but they have definitely lost their way. First, they were a computer company driven by a man who loved computers ("first" here is the Jobs return era) ... then they became a Computer company who also made a phone. Then they became a computer company who also made a phone and a tablet. Then they became a phone company who also made computers and tablets.

Now they are a phone company who presides over the death throws of an amazing operating system that is going to be killed off to make it more like a phone. The new "features" every cycle are more "lets put this phone feature on the desktop"

It makes me sad, as a mac fan. The hardware is getting worse. The decisions are getting dumber every time. I wont buy a laptop without a magsafe or similar connection, i have kids and animals, and the magsafe has saved a laptop more than once.. to remove something that was as core and identifiable a part of their computers was just a stupid move and served no purpose.

They don't listen to the industry or the consumers anymore, they stick their fingers in their ears and pretend to know best.

Jobs was hardheaded, but reasonable. Cook is trying to emulate the hardheadedness but fails to recognize the reasonability needed to balance that.

Were they not compensated for their time when they did the work?

If I, as a web engineer, help create the next facebook for someone and I'm paid my wage during the time, and this new facebook somehow obsoletes me, are you saying I should be entitled to gain more from that, even though I was already paid what I agreed to be paid when the work was done?

I think we'll just have to disagree on the "artificial" thing. It "appears" artificial.

I think the combo of the nag screen and the inability to pay to get rid of it is a big part of the problem. If you're not going to let people buy the software, you shouldn't add a penalty/hurdle/annoyance to their usage.

I just think, unfortunately for you and the project... you took a good boost of traffic by getting a near-top HN story and just let it die. You probably won't get a gift like this again...

Speaking for myself, I won't be using the software. I would have paid for it, as I want a GUI side-by-side, but i couldn't. A nag screen I can't even pay to get rid of is all but insulting, so I won't be loading the software, so the whole "out of sight, out of mind" thing is going to take over, and I probably will never open it again...

Now, seeing your decisions, and I want to stress that I'm not judging you for making them, its your baby, you do what you want with it, and I don't presume to tell you what you should do - just trying to share a perspective that may not be singular... but those decisions make me question the path the software is going to take, because they fly in the face of what I would consider to be reason.

I think, paying attention to the comments here, you should consider that your communication is an issue. The whole license in general, the need for it, the "it feels OSS, but its not" ... the artificial license limit... lots of red flags, and a lack of clarity.

Never seen a developer both talk about the rationale of not being OSS to cover costs, then decline people wanting to give him money...

You really haven't answered it, though. It's very nonsensical. If you want to see "who's in" and develop for your paying customers, then should you not let people become paying customers so you can develop for them?

Your logic seems to work if you were not allowing trials, but only paying... THEN you would have only paying customers... its your gig, but I think its been a while since i've seen something this strange in software... and its telling that you're having to post the link to your answer so often in these comments. It simply makes no sense, and seems to be serving to drive people away or make them doubt your intentions.

"fman needs to first and foremost appeal to its paying users"

I can speak, as a paid user of many software products, that actually being able to PAY for something, makes it far more appealing to me...