memmcgee

Or even worse... options. You're tied to Uber with golden handcuffs and no one wants to touch you now that you've been involved in this.

Hope Google buys them for a tenth of what they're worth now.

It very much looks like Uber did this premeditated and that Travis and the Otto guy planned this while he was still at Google. It is VERY bad for Uber and they could get hit with much worse than just being banned from using a specific technology. The judge has already referred the case to the USA's office for possible criminal charges. Maybe we'll actually see an executive thrown in jail for once.

Who the hell did they outsource from?

And then the appeals court who didn't know Java overturned his ruling.

I don't have this, but this book is supposed to be good for procurement: https://www.crowdsupply.com/sutajio-kosagi/the-essential-gui...

The person more at fault in the Turner case is the probation officer who recommended such a light sentence. The judge idiotically accepted their recommendation.

I think the case for idiot judges that really makes the case for me is this one: http://reason.com/blog/2011/03/08/tennessee-cops-posed-as-a-...

TL;DR: a detective impersonated a defense attorney and got the victim to incriminate himself. The original judge in the case let them use the evidence in court and didn't immediately throw that shit to the curb. The appeals judge ripped them a new one though.

There's also the case of a judge in Michigan banning a guy from the internet for having a date over Tinder when he accepted a plea deal that the prosecutor then convinced the judge to double back on. https://ballotpedia.org/Dennis_M._Wiley

The Senate confirmed DeVos, I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that the GOP will bend for Trump.

Or he may simply actively sabotage an investigation so it ends up saying that nothing is awry.

I wouldn't be too sure. Pence had to break the tie for DeVos and I don't even think they can count on him for the vote considering he's only a seat away from the Presidency.

Well Trump just made it one.

Investigating organized crime would be significantly harder without being able to follow a paper trail. I'd rather have the police be able to get legitimate warrants to investigate actually suspicious activity than have them operate by illegal and unethical means.

Exactly. One of Uber's main boasts is that they're "creating jobs" while actively trying (by stealing other Google's tech) to eliminate their drivers.

Do you work for Uber or something? Because you seem awfully determined to be willfully dense about this issue.

I don't know... Maybe the local governments that were blocked from investigating by Greyball?

The taxi cabs aren't all one company though. Most taxi cab companies operate in one city. Additionally, lobbying is not a federal crime.

In an ideal world that would be the case. But in reality, unless you hurt the elites like Enron did, you'll probably get off just fine.

Exactly. People like Uber for "breaking the taxi cab monopoly"... by building their own monopoly.

5th amendment applies to self-incrimination. You can absolutely be compelled to testify against someone else.

Well you sound like a legitimate real person. There's no conspiracy here, Uber is a shit company and their past actions are coming back to bite them in the ass.

Wtf are you saying?

>What lie is required? You buy 1000 pizzas a day from your pizza store, with cash you already have. You report all that income to the IRS. Where's the lie?

1. I'm not sure why you'd do that. You'd have to pay taxes on the money twice as ordering pizzas is not tax deducible.

2. You'd then have to make 1000 pizzas.

Yeah but in order to do that they need a warrant. If you're moving around money like that, it's very likely you got that money illegally. I'm no fan of the police, but sometimes following the paper trail is the only place to start an investigation. I'd rather the police be able to get a legitimate warrant to investigate something than have them operate in lesd than legal ways.

One of the purposes of making money laundering a crime is that it makes it possible to investigate other crimes. You know the mob is making money and you know they're moving that money around somehow. Making money laundering a crime gives investigators a place to start their investigations. If they think a laundromat is a front for the mob, they can prove that by counting how many people are using it and comparing that to how much money they're putting in the bank at the end of the month. They can then get a warrant to investigate further. A judge shouldn't issue a warrant on a laundromat for investigating a murder when there's no clear thread that connects the two. A judge could however issue a warrant to investigate money laundering when you know the laundromat's books don't add up.

The investigators scamming him doesn't change the fact that he did it. Additionally, there were two instances where he paid to have someone "killed". While the second case is rather sketchy, the first case is much clearer. They even staged the murder for him.

Uber is anything but scrappy.

Not really... Google and Apple have had bad press in the past but they've never had wide spread employee sexual harassment.

Before Pokemon Go there was Ingress and hoo boy was/is this a problem.

If you gave the key to a guy so they could watch your dog, they're still guilty of theft if they steal your stuff.

Also did Lyft know they were giving the key to Uber? If someone impersonates your dog sitter to get the key to your house, they still did not have permission to enter your house so it's still breaking and entering.

If we determine how right something is with how clever it is, we can justify some pretty messed up things.