kibitzer

If the government succeeds in forcing this on Apple, it will surely reap what it sows at some point. Our governmment has failed miserably in recent years protecting its own vital secrets. Some of America's most potentially dangerous espionage adversaries - the Chinese Army for example - would acquire the same hack that Apple would be forced to develop in short order. Stop beating our gums about ISIS and start worrying more about the future Edward Snowdens and Chelsea (Bradley) Mannings who gnaw at our security ffrom the inside. DOJ, beware the danger of unintended consequences.

SpamSandwich said:

Avoiding the whole licensing scam was part of the reason for the rise of Uber (and Lyft, and another freelance cabbie app the name of which escapes me). People already have a driver license, so make a couple of extra bucks doing what you can already do completely legally...give a stranger a ride in your car.

So you don’t mind if the Uber driver who picks up your daughter is a convicted sex offender? There has to be some protection for the public customers using ride services and are potential victims. Having a license doesn’t automatically make a driver a good person.

shanejay said:

If any 8-21 year olds complain about space or battery, take it with a pinch of salt.

Amen. Doesn't matter what device, whether Apple or Samsung, all our grandkids show up at our house with their devices' battery charges on their last legs.

"Grandpa! Help!"

Ask them when they last hooked them up to charge, they can't even remember! What works for my wife and me - we keep charging cords on our nightstands and plug our devices in before going to sleep. Nothing hard about that if people keep themselves organized, but kids are kids.

SpamSandwich said:

kibitzer said:

SpamSandwich said:

ihatescreennames said:

SpamSandwich said:

darkpaw said:

"By wanting to ban our app from the capital TfL and the Mayor have caved in to a small number of people who want to restrict consumer choice," said Elvidge in a statement received by TechCrunch.

No, Tom. It's not restricting consumer choice; it's forcing your company to play by the rules. You wanna operate in London, you adhere to the same rules that every other private hire firm has to. You don't get to skirt the rules just because you're worth $70bn.

You MUST perform proper background checks on your staff/drivers.

You MUST NOT use software like "Greyball".

You MUST report criminal activity much, much faster than you do.

The letter from the Met Police's taxi and private hire team head Inspector Neil Billany cited one case of an Uber driver allowed to continue working despite allegations of sexual assault, with the driver committing another "more serious" attack in his car at a later time, reports the Guardian.

Ummm... Case proven.

Is it currently illegal in London for strangers to give free rides to other people?

What is the relevance of providing a ride for free?  I was under the impression that people paid for Uber services.  That would imply that Uber is a business and then subject to the rules and regulations of other like businesses.

If it’s not illegal for people to give free rides to strangers, then the real reason for the Uber ban is obviously to protect the existing licensed interests which benefits those doing the tax collecting. “Public safety” is a phony excuse. Drivers must already have a driver license to safely operate a vehicle.

Phony excuse? Let’s say you’re collecting your bag after arriving at LaGuardia and a guy you’ve never before comes up to offer you a bargain ride to Manhattan. Would you go with him or would you take an Uber or a medallion cab?

I see. So is it fair to say you believe that only government stamped and approved people are moral and trustworthy? What if the driver was an off-duty cabbie or a neighbor?

Even if you accept a ride from a licensed cab driver doesn’t mean they may not accidentally or on purpose get you killed or injured. Remember the recent case of the depressed pilot who flew an entire plane full of people into the side of a mountain?

A neighbor or a person whom you know to be an off-duty cabbie is not the same as someone you’ve never met before, whose reputation you have no idea about. You’re comparing apples and oranges.

C’mon. It’s not about protecting black cabs or stifling innovative competitors. If Uber and the like can put a better product into the marketplace, good for them. But if these new market entrants are not doing an adequate job on their own to protect the public, what then?

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/uber-drivers-forced-to-have-new-criminal-record-check-zf6ctss07

SpamSandwich said:

No way I'd place that on my eyeballs. Not even if demanded by court order.

This will be one of the greatest insults to the human body since thalidomide and the Dalkon Shield. If people are lining up to be first adopters, they should think twice.

ericthehalfbee said:

Wow, so much anger about a rumor. And why aren't you all chastising HP, who already announced (officially, not a rumor) they won't be supporting the convention this year (they have supported them in the past). Or Microsoft, who scaled back support for the GOP convention to software services (specifically stating no cash this year) but they WILL be donating cash to the Democratic convention.

I guess the old adage is still true: if Apple and another company do the same thing, only Apple will be criticized for it. 

You're right, it's just a rumor at the moment, but I'll be absolutely delighted if the Trumplethinskins and Rethugnicans boycott Apple and work strictly with Microsoft platform devices. Anything that helps them mismanage their campaign more than what they're doing already is fine by me.

Considering where Trump stores his phone to originate his tweets, does he put on rubber gloves first or just turn his fingers brown?

insider7 said:

Who wrote this article?

Good question. Where's the byline? "Extremely worthless" is the kind of irrational language that sounds like Dilger frothing at the mouth again.