VisualSeed

foggyhill said:

nolamacguy said:

on your second point -- the comments in New Orleans indicate people are tired of our crappy cab companies who have lied and broken the rules (give no estimates, routinely refuse local fares, fought credit card machines, lie about credit card machines, etc) for decades, and are welcoming uber. I'm one of them. I don't care for uber' corporate leadership, but their service model is the right one. 

Their so called service model is not that profitable if they actually respect the law. That's the thing.
Taxi service can be even better than what Uber offer now, if its done correctly
The lack of incentive to improve in the US is what made Taxi worse than it should have done.
Like I said, there is starting to be major push back on Uber (and the like); either they conform or they pack up.

Uber pretty much respects the law. Sure, they challenge it when they believe it is being unfairly applied, but most time they actually win or make small reasonable changes to make the governing bodies happy. Only in very rare, but public, instances do they come to an impasse and are forced to leave. Most people only have a bad opinion of Uber based on what they read in the press. The overwhelming majority of people's experience with Uber is positive. If this wasn't the case, they would have no business to sustain. 

Taxi service was never a viable alternative to the service Uber is providing. Other than in dense cities were taxis considered for anything other than getting home drunk or going to and from the airport. Many people have now considered Uber and Lyft as alternatives to everyday driving or even owning a car all together. That is a big shift from the perception of taxis. 

There is very little pushback on Uber (or Lyft) currently. They are already deeply entrenched in the markets where they operate and there is significant demand in new markets for them to enter. In just a few short years "Uber" has become pretty ingrained in our lexicon and if you were to say out loud Ii'm going to call an Uber" or "I'll Uber over" I'm certain very few people would even think twice about what you said much less question the ethics of the company despite what is circulating in the press. 

toddzrx said:

volcan said:

Anger for sure, but it is not really that simple. Trump followers, by in large are, middle aged, middle class, disenfranchised, unemployed or under employed, white males and their socio-economic status is primarily a result of greedy corporations, wall street bankers and warmongers, who sent their working class jobs to China, foreclosed on their homes and tanked the economy with a few wars. It really had nothing to do with Obama.

But wasn't the great Obama supposed to fix all that?  That was the promise.  Oops.

volcan said:I just wonder if the Trump supporters are really going to show up at the polls in November.

This question was already asked last summer when Trump declared his candidacy, and has clearly been answered.  Right now, the Dems should be far more concerned about the same question concerning the Bernie supporters that are refusing to vote for Hillary in November.

As long as most of the Sanders supports abstain and don't vote for Trump, Clinton should be in good shape. If they do vote for Trump then they will prove themselves to simply be anarchists. Even so, there is a silent voting majority that is not in the Sanders or Trump camp and are not represented in the very narrow polls that are being used to get everyone fired up over Trump. The country has moved too far to the left to elect a republican president, even if it was a very moderate republican, which Trump certainly isn't.

I saw a brief interview of Clinton on CNN today. She managed to answer all the questions respectfully, didn't offend anyone and gave valid reasoning for her positions. Regardless of what you think about her, this is something Trump hasn't managed to do in his entire professional life. I think the argument that Trump is somehow a political genius that posses a magic ability to solve the issues once elected that he is unable to articulate while campaigning because he prefers to provide offensive soundbites instead, is asinine. Much of Trump's "plan" comes from supporters filling in the gaps of his statements with far stretching possibilities in an attempt to legitimize and vindicate his craziness, in an almost an apologetic fashion. None of it is anything he offered up, he just keep doubling down on offensive stupidity and letting his supporters do the work in justifying it. 

I think Goolge misunderstood the strategy of "Divide & Conquer"

tallest skil said:

cnocbui said:

Elevating people to power who want and seek that power is possibly not the best way to be doing it.

Good thing Trump didn’t want it, then.

If you are going to pick which lie of his you want to believe, I don't think you should choose that one.

mac_128 said:

Not unsurprising. Leverage dominance in a market space, and introduce a feature that many of your customers may want, without having to pay the premium the Watch commands for features not necessarily desired. I would expect to see this technology incorporated into even Rolexes and other mechanical watches eventually, along with possibly even biometric sensors.

Seen this before. While it starts as a feature here and a feature there, soon it becomes a feature bloated device commanding a price similar to the device it was designed to compete with but can't offer any of the advantages of deep and wide support across an ecosystem. Eventually another startup will come along and offer a plain Jane fitness tracker that everyone will flock to because it just does one thing. You either are in one camp or the other. There is no sustainable middle ground.