And Uber and its various competitors have done this by building a better system that is much more convenient and easy to use, and actually using much more realistic market forces, rather than doing silly things like artificially limiting the number of taxi medallions to keep taxi services scarce and expensive.
No they haven't... They've used cheaper labor to gain an advantage over taxi drivers by having cheaper cars and less regulations that could protect people that use the service.
Taxis have one flat rate for everyone and if we're getting into "market forces," that begs the questions of when the price could fluctuate. For example, does someone charge more for a ride in the snow? How about rain? This ensures that the richest get a ride which may lead to actual discrimination in the market place as Uber caters to certain clientele in times of need. For a taxi, I doubt that people have to deal with such things as everything is presented right up front.
Can it be better? Sure. I believe Wisconsin is working on a co-op model and there are others that merge the concerns of taxi drivers without Uber trying to muscle them out and undo the various regulations coming from when taxis were the new entrant into the market place and were undoing someone else (like iunno... Horse and buggy?).
For example, in India, Uber recently added an emergency button to its app, which would directly alert police if a rider was in trouble.
How does an emergency button fix the problem when taxis would have the name and address of a person?
I can see how that would be a nice feature to have, but should it be required by the government? If Uber doesn't provide that and Lyft does, then isn't that just a competitive advantage for Lyft? And, really, do existing taxi systems already do that beyond a driver tossing out a random estimate off the top of his head on how much it will cost to go somewhere?
That's a rather poor argument. You see the fare on the machine in a taxi. And requiring both companies to have a safety regulation such as the price on fare ensures no exploitation occurs. So I don't see a reason why both companies can't have such a thing. Unless they're trying to skimp out on something else to make money (ie a hussle) they should be fine with the market being regulated and safer for patrons.
Then there's something really concerning: buried in the rules is the idea that drivers can only work for one provider at a time. I've seen many drivers that work for both Lyft and Uber (and sometimes others as well). Specifically, the rules have a "one device" rule -- saying drivers can only use a single device at a time, but many drivers that I've seen who work for multiple services have separate devices (and some, like Uber, will offer to rent you a special phone just for being an Uber driver, if you don't want to/can't use your own phone).
If people are working multiple jobs, they should raise their wages, particularly when people are using their own cars to provide for their "employers" who are being cheap in the name of profit.
This has been a problem for centuries. The prison complex allows for slavery and it's a reason why you have a LOT of people defending keeping it as it is even though that's the free market that people espouse to.
Not a really good system when it's so suppressive, is it?
The RIAA is losing influence it seems. I think over the years, they've pushed too far and other corporate interests have more power. Now they're using it in courts. As the music industry goes down and technology has more power and clout, it's changing the influence in court.
But don't worry, the public is still going to be screwed in regards to copyright...
I don't even call it copyright any more. Reason being, the artist never holds the right to a singular copy. Copying is ubiquitous and should be treated as such.
Whenever I get into "copyright" issues, I point out how it's "corporate rights."
Because that's the honest truth. Corporations have influence over the public that is served by the right to copy. There's literally no property involved. Artists don't have power to hold a song indefinitely. Corporations do. All an artist does is sell an idea. So why am I protecting someone's hold on an idea when I can sing it, hum it, change it, or whathaveyou?
There is no right to copy anymore. The rules of infringement allow corporate rights to silence speech and stifle innovation for the sake of corporate interests.
Because that's who holds the majority of these useless pieces of paper. It's not artists or creators, it's corporate interests.
No matter what else happens, because Google exists, the MPAA will work to decimate the company.
That's what they use the law for. To bully and badger that which could replace them. The ratings system keeps indies in check, the ContentID system stagnates new video content, and their fight against torrents goes against their ability to utilize the technology.
They are the Edisons of this Era, working for monopoly rentsover actual innovative progress. That's been their mission with their lobbying power damn near since their inception.
The shareholders are deciding the value of EA? Essentially, EA hedged its bets on strong companies and broke them to chill competition. It's not a surprise that they would work to create a monopoly and destroy features and services that people enjoyed. When all they do is focus on what shareholders want, this is a natural result occurrence from this form of business.
Did the workers have a say in what occurred? No. They became part of the business cycle. They lose money and skills based on money going to the shareholders and the workers having no say in how net profits are allocated.
In the end, then saying that shareholders are happy rings pretty damn hollow when you calculate how much they ruin in the long run. They'll give their CEO a golden parachute while the workers get a small severance and not even a thank you when their time is up.
Thanks EA. You certainly know how to make people feel good about you exploiting the labor of your workers, paying the CEO and shareholders, then pointing the finger at everything that isn't you while you business models parasitically drain the talents of anyone that isn't in marketing or business.
For example, if you beat up or rape some inncoent, do any other charachters in the game try to arrest you or kill you for it, and do you attract enemies as a result
First of all, what in the hell caused you to think the game allows you to rape people?
It's wanton violence, not sexual assault.
Second, there are consequences to your actions as the police come to try to take you down as your wanted meter goes up.
And does doing the right thing, like saving a crime victim, have any kind of reward.
Yes, there's missions outside of the story plot along with other activities that go on besides the world revolving around your actions...
If you have good allies, are they more likely to look out for your back than really evil allies
This is just nonsense. Stop thinking in absolutes.
If so, the game would not only be realistic, but even useful for teaching real life moral lessons.
Great. Now go make that game or mod this one.
But if not, I think it should add that element, so young people are not taught that they can indulge in any mayham they wish without negative consequences arising from it. It would even make for a better game, since being good is sometimes less fun, and even more difficult, and should therefore deserve more rewards and less risk for doing it.
Or maybe you could look at the game and see what people are playing instead of going Professor Umbridge on everyone...
Okay, why do I feel that this is still off somewhat...?
It's like something is missing which I can't quite understand.
I don't know why a retail store is shooting themselves in the foot, but all this would do is push the purchases elsewhere. Why would they do this?
The relationship that they have with digital stores as well as other retail stores means that people that want the game will get it, but unless they're very religious, I don't see a reason to ban the game from their stores and deprive the labor of eight studios practically out of nowhere.
Hmmm.... It seems that market ratings were in control of journalism and people are rejecting it. That may be something to follow up on in regards to actually making better journalistic reporting a reality.
Who wants to control the news, and why? I'd argue that this is a microcosm of events that Techdirt looks at in the macro. We've seen this same corruption in the mainstream media to the point that no one reports much on Google and their complete disregards for the bargaining abilities of workers.
It's not that the police or politicians are turning this into a police state. They put their finger in the air and go where the sentiments take them.
Think about the needs of a community over the needs of someone outside of it. Essentially, on many levels, that's what the fight is about. This lack of understanding is in the media reporting world from Fox to MSNBC to the point that they go to corporate sponsors over something a bit more neutral like BBC.
I'd also say that billionaires buying out news sources helps make this more apparent. If you're owned by someone that doesn't want reporting of fracking, what do you think would be your response if you found out?
Overall, this is a mess that took years to create and may take years to fix. Controlling the narrative in such a way can fail spectacularly once it no longer holds.
That's really the problem with all forms of journalism in general. It seems that we haven't found a way to advance ways to report on the news with media outlets that seem more interested in controlling the facts instead of reporting them.
I believe you should be able to get a lot of news from a lot of sources and come to your own conclusions. Sadly, it seems that other people pick a side and stick to it regardless of how slanted the reporting can be, one way or another.