That'll be "Extreme Pedantry", not "Extreme Pedants"
38 posts • joined 20 Oct 2009
That'll be "Extreme Pedantry", not "Extreme Pedants"
for which he ignored the three laws!
Also, of course, piss-taken by
As long as there are lemon-soaked paper napkins
me: it says "Would you like to play a game?"
I think we've found the singularity for the Eloi/Morlock split
Uber is acting as a marketplace - it brings service providers and potential customers together, and takes a fee for the privilege. As part of this, it may or may not choose to put measures in place to ensure that a satisfactory standard of service is being offered, as that protects its own reputation and therefore business.
It seems therefore that it is entirely valid to compare it to, say, eBay, which does exactly the same thing. If I start a business selling goods on eBay, and earn enough to make a living, that emphatically does not make me an employee.
The only difference is that in the case of eBay, payment is earned for selling items, whereas in the case of Uber, an argument could be offered that this is more of a personal services scenario. But it isn't - a driver is not being paid for their time per se, but for the fact that they have completed the service that was required, i.e. to move people from place to place. If they drive more slowly, they will earn less. This is not how employment works.
Please note that I makes no difference to me one way or the other - it just seems so clear cut that I genuinely don't understand how the GMB feel that they have any legal basis to their case.
Please correct me if any of the following are wrong.
(1) Uber drivers are solely responsible for ensuring they have a car. So they have the fixed costs of buying or leasing a vehicle, as well as paying for insurance, VED, maintenance/repairs, etc, plus the variable costs of petrol, congestion charge/tools etc.
(2) Uber drivers can choose when to work, and for how long.
(3) Drivers are rated 1 - 5 stars by customers, but drivers can also rate customers - implying that they are free not to accept a fare if, for example, a prospective customer has received poor ratings.
If the above are in fact correct, then it seems absolutely clear that the drivers must be self-employed, and must accept both the benefits and the risks that come with that.
In particular, how can (1) and (2), taken together, be consistent with the idea of a minimum wage. If a driver, in a particular month, has fixed costs in relation to their vehicle of, say, £300, and they only choose to work for 2 hours, should Uber pay them £314 just to ensure that their 'wages', aka profit, for the month corresponds to £7/hour for the hours worked. Why would this be fair when compared to the case of the driver who works 234 hours?
Planet 9 from Outer Space
I think you'll find it's called a Birmingham screwdriver (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Birmingham_screwdriver)
So, if you can prove that you have actually been robbed as a result of their possible negligence, then by way of compensation they won't charge you for switching to a potentially more responsible provider.
Wow, that's really generous.
Interesting image, but perhaps not as threatening as what you actually meant to say...
Made me think of this:
And I liked the completely gratuitous Blackadder reference too
Use case for manual disengagement is a slow downhill start.
I found this shortly after getting a Renault Laguna with automatic handbrake. I parked in a short drive that sloped steeply uphill away from the road, such that to start I had to reverse into the road, first easing back to check visibility. At the time I had not spotted that the brake could be disengaged by applying the footbrake then operating the manual switch, so achieved this by selecting reverse, applying sufficient torque to get the parking brake to disengage automatically, then getting very quickly onto the footbrake before shooting out into the road. Much nicer, obviously, to disengage manually then roll back gently.
Of course time is an illusion, lunchtime doubly so. We all know this - it's in our DNA
Even if they had looked up the answer to this one it is easy to be led astray. If, for instance, you visit mooreslaw.org — a site which certainly sounds authoritative — and the home page is headed "Moore's Law, or How overall processing power for computers will double every two years".
The text then states:
"Moore’s Law is a computing term which originated around 1970; the simplified version of this law states that processor speeds, or overall processing power for computers will double every two years. A quick check among technicians in different computer companies shows that the term is not very popular but the rule is still accepted.
"To break down the law even further, it specifically stated that the number of transistors on an affordable CPU would double every two years (which is essentially the same thing that was stated before) but ‘more transistors’ is more accurate."
So if you don't read very far you will be considerably misled. No wonder people are confused.
At least Wikipedia is more helpful.
Potentially useful if you have a semi-automatic/sequential gearbox, as although the rev counter/your ears might well let you know if your gear is appropriate you wouldn't necessarily know which actual gear it is unless you count diligently
It's all about the bottom line
He uses the word podule to refer to his translating device in this skit from the his live show in the late 80s. Of course, the word lends itself to his delivery.
If you haven't seen it, it is highly recommended
How can anybody believe that this is useful. It can't possibly be in the interest of consumers having to remember different gestures to achieve the same result on different manufacturers' kit.
Say I have a certain brand of TV, and I've carefully learnt all the gestures required to control it. Maybe manufacturers will now see that I am locked in as I am less likely to want to relearn these skills if I switch to a different brand of TV. But the truth is that I (and vast numbers of people with less interest in learning arcane hand movements) will just not bother using these features, and will probably be more inclined to choose a brand that doesn't waste our time with them. All in all an own goal.
Imagine cars, if in the early days someone had patented 'using little sticks on the control column to operate the indicators' or 'moving the gear lever in an H pattern to move through a sequence of gears'. Nobody would have a clue what they were doing. Standardisation helps everybody, and rushing to patent obvious things just blocks the development of usable standards.
*looks up the title on amazon.co.uk*
There the cheapest second hand copy is £80, and there is an additional copy at an astonishing £1,336.29 (plus £2.80 P&P). That must be a hell of a book
I believe that are more careful reading will reveal that the comment was actually aimed at academics whose field of expertise is copyright law, rather than those who publish other material.
Read first, understand, then comment...
Silly old me
Three for the BBC: Citadel (featuring speech synthesis, for the intro anyway), Repton and Revs
Why not split the charging, like with phone calls? Your monthly charge would then have two components.
First, the 'line rental' equivalent, i.e. your payment for the ISP making a connection available. It would be not unreasonable for this to be based on speed. When I signed up with BT I was told what speed to expect (6Mb vs advertised 8Mb) and this has proved a good estimate. Other posted above have clearly had similar experiences. So, this part could be based on a reasonable (and periodically reviewable in case of significant changes in infrastructure, contention levels etc) assessment of expected speed.
Second would be a usage-based fee, presumably charged in arrears, representing a fair share of the backhaul capcaity etc.
The balance between the two would be an additional area of differentation between ISPs. No doubt in practice most would offer a bundle including a certain amount of data, as now, but for fair pricing there would ideally be much less bundling.
After all, who should pay more: the rural-dweller with a 1Mb connection that keeps it busy 24/7 (monthly throughput 300GB+ unless my maths are out) or the urbanite with a 200Mb connection whose only use is checking email and a bit of shopping. I don't know the answer to that, as they're paying for different things: one is primarily paying for the exchange to premises connection and the other primarily for backhaul.
So, version 4 is the ears?
Maybe just me, but especially with the Dutch connection I thought this was going to involve eating a lawyer...
'"Alive" is not a function of time, but a point-in-time attribute'?
You tell that to Miracle Max and the Man In Black
Surely a 'caprine killer' would be a killer who was in some way goat-like (and possibly was, in fact, a goat)? It seems that you have missed the opportunity to use the word 'capricide'.
that this halibut was good enough for Jehovah
As has been pointed out, speed limits would be respected more if they showed more evidence of having been set carefully and with the aim of increasing road safety rather than, for example, satisfying some political objective or of saving effort for the person setting them.
Here is a fine example of illogic: http://maps.google.co.uk/?ll=52.997323,-1.524943
The main road - the B5023 - has a 50mph limit, as do all the main roads within a radius of several miles. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with this, incidentally: it is a lovely road but does have a number of field entrances and agricultural traffic, so perhaps it makes sense (at least for some stretches). The limit was reduced a few years ago (5ish).
But look at the short stretch of road that resembles a layby. It's about 150m long and serves three houses and a pub. No traffic will use that road unless to access one of those four destinations. Yet the limit there is 60mph (you can confirm that with Streetview)! Admittedly I'm not sure how fast a car would need to be to reach that speed in the space, but you may still ask why. Presumably it made the paperwork easier (only one road for which the limit was being changed), although it did mean that more signs had to be installed.
While we're at it, look at side the road opposite. Again, this carefully tells drivers that they may now drive at 60mph. But Streetview will also confirm that (a) this is a much smaller road than the main road, with a poorer surface; and (b) a few feet after the national speed limit sign are two warning signs indicating that the road narrows and is bumpy, because there are bridges over the river and railway.
Some limits should be higher. Some should be lower. But either way they should be properly thought out and relevant, so that 'my judgement was that I could safely drive above the limit' ceases to become a valid statement. Then, and only then, we can talk about proper enforcement (e.g. using GPS).
Final point: much though I hate them, I respect average speed cameras much more than spot ones. You still get numpties braking for them, but at least they mean that if, for instance, it becomes necessary to exceed the speed limit temporarily (e.g. because it is the quickest, and therefore safest, way of overtaking a slow-moving vehicle) then it can be done without necessarily falling foul of the machine.
I thought the name sounded familiar...
So, which of these is it that raises matters above the vulgar brawl level? I thought it was artillery (blame Civilisation 4!) and Google supports this (214k hits for 'artillery "what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl"' vs 22k for 'cavalry "what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl"'. Does anyone happen to know the real story?
> Once the sole is departed, its an empty husk. Toss it in the rubish, No ceremony required.
I take it you don't believe in Cod, then?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017