Because they are seriously evil to their workers.
They make Walmart look like Pope Frank.
I’m hoping that one is relatively close on price.
Because they are seriously evil to their workers.
They make Walmart look like Pope Frank.
I’m hoping that one is relatively close on price.
Basically, they are suggesting that financial advisers be labeled like cigarettes:
Last week, New York City Comptroller Scott Stringer unveiled a new plan to regulate financial advisers, the first of its kind, that tries to protect the average investor from advisers who don’t have to put their clients’ best interests first.
Currently, the regulations that apply to financial advisers have a carve out for broker-dealers who can give financial advice but don’t have to act as what is called a fiduciary. What that means in practice is that they can recommend investment products to their clients that serve to make them more money but aren’t necessarily the best or right option for their clients. A recent White House report estimates that this conflicted advice costs workers who invest their savings about $17 billion each year.
Stringer has proposed that New York State pass legislation that would require financial advisers to disclose whether or not they are fiduciaries and whether or not they have to put a client’s interests ahead of their own. Brokers, financial planners, and retirement advisors who don’t follow the fiduciary standard, which means put their clients’ interests first, would have to state at the outset: “I am not a fiduciary. Therefore, I am not required to act in your best interests, and am allowed to recommend investments that may earn higher fees for me or my firm, even if those investments may not have the best combination of fees, risks, and expected returns for you.”
“Like putting a warning label of a package of cigarettes, this would be a warning label for people who want to protect their life savings,” Stringer told ThinkProgress. “If you’re working for a company that’s about the company’s product and not about your client, we want you to own up to that.” The rule, he pointed out, wouldn’t say that these advisers can dole out advice to those who want it, but that they have to clarify the standard they follow.………
States can’t have a stronger fiduciary standard than the federal regulations. But they do have the authority to regulate disclosure. Stringer’s proposal, while not as strong as the federal one, could have an impact. “The disclosure they’ve proposed is pretty stark, which improves the chances that it would be effective,” Roper said. “At least it’s not a bunch of legalese.” The average investor, usually someone seeking out advice for retirement planning, should be able to understand the warning label that Stringer has laid out.
That clear language could steer people away from investors who may not serve their needs. “This might make them think…maybe I should go ask someone else,” Hiltonsmith said. “It could actually change the market a little bit and drive people toward fiduciary advisers.”
Seeing as how the financial industry makes a lot of its money by exploiting these ambiguities, I can understand how they will oppose this tooth and nail.
A company called Openbay has come up with a a device that plugs into your car’s diagnostic port, reads the codes, and gets quotes from local mechanics:
Car maintenance, and the costs associated with auto care, is a pain point and often a total mystery for many car owners. It is also one of the last industries where the consumer has traditionally had no power over negotiations, especially once a car is in an auto repair shop.
This morning at the New York International Auto Show, auto repair marketplace startup Openbay unveiled a new product called OpenbayConnect to give consumers more power in the process of getting work done on their cars. The new device, which Openbay founder and chief executive Rob Infantino says can be installed by anyone, automatically connects a car’s computer system to diagnose problems and find a local repair shop to fix the issue through the company’s automated service recommendation engine.
………
OpenbayConnect further automates this process by diagnosing the problem through a car’s computer system – something I was charged about $70 for at the Subaru dealership – and making the auto repair shops vie for a customer’s business by offering the best deal. The company will be shipping the product to early adopters throughout the spring, but has been testing the device with a few unnamed partners with access to large fleets of cars for a few months now. For a limited amount of time, the OpenbayConnect devices will be free and won’t cost users any data costs or activation fees. Eventually, the company will sell the connected diagnosis components through its partners.
………
One specific target of OpenbayConnect is auto service customers who don’t know very much about their vehicles, see a check engine light go on, and immediately call a auto shop or dealer. Often, that customer will pay just to have their computer system checked. Many times, the problem could be as simple as low tire pressure or a loose gas cap. The automated OpenbayConnect system can diagnose exactly what the problem is and whether it warrants more extensive service, all without having to get mechanics involved.
Even if they just sold the device, so you could plug in and get the codes on your smart phone, this would be f%$#ing brilliant.
Amazon is the country’s largest and most sophisticated online retailer, but it still runs largely on manual labor. Scattered around the country are massive warehouses staffed by workers who spend their days picking objects off shelves and putting them in boxes. During the holiday season, the company calls on a huge reserve army of temporary laborers.
The work is repetitive and physically demanding and can pay several dollars above minimum wage, yet Amazon is requiring these workers — even seasonal ones — to sign strict and far-reaching noncompete agreements. The Amazon contract, obtained by The Verge, requires employees to promise that they will not work at any company where they “directly or indirectly” support any good or service that competes with those they helped support at Amazon, for a year and a half after their brief stints at Amazon end. Of course, the company’s warehouses are the beating heart of Amazon’s online shopping empire, the extraordinary breadth of which has earned it the title of “the Everything Store,” so Amazon appears to be requiring temp workers to foreswear a sizable portion of the global economy in exchange for a several-months-long hourly warehouse gig.
The company has even required its permanent warehouse workers who get laid off to reaffirm their non-compete contracts as a condition of receiving severance pay. When Amazon shut down a massive warehouse in Coffeyville, Kansas, earlier this year, hundreds of employees lost work. One laid-off warehouse worker, who earned just over $12 an hour unloading inbound freight at the Coffeyville facility, showed The Verge a clause in her severance agreement that admonished her to “fully comply” with the noncompetition agreement. This worker wished to remain anonymous because of a non-disclosure agreement she signed with Amazon.
………
Starr, who reviewed the Amazon agreement, said that while attorneys may differ in their interpretations on which services count as having been “supported” by a warehouse employee, the 18-month duration seems “incredibly long,” especially for a temporary job. In the case of a stint lasting three months, the restrictions would stretch six times longer than the actual length of employment, Starr noted in an email. “A restriction like this could only be credible if the type of information the individual learned in a short time could be very damaging to the firms.”
Yet Garden, the Seattle University law professor, notes that such a contract being legally enforceable may in fact be entirely beside the point in a low-wage workplace. “One way to look at this is as a kind of invidious approach to having workers sign a contract that is very likely to be unenforceable,” Garden says. “Knowing that people who have been working for 10 and 11 dollars an hour are not going to be able to hire a lawyer to fight for them later on.“
(emphasis mine)
And this last bit is what these non-competes are all about: preying on the weakest and least knowledgeable of their employees in order to maintain a state of serfdom.
It makes Walmart look like Ralph Nader.
Here’s hoping that there is a lawyer out there who can find a way to use the RICO law against the motherf%$#ers.
In Windows 8, Microsoft implemented UEFI secure boot, which was nominally a system to prevent malicious software from loading a low level, but also has the effect of making it very difficult alternate operating systems.
With Win 8, Microsoft required that the hardware vendors include an option to disable the secure mode, though it was buried in the “BIOS”* setup screen.
It appears that Microsoft will no longer require a switch to disable the lockdown, which means that it could lock out many alternate operating systems:
Those of you with long memories will recall a barrage of complaints in the run up to Windows 8’s launch that concerned the ability to install other operating systems—whether they be older versions of Windows, or alternatives such as Linux or FreeBSD—on hardware that sported a “Designed for Windows 8” logo.
To get that logo, hardware manufacturers had to fulfil a range of requirements for the systems they built, and one of those requirements had people worried. Windows 8 required machines to support a feature called UEFI Secure Boot. Secure Boot protects against malware that interferes with the boot process in order to inject itself into the operating system at a low level. When Secure Boot is enabled, the core components used to boot the machine must have correct cryptographic signatures, and the UEFI firmware verifies this before it lets the machine start. If any files have been tampered with, breaking their signature, the system won’t boot.
This is a desirable security feature, but it has an issue for alternative operating systems: if, for example, you prefer to compile your own operating system, your boot files won’t include a signature that Secure Boot will recognize and authorize, and so you won’t be able to boot your PC.
However, Microsoft’s rules for the Designed for Windows 8 logo included a solution to the problem they would cause: Microsoft also mandated that every system must have a user-accessible switch to turn Secure Boot off, thereby ensuring that computers would be compatible with other operating systems. Microsoft’s rules also required that users be able to add their own signatures and cryptographic certificates to the firmware, so that they could still have the protection that Secure Boot provides, while still having the freedom to compile their own software.
This all seemed to work, and the concerns that Linux and other operating systems would be locked out proved unfounded.
This time, however, they’re not.
At its WinHEC hardware conference in Shenzhen, China, Microsoft talked about the hardware requirements for Windows 10. The precise final specs are not available yet, so all this is somewhat subject to change, but right now, Microsoft says that the switch to allow Secure Boot to be turned off is now optional. Hardware can be Designed for Windows 10 and can offer no way to opt out of the Secure Boot lock down.
If I am a mass market computer maker, there is no upside to allowing a user to disable UEFI secure boot unless you are specifically are targeting power users.
While this may not be a big deal, for anyone who, for example, wants to retask a old or used PC as a firewall, or a print server, etc., it is likely that the choice of operating systems will be severely constrained.
It’s good for the business of PC manufacturers, it means that used machines are less likely to be repurposed or resold, and it is good for Microsoft, because it means that installing many flavors of Linux on an old box becomes problematic.
For the rest of us, it sucks like a thousand Hoovers all going at once.
*Technically, UEFI is not BIOS, it replaces the exclusively 16 bit BIOS, but “BIOS Setup Screen” is a good shorthand for that screen you get when you hold down the F2 key while booting.
Breakout star rookie linebacker Chris Borland has retired out of concerns for his neurological health:
San Francisco 49ers linebacker Chris Borland, one of the NFL’s top rookies this past season, told “Outside the Lines” on Monday that he is retiring because of concerns about the long-term effects of repetitive head trauma.
Borland, 24, said he notified the 49ers on Friday. He said he made his decision after consulting with family members, concussion researchers, friends and current and former teammates, as well as studying what is known about the relationship between football and neurodegenerative disease.
“I just honestly want to do what’s best for my health,” Borland told “Outside the Lines.” “From what I’ve researched and what I’ve experienced, I don’t think it’s worth the risk.”
Borland becomes the most prominent NFL player to leave the game in his prime because of concerns about brain injuries. More than 70 former players have been diagnosed with progressive neurological disease after their deaths, and numerous studies have shown connections between the repetitive head trauma associated with football, brain damage and issues such as depression and memory loss.
“I feel largely the same, as sharp as I’ve ever been. For me, it’s wanting to be proactive,” Borland said. “I’m concerned that if you wait ’til you have symptoms, it’s too late. … There are a lot of unknowns. I can’t claim that X will happen. I just want to live a long, healthy life, and I don’t want to have any neurological diseases or die younger than I would otherwise.”
………
Borland was expected to be a key part of the 49ers’ defense this season, after the retirement of All-Pro linebacker Patrick Willis last week. Borland replaced Willis, 30, after six games last season; Willis had sustained a toe injury.
Willis’ retirement had no role in his decision, Borland said.
………
Borland, who is listed at 5-foot-11, 248 pounds, earned accolades for his aggressiveness and instincts at inside linebacker. He had 107 tackles and a sack in 14 games, eight of them starts. He was the NFC’s defensive player of the week for his performance against the New York Giants in Week 11. He led the 49ers with 13 tackles in that game and became the team’s first rookie linebacker with two interceptions in one game. He received one vote for NFL defensive rookie of the year.
His success this past season did not make his decision more difficult, Borland said: “I’ve thought about what I could accomplish in football, but for me, personally, when you read about Mike Webster and Dave Duerson and Ray Easterling, you read all these stories, and to be the type of player I want to be in football, I think I’d have to take on some risks that, as a person, I don’t want to take on.”
Borland was referring to former NFL greats who were diagnosed with the devastating brain disease chronic traumatic encephalopathy, or CTE, after their deaths. Duerson and Easterling committed suicide.
This guy has one season in the NFL, and he was arguably on a path to a multimillion dollar pay day, and he decided that it was not worth dementia in his late 40s.
You gotta figure that the current generation of teenage jocks, and their parents, are becoming less likely to take up football, and news like this will make them less likely.
The pipeline of new players has to be drying up a bit.
I’m not sure what the solution is to the CTE problem in the NFL, or if there is a solution, but a good start would be accelerometers in helmets and set them at an appropriate level (not sure of the level, I’m an engineer, not a doctor, dammit!*).
Once the sensor trips, the player gets a mandatory few weeks off on injured reserves and treatment.
*I LOVE IT when I get to go all Doctor McCoy!!!
After requiring that blogs with adult content to label themselves as such for over a decade (forever in internet time) Google is now using this labeling to kick the blogs out:
Google is banning public explicit photos and videos from its blogging service Blogger, and giving affected users just one month to comply.
The new rules require any blog with “sexually explicit or graphic nude images or video” to take them down by 23 March, or the blog will be made private by Google. A private blog can only be seen by the owner or admins of the blog, and people who the owner has shared the blog with.
Google promises that the majority of users of the service, which Google acquired from Twitter co-founder Evan Williams’ Pyra Labs in 2003, won’t see any change from the new rules. But many users are concerned that the new rules represent a huge about-turn from Google’s previously stated support of explicit material on its platform. The company’s previous policy said: “We do allow adult content on Blogger, including images or videos that contain nudity or sexual activity … All blogs marked as ‘adult’ will be placed behind an ‘adult content’ warning interstitial.” Its only exceptions were to ban illegal explicit content, explicit images shared without the subject’s consent (commonly known as “revenge porn”) and making money on adult content.
Zoe Margolis, author of the Girl with a One Track Mind books and sex blog, joined Blogger in 2004. She says that “either Google believes in freedom of expression, or it doesn’t. Restricting blogs which contain explicit content to ‘private only’ effectively kills them off. This is like offering a library where all the books in it are invisible to the readers unless an author is standing there and personally hands each reader a copy of their book.”
Let me note that my ox is not gored on this.
While I may be f%$#ing profane, I tend to %$# out that sh%$ when I use those f%$#ing words.
Google needs to get its f%$#ing head out of its f%$#ing ass.
They should also admit that they have dropped the word, “Don’t,” from its favorite logo.
Their new logo is, “Be evil.”
The Detroit City Council is passing a law requiring recipients of public benefits for development sign binding contracts as to their benefits:
When Marathon Petroleum received a $175 million tax break from the city of Detroit in 2007, they promised jobs for Detroiters. And, as of last January, the $2.2 billion expansion of Marathon’s refinery on the city’s southwest side had, in fact, created new jobs for tax-paying residents —all of 15 of them.
Now, members of the Detroit City Council want to pass an ordinance that will hold developers seeking public money accountable: They’ll have to work out a community benefits agreement (CBA) with community leaders. A CBA is a legally binding pact covering everything from local hiring requirements and environmental concerns to redevelopment of public space and infrastructure. It’s a way to assuage the fears of current residents wary of displacement and change and ensure the public’s money is put to good use. It would be the first law of its kind in the country.
“We are allowing these large corporations—companies that could build a hockey arena without our money—to get in the corporate welfare line and take resources away from us,” Rashida Tlaib, a Michigan state representative who serves Detroit, told me. “In exchange for what?”
The hockey arena Tlaib mentioned is for the city’s beloved Red Wings, owned by pizza baron Mike Ilitch. The Ilitch family, whose net worth is estimated at $3.2 billion thanks in part to their Little Caesars pizza empire, received $284.5 million in public money to build a new, $450 million arena in the city’s Cass Corridor neighborhood. (They are desperately and vapidly rebranding it as the “arena and entertainment district.”)
While the Ilitch family was finishing up its honeypot stadium welfare deal last year—not to mention a wildly below-market rate $1 land transfer for 39 vacant parcels—they refused to sign a CBA that would ensure a certain percentage of permanent, non-construction jobs at the arena went to Detroiters. A group of locals formed the Corridors Alliance in an attempt to engage with the Ilitches, but their efforts were futile. The Ilitches did, however, agree to a mayoral executive order that demanded 51 percent of construction jobs go to residents and 30 percent of construction contracts go to local businesses. (The mayoral order, like Marathon’s hollow promise, is not legally binding.)
………
The proposed ordinance in Detroit would take what Los Angeles and Pittsburgh have done a step further. It would require developers to engage in a CBA. Under the most recent draft of the ordinance, any project totaling more than $15 million in investment (or $3 million in renovation or expansion) seeking at least $300,000 in public tax dollars—from tax abatements to land transfers—will have to enter into a community benefits agreement. Developments between $3 million and $15 million are encouraged, but not required, to execute a CBA. Developments funded entirely by private money are exempt.
Business leaders—no surprise!—are pissed. It’s another hurdle, they say. Just more red tape, they scream! In October, Rodrick Miller, president and CEO of the Detroit Economic Growth Corporation (DEGC), wrote an irritated and bullying letter to City Council expressing his true feelings.
………
The opposition made it all the way to the state capitol in Lansing during December’s lame duck session, where Republican State Representative Earl Poleski introduced House Bill 5977, which would “prohibit local units of government from creating a ‘community benefits ordinance.'” The bill, which died in December and was reintroduced in January, would ban Detroit’s proposed ordinance outright.
“House Bill 5977 sets up the state as a dictatorship telling local units of government that they cannot do what is best for their community, workers and residents when it comes to wages and benefits tied to economic development in that community,” Tlaib said in a statement.
Of course the klepto-capitalists pretty much all of the Republicans, and quite a few of the Democrats in Lansing, hate the idea, but this should be seen as an endorsement of an insanely good idea.
It’s kind of like being condemned by ISIS. It means that you are doing it right.
With all the complaints from various rock and rollers about there over Spotify and similar services, but the numbers show that it is still the record companies that are hoovering up most of the revenue in the music business:
………
In the 1960s, Motown Records had a reputation for depriving artists of well-earned royalties, most egregiously in the case of Barrett Strong whose name was removed as a songwriter of the 1960 hit “Money (That’s What I Want)” because of a so-called “clerical error.” Chamberlin’s point was, despite the groundswell of criticism from artists against Pandora and Spotify, it’s labels, not technology platforms, that are most responsible for low royalty checks. The reason artists feel the pain so acutely in today’s digital era is that there are more performers than ever before with access to wide distribution platforms like YouTube and far less money to go around: Music industry revenue has been cut in half since 2000.
Referring to the heyday of the overpriced CD in the 90s, [former Smashing Pumpkins drummer Jimmy] Chamberlin said, “I just think when money’s swollen like that there’s this ‘high tide rises all boats’ type of mentality.” But the truth is, labels have always withheld massive shares of royalties, with or without Spotify.
The problem is, these contracts between artists and labels — and labels and Spotify — are proprietary and opaque, so it’s been difficult to identify precisely how much artists are getting screwed on a macro level, beyond looking at the sad earnings statements musicians occasionally publish on their blogs.
Until now.
A new report from audit firm Ernst & Young and the French record label trade group SNEP reveals better estimates than we’ve ever seen on the payout distribution of music streaming services.
And who do you suppose takes the biggest cut? You guessed it, labels.
According to the report, labels net 45.6 percent of the streaming revenue created by Spotify and Deezer, the two platforms included in the study. The streaming platforms themselves — most of which have yet to achieve profitability despite fielding frequent attacks for their supposed greed — take home 20.8 percent. An additional 16.7 percent is paid in taxes before songwriters and performing artists finally see their shares — which amount to 10 percent and 6.8 percent, respectively.
When you disregard taxes and the platforms’ share, labels keep a full 73.1 percent of the net revenue streaming services transferr to the music industry.
So how do the labels justify leaving such a slim piece of the pie to artists? “Well,” a record executive might argue, as he picks a piece of stale taco meat from his teeth, examines it, and decides to eat it, “Putting out an album is expensive.”
That may have been true fifteen years ago. But now that the world is digital, manufacturing costs are fast approaching zero. Recording software has gotten so good and so (comparatively) cheap that a kid with enough talent can make a record that sounds just as good as the new Taylor Swift album from her basement using ProTools, which costs $900 (or nothing, if one is willing to employ the five-finger Pirate Bay discount).
Furthermore, labels no longer need to launch an expensive world tour or bribe radio stations for an artist to receive international exposure. Sure, having a label marketing team behind your work certainly helps, but social media still possesses some vestige of its open, democratic roots — enough for savvy artists to build a following and attract attention to their work organically without a giant advertising budget.
My favorite example of an artist casting off major label overlords is hip-hop/R&B artist Ryan Leslie. He told me that his first album released on Motown in 2008 sold 180,000 copies. But the royalties Leslie received from those sales did not cover the $100,000 label advance he received to produce and market it. His new self-distributed album, however, has only sold 12,000 copies — less than one-tenth the sales of his Motown debut — and yet Leslie took home around $160,000 in revenue off album sales alone. When merchandise sales and concert tickets are included, Leslie has made over $400,000 since going independent, all of which he got to keep and distribute among his own small, lean team. (Of course it helped that Leslie already had a significant fan-base from his work on Motown).
Labels are withholding royalties as greedily as ever, and yet their value to artists has diminished greatly in the digital age. This demands a dramatic rethinking and restructuring of label-artist arrangements, a process that has barely begun to take shape.
If pop music artists have a problem with how they get revenue, they need to start with the record distributors, who are doing less and less for the musician, but still try to sit athwart the market and extract what are largely undeserved rents.
Streaming, Spotify and its ilk, much like iTunes and other digital music stores, are merely a channel.
Getting access to these services does not require the services of the record labels.
If you are getting boned by a contract with record labels, the problem is the contract with the record labels, not streaming.
Last week, MADD and Uber co-released a report that strongly suggested that car sharing service reduces the incidence of drunk driving.
Pro Publica took a look at the report, and found that there was no “there” there:
………
What is Uber’s evidence that they “likely prevented” so many crashes?
Not much.
Indeed, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, which co-authored the report, cautioned us against connecting the rise of Uber to a drop in drunk driving. “Nobody is saying that there is a causation relationship here, this is a correlation relationship. Purely correlational,” said Amy George, senior vice president of marketing and communications for MADD. (MADD took a less cautious stance in a press release last week: New Report from MADD, Uber Reveals Ridesharing Services Important Innovation to Reduce Drunk Driving.)
Uber’s report has two key graphics: The first shows alcohol-involved crashes in California markets where Uber operates. The second shows the same, but in cities where there is no Uber service. Each graph compares accidents between under-30 and 30-and-over drivers. The charts actually show, in general, a downward trend of drunk driving accidents in both Uber and non-Uber markets.
But Uber and Plouffe are hanging their assertion on another facet of the analysis: drunk driving crashes for those under 30 have dropped more in cities that have Uber versus those that don’t.
“We believe there is a direct relationship between the presence of uberX (Uber’s lowest-cost option) in a city and the amount of drunk driving crashes involving younger populations,” the report says.
That could be. But we don’t really know, and neither does Uber.”We believe there is a direct relationship between the presence of uberX (Uber’s lowest-cost option) in a city and the amount of drunk driving crashes involving younger populations,” the report says.That could be. But we don’t really know, and neither does Uber.
And now we know that 6 months ago, Uber dropped a load of cash in MADD’s lap:
Uber and Mothers Against Drunk Driving last week put out a report suggesting Uber helped reduced drunk-driving accidents. However, the claim gets a little wobbly when you take a closer look at the numbers, as ProPublica just did. Now MADD is backing away from the assertion, claiming the relationship is “purely correlational.” Meanwhile, it turns out Uber started donating money to MADD last summer. Surely that is unrelated, right?
………
Now MADD is backpedaling: “Nobody is saying that there is a causation relationship here, this is a correlation relationship. Purely correlational,” Amy George, senior vice president of marketing and communications at MADD, tells ProPublica.Funny, but last week in a press release MADD seemed to feel differently:
Released today, the study demonstrates that not only is Uber a convenient transportation option but that it can also be a powerful tool in the fight to reduce the number of drunk-driving crashes.
There’s another twist, which is that Uber has been contributing financially to MADD. Last summer, Uber and MADD announced a partnership in which Uber would donate $1 to MADD for every ride taken and $10 for every new customer who used the service in a 24-hour period around the 4th of July, as long as customers used a promo code, UberMADD.This past weekend Uber ran a similar promotion, donating a buck for every ride from 3 p.m. to midnight on Super Bowl Sunday when riders used the promo code ThinkandRide.
Uber: Using lies about drunk driving deaths to promote its own agenda since 2014.
Nice work guys.
That being said, I’m not a fan of the various non-profits who work in this issue. I find them overly punitive in their approach, and there seems to be a lot of corruption around them: Candy Lightner, the founder of MADD, ended up working as a lobbyist for the American Beverage Institute, and SADD was forced to settle with the commonwealth of Massachusetts over the outsize golden parachute given its founder, Robert Anastas. (The case was actually used as an example of self-dealing in the Massachusetts non-profit application form instruction book in the 1990s)
Here in New York City and other parts of the Northeast, the snow has begun to fall and it likely won’t stop for the next 24 hours or longer. Some estimate the city will be buried in up to 30 inches of snow by late tomorrow.
For customers of Uber and Lyft, that should bring up nightmares of blizzards past when Uber’s surge prices hit seven to eight times the normal rates — or upwards of $30 a mile.
With that in mind, NYC mayor Bill de Blasio said in a press conference, “Price gouging in the context of an emergency is illegal.” In response, Uber and Lyft have capped their surge prices at 280% and 200% respectively.
The cap is a welcome gesture, but doesn’t that still constitute “price gouging in the context of an emergency”? Under New York State law, price gouging is defined as an “unconscionably excessive price” during an “abnormal disruption of the market.” Like many laws, there’s a bit of vagueness written into that language, and I’ve reached out to the Attorney General’s office to ask whether Uber’s and Lyft’s capped surge rates qualify as “unconscionably excessive” and will update the post if I hear back.
Seriously. This is a company whose business model is, “We’re contemptible greed-head ratf%$#s.”
Why do people use this, and why do their massively underpaid drivers stay with them?
I’m watching TV, and an ad for Jackson Hewett comes on, talking about all their offices, including about a thousand in Wal-Marts.
The background music is, I’ve Been Working on the Railroad, and it’s sung by Pete Seeger.
Seriously, Pete Seeger, who would never do this, and must be spinning on his grave over this.
I confirmed this via a Google search, and it appears that his family licensed this use.
It’s not some sort of bullsh%$ record label stealing for the artist bullsh%$.
Stop the world. I want to get off.
I am so angry that I could chew iron and spit nails.
At least one thing is right with the world.
The cable lobby is opposed to a Federal Communications Commission plan to define “broadband” as speeds of at least 25Mbps downstream and 3Mbps up.
Customers do just fine with lower speeds, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) wrote in an FCC filing Thursday (thanks to the Washington Post’s Brian Fung for pointing it out). 25Mbps/3Mbps isn’t necessary to meet the legal definition of “high-speed, switched, broadband telecommunications capability that enables users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications using any technology,” the NCTA said.
“Notably, no party provides any justification for adopting an upload speed benchmark of 3Mbps,” NCTA Counsel Matthew Brill wrote. “And the two parties that specifically urge the Commission to adopt a download speed benchmark of 25 Mbps—Netflix and Public Knowledge—both offer examples of applications that go well beyond the ‘current’ and ‘regular’ uses that ordinarily inform the Commission’s inquiry under Section 706″ of the Telecommunications Act.
Hypothetical use cases showing the need for 25Mbps/3Mbps “dramatically exaggerate the amount of bandwidth needed by the typical broadband user,” the NCTA said.
“Netflix, for instance, bases its call for a 25Mbps download threshold on what it believes consumers need for streaming 4K and ultra-HD video content—despite the fact that only a tiny fraction of consumers use their broadband connections in this manner, and notwithstanding the consensus among others in the industry that 25Mbps is significantly more bandwidth than is needed for 4K streaming,” the NCTA said. “Meanwhile, Public Knowledge asserts in conclusory fashion that an ‘average’ US household constantly streams at least three high-definition movies simultaneously while also running various ‘online backup services and other applications’—without providing any evidence indicating that such usage is at all ‘average.'”
The commission defines broadband as 4Mbps down and 1Mbps up but hasn’t changed the definition since 2010. The FCC is required under Section 706 to determine whether broadband is being deployed to Americans in a reasonable and timely way, and the group must take action to accelerate deployment if the answer is negative. Raising the definition’s speeds provides more impetus to take actions that promote competition and remove barriers to investment, such as a potential move to preempt state laws that restrict municipal broadband projects.
Here is the money quote:
Though a majority of Americans can purchase broadband of at least 100Mbps, Wheeler has focused on the lack of competition at higher Internet speeds. While 75 percent of American homes have at least two options for wired broadband of 4Mbps/1Mbps, only 25 percent have a choice of at least two providers at the 25Mbps/3Mbps threshold:
4/1 download is the telco’s old DSL, which hasn’t been upgraded since the early 200s.
What’s more, it never will be upgraded, as the phone companies have decided that there is not sufficient profit there.
By upgrading the definition of broadband to something that actually describes the way that broadband is used today, it makes it far more difficult for states to prevent municipal broadband.
Seriously, just f%$# the cable companies.
Come to think of it, “F%$# the Cable Companies,” would be a good platform for a political party.
Sally Jenkins makes a very good point about what is wrong with Washington’s Football team, all while avoiding the use of the clearly racist franchise moniker, though whoever wrote the headline f%$#@ed that up.
The short form of her thesis is that a fish rots from the head, and given the truly pitiful performance of the team since his acquiring the team seems to confirm this thesis.
I will leave you with her last paragraph:
For too long, no one has trusted the basic setup of the organization. So many flatterers and yes men survive while the truth tellers get offed or ignored, and every three or four years everyone gets fired and the club starts from scratch again. Step one for Snyder is to identify some real leaders, not just enablers. And to convince them he’s not out to waste their best efforts and earning years.
She further suggests that, “Snyder would have to listen, really listen, to his staffers and his players. Not to his pets and his stars and top jersey sellers, either, but to those who he has often disregarded and disrespected, the rank and file who show up for work every day and manage to do a professional job in an unprofessional environment.”
I simply do not think that this is in Dan Snyder’s DNA. When he first bought the team, he fired everyone, including secretaries and the like.
Sh%$#ing on the little people who might actually know what is going on has been an essential part of his modus operandi since he took over the team.
He cannot solve the problem, because he is the problem.
If DC fans could stay away from games, not buy merchandise, and decrease his revenue to the point where the debt service would be greater than revenue, which Jenkins suggests as “Plan B”, it might get rid of him, and we might find some resolution regarding the teams ineptitude on and off the field.
Full disclosure: I am a fan of the team, and I have been since 1976.
What’s more, his site is free to the public.
Well, Orbitz and United Airlines decided that they had to go medieval on his ass, and roll out the lawyers, and so his site is now getting mainstream coverage, fom places like Fortune Magazine:
United Airlines and Orbitz have teamed up to file suit against a 22-year-old entrepreneur whose airline ticketing startup, Skiplagged, operates according to a thrifty booking ploy known as ‘hidden city’ ticketing.
This means that passengers purchase tickets for indirect flights with the intention to disembark at their layover destinations. Say you want to fly from New York to Chicago, for instance: it could be cheaper to take an indirect flight to Los Angeles and then get off at the Chicago layover.
While hidden city ticketing only works when travelers purchase one-way tickets without any checked baggage, notes CNN, this often represents the cheapest option.
Yeah, CNN covered it too.
I was unaware of this technique, but I have now bookmarked the site, and I imagine that some of you will too.
Orbitz, United Airlines Sue 22-Year…
*Wherein an attempt to suppress information has the unintended effect of publicizing that information. (Link)
South Korea has indicted Uber CEO Travis Kalanick:
South Korea has indicted the chief executive officer and local subsidiary of Uber Technologies Inc for violating a law governing public transport, becoming the latest jurisdiction to challenge the U.S. taxi service provider.
The Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office issued the indictment against CEO Travis Kalanick and the firm’s Korean unit for violating a law prohibiting individuals or firms without appropriate licenses from providing or facilitating transportation services, an Uber spokeswoman said.
The prosecutors’ office declined to comment.
“Uber Technologies respects the Korean legal system and will provide its full cooperation,” the company said in a statement without detailing the charges brought against it.
Uber, through its apps, charges fees to play matchmaker for passengers and drivers – some registered as taxi drivers. But a lack of regulation for the relatively new business model has brought Uber to the attention of authorities worldwide.
Taiwan and the Chinese mainland city of Chongqing on Monday separately said they were investigating Uber over concerns it and its drivers were not appropriately licensed.
Seeing as how Uber’s basic business model is lawlessness with a few legal walls to ensure that people like Kalanick will never face any liability for anything, the idea that he has been personally indicted is a good thing.
Here’s hoping that he he actually has to stand trial there.
Well, let me clarify:
I am talking about one entity specifically………
I’m talking about one entity who was caught trying to deceive regulators specifically………
I’m talking about one entity who was caught trying to deceive regulators and defraud the public specifically………
I’m talking about one entity who was caught trying to deceive regulators and defraud the public specifically whose business model is primarily rent seeking………
OK, spoiler alert, it’s Monsanto, who just had a fraudulent patent revoked:
Patent EP1812575 held by Monsanto has been revoked by the European Patent Office (EPO) after the international coalition No Patents on Seeds! filed an opposition in May 2014.
A further opposition was filed by Nunhems / Bayer CropScience. In November 2014, Monsanto requested that the patent be revoked in its entirety and the EPO complied with this request.
The patent covered conventionally bred tomatoes with a natural resistance to a fungal disease called botrytis, which were claimed as an invention. The original tomatoes used for this patent were accessed via the international gene bank in Gatersleben, Germany, and it was already known that these plants had the desired resistance. Monsanto produced a cleverly worded patent in order to create the impression that genetic engineering had been used to produce the tomatoes and to make it look ‘inventive’.“Revoking this patent is an important success. It was more or less based on a combination of fraud, abuse of patent law and biopiracy. The patent could have been used to monopolise important genetic resources. Now breeders, growers and consumers have a chance of benefiting from a greater diversity of tomatoes improved by further breeding”, says Christoph Then, a coordinator of No Patents on Seeds!. “The intended resistance is based on complex genetic conditions, which are not known in detail. So genetic engineering is clearly not an option in this case.”
It would be nice if patent law were changed to invalidate gene and species patents, but it’s a start.
This is a very big deal.
It was a big deal when the NLRB found the fast food chain shared some responsibility as to the treatment of their employees with their franchisees, and now its general counsel has Basically, the National Labor Relations Board has charged the company with violation of labor laws:
The National Labor Relations Board announced on Friday that its general counsel had brought 78 charges against McDonald’s and some of its franchise operators, accusing them of violating federal labor law in response to workers’ protests for higher wages around the country.
The general counsel’s move immediately drew outrage from a variety of national business groups because the labor action deemed McDonald’s a joint employer, a status that would make the fast-food titan equally responsible for actions taken at its franchised restaurants.
The labor board’s complaint asserts that McDonald’s and numerous franchise operators in more than a dozen cities illegally retaliated and made threats against workers who had joined national protests pushing for a base wage of $15 an hour in the nation’s fast-food restaurants.
………
The N.L.R.B.’s general counsel, Richard F. Griffin Jr., said that McDonald’s was a joint employer because it set numerous requirements for how food was prepared, how stores were run and how employees were managed. About 90 percent of the company’s restaurants in the United States are franchise operations.
Mary Joyce Carlson, a lawyer for the Fight for 15 movement seeking higher wages for the workers, said, “Today’s news makes it clear that the N.L.R.B.’s general counsel finds merit in the claim that McDonald’s — a $5.6 billion global company — is a joint employer because it exerts substantial power over the working conditions of employees at McDonald’s franchise stores and is therefore responsible for compliance with employment and labor laws.”
As I have noted before, McDonald’s franchising program places much tighter controls over the behavior of their franchise holders than most other similar restaurant chains, physically owning the property, directing personnel policy and, it appears, directing retaliation against legal unionization activities.
The general counsel issued the charges through 13 regional offices, including Manhattan, Chicago and Los Angeles. The first trials are scheduled to begin in March. The charges said that McDonald’s and its franchisees illegally disciplined employees who had protested, reduced their hours, spied on them and restricted their ability to communicate with union representatives.
For a company the size of McDonald’s, I don’t think that any penalties will meaningfully impact on their bottom line, they are a big company, but if this holds, it could form a foundation for criminal prosecutions against management, because it could form the basis of a criminal conspiracy.
Of course, we would need a DoJ that didn’t ignore law breaking by CEOs **cough** Eric “Place” Holder **cough**, but I can dream about this.