ahlatimer

I doubt that most of the attendees at SXSW (at least the interactive portion) are even locals. In fact, out of my group of friends (I live in Austin), none of them are actually attending the conference. Only two of them are participating at all, and they're just going to a few of the meetups.

Point being, I don't see this as an attempt to change anything in Austin. It's just promoting the service to tech people who live in areas that Uber actually serves.

I don't know how big the "taxi lobby" is in Austin, but I suspect that Uber could get the laws changed if they were so inclined considering that Austin doesn't appear to have that many taxis, at least compared to SF (which, from my experience living in both places, is far too few, but still considerably more than Austin). I just don't see this as being that attempt.

Contrast this to the sound system, which only has a volume knob. Jumping to the next track requires you to hit a small touchscreen button that offers no tactile feedback. It's frustrating to do it while driving.

IMO, there's a good middle-ground here. There are a lot of settings and features on my sound/navigation system that I don't need to access all the time, or really at all while driving. Bass is too high? I can wait until I come to a light. That stuff can remain touchscreen driven since it offers more flexibility in the design and allows you to build in a lot more features than you'd have otherwise without cluttering your dash with a ton of buttons and knobs. But stuff that I mess with pretty often, like skipping to the next song, should be a physical button. Other head units get this right.

Your "saved stories" URL would be https://news.ycombinator.com/saved?id=Kiro

[1]: https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights-constitution-free-zone...

Edit: I have personally confirmed this on iOS. According to a commenter below, this is also true on Android.

While I was underage (I'm 24 now, so not long ago), it was easier to find weed than it was to find alcohol. The repercussions for selling weed to a 16 year old are the same as selling weed to an 18 year old are the same as selling to a 21 year old and so on. The repercussions for selling alcohol to a 21 year old versus an 18 year old or cigarettes to an 18 year old versus a 16 year old are entirely different, in that there are none if you sell to someone of legal age.

If you're already selling an illegal substance, there's no legal reason not to sell to someone who would otherwise be under age if the substance was legalized. What you're doing is illegal either way. With alcohol and tobacco, you're asking a store clerk likely making minimum wage to take a risk so you can buy alcohol. It's just way less likely to fly.

Edit: Gen Y here (24). I also agree with most of sentiments that OP has.

It isn't, really, in a lot of newer cars. You have a brake override system [1] that can reduce the power output of the engine by various means.

[1]: http://auto.howstuffworks.com/car-driving-safety/safety-regu...

That's not to say you can't bike for significant parts of the year, but there are definitely days where it wouldn't just be uncomfortable, it would be unsafe, to bike to work in Texas. Add to that that certain cities, like Austin, are also fairly hilly.

Which is largely true today during the Vettel era and was largely true during the Schumacher era. People still watch it.

The average house price is currently $213,600 [1]. It's considerably cheaper if you're willing to live in Pfluegerville or Round Rock and commute. Houses out East (where I live) are still fairly cheap and have a reasonable commute to downtown. People seem to miss that commuting East-West generally hits less traffic in Austin than commuting North-South…

If you have to live downtown or in one of the hot neighborhoods, you're obviously going to pay more for the privilege. If you're willing to be a little further out or live in a less desirable neighborhood, the housing prices in Austin are still pretty reasonable.

[1]: http://www.zillow.com/local-info/TX-Austin-home-value/r_1022...

Granted, Microsoft et. al could attempt to lobby politicians to get these sorts of laws reversed, but that's not the position I was arguing against. Specifically, the GP said, "Do you think the government would jail someone of Steve Ballmer's stature if he talked openly about what the government has asked of Microsoft." That's an argument that Ballmer clearly could've talked about these programs because they wouldn't arrest him, but that assumes two things: a) Ballmer knew about this, and b) Ballmer was willing to take the risk that he wouldn't go to prison if he talking about that. Neither of those are a given.

Talking about lobbying is attacking an argument I didn't make, but I'll address it anyway.

From the standpoint of the big companies, lobbying only makes sense before the law is passed if you have no interest in following it. Alternatively, you follow it while lobbying to get it changed. You now have companies attempting to get the government to allow them to talk more openly about what they do with regards to PRISM and so forth. To put it in perspective, if SOPA had've passed, do you think Google et. al would've just ignored it?

I don't think that's taking a risk. From all accounts, the tax deductions they're taking are perfectly legal. Leaking government secrets? Not so legal…

There's an obvious reward for taking "questionable" tax deductions: lower taxes. What does Ballmer, specifically, gain from releasing classified information?

And really? You want to compare questionable tax practices that aren't actually questionable legally to something that can be construed as espionage?

But they wouldn't. The type of activity the government is engaged in only works when people are passive.

Those two statements don't follow. The government may cease these practices if people find out and come out against them, but that doesn't stop them from prosecuting the person that brought them to light.

When was the last time anyone of stature went to jail for defending the public against the government?

When was the last time anyone of stature defended the public from the government via illegal means?

It's a risk. Full-stop. You can get prosecuted for releasing classified information. And let's not even take it all the way to going to jail. The government can make your life a living hell just by prosecuting you for a crime, even if they're unsuccessful in getting a conviction.

Which leads me back to my first question, why would Ballmer take that risk?

Absolutely, but even if they didn't, if you were Steve Ballmer, would you take that risk? They certainly could prosecute you for leaking secret information.

That's even assuming that Ballmer knew about it. It could have been that they approached people who were in some position of power on the particular products they were interested in and served them with the order. Some random middle manager at Microsoft certainly has considerably less political pull than Ballmer and would likely go to jail if he/she came out about this, but could still be in the position to direct their team to build whatever features the government demanded.

I see the law as allowing them to cooperate. It gives them cover for not protecting the privacy of individual citizens.

If it came via a court order, it's definitely a demand. This isn't a marketing gimmick -- if you're served a lawful court order, you either obey it or risk the consequences, up to and including time in jail.

I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Get a service manual if you can (Haynes is kind of the gold standard here). It'll walk you through, step-by-step, whatever it is you're trying to do.