David Holmes at pando.com says
"Now, in what might be the ultimate troll against government oversight, somebody has proposed an unholy union between Uber and bitcoin,"
Over the course of its five-year existence, Uber has courted controversy and pushed the regulatory envelope at nearly every opportunity. From insurance to safety to privacy, Uber’s Travis Kalanick has acted like a rebel with a $40 billion cause, and many local governments are still playing catch up. They say it’s better to beg for forgiveness than ask for permission. Uber has time for neither.
Alongside Uber’s centralized arrogance is Bitcoin’s decentralized anarchy. The crypto-currency resists government regulation by design. The very things that make it appealing in theory — anonymity, ease of transfer across borders — attracts money launderers and buyers and sellers of illicit goods.
The union between the two is called Ridecoin and it sounds like it’s straight out of Peter Thiel’s dream journal. The tagline reads, “Bitcoin Uber! Distributed blockchain based ridesharing. Can’t be shut down like Uber and Lyft. It just exists.”
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 13 2014, @07:23PM
Stop perpetuating that myth.
(Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Saturday December 13 2014, @09:23PM
Privilege rides roughshod over the commons. What's new?
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 14 2014, @12:58PM
Thank you. I was angered by the same lie. It's incredible how often one hears such a claim..!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 13 2014, @07:27PM
So how does this work exactly? I want to drive a car in exchange for bitcoins. Someone offers me bitcoins to take them somewhere. I go to pick them up. Is the person I'm picking up a federal agent trying to crack down on this sorta thing?
To pick this person up I must physically meet them somewhere. Where is the anonymity there?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 13 2014, @07:32PM
When cars can drive themselves then it's anonymous. The feds won't seize your car, promise ;)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 15 2014, @12:35PM
what is Civil Forfeiture?
(Score: 2) by BasilBrush on Saturday December 13 2014, @07:31PM
Just when the issue of Cabbies raping their passengers has come to the fore again.
This idea is theoretically no safer for women than hitch-hiking. And I'd imagine in terms of rapes per mile travelled even less so.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 2, Informative) by mj on Saturday December 13 2014, @07:58PM
Rapes per mile? this service isn't even in use. You can't download the apk and there are no drivers, some guy just made it in a hackathon and hasn't released it.
The nihilists have such good imaginations.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by BasilBrush on Saturday December 13 2014, @08:44PM
That's what you use your imagination for. Things that don't exist yet.
Think about it. Someone who decides to go out in their car to pick up strangers to rape them. There's a hell of a lot more predictable opportunity from cab rides than the occasional hitch-hiker.
What keeps the system reasonably safe at the moment is that cab services know who their drivers are and the services are registered with the authorities. It doesn't stop rapes, but it makes them relatively easy to investigate when they happen. Giving anonymity to cab drivers can only be a very bad thing.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 14 2014, @01:29AM
Your imagination of worst case scenarios shouldn't get to determine the legality of things. What is likely should. Bitcoin isn't anonymous, at minimum this app would be pseudonymous with a rating system. Uber markets itself as a ride sharing app to avoid medallion cost (6 figs per driver) and CDLs when it is essentially a cabbie broker. Then it doesn't follow cabbie laws about equal service. Uber is currently accused of discriminating against poor areas. This could be uber for people that don't have a 2005 or newer car and don't want to give uber 20%, which could allow under served poorer areas to be served more equally.
A rating system similar to ubers can be implemented in a pseudonymously. People already don't use uber drivers under a 4.5 * rating. So, given enough ratings it shouldn't be that hard to sort out a shitty ride sharer from a good one. Other safeguards could be built into the app before it's released that might make it as safe as cabs since the only difference is that a server is now the cabbie station that tells you where to pick up rides. Create an extremely cheap id verified registration for drivers and that would be up to = with the hypothetically rape safe cabbies/uber drivers. Except you don't have to dedicate 6 figs or get a cdl to give a person a ride for money or shill out 20% of every fee.
And when a rape happens, I guess they'll just trace the block chain and see who has the bitcoins or use the pseudonymous id to find an actual one, or just use normal police investigative techniques that are used to trace cell phones which are tied to this apps functionality. Imagine that! It's not the job of an app company to pre-investigate all possible future crimes for them...
(Score: 2) by edIII on Saturday December 13 2014, @08:05PM
Safety. That's what it comes down to apparently. If it was as simple as commuting, we would be doing it already since it's cheaper. Obviously the money saved from commuting isn't a good enough motivator to spend your transportation alone in a confined space with a stranger. A stranger willing to come pick you up.
Cabbies and the rent-seekers were created out of the unsafe situation of random people attempting to sell car rides. In my mind, Uber is truly the superior service that we were looking for almost 100 years ago. It's only disruptive to established industries that shouldn't have a right to exist more or less, and were created themselves out of good intentions laced with malfeasance. All too often (far too often), government's solution to regulation is the creation of specially operated Capitalist zones functionally and ethically no different than China's special exclusionary zones. It's rampant enough we gave it the term "rent seeking". It would be one thing if cabbies were so well regulated that nothing bad ever happens, but that is far from the case. Government cannot sit back and claim that their well regulated and designed industry serves the people better, or as well, as Uber.
Why did we need government in the first place? Well, pretty much to act in the stead of vast information systems that we didn't have access to. Why do we need government to do these things today? We don't, and we can achieve superior results with our technology distributing traffic and resources that may itself be based on community FOSS efforts. It's the programming logic that is concerning, or worthy of any regulation. That would be a simple regulation not requiring vast amounts of government paid staff to do something. Basically, the idea of a government supported and regulated industry is dead when nearly every required feature is better and cheaper because we go smarter in the meantime.
Aside from the impressive information systems managing drivers and passengers, Uber claims their vetting process for drivers is as safe, or safer, than any vetting process in use by the cabbies. Interestingly, it comes down to my level of trust for Uber compared to my level of trust for ancient decrepit government supported private services. I actually lean more towards Uber getting it right, but that's only because they're younger and not in government regulated industries (as one of the governed). It's insanely critical to Uber's business plan that drivers are well vetted. As a result, if Uber tells me that I am this driver's 45th ride with a 96% approval rate, I'm going to take that far more seriously than some placard with an embossed seal. I know how government works, and government credentials carry no weight with me simply because of the source. Especially when I know just how pathetic most certification processes are. Take Microsoft's for example. Last buddy told me that they didn't even bring up the command line the entire time and still gave him his certification. For what? They didn't even teach anything from the resource kit. I think that's common when you deal with insanely large institutions that are largely beyond any real consequences anymore.
Once you get beyond the safety concerns, it becomes economic concerns and how well such behavior supports the markets. I cannot come up with any argument whatsoever that precludes Uber from doing business, only weak superficial arguments to bring Uber under questionable government regulation accompanied by severe economic burdens and barriers to entry. I'm not seeing the intrinsic benefit to the bureaucracy being forced on Uber here, just the bureaucracy acting with self-preservation for its own sake.
If it's about taxes........ yeah.... then government needs to explain to me about the whole fucking Ireland deal and how Apple, Google, and others have nearly a trillion locked up overseas. Explain and address the rampant inequities in the process as it exists before you start making claims about how Uber escapes its responsibilities as an American corporation.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 1) by Mr. Slippery on Saturday December 13 2014, @08:28PM
Uber is no more superior to taxis than any random unlicensed hack/jitney/gypsy cab, something that exists in any large city [citypaper.com].
Until all human beings are enlightened, government an inescapable result when more than a handful of human get together. At best it's some sort of democratic system respecting human rights; at worst it's simple strong-man rule. It's not a question of whether it's "necessary" or not, it's inevitable.
With no government, not only are there no corporations and so no Uber, there is no private property and so no driving "your" car around. That car would belong to whoever was able to take it.
(Score: 2) by BasilBrush on Saturday December 13 2014, @08:49PM
Sure it is, in terms of the extra information given to both driver and passenger by the technology. Information that lets them make better decisions.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 3, Informative) by edIII on Saturday December 13 2014, @11:20PM
That's so ridiculous I almost don't know if I should respond. From a technological perspective, Uber is far superior:
1) Nationwide, single system. Without discussing anything else, it's always far better to have a standardized process serving your needs than thousands of independently coded projects not compatible with each other.
2) Uber is not unlicensed, and licensing is not morally superior by default. Just because Uber exists outside of regulations doesn't mean Uber is less preferable. Licensing means jack diddly shit, and the importance of licensing is purely to provide proof that a person is fit for purpose in a specific way. Uber addresses these questions of "licensed" drivers by enacting their own system whereby drivers are regulated. Again, not intrinsically less preferable of a system, just a different system.
3) Gypsy cab is meaningless and only hyperbole. It creates the situation in where carpoolers are just playing with their lives and safety. Obviously they don't.... so it must come down to trust in the driver. Therefore, all cabbies are simply gypsies that decided it was more advantageous to work in a regulated group. Which was probably heavily influenced by local lawmakers and law enforcement getting out there and "oppressing" the free cabbie market to the point where they decided it really *was* more advantageous to submit to government regulations.
4) Let's go to your article shall we?
So we have a working man with regulars . In case you didn't catch that, it also means repeat customers.
So by hacking, what is really meant is, working without permission. No illegal activity other than unlicensed carpooling. I guess we don't need to treat him like a suspected terrorist responsible for destroying America right?
Wait a tick.... this is a COMMUNITY affair. People on the streets are well aware of unlicensed hacks like this illegal driver. There is even specialized language with fingers to indicate direction wanted with illicit travel. Again, Doug has repeat customers, year after year.
Now this just doesn't make sense...
The author told us why it makes sense.
So again, Uber is proven to be dramatically more superior than Doug on his own, which is the meat of your claim. Supported by my own arguments are the authors insights about the local economies. Especially the last part that I emphasized. As for the dangers, they seemed to mostly be a danger to the "hackers" and not the drivers. From all appearances the dangers of hacking don't come from the hacking itself, but from external threats that should already be under law enforcement scrutiny. In short, the danger the hackers represent is wholly caused by the unreasonable licensing procedures of Baltimore. If you have that many people willing to drive, that can earn repeat customers, and you are denying them their livelihood, you are the problem not them.
Do you know what almost every illicit activity has in common when it involves the exchanges of money? The lack of a well regulated, fair and impartial, marketplace in which people can exchange goods and services for money in a safe and neutral environment. Media piracy continues to operate rampantly precisely because it delivers superior product, in spite of the fact, that dangers exist downloading untrusted content on public servers. People died from bathtub alcohol during Prohibition because they didn't care about that law, and engaged in the economic activities leading towards their death. There will *always* be bad apples ruining our processes.
I'm not impressed by your article that only illustrates the importance of something like Uber. Uber allows Doug to operate far more intelligently and efficiently. I could probably parrot Uber's marketing department in explaining how Doug benefits from their services. We could start with no more hand signals, gas wasted while waiting, easier payment process, a program to offer credibility to new customers, etc. Uber gets the commissions because it's operating this market correctly. Not just Doug benefits, but his regulars benefit as well with easier payment processing, better scheduling, and enhanced communication services. Are they a monopoly? Interestingly, no they are not. Plenty of competition, even from Lyft which is a fellow "hacker". In fact, the most undesirable form of competition comes from locked down highly regulated government entitled special markets that don't need to change as the whole game is controlled.
This is a discussion of economics, the old bastards gripping society tight over their money, and how best to serve the needs of commuters on a daily basis. Like it or not, Uber is part of that conversation if were are going to be mature and intelligent people discussing it. Why? Uber does it get it done from a technological perspective better than a nation of disparate cab companies that operate on false economies. At least Uber plays in the main marketplace you know, and not some hidden shady one created by government malfeasance.
You're way off base here. While your statements are correct, I was not proposing the lack of government entirely. My question was very specifically constrained around the government that exists that serves cabbies and the commuters. When I ask why do we need government, my question is why do we need government to operate the cab industries nationwide? Why does such a department have to be state when it can be federal? Why isn't the federal department responsible for transportation handling it?
That's kind of my point. All of the regulations concerning crime are handled by current legislation handling crime. Likewise, traffic safety, vehicle safety, etc. are all taken care of by current legislation specific to them. The vehicles and roads are safe, because they need to be safe for people anyways. If Uber is already meeting the primary mission objectives, than the only thing left really is holding them accountable just like we would hold any government department accountable.
Again, not impressed as we have a endemic penchant to not hold corporations or government accountable in the greater sense of anything really. Uber is operating intelligently, and it's holding drivers accountable. Our fear will come when Uber becomes so big and takes enough of the marketplace that it can start operating in a way that, again, requires regulations since large mega corporations are seemingly incapable of ethical conduct when in the presence of that much money. Not a fear unfounded when Uber executives have been caught performing unethical actions towards an alleged ethical end.
No, this is not about safety as much as it about who has the rights to make money, and who doesn't. So when you make such wild claims about Uber being as bad or as worse as Doug, I need to question you when the article itself paints Doug in an entirely different light than you did.
(Score: 2) by Magic Oddball on Sunday December 14 2014, @12:57AM
Why did we need government in the first place?
Realistically, "government" is a social entity that springs up naturally whenever a group of humans live together for very long — it's an umbrella term for the network of individuals that implement the rules, allocate resources, and perform similar tasks. (If you even just have everyone agree upon everything, it qualifies as "government.") I say "naturally" because if the group doesn't grow large enough to feel a need to place people in those positions, invariably outsiders that are advantaged in some way (stronger, smarter, wealthier, etc.) arrive and give *themselves* those positions of power. Either way, the original group ends up with a government.
On a more practical level, government exists because the alternative is anarchy, which is far less advantageous for the society and most people in it — the war-torn parts of Africa are an ongoing example. Under anarchy, might makes right: the only thing that keeps your neighbor from stealing your food & raping your kids is for you to have superior strength, weapons, or wealth (to hire guards). There's also no assistance if things go horribly wrong, so kids & seniors routinely die of starvation, exposure or illness. As a result, life under anarchy is largely reduced to scrambling for survival for all but the most wealthy.
Compare that to the nations that built the networks that eventually formed the Internet. The presence of government meant people were largely protected from physical attack (and back then, the police weren't militarized) and had assistance if they became sick or disabled, so they could focus on their educational/intellectual development rather than on survival. The governments pooled funds citizens didn't need for survival, and used it to fund academic research into wide-area networking, so scientists at different institutions could share resources despite being far apart.
(Regarding the related pooling of funds: there's good reasons for that as well. First, pooling funds to buy things a lot of communities need (say, items required for repaving streets) reduces the cost dramatically. Second, it can compensate for the short-sightedness most people have, by 'investing' funds based on how society as a whole will benefit in the future, rather than on whether a specific taxpayer benefits or is amused right away. A mind-boggling amount has been wasted by giving money to companies to do jobs rather than hiring the employees directly, as it results in massive admin expenses and creates a middleman that artificially drives up the cost in order to profit, but that's a whole other issue.)
(Score: 2) by edIII on Sunday December 14 2014, @05:10AM
Thank you for the nice post, but you misunderstood me just like the other poster. Which probably means the implied conditions on my statement were not that apparent. I apologize.
I'm well aware of the benefits of government contrasted against anarchy. My question was really about if we needed government in the cab industry at all anymore, and to do that, we need to consider why we needed the regulatory processes in the first place.
That goes for all of government in fact. Government is merely a process, or a tool. If the goals of government can be satisfied otherwise, let's explore those options. To do so, we only need to ask why we needed government in the first place WRT whatever process is being regulated. While we need government to collect resources and manage large scale projects benefiting humanity, I'm fairly certain that's it a complete waste of these people's talents and resources tasking them to something that can be easily handled by Uber and Lyft. This is one of the cases where large scale government has reached its EOL, as a superior method and process has been developed. In this case government need not disappear, only grow smaller and adapt, which is something that governments are increeeeedibly bad at doing. Especially the US government. It only goes one direction. Bigger. So funny enough, the Republicans aren't *completely* wrong.
I'm not actually proposing anarchy for the cab industry either. Uber is not anarchy, not by any definition. It's simply pointing out that the current cab industry has some serious damn problems and the customer base has LOUDLY spoken by monetarily rewarding Uber to such an extent that they do. Let's give Uber a chance and adapt our regulations around this new market and processes, and that's as simple as consumer protections (most likely already in place). They are already far, far, preferable to the old system of government malfeasance. You only need to look at at medallion market on the east coast of the US. Nothing more abhorrent and offensive to good ol' American Capitalism like a government created and propped up market of exclusivity.
I love the Uber argument as it so clearly shows (IMO) that American Capitalism is not about freedom and competition in the markets, nor is about consumer protections and safety. Quite the opposite in fact...
So you've told me why we need government. Do you actually think it works (above sub-optimal, sub-par, or FUBAR), or that it even serves the purposes of its original design and intent as publicly described?
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 13 2014, @07:48PM
Started out trying to do filling in of the textured front facing mesh of a person grabbed from a Kinect v2, for telepresence without a massive setup. Switched to Ridecoin after failing at writing a Unity shader. Ridecoin was distributed ridesharing on top of the Bitcoin protocol, with web of trust mechanics to incentivize good behavior. Protocol was interesting, but the mobile app didn't work well (begun at 3 AM Sunday). Team consisted of me, Ishaan Gulrajani, Zain Shah, and Zach Fogg.
(Score: 2) by buswolley on Saturday December 13 2014, @09:03PM
If true why anom?
subicular junctures
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Saturday December 13 2014, @07:56PM
"They" are reaching the point where they're so confident they no longer even bother to hide their brazen power- and data- grabs. In this world, "we" need to be thinking decentralized on all fronts. Email yes, well at least before all ISPs started reading it. Facebook no. Web 1.0 yes. Web of today, be careful. Bitcoin maybe. Not perfect, but better than trusting banks who can hand over your life savings in a keystroke, without blinking.
So Uber?
Using mass communication to break the back of the taxi monopoly is a good idea. But funneling it through a central company that can be regulated, data mined, whatever... not ideal.
What we need is a generic peer-to-peer Ebay replacement. Someone define a standard message format where you can announce what you want to buy or sell, with whatever attributes attached that buyers and sellers converge on finding useful. It's time to starve these bureaucrat bastards of their revenue and control streams.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Saturday December 13 2014, @08:14PM
What exactly do you mean by "taxi monopoly"? At least in my city, there are several competing taxi companies, a bunch of car and limo services, and the public transit system which isn't fantastic but will generally get you where you need to go including the airport and train station.
What the cab companies are complaining about, and rightly so in my opinion, is that they have to follow a bunch of regulations that Uber drivers don't have to. At least some of those regulations are designed to protect both cabbies and passengers from the kinds of cheating that both side are capable of.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Saturday December 13 2014, @08:25PM
> What exactly do you mean by "taxi monopoly"?
When a medallion costs $700,000* something smells very fishy. Sure maybe there is not 100% market domination by a single corporation, but if the barriers to entry mean you and I can't go start our own taxi business, that's close enough to a monoploy for me.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_New_York_City [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 13 2014, @08:47PM
I think a better word is cartel. The economic effects are essentially the same as a monopoly.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 13 2014, @09:01PM
At least in California just to start your own security company requires a $1 million dollar bond.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 13 2014, @08:57PM
What the cab companies are complaining about, and wrongfully so, is the fact that only a limited amount of taxi-cab medallions are issued and this limits competition enabling them to collect economic rents at the expense of everyone else.
No one is against safety regulations and required background checks but there should be a uniform, reasonably affordable, set of regulations that anyone has an equal opportunity to pass, similar to a drivers license, and receive a cab license at a reasonable price (not 1$.4 million which is what it used to be and last dropped to $700K at least as last reported on various blogs) with no artificial limitations on the number of cab drivers. The existence of cab medallions limiting competition is more a result of political corruption and most likely has a lot more to do with back door dealings than public safety (not to mention it harms both cab drivers and the public and only helps the medallion holders). This is simply not acceptable.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 13 2014, @09:04PM
errr ... that first number should be $1.4 million
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 14 2014, @04:39AM
Not any more, medallion prices are coming down.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/03/upshot/new-york-taxi-medallion-prices-fall-again.html [nytimes.com]
average selling price for NYC medallions was $840K in November 2014.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 13 2014, @09:06PM
sorry, I misworded that, the cab companies aren't complaining about the limited competition they are complaining that Uber undermines this limited competition.
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Saturday December 13 2014, @09:22PM
> No one is against safety regulations and required background checks
I am.
If safety regulations and/or background checks are important to you, that would be one of the attributes you would search for when making your purchasing decision. Yes, I want to be safe and I'm sure most people do. I'd be willing to pay a little extra for those assurances.
But people are not all identical. Someone may have different circumstances. They may be confident in their ability to protect themselves. Let people choose, and bid up the prices of "good" drivers according to whatever "good" means to each of them. Maybe I only want to ride in a late model car. Maybe you don't care the year, as long as it is clean. Maybe someone else is uncomfortable riding with a driver who starts reciting the Koran and asking pointedly if you have submitted your life to Allah. Licensing, regulations, background checks etc. all fail at giving you those types of choices.
Central regulation is just a chokepoint that enables corruption and kills competition.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 14 2014, @01:42AM
like... .https://openbazaar.org/
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 15 2014, @04:14AM
So you mean OpenBazaar https://openbazaar.org/ [openbazaar.org]
(Score: 2) by mth on Saturday December 13 2014, @07:58PM
As far as I know, in locations where Uber's model has been rejected, it's not "Uber getting shut down", it's unlicensed drivers getting fines. If this new app allows potential customers to find unlicensed drivers, then so can the authorities.
(Score: 3, Funny) by gallondr00nk on Saturday December 13 2014, @08:48PM
I've read some barrel scrapers when it's come to bitcoin, but the summary and TFA aren't just scraping the barrel, they're dredging it, and throwing in a few SEO buzzwords while they're at it.
I can cut out tokens made of pieces of paper with numbers written on, and I've created a currency. Hell, you can use bits of soil or rice or whatever you bloody well please.
I like cryptocurrencies, I think they're an overdue cash analogue online. They've allowed for some genuine progress in anonymity and freedom. But there's nothing special or novel about creating new ones.
Sites that run a piece every time that a new one comes out obviously don't have the faintest idea about what anonymous digital currency actually means.
(Score: 2) by buswolley on Saturday December 13 2014, @09:10PM
The point that I found interesting was the meshing of a distributed digital currency and a distributed service economy. I can imagine a distributed system with only customers and drivers working on a distributed marketplace which does not take a cut from each transaction.
subicular junctures
(Score: 2) by gallondr00nk on Sunday December 14 2014, @01:51AM
I agree that it's a divergence from our current model of "distributed service economy", where middle men practically take everything, and leave both parties worse off.
I'd say that the middle man model represents the majority of the Internet now, from Uber to Amazon to Ebay to Facebook. These companies are not founded on providing things themselves, but in profiting from the activity of others that it itself facilitates (even if that is a selfie picture and a FB status update).
My snarkiness was in no way directed at the concept itself - as I said, I like cryptocurrencies, and I think they'll actually provide an alternative to the sort of hideous near monopolies the Internet has been throwing up in the last 15 years. That can only be a good thing, in my opinion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 14 2014, @04:42AM
> I'd say that the middle man model represents the majority of the Internet now, from Uber to Amazon to Ebay to Facebook.
Which is ironic since the biggest buzzword about the internet in the 90s was "disintermediation." Turns out intermediation can build a $200B company, disintermediation doesn't make anyone rich, it just makes everyone a little bit better off.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday December 14 2014, @07:47AM
I like rai stones [wikipedia.org] better.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford