> This is a pretty sanctimonious article, again attempting to push the agenda that all new technology is good technology, and all resistors are luddites. Agre

> This is a pretty sanctimonious article, again attempting to push the agenda that all new technology is good technology, and all resistors are luddites. Agreed. This is not the best way to argue for acceptance of new tech. I believe it would have the opposite effect. Innovators should consider themselves teachers. The more unexpected the tech, the more the public will need to be taught. And, open discussion is part of teaching. Teachers can learn too. >> Uber offers a prime case study. The ride-sharing service exploded in popularity and rapidly expanded to cities around the world, sparking an outcry from taxicab commissions the world over. In most cases, the government’s response was slow and reactionary. “That’s because they think about [innovation] in a slow and linear way. That’s how it’s been in the past; that’s not the case anymore,” I disagree the government response was reactionary. Constituents are losing their livelihoods. They went to the government and complained. It is understandable that the government would react on their behalf and that the unrolling of some tech would be more gradual. It is the job of the government to represent the people. If they don't do that they are voted out.