Needs more facilitation of synergy paradigms.
Why is intellisense only for people who "aren't that good"? Why *should* you have to have every system call, every function and property of every API you use, and everything in your possibly-enormous codebase that was written by someone else on the team, memorized? How does that help? Knowing where it all is and what it does, yes, but how does it make you a "better" programmer that you remember that a function is called GetData() instead of RetrieveData() or whatever?
I absolutely don't understand people who think they're better because they don't use tools that would increase their productivity, and that includes intellisense. Intellisense is awesome.
It isn't so much that government internet access is good. It's that a. no matter how terribly incompetent and/or bureaucratic our local governments might be, they couldn't *possibly* be any more incompetent than Verizon/Comcast/Charter/AT&T/etc., and b. having any competition at all, even incompetent competition, would more than likely force the above-listed companies to care at least a tiny bit about trying to keep their customers, once the choice wasn't between them and no internet. We have basically no competition in ISPs, and we'd be happy fixing that pretty much any way possible.
That already totally exists, in the form of private servers. Private servers are full of people who might/will cheat, and you are probably not going to get banned for cheating. (They're also generally buggy as frack, but still.)
Would you really want to do business with the company again at that point, anyway?
The coincidence presumably being that they're a bunch of Cox?
Indeed. Do they have ThreeEye from the Dresden Files? Spice melange from Dune? Glitterstim from Star Wars? Jet from Fallout?
I clicked on this article expecting it to be another instance of Microsoft deciding to play follow the leader, that if Google is making a Google autonomous car, then drat it all, we must have a Windows Car! Even though that makes no sense! I was going to say, frack no, robotic cars definitely do not need Windows, please god no.
The answer to the actual question posed, is of course, no they don't technically *need* windows... you don't *need* to give passengers in busses or trains or airplanes windows, either, but you do it anyway, because natural light is good, and because, yes, why *wouldn't* we want to look outside? (Also because there still needs to be a way to take manual control in case of emergency, in which case we'd need to be able to see out for that.)
From what I can tell, the Acela is kind of a ripoff. I just looked into the train from DC to NYC. Acela is 250 bucks, and takes a little under 3 hours. Or I can take the normal train for like a quarter of that, which only gets me there like 20 minutes slower. That seems like a pretty good tradeoff...
LA->SF, on the other hand, is way further away, so a high speed line would definitely be worth it at, or even perhaps a tiny bit above, the cost of an equivalent flight - trains are way more comfortable, and tend to leave out of more conveniently central locations, or at the very least, tend to leave at locations more conducive to using *existing* public transportation.
Awesome. I want to play poker with these guys... we can just draw right at the beginning, and they'll give me 700 grand, right?
Stupidly easy google search, "break bad" (because obviously "breaking bad" will just get you hits for the show): http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/...
I didn't know that either - I always assumed it was a made-up phrase for the show that just sounded cool, but apparently it's a midwestern phrase meaning, appropriately, "to turn to a life of crime". Of course, now if you say someone's breaking bad, anyone, or at least anyone outside that geographic region, will just assume it means they're cooking meth. I've heard it used that way colloquially a few times already.
That post lacked obligatory xkcd, so I have fixed that for you.
The difference is that industries like energy companies and internet providers are generally trying to ram through their business models which consist primarily of "screw you, customers, we're a monopoly and you can suck it!", while Uber is attempting to bypass regulations that are primarily designed to *protect* a monopoly (taxi companies - there might be multiple, but if they all work together, it comes to about the same thing). More competition is *always* good for consumers.
Could Uber use a bit more regulation? Maybe. But taxi companies' regulations are *not* primarily about insuring safety, unless you count the financial safety of the taxi companies.