My family's q7 has default cabin illumination when the headlights are on. It took me 2 months to notice that was the case. As long as the screen dims automatically when not in use, I think that most people won't mind, but I could be wrong. I'd also imagine that Tesla was smart enough to think about having a way to hibernate the screen.
While I think that anyone should be allowed to discriminate against anyone they want to in private forums (i.e. restaurants or businesses), laws prevent you from discriminating on the basis of sex although not appearance (with the exception of a few states) or if the position is covered under the Bona Fide Occupational Qualification exception. That being said, "being an asshole" isn't a covered category under anti-discrimination law, so they're perfectly allowed to discriminate all they want.
Comments like yours are a little annoying because you're telling me off for making assumptions without providing alternatives to those assumptions. What else would the end game be? Then we can have a discussion about whether that's reasonable, and whether you can get there from here.
Yes, I apologize. I wasn't telling you off, I wanted to succinctly point out that there's more to the idea. To address your semi-rhetorical question, this model is easily adaptable to anything that you want to casually learn (excluding what I'll call "traditional education spheres"). That is to say, right now it's incredibly difficult both to offer to teach a cooking class in your community and to find a cooking class to take. Thinking about Niroka as a way to connect people with skills willing to teach to people interested in learning new hobbies is better than thinking about it as a place to go to learn (blank). If they grow and expand in this way, Niroka would become the starting point if you're interested in learning a new skill that can't easily be absorbed through what's currently available on YouTube or printed on the web (this also presents people who do offer some of these services that way an easy way to monetize). In a similar vein, it can also be easily adapted to handle scheduling for small businesses dedicated to teaching schools (in exchange for a cut, they maintain the schedule of classes and provide a large potential audience for say, a local pottery place or yarn store, etc.) The harder market to tackle would be traditional education where topics can require highly specialized knowledge and fall prey to bad teachers.
That's an interesting concept. It would be helpful to see that other people are having the same issues in a given class. I wonder how successful an automated system would be based on key words. Something like a twitter stream for a live feed, but more concentrated to focus on recurring questions.
A slight typo in the author's bit (which is fascinating), the Collatz sequence doesn't terminate in a series of 1's. By its definition, once 1 is reached, the series repeats {1,4,2,1,4....}. Thus, the number of steps required to reach 1 is called the "stopping time" of the sequence. See the Wikipedia article on the Collatz conjecture for some great visualizations of low seed value termination trajectories for the Collatz sequence:
For those interested, here's a list of the actual valued naming opportunities. Although, it doesn't include anything about naming spaces. (Scroll to the bottom) https://www.cmu.edu/campaign/about/endowment.html
People have a horrible misunderstanding of libertarianism. Libertarians believe people should be absolutely free to do what they want with their money. Libertarianism is not a fancy word for narcissistic hedonism. From a philosophical standpoint, libertarians should welcome charity/philanthropy as it is a free market solution to dealing with society's problems. They are merely against forced charity (i.e. welfare, medicaid, etc.). Mr. Dietrich's donation fits perfectly within a libertarian framework. Sorry to ruin the joke, but there's no hidden juxtaposition there.
They spend a lot of time advocating public good solutions I consider unworkable due to free rider problems. I'm cynical enough to be pleasantly surprised when a libertarian demonstrates they aren't hoping to become a free rider.
I'm not looking to debate this at all, but I'm not sure how program designed to prevent the insolvency of a major portion of US assets and the anti-competitive practices of one company are related or why you're singling out Republicans in both your metaphor or in relation to AT&T.
He's referring to bribes. Typically with Republicans you buy a few of the important ones and the rest fall in line pretty quickly, however with Democrats you have to buy each one individually but generally at a cheaper price. Admittedly it is hard to say which way is more expensive on the whole, but there is something more admirable about a whore who plies his or her own trade, than a pack of them where the only one with any sense at all is the one in charge.
I don't understand this at all. There's no direct bribing because of the ramifications, but there is a lot of post-office job offer and campaign contribution gamesmanship, as everyone recognizes. However, I'm not sure where you're drawing your data from. Could you enlighten me? My anecdotal perception is that the "required" donations operate largely the same between parties. As per data compiled by the reputable OpenSecrets, of the top contributing organizations from 1989-2010, most of them donate strongly to Democratic candidates (this I assume would be the amounts used to "bribe" politicians).[1] Regardless of this fact, I still don't see an analogy between a flip-flop vote (I don't know the vote numbers, so that phrasing might not be true) on TARP by the Republicans (while I don't know numbers, as I recall, the Democrats also voted heavily against a "bailout" package before voting for it) and the way that AT&T might use political clout to push through this merger.
EDIT: Interesting to note, however, that AT&T is third on the list of all time donors and on the fence for Dem/Rep support. If the justice department wasn't full of appointments or hires as opposed to elected officials, this could strongly weaken the likely outcome of this suit. In any case, will be interesting to note the effect in upcoming elections that this has on AT&T's donation patterns.
Although, important to note that while Xerox invented GUIs, they were about to trash the project before Apple stepped in and nurtured it. Speculation about what would have happened if they didn't do this is mostly meaningless, but disregarding the promulgation and popularization of GUIs in lieu of crediting only their original inventor is totally unfair.
Actually, Xerox invented some important technologies, such as the mouse and the idea of a windowed interface, but this was not the GUI. That was invented by Apple. The xerox interface was more akin to emacs multi-document mode, there was no desktop metaphor, no file/folders organization, no trash can, the menubar was a very different conceptualization, etc.
Naming Tim Cook as CEO makes a lot of sense. Obviously, it made the most sense to Jobs himself. People like to think that Apple's design alone is the only reason the company's grown so large. It's easy to forget that without the operational work of Cook, Apple could not even have built the products they did. In that regard it makes more sense for Cook to be CEO because he can insure that the company remains as profitable as it is, while also enabling new devices to be realized. With great designs and weak organizational leadership, Apple cannot thrive as it has.
