Stop it, no, but they could have done a lot to mitigate it. The reasons people use trash cans for bombing are twofold:
Throwing something away isn't usually seen as suspicious behavior. It can therefore be done at any time.
Objects in a trash can are concealed by the trash can. People might be suspicious of a bag left behind, but not if they can't see it.
There's a much better chance that the devices would have been discovered had the bomber(s) tried to leave something behind in a crowded public place. And there are presumably no cars allowed on the route, which means that trash cans and recycling bins are pretty much the only sorts of places where the bomber(s) could have hidden bombs usefully.
This incident could have been substantially mitigated by removing or locking all trash cans on the street where spectators would be and placing the in-use trash cans fifty feet up the side streets, and a reasonable distance from where people would line up to get food from any food vendors. People might grumble about having to walk to throw things away, but had the trash cans been farther back, those bombs would have gone off almost harmlessly, with at most one or two people killed or injured, instead of killing three people and injuring almost two hundred.
Last July 4th, I was at the Esplanade, which is just a few blocks from where this bombing happened. Even several blocks away (at my hotel), AT&T's cell network performance was clogged to the point where cellular data service was completely nonfunctional, with DNS requests timing out every single time. It didn't start working until I got to a high-numbered floor and my phone found another tower to use.
So at least one of Boston's cell networks isn't even capable of handling the normal, planned events that happen every year. It is no surprise that it would collapse to the point of being unable to even make calls under a couple of orders of magnitude more load than that. Cell networks are nowhere near sufficient to hold up in emergency situations even when all the hardware is working. And this is just a relatively small-scale emergency, localized to a single area of a single city. In an area-wide emergency like a hurricane or earthquake, it is safe to assume that even SMS won't get out reliably.
And that tends to always be true. The thing about music from a few decades back is that the only old music people still listen to after all that time is usually the good stuff. For a fair comparison, you need to compare Taylor Swift or One Direction with bubblegum pop.
Now THC does appear to have some anti-tumor properties [wikipedia.org], and pot smokers don't tend to smoke nearly as much as often as tobacco smokers (your average cig smoker smokes as much plant matter in a day as the average pot smoker does in almost a week), so there are possible explanations for this difference in risk, but I can't help but think that there is a specific factor within the tobacco plant itself which increases cancer risk beyond simple physical harm and repair issues.
Did you know that certain preservatives when mixed basically creates benzene, which is a seriously nasty cancer causing agent? Do YOU know which combos to avoid?
Just avoid anything that contains the word "benzoate". Any of those substances mixed with any number of acids can produce benzene. Easier to just avoid sodium/potassium benzoate entirely than to worry about combinations.
Just to clarify my first point, the law says that you cannot use a cell phone unless it is configured for hands-free talking and listening and you are using it in that way. Therefore, by this interpretation, you cannot use the phone to:
Make a phone call (unless you're already talking on the phone)
Answer a phone call (unless you're already talking on the phone)
Scratch an itch (unless you're already talking on the phone)
Because all of those things typically involve using the phone while you are not talking or listening in a hands-free configuration. Clearly this is a prima facie absurd interpretation of the law.
It's not out of date; it is incompetently written, just like most laws written in the past several decades. The law in question is only about two years old, give or take. This was written well within the smartphone era. The lawmakers were just too clueless to know any better, and so they just passed whatever bill the activist lobbyists handed them. That said, even though the wording of the law sucks, it is fairly obvious that the passage was intended to regulate listening and talking (requiring that the device be configured for hands-free talking and listening), not non-voice use, and the mere existence of the very next section, added more than a year later, strengthens that assertion, because that passage would not be necessary at all under this interpretation, as texting with a cell phone would be presumptively illegal.
But the most hilarious part of this interpretation is how utterly arbitrary it is. Even with this overly broad interpretation, you can still legally use a cellular-equipped iPad as a navigation device, but not an iPhone. Apart from a slightly different UI, the only difference of consequence is that the latter can also make phone calls and the former (as shipped) cannot, and thus does not qualify as a wireless telephone. That's just batshit crazy.
And if you're changing songs on your iPod touch, you're fine, but if you do it on an iPhone, the police will write you a ticket. (Even the police officers readily admit that it's bulls**t, but they'll still write the tickets. Can you say "quotas"? I thought you could.)
No, this has nothing to do with the laws being out of date and everything to do with us having elected 120 California state assembly members who didn't know their asses from a potato. That and judges and police officers who are more concerned with raising revenue than making our roads safer.
Prove me wrong, California legislators. Take these laws and burn them.
Books (and, ostensibly articles, depending on what you mean) usually eventually end up needing to exist in an HTML format. So for the same reason that TeX isn't great for web pages, it isn't great for anything that needs to eventually be a web page, an EPUB book, a Kindle book, or whatever.
For starters, writing anything based on XML by hand sucks. Not that TeX is perfect, but it is quite a bit more pleasant to write than XML.
So don't write it by hand. Use a structured editor instead. Any short-term effort you might save by writing in TeX is likely to be replaced by pain when someone asks you to produce an HTML version of the content. It's easy to translate XML to HTML and TeX; it's not so easy to translate TeX to... well, anything but PostScript and PDF, really.:-)
I have yet to see an HTML engine that handles hyphenation, ligatures, justicfication and similar typesetting related topics anywhere close to what TeX engines do.
Most modern HTML engines do those things better than most TeX engines, IMO. Auto-hyphenation has been in the CSS spec for some time now, and is supported in both of the two major open source HTML engines (WebKit and Gecko). Ligatures are supported by the font and the font system system, so on computers whose font system is actually functional, ligatures also "just work" without any need for the browser to do anything special. And justification is part of... what, CSS 1.0?
CSS also does lots of things that are really hard in TeX, e.g. min-width.
The big things that CSS lacks are:
A notion of line-level formatting, e.g. indent the first line of this paragraph by n ems, the second line by.75n ems, and no indentation on the rest of the lines. This makes good drop caps hard.
Proper page break support—theoretically, you have page-break-inside:avoid and friends, but those are very poorly supported.
Special case handling for page breaks—repeating a heading, for example.
Support for page headers and footers.
Support for wrapping around non-square images (proposed for CSS3, but nothing seems to support it yet).
Math typography.
We're rapidly approaching a turning point where HTML/CSS will do everything better than TeX, but we aren't there yet.
Something else mentioned in the article is programming within the document. This is an area where TeX really is not all that great, but at the same time it is yet another item where XML is worse. If you have ever done anything like XSLT you will know that simple if/then/else constructs can get very large very quickly. The solution in general seems to be to embed another language within your document - JavaScript being the obvious option there. However, as LuaTeX proves, that solution is really not exclusive to XML.
I would argue that (with the exception of interactive features) any time you're doing programming in a document, you're working around a flaw in the content model. The fact that TeX books often include truckloads of code is an indication that things aren't what they should be.
As for XSLT, I've concluded that it is the wrong solution to basically every problem. For really trivial transformations, it works acceptably. For anything beyond that, you spend all your time fighting with the macro nature of the language (and the limitations of the XSLT engine) instead of getting stuff done. These days, I write all my translation code in a procedural language. I find it much easier to maintain and expand translators written in this way. As always, YMMV.
What you're missing is that the operator disabled the safety mechanism because it was impossible to properly unload the gun without turning off the safety. Read that again. It was impossible to fully secure the weapon without first disabling that safety system.
So a more accurate car analogy would involve a car design that required you to disable the airbag override before you could open the passenger door to remove the child, coupled with you yanking the door too hard and triggering the airbag with your child still in the seat.
After it is unloaded, yes. That doesn't mean that a properly designed safety should not prevent accidental discharge while loading and unloading the firearm, which is what we're talking about here.
To use a car analogy, this is like saying, "Oh, the brakes work, but not while you're loading and unloading passengers. It's not a big deal. Just don't open the doors while you're on a hill. It's not a design flaw. You should have known that the vehicle could be dangerous before you tried to take on passengers. It's not our fault it ran over their feet."
Although no amount of engineering can completely prevent negligent discharge, in this particular case, the only reason the negligent discharge occurred at all was because the safety was turned off, and the only reason the safety was turned off was because the design made it necessary to do so in order to remove the round from the chamber.
Airbags are standard safety features, and early designs lacked the ability to disable them when child seats were in use. The auto industry still paid out a lot of money in damages when people were killed by them. It doesn't matter if something is a standard safety feature. If it ends up causing harm, there's liability.
Actually, the safety is only there to prevent the gun from firing, period. It is not there to "ensure that it contains no bullets".
I didn't say that the safety is there to ensure that the gun contains no bullets. I said that the safety is there to increase the safety of the device (by preventing the gun from firing), and that when the design of that safety prevents you from doing something else that would further increase the safety of the device (disarming it), it is, in effect, decreasing the safety of the device.
How do you prevent the striker from hitting the bullet? You engage a block in the slide.
That's entirely a design choice, though. There are plenty of other ways to prevent the hammer from hitting the bullet. You could block it farther down on the hammer, slide the block up from the bottom so that the slide can move around it, or even make the block be sprung in such a way that it can slide back with the slide while remaining engaged.
What it comes down to is the gun manufacturers saying, "But we've always done it that way," rather than actually looking at the design and asking themselves, "Can we do it better?" That right there is the difference between innovation and stagnation, but when there are safety issues involved, it's the difference between responsibility and gross negligence.
Not at all. Lots of Californians think Feinstein is a terrible choice. They just think the Republican choices are worse. The problem is that the Republicans are unwilling to choose their battles. They feel the need to always run an ultra-conservative candidate to pander to the 30% of their base who actually care, while ignoring the other 70% of their base who would be just as happy with a more moderate candidate, and who might actually have a chance of taking votes from the Democrats and winning.
I suspect that the overwhelming majority of Californians would jump at the chance to elect a fiscally responsible (read "fiscally conservative, but not free market as god") candidate who is pro civil rights, anti-monopoly, and doesn't concern themselves with what happens in other people's bedrooms. Such views are not fundamentally incompatible with the Republican party of even a few years ago (what I like to call the pre-Gingrich Republican Party). Unfortunately, such moderate Republican views are incompatible with the direction the Republican Party has taken in the past decade or two, which is why the Republican Party is finding it increasingly difficult to win votes among the young people of today, and at serious risk of shriveling up and dying within the next couple of decades.
And no, the true liberals are not the Libertarians. To have a functioning political discussion, you need all four camps—the socialists, the libertarians, the conservatives, and the liberals. Here's why: the free market doesn't work on its own. It never did, and that's why we had such serious problems with monopolies during the height of the industrial revolution. You need some government intervention (which the traditional liberals would favor) to prevent the most serious abuses. However, you also need the Libertarians constantly pushing back to avoid getting into a nanny state situation.
The right answer always requires a delicate balance of the four viewpoints. Unfortunately, right now, the libertarians don't have enough of a voice, the liberals have no voice except for a few reactionary bozos, the socialists have no voice, and what we basically have is what most of the world would call conservatives. And places like California vote Democrat because they'd rather have moderate conservatives (Democrats) than extreme conservatives (Republicans).
This is the same poll that last year judged us as worse than companies responsible for the biggest oil spill in history, the mortgage crisis, and bank bailouts that cost millions of taxpayer dollars.
There is a lot wrong with EA, but saying they're the worst company is fundamentally bullshit.
Ah, but intent is 9/10ths of the law (at least in criminal cases). Those oil companies didn't intend to spill lots of oil. Sure, they were negligent, but not malicious. The banks who bought those bad mortgages did not intend to lose billions of dollars. (Now the folks who sold the mortgages, on the other hand....)
By contrast, most of the criticisms of EA come from what appears to be fairly deliberate actions, not mere negligence. That makes them way worse than most of the other companies alluded to above. Worst company? No. Among the worst? Quite possibly.
In at least one case the jury ruled a gun defective because you could not remove a round from the chamber while the safety was on. This is a common feature because one of the ways to make the gun safer while the safety is on is to lock the slide. It makes the safety stronger, more effective. Of course, you can't move a locked slide to remove a round from the chamber, so it's a bit of a trade off. The popular 1911, some of which cost several thousand dollars, features this kind of safety, as does most other high quality semiautomatics. Glocks, the most popular police handgun, don't even have a manual safety switch.
How was the injury caused? From testimony the victim's babysitter found the gun on top of a book shelf and decided he needed to unload it. The safety was on. He couldn't move the slide. So, in the process of messing with an unfamiliar weapon, he gripped the trigger along with the rest of the grip, holding it tight, while pointing it at his charge, the ultimate victim, when he eventually took off the safety, still pulling the trigger, at which point the gun fired. Is that the manufacturer's fault?
In part, yes. By definition, a safety is supposed to make a firearm safer. The best way to make a firearm completely safe is to ensure that it contains no bullets. If the safety is preventing that from happening, then that safety is effectively operating in a manner that is directly counter to its intended purpose. The manufacturer should have lost that case.
Don't get me wrong, I realize that an awful lot of handguns use a design that works the way you describe, but that doesn't make the design any less brain damaged. A safety should prevent the hammer from striking the bullet. Any other behavior is suboptimal.
Don't blame California. Blame the Republicans for not choosing someone more electable to run against her. If you want to win against a Democrat in California, you have to run someone as a Republican (who can bring the Republican voters) who is close enough to the political center that he or she can steal some Democrat votes. You don't do that by bringing in someone who is anti-gay-rights and strongly in favor of more free-market capitalism.
The Z80 is designed to be binary compatible with the 8080, so IMO it basically qualifies as x86, albeit a very old, very primitive branch of the tree.
The ATmel AVR32 is a big-endian CPU. So that series is clearly heading towards big endian.
The 65C816S is a roughly 30-year-old chip design, and although they're still being manufactured, AFAIK there has been no significant development on it other than integrating it into other silicon since the mid 1980s or early 1990s.
The Nios II is a specialized processor designed for use in FPGA designs.
The Blackfin is a specialized processor designed for embedded DSP applications.
So at least in the context of general-purpose CPUs that are still under active development, Intel/AMD's x86/x86-64 architecture is the only one that doesn't support big endian addressing.
Incidentally, the original list was also wrong. DEC Alpha was a dual-endian chip, not little endian.
Notice how many of those architectures still exist. I think the x86/x86-64 architectures are just about the only little-endian-only CPU architectures left. Everything else is bi or big.
Slashdot Mirror
Stop it, no, but they could have done a lot to mitigate it. The reasons people use trash cans for bombing are twofold:
There's a much better chance that the devices would have been discovered had the bomber(s) tried to leave something behind in a crowded public place. And there are presumably no cars allowed on the route, which means that trash cans and recycling bins are pretty much the only sorts of places where the bomber(s) could have hidden bombs usefully.
This incident could have been substantially mitigated by removing or locking all trash cans on the street where spectators would be and placing the in-use trash cans fifty feet up the side streets, and a reasonable distance from where people would line up to get food from any food vendors. People might grumble about having to walk to throw things away, but had the trash cans been farther back, those bombs would have gone off almost harmlessly, with at most one or two people killed or injured, instead of killing three people and injuring almost two hundred.
Last July 4th, I was at the Esplanade, which is just a few blocks from where this bombing happened. Even several blocks away (at my hotel), AT&T's cell network performance was clogged to the point where cellular data service was completely nonfunctional, with DNS requests timing out every single time. It didn't start working until I got to a high-numbered floor and my phone found another tower to use.
So at least one of Boston's cell networks isn't even capable of handling the normal, planned events that happen every year. It is no surprise that it would collapse to the point of being unable to even make calls under a couple of orders of magnitude more load than that. Cell networks are nowhere near sufficient to hold up in emergency situations even when all the hardware is working. And this is just a relatively small-scale emergency, localized to a single area of a single city. In an area-wide emergency like a hurricane or earthquake, it is safe to assume that even SMS won't get out reliably.
And that tends to always be true. The thing about music from a few decades back is that the only old music people still listen to after all that time is usually the good stuff. For a fair comparison, you need to compare Taylor Swift or One Direction with bubblegum pop.
For perspective, on average 25 kids die every year from plastic bags. On average, 350,000 kids require emergency room care and 200 kids die every year from bicycle accidents, and that's a toy designed for use by kids. I can't give you an exact number, but it should certainly be several orders of magnitude greater than the number of kids injured or killed by Buckyballs.
Either that or ban all bicycles and plastic bags, including garbage bags.
I have no idea if the particular article I linked to is accurate. I honestly didn't even read the article beyond a quick skim. :-)
There is, and it comes from polonium in the phosphate fertilizer used to grow it. You know, the stuff used to poison and kill Alexander Litvinenko.
Just avoid anything that contains the word "benzoate". Any of those substances mixed with any number of acids can produce benzene. Easier to just avoid sodium/potassium benzoate entirely than to worry about combinations.
Just to clarify my first point, the law says that you cannot use a cell phone unless it is configured for hands-free talking and listening and you are using it in that way. Therefore, by this interpretation, you cannot use the phone to:
Because all of those things typically involve using the phone while you are not talking or listening in a hands-free configuration. Clearly this is a prima facie absurd interpretation of the law.
It's not out of date; it is incompetently written, just like most laws written in the past several decades. The law in question is only about two years old, give or take. This was written well within the smartphone era. The lawmakers were just too clueless to know any better, and so they just passed whatever bill the activist lobbyists handed them. That said, even though the wording of the law sucks, it is fairly obvious that the passage was intended to regulate listening and talking (requiring that the device be configured for hands-free talking and listening), not non-voice use, and the mere existence of the very next section, added more than a year later, strengthens that assertion, because that passage would not be necessary at all under this interpretation, as texting with a cell phone would be presumptively illegal.
But the most hilarious part of this interpretation is how utterly arbitrary it is. Even with this overly broad interpretation, you can still legally use a cellular-equipped iPad as a navigation device, but not an iPhone. Apart from a slightly different UI, the only difference of consequence is that the latter can also make phone calls and the former (as shipped) cannot, and thus does not qualify as a wireless telephone. That's just batshit crazy.
And if you're changing songs on your iPod touch, you're fine, but if you do it on an iPhone, the police will write you a ticket. (Even the police officers readily admit that it's bulls**t, but they'll still write the tickets. Can you say "quotas"? I thought you could.)
No, this has nothing to do with the laws being out of date and everything to do with us having elected 120 California state assembly members who didn't know their asses from a potato. That and judges and police officers who are more concerned with raising revenue than making our roads safer.
Prove me wrong, California legislators. Take these laws and burn them.
Books (and, ostensibly articles, depending on what you mean) usually eventually end up needing to exist in an HTML format. So for the same reason that TeX isn't great for web pages, it isn't great for anything that needs to eventually be a web page, an EPUB book, a Kindle book, or whatever.
So don't write it by hand. Use a structured editor instead. Any short-term effort you might save by writing in TeX is likely to be replaced by pain when someone asks you to produce an HTML version of the content. It's easy to translate XML to HTML and TeX; it's not so easy to translate TeX to... well, anything but PostScript and PDF, really. :-)
Most modern HTML engines do those things better than most TeX engines, IMO. Auto-hyphenation has been in the CSS spec for some time now, and is supported in both of the two major open source HTML engines (WebKit and Gecko). Ligatures are supported by the font and the font system system, so on computers whose font system is actually functional, ligatures also "just work" without any need for the browser to do anything special. And justification is part of... what, CSS 1.0?
CSS also does lots of things that are really hard in TeX, e.g. min-width.
The big things that CSS lacks are:
We're rapidly approaching a turning point where HTML/CSS will do everything better than TeX, but we aren't there yet.
I would argue that (with the exception of interactive features) any time you're doing programming in a document, you're working around a flaw in the content model. The fact that TeX books often include truckloads of code is an indication that things aren't what they should be.
As for XSLT, I've concluded that it is the wrong solution to basically every problem. For really trivial transformations, it works acceptably. For anything beyond that, you spend all your time fighting with the macro nature of the language (and the limitations of the XSLT engine) instead of getting stuff done. These days, I write all my translation code in a procedural language. I find it much easier to maintain and expand translators written in this way. As always, YMMV.
What you're missing is that the operator disabled the safety mechanism because it was impossible to properly unload the gun without turning off the safety. Read that again. It was impossible to fully secure the weapon without first disabling that safety system.
So a more accurate car analogy would involve a car design that required you to disable the airbag override before you could open the passenger door to remove the child, coupled with you yanking the door too hard and triggering the airbag with your child still in the seat.
After it is unloaded, yes. That doesn't mean that a properly designed safety should not prevent accidental discharge while loading and unloading the firearm, which is what we're talking about here.
To use a car analogy, this is like saying, "Oh, the brakes work, but not while you're loading and unloading passengers. It's not a big deal. Just don't open the doors while you're on a hill. It's not a design flaw. You should have known that the vehicle could be dangerous before you tried to take on passengers. It's not our fault it ran over their feet."
Although no amount of engineering can completely prevent negligent discharge, in this particular case, the only reason the negligent discharge occurred at all was because the safety was turned off, and the only reason the safety was turned off was because the design made it necessary to do so in order to remove the round from the chamber.
Airbags are standard safety features, and early designs lacked the ability to disable them when child seats were in use. The auto industry still paid out a lot of money in damages when people were killed by them. It doesn't matter if something is a standard safety feature. If it ends up causing harm, there's liability.
I didn't say that the safety is there to ensure that the gun contains no bullets. I said that the safety is there to increase the safety of the device (by preventing the gun from firing), and that when the design of that safety prevents you from doing something else that would further increase the safety of the device (disarming it), it is, in effect, decreasing the safety of the device.
That's entirely a design choice, though. There are plenty of other ways to prevent the hammer from hitting the bullet. You could block it farther down on the hammer, slide the block up from the bottom so that the slide can move around it, or even make the block be sprung in such a way that it can slide back with the slide while remaining engaged.
What it comes down to is the gun manufacturers saying, "But we've always done it that way," rather than actually looking at the design and asking themselves, "Can we do it better?" That right there is the difference between innovation and stagnation, but when there are safety issues involved, it's the difference between responsibility and gross negligence.
Not at all. Lots of Californians think Feinstein is a terrible choice. They just think the Republican choices are worse. The problem is that the Republicans are unwilling to choose their battles. They feel the need to always run an ultra-conservative candidate to pander to the 30% of their base who actually care, while ignoring the other 70% of their base who would be just as happy with a more moderate candidate, and who might actually have a chance of taking votes from the Democrats and winning.
I suspect that the overwhelming majority of Californians would jump at the chance to elect a fiscally responsible (read "fiscally conservative, but not free market as god") candidate who is pro civil rights, anti-monopoly, and doesn't concern themselves with what happens in other people's bedrooms. Such views are not fundamentally incompatible with the Republican party of even a few years ago (what I like to call the pre-Gingrich Republican Party). Unfortunately, such moderate Republican views are incompatible with the direction the Republican Party has taken in the past decade or two, which is why the Republican Party is finding it increasingly difficult to win votes among the young people of today, and at serious risk of shriveling up and dying within the next couple of decades.
And no, the true liberals are not the Libertarians. To have a functioning political discussion, you need all four camps—the socialists, the libertarians, the conservatives, and the liberals. Here's why: the free market doesn't work on its own. It never did, and that's why we had such serious problems with monopolies during the height of the industrial revolution. You need some government intervention (which the traditional liberals would favor) to prevent the most serious abuses. However, you also need the Libertarians constantly pushing back to avoid getting into a nanny state situation.
The right answer always requires a delicate balance of the four viewpoints. Unfortunately, right now, the libertarians don't have enough of a voice, the liberals have no voice except for a few reactionary bozos, the socialists have no voice, and what we basically have is what most of the world would call conservatives. And places like California vote Democrat because they'd rather have moderate conservatives (Democrats) than extreme conservatives (Republicans).
Ah, but intent is 9/10ths of the law (at least in criminal cases). Those oil companies didn't intend to spill lots of oil. Sure, they were negligent, but not malicious. The banks who bought those bad mortgages did not intend to lose billions of dollars. (Now the folks who sold the mortgages, on the other hand....)
By contrast, most of the criticisms of EA come from what appears to be fairly deliberate actions, not mere negligence. That makes them way worse than most of the other companies alluded to above. Worst company? No. Among the worst? Quite possibly.
In part, yes. By definition, a safety is supposed to make a firearm safer. The best way to make a firearm completely safe is to ensure that it contains no bullets. If the safety is preventing that from happening, then that safety is effectively operating in a manner that is directly counter to its intended purpose. The manufacturer should have lost that case.
Don't get me wrong, I realize that an awful lot of handguns use a design that works the way you describe, but that doesn't make the design any less brain damaged. A safety should prevent the hammer from striking the bullet. Any other behavior is suboptimal.
Don't blame California. Blame the Republicans for not choosing someone more electable to run against her. If you want to win against a Democrat in California, you have to run someone as a Republican (who can bring the Republican voters) who is close enough to the political center that he or she can steal some Democrat votes. You don't do that by bringing in someone who is anti-gay-rights and strongly in favor of more free-market capitalism.
Depends. Is your car designed in such a way that makes it unusually easy to steal?
That's a little disingenuous:
So at least in the context of general-purpose CPUs that are still under active development, Intel/AMD's x86/x86-64 architecture is the only one that doesn't support big endian addressing.
Incidentally, the original list was also wrong. DEC Alpha was a dual-endian chip, not little endian.
Notice how many of those architectures still exist. I think the x86/x86-64 architectures are just about the only little-endian-only CPU architectures left. Everything else is bi or big.
Exactly. You might as well ask why nobody slaps a UNIX Inside sticker on iPhones and iPads....