Are AMOLED displays available in transflective form? Because I thought that was an LCD-only technology, and to be honest, I'd rather see phones go transflective than a supposedly superior technology that doesn't display anything when unlit, even if the latter has superficial benefits when the screen is "lit".
The U was innovative, and I liked the concept. It just wasn't "{$400 + additional controller-tablets needed for multiplayer} liked the concept". I suspect if they'd found a way to make it cheaper (which, to be honest, when you can get complete Android tablets for well under $50, seems possible), the initial sales would have been there, and the platform would have gotten more commercial third party support.
But yeah, better support for home brew might have helped too.
Are you just trying to start arguments? I ask because:
1. You originally claimed there was little terrorism in Europe between WW-II and the 1990s (something, to be honest, I'm increasingly finding it hard to believe anyone actually would think, or at least state as fact without checking.)
2. When called out, you, in one set of threads, changed the subject to concerns about Muslim refugees, and in the other, when (lots of us) mentioned the IRA, defended the IRA as being opposed to killing people.
3. When I pointed out your defense of the IRA was misplaced, you take the only comment in the entire thing that suggested any aspect at all of the IRA might have been slightly good, and disagree with it. (BTW, the government of Eire isn't that bad, really. And I believe Protestants aren't discriminated against down there, FWIW.)
It seems an odd strategy, like you're looking for things to argue about, rather than trying to have a discussion about the future of European security and civil rights.
Yes, but Tebbit was nonetheless buried under the rubble of the Brighton Hotel. He survived, almost unscathed (he has a limp) because the mattress somehow ended up over him.
He was, at the time, the most famous public figure directly hurt by the accident, and I remember his return to Parliament being a significant occasion as a result.
There's a million refugees in a supernation of 350 million people as a result of one specific national collapse in the far east, and you want to extrapolate that to... what exactly?
In 100 years, Europe will still be majority Christian, even using your own twisted figures. Syria doesn't have an infinite supply of refugees, and the German birthrate is hardly representative of the entirety of Europe.
English Protestant referred to the institution. Yes, the actual oppressors generally hail from Scotland, with the British government at one point giving land that belonged to the Irish to Scots if they'd settle there, in a way to control the situation. But the institutions originate, albeit in mutated form, from English institutions and governmental actions several hundred years ago in origin.
(As a side note, the so-called "Scots-Irish" in the US, essentially the backbone of Southern Racism, are descendants of these resettled Scots. So now you know why they're such jackasses, they're a group of people who thought it was totally OK to go into another country and take over land that was stolen (or conquered, if you'd prefer) from other people, so of course they'll go along with lynching black people...)
I don't think equating a (consensual) United Ireland with an invasion of Canada is a reasonable one. It's hard to know where to start describing the differences. Canada doesn't contain a huge "American" population who, for a very long time, have been the victims of institutional, legal, and social discrimination, and nor was it ever taken by force from America, legitimately or otherwise.
That said, all I said was that the IRA's goals were laudable. They're not the only ways to achieve peace in a just form, and one hopes that if the EU survives, the entire concept of Ireland vs British rule will disappear.
Gordon Bennett, you'd think Mooooooooooooooooslims in Europe are something new. When I lived in Oxford in the 1980s many major neighborhoods had huge Pakistani immigrant populations (they were the Syrian refugees of their day.)
There are no "Islamic hordes". There are just people trying to flee a terrible situation. And Islamic terrorists, trying one bombing at a time to persuade governments (and easily scared voters) to hand those refugees back to areas controlled by those terrorists.
No, he's saying it'll not make a blind bit of difference. And he's right. It won't. You think IS*'s terrorists sneak across borders with AK-47s strapped to their backs, minutes before they blow up airports? Most of them seem to be homegrown FFS. Intra-european border controls will have as much affect on home grown terrorists as they did on the IRA or RAF or ETA.
Is it a good idea to strengthen intra-European borders anyway? Hell if I know, probably not. But should it be done solely for the purpose of preventing terrorism? No, it's a complete waste of time because it won't have any affect whatsoever.
Sometimes they did that, often they didn't. There are numerous cases where no call was made. In particular they pretty much never phoned in a warning if the principle targets of the bombing were connected to the UK government, be they soldiers, politicians, or sometimes even more minor officials. This was regardless of whether others were likely to get killed.
Some others, like the Birmingham Pub Bombings, they never even accepted responsibility for (until after the conflict), apparently seeing them as a way to promote fear without wanting the blame.
Still others the bomb warning was misleading or incomplete. In the Warrington bombings, for example, they claimed a bomb was planted at a particular store in the city center. They made a second call warning of a bomb but with no indication of where it was, not even mentioning a city. They had, in fact, planted two in Warrington, one that was near to that store fitting the first call's description, and one 100 yards away, in an area likely to be filled with evacuated civilians.
Sometimes the IRA wanted to avoid killing "civilians" (not people, just civilians), but more often than not, they were happy to kill them. And the calls were made for all kinds of reasons, including just wanting the UK government to take the blame when civilians inevitably ended up murdered.
The IRA's political aim, a united Ireland against a backdrop of centuries of English Protestant oppression, is laudable, but don't confuse that laudability with the people who ran that group.
The IRA in Britain, the RAF/Baader-Meinhof Group in Germany, and the ETA in France and Spain are just three of many major terrorist groups who committed wide ranging atrocities in Europe between WW2 and the late 90s. The IRA even managed to kill several members of Margaret Thatcher's cabinet, maiming many others including her right hand man Norman Tebbit (hence the above joke, popular in school yards throughout the UK after it happened), in one bombing in the mid-eighties. What Western Governments have the Islamic terrorists tried to wipe out?
Kinda tired of hearing this "Islamic Terror is a special kind of threat" nonsense from the usual suspects. No, it's not. Some of what they've done is worse, but in the grand scheme of things they're still pathetic and minor compared to the home grown conflicts that have plagued Europe for centuries.
Reagan had nothing to do with that, that was Gorbachev (mixed with bad fifty years of terrible economic management leaving the USSR desperate for change.) Reagan was merely President at the time it happened. In an alternate future, you're claiming Dukakis brought down Communism.
Explodeecrashcrash was already taken (ValuJet have been sitting on that trademark since the 1990s, apparently), so they were left with Boom, the only other option their creative people could think of.
but why would anyone want to bring this experience to Linux?
They're not. There isn't any Linux in this. This is about bringing the Ubuntu experience to FreeBSD. EVERY single thing you've talked about is something this project is trying to solve. Absolutely every thing.
I understand your point, but it's hard to fill a 500 person train (the $35M example) if run regularly (every 10-20 minutes) through normal medium-to-high density bus routes. You need a REALLY high density city (think New York, which most cities, even most big cities, are nothing like) to need that capacity.
Yes, $6M trains have advantages over $500,000 buses. They're more comfortable, they can be faster, and they have more capacity, and so on. But those advantages aren't significant in context.
I've lived in normal cities served by buses. Oxford during the late eighties/early nineties, during the period of bus privatization, was awesome. But even at rush hour, most people could find a seat on most buses, even though buses were actually getting smaller, and even though the amount of traffic was enough to justify cut throat competition between two private, unsubsidized, bus companies.
There's no advantage to having a 500 seat train in a normal city. New York, London, etc, yeah. Normal cities? No.
Cab fare is $25, covering the labor, other costs, and relatively high insurance. bus fare (for a well used, unsubsidized, service) is $2.50, covering a share of the labor and a much lower insurance.
Now, notice I said a share of the labor but didn't use the same language for the insurance. That's because the insurance is naturally going to be roughly proportional to the number of passengers. More passengers, more people to injure. There's obviously a shared 'base' to cover potential damage to things and people who aren't riding the bus, but the rest will be per (estimated) passenger (logically, if you were an insurer, would you offer the same rate for a bus that carries one passenger across town per day, vs one that carries 200?)
So, even taking into account that the $25 cab fare has to cover non-shared costs the $2.50 doesn't, it's fairly easy to assume it more than covers the increased insurance appropriate for a much less safe form of transportation.
The real solution is probably to have railroad crossings that don't require trains to be constantly blasting their horns, but *sigh* In Britain, they have these things called bridges that are really effective, but as I understand it in the US the local governments are too cheap to build them.
We have a NIMBY campaign where I live against an upcoming express train service (All Aboard Florida), and despite the fact that anyone who commutes to the nearest city gets to see a car wreck by the side of the road almost every day, either directly, or by inexplicable slowdown to 20mph in the middle of nowhere, the NIMBYs have made "safety" their number one objection, sharing pictures of foreign train crashes and making a huge deal every time some idiot drives around the crossing gates and gets ketchuped.
Do not underestimate the degree to which forced-car-usage fanatics are willing to disregard obvious facts in favor of obvious, blatant, lies in order to promote their agenda.
Cool story bro. My car, alas, doesn't, I have to drive it, it doesn't do any of that by itself. And I'd rather sit within a few feet of a stranger with BO than get yet another cab full of diesel fumes.
You don't change the routes every few months. But you do every few years. Al Perlman, one of history's greatest railroad operators (and a man who saw his business as transportation, not simply making money) said something appropriate here:
After you've done something the same way for two years, look it over carefully. After five years, look at it with suspicion. And after 10 years, throw it away and start all over.
I wouldn't go that far within a city that isn't radically changing, but the reality is that traffic patterns change. This is, in part, what killed much of the trolley systems in the 1930s and 1940s, built 20-30 years previously, and now having to fight against traffic while taking people to places where not a lot of people wanted to go.
Buses make a lot of sense within cities. Rail within cities... only if the parts of the city the service expects to serve have reached a point that there's no reason to expect significant change within the next 25 years, or else have become so clogged with traffic that buses wouldn't handle the load. Even outside of the US, that's not a common situation.
Yup. Also, for those who think there's something special about buses that drive with open doors, have you ever seen a traditional London (Routemaster) bus?
(Ironically those have been replaced with buses with closed doors for safety reasons, but the accident rate was always so low there was never any public clamor for "safer" closed door buses.)
A bus, depending on features, costs $100,000 to $1,000,0000 (a city bus is nowhere near a million though!) and requires very little additional supporting infrastructure. A tram or trainset costs $6,000,000 to $35,000,000, and requires track installed (typically $25-75 million per mile), plus stations at a cost of $5M+ each.
I love trains, but the argument for having them serve intracity traffic for all but the most traffic clogged of cities is very hard to make.
It's not even a cultural problem. It's fairly simple: if there's an accident, and it's the bus company's fault, the bus company is going to pay. If medical costs are involved, it's going to pay tens of thousands at minimum. Ticket prices would have to rise to cover these costs, and even if the bus operator decided that 1/4 of the accident rate for cars was an acceptable risk, we'd still be looking at a company that would require an average passenger pay $100 or more in tickets and passes per year on top of what they pay already.
I'm sympathetic to the argument, but without simpler liability rules (as in, if you step out of a moving bus and break your leg, your insurer, not the bus company's, should cover the costs), and universal healthcare (to ensure that the medical bill can get paid), I don't think it can go anywhere, in the US at any rate.
The feature is optional, you can turn it off at any time.
Binge On is simply "We'll make it free if you do it in a way that doesn't make it hard to support multiple people on one tower." If you prefer to use "normal" streamed video, where the client and server literally try to suck up as much bandwidth as they possibly can, you're still allowed, but you have to use up your data quota doing it.
Slashdot Mirror
Are AMOLED displays available in transflective form? Because I thought that was an LCD-only technology, and to be honest, I'd rather see phones go transflective than a supposedly superior technology that doesn't display anything when unlit, even if the latter has superficial benefits when the screen is "lit".
The U was innovative, and I liked the concept. It just wasn't "{$400 + additional controller-tablets needed for multiplayer} liked the concept". I suspect if they'd found a way to make it cheaper (which, to be honest, when you can get complete Android tablets for well under $50, seems possible), the initial sales would have been there, and the platform would have gotten more commercial third party support.
But yeah, better support for home brew might have helped too.
Are you just trying to start arguments? I ask because:
1. You originally claimed there was little terrorism in Europe between WW-II and the 1990s (something, to be honest, I'm increasingly finding it hard to believe anyone actually would think, or at least state as fact without checking.)
2. When called out, you, in one set of threads, changed the subject to concerns about Muslim refugees, and in the other, when (lots of us) mentioned the IRA, defended the IRA as being opposed to killing people.
3. When I pointed out your defense of the IRA was misplaced, you take the only comment in the entire thing that suggested any aspect at all of the IRA might have been slightly good, and disagree with it. (BTW, the government of Eire isn't that bad, really. And I believe Protestants aren't discriminated against down there, FWIW.)
It seems an odd strategy, like you're looking for things to argue about, rather than trying to have a discussion about the future of European security and civil rights.
Yes, but Tebbit was nonetheless buried under the rubble of the Brighton Hotel. He survived, almost unscathed (he has a limp) because the mattress somehow ended up over him.
He was, at the time, the most famous public figure directly hurt by the accident, and I remember his return to Parliament being a significant occasion as a result.
There's a million refugees in a supernation of 350 million people as a result of one specific national collapse in the far east, and you want to extrapolate that to... what exactly?
In 100 years, Europe will still be majority Christian, even using your own twisted figures. Syria doesn't have an infinite supply of refugees, and the German birthrate is hardly representative of the entirety of Europe.
Calm down.
English Protestant referred to the institution. Yes, the actual oppressors generally hail from Scotland, with the British government at one point giving land that belonged to the Irish to Scots if they'd settle there, in a way to control the situation. But the institutions originate, albeit in mutated form, from English institutions and governmental actions several hundred years ago in origin.
(As a side note, the so-called "Scots-Irish" in the US, essentially the backbone of Southern Racism, are descendants of these resettled Scots. So now you know why they're such jackasses, they're a group of people who thought it was totally OK to go into another country and take over land that was stolen (or conquered, if you'd prefer) from other people, so of course they'll go along with lynching black people...)
I don't think equating a (consensual) United Ireland with an invasion of Canada is a reasonable one. It's hard to know where to start describing the differences. Canada doesn't contain a huge "American" population who, for a very long time, have been the victims of institutional, legal, and social discrimination, and nor was it ever taken by force from America, legitimately or otherwise.
That said, all I said was that the IRA's goals were laudable. They're not the only ways to achieve peace in a just form, and one hopes that if the EU survives, the entire concept of Ireland vs British rule will disappear.
Gordon Bennett, you'd think Mooooooooooooooooslims in Europe are something new. When I lived in Oxford in the 1980s many major neighborhoods had huge Pakistani immigrant populations (they were the Syrian refugees of their day.)
There are no "Islamic hordes". There are just people trying to flee a terrible situation. And Islamic terrorists, trying one bombing at a time to persuade governments (and easily scared voters) to hand those refugees back to areas controlled by those terrorists.
No, he's saying it'll not make a blind bit of difference. And he's right. It won't. You think IS*'s terrorists sneak across borders with AK-47s strapped to their backs, minutes before they blow up airports? Most of them seem to be homegrown FFS. Intra-european border controls will have as much affect on home grown terrorists as they did on the IRA or RAF or ETA.
Is it a good idea to strengthen intra-European borders anyway? Hell if I know, probably not. But should it be done solely for the purpose of preventing terrorism? No, it's a complete waste of time because it won't have any affect whatsoever.
Sometimes they did that, often they didn't. There are numerous cases where no call was made. In particular they pretty much never phoned in a warning if the principle targets of the bombing were connected to the UK government, be they soldiers, politicians, or sometimes even more minor officials. This was regardless of whether others were likely to get killed.
Some others, like the Birmingham Pub Bombings, they never even accepted responsibility for (until after the conflict), apparently seeing them as a way to promote fear without wanting the blame.
Still others the bomb warning was misleading or incomplete. In the Warrington bombings, for example, they claimed a bomb was planted at a particular store in the city center. They made a second call warning of a bomb but with no indication of where it was, not even mentioning a city. They had, in fact, planted two in Warrington, one that was near to that store fitting the first call's description, and one 100 yards away, in an area likely to be filled with evacuated civilians.
Sometimes the IRA wanted to avoid killing "civilians" (not people, just civilians), but more often than not, they were happy to kill them. And the calls were made for all kinds of reasons, including just wanting the UK government to take the blame when civilians inevitably ended up murdered.
The IRA's political aim, a united Ireland against a backdrop of centuries of English Protestant oppression, is laudable, but don't confuse that laudability with the people who ran that group.
What do you call a man with a hotel on his head?
Normal Tebbit.
The IRA in Britain, the RAF/Baader-Meinhof Group in Germany, and the ETA in France and Spain are just three of many major terrorist groups who committed wide ranging atrocities in Europe between WW2 and the late 90s. The IRA even managed to kill several members of Margaret Thatcher's cabinet, maiming many others including her right hand man Norman Tebbit (hence the above joke, popular in school yards throughout the UK after it happened), in one bombing in the mid-eighties. What Western Governments have the Islamic terrorists tried to wipe out?
Kinda tired of hearing this "Islamic Terror is a special kind of threat" nonsense from the usual suspects. No, it's not. Some of what they've done is worse, but in the grand scheme of things they're still pathetic and minor compared to the home grown conflicts that have plagued Europe for centuries.
Stop being scared of these cretins.
Reagan had nothing to do with that, that was Gorbachev (mixed with bad fifty years of terrible economic management leaving the USSR desperate for change.) Reagan was merely President at the time it happened. In an alternate future, you're claiming Dukakis brought down Communism.
Explodeecrashcrash was already taken (ValuJet have been sitting on that trademark since the 1990s, apparently), so they were left with Boom, the only other option their creative people could think of.
They're not. There isn't any Linux in this. This is about bringing the Ubuntu experience to FreeBSD. EVERY single thing you've talked about is something this project is trying to solve. Absolutely every thing.
Google put a lot of effort into future revisions reducing memory and power usage, both of which I'd say are important for an e-reader.
I understand your point, but it's hard to fill a 500 person train (the $35M example) if run regularly (every 10-20 minutes) through normal medium-to-high density bus routes. You need a REALLY high density city (think New York, which most cities, even most big cities, are nothing like) to need that capacity.
Yes, $6M trains have advantages over $500,000 buses. They're more comfortable, they can be faster, and they have more capacity, and so on. But those advantages aren't significant in context.
I've lived in normal cities served by buses. Oxford during the late eighties/early nineties, during the period of bus privatization, was awesome. But even at rush hour, most people could find a seat on most buses, even though buses were actually getting smaller, and even though the amount of traffic was enough to justify cut throat competition between two private, unsubsidized, bus companies.
There's no advantage to having a 500 seat train in a normal city. New York, London, etc, yeah. Normal cities? No.
Cab fare is $25, covering the labor, other costs, and relatively high insurance. bus fare (for a well used, unsubsidized, service) is $2.50, covering a share of the labor and a much lower insurance.
Now, notice I said a share of the labor but didn't use the same language for the insurance. That's because the insurance is naturally going to be roughly proportional to the number of passengers. More passengers, more people to injure. There's obviously a shared 'base' to cover potential damage to things and people who aren't riding the bus, but the rest will be per (estimated) passenger (logically, if you were an insurer, would you offer the same rate for a bus that carries one passenger across town per day, vs one that carries 200?)
So, even taking into account that the $25 cab fare has to cover non-shared costs the $2.50 doesn't, it's fairly easy to assume it more than covers the increased insurance appropriate for a much less safe form of transportation.
It's so they can hear train horns.
The real solution is probably to have railroad crossings that don't require trains to be constantly blasting their horns, but *sigh* In Britain, they have these things called bridges that are really effective, but as I understand it in the US the local governments are too cheap to build them.
We have a NIMBY campaign where I live against an upcoming express train service (All Aboard Florida), and despite the fact that anyone who commutes to the nearest city gets to see a car wreck by the side of the road almost every day, either directly, or by inexplicable slowdown to 20mph in the middle of nowhere, the NIMBYs have made "safety" their number one objection, sharing pictures of foreign train crashes and making a huge deal every time some idiot drives around the crossing gates and gets ketchuped.
Do not underestimate the degree to which forced-car-usage fanatics are willing to disregard obvious facts in favor of obvious, blatant, lies in order to promote their agenda.
Cool story bro. My car, alas, doesn't, I have to drive it, it doesn't do any of that by itself. And I'd rather sit within a few feet of a stranger with BO than get yet another cab full of diesel fumes.
You don't change the routes every few months. But you do every few years. Al Perlman, one of history's greatest railroad operators (and a man who saw his business as transportation, not simply making money) said something appropriate here:
I wouldn't go that far within a city that isn't radically changing, but the reality is that traffic patterns change. This is, in part, what killed much of the trolley systems in the 1930s and 1940s, built 20-30 years previously, and now having to fight against traffic while taking people to places where not a lot of people wanted to go.
Buses make a lot of sense within cities. Rail within cities... only if the parts of the city the service expects to serve have reached a point that there's no reason to expect significant change within the next 25 years, or else have become so clogged with traffic that buses wouldn't handle the load. Even outside of the US, that's not a common situation.
Yup. Also, for those who think there's something special about buses that drive with open doors, have you ever seen a traditional London (Routemaster) bus?
(Ironically those have been replaced with buses with closed doors for safety reasons, but the accident rate was always so low there was never any public clamor for "safer" closed door buses.)
A bus, depending on features, costs $100,000 to $1,000,0000 (a city bus is nowhere near a million though!) and requires very little additional supporting infrastructure. A tram or trainset costs $6,000,000 to $35,000,000, and requires track installed (typically $25-75 million per mile), plus stations at a cost of $5M+ each.
I love trains, but the argument for having them serve intracity traffic for all but the most traffic clogged of cities is very hard to make.
It's not even a cultural problem. It's fairly simple: if there's an accident, and it's the bus company's fault, the bus company is going to pay. If medical costs are involved, it's going to pay tens of thousands at minimum. Ticket prices would have to rise to cover these costs, and even if the bus operator decided that 1/4 of the accident rate for cars was an acceptable risk, we'd still be looking at a company that would require an average passenger pay $100 or more in tickets and passes per year on top of what they pay already.
I'm sympathetic to the argument, but without simpler liability rules (as in, if you step out of a moving bus and break your leg, your insurer, not the bus company's, should cover the costs), and universal healthcare (to ensure that the medical bill can get paid), I don't think it can go anywhere, in the US at any rate.
The feature is optional, you can turn it off at any time.
Binge On is simply "We'll make it free if you do it in a way that doesn't make it hard to support multiple people on one tower." If you prefer to use "normal" streamed video, where the client and server literally try to suck up as much bandwidth as they possibly can, you're still allowed, but you have to use up your data quota doing it.
Response to the wrong post?