I suspect the objection isn't that metal straws don't exist, most of us have seen them at some point in our lives (at least, the concept seems familiar to me, and I want to say I associate it with icecream milkshakes, but for the life of me I can't remember where), but that they were ever popular or that "most people used to have metal straws at home."
They're also just big, not monopolies. There are plenty of online retailers that compete with Amazon. Google's main rival in the search engine space isn't popular because it's a shitty clone of Google, not because search engines are difficult to build. Facebook - well, kinda, but it's just the latest social network a large number of people have standardized on. MySpace was once in the same position. Build a better social network and they'll come.
This is actually how I got out of unemployment in the early 1990s. Britain at the time had various programs which appeared to be mostly existing for the purpose of hiding the unemployment figures (hey, the program started under Thatcher), but while the "vocational training" wasn't great, it did the important bit of proving that despite my being unable to get a job since leaving University, I was actually capable of getting up in the morning, going to a place, and had decent computer skills, decent enough for the training group to recommend me.
Pay? Exactly the same as if I'd been collecting Income Support, but when combined with the support I needed, enough to get me into full time employment.
I can't really speak for UBI, it feels like one of those too-good-to-be-true exercises that amateur economists engage in on a regular basis. People actually, for the most part, want a decent job with decent pay, and a safety net if things go wrong. I don't see UBI as solving that, because politicians will keep reducing the safety net whenever they think people are slacking, in turn improving the power of employers and, ironically, pushing wages down.
Being paid to improve your skillset, combined with professionals who can work on placing you in a job while you learn, is a genuinely great idea that needs to be more widely implemented. Combine that with a universal child care credit, schools and higher education, health care that's free at the point of delivery, and housing assistance, and you have 90% of a stronger, more useful, safety net implemented. Adding non-universal benefits like unemployment and disability to that shouldn't break the bank.
This sounds like something then we should have had at the start of the industrial revolution, not now. Are jobs really being lost to automation? Or is automation making some jobs obsolete while creating new ones?
I'd be very surprised if someone doesn't fill ZTE's place in the market. It's doubtful to me that many US jobs are dependent upon ZTE specifically. This isn't like the 2008 crash where the Detroit Three formed a defacto monopsony and the death of two of them would have caused supplier collapses across the country. ZTE is a bit player, and replaceable, and the type of business that springs into existence and has its fifteen minutes in the limelight all the time.
And why does this law not matter, but a technicality about applying asylum only at the first port you reach, even if they refuse to hear your case there and tell you to apply at another port, is somehow so important you have the right to punish the children of the people who do it?
Oh, so the police can arrest criminals now huh? Well, you just wait until criminals get the upper hand and start arresting police, you won't be so in favor of people arresting each other then I tell you!
Seriously dude, can we get away from the idea that it's bad to use the power you have to prevent bad behavior because that'll somehow make it right to use the same power to prevent good things. IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY.
I'm not missing the point, I think it's great. But there are plenty of circumstances in which people use both. My cell number predates my GV number by about ten years, I have no desire to change it.
Yes, most people don't have the ability to have their cellphone number be their GV number (I think Sprint is the only US operator that offers this.) So while you may receive text messages (and now MMS messages, that's been working for a while) via Hangouts for your GV number, texts sent to your regular cellphone number go to the Messages app and can't (until now?) be accessed via the web, unless your service provider offers the option.
That's what this fixes. It means you can text using your regular cellphone number via the web.
(Or supposedly can. I have the very latest version of Messages, launched it from the Play Store just to doubly make sure I'm using the right app, but don't see the menu option. The Play Store lists it as being updated two days ago, and doesn't list this feature, so I'm wondering if they just haven't pushed the update out yet.)
Linux is a kernel, it has no reason to cache thumbnails and the equivalent subsystems in macOS and Windows don't either.
The various file managers for each desktop system are independent. Nonetheless, several major file managers such as Nautilus, do indeed cache thumbnails.
I would suggest that concluding one processor is worse than another just because of architecture is as dumb as making the same conclusion based upon clock speed, bitiness, or number of cores. The N3160 is a fast, optimized, Braswell. The 3965Y is a painfully slow Kaby Lake. Intel is using the Celeron branding for both because they're comparable.
I think blaming the Amiga for problems setting up an emulator is a little unfair. There are several versions of the Amiga, and each came with a ROM and the correct disks for that ROM. If you bought an operating system upgrade, you'd get the right ROM and right disks with it. Additionally, the disks for older operating systems generally worked with newer ROMs.. There was nothing difficult about it. The term "BIOS" is inappropriate, the ROM contained the core operating system, not merely the bootloader and I/O library a BIOS contains.
One other thing to note is that people running games generally didn't run the disk part of the operating system. The game would run directly from the disk, the computer booting right into it.
RAM... it wasn't hard for actual users in practice and there weren't "more classifications of RAM than DOS did". DOS had various types of memory which literally could not be interchanged - applications that used "extended" etc RAM had to use it. For the most part, with the exception of one type of usage, both (or all three, if you count low address space non-chip RAM) types of RAM were interchangeable. The "exception"? Chip RAM had to be used for anything that involved graphics or audio. And that was it.
Ultimately though it sounds like either your emulator didn't have built-in profiles supporting the stock Amigas, or did but you choose to tweak them in the same way a novice might start tweaking hardware settings in a PC emulator. If the former:
If you want to run games, that's enough. You don't need anything else. If you want to use it as a serious machine, you'll ideally need the same version of the disk part of AmigaOS as your ROM.
Everything does, but Nuclear has been notorious for requiring massive subsidies since its inception that have never really stopped. Fossil's are (mostly) indirect, the subsidies for wind and solar will dry up (no pun intended) in time. I don't think there's anything significant about hydro these days at all.
Nuclear is subsidized largely because it's an industry in which you can "hide" Uranium enrichment for Nuclear weapons. If it wasn't for that, it would probably have died off as uneconomic decades ago. The fact solar, hydro, and wind have no such lobbies behind them yet still attracts funding, and despite receiving much lower funding is still economic, makes the case pretty well.
It (and you) actually illustrates the opposite, that most people hear the words "Javascript" and immediately think it can't do anything much, largely because they associate it with it being combined with a web browser that imposes restrictions and causes it to get blamed for things that really have to do with the poor design of a web browser + javascript combo, not JS itself.
As a result, there's a lot of knees that jerked upon hearing that Office365 would be rewritten like this. Despite JS being fine for such a task, and despite the reality that it'd probably benefit people overall, both making the job of the web version working like the desktop version easier, and making it easier to port if combined with frameworks like Electron.
That makes Clinton look sane. And that takes quite a bit
This is the part I don't understand about the last election and the results since. Trumpists constantly defend their vote with "But Clinton", "But those emails", etc. I have been accused repeatedly of being a "Clinton supporter" because I voted for Clinton.
Yet the issue here is that of all of the people that could possibly have run against Clinton, the Republican party picked the one major/serious candidate that was unbelievably, infinitely, more terrible than Clinton would ever be.
Few of us who voted for Clinton went in thinking "Yay Clinton": at best, if we had a positive attitude it might have been "Finally a female President", or "Well, Sanders did get her to support a bunch of things I like", or even "I guess I have to admire the way she handled her campaign, she definitely made people aware of what Trump is."
But we knew she was terrible.
We just knew she was less terrible than Trump. So much less terrible that it wasn't even a contest. The guy was a proven fraud and liar. Always scamming his suppliers. An entire fake University. Eight years of racist attacks on Obama. A history of racism stretching back to the 1970s. Boasting openly about sexually assaulting women (whether he did or didn't, the fact he thought it was something to brag about was itself disqualifying.) Abusing his power in the beauty contests he sponsored to look at naked underage models. Promoting violence against those protesting against him. Promoting the abuse of the law to imprison his political opponents. Scapegoating the vulnerable, blaming them for problems that have nothing to do with them.
And those were the verifiable claims.
Clinton? She was widely disliked, enough for an entire machine to exist spouting bogus allegations against her - but if she wasn't unpopular, 25% of the population wouldn't believe nonsense about her straight out murdering friends of hers. She supported the bullshit policies of her husband, albeit she at least had the shame to walk some that support back. Initial support for unnecessary and stupid wars. A guarantee that Obamacare would be treated as the perfection of healthcare, rather than the bandaid it actually was. A desire to be popular with investors and banks, not with ordinary people.
Horrible, but essentially the Democrat's Mitt Romney, not the Democrat's Trump or Nixon.
We screamed into the void about this at the time. We said "She's not our first choice, but for the love of everything you hold dear, there's no comparison between her and Trump."
And the Republicans didn't listen. And they invented an entire alternative universe where Clinton voters voted for Clinton because we liked her, where Clinton herself had described all Republicans as "deplorables" rather than half of Trump's voters during the primaries because, at the time and as she rightly pointed out, Trump was attracting massive numbers of white supremacists and MRAs.
Yeah, there were two or three people in the FBI who were not pro-Trump/anti-Clinton. The report doesn't suggest they was typical. And moreover none of them were Comey.
I like the fact you think your reference to page 430 is relevant. It says more about you than it says about the FBI, which is expected to have a good working relationship with the media.
The reality, on the ground, is that the report criticizes Comey's handling of the emails investigation, specifically the fact that he broke protocol to scold Clinton rather than allow the DoJ to make a proper, formal, announcement, and it criticizes his decision to reveal the investigation into a cache of "new" (they weren't new, they were just duplicates) emails just before the election.
Both of things Comey is criticized for turned out to be central to the throwing of the election to Trump.
Selective quoting of the report might make it look like a report alleging pro-Clinton bias, but the main thrust of the report is to attack Comey for actions that ultimately helped Trump.
What I don't understand about Comey is that he all but threw the election to Trump while panning Trump left and right.
It's not that hard. He panned Trump after Trump was elected.
The FBI was in the Republicans pocket from Day #1. Trump may have given some second thoughts, but there was enough "He can't really be like that, it's just an act!" going on that made the FBI stand firmly behind him, and against Clinton, until the election. Hence the covering up of the Russian investigation while loudly criticizing Clinton and pretending new evidence had been found against her just before the election.
What you've seen from Comey since is buyer's remorse, coupled with an extended sob story pretending he was some kind of paragon of ethics who was brought down by how ethical he was, and a sympathetic media that's sympathetic solely because Trump is awful and he's a prominent establishment figure who's critical of Trump.
I know this is controversial, but if Apple isn't going to care about the hardware any more, perhaps it's time it pulled out of the market and sold macOS as a standalone product for third party PCs. And if they don't want to support it, they can contract that out too, maybe even partner with someone like Canonical (who have a great track record on making a third party OS work on everything out of the box.) With Intel and AMD controlling the entire non-standardized part of the hardware chain it's easier than it's been since the early nineties to produce a single OS that'll work on everything anyway.
It's always been the OS, not the hardware, that's made me crave Macs, but I haven't owned one in over ten years because I just don't trust them with hardware any more, and can't get a Mac with a specification I'm comfortable with.
If they no longer even care, then it's time to let their platform blossom.
I have nothing against the woman personally, and admire her strength in the fights she's been fighting thus far, but she's one of the trio that GamerGate was targeting, which unfortunately many on Slashdot were heavily supportive of.
Reportedly the IRA (the Russian trolling outfit, not the Irish terrorists) was one of the groups stoking the GamerGame movement, so some may have soured on it, but regardless I don't think Wu will get much support here.
Not sure why (1) you've been swarmed with troll answers or (2) you've been modded down, but it's early in the day and I haven't had enough sleep so I'm probably missing the obvious. But given this is a common question:
Periscope is a live streaming app. You're supposed to use it to broadcast something you're videoing via your phone. So, as one example, there was a recent sit in in Congress to protest the lack of progress on gun control, and the House Speaker cut the C-SPAN feed. So members engaged in the sit-in tweeted links to their Periscope feed, and everyone was able to see the sit in via the live feed instead.
That also probably answers the question "Is there a more convincing reason other than 'It violated trademark law, which I'll confuse with copyright law because TEH MPRIAAPHIAA HATES MY FREEDOMS" for explaining why it's been banned (not merely asked to rename itself, but actually banned.) It's very good for broadcasting things the government doesn't want you to see, when that government is powerful enough to control the regular media.
Seems an expensive way to prove that a "transit" idea is idiotic (although how wide are those tunnels? If they're 12' and straight enough then they might at least be able to repurpose them for London Underground deep bore tunnel style trains once the thing fails. I'm kinda surprised those aren't built more commonly, it's a hell of a lot cheaper to build a 12' tunnel than the full-NEC-loading-gauge type stuff most transit authorities insist on building)
At least no taxpayer's money will be wasted on this.
Slashdot Mirror
I suspect the objection isn't that metal straws don't exist, most of us have seen them at some point in our lives (at least, the concept seems familiar to me, and I want to say I associate it with icecream milkshakes, but for the life of me I can't remember where), but that they were ever popular or that "most people used to have metal straws at home."
They're also just big, not monopolies. There are plenty of online retailers that compete with Amazon. Google's main rival in the search engine space isn't popular because it's a shitty clone of Google, not because search engines are difficult to build. Facebook - well, kinda, but it's just the latest social network a large number of people have standardized on. MySpace was once in the same position. Build a better social network and they'll come.
This is actually how I got out of unemployment in the early 1990s. Britain at the time had various programs which appeared to be mostly existing for the purpose of hiding the unemployment figures (hey, the program started under Thatcher), but while the "vocational training" wasn't great, it did the important bit of proving that despite my being unable to get a job since leaving University, I was actually capable of getting up in the morning, going to a place, and had decent computer skills, decent enough for the training group to recommend me.
Pay? Exactly the same as if I'd been collecting Income Support, but when combined with the support I needed, enough to get me into full time employment.
I can't really speak for UBI, it feels like one of those too-good-to-be-true exercises that amateur economists engage in on a regular basis. People actually, for the most part, want a decent job with decent pay, and a safety net if things go wrong. I don't see UBI as solving that, because politicians will keep reducing the safety net whenever they think people are slacking, in turn improving the power of employers and, ironically, pushing wages down.
Being paid to improve your skillset, combined with professionals who can work on placing you in a job while you learn, is a genuinely great idea that needs to be more widely implemented. Combine that with a universal child care credit, schools and higher education, health care that's free at the point of delivery, and housing assistance, and you have 90% of a stronger, more useful, safety net implemented. Adding non-universal benefits like unemployment and disability to that shouldn't break the bank.
This sounds like something then we should have had at the start of the industrial revolution, not now. Are jobs really being lost to automation? Or is automation making some jobs obsolete while creating new ones?
I'd be very surprised if someone doesn't fill ZTE's place in the market. It's doubtful to me that many US jobs are dependent upon ZTE specifically. This isn't like the 2008 crash where the Detroit Three formed a defacto monopsony and the death of two of them would have caused supplier collapses across the country. ZTE is a bit player, and replaceable, and the type of business that springs into existence and has its fifteen minutes in the limelight all the time.
And why does this law not matter, but a technicality about applying asylum only at the first port you reach, even if they refuse to hear your case there and tell you to apply at another port, is somehow so important you have the right to punish the children of the people who do it?
Oh, so the police can arrest criminals now huh? Well, you just wait until criminals get the upper hand and start arresting police, you won't be so in favor of people arresting each other then I tell you!
Seriously dude, can we get away from the idea that it's bad to use the power you have to prevent bad behavior because that'll somehow make it right to use the same power to prevent good things. IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY.
I'm not missing the point, I think it's great. But there are plenty of circumstances in which people use both. My cell number predates my GV number by about ten years, I have no desire to change it.
Why, do you have something against velour?
Yes, most people don't have the ability to have their cellphone number be their GV number (I think Sprint is the only US operator that offers this.) So while you may receive text messages (and now MMS messages, that's been working for a while) via Hangouts for your GV number, texts sent to your regular cellphone number go to the Messages app and can't (until now?) be accessed via the web, unless your service provider offers the option.
That's what this fixes. It means you can text using your regular cellphone number via the web.
(Or supposedly can. I have the very latest version of Messages, launched it from the Play Store just to doubly make sure I'm using the right app, but don't see the menu option. The Play Store lists it as being updated two days ago, and doesn't list this feature, so I'm wondering if they just haven't pushed the update out yet.)
Linux is a kernel, it has no reason to cache thumbnails and the equivalent subsystems in macOS and Windows don't either.
The various file managers for each desktop system are independent. Nonetheless, several major file managers such as Nautilus, do indeed cache thumbnails.
So if we're lucky Robert Mueller might be finished with his investigation just before Trump's second term starts.
Urgh.
This page suggests they're both in the same ballpark in terms of performance. The passmark for the N3160 (which you describe as an "Atom") is slightly higher (better) than the 3965Y, but there's not much to it.
I would suggest that concluding one processor is worse than another just because of architecture is as dumb as making the same conclusion based upon clock speed, bitiness, or number of cores. The N3160 is a fast, optimized, Braswell. The 3965Y is a painfully slow Kaby Lake. Intel is using the Celeron branding for both because they're comparable.
I think blaming the Amiga for problems setting up an emulator is a little unfair. There are several versions of the Amiga, and each came with a ROM and the correct disks for that ROM. If you bought an operating system upgrade, you'd get the right ROM and right disks with it. Additionally, the disks for older operating systems generally worked with newer ROMs.. There was nothing difficult about it. The term "BIOS" is inappropriate, the ROM contained the core operating system, not merely the bootloader and I/O library a BIOS contains.
One other thing to note is that people running games generally didn't run the disk part of the operating system. The game would run directly from the disk, the computer booting right into it.
RAM... it wasn't hard for actual users in practice and there weren't "more classifications of RAM than DOS did". DOS had various types of memory which literally could not be interchanged - applications that used "extended" etc RAM had to use it. For the most part, with the exception of one type of usage, both (or all three, if you count low address space non-chip RAM) types of RAM were interchangeable. The "exception"? Chip RAM had to be used for anything that involved graphics or audio. And that was it.
Ultimately though it sounds like either your emulator didn't have built-in profiles supporting the stock Amigas, or did but you choose to tweak them in the same way a novice might start tweaking hardware settings in a PC emulator. If the former:
Amiga 500: Kickstart 1.3 + 512k chip RAM + OCS
Amiga 500+: Kickstart 2.04 + 1Mb chip + ECS
Amiga 1200: Kickstart 3 + 2Mb chip + AGA
If you want to run games, that's enough. You don't need anything else. If you want to use it as a serious machine, you'll ideally need the same version of the disk part of AmigaOS as your ROM.
Everything does, but Nuclear has been notorious for requiring massive subsidies since its inception that have never really stopped. Fossil's are (mostly) indirect, the subsidies for wind and solar will dry up (no pun intended) in time. I don't think there's anything significant about hydro these days at all.
Nuclear is subsidized largely because it's an industry in which you can "hide" Uranium enrichment for Nuclear weapons. If it wasn't for that, it would probably have died off as uneconomic decades ago. The fact solar, hydro, and wind have no such lobbies behind them yet still attracts funding, and despite receiving much lower funding is still economic, makes the case pretty well.
It (and you) actually illustrates the opposite, that most people hear the words "Javascript" and immediately think it can't do anything much, largely because they associate it with it being combined with a web browser that imposes restrictions and causes it to get blamed for things that really have to do with the poor design of a web browser + javascript combo, not JS itself.
As a result, there's a lot of knees that jerked upon hearing that Office365 would be rewritten like this. Despite JS being fine for such a task, and despite the reality that it'd probably benefit people overall, both making the job of the web version working like the desktop version easier, and making it easier to port if combined with frameworks like Electron.
This is the part I don't understand about the last election and the results since. Trumpists constantly defend their vote with "But Clinton", "But those emails", etc. I have been accused repeatedly of being a "Clinton supporter" because I voted for Clinton.
Yet the issue here is that of all of the people that could possibly have run against Clinton, the Republican party picked the one major/serious candidate that was unbelievably, infinitely, more terrible than Clinton would ever be.
Few of us who voted for Clinton went in thinking "Yay Clinton": at best, if we had a positive attitude it might have been "Finally a female President", or "Well, Sanders did get her to support a bunch of things I like", or even "I guess I have to admire the way she handled her campaign, she definitely made people aware of what Trump is."
But we knew she was terrible.
We just knew she was less terrible than Trump. So much less terrible that it wasn't even a contest. The guy was a proven fraud and liar. Always scamming his suppliers. An entire fake University. Eight years of racist attacks on Obama. A history of racism stretching back to the 1970s. Boasting openly about sexually assaulting women (whether he did or didn't, the fact he thought it was something to brag about was itself disqualifying.) Abusing his power in the beauty contests he sponsored to look at naked underage models. Promoting violence against those protesting against him. Promoting the abuse of the law to imprison his political opponents. Scapegoating the vulnerable, blaming them for problems that have nothing to do with them.
And those were the verifiable claims.
Clinton? She was widely disliked, enough for an entire machine to exist spouting bogus allegations against her - but if she wasn't unpopular, 25% of the population wouldn't believe nonsense about her straight out murdering friends of hers. She supported the bullshit policies of her husband, albeit she at least had the shame to walk some that support back. Initial support for unnecessary and stupid wars. A guarantee that Obamacare would be treated as the perfection of healthcare, rather than the bandaid it actually was. A desire to be popular with investors and banks, not with ordinary people.
Horrible, but essentially the Democrat's Mitt Romney, not the Democrat's Trump or Nixon.
We screamed into the void about this at the time. We said "She's not our first choice, but for the love of everything you hold dear, there's no comparison between her and Trump."
And the Republicans didn't listen. And they invented an entire alternative universe where Clinton voters voted for Clinton because we liked her, where Clinton herself had described all Republicans as "deplorables" rather than half of Trump's voters during the primaries because, at the time and as she rightly pointed out, Trump was attracting massive numbers of white supremacists and MRAs.
And now we have this.
Thanks Comey, you piece of shit.
Yeah, there were two or three people in the FBI who were not pro-Trump/anti-Clinton. The report doesn't suggest they was typical. And moreover none of them were Comey.
I like the fact you think your reference to page 430 is relevant. It says more about you than it says about the FBI, which is expected to have a good working relationship with the media.
The reality, on the ground, is that the report criticizes Comey's handling of the emails investigation, specifically the fact that he broke protocol to scold Clinton rather than allow the DoJ to make a proper, formal, announcement, and it criticizes his decision to reveal the investigation into a cache of "new" (they weren't new, they were just duplicates) emails just before the election.
Both of things Comey is criticized for turned out to be central to the throwing of the election to Trump.
Selective quoting of the report might make it look like a report alleging pro-Clinton bias, but the main thrust of the report is to attack Comey for actions that ultimately helped Trump.
It's not that hard. He panned Trump after Trump was elected.
The FBI was in the Republicans pocket from Day #1. Trump may have given some second thoughts, but there was enough "He can't really be like that, it's just an act!" going on that made the FBI stand firmly behind him, and against Clinton, until the election. Hence the covering up of the Russian investigation while loudly criticizing Clinton and pretending new evidence had been found against her just before the election.
What you've seen from Comey since is buyer's remorse, coupled with an extended sob story pretending he was some kind of paragon of ethics who was brought down by how ethical he was, and a sympathetic media that's sympathetic solely because Trump is awful and he's a prominent establishment figure who's critical of Trump.
Fuck him.
I know this is controversial, but if Apple isn't going to care about the hardware any more, perhaps it's time it pulled out of the market and sold macOS as a standalone product for third party PCs. And if they don't want to support it, they can contract that out too, maybe even partner with someone like Canonical (who have a great track record on making a third party OS work on everything out of the box.) With Intel and AMD controlling the entire non-standardized part of the hardware chain it's easier than it's been since the early nineties to produce a single OS that'll work on everything anyway.
It's always been the OS, not the hardware, that's made me crave Macs, but I haven't owned one in over ten years because I just don't trust them with hardware any more, and can't get a Mac with a specification I'm comfortable with.
If they no longer even care, then it's time to let their platform blossom.
Yep. Unfortunately, it turns out he's D. B. Cooper.
They won't even admit their Twitter account's first tweet came from them...
I have nothing against the woman personally, and admire her strength in the fights she's been fighting thus far, but she's one of the trio that GamerGate was targeting, which unfortunately many on Slashdot were heavily supportive of.
Reportedly the IRA (the Russian trolling outfit, not the Irish terrorists) was one of the groups stoking the GamerGame movement, so some may have soured on it, but regardless I don't think Wu will get much support here.
Not sure why (1) you've been swarmed with troll answers or (2) you've been modded down, but it's early in the day and I haven't had enough sleep so I'm probably missing the obvious. But given this is a common question:
Periscope is a live streaming app. You're supposed to use it to broadcast something you're videoing via your phone. So, as one example, there was a recent sit in in Congress to protest the lack of progress on gun control, and the House Speaker cut the C-SPAN feed. So members engaged in the sit-in tweeted links to their Periscope feed, and everyone was able to see the sit in via the live feed instead.
That also probably answers the question "Is there a more convincing reason other than 'It violated trademark law, which I'll confuse with copyright law because TEH MPRIAAPHIAA HATES MY FREEDOMS" for explaining why it's been banned (not merely asked to rename itself, but actually banned.) It's very good for broadcasting things the government doesn't want you to see, when that government is powerful enough to control the regular media.
Seems an expensive way to prove that a "transit" idea is idiotic (although how wide are those tunnels? If they're 12' and straight enough then they might at least be able to repurpose them for London Underground deep bore tunnel style trains once the thing fails. I'm kinda surprised those aren't built more commonly, it's a hell of a lot cheaper to build a 12' tunnel than the full-NEC-loading-gauge type stuff most transit authorities insist on building)
At least no taxpayer's money will be wasted on this.