Slashdot Mirror


User: Alan+Partridge

Alan+Partridge's activity in the archive.

Stories
0
Comments
3,901
First seen
Last seen
Profile
(view on slashdot.org)

Comments · 3,901

  1. Re:Only the English! on Amphibious Car Beats Urban Congestion · · Score: 1

    My neighbours' Range Rover has a 4.6 litre V8. It is SCARY to drive around corners in, and gets around 10mpg. It also costs over 80 quid to fill up with fuel! My Mazda is a) faster b) cheaper c) MUCH more reliable d) MUCH less expensive to run and insure e) MUCH better looking f) MILES more comfortable. And his Range Rover also has LESS interior space/versatility than the average Ford Focus.

    That makes the Range Rover pretty ludicrous in my book. He does keep it immaculately clean though, and it's a lovely shade of blue...

  2. Re:Only the English! on Amphibious Car Beats Urban Congestion · · Score: 1

    I did write 'Range Rover'. Are you comprehension impaired?

  3. Re:Nice idea but sportscar it isn't on Amphibious Car Beats Urban Congestion · · Score: 1

    Because the speed limit's 70mph, of course.

  4. Re:Empty rivers... on Amphibious Car Beats Urban Congestion · · Score: -1, Redundant

    One does (or did) exist - don't think it is (or was) a particularly roaring financial success.

  5. Re:pollution ? on Amphibious Car Beats Urban Congestion · · Score: 2, Informative

    London's 'smog' is nothing compared to that of many major cities. What you experienced was probably just the English Permacast(R) weather that we 'enjoy' over here. Apparently, London is overcast fully 50% of the time!

  6. Re:Only the English! on Amphibious Car Beats Urban Congestion · · Score: 2, Informative

    But didn't Land Rover invent the SUV when it designed the ludicrous Range Rover? The original and best SUV, surely?

  7. Re:Nice idea but sportscar it isn't on Amphibious Car Beats Urban Congestion · · Score: 2, Informative

    Not legally, it can't.

  8. Re:Was it also resistant... on Amphibious Car Beats Urban Congestion · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's not all that filthy, actually - doesn't smell bad at all. You wouldn't want to swim in it though, it's tidal (in London) and extremely treacherous.

  9. Re:Where will I enter/exit the water? on Amphibious Car Beats Urban Congestion · · Score: 1

    I'm sorry, shouldn't that be HAZZARD?

  10. Re:yeah on Amphibious Car Beats Urban Congestion · · Score: 1

    That would be fun, but rather dangerous. The English Channel is somewhat crowded.

    Still, people SWIM it, I suppose...

  11. Re:Better still, employees do it too on Universal Music To Cut CD Prices · · Score: 1

    It's even worse than that, in fact. Direct taxation that isn't properly progressive is crap, but indirect taxation (the majority of the tax that MOST people pay) is not means tested in ANY way.

  12. Re:It's about time on Universal Music To Cut CD Prices · · Score: 1

    Are you actually telling us that you got LESS takehome pay after a RAISE?

    Your tax system is clearly the dumbest in the universe - all the others have a PROGRESSIVE system where it is merely a rise in your MARGINAL rate of tax that you suffer when you get a raise.

  13. Re:+5 Interesting?? on VideoNOW PVD Reverse Engineering · · Score: 1

    community!

    hardy fuckin har!

  14. Re:Photophone != Videophone on What's Always Next? · · Score: 1

    21?

  15. Re:Photophone != Videophone on What's Always Next? · · Score: 1

    Not logical at all, unless you think that video phones will be integrated in some way with conventional video systems. The most obvious framerate to use is "only just high enough".

  16. Re:Photophone != Videophone on What's Always Next? · · Score: 1

    Yeah, so what? Why are you constraining videophones with million-year-old NTSC crap?

  17. Re:Photophone != Videophone on What's Always Next? · · Score: 1

    That's very interesting. What's so special about the number 25?

  18. Re:Photophone != Videophone on What's Always Next? · · Score: 2, Insightful

    and what, pray tell, is so special about the number 30?

  19. Re:Downplayed!? on Armageddon... in 2014. Almost. · · Score: 1

    You could always just LEARN the fucking word.

  20. Re:Hmm. Not much of a review. on Comparative G5/G4 Tests · · Score: 2, Informative

    The vec-dst issue is one problem, but just review the G4e article at arstechnica and have a look at the G4e's Altivec execution unit design - it's a generation ahead of that in the PPC 970 (which is approximate in execution resources to the Altivec unit of the MPC 7400 - albeit running at 2-4 times the 7410's clock rate!)

  21. Re:Hmm. Not much of a review. on Comparative G5/G4 Tests · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Barefeats is a "real world" benchmarking site. No benchmarking is TRULY scientific, and Rob at Barefeats hardly pretends to be. Still, the benchmarks that he posts give a good general indication of the performance you can expect.

    The G5 is NOT going to excel at Altivec optimised code, the G4 will remain the Altivec champ until IBM puts the kind of Altivec resources onto the 970 that Moto put onto the 745x series. For most other stuff, the G5 will wipe the floor with the G3 and G4 chips.

  22. Re:Downplayed!? on Armageddon... in 2014. Almost. · · Score: 1

    There's no ARGUMENT here - you just can't spell. Can your tie your shoelaces unassisted?

  23. Re:hungary really has some bright folks on MPlayer 1.0Pre1 Is Here · · Score: 1

    You're right!

    Better tell that to the students at Cambridge, Oxford, UCL, LSE etc etc etc. They'll be crushed.

  24. Re:2.6 billion tonnes? on Armageddon... in 2014. Almost. · · Score: 1

    Tonnes are, indeed, Metric and defined as 1 Tonne = 1000 KG - and are therefore a unit of mass. Exactly what tons are (or even tuns) I'll leave as an exercise for those who give a toss about imperial units in 2003.

  25. Re:Downplayed!? on Armageddon... in 2014. Almost. · · Score: 1

    People so stupid and ignorant that they can't spell DESCEND, you mean?

    Fuckwit.