Not particularly. If the city which you're planning has major population centres spread out in a non-grid-alignment, or conflicting routes, it's very ineffective to use a grid. Unless you want endless queues of people turning left-right-left-right, or driving clear across town to make one turn, then clear back to get to their destination. Or into the sun at sunset/sunrise. Again, it's cheap and easy, but it's far from ideal.
That's not saying anything particularly nice about either Vegas or Chicago. I doubt you'll find many major European cities which strive to be as vapid as Vegas or as post-industrial-shit as Chicago. Paris, London, Berlin, Rome, Vienna, etc. all have their particular style, which is (whether deserved or not) "hundreds of years old, home to some of the most important art in the world, birthplace of western civilisation, etc. etc. etc.", not "look we've got cheap slots" or "come look at our trains in the sky".
In city planning, simplest/cheapest is rarely the best option. Having elevated railways would damage cities based on tourism, as all their favourite tourist destinations and vistas would be blighted by utterly utilitarian mass-transit systems. "Simplest/cheapest" in city planning means cookie-cutter houses, grid-layout for streets, poor public transport. Heck - "simplest/cheapest" means Los Angeles. Yikes.
And has been pointed out, excavations in Europe often turn up lots of interesting stuff. Usually not whole cities (but that has happened), but usually lots of artifacts of major historical value, which would never have been found (and carefully excavated and put on display) had the initial construction never been attempted.
According to this page, when I looked at it, the US could have built 4,722.5 miles of maglev track for the cost of the war in Iraq. That's nearly twice the distance between NY and LA, as the crow flies.
Most European cities would shit a brick if you suggested putting in an elevated monorail. Underground is far more expensive, but far more desirable, as it doesn't spoil the view that has taken hundreds of years to evolve.
No, it is actual Windows. It's XP, runs the same binaries, requires at least 32MB of non-volatile storage and 32MB of RAM. It's the real deal. You don't have to recompile applications - they run out of the box.
UNIX was not "better" than Windows back in the early days. They were both suited to different tasks. For some things, Windows was far better. For running a mainframe, UNIX was much better. It's all about using the right tool for the right job. There is no such thing as the perfect OS - one will always be superior in one particular role or job. Windows got a great start as it could run on any x86 computer (unlike Apple, who sold it only on proprietary hardware, and fought cloners tooth-and-nail to stop them from succeeding). Windows also had far more user-friendly features than UNIX did. It installed more easy, was fluffy enough to not scare people, and it hid the "scary" parts of a computer from its end users. Microsoft seemed to have realised they didn't have to make the best OS across the spectrum, but just to focus on that which they originally started - applications for business and home on the _desktop_. Apples were best for DTP work back in the day, simply because they had better graphics cards and drivers (because, as I pointed out earlier, the market for Apples was far more highly-controlled than its more-open Windows counterpart).
As for Linux being able to do most things Windows can do, well, you're right. It can do most things. Unfortunately, the few things it can't do are deal-stoppers for many folks. Some killer apps, like Microsoft Office, simply don't run under Linux. Open Office? Again - it's not 100% compatible, so you just shift the problem of compatibility from the OS to the office suite. WINE? Well, that's not running under Linux but using a rather incomplete hack to use Windows binaries on Linux. Games are another thing. And suites like Adobe (which preclude Linux being installed in many, many workplaces which are full to bursting with tech-savvy Linux users) simply don't work, and there are no replacements.
Good luck to Linux - I can't wait for it to do 100% what Windows does. Unfortunately, it's trying to play catch-up with a far more well-funded OS, and regardless of which one you think is best, that can't be good for Linux. It doesn't have the market clout to get people to develop drivers for it, which means hardware support will always be at least one step behind Windows, and even behind the Mac.
Vista is not pretty buggy, nor poorly designed. I suggest you see just how many people are actually using it, and then correlate that with the "horror stories". There are already more people using Vista than all versions of OS X combined. Of course there are hiccups, but the vast, vast majority of users are having no problems. No-one's going to sell column inches with "Vista's A-OK for me" stories. I find it hilarious that the/. consensus is to scream blue murder about FUD about any OS apart from Windows, but let Windows FUD spew forth.
This just in: Apple stock rose 4%, Microsoft's stock dipped 7%, and the world got 8% more stupid on the use of the cunning phrase "PeeCee" in a slashdot post.
Embedded Windows can fit in pretty tiny spaces. You can have an install of Windows 98 (including explorer) in 9MB. Windows might not scale as well as Linux (it clearly doesn't), but it's not going anywhere, and Linux still has a lot of work to do before it can really challenge it in the one place Linux is currently beaten - the desktop. I can't wait for Linux to be able to do everything currently possible in Windows - more choice is good for everyone.
That's quite a leap of faith there, considering there is no information that says that's the case. If the advertising only raises a portion of the cost required to produce the DVD, why on earth should they give it away? If a DVD costs $30, the advertising generates $15, you should pay $15 for it, not $0. You buy magazines and newspapers, and they have advertising...
If it means the difference between being able to pay for a DVD and not, how is this bad? Do you get to skip the adverts at the cinema? As for advertising in games, if it reduces the cost of the game *and* makes the game more realistic (as there is quite a bit of advertising in real life, in case you haven't noticed), what's wrong with that?
Vodafone is just doing what retailers do all over the world - they're calling out a competitor who's flaunting the law. And as we saw, the Judge agreed with them, and shot down T-Mobile's actions. So Vodafone, by doing what they did, stopped the illegal action, and can now not do the same thing. The only way they could do the same is if the judge said there's no problem with it, which would never happen, as T-Mobile is not special.
If they were wondering what they could get away with, they'd be doing it, not pointing out that T-Mobile is doing it. The only thing they can hope to gain for themselves by drawing attention to T-Mobile's actions is a level playing field, by making T-Mobile play by the rules. No judge is going to say "oh fuck it then - anyone can sell whatever they want, with whatever strings attached they want, to whoever they want":)
Indeed. You've hit the nail on the head. The only music that can be sold any more is live music, which suits fans and artists alike, and makes record company CEOs scared. Technology has really done a number on the record industry, and about bloody time.
There is a business model that works - it's called "no record companies", and involves musicians making their music, distributing it for free (or allowing people to pay for it if they want to), all to drum up support for their live shows, where they get a cut of the door/bar/merchandise/cloakroom. It's when you think that people have to pay to hear recordings of music that this gets complicated. When you realise recorded music is not the primary product (or indeed any product other than advertisement for live shows and merchandise), it becomes a lot clearer. Give the music away for free, let folks pay if they really want to, and get more people turning up at your shows. Musicians pocket far more money (they're not immediately in the hole, as they are with record companies), fans get as much music as they can handle, and live shows are packed (if the artist is good). You'll end up with shitty musicians not being popular, and great musicians flourishing. As opposed to when record companies get involved, and you get quite the opposite.
What's wrong? It's illegal, in Germany, to tie a handset to a carrier and provide no way of switching carriers it will work with. It's not about anti-monopoly, but pro-consumer. You paid for the phone, you should be able to use it on any network you want to, with any SIM card you want, on any tariff you want.
No, it means they want T-Mobile to operate under the same requirements as everyone else. Believe me - Europe doesn't want the cellfuck that is the US mobile industry. That's why these laws exist.
Here's a better explanation: Company A is selling products under strict laws, and Company B is also selling similar products under the same laws. Company B stops honouring those laws while selling some products, while Company A doesn't. Company A gets Company B to stop selling those products which break the law. Yup - sounds horrible:)
You've got it wrong. Vodafone don't want T-Mobile to be able to dodge the same laws Vodafone is supposed to operate under. T-Mobile are offering a cellphone only on specific tariffs, that is also bound to their network (as opposed to being able to use the iPhone on any tariff you want, or even on any sim card you want). The laws in the EU regarding cellphone operators and sales practices are vastly different to the US.
Slashdot Mirror
Not particularly. If the city which you're planning has major population centres spread out in a non-grid-alignment, or conflicting routes, it's very ineffective to use a grid. Unless you want endless queues of people turning left-right-left-right, or driving clear across town to make one turn, then clear back to get to their destination. Or into the sun at sunset/sunrise. Again, it's cheap and easy, but it's far from ideal.
That's not saying anything particularly nice about either Vegas or Chicago. I doubt you'll find many major European cities which strive to be as vapid as Vegas or as post-industrial-shit as Chicago. Paris, London, Berlin, Rome, Vienna, etc. all have their particular style, which is (whether deserved or not) "hundreds of years old, home to some of the most important art in the world, birthplace of western civilisation, etc. etc. etc.", not "look we've got cheap slots" or "come look at our trains in the sky".
In city planning, simplest/cheapest is rarely the best option. Having elevated railways would damage cities based on tourism, as all their favourite tourist destinations and vistas would be blighted by utterly utilitarian mass-transit systems. "Simplest/cheapest" in city planning means cookie-cutter houses, grid-layout for streets, poor public transport. Heck - "simplest/cheapest" means Los Angeles. Yikes.
And has been pointed out, excavations in Europe often turn up lots of interesting stuff. Usually not whole cities (but that has happened), but usually lots of artifacts of major historical value, which would never have been found (and carefully excavated and put on display) had the initial construction never been attempted.
According to this page, when I looked at it, the US could have built 4,722.5 miles of maglev track for the cost of the war in Iraq. That's nearly twice the distance between NY and LA, as the crow flies.
Most European cities would shit a brick if you suggested putting in an elevated monorail. Underground is far more expensive, but far more desirable, as it doesn't spoil the view that has taken hundreds of years to evolve.
A monorail is far from ideal.
No, it is actual Windows. It's XP, runs the same binaries, requires at least 32MB of non-volatile storage and 32MB of RAM. It's the real deal. You don't have to recompile applications - they run out of the box.
UNIX was not "better" than Windows back in the early days. They were both suited to different tasks. For some things, Windows was far better. For running a mainframe, UNIX was much better. It's all about using the right tool for the right job. There is no such thing as the perfect OS - one will always be superior in one particular role or job. Windows got a great start as it could run on any x86 computer (unlike Apple, who sold it only on proprietary hardware, and fought cloners tooth-and-nail to stop them from succeeding). Windows also had far more user-friendly features than UNIX did. It installed more easy, was fluffy enough to not scare people, and it hid the "scary" parts of a computer from its end users. Microsoft seemed to have realised they didn't have to make the best OS across the spectrum, but just to focus on that which they originally started - applications for business and home on the _desktop_. Apples were best for DTP work back in the day, simply because they had better graphics cards and drivers (because, as I pointed out earlier, the market for Apples was far more highly-controlled than its more-open Windows counterpart).
As for Linux being able to do most things Windows can do, well, you're right. It can do most things. Unfortunately, the few things it can't do are deal-stoppers for many folks. Some killer apps, like Microsoft Office, simply don't run under Linux. Open Office? Again - it's not 100% compatible, so you just shift the problem of compatibility from the OS to the office suite. WINE? Well, that's not running under Linux but using a rather incomplete hack to use Windows binaries on Linux. Games are another thing. And suites like Adobe (which preclude Linux being installed in many, many workplaces which are full to bursting with tech-savvy Linux users) simply don't work, and there are no replacements.
Good luck to Linux - I can't wait for it to do 100% what Windows does. Unfortunately, it's trying to play catch-up with a far more well-funded OS, and regardless of which one you think is best, that can't be good for Linux. It doesn't have the market clout to get people to develop drivers for it, which means hardware support will always be at least one step behind Windows, and even behind the Mac.
Vista is not pretty buggy, nor poorly designed. I suggest you see just how many people are actually using it, and then correlate that with the "horror stories". There are already more people using Vista than all versions of OS X combined. Of course there are hiccups, but the vast, vast majority of users are having no problems. No-one's going to sell column inches with "Vista's A-OK for me" stories. I find it hilarious that the /. consensus is to scream blue murder about FUD about any OS apart from Windows, but let Windows FUD spew forth.
This just in: Apple stock rose 4%, Microsoft's stock dipped 7%, and the world got 8% more stupid on the use of the cunning phrase "PeeCee" in a slashdot post.
Embedded Windows can fit in pretty tiny spaces. You can have an install of Windows 98 (including explorer) in 9MB. Windows might not scale as well as Linux (it clearly doesn't), but it's not going anywhere, and Linux still has a lot of work to do before it can really challenge it in the one place Linux is currently beaten - the desktop. I can't wait for Linux to be able to do everything currently possible in Windows - more choice is good for everyone.
That's quite a leap of faith there, considering there is no information that says that's the case. If the advertising only raises a portion of the cost required to produce the DVD, why on earth should they give it away? If a DVD costs $30, the advertising generates $15, you should pay $15 for it, not $0. You buy magazines and newspapers, and they have advertising...
If it means the difference between being able to pay for a DVD and not, how is this bad? Do you get to skip the adverts at the cinema? As for advertising in games, if it reduces the cost of the game *and* makes the game more realistic (as there is quite a bit of advertising in real life, in case you haven't noticed), what's wrong with that?
Godwin is for kids, sorry.
Vodafone is just doing what retailers do all over the world - they're calling out a competitor who's flaunting the law. And as we saw, the Judge agreed with them, and shot down T-Mobile's actions. So Vodafone, by doing what they did, stopped the illegal action, and can now not do the same thing. The only way they could do the same is if the judge said there's no problem with it, which would never happen, as T-Mobile is not special.
Or get the Windows Home Server, which has volume shadow copy-enabled backups, which will let you revert files or directories back to a specific time.
If they were wondering what they could get away with, they'd be doing it, not pointing out that T-Mobile is doing it. The only thing they can hope to gain for themselves by drawing attention to T-Mobile's actions is a level playing field, by making T-Mobile play by the rules. No judge is going to say "oh fuck it then - anyone can sell whatever they want, with whatever strings attached they want, to whoever they want" :)
I always thought "Copyright Infringement Lagoon" was far catchier.
Indeed. You've hit the nail on the head. The only music that can be sold any more is live music, which suits fans and artists alike, and makes record company CEOs scared. Technology has really done a number on the record industry, and about bloody time.
There is a business model that works - it's called "no record companies", and involves musicians making their music, distributing it for free (or allowing people to pay for it if they want to), all to drum up support for their live shows, where they get a cut of the door/bar/merchandise/cloakroom. It's when you think that people have to pay to hear recordings of music that this gets complicated. When you realise recorded music is not the primary product (or indeed any product other than advertisement for live shows and merchandise), it becomes a lot clearer. Give the music away for free, let folks pay if they really want to, and get more people turning up at your shows. Musicians pocket far more money (they're not immediately in the hole, as they are with record companies), fans get as much music as they can handle, and live shows are packed (if the artist is good). You'll end up with shitty musicians not being popular, and great musicians flourishing. As opposed to when record companies get involved, and you get quite the opposite.
It's up to California to figure out if anything important changed, not ES&S. Democracy is kind of important?
What's wrong? It's illegal, in Germany, to tie a handset to a carrier and provide no way of switching carriers it will work with. It's not about anti-monopoly, but pro-consumer. You paid for the phone, you should be able to use it on any network you want to, with any SIM card you want, on any tariff you want.
No, it means they want T-Mobile to operate under the same requirements as everyone else. Believe me - Europe doesn't want the cellfuck that is the US mobile industry. That's why these laws exist.
Here's a better explanation: Company A is selling products under strict laws, and Company B is also selling similar products under the same laws. Company B stops honouring those laws while selling some products, while Company A doesn't. Company A gets Company B to stop selling those products which break the law. Yup - sounds horrible :)
So a 2GHz Core 2 Duo chip is no slower than a 3GHz Core 2 Duo chip? Is that what you're saying? :)
You've got it wrong. Vodafone don't want T-Mobile to be able to dodge the same laws Vodafone is supposed to operate under. T-Mobile are offering a cellphone only on specific tariffs, that is also bound to their network (as opposed to being able to use the iPhone on any tariff you want, or even on any sim card you want). The laws in the EU regarding cellphone operators and sales practices are vastly different to the US.
No, it's an honest account. But please feel free to joke instead of engaging my response. It does wonders for my argument.