If efficiency is emissions per passenger mile, then it is the right thing to compare - it tells you the relative emissions for moving the same number of people between the same points by different means of transport.

If you want to just compare emissions, then you'll find that can make a much bigger difference by not going at all than by changing how you go - and indeed plenty of greens will argue that we should just travel less. This tends to miss the point that most people travel for a reason rather than just for the hell of it.

Actually they are about the same - given an average car and average loading - but if your car is more eco than average or you carry more people it _will_ be a lot greener than bus.

You can get complete data for calculating carbon footprint from here: http://www.ukconversionfactors... - choose all scopes and "business travel land" and "passenger vehicles" to get bus and car relative data. There are links to the methodology papers on that site as well - explains what data backs the figures e.g. https://www.gov.uk/government/...

Average local bus (not london) by these figures is 0.11 and average car is 0.18 - but the bus is per passenger per km, and the car is per vehicle. Take an average car occupancy of 1.6 - see e.g. https://www.gov.uk/government/... - and the car is near enough the same as the bus per passenger km.

Now, if you have a more eco car than average or carry more than 1.6 persons on average then your figure may vary. I have a 7 seater which is 170 g/km, to which (according to the methodology links) I should add 15% for the mfrs cheating the tests (actually it gets closer to spec than that) so say a round 200. That car is mostly used to carry at least 5 people, and almost always more than 1, so take a conservative load average of 3 and you have 66g/km or 0.066 vs 0.11 for a bus. That's a lot less. Many new small cars will be less than a bus even with single occupancy.

Thought the fuss about "glassholes" was bad - we ain't seen nothing yet. Combine stuff like this with ability to record - possibly for assistance with memory problems - and replay through the eyes, or send elsewhere.

Might be interesting to see what the US cops do, probably forcibly confiscate and destroy people's eyes for looking at them funny...

I would add the low-end Lumias to that as well - seem to be rock solid and good for the price. We bought a 520 for one kid on the basis that it was about the cheapest available smartphone (and he had to have a smartphone...), on the strength of good experience with that have since bought a 630 too. Having mapping and navigation apps that work without data connection is a big plus.

I still say that classic Blackberrys are as good as you get for stability, starting to worry that mine is showing its age because I've had to reboot twice in 6months... but I have no idea what to replace it with - all I need is good email/contacts/calendar management, maps and maybe navigation, news/weather, bit of social networking, bit of web browsing, and I hate touchscreen keyboards (so that's another blackberry then?)

Calc still has hard row/column limits similar to ten year old excel.

Writer still has no outline view (or draft view) similar to Word 2000 or earlier - bug report / feature requests outstanding since 2002 I think, and at least second most highly voted feature across all that time.

Those decade lags _do_ imply real problems - in each case the underlying architecture cannot cope with the wanted features.

What makes people _think_ fewer FLOSS projects fail is that people only look at the successful ones because they are the most visible. Commercial failures are very visible because of the amount of money lost, people do post mortems, studies to "make sure we don't make the same costly mistakes again". With FLOSS no one cares about the failures, they just move on to something else.

IT is not alone in this problem, take construction / civil engineering, we judge by the failures: "this bridge has cracks, there are bits falling off this skyscraper, these houses are subsiding". We want impossible success rates: "why with all our building standards and fancy technology do we still get these problems". Then we look at, say, medieval cathedrals and say "see, those medieval stone masons had none of our fancy technology, they didn't have computers to calculate stress and strain, and yet they built all these beautiful cathedrals that have stood for centuries".

Why can't we be as successful as medieval stone masons / FLOSS projects ? Answer: you can. Just be sure to clear up the piles of fallen stone and above all do not document or dwell on your failures, move on and they will be forgotten.

You're missing the point - you can get a prosthetic limb on the NHS but it won't be delivered by f***ing Iron Man will it? And when it breaks, will Iron Man fly in through you roof to fix it, and then depart through your wall, leaving holes you'll treasure forever ? - no, thought not. This isn't boring old extract money from your taxes to pay for health care stuff, this is _Hollywood_, it's the all American exciting and fun way to extract money from your wallet for the same shit you watched last year in order to pay for one kid to get a new arm.

Only one kid gets an arm, of course, because provided you make sure he looks good on camera, you can just reuse the shots again and again. Sucks if you aren't the one, but hey that's Hollywood, ya shouldn't have been ugly or a loser...

See aforementioned "unhealthy sexual practices"...

Here's one thing - open your old Excel marco spreadsheets and have them work just the same as in Excel.

Can't do that ? Well then you've got to convert them, take cost of converting them vs. cost of Office licence - are you still saving anything ?

Or you parallel run, do new stuff in OO and use Excel for old ones, probably for several years (7 or more at a guess if it's financial stuff) until the old stuff is no longer needed. Now you're not switching from VBA to OOBasic, you're having to learn both and be productive in both at the same time, which is a lot harder, and you won't save anything in Office costs for years.

Nope, it's not.

Come back when it has things like Outline View, first requested oooh about 13yrs ago ( https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show... ), been highest voted or second highest bug/request ever since, but not fixed in 13yrs (apparently it required some reworking of the architecture, and apparently this was done back in 2010...). Having a equivalent of Normal View is also highly voted - I don't use that as much but I can see that if you work on certain types of document layouts it would be essential.

Track changes also lags MS Office significantly.

Excel removed ridiculously low row/column limits almost a decade ago, LO will still only do 1024 columns AFAIK - again, apparently fixing this is too hard. I might only need that for a handful of spreadsheets, but if I have to buy Office anyway for those cases, why would I also use LO and have to master two different tools when I can use Office for everything.

Trouble with OO/LO is similar to electric cars, 80/20 or 90/10 is not a success (against an incumbent tech), it's a problem - if OO/LO can do 90% of my documents or even 95%, I still need Office for the other ones. Similarly if range & charging have improved so that the electric car can do 90% of my journeys or even 95%, that's great - but I still need a fossil fuel car for the others. If I have to have two cars, or two Office suites, instead of one then the new one needs to offer something really compelling that the incumbent doesn't have - and OO/LO doesn't, for me, yet.

Not just the icons either - the buttons are uniformly a disaster. Title bar buttons, explorer controls etc. have all been reduced to ultra thin (single pixel?) pictograms that are flat and borderless. If your eyesight is poor the lines are so thin they start to disappear.

Borderless seems to be the modern style but it too has usability issues - the only way to see the active target area of a button (or even if it is a button) is to hover over it. For the life of me I can't figure out how this is supposed to work for touch - seems the idea is to highlight what you just hit. Take a look at the new calculator, the buttons are just flat text with quite a large (in proportion) button area round the text but no way to see where the actual buttons are.

There are other areas of the UI where buttons and not-buttons look exactly the same, or in-active buttons look the same as active ones, or, in fact I'm not sure what they are, inactive buttons or information or something else. Worst trait of web design brought to the desktop - "hey we can make buttons out of anything", "including things that don't look like buttons, brilliant", "how do users know what buttons look like to click them", "they don't, that's what's brilliant". NO it ****ing isn't.

Maybe, but that doesn't explain it. 768 is the _minimum_ vertical res for Windows, and Surface Pro runs at up to 2160 x 1440.

Yeah that worked right up to the time everything went mobile. Still just about works for high end gaming but that's it.

Nothing is plugged in now, kids or devices, unless it's charging. All is wireless and portable and trivial to hide what you are doing even for feet away. Todays kids come home with tablets provided by the school which need to connect to the net to do their homework. Yes, really, they do.

People need to understand that todays kids have grown up with this stuff, they are intuitively familiar with it in the way we never will be - I was writing games in assembly language at age 12, but when I need to know how to do something on a phone I ask my kids, its quicker than Google. We will never out control or outsmart our kids on tech, best we can do is pass on our experience so they are prepared, and they'll still catch us out.

And yet as soon as you get into their full-OS transformers the screen res becomes lousy - the TF100TA comes really really close to being all I need on the road (as long as I move dev to cloud based vms - but lugging around a laptop that can run vms is getting old and tiring), but biggest let down is the 1366x768 display. Since I would also like it slightly bigger, I was really looking forward to TF200TA with 11in screen - but they made it 1366x768 again. Really don't see why they think that they have to have high res for Android and lowest possible res for a tablet that can run full Windows / Office.

Really ? I don't think you've seen really messy legacy code then.
Try >10k LOC per file, 13k lines in a _view_, that's a mess - a "do not touch" mess.
Oh, and 200k LOC is a small project, really.