Those of us who do support on systems from many different clients really don't wonder why they still exist.

HURD is one thing; we don't really wonder why it's stillborn. OS/2, or more specifically eComStation, is something else entirely. OS/2 has a history of commercial support, which means it's also got a history of applications with support. Support means that people used those applications, on the OS, in a business capacity. Think of OSes like: SCO, DOS, and yes, OS/2.

Just because the OS, and application, support goes away doesn't mean those applications aren't still needed. There are a LOT of applications out there which were written one-off, for a single client in a specific role. The companies that wrote them may not even be in business anymore, but the application still works and the the cost of

So people are running their applications on legacy operating systems, sometimes on some pretty janky hardware (I once saw an old box with IDE controllers on a proprietary IDE RAID controller - with half the RAID consisting of CF cards on adapters). Maybe they've managed to virtualize the platform, or partially virtualize it (such as when there's a hardware platform to the application, requiring COM port bridging to the guest so that a USB to COM adapter can be used to interface with a proprietary reader/etc. - you get the point).

No, it's not an ideal business scenario, and there are certainly situations where a lot can go wrong, ruining your day. But There are a lot of these companies, which means there's a special use case for support. Or just in-house people needing to upgrade things to keep as much of their stack compatible as they can.

So yeah, there is still a need for such legacy platforms. Just because it's not shiney and new doesn't mean it's lacking a valid business case.

The significant factor in fragmentation is whether or not it's disruptive fragmentation. To date, the existence of GNOME has not greatly hindered the adoption of KDE. Nobody is going to reject Firefox OS because another company has adopted Ubuntu Touch any more than people are going to reject Android for Ubuntu Touch because companies are starting to adopt Ubuntu Touch. No, these platforms will be judged on their merit and applicability to the desired result and chosen accordingly.

If anything, the variety and maturity of alternatives will weaken the hold that established platforms have. Are people rejecting their Apple devices because of Android market dominance? No. Neither is the opposite true, and it's quite obvious that vendors of Android devices have taken historic momentary successes as an incentive to jump into the market themselves.

You're lucky the inspector was so generous. In most places, they'd just fine you outright, many times the cost of a permit. You have to either be crafty and get things done quickly on your own, spend a fair amount of money and time getting everything properly papered and stamped (expensive if you value your time), or hire the work out to be done. DIY has been largely squashed by meddling bureaucrats..

If you were in Texas, arguably you could've just shot the bastard if he made any argument with your reasoning. :P

Yeah, I agree with you. Though as a caveat, a Czech socialist is kind of like a Belgian redneck capitalist in ideology. The Czech Republic seems to be one of the few marginally functional, economically sane, governments in that part of the world.

Lobbyists? Don't be silly, they'll not waste their time with elected officials for this one. They've already bought them, as well as the regulatory positions they help create.

These ditch diggers will probably get slapped with something outrageous. I'd wager something relating to environmental impact and destruction, having not completed the proper impact analysis forms and commenced with a multiyear study of how the purple wren's natural habitat will be impacted and....

Er, in this case, maybe you should. You sounded quite similar to what many people seem to actually argue these days. :|

Neither you, nor my GP, appear to have the slightest clue what "capitalist" means.

The GP describes a (presumably) democratic socialist state and then calls it capitalism. Wrong.

Parent describes yet another form of Marxist principle implementation - state run or controlled industry, such as became the case in eg. Germany, Italy, and Russia, and It and calls it crony capitalist. (It's also called just totalitarianism, and a hundred other things like neo-feudalism, but capitalist it is not.)

At first read, I thought, "Quite evidently you are a statist and lack imagination or drive." Either that, or you simply haven't driven the right car. Then I read:

I stand corrected. Bravo, sir. Bravo. I was seriously considering picking an '86 up not long ago, but the initial cost of having to redo the whole suspension was a bit much at the time. I've been keeping my eye out for one where it's already been converted, preferably with Chevy parts... I ended up getting a CUCV instead (I wanted/needed the 4WD): not quite the same class of vehicle, but it has a similar aesthetic.

The irony is that if we hadn't had such a significant road building project in the US under FDR (arguably one of the more statist Presidents we've had), we would likely have quite a bit more rail travel.

The problem with something like this is boils down to several major problems:
* Intersection of the rail and roadways, and transportation on either side of that transition. Nobody is going to buy a railcar they can't "drive" to their door and park at their office, so you have to maintain "legacy support" for roadways. This also (potentially) adds the requirement of multiple, independent drive systems in the vehicle.
* interfacing with existing rail systems, or having to build out an entirely different infrastructure: Do you do overhead rail or, due to the primary requirement above, figure out how to make a roadway compatible vehicle that can mate to either a monorail (overhead) or an adapter of some sort to interface with traditional rail.
* personal/private ownership of the vehicles, particularly trying to figure out the first point so personal ownership of such a railcar would be desirable.
* building out a massive rail system to accommodate something like this and make it practical. Unfortunately, this makes it a chicken and egg problem which necessitates a "massive financial incentive problem" (a problem, because it would likely have to come from public coffers and might not ).
* controlling the chaos of scheduling railways - no way you're going to be able to have privately controlled cars on a railway system (you'll have eg. people going both 20 and 200 miles per hour).

Personally, the only way I can see "private cars on railways" work is if it's as a portage type service - probably as a quasi-portage type service for vehicles. Either have a railway flatbed of some sort (highly modified, since they're only 10' wide) pull up to a single row of parking spaces, where people will be waiting with their cars, allowing them to drive on. The only other similar option I can see are 'baskets' with a complex/numerous crane system for rotating the baskets onto the rail cars.

Ultimately, it'll never happen, despite how cool and interesting it'd be if something like that came about. There's simply too much money in the way of it happening, and a half dozen competing chicken/egg scenarios between here and the goal...

Jihadist engineers working at Siemens, under the false presumption that Siemens power plants would only be employed in Western countries?

Personally, I can't see a benefit to a car like this other than "it looks like it's on the Jetsons". Road noise reduction, maybe? Reduced vehicle drag (though obviously not in this early design)? But then you've got a gyro spinning at all times very nearby, and a significant single point of failure which says "sliding off the road sideways at 50+mph".

You're also going to have a significant reduction in traction control with something like this, not to mention decreased handling control (large, balanced mass and all that) and possibly even worse fuel economy (due to having to have the gyro powered, and its additional weight).

There are some modern 2-seat implementations of something like this, though I believe most of them are trikes. They look like a jetfighter cockpit and are very cool, with their basis conceptualized off moderate displacement motorcycle, not a car. That, I think, would be the way to go.

Not likely, as a flywheel is only going to be turning in a single direction and, I suspect, the gearing of having that inline to your drive wheel is going to cause not only excessive weight and complexity but structural weakness.

That sounds like a challenge, actually, though I've only got about 24" of snow clearance... How far could you get in with a 4x4 with a snomobile on the back?

My favorite places are all off the beaten trail as well.

Radiation?

Dude, it's going to take them 2 years in hermetically sealed microgravity to get there! I'm 30, and I've not had the need for a doctor in over a decade. My grandmother has been going to the doctor almost every month since she was 60 for one reason or another (and she's 80 now), and she's a healthy old person, comparably.

Dying from radiation poisoning is the least of their concerns for something like this. Simply dying of what would amount to 'exposure' is probably pretty high on the list. Sending anyone over 50 would be stupid; anyone over 40 foolish, and honestly, anyone under 20 similarly brash. The end goal here would not be to 'preserve their life', it would be to explore (presumably). Who cares if they die? It's their choice on whether or not they'd want to go on the adventure.

No, for something like this, you'd probably want a young adult at the youngest. Hopefully you can find those who are either biologically or culturally unable/unwilling to have children, as such drives are somewhat disruptive to plans. Eunices or priests, maybe? Or just common IT types and a hooker or two...

If you send old people, they will lack the drive and creativity young people do. For this specific case, 35 might as well be "old".

If you send people much younger than 18, you're going to run into a problem of irresponsibility and emotional/mental problems as they reach young adulthood (when most mental illness becomes evident, at least with men; it doesn't seem to manifest until menopause with most women).

Panic and "oh shit" mistakes resulting from lack of life experience, and a diminished ability to deal with extraordinary scenarios, are going to be way, way more costly than sending another person. "Yeah, you remember Jim? No, not the first Jim, the second Jim that came here and ran over Habitat Dome 1 and killed the first 30 people on planet? Yeah, apparently his sister is 12 now, so she's coming out here. Get ready..."

What's a bookend?

They're going to have to redesign the decks for the simple fact that the Titanic was not a cruise ship, it was a passage (aka passenger) ship. Cruise ships are going to have to have a lot more comfort and room available.

That said, drinking, eating, and sitting around doing nothing are the primary activities on a cruise (I'd imagine). You can do that in any 'class' on the ship, conceivably. But I do imagine they'd improve berthing a bit for the 'general transport' class to more effectively use the space.

Honestly, I think it's a splendid idea for those who want to 'disconnect' from modern distractions for a while. There are a lot of us who do. We need a detox, and being able to say "Sorry boss, I won't be available for the next week. At all." has a lot of appeal. You've only got a couple ways to do it now:

* Go on a normal vacation but leave your phone off. This puts the burden of responsibility for missed calls squarely on you. And you're still likely to 'check in' because you're addicted.
* Go to a very, very remote 'destination' vacation: remote to the point where you have neither a hotel or coffee shop near by, or cell service. I can only think of like, one or two places in WY and SD where this applies, but I'm sure AK has a couple, too...

This is a 'guilt free' option. Honestly, the only downside I can see to a Victorian era cruise aside from how fake it'll be (I don't doubt they'll skimp on the decorations and use eg. cheaper woods and furnishing materials) is the lack of air conditioning (and/or heat?). But maybe they'll provide that, too.