Obviously the rational algorithm is to convert to binary then do the math, then convert back. That's what we do with decimal, and it's not hard.

If you wanted to make it a bit harder you'd note that Roman numerals are basically base 10, with multiple characters per decimal place. So you'd do the equivalent of BCD arithmetic.

I suppose the interesting one is if you insist that the algorithm do the math with each character it encounters, as it encounters it, then forgets the character.

No it doesn't. Non-free apps have the price on the button. Free with in-app says "Get", with the words "In app purchases" below the button. Free with no in-app purchases just say "Get".

This is simply changing the word "free" to "get". No information is lost whatsoever.

That's the voice of a lack of experience. The choice to change free to get is one made FROM experience. Both "Free" and "Get" are correct. But "Free" annoys people when it's really just a switch and bait. "Get" is less annoying.

Robot vacs don't have overheads like insurance, tax and parking fees.

Bet you don't own an iOS device anyway. In which case your opinion is irrelevant.

Because an app that doesn't offer in-app purchases now, might do so next month.

Because it was even rarer for a developer to make any money.

There are hundreds of thousands of junctions in the UK. 10s of projects does not make any significant difference.

I figured that's what you were doing. Yet local roads are significant. Few journeys start and end by a motorway or dual-carriageway. And people experience most of their hours sitting in congested traffic whilst commuting, most of which is on local roads.

And what of the M4 bus lane scheme, where it was deemed that using fewer lanes for cars actually speeded up the cars journeys? Having a short 3 lane motorway section between a two lane motorway section and one end and and a major off-ramp at the other was inefficient, and slowed traffic. - The bus lane effectively just became a way of using the tarmac that had been set aside for car efficiency sake.

Jeremy Clarkson does one of his ill-educated rants on Top Gear, and the politicians become fearful of white-van man, and overturn the traffic experts scheme. Resulting in worse traffic congestion for all.

The ONLY way they can be avoided altogether is with flyovers/unders. And other than motorways, they are as rare as hens teeth. A miniscule fraction of a percent of junctions. And that's not changing.

Widening motorways doesn't create junctions, but it does pour ever more traffic onto the existing roundabouts that most motorway sliproads feed onto. With ever lengthening queues to get on and get off the motorways as a result.

You talk of projects to simplify junctions. And that's true. But equally more and more junctions with traffic lights or roundabouts are created. Every time theres a new housing estate, business park or supermarket built for starters. Plus wider busier roads mean more pelican crossings are created.

Common sense is commonly wrong. There is no finite population. The number of cars increases every year.

http://racfoundation.wordpress...

Nor is there an eventual limitation of the population figure, as the population rises every year too.

And you are thinking about it in the wrong way completely when you talk of "road space". The only thing space gives predictably you is car parks. The road system is a mostly 2D network. And as such it's limited by it's nodes. The bottlenecks are the junctions.

I'm not the victim. But you are one of the abusers.

I said why you can't, and you've done nothing to address those reasons why not. You just have an empty and unjustified belief that you can. A belief contradicted not only by logic, but by history.

Stop apologising for abusers. You're part of the problem.

So there's different answers for different locales. London for example could not work without trains. It was the trains that were the catalyst for it to grow so big and for the housing to be made in the suburbs.

Likewise with Japan - it has a relatively small and long/thin main island, which is heavily populated. Universal car ownership won't work. But having trains running up and down the country and in and out of the cities works perfectly.

The UK roads are becoming increasingly congested, and that can't be cured by building more roads. The CPO and quality of life issues you've raised for rail also apply to roads. But there's also the issue that building more roads means more junctions. And junctions cause yet more congestion. It's not feasible to avoid more than a tiny number of junctions by making flyovers.

That's why it makes sense to invest in rail. Because every 1.x passenger means one fewer car on the road. It's very debatable whether HS2 is the best investment to make in rail. But the principle of investing in rail is not wrong.