>not least filtering in traffic so they're not going away anytime soon.

when two wheel vehicles get "filtered" from traffic, they tend to "go away" for extended periods, if not permanently . . .

word 5.1 and excel 4, Mac, were the last products out of Redmond that I saw any reason to buy (and I did).

At the time, Word on the Mac and Word for dos had *nothing* in common other than the name.

Well, they could *kind of* read one another's files--but you lost things like inserted charts in the process!

The Mac Word was the best available at the time (unless you needed certain things like WP), while the DOS/Windows version was a distance third, propped up only by the lack of a viable fourth.

Word 6, though, tossed the Mac version and imposed the second rate dos version on everyone. It was reported that a researcher found timing slugs in the Mac version so as to make it slower than the windows version.

Anyway, many things that worked and were useful in 5.1 (usable equations, anyone? plain text mail merge?) were gone in 6, replaced with glitz. And to add insult to injury, when word 6 opened a 5.1 file, it would rewrite it in 6 format *on opening*, and without seeking permission! I think it was even overriding RO status, as I recall having to use physical write protection on diskettes.

Because as has been discussed countless times, public transport doesn't go to/from where people need and sucks if you need to carry more than a small bag.

Then maybe we should put more effort into developing public transit systems that don't suck. Design a more sensible route system that minimizes the number of transfers people need to take, and increase frequency so needing to take a transfer isn't such a pain. Make sure the transit system goes to the places people most want to go. Also, FWIW, transit is not nearly the pain you say it is if you have large bags. I've taken suitcases on public transit with no problem, and I regularly see people with lots of stuff.

FWIW, old people are a good example of exactly why we need better public transit. Many old people fight to keep their drivers' licenses even when they're no longer capable of driving safely because they depend on driving for any kind of mobility. The idea of someone driving themselves home after their chemotherapy appointment should terrify everyone; chemo brain is real, and people who drive with it are a danger to everyone around them. Providing useful public transit would help all the people who are no longer fit to drive, or are too young to get a license, or can't afford a car.

The difference is that cars react worse to high demand than trains do. The capacity limit of a train is usually based on how often the train runs. It's usually possible to increase capacity by running more frequently, which actually improves the quality of service by making people wait less*. Very few rail systems- basically only the very busiest urban subways- have ever gotten to the point of maximizing the capacity of the rails, and the capacity of those systems dwarfs any roadway you can build for comparable cost.

In contrast, roads behave very badly when you try to crowd too many cars onto them. They actually reach their maximum capacity in people transported per unit time at some point below their maximum physical capacity for cars. When you try to shove too many cars on them, they slow down and you wind up with a traffic jam. Rail doesn't have an equivalent because it's centrally managed, and the operator never puts too many cars on the tracks. We could try harder to keep roads at or below their maximum capacity, but drivers complain incessantly anytime you try to impose congestion pricing.

*There's a quality breakpoint on any kind of shared transportation system (trains, buses, etc.) where the wait time is short compared to the ride time, so people feel like they don't need to consult a timetable anymore. They can just show up and wait for the next ride without having to plan in detail.

Yet another technology that relies on people not knowing how it works or being able to cheaply build the hardware to spoof it.

It's likely backed up by legal penalties, too. It's been illegal to mount emergency lights on non-emergency vehicles for a good long time, and I would guess they extended the laws to tricking traffic lights the way you suggest as well. It won't be that hard to catch anyone who tries, either. Once the authorities think somebody is cheating the system, they just have to put a camera on the sensor to take a picture of the vehicle that's triggering it.

This sounds great until you realize it leaves no space for pedestrians or bicyclists. It's the big problem with modern traffic engineering in a nutshell: it is designed to optimize the flow of cars, not people. We can move a lot more people if we put them into trains or buses or have them walk or cycle than if they're driving in their own cars.

You forgot to show your math.

I'm guessing that this kind of criminal isn't much in to social niceties.

Sounds like an Ubuntu release.

On YT I've seen a couple of "reaction" videos where the observer absolutely freaks out over old videos of The Who smashing their instruments.

I am a lawyer. In fact, I'm a bankruptcy lawyer. Nonetheless, this isn't legal advice, but a comment on procedure.

This wasn't a class action. There aren't big contingency fees.

The way a bankruptcy distribution of x% works is that each unsecured claimant gets a check for x% of the claim.

The attorneys get paid separately from the estate as an "administrative expense".

The unsecured creditors usually don't *have* attorneys, although in larger cases such as this, a creditor's committee is generally appointed, and it gets a lawyer paid from the estate as well.

I'm sure she'll be happy to strap you in front of a camera.

Next time I'm reincarnated I'm going to opt for being a member of the privileged class.

the sheer *frequency* of robberies required to make 2% sound good suggests not entering that neighborhood, whether for business or any other purpose (save bounty hunting, I suppose . . .).

(of course, that's with static analysis; knowing that the neighborhood is cashless would drop the frequency, etc.)

If they want us to try their coin, they should hand out some free samples.