Posts by SteveH
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I still recall this amazing post on Apple Recon from 1998
Oh, that's priceless. Here's another gem:
Pixar, as we all know, is an unwelcome player in Hollywood and is NOT a big entity either. Jobs is out of his league. All it will take is Unca Walt to decide to rerelease "Snow White" at the same time as the next Pixar event to wipe out Jobs. Anybody seen that one before?
-
I think the problem (that is to say, I made this mistake) is confusing `morally acceptable to show' and `morally acceptable to show at a given time'.
Two and a Half Men plays alcoholism for laughs at 7:30. Why are realistic portrayals of smoking relatively unacceptable at that time?
Is it reasonable to portray that rape (even disapprovingly) and expect to show at 7.30 on a Saturday?
Rape is a violent crime perpetrated against another. I don't think it's very comparable to smoking. If you want an analogy perhaps suicide would be better. Do you think it's morally unacceptable to show suicide at 7:30?
-
It was the iPad than banned Flash, but more tellingly along with Apple's change in what tools you could use to develop App store apps. That was well after youtube an Vimeo did their html5 video stuff. Firefox has been developing against the <video> tag for an age...
No, Don, it wasn't. Flash was banned from the iPhone. See, for example, this article from 2007, or this one from 2008, which clearly states that the developer SDK prohibits it (as an interpreter).
In late 2009 Adobe announced plans to release a tool that would compile Flash code into a native iPhone app, as far as I know no such app ever passed Apple's app approval process and they have since explicitly forbidden any app that is not originally written in C, C++, or Objective-C.
The lack of Flash only became a big deal in the media with the iPad, but it has never been permitted on any "iOS" device (quotes because it wasn't called that when the decision was made).
-
Regarding trains to Auckland airport, doing the extra 11k or so from the new Onehunga station, or even perhaps the 6-7k from Puhinui, seems like a no-brainer.
The current preferred option (which admittedly does include a link up to Avondale) is estimated at $2.2B. Spending that sort of money should never be "a no-brainer".
The Sydney airport link saw passenger numbers well below expectations. And Sydney has a fair more extensive public transport network the Auckland for the airport link to feed into. So why will the experience here be different?
-
Youtube and Vimeo were offering HTML5 video well before Apple banned Flash from their platforms.
That is totally incorrect. Both Youtube and Vimeo annouced HTML5 video in January of this year. The iPhone has been out since 2007.
Don, how can you accuse Russell of "re-writing internet history", and then come out with that statement?
-
I was just suggesting joining up to existing but also thought it was only freight to Hamilton at the moment.I imagined rail for tourists heading south, 'tis all.
Oh, I see. I've got to wonder though: if a passenger service to Hamilton isn't viable now, would an airport link provide enough extra passengers to make it viable?
-
Well surely, that would come from it and I 'd suggest to Hamilton.
Then Hamilton can foot some of the bill.How does rail to the airport help get rail to Hamilton? Don't we already have rail to Hamilton?
-
The airport train route also allows connection of another chunk of people living and working along the route - which would loop around to connect with Manukau's cbd too.
One of the issues cited with the Sydney airport link is that it also serves commuters resulting in competition between travelers and commuters for space. And serving commuters was used as an excuse to use existing rolling stock without decent luggage facilities further reducing the attraction for travelers.
An airport link in Auckland would best serve people who were staying in the CBD (either Auckland or Manukau), but I suspect the majority of those people would be business travelers who would not use the train anyway. Tourists will likely be more widely spread and I think they're better served with taxis and shuttle buses.
The question is whether an airport link is the best option for expanding the network. I'd argue that there are better options if the goal is to reach the greatest number of commuters.
-
Which begs the question, did we need a Supercity?
I can't help feeling that part of motivation was to punish the ARC for sinking the waterfront stadium. It does rather stupid to have two independent local councils operating in the same geographic area.
-
Both Brisbane and Sydney built rail to their airports in recent times as PPPs, and both ran into financial trouble, leading (so I understand and correct me if I am wrong) to the state governments having to bail them out. If those two cities can't make an airport rail link work, we should at least be asking why before we blindly follow.
The thing with airports is that the people using them have luggage. And when you have luggage you don't want to be carting it 500m to the nearest rail station or dragging it from platform to platform to change trains (or even worse, having to change to a bus). I don't know about Brisbane, but in Sydney the airport link has consistently failed to reach passenger targets and I believe that the reason is that it's just not very convenient when you have luggage. Taxis are far easier, despite the cost.
So I'm not convinced about the idea of a train service out to the airport either.