Broad standards acceptance
Michael Bell
(Somehow I feel that I haven't got the right words for this)
http://www.edhcc.ac.uk/1419/access.php
The only incongruous element is the London Bus - in North-East
England!
Michael Bell
--
Ben Shimmin
> Look at this site for broad acceptance of standards! :-
> (Somehow I feel that I haven't got the right words for this)
>
> http://www.edhcc.ac.uk/1419/access.php
Points 4 and 6 seem to be rather contradictory. Point 4, indeed,
appears to be deeply lodged in the nineties. Sure enough, looking at
the source of that page, it's total guff.
b.
--
<b...@bas.me.uk> <URL:http://bas.me.uk/>
You make me lose my buttons, oh yeah, you make me spit,
I don't like my clothes any more.
Gavin Wraith
Ben Shimmin <b...@llamaselector.com> wrote:
> Michael Bell <mic...@beaverbell.co.uk>:
> > Look at this site for broad acceptance of standards! :-
> > (Somehow I feel that I haven't got the right words for this)
> >
> > http://www.edhcc.ac.uk/1419/access.php
>
> Points 4 and 6 seem to be rather contradictory. Point 4, indeed,
> appears to be deeply lodged in the nineties.
Nothing wrong with that.
> Sure enough, looking at the source of that page, it's total guff.
Yes, and they have omitted the most important point of all:
"We avoid all forms of client-side scripting".
--
Gavin Wraith (ga...@wra1th.plus.com)
Home page: http://www.wra1th.plus.com/
Chika
Michael Bell <mic...@beaverbell.co.uk> wrote:
> The only incongruous element is the London Bus - in North-East
> England!
Since Red Ken did his famous U-turn on the subject of buses a few years
ago, London is just about the only place where you *won't* see
Routemasters. There was supposed to be some "heritage" routes but ISTR
even they came under fire from the PC brigade.
--
//\ // Chika <miyuki><at><crashnet><org><uk>
// \// Mitsuo... Menda... naha naha...
... Never put off to tomorrow what you can wiggle out of today.
Ben Shimmin
> In message <slrn.2008-06...@cunegonde.bas.me.uk>
> Ben Shimmin <b...@llamaselector.com> wrote:
>> Michael Bell <mic...@beaverbell.co.uk>:
>> > Look at this site for broad acceptance of standards! :-
>> > (Somehow I feel that I haven't got the right words for this)
>> >
>> > http://www.edhcc.ac.uk/1419/access.php
>>
>> Points 4 and 6 seem to be rather contradictory. Point 4, indeed,
>> appears to be deeply lodged in the nineties.
>
> Nothing wrong with that.
There's plenty wrong with `images as list bullets' and `spacers'.
Both are examples of terrible non-semantic markup.
>> Sure enough, looking at the source of that page, it's total guff.
>
> Yes, and they have omitted the most important point of all:
>
> "We avoid all forms of client-side scripting".
Nonsense. JavaScript can very successfully be used to add functionality
without hindering accessibility.
b.
--
<b...@bas.me.uk> <URL:http://bas.me.uk/>
`Anarchism is a game at which the police can beat you.'
-- George Bernard Shaw
Peter Naulls
> Nonsense. JavaScript can very successfully be used to add functionality
> without hindering accessibility.
You mean, unless you're using RISC OS :o
Ben Shimmin
Obviously it hinders all sorts of things for RISC OS users because they
have to break out their crucifixes and start hanging wreaths of garlic
around their monitors.
b.
--
<b...@bas.me.uk> <URL:http://bas.me.uk/>
`The rapidity that the motion that the wing that the hummingbird
has has has is remarkable.' -- Steven Pinker, _The Language Instinct_
Michael Bell
Chika <miy...@spam-no-way.invalid> wrote:
> In article <d417e0b34f....@michael.beaverbell.co.uk>,
> Michael Bell <mic...@beaverbell.co.uk> wrote:
>> The only incongruous element is the London Bus - in North-East
>> England!
> Since Red Ken did his famous U-turn on the subject of buses a few years
> ago, London is just about the only place where you *won't* see
> Routemasters. There was supposed to be some "heritage" routes but ISTR
> even they came under fire from the PC brigade.
Routemasters were a London Transport Concorde - they had hoped to sell
them in huge numbers and make lots of money. But they only sold 200 or
so to other operators, of which about 100 to Northern General, and
they were a front-entrance version as against the back-end design in
London.
Michael Bell
--
charles
Michael Bell <mic...@beaverbell.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <4fb407b8...@no.spam.here>
> Chika <miy...@spam-no-way.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <d417e0b34f....@michael.beaverbell.co.uk>,
> > Michael Bell <mic...@beaverbell.co.uk> wrote:
> >> The only incongruous element is the London Bus - in North-East
> >> England!
> > Since Red Ken did his famous U-turn on the subject of buses a few years
> > ago, London is just about the only place where you *won't* see
> > Routemasters. There was supposed to be some "heritage" routes but ISTR
> > even they came under fire from the PC brigade.
> Routemasters were a London Transport Concorde - they had hoped to sell
> them in huge numbers and make lots of money. But they only sold 200 or
> so to other operators, of which about 100 to Northern General,
I'm sure they were used in Edinburgh. But I wouldn't compare them with
Concorde - a better analogy is the 'Vanguard' - only ever bought by BEA.
but they were withdrawn because they needed a crew of 2 and the call was
"One man buses". They won't come back because of H&S issues. Imagine -
people jumping on or off a moving bus ! It's too dangerous.
--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"
Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11
Tim Hill
<ga...@wra1th.plus.com> wrote:
> In message <slrn.2008-06...@cunegonde.bas.me.uk> Ben Shimmin
> <b...@llamaselector.com> wrote:
> > Michael Bell <mic...@beaverbell.co.uk>:
> > > Look at this site for broad acceptance of standards! :- (Somehow I
> > > feel that I haven't got the right words for this)
> > >
> > > http://www.edhcc.ac.uk/1419/access.php
> >
> > Points 4 and 6 seem to be rather contradictory. Point 4, indeed,
> > appears to be deeply lodged in the nineties.
> Nothing wrong with that.
> > Sure enough, looking at the source of that page, it's total guff.
> Yes, and they have omitted the most important point of all:
> "We avoid all forms of client-side scripting".
Though could have mentioned W3C. The linked page passes validation.
--
Want better than BT? www.timil.com/usenet.php
Want a genuine but spam-proof address for Usenet? Visit www.invalid.org.uk
The originating email address of this message is invalid: www.timil.com/ask.php
... "How poor are they that have not patience" Othello, Act ii, Sc.3
Peter Naulls
> but they were withdrawn because they needed a crew of 2 and the call was
> "One man buses". They won't come back because of H&S issues. Imagine -
> people jumping on or off a moving bus ! It's too dangerous.
Yes, and can we please jump off this thread least we start yet another
an nauseum debate about local politics, at least in this group;
the topic has nothing to do with RISC OS - thanks.
Gavin Wraith
> Nonsense. JavaScript can very successfully be used to add functionality
> without hindering accessibility.
Only for those that have an implementation compatible with the version
used on the website.
Ben Shimmin
> In message <slrn.2008-06...@cunegonde.bas.me.uk>
> Ben Shimmin <b...@llamaselector.com> wrote:
>> Nonsense. JavaScript can very successfully be used to add functionality
>> without hindering accessibility.
>
> Only for those that have an implementation compatible with the version
> used on the website.
Huh? If I write, say, some fairly trivial form validation in JavaScript,
and your browser doesn't support JavaScript or it's turned off, it will
simply submit the form and ignore my validation (and then cough the page
back to you when it gets rejected because you forgot a required field,
for example). If you had JavaScript, you would get some feedback
immediately indicating the error in your submission; this sort of thing
is what makes JavaScript really useful even on simple web pages. Of
course, the same thing can be done in an inaccessible way -- so that the
browser is required to understand the JavaScript in order to submit the
form and let you progress -- but that is by no means an unavoidable
necessity.
b.
--
<b...@bas.me.uk> <URL:http://bas.me.uk/>
`Red wine with fish. Well, that should have told me something.'
-- James Bond, _From Russia With Love_
Tim Hill
<ga...@wra1th.plus.com> wrote:
> In message <slrn.2008-06...@cunegonde.bas.me.uk> Ben Shimmin
> <b...@llamaselector.com> wrote:
> > Nonsense. JavaScript can very successfully be used to add
> > functionality without hindering accessibility.
> Only for those that have an implementation compatible with the version
> used on the website.
Without wishing to put words in anyone's mouth I believe the point is
that the flashy-lighty bits of JS aside, it is easy to provide legacy
HTML links to provide navigation _as_well_as_ JS rollovers and other
unnecessary fluff.
--
Want better than BT? www.timil.com/usenet.php
Want a genuine but spam-proof address for Usenet? Visit www.invalid.org.uk
The originating email address of this message is invalid: www.timil.com/ask.php
... "If music be the food of love, play on" Twelfth N, Act i, Sc.1
Ray Dawson
> In article <c29a0db4...@wra1th.plus.com>, Gavin Wraith
> <ga...@wra1th.plus.com> wrote:
> > In message <slrn.2008-06...@cunegonde.bas.me.uk> Ben Shimmin
> > <b...@llamaselector.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > Nonsense. JavaScript can very successfully be used to add
> > > functionality without hindering accessibility.
>
> > Only for those that have an implementation compatible with the version
> > used on the website.
>
> Without wishing to put words in anyone's mouth I believe the point is
> that the flashy-lighty bits of JS aside, it is easy to provide legacy
> HTML links to provide navigation _as_well_as_ JS rollovers and other
> unnecessary fluff.
You can also write a letter to the queen with a pencil and a bit of bog
paper - but it looks better on a flashy bit of paper with ink.
Cheers,
Ray D
Dave Plowman (News)
Peter Naulls <pe...@chocky.org> wrote:
> Yes, and can we please jump off this thread least we start yet another
> an nauseum debate about local politics, at least in this group;
> the topic has nothing to do with RISC OS - thanks.
I take it you're referring to Javascript?
--
*The severity of the itch is proportional to the reach *
Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Dave Plowman (News)
Chika <miy...@spam-no-way.invalid> wrote:
> Since Red Ken did his famous U-turn on the subject of buses a few years
> ago, London is just about the only place where you *won't* see
> Routemasters. There was supposed to be some "heritage" routes but ISTR
> even they came under fire from the PC brigade.
Just why would you still want to use a slow and massively polluting
vehicle designed for a conductor when the move is towards cash less
paying? They are rather like a Morris Minor - good fun but totally
outclassed by even the most basic modern vehicle.
--
*If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? *
Chika
Dave Plowman (News) <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <4fb407b8...@no.spam.here>,
> Chika <miy...@spam-no-way.invalid> wrote:
> > Since Red Ken did his famous U-turn on the subject of buses a few years
> > ago, London is just about the only place where you *won't* see
> > Routemasters. There was supposed to be some "heritage" routes but ISTR
> > even they came under fire from the PC brigade.
> Just why would you still want to use a slow and massively polluting
> vehicle designed for a conductor when the move is towards cash less
> paying? They are rather like a Morris Minor - good fun but totally
> outclassed by even the most basic modern vehicle.
The way of paying has never been the point (consider that there was a
prototype front entry, OMO RM). I would argue whether the modern, bendy
replacement is actually better, with its relative difficulty in moving
around London streets and its dubious reliability.
--
//\ // Chika <miyuki><at><crashnet><org><uk>
// \// Mitsuo... Menda... naha naha...
... Contentsoftaglinemaysettleduringshipping.
Dave Plowman (News)
Chika <miy...@spam-no-way.invalid> wrote:
> In article <4fb422d...@davenoise.co.uk>,
> Dave Plowman (News) <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <4fb407b8...@no.spam.here>,
> > Chika <miy...@spam-no-way.invalid> wrote:
> > > Since Red Ken did his famous U-turn on the subject of buses a few
> > > years ago, London is just about the only place where you *won't* see
> > > Routemasters. There was supposed to be some "heritage" routes but
> > > ISTR even they came under fire from the PC brigade.
> > Just why would you still want to use a slow and massively polluting
> > vehicle designed for a conductor when the move is towards cash less
> > paying? They are rather like a Morris Minor - good fun but totally
> > outclassed by even the most basic modern vehicle.
> The way of paying has never been the point (consider that there was a
> prototype front entry, OMO RM). I would argue whether the modern, bendy
> replacement is actually better, with its relative difficulty in moving
> around London streets and its dubious reliability.
I'd certainly agree about the bendy buses. But there are plenty of double
decker alternatives in use.
--
*Can vegetarians eat animal crackers?
Chika
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <4fb48a38...@no.spam.here>, Chika
> <miy...@spam-no-way.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <4fb422d...@davenoise.co.uk>, Dave Plowman (News)
> > <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> > > In article <4fb407b8...@no.spam.here>, Chika
> > > <miy...@spam-no-way.invalid> wrote:
> > > > Since Red Ken did his famous U-turn on the subject of buses a few
> > > > years ago, London is just about the only place where you *won't*
> > > > see Routemasters. There was supposed to be some "heritage" routes
> > > > but ISTR even they came under fire from the PC brigade.
> > > Just why would you still want to use a slow and massively polluting
> > > vehicle designed for a conductor when the move is towards cash less
> > > paying? They are rather like a Morris Minor - good fun but totally
> > > outclassed by even the most basic modern vehicle.
> > The way of paying has never been the point (consider that there was a
> > prototype front entry, OMO RM). I would argue whether the modern,
> > bendy replacement is actually better, with its relative difficulty in
> > moving around London streets and its dubious reliability.
> I'd certainly agree about the bendy buses. But there are plenty of
> double decker alternatives in use.
Certainly, but the RM was so far ahead of most of these designs that, even
now, finding something that can outperform it is tricky. The Titan was
close (certainly better than those Leyland monstrosities they used in the
70s), though they fell foul of the same regs as the RM when it came to
accessibility. Most of the beasts I see around my area are Dennis based,
and they don't seem too bad though they don't seem to be as popular with
operators towards the city centre. No idea why.
--
//\ // Chika <miyuki><at><crashnet><org><uk>
// \// Mitsuo... Menda... naha naha...
... USAF : Usually Shooting At Friends
Harriet Bazley
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <4fb407b8...@no.spam.here>,
> Chika <miy...@spam-no-way.invalid> wrote:
> > Since Red Ken did his famous U-turn on the subject of buses a few years
> > ago, London is just about the only place where you *won't* see
> > Routemasters. There was supposed to be some "heritage" routes but ISTR
> > even they came under fire from the PC brigade.
>
> Just why would you still want to use a slow and massively polluting
> vehicle designed for a conductor when the move is towards cash less
> paying? They are rather like a Morris Minor - good fun but totally
> outclassed by even the most basic modern vehicle.
>
Principally because they transport a large number of people in a small
road 'footprint' - being specifically designed to handle narrow streets
with sharp corners, and having a steep and curving staircase at the rear
instead of a straight one occupying half the lower saloon. Modern
double-deckers have a much wider turning circle, and the 'bendy buses'
simply can't access chunks of London at all. (Including, apparently,
certain bus depots - to judge by the queue I encountered one evening
when a bendy bus had apparently misjudged its entry into the bus depot
near Waterloo Station, access to which is via a narrow street and a
90-degree turn....)
I suspect that the newer double-deckers are also heavier, but I don't
know that for certain. They seem to pound the bridges and gas mains,
but I dare say it's the ever-increasing heavy lorries at fault.
Inner London buses don't require speed; they require acceleration.
They're generally lucky to get up to 20mph between stops, and travel at
the same average speed as a bicycle!
What London actually needs is a new dedicated lightweight
short-wheelbase bus rather than an off-the-shelf double-decker, let
alone an off-the-Continental-shelf articulated bus designed to operate
in boulevards shared with tram-lines.... And that's what Red Ken
promised; unfortunately he rapidly discovered that the costs of such a
customised project were beyond him. As, I suspect, will Boris.
--
Harriet Bazley == Loyaulte me lie ==
It is better to be deceived by a friend, than to suspect him.
Dave
"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <4fb407b8...@no.spam.here>,
> Chika <miy...@spam-no-way.invalid> wrote:
>> Since Red Ken did his famous U-turn on the subject of buses a few years
>> ago, London is just about the only place where you *won't* see
>> Routemasters. There was supposed to be some "heritage" routes but ISTR
>> even they came under fire from the PC brigade.
>
> Just why would you still want to use a slow and massively polluting
> vehicle designed for a conductor when the move is towards cash less
> paying? They are rather like a Morris Minor - good fun but totally
> outclassed by even the most basic modern vehicle.
>
Except for the fact that the Moggie could do more MPG than an equal
sized engine vehicle of todays marque.
--
D
Dave Plowman (News)
Chika <miy...@spam-no-way.invalid> wrote:
> > I'd certainly agree about the bendy buses. But there are plenty of
> > double decker alternatives in use.
> Certainly, but the RM was so far ahead of most of these designs that,
> even now, finding something that can outperform it is tricky.
Eh? All the new ones in London hold more passengers in far greater comfort
than the Routemaster - as well they might being so much more recent in
design. I'm not knocking the Routemaster which was superb for its day -
but that was near half a century ago.
> The Titan was close (certainly better than those Leyland monstrosities
> they used in the 70s), though they fell foul of the same regs as the RM
> when it came to accessibility. Most of the beasts I see around my area
> are Dennis based, and they don't seem too bad though they don't seem to
> be as popular with operators towards the city centre. No idea why.
--
*No I haven't stolen it , I'm just a shit driver*
Dave Plowman (News)
Dave <ma...@daveandsylvia.plus.com> wrote:
> > Just why would you still want to use a slow and massively polluting
> > vehicle designed for a conductor when the move is towards cash less
> > paying? They are rather like a Morris Minor - good fun but totally
> > outclassed by even the most basic modern vehicle.
> >
> Except for the fact that the Moggie could do more MPG than an equal
> sized engine vehicle of todays marque.
Not so. Especially if it tries to keep up with modern traffic. I've had
loads of assorted A Series engined vehicles and the only thing going for
that engine was its simplicity.
--
*Tell me to 'stuff it' - I'm a taxidermist.
fwibbler
> On 23 Jun 2008 as I do recall,
> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>
> > In article <4fb407b8...@no.spam.here>,
> > Chika <miy...@spam-no-way.invalid> wrote:
> > > Since Red Ken did his famous U-turn on the subject of buses a few
years
> > > ago, London is just about the only place where you *won't* see
> > > Routemasters. There was supposed to be some "heritage" routes but ISTR
> > > even they came under fire from the PC brigade.
> >
> > Just why would you still want to use a slow and massively polluting
> > vehicle designed for a conductor when the move is towards cash less
> > paying? They are rather like a Morris Minor - good fun but totally
> > outclassed by even the most basic modern vehicle.
> >
No slower than any other buses in use in London because they've all been
refitted with modern engines and gearboxes.
And no more polluting for the same reason.
I'll skip the lecture on the benefits of the original AEC engines from a
driver and passenger point of view since it's a moot point now.
> Principally because they transport a large number of people in a small
> road 'footprint' - being specifically designed to handle narrow streets
> with sharp corners, and having a steep and curving staircase at the rear
> instead of a straight one occupying half the lower saloon. Modern
> double-deckers have a much wider turning circle,
That's not necesarily so, in fact modern buses of a similar length often
have smaller turning circles than the Routemasters.
[snipped stuff I agree with]
> I suspect that the newer double-deckers are also heavier, but I don't
> know that for certain. They seem to pound the bridges and gas mains,
> but I dare say it's the ever-increasing heavy lorries at fault.
>
Absolutely true.
Standard RM Routemaster weight about 7200kg
Longer RML Routemaster weight about 7500kg
Leyland Titans (80s buses) about 9500kg
Scania 113 (mid nineties) about 11000kg
Dennis Tridents currently in use about 11500-12000kg depending on wheelbase
and bodies used.
As you can see from the above weights, a Routemaster fitted with the latest
small capacity Euro2 or 3 engines will be just as fast and fuel efficient as
any fully modern design, perhaps more so.
> Inner London buses don't require speed; they require acceleration.
> They're generally lucky to get up to 20mph between stops, and travel at
> the same average speed as a bicycle!
>
Only because the cyclists keep getting in the way and holding them up :-D
> What London actually needs is a new dedicated lightweight
> short-wheelbase bus rather than an off-the-shelf double-decker, let
> alone an off-the-Continental-shelf articulated bus designed to operate
> in boulevards shared with tram-lines.... And that's what Red Ken
> promised; unfortunately he rapidly discovered that the costs of such a
> customised project were beyond him. As, I suspect, will Boris.
>
I'm sure you're right there.
Cheers!
--
Graham
Website - http://www.thedeathzone.free-online.co.uk
Dave Barnett
<thed...@thedeathzone.free-online.co.uk> wrote:
> Harriet Bazley <baz...@feathermail.co.uk> wrote:
[snip}
>> I suspect that the newer double-deckers are also heavier, but I don't
>> know that for certain. They seem to pound the bridges and gas mains,
>> but I dare say it's the ever-increasing heavy lorries at fault.
>>
> Absolutely true.
> Standard RM Routemaster weight about 7200kg
> Longer RML Routemaster weight about 7500kg
> Leyland Titans (80s buses) about 9500kg
> Scania 113 (mid nineties) about 11000kg
> Dennis Tridents currently in use about 11500-12000kg depending on wheelbase
> and bodies used.
Stagecoach are using 20000kg UW. 3 axle buses on the busiest bus route
in Europe (it serves 2 of our universities and several other
colleges).
Some parts of that route has badly damaged road structure. That is
despite part of it having been re-laid a few years ago. The damage is
hardly surprising as the re-laying consisted mainly of planing off the
surface and putting a couple of layers of black-stuff on top. You
could see that the main substructure of the road had not altered since
the tram lines were installed about 100 years ago. At that time the
heaviest vehicles to use the roads regularly were brewers drays loaded
with a dozen, or so, barrels of beer and pulled by 2 big horses.
--
Dave
Keep GMT all year
Chika
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <4fb49401...@no.spam.here>, Chika
> <miy...@spam-no-way.invalid> wrote:
> > > I'd certainly agree about the bendy buses. But there are plenty of
> > > double decker alternatives in use.
> > Certainly, but the RM was so far ahead of most of these designs that,
> > even now, finding something that can outperform it is tricky.
> Eh? All the new ones in London hold more passengers in far greater
> comfort than the Routemaster - as well they might being so much more
> recent in design. I'm not knocking the Routemaster which was superb for
> its day - but that was near half a century ago.
To an extent, yes. It was half a century ago. But age has little to do
with it given that, in the intevening years we have seen the demise of AEC
and of pretty much any involvement in design by LT (or whatever their
current mnemonic is). The comparative double deckers of today may be a bit
more comfortable but they are clumsy, heavy creatures compared with the RM
and you already know what I think of the single deck bendy things.
Of course, it could be argued that, had the immediate replacements for the
RM not been such rubbish (the Londoner/Fleetline was, in many ways, a
throwback to the RT which was a pre-WWII design!), the RM wouldn't have
carried on quite so long. Having said that, though, and strictly IMHO, I
don't believe that the age of a design should be something that determines
the current value of something. If it does what it has been designed to do
and does it well, what's the problem?
You might even argue that the same applies to RISC OS. Well, you could
argue that point, and some probably will!
--
//\ // Chika <miyuki><at><crashnet><org><uk>
// \// Mitsuo... Menda... naha naha...
... If I were you, who'd be me?
Richard Porter
to write:
And except for the fact that the Routemasters still in service on
routes 9 and 15 were recently re-engined so are not any more massively
polluting than any other bus. They are faster because you don't have
to wait while the driver issues tickets, and more convenient because
you can hop on and off while the bus is held up in traffic.
--
Richard Porter
rich@ / www. richardporter.me.uk
"You can't have Windows without pains."
Dave Plowman (News)
Stuart <Spa...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> They bought some "bendy" buses in Coventry. They were bought for the
> route out to the new hospital and I can understand why you might want a
> single decker type of vehicle on that route.
> However, the new hospital was built with a traffic island like circle in
> front of its main entrance. The idea being that buses, taxis etc would
> stop somewhere round it to drop off their passengers and then continue
> round and back out. Unfortunately, the diameter of said island is such
> that the "bendy" buses can't get round - the curve is to tight.
> Oooops!
LT did the same in IIRC the '70s. Bought a whole fleet of single deckers
which couldn't negotiate the tighter turns on some of the routes so were
taken out of service totally.
--
*White with a hint of M42*
Chika
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <4fb5644c...@argonet.co.uk>, Stuart
> <Spa...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> > They bought some "bendy" buses in Coventry. They were bought for the
> > route out to the new hospital and I can understand why you might want
> > a single decker type of vehicle on that route.
> > However, the new hospital was built with a traffic island like circle
> > in front of its main entrance. The idea being that buses, taxis etc
> > would stop somewhere round it to drop off their passengers and then
> > continue round and back out. Unfortunately, the diameter of said
> > island is such that the "bendy" buses can't get round - the curve is
> > to tight.
> > Oooops!
> LT did the same in IIRC the '70s. Bought a whole fleet of single deckers
> which couldn't negotiate the tighter turns on some of the routes so were
> taken out of service totally.
It works the other way around, of course. The new bus station in
Chelmsford, built on the site of the old bus garage next to the Civic
Centre, had to be hastily reworked following completion because they had
underestimated the turning circle of the buses in use by First! Goodness
knows what would happen if they tried to fit a bendy bus in there!
--
//\ // Chika <miyuki><at><crashnet><org><uk>
// \// Mitsuo... Menda... naha naha...
... "Bother", said Pooh, as he deleted his root directory.
Tim Hill
To correct your analogy: if the job is done properly, catering for all
eventualities, Her Maj would have an envelope containing something which
magically appears in the way she wants to see it with all possible
functionality implemented.
--
Want better than BT? www.timil.com/usenet.php
Want a genuine but spam-proof address for Usenet? Visit www.invalid.org.uk
The originating email address of this message is invalid: www.timil.com/ask.php
... "Thus we play the fools with time; and the spirits of the wise sit in the clouds and mock us" Henry IV, Act ii, Sc.2
Tim Powys-Lybbe
And the old practice was to get it printed on silk, if it was a Loyal
Address.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
Tim Hill
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <8833aab4...@mail.daveandsylvia.plus.com>, Dave
> <ma...@daveandsylvia.plus.com> wrote:
> > > Just why would you still want to use a slow and massively polluting
> > > vehicle designed for a conductor when the move is towards cash less
> > > paying? They are rather like a Morris Minor - good fun but totally
> > > outclassed by even the most basic modern vehicle.
> > >
> > Except for the fact that the Moggie could do more MPG than an equal
> > sized engine vehicle of todays marque.
> Not so.
No indeed. What nonsense.
> Especially if it tries to keep up with modern traffic.
The only traffic they can keep up with comfortably is the stuff
restricted to 90 KPH. Look out for them on motorways; their only way to
save fuel is to tailgate a truck for an air tow. But watch out; the
brakes are rubbish!
> I've had
> loads of assorted A Series engined vehicles and the only thing going
> for that engine was its simplicity.
It's not the cost of the petrol but the oil it burns after a few K miles
use which will dent your wallet, unless you're prepared to put in much
time tinkering. Thankfully I wrote off my Minor 1000. Bloody thing.
--
Fed up with BT retail? www.timil.com/usenet.php
Want a genuine but spam-proof address for Usenet? Visit www.invalid.org.uk
The originating email address of this message is invalid: www.timil.com/ask.php
... "Condemn the fault, and not the actor of it?" M for M, Act ii, Sc.2
Tim Hill
<miy...@spam-no-way.invalid> wrote:
> In article <4fb4ac3...@davenoise.co.uk>, Dave Plowman (News)
> <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <4fb49401...@no.spam.here>, Chika
> > <miy...@spam-no-way.invalid> wrote:
> > > > I'd certainly agree about the bendy buses. But there are plenty
> > > > of double decker alternatives in use.
> > > Certainly, but the RM was so far ahead of most of these designs
> > > that, even now, finding something that can outperform it is tricky.
The design of the RM was not new. It was based on the rear platform, rear
stairs idea which had been around since horses drew the omnibus. The
immediate predecessor - the RT - was almost identical in many ways. To a
casual observer the RM only introduced the horizontal rather than
vertical radiator grill, as I remember when they were introduced on the
90B route.
> > Eh? All the new ones in London hold more passengers in far greater
> > comfort than the Routemaster - as well they might being so much more
> > recent in design. I'm not knocking the Routemaster which was superb
> > for its day - but that was near half a century ago.
> To an extent, yes. It was half a century ago. But age has little to do
> with it given that, in the intevening years we have seen the demise of
> AEC and of pretty much any involvement in design by LT (or whatever
> their current mnemonic is).
TFL (tfl.gov.uk)
> The comparative double deckers of today may
> be a bit more comfortable but they are clumsy, heavy creatures compared
> with the RM and you already know what I think of the single deck bendy
> things.
Because it's German? They're Mercedes just like many trucks on our roads.
One thing about the routemaster was its aluminium bodywork. Even as
scrap, that's five times as expensive as steel.
> Of course, it could be argued that, had the immediate replacements for
> the RM not been such rubbish (the Londoner/Fleetline was, in many ways,
> a throwback to the RT which was a pre-WWII design!), the RM wouldn't
> have carried on quite so long. Having said that, though, and strictly
> IMHO, I don't believe that the age of a design should be something that
> determines the current value of something. If it does what it has been
> designed to do and does it well, what's the problem?
But it doesn't do it well. You can't have 2,500 rear entry OMO buses!!!
(There were only just over 100 front entrance models produced.) Who would
ensure the Oyster card was swiped and be able to eject the socially inept?
> You might even argue that the same applies to RISC OS. Well, you could
> argue that point, and some probably will!
What, you mean RISC OS is only suitable for the yokels in the provinces?
;-)))
Bring back the trolley bus to London and cut pollution by powering them
from a wind farm in the Thames Estuary. On still days everyone would have
to walk and we would solve obesity too. ;-)
--
Fed up with BT retail? www.timil.com/usenet.php
Want a genuine but spam-proof address for Usenet? Visit www.invalid.org.uk
The originating email address of this message is invalid: www.timil.com/ask.php
... "His life was gentle, and the elements so mixed in him that Nature might stand up and say to all the world, this was a man" Jul.Caesar, Act v, Sc.5
Dave Plowman (News)
Tim Hill <t...@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
> Bring back the trolley bus to London and cut pollution by powering them
> from a wind farm in the Thames Estuary. On still days everyone would have
> to walk and we would solve obesity too. ;-)
Merton Council power most of their vehicles with LPG - and it's very
noticeable that there's no exhaust smell from even the large ones like
dustcarts. And their engines are much quieter than diesels.
Surely this would be ideal for buses - given most fuels cost pretty well
the same without tax and duty, etc?
Trouble with trolley buses is the wiring pollution to our streets. ;-)
--
*According to my calculations, the problem doesn't exist.
Dave Plowman (News)
> > thing going for that engine was its simplicity.
> It's not the cost of the petrol but the oil it burns after a few K miles
> use which will dent your wallet, unless you're prepared to put in much
> time tinkering. Thankfully I wrote off my Minor 1000. Bloody thing.
They aren't intrinsic oil burners in good nick and later versions have a
pretty good life - assuming the gearing on the vehicle allows cruising at
reasonable revs, unlike a Minor.
--
*Most people have more than the average number of legs*
Russell Hafter News
> In article <4fb52b9b...@no.spam.here>, Chika
> <miy...@spam-no-way.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <4fb4ac3...@davenoise.co.uk>, Dave
> > Plowman (News) <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> > > In article <4fb49401...@no.spam.here>, Chika
> > > <miy...@spam-no-way.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > I'd certainly agree about the bendy buses. But
> > > > > there are plenty of double decker alternatives in
> > > > > use.
What is it about people in the UK and articulated buses?
They work fine every where else I have seen them in use, all
over Europe.
> > > > Certainly, but the RM was so far ahead of most of
> > > > these designs that, even now, finding something
> > > > that can outperform it is tricky.
> The design of the RM was not new. It was based on the
> rear platform, rear stairs idea which had been around
> since horses drew the omnibus. The immediate predecessor
> - the RT - was almost identical in many ways. To a casual
> observer the RM only introduced the horizontal rather
> than vertical radiator grill, as I remember when they
> were introduced on the 90B route.
I cannot quote chapter and verse, but I am sure I recall
being told (when the first RMs appeared) that they were
chassisless, unlike the RT.
And why has there been no mention of the RTL and the RTW?
--
Russell
http://www.russell-hafter-holidays.co.uk
Russell Hafter Holidays E-mail to enquiries at our domain
Holiday specialists for Germany, Alsace, Austria, Belgium, Luxembourg, Czech Republic
Dave Plowman (News)
Russell Hafter News <see...@walkingingermany.invalid> wrote:
> I cannot quote chapter and verse, but I am sure I recall
> being told (when the first RMs appeared) that they were
> chassisless, unlike the RT.
I doubt it - making any large commercial vehicle without a chassis is
pointless. Economy of scale for the presses required, for one thing. And
it stops being able to create a different vehicle - or variation - easily.
> And why has there been no mention of the RTL and the RTW?
What's a couple of seats between friends? ;-)
--
*For every action, there is an equal and opposite criticism *
charles
> Russell Hafter News <see...@walkingingermany.invalid> wrote:
> > I cannot quote chapter and verse, but I am sure I recall
> > being told (when the first RMs appeared) that they were
> > chassisless, unlike the RT.
> I doubt it - making any large commercial vehicle without a chassis is
> pointless. Economy of scale for the presses required, for one thing. And
> it stops being able to create a different vehicle - or variation - easily.
Wikipedia thinks otherwise:
"It was a revolutionary design over previous buses, and used lightweight
aluminium and techniques developed in aircraft production during World War
II[2]. As well as a novel weight-saving integral design, the Routemaster
also introduced (for the first time on a bus) independent front suspension,
power steering, a fully automatic gearbox and power-hydraulic braking. This
surprised some early drivers who found the chassis unexpectedly light and
nimble compared to older designs, especially as depicted on film on tests
at the Chiswick Works "skid pan".
"The Routemaster design was a departure from the traditional chassis/body
construction method. With London Transport being the primary customer, the
option to use different bodybuilders was less important. The design was one
of the first "integral" buses, with the bus being a combination of an "A"
steel sub-frame (including engine, steering, front suspension), a rear "B"
steel sub-frame (carrying rear axle and suspension), connected by the
aluminium body."
--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"
Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11
Chika
Russell Hafter News <see...@walkingingermany.invalid> wrote:
> being told (when the first RMs appeared) that they were
> chassisless, unlike the RT.
True. However, that meant that they didn't have some of the benefits of
the ability to mix and match body and chassis (they had, ISTR, different
lifespans and different lengths of time to refurbish but it didn't matter
too much as long as you had both in stock) that the RT had. Not sure if
that really mattered much, though.
> And why has there been no mention of the RTL and the RTW?
I assume, where mentioned, the RT would include these. They were just
variations on a theme (different chassis sources and widths).
--
//\ // Chika <miyuki><at><crashnet><org><uk>
// \// Mitsuo... Menda... naha naha...
... It is fatal to live too long.
Chika
> <miy...@spam-no-way.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <4fb4ac3...@davenoise.co.uk>, Dave Plowman (News)
> > <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> > > In article <4fb49401...@no.spam.here>, Chika
> > > <miy...@spam-no-way.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > I'd certainly agree about the bendy buses. But there are plenty
> > > > > of double decker alternatives in use.
> > > > Certainly, but the RM was so far ahead of most of these designs
> > > > that, even now, finding something that can outperform it is tricky.
> The design of the RM was not new. It was based on the rear platform, rear
> stairs idea which had been around since horses drew the omnibus. The
> immediate predecessor - the RT - was almost identical in many ways. To a
> casual observer the RM only introduced the horizontal rather than
> vertical radiator grill, as I remember when they were introduced on the
> 90B route.
Some of the design of the RM certainly wasn't new. You could trace the
upper body layout back through the war, possibly as far back as the old
horse-drawn omnibuses. What was different about the RM was under the
bonnet and under the floor, certainly to the extent that it was
light-years ahead of the RT.
Can't say that I'm familiar with the 90B. The first routemasters in my
area tended to be run on the 165, which Hornchurch considered their
flagship route, while the RTs that survived there were mostly punted onto
the 252.
> > > Eh? All the new ones in London hold more passengers in far greater
> > > comfort than the Routemaster - as well they might being so much more
> > > recent in design. I'm not knocking the Routemaster which was superb
> > > for its day - but that was near half a century ago.
> > To an extent, yes. It was half a century ago. But age has little to do
> > with it given that, in the intevening years we have seen the demise of
> > AEC and of pretty much any involvement in design by LT (or whatever
> > their current mnemonic is).
> TFL (tfl.gov.uk)
I know. My point, however, was that London Transport has had a crisis of
identity since the days when such buses as the RM were being rolled out,
mostly down to various political considerations. Indeed, TfL isn't really
London Transport as was, since it is now primarily an administrative body
with little to do with the front end activity, which has all been sold off.
> > The comparative double deckers of today may
> > be a bit more comfortable but they are clumsy, heavy creatures compared
> > with the RM and you already know what I think of the single deck bendy
> > things.
> Because it's German? They're Mercedes just like many trucks on our roads.
No, being German has nothing to do with it. Read my earlier comments about
them.
> One thing about the routemaster was its aluminium bodywork. Even as
> scrap, that's five times as expensive as steel.
Unfortunately, that's a factor you can't avoid.
> > Of course, it could be argued that, had the immediate replacements for
> > the RM not been such rubbish (the Londoner/Fleetline was, in many ways,
> > a throwback to the RT which was a pre-WWII design!), the RM wouldn't
> > have carried on quite so long. Having said that, though, and strictly
> > IMHO, I don't believe that the age of a design should be something that
> > determines the current value of something. If it does what it has been
> > designed to do and does it well, what's the problem?
> But it doesn't do it well. You can't have 2,500 rear entry OMO buses!!!
> (There were only just over 100 front entrance models produced.) Who
> would ensure the Oyster card was swiped and be able to eject the
> socially inept?
And the current bus regime has this completely down pat? The front
entrance on the current double-decker might be OK for this but the door
arrangement on a bendy bus makes monitoring this at least as difficult as
on a rear entrance bus, especially when you see them packed as they often
are at peak times (i.e. sardine arrangement). It comes back to whether OMO
is the way to go. It was OK in the suburbs and out of town, and still is
(and if AEC hadn't been choked off by Leyland in the mid-1960s, we might
have had the FRM in production rather than the atrocity that Leyland
foisted on London) but I have never been convinced that OMO works in the
centre.
> > You might even argue that the same applies to RISC OS. Well, you could
> > argue that point, and some probably will!
> What, you mean RISC OS is only suitable for the yokels in the provinces?
> ;-)))
Not quite the argument I imagined! ;)
> Bring back the trolley bus to London and cut pollution by powering them
> from a wind farm in the Thames Estuary. On still days everyone would have
> to walk and we would solve obesity too. ;-)
Considering that the tram has made limited inroads in the last couple of
decades, it isn't as mad an idea as some might think. Especially given
fuel prices!
--
//\ // Chika <miyuki><at><crashnet><org><uk>
// \// Mitsuo... Menda... naha naha...
... Shh! Be vewy quiet, I'm hunting wuntime errors!
Tim Hill
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <4fba0b...@invalid.org.uk>, Tim Hill
> <t...@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
> > > I've had loads of assorted A Series engined vehicles and the only
> > > thing going for that engine was its simplicity.
> > It's not the cost of the petrol but the oil it burns after a few K
> > miles use which will dent your wallet, unless you're prepared to put
> > in much time tinkering. Thankfully I wrote off my Minor 1000. Bloody
> > thing.
> They aren't intrinsic oil burners in good nick and later versions have
> a pretty good life - assuming the gearing on the vehicle allows
> cruising at reasonable revs, unlike a Minor.
No, I have to disagree. The A engine was a piece of ancient crap which
wore out and drank oil in no time. Apparently down to poor quality
control of the blocks; much the same as the Bonneville and Tiger Triumph
bikes' crankcases which were made from specially selected porous
aluminium. No wonder the bulk of the UK car, bike and bus industries died
out.
--
Fed up with BT retail? www.timil.com/usenet.php
Want a genuine but spam-proof address for Usenet? Visit www.invalid.org.uk
The originating email address of this message is invalid: www.timil.com/ask.php
... "We, ignorant of ourselves, beg often our own harms, which the wise powers deny us for our good" Ant & Cleo, Act ii, Sc.1
Dr Peter Young
> In article <4fba110...@davenoise.co.uk>, Dave Plowman (News)
> <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <4fba0b...@invalid.org.uk>, Tim Hill
>> <t...@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
>>>> I've had loads of assorted A Series engined vehicles and the only
>>>> thing going for that engine was its simplicity.
>>> It's not the cost of the petrol but the oil it burns after a few K
>>> miles use which will dent your wallet, unless you're prepared to put
>>> in much time tinkering. Thankfully I wrote off my Minor 1000. Bloody
>>> thing.
>> They aren't intrinsic oil burners in good nick and later versions have
>> a pretty good life - assuming the gearing on the vehicle allows
>> cruising at reasonable revs, unlike a Minor.
> No, I have to disagree. The A engine was a piece of ancient crap which
> wore out and drank oil in no time. Apparently down to poor quality
> control of the blocks; much the same as the Bonneville and Tiger Triumph
> bikes' crankcases which were made from specially selected porous
> aluminium. No wonder the bulk of the UK car, bike and bus industries died
> out.
Somebody has just got vehement on this group about off-topic
postings... :-)
With best wishes,
Peter.
--
Peter \ / zfc Tm \ Prestbury, Cheltenham, Glos. GL52
Anne \/ __ __ \ England.
and / / \ | | |\ | / _ \ http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk
family / \__/ \_/ | \| \__/ \______________ pny...@ormail.co.uk.
Dave Plowman (News)
Tim Hill <t...@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
> > They aren't intrinsic oil burners in good nick and later versions have
> > a pretty good life - assuming the gearing on the vehicle allows
> > cruising at reasonable revs, unlike a Minor.
> No, I have to disagree. The A engine was a piece of ancient crap which
> wore out and drank oil in no time.
The first version (803cc) yes. Later ones much better - and the A+ no
worse than any other similar unit. 100,000 miles easily possible with that
one.
> Apparently down to poor quality
> control of the blocks;
Given it had a lifespan of some 50 years, I doubt either the quality of
the cast iron or the quality control remained a constant - any more than
the design.
> much the same as the Bonneville and Tiger Triumph
> bikes' crankcases which were made from specially selected porous
> aluminium.
Thought they mainly leaked from joints and seals?
> No wonder the bulk of the UK car, bike and bus industries died
> out.
That's another story.
--
*Upon the advice of my attorney, my shirt bears no message at this time
Tim Hill
> Somebody has just got vehement on this group about off-topic
> postings... :-)
Just a particular off-topic bugbear.
--
Fed up with BT retail? www.timil.com/usenet.php
Want a genuine but spam-proof address for Usenet? Visit www.invalid.org.uk
The originating email address of this message is invalid: www.timil.com/ask.php
... "Praising what is lost, makes the remembrance dear" All's Well, Act v, Sc.3
Ray Dawson
> In article <49e555be4...@pnyoung.ormail.co.uk>, Dr Peter Young
> <pny...@ormail.co.uk> wrote:
> > On 13 Jul 2008 Tim Hill <t...@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > Somebody has just got vehement on this group about off-topic
> > postings... :-)
>
> Just a particular off-topic bugbear.
Just /your/ particular off-topic bugbear.
Ray D
Chris Evans
<URL:mailto:cha...@charleshope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <4fba34b...@davenoise.co.uk>,
> Dave Plowman (News) <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <4fba1550...@walkingingermany.invalid>,
> > Russell Hafter News <see...@walkingingermany.invalid> wrote:
> > > I cannot quote chapter and verse, but I am sure I recall
> > > being told (when the first RMs appeared) that they were
> > > chassisless, unlike the RT.
>
> > I doubt it - making any large commercial vehicle without a chassis is
> > pointless. Economy of scale for the presses required, for one thing. And
> > it stops being able to create a different vehicle - or variation - easily.
>
> Wikipedia thinks otherwise:
I often say "just because it's on Wikipedia [1] doesn't necessarily mean it
is wrong!"
Many people reply as if I'd said "just because it's on Wikipedia doesn't
necessarily mean it is right!"
[1] I normally say 'The Internet', to be honest though Wikipedia is
generally reliable though I was dissapointed that the only citation for a
particular fact was an organisation that had nothing really to do with the
factual information given i.e. were in wau authorative on the subject.
You can of course also replace Wikipedia with 'Newspaper/TV... etc)
Chris Evans
--
CJE Micro's / 4D 'RISC OS Specialists'
Telephone: 01903 523222 Fax: 01903 523679
ch...@cjemicros.co.uk http://www.cjemicros.co.uk/
78 Brighton Road, Worthing, West Sussex, BN11 2EN
The most beautiful thing anyone can wear, is a smile!
george
Chris Evans <ch...@cjemicros.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <4fba375f...@charleshope.demon.co.uk>, charles
> <URL:mailto:cha...@charleshope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <4fba34b...@davenoise.co.uk>,
>> Dave Plowman (News) <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
>> > In article <4fba1550...@walkingingermany.invalid>,
>> > Russell Hafter News <see...@walkingingermany.invalid> wrote:
>> > > I cannot quote chapter and verse, but I am sure I recall
>> > > being told (when the first RMs appeared) that they were
>> > > chassisless, unlike the RT.
>>
>> > I doubt it - making any large commercial vehicle without a chassis is
>> > pointless. Economy of scale for the presses required, for one thing. And
>> > it stops being able to create a different vehicle - or variation - easily.
>>
>> Wikipedia thinks otherwise:
>
> I often say "just because it's on Wikipedia [1] doesn't necessarily mean it
> is wrong!"
>
> Many people reply as if I'd said "just because it's on Wikipedia doesn't
> necessarily mean it is right!"
>
> [1] I normally say 'The Internet', to be honest though Wikipedia is
> generally reliable though I was dissapointed that the only citation for a
> particular fact was an organisation that had nothing really to do with the
> factual information given i.e. were in wau authorative on the subject.
>
> You can of course also replace Wikipedia with 'Newspaper/TV... etc)
>
> Chris Evans
>
I generally find Wikipedia to be more reliable than so-called quality
daily newspapers, comparing them on subjects I actually know something
about.
George
--
Chika
<george.g...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> > I often say "just because it's on Wikipedia [1] doesn't necessarily
> > mean it is wrong!"
> >
> > Many people reply as if I'd said "just because it's on Wikipedia
> > doesn't necessarily mean it is right!"
> >
> > [1] I normally say 'The Internet', to be honest though Wikipedia is
> > generally reliable though I was dissapointed that the only citation
> > for a particular fact was an organisation that had nothing really to
> > do with the factual information given i.e. were in wau authorative on
> > the subject.
> >
> > You can of course also replace Wikipedia with 'Newspaper/TV... etc)
> >
> > Chris Evans
> >
> I generally find Wikipedia to be more reliable than so-called quality
> daily newspapers, comparing them on subjects I actually know something
> about.
I suppose it all depends on who wrote the entry. The subject matter can
also affect the content depending on whether the person contributing has a
personal axe to grind or they simply don't know enough to substantiate
their entry. Hence I'm wary whenever using Wikipedia as a source of
wisdom, though they do at least have a few bits and pieces that can
indicate if the research was valid (or at least supported).
--
//\ // Chika <miyuki><at><crashnet><org><uk>
// \// Mitsuo... Menda... naha naha...
... I want everything; do you have it??
Tim Hill
Perhaps not just //mine//.
--
Fed up with BT retail? www.timil.com/usenet.php
Want a genuine but spam-proof address for Usenet? Visit www.invalid.org.uk
The originating email address of this message is invalid: www.timil.com/ask.php
... "Love that well which thou must leave ere long" Sonnet 73
Barry Gray
Chika <miy...@spam-no-way.invalid> wrote:
The point about Wikipedia is that it is peer-group reviewed. The first
draft on any topic may not necessarily be completely reliable, but
anything which has been there for a year or so is very likely to be.
This means that if you have evidence to prove that anything is
factually incorrect you can always correct it yourself - no one person
owns Wikipedia.
The way most search engines display results is also peer-group
reviewed: sites which other people have found useful are listed first.
(I do not know how to explain this both properly and briefly so
forgive me if my explanation is neither.) If you do a key-word search
and Wikipedia comes up on the first page of several hundred (by no
means always the case) it is likely to be reliable.
HTH
Barry
--
Barry Gray
http://www.barrygray.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
druck
> The point about Wikipedia is that it is peer-group reviewed. The first
> draft on any topic may not necessarily be completely reliable, but
> anything which has been there for a year or so is very likely to be.
> This means that if you have evidence to prove that anything is
> factually incorrect you can always correct it yourself - no one person
> owns Wikipedia.
Thats the way Jimmy Wales would like you to believe it works, but in
reality its controlled by a clique of high level anonymous moderators,
who have demonstrated numerous cases of politically or commercially
biased editting, in violation of wikipedia's own rules.
In reality you can't trust any serious article on wikipedia, its only
real use is for trivia such as sci-fi episodes and cast lists, and
in depth documentation of the Klingon language.
> The way most search engines display results is also peer-group
> reviewed: sites which other people have found useful are listed first.
> (I do not know how to explain this both properly and briefly so
> forgive me if my explanation is neither.)
Thats the way Brin and Page would like you to believe it works, but it
reality google exist to sell advertising, and the complex algorithms
they use to rank pages may have some element of popularity, but are
mainly a compromise between their advertising income and defeating the
spammers trying to game them in to promoting their products.
In reality you can place very little weight on the absolute position
in search results. You need to visit a few dozen sites, and use your
own judgement as to the relevance and quality of the information
contained there in.
> If you do a key-word search and Wikipedia comes up on the first page
> of several hundred (by no means always the case) it is likely to be
> reliable.
Utter rubbish. Since when has popularity determined correctness?
Wikipedia comes at the top of search results because google and
other search engines have decided it should. Its a lovely big link
farm off to other sites which contain their advertsing.
---druck
--
The ARM Club Free Software - http://www.armclub.org.uk/free/
The 32bit Conversions Page - http://www.quantumsoft.co.uk/druck/
Barry Gray
druck <ne...@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:
> On 15 Jul 2008 Barry Gray <barr...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> The point about Wikipedia is that it is peer-group reviewed. The first
>> draft on any topic may not necessarily be completely reliable, but
>> anything which has been there for a year or so is very likely to be.
>> This means that if you have evidence to prove that anything is
>> factually incorrect you can always correct it yourself - no one person
>> owns Wikipedia.
>
> Thats the way Jimmy Wales would like you to believe it works, but in
> reality its controlled by a clique of high level anonymous moderators,
> who have demonstrated numerous cases of politically or commercially
> biased editting, in violation of wikipedia's own rules.
>
> In reality you can't trust any serious article on wikipedia, its only
> real use is for trivia such as sci-fi episodes and cast lists, and
> in depth documentation of the Klingon language.
Well that really puts a fella in his place.
I cannot remember when I first started wearing rose-tinted spectacles
(lenses not frames) but it must have been at least fifty years ago. I
do not think they are made any more (lenses that is, the frames still
are, although I do not own any), but the World looks much better
through them.
I am not into the study of the Klingon language so I cannot comment
the reliability of the Wikipedia entry on that. But within the past
few days and weeks I have found their entries on, say, the Zeppelin
NT07 airship which flew over our house on Sunday morning, or Euler's
solution of the Bridges of Konigsberg, or the destruction of Julius
Caesar's first British invasion fleet by a storm surge, very helpful,
and I am not certain where the political or commercial bias comes into
these. OK, their pages containing biographical information on 15th
Century English composers so obscure that they are not in Grove may be
sponsored by or carry advertisements for publishers of 15th century
English music by composers so obscure that they are not in Grove, but
I cannot see that this necessarily makes the information they contain
any less reliable or carefully researched.
>
>> The way most search engines display results is also peer-group
>> reviewed: sites which other people have found useful are listed first.
>> (I do not know how to explain this both properly and briefly so
>> forgive me if my explanation is neither.)
>
> Thats the way Brin and Page would like you to believe it works, but it
> reality google exist to sell advertising, and the complex algorithms
> they use to rank pages may have some element of popularity, but are
> mainly a compromise between their advertising income and defeating the
> spammers trying to game them in to promoting their products.
>
> In reality you can place very little weight on the absolute position
> in search results. You need to visit a few dozen sites, and use your
> own judgement as to the relevance and quality of the information
> contained there in.
I agree completely. To my mind the intelligent use of search engines
is one of the most important skills that we need to teach young
people, but by and large it is a skill which is not being taught. Many
Pages on my own web site are written for children and young people,
and those Pages which link to other, external, web sites contain
explicit warnings about the importance of using the internet
intelligently, and in particular of looking at the role of sponsors
and advertisers.
Steven Pampling
Barry Gray <barr...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> To my mind the intelligent use of search engines
> is one of the most important skills that we need to teach young
> people, but by and large it is a skill which is not being taught.
Library and research skills have been absent from most teaching for years.
It starts with reading and comprehension and builds, too many read but
don't comprehend.
Dave Higton
Steven Pampling <steve.p...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
I think a lot of them frequent these newsgroups :-(
Dave