I was thinking last night about how I haven't heard much from these two organizations over the whole net neutrality debate. But then I started wondering why the FCC commissioners kept using the phrase "legal content" in the context of these regulations. Maybe I'm a touch paranoid, but it almost sounds too coincidental.
Gosh, I hope it's not true, but now that you mention it, they probably handed more than an olive branch to these two clowns.
A crosswalk that is parallel to you (i.e., pedestrians traveling in the same direction across the intersection as the drivers) will have a "walk" signal that is synched with the traffic light. In this case, a green light would be analogous to "walk" and a yellow light would be analogous to "3..2..1..".
It is likely that once the cross walk reaches zero, a yellow light will appear on the traffic signal. Anyone reading the walk signal in front of them will have an early warning about the traffic light and may try to speed up to get through.
If you're a block away from the light and you see a "4", what do you do?
The essential piece of information missing from the article, because it's common in the US, is that pedestrians usually get green at the same time as traffic in parallel with them. In Europe it's a more common pattern that all pedestrians walk at an interval when all traffic is stopped and this cheat would indeed not work there.
The difference between US and UK crossings is that in the US, pedestrians and vehicles are directed to use the same bit of road at the same time. Cars turning right or left on a green light have to look to see if there are any pedestrians crossing, and give priority to them. Then the US also has that weird rule that allows you to drive straight through a red light, as long as you are turning right, which has visitors staring in disbelief.
In the UK/Europe, green means go and red means stop, without the above exceptions. In order to make this work, pedestrian crossings are often segmented, with individual signals for each section. There are a few junctions where all traffic is stopped for pedestrians, but that is pretty rare. Most junctions just allow pedestrians to cross on sections where traffic is not travelling.
UK/Europe also has a lot fewer crossroads than US. Since the cities are older, and do not as often have a grid structure, there are a lot more three-way junctions than crossroads, which actually makes crossing the road easier.
To be clear, right-turn-on-red requires that you stop first, at least in any jurisdiction I'm aware of. That being said, it still increases car/pedestrian and car/bicycle collisions significantly, on the order of 100% .
The problem with busy crossings is that if both cars and pedestrians have 'green' at the same time, and the traffic is busy (i.e., someone would be walking/driving for most part of the green light), then it's very inefficient for cars needing to make the right turn, that need to cross with the pedestrians. In some street plans (e.g., interleaving one-way streets w. no left crossings) the right-turn traffic is very heavy and has a separate lane; so delaying them is bad.
There are two okay solutions - either you desync the lights, so that there's some gap where the pedestrians have a red light but cars already/still have green, so that they can make that turn; or you make a 3-phase crossing; A-cars have green in one direction; B-cars have green in the other direction; C-all cars stop and pedestrians can cross across and diagonally. It works okay.
What's not a solution - 'right turn on red' doesn't solve it; this problem matters in heavy car/foot traffic, and in such traffic there aren't any safe opportunities to do so.
I don't think it's that common - I've only seen it a couple of places, but it happens. Most places in Europe I've been, there's car traffic going in parallel with the pedestrians.
The most "famous" example in Europe of all traffic being stopped at once, I suspect is Oxford Circus in London, where they changed to start doing this a few years ago.
The reason to do it there, though, was to allow pedestrians to walk in any direction (diagonally as well) across one of the busiest crossings in the country. This BBC article refers to it as a "Japanese-styled system":
Most sets of traffic lights in the UK allow diagonal crossing, as in all traffic stopped at once, it's just not that common to encourage pedestrians to cross diagonally. What you never get in the UK is the condition described above, where pedestrians and drivers are directed to use the same bit of road.
There are also plenty of junctions where some car drivers are allowed to proceed while on other bits of the road, pedestrians are allowed to cross. So (typically) each road into the junction has a central island and the pedestrian controls for each half of the road are separate. On those junctions, it's never safe to go across the middle as there will always be some traffic moving.
Not trying to sound cute, but The Elements of Programming Style by Kernighan and Plaugher (1974). Just read this last week during a day of plane travel.
It's all PLI and Fortran, with lots of GOTO being harmful examples, but surprisingly much of it is still relevant. It's a quick read and interesting look at some of the problems they had back then (and some that we still create plenty of today).
It seems like a lot of flame wars could be prevented without a pending comment feature, or at least a watered down one.
If a comment is particularly offensive/offtopic, it is already downvoted, eventually greyingout. To prevent flame wars, the reply button could simply be disabled on those comments, or in comment threads with high vote volatility (high numbers of up and down votes on parent comment). Vote volatility could indicate a flamebait worthy topic, and the reply depth could be limited based on the volatility.
Similarly the reply button could be pulled when two users are chaining long reply threads alone.
Perhaps with higher levels of karma, the reply thread depth is relaxed for those particular users.
Modifying reply access should prevent flame wars, but if there is still a desire to police the content more, then I think a "flag" button is more effective. If enough people flag your post (regardless of your karma), it could be placed in a type of quarantine area and then be pending until someone with the karma privileges decides to moderate it back in or not. I believe this is what reddit does, though the comments must be approved by mods rather than users.
I don't know if the convergence will happen, but they certainly need to fix WebView in Android to at least allow migration. It's still using the old Android Browser and is severely outdated (no WebSockets, etc).
My guess is that Chrome Packaged apps will be the replacement for WebViews on Android.
"Attempting to scroll the view (by swiping a finger across the screen) does not update the displayed image. However, internally, the view is scrolled. This can be seen by displaying a stack of buttons and trying to click on the topmost one. This issue makes ChromeView mostly unusable in production"
Have you used ChromeView successfully in a production application? This seems like a deal killer.
I forked ChromeView, and then the more time I spent with the Chromium build and codebase, I realized the content shell was a better starting point, so I created a similar project that uses different chromium artifacts as a base: https://github.com/davisford/android-chromium-view; scrolling has no issues at all. There are a few quirks, and myself and a few other people are discovering them and finding ways around them -- since we all want to use Chromium for our various projects.
A WebView in a native app always seemed like a really hacky way of doing it, so a proper Chrome App functionality would be fantastic. Just like how Firefox does it (even on Android, in the Aurora builds)
This isn't 100% true. The majority of that is the native shared library and binary resources. These could be hosted centrally and loaded from an APK. It isn't totally necessary to package them in an APK.
But in that case you're both drawing attention to the fact that your app is HTML5 (which thanks to Facebook is associated with a low quality experience) and also that the user has to download a separate library in order to run it. You'll likely get a significant portion of bad reviews solely motivated by this, just as with apps that require the user to download Adobe AIR separately.
You still have to download the library at some point, and the library has to end up in your app's private libs folder. Android doesn't do dependencies or inter-app shared libraries outside of those that are part of the platform.
Actually, it's just what I was looking for in this announcement from Google. We currently deploy our internal apps on phonegap, and I want the snappy and the APIs that Chrome offers over the stock webview.