niftich

archive.org has many results for "Shareware Breakthrough", look through them to find the right one.

Carr also made Pirate Battles and Treasure Island, at least one of which I remembered from my childhood, whereas I've never played Capture the Flag.

The sprites used in the shareware game I played remained etched in my memory, along with the red and blue colors for the teams, the top-down view with vibrant colors, the Windows 95 GUI, and keywords like "trapper" and "scout" (the other game apparently had "digger") but I had forgotten the name over the years and took me a lot of searching to find it again.

There are some communities like Reddit's tipofmyjoystick that are geared towards locating games by description, and the process inspired me to contribute to curation/catalog sites for games. Abandonware sites fulfill much of that latter niche now, but these are not abandonware!

After I found the game's name, I found that there were very few Google search results for "shareware pirate battles carrsoft" or "shareware treasure island carrsoft". There's room for more shareware catalogs and searchable, browseable thematic directories.

He still sells a bundle of his games at carrsoft.com and I bought them recently. Highly recommend!

There are several digital encoding schemes that add enhancement layers on top of an older, established base layer. It's a key concept of backwards compatibility. Not including cases where additional channels or domains of information are added (e.g. surround sound, 3D video), and only looking at cases where the perceptual quality of the existing channels or domains is improved (e.g. HDR, resolution), here are some examples:

* Progressive JPEG (1992)

* Spectral Band Replication (2001) in aacPlus -> HE-AACv1 (2003), mp3PRO (2001), WMA 10 Pro (2006)

* JPEG XT (2015) - enhancements on top of 1992 JPEG.

* Scalable Video Coding (2004? 2007?) (search for "SVC Annex G")

(Keep in mind that software patents aren't about ideas, but specific techniques being used together to achieve an effect, so this isn't intended to be a list of prior art, but rather a list of the same concept being used elsewhere.)

The tech is neat but the reasons this isn't already in use has to do a lot more with railroading company culture (operational familiarity, risk of losing business to a competitor) than with any particular shortcomings of the technology.

Right now, no one has to chaperone individual railcars (or bogies!), because trains of many railcars travel as a unit. This also makes track control / impact avoidance easier, regardless of the level of train control deployed on the track.

This may see more use in the EU, where EU-wide regulations are mandating all member states to separate ownership of their rail network from ownership of rail operators. Then, an adventurous operator may decide to trial this technology. But nonetheless, this is fairly unlikely, as rail slots are essentially priced by time occupied for the block, so it makes more sense to pack a train's worth of cargo into the reservation you paid for.

Business travelers take taxis from their arrival airport to their destination and then get reimbursed by their company later.

They are among the least price-sensitive travelers and are the ones least inconvenienced by the last-mile problem, so their decision-making differs from those traveling for other reasons. (On average, they are less constrained by price and switching of modes, but are more constrained by idiosyncratic company procedures around travel.)

In my comparison of HSR vs. cars for <300 mile travel, the rail being 'drastically less flexible' means that it's subject to the same last-mile problem as planes are, whereas cars do not have this problem. Therefore the advantages of cars for trips like this are difficult for HSR to overcome.

As for buses, the article's author diminishes the significance of intercity buses in Europe by making it sound like private intra-national intercity bus service isn't competitive with HSR on travel time, as if HSR were widespread. HSR is only present along a dozen or so corridors in Europe, and while within France such premium bus services are a relatively new phenomenon, that isn't true elsewhere on the continent; so across the whole of Europe intercity buses are both much more common than he initially suggests, and much more competitive vs. rail than he suggests. After this, he does say buses thrive in the gaps between the train network, complement it, and have historically been important for international travel because of rail fare structures, and on those points I agree.

My wording of 'buses are flexible' does refer to the ease of introducing new routes (i.e. not having to build lots of rail), as a sibling comment correctly identified.

Despite several flaws and uncharitable misrepresentations in his policy analysis, I actually agree with most of O'Toole's conclusions.

I post a lot on here about rail, and I disagree with a lot of output from the Cato Institute, but the infrastructure cost of long-distance High Speed Rail in the US would be immense, and the geography of settlement and commuting patterns in the country are too car-oriented to take advantage of passenger-only HSR. Americans already do most travel by car and long-distance travel by air, so High Speed Rail would be a slower and costlier substitute for long-distance flights, and a maybe-faster but drastically less flexible alternative to <300 mile travel.

It's no accident France runs the TGV like an airline, because they work the same way: you get to your destination station, and now what? You need to hop on public transit or rent a car like you would at an airport. But in Europe, a big town is far more likely to have public transit of acceptable quality, frequency, and coverage to solve the last mile problem; all but the most transit-webbed US cities do not.

This article exposes some of the flaws and misrepresentations in his analysis, but then contributes its own flaws in turn. One example: in truth intercity buses are very widespread in Europe, and not only do they fill in gaps left by the rail system, but thanks to expressways on some routes they be as fast as "moderate-speed trains" too. Truly High Speed Rail only runs in a dozen corridors in Europe, and the rest of the passenger rail on the continent runs the gamut from decent to atrocious. Buses are flexible, because they can go where the roads already go.

One way to get around the last-mile problem is to ensure your destination is likely to be transit-webbed town, or your destination station is very close the location to which you actually want to go. This sounds a lot like commuter rail -- the speed depends on how much you want to spend on infrastructure. In the US, this would mean that lines radiate out from NYC, Boston, DC, Philly, Chicago, Atlanta, LA, SF, Miami, Seattle, Portland... but not any further than an hour or two of travel. The Northeast Corridor is a lucky exception because you have some of the most interconnected cities in the US all in a convenient line.

What's most frustrating is that many of both the opponents and supporters of HSR in the US miss the point: the point is to both invest in and subsidize infrastructure and programs that are societally useful and unlock productivity and opportunities. The Cato Institute would prefer a world without subsidies, but that's not appropriate for the sorts of high-cost functions that offer a major benefit to society. Pedestrian Observations would prefer more mobility and transit, but sometimes that transit actually looks like an airplane or bus or subsidized taxis, because it's what makes most immediate use out of the current infrastructure in a way that balances opex with capex.