The problem is dumping that much power into a battery quickly.
I don't think that is a problem, most batteries that are not fully charged can withstand huge dumps of energy for short periods. In fact, the current produced during braking is probably less than that required during acceleration. The general problem is that the voltage coming from the electric motor is equal to (best case), or below the voltage of the batteries. So the voltage needs to be boosted above that of the battery before any regenerative charging takes place. Thus, taking significant extra electronics to do this.
H'mm, Charles Manson used that book as his Bible!... It was good SciFi in its day... Not sure that it has stood the test of time. (If you grok what I mean.)
Spark in electronics predates Sparc in computers by several decades. (Even a century perhaps?) Radio transmitters were originally powered by a spark! See Hertz's original apparatus for the earliest example! Perhaps they should rename themselves to FarkFun, then Sparc's lawyers wouldn't even try to sue for fear of being completely ridiculed by the general public!
I would have to agree with this, except that most copyright ends up being owned by the very large corporations you suggest are the current demons. To make copyright fair again, I would suggest that copyright not be transferable from the original authors. Indeed, this should be back dated 100 years to totally undo the shit that these companies have perpetrated on the global population. I would also suggest that the copyright period be reduced to something more reasonable, say 50 years... If you haven't made money/reputation in that period of time, you never will!
Okay, in reply. Yes, the FFT has been described several times over the last few centuries, but it never really achieved any recognition until Cooley & Tukey described it. (One of these authors actually seemed surprised at the recognition he gained from the FFT...)As for hardware implementations of the FFT. The CSIRO FFT chip predates the WiFi by a significant amount of time. Probably not the first implementation in hardware, but undoubtedly one of the first ten. The FFT requires significant amounts of logic to implement, and certainly early FPGA's were did not have sufficient resources to implement it. Having grown up with much of this technology evolving as I worked with it, I don't have the impression that chips are (or were) as fast as some people here seem to think. You must remember that the state of the art in 1975 was the 8080 cpu... roughly 10,000 gates. A decent FFT requires much more than that (and memory chips as well!) Whilst DSP's of the 80's (any computer chip actually) could do semi decent jobs in the FFT arena, they certainly couldn't do several megabytes a second, even for a 256 bin FFT. (Also, back in the late 80's / early 90's, DSP's cost an arm and a leg -- making them somewhat prohibitive for many applications!)
Yes, the technique is OFDM... principally so that the symbol timing can be made relatively long, thus simplifying/improving the data recovery in the presence of echo's. (Simply integrating the data over time makes this an easy process to implement.) Digital communications really didn't begin to evolve until several technologies had evolved, not just FFT's, but also analog to digital converters that could operate successfully at multi MHz clock rates. In 1980, I purchased several 6 bit flash converters that would work at up to 30 MHz (results were pretty horrible by todays standards...) --- these cost me $100 each. Now you can easily get a 100 MHz 14 bit converter for a few dollars, and the results are spectacular.
(OFDM requires at least two Analogue to digital converters on the Receive side... plus high speed sine/cos generators to provide the mixers before the ADC's {to generate the real and imaginary components feeding the FFT...}
So, what seems easy now (perhaps even obvious) was certainly ground breaking stuff only 20 or so years ago!
At the time of its invention, it was not a simple application of known techniques. Now many digital transmission schemes use similar techniques. So yes, they deserve some credit for the invention. (The reason it wasn't mainstream before this is due to them using a CSIRO FFT hardware chip, something that wasn't really around until chip manufacturers/designers achieved the miniaturization necessary for its implementation. The FFT wasn't even described as a mathematical process until early 1960.
Actually, thats only true to a small extent...Spread Spectrum allows many transmissions on the same frequency with only a small degradation when multiple sites are active (but using different "golden keys"). The penalty is slightly more noise, but hardly an issue. So there are ways to use the spectrum (much) more efficiently!
One of the problems I see is where software overlaps hardware... For instance, JPEG (or for that matter, MPEG) Are covered by patents. Although the engines can be described in Actual hardware, they are generally described in software. As computer hardware gets faster, more machines will be described in software before they are implemented in hardware, yet, as I see it, these inventions are worthy of protection via the patent system. (However... The JPEG patents are held by several different people/organisations, as the patents are all on seperate pieces of the actual algorithm... So perhaps patents should not be allowed for such narrow specialities. I also wonder about the "novelty' of some of these patents... I would argue that many of them would have been invented by most people active in a particular field... Not requiring genius to produce the invention.)
If they start looking carefully, they will probably find them everywhere! I suspect it was a Druid franchise arrangement, along the lines of MukDonalds.
If you expect Bluray to last 70 years, you are dreaming. CD technology is now on its last legs, and that is roughly only 30 years. DVD will die as soon as Bluray is cheap enough for the average punter. Expect blue-rays successor will last as long as blue-ray has! Technology is still on the exponential curve, therefore the "upgrades" will only come faster than ever before.
Morse isn't even a requirement for a Full Ham Radio license anymore. In another 40 years, it will be totally gone. Perhaps a bit of programming in a real language would be more appropriate. (but i doubt it!)
It sounds like it might be very nice, but with Intel working towards a GPU integrated on the same chip as a multicore CPU, I wonder how much longer NVIDIA will remain mainstream. Remember, AMD has absorbed ATI, so both major CPU chip vendors are now obviously targeting the same (integrated) end product.Sure, it will initially be targeted at laptops, but I suspect more laptops are sold per annum now than desktop/server boxes combined!
Absolutely. The most hair brained connector I have ever seen is the one used on IPODs.
USB is popular BECAUSE the connector is A: Simple, B: Robust, C: Did not change between various versions of the standards. (Although... perhaps it should have, as it is crappy when viewed as a controlled impedance...)
I agree. Recent developments seem to indicate stem cell therapies effectively repair many of the defects that make people blind. This technology will probably never see the light of day as medicine improves in leaps and bounds, making technological solutions crude and ineffective by comparison to "the real thing".
The program is probably more objective than many of the people grading the papers. I have seen papers receive a fail, when re-presented to a different marker, the paper is graded A+. So, go figure.
Hasn't anyone noticed that on current hardware, this message passing scheme is almost useless, as the memory is still shared on multicore devices. Any large array of devices without shared memory are generally Linux clusters, where the message passing occurs down the ethernet ports, so it sounds like M$ are researching how to compete more than anything else. (Or perhaps they intend to be patent trolls at some time in the future.)
The problem with all this is that the original claims for the LIGO detector were that it would detect something... Remember, LIGO's predecessor was a huge iridium bar that also detected nothing. Furthermore, LIGO was significantly improved during its operation, and yet it still found nothing. Now the scientists involved claim they never expected it to find anything? Sounds like the multibillion we have poured into the cure for cancer... still haven't got that! Take another several billion for the next 10 years.
Perhaps gravity doesn't work exactly the way they think? If so, might explain a lot of questions regarding dark matter/energy.
While its true that the OBD codes can be read by a mechanic using a scan tool, there should be no need for a scan tool! Especially in today's cars, where processors are everywhere, as well as LCD displays. I have a 1991
Toyota that allows me to read all the diagnostic codes THREE different ways. The simple flash flash flash pause flash flash flash, through to a display on the dash as well as the monitor in the console.
The fact that manufacturers essentially hide the codes is due to the revenue earned by their dealerships.
I have repaired two vehicles recently that the dealerships could not (or would not) repair, due to the fact that the computer was NOT throwing error codes. (In one case, they charged 5 hours without doing anything at all! Mechanics these days couldn't diagnose their own arse holes without a computer telling them they have diarrhea!
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is dumping that much power into a battery quickly.
I don't think that is a problem, most batteries that are not fully charged can withstand huge dumps of energy for short periods. In fact, the current produced during braking is probably less than that required during acceleration. The general problem is that the voltage coming from the electric motor is equal to (best case), or below the voltage of the batteries. So the voltage needs to be boosted above that of the battery before any regenerative charging takes place. Thus, taking significant extra electronics to do this.
H'mm, Charles Manson used that book as his Bible! ... It was good SciFi in its day ... Not sure that it has stood the test of time. (If you grok what I mean.)
Spark in electronics predates Sparc in computers by several decades. (Even a century perhaps?) Radio transmitters were originally powered by a spark! See Hertz's original apparatus for the earliest example! Perhaps they should rename themselves to FarkFun, then Sparc's lawyers wouldn't even try to sue for fear of being completely ridiculed by the general public!
Actually, it would be a piddelingly small black hole if it was only the mass of the Earth.
I would have to agree with this, except that most copyright ends up being owned by the very large corporations you suggest are the current demons. To make copyright fair again, I would suggest that copyright not be transferable from the original authors. Indeed, this should be back dated 100 years to totally undo the shit that these companies have perpetrated on the global population. I would also suggest that the copyright period be reduced to something more reasonable, say 50 years ... If you haven't made money/reputation in that period of time, you never will!
Okay, in reply. Yes, the FFT has been described several times over the last few centuries, but it never really achieved any recognition until Cooley & Tukey described it. (One of these authors actually seemed surprised at the recognition he gained from the FFT ...)As for hardware implementations of the FFT. The CSIRO FFT chip predates the WiFi by a significant amount of time. Probably not the first implementation in hardware, but undoubtedly one of the first ten. The FFT requires significant amounts of logic to implement, and certainly early FPGA's were did not have sufficient resources to implement it. Having grown up with much of this technology evolving as I worked with it, I don't have the impression that chips are (or were) as fast as some people here seem to think. You must remember that the state of the art in 1975 was the 8080 cpu ... roughly 10,000 gates. A decent FFT requires much more than that (and memory chips as well!) Whilst DSP's of the 80's (any computer chip actually) could do semi decent jobs in the FFT arena, they certainly couldn't do several megabytes a second, even for a 256 bin FFT. (Also, back in the late 80's / early 90's, DSP's cost an arm and a leg -- making them somewhat prohibitive for many applications!)
... principally so that the symbol timing can be made relatively long, thus simplifying/improving the data recovery in the presence of echo's. (Simply integrating the data over time makes this an easy process to implement.) Digital communications really didn't begin to evolve until several technologies had evolved, not just FFT's, but also analog to digital converters that could operate successfully at multi MHz clock rates. In 1980, I purchased several 6 bit flash converters that would work at up to 30 MHz (results were pretty horrible by todays standards ...) --- these cost me $100 each. Now you can easily get a 100 MHz 14 bit converter for a few dollars, and the results are spectacular.
(OFDM requires at least two Analogue to digital converters on the Receive side ... plus high speed sine/cos generators to provide the mixers before the ADC's {to generate the real and imaginary components feeding the FFT ...}
Yes, the technique is OFDM
So, what seems easy now (perhaps even obvious) was certainly ground breaking stuff only 20 or so years ago!
At the time of its invention, it was not a simple application of known techniques. Now many digital transmission schemes use similar techniques. So yes, they deserve some credit for the invention. (The reason it wasn't mainstream before this is due to them using a CSIRO FFT hardware chip, something that wasn't really around until chip manufacturers/designers achieved the miniaturization necessary for its implementation. The FFT wasn't even described as a mathematical process until early 1960.
Actually, thats only true to a small extent ...Spread Spectrum allows many transmissions on the same frequency with only a small degradation when multiple sites are active (but using different "golden keys"). The penalty is slightly more noise, but hardly an issue. So there are ways to use the spectrum (much) more efficiently!
By "volume discounts" I hope you don't mean if she turns out to be 250lbs, you don't have to pay as much?
One of the problems I see is where software overlaps hardware ... For instance, JPEG (or for that matter, MPEG) Are covered by patents. Although the engines can be described in Actual hardware, they are generally described in software. As computer hardware gets faster, more machines will be described in software before they are implemented in hardware, yet, as I see it, these inventions are worthy of protection via the patent system. (However ... The JPEG patents are held by several different people/organisations, as the patents are all on seperate pieces of the actual algorithm ... So perhaps patents should not be allowed for such narrow specialities. I also wonder about the "novelty' of some of these patents ... I would argue that many of them would have been invented by most people active in a particular field ... Not requiring genius to produce the invention.)
If they start looking carefully, they will probably find them everywhere! I suspect it was a Druid franchise arrangement, along the lines of MukDonalds.
If they make motors out of this stuff, only 91% of them will work ... (Yes, I know thats a crock full of s@#$, but still ;-) )
The thing about IQ is that slightly less than 50% of the worlds population has an IQ of less than 100 ... (how many of them post on /. ?)
If you expect Bluray to last 70 years, you are dreaming. CD technology is now on its last legs, and that is roughly only 30 years. DVD will die as soon as Bluray is cheap enough for the average punter. Expect blue-rays successor will last as long as blue-ray has! Technology is still on the exponential curve, therefore the "upgrades" will only come faster than ever before.
Morse isn't even a requirement for a Full Ham Radio license anymore. In another 40 years, it will be totally gone. Perhaps a bit of programming in a real language would be more appropriate. (but i doubt it!)
It's probably MrFusion!
It sounds like it might be very nice, but with Intel working towards a GPU integrated on the same chip as a multicore CPU, I wonder how much longer NVIDIA will remain mainstream. Remember, AMD has absorbed ATI, so both major CPU chip vendors are now obviously targeting the same (integrated) end product.Sure, it will initially be targeted at laptops, but I suspect more laptops are sold per annum now than desktop/server boxes combined!
Absolutely. The most hair brained connector I have ever seen is the one used on IPODs.
... perhaps it should have, as it is crappy when viewed as a controlled impedance ...)
USB is popular BECAUSE the connector is A: Simple, B: Robust, C: Did not change between various versions of the standards. (Although
I agree. Recent developments seem to indicate stem cell therapies effectively repair many of the defects that make people blind. This technology will probably never see the light of day as medicine improves in leaps and bounds, making technological solutions crude and ineffective by comparison to "the real thing".
Ha, must be using BLUETOOTH
The program is probably more objective than many of the people grading the papers. I have seen papers receive a fail, when re-presented to a different marker, the paper is graded A+. So, go figure.
Hasn't anyone noticed that on current hardware, this message passing scheme is almost useless, as the memory is still shared on multicore devices. Any large array of devices without shared memory are generally Linux clusters, where the message passing occurs down the ethernet ports, so it sounds like M$ are researching how to compete more than anything else. (Or perhaps they intend to be patent trolls at some time in the future.)
like the old joke.
Question: How do you you hide sixpence in an English Household?
Answer: You put it under the soap!
The problem with all this is that the original claims for the LIGO detector were that it would detect something ... Remember, LIGO's predecessor was a huge iridium bar that also detected nothing. Furthermore, LIGO was significantly improved during its operation, and yet it still found nothing. Now the scientists involved claim they never expected it to find anything? Sounds like the multibillion we have poured into the cure for cancer ... still haven't got that! Take another several billion for the next 10 years.
Perhaps gravity doesn't work exactly the way they think? If so, might explain a lot of questions regarding dark matter/energy.
While its true that the OBD codes can be read by a mechanic using a scan tool, there should be no need for a scan tool! Especially in today's cars, where processors are everywhere, as well as LCD displays. I have a 1991 Toyota that allows me to read all the diagnostic codes THREE different ways. The simple flash flash flash pause flash flash flash, through to a display on the dash as well as the monitor in the console.
The fact that manufacturers essentially hide the codes is due to the revenue earned by their dealerships.
I have repaired two vehicles recently that the dealerships could not (or would not) repair, due to the fact that the computer was NOT throwing error codes. (In one case, they charged 5 hours without doing anything at all! Mechanics these days couldn't diagnose their own arse holes without a computer telling them they have diarrhea!