I'd like to do just the opposite. Download the app and take pictures of my hotel rooms, but do something weird with the pictures that makes them question what they're seeing. For example, hang up a translucent "Getty Images" or "Shutterstock" sign in the scene.
I couldn't give a rat's arse about "sharing sensory and emotional experiences". However, if by the time I die the state of the art can get to the point of:
1) Accurate ability to model of a full brain's worth of neurons; 2) The ability to read, from a human brain, each neuron's activation levels and connections (e.g. injecting bioluminescent proteins that respond to chemical factors inside the neurons, with numerous CCD sensors scattered throughout in the brain, each monitoring many thousands to millions of neurons), 3) The ability to trigger activation or apoptosis of neurons (aka photosensitive proteins for specific purposes, with said CCD devices also being able to project light signals to specific neurons)... then going neuron by neuron, doing the following:
1) Simulating it 2) Replacing the signals it sends to its neighbors with the results of its simulation 3) Causing the now simulated neuron to commit apoptosis
*....one by one until the whole brain is eliminated and all that exists is the simulation.... then I would be greatly appreciative;)
If we're lucky it won't be necessary to model neurons individually. If one could determine what's going on just by studying ganglia - their inputs, outputs, average activity in various regards, perhaps broken down into subregions when dealing with large ones, etc - then would greatly simplify the task. Because you have ~85 billion neurons in the brain, but ganglia have a couple dozen to hundreds of thousands of neurons each.
1) I think you meant watt hours. Watts *are* power (aka performance). Watt hours are energy.
2) Batteries have energy densities (watt hours per unit volume or mass) and power densities (watts per unit volume or mass). If you increase the volume / mass of batteries to increase the total energy (watt hours), you correspondingly increase the maximum power (watts).
Minivan consumers by and large switched to actual SUVs, crossovers don't have enough room for their stuff.
Not according to actual consumer surveys.
Yes, it's always possible that consumers might want to at some point switch back to crossovers. They might also want to switch back to station wagons, or horseless carriage-style buggies. But with the market as it is, minivans are a much smaller market than crossovers, and thus it's only reasonable that Tesla would focus on crossovers rather than minivans. Should the market change, Tesla will surely change as well. Likewise, if Tesla continues to grow and produce more models, they'll surely at some point make a minivan model. But it'd surely come after other large market segments that they haven't touched yet, such as pickup trucks.
Sorry, but the market has spoken on this one. Crossover sales have been crushing minivan sales. Minivan consumers by and large switched to crossovers. The best selling minivan, the Dodge Caravan, is outsold by a half dozen different crossover models.
Crossovers now largely play the role that minivans used to. And Tesla has made their high end in that market, the Model X. They're planning to unveil the lower-end Model Y crossover in 2018 and bring it to market in 2019.
They're doing the right thing in differentiating their vehicles - keeping the upper end while creating newer versions that progressive push further into the lower end, as the economics support it. So, for example, the new Roadster is supposed to be unveiled in 2019, which likely be their highest-end model (given what the specs are like on the performance Model S models, I can't even imagine what they'll be like on the new Roadster). A Model 4 is expected at some point to hit price points lower than the Model 3, but no timeline has been announced.
Normally I wouldn't respond, because I'd think that most people would be able to recognize a joke... but because whenever Hyperloop comes up people actually seem to think that it is a pneumatic tube system...
1) Hyperloop Alpha is not a pneumatic tube system. The capsules are not pushed by pressure. Quite the opposite, the tubes are a partial vacuum. Capsules are propelled by short accelerator segments, then spend most of the trip drifting (except for at very low speeds at each end, where it settles down onto electrically-driven wheels).
And for the other side of the spectrum...
2) Hyperloop Alpha is not a maglev vactrain. It is neither maglev nor a vactrain. More to the point, it can't even function in a hard vacuum. Lift is provided not by maglev, but by an airbearing; it's a very-close ground effect aircraft. Because it's not a hard vacuum, air builds up ahead of it; it uses a compressor to shunt the air to behind it and to boost the air bearings.
I'm not sure what you want here. Are you saying that Tesla should have kept selling a vehicle that people weren't buying, just to prove to you.... what exactly?
They made promises for specific battery pack levels and they delivered on all of them. People stopped buying one pack size, so they stopped selling it. That has no bearing on Tesla's track record of meeting their promises, because the promises in each case were relative to specific battery pack levels.
And the fact that you keep saying "$73k" just makes you look like an idiot, because you keep citing the upgraded 60D (aka, the performance version of the 60 kWh-pack model S) instead of the base 60, which is $68k.
A person who can't manage to pay attention to what battery pack models they're comparing the price on, calling the person they're talking with who quoted them accurately a dumbass?
Tesla did meet the price (within a couple percent) on the 40 kWh pack. The fact that there was low demand for it is irrelevant.
Where exactly are you finding a 40kW Model S on the website? Because you're comparing to the price I listed for the 40kWh, but the page you linked starts at the 60kWh. And the page you linked lists the baseline 60kW model for... wait for it... $68k. The price I listed for the 60kWh. 73k is for the 60kWh AWD, which is faster than the baseline, RWD 60kWh model S.
Markets factor in things that might affect the stock before official announcements, based on what they expect the announcement to indicate. The stock is up because the capital round is smaller than the market had thought would be necessary.
Right. Institutional investors are clueless about money. Slashdot ACs who know nothing about Tesla's internal figures and can't even bother to keep up on the published figures are the real financial geniuses. I'm sure you made that post from a yacht moored right offshore of your private island, didn't you?
You sound so much like the endless stream of people on Slashdot making fun of anyone who invested in Amazon because "they never turned a profit" - completely ignoring that businesses undergoing rapid scaleup by design don't return profits, and quite the opposite need regular capital rounds to pay for said scaleup.
Meanwhile, actual investors want companies with scaleup potential to do said capital rounds so that they can own a smaller piece of a much larger company. They don't want to be owning X% a Ma and Pa Roadster factory that churns out 100 cars a year, they want to be owning X/10% of the next GM.
It's been institutional investors buying most of Tesla's stock thusfar.
And making a mint on it, it should be added.
By the way, Anonymous Stopped Clock, when are you finally going to actually be right about something concerning Tesla? Anybody else remember TTAC's "Tesla Death Watch" series? They last updated it in 2008. It's hilarious irony now.;)
And so far, historically Tesla has missed their projected price by about $30K consistently.
(Citation Needed)
The Roadster was promised at $100k. This was based on Eberhard's budgeting, not Musk's. During the development, the board (including Musk) eventually came to realize the degree to which Eberhard had fudged the numbers and all of the problems he had gotten the company into (penalties for unmeetable contracts, a stupid choice of gearbox supplier, etc), and ultimately he was fired. Their estimate at the time was that the car would end up at over $120k. However, with a lot of good decisions, such as getting customer buy-in to (rather than starting over on the gearbox) switch it from a two-gear to a one-gear with a more powerful drivetrain to achieve the same accel, they brought the price down to $109k at release.
The Model S was initially promised at $57,4k for 40kWh, $67,4k for 60kWh, and $84,4k for 85kWh. The price today? $59,9k for 40kWh, $68k for for 60kWh, and $79,9k for 85kWh.
The Model X was the same story - came in right at around the price estimate.
Where you got this "Tesla has missed their projected price by about $30K consistently" is beyond me.
I'm going to guess that material prices will shoot through the roof
Wow, I'm sure Tesla totally didn't think about ensuring reliable supplies for their raw materials. I bet that totally never crossed their mind. Thank God we have Anonymous Coward here to point out their mistakes to them!
I don't think you understand what raising capital means.
Tesla is selling stock, and the market is buying it. Capital rounds are almost unavoidable in large, rapidly growing businesses. Investors convert their ownership from a larger share in a smaller company to a (slightly) smaller share in a company that they feel will become much larger because of it. The money gained from doing so funds the scaleup.
It has nothing in any way, shape or form to do with "subsidy". Capital rounds are capitalism in its purest form.
So, if those miracle 10 minute chargeable batteries are so common
Not particularly common, but available. Most manufacturers prefer energy density to charge time. You get ~2/3rds the energy density on fast charging packs that you get on the highest density 18650s.
why all the pyrotechnics with phones, tablets, laptops
If you're talking about the Samsung battery fires, it's because they left no room in their phones for thermal expansion.
hoverboards
NEWSFLASH, cheap Chinese junk produced at unregulated factories and without any sort of safety inspection undergoes an electrical fire. Details at 11!
CNET's summary of the hoverboard fires sums up the reasons as:
So far, some reports have blamed the batteries, others the cables, but we don't know for sure. The UK divisions of retailers Amazon and Costco are specifically telling customers to destroy charging cables that have plugs that weren't built to UK safety standards. (Costco is providing replacement cables, while Amazon is offering full refunds.)
Another possible culprit is the cut-off switch, a safety feature that keeps an electronic device from overcharging, which the UK's National Trading Standards consumer protection agency says can often fail in these hoverboards. EcoReco's Sung suggested that to save costs, some hoverboard manufacturers might not even include a cut-off switch to begin with. That's clearly not the issue everywhere, though, as Mashable recently tore down a Swagway hoverboard that appeared to have a cut-off switch installed.
Yes, if you abuse batteries, you can make them burn. Wow, what a shock. I suppose it most also shock you to learn that if you abuse gasoline, it will also burn.
Everything that has used "fast charge" batteries has wound up on a nice smoking youtube video.
Not a single thing that you listed uses fast charge batteries.
Improvements in orders of magnitudes: CPUs - 1000s. Memory - 1000s. Controller chips - 1000s. Batteries - 0.3.
Right. Computing is the one thing that's advanced so dramatically. Your expectation that if a technology doesn't advance as fast as computing is absurd. Do you hold this standard to any other pieces of technology?
Rocket propellant efficiency was pretty much completed around the early 60s. Before that - sure.
No, there still are advances in propellant. But they're slow.
Tensile strengths? To what are you referring?
I'm referring to tensile strength. If you don't know what tensile strength is, you really need to learn some very, very basic physics. That's like saying "I don't know what mass is"
Of a material?
No, of a cat.(/snark) Of course of materials. Materials in all fields. Tensile strengths, compressive strengths, elastic moduli, etc have all improved with time. But like pretty much every technological field except computing, the rate of improvements are nothing at all like some endless, 1.5-year exponential growth rate.
Absolutely doubled at least since the 80s
"Doubled since the 80s" vs. "quadrupled / sextupled / 1,5 orders of magnitude increase (gravimetric energy density, volumetric energy density, power density) since 1991." Batteries win hands down.
Internal combustion engines have certainly improved, but the days of large improvements were very early on
There never was some brief period of large improvements; ICE improvements have been relatively steady throughout the years. And they continue improving. But like almost all technological fields, the rate of improvement is nothing like the rate of improvements in computing.
Along with pyrotechnic shows sometimes gone wrong. Seriously, a multi amp hour battery still takes hours to charge safely.
Nonsense. Tesla uses ordinary 18650s and charges them in 40 minutes. Batteries that stress power density over energy density can charge in under 10 minute charges. Trust me, I've used them. They've been on the market for years.
Yay, so I now have a double or triple run time for a given battery after 25 years. That's incremental, not orders of magnitude.
Most technological fields would kill for advancements on the order of 4x, 6x, or ~20x in ~25 years. Do you think - say, picking a random example - that tensile strengths have advanced anywhere near that much? How about rocket propellent performance? Internal combustion engine efficiencies? Car tire rolling resistance improvements? Seriously, just because computers have advanced by Moore's Law doesn't mean that anything even close to that is normal. The rate of battery improvements has been very rapid by the standards of most technologies.
According to the paper, all CO2 generated by the photooxidation of lignocellulose enters the basic solution as carbonate ions. So it's up to you as to what you want to do with them after that - industrial feedstocks, reaction and sequestration, or even simple exhaustion as CO2, with the knowledge that at least it's a closed fuel cycle (CO2 taken in during growth being released back to the air).
It's a shame that the process doesn't generate CO rather than CO2. CO + H2 = syngas = great source for synfuels and other petroleum products (CO is relatively stable at normal temperatures and pressures but highly reactive at elevated temperatures and pressures, to the point of even spontaneously breaking down to C + CO2 - so when you have hydrogen in the mix, you have the stage set for the formation of hydrocarbons of varying lengths depending on your environmental conditions). Of course, I guess if they wanted syngas they'd just partially oxidize the lignocellulose directly under heat. In fact, as the paper mentions, that what's already done in biomass gasifiers. They just want the hydrogen.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd like to do just the opposite. Download the app and take pictures of my hotel rooms, but do something weird with the pictures that makes them question what they're seeing. For example, hang up a translucent "Getty Images" or "Shutterstock" sign in the scene.
Well, in the past it was cash. And back then it was aid agencies and human rights agencies he was extorting.
Or maybe he's wanting them to sign some sort of absurd contract like the insane NDAs he used to make Wikileaks members sign.
I couldn't give a rat's arse about "sharing sensory and emotional experiences". However, if by the time I die the state of the art can get to the point of:
1) Accurate ability to model of a full brain's worth of neurons; ... then going neuron by neuron, doing the following:
2) The ability to read, from a human brain, each neuron's activation levels and connections (e.g. injecting bioluminescent proteins that respond to chemical factors inside the neurons, with numerous CCD sensors scattered throughout in the brain, each monitoring many thousands to millions of neurons),
3) The ability to trigger activation or apoptosis of neurons (aka photosensitive proteins for specific purposes, with said CCD devices also being able to project light signals to specific neurons)
1) Simulating it
2) Replacing the signals it sends to its neighbors with the results of its simulation
3) Causing the now simulated neuron to commit apoptosis
* ....one by one until the whole brain is eliminated and all that exists is the simulation.... then I would be greatly appreciative ;)
If we're lucky it won't be necessary to model neurons individually. If one could determine what's going on just by studying ganglia - their inputs, outputs, average activity in various regards, perhaps broken down into subregions when dealing with large ones, etc - then would greatly simplify the task. Because you have ~85 billion neurons in the brain, but ganglia have a couple dozen to hundreds of thousands of neurons each.
1) I think you meant watt hours. Watts *are* power (aka performance). Watt hours are energy.
2) Batteries have energy densities (watt hours per unit volume or mass) and power densities (watts per unit volume or mass). If you increase the volume / mass of batteries to increase the total energy (watt hours), you correspondingly increase the maximum power (watts).
Ed: ** switch back to minivans.
Not according to actual consumer surveys.
Yes, it's always possible that consumers might want to at some point switch back to crossovers. They might also want to switch back to station wagons, or horseless carriage-style buggies. But with the market as it is, minivans are a much smaller market than crossovers, and thus it's only reasonable that Tesla would focus on crossovers rather than minivans. Should the market change, Tesla will surely change as well. Likewise, if Tesla continues to grow and produce more models, they'll surely at some point make a minivan model. But it'd surely come after other large market segments that they haven't touched yet, such as pickup trucks.
Sorry, but the market has spoken on this one. Crossover sales have been crushing minivan sales. Minivan consumers by and large switched to crossovers. The best selling minivan, the Dodge Caravan, is outsold by a half dozen different crossover models.
Crossovers now largely play the role that minivans used to. And Tesla has made their high end in that market, the Model X. They're planning to unveil the lower-end Model Y crossover in 2018 and bring it to market in 2019.
They're doing the right thing in differentiating their vehicles - keeping the upper end while creating newer versions that progressive push further into the lower end, as the economics support it. So, for example, the new Roadster is supposed to be unveiled in 2019, which likely be their highest-end model (given what the specs are like on the performance Model S models, I can't even imagine what they'll be like on the new Roadster). A Model 4 is expected at some point to hit price points lower than the Model 3, but no timeline has been announced.
Normally I wouldn't respond, because I'd think that most people would be able to recognize a joke... but because whenever Hyperloop comes up people actually seem to think that it is a pneumatic tube system...
1) Hyperloop Alpha is not a pneumatic tube system. The capsules are not pushed by pressure. Quite the opposite, the tubes are a partial vacuum. Capsules are propelled by short accelerator segments, then spend most of the trip drifting (except for at very low speeds at each end, where it settles down onto electrically-driven wheels).
And for the other side of the spectrum...
2) Hyperloop Alpha is not a maglev vactrain. It is neither maglev nor a vactrain. More to the point, it can't even function in a hard vacuum. Lift is provided not by maglev, but by an airbearing; it's a very-close ground effect aircraft. Because it's not a hard vacuum, air builds up ahead of it; it uses a compressor to shunt the air to behind it and to boost the air bearings.
((Insert "The More You Know" rainbow here))
Sure, after they finish seminary and are ordained.
There's already one for previously-existing nuclear test footage.
Nuclear weapons explosions always have that strange mix of terrifying and stunningly beautiful.
I'm not sure what you want here. Are you saying that Tesla should have kept selling a vehicle that people weren't buying, just to prove to you.... what exactly?
They made promises for specific battery pack levels and they delivered on all of them. People stopped buying one pack size, so they stopped selling it. That has no bearing on Tesla's track record of meeting their promises, because the promises in each case were relative to specific battery pack levels.
And the fact that you keep saying "$73k" just makes you look like an idiot, because you keep citing the upgraded 60D (aka, the performance version of the 60 kWh-pack model S) instead of the base 60, which is $68k.
A person who can't manage to pay attention to what battery pack models they're comparing the price on, calling the person they're talking with who quoted them accurately a dumbass?
Tesla did meet the price (within a couple percent) on the 40 kWh pack. The fact that there was low demand for it is irrelevant.
Where exactly are you finding a 40kW Model S on the website? Because you're comparing to the price I listed for the 40kWh, but the page you linked starts at the 60kWh. And the page you linked lists the baseline 60kW model for... wait for it... $68k. The price I listed for the 60kWh. 73k is for the 60kWh AWD, which is faster than the baseline, RWD 60kWh model S.
Pay attention and try to keep up.
US prices.
Markets factor in things that might affect the stock before official announcements, based on what they expect the announcement to indicate. The stock is up because the capital round is smaller than the market had thought would be necessary.
Right. Institutional investors are clueless about money. Slashdot ACs who know nothing about Tesla's internal figures and can't even bother to keep up on the published figures are the real financial geniuses. I'm sure you made that post from a yacht moored right offshore of your private island, didn't you?
You sound so much like the endless stream of people on Slashdot making fun of anyone who invested in Amazon because "they never turned a profit" - completely ignoring that businesses undergoing rapid scaleup by design don't return profits, and quite the opposite need regular capital rounds to pay for said scaleup.
Meanwhile, actual investors want companies with scaleup potential to do said capital rounds so that they can own a smaller piece of a much larger company. They don't want to be owning X% a Ma and Pa Roadster factory that churns out 100 cars a year, they want to be owning X/10% of the next GM.
It's been institutional investors buying most of Tesla's stock thusfar.
And making a mint on it, it should be added.
By the way, Anonymous Stopped Clock, when are you finally going to actually be right about something concerning Tesla? Anybody else remember TTAC's "Tesla Death Watch" series? They last updated it in 2008. It's hilarious irony now. ;)
(Citation Needed)
The Roadster was promised at $100k. This was based on Eberhard's budgeting, not Musk's. During the development, the board (including Musk) eventually came to realize the degree to which Eberhard had fudged the numbers and all of the problems he had gotten the company into (penalties for unmeetable contracts, a stupid choice of gearbox supplier, etc), and ultimately he was fired. Their estimate at the time was that the car would end up at over $120k. However, with a lot of good decisions, such as getting customer buy-in to (rather than starting over on the gearbox) switch it from a two-gear to a one-gear with a more powerful drivetrain to achieve the same accel, they brought the price down to $109k at release.
The Model S was initially promised at $57,4k for 40kWh, $67,4k for 60kWh, and $84,4k for 85kWh. The price today? $59,9k for 40kWh, $68k for for 60kWh, and $79,9k for 85kWh.
The Model X was the same story - came in right at around the price estimate.
Where you got this "Tesla has missed their projected price by about $30K consistently" is beyond me.
Wow, I'm sure Tesla totally didn't think about ensuring reliable supplies for their raw materials. I bet that totally never crossed their mind. Thank God we have Anonymous Coward here to point out their mistakes to them!
I don't think you understand what raising capital means.
Tesla is selling stock, and the market is buying it. Capital rounds are almost unavoidable in large, rapidly growing businesses. Investors convert their ownership from a larger share in a smaller company to a (slightly) smaller share in a company that they feel will become much larger because of it. The money gained from doing so funds the scaleup.
It has nothing in any way, shape or form to do with "subsidy". Capital rounds are capitalism in its purest form.
Not particularly common, but available. Most manufacturers prefer energy density to charge time. You get ~2/3rds the energy density on fast charging packs that you get on the highest density 18650s.
If you're talking about the Samsung battery fires, it's because they left no room in their phones for thermal expansion.
NEWSFLASH, cheap Chinese junk produced at unregulated factories and without any sort of safety inspection undergoes an electrical fire. Details at 11!
CNET's summary of the hoverboard fires sums up the reasons as:
Yes, if you abuse batteries, you can make them burn. Wow, what a shock. I suppose it most also shock you to learn that if you abuse gasoline, it will also burn.
Not a single thing that you listed uses fast charge batteries.
Right. Computing is the one thing that's advanced so dramatically. Your expectation that if a technology doesn't advance as fast as computing is absurd. Do you hold this standard to any other pieces of technology?
No, there still are advances in propellant. But they're slow.
I'm referring to tensile strength. If you don't know what tensile strength is, you really need to learn some very, very basic physics. That's like saying "I don't know what mass is"
No, of a cat.(/snark) Of course of materials. Materials in all fields. Tensile strengths, compressive strengths, elastic moduli, etc have all improved with time. But like pretty much every technological field except computing, the rate of improvements are nothing at all like some endless, 1.5-year exponential growth rate.
"Doubled since the 80s" vs. "quadrupled / sextupled / 1,5 orders of magnitude increase (gravimetric energy density, volumetric energy density, power density) since 1991." Batteries win hands down.
There never was some brief period of large improvements; ICE improvements have been relatively steady throughout the years. And they continue improving. But like almost all technological fields, the rate of improvement is nothing like the rate of improvements in computing.
What pile of biomass? The whole point of the process is to eliminate the biomass, turning it into hydrogen and CO2. It's an oxidation reaction.
Nonsense. Tesla uses ordinary 18650s and charges them in 40 minutes. Batteries that stress power density over energy density can charge in under 10 minute charges. Trust me, I've used them. They've been on the market for years.
Most technological fields would kill for advancements on the order of 4x, 6x, or ~20x in ~25 years. Do you think - say, picking a random example - that tensile strengths have advanced anywhere near that much? How about rocket propellent performance? Internal combustion engine efficiencies? Car tire rolling resistance improvements? Seriously, just because computers have advanced by Moore's Law doesn't mean that anything even close to that is normal. The rate of battery improvements has been very rapid by the standards of most technologies.
According to the paper, all CO2 generated by the photooxidation of lignocellulose enters the basic solution as carbonate ions. So it's up to you as to what you want to do with them after that - industrial feedstocks, reaction and sequestration, or even simple exhaustion as CO2, with the knowledge that at least it's a closed fuel cycle (CO2 taken in during growth being released back to the air).
It's a shame that the process doesn't generate CO rather than CO2. CO + H2 = syngas = great source for synfuels and other petroleum products (CO is relatively stable at normal temperatures and pressures but highly reactive at elevated temperatures and pressures, to the point of even spontaneously breaking down to C + CO2 - so when you have hydrogen in the mix, you have the stage set for the formation of hydrocarbons of varying lengths depending on your environmental conditions). Of course, I guess if they wanted syngas they'd just partially oxidize the lignocellulose directly under heat. In fact, as the paper mentions, that what's already done in biomass gasifiers. They just want the hydrogen.