Nope, eBooks are actually more expensive to produce.
The cost of publishing books is in the editing and layout, not in the printing, especially when you're talking about long run paperback black and white books (not text books, which are an exception due to needing expensive papers, inks and techniques, though even there the massive cost of DTP work is still a huge component).
eBooks increase the cost because while the cost of paper is saved, the cost of having to do layout and editing in such a way that you support lots of different screen sizes, fonts, and sizes makes the actual publishing step much more complex.
Why would they need to do that? OpenGL still works on macOS. The library didn't get removed. The headers didn't even get removed! The only thing that changed was that they added __attribute__((deprecated("use Metal instead"))) to the headers.
And so are macOS users. They didn't remove the library. They didn't even remove the headers. All they did was add __attribute__((deprecated("use Metal instead"))) to the headers.
The problem with industry standards in this regard is that there's a lot of assholes out there.
Want to know why it took so long for Vulkan to appear and catch up with D3D? It's because of Autodesk. Autodesk litterally fought tooth and nail to make sure that graphics APIs never advanced to where Metal and D3D 12 are.
Heh, "Drives nicely" is about the strangest thing I've ever heard anyone say about the CMax. Ford's "EV"s are about the worst out there, with a whole slough of problems.
1) They're shitty 48V systems, that can't draw enough power out of the battery to accelerate at any decent rate.
2) They have the battery in the trunk, which is both fucking awful if you want to put anything in the car, and fucking awful for the centre of gravity, making them handle like crap.
3) Their software for managing the hybrid system is one of the worst out there, giving them unpredictable drive.
Honestly, there's litterally no EV or hybrid I'd want less than the CMax.
1) Tesla super chargers charge at 70kW*. That's only a little faster than the 50kW supported by the Bolt.
2) Who cares. I've owned an EV that supports DC charging for 4 years at this point, I've used DC charging a grand total of 2 times at this point, and it was plenty fast enough. The recharge rate is simply not a differentiating factor in EVs. You don't need them to charge fast, you need them to charge while you're sat in the office doing work, or asleep in bed, both of which happen today. EVs aren't things you think about "oh, I need to add fuel to this" in the same way as an ICE car, they're pretty much always full every time you get in them because you just plug them in every time you get out.
* When used by 2 cars at the same time, which is the norm by far.
It's not just restructuring to be more efficient, it's simple - Trump put a huge tariff on Solar Panel imports. That means it's much harder to make a profit being an installer now.
This is quite literally Trump's trade war in action.
The problem with that approach is that it destroys all benefits of a console. Games devs target consoles exactly because they know exactly what hardware they're targeting, and what performance constraints they have to hit. Making versions with all kinds of different hardware in them just makes them under-powered PCs.
Double hashing does effectively nothing useful. The correct solution if you don't trust that the tunnel is encrypted is to use a zero knowledge password exchange protocol like SRP.
The posted speed limit is a maximum, and considered safe in good conditions in daylight. The maximum speed you should be driving may well be considerably lower given poor visibility.
Nope, the aerodynamic drag is a combination of two things - 1) the cross sectional area, and 2) the coefficient of drag. The cross sectional area of the mirrors is very small. The coefficient of drag though is huge compared to the rest of the vehicle.
That article makes no such claim. In fact, it makes quite the opposite - it points out that reducing top speed dramatically improves on fuel consumption. That's because energy usage caused by drag squares with speed. At 30mph, not much of the energy you put in is used to overcome drag. At 60mph, getting on for 60% is used to overcome drag. At 80mph, almost all the energy goes towards overcoming drag.
That's why Teslas are the shape they are - because they're shaped for optimal aerodynamic drag. That's also why Tesla tried to ditch wing mirrors (but hit regulatory hurdles in doing so).
This is also why pretty much all super cars have a similar top speed around 220mph - they're limited pretty much entirely by the enormous wall of quadratic power increases needed to go faster. 70 horse power vehicles can get up to top speeds around 80mph, with pretty crapily shaped bodies. 150-200hp vehicles tend to get up to around 100-120mph. 400hp ones tend to get to around 150mph. 600hp ones with very low drag bodies tend to get to just beyond 200mph. To get up to 280 mph the Koeningsegg Regeira needs nearly 1200hp. To get to 1000mph, bloodhound will need 135,000hp.
Long story short - no, aerodynamic drag is *not* insignificant. At highway speeds it's the dominant force acting against the engine.
The big problem with a $50 mirror and $100 enclosure is that that mirror and enclosure cause enormous amounts of aerodynamic turbulence, and drag. Having those mirrors contributes around 7% of the total drag of the car. Improving a vehicle's fuel economy by 7% is ENORMOUS.
You only need to look at the styling on any modern car to see that *huge* amounts of effort goes into designing the thing to do nothing but steer air around the mirrors, and/or tidy up air that's just come off the mirrors.
When you're driving, you should be looking as far into the distance as you can. Your peripheral vision will take care of things happening near to you. What you need is advanced warning of what's up ahead.
No, that's not okay, because that's not speech and it's not legal. Firing you though *is* legal, and a perfectly valid action to take in return for your speech.
Not at all - it's you that's trying to redefine freedom (at least in America). In America, Freedom means "you're free to say it" and "google is free to react to it any way they please". That's how American freedom works.
If you want to be protected from evil corporate overlords being mean to you (and I wouldn't blame you if you did), you need Europe's version of freedom, not America's.
Yes - the point in this case is that it's a very specific type of freedom that's granted by the 1st amendment. Specifically, the government can not ban you from saying things.
This wasn't the government banning him from saying anything, it was google saying "yes, you can say that, but we disagree, and feel that you damaged our image so badly that you're fired". That's an entirely different thing.
No one from a government agency put him in prison, or legally punished him in any way for saying what he said, therefore his 1st amendment rights weren't violated.
Not illegal, just not speech that's granted special legal protection from a company disagreeing with you so vehemently that they feel that you damaged them so badly that they need to fire you.
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.
Because this was a test flight, and they needed to verify that separating and landing the side boosters worked. Now they need to verify that in doing all of that, no damage got caused to them, so very likely they're going to completely take them apart and look at every component in detail.
I agree with you for the most part. My one surprise in all of this is that they don't over-design the first vehicle. I'd have expected them to give themselves 15% more than they calculated they needed, and then observe "oh hey, we only needed 2% more than we thought" when it landed.
On the other hand, I guess maybe they did do that, and discovered that they needed 17% more than they thought.
The point is that Alphabet absorbs the risky propositions, and allows them to cut off money to them if the risk doesn't pan out, while google remains an isolated profit making group that is insulated from risk.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope, eBooks are actually more expensive to produce.
The cost of publishing books is in the editing and layout, not in the printing, especially when you're talking about long run paperback black and white books (not text books, which are an exception due to needing expensive papers, inks and techniques, though even there the massive cost of DTP work is still a huge component).
eBooks increase the cost because while the cost of paper is saved, the cost of having to do layout and editing in such a way that you support lots of different screen sizes, fonts, and sizes makes the actual publishing step much more complex.
Why would they need to do that? OpenGL still works on macOS. The library didn't get removed. The headers didn't even get removed! The only thing that changed was that they added __attribute__((deprecated("use Metal instead"))) to the headers.
And so are macOS users. They didn't remove the library. They didn't even remove the headers. All they did was add __attribute__((deprecated("use Metal instead"))) to the headers.
The problem with industry standards in this regard is that there's a lot of assholes out there.
Want to know why it took so long for Vulkan to appear and catch up with D3D? It's because of Autodesk. Autodesk litterally fought tooth and nail to make sure that graphics APIs never advanced to where Metal and D3D 12 are.
Heh, "Drives nicely" is about the strangest thing I've ever heard anyone say about the CMax. Ford's "EV"s are about the worst out there, with a whole slough of problems.
1) They're shitty 48V systems, that can't draw enough power out of the battery to accelerate at any decent rate.
2) They have the battery in the trunk, which is both fucking awful if you want to put anything in the car, and fucking awful for the centre of gravity, making them handle like crap.
3) Their software for managing the hybrid system is one of the worst out there, giving them unpredictable drive.
Honestly, there's litterally no EV or hybrid I'd want less than the CMax.
1) Tesla super chargers charge at 70kW*. That's only a little faster than the 50kW supported by the Bolt.
2) Who cares. I've owned an EV that supports DC charging for 4 years at this point, I've used DC charging a grand total of 2 times at this point, and it was plenty fast enough. The recharge rate is simply not a differentiating factor in EVs. You don't need them to charge fast, you need them to charge while you're sat in the office doing work, or asleep in bed, both of which happen today. EVs aren't things you think about "oh, I need to add fuel to this" in the same way as an ICE car, they're pretty much always full every time you get in them because you just plug them in every time you get out.
* When used by 2 cars at the same time, which is the norm by far.
Eh, in what way? A $35000 235 mile range car with a $7500 rebate already exists - the Chevy Bolt.
It's not just restructuring to be more efficient, it's simple - Trump put a huge tariff on Solar Panel imports. That means it's much harder to make a profit being an installer now.
This is quite literally Trump's trade war in action.
Yes, but not all of them have those viri in great quantities in their brain.
The problem with that approach is that it destroys all benefits of a console. Games devs target consoles exactly because they know exactly what hardware they're targeting, and what performance constraints they have to hit. Making versions with all kinds of different hardware in them just makes them under-powered PCs.
Double hashing does effectively nothing useful. The correct solution if you don't trust that the tunnel is encrypted is to use a zero knowledge password exchange protocol like SRP.
The posted speed limit is a maximum, and considered safe in good conditions in daylight. The maximum speed you should be driving may well be considerably lower given poor visibility.
Nope, the aerodynamic drag is a combination of two things - 1) the cross sectional area, and 2) the coefficient of drag. The cross sectional area of the mirrors is very small. The coefficient of drag though is huge compared to the rest of the vehicle.
That article makes no such claim. In fact, it makes quite the opposite - it points out that reducing top speed dramatically improves on fuel consumption. That's because energy usage caused by drag squares with speed. At 30mph, not much of the energy you put in is used to overcome drag. At 60mph, getting on for 60% is used to overcome drag. At 80mph, almost all the energy goes towards overcoming drag.
That's why Teslas are the shape they are - because they're shaped for optimal aerodynamic drag. That's also why Tesla tried to ditch wing mirrors (but hit regulatory hurdles in doing so).
This is also why pretty much all super cars have a similar top speed around 220mph - they're limited pretty much entirely by the enormous wall of quadratic power increases needed to go faster. 70 horse power vehicles can get up to top speeds around 80mph, with pretty crapily shaped bodies. 150-200hp vehicles tend to get up to around 100-120mph. 400hp ones tend to get to around 150mph. 600hp ones with very low drag bodies tend to get to just beyond 200mph. To get up to 280 mph the Koeningsegg Regeira needs nearly 1200hp. To get to 1000mph, bloodhound will need 135,000hp.
Long story short - no, aerodynamic drag is *not* insignificant. At highway speeds it's the dominant force acting against the engine.
The big problem with a $50 mirror and $100 enclosure is that that mirror and enclosure cause enormous amounts of aerodynamic turbulence, and drag. Having those mirrors contributes around 7% of the total drag of the car. Improving a vehicle's fuel economy by 7% is ENORMOUS.
You only need to look at the styling on any modern car to see that *huge* amounts of effort goes into designing the thing to do nothing but steer air around the mirrors, and/or tidy up air that's just come off the mirrors.
You're doin it rong then.
When you're driving, you should be looking as far into the distance as you can. Your peripheral vision will take care of things happening near to you. What you need is advanced warning of what's up ahead.
https://driversed.com/driving-...
No, that's not okay, because that's not speech and it's not legal. Firing you though *is* legal, and a perfectly valid action to take in return for your speech.
Not at all - it's you that's trying to redefine freedom (at least in America). In America, Freedom means "you're free to say it" and "google is free to react to it any way they please". That's how American freedom works.
If you want to be protected from evil corporate overlords being mean to you (and I wouldn't blame you if you did), you need Europe's version of freedom, not America's.
Yes - the point in this case is that it's a very specific type of freedom that's granted by the 1st amendment. Specifically, the government can not ban you from saying things.
This wasn't the government banning him from saying anything, it was google saying "yes, you can say that, but we disagree, and feel that you damaged our image so badly that you're fired". That's an entirely different thing.
No one from a government agency put him in prison, or legally punished him in any way for saying what he said, therefore his 1st amendment rights weren't violated.
Not illegal, just not speech that's granted special legal protection from a company disagreeing with you so vehemently that they feel that you damaged them so badly that they need to fire you.
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.
And the answer is "EU law".
That fine is 0.25% of facebook's revenue, or 5% of their profit. They sure as hell are going to pay attention to a fine that size.
Because this was a test flight, and they needed to verify that separating and landing the side boosters worked. Now they need to verify that in doing all of that, no damage got caused to them, so very likely they're going to completely take them apart and look at every component in detail.
I agree with you for the most part. My one surprise in all of this is that they don't over-design the first vehicle. I'd have expected them to give themselves 15% more than they calculated they needed, and then observe "oh hey, we only needed 2% more than we thought" when it landed.
On the other hand, I guess maybe they did do that, and discovered that they needed 17% more than they thought.
The point is that Alphabet absorbs the risky propositions, and allows them to cut off money to them if the risk doesn't pan out, while google remains an isolated profit making group that is insulated from risk.