Which 90% though?
Like the Coca Cola exec who remarked that he was pretty sure half of his advertising budget was wasted, he just wasn't sure which half.
From the Acquine website
"A rule of thumb is that if the aesthetic quality of a photo is obvious to most people, it may not be worthwhile to seek Acquine's opinion on it because Acquine may assign funny scores in such cases."
So in cases where the correct score is obvious, Acquine's score can't be trusted? That rather neatly avoids validation or refutation of Acquine's results. This is suspicious and seems to cast doubt on the trustworthiness of its score in less obvious cases.
Vague memories from my physics degree suggest that as much energy is wasted while charging the capacitor as is actually stored in it. See eg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitor#Power_dissipation.
Does this mean that this system could only ever be 50% efficient? Does anyone know whether similar physics applies to battery systems?
Slashdot Mirror
Surely Slashdot readers are too smart to fall for this kind of thing anyway? ;-)
Which 90% though? Like the Coca Cola exec who remarked that he was pretty sure half of his advertising budget was wasted, he just wasn't sure which half.
From the Acquine website "A rule of thumb is that if the aesthetic quality of a photo is obvious to most people, it may not be worthwhile to seek Acquine's opinion on it because Acquine may assign funny scores in such cases." So in cases where the correct score is obvious, Acquine's score can't be trusted? That rather neatly avoids validation or refutation of Acquine's results. This is suspicious and seems to cast doubt on the trustworthiness of its score in less obvious cases.
Vague memories from my physics degree suggest that as much energy is wasted while charging the capacitor as is actually stored in it. See eg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitor#Power_dissipation. Does this mean that this system could only ever be 50% efficient? Does anyone know whether similar physics applies to battery systems?