With my EV, I get 70% in a MN winter, and that's keeping it at 70F before I ever get in. We've never run out of battery in a single day for the past 6 months. We do have a gas car, but it basically just sits there because it's much more expensive to drive and not nearly as fun.
The single biggest problem for hybrids is all the maintenance that's still required due to the ICE, plus complexity of adding the battery/EV side.
If you're familiar with gas car maintenance, there's *none* of this: oil/filter change, radiator, timing belt, water pump, fuel pump/lines/pressure regulator, EVAP canister, MAF sensor, O2 sensor, muffler/exhaust/catalytic converter, spark plugs, air filter, tranny fluid/filter, thermostat, power steering fluid, EGR valve, pistons/cylinders/push rods/rockers/heads, ignition relay... I've had to repair every one of those things in my past vehicles (I checked my records). None. of. that. exists. Think golf cart simple (on the mechanical side.. software is obviously complex).
For a non-Tesla, long trips are a problem. For Teslas, they have superchargers, making it only a minor issue. 95% of most people's driving is commuting, so this is not really a big deal (especially for a family with multiple cars).
By the way, I hope you're putting stabilizer in your gas.
I've actually published research papers in the field of image enhancement. Sorry to say this, but I have to because you are acting so authoritative: Everything you say is bullshit. the original poster is 100% correct. you haven't the slightest notion of what you speak.
I just have to laugh at this statement. From an anonymous coward.. Please, show me your multiple research papers, as well as the supposed BS in my posts. Or are you just the same person I've responded to already? [sigh]
Unbelievable. Where did I say that you're actually gaining more pixels? I'm saying that interpolating (i.e. intelligently guessing) at what should be "between" the actual pixel structure (lower res image that contains the data) will look better than only that data.
Nowhere did I say that it "increases the resolution", though if you want to be technical about it, the scaling itself increases the resolution. Obviously scaling in and of itself will look like crap, so there is processing done (interpolation) to that image to guess what would be there if there were an infinite number of pixels to start with.
It'd be like taking a low res digital camera of an object, then taking a high resolution image. There is an obvious difference in quality, and with processing, the extra pixels can be "guessed" based on the source image. **Note that I am NOT saying the quality will be the same as the high res image!!**
I never said that upconverted (to 720p, for example) DVDs will look as good as a native 720p source. That's why Blu-Ray and HD-DVD are coming.. (and HD sources that are already commonplace). Both of you are putting words in my mouth now -- what do you have to say about the actual *results* from the link I provided?
Wow. It's quite obvious you've never experienced the difference between a progressive scan 480p DVD player, and a good upconverting 720p DVD player. Otherwise you'd realize your statement is nonsense.
It sounds great in theory that you can't make it look any better, but that's just not the way it is in the real world. So perhaps you can see for yourself (as you obviously don't have the various equipment to compare for real, or you wouldn't be saying what you are), see the following link:
Thus S-video is much lower resolution than RGB or DVI. S video has the resolution of a TV set and DVDs have about 4 to 16 times more infomration content that you cant access except through your PC.
Which "TV set"? Not an HDTV. What do you mean by 4 to 16 times more information than you can access? It displays natively at 480p, so any EDTV or HDTV display will be able to display the entire content that resides on a DVD player. Higher res displays will simply make it look better with good deinterlacing and scaling.
The workaround quasi solution is component video output. It's still a notch down from RGB but it's better than S-video. Cheap DVD players and DLP projectors don't have these.
..and RGB is a step down from DVI & HDMI. You're right that it's better than component, but you're absolutely wrong that DVD players and projectors don't have component inputs. I've owned a $80 DVD player and $600 projector that both had component connections. You need to stop spreading inaccurate info and FUD. [sigh]
Wow, you really have no clue. No, I take that back.. you know enough to be dangerous and give bad advice. (For starters, there's no such thing as "WGA".. perhaps you mean WVGA (854x480)?) Allow me to elaborate:
An HD-TV broadcast contians less information than an XGA screen.
HDTV is considered either 720p or 1080i (and in the future, higher resolutions such as 1080p, etc). 720p is WXGA, which is more pixels than XGA. So both variants of HD resolution contain more information than an XGA screen.
Thus going to higher resolution screens not only does not increase performance. Actaully the reverse is true it degrades it. When you go to higher resolution projectors you either have to use a subset of their pixels, which proportioanlly throws away the majority of the lumens, or you have put up with the ugly and noticable artifacts of interpolation (jagged edges on fast moving high contrast edges, and the poor rendering of fog and smoke). Additionally, all else being equal, denser pixel projectors waste more of the surface area to the dead zones around the pixels and also tend to have more variation and lower contrast.
WTF?! Denser resolution projectors are better assuming you have a decent deinterlacer and scaler. Sure, if you feed it through a crappy processor you're going to get crap. But I can say from experience that the exact same DVDs through my 720p projector look quite a bit better than my old 480p projector. The real area that it shines is HD, but I'll get to that later...
A good deinterlacer practically eliminates any "jaggies", and a good scaler will blend the pixels together and interpolate the information to the point that the resulting image looks much better than the original. Upconverting DVD players exist for a reason, and it's not just marketing hype.. it works (better picture), even on WVGA displays.
How does higher resolution imply "more variation" (whatever that's supposed to mean), and lower contrast? They have very little to do with each other. Many CRT projectors are 1080p+ and have amazing contrast (not even comparable with most 480p digital PJs).
Second, while the information content of a DVD is indeed equal to the number of pixels on a 800x600 projector, the aspect ratio is not... But more importantly, manufacturers are not treating WGA as a low-end product like they do SVGA. They may be putting in the higher wuality components into their WGA and WXGA projectors. And it's those components, not the useless improved resolution that you want to buy.
Again, DVD is equal to WVGA (480p), not SVGA. I can assure you that 480p projectors are considered "low end", and that higher-quality components are not in them. About the best 480p DLP projector you can buy right now is around $1500. The cheapest 720p DLP is about $2500 - I'll let everyone guess which has the better internal components. Secondly, increased resolution is not useless, and is, in fact, the most important factor (assuming everything else is generally equal, as you stated that caveat as well, and it's important to note).
Fo me all I'm interested in are DVDs but many folks are keen on HD (By the time HD becomes mainstream your current pojector will have bunred out anyhow so need to look ahead in your current purchase)
Perhaps we need a newsflash, but HD is most certainly mainstream right now. I live in an average-sized metropolitan area and can get every OTA channel in HD, and another dozen or so cable channels in HD. At least half of the TVs in the Big Box stores are HD capable. You're missing out immensely without HDTV (though of course, if you don't know what you're missing, carry on.. just don't say there's not much of a difference or it's not commonplace because it is).
Things to look for in the following order of importance are 0) DLP 1) quiet 2) RGB or digital inputs 3) contrast 4) lumens 5) darkness control 6) color fidelity 7) optical, not digital keystone correction 8) a short
Yes, you need a relatively dark room for front projection. But it's worth it. I have a 720p DLP projector that shoots a 106" image and I view from 13' away. The entire setup cost around $2.5K.
Just what some people would want are "extremely personal ads" where they walk by a kiosk in the mall, and it asks if they want to switch from Viagra to Levitra...
Doesn't sound all that great, really...$100 mil for that? I can do that right now for free...in fact, I am doing that right now (sitting in my cramped cubicle, eating Ding-Dongs from the snack machine, and examining the cratered lunar crust.
Interesting.. my boss and a coworker went to this very conference.. (and I know two others that went as well) I'll ask them about it tomorrow morning..
Agreed -- It's my opinion that it should be legal to use other's open internet connections (for the reasons you stated above), but of course be illegal for anything you do on it that is illegal. (The original article referred to child porn, etc)
Very nice -- I applaud your actions. This is why I always go shopping for a car in very casual clothes. It also gives credence to the guise I put on that I "can't really afford that" to get the price lower.
A 1987 Escort is designed to be steered without power steering. A 1994 Mitsubishi GTO (the car I'm refering to) is not.
Says who? If they both have power steering, they're both designed to be steered with power steering, not without.
By the way, nobody's saying that it's harder to control a car that's lost these functions, but it's also very rare that you lost those functions (once, then you get it fixed).
Re:Cool ads, but I don't think they promote Firefo
on
Firefox Promo Videos
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Interesting, I didn't even get them knowing what Firefox is. At best, they are lame.
As this is only one person's opinion, take it with a grain of salt of course.
Almost certainly not (will the 19" have 1080 vertical lines). My 20" Dell widescreen LCD panel is 1680 x 1050, so it doesn't even reach 1080 vertical.. pretty close though.
What you're basically saying is, "Newton's laws = Fact, but an approximation, but Einstein's theory is a better approximation, but it may be completely wrong".
What the hell are you talking about? A fact does not have a better approximation, it is fact. Methinks you don't know what a fact is. You can't better approximate 2 + 2 = 4, it's a fact. You also can't say Pi = 3.14159, because it can be better approximated.
Declarative statements, no matter how emphatic, do not imply truth. See sig.
Slashdot Mirror
With my EV, I get 70% in a MN winter, and that's keeping it at 70F before I ever get in. We've never run out of battery in a single day for the past 6 months. We do have a gas car, but it basically just sits there because it's much more expensive to drive and not nearly as fun.
The single biggest problem for hybrids is all the maintenance that's still required due to the ICE, plus complexity of adding the battery/EV side. If you're familiar with gas car maintenance, there's *none* of this: oil/filter change, radiator, timing belt, water pump, fuel pump/lines/pressure regulator, EVAP canister, MAF sensor, O2 sensor, muffler/exhaust/catalytic converter, spark plugs, air filter, tranny fluid/filter, thermostat, power steering fluid, EGR valve, pistons/cylinders/push rods/rockers/heads, ignition relay... I've had to repair every one of those things in my past vehicles (I checked my records). None. of. that. exists. Think golf cart simple (on the mechanical side.. software is obviously complex). For a non-Tesla, long trips are a problem. For Teslas, they have superchargers, making it only a minor issue. 95% of most people's driving is commuting, so this is not really a big deal (especially for a family with multiple cars). By the way, I hope you're putting stabilizer in your gas.
I've actually published research papers in the field of image enhancement. Sorry to say this, but I have to because you are acting so authoritative: Everything you say is bullshit. the original poster is 100% correct. you haven't the slightest notion of what you speak.
I just have to laugh at this statement. From an anonymous coward.. Please, show me your multiple research papers, as well as the supposed BS in my posts. Or are you just the same person I've responded to already? [sigh]
Unbelievable. Where did I say that you're actually gaining more pixels? I'm saying that interpolating (i.e. intelligently guessing) at what should be "between" the actual pixel structure (lower res image that contains the data) will look better than only that data.
Nowhere did I say that it "increases the resolution", though if you want to be technical about it, the scaling itself increases the resolution. Obviously scaling in and of itself will look like crap, so there is processing done (interpolation) to that image to guess what would be there if there were an infinite number of pixels to start with.
It'd be like taking a low res digital camera of an object, then taking a high resolution image. There is an obvious difference in quality, and with processing, the extra pixels can be "guessed" based on the source image. **Note that I am NOT saying the quality will be the same as the high res image!!**
I never said that upconverted (to 720p, for example) DVDs will look as good as a native 720p source. That's why Blu-Ray and HD-DVD are coming.. (and HD sources that are already commonplace). Both of you are putting words in my mouth now -- what do you have to say about the actual *results* from the link I provided?
By the way, you may need to use IE to see the mouseover effects - it doesn't seem to work in Firefox.
Wow. It's quite obvious you've never experienced the difference between a progressive scan 480p DVD player, and a good upconverting 720p DVD player. Otherwise you'd realize your statement is nonsense.
It sounds great in theory that you can't make it look any better, but that's just not the way it is in the real world. So perhaps you can see for yourself (as you obviously don't have the various equipment to compare for real, or you wouldn't be saying what you are), see the following link:
Post-processing with FFDShow
The comparisons are purely a result of interpolation, nothing more or less.
Thus S-video is much lower resolution than RGB or DVI. S video has the resolution of a TV set and DVDs have about 4 to 16 times more infomration content that you cant access except through your PC.
..and RGB is a step down from DVI & HDMI. You're right that it's better than component, but you're absolutely wrong that DVD players and projectors don't have component inputs. I've owned a $80 DVD player and $600 projector that both had component connections. You need to stop spreading inaccurate info and FUD. [sigh]
Which "TV set"? Not an HDTV. What do you mean by 4 to 16 times more information than you can access? It displays natively at 480p, so any EDTV or HDTV display will be able to display the entire content that resides on a DVD player. Higher res displays will simply make it look better with good deinterlacing and scaling.
The workaround quasi solution is component video output. It's still a notch down from RGB but it's better than S-video. Cheap DVD players and DLP projectors don't have these.
Wow, you really have no clue. No, I take that back.. you know enough to be dangerous and give bad advice. (For starters, there's no such thing as "WGA".. perhaps you mean WVGA (854x480)?) Allow me to elaborate:
An HD-TV broadcast contians less information than an XGA screen.
HDTV is considered either 720p or 1080i (and in the future, higher resolutions such as 1080p, etc). 720p is WXGA, which is more pixels than XGA. So both variants of HD resolution contain more information than an XGA screen.
Thus going to higher resolution screens not only does not increase performance. Actaully the reverse is true it degrades it. When you go to higher resolution projectors you either have to use a subset of their pixels, which proportioanlly throws away the majority of the lumens, or you have put up with the ugly and noticable artifacts of interpolation (jagged edges on fast moving high contrast edges, and the poor rendering of fog and smoke). Additionally, all else being equal, denser pixel projectors waste more of the surface area to the dead zones around the pixels and also tend to have more variation and lower contrast.
WTF?! Denser resolution projectors are better assuming you have a decent deinterlacer and scaler. Sure, if you feed it through a crappy processor you're going to get crap. But I can say from experience that the exact same DVDs through my 720p projector look quite a bit better than my old 480p projector. The real area that it shines is HD, but I'll get to that later...
A good deinterlacer practically eliminates any "jaggies", and a good scaler will blend the pixels together and interpolate the information to the point that the resulting image looks much better than the original. Upconverting DVD players exist for a reason, and it's not just marketing hype.. it works (better picture), even on WVGA displays.
How does higher resolution imply "more variation" (whatever that's supposed to mean), and lower contrast? They have very little to do with each other. Many CRT projectors are 1080p+ and have amazing contrast (not even comparable with most 480p digital PJs).
Second, while the information content of a DVD is indeed equal to the number of pixels on a 800x600 projector, the aspect ratio is not... But more importantly, manufacturers are not treating WGA as a low-end product like they do SVGA. They may be putting in the higher wuality components into their WGA and WXGA projectors. And it's those components, not the useless improved resolution that you want to buy.
Again, DVD is equal to WVGA (480p), not SVGA. I can assure you that 480p projectors are considered "low end", and that higher-quality components are not in them. About the best 480p DLP projector you can buy right now is around $1500. The cheapest 720p DLP is about $2500 - I'll let everyone guess which has the better internal components. Secondly, increased resolution is not useless, and is, in fact, the most important factor (assuming everything else is generally equal, as you stated that caveat as well, and it's important to note).
Fo me all I'm interested in are DVDs but many folks are keen on HD (By the time HD becomes mainstream your current pojector will have bunred out anyhow so need to look ahead in your current purchase)
Perhaps we need a newsflash, but HD is most certainly mainstream right now. I live in an average-sized metropolitan area and can get every OTA channel in HD, and another dozen or so cable channels in HD. At least half of the TVs in the Big Box stores are HD capable. You're missing out immensely without HDTV (though of course, if you don't know what you're missing, carry on.. just don't say there's not much of a difference or it's not commonplace because it is).
Things to look for in the following order of importance are 0) DLP 1) quiet 2) RGB or digital inputs 3) contrast 4) lumens 5) darkness control 6) color fidelity 7) optical, not digital keystone correction 8) a short
Yes, you need a relatively dark room for front projection. But it's worth it. I have a 720p DLP projector that shoots a 106" image and I view from 13' away. The entire setup cost around $2.5K.
Just what some people would want are "extremely personal ads" where they walk by a kiosk in the mall, and it asks if they want to switch from Viagra to Levitra...
The name "Mighty Mouse"? How cheesy is that...
Is one of your projects to assist in analyzing Samba source code to help coworkers better understand the SMB protocol?
(Shameless, I know...)
Doesn't sound all that great, really...$100 mil for that? I can do that right now for free...in fact, I am doing that right now (sitting in my cramped cubicle, eating Ding-Dongs from the snack machine, and examining the cratered lunar crust.
You get free Ding-Dongs at work? Are they hiring?
Interesting.. my boss and a coworker went to this very conference.. (and I know two others that went as well) I'll ask them about it tomorrow morning..
Agreed -- It's my opinion that it should be legal to use other's open internet connections (for the reasons you stated above), but of course be illegal for anything you do on it that is illegal. (The original article referred to child porn, etc)
Very nice -- I applaud your actions. This is why I always go shopping for a car in very casual clothes. It also gives credence to the guise I put on that I "can't really afford that" to get the price lower.
A 1987 Escort is designed to be steered without power steering. A 1994 Mitsubishi GTO (the car I'm refering to) is not.
Says who? If they both have power steering, they're both designed to be steered with power steering, not without.
By the way, nobody's saying that it's harder to control a car that's lost these functions, but it's also very rare that you lost those functions (once, then you get it fixed).
Interesting, I didn't even get them knowing what Firefox is. At best, they are lame. As this is only one person's opinion, take it with a grain of salt of course.
Almost certainly not (will the 19" have 1080 vertical lines). My 20" Dell widescreen LCD panel is 1680 x 1050, so it doesn't even reach 1080 vertical.. pretty close though.
9 out of 10? Yeah, I guess the other 10% are high-end users who want high def capture cards, not crappy SD tuners.
"If you didn't care about cosmetics"?!?
Were you *blind* when you bought that case? It's hideous.
Yeah, just don't start scrolling down I-70 in Nebraska, or you'll get bored out of your mind.
Just like in real life.
Why wasn't this modded informative?...
:-)
What you're basically saying is, "Newton's laws = Fact, but an approximation, but Einstein's theory is a better approximation, but it may be completely wrong". What the hell are you talking about? A fact does not have a better approximation, it is fact. Methinks you don't know what a fact is. You can't better approximate 2 + 2 = 4, it's a fact. You also can't say Pi = 3.14159, because it can be better approximated. Declarative statements, no matter how emphatic, do not imply truth. See sig.
As I read through the article, it's clear that either English is not the author's first language, or they're just a moron.