Yes, but Panasonic has made repeated attempts at changing the name -- Infinium, Ready To Use. There's also Evolta which I believe is a different battery entirely.
Luckily the product itself stays the same, and it's been a few years since the last serious attempt at wiping out the Eneloop brand.
I have literally no idea why Panasonic hates the Eneloop brand. Panasonic even tried to dilute it with the "Eneloop Lite" thing.
Anyway, it is sometimes worth checking pricing of Panasonic Infinium, you might get them slightly cheaper than Eneloops and they are literally the same thing apart from the less attractive packaging. Eneloops are (and have always been, even in the Sanyo era) produced by Fujitsu. Fujitsu sells them under their own brand too. Again, same battery. Other manufacturers sell rebranded Fujitsu batteries as well, but some of them also sell Chinese batteries under the same brand name they use for Fujitsu batteries, so that gets complicated.
So far I have only dared buy Sanyo Eneloop (strangely you can sometimes still get those?!), Panasonic Eneloop, and Panasonic Infinium. I probably own fifty by now, and I can't recall disposing of any. I have lost a few to forgetting them in stuff that got sold/passed on to others; hopefully they found good homes.
Actually most devices work absolutely fine on 1.2V instead of 1.5V. They contain voltage regulators and it all works out. Regular rechargeables die rapidly from self-discharge though, giving people the impression that rechargeables are incompatible with devices. However, that is just because regular rechargeables suck.
As ZorinLynx says, buy Eneloops. Or one of the other Panasonic brands that are actually the same battery -- Panasonic marketing keeps trying to kill the Eneloop brand. There ARE applications where 1.2V Eneloops do not satisfy. However, most of those have moved to built-in Lithium batteries...
It would be very handy if they added a fifth slot to some devices though, just for the extra running time.
The article is about traditional 1.5V alkalines. Large lithium batteries are as far as I can tell continuing their rapid price decline. I don't know what consumer disposable lithium battery price is doing, I've never owned one.
This is completely wrong. The Linux kernel API/ABI is utterly stable. You can install one of the first distributions, switch the kernel to 4.x, and things will work just fine.
Profit is maximized at the market price assuming most customers are close to perfectly informed, and the fairness of single prices saving the few uninformed customers from being screwed over.
Since profit at market price is not really something that most companies find reasonable, they focus on minimizing customer information and charge the highest prices to the least informed customers. This is particularly evident in strictly financial companies that do not actually offer a tangible product, such as insurance, electricity, gas (as in natural gas, petrol is much harder to gouge on), telecommunications and similar.
Almost every modern language is strongly typed. I struggle to think of a modern weakly typed language, but there must surely be some in the embedded space.
You can perhaps argue that Perl is weakly typed, since you can do stuff like $a = '9'; print ++$a;. However, that is not really weak typing, it is just that the built-in Perl types have a really... imaginative set of valid operators. The string does not stop being a string just because you use an integer operator on it. This contrasts with C, where you can access the actual bit-representation of strings if you so desire, and there are rules that tell you reasonably precisely what you can expect to get out of that. Including the difference between behaviour that is undefined, implementation-defined, and a language extension.
Static typing on the other hand is mostly gone, again probably with the exception of embedded. Dynamic typing is everywhere. I miss static typing sometimes when I debug.
Passive solar means having to deal with hot liquids. No thank you. Hydro is pretty much built out to its maximum capacity by now, so that is not relevant going forward. Geothermal is great if you to hit the hot spot you expected -- otherwise not so much. Nuclear takes 20 years to come online and its price is stagnant or rising, in a market where practically all other sources of energy are getting dramatically cheaper.
Solar electric and wind are the only options that are easy to deploy and scale. Geothermal and passive solar are relevant if you have district heating, but most of the world does not and this is unlikely to change.
Cool Earth merely stops some rainforest destruction. This is great, but it is not carbon sequestering.
Mature forest is pretty much in CO2 balance, it does not sequester significant amounts of CO2. Obviously we should not burn it, but equally obviously we should not dig concentrated carbon out of the ground and burn that.
The video is manipulated or the camera is useless. It is obviously possible that it is footage from the actual camera that Uber uses for its computer vision -- which would only make it even easier to convict Uber's CEO of manslaughter. However, any half decent video camera would have spotted that pedestrian, and humans are much better than cameras at low light. There are other videos showing how well lit the road actually is.
It wasn't the back of the trailer. If only it had been the back, the radar would have mitigated the accident, quite likely saving the driver. US lorries do not have side impact protection, which means you can drive right under them if your car is low enough. Alas, the Tesla was only almost low enough.
In Denmark, the number of cyclists killed by lorries went down quite a lot when side impact protection was added to the lorries, in many cases stopping the bike from going beneath the lorry wheels. It seems like such an obvious low-cost solution (it is just a fairly thin sheet of metal or plastic after all) that I wonder why they are not mandatory everywhere.
No one can learn from a self driving car that only manages 13 miles between interventions. It should not be allowed on public roads in that condition; with such a short time between interventions there will be lots to learn from driving on closed tracks.
Once a car can do, say, a thousand miles between interventions on a test track with simulated obstacles, you can let it out where it can kill people.
Dara Khosrowshahi needs to go behind bars for manslaughter.
Even though the jaywalker died, the computer still reacted faster and more accurately than any human could. The computer identified and was reacting (including realizing swerving would not help) before there was anything visible to the human eye.
This is simply a lie. Any half witted human driver had at least 6 seconds to notice the pedestrian. Sadly the only person in the loop chose to look away from the road for most of those 6 seconds, and by the time they looked up it was too late.
Besides, Uber can't even manage its own target of THIRTEEN miles between interventions. Those are not self driving cars in any way.
This was manslaughter, and if Uber wanted to destroy the future of self driving cars, they could not have done a better job of it.
Uber cars can't manage 13 miles between interventions. Whoever is doing the debugging must be buried under tens of thousands of reports.
THAT is why they are to blame. An automatic car can mess up. It will happen once in a blue moon, and someone will die. Too bad, but that is the price of progress and you cannot really blame anyone, you can just compensate the family.
Sending cars out on the road that demonstrably cannot function is different. That is reckless manslaughter. There is no way that Dara Khosrowshahi was unaware of the (lack of) performance of the Uber cars. He needs to be prosecuted.
You are overcomplicating it. If a car ends up in a complicated situation where it has to guess at how many will get killed, the answer is always to just brake. Get the amount of energy in the collision down, and who knows, some people just might survive. If not, too bad.
Squirrels don't count for the evaluation, you are obliged to not risk anything to avoid a squirrel.
This is literally how roads are in basically every town and city I have ever been to. Pavement, kerb less than 10cm wide, then road. Requiring cars and particularly bicycles to go at only 10MPH would bring everything to a halt.
If you are asking why the bus did not drive in the inside lane, that is because there was only two lanes and it would have been kind of annoying for the cars coming the other way if the bus picked their lane.
If you are proposing a 10MPH speed limit on all two-lane roads, well that is certainly a valid proposal. I wish you good luck in your attempts at getting it through.
Because we are not willing to make our cars go at max 10MPH.
A bus passed me today while I was walking on the pavement. It was less than 10cm away, it practically touched. The only way to guarantee not hitting me if I decide to jump in front of it is to go below my speed. Even worse, if I had been walking TOWARDS the bus, it would have to drive backwards to be safe.
Slashdot Mirror
We've always been at war with Eurasia.
Yes, but Panasonic has made repeated attempts at changing the name -- Infinium, Ready To Use. There's also Evolta which I believe is a different battery entirely.
Luckily the product itself stays the same, and it's been a few years since the last serious attempt at wiping out the Eneloop brand.
I have literally no idea why Panasonic hates the Eneloop brand. Panasonic even tried to dilute it with the "Eneloop Lite" thing.
Anyway, it is sometimes worth checking pricing of Panasonic Infinium, you might get them slightly cheaper than Eneloops and they are literally the same thing apart from the less attractive packaging. Eneloops are (and have always been, even in the Sanyo era) produced by Fujitsu. Fujitsu sells them under their own brand too. Again, same battery. Other manufacturers sell rebranded Fujitsu batteries as well, but some of them also sell Chinese batteries under the same brand name they use for Fujitsu batteries, so that gets complicated.
So far I have only dared buy Sanyo Eneloop (strangely you can sometimes still get those?!), Panasonic Eneloop, and Panasonic Infinium. I probably own fifty by now, and I can't recall disposing of any. I have lost a few to forgetting them in stuff that got sold/passed on to others; hopefully they found good homes.
Actually most devices work absolutely fine on 1.2V instead of 1.5V. They contain voltage regulators and it all works out. Regular rechargeables die rapidly from self-discharge though, giving people the impression that rechargeables are incompatible with devices. However, that is just because regular rechargeables suck.
As ZorinLynx says, buy Eneloops. Or one of the other Panasonic brands that are actually the same battery -- Panasonic marketing keeps trying to kill the Eneloop brand. There ARE applications where 1.2V Eneloops do not satisfy. However, most of those have moved to built-in Lithium batteries...
It would be very handy if they added a fifth slot to some devices though, just for the extra running time.
The article is about traditional 1.5V alkalines. Large lithium batteries are as far as I can tell continuing their rapid price decline. I don't know what consumer disposable lithium battery price is doing, I've never owned one.
This is completely wrong. The Linux kernel API/ABI is utterly stable. You can install one of the first distributions, switch the kernel to 4.x, and things will work just fine.
You may have to enable a.out support though.
It's the kernel. You can't do incompatible API changes. Does that mean Linux should be on version 1.387.4?
Profit is maximized at the market price assuming most customers are close to perfectly informed, and the fairness of single prices saving the few uninformed customers from being screwed over.
Since profit at market price is not really something that most companies find reasonable, they focus on minimizing customer information and charge the highest prices to the least informed customers. This is particularly evident in strictly financial companies that do not actually offer a tangible product, such as insurance, electricity, gas (as in natural gas, petrol is much harder to gouge on), telecommunications and similar.
That was a very long post just to do s/open source s/Free S/
That can still be made illegal. It is fairly difficult to get around e.g. the Danish rules.
Almost every modern language is strongly typed. I struggle to think of a modern weakly typed language, but there must surely be some in the embedded space.
You can perhaps argue that Perl is weakly typed, since you can do stuff like $a = '9'; print ++$a;. However, that is not really weak typing, it is just that the built-in Perl types have a really... imaginative set of valid operators. The string does not stop being a string just because you use an integer operator on it. This contrasts with C, where you can access the actual bit-representation of strings if you so desire, and there are rules that tell you reasonably precisely what you can expect to get out of that. Including the difference between behaviour that is undefined, implementation-defined, and a language extension.
Static typing on the other hand is mostly gone, again probably with the exception of embedded. Dynamic typing is everywhere. I miss static typing sometimes when I debug.
Passive solar means having to deal with hot liquids. No thank you. Hydro is pretty much built out to its maximum capacity by now, so that is not relevant going forward. Geothermal is great if you to hit the hot spot you expected -- otherwise not so much. Nuclear takes 20 years to come online and its price is stagnant or rising, in a market where practically all other sources of energy are getting dramatically cheaper.
Solar electric and wind are the only options that are easy to deploy and scale. Geothermal and passive solar are relevant if you have district heating, but most of the world does not and this is unlikely to change.
Cool Earth merely stops some rainforest destruction. This is great, but it is not carbon sequestering.
Mature forest is pretty much in CO2 balance, it does not sequester significant amounts of CO2. Obviously we should not burn it, but equally obviously we should not dig concentrated carbon out of the ground and burn that.
The video is manipulated or the camera is useless. It is obviously possible that it is footage from the actual camera that Uber uses for its computer vision -- which would only make it even easier to convict Uber's CEO of manslaughter. However, any half decent video camera would have spotted that pedestrian, and humans are much better than cameras at low light. There are other videos showing how well lit the road actually is.
It wasn't the back of the trailer. If only it had been the back, the radar would have mitigated the accident, quite likely saving the driver. US lorries do not have side impact protection, which means you can drive right under them if your car is low enough. Alas, the Tesla was only almost low enough.
In Denmark, the number of cyclists killed by lorries went down quite a lot when side impact protection was added to the lorries, in many cases stopping the bike from going beneath the lorry wheels. It seems like such an obvious low-cost solution (it is just a fairly thin sheet of metal or plastic after all) that I wonder why they are not mandatory everywhere.
Note that if we'd used the same sort of "common sense" in 1899, we'd be using horse and buggy today....
Also note that it is almost certain that more than 26 people were killed in the US by accidents involving horses in 1899.
Self driving is NOT READY.
Self driving IS ready for testing on public roads. Uber self driving is NOT ready for testing on public roads. Nowhere near ready.
That is the difference between 13 miles per intervention and 5600 miles per intervention.
No one can learn from a self driving car that only manages 13 miles between interventions. It should not be allowed on public roads in that condition; with such a short time between interventions there will be lots to learn from driving on closed tracks.
Once a car can do, say, a thousand miles between interventions on a test track with simulated obstacles, you can let it out where it can kill people.
Dara Khosrowshahi needs to go behind bars for manslaughter.
Even though the jaywalker died, the computer still reacted faster and more accurately than any human could. The computer identified and was reacting (including realizing swerving would not help) before there was anything visible to the human eye.
This is simply a lie. Any half witted human driver had at least 6 seconds to notice the pedestrian. Sadly the only person in the loop chose to look away from the road for most of those 6 seconds, and by the time they looked up it was too late.
Besides, Uber can't even manage its own target of THIRTEEN miles between interventions. Those are not self driving cars in any way.
This was manslaughter, and if Uber wanted to destroy the future of self driving cars, they could not have done a better job of it.
There is a difference between saying "This ship is unsinkable" and "This ship would not have been sunk by that particular iceberg."
Uber cars can't manage 13 miles between interventions. Whoever is doing the debugging must be buried under tens of thousands of reports.
THAT is why they are to blame. An automatic car can mess up. It will happen once in a blue moon, and someone will die. Too bad, but that is the price of progress and you cannot really blame anyone, you can just compensate the family.
Sending cars out on the road that demonstrably cannot function is different. That is reckless manslaughter. There is no way that Dara Khosrowshahi was unaware of the (lack of) performance of the Uber cars. He needs to be prosecuted.
You are overcomplicating it. If a car ends up in a complicated situation where it has to guess at how many will get killed, the answer is always to just brake. Get the amount of energy in the collision down, and who knows, some people just might survive. If not, too bad.
Squirrels don't count for the evaluation, you are obliged to not risk anything to avoid a squirrel.
How do towns work where you live?
This is literally how roads are in basically every town and city I have ever been to. Pavement, kerb less than 10cm wide, then road. Requiring cars and particularly bicycles to go at only 10MPH would bring everything to a halt.
Why can't you drive in the left (inside) lane?
If you are asking why the bus did not drive in the inside lane, that is because there was only two lanes and it would have been kind of annoying for the cars coming the other way if the bus picked their lane.
If you are proposing a 10MPH speed limit on all two-lane roads, well that is certainly a valid proposal. I wish you good luck in your attempts at getting it through.
Because we are not willing to make our cars go at max 10MPH.
A bus passed me today while I was walking on the pavement. It was less than 10cm away, it practically touched. The only way to guarantee not hitting me if I decide to jump in front of it is to go below my speed. Even worse, if I had been walking TOWARDS the bus, it would have to drive backwards to be safe.