Even normal TV programmes have lots of sharp lines and outlines as well as high contrasting bits (e.g: snooker, gates/fences, fireworks, striped/chequered shirt, fireworks, decoration, sunset on the water, grass, crystals, specular reflections on curved objects, and of course lots of text, whether subtitles or as part of the programme).
No more (or minimal) moire effects with 4k too.
Re:Auto-save is NOT your friend
on
Goodbye, Ctrl-S
·
· Score: 1
With unlimited undo/redo (and saving of that), then perhaps you don't need the secondary copy. Doubt it's practical though for space/HD access reasons.
Nah, it's a rate. So 4.6 kilowatts increase for every ten seconds (9.2 kW after 20 seconds, 13.8 kW after 30 seconds).
Well either that or the article's dumb - sigh....
Since it's not a scientific paper, but an article for the general public, "0.1 times less" would never get printed, is not in common usage, and so is technically undefined as of yet, but I see your point.
The point is, even amongst those who are compaining, I bet not ONE slashdotter misinterpreted that sentence in the original article.
Well then there's nothing more I can really say apart from: The author's way of using "less" I think is fine. Language evolves all the time, and I think this usage is not only perfectly acceptable, but is consistent, and even an *improvement* in many cases (since for other numbers, it's potentially awkward - see my other post).
As someone else pointed out, it's even MORE appropriate given what he said in the sentence: “Supercapacitors store ten times less energy than current lithium-ion batteries, but they can last a thousand times longer.". That's a good way to contrast 10 with 1000, and it's said eloquently, making perfect sense to probably 99.9% of the population.
That's all well and good, but what rolls off the tongue quicker and is less ambiguous for other numbers? For example, "one three hundred and seventieth", or "three hundred and seventy times less"? The latter is clearly superior.
Elon says they wished they had created the Roadster from scratch, as it would have saved them a lot of time and money, though perhaps it was a good learning experience...
Neither was the word 'Roadster' used in the thread. His point is that Tesla is now doing a perfectly good job of making cars without any help from outside, so it doesn't make sense to go the battery-only route.
In actual fact, Tesla made most of the Roadster too. They found out the hard way and ended up changing most of what they had, so they wished they had built it from scratch as it would have saved them loads of time and money. In any case, they are doing that with the Model S now.
As an investor in Tesla, this story suits me okay. I have to admit, I'm pretty surprised to see posting of financial results on Slashdot though. That's how captivating Tesla must be to the public, to post something as usually dull and mundane as quarterly results!
Infinite weighting could be given to the person in the car. I would imagine there are microscopically few incidences where more than pedestrian is involved in an accident.
Tungsten is about the best you're gonna get if you want to buy something really heavy (almost twice as heavy as lead), that's easily available to the general public, relatively cheap, and non-toxic. I went and just bought this:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Tungst...
On a related note, I asked this quessie at a laser pointer forum a while back. Would still be interested in hearing a real answer:
http://laserpointerforums.com/...
I often wonder what a programming language would look like if CPU and memory were infinitely fast and big. What kind of constructs and algorithms would we never have to worry about any more?
Sorting? Scrap Quicksort - BogoSort to the rescue! Garbage collection? No worries - the waste disposal area is essentially a black hole! Bugs with threading driving you to despair? Never fear, say goodbye to race conditions forever! What does 'optimization' even mean - just brute force everything!
Elegant wouldn't even begin to describe the result. Perhaps it would look a little Basic-esque even... [ducks]
Slashdot Mirror
Even normal TV programmes have lots of sharp lines and outlines as well as high contrasting bits (e.g: snooker, gates/fences, fireworks, striped/chequered shirt, fireworks, decoration, sunset on the water, grass, crystals, specular reflections on curved objects, and of course lots of text, whether subtitles or as part of the programme). No more (or minimal) moire effects with 4k too.
With unlimited undo/redo (and saving of that), then perhaps you don't need the secondary copy. Doubt it's practical though for space/HD access reasons.
It's even more meaningless with a unit of time.
Nah, it's a rate. So 4.6 kilowatts increase for every ten seconds (9.2 kW after 20 seconds, 13.8 kW after 30 seconds). Well either that or the article's dumb - sigh....
Since it's not a scientific paper, but an article for the general public, "0.1 times less" would never get printed, is not in common usage, and so is technically undefined as of yet, but I see your point.
The point is, even amongst those who are compaining, I bet not ONE slashdotter misinterpreted that sentence in the original article.
Well then there's nothing more I can really say apart from: The author's way of using "less" I think is fine. Language evolves all the time, and I think this usage is not only perfectly acceptable, but is consistent, and even an *improvement* in many cases (since for other numbers, it's potentially awkward - see my other post).
As someone else pointed out, it's even MORE appropriate given what he said in the sentence: “Supercapacitors store ten times less energy than current lithium-ion batteries, but they can last a thousand times longer.". That's a good way to contrast 10 with 1000, and it's said eloquently, making perfect sense to probably 99.9% of the population.
Would you be happier with "ten times lower" or "ten times lesser" at least?
Hmmm... how about "ten times greater" or "ten times higher"? Would you be happier with "ten times lesser" or "ten times lower" then?
That's all well and good, but what rolls off the tongue quicker and is less ambiguous for other numbers? For example, "one three hundred and seventieth", or "three hundred and seventy times less"? The latter is clearly superior.
That's like saying if 10=more and 5=less, which is greater, one tenth, or one eleventh.
"Ten times more" would mean multiply by ten, so it makes sense that "ten times less" means divide. It's consistent, and that's the main thing.
Right. How heavy is the axle weight on some of the heaviest lorries/trucks on our roads compared to an average car?
Can you give the equation? How many times would a truck go over the road equal the same wear as a car doing the same?
Why would squaring key lengths be impractical?
murdered several Prius owners
Yeah you might want a source for that.
Elon says they wished they had created the Roadster from scratch, as it would have saved them a lot of time and money, though perhaps it was a good learning experience...
Neither was the word 'Roadster' used in the thread. His point is that Tesla is now doing a perfectly good job of making cars without any help from outside, so it doesn't make sense to go the battery-only route.
In actual fact, Tesla made most of the Roadster too. They found out the hard way and ended up changing most of what they had, so they wished they had built it from scratch as it would have saved them loads of time and money. In any case, they are doing that with the Model S now.
As an investor in Tesla, this story suits me okay. I have to admit, I'm pretty surprised to see posting of financial results on Slashdot though. That's how captivating Tesla must be to the public, to post something as usually dull and mundane as quarterly results!
Somehow, involving innocents seems to change the ethical choices.
Give innocents a weighting of factor 2 or 3 over non-innocents. The exact number is going to be controversial, but at least it's a start.
Infinite weighting could be given to the person in the car. I would imagine there are microscopically few incidences where more than pedestrian is involved in an accident.
Tungsten is about the best you're gonna get if you want to buy something really heavy (almost twice as heavy as lead), that's easily available to the general public, relatively cheap, and non-toxic. I went and just bought this: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Tungst...
On a related note, I asked this quessie at a laser pointer forum a while back. Would still be interested in hearing a real answer: http://laserpointerforums.com/...
I thought fragments of graphene were found in graphite, so shall we start to ban all pencils while we're at it?
Whatever happened to redundant/multiple video recordings, like you know, how we back up data? Failing that, a stronger signal wouldn't hurt surely?
I often wonder what a programming language would look like if CPU and memory were infinitely fast and big. What kind of constructs and algorithms would we never have to worry about any more?
Sorting? Scrap Quicksort - BogoSort to the rescue! Garbage collection? No worries - the waste disposal area is essentially a black hole! Bugs with threading driving you to despair? Never fear, say goodbye to race conditions forever! What does 'optimization' even mean - just brute force everything!
Elegant wouldn't even begin to describe the result. Perhaps it would look a little Basic-esque even... [ducks]