Electricity is approaching an order of magnitude cheaper in terms of cost to the customer per mile driven compared to gas. This alone is a BIG factor in determining the future outcome of battery tech, especially considering the 8% increase in capacity for batteries year upon year.
Obviously, there are other desirable features to a solid-state battery too - silentness, zero pollution or smell, no oil changes, great acceleration, negligible latency or lag of acceleration/deceleration, improved safety, maximum torque (even from 0mph), and regenerative braking - these all help make batteries a better bet, even today.
But I think the thing that most people often forget is the amazing maintenance requirements for a battery car. They're virtually none. FAR fewer moving parts than the Victorian kludge that is the internal combustion engine. I wouldn't be surprised to see it last more than 30 years with less than a couple of grand in maintenance.
So will all cars be battery powered by 2030? Very possibly, or at least all NEW cars sold will be battery.
You could look at it as a slippery slope. Or you could look at it as various moral shades of grey. In my opinion, adopting H264 and H265 will push OS communities to work harder and actually try to beat them, rather than just making to do with mediocrity.
H264 is apparently quite a bit better than the alternatives in areas such as playback quality for a given bitrate, and encoding time. It's hard to ignore that. I'm sure if the OS community came up with something that really was better, they'd switch to that shortly after.
I thought he was being sarcastic. That would've been much funnier and more cutting.
Re:Why not just multiple monitors.
on
4K Is For Programmers
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
A window manager could split the big screen into sections (arbitrarily, not just similar to your current multiple monitor setup), and the maximize button would then maximize to only that current portion. Maybe something like Winsplit Revolution already does that. That was my entire point - it can be emulated to behave like multiple monitors if you so wish.
Then if you really want to use the WHOLE screen, you can do that too.
Perhaps not right now in practice, but all of the factors you mentioned can be theoretically overcome, either with spending a little more, and/or better software to emulate the temporary advantages you mentioned (cloning a part of the screen can be done via software for example). With a single screen, we have the big advantage of height of course. It'll be something greater than the sum of its parts (sorry, couldn't resist).
You missed the bit where I said 'in principle' and 'emulate'. Both bigger monitors (with better resolutions) and better window managers can overcome the problems you mentioned, and get much better height. And you don't get any of the disadvantages.
Re:Why not just multiple monitors.
on
4K Is For Programmers
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
It's only a matter of time before Window Managers and Windows itself catches up. There are in principle NO advantages to a multiple monitor setup. In principle you could essentially emulate multiple monitors with one big display. In fact it's better to have a single big display because then you also get the height which reduces neck strain. You also would avoid the gaps between the displays, and permit overlapping windows between each section.
Unfortunately, I feel this band-aid of using multiple monitors has held back the rise of bigger monitors in general.
500,000 miles eh? Well, batteries are probably better than you think and will only get better in the future. I quote:
"However, a July 2013 study found that even after 100,000 miles, Roadster batteries still have 80%–85% capacity and the only significant factor is mileage (not temperature)"
If you've found a language that it worse in some respect than many (or even one other) language, then by principle, you are saying there is a 'best' language, of if you prefer, a 'least worst' language.
Failure to recognize that leads down the path of a very grey relativism, and impedes progress to making languages better overall. Yes, it's hard to know for sure which is the 'best', because it's so complicated, but that doesn't mean there isn't one.
Here's my problem. What does the rubber sheet model do to explain relativity any more than explain Newtonian gravity? It seems perfect to demonstrate the latter.
As a potential solution to road blindness caused by oncoming (or tailgating) headlights, why not have the headlights emit mostly black light, and coat the road surface with a material which will cause it to fluoresce by the black light.
This way we might even be able to have the headlights on full beam instead of dipped (making the cats eyes like much clearer and nicer too).
While I very much emphasize with you (I'd like to see 1:1 actually), at least a wide screen will mean we can have two displays at once much more easily. Eventually, a large screen size and better resolution will handle the vertical real estate you and I need.
I was being slightly snarky with es, a knowledge of the 'real' definition that you gave. I think popular usage determines what a word or phrase really means, as language evolves all the time.
I would very much argue that the functional need for 'begs the question' in the way I described is much more useful and pragmatic than the relatively rare definition that Wikipedia states.
Or hopefully the GUI will be intelligent enough to have all the advantages and convenience of a dual screen, but inside a single screen. Then if on that rare occasion you really do want that window in between the two screens, like in a normal single screen, you can.
1:1 would be better than 4:3 since the ability to resolve detail is proportional to the distance between the point you're currently looking directly at and the bit of detail you're trying to resolve (without directly looking at it). Whether that's vertically or horizontally makes no difference.
While I in no way condone the tone of the other reply to your post by anon, I agree very much with his sentiment that much higher resolutions are a Very Good thing, and have been denied to us for so long (perhaps not in part down to complacent attitudes that what we currently have is 'good enough' - not pointing the finger specifically at you obviously).
The lack of eye-strain and paper-like display is a marvel to behold. Going back to an old laptop feels like blur has been turned on. Not to mention if the resolution is high enough, we won't have to worry about the anti-aliasing kludge ever again. Additionally, apps and the OS will also be *forced* to adhere to resolution independent scaling which can only be a good thing as we can use programs at any size, not just one fixed by the OS or software publisher.
In any case, it's bound to happen sooner or later, so let's get it out the way, ASAP, and then we move on - that's what progress is all about.
Exactly, "begs the question" is reserved for much more obvious questions. Perhaps it's a shame they have to be asked at all, or it might be that the question follows on so naturally the previous knowledge just gained that 99% of people would also think of it (or at least should think of it).
For the layman, and in as few words as possible, what's the difference between their encryption and say, 7zip's RAR encryption? I thought the latter would be pretty much unbreakable.
Yes, I know that, but I replied because one might expect the news to make Tesla shares shoot up (the market would account for long term as well as short term, so the stock price would reflect that).
Slashdot Mirror
Electricity is approaching an order of magnitude cheaper in terms of cost to the customer per mile driven compared to gas. This alone is a BIG factor in determining the future outcome of battery tech, especially considering the 8% increase in capacity for batteries year upon year.
Obviously, there are other desirable features to a solid-state battery too - silentness, zero pollution or smell, no oil changes, great acceleration, negligible latency or lag of acceleration/deceleration, improved safety, maximum torque (even from 0mph), and regenerative braking - these all help make batteries a better bet, even today.
But I think the thing that most people often forget is the amazing maintenance requirements for a battery car. They're virtually none. FAR fewer moving parts than the Victorian kludge that is the internal combustion engine. I wouldn't be surprised to see it last more than 30 years with less than a couple of grand in maintenance.
So will all cars be battery powered by 2030? Very possibly, or at least all NEW cars sold will be battery.
With ever increasing HD sizes, and smaller real estate in meatspace, I'd love to buy a film to download, instead of purchasing the DVD.
You could look at it as a slippery slope. Or you could look at it as various moral shades of grey. In my opinion, adopting H264 and H265 will push OS communities to work harder and actually try to beat them, rather than just making to do with mediocrity.
H264 is apparently quite a bit better than the alternatives in areas such as playback quality for a given bitrate, and encoding time. It's hard to ignore that. I'm sure if the OS community came up with something that really was better, they'd switch to that shortly after.
Words mean things. If you were being sarcastic, you might want to work very heavily on that.
I thought he was being sarcastic. That would've been much funnier and more cutting.
A window manager could split the big screen into sections (arbitrarily, not just similar to your current multiple monitor setup), and the maximize button would then maximize to only that current portion. Maybe something like Winsplit Revolution already does that. That was my entire point - it can be emulated to behave like multiple monitors if you so wish.
Then if you really want to use the WHOLE screen, you can do that too.
Perhaps not right now in practice, but all of the factors you mentioned can be theoretically overcome, either with spending a little more, and/or better software to emulate the temporary advantages you mentioned (cloning a part of the screen can be done via software for example). With a single screen, we have the big advantage of height of course. It'll be something greater than the sum of its parts (sorry, couldn't resist).
You missed the bit where I said 'in principle' and 'emulate'. Both bigger monitors (with better resolutions) and better window managers can overcome the problems you mentioned, and get much better height. And you don't get any of the disadvantages.
It's only a matter of time before Window Managers and Windows itself catches up. There are in principle NO advantages to a multiple monitor setup. In principle you could essentially emulate multiple monitors with one big display. In fact it's better to have a single big display because then you also get the height which reduces neck strain. You also would avoid the gaps between the displays, and permit overlapping windows between each section.
Unfortunately, I feel this band-aid of using multiple monitors has held back the rise of bigger monitors in general.
500,000 miles eh? Well, batteries are probably better than you think and will only get better in the future. I quote:
"However, a July 2013 study found that even after 100,000 miles, Roadster batteries still have 80%–85% capacity and the only significant factor is mileage (not temperature)"
If you've found a language that it worse in some respect than many (or even one other) language, then by principle, you are saying there is a 'best' language, of if you prefer, a 'least worst' language.
Failure to recognize that leads down the path of a very grey relativism, and impedes progress to making languages better overall. Yes, it's hard to know for sure which is the 'best', because it's so complicated, but that doesn't mean there isn't one.
Here's my problem. What does the rubber sheet model do to explain relativity any more than explain Newtonian gravity? It seems perfect to demonstrate the latter.
As a potential solution to road blindness caused by oncoming (or tailgating) headlights, why not have the headlights emit mostly black light, and coat the road surface with a material which will cause it to fluoresce by the black light.
This way we might even be able to have the headlights on full beam instead of dipped (making the cats eyes like much clearer and nicer too).
Headlights would be a dim blue as a result.
While I very much emphasize with you (I'd like to see 1:1 actually), at least a wide screen will mean we can have two displays at once much more easily. Eventually, a large screen size and better resolution will handle the vertical real estate you and I need.
I was being slightly snarky with es, a knowledge of the 'real' definition that you gave. I think popular usage determines what a word or phrase really means, as language evolves all the time.
I would very much argue that the functional need for 'begs the question' in the way I described is much more useful and pragmatic than the relatively rare definition that Wikipedia states.
Or hopefully the GUI will be intelligent enough to have all the advantages and convenience of a dual screen, but inside a single screen. Then if on that rare occasion you really do want that window in between the two screens, like in a normal single screen, you can.
1:1 would be better than 4:3 since the ability to resolve detail is proportional to the distance between the point you're currently looking directly at and the bit of detail you're trying to resolve (without directly looking at it). Whether that's vertically or horizontally makes no difference.
Yes and eventually 600. There IS a difference.
While I in no way condone the tone of the other reply to your post by anon, I agree very much with his sentiment that much higher resolutions are a Very Good thing, and have been denied to us for so long (perhaps not in part down to complacent attitudes that what we currently have is 'good enough' - not pointing the finger specifically at you obviously).
The lack of eye-strain and paper-like display is a marvel to behold. Going back to an old laptop feels like blur has been turned on. Not to mention if the resolution is high enough, we won't have to worry about the anti-aliasing kludge ever again. Additionally, apps and the OS will also be *forced* to adhere to resolution independent scaling which can only be a good thing as we can use programs at any size, not just one fixed by the OS or software publisher.
In any case, it's bound to happen sooner or later, so let's get it out the way, ASAP, and then we move on - that's what progress is all about.
Exactly, "begs the question" is reserved for much more obvious questions. Perhaps it's a shame they have to be asked at all, or it might be that the question follows on so naturally the previous knowledge just gained that 99% of people would also think of it (or at least should think of it).
But surely this defeats the perceived satisfaction of tweaking and fixing it all up manually? Where's the fun in that?
For the layman, and in as few words as possible, what's the difference between their encryption and say, 7zip's RAR encryption? I thought the latter would be pretty much unbreakable.
I assume they mean the force created by the electron is perfectly round, rather than the particle itself. Perhaps someone can confirm.
Yes, I know that, but I replied because one might expect the news to make Tesla shares shoot up (the market would account for long term as well as short term, so the stock price would reflect that).