Well if that's the case, then you can't trust any of the scores from the NHTSA. On the contrary, the Model S is exceptionally good at avoiding overturns, has a great lengthy crumple zone at the front (due to the lack of an ICE engine), and its side impacts is the safest (or one of the safest) going due to rocket engineers designing the thing. It wouldn't surprise me if a score of 6 or 7 should be given instead of 5.4.
No fatalities or serious injuries in the Model S so far apparently, despite a few accidents. See for example this story where someone was drink driving maybe about 80mph and demolished an electric pole, but survived thanks to the Model S (it employed all 8 airbags apparently).
How frustrating that the NHTSA caps at 5/5, as if that makes a car perfectly safe. There's ALWAYS room for improvement, and as far as I can tell, Tesla extrapolated the 5.4 score to reflect measurable stats that the NHTSA provided.
It reminds me of 20 watt CFL light bulbs which have an 'A' rating. At least in the UK, it stops there; you can't get better than an A no matter how well a device performs (11 watt LED bulbs are apparently almost twice as efficient at 11 watt compared to 20). It's an artificial limitation which limits product innovation and efficiency. If you are going to use letters than at least go from A forwards through the alphabet, or even better, report the actual efficiency as lumens per watt rather than a blind, backwards system which can't imagine that the future could get any better.
I'd like to colour code the UK in the same way using the "well-being" data found from this XLS file (look for "Average rating").
Is there any way I can go about this efficiently? The software would need to recognize the locations (Aberdeenshire, Hampshire, Surrey etc.), ask me what column and range for the colour coding I want to use, and colour a map of the UK automatically. Does anyone know if any site (maybe an app from Google?) could do this?
Here's another dataset on UK nationwide happiness. It would be interesting to compare how close these two studies get.
I'm sure a strawberry is even simpler, and even that comes out as mush once de-thawed from frozen. It's the principle that it can be done at all on living cells.
It's reasonable to assume that future technology (look at 500 or even 5000 years ahead) can be so advanced that it can successfully defreeze someone, especially if they are frozen immediately after 'death'. A rabbit kidney has apparently been "completely vitrified to solid state at 135C, rewarmed and transplanted to a rabbit with complete viability".
In light of what you've said, can you summarize what that would typically mean for someone wanting to try this Cryonics thing out? Given an average/typical death, is there a chance my brain would retain much of its function if I was frozen in the timespan that the Cryonics institute would support (say under 30 minutes) ?
Assume technology of the future can overcome all other medical hurdles, and the only problem is the brain's 'data' being kept.
That's always been the argument that's put me off cryonics. If you were to say, have a heart attack and faint, would 5 minutes still apply? Does that 5 minutes apply as soon as breathing stops basically?
Have people been resuscitated after say, 30 mins or even an hour, and managed to have their brain functions relatively intact?
Confusingly, in the title and elsewhere, the word 'soda' is used. A soft drink isn't necessarily a soda/carbonated/fizzy drink. In other words, a soft drink may be non-fizzy. That makes the summary at least somewhat ambiguous.
Indeed. The whole situation reminds me of the hybrid gas/electric BMW I8 or Toyota Prius cars compared to the superior Tesla Model S car. You get some rather unnecessary compromises that way, at least in the long term.
Anyway, you can get a 1TB SSD drive now for under £500, and prices will obviously keep falling. These HDD companies better adapt soon or die. Drives include:
It's impractical now, but when/if we get almost free limitless energy (which granted may not happen for centuries), stacked floors packed out with CFL bulbs as light would make a lot of sense.
Actually, I recall certain food is already produced in this way today, so maybe we're half way there already.
Perhaps you can enlighten me. If you want fast database access, then you'd want the data on local servers anyway. If however, it's just for storage, then servers are a bit overkill, and surely lots of removable plug-n-play HDs for relatively few PCs would suffice?
Well of course it depends on the game. I gave you an ideal game scenario with a simple reaction test, and I hope you'll agree my figures and conclusions are correct in that case. For fast action games than depend on seeing something and reacting (e.g: Guitar Hero where the rhythm syncs with the action on screen or multiplayer FPS shooters where two people suddenly see each other at the same time, and it's the quickest to the trigger), the results I gave would also apply to a large extent.
Another thing to consider with even small amounts of latency is the feeling of disconnect between the user and the device. For example, research shows that latencies as low as even 16 milliseconds in virtual-reality are perceptible by some due to the way our body coordinates with vision. For example, please watch this short video demonstrating the 'treacle-esque' movement of a finger going over touchpad at various latencies. It's really cool even if you don't agree with using that case to generalize to the scenario I gave.
I'm well aware of the placebo effect, and agree that it is very often a real phenomenon with ignorant buyers who drool over Gold-plated Monster cables. Then there's the whole 240kbit MP3 versus 480kbit thing.
However, I gave raw stats which for certain shows that given a reaction time from 200 - 400ms, and a 10ms latency penalty for one of the players, a definite 20% difference in the overall score line was the result. The OP was assuming 50ms, and I went RIGHT DOWN down to 10ms to prove my point. Let's be even more generous, and say keyboards have only 5ms of latency. Even then, the score line would differ by a massive 10% which is extremely dubious.
Heck even, 1 millisecond of latency (!) would bias the score line by around 2%! That's a huge difference at the expert level, and can definitely result in an unfair loss/win quite often.
Okay, let's say human reaction time 0.3 secs with +-0.1 secs margin of error for simplification. Let's also assume keyboard latency is 0.05 (50 ms). Let's assume the game is a simple reaction test where whoever shoots first after a visual signal is sent is the winner if they get in before their opponent.
A typical round of 5 games of equal skill could go:
Player A,B
0.25, 0.35
0.21, 0.37
0.39, 0.3
0.3, 0.34
0.31, 0.29
Final score: Player 1: 2 points, Player 2: 3 points
That was obviously contrived, and I made up the scores. So let's try the best of 10,000 games with a random number generator:
Player A: 4926
Player B: 5074
On first run, not quite 5000 each, but that's well within expected occurrence. Now let's try with a 50 millisecond penalty for player B:
Player A: 7163
Player B: 2837
Wow! Player A is winning almost 3/4s of the games despite only 0.05 secs being added! Such a small amount makes a far bigger difference than you would think.
For fun, let's try a 10ms penalty for player B:
Player A: 5453
Player B: 4547
Even a measly 10ms makes a significant difference in the long run.
Seriously, latency is underrated massively by everyone - what's your problem?
One big example is the iPhone 4S. Pressing the home button introduces a terrible half sec lag.
You're missing the point. It still adds ON TOP of what would be standard human latency. Given say, a game where milliseconds matter and can make you lose points, this is an issue.
Slashdot Mirror
Well if that's the case, then you can't trust any of the scores from the NHTSA. On the contrary, the Model S is exceptionally good at avoiding overturns, has a great lengthy crumple zone at the front (due to the lack of an ICE engine), and its side impacts is the safest (or one of the safest) going due to rocket engineers designing the thing. It wouldn't surprise me if a score of 6 or 7 should be given instead of 5.4.
No fatalities or serious injuries in the Model S so far apparently, despite a few accidents. See for example this story where someone was drink driving maybe about 80mph and demolished an electric pole, but survived thanks to the Model S (it employed all 8 airbags apparently).
How frustrating that the NHTSA caps at 5/5, as if that makes a car perfectly safe. There's ALWAYS room for improvement, and as far as I can tell, Tesla extrapolated the 5.4 score to reflect measurable stats that the NHTSA provided.
It reminds me of 20 watt CFL light bulbs which have an 'A' rating. At least in the UK, it stops there; you can't get better than an A no matter how well a device performs (11 watt LED bulbs are apparently almost twice as efficient at 11 watt compared to 20). It's an artificial limitation which limits product innovation and efficiency. If you are going to use letters than at least go from A forwards through the alphabet, or even better, report the actual efficiency as lumens per watt rather than a blind, backwards system which can't imagine that the future could get any better.
I'd like to colour code the UK in the same way using the "well-being" data found from this XLS file (look for "Average rating").
Is there any way I can go about this efficiently? The software would need to recognize the locations (Aberdeenshire, Hampshire, Surrey etc.), ask me what column and range for the colour coding I want to use, and colour a map of the UK automatically. Does anyone know if any site (maybe an app from Google?) could do this?
Here's another dataset on UK nationwide happiness. It would be interesting to compare how close these two studies get.
I'm sure a strawberry is even simpler, and even that comes out as mush once de-thawed from frozen. It's the principle that it can be done at all on living cells.
It's reasonable to assume that future technology (look at 500 or even 5000 years ahead) can be so advanced that it can successfully defreeze someone, especially if they are frozen immediately after 'death'. A rabbit kidney has apparently been "completely vitrified to solid state at 135C, rewarmed and transplanted to a rabbit with complete viability".
What a strange musical sound to have at the beginning and end. The end one sounds like it comes from the pits of hell.
In light of what you've said, can you summarize what that would typically mean for someone wanting to try this Cryonics thing out? Given an average/typical death, is there a chance my brain would retain much of its function if I was frozen in the timespan that the Cryonics institute would support (say under 30 minutes) ?
Assume technology of the future can overcome all other medical hurdles, and the only problem is the brain's 'data' being kept.
That's always been the argument that's put me off cryonics. If you were to say, have a heart attack and faint, would 5 minutes still apply? Does that 5 minutes apply as soon as breathing stops basically?
Have people been resuscitated after say, 30 mins or even an hour, and managed to have their brain functions relatively intact?
drank more than four soft drinks per day
Confusingly, in the title and elsewhere, the word 'soda' is used. A soft drink isn't necessarily a soda/carbonated/fizzy drink. In other words, a soft drink may be non-fizzy. That makes the summary at least somewhat ambiguous.
Here is the aforementioned big, long document, suitable for any would-be armchair readers: http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/3047069/hyperloop-alpha.pdf
It may encourage a more definitive study, especially if many others have reported similarly bad battery life for the air.
Indeed. The whole situation reminds me of the hybrid gas/electric BMW I8 or Toyota Prius cars compared to the superior Tesla Model S car. You get some rather unnecessary compromises that way, at least in the long term.
Anyway, you can get a 1TB SSD drive now for under £500, and prices will obviously keep falling. These HDD companies better adapt soon or die. Drives include:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Crucial-960GB-Solid-State-Drive/dp/B00BQ8RGL6
http://www.novatech.co.uk/products/components/harddrives-internal/solidstate/128gbandabove/Samsung/MZ-7TE1T0BW.html
It's impractical now, but when/if we get almost free limitless energy (which granted may not happen for centuries), stacked floors packed out with CFL bulbs as light would make a lot of sense.
Actually, I recall certain food is already produced in this way today, so maybe we're half way there already.
How about 5: Farming indoors with artificial sunlight ?
Can you give more info, or better yet, a video?
Perhaps you can enlighten me. If you want fast database access, then you'd want the data on local servers anyway. If however, it's just for storage, then servers are a bit overkill, and surely lots of removable plug-n-play HDs for relatively few PCs would suffice?
Did you see the video and the difference between 1, 10, 50ms etc.? It's VERY clear to see.
Well of course it depends on the game. I gave you an ideal game scenario with a simple reaction test, and I hope you'll agree my figures and conclusions are correct in that case. For fast action games than depend on seeing something and reacting (e.g: Guitar Hero where the rhythm syncs with the action on screen or multiplayer FPS shooters where two people suddenly see each other at the same time, and it's the quickest to the trigger), the results I gave would also apply to a large extent.
Another thing to consider with even small amounts of latency is the feeling of disconnect between the user and the device. For example, research shows that latencies as low as even 16 milliseconds in virtual-reality are perceptible by some due to the way our body coordinates with vision. For example, please watch this short video demonstrating the 'treacle-esque' movement of a finger going over touchpad at various latencies. It's really cool even if you don't agree with using that case to generalize to the scenario I gave.
Take a look at this. Even 10ms makes a perceptual difference:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOvQCPLkPt4
As I explained in my previous posts, a score line bias of 20% results too (assuming 200-400ms reaction time, and 10ms latency).
I'm well aware of the placebo effect, and agree that it is very often a real phenomenon with ignorant buyers who drool over Gold-plated Monster cables. Then there's the whole 240kbit MP3 versus 480kbit thing.
However, I gave raw stats which for certain shows that given a reaction time from 200 - 400ms, and a 10ms latency penalty for one of the players, a definite 20% difference in the overall score line was the result. The OP was assuming 50ms, and I went RIGHT DOWN down to 10ms to prove my point. Let's be even more generous, and say keyboards have only 5ms of latency. Even then, the score line would differ by a massive 10% which is extremely dubious.
Heck even, 1 millisecond of latency (!) would bias the score line by around 2%! That's a huge difference at the expert level, and can definitely result in an unfair loss/win quite often.
Okay, let's say human reaction time 0.3 secs with +-0.1 secs margin of error for simplification. Let's also assume keyboard latency is 0.05 (50 ms). Let's assume the game is a simple reaction test where whoever shoots first after a visual signal is sent is the winner if they get in before their opponent.
A typical round of 5 games of equal skill could go:
Player A,B
0.25, 0.35
0.21, 0.37
0.39, 0.3
0.3, 0.34
0.31, 0.29 Final score: Player 1: 2 points, Player 2: 3 points
That was obviously contrived, and I made up the scores. So let's try the best of 10,000 games with a random number generator:
Player A: 4926
Player B: 5074
On first run, not quite 5000 each, but that's well within expected occurrence. Now let's try with a 50 millisecond penalty for player B:
Player A: 7163
Player B: 2837
Wow! Player A is winning almost 3/4s of the games despite only 0.05 secs being added! Such a small amount makes a far bigger difference than you would think.
For fun, let's try a 10ms penalty for player B:
Player A: 5453
Player B: 4547
Even a measly 10ms makes a significant difference in the long run.
Seriously, latency is underrated massively by everyone - what's your problem? One big example is the iPhone 4S. Pressing the home button introduces a terrible half sec lag.
You're missing the point. It still adds ON TOP of what would be standard human latency. Given say, a game where milliseconds matter and can make you lose points, this is an issue.
I used to love Everything until I realized it doesn't search folder names. I've switched to Locate32 since.
Perhaps the first eye witness was looking at the plane with his head side-on, and that the ground was actually a wall.