More eye candy? How about making it look less flat - you know, how like Aero used to look? You could distinguish windows and panels and widgets more easily, and didn't have to squint to be productive.
Or.... you could be Edgy!! Yeah let's go with edgy...
Speedtest.net used to be good at one stage. But when I tried them relatively recently, I found that they measure the speed once it gets going, and ignore the regular dropouts that may occur. Speedtest.net claimed about 1gigabit, but in reality it was a tenth or even a fiftieth of that.
I had more luck with the following:
http://speedof.me/ - HTML5 Internet speed test (no Flash or Java needed). It claims to be the "smartest and most accurate online bandwidth test". http://testmy.net - Nice graph and intelligent picking of the size of the test file to download.
Maybe they could have some kind of guided manual mode where you could fly it wherever you wanted but a set of safety and guidance systems kept it from crashing into objects or other cars
You're on the right track. This is the second or third time I've said this in the thread, and I've said it numerous times elsewhere, but it's worth emphasizing again.
Flying a car using AI to drive would be great, but how much more enjoyable would it to drive by yourself? A solution to the safety problem is to have a repelling motion inversely squared proportional (or cubed maybe?) to the distance between your car and another object (whether it be a building, or another flying car.), and also inversely squared proportional to the relative speed of the objects (so if you're going slow, you can be quite close to another flying car, and if you're going fast, then the repelling motion would be much greater, and if you're both going fast in the same direction, you can be quite close again, because the relative speed is almost zero).
This would allow for safe, and immensely fun, freestyle flying - we'd just need decent maneuverability from the flying car.
Just wait until Tesla / Elon Musk tries to create a flying car. He's the only person I'd trust to get the qualities the average person would expect in a flying car (pure electric, low noise/sound and excellent maneuverability control, as well as VTOL).
Two flying cars needn't get close though. The higher the speed, the less a car will be able to get close to another flying car or object. The repelling force will be proportional to the distance from that other object, and also both of their speeds (so you could go at 5mph at be very close to another flying car, and that would be okay).
Of all the problems that flying cars actually DO have (relatively poor batteries, and terrible sound/noise pollution both to the occupants and surrounding neighbourhood), and you go on about safety.
Ignoring that AI may drive instead of humans, or that we could create a lane system in the sky to keep traffic from colliding, another simple solution is to have a 'magnetic'-style repel, where if you get too close to another vehicle or object, your craft would repel and vice versa. This would allow immense freestyle fun flying and all the practicality of a real flying car.
I love the idea, but I think it's been mentioned on Slashdot before that the best way to preserve humanity is to build a colony underneath the Earth's surface. Quite far underneath to protect against various threats, including medium sized asteroids and super volcanoes etc. We're talking about a self-contained, self-sustained system, to the furthest extent that we can manage.
Here's an example of Windows 3.1 for those who are wondering. Similar to Win 8/9/10, notice how it's visually awkward to distinguish between windows:
http://osxbook.com/book/bonus/...
I did watch it. I was pleasantly surprised to see a focus on latency and fps throughout.
Perhaps G-Sync and a high frame rate is a simpler way to reduce latency, and then we can still keep the three frame pipeline. I don't think he mentioned G-Sync which was a surprise. JIT rendering also sounds good though.
You missed the idea behind my post. I'm talking about the 'closeness' to 100%. From a particular perspective, something that's 99.9% efficient is 10x as efficient than something that's merely 99% efficient, since the former is 0.1% from 100% whilst the latter is 1%.
That means, heat loss will be 10x greater.
However, from the perspective of brightness (rather than efficiency), you're right, 99.9% is only about 1.01x more efficient than 99%.
If you dig deeper into the math, it's a 55% improvement rather than 57%. That sounds like a trivial difference I know, but the logic is important for future comparisons. Let me explain.
Presume the new efficiency was 99% and the old efficiency was 38%. Naively, that sounds like 2.6x better. However, it's far more constructive to look at it in terms of how close it comes to 100%. So really, the formula is (100 - 38) ÷ (100 - 99) which means it's not 2.6x more efficient, but 62x more efficient. To get the percentage improvement, we add a little more to the formula: (100 - 38) ÷ (100 - 99) × 100 - 100 = 6100% improvement.
With the original numbers we calculate (100 - 38) ÷ (100 - 60) × 100 - 100 = 55% improvement.
I hope small amounts of lag in VR causes nausea too, because if there's one thing developers don't seem to care about enough, it's latency/lag and frame rate (no, even 60fps isn't good enough). If they can get it below 10ms lag, then I'll start to be a bit happier.
I believe it WOULD take miles if the string was frozen and couldn't 'move' once it had been lengthened. Your answer assumes the dog can pick the string up to go under it (which is a very fair assumption to make, granted).
I think you basically were right but misunderstood what he was getting at.
Then they went away, but only have only recently made a comeback. And they're far, FAR better than ever before due mostly to advancements in battery technology.
I think the main effect apart from the brightness is that every pixel's colour is smoothed out into the surrounding pixels. A bit like what the inherent motion blur does with 24fps cinema film.
Slashdot Mirror
More eye candy? How about making it look less flat - you know, how like Aero used to look? You could distinguish windows and panels and widgets more easily, and didn't have to squint to be productive.
Or.... you could be Edgy!! Yeah let's go with edgy...
Do you have a reference for the coal rollers thinking this or are you going by your own experience? Be interested to hear more.
Speedtest.net used to be good at one stage. But when I tried them relatively recently, I found that they measure the speed once it gets going, and ignore the regular dropouts that may occur. Speedtest.net claimed about 1gigabit, but in reality it was a tenth or even a fiftieth of that.
I had more luck with the following:
http://speedof.me/ - HTML5 Internet speed test (no Flash or Java needed). It claims to be the "smartest and most accurate online bandwidth test".
http://testmy.net - Nice graph and intelligent picking of the size of the test file to download.
Because it's just so hard to cover that LED with a small piece of tape?
Maybe they could have some kind of guided manual mode where you could fly it wherever you wanted but a set of safety and guidance systems kept it from crashing into objects or other cars
You're on the right track. This is the second or third time I've said this in the thread, and I've said it numerous times elsewhere, but it's worth emphasizing again.
Flying a car using AI to drive would be great, but how much more enjoyable would it to drive by yourself? A solution to the safety problem is to have a repelling motion inversely squared proportional (or cubed maybe?) to the distance between your car and another object (whether it be a building, or another flying car.), and also inversely squared proportional to the relative speed of the objects (so if you're going slow, you can be quite close to another flying car, and if you're going fast, then the repelling motion would be much greater, and if you're both going fast in the same direction, you can be quite close again, because the relative speed is almost zero).
This would allow for safe, and immensely fun, freestyle flying - we'd just need decent maneuverability from the flying car.
Just wait until Tesla / Elon Musk tries to create a flying car. He's the only person I'd trust to get the qualities the average person would expect in a flying car (pure electric, low noise/sound and excellent maneuverability control, as well as VTOL).
I followed some jerk whose brake lights didn't work last week.
You would become that jerk if your lights failed mid-way through a drive, or you didn't check them every single journey.
Two flying cars needn't get close though. The higher the speed, the less a car will be able to get close to another flying car or object. The repelling force will be proportional to the distance from that other object, and also both of their speeds (so you could go at 5mph at be very close to another flying car, and that would be okay).
Not this again.
Of all the problems that flying cars actually DO have (relatively poor batteries, and terrible sound/noise pollution both to the occupants and surrounding neighbourhood), and you go on about safety.
Ignoring that AI may drive instead of humans, or that we could create a lane system in the sky to keep traffic from colliding, another simple solution is to have a 'magnetic'-style repel, where if you get too close to another vehicle or object, your craft would repel and vice versa. This would allow immense freestyle fun flying and all the practicality of a real flying car.
Good luck needed? My Toyota Celica was around $2000 and being that bit sportier, it looks better than 99% of cars out there.
I love the idea, but I think it's been mentioned on Slashdot before that the best way to preserve humanity is to build a colony underneath the Earth's surface. Quite far underneath to protect against various threats, including medium sized asteroids and super volcanoes etc. We're talking about a self-contained, self-sustained system, to the furthest extent that we can manage.
That's what happens when blind relativism is taken to its extreme. 'Everything is as good as everything else' and all that.
Here's an example of Windows 3.1 for those who are wondering. Similar to Win 8/9/10, notice how it's visually awkward to distinguish between windows: http://osxbook.com/book/bonus/...
Gsync does help with input lag / latency. From the horse's mouth, it's mentioned numerous times: http://www.geforce.com/hardwar...
I did watch it. I was pleasantly surprised to see a focus on latency and fps throughout.
Perhaps G-Sync and a high frame rate is a simpler way to reduce latency, and then we can still keep the three frame pipeline. I don't think he mentioned G-Sync which was a surprise. JIT rendering also sounds good though.
You missed the idea behind my post. I'm talking about the 'closeness' to 100%. From a particular perspective, something that's 99.9% efficient is 10x as efficient than something that's merely 99% efficient, since the former is 0.1% from 100% whilst the latter is 1%.
That means, heat loss will be 10x greater.
However, from the perspective of brightness (rather than efficiency), you're right, 99.9% is only about 1.01x more efficient than 99%.
How can I tell whether a given LED bulb from the shop has this tech? What companies currently use this tech?
If you dig deeper into the math, it's a 55% improvement rather than 57%. That sounds like a trivial difference I know, but the logic is important for future comparisons. Let me explain.
Presume the new efficiency was 99% and the old efficiency was 38%. Naively, that sounds like 2.6x better. However, it's far more constructive to look at it in terms of how close it comes to 100%. So really, the formula is (100 - 38) ÷ (100 - 99) which means it's not 2.6x more efficient, but 62x more efficient. To get the percentage improvement, we add a little more to the formula: (100 - 38) ÷ (100 - 99) × 100 - 100 = 6100% improvement.
With the original numbers we calculate (100 - 38) ÷ (100 - 60) × 100 - 100 = 55% improvement.
So......... What are the differences between GSync and Adaptive Sync? Other than proprietariliness, is one better than the other qualitatively?
I hope small amounts of lag in VR causes nausea too, because if there's one thing developers don't seem to care about enough, it's latency/lag and frame rate (no, even 60fps isn't good enough). If they can get it below 10ms lag, then I'll start to be a bit happier.
I believe it WOULD take miles if the string was frozen and couldn't 'move' once it had been lengthened. Your answer assumes the dog can pick the string up to go under it (which is a very fair assumption to make, granted). I think you basically were right but misunderstood what he was getting at.
I can't help but think Microsoft would get Windows to use the HDD for the swap file even if 1000 terabyte of RAM were available.
Then they went away, but only have only recently made a comeback. And they're far, FAR better than ever before due mostly to advancements in battery technology.
I didn't realize they used OCZ for the storage tech. ;)
Nice comparison. I'd upvote if I could.
I think the main effect apart from the brightness is that every pixel's colour is smoothed out into the surrounding pixels. A bit like what the inherent motion blur does with 24fps cinema film.