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.

Right. Ultimately it would depend on how true, the red, blue and green components of the display are. IIRC, most standard CRTs are around as poor as LCDs at displaying green, and probably worse than decent LCDs.

But crashes will get to a point so low, that it may as well be zero. Yes people will steal cars, and random rocks may destroy windscreens and tires, but insurance will be much lower - and here's the important bit - optional - unlike today.

You hardly ever have to worry about brakes/pads because the Model S's regen is used most of the time for braking.

The vast majority of accidents are caused by bad judgment from the driver, and to a lesser extent - poorly maintained vehicles (which will be mostly resolved when EVs are mainstream anyway). It was probably originally enforced due to potentially wrecking an innocent's car (as you decide if you want to risk things if it was just your car at stake).

Yes, okay, car insurance will still exist (contrary to my initial post), but it will be like say, buildings insurance - very low, and non-forced (people won't have to insure if they don't want to).

Because it wouldn't be a liability to anyone anymore. Imagine zero crashes. That's an extreme, but let's assume that for the sake of argument.

Insurance at that point would be seen as pointless, and so the government would not require insurance like the 'good ol days' (read "bad old days").