Now some American is no doubt going to jump in by saying the inch was at one point in history defined as the average width of a male thumb (before they changed it back to 3 grains of barley) and this is therefore obviously the best measure for touchscreens...
You can get the same effect by backing up the disk, formatting, and copying all the data back.
Or much simpler (on a Mac, anyway), turn full disk encryption off and then on again. You can even continue to work while it's rewriting the entire disk.
Apparently (according to the website) it only affects sectors that have been written to exactly once since the SSD was new, and never changed afterwards. Those sectors still work, but are read more slowly. Any sector that has had data written to it more than once, is not affected. So I guess I'm OK since I wiped and installed my OS several times, using encryption, so I imagine all sectors must have had stuff written to them more than once.
It is just sad that it is nothing new. Every other car in that segment already has this "auto pilot" under different names.
Well, Mercedes has lane assist but requires you to keep your hands on the wheel, it even has sensors so it can warn if you're not holding the wheel. Also, it can't change lanes on command.
But yes, it's not autonomous yet by a long shot. They figured it was better to deliver a simpler system today rather than wait 10 years for Google's technology to be finished. It really does behave a lot like early autopilots on airplanes, which really were very useful and ultimately evolved into the kind of systems we have today. But even they are far from autonomous. Once you're airborne, it can fly to a destination but it won't descend by itself and certainly won't land autonomously without the pilots giving specific instructions to intercept the ILS, lower the gear and flaps, etc. Even though that would be a lot simper to design than a self driving car.
1. It doesn't use LIDAR which is way too expensive. Just cameras, ultrasonic sensors and forward radar. The self driving capabilities are modest for now: lane keeping, changing lanes on command, distance keeping, etc. Many of those capabilities already exist in other cars, it's just an evolution of existing technology. It now actually allows you to take your hands off the wheel. Not as good as Google's cars, but those are many years away from the market while Tesla's simpler solution should be ready in a few months.
2. I meant "All cars being delivered today", not those that have been delivered before. I agree I should have phrased it better. The sensors started appearing on new cars a few weeks ago. All of those are capable of autopilot.
The self driving model is out, it just needs a software update to actually have the autopilot functionality. All cars delivered today have the hardware and will be able to get the update.
I thought I'd also mention the top model now does 0-60 3.2 seconds (P85D), the 4.2 mentioned in the summary is the older P85. Probably an older article?
And note that I won't call you an idiot, just because you are wrong.
No, but you'd be totally entitled to call him an idiot for calling other people idiots while being wrong himself.
OK, some basic electricity:
Power = amps * voltage. Ergo, to load more energy in a shorter time, you either have to use more amps or more voltage.
The Tesla supercharger is already at 400V, I don't think they want to go any higher because otherwise they would. All you need to do is put more cells in series. 400V looks like the highest they're comfortable with.
This means there's only one variable left: more amps. And if, like you say, the resistance of the new batteries is lower, that is precisely what would allow them to use more amps. If resistance is cut in 4, they can use twice the amperage for the same heat generation (per second).
I once tried to use a 20-character password for iCloud, using letters, numbers and other symbols. It was rejected because it did not contain a capital letter. Sigh... I just capitalized the first letter and all of a sudden it was considered to be a great password, much better than the first!
Once you go past a certain number of characters, the system shouldn't care about capital letters and such anymore. Just calculate the total entropy with the number of different kinds of symbols and the total number of characters.
The other extreme, my internet provider actually limits passwords to 8 characters (minimum 6, maximum 8) and only allows letters and numbers. When I complained, they said they would forward my suggestion but that this was considered good enough security. It still hasn't changed.
Another example of programmer stupidity, Interactive brokers has two factor authentication with a double sided key card containing 224 codes, each being three letter/number characters like "A4T". It asks for two of those codes, so you would obviously expect them to take one from each side of the card to avoid someone being able to log in with a photo of one side of the card. Nope, half the time the codes are on the same side, and you can cancel and try again until it asks for two codes on the side you want. Even worse, sometimes it asks for the same code twice. Really?! Please enter code #135 and code #135?
Microsoft does have a lot of experience with the principles of quantum mechanics. Users of their software are constantly struggling with the uncertainty principle and can often make a system collapse merely by observing it.
Actually, it's Bobby Tables
By the same logic, 1023 - 1021 = 2.000 which I hope you'll agree is completely ridiculous. Just as ridiculous as saying 8+5=10, just the other way around.
And even if you try to justify with significant digits, treating anything up to 14.99 as "equal" to 10 (relative error 50%?!) while the original numbers had relative errors of less than 20% shows a staggering lack of comprehension. These people should not be allowed to teach. One significant digit for 10 is way less precise than one significant digit on 5 or 8, use some common sense for crying out loud.
Well, it's only wrong if you compare it to the exact mathematical value. But then you're just being pedantic.
Exactly right. Top Gear once had a race between a Prius and a BMW M3. The Prius had to drive around the track as fast as it possibly could, and the BMW just had to keep up (which obviously took little or no effort). As you might expect, fuel consumption for the Prius was a lot higher than for the BMW.
Fuel economy figures are measured with very small accellerations. In every day driving, we tend to accelerate a bit more. For a big engine, this requires little or no extra effort from the car, and fuel consumption is only a little more. But for a small engine, even moderate accelerations consume a lot more fuel since it brings the engine a lot closer to its maximum power. Nothing unexpected here.