Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:What's our take away on this supposed to be? (Score 1) 86

Even if they document the tests, if they can be gamed in a test representative of "normal usage", then the same gaming will kick in on actual "normal usage", and so the test will not have been gamed.

Normal usage will be viewing a different movie than the one they test with. If you can get viewers to only watch the test signal, over and over, then sure there is no variance between expected use and actual use. However, I did not buy my TV to watch a specific set of video clips in a specific sequence, repeatedly.

Comment Re:Even bad its good (Score 1) 86

Your sound bar would be only using max 20 to 30 Watts, Peak is a useless measure because it is a measure the power the sound bar can pump out for a moment, if you try to drive it hard continuously it will just crap it self and you will very soon find yourself pushing the volume down to a level it can actually handle.

The AC has it right. 180W is marketing. It will never take that from the socket.

Comment Re:Even bad its good (Score 1) 86

My supposedly "smart" Samsung TV detects when power saving activates on the attached device and puts up a bright white logo to inform me. The logo does not go away. At least it moves around, so the wear on the screen is somewhat even.

The only way to do power saving with modern TV's is to use ARC, and ARC support is just not very widespread yet.

Comment Re:No end... (Score 2) 86

But Power Companies, who rely on Energy Usage Tests to forecast demand and allow for it, do care.

You imply that power companies try to guess which items people buy, and how much they use them, and then use the Energy Usage Tests to figure out aggregate demand. This sounds highly improbable.

Comment Re:and then block porn / 3rd party candidates / fr (Score 2) 194

English politics are strange.

Conservatives and Lib Dems set up a coalition, Conservatives do a lot of bad things and Lib Dems only prevent some of them: Lib Dems collapse.

Conservatives and Labour jointly try to run a campaign to stay in the EU, to deal with the mess that the Conservatives created: Labour collapse.

Comment Re:Bigger but with less thrust? (Score 1) 79

Absolute thrust does not matter all that much, as long as the thrust can actually lift the rocket + payload off the ground. Lower thrust means gentler acceleration which is nicer for cargo but especially for crew, if you want to man-rate one day.

Higher thrust also means you go faster before you escape the atmosphere. This increases maximum aerodynamic load.

Comment Re:Or the actual reason(s)-OT (Score 1) 761

F1 is a funny example. F1 tires are deliberately crap; it's part of the contract that the manufacturer isn't allowed to deliver good tires.

If Formula 1 teams could buy any tires they want, the tires would have better grip, work over a wider range of temperatures, and there would be no tire changes during a race. But that would be boring.

For quality tires, look at endurance racing.

Comment Re:Impulse drive (Score 2) 248

Any energy released comes from the chemical reactions which are the bonds between electrons being broken and created.

The reaction products have a mass that is ever so slightly lower than the mass was before the reaction.

A lot of online explanations get this wrong. Like this one: from the BBC, explaining conservation of mass in chemical reactions. It would probably unnecessarily confuse the students who focus on all the mass that a fire "loses" as CO2 and water vapour and such, which is not lost at all.

The mass loss is extremely small of course. For an energy release of 1J, you lose 11 femtogram (1J/c^2). Good luck measuring that on your high school scales, or indeed any scales at all.

Comment Re:Impulse drive (Score 1) 248

That would not work though. Deuterium fusion reactors work by turning mass into energy; they are just not very effective at it. Most of the mass is still there after the fuel has been burned. Using energy from them to produce deuterium would be rathercounter-productive.

(Coal fired power plants turn mass into energy as well, but they are even worse at it).

Comment Re:Countdown to endless arguments in 3.. 2.. 1.. (Score 1) 248

No it is not. The acceleration is constant, hence the energy gain is constant.

No. That is not how energy works. If you accelerate 1kg from 0 to 1 m/s, you have gained 1/2 * 1kg * (1m/s)^2, or half a Joule. If you accelerate from 1m/s to 2m/s, you go from half a joule to 1/2 * 1kg * (2m/s)^2, or 2 Joule. You have gained 1.5 Joule. From there it only gets worse.

Acceleration is not relative.

Comment Re:There had to be a first case... (Score 5, Insightful) 379

The balance is that Tesla will learn from this accident. They will change the software on the existing vehicles to try to detect this situation better, and they will undoubtedly outfit the next generation of cars with improved sensors to avoid this specific accident.

In contrast, in a human-driven car, the only one who learned anything is dead, so the next person who gets in the same situation will likely react the same way and end up just as dead. At best, there might be a slight change to driver education because of it, but it isn't worth adding e.g. an extra lesson to the curriculum to avoid one specific accident.

Comment Re:how about 0 (Score 1) 455

A Danish driver was convicted forDUI after sharing a smoking area with marijuana smokers. In Denmark, the acceptable level is the detection limit, and blood tests are really really effective for marijuana. He was sentenced to lose his license for 3 years and 6 months.

However, it is worth noting that the police had stopped him for suspected drunk driving, and then decided to do a drug test since the alcohol level was below the legal limit and he seemed to be impaired.

Comment Re:Not Necessarily for the Benefit of Users (Score 2) 69

I do not think you are aware how Netflix actually distributes content.

Every reasonably-large ISP is offered a Netflix-cache which is a physical box they provide. The ISP then installs the box in their network, and the Netflix customers in that ISP now get their content from the box. Unless the content is too rare to be in the cache, in which case it flows over the regular network, like before. Now, for many smaller ISP's this is not worth it, since the box itself eats quite a large amount of bandwidth just to keep its cache updated. But for the medium-sized ISPs it is a great way to save on transit bandwidth, and Netflix loves it because they get the bandwidth for free as well.

The neat thing is that for participating ISPs, Netflix has no extra expenses when a customer picks a high bandwidth stream, and for the ISP it is great as well because they only have to transport the stream in their own network, which in many cases is close to free. As an extra bonus for the ISP, the customer might have a data quota or even pay per gigabyte.

Slashdot Top Deals

We can found no scientific discipline, nor a healthy profession on the technical mistakes of the Department of Defense and IBM. -- Edsger Dijkstra

Working...