Maybe they are probing the courts and setting up the price with 3 persons, with an intent to start pumping money if the case is successful. There are near 20 million Fb users in spain thus the math says there is 400k€ * 20M users = 8 000 000 000 000€ to be earned in their minds.
Probably automated trucks will come soon, but I'd really like to see it as an intermediate step. What if we could have small private cargo modules (like Starship technologies is making), being able to hook together automatically, to make a big truck like thing, to save power when travelling long distances. This might really be the key for P2P cargo delivery.
That's an awesome idea. It would eliminate the need for distribution centers. Know the huge window-less monsters next to highways? The alternative could also be small vehicles for first and last mile (like starship, or a tad bigger) and then larger trucks on longer lanes between distro centers. Of course the distro centeres should all be robotized like amazons in that case.
Makes me wonder how long until there's a fully autonomous, self-optimizing and fuel-efficient "Internet of Trucks" that eliminates the human factor altogether and just moves things from A to B. And why stop there? Autonomous and borderless public transport seems like only a small step from there. With ventures like Tesla, Starship and now Palleter, this might be a reality earlier than you'd expect.
Maybe the amount of such css trickery hints us that css is becoming outdated and is actually not exactly what we would like it to be. I might argue in this case that the result that is obtained is very much in the visuals and styling scope and has less to do with functionality (scripts). Though, the method how it is obtained, I agree, goes against good readability and is a bit hacky in concept.
Id rather say that this means the sensors can get bigger for compact cameras and phones. Currently the only thing that limits us making pocketable full frame cameras with zoomable optics is the size of optics, not the size of sensor or other electrical components. Flat optics might make full frame camera phones even possible.
I doubt this is a big advantage because you would capture everything that is close to the sensor (dust, fingers, scratches etc.). A lens effectively applies an extreme low-pass filter to these things because they are massively out of focus.
From my own experience I can say it would be an enormous advantage when shooting in low light. At least for current sensors. Where I am living, for four months in winter have only limited hours of dim daylight and current phone sensors are pretty much useless. You are right about dust though and extra care has to be taken, but it seems as a small inconvenience to me compared to sub-acceptable noise levels.
Is this really viable in long term? Won't the spot price increase if more customers bid for the resources? Can Amazon just change its pricing conditions to make this obsolete if the startup gets more customers and Amazon actually starts loosing money?
The real blocker of going electric on everything is the capacity of rechargeable technologies and their lifetime, not some global conspiracy. Even the high price of batteries/capacitors might not be a problem if lifetime and capacity would be great. In that sense Musk might be onto something, but I think it takes a lot more than 20% improvement over current technologies for batteries to become feasible for storing electricity on large scale. If a smartphone could be done with a battery, that lasts a week and is not dead within a year in winter conditions, it probably would have been done allready.
A smartphone with a week of battery life is likely to be possible now. Just do this:
1) use the latest most efficient panel technology - let's say the latest Super AMOLED from Samsung
2) Use a very lower resolution such as 480x320 (also the initial resolution of the iPhone, which many thought looked "great" a few years ago)
3) Put a screen that's as small as possible on it - let's say 3.5" (you now...the "ideal" size that the iPhone used to have?)
4) Put the lowest power chip you can find in it (even if that means lowest performance - although a single-core 1 Ghz Cortex A7 should do the trick).
5) Put a relatively powerful (enough to handle that resolution easily), but very efficient GPU in it
6) Use other components that are also cutting edge in terms of power efficiency.
7) Put a 3,000-3,500mAh battery in it, even if it makes the phone 10-12mm thick (so like the Nokia Lumia 900 that many liked at the time for its "design", despite its thickness).
I would be surprised if all of this didn't lead to a week of battery life for the phone. The "problem" is this phone will be quite expensive unlocked (probably close to $300) due to its cutting edge/more efficient components, yet at the same time it will look like a $100 cheap phone in terms of "specs".
So where I'm going with this is that the market doesn't want such a phone even if it has a "1 week battery life". The market wants "PC-like performance", 2k resolutions and 5.5" screens more than they want "1 week battery life". And the other problem is that they want those specs to keep going up, and as long as those go up, battery life can't go up much either.
They optimize for performance and high specs rather than battery life. So if an OEM can choose between a 1080p panel with 30 percent less power consumption and a 2k panel with the same power consumption, they go for the 2k. And that's how our phones get stuck forever in the ~1 day battery life.
Smartphone batteries could easily last a week right now, with current technology. The reason they don't is because manufacturers prefer smaller size and lower weight to longer battery life, presumably because their customers do.
Size and weight are much less of a concern for fixed installation grid storage, of course.
> Smartphone batteries could easily last a week right now, with current technology.
Source? I always assumed the the main reason why modern cellphones' battery life is a lot worse than a few years ago was because of power-hungry processors and screens.
I don't think you really need a source for this. Current smartphone batteries last about a day in normal use. If you made it seven times larger, it would still be portable (just less so), and would now last a week. Increasing battery capacity by just adding more battery is trivial. What's hard is adding capacity without adding bulk or cost.
Yes, bulk is quite important factor too, especially on storing energy on large scale. Agreeing with the "can do a week of battery phone" on the other hand depends. The problem is that smart-phones have achieved lately their acceptable speeds with quad core (and up) processors. Resolution of screen makes less impact than the mere size of the area that has to be lit, but nobody wants to surf web through a peephole. E-ink would rescue if it could play videos and games fast. A lot of people want to do exactly that. And there are a lot of additional features we are used to keeping active (gps, wifi, ...). Turning these off will decrease the value of having a smartphone. Based on current battery sizes a week of battery would probably mean about 5 times the battery of phones now. That is not pocketable computer territory anymore.
In addition I would really like to have the phone component moved to watches (with at least 3 days battery) and leave all the rest for a pocketable computer to handle.
The Huawei Mate 2 has a 4000mah battery and I regularly get two days (30-40 hours) on it. It's very handy never having to worry about charging. It's thin and light (cheap feeling). As much at it sucks from crappy software (messed up version of Jelly Bean) and as much as I want to leave Google, no one else seems to be targeting even 20 hours of life. It's very frustrating.
The Mate 2 feels small enough that doubling the thickness would still result in an acceptable phone.
If you have to pay for an email anyway, would You instead call or pick some other way of direct communication? Not quite sure that replacing the indirect communication, where You can procrastinate to some extent, with direct one will solve the issues it promises.
Its awesome, but it would probably add some awkwardness to making new acquaintances at party. Hi, my name is ..., and I really like You. Do you mind giving me a blood sample?
> They found that the test rivaled gold standard lab tests and was able to correctly detect infections 92 to 100% of the time. Although it missed one case of syphilis and falsely diagnosed syphilis infections 14% of the time, the device is still extremely useful because false positives would be picked up later on after the patient is sent for further tests and treatment.
If you use it in a normal party (were I assume that less than the 1% have syphilis) then more than the 90% of the detections will be false positive. Good for amusement of everyone but the subject case :(.
It is only useful as a first screening test, take it only as a suggestion to take a serious test.
Notifications can be silenced from System Preferences > Notifications by turning on Do Not Disturb. I have another problem with the notifications. They are displayed in the upper right corner where it constantly interferes with my actions. Does anybody know a way to move these to the lower right corner that I rarely use.
I turned on do not disturb 0:00 to 23:59 but am still getting them. I think there are different types of notifications.
In Mavericks there was a way to disable the process in terminal but it's not working on Yosemite. I also don't like the icon there instead of spotlight.
Actually hoped to see more true, but satirical, statements like: "It usually takes a long time to find a shorter way." or "Debugging software is the practice of removing bugs. Programming is the art of putting them in." Currently seems more like criticising a lecture.
