tmay wrote: »
Mirrors will be required by regulation for quite awhile.
My numbers are documented in my various posts, most of which are linked as well. I did use 2% drag as a figure for a well designed mirror on a passenger car, and I based that on a paper that was linked by techlover; that's 2% of the cars total drag, You don't seem to want to delve into this in any detail, just offer an opinion. That's fine, but why people are so focused on the mirror as some sort of major inefficiency is beyond me, the numbers belie that. So, I'm out of here.
You will likely be correct about mirrors disappearing when autonomous vehicles arrive in a reasonable numbers, but I would be surprised it there will be actual "autonomy" in all driving environments for another decade; so expect mirrors to be required for quite some time.
“BUT BUT BUT BUT TESLA’S PUTTING OUT AN UPDATE THIS YEAR THAT WILL LET THE EXISTING CARS DRIVE THEMSELVES!”
mdriftmeyer wrote: »
Autonomous vehicles won't be here for two or more decades. Too many problems with infrastructure, never mind the solutions are garbage. And anyone who thinks standard vehicle mirrors are offsetting the built up drag surface area that starts with that front end of most cars is deluding themselves.
The cost of integrated systems to deal with electronic cameras that are extremely expensive to replace and non mechanical reminds me when everyone in the '80s thought electronic voice activation was going to be huge.
It's nearly 40 years since and it's not.
Even adjusting the mirrors you still get blindspots. I have my mirrors adjusted so I see the next lane but this is still not enough. It's fine if the vehicle is behind you but if it's beside you and you glance at your rear view mirror you'll never see them, worse if the other vehicle is a motorcyclist.
If there is a car beside me but nothing in my rear view mirror, and I look out the corner of my eye to glance at my side mirror, I either see the car in the mirror, I see it directly, or I see it both ways. There is no blind spot. I've verified this many times. Try the google search I mentioned for more.
indyfx wrote: »
What does that mean? I still have an iPad 1st gen. 64GB around (likely should put it up on eBay though) Why exactly did you think the iPad 1st gen had " a pretty short shelf life compared to the one that replaced it." Our 1st gen was being used regularly up until about a year or so ago when we went to iCloud drive (which kind of isolated it) But I have no qualms about it's useful lifetime, it owes us nothing. Actually I had a pretty hard time finding it when I bought it (about a month after it was released) the iPad 1's sales were VERY supply constrained during it's first few months.
AFAICR the iPad first and second gen. both had a year, which is about all most portable devices have. Innovation, particularly at Apple, has a rapid timeline. (Actually... As I recall,l there WAS a short cycle between the 3rd and 4th gen (only 6 months) when they switched to fall releases.)
Aah, the xMac. Well, after so many years, and so few people actually wanting a product like that I don't think anyone should hold their breath for such a Mac. But I could of course be proven wrong, as has happened many times.
Besides the altruism of Musk's open patents, these patents will promote the sales of cells from his forthcoming Gigafactory, which will be the cheapest source of the "laptop" cells that are used in his unconventional battery packs.
He also opened the patents to his Supercharger, which competes with the North American industry standard SAE J1772, used by GM, Nissan and everyone else. Two competing systems are not the way to go to promote EVs, so hopefully one will win out, especially worldwide. Opening the Supercharger patents is a step in the right direction (right now, it handles more current, is more elegantly designed than J1772, and is already in Europe). I say make the Supercharger an IEEE standard (so Tesla doesn't dictate its direction).
I have three Lenovo D20 dual processor towers, 5 drives each, plus an SSD for Win7; these are nothing that I will keep (very long anyway) when Thunderbolt 3 arrives. More to the point, TB 3 will be supported all the way down to the Mac Book Air, if Apple keeps building it.
I use them to run SolidWorks, Inventor, HSMWorks, GibbsCAM, and Maxwell Render; nothing I couldn't run on a Mac if I wanted.
Don't understand the attraction of towers anymore; get NAS, or TB storage and be done with it.
Well yes, on that, we agree: the iPad 2 is better than the iPad one.
However that doesn't address your claiming that the original iPad had a "short shelf life" It was viable for about 4 years (and really, it still does what we bought it to do. We have just upped our expectations of what a tablet is, and does, dramatically (and now have 6 iPads of varying ages around the house))
You could similarly (nonsensically) claim that the iPad 2 had a short self life because the 3 totally eclipsed it graphically as the screen was 4X the resolution. Or that three had a short shelf life (because the 4 was released 6 months later) or that the 4 had a short shelf life because the iPad air totally eclipsed it in size AND graphics & computational performance.... On and on. Apple innovates, rapidly. Each generation ups the ante of what an iPad can be and do.
Oh yeah, and it should have clear sides, light up fans and glowing bits inside and RAM that "twinkles" when it is accessed...
An i7 "tower" just doesn't make sense for professionals or home users. "gamerz" yes but they aren't going to buy it (in significant numbers) anyway. It never did really (make sense for Apple)... and it make significantly less now.
xMac dreamers still exist?!
Thanks for the laughs. With so many people disappearing from this site I needed that!
felixer wrote: »
I wasn't aware they were trying to lose side mirrors. What were they planning on replacing them with?