The article has got it wrong. It's panels on your house roof, not your car.
18 posts • joined 10 Feb 2010
"an electric car just doesn't meet my needs for the occasional several hundred mile getaway"
You're missing the point here. The whole reason Tesla has attracted such interest is they are producing cars that DO meet that need. People are driving these things all round Europe. For free, too.
The general idea is that you fit one if you get an electric car. If you have street parking, some councils are looking at fitting sockets to lamp posts and setting up dedicated EV spaces. The other option, that some people do currently with their Tesla, is using Superchargers exclusively.
I'm with you on this. I have a customer that is currently transitioning to IE8. That's right - IE8 is new for them.
The reason is that they run XP internally and must run IE as they have internals apps that demand it (which is lame, but common). XP can only go as far as IE8. Upgrading to Windows 7 or beyond is a much bigger deal.
I think this situation is not unusual for large corporations or government bodies. As a developer I'd love to ditch support for old browsers, but it's just not realistic.
It seems odd to me to branch the project for a 12% reduction in code size due to removal of legacy features. In my view with the current market share of IE7 and IE8 that means jQuery 2 is unlikely to be of use in a real-world setting for some time.
That's only in that particular use case. Where I think this might be useful is in human-computer interaction, for example, giving Siri a face or making characters in computer games more realistic and variable.
I don't know about this case, but in the other two cases referenced Tesla was absolutely right to object about the poor press coverage.
The Top Gear episode - they faked the whole thing - the Tesla Roadster didn't run out of charge on the track as depicted.
As for the BBC's experiment with the Mini E: it has a range of 100 miles so I'm not sure what attempting to drive it to Edinburgh was supposed to prove, other than the stupidity of the BBC reporter. It's not a long distance vehicle - it's meant to be used for the 95% of journeys that are well within its range. I was one of the public 'beta testers' and had the car for 6 months during which time I drove over 4,000 miles at a total electricity cost of £52.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but something was definitely a bit fishy about both of those items.
I don't understand why this review, and many others, comment on the quality of the HDMI output of Blu-Ray players. Unless the player is upscaling / downscaling content (which it shouldn't be for 1080p discs output to a 1080p TV) shouldn't the HDMI output be identical for a given disc from player to player?
As far as I know, the player shouldn't be tampering with the data in any way, it's just decompressing the video data and outputting directly to HDMI. Or am I missing something?
A few of places where I thought the iPad might be useful:
- Messing around on the web while watching telly. The iPhone works for this but the screen is a little small. Netbooks/laptops aren't great for this in terms of ergonomics.
- Catching up with news at the breakfast table. Newspapers will be produced that are designed for the iPad's screen, which seems pretty handy. I would't read a book on this thing, but for news it seems ideal.
- Taking notes and writing documents in meetings. The iWork demo was good and made it seem ideal for this. Maybe business will be a big market for this.
If so implemented this could work like the scene in Avatar, where the scientist touches his iPhone like tablet to the computer screen and swipes a 3D image off the screen on to the tablet. He then walks across the room and swipes the image on to a window.
I wonder though if we'll have to endure Bluetooth-like authentication and related clunkiness.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020