Richard Burton

The controller certainly isn't speed limiting on purpose, its just not capable of higher speeds, this is almost certainly due to cost. Samsung's 950 Pro uses Samsung's custom silicon, they designed their controller using completely new technologies, this is expensive. This intel drive is certainly no slouch, its still faster than any SATA SSD on the market, which is more than enough for most people, and most laptops, of course the high end laptop and desktop users will opt for a faster solution. This product is for the masses, not the enthusiasts, and the masses are a much larger market segment.

All somebody needs you to do is tell you a 4 digit number, not exactly MORE secure

Also a severed finger would NOT unlock the iphone - for a start there is a capacitive ring around the sensor which needs to detect the electrical charge in your skin, and it reads the subdermal layer of skin, not the outer layer

Also fingerprint + pin would be pointless since the whole idea of touch ID is to be faster

As cool as all of this is, I still wouldn't buy a Lenovo product again after their BIOS/spyware or whatever they had installed.

This article has been taken way out of context. They want to join and manipulate CubeSat's. Which are in very close orbits to each other, using magnets in each of them. There is no giant magnet on earth that will be used to manipulate the satellites. The current most powerful magnet on Earth is in the "Maglab" in the US, when turned on its effect can't be measured a kilometer away. Magnetic fields follow an inverse square law, this simply states that if you are twice as far away from a magnet, its effect is 1/4, three times as far, 1/9. 

This article has been taken way out of context. They want to join and manipulate CubeSat's. Which are in very close orbits to each other, using magnets in each of them. There is no giant magnet on earth that will be used to manipulate the satellites. The current most powerful magnet on Earth is in the "Maglab" in the US, when turned on its effect can't be measured a kilometer away. Magnetic fields follow an inverse square law, this simply states that if you are twice as far away from a magnet, its effect is 1/4, three times as far, 1/9. 

Hopefully the final product looks a bit better.

If there's still red accents wtf is the point

Because HGST is an enterprise class drive, designed for 24/7 use in a large array, there is a price premium for these drives and naturally their failure rate is lower

First thing I thought could be the new Google Photos auto backup.

DO you have Google Photoes backing you pictures up, any google auto backup enabled?

It's all ugly

Everything is so ugly

Original source:



 

Recently the Solar Road test built in the Netherlands came out with data containing results of the amount of energy produced in a 6 month period,

and the company is claiming it produced more than they expected. That's all well and good, with major tech blogs posting about it,

(such as Engadget).

But when you break down the figures, they not as impressive as you would have thought.

 

Ever since Solar Roadways have been considered, Dave from the EEVBlog on YouTube has smelled something off about the project,

and if it is worth it.

Naturally as a follow up, he has decided to do a 3rd video with the findings to see if it was worth it, and the TL;DR answer,

No, not really.

 

In his video he breaks down the calculations, and does comparisons between smaller solar generators in the same area to see what they were achieving.

After collecting the information and compared to the Solar Road, it doesn't look that impressive any more.

 

His workings, provided by Dave himself,



 

His previous videos in the spoiler below

 



 

My thoughts.

I liked the concept of solar roads, but I somehow feel they will never be efficient enough (At the current moment, given 5 years or so, who knows, but right now...)  to warrant the cost of creating and fitting the panels.

It was a great idea, but I feel its either too soon or the advancements are just not there yet.

 

Your thoughts, please leave them down below!

This may have been posted before, i did a quick check to and didn't find anything
 
Here is a functional, 360 degree YouTube video, i.e. you can rotate around the shot.
Its pretty cool that YouTube actually already supports this feature, you can pan using the arrows in the top left of the video.
 
The quality is naturally very low being a prototype and the audio is very off-putting, however this is really cool to watch and explore. Pictured is electronics guru Dave from the EEVBlog talking about the camera and also the developers are in the room too.
 
Link:

 
Note: you have to watch it on the YouTube website

From reading the feature list. Its like me claiming that the titan black is a powerful gpu but ive never seen one.

Ok, the reason we don't use "heat-electricity converters" (called a peltier plate) is because electricity production is negligible and the cost of installing these would be high. Contrary to what you stated tires (spelled with an I) are actually designed to have lots of friction, this is so when you brake, you don't just skid into the car in front, from the frame of reference of the tire in contact with the ground there is no relative movement. The heat to which this video is referring comes from the brakes which are converting all of the kinetic energy (1/2mv^2) into thermal energy, this heat is usually simply radiated away (wasted) this tire design wishes to capture that. This is actually a lot of energy. for example a 1 tonne car moving at 10m/s (36kph or about 22mph for you yanks) would have 1/2*1000*10^2 = 50 000 Joules of kinetic energy, most of which would become heat in the braking system which could then be captured and turned into electricity (assuming the technology that goodyear has developed has a good efficiency). A car moving twice that speed would have 4 times the kinetic energy i.e. 200 000 joules of energy to convert to heat per brake, i.e. lots of energy. In short yes, "next time when you feel your tires" they may not be hot, that's because the heat comes from the brakes, not the tires, however again this is wrong, the tires will actually be rather toasty, driving over bumps will cause the air internally to compress, this compression heats up the air (the principle behind all refrigeration because inversely decompressed air is cooler and can through a heat exchanger absorb the heat in a system)
 
In Short i'm not having a go at you, i'm just saying perhaps before you post your theory about why something won't work maybe consider the engineers who designed this system know something that you don't and maybe, just maybe you're missing something

Yahoo!
Thank god for Yahoo!

What time is it Wendell?
 
Oh it's that time again
 
Alright.  Aside from bragging rights, looking cool etc, this is frankly silly in my opinion.  In about.. 2008 when Flat screens were.. about 6cm thick, I was fine with it.  I said "this is the point where the size no longer matters".  And yet, they get thinner and thinner.  Why?  It's like phones.  Iphone 4 was pretty slim.  I saw no reason to go further.  Really, I just cannot see the point to this, other than worse heat dissipation because it must be difficult to cool something that small, it just seems absolutely pointless.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOZBrHqTJk4
There is a list of further sources in the description of the video
 
Someone has built a 70m long * 1.7m wide solar cycleway in Amsterdam for the sole purpose of reasearch and development. It cost $3 million.
Dave the electrical engineer (EEVblog) debunks, yet again solar roadways.
 
His main points are:
* On roads and cycleways solar panels are mounted flat and are far less efficient than if mounted facing the sun
* The protective glass on the cycleway must be much thicker than if it were roof mounted, blocking out more of the sun, plus the glass is textured not smooth
* The cost of making solar panels suitable for pathways is far higher (thicker glass, it has to be load bearing), plus they will need to be maintained unlike rooftop installations
* Paths get dirty and will have to be cleaned regularly or the already poor efficiency will suffer
 
Basically solar cycleways have a Cost to Energy ratio that it 1/8 of a rooftop installation and the payback time is (in best case scenario) over 40 years vs. just over 5 years for rooftop installations. Also solar panels lose about 1/2 their efficiency over a 20 year period. The takeaway is it is far more efficient just to mount the damn things on poles or roofs facing the sun.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOZBrHqTJk4
There is a list of further sources in the description of the video
 
Someone has built a 70m long * 1.7m wide solar cycleway in Amsterdam for the sole purpose of reasearch and development. It cost $3 million.
Dave the electrical engineer (EEVblog) debunks, yet again solar roadways.
 
His main points are:
* On roads and cycleways solar panels are mounted flat and are far less efficient than if mounted facing the sun
* The protective glass on the cycleway must be much thicker than if it were roof mounted, blocking out more of the sun, plus the glass is textured not smooth
* The cost of making solar panels suitable for pathways is far higher (thicker glass, it has to be load bearing), plus they will need to be maintained unlike rooftop installations
* Paths get dirty and will have to be cleaned regularly or the already poor efficiency will suffer
 
Basically solar cycleways have a Cost to Energy ratio that it 1/8 of a rooftop installation and the payback time is (in best case scenario) over 40 years vs. just over 5 years for rooftop installations. Also solar panels lose about 1/2 their efficiency over a 20 year period. The takeaway is it is far more efficient just to mount the damn things on poles or roofs facing the sun.

Speak with your wallets, don't buy it

Australia tax, the price you pay for being Australian....

http://www.pccasegear.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=29115&cPath=1693
 
Australian website pccasegear has a preorder page and picture of the 980 strix.It looks the same as the previous Strix, but obviously with that beast of a GPU underneath! 

Australia tax, the price you pay for being Australian....

Uhm, tempered glass is a real thing, not just marketing jargon, and you really wouldn't want non tempered glass as a side panel cause it would be stupidly fragile. But i agree "Premium colours" is nonsense