CRTs also take up so much space that is ridiculous.
Yea, because I always thought "If only my monitor didn''t take up so much space, I could put so many things behind it":).
CRTs have big geometry problems, uneven quality of the pixels (the ones in the corners will always be of a lesser quality) that a flat matrix panel simply does not have by definition.
My current monitor does not have geometry problems (noticeable, anyway, I did not use a ruler to see if the lines are straight). It is possible to fix the geometry issues by using WinDAS - it divides the screen into small sections and you adjust the geometry/convergence in each of them (unlike using the on-screen menu that only allows changes over the entire screen).
I do, I have more than one PC and some of them cannot output 1920x1200 or 2304x1440, non-native resolutions look awful on fixed pixel displays. As for games, yea, I do not want to buy a really expensive video card and then replace it every year or so just so that I could play new games at the native resolution.
WTF no. Enjoy your bizarro land resolution that no one targets.
2304x1440 is a normal 16:10 resolution (2304/16 = 1440/10). It also results in larger desktop space than 1920x1200. The good thing about CRTs is that I can use 1920x1200 for, say, watching movies and then switch to 2304x1440 if I need more space on the desktop because of all the windows etc.
I bet you listen to vinyl records too. Fucking hipsters.
Vinyl, shellac, tape, basically any form of media - why should I restrict myself to one or two formats? I like older music, I can usually find cheap records that contain the music I like, why should I not buy them? In some cases there is no digital equivalent available - if there are CDs released that contain the songs, they are usually remade or at least remastered to make them sound more "modern", but I prefer the original.
Completely agree. At least there are some nice used ones - I recently bought a Sony GDM-FW900, while it has some scratches on the plastic case, the screen is unscratched and the tube seems not worn (as the monitor is not too bright - my other monitor (Dell P1130) was way too bright, I had to use special software to reduce the G2 voltage, the monitor is still too bright ~15 minutes after turning on until the tube warms up; now that I replaced it I'll be able to properly configure it, hopefully, the "too bright while cold" problem is a compensation circuit going out of alignment with the tube (cold tube is darker, so the circuit increases the brightness, but in my case it overdoes it).
Ability to display perfect black color; Ability to display more than one resolution correctly (useful for games, old video card = new games at reduced resolution); Ultrafast response time, no input lag; Reliable and have long life (people saying things like "My LCD started acting weird, but it's 3 years old, time for a new one", while my 12 year old CRT works great), but can also be repaired if necessary (well, other than the failure of the tube obviously); More affordable than a 24" LCD that can display 2304x1440 (if such a thing even exists); Great image quality.
The only advantages of LCDs are size, weight and power consumption - all of these are not primary features of a monitor, at least for me (the same way that I don't buy a car based solely on the fuel consumption, or a computer based on its power consumption and size - I look for performance and cost first).
It's a poor attempt at making the monitor have the same black levels as a CRT. Of course, a CRT would have the same black level whether the rest of the screen is white or black. It is not as good, but at least it is a step in the right direction. Ideally each pixel would have its own light source that is separately controlled.
Another way of achieving good contrast ratio is increasing the maximum brightness, after all, there is a large ratio between a 100W lightbulb and the sun...
No, the power draw is from the heaters and the deflection circuitry, but each gun that is turned on at full intensity also adds to the total (that's why full screen yellow uses more power than full screen red or green).
But you are a wuss, you wait several minutes for the water to cool down considerably.
Yes. I do the same whether I make the beverage myself or pay someone to do it (in a restaurant or wherever). If I also eat at the restaurant then I usually do not have to specifically wait for the tea to cool down - by the time I'm done eating the tea is about the right temperature.
Is it your pool or a pool in private territory belonging to someone else? If it is your pool or a public pool then no, but if I keep radioactive waste (or sulfuric acid) in my own pool, and you tresspass and fall in, then it is your fault. If I invite you, I will tell you that the pool is acid so you would be wise to not go near it.
Also - to detect radiation you need a special device, one that people usually do not have, to detect acid safely you also need special equipment. To detect that coffee is hot is possible by touching the ouside of a cup - if it is hot, then the coffee inside is even hotter.
Most likely no, because I would think that it was my actions that caused the burn - the employee did not spill the coffee on me, I did it myself. If I was making coffee at home and spilled it on myself the result would most likely be the same.
If I was wronged by a large company, I would be hesitant to bring a lawsuit, because if I lose, I am liable for their legal bills, which are likely far more than I can pay.
But you do not like the RIAA lawsuits, do you? Specifically the part where RIAA forces a settlement because going to court would be more expensive even if you won.
I would have thought the same - eating/drinking in a car (from a cup) is difficult enough as a passenger, I would not do it at all as a driver, I would go to the destination (or at least a parking lot somewhere if the destination is far away) and then consumed the coffee and/or the hamburgers.
Do the other restaurants expect the driver to drive holding the cup in one hand and the wheel in the other (and the gear stick with what?). In a city?
Lithuania. While I do not work anywhere near the legal system, I would expect at least some of those cases to make it to the press.
Basically, under the American system it works like this:
For whatever reason you sue me. I hire a lawyer and he manages to defend me. I win the case. Yet, I lose a lot of money. But I did not do anything wrong - I did not even initiate the lawsuit. So I have to pay money just because of something you did.
The RIAA uses this tactic to extort money from people - "Even if you win, you will pay more money than we are asking now".
With the "loser pays" system it works like this:
You sue me for not-so-good reason. I hire a lawyer and he defends me successfully. Which means that you sued me for no reason, so you should pay for my lawyer and the time I lost defending against your baseless lawsuit.
The RIAA would run out of money if it tried to sue everyone in this system.
Appropriate serving temperature for coffee is right after making. That way, if you do not plan on drinking it now, it will still be warm later. I view the restaurant staff as just doing what I would have done - what I mean is - I want coffee, so I either go make some or pay someone to do it, the result should be the same.
Who should know and understand the dangers inherent in the mix of hot liquids and drive-throughs? The corporation that developed and studied it, or the customer?
In my opinion both, but if the customer is an adult with normal brain function, I expect him/her to understand what "how liquid" means because they most likely made coffee or tea at least once in life. I make tea for myself. The corporation should put the hot liquid in a container that either does not conduct heat well or has a handle, so that it is possible to hold that container in hand without burning it. McD also puts lids on the coffee cups, so they are less likely to spill.
(The coffee that you brew at home probably comes out at around 140 degrees, so thereâ(TM)s a significant difference.)
140F is 60C. You mean the water cools down by 40 degrees C in the few minutes that the coffee needs to brew? I really don't think so, but currently have no thermometer rated for 100C, so I cannot check. I make my coffee by pouring boiling water on ground coffee beans in a cup; I make tea by pouring boiling water into a cup and putting a tea bag* in it. How do you make coffee/tea?
* If I make tea using tea leaves and for more than one person, I put a bunch of tea leaves in a small teapot, pour boiling water on them and wait for 8-10 minutes. Then, I pour a small amount of the concentrated tea into cups and fill the cups with boiling water.
When I make instant coffee then it is most definitely hotter than 60C because instant coffee is instant - no need to wait the few minutes.
So, I maintain, unless the coffee was significantly above boiling point (100C/212F) it was reasonable.
Also, I find one thing very interesting. Americans, on average, want to be responsible for themselves and dislike when the government starts making decisions for them (national health care etc) saying that it is "nanny state" and bad. Yet, they become really irresponsible and want companies to take care of them (warnings that hot liquids are hot, silica gel is not food, microwaves can't be used to dry dogs, plastic bags can suffocate you if you put your head in one etc). This seems to be kinda weird - either be responsible or have companies and the government take care of you.
The company admitted that in the decade before Liebeckâ(TM)s incident, upwards of 700 customers had filed complaints about its coffee causing burns.
So, in the last 10 years, out of the millions (or tens/hundreds of millions) that McD served only 700 people were careless enough to spill the still-hot coffee on themselves?
During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchisees to serve coffee at 180â"190 ÂF (82â"88 ÂC)..... Stella Liebeck's attorney argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140 ÂF (60 ÂC)
So, I wonder if she ever makes coffee at home. Or drinks homemade coffee when visiting a friend etc. All coffee or tea is more than 88C just after making, probably around 95C. This is why I think the lawsuit was stupid.
So, I go to a restaurant, order some tea and the waiter brings me a cup of boiling water with a teabag (or te leaves) in it. I would expect the same temperature for coffee. Actually, I would not like if the tea was at 60C when it was brought to me - when I'm done eating, the tea will be too cold.
Well, I am sure that if I spilled just-made tea on myself I could get burned too because I use almost-boiling water to make it and water does not cool down quickly. This is why you handle hot stuff carefully. Also, at least in my country, the McD coffee comes in a cup with a lid, so it is not that easy to spill it.
You presume that case where the lady sued McDonalds because the coffee was hot was a frivolous case.
I assume that the coffee was not hotter than the boiling point of water, which is what it would be if I made the coffee myself (since I would start with boiling water). The coffee was also not called "cold" or "ice", so it's a good assumption that it is hot.
Other good assumption is that a soldering iron is hot, even if unplugged, so touch only the protected part until you can confirm that it is cold.
You have to be able to try to sue anyone for anything.
Sure, but in the "loser pays" system, the semi-frivolous lawsuits result in the plaintiff being out of quite a lot of money and the defendant no worse off, while in the American system, the defendant is also out of quite a lot of money. A really good example is the RIAA lawsuits - people settle because they know that even if they win, they will lose more money than the RIAA asks now).
When I make coffee or tea, it usually is at about 90C (the water starts at 100C, but cools down a bit) and I never drink it immediately, but wait for it to cool down to a temperature that is OK for me. As such, I would expect coffee in a restaurant to be just as hot and not immediately drinkable and I would handle it with care.
Unless McD made that coffee over 100C.
Another example is the warnings on plastic bags. "Warning, this bag is not a toy, do not give it to children or they might put their head in it and suffocate" and the bag still has holes in it so in case somebody did put their head in it, they would not suffocate as quickly. That warning is directed at adults (since kids won't read it), so it implies that there are adults who would not realize that a polyethylene bag is quite airtight and putting ones head in it is a stupid idea, which means that is is also a stupid idea to let a child play with the bag. And there are also adults who will disregard that warning and give the bag to kids anyway.
Or the packs of silica gel - "Do not eat". Are there really adults who would think "Oh look, the seller included some candy with my new device". Again, kids (that are young enough to try to eat everything) won't read the warning or won't care about it.
Loser pays in my country and I don't think that there are too many people abusing the system like you say. Then again, people in my country do not sue each other over small things. Maybe this is one reason why - if you sue for some stupid thing (like the lady who sued McDonald's because hot coffee was hot), the defendant, if he believes that he can win, can hire a good lawyer and when he wind you will pay for his services. So, it would be impossible for RIAA to sue people here like they do in the US ("settle and pay us or spend more money paying your lawyer even if you win"), because they would lose money for each lost case and people would not be as quick to settle.
3.5", 5.25" floppies, LS120, 3.5" MO - easy (I have the drives). 8" floppy - really hard.
I like old tech and keep it around. Mainly audio stuff though, as I don't come across old computer stuff often... I have a working 286 and a CGA card for really old games (and an ISA VGA card for a bit newer games).
No, yellow means "stop unless there is no way to do it safely", while blinking green means "you can still go, but it will be yellow soon, so if you are far away from the intersection start braking". It is completely legal to go when the green is blinking, while you may have to explain yourself to the police officer if you drive when the yellow is on, especially if the traffic light also has the blinking green mode.
In my country the green light starts to blink a few seconds before yellow turns on and I start to brake when it does if I see that I won't make it to the intersection before the yellow light.
Also, the law is that if you are too close to the intersection (so you would need to slam on the brakes to stop before the line as opposed to stopping gradually), you can go even if the light already switched to yellow.
So, how about nuclear and hydroelectric power? Maybe some day fusion will be possible, but for now we have fission, so let's shut down all coal and oil power plants and build new nuclear power plants, reprocess the waste to use in different reactors until all the energy is extracted.
Electric cars currently are crap, but hopefully in a few years they won't be.
Because I like it. I do not like daylight, why would I want to use a lamp that simulates it? If I was forced to use it, I would use a filter (assuming I can get one).
Will there be a major die-off as we scramble to find new food sources as the weather changes? Maybe.
I doubt that it will happen so fast there will be a need for "scramble". The effects will be gradual (the sea level will not rise by 10 meters in a year, it will rise slowly). The same thing with, say, oil - as less and less oil remains, the difficulty of getting it will increase and so will the prices, at some point it will become cheaper to produce gasoline from coal than to get oil. It won't be like "that's it, today we filled the last tanker".
I would personally rather pay twice as much to use energy and avoid this possibility.
If you earn enough then sure. I'd rather use cheap nuclear electricity etc. Also, when you pay twice as much for the energy, make sure that half of your money does not settle down in a personal bank account of some politician or a CEO.
Slashdot Mirror
CRTs also take up so much space that is ridiculous.
Yea, because I always thought "If only my monitor didn''t take up so much space, I could put so many things behind it" :).
CRTs have big geometry problems, uneven quality of the pixels (the ones in the corners will always be of a lesser quality) that a flat matrix panel simply does not have by definition.
My current monitor does not have geometry problems (noticeable, anyway, I did not use a ruler to see if the lines are straight). It is possible to fix the geometry issues by using WinDAS - it divides the screen into small sections and you adjust the geometry/convergence in each of them (unlike using the on-screen menu that only allows changes over the entire screen).
Who cares.
I do, I have more than one PC and some of them cannot output 1920x1200 or 2304x1440, non-native resolutions look awful on fixed pixel displays. As for games, yea, I do not want to buy a really expensive video card and then replace it every year or so just so that I could play new games at the native resolution.
WTF no. Enjoy your bizarro land resolution that no one targets.
2304x1440 is a normal 16:10 resolution (2304/16 = 1440/10). It also results in larger desktop space than 1920x1200. The good thing about CRTs is that I can use 1920x1200 for, say, watching movies and then switch to 2304x1440 if I need more space on the desktop because of all the windows etc.
I bet you listen to vinyl records too. Fucking hipsters.
Vinyl, shellac, tape, basically any form of media - why should I restrict myself to one or two formats? I like older music, I can usually find cheap records that contain the music I like, why should I not buy them? In some cases there is no digital equivalent available - if there are CDs released that contain the songs, they are usually remade or at least remastered to make them sound more "modern", but I prefer the original.
Completely agree. At least there are some nice used ones - I recently bought a Sony GDM-FW900, while it has some scratches on the plastic case, the screen is unscratched and the tube seems not worn (as the monitor is not too bright - my other monitor (Dell P1130) was way too bright, I had to use special software to reduce the G2 voltage, the monitor is still too bright ~15 minutes after turning on until the tube warms up; now that I replaced it I'll be able to properly configure it, hopefully, the "too bright while cold" problem is a compensation circuit going out of alignment with the tube (cold tube is darker, so the circuit increases the brightness, but in my case it overdoes it).
People still have CRTs?
How ridiculous.
Ability to display perfect black color;
Ability to display more than one resolution correctly (useful for games, old video card = new games at reduced resolution);
Ultrafast response time, no input lag;
Reliable and have long life (people saying things like "My LCD started acting weird, but it's 3 years old, time for a new one", while my 12 year old CRT works great), but can also be repaired if necessary (well, other than the failure of the tube obviously);
More affordable than a 24" LCD that can display 2304x1440 (if such a thing even exists);
Great image quality.
The only advantages of LCDs are size, weight and power consumption - all of these are not primary features of a monitor, at least for me (the same way that I don't buy a car based solely on the fuel consumption, or a computer based on its power consumption and size - I look for performance and cost first).
It's a poor attempt at making the monitor have the same black levels as a CRT. Of course, a CRT would have the same black level whether the rest of the screen is white or black. It is not as good, but at least it is a step in the right direction. Ideally each pixel would have its own light source that is separately controlled.
Another way of achieving good contrast ratio is increasing the maximum brightness, after all, there is a large ratio between a 100W lightbulb and the sun...
No, the power draw is from the heaters and the deflection circuitry, but each gun that is turned on at full intensity also adds to the total (that's why full screen yellow uses more power than full screen red or green).
But you are a wuss, you wait several minutes for the water to cool down considerably.
Yes. I do the same whether I make the beverage myself or pay someone to do it (in a restaurant or wherever). If I also eat at the restaurant then I usually do not have to specifically wait for the tea to cool down - by the time I'm done eating the tea is about the right temperature.
Is it your pool or a pool in private territory belonging to someone else? If it is your pool or a public pool then no, but if I keep radioactive waste (or sulfuric acid) in my own pool, and you tresspass and fall in, then it is your fault. If I invite you, I will tell you that the pool is acid so you would be wise to not go near it.
Also - to detect radiation you need a special device, one that people usually do not have, to detect acid safely you also need special equipment. To detect that coffee is hot is possible by touching the ouside of a cup - if it is hot, then the coffee inside is even hotter.
In the same situation wouldn't you sue?
Most likely no, because I would think that it was my actions that caused the burn - the employee did not spill the coffee on me, I did it myself. If I was making coffee at home and spilled it on myself the result would most likely be the same.
If I was wronged by a large company, I would be hesitant to bring a lawsuit, because if I lose, I am liable for their legal bills, which are likely far more than I can pay.
But you do not like the RIAA lawsuits, do you? Specifically the part where RIAA forces a settlement because going to court would be more expensive even if you won.
I would have thought the same - eating/drinking in a car (from a cup) is difficult enough as a passenger, I would not do it at all as a driver, I would go to the destination (or at least a parking lot somewhere if the destination is far away) and then consumed the coffee and/or the hamburgers.
Do the other restaurants expect the driver to drive holding the cup in one hand and the wheel in the other (and the gear stick with what?). In a city?
Lithuania. While I do not work anywhere near the legal system, I would expect at least some of those cases to make it to the press.
Basically, under the American system it works like this:
For whatever reason you sue me. I hire a lawyer and he manages to defend me. I win the case. Yet, I lose a lot of money. But I did not do anything wrong - I did not even initiate the lawsuit. So I have to pay money just because of something you did.
The RIAA uses this tactic to extort money from people - "Even if you win, you will pay more money than we are asking now".
With the "loser pays" system it works like this:
You sue me for not-so-good reason. I hire a lawyer and he defends me successfully. Which means that you sued me for no reason, so you should pay for my lawyer and the time I lost defending against your baseless lawsuit.
The RIAA would run out of money if it tried to sue everyone in this system.
My opinion:
Appropriate serving temperature for coffee is right after making. That way, if you do not plan on drinking it now, it will still be warm later. I view the restaurant staff as just doing what I would have done - what I mean is - I want coffee, so I either go make some or pay someone to do it, the result should be the same.
Who should know and understand the dangers inherent in the mix of hot liquids and drive-throughs? The corporation that developed and studied it, or the customer?
In my opinion both, but if the customer is an adult with normal brain function, I expect him/her to understand what "how liquid" means because they most likely made coffee or tea at least once in life. I make tea for myself.
The corporation should put the hot liquid in a container that either does not conduct heat well or has a handle, so that it is possible to hold that container in hand without burning it. McD also puts lids on the coffee cups, so they are less likely to spill.
(The coffee that you brew at home probably comes out at around 140 degrees, so thereâ(TM)s a significant difference.)
140F is 60C. You mean the water cools down by 40 degrees C in the few minutes that the coffee needs to brew? I really don't think so, but currently have no thermometer rated for 100C, so I cannot check. I make my coffee by pouring boiling water on ground coffee beans in a cup; I make tea by pouring boiling water into a cup and putting a tea bag* in it. How do you make coffee/tea?
* If I make tea using tea leaves and for more than one person, I put a bunch of tea leaves in a small teapot, pour boiling water on them and wait for 8-10 minutes. Then, I pour a small amount of the concentrated tea into cups and fill the cups with boiling water.
When I make instant coffee then it is most definitely hotter than 60C because instant coffee is instant - no need to wait the few minutes.
So, I maintain, unless the coffee was significantly above boiling point (100C/212F) it was reasonable.
Also, I find one thing very interesting. Americans, on average, want to be responsible for themselves and dislike when the government starts making decisions for them (national health care etc) saying that it is "nanny state" and bad. Yet, they become really irresponsible and want companies to take care of them (warnings that hot liquids are hot, silica gel is not food, microwaves can't be used to dry dogs, plastic bags can suffocate you if you put your head in one etc). This seems to be kinda weird - either be responsible or have companies and the government take care of you.
The company admitted that in the decade before Liebeckâ(TM)s incident, upwards of 700 customers had filed complaints about its coffee causing burns.
So, in the last 10 years, out of the millions (or tens/hundreds of millions) that McD served only 700 people were careless enough to spill the still-hot coffee on themselves?
From Wkipedia's article about the case:
During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchisees to serve coffee at 180â"190 ÂF (82â"88 ÂC). .... Stella Liebeck's attorney argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140 ÂF (60 ÂC)
So, I wonder if she ever makes coffee at home. Or drinks homemade coffee when visiting a friend etc. All coffee or tea is more than 88C just after making, probably around 95C. This is why I think the lawsuit was stupid.
So, I go to a restaurant, order some tea and the waiter brings me a cup of boiling water with a teabag (or te leaves) in it. I would expect the same temperature for coffee. Actually, I would not like if the tea was at 60C when it was brought to me - when I'm done eating, the tea will be too cold.
Well, I am sure that if I spilled just-made tea on myself I could get burned too because I use almost-boiling water to make it and water does not cool down quickly. This is why you handle hot stuff carefully. Also, at least in my country, the McD coffee comes in a cup with a lid, so it is not that easy to spill it.
Unless that coffee was something like 150C.
You presume that case where the lady sued McDonalds because the coffee was hot was a frivolous case.
I assume that the coffee was not hotter than the boiling point of water, which is what it would be if I made the coffee myself (since I would start with boiling water). The coffee was also not called "cold" or "ice", so it's a good assumption that it is hot.
Other good assumption is that a soldering iron is hot, even if unplugged, so touch only the protected part until you can confirm that it is cold.
You have to be able to try to sue anyone for anything.
Sure, but in the "loser pays" system, the semi-frivolous lawsuits result in the plaintiff being out of quite a lot of money and the defendant no worse off, while in the American system, the defendant is also out of quite a lot of money. A really good example is the RIAA lawsuits - people settle because they know that even if they win, they will lose more money than the RIAA asks now).
When I make coffee or tea, it usually is at about 90C (the water starts at 100C, but cools down a bit) and I never drink it immediately, but wait for it to cool down to a temperature that is OK for me. As such, I would expect coffee in a restaurant to be just as hot and not immediately drinkable and I would handle it with care.
Unless McD made that coffee over 100C.
Another example is the warnings on plastic bags. "Warning, this bag is not a toy, do not give it to children or they might put their head in it and suffocate" and the bag still has holes in it so in case somebody did put their head in it, they would not suffocate as quickly. That warning is directed at adults (since kids won't read it), so it implies that there are adults who would not realize that a polyethylene bag is quite airtight and putting ones head in it is a stupid idea, which means that is is also a stupid idea to let a child play with the bag. And there are also adults who will disregard that warning and give the bag to kids anyway.
Or the packs of silica gel - "Do not eat". Are there really adults who would think "Oh look, the seller included some candy with my new device". Again, kids (that are young enough to try to eat everything) won't read the warning or won't care about it.
Loser pays in my country and I don't think that there are too many people abusing the system like you say. Then again, people in my country do not sue each other over small things. Maybe this is one reason why - if you sue for some stupid thing (like the lady who sued McDonald's because hot coffee was hot), the defendant, if he believes that he can win, can hire a good lawyer and when he wind you will pay for his services. So, it would be impossible for RIAA to sue people here like they do in the US ("settle and pay us or spend more money paying your lawyer even if you win"), because they would lose money for each lost case and people would not be as quick to settle.
3.5", 5.25" floppies, LS120, 3.5" MO - easy (I have the drives). 8" floppy - really hard.
I like old tech and keep it around. Mainly audio stuff though, as I don't come across old computer stuff often... I have a working 286 and a CGA card for really old games (and an ISA VGA card for a bit newer games).
No, yellow means "stop unless there is no way to do it safely", while blinking green means "you can still go, but it will be yellow soon, so if you are far away from the intersection start braking". It is completely legal to go when the green is blinking, while you may have to explain yourself to the police officer if you drive when the yellow is on, especially if the traffic light also has the blinking green mode.
In my country the green light starts to blink a few seconds before yellow turns on and I start to brake when it does if I see that I won't make it to the intersection before the yellow light.
Also, the law is that if you are too close to the intersection (so you would need to slam on the brakes to stop before the line as opposed to stopping gradually), you can go even if the light already switched to yellow.
So, how about nuclear and hydroelectric power? Maybe some day fusion will be possible, but for now we have fission, so let's shut down all coal and oil power plants and build new nuclear power plants, reprocess the waste to use in different reactors until all the energy is extracted.
Electric cars currently are crap, but hopefully in a few years they won't be.
No need to change the lifestyle.
Because I like it. I do not like daylight, why would I want to use a lamp that simulates it? If I was forced to use it, I would use a filter (assuming I can get one).
Will there be a major die-off as we scramble to find new food sources as the weather changes? Maybe.
I doubt that it will happen so fast there will be a need for "scramble". The effects will be gradual (the sea level will not rise by 10 meters in a year, it will rise slowly). The same thing with, say, oil - as less and less oil remains, the difficulty of getting it will increase and so will the prices, at some point it will become cheaper to produce gasoline from coal than to get oil. It won't be like "that's it, today we filled the last tanker".
I would personally rather pay twice as much to use energy and avoid this possibility.
If you earn enough then sure. I'd rather use cheap nuclear electricity etc. Also, when you pay twice as much for the energy, make sure that half of your money does not settle down in a personal bank account of some politician or a CEO.