All Nintendo needs to do is get one good FPS with great precision control using the Wii-mote and the nunchuck and I expect gamers may start requesting more FPS games on the Wii even though they do have 'inferior' graphics.
Elsewhere in this thread I have promoted the Wii, but one major drawback I noticed was in the "pointer" precision/sensitivity. Most games work great with the Wii controller, but when we tried to play a FPS I simply couldn't get the hang of it. Same with using the menus on the Wii in general, moving the controller in free space to control a mouse pointer. I don't know if this pointer sensitivity is adjustable, but even if so the default settings are very difficult for me (and my non-computer but avid gamer friends)...
Otherwise, Tennis, Bowling, et al work very nice with the Wii controllers, and add an entirely new dimension to console gaming IMO...
They've got their entire back library of NES, SNES, and N64 games to capture the nostalgic 20-something gamers.
That, and they seem to have obtained the rights for the Sonic games, being the only console where Sonic games are available (Sega hasn't offered a new console system since the Dreamcast, I want to say 1998 or so). Apparently Nintendo licensed either the characters or the games themselves...
Nintendo has always been the more "kid friendly" system, usually offering more kid-oriented games, focusing on fun gameplay over violence and gore. As for the latest consoles, Nintendo is *THE* only console I know of offering an input system that uses free motion and inertia as input (not to mention being exclusively wireless by default). Having played with the Wii for the first time last night, I have to admit I was very much hooked; even already knowing the basic concept, you have to play with it to truly understand the significance of the wireless, gyroscopic, free-space control system.
And how fast HD penetration rate will increase is a total unknown.
This is true. I recently went HD (a 37-inch Visio LDC) with Comcast service. Many (most?) average TV viewers don't even understand exactly what difference HD makes. Unlike when Color TV was first introduced, that concept was easily understood by most without having to see it. HD has to be seen, and more importantly one has to see a favorite show or movie on a good digital HD set, to truly understand the significance. If you've only ever viewed B&W TV, the idea of color was simple enough to understand.
How long have people been saying that broadband Internet is a year away from being adopted by all, while only 20% of US population subscribes to it.
I would have thought this number to be higher, but I won't disagree here. Hell, I do still see PeoplePC and NetZero ads on TV quite regularly, so obviously dialup is still used by many.
Most people I know personally, getting a computer for the first time, automatically go for either cable or DSL; I'm sure this is partially due to the fact that these new users are unaccustomed (and perhaps uncomfortable) with the idea of tying up the land-line for Internet access. I'm also sure it's partly due to the introductory offers they see on TV for cable or DSL, in most cases cheaper than an AOL dialup account... especially when combining broadband with a service they already pay for (phone or cable TV).
There will always be a small percentage of people who owns/must-have the latest and greatest in technology, but aiming at that market while at the same time trying to outsell your competitor who aims at the general public is quite hard.
It kills me when I think about the people I know (mostly relatives with too much money) who own a Plasma TV, yet have no HD service, because they don't actually understand the difference. Worse yet, they're watching regular 4:3 TV signals stretched to their 16:9 set and they swear it's "high definition" since they paid $2500 or more for the set. Oblivious to the fact that the picture is out of proportion, and running the audio through the built-in $3 speakers (or possibly an inexpensive surround kit). It's worse than the older people driving a Caddy with a 32-valve Northstar V8 and never once, in the lifetime of the car, using even a small portion of the available horsepower...
Anyway, my point is simply this: Color TV didn't take that long to be adopted by the majority. Broadband has been adopted by many at a steady rate, and like Color TV is easy for even the most technologically inept to understand the benefits of upgrading. But HD is difficult for many to understand, plus the providers aren't putting all that much effort into providing HD content. Even more importantly, the *need* for HD isn't all that great. Sure, Fox's "House" looks great in HD, but on an older TV it doesn't lack all that much. Color made a huge and noticeable difference, but HD does not add much to typical television (though many Discovery programs do benefit from HD, as do older movies re-digitized in HD).
I rushed to get a DVD player, because I only had a few of my favourite movies on VHS - I didn't bother collecting VHS tapes because I'd been waiting for a digital format for years
I'm not disagreeing with your motivation, but I must assume you're a bit younger. When I was younger, VHS was pretty much *the* method of "owning" a movie. A digital storage method simply hadn't been considered yet (late 1980s). When so-called HiFi Stereo came out, it was simply a method of storing 16-bit digital audio on VHS tapes, the digital audio being mixed in with the video portion (for backward compatibility). The idea of digital *video* was still years away.
I'm not *that* old mind you; as a teen, VHS had already won over BetaMax as the standard format for home use (Beta was, and still is, used in many TV studios). Once it was possible to view high-quality video on the PC, of course the idea of a digital storage/playback format had to be coming soon.
Hell, I remember installing Windows 95 for the first time, on a 486 DX66, from CD-ROM. The CD came with a Weezer video in MPEG format (plus a couple others). That would be when the idea first struck me, though at that time it'd take a fast CPU, lots of RAM, etc to pull it off. But a few years later, the idea of a DVD player decoding high-quality video in realtime, outputting to a TV, became a realistic proposition.
I paid like $300 for my first DVD player; a Pioneer with NO features (mp3, jpeg, etc) back in 1999. It did have SP/DIF optical output, useless to me at the time.
When that player died, I got a DVD/VHS combo for $88, with all the features my pioneer didn't have. Hell, I paid about $250 for my first CD burner, and my latest DVD+/-RW was less than $50.
Hell, got off track there. I guess my point is that, unfortunately, there are two distinctly different disc-storage formats for HD content, and neither has yet gained any significant ground over the other. Both have several hardware manufacturers and content providers backing their format. Neither offers any real technical advantage. Players of either intend to support older DVDs and CDs, but won't play the other HD format (though at least one company announced a player capable of both).
Personally, if I had to choose one of the two formats to back, I'd pick HD-DVD, mostly because it is strongly based on the standard DVD format. I read that stamping plants creating DVDs now, can easily be used to produce HD-DVD discs; Blu-Ray discs, however, require significant changes in the machines in order to produce Blu-Ray discs.
Plus, historically, any format supported by Sony is doomed to fail, not counting the CD (created in conjunction with Philips). This last statement was mostly a joke, but then again look at the last 20 years' history...
Realistically I think the prevailing format will win due to availability of titles; the format having the most popular HD titles will attract the most consumers (that is, the format having more available titles that HD-ready consumers wish to purchase). I forget which format Disney backs, but I am sure Disney will be a huge influence in this debate.
Bottom line: I won't buy any HD player until one format wins (I'm sure many others feel the same way). Nothing worse than your new favorite movie being unavailable for you to own/play...
Sony DOES suck, but that doesn't mean everything they make is shitty.
Couldn't have said it better myself. One thing I've always hated about Sony is their constant need to push their own technology over more widely supported variations. They were the main force behind Beta (over VHS), Minidisc (still in use but never adopted mainstream), MemoryStick, etc. More recently, UMD (small discs primarily used for games/movies on the PSP), and most recently Blu-Ray (admittedly also supported by other tech companies and content producers).
I have owned two separate Sony car CD decks over the years that sucked. I've had a Sony home receiver crap out after like 3 years. An older (1994 or so) Hi-8 camcorder died due to Sony's use of inexpensive capacitors (repair would have involved replacing 60+ caps, not worth the cost/effort).
On the other hand, I've had my Sony Cybershot digicam since 1999 that takes awesome pics to date. Only 2.1 MP, takes 2 AAs (I use Rayovac IC3 w/15 minute charge, NiMH purchased in 2002) and still works great and takes great pics. 3x optical zoom, and overall great optics makes for great pictures even being 8 years old (not to mention, in 99 it was purchased as a display model at an awesome price, minor exterior scratches).
And, having had a PS2, which worked great for many years before being sold on eBay, I know Sony can in fact make a good product. Its DVD playback was lacking, but its primary purpose (playing video games) never failed, even with minor abuse.
I suppose my biggest gripe with Sony would be that they frequently push a new format in which the company has a vested interest. Granted, from a business point of view this is not inherently a bad thing, but in many cases their format isn't the most ideal (be it cost, general acceptance, etc). The Compact Disc is one exception, and the CDs quick acceptance was partly due to it being the only (or at least, the first) available format for digital audio. Sony's MiniDisc, on the other hand, primarily was adopted by audiophiles etc. BetaMax, while superior to VHS, lost due to (very minor) differences in cost (of recorders/players) and marketing (most other companies backed VHS).
Sony's MemoryStick is a fine technology, but is mostly found only in Sony products. Of course there also exists at least five other similar technologies, not to mention the various USB drives...
DVD caught on rather fast. As a replacement for VHS, it offered digital video at really high quality, digital audio supporting most major surround formats available, small physical storage requirements, random-access (to some extent), compatibility with audio CDs (and soon after, CD-Rs with audio, mp3, jpegs, etc)...
So now we have HDTV. Naturally we need a way to play back HD content from some kind of portable storage. HD-DVD seems the logical choice, except...
Blu-Ray came first, and is backed by (among others) Sony. HD-DVD has a similar number of backers (hardware makers and content producers). Both formats utilize a violet/blue laser which, having a smaller wavelength allows for more data in the same physical space. Neither are compatible with the other. Both use the same encoding algorithms, such as MPEG-4 and others (can't recall off hand but both formats offer the exact same choices).
In single and dual-layer formats, Blu-Ray has more storage; however (IIRC) HD-DVD should, theoretically, offer more layers than Blu-Ray can... but I'm not positive on the details...
Point being, here we have a definite divide among backers (electronics producers and content producers) so, I predict, a universal standard HD video format is a ways off. One format ultimately has to prevail, whether it's because of technical superiority or (more likely) marketing (eg, availability of specific titles). VHS prevailed because cost was lower than Beta, and more titles were made available. I'm sure whichever HD format prevails will have nothing to do with the format being superior in any technical sense...
Then again, after a month of trying to get one, I gave up the Wii and bought a PS3 instead.
I've never been THAT big on game consoles personally. I enjoyed playing GTA3 on a friend's PS2 last year. When the latest consoles came out, the Wii had my interest. I know that all 3 of the top consoles offer wireless controllers, but the Wii is the only one where wireless is the default, complete with real time/space awareness (eg, gyros). And the console itself seems rather small.
I'm not sure if the Wii is HD capable (only played with it once, just last night) but the gaming experience is unlike anything I've tried to date. Plus, apparently Nintendo somehow obtained rights to the Sonic games/characters, since of course Sega hasn't offered a game system since (IIRC) the Dreamcast...
My experiences last night included several sport-related games (tennis, baseball, boxing) and even cow tossing... in all, though I'm not too happy with the performance of the "pointing device" interface, the overall performance of the controller is pretty awesome. It seems to be able to, accurately, interpret the realtime/space position of the controller, plus velocity etc. It does in fact, at some level, help the gamer put forth some actual physical work, and I believe this is the first system to do this (not counting DDR or Guitar Hero; the Wii does this system-wide, with many sports-type games included).
I'd been considering a Wii for some time now, and having finally experienced the system last night, I'm pretty sure I'll pick one up first chance I get.
I had to run out and buy a computer on Sunday when my regular broke down and I've got a project pending.
My experience is a bit different. As I currently write/sell a couple of Windows programs, I was forced to obtain Vista when some of my customers reported that one of my programs did not work under the new version. Having not much interest in Vista personally, I had not really researched it much, and I had the impression that Vista brought major core changes that might cause my apps to fail; my apps still use the old waveOut methods, for example, instead of DirectSound.
So I did a little research and bought a copy of Vista Business Upgrade. Luckily I have a new laptop (few months old) that claims to be fully Vista-ready.
After the upgrade, *everything* worked. Installed apps, hardware, etc. The graphics-intensive "Aero" interface is smooth as can be with the onboard ATI video.
I went in expecting to hate Vista, but I can't say that I do. And for the record, both of my apps work fine for me with no changes at all. It appears to me that most of the changes are security-related, and GUI eye candy (that can be disabled easily). It does however hog more RAM than XP did (a lot more), at least with all the eye candy enabled...
Anyway, I no longer see Vista as a threat to my business or myself, and the DRM aspects don't seem to affect my software (an audio editor and a DJ/karaoke app).
I had to laugh when I heard about the whole "midnight release" thing. I mean, I can sort of see the excitement of getting the hottest new console or game like that, but even if Vista were every bit as good as it's cracked up to be, it's still just an operating system.
I remember when Windows 2000 first came out. I lived in Kissimmee, FL at the time, and there were in fact lines outside the local CompUSA et al that night. February 17, 2000 IIRC. I rushed out later that day to get a copy.
However the difference is that Win2k was the first "consumer" Windows OS based on the NT kernel, and at the time you either had 98, 98SE, or worse yet ME. NT4 didn't support most games or multimedia applications. Win2k finally combined the stability of NT with the widespread support of the 9x line.
XP wasn't such a big deal, being not much more IMO than 2000 with some visual "enhancements". It wasn't a "must have" upgrade in the beginning. As a Windows software developer I had no choice but to "upgrade" but for most there was no really compelling reason to rush out and do so right away.
Vista, to me personally, is similar. Most of the new features are simply eye-candy, thus requiring newer and faster hardware, but not really adding much to the core. I will end up picking up a copy soon, but not because I feel I need it - but because I have to ensure my software products work well under the OS that will, soon, be the default on new computers my users may purchase...
As far as there being bugs and viruses popping up immediately after the official release, I doubt anyone is very surprised by this. Bugs often hide until a product is introduced to situations previously unencountered; and virus authors presumably will wait for the final release, for maximum effect...
I've had two C2D processors [E6300 and E6600] and both were massively overclockable [1.83GHz => 2.94GHz and 2.4GHz => 3.42GHz respectively] with stable results.
I haven't done any overclocking with more recent processors, partly due to limitations in the motherboards I currently use... but I do remember a few years ago clocking my PIII 800 to over 1 GHz. I also remember the old Celeron 300a being widely known as overclockable, with some batches going as high as 466 MHz (more than 50% over the rated speed). I recall reading something about there being a market for "budget" processors, and the manufacturing process turning out more capable processors, still labeled at the lower speeds again due to market conditions...
In my own experience, I have noticed that Intel processors tend to be much more overclockable than AMDs. I can get my Athlon 2400 (clock of 1.8 GHz) to run at almost 2.0 GHz (FSB of 138), but it doesn't seem very stable (tried various voltages, has sufficient cooling, etc). Most Intel CPUs over the years, even going back to my old 233 MMX, handled higher FSB speeds stably...
My point being, Intel (judging from my own experiences) seems to provide a wider margin for error, higher tolerances, to ensure guaranteed performance at the rated speed. I recall a time when AMD beat Intel to the 1.0 GHz barrier, and many AMD processors at that time were known to overheat...
I realize this thread is probably buried by now, but:
Your reply shows that even though the answers can be right in front of faces some times, we can still fail to see it, unless somebody [ie. you] points it out.
I sense the sarcasm in your response. However, I stand by my response. I was not trying to patronize the parent, or point out the obvious. Many people do believe such myths, and my post was intended to point out the facts necessary to dispel the myth. I didn't feel it necessary to provide references, since my point was merely mathematical in nature. At the same time, I don't feel that my point was condescending or patronistic, since the facts I pointed out were not obvious to most.
Your response to my comment seems to indicate that I was both a) pointing out the obvious, and b) making a point without providing a reference or scientific basis to back it up. The fact is, I was simply trying to show that this myth cannot be true, without doing either. I was not trying to appear superior, and at the same time I didn't feel my facts needed backing up with references since mathematically they made sense on their own. My only goal was to allow the reader to realize that the myth, which is commonly believed, does not make mathematical sense (and is in fact false).
Even with your sarcasm, I still do not feel the need to provide you with a reference to back up my point. If you choose not to agree, that's your choice and I can live with that. Oddly enough you appear to be a "friend of a friend"...
I will give you credit for the subtlety of your sarcasm, admitting that I didn't pick up on it right away. At the same time I don't think that you disagree with my point, rather it seems that you thought I was trying to be a "know it all", which I assure you I was not...
Anyway, old as this story is now, I only wanted to assure you that I didn't mean the post in the way you seemed to think...
In the 80s, we used to need to leave them on for 3 hours before we started saving money. Have things changed?
Another poster pointed out that this was an urban legend. To further that point, consider this: if it took 3 hours to make up for the 1 or 2 seconds it takes to start the bulb, this would mean that the bulb requires several thousand watts of power to start - which would blow any household circuit breaker, or at least dim all of the other lights in the house. I'm sure you've seen lights dim when a high-powered motor kicks in (washing machine, fridge, etc) but starting a florescent light does no such thing.
Yes they do use more power to start than they use to keep them running, but the difference is only a few watts. The real reason to avoid frequent on/off cycles is that this stresses the electronics used to start them. A typical florescent lamp will outlast the ballast circuit (which initiates the lamp when first turned on); cycling the lamp on and off frequently will cause this circuit to fail even sooner.
In reality, the extra power consumption required to start a florescent lamp equals perhaps a few seconds of "on" time. Also note that it is also a bad idea to cycle a normal incandescent lamp too frequently, but for a different reason: the filament wears out more quickly due to the temperature changes.
You just need to get CF "daylight" bulbs. They give a nice, bright white light, not the yellow-hued light you normally get.
I agree with this fully. I picked up a few of these on clearance at a local hardware store, and I absolutely love the light they produce. The ones I have do exhibit the small (half second) delay on power-up, but the quality of light is much more pleasing than normal inexpensive incandescent bulbs. In fact, the one in my basement makes it seem, when looking down the stairway, that you're seeing actual daylight from one of the windows... even when you know it's night time!
I had one once, and the delay between the time that I switched on the light and the time the light actually turned on really annoyed me.
Personally the delay is a mere annoyance. I can tolerate it, and you do get used to it after a while. Plus there are newer models with zero (perceptible) delay, though they cost a tiny bit more...
That, and it didn't really last all that much longer than other regular bulbs that I have. It didn't ever burn out, but it started flickering to the point that it would give just about anybody a headache.
I have not experienced this problem personally. In fact, what prompted me to try one in the first place was that two of my basement lights seemed to burn out constantly, lasting only a couple of months. I realize that this was caused by vibrations from movement upstairs (it's an older house). I figured that perhaps the florescent replacements might last longer, since they don't have a large filament suspended in a vacuum and heated to a really high temperature to produce light. In other words, vibrations from walking upstairs might affect the florescent bulbs less.
So far, so good - after 2 years I haven't had to replace either of the two bulbs that used to be problematic. And they are of the inexpensive variety, complete with the half-second turn-on delay that I have gotten used to. I do of course realize that this is a somewhat unique situation, but I have since replaced 3 of my upstairs lamps with the florescent replacements; the lamps don't get as hot as they used to, and (as with my basement lights) are less susceptible to vibration/shock...
Personally, I'm hoping LED-based lightbulbs become more common in the near future...
Lately it seems that LEDs are getting brighter and brighter; I've replaced most of my flashlights with LED-based ones in the last year. My cousin received a really nice 3-AAA powered flashlight, metal housing, with a single LED (behind a nice lens). We compared it to a full-sized Mag-light and it was every bit as bright...
So this may be something we will see in the future. LED technology is getting better/brighter as time goes on...
The other problem with *pure* switchers is that they're probably illegal in some applications. Got to have that means of isolation from the mains!
Most switching supplies I've seen do isolate from the mains. Generally the mains voltage is rectified to DC, then switched via MOSFETs driving a small transformer. Since this is at high frequency and nearly square wave, the transformer can be significantly smaller than one using the 50/60 Hz sin wave.
The small transformer isolates the circuit, and feedback (for voltage regulation) is usually provided via an opto-coupler.
I don't believe I've ever encountered a "pure" switching supply that used the mains voltage and simply outputted a lower voltage by varying the duty cycle, with no isolation...
The problem with many wall wart bricks is that their transformer's primary winding is energized all the time and thus drawing power.
This is true to an extent, but the amount of power drawn in "zero load" conditions is quite small. The more load placed on the secondary, the more load seen on the primary. Some energy is wasted as heat. IIRC, a typical iron-core transformer is around 85% efficient at 50/60 Hz line current.
Switch mode power supplies can be much more efficient (such as a laptop "brick" or a PC supply) but they are often designed cheaply, resulting in less efficiency...
In general, cheap "wall wart" plug-in transformers do waste some power even when the device is off or even disconnected. They do produce some heat just being plugged in; however it is generally less than 1 watt with no load...
I fully agree with the points you made, and would like to add that by using an external power source, the device itself can be made smaller, require less ventilation, and weigh less. Plus, many such devices can be operated on batteries or with a 12V car adapter, all of which is made easier by making the power supply a separate unit.
I also wanted to emphasize the point you made about economies of scale. If your device requires, say, 9VDC at 200ma, you can source any compatible power supply; the same supply might be used for a thousand other products as well, and as such is available at an extremely low cost. Many devices in my house have a power supply with an entirely different brand/logo from the device itself...
This is just supply & demand, as the demand for more power efficient electronics grows then companies will be driven to supply them.
Another poster made fun of this comment, but I agree with you. Demand however varies and is influenced by a lot of external factors - price being a major factor.
These days, with gasoline prices as they are, major auto makers are seeing less pickup/van/SUV sales, as people are favoring smaller, high MPG vehicles. Ford is even closing some plants that primarily make parts for the larger vehicles. Some people just like big vehicles, and much of that market is switching to smaller vehicles lately since the larger ones are becoming more and more expensive to operate.
So yes - as more consumers demand energy efficient electronics, manufacturers will shift their focus. The more devices we run in our homes, the more of an impact this will make. Most computer equipment these days have the "Energy Star" logo, but I'm not sure if that really means much... if it can be made better, someone will make it better.
With computing equipment we already know that they are capable of making power-efficient devices (look at laptops). Desktop systems however don't have such an immediate need for this, and often tend to use less efficient components/designs...
[Circuit breakers] Using them as switches isn't a good idea - they may later jam and not turn off when you need them.
Just a minor point - circuit breakers are generally designed to fail off. When they wear out, they almost always turn off earlier than expected. Being spring-loaded, breakers are more likely to default to the "off" position than "on" - an intentional design feature. You wouldn't want a breaker to be "stuck on" as this could pose a major hazard. Considering the fact that a breaker's sole purpose is protection from overload, it makes sense that they are designed to fail "off" rather than "on".
I'm sure you know this, but I just wanted to clarify that point... and you are right, they are not intended to be used as a switch or for any sort of frequent use. They generally wear out after only a few hundred cycles.
Almost everything these days consume power while they are "off" (more accurately, in "standby" mode). Remote controlled devices have little choice - some circuit needs to be powered up at all times, monitoring the IR sensor and waiting for an instruction from the remote. Other devices have timers and/or clocks (microwave, coffee makers) that need constant power.
The worst part is that many of these devices have an inefficient power supply to provide power to those "always on" circuits. Notice how a plug-in transformer (or "wall wart") is always warm, even if not connected to the device it powers. Switch-mode power supplies are a bit more efficient, but still waste some amount of power in the form of heat even when not in use.
It's the "instant on" factor, as well as remote-control and timer-based devices that require constant power. Even newer washing machines/dryers (with low-voltage push-button operation) consume power at all times. There was a report on our local news last week covering "viral electronics" (parasitic would have been a better term), and using a watt meter they showed that many small, inefficient devices consumed a lot more power than you would expect. Leave your shaver or rechargeable toothbrush plugged in 24/7, and you're wasting a few watt/hours... Then take into account all of your TVs, clock-radios, and other appliances around the house, and it can add up.
I would be willing to bet that LCD monitors are even more efficient than that in comparison. My 19" LCD is rated at 10 watts when in use, and less than 1 watt in standby. My 17" CRT (older Compaq) uses 10 watts in standby, and better than 60 watts when in use... both are of course Energy Star compliant, though I'm not sure what the requirements are to use that logo...
I agree, cooking with gas is the only way. I've used electric stoves, and I've tried so-called "induction" burners, but gas is what I'm most comfortable with.
Someone below cited the "danger" of using gas, but gas related incidents are quite rare. I don't have a source on this, but I'm pretty sure more home fires are started by faulty wiring than gas problems...
However, in Northwest Indiana at least, natural gas prices are such that a gas water heater or clothes dryer doesn't really save any money over the electric counterparts... this is one area where there is no mandatory rate freeze, and our gas prices have gone up significantly in the last 2 years...
I still prefer gas for things like hot water, heat, and of course cooking. Electric service tends to go out during a big storm (because it is mostly provided above ground) whereas I cannot recall any time my gas service has failed (all underground).
Back to the safety issue, in Hollywood you can crack a stove knob and blow up a house mere minutes later. In reality, it would take quite some time, in an air-tight house, to build up the concentration necessary for an explosion. Add a CO detector and the risk is quite minimal. Faulty wiring (or really old wiring, as in my house), OTOH, can quite easily start a fire without warning.
Sure gas can be dangerous, but household applications tend to be relatively safe. Your water heater/furnace/gas dryer will not open the gas valve if the pilot is out (simple thermo-couple devices are relatively fail-safe)...
I did live in an apartment in GA for about 2 years, which had absolutely no gas service - everything was electric. The heat worked by running the A/C unit in reverse basically. For me, the worst part was the electric stove - I just couldn't cook on it (burned more than a few pots of chili)...
They were using a speed dialer, so they don't want call backs on the caller-id asking why they called and hung up on ya. because they were a for profit organization raising donations for FOP they wouldn't have even been able to guess who had called for what cause.
This makes sense to me. For the last week I've been getting "UNKNOWN" calls, never leaving a message (since of course I don't answer calls I don't recognize). Once I finally answered one (partly out of boredom, partly wanting to know who it was) the calls have stopped. Before today, I'd get the calls all hours of the day, sometimes one ring, sometimes four, never leaving a message (typical behavior of telemarketers and others using auto-dialers)....it was 80% of profits to police widdows or something, they couldn't answer what % of donation that was.
They gave me the same widow story. I guess this type of story manipulates enough people, guilt-tripping them into donating... and while I don't have anything against the FOP directly, these tactics (stories encouraging guilt/sympathy, blocking caller-ID) don't do much to inspire confidence.
And again, with no caller-ID info, how does a potential donor know who they are giving their CC or bank account number to? I could call you and claim to be FOP (or whatever), and how would you know any different?
Oh, you forgot to add that kids in the 50s walked to school everday, even on the weekends, uphill both ways, in the rain, while chased by radioactive gorillas.
Don't forget, they went home for lunch too!
Re:Because there is no enforcement.
on
Leopard Vs. Vista
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
It's idiotic to attach a brand to a function or application. Of course, I know the point you're making but I see that as part of the problem. I mean think about it... we don't "Ford" or "Chevy" all over the roads when we drive our cars. We don't "Nokia" our friends to set up social engagements.
No, but we do often Xerox a document, or use a Kleenex after eating Jello. Personally I see nothing wrong with a person Googling a topic of interest. It has become a verb, and the term has appeared in recent pop-culture as such. Often times a word (or new use of a word) becomes acceptable merely due to common usage. In other words, I can google your name because it's "cool" to do so:)
Now on the other side of the argument, I have read in the past that a trademark owner risks losing the trademark by allowing the term to become common; Xerox in particular is one I read about. If they do nothing to defend the term as their legal trademark, it could eventually become public domain... but Google as a verb has only popped up in recent years (compared to, say, Kleenex)...
Just earlier today my phone rang with "UNKNOWN/UNKNOWN". Assuming telemarketer or bill collector, I decided to answer anyway (out of boredom).
Turns out, it was the Indiana State Fraternal Order of Police, soliciting donations. I realize such "non-profit" organisations are exempt from the "Do Not Call" list laws, but why do they chose to hide the caller ID info? For all I know, it could easily be a scammer pretending to be the FOP. I give my CC or bank account number to the random person calling my home, and who knows?
The bottom line is this: why would such an organization choose to hide the caller-ID information? Wouldn't they be more trusted if the Caller-ID information matched the info provided by the caller?
For the record, my first question for the caller was "may I ask who's calling?" - and the caller replied with his full name, the organization he represented, and a toll free number I could use to verify the legitimacy of the call, all in a very friendly manner. I'm sure the FOP volunteer was most likely unaware his calls were not showing proper caller-ID information, so I didn't give him a hard time about it...
I would, however, advise that most companies (for- or non-profit) disclose their information via Caller-ID rather than hide it. I'm sure I'm not the only person who is automatically suspicious when this information is intentionally hidden/blocked...
Slashdot Mirror
All Nintendo needs to do is get one good FPS with great precision control using the Wii-mote and the nunchuck and I expect gamers may start requesting more FPS games on the Wii even though they do have 'inferior' graphics.
Elsewhere in this thread I have promoted the Wii, but one major drawback I noticed was in the "pointer" precision/sensitivity. Most games work great with the Wii controller, but when we tried to play a FPS I simply couldn't get the hang of it. Same with using the menus on the Wii in general, moving the controller in free space to control a mouse pointer. I don't know if this pointer sensitivity is adjustable, but even if so the default settings are very difficult for me (and my non-computer but avid gamer friends)...
Otherwise, Tennis, Bowling, et al work very nice with the Wii controllers, and add an entirely new dimension to console gaming IMO...
They've got their entire back library of NES, SNES, and N64 games to capture the nostalgic 20-something gamers.
That, and they seem to have obtained the rights for the Sonic games, being the only console where Sonic games are available (Sega hasn't offered a new console system since the Dreamcast, I want to say 1998 or so). Apparently Nintendo licensed either the characters or the games themselves...
Nintendo has always been the more "kid friendly" system, usually offering more kid-oriented games, focusing on fun gameplay over violence and gore. As for the latest consoles, Nintendo is *THE* only console I know of offering an input system that uses free motion and inertia as input (not to mention being exclusively wireless by default). Having played with the Wii for the first time last night, I have to admit I was very much hooked; even already knowing the basic concept, you have to play with it to truly understand the significance of the wireless, gyroscopic, free-space control system.
And how fast HD penetration rate will increase is a total unknown.
This is true. I recently went HD (a 37-inch Visio LDC) with Comcast service. Many (most?) average TV viewers don't even understand exactly what difference HD makes. Unlike when Color TV was first introduced, that concept was easily understood by most without having to see it. HD has to be seen, and more importantly one has to see a favorite show or movie on a good digital HD set, to truly understand the significance. If you've only ever viewed B&W TV, the idea of color was simple enough to understand.
How long have people been saying that broadband Internet is a year away from being adopted by all, while only 20% of US population subscribes to it.
I would have thought this number to be higher, but I won't disagree here. Hell, I do still see PeoplePC and NetZero ads on TV quite regularly, so obviously dialup is still used by many.
Most people I know personally, getting a computer for the first time, automatically go for either cable or DSL; I'm sure this is partially due to the fact that these new users are unaccustomed (and perhaps uncomfortable) with the idea of tying up the land-line for Internet access. I'm also sure it's partly due to the introductory offers they see on TV for cable or DSL, in most cases cheaper than an AOL dialup account... especially when combining broadband with a service they already pay for (phone or cable TV).
There will always be a small percentage of people who owns/must-have the latest and greatest in technology, but aiming at that market while at the same time trying to outsell your competitor who aims at the general public is quite hard.
It kills me when I think about the people I know (mostly relatives with too much money) who own a Plasma TV, yet have no HD service, because they don't actually understand the difference. Worse yet, they're watching regular 4:3 TV signals stretched to their 16:9 set and they swear it's "high definition" since they paid $2500 or more for the set. Oblivious to the fact that the picture is out of proportion, and running the audio through the built-in $3 speakers (or possibly an inexpensive surround kit). It's worse than the older people driving a Caddy with a 32-valve Northstar V8 and never once, in the lifetime of the car, using even a small portion of the available horsepower...
Anyway, my point is simply this: Color TV didn't take that long to be adopted by the majority. Broadband has been adopted by many at a steady rate, and like Color TV is easy for even the most technologically inept to understand the benefits of upgrading. But HD is difficult for many to understand, plus the providers aren't putting all that much effort into providing HD content. Even more importantly, the *need* for HD isn't all that great. Sure, Fox's "House" looks great in HD, but on an older TV it doesn't lack all that much. Color made a huge and noticeable difference, but HD does not add much to typical television (though many Discovery programs do benefit from HD, as do older movies re-digitized in HD).
I rushed to get a DVD player, because I only had a few of my favourite movies on VHS - I didn't bother collecting VHS tapes because I'd been waiting for a digital format for years
I'm not disagreeing with your motivation, but I must assume you're a bit younger. When I was younger, VHS was pretty much *the* method of "owning" a movie. A digital storage method simply hadn't been considered yet (late 1980s). When so-called HiFi Stereo came out, it was simply a method of storing 16-bit digital audio on VHS tapes, the digital audio being mixed in with the video portion (for backward compatibility). The idea of digital *video* was still years away.
I'm not *that* old mind you; as a teen, VHS had already won over BetaMax as the standard format for home use (Beta was, and still is, used in many TV studios). Once it was possible to view high-quality video on the PC, of course the idea of a digital storage/playback format had to be coming soon.
Hell, I remember installing Windows 95 for the first time, on a 486 DX66, from CD-ROM. The CD came with a Weezer video in MPEG format (plus a couple others). That would be when the idea first struck me, though at that time it'd take a fast CPU, lots of RAM, etc to pull it off. But a few years later, the idea of a DVD player decoding high-quality video in realtime, outputting to a TV, became a realistic proposition.
I paid like $300 for my first DVD player; a Pioneer with NO features (mp3, jpeg, etc) back in 1999. It did have SP/DIF optical output, useless to me at the time.
When that player died, I got a DVD/VHS combo for $88, with all the features my pioneer didn't have. Hell, I paid about $250 for my first CD burner, and my latest DVD+/-RW was less than $50.
Hell, got off track there. I guess my point is that, unfortunately, there are two distinctly different disc-storage formats for HD content, and neither has yet gained any significant ground over the other. Both have several hardware manufacturers and content providers backing their format. Neither offers any real technical advantage. Players of either intend to support older DVDs and CDs, but won't play the other HD format (though at least one company announced a player capable of both).
Personally, if I had to choose one of the two formats to back, I'd pick HD-DVD, mostly because it is strongly based on the standard DVD format. I read that stamping plants creating DVDs now, can easily be used to produce HD-DVD discs; Blu-Ray discs, however, require significant changes in the machines in order to produce Blu-Ray discs.
Plus, historically, any format supported by Sony is doomed to fail, not counting the CD (created in conjunction with Philips). This last statement was mostly a joke, but then again look at the last 20 years' history...
Realistically I think the prevailing format will win due to availability of titles; the format having the most popular HD titles will attract the most consumers (that is, the format having more available titles that HD-ready consumers wish to purchase). I forget which format Disney backs, but I am sure Disney will be a huge influence in this debate.
Bottom line: I won't buy any HD player until one format wins (I'm sure many others feel the same way). Nothing worse than your new favorite movie being unavailable for you to own/play...
Sony DOES suck, but that doesn't mean everything they make is shitty.
Couldn't have said it better myself. One thing I've always hated about Sony is their constant need to push their own technology over more widely supported variations. They were the main force behind Beta (over VHS), Minidisc (still in use but never adopted mainstream), MemoryStick, etc. More recently, UMD (small discs primarily used for games/movies on the PSP), and most recently Blu-Ray (admittedly also supported by other tech companies and content producers).
I have owned two separate Sony car CD decks over the years that sucked. I've had a Sony home receiver crap out after like 3 years. An older (1994 or so) Hi-8 camcorder died due to Sony's use of inexpensive capacitors (repair would have involved replacing 60+ caps, not worth the cost/effort).
On the other hand, I've had my Sony Cybershot digicam since 1999 that takes awesome pics to date. Only 2.1 MP, takes 2 AAs (I use Rayovac IC3 w/15 minute charge, NiMH purchased in 2002) and still works great and takes great pics. 3x optical zoom, and overall great optics makes for great pictures even being 8 years old (not to mention, in 99 it was purchased as a display model at an awesome price, minor exterior scratches).
And, having had a PS2, which worked great for many years before being sold on eBay, I know Sony can in fact make a good product. Its DVD playback was lacking, but its primary purpose (playing video games) never failed, even with minor abuse.
I suppose my biggest gripe with Sony would be that they frequently push a new format in which the company has a vested interest. Granted, from a business point of view this is not inherently a bad thing, but in many cases their format isn't the most ideal (be it cost, general acceptance, etc). The Compact Disc is one exception, and the CDs quick acceptance was partly due to it being the only (or at least, the first) available format for digital audio. Sony's MiniDisc, on the other hand, primarily was adopted by audiophiles etc. BetaMax, while superior to VHS, lost due to (very minor) differences in cost (of recorders/players) and marketing (most other companies backed VHS).
Sony's MemoryStick is a fine technology, but is mostly found only in Sony products. Of course there also exists at least five other similar technologies, not to mention the various USB drives...
DVD caught on rather fast. As a replacement for VHS, it offered digital video at really high quality, digital audio supporting most major surround formats available, small physical storage requirements, random-access (to some extent), compatibility with audio CDs (and soon after, CD-Rs with audio, mp3, jpegs, etc)...
So now we have HDTV. Naturally we need a way to play back HD content from some kind of portable storage. HD-DVD seems the logical choice, except...
Blu-Ray came first, and is backed by (among others) Sony. HD-DVD has a similar number of backers (hardware makers and content producers). Both formats utilize a violet/blue laser which, having a smaller wavelength allows for more data in the same physical space. Neither are compatible with the other. Both use the same encoding algorithms, such as MPEG-4 and others (can't recall off hand but both formats offer the exact same choices).
In single and dual-layer formats, Blu-Ray has more storage; however (IIRC) HD-DVD should, theoretically, offer more layers than Blu-Ray can... but I'm not positive on the details...
Point being, here we have a definite divide among backers (electronics producers and content producers) so, I predict, a universal standard HD video format is a ways off. One format ultimately has to prevail, whether it's because of technical superiority or (more likely) marketing (eg, availability of specific titles). VHS prevailed because cost was lower than Beta, and more titles were made available. I'm sure whichever HD format prevails will have nothing to do with the format being superior in any technical sense...
Having had HD for
Then again, after a month of trying to get one, I gave up the Wii and bought a PS3 instead.
I've never been THAT big on game consoles personally. I enjoyed playing GTA3 on a friend's PS2 last year. When the latest consoles came out, the Wii had my interest. I know that all 3 of the top consoles offer wireless controllers, but the Wii is the only one where wireless is the default, complete with real time/space awareness (eg, gyros). And the console itself seems rather small.
I'm not sure if the Wii is HD capable (only played with it once, just last night) but the gaming experience is unlike anything I've tried to date. Plus, apparently Nintendo somehow obtained rights to the Sonic games/characters, since of course Sega hasn't offered a game system since (IIRC) the Dreamcast...
My experiences last night included several sport-related games (tennis, baseball, boxing) and even cow tossing... in all, though I'm not too happy with the performance of the "pointing device" interface, the overall performance of the controller is pretty awesome. It seems to be able to, accurately, interpret the realtime/space position of the controller, plus velocity etc. It does in fact, at some level, help the gamer put forth some actual physical work, and I believe this is the first system to do this (not counting DDR or Guitar Hero; the Wii does this system-wide, with many sports-type games included).
I'd been considering a Wii for some time now, and having finally experienced the system last night, I'm pretty sure I'll pick one up first chance I get.
I had to run out and buy a computer on Sunday when my regular broke down and I've got a project pending.
My experience is a bit different. As I currently write/sell a couple of Windows programs, I was forced to obtain Vista when some of my customers reported that one of my programs did not work under the new version. Having not much interest in Vista personally, I had not really researched it much, and I had the impression that Vista brought major core changes that might cause my apps to fail; my apps still use the old waveOut methods, for example, instead of DirectSound.
So I did a little research and bought a copy of Vista Business Upgrade. Luckily I have a new laptop (few months old) that claims to be fully Vista-ready.
After the upgrade, *everything* worked. Installed apps, hardware, etc. The graphics-intensive "Aero" interface is smooth as can be with the onboard ATI video.
I went in expecting to hate Vista, but I can't say that I do. And for the record, both of my apps work fine for me with no changes at all. It appears to me that most of the changes are security-related, and GUI eye candy (that can be disabled easily). It does however hog more RAM than XP did (a lot more), at least with all the eye candy enabled...
Anyway, I no longer see Vista as a threat to my business or myself, and the DRM aspects don't seem to affect my software (an audio editor and a DJ/karaoke app).
YMMV...
I had to laugh when I heard about the whole "midnight release" thing. I mean, I can sort of see the excitement of getting the hottest new console or game like that, but even if Vista were every bit as good as it's cracked up to be, it's still just an operating system.
I remember when Windows 2000 first came out. I lived in Kissimmee, FL at the time, and there were in fact lines outside the local CompUSA et al that night. February 17, 2000 IIRC. I rushed out later that day to get a copy.
However the difference is that Win2k was the first "consumer" Windows OS based on the NT kernel, and at the time you either had 98, 98SE, or worse yet ME. NT4 didn't support most games or multimedia applications. Win2k finally combined the stability of NT with the widespread support of the 9x line.
XP wasn't such a big deal, being not much more IMO than 2000 with some visual "enhancements". It wasn't a "must have" upgrade in the beginning. As a Windows software developer I had no choice but to "upgrade" but for most there was no really compelling reason to rush out and do so right away.
Vista, to me personally, is similar. Most of the new features are simply eye-candy, thus requiring newer and faster hardware, but not really adding much to the core. I will end up picking up a copy soon, but not because I feel I need it - but because I have to ensure my software products work well under the OS that will, soon, be the default on new computers my users may purchase...
As far as there being bugs and viruses popping up immediately after the official release, I doubt anyone is very surprised by this. Bugs often hide until a product is introduced to situations previously unencountered; and virus authors presumably will wait for the final release, for maximum effect...
I've had two C2D processors [E6300 and E6600] and both were massively overclockable [1.83GHz => 2.94GHz and 2.4GHz => 3.42GHz respectively] with stable results.
I haven't done any overclocking with more recent processors, partly due to limitations in the motherboards I currently use... but I do remember a few years ago clocking my PIII 800 to over 1 GHz. I also remember the old Celeron 300a being widely known as overclockable, with some batches going as high as 466 MHz (more than 50% over the rated speed). I recall reading something about there being a market for "budget" processors, and the manufacturing process turning out more capable processors, still labeled at the lower speeds again due to market conditions...
In my own experience, I have noticed that Intel processors tend to be much more overclockable than AMDs. I can get my Athlon 2400 (clock of 1.8 GHz) to run at almost 2.0 GHz (FSB of 138), but it doesn't seem very stable (tried various voltages, has sufficient cooling, etc). Most Intel CPUs over the years, even going back to my old 233 MMX, handled higher FSB speeds stably...
My point being, Intel (judging from my own experiences) seems to provide a wider margin for error, higher tolerances, to ensure guaranteed performance at the rated speed. I recall a time when AMD beat Intel to the 1.0 GHz barrier, and many AMD processors at that time were known to overheat...
I realize this thread is probably buried by now, but:
Your reply shows that even though the answers can be right in front of faces some times, we can still fail to see it, unless somebody [ie. you] points it out.
I sense the sarcasm in your response. However, I stand by my response. I was not trying to patronize the parent, or point out the obvious. Many people do believe such myths, and my post was intended to point out the facts necessary to dispel the myth. I didn't feel it necessary to provide references, since my point was merely mathematical in nature. At the same time, I don't feel that my point was condescending or patronistic, since the facts I pointed out were not obvious to most.
Your response to my comment seems to indicate that I was both a) pointing out the obvious, and b) making a point without providing a reference or scientific basis to back it up. The fact is, I was simply trying to show that this myth cannot be true, without doing either. I was not trying to appear superior, and at the same time I didn't feel my facts needed backing up with references since mathematically they made sense on their own. My only goal was to allow the reader to realize that the myth, which is commonly believed, does not make mathematical sense (and is in fact false).
Even with your sarcasm, I still do not feel the need to provide you with a reference to back up my point. If you choose not to agree, that's your choice and I can live with that. Oddly enough you appear to be a "friend of a friend"...
I will give you credit for the subtlety of your sarcasm, admitting that I didn't pick up on it right away. At the same time I don't think that you disagree with my point, rather it seems that you thought I was trying to be a "know it all", which I assure you I was not...
Anyway, old as this story is now, I only wanted to assure you that I didn't mean the post in the way you seemed to think...
In the 80s, we used to need to leave them on for 3 hours before we started saving money. Have things changed?
Another poster pointed out that this was an urban legend. To further that point, consider this: if it took 3 hours to make up for the 1 or 2 seconds it takes to start the bulb, this would mean that the bulb requires several thousand watts of power to start - which would blow any household circuit breaker, or at least dim all of the other lights in the house. I'm sure you've seen lights dim when a high-powered motor kicks in (washing machine, fridge, etc) but starting a florescent light does no such thing.
Yes they do use more power to start than they use to keep them running, but the difference is only a few watts. The real reason to avoid frequent on/off cycles is that this stresses the electronics used to start them. A typical florescent lamp will outlast the ballast circuit (which initiates the lamp when first turned on); cycling the lamp on and off frequently will cause this circuit to fail even sooner.
In reality, the extra power consumption required to start a florescent lamp equals perhaps a few seconds of "on" time. Also note that it is also a bad idea to cycle a normal incandescent lamp too frequently, but for a different reason: the filament wears out more quickly due to the temperature changes.
You just need to get CF "daylight" bulbs. They give a nice, bright white light, not the yellow-hued light you normally get.
I agree with this fully. I picked up a few of these on clearance at a local hardware store, and I absolutely love the light they produce. The ones I have do exhibit the small (half second) delay on power-up, but the quality of light is much more pleasing than normal inexpensive incandescent bulbs. In fact, the one in my basement makes it seem, when looking down the stairway, that you're seeing actual daylight from one of the windows... even when you know it's night time!
I had one once, and the delay between the time that I switched on the light and the time the light actually turned on really annoyed me.
Personally the delay is a mere annoyance. I can tolerate it, and you do get used to it after a while. Plus there are newer models with zero (perceptible) delay, though they cost a tiny bit more...
That, and it didn't really last all that much longer than other regular bulbs that I have. It didn't ever burn out, but it started flickering to the point that it would give just about anybody a headache.
I have not experienced this problem personally. In fact, what prompted me to try one in the first place was that two of my basement lights seemed to burn out constantly, lasting only a couple of months. I realize that this was caused by vibrations from movement upstairs (it's an older house). I figured that perhaps the florescent replacements might last longer, since they don't have a large filament suspended in a vacuum and heated to a really high temperature to produce light. In other words, vibrations from walking upstairs might affect the florescent bulbs less.
So far, so good - after 2 years I haven't had to replace either of the two bulbs that used to be problematic. And they are of the inexpensive variety, complete with the half-second turn-on delay that I have gotten used to. I do of course realize that this is a somewhat unique situation, but I have since replaced 3 of my upstairs lamps with the florescent replacements; the lamps don't get as hot as they used to, and (as with my basement lights) are less susceptible to vibration/shock...
Personally, I'm hoping LED-based lightbulbs become more common in the near future...
Lately it seems that LEDs are getting brighter and brighter; I've replaced most of my flashlights with LED-based ones in the last year. My cousin received a really nice 3-AAA powered flashlight, metal housing, with a single LED (behind a nice lens). We compared it to a full-sized Mag-light and it was every bit as bright...
So this may be something we will see in the future. LED technology is getting better/brighter as time goes on...
The other problem with *pure* switchers is that they're probably illegal in some applications. Got to have that means of isolation from the mains!
Most switching supplies I've seen do isolate from the mains. Generally the mains voltage is rectified to DC, then switched via MOSFETs driving a small transformer. Since this is at high frequency and nearly square wave, the transformer can be significantly smaller than one using the 50/60 Hz sin wave.
The small transformer isolates the circuit, and feedback (for voltage regulation) is usually provided via an opto-coupler.
I don't believe I've ever encountered a "pure" switching supply that used the mains voltage and simply outputted a lower voltage by varying the duty cycle, with no isolation...
The problem with many wall wart bricks is that their transformer's primary winding is energized all the time and thus drawing power.
This is true to an extent, but the amount of power drawn in "zero load" conditions is quite small. The more load placed on the secondary, the more load seen on the primary. Some energy is wasted as heat. IIRC, a typical iron-core transformer is around 85% efficient at 50/60 Hz line current.
Switch mode power supplies can be much more efficient (such as a laptop "brick" or a PC supply) but they are often designed cheaply, resulting in less efficiency...
In general, cheap "wall wart" plug-in transformers do waste some power even when the device is off or even disconnected. They do produce some heat just being plugged in; however it is generally less than 1 watt with no load...
I fully agree with the points you made, and would like to add that by using an external power source, the device itself can be made smaller, require less ventilation, and weigh less. Plus, many such devices can be operated on batteries or with a 12V car adapter, all of which is made easier by making the power supply a separate unit.
I also wanted to emphasize the point you made about economies of scale. If your device requires, say, 9VDC at 200ma, you can source any compatible power supply; the same supply might be used for a thousand other products as well, and as such is available at an extremely low cost. Many devices in my house have a power supply with an entirely different brand/logo from the device itself...
This is just supply & demand, as the demand for more power efficient electronics grows then companies will be driven to supply them.
Another poster made fun of this comment, but I agree with you. Demand however varies and is influenced by a lot of external factors - price being a major factor.
These days, with gasoline prices as they are, major auto makers are seeing less pickup/van/SUV sales, as people are favoring smaller, high MPG vehicles. Ford is even closing some plants that primarily make parts for the larger vehicles. Some people just like big vehicles, and much of that market is switching to smaller vehicles lately since the larger ones are becoming more and more expensive to operate.
So yes - as more consumers demand energy efficient electronics, manufacturers will shift their focus. The more devices we run in our homes, the more of an impact this will make. Most computer equipment these days have the "Energy Star" logo, but I'm not sure if that really means much... if it can be made better, someone will make it better.
With computing equipment we already know that they are capable of making power-efficient devices (look at laptops). Desktop systems however don't have such an immediate need for this, and often tend to use less efficient components/designs...
[Circuit breakers] Using them as switches isn't a good idea - they may later jam and not turn off when you need them.
Just a minor point - circuit breakers are generally designed to fail off. When they wear out, they almost always turn off earlier than expected. Being spring-loaded, breakers are more likely to default to the "off" position than "on" - an intentional design feature. You wouldn't want a breaker to be "stuck on" as this could pose a major hazard. Considering the fact that a breaker's sole purpose is protection from overload, it makes sense that they are designed to fail "off" rather than "on".
I'm sure you know this, but I just wanted to clarify that point... and you are right, they are not intended to be used as a switch or for any sort of frequent use. They generally wear out after only a few hundred cycles.
Almost everything these days consume power while they are "off" (more accurately, in "standby" mode). Remote controlled devices have little choice - some circuit needs to be powered up at all times, monitoring the IR sensor and waiting for an instruction from the remote. Other devices have timers and/or clocks (microwave, coffee makers) that need constant power.
The worst part is that many of these devices have an inefficient power supply to provide power to those "always on" circuits. Notice how a plug-in transformer (or "wall wart") is always warm, even if not connected to the device it powers. Switch-mode power supplies are a bit more efficient, but still waste some amount of power in the form of heat even when not in use.
It's the "instant on" factor, as well as remote-control and timer-based devices that require constant power. Even newer washing machines/dryers (with low-voltage push-button operation) consume power at all times. There was a report on our local news last week covering "viral electronics" (parasitic would have been a better term), and using a watt meter they showed that many small, inefficient devices consumed a lot more power than you would expect. Leave your shaver or rechargeable toothbrush plugged in 24/7, and you're wasting a few watt/hours... Then take into account all of your TVs, clock-radios, and other appliances around the house, and it can add up.
I would be willing to bet that LCD monitors are even more efficient than that in comparison. My 19" LCD is rated at 10 watts when in use, and less than 1 watt in standby. My 17" CRT (older Compaq) uses 10 watts in standby, and better than 60 watts when in use... both are of course Energy Star compliant, though I'm not sure what the requirements are to use that logo...
I agree, cooking with gas is the only way. I've used electric stoves, and I've tried so-called "induction" burners, but gas is what I'm most comfortable with.
Someone below cited the "danger" of using gas, but gas related incidents are quite rare. I don't have a source on this, but I'm pretty sure more home fires are started by faulty wiring than gas problems...
However, in Northwest Indiana at least, natural gas prices are such that a gas water heater or clothes dryer doesn't really save any money over the electric counterparts... this is one area where there is no mandatory rate freeze, and our gas prices have gone up significantly in the last 2 years...
I still prefer gas for things like hot water, heat, and of course cooking. Electric service tends to go out during a big storm (because it is mostly provided above ground) whereas I cannot recall any time my gas service has failed (all underground).
Back to the safety issue, in Hollywood you can crack a stove knob and blow up a house mere minutes later. In reality, it would take quite some time, in an air-tight house, to build up the concentration necessary for an explosion. Add a CO detector and the risk is quite minimal. Faulty wiring (or really old wiring, as in my house), OTOH, can quite easily start a fire without warning.
Sure gas can be dangerous, but household applications tend to be relatively safe. Your water heater/furnace/gas dryer will not open the gas valve if the pilot is out (simple thermo-couple devices are relatively fail-safe)...
I did live in an apartment in GA for about 2 years, which had absolutely no gas service - everything was electric. The heat worked by running the A/C unit in reverse basically. For me, the worst part was the electric stove - I just couldn't cook on it (burned more than a few pots of chili)...
They were using a speed dialer, so they don't want call backs on the caller-id asking why they called and hung up on ya. because they were a for profit organization raising donations for FOP they wouldn't have even been able to guess who had called for what cause.
...it was 80% of profits to police widdows or something, they couldn't answer what % of donation that was.
This makes sense to me. For the last week I've been getting "UNKNOWN" calls, never leaving a message (since of course I don't answer calls I don't recognize). Once I finally answered one (partly out of boredom, partly wanting to know who it was) the calls have stopped. Before today, I'd get the calls all hours of the day, sometimes one ring, sometimes four, never leaving a message (typical behavior of telemarketers and others using auto-dialers).
They gave me the same widow story. I guess this type of story manipulates enough people, guilt-tripping them into donating... and while I don't have anything against the FOP directly, these tactics (stories encouraging guilt/sympathy, blocking caller-ID) don't do much to inspire confidence.
And again, with no caller-ID info, how does a potential donor know who they are giving their CC or bank account number to? I could call you and claim to be FOP (or whatever), and how would you know any different?
Oh, you forgot to add that kids in the 50s walked to school everday, even on the weekends, uphill both ways, in the rain, while chased by radioactive gorillas.
Don't forget, they went home for lunch too!
It's idiotic to attach a brand to a function or application. Of course, I know the point you're making but I see that as part of the problem. I mean think about it... we don't "Ford" or "Chevy" all over the roads when we drive our cars. We don't "Nokia" our friends to set up social engagements.
:)
No, but we do often Xerox a document, or use a Kleenex after eating Jello. Personally I see nothing wrong with a person Googling a topic of interest. It has become a verb, and the term has appeared in recent pop-culture as such. Often times a word (or new use of a word) becomes acceptable merely due to common usage. In other words, I can google your name because it's "cool" to do so
Now on the other side of the argument, I have read in the past that a trademark owner risks losing the trademark by allowing the term to become common; Xerox in particular is one I read about. If they do nothing to defend the term as their legal trademark, it could eventually become public domain... but Google as a verb has only popped up in recent years (compared to, say, Kleenex)...
Just earlier today my phone rang with "UNKNOWN/UNKNOWN". Assuming telemarketer or bill collector, I decided to answer anyway (out of boredom).
Turns out, it was the Indiana State Fraternal Order of Police, soliciting donations. I realize such "non-profit" organisations are exempt from the "Do Not Call" list laws, but why do they chose to hide the caller ID info? For all I know, it could easily be a scammer pretending to be the FOP. I give my CC or bank account number to the random person calling my home, and who knows?
The bottom line is this: why would such an organization choose to hide the caller-ID information? Wouldn't they be more trusted if the Caller-ID information matched the info provided by the caller?
For the record, my first question for the caller was "may I ask who's calling?" - and the caller replied with his full name, the organization he represented, and a toll free number I could use to verify the legitimacy of the call, all in a very friendly manner. I'm sure the FOP volunteer was most likely unaware his calls were not showing proper caller-ID information, so I didn't give him a hard time about it...
I would, however, advise that most companies (for- or non-profit) disclose their information via Caller-ID rather than hide it. I'm sure I'm not the only person who is automatically suspicious when this information is intentionally hidden/blocked...