Wow, pick one unimportant nugget and run with it. Can I presume that you now understand the errors in your other comments?
I do read by the "worst" fluorescent and have no difficulty doing so. Black on white text is easily handled by a cool white bulb. If it weren't, we wouldn't be using them nearly universally in professional and commercial space. Or will you now point to some vast right wing conspiracy to deprive us of a proper environment?
With regard to my "laughable" statement, feel free to compare the spectra and show me up. Given the accuracy of your previous statements, I suppose I can safely let this thread die.
Or not. Read your own source and note what a full spectrum fluorescent adds that cool white and others lack. Blue. What else lacks blue? Your continuous spectrum darling, the tungsten incandescent.
Look at the roll off of the longer wavelengths in the solar spectrum and the cool white and contrast that with the nearly linear increase of the incandescent.
You discuss our attempts to create "real light", which I take to be sunlight. If that's the case, cool white beats tungsten incandescent.
Phosphors are present on all fluorescent tubes. Low pressure mercury vapor emits in the UV. The only visible light emitted from a fluorescent tube is from the phosphor coating. The spectrum of a fluorescent light is continuous and not "typically" 1/100 the peak values.
Your description of an incandescent is correct, matches mine, and has never been at issue. The only thing I disagreed with in your previous comment is the premise that continuous spectrum sources are better than fluorescent. Incandescent tungsten lighting doesn't match solar spectra any better than the worst fluorescent.
Your fluorescent description is approximately correct, but it's worth noting that we don't see wavelengths less than 370nm. Starting at 400nm, your description accounts for an 8X difference in intensity, not the 100X you claimed. Which of your answers is correct? The IES chart shows the base level as greater, and is the standard of the lighting industry. I'll stick with that data.
Low pressure sodium is _not fluorescent_ and would be encountered indoors only when hell freezes (or some such approximation of never). You've likely seen it as the orange lighting in a parking lot. Its companion, High Pressure Sodium lighting, appears amber and is also normally used outdoors. Occasionally, HPS lamps are used indoors with Metal Halide lamps to produce an economical and relatively color accurate light.
Metal halide is _not fluorescent_ and is commonly used in industrial settings indoors, and as the most accurate color source for outdoor area lighting.
when you wrote that? Have you ever looked at a spectral analysis of a fluorescent light? The ones I'm looking at (Illuminating Engineering Society Lighting handbook, Reference Volume) show a continuous distribution with four spikes that are present in all bulbs classified (Cool White, Warm White, White, Deluxe Cool White, Deluxe Warm White, and Daylight).
Your theory of gas mixtures affecting color is also incorrect. Fluorescent lights are the product of an electrical discharge in a low pressure mercury vapor. Some trace gases are added to improve startup, but not color. Color is determined by the phosphor coating on the glass, in exactly the same manner color is determined in CRTs. Change phospors, change colors.
Observing the spectra of the different classes of fluorescent bulbs shows that Cool White (most typical) differs from Daylight by a reduction in the red (slight) and yellow (significant)and an increase in the green (slight) and blue (significant). Cool White has a yellow component peak that is approximately double the value of the peak that straddles blue and green. In the Daylight bulb, the peaks are relatively the same. The two of the four spikes (yellow, green, blue, and indigo) are also affected, with yellow reduced and indigo boosted.
Incandescent (tungsten filament) lamps are stronger radiators in red than blue, following a somewhat straight line that gives us a red luminace that is approximately 4 to 5 times greater than blue. Yellow comes in at about 3x blue.
Sunlight has a strong peak in the blue-green and decays to about half power in the red. Continuous, but not uniform. And it clearly demonstrates why Daylight bulbs boost the blue component (while still leaving at least 1.5X the "natural" yellow component).
(This clearly shows that six pictures and some graphs are worth a couple hundred words.)
This means that people who work in front of a screen are getting hit with excess blue, and the overhead fluorescent lights also have excess blue.
You may be correct about the monitors, but fluorescent lighting is heavy in the yellow, since that's the part of the spectrum we see best. As a check, you can expose some "daylight" film in fluorescent lighting and note the yellow cast. Or ask a lighting specialist for the spectrum.
Mac OS X runs fine on older Macs, including my (former) 9600/350, which dates from 1996 and is not even the oldest model (9500/8500/7500 circa 1995) that runs OS X. The price for these is right, too. $300 should do you just fine, especially if you're replacing that tired PII.
Anyone telling you that you have to pitch your software collection is full of crap, too. Some classic apps even appear to run faster on OS X/Classic than on Mac OS 9.
My cash is as precious to me as yours is to you, and I'll bet your PII replaced another machine. Even if you stay well behind the bleeding edge, upgrades cost money, take time, and are generally worth doing. Why should someone else's upgrade be a cause for taunts from you?
I began with a reply to phobia regarding the math programs he mentioned, although I did go on a bit of a rant afterwards. My intent was to show that the simple presence of a computer (and, in this case, the 24/7 availability of one) with very basic software is something I would have practically killed for in junior high.
Regarding your question, I'm generally in favor of making progress in education. As a basic example, I think we need to develop the ability to determine when multiplication is appropriate, not the ability to multiply. Using a computer in education should, with the right emphasis, facilitate learning. That would be satisfactory progress in education.
I don't see anything in the information we have available that says Maine is neglecting generalized learning in order to buy some Macs and look cool. Will computers solve all our problems? Hardly. Should we deny them in lieu of paying teachers more and buying books? Hardly. Should we give the folks who made the decision enough respect to act as if they knew what they were doing? Absolutely. Which leads to my rant.
I wish there was more wheat than chaff in this discussion. Accordingly, I was aiming at those (not you) who are unfamiliar with the entirety of the decision, yet are bitching about it. I've missed any discussion of the curriculum changes proposed, the goal setting that prompted the RFP, etc. All most folks here know is that Maine is buying a truck load (or two) of iBooks and we're at 500+ comments. At this rate, I'm unlikely to find any more useful information. But I'm sure to find more ignorant bitching.
No need for Mathematica & Maple (although I wouldn't turn them down). I'd have killed for Graphing Calculator in the seventh grade (when we began learning coordinate systems in the good 'ol Iowa school system).
At what point did it become "the one truth" that "proper" learning will occur only when you calculate every pair in a function and plot them on graph paper?
Not to dismiss the value of textbooks (I maintain quite a stack frm college), but the only reason we need new ones is for changing subjects and wear. How do you wear out an electronic text? And what has changed in 7th grade algebra since Nixon was President (when I learned mine)?
In short, why do all these/.ers think they know more about the education situation in Maine (on the basis of this article) than those who are responsible for education in Maine?
By way of analogy, the total fuel required to launch a vehicle into orbit will follow a shape rather like that of the Eiffel Tower. Anything you can cut from the base is better than the apparent savings in energy of your calculation because you are not using fuel to lift fuel.
I'm not sure your 210 watt savings is real, especially with the 105 hours/week usage your numbers generate. Energy saving CRTs should use substantially less than 210 watts on the average, so your LCD would need to be extremely low power.
Regardless, at 210 watts saved, for 105 hours per week and 2.65 years (to get to 4200 kWH), and a $.06/kWH rate, you save $252. This calculation ignores the cost of cooling your work space in summer, as it ignores the savings of heating the workspace in winter.
While factoring that savings into the cost of a new LCD or CRT display is accurate, comparing it to your old, expensive, and low performance CRT serves only to make you feel better about replacing the old monster with an LCD.
Finally, this savings only means something monetarily if you can actualy save money on your electric bill. In a business environment, your employer may not be able to negotiate a reduction in lease payment due to energy savings. I know mine can't.
Slashdot Mirror
Wel, we can hope they are Canadian prices, but the reference to the original Mac price, and that of the Cube, are correct if the prices are $US.
Wow, pick one unimportant nugget and run with it. Can I presume that you now understand the errors in your other comments?
I do read by the "worst" fluorescent and have no difficulty doing so. Black on white text is easily handled by a cool white bulb. If it weren't, we wouldn't be using them nearly universally in professional and commercial space. Or will you now point to some vast right wing conspiracy to deprive us of a proper environment?
With regard to my "laughable" statement, feel free to compare the spectra and show me up. Given the accuracy of your previous statements, I suppose I can safely let this thread die.
Or not. Read your own source and note what a full spectrum fluorescent adds that cool white and others lack. Blue. What else lacks blue? Your continuous spectrum darling, the tungsten incandescent.
Look at the roll off of the longer wavelengths in the solar spectrum and the cool white and contrast that with the nearly linear increase of the incandescent.
You discuss our attempts to create "real light", which I take to be sunlight. If that's the case, cool white beats tungsten incandescent.
Phosphors are present on all fluorescent tubes. Low pressure mercury vapor emits in the UV. The only visible light emitted from a fluorescent tube is from the phosphor coating. The spectrum of a fluorescent light is continuous and not "typically" 1/100 the peak values.
Your description of an incandescent is correct, matches mine, and has never been at issue. The only thing I disagreed with in your previous comment is the premise that continuous spectrum sources are better than fluorescent. Incandescent tungsten lighting doesn't match solar spectra any better than the worst fluorescent.
Your fluorescent description is approximately correct, but it's worth noting that we don't see wavelengths less than 370nm. Starting at 400nm, your description accounts for an 8X difference in intensity, not the 100X you claimed. Which of your answers is correct? The IES chart shows the base level as greater, and is the standard of the lighting industry. I'll stick with that data.
Low pressure sodium is _not fluorescent_ and would be encountered indoors only when hell freezes (or some such approximation of never). You've likely seen it as the orange lighting in a parking lot. Its companion, High Pressure Sodium lighting, appears amber and is also normally used outdoors. Occasionally, HPS lamps are used indoors with Metal Halide lamps to produce an economical and relatively color accurate light.
Metal halide is _not fluorescent_ and is commonly used in industrial settings indoors, and as the most accurate color source for outdoor area lighting.
when you wrote that? Have you ever looked at a spectral analysis of a fluorescent light? The ones I'm looking at (Illuminating Engineering Society Lighting handbook, Reference Volume) show a continuous distribution with four spikes that are present in all bulbs classified (Cool White, Warm White, White, Deluxe Cool White, Deluxe Warm White, and Daylight).
Your theory of gas mixtures affecting color is also incorrect. Fluorescent lights are the product of an electrical discharge in a low pressure mercury vapor. Some trace gases are added to improve startup, but not color. Color is determined by the phosphor coating on the glass, in exactly the same manner color is determined in CRTs. Change phospors, change colors.
Observing the spectra of the different classes of fluorescent bulbs shows that Cool White (most typical) differs from Daylight by a reduction in the red (slight) and yellow (significant)and an increase in the green (slight) and blue (significant). Cool White has a yellow component peak that is approximately double the value of the peak that straddles blue and green. In the Daylight bulb, the peaks are relatively the same. The two of the four spikes (yellow, green, blue, and indigo) are also affected, with yellow reduced and indigo boosted.
Incandescent (tungsten filament) lamps are stronger radiators in red than blue, following a somewhat straight line that gives us a red luminace that is approximately 4 to 5 times greater than blue. Yellow comes in at about 3x blue.
Sunlight has a strong peak in the blue-green and decays to about half power in the red. Continuous, but not uniform. And it clearly demonstrates why Daylight bulbs boost the blue component (while still leaving at least 1.5X the "natural" yellow component).
(This clearly shows that six pictures and some graphs are worth a couple hundred words.)
This means that people who work in front of a screen are getting hit with excess blue, and the overhead fluorescent lights also have excess blue.
You may be correct about the monitors, but fluorescent lighting is heavy in the yellow, since that's the part of the spectrum we see best. As a check, you can expose some "daylight" film in fluorescent lighting and note the yellow cast. Or ask a lighting specialist for the spectrum.
Your taunts are pretty faint, from where I sit.
Mac OS X runs fine on older Macs, including my (former) 9600/350, which dates from 1996 and is not even the oldest model (9500/8500/7500 circa 1995) that runs OS X. The price for these is right, too. $300 should do you just fine, especially if you're replacing that tired PII.
Anyone telling you that you have to pitch your software collection is full of crap, too. Some classic apps even appear to run faster on OS X/Classic than on Mac OS 9.
My cash is as precious to me as yours is to you, and I'll bet your PII replaced another machine. Even if you stay well behind the bleeding edge, upgrades cost money, take time, and are generally worth doing. Why should someone else's upgrade be a cause for taunts from you?
I began with a reply to phobia regarding the math programs he mentioned, although I did go on a bit of a rant afterwards. My intent was to show that the simple presence of a computer (and, in this case, the 24/7 availability of one) with very basic software is something I would have practically killed for in junior high.
Regarding your question, I'm generally in favor of making progress in education. As a basic example, I think we need to develop the ability to determine when multiplication is appropriate, not the ability to multiply. Using a computer in education should, with the right emphasis, facilitate learning. That would be satisfactory progress in education.
I don't see anything in the information we have available that says Maine is neglecting generalized learning in order to buy some Macs and look cool. Will computers solve all our problems? Hardly. Should we deny them in lieu of paying teachers more and buying books? Hardly. Should we give the folks who made the decision enough respect to act as if they knew what they were doing? Absolutely. Which leads to my rant.
I wish there was more wheat than chaff in this discussion. Accordingly, I was aiming at those (not you) who are unfamiliar with the entirety of the decision, yet are bitching about it. I've missed any discussion of the curriculum changes proposed, the goal setting that prompted the RFP, etc. All most folks here know is that Maine is buying a truck load (or two) of iBooks and we're at 500+ comments. At this rate, I'm unlikely to find any more useful information. But I'm sure to find more ignorant bitching.
No need for Mathematica & Maple (although I wouldn't turn them down). I'd have killed for Graphing Calculator in the seventh grade (when we began learning coordinate systems in the good 'ol Iowa school system).
/.ers think they know more about the education situation in Maine (on the basis of this article) than those who are responsible for education in Maine?
At what point did it become "the one truth" that "proper" learning will occur only when you calculate every pair in a function and plot them on graph paper?
Not to dismiss the value of textbooks (I maintain quite a stack frm college), but the only reason we need new ones is for changing subjects and wear. How do you wear out an electronic text? And what has changed in 7th grade algebra since Nixon was President (when I learned mine)?
In short, why do all these
By way of analogy, the total fuel required to launch a vehicle into orbit will follow a shape rather like that of the Eiffel Tower. Anything you can cut from the base is better than the apparent savings in energy of your calculation because you are not using fuel to lift fuel.
then you have a router built in. Ask your telco for the specifics of the configuration, or check out Cisco's site.
Any other combo DSL modem & routers??
Regardless, at 210 watts saved, for 105 hours per week and 2.65 years (to get to 4200 kWH), and a $.06/kWH rate, you save $252. This calculation ignores the cost of cooling your work space in summer, as it ignores the savings of heating the workspace in winter.
While factoring that savings into the cost of a new LCD or CRT display is accurate, comparing it to your old, expensive, and low performance CRT serves only to make you feel better about replacing the old monster with an LCD.
Finally, this savings only means something monetarily if you can actualy save money on your electric bill. In a business environment, your employer may not be able to negotiate a reduction in lease payment due to energy savings. I know mine can't.
That said, I want one, too.