I have pretty sensitive hearing, and I can't hear the hum from a CFL in the ceiling (8' ceiling) - even when there's 6 of them over head (recessed lighting). Meanwhile, I can hear the hum from normal florescent bulbs from far away, not to mention the whine of CRTs (I can tell when a CRT is going bad because the whine changes) or the hum of larger A/V components.
I can barely hear them in the bathroom, where we put them in the fixture there - but since I don't spend long hours in the bathroom I don't consider this to be a problem.
In terms of brightness (lumens?), a CFL bulb will produce the same amount of light using about 1/3 the energy.
For instance, I replaced 75 watt incandescent floodlight with a CFL bulb that only uses 23 watts. I'm still getting the same amount of light, just spending less for it.
With a bit of shopping, I've found CFL bulbs for about $1-2/bulb - still more expensive than a single incandescent bulb, but each CFL should last the equivelant of 6 to 8 regular bulbs - while still saving you money on electricity.
So if I was spending $10/mo for lights, now I'm spending about $3/mo, meaning I'm saving $84 in my first year - way more than what I spent on the CFL bulbs in the first place. An ROI of under a year is a superb investment.
Even 2-3 years is a good ROI especially since CFL bulbs are supposed to last about 5 years. It may not be super-uber-mega savings but every little bit helps.
I'm in California, where the majority of my electricity is generated by natural gas-powered generators. As a result, natural gas is very expensive out here.
Even so, gas powered appliances are a lot of more efficient at turning gas into heat, than turning electricity into heat. If you think about it, electric ovens and the such are essentially just large light bulbs, except that the heat generated is the desired result, not a waste product.
I don't know why more people don't use gas either.
It seems quicker than electric, and is way more efficient.
We also have gas furnace, water heater, stove and dryer. I think electric dryers are a little cheaper, but considering that gas dryers are more efficient, the energy savings make up for it.
Doesn't make sense to me why people complain about their energy bill, yet are unwilling to do even simple to their house that would reduce their usage - and therefore their bill.
Considering the pitifully small number of PS3s that was launched, how could they NOT of immediatly sold out?
Unfortunatly, the only real reason to buy a PS3 was to sell it on eBay - and even that's turning out to be a boondoggle as average prices for a PS3 have gone from $1500 to $1000 to about $800.
Since the 360 does just about everything the PS3 does, only cheaper, most hardcore gamers are taking a wait and see position with the PS3. By the time there's enough of a reason to buy a PS3, there'll be enough on shelves so you don't have to worry about not being able to buy one.
I thought she was calling for the government to create a "ratings board". I got the impression that she was utterly and totally clueless that the ESRB even existed, much less what they did.
That might work...except that the Wii is going to make it difficult for Sony to sell 8 million PS3s especially when you consider the fact that the Wii is less than half the price of the 60GB PS3, and the PS3's only decent exclusive title is a military FPS - not a genre that's proven popular over there.
Oh sure, once the Japanese-RPGs start rolling out the PS3 in 12-18 months, the PS3 should do fine. But in the meantime, Microsoft and Nintendo aren't just going to sit around and do nothing.
Considering that the market is still evolving, and 1080p sources are scarce (and just as screwed up), why not save yourself a chunk of change and just get a true 720p set now?
In 5-6 years, once the whole market has figured this HD thing out, you'll probably be ready to buy another set anyways and THEN you can get yourself a better 1080p set for less!
Great idea! Now, if you can just tell me where I can get a 40-50" tube that won't require structural reinforcing, and the use of a crane to get the thing into my house then we can talk.
$1000 for a Dell? I don't think so - not if you plan on actually getting anything decent gaming-wise.
Last time I priced out a machine like the one you're talking about, it was closer to $2k - and that was without a monitor. Dell charges at least 50% more than what the parts would cost if you built the system yourself. For instance, you can save yourself a chunk of change right from the start by only putting in the minimum amount of RAM you can buy into your Dell, then going to Kingston or Crucial's website and order the memory you really want. They're the same chips that Dell uses, only you pay twice as much if you buy the memory from Dell!
About the only thing you'd be missing out on would be the case. Dell does make good cases. But at the same time, you also save yourself the agony of trying to uninstall all the extra garbage that every pre-built system comes with nowadays. You're going to do a fresh install anyways, so you might as well just build the system yourself and do it right the first time, rather than having to correct Dell's mistakes.
Dell's are great machines if you're running an office, or need a worry-free PC for a family member living far away, but as a gamer, you can (and should) do better.
Yeah, let's blame the customer...FRYS never makes any mistakes, right?
After all, you don't really expect them to know if that product is working or not if the box was missing a power adapter. Or, how about the Seagate External HDD which was returned because it was "missing HDD". The only stupid customer would be the one who would pay $300 for a (presumably) a power adapter and maybe an empty USB enclosure.
Anyone who's shopped at Frys has returned at least one completely defective product, only to see that exact same box show up, back on the shelf. In fact, it's best that you don't do a good job repackaging the item, otherwise, Frys will try to sell it as new - which is against the law, but that's nothing new for Frys either.
A friend of mine got me a McFarlane figure from "Bastard", or as I called it, "The world's most dangerous action figure". The thing must have been made out of the same dangerously sharp plastic that the packaging was made out of, because you couldn't even touch this thing without getting cut or nicked by the multitude of claws and horns sticking out of it (odd, I don't remember him having so many in the anime/manga...) Even its hairdo was a mass razor sharp points!
After the thing drew blood from me once too often, I sold it at a garage sale. Some 10 year old boy was interested in it, and I was giving him a stern warning that the thing was VERY sharp and probably not suitable for children. But it was too late. The kid had already picked the thing up, to show his mother. "Hey Mom! Can I buy th - *OW*!" Ah. The thing had found a new victim. The kid still wanted it, though the mother (wisely) made him wrap it up in a shirt before putting it in their bag.
Even if you do use a pair of scissors (which I use as well), the resulting pieces that you end up with - especially from the sealed edges - are extremely sharp and pointy.
It seems very odd to me that in order for me to get to the item I bought, I have to create, and then dispose of, potentially hazzardous waste.
I'm sort of surprised none of us kids got mutilated by these things while we were growing up...
Yeah, I hear you. I tried to return something that didn't work, and the stored tried to charge me a restocking fee as I had to destroy the packaging to even get the thing out in the first place.
This was Frys, by the way, where they'll regularly take returns, shove them in a plastic baggie, seal it, and put a price sticker on it for 5% less than a new one.
While I did manage to get them to reverse the restocking fee, they still insisted on putting a known, non-functional device back on their shelves for the next unsuspecting sucker to buy.
I tend to consider the following: (cost) / (estimated length of time I'll spend playing)
Ideally, I try to shoot for something $1/hr. or less. Generally this means I'll buy a RPG for full price because they usually last about 40-50 hours anyways. But if it's a FPS, I'll wait for it drop in price.
However it's not a hard and fast rule. For instance, there was a PS1 RPG that never dropped below its initial price of $40. I was afraid it would go out of print, so I bought it even though it turned out to only be about 15 hours long. It was still a good game, but definitely an exception to the $1/hr rule above.
For instance, a RPG may take you 50 hours to complete, but there's really not much replay value usually. It'll be the same experience all over again.
Whereas, if you're looking at a sports game, each game may only last an hour but you'll end up playing it again and again (after all, who would want to play a 50 hour game of basketball?)
Then there are games like Sims or SimCity, which technically have no ending to achieve.
Whenever I consider buying a game, I also try to think about the amount of time I'm realistically going to spend playing it. If it's a game I think I'll spend a lot of time playing, I won't mind (as much) paying more for that game. But if it's a game I know I'm only going to play for 10-15 hours, then I'll wait for it to hit the bargin bin, or buy it used.
Seriously, if you're just going to cheat your way through the game, you might as well just watch a movie because that's essentially what you've turned the "game" into at that point...
And as a gamer in his mid-30s as well, who struggles to find the time to play, I have to agree with the parent post. There's just too much to play, and not enough time. I'll play the game until either it ends, or I'm finished with it and it's often the latter.
Well, there's no requirement that you HAVE to stay in one place and level grind.
If you go up against a boss when you're not really ready, it certainly makes things more challenging! At that point, you *really* have to know all the ins & outs of the system in order to take full advantage of whatever resources you have on hand.
Unfortunatly, some systems aren't that deep or flexible, practically forcing you to grind or die.
If your HDTV only supports 1080i, but not 720p (which is true for many older HDTVs), and you want to play a PS3 game that only outputs 720p, the PS3 will not upscale the signal for 1080i. Instead, it will downscale to 480p - which is not HD.
The 360, on the other hand, WILL upscale a 720p signal to 1080i, so you'll still be able to enjoy the game in HD, whereas on the PS3, you'll have to settle for non-HD at least until Sony releases a fix.
Sony's initial response to this problem was "Buy a new TV!" - despite the fact that many of the affected models were made by Sony itself. Way to go, guys.
Lots of exclusive games? Huh? All but 3 of the PS3's launch library is actually exclusive to the PS3. And of those 3, only one got good/great ratings. The other two got slammed for bad and buggy game play. The rest of the PS3's launch library is also available on the 360 - and even there, the reviews tended to prefer the 360 version due to smoother graphics/gameplay. Heck, the PS3's version of Tony Hawk 8 actually shipped WITHOUT online play - which is a dealbreaker for many right there.
Backwards compatibility isn't perfect on the PS3 either, as many games have problems, or won't even work at all. It was a big mistake for Sony to totally cut-off any way for people to use their existing DDR pads or Guitar Hero 'guitars' with the PS3.
And let's not forget that the "True HD" PS3 can't even do HD if the game is at 720p but your older set only supports 1080i. Oops! Hope you enjoy 480p!
Finally, as I've pointed out before, SCE is not the same as Sony BMG. Even if people buy lots of blu-ray movies for the PS3, it won't do SCE any good.
Hopefully Sony will address these issues, and we'll start seeing more good exclusive titles for the PS3 in the near future. But for right now, the general consensus amongst reviewers is that the 360 does just about everything the PS3 does, does it better (in some cases) and is cheaper.
Sony, like many large companies, isn't a singular entity, but is made up of several smaller companies.
Sony Studios would make money from blu-ray. Sony Computer Entertainment (SCE) makes nothing from Blu-Ray movie sales. They need people to buy PS3 games and PS3 accessories.
Even if Blu-Ray becomes a runaway success, and PS3s are bought simply because they play Blu-ray movies, that won't help SCE and would actually hurt Sony overall.
Slashdot Mirror
I have pretty sensitive hearing, and I can't hear the hum from a CFL in the ceiling (8' ceiling) - even when there's 6 of them over head (recessed lighting). Meanwhile, I can hear the hum from normal florescent bulbs from far away, not to mention the whine of CRTs (I can tell when a CRT is going bad because the whine changes) or the hum of larger A/V components.
I can barely hear them in the bathroom, where we put them in the fixture there - but since I don't spend long hours in the bathroom I don't consider this to be a problem.
In terms of brightness (lumens?), a CFL bulb will produce the same amount of light using about 1/3 the energy.
For instance, I replaced 75 watt incandescent floodlight with a CFL bulb that only uses 23 watts. I'm still getting the same amount of light, just spending less for it.
With a bit of shopping, I've found CFL bulbs for about $1-2/bulb - still more expensive than a single incandescent bulb, but each CFL should last the equivelant of 6 to 8 regular bulbs - while still saving you money on electricity.
So if I was spending $10/mo for lights, now I'm spending about $3/mo, meaning I'm saving $84 in my first year - way more than what I spent on the CFL bulbs in the first place. An ROI of under a year is a superb investment.
Even 2-3 years is a good ROI especially since CFL bulbs are supposed to last about 5 years. It may not be super-uber-mega savings but every little bit helps.
CFLs have their place, but I still like the warm color of a normal incadescent bulb for a reading light or a desk lamp.
That said, I am using CFLs in all my recessed lighting recepticles. I still plan to have a nice incandescent lamp on my desk though.
I'm in California, where the majority of my electricity is generated by natural gas-powered generators. As a result, natural gas is very expensive out here.
Even so, gas powered appliances are a lot of more efficient at turning gas into heat, than turning electricity into heat. If you think about it, electric ovens and the such are essentially just large light bulbs, except that the heat generated is the desired result, not a waste product.
I don't know why more people don't use gas either.
It seems quicker than electric, and is way more efficient.
We also have gas furnace, water heater, stove and dryer. I think electric dryers are a little cheaper, but considering that gas dryers are more efficient, the energy savings make up for it.
Doesn't make sense to me why people complain about their energy bill, yet are unwilling to do even simple to their house that would reduce their usage - and therefore their bill.
You're kidding, right? The controller doesn't work consistantly? That's a deal breaker right there.
Ok, here we go again...
Console hardware is subsidized by the company to encourage you to buy more games. Sony, for instance, is losing an estimated $300 per PS3 built.
PC hardware is not subsidized.
PC hardware is also a LOT more powerful.
A $1000 PC is going to be able to outperform a PS3, has cheaper games than a PS3, and can do a lot more than PS3.
The people willing to pay thousands, or even hundreds, above MSRP for a console are just plain idiots.
Considering the pitifully small number of PS3s that was launched, how could they NOT of immediatly sold out?
Unfortunatly, the only real reason to buy a PS3 was to sell it on eBay - and even that's turning out to be a boondoggle as average prices for a PS3 have gone from $1500 to $1000 to about $800.
Since the 360 does just about everything the PS3 does, only cheaper, most hardcore gamers are taking a wait and see position with the PS3. By the time there's enough of a reason to buy a PS3, there'll be enough on shelves so you don't have to worry about not being able to buy one.
I thought she was calling for the government to create a "ratings board". I got the impression that she was utterly and totally clueless that the ESRB even existed, much less what they did.
That might work...except that the Wii is going to make it difficult for Sony to sell 8 million PS3s especially when you consider the fact that the Wii is less than half the price of the 60GB PS3, and the PS3's only decent exclusive title is a military FPS - not a genre that's proven popular over there.
Oh sure, once the Japanese-RPGs start rolling out the PS3 in 12-18 months, the PS3 should do fine. But in the meantime, Microsoft and Nintendo aren't just going to sit around and do nothing.
Do you *really* need 1080p?
Considering that the market is still evolving, and 1080p sources are scarce (and just as screwed up), why not save yourself a chunk of change and just get a true 720p set now?
In 5-6 years, once the whole market has figured this HD thing out, you'll probably be ready to buy another set anyways and THEN you can get yourself a better 1080p set for less!
Great idea! Now, if you can just tell me where I can get a 40-50" tube that won't require structural reinforcing, and the use of a crane to get the thing into my house then we can talk.
$1000 for a Dell? I don't think so - not if you plan on actually getting anything decent gaming-wise.
Last time I priced out a machine like the one you're talking about, it was closer to $2k - and that was without a monitor. Dell charges at least 50% more than what the parts would cost if you built the system yourself. For instance, you can save yourself a chunk of change right from the start by only putting in the minimum amount of RAM you can buy into your Dell, then going to Kingston or Crucial's website and order the memory you really want. They're the same chips that Dell uses, only you pay twice as much if you buy the memory from Dell!
About the only thing you'd be missing out on would be the case. Dell does make good cases. But at the same time, you also save yourself the agony of trying to uninstall all the extra garbage that every pre-built system comes with nowadays. You're going to do a fresh install anyways, so you might as well just build the system yourself and do it right the first time, rather than having to correct Dell's mistakes.
Dell's are great machines if you're running an office, or need a worry-free PC for a family member living far away, but as a gamer, you can (and should) do better.
Yeah, let's blame the customer...FRYS never makes any mistakes, right?
After all, you don't really expect them to know if that product is working or not if the box was missing a power adapter. Or, how about the Seagate External HDD which was returned because it was "missing HDD". The only stupid customer would be the one who would pay $300 for a (presumably) a power adapter and maybe an empty USB enclosure.
Anyone who's shopped at Frys has returned at least one completely defective product, only to see that exact same box show up, back on the shelf. In fact, it's best that you don't do a good job repackaging the item, otherwise, Frys will try to sell it as new - which is against the law, but that's nothing new for Frys either.
Hahaha.
A friend of mine got me a McFarlane figure from "Bastard", or as I called it, "The world's most dangerous action figure". The thing must have been made out of the same dangerously sharp plastic that the packaging was made out of, because you couldn't even touch this thing without getting cut or nicked by the multitude of claws and horns sticking out of it (odd, I don't remember him having so many in the anime/manga...) Even its hairdo was a mass razor sharp points!
After the thing drew blood from me once too often, I sold it at a garage sale. Some 10 year old boy was interested in it, and I was giving him a stern warning that the thing was VERY sharp and probably not suitable for children. But it was too late. The kid had already picked the thing up, to show his mother. "Hey Mom! Can I buy th - *OW*!" Ah. The thing had found a new victim. The kid still wanted it, though the mother (wisely) made him wrap it up in a shirt before putting it in their bag.
Even if you do use a pair of scissors (which I use as well), the resulting pieces that you end up with - especially from the sealed edges - are extremely sharp and pointy.
It seems very odd to me that in order for me to get to the item I bought, I have to create, and then dispose of, potentially hazzardous waste.
I'm sort of surprised none of us kids got mutilated by these things while we were growing up...
Yeah, I hear you. I tried to return something that didn't work, and the stored tried to charge me a restocking fee as I had to destroy the packaging to even get the thing out in the first place.
This was Frys, by the way, where they'll regularly take returns, shove them in a plastic baggie, seal it, and put a price sticker on it for 5% less than a new one.
While I did manage to get them to reverse the restocking fee, they still insisted on putting a known, non-functional device back on their shelves for the next unsuspecting sucker to buy.
I tend to consider the following: (cost) / (estimated length of time I'll spend playing)
Ideally, I try to shoot for something $1/hr. or less. Generally this means I'll buy a RPG for full price because they usually last about 40-50 hours anyways. But if it's a FPS, I'll wait for it drop in price.
However it's not a hard and fast rule. For instance, there was a PS1 RPG that never dropped below its initial price of $40. I was afraid it would go out of print, so I bought it even though it turned out to only be about 15 hours long. It was still a good game, but definitely an exception to the $1/hr rule above.
Excellent point.
Though it really depends on the game.
For instance, a RPG may take you 50 hours to complete, but there's really not much replay value usually. It'll be the same experience all over again.
Whereas, if you're looking at a sports game, each game may only last an hour but you'll end up playing it again and again (after all, who would want to play a 50 hour game of basketball?)
Then there are games like Sims or SimCity, which technically have no ending to achieve.
Whenever I consider buying a game, I also try to think about the amount of time I'm realistically going to spend playing it. If it's a game I think I'll spend a lot of time playing, I won't mind (as much) paying more for that game. But if it's a game I know I'm only going to play for 10-15 hours, then I'll wait for it to hit the bargin bin, or buy it used.
Seriously, if you're just going to cheat your way through the game, you might as well just watch a movie because that's essentially what you've turned the "game" into at that point...
And as a gamer in his mid-30s as well, who struggles to find the time to play, I have to agree with the parent post. There's just too much to play, and not enough time. I'll play the game until either it ends, or I'm finished with it and it's often the latter.
Well, there's no requirement that you HAVE to stay in one place and level grind.
If you go up against a boss when you're not really ready, it certainly makes things more challenging! At that point, you *really* have to know all the ins & outs of the system in order to take full advantage of whatever resources you have on hand.
Unfortunatly, some systems aren't that deep or flexible, practically forcing you to grind or die.
So...the huge employee-driven lawsuit against EA for its draconian work environment, unpaid overtime, etc. didn't tarnish their image?
Lackluster re-releases of (American) football games after EA secured exclusive right to all things "NFL" didn't tarnish their image?
Maybe I didn't make it clear what the problem is.
If your HDTV only supports 1080i, but not 720p (which is true for many older HDTVs), and you want to play a PS3 game that only outputs 720p, the PS3 will not upscale the signal for 1080i. Instead, it will downscale to 480p - which is not HD.
The 360, on the other hand, WILL upscale a 720p signal to 1080i, so you'll still be able to enjoy the game in HD, whereas on the PS3, you'll have to settle for non-HD at least until Sony releases a fix.
Sony's initial response to this problem was "Buy a new TV!" - despite the fact that many of the affected models were made by Sony itself. Way to go, guys.
Lots of exclusive games? Huh? All but 3 of the PS3's launch library is actually exclusive to the PS3. And of those 3, only one got good/great ratings. The other two got slammed for bad and buggy game play. The rest of the PS3's launch library is also available on the 360 - and even there, the reviews tended to prefer the 360 version due to smoother graphics/gameplay. Heck, the PS3's version of Tony Hawk 8 actually shipped WITHOUT online play - which is a dealbreaker for many right there.
Backwards compatibility isn't perfect on the PS3 either, as many games have problems, or won't even work at all. It was a big mistake for Sony to totally cut-off any way for people to use their existing DDR pads or Guitar Hero 'guitars' with the PS3.
And let's not forget that the "True HD" PS3 can't even do HD if the game is at 720p but your older set only supports 1080i. Oops! Hope you enjoy 480p!
Finally, as I've pointed out before, SCE is not the same as Sony BMG. Even if people buy lots of blu-ray movies for the PS3, it won't do SCE any good.
Hopefully Sony will address these issues, and we'll start seeing more good exclusive titles for the PS3 in the near future. But for right now, the general consensus amongst reviewers is that the 360 does just about everything the PS3 does, does it better (in some cases) and is cheaper.
Sony, like many large companies, isn't a singular entity, but is made up of several smaller companies.
Sony Studios would make money from blu-ray. Sony Computer Entertainment (SCE) makes nothing from Blu-Ray movie sales. They need people to buy PS3 games and PS3 accessories.
Even if Blu-Ray becomes a runaway success, and PS3s are bought simply because they play Blu-ray movies, that won't help SCE and would actually hurt Sony overall.