LEDs are cheaper. But some basic understanding of math and economics is required to see that. People that fail at that may get to conclusions such as yours.
um, incandescents are extremely cheap; so cheap that for a reasonable span of time (less than five years, say) it might be less expensive to buy the cheaper bulb and put part of the savings towards somewhat higher power bills. What's goofy about that?
Just to throw some more numbers in there, "rough usage" incandescents are rated at 10K hours and cost about $2.60 for one 100 watt bulb. For a little over twice the price you're getting an order of magnitude longer usage vs consumer incandescents. Moreover, I've noticed a tendency towards infant mortality on mass produced LED bulbs and CFLs, probably due to their complexity vs incandescents and that they're being built by the lowest overseas bidder, and this tends to make the average lifespan somewhat less than what it says on the box.
100 watt "rough service" incandescent (which aren't subject to the ban) less than $3 each on Amazon. "Rough service" bulbs have greatly increased lifespan vs consumer incandescents.
Even fewer people are aware that incandescents aren't really banned. The consumer household bulbs, maybe, but keep in mind that "rough service" bulbs are not affected by the ban. Consider: Most automobile bulbs are still incandescent, and they're not going to suddenly vanish on January 1.
When I heard this, I did some checking, and "rough service" incandescents are available to consumers. I bought a packet of 12 100W bulbs recently to try out. One nice side effect is that "rough service" bulbs have a more robust filament (with extra bracing), and last significantly longer than commercial incandescents, bordering on the lifespan of CFLs, back before CFLs were value-engineered to their current pitiful lifespan. [1] At less than $3 apiece (Amazon) and with a 10K hour lifespan, I may save enough on rough service bulbs to pay for the extra electricity.
[1] I've been tracking the lifespan of the CFLs I've purchased since we switched to them in the early 1990s. Of the three original bulbs purchased, one is still in service today, almost 20 years later. Of the other two, one failed about 2005 and one was broken accidentally during a remodeling earlier this year. (Fortunately the base, not the tube containing the mercury.) However, lifespan started dropping significantly around the turn of the century, and now they don't last any longer than consumer incandescents used to, with significant infant mortality dragging down the average.
Similarly, my mother-in-law practices safe computing, and calls me if she sees anything unusual *before* clicking on it and for years has been trouble free. She's had viruses on her computer exactly twice, and both times her (visiting) nephew was at fault. Which just shows to go, any tool can be used to poke your eye out.
Win8's problems are not quite the same as Vista's problems. Time is not going to fix Win8's problems.
There's part of me (the part that wants Microsoft quick fried to a crackly crunch) that wants to agree.
But there was an article in The Register not long ago about a credible rumor that Microsoft now has plans (post-Ballmer?) to split Win8 into three versions: (a) the current version, appropriate for handhelds, (b) a desktop version, which would essentially be (mostly) Win7 look and feel with Win8 performance improvements, and (c) an Enterprise version, which is (b) except using the Enterprise patch mechanism instead of relying on the Windows Store for patches (which has apparently been a sticking point for Enterprise acceptance).
The article made it clear that this was only a rumor from "a credible source", but if for the sake of argument we take this utterly on face value, I'd be forced to say that yes, this really does fix Win8's problems. Mind you, I'm not a Win8 apologist -- I'm the guy who has complained bitterly about the Win8 touch screen convertible I paid good money for that nobody (including me) will use because Windows 8 is so damned hard to do anything with. But fair is fair, and if the above really does happen, it would eliminate pretty much all of my objections. (Except, of course, why didn't you do that in the first place??)
Of course, this could all be wishful thinking. I guess we'll have to wait and see. But what this meant to me is that I stopped dinking with Windows 8.1 and put the machine back on the shelf. I can afford to wait.
Ok, so, not to bring up the old bathtub trope, but I suspect there are a lot of objects that have been responsible for more deaths than hiroshima and nagasaki combined. This reminds me of the "number of minutes to skeletonize a cow" metric that Gary Larson found so curious.
And then 5 months later they will have a virus / botnet. Their ISP will shutdown their outgoing internet. They will go to their local Staples... store and get a new computer with Word. Problem solved.
Or maybe they won't. If you're behind a firewall using an unroutable IP, (default on most routers) run an antivirus, and (this is the important part) don't download warez and spend a lot of time on pr0n sites and don't click on every damned thing you see, your chances of infection are significantly diminished. Of the people I support, I know which ones are going to be clean at any given time, and which will be "infested with the viruses", based on their browsing habits. What you do with the machine is much more significant than what OS its running and whether it's patched to current.
whether it is his job or not it is true. There will ALWAYS be new vulnerabilities discovered, even the best reviewed, best written software will have bugs and XP isn't either of those. if people are still using it to access the internet they SHOULD BE doing panicked upgrades.
...it depends. People who take precautions and practice Safe Computing will not be any more likely to be pwned than anyone else. People who will click on any damned thing are going to be pwned eventually on any version of Windows. What we're talking about here is a difference in degree, not a difference in kind.
I saw a Point of Sale machine reboot not too long ago, and it displayed a Windows 98 splash screen.
This is a slightly different variation to the old adage, it's not what you have, it's what you do with it.
Wow, I just had a flashback. My grandmother used to call anyone with a certain color of skin "hindu", and didn't seem concerned at all that she was almost always wrong. (We had a fairly large Indian population where I grew up that were mostly Sikhs, not Hindus.) Of course, she was a profound racist. Some people exist to be a warning to others.
I see what you did there. "I don't understand the hate" has risen to meme status. I don't waste time hating vista, anymore than I would waste time hating broccoli. Vista and win8 share the traits that they were unusable on first release, vista eventually became tolerable but wasn't truly fixed until win7, and win8 is following a similar path. We have some machines still running xp, but the driving force to upgrade is not some artificial Microsoft deadline, but when there will be something reasonable to upgrade to.
> I don't think that it's a statement he ever should have made but it's not like he promised Americans eternal life and now is casting them in carbonite.
Um, it seems more like promising Americans eternal life and then tossing them to the Sarlacc. Casting them in carbonite would have at least technically been keeping the promise.
"The Obamacare sign-up site was a classic example of managers saying 'not invented here' and doing everything wrong, as described in Poul-Henning Kamp's Center Wheel for Success, at ACM Queue."
I mean, you folks at Slashdot should have called it the Affordable Care Act website then reminded us that it's also known as Obamacare. But to call it what it isn't in the first sentence of introduction is [very] unfortunate!
Disclaimer: I am neiter Democrat nor Republican.
Um, even Obama calls it Obamacare. Not so much now, of course.
> I get the feeling this is just to try and push people to upgrade, not because XP can't be supported.
It's their business model. Microsoft doesn't make money from advertising (like google) and doesn't make money from end users via service contracts. They make money when you upgrade your OS, or alternately when you purchase a new machine. Of course XP can still be supported. But why do that for free when they can sell Windows 8 licenses instead?
> (And right now they have auto-update disabled because of the "Windows update uses 100% CPU and leaves the machine unusable" problem which appeared a couple of months ago - a coincidence that this happened just before XP is retired...?)
The impression I get is that this has *always* been a problem with XP, it's just that the number of patches has driven the issue to the breaking point. But you're right, it does tend to drive people to upgrade. I don't expect Microsoft to fix it although probably for media purposes they've made noises that they're working on it.
Microsoft should extend support for XP...but only on a cash-for-patch basis. Sell patches at $5 a pop for XP user's, or a one Year Security Update Subscription for $20.
It's a win-win situation....
I don't see Microsoft doing this. Their business model since the beginning has depended on the user community paying for regular OS upgrades. They will cling to this, just as they still cling to the idea that the industry will just accept whatever they choose to crap out. I'm sure there are business meetings where they're forecasting the revenue from huge sales of Windows 8 licenses before the XP cutoff date.
But to the users, they'll click on Word on April 7 and it'll come up fine, and they'll click on Word on April 8 and it'll still come up fine. And they'll ask themselves, why pay $199 to upgrade to an interface that I don't understand when all I want to do is click on Word?
Slashdot Mirror
LEDs are cheaper. But some basic understanding of math and economics is required to see that. People that fail at that may get to conclusions such as yours.
Well, that sure convinced me.
um, incandescents are extremely cheap; so cheap that for a reasonable span of time (less than five years, say) it might be less expensive to buy the cheaper bulb and put part of the savings towards somewhat higher power bills. What's goofy about that?
Just to throw some more numbers in there, "rough usage" incandescents are rated at 10K hours and cost about $2.60 for one 100 watt bulb. For a little over twice the price you're getting an order of magnitude longer usage vs consumer incandescents. Moreover, I've noticed a tendency towards infant mortality on mass produced LED bulbs and CFLs, probably due to their complexity vs incandescents and that they're being built by the lowest overseas bidder, and this tends to make the average lifespan somewhat less than what it says on the box.
100 watt "rough service" incandescent (which aren't subject to the ban) less than $3 each on Amazon. "Rough service" bulbs have greatly increased lifespan vs consumer incandescents.
Even fewer people are aware that incandescents aren't really banned. The consumer household bulbs, maybe, but keep in mind that "rough service" bulbs are not affected by the ban. Consider: Most automobile bulbs are still incandescent, and they're not going to suddenly vanish on January 1.
When I heard this, I did some checking, and "rough service" incandescents are available to consumers. I bought a packet of 12 100W bulbs recently to try out. One nice side effect is that "rough service" bulbs have a more robust filament (with extra bracing), and last significantly longer than commercial incandescents, bordering on the lifespan of CFLs, back before CFLs were value-engineered to their current pitiful lifespan. [1] At less than $3 apiece (Amazon) and with a 10K hour lifespan, I may save enough on rough service bulbs to pay for the extra electricity.
[1] I've been tracking the lifespan of the CFLs I've purchased since we switched to them in the early 1990s. Of the three original bulbs purchased, one is still in service today, almost 20 years later. Of the other two, one failed about 2005 and one was broken accidentally during a remodeling earlier this year. (Fortunately the base, not the tube containing the mercury.) However, lifespan started dropping significantly around the turn of the century, and now they don't last any longer than consumer incandescents used to, with significant infant mortality dragging down the average.
Similarly, my mother-in-law practices safe computing, and calls me if she sees anything unusual *before* clicking on it and for years has been trouble free. She's had viruses on her computer exactly twice, and both times her (visiting) nephew was at fault. Which just shows to go, any tool can be used to poke your eye out.
But as has been pointed out by others. a pardon means "you did something wrong and we forgive you". Does this really apply?
Win8's problems are not quite the same as Vista's problems. Time is not going to fix Win8's problems.
There's part of me (the part that wants Microsoft quick fried to a crackly crunch) that wants to agree.
But there was an article in The Register not long ago about a credible rumor that Microsoft now has plans (post-Ballmer?) to split Win8 into three versions: (a) the current version, appropriate for handhelds, (b) a desktop version, which would essentially be (mostly) Win7 look and feel with Win8 performance improvements, and (c) an Enterprise version, which is (b) except using the Enterprise patch mechanism instead of relying on the Windows Store for patches (which has apparently been a sticking point for Enterprise acceptance).
The article made it clear that this was only a rumor from "a credible source", but if for the sake of argument we take this utterly on face value, I'd be forced to say that yes, this really does fix Win8's problems. Mind you, I'm not a Win8 apologist -- I'm the guy who has complained bitterly about the Win8 touch screen convertible I paid good money for that nobody (including me) will use because Windows 8 is so damned hard to do anything with. But fair is fair, and if the above really does happen, it would eliminate pretty much all of my objections. (Except, of course, why didn't you do that in the first place??)
Of course, this could all be wishful thinking. I guess we'll have to wait and see. But what this meant to me is that I stopped dinking with Windows 8.1 and put the machine back on the shelf. I can afford to wait.
Well, except in the middle east, where they are apparently more common than loaves of bread.
Ok, so, not to bring up the old bathtub trope, but I suspect there are a lot of objects that have been responsible for more deaths than hiroshima and nagasaki combined. This reminds me of the "number of minutes to skeletonize a cow" metric that Gary Larson found so curious.
I hear that, instead of the usual 21 gun salute, the crowd will just fire in the air on full automatic.
Too soon?
This is Windows we're talking about. You aren't ever safe.
Wait, let me understand this. People who don't download warez or spend time on pr0n sites are not a significant part of the ecosystem?
And then 5 months later they will have a virus / botnet. Their ISP will shutdown their outgoing internet. They will go to their local Staples... store and get a new computer with Word. Problem solved.
Or maybe they won't. If you're behind a firewall using an unroutable IP, (default on most routers) run an antivirus, and (this is the important part) don't download warez and spend a lot of time on pr0n sites and don't click on every damned thing you see, your chances of infection are significantly diminished. Of the people I support, I know which ones are going to be clean at any given time, and which will be "infested with the viruses", based on their browsing habits. What you do with the machine is much more significant than what OS its running and whether it's patched to current.
whether it is his job or not it is true. There will ALWAYS be new vulnerabilities discovered, even the best reviewed, best written software will have bugs and XP isn't either of those. if people are still using it to access the internet they SHOULD BE doing panicked upgrades.
I saw a Point of Sale machine reboot not too long ago, and it displayed a Windows 98 splash screen.
This is a slightly different variation to the old adage, it's not what you have, it's what you do with it.
Oh, probably, as much as anything is.
Can People Make Money Off This?
You betcha.
Wow, I just had a flashback. My grandmother used to call anyone with a certain color of skin "hindu", and didn't seem concerned at all that she was almost always wrong. (We had a fairly large Indian population where I grew up that were mostly Sikhs, not Hindus.) Of course, she was a profound racist. Some people exist to be a warning to others.
Is Computer Science Education Racist and Sexist?
Well, no. Unless there are roaming gangs of white nerdy kids beating up anyone with the wrong color that I haven't heard of.
Yesterday a roving gang of white nerdy kids pummeled me for a half hour. I think I broke a nail.
I see what you did there. "I don't understand the hate" has risen to meme status. I don't waste time hating vista, anymore than I would waste time hating broccoli. Vista and win8 share the traits that they were unusable on first release, vista eventually became tolerable but wasn't truly fixed until win7, and win8 is following a similar path. We have some machines still running xp, but the driving force to upgrade is not some artificial Microsoft deadline, but when there will be something reasonable to upgrade to.
> I don't think that it's a statement he ever should have made but it's not like he promised Americans eternal life and now is casting them in carbonite.
Um, it seems more like promising Americans eternal life and then tossing them to the Sarlacc. Casting them in carbonite would have at least technically been keeping the promise.
Ok, I'm geeked out now...
"The Obamacare sign-up site was a classic example of managers saying 'not invented here' and doing everything wrong, as described in Poul-Henning Kamp's Center Wheel for Success, at ACM Queue."
I mean, you folks at Slashdot should have called it the Affordable Care Act website then reminded us that it's also known as Obamacare. But to call it what it isn't in the first sentence of introduction is [very] unfortunate!
Disclaimer: I am neiter Democrat nor Republican.
Um, even Obama calls it Obamacare. Not so much now, of course.
> I get the feeling this is just to try and push people to upgrade, not because XP can't be supported.
It's their business model. Microsoft doesn't make money from advertising (like google) and doesn't make money from end users via service contracts. They make money when you upgrade your OS, or alternately when you purchase a new machine. Of course XP can still be supported. But why do that for free when they can sell Windows 8 licenses instead?
> (And right now they have auto-update disabled because of the "Windows update uses 100% CPU and leaves the machine unusable" problem which appeared a couple of months ago - a coincidence that this happened just before XP is retired...?)
The impression I get is that this has *always* been a problem with XP, it's just that the number of patches has driven the issue to the breaking point. But you're right, it does tend to drive people to upgrade. I don't expect Microsoft to fix it although probably for media purposes they've made noises that they're working on it.
Microsoft should extend support for XP...but only on a cash-for-patch basis. Sell patches at $5 a pop for XP user's, or a one Year Security Update Subscription for $20.
It's a win-win situation....
I don't see Microsoft doing this. Their business model since the beginning has depended on the user community paying for regular OS upgrades. They will cling to this, just as they still cling to the idea that the industry will just accept whatever they choose to crap out. I'm sure there are business meetings where they're forecasting the revenue from huge sales of Windows 8 licenses before the XP cutoff date.
But to the users, they'll click on Word on April 7 and it'll come up fine, and they'll click on Word on April 8 and it'll still come up fine. And they'll ask themselves, why pay $199 to upgrade to an interface that I don't understand when all I want to do is click on Word?