The problem is that you often don't have specifications or documentations on what the old application is supposed to do exactly and why. Or perhaps you have the original documents from 10 years ago but clearly the application doesn't follow those anymore and the changes have not been documented well. Sure, you can just go through it line-by-line and duplicate it, but then you're just duplicating the old problems in the new application which kind of defeats the purpose of the rewrite in the first place.
Old cars are a lot easier to hot wire. So they may just decide to take the entire car with your stuff still in it. If they are just going to go joyriding or use the car to commit other crimes they won't care so much if the car itself has little value.
If I had to guess, you've probably got at least 50% of Windows users still on 32 bit operating systems. That's a huge portion of the user base. On the other hand, it is Firefox we're talking about here.
I'd be more worried that those 120 GB drives are a bunch of new-old stock someone dug up somewhere, especially since 120 GB isn't a size I've seen them make for a while. Even if the drive is "new", if it's been sitting since 2006 I wouldn't trust it.
Unless you got permission to do that, it's most likely against company policy. Especially if the company is the type that puts monitoring software on their PCs. Of course bringing in your own personal PC and hooking it up to the corporate network probably also breaks some company policy.
In some of those cameras, you can use a zinc-air battery meant for a hearing aid as the voltage is much closer. Disadvantage though is the batteries don't last very long.
Well, yes, if you're comparing giant LCD's to tiny CRT's, you're right. You could also argue that a 1985 Civic is more fuel efficient than a 2011 transport truck, but I'm not sure what the point of the comparison would be.
CRT's generally cap out at 37", and at that size they consume around 200 watts. An LCD of the same size will use between 90 and 200 watts, depending on the model. Obviously, if you don't do a bit of research before buying, you might end up with an LCD that consumes as much power as your old CRT, but that's up to you, as the consumer, to figure out. You can go as high as 55" while still staying under 200 watts (for instance, the LG 55LD690 pulls 190 while in use).
Well, you decided to compare a 30-year old CRT to a 60" LCD, and the 60" LCD is going to use more power than the typical CRT TV from the early 80's. Even if it doesn't, the savings are going to minimal, as you pointed out. Besides, with the tendency for people to buy large televisions nowadays, we've pretty wiped out any gains in efficiency that we've gotten from the changing technology.
Yep, but that cost is waiting at the end no matter what.
Let's say I owe you $20,000, at a 5% interest rate, and I have the money to pay you back right now. Using the above logic, I would think:
"Well, $20,000 is a lot of money, and if I pay you back I'll only save $1,000 this year. Clearly it's not worth it".
See the flaw in that reasoning?
Well, once something has been made, we're paying the disposal cost no matter what. But what's the cost of constantly replacing perfectly good gear chasing after every improvement in efficiency? The longer I keep using something, the longer the cost of building it's replacement can be pushed back, and if the replacement is never made no disposal cost has to be paid for it. If I replace my television every 15 years and you every 5 years, I may use more electricity but who's causing more damage to the environment?
You can argue about CRTs on the high end (I still have my Trinitrons kicking around), but on the low end LCDs have been a huge improvement. It's true that the cheap and nasty LCDs today are cheap and nasty, but think back to the low end CRTs from 15 years ago, Fuzzy, dim picture, curved and distorted picture, poor colors, and crappy resolutions. At least the cheap LCDs will give you a bright, sharp picture without distortion, though you may still have to live with crappy colors and low resolutions.
Of course, nowadays there is no reason to put up with an old crappy CRT. Even if you are cheap you can find nice CRTs for basically free.
Actually, you might be surprised with the television. Large LCDs easily pull down 150-200 W, an old CRT television from the 80's is going to be under 100 W unless it's an unusually large model for the time. Besides, I don't get the whole power consumption argument as it is when it comes to replacing functional devices. There is a considerable environmental cost to both recycling an old appliance and the manufacturing and shipping of the replacement device. Compare this to saving a few kWh every month. So as far as the environment is concerned as long as it keeps doing the job generally the best thing to do is just keep using the old one device until it breaks, even if it is somewhat inefficient compared to a new model.
I was playing around with an old Windows 2000 system last weekend. Sadly there seems to be quite a bit of software now that will no longer run on it. RIP Win2k.
That's kind of odd, as Pentax used to be a pretty big name back in the film days. Nowadays, they are pretty much a shadow of their former selves in my opinion. I still always kind of wanted one of their DSLRs that I could stick some of my old Pentax glass in front of, but they never really offered anything that grabbed me
Another little known fun fact is that Ricoh used to make SLRs too, even shared the lens mount with Pentax. I still have one of their cameras - it was a pretty nice SLR that I used quite a bit, but after the third time it broke I ended up shelving it and using a Pentax body instead.
It's not just the extra mass, there is also the extra work that your heart would have to do to pump your blood around your body. With the higher gravity blood is going to tend to pool at your feet and you may tend to get light-headed when standing. Supposedly the human body can handle about 5 g's or so before you lose conscious due to not enough oxygen getting to the brain, but we only really know that from short term exposure. Who knows what would happen if you were exposed to that kind of g-force for an extended period of time. I would guess though that someone who was born and grew up with it would fair much better.
Even if such a TV existed, it would be outdated almost immediately. Every couple of years, the warez crowd moves to some fancy new codec or container. But people expect the TV should last a decade or more. You're better off in the long run letting some other device decode the files that can be kept up to date.
With that said, I was just looking at a Samsung TV that claims to be able to decode H.264 and Xvid in avi/mkv/mp4 files which means it should be good for what's out there at the moment. Didn't buy it so I can't comment on how it works though.
TVs aren't something you buy new every year. It's a simple device with one major function, displaying pictures. There's only been 2 major developments in the technology since it became a common household item in the 50s. The switch from Black and White to Color in the 70s and now the mass switch to Digital/HDTV.
I would have to go with three major developments - add in the remote control which became common in the 1980's (though had existed for some time before that).
I wish I could find the link, but I remember someone managed to convince Windows 95 to run entirely in the cache of some modern CPU. Apparently it was pretty fast (but I would expect that anyway) but crashed after a few minutes.
Probably because that would probably be seen as the government basically printing money to fund itself. By laundering it through a few steps people don't see it that way. It's crazy but it seems to have worked.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe the updated runtime broke Visual Studio?
The problem is that you often don't have specifications or documentations on what the old application is supposed to do exactly and why. Or perhaps you have the original documents from 10 years ago but clearly the application doesn't follow those anymore and the changes have not been documented well. Sure, you can just go through it line-by-line and duplicate it, but then you're just duplicating the old problems in the new application which kind of defeats the purpose of the rewrite in the first place.
You might be surprised at how poorly some spouses really know each other.
Well, if they don't have a job operating a train then they can go screw themselves.
Old cars are a lot easier to hot wire. So they may just decide to take the entire car with your stuff still in it. If they are just going to go joyriding or use the car to commit other crimes they won't care so much if the car itself has little value.
What about Intel's compiler?
Actually, if anything that's a feature. However, there is now a 64-bit Java plug-in so you can potentially get pwn3d that way.
If I had to guess, you've probably got at least 50% of Windows users still on 32 bit operating systems. That's a huge portion of the user base. On the other hand, it is Firefox we're talking about here.
I'd be more worried that those 120 GB drives are a bunch of new-old stock someone dug up somewhere, especially since 120 GB isn't a size I've seen them make for a while. Even if the drive is "new", if it's been sitting since 2006 I wouldn't trust it.
I didn't know Islam was a race.
Unless you got permission to do that, it's most likely against company policy. Especially if the company is the type that puts monitoring software on their PCs. Of course bringing in your own personal PC and hooking it up to the corporate network probably also breaks some company policy.
In some of those cameras, you can use a zinc-air battery meant for a hearing aid as the voltage is much closer. Disadvantage though is the batteries don't last very long.
Why? Apple makes some of the worst keyboards in the business now. I guess they don't have a Windows key on them though, if that's a requirement.
Well, you decided to compare a 30-year old CRT to a 60" LCD, and the 60" LCD is going to use more power than the typical CRT TV from the early 80's. Even if it doesn't, the savings are going to minimal, as you pointed out. Besides, with the tendency for people to buy large televisions nowadays, we've pretty wiped out any gains in efficiency that we've gotten from the changing technology.
Well, once something has been made, we're paying the disposal cost no matter what. But what's the cost of constantly replacing perfectly good gear chasing after every improvement in efficiency? The longer I keep using something, the longer the cost of building it's replacement can be pushed back, and if the replacement is never made no disposal cost has to be paid for it. If I replace my television every 15 years and you every 5 years, I may use more electricity but who's causing more damage to the environment?
You can argue about CRTs on the high end (I still have my Trinitrons kicking around), but on the low end LCDs have been a huge improvement. It's true that the cheap and nasty LCDs today are cheap and nasty, but think back to the low end CRTs from 15 years ago, Fuzzy, dim picture, curved and distorted picture, poor colors, and crappy resolutions. At least the cheap LCDs will give you a bright, sharp picture without distortion, though you may still have to live with crappy colors and low resolutions.
Of course, nowadays there is no reason to put up with an old crappy CRT. Even if you are cheap you can find nice CRTs for basically free.
Actually, you might be surprised with the television. Large LCDs easily pull down 150-200 W, an old CRT television from the 80's is going to be under 100 W unless it's an unusually large model for the time. Besides, I don't get the whole power consumption argument as it is when it comes to replacing functional devices. There is a considerable environmental cost to both recycling an old appliance and the manufacturing and shipping of the replacement device. Compare this to saving a few kWh every month. So as far as the environment is concerned as long as it keeps doing the job generally the best thing to do is just keep using the old one device until it breaks, even if it is somewhat inefficient compared to a new model.
I was playing around with an old Windows 2000 system last weekend. Sadly there seems to be quite a bit of software now that will no longer run on it. RIP Win2k.
That's kind of odd, as Pentax used to be a pretty big name back in the film days. Nowadays, they are pretty much a shadow of their former selves in my opinion. I still always kind of wanted one of their DSLRs that I could stick some of my old Pentax glass in front of, but they never really offered anything that grabbed me
Another little known fun fact is that Ricoh used to make SLRs too, even shared the lens mount with Pentax. I still have one of their cameras - it was a pretty nice SLR that I used quite a bit, but after the third time it broke I ended up shelving it and using a Pentax body instead.
It's not just the extra mass, there is also the extra work that your heart would have to do to pump your blood around your body. With the higher gravity blood is going to tend to pool at your feet and you may tend to get light-headed when standing. Supposedly the human body can handle about 5 g's or so before you lose conscious due to not enough oxygen getting to the brain, but we only really know that from short term exposure. Who knows what would happen if you were exposed to that kind of g-force for an extended period of time. I would guess though that someone who was born and grew up with it would fair much better.
Even if such a TV existed, it would be outdated almost immediately. Every couple of years, the warez crowd moves to some fancy new codec or container. But people expect the TV should last a decade or more. You're better off in the long run letting some other device decode the files that can be kept up to date.
With that said, I was just looking at a Samsung TV that claims to be able to decode H.264 and Xvid in avi/mkv/mp4 files which means it should be good for what's out there at the moment. Didn't buy it so I can't comment on how it works though.
I would have to go with three major developments - add in the remote control which became common in the 1980's (though had existed for some time before that).
I wish I could find the link, but I remember someone managed to convince Windows 95 to run entirely in the cache of some modern CPU. Apparently it was pretty fast (but I would expect that anyway) but crashed after a few minutes.
Probably because that would probably be seen as the government basically printing money to fund itself. By laundering it through a few steps people don't see it that way. It's crazy but it seems to have worked.
Sure you can. Your 50 cent embedded 486's aren't going to run on a AA battery for months, unlike my programmable thermostat.
Don't forget payroll taxes and the like.