c14 (again)
kest
pasted to a webpage so I could crosspost here. Here's my c14 log, better
late than never: http://kest.brightercolors.com/c14/c14.html
k
Troia
Requesting a mini-fridge? Sheesh, in all the hotels I've stayed at for
the last xx years (and that's quite a lot), I never even -thought- of that!
-- Troia
John Carr
> kest wrote:
>> So my photos went up on lj first, at my usual glacial pace, but I cut and
>> pasted to a webpage so I could crosspost here. Here's my c14 log, better
>> late than never: http://kest.brightercolors.com/c14/c14.html
> the last xx years (and that's quite a lot), I never even -thought- of that!
One thing that a friend of mine used to do was request mini-fridge rooms
"for his insulin." Even if they supposedly didn't have any, those rooms would
magically open up after saying that. I'm not advocating this, mind you, but
just saying that it's possible to get them pretty easily (and often free of
charge) if you say the right things. When I used to travel all the time
for work, I never tried it since I didn't feel right about it, but I have
it on good authority that works pretty often. :)
Siobhan
I wonder if they had to run out and buy a fridge for him. That would
be covered under your disabilities act, would it not?
On the plus side, now they have a room with a fridge.
Siobhan
`una
> On Sep 30, 11:49�am, John Carr wrote:
> > It's been said that Troia wrote...
> >
> > One thing that a friend of mine used to do was request mini-fridge rooms
> > "for his insulin." Even if they supposedly didn't have any, those rooms
> > would
> > magically open up after saying that. I'm not advocating this...
>
> I wonder if they had to run out and buy a fridge for him. That would
> be covered under your disabilities act, would it not?
>
> On the plus side, now they have a room with a fridge.
Or a fridge they can place in whichever room needs one.
Mini-fridge only costs $69-$140. One of the chairs in the room
at the Hyatt costs $360. They may even be able to get wholesale pricing.
A hotel would have to be a pretty rundown hole in the wall to go broke
buying a mini-fridge.
`una - spends way too much time shopping and never buying
because stuff is NEVER "just right"
Joseph Brenner
`una <u...@nettrip.org> writes:
> `una - spends way too much time shopping and never buying
> because stuff is NEVER "just right"
No, no: never buying is almost always the right thing to do.
It's all crap. And getting worse all the time.
Endymion
> No, no: never buying is almost always the right thing to do.
> It's all crap. And getting worse all the time.
I don't know, a lot of hobby equipment and geek gear is better today
than it was twenty years ago. There may be more low-end crap, but the
better stuff may not be dragged down, and in many areas there's been a
quantum leap in technology. An iPod is better than any Walkman in just
about every respect. I have an LED flashlight the size of a lipstick
that is brighter, lights more evenly and in better color, uses much
less power, lasts longer, and is tougher and lighter than any
comparable flashlight (i.e., intended for the general, if high-end,
commercial market) in existence in 1990. I have another on my keychain
that's lighter and smaller than two stacked quarters, lights much
better than an incandescent Mini-MagLite (a geek classic), and goes
years between battery changes even with moderately frequent use. I'll
never again lack for light. I can't think of any significant social
cost associated with those technologies either.
And even some low-end stuff is better. I can't think of a single way
economy cars were better thirty years ago than they are today. Modern
cars are much safer, pollute a lot less (thirty years ago many of them
were still pumping lead into the atmosphere!), get better gas mileage,
handle better, and require less maintenance than older ones. They
still have high social and environmental costs, and we understand and
appreciate those costs better than we did in 1978, but I doubt those
costs are any higher for modern economy cars.
I don't think the problem is the Stuff, it's the people - they want
more and bigger Stuff than ever before, so they value quantity over
quality, and the market supplies what they demand. Not buying doesn't
address that, buying less and being very choosy (including buying
better but used stuff instead of new but crappy stuff, thereby
creating a demand for items that last longer and have resale value)
does.
- Endymion
Peter H. Coffin
> And even some low-end stuff is better. I can't think of a single way
> economy cars were better thirty years ago than they are today. Modern
> cars are much safer, pollute a lot less (thirty years ago many of them
> were still pumping lead into the atmosphere!), get better gas mileage,
There's certainly exceptions...
1987 VW Jetta (4-spd manual) 23/31 MPG
2007 VW Jetta (5-spd manual) 19/28 MPG
Most models do get better milage, but it's mostly by tiny amounts, 28 vs
31 MPG for the 1985/2005 Cavalier, 32 vs 34 MPG for the 1987/2007 5sp
Civic, etc.
Numbers from http://fueleconomy.gov/
> handle better, and require less maintenance than older ones. They
> still have high social and environmental costs, and we understand and
> appreciate those costs better than we did in 1978, but I doubt those
> costs are any higher for modern economy cars.
They last longer too. My first car was a 1978. It died totally by 120k
miles. repair costs would have been higher than what I paid to replace
it with a car 18 months old, and about 60% of what the car had cost new
(albeit in 1978 dollars vs 1994 dollars). Current car has 156k miles on
it and while it's appreciably old, it's likely good to make 200k without
major repairs. Considering the huge energy investment going into MAKING
a car, relacing the things only half as often can't be anything but an
improvement.
--
Revenge is an integral part of forgiving and forgetting.
-- The BOFH
Endymion
> On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 11:24:20 -0700 (PDT), Endymion wrote:
> > And even some low-end stuff is better. I can't think of a single way
> > economy cars were better thirty years ago than they are today. Modern
> > cars are much safer, pollute a lot less (thirty years ago many of them
> > were still pumping lead into the atmosphere!), get better gas mileage,
>
> There's certainly exceptions...
>
> 1987 VW Jetta (4-spd manual) 23/31 MPG
> 2007 VW Jetta (5-spd manual) 19/28 MPG
>
> Most models do get better milage, but it's mostly by tiny amounts, 28 vs
> 31 MPG for the 1985/2005 Cavalier, 32 vs 34 MPG for the 1987/2007 5sp
> Civic, etc.
I would imagine that's because they've gotten bigger and faster.
Modern engines are more efficient than those from past decades, but
we're asking them to do more. IMO that's a case of misplaced
priorities on the part of the consumer rather than lower quality by
the manufacturer.
But then, I never realized how uncomfortable my subcompacts were on
moderate to long drives until I moved to a compact sedan.
- Endymion
(Who is at present shamelessly indulging himself in what will
probably be the last really fun car he'll ever drive. Zoom zoom.)
Joseph Brenner
Endymion <disinte...@embarqmail.com> writes:
> Joseph Brenner <do...@kzsu.stanford.edu> wrote:
>> No, no: never buying is almost always the right thing to do.
>> It's all crap. And getting worse all the time.
>
> I don't know, a lot of hobby equipment and geek gear is better today
> than it was twenty years ago. There may be more low-end crap, but the
> better stuff may not be dragged down,
I was exaggerating certainly, but just to keep rolling with it...
There may be "high quality" stuff on the high-end, but frequently it's
rather useless stuff if you think about it for a minute -- the people
buying it are buying it as much to impress as they are for their own
personal enjoyment, or whatever.
For example: wall-sized plasma screen TVs that just get used to display
the same old low resolution TV standard. You could get the same effect
by sitting with your nose against a CRT, but I guess then your mother
would yell at you.
Or there are those impressive-looking display sets of adamantium cookware
that are actually only a slight improvement over cast iron and don't
often get used much anyway, because the people buying them can't cook --
and if you do know how to cook, you'll typically only use a couple of
items out of the set.
> and in many areas there's been a quantum leap in technology.
By the way, in physics, a "quantum leap" is the smallest change possible.
But don't mind me, I'm just being annoying.
> An iPod is better than any Walkman in just about every respect.
I suppose I have to grant that much, but then the Sony Walkmans
were amazingly junky devices -- they came with a clip that was too soft
to reliably hold them to your clothing, and the moment they hit the
ground once the cassette players would be out of whack.
> I have an LED flashlight the size of a lipstick that is brighter,
> lights more evenly and in better color, uses much less power, lasts
> longer, and is tougher and lighter than any comparable flashlight
> (i.e., intended for the general, if high-end, commercial market) in
> existence in 1990.
More evenly in better color? I like LED flashlights for the obvious
reasons, but the color light they admit isn't one of them.
And you exaggerate the toughness advantages of LED flashlights over the
original Maglites (which if not quite available in 1990 were around not
much later than that...). Pre-maglite, however the durability of
flashlights was indeed pretty horrible. Do we count the Maglite as an
amazing improvement, or do we count the rapid downward spiral of the
plastic flashlight as a confirmation of my side of the argument?
> I have another on my keychain that's lighter and smaller than two
> stacked quarters, lights much better than an incandescent Mini-MagLite
> (a geek classic), and goes years between battery changes even with
> moderately frequent use. I'll never again lack for light. I can't
> think of any significant social cost associated with those
> technologies either.
I don't know that it's "significant", but you should think about the
materials in the batteries. The battery life on things like this are
long enough now that some designs don't give you any way to change them,
making them effectively disposable. (Oh by the way, about those
wonderful iPods...).
> And even some low-end stuff is better. I can't think of a single way
> economy cars were better thirty years ago than they are today. Modern
> cars are much safer, pollute a lot less (thirty years ago many of them
> were still pumping lead into the atmosphere!), get better gas mileage,
> handle better, and require less maintenance than older ones.
I will stack my old '78 Toyota Corolla up against any modern economy
car. (Something like a Honda CRX could probably take it on mileage, but
then the Corolla was a relative long vehicle with a lot of cargo
capacity.)
> I don't think the problem is the Stuff, it's the people - they want
> more and bigger Stuff than ever before, so they value quantity over
> quality, and the market supplies what they demand. Not buying doesn't
> address that, buying less and being very choosy
Yeah, stupid consumers are part of the problem, but if you ask me there's
a culture-wide deterioration in business-ethics and consumer
expectations. Companies regularly engage in "marketing practices" that
once would've been regarded as fraud -- and if you complain about it
people act like you're a naive chump (What, don't you expect to be lied
to?). We've gone so far into "caveat emptor" that it's entirely possible
to walk out the door of a big box with a little box that only barely does
what it claims to do, and breaks within months. I don't think they even
care about making it to the end of the warranty period any more -- who
returns anything? Do you still have the reciept? Feel like arguing with
customer service and waiting a few months for a replacement?
And most sales get passed on as gifts, anyway -- are you going to hassle
the person who gave it to you so you can do the return?
They're not just disposible products, they're *symbolic* products.
Edward Scissorhands
> Siobhan wrote:
>
>> On Sep 30, 11:49 am, John Carr wrote:
>>> It's been said that Troia wrote...
>>>
>>> One thing that a friend of mine used to do was request mini-fridge rooms
>>> "for his insulin." Even if they supposedly didn't have any, those rooms
>>> would
>>> magically open up after saying that. I'm not advocating this...
>> I wonder if they had to run out and buy a fridge for him. That would
>> be covered under your disabilities act, would it not?
>>
>> On the plus side, now they have a room with a fridge.
>
> Or a fridge they can place in whichever room needs one.
>
> Mini-fridge only costs $69-$140. One of the chairs in the room
> at the Hyatt costs $360.
Remember that nice office chair? On sale in their catalogue for $999.
If that's not an incentive to work out how to steal an office chair, I
don't know what it.
The mini-fridge was what British types would call a "fridge", btw. Not
like the crappy mini bar fridges in British hotels; just a normal, under
counter fridge. Big enough to store lots of food in. Which is downright
annoying when it gets taken away with said contents still in it.
EdwardS
--
Edward Scissorhands |\ _,,,---,,_
Eclectic Geek, Goth, Citroenist - EdwardS /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,
E-Mail: EdwardS<at>dmc12.demon.co.uk |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'::.
Homepage: http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/ '----''(_/--' `-'\_) Morticia
Edward Scissorhands
> I can't think of a single way
> economy cars were better thirty years ago than they are today. Modern
> cars are much safer, pollute a lot less (thirty years ago many of them
> were still pumping lead into the atmosphere!), get better gas mileage,
> handle better, and require less maintenance than older ones.
Lighter, better visibility, more efficient overall, better handling is
down to electronics, not engineering, driver detachment is a real
factor. Also the requirement for less maintenance is a bit of a red
herring; they just mask the neglect more.
Unleaded fuel was becoming common 30 years ago, and indeed, was where
good ol' petroleum spirit started off.
Edward Scissorhands
> (Who is at present shamelessly indulging himself in what will
> probably be the last really fun car he'll ever drive. Zoom zoom.)
I did that with the RX8. Now I've got a car which is many things, but
fun to drive is not one of them.
Of course, we've still got the MX5. It's fun.
EdwardS (making plans to get to enjoy a DeLorean in the moderately near
future, too).
Endymion
> Endymion <disintegrat...@embarqmail.com> writes:
> There may be "high quality" stuff on the high-end, but frequently it's
> rather useless stuff if you think about it for a minute -- the people
> buying it are buying it as much to impress as they are for their own
> personal enjoyment, or whatever.
That's certainly true. However, some things like that are bought
because the user is fascinated by the technology or because the
workmanship is so impressive - less true of TVs or cookware, but I
know any number of people who have ridiculously expensive knives,
bicycles, and even furniture that they see as more like works of art
than conspicuous consumption.
> Or there are those impressive-looking display sets of adamantium cookware
> that are actually only a slight improvement over cast iron and don't
> often get used much anyway, because the people buying them can't cook --
> and if you do know how to cook, you'll typically only use a couple of
> items out of the set.
The worst offenders there are usually gifts, and in the case of
expensive housewares, wedding gifts. I'm getting more and more
crotchety about exchanging gifts as I get older. It's not the money,
and the net makes shopping for many things a breeze now, but I think
it's really gone to an extreme as a mechanism for creating expensive
waste.
> > and in many areas there's been a quantum leap in technology.
>
> By the way, in physics, a "quantum leap" is the smallest change possible.
I think it's generally used to mean an instant revolution, a
significant movement without any intermediate steps. "Revolution"
might be more appropriate in some contexts, but "revolution" seems to
me to imply a a change in direction, while a leap is rapid progress on
more or less the same course.
> > I have an LED flashlight the size of a lipstick that is brighter,
> > lights more evenly and in better color, uses much less power, lasts
> > longer, and is tougher and lighter than any comparable flashlight
> > (i.e., intended for the general, if high-end, commercial market) in
> > existence in 1990.
>
> More evenly in better color? I like LED flashlights for the obvious
> reasons, but the color light they admit isn't one of them.
All white LEDs are not created equal. The one I have is a Cree which
seems to be optimized for power but the color isn't bad. Very
different from the white of my little Photon keychain light.
Incandescents have a much smoother continuous spectrum but they're
skewed heavily to the cool end of sunlight.
> And you exaggerate the toughness advantages of LED flashlights over the
> original Maglites (which if not quite available in 1990 were around not
> much later than that...). Pre-maglite, however the durability of
> flashlights was indeed pretty horrible. Do we count the Maglite as an
> amazing improvement, or do we count the rapid downward spiral of the
> plastic flashlight as a confirmation of my side of the argument?
Mini-maglights are what I'd call comparable, and they're not as
durable as the big boys. The big ones are hard to compare because
they're going to take abuse no smaller light will ever need to - you
can't use a penlight to pound tent stakes.
Plastic flashlights were probably about as bad as they were going to
get by the early 80s. The degradation has continued in other areas,
though - the one I noticed the most is even more cheaply made small
kitchen appliances.
> I don't know that it's "significant", but you should think about the
> materials in the batteries.
I recycle them now. They put in a nice convenient row of collection
bins at work.
(This is my huge peeve with the way recycling is done in this country.
You shouldn't have to harangue people into recycling, or expect that
to have much effect. It should be so convenient that there's no reason
not to do it. If this requires more funding than the recycling
produces in profits, the taxpayers should fund it. After all, it's a
public benefit, the person recycling gets no measurable individual
benefit out of doing so.)
> The battery life on things like this are
> long enough now that some designs don't give you any way to change them,
> making them effectively disposable.
This one can be changed, but I've gone through maybe two batteries in
ten years.
> I will stack my old '78 Toyota Corolla up against any modern economy
> car.
In what regard? Certainly not safety or reliability.
> Yeah, stupid consumers are part of the problem, but if you ask me there's
> a culture-wide deterioration in business-ethics and consumer
> expectations. Companies regularly engage in "marketing practices" that
> once would've been regarded as fraud -- and if you complain about it
> people act like you're a naive chump (What, don't you expect to be lied
> to?).
Yeah, you're right about that. But how did it happen? Classical
economics would say that absent an effective monopoly, in the long run
companies that do those things will lose all their customers and be
replaced by companies that don't. Where is that function breaking down
with things like home appliances where there's a plethora of
manufacturers?
What I find interesting is that in my (admittedly narrow) experience,
the area in which things have gone the furthest downhill is home
computers. I'd kill for a PC that was half as reliable and user-
friendly as my car, or tech support that was as useful, cheap, and
convenient as my mechanic. In the seventies we thought 8- or 10-year
planned obsolescence was scandalous - with anything related to
computers it's more like 10 months!
- Endymion
Endymion
wrote:
> Endymion wrote:
> > (Who is at present shamelessly indulging himself in what will
> > probably be the last really fun car he'll ever drive. Zoom zoom.)
>
> I did that with the RX8. Now I've got a car which is many things, but
> fun to drive is not one of them.
>
> Of course, we've still got the MX5. It's fun.
This is a Mazdaspeed 6. It's not crazy fast but it's a good bit
quicker 0-60 than anything else I've ever owned, and it hugs the road
like nobody's business. It handles better on ice than most of my
econoboxes did on pavement. Makes all the winding, hilly country roads
out where I live a whole new experience. And the governor-dictated top
end is about 50 mph higher than I've ever driven or ever want to drive
off a racetrack.
I contemplated getting a zippy little roadster or even a Lancer Evo,
but in the end I had to make some concessions to practicality,
particularly WRT comfort and cargo space - I haul around a lot of
hobby gear.
> EdwardS (making plans to get to enjoy a DeLorean in the moderately near
> future, too).
The model with the flux capacitor, I hope!
- Endymion
Peter H. Coffin
> Yeah, you're right about that. But how did it happen? Classical
> economics would say that absent an effective monopoly, in the long run
> companies that do those things will lose all their customers and be
> replaced by companies that don't. Where is that function breaking down
> with things like home appliances where there's a plethora of
> manufacturers?
Are there?
Whirlpool makes
Whirlpool Maytag KitchenAid Jenn-Air Amana
Roper Acros Estate Inglis Bauknecht
Brastemp Gladiator/GarageWorks Norge
Electrolux makes
AEG-Electrolux Arthur Martin Atlas Beam
Castor Chef Corberó Dito
Eureka Faure Frigidaire Gibson
Juno Kelvinator King Simpson
Tappen Therma Volta Wascator
Westinghouse White-Westinghouse Zanussi
among many other brands
Sears makes
Kenmore
Speed Queen makes
Speed Queen
GE makes
GE
And that's about it for major appliance brands that I can find and are
general line as opposed to some kind of niche gear. There's Viking and
Sub Zero, for example, but if you're not ready to spend $3-5k for a
range or refrigerator, you don't care about them. So there's... uhm...
Five. That's about as many actual car manufacturers sellin in the US.
> What I find interesting is that in my (admittedly narrow) experience,
> the area in which things have gone the furthest downhill is home
> computers. I'd kill for a PC that was half as reliable and user-
> friendly as my car, or tech support that was as useful, cheap, and
> convenient as my mechanic. In the seventies we thought 8- or 10-year
> planned obsolescence was scandalous - with anything related to
> computers it's more like 10 months!
You can have that kind of reliability and longevity, but it's not really
consumer kit. Servers last 10 years before they start hitting
end-of-life. A fast-turnover line might flip a model in five years.
--
43. I will maintain a healthy amount of skepticism when I capture the beautiful
rebel and she claims she is attracted to my power and good looks and will
gladly betray her companions if I just let her in on my plans.
--Peter Anspach's list of things to do as an Evil Overlord
Axel
<hel...@ninehells.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 11:24:20 -0700 (PDT), Endymion wrote:
>> And even some low-end stuff is better. I can't think of a single way
>> economy cars were better thirty years ago than they are today. Modern
>> cars are much safer, pollute a lot less (thirty years ago many of them
>> were still pumping lead into the atmosphere!), get better gas mileage,
>
>There's certainly exceptions...
>
>1987 VW Jetta (4-spd manual) 23/31 MPG
>2007 VW Jetta (5-spd manual) 19/28 MPG
The '87 model was a 1.8 or 2.0l whereas the current one is a 2.5l so
it's not really a straight comparison is it?
--
Axel... ...Kallisti
"Everything is true, even false things" -Malaclypse the Younger
"How can that be?" "Don't ask me, man, I didn't do it."
<ax...@eol.ca>
Edward Scissorhands
> On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 15:26:31 -0500, "Peter H. Coffin"
> <hel...@ninehells.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 11:24:20 -0700 (PDT), Endymion wrote:
>>> And even some low-end stuff is better. I can't think of a single way
>>> economy cars were better thirty years ago than they are today. Modern
>>> cars are much safer, pollute a lot less (thirty years ago many of them
>>> were still pumping lead into the atmosphere!), get better gas mileage,
>> There's certainly exceptions...
>>
>> 1987 VW Jetta (4-spd manual) 23/31 MPG
>> 2007 VW Jetta (5-spd manual) 19/28 MPG
>
> The '87 model was a 1.8 or 2.0l whereas the current one is a 2.5l so
> it's not really a straight comparison is it?
It is if that's what as been deemed to be required to meet the market's
expectations. If a small sedan, which the Jetta typifies, now needs a
2.5l engine to deliver good performance...
...and FWIW, the new Jetta's performance is about the same as the old
Golf/Jetta 1.8 Digifant injection models (be they GTi 8v or otherwise).
They returned 45mp(imperial)g.
The point at which I decided I didn't care about fuel economy figures
was when I went from my 1.8 Golf GTi (which I managed to get 52mpg with
once, but regularly returned 45mpg without driving 'for economy') to my
2004 Beetle Cabriolet. As a 1.6, non-sporty, modern car, you'd think it
would at least match the old quick GTi. Nope. 30mpg average. 33 if I was
lucky.
The Golf, of course, did not have 4 airbags, 4 electric windows, heated
seats, ABS, ESP, catalytic converter, central locking or side impact
beams. But it did carry 5 people and their luggage efficiently.
EdwardS
Dag
> On Oct 4, 3:22 pm, Joseph Brenner <d...@kzsu.stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>> No, no: never buying is almost always the right thing to do.
>> It's all crap. And getting worse all the time.
>
> I don't know, a lot of hobby equipment and geek gear is better today
> than it was twenty years ago.
> Not buying doesn't
> address that, buying less and being very choosy (including buying
> better but used stuff instead of new but crappy stuff, thereby
> creating a demand for items that last longer and have resale value)
> does.
I was talking to a guy who worked for BBC radio a while back who said
that a second hand version the first generation of some bit of field
recording equipment sold for significantly more than a new second and
third generation version of the same piece of kit. Simple because you
could run over the first generation kit with a truck during a
thunderstorm and it would still keep on working. While the the later
versions where smaller, easier to use and had better features, no one
cared because they stopped working if you looked at them too hard.
Dag
Dag
> For example: wall-sized plasma screen TVs that just get used to display
> the same old low resolution TV standard. You could get the same effect
> by sitting with your nose against a CRT, but I guess then your mother
> would yell at you.
Most (non-geek) people I know who bought a flat screen TV, don't care
about any quality improvements over a CRT. What they care about is that
they look better aesthetically and are easier to place and furnish around.
I think geeks have a hard time comprehending the value people place in
aesthetics. 'Normal' people don't care what features and specs
something might have, if it doesn't look good in their living room
they're not interested.
I was out looking at new TVs with girlfriend, who's an architect, a
couple of weeks ago. We found a couple of TVs that where technically
virtually identical, but had different design and one cost $300 more
than the other. My girlfriend said that if we're getting one of these
two TVs we're getting the more expensive ones. For her paying $300
extra to get something that looks good wasn't even something she had to
think about. For most geeks paying $300 for something that doesn't
affect that sound and image quality is stupid.
> More evenly in better color? I like LED flashlights for the obvious
> reasons, but the color light they admit isn't one of them.
I suppose light colour isn't that important in a flash light through.
LED light bulbs in the home are a different matter. Argue energy
efficiency all you want, I know plenty of people who would never buy
them because the colour is wrong.
> I don't know that it's "significant", but you should think about the
> materials in the batteries. The battery life on things like this are
> long enough now that some designs don't give you any way to change them,
> making them effectively disposable.
But when the price of a new flashlight (with battery) is less than the
price of just a new battery, do you think people will really care.
Dag
Dag
> I
> know any number of people who have ridiculously expensive knives,
> bicycles, and even furniture that they see as more like works of art
> than conspicuous consumption.
Exactly. I had a professor who loved bikes and biking. He had this one
bike which he built himself component by component and cost him $10k-15k
when all was said and done. Sure he'd admit that that was a lot to
spend on a bike, especially as an amateur hobbyist. He'd also admit
that he wasn't much faster on this new bike than he was on his old bike.
His old bike was also more robust. But to him no of that was really
the point. The point was time and energy he'd spent researching and
searching for the best components, ordering them from around the world
and painstakingly creating his dream bike piece by piece, and at the end
of the process he had a bike that was exactly as he wanted it. That to
him was worth the money. Most people on the other hand thought he was
nuts and had just wasted a shit load of money.
Dag
NightMist
Four.
Sears has not made Kenmore in years. Kenmore branded appliances are
made variously by whirlpool, frigidare, and a few others. I
discovered this when I needed a new fridge and did not want to shop at
Sears because latter day Kenmore sucked ass. I made phone calls, I
researched, I bought a $400 fridge that says it is a Kenmore and was
actually made by Frigidare. The store manager was kind of ticked that
I would not buy without knowing the actual manufacturer. Which I
double checked.
NightMist
--
Nothing has been the same since that house fell on my sister.
Dag
> On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 18:59:24 -0500, "Peter H. Coffin"
> <hel...@ninehells.com> wrote:
>>
>> And that's about it for major appliance brands that I can find and are
>> general line as opposed to some kind of niche gear. There's Viking and
>> Sub Zero, for example, but if you're not ready to spend $3-5k for a
>> range or refrigerator, you don't care about them. So there's... uhm...
>> Five. That's about as many actual car manufacturers sellin in the US.
>>
> Four.
If you get Siemens and/or Bosch in the US then the count is back up to
five. There are a few more companies in Europe (like Amica in Poland),
but I don't know if they export to the US
Dag
TenshiKurai9
The point was time and energy he'd spent researching and
> searching for the best components, ordering them from around the world
> and painstakingly creating his dream bike piece by piece, and at the end
> of the process he had a bike that was exactly as he wanted it.
How long did it take him to put it together?
-TK9
Jennie Kermode
> The worst offenders there are usually gifts, and in the case of
> expensive housewares, wedding gifts. I'm getting more and more
> crotchety about exchanging gifts as I get older. It's not the money,
> and the net makes shopping for many things a breeze now, but I think
> it's really gone to an extreme as a mechanism for creating expensive
> waste.
Agreed. I have a policy of ignoring wedding lists and buying
strange things as presents instead. So far every couple I've done this
for has been really pleased, because it's a surprise and because it's
generally more fun than another piece of kitchenware.
> Mini-maglights are what I'd call comparable, and they're not as
> durable as the big boys. The big ones are hard to compare because
> they're going to take abuse no smaller light will ever need to - you
> can't use a penlight to pound tent stakes.
Heh. My friend Eric once scared off a mugger with one of
those. His assailant only had a knife and quickly decided the odds were
against him.
Jennie
--
Jennie Kermode
jen...@innocent.com
www.jenniekermode.com
Axel
<e_sciss...@btconnect.com> wrote:
>Axel wrote:
>> On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 15:26:31 -0500, "Peter H. Coffin"
>> <hel...@ninehells.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 11:24:20 -0700 (PDT), Endymion wrote:
>>>> And even some low-end stuff is better. I can't think of a single way
>>>> economy cars were better thirty years ago than they are today. Modern
>>>> cars are much safer, pollute a lot less (thirty years ago many of them
>>>> were still pumping lead into the atmosphere!), get better gas mileage,
>>> There's certainly exceptions...
>>>
>>> 1987 VW Jetta (4-spd manual) 23/31 MPG
>>> 2007 VW Jetta (5-spd manual) 19/28 MPG
>>
>> The '87 model was a 1.8 or 2.0l whereas the current one is a 2.5l so
>> it's not really a straight comparison is it?
>
>It is if that's what as been deemed to be required to meet the market's
>expectations. If a small sedan, which the Jetta typifies, now needs a
>2.5l engine to deliver good performance...
If the market expects that a small sedan today be the size of a big
sedan 20 years ago, then it isn't appropriate to compare the two on
fuel consumption.
A modern Jetta is bigger than anything in VW's line in the '80's.
It's midway in size between a Sierra and a Taurus, which by my
reckoning makes the modern one comparable to a midsize to large sedan.
Peter H. Coffin
Here, the police carry 3 or 4 D-cell Maglights. (Say what you wish about
LEDs and battery life. When you need brightness and focus, it's hard to
beat a tiny, hot Xenon lamp without getting all the way to carbon arc.)
I sometimes wonder why they bother also carrying a baton. Probably
someone someplace sued, claiming a Maglite was far too severe an
instrument for police to bash people with.
--
Because of the diverse conditions of humans, it happens that some acts are
virtuous to some people, as appropriate and suitable to them, while the same
acts are immoral for others, as inappropriate to them.
-- Saint Thomas Aquinas
Peter H. Coffin
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 10:41:03 +0100, Edward Scissorhands
><e_sciss...@btconnect.com> wrote:
>
>>Axel wrote:
>>> On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 15:26:31 -0500, "Peter H. Coffin"
>>> <hel...@ninehells.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 11:24:20 -0700 (PDT), Endymion wrote:
>>>>> And even some low-end stuff is better. I can't think of a single way
>>>>> economy cars were better thirty years ago than they are today. Modern
>>>>> cars are much safer, pollute a lot less (thirty years ago many of them
>>>>> were still pumping lead into the atmosphere!), get better gas mileage,
>>>> There's certainly exceptions...
>>>>
>>>> 1987 VW Jetta (4-spd manual) 23/31 MPG
>>>> 2007 VW Jetta (5-spd manual) 19/28 MPG
>>>
>>> The '87 model was a 1.8 or 2.0l whereas the current one is a 2.5l so
>>> it's not really a straight comparison is it?
>>
>>It is if that's what as been deemed to be required to meet the market's
>>expectations. If a small sedan, which the Jetta typifies, now needs a
>>2.5l engine to deliver good performance...
>
> If the market expects that a small sedan today be the size of a big
> sedan 20 years ago, then it isn't appropriate to compare the two on
> fuel consumption.
20 years ago, a big sedan was 17-18 feet long, weighed about two tons,
and sat six. If they were all adults, it would be nice if two were kind
of thin, but it took 'em.
> A modern Jetta is bigger than anything in VW's line in the '80's.
> It's midway in size between a Sierra and a Taurus, which by my
> reckoning makes the modern one comparable to a midsize to large sedan.
I don't think VW has ever built what could be termed a "large sedan".
Axel
<hel...@ninehells.com> wrote:
>> If the market expects that a small sedan today be the size of a big
>> sedan 20 years ago, then it isn't appropriate to compare the two on
>> fuel consumption.
>20 years ago, a big sedan was 17-18 feet long, weighed about two tons,
>and sat six. If they were all adults, it would be nice if two were kind
>of thin, but it took 'em.
Thats the American definition.
A Ford Taurus met the European definition.
I don't think the '80's Jetta would have met the American definition
of a skateboard back then.
>> A modern Jetta is bigger than anything in VW's line in the '80's.
>> It's midway in size between a Sierra and a Taurus, which by my
>> reckoning makes the modern one comparable to a midsize to large sedan.
>
>I don't think VW has ever built what could be termed a "large sedan".
By the European standards of the '80's, the modern Jetta is almost
there.
Back then, the largest engine available on a car was 3.5l.
Economy cars were 1.0 to 1.3l.
The Mini started out with an 850cc engine. I suspect in the US that
would have been considered underpowered for a lawnmower.
Tim McGaughy
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 12:28:38 +0100, Jennie Kermode wrote:
>> On 2008-10-09, Endymion <disinte...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
>>> Mini-maglights are what I'd call comparable, and they're not as
>>> durable as the big boys. The big ones are hard to compare because
>>> they're going to take abuse no smaller light will ever need to - you
>>> can't use a penlight to pound tent stakes.
>> Heh. My friend Eric once scared off a mugger with one of
>> those. His assailant only had a knife and quickly decided the odds were
>> against him.
>
> Here, the police carry 3 or 4 D-cell Maglights. (Say what you wish about
> LEDs and battery life. When you need brightness and focus, it's hard to
> beat a tiny, hot Xenon lamp without getting all the way to carbon arc.)
> I sometimes wonder why they bother also carrying a baton. Probably
> someone someplace sued, claiming a Maglite was far too severe an
> instrument for police to bash people with.
If you hit someone with an inoperable flashlight, it's assault with a
deadly weapon. It's very easy to infer that you're just carrying it
around to club people with.
People with maglights never have to deal with that. They're sturdy
enough that you can use one as an improvised club in an emergency, and
still prove that you normally use it as a flashlight by simply turning
it on to prove that it functions.
It's wacky, but that's legality for you. And that's the reason so many
cops carry them.
`una
> `una wrote:
>
> > Mini-fridge only costs $69-$140. One of the chairs in the room
> > at the Hyatt costs $360.
>
> Remember that nice office chair? On sale in their catalogue for $999.
Wow! The Hyatt is making a killing on those chairs.
I bought that EXACT model from Office Depot for $360, retail price.
I'm not talking about a cheap knockoff either.
I am sitting in that exact chair right now.
`una - thought I paid way too much, but apparently, got a bargain.
Joseph Brenner
"Peter H. Coffin" <hel...@ninehells.com> writes:
> Here, the police carry 3 or 4 D-cell Maglights. (Say what you wish about
> LEDs and battery life. When you need brightness and focus, it's hard to
> beat a tiny, hot Xenon lamp without getting all the way to carbon arc.)
I have noticed that the minimaglite I still carry in my pocket (more out
of inertia than any other reason) has been pretty useful in volunteering
at cellspace (essentially, doing night club work). One of my LED
flashlights would be brighter in close-up work, but the adjustable focus
of the minimaglite means I can put a little spot of light on something
thirty feet away. It works better for problems like "is there something
in that corner?" or "you need to flip that switch over there".
Of course, an LED light source with maglite-style optics would
presumably work better.
Jennie Kermode
> `una - thought I paid way too much, but apparently, got a bargain.
Is it comfortable? Has it lasted? Has it worked out well
compared to what you would otherwise have expected to spend on chairs
over that time?
Peter H. Coffin
That's all true, but I was stuck wondering why the police were still
carrying MagLites and batons. A cop hitting someone with an inoperable
flashlight is "subduing" not "assaulting".
--
"If Ace [Double] Books ever came out with an edition of The Bible, both
books would be edited down to 40,000 words, and they'd be renamed "Master
of Chaos" and "The Thing With Three Souls."
-- Terry Carr
Peter H. Coffin
Not particularly. Those xenon bulbs (or even the original krypton bulbs)
are a lot bright per unit than LEDs, by about five times. The LEDs are
a lot more efficient, mind, so you can keep going with them about ten
times as long. But to get that kind of brightness, you need multiple
LEDs and then you're starting to deal with much more complicated lensing
than a simple hyperbolic cone.
Tim McGaughy
The answer is probably "lawsuit". It would be easy for a cop shining his
light in your eyes to justify hitting you with it if you charge him, but
that's a bit harder to justify on a bright sunny day. Hence, the baton,
which he can LEGALLY use as a weapon in situations when he wouldn't
normally be waving a flashlight around.
They're not authorized to hit people with flashlights to subdue them.
They have mace, batons, and tasers for that, none of which is quite as
likely to kill you as a maglight to the head, if used properly.
kest
>
> Endymion <disinte...@embarqmail.com> writes:
>> An iPod is better than any Walkman in just about every respect.
>
> I suppose I have to grant that much, but then the Sony Walkmans
> were amazingly junky devices -- they came with a clip that was too
> soft to reliably hold them to your clothing, and the moment they hit
> the ground once the cassette players would be out of whack.
>
They were also, what, like $15? How much is even the cheapest ipod?
k
Edward Scissorhands
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 09:52:19 -0500, "Peter H. Coffin"
> <hel...@ninehells.com> wrote:
>
>>> If the market expects that a small sedan today be the size of a big
>>> sedan 20 years ago, then it isn't appropriate to compare the two on
>>> fuel consumption.
>
>
>> 20 years ago, a big sedan was 17-18 feet long, weighed about two tons,
>> and sat six. If they were all adults, it would be nice if two were kind
>> of thin, but it took 'em.
>
> Thats the American definition.
>
> A Ford Taurus met the European definition.
>
> I don't think the '80's Jetta would have met the American definition
> of a skateboard back then.
The Rabbit and Jetta were amongst the most popular European imports; the
Talbot Horizon was sold as the Dodge Omni (and that platform underpinned
cars like the Daytona), and the T-body - Chevette etc - was the same
size (but differently powered) as the other T-bodies - Chevette, Kadett
etc. One of the most popular compacts in the US was the Chevy J-body
Cavalier and derivatives; also very popular in Europe as the Opel
Ascona/Vauxhall Cavalier.
The US had SOME cars that were pretty big, but there's a lot more
crossover in the 80s than people realise. North America saw the popular
Chrysler LH bodies - and few people would argue that the Chrysler
Concord or LHS were anything other than full-size sedans - which are
based largely on a large European car (the Renault 25; or rather the AMC
equivalents, the Dodge Monaco and Eagle Premier).
I think that the Jetta was, and is, a compact sedan. ALL cars have
gotten larger and less efficient, but the basic premise of moderate
luggage space, sitting vaguely in the middle of the product range,
seating five adults, etc - Jetta is still Jetta, as Golf is still Golf.
VW do make a "full size" sedan, the Phaeton. It's an area that as an
importer in the 80s they would have filled with the larger Audis.
>>> A modern Jetta is bigger than anything in VW's line in the '80's.
>>> It's midway in size between a Sierra and a Taurus, which by my
>>> reckoning makes the modern one comparable to a midsize to large sedan.
>> I don't think VW has ever built what could be termed a "large sedan".
>
> By the European standards of the '80's, the modern Jetta is almost
> there.
But that's not relevant. Much as I'd like it to be, it's not the 80s.
The Jetta occupies the same market segment as it did in the 80s, but
overall, cars have grown, become better equipped and heavier.
> Back then, the largest engine available on a car was 3.5l.
> Economy cars were 1.0 to 1.3l.
In the 80s? Aside from the fact that there were many cars with larger
engines than 3.5l (Jaguar's 4.2, 5.3 and 6.0 engines for starters), it
wouldn't be fair to bring in those cars. Things like the VW Polo or
Austin Metro were never sold in the US, the nearest comparable cars in
the US were things like the Yugo.
> The Mini started out with an 850cc engine. I suspect in the US that
> would have been considered underpowered for a lawnmower.
The Mini didn't offer an 850cc engine in the 80s; the 848cc was dropped
in '79. And when the Mini offered an 850 engine, it was sold in the US
before protectionist emissions regulations made it unviable (the same
sort of regulations that just so happened to deem hydropneumatic
suspension "unapprovable") and the equipment used at the time did indeed
render cars like the 2CV, Mini and so forth uselessly slow - the air
pumps, crude catalytic convertors and massively retarded ignition for
unleaded fuel sapped the power of cars like the X1/9 from 85 to 66bhp
(for a 1.5, OHC, 2 seater sports car). Same reason my old Cadillac had a
4.1 litre engine producing 125bhp.
For any given market segment, cars are heavier, larger, less efficient,
less economical and quite probably less long-lived than their 1980s
counterparts. They're also much safer in an accident (though have
inferior visibility) and cost, relatively, considerably less. Which may
explain why the car industry is going broke; charging what the market
will bear for the product, pitching for volume, rather than charging
what the car actually costs to design and produce (including labour costs).
Edward Scissorhands
About $50, but then, real Walkmen weren't cheap - I had a Sanyo. There
were generic tape decks as there are "generic" MP3 players; I think you
can get a basic MP3 playing device for about $15 comfortably.
`una
> On 2008-10-12, `una <u...@nettrip.org> wrote:
> > `una - thought I paid way too much, but apparently, got a bargain.
>
> Is it comfortable? Has it lasted? Has it worked out well
> compared to what you would otherwise have expected to spend on chairs
> over that time?
I bought it because it doesn't aggravate my back,
as most things do, so it's been worth every penny
from that perspective. However, having spent so much
when I have so little still feels wrong because
the poor should be frugal and never spend more than
the minimum on a thing if they can't find a way to get
it for free.
I'm supposed to know how to dumpster dive and
repair broken things and never treat anything like
it's disposable. Spending $300 on a chair, when there
are plenty of $50 chairs at the same store and $5 chairs
at the thrift store and free chairs that can be repaired
with a caster and a bit of upholstery cleaner for $2,
is the height of decadence and waste. $300 is 2 or 3 months
of groceries depending on what deals I can find and how many
coupons I can clip.
As for how well it will last, I don't know yet.
It's still only a few months old. However, it's
made of steel rather than aluminum, so I expect
it will last as long as I need it to. That will
depend entirely on the mesh seat that I won't be
able to repair or replace.
`una - has too many allergies to survive the
Walmart/thriftstore/dumpster lifestyle.
`una
> Joseph Brenner scrawled:
>
> > Endymion writes:
>
> >> An iPod is better than any Walkman in just about every respect.
> >
> > I suppose I have to grant that much, but then the Sony Walkmans
> > were amazingly junky devices
> >
> They were also, what, like $15? How much is even the cheapest ipod?
From 1988 until 1998 a simple model could be had for $10-$25
at any Kmart/Walmart type store.
I burned through 6 of them and countless batteries
during my four years of high school. In the six years
following high school I went through 3 more. I never
paid more than $15 on one. So, that's about $135 for
10 years of almost constant music play. I was one of
those kids who looked like I had surgically implanted
headphones because they almost never came off.
Right now, the cheapest iPod at Walmart is $75, but
most people get the $200 model for quantity of songs
and functionality. Will either model last for 5-10 years
of constant play? Guess we'll find out in a few years.
There's still one thing I can do with my tape deck
that I can't do with digital music.
"What was that word?!"
*click button*buzz back one or two beats*
*repeat as necessary*
When I can do that with a standard issue digital
music player, THEN I will concede that digital is
better in every way. In the meantime, I still miss
my walkman.
`una - still buys things that work "the old fashioned way"
whenever possible. My windup watch will still be ticking
when your battery eats your digital piece of crap.
`una
> I think you
> can get a basic MP3 playing device for about $15 comfortably.
Not in this country...or not local to me anyway.
The least expensive MP3 player at Walmart right now is $50.
`una - tried to convince my mom to get one, but she prefers
the $15 portable CD players and a stack of CDRs for making mixes.
Panurge
> The mini-fridge was what British types would call a "fridge", btw. Not
> like the crappy mini bar fridges in British hotels; just a normal, under
> counter fridge. Big enough to store lots of food in.
I suppose I'll never forget My Fridge Experience in Whitby earlier this
year. "Oh, well, it's just a suite for vacationers, not a permanent
residence--I guess I shouldn't've expected a *full size* fridge... ;-P
Hmmm, now where does this milk go? I can't stand it up! ...And why is
the bottle *shaped* that way, anyway, and why is it only three quarts??"
--
"He who wishes to go beyond it must die."
--Arnold Schoenberg, on Gustav Mahler's Ninth Symphony
Tim McGaughy
> There's still one thing I can do with my tape deck
> that I can't do with digital music.
> "What was that word?!"
> *click button*buzz back one or two beats*
> *repeat as necessary*
Umm. Yeah. My MP3 player can "rewind" without any problem whatsoever.
I'd be willing to bet that you'd have to go very low-end to find one
that can't.
TenshiKurai9
> `una <u...@nettrip.org> writes:
>> `una - spends way too much time shopping and never buying
>> because stuff is NEVER "just right"
>
> No, no: never buying is almost always the right thing to do.
> It's all crap. And getting worse all the time.
Maybe 'una's problem is the time she's spending getting to the point of
determing it's crap instead of the not buying part.
-TK9
`una
Last I checked, an iPod is FAR from low-end.
Thus, the problem would be that I have not figured out
how to make it do that yet. Whenever, I hit the rewind
button, it goes all the way back to the beginning of
the song, rather than the few beats I need in order
to confirm a word. By the time the song plays up to
the word I want to confirm, I've already missed it again.
If anybody knows of a way to rewind an MP3 by beats instead
of the entire song, I would not complain to be bludgeoned
with that clue-by-four.
`una - drat all this newfangled technology!
Tim McGaughy
> Tim McGaughy wrote:
>
>> `una wrote:
>>
>>> There's still one thing I can do with my tape deck
>>> that I can't do with digital music.
>>> "What was that word?!"
>>> *click button*buzz back one or two beats*
>>> *repeat as necessary*
>> Umm. Yeah. My MP3 player can "rewind" without any problem whatsoever.
>>
>> I'd be willing to bet that you'd have to go very low-end to find one
>> that can't.
>
> Last I checked, an iPod is FAR from low-end.
>
> Thus, the problem would be that I have not figured out
> how to make it do that yet. Whenever, I hit the rewind
> button, it goes all the way back to the beginning of
> the song, rather than the few beats I need in order
> to confirm a word. By the time the song plays up to
> the word I want to confirm, I've already missed it again.
Don't have an ipod, so I couldn't say for sure.
Have you tried holding the rewind button, rather than pushing and releasing?
Saint (Virgin Charisma years of Hawkwind)
hold the button down longer. a short hit skip the song back to the
start. There are menues for doing all the set up on my 8GB Samsung, i
can even choose wallpaper on my display.
C.
Peter H. Coffin
I paid about $80 for what research says was a WM-20 in black in 1984. I
paid about $300 two years later for a Sony D-50 and built a battery pack
out of parts from Radio Shack. I got about three hours of music from a
set of six D NiCad cells. That fucker burned power like crazy.
--
_ o
|/)
Peter H. Coffin
> As for how well it will last, I don't know yet. It's still only a few
> months old. However, it's made of steel rather than aluminum, so I
> expect it will last as long as I need it to. That will depend entirely
> on the mesh seat that I won't be able to repair or replace.
Dunno about your chair specifically, but the one IBM sent me for my home
office cost them about $600 and is flawless after ... four years now.
So far, I recommend SteelCase chairs highly.
--
With a Dremel tool and a cut-off wheel, _everything_ takes a flat-blade
screwdriver.
-- Matt Roberds in the Monastery
Peter H. Coffin
> Edward Scissorhandswrote:
>
>> I think you
>> can get a basic MP3 playing device for about $15 comfortably.
>
> Not in this country...or not local to me anyway.
>
> The least expensive MP3 player at Walmart right now is $50.
woot.com often offers refurbished SanDisk players 1GB players for about
$20. They're crap, but they're out there.
> `una - tried to convince my mom to get one, but she prefers
> the $15 portable CD players and a stack of CDRs for making mixes.
For $45, you can get a portable CD player that also does cdr discs full
of MP3s.
--
_ o
|/)
Siobhan
<hel...@ninehells.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 15:44:04 -0700, `una wrote:
>
>> As for how well it will last, I don't know yet. It's still only a few
>> months old. However, it's made of steel rather than aluminum, so I
>> expect it will last as long as I need it to. That will depend entirely
>> on the mesh seat that I won't be able to repair or replace.
>
>Dunno about your chair specifically, but the one IBM sent me for my home
>office cost them about $600 and is flawless after ... four years now.
>So far, I recommend SteelCase chairs highly.
Work got me a spiffy orthapedic chair with lumbar support. Now the one
at home seems sad and inadequate.
Trouble is, I know work spent way more than $600 on it, and I'm not
sure I can justify dropping the cost of a room's worth of drywall on
one chair.
Siobhan
Dag
> Edward Scissorhandswrote:
>
>> I think you
>> can get a basic MP3 playing device for about $15 comfortably.
>
> Not in this country...or not local to me anyway.
Amazon seems to have a few mp3 players for $18-20.
Dag
Endymion
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 23:16:35 -0700, Joseph Brenner wrote:
> > Of course, an LED light source with maglite-style optics would
> > presumably work better.
>
> Not particularly. Those xenon bulbs (or even the original krypton bulbs)
> are a lot bright per unit than LEDs, by about five times.
The Minis don't use those, unless they've started in the last year or
two. Last I saw they were going over to LEDs.
Your comparison is more true as you scale up. If you look at
Surefires, for example, the LEDs can match the Xenons at the 2-AA
sizes or lower (if you assume manufacturers' lumen ratings are at
least accurate in comparing lights from the same manufacturer). Above
that the Xenons start to pull away.
> The LEDs are
> a lot more efficient, mind, so you can keep going with them about ten
> times as long. But to get that kind of brightness, you need multiple
> LEDs and then you're starting to deal with much more complicated lensing
> than a simple hyperbolic cone.
Have you seen some of the 3-watt LEDs that hav come out lately?
They're a lot brighter than you'd think if you haven't seen one.
LEDs also allow a broader range of useful power settings, so you've
got a blinding light if you need it or a light that will go 9 hours on
one set of batteries if you need that instead.
- Endymion
Axel
wrote:
They were introduced in '79 so by '84 they'd been around long enough
to be commodity items rather than novel & exciting - much like mp3
players today.
In 1984 they were selling for UKP30, which would be about US$60 and
with inflation aroung US$100 today.
http://centuryads.blogspot.com/2006/12/1980s-sony-walkman-arrives.html
UKP30 sounds about the ball park of what I'd spend on one.
--
Axel... ...Kallisti
"Everything is true, even false things" -Malaclypse the Younger
"How can that be?" "Don't ask me, man, I didn't do it."
<ax...@eol.ca>
Joseph Brenner
"Saint (Virgin Charisma years of Hawkwind)" <supersk...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
> una wrote:
>> If anybody knows of a way to rewind an MP3 by beats instead
>> of the entire song, I would not complain to be bludgeoned
>> with that clue-by-four.
>>
>> `una - drat all this newfangled technology!
>
> hold the button down longer. a short hit skip the song back to the
> start.
By the way, speaking of modern crap... may I remark on how much I hate
interfaces like that? Great, they save on a couple of buttons, and
squeeze 'em into a smaller space, but invariably while trying to nudge
back just a teeny bit you'll get the timing wrong and jump all the way
back to the beginning.