This is not the robocar I wanted!
Ken from Chicago
advocations of Spuffy, Total Digital Animation, and of robocars.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.sf.written/msg/41f5f9c64f344c53?hl=en
Sure, I get labelled loony for advocating them (yeah, that's the only
reason, all my other suggestions are totally sober, sane and serious), but
the designers of the Google phone (or at least one of them) get lauded:
Here's a short link to it tho:
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_7-10281307-48.html
But this isn't about me (no, really, nope, not one bit), but this takes the
design to ludicrous extremes. To start with, they call it the "Autonomobile"
or the "ATNMBL" for short--in both cases reinforcing the stereotype that
techies shouldn't name stuff (e.g., "THX 1138", "TRS-80", "80386", "1/0"
instead of "On/Off", "Internet Explorer", "Jar Jar Binks", etc.). "Robocar"
just flows better, even better than "Robotcar". Couldn't they have gone with
the "Autocar"? Doesn't that sound better? It's almost as good as "Robocar"
(which avoids confusion with certain morphing machines from space).
But more substantially, the designers view it as room on wheels, and that's
where the mistake comes from. They make it totally asymmetrical, from every
angle. Sure, some asymmetry if fun, but overwhelmingly people prefer some
degree of symmetry even if only mirrored symmetry across one axis. To dig
even deeper than style to substance, it's a vehicle, you need some
aerodynamics to save fuel, money and / or time.
Digging deeper inside the car they have the 7 passengers sitting on a
wraparound quarter-circle of a couch, with a circular table in front with a
remote control, to control the inside widescreen tv (not the car, which has
voice input where you tell it your final destination while it maps out how
to get there). The problem is that it's still a vehicle and there are no
seatbelts shown nor is there some kind of rail for people sitting in the
middle of the couch to hold on to in case they are in a collision.
Also there seems to be no trunk--at least not in this model.
To be fair, I do like that they are using multiple scanning sensors for the
car to be able to drive, as well as GPS and networking as an extra layer of
navigation and dealing with other cars. While on the designers own website
...
http://www.mikeandmaaike.com/atnmbl_technology.html
... they predict the rise of the fully autonomous car for 2040, driverless
cars with driver option for 2030 but cars with driverless option for around
2020. That I could see in that people will want to have the option of manual
control. Even if the steering wheel (or joystick or mouse, whatever) is
recessed, they still want it there.
-- Ken from Chicago (who now knows what they feel like, those who were
arguing against my "out there" notion of robocars)
Jack Tingle
news:ZMSdnTWv4vT3DMXX...@giganews.com...
Idiots. That's what happens when designers get carte blanche. Yes, the car
will have to be aerodynamic, and have a drivetrain, storage, etc. The most
radical interior rearrangement I can imagine will be rearward facing seats
for the front rank so everyone can talk. It's also safer for that rank, but
people wouldn't put up with reversing everyone.
I'm sure Detroit (or Seoul or wherever) will find a way to make sports cars
with optional forward facing seats and driving controls, for a little more
money.
The more interesting questions are what this will mean for people,
schedules, and cities. I disagree that cities will spread out more than
today. I suspect we've gone as far as we can with that. It eventually brings
up the question of why own a car when the cars are autonomous? In cities,
cabs become very cost effective, since you don't need a cabbie. And to one
of your points, you can just send the car to have an oil change, you don't
have to go yourself. Parking also becomes easier. The car lets you out and
then goes and finds a parking space.
By the way, you're not allowed to call them "autocar". That name is taken.
Regards,
Jack Tingle
Ken from Chicago
"Jack Tingle" <jti...@email.com> wrote in message
news:h3a6ep$rhb$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Kinda like RVs, but at least then the seats are swivelable in RVs so you can
look forward.
> I'm sure Detroit (or Seoul or wherever) will find a way to make sports
> cars with optional forward facing seats and driving controls, for a little
> more money.
Personally I would think forward facing would be the default where turning
to face rear would be optional.
> The more interesting questions are what this will mean for people,
> schedules, and cities. I disagree that cities will spread out more than
> today. I suspect we've gone as far as we can with that. It eventually
> brings
That's less about cars and more about gas prices. Before the last year,
people were spreading out to suburbs and exurbs, even tho there had been
some revival in downtown Chicago. With robocars, you could essentially have
longer commutes and not notice it as much since you're not manually
commuting--especially if you are networked so you can telecommute to work
while commuting to work (quasicommute?)
> up the question of why own a car when the cars are autonomous? In cities,
> cabs become very cost effective, since you don't need a cabbie. And to one
Why do really rich people own cars and chaffeurs? Convenience.
> of your points, you can just send the car to have an oil change, you don't
> have to go yourself. Parking also becomes easier. The car lets you out and
> then goes and finds a parking space.
Yep, one of the advantages, cars can get their own gas when they get
thrist-er need gas. Elderly and children freed from needing young and
middle-aged adults.
> By the way, you're not allowed to call them "autocar". That name is taken.
>
> Regards,
> Jack Tingle
-- Ken from Chicago
Lawrence Watt-Evans
<kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>To start with, they call it the "Autonomobile"
>or the "ATNMBL" for short--in both cases reinforcing the stereotype that
>techies shouldn't name stuff (e.g., "THX 1138", "TRS-80", "80386", "1/0"
>instead of "On/Off", "Internet Explorer", "Jar Jar Binks", etc.). "Robocar"
>just flows better, even better than "Robotcar". Couldn't they have gone with
>the "Autocar"? Doesn't that sound better? It's almost as good as "Robocar"
>(which avoids confusion with certain morphing machines from space).
Historical note: "Autocar" was the name of a real automobile
manufacturer back in the first half of the 20th century.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
I'm selling my comic collection -- see http://www.watt-evans.com/comics.html
I'm serializing a novel at http://www.watt-evans.com/realmsoflight0.html
Garrett Wollman
I think you may be confused, but it's hard to tell because you haven't
been very specific. There is an International Standard symbology for
electrical devices -- required for use on power switches in the EU and
many other places -- in which an unfilled circle (not the character
"0") means "hard off", a vertical line (not the character "1") means
"hard on", and other symbols are used for meanings like "soft off" and
for things like pushbuttons that can turn power both on and off.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are
wol...@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry
Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape
of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness
Rebecca Rice
I was amused by the idealized future that this design would
rely on. Apparently the designers do not intend for these
to be privately-owned vehicles, but instead are positioning
them as "shared ride experiences". So they are essentially
7-person busses. Which makes me wonder how long my current
5-minute trip to the store would take. And, of course, the
part I really liked: these have floor-to-ceiling windows,
and bars. Can you just picture the fun gangs and groups of
young men could have with that? Right now I can refuse to
get into a car with someone who seems "off", but in this
shiny new future there would always be the chance that
someone gets on after me, blocking me from getting off the
car. Umm... no, thanks.
Rebecca
Jack Tingle
news:i3dh55tb7gtm1vlkf...@news.eternal-september.org...
> On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 08:19:35 -0500, "Ken from Chicago"
> <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>To start with, they call it the "Autonomobile"
>>or the "ATNMBL" for short--in both cases reinforcing the stereotype that
>>techies shouldn't name stuff (e.g., "THX 1138", "TRS-80", "80386", "1/0"
>>instead of "On/Off", "Internet Explorer", "Jar Jar Binks", etc.).
>>"Robocar"
>>just flows better, even better than "Robotcar". Couldn't they have gone
>>with
>>the "Autocar"? Doesn't that sound better? It's almost as good as "Robocar"
>>(which avoids confusion with certain morphing machines from space).
>
> Historical note: "Autocar" was the name of a real automobile
> manufacturer back in the first half of the 20th century.
It still is. It's in (according to Wikipedia) Hagerstown, IN.
Regards,
Jack Tingle
Ken from Chicago
"Rebecca Rice" <rebecc...@att.net> wrote in message
news:h3agag$i2v$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Yeah, it would have been nice to see their idea for "riders" without
families.
> 5-minute trip to the store would take. And, of course, the part I really
> liked: these have floor-to-ceiling windows, and bars. Can you just
> picture the fun gangs and groups of young men could have with that? Right
> now I can refuse to get into a car with someone who seems "off", but in
> this shiny new future there would always be the chance that someone gets
> on after me, blocking me from getting off the car. Umm... no, thanks.
I could see the windows being tinted if only for the privacy.
> Rebecca
Just like vans and minivans that have all tinted windows--or maybe they
could install blinds.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Garrett Wollman" <wol...@bimajority.org> wrote in message
news:h3acnn$f7s$1...@grapevine.csail.mit.edu...
I mean the in the 1980s the power switch positions computers were labelled
the number "1" and "0" instead of "On" and "Off". Bad enough the power
switch was inconveniently placed in the back, but the 1/0 labelling didn't
help for those learning to use computers.
-- Ken from Chicago
Lawrence Watt-Evans
wrote:
But now they only make trucks.
Garrett Wollman
Ken from Chicago <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>I mean the in the 1980s the power switch positions computers were labelled
>the number "1" and "0" instead of "On" and "Off".
No, they weren't. They were labeled with the vertical line icon and
the unfilled circle icon specified in the international standard. The
fact that they happen to look like the digits "1" and "0" to you is
purely coincidence. (Actually using said digits would be unacceptable
in the countries where adherence to the standard was mandatory.)
Greg Goss
>"Rebecca Rice" <rebecc...@att.net> wrote
>> I was amused by the idealized future that this design would rely on.
>> Apparently the designers do not intend for these to be privately-owned
>> vehicles, but instead are positioning them as "shared ride experiences".
>> So they are essentially 7-person busses. Which makes me wonder how long
>> my current
>
>Yeah, it would have been nice to see their idea for "riders" without
>families.
>
>> 5-minute trip to the store would take.
I think that Rebecca has it right. The designers are thinking of
these as jitneys -- somewhere between a bus and a cab -- rather than
as family cars. The family car will retain a luggage space and will
likely be smaller than 7.
But I can't see including the plasma screen or mini-bar for a jitney.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
Ken from Chicago
"Greg Goss" <go...@gossg.org> wrote in message
news:7bs3ceF...@mid.individual.net...
They already have tvs in SUVs and minivans. For a robocar you could have the
whole windshield be your tv screen. As for the mini-bar, well, they have
coolers for campers--some that could be plugged into cigarette lighters or
outlets for power.
-- Ken from Chicago
Don Bruder
<i3dh55tb7gtm1vlkf...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 08:19:35 -0500, "Ken from Chicago"
> <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >To start with, they call it the "Autonomobile"
> >or the "ATNMBL" for short--in both cases reinforcing the stereotype that
> >techies shouldn't name stuff (e.g., "THX 1138", "TRS-80", "80386", "1/0"
> >instead of "On/Off", "Internet Explorer", "Jar Jar Binks", etc.). "Robocar"
> >just flows better, even better than "Robotcar". Couldn't they have gone with
> >the "Autocar"? Doesn't that sound better? It's almost as good as "Robocar"
> >(which avoids confusion with certain morphing machines from space).
>
> Historical note: "Autocar" was the name of a real automobile
> manufacturer back in the first half of the 20th century.
More than just the first half... Unless things have changed in just the
last few (ten or less) years, they were still in business, mostly
(exclusively?) making garbage trucks, cement mixers, and dump trucks.
--
Email shown is deceased. If you would like to contact me by email, please
post something that makes it obvious in this or another group you see me
posting in with a "how to contact you" address, and I'll get back to you.
Juho Julkunen
(wol...@bimajority.org) says...
> In article <5OudneWeUoGoVsXX...@giganews.com>,
> Ken from Chicago <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >I mean the in the 1980s the power switch positions computers were labelled
> >the number "1" and "0" instead of "On" and "Off".
>
> No, they weren't. They were labeled with the vertical line icon and
> the unfilled circle icon specified in the international standard. The
And they still are.
--
Juho Julkunen
David DeLaney
>> these as jitneys -- somewhere between a bus and a cab -- rather than
>> as family cars. The family car will retain a luggage space and will
>> likely be smaller than 7.
>>
>> But I can't see including the plasma screen or mini-bar for a jitney.
>
>whole windshield be your tv screen. As for the mini-bar, well, they have
>coolers for campers--some that could be plugged into cigarette lighters or
>outlets for power.
Unattended minibars in forms of transportation not only open to, but designed
to be extensively used by, The Public. This is an idea that can only End Well.
Dave "mutatis mutandis for the plasma-screen TVs" DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Jim Smith
<wol...@bimajority.org> writes
>In article <5OudneWeUoGoVsXX...@giganews.com>,
>Ken from Chicago <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>I mean the in the 1980s the power switch positions computers were labelled
>>the number "1" and "0" instead of "On" and "Off".
>
>No, they weren't. They were labeled with the vertical line icon and
>the unfilled circle icon specified in the international standard. The
>fact that they happen to look like the digits "1" and "0" to you is
>purely coincidence. (Actually using said digits would be unacceptable
>in the countries where adherence to the standard was mandatory.)
>
Which reminds me of the (probably apocryphal) help desk story of the
user whose monitor wasn't working. Well it worked in I mode but not in
O mode.
--
Jim Smith
Matthew Malthouse
<kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
> I mean the in the 1980s the power switch positions computers were labelled
> the number "1" and "0" instead of "On" and "Off". Bad enough the power
> switch was inconveniently placed in the back, but the 1/0 labelling didn't
> help for those learning to use computers.
Basic intelligence test. If you can't work it out you're too stupid
to use a computer.
Matthew
--
Mail to this account goes to the bit bucket.
In the unlikely event you want to mail me replace usenet with my name
Ken from Chicago
"David DeLaney" <d...@gatekeeper.vic.com> wrote in message
news:slrnh5iu9...@gatekeeper.vic.com...
> Ken from Chicago <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>"Greg Goss" <go...@gossg.org> wrote in message
>>> I think that Rebecca has it right. The designers are thinking of
>>> these as jitneys -- somewhere between a bus and a cab -- rather than
>>> as family cars. The family car will retain a luggage space and will
>>> likely be smaller than 7.
>>>
>>> But I can't see including the plasma screen or mini-bar for a jitney.
>>
>>They already have tvs in SUVs and minivans. For a robocar you could have
>>the
>>whole windshield be your tv screen. As for the mini-bar, well, they have
>>coolers for campers--some that could be plugged into cigarette lighters or
>>outlets for power.
>
> Unattended minibars in forms of transportation not only open to, but
> designed
> to be extensively used by, The Public. This is an idea that can only End
> Well.
>
> Dave "mutatis mutandis for the plasma-screen TVs" DeLaney
Oh, yeah, if you're renting out your robocar to the public it would be more
than silly to leave a stocked mini-bar inside.
-- Ken from Chicago
Jaimie Vandenbergh
(Garrett Wollman) wrote:
>In article <ZMSdnTWv4vT3DMXX...@giganews.com>,
>Ken from Chicago <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>techies shouldn't name stuff (e.g., [...], "1/0" instead of "On/Off"
>
>I think you may be confused, but it's hard to tell because you haven't
>been very specific. There is an International Standard symbology for
>electrical devices -- required for use on power switches in the EU and
>many other places -- in which an unfilled circle (not the character
>"0") means "hard off", a vertical line (not the character "1") means
>"hard on", and other symbols are used for meanings like "soft off" and
>for things like pushbuttons that can turn power both on and off.
What are the "soft off" and pushbutton on/off symbols, out of
interest?
Cheers - Jaimie
--
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea -
massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining,
and a source of mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you
least expect it." -- Gene Spafford
Jack Tingle
> On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 13:07:18 -0400, "Jack Tingle" <jti...@email.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"Lawrence Watt-Evans" <l...@sff.net> wrote in message
>>news:i3dh55tb7gtm1vlkf...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 08:19:35 -0500, "Ken from Chicago"
>>> <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>To start with, they call it the "Autonomobile"
>>>>or the "ATNMBL" for short--in both cases reinforcing the stereotype that
>>>>techies shouldn't name stuff (e.g., "THX 1138", "TRS-80", "80386", "1/0"
>>>>instead of "On/Off", "Internet Explorer", "Jar Jar Binks", etc.).
>>>>"Robocar"
>>>>just flows better, even better than "Robotcar". Couldn't they have gone
>>>>with
>>>>the "Autocar"? Doesn't that sound better? It's almost as good as
>>>>"Robocar"
>>>>(which avoids confusion with certain morphing machines from space).
>>>
>>> Historical note: "Autocar" was the name of a real automobile
>>> manufacturer back in the first half of the 20th century.
>>
>>It still is. It's in (according to Wikipedia) Hagerstown, IN.
>
> But now they only make trucks.
Yes, just like he said, automobiles. The English, she is a tricky language,
no? Especially when you have French roots, comrade.
Regards,
Jack Tingle - who uses what was once the Society for Automobile Engineering
(SAE) for a lot of helicopter related info.
Greg Goss
>
>"David DeLaney" <d...@gatekeeper.vic.com> wrote in message
>news:slrnh5iu9...@gatekeeper.vic.com...
>> Ken from Chicago <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>"Greg Goss" <go...@gossg.org> wrote in message
>>>> I think that Rebecca has it right. The designers are thinking of
>>>> these as jitneys -- somewhere between a bus and a cab -- rather than
>>>> as family cars. The family car will retain a luggage space and will
>>>> likely be smaller than 7.
>>>>
>>>> But I can't see including the plasma screen or mini-bar for a jitney.
>>>
>>>They already have tvs in SUVs and minivans. For a robocar you could have
>>>the
>>>whole windshield be your tv screen. As for the mini-bar, well, they have
>>>coolers for campers--some that could be plugged into cigarette lighters or
>>>outlets for power.
>>
>> Unattended minibars in forms of transportation not only open to, but
>> designed
>> to be extensively used by, The Public. This is an idea that can only End
>> Well.
>>
>> Dave "mutatis mutandis for the plasma-screen TVs" DeLaney
>
>Oh, yeah, if you're renting out your robocar to the public it would be more
>than silly to leave a stocked mini-bar inside.
OK, now examine my sentence referring to the mini-bar.
Anthony Frost
Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 15:56:39 +0000 (UTC), wol...@bimajority.org
> (Garrett Wollman) wrote:
> >other symbols are used for meanings like "soft off" and
> >for things like pushbuttons that can turn power both on and off.
>
> What are the "soft off" and pushbutton on/off symbols, out of
> interest?
Pushbutton hard on/off has the vertical bar "on" symbol inside the
circle "off", the soft equivalent has the circle broken at the top with
the bar through it.
Anthony
Ken from Chicago
GMTA.
-- Ken from Chicago
Jaimie Vandenbergh
wrote:
Thanks. I have seen that, but didn't know the meaning - and didn't
find one with a cursory google before asking.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
"Dawn is a beautiful way to end an evening. It's a lousy way
to start a day." - Dominic Flandry
Ken from Chicago
Britain and America, two countries divided by a common language--but bonded
by a similar love / hate relationship with France. It's like feuding
brothers commiserating about a hot but high maintenance gal next door.
> Regards,
> Jack Tingle - who uses what was once the Society for Automobile
> Engineering (SAE) for a lot of helicopter related info.
-- Ken from Chicago
Walter Bushell
Not if you charge hotel prices for the booze, or even the soft drinks
and water.
Walter Bushell
Jim Smith <usen...@ponder-stibbons.com> wrote:
Not a patch on the guy who call in that his computer is not working.
After going through a whole check list, it turns out his city is in
blackout.
Look anyone who has done programming knows what focus can do, to the
most obvious reality. The guy's report *had* to be in to corporate
hindquarters before 9AM.
Walter Bushell
Anthony Frost <Vu...@vulch.org> wrote:
Now *everybody* has to learn to read hieroglyphics and counter intuitive
ones at that. I would have made the circle circuit complete and |
circuit open.
Rebecca Rice
No one ever said that symbols had to be intuitively obvious.
I work in the medical device field, and one of the big
issues is that wecan get away from having to do translations
if we use symbols from the recognized standard, but have to
balance that against the fact that the symbols are not
obvious, so we have to have a cheat sheet to explain the
symbols, which has to be translated...
Rebecca
Joy Beeson
wrote:
> Pushbutton hard on/off has the vertical bar "on" symbol inside the
> circle "off", the soft equivalent has the circle broken at the top with
> the bar through it.
I see that the pushbutton on the front of my computer has a "soft
on/off" symbol on it.
What in flim-flam is a "soft on/off". Anything like toggle? I push
and hold it, it goes off. Push and hold again, it comes on. Maybe
the delay is the "soft" aspect? I always figured the requirement to
hold was to prevent accidental bumps from toggling the computer.
If I use my soft off when ctl-alt-delete doesn't work, is that still a
"hard reboot"?
Joy Beeson
--
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://roughsewing.home.comcast.net/ -- sewing
http://n3f.home.comcast.net/ -- Writers' Exchange
The above message is a Usenet post.
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.
Jaimie Vandenbergh
<jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
>On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 14:11:51 +0100, Anthony Frost <Vu...@vulch.org>
>wrote:
>
>> Pushbutton hard on/off has the vertical bar "on" symbol inside the
>> circle "off", the soft equivalent has the circle broken at the top with
>> the bar through it.
>
>I see that the pushbutton on the front of my computer has a "soft
>on/off" symbol on it.
>
>What in flim-flam is a "soft on/off". Anything like toggle? I push
>and hold it, it goes off. Push and hold again, it comes on. Maybe
>the delay is the "soft" aspect? I always figured the requirement to
>hold was to prevent accidental bumps from toggling the computer.
It's a soft off because pressing the switch isn't actually breaking
the power circuit, just sending a polite request to the computer to
power itself off.
Depending on the settings in the computer, pressing the switch
momentarily might pop up a window offering choices of power off,
reboot, or go to sleep.
Back in the old days (before about 1998 or so) the power switch on a
PC was a hard on/off latched device.
>If I use my soft off when ctl-alt-delete doesn't work, is that still a
>"hard reboot"?
Yes, it is. Once the computer enacts the "power off" request, anyway.
(We'll leave discussion of the way that modern computers leave
themselves *slightly* on so that they can recognise a polite request
to turn themselves properly on by the soft-on switch, or by
mouse/keyboard activity if that's enabled, for another day)
Cheers - Jaimie
--
d> It's OK. I'm an atheist catholic.
g> So you just feel guilty for /no readily apparent reason/.
- deKay and Gareth Halfacree, ugvm
Don Bruder
Joy Beeson <jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 14:11:51 +0100, Anthony Frost <Vu...@vulch.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Pushbutton hard on/off has the vertical bar "on" symbol inside the
> > circle "off", the soft equivalent has the circle broken at the top with
> > the bar through it.
>
> I see that the pushbutton on the front of my computer has a "soft
> on/off" symbol on it.
>
> What in flim-flam is a "soft on/off". Anything like toggle? I push
> and hold it, it goes off. Push and hold again, it comes on. Maybe
> the delay is the "soft" aspect? I always figured the requirement to
> hold was to prevent accidental bumps from toggling the computer.
"Soft" off means the rig goes into standby - it doesn't actually turn
off completely, it just shuts down everything that isn't needed to
detect a "turn back on" signal from somewhere.
As a ferinstance, everything that can be turned on or off with an IR
remote goes to a "soft off" state when you hit the "off" button - Some
part of it is still powered on and active so that it can detect the
remote sending the "turn on" signal, and as a result, it's still drawing
at least some current. (although it may be a barely measurable fraction
of its "powered on" draw)
Conversely, a "Hard" off means that the device is TOTALLY off - Usually,
it implies that a switch has been physically toggled in order to
interrupt *ALL* electrical power from the source. Effectively, it has
been disconnected from the wall socket. It's drawing zero current, and
no function of the device is active until the switch is turned back on.
>
> If I use my soft off when ctl-alt-delete doesn't work, is that still a
> "hard reboot"?
Technically speaking, no. Practically speaking, it's *USUALLY* close
enough.
A true "hard reboot" means the system has been taken to dead cold, then
restarted - as in "pull the power cord out of the wall, count to ten,
then plug it back in and hit the power switch/key" or equivalent.
The classic "three finger salute" is, and always has been, a "soft
reboot", regardless of what key combination is used to accomplish it, or
what the documentation calls it.
Wayne Throop
: (We'll leave discussion of the way that modern computers leave
: themselves *slightly* on so that they can recognise a polite request
: to turn themselves properly on by the soft-on switch, or by
: mouse/keyboard activity if that's enabled, for another day)
Or, more usual ime, unfolding a laptop/notebook/netbook,
the movement of the hinge being sensed.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Wayne Throop
: What in flim-flam is a "soft on/off". Anything like toggle? I push
: and hold it, it goes off. Push and hold again, it comes on. Maybe
: the delay is the "soft" aspect? I always figured the requirement to
: hold was to prevent accidental bumps from toggling the computer.
Hm. I dunno, but the power button on the computers I have requests
a proper shutdown if pressed and released, and if pressed and
held, cuts power at a somewhat lower level of intervention.
(Still bios, I think, so that's still soft... ish.)
Then there's the rocker switch on the back of the power supply,
which is not sensed by anybody, and cuts the power about as
thoroughly as unplugging it from the wall, which is a really
for true hard power switch.
However, that second bit, where the bios cuts power without waiting
for the higher level software to respond, has pretty much the same
effect to the higher level software as flipping the hard power switch.
Dimensional Traveler
> In article <8gvk551d8k7m35tor...@4ax.com>,
> Joy Beeson <jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 14:11:51 +0100, Anthony Frost <Vu...@vulch.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Pushbutton hard on/off has the vertical bar "on" symbol inside the
>>> circle "off", the soft equivalent has the circle broken at the top with
>>> the bar through it.
>> I see that the pushbutton on the front of my computer has a "soft
>> on/off" symbol on it.
>>
>> What in flim-flam is a "soft on/off". Anything like toggle? I push
>> and hold it, it goes off. Push and hold again, it comes on. Maybe
>> the delay is the "soft" aspect? I always figured the requirement to
>> hold was to prevent accidental bumps from toggling the computer.
>
> "Soft" off means the rig goes into standby - it doesn't actually turn
> off completely, it just shuts down everything that isn't needed to
> detect a "turn back on" signal from somewhere.
>
> As a ferinstance, everything that can be turned on or off with an IR
> remote goes to a "soft off" state when you hit the "off" button - Some
> part of it is still powered on and active so that it can detect the
> remote sending the "turn on" signal, and as a result, it's still drawing
> at least some current. (although it may be a barely measurable fraction
> of its "powered on" draw)
>
unplugging them because that "standby" mode uses about 30% of the power
that "full on" does. Just a bit more than "barely measurable fraction"
IMO. :-P
--
Things I learned from MythBusters #57: Never leave a loaded gun in an
exploding room.
Walter Bushell
Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net> wrote:
> A true "hard reboot" means the system has been taken to dead cold, then
> restarted - as in "pull the power cord out of the wall, count to ten,
> then plug it back in and hit the power switch/key" or equivalent.
Pulling the power cord out of the wall has no immediate effect on a
laptop (given a quarter decent battery).
Mike Ash
Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
> There is a campaign to get people to switch their appliances off by
> unplugging them because that "standby" mode uses about 30% of the power
> that "full on" does. Just a bit more than "barely measurable fraction"
> IMO. :-P
Maybe some appliances use 30% of full on, but I doubt that most do, and
I know that not all do.
My computer has a 1500 watt power supply. It's vastly oversized because
it's made for the worst case scenario of having the thing crammed full
of power-hungry expansion cards and hard drives. In my configuration, it
draws 3-400W powered on, 6W when sleeping, and 3W when off but still
plugged in. Not exactly 30%!
My washer/dryer combo unit draws up to 10 amps on 120V AC, so that's
about 800-900W when running. It certainly does not put out anywhere near
240+W of heat when sitting idle.
My air conditioner/heat pumps draw similarly large amounts of power, and
likewise don't draw anything like 30% of their normal draw when off.
Maybe my inkjet printer, stereo, or TV draw 30% of their full-on power.
I don't think the TV does, because that would still produce a noticeable
amount of heat. The printer and stereo might. But they're not exactly
big consumers to begin with, so who cares?
The big energy users in my household are heating/air conditioning,
refrigerator, washer/dryer, and computer. I'd save nothing noticeable by
unplugging any of these things, or anything else, while not in use.
--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
Wayne Throop
: My computer has a 1500 watt power supply. It's vastly oversized because
: of power-hungry expansion cards and hard drives. In my configuration, it
: draws 3-400W powered on, 6W when sleeping, and 3W when off but still
: plugged in. Not exactly 30%!
How often is it on vs off? If it's on a hundred times more often than
when it's off (ie, averaging only a few minutes a day) it could end up
consuming more over the course of a year while it's off than when it's on.
: My washer/dryer combo unit draws up to 10 amps on 120V AC, so that's
: about 800-900W when running. It certainly does not put out anywhere
: near 240+W of heat when sitting idle.
So let's say that draw 1 percent of their running load; say 8 watts.
So if you run them less than one and a half hours a week, they are
consuming more off than on.
Don Bruder
That's one of those "that depends" statements that *REALLY* "depends"!
Standby/soft-powerdown power consumption levels are *TOTALLY* dependent
on the specific piece of gear being discussed. Some drop from 10-12 amps
of draw at full power to 5-6 amps in standby mode, some drop from the
same 10-12 amps down to a couple hundred milliamps or even less, some
fall someplace in between. Without either knowing the precise details of
the *EXACT* piece of hardware involved, or actually measuring the draw
of that piece of gear in both states, it's impossible to say just how
much (if any worth bothering to talk about) power is going to be saved
by unplugging versus "powering down" the unit.
Don Bruder
Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
Didn't notice the "or equivalent" part, eh? To do a full "cold restart"
on a laptop it should be obvious to anyone using some common sense that
you'd have to pull the battery AND the power plug to get it to an actual
"cold off" state. But thanks for playing.
Mike Ash
wrote:
> : Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com>
> : My computer has a 1500 watt power supply. It's vastly oversized because
> : it's made for the worst case scenario of having the thing crammed full
> : of power-hungry expansion cards and hard drives. In my configuration, it
> : draws 3-400W powered on, 6W when sleeping, and 3W when off but still
> : plugged in. Not exactly 30%!
>
> How often is it on vs off? If it's on a hundred times more often than
> when it's off (ie, averaging only a few minutes a day) it could end up
> consuming more over the course of a year while it's off than when it's on.
I assume you meant to say if it's off 100x more often than it's on?
Doesn't make sense the other way. The computer is turned on about 12-15
hours per day on average, I'd guess, so the "sleeping" consumption is
lost in the noise. (Pure "off" consumption is irrelevant, as it's
basically never in that state.)
> : My washer/dryer combo unit draws up to 10 amps on 120V AC, so that's
> : about 800-900W when running. It certainly does not put out anywhere
> : near 240+W of heat when sitting idle.
>
> So let's say that draw 1 percent of their running load; say 8 watts.
> So if you run them less than one and a half hours a week, they are
> consuming more off than on.
8W over one month is about 6kWh. At my electricity rates, that's roughly
40 cents out of a $40-60/month bill. Not significant.
Note that the washer/dryer unit is a ventless condensing dryer which is
extremely slow. A single (small) load of clothes takes about four hours
from dirty to clean and dry. As such, it runs more like 8 hours/week.
This is not as inefficient as it may sound. First, the 4 hours includes
washing too. Second, a traditional dryer runs much faster, but also
consumes much more power while doing it. Supposedly the total energy
penalty is only 10-15%.
I don't doubt that "off" consumption is significant in some devices.
Older wall wart power transformers were not very efficient and often
didn't reduce their consumption when the load was reduced or removed.
More modern equipment is much better about this. This 30% figure sounds
either misquoted or grossly misinformed.
Garrett Wollman
Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com> wrote:
>8W over one month is about 6kWh. At my electricity rates, that's roughly
>40 cents out of a $40-60/month bill. Not significant.
Think for a moment about how many people live in the place you do.
There are about a hundred million households in the United States.
Being generous, let's assume that, on average, they are wasting ten
watts of electricity each. 1000 megawatts is about a quarter of a
typical base-load power station, twenty-four hours a day, 365 days a
year. That's fairly significant: about five million tons of coal[1] a
year (and fifteen million tons of carbon dioxide released into the
atmosphere).
Here, by the way, that 6 kWh would cost you about $1.20.
-GAWollman
[1] Based on the figure of 2 kW_e*h/kg (that I Found On The Web So It
Must Be True).
--
Garrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are
wol...@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry
Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape
of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness
Wayne Throop
: Think for a moment about how many people live in the place you do.
: There are about a hundred million households in the United States.
: Being generous, let's assume that, on average, they are wasting ten
: watts of electricity each. 1000 megawatts is about a quarter of a
: typical base-load power station, twenty-four hours a day, 365 days a
: year. That's fairly significant: about five million tons of coal[1] a
: year (and fifteen million tons of carbon dioxide released into the
: atmosphere).
The "if everyone saves a little, it adds up to a lot" ploy.
However, "if everyone saves one percent, it adds up to one percent".
The 40-cents-out-of-40-dollars savings is only a 1 perdent saving
of the personal carbon footprint of electricity, and that's only a
fraction of the total personal carbon footprint.
Ken from Chicago
"Jaimie Vandenbergh" <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote in message
news:t50l55t74471ou7qd...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 20:30:30 -0400, Joy Beeson
> <jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
<snip>
> (We'll leave discussion of the way that modern computers leave
> themselves *slightly* on so that they can recognise a polite request
> to turn themselves properly on by the soft-on switch, or by
> mouse/keyboard activity if that's enabled, for another day)
And to keep the clock running.
-- Ken from Chicago
Jaimie Vandenbergh
<kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>"Jaimie Vandenbergh" <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote in message
>news:t50l55t74471ou7qd...@4ax.com...
>
>> themselves *slightly* on so that they can recognise a polite request
>> to turn themselves properly on by the soft-on switch, or by
>> mouse/keyboard activity if that's enabled, for another day)
>
>And to keep the clock running.
No, there's an lithium cell actual battery for that - and only that
these days, BIOS settings are non-volatile.
In "hibernate" or "soft-off" mode, the 5V line is kept up to recognise
various wake-up-please requests (including laptop lid as Wayne
mentioned) and keep the USB subsystem alive enough to respond to
wake-up calls from external devices like mice, keyboards, modems;
internal modem and network adapters may also be alert for incoming
signals.
In "sleep" mode, all that is on, plus RAM and some memory control
circuits are also powered.
It's only in "hard-off/unplugged" mode that you can trust the computer
not to be evolving towards a state of Skynet-inspired sapience.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
"Come now, my child, if we were planning to harm you, do you think
we'd be lurking here, beside the path, in the very darkest part of
the forest?" - Kenneth Patchen, "But Even So"
Jaimie Vandenbergh
(Garrett Wollman) wrote:
>In article <mike-611864.0...@nothing.attdns.com>,
>Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com> wrote:
>
>>8W over one month is about 6kWh. At my electricity rates, that's roughly
>>40 cents out of a $40-60/month bill. Not significant.
>
>Think for a moment about how many people live in the place you do.
>There are about a hundred million households in the United States.
>Being generous, let's assume that, on average, they are wasting ten
>watts of electricity each. 1000 megawatts is about a quarter of a
>typical base-load power station, twenty-four hours a day, 365 days a
>year. That's fairly significant: about five million tons of coal[1] a
>year (and fifteen million tons of carbon dioxide released into the
>atmosphere).
>
>Here, by the way, that 6 kWh would cost you about $1.20.
>
>-GAWollman
>
>[1] Based on the figure of 2 kW_e*h/kg (that I Found On The Web So It
>Must Be True).
Probably less than the joules wasted through in-house wiring warming,
if all your kit is so well behaved.
The primary exceptions to the "low power sleep mode" are set-top
boxes, for some Godforsaken reason. They seem to always use eg 20W
live, 15W inactive.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
Never sleep with anyone crazier than you are.
Wayne Throop
: Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org>
: No, there's an lithium cell actual battery for that
A battery which needs to be recharged when power is again available.
As to steady state, wouldn't that battery be kept charged all along
if there's power available?
Ken from Chicago
> On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 02:38:47 -0500, "Ken from Chicago"
> <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>"Jaimie Vandenbergh" <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote in message
>>news:t50l55t74471ou7qd...@4ax.com...
>>
>>> (We'll leave discussion of the way that modern computers leave
>>> themselves *slightly* on so that they can recognise a polite request
>>> to turn themselves properly on by the soft-on switch, or by
>>> mouse/keyboard activity if that's enabled, for another day)
>>
>>And to keep the clock running.
>
> No, there's an lithium cell actual battery for that - and only that
> these days, BIOS settings are non-volatile.
Shirley it's s rechargeable battery, right?
> In "hibernate" or "soft-off" mode, the 5V line is kept up to recognise
> various wake-up-please requests (including laptop lid as Wayne
> mentioned) and keep the USB subsystem alive enough to respond to
> wake-up calls from external devices like mice, keyboards, modems;
> internal modem and network adapters may also be alert for incoming
> signals.
>
> In "sleep" mode, all that is on, plus RAM and some memory control
> circuits are also powered.
And power up USB attached devices.
> It's only in "hard-off/unplugged" mode that you can trust the computer
> not to be evolving towards a state of Skynet-inspired sapience.
Not if you use anti-virus protection.
> Cheers - Jaimie
> --
> "Come now, my child, if we were planning to harm you, do you think
> we'd be lurking here, beside the path, in the very darkest part of
> the forest?" - Kenneth Patchen, "But Even So"
-- Ken from Chicago
Jaimie Vandenbergh
wrote:
>:: And to keep the clock running.
>
>: Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org>
>: No, there's an lithium cell actual battery for that
>
>A battery which needs to be recharged when power is again available.
No recharge, they're generally one-use CR2032 or similar coin cells.
Should last for at least 5 years, though they have of course been
known to die after two.
Ye olde AT-style computers (1999 and before) usually had a
rechargeable soldered to the motherboard. Some laptops still do, I'm
sure I saw a Thinkad from about 2004 with one.
>As to steady state, wouldn't that battery be kept charged all along
>if there's power available?
It'll discharge less quickly when the juice is on, but the draw on it
is so small that it's likely basic storage discharge-over-time that
dominates in any case.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
"Shellfish are the prime cause of the decline of morals and the
adoption of an extravagant life style" -- Pliny the Elder
Howard Brazee
<jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
>I see that the pushbutton on the front of my computer has a "soft
>on/off" symbol on it.
>
>What in flim-flam is a "soft on/off". Anything like toggle? I push
>and hold it, it goes off. Push and hold again, it comes on. Maybe
>the delay is the "soft" aspect? I always figured the requirement to
>hold was to prevent accidental bumps from toggling the computer.
>
>If I use my soft off when ctl-alt-delete doesn't work, is that still a
>"hard reboot"?
It's a safer off switch, giving the software a chance to close files.
But when I'm having computer problems, after I turn my computer off
this way, I switch the power strip off for 10 seconds as well. That
seems to make a difference.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Bill Snyder
wrote:
>: Joy Beeson <jbe...@invalid.net.invalid>
>: What in flim-flam is a "soft on/off". Anything like toggle? I push
>: and hold it, it goes off. Push and hold again, it comes on. Maybe
>: the delay is the "soft" aspect? I always figured the requirement to
>: hold was to prevent accidental bumps from toggling the computer.
>
>Hm. I dunno, but the power button on the computers I have requests
>a proper shutdown if pressed and released, and if pressed and
>held, cuts power at a somewhat lower level of intervention.
>(Still bios, I think, so that's still soft... ish.)
I think there's (usually, anyhoo) an actual backup hardware timer
of some sort. I was able to power down a machine that wouldn't
get as far as displaying the BIOS bootup stuff.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
Walter Bushell
Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net> wrote:
> That's one of those "that depends" statements that *REALLY* "depends"!
>
> Standby/soft-powerdown power consumption levels are *TOTALLY* dependent
> on the specific piece of gear being discussed. Some drop from 10-12 amps
> of draw at full power to 5-6 amps in standby mode, some drop from the
> same 10-12 amps down to a couple hundred milliamps or even less, some
> fall someplace in between. Without either knowing the precise details of
> the *EXACT* piece of hardware involved, or actually measuring the draw
> of that piece of gear in both states, it's impossible to say just how
> much (if any worth bothering to talk about) power is going to be saved
> by unplugging versus "powering down" the unit.
Feel the device, if it's warm to the touch after say being left "off"
overnight, it's drawing a lot of power.
All the power wasted goes into heat, so for power supplies, it's a
pretty good method.
Mike Ash
Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
Note that it can be deceptive.
I have a couple of little wifi music/router boxes, about the size of a
deck of cards, which are of course always on. They're quite warm to the
touch. My boss has some too, plus some measuring equipment. He's
measured them to consume merely 1W of power. I would have guessed more
like 10W given the temperature it reaches, but obviously I was way off.
Obviously if you're feeling your TV instead of a tiny little box, any
warmth indicates a much greater amount of waste heat.
Mike Ash
wol...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) wrote:
> In article <mike-611864.0...@nothing.attdns.com>,
> Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com> wrote:
>
> >8W over one month is about 6kWh. At my electricity rates, that's roughly
> >40 cents out of a $40-60/month bill. Not significant.
>
> Think for a moment about how many people live in the place you do.
> There are about a hundred million households in the United States.
> Being generous, let's assume that, on average, they are wasting ten
> watts of electricity each. 1000 megawatts is about a quarter of a
> typical base-load power station, twenty-four hours a day, 365 days a
> year. That's fairly significant: about five million tons of coal[1] a
> year (and fifteen million tons of carbon dioxide released into the
> atmosphere).
I never understood this idea of turning proportional numbers into
absolute numbers to make them sound scarier.
This number represents less than 1% of my total electricity usage.
Multiplying it by a hundred million households STILL represents less
than 1% of total electricity usage.
According to Wikipedia (yeah, yeah), the US emitted about 6 *billion*
tons of CO2 in 2006. Compared to that, 15 million tons is not
significant. There are MUCH bigger fish to fry.
Walter Bushell
Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com> wrote:
> In article <h3eh3j$1r78$1...@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>,
> wol...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) wrote:
>
> > In article <mike-611864.0...@nothing.attdns.com>,
> > Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com> wrote:
> >
> > >8W over one month is about 6kWh. At my electricity rates, that's roughly
> > >40 cents out of a $40-60/month bill. Not significant.
> >
> > Think for a moment about how many people live in the place you do.
> > There are about a hundred million households in the United States.
> > Being generous, let's assume that, on average, they are wasting ten
> > watts of electricity each. 1000 megawatts is about a quarter of a
> > typical base-load power station, twenty-four hours a day, 365 days a
> > year. That's fairly significant: about five million tons of coal[1] a
> > year (and fifteen million tons of carbon dioxide released into the
> > atmosphere).
>
> I never understood this idea of turning proportional numbers into
> absolute numbers to make them sound scarier.
>
> This number represents less than 1% of my total electricity usage.
> Multiplying it by a hundred million households STILL represents less
> than 1% of total electricity usage.
>
> According to Wikipedia (yeah, yeah), the US emitted about 6 *billion*
> tons of CO2 in 2006. Compared to that, 15 million tons is not
> significant. There are MUCH bigger fish to fry.
But think of all the fish on could fry with 15 million tons of coal.
Dimensional Traveler
sapience? After all, it is supposed to be smarter than the viruses.
Garrett Wollman
Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com> wrote:
>I never understood this idea of turning proportional numbers into
>absolute numbers to make them sound scarier.
I never understood this idea of turning large absolute quantities into
small proportions to justify one's own laziness^W^W^W^Wmake them sound
less scary.
>This number represents less than 1% of my total electricity usage.
>Multiplying it by a hundred million households STILL represents less
>than 1% of total electricity usage.
So what?
-GAWollman
Cece
> On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 12:26:08 -0500, "Ken from Chicago"
>
> <kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > I mean the in the 1980s the power switch positions computers were labelled
> > the number "1" and "0" instead of "On" and "Off". Bad enough the power
> > switch was inconveniently placed in the back, but the 1/0 labelling didn't
> > help for those learning to use computers.
>
> Basic intelligence test. If you can't work it out you're too stupid
> to use a computer.
>
> Matthew
>
> --
> Mail to this account goes to the bit bucket.
> In the unlikely event you want to mail me replace usenet with my name
BS! I had no idea why those symbols were used, and could assign no
meaning to them other than "that's what they are" until I read some
piece of military fiction and figured out that a straight line shows
an electrical connection and a circle shows an inerruption. And yes,
I'd already had both older computer experience and practice in drawing
wiring diagrams.
Mike Ash
wol...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) wrote:
> In article <mike-F6E277.1...@nothing.attdns.com>,
> Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com> wrote:
>
> >I never understood this idea of turning proportional numbers into
> >absolute numbers to make them sound scarier.
>
> I never understood this idea of turning large absolute quantities into
> small proportions to justify one's own laziness^W^W^W^Wmake them sound
> less scary.
Right, it's because I'm *lazy* that I don't care about making changes in
my household which would result in a literally un-measurable reduction
to my electricity bill.
Proportions are the only way to understand large numbers. "15 million
tons of CO2" sounds enormous. "0.25% of the US's total CO2 output" does
not.
To put it in terms that SF fans may appreciate more: "NASA's budget is
$17.2 billion dollars" sounds like we're just throwing money away in
space, but "NASA's budget is 0.55% of the total federal budget" shows
that you essentially can't gain anything significant by cutting back.
> >This number represents less than 1% of my total electricity usage.
> >Multiplying it by a hundred million households STILL represents less
> >than 1% of total electricity usage.
>
> So what?
You snipped out the "so what" when you replied to me. Here it is again,
because I'm assuming you didn't read it either:
> According to Wikipedia (yeah, yeah), the US emitted about 6 *billion*
> tons of CO2 in 2006. Compared to that, 15 million tons is not
> significant. There are MUCH bigger fish to fry.
In short: it is pointless to put in effort where it cannot make a real
difference. Better to concentrate on areas where the impact is larger.
Wayne Throop
: I never understood this idea of turning proportional numbers into
Seems to me you understand it well enough; it's "to make them
sound scarier" (or more persuasive in some way or other).
It's a very very common ploy, especially in the "you can help
the earth by unplugging your cellphone chargers at the wall
instead of just at the phone" sense.
See David McKay's "Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air".
Section 19, page 114,
The if-everyone multiplying machine is a bad thing because it
deflects people's attention towards 25 million minnows instead of 25
million sharks. The mantra "little changes can make a big difference"
is bunkum, when applied to climate change and power.
and he gives several examples, drawn from media sources.
Garrett Wollman
Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com> wrote:
>In short: it is pointless to put in effort where it cannot make a real
>difference. Better to concentrate on areas where the impact is larger.
What makes a "real difference" is not determined by its proportion to
some other quantity.
Wayne Throop
: I never understood this idea of turning large absolute quantities into
: small proportions to justify one's own laziness^W^W^W^Wmake them sound
: less scary.
Apparently so. The main issue is, it's not to make them sound
less scary. It's to make them sound exactly as relevant as they
are, and not exagerate unduely. If you are setting out to change
something by X percent, focusing on issues some orders of magnitude
smaller than X percent, and pronouncing them significant because they
have impressive sounding absolute numbers, merely requires you to come
up with and examine orders of magnitude more individual issues, and
quite often, there *aren't* orders of magnitude more individual
issues of that size.
Assuming for a momoent that the goal is to save gasoline, is it better
to turn off your air conditioning while driving, or simply to drive
fewer miles, or in a smaller vehicle, or closer to the sweet spot of wind
resistance vs speed? The one has an effect barely measureable; couple
percent at most iirc. The others have effects an order of magnitude
larger. I would hope the answer is obvious and non-controversial.
(But I'm not particularly expecting it to be so.)
The fact remains, "if everybody saves a little", you end up saving
a little. It doesn't magically become more signfiicant simply by being
the same percentage of a larger sample. It's still the same percentage.
Dave Hansen
[...]
> I have a couple of little wifi music/router boxes, about the size of a
> deck of cards, which are of course always on. They're quite warm to the
> touch. My boss has some too, plus some measuring equipment. He's
> measured them to consume merely 1W of power. I would have guessed more
> like 10W given the temperature it reaches, but obviously I was way off.
Not to argue any points, but just to give you some help with the sense
of scale...
A number of years ago, I received (as a gift) a miniature "hotplate",
with a circular heating area roughly the size of a coffee mug. The
purpose of the device should be obvious...
While it won't generate enough heat to warm a cold cup of coffee in a
reasonable amount of time, it is more than adequate to the task of
keeping a hot mug more than drinkably hot. Indeed, it seems to warm
the bottom of a full mug enough to cause first-degree burns if handled
carelessly. I have no doubts that, without a mug to draw away the
heat, the heating area could reach a temperature that would raise
blisters in under 5 minutes.
According to the stamp on the bottom of the device, it consumes a
maximum of 25 watts. I've not measured the power usage myself, but it
seems reasonable.
The calculations are complicated by all sorts of factors, but with
some simplifying assumptions (your routers have the same specific heat
capacity as copper, and weigh about 500 g), if kept insulated (to
prevent heat dissipation), your routers (consuming 1W, all converted
to waste heat) would increase in temperature 1/(500*0.385) = about .
005 degrees C per second, or 18.7 degrees C (33 degrees F) per hour.
If I've done the calculations correctly. Of course, they're not
insulated, so they reach a point of equilibrium with the environment
after some amount of time, but I might guess they could become quite
uncomfortable to hold once they warm up.
Or to make it simpler, consider unscrewing the bulb from an
incandescent night-light that's been on all night. Those bulbs
consume about 4W.
Regards,
-=Dave
Garrett Wollman
>Assuming for a momoent that the goal is to save gasoline, is it better
>to turn off your air conditioning while driving, or simply to drive
>fewer miles, or in a smaller vehicle, or closer to the sweet spot of wind
>resistance vs speed? The one has an effect barely measureable; couple
>percent at most iirc. The others have effects an order of magnitude
>larger. I would hope the answer is obvious and non-controversial.
>(But I'm not particularly expecting it to be so.)
The correct answer is clearly "all of the above". The argument you
seem to be making is "there's no point in doing Thing X, which is easy
and has a small but meaningful effect, because Thing Y, which is
hard/expensive/time-consuming, would have a large effect". This is a
nonsensical argument, since doing X does not preclude the possibility
of also doing Y.
Matthew Malthouse
You shouldn't take me too seriously.
But FFS it's an On/Off switch. One way it works, the other it
doesn't. What's to work out?
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> In article <12475...@sheol.org>, Wayne Throop <thr...@sheol.org> wrote:
>> Assuming for a momoent that the goal is to save gasoline, is it better
>> to turn off your air conditioning while driving, or simply to drive
>> fewer miles, or in a smaller vehicle, or closer to the sweet spot of wind
>> resistance vs speed? The one has an effect barely measureable; couple
>> percent at most iirc. The others have effects an order of magnitude
>> larger. I would hope the answer is obvious and non-controversial.
>> (But I'm not particularly expecting it to be so.)
>
> The correct answer is clearly "all of the above".
The correct answer is clearly "none of the above"; get yourself a
nuclear car.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Wayne Throop
: What makes a "real difference" is not determined by its proportion to
: some other quantity.
Sorry, but in terms of "will this affect the end result of
greenhouse gas on the environment", yes it is. There are
some cases where it doesn't, most more often, the "if only
everyone did it there'd be a big effect" ploy is used exactly
and precisely where it *wouldn't* make a real difference.
If you're trying to cut down on strip-mining to preserve streams
and such, reducing the strip mining by 1 percent is not going to
be a real difference; the mine is still going strong, the streams
are all still dead. But reducing it by 50 percent could.
If you're trying to avoid going bald, taking a cure which preserves
1 percent of the doomed follicles is not going to be a real difference,
but 50 percent could.
And so on.
Wayne Throop
: The correct answer is clearly "all of the above".
If the marginal desirability of conserving gasoline is constant, sure.
But in an even vaguely realistic situation, you won't have an infnite
marginal desirability of conserving gasoline. Now would you.
Howard Brazee
<ceceliaa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>BS! I had no idea why those symbols were used, and could assign no
>meaning to them other than "that's what they are" until I read some
>piece of military fiction and figured out that a straight line shows
>an electrical connection and a circle shows an inerruption. And yes,
>I'd already had both older computer experience and practice in drawing
>wiring diagrams.
I was confused at the start, thinking of the O as a pipe, and the I as
constricted.
Mike Ash
wrote:
> Assuming for a momoent that the goal is to save gasoline, is it better
> to turn off your air conditioning while driving, or simply to drive
> fewer miles, or in a smaller vehicle, or closer to the sweet spot of wind
> resistance vs speed? The one has an effect barely measureable; couple
> percent at most iirc. The others have effects an order of magnitude
> larger. I would hope the answer is obvious and non-controversial.
> (But I'm not particularly expecting it to be so.)
Didn't Mythbusters test this one out and they found that driving with
the windows down was even worse than turning the AC on? Of course you
could drive with the windows up and the AC off, if you were seriously
masochistic and it wasn't *too* hot....
Point being, "obvious" savings often aren't, due to unintended
consequences.
Mike Ash
wol...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) wrote:
> In article <12475...@sheol.org>, Wayne Throop <thr...@sheol.org> wrote:
> >Assuming for a momoent that the goal is to save gasoline, is it better
> >to turn off your air conditioning while driving, or simply to drive
> >fewer miles, or in a smaller vehicle, or closer to the sweet spot of wind
> >resistance vs speed? The one has an effect barely measureable; couple
> >percent at most iirc. The others have effects an order of magnitude
> >larger. I would hope the answer is obvious and non-controversial.
> >(But I'm not particularly expecting it to be so.)
>
> The correct answer is clearly "all of the above". The argument you
> seem to be making is "there's no point in doing Thing X, which is easy
> and has a small but meaningful effect, because Thing Y, which is
> hard/expensive/time-consuming, would have a large effect". This is a
> nonsensical argument, since doing X does not preclude the possibility
> of also doing Y.
No, that's not the argument being made at all. There are two separate
arguments being made, neither one of which is that:
1) That standby power usage on modern appliances is often far, FAR short
of the 30% originally claimed.
2) That reducing standby power usage in my household is pointless
because it's insignificant to begin with.
#2 expands to making sure that the effect justifies the effort before
you actually go to the trouble. Yes, unplugging stuff not in use is
"easy", but it still has a cost. The benefit is extremely small. If that
small cost exceeds that small benefit, it's not worth doing!
Certainly I know that it's not worth it to me to go to all that effort
just to save a few dollars a year. If your complaint is then that the
global, environmental cost is significant even though the personal
monetary cost is not, my response is that you should fix it by not
externalizing these costs, rather than trying to convince people to bear
them out of the pure goodness of their hearts.
Mike Ash
wol...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) wrote:
> In article <mike-C3F0E6.1...@nothing.attdns.com>,
> Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com> wrote:
>
> >In short: it is pointless to put in effort where it cannot make a real
> >difference. Better to concentrate on areas where the impact is larger.
>
> What makes a "real difference" is not determined by its proportion to
> some other quantity.
If you keep saying it enough, maybe it'll be true!
I've given the reasoning behind my position. How about you give your
reasoning, if you have any, instead of continually restating your
beliefs without any support?
Mike Ash
> : Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com>
> : I never understood this idea of turning proportional numbers into
> : absolute numbers to make them sound scarier.
>
> Seems to me you understand it well enough; it's "to make them
> sound scarier" (or more persuasive in some way or other).
> It's a very very common ploy, especially in the "you can help
> the earth by unplugging your cellphone chargers at the wall
> instead of just at the phone" sense.
Well right, it's done to scare people.
Except that I don't see that being the motivation in this case. Wollman
does not appear to be scaremongering to me. The way his stuff is worded,
it appears to me (and I could be wrong) that he actually believes what
he's writing. That is what I don't understand.
> See David McKay's "Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air".
> Section 19, page 114,
>
> The if-everyone multiplying machine is a bad thing because it
> deflects people's attention towards 25 million minnows instead of 25
> million sharks. The mantra "little changes can make a big difference"
> is bunkum, when applied to climate change and power.
>
> and he gives several examples, drawn from media sources.
Good stuff, and the book is available free on the web. If anyone else
cares, the section in question can be found here:
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c19/page_114.shtml
Wayne Throop
: 2) That reducing standby power usage in my household is pointless
:
: #2 expands to making sure that the effect justifies the effort before
: you actually go to the trouble. Yes, unplugging stuff not in use is
: "easy", but it still has a cost. The benefit is extremely small. If that
: small cost exceeds that small benefit, it's not worth doing!
Hm. Story from memory (but may possibly have been in Software Tools...
but then again maybe not). An intrepid software engineer is working
on a FORTRAN compiler. He spends some months working on a difficult
optimization problem; the compiler can emit very good code if it
can only understand some looping construct or other and substute
a library call at a strategic location. The code is duely added
to the compiler, and it ships. When customers have been using it
for about a year, the compiler starts crashing. Turns out that
it's the tricky optimization code that's choking. Reviewing it,
it's discovered that it can't ever have worked as shipped; it had
an obvious bug in it. (Digression to chastize the programmer for
shipping code that hadn't been unit tested, omitted...) In the
field, then, this programming construct came up once in a blue moon.
It happened so seldom that the cost of simply running the unoptimized
program a bit longer would have saved months of programmer time.
The moral: MEASURE BEFORE YOU OPTIMIZE, dagnabbit. Or more
generally, make sure what you are doing to save resources of
some sort actually costs less than what you are saving.
And you kids get off my lawn!
Garrett Wollman
Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com> wrote:
>I've given the reasoning behind my position. How about you give your
>reasoning, if you have any, instead of continually restating your
>beliefs without any support?
I haven't seen any reasoning at all, just a flat-out denial that
$bignum tons of coal is "significant". Clearly you have a different
definition of "significant" than I do, so we are at an impasse, and
there's no point in responding further.
Wayne Throop
: I haven't seen any reasoning at all, just a flat-out denial that
: $bignum tons of coal is "significant".
The context is, will $bignum tons of coal alter the climate effects
of of fossil fuel use. And it won't. Because it does nothing to
affect the ($bignum*10^2) tons of coal still being used.
If you think it will, how will it?
What's the marginal desirability of removing $bignum tons of coal
when the current amount of coal is (>$bignum*10^2)? It's much much
smaller than the marginal desirability of removing $bignum tons of
coal if the current amount were $(bugnum*10) instead, and *much*
smaller than the marginal desirability of $bignum tons when the
current amount is $bignum+$smalldelta.
And things are worth doing or not doing based on their marinal
desirability, pretty much. And so if you want your reduction
to be worth doing, instead of something some other thing, then
it has to have a larger marginal desirability.
Garrett Wollman
>: I haven't seen any reasoning at all, just a flat-out denial that
>: $bignum tons of coal is "significant".
>
>The context is, will $bignum tons of coal alter the climate effects
>of of fossil fuel use.
That's your context, not mine.
Wayne Throop
: That's your context, not mine.
So, you agree that's a correct statement in that context,
whoever's context it may be?
Certainly you are welcome to use a "wildly inefficient and
ineffective way towards a goal" as *your* context, if you wish.
Dimensional Traveler
> In article <12475...@sheol.org>, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
> wrote:
>
>> Assuming for a momoent that the goal is to save gasoline, is it better
>> to turn off your air conditioning while driving, or simply to drive
>> fewer miles, or in a smaller vehicle, or closer to the sweet spot of wind
>> resistance vs speed? The one has an effect barely measureable; couple
>> percent at most iirc. The others have effects an order of magnitude
>> larger. I would hope the answer is obvious and non-controversial.
>> (But I'm not particularly expecting it to be so.)
>
> Didn't Mythbusters test this one out and they found that driving with
> the windows down was even worse than turning the AC on? Of course you
> could drive with the windows up and the AC off, if you were seriously
> masochistic and it wasn't *too* hot....
>
> Point being, "obvious" savings often aren't, due to unintended
> consequences.
>
50 AC was.
Ken from Chicago
> On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 09:20:56 GMT, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
> wrote:
>
>>:: And to keep the clock running.
>>
>>: Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org>
>>: No, there's an lithium cell actual battery for that
>>
>>A battery which needs to be recharged when power is again available.
>
> No recharge, they're generally one-use CR2032 or similar coin cells.
> Should last for at least 5 years, though they have of course been
> known to die after two.
Ah, built-in obsolescence. Yay.
> Ye olde AT-style computers (1999 and before) usually had a
> rechargeable soldered to the motherboard. Some laptops still do, I'm
> sure I saw a Thinkad from about 2004 with one.
They really don't make em like they used to.
>>As to steady state, wouldn't that battery be kept charged all along
>>if there's power available?
>
> It'll discharge less quickly when the juice is on, but the draw on it
> is so small that it's likely basic storage discharge-over-time that
> dominates in any case.
Um ... okay.
> Cheers - Jaimie
> --
> "Shellfish are the prime cause of the decline of morals and the
> adoption of an extravagant life style" -- Pliny the Elder
-- Ken from Chicago
Jaimie Vandenbergh
<kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>"Jaimie Vandenbergh" <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote in message
>news:l33m55d1mdjtp2dgv...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 09:20:56 GMT, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
>> wrote:
>>
>>>:: And to keep the clock running.
>>>
>>>: Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org>
>>>: No, there's an lithium cell actual battery for that
>>>
>>>A battery which needs to be recharged when power is again available.
>>
>> No recharge, they're generally one-use CR2032 or similar coin cells.
>> Should last for at least 5 years, though they have of course been
>> known to die after two.
>
>Ah, built-in obsolescence. Yay.
In their defence, the rechargeables didn't last much different, and
the coin cells are far easier to replace. And cheaper.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
Actually, the Singularity seems rather useful in the entire work avoidance
field. "I _could_ write up that report now but if I put it off, I may well
become a weakly godlike entity, at which point not only will I be able to
type faster but my comments will be more on-target." - James Nicoll
Jaimie Vandenbergh
>Except that I don't see that being the motivation in this case. Wollman
>does not appear to be scaremongering to me. The way his stuff is worded,
>it appears to me (and I could be wrong) that he actually believes what
>he's writing. That is what I don't understand.
I'm with Wollman, fwiw. I consider your argument to be a fallacy in
the same way Zeno's Paradox is.
Flip it round to something other than emotive global-warming language.
I'll pick something else social:
Is it worth habitually being nice to people in the street?
Cheers - Jaimie
--
The advantage of a bad memory is that one can enjoy the
same good things for the first time several times. -- Nietzsche
Mike Ash
Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 22:13:26 -0400, Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com> wrote:
>
> >Except that I don't see that being the motivation in this case. Wollman
> >does not appear to be scaremongering to me. The way his stuff is worded,
> >it appears to me (and I could be wrong) that he actually believes what
> >he's writing. That is what I don't understand.
>
> I'm with Wollman, fwiw. I consider your argument to be a fallacy in
> the same way Zeno's Paradox is.
I'm not sure that you've understood my argument, then. Please don't take
this as an insult or anything, I just think that a comparison to zeno is
an indication that you've misinterpreted.
I'm not saying all small changes are worthless. Indeed, as you imply
here, that would then mean that all changes of any size are worthless.
My point is two-fold. First, that making this particular change is not
worth the cost. Unplugging devices with standby power is easy, but it's
not free, and it would save me literally dollars a year. This ends up
being a Zeno-like argument too. The time involved per day is very small,
but add it all up, and I'm sure you'll find that I would have been
better off financially if I had spent that time writing computer
programs instead.
My second argument is that scaling up my personal number by the
population of my country doesn't change the argument at all. If it's
insignificant for me personally, and if I'm representative, then it's
insignificant for the country.
> Flip it round to something other than emotive global-warming language.
> I'll pick something else social:
>
> Is it worth habitually being nice to people in the street?
I'm not 100% sure what you mean here, but I personally find it to be
worthwhile because it takes no more effort than being mean and has
immediate, significant benefits to my own emotional well-being.
To pick another random example, let's say you decide you need more
exercise. Is it worth it to park your car one space farther from your
dwelling than usual, in order to have one more space's worth of walking
in each direction? It will be difficult to detect the difference being
made, and the added stress of thinking about your different space, while
small, may well outweigh the benefits. Better to walk instead of driving
to nearby destinations, or go on long walks each day for the exercise,
or similar.
Mike Ash
wol...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) wrote:
> In article <mike-8AFBFC.2...@nothing.attdns.com>,
> Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com> wrote:
>
> >I've given the reasoning behind my position. How about you give your
> >reasoning, if you have any, instead of continually restating your
> >beliefs without any support?
>
> I haven't seen any reasoning at all, just a flat-out denial that
> $bignum tons of coal is "significant". Clearly you have a different
> definition of "significant" than I do, so we are at an impasse, and
> there's no point in responding further.
If you haven't seen the reasoning, it's because you haven't been
reading. Here, for example, is a post that you replied to, and thus
should have seen, but apparently did not:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.sf.written/msg/51c93d8a59174245
If you think that my reasoning there is poor, then feel free to argue
against it, but don't claim that it doesn't exist.
Jaimie Vandenbergh
>I'm not saying all small changes are worthless. Indeed, as you imply
>here, that would then mean that all changes of any size are worthless.
Which was indeed my reductio ad absurdam point; to continue -
>My point is two-fold. First, that making this particular change is not
>worth the cost. Unplugging devices with standby power is easy, but it's
>not free, and it would save me literally dollars a year. This ends up
>being a Zeno-like argument too. The time involved per day is very small,
>but add it all up, and I'm sure you'll find that I would have been
>better off financially if I had spent that time writing computer
>programs instead.
I love that sort of "spent the time" argument - I know I always do my
best computer programming in the 30 seconds before turning the lights
off and going to bed...
But taking it at face value, for that case, yes, there's no return.
But it's easy to get good return by for example, spending an extra 5
minutes on Google to pick out devices that will have low standby power
or auto-off as part of your selection process. Or using power strips
with automated power-off dependent on the draw on the "controller"
socket.
The *awareness* of the potential utility of doing these things is more
important than unplugging devices with standby power; but the habit of
going for the lower-power devices needs to become ingrained. Arguments
(even when given a clear case like you do) otherwise are easily made,
and easily misunderstood, and lead to folks not bothering doing
anything. And *that's* where all the significant savings that people
can do, don't happen.
It's a sort of cascading social effect, is what I'm saying.
>My second argument is that scaling up my personal number by the
>population of my country doesn't change the argument at all. If it's
>insignificant for me personally, and if I'm representative, then it's
>insignificant for the country.
Disagree. Is your excess power consumption proportionally
representative of average human consumption? No, because you're in a
privileged country, as am I. So what we save is globally out of
proportion, and more significant for it.
Nationally, sure. I know USAnians love to be insular, but power
consumption is not merely a national consideration.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
It's time to light the candles!
It's time to chant the rites!
It's time to summon Satan on the Muppet Show tonight!
Mike Ash
> : Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com>
Oh, this sort of thing is so common in the software world. It would
scare most people to death if they knew how hodgepodge and shoddy their
software really was on the inside.
Programmer time is a precious commodity. When writing typical PC
software, it is the MOST precious commodity, far above RAM and CPU. And
yet, many programmers act as though it were free. They will waste
inordinate amounts of time shaving off imperceptible amounts of CPU
usage.
And then, yes, a lot of these "improvements" actually backfire, making
the product *worse*, while simultaneously wasting programmer time.
One particularly expensive and spectacular example was the first launch
of the Ariane 5. They decided it would be more cost effective to reuse
guidance software from the Ariane 4. The 5 had greatly improved
performance, which caused an arithmetic overflow in the reused guidance
software. The rocket went out of control and had to be destroyed.
The piece of software which suffered the overflow actually served no
purpose whatsoever on the Ariane 5, and was only running during the
launch because it was needed for the Ariane 4, and they wanted to keep
changes to a minimum. Even on the Ariane 4, the code in question was
only used prior to launch, and so had no reason to be running in flight
at all.
There was no code to protect the system from an exception caused by
overflowing this variable, even though many other variables were
protected. I believe this was ultimately due to deciding that it would
be faster not to protect it. Ooooops.
Wayne Throop
: Is it worth habitually being nice to people in the street?
Not sure what yhou mean by "being nice", but yes, there comes a point
where it's just not worth saying "hello" and smiling at everybody
you encounter. In large cities especially so, but even in small
towns. There's a diminishing marginal desirability to spending effort
to interact with the next person you see. May seem harsh to you, but
it's nevertheless true.
Or, something more analogous, is it worth habitually looking for pennies
while you walk down the street? As in, actually scan the sidewalk,
try to make sure you get good coverage, make sure you vary your routes
to check fresh stretches of sidewalk regularly, etc, and in general put
effort into it? I mean, if you do, you'll actually find some cash money,
so who wouldn't, right? But if you do that, when do you have time to
be nice to people? And if you don't, are you just being lazy?
The point is, there's a finite amount of time and effort that one
can apply to one's life, and there comes a point of diminishing returns.
In addition to the marginal desirabiloity thing.
Wayne Throop
: The *awareness* of the potential utility of doing these things is more
: important than unplugging devices with standby power; but the habit of
: going for the lower-power devices needs to become ingrained. Arguments
: (even when given a clear case like you do) otherwise are easily made,
: and easily misunderstood, and lead to folks not bothering doing
: anything. And *that's* where all the significant savings that people
: can do, don't happen.
OK, let's say everybody did all they could to avoid standby power drain.
Have you saved enough nation-wide to, say, use only renewable power
sources? Or whatever your goal was. What exactly did you want to
accomplish? Is it worth it to have an ongoing activity that you spend
time and effort wrangling about and preaching about and recruiting
people for, to save less than one percent of the cumulative power
budget? Why is that a desirable goal, that one should spend time
wrangling/preaching/recruiting (and doing)? Sure, if everybody did
*tens* of things each saving one percent, but you'll have to spell out
what those things are, because standby power isn't something you can
just do more of to save more.
It remains the fact, that if everybody does a little,
you'll have little overall effect, and switching from percentage
to absolute numbers halfway through won't change that.
Mind you, if little overall effect is what you want,
then fine, go for it. Just remember that you won't convince many
folks that *not* valuing having little overall effect makes them "lazy".
Wayne Throop
: To pick another random example, let's say you decide you need more
: dwelling than usual, in order to have one more space's worth of walking
: in each direction? It will be difficult to detect the difference being
: made, and the added stress of thinking about your different space, while
: small, may well outweigh the benefits. Better to walk instead of driving
: to nearby destinations, or go on long walks each day for the exercise,
: or similar.
Ah, but while any one person might not notice it, if *everybody*
did that, the extra cumulative lifespan for the human species due to
improved health, while not noticeable for any one person, would add up
to many years of extra life! The extra money cumulatively saved by
the whole planet in terms of health costs probably adds up to
thousands of dollars!
Mike Ash
Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 09:01:35 -0400, Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com> wrote:
>
> >I'm not saying all small changes are worthless. Indeed, as you imply
> >here, that would then mean that all changes of any size are worthless.
>
> Which was indeed my reductio ad absurdam point; to continue -
>
> >My point is two-fold. First, that making this particular change is not
> >worth the cost. Unplugging devices with standby power is easy, but it's
> >not free, and it would save me literally dollars a year. This ends up
> >being a Zeno-like argument too. The time involved per day is very small,
> >but add it all up, and I'm sure you'll find that I would have been
> >better off financially if I had spent that time writing computer
> >programs instead.
>
> I love that sort of "spent the time" argument - I know I always do my
> best computer programming in the 30 seconds before turning the lights
> off and going to bed...
>
> But taking it at face value, for that case, yes, there's no return.
> But it's easy to get good return by for example, spending an extra 5
> minutes on Google to pick out devices that will have low standby power
> or auto-off as part of your selection process. Or using power strips
> with automated power-off dependent on the draw on the "controller"
> socket.
Maybe easy. Of course these extra 5 minutes on Google implies that
standby power consumption will weigh in to my purchasing decision. If it
results in me getting a device which is otherwise inferior, it could
easily be a net gain.
Power strips with automated power-off dependent on draw sounds nice, but
the moment it accidentally shuts off my computer when it's merely
sleeping is the moment that the cost to me outweighs the entire
potential lifetime gain.
There are easier gains to be had. For example, my computer and most of
the associated hardware runs off a UPS which probably decreases
efficiency by a noticeable amount. More efficient UPS technology will
save more than reducing standby power ever would, and would be easier to
deal with as well.
> The *awareness* of the potential utility of doing these things is more
> important than unplugging devices with standby power; but the habit of
> going for the lower-power devices needs to become ingrained. Arguments
> (even when given a clear case like you do) otherwise are easily made,
> and easily misunderstood, and lead to folks not bothering doing
> anything. And *that's* where all the significant savings that people
> can do, don't happen.
The habit of going for the *best* device needs to be ingrained. Too
often I see people going for the "green" device which ends up being a
piece of trash, and the net result is *two* devices purchased, one going
straight into a landfill, and with more money lost by the customer and a
greater overall environmental impact.
All else being equal, go for the "green" device. But it's so rare that
all else is equal.
> >My second argument is that scaling up my personal number by the
> >population of my country doesn't change the argument at all. If it's
> >insignificant for me personally, and if I'm representative, then it's
> >insignificant for the country.
>
> Disagree. Is your excess power consumption proportionally
> representative of average human consumption? No, because you're in a
> privileged country, as am I. So what we save is globally out of
> proportion, and more significant for it.
>
> Nationally, sure. I know USAnians love to be insular, but power
> consumption is not merely a national consideration.
The US emitted 22.2% of total world carbon dioxide emissions in 2004.
This proportion is probably a fair bit lower today, since China and
India are growing their emissions at a much greater rate. Say it's down
to 20% to have a nice round number, that's 1/5th of the CO2 with 1/20th
of the population. That's a factor of 4 off the ideal 1:1, so that
insignificant 0.25% of national emissions then becomes an insignificant
1% instead.
trag
> In article <h3eh3j$1r7...@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>,
> woll...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) wrote:
>
> > In article <mike-611864.01212213072...@nothing.attdns.com>,
> > Mike Ash <m...@mikeash.com> wrote:
>
> > >8W over one month is about 6kWh. At my electricity rates, that's roughly
> > >40 cents out of a $40-60/month bill. Not significant.
>
> > Think for a moment about how many people live in the place you do.
> > There are about a hundred million households in the United States.
> > Being generous, let's assume that, on average, they are wasting ten
> > watts of electricity each. 1000 megawatts is about a quarter of a
> > typical base-load power station, twenty-four hours a day, 365 days a
> > year. That's fairly significant: about five million tons of coal[1] a
> > year (and fifteen million tons of carbon dioxide released into the
> > atmosphere).
>
> I never understood this idea of turning proportional numbers into
> absolute numbers to make them sound scarier.
>
> Multiplying it by a hundred million households STILL represents less
> than 1% of total electricity usage.
>
> According to Wikipedia (yeah, yeah), the US emitted about 6 *billion*
> tons of CO2 in 2006. Compared to that, 15 million tons is not
> significant. There are MUCH bigger fish to fry.
Ah, but no amount of inconvenience for you is too much, if it will
cause even a tiny bit of conservation in the eyes of the environmental
clergy.
trag
wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 09:01:35 -0400, Mike Ash <m...@mikeash.com> wrote:
> >My second argument is that scaling up my personal number by the
> >population of my country doesn't change the argument at all. If it's
> >insignificant for me personally, and if I'm representative, then it's
> >insignificant for the country.
>
> Disagree. Is your excess power consumption proportionally
> representative of average human consumption? No, because you're in a
> privileged country, as am I. So what we save is globally out of
> proportion, and more significant for it.
His power consumption is proportional for humans with a decent
standard of living. You're r arguing that he should reduce his
standard of living below a livable level if you think his power
consumption should be proportional to the rest of the worlds.
The real solution is to increase generating capacity and lower the
cost of energy, so that these Mickey Mouse conservation measures can
go in the dust bin of history where they belong.
> Nationally, sure. I know USAnians love to be insular, but power
> consumption is not merely a national consideration.
This last sentence is totally irrelevant unless one buys into a bunch
of guilt for not suffering environmental dogma. It sure sounds to me
like the old Catholic mortification of the flesh BS with the serial
numbers filed off and updated for the newest fads.
Jaimie Vandenbergh
>On Jul 14, 8:17 am, Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org>
>wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 09:01:35 -0400, Mike Ash <m...@mikeash.com> wrote:
>
>> >My second argument is that scaling up my personal number by the
>> >population of my country doesn't change the argument at all. If it's
>> >insignificant for me personally, and if I'm representative, then it's
>> >insignificant for the country.
>>
>> Disagree. Is your excess power consumption proportionally
>> representative of average human consumption? No, because you're in a
>> privileged country, as am I. So what we save is globally out of
>> proportion, and more significant for it.
>
>His power consumption is proportional for humans with a decent
>standard of living. You're r arguing that he should reduce his
>standard of living below a livable level if you think his power
>consumption should be proportional to the rest of the worlds.
Nope, I'm only talking about the wastage, not the total. What's a
small wastage for thee or me is a large wastage on a global average.
Yes, moving to a post-scarcity economy would fix it. Surprise.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
"In the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded." Terry Pratchett
Wayne Throop
: Nope, I'm only talking about the wastage, not the total. What's a
: small wastage for thee or me is a large wastage on a global average.
Really. How are you figuring this "global average"?
And how do you know what's *wastage* anyways? Who gets
to claim something as "waste" instead of a fair exchange
for convenience or other benefits?
Howard Brazee
>Didn't Mythbusters test this one out and they found that driving with
>the windows down was even worse than turning the AC on? Of course you
>could drive with the windows up and the AC off, if you were seriously
>masochistic and it wasn't *too* hot....
I would expect this to be related to car speed. I like electric
windows that I can open for the first couple of blocks before I get to
a faster road - then I roll them up.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Mike Ash
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 22:02:04 -0400, Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com> wrote:
>
> >Didn't Mythbusters test this one out and they found that driving with
> >the windows down was even worse than turning the AC on? Of course you
> >could drive with the windows up and the AC off, if you were seriously
> >masochistic and it wasn't *too* hot....
>
> I would expect this to be related to car speed. I like electric
> windows that I can open for the first couple of blocks before I get to
> a faster road - then I roll them up.
You and me both. I always prefer driving with the windows down in the
summer if the speeds are reasonable and the weather isn't insanely hot.
Not to save fuel (I've never been able to see an efficiency nor a
performance difference with AC on or off) but just because it's nicer.
Jaimie Vandenbergh
wrote:
>: Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org>
>: Nope, I'm only talking about the wastage, not the total. What's a
>: small wastage for thee or me is a large wastage on a global average.
>
>Really. How are you figuring this "global average"?
Nice snide manner, there.
Based on the population count and likes of
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/forecast/elec.html
where the US alone is shown as using two-thirds as much power as the
whole "developing world" at the 2010 projection. That evens out in the
future, but just means that *they* have to concentrate on value for
money later too.
Or developing something as useful as cold fusion or ZPE collection, of
course. That would be preferable!
>And how do you know what's *wastage* anyways? Who gets
>to claim something as "waste" instead of a fair exchange
>for convenience or other benefits?
As I've partly agreed with Mike, that's a personal judgment on ones
own usage. I'm not being prescriptivist here.
What I'm after is encouraging people to even think in terms of "oh,
that's probably wasteful". Having seen wastage cutting happen at
corporate levels - ie significant quantities - and talked to the
instigators, they've always started out by doing this at home first.
Then applied the lessons at work, got the bean-counters to validate
the business case, and gone for it.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
"Every Little Thing She Does Is Sufficiently Advanced Technology"
Wayne Throop
;:: on a global average.
:: Really. How are you figuring this "global average"?
: Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org>
: Based on the population count and likes of
: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/forecast/elec.html where the
: US alone is shown as using two-thirds as much power as the whole
: "developing world" at the 2010 projection.
So this is the old "you should feel gulity for using
more energy than other people do" ploy. Thanks for clarifying.
Jaimie Vandenbergh
wrote:
>::: What's a small wastage for thee or me is a large wastage
>;:: on a global average.
>
>:: Really. How are you figuring this "global average"?
>
>: Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org>
>: Based on the population count and likes of
>: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/forecast/elec.html where the
>: US alone is shown as using two-thirds as much power as the whole
>: "developing world" at the 2010 projection.
>
>So this is the old "you should feel gulity for using
>more energy than other people do" ploy.
Did I show you an unexpected fact? I apologise.
> Thanks for clarifying.
Thanks for failing to contribute to a discussion.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
"Machines take me by surprise with great frequency." - Alan Turing