Compact fluorescent lamps failing

[The Natural Philosopher]

Get an LCD screen. Thats about 17W IIRC against 100W+ for a CRT..and get a power saving PC and set it up for low power.

[David Hansen]

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 17:45:26 +0000 someone who may be The Natural Philosopher wrote this:-

Ah, proof by assertion again.

[Andrew Gabriel]

A 15" CRT is around 50-60W. A 21" one is around 105W. Scan rate makes about 10-15W difference, and image brightness about 5-10W difference.

Unless the CRT conforms to Tco'03 (sticker on the front usually), there can also be noticable standby consumption, which in some cases applies unless you unplug the mains. Monitors conforming to Tco'03 have so little standby consumption that you can ignore their standby load (the one's I've measured are all under 0.5W, which is the limit of my measuring ability).

[Bob Eager]

Actually, that's what I thought, but I looked on a monitor to be sure. It was a dark corner and I obviously misread it! Thanks.

Indeed...that's my experience, although I have only the one CRT left, and that's rarely turned on (it's on a KVM in the main rack, rarely touched).

[Steve Firth]

Funny how a minority becomes "a small (but loud) minority" or "many others" depending on whether they disagree or agree with you.

[David Hansen]

On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 12:03:19 +0000 someone who may be [e-mail] (Steve Firth) wrote this:-

I note that, yet again, you were unable or unwilling to address the points which were raised.

Do keep this up.

[Stuart Noble]

Back on your old familiar territory

[Steve Firth]

I note that, yet again, when someone points out that your style of argument is circular and hollow that you bleat and raise false claims about 'inability'. I choose to address the failings in your posts that I choose to address, and I will not overlook one of your stupidities simply because you desire me to tackle another.

I shall, because it obviously causes you embarrasment when you realise that your feet of clay are inundated.

[Stuart Noble]

I was thinking more about the long term cost of dealing with those on the wrong side of the rich/poor divide, who will undoubtedly form the majority before long. A disproportionately expensive business in terms of security, social services etc

[Andy Hall]

On a global basis we already have that. Beyond a certain point, those with move their assets and ultimately themselves to places where they no longer consider that they are giving unreasonably to those without, be it via taxation or whatever means.

[David Hansen]

On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 13:03:52 +0000 someone who may be [e-mail] (Steve Firth) wrote this:-

Not something you did.

Yawn.

Mind reading again?

Do keep it up.

[Stuart Noble]

Who will swing your hammock without poor people?

[Andy Hall]

or whose hammock will I swing?

[Steve Firth]

No Mr Hansen, simple observation of your childish behaviour.

[clot]

It wasn't meant that way but I can see how it could seem so!

I meant that the Chinese that I've worked with in Beijing have been real grafters.

[David Hansen]

On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 20:03:42 +0000 someone who may be [e-mail] (Steve Firth) wrote this:-

I think my observation is nearer the mark.

I note the attempt to divert the discussion from the subject to discussion of me. This may fool some people, but it doesn't fool all.

You may have the last word.

[Steve Firth]

Well you would, wouldn't you?

It's not a discussion of you, it's an observation about your "style" of argument. You may care to reflect on your statement that a minority is "a small (but loud) minority" or "many others" depending on whether they disagree or agree with you. Since you fail to quantify either figure it's clear that all you are doing is appealing to emotion in either case while attempting to give the appearance of quantitative analysis.

Oh you've tried that one before as well. It's another of your failed tactics.