Re: more GW hysteria

On 2009-01-12, Alex W. <ingilt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 02:14:33 -0600, Joe wrote:

On 2009-01-12, Paul M. Cook <pmcook@xxxxxxx> wrote:

They are a pox on humanity. I have a 27 inch JVC CRT TVand it has a better
picture than any flat screen. And if we don't put pressure on the
manufacturers to innovate and lower energy usage it will never happen. If
the manufacturers really put their minds to it they could probably reduce
the power consumption to a fraction of what it now is.

Bull***. A 42" Plasma in HD has a far superior picture to a CRT. An
LCD does as well, and is becoming a viable option now that color depth
and black levels have improved.

That's not a straightforward comparison. Not only does size make
a difference, you're throwing in HD. If you don't have or can't
get HD, old CRt technology can be quite competitive.

Sure it can, but all of the current model Plasmas, LCD's and
Projectors have HD receivers built-in, and HD is not only available in
pretty much all of the US, but Digital Broadcasts will be required in
about a month, and old Analog Broadcasts will be turned off.

Over
Christmas with my family, I had the opportunity to compare all
four major technologies -- my brother who has plasma to replace
the projector stored in the cellar because of its *** picture
quality and expensive bulb replacement, my own LCD, and my
mother's Sony Trinitron CRT box. Yes, her screen is smaller and
the picture is not nearly as bright, but neither does she get
pixellation on fast-moving images, weird black levels and odd
colour graduations. Plus, these days CRT is so cheap that for a
LCD or plasma screen of comparable picture quality you have to
put down a hell of a lot more cash.

That's why I like Plasma the best, even with it's slightly higher
power usage. It doesn't suffer from pixellation or odd black (and
therefore color) patterns. The only drawback is the possibility of
burn-in, but the newer ones all have a white filter to kinda bleach
the screen and eliminate the burn-in.

LCD has come a long way, but still (even with it's higher max
resolution) does not look as good to the naked eye as a plasma,
especially in High Action shots...




And it makes sense. I replaced my old fridge last June. My electric bill
is way down, like 50 bucks a month. So my fridge has started to pay for
itself and come December I will be in a net positive. Saving energy is a
win win all around.

On this, we can agree. I replaced my fridge, furnace and air
conditioners with higher-efficiency units. The power bill savings
were significant. Gas bill went from almost $250/month in the winter
down to under $200, just from the furnace...

At least you get to do this stuff of your own free will.
Over here, the EU has decided that old-fashioned incandescent
light bulbs are an energy-wasteful threat to the environment and
has outlawed them as of this year. I've stocked up, but my
supplies won't last forever. Bastards ....

I agree that the government making such a decision is a bit stupid,
but I have switched to the small flourescents everywhere in my house,
and like them a lot. And the power usage is only a fraction of the
cost, while they tend to last longer. Still, the savings in bulb
replacements doesn't make up for the higher price of the bulbs, but
the energy savings do in very short time. And now that they are
making them in higher wattages, I only have a few (oddly shaped)
incandescents left in the house...

--
Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
joe at hits - buffalo dot com
"Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
time..." - Danny, American History X
.

Loading