Off seems to be standby on my TV. Whenever it's off, there's a little red light on the set that says standby. Isn't the only way to stop wasting of that little bit of energy to unplug it entirely? Which is a huge pain in the ass depending on where the plugs are.
Death is your art. You make it with your hands day after day. That final gasp, that look of peace. And part of you is desperate to know: What's it like? Where does it lead you? And now you see, that's the secret. Not the punch you didn't throw or the kicks you didn't land. She really wanted it. Every Slayer has a death wish. Even you.
Spike ,'Conversations with Dead People'
Buffistechnology 2: You Made Her So She Growls?
Got a question about technology? Ask it here. Discussion of hardware, software, TiVos, multi-region DVDs, Windows, Macs, LINUX, hand-helds, iPods, anything tech related. Better than any helpdesk!
Sue - Jan 23, 2006 1:34:40 pm PST #6786 of 10003
hip deep in pie
§ ita § - Jan 23, 2006 1:39:54 pm PST #6787 of 10003
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Even my new TVs don't have standby.
I'm with Sue. If I can turn it on with a remote, it's on standby, isn't it? Some juice is powering the IR receiver.
DCJensen - Jan 23, 2006 1:44:44 pm PST #6788 of 10003
All is well that ends in pizza.
I didn't realize it had taken hold in the consumer marketplace. I have never shopped for a new tv seriously, so I haven't noticed.
When I think of "Standby" I think of electronics like cameras and such that can be switched to a "Hot and waiting" mode that powers down the CRT or LCD.
In the old days, TVs had tubes that could be kept warm with an "instant on" feature in up through the 70s. I figured that sort of thing was moot after all-ic tvs came around.
What it looks like they need is a spec for "Standby" that says it can only consume enough energy to keep memory from erasing...or mandate Static Ram, I guess...
§ ita § - Jan 23, 2006 1:45:50 pm PST #6789 of 10003
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
they need is a spec for "Standby" that says it can only consume enough energy to keep memory from erasing
Don't forget clocks. And the loss of ability to turn things on with a remote will be annoying.
DCJensen - Jan 23, 2006 1:48:18 pm PST #6790 of 10003
All is well that ends in pizza.
And the loss of ability to turn things on with a remote will be annoying.
Perhaps that can be kept to a minimum of energy consumption. A device powering up from almost-dead instead of mostly alive would save power, but still provide utility. The response might be a split second slower.
§ ita § - Jan 23, 2006 1:50:09 pm PST #6791 of 10003
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
My assumption would be that they are only using as much power to be able to come on and run timers/clocks. But who knows what convenience engineering mandated.
le nubian - Jan 23, 2006 1:57:16 pm PST #6792 of 10003
"And to be clear, I am the hell. And the high water."
question/poll:
how many playlists do you have on your ipod (and/or itunes)
Spidra Webster - Jan 23, 2006 1:58:28 pm PST #6793 of 10003
I wish I could just go somewhere to get flensed but none of the whaling ships near me take Medicare.
I'd be able to answer that if iTunes hadn't hosed my entire library last night. Grrrrrrr.
§ ita § - Jan 23, 2006 2:00:47 pm PST #6794 of 10003
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
32. Maybe half of those are smart.
Jessica - Jan 23, 2006 2:21:39 pm PST #6795 of 10003
And then Ortus came and said "It's Ortin' time" and they all Orted off into the sunset
15, 7 smart
Intel Dual Core Macs only about 20% faster than the old ones:
Macworld Lab’s tests do show that the new Intel-based iMac is faster than the iMac G5 when running native applications. However, we found that those improvements are generally much less than what Apple claims is a 2x improvement in speed.
Instead, our tests found the new 2.0GHz Core Duo iMac takes rougly 10 to 25 percent less time than the G5 iMac to perform the same native application tasks, albeit with some notable exceptions. (If you'd prefer, that makes the Core Duo iMac 1.1 to 1.3 times as fast.) And we also found that applications that aren’t yet Intel-native—which must run using Apple’s Rosetta code-translation technology—tend to run half as fast as the same applications running natively on the iMac G5.