Forgot your password?

Close
typodupeerror

Incandescents use less energy, CFLs an elaborate c-> 2

Submitted by bluefoxlucid
bluefoxlucid writes "From the article, "BANNING the humble 60-watt light bulb to make way for so-called energy-saving ones and 'help save the planet' was last night exposed as an elaborate EU con." What justification could the have for such accusations? "The carbon footprint of manufacturing, distribution and disposal of a compact fluorescent bulb is far greater than the energy usage of a standard bulb." Imagine that. Complex electronics and mercury tubes are harder to make than an evacuated glass bulb with a wire in it; and reclaiming hazardous waste takes more energy than just chucking a harmless glass bulb in the standard recycling bin."
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:Not Sco at all (Score 4, Informative) 174

by NullProg (#36726004) Attached to: Why No War Over MS's Android Patent Shakedown?

In this case, careful review by a number of hardware makers has led them to pay Microsoft to license the patents. We may not know exactly what they are using but you can bet the companies paying Microsoft had to have pretty good proof before they simply handed over per-device fees to another company.

I doubt that. All the companies that have licensed the patents for their Android devices also ship Windows devices. More than likely Microsoft threatened them over Windows pricing if they didn't agree to the patents. See the monopoly trial transcripts on Microsoft's use of predatory pricing tactics.

The one Android using company that didn't license the patents also doesn't ship any Windows versions. According to Barnes and Noble the patents are weak. See

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/04/28/039255/BampN-Responds-To-Microsofts-Android-Suit

Food for thought,
Enjoy.

Comment: Re:Everything is an INCOMPATIBLE object (Score 1) 317

by NullProg (#36184386) Attached to: Imagining the CLI For the Modern Machine
Despite what you may think, sometimes Redmond actually can innovate, and do it well.

Trouble is Redmond didn't innovate. Powershell is a weak copy of IBM OS/2 Workplace Shell / System Object Model (SOM).

See here: http://www.warpspeed.com.au/cgi-bin/inf2html.cmd?..%5Chtml%5Cbook%5CToolkt40%5CWPSGUIDE.INFl

Enjoy,

Windows

Windows on verge of dropping below 90% OS share-> 1

Submitted by jbrodkin
jbrodkin writes "Windows is on the verge of dropping below 90% market share, with smartphones and tablets posing an increasingly serious threat to Microsoft's dominance of the operating system market. Data from Net Applications — which lumps mobile and desktop operating systems into one statistic — show that Windows market share dropped from 93.74% in February 2009 to 90.29% in December 2010. "The operating system usage market share trend line points to Windows' overall usage falling below 90% sometime during 2011," says Vince Vizzaccaro, executive vice president of marketing and strategic alliances for Net Applications. "It could be as early as next month." Although Windows-based PC shipments are growing, the data points to the fact that the rest of the OS market, driven by mobile devices, is getting bigger and Microsoft isn't capitalizing on the growth. More and more users are accessing the Internet on devices that don't run Windows. Another analyst predicts that "By 2013, greater than 67% of browsers accessing the Internet will be on non-PC devices. Internet Explorer will ultimately become a minor player in the browser market.""
Link to Original Source

Comment: I'm getting tired of this.... (Score 2, Interesting) 402

by NullProg (#34119094) Attached to: Net Neutrality Supporters Hammered In Elections

Network Neutrality was lost the day they/we allowed E911 calls over the internet. The network neutrality folks would argue that P2P traffic has the same priority over 911 VOIP packets. They don't.

I'm using Verizon as a sample because thats what I currently have (Replace Verizon with whatever ISP you have). Should Verizon discriminate packets between a streaming video NetFlix user and an FiOS on-demand video user on their network? No. If I was the NetFlix customer I would file a consumer complaint. Should Verizon discriminate between me watching on-demand and the NetFlix user watching a streaming video while the P2P Verizon user downloads Debbie Does Dallas from Russia at the same time? Yes, if it interferes with the paid for transmissions. Both I and the NetFlix user paid extra (State/local Taxes, Fees, etc.) for the priveledge of watching an un-interrupted streaming video.

In the USA, this isn't a Federal issue its a local issue. Its a grass roots effort that requires you to go down to the local zoning/franchise board in your community. Get the Franchise ISP's to sign a some sort of customer Bill of Rights. If they violate it, then they loose the franchise. The community gets to vote for a new ISP.

We, the USA internet users, need to craft this Bill of Rights for our ISP's. Not, congress, not the president, and especially not the courts. Make the internet Bill of Rights a GPL/ANSI/ISO/FSF etc. standard. How do we do this? I don't know. Maybe usenet, IRC, etc. Maybe each local ISP block needs to send two users to a internet forum to discuss, debate, and ratify. Then those users take it back to the ISP users for a vote. That's how the US constitution was formed. Its how democracy works.

Food for thought,
Enjoy,

Better late than never. -- Titus Livius (Livy)