I'm not sure I follow that logic. The time of year (winter) when the sun sets the earliest is when we end DST, making the sun set even earlier in our day. So during the busiest shopping period of the year, the sun sets earlier than it does at any other time of the year.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
I'd actually prefer that we just always stay on DST, which would sort of be the same thing as ending it. Maybe it's just because of where I live though. The sun has already set by the time people get off work here in the winter. The entire month of December the sun sets at about 4:30pm.
The strange thing is, if you use a phone, things are much simpler (generally there is an app).
It works better on phones in a country that has one of the largest phone producers in the world? Hmm imagine that.
I'm sure a lot of the reason PC sales have slowed is simply because there is no "killer app" for mainstream consumers that requires beefier hardware. For example, my parents are using an 8-year-old CPU (Athlon X2 4200+), and it would be very hard to justify upgrading for what they do. Unless you have a specific use in mind (like gaming or video editing/encoding), PCs have been "fast enough" for awhile.
In my experience most new PC purchases now are because of hardware failures or people borking their OS with malware/McAfee, and rather than risking $200 in the Geeksquad lottery of incompetence they just get a new PC.
I wouldn't say ANY other country, but we are certainly nowhere near the top.
They may set their price to maximize profits, but in some cases I'm not sure that is actually what they are achieving. By making a product cheaper you will also generally sell more of that product (whether it makes up for the lower prices depends on a lot of factors). Just look at PC game download services like Steam (or ironically Amazon). They have regular prices most of the time, but have occasional sales to attract buyers who wouldn't have otherwise bought the games. For example I recently picked up Dark Souls for $7.50, a game I would have never tried at it's full price. $7.50 is a lot more than $0.00
and don't use email. A letter with an address on it proves that you are in their district and may be voting for someone else if they don't do the right thing. An email could be from anyone.
..but wait, I thought the "death of the PC" had already come? How are people gaming on something that doesn't exist?
That is a decent price, but even $5 is really on the high end when you are talking about sitting in a $5 chair in a big concrete box for 2 hours watching a screen only like 10 times bigger than what many people have a home nowadays. Even without factoring in the profits from snacks and candy a business model should be maintainable on like $1 a viewing.
The #1 thing making that business model not "maintainable on like $1 a viewing" is the licensing fees the theaters have to pay to show the films. It depends on the particular business deals but usually 90%+ of the ticket value goes straight to the movie studio. Theaters make almost all of their money on popcorn/soda/candy. Yes it sucks, but that's the reality.
I think $1 for a movie ticket to a new film is pretty unrealistic though, when you consider how expensive a film is to make, plus the operational costs of the theater.
For most people Facebook is more like this though: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5W8K9SMI9Fk
So the same as all of their "news" then?
To be fair fan death IS real. It just takes about 70-80 years to take effect.
and it certainly hasn't ended with Obama. He has extended most of the policies of Bush, but seems to get a free pass from most of the people who were up in arms about Bush.
A shocking revelation
Ivy Bridge on 22nm consumes less power than Sandy Bridge on 32nm when idle, according to Anandtech. Only very slightly less, but still less. Those differences will obviously pale in comparison to the claimed 20x reductions from architecture changes in Haswell though.
If you look back through all of Intels die shrinks they pretty much always have lower idle power consumption than their predecessor, although you are right to point out the load power consumption is where the biggest difference is seen.