For corporations this changes any way: 5 year old gear is amortized and should be replaced, just because the beancounters say so.
However, I doubt you can totally offset the energy savings by purchasing new gear. Assume 500$ for a new machine (Business machines? Hell, you won't get them that cheap, but I'll run with it). I don't know how much my i7 rates, but I know it comes with a 90W powersupply. As such we can assume it uses that as a maximum. Assume a new i5 laptop will use half of that: 45W. So, you save 45W, which means you save 45*24*365 Wh = 394.2kWh over year. Let's assume you live in New York, which means you pay 18.1 cents per kWh (okay, values are from late 2011), which means you pay about 71$ less per year by the replacement. Assuming the 500$ investment, you need 7 years to break even. This is true regardless of scale (1 computer or 10000 computers)
So, yes, energy is a factor, but if it were the only factor, it wouldn't be cost effective. Do, also note that in every assumption I was very very friendly with the "replace" argument: cheap replacement cost, expensive electricity....
Of course, I might have miscalculated and you're right... who knows....
See also: planned obsolescence.
Same for my desktop, an AMD A8-3860, which was introduced in 07/2011. Does what I need, quickly enough.
Are these machines high end machines now? Absolutely not... However, the time of buying new toys just to have new toys, is over for me. Works for me, means: no reason to upgrade. Many people who are not into tech think that way. A few years ago, I helped a non-tech with her old desktop. It had died: caps gone up in smoke. I said: hey, it's about 5 years old, it had a good run. She: *only* five years? Non-tech people think differently (Ha!) These days I'd be pissed too if my machine died after 5 years of use.
All that VueZone equipment is headed for the dustbin of IoT history. There is nothing wrong with the access points or cameras. There is nothing wrong with the cloud-based service VueZone relies upon—except that it is no longer cost-effective for NetGear to offer the service.
I would say it is about 50/50 with porn and regular movies.
Which I don't understand. You can get porn risk free pretty much on all big platforms. Free porn is a solved problem. No need to go to shady websites.
Hell, it's in the interest of most porn providers to avoid infecting you because, they'd rather have you as a paying customer. Go to the big streaming porn websites, invariably there are payvideo on demand, webcam sites and dating sites behind them. They want you to pay for that. They don't want your credit card number to be lifted by some malware writing shady criminals...
I do that too. Right hander, I need my watch on my right hand. Doing otherwise feels wrong to me.
I have only read the first paragraph, and the bullshit is strong in this one.The gist being: "Americans' proposal to make bitcoin bigger was rejected by the Chinese... who threw their lot a group of programmers who.."
Bah. For one, that "other group" is mostly all-American as well.
The first group comprises a list of PHBs and CEOs that want to wrestle control over bitcoin. One way is to come up with some change, ANY change that makes their attempt different.
Most bitcoin programmers and experts agree that the change will serve to make bitcoin (1) insecure (2) decentralized (3) confer more power to a few companies such as those in the first group.
The wide community (and not just Chinese miners) have stuck with the long-time bitcoin developers instead of going for the marketing tricks employed by the PHBs. A sample of these tricks: (a) Creating an alternative version and labeling it classic. (b) Buying up bitcoin.com, providing an alternative version, and calling that bitcoin, and many others.
Again, the community has stuck with the wisdom of the security experts and developers. But more power to these CEOs. A few more NY articles and maybe they will fool the rest of us. Pro Tip: This time, label your fork "bitcoin original." That will fool us, for sure!
My point was that the search space of word-based variations is already significantly smaller than those of 64^8 "random passwords". Reducing the "dictionary-word-based" search space even further using other tools would make it even smaller and thus easier.
Or am I misunderstanding your comment?
There is no such thing as a typical "random 8 char password", or is there?
Now, of course, correct-horse-staple-battery style passwords, would theoretically be something like 4^1000000 (four words, 1M words to chose from), which is an insane search space. Even assuming the 100 most common words, still is a humongous search space. Perhaps statistical analysis would work on that.
Waste not, get your budget cut next year.