|
|
Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/...624165361.html
About time they were, like smoking ,banned. LTC. |
Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.
Lord Turkey Cough wrote:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/...624165361.html About time they were, like smoking ,banned. Steady half_pint - your total obsession with widescreen TV's leaves Lord Turkey looking *almost* sane. -- Joe Lee LTC |
Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 00:20:41 GMT, "Lord Turkey Cough"
wrote: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/...624165361.html About time they were, like smoking ,banned. You're talking utter ********. The actual headline reads 'Plasma TVs eat into energy savings' I've read that story and it's all about plasma vs. CRT vs. LCD, not widescreen - the term 'widescreen' isn't even mentioned once. You're advocating banning plasma TVs, not widescreen TVs, and being highly mendacious about it. Go and find a nanny state to live in if you want to ban things left, right, and centre. Mike -- http://www.corestore.org 'As I walk along these shores I am the history within' |
Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.
"Mike Ross" wrote in message ... On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 00:20:41 GMT, "Lord Turkey Cough" wrote: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/...624165361.html About time they were, like smoking ,banned. You're talking utter ********. The actual headline reads 'Plasma TVs eat into energy savings' I've read that story and it's all about plasma vs. CRT vs. LCD, not widescreen - the term 'widescreen' isn't even mentioned once. You're advocating banning plasma TVs, not widescreen TVs, and being highly mendacious about it. Go and find a nanny state to live in if you want to ban things left, right, and centre. No I am afraid you are wrong. Widescreen is highly inefficient, it's basically too wide which in turn leads to bigger TV's to give then a decent amount of height in the picture. If you make them extremely large you don't notice they are too wide because you can't see the sides anyway. The result is using at least twice as much energy use. as a standard TV. This is also one of the reasons to mobe to a flat screen because otherwise the TV takes up too much space and if you want a decebt picture on a flat screen it has to be plasma, which is horrendously inefficient, even compared to CRT's. And when you add your 10 billion from China, India and other developing couontires that amounts to humongous amounts of wasted energy and CO2 gas. Still if warching a thin strip of a picture is more important than saving the planet so be it. It's all in the sake of 'art' (lol). Of course good old Mother Nature never developed a widescreen camera because it was too inefficient to survive the process of natural selection. Ask Lord Charles Darwin :O) It is the nanny state which has forced widescreen upon us - stick that in your widescreen pipe and smoke it. Or rather don't smoke it inside because it's banned. LTC - Always Right.. Newspapers of course have always been taller than wide, the columns always tall because our eyes cannot track as well side ways as they can up and down, this is because our field of binocular vision is taller than it is wide. Thats why you lose which line you are on read a reall wide post. Obviously it's easy with only two lines. Mike -- http://www.corestore.org 'As I walk along these shores I am the history within' |
Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.
On 2 Jul, 04:57, "Lord Turkey Cough" wrote:
"Mike Ross" wrote in message ... On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 00:20:41 GMT, "Lord Turkey Cough" wrote: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/...624165361.html About time they were, like smoking ,banned. You're talking utter ********. The actual headline reads 'Plasma TVs eat into energy savings' I've read that story and it's all about plasma vs. CRT vs. LCD, not widescreen - the term 'widescreen' isn't even mentioned once. You're advocating banning plasma TVs, not widescreen TVs, and being highly mendacious about it. Go and find a nanny state to live in if you want to ban things left, right, and centre. No I am afraid you are wrong. Widescreen is highly inefficient, it's basically too wide which in turn leads to bigger TV's to give then a decent amount of height in the picture. If you make them extremely large you don't notice they are too wide because you can't see the sides anyway. The result is using at least twice as much energy use. as a standard TV. This is also one of the reasons to mobe to a flat screen because otherwise the TV takes up too much space and if you want a decebt picture on a flat screen it has to be plasma, which is horrendously inefficient, even compared to CRT's. And when you add your 10 billion from China, India and other developing couontires that amounts to humongous amounts of wasted energy and CO2 gas. Still if warching a thin strip of a picture is more important than saving the planet so be it. It's all in the sake of 'art' (lol). Of course good old Mother Nature never developed a widescreen camera because it was too inefficient to survive the process of natural selection. Ask Lord Charles Darwin :O) It is the nanny state which has forced widescreen upon us - stick that in your widescreen pipe and smoke it. Or rather don't smoke it inside because it's banned. LTC - Always Right.. Newspapers of course have always been taller than wide, the columns always tall because our eyes cannot track as well side ways as they can up and down, this is because our field of binocular vision is taller than it is wide. Thats why you lose which line you are on read a reall wide post. Obviously it's easy with only two lines. Mike -- http://www.corestore.org 'As I walk along these shores I am the history within' Why does a screen that is 33% bigger use 100% more energy? Where is all that additional energy going? Also the width of a newspaper is limited by the span of your arms. If you need more area on a page you can only make papers taller. Also most African animals (eg wildebeest) that live on the plains have widescreen vision enabling them to scan the whole horizon. Also the binocular field of vision is wider than tall. Also the EU consider digital boxes - especially sky - a bigger environmental 'headache' than widescreen TVs. Also I'm sure you will reject all these points and continue with your inane ill-informed yandering. Also please learn about apostrophes and abbreviation marks, they make you appear uneducated which would be unfortunate. |
Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.
On 2 Jul, 01:20, "Lord Turkey Cough" wrote:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/...624165361.html About time they were, like smoking ,banned. LTC. If you think anything us puny humans are doing is affecting the climate then you are an even bigger arse than you make out. Doc |
Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.
"Lord Turkey Cough" wrote in message ... http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/...624165361.html About time they were, like smoking ,banned. And the sad thing is that unless you are feeding these flat-panel screens with a High Definition source, the picture quality is invariably inferior to that on an 'old-fashioned' CRT TV! Uno-Hoo! |
Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.
"Lord Turkey Cough" wrote in message ... tall because our eyes cannot track as well side ways as they can up and down, this is because our field of binocular vision is taller than it is wide. Thats why you lose which line you are on read a reall wide post. When you watch TV you don't work from left to right and then move down a line do you? You aren't reading it! |
Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 00:20:41 GMT, "Lord Turkey Cough"
wrote: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/...624165361.html About time they were, like smoking ,banned. Yes, I agree it should be illegal to light one in a public place. Rod. |
Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 03:57:35 GMT, "Lord Turkey Cough"
wrote: No I am afraid you are wrong. Widescreen is highly inefficient, it's basically too wide which in turn leads to bigger TV's to give then a decent amount of height in the picture. If you make them extremely large you don't notice they are too wide because you can't see the sides anyway. The result is using at least twice as much energy use. I'm bored with this. You've done it before - relentlessly. Can't you think of something new to rant about in order to amuse us? Rod. |
Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 03:57:35 GMT, "Lord Turkey Cough"
wrote: various snips "Mike Ross" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 00:20:41 GMT, "Lord Turkey Cough" wrote: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/...624165361.html About time they were, like smoking ,banned. You're talking utter ********. The actual headline reads 'Plasma TVs eat into energy savings' I've read that story and it's all about plasma vs. CRT vs. LCD, not widescreen - the term 'widescreen' isn't even mentioned once. You're advocating banning plasma TVs, not widescreen TVs, and being highly mendacious about it. Go and find a nanny state to live in if you want to ban things left, right, and centre. No I am afraid you are wrong. No I'm right - if you don't believe me go read the article. You obviously haven't, it doesn't mention 'widescreen TV' once!!! That was my point. Which you haven't contested. Still if warching a thin strip of a picture is more important than saving the planet so be it. Saving the planet from what? I'm a geologist, I take the long view :-) Newspapers of course have always been taller than wide, the columns always tall because our eyes cannot track as well side ways as they can up and down How much do you use your TV for reading text? Mike -- http://www.corestore.org 'As I walk along these shores I am the history within' |
Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.
Dr Hfuhruhurr wrote:
On 2 Jul, 01:20, "Lord Turkey Cough" wrote: [Something crap, as usual] If you think anything us puny humans are doing is affecting the climate then you are an even bigger arse than you make out. He is an arse, obviously. But so are you, for making such a ludicrous statement. |
Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.
On 2 Jul, 12:41, "Pyriform" wrote:
Dr Hfuhruhurr wrote: On 2 Jul, 01:20, "Lord Turkey Cough" wrote: [Something crap, as usual] If you think anything us puny humans are doing is affecting the climate then you are an even bigger arse than you make out. He is an arse, obviously. But so are you, for making such a ludicrous statement. Its only ludicrous if you believe what the nanny state has been force feeding us on the subject. Global Warming is a cyclical event in our planets history, its happened before (many times) and it'll happen again. Where's the proof its direct attributed to modern lifestyle and 'carbon emission'? Doc |
Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.
Dr Hfuhruhurr wrote:
On 2 Jul, 12:41, "Pyriform" wrote: Dr Hfuhruhurr wrote: On 2 Jul, 01:20, "Lord Turkey Cough" wrote: [Something crap, as usual] If you think anything us puny humans are doing is affecting the climate then you are an even bigger arse than you make out. He is an arse, obviously. But so are you, for making such a ludicrous statement. Its only ludicrous if you believe what the nanny state has been force feeding us on the subject. Global Warming is a cyclical event in our planets history, its happened before (many times) and it'll happen again. Where's the proof its direct attributed to modern lifestyle and 'carbon emission'? The science underpinning global warming has nothing to do with the "nanny state". Carbon dioxide does not care how you vote, or even if you vote. It's a greenhouse gas, and it behaves according to its physical properties. Atmospheric levels of CO2 are increasing due to human activities, and this affects the radiative equilibrium between the incoming solar radiation and the heat radiated back into space from the upper atmosphere. The planet gets warmer as a result. The present warming is acyclic. There are no external forcings to account for it. I'm always amused by people who triumphantly announce that the climate is always changing, as if this might somehow have been missed by the people who actually study the subject! You only know about past climate changes because of the work of the very people whose field of study is now telling you that recent warming is our fault! There is no such thing as proof in any empirical science. The best you can ever have is a high degree of certainty about something, and that is exactly where we are with global warming. Further reading: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...05/start-here/ http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm (if you want to get straight down to why CO2 is a problem) |
Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.
On 2 Jul, 13:22, "Pyriform" wrote:
Dr Hfuhruhurr wrote: On 2 Jul, 12:41, "Pyriform" wrote: Dr Hfuhruhurr wrote: On 2 Jul, 01:20, "Lord Turkey Cough" wrote: [Something crap, as usual] If you think anything us puny humans are doing is affecting the climate then you are an even bigger arse than you make out. He is an arse, obviously. But so are you, for making such a ludicrous statement. Its only ludicrous if you believe what the nanny state has been force feeding us on the subject. Global Warming is a cyclical event in our planets history, its happened before (many times) and it'll happen again. Where's the proof its direct attributed to modern lifestyle and 'carbon emission'? The science underpinning global warming has nothing to do with the "nanny state". Carbon dioxide does not care how you vote, or even if you vote. It's a greenhouse gas, and it behaves according to its physical properties. Atmospheric levels of CO2 are increasing due to human activities, and this affects the radiative equilibrium between the incoming solar radiation and the heat radiated back into space from the upper atmosphere. The planet gets warmer as a result. The present warming is acyclic. There are no external forcings to account for it. I'm always amused by people who triumphantly announce that the climate is always changing, as if this might somehow have been missed by the people who actually study the subject! You only know about past climate changes because of the work of the very people whose field of study is now telling you that recent warming is our fault! There is no such thing as proof in any empirical science. The best you can ever have is a high degree of certainty about something, and that is exactly where we are with global warming. Further reading: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...05/start-here/ http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm(if you want to get straight down to why CO2 is a problem) Yes, yes I've read it all before and i've seen plenty of 'evidence' to the contrary. http://biocab.org/Global_Warming.html http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/wethring.htm http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO.../V3/N18/C3.jsp Until *I* see some definite answers one way or the other I'm remaining cynical about the whole issue. Even if we *were* to cut our emissions in accordance with the Kyoto treaty do you *really* think that it will make much difference? Doc |
Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.
Dr Hfuhruhurr wrote:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...05/start-here/ http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm(if you want to get straight down to why CO2 is a problem) Yes, yes I've read it all before Somehow I doubt that. and i've seen plenty of 'evidence' to the contrary. http://biocab.org/Global_Warming.html Well, I don't know what the hell that is. The whole site seems to be the work of a madman. http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/wethring.htm Hilarious. Denialist research in action. Either say something stupid and then post a link to someone else saying the same stupid thing, or else post a link to something that says the opposite of what you claim, and hope that nobody notices. Here's a quote from that piece: "In this study, we're seeing remarkable evidence that suggests atmospheric CO2 levels were in fact dropping at the same time that the planet was getting colder. So this significantly reinforces the idea that CO2 is a major driver of climate" http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO.../V3/N18/C3.jsp Denialist crap. That link misrepresents the results of a paper published in 2000, before even the IPCC's third assessment report, let alone the fourth. Until *I* see some definite answers one way or the other I'm remaining cynical about the whole issue. Since the the question has already been answered as definitively as it needs to be, we must all be grateful that policy decisions need not depend on *your* level of cynicism! |
Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.
"Lord Turkey Cough" wrote in message ... Newspapers of course have always been taller than wide, the columns always tall because our eyes cannot track as well side ways as they can up and down, this is because our field of binocular vision is taller than it is wide. Thats why you lose which line you are on read a reall wide post. Obviously it's easy with only two lines. Have you got one eye mounted above the other? ..-) Z |
Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.
Bob Latham wrote:
Pyriform wrote: Denialist crap. To take such an aggressive stance strongly suggests that you have become part of the religion of man made global warming. You are apparently unaware of the difference between science and religion. This might help: http://www.wellingtongrey.net/miscel...s%20faith.html Its a pity you cannot be more open minded as there is a counter argument which for for me holds more water. That's the trouble with leaving your mind wide open. All sorts of watery crap can get in. I notice you chose not to share this counter argument with us. Is it really that embarrassing? Although I'm convinced global warming is nothing to do with man I'm not taking the closed mind religious approach and I don't say other people's views are crap. You are convinced, despite the compelling evidence for it, and the lack of any good evidence to the contrary? *That* is a faith position, I think you'll find... |
Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global WarmiggCrisis.
WARNING: CROSSPOST ALERT: uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.legal,uk.misc
half_pint (often called half_wit, and currently posting as Lord Turkey Cough) is a known troll, who has continuously attacked widescreen TV for years, obsessively saying the same thing over and over, and many people have said that his posts are typical of an autistic spectrum disorder. Please don't try to engage with his points about widescreen TV because he will simply respond with a nonsensical reply or outright abuse, and he shows no inclination whatsoever towards rational discussion. He has recently started crossposting between multiple groups, choosing subjects (like global warming) to sucker people into arguing about them. He has succeeded in generating long disruptive threads in this way. If you _must_ reply to him, the past record shows that you're better off suggesting ways that he might get help for his mental issue, rather than trying to rebut any argument that he might make which just seems to drive him deeper into irrationality. |
Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.
On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 13:22:06 +0100, "Pyriform"
wrote: The science underpinning global warming has nothing to do with the "nanny state". Carbon dioxide does not care how you vote, or even if you vote. No, it doesn't. And it would also appear that none of the warm phases of the many historic climate changes in the past could have been caused by man's activities - especially seeing that the earlier cycles occured before there *were* any men on the planet. The cycles are reasonably regular, and this present cycle is occurring at the same time that the cyclical changes would predict it would occur. Mere coincidence? -- Cynic |
Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global WarmiggCrisis.
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 18:44:19 +0100, Pyriform wrote:
snip So Pyriform, once again half_wit has suckered you into arguing about global warming to disrupt this group. Oh boy. |
Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global WarmiggCrisis.
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 18:59:54 +0100, Cynic wrote:
Cynic, you're always getting suckered by half_wit into joining disruptive arguments. You're dancing on a troll's hook. |
Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.
On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 09:53:52 +0100, "Uno-Hoo!"
[email protected] wrote: About time they were, like smoking ,banned. And the sad thing is that unless you are feeding these flat-panel screens with a High Definition source, the picture quality is invariably inferior to that on an 'old-fashioned' CRT TV! Not generally true with modern flat panel displays, though it was when they first came out. The biggest downside with a reasonably modern flat-panel display is likely to be a decreased viewing angle - though even there it is almost certainly going to be more than adequate for most users. -- Cynic |
Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.
John Maybury wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 18:44:19 +0100, Pyriform wrote: snip So Pyriform, once again half_wit has suckered you into arguing about global warming to disrupt this group. Oh boy. Ah, but I'm not arguing with him, am I? Feel free to killfile me, or ignore the thread. |
Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global WarmiggCrisis.
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 19:08:26 +0100, Cynic wrote:
snip Don't engage with this. It's disrupting several groups and you're just looking like a fool. |
Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.
Cynic wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 13:22:06 +0100, "Pyriform" wrote: The science underpinning global warming has nothing to do with the "nanny state". Carbon dioxide does not care how you vote, or even if you vote. No, it doesn't. And it would also appear that none of the warm phases of the many historic climate changes in the past could have been caused by man's activities - especially seeing that the earlier cycles occured before there *were* any men on the planet. Quite. They had other causes, such as the Milankovitch cycles, which is why the present warming can be seen to be acyclic. The cycles are reasonably regular, and this present cycle is occurring at the same time that the cyclical changes would predict it would occur. Mere coincidence? Neither coincidence nor true! What "cycle" did you have in mind? It appears to be unknown to conventional science. |
Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global WarmiggCrisis.
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 19:13:08 +0100, Pyriform wrote:
Ah, but I'm not arguing with him, am I? Feel free to killfile me, or ignore the thread. Do you dispute that half_wit deliberately intended to generate this argument that you've so enthusiastically joined? Do you dispute that many people have posted to say that they find these crossposted arguments to be swamping and damaging to the group? |
Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.
"Pyriform" wrote in message ... John Maybury wrote: On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 18:44:19 +0100, Pyriform wrote: snip So Pyriform, once again half_wit has suckered you into arguing about global warming to disrupt this group. Oh boy. Ah, but I'm not arguing with him, am I? Feel free to killfile me, or ignore the thread. I don't bother discussing global warming any more. If the theories are true then we're snookered because there's no way the Third World is going to reduce their CO2 output. I doubt if they'll even reduce the rate of growth of their CO2 output during the next 50 years. So let's hope the theories aren't true. Bill |
Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.
"Mike Ross" wrote in message ... On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 03:57:35 GMT, "Lord Turkey Cough" wrote: various snips "Mike Ross" wrote in message . .. On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 00:20:41 GMT, "Lord Turkey Cough" wrote: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/...624165361.html About time they were, like smoking ,banned. You're talking utter ********. The actual headline reads 'Plasma TVs eat into energy savings' I've read that story and it's all about plasma vs. CRT vs. LCD, not widescreen - the term 'widescreen' isn't even mentioned once. You're advocating banning plasma TVs, not widescreen TVs, and being highly mendacious about it. Go and find a nanny state to live in if you want to ban things left, right, and centre. No I am afraid you are wrong. No I'm right - if you don't believe me go read the article. You obviously haven't, it doesn't mention 'widescreen TV' once!!! That was my point. Which you haven't contested. Still if warching a thin strip of a picture is more important than saving the planet so be it. Saving the planet from what? I'm a geologist, I take the long view :-) Newspapers of course have always been taller than wide, the columns always tall because our eyes cannot track as well side ways as they can up and down How much do you use your TV for reading text? 50% includinig monitor. So seems you accept the rest though is true Mike -- http://www.corestore.org 'As I walk along these shores I am the history within' |
Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.
"Zimmy" wrote in message ... "Lord Turkey Cough" wrote in message ... Newspapers of course have always been taller than wide, the columns always tall because our eyes cannot track as well side ways as they can up and down, this is because our field of binocular vision is taller than it is wide. Thats why you lose which line you are on read a reall wide post. Obviously it's easy with only two lines. Have you got one eye mounted above the other? ..-) |
Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.
"Dr Hfuhruhurr" wrote in message oups.com... On 2 Jul, 12:41, "Pyriform" wrote: Dr Hfuhruhurr wrote: On 2 Jul, 01:20, "Lord Turkey Cough" wrote: [Something crap, as usual] If you think anything us puny humans are doing is affecting the climate then you are an even bigger arse than you make out. He is an arse, obviously. But so are you, for making such a ludicrous statement. Its only ludicrous if you believe what the nanny state has been force feeding us on the subject. Global Warming is a cyclical event in our planets history, its happened before (many times) and it'll happen again. Where's the proof its direct attributed to modern lifestyle and 'carbon emission'? I don't and I'm not an arse either Doc |
Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.
John Maybury wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 19:13:08 +0100, Pyriform wrote: Ah, but I'm not arguing with him, am I? Feel free to killfile me, or ignore the thread. Do you dispute that half_wit deliberately intended to generate this argument that you've so enthusiastically joined? It's hard to know what his intentions are. He's clearly mentally ill. But to avoid joining the argument (unenthusiastically, I might add) would mean to allow bogus claims about global warming (from people other than half_wit) to go unchallenged. I'm not sure I have enough self-restraint. Do you dispute that many people have posted to say that they find these crossposted arguments to be swamping and damaging to the group? For some values of 'many'. It seems to be mostly you... Aren't you just prolonging the misery? |
Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.
Pyriform wrote:
It's hard to know what his intentions are. He's clearly mentally ill. But to avoid joining the argument (unenthusiastically, I might add) would mean to allow bogus claims about global warming (from people other than half_wit) to go unchallenged. I'm not sure I have enough self-restraint. And in so doing you've got drawn into posting repetitive arguments that look worthy of the troll himself. |
Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.
Sandman wrote:
Pyriform wrote: It's hard to know what his intentions are. He's clearly mentally ill. But to avoid joining the argument (unenthusiastically, I might add) would mean to allow bogus claims about global warming (from people other than half_wit) to go unchallenged. I'm not sure I have enough self-restraint. And in so doing you've got drawn into posting repetitive arguments that look worthy of the troll himself. That obviously reflects the repetitive nature of the arguments being refuted. |
Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 00:20:41 GMT, "Lord Turkey Cough"
wrote: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/...624165361.html Hey, better make all those widescreen plasma TVs 4:3 and save the planet, eh? Charlie -- Remove NO-SPOO-PLEASE from my email address to reply Please send no unsolicited email or foodstuffs |
Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.
On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 17:19:35 +0100, "Zimmy" wrote:
"Lord Turkey Cough" wrote in message ... Newspapers of course have always been taller than wide, the columns always tall because our eyes cannot track as well side ways as they can up and down, this is because our field of binocular vision is taller than it is wide. Thats why you lose which line you are on read a reall wide post. Obviously it's easy with only two lines. Have you got one eye mounted above the other? ..-) Take out the "mounted above the other" and you're on the right track. Charlie -- Remove NO-SPOO-PLEASE from my email address to reply Please send no unsolicited email or foodstuffs |
Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 00:20:41 GMT, "Lord Turkey Cough"
wrote: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/...624165361.html About time they were, like smoking ,banned. While this is nothing whatsoever to do with widescreen (of course, that is just your hobby-horse), it is rather surprising that LCD and plasma screen TV sets *do* use more power than the equivalent CRT. I couldn't find the specifications of many, but looking on the Philips website, they have the full spec including power consumption of all their TVs. And the CRT 32PW9570/05 uses 109W in normal usage, while the same sized LCD 32PF9641D/10 uses 128W (it does use less in standby). There isn't an equivalent sized plasma in their range, but the 42" 42PF5521D/10 uses 230W. -- Alex Heney, Global Villager Beware of barking dogs that bite. To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom |
Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.
Alex Heney wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 00:20:41 GMT, "Lord Turkey Cough" wrote: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/...624165361.html About time they were, like smoking ,banned. While this is nothing whatsoever to do with widescreen (of course, that is just your hobby-horse), it is rather surprising that LCD and plasma screen TV sets *do* use more power than the equivalent CRT. When I'd looked there wasn't much in it , inch for inch. Some flat panels were about 10% more efficient that a same sized CRT while others seemed about 10% worse. Certainly not a vast difference either way though plenty of people going from a 28" or smaller CRT to a 42" flat panel *is* a noticable increase -- Alex "I laugh in the face of danger. Then I hide until it goes away" www.drzoidberg.co.uk www.ebayfaq.co.uk |
Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.
On 2 Jul, 18:59, Cynic wrote:
The cycles are reasonably regular, and this present cycle is occurring at the same time that the cyclical changes would predict it would occur. Mere coincidence? Left to its own devices the world should be starting to get cooler now as it heads into another ice age. We're already overdue for one going by past records. How exactly does that square with the planet getting warmer? Answers on a postcard .... B2003 |
Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.
On 3 Jul, 00:54, "Pyriform" wrote:
Alex Heney wrote: While this is nothing whatsoever to do with widescreen (of course, that is just your hobby-horse), it is rather surprising that LCD and plasma screen TV sets *do* use more power than the equivalent CRT. I couldn't find the specifications of many, but looking on the Philips website, they have the full spec including power consumption of all their TVs. And the CRT 32PW9570/05 uses 109W in normal usage, while the same sized LCD 32PF9641D/10 uses 128W (it does use less in standby). The LCD will have a larger screen size, of course... Err, it will? 32" is 32". Doc There isn't an equivalent sized plasma in their range, but the 42" 42PF5521D/10 uses 230W. The power consumption of a plasma set will vary depending on the image content, whereas for most LCD sets it will remain constant. Newer LCD designs incorporating locally dimmable LED array backlighting should change this. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:57 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com