Sky Auto Standby and other 'innovations'

"Cardinal Chunder" wrote in message
...


Hence the reason for "by default". i.e if you don't like the default,
change it or disable it altogether. Same should happen with computers - 30
mins of activity and into standby it goes. Again, if that doesn't suit
you, then change to something else or disable it.

The power savings and subsequent drop in CO2 emissions would be staggering
if all devices did this.


staggeringly small once you factored in the need to manufacture new systems
to replace the old ones that prematurely failed.

--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com

Tumbleweed wrote:
"Cardinal Chunder" wrote in message
...

Hence the reason for "by default". i.e if you don't like the default,
change it or disable it altogether. Same should happen with computers - 30
mins of activity and into standby it goes. Again, if that doesn't suit
you, then change to something else or disable it.

The power savings and subsequent drop in CO2 emissions would be staggering
if all devices did this.

staggeringly small once you factored in the need to manufacture new systems
to replace the old ones that prematurely failed.

Why would systems fail prematurely when they do into a mode that the
device is designed to support? Are you going to cite research that
suggests putting a device into standby that measurably increases its
likelihood of failing?

--
"Hello. I'm Leonard Nimoy. The following tale of alien encounters is
true. And by true, I mean false. It's all lies. But they're entertaining
lies. And in the end, isn't that the real truth? The answer is: No."

In article , Cardinal Chunder
wrote:

Tumbleweed wrote:
"Cardinal Chunder" wrote in message
...

Hence the reason for "by default". i.e if you don't like the default,
change it or disable it altogether. Same should happen with computers - 30
mins of activity and into standby it goes. Again, if that doesn't suit
you, then change to something else or disable it.

The power savings and subsequent drop in CO2 emissions would be staggering
if all devices did this.

staggeringly small once you factored in the need to manufacture new systems
to replace the old ones that prematurely failed.

Why would systems fail prematurely when they do into a mode that the
device is designed to support? Are you going to cite research that
suggests putting a device into standby that measurably increases its
likelihood of failing?

In any case putting a Sky box into 'standby' has no effect - all it
does is mute the audio and video outputs. As to other equipment, some
power units don't like being frequently disconnected from the mains and
may fail when plugged back in (I've had this happen on two older JVC
video recorders): the difference between standby and on in most cases
is miniscule, although capacitors will probably last longer if left
charged all the time, but we're talking fairly statistically
insignificant differences here.

"Cardinal Chunder" wrote in message
...
Tumbleweed wrote:
"Cardinal Chunder" wrote in message
...

Hence the reason for "by default". i.e if you don't like the default,
change it or disable it altogether. Same should happen with computers -
30 mins of activity and into standby it goes. Again, if that doesn't
suit you, then change to something else or disable it.

The power savings and subsequent drop in CO2 emissions would be
staggering if all devices did this.

staggeringly small once you factored in the need to manufacture new
systems to replace the old ones that prematurely failed.


Are you going to cite research that suggests putting a device into standby
that measurably increases its likelihood of failing?

sorry i sloppily read your message as as switching off, not standby.

Tw

In article ,
says...

"Jomtien" wrote in message
...
Heracles Pollux wrote:

Which devices are not "used" and left powered on, apart from possibly
street
lights.

I am constantly astounded by the wastefulness of many people. Many of
my customers leave their PCs on 24/7, though they rarely use them at
all. The same people also tend to leave lights on in unused rooms, and
radios and TVs on when unused also.



Different point.

But in all those cases the devices are being "used" as the user commanded.

I'll turn lights off in rooms when they're not being used, but all my A/V
stuff and PC will be on/off/standby as I wish for each particular thing.

If anyone else wants to switch things off or unplug them when not in use then
that's up to them, but what I don't like is other people (mainly the media)
telling me what I should do with them as if it's making the Earth heat up,
even though that's clearly ********.

In fact, I'd like to scream loudly in the faces of environmentalists who bleat
on about global warming and also the media who have had nothing else to talk
about (other than CBB) than being "carbon neutral" or "offsetting carbon
emissions". There'd be far less emissions if they stemmed the flow of effluent
coming from their mouths.
--

Dom Robinson Gamertag: DVDfever email: dom at dvdfever dot co dot uk
/* http://DVDfever.co.uk (editor)
/* 1125 DVDs, 347 games, 299 CDs, 110 cinema films, 41 concerts, videos & news
/* gears of war, beatles week, ridge racer 2 psp, call of duty 3, jarhead

New music charts - http://dvdfever.co.uk/music.shtml
DVDfever Youtube Channel - http://youtube.com/user/DVDfever

In article ,
says...
JohnW wrote:
"Cardinal Chunder" wrote in message
...
Ed wrote:
Heard today that Sky boxes will have a new feature enabled in the next
software package to make them automatically go into standby, as
apparently they use half as much electricity when in standby mode.

I wonder what other exciting stuff is lined up!!
Sounds like a damned good idea. I wonder if EU law should mandate that
that all consumer AV devices go into standby by default if not used for
some reasonable period of time, e.g. 5 hours.


The trouble with this idea is that one person's reasonable will differ from
the next person's. Some people will, quite reasonably, have their Sky boxes
piped through to their hi-fi to listen to the radio all day long - when I
worked at home I used to change the channel to a radio station at about 6am,
had my breakfast, then did a days work follwed by another couple of hours of
radio listening until I might have decided to watch some TV at about 7pm -
so.... 13 hours without the box being touched yet it was in constant (and
reasonable) use.

Hence the reason for "by default". i.e if you don't like the default,
change it or disable it altogether. Same should happen with computers -
30 mins of activity and into standby it goes. Again, if that doesn't
suit you, then change to something else or disable it.

But any such change should only be able to be activated at the user's
discretion. I don't want devices going into standby and me having to
circumvent that. If I want something running 24/7 then no-one's telling ME not
to do it!

(Now envisaging a Young Ones-style, "Turn off your PC, spotty"
--

Dom Robinson Gamertag: DVDfever email: dom at dvdfever dot co dot uk
/* http://DVDfever.co.uk (editor)
/* 1125 DVDs, 347 games, 299 CDs, 110 cinema films, 41 concerts, videos & news
/* gears of war, beatles week, ridge racer 2 psp, call of duty 3, jarhead

New music charts - http://dvdfever.co.uk/music.shtml
DVDfever Youtube Channel - http://youtube.com/user/DVDfever

In article ,
says...
In article , Cardinal Chunder
wrote:

Tumbleweed wrote:
"Cardinal Chunder" wrote in message
...

Hence the reason for "by default". i.e if you don't like the default,
change it or disable it altogether. Same should happen with computers - 30
mins of activity and into standby it goes. Again, if that doesn't suit
you, then change to something else or disable it.

The power savings and subsequent drop in CO2 emissions would be staggering
if all devices did this.

staggeringly small once you factored in the need to manufacture new systems
to replace the old ones that prematurely failed.

Why would systems fail prematurely when they do into a mode that the
device is designed to support? Are you going to cite research that
suggests putting a device into standby that measurably increases its
likelihood of failing?

In any case putting a Sky box into 'standby' has no effect - all it
does is mute the audio and video outputs. As to other equipment, some
power units don't like being frequently disconnected from the mains and
may fail when plugged back in (I've had this happen on two older JVC
video recorders):

And when it comes to PCs, often the people who switch them on/off at will,
thus making the components go cold/hot all the time, are the same people who
don't routinely virus- or spyware-check and end up wondering why it won't boot
up properly next time (because the malware is kicking in on bootup)
--

Dom Robinson Gamertag: DVDfever email: dom at dvdfever dot co dot uk
/* http://DVDfever.co.uk (editor)
/* 1125 DVDs, 347 games, 299 CDs, 110 cinema films, 41 concerts, videos & news
/* gears of war, beatles week, ridge racer 2 psp, call of duty 3, jarhead

New music charts - http://dvdfever.co.uk/music.shtml
DVDfever Youtube Channel - http://youtube.com/user/DVDfever

"Roger Wilmut" wrote in message
. ..
In article , Cardinal Chunder
wrote:


In any case putting a Sky box into 'standby' has no effect - all it
does is mute the audio and video outputs.

Are you absolutely certain about this? I ask because I find that If the
channel I'm watching is "skipping" (see very long Digital Spy thread if you
want to read more about this), in most instances, the skipping will stop if
I put the box into standby for a few seconds then switch it on again, unless
the problem is due to a marginal power supply inadequacy switching into
standby surely does more than you are suggesting.

Dom Robinson wrote:

what I don't like is other people (mainly the media)
telling me what I should do with them as if it's making the Earth heat up,
even though that's clearly ********.

No, it isn't. The planet is warming up and this is starting to have a
dramatic effect on the climate, and it is just the beginning. The main
cause of global warming is mankind, and his excessive consumption of
energy of all types.

Something has to be done. I personally would vote for culling of 90%
of the human population. Spanish flu and anthrax could save the
planet.

Sadly this is unlikely to happen so the next best thing is massive
taxes on fuel/energy. If electricity cost 10 times what it does then
more people would remember to turn things off.

And for those who would say that this hits the poor and elderly more
than the rich, how about a sliding scale: the first x kw of energy
(electricity, gas, oil) your house uses could be charged at cost and
all the rest at 20 times cost. Or charge all of it at 20 times cost
and give all households a token for a normal amount free.


"carbon neutral" or "offsetting carbon
emissions".

This is indeed nonsense invented by politicians who are afraid to
actually do anything about the problem.

--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/8vef5
UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73
BBC/ITV reception trouble? ; http://www.astra2d.com/
----
Only the truth as I see it.
No monies return'd. ;-)

"Jomtien" wrote in message
...
Dom Robinson wrote:

what I don't like is other people (mainly the media)
telling me what I should do with them as if it's making the Earth heat up,
even though that's clearly ********.


Agreed.

No, it isn't. The planet is warming up and this is starting to have a
dramatic effect on the climate, and it is just the beginning. The main
cause of global warming is mankind, and his excessive consumption of
energy of all types.

Something has to be done. I personally would vote for culling of 90%
of the human population. Spanish flu and anthrax could save the
planet.



Agreed. Historically plague and war keeps populations under control.


Sadly this is unlikely to happen so the next best thing is massive
taxes on fuel/energy. If electricity cost 10 times what it does then
more people would remember to turn things off.

And for those who would say that this hits the poor and elderly more
than the rich, how about a sliding scale: the first x kw of energy
(electricity, gas, oil) your house uses could be charged at cost and
all the rest at 20 times cost. Or charge all of it at 20 times cost
and give all households a token for a normal amount free.


"carbon neutral" or "offsetting carbon
emissions".

This is indeed nonsense invented by politicians who are afraid to
actually do anything about the problem.

--


Disagree. If it were done to generate our power using non carbon energy, it
may be possible to reduce the harm.

The problem is we use so much energy now that to replace that with carbon
neutral energy is beyond the means of possibility.