Decaflon

Kami, my new media teacher has actually used the EeePC this year as his class computer. The thing about the EeePC is that you should be able to get something like that built cheaper. ASUS is marking it up quite a bit, I think, considering all the software is open source, and the low-end hardware itself wouldn't cost all that much these days. Good business technique, though, and they're certainly meeting a market. I'd like to give it a test run sometime. I don't know why, because all of my extra cash is really going to necessities these days, but well...I can dream. :D

Almost spent the same on a portable word processor.

I nearly bought one of those a few years ago. What's a good company to buy these from now? Would you recommend having one? It always seemed like it could be a brilliant idea, as simplicity is often what is needed for a good writing environment, I find, but it also seemed might you might find it a bit lacking, if you suddenly needed to look something up (i.e., online).

There are four PCs in my home. My computer, my partner's computer, our gaming computer and our media PC. We could do with a laptop, I must say.

Well if it does last then it is a good thing and honestly I would be surprised if they tampered with it. People could just as easily go back to pirating the goods.

They will, though, because the current structure of it is only viable thanks to the fact that advertising dollars are caught up elsewhere. Their money has to come from somewhere, and all the advertisers that are currently television advertisers aren't just going to go away once everyone has moved all the content online. There's also no chance that the media companies will settle for less money in the name of giving you content that has less advertising. To some degree, it's not economically sensible. It's also not going to fatten any pocketbooks, which isn't real incentive for them.

The only other possibility is if a new form of advertising is used in online video/television-on-demand, along the lines of how text advertising has revolutionized the web quite a bit, over image/banner advertising, which is seen by many as an annoyance and eyesore. The problem with that, though, is that most psychological studies regarding advertising show that visual imagery is what works with people (thus the reason of product placement, which is estimated to increase brand awareness in young people by about 20-25%). I don't think advertisers will be willing to move away from visual commercials.

I always think the best way to solve these sorts of issues is with choice for the market. Since more advertising is pretty well always inevitable, I think the option for users to view content for free online, with ads, is the way to go, but also give users the option, for maybe a $1.00, to remove ads. I think most would be willing to pay a little bit like that for adless content, without immediately going to piracy.

EDIT: I say all this, because this is how media has historically worked, and it would be terrifically shocking if something changed now. A new format comes along, revolutionizes things (newspaper > radio > television > internet), and advertising moves more towards it. This is even further supported by the fact that fewer ad dollars go to newspaper ads now than ever before; they've moved online. It will be the same in the television/video industry.

I haven't tried Hulu yet, but...

There are commercials for both TV shows and movies, but they are so minor that it is well worth it to bear through them while the media on your own time.

This won't last. The only reason it's this way now is because Hulu is fairly new (haha, poetry) and advertisers still enjoy advertising through television media. As Hulu ages, and commercials move more and more into online videos, you'll get the usual eight to nine minutes of commercials for every 30 minutes of show. Sad, but true.

You make me want to try this. Almost, almost. Then I could, like, watch American Idol in high quality, omg, omg, omg. (Sadly, I am hooked enough that I watch from Australia, but not from Hulu, if you catch my drift.)

Anyway, back on topic...given my original evidence, anyone have any other ideas of how we change the tied of something that's apparently always gone on? So far, it seems this is only being answered by those who don't buy into the doomsday theories.

No they didn't... If you built a house on a flood plane and it was obliterated and you responded by NOT rebuilding in the same spot, you've learned your lesson. These folks rebuilt in the bowl, and when they get ruined again they'll simply point the finger outside the bowl, and rebuild again.

I think a lot of people living their prior to Katrina learned their lesson, actually. The population is not as large as it was, I believe, and many are outsiders rebuilding stuff (which yes, is stupid, but it's Darwin's theory at work).

I agree with Ozone. It'd be amazing, if it weren't so arrogant. People living in danger zones (*cough* right on the coasts) need to read some literature that has a theme of man vs. nature. It's always Man: 0, Nature: 1.

Every time we've tried to step in and "regulate" a species or "repair" damage caused by a non-native invasive we've just screwed things up much further.

I think that's because adaptation and evolution occur over courses of millennia, something impossible for humans (with average lifespans up to 100--if we're lucky) to fathom. Whether things become repaired over time or not is sort of a non-issue at times, when you consider how many things go extinct so often, without man's interference.

I digress, though. You bring up a point that's important to me as well, that any intended changes we may try may backfire. Of course, that's one of my arguments with global warming, that people think themselves so important and significant that they believe they are affecting (or killing it, according to some) something that has existed for millions of years. Along the same line of self-important thinking, people believe they can change things back to this non-existent time of perfect weather and harmony.

But yeah, I agree. No matter what's occurring, we need to learn to adapt, rather than just try to make things bend to what we want them to be. People living below sea level in New Orleans learned the unfortunate and hard lesson about that, I think. You can only make nature bend to your way of life for so long. Every now and again you have to learn to adapt/bend to it. I think we'll have to adapt to this cycle of change, just like we've had to adapt to the Ice Ages and warmer periods of the past.

I wonder, though, with all this talk of how we can change everything back to that Wonder Time, if people will be willing to adapt to the changes or just continue to believe that using things like Blackle are changing the world.

I hate Digg with a rabid passion (I try to avoid visiting that site, at all costs), so Google is my pick. Something will likely come along to compete with Google, though, or at least make Google better.

Perhaps it's just my dislike of Macs (I know I'm mostly in a minority here, particularly in this section!), but would people really be ooing and awwing over this design if it were any site other than Apple's?

It's pretty plain, and I don't mean that in a "oh, wow, look at their minimalistic approach" sort of way. To Apple's credit, I think the subpages are a million times better than the index, but then I think they commit the crime of information overload. I have trouble imagining a n00b user navigating comfortably around their support section, for instance.

Anyway, just my two cents. You did write a good article, Mike!

...I didn't catch anything in that PDF that mentioned the fact that there are more lights being used at night when the sun sets, as compared the rest of the day when there is daylight.

I also didn't see where it pointed out the fact that hundreds upon hundreds (thousands?) of businesses and industries shut down (or slow down) for the night, anyhow, thus ending tons of electrical usage, perhaps even the heaviest of usage. So really, where any difference was coming from, was from homes and the businesses that do stay open at night, which, in the grand scheme of business and city life, would still be the minority, I think, even on a Saturday.

Still, all scientific notes aside, you can't disregard the fact that something like this was pulled off in the first place, and whatever electricity was saved, even if it was so small.

After reading a ton of things about this, I personally don't believe "global warming" and "climate change," things that have come and gone since the dawn of time, are a problem (and I don't feel like debating that in a thread that wasn't specifically intended for it), but I'd like to ask how you personally think Sydney's halfway shutting down one night had any impact on an alleged problem such as global warming, when much of the CO2 emissions come from more populated nations (e.g., USA) and/or developing nations that are going through their industrial revolutions (e.g., China and India).

It has always seemed to me that those who believe we have a limited amount of time to "return things to normal" should probably start with that fact and, therefore, should boycott products that are manufactured and shipped out of developing nations. Shouldn't the objective of those who believe in "going green" be to return manufacturing and things to your own country, where you'll have more control over the pollution you are causing? If the matter is so drastic, it would appear that the reaction should be as drastic, too. But of course, such measures would mean slowing production and paying higher wages to local workers, which, in turn, would mean higher costs for products.

I'm actually not trying to be rude here (I hope it's not seeming that way), I'm just curious what your thinking is in regard to all that, because I find a lot of people who are diehard greenies often ignore the fact that much of the world's CO2 emissions come from the places I mentioned above, much less that their personal efforts, no matter how seemingly noble, are blips on a screen which is said to be of global life or death importance.

Honestly, what's the point of reading an article that negates the idea of even having an EarthHour?

Because not reading arguments for and against things can lead one down a path of gullible acceptance of all of what one group says and tells you to do. We need to make our own conclusions, by reading all information we can, not just the information we agree with.

Regardless the scientific results, it can and WILL eventually reach a state where shutting off lights for one hour will actually make a big difference.

I think the point is more that we need to find more efficient ways to be "environmentally friendly," ways that lead to the same, similar or better results than what Earth Hour achieved. A more efficient way will make a bigger difference, and that's why science is important, no matter whether you believe global warming is an issue or not.

Measuring the Impact of Earth Hour

On March 31st 2007 at 7:30pm, the residents of Sydney, Australia, held Earth Hour, where people were urged to turn off lights and electrical appliances for one hour. According to poll evidence, over 57% of Sydney took part. To estimate the impact of this event, simply measuring the difference between actual consumption and predicted consumption (as media reports did) gives an incorrect inference, because over 67% of the apparent decline was due to factors common throughout the day, not just Earth Hour. Once this is controlled for, electricity consumption during Earth Hour shows a decline of only 2.10%, statistically indistinguishable from zero. Declines as large as those during Earth Hour were common throughout the whole day and within the overall sample, suggesting that cause is omitted variables, not the event itself. These results indicate that policies aimed at encouraging reductions in individual household energy use may be of considerably less benefit than commonly assumed.

Mac users being elitist? Never! ;)

It takes time for things to integrate within society, and the Internet, especially the highly (and widely) socialized one that we experience today, is quite new. Keep in mind that the way we use the Web now is extremely more socialized and interactive than several years ago. In another several years, we will be using the Internet very differently again.

If looking at trends, one realizes that Internet technology has been some of the most quickly adopted technology (worldwide), ever. It's also reached huge milestones, even in the face of accessibility issues, like gender parity for some nations. All of this has been done in record or nearly-record time.

So, I think you will see Internet technology become a larger part of society in the next decade. It will be hard for a while, though, as our generation is a "bridged" generation, of sorts. Those younger than us know nothing but a wired world, and so will easily accept items and places in the "real world" that utilize virtual powers. Some of those much older than us, however, struggle with the concepts we accept on a daily basis. As crude and heartless as it may sound, the Internet and some of its amazing functionality will only come into society as some of the older generations pass away, thus eliminating an area that produces certain important usability issues. Sad, but true...

I saw this coming from a mile away. Should be interesting to see how this changes the search results world. SEO will matter perhaps even more, because your site will begin to get judged in the search engine results, by users, from the first time they visit. I guess a first impression really is everything.

While I won't be using this service (strangely, I tend to hate this sort of stuff, with the exception of StumbleUpon), I'd like to point out that, with the exception of the SS number, which not all users have divulged to Google, many of the things you listed are things a vast number of people and/or companies you're with know or can find out, and we won't even discuss what your government knows about you. Credit card companies and shopping catalogue services come to mind. I'm personally much more afraid of the former than Google, particularly since so many people are still slaves to those pieces of plastic which carry so much information about you.

I don't think Google is anywhere near a Microsoft (who, by the way, I don't think could give a shit about any single one of us when so many, worldwide, use their OS, both legally and illegally). You have a lot more opt-in/opt-out power with Google, and unlike the world's most-used OS, it's a lot easier to leave a Google service's features if you decide you don't want them to know certain things about you; many of the services aren't vital to your online experience; many have competitors. And if Google ever misused the information they have on you, I think there would be a monumental lawsuit sooner or later, because there are now plenty of people who think Google is the Antichrist and watch their every move.

Perhaps I'm just cynical, but considering the millions who use Google and its services, I can't imagine my personal information mattering amongst all that. The search results of a politician? Perhaps. Of me? No way. To think anything else just seems too self-important. Perhaps they'll (contextually, ha) advertise to us by mail one day, and we'll get tons of their junk, and we'll recycle it, like all the other junk mail; it will be no different from the process we carry out with a million and one other things. Remember, Google's heart is its pocketbook; they won't want to piss off their customers too much, especially because, again, their services (with the exception of search and maybe email) aren't actually vital to anyone.

Google will die out one day, or at least not be top dog, when another Google-like service comes around to change everything and how we do it. Google did it to other companies, when it was a fraction of what it is today; other companies can do it to Google. If they're good enough.

This feature might be great for some, but I wonder how many [novices] won't understand it or how many, like me, can't be bothered taking the time to do it.

Vidar, that has to be one of the simplest, dumbest fixes I've had shown to me. Thank you for that.

And Rich, you know insanity is part of my appeal. 8D

0, happily.

Windozzzzz... I don't know how it works but it makes me want to sleep.

Is Windows supposed to keep its users awake?

Windows only treats you like that if you still are on the factory settings. :P

Also:

From your 88 subscriptions, over the last 30 days you read 1,002 items, starred 4 items, and shared 0 items.

Courtesy of Google Reader, of course.

88 subscriptions right now. I just read when I feel like it; just like I'd browse when I feel like it. This usually leads to my commenting pretty late on some people's entries, but I don't really care (hope they don't, either!).

Notepad++ for me. I find there's so much control with it; easy for me to adjust the text size, syntax colorings, and even the font size of certain types of syntax.

I'm not sure about the CSS panel, but it has everything else you listed, including recognition of the Ruby language.

Here's a little screencap from of some of my site's code in Notepad++.

I'll probably wait six months to a year. A friend of mine has Vista, and while it's pretty (DAMN, IT'S PRETTY!), I'm not wowed by anything performance wise. In fact, it's a little slow in some ways, but that could just be his laptop (not sure of the specs on it; can't be too great). I'm happy with XP. I may not even upgrade until I get my next PC, which'll at least be two or three years down the road.

As for paying for it...yeah. An OS, I'm willing to pay for. :)

Not out yet, but keep an eye on freeCSScart. I know I am!

Jgrucza, I used SmartFTP for a while, but when I last used it (long time ago, granted), it was a total memory hog. Is it still? I hope not. I'd love to go back to that smooth interface!

Workrave is being downloaded now. Can't bring myself to like Avast, I'm afraid. May be like my experience with SmartFTP, however. I tried it when it first came out, and it was overly sensitive.

Hey, Tyme, what's VideoLan's handling of regional DVDs? Do you know? :)