DIY

Why we always leave our computers on


There is no doubt that the proliferation of computers and especially data centers containing hundreds or thousands of servers has dramatically increased energy consumption around the world over the past fifteen or twenty years.  It has been reported that some data centers are not able to expand due to a lack of power, especially in California, where energy costs are high. 

In a previous post on the subject of the Microsoft Update process, I wrote that we have the employees in our company always leave their computers on.  I explained that there were at least three reasons for this:

  1. To facilitate the Microsoft patch update process
  2. To allow the weekly Symantec anti-virus scans to run
  3. To ensure that IT staff can access the computers via Remote Desktop

A Tech Republic subscriber, Michael Burgess suggested that a policy of leaving computes on 24/7/365 is simply not environmentally friendly.  He wrote: "I am concerned that when you leave your computers on; do you leave them on all of the time or just when you are doing an update? Doing this consumes a ton of power, ac, not to mention security issues."  I concur that leaving computers on like this all over the world consumes a lot of power.

As I replied, "This has been a major argument, and I mean argument, for as long as I have been supporting computers. There are two camps on this issue. The subject is worthy of a well-researched post, which I may just do if I can't find one already written here on Tech Republic."  I have researched the subject on Tech Republic and found a few posts.

  1. Andy Moon wrote about Tech giants going green back in June of 07.  The post received two comments.
  2. Arun Radhackrishnan wrote that Green is the flavor of the season also in June of 07.  Four comments.
  3. Arun pointed us to an Online carbon footprint and power consumption calculator in Dec 07.  No comments.

There are a few other posts but that's typical of the response to green computing posts - just not much interest.  So unless you have something to add about the environmental impact of leaving computers on all the time, I would prefer to direct the dialog to answer this question: "Is it OK to leave my computer on all the time?"

Take a minute to familiarize yourself with the arguments from both camps as found in the article above or this one. Now think about each of these components involved: heat generation, fans, ball bearings, lubrication, power supplies, sleep mode, boot-up time, CRT vs LCD, hard drives, lightning, surge protection, chip temp, electricity.

Now convincingly argue your side.  I am on the side of leaving computers on all the time.  I have already given you my main reasons at the beginning of the post.  There are others.  More facts: We have a dozen servers and about 120 computers.  I think this is typical of a small business but I am curious about the policy in large business.  Ready?  Go!

136 comments
LARN
LARN

In the area where I live and have my office, the electricity fluctuates quite a bit. While I have both a good surge protector and a good battery backup, this helps to a good extent but not all the way,. 1: Turning the computer off during the night and weekend stops the effect of the minor surges. 2: When the computer is on, the wear and tear is 7/24/365 potentially reducing the lifespan of the system. Due to frequent lightning, computers are unplugged as well.

dawgit
dawgit

And this has turned out to be a major problem as well as more and more computers, and their associated 'extras' came (and are still comming) into play. That's the major strain on the electrical systems, first thing in the morning when everyone "turns on" all af that at once. In a medium to large size Building the load-pull on the electrical system is an enormous drain. When left on those computers (less the monitors, if CRTs) do less damage. We used to have a big problem suppling enough electricity just for a 1 hour period in the morning, more than the rest of the whole 24 hour period. Leave them on folks, it's less expensive in the long run. -d

cathar.gnostic
cathar.gnostic

For the Rosetta project, I used to fell bad about leaving it on for my convenience wasting cpu cycles until I joined Rosetta and now it does something useful for humanity when I am not at it.

mydotnetemail
mydotnetemail

Oh please! You know, for a supposedly intelligent crowd, I don't get the disconnect that some of you have about this whole environmental MYTH that has taken over our society. Amazing how someone can be so smart in one area and be so incredibly STUPID in others. The negative human effect on the environment doesn't even rate a one hundred thousandth of a percentage point in the scale of all the things that do, and consequently we have absolutely no control over. Mount St. Helen eruption ALONE was estimated at spewing out over 10,000% more toxins in 10 minutes than the entire world-wide industrial revolution combined has since it's inception. Thats just one volcano, there are eruptions nearly every month around the world and have been (recorded) for thousands of years and the earth is still here!!!! ALL, and I mean ALL global climate changes are caused by one thing and one thing only, SUN ACTIVITY - Period! The so called "Environmental Movement" that we hear about every day is about one thing - MONEY$$$$$$$! It's a business that thrives on peoples fears. (just like insurance companies and terrorists) So stop believing every-freaking-thing you see by the news media (which is consequently owned by some of the primary beneficiary's of this environmental fear SCHEME) and do some real research of your own. In the mean time, use all that technology has to offer in any way that suits you, because there's NOTHING that you can do to harm the environment. In fact, for those of you who are Christians, read the last book, the world will still be here for God to destroy on his own. This is such an easy thing to grasp. :)

Joe1952
Joe1952

For what it's worth, talking to electronics technicians they tell me that turning a pc board on and off causes flexing due to hot and cold and will eventually break a circuit rendering it useless.

pstanley
pstanley

One professor I know left his computer on all the time. After 3 years his hard drive failed - the ball bearings wore out. 2nd comment: One accountant left his computer on all the time. He wondered why his computer clock was behind all the time. The server clock had the correct time. I did some research and found that the clock does not have priority when large spread sheets are carrying out complicated formulas. I turn my computer off in the evening before I go home.

Deejay54
Deejay54

It is our policy that we shut them down at the end of the day. Why? Security, Flush Cashe, save power, power used = heat = wear and tear. All of our updates are done at the end of the day, so why just leave them on.

bbyrd
bbyrd

Would you leave your car on all the time? It's a machine and it needs to rest and not to mention of the low level POST when you do turn it on. It is a benefit How about setting it to shut down later and turn on before you/employees get to work?

tlohr
tlohr

The cost of leaving a computer on overnight is so small compared to the wastes with everything else in our plant. With about 100pc, we calculate it costs us about $350/year. That's about what we spend in 4 hours of natural gas usage.

bus66vw
bus66vw

At the company I worked at for over 15 years which had over 500 employees at my location, we tried many energy saving processes. At that time it was normal to turn off the computer every night before going home so that was never part of the processes we tried. We turned off the air conditioning and heat over the weekends and had security turn off all the lights in areas where there was no activity. At first there was a cost drop in our energy usage, but that did not last. We had to pay for repairs because the air ducts started sweating which leaked water on everything. Then there was the problem of finding small heaters brought in by employees to try and stay warm because the heat took too long to restore the work environment to a comfortable temperature and much of the equipment had higher repair rates due to the temperature changes. In the overall view no money was saved which also met no energy was saved.

aep528
aep528

Laptops in general use less power even when running on AC. In addition, my work laptop is off several hours a week: - The commute home - Overnight - Weekends when I don't have any work to catch up on On average I would guess my work laptop is on 12 hours a day, five days a week, and a few hours on weekends. Often if I just need to read email or access any other web based tools I use my own laptop when I turn it on for personal email, surfing, whatever. It's an acceptable trade-off: I have the flexibility of a laptop, but I have to accept updates, scans, etc. while I'm at work. If laptops are not possible, at least get rid of CRT monitors. Even if that only cuts power consumption by a third, it's better than nothing. Plus I believe the "power surge" argument for leaving CRTs on really does not apply to the LCD lamps. Use up-to-date hardware when possible. My desktop PC, which came with Vista already installed, goes in and out of hibernation very reliably.

royhayward
royhayward

Wow, Looking at this discussion makes me wonder what you guys are using your computers for? At work, my PC is my job. And I leave it on 24/7/365. Not because I am there all of the time, but because spending a few minutes each day before I can use it is a huge waste of my cycles. I have an IDE to load, email clients, DB admin tools and other things that take time each time they startup. Also, I don't finish my work neatly each night. I leave it open on my locked desktop so that I can pickup where I left off. When I go home, I lock my desktop and turn off the monitor, but my tools are still open, and my project is still in progress. If I have the time or inspiration to remotely connect from home when I wake up with an idea for a solution, I want it to be waiting for me. At home I also leave my PC on all of the time. My TV turns on in a few seconds, but my PC takes minutes to boot. Minutes that are spent waiting for the machine. I don't want to wait for, I am looking something up on google as part of a discussion, or checking my email, before I head off to dinner, or making notes for later. I leave my computer on all day for the same reason that my refrigerator is on all day. Or the alarm clock by my bed or the hundreds of other appliances that serve me. They are there for me, and I want them on my time schedule.

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

The primary reason is the power in many sections of our building isn't reliable. I'd much rather they do a clean shut down than have the power hiccup. Appx. 25% of my 245 systems are on the factory floor and each used by multiple people. I want each user to know how to log on these systems, and they only way they're going to do that is if they have to. I don't like getting a support call just because one worker on an assembly line is on vacation and, "She's the only one who knows how to log on." Another 30% are laptops. We have too many ways out of the building at night, and I require laptop users to undock and secure their systems at night (lock them up, take them home, etc.). When we push patches, we give a day's notice whenever possible requesting the users leave the system on for that specific night. Laptop users get patched in batches during the day.

mydotnetemail
mydotnetemail

Thats a good point, hadn't thought of that one yet - thanks.

SObaldrick
SObaldrick

.. and I'm not one thousandth of a percent a believer. As I said earlier, the only thing we can destroy is ourselves. The Earth will still be here. Les.

mydotnetemail
mydotnetemail

Rule #1 - If it ain't broke, DON'T mess with it. Turning it off and on every day is messing with it. And for those of you who think you're saving the planet by turning yours off - Please, Please, Please turn yours off every day because obviously facts and real science have no meaning to you and therefore YOUR computers won't be susceptible to the laws of physics that affect the rest of us. So, everyone except the idiots, leave your computers on, they'll last longer and give you a lot less problems.

c51annc
c51annc

Ok, here's some info I looked up about 2 types methods that are better than leaving the computers on all the time: A UPS is used on servers running a single UPS software with 3 + computers: [This info comes from APC company utilizing the "InfraStruXure architecture"] The UPS is managed directly over an Ethernet network; a network management card installed in the UPS eliminates the requirement for server-based management; sofware is installed on the computers running from the UPS built-in expansion slot card to servers running the UPS software, that need only encompass shutdown funtionality since the capabilities are embedded in the UPS itself. A Hibernation method is recommended for this method of shutdown for these reasons below: 1. The computer's desktop state including all open files and documents is saved; by saving all of RAM to a large file on the hard disk. 2. The system is shutdown and powered off. 3. When the power returns and the operating system boots up, the RAM is reloaded from the hard disk. 4. The desktop and all open files and applications are then presented as they appeared before the hibernation occurred. This preserves both work in progess and the state of the machine before the shutdown occurred. So, not only saving power, and "going green", from using this method could be better than just leaving the computer on all the time----your work is still saved and in progress before shutdown---powering back up does not take as long as from a hard-shutdown or powering off. Systems can use a UPS based software package to save possible power-outages by using the Hibernation method. Of course, there are other methods here ----- Standby, but the system is not completely turned off, only in a low power state until the user hits a certain key to turn it back on, the computer typically reverts to the previous state very quickly. This can be used for saving consumption of power, since it lowers the amount of power used up, but this configuration needs to have a "wake up" in the software in the event an extended power outage so that a graceful shutdown can be done. These 2 above methods should be considered using - not only for just maintaining power use, but in the event of an electrical outage when no one is there to watch over things like this. I'd go for the Hibernation method over the Standby and more over just leaving the computers on all the time, and over just a simple shutdown.

ctdak
ctdak

A hard drive failure after 3 years of continuous operation proves nothing. I've had many a hard drive run 24/7/365 for 5 years or more without failing. In fact, the dual drives in my last server only just began to wear out (bearing noise) after 7 years and were still running after 8 years, although I wasn't solely relying on them by that point of course.

mydotnetemail
mydotnetemail

By far, I'm convinced that if you have to use a computer at least 4 out of 7 days a week, LEAVE IT ON! In my experience (since the CPM days), If I encountered a crashed hard drive, bad MB or RAM chip, 9 out of 10 times it was on a computer that was shutdown every day(and the problems nearly always occurred the next day during startup). I've always had a couple of computers in my shop dedicated for testing hardware and software that necessitated being turned off and on repeatedly for this kind of testing; and there too, it resulted in many more hard drive crashes and other hardware problems that other computers in my shop that were the same age and that were always left on never experienced. So, for computers that are to be used on pretty much a daily basis, leave them on; the lack of maintenance costs will far outweigh the cost of power consumption - not to mention the inconvenience of computer downtime for the maintenance. MasterLuke

catseverywhere
catseverywhere

I remember reading that turning on an incandescent light consumes around an hour's worth of the electricity the same consumes while on. The initial heat-up takes that much of a spike. So the argument was 'don't turn off the lights if you are going to need them again in an hour or two.' I would bet starting a computer is similar. Someone ought to do a study on start-up versus run time computer power consumption, before this debate can really be settled. But I do know that start up and shut down cycles do wreak havoc on hardware. Thermal cycles, augmented by the fact that parts of the motherboard run hotter than others, are the main cause of motherboard failure, at least in my experience. And someone already mentioned the hard drive(s). I'd bet the vast majority of the stress they experience is in the first seconds of operation. All of my equipment normally stays on all the time, that includes my stereo at home. It just seems to last longer. A lot longer, the stereo has been off perhaps a cumulative day or two over the last 17 years. Its as good as new. My average computer is around 7 years old. BTW the "scientific consensus," as in the one actually backed by the science, is that if man is having any effect on the climate it's at most 3% of the cause. The main culprit is that the sun has been increasing in output, which trend has accelerated drastically in the last few years. The "global warming" scare is nothing more than a global command and control scheme. Notice the talk of a "global carbon tax." Well, taxes are for ONE thing only; to keep the bogus, debt-instrument "money" from diluting itself to oblivion. Operations like the federal reserve need to erase "dollars" just as fast as they create them, (out of thin air) or else a loaf of bread would cost $50,000 in no time. (see Wiemar Germany for a lesson) The central banksters are planning on setting up their rip-off scheme planet wide. Global warming is a bogey man to get the marching morons to demand someone "fix this problem." The Hegelian dialectic.

Peconet Tietokoneet-217038187993258194678069903632
Peconet Tietokoneet-217038187993258194678069903632

Computers are not the life and blood of everyday living (except in hospitals and emergency work), so they can be shut off. For people who say they need them on 24/7 365 days a week GET A LIFE. Servers i can understand but "normal" computers can (and should)be set to either hibernate or shutoff completely. I shutdown all of my computers, even my server. The server acts as a backup so if all my computers are off why keep it on? Just my bit for the planet.

DasTwitcH
DasTwitcH

Leaving cars on 24/7 is better for them. Ask any taxi company. The engine stays warm and working. You'll get maybe 300,000km out of a family car before you need serious engine work. You'll get an easy 800,000 - 1,000,000 out of a taxi that spends most of it's life running. The only time they're off is for maintenance. Just an aside! (and yes I know this info first hand).

RandyM55
RandyM55

The hard drive, being a fragile machine, has a great deal of stress put on the bearing when starting. Leaving it running gave the hard drive an average life-span of 11 years by eliminating the strain of starting so often over the years. (ask some old-timers):.)

RipVan
RipVan

At one time, I thought I would become sick of the term "global warming." However, the politically correct police have gone on to bigger and better things. They now require the use of the term "man-made global warming" anywhere the old term was used. Now I know what REAL sickness is. In this debate, no one used that term, even one time! I salute you all...

ohmbuoy
ohmbuoy

I couldn't have said it better; for those who really utilize the PC as a tool at the level of usage you've come to rely on your argument is absolutely logical. I am also adding to this argument that my system is extremely low powered given that it is an older 733MHz system and has been running for at least 5 yrs. excepting power failures, etc. Cycling off/on would have fried the pcb and likely hdd's and total cost is approx the same as leaving on one or two lightbulbs in the house. I do have the monitor set to pwr save and I would challenge others of differing opinion to consider the pro/con of replacement costs vs. constant on.

Don't Read This
Don't Read This

They drive us up the wall because they refuse to use Windows properly. They lock their workstation and go home, so it never gets rebooted, patches don't apply properly, antivirus dosen't update properly. Windows is constantly sitting in a 'reboot required' state. (This will block a lot of automation) We have had to push a regular reboot job with Altiris NS in order to get a proper reboot cycle for the numnuts that do this. Windows has to be rebooted regularly or you will spend a lot more time fixing it. I have to wonder - when you start your car is it already in gear and moving? If you can avoid a 30 second warm up, over the course of a month you could save a good 20 minutes. Of course you shorten the life of the car by a whole lot...but you could use the saved time to shop for a new one.

TexasJetter
TexasJetter

Ok, so you leave all your apps and files open just so you can save 2 min each morning when you come in. Are we to believe that you walk in the office and sit at your station and immediately resume work? No cup of coffee? No good morning to fellow workers? Surely at some point you re-boot your machine. I haven't found any user machine than run 24/7/365 without memory leaks eventually eating all resources or getting unstable. I find it much better to start the day with a "fresh" system. The refrigerator comparison is not exactly valid. The refrigerator stays on because it is working 24/7 - your computer is not performing any work unless you are there - big difference.

The Listed 'G MAN'
The Listed 'G MAN'

who are (perhaps) killing the planet and wasting valuable money. I don't like to waste my money. I like it in my bank available when I need it. Not going to some power company for nothing.

royhayward
royhayward

Especially if you have power fluctuations you will save money in the long run in repairs and maintenance. And it can be setup to do a clean shutdown if the power stays off to long. Not having them and hoping that the power hiccups will only happen an night is probably wishful thinking.

SObaldrick
SObaldrick

I dont know much about computer hardware failure, but I have noticed that the way to break a light bulb is to switch it on and off. Les.

downriverdude
downriverdude

its a myth that it takes more energy to turn a light on than to keep it running. You recoup the extra energy it takes to get the bulb going in a very short period of time. It is fairly well known that a cold light bulb filament has less resistance than a hot one. Therefore, a light bulb draws excessive current until the filament warms up. Since the filament can draw more than ten times as much current as usual when it is cold, some people are concerned about excessive energy consumption from turning on light bulbs. The degree of this phenomenon has become a matter of urban folklore. However, the filament warms up very rapidly. The amount of energy consumed to warm up a cold filament is less than it would consume in ONE SECOND of normal operation.

issy
issy

Check the CO2 levels and compare them to the past. Besides, it's not just about the temperature, it's also about the quality of the air you breathe into your lungs everyday. Check the science. We deserve cleaner air. And I agree that 'carbon taxes' are baloney. I live in the mountains & I have noticed a huge difference in the size of the glaciers. Whether you want to admit it or not, the planet is heating up more rapidly than any change in the sun's output can account for. It's very obvious that we have filled our narrow band of atmosphere with nasty chemicals. Let's do everything we can to reverse that trend.

downriverdude
downriverdude

I think it epends on what your goal is. If your goal is to save money, if I owned a taxi company, I would have the drivers shut off the engines if the vehicle would be idled for any extended amount of time, just due to gas cost. But of course, leave the engine running when waiting curbside for the next fare. With computers, the electricity to keep them running is less of a factor. I do think though that taxis get 1,000,000 km is they are maintained much better than the average car, are kept in service longer due to replacement costs, not because they are kept running all the time. The more you move a moving part, the sooner it will wear out. As with computers, I'm have to believe there is a happy medium in there somewhere between running 24/7 and constantly turning them off and on. I'll have less of an argument once all solid state computers arrive, especially if they have reliable or easily replaceable cooling systems.

royhayward
royhayward

I really don't want new patches that I haven't chosen to install showing while I am in the middle of development. Computers are not cars. I fix my own computer. So if I abuse it a little to get my work done it is part of the cost of the work. BTW, I have a general good experiences with the life span of my boxes. And was this a windows only discussion? I leave my Linux box on too. And my Sparc.

royhayward
royhayward

I sat down, and turned on the monitor and unlocked my desktop. Then I ran quieries, checked mail, and resumed the work. I also was able to remote desktop in last night and make some updates to the project that I am working on. As for doing anything while I am not here, sure it is, it is holing all of my stuff open so that I don't have to open it again. The fridge analogy was like this: unpowered fridge will make your food spoil, and thereby be less valuable or dangerous. Unpowered computer will make my coding less effective, and is unavailable at 2 am from home. Thereby I and my computer are less valuable. I do reboot my PC maybe once a month or so when I feel like I need it. I reboot and head to lunch. (one of those rare times I don't eat at my desk) Did I mention that I love my job? Anyway, if you don't use a computer to do your job, then you may no need to leave it on. For me, leaving it on is the best option I have come up with.

Forum Surfer
Forum Surfer

I cut my pc off to do my part in conserving electricity. Then I get in my 500+ rwhp car that I just built...blown, stroked and overbored...drive home getting 22mpg (poor for these days) and with any luck I get to do a big smokey burnout racing vettes on open track night. Thereby roasting and wasting ridiculously oversized tires (which I pay a luxury tax on so I'll smoke em if I want too) and countless dead dinosaurs....maybe getting 4 mpg with my foot on the floor. :)

royhayward
royhayward

Dude, try as hard as I might I can't kill the planet, and neither can you. I leave my computers on because they are the tools that I need to live. Do you unplug your fridge when you leave your house? If you do, you will probably become sick from eating spoiled food. I leave my PC on because I don't have time to twiddle my thumbs as I wait for it to boot and load all my apps. And I work in an office full of computers that are on day and night. Go preach your global warming religion somewhere else.

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

Most of our systems that dedicated to a single user already have a UPS. Policy is that if a user wants a UPS, it's up to him or her to order one. Users on the factory floor don't alter data, only retrieve it. All are on surge protectors. Since they don't have any data to lose, UPSs are regarded as unnecessary. As I noted, I have other reasons I would prefer them to turn the systems off besides the flaky power.

mydotnetemail
mydotnetemail

Of all the ways that I've tried to get people to understand this; you come alone and sum it up in one clear observation. Thanks :)

royhayward
royhayward

I hope that many converts to GW will begin to open there eyes as you are. The climate is effected by things that are so much bigger than mankind and his puny cars and factories. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer Many of these 'nasty' chemicals are just there. And I am frustrated with the those that think my CO2 output is some how 'unnatural' as if I am not part of nature. If we drove vehicles that output blobs of goo that then sat around and filled up the landscape. That would be a problem. But we don't, we burn fuel that makes CO2 that was locked out of the environment millions of years ago. This CO2 goes into plants. We need plants. They make a good salads and they release oxygen. Releasing this CO2 should be great for plant growth. So, sorry about the glaciers, but they don't produce food or anything I need.

catseverywhere
catseverywhere

I agree 110% that the real issue is pollution, due our very wrong-headed infrastructure. Now for a real good picture of how bogus our "leadership" really is, ponder the FACT that cars can be run on WATER. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1OWDcWoXHs This could be done world wide in a matter of weeks. So ponder: why isn't it? What's the real agenda? There was a fellow in Florida who first invented this, it was on a local station down there, but has since disappeared. (so has the inventor) He was working with a fellow in Ohio who began marketing a conversion kit, it cost about $4,000. The whole operation suddenly disappeared. A few internet radio hosts tracked the marketer down and he said he couldn't talk, except to say he was threatened with his life. So what indeed is the agenda? We're seeing the unraveling of the Bretton Woods agreement as we speak, in which the "value" of the "dollar" was propped up by the fact that oil sales around the globe would be denominated in "USD." (federal reserve notes are NOT "dollars," a dollar is a weight of silver) Fact: Saddam was in the process of denominating oil sales in Euros. THAT is why "we" went after him. The plan for war was laid in 1999. Nothing to do with "9-11." http://www.newamericancentury.org/defensenationalsecurity.htm Fact: Iran recently opened a new market in which oil is denominated in Iranian Rials, Euros, Rubbles and other "hard" (read "backed with something") currencies... not USD. http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/02/17/business/ME-FIN-Iran-Oil.php That is why all the talk about attacking Iran. It's the banksters. It has been the same scammers that have fomented, funded all sides and profited from nearly every war since the time of Oliver Cromwell. This time they are going for the whole enchilada; the whole globe under a single system of usury. These central banks run a slick scam. They do NOT "lend money," they create it out of thin air, then claim you owe them for all the face value plus interest. ("interest" on the USD is impossible) Our local branch, the federal reserve, is in fact a foreign-owned private corporation. Your government sold you down the river in 1913. There was a book written in 1899 that was nearly totally eased from the face of the earth; "The Coming Battle." Someone found one laying around, read it, and went into the publishing business to get it out to the world. Never a truer word written, it's the most stunning work of non-fiction I've ever encountered. I recommend anyone read it before discussing anything about "the economy," "investments," money and all the politics that flows from money. This book is that good. --------------- [EDIT] and here it is... http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/comingbattle/cbtabcon.htm This next link, a 47 minute video, is about the clearest introduction to how our money is created, and who benefits and who loses from the present system: http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/comingbattle/cbtabcon.htm short answer: you lose. [/EDIT] ------------ The history of Andrew Jackson and his dealings with the bankster crowd is another good read. Back to warming, if it's still available you should check out the "great global warming swindle" video, it was a show on BBC. Here's a "part 1" I found quickly: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIjGynF4qkE I saw it in toto once, very eye-opening. The founder of Greenpeace says "man-made" global warming is a sick hoax! Do check it out. I think you underestimate the power of the sun. I recall reading somewhere (a long while ago) that a less than 2% increase in it's output would render the planet unlivable.

DasTwitcH
DasTwitcH

In Australia anyway, taxis run on LPG, so fuel cost isn't much of a factor. Plus it takes a fair bit of fuel to kick over an engine in the first place. Second of all, engines are built tough, and if you ask any manufacturer, they're designed to run at temp. This is the big difference. For a consumer car, you're constantly starting it cold. THIS is where your engine wear happens and the damage is done. Once it's up to temp the components are in their element and run fine. Yes of course there is some wear due to friction etc, but there's more wear from cranking a cold engine several times a day...

royhayward
royhayward

I might be able to come down and watch.

royhayward
royhayward

"Woha - you do not need a computer to live" Really??? Why are you on this forum again? Well, the "need a computer to live" was supposed to be related to live as in earn a living, not live as in continue to breathe and maintain a viable metabolic rate. As for GW, here is a fun link to read on current "startling findings" http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025

The Listed 'G MAN'
The Listed 'G MAN'

I said perhaps! http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/perhaps Was more interested in your money loss to be honest. Your choice! However: "I leave my computers on because they are the tools that I need to live." Woha - you do not need a computer to live, 100% fact. Edit - My post, do as I please.

The Listed 'G MAN'
The Listed 'G MAN'

but it is enough in some cases to power a thin client terminal box alone!

despich
despich

PoE is "Power over Ethernet" which is a option you can buy with some switches that supplies some power over the same Cat 5 (or 6) line that feeds the device it's network connection. I think Cisco's PoE is 47 volts DC but there is not a single PoE standard so be careful. This power is NOT enough to power a computer but is designed to work with some devices like Wireless Access Points, Ip Camera's or VOIP phones or other smaller network devices. This is primarily done to make the installation of such devices easier as you don't have to run a seperate power circuit to them. We use it here with our VOIP phones so we don't have plug them into power at the desk and the other benifit is that as long as the PoE switch is on a UPS the phones will stay up in the event of a power loss. Dan

The Listed 'G MAN'
The Listed 'G MAN'

The Ethernet cable doubles as the power cable. The switch in the rack room provides network connectivity & power to devices. This switch is on a UPS in the rack room and so not each individual PC / printer / other that is connected.

Editor's Picks