[filmscanners] Re: keeping the 16bit scans; now=HD longevityOT

["Arthur Entlich" <artistic-1@shaw.ca>]

Frank Paris wrote:


>
> It's the rate we use power, not the absolute cost over a year or 10
> years or 100 years that has an impact. That's a miniscule rate compared
> to driving back and forth to work for example, so I don't consider
> myself an energy hog letting my computer run 24/7.
>


It's cumulative.  If every computer in the world used half the power it
now does, or less, the impact would be substantial.  Do you keep the
monitor on as well (even if in power save mode?).  It all adds to the
burden.  More to the point, its unnecessary.  You may have to go to
work, you may have to use your computer at home, but you don't have to
keep in on 24/7.  You get little direct advantage from it, and it is
environmentally impactful.

I'm not suggesting we should go back to horses and carts, but we do need
to be aware of each use and particularly waste and try to reduce it.
Where it has hardly any impact in reducing is the best place top
concentrate first. If you were limited to a specific amount of
electricity or energy use which was, say, 25% less than you currently
use, would you decide not to go to work several days a month (I know it
sounds inviting ;-)) or turn off lights you aren't using, turn off the
computer when it wasn't needed, compile several car trips into one,
etc... things that might not really alter you style of living while
still allowing for savings of energy...??

I'm not implying you're an "energy hog" but we have an energy hog
culture, and that does add up.

Art


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body