EU cripples future graphics cards (by regulating max. energy consumption)

[1541]

The reason is of course "saving energy"...

It's my personal "wow"-effect: they try to regulate such unimportant bull**** within 1-2 years, but are not able to regulate the banking system since 2008!?

http://www.nordichardware.com/news/71-graphics/46718-eu-cripples-future-graphics-cards-exclusive-.html

[1713485510]

1713485510

[1713485510]

1713485510

[1713485510]

1713485510

[cedivad]

I'm a conspirator but this time I don't think you to be right.
They should ban fpga too, and here they already banned incandescent lamps.

We can't buy them anymore.

It's like shooting yourself in the foot but we Europeans got used to it.

[Raoul Duke]

here they already banned incandescent lamps.

I hope that by here you don't mean the EU but your country only. Because I can still buy incandescent lamps where I live...
But I would actually support a complete ban on them.

[cedivad]

here they already banned incandescent lamps.

I hope that by here you don't mean the EU but your country only. Because I can still buy incandescent lamps where I live...
But I would actually support a complete ban on them.

Well, partially. Only some of them, but its a process that will conclude soon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_incandescent_light_bulbs#section_1

[malevolent]

here they already banned incandescent lamps.

I hope that by here you don't mean the EU but your country only. Because I can still buy incandescent lamps where I live...
But I would actually support a complete ban on them.

He probably meant only those above a certain wattage. In my country it is only legal to import/produce/sell those drawing no more than 40W.
But fortunately there is a way around that - light bulbs exceeding 40W (up to and over 100W which cost 30-40 cents) are sold with a label ''not for home use'' (so ''used for heating'' or ''shock-resistant'') and it is not a problem to buy it.

Why would you support a complete ban on them? If people want to buy them, what's wrong with that?

[niko]

Another way to look at this is that they did not "cripple future graphics cards" but crippled lazy or incompetent engineers and scientists. Competent and hard working folks will come up with ways to do more by using less energy.

[Raoul Duke]

Why would you support a complete ban on them? If people want to buy them, what's wrong with that?

It's a complete waste of energy. Better technology already exists, no reason to continue using them.

[MrTeal]

Why would you support a complete ban on them? If people want to buy them, what's wrong with that?

It's a complete waste of energy. Better technology already exists, no reason to continue using them.

They still have their place, at least until the cost of competing technology comes down. For instance, CFL's don't work worth a damn at -40C, and I'm not spending $30 for an LED bulb for my porch light.

[malevolent]

Why would you support a complete ban on them? If people want to buy them, what's wrong with that?

It's a complete waste of energy. Better technology already exists, no reason to continue using them.

Keen on deciding about others? This is bitcointalk, not some leftist forum lol

[Richy_T]

Why would you support a complete ban on them? If people want to buy them, what's wrong with that?

It's a complete waste of energy. Better technology already exists, no reason to continue using them.

The alternative technology isn't there yet. That's why they have to ban them. By the time the alternative technologies are good enough, they would have been adopted anyway.

[cedivad]

Why would you support a complete ban on them? If people want to buy them, what's wrong with that?

It's a complete waste of energy. Better technology already exists, no reason to continue using them.

The alternative technology isn't there yet. That's why they have to ban them. By the time the alternative technologies are good enough, they would have been adopted anyway.

True.

And let's not forget that the incandescent bulb light is the most natural one that we can archive artificially.

[MrTeal]

Why would you support a complete ban on them? If people want to buy them, what's wrong with that?

It's a complete waste of energy. Better technology already exists, no reason to continue using them.

The alternative technology isn't there yet. That's why they have to ban them. By the time the alternative technologies are good enough, they would have been adopted anyway.

True.

And let's not forget that the incandescent bulb light is the most natural one that we can archive artificially.

How do you figure?

[Raoul Duke]

Why would you support a complete ban on them? If people want to buy them, what's wrong with that?

It's a complete waste of energy. Better technology already exists, no reason to continue using them.

The alternative technology isn't there yet. That's why they have to ban them. By the time the alternative technologies are good enough, they would have been adopted anyway.

True.

And let's not forget that the incandescent bulb light is the most natural one that we can archive artificially.

How do you figure?

I don't know how he figures it, but most people complaint about fluorescent or white light bulbs saying they can't stand them, gives them headaches and so on.

[Richy_T]

Here's what I have been observing also:

1) CFLs are more expensive to manufacture than incandescents

2) CFLs are therefore considerable more expensive to buy than incandescents.

3) There is therefore a strong downward pressure on price for CFLs

4) Chinese knock out cheap, low quality CFLs

5) Cheap, low quality CFLs fail early, meaning that their claimed cost savings are not reached and their energy and resource TCO suck donkey parts compared to incandescents.

6) Statism does the fail thing once more.

7) Statism apologists scramble to make rationalizations. Cue:

[MrTeal]

Here's what I have been observing also:

1) CFLs are more expensive to manufacture than incandescents

2) CFLs are therefore considerable more expensive to buy than incandescents.

3) There is therefore a strong downward pressure on price for incandescents

4) Chinese knock out cheap, low quality incandescents

5) Cheap, low quality incandescents fail early, meaning that their claimed cost savings are not reached and their energy and resource TCO suck donkey parts compared to incandescents.

6) Statism does the fail thing once more.

7) Statism apologists scramble to make rationalizations. Cue:

This post makes no sense.

[cedivad]

Why would you support a complete ban on them? If people want to buy them, what's wrong with that?

It's a complete waste of energy. Better technology already exists, no reason to continue using them.

The alternative technology isn't there yet. That's why they have to ban them. By the time the alternative technologies are good enough, they would have been adopted anyway.

True.

And let's not forget that the incandescent bulb light is the most natural one that we can archive artificially.

How do you figure?

I don't know how he figures it, but most people complaint about fluorescent or white light bulbs saying they can't stand them, gives them headaches and so on.

yes. Try to take a picture of a fluorescent bulb with your camera, you will notice that half of it is "off" even if you say it at full brightness trough your eye. The incandescent bulbs are constantly on, emitting the same radiation during the time, while these do not. They are shut down and up very fast.

[Richy_T]

This post makes no sense.

Oops. Fixed now. Any better?

[MrTeal]

Why would you support a complete ban on them? If people want to buy them, what's wrong with that?

It's a complete waste of energy. Better technology already exists, no reason to continue using them.

The alternative technology isn't there yet. That's why they have to ban them. By the time the alternative technologies are good enough, they would have been adopted anyway.

True.

And let's not forget that the incandescent bulb light is the most natural one that we can archive artificially.

How do you figure?

I don't know how he figures it, but most people complaint about fluorescent or white light bulbs saying they can't stand them, gives them headaches and so on.

yes. Try to take a picture of a fluorescent bulb with your camera, you will notice that half of it is "off" even if you say it at full brightness trough your eye. The incandescent bulbs are constantly on, emitting the same radiation during the time, while these do not. They are shut down and up very fast.

That might be true for fluorescents, but it's not true of all technologies. A standard incandescent is limited by the fact that no filament material is capable of the ~5800K temperature needed to give the same black body spectrum as the sun. There's a lot more promise of getting a close to white light spectrum with something light LED lights than there is with incandescents.

[cedivad]

Why would you support a complete ban on them? If people want to buy them, what's wrong with that?

It's a complete waste of energy. Better technology already exists, no reason to continue using them.

The alternative technology isn't there yet. That's why they have to ban them. By the time the alternative technologies are good enough, they would have been adopted anyway.

True.

And let's not forget that the incandescent bulb light is the most natural one that we can archive artificially.

How do you figure?

I don't know how he figures it, but most people complaint about fluorescent or white light bulbs saying they can't stand them, gives them headaches and so on.

yes. Try to take a picture of a fluorescent bulb with your camera, you will notice that half of it is "off" even if you say it at full brightness trough your eye. The incandescent bulbs are constantly on, emitting the same radiation during the time, while these do not. They are shut down and up very fast.

That might be true for fluorescents, but it's not true of all technologies. A standard incandescent is limited by the fact that no filament material is capable of the ~5800K temperature needed to give the same black body spectrum as the sun. There's a lot more promise of getting a close to white light spectrum with something light LED lights than there is with incandescents.

1) true, i was just justifying the guys that have headaches due to that.
2) sure, i know how they work
3) ok, so? what's the radiation of the sun? that's the one we should copy, not set a arbitrary standard and try to achieve that.

[MrTeal]

True.

And let's not forget that the incandescent bulb light is the most natural one that we can archive artificially.

That might be true for fluorescents, but it's not true of all technologies. A standard incandescent is limited by the fact that no filament material is capable of the ~5800K temperature needed to give the same black body spectrum as the sun. There's a lot more promise of getting a close to white light spectrum with something light LED lights than there is with incandescents.

1) true, i was just justifying the guys that have headaches due to that.
2) sure, i know how they work
3) ok, so? what's the radiation of the sun? that's the one we should copy, not set a arbitrary standard and try to achieve that.

You said that incandescent bulb light was the most natural that we can achieve artificially. I'm disagreeing with you, I think we will be able to get closer to the natural solar spectrum with technologies other than incandescent bulbs. It has nothing to do with setting standards.