When did the basic essentials of life become scientifically-regulated processes?
Not sure I followed all that math, but your computer and monitors shouldn't use any power (<1w) when they're shut off. So you're back to your $34.56 for modem and wifi, which translates to just under $3 per month, and that depends on where you live.
I think that happens a lot in discussion threads. People are as often as not arguing the same point, but getting lost in the details and personal experiences. I am certainly guilty of that. G'day.
You are correct. I did misread her initial statement and thought she was just talking about the modem. But I still maintain my original argument.
If you can notice a difference in your monthly energy bill (say $5-10 per month) due to one appliance being shut off, then savings on a new appliance will likely cover the cost in under a year, since most appliances don't cost more than $100.
If your appliances are so old and inefficient that cutting power makes a noticeable difference in your energy bill, then yes, buying new makes perfect sense. (And not just for stand-by mode.)
Not exactly true. There are some cable companies that only use certain modem brands. That disappointing fact comes from personal experience, and the loss of $100. They should check with the company first.
I don't know if you're doing that from an ecological perspective, but financially speaking, you're not saving any money. The only three appliances that will save you noticeable money by shutting them off are the air conditioner, water heater, and refrigerator. You could shut off every other appliance in your house…
I seriously doubt that common dental problems like cavities, gingivitis, and enamel decay have anything to do with our propensity to rinse.
STAR TREK: Why is the Enterprise being tasked with police work? I'm sure Abrams will work in some connection (maybe he already has), but why send in the flagship of your fleet to track down a fugitive? That's not in the mission of the Enterprise.
Well, I'm not looking for blame, so much as why Abram's shows have a tendency to meander. Perhaps he taps the same people to be his showrunners? Or perhaps that's just the nature sci-fi TV shows. Thanks for the explanation!
Gotcha. Abrams is the concept/idea/front man for these series. The showrunner, currently Wyman, decides on story arc and plot. The writers script the individual episodes in order to fit the first two.
Thanks. And this information really does help me.
I'm sorry that my ignorance is tiring you. It's not like they offer a class on this in high school.
While that does provide more information, it doesn't really clear anything up for me. I am truly ignorant when it comes to tv show and movie production. (And I thought politics was confusing.)
Hmm. Well then I guess I have no idea what a producer does. I would have thought that since his name is at the top, he would want to have oversight and final say. But if he really has little to do with the shows, then I guess he's relatively unimportant. Who then has final say on the story arc and the direction…
Abrams has a great imagination, but he needs someone to help him focus. Alias spiraled downward quickly in the last seasons. Lost...well, I don't know where it was ever headed. Revolution... Alcatraz...
(comment moved)
500 million is just a random starting point. (And now that I look closer, it should be billion, not million.) My intent was to show that life could be common through the universe, but still rare within each galaxy.