I get annoyed when I see people running. Walking is a much more efficient use of energy.
Really? I hate being stuck behind a pedestrian rolling roadblock..
Well I am glad this feature can be turned off anyway. It is a worthless feature anyway. Anyone with a one week typing class can learn how to type without looking at the keys.
Sorry, I forgot to add /sarcasm tags to my post.
what about those pesky function keys?
Um, I'm pretty sure Mac doesn't let you turn on the keyboard backlight when it's bright out. I've tried and an icon pops up with an X through the backlight symbol. Not sure what OP is smoking.
Typically LED's like those use for the backlighting use between 30-60 milliwatts of power. Here are some typical power consumptions of other popular electronics. Surely there are better things to vilify as waste than the keyboard backlighting.
Average plasma: 301 watts
Average LCD (standard): 111 watts
Average LCD (LED): 101 watts
PlayStation 3: 197 watts
PlayStation 3 Slim: 96 watts
Xbox 360 Elite (2007): 185 watts
Nintendo Wii: 19 watts
Xbox 360: 187 watts
Average PC: 118 watts
DirecTV HR20 DVR: 33 watts
Nintendo Wii: 19 watts
Slingbox: 9 watts
Wireless router: 7 watts
Which is to say that they consume on the order of 100x less power than a mere wireless router and on the order of 10,000x less power than the average LCD. So, you'd have to leave those backlights on for something like 2-3 hrs to waste as much energy as watching 1 second of tv.
I'm not buying OP's "wasteful" argument.
There is 1,000 milliamps in a watt/volt, so a 7 watt router like the one I posted would consume 7,000 milliamps vs 30-60 milliamps for a LED. I bet most people have their router running 24/7. I definitely do. I guess the argument could be made that it is wasteful to have it on while I am asleep, but there ya go, I do it anyway![]()
Which is to say that they consume on the order of 100x less power than a mere wireless router and on the order of 10,000x less power than the average LCD.
I think that instead of saying "100X less power" it should read "1/100th of the power." I see it written that way constantly and it drives me crazy... How can something be "100 times less" of something?
Anyone want to save me the trouble of trying to find this in the Chicago Manual of Style? I don't mind being wrong, but if someone thinks I am I would appreciate a citation.
Indeed, I should have phrased it 1/100th and 1/10,000th the power. If I were writing a bloody article, that would have been edited in the final draft.
Hey, no offense intended. My comment was 50% facetious and 50% seriously curious. (Since the thread topic is so off-the-wall I figured it would be OK to hijack it.) I cannot recall the last time I saw it stated as a fraction; newspapers in particular seem to always use "100 times less". One would think that professional journalists would get it right...
In your face Al Gore.
This is like an "airing of grievances" thread or something, right? Wake me up when "feats of strength" start...
BTW: Happy Festivus one and all!![]()