Okay, this is something I've been wondering about for a while. When you're done playing a game for the time being, do you leave your console (Playstation 2, XBox, whatever) on, or turn it off? And which is supposed to be better?

(Oh, I usually turn mine off.)

I turn mine off ever since my first PS2 got hit by lightning and it wasn't turned off. Kind of a trauma now, if I see my PS2 turned on without being used.

Always turn it off. Even though it doesn't really hurt it to let it stay on, it saves a lot of money on electricity. *Cheap*

Does it really? Does anyone know if it really uses up that much power if you're not actually doing anything with it other than just letting it sit on Pause or whatever?

I mean the hardrive is still going so, I would think that it uses quite a lot of electricity.

Doesn't it use the same amount of energy as if you were playing? I mean, it's just the Pause function.

Misunderstood question maybe.

What hard drive (on a PS2?) And if it's on Pause, it's not spinning the disc, it's not expending power to display complex graphics or whatever.

Eh, I don't really care whether mines on or off, you really don't waste electricity and you're not going to see differences in your electric bill because you left your PS2 on.

Hmm. I think I'd prefer to leave mine on then if there's really no difference and it's not storming. I know they say to leave computers on generally because it's less wear and tear than turning them on and off. I was kinda wondering if the same is true of PS2.

Switch it off, by the mains, not necessarily because it uses up electricity, but because it's a bit of a fire hazard, don't ya think?

Anymore than a continually running computer is?


BTW, interesting thread to make your very first post here in.

Anymore than a continually running computer is?
I don't leave my comp on, here. Anyway, computers can go into standby when they're left for so long, last time I checked, consoles didn't.


BTW, interesting thread to make your very first post here in.
In a gud way or a bad way?

Can't see how that could've been in a bad way.

i turn off

I usually leave my consoles in sleep mode; with my Wii and X360, you can turn the console on from the controller, so there really isn't any issue.

If I was in the middle of a game that I couldn't save for some reason, I wouldn't really have any problems with leaving the console on (unless someone came along and decided to unpause it for some reason).

I don't leave my comp on, here. Anyway, computers can go into standby when they're left for so long, last time I checked, consoles didn't.
That's true, but I'm just wondering how much power a console on pause could possibly take up.

[quote]In a gud way or a bad way?
Heh. Good, of course.

Well my parents decided to charge me a quarter of the electricity bill this month as my laptop, PC, PS2 and lights have been on essentially all the time. and tbh it's not really a very good idea to leave a PC on for too long. Especially a laptop. Exploding transformers are a pain in the ass to clean up. I mean my transformers red hot and my room is about 10 deg C at the moment. Plus if you've got a crap TV, it's advisable to turn your console off, otherwise you get screenburn from stationary images. If it's on pause, that's everything lol

Depends what I'm doing. Sometimes if I'm ready to sleep after playing PS2, I'll just leave it on, turn off the TV, and play again in the morning. Typically though, I turn it off. I doubt it makes that much of a difference in your electric bill.

Also, if there is a bad storm, and you have your PS2 unplugged, one well-placed lightning strike can still fuck up your system (among other things). If you're terribly worried about it, best bet is to unplug stuff completely during a bad storm.

Ethically, I feel obligated to do so. It annoys me how on the Wii and the slimline PS2 there is no way to turn the console off totally, just leave it on standby. I pull the power cable out at the back, though. I'm sure that the significance of doing so is small but if everyone done it it might amount to something, maybe?

I always turn my ps2 off. I know that nothing will happen to t if i just leave it on stand by, but im used to turn off things completly (like my pc and my old ps1).

Always turn it off. Even though it doesn't really hurt it to let it stay on, it saves a lot of money on electricity.

Also, it can't be good for the laser. You should let it rest whenever possible imo.

Well, it seems pretty much everyone here turns it off, so I guess I just do what everyone else does.

who on earth leaves it on? that's my question. O_o unless your tired and the next save point is like an hour away. but seriously. save, turn off. i don't see the point of leaving it on.

if you mean that little red light that always bugs me, i've grown to accept it. back then i used to unplug it just to make the red light on the pstwo go off cause i thought it was using up electricty. matter of fact, i might go back to doing that. i fcking pay the bill afterall. -_-

I only leave it on when I'm interrupted to run errands and don't really wanna spend a couple of minutes waiting for the console to turn on. It'd really help if they gave consoles a sleep function so you can use a minimal amount of eletricity and not have to wait for bootups.

i turn mine off, i figure if its still running then so's the electricity.

I leave it on.
The only home console I use is a Wii, though, and I'd like to believe that connect24 updates automatically for me. :p

Hmm. I think I'd prefer to leave mine on then if there's really no difference and it's not storming. I know they say to leave computers on generally because it's less wear and tear than turning them on and off. I was kinda wondering if the same is true of PS2.

Nah, the fan on the computer is larger, right? It's also a larger surface area to distribute heat. The PS 2 on the other hand has a small fan that gets dusty as all get out and I always wondered what keeping it on may do to the lens reader. Keep the thing off the floor and away from fabrics sos not to conk the fan out. It's only my opinion, turn it off.

Hmm, keep it off the floor. Noted. But then again --- if my fan was gonna be screwed, it probably already is by now. Any suggestions?

Get some anti-static wristbands (I got 'em free from work), a grounded work area, pop open the sucker to find out what size fan it uses, and replace it with the same size fan.
I got one with a blue LED but I forgot what size it was and I'm too lazy to check.

I keep mine on until I turn it off.

I would keep a game on pause for the whole day because I just forget it's on and I do something else.

I also read that someone said that the disk stops spinning when it's on pause. Which game does that because none of mine stop just because it's on pause.

I also read that someone said that the disk stops spinning when it's on pause. Which game does that because none of mine stop just because it's on pause.

Whoever said that is a liar, console disks don't stop spinning in order to decrease and minimize the length of data calls. If they stopped when you paused the game, you'd have to wait while the disk spins again and data is called before you can play the game. Just imagine if you repeatedly tapped the pause button. The disk would constantly start and stop spinning, which would probably do your console absolutely no good.

I pull the power cable out at the back, though. I'm sure that the significance of doing so is small but if everyone done it it might amount to something, maybe?

Al Gore says that by unplugging all electrical appliances it could help slow global warning, heh. Whether it's true or not, it's got my mom ragging on my ass to unplug everything that's reachable when we leave the house.

Oh, and I tend to leave it on for meal interruptions, phone calls, etc. I turn it off if I know I'll be gone for a long time.

Tell your Mom that Al Gore is a freaking socialist weirdo who needs to shut his trap.

I've always left mine switched off. Not that it seems to have done my machine much of a favour in the long run though, because lately it's decided to stop playing some of my games just out of the blue, despite the fact that i've done my best to keep the lens clean and that there's nothing wrong with the discs. I'm hoping that it'll just turn out to be a minor problem, but i've got a bad feeling it might be on it's way out, as i found out before this type of thing happens with alot of PS2's after so long, damn thing.

Well, I suppose it's a good thing they retail for like, what, $50 now? Seriously, what's the price these days now that the PS3 is out?

Al Gore says that by unplugging all electrical appliances it could help slow global warning, heh. Whether it's true or not, it's got my mom ragging on my ass to unplug everything that's reachable when we leave the house.


It is true, fo' sho'! Just probably not super significant.

Yeah, like not significant, at all, really. Seriously, Al Gore is full of hot air. I know Al Gore's philosophies. If he had his way, we'd all pretty much be living in caves.

TURN IT OFF (save energy)

Well, I suppose it's a good thing they retail for like, what, $50 now? Seriously, what's the price these days now that the PS3 is out?

Not too sure about the US prices, but I think here in the UK it's possible to get hold of one for roughly about �100. Not sure i'd bother buying a replacement though.

I'd heard $99 U.S. a while back and that was before the PS3 came out.

the mythbusters did a test on this therory with light bulbs. i would figure the same should hold true with consloes, if it does, then you should turn it off.

the mythbusters did a test on this therory with light bulbs. i would figure the same should hold true with consloes, if it does, then you should turn it off.

Turn it off to save energy? Yes
Unplug it to save energy? No...I hate Al Gore and his "philosophies", his global warming bullshit, etc. Not to mention his whole deal with inventing the internet. Anybody who believes his crock of shit should go die in a hole.

There is some truth to it, but not much. I recently saw a thing on the news about "vampire" electronics --- devices that consume a small amount of power even when they're turned off. But still, I don't see how unplugging it is going to prevent global warming. And yeah, that "invented the Internet" thing is a sack of shit. As I said, Al Gore is a socialist, and if he had his way, the Internet wouldn't be nearly as free as it is today. And as for global warming, I heard something the other day that takes the cake --- "if man-made pollution is responsible for the Earth's global warming, then why is there global warming on Mars as well?"

Turn it off to save energy? Yes
Unplug it to save energy? No...I hate Al Gore and his "philosophies", his global warming bullshit, etc. Not to mention his whole deal with inventing the internet. Anybody who believes his crock of shit should go die in a hole.

I know you ain't talkin' 'bout my mama like that! :)

But seriously, don't throw everything Al Gore says out the window. Inventing the internet? Yeah, I don't believe that for a second. But there are a lot of reports done on Global Warming which coincide with some of his preaching. Unplugging your PS probably does save energy when it's out of its standby mode. Though I personally cannot whip out a statistic that shows what 6+ billion [times] an average of easily unplugged home appliances [times] 75 watts is equal to, I'm sure it could make something of an impact.

http://www.nrdc.org/air/energy/genergy/easy.asp

I'll continue to throw what Al Gore says out of the window until he admits that we have insufficient data to call this trend "Global Warming". Sure the Earth is getting warmer in recent years, but we have like what, 30 years of data at most? That's not enough to call it global warming, but enough to call it a warming trend.

I'll continue to throw what Al Gore says out of the window until he admits that we have insufficient data to call this trend "Global Warming". Sure the Earth is getting warmer in recent years, but we have like what, 30 years of data at most? That's not enough to call it global warming, but enough to call it a warming trend.

You're an idiot.

You're an idiot.

How am I an idiot for not believing everything some politician says?

How am I an idiot for not believing everything some politician says?

hahaha

I guess by "some politician" you mean the entire scientific community, then yes, you are an idiot.

I had a run in with "vampire electronics". I turned off a stereo amp I had and opened it, and it fucking shocked me when I tried to change the fuse. Then I noticed a warning the next time I did it that says to unplug it or something, because it still retains energy.

z.zet is actually right and "the entire scientific community" is a media exaggeration by far. But I'm not interested in getting into a political debate here.

I leave mine on standby for anything around half an hour or so, like food, phone calls, short visits, etc. If I'm home and figure I won't be playing for a while I still turn them off. My Xbox's adapter gets frikken' HOT.

The only time I ever actually unplug anything is if we'll be going out of the house for several days (on vacation or something like that), and that has less to do with saving energy and more to do with being paranoid about freak power surges or something. ^^


(I used to leave my computer on 24/7 but lately the things been overheating now and then, so I turn it off at night and when I'll be out for work, etc.)

Yeah, those freak power surges can be trouble. I guess surge protectors can help.

hahaha

I guess by "some politician" you mean the entire scientific community, then yes, you are an idiot.

I mean Al Gore and his loonies, not the enitre scientific community. There even was a team that found discrepencies in the measurement and recording of global temperatures.
Here's an entry from this article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/01/14/wglob14.xml) that also shows a lack of evidence to confirm global warming:
"Climate experts are still trying to explain why satellites measuring the temperature of the Earth have detected little sign of global warming - despite taking measurements during supposedly the warmest period on record."

That is simple. There is a lag between the release of carbon into the atmosphere and the rise in temperature.

Edit: hahahaha, holy shit. THE TELEGRAPH REPORT! FUCK ME. It is all lies by some stupid boob and if that is your only "source", I refuse to take seriously anything you say henceforth. Debunking of the debunking. (http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1947247,00.html)

It's not my only source, I used the article because it is one that I agree with. In essence, it says that some are overexaggerating the global warming claim. The other one is common sense.
Think about how old the Earth is, and then compare that to the length of time global temperatures have been observed.
Let's say that the global temperature has been monitored for a thousand years. The Earth is estimated to be about 4.5 billion years old. Do you think that's enough time to say that anyone can predict the status of something that old with only one thousand years of data?

Mossy, please tell me you don't actually buy that. I don't really care to take a position on this, mind you, but that supposed "debunking of the debunking" was pitiful. Cases in point:


The author of this "research article" is Christopher Monckton, otherwise known as Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. He has a degree in classics and a diploma in journalism and, as far as I can tell, no further qualifications. But he is confident enough to maintain that - by contrast to all those charlatans and amateurs who wrote the reports produced by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - he is publishing "the truth".

Attacking the guy's credentials is an instant strike. If there's one thing history has shown, it's that some of the most brilliant insights that humans have ever seen have come from people who did not specifically train in those fields. Sometimes hard work and careful information gathering are enough. To not note that is unforgivable and shows that this is nothing more than a personal attack aimed at discrediting the man instead of the idea.


Schmidt points out that Monckton also forgets, in making his calculations, that "climate sensitivity is an equilibrium concept": in other words that there is a time-lag of several decades between the release of carbon dioxide and the eventual temperature rise it causes. If you don't take this into account, the climate's sensitivity to carbon dioxide looks much smaller. This is about as fundamental a mistake as you can make in climate science.

This is a theoretical concept that has not been conclusively proven. Stating it as fact proves the existence of bias and damages the credibility of the entire article.


So what of those graphs? Look at them carefully and you see that they are measuring two different things: global temperatures (the UN panel's progression) and European temperatures (Monckton's line). You will also discover that the scales are different.

Admittedly, I have not seen the graphs in question. However, this paragraph merely says that there are differences in the designs of the graphs. It does not specifically state that there are any inherent inaccuracies presented by them.

Those are just a few of my problems with it. Now I'm not necessarily saying that the article is wrong (I'm withholding my personal views on the matter), but the way it's presented seems like it was made specifically to reassure people who are already inclined to believe in global warming that their position hasn't really been compromised. It's an exercise in foolish pride and self-enforced ignorance.

I turn off my console and computer but do not unplug it.

I certainly do buy it!


Attacking the guy's credentials is an instant strike. If there's one thing history has shown, it's that some of the most brilliant insights that humans have ever seen have come from people who did not specifically train in those fields. Sometimes hard work and careful information gathering are enough. To not note that is unforgivable and shows that this is nothing more than a personal attack aimed at discrediting the man instead of the idea.

I agree that flinging insults at someone in order to discredit them is not great tact, but I think it is fairly justified in this case and I don't really consider it to be an attack. The guy does claim that in contrast to other research done by men and women who have dedicated their lives to climate research, he is correct and they are wrong. It is possible, though improbable, that he is indeed correct, but seeing as his article is full of inaccuracies such as using the wrong mathematical formulas I think the summary is fair. Regardless of what credentials he does or does not have, his work is flawed.


This is a theoretical concept that has not been conclusively proven. Stating it as fact proves the existence of bias and damages the credibility of the entire article.

It is a theory that has held thus far, nonetheless. James Hansen's middle, most plausible, prediction was estimated assuming that there is a time lag between carbon entering the atmosphere and an increase in global temperature and it was about as accurate as predictions get.


Admittedly, I have not seen the graphs in question. However, this paragraph merely says that there are differences in the designs of the graphs. It does not specifically state that there are any inherent inaccuracies presented by them.

Europe is a cool continent, comparatively speaking. If the UN graph is considering global temperatures it will have been factoring in much hotter continents than Europe. Africa, vast parts of Asia, Australia and South America are all hotter than Europe. If the UN graph was plotting data based on all of the world it will have looked much much hotter than the the one for Europe simply.


Those are just a few of my problems with it. Now I'm not necessarily saying that the article is wrong (I'm withholding my personal views on the matter), but the way it's presented seems like it was made specifically to reassure people who are already inclined to believe in global warming that their position hasn't really been compromised. It's an exercise in foolish pride and self-enforced ignorance.

At the very least I'm sure you'll agree that global warming is real, it's just we differ on the impact mankind has on proceedings. I don't entirely agree with you though that the whole article was an exercise in "foolish pride". By extension of that logic, any column or any story presented in the media that is not absolutely impartial is reassuring people one way or the other. It takes into account Monckton's claims and rubbishes them, so I don't think that it is ignorant article either. Monckton's article is guilty of the exact same thing only on the other side of the coin; reassuring those who don't believe in global warming that it's all made up.

I agree that flinging insults at someone in order to discredit them is not great tact, but I think it is fairly justified in this case and I don't really consider it to be an attack. The guy does claim that in contrast to other research done by men and women who have dedicated their lives to climate research, he is correct and they are wrong. It is possible, though improbable, that he is indeed correct, but seeing as his article is full of inaccuracies such as using the wrong mathematical formulas I think the summary is fair. Regardless of what credentials he does or does not have, his work is flawed.

Mossy, saying, "He doesn't know what he's talking about," is an attack. As for his formulae, I can't bring any assertions for or against them simply because I've only been exposed to the article you liked to, not the other one.


It is a theory that has held thus far, nonetheless. James Hansen's middle, most plausible, prediction was estimated assuming that there is a time lag between carbon entering the atmosphere and an increase in global temperature and it was about as accurate as predictions get.

That's ludicrous. People have not been observing it long enough to come up with the kind of conclusions you're describing. Besides, the notion that it can take decades to show up could just as easily be dismissed as a ploy to claim that some random temperature fluctuation is a result of things that happened ages ago without really offering any solid evidence, yet offering no opportunity for it to be disproved.


Europe is a cool continent, comparatively speaking. If the UN graph is considering global temperatures it will have been factoring in much hotter continents than Europe. Africa, vast parts of Asia, Australia and South America are all hotter than Europe. If the UN graph was plotting data based on all of the world it will have looked much much hotter than the the one for Europe simply.

You ignored my point. My point is that the article merely states that there were differences in the structures of the graphs, yet made no mention of the actual contents of those graphs and failed to challenge any discrepancies that may or may not have been contained within. Therefore, the claim is invalid at best and, at worst, a desperate plea for proponents of the global warming theory to keep the faith.


At the very least I'm sure you'll agree that global warming is real, it's just we differ on the impact mankind has on proceedings. I don't entirely agree with you though that the whole article was an exercise in "foolish pride". By extension of that logic, any column or any story presented in the media that is not absolutely impartial is reassuring people one way or the other. It takes into account Monckton's claims and rubbishes them, so I don't think that it is ignorant article either. Monckton's article is guilty of the exact same thing only on the other side of the coin; reassuring those who don't believe in global warming that it's all made up.

As I've said before, I haven't read Monckton's article. It could be just as bad. I am merely saying that this rebuttal is garbage that shows an obvious bias, offers no real facts, and insults the intelligence of people like myself, although I may well be in the minority there.

I turn my consoles off because electronics tend to overheat much more easily in tropical climate.

I turn it off when i'm finished on it, but it's just how I am.

Like turning the light off when i leave a room, closing the fridge when ive taken something out, or taking my shoes off when i enter my house.

I rarely think about it, but when i do i see it as a good habit to have, even if it makes little difference to the overall problem of global warming or the limited supply of fossil fuels.

Even if we had an endless supply or energy i'd still do it.

Turn it off to save energy? Yes
Unplug it to save energy? No...I hate Al Gore and his "philosophies", his global warming bullshit, etc. Not to mention his whole deal with inventing the internet. Anybody who believes his crock of shit should go die in a hole.

i never said unplug. and al gore is a retared if actually thinks he invented the internet.

Sciz_Bisket, I used your quote as an example that turning off small appliances (like light bulbs) would help to save electricity and thus potentially lower your electric bill. I never meant to say that you said unplug, that was my mistake for not referencing properly.


Al Gore says that by unplugging all electrical appliances it could help slow global warning, heh.

That's the quote I was referencing concerning the unplug issue.

I forgot what this thread was even about. I don't really think about it, I guess it depends if I forget or not. I usually turn it off, but half the time I don't care. Its been on for days at a time.

But my amp and DVD player are worse than my ps2. They're on constantly. I listen to music all day, then when I lay down I can't fall asleep without it. Then when I wake up I start listening again. I swear its a main heating source for my house.

Turn off.

But the Wii is on.......even if it's off.....

I've always left mine on stand by. I can't have enough little red lights at night.