Germany Orders Shutdown of Digital Ad Displays To Save Gas (theregister.com) 117
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Register: Germany has ordered overnight shutdowns for non-essential digital signage, to save its reserves of natural gas for more important purposes. Like many European nations, Germany relies on natural gas imported from Russia. And thanks to Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, that gas is currently in short supply. The European Union has therefore implemented an energy saving plan. One of Germany's tactics is requiring digital signage in shop windows and other non-essential locations to be turned off between 10:00PM and 6:00AM. Germany will also stop external lighting of some public buildings and implement many other power-saving measures. The plan [PDF] requiring the switch-off was published on August 12, with a deadline of September 1.
But as German outlet Invidis reports, the regulation was unhelpfully vague. For starters an updated ordinance [PDF] appears to have made the simple mistake of substituting 06:00 and 16:00 -- meaning digital signage could only run from 4PM to 10PM. Invidis also pointed out that digital signage at bus stops and train stations can do double duty displaying ads and timetable information. Exceptions for such dual-purpose signs have been arranged. Those errors and ambiguities have reportedly left those who run digital signs unsure of what they needed to do and worried they might miss the deadline.
Further complicating matters is a requirement to turn off the screens altogether rather than leaving the displays blank. Digital signage is seldom switched off, and retail staff will have to learn how to do that. Many digital signs also include a computer -- some are Android machines, others use compute sticks, the Intel NUC and even the Raspberry Pi. Admins will therefore need to cope with extra reboots. And then there's the matter of content updates, which are often scheduled overnight. All of which adds up to a stressful moment for admins of digital signage, and not much time to get things right.
But as German outlet Invidis reports, the regulation was unhelpfully vague. For starters an updated ordinance [PDF] appears to have made the simple mistake of substituting 06:00 and 16:00 -- meaning digital signage could only run from 4PM to 10PM. Invidis also pointed out that digital signage at bus stops and train stations can do double duty displaying ads and timetable information. Exceptions for such dual-purpose signs have been arranged. Those errors and ambiguities have reportedly left those who run digital signs unsure of what they needed to do and worried they might miss the deadline.
Further complicating matters is a requirement to turn off the screens altogether rather than leaving the displays blank. Digital signage is seldom switched off, and retail staff will have to learn how to do that. Many digital signs also include a computer -- some are Android machines, others use compute sticks, the Intel NUC and even the Raspberry Pi. Admins will therefore need to cope with extra reboots. And then there's the matter of content updates, which are often scheduled overnight. All of which adds up to a stressful moment for admins of digital signage, and not much time to get things right.
thanks to Russia's illegal invasion (Score:1)
Oh please! The sanctions didn't work, so let's fuck up Europe instead... Make them buy gas from us
Re: (Score:3)
Sanctions do work, their effect just have some momentum, additionally there are some quite big countries, which don't mind sanctions.
US did offer to sell liquefied natural gas, however there were some explosions in the US terminals [npr.org], which changed the landscape.
Europe is in a quite difficult situation, however as history teaches us, giving up to warmongers dictators does not end up well, so most of the countries with various commitments stand up behind the nation of Ukraine defending their freedom.
There are
Illegal invasion (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
When the Americans do it, yes...
Re: (Score:3)
Sure. You just have to have the correct flag painted on your tanks.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. You just have to have the correct flag painted on your tanks.
The Russians have painted them, and wear patches, with a "Z"; so either they're fighting, or they are, Zombies [wikipedia.org] -- maybe Brad Pitt can help ...
Re: (Score:2)
The US going into Kuwait ~ two decades ago might be described as a "legal invasion".
Re: (Score:2)
If troops enter a country with consent of the current government and that government is functional enough to consistently enforce laws, that would be an example of a legal invasion. There is no such thing as law between countries, but counter invasions of aggressors can be considered moral despite breaking aggressor's internal laws.
Re: (Score:2)
If troops enter a country with consent of the current government and that government is functional enough to consistently enforce laws, that would be an example of a legal invasion.
Um, that's not an "invasion", it's "help"
Re: (Score:2)
The invasion of Nazi Germany in 1944 was legal. The invasion of Ukraine in 2022 (some say starting in 2014) is not. I should not have to explain the distinction.
Re: (Score:2)
To my best knowledge, Germany invaded a sizable chunk of Europe. In the course of this war the tide turned and Nazi Germany ended up losing ground, to the point, where all of Germany became occupied (most including myself call it liberated now). The invasion of Poland, Belgium, Netherlands, Norway, and a loing list of other countries was an unjustified act of aggression, which could not be stopped short of defeating the German Wehrmacht, hence the invasion of allied forces and the Soviet Union in Germany. T
Re: (Score:2)
The Kellog-Briand Act from 1928 [wikipedia.org], signed by most relevant countries of this era, prohibited war in general. If the wording is to be read in its strict sense, then even a war in self defense would have been illegal according to this treaty. However,"formal notes reserving the right of self-defence were exchanged between the principal signatories prior to the conclusion of the Pact" [selfdefenseguides.info].
Once you interpret WW II as a chain reaction started by Germany's invasion of Poland in 1939 (and Japan's attack against the USA)
Re: Illegal invasion (Score:2)
Yes [youtube.com]
Shutting down nuclear reactors (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Because nuclear is clearly the most reliable power source. [bloomberg.com]
Link shows why nuclear is important (Score:2, Insightful)
Most of those outages are for a matter of days, while in Germany they are talking about an outage that is forever if they close off the nuclear power plants that remain.
It's pretty ballsy to try and point to France for why Germany should not use nuclear, when France is not talking about things like turning off heat in public buildings or digital signs (as this very Slashdot story points to!) as Germany is having to do. And it's not people in France hunting down firewood, that once again is people in German [qz.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Germany's nuclear plant lifetime has already been overextended. If they wanted to keep running it, they would have to shut it down to do the maintenance they have already deferred.
I guess you also don't even care a little for how many Germans have to suffer through he winter.
Some of us care how many Germans are evacuated from their homes because of containment failure.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you also don't even care a little for how many Germans have to suffer through he winter.
No one has to suffer through the winter. Your post is just nonsense. Especially as Germany has no real winters anymore since 30 years.
Oh: and the German nukes have to be powered down, too. Due to lack of water in the rivers.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of those outages are for a matter of days
Not just days. It's more like months [france24.com].
It's pretty ballsy to try and point to France for why Germany should not use nuclear, when France is not talking about things like turning off heat in public buildings or digital signs (as this very Slashdot story points to!) as Germany is having to do. And it's not people in France hunting down firewood, that once again is people in Germany... What kind of impact does a nation of people burning firewood have vs french citizens using nuclear power have on CO2 again? Or do we no longer care about CO2? Or maybe you do not care about CO2...
I guess you also don't even care a little for how many Germans have to suffer through he winter.
At the moment France is importing power from Germany [apnews.com] because half of French nuclear reactors are shut down due to maintenance and technical issues.
Nuclear is expensive, maintenance intensive, and it runs into problems during drought and heat waves because there is not enough cool water to cool the reactors.
Re: (Score:2)
France is suffering from a lack of energy too. This year their nuclear plants are on track for a 50% capacity factor, and often the shut-downs are coordinated due to hot weather. They have a choice between dumping hot water into rivers and killing a lot of wildlife, or drastically reducing energy use.
The French government is in a difficult position. The obvious thing to do would be to build lots of solar, because it works best when nuclear works least, on hot sunny days. They have room for offshore wind too
Re: (Score:3)
You know Germany is not serious about potential shortage as they are still shutting down nuclear reactors.
and arguing coal is a better solution. Some 30% of Germany’s gas is used in energy production, about the same as for home heating. 40% goes to industry. It seems a rational decision to prioritize heating and industry with gas used for energy production.
Re: (Score:2)
Some 30% of Germanyâ(TM)s gas is used in energy production, about the same as for home heating.
Not for electricity. If you mean that with "energy".
Re: (Score:2)
Some 30% of Germanyâ(TM)s gas is used in energy production, about the same as for home heating. Not for electricity. If you mean that with "energy".
No, but gas accounted for 15% of electricity production. Germany has managed to increase its reserves and may have avoided a worst case scenario; but it's clear that replacing gas fired plants with other sources of electricity can help. Germany has decided rolling coal is the answer.
Re: (Score:2)
Germany has decided rolling coal is the answer.
Obviously. As there is no other answer that can be implemented next 3, 6 or 9 or 12 months.
So? What is your point?
Re: (Score:2)
Germany has decided rolling coal is the answer. Obviously. As there is no other answer that can be implemented next 3, 6 or 9 or 12 months. So? What is your point?
Extend the life of the nukes as well. We're not talking long term; it seems to me the German politicians simply prefer contributing to global warming.
Re: (Score:2)
it seems to me the German politicians simply prefer contributing to global warming.
Just like any other government on the planet.
Is it not unfair in your eyes to blame the country that did the most regarding CO2 reduction, when it has a hick up and has to stall it a few years?
It is like blaming your child which was 10 years long the best in school, but in the final year it is only on place number 3 for failing. You behave idiotic ...
Re: (Score:2)
it seems to me the German politicians simply prefer contributing to global warming. Just like any other government on the planet.
Of course. That is politics.
Is it not unfair in your eyes to blame the country that did the most regarding CO2 reduction, when it has a hick up and has to stall it a few years?
I'm not blaming the Germans, just pointing out they have alternatives sources of energy to lessen the gas shortfall and environmental impact, but chose not to use it for political reasons. Germans are facing some potentially tough choices over the winter as gas prices rise, despite having long term fixed price contracts; and retirees on fixed pensions likely to feel the most pain. I find it shortsighted that German politicians are willing to roll coal but not take the logical
Re: (Score:2)
just pointing out they **have** alternatives sources of energy to lessen the gas shortfall and environmental impact, but chose not to use it for political reasons.
a) have should be had, 15 years ago
b) to lessen the gas shortfall wrong - nuclear power has nothing to do with lack or surplus of gas. Nukes produce electricity - Gas is used for home heating. I mentioned that already, or not?
I would say the German politicians' behavior is idiotic.
So following the democratic demand of the population is idiotic?
I
Re: (Score:2)
just pointing out they **have** alternatives sources of energy to lessen the gas shortfall and environmental impact, but chose not to use it for political reasons. a) have should be had, 15 years ago b) to lessen the gas shortfall wrong - nuclear power has nothing to do with lack or surplus of gas. Nukes produce electricity - Gas is used for home heating. I mentioned that already, or not?
I would say the German politicians' behavior is idiotic. So following the democratic demand of the population is idiotic?
Not attempting to explain the reasoning for a short term moratorium is idiotic. As a side not, are they limiting coal and lignite to 15GW each, as required by law? Or more to the point, why do they need to pass legislation to overturn teh will of teh people evidenced by earlier legislation?
I find it shortsighted that German politicians are willing to roll coal but not take the logical step of running their nuke for the winter to help alleviate the impact. Because you are too stupid to grasp that prolonging running the nukes has no effect on gas?
What the fuck has a nuke producing electricity to do with gas being or not being available for running a furnace in a home to heat the home?
Care to explain? Perhaps I'm the one who is stupid? We keep the nuke running. And? And where is now the gas magically coming from that I need to fire my furnace in my home with to heat my home? The nuke magically puts gas into the gas pipes?
it's really very simple - the Germans use gas to generate electricity as well as heat homes. If you replace that generation with nukes the gas supplies can be used to heat homes, as well as potential lessen the need for
Re: (Score:2)
the Germans use gas to generate electricity as well as heat homes. If you replace that generation with nukes the gas supplies can be used to heat homes
that tiny fraction of gas is completely irrelevant.
There will always be enough gas to heat the homes.
No idea from where you get your bullshit informations you base your idiotic conclusions on.
I'll let you figure out if you're stupid or so anti-nuke you fail to see that a short run over winter could help elevate some of German's potential gas shortfalls.
As I e
Re: (Score:2)
the Germans use gas to generate electricity as well as heat homes. If you replace that generation with nukes the gas supplies can be used to heat homes that tiny fraction of gas is completely irrelevant.
If it is, then coal's impact would be similarly irrelevant; yet Germany has decided to go against the popular will and roll coal, climate change be damned.
There will always be enough gas to heat the homes.
No idea from where you get your bullshit informations you base your idiotic conclusions on.
I'll let you figure out if you're stupid or so anti-nuke you fail to see that a short run over winter could help elevate some of German's potential gas shortfalls. As I explained it several times: it wont. But you insist not even trying to grasp it.
Here's some news from Germany:
In the event of an acute gas shortage in Germany, the main priority will be to reduce the impact on the economy and private households, the country's energy regulator said on Tuesday. "There are no good options left in a gas shortage situation ... then we will try to minimize the damage," said Klaus Müller, head of the [msn.com]
Re: (Score:2)
If it is, then coal's impact would be similarly irrelevant;
Nope. Coal is mostly used for electricity, gas is not. And on top of that in industries.
All the quotes you gave clearly show that - except financially - German households are unaffected.
Perhaps you should read the newspaper articles you link or quote.
Re: (Score:2)
If it is, then coal's impact would be similarly irrelevant; Nope. Coal is mostly used for electricity, gas is not. And on top of that in industries.
All the quotes you gave clearly show that - except financially - German households are unaffected.
Perhaps you should read the newspaper articles you link or quote.
And the reason they are experience the problem is gas used for electricity is driving up the price of electricity. As for gas , 15% of Germany’s electrical production is from gas, a not insignificant percentage despite your claims. While there is a ray of hope for households, a bad winter of continued Russian stoppage of gas deliveries could change the picture. The bottom line is Germany is politically willing to be hypocritical when it comes to the environment vs political pain; despite all their
Re: (Score:2)
As for gas , 15% of Germanyâ(TM)s electrical production is from gas,
No it is not.
And the reason they are experience the problem is gas used for electricity is driving up the price of electricity.
Nope. The price for gas on the world market is increasing the price for gas. Seriously, are you dumb?
While there is a ray of hope for households, a bad winter of continued Russian stoppage of gas deliveries could change the picture.
We have no bad winters since climate change.
Are you living under a rock?
Russia
Re: (Score:2)
As for gas , 15% of Germanyâ(TM)s electrical production is from gas, No it is not.
Ok, 12% - here's a source: Public Net Electricity Generation in Germany 2020 [fraunhofer.de]
And the reason they are experience the problem is gas used for electricity is driving up the price of electricity. Nope. The price for gas on the world market is increasing the price for gas. Seriously, are you dumb?
The price of electricity in Germany is determined by the highest priced producer, which is gas; thus it drives Germany's electricity prices. That's why German politicians are all up in arms about the high profits for energy companies. Simple economics seems beyond your grasp.
While there is a ray of hope for households, a bad winter of continued Russian stoppage of gas deliveries could change the picture. We have no bad winters since climate change.
And rolling coal will help keep them mild. Good approach to reducing the need for gas.
Are you living under a rock?
Russian gas delivery is already stopped. Are you living under a rock?
Yes, they claimed for a few days of "maintenance" which seems to be mo
Re: Shutting down nuclear reactors (Score:1)
Except, they are not.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/w... [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
a) nuclear power has nothing to do with gas
b) we were very serious when the crisis was foreseeable (6 months ago) - but there will be no crisis as we took measures long ago already
c) Germany's storage is on far higher levels then it used to be in other years around this time of the year
I really wonder if I should be thankful for the concerns of your lot about Germany - or facepalm constantly about your "we know nothing about Germany but we know Germany does everything wrong" attitude.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So far as I know NATO isn't at war with anybody. Have you heard different over there in St. Petersburg? I mean, if NATO and Russia were at war, I suspect you'd be roasting sausages in the pleasant afterglow of the mushroom clouds.
Re:Shutting down nuclear reactors (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's because he's some form of douchebag (probably racist) who thinks Ukrainians are inferior, so they couldn't possibly be defeating the Russians even though we have been handing them billions and billions of dollars of high quality hardware and providing them training on how to use it, while the Russians are poorly trained, poorly equipped, and poorly led.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.express.co.uk/news... [express.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Just pointing out that just because Russians have been there since 2014 does not mean they should not still be killed today, tomorrow, next week, and next year. Until there are none left.
Certainly they should kill every Russian soldier who is not in the process of defecting. They seem to be making strides in that direction.
Re: (Score:1)
they are technically what i would consider a high value target well above the capacity of a military that has been pushed back so recently, and they are too high profile to be credible partisan operations. it's totally inconsistent with everything that has happened since february. not to mention several hits in a row.
nato intel has been well known for a while throughout the war. this kind of operation was something different entirely, its very suspicious even if you are not "a racist" like some angry poster
Re: (Score:2)
they are technically what i would consider a high value target well above the capacity of a military that has been pushed back so recently, and they are too high profile to be credible partisan operations. it's totally inconsistent with everything that has happened since february. not to mention several hits in a row.
We give them high precision weapons and real time satellite imagery and they put it to good use. You seem to underestimate the capabilities of the Ukrainian military. That is OK, Putin did too. Not sure what you think has happened since February, but Russia is not doing well. Ukraine is going to make Afghanistan seem like a picnic.
Re: (Score:2)
ukraine isn't doing well either. the last diehard fanatics surrendered at azovstal, they're mostly out of rambos too and recruiting abroad, and even with all the western weaponry this is pretty much a stalemate that will continue into next year, and probably the next ... with ukraine atm having lost grossly 25% of their territory which means 75% of their economic potential, and unable to recover.
a picnic, you say. well, if u ask me ukraine doesn't look good at all either? not to mention 6 million displaced,
Re:Shutting down nuclear reactors (Score:4, Insightful)
was it worth it?
Was what worth it? Russia invaded a sovereign country. If you are asking if fighting rather than capitulating is worth it that is not a real question. Like was it worth it for us to fight Hitler as well? That is not a real question either. Fighting evil is what all good people do.
It is incumbent on the entire civilized world to make it as painful as possible for Russia, not just on the battlefield but economically as well, and that is what we will do. Russia is now a pariah in the world, and trade with the west will not be coming back as long as there are Russians in Ukraine. Putin can have his Soviet era economy back, permanently.
Re: (Score:1)
Fighting evil is what all good people do.
this is not lord of the rings, mr. this is cold, dirty, reckless geopolitical war. not one of the parties involved is good.
if you think so, you are simply buying some specific party's propaganda, and in honor of the lucid exchange we've had so far i would say that's an insult to your intelligence. this is a manufactured conflict that is all about world power and not in the slightest about good or evil, two liquid concept that are very easily devoid of any meaning. that's just what the masses are fed, they n
Re: (Score:3)
Ukraine became its own sovereign nation decades ago. Putin wants it back.
It's not lord of the rings, no... but it's pretty damn obvious which side is wholly in the wrong here.
Re: (Score:2)
not one of the parties involved is good.
One side is a fledgling democracy, the other is a shithole dictatorship with no human rights. There is no moral equivalency here whatsoever.
this is a manufactured conflict
Manufactured solely by Putin. Don't give me this he was afraid of NATO so just had to attack a non-NATO country. He is a sad pathetic little man who wants to pretend the glorious USSR still exists. All he is getting now is even more NATO (Sweden and Finland, who now have real reason to fear Russian aggression) and the Soviet era economy back. How dumb is that?
i'm just an observer. this is not my war. this is a whole lot of disgusting bullshit, and it's also hugely dangerous. and anyone defending any side in this is part of the problem, no matter how "good" he believes his side to be.
Canad
Re: (Score:2)
well, you just showed how convinced you are of your absolute truths. this is tiring, i dunno what to say. the thing with the memorials made me smile, i couldn't help but visualizing the us plastered all over with monuments to distinguished slavers ... this world of ours! ;-)
let's just hope for the best but i think it's better we move on. good day to you, sir.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the US should tear down monuments to the Confederacy, but at least the US has moved on (not enough, but still lots) from that era. Russia has not moved on from the Stalin era much at all. He is still one of the current dictator's heroes after all. Hardly surprising Ukrainians are not fans.
But yes, appreciate the respectful convers
Re: (Score:2)
There's a very good reason that what you are alleging is probably not true.
And that is simply because truth has a way of eventually being found out, and why do you think NATO would actually be willing to risk the consequences of a Russia/NATO war?
Re: (Score:2)
that's sensible, the problem is that we wouldn't be where we are if any part in this whole fuck up had been that sensible.
yes, i know, you believe this is all putin's fault. you said so in another reply. let's just disagree.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
wut? :-)
to be clear, i think that the push to depose an elected (pro russian) government in 2014 was not sensible. it actually unleashed a civil war. the renewed pressure for nato membership and international bullying in 2021/22, which was clearly hostile to russia, was not sensible at all. it actually prompted russia to attack. ofc russian invasion was not sensible either, and their decision to start wrecking the country after failing to depose the government is simply appalling. i consider that doubling d
Re: (Score:2)
It appeared to me as if you were actually arguing that Ukraine never should have become sovereign in the first place. It seems one could extend that argument to suggest that the USA should not have been independent either. You've clarified your position, and I understand now that you were actually speaking of the regime change in Ukraine.
However, whether or not Ukraine had a civil war that led to a government that was no longer "pro Russia" nearly a quarter of a century after Ukraine had its independen
Re: (Score:2)
All Ukraine has ever been asking for here is for Russia to leave them the fuck alone. And it damn well ought to have every right to do so.
this is plainly false. ukraine has been an extremely polarized society since independence, with roughly half of the population being pro russian. you might look at e.g. electoral maps for very major election since, they all show the same divide with a consistent geographic distribution. several surveys over preference for economic or political associations show the same divide. the first time an electoral result showed a uniform result across the country was when zelenskyy was elected, in 2019. can you gues
Re: (Score:2)
That's really just too darn bad for Russia then, because again, Ukraine is its own fucking sovereign nation. If they have so much strategic interests in Ukraine, then the proper channel to take is a diplomatic one, where fair exchange and trade can be negotiated to benefit both parties, not invasion
Re: (Score:2)
If they have so much strategic interests in Ukraine, then the proper channel to take is a diplomatic one, where fair exchange and trade can be negotiated to benefit both parties, not invasion
i wholeheartedly agree.
That's really just too darn bad for Russia then, because again, Ukraine is its own fucking sovereign nation.
it's much worse for ukraine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
i'm curious as to what have i said to prompt that question.
trying to answer: what does that even mean, sovereign? you know it's a term derived from monarchy, right? in practice, those are sovereign who are able to defend their arbitrary flag and borders with guns. from that perspective, no, ukraine is most definitely not atm since it totally depends on western aid and weaponry to rey and do that (actually, that was my main point all along: this is a proxy war in which "ukraine" is just the useful fool).
does
Re: (Score:2)
What you had said was "it is much worse for Ukraine" when I said that Ukraine was its own country. I saw no way to interpret that other than to believe you might be suggesting that Ukraine didn't have it's own functioning democracy.
The point remains, what Ukraine does which may not be in Russia's best interests ought to be irrelevant to Russia unless Ukraine was being alleged to prepare to invade Russia, which no reasonable thinking person believes they were planning to do. As I said, the proper soluti
Re: (Score:2)
What you had said was "it is much worse for Ukraine" when I said that Ukraine was its own country.
it was obviously in response to you saying "too bad for russia".
you might be suggesting that Ukraine didn't have it's own functioning democracy.
that is actually the case but is not really irrelevant. specially if you consistently reduce everything to ...
Ultimately, Russia just needs to get the fuck out of the Ukraine. It is not hyperbole to refer to what Russia has done and is only continuing to do as "evil".
... well, good luck with that, then. how do you plan to do that, exactly? just pouring more gasoline on top of it isn't working out, in case you noticed.
somehow you think that russia is going to capitulate, maybe putin is going to be deposed and hanged in the red square to much rejoice of the populace (and all the "good guys"), russia w
Re: (Score:2)
Ah... until now I had been hoping I wasn't engaging with a Russia propaganda troll. I see now that this was a futile hope. My bad.
Re: (Score:2)
well, it only took your over a dozen exchanges where you have consistently failed to sustain your wild claims with logic and facts and systematically ignored any rational rebuttals of said claims to finally resort to ad-hominem. and the other one is the troll. comedy gold. congratulations, i guess!
Re: (Score:2)
so the german elite can support their american overlords' geopolitical war
Heh. Nice try. EU and US reply to the same master: China.
They're the only ones to profit from everyone else's strife.
Re:Shutting down nuclear reactors (Score:4, Insightful)
Heh. Nice try. EU and US reply to the same master: China.
They're the only ones to profit from everyone else's strife.
well, tell biden and his many friends about it. the whole fuck up is exactly because they refuse to accept exactly that.
Re: (Score:2)
so the german elite can support their american overlords' geopolitical war
Heh. Nice try. EU and US reply to the same master: China.
They're the only ones to profit from
a 1st world problem.
Easy solution (Score:2)
An easy solution to the problems mentioned: keep them turned off in the day too. It also saves even more gas!
Screw it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Who knows? Perhaps Germans will get used to the peacefulness & not having their eyeballs assaulted constantly, & then want the laws to be made permanent, perhaps even extended through more of the day? I'd vote for that!
Re: (Score:2)
I've heard that the off switch for these things is usually just a stone's throw away from the display.
The whole shit should be illegal. A simple law saying that the brightness of these displays cannot exceed the natural ambient light at that time of day, done.
Re: Screw it. (Score:2)
Good idea but hard to implement (Score:5, Interesting)
I am in the digital signage industry. A lot of displays do run 24/7, sometimes by request but many times because it's simpler to just toss a player on and run video than to also have an RS232 link to all the displays to command screen on/off per schedule. Many signage applications support this function but they are often not as simple to implement out of the box as just getting the content running. Plus if the screens fail to turn on now there's energy wasted doing a service call.
Having to rely on staff is iffy as well as now you have to rely on them to firstly have kept the remote that may have been left on site, may not be the same one for all screens, the ir sensor may not be accessible and they have other shit to do.
Ironically the larger displays like outdoor billboards are easier than LCD displays since running a black screen is effectively off for them. Sure the electronics is still running but without the pixels being on 95% of the energy is saved so it's simple as scheduling in a black picture for a few hours.
This should really be standard practice everywhere though, driving down a highway at 3AM in the us it's pretty common to see multi KW LED billboards blazing away to an audience of a few dozen per hour.
Re: (Score:2)
All two of the digital signage systems I've worked on have had on off timers. Is it not typical to have them?
Re: (Score:3)
in my experience it's a mixed bag, it depends on whats meant by on/off. Some systems operate on the idle mode shutoff of the display, some do black screen (but leave LCD's mostly running still) some just power off and on at intervals. I've just seen lot's and lots of systems with screen to player with HDMI and that's it. My primary expereience is with retail and digital-out-of-home signage though which is primarily 3rd party vendors. Corporate can be a whole other story as they tend to have internal man
Re: (Score:2)
now there's energy wasted doing a service call
Energy isn't universal. Germany doesn't produce power from oil, it does so from coal, wind, and *gas*. So unless your service call is performed via EV (unlikely) then the energy you're consuming with your service call isn't the same energy Germany is trying to conserve.
Re: (Score:2)
Surethat applies for germany today specifically but I am talking more broadly and the idea is no matter the source the energy expended moving a person out to site likely kills a few weeks of whatever energy is saved from turning the display off at night.
Re: (Score:2)
It can be simple. It is a standard feature most decent commercial LCD displays are going to have RS232 or TCP/IP control options (a lot of the cheaper chinese stuff does not though which is one issue), LED sending boxes also have these and most playback systems are going to be on cellular or wifi connection to a central content server. All the capacility is there but you or your vendor has to make sure they wire those control circuits up, configure them properly, have the correct formatted codes for the p
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely. Those displays should have brightness schedules or light sensors to adjust their output but either they arent configured properly or the operating company couldnt be assed to use it.
Trump warned them about this... (Score:2)
Re: Trump warned them about this... (Score:3)
They are still laughing, the elites.
Existential crisis and emergency spending is good for grafting- the plebs can take one for the team and eat cake. Remember- we all in this together!
Re: (Score:2)
Trump rambled a lot of shit in that speech, but the likes of you always reduce it to that one sentence he parroted.
Paper billboards? (Score:3)
Just outright ban digital signage at a time like this, because pretty soon, people aren't going to be able to afford what they are advertising anyway /s
Surely there's plenty of creative ways to advertise in shop fronts without digital - hmm, how about paper? That's a novel concept, right? ... or whether we even need those damn ugly billboards at all - we don't, right?
Having said that, I do wonder what the emissions are for replacing massive paper billboards with new advertising every few months, vs. digital signage.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just a question of digital vs paper. It's a question of illuminated / self luminated, vs not visible. Swapping digital signage for paper doesn't help if the shop then proceeds to shine a gas powered light on it.
Seems to be fake news (Score:2)
My google fu does not reveal any German news regarding that.
So much for Cyberpunk looking downtowns (Score:2)
All kidding aside, being cold stinks. I lived through a time where I couldn't afford to buy enough home heating oil to stay warm, and ever since that's been something I really appreciate, that and hot showers.
TV B Gone to the Rescue! (Score:2)
Instead of mandating shut down of these stupid displays the German government should be handing out TV B Gone [tvbgone.com] devices to its people, and they would happily enforce this new regulation :-)
Obviously edting and proofreading take energy (Score:2)
Beer (Score:2)
They need to suspend production of beer!
Re:LOL, it's all due to "anti fossil fuel" types (Score:5, Informative)
THIS was from 51 years ago, when the burning of fossil fuels was suppose to cause an ice age. "The world could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age, a leading atmospheric scientist predicts. ... 'In the next 50 years,' the fine dust man constantly puts into the atmosphere by fossil fuel-burning could screen out so much sunlight that the average temperature could drop by six degrees. If sustained 'over several years' --'five to 10,' he estimated -- 'such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age!' --Washington Post, Times Herald, 1971.
The truly scary thing about this is that the predicted dimming actually occurred. It's just that the greenhouse effect is more pronounced so the Earth keeps getting hotter.
Re: (Score:2)
The old "the ice age is coming" trope sure gets trotted out in short order. You understand that climate models do take into account variations in solar output. But in fact, we already get those, every year, as the Earth approaches perihelion. Between perihelion and aphelion, net solar output can vary as much as 25%, and yet, oddly enough, its axial tilt that has more to do with seasonal variation, and distance from the sun plays a very small part. One of the benefits of a thick atmosphere is that the surfac
Re: (Score:2)
Between perihelion and aphelion, net solar output can vary as much as 25%,
Nope. It is not even 1%.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, to be fair, the internet is in wild disagreement about this. The most common thread I could find is between 6% and 6% difference..
http://energyprofessionalsympo... [energyprof...posium.com]
I could only find one place with something like 25%, from something called 'Earth on Fire'. However, there are lots of triggers on that site that make it suspect for me.
http://www.cotf.edu/ete/module... [cotf.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
Well,
as your links mention the distance difference, +2% for farest point and -3% for closest, it obviously can not be 25%.
However I mixed my "roughly 1%" up with the change during sunspot activity. So in total we have roughly 6% intensity difference due to distance changes, and another one by sun cycles.
Re: (Score:2)
Big part of high price is Putin's games with "maintenance" shutdowns and other temporary disruptions. And these started even before 2022-02-24. Overall, EU made the choice but the choice is not the sole reason for hight prices. Moreover, one can claim that EU was forced to make the choice due to all the subtle signals Putin was giving and the funny public calls from Russian duma
Re: (Score:2)
North Stream 2 is a red herring. Existing pipelines have enough capacity to transport the amount of natural gas EU intends to buy.
Not entirely, but yeah, it's not the most important aspect.
Overall, EU made the choice but the choice is not the sole reason for hight prices.
Totally. Just wanted to disrupt the too simple narrative that it's the invasion that's causing it all.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope.
NS2 was already intentionally delayed and shut down BEFORE the invasion.
Sanctions against Russia had already been put before. The narrative turning Russia into the evil enemy again started years ago. The whole thing is more complex than what the narrative wants us to believe.
Re: (Score:2)
You're intentionally dense and that's a waste of my time.