Slashdot Mirror
First "Carbon-Free" CPU Fights Global Warming
An anonymous reader writes "VIA is doing its bit to fight Global Warming by introducing the 'world's first carbon-free' desktop PC processor. The RoHS-compliant C7-D consumes 20W at 1.8GHz, and is accompanied by a 'Clean Computing Initiative' that aims to offset the chip's environmental cost. According to a LinuxDevices report, VIA has pledged that atmospheric carbon released during generation of the power needed to run the chip throughout its expected life-cycle will be offset by regional conservation, reforestation, and energy programs initiated or contributed to by VIA."
If I understand sustainability targets correctly, the total environmental payback period for chips is supposed to include compensating for the power/etc. used in manufacture, not just in operation. This is a great step, though; let's hope more industries take it and start looking at the next one.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
I have a feeling that the chip's production generates more pollutants than the electricity needed to power to it. How about greening up the fab plant? Then I'll be impressed.
Just throwing that out there.
I'm certainly concerned about this stuff. (I'm reading this after returning from walking around the floor turning off lights in empty conference rooms.) But this "carbon-neutral" business, where those who can afford it can consume as much as they desire as long as they pay for it with offsets based on some extremely nebulous calculation, and those who can't have to do without -- reminds me of papal indulgences more than anything else. You can be a good person by sacrificing, or you can be a good person by giving money to a sanctioned recipient.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Back in the '70's the big scare was Global Cooling. We were told that we would all freeze to death. Now the big scare is Global Warming. We're all going to overheat, melt the icecaps, and drown.
Weird, because when I was in school in the 80s, they were telling us about global warming (and the ozone hole). Of course global warming has been warned about since then, non-stop.
These are all part of nature's climate cycles of cooling and warming trends. To say that man's activity is warming the earth is unproven.
Yes there are natural cycles, although the amount of carbon in the atmosphere seems to coniencide with global warming treads (as CO2 amounts rise, so does the temp). We're now pumping carbon into the atmosphere, more than has ever been present in the atmosphere. It stands to reason that more carbon will help warm the earth. To deny that is foolish.
However, under the name of "Global Warming", there are large power-grabs between nations. Notice that China, the world's largest polluter, is excluded from the Kyoto agreement, yet the US is supposed to follow it.
I can't speak to China and the Kyoto agreement, but just because one big polluter doesn't follow doesn't mean the other big one shouldn't. A reduction is a reduction. FWIW, nations have to agree to sign the Kyoto agreement. I doubt they'd not ask China. The US refused to sign.
I'm a conservationist. There are many ways to conserve the environment and have full economic activity. That is in stark contrast to the environmentalists and Global Warming theorists who want us to reduce and/or stop our economic growth.
This is perhaps one of the stupidist comments I've ever heard. They aren't trying to stop / reduce economic growth, they want that growth to happen in an environmentally friendly way. You seem to forget that something which slows growth in one area may trigger larger growth in others. For example, if you need some kind of filter on your smoke stacks, someone needs to build those.
You want to conserve only when it doesn't inconvience you in some way. I assume you have similar attitudes as those that tried to justify dumping any chemical waste into rivers. We've cleaned those up, and the economy hasn't tanked. Get a grip.
The parallel processor : Also known as a graphic cards ,stream or vector processor.
You will need to use a language that fits the architecture.
They are way more efficient that general processors.
As I was once told in a logic class. For logic to work, you have to show that each step in your reasoning is true. Starting from a fallacy, you can prove anything. Also, it's a major jump to go from "seems to coniencide" to "causes". Based on that, it "stands to reason" that the rest of this statement should be viewed as an opinion, not a logical deduction.
Reacting to a statement you see as outrageously false doesn't mean that you can reply and calling someone "stupid." His opinion is just as valid as yours, espescially since neither it firmly rooted in hard evidence.
Cliff Claven
K.E.G. Party Chairman
Founding Leader of: Koncerned for Egalitarin Governance
I completely agree with your post 100%. It's a shame that someone can't express his opinion on Slashdot without it getting modded as "Flamebait".
Although Global Warming is a reality, it IS unproven that the global warming is a result of man's activity and not part of a natural cycle. The fact is that the air is cleaner now than it was in 1970 and we're recycling more and driving far more fuel efficient cars. Even the SUVs of today that everyone complains about are more fuel efficient and less polluting than the station wagons and passenger cars of 20 years ago.
I'm sick of all these so-called environmentalists railing against clean nuclear energy. If they really care about the environment, they'd support developing nuclear power and clean coal-based power plants.
It's definitely true that China is the largest polluter -- if we really cared about global warming, we'd work with them to help them curb their emissions in a way friendly both to the environment and economics. Kyoto was a joke: one of the few things I support G. W. Bush on was pulling out of it.
I fully agree with your view of being a conservationist. I've always seem myself this way. It is definitely possible to have full economic activity in both first, second, and third-world countries and work towards stewardship of this earth. It's not easy, but possible.
In my opinion, Kyoto, RoHS, global warming, hybrid cards, etc. are all red herrings that distract us from the real issues of this planet. So go ahead and mod me flamebait, you G.D. Slashdot lemmings, but at least I have the courage to express my opinion with my real username and take the karma hit.
No, because unlike atmospheric greenhouse gases, people aren't fungible. I would think most people, even ACs, would realize the difference without asking.
Last year everyone blamed the incredible number of hurricanes on global warming. "Something must be done!" they demanded. Climatologists said we were entering a period of increased hurricane activity that might last a decade or more. The clamor grew to DO SOMETHING about global warming.
Well somebody seems to have taken care of the problem. After all, the number of hurricanes is way down this year, isn't it?
It makes me wonder. Why does anecdotal evidence in support of global warming gloom and doom predictions played up so much, but when that evidence fails to emerge the following year nobody wants to talk about it? At the very least it makes the "killer hurricanes every year" prediction by global warming enthusiasts absolutely BS.
I think global warming deserves serious attention. I am in favor of the Kyoto accord. Having said that I fear that for every wingnut who values profit over human life there is an equally deranged nut on the other side of the political spectrum who spouts nonsense because, out of ignorance, they don't know any better.
yeah, well he's right - Bush has proven without a reasonable doubt that the evidence doesn't show whether there is or is not global warming at this time and until we can prove it undoubtably, we should not put any unnecessary restrictions on campaign funde... er, I mean big businesses.
For that matter, Al Gore is an idiot*, so don't believe everything he says - I'm pretty sure he's secretly in league with law breaking PETA militants. George Bush's far superior IQ** always prevails.
* compared to a genius monkey
** compared to a dead monkey
p.s. this was intended to be funny. If you didn't find it mildly amusing, I'm sorry, and please don't grenade my house.
More accurately: this is avoiding the unfairness of us having polluted to high heaven and back while getting through the stage of economic growth that developing nations have not yet reached or completed. It avoids the charge of us pulling up the ladder behind us.
Because the initial limits were too generous (and some countries issued more permits than they had headroom to). Your (correct but misunderstood) argument is that it wasn't stringent enough.
The only thing you can accurately describe as "Scotch" is a sticky tape made by 3M. And it's
Actually, I believe the burden of proof would be on you to prove there there are NO environmentalists that call for a reduction in economic activity. Just as the burden of proof would be on the grand poster for his equally unsubstantiated claim. I just wanted to point out the difficulty of disproving an unsubstantiated claim with yet another unsubstantiated claim.
Calling a thought out(if not logical) statement stupid means that you are calling their thought process stupid. If you assume that people are smart/stupid based upon their cognative ability, you did call the GP stupid, wether or not that was you intention.
Cliff Claven
K.E.G. Party Chairman
Founding Leader of: Koncerned for Egalitarin Governance
Because if you think global warming is a serious danger, then making your CPU more "green-friendly" will make one whit of difference, right?