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."
I recently purchased an HP Slimline computer to reduce my consumption of electricity, so I can offset the massive carbon output of my H3 SUV. God I love the smell of gasoline in the morning! I think more people should be doing their part to purchase computers that aren't overpowering the electrical grid, because who really needs 128MB of RAM or 3GHz to check grannies email?
Naked under my flag.
I was wondering how long it would take for another CPU company to make the argument that their CPU is better for reasons other than speed.
I know that AMD has been making the power saving argument for awhile (I saw ads in downtown Chicago at busstops in early July).
Here's info from the article about AMD's CPUs in comparison...
"AMD, meanwhile, is currently shipping "energy efficient" desktop chip models that typically draw 65 Watts, instead of 85 Watts. Additionally, the company offers "energy efficient, small form factor" models rated at 35 Watts, although only the single-core Sempron model in this category appears to be shipping -- the long-awaited, 35 Watt, dual-core Athlon64 X2 3800+ model is expected to ship to PC-makers in time to go into holiday-season PCs"
By "carbon free," they mean they're going to be making donations to various environmental initiatives to offset the carbon it uses. The article also shows a little chart showing that their chip uses less carbon over its lifetime than Intel or AMD chips. I'm not sure if that means it's far more efficient, or that they expect it to burn out quicker ;).
So I guess you didn't bother to read the summary even? Specifically:
Via has pledged that atmospheric carbon released during generation of the power needed to run the chip throughout its expected lifecycle will be offset by regional conservation, reforestation, and energy programs initiated or contributed to by Via.
Talk about missing the point. The chip will have it's carbon usage compensated for by carbon offset purchases. Whatever the chip uses, VIA will pay for the same amount to be generated by wind power, offsetting the carbon that the chip uses.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
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 think they're forgetting the heavy metals cost of gold, the industrial waste cost of the wafer fab process, the energy it takes to run a whole semiconductor assembly operation, and the huge environmental 'fixed cost' of constructing the buildings that make these processors. i wonder if there are plans to distribute these environmental costs and offset them as well.
but it is a start, and more companies could adopt the same attitude.
I underclock my Athlon CPU because even at 1GHz, it runs fast enough for web browsing, etc. To me, this reduction in heat generation is the next logical step in CPU evolution. And it comes at a good time. If they really want to impress me, get it below 15 Watts.
But I'm glad to see this trend. Along with the LCD displays, we're started to make a difference in power consumption. Good for VIA.
Best regards.
VIA will pay for the same amount to be generated by wind power. . .
Do they contribute to offset the carbon use of the windpower as well? Generator coils don't wind themselves.
KFG
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...
I'm still waiting for chips made out of diamond semiconductor. It'll be hard to label them "carbon free" when they're made from the stuff.
but what are they doing to counteract all the hot air they keep expelling?
...and therefore it can't be called "carbon-free" until they eliminate the x86 instruction set too.
Even the Econmist has recognized global warming. Its time to give that line up.
Fight Announcer: [interviews C7-D] It was chaos. C7-D, you went the distance. You went the 15 rounds. How do you feel? ...for Global Warming!
C7-D: All right!
Fight Announcer: What were you thinking about when that buzzer sounded?
C7-D: [yelling] Clean Computing!
Fight Announcer: What were you thinking when the 15th...
C7-D: What? Clean Computing!
Clean Computing: C7-D? C7-D?
Fight Announcer 2: [taking the mic] Ladies and Gentlemen, your attention, please.
Clean Computing: C7-D? C7-D!
Fight Announcer 2: Tonight, we have had the privilege of witnessing the greatest exhibition of guts and stamina in the history of the ring!
C7-D: Clean Computing!
Clean Computing: C7-D. C7-D!
Fight Announcer 2 : [reads the results] Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a split decision.
[Fight Announcer 2 continues; indistinct]
C7-D: CLEAN COMPUTING!
Clean Computing: C7-D!
Fight Announcer 2:
It's the power supply not the CPU that makes the difference. My power supply separates the electrons made fomr non-renewable sources and returns those to the mains for the rest of the ignorant world to use, and then uses only the ones generated by renewable sources.
I also contribute to reforestation efforts in China - each $50 funds a slave laborer who can plant 100 trees a day as part of his "reeducation".
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
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.
It's sad how few people realize their "efficient" Via CPU is not so efficient?
:D
Clock-for-clock, the optimized WinChip core (yes, even the C7 uses the very same core) can only process one integer and one floating-point instruction in parallel. This makes it 2-3x slower per-clock than modern CPUs. So, while you're still waiting on your Via C7 to crunch those numbers (at 20w), a Core2 Duo or A64 X2 system can do it in 1/4-1/6 the time (at 35w), and clock down to low-power state (3-5w).
So, I hope you feel good about how much carbon Via saves building the chip, because not only does it uses more power than competing processors to do the same amount of work, it takes longer too
Via's day in the sun is over. They were faced with the poor performance of the Winchip core, and instead of redesigning it, they touted the low power (which is true) and efficiency (which is not true). Intel and AMD responded with innovations like real-time voltage and frequency adjustment, and all of a sudden Via is scrambling just to try and keep up.
Man is the animal that laughs.
And occasionally whores for Karma.
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.
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.
I think you might be a bit behind with your information - for a while there were doubts, that is true, but at the moment the consensus seems to converge on "manmade" again (ie temperatrue rises faster than can be explained with ice age cycles or whatever). OK, it's not a proof, but that doesn't disprove it's manmade, either.
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.
Who says that economic growth == more pollutants? I think to build a more energy efficient technology is economic growth, too. Everybody is better off: people are happy, because the air is breathable, they save on energy costs (not all of them are induced by environmentalists), and China will be wanting it, too. Also, another question: so since you are convinced that manmade global warming is unproven, are you actually convinced that human activity has no effect on the climate whatsoever? I think that is highly doubtfoul. In Europe you can see examples where Romans have turned flourishing landscapes into deserts (several hundred years ago, no machine exhausts needed).
Myself I power my whole setup off a giant water wheel under my sink faucet. Sure I use 5000 gal of water a day but the energy savings to the environment is worth it.
Never ascribe to malice what can be adequately attributed to ignorance. -Napoleon
Unless I've miss read (or /. has miss reported) "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." they mean "Carbon Neutral"
Wow, I should not post when knackered.
Oh come on. This SO needs a funny mod. For those that don't get it, http://www.venganza.org/ and scroll down a couple screens. There's proof.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
The fact that next to noone will use these chips.
No it's not. http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=19646 4&threshold=0&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=160963 88#16096511
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.
Check out the Wiki article on it - yes there were a few people behind it - a few percent of the atmospheric scientists, but it never had the overwhelming support like global warming does.
..........FULL STOP.
Not that small.
5000 gallons of water is nothing. I power my office with a generator that runs on bald eagle heads and Faberge eggs.
Care to restate your position now Einstein?
Care to take another crack at trying to figure out what my position is?
KFG
I suppose you're correct in the sense that there is no directly proven link to C02 vs. Temperature (which is why the global warming scare carries as much weight with me as the scare concerning micro black holes and world destruction), but the CO2 levels are higher than they should be according to geological records. It doesn't hurt to try and curb that, seeing as the predicted effects are dire and that there may be potentially worse unknown effects.
Meanwhile, note that the US has not signed Kyoto, but instead has opted for a marketable permits system for reducing their CO2 emissions. This is good, as it promotes economic efficiency (those who can reasonably afford to reduce do. Those who can't, pay another way). It's bad because of the low-income area issues, but lets face it: factories in low-income areas would be shirking anyway, thinking they'd get away with it. Still, all of them have to eventually reduce, as the permits dry up.
As a practical environmentalist, I'm kinda for individual conservation. I'm saying use LED or compact flourescent instead of incandescent. I'm saying slap some solar on your house, if you can afford the initial costs (you know, rather than buying that hummer). I'm saying stick a brick in your toilet tank (the water offset is greater than you imagine). Grow your own vegetables, if you've the time and correct shade of thumb. Get a solar-assisted water heater. If you're not a gamer/3d modeller/someone else who needs a muscle computer, buy a mini-itx based solution (usually uses under 80W in total).
I'm not saying stop driving, I'm saying stop buying Hummers (or as I like to call them, the 'Short Bus').
<tangent>No, seriously. What the hell is the point of a hummer? They're expensive to buy, expensive to drive, rediculous looking, too big to effectively drive in the city, and overall just a badly designed vehicle.</tangent>
Good ideas for future developments: When DEFC based vehicles are released, seriously consider it over an ICE based vehicle (don't let the product die out, creating another 30-year gap between electric vehicle solutions). If you can find one, get/build a fuel still and flesh out your gasoline with it (saves on garbage and gas price. Yes, you can burn ethanol in your tank. No, it's not as efficient, but it's not gonna damage your car). Do a lot of short 1-2 person trips? Get a cheap motorcycle; you burn less fuel, pay less in insurance.
I dunno. It's like, anymore, it's more economically efficient to be ecologically sound. Still, people aren't doing it. It fucks my head up.
110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
Doubt it, but if it was good for him. It is an excellent idea.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Heck all my CPUs are carbon free. They all plug into a nice nuke plant.
BTW RoHS means lead free. Just wondering if someone didn't know what it meant and confused carbon with lead.
Since that CPU is probably packed in paper and plastic box, the factory that makes it probably gets at least some of it's power from a carbon powered power plant. It gets shipped in a ship or plane burring fossil fuel. Well you get the idea that doesn't have a zero carbon footprint.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
No, because unlike atmospheric greenhouse gases, people aren't fungible. I would think most people, even ACs, would realize the difference without asking.
Preach on, brother!
I believe that you should read his post more closely. You missed by a few years. And of course, the reason for everyone to go to school is so that they can learn how not to think critically and no one with a political agenda ever lies.
My point was that the theory has been around going on 20 to 30 years now, unchanged. Unfortunately the OP never said how long they had been discussing global cooling. Funny your quipe about school; they actually DID instill critical thinking skills in us. As I said in another thread, many of the banned books were actually required reading.
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.
Well fine, but last I heard they had ice cores dating back millions of years. I guess millions of years of history can be discounted as not proven, but you'd have to throw away everything where we don't have that much evidience too.
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.
Fine. Prove my statement wrong. Find me one environmentalist who's stated goal was to stop or reduce economic growth. Until you do, I'll stand by my statement that the comment was stupid. And I'll call YOU stupid (and a hippocrate as well; before you tell someone else to read a post carefully, make sure you have) for not knowing the difference between my calling a statement stupid and calling a person stupid.
WTF? He was just making a pun dude.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
If you were wearing the right uniform, they'd probably celebrate you as a hero.
So I guess what your saying is that the rich nations purposefully signed something which requires them to give away their wealth. Clearly you must think the rich nations stupid..
That humans are causing global warming is as good as proven. That you heard rumors of global cooling back in the 70s has absolutely nothing to do with it and is a logical fallacy. The "natural cycles" argument isn't a support for your case since it can go both ways. The worst case scenario is a natural heating trend boosted by human emissions.
The Kyoto Protocol's problem is that it isn't efficient enough. In 2005 there were talks about extentions and changes in the agreement, and to adapt to the development of countries such as China. China has signed, ratified and begun implementing the protocol already.
That the US emits less CO2 than china is nothing but a lie — the US is the world's #1 polluter by a good margin. Not by capita (only #5), but that's basically a counting trick. What matters for the environment is the actual amount of CO2 pumped out.
Reducing CO2 emissions and increasing energy efficiency does not necessarily mean economical doom. There's millions to be earned and saved and big companies are already doing so. Then there's also carbon trading, which is also profitable. The problem is that big oil and the politicians in their pockets don't get their hands on all that money, so they protest and call it all a hoax.
Thank you for posting a logical voice of reason in this forum. Such sanity has become so scarce on Slashdot, I have headed for Digg to wait the inevitable there as well...
It does not matter what you do, it's wrong.
Doesn't POST make Cereal? Why would you put syrup on cereal? ICK..
Inane Comments are Generously Disregarded
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.
And yet, the global cooling was short-lived and pushed by journalists (basically, the grocery store newspaper rack). I do not recall the science world pushing that it was an issue. In fact, just the opposite. Other than a few crackpots, allmost all kept quiet.
Now, as far as tieing global change to killing our economic growth, well history is against you. Nearly every time, that a better solution is found, it spurs economic growth. In particular, the only real way to stop the CO2, is to quit producing it. That means walking away from oil,coal and moving to nukes and/or alternatives. The interesting thing is, that it will produce companies like tesla-motors. Companies like GM and Ford are already dieing because they have grown too big, take a short-term look at profits, and no longer care to respond to the little guys, except when losing money. Change is good. Trying to hold back progress and be conservative will only sink America and the world.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I agree with some of your points, especially that Hummers and similar vehicles are taken out of context and lost much of their value when driven in suburbia. They are a waste of money both in base cost and in gasoline and upkeep costs. I drive a VW Beetle and would have gotten the diesel version to save even more gas, had I been able to find one used -- people don't want to get rid of them because they're so good!
People tend to overbuy for their purposes, "in case" their purpose changes in the future, which to me seems rational yet ridiculous at the same time. All of the solar-powered or assisted equipment that you mentioned is a great idea but the base cost is unfortunately too high for most people even though the savings could greatly outweigh that. Getting a motorcycle is an OK idea but at the same time, cyclists are more prone to injury in the case of an accident.
I'm certainly not against doing things to keep our environment clean & healthy, but I really would prefer not to be bullied into it by politicians. Seriously, if they want to tell me not to pollute the air, maybe they shouldn't do it from their private Lear-jet or with their limo-SUV parked behind them.
The whole point of this particular CO2-"producing" processor is that your purchase of a unit adds that much more carbon-consuming effort, thereby compensating for the energy usage of the CPU. Sure, there are inefficiencies in between and all, but maybe they compensate a little for those as well?
Don't blame me -- I voted for Roslin.
Most Environmentalists are socialist types. They hate the fact that we are not all "sacrificing for the greater good."
And all Germans are Nazis, and all blacks are violent, etc. etc. Thanks, good point.
Global warming is just another form of political correctness, where if you say anything against it you get shouted down by bitter people who want to control other people. It's the left's equivalent of the church lady. Kyoto was just a way for socialist countries to control us.
Global warming is heavily politisied, yes. That doesn't mean its not a valid theory. That doesn't change that fact that pretty much all relevent scientists believe it to be true. That also doesn't mean that people supporting the theory want to "control others" either. Perhaps it simply means they want to breath. You could argue that those that which to stop genocide are attempting to "control others" too. That doesn't mean you're right.
We are no longer in an ice age, so of course global warming is real. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the glaciers have been slowly melting for the past 10,000 years. Has it been sped up? I don't think anyone thought that the warming that has taken place on average for the past 10,000 years has always been linear. Are we contributing? Yes, we breathe out CO2. We have not had a good world war in about 50 years to cut down on the population.
So if the tempurate is not cold, it must always be climbing? Is that your argument? You also ignore that the ice caps have been melting faster than ever given the evidence we have now. No one is saying its your breathing that is creating a CO2 problem, its factories and cars. You know, the unnatural stuff caused by our use of nature.
Fortunately, plants love CO2. We have more plants than we've ever had, and some more will soon spring up from the melting permafrost and ice caps.
Unfortunately, the plants best at processing CO2 are also being cut down at an alarming rate. I'm not sure where you get this idea that there are more plants. We have less and less area taken up by forests every year. A little flower doesn't help as much as a 100 year old tree does.
Of course, we've recently found that it is possible that live plants are giving off methane, a greenhouse gas.
And its not the methane levels that the scientists are worried about.
Animals give off CO2 and methane too. In fact, it's probably a good thing we aren't driving around in horse and buggy any more, as I think those horses were aweful polluters. You don't think that their waste got into the ground water?
A car or factory put out significantly more CO2 than a horse. Horse waste usually decays on the ground, and is not dumped wholesale into rivers.
Water vapor is also a huge greenhouse 'gas'. The more the ice caps melt, the more water vapor gets into the atmosphere and the more stored methane and CO2 get into the atmosphere. There's probably not a whole lot we tiny humans can (or should) do about it. We can try to "use as much as we lose" and keep balance, but that's just common sense. We don't need some bitter activist, some welfare scientist, or some corrupt U.N. "Hall of Justice League" to tell us that.
Again, its not water vapor levels which the scienists are worried about. No one said to stop ice caps from melting, they are saying not to speed up the process by putting out more than can be absorbed back into the system. We aren't keeping balance, and that's the argument. You seem particually dense. If your post was an attempt at humor, it failed miserably..
Basically because of the hysteria surrounding CO2 emissions these days, it's a convenient advertising point to the public. You claim to be "carbon neutral" and it makes people feel good. For that matter I'm going to bet that it isn't even the kind of thing that will be checked on all that well. You are very correct in the indulgence angle as most likely what will happen is the company in question will throw some money at an environmental group that claims to be doing whatever carbon offsetting thing they are doing and then say "Well, we are neutral, good work everyone."
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.
>>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.
Um, minor point here, but the 70s are not the 80s.
Via must have looked at ISO14001 and found that they had no control over
chemical use, water pollution and what their subsidiaries in china were up to.
But since you can buy certificates to clean their otherwize uncontrolled electrical
supply they decided that if they could buy a green corporate image for by getting
certificates a small fractional percentage of their production.
This smells like Chiquita's banana stickers, nowhere close being accepted by
any real certification system, but bragged about in commercials everywhere.
Chiquita - Going Green or Greenwashing Corporate Crime?.
Everyone can make a difference by conserving power, but not by buying more stuff.
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. 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.
My take is that this sort of argument isn't constructive. Yes, there are "big scares". But we shouldn't dismiss a theory just because it's been hyped up by a "big scare".
If one looks at the supporting evidence for global warming, there is something there. First, we have pretty solid evidence that CO2 levels are the highest they've been in the past few hundred thousand years. A massive human civilization being the primary difference between now and then. Human activity by itself, both from fossil fuel burning and deforestation, can account for that increase and that the human contribution swamps other sporadic sources currently like volcanism or the release of methyl clathrates.
While there's still some debate, it appears that there is a genuine increase in temperature since the begining of the Industrial Age. My understanding is that there has been an increase in solar output, but the concensus is that it alone doesn't explain the increase in temperatures above. Climate models indicate that the increase in greenhouse gasses (mostly CO2 at this point) would cause warming on the order of magnitude we see.
I don't think the global warming effect is strong enough to warrant drastic cutbacks in CO2 emissions and certainly doesn't justify bad ideas like the Kyoto Treaty. But I do think we'll have to restructure our energy infrastructure due to global warming effects at a later point especially if "peak oil" (the year of maximum oil production is as far in our future as I think it is.
So human contribution to CO2 buildup in the atmosphere is fairly solid. And the contribution of that buildup to global warming appears to be real. Further, there do appear to be genuine dangers like feedback from the release of methyl clathrate if ocean temperatures rise substantially. So I think it's imprudent to dismiss this theory because of the hype from a previous failed theory.
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
Yeah, there are some sucky things about Kyoto. China shouldn't be given a free pass to pollute.
To say that man's activity is warming the earth is unproven.
Here's what I don't get about the global warming naysayers: Which part of the science behind it are you disputing?
Are you denying the research that's proven that CO2 levels have risen rapidly since the 1940s?
Are you denying the causal correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature?
Or are you (like many naysayers) flatly denying that billions of humans are capable of affecting the planet's ecosystem because the planet is "so big"?
Any of these points are easily debated, but just saying "I don't believe it" gets us nowhere.
The only thing you can accurately describe as "Scotch" is a sticky tape made by 3M. And it's
Maybe Monster Cable will make eggs soon.
Flamebait!? You dissapoint me mods! This was quite obviously humor at it's finest. Even if you don't think it's funny, I think anyone in their right mind would register it as a troll and not flamebait. You want flamebait? Here's some: YHBT. YHL. HAND.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Either the GPP is trying to be funny and his post means what you understood it to mean, or he is bashing on Gore & global warming and by implying that only he could come up with something that sounds as dumb as 'First "Carbon-Free" CPU Fights Global Warming'. I'm guessing this is the reason the GPP isn't modded, and why the GP is modded up by those who subscribe to the latter interpretation.
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
Sounds like the broken window fallacy. Break a window and someone gets paid to clean it up.
n _window
:)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broke
I'm certainly for environmental responsibity, I just don't think this argument is valid. These types of jobs are necessary, but more jobs doesn't equal economic growth. Increased productivity does. Putting a scrubber on the stack doesn't increase the plants output. It's just sweeping broken glass. Although sweeping up the broken glass may prevent someone from going to the doctor
Always an interesting topic.
Randall
A word of advice: generally, telling someone that your joke was funny is not going to make them think it actually was. I agree with you, though; flamebait doesn't really fit.
You're an idiot and it scares me that such idiots' say matters when deciding about global policy. I hate to get screwed over because of your idiocy. It's not selfish but stupid, as sensible policies would force innovation and thus economic growth, not decrease it.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
The fact is that most of the warming in recorded history happened between the 10th and 15th centuries.
About 0.28% of greenhouse gas emissions is from human activity, if water vapor is taken into account, and about 5.53% if it's not. the rest is from natural sources.
I have some suggested reading for everyone, whether you believe in it or not: State of Fear by Michael Chrichton. It is the only novel I can remember reading with a several page long bibliography. It basically explain's why environmentalism isn't a science, it's more of a state-sponsored religion
if you don't like what I've said, read my references, if you still don't like it, oh well, because unfortunately this won't be going away with so many children attending public schools, where most every person in the US learns it.
Is it good at fighting something that doesn't exist, or
Are they advertising it won't run OS X?
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
You mean... like most people don't need a car as big as an SUV ? Besides for compensating some physical shortcomings...
Actually, the guy has a very valid point. Most of the people who go into Environmental Science are hippy Sierra Club activist types who want to "save the planet". They haven't got the lack of objectivity to look at life and say "does it need saving?"
"Global warming is caused by man, and increases in temperature on the planet are manmade. I can prove the nighttime temperature of the Earth has gone up 0.01 C in the past decade. Therefore I prove Global Warming is caused by man." Spot the logical fallacy.
The greenies have done a very good job of repeating that it's a slam dunk we're causing GW enough so that you're a kook, crank, or petroleum lobbyist if you say otherwise.
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
There were commercials between two race cars, one using the SNES and one using a Sega system (with some crap similar to the "emotion Engine" sounds really good but really didn't do much different)
Anyways I'm thinking it's the same thing here. You have two F1 cars, Ferrari with the AMD/Intel logo and the Renault with the VIA logo. The light goes green, Ferrari flies down the road at close to double the speed, While the Renault is in persuit but the entire time you hear a speaker from the car "We're saving the enviroment".
Simply put performance is what matters in chips, if you buy a chip for anything other than quality and performance for it's price point you're making a mistake. If you have a critical (read "any") business you want the power, performance, and stuff that will not break down, not cheap or enivormentally friendly parts. In the same vein when is Microsoft and Sony going to learn that in console wars. Nintendo is known for quality and finally stepped out of the power grab race, the other two are just climbing over each other on tin foil scafolding which keeps breaking.
Only shrub's oil industry cronies are saying this.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
You're dead wrong:
0 5.htm
t m
1 4.htm
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Environment/aqfactbk/page
Even though population has increased 41% and there are 112% more vehicles, CO emissions have still gone down 62% since 1970.
There are a lot more pollutants emitted by China than just CO. China had a coal fire that was only recently put out (a fire burned for 130 years):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3978329.s
The article states 100,000 tons of pollutants were emitted from this fire every year.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Environment/aqfactbk/page
Light-duty vehicles in the US emitted about 6000 tons in 2004 (NOx and VOC). Which one do you think is worse?
Next time you open your big mouth as an AC, why don't you have the facts? I found that info in 2 minutes using Google.
Do any of you green weenies eat cooked food? Use electric lights? Watch TV? Use a sound system? Use hot water? Air conditioning? Heat?
The processor is just a small part of the electrical load of a PC. And the PC is just a small part of a typical human's electrical load.
Furthermore, "Global Warming" (what's up with the caps? Is it an official religion now?) does not correlate well with human activity. It seems about as likely that shutting down all human activity would have no effect on the warming trend.
Rediculous: A word indicating the writer is ridiculously ignorant.
RE: Here's what I don't get about the global warming naysayers: Which part of the science behind it are you disputing?
The greenies are the one that need to PROVE their assertions.
They're the ones suggesting we need to abandon Western Civilisation because of this bugbear. They've reclassified carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Next thing you know, when they realise water vapor is the bigger problem, will "water" be a pollutant?
RE: Are you denying the research that's proven that CO2 levels have risen rapidly since the 1940s?
Interesting you should mention that. The biggest jump in recorded temperature occurred before 1940. If your theory was correct, then you'd have seen a bigger jump afterwards.
RE: Are you denying the causal correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature?
Post hoc ergo propter hoc assertions that one CAUSE the other? Yes. Correlation != causation.
RE: Or are you (like many naysayers) flatly denying that billions of humans are capable of affecting the planet's ecosystem because the planet is "so big"?
No, we can certainly affect the ecosystem on a local scale. We can lay down thick black blacktop that absorbs light, gets really hot, and melts permafrost. We can destroy wetlands and wonder why New Orleans can't take a Category 3 anymore.
Come on, the GW doomsayers have nothing more than a computer model (which is flawed), bad statistics, and bad science. And if you look at the bovine excrement leaking from their mouths - if there's more snow, it's global warming. Less snow, global warming. Temperatures go up global warming, temperatures go down global warming. They're now saying polar bear penises are shrinking, and it's all because of a one degree temperature difference in the weather.
Am I the only sane person here?
When you show me EMPIRICAL evidence, when Al Gore doesn't try and bend stuff around in his documentaries (Kilimanjaro is losing its snow because deforestation has removed moisture from the air around it, and that's been happening for DECADES, it was noted in the 1800s, not GLOBAL WARMING), and when there's tangible evidence, we'll act. Sensibly. But we aren't paying you and China to play Pascal's Wager with the ecosphere at the cost of reliable transport and modern conveniences which is why we live longer and healthier than we did when we lived in yurts and ate yak butter.
Ya digg?
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
I said that "China is the largest polluter" and I believe that to be true. Pollution comes in many different forms including dumping waste in lakes, streams, and rivers, air pollution, ground waste pollution, etc. The US is quite clean compared to China when you look at the big picture.
As for CO2, plants and trees can be used to absorb CO2, so I believe that it is the most innocuous of the pollutants out there. Let's plant more trees and stop deforestation in tropical areas. Why does everyone try to blame the US for everything? The US has done more to improve the world's economic and environmental situation than any other country out there.
If you know your geological history, you wouldn't have made this claim.
The second atmosphere of earth was mostly carbon dioxide. (The first atmosphere was a mixture of hydrogen and helium, while the current (third) oxygen-rich atmosphere came from cyanobacteria.)
I give the above example first since the three atmospheres of earth are generally accepted in the scientific community (although there is still debate on the exact details).
If we restrict our search for higher CO2 levels to the third (current) atmosphere, and since the time of mammals, the most recent data shows no reliable evidence of CO2 being higher than today's levels. OTOH, the recent data is from ice cores: Presumably higher CO2 levels would have been a large influence against the formation of ice cores.
Going back further in time, we must use geological evidence for CO2. There's some evidence for higher levels 20 million years ago, and less recently, there seems to have been much more CO2 in the atmosphere before the collision of India with Asia, pushing up the Tibetan Plateau which leached CO2 out of the atmosphere (roughly 40 million years ago).
I totally agree with your post, except for one key factual error. Running alcohol/ethanol/gasohol or whatever they're calling it these days in your car WILL damage the engine and exhaust unless the car is specifically designed to run alcohol. The first things to go will be gaskets and seals. They are designed for petroleum-based fuels; not alcohol. Secondy, newer engines have more computer in them than my office does. Because alcohol burns differently than dino bones, the computers will detect problems and can cause the vehicle to run poorly or cause other systems to overcompensate for the loss of power, thereby wearing stuff out. Also, burning alcohol in an engine changes the thermodynamics of the cooling system. Plain and simple, it will make your car run cooler. Unlike computers, cooler cars are not better cars. Engines need to run in a certain temperature range for optimal efficiency. All that being said, I would love to see a law stating that ALL non-diesel cars and trucks need to be FlexFuel capable. The key to conservation, though, no matter what the fuel source is driving less.
Message contains 1 attachment: spam.gif
Oh I'm well aware of that. I just like how much it irks certain kinds of people. Getting annoyed by someone saying that something was funny when maybe it only was funny to the poster or might not have even been funny at all is extremely silly. So when I get the down mods for saying that something was funny when I can't reasonably expect a lot of people to agree with me or even better, posters telling me why I'm not funny is endlessly amusing to me.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Wow. I got trolled for that? What's slashdot coming to? Very strange moderation.
Eh. Mods: it's all in good fun, I assure you.
110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
Funny thing: no matter how much of a computer geek I am, I can't seem to grasp these new fangled car-computers.
110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
Your brilliant debate skills aside (see ad hominem), you're actually making the case for the person you so eloquently responded to. The keyword here being sensible. If you truly believed that Kyoto were a sensible policy that would stimulate innovation and growth, then you would have no problem with it being applied to everyone equally.
Or, perhaps you're arguing that it's meant to penalize the lesser economies by excluding them from all of the wonderful innovation and economic growth that the wealthy nations will reap in its wake?
Trust me. This is an inactive account. Regardless of what the
Definitely.
The old regulations that called for coal plants to install scrubbers when expanding capacity seemed like a fair trade to me. We could still burn coal with greatly reduced emissions. I guess to me, the cost associated with upgrading the technology is completely worth it.
I think there would be an impact economically, and that's what the current administration uses an excuse when discussing environmental regulations, but nobody can explain what the potential impact would be.
It's kind of funny, really. We're completely willing to mess with the atmosphere even though the projections of our impact on it don't look very good at all. But anything that might have a slight impact on the economy is dismissed.
Actually, ACs are fungible, or so it seems ;-]
I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
If you are planning on local energy generation as your primary source of power I think a low wattage device like this can go a long way to slimming down the consumption profile. I might just look into this technology.
Think Gnole-ish, not prole-ish
ack, "TreeMark", I'm gonna vomit. They must think I'm a fucking retard. I thought I was part of the niche market but my TreeMark was off the charts so I said fuck it.
Think Gnole-ish, not prole-ish
Thank you for correcting this.
But why "ignore the cooling between...." it would seem to me that carbon dioxide emissions started going up quite a bit between 40-80 so wouldn't the earth have been getting hotter during this period?
The point I was trying to make is this - that we really have no clue what the hell is going on, pretty computer doom and gloom video game to the contrary.
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
Because if you think global warming is a serious danger, then making your CPU more "green-friendly" will make one whit of difference, right?
so the PC ends up being a mass murderer.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
"This is perhaps one of the stupidist comments I've ever heard... For example, if you need some kind of filter on your smoke stacks, someone needs to build those."
n _window
This is true, but the power companies will have to purchase those filters. You've just provided an example of the Parable of the Broken Window.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broke
Perhaps a better argument would be to claim that, in response the Kyoto restrictions, someone will invent a new way to generate power that is more efficient. The new method would consume less fuel to produce the same amount of power, thus reducing the power company's fuel costs. That would, of course, assume that the new method was not significantly more expensive to implement.
Perhaps you should also avoid claiming that someone's argument is the stupidest you've ever heard when you yourself are invoking an argument that was debunked 150 years ago.
I have suffered from being misunderstood, but I would have suffered a hell of a lot more if I had been understood.
The advertising is misleading, since the CPU ACTUALLY CONTAINS CARBON WITHIN IT. Do they think that we are idiots? This CPU is not carbon-free, it only reduces the amount of energy used by the processor. I guarentee that if I got one of these CPU's, I could find carbon in it, so it would be deceptive and fraudulent to label it "Carbon-Free". A finished CPU still contains carbon from many possible sources: Residual photoresist, solder flux, thermally conductive adhesives, chip protection expoxies, PCB mounting boards, and residues from solvents used in the manufacturing process. The logic that they use in their justification of labeling, marketing, and selling the CPU as "carbon-free" is a bastardization of basic human thought and common sense. Just like "alcohol-free" beer still contains alcohol.
Hmmm..... I wonder..... If I buy one of these CPU's, clearly labeled "carbon-free", and I find carbon in it, am I entitled to a refund?
-----
Sig Sauer
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
Ofsetting the carbon pollution during the operating phase of a product's lifecycle is a great start. Especially because it will get us talking about the real cost of the rest of the cycle, Like the carbon pollution from the energy consumed and waste produced by manufacturing and delivering the product. And then maybe even some in "discarding" the product.
--
make install -not war
when there's tangible evidence, we'll act.
Exactly what would be tangible evidence, in your opinion?
We can measure the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. That's tangible.
We can measure the global temperature over time. That's also tangible.
We can experimentally prove that CO2 causes warming in the lab. Seems pretty tangible to me. We know the mechanism, and we've measured the inputs and outputs.
The part you're having trouble with is in thinking that CO2 levels are the ONLY cause of temperature change. That's just silly. Obviously there can be and are variations in the temperature plot due to other factors. Does that automatically discount the theory?
A quick check of several carbon neutral sites, where they propose to offset your carbon output for a fee dependent on how much driving you do etc..., left me feeling as if it were a scam of some sort. They offer no real assurance that your money is being placed into long term land/biomass projects. IE, the data is not publicaly verifiable. Its just their word. "pay us 88 dollars and you are Carbon Neutral!!" The sites/entities proclaming carbon offsets should be required to have verifable data to those that join.
I saw no evidence of that, and it is needed.
So some digging was in order. A quick call to the Chicago Carbon Exchange, and subsequent dialog with a nice enough bloke in charge of the offsets regarding the siging up of our ranch up in carbon offsets struck me as odd. The exchange currently favors pine plantations with poplars, vs native hardwoods. Native hardwoods live longer and are a a climax species for my area (East Tennessee).
The fellow said that our pine planataion could qualify for listing with the carbon exchange, but they really want actively managed plantations vs. unmanaged tracts of woodlands (even if they are recoverving from clear cutting).. I tend to disagree on the track of these offset schemes, because even the Carbon Exchange wants the timber to be harvested.
The whole process is just getting started I will admit, but it needs some serious thinking through on their part. The trees when mature are harvested. Which emits C02, and then proccessed, and then that carbon slowly degrades back into the atmosphere.
It really doesn't make sense. They should really be trying harder for longer term preservation with native species into climax ecosystems, with selective logging.
Now, about the late comment, I would have posted earlier but I have been running a business all day, and came home to plant yet another acre of white pines for a seperate christmas tree thing we are trying at the homestead...(yep /me = hippie, geek, rancher, musciaion type)
So please folks treat it as more than just feel good, pass the buck public image/advertising.
And demand verification from the offset folks, don't just take thier word on it.
Peace out, D
No - just some sort of dope.
So, while you're still waiting on your Via C7 to crunch those numbers (at 20w), a Core2 Duo or A64 X2 system can do it in 1/4-1/6 the time (at 35w), and clock down to low-power state (3-5w).
That's funny. I have a Via C3 box and an Athlon64 X2 box right here. One uses 30W when idle; the other, 75W. Care to guess which? (Hint: the systems and the numbers are given in the same order.)
So...
*scratch scratch* What ARE the real issues of the planet? You seem quick to rail against efforts (useful or not, at least people are trying) to keep our environment (and ultimately ourselves) alive.
Oh... and for the record, the term Clean Nuclear Energy is rather funny to me. How is nuclear waste clean?
P.S. I have the solution to all environmental problems. Using my solution, we can all drive SUV's, have huge energy wasting houses with giant acre spanning lawns... We can all eat red meat and hunt no longer endagered species for fun. All we have to do is kill around 6 billion people. The survivors can live high on the hog with assurances that our environment can soak up the damage caused by so few poeople. It's a brilliant plan, but I can't seem to get anyone to go for it. Anyone know a mad villian I could pitch my plan to?
I want a CPU made of carbon nanotubes. Such CPUs would be tiny carbon sinks to help tie up some carbon and keep it out of the atmosphere. That would help fight global warming. I also ride a bike AND buy only plastic furniture made from petroleum products.
Next time I shall endeavor to use my [sarcasim] tag. My apologies.
Ahh.. easy to miss sarcasm in text. I apologize also.
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.
Again, that's NOT what I said. I said their main objective is not a reducting in economic activity, which is what the OP was said. If they are calling for a reduction in economic activity, its a means to a goal, not their goal in and of itself.
Its not really possible to prove something doesn't exist either (which is why innocent until proven guilty is good). It is VERY possible though to prove something does exist. I'd say the burden of proof is you and / or the OP.
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.
My claim isn't unsubstanciated. I've actually heard quite a few environmentalists. If they call for an economic reduction, its for a means to an end, not an end unto itself. That's what I was pointing out as incorrect, and if you read the post, I think you'll see that the poster was saying environmentalists just want to stop economic growth.
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.
One stupid thought process does not a stupid person make. Yes, I think the line of reasoning is stupid or silly. I honestly don't think the OP IS a stupid person though. Just uninformed and / or following faulting logic. Please don't read between the lines; read only what I wrote. I try very hard to follow the saying "say what you mean and mean what you say." I don't always do that, but I try my best.
Of course you can measure CO2 in the atmosphere.
As for measuring global temperature over time, there we're not sure.
There's some controversy over land-based measurements versus satellite ones, heat islands. Temperature reconstructions where they used ONE tree in ONE forest to extrapolate global planet temperature.
What does "global mean temperature" mean anyway?
Interesting how the ocean temperature measurements we run off are from urban areas or areas not far from where people live. I think we take seven measurements worldwide.
We can prove CO2 under the right conditions cause warming. What we also show is that it's not linear, you get diminishing returns after a while. We'd be dead of CO2 asphyxiation long before we become a fireball.
Pumping CO2 into a lab and observing nature are two different things. Dig? When there's more CO2 plants grow more fully and consume more, for example. Might turn out that the less than one tenth of a percent of atmospheric CO2 that we're responsible for has NEGLIGIBLE effects on what's goin gon.
We've measured SOME inputs and outputs.
The dirty secret about Magic Mike and his video game are that he hasn't bothered to model ALL the inputs and outputs. And, that if you apply his non-peer-reviewed "statistical methods" to red noise you get the same hockey stick graph.
Scratch a little harder and you'll see it's a little camarilla of people who "peer-reviewed" each other, but who weren't thorough about it
Asking me to believe that we're turning the earth into a fireball is like saying "The Bible says Jesus is Lord. The Bible says that there's a place called Golgotha. We have evidence that Golgotha exists. Therefore the Bible is TRUE and Jesus is Lord."
Noone's arguing the earth is warming. We're questioning why. Mars is warming too, and there's no George Bush or Hummers there, huh?
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
my country is nuclear powered, you insensitive clod!
HLT and CnQ are two entirely seperate issues, both of which reduce your CPU's power usage, but CnQ does dramatically more than HLT ever could.
I'm pretty sure that's wrong--why would a CPU use more power stopped than when processing at any speed?--but just for kicks, I pulled everything but video card, one drive, and one stick of RAM, made sure powernow-k8 was loaded, and set the governor to powersave; and idle power usage still bottomed out at 55W. I did learn a couple of interesting tidbits (did you know that an SBLive PCI card pulls 3W even when you're not using it?), but I think it's pretty clear you're not going to get a dual-core Athlon system into the 20-30W range.
And yes, even in Linux power draw shoots over 100W when I load both cores, and performance drops along with power usage (but still close to 100W) if I set powersave mode.