Slashdot Mirror


Gates and MS Don't See Eye-To-Eye On CO2

Sam Machkovech writes "Bill Gates's speech at last week's TED Conference centered on 'moving to zero-carbon energy, and our need to reduce CO2 emissions 80% by 2050.' His choice of subject was an abrupt turn from The Gates Foundation's typical humanitarian topics, but he insisted that energy innovation is crucial to his Foundation's goals. A move by Microsoft today proves that Gates's old company has less interest in that carbon-neutral goal — Microsoft has begun campaigning against a bridge redesign that would result in more bus and transit options for commuters between Seattle and the company's homebase of Redmond, WA."

11 of 288 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Bill Gates vs Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    There's not really a conflict here. It's just an attempt to spin the story against Microsoft, for no apparent reason, since they want the bridge done as soon as possible. Read the linked article.

  2. wait, what...? by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Funny

    "moving to zero-carbon energy"

    That would be the end of life as we know it. Quite literally, as a matter of fact, since we're all made of carbon.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:wait, what...? by maxume · · Score: 5, Funny

      You are hereby awarded 1 "I was retardedly obtuse on the internets on purpose" merit badge.

      Congratulations.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  3. Devil's advocate by Manip · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The changes Microsoft made to both Windows Vista and 7 have resulted in more CO2 savings that most other efforts combined. I am of course talking about the default and recommended power settings in Windows along with the "best practice" guidelines given to their corporate partners. Microsoft has also added support for power saving features to Windows ahead of what the hardware and or drivers in the market offered...

    1. Re:Devil's advocate by ShakaUVM · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >>The changes Microsoft made to both Windows Vista and 7 have resulted in more CO2 savings that most other efforts combined.

      Which is really sad, since the overall effect is quite small.

      If we'd gone nuclear since the 70s, we'd have met every CO2 target out there today, and we wouldn't be having all this annoying debate. Well, we'd be having some kind of annoying debate, but not so much over CO2 production.

      I watched that talk by Gates a few days ago, and he has an interesting design for a nuclear reactor, that basically would work like burning a candle - "burning" starts on one end of the nuclear log and proceeds down the log until 50 years later, when you pop it out and put a new log in. The little bit of waste left over could be put into a new log, and it runs on unenriched uranium, which makes fuel a lot less expensive, and a lot more available. It could all be a pipe dream, but it would be great if they could get it working. Given that Gates can bankroll all the R&D out of his deep pockets, I'm cautiously optimistic about Terrapower.

      The sad thing is that environmentalists have a sort of knee jerk reaction every time they hear the word nuclear, even though it is the only power source that is cheap, safe, and good for the environment. The only people who oppose it are the ignorant (Nuclear Power means Nuclear War!) or people who think life would be AWESOME if we could all go back to living in caves.

  4. Have you ever travelled on 520? by SeattleGameboy · · Score: 5, Informative

    Seriously, do you even live in Seattle? Do you know what 520 bridge is like? Do you even know all the politics around this bridge redesign? No? Then, STFU!!! This bridge goes through VERY wealthy neighborhoods on both sides of the bridge. These neighborhoods have been dead set against ANY expansion of the bridge and they have been backing any and all candidates with proposals that would delay the contructions of the new bridge. These redesigns have been decades in making, while the bridge is hanging by the thread on every major windstorm. The sucker needs to get replaces ASAP. It does not matter if it is 6 lanes or 8 lanes. It needs to move forward for the good of all people living in the Puget Sound area.

  5. Re:troll... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 5, Informative

    There are plenty of perfectly good reasons to oppose a bridge that may well be a bad idea to build.

    They're opposing any further delay for replacing an old, existing bridge. There is already an approved design for the new bridge, but some want to change the design to accommodate more HOV and public-transit lanes. From TFA:

    The state Senate has signed off on the so-called "A+" option, which would include six lanes total, with two lanes for high-occupancy vehicles and buses. McGinn's proposal ... is to come up with a new 520 plan that would incorporate high-capacity transit (light rail or bus-rapid transit) as well as two HOV and two general-purpose lanes.

    Apparently, the existing bridge could fall into the water at the next earthquake and it's a main route for Microsoft employees to/from the campus.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  6. Re:troll... by e2d2 · · Score: 5, Informative

    The irony is they took out the advertisement to oppose delays on replacing the existing bridge, and in turn doing so they are "against" another proposal that would add more mass transit.

    From TFA, the statement made by MS in their full page ad:
    While there are still some final design issues that need to be resolved with the City of Seattle, we should not let last-minute objections undermine the hard-won agreements already in place for the rest of the project. Doing so would cause yet more delay, increase the cost to taxpayers, and put this vital transportation and economic corridor at risk. The current bridge is 47 years old, and state engineers warn that it could sink in a major storm or earthquake.

    So basically they want it finished now, not sitting in government limbo like so many other infrastructure improvements do.

    I'd also like to point out the obvious: Bill Gates is not Microsoft.

  7. Re:Bill Gates vs Microsoft by EvanED · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's just an attempt to spin the story against Microsoft, for no apparent reason

    Did you miss "posted by kdawson"?

  8. Re:I, for one, am shocked... by MozeeToby · · Score: 5, Insightful

    nobody puts money into malaria research except for philanthropic reasons

    Oh I don't know, they can't very well buy MS products if they're dead now can they?

    In all seriousness, why is giving '3rd world kiddies' free access to your companies software cynical? Ok, yes you can make the argument that you're trying to indoctrinate them, but isn't it more likely that Bill Gates genuinely believes that MS products are some of the best available and that the kids should have the best available products? Especially since, given his contacts, the software can be had at little to no cost? Not every act of a millionaire is duplicitous, it seems to me that he's just trying to do the most good possible. His opinion of the software may be wrong, but I doubt that he is conciously trying to brainwash the developing world.

  9. The complete situation by steveha · · Score: 5, Informative

    The summary is unbelievably slanted; whoever tagged this story "troll" was correct. Here is the complete situation; judge for yourself.

    Lake Washington is a tall, skinny lake that's rather deep in the middle. It takes a while to drive around it; if you bicycle around the circumference of the lake, it's about 50 miles total.

    On the west side of the lake, you have a tall, skinny city: Seattle. The biggest city in the state, lots of people live there.

    On the east side of the lake, you have a tall, skinny populated area. But it isn't just one city; it's Bothell, Woodinville, Kirkland, Bellevue, Redmond, Renton, and a few small ones. Collectively these are known as "the Eastside".

    Because Lake Washington is so deep, an ordinary bridge is impractical. That is why the three longest floating bridges in the world are on Lake Washington: the Evergreen Point Floating Bridge (I tend to slip and call it the "floating point bridge") is the one with highway 520, and it is the longest single floating bridge in the world. (The other two are used for I-90 a couple of miles to the south of 520.) By the way, I suspect that one of the reasons we have the longest floating bridges is the fact that the Chittenden Locks in Seattle allow for some control over the water level of Lake Washington; if we have torrential rain, engineers can just open the locks and let the waters drain out of the lake system and lower the water level again to the safe zone for the floating bridges.

    When the 520 bridge was first built, all the action was in Seattle. Not that many people lived on the Eastside, and not that many Seattle people needed to go to the Eastside. But Microsoft and a bunch of other technical companies are on the Eastside, so now many people actually commute from Seattle to the Eastside over the 520 bridge.

    There are rich neighborhoods right on the water, on both sides of the lake. The fabled small city of Medina, where Bill Gates has his famous house, is right by the 520 bridge. The rich folks have been successfully blocking all attempts to upgrade the 520 bridge; as I understand it, their attitude is that they already don't like the car noise, so why would they want more traffic to be able to flow over the bridge? The area has been talking about replacing the 520 bridge for something like 14 years now, and for most of that time the project has been blocked.

    But the 520 bridge really needs to be replaced. If you measure the life of the bridge in terms of how many cars have driven over it, the bridge is way, way past its planned lifetime already. A serious wind storm could sink it. A serious earthquake could sink it. And the consequences for traffic would be epic (not in a good way).

    Right now, all it takes is a Husky football game at the University of Washington, putting extra traffic on the already overloaded bridge, and the whole area is just about paralyzed. Normally the I-90 bridge is fine, but when the 520 gets bad enough and traffic diverts to the other bridge, both bridges can be parking lots. It will already be bad when the 520 bridge is closed for construction of the new bridge; I seriously hope that they can mostly build the new bridge somewhere and float it into place with minimal down time. If the bridge fails in a wind storm, we will be many months, possibly years without any bridge and the traffic will be dire. In short, any further delay in building the bridge is Not A Good Idea.

    Now, the existing bridge is two traffic lanes each way. There is no carpool lane. There is no shoulder. Any time a vehicle stalls, a tow truck gets over there ASAP and pulls it off the bridge, but it still does horrible things to the already horrible traffic. As other posters have noted, the 520 carpool lane disappears right before the bridge, and the westbound neck-down where three lanes go to two lanes is the single most congested piece of road in the whole state.

    So, we have a bridge plan finally that is ready to move ahead. It ha

    --
    lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely