My guess is most computers are idle, not busy. Just as an example, it has been just a hair over 144 hours since I last rebooted because of Windows Updates. The system idle process has 138 hours of cpu time consumed. I have been playing about 10 hours of video games per day. My GPU is only at 10% load while playing. I am a heavy user and my computer is idle about 96% of the time.
A typical home user will have a more efficient CPU than my 5 year old CPU and have more idle time and less demanding work loads. One can safely assume that a computer's average power draw is just the idle power consumption. This would be more in the 30-50watt range with next gen computers closer to 20 watts. Assuming 50 watts times 24 hours per day times 365days per year divided by 1000, that is about 450KWh rounded up. My guess is you're about a magnitude off.
My workstation grade computer ran just fine on the generic crappy 260watt(260w, not a typo) PSU that came with the Dell. Intel i7 and ATI 4850. My CPU had a TDP for 90watts and GPU had a TDP of 114watts. I had this computer crunching BOINC GPU+CPU workloads all winter when I wasn't using, and did this for 4 years.
If your computer "needed" a 500watt psu, you either got a bad PSU or had a lot of crap in your computer. I bet I could purchase an AMD7950 with a top end Ivy Bridge Intel with 8GB of ram and run it just fine on a 300watt PSU and not worry about the PSU for the lifetime of the machine.
That said, I've been doing this for over twenty years now, and I don't really see myself stopping. I still do like what I'm doing, and I'd just be bored out of my gourd without the kernel to hack on.
And this is why he changed the world. Doing what he loves, even if Linux is not his favorite child.
If from the photon's perspective, it lasted exactly 0 time, then it never existed as all things that have never existed also have existed a time of 0. In one frame of reference, the photon exist, but it does not exist in the other frame of reference.
It's not the issue of energy generation, but energy consumption. 100% efficient systems are theoretically impossible based on our current knowledge. If it's not 100% efficient, expect IR to be released at some point.
That has already been covered. dumping waste heat into a wormhole/etc means they went out of their way to mask their existence. It can be done, but it is extra work that needs to be done and makes things harder. Routing energy costs energy, no matter how you look at it. They must consume energy to mask energy, which means they would be purposefully hiding. The article already said "A civilization that built a Dyson Sphere would have to go to great lengths to avoid detection".
No one is saying it can't be done, just that with our current knowledge of physics, it would be hard enough that one would need to do it on purpose.
As far as we can tell, no macro-level system can violate thermodynamics, so the postulate should hold true. There should be IR energy given off anywhere energy is consumed as IR is the end result of an system that is not 100% efficient.
Then don't tax pollution, but I should be compensated if a private company wants to make money by reducing my quality of living.
If I went to someone's house and dumped a truck load of waste on their lawn, I would get in trouble, but spread that waste over lots of people's property and it's not an issue? It should be the same.
They should estimate the cost of clean up if someone dumped a concentrated amount of waste, and apply that same cost to companies that dump just a little here and there or burn into the air. I don't care if burning coal releases mercury into the air or someone fills a barrel and dumps it, the cost per unit of waste should be the same.
It was my understanding that even after transmission loss, charging loss, and all other losses, it still causes less pollution to use an EV even if charged via coal power, simply because electric motors are so efficient. Unless this has changed over the years due to better combustion tech and more hybrids.
DNT is just a DRM "when this bit is set, don't allow this". The whole open source community is against these sorts of things. If you don't like it, browse web sites that don't ignore your settings or use a browser that actually enforces privacy.
Personally, privacy is like security. If you want to protect it, then you should not depend on a 3rd party to do it for you.
Speak for yourself, i love my targeted ads. I have found MANY deals for my computer equipment from Google ads. Both my brother and I explicitly opt-in for tracking because we have saved thousands of dollars via "70% special while stocks lasts!!!" type ads from sites that we normally shop.
Personally, I think no-tracking should be enforced client side. Isn't it the developers of the browsers to enforce security and privacy and not the possibly rogue server?
I think it's just passing the blame. Fix the browsers, never trust the other side.
"after having tracking explained to them, users generally are against it"
The same people that are against all forms for taxes. tracking allows advertisements, advertisements pay for the websites I browse so I don't have to. It saves me money.
One side of me says "that sounds cool", but the other side says "what about other protocols?"
Why should HTTP be the only protocol that DNSSEC can flag? Why not any/all protocols that have been or will be created? Now we're talking about DNSSEC servers having to track a potentially infinite amount of protocols. That won't work.
While HTTP is a popular protocol, it should not get special treatment. The Internet should be protocol agnostic.
If it remains in a quantum state, then it's remaining in a "random" state. If you peek and see "dead", you have a 50% chance to peek and see "alive" next time. If you peek and see dead, then keep seeing dead, then you know you have collapsed the state.
I think the whole point is if our time truly is meaningless, then this action doesn't hurt. We have nothing to lose, which means there is only potential to gain.
With a goal of 5b years, even the mountains you painted in would be whittled away be erosion. There is almost nothing you can do on the Earths surface that would last 5b years, if only because it would go back under the crust. Entire continents will be gone in that much time.
" I can't believe a species as or more intelligent than us could ever survive without a concept of deception...."
Probably because it would be beneficial to the individual to be able to positively manipulate others, creating deception, which would give an evolutionary advantage over others, meaning those creatures that can understand deception would have a better chance to preocreate.
Slashdot Mirror
My guess is most computers are idle, not busy. Just as an example, it has been just a hair over 144 hours since I last rebooted because of Windows Updates. The system idle process has 138 hours of cpu time consumed. I have been playing about 10 hours of video games per day. My GPU is only at 10% load while playing. I am a heavy user and my computer is idle about 96% of the time.
A typical home user will have a more efficient CPU than my 5 year old CPU and have more idle time and less demanding work loads. One can safely assume that a computer's average power draw is just the idle power consumption. This would be more in the 30-50watt range with next gen computers closer to 20 watts. Assuming 50 watts times 24 hours per day times 365days per year divided by 1000, that is about 450KWh rounded up. My guess is you're about a magnitude off.
My workstation grade computer ran just fine on the generic crappy 260watt(260w, not a typo) PSU that came with the Dell. Intel i7 and ATI 4850. My CPU had a TDP for 90watts and GPU had a TDP of 114watts. I had this computer crunching BOINC GPU+CPU workloads all winter when I wasn't using, and did this for 4 years.
If your computer "needed" a 500watt psu, you either got a bad PSU or had a lot of crap in your computer. I bet I could purchase an AMD7950 with a top end Ivy Bridge Intel with 8GB of ram and run it just fine on a 300watt PSU and not worry about the PSU for the lifetime of the machine.
Florida disagrees
Is there a way to convert heat into lots of IR at a useful rate?
That said, I've been doing this for over twenty years now, and I don't really see myself stopping. I still do like what I'm doing, and I'd just be bored out of my gourd without the kernel to hack on.
And this is why he changed the world. Doing what he loves, even if Linux is not his favorite child.
If from the photon's perspective, it lasted exactly 0 time, then it never existed as all things that have never existed also have existed a time of 0. In one frame of reference, the photon exist, but it does not exist in the other frame of reference.
It's not the issue of energy generation, but energy consumption. 100% efficient systems are theoretically impossible based on our current knowledge. If it's not 100% efficient, expect IR to be released at some point.
That has already been covered. dumping waste heat into a wormhole/etc means they went out of their way to mask their existence. It can be done, but it is extra work that needs to be done and makes things harder. Routing energy costs energy, no matter how you look at it. They must consume energy to mask energy, which means they would be purposefully hiding. The article already said "A civilization that built a Dyson Sphere would have to go to great lengths to avoid detection".
No one is saying it can't be done, just that with our current knowledge of physics, it would be hard enough that one would need to do it on purpose.
As far as we can tell, no macro-level system can violate thermodynamics, so the postulate should hold true. There should be IR energy given off anywhere energy is consumed as IR is the end result of an system that is not 100% efficient.
Then don't tax pollution, but I should be compensated if a private company wants to make money by reducing my quality of living.
If I went to someone's house and dumped a truck load of waste on their lawn, I would get in trouble, but spread that waste over lots of people's property and it's not an issue? It should be the same.
They should estimate the cost of clean up if someone dumped a concentrated amount of waste, and apply that same cost to companies that dump just a little here and there or burn into the air. I don't care if burning coal releases mercury into the air or someone fills a barrel and dumps it, the cost per unit of waste should be the same.
It was my understanding that even after transmission loss, charging loss, and all other losses, it still causes less pollution to use an EV even if charged via coal power, simply because electric motors are so efficient. Unless this has changed over the years due to better combustion tech and more hybrids.
"This also means that the lifetime of a photon is zero. That's more of a paradox." - I think it just means our concept of time is wrong.
Why would I want to google "70% off" every day when I can have the information pushed to me?
Push based systems are more efficient than poll based, learn event based programming.
DNT is just a DRM "when this bit is set, don't allow this". The whole open source community is against these sorts of things. If you don't like it, browse web sites that don't ignore your settings or use a browser that actually enforces privacy.
Personally, privacy is like security. If you want to protect it, then you should not depend on a 3rd party to do it for you.
Speak for yourself, i love my targeted ads. I have found MANY deals for my computer equipment from Google ads. Both my brother and I explicitly opt-in for tracking because we have saved thousands of dollars via "70% special while stocks lasts!!!" type ads from sites that we normally shop.
Personally, I think no-tracking should be enforced client side. Isn't it the developers of the browsers to enforce security and privacy and not the possibly rogue server?
I think it's just passing the blame. Fix the browsers, never trust the other side.
"after having tracking explained to them, users generally are against it"
The same people that are against all forms for taxes. tracking allows advertisements, advertisements pay for the websites I browse so I don't have to. It saves me money.
When I signed up for Google, it defaulted to tracking being disabled and gave me a big warning when I enabled it.
One side of me says "that sounds cool", but the other side says "what about other protocols?"
Why should HTTP be the only protocol that DNSSEC can flag? Why not any/all protocols that have been or will be created? Now we're talking about DNSSEC servers having to track a potentially infinite amount of protocols. That won't work.
While HTTP is a popular protocol, it should not get special treatment. The Internet should be protocol agnostic.
If it remains in a quantum state, then it's remaining in a "random" state. If you peek and see "dead", you have a 50% chance to peek and see "alive" next time. If you peek and see dead, then keep seeing dead, then you know you have collapsed the state.
My understanding anyway.
Radioactive decay: http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/09/01/1731224/radioactive-decay-apparently-influenced-by-the-sun
Not entirely random
I think the whole point is if our time truly is meaningless, then this action doesn't hurt. We have nothing to lose, which means there is only potential to gain.
With a goal of 5b years, even the mountains you painted in would be whittled away be erosion. There is almost nothing you can do on the Earths surface that would last 5b years, if only because it would go back under the crust. Entire continents will be gone in that much time.
" I can't believe a species as or more intelligent than us could ever survive without a concept of deception...." Probably because it would be beneficial to the individual to be able to positively manipulate others, creating deception, which would give an evolutionary advantage over others, meaning those creatures that can understand deception would have a better chance to preocreate.
Passphrases are easy to remember and plenty long. 96 char dictionary and 14 char length, you get 96^14 combinations. It will take a bit.