Did you read the post I replied to. Obviously not. This was not talking about reducing cooling costs by using non peak electricity. It was talking about using passive cooling. Passive cooling must be done at the coldest times of the day which is exactly when there are the lest users of ANY application that involves people actively using the system not just www web.
My first post was NOT a reply to the article, it was a reply to someone advocating passive cooling by rerouting traffic based on the cold parts of the day. I countered with why not use the cold parts of the world for passive cooling.
You are advocating something completely different which I do not wish to disagree with.
So before you go off telling me to RTFA why don't you RTFParent I replied to. Thanks.
Except that the highest load on data centers is generally during the local day or at least not at like 5am when its the coldest. I would imagine routing the traffic all the way to the dark side of the planet would produce less than acceptable latency for most uses. This might work for other types of work but I don't think it would work for anything web and response time based like google.
Plus routers/bandwidth isn't exactly cheap and costs would go up if companies started using these methods. I'm not going to say I did a cost analysis but I don't think this would add up to a savings. All the saving you would have gained in reduced energy costs would go right back to routers, bandwidth, and all the other insane costs that would be needed to maintain and build out this plan.
Why go through all of this when you could just build a datacenter closer to the poles where it is always cold day, night, summer, and winter. The routes would be faster, it could stay online all the time, and it follows the same models we currently use so it's is way more likely to be successful.
The people that buy Microsoft products are funding these marketing programs. Thus in a sense everyone that buys microsoft products is part of this. That is part of 'free market' that many don't realize. Where in 'free' is the idea of 'fair and unbiased'? It isn't. Free market simply means people are free to do what they want with their time and money. If that is buying microsoft rather than something else that is their choice. Also, if your newspaper is biased and you don't like it; start your own and propagate your own opinion.
Every source of information is biased, people only get pissed when it's not biased the way they want it. I think you can have this in a socially run website but the people that are part of that website must all agree on what they want their opinion to be. Bigger websites inevitably have a broader group of people that represent the averages. The average in this case is microsoft. Thus in large websites you are going to have many more microsoft supporters while in niche sites you are going to have people that support that niches products. Slashdot is bigger now and is growing out of the niche stage. Digg never had a niche.
Go to a linux forum though and see how many people talk about microsoft's awesomeness there.
That's how the smart sys admins do it. Then their brains melt away because they have too much time to make first posts on various web forums and only the dumb ones are left.
I think this has more to do with you wanting to move your data, not them just handing it out. There is a huge difference.
This example is more related to you going to a hospital and requesting your health records be transferred to another hospital and they say no. Don't get it confused with privacy/security.
What? How have you managed to correlate the release of a CnC game with SC2 in this manner? The CnC series has been steadily releasing games and expansions for the last several years but of course it has to be related to SC2.
Maybe. Lawyers, despite having no morals, are smart enough to know they can't just start handing cases to the RIAA without an appearance of a battle. This is one step in the right direction but there are miles left to walk so to speak. If this pattern continues then we can let our dukes down, but I still think it's too early to tell.
That is like blaming car accident deaths on seat belts(not wearing them/them not existing) rather than bad driving. Lack of regulation is not what killed the global economy. Regulation could prevent it from happening again, maybe, but that doesn't mean a lack of regulation caused anything.
If everyone involved in the lending crisis had done a little homework before buying the loan packages they would have realized that they were paying too much. It was their own free will to buy the crappy loans, no one forced them. Regulation is just forcing people to do the homework + making people jump through more hoops.
Someone is paying to distribute electronic files. It may not be the open source developers but to say that there are no distribution costs is plain wrong. Tons of people work every day to maintain the infrastructure that sends data. These people are paid one way or another.
Don't get me wrong I agree with the idea of your comments but I think that the confusion about why open source is free needs to be cleared up. Even open source can generate revenues that help pay distribution costs or pass distribution costs to the consumer by asking them to seed torrents. Open source is free because many see it as a better solution than what is available for money and are willing to contribute one way or another to the open source cause(code or money). Open source does not exist due to distribution costs.
It is what happens when you have an uneducated public that can't look past the carrot dangled in front of them. It's hard to even argue against people that can't look past one iteration of a loop that contains great phrases like "the poor will be fed" and "free health care". No one cares where the money comes from as long as it isn't from them. My point is everyone looks at the first possible solution rather than thinking forward.
So you are correct this is a result of Democracy + Dumb People + Smooth Talkers = Any regulation will pass as long as it claims to protect and serve the common man.
Of course the public is going to love this. Obama is just trying to to protect you from attackers who are stealing your passwords and identities!
I love how I get modded troll because I want to pick what I drive and not have the government do it for me. Not everyone lives in a big city where you can't open your car up and have some fun with it.
The only way to get this magical number of 46 mpg is to build cars that are only meant to go from point A to B and nothing else. That is fine if those cars are available but to regulate it to where those are the ONLY cars you can buy is ridiculous. Let people have some choices, let us pick what we can buy. If I want a car that has 300hp and gets 20 mpg I should be able to buy it and not some sort of car powered by hope and happy thoughts.
If you want to tax it as a sin tax, fine, tax gasoline and let me be on my way but don't take one of my joys away from me because you think it's going to save the environment.
So go on saying this is great. Have your happy thoughts about all the environment we are saving but also remember what you are giving up. Maybe you don't care on this issue but sooner or later the government is going to take something from you.
This case would be much more like you punching me in the face 20 times and then I don't expect the next random person I see to punch me for the 21. This specific company hasn't done anything questionable as far as I know.
Also I doubt this company has ever released diseases upon the world. So once again your punching example makes no sense. In other words it would be like you giving me high fives 20 times and then for some reason on the 21st I expect to get punched.
It makes me sick that people think your post is somehow insightful.
Just because someone would do it doesn't mean they did it.
This would be a logic professors ultimate example of fallacies.
1) Because they would: they did. 2) Because 'anti-conspiracy' people are nut jobs: you can't argue they didn't release the flu. 3) Because some pharma companies did questionable things in the past: this company is doing questionable things now.
Your claims are backed by nothing but wild speculation and logically flawed arguments.
If a law is passed 'protecting' the consumers then this clause of the contract become void. You can't have a contract to kill someone and have it upheld in court. Same goes with this sort of thing.
There are other complications but basically that clause doesn't help because it would become an illegal clause.
I think you are on the right track but maybe when a little overboard. People say it so that they can offer insight into an issue using the knowledge they have. For instance I have taken some law classes so I feel I could offer insight into a legal discussion, but by saying I am not a lawyer I am letting everyone know that my comments may be missing something but I don't know what it is because IANAL. So yes it is creating an "out" but isn't that better than posting like you are an expert or not posting at all?
Yes but you are in the minority group of people in the world that live in London/NYC/Similar cities. Believe me when I say other cities don't have systems like that or the proper city layout to even make systems like that.
I was just trying to let you know that you are only looking at it from one perspective when in reality the world is far more diverse. For some (like you) the choice is easier to make, for others is a tough call and has lots of trade offs, and for people like my public transit isn't even an option. I would spend hours getting somewhere I could drive to in 30 minutes and then risk being stuck there for the night because the systems shut down at night.
What about time right back at you! Very few cities have mass transit solutions that get you to where you are going faster than a car can assuming you walk out the door of your residence/place of work at the same time. What I mean by this is if you are ready to leave your house but don't because you know the public transit won't arrive for 30 minutes then that is essentially 30 minutes wasted because if you had a car you would have left to go do something other than killing time.
I am not saying that this expense with cars doesn't exist, I know quite well that it does but does it really outweigh the constant time wasted waiting for public transit as well as many times indirect routes make the actual trip take even longer.
Also on a side note what about the freedom a car gives you. That alone must be worth money in some sort of opportunity cost sense. I certainly would pay more money to have transit that is willing to leave where I am and go where I want to go without waiting. If that transit is public then I would take it..
Slashdot Mirror
Did you read the post I replied to. Obviously not. This was not talking about reducing cooling costs by using non peak electricity. It was talking about using passive cooling. Passive cooling must be done at the coldest times of the day which is exactly when there are the lest users of ANY application that involves people actively using the system not just www web.
My first post was NOT a reply to the article, it was a reply to someone advocating passive cooling by rerouting traffic based on the cold parts of the day. I countered with why not use the cold parts of the world for passive cooling.
You are advocating something completely different which I do not wish to disagree with.
So before you go off telling me to RTFA why don't you RTFParent I replied to. Thanks.
Except that the highest load on data centers is generally during the local day or at least not at like 5am when its the coldest. I would imagine routing the traffic all the way to the dark side of the planet would produce less than acceptable latency for most uses. This might work for other types of work but I don't think it would work for anything web and response time based like google.
Plus routers/bandwidth isn't exactly cheap and costs would go up if companies started using these methods. I'm not going to say I did a cost analysis but I don't think this would add up to a savings. All the saving you would have gained in reduced energy costs would go right back to routers, bandwidth, and all the other insane costs that would be needed to maintain and build out this plan.
Why go through all of this when you could just build a datacenter closer to the poles where it is always cold day, night, summer, and winter. The routes would be faster, it could stay online all the time, and it follows the same models we currently use so it's is way more likely to be successful.
I can hear it now.
"Back when I was a kid I had to play video games to keep warm"
#4 - 6 all look like shoes/boots to me. What does that mean?
The people that buy Microsoft products are funding these marketing programs. Thus in a sense everyone that buys microsoft products is part of this. That is part of 'free market' that many don't realize. Where in 'free' is the idea of 'fair and unbiased'? It isn't. Free market simply means people are free to do what they want with their time and money. If that is buying microsoft rather than something else that is their choice. Also, if your newspaper is biased and you don't like it; start your own and propagate your own opinion.
Every source of information is biased, people only get pissed when it's not biased the way they want it. I think you can have this in a socially run website but the people that are part of that website must all agree on what they want their opinion to be. Bigger websites inevitably have a broader group of people that represent the averages. The average in this case is microsoft. Thus in large websites you are going to have many more microsoft supporters while in niche sites you are going to have people that support that niches products. Slashdot is bigger now and is growing out of the niche stage. Digg never had a niche.
Go to a linux forum though and see how many people talk about microsoft's awesomeness there.
He doesn't have 7.5 years left. Only 3.5 currently.
I for one am going to vote for change...
That's how the smart sys admins do it. Then their brains melt away because they have too much time to make first posts on various web forums and only the dumb ones are left.
I think this has more to do with you wanting to move your data, not them just handing it out. There is a huge difference.
This example is more related to you going to a hospital and requesting your health records be transferred to another hospital and they say no. Don't get it confused with privacy/security.
What? How have you managed to correlate the release of a CnC game with SC2 in this manner? The CnC series has been steadily releasing games and expansions for the last several years but of course it has to be related to SC2.
backspace and delete are different fyi
Maybe. Lawyers, despite having no morals, are smart enough to know they can't just start handing cases to the RIAA without an appearance of a battle. This is one step in the right direction but there are miles left to walk so to speak. If this pattern continues then we can let our dukes down, but I still think it's too early to tell.
That is like blaming car accident deaths on seat belts(not wearing them/them not existing) rather than bad driving. Lack of regulation is not what killed the global economy. Regulation could prevent it from happening again, maybe, but that doesn't mean a lack of regulation caused anything.
If everyone involved in the lending crisis had done a little homework before buying the loan packages they would have realized that they were paying too much. It was their own free will to buy the crappy loans, no one forced them. Regulation is just forcing people to do the homework + making people jump through more hoops.
I bet mowing that will be a bitch :).
Someone is paying to distribute electronic files. It may not be the open source developers but to say that there are no distribution costs is plain wrong. Tons of people work every day to maintain the infrastructure that sends data. These people are paid one way or another.
Don't get me wrong I agree with the idea of your comments but I think that the confusion about why open source is free needs to be cleared up. Even open source can generate revenues that help pay distribution costs or pass distribution costs to the consumer by asking them to seed torrents. Open source is free because many see it as a better solution than what is available for money and are willing to contribute one way or another to the open source cause(code or money). Open source does not exist due to distribution costs.
It is what happens when you have an uneducated public that can't look past the carrot dangled in front of them. It's hard to even argue against people that can't look past one iteration of a loop that contains great phrases like "the poor will be fed" and "free health care". No one cares where the money comes from as long as it isn't from them. My point is everyone looks at the first possible solution rather than thinking forward.
So you are correct this is a result of Democracy + Dumb People + Smooth Talkers = Any regulation will pass as long as it claims to protect and serve the common man.
Of course the public is going to love this. Obama is just trying to to protect you from attackers who are stealing your passwords and identities!
I love how I get modded troll because I want to pick what I drive and not have the government do it for me. Not everyone lives in a big city where you can't open your car up and have some fun with it.
The only way to get this magical number of 46 mpg is to build cars that are only meant to go from point A to B and nothing else. That is fine if those cars are available but to regulate it to where those are the ONLY cars you can buy is ridiculous. Let people have some choices, let us pick what we can buy. If I want a car that has 300hp and gets 20 mpg I should be able to buy it and not some sort of car powered by hope and happy thoughts.
If you want to tax it as a sin tax, fine, tax gasoline and let me be on my way but don't take one of my joys away from me because you think it's going to save the environment.
So go on saying this is great. Have your happy thoughts about all the environment we are saving but also remember what you are giving up. Maybe you don't care on this issue but sooner or later the government is going to take something from you.
I can't wait to drive some POS car made out of plastic and tin foil with a go cart engine. Losing our free will one one mile at a time.
Still won't change the pleasure your new elephant can give.
This case would be much more like you punching me in the face 20 times and then I don't expect the next random person I see to punch me for the 21. This specific company hasn't done anything questionable as far as I know.
Also I doubt this company has ever released diseases upon the world. So once again your punching example makes no sense. In other words it would be like you giving me high fives 20 times and then for some reason on the 21st I expect to get punched.
It makes me sick that people think your post is somehow insightful.
Just because someone would do it doesn't mean they did it.
This would be a logic professors ultimate example of fallacies.
1) Because they would: they did.
2) Because 'anti-conspiracy' people are nut jobs: you can't argue they didn't release the flu.
3) Because some pharma companies did questionable things in the past: this company is doing questionable things now.
Your claims are backed by nothing but wild speculation and logically flawed arguments.
If a law is passed 'protecting' the consumers then this clause of the contract become void. You can't have a contract to kill someone and have it upheld in court. Same goes with this sort of thing.
There are other complications but basically that clause doesn't help because it would become an illegal clause.
I think you are on the right track but maybe when a little overboard. People say it so that they can offer insight into an issue using the knowledge they have. For instance I have taken some law classes so I feel I could offer insight into a legal discussion, but by saying I am not a lawyer I am letting everyone know that my comments may be missing something but I don't know what it is because IANAL. So yes it is creating an "out" but isn't that better than posting like you are an expert or not posting at all?
Yes but you are in the minority group of people in the world that live in London/NYC/Similar cities. Believe me when I say other cities don't have systems like that or the proper city layout to even make systems like that.
I was just trying to let you know that you are only looking at it from one perspective when in reality the world is far more diverse. For some (like you) the choice is easier to make, for others is a tough call and has lots of trade offs, and for people like my public transit isn't even an option. I would spend hours getting somewhere I could drive to in 30 minutes and then risk being stuck there for the night because the systems shut down at night.
Since when is walking public transportation?
Of course you are going to save money if the two options are:
Walk: Cost 0
Car: $$$$
I don't think anyone will try and argue with you about that one.
What about time right back at you! Very few cities have mass transit solutions that get you to where you are going faster than a car can assuming you walk out the door of your residence/place of work at the same time. What I mean by this is if you are ready to leave your house but don't because you know the public transit won't arrive for 30 minutes then that is essentially 30 minutes wasted because if you had a car you would have left to go do something other than killing time.
I am not saying that this expense with cars doesn't exist, I know quite well that it does but does it really outweigh the constant time wasted waiting for public transit as well as many times indirect routes make the actual trip take even longer.
Also on a side note what about the freedom a car gives you. That alone must be worth money in some sort of opportunity cost sense. I certainly would pay more money to have transit that is willing to leave where I am and go where I want to go without waiting. If that transit is public then I would take it..