It's about us, and what we become when we become a vengeful society lacking in forgiveness, incapable of hoping for change in a person.
Thank you, you said it well...
I believe that even this man, who killed so many, is not beyond redemption... Now maybe we cannot trust him again, and that's fine, but we and prove how much better we are by treating him like a human, even if he did really bad things...
"Everyone has a chapter in their book they do not read out loud."
You are going to invade, say, the UK because they tax your pollution?
Now who has the "perfect solution fallacy":)
It is very simplistic to say that you'd tax our exports, Trump is getting a lot of attention in the US calling for a blanket 30% import tax on anything made in China, but the reality is far more complex...
You'd start a trade war, and if you're not careful, a real one. You would upset and turn over the alliances and power balance of the world over CO2. Any gain you might think you make would be lost in the ensuing mess.
I get that. I think it was best summarized by my the first post. F*ck the rest of the world. Those who modded me down should read your comments, they'd see I were right.
No, you just phrase it as harshly as possible without considering the other side...
Americans have no desire to fall on our swords if it won't actually accomplish anything. And it won't.
I've said it before, I'll say it again... The changes that have to be made to REALLY make a difference would be unacceptable, even in Europe. I'm not quite sure you understand what a 80% cut in energy consumption would really mean, but you are more or less asking everyone to go back 200 years in time.
Well a Yukon XL also starts at $51k, so you could have had a Highlander Hybrid ($48k).
The Yukon XL that is $51K doesn't compare, it is the base model with cloth seats while the Highlander Hybrid is fully loaded.
Further, you can't say that because they aren't remotely the same type of vehicle. Can the Highlander tow 4 tons, carry 7 people in comfort, while hauling everything and the kitchen sink in the back?
The Yukon also has a real 4WD system, vs the AWD system of the Highlander.
Fully loaded, the Yukon XL stickers at about $80k, so really not the same thing.
Also worth noting is how few Highlander Hybrids are sold, they are a very small volume vehicle.
Toyota also launched a much more affordable Rav4 Hybrid.
Yea, but that isn't a SUV, it is a fancy hatchback.
And the Prius V also have enough cargo for most people.
Completely different use case... and frankly the Prius is an expensive status symbol more than it is helping the environment.
You asked for a middle ground. Not my fault if you don't like it.
But it really isn't the middle ground... That implies that the person from Iowa owes an "equal life" to the person in India or Africa,
You're thinking that somehow resources should be divided equally, that the person in Iowa who lives in a 2,000 sqft house, has 2 cars, 3 kids, a job, etc. should somehow worry about the person far, far away.
I don't think you're being realistic with that thinking.
Tell that to those living with nothing in Africa.
Fair enough, but why exactly is that the person in Iowa's problem? To be honest, the people in Africa aren't really living in the 21st century anyway, not most of them (some are of course). Look at the tribal warfare, the endless slaughter... When they decide to drop all of that, they might find they can build themselves a civilization and won't need our help. We did it hundreds of years ago, what's holding them back?
Setting a cap at current world levels would still be better than no cap. And there would still be an economy.
True, but it wouldn't accomplish anything either... All it would do is cause wealth transfer. Why should the Iowa person become more poor so you can feel good about yourself, all the while nothing is actually happening?
If you actually had a solution that you could say, "this is it, this will solve the problem, we're saved, you just have to do X", you actually might be shocked to find the person from Iowa (and Texas, and other places) would say yes. The problem is, your "solution" solves nothing, but costs us money.
The real solution is so extreme, it isn't even worth discussing. So talk of "well, lets just start at 10%, then 20%, and we'll get there". That is a nice way of saying, "lets toss you nice froggy into the pot of water, it isn't that hot... we'll just turn it up slowly..."
Your premise that the money should stay in the US is flawed. Why shouldn't it go overseas if those living with the impacts of US pollution live there?
Because it is our money, not theirs. They didn't earn it, we did. If they want money, they can go earn it themselves. Those of us who are the "makers" get tired of the "takers", and that is all cap-and-trade really is.
As for the pollution, I agree it sucks, but life isn't fair and frankly... we developed industry first, so there you go... If clean tech is so cheap and great, they should be falling all over themselves to adopt it. Perhaps in 100 years they'll pass us if they play their cards right.
With a carbon tax, you need to dynamically adjust the tax to meet targets, however./quote.
If you're Spock from Vulcan, yes...:) Humans and politicians are funny however, I doubt it would work that way in practice...
We can't even get a small gas tax increase passed, and most people agree it needs to be done.
And the fourth Reich would have Washington DC as its capital. The US would be on the wrong side unlike in the first two WW.
Maybe... but I wasn't saying what is "good" or "bad", I was saying what was...
So let's start with 20% or even 10% if you prefer.
Sure, but those drops won't have a major impact on the outcome.
Frankly, I suspect a 20% drop will happen almost by default, just due to people buying more efficient stuff over time. The problem of course is that over the next 35 years, how much will the US population grow? 10%? That wipes out half of the 20% drop.
Just don't ever blame the Chinese until they reach that point too.
This is not democracy, and it isn't "playground fairness". We can blame the Chinese all we want, and they can ignore us.:)
And they are either wrong or selfish.
That is an opinion, a point of view...
Consider for a minute that if push came to shove, many Americans would say, "ok, if the world can't support everyone, perhaps it is time for some of them to go".
Rather than cut our own way of life, if we removed 2/3 of the people in the world, that helps solve the problem too.
Note: I'm not endorsing such a plan, nor saying it is a good one. I'm simply saying there is more than one way to solve a problem.
I hope you'll help me so that they change their minds.
My mind was only changed in the past year, and I'm at least somewhat smarter than the average person, or at least better off. The climate scientists did a REALLY crappy job of shouting about the problem 30 years ago. I think we're WAY past the point where it can be stopped.
Let me toss a point your way. Have you considered that it might cost less to adapt to the changing world than to try and prevent it from happening?
Yes, I know, some people will say, "why not do both". Well, sometimes you can't, if you split your efforts, sometimes both sides fail.
Look, I used the word "allowed" while it may not be the best choice. Think of it as "deserve" if you prefer. The US should by itself limit its own emissions.
Fair enough...
You may not be aware how offensive the first way you put it is to many Americans. You might as well be insulting our mothers.:)
There is a mind set, right or wrong, that we're on top of the pile and no one can tell us what to do. Of course no one stays there forever, but most people don't have a long view.
It isn't anyone else's duty to suffer from your pollution either, but they do.
Well then, they should have developed an industrial revolution and built up cities and industry then, shouldn't they?:)
"I'm willing to put in place a cap and trade system that could mean it will be more expensive to drive my truck if it can help reduce the emissions of my polluting country".
Are you actually serious? You expect the average American to say that?
Half of America is living pay-check to pay-check, asking them to pay anything more for energy would just push them into the poor house.
Cap-and-trade is a stupid idea anyway. It says that you can pollute so long as you pay someone else. Except the stuff still gets emitted, solving nothing.
If you actually set the cap to a number that would be useful, there would be nothing to trade since we wouldn't have an economy.
---
Finally, cap-and-trade is just wealth transfer again...
A carbon tax at least leaves the money right here, and that might get done at some point. But sending the money overseas? America will tell you to shove that idea where the sun doesn't shine.
1) from Futuremark, the 5960X was only slightly faster than the 6700K, which is why I chose the much cheaper and lower powered 6700K. The 3Dmark11 benchmarks are 11610 (38%) and 10790 (28%) higher, more or less. These are CPU dominated benchmarks.
Those are shitty benchmarks...
I have a i7-920 in the office, I also have a i7-6700k in the office. Both machines have a SSD in them. The i7-6700k kicks the 920s ass.
Seriously, it isn't even close.
I'm not speaking in theory, I'm speaking from practical experience. I test various hardware setups and configurations, I have more than a dozen machines on my test bench. The performance gains are there.
Under Idaho's 1972 "Child Protective Act," parents are immune from prosecution for any charges - including involuntary manslaughter and negligent homicide - if they depend exclusively on faith healing.
Good luck with that...
the rest of the world could theoretically unite and tax the US for polluting too much
Theory is nice, but in reality that isn't going to happen. If by chance it did, you'd just start WWIII. It isn't a realistic solution.
If the planet, on average, want to cut 20%, that could mean that US have to cut 50% while some African countries get to emit more. What's wrong with that?
There is almost zero chance the US will cut CO2 by 50% within our lifetimes. Maybe within our children's lifetime. I think we'll be lucky to get a 20% cut in the next 35 years. But I'd be happy to be surprised.
Cutting by that much would simply require changes and sacrifices that Americans don't want to make and see no reason to make. Remember that most Americans do not have a passport and have never left the country. A whole lot of Americans see foreigners as people who take their jobs.
Probably so... the question becomes... How much can we cut, how quickly, without causing undue stress to the economy and people's lives?
What I'd like to see is a conversation about how to get to where we want to go in a responsible fashion. I don't hear much of it over the screaming by both sides (neither of whom are very reasonable about it all)
The US could cut from 20 to 5
In what timeframe? 100 years? 50 years?
A cut from 20 to 15 is a more reasonable first step and might be accomplished over the next 35 years, with 2050 as a target. We could then aim for a cut to 10 by 2075 and perhaps then to 5 by 2100.
China cut from 7 to 5
I suspect China will do that much on their own, regardless of anything else. It only makes sense for them.
I just don't think the US should be allowed to emit more per capita.
The problem with that sort of wording is that it just shuts down all conversation and puts people on the defensive.
"allowed"... the average American would say, "by whom?" Or, "you and what Army?"
It isn't anyone else's right to tell us how much we can, or cannot emit. You'll never get anywhere using a stick against America, since we have the biggest one.
Pretend you're a hostage negotiator and you have someone who has a gun to someone's head. Telling them, "sorry, you're not allowed to shoot them, put the gun down or else..." isn't going to save the hostage... You have to use much nicer words and play to the guy's ego...
As an example, I'm running a 6 year old 980X. It's 130W TDP, and 3dMark11 at 8440, provided it's not OC'd (it is). Looking very very carefully through Intel's latest offerings, the 6700K comes in about 25% more performance (stock) at 95W TDP
I don't agree the i7-6700K is only 25% faster than the 980X. Maybe in that one example, but in most cases the Intel chip should be almost twice as fast.
Depends on what you're doing of course.
You're also comparing two chips that don't compare well. Your 980X was $1K back in the day, compare it to i7-5960x which is $1K today. About the same TDP but double the performance.
If you want to use the i7-6700k, compare it to the chip back then that was a similar price, the i7-920. It will be double the performance.
Since people won't act on their own lets hit their pocketbook. Add massive taxes on energy. See how much motivation people have to buy a more appropriate car, appliance, house...
All that would do is crush the economy, put millions out of work, destroy home values, and cause endless other problems.
People replace cars, on average, every 11 years. Some every 3 years, others drive them 20+ years.
But houses get replaced far less often. My home was built in 2001, it is 3,800 sqft. It likely will be standing in the year 2100. You can't say "buy a more appropriate house" when someone else just has to buy mine.
Unless you plan to tear them all down, but that isn't realistic.
The truth is, the changes had to happen 30 years ago... Today, it is far too late to stop, you won't cut CO2 in the time we have left to do it in to stop global temps from running way past levels that the experts say is safe.
We simply will have to adapt to the world that comes.
It's the ignorant attitude towards the issue that's the most bothersome, the "I don't give a fuck" attitude.
I don't think it is that bad... I think many people care, it just isn't in their top ten list of cares...
My wife is more worried about what is for dinner this week, getting the kids to their activities, making sure the house is kept nice, spending time with her friends, planning for retirement.
The "environment" is nice, but it ranks below all that.
How many people do you know purchased a truck or high consumption vehicle because the gas prices were going in the shitter? I know at least 2. That's a small drop in the bucket but it starts with simple change which I don't believe will happen without government involvement. Sad isn't it?
I drive one of those trucks, but I also drove it back when gas was $4/gal. I've owned a Yukon XL for a long time now (our current one is our third). I find the vehicle useful, so the gas price doesn't bother me. Gas could be $8/gal and it wouldn't change the vehicle I drive.
The problem is that a better version of that vehicle isn't offered. Where is the EV Suburban? How about the EV Minivan? The EV SUV? (and the Escape doesn't count). I suppose Toyota makes the Highlander Hybrid, but at $50K, it is out of the price range of most people.
Yes but it comes back to the fundamental issue. Most won't change the simplest thing in their life to allow things to get better. Instead they'd rather wait for the government to force their hand.
Maybe... maybe not...
Last year I replaced all the bulbs in my house with LED... I had some CFLs (I replaced those too), but still had many incandescent...
All are gone now, 100% LED, even the closets...
It is a nice gesture, but it won't change the outcome because I still have a huge house and 8 tons of air conditioning running and drive a 3 ton truck...
I don't put solar up because it doesn't make economic sense, but I will when it does...
The FBI searched Alex Levin's home address in Norwood, Mass. and found child pornography on it.
That doesn't make him a pedophile... It makes him kinda weird and maybe a bit sick, looking at pictures of kids... but if he doesn't know the kids and didn't touch them, then he isn't a pedophile...
On the one hand, I have little concern for those who traffic in anything that genuinely hurts children.
Neither do I...
On the other hand, the FBI abuses their position regularly, lying to the courts and ignoring the courts' orders when lying doesn't work, so seeing them told, "Sorry. Try again," when another questionable procedure is reviewed is welcome news.
Yep, without the rule of law, why even bother with the courts and trials, why not just go around and shoot the 1,000 Americans in the head they identified and move on?
Because if you don't respect the rules, then you might as well just go all in.
I fail to see the middle in this particular example.
That is because you don't want to... but it is there...
"I am from Iowa, I don't care about the rest of the world, why would I change anything?" is pretty much the definition of selfishness.
That isn't what is being said, that is what you choose to hear...
In reality, the person from Iowa isn't saying anything at all because this isn't on their radar screen. It might be number 127 on their "care about list".
If you actually asked them, a more accurate response might be:
"I am from Iowa, I do care about the rest of the world, but not enough to destroy my own life over it. I'm not going to stop driving a pickup truck or turn off the air condition because an island in the Pacific might flood. Perhaps the people who live there can move?"
No, what I am saying is that heavy polluters (such as the Americans) should be forced to reduce their emissions
Ahh yes, your "one world government"...
Who exactly is going to force Americans to do this? You and what Army?
You might think that response is flip, but I challenge you to walk among average Americans, as a foreigner, and tell them that you think Americans should be "forced" by someone else to do anything.
You'll quickly get reminded that we have the most powerful military in the world, and if you'd like a demonstration, you're welcome to try.
while the low polluters (such as the Africans) should be forced not to raise theirs too much.
Raise? You really haven't done the math, have you? They can't raise, they need to cut. Everyone needs to cut. The whole planet, on average, needs to cut 80% of the CO2 output by 2050, or we're in a pile of trouble.
The irony is that I fully get that, I just don't think it is going to happen. To cut world-wide by 80% would require the US to cut by 90%, we'd go to war to prevent it.
Of course, I am not against trade, so the African should have a right to lease his emission rights to the highest bidder.
Right, again we find the real interest... wealth transfer... What you REALLY want is money, which is why COP21 didn't really accomplish anything, because the poor nations won't shut up about money.
I expect people with a basic education to have learned a little empathy, to have read some books in which they walked in another person's shoes and saw through another person's eyes, and learned to understand that other people are real, and that everyone is better off when we have a little consideration for one another -- even for people we'll never meet.
See my first point... your expectations are not reality. We could debate all day long if they SHOULD be, but that is another conversation... they aren't, today...
I also expect an Iowa country boy (or girl) to understand that their children or grandchildren may very well meet those people from the other side of the world, and that the meeting will go better if the Iowans haven't spend the last three generations screwing up the lives of the people they're meeting.
Actually no, the Iowa child is highly UNLIKELY to grow up and meet the person from the other side of the planet... unless we're are war with them...
Or is basic human decency and a measure of foresight somehow absent in Iowans?
I suspect you measure "basic human decency" differently than some people. They will be friendly and nice to you, but they are mostly concerned with their own lives, paying their own rent/mortgage, feeding their kids, keeping their jobs, etc.
While they care in the abstract about "people everywhere", on a day-to-day basis it is not realistic to expect them to become MORE poor to maybe kinda sorta help someone, somewhere else. And that is what you're asking them to do, in the here and now.
It might well benefit their children in the long run, but it hurts them in the short run and most people don't do what hurts in the short run.
---
If you want to talk about making a difference, then if all Americans were so "empathy" towards the world, we should all turn off our air conditioners right now. That "comfort" is hurting everyone else, right?
Honestly, what do you think the odds of that happening are? Zero? Less than Zero? Not a snowballs chance in hell?
And really, it's already screwing the country boy over, but just in more subtle ways, like rising food costs and the increasing price of his property insurance.
Perhaps, but he might be more concerned about next month's rent or mortgage payment than what might happen in 20 years.
You cannot expect someone to have a long range view when they are simply trying to live day-to-day.
Askng, as one poster does, why someone in Iowa should pay to fight climate change to help someone they've never met, or will never meet, on the other side of the world is both amazingly ignorant and stupid.
Where do some of your food, or a lot of your clothes, car parts, computers and computer parts come from? So yes, it *directly* affects you.
The Iowa person will just shrug their shoulders and say, "good, that means jobs will come back to the US again."
You calling them ignorant isn't going to win them to your side, it will just cause them to dig their heals in further.
You should also consider that there is more than one way to skin a cat. What if that Iowa person say, "you know, if we have too many people on the planet, perhaps we should get rid of half of them, that'll solve the problem. lets start with the half on the other side of the planet".
You'd call that horrible, he/she may simply not care that much. He/she also lives in a state and a country that has politicians who want to be reelected, and also has half the world's nuclear weapons. Remind me again how much you want to "solve" this problem? I imagine removing 2/3 of the world's population would go a long way towards that.
Slashdot Mirror
It's about us, and what we become when we become a vengeful society lacking in forgiveness, incapable of hoping for change in a person.
Thank you, you said it well...
I believe that even this man, who killed so many, is not beyond redemption... Now maybe we cannot trust him again, and that's fine, but we and prove how much better we are by treating him like a human, even if he did really bad things...
"Everyone has a chapter in their book they do not read out loud."
You are going to invade, say, the UK because they tax your pollution?
Now who has the "perfect solution fallacy" :)
It is very simplistic to say that you'd tax our exports, Trump is getting a lot of attention in the US calling for a blanket 30% import tax on anything made in China, but the reality is far more complex...
You'd start a trade war, and if you're not careful, a real one. You would upset and turn over the alliances and power balance of the world over CO2. Any gain you might think you make would be lost in the ensuing mess.
I get that. I think it was best summarized by my the first post. F*ck the rest of the world. Those who modded me down should read your comments, they'd see I were right.
No, you just phrase it as harshly as possible without considering the other side...
Americans have no desire to fall on our swords if it won't actually accomplish anything. And it won't.
I've said it before, I'll say it again... The changes that have to be made to REALLY make a difference would be unacceptable, even in Europe. I'm not quite sure you understand what a 80% cut in energy consumption would really mean, but you are more or less asking everyone to go back 200 years in time.
Well a Yukon XL also starts at $51k, so you could have had a Highlander Hybrid ($48k).
The Yukon XL that is $51K doesn't compare, it is the base model with cloth seats while the Highlander Hybrid is fully loaded.
Further, you can't say that because they aren't remotely the same type of vehicle. Can the Highlander tow 4 tons, carry 7 people in comfort, while hauling everything and the kitchen sink in the back?
The Yukon also has a real 4WD system, vs the AWD system of the Highlander.
Fully loaded, the Yukon XL stickers at about $80k, so really not the same thing.
Also worth noting is how few Highlander Hybrids are sold, they are a very small volume vehicle.
Toyota also launched a much more affordable Rav4 Hybrid.
Yea, but that isn't a SUV, it is a fancy hatchback.
And the Prius V also have enough cargo for most people.
Completely different use case... and frankly the Prius is an expensive status symbol more than it is helping the environment.
You asked for a middle ground. Not my fault if you don't like it.
But it really isn't the middle ground... That implies that the person from Iowa owes an "equal life" to the person in India or Africa,
You're thinking that somehow resources should be divided equally, that the person in Iowa who lives in a 2,000 sqft house, has 2 cars, 3 kids, a job, etc. should somehow worry about the person far, far away.
I don't think you're being realistic with that thinking.
Tell that to those living with nothing in Africa.
Fair enough, but why exactly is that the person in Iowa's problem? To be honest, the people in Africa aren't really living in the 21st century anyway, not most of them (some are of course). Look at the tribal warfare, the endless slaughter... When they decide to drop all of that, they might find they can build themselves a civilization and won't need our help. We did it hundreds of years ago, what's holding them back?
Setting a cap at current world levels would still be better than no cap. And there would still be an economy.
True, but it wouldn't accomplish anything either... All it would do is cause wealth transfer. Why should the Iowa person become more poor so you can feel good about yourself, all the while nothing is actually happening?
If you actually had a solution that you could say, "this is it, this will solve the problem, we're saved, you just have to do X", you actually might be shocked to find the person from Iowa (and Texas, and other places) would say yes. The problem is, your "solution" solves nothing, but costs us money.
The real solution is so extreme, it isn't even worth discussing. So talk of "well, lets just start at 10%, then 20%, and we'll get there". That is a nice way of saying, "lets toss you nice froggy into the pot of water, it isn't that hot... we'll just turn it up slowly..."
Your premise that the money should stay in the US is flawed. Why shouldn't it go overseas if those living with the impacts of US pollution live there?
Because it is our money, not theirs. They didn't earn it, we did. If they want money, they can go earn it themselves. Those of us who are the "makers" get tired of the "takers", and that is all cap-and-trade really is.
As for the pollution, I agree it sucks, but life isn't fair and frankly... we developed industry first, so there you go... If clean tech is so cheap and great, they should be falling all over themselves to adopt it. Perhaps in 100 years they'll pass us if they play their cards right.
With a carbon tax, you need to dynamically adjust the tax to meet targets, however./quote.
If you're Spock from Vulcan, yes... :) Humans and politicians are funny however, I doubt it would work that way in practice...
We can't even get a small gas tax increase passed, and most people agree it needs to be done.
And the fourth Reich would have Washington DC as its capital. The US would be on the wrong side unlike in the first two WW.
Maybe... but I wasn't saying what is "good" or "bad", I was saying what was...
So let's start with 20% or even 10% if you prefer.
Sure, but those drops won't have a major impact on the outcome.
Frankly, I suspect a 20% drop will happen almost by default, just due to people buying more efficient stuff over time. The problem of course is that over the next 35 years, how much will the US population grow? 10%? That wipes out half of the 20% drop.
Just don't ever blame the Chinese until they reach that point too.
This is not democracy, and it isn't "playground fairness". We can blame the Chinese all we want, and they can ignore us. :)
And they are either wrong or selfish.
That is an opinion, a point of view...
Consider for a minute that if push came to shove, many Americans would say, "ok, if the world can't support everyone, perhaps it is time for some of them to go".
Rather than cut our own way of life, if we removed 2/3 of the people in the world, that helps solve the problem too.
Note: I'm not endorsing such a plan, nor saying it is a good one. I'm simply saying there is more than one way to solve a problem.
I hope you'll help me so that they change their minds.
My mind was only changed in the past year, and I'm at least somewhat smarter than the average person, or at least better off. The climate scientists did a REALLY crappy job of shouting about the problem 30 years ago. I think we're WAY past the point where it can be stopped.
Let me toss a point your way. Have you considered that it might cost less to adapt to the changing world than to try and prevent it from happening?
Yes, I know, some people will say, "why not do both". Well, sometimes you can't, if you split your efforts, sometimes both sides fail.
Look, I used the word "allowed" while it may not be the best choice. Think of it as "deserve" if you prefer. The US should by itself limit its own emissions.
Fair enough...
You may not be aware how offensive the first way you put it is to many Americans. You might as well be insulting our mothers. :)
There is a mind set, right or wrong, that we're on top of the pile and no one can tell us what to do. Of course no one stays there forever, but most people don't have a long view.
It isn't anyone else's duty to suffer from your pollution either, but they do.
Well then, they should have developed an industrial revolution and built up cities and industry then, shouldn't they? :)
"I'm willing to put in place a cap and trade system that could mean it will be more expensive to drive my truck if it can help reduce the emissions of my polluting country".
Are you actually serious? You expect the average American to say that?
Half of America is living pay-check to pay-check, asking them to pay anything more for energy would just push them into the poor house.
Cap-and-trade is a stupid idea anyway. It says that you can pollute so long as you pay someone else. Except the stuff still gets emitted, solving nothing.
If you actually set the cap to a number that would be useful, there would be nothing to trade since we wouldn't have an economy.
---
Finally, cap-and-trade is just wealth transfer again...
A carbon tax at least leaves the money right here, and that might get done at some point. But sending the money overseas? America will tell you to shove that idea where the sun doesn't shine.
1) from Futuremark, the 5960X was only slightly faster than the 6700K, which is why I chose the much cheaper and lower powered 6700K. The 3Dmark11 benchmarks are 11610 (38%) and 10790 (28%) higher, more or less. These are CPU dominated benchmarks.
Those are shitty benchmarks...
I have a i7-920 in the office, I also have a i7-6700k in the office. Both machines have a SSD in them. The i7-6700k kicks the 920s ass.
Seriously, it isn't even close.
I'm not speaking in theory, I'm speaking from practical experience. I test various hardware setups and configurations, I have more than a dozen machines on my test bench. The performance gains are there.
Well it would be simpler if the Americans forced themselves by electing a government that will do it
You're talking about a country that has laws that allow this:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016...
Under Idaho's 1972 "Child Protective Act," parents are immune from prosecution for any charges - including involuntary manslaughter and negligent homicide - if they depend exclusively on faith healing.
Good luck with that...
the rest of the world could theoretically unite and tax the US for polluting too much
Theory is nice, but in reality that isn't going to happen. If by chance it did, you'd just start WWIII. It isn't a realistic solution.
If the planet, on average, want to cut 20%, that could mean that US have to cut 50% while some African countries get to emit more. What's wrong with that?
There is almost zero chance the US will cut CO2 by 50% within our lifetimes. Maybe within our children's lifetime. I think we'll be lucky to get a 20% cut in the next 35 years. But I'd be happy to be surprised.
Cutting by that much would simply require changes and sacrifices that Americans don't want to make and see no reason to make. Remember that most Americans do not have a passport and have never left the country. A whole lot of Americans see foreigners as people who take their jobs.
Any cut is better than no cut.
Probably so... the question becomes... How much can we cut, how quickly, without causing undue stress to the economy and people's lives?
What I'd like to see is a conversation about how to get to where we want to go in a responsible fashion. I don't hear much of it over the screaming by both sides (neither of whom are very reasonable about it all)
The US could cut from 20 to 5
In what timeframe? 100 years? 50 years?
A cut from 20 to 15 is a more reasonable first step and might be accomplished over the next 35 years, with 2050 as a target. We could then aim for a cut to 10 by 2075 and perhaps then to 5 by 2100.
China cut from 7 to 5
I suspect China will do that much on their own, regardless of anything else. It only makes sense for them.
I just don't think the US should be allowed to emit more per capita.
The problem with that sort of wording is that it just shuts down all conversation and puts people on the defensive.
"allowed"... the average American would say, "by whom?" Or, "you and what Army?"
It isn't anyone else's right to tell us how much we can, or cannot emit. You'll never get anywhere using a stick against America, since we have the biggest one.
Pretend you're a hostage negotiator and you have someone who has a gun to someone's head. Telling them, "sorry, you're not allowed to shoot them, put the gun down or else..." isn't going to save the hostage... You have to use much nicer words and play to the guy's ego...
As an example, I'm running a 6 year old 980X. It's 130W TDP, and 3dMark11 at 8440, provided it's not OC'd (it is). Looking very very carefully through Intel's latest offerings, the 6700K comes in about 25% more performance (stock) at 95W TDP
I don't agree the i7-6700K is only 25% faster than the 980X. Maybe in that one example, but in most cases the Intel chip should be almost twice as fast.
Depends on what you're doing of course.
You're also comparing two chips that don't compare well. Your 980X was $1K back in the day, compare it to i7-5960x which is $1K today. About the same TDP but double the performance.
If you want to use the i7-6700k, compare it to the chip back then that was a similar price, the i7-920. It will be double the performance.
Since people won't act on their own lets hit their pocketbook. Add massive taxes on energy. See how much motivation people have to buy a more appropriate car, appliance, house...
All that would do is crush the economy, put millions out of work, destroy home values, and cause endless other problems.
People replace cars, on average, every 11 years. Some every 3 years, others drive them 20+ years.
But houses get replaced far less often. My home was built in 2001, it is 3,800 sqft. It likely will be standing in the year 2100. You can't say "buy a more appropriate house" when someone else just has to buy mine.
Unless you plan to tear them all down, but that isn't realistic.
The truth is, the changes had to happen 30 years ago... Today, it is far too late to stop, you won't cut CO2 in the time we have left to do it in to stop global temps from running way past levels that the experts say is safe.
We simply will have to adapt to the world that comes.
It's the ignorant attitude towards the issue that's the most bothersome, the "I don't give a fuck" attitude.
I don't think it is that bad... I think many people care, it just isn't in their top ten list of cares...
My wife is more worried about what is for dinner this week, getting the kids to their activities, making sure the house is kept nice, spending time with her friends, planning for retirement.
The "environment" is nice, but it ranks below all that.
How many people do you know purchased a truck or high consumption vehicle because the gas prices were going in the shitter? I know at least 2. That's a small drop in the bucket but it starts with simple change which I don't believe will happen without government involvement. Sad isn't it?
I drive one of those trucks, but I also drove it back when gas was $4/gal. I've owned a Yukon XL for a long time now (our current one is our third). I find the vehicle useful, so the gas price doesn't bother me. Gas could be $8/gal and it wouldn't change the vehicle I drive.
The problem is that a better version of that vehicle isn't offered. Where is the EV Suburban? How about the EV Minivan? The EV SUV? (and the Escape doesn't count). I suppose Toyota makes the Highlander Hybrid, but at $50K, it is out of the price range of most people.
Yes but it comes back to the fundamental issue. Most won't change the simplest thing in their life to allow things to get better. Instead they'd rather wait for the government to force their hand.
Maybe... maybe not...
Last year I replaced all the bulbs in my house with LED... I had some CFLs (I replaced those too), but still had many incandescent...
All are gone now, 100% LED, even the closets...
It is a nice gesture, but it won't change the outcome because I still have a huge house and 8 tons of air conditioning running and drive a 3 ton truck...
I don't put solar up because it doesn't make economic sense, but I will when it does...
There's no "probable" about it.
Sure there is...
The FBI searched Alex Levin's home address in Norwood, Mass. and found child pornography on it.
That doesn't make him a pedophile... It makes him kinda weird and maybe a bit sick, looking at pictures of kids... but if he doesn't know the kids and didn't touch them, then he isn't a pedophile...
On the one hand, I have little concern for those who traffic in anything that genuinely hurts children.
Neither do I...
On the other hand, the FBI abuses their position regularly, lying to the courts and ignoring the courts' orders when lying doesn't work, so seeing them told, "Sorry. Try again," when another questionable procedure is reviewed is welcome news.
Yep, without the rule of law, why even bother with the courts and trials, why not just go around and shoot the 1,000 Americans in the head they identified and move on?
Because if you don't respect the rules, then you might as well just go all in.
You'll get more power savings going to SSDs from spinning disks than moving to these new CPUs.
Depends on how many disks you're talking about...
The new Intel chips use half the power from 6 years ago for the same performance...
50 watts per chip, 24/7, does add up. Double that if you have to cool them, it isn't a massive amount of money, but it isn't nothing either.
I fail to see the middle in this particular example.
That is because you don't want to... but it is there...
"I am from Iowa, I don't care about the rest of the world, why would I change anything?" is pretty much the definition of selfishness.
That isn't what is being said, that is what you choose to hear...
In reality, the person from Iowa isn't saying anything at all because this isn't on their radar screen. It might be number 127 on their "care about list".
If you actually asked them, a more accurate response might be:
"I am from Iowa, I do care about the rest of the world, but not enough to destroy my own life over it. I'm not going to stop driving a pickup truck or turn off the air condition because an island in the Pacific might flood. Perhaps the people who live there can move?"
No, what I am saying is that heavy polluters (such as the Americans) should be forced to reduce their emissions
Ahh yes, your "one world government"...
Who exactly is going to force Americans to do this? You and what Army?
You might think that response is flip, but I challenge you to walk among average Americans, as a foreigner, and tell them that you think Americans should be "forced" by someone else to do anything.
You'll quickly get reminded that we have the most powerful military in the world, and if you'd like a demonstration, you're welcome to try.
while the low polluters (such as the Africans) should be forced not to raise theirs too much.
Raise? You really haven't done the math, have you? They can't raise, they need to cut. Everyone needs to cut. The whole planet, on average, needs to cut 80% of the CO2 output by 2050, or we're in a pile of trouble.
The irony is that I fully get that, I just don't think it is going to happen. To cut world-wide by 80% would require the US to cut by 90%, we'd go to war to prevent it.
Of course, I am not against trade, so the African should have a right to lease his emission rights to the highest bidder.
Right, again we find the real interest... wealth transfer... What you REALLY want is money, which is why COP21 didn't really accomplish anything, because the poor nations won't shut up about money.
But you do expect governments to take a long range view.
I do? Not really, not the US Government...
Why? Because we hold national elections every 2 years and everyone is up for relection at least once every 6 years.
In the House, everyone is up for election every 2 years, so frankly if it isn't happening in the next 2 years, it isn't much on their RADAR screen...
Because I expect them not to be assholes.
Prepare to be horribly disappointed...
I expect people with a basic education to have learned a little empathy, to have read some books in which they walked in another person's shoes and saw through another person's eyes, and learned to understand that other people are real, and that everyone is better off when we have a little consideration for one another -- even for people we'll never meet.
See my first point... your expectations are not reality. We could debate all day long if they SHOULD be, but that is another conversation... they aren't, today...
I also expect an Iowa country boy (or girl) to understand that their children or grandchildren may very well meet those people from the other side of the world, and that the meeting will go better if the Iowans haven't spend the last three generations screwing up the lives of the people they're meeting.
Actually no, the Iowa child is highly UNLIKELY to grow up and meet the person from the other side of the planet... unless we're are war with them...
Or is basic human decency and a measure of foresight somehow absent in Iowans?
I suspect you measure "basic human decency" differently than some people. They will be friendly and nice to you, but they are mostly concerned with their own lives, paying their own rent/mortgage, feeding their kids, keeping their jobs, etc.
While they care in the abstract about "people everywhere", on a day-to-day basis it is not realistic to expect them to become MORE poor to maybe kinda sorta help someone, somewhere else. And that is what you're asking them to do, in the here and now.
It might well benefit their children in the long run, but it hurts them in the short run and most people don't do what hurts in the short run.
---
If you want to talk about making a difference, then if all Americans were so "empathy" towards the world, we should all turn off our air conditioners right now. That "comfort" is hurting everyone else, right?
Honestly, what do you think the odds of that happening are? Zero? Less than Zero? Not a snowballs chance in hell?
Well, given that their population is 4x the US, it seems more than fair that they only emit twice as much CO2.
And yet you want the US to cut further, without having China cut?
I think you missed the forest for the trees...
The whole planet has to cut 80%, and that sadly isn't going to happen in our lifetimes...
And really, it's already screwing the country boy over, but just in more subtle ways, like rising food costs and the increasing price of his property insurance.
Perhaps, but he might be more concerned about next month's rent or mortgage payment than what might happen in 20 years.
You cannot expect someone to have a long range view when they are simply trying to live day-to-day.
Askng, as one poster does, why someone in Iowa should pay to fight climate change to help someone they've never met, or will never meet, on the other side of the world is both amazingly ignorant and stupid.
Where do some of your food, or a lot of your clothes, car parts, computers and computer parts come from? So yes, it *directly* affects you.
The Iowa person will just shrug their shoulders and say, "good, that means jobs will come back to the US again."
You calling them ignorant isn't going to win them to your side, it will just cause them to dig their heals in further.
You should also consider that there is more than one way to skin a cat. What if that Iowa person say, "you know, if we have too many people on the planet, perhaps we should get rid of half of them, that'll solve the problem. lets start with the half on the other side of the planet".
You'd call that horrible, he/she may simply not care that much. He/she also lives in a state and a country that has politicians who want to be reelected, and also has half the world's nuclear weapons. Remind me again how much you want to "solve" this problem? I imagine removing 2/3 of the world's population would go a long way towards that.
Be careful what you wish for...