^ Note, that's just the current energy cost; if we were doing an apples-to-apples comparison, we would also need to factor in the manufacture, transport, etc of the computers used to run said network, as well as the carbon footprint of the energy sources utilized.
Except far more people would be upset if you took away their meat sandwiches, than would be upset if you turned off cryptocurrencies.
Which has what to do with honestly assessing the modern economy's impact on the environment?
That's an important thing to realise. I suspect that in total, meat sandwiches are also contributing more CO2 than cryptocurrencies.
"suspecting" isn't really intellectually honest, though, is it? It's just speculation based on personal belief. Bitcoin alone generated approximately 8.25 MEGATONS of CO2 in 2013, and the networks' energy use has grown exponentially since then - it's estimated that, by July of next year, the bitcoin network will use more electricity per day than the entire population of the United States... to keep 1 cryptocurrency out of thousands alive.
Referring to a Mac as if it is somehow different from a "PC" was nothing but marketing (obviously successful marketing, but marketing nonetheless). The term PC most definitely stands for "Personal Computer," as it has for the past 40 years, and it has nothing to do with Windows nor Intel - otherwise,what would you call a personal computer running non-Windows operating systems, like Linux or BSD (or OSx86), or with an AMD processor?
I personally don't know anyone over the age of 12 who has utterly eschewed traditional computers for tablets and smartphones... YMMV I guess.
Humans, now and again, are considered computers; in fact a certain National Aeronautics and Space Administration is well known for its employment of human computers.
If you wanted to honestly assess how modern economics harm the planet, you'd get a lot farther researching the power usage required to keep cryptocurrency running than bitching about people's lunches.
Trying to make people feel guilty for eating isn't so much honest as childish.
The irony, of course, is that the people worried about the carbon footprint of your lunch are probably the same people whinging endlessly about how methane from cows are destroying the environment.
"Notice the air bags didn't fire. That means it was at a survivable speed.
Maybe; but it may also mean that the airbags failed to deploy (which they should have if the rate was more than 15 MPH), which could indicate an even greater programming error than originally assessed.
Just because you fail to grasp the point, doesn't mean it fails.
Of course, I think you understand the point just fine, but you disagree and are conflating your personal disagreement with some sort of empirical data that does not exist, or at least has not been referenced.
They're not hampered by western "morality" (which is really religion). Risking the lives of a few tens for a cure that saves millions sounds perfectly rational to me.
OK, thought experiment time:
You're one of the "tens," which turns out to be tens-of-thousands, and you weren't given a choice in the matter. Still find it rational when you are being experimented upon, against your will?
China's allowing scientific experimentation on it's own people
FTFY. While I don't necessarily agree with the US government's position in this regard, let's not fool ourselves into thinking that the Chinese government has any altruistic intent when it comes to allowing their populace to be used as guinea pigs - their human-rights track record speaks for itself in this regard.
Just signed 702 Bill to authorize foreign intelligence collection," Trump tweeted. "This is NOT the same FISA law that was so wrongly abused during the election.
Are people really dumb enough to believe this?
Well, considering that those same people are dumb enough to not only believe that R and D are their only choices when it comes to politics, but that they are the best possible choices at all times... I'd give it a resoundingly emphatic Jawohl
unless the car is actually in the intersection itself?
I believe that's exactly it. It's not unusual for traffic to be backed up and blocking an intersection. Ideally you don't pull forward unless it's clear, but then a bunch of people turning right on red are going to take your spot.
Isn't it illegal to make a right on red in CA? I presume so, because nearly every CA transplant that moves to MO refuses to turn on a red light, despite the fact it's perfectly legal here.
What's not legal here is entering an intersection that you are not going to immediately and safely exit. Is that different in CA as well?
Why is it that Washington (state) and California have some of the highest taxes in the country
There's no state income tax in WA.
Well OP said "taxes," not "income taxes," so...
What was your point again?
Their point, obviously, is that individual tax burdens would be much lower if multi-billion dollar corporations were actually made to pay their fair share, rather than getting ridiculous breaks. I would throw on the addendum of pointing out corporations like GE get so many tax breaks, we end up owing themBILLIONS in rebates annually.
Of course that would likely fall on deaf ears, as either A) you're being intentionally obtuse, or B) you're too dense to actually grasp the concepts being discussed.
If humans are no better than a machine then how can a machine programmed by humans do any better
This is a stupid, Luddite sentiment.
Only if you're the sort who immediately gets butt hurt and defensive when you see something you assume offends you.
A person who isn't that sort might look at the question with a greater philosophical viewpoint, e.g. "if the man who wrote the program is flawed, wouldn't it follow suit that the program may be flawed as well, in the same fashion?"
Gedankenexperiments tend to be wasted on plebs and the easily offended.
I've worked in the IT field for 15 years - in academia, for financial institutions, for Fortune 500 companies, and at small, locally owned businesses.
You would balk if you saw how many of the "top companies in America" don't give 2 shits about security, outside of whatever the latest CNN scare story is. I personally find it amazing how some of these corporations will spend tens of thousands of dollars on fancy security equipment.... that they never bother to actually configure.
You can show your C-levels the lock and hand them the key, but you can't make them set the latch.
Slashdot Mirror
What does Microsoft have a monopoly on?
^ Note, that's just the current energy cost; if we were doing an apples-to-apples comparison, we would also need to factor in the manufacture, transport, etc of the computers used to run said network, as well as the carbon footprint of the energy sources utilized.
Except far more people would be upset if you took away their meat sandwiches, than would be upset if you turned off cryptocurrencies.
Which has what to do with honestly assessing the modern economy's impact on the environment?
That's an important thing to realise. I suspect that in total, meat sandwiches are also contributing more CO2 than cryptocurrencies.
"suspecting" isn't really intellectually honest, though, is it? It's just speculation based on personal belief. Bitcoin alone generated approximately 8.25 MEGATONS of CO2 in 2013, and the networks' energy use has grown exponentially since then - it's estimated that, by July of next year, the bitcoin network will use more electricity per day than the entire population of the United States... to keep 1 cryptocurrency out of thousands alive.
That would be a lot of damned sandwiches.
Referring to a Mac as if it is somehow different from a "PC" was nothing but marketing (obviously successful marketing, but marketing nonetheless). The term PC most definitely stands for "Personal Computer," as it has for the past 40 years, and it has nothing to do with Windows nor Intel - otherwise,what would you call a personal computer running non-Windows operating systems, like Linux or BSD (or OSx86), or with an AMD processor?
I personally don't know anyone over the age of 12 who has utterly eschewed traditional computers for tablets and smartphones... YMMV I guess.
a "computer" is anything that does computations.
Humans, now and again, are considered computers; in fact a certain National Aeronautics and Space Administration is well known for its employment of human computers.
Pretty sure they made a movie about 'em.
I expect the same will happen with tablets: the majority of users eventually will use a tablet as their primary computing device.
LOL, so did Steve Jobs, about 10 years ago... He was wrong.
In fact, it seems not a year goes by without someone claiming that "this is the year PCs will die and be replaced by tablets."
http://time.com/3643693/tech-p...
https://www.theguardian.com/te...
http://www.datacenterjournal.c...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/m...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sci...
I personally find the debate comical... what does "PC" stand for? Personal Computer; what is a tablet, if not a computer that is personal?
Some folk would argue over anything.
Big Monsanto/Walmart/Verizon fan here, I see...
If you wanted to honestly assess how modern economics harm the planet, you'd get a lot farther researching the power usage required to keep cryptocurrency running than bitching about people's lunches.
Trying to make people feel guilty for eating isn't so much honest as childish.
The irony, of course, is that the people worried about the carbon footprint of your lunch are probably the same people whinging endlessly about how methane from cows are destroying the environment.
Some folks will never be satisfied, it seems.
From the We-Have-Entirely-Too-Much-Free-Time Department
"Notice the air bags didn't fire. That means it was at a survivable speed.
Maybe; but it may also mean that the airbags failed to deploy (which they should have if the rate was more than 15 MPH), which could indicate an even greater programming error than originally assessed.
Also, less backdoors.
It's not a competition.
Just because you fail to grasp the point, doesn't mean it fails.
Of course, I think you understand the point just fine, but you disagree and are conflating your personal disagreement with some sort of empirical data that does not exist, or at least has not been referenced.
They're not hampered by western "morality" (which is really religion). Risking the lives of a few tens for a cure that saves millions sounds perfectly rational to me.
OK, thought experiment time:
You're one of the "tens," which turns out to be tens-of-thousands, and you weren't given a choice in the matter. Still find it rational when you are being experimented upon, against your will?
America doesn't win anymore
China's allowing scientific experimentation on it's own people
FTFY. While I don't necessarily agree with the US government's position in this regard, let's not fool ourselves into thinking that the Chinese government has any altruistic intent when it comes to allowing their populace to be used as guinea pigs - their human-rights track record speaks for itself in this regard.
However, Hong Kong (and some of the similar economic zones within China) has what is regarded as the world's freest market. (PDF Warning)
Only if you discount Somalia, which I presume the "free market" evangelists do.
What was Clarke's law? Something something 'sufficiently advanced technology...'
Now, I'm not saying Jesus was an alien... but...
Just signed 702 Bill to authorize foreign intelligence collection," Trump tweeted. "This is NOT the same FISA law that was so wrongly abused during the election.
Are people really dumb enough to believe this?
Well, considering that those same people are dumb enough to not only believe that R and D are their only choices when it comes to politics, but that they are the best possible choices at all times... I'd give it a resoundingly emphatic Jawohl
unless the car is actually in the intersection itself?
I believe that's exactly it. It's not unusual for traffic to be backed up and blocking an intersection. Ideally you don't pull forward unless it's clear, but then a bunch of people turning right on red are going to take your spot.
Isn't it illegal to make a right on red in CA? I presume so, because nearly every CA transplant that moves to MO refuses to turn on a red light, despite the fact it's perfectly legal here.
What's not legal here is entering an intersection that you are not going to immediately and safely exit. Is that different in CA as well?
Why is it that Washington (state) and California have some of the highest taxes in the country
There's no state income tax in WA.
Well OP said "taxes," not "income taxes," so...
What was your point again?
Their point, obviously, is that individual tax burdens would be much lower if multi-billion dollar corporations were actually made to pay their fair share, rather than getting ridiculous breaks. I would throw on the addendum of pointing out corporations like GE get so many tax breaks, we end up owing them BILLIONS in rebates annually.
Of course that would likely fall on deaf ears, as either A) you're being intentionally obtuse, or B) you're too dense to actually grasp the concepts being discussed.
Basicly: COMPASS is biased against people in poverty.
Well then, it sounds like it's functioning as designed, just like the legal system in its current state.
If humans are no better than a machine then how can a machine programmed by humans do any better
This is a stupid, Luddite sentiment.
Only if you're the sort who immediately gets butt hurt and defensive when you see something you assume offends you.
A person who isn't that sort might look at the question with a greater philosophical viewpoint, e.g. "if the man who wrote the program is flawed, wouldn't it follow suit that the program may be flawed as well, in the same fashion?"
Gedankenexperiments tend to be wasted on plebs and the easily offended.
It doesn't count as "actual research" unless they post the actual research.
"I agree with this" != "this is factually correct"
I've worked in the IT field for 15 years - in academia, for financial institutions, for Fortune 500 companies, and at small, locally owned businesses.
You would balk if you saw how many of the "top companies in America" don't give 2 shits about security, outside of whatever the latest CNN scare story is. I personally find it amazing how some of these corporations will spend tens of thousands of dollars on fancy security equipment.... that they never bother to actually configure.
You can show your C-levels the lock and hand them the key, but you can't make them set the latch.