Make good friends with a Chinese programmer/english speaker/business person or two. Between the two/three of you, you find contracts in the west, they recruit and manage the programmers, and translate your specs. Meanwhile you can learn some Chinese from them. Later, you can apply to sponsor their work visas to come work onsite in Canada for your customers, I guess, providing you incorporate in Canada before you go.
Please see poster above you. I especially like this one:
A content protection organization for motion picture, record and sports programming companies requested the removal of search results that link to copyright removal requests submitted by one of their clients and other URLs that did not host infringing content.
Never mind found it in the FAQ: they removed 97% of search results specified in requests received between July and December 2011. The cases they talk about declining to remove are a laugh.
It's interesting how many of these requests are received, but I couldn't easily find out how many of them were declined. Does anyone have a link to this information? It seems a bit surprising if there are not a single false positive in all those millions of requests. Is it the case that once someone asks for something to be taken down, Google cannot decline, even if the request is wrong?
The answer to this question depends how much non-renewable energy is used to build the renewable alternatives. You could imagine super efficient solar collectors, built out of materials that take so much energy to mine out of the ground and process that they would never recover their own energy production cost. This might still be economical to do, because energy costs always increase, so anything that can recover its own energy cost will be economical in the long run, because if it is still gathering energy in 5 years time, it will be saving more expensive ($) energy than was used to build it, even though it is equally environmentally desctructive. That was why I asked about this in the first place - they are quoting 100% renewable, and I think we need to ask what they really mean, because from the other discussions here it is starting to sound more like about 67% renewable, given the energy cost of the solar panels in the first place. I think the real answer is to capture the heat which is wasted by computers, and use it to power them, rather than using even more energy to run aircon, but that's my opinion and I am not a datacentre engineer.
That's good to hear, but unless it generates more energy than the plant needs, to the point where it exceeds the plant's requirements by enough to recover the energy used to make it, then it undermines the claim that the plant uses 100% renewable energy.
It's about time OS stopped wasting time, cpu and ram with rubbish like pretending to be something it isn't, and focused instead on using resources wisely to be a better computer. They can't ditch skeumorphism fast enough for me. Are you listening Apple? I'm talking to you.
The British Broadcasting Corporation does not have adverts on domestic television. It's much better. Just pay your TV licence to the government instead of paying your cable subscription to the media organisation, and magically, your TV programs have no ads. Really, try it, you'll like it a lot.
"The Government has promised to work with the private sector to improve the security and resilience of infrastructure that is most critical to the running of the country. " Now we see what all the fuss is really about (my emphasis). Someone has a mate in an EMP defense company who needs a few quid to keep the jolly roof on the mansion.
People should be scared because if they catch it their brains will decompose. Noone wants that. The risks of BSE are higher than the risks of passive smoking, and look how many laws we need to manage that huge threat.
Maybe black on white just gives you such a huge afetrimage you don't regularly notice it? Old-school research showed white on dark blue was easiest on most people's eyes.
The only evidence I have seen either way is the evidence in the original article - the displays they tested showed better energy efficiency with black websites than white. Until other evidence comes to light it seems a reasonable hypothesis.
Slashdot Mirror
Make good friends with a Chinese programmer/english speaker/business person or two. Between the two/three of you, you find contracts in the west, they recruit and manage the programmers, and translate your specs. Meanwhile you can learn some Chinese from them. Later, you can apply to sponsor their work visas to come work onsite in Canada for your customers, I guess, providing you incorporate in Canada before you go.
Please see poster above you. I especially like this one: A content protection organization for motion picture, record and sports programming companies requested the removal of search results that link to copyright removal requests submitted by one of their clients and other URLs that did not host infringing content.
Never mind found it in the FAQ: they removed 97% of search results specified in requests received between July and December 2011. The cases they talk about declining to remove are a laugh.
It's interesting how many of these requests are received, but I couldn't easily find out how many of them were declined. Does anyone have a link to this information? It seems a bit surprising if there are not a single false positive in all those millions of requests. Is it the case that once someone asks for something to be taken down, Google cannot decline, even if the request is wrong?
The answer to this question depends how much non-renewable energy is used to build the renewable alternatives. You could imagine super efficient solar collectors, built out of materials that take so much energy to mine out of the ground and process that they would never recover their own energy production cost. This might still be economical to do, because energy costs always increase, so anything that can recover its own energy cost will be economical in the long run, because if it is still gathering energy in 5 years time, it will be saving more expensive ($) energy than was used to build it, even though it is equally environmentally desctructive. That was why I asked about this in the first place - they are quoting 100% renewable, and I think we need to ask what they really mean, because from the other discussions here it is starting to sound more like about 67% renewable, given the energy cost of the solar panels in the first place. I think the real answer is to capture the heat which is wasted by computers, and use it to power them, rather than using even more energy to run aircon, but that's my opinion and I am not a datacentre engineer.
We heard you like computers so we put a computer in your computer
are easily parted.
How do you make the calendar in OSX not look like a leather desk calendar with tear-off paper pages?
That's good to hear, but unless it generates more energy than the plant needs, to the point where it exceeds the plant's requirements by enough to recover the energy used to make it, then it undermines the claim that the plant uses 100% renewable energy.
'Fiscal sense' got us in the shit in the first place.
is the solar array built using renewable energy?
It's about time OS stopped wasting time, cpu and ram with rubbish like pretending to be something it isn't, and focused instead on using resources wisely to be a better computer. They can't ditch skeumorphism fast enough for me. Are you listening Apple? I'm talking to you.
Who would have thought the FBI will help by mandating a backdoor that will free all information for everyone once it's hacked?
My geography teacher warned us about it in 1978.
I agree. We are pretty much sure that communism is the economic powerhouse these days where things get built and economic growth happens.
Does anyone buy these any more?
The British Broadcasting Corporation does not have adverts on domestic television. It's much better. Just pay your TV licence to the government instead of paying your cable subscription to the media organisation, and magically, your TV programs have no ads. Really, try it, you'll like it a lot.
Call me a communist, but these, along with respect for the dignity of employees, seem the best motivators.
mmmmmmm buffetboat
"The Government has promised to work with the private sector to improve the security and resilience of infrastructure that is most critical to the running of the country. " Now we see what all the fuss is really about (my emphasis). Someone has a mate in an EMP defense company who needs a few quid to keep the jolly roof on the mansion.
People should be scared because if they catch it their brains will decompose. Noone wants that. The risks of BSE are higher than the risks of passive smoking, and look how many laws we need to manage that huge threat.
1W x a billion computers is quite significant though, given that our energy use is destroying the habitability of the planet.
This is the reason why 'i' is the default name for a loop variable. i is the most energy efficient variable name in a white on black world.
Maybe black on white just gives you such a huge afetrimage you don't regularly notice it? Old-school research showed white on dark blue was easiest on most people's eyes.
The only evidence I have seen either way is the evidence in the original article - the displays they tested showed better energy efficiency with black websites than white. Until other evidence comes to light it seems a reasonable hypothesis.