Of course, everyone needs a break, which is why they are required by law, and I'm not trying to be like Ebenezer Scrooge here, I take little breaks throughout the day, too, because it's important to give the mind a rest from time to time, it cuts down on those pesky office shootings you hear about on the news. I just can't accept the "lost productivity" angle, because I've worked in an office, as have a lot of us here on/., and I know that there is plenty of other opportunities to make up that productivity lost waiting a few minutes for your workstation to boot in the morning.
Let's be real here: Everyone goofs off a little from time to time, and I don't even mind, but if there's a way we can save energy, energy which is predominately generated through polluting means here in the US, maybe it's not such a big deal to wait for your PC to POST in the morning. It's a pain, but it's doing something good for the environment, so is it really that big a deal?
And like I said way way above, if this is not reasonable so be it, there are a lot of situations where it isn't. Let's choose the more environmentally friendly option more often, instead of the most convenient one, for a change. Every little bit helps.
The fact that the chip can go faster is immaterial.
Of course, as is Intel's opinion of me overclocking a chick I gave them money for already. If they didn't want me running a 2 GHz chip at 3 GHz, they probably shouldn't have sold me a 2 GHz chip capable of running at that speed. They made that choice, not me, because that choice saves them money and allows them to pass that savings along to...wait a minute, they're not passing that savings along to anyone, because the price of the product is artificial and not tied to anything tangible whatsoever. That's okay, though, you can use your chips at whatever speed you want.
What you're describing isn't the same thing at all. We're not going out and getting something for nothing. We're taking a product that we bought for an agreed upon price and bringing it home and doing what we want with it.
There's a line between software piracy extracting functionality that is locked off. I mean, you can see the line, right? Like said above, if Intel didn't want us overclocking our 2 GHz chips to run at 3GHz, they probably shouldn't have sold us chips capable of running at 3GHz for the price of a 2GHz one.
This is why I don't feel bad at all about rooting, or jailbreaking, or any of the other things people do to extract functionality out of a given product...but I do feel bad pirating software. I gave the company my money, it's my fucking device...and don't sit here and cry because consumers are starting to be able to game the system the same way the system has gamed them for decades. Everyone that knows about computers has known about these games with CPU speeds for decades, and how much potential there was in a given chip to be pushed beyond it's specs (in some, an insane amount, like my old Athalon XP). The difference NOW is that Intel has found a way to monetize that, and their going to enforce it in what I'm sure is going to end up another stupid IP issue in the goddamn courts about how we don't really own the processor so aren't allowed to do it. Fuck that.
Here's a crazy concept that I'm sure will blow everyone's minds: How about they charge top dollar for the best processor, then, next year when the new best processor comes out, the reduce the price of last year's model? Holy crap, imagine that!
I suppose that wouldn't work, though. For one thing, it would reduce the number of times they arbitrarily change the socket type on your motherboard. Can't have that, especially when you produce chipsets for those motherboards...
You can't escape this though, otherwise they wouldn't do it.
Sure you can; you hack the functionality back into it. In the past this was as easy as increasing a multiplier on a motherboard, but no matter how convoluted they try to make the process to keep people from squeezing power out of their devices, people will find a way around it. Jailbreaking, rooting...all these things are happening because people are getting sick and tired of having arbitrary restrictions imposed upon them that have no realistic basis other than "so we can charge you more for the one that has more capability but not have to actually spend more money creating one that is really superior."
If it costs more to produce, fine. But if it's just more artificial scarcity bullshit, sorry, not playing that game.
All those examples you gave require the user to opt in. For instance, I have older uncles in my family that absolutely refuse to have a credit card. Flat out refuse. They've literally never had one in their entire life. Everything they own they've paid for cash, even their homes (this is, of course, back when someone could more reasonably do such a thing, but it is still possible. Ditto with cell-phones, bank accounts...it is increasingly difficult to imagine life without these things, but people do it.
However, people not wanting to be tracked via networks of security cameras and cell phone cameras have what recourse? Stay in their home and never come out? That's ridiculous. At some point we need to draw a line and leave people their anonymity. The way it seems now, all the people that refuse to live in this "we know what you're doing 24/7" society are going to have no recourse but go live in the woods like Ted Kacynski (sp?). I think the line can be drawn a little more close to home than that. One shouldn't have to live at a 3rd world level to have some privacy in their lives in a 1st world country.
This is silly. Most of the cost will be in the design and testing efforts, which are probably higher for the $400 version than for the $200 version, even though the end result is the same piece of silicon.
Why would production costs be more? It's the same thing, they're just "turning it down" as it were.
It is physically the exact same processor. There is no extra research being done into how to cheapen it's production, because if there was, the production would be cheaper for the most expensive model, too. The $200 is the actual cost, and the higher prices are inflated because they can. There is absolutely no justification for it outside of "we want more money", and that's fine, but at the same time, I want more processor than I paid for. Guess we're at an impasse then; they lock a good processor down to make me spend more money on the same thing, I hack the functionality back in because there's no real reason it isn't there to begin with. I don't lose very much sleep for doing this; we've already been paying far too much under ridiculous artificial scarcity models as it is.
Well, I'm certainly sorry your family went through that, but as someone that's been watching more and more abuse of power going on in this country, especially as concerns our rights to privacy, this sounds like an awful idea.
I mean, they've already started conditioning people to accept that their 4th amendment rights don't really exist because "ZOMG THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!! AND TERRORISM!!!!!!!!" but that doesn't mean that they're right in doing so. For instance, I don't care if they catch illegals in roving checkpoints down in the southwest if it costs 99% of the people that go through them their 4th amendment rights to anonymity without reasonable cause. Is driving down the highway reasonable cause? Is being outside your home reasonable cause to be recorded and scanned and tracked? I don't believe so, no.
I'd like it if a product's cost was tied to the cost of production plus a reasonable profit margin, you know, something tangible.
By admitting that it costs them exactly the same to make the $200 processor as it does the $400 one (as it must, since they're serving up the exact same product in both cases), they're eliminating any justification for that price at all.
You go ahead and pay whatever arbitrary price they see fit for a product if you want. Me, if I'm buying something, that is now mine, and I'll do with it as I see fit. If that includes hacking the clock speed or the multiplier to unlock capabilities the manufacturer didn't see fit to allow me to use out of the box, c'est la vie. It's my processor now, not theirs, and I can (and will) do what I want with it. They can fight this, or they can stop under-clocking processors and sell people a CPU that's price has some basis in reality and not some arbitrary figure.
I honestly don't even give a damn about the money, I am interested just because fuck Intel, fuck them in their stupid asses.
I find I am becoming more and more militant when it comes to bogus moneymaking schemes these tech companies create by eliminating preexisting functionality and charging you extra to give it back to you. Either I'm getting old, or I've been following these trends too closely. Maybe it's time to take up sports fanaticism, or whittling?
It's funny, I always hear what a waste "mass transit" is and how no one ever rides it, but every time I take the bus, it's either damn near full or standing room only. The worse the economy has gotten, the more people have started riding.
Yes, it's subsidized by those that do and do not use it alike. However, those that don't ride still benefit because that's just that many less cars on the road every day, which are going to be increasing your daily commute, which is going to increase the gas you use, which is only going to cost you more as gas gets more scarce and thus more expensive.
I don't know what your area is like, but where I'm at, if all those people utilizing alternate means of transportation started driving, it would be a nightmare. Our roads can't even handle the traffic we have now; during rush hour a 10 minute drive can take 30, and I'm talking highway driving. Your mileage may vary, of course, but honestly, I bet it doesn't vary by as much as you think it does...
If I shut down my PC every evening, I'd be sitting there for 3 minutes every morning waiting for my computer to boot before I'm officially on the clock. 3 minutes x 5 days x 52 weeks x my wage in minutes is a few hundred dollars a year.
see:
I'm not advocating that people turn their machines off and fuck themselves and their jobs up.
I believe getting screwed out of money is a qualifying condition covered by that statement.
That being said, how often do you punch out while you're taking a break, or anything else not work related for that matter? Again, it amuses me when the boot time is so critical yet other opportunities for eliminating wasted time and loss of productivity are thrown out the window because, hey, those LOLCATS aren't going to laugh at themselves.
If you are one of those few people that are actually mindful of what they're doing when they're on the clock and feels bad about wasting time you're getting paid to work, I'm obviously not directing that at you personally. But I have known a lot of people that aren't, and furthermore, see it as an adjunct to the job itself, a sort of "if they didn't want me surfing this website they would have blocked it" attitude. So when those same people are giving me a thousand reasons why they can't wait for their computer to boot in the morning because of "lost productivity" I have to laugh. That's like the teenager telling me he needs an iPad for "homework" but never seems to do a thing on it but surf the web and play games....but at least that's a kid, not a full grown adult.
Absolutely, since it's not unusual to walk in to an "emergency" (as defined by somebody who could fire me) that needs to be handled in less time than it takes to bring the computer up to a usable level.
That's a perfectly acceptable reason to leave the computer on, but really, let's be honest here, how often does that really happen? And does that happen to every person that uses every workstation in the office? And of all those people that could fire you, are they all so pressed for time that waiting for a boot is beyond their tolerance level? And if that's the case, isn't there already a policy in your office that states "do not power down your machine because those seconds waiting for boot are that critical"?
I mean, c'mon, we all know how much waste occurs in the average office environment. I'm not advocating that people turn their machines off and fuck themselves and their jobs up. I'm just saying, after examining the needs of a particular workstation and the system overall, how many people out there choose not to power down solely because they don't feel like waiting for boot? I'd bet a lot, but I admit, that's just my own personal experience. That's why I pointed out how disingenuous that is, because like I said, a lot of the people that "don't have the time to wait" seem to have plenty of time for Facebook throughout the day, or looking at funny videos or websites being punted around the office, or taking a nice healthy dump for 25 minutes after lunch.
I bet if we eliminated all that other wasted time, the time spent waiting for a boot would be inconsequential.
If they can search it, odds are they can access it, so what's preventing them just taking the damn photo and not paying you a dime?
Jesus, when did people get so fucking naive when it comes to business and government, especially businesses like tabloids and whatever government agencies would be checking your pics for whatever the hell they feel like whenever they feel like it? So many people just ready to torpedo any rights of privacy we have left...what the hell is wrong with this country?
There are shitty riders out there, just like there are shitty drivers. There are even shitty walkers, too...I've spent upwards of 20 minutes at various lights all over the downtown area because I had the bad luck of being at that intersection during change of classes and the 12,000 students in the building started streaming across the street whether there was a WALK symbol or not.
I will be the first person to cheer when they put crossing guards at every intersection that can ticket people for jaywalking and ignoring the laws concerning biking in traffic, believe me. But I'm not gonna advocate building retaining walls around every sidewalk in the city to prevent it because that's ridiculous, just like how I would never just drive through the red I've sat through 18 times because the kids changing classes couldn't care less about the light because pedestrians have the right of way no matter where they fuck they are.
My favorite is the leap from "Well, making solar panels and other clean energy technologies, as well as buses and bicycles, causes pollution, too, so we might as well just keep on truckin' because fuck it."
You know, it doesn't happen very often, but sometimes I really envy those that think that they're going to be raptured up to heaven or something one day, or that the world is going to end in 2012, so that they don't have to worry about a fucking thing in their lives beyond the immediate future. Must be nice to not care at all about the effect you have on the world around you, but I still don't understand why they have to try to prevent anyone else from at least trying. Even if I thought every person around me was going to die in a zombie apocalypse, I'm still not going to slash the tires on their getaway vehicle. Why so many others feel the need to do so is beyond me...
Well, obviously, carbon is consumed when they make your shoes, so that means there is no benefit to walking and you might as well get in your car and drive everywhere because global warming is a myth, just like peak oil, foisted upon the masses by liberals who want to make everyone miserable by, uh, making them walk everywhere or ride smelly buses because they hate freedom and/or democracy!
At least, that's what I keep hearing anytime anyone brings up any way to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.
...it is still going to save the rider in gas money (provided they're riding the thing whenever they can, obviously a bike rotting in a garage does no one any good).
I see a lot of people screaming left and right about how all these technologies like mass transit and solar power and such are "just as bad", but the end result is always the assertion that "we should just do whatever because nothing we do will ever help so screw it". Here in Madison, WI, where there are a fair number of cyclists, there are still those people that go out of their way to prevent them from riding. Every article about a bike riding event warrants thousands of comments about how much these people wish they could go drive over the riders in their Canyonero and other such crap.
Every little bit helps, does it not? And why so much hostility for green energy initiatives? Are we just going to keep on burning oil and coal for power? I mean, clearly we need to start coming up with alternatives, right?
I understand, and for situations that require the thing to be left on I have no problem with it, but a LOT of people don't leave their computers on for any reason other than "sigh...waiting for my computer to beep and boop is a pain in the ass"
Nobody likes to sit and wait for a few minutes while their computer boots (well, for anything, really, who likes waiting?) but is a few minutes waiting for boot in the morning really worth the energy cost in the thing being on all night long consuming energy for no reason at all? Hell, by the time I'm done taking my coat off, getting my morning cup of coffee, and looking through the stuff shoved under my door after I left, the thing is sitting there waiting for a login, which takes me approximately 1.3 seconds to type...so really, where am I losing all this time again?
I find it hysterical how many people are concerned with that handful of minutes waiting for a boot but can stretch a trip to the bathroom to take a piss into a 15 minute excursion and see no problem with it. Funny how that works...
I build all of my computers myself. Believe it or not, I am one of those people that actually used beep codes and such back in the day, and I actually turn off the vendor logos of my motherboard so I can watch the POST. I get that there aren't as many of us left in the world, but there is still use in POST. I know a lot of people out there don't understand what they're looking at when they watch those system checks, but for someone that does, they are an invaluable tool in figuring out what the hell is going on.
Why leave it on if you're not going to use the thing for hours and hours (or, in the case of work computers, days)?
I mean, I get that it's a pain in the ass to wait the few minutes for your PC to boot, and I get that some computers must always be on as a function of what they're doing, but really, if it's not being used at all, WHY keep it on?
In the case of the individual it may not make a huge impact in energy usage versus the computer sitting idle all night, but if everyone did it I imagine that the amount of energy saved would be enormous.
Just because the length of time it takes to boot is decreasing doesn't mean it's going away.
I mean, yeah, I no longer have time to go get a cup of coffee and look at the mail while I wait (unless I'm using my parents computer), but I still have to sit through POST and all that. Seems to me that will never go away, there needs to be a self check...
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, everyone needs a break, which is why they are required by law, and I'm not trying to be like Ebenezer Scrooge here, I take little breaks throughout the day, too, because it's important to give the mind a rest from time to time, it cuts down on those pesky office shootings you hear about on the news. I just can't accept the "lost productivity" angle, because I've worked in an office, as have a lot of us here on /., and I know that there is plenty of other opportunities to make up that productivity lost waiting a few minutes for your workstation to boot in the morning.
Let's be real here: Everyone goofs off a little from time to time, and I don't even mind, but if there's a way we can save energy, energy which is predominately generated through polluting means here in the US, maybe it's not such a big deal to wait for your PC to POST in the morning. It's a pain, but it's doing something good for the environment, so is it really that big a deal?
And like I said way way above, if this is not reasonable so be it, there are a lot of situations where it isn't. Let's choose the more environmentally friendly option more often, instead of the most convenient one, for a change. Every little bit helps.
The fact that the chip can go faster is immaterial.
Of course, as is Intel's opinion of me overclocking a chick I gave them money for already. If they didn't want me running a 2 GHz chip at 3 GHz, they probably shouldn't have sold me a 2 GHz chip capable of running at that speed. They made that choice, not me, because that choice saves them money and allows them to pass that savings along to...wait a minute, they're not passing that savings along to anyone, because the price of the product is artificial and not tied to anything tangible whatsoever. That's okay, though, you can use your chips at whatever speed you want.
It is sleazy, but it ain't wrong....then again, neither is playing around with the software and turning on that extra gig yourself.
If they don't like it, well, boo freaking hoo...shouldn't have sold me a computer with an extra gig of ram on the board. Better luck next time.
What you're describing isn't the same thing at all. We're not going out and getting something for nothing. We're taking a product that we bought for an agreed upon price and bringing it home and doing what we want with it.
There's a line between software piracy extracting functionality that is locked off. I mean, you can see the line, right? Like said above, if Intel didn't want us overclocking our 2 GHz chips to run at 3GHz, they probably shouldn't have sold us chips capable of running at 3GHz for the price of a 2GHz one.
This is why I don't feel bad at all about rooting, or jailbreaking, or any of the other things people do to extract functionality out of a given product...but I do feel bad pirating software. I gave the company my money, it's my fucking device...and don't sit here and cry because consumers are starting to be able to game the system the same way the system has gamed them for decades. Everyone that knows about computers has known about these games with CPU speeds for decades, and how much potential there was in a given chip to be pushed beyond it's specs (in some, an insane amount, like my old Athalon XP). The difference NOW is that Intel has found a way to monetize that, and their going to enforce it in what I'm sure is going to end up another stupid IP issue in the goddamn courts about how we don't really own the processor so aren't allowed to do it. Fuck that.
Here's a crazy concept that I'm sure will blow everyone's minds: How about they charge top dollar for the best processor, then, next year when the new best processor comes out, the reduce the price of last year's model? Holy crap, imagine that!
I suppose that wouldn't work, though. For one thing, it would reduce the number of times they arbitrarily change the socket type on your motherboard. Can't have that, especially when you produce chipsets for those motherboards...
You can't escape this though, otherwise they wouldn't do it.
Sure you can; you hack the functionality back into it. In the past this was as easy as increasing a multiplier on a motherboard, but no matter how convoluted they try to make the process to keep people from squeezing power out of their devices, people will find a way around it. Jailbreaking, rooting...all these things are happening because people are getting sick and tired of having arbitrary restrictions imposed upon them that have no realistic basis other than "so we can charge you more for the one that has more capability but not have to actually spend more money creating one that is really superior."
If it costs more to produce, fine. But if it's just more artificial scarcity bullshit, sorry, not playing that game.
All those examples you gave require the user to opt in. For instance, I have older uncles in my family that absolutely refuse to have a credit card. Flat out refuse. They've literally never had one in their entire life. Everything they own they've paid for cash, even their homes (this is, of course, back when someone could more reasonably do such a thing, but it is still possible. Ditto with cell-phones, bank accounts...it is increasingly difficult to imagine life without these things, but people do it.
However, people not wanting to be tracked via networks of security cameras and cell phone cameras have what recourse? Stay in their home and never come out? That's ridiculous. At some point we need to draw a line and leave people their anonymity. The way it seems now, all the people that refuse to live in this "we know what you're doing 24/7" society are going to have no recourse but go live in the woods like Ted Kacynski (sp?). I think the line can be drawn a little more close to home than that. One shouldn't have to live at a 3rd world level to have some privacy in their lives in a 1st world country.
This is silly. Most of the cost will be in the design and testing efforts, which are probably higher for the $400 version than for the $200 version, even though the end result is the same piece of silicon.
Why would production costs be more? It's the same thing, they're just "turning it down" as it were.
It is physically the exact same processor. There is no extra research being done into how to cheapen it's production, because if there was, the production would be cheaper for the most expensive model, too. The $200 is the actual cost, and the higher prices are inflated because they can. There is absolutely no justification for it outside of "we want more money", and that's fine, but at the same time, I want more processor than I paid for. Guess we're at an impasse then; they lock a good processor down to make me spend more money on the same thing, I hack the functionality back in because there's no real reason it isn't there to begin with. I don't lose very much sleep for doing this; we've already been paying far too much under ridiculous artificial scarcity models as it is.
Well, I'm certainly sorry your family went through that, but as someone that's been watching more and more abuse of power going on in this country, especially as concerns our rights to privacy, this sounds like an awful idea.
I mean, they've already started conditioning people to accept that their 4th amendment rights don't really exist because "ZOMG THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!! AND TERRORISM!!!!!!!!" but that doesn't mean that they're right in doing so. For instance, I don't care if they catch illegals in roving checkpoints down in the southwest if it costs 99% of the people that go through them their 4th amendment rights to anonymity without reasonable cause. Is driving down the highway reasonable cause? Is being outside your home reasonable cause to be recorded and scanned and tracked? I don't believe so, no.
I'd like it if a product's cost was tied to the cost of production plus a reasonable profit margin, you know, something tangible.
By admitting that it costs them exactly the same to make the $200 processor as it does the $400 one (as it must, since they're serving up the exact same product in both cases), they're eliminating any justification for that price at all.
You go ahead and pay whatever arbitrary price they see fit for a product if you want. Me, if I'm buying something, that is now mine, and I'll do with it as I see fit. If that includes hacking the clock speed or the multiplier to unlock capabilities the manufacturer didn't see fit to allow me to use out of the box, c'est la vie. It's my processor now, not theirs, and I can (and will) do what I want with it. They can fight this, or they can stop under-clocking processors and sell people a CPU that's price has some basis in reality and not some arbitrary figure.
No, I mean law abiding citizens that don't want to be found. They do exist, mind you, despite what Facebook and Google says.
I honestly don't even give a damn about the money, I am interested just because fuck Intel, fuck them in their stupid asses.
I find I am becoming more and more militant when it comes to bogus moneymaking schemes these tech companies create by eliminating preexisting functionality and charging you extra to give it back to you. Either I'm getting old, or I've been following these trends too closely. Maybe it's time to take up sports fanaticism, or whittling?
It's funny, I always hear what a waste "mass transit" is and how no one ever rides it, but every time I take the bus, it's either damn near full or standing room only. The worse the economy has gotten, the more people have started riding.
Yes, it's subsidized by those that do and do not use it alike. However, those that don't ride still benefit because that's just that many less cars on the road every day, which are going to be increasing your daily commute, which is going to increase the gas you use, which is only going to cost you more as gas gets more scarce and thus more expensive.
I don't know what your area is like, but where I'm at, if all those people utilizing alternate means of transportation started driving, it would be a nightmare. Our roads can't even handle the traffic we have now; during rush hour a 10 minute drive can take 30, and I'm talking highway driving. Your mileage may vary, of course, but honestly, I bet it doesn't vary by as much as you think it does...
If I shut down my PC every evening, I'd be sitting there for 3 minutes every morning waiting for my computer to boot before I'm officially on the clock. 3 minutes x 5 days x 52 weeks x my wage in minutes is a few hundred dollars a year.
see:
I'm not advocating that people turn their machines off and fuck themselves and their jobs up.
I believe getting screwed out of money is a qualifying condition covered by that statement.
That being said, how often do you punch out while you're taking a break, or anything else not work related for that matter? Again, it amuses me when the boot time is so critical yet other opportunities for eliminating wasted time and loss of productivity are thrown out the window because, hey, those LOLCATS aren't going to laugh at themselves.
If you are one of those few people that are actually mindful of what they're doing when they're on the clock and feels bad about wasting time you're getting paid to work, I'm obviously not directing that at you personally. But I have known a lot of people that aren't, and furthermore, see it as an adjunct to the job itself, a sort of "if they didn't want me surfing this website they would have blocked it" attitude. So when those same people are giving me a thousand reasons why they can't wait for their computer to boot in the morning because of "lost productivity" I have to laugh. That's like the teenager telling me he needs an iPad for "homework" but never seems to do a thing on it but surf the web and play games....but at least that's a kid, not a full grown adult.
Logging in feel like he didnt.
What about people that don't want to be found? Guess they don't get a choice in the matter, huh?
I can see that there's going to be a lot of hats and sunglasses being worn in my future...
Absolutely, since it's not unusual to walk in to an "emergency" (as defined by somebody who could fire me) that needs to be handled in less time than it takes to bring the computer up to a usable level.
That's a perfectly acceptable reason to leave the computer on, but really, let's be honest here, how often does that really happen? And does that happen to every person that uses every workstation in the office? And of all those people that could fire you, are they all so pressed for time that waiting for a boot is beyond their tolerance level? And if that's the case, isn't there already a policy in your office that states "do not power down your machine because those seconds waiting for boot are that critical"?
I mean, c'mon, we all know how much waste occurs in the average office environment. I'm not advocating that people turn their machines off and fuck themselves and their jobs up. I'm just saying, after examining the needs of a particular workstation and the system overall, how many people out there choose not to power down solely because they don't feel like waiting for boot? I'd bet a lot, but I admit, that's just my own personal experience. That's why I pointed out how disingenuous that is, because like I said, a lot of the people that "don't have the time to wait" seem to have plenty of time for Facebook throughout the day, or looking at funny videos or websites being punted around the office, or taking a nice healthy dump for 25 minutes after lunch.
I bet if we eliminated all that other wasted time, the time spent waiting for a boot would be inconsequential.
If they can search it, odds are they can access it, so what's preventing them just taking the damn photo and not paying you a dime?
Jesus, when did people get so fucking naive when it comes to business and government, especially businesses like tabloids and whatever government agencies would be checking your pics for whatever the hell they feel like whenever they feel like it? So many people just ready to torpedo any rights of privacy we have left...what the hell is wrong with this country?
There are shitty riders out there, just like there are shitty drivers. There are even shitty walkers, too...I've spent upwards of 20 minutes at various lights all over the downtown area because I had the bad luck of being at that intersection during change of classes and the 12,000 students in the building started streaming across the street whether there was a WALK symbol or not.
I will be the first person to cheer when they put crossing guards at every intersection that can ticket people for jaywalking and ignoring the laws concerning biking in traffic, believe me. But I'm not gonna advocate building retaining walls around every sidewalk in the city to prevent it because that's ridiculous, just like how I would never just drive through the red I've sat through 18 times because the kids changing classes couldn't care less about the light because pedestrians have the right of way no matter where they fuck they are.
My favorite is the leap from "Well, making solar panels and other clean energy technologies, as well as buses and bicycles, causes pollution, too, so we might as well just keep on truckin' because fuck it."
You know, it doesn't happen very often, but sometimes I really envy those that think that they're going to be raptured up to heaven or something one day, or that the world is going to end in 2012, so that they don't have to worry about a fucking thing in their lives beyond the immediate future. Must be nice to not care at all about the effect you have on the world around you, but I still don't understand why they have to try to prevent anyone else from at least trying. Even if I thought every person around me was going to die in a zombie apocalypse, I'm still not going to slash the tires on their getaway vehicle. Why so many others feel the need to do so is beyond me...
Well, obviously, carbon is consumed when they make your shoes, so that means there is no benefit to walking and you might as well get in your car and drive everywhere because global warming is a myth, just like peak oil, foisted upon the masses by liberals who want to make everyone miserable by, uh, making them walk everywhere or ride smelly buses because they hate freedom and/or democracy!
At least, that's what I keep hearing anytime anyone brings up any way to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.
...it is still going to save the rider in gas money (provided they're riding the thing whenever they can, obviously a bike rotting in a garage does no one any good).
I see a lot of people screaming left and right about how all these technologies like mass transit and solar power and such are "just as bad", but the end result is always the assertion that "we should just do whatever because nothing we do will ever help so screw it". Here in Madison, WI, where there are a fair number of cyclists, there are still those people that go out of their way to prevent them from riding. Every article about a bike riding event warrants thousands of comments about how much these people wish they could go drive over the riders in their Canyonero and other such crap.
Every little bit helps, does it not? And why so much hostility for green energy initiatives? Are we just going to keep on burning oil and coal for power? I mean, clearly we need to start coming up with alternatives, right?
I understand, and for situations that require the thing to be left on I have no problem with it, but a LOT of people don't leave their computers on for any reason other than "sigh...waiting for my computer to beep and boop is a pain in the ass"
Nobody likes to sit and wait for a few minutes while their computer boots (well, for anything, really, who likes waiting?) but is a few minutes waiting for boot in the morning really worth the energy cost in the thing being on all night long consuming energy for no reason at all? Hell, by the time I'm done taking my coat off, getting my morning cup of coffee, and looking through the stuff shoved under my door after I left, the thing is sitting there waiting for a login, which takes me approximately 1.3 seconds to type...so really, where am I losing all this time again?
I find it hysterical how many people are concerned with that handful of minutes waiting for a boot but can stretch a trip to the bathroom to take a piss into a 15 minute excursion and see no problem with it. Funny how that works...
I build all of my computers myself. Believe it or not, I am one of those people that actually used beep codes and such back in the day, and I actually turn off the vendor logos of my motherboard so I can watch the POST. I get that there aren't as many of us left in the world, but there is still use in POST. I know a lot of people out there don't understand what they're looking at when they watch those system checks, but for someone that does, they are an invaluable tool in figuring out what the hell is going on.
Why leave it on if you're not going to use the thing for hours and hours (or, in the case of work computers, days)?
I mean, I get that it's a pain in the ass to wait the few minutes for your PC to boot, and I get that some computers must always be on as a function of what they're doing, but really, if it's not being used at all, WHY keep it on?
In the case of the individual it may not make a huge impact in energy usage versus the computer sitting idle all night, but if everyone did it I imagine that the amount of energy saved would be enormous.
Just because the length of time it takes to boot is decreasing doesn't mean it's going away.
I mean, yeah, I no longer have time to go get a cup of coffee and look at the mail while I wait (unless I'm using my parents computer), but I still have to sit through POST and all that. Seems to me that will never go away, there needs to be a self check...