It still seems fairly simple, the Facebook just happens to make the infidelity a little easier.
(You seem to be saying that the Facebook activity seems harmless at first and then the person doing it ends up somewhere they didn't see themselves going; that's probably true, but I think the fact that they let it happen probably says more about how ready they were to get married than it says about Facebook)
I wasn't trying to argue. I was mildly curious about how much power was used up by a computer like that and I wondered how much consideration you had given the energy consumption (which I don't think was terribly out of place in a discussion about people reducing consumption; obviously you are not concerned about the energy consumption, that is fine).
I'm happy to admit that price does not have to be a consideration; I personally don't have a great deal of interest in the novelty of running an old computer, so I would probably replace it if I thought I could save money on electricity, but I'm not really concerned if you value the novelty/awesomeness more than some money. Given that I haven't really injected a lot of bile or criticism into my comments, I don't really understand the intensity of your reaction.
I mentioned the U.S. not out of some desire to enforce my parochial views on the world, but because it happens to be the place I am the most familiar with and I mentioned common law marriage because that's the only mechanism I could think of that would explain your assertion.
Yeah, sure, things could be a lot better for the bottom whatever percent.
Personally, I think your rant about $250,000 is misplaced, GDP is only about $100,000-110,000 per worker in the U.S., so it isn't as if that top 1% is slurping up so much that the people making $250,000 can't get their 'fair' share.
I doubt it will be that bad. The history is one of divergent platforms, but html5 goes to some length to eliminate lots of those problems, so the problems where IE6 supports completely different stuff than Firefox and Chrome will be much reduced, and pages that look good in browser version X should look about the same in browser version X+3.
So it goes from a nightmare of supporting multiple browsers to a problem of deciding when such and such a feature has wide enough support.
You are reasoning about it the wrong way round, those 4 billion people are coming whether you complain about growth or not, they aren't going to limit their consumption just because you say they should.
Yeah, enough is going to be different for everybody, and anyone who has enough space is going to want other features for their money, but it really is only the last 5 or 10 years that cheap drives started being enough space for lots and lots of people.
You could easily run that on a 100 watt system, which is still almost 900 kilowatt hours per year, so even if you only pay ~$0.10 per kw-h, $90 per year per 100 watts of draw introduces lots of opportunities for a replacement being the parsimonious choice.
There's nothing particularly bad about it, life is (on average) more secure now than it was 200 years ago, the great majority of people have little reason to expect that their children will have difficulty obtaining food 20 years from now (of course, there are plenty of naysayers that think the world is doomed by then, but whatever).
G4 existed prior to the merger, the 'biggest talent' on TechTV quit, they fired half of the rest of the staff and only offered to keep the rest if they moved from San Francisco to Los Angeles, all within a few months of the merger.
So yeah, I present it as if TechTV quickly ceased to exist.
I disagree that it is weasel wordish, I'm simply not trying to make an absolute statement, because I know such a statement to be untrue (for instance, Apache). I was also being snarky, "STFU NEWB" is prevalent enough behavior to have become a stereotype, which is what I was riffing on when I implied that free software developers occasionally happen to be developing software simply for their own use (which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do).
(Linux does enjoy widespread use, but there are more user installations of each of 2 closed commercial operating systems, and there are plenty of closed competitors in the embedded space, so it's probably best to call it a draw)
But yeah, I probably didn't contribute a great deal to the discussion.
For-profit development does often manage to keep a wider range of users in mind than itch driven development (which often tends to keep a very small number of user in mind).
You aren't describing why a boycott is useless, you are describing why you don't want to do it (it affects too much of the market).
I do agree that boycotts over something like this are pretty ineffective, the several thousand people that care enough to actually do it are not going to make Sony (or whoever) notice, and even if they do notice, they probably won't care.
Slashdot Mirror
It still seems fairly simple, the Facebook just happens to make the infidelity a little easier.
(You seem to be saying that the Facebook activity seems harmless at first and then the person doing it ends up somewhere they didn't see themselves going; that's probably true, but I think the fact that they let it happen probably says more about how ready they were to get married than it says about Facebook)
I wasn't trying to argue. I was mildly curious about how much power was used up by a computer like that and I wondered how much consideration you had given the energy consumption (which I don't think was terribly out of place in a discussion about people reducing consumption; obviously you are not concerned about the energy consumption, that is fine).
I'm happy to admit that price does not have to be a consideration; I personally don't have a great deal of interest in the novelty of running an old computer, so I would probably replace it if I thought I could save money on electricity, but I'm not really concerned if you value the novelty/awesomeness more than some money. Given that I haven't really injected a lot of bile or criticism into my comments, I don't really understand the intensity of your reaction.
Dude, you just made a comment talking about how you continue to use your 20 year old VCR.
Sorry if I hit a nerve or something.
So what's the legal mechanism?
I mentioned the U.S. not out of some desire to enforce my parochial views on the world, but because it happens to be the place I am the most familiar with and I mentioned common law marriage because that's the only mechanism I could think of that would explain your assertion.
Yeah, sure, things could be a lot better for the bottom whatever percent.
Personally, I think your rant about $250,000 is misplaced, GDP is only about $100,000-110,000 per worker in the U.S., so it isn't as if that top 1% is slurping up so much that the people making $250,000 can't get their 'fair' share.
On the other hand, the house they were remodeling had already stood for like 60 years.
So if they can buy insurance for it, it might not be that stupid a house to purchase.
http://www.shirky.com/writings/powerlaw_weblog.html
(I'm not claiming anything about the fairness of the U.S. economy, just pointing to an argument that suggests it shouldn't be real surprising)
By what legal mechanism does that happen?
(In the U.S., common law marriage is largely abolished, and even where it isn't abolished, it often requires mutual intent)
I doubt it will be that bad. The history is one of divergent platforms, but html5 goes to some length to eliminate lots of those problems, so the problems where IE6 supports completely different stuff than Firefox and Chrome will be much reduced, and pages that look good in browser version X should look about the same in browser version X+3.
So it goes from a nightmare of supporting multiple browsers to a problem of deciding when such and such a feature has wide enough support.
If some government agency is poking through your inbox, it isn't because it is the only way they can get to you, it is because it is convenient.
There are certainly reasons not to trust a third party with long term storage, but 3-letter paranoia isn't one of them.
You are reasoning about it the wrong way round, those 4 billion people are coming whether you complain about growth or not, they aren't going to limit their consumption just because you say they should.
Well, I had $1 and bought a beer, so it seems I'm likely to leave the Elbonian to look after himself.
Yeah, enough is going to be different for everybody, and anyone who has enough space is going to want other features for their money, but it really is only the last 5 or 10 years that cheap drives started being enough space for lots and lots of people.
Sure, but growth and waste aren't exactly directly related.
How many watts does the firewall pull?
You could easily run that on a 100 watt system, which is still almost 900 kilowatt hours per year, so even if you only pay ~$0.10 per kw-h, $90 per year per 100 watts of draw introduces lots of opportunities for a replacement being the parsimonious choice.
How much of it is intention and how much of it is side effect?
I'd rather spend $100 every two or three years on hard drives that are doubling in size than I would spend $300 on one that is sure to last 10 years.
(This is less true for me today than it was 10 years ago though, a couple of terabytes satisfies my needs pretty easily)
Why do you hate the 4 billion people that live lives that could be substantially enhanced by increased access to material goods?
In other words, yes, there must be growth.
There's nothing particularly bad about it, life is (on average) more secure now than it was 200 years ago, the great majority of people have little reason to expect that their children will have difficulty obtaining food 20 years from now (of course, there are plenty of naysayers that think the world is doomed by then, but whatever).
You'll have to explain this part to me:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TechTV#Merger_.26_consolidation
G4 existed prior to the merger, the 'biggest talent' on TechTV quit, they fired half of the rest of the staff and only offered to keep the rest if they moved from San Francisco to Los Angeles, all within a few months of the merger.
So yeah, I present it as if TechTV quickly ceased to exist.
Yeah, I'm always warning my cat that he is going to become a mouse.
TechTV did not become G4. Comcast bought TechTV for their distribution contracts and kept a little bit of the programming.
I disagree that it is weasel wordish, I'm simply not trying to make an absolute statement, because I know such a statement to be untrue (for instance, Apache). I was also being snarky, "STFU NEWB" is prevalent enough behavior to have become a stereotype, which is what I was riffing on when I implied that free software developers occasionally happen to be developing software simply for their own use (which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do).
(Linux does enjoy widespread use, but there are more user installations of each of 2 closed commercial operating systems, and there are plenty of closed competitors in the embedded space, so it's probably best to call it a draw)
But yeah, I probably didn't contribute a great deal to the discussion.
For-profit development does often manage to keep a wider range of users in mind than itch driven development (which often tends to keep a very small number of user in mind).
Sega Genesis was released in 1988/1989 and could easily have been his third console (after an NES and some other).
You aren't describing why a boycott is useless, you are describing why you don't want to do it (it affects too much of the market).
I do agree that boycotts over something like this are pretty ineffective, the several thousand people that care enough to actually do it are not going to make Sony (or whoever) notice, and even if they do notice, they probably won't care.