You mean an event that will not happen for millions of years as in 2029 and 2036?
Just because the likelihood is low doesn't mean it won't happen tomorrow. Frankly, humans themselves are a *lot* more likely to make Earth uninhabitable and a lot faster than a million years.
The reason we need to start 'right now' is that it will take us more than a decade to even stop the annual *increase* in our CO2 emissions let alone start reducing them.
We stopped lead poisoning, we stopped CFC release, we stopped DDT. We can do this and make changes. The earth's atmosphere doesn't turn on a dime so if we want to stop the direction it's moving (because of our inputs) we need to start earlier rather than later.
More efficient tools use less power this is true. There is a cost associated with production of those newer tools, but that's more infrastructure than the operational stuff we're talking about here.
The thing about renewable sources that most people miss, is that the fuel cost is literally 'zero'. So more efficient computers use less of a 'free and unlimited' resource when powered by solar.. This is a simplified representation but at it's heart it's true.
As an actual example thing about cars back in the 50s. People really didn't care that they got 10mpg. Why? Because gas was cheap and plentiful. It wasn't a factor in the operation because it didn't cost them anything significant.
Now take solar power. If I don't pay anything for the electricity, is a more efficient machine really that beneficial? So if the computers operated at the same speed, but one used less free electricity what benefit does the 'new' computer provide? Obviously new computers provide more benefit than better efficiency - they are faster, store more, etc - but that is a different comparison than their efficiency.
When you scale up to grid level, higher efficiency does provide benefits because you don't need as much capacity, but that's an infrastructure cost that would be in existence even with fossil fuel production.
This is about the CO2 released to create the electricity that was used to power the servers that then produced heat that is sent out the back as you noted.
My point was that IT can, today, generate that electricity from 100% renewable sources thus removing any CO2 creation from the process of there day to day operation.
To your point, if gasoline was 'free' and basically limitless supply, would you really care whether your car got 10mpg or 40mpg? Likewise, when you are paying $0.00 for your electricity, that 'wasted' energy has no direct financial cost. Obviously, there is infrastructure cost to put up the solar panels, etc. But there are infrastructure costs for any system so I'm saying those balance each other out. What is different is that fossil fuels need to pay for the fuel (coal, oil, gas) in addition to the infrastructure. Solar has no such cost.
a little background. AGW came into the public vernacular when the climate change deniers went from "The earth isn't warming!" to "Ok, yes it's warming but it's not man that's causing it!"
For example, how much CO2 would have to be emitted to allow 10 million people, all over North America and Europe, to read a copy of one issue of the New York times without the internet?
And to be truly fair you have to ask where that CO2 is coming from. For the physical magazines there is a one time production cost, but the materials used (trees) pulled CO2 out of today's* atmosphere so putting it back nets about zero. (Today being geologic timeframe based).
The internet is using coal to power itself and is putting CO2 from millions of years ago into the atmosphere and that most definitely is an increase to our 'today'.
Likewise, one magazine could be read by 0 or 1000 people with zero increase in CO2 emissions. The internet version is constantly emitted CO2 because the servers are always running whether or not someone is utilizing them.
Well to be fair, AGW is likely to have a pretty massive effect on most living things on the planet so saying Greenpeace doesn't have a dog in this fight isn't exactly fair...
I said 'operationally' not infrastructure. There's CO2 cost in *everything*, but you can't remove the CO2 cost of making, say, concrete and steel. (ok, technically you can, but not without massive changes to the process)
The IT sector is actually ahead of most industries in terms of being green. They can be 100% green operationally, today. Running completely on electricity means you can be as green as your source. It's not IT that's the problem.
Likewise, to the omissions of the report, how much CO2 is saved by internet shopping? Having a single delivery truck running all day is better than 70 cars making individual trips.
Agreed, not everybody recycles, but the program does exist and at least in the neighborhoods where I've lived most every house has a full recycle bin out every week.
The deposit does tend to increase recycling, but i can say that having lived in deposit areas and non-deposit areas, it's a hell of a lot easier to not have to haul the cans back to the store.
I like the idea of at least noting who isn't putting out a bin so notices can be sent. Some see that as big brother, but the flip side is you pay more for the product and have to return the containers to get that money back. which evil would you like today?
Except how do you get close enough? they could barely get water cannons close enough shoot the buildings due to the radiation. And the radiation was in full swing before they blew up since they blew up because of the h2 being released from the exposed fuel rods.
everyone just sit around until it blows up, that way it'll be an act of god instead of management deciding to crack the building.
This is more the Japanese mentality of business. No individual gets the blame, the group decides and executes whatever is decided, including nothing.
And who maintains the running production servers if IT only has access to the snapshots? Access and 'can read' are different things. HIPPA most definitely allows for 'certified'/'cleared' people to maintain the servers that house the data.
I suppose you could say that 'IT' is different from the specific server administrators, but in most situations they are one and the same.
Fair enough, though the anti-AGW folks, usually scream that 'science' used to say the earth was cooling. Insinuating that scientists are making stuff up because they changed their conclusions.
reasonable to account for changing data and conclusions, but my experience is the anti people are anti change of any type regardless of the facts.
Only way poster has a leg to stand on is if this thing somehow touches patient info. Then I can see an argument for keeping IT out.
Exactly backwards. IT already has access to all patient info since, I hope, it's being backed up.
Keeping IT out of a rogue machine like this, especially with patient info on it, is how many information breaches happen. How long before this guy decides he'd rather keep the server at home and just VPN it into the network? Or keeps it on his laptop, unencrypted because he didn't think it was necessary?
IT keeps and controls network access for a reason. This is about simply a calendar app and not patient data, but if he's willing to compromise network security over something so trivial as a calendar app, it's not a far jump to a breach that does compromise patient data.
not unheard of but not even close to the massive devastation that they caused this time.
I was more pointing out you're statement that 'normal for tornado alley' was ridiculous considering they are hundreds if not thousands of miles from there.
temperature anomaly is actually negative for the last couple months!
Yeah we should totally ignore DECADES of actual temperature rise because a few MONTHS show it going down *a little*. The 10 hottest years on record are still in the last 15 years.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean an event that will not happen for millions of years as in 2029 and 2036? Just because the likelihood is low doesn't mean it won't happen tomorrow. Frankly, humans themselves are a *lot* more likely to make Earth uninhabitable and a lot faster than a million years.
The reason we need to start 'right now' is that it will take us more than a decade to even stop the annual *increase* in our CO2 emissions let alone start reducing them.
We stopped lead poisoning, we stopped CFC release, we stopped DDT. We can do this and make changes. The earth's atmosphere doesn't turn on a dime so if we want to stop the direction it's moving (because of our inputs) we need to start earlier rather than later.
More efficient tools use less power this is true. There is a cost associated with production of those newer tools, but that's more infrastructure than the operational stuff we're talking about here.
The thing about renewable sources that most people miss, is that the fuel cost is literally 'zero'. So more efficient computers use less of a 'free and unlimited' resource when powered by solar.. This is a simplified representation but at it's heart it's true.
As an actual example thing about cars back in the 50s. People really didn't care that they got 10mpg. Why? Because gas was cheap and plentiful. It wasn't a factor in the operation because it didn't cost them anything significant.
Now take solar power. If I don't pay anything for the electricity, is a more efficient machine really that beneficial? So if the computers operated at the same speed, but one used less free electricity what benefit does the 'new' computer provide? Obviously new computers provide more benefit than better efficiency - they are faster, store more, etc - but that is a different comparison than their efficiency.
When you scale up to grid level, higher efficiency does provide benefits because you don't need as much capacity, but that's an infrastructure cost that would be in existence even with fossil fuel production.
You are correct and entirely off topic :)
This is about the CO2 released to create the electricity that was used to power the servers that then produced heat that is sent out the back as you noted.
My point was that IT can, today, generate that electricity from 100% renewable sources thus removing any CO2 creation from the process of there day to day operation.
To your point, if gasoline was 'free' and basically limitless supply, would you really care whether your car got 10mpg or 40mpg? Likewise, when you are paying $0.00 for your electricity, that 'wasted' energy has no direct financial cost. Obviously, there is infrastructure cost to put up the solar panels, etc. But there are infrastructure costs for any system so I'm saying those balance each other out. What is different is that fossil fuels need to pay for the fuel (coal, oil, gas) in addition to the infrastructure. Solar has no such cost.
a little background. AGW came into the public vernacular when the climate change deniers went from "The earth isn't warming!" to "Ok, yes it's warming but it's not man that's causing it!"
For example, how much CO2 would have to be emitted to allow 10 million people, all over North America and Europe, to read a copy of one issue of the New York times without the internet?
And to be truly fair you have to ask where that CO2 is coming from. For the physical magazines there is a one time production cost, but the materials used (trees) pulled CO2 out of today's* atmosphere so putting it back nets about zero. (Today being geologic timeframe based).
The internet is using coal to power itself and is putting CO2 from millions of years ago into the atmosphere and that most definitely is an increase to our 'today'.
Likewise, one magazine could be read by 0 or 1000 people with zero increase in CO2 emissions. The internet version is constantly emitted CO2 because the servers are always running whether or not someone is utilizing them.
AGW = Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming
Well to be fair, AGW is likely to have a pretty massive effect on most living things on the planet so saying Greenpeace doesn't have a dog in this fight isn't exactly fair...
I said 'operationally' not infrastructure. There's CO2 cost in *everything*, but you can't remove the CO2 cost of making, say, concrete and steel. (ok, technically you can, but not without massive changes to the process)
The IT sector is actually ahead of most industries in terms of being green. They can be 100% green operationally, today. Running completely on electricity means you can be as green as your source. It's not IT that's the problem.
Likewise, to the omissions of the report, how much CO2 is saved by internet shopping? Having a single delivery truck running all day is better than 70 cars making individual trips.
Agreed, not everybody recycles, but the program does exist and at least in the neighborhoods where I've lived most every house has a full recycle bin out every week.
The deposit does tend to increase recycling, but i can say that having lived in deposit areas and non-deposit areas, it's a hell of a lot easier to not have to haul the cans back to the store.
I like the idea of at least noting who isn't putting out a bin so notices can be sent. Some see that as big brother, but the flip side is you pay more for the product and have to return the containers to get that money back. which evil would you like today?
Fairfax, VA has neither and we recycle so it can happen on its own :)
don't forget the sharks
a most excellent observation...kudos to you sir!
complete car noob here, what do the magnets do in the pan that is beneficial?
http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/12/climate_change
"it forecasts that 2010 will probably end up being the hottest year since records began in 1850, surpassing the previous high recorded in 1998."
:)
"Each of the last ten years features in the top 11 warmest years recorded in all datasets."
Saw this too, 1934 hottest year on record as something skeptics point too. Except this is only in the US, not global temps.
Here 80s hottest, then 90s, then 00's
any other questions?
Because it doesn't have a dock? It's not meant to be a port. In fact they built a 20 ft high wall to keep out the sea :)
Shame they needed a 35 foot wall...
trash the roof with a wrecking ball
Except how do you get close enough? they could barely get water cannons close enough shoot the buildings due to the radiation. And the radiation was in full swing before they blew up since they blew up because of the h2 being released from the exposed fuel rods.
everyone just sit around until it blows up, that way it'll be an act of god instead of management deciding to crack the building.
This is more the Japanese mentality of business. No individual gets the blame, the group decides and executes whatever is decided, including nothing.
if you're on the coast and a tsunami wiped out the roads for miles around...24 hours might be a wee bit optimistic.
all IT has access to is encrypted snapshots
And who maintains the running production servers if IT only has access to the snapshots? Access and 'can read' are different things. HIPPA most definitely allows for 'certified'/'cleared' people to maintain the servers that house the data.
I suppose you could say that 'IT' is different from the specific server administrators, but in most situations they are one and the same.
Fair enough, though the anti-AGW folks, usually scream that 'science' used to say the earth was cooling. Insinuating that scientists are making stuff up because they changed their conclusions.
reasonable to account for changing data and conclusions, but my experience is the anti people are anti change of any type regardless of the facts.
Only way poster has a leg to stand on is if this thing somehow touches patient info. Then I can see an argument for keeping IT out.
Exactly backwards. IT already has access to all patient info since, I hope, it's being backed up.
Keeping IT out of a rogue machine like this, especially with patient info on it, is how many information breaches happen. How long before this guy decides he'd rather keep the server at home and just VPN it into the network? Or keeps it on his laptop, unencrypted because he didn't think it was necessary?
IT keeps and controls network access for a reason. This is about simply a calendar app and not patient data, but if he's willing to compromise network security over something so trivial as a calendar app, it's not a far jump to a breach that does compromise patient data.
not unheard of but not even close to the massive devastation that they caused this time.
I was more pointing out you're statement that 'normal for tornado alley' was ridiculous considering they are hundreds if not thousands of miles from there.
The East Coast isn't 'tornado alley'. They don't have sirens in NC or VA precisely *because* it isn't normal.
temperature anomaly is actually negative for the last couple months!
Yeah we should totally ignore DECADES of actual temperature rise because a few MONTHS show it going down *a little*. The 10 hottest years on record are still in the last 15 years.