The figures are from here and ARE NOT from the DOE. Incidentally, I just noticed that the figures are from 1984, meaning that the relative cost of the CRT is even cheaper than I mentioned since per-capita BTU consumption has risen in the US by some obscene amount since then.
If you make a PC, and use 1.5 tons of water, but after the fact 1.49 tons are put back into the environment, uncontaminated, how much have you really used?
Didn't you read the report? You've used at least 22 kgs of chemicals and 240kg of fossil fuels. That's the problem. F*ck the water. 240kg of fossil fuels is alot of damned energy.
The problem isn't the 1500kg of water. It's the 240kg of fossil fuels that the report raises issue with. 240kg of fossil fuels is about 1.5% of per-capita energy consumption in the U.S., but the monitor is only priced at.9% of per capita after-tax income. Which means the extra.6% is paid for in environmental costs somehwere in the world. (one of my other posts has the math for this).
There's 1,400,000 BTU in a gallon of gas. LA to NY is 2,448 miles, at 30 mpg (lets be generous) is 81.6 gallons of fuel which is 114,240,000 BTU. Your coal that you mentioned has, by comparison, 5,100,000 BTU. In other words, it takes ALOT less energy to make the CRT.
Also, you're per capita figures are off. About 920,000 BTU are used per day per person in the U.S., or about 327,520,000 BTU annually. This makes the CRT 1.5% of ENERGY consumption. Since most people only buy 1 monitor per several years, that's not nearly as high as you suggest.
Now, as far as money goes, since we're using averages, we can use the per capita after-tax income of someone in the U.S., which is somewhere around $20,000. Once you calculate taxes and such you get to the EBI (Effective Buying Income), which is per capita after-tax income, which is only about $14,000, making the monitor about.9%.
In other words, the environmental costs are much higher for making the CRT than people are paying for, which is exactly what the UN report is trying to highlight.
Yes, but in math, we get the added benefit of having infinite resources and such;)
But I see what you're saying about C--if you know the language down to the hardware level, that would work best. But then again the C gets translated to assembly by a compiler, and you can do the same with LISP, provided your compiler is good enough.
Shoulda written it in LISP, no one knows Haskell.;)
As far as big-O goes, all you need to know is that somewhere is a C implementation of the recent proof that PRIME (aka, finding all the primes) is not greater than n (aka, linear). It might be log something, but I forget and am lazy.
Working with the Lambda Calculus on a computer, as a mathematician who is used to only the brain and pen/paper, makes me alternatively want to piss my pants and orgasm everywhere. It's, like, the simplest programming language on the earth!
Its a different mind-set required to write in a functional language, that's all. Some people find it a steeper learning curve, and some don't. But the effort put into learning the functional language style will be paid back 1,000 fold (at least) for the rest of your life, whereas learning a typical procedural language will only get you 10x return. Plus the pay-back on learning the functional language will apply to _all_ languages you ever learn. This is because all languages and algorithms are defined, on paper, in a functional style anyway (since it uses "math"), and the procedural super-set is just a needless complication from what is 'really happening'.
But then again, I majored in math, not programming, so maybe I'm biased.
Actually perl has an alternate syntax that includes a functional language, and, of course, you can always write a functional language in perl. But most Perl code online (CPAN) isn't written like this, which pretty much defeats the purpose.
For example, where I work, I have to write in ColdFusion sometimes. ColdFusion has 2 syntaxes: a tag-based one that looks like HTML and is four times redudant and impossible to deal with, but is easier for people, and a second syntax with first-order functions. Writing in the first-order function syntax is easier, more efficient, clearer, and easier to debug in everyway, except all my co-workers write in the tag syntax, which forces me to, as well. It sucks.
The point is that programs tend to be written to the lower-common-demoninator of the language, which makes the difference between functional, procedural, and oo languages so huge when there is really no difference.
Functional languages fucking 0wn. They are, generally, easier to write, maintain, read, understand, and debug than the procedural nonsense that has dominated programming (due solely to the historical problems of making computers fast and having nothing to do with best theoretical practices). Now, if someone would just re-start production of LISP machines (updated for modern functional languages), nearly all of us would be better off.
Jesus didn't say much about the Old Testiment. So when he was referring to God's children, he probably meant 'all living things' or 'everything in the universe' sort of thing.
They're (most of the people concerned, being neither liberal nor conservative) not talking about the sacred cow Free Trade. They're talking about jobs. I fail to see how suddendly it's the "liberals" doing a 180-degree turn when everyone is doing this. As far as economics are concerned, people, by and large, only care about their job. When their job is threatened, Free Trade doesn't mean shit to them because it never did.
Uh, WTF? Please explain what any of this has to do with the "liberals". For starters, most of the people concerned about loosing their jobs in this country aren't liberals (nor are they conservative).
Chief out, chief. It's still legal to protest a war. And if, after risking his life, he figures the war is bogus, what's the harm in it? He did just fight for the right to do so, unlike Fonda, and I fail to see the comparison.
Slashdot Mirror
The figures are from here and ARE NOT from the DOE. Incidentally, I just noticed that the figures are from 1984, meaning that the relative cost of the CRT is even cheaper than I mentioned since per-capita BTU consumption has risen in the US by some obscene amount since then.
Didn't you read the report? You've used at least 22 kgs of chemicals and 240kg of fossil fuels. That's the problem. F*ck the water. 240kg of fossil fuels is alot of damned energy.
Geez.
There's 1,400,000 BTU in a gallon of gas. LA to NY is 2,448 miles, at 30 mpg (lets be generous) is 81.6 gallons of fuel which is 114,240,000 BTU. Your coal that you mentioned has, by comparison, 5,100,000 BTU. In other words, it takes ALOT less energy to make the CRT.
Also, you're per capita figures are off. About 920,000 BTU are used per day per person in the U.S., or about 327,520,000 BTU annually. This makes the CRT 1.5% of ENERGY consumption. Since most people only buy 1 monitor per several years, that's not nearly as high as you suggest.
Now, as far as money goes, since we're using averages, we can use the per capita after-tax income of someone in the U.S., which is somewhere around $20,000. Once you calculate taxes and such you get to the EBI (Effective Buying Income), which is per capita after-tax income, which is only about $14,000, making the monitor about .9%.
In other words, the environmental costs are much higher for making the CRT than people are paying for, which is exactly what the UN report is trying to highlight.
But I see what you're saying about C--if you know the language down to the hardware level, that would work best. But then again the C gets translated to assembly by a compiler, and you can do the same with LISP, provided your compiler is good enough.
PRIME is defined as determining whether a given number is prime.
Oops! Sorry, brain fart. I meant PRIME is in P.
As far as big-O goes, all you need to know is that somewhere is a C implementation of the recent proof that PRIME (aka, finding all the primes) is not greater than n (aka, linear). It might be log something, but I forget and am lazy.
Perl Contains the Lambda Calculus.
Working with the Lambda Calculus on a computer, as a mathematician who is used to only the brain and pen/paper, makes me alternatively want to piss my pants and orgasm everywhere. It's, like, the simplest programming language on the earth!
But then again, I majored in math, not programming, so maybe I'm biased.
For example, where I work, I have to write in ColdFusion sometimes. ColdFusion has 2 syntaxes: a tag-based one that looks like HTML and is four times redudant and impossible to deal with, but is easier for people, and a second syntax with first-order functions. Writing in the first-order function syntax is easier, more efficient, clearer, and easier to debug in everyway, except all my co-workers write in the tag syntax, which forces me to, as well. It sucks.
The point is that programs tend to be written to the lower-common-demoninator of the language, which makes the difference between functional, procedural, and oo languages so huge when there is really no difference.
Besides, everyone knows you talk too much.
In Soviet Russia, liquid waters you!
I for one welcome our new Water 0verlords.
Jesus didn't say much about the Old Testiment. So when he was referring to God's children, he probably meant 'all living things' or 'everything in the universe' sort of thing.
They're (most of the people concerned, being neither liberal nor conservative) not talking about the sacred cow Free Trade. They're talking about jobs. I fail to see how suddendly it's the "liberals" doing a 180-degree turn when everyone is doing this. As far as economics are concerned, people, by and large, only care about their job. When their job is threatened, Free Trade doesn't mean shit to them because it never did.
If we get in a pinch, we'll just go overseas and blow up all their call-centers and such. Problem solved.
Uh, WTF? Please explain what any of this has to do with the "liberals". For starters, most of the people concerned about loosing their jobs in this country aren't liberals (nor are they conservative).
It's going to those who are already rich. The past few years (er, decades?) has been a really good time to be a Rich American.
Chief out, chief. It's still legal to protest a war. And if, after risking his life, he figures the war is bogus, what's the harm in it? He did just fight for the right to do so, unlike Fonda, and I fail to see the comparison.
What ur point?
Don't be silly. The three industries you mentioned are some of the most heavily subsidized markets in the world.
One would think that the military will crush us all with this engine/game, but obviously the military hasn't heard of our secret weapon: John Carmack!