My experience is that most people only upgrade their Windows PC when the old one is so infested with malware that they can't get it to do anything useful anymore.
It doesn't even have to be malware. I have seen people who had bought a new computer to fix a problem that would have been fairly easy to repair. If they find computers too daunting, then getting a replacement is 1) easier and 2) a lot of fun with accompanying bragging rights.
They don't really care what version of Windows is on there so long as it's not Vista or ME.
I do not think that is true. When Vista came out, I found a couple of people who said that they had purchased the upgrade for their system. When I asked what they thought of it both said (independantly) that they had not installed it. I never asked about it again because I knew that they would ask me to install it for them. But I do wonder whether those upgrades are still sitting on a shelf somewhere.
The thing is, they knew a new Windows was out and they wanted it. But it would have been better for them just to buy a new computer with the OS pre-installed. It doesn't just stop with versions of Windows though. One of the managers at my work upgraded his laptop from Windows 7 Home Premium to the Ultimate edition. He doesn't use any of the extra features, but he just wanted the best. He is an idiot, but it does goes to show that people are aware of the operating system and they do have a desire to have the latest version - even if they do not know why.
I don't need an animated dog to get in the way of showing me the search form....And when I tell the intrusive and unnecessary animation to go away, no, I don't need to waste another couple of seconds to watch it stroll away.
You know, you probably spent more time thinking about then writing that paragraph than it took for you to look at the dog, go into preferences and turn it off.
And Microsoft responded to complaints? Only after YEARS of constant and angry complaints over several versions.
What? They disabled it by default in the very next version of Office. You would have to go into preferences and turn Clippy on to start hating it again.
And that's where the ribbon in the new version of Office really, really sucks. There is no built-in "classic" mode.
I initially thought the same as you. It seemed crazy just to completely throw out the old interface. When I thought about it for a while, I realised that the interface had changed so dramatically that it altered every part, including pop up dialog boxes and the placement of some features. If Microsoft were to keep the old interface too, then they would have to completely duplicate their user interface code. People already think that the package is bloated now, imagine how bad it would be to double up on all the UI code.
What I think that they should have done is add the ribbon interface into the Windows applications first so that people could get used to it on simpler programs (eg. Paint and Wordpad in Windows 7). Then it would not have been such a culture shock to be confronted with the new system in such a complicated application like Word or Excel.
You have to admit, your situation (3200 x 1200 dual screen) is pretty unusual. Most people live with a single monitor and lower resolution of 1280x1024 or 1680x1050. It is not a bad feature merely because it does not work well for you at the extreme ends of the resolution spectrum.
And you say you know how to turn this off, but you get sick of doing it so many times on your multi-language setup. Once again, that is not the usual way of using Windows for the majority of people. The average punter uses their stock Windows install for years until they screw up something and then go out and buy a new computer.
As for file searching... well you are right there. I have a Windows 98 system sitting next to me that I use for file searches because every version of Windows since 98/2000 has made file searching worse in some respect.
Nuff said. They own the telco, they'd have access to all traffic across it.
Between your post and elucido's first post, this question is now answered. The conversation is over. You have got the how and the why.
The only question remaining is how the phrase "Alexander Lukashenko openly stated that the phones of Irina Khalip...were being monitored by the special services" can become "Alexander Lukashenko, accidentally admitted to wiretapping journalist Irina Khalip" in the summary.
"Openly stated" is nowhere near the same as "accidentally admitted".
Protip: Clippy and the Spot the dog are the same thing.
Protip: Adding "Protip" doesn't make something true.
Clippy and the dog were both animated characters that would offer help, but that is where the similarity ends. As I said, Clippy was so reviled because it got in the way. It forced itself in your face. Even worse, it spied on what you were doing and tried to "help" (which gave us the meme that people still use as a joke today).
It is really annoying when someone stands behind you doing reading what you type and interrupting with "helpful" comments, so it stands to reason that people would hate it in a virtual character too.
As for Bob, it was not because it was a virtual character that people hated it but that the software was was an unusable mess! You can't tell the difference between badly drawn scenery and badly drawn icons for programs (without pressing F1 to reveal them). This was made back in the days when people thought you needed to imitate the real world to make computers seem approachable, but as the screenshot shows that is a horribly wrong concept.
Ribbons in Explorer. Good lawd, I saw a screenshot. "Hey, everybody! Let's uselessly take up 128 vertical pixels in already vertically challenged widescreen displays!"
You can auto-hide the ribbon so it only appears when you move the mouse over the top of the window. But 128 pixels is nothing compared to what users would subject themselves to with the old toolbars in Office. I would set up our systems at work with a nice two line set of toolbars in Office, but when I look at them later I find every toolbar turned on and half the screen filled with the bloody things (all mixed up in random order too). This is why I prefer the menus, because they tended to stay the same on every computer I had to use.
When I watch my pathetic users try to access an unfamiliar feature, they hover over every single button looking at the tooltips to find the one they are looking for. Even if I would tell them which menu it was on they would ignore that and look for the button.
As much as the ribbon didn't suit me, it did seem like exactly the right thing for my users. While we might love our menus and keyboard shortcuts, the average user just does a hunt-and-peck on the toolbars. The ribbon is a huge step-up for them.
considering most of the presence of new windows versions would come from windows being forcibly bundled by newly sold pcs, and not xp, it easily can be said that people did not MIGRATE to windows 7. even with this forced pushing, its share is still lower than its predecessor.
Buying a new computer is the easiest and most cost effective way to get the new Windows. I am sure that for a lot of people the benefit of getting the latest OS was one of the reasons for upgrading their computer. I am sure that the same thing happens on the Mac (which also bundles the OS with the hardware).
Anyway, if the trends continue as they are going then I predict that Windows 7 will pass XP marketshare before the end of the year.
People loathed Clippy, so what did Microsoft do? They added an animated dog to Windows XP.
The reason everyone hated Clippy was that it intrusively popped up while you were working. On the other hand, the dog was only displayed if you elected to search for something. In fact, I would suggest that Clippy demonstrates that Microsoft will remove features that people do not like. After all, they did get rid of the stupid paperclip after everyone complained.
So if the owner of the patent has no control over any lawsuit by MPEG LA (which I doubt) then it there is even less reason to lay the blame on Apple or Microsoft.
If one of the MPEG-LA members wants to sue, what business is it of Microsoft or Apple? You can't say that either of those companies is attacking WebM because a third patent holder starts throwing their weight around.
If it's totally worth it and not very expensive, private corporations could pick up the tab.
Overall it may be inexpensive, but on an individual project basis it can be quite expensive to fund R&D development that doesn't end up in a saleable product. That is the problem with relying on the private sector - they do not want to be the company that funds the failed research.
Anyway, just because the private sector could do the research is not a reason to stop the government from doing it instead. The only difference is that it ends up with technology that can be used by all companies instead of just one.
You must not have noticed, but China is STRIVING to emit CO2 like the USA per capita. They're putting in power plants as fast as they can... dirty, dirty coal plants.
And you must not have noticed their nuclear reactors that they are building that will provide 40 Gigawatts of power. You have not noticed the 120 Gigawatt capacity of hydropower stations being built over the next 5 years. You have not noticed the 70 Gigawatt capacity of wind power plants being built over the next 5 years. You have not noticed the 5 Gigawatt capacity of solar power plants being built over the next 5 years.
China is betting heavily on green power being the next big industry and they want in right from the start. If they want to build the green technology for the world, then it makes sense for them to use it themselves - even if only to prove to the sceptical governments that it can be done.
Nothing good is rubbing off on you from the Internet and you're not making a positive contribution to it.
And yet nothing good has come from your post. You didn't explain in what way the OP was wrong. You didn't offer an alternate theory. You just said for him/her to go away.
The exchange of ideas is the second best thing about the internet. The OP was doing just that. It doesn't have to be an idea that you agree with, because that gives you the opportunity to examine the flaws and raise other ideas for further discussion. It might even make you think.
It never ceases to amaze me that people can think that their tiny factoids can be more accurate and revealing than all the studies by all the climate scientists of the world. So much so that in this case you actually state that:
Last few years were much colder than average.
And yet 2010 was the equal hottest year on record according to the people who actually measure these things. The last decade was the warmest decade on record. Who are we to believe? The scientists who dedicate their lives to measuring what is happening around the world, or someone posting with a couple of isolated incidents and extrapolating a completely opposite conclusion?
Global warming is not about the temperature becoming evenly warmer all around the world. It is about the entire system getting warmer and more energetic. This results in extreme heat and extreme cold at the local level. It also can cause an increase in rain.
The events that you describe match the predicted effects of global warming.
I ask you, if we find that all this pollution is holding off an Ice Age, what do we get to call you?
If we were maintainung the status quo thn this would be reasonable. But we are not. The world is getting hotter. It is like trying to stop ourselves from getting cold by setting fire to ourselves. It is not the sane thing to do.
To suggest that we do this would put you straight into the original eco-nutter category.
Yes, based on that list, we should all strive to emit carbon dioxide like china.
Yes, please! If the US did this then its emissions would drop to less than one quarter of the current levels. I know that it is fashionable to consider China as the big bogeyman for carbon emissions (because it helps us avoid doing anything about this problem ourselves), but really they are not worse - just bigger than everyone else.
"They" do not disavow knowledge of the attack, as stated in the OP, they are just claiming to be not responsible (which proves they do have knowledge of the attack).
It proves no such thing. All It says is that Anonymous do not write 2 paragraph press releases in legalese. They did acknowledge that some Anons may be responsible, but that seems a reasonable to think that the hackers who could pull this off would be also count themselves as members of an organization that has no formal membership process.
I wonder why most of the web browsers are heading down the UI simplicity route (which people seem to like), while websites still look as horribly complicated as the one in the article's screenshot. It doesn't matter how cluttered the browser is if you have to have a headache pill out after viewing one of these sites.
What shock value are they using to get their point across? They didn't suggest that we stop using the Internet, only that the companies source their power from green suppliers. That is not a controversial statement.
You are correct that power usage has been decreasing and will continue to descrease in the IT industry, and that over time companies will move to green power. But that doesn't happen magically. It may seem that way to us because we users are so far removed from the servers that run the internet. But it the individuals who run the data centres that make the decisions to move the green power. It is those people that Greenpeace are addressing with this report. They are telling them to make reducing their carbon footprint a priority - that next time they are deciding which company to use to supply their power that they should choose the option that is good for the planet.
Worrying about pollution is the core concern of Greenpeace. It was saving the whales that was the branching out into new areas.
And besides, it is not as if there are only a handful of people working at Greenpeace who are too overworked to function properly. There are plenty of people at Greenpeace who have different things that they want to focus on. I don't see any evidence that they have stretched themselves to thin. The only downside I see to wanting to protect different parts of the environment is that it offers the opportunity to people who want to divert attention away from the issues raised to attack the organisation instead. As has happened here.
If Greenpeace did just stick to one issue, do you really believe that they could solve it and put themselves out of business? Sorry, but no. There will always be a few people around who want to protect the environment, but there will also be many, many more who will be quite happy to f*ck up the planet just to make a quick buck.
Large data centers that use enormous amounts of energy such as the ones Google and Facebook operate in Oregon (and Apple's huge center in the Midwest) certainly do have choices about power sources
Exactly. I was going to point out that both Google and Facebook have already managed to find sources of clean power. More importantly though, they get to choose the sites of their data centres. A major factor in this decision is the power supply available in that area. There is no reason why they can't choose a site with a diverse selection of power plants that include clean energy.
But geez..sounds like they're a bit like MADD...and going WAY beyond what they were originally set up for....
Greenpeace has its origins in the anti-nuclear movement of the late 60s. It seems quite reasonable an organisation who were originally worried about us polluting our planet to be concerned about the power sources (and environmental impact) of our data centres.
As usual, they're simply trying to make a statement in a controversial manner.
In what way is this making a statement in a controversial manner? There is an issue that needs addressing so they released a report. That sounds quite normal to me. And is power consumption of data centres a controversial topic? No, it has been discussed quite a lot over the years. Long before climate change became so prominent in people's minds.
The internet isn't it's own country, it's a communication medium.
They didn't say it was a country, they just put the power usage into perspective to show why we should care.
If they wanted to make a serious statement, they could focus on the waste involved in the manufacture of disposable (quickly obsolete) electronics or focus on the power plants we get our energy from.
But they do already talk about those things. I found plenty of e-waste articles with a simple Google search, and as for talking about where we get our energy from - that is part of the report we are discussing now!
No-one's going to give up the internet to save the planet, arguments like this just continue to paint Greenpeace as a collection of sensationalist, attention-whoring, hippies.
Except they never suggested that we all give up the internet. This is purely about making the data centres that run the net less relient on dirty power. By suggesting that they are saying anything else is just you being a sensationalist, attention-diverting, anti-hippie!
There really does not seem to be much that is newsworthy about this. Someone rightly asks the question whether this franchise could die off like their other one, but they are assured that it is still performing well but that they need to ensure that they keep improving the games.
Wow. Captain Obvious does it again!
Guitar Hero had a single, limited idea. There is just only so far that you can push the genre before getting ridiculous. The attempts to add things like a story mode to music games always fails, and since they offer additional songs as DLC then there is very little reason to upgrade to the next game.
There is much greater potential for COD, so it will have a much greater lifespan. And if they stop "milking the franchise" then what would they do instead? Another shooter, but with a different name? Let's face it, the gaming public don't seem to have lost their endless facination with shooting people in games. Sometimes publishers can be faulted for having little imagination by producing sequels, but this is one genre where it is the gaming public who are to blame.
All this shows is that the process of metrication takes a long time. You don't just change all the sign in the country in one go and have everyone speak the new system. You start the process off gradually, like in the UK where you purchase goods using the metric system.
Then you teach the metric units to school kids as the main system. In the UK, they are taught how to convert between imperial and metric units, but not how to manipulate the imperial units and do calculations in that system. Once those kids start graduating then you can move to changing things like road signs.
I live in Australia, which has already gone through this process. It took over 20 years to do it. Even now you will still find the occasional mix of metric and imperial measurements, for example in the building industry where you have to deal with structures built long before the change.
As you have found, people will still use the old system in informal conversations. That is to be expected, and it is not something that you can (or would even want to) legislate to prevent. I grew up with the metric system and I still use phrases like "I can see for miles" even though I would actually measure it in kilometres. I choose photo sizes as 6x4, even though I measure things when I am printing in millimetres. This informal usage is no reason to give up on officially going metric.
Slashdot Mirror
My experience is that most people only upgrade their Windows PC when the old one is so infested with malware that they can't get it to do anything useful anymore.
It doesn't even have to be malware. I have seen people who had bought a new computer to fix a problem that would have been fairly easy to repair. If they find computers too daunting, then getting a replacement is 1) easier and 2) a lot of fun with accompanying bragging rights.
They don't really care what version of Windows is on there so long as it's not Vista or ME.
I do not think that is true. When Vista came out, I found a couple of people who said that they had purchased the upgrade for their system. When I asked what they thought of it both said (independantly) that they had not installed it. I never asked about it again because I knew that they would ask me to install it for them. But I do wonder whether those upgrades are still sitting on a shelf somewhere.
The thing is, they knew a new Windows was out and they wanted it. But it would have been better for them just to buy a new computer with the OS pre-installed. It doesn't just stop with versions of Windows though. One of the managers at my work upgraded his laptop from Windows 7 Home Premium to the Ultimate edition. He doesn't use any of the extra features, but he just wanted the best. He is an idiot, but it does goes to show that people are aware of the operating system and they do have a desire to have the latest version - even if they do not know why.
I don't need an animated dog to get in the way of showing me the search form....And when I tell the intrusive and unnecessary animation to go away, no, I don't need to waste another couple of seconds to watch it stroll away.
You know, you probably spent more time thinking about then writing that paragraph than it took for you to look at the dog, go into preferences and turn it off.
And Microsoft responded to complaints? Only after YEARS of constant and angry complaints over several versions.
What? They disabled it by default in the very next version of Office. You would have to go into preferences and turn Clippy on to start hating it again.
And that's where the ribbon in the new version of Office really, really sucks. There is no built-in "classic" mode.
I initially thought the same as you. It seemed crazy just to completely throw out the old interface. When I thought about it for a while, I realised that the interface had changed so dramatically that it altered every part, including pop up dialog boxes and the placement of some features. If Microsoft were to keep the old interface too, then they would have to completely duplicate their user interface code. People already think that the package is bloated now, imagine how bad it would be to double up on all the UI code.
What I think that they should have done is add the ribbon interface into the Windows applications first so that people could get used to it on simpler programs (eg. Paint and Wordpad in Windows 7). Then it would not have been such a culture shock to be confronted with the new system in such a complicated application like Word or Excel.
You have to admit, your situation (3200 x 1200 dual screen) is pretty unusual. Most people live with a single monitor and lower resolution of 1280x1024 or 1680x1050. It is not a bad feature merely because it does not work well for you at the extreme ends of the resolution spectrum.
And you say you know how to turn this off, but you get sick of doing it so many times on your multi-language setup. Once again, that is not the usual way of using Windows for the majority of people. The average punter uses their stock Windows install for years until they screw up something and then go out and buy a new computer.
As for file searching... well you are right there. I have a Windows 98 system sitting next to me that I use for file searches because every version of Windows since 98/2000 has made file searching worse in some respect.
Nuff said. They own the telco, they'd have access to all traffic across it.
Between your post and elucido's first post, this question is now answered. The conversation is over. You have got the how and the why.
The only question remaining is how the phrase "Alexander Lukashenko openly stated that the phones of Irina Khalip...were being monitored by the special services" can become "Alexander Lukashenko, accidentally admitted to wiretapping journalist Irina Khalip" in the summary.
"Openly stated" is nowhere near the same as "accidentally admitted".
Protip: Clippy and the Spot the dog are the same thing.
Protip: Adding "Protip" doesn't make something true.
Clippy and the dog were both animated characters that would offer help, but that is where the similarity ends. As I said, Clippy was so reviled because it got in the way. It forced itself in your face. Even worse, it spied on what you were doing and tried to "help" (which gave us the meme that people still use as a joke today).
It is really annoying when someone stands behind you doing reading what you type and interrupting with "helpful" comments, so it stands to reason that people would hate it in a virtual character too.
As for Bob, it was not because it was a virtual character that people hated it but that the software was was an unusable mess! You can't tell the difference between badly drawn scenery and badly drawn icons for programs (without pressing F1 to reveal them). This was made back in the days when people thought you needed to imitate the real world to make computers seem approachable, but as the screenshot shows that is a horribly wrong concept.
Ribbons in Explorer. Good lawd, I saw a screenshot. "Hey, everybody! Let's uselessly take up 128 vertical pixels in already vertically challenged widescreen displays!"
You can auto-hide the ribbon so it only appears when you move the mouse over the top of the window. But 128 pixels is nothing compared to what users would subject themselves to with the old toolbars in Office. I would set up our systems at work with a nice two line set of toolbars in Office, but when I look at them later I find every toolbar turned on and half the screen filled with the bloody things (all mixed up in random order too). This is why I prefer the menus, because they tended to stay the same on every computer I had to use.
When I watch my pathetic users try to access an unfamiliar feature, they hover over every single button looking at the tooltips to find the one they are looking for. Even if I would tell them which menu it was on they would ignore that and look for the button.
As much as the ribbon didn't suit me, it did seem like exactly the right thing for my users. While we might love our menus and keyboard shortcuts, the average user just does a hunt-and-peck on the toolbars. The ribbon is a huge step-up for them.
considering most of the presence of new windows versions would come from windows being forcibly bundled by newly sold pcs, and not xp, it easily can be said that people did not MIGRATE to windows 7. even with this forced pushing, its share is still lower than its predecessor.
Buying a new computer is the easiest and most cost effective way to get the new Windows. I am sure that for a lot of people the benefit of getting the latest OS was one of the reasons for upgrading their computer. I am sure that the same thing happens on the Mac (which also bundles the OS with the hardware).
Anyway, if the trends continue as they are going then I predict that Windows 7 will pass XP marketshare before the end of the year.
People loathed Clippy, so what did Microsoft do? They added an animated dog to Windows XP.
The reason everyone hated Clippy was that it intrusively popped up while you were working. On the other hand, the dog was only displayed if you elected to search for something. In fact, I would suggest that Clippy demonstrates that Microsoft will remove features that people do not like. After all, they did get rid of the stupid paperclip after everyone complained.
So if the owner of the patent has no control over any lawsuit by MPEG LA (which I doubt) then it there is even less reason to lay the blame on Apple or Microsoft.
If one of the MPEG-LA members wants to sue, what business is it of Microsoft or Apple? You can't say that either of those companies is attacking WebM because a third patent holder starts throwing their weight around.
If it's totally worth it and not very expensive, private corporations could pick up the tab.
Overall it may be inexpensive, but on an individual project basis it can be quite expensive to fund R&D development that doesn't end up in a saleable product. That is the problem with relying on the private sector - they do not want to be the company that funds the failed research.
Anyway, just because the private sector could do the research is not a reason to stop the government from doing it instead. The only difference is that it ends up with technology that can be used by all companies instead of just one.
You must not have noticed, but China is STRIVING to emit CO2 like the USA per capita. They're putting in power plants as fast as they can... dirty, dirty coal plants.
And you must not have noticed their nuclear reactors that they are building that will provide 40 Gigawatts of power. You have not noticed the 120 Gigawatt capacity of hydropower stations being built over the next 5 years. You have not noticed the 70 Gigawatt capacity of wind power plants being built over the next 5 years. You have not noticed the 5 Gigawatt capacity of solar power plants being built over the next 5 years.
China is betting heavily on green power being the next big industry and they want in right from the start. If they want to build the green technology for the world, then it makes sense for them to use it themselves - even if only to prove to the sceptical governments that it can be done.
Nothing good is rubbing off on you from the Internet and you're not making a positive contribution to it.
And yet nothing good has come from your post. You didn't explain in what way the OP was wrong. You didn't offer an alternate theory. You just said for him/her to go away.
The exchange of ideas is the second best thing about the internet. The OP was doing just that. It doesn't have to be an idea that you agree with, because that gives you the opportunity to examine the flaws and raise other ideas for further discussion. It might even make you think.
You should try it some time.
It never ceases to amaze me that people can think that their tiny factoids can be more accurate and revealing than all the studies by all the climate scientists of the world. So much so that in this case you actually state that:
Last few years were much colder than average.
And yet 2010 was the equal hottest year on record according to the people who actually measure these things. The last decade was the warmest decade on record. Who are we to believe? The scientists who dedicate their lives to measuring what is happening around the world, or someone posting with a couple of isolated incidents and extrapolating a completely opposite conclusion?
Global warming is not about the temperature becoming evenly warmer all around the world. It is about the entire system getting warmer and more energetic. This results in extreme heat and extreme cold at the local level. It also can cause an increase in rain.
The events that you describe match the predicted effects of global warming.
I ask you, if we find that all this pollution is holding off an Ice Age, what do we get to call you?
If we were maintainung the status quo thn this would be reasonable. But we are not. The world is getting hotter. It is like trying to stop ourselves from getting cold by setting fire to ourselves. It is not the sane thing to do.
To suggest that we do this would put you straight into the original eco-nutter category.
Yes, based on that list, we should all strive to emit carbon dioxide like china.
Yes, please! If the US did this then its emissions would drop to less than one quarter of the current levels. I know that it is fashionable to consider China as the big bogeyman for carbon emissions (because it helps us avoid doing anything about this problem ourselves), but really they are not worse - just bigger than everyone else.
"They" do not disavow knowledge of the attack, as stated in the OP, they are just claiming to be not responsible (which proves they do have knowledge of the attack).
It proves no such thing. All It says is that Anonymous do not write 2 paragraph press releases in legalese. They did acknowledge that some Anons may be responsible, but that seems a reasonable to think that the hackers who could pull this off would be also count themselves as members of an organization that has no formal membership process.
Your pun was very depressing.
It is not a pun. It is a spelling mistake. A viola is an instrument, while voilà is the exclamation.
I wonder why most of the web browsers are heading down the UI simplicity route (which people seem to like), while websites still look as horribly complicated as the one in the article's screenshot. It doesn't matter how cluttered the browser is if you have to have a headache pill out after viewing one of these sites.
What shock value are they using to get their point across? They didn't suggest that we stop using the Internet, only that the companies source their power from green suppliers. That is not a controversial statement.
You are correct that power usage has been decreasing and will continue to descrease in the IT industry, and that over time companies will move to green power. But that doesn't happen magically. It may seem that way to us because we users are so far removed from the servers that run the internet. But it the individuals who run the data centres that make the decisions to move the green power. It is those people that Greenpeace are addressing with this report. They are telling them to make reducing their carbon footprint a priority - that next time they are deciding which company to use to supply their power that they should choose the option that is good for the planet.
Worrying about pollution is the core concern of Greenpeace. It was saving the whales that was the branching out into new areas.
And besides, it is not as if there are only a handful of people working at Greenpeace who are too overworked to function properly. There are plenty of people at Greenpeace who have different things that they want to focus on. I don't see any evidence that they have stretched themselves to thin. The only downside I see to wanting to protect different parts of the environment is that it offers the opportunity to people who want to divert attention away from the issues raised to attack the organisation instead. As has happened here.
If Greenpeace did just stick to one issue, do you really believe that they could solve it and put themselves out of business? Sorry, but no. There will always be a few people around who want to protect the environment, but there will also be many, many more who will be quite happy to f*ck up the planet just to make a quick buck.
Large data centers that use enormous amounts of energy such as the ones Google and Facebook operate in Oregon (and Apple's huge center in the Midwest) certainly do have choices about power sources
Exactly. I was going to point out that both Google and Facebook have already managed to find sources of clean power. More importantly though, they get to choose the sites of their data centres. A major factor in this decision is the power supply available in that area. There is no reason why they can't choose a site with a diverse selection of power plants that include clean energy.
But geez..sounds like they're a bit like MADD...and going WAY beyond what they were originally set up for....
Greenpeace has its origins in the anti-nuclear movement of the late 60s. It seems quite reasonable an organisation who were originally worried about us polluting our planet to be concerned about the power sources (and environmental impact) of our data centres.
As usual, they're simply trying to make a statement in a controversial manner.
In what way is this making a statement in a controversial manner? There is an issue that needs addressing so they released a report. That sounds quite normal to me. And is power consumption of data centres a controversial topic? No, it has been discussed quite a lot over the years. Long before climate change became so prominent in people's minds.
The internet isn't it's own country, it's a communication medium.
They didn't say it was a country, they just put the power usage into perspective to show why we should care.
If they wanted to make a serious statement, they could focus on the waste involved in the manufacture of disposable (quickly obsolete) electronics or focus on the power plants we get our energy from.
But they do already talk about those things. I found plenty of e-waste articles with a simple Google search, and as for talking about where we get our energy from - that is part of the report we are discussing now!
No-one's going to give up the internet to save the planet, arguments like this just continue to paint Greenpeace as a collection of sensationalist, attention-whoring, hippies.
Except they never suggested that we all give up the internet. This is purely about making the data centres that run the net less relient on dirty power. By suggesting that they are saying anything else is just you being a sensationalist, attention-diverting, anti-hippie!
There really does not seem to be much that is newsworthy about this. Someone rightly asks the question whether this franchise could die off like their other one, but they are assured that it is still performing well but that they need to ensure that they keep improving the games.
Wow. Captain Obvious does it again!
Guitar Hero had a single, limited idea. There is just only so far that you can push the genre before getting ridiculous. The attempts to add things like a story mode to music games always fails, and since they offer additional songs as DLC then there is very little reason to upgrade to the next game.
There is much greater potential for COD, so it will have a much greater lifespan. And if they stop "milking the franchise" then what would they do instead? Another shooter, but with a different name? Let's face it, the gaming public don't seem to have lost their endless facination with shooting people in games. Sometimes publishers can be faulted for having little imagination by producing sequels, but this is one genre where it is the gaming public who are to blame.
All this shows is that the process of metrication takes a long time. You don't just change all the sign in the country in one go and have everyone speak the new system. You start the process off gradually, like in the UK where you purchase goods using the metric system.
Then you teach the metric units to school kids as the main system. In the UK, they are taught how to convert between imperial and metric units, but not how to manipulate the imperial units and do calculations in that system. Once those kids start graduating then you can move to changing things like road signs.
I live in Australia, which has already gone through this process. It took over 20 years to do it. Even now you will still find the occasional mix of metric and imperial measurements, for example in the building industry where you have to deal with structures built long before the change.
As you have found, people will still use the old system in informal conversations. That is to be expected, and it is not something that you can (or would even want to) legislate to prevent. I grew up with the metric system and I still use phrases like "I can see for miles" even though I would actually measure it in kilometres. I choose photo sizes as 6x4, even though I measure things when I am printing in millimetres. This informal usage is no reason to give up on officially going metric.