That is correct, as you say it... However it ignores the actual situation, which is that paper usage would be even higher were it not for computers. Paper usage HAS been on a constant increase, but it is a lesser increase than if we had not moved towards the "paperless office" ideal.
DO you have any stats to back this up with?
Working in the MFP industry, I'm pretty glad that we haven't (and almost certainly never will) moved to a paperless office society completely otherwise I'd be looking for new work.
Unless and until they come up that displays text and graphics like paper and doesn't use much if any energy, I will want paper. I have no problem with my eyes when reading a book or magazine but monitors, both CRTs and LCDs bother my eyes when I read something long being displayed.
Transmission loss over long distances is only a problem with AC. Transmitting electricity as DC at high voltages reduces the loss. Here's a page on using DC in Data centers: Edison's Revenge: Will DC power rise again?.
I went to a seminar on building new data centers. There we a part about location of new data center. The favorite places in Europe were France and Germany, because of cheap power generated by non-polluting nuclear power plant.
Ah but nuclear power is polluting. Nuclear power pollutes from the ground to the ground, cradle to cradle.
I am aware of the end-of-life problem surrounding nuclear power, but you got to admit that if your goal is to avoid burning stuff, you cannot get any better than this.
It's not just the end-of-life, mining the uranium itself pollutes as does refining. Then there's the construction of the power plant. Nuclear power plants require prodigious amounts of steel and concrete, both of which are energy intensive and require a of mining as well.
not-so-sunny Europe
Europe has some pretty good wind sites though, as it does geothermal.
let me ask you this - what resources would be consumed if we DIDN'T use computers for these jobs? how many forests would we cut down to store the data in the worlds data centers?
Those data centers haven't reduced paper used, paper use is actually up not down. The paperless office was nothing but a dream.
Plastic was originally made from carbohydrates, specifically cellulose, and thus plants such as trees. Kodak the camera company used a method of making Cellulose acetate, a type of plastic, in 1908. If you're old enough you may recall Cellophane, the plastic wrap for sandwiches and such, it got it's name from what it was made from, cellulose. Today there's renewed interest in bioplastic.
What percentage of the power consumption of running a data center is cooling? If they were to build a data center in a really cold environment, I wonder if they could pump the resulting heat under the ground in the immediate area, warming it up enough to plant trees...
Planting trees in cold climates would increase warming not decrease or slow it. That's because darker colors adsorb heat. This is happening in the Arctic, ice reflects light but as it melts into liquid water the water adsorbs the light and warms up.
See, here I am talking about the actual job of government, including all US governments, and here you break into your left-wing, anti-Bush propaganda bullshit.
See, you're making an ass of yourself by assuming I'm a left-wing nut. For your info I'm a Classical Liberal, ie I believe in liberty and small government. In the US the only difference between Democrats and Republicans is which part of government is big. Whereas Democrats want a big social welfare state Republicans want a big military police state.
No real facts to speak of, just saying "what Bush wants". How do you know what Bush wants? Can you read his mind? No? Then it's just your opinion that you don't even attempt to back up.
What I see is the Bush admin giving big businesses big no bid government contracts while doing nothing about the Gulf Coast. Whereas the military are supposed to provide security, in Iraq Blackwater has been given contracts to provide the same security. And who trained Blackwater? The military did.
Please, take your Communist bullshit to the Daily Kos because it really doesn't belong here.
Being president of my HOA, trust me when I say that I'm just making an example. If someone did that in our neighborhood it wouldn't be allowed.
Well I brought up Homeowners Associations because I've met a number of people who didn't know about them and that they could prevent people with painting their homes however they want.
Falcon, Yes, but I don't recall exactly where. If you haven't seen it, it is well worth watching, almost a cautionary tale, considering the current U.S. Government security hysteria.
I shouldn't have to point the obvious to you - get a calendar, and check the date. Compare the date to when you took those tours. Notice they aren't the same.
Yea, we had armed nukes 90 miles off our coast then. If they wanted to anyone could have loaded up a boat filled with arms and landed in the US within hours. Heck even today Cuba is used as a transit stop for drugs, as are other Caribbean nations.
The bill states that exceptions can be made to comply with local law enforcement, but it does however leave a legal path for retribution in cases where a company (read yahoo) gives a foreign government information with the intent of removing dissent.
However as there's already a US law that can be used there's no need for a new one. A law passed in 1789 allows foreigners to sue US businesses that support human rights violations in US courts. That law is the Alien Tort Claims Act.
It is a well-established principle of constitutional jurisprudence that executive power is strongest and constitutional protections weakest when national security is at stake.
Except that when both Lincoln and Bush Jr denied Habeas Corpus both Supreme Courts ruled it was unconstitutional.
If I owned a business that could make a buck supporting a regime that wasn't anti-US, I'd do it no matter how "repressive" they were. That sort of ruthlessness helped win the Cold War, and there is no reason the shrink from it now.
So you would support the massacre of 200,000 people? That's what President Ford and Secretary of State Kissinger did when they supported the Indonesian dictator Suharto's invasion of East Timor. That 200,000 massacred was 1/3 of East Timor's population.
Even though in the Slashdot world security through obscurity is much maligned - in the real world, security through obscurity works and is a valuable layer of defense. For example: Without a floor plan, an intruder cannot identify choke points and potential areas of camera coverage in advance. Nor can he plan his travel paths inside the facility.
So.
Having that information publicly available means you've lost a layer of defenses. Only a fool gives up layers of defense.
At the height of the Cold War the water plant where I lived gave tours of the operations there. And this water plant provided the water for the Air Force base where my dad was stationed, he retired from the USAF.
the government is concerned with everyone's security and has a system in place to protect it.
Government is not concerned about everyone's security. This government, the Bush admin, is concerned about giving businesses large contracts and making people afraid.
When the government fears citizens you have liberty. When the people fear the government you have tyranny.
Well, national security can be important, believe it or not. If somebody posted the floor plan and guard rotations for a large water processing plant, would you really want a law that said nobody could tell them to take down the information?
If needed yes I would want a law saying nobody could force them to take the info down. However there should be no need. Actually where I used to live they gave tours of the operations.
I note from the Wiki article that the Court was not unanimous on that:
"I do not see a philosophical or historical basis for asserting that 'commercial' speech is of 'lower value' than 'noncommercial' speech." -- Clarence Thomas
I see I should have included more links, so here goes:
"The High Cost of Free Speech"
"No one considered advertising or other profit-motivated communications as constitutionally protected speech until fairly recently. According to legal scholars, the phrase "commercial speech" did not even appear in any decision of any court of the United States until 1971. Freedom of speech was an individual right, protected from abridgment by the federal government (and from state and local governments after 1931)."
"Government Regulation of Commercial Speech"
"The Supreme Court for many years took the view that commercial speech--speech that proposes an economic transaction--was not protected by the First Amendment. The Court reasoned that the broad powers of government to regulate commerce must reasonably include the power to regulate speech concerning articles of commerce."
"Commercial Speech"
"In recent years, the Court's treatment of ''commercial speech'' has undergone a transformation, from total nonprotection under the First Amendment to qualified protection."
Anyway, this actually seems to be a good law. Has Hell frozen over ?
Nope not really. It's just another hypocrisy law. It won't fly; the US has too many economic interests in China to pass any type of 'Human Rights' type legislation.
As I just posted in a response to someone else, there's no need for a new law. A law allowing foreign nationals to sue US businesses in US courts for supporting human rights violations has been on the books since 1789. The Alien Tort Claims Act, ATCA, was passed into law in 1789 and has been used, is being used today, to sue US businesses. Here's some of the cases that have been in US courts recently. For instance Unocal settled a lawsuit brought by Burmese villagers in 2005. In another case Coca-Cola was sued for supporting paramilitaries in Colombia.
This is no need for this bill that I can see. US businesses can already be sued and held accountable for supporting human rights violators. The Alien Tort Claims Act of 1789 can and has been used by foreign nationals to sue US based businesses.
Slashdot Mirror
That is correct, as you say it... However it ignores the actual situation, which is that paper usage would be even higher were it not for computers. Paper usage HAS been on a constant increase, but it is a lesser increase than if we had not moved towards the "paperless office" ideal.
DO you have any stats to back this up with?
Working in the MFP industry, I'm pretty glad that we haven't (and almost certainly never will) moved to a paperless office society completely otherwise I'd be looking for new work.
Unless and until they come up that displays text and graphics like paper and doesn't use much if any energy, I will want paper. I have no problem with my eyes when reading a book or magazine but monitors, both CRTs and LCDs bother my eyes when I read something long being displayed.
FalconTransmission loss over long distances is only a problem with AC. Transmitting electricity as DC at high voltages reduces the loss. Here's a page on using DC in Data centers: Edison's Revenge: Will DC power rise again?.
FalconI went to a seminar on building new data centers. There we a part about location of new data center. The favorite places in Europe were France and Germany, because of cheap power generated by non-polluting nuclear power plant.
Ah but nuclear power is polluting. Nuclear power pollutes from the ground to the ground, cradle to cradle.
I am aware of the end-of-life problem surrounding nuclear power, but you got to admit that if your goal is to avoid burning stuff, you cannot get any better than this.
It's not just the end-of-life, mining the uranium itself pollutes as does refining. Then there's the construction of the power plant. Nuclear power plants require prodigious amounts of steel and concrete, both of which are energy intensive and require a of mining as well.
not-so-sunny Europe
Europe has some pretty good wind sites though, as it does geothermal.
Falconlet me ask you this - what resources would be consumed if we DIDN'T use computers for these jobs? how many forests would we cut down to store the data in the worlds data centers?
Those data centers haven't reduced paper used, paper use is actually up not down. The paperless office was nothing but a dream.
FalconAiso.net is a smallish hosting provider utilizing ACTUAL SOLAR to power their datacenter,
Another one is Solarhost.co.uk in the UK and SolarHost in Florida.
And hyrdocarbon is an organic compound isn't it?
So is plastic
Plastic was originally made from carbohydrates, specifically cellulose, and thus plants such as trees. Kodak the camera company used a method of making Cellulose acetate, a type of plastic, in 1908. If you're old enough you may recall Cellophane, the plastic wrap for sandwiches and such, it got it's name from what it was made from, cellulose. Today there's renewed interest in bioplastic.
FalconWhat percentage of the power consumption of running a data center is cooling? If they were to build a data center in a really cold environment, I wonder if they could pump the resulting heat under the ground in the immediate area, warming it up enough to plant trees...
Planting trees in cold climates would increase warming not decrease or slow it. That's because darker colors adsorb heat. This is happening in the Arctic, ice reflects light but as it melts into liquid water the water adsorbs the light and warms up.
FalconSee, here I am talking about the actual job of government, including all US governments, and here you break into your left-wing, anti-Bush propaganda bullshit.
See, you're making an ass of yourself by assuming I'm a left-wing nut. For your info I'm a Classical Liberal, ie I believe in liberty and small government. In the US the only difference between Democrats and Republicans is which part of government is big. Whereas Democrats want a big social welfare state Republicans want a big military police state.
No real facts to speak of, just saying "what Bush wants". How do you know what Bush wants? Can you read his mind? No? Then it's just your opinion that you don't even attempt to back up.
What I see is the Bush admin giving big businesses big no bid government contracts while doing nothing about the Gulf Coast. Whereas the military are supposed to provide security, in Iraq Blackwater has been given contracts to provide the same security. And who trained Blackwater? The military did.
Please, take your Communist bullshit to the Daily Kos because it really doesn't belong here.
Being an ass again.
FalconYeah it's kind of sad that someone might actually think that.
Well, I said it because violent criminals have been released to make space for drug offenders. It's sad when a murderer or rapist serves less tyme in gaol than nonviolent drug offenders do. But that's what the US's fake War on Drugs has done.
FalconBeing president of my HOA, trust me when I say that I'm just making an example. If someone did that in our neighborhood it wouldn't be allowed.
Well I brought up Homeowners Associations because I've met a number of people who didn't know about them and that they could prevent people with painting their homes however they want.
FalconFalcon, Yes, but I don't recall exactly where. If you haven't seen it, it is well worth watching, almost a cautionary tale, considering the current U.S. Government security hysteria.
Though I like Natalie Portman's acting especially in the movies "Where the Heart Is" and "Leon, the Professional" I wasn't interested in either "Garden State or "V for Vendetta".
FalconBest bet is to have American companies obey the local laws, and if they suck, state our case in international forums, and work for change,
Agreed 100%!
FalconI shouldn't have to point the obvious to you - get a calendar, and check the date. Compare the date to when you took those tours. Notice they aren't the same.
Yea, we had armed nukes 90 miles off our coast then. If they wanted to anyone could have loaded up a boat filled with arms and landed in the US within hours. Heck even today Cuba is used as a transit stop for drugs, as are other Caribbean nations.
FalconThe bill states that exceptions can be made to comply with local law enforcement, but it does however leave a legal path for retribution in cases where a company (read yahoo) gives a foreign government information with the intent of removing dissent.
However as there's already a US law that can be used there's no need for a new one. A law passed in 1789 allows foreigners to sue US businesses that support human rights violations in US courts. That law is the Alien Tort Claims Act.
FalconIt is a well-established principle of constitutional jurisprudence that executive power is strongest and constitutional protections weakest when national security is at stake.
Except that when both Lincoln and Bush Jr denied Habeas Corpus both Supreme Courts ruled it was unconstitutional.
FalconIf I owned a business that could make a buck supporting a regime that wasn't anti-US, I'd do it no matter how "repressive" they were. That sort of ruthlessness helped win the Cold War, and there is no reason the shrink from it now.
So you would support the massacre of 200,000 people? That's what President Ford and Secretary of State Kissinger did when they supported the Indonesian dictator Suharto's invasion of East Timor. That 200,000 massacred was 1/3 of East Timor's population.
Falconthe less you know about me, the less you can harm me/the more powerful I am.
By the same token, the less you know about government the more powerful it is. I don't know about you but I fear government more than any terrorists.
When the government fears the people there's liberty. When the people fear the government there's tyranny.
FalconEven though in the Slashdot world security through obscurity is much maligned - in the real world, security through obscurity works and is a valuable layer of defense. For example: Without a floor plan, an intruder cannot identify choke points and potential areas of camera coverage in advance. Nor can he plan his travel paths inside the facility.
So.
Having that information publicly available means you've lost a layer of defenses. Only a fool gives up layers of defense.
At the height of the Cold War the water plant where I lived gave tours of the operations there. And this water plant provided the water for the Air Force base where my dad was stationed, he retired from the USAF.
Falconthe government is concerned with everyone's security and has a system in place to protect it.
Government is not concerned about everyone's security. This government, the Bush admin, is concerned about giving businesses large contracts and making people afraid.
When the government fears citizens you have liberty. When the people fear the government you have tyranny.
FalconWell, national security can be important, believe it or not. If somebody posted the floor plan and guard rotations for a large water processing plant, would you really want a law that said nobody could tell them to take down the information?
If needed yes I would want a law saying nobody could force them to take the info down. However there should be no need. Actually where I used to live they gave tours of the operations.
FalconI note from the Wiki article that the Court was not unanimous on that:
"I do not see a philosophical or historical basis for asserting that 'commercial' speech is of 'lower value' than 'noncommercial' speech." -- Clarence Thomas
I see I should have included more links, so here goes:
- "The High Cost of Free Speech"
- "Governmental Regulation of Commercial Speech"
- "Government Regulation of Commercial Speech"
- "Commercial Speech"
- Findlaw has more info.
Falcon"No one considered advertising or other profit-motivated communications as constitutionally protected speech until fairly recently. According to legal scholars, the phrase "commercial speech" did not even appear in any decision of any court of the United States until 1971. Freedom of speech was an individual right, protected from abridgment by the federal government (and from state and local governments after 1931)."
"The Supreme Court for many years took the view that commercial speech--speech that proposes an economic transaction--was not protected by the First Amendment. The Court reasoned that the broad powers of government to regulate commerce must reasonably include the power to regulate speech concerning articles of commerce."
"In recent years, the Court's treatment of ''commercial speech'' has undergone a transformation, from total nonprotection under the First Amendment to qualified protection."
Anyway, this actually seems to be a good law. Has Hell frozen over ?
Nope not really. It's just another hypocrisy law. It won't fly; the US has too many economic interests in China to pass any type of 'Human Rights' type legislation.
As I just posted in a response to someone else, there's no need for a new law. A law allowing foreign nationals to sue US businesses in US courts for supporting human rights violations has been on the books since 1789. The Alien Tort Claims Act, ATCA, was passed into law in 1789 and has been used, is being used today, to sue US businesses. Here's some of the cases that have been in US courts recently. For instance Unocal settled a lawsuit brought by Burmese villagers in 2005. In another case Coca-Cola was sued for supporting paramilitaries in Colombia.
FalconThis is no need for this bill that I can see. US businesses can already be sued and held accountable for supporting human rights violators. The Alien Tort Claims Act of 1789 can and has been used by foreign nationals to sue US based businesses.
FalconThe summary makes this sound like he's going to jail for SPAMMING (free speech issues?)
Spam is not a free speech issue, it's a commercial speech issue.
FalconPeople driving on the roads to make McDonalds runs cost me money in taxes by causing wear and tear to the roads
Fuel tax does, er should, pay for all road building and maintenance. The more you drive the more you pay
Falcon