If you can simply upgrade the ram, and add another CPU (which will probably boost performance by another 20% with the CPU) then the people probably didn't need a new computer to begin with. Or at least I would say, if their computer was THAT slow, then I doubt a second slow cpu will boost performance for another 2 or more years!
Depending a bit on the OS and applications you use, going from 1 to 2 cpus can give a performance boost of anywhere between 0 and 90%.
With my specific use, my dual pII has performed acceptably with modern software for more then 5 years, while other machines from that same time but with a single cpu started becomming unusable with modern software some 2 years ago.
Second you trashed an entire computer, but saved ram and memory; when you weight that against the ammount of crap in the REST of the computer it's probably like 3-4% savings.
Read again, he reuses half of the computers and thows away the other half minus the memory and cpu. If your estimate is correct regarding the 3-4% then his total savings would be in order of 53-54%
get integrated networking and sound - fewer cards to throw away. ( which probably get replaced anyway).
While I agree with the general line of thought, the example you pick is a bad one. Sound and networking are the 2 cards that are the least problematic to reuse since theres very little performance to gain from more modern cards. Those 2 only need replacement if you need new features
reuse periferals such as cdroms, and zip drives. If they're clean, they probably work fine.
I agree with regards to zipdrives, but older cd-rom drives are annoyingly slow.
The case is only tossed if it's an older AT case.
Older AT cases make for perfect external scsi enclosures etc, no need to throw them away.
Well, this is a nice story, but what you seem to forget is that in order for this to happen, the orioginal ecology at the place was destroyed. It is nice that another ecology developed in its place but if that is more or less damage is debatable.
Adding heat to water and then putting it back into a river is in fact a form of polution. Yeah, it only got a little warmer.... Well, the local ecology will get pretty messed up from that.
Hence, just used to cool the plants' does in fact polute the environment.
I thought this was about total power usage of the system?
Does it really matter where all the power is going? to me it seems all that matters is that a modern system generally uses more power then an older one, and so the argu,ment against reuse sounds like its flawed.
It is not flawed if and only if you actually get more use out of a modern system, what is not factored in into the energy usage picture here is that 1 watt of power gets you way more usable cycles on modern hardware, so the actual cost of computing dropped. That however plays little role for the average user, running that 'advanced typewriter' as most peopel tend to use their compu just gets moire and more expensive.
Dell 'makes' a PC.. In fact, they have a PC assembled somewhere in/near their distribution center from parts mostly comming from Asia.
Now, lets say some Korean company also sells PCs but has them assembled in Korea and ships them to retailers.
If I were to follow your reasoning, I should count the cost of sendign the parts abroad for assembly close to the customer, but I should not count those costs when it concerns an assembled PC??
Sorry, but the only way to not get number manipulation here is to count ALL costs from start as raw materials till having an actually workign PC on the users desk. Anything else will give a wrong and tainted picture.
So water consumption is a 'bad' thing? Not in my book.
Good/bad are absolute terms, better/worse are the relative terms you seem to be looking for.
In other words, if using 1.5 tons of water is good or bad is not relative to some other form of wastign a resource, unless that other form could actually replace it. So.. your argumments that there are processes where things get wasted by being burned is simply no argument whatsoever in a discussion about water.
Since when do we give a flying f**k about the U.N.s concerns?
Keep the U.S. out of the U.N. and the U.N. out of the U.S.
A few things you might want to consider...
Last time the USA thought it did not have to care about the rest of the world, it got involved in what we now call the 2nd world war.
The USA was the big proponent of setting up the UN, that it turned into what it is now is something you can in part blame the same USA for due to its absurd abuse of its veto power (look it up, there are more vetos from the USA then all other members of the security council together)
We need a body to deal with problems and issues that are larger then the USA, don't forget the USA is less then 5% of the world in population
Bottomline, what you propose is unrealistic and very dangerous. If you have issues with the UN, and there are definitely some areas where you should have issues, then work on getting it fixed.
Heh. I always press cancel when it wants em to do that.. seems it works fine without registration and recent versions dont seem to keep nagging about it like some older versions did.
Yeah, it whined that I would not be able to receive all the 'benefits' of registration, well, I'm fine with that;)
Imagine if the Apache team decided to just call it a day and not release any fixes, more releases, etc., and other OSS httpd developers decided to follow suit. All because "hey it's been fun" how responsible would that be
If you were an Apache using company, you could hire me or some of a zillion other peopel who have worked with the Apache sources to fix problems.. you could goto one of the half dozen vendors of commercial versions of Apache to get fixed versions, you could decide to setup your internal Apache development team and provide a commercial version...
Because the source is out there, the fact that an author stops workign on some project doesn't mean you can't continue using it.
Interesting business model for imposing a tax on OSS and freeware.
Sorry, but you simply pay a different price for OSS and freeware when compared to commercial software.
The price is that you yourself are responsible for its failures.
That in no way means that the original authors will be unwilling to fix things, usually they are rather interested in that actually, but you simply cannot hold them liable for it.
All your plan would do when made mandatory is take away that choice. Make it optional and you'll find it already exists to some extent and may be a viable business.
I think you can expect a lot from it, but you cannot expect to hold the author responsible for what it does or doesn't do. That has nothing to do with them not carign about the quality of their work but all with the fact that you are not compensating them for their efford.
Our Chief Scientist, Dr. Emil Drizzlenik PhD from the renowned Chernobyl Electrical Institute in Russia, developed this patented technology after an accident at the power plant left all of the homes and businesses in his area dark.
That at least explains their glowing vibrators.. now just hope Dr. Drizzlenik fixed that explosion 'feature'.
Re:Considering how people flail and pound on butto
on
Hand-Powered Hardware?
·
· Score: 1
Well uh..
To some extent this is what modern cpus are doing, but in general, most of the power doesn't really go to the cpu in something like a gameboy (advance or not)
Things like sound, display etc take up a fair share.
Oh, and eh, the warming up of the device, well, this is an unwanted side effect, count on it that if it could be reduced in a feasable way, they'd do so.
Interestingly, that hand cranked radio (I have one here) actually allows you toload a spring which in turn drives its small generator. This is way more economic then using a battery (less loss when storing the energy)
> Nobody wants to pay $300 for thier printer when they can pay $100 for it (and later pay $40 for the cartridges).
Well, just been talking for a while to my dad who has a Lexmark inkjet now, and vowed on replacing it when it runs out of ink due to exactly this problem.
Yeah, first time around he argued he didn't print enough to buy a slightly more expensive printer with cheap/refillable cartridges, now he is looking at a small laser printer (business one, not one intended for consumers).
I'm personally quite happy with my HP PSC thingy, it prints very well, ink cartridges are not cheap, but easy to refill (looks almost as if they are made for refilling) but I'm not sure if I'd buy another one unless its for the price of 2 cartridges basicly (the builtin scanner is a nice bonus at that price)
Slashdot Mirror
Depending a bit on the OS and applications you use, going from 1 to 2 cpus can give a performance boost of anywhere between 0 and 90%.
With my specific use, my dual pII has performed acceptably with modern software for more then 5 years, while other machines from that same time but with a single cpu started becomming unusable with modern software some 2 years ago.
Read again, he reuses half of the computers and thows away the other half minus the memory and cpu. If your estimate is correct regarding the 3-4% then his total savings would be in order of 53-54%
While I agree with the general line of thought, the example you pick is a bad one. Sound and networking are the 2 cards that are the least problematic to reuse since theres very little performance to gain from more modern cards. Those 2 only need replacement if you need new features
I agree with regards to zipdrives, but older cd-rom drives are annoyingly slow.
Older AT cases make for perfect external scsi enclosures etc, no need to throw them away.
Well, this is a nice story, but what you seem to forget is that in order for this to happen, the orioginal ecology at the place was destroyed. It is nice that another ecology developed in its place but if that is more or less damage is debatable.
Adding heat to water and then putting it back into a river is in fact a form of polution. Yeah, it only got a little warmer.... Well, the local ecology will get pretty messed up from that.
Hence, just used to cool the plants' does in fact polute the environment.
I thought this was about total power usage of the system?
Does it really matter where all the power is going? to me it seems all that matters is that a modern system generally uses more power then an older one, and so the argu,ment against reuse sounds like its flawed.
It is not flawed if and only if you actually get more use out of a modern system, what is not factored in into the energy usage picture here is that 1 watt of power gets you way more usable cycles on modern hardware, so the actual cost of computing dropped. That however plays little role for the average user, running that 'advanced typewriter' as most peopel tend to use their compu just gets moire and more expensive.
Ok... lets see...
Dell 'makes' a PC.. In fact, they have a PC assembled somewhere in/near their distribution center from parts mostly comming from Asia.
Now, lets say some Korean company also sells PCs but has them assembled in Korea and ships them to retailers.
If I were to follow your reasoning, I should count the cost of sendign the parts abroad for assembly close to the customer, but I should not count those costs when it concerns an assembled PC??
Sorry, but the only way to not get number manipulation here is to count ALL costs from start as raw materials till having an actually workign PC on the users desk. Anything else will give a wrong and tainted picture.
Good/bad are absolute terms, better/worse are the relative terms you seem to be looking for.
In other words, if using 1.5 tons of water is good or bad is not relative to some other form of wastign a resource, unless that other form could actually replace it. So.. your argumments that there are processes where things get wasted by being burned is simply no argument whatsoever in a discussion about water.
A few things you might want to consider...
Bottomline, what you propose is unrealistic and very dangerous. If you have issues with the UN, and there are definitely some areas where you should have issues, then work on getting it fixed.
Heh. I always press cancel when it wants em to do that.. seems it works fine without registration and recent versions dont seem to keep nagging about it like some older versions did. Yeah, it whined that I would not be able to receive all the 'benefits' of registration, well, I'm fine with that ;)
> he works from the BBC, a publicly funded entity accountable to no one, especially not its customers
And yet they are well known for their extremely high quality news and other TV programs...
If you were an Apache using company, you could hire me or some of a zillion other peopel who have worked with the Apache sources to fix problems.. you could goto one of the half dozen vendors of commercial versions of Apache to get fixed versions, you could decide to setup your internal Apache development team and provide a commercial version...
Because the source is out there, the fact that an author stops workign on some project doesn't mean you can't continue using it.
Interesting business model for imposing a tax on OSS and freeware.
Sorry, but you simply pay a different price for OSS and freeware when compared to commercial software.
The price is that you yourself are responsible for its failures.
That in no way means that the original authors will be unwilling to fix things, usually they are rather interested in that actually, but you simply cannot hold them liable for it.
All your plan would do when made mandatory is take away that choice. Make it optional and you'll find it already exists to some extent and may be a viable business.
I think you can expect a lot from it, but you cannot expect to hold the author responsible for what it does or doesn't do. That has nothing to do with them not carign about the quality of their work but all with the fact that you are not compensating them for their efford.
That at least explains their glowing vibrators.. now just hope Dr. Drizzlenik fixed that explosion 'feature'.
Well uh.. To some extent this is what modern cpus are doing, but in general, most of the power doesn't really go to the cpu in something like a gameboy (advance or not) Things like sound, display etc take up a fair share. Oh, and eh, the warming up of the device, well, this is an unwanted side effect, count on it that if it could be reduced in a feasable way, they'd do so.
Interestingly, that hand cranked radio (I have one here) actually allows you toload a spring which in turn drives its small generator. This is way more economic then using a battery (less loss when storing the energy)
> Nobody wants to pay $300 for thier printer when they can pay $100 for it (and later pay $40 for the cartridges). Well, just been talking for a while to my dad who has a Lexmark inkjet now, and vowed on replacing it when it runs out of ink due to exactly this problem. Yeah, first time around he argued he didn't print enough to buy a slightly more expensive printer with cheap/refillable cartridges, now he is looking at a small laser printer (business one, not one intended for consumers). I'm personally quite happy with my HP PSC thingy, it prints very well, ink cartridges are not cheap, but easy to refill (looks almost as if they are made for refilling) but I'm not sure if I'd buy another one unless its for the price of 2 cartridges basicly (the builtin scanner is a nice bonus at that price)