I use my computer for masturbation!
WHAT NOW!
"Green computing"
Moderator: Moderators
Re: "Green computing"
I think that we mustnt believe anything al gore ays unless he can prove once and for all that every word he has ever spoken is a lie.
If Im told I shouldnt drink the arsenic because Ill die in 2.4 seconds, and I find out its actually 2.41 seconds, then I shouldnt believe it and I should drink it anyway.
If Im told I shouldnt drink the arsenic because Ill die in 2.4 seconds, and I find out its actually 2.41 seconds, then I shouldnt believe it and I should drink it anyway.
-
Forboding Angel
- Evolution RTS Developer
- Posts: 14673
- Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43
Re: "Green computing"
hehehe, I maek start fight 
-
Tribulexrenamed
- Posts: 775
- Joined: 22 Apr 2008, 19:06
Re: "Green computing"
Stfu about global warming. No one knows what they are talking about, and no one gives a shit.
Re: "Green computing"
And they say we don't need a bullshit forum... Psh. 
-
Forboding Angel
- Evolution RTS Developer
- Posts: 14673
- Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43
Re: "Green computing"
Tribulex wrote:Stfu about global warming. No one knows what they are talking about, and no one gives a shit.
SHun the nonbeliever
shun
shuuun
ssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhuuuuuuuuuuuuuu nuh
http://uploads.ungrounded.net/280000/28 ... nmovie.swf
Re: "Green computing"
i get it.... global warming .... it's a religion..... my god is al gore....... i am such a sheeple.................
-
Forboding Angel
- Evolution RTS Developer
- Posts: 14673
- Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43
Re: "Green computing"
ssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhuuuuuuuuuuuuuu nuh
Re: "Green computing"
Hey, I've got an idea...
Anybody who thinks it's a good idea, go start planting trees.
Actually... I think I've come to a conclusion....
There would be no worries of global warming if everyone who was for power saving and green technology got off their ass and did something, instead of whining about global warming.
To further enhance the point I just made... Has anybody here ever read one of those goddamn blogs or debates over global warming and had their mind changed about it? Have YOU ever changed anybodies mind by debating global warming on the internet?
I highly doubt you did. Now be a good green worker and go plant trees or whatever it is you people do.
Anybody who thinks it's a good idea, go start planting trees.
Actually... I think I've come to a conclusion....
There would be no worries of global warming if everyone who was for power saving and green technology got off their ass and did something, instead of whining about global warming.
To further enhance the point I just made... Has anybody here ever read one of those goddamn blogs or debates over global warming and had their mind changed about it? Have YOU ever changed anybodies mind by debating global warming on the internet?
I highly doubt you did. Now be a good green worker and go plant trees or whatever it is you people do.
Re: "Green computing"
I planted a tree once because I like trees, but I no longer have the time or resources to do such a thing as I'm sure is the situation for a lot of people. I think that global warming people should do something like adopt a tree programs. That way people can name them if they want to and the global warming people will get more support. They already have a lot of national parks out there.Snipawolf wrote:Anybody who thinks it's a good idea, go start planting trees.
Re: "Green computing"
"Green computing" = Less Watts = Less heat dissipated = Less cooling required = Less noise, There are considerations here other than price.
Re: "Green computing"
Damn, this turned into a giant essay.
TL:DNR version:
Saving power on computers makes sense some of the time.
Trees, and their real effects environmentally, are really complicated.
Um, conservation of energy is very simple math. For businesses, conserving power + depreciation can almost totally erase the cost of new hardware, when switching from stuff like the power-sucking P4 lineup... and the new stuff is faster and generally more reliable, to boot.
There's also quite a lot to be said for spending the cash to consolidate hardware to fewer boxes, if possible, also- lower HVAC costs for the server room, lower repair costs, etc. Since business machines in a server room tend to have some load on them most of the time, it makes perfect sense.
For consumers, I think it really comes down to what you get vs. what you paid. If you're buying a $600 piece of junk, then power savings could easily make it pay for itself vs. an older piece of junk over a three year period of reasonable use, if you're like me, and have it running all the time in idle or higher.
However, if you shut it off constantly, then you're actually sucking up a lot more power during use- startup is a very large drain, as the CPU is typically running flat out most of that period, as are the rest of the devices on the bus.
If you're in the gaming rig market, though, and are spending $2000 or more to build your own machine, power savings aren't really worth bothering with, imo, other than the basics of Energy Star- i.e., letting the hardware all go to idle if left alone long enough. But almost everything does that by default anyhow- I actually turned some of that off, because I want my machine to be ready at a keystroke, dammit.
TBH, except for people who are going to use their hardware flat-out a lot (3D artists, coders, engineers) at home, I think it's fair to say that it's better to go ahead and buy hardware that's less "green" and more "mean", with the reasonable expectation that you simply won't use that 600W supply at peak very often at all, except when gaming or ripping something. I'm hardly even making my CPU tick over, using a web browser, unless I play a Flash game, so why even worry about power consumption, when I'm not using anything like peak? And I use it at peak quite a lot more than most people, tbh- between painting stuff, modeling and running Spring in various tests, I probably have the machine at peak load somewhere around 6-10 hours a week. But that's nowhere near all the time, and I suspect that most folks don't even get close.
The only exception to the above is if you're using hardware from 2-3 generations back- P3s and P4s, early Athlon XPs, etc. They were all power-sucking CPUs, even though their peak wattage demands are lower than modern stuff, and wasted quite a lot of power.
If you have one of those machines and can afford to upgrade, even to a sub $400 miniboard machine that's really intended to be for entertainment hubs, etc., then it's almost certainly worth it. Same thing goes more than triple for dumping CRTs for modern flatscreens, if you aren't a diehard FPS player- modern flatscreens are far more energy efficient and have refresh times that are now acceptable (although the really high refresh times still aren't cheap).
Oh, and as for trees... I've planted several thousand of them over the last 15 years, and I have to help my folks a lot, cutting other ones down and taking care of our mature woods. Just about every other weekend, I'm stuck doing that, and for the last two weeks, I've been doing that pretty much every day, as this is the first time that it's both been warm enough and dry enough to use heavy equipment.
If you don't know a lot about trees... with most species, for the first 15-20 years, most trees aren't superior carbon-sinks than smaller, fast-growing stuff. You get better performance from, say, kudzu, or other weeds which grow like crazy. Remember, that carbon's only really taken up when the plant turns it into tissue. Eventually, a tree surpasses any other form of plant, for the ground used... but that's a long process.
Moreover, unless you're dealing with a giant nature preserve or whatever, you need to consider the carbon costs associated with taking care of that tree or trees. We use lots of gasoline and diesel fuel every year, not to mention other carbon costs (replacing / repairing equipment, etc.) so I suspect that even with what we have, we're probably barely breaking even in terms of our own CO2 output, tbh.
Even large forests are probably less efficient carbon-scrubbers than most environmentalist types suspect, because when you factor in the real costs of logging and other stuff (and yeah, I believe that you must cut down a lot of trees to keep a forest reasonably healthy, and to artificially accelerate the process of reaching a certain type of canopy) it's actually quite energy intensive to keep a forest going. And you have to do some stuff with all but the very largest woodland ecosystems, because otherwise it'll burn down sooner or later, like all of those forests in California, or the giant fires that wiped out a lot of Yellowstone when I was a kid. Forests aren't really meant to exist on a small scale- they're really only credible, sustainable ecosystems on either a really giant scale, or with a lot of human intervention.
Some of you people on this Forum are too young to own your own houses and take care of yards. Take my word for it, even a few trees generate some work. We don't worry about lawnmower blades in our woods, of course, but we still have to ring junk softwoods, tear out dead trees that have smashed other stuff on the ground, burn stuff, and plant where necessary... which takes considerable amounts of time, danger (chainsaws, tractors, and trees that weigh 10,000 pounds or more are all cheerfully willful objects, and completely lethal, to boot) and energy.
I suspect that if we start getting desperate about CO2, and sequestration technologies aren't working, we're going to have to genetically modify one of the really fast-growing conifer species to grow at weedlike speeds- weed species like kudzu are too dangerous, and using microbes, etc., is probably far too likely to destroy all life as we know it, but a tree species might be reasonably safe and efficient as a storage medium, although it will require a giant scale, and the resulting forests will be almost completely barren places for other forms of life. If you've never been in a mature conifer forest... it's a little eerie, tbh, how dead they are under the canopy.
Meh, I need to go to bed, tomorrow I am going to have to deal with a huge ash tree that came down during the violent storms two weeks ago, if it didn't rain too much... I suspect it did, though, and the paths are all too wet for the tractor, so I'll just have to do stuff that doesn't require machinery. Damn weather. Maybe I'll get time free to finish the next beta, or something, instead of blathering at 3AM whilst avoiding sleep...
TL:DNR version:
Saving power on computers makes sense some of the time.
Trees, and their real effects environmentally, are really complicated.
Um, conservation of energy is very simple math. For businesses, conserving power + depreciation can almost totally erase the cost of new hardware, when switching from stuff like the power-sucking P4 lineup... and the new stuff is faster and generally more reliable, to boot.
There's also quite a lot to be said for spending the cash to consolidate hardware to fewer boxes, if possible, also- lower HVAC costs for the server room, lower repair costs, etc. Since business machines in a server room tend to have some load on them most of the time, it makes perfect sense.
For consumers, I think it really comes down to what you get vs. what you paid. If you're buying a $600 piece of junk, then power savings could easily make it pay for itself vs. an older piece of junk over a three year period of reasonable use, if you're like me, and have it running all the time in idle or higher.
However, if you shut it off constantly, then you're actually sucking up a lot more power during use- startup is a very large drain, as the CPU is typically running flat out most of that period, as are the rest of the devices on the bus.
If you're in the gaming rig market, though, and are spending $2000 or more to build your own machine, power savings aren't really worth bothering with, imo, other than the basics of Energy Star- i.e., letting the hardware all go to idle if left alone long enough. But almost everything does that by default anyhow- I actually turned some of that off, because I want my machine to be ready at a keystroke, dammit.
TBH, except for people who are going to use their hardware flat-out a lot (3D artists, coders, engineers) at home, I think it's fair to say that it's better to go ahead and buy hardware that's less "green" and more "mean", with the reasonable expectation that you simply won't use that 600W supply at peak very often at all, except when gaming or ripping something. I'm hardly even making my CPU tick over, using a web browser, unless I play a Flash game, so why even worry about power consumption, when I'm not using anything like peak? And I use it at peak quite a lot more than most people, tbh- between painting stuff, modeling and running Spring in various tests, I probably have the machine at peak load somewhere around 6-10 hours a week. But that's nowhere near all the time, and I suspect that most folks don't even get close.
The only exception to the above is if you're using hardware from 2-3 generations back- P3s and P4s, early Athlon XPs, etc. They were all power-sucking CPUs, even though their peak wattage demands are lower than modern stuff, and wasted quite a lot of power.
If you have one of those machines and can afford to upgrade, even to a sub $400 miniboard machine that's really intended to be for entertainment hubs, etc., then it's almost certainly worth it. Same thing goes more than triple for dumping CRTs for modern flatscreens, if you aren't a diehard FPS player- modern flatscreens are far more energy efficient and have refresh times that are now acceptable (although the really high refresh times still aren't cheap).
Oh, and as for trees... I've planted several thousand of them over the last 15 years, and I have to help my folks a lot, cutting other ones down and taking care of our mature woods. Just about every other weekend, I'm stuck doing that, and for the last two weeks, I've been doing that pretty much every day, as this is the first time that it's both been warm enough and dry enough to use heavy equipment.
If you don't know a lot about trees... with most species, for the first 15-20 years, most trees aren't superior carbon-sinks than smaller, fast-growing stuff. You get better performance from, say, kudzu, or other weeds which grow like crazy. Remember, that carbon's only really taken up when the plant turns it into tissue. Eventually, a tree surpasses any other form of plant, for the ground used... but that's a long process.
Moreover, unless you're dealing with a giant nature preserve or whatever, you need to consider the carbon costs associated with taking care of that tree or trees. We use lots of gasoline and diesel fuel every year, not to mention other carbon costs (replacing / repairing equipment, etc.) so I suspect that even with what we have, we're probably barely breaking even in terms of our own CO2 output, tbh.
Even large forests are probably less efficient carbon-scrubbers than most environmentalist types suspect, because when you factor in the real costs of logging and other stuff (and yeah, I believe that you must cut down a lot of trees to keep a forest reasonably healthy, and to artificially accelerate the process of reaching a certain type of canopy) it's actually quite energy intensive to keep a forest going. And you have to do some stuff with all but the very largest woodland ecosystems, because otherwise it'll burn down sooner or later, like all of those forests in California, or the giant fires that wiped out a lot of Yellowstone when I was a kid. Forests aren't really meant to exist on a small scale- they're really only credible, sustainable ecosystems on either a really giant scale, or with a lot of human intervention.
Some of you people on this Forum are too young to own your own houses and take care of yards. Take my word for it, even a few trees generate some work. We don't worry about lawnmower blades in our woods, of course, but we still have to ring junk softwoods, tear out dead trees that have smashed other stuff on the ground, burn stuff, and plant where necessary... which takes considerable amounts of time, danger (chainsaws, tractors, and trees that weigh 10,000 pounds or more are all cheerfully willful objects, and completely lethal, to boot) and energy.
I suspect that if we start getting desperate about CO2, and sequestration technologies aren't working, we're going to have to genetically modify one of the really fast-growing conifer species to grow at weedlike speeds- weed species like kudzu are too dangerous, and using microbes, etc., is probably far too likely to destroy all life as we know it, but a tree species might be reasonably safe and efficient as a storage medium, although it will require a giant scale, and the resulting forests will be almost completely barren places for other forms of life. If you've never been in a mature conifer forest... it's a little eerie, tbh, how dead they are under the canopy.
Meh, I need to go to bed, tomorrow I am going to have to deal with a huge ash tree that came down during the violent storms two weeks ago, if it didn't rain too much... I suspect it did, though, and the paths are all too wet for the tractor, so I'll just have to do stuff that doesn't require machinery. Damn weather. Maybe I'll get time free to finish the next beta, or something, instead of blathering at 3AM whilst avoiding sleep...
Re: "Green computing"
I declare ^ to a form of trolling
-
CarRepairer
- Cursed Zero-K Developer
- Posts: 3359
- Joined: 07 Nov 2007, 21:48
Re: "Green computing"
The human brain uses 20 watts of power, and I'm pretty sure that applies even when you're idling.
Re: "Green computing"
less giant pointless posts argh more pure.
Re: "Green computing"
smoth is in a little french girl
please ban this PAEDO SCUM
please ban this PAEDO SCUM
Re: "Green computing"
Haha...
fixedLocation: in a little french school girl.