Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 10th Jun 2008 17:12 UTC, submitted by stonyandcher
Benchmarks Green, power reduction, and climate change are all the rage these days, and the world of computers is not off the hook on this one. Software and hardware manufacturers are trying hard to keep power consumption down - while first something for mostly mobile computers, desktops and servers are now part of the effort too. PC World tested Windows Server 2008 and two Linux server offerings and compared their power usage patterns.
Thread beginning with comment 318058
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Power saving
by evangs on Tue 10th Jun 2008 20:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Power saving"
evangs
Member since:
2005-07-07

It was clear back in the 1970's when I was growing up during the "energy crisis".


You mean the 1970s when climatologist were warning about the impending threat of "global cooling"? Or the 1970s when the man made "energy crisis" hit due to the OPEC cartel deciding to stop the shipments of oil to countries supporting Israel in the Yom Kippur war?

AGW is a hoax. It may be happening (though evidence shows that the earth has begun to cool), but its a real stretch to try an pin the blame on human activity.

Nevertheless, I'm all in favor of reducing the power consumed by computers. Less power consumed = less cooling needed = longer lasting hardware. Thats in addition to the $$$ saved through lower energy bills.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Power saving
by JeffS on Tue 10th Jun 2008 20:29 in reply to "RE[2]: Power saving"
JeffS Member since:
2005-07-12

"AGW is a hoax"

Prove it.

I'm not fully convinced that global warming, in the long haul, is actually happening. Nor am I fully convinced it's because of excessive human pollution and not due to natural global climate cycles. However, there is tons of credible, hard, scientific evidence from multitudes of credible sources, that points to the validity of these theories.

So I say let's take it seriously. Conservation and reducing pollution are good things regardless. There is nothing to lose, and a lot to gain (reduced dependence on foreign oil, for example).

But then there is the anti-global-warming-theory crowd, who have shown up on this thread. They continually say it isn't happening, that it's all "fascist liberals", or "it's a hoax" or "it will ruin the economy", or they simply try to discredit all of the multitudes of scientists and climatologists, that support global warming theory, as being anti-American liberal commies. All this without making any kind of logical argument, without providing any decent evidence from any credible sources, to support their extreme positions.

These folks are nothing more than ultra right-wing extremist ideologues who are unwilling to look at scientific evidence.

And no, "because Rush Limbaugh says so" is not credible evidence.

So, once again, prove it (and prove me wrong). I sincerely hope you can give a decent argument - I'd love to here it. Again, I'm not fully convinced about the threat of global warming.

But I reject completely right-wingers who reject global warming theory based entirely on their politics, pre-conceived notions, or ideals.

Just base it on science, please.

Reply Parent Score: 11

RE[4]: Power saving
by WereCatf on Tue 10th Jun 2008 22:45 in reply to "RE[3]: Power saving"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

I'm not fully convinced that global warming, in the long haul, is actually happening.

Well, just to butt in to this conversation, just ask some finn if they've noticed any changes in the climate in the last few years....Here in the north it is absolutely clear there has been a dramatical change. Like f.ex. just until two-three years back the winters were usually something like -20C to -30C degrees below zero. Now? Well, the weather hardly drops even to -20C, I only remember once this last winter. The year before that was just as warm as this one.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Power saving
by tomcat on Wed 11th Jun 2008 00:37 in reply to "RE[3]: Power saving"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Prove it.


Actually, I think that a more meaningful proposal would be for ANYONE to tie any rise in global temperatures to human activity. Ergo, absent human activity, would there be any rise in global temperatures? People seem to gloss over this question as if it doesn't matter at all, but wouldn't you want to know, if you were about to devote trillions upon trillions of dollars into buying/bartering carbon credits, whether it will have any impact? I don't take the outcome of this activity for granted. Neither should any rationally-thinking adult. I think that we can all agree, though, that consuming less energy is a good thing, overall, and that's what we should be shooting for. Not artificial carbon emissions targets being sold by politicians.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Power saving
by evangs on Wed 11th Jun 2008 05:26 in reply to "RE[3]: Power saving"
evangs Member since:
2005-07-07

"AGW is a hoax"

Prove it.

I'm not fully convinced that global warming, in the long haul, is actually happening.


Anthropogenic Global Warming != Global Warming.

That's where the majority of the public completely misunderstand the issue. It isn't so much about global warming or climate change (nice new spin on it seeing as Britain is getting colder winters for example). It's about the lack of evidence that links human activity with the climate.

Geological records show great fluctuations in the earth's climate history. Given that we've seen far greater changes in the earths climate (e.g. going to and from an ice age) before the existence of humans, it really is down to the AGW lobby to demonstrate a clear causal link between human activity and this rise in global temperature.

edit: Nevertheless, here's NASA's GISTemp graph of mean US temperature http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates/200708_correction_b.gif. What does that tell you? See the dip in the 1970s? Remember those climatologists crying about global cooling? See the rise in the 90s? See the mean temperature peaking in .... 1998? Then notice that the average annual temperature for the 21st century is not remarkably different from the annual temperature in the 1930s.

Color me a skeptic, but I see the hysteria about AGW as just that. Hysteria. Granted, the climate is changing and only a fool will deny history. Nevertheless, the demonstrable link between human activity (i.e. the A in AGW) has not been demonstrated at all. In fact, the popular media either does not understand or chooses to ignore this very important concept.

Edited 2008-06-11 05:38 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Power saving
by sbergman27 on Tue 10th Jun 2008 20:34 in reply to "RE[2]: Power saving"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Nevertheless, I'm all in favor of reducing the power consumed by computers. Less power consumed = less cooling needed = longer lasting hardware. Thats in addition to the $$$ saved through lower energy bills.

If selfish reasons are what float your boat, far be it from me to disagree. You are correct. Those are good reasons to conserve. Also, less reliance upon foreign powers for fuels makes one's country less vulnerable to manipulation by those powers. Yes, there are plenty of selfish reasons to conserve.

If those are what persuade you to do the right thing, I'm all for it, and do not particularly care whether you see greenhouse gas induced warming to be a real threat or not. So please do not sing a "one note samba" regarding your skepticism toward climate change. The big picture encompasses far more than that.

Edited 2008-06-10 20:42 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5