jcd11235 0
Recommended Posts
billvon 3,120
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>I would also say that energy settings within any OS are more
>important than OS selection in terms of energy savings.
Agreed. At a higher level, the most important issues for PC power draw are (IMO)
1) Type. Laptops take less power than desktops with very few exceptions.
2) Design. Energy star PC's and monitors take much less power than the traditional versions of these devices.
3) Use. Turning off your PC when you're not using it, then turning off the powerstrip it's on once it's shut down, will have a huge impact.
>important than OS selection in terms of energy savings.
Agreed. At a higher level, the most important issues for PC power draw are (IMO)
1) Type. Laptops take less power than desktops with very few exceptions.
2) Design. Energy star PC's and monitors take much less power than the traditional versions of these devices.
3) Use. Turning off your PC when you're not using it, then turning off the powerstrip it's on once it's shut down, will have a huge impact.
Quote
I would also say that energy settings within any OS are more important than OS selection in terms of energy savings.
AMD provides drives for windows and linux to enable the cool n quiet power saving features. For others, it's much more difficult to drop the voltage in idle, making the power draw significantly higher.
skydyvr 0
QuoteFor a typical user that uses their home computer for internet, email, and maybe some word processing and spreadsheet usage . . .
And WOW!
Typical users are playing WOW -- damn near 10M subscribers now. Try that on your 486 Linux box.
. . =(_8^(1)
jcd11235 0
QuoteQuoteFor a typical user that uses their home computer for internet, email, and maybe some word processing and spreadsheet usage . . .
And WOW!
Typical users are playing WOW -- damn near 10M subscribers now.
No doubt about it, WOW is a popular game, but 10 million users is few compared to the number of people with computers at home. Nearly any new consumer level machine has adequate power to play it; the requirements are fairly low. (If gaming is a priority, Windows is definitely the OS to use.)
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
rushmc 23
Gore Has Personal Stake in Anti-Warming Campaign
Friday, April 11, 2008 2:22 PM
By: Phil Brennan
Al Gore, alarmist-in-chief of the anti-global warming campaign, stands to make money from his investments in "green" firms selling various climate change remedies.
Gore spoke in Monterey, California, at a March 1 TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) Conference, which bills itself as "an invitation-only event where the world's leading thinkers and doers gather to find inspiration." He admitted to having "a stake" in a number of green "investments" that he recommended attendees put their money into,"according to NewsBusters.
Said Gore: "There are a lot of great investments you can make. If you are investing in tar sands, or shale oil, then you have a portfolio that is crammed with sub-prime carbon assets. And it is based on an old model.
"Junkies find veins in their toes when the ones in their arms and their legs collapse. Developing tar sands and coal shale is the equivalent. Here are just a few of the investments I personally think make sense - I have a stake in these so I’ll have a disclaimer there - geo-thermal concentrating solar, advanced photovoltaics, efficiency, and conservation."
Commented NewsBusters Noel Sheppard, "As Gore spoke these words, pictures of hybrid cars, windmills and solar panels appeared in multiple slides on the screen with company names at the bottom such as Amyris (biofuels), Altra (biofuels), Bloom Energy (solid oxide fuel cells), Mascoma (cellulosic biofuels), GreatPoint Energy (catalytic gasification), Miasole (solar cells), Ausra (utility scale solar panels), GEM (battery operated cars), Smart (electric cars), and AltaRock Energy (geothermal power)."
Sheppard noted Gore's recommendations that people put money in companies in which he has a financial stake is like "an investment advisor or stock broker giving a seminar to prospects and clients. And, as he tours the world demanding nations stop burning fossil fuels, he will financially benefit if they follow his advice and move to technologies that he has already invested in."
Friday, April 11, 2008 2:22 PM
By: Phil Brennan
Al Gore, alarmist-in-chief of the anti-global warming campaign, stands to make money from his investments in "green" firms selling various climate change remedies.
Gore spoke in Monterey, California, at a March 1 TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) Conference, which bills itself as "an invitation-only event where the world's leading thinkers and doers gather to find inspiration." He admitted to having "a stake" in a number of green "investments" that he recommended attendees put their money into,"according to NewsBusters.
Said Gore: "There are a lot of great investments you can make. If you are investing in tar sands, or shale oil, then you have a portfolio that is crammed with sub-prime carbon assets. And it is based on an old model.
"Junkies find veins in their toes when the ones in their arms and their legs collapse. Developing tar sands and coal shale is the equivalent. Here are just a few of the investments I personally think make sense - I have a stake in these so I’ll have a disclaimer there - geo-thermal concentrating solar, advanced photovoltaics, efficiency, and conservation."
Commented NewsBusters Noel Sheppard, "As Gore spoke these words, pictures of hybrid cars, windmills and solar panels appeared in multiple slides on the screen with company names at the bottom such as Amyris (biofuels), Altra (biofuels), Bloom Energy (solid oxide fuel cells), Mascoma (cellulosic biofuels), GreatPoint Energy (catalytic gasification), Miasole (solar cells), Ausra (utility scale solar panels), GEM (battery operated cars), Smart (electric cars), and AltaRock Energy (geothermal power)."
Sheppard noted Gore's recommendations that people put money in companies in which he has a financial stake is like "an investment advisor or stock broker giving a seminar to prospects and clients. And, as he tours the world demanding nations stop burning fossil fuels, he will financially benefit if they follow his advice and move to technologies that he has already invested in."
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Amazon 7
QuotePhil Brennan
Now THERE is an impartial source.............NOT
He is just another far right wing nutjob
He who wrote this.....
HI HO, HI HO...
IT'S OFF TO WAR WE GO
By: Phil Brennan
It's Tuesday, February 25, (the day before what would have been my 54th wedding anniversary if my Barb hadn't just up and gone off to spend eternity with Our Lord 11 years ago), and it looks very much as if the United States of America, with all its power and majesty, is about to wage war, fast and furiously.
This apparent fact has ginned up a lot of anti-war protests, most of which, when examined carefully, turn out to be anti-George W. Bush protests more than expressions of genuine pacifist sentiment.
Take for example the Hollywood crowd, a motley assemblage of serial adulterers, abortion promoters, gays, practitioners of multiple marriages and divorces, and all around unwholesomeness. They don't like George W. Bush. They don't like what he stands for. They don't like his proclaimed and scrupulously-lived Christianity and his marital fidelity. No matter what he did, they'd find reasons to rail against it.
So too, for the elitist mainstream media, a sleazy collection of pro-abortion, pro-gay Marxists who will not be satisfied until the nation comes to its senses and elects a socialist president and a socialist congress. This craven crew is afraid to be as openly anti-war as their Hollywood brethren, but scratch one and you'll find a dedicated but trembling anti-warrior underneath.
http://www.etherzone.com/2003/bren022603.shtml
No wonder he posts on ETHER ZONE... since it sure sounds like he has inhaled way too much of it.
No wonder he is firmly entrenched in the denier crowd.
Even better he made the Top 10 Conservative Idots list.. .. another Jem of his...
Phil Brennan
Last week Phil Brennan wrote a fascinating article on Newsmax.com, which was full of the usual exquisite fact-checking Newsmax is well-known for. The premise of Brennan's argument is that smoking - despite all evidence to the contrary - is actually good for you. Sure, Brennan admits that smoking will kill you, but it's good for society at large. "When I look back to the dark ages when I was growing up, and for many years after, things were a lot less turbulent," he wrote. "We didn't have to turn to tranquilizers or other mood-soothing drugs when we were under tension or wrapped up in difficult tasks. We simply took a few minutes to relax, sat back and reached for a cigarette. It almost always did the trick." Ah, the good old days - when men were men and everyone coughed up a lung. But there's more: apparently the biggest problem today is "greedy trial lawyers" (surprise) who "milk billions from an industry once praised for its contributions to the war effort." Contributions to the war effort? Yes indeed - and Brennan was there. "In the Marine Corps in WW II we were told that in the field, even if we were non-smokers, we were to carry at least one pack of cigarettes for the benefit of those who did smoke and might be out of cigarettes at a time when they most needed a drag. Obviously the Corps saw tobacco as a benefit to Marines, especially in combat." Yes, thanks, tobacco companies, for addicting an entire generation of soldiers who had to get their buddies to carry extra smokes so they could simply function during a firefight. Mind you, according to Brennan, smoking isn't even addictive: "The experience of the millions of ex-smokers who quit proved how false that idea is. If it is really an addiction, most of those who have quit would not have succeeded and many of those who had quit would have been backsliders who finally gave in to the urge and went back to smoking." Um, I hate to break it to you Phil, but most of those who quit don't succeed, and many of those who quit do backslide and go back to smoking. See, according to Brennan smoking is a habit, not an addiction; he cites heroin as an example of a real addictive substance. Which is odd, because if junkies had to shoot up as often as I have to smoke a cigarette, they'd be dead pretty fucking quick.
kallend 2,151
Ashamed to post that your source is Newsmax, for fear of being laughed off the forum?
www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Gore_profit_warming/2008/04/11/87256.html
I thought you had sworn off Newsmax in an attempt to gain some credibility.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
billvon 3,120
You invoked Phil Brennan
Now that is funny
He is a quack. Debunked disproved and he should be ashamed.
That is a good one.
Please, use Phil Brennan any time you want.
It ranks right up there with your CDIF rants.
Now that is funny
He is a quack. Debunked disproved and he should be ashamed.
That is a good one.
Please, use Phil Brennan any time you want.
It ranks right up there with your CDIF rants.
Al Gore invests in industries involved in clean (non-fossil fuel) energy sources??? OH MY GOD! 
Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
billvon 3,120
Of course. It's quite simple:
Al Gore invests in clean power. GOP interpretation - he is trying to profit from his pushing global warming! His only motive is profit.
Al Gore does not invest in clean power. GOP interpretation - he clearly does not believe his own words! He's a hypocrite.
A Republican ANWR-drilling advocate invests in oil. GOP interpretation - he is a wise investor and is planning for America's future.
A Republican ANWR-drilling advocate does not invest in oil. GOP interpretation - he is avoiding conflicts of interest, not like that hypocrite Al Gore.
Al Gore invests in clean power. GOP interpretation - he is trying to profit from his pushing global warming! His only motive is profit.
Al Gore does not invest in clean power. GOP interpretation - he clearly does not believe his own words! He's a hypocrite.
A Republican ANWR-drilling advocate invests in oil. GOP interpretation - he is a wise investor and is planning for America's future.
A Republican ANWR-drilling advocate does not invest in oil. GOP interpretation - he is avoiding conflicts of interest, not like that hypocrite Al Gore.
Quote
Al Gore invests in clean power. GOP interpretation - he is trying to profit from his pushing global warming! His only motive is profit.
Al Gore does not invest in clean power. GOP interpretation - he clearly does not believe his own words! He's a hypocrite.
Precisely. Given the youth of the new energy world commercially, it would be very difficult to avoid having investments in what you are advocating. But it's only a problem when you don't disclose the financial involvement. (Here in DZ.com we have countless violations of this)
If you look back, I acknowledged that the examples I had seen with my own eyes were anecdotal. The "benchmark" that was offered as a counter-example lacks too much information to be anything more than anecdotal. Even if it didn't, a *nix OS still used the least power of the four tested.
I am, however, now more inclined to suspect that it is a combination of a more efficient OS with hardware technology that more easily takes advantage of that efficiency that can offer the most energy savings via OS selection.
I would also say that energy settings within any OS are more important than OS selection in terms of energy savings.
My post that is being nitpicked was simply a list of a few different things that individuals can do to save a little bit of power here and there. It was in no way intended to promote one OS over another (they all have their relative strengths and weaknesses), except to the extent that if one watches tech forums, there is an abundance of posters who are not pleased with the amount of system resources their new Windows machines use. Many of those users subsequently switch to a *nix OS, and the resource usage by the OS drops. Since my own observations are consistent with that, combined with the fact that I rarely (if ever) read about anyone switching from a *nix OS to Windows only to have more system resources available, I added the OS switch to the list. I was not trying to convince everybody to switch from Windows.
For a typical user that uses their home computer for internet, email, and maybe some word processing and spreadsheet usage, there's no real functional benefit of one OS over another, with the possible exception of iPod/iTunes syncing abilities, since iPods tend to be rather popular.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites