jcd11235

Both are single incidences, a sample size too small to be significantly significant. After 10-15 minutes searching, I didn't come up with any benchmarks using the same machine, except for the one you linked to. It's not that I find that one unacceptable (well, the second part is, because they don't list any of the running applications). It's that the conditions of the comparison are so much different from the examples I've personally seen that it doesn't offer any real insight as to why the results are different. I've seen significant differences, Their test showed Fedora was only marginally more efficient, and Ubuntu was marginally less efficient. A limited list of possibilities: The comparisons I have seen were on machines with newer processor technology. They used a machine with a dedicated graphics card. I saw comparisons between Windows and *nix OSs on machines with integrated graphics. They used a different version of Vista. I've only seen Vista Ultimate compared to XP SP2, not any *nix operating systems. (Vista Ultimate used significantly more system resources than XP SP2 on a high end gaming laptop that was about six months old at the time, within about a week of Vista's initial release.) There's lots of different possible reasons for the differences. Without being able to do lots of comparisons with many OSs on many different machines, with carefully documented conditions, at the end of the day, their benchmark is anecdotal, just like mine. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

When someone claims a peer reviewed study is incorrect, but relies on rhetoric to rather than evidence, that rhetoric based argument lacks credibility. A benchmark (at least the one to which you linked) is an anecdote. Either you find them acceptable, or you don't. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

You will notice that at idle, Fedora used the least power, although the difference was less than I would have expected. The other test is rather meaningless, since they don't even mention what applications are running. They only compared Windows with two *nix operating systems, a tiny fraction of what is available. Given the similarity they found between XPSP2 and Vista, I can't help but to wonder just how unscientific their admittedly unscientific testing was. They ran the test on an old technology Pentium CPU. All of the anecdotal examples I have witnessed have utilized updated, multi core technology, with much larger differences with Vista (only minor differences with XP, which may be nonexistent with SP3). Still, I readily admit that, to quote Kallend, the plural of anecdote is not data. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I don't think there is currently a problem with people not already being able to use as much power as they want in the US. I also don't think "freeloaders will take up any slack that conservers provide," as the "freeloaders" will still have to pay for the electricity they use, just as they currently do. Perhaps we will ultimately find that people will require legislation to reduce energy consumption. However, I'm optimistic that education can bring about change. I suspect that many people are unaware of some of the reasons they are paying for and using power unnecessarily. If you're wanting a single magic bullet, you'll be waiting a long time. The problem has to be addressed in multiple ways, conservation of energy, alternate grid energy sources, self powered buildings, etc. From my perspective, what I can do right now is decrease my own energy use. And since utilities are included in my rent, I don't even have financial incentive; I just think it's the right thing to do. I've never known anyone who ran their computer 24/7 simply because it had a particular OS installed. I know people who shut down and restart their *nix boxes several times daily. I also know people that leave their Windows boxes on 24/7. It depends primarily on the function of the machine, not the OS that's installed. Like I said, all else equal (ie. different OS on the same machine). Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Agreed. Newer processors offer more performance per watt. However, given the same newer hardware, the OS that can run well on the older, less powerful hardware can run on the new hardware with fewer demands on the CPU than an OS that is too CPU intensive to run well on older hardware. Combined with hardware technologies such as Intel Intelligent Power Capability, this allows the CPU running a less resource intensive OS (eg. UNIX®/*nix OSs) to use less power, all else being equal. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I assume from your previous posts, you're able to back up that assertion with a reference to peer-reviewed research? Touché. No, I don't have any peer reviewed research supporting the assertion. I only have (multiple) anecdotal observations of significant differences in resource usage on the same or very similar machines. My observations are consistent with literally thousands of internet forum posts with people complaining about Vista's speed and high processor usage at idle. If you are aware of any peer reviewed research, please let me know, as I would be interested in reading it. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I fail to see the logic behind that assertion. Do you require legislation before you can be bothered to turn the light out when you leave the room? Do you need a law to require you to turn off your television if you're not watching it? So, you acknowledge that an older system has the processing power to run Linux when it doesn't run Windows as well. How is that not evidence that Linux requires less processing power than Windows? Extending that logic, if Windows requires more processing power than Linux, then all else equal, Linux will also use less energy. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

All else being equal, the UNIX®/*nix boxes will typically use less power than Windows. I'm not trying to argue for or against Windows' stability, security, or anything else, only that it tends to use more resources than *nix OSs. No "sky is falling" mentality from me in this thread. I simply consider my sources, and when it comes to GW, those scientists that acknowledge it tend to rely on more credible evidence than the people who don't. I'm not arguing for or against legislation. You wanted examples of what I thought could be done, and I gave them. They are simple changes that can be made at the individual level. If you didn't want to hear them, then why ask? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I said nothing of the sort. I mentioned using a less resource intensive, thus more power efficient, operating system as only one way to make a small difference in one's energy consumption. Nor did I mention Linux. There are many UNIX®/*nix operating systems available. I would be surprised if Linux is even the most widely used (it's probably number two). Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Not a dig. Just an observation that Windows uses more power consuming system resources than other operating systems available to consumers. I could offer relative strengths and weaknesses of most common operating systems, but since my post was about ways for individuals to reduce their energy consumption, I only pointed out that particular aspect. My list was not intended to be exhaustive. There are many, many ways to save a little bit of energy here and there. Do lots of small changes add up? Absolutely. In recent years I've heard a few reports about how applying many small tweaks to existing technology in cars allows for fuel efficiency improvements similar to or even slightly superior to newer, more costly technology. Standby power alone is estimated to account for five percent of residential power use in the US. The study I linked to previously found it to account for nine percent, on average, of the power consumption of the small sample of California homes examined. A typical home in the United States requires an average of 50 W of standby power. This amounts to 440 kWh per year per household (i.e.; 5 per cent of total residential electricity use). Considering that there are more than 100 million homes in the United States, the standby consumption represents 5 GW of power. (emphasis mine - jcd11235) The range of standby power consumed by a single type of appliance can be wide due to differences in features, design, and choice of components. For example, the standby power of a compact audio system can vary 1.3-28.6 W. Certain appliances consume nearly as much power when they are switched on or switched off. For example, there is practically no change in power consumption of most digital TV decoders and many VCR and compact audio equipment. I suspect small changes could reduce power consumption by more than twenty percent, but even twenty percent is a significant reduction. (If your employer wanted to reduce your salary by twenty percent, would you still consider that percentage to be only minimal?) By reducing consumption, the cost of generating one's own electricity via solar power, etc. is also reduced, since less power needs to be generated. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Human powered transportation (e.g. bicycles, skateboards, LPCs, etc.) for travel over short distances. Park instead of using the drive through. Don't drive a gas guzzling vehicle on trips for which a more fuel efficient vehicle will suffice. When replacing household (or business, if one makes such purchasing decisions) appliances, place a value on energy efficiency. Don't use the same 2x four core Xeon with 4TB of internal RAID storage and four high end video cards work station intended for Photoshop, video editing, etc. if all you need to do is get online and check your email. A low-end Core 2 Duo mobile processor equipped machine is much more energy efficient and will work just as well for such non-processor intensive tasks. Replace MS Windows with less resource intensive UNIX®/*nix operating systems whenever possible. Use surge protectors that allow you to easily shut off power to unused electronic equipment instead of leaving the equipment on or in standby mode. Don't leave phone chargers plugged in when not in use. More information here and here. Turn off lights and televisions when not in the room. Don't heat a litre of water if all you want to do is make a cup of tea. It doesn't require installation of solar arrays or a windmill in one's backyard to make a difference. People can make small, easy decisions in their lives to reduce their energy consumption. Certainly, it's not practical for everyone to take every possible step, but if everyone made an effort to take some steps, it would help. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I agree and have posted as such in this or a similar thread. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

No, really? Damn, Bill, glad you clued me in on that...all this time I thought it was Jerry Springer that was approving this stuff. Funny how all the review boards seem to be members of the consensus... makes it a bit difficult for anything not 'toeing the party line' to get a fair shake, wouldn't you say? Well, I guess your making progress. At least you're finally acknowledging a general consensus among climate scientists. As far as "toeing the party line" is concerned, are you suggesting that lesser qualified reviewers referee the articles, since, as you pointed out, the qualified scientists are of a general consensus? I think you would be hard pressed to find many scientists that would not be overjoyed to find out about new data that sufficiently and credibly explained global warming to not be a problem caused by man to a large degree. Such data would be welcomed in the same manner that an oncological patient would welcome news that they don't actually have cancer. The consensus exists due to a preponderance of evidence, not because scientists are "toeing the party line." Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

If you think that's a high unexpected cost, you've probably never femured. It's a completely different order of magnitude, and that's a relatively inexpensive injury. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Me too. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Well, I'll give you credit sir. That article is at least formatted to look as though it was published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Unfortunately, it wasn't actually published there. It doesn't appear to have been published in any respected, peer reviewed scientific journals. Nor are any of the authors qualified to speak authoritatively on the subject of climatology. According to SourceWatch: Robinson was not even a climate scientist. He was a biochemist with no published research in the field of climatology, and his paper had never been subjected to peer review by anyone with training in the field. In fact, the paper had never been accepted for publication anywhere, let alone in the NAS Proceedings. It was self-published by Robinson, who did the typesetting himself on his own computer. … None of the coauthors of "Environmental Effects of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" had any more standing than Robinson himself as a climate change researcher. They included Robinson's 22-year-old son, Zachary, along with astrophysicists Sallie L. Baliunas and Willie Soon. Both Baliunas and Soon worked with Frederick Seitz at the George C. Marshall Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank where Seitz served as executive director. Funded by a number of right-wing foundations, including Scaife and Bradley, the George C. Marshall Institute does not conduct any original research. It is a conservative think tank that was initially founded during the years of the Reagan administration to advocate funding for Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative--the "Star Wars" weapons program. Here an updated version of the paper by Robinson, et al. is addressed fairly thoroughly. Here are some further comments on the article by scientists, including climate scientists. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Sorry, I must have missed those posts. Would you mind relinking, please (or linking to your previous posts)? So far the only links I've seen from you regarding global warming have been opinion pieces, and not peer reviewed studies. In science, there is a HUGE difference. I keep hearing this claim, but haven't yet seen the peer reviewed studies supporting the assertion. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

WTF? Whats all that about death threats? What was the film anyway is there a link to it elsewhere? The first time the video was pulled from the site linked to in the OP, death threats were cited as the reason. This time it appears to be the use of the copyrighted images from the controversial Muhammad cartoons. As of about two minutes ago, the video is still available on Video.Google: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3369102968312745410 Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Would you consider Christ to have been such an individual? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I think you may have missed my point. In many cases, measurements do not need to be exact in order to obtain useful information. In fact, I'm not aware of any measurement that could be considered exact, with the possible exception of electric charge, which occurs only in discrete units. Perhaps one of our resident scientists will correct me by offering an alternate example. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Like Lindsay, I have to rely on the knowledge of those who understand the science. From all I have seen, those claiming global warming to be real and caused (in significant part) by man have published their studies in respected, peer reviewed scientific journals. On the other hand, those claiming that man is not a significant contributor to global warming, as well as those who claim that global warming is not even real, do not base their argument on such peer reviewed work. To me, that gives the first group much more credibility than the second group. How long is England's coastline? Is it even possible to know? I would argue that it is not possible to know the length with much accuracy or precision. It can always be examined on a smaller scale, at least down to the molecular level, at which point, tides, erosion and deposits occurring in real time make any attempts of measurement futile. Does that mean we can't know anything about the length of England's coastline? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

A real counter argument would be backed by data. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Again, please link to the peer reviewed scientific studies that debunk global warming and man as a significant contributor thereof. When it comes to science, it is data that counts. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I never intended to imply that he is not a smart person. It typically requires intelligence to write believable rhetoric. An intelligent counter would be welcome. Unfortunately, that's not what the article offers. It offers rhetoric without any supporting scientific evidence. It attempts to malign the IPCC on the hundreds of contributing scientists without offering any peer reviewed study to counter the IPCC's claims. In short, the article is rubbish, no more, no less. Let's also not forget that the fossil fuel industry is a multi-Billion dollar (or £) bandwagon. Science will get funding for research regardless of what is being researched. There is no reason to believe that global warming is the only area in which governments are interested. Or at least minds that understand the difference between science and rhetoric. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Please link to some of these peer reviewed studies. Huh?!? Can you please translate that sentence into English? I'm not sure what rhwroeic means, but I'm sure I didn't use the word in my post. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!