greg zegan via PLUG-discuss said on Tue, 27 Jul 2021 14:16:27 +0000
(UTC)

>https://www.zerohedge.com/political/59-million-americans-prohibited-buying-high-end-dell-gaming-pcs
>

Allow me to change the headline of this article to...

"Six States Responsible Enough to Limit Computer Power Consumption"

Anyone prioritizing their video game performance over the starvation,
water wars, crop failures, climate refugees, underwater cities, deserts
replacing farmland, and normalization of cat 5 hurricanes that will
surely come if we don't handle this situation correctly, is an ethical
cripple.

And anyone, who just has to have that superburner computer, of an age
not likely to live until 2060 is just borrowing on a future they know
they won't repay.

And it's not like you can't wait 4 years and have a computer using a
couple hundred wats that performs like today's 1000 watt gargantuan.

SteveT

Steve Litt
Spring 2021 featured book: Troubleshooting Techniques of the Successful
Technologist http://www.troubleshooters.com/techniques

mmmmmm No, I reject your attempt at gas-lighting the discussion away from liberty infringing regulations. I reject your blithe attempt to validate power hungry government attempts to slowly curtail the freedoms of Americans.

All of those crises can and will be addressed by private industry and not by some pencil pushing bureaucratic cubicle rat. The Federal Government (one could also include state governments) will never ever be able to address problems faster than private industry will be able to. Look into FEMA’s response to hurricane Katrina back in the late 2000’s as a prime example. Look into that same organizations response to Puerto Rico and their recent natural disaster.

The climate changes. Humans need to adapt. To think that we can hold back change of this magnitude is hubris. We need to take better care of our things. Yes. But we also need to take care of ourselves while we do that. You think a family in India, or Africa is going to give a hoot about a 2 degree C increase in global temperatures over the next 100 years? I suggest you rethink that methodology if you do. Those families are only concerned about where their next meal will come from.

Anyone who wants a superburner computer and has the capital to spend on it should be able to purchase it, and then also worry about how they will power it. It is unethical to restrict another human’s right to their pursuit of happiness so long as that pursuit doesn’t directly infringe on another’s right to life, liberty, and their own pursuit of happiness.

I think it’s an amazing thing that technology makes such marvelous advances in such a short time. Not a reason to limit someone else’s liberty at this date.

Aaron Jones via PLUG-discuss said on Tue, 27 Jul 2021 15:04:58 -0700

>Those are some dangerous statements.

Dangerous statements? What, are my statements going to insurance rates
going up?

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/a27180829/global-warming-is-already-costing-the-insurance-industry-historic-amounts/

Insurance rates? Why is that even being brought up? It’s a problem for the insurer and the insuree to discuss. If the insurer doesn’t like the risk of insuring someone’s hair brained idea to build on the coast as the coast recedes….. sounds like a problem for the person with the hair brained idea to build where climate change is going to destroy their hair brained idea. Only dangerous to that person…

Perhaps my statements could cause an increase in annual hurricane
energy:

https://weather.com/storms/hurricane/news/2020-11-18-top-10-most-extreme-hurricane-seasons-2020

Oh, I know. My statements are dangerous because they caused 20 years of
drought to the farmers in Western Colorado:

https://www.cpr.org/2021/07/23/western-slope-drought-cattle-ranching/

It must be nice to be able to wave your hand and claim adverse weather as proof to support your theories of what is dangerous. Here’s a theory you can prove: living is dangerous and fraught with risk at all points of life.

I wasn't discussing China, but since you brought it up: Why in the
WORLD should China go through the inconvenience of reducing carbon
emissions and all forms of pollution if the US doesn't reduce energy
use everywhere it can: Cars, airplanes, trucks, busses, lightbulbs, and
yes, computers?

Why should China reduce their carbon footprint? Maybe because they are the worst offender of greenhouse gas emissions? Maybe because Their reduction of emissions will actually do more for your cause than severely hampering America’s economy will? How many days did they need to shut down their industry leading up to the 2008 Olympics for clear skies?

List of countries by greenhouse gas emissions - Wikipedia

if you don’t like Wikipedia, maybe this site? Greenhouse Gas Emissions By Country 2021 (worldpopulationreview.com)

of course, you should probably take most of these reports with a grain of salt. Who knows if they are valid and genuine? Shrug

Now I'll admit that those Dell Alienware computers, which from their
components sound like they're about 500 watts at full use, don't sound
excessive. And 20mpg highway didn't sound excessive in 2000 either, but
now it does, because these laws and regulations forced car
manufacturers to increase their gas efficiency, and now breathing in LA
is a lot easier, and we're not as close to the tipping point as we
otherwise would have been.

> But if you are war
>hawking here and trying to bait us into a pollution debate so you can
>get everyone to do the whole “war with China thing…” then you got my
>reply and I admit I got baited.

Whoaaa, war with China? Huh? Where'd THAT come from?

War with China… came from a place more realistic than pointing to increased Hurricane seasons and Rainfall in Colorado… The only way China is going to curtail their economic development is by direct global action in the form of military might.

Meanwhile, I'd be interested in hearing your age. I'm 71, so I don't
have a dog in this fight: I'll be safely in my grave before this thing
is more than an expense (hurricane insurance and repairs, higher food
prices) and an annoyance, but my kids will be around long enough that,
if we play this wrong, they'll be impacted by climate refugees, water
wars, famine-causing drought, the whole bag of horrors. That's why I
don't get indignant when they tell me how much power to use.

Ooooo look! An appeal to experience. Aside from an attempt to browbeat us young whipper-snappers into silence… Why is your age even a discussion point?

Eric Oyen via PLUG-discuss said on Tue, 27 Jul 2021 21:22:33 -0700

>It is also interesting that those very same states that push EV’s also
>have not upgraded their power systems in quite some time. California
>is the leader on this list of shame with rolling blackouts and
>brownouts each summer.

I think this is unfair to California. Much of California is the hottest
in the US. Greenhouse gasses are created by everyone, but California
can least afford to gain a degree. California is also the most
populous state in the nation. So in spite of EV's and all their other
moves to limit environmental damage, they can't reduce the heat that
radiates or blows into California, so they can't keep all their
citizens' houses below 85 Fahrenheit. Hence the rolling blackouts.

No. Not unfair to California, their power grid is their responsibility to maintain. If they fail to plan for the future and prepare for dry seasons and update their infrastructure, their rolling brownouts are on them. No where else has had this problem even though California is not the only one affected by increased temperatures. California needs to take better care of their things. Plain and simple.

> They also want to put up more windmills, off
>shore! Talk about throwing good money after bad and causing those of
>us with computers that are capable of running linux no end of trouble.

I'm not sure how windmills cause havoc with Linux. I thought that was
done by Microsoft.

California could sure use more fission reactors, but in a place where
7+ earthquakes are frequent, doing so is just too likely to cause
another Chernobyl. Plus, anything near the coast is likely to go
Fukushima with a tsunami. They don't have a river capable of generating
huge power from its current. They can't import from surrounding states,
and back in the day, when they imported from Texas, the Texan power
companies stiffed California's power grid in order to make a bigger
profit.

So, other than solar, wind and conservation, I don't see what other
options California has.

First. Chernobyl cannot happen in the West because we never built RBMK reactors with a positive void co-efficient. We place reactors inside containment vessels to help curtail fallout in the event of a disaster. Attempt to invoke Chernobyl disaster as anti-nuclear argument denied. Fukushima is more relevant because of California’s relative location and geographical environment. That said. Nuclear plants have only continued to become safer and more efficient. Safer and more efficient than coal, gas, and maybe even “renewable sources” Nuclear should be more seriously discussed as a viable alternative power source.

It leaves us with 60 million people who can't game quite as hard. Boo
hoo hoo.

It leaves us with our liberty just slightly more chipped away at. It leaves us with a government emboldened to infringe on rights just ever so more.

What's this fascination with China that you all have? China uses the
energy equivalent of 27,018 million barrels of oil for 1394 million
people, equalling 19.4 barrels per person. The US uses the equivalent of
18,684 million barrels and has 328 million people, equaling 56.9
barrels per person.

See above discussion on China’s CO2 production. Oil is only a part of that carbon footprint. Go do more research.

So here's the question: If some country using almost triple the energy
per person than your country says *you* are the problem and should cut,
and they won't do squat until you cut, what would you say to them?

Question invalid. Communist Dictatorships don’t give a hoot what outsiders say. Unless that speech is in the form of military might bearing down on said dictatorship.

You ask where it leaves us. Hey, if you're 60 years old, it leaves you
having lived a pretty fun life. If you're 20 years old, it leaves you
with a very hard (and probably considerably foreshortened) second half
of your life. If you were just born today, by the time you graduate
college, the world will be rife with climate refugees and water wars,
and by the time you're 50, if you last that long, the population
decline will be brutal and pretty universal except for the very rich.
All because everybody in 2021 said the other guy should cut his
emissions first.

Life is hard. Always will be. There will always be something new to be a risk.

One more thing: Some friends of mine ran the numbers and according to
them the California computer energy standards aren't as strict as those
of the EU.

I feel not a bit of sorrow for the 60 million potential gamers who play
at a slight disadvantage, if they play at all. I feel sorry for their
grandchildren.

Your feigned sympathy just undermines your attempts at argument for your cause of infringing on liberty. 

Final Analysis, You must hate the freedom Linux provides to its users and the liberty with which we may embark upon through its use.

Olive Branch: If you would like to meet up at a park where we can social distance and have a veggie burger while I grill up some brats, I'd be willing to bring the makings for a BBQ and we can discuss these details in a more civil manner than Keyboard Warriors. 

Matt