 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://codeoffsets.com/Default.aspx
You to can buy Bad Code offset credits to help prevent global... something.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Is God willing to prevent phrogams, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing, to prevent phrogams?
Then he is malevolent.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
What is a code offset?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New schrieb:
> http://codeoffsets.com/Default.aspx
>
> You to can buy Bad Code offset credits to help prevent global... something.
Letter of indulgence?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Saul Luizaga wrote:
> What is a code offset?
Like a carbon offset. For program code.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Is God willing to prevent phrogams, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing, to prevent phrogams?
Then he is malevolent.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/18/2009 6:39 PM, Darren New wrote:
> http://codeoffsets.com/Default.aspx
>
> You to can buy Bad Code offset credits to help prevent global... something.
>
There's not enough bad code offsets in the world to cover my bad code... XD
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> On 11/18/2009 6:39 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> http://codeoffsets.com/Default.aspx
>>
>> You to can buy Bad Code offset credits to help prevent global...
>> something.
>>
>
> There's not enough bad code offsets in the world to cover my bad code...
> XD
Some people said the world doesn't have enough currency to buy the needed
bad code offsets to compensate for the world's bad code.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Oh I see, thanks. I see why you're being sarcastic, the site claiming
'paradise will come to us if we go code offset..." is just utopia, good
intention but unreal expectations.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/18/2009 7:39 PM, Darren New wrote:
> http://codeoffsets.com/Default.aspx
>
> You to can buy Bad Code offset credits to help prevent global... something.
>
Interesting if the Gov't could offer carbon credits or something for
code that has been significantly optimized for performance over previous
versions.
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
SharkD wrote:
> Interesting if the Gov't could offer carbon credits or something for
> code that has been significantly optimized for performance over previous
> versions.
That could actually make sense.
http://3laws.wordpress.com/2009/08/03/you-will-fail-at-everything-forever/
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Is God willing to prevent naglams, but unable?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing, to prevent naglams?
Then he is malevolent.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/19/2009 11:17 PM, Darren New wrote:
> SharkD wrote:
>> Interesting if the Gov't could offer carbon credits or something for
>> code that has been significantly optimized for performance over
>> previous versions.
>
> That could actually make sense.
>
> http://3laws.wordpress.com/2009/08/03/you-will-fail-at-everything-forever/
An Energy Star rating for software maybe...
I should write my congressman. :)
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
SharkD wrote:
> On 11/19/2009 11:17 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> http://3laws.wordpress.com/2009/08/03/you-will-fail-at-everything-forever/
> An Energy Star rating for software maybe...
> I should write my congressman. :)
Is there actually a tangible difference in a person's electric bill (due
to less energy actually being consumed) when they run a low-CPU program
over the course of two hours vs. running a CPU-intensive program over
the course of two hours?
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Some people said the world doesn't have enough currency to buy the needed
> bad code offsets to compensate for the world's bad code.
Have you *seen* our project management system?!?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook wrote:
> Is there actually a tangible difference in a person's electric bill (due
> to less energy actually being consumed) when they run a low-CPU program
> over the course of two hours vs. running a CPU-intensive program over
> the course of two hours?
Yes. But don't tell my mom, or she will make me stop my 24/7 100% CPU usage
(she pays the electricity bill).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Is there actually a tangible difference in a person's electric bill (due
>> to less energy actually being consumed) when they run a low-CPU program
>> over the course of two hours vs. running a CPU-intensive program over
>> the course of two hours?
>
> Yes. But don't tell my mom, or she will make me stop my 24/7 100% CPU usage
> (she pays the electricity bill).
Last time I clocked it, having my PC running uses about 200W. So, about
the same as two light bulbs.
The kettle, on the other hand, uses OVER THREE THOUSAND WATTS of power. o_O
(I also noted little or no difference in power usage between an idle PC
doing nothing and the same PC with the CPU and GPU both maxed out.
Although I have a bigger GPU now...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible schrieb:
> Last time I clocked it, having my PC running uses about 200W. So, about
> the same as two light bulbs.
>
> The kettle, on the other hand, uses OVER THREE THOUSAND WATTS of power. o_O
... which you have powered on for how long each day?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Last time I clocked it, having my PC running uses about 200W. So,
>> about the same as two light bulbs.
>>
>> The kettle, on the other hand, uses OVER THREE THOUSAND WATTS of
>> power. o_O
>
> ... which you have powered on for how long each day?
The kettle uses more power in 1 minute than my computer uses in 1,000
minutes ( = nearly 17 hours).
The kettle probably takes approximately 1 minute to boil, and with the
amount of tea my mum drinks, the kettle probably burns through multiple
kWh per day - my PC would have to be on 24/7 for a week or two to
compete with that.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> The kettle uses more power in 1 minute than my computer uses in 1,000
> minutes ( = nearly 17 hours).
Bah it's winter, both heat up your house thus saving on heating so I
wouldn't worry :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> The kettle uses more power in 1 minute than my computer uses in 1,000
>> minutes ( = nearly 17 hours).
>
> Bah it's winter, both heat up your house thus saving on heating so I
> wouldn't worry :-)
Absolutely! Altough my PC heats the building more efficiently than the
kettle, for at least the following reasons:
- The water's phase change from liquid to vapour uses a large amount of
energy for a small change in temperature.
- The kettle is extensively insulated to facilitate rapid heating of the
water. My PC, on the other hand, has special fan systems especially
designed to *dissapate* heat. ;-)
I have noticed that within 30 minutes of turning my PC on, my bedroom
increases in temperature by at least 1°C.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Last time I clocked it, having my PC running uses about 200W. So,
>>> about the same as two light bulbs.
>>>
>>> The kettle, on the other hand, uses OVER THREE THOUSAND WATTS of
>>> power. o_O
>>
>> ... which you have powered on for how long each day?
>
> The kettle uses more power in 1 minute than my computer uses in 1,000
> minutes ( = nearly 17 hours).
YOU FAIL BASIC MATH! >_<
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20-11-2009 20:03, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>>> Last time I clocked it, having my PC running uses about 200W. So,
>>>> about the same as two light bulbs.
>>>>
>>>> The kettle, on the other hand, uses OVER THREE THOUSAND WATTS of
>>>> power. o_O
>>>
>>> ... which you have powered on for how long each day?
>>
>> The kettle uses more power in 1 minute than my computer uses in 1,000
>> minutes ( = nearly 17 hours).
>
> YOU FAIL BASIC MATH! >_<
>
Or you are using a pocket calculator.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible schrieb:
>>> Last time I clocked it, having my PC running uses about 200W. So,
>>> about the same as two light bulbs.
>>>
>>> The kettle, on the other hand, uses OVER THREE THOUSAND WATTS of
>>> power. o_O
>>
>> ... which you have powered on for how long each day?
>
> The kettle uses more power in 1 minute than my computer uses in 1,000
> minutes ( = nearly 17 hours).
Math fail?
PC = 200 W
kettle = 3,000 W (ca.)
kettle : PC = 3,000 : 200 = 15
2 00 ==
-----
1 000
1 000
A: "The kettle uses more power in 1 minute than [your] computer uses in
15 minutes ( = nearly 0.25 hours)."
> The kettle probably takes approximately 1 minute to boil, and with the
> amount of tea my mum drinks, the kettle probably burns through multiple
> kWh per day - my PC would have to be on 24/7 for a week or two to
> compete with that.
If the kettle takes approximately 1 minute to boil, to compete with 24/7
PC use your mum would have to consume four jugs(!) of tea per hour. I
would consider that pretty unlikely...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
