 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Just in case you didn't know already:
Fingers off Bitcoin, if you care anything about the environment.
Also, by extension, fingers off any blockchain-based cryptocurrency.
My guess is that those that turn out successfull will also turn out to
be just as toxic to the environment as the original.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I confess that I don't understand the computational undertpinnings of Bitcoin
and similar block-chains. Or how to even purchase one (uh, I mean, SPECULATE on
one.) A bad idea all around, IMO.
Apparently, the computer computations that are required now consume something
like 1.7% (?) of the WORLD's total electrical energy production. That's insane.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 24-12-2017 15:39, Kenneth wrote:
> I confess that I don't understand the computational undertpinnings of Bitcoin
> and similar block-chains. Or how to even purchase one (uh, I mean, SPECULATE on
> one.) A bad idea all around, IMO.
>
> Apparently, the computer computations that are required now consume something
> like 1.7% (?) of the WORLD's total electrical energy production. That's insane.
>
Yes, see for instance:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/global-warming-massive-computer-centers-bad-for-the-environment-a-544053.html
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degroot org> wrote:
> > Apparently, the computer computations that are required now consume something
> > like 1.7% (?) of the WORLD's total electrical energy production. That's insane.
> >
>
> Yes, see for instance:
>
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/global-warming-massive-computer-centers-bad-for-the-environment-a-544053
.html
>
Wow. That's a real eye-opener (and written in 2008); I can't imagine things
being *better* now, only worse.
"Calculations have now been performed to determine the share of power
consumption that can be attributed to a single Google search. Depending on the
initial data, one Google search consumes enough electricity to run an 11-watt,
energy-saving lightbulb for 15 minutes to an hour. As long as Google refuses to
release numbers, such calculations will remain only a guessing game..."
I had no idea that such a seemingly innocuous thing could be so power-hungry. We
take it all for granted, without recognizing the true cost.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 25-12-2017 19:13, Kenneth wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>
>>> Apparently, the computer computations that are required now consume something
>>> like 1.7% (?) of the WORLD's total electrical energy production. That's insane.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, see for instance:
>>
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/global-warming-massive-computer-centers-bad-for-the-environment-a-544053
> .html
>>
>
> Wow. That's a real eye-opener (and written in 2008); I can't imagine things
> being *better* now, only worse.
>
> "Calculations have now been performed to determine the share of power
> consumption that can be attributed to a single Google search. Depending on the
> initial data, one Google search consumes enough electricity to run an 11-watt,
> energy-saving lightbulb for 15 minutes to an hour. As long as Google refuses to
> release numbers, such calculations will remain only a guessing game..."
>
> I had no idea that such a seemingly innocuous thing could be so power-hungry. We
> take it all for granted, without recognizing the true cost.
>
...and - on another note - you may have heard about the potential
dangers of smartphone screens (/blue/ light) and of those led car lights
to our vision. We are currently creating generations with blindness at
worst or severely diminished vision at best, according to scientists. I
have not had time yet to search for the relevant sites.
Happy 2018! :-/
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 26/12/2017 12:45, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>
>
> ...and - on another note - you may have heard about the potential
> dangers of smartphone screens (/blue/ light) and of those led car lights
> to our vision. We are currently creating generations with blindness at
> worst or severely diminished vision at best, according to scientists. I
> have not had time yet to search for the relevant sites.
>
> Happy 2018! :-/
>
Worry not. Help is on hand.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09jvfc4
28 minutes audio:
James Burke on the End of Scarcity
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>
> ...and - on another note - you may have heard about the potential
> dangers of smartphone screens (/blue/ light) and of those led car lights
> to our vision. We are currently creating generations with blindness at
> worst or severely diminished vision at best, according to scientists.
Here in the US state of Virginia (in my area, anyway), police cars use a
combination of ultra-bright red and blue strobe lights; the BLUE is so intense
that I always look away from it-- out of necessity, because it hurts! From what
I've read, intense blue light is *really* damaging. Apparently, some of the
police forces in this country (or the police-car manufacturers) are unaware of
this problem-- either blissfully ignorant of it or just completely uninformed.
That truly amazes me. But, sad to say, it doesn't surprise me here in Virginia--
a state which *always* seems to be behind-the-times :-(
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>
> Worry not. Help is on hand.
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09jvfc4
>
Fascinating, as James Burke always is. Thanks for the link.
So a human hair is 80,000 nanometers wide, and a nanometer is about the width of
three atoms. So Hair_Width = 240,000 atoms. I thought atoms were MUCH smaller!
Like, billions and billions of atoms in the width of a hair. Who knew??! :-P
His discussion of the 'personal nano-scale fabricator' is exciting, but rather
utopian; the 'unknown factor' is how the companies that will make such things
are going to make MONEY off of them-- and what ramifications that will lead to.
(In this context, I'm thinking about current pharmaceutical companies and their
patents and high consumer prices, as an example of what might happen in our
capitalistic world.) If the machines can make *anything* out of atoms...where's
the profit?! :-P Will the machines be priced at $1 millon or more (to make up
for lost future profits?) Or will we be paying 'royalties' the the machine
manufacturers for eveything we make? Will ATOMS be for sale?! As we make more
and more 'stuff', will atoms themselves become a dwindling resource???
There's going to be a shortage of atoms, OMG!!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 26/12/2017 17:44, Kenneth wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>
>>
>> Worry not. Help is on hand.
>>
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09jvfc4
>>
>
> Fascinating, as James Burke always is. Thanks for the link.
>
> So a human hair is 80,000 nanometers wide, and a nanometer is about the width of
> three atoms. So Hair_Width = 240,000 atoms. I thought atoms were MUCH smaller!
> Like, billions and billions of atoms in the width of a hair. Who knew??! :-P
>
Not I. for one.
> His discussion of the 'personal nano-scale fabricator' is exciting, but rather
> utopian; the 'unknown factor' is how the companies that will make such things
> are going to make MONEY off of them-- and what ramifications that will lead to.
A nest of SF stories have been written on that subject. :-)
> (In this context, I'm thinking about current pharmaceutical companies and their
> patents and high consumer prices, as an example of what might happen in our
> capitalistic world.) If the machines can make *anything* out of atoms...where's
> the profit?! :-P Will the machines be priced at $1 millon or more (to make up
> for lost future profits?) Or will we be paying 'royalties' the the machine
> manufacturers for eveything we make? Will ATOMS be for sale?! As we make more
> and more 'stuff', will atoms themselves become a dwindling resource???
>
And the energy to drive the processes?
It would be the End of Capitalism As We Know it.
> There's going to be a shortage of atoms, OMG!!
>
>
A very serious situation that ingenuity will resolve. ;-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> On 26/12/2017 17:44, Kenneth wrote:
> > As we make more
> > and more 'stuff', will atoms themselves become a dwindling resource???
> >
> > There's going to be a shortage of atoms, OMG!!
> >
>
> A very serious situation...
>
That and the impending heat-death of the Universe keep me up at nights, worrying
worrying worrying...
But just when I thought that the human race was going to Hell in a handbasket,
this happily comes along to explain it all...
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42329014
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
