On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 03:43:04 -0800 (PST), Htnakirs
<htnakirs@gmail.com> wrote:

Again, following up to Kony's post because Srikanth's doesn't show up
on my feed.

>>Everyone will disagree with the above. Reducing population is not the
>>same as reducing wastage. The largest polluters are not the most
>>populous nations.

It works out pretty much the same, if not worse. 1 billion people
responsible for 1x pollution today has the same effect as 100 million
in other country responsible for 10x today. But in the long run, that
1 billion people will eventually, as a natural progression of
"economic development", increase their ecological damage to 2x, 3x and
adding more people to boot.

Furthermore, ecological damage is NOT just about wastage. The Earth
can only support that many people, every single person needs some
space and food at least. That space has to be taken from somewhere,
whether you clear forests to build more houses or cut more trees/blast
more rocks to build taller ones. The food has to be grown/harvested
from somewhere too.

Nobody can deny that reducing/limiting human population on earth is
the only true long term solution to ecological damage. But it's also
one that least raised because of the controversial nature. It's a lot
easier trying to tell people to bring their own bags to shop, to cut
down on car usage, to use energy efficient products, than to tell them
to curb animal selfish gene instincts and not have kids.

For those who want kids, please adopt one. There are tens of thousands
of orphans who could do with and would appreciate good parents and a
home, unlike many "native" brats nowadays. You will change the life of
a human for the better as well as reduce a human's lifetime load to
the environment.


>>In the SPCR link about the Hiper PC you provided, the damning figure
>>is the 82 W that the system consumes when idle.

If you're going to be energy efficient, you're going to be turning OFF
that system when it's doing nothing. Or at the very least, put it on
standby. Not let it sit idle for hours ;)

>>I doubt if rendering a page will be an issue if one has a broadband
>>link. Flash loaded files take longer to be transmitted over the line,
>>and rendering can occur only after that, so probably the CPU is not
>>the bottleneck in that case.

In this instance, you are 100% wrong in your doubt. Flash files only
provide the data on what's to be shown. The local system, aka your
computer, has to do the work of taking the data and processing it to
display what's intended. They don't magically animate themselves or
play music without needing processing ;)

If you want hard facts, I cite my examples from experience on an old
P3 system, a single core A64 and a dual core C2D, all 3 on the same
10Mbps broadband connection at home, all using 100Mbps Ethernet
connections because my switch's only 100mbps =P

--
A Lost Angel, fallen from heaven
Lost in dreams, Lost in aspirations,
Lost to the world, Lost to myself