<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:s="http://www.techrepublic.com/search" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"  xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
    <title><![CDATA[Discussion on Debunking the Windows XP power wasting myth ]]></title>
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-205109]]></link>
    <atom:link rel="hub" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" />
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-205109/rss" />

    <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>2013-05-19T21:52:12-07:00</lastBuildDate>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Dell systems using speed step]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-205109-2298856]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[We are in the process of deploying he new GX 745 as our standard user system and I have noted that SpeedStep is available on these desktops.  This was a laptop technology that allows for the throttling of the processor based on needs of applicatins. I do not as of yet have any hard figures on any power savings.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-205109-2298856]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[mjrunion]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sat, 11 Aug 2007 12:45:29 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Waste not/ want not?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-205109-2144579]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Pardon my &quot;notice&quot; of confusion, but by what algorithim did treehugger.com use to arrive at this $25 billion figure? Total number of &quot;old&quot; vs.&quot;new&quot; computers? W98 vs. XP vs. Unix or Linux? Notebooks vs. Desktops? You get my point, right? Anyone can throw out a figure, where is the hard data to back it up? And blame Microsoft? Please! At least they have tried to design systems that have opened the door to more people being able to at least try and learn to operate computers, which has driven the market to produce more affordable and better/faster units. Not everyone knows or thinks like a programmer or engineer. Anybody want to go retro to the days of 4mb's of RAM and 540 mb HD's? Green letters and no GUI's? Talk about energy wasted, time wasted, productivity shot, etc. Don't even mention the money thrown away. The actual truth is that if more and more people will continue the switch over to low wattage compact fluorescent and LED lighting systems, better insulation and reflective thermal glass windows the total net energy savings will be much greater, while also lowering cooling system strains.And vacuum out your towers once a month, please! The gains realized need to be re-invested in newer alternative fuels, bios, and smart systems that can monitor and adjust themselves to changing load factors. Heck, if 50% of people would simply start doing their laundry at night and set their thermostat back 4 degrees the load on our nations' electrical grids would ease exponentially. If the treehuggers want to really make a difference, get some folks in Washington to buck the logging industry, start planting and harvesting industrial hemp, a commodity that has so many benefits and no negatives that I've found. It makes a fantastic biodegradable toilet paper(know how many trees we cut each year just for this?), writing paper, clothing, cellulose blends, and the oil from the seeds burns so clean there are no CO emissions and no unburned hydrocarbons released to the atmosphere. It's grass, plant it, let it grow, forget it! Put the farmers back to work,(you remember them,don't you? They feed all of us.) But guess what? The timber industry lobbyists throw so much money around to make the switch very resistant. People need to rise up and make a change happen. But an OS wasting energy,compared to so many other factors? Spare me,please!]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-205109-2144579]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[ohpleaseagain@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 02 Jan 2007 07:19:06 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Choking on hot MS emissions...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-205109-2142721]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[&amp;#160; &amp;#160; The calculations of human/fossil-fuel-motor CO2 emissions proportions has some speculative academic interest to me (and I agree with others that this &quot;splinter&quot; to the &quot;thread&quot; is of minor relevance or importance), but it seemed to me some of DNSB's suppositions were poor starting points.  &amp;#160;For one, I doubt most humans breathe 30 times a minute, unless they're exercising.  &amp;#160;I'd say half of that is closer to average.  &amp;#160;If the given motor RPM and cylinder volume are accepted, again it seems he multiplied wrong, giving an error that is a multiple of his figures.  &amp;#160;If I understand this and calculate correctly, his second paragraph would read as follows: &amp;#160; &amp;#160;    &quot;As for the human-versus-car CO2 output, lung output averages about .5 liters per breath. &amp;#160;Let's say your car runs at an average 2400 RPM and has a 2-liter engine with 4 cylinders (.5 liters per cylinder) while you breathe at an average rate of 15 breaths per minute. &amp;#160;So in a 4-stroke engine, you'd be firing 9,600 'breath'-volumes per minute (every second, cycle 4 cylinders  x 2400 = 9600 cylinder-volumes/min., or times 1440 min., 13,824,000 in a day). &amp;#160;Compare that to your 15-per-minute respiration (21,600 breaths for 24 hours), and it would seem to suggest that driving your car (at an exhalation rate that is 640 times as frequent for any time span) for 33.75 seconds is equivalent to breathing for 24 hours assuming both have the same CO2 output. However since all the numbers I've seen for automotive exhaust suggest a much higher number than human exhalation, the ratio is likely to be even more slanted.&quot; &amp;#160;&amp;#160;  Probably by another factor of ten.  &amp;#160;Time to thaw some tundra for methane, input some oceanic thermohaline recycling and uncharted sub-sea volcanic venting, rising solar cycle infrared radiation, and don't leave out the lunar saros for heating from tidal stress... Looks like all the ice will be gone in a century. &amp;#160;Tuvalu is doomed, except for domain-names ending in .tv. &amp;#160;;-)  &amp;#160;Oh, wait, did we figure in, that kudzu will displace all terrestrial plants, and hydrilla all aquatic ones, and what will their proportion of conversion to oxygen be? &amp;#160;But as the rest of the world converts from using bicycles to driving fossil-fuel cars, what is the heat equivalent of paving over the entire land mass with black asphalt to have an infinite parking lot on or between freeways? &amp;#160;Em portugu?s, num da pra da um jeitinho!]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-205109-2142721]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Namorado_TX]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 27 Dec 2006 09:00:53 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[I think we need a new topic for this whole Nuclear debate.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-205109-2138512]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I think soon we will need to start a new discussion around this issue, as we have sort of run out of room.  This is a wonderful intellectual debate with many unique points of view.  I even slightly disagree with George, which is very rare for me.Shall we migrate this conversation soon?EDIT - a new discussion thread has been opened here: http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&amp;threadID=206234]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-205109-2138512]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Benevolence]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sat, 16 Dec 2006 03:47:26 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Coal is even more old fashioned!]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-205109-2138511]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I understand the desire to stick to old technology, but for one coal is pathetic.  Secondly, a shoe box of nuclear waste is a pretty horrible thing... and also, when the US ratifies Kyoto maybe the 3rd world countries will follow.  The US is still one of the highest polluters in the world!  No matter how you look at it!]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-205109-2138511]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Benevolence]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sat, 16 Dec 2006 03:41:42 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Needs Checking]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-205109-2138202]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[As a Retired D/C engineer I agree the numbers need further checking.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-205109-2138202]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[cbossieux@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 15 Dec 2006 09:23:53 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Storage of nuclear waste is grossly exaggerated]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-205109-2137967]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[First of all, your average family if they only used nuclear power would only produce a shoebox full of nuclear waste in their entire life time and most nuclear waste material could be recycled and reused for more energy.  The recycling process also turns the waste in to something that's far less dangerous.  Nuclear material came from the earth to begin with, calling it &quot;waste&quot; is inaccurate because it's simply a concentration of natural materials on earth.  There is an anti-nuclear lobby that would do anything to ensure it's too expensive to recycle or safely store nuclear waste through endless lawsuits.Lastly, coal which provides the majority of electricity for the world emits thousands of tons Uranium and Thorium in to the atmosphere annually and we're not even counting the CO2 emissions.  The amount of nuclear material and other toxins emitted from coal makes nuclear energy look pure as snow.  Furthermore, nuclear waste from coal isn't contained, it's simply emitted.  The relatively small amount of nuclear waste produced from nuclear reactors is fully contained.As for solar concentrators, get the costs down and they could provide a lot of power for homes and businesses.  The problem is that they're not cheap and you have to have a sun tracking device that only works during days with direct sun light.  If the efficiency can be 25% and the surface area is 16 meters squared, it would be possible to produce 4000 watts for 8 hours during a clear bright summer day.  Such a device could supplement our energy needs but it would be very expensive.  We also can't count Government subsidies because that merely redistributes the costs of solar energy.  It would need to be a genuinely cost effective device in the $5000 range.  Currently it's more than $10,000 for 1000 watt solar energy device which is way too expensive and too little energy for most people.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-205109-2137967]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[georgeou]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:37:26 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Solar: Distribution?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-205109-2137739]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[How about if we put solar collectors on every roof of every building? A' La distributed computing? The costs for collectors should go down, due to commoditization.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-205109-2137739]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[shardeth-15902278]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 14 Dec 2006 10:34:10 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[nuclear waste?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-205109-2137738]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[http://www.etsu.edu/writing/3120f99/zctb3/nuclear2.htmThat is a bit dated, but I haven't seen much to indicate that the problem is solved. I did tour a facility at the INEL (Not call that any more), where they were working on a calcination process, to convert the nuclear waste into a hard pellet form,making it safer to store, but the stuff was still radioactive, and still had to be stored somewhere. I'm not to keen on having a radioactive landfill in my backyard. (or anywhere).As I said, I realize this doc is somewhat dated, so perhaps things are better now. But then again, are they better enough?]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-205109-2137738]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[shardeth-15902278]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 14 Dec 2006 10:30:06 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[It's been providing us clean, safe, and reliable energy for decades]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-205109-2136779]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[As the founder of Greenpeace showed in his article with the Washington Post I linked to, it's been providing us clean, safe, and reliable energy for decades in the western world.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-205109-2136779]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[georgeou]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 12 Dec 2006 21:01:54 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Abundant resource we cannot yet harvest well]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-205109-2136716]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Well actually, on the whole abundance thang, solar is truly the most renewable and abundant resource... problem is, we have not found a really efficient way of harvesting it.  It would be nice to see a whole lot of investment into figuring out how to utilize this resource in the most efficient way we can.But until that happens, we need to find other temporary fixes, like nuclear perhaps, which is getting safer.  The generation 4 reactors are shaping up quite nicely, but we are going to have to wait at least 20 years for them to become a reality.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-205109-2136716]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Benevolence]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 12 Dec 2006 18:44:08 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Nuclear Power?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-205109-2136509]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I'd like to see some more hard numbers on Nuclear waste creation, reduction and lifespan before I sign on to that one.Perhaps I have been indoctrinated by the wacko's, but I am  fairly concerned about having a nuclear landfill...anywhere...]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-205109-2136509]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[shardeth-15902278]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 12 Dec 2006 09:11:50 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[There are a LOT of pro-Nuclear converts in the environmental movement]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-205109-2136230]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[There are a LOT of pro-Nuclear converts in the environmental movement and more and more of them are coming out of the 60s knee-jerk reaction against nuclear power.  It is the only abundant source that could replace coal-fire plants that spew thousands of tons of Uranium and Thorium per year.Most Nuclear waste can be recycled and reprocessed in to far less dangerous Material.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-205109-2136230]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[georgeou]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 11 Dec 2006 20:58:05 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Both in agreement and also not.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-205109-2136166]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Holy moly! I had no idea James Lovelock is supporting 'going nuclear'.  I am still undecided though, I think a combination of newer technologies (nuclear included) is the best way.  I still think that processing of waste could become a problem when 2nd and 3rd world countries start taking other countries waste to make money, and dispose of the waste poorly.Bu the way, I wasn't entirely serious about the whole lying thing... sort of playing devils advocate.I think solar towers seem to have a lot of potential too. http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2688...but there are problems that need solving with this concept.  Smaller units seem to be more logical in many ways.  Tidal flow systems are interesting also, though are only suitable in certain areas of the world.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-205109-2136166]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Benevolence]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 11 Dec 2006 16:34:17 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[You're rationalizing]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-205109-2135576]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[You're trying to rationalize lying and I can't agree with that.If you've ever been to other countries in the third world and even Europe, you'll understand what polution is.If you really want to end polution, read this article from the founder of Greenpeace.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-205109-2135576]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[georgeou]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sun, 10 Dec 2006 19:48:26 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[nicely done NT]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-205109-2135557]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[hehehehe... Nicely stated]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-205109-2135557]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Benevolence]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sun, 10 Dec 2006 17:15:59 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[A few important points]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-205109-2135555]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Remember, the US has refused to ratify the Kyoto protocol.  Actually, the US is responsible for quite a disturbing amount of pollution, especially if you look at it from a per capita basis.If those on the right are using lies all the time to get action (Iraq war for example) in the direction they want, maybe it is necessary for us in the middle, or left, to do the same.I'm not really decided on that point though, I am just throwing thoughts out there.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-205109-2135555]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Benevolence]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sun, 10 Dec 2006 17:13:24 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Is lying ever justified?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-205109-2135204]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[That's what the eco fanatics have been saying, that it's ok to scare the public with extreme worst case scenarios even if it means twisting the truth.Now you need to think about that and ask yourself if lying is ever justified.  What happens when people find out you've been lying or grossly exaggerating to them?  Don't you think there will be a backlash?And I don't agree we (first world countries) are &quot;raping&quot; the planet.  There was a time in our past where we did do that but we've put a lid on ourselves long ago.  It's the third world countries that recklessly use drift net fishing (whom Al Gore would have exempted) that are the problem.  It?s countries like China who have massive numbers of underground coalmine fires that are just left there burning and spewing a significant share of pollution who would have been exempt from Kyoto that are the problem.Also, there have been more and more evidence coming out to debunk anthropogenic global warming.  There?s plenty to suggest that it was much warmer in the 11th to 14th centuries during the medieval warming period and the world was tossed in to hell with the little ice age.  There is even recent evidence that the ice caps are growing and that we?ve been cooling since 1998.  Plenty more facts and links presented here.http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&amp;id=266711]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-205109-2135204]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[georgeou]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sat, 09 Dec 2006 12:41:12 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[The brook babbles on]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-205109-2135114]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[No circular arguments there.  Simply math -- which I notice you don't attempt to debunk.As for your claim that you had 262 ppm of CO2 on an emissions test, that is either an error on your part, possibly reading the hydrocarbon (HC) emissions for CO2 emissions or a deliberate falsehood on your part.  Given your general debating style, I'm leaning towards the never blame on malice that which can be explained by simple stupidity explanation.Perhaps you would care to explain how your car manages to emit less carbon dioxide than  the normal amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which is approximately 0.033% (or 330 ppm).And yes, an internal combustion engine running far from a stoich mix can emit more CO than CO2.  I also gave some conditions where this might happen.  Cold and an very rich mixture.  Around here, the instructions are to ensure your vehicle is warmed up before testing so it seems unlikely that a vehicle would meet those conditions.As Thomas Paine wrote, &quot;To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.&quot;]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-205109-2135114]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[DNSB]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sat, 09 Dec 2006 09:01:05 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Ignorance is curable, stupidity is forever.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-205109-2135030]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[&quot;Ignorance is curable, stupidity is forever.&quot; - that's beautiful... I am going to steal that.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-205109-2135030]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Benevolence]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sat, 09 Dec 2006 05:03:24 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

