Lipstick on a Pit Bull

Our "pub" where you can post about things completely Off Topic or about non-silent PC issues.

Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee

seemingly.random
Posts: 176
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:51 am
Location: Southeast, USA

Post by seemingly.random » Wed Sep 17, 2008 1:51 am

m0002a wrote:...
Regarding the issue of Folding, etc, and whether it actually produces any results, compared to the amount of green house gases it produces and the energy (money) that is expended running it:
...
I fundamentally disagree with everything you have written in this thread (and assume in every other thread concerning politics). I assume you vote a straight republican ticket and this is as disgusting as someone who votes a straight democrat ticket. Imagine my surprise when you write about something I've always wondered about and might agree with. Although I don't remember the exact numbers, I saw estimates on power usage for all of the folding going on and it's not insignificant. If it really helps, and is an efficient use of resources, then by all means, it should continue. It would be interesting to see it quantified though. For me, and what I see is a lack of evidence, it's similar to giving blood. It's presented, almost religiously, as a human duty. Not that helping out someone in need is a bad thing, but I believe someone's profiting from people's kindheartedness or sense of duty.

20 years ago, I lived in a large city (predominantly republican, btw) that was just getting on the recycling bandwagon by delivering a separate container to residents and asking them to fill it with cans and glass for trash day. I thought it was stupid that we were giving free labor so that some recycling company could make profits. Boy, was I wrong. It turned out that the contents of the separate container were tossed into the dump right along with the other trash.
It would be interesting to calculate how much money and green house gases are expended by this activity each year, and I wonder if it might be better to just donate the money to a deserving charity.
...
I don't suppose you have a 'deserving' charity in mind... In the republican city mentioned above, I donated some money to vietnam vets. How could this not be a good thing? It turned out that the head of this charity legally retained 85% of all donations. He did give 15% to the vets though... (btw, you might want to reconsider this line of attack - it's unrepublican to give credence to the possibility that greenhouse gases might have some effect on the environment.)

---

So, what does any of this have to do with palin? She's a republican. I believe she would defend all of the above shady actions. It is embarrassing to see people using gender to criticize her though - just as it should be embarrassing when republican attack dogs do the same thing. I don't believe there's really much substance there - just another rabid, fundie republican. Even though we are a nation of people who give an inordinate amount of attention to train wrecks, the focus will eventually be on mccain again, where it belongs, even if he is uninteresting.

---

And, if I've erroneously labeled you a republican, my sincerest apologies.

m0002a
Posts: 2831
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:12 am
Location: USA

Post by m0002a » Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:35 am

I am not a member of any political party and I don't vote a straight Republican or Democratic ticket.

I have defended Cheney with regard to his former relationship to Halliburton, because anyone looking at the facts objectively can see (IMO) that there is nothing shady there, even though people keep harping on it (which IMO makes the people harping on it shady). I am not in a position to comment on other problems that people have with Cheney unless they specifically spell out what those problems are. In some cases I might agree, but in others I might not.

When you refer to the shady tactics of Palin, you did not specify what exactly you are referring to, so I cannot comment on that.

I prefer to not categorize people (including politicians) into a pigeon hole, rather I prefer to talk about the specifics of the issues, free of any preconceived notions that one or another “movementâ€

aristide1
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US

Post by aristide1 » Wed Sep 17, 2008 4:01 am

Gamers don't even try to contribute to anything, why not address them?

m0002a
Posts: 2831
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:12 am
Location: USA

Post by m0002a » Wed Sep 17, 2008 6:03 am

aristide1 wrote:Gamers don't even try to contribute to anything, why not address them?
I have actually made a number of comments about over-clockers, people with excessive number of hard drives, etc, and suggested they should not be members of this forum.

In this thread, I just gave Folding as example where people believe that something is beneficial to society without any doubt, where there is actually some question about it (we don't know for sure). There are a lot of examples where people believe things to be true that are actually false. I don't think people believe that gaming actually benefits mankind other than just benefiting themselves. That is the difference.

blackworx
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 601
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 2:04 am
Location: UK

Post by blackworx » Wed Sep 17, 2008 6:06 am

If all energy expended by Folding@Home can be categorically labeled as "wasted energy" then I would consider it a very safe bet that compared to the sum of all wasted energy, Folding@Home represents an almost vanishingly-small fraction.

As long as we (as a society) consider multi-kiloWatt luxuries such as running hot water to be necessities of living, I personally see no point in arguing over such small-fry. m0002a, I'm not sure if you deliberately brought it up (or worded it) to incite the response or if the responders have made much more out of it than you intended.

I'm one of millions of non-Americans who, for obvious reasons, have been watching the current goings-on quite closely. I've been finding this thread interesting and informative (especially the links folk have been posting) but the whole F@H thing seems to be a bit of a red herring that's pulled it significantly off-course.

That is all.

BTW I don't fold, and folders' sigs stating things like "If you don't fold you are the spawn of satan, begone!" I find faintly offensive too.

m0002a
Posts: 2831
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:12 am
Location: USA

Post by m0002a » Wed Sep 17, 2008 6:18 am

I never claimed that anyone was doing Folding to purposely harm society or harm anyone else. In fact, i am quite sure that people think it clearly benefits society.

When I first raised this question it was in another thread. I raised it as a question, not as a definitive answer. Another poster said a scientist told him the same thing that 2 scientists had told me, i.e., the whole effort was dubious at best.

But we don't really know one way or the other (I have to keep repeating this, but no one reads what I say). The point is that I don't think anyone doing Folding even imagined that there are scientists who even question the validity of the project, and most people assume that Folding is universally perceived as a great idea. Some things are merely a waste of time, but Folding "might be" (I don't know for sure) a waste of energy.

blackworx
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 601
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 2:04 am
Location: UK

Post by blackworx » Wed Sep 17, 2008 6:28 am

Agreed on all points. I certainly wasn't suggesting you think anyone would do F@H to purposely harm etc., just that a little bit of perspective (in the thread in general) concerning that issue might be in order.

m0002a
Posts: 2831
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:12 am
Location: USA

Post by m0002a » Wed Sep 17, 2008 6:30 am

blackworx wrote:If all energy expended by Folding@Home can be categorically labeled as "wasted energy" then I would consider it a very safe bet that compared to the sum of all wasted energy, Folding@Home represents an almost vanishingly-small fraction.

As long as we (as a society) consider multi-kiloWatt luxuries such as running hot water to be necessities of living, I personally see no point in arguing over such small-fry..
I am not against people who use energy for hot water (although some people have their water heaters set at too high of a temperature). Hot water benefits the people who use it. When people are Folding, it does not benefit them directly at all (AFAIK), The do it because they "believe" that it benefits society, which is why they are doing it. This is a big difference.

One thing that may be a bit different in the US than Scotland, is that many homes in the US are air conditioned for quite a few months a year because of the warm weather. So when people are Folding, they are not only using energy to run their PC's under load, they are heating up their homes which requires extra energy to have their air conditioning maintain a cool temperature.

xan_user
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 2269
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:09 am
Location: Northern California.

Post by xan_user » Wed Sep 17, 2008 6:47 am

Huh?
Is this argument really that F@H is causing more global warming than the policies of Cheney and his political party?



"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy." –April 30, 2001

m0002a
Posts: 2831
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:12 am
Location: USA

Post by m0002a » Wed Sep 17, 2008 6:54 am

xan_user wrote:Huh?
Is this argument really that F@H is causing more global warming than the policies of Cheney and his political party?

"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy." –April 30, 2001
A comprehensive energy policy requires that in addition to conservation, we also increase the supply. There are some people who would gladly put us back into the stone age, but most people recognize that the supply of energy (either from fossil fuels or "alternate" energy sources) needs to be increased.

So here is another example of someone taking a perfectly reasonable statement (we need to look at new sources of energy--fossil fuels and alternates) and distorting it to make it look like something sinister.

blackworx
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 601
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 2:04 am
Location: UK

Post by blackworx » Wed Sep 17, 2008 7:07 am

Your original distinction and the point you used it to illustrate were clear. My point on the other hand, addressed to the thread at large, was that we are talking about quantities of energy orders of magnitude apart, regardless of either immediate or perceived future benefit. Also you are correct: aircon in private homes is rare here, however most commercial/governmental buildings have 24/7 aircon/air recirculation systems. Again, arguably often wasted energy - and again, orders of magnitude out of step with the extra power required to exchange the added heat out of houses containing a 2-300W PC doing 24/7 folding and whose aircon would already be running.

Anyway - my apologies - I've succeeded in prolonging exactly the situation I was moaning about - so I'll just shut up now!

xan_user
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 2269
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:09 am
Location: Northern California.

Post by xan_user » Wed Sep 17, 2008 7:20 am

Any "comprehensive" energy plan that doesn't realize fully that fossil fuels are finite, and increasing production only hastens the enviable exhaustion of the stored prehistoric solar energy, is childish at best.

After decades of subsidized fuel , our gas finally rose to near the cost of what the rest of the world pays, and we finally started cutting back and looking for alternatives.

We don't need more gas, we need to use what we have it better.

Do you realize that Cheney and his boys helped erase the electric vehicle before it could even start?

m0002a
Posts: 2831
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:12 am
Location: USA

Post by m0002a » Wed Sep 17, 2008 7:27 am

xan_user wrote:Any "comprehensive" energy plan that doesn't realize fully that fossil fuels are finite, and increasing production only hastens the enviable exhaustion of the stored prehistoric solar energy, is childish at best.

After decades of subsidized fuel , our gas finally rose to near the cost of what the rest of the world pays, and we finally started cutting back and looking for alternatives.

We don't need more gas, we need to use what we have it better.

Do you realize that Cheney and his boys helped erase the electric vehicle before it could even start?
Aside from pure rhetoric, could you explain in detail what Bush/Cheney have done differently from what Clinton did? In other words, what actual changes with regard to the Federal government energy policy (aside from rhetoric) have actually occurred after the new administration took office?

Maybe you can convince me that there was a change for the worst, and perhaps I may agree with you, but I need to see the proof first.

m0002a
Posts: 2831
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:12 am
Location: USA

Post by m0002a » Wed Sep 17, 2008 7:42 am

xan_user wrote:Any "comprehensive" energy plan that doesn't realize fully that fossil fuels are finite, and increasing production only hastens the enviable exhaustion of the stored prehistoric solar energy, is childish at best.
So are you against drilling for new oil just temporarily, or forever? It sounds like forever. I don't believe there is any other country on the planet with that policy.
After decades of subsidized fuel , our gas finally rose to near the cost of what the rest of the world pays, and we finally started cutting back and looking for alternatives.
I guess you are taking the position that because we don't tax something into submission (as opposed to taxing it like other items), we are subsidizing it. I don't take that view, primarily because it is illogical.
We don't need more gas, we need to use what we have it better.
You are correct, we already have plenty of natural gas. We could use it to run our cars quite easily (many fleets use it now). But if you mean "energy" in general, then we need more conservation and more supply. I like what the French are doing, building nuclear power plants rapidly over the past 20 years and now they get more than 80% of their electricity from nuclear (compared to less than 20% for the USA).
Do you realize that Cheney and his boys helped erase the electric vehicle before it could even start?
No, I did not realize that. I don't suppose you have some credible proof of this?

blackworx
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 601
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 2:04 am
Location: UK

Post by blackworx » Wed Sep 17, 2008 8:03 am

I was going to put this in a new thread, but since it fits with the current discussion here I figure there'd be little point:
Oil supplies will actually last for far longer than our politicians think, the scaremongers fear, and the oil companies tell us. So says Dr Richard Pike, head of the Royal Society of Chemistry...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/17/richard_pike_rcs_interview/
There’s a subterranean dialog going on on the internet – there are literally now thousands of websites carrying this discussion. On the blogs, there are a lot of engineers who agree.
...so far 1 trillion barrels has been produced in history, and using the conventional accounting of reserves, you have 1.2 trillion barrels left. So that’s the reason for saying it’s half gone. What I’m arguing is that there’s probably 2 to 2.5 trillion left, then there will be other reserves from things called “resourcesâ€

aristide1
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US

Post by aristide1 » Wed Sep 17, 2008 9:14 am

m0002a wrote:
aristide1 wrote:Gamers don't even try to contribute to anything, why not address them?
I have actually made a number of comments about over-clockers, people with excessive number of hard drives, etc, and suggested they should not be members of this forum.

In this thread, I just gave Folding as example where people believe that something is beneficial to society without any doubt, where there is actually some question about it (we don't know for sure). There are a lot of examples where people believe things to be true that are actually false. I don't think people believe that gaming actually benefits mankind other than just benefiting themselves. That is the difference.
So anything that doesn't suit you is wasteful, while everything that suits you is worthwhile. Who died and make you king? And since you've never donated a dime to SPRC does that mean its not worthwhile, and if not why are you here?

If you want to make a difference about power usage then sponsor a bill mandating APFC in US pc power supplies, the same as Europe. That would be more significant than your little rant here.

m0002a
Posts: 2831
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:12 am
Location: USA

Post by m0002a » Wed Sep 17, 2008 9:44 am

aristide1 wrote:So anything that doesn't suit you is wasteful, while everything that suits you is worthwhile. Who died and make you king? And since you've never donated a dime to SPRC does that mean its not worthwhile, and if not why are you here?

If you want to make a difference about power usage then sponsor a bill mandating APFC in US pc power supplies, the same as Europe. That would be more significant than your little rant here.
I don't quite understand. You seem to be saying that because you donated money to the publisher of this website, that makes your political arguments more valid than someone who has not donated? Or maybe because you donated, your comments should not be challenged? If that is what you think, then maybe you should ask for a refund.

You started this thread with ad hominem and sexist attacks against a politician with whom you disagree with, and have continuously posted information that I believe to be false (to be generous). If you want to post your opinions somewhere where they cannot be challenged, maybe this is not the correct place. Personally, I would never start an OT thread, because it is, well, off-topic. There are plenty of forums and newsgroups devoted to politics. But there are limits to how long I can idly stand by and let erroneous statements go unchallenged, so that is why I respond. If you merely want to express your opinion about some issue, I have no quarrel with that.

aristide1
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US

Post by aristide1 » Wed Sep 17, 2008 10:15 am

You side stepped my questions.

Again.

jaganath
Posts: 5085
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 6:55 am
Location: UK

Post by jaganath » Wed Sep 17, 2008 10:40 am

You seem to be saying that because you donated money to the publisher of this website, that makes your political arguments more valid than someone who has not donated? Or maybe because you donated, your comments should not be challenged?
That's not what he said at all. you seem to be deliberately misunderstanding him in order to set up straw men to knock down, which is at least as disingenuous as the ad hominem tactic you accuse him of.

m0002a
Posts: 2831
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:12 am
Location: USA

Post by m0002a » Wed Sep 17, 2008 10:48 am

aristide1 wrote:You side stepped my questions.

Again.
I only saw two question marks (along with some editorial comments you made). The one about being king (akin to asking when I stopped beating my wife) needs no response.

I believe that I completely answered the part about donations and any connection that has to the issues raised in this thread (none whatsoever).

I don't need to justify my on-topic contributions to this forum, since others can judge for themselves if they really want to. In any case, even if I had never posted before, rebutting your inaccurate statements is just as legitimate as your right to post them in the first place.

You did offer me some advice about sponsoring legislation, but that was not a question. I will take it under advisement.

aristide1
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US

Post by aristide1 » Wed Sep 17, 2008 10:52 am

m0002a wrote:One thing that may be a bit different in the US than Scotland, is that many homes in the US are air conditioned for quite a few months a year because of the warm weather. So when people are Folding, they are not only using energy to run their PC's under load, they are heating up their homes which requires extra energy to have their air conditioning maintain a cool temperature.
1. It works in reverse in the winter.

2. Quite a few people shut down during the summer.

3. The heat my PCs make is dwarfed by any one of those large screen plasma TVs, which I don't own.

4. A substantial amount of folding occurs with people surfing the net, hence the cost to fold is only the additional load, not the entire load.

5. 85% of the summer the heat generated by my pc's goes out the window, same as the heat from the range or the TV.

But you obviously know better.

Oh by the way, my question was and is:
Who died and make you king?
You couldn't even get that right.
Last edited by aristide1 on Wed Sep 17, 2008 10:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

m0002a
Posts: 2831
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:12 am
Location: USA

Post by m0002a » Wed Sep 17, 2008 10:56 am

jaganath wrote:That's not what he said at all. you seem to be deliberately misunderstanding him in order to set up straw men to knock down, which is at least as disingenuous as the ad hominem tactic you accuse him of.
What did he say then? Why did he bring up the question of donations in regard to the legitimacy of my posting in this forum?

Since you don't think I interpreted him correctly, please answer the above questions and explain his point to me so that I can respond

aristide1
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US

Post by aristide1 » Wed Sep 17, 2008 11:00 am

m0002a wrote:
jaganath wrote:That's not what he said at all. you seem to be deliberately misunderstanding him in order to set up straw men to knock down, which is at least as disingenuous as the ad hominem tactic you accuse him of.
What did he say then? Why did he bring up the question of donations in regard to the legitimacy of my posting in this forum?

Since you don't think I interpreted him correctly, please answer the above questions and explain his point to me so that I can respond
It was in regard about what you think is worthwhile. Everyone here recognized that, and I suspect you did as well.
I don't suppose you have a 'deserving' charity in mind...
Let's see how many more ways we can ask this.
m0002a wrote:...so that I can respond...
The world is full of firsts.

m0002a
Posts: 2831
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:12 am
Location: USA

Post by m0002a » Wed Sep 17, 2008 11:21 am

aristide1 wrote:It was in regard about what you think is worthwhile. Everyone here recognized that, and I suspect you did as well.
Here is what you posted:
aristide1 wrote:So anything that doesn't suit you is wasteful, while everything that suits you is worthwhile.
Sorry, I don't see a question here about what I think, it looks like a statement of you telling me what I think (which of course is completely inaccurate).

You seem to be very sensitive about this Folding thing (which I can understand now that you have admitted that your do it). Remember, I never said it was wrong (I don't know myself) but that the question is in play (or maybe ought to be).

aristide1
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US

Post by aristide1 » Wed Sep 17, 2008 11:33 am

No one is arguing about whether the question is in play, just your level of importance/waste assigned to it. Lots of research doesn't pay off, seems a lot of scientists have found a life long career.
I don't suppose you have a 'deserving' charity in mind...
Did we not see this again?

m0002a
Posts: 2831
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:12 am
Location: USA

Post by m0002a » Wed Sep 17, 2008 12:13 pm

aristide1 wrote:No one is arguing about whether the question is in play, just your level of importance/waste assigned to it. Lots of research doesn't pay off, seems a lot of scientists have found a life long career.
I don't suppose you have a 'deserving' charity in mind...
Did we not see this again?
Yes "we" saw it, and I told you I don't like to tell others what charity they should donate to. Let your conscience be your guide on that one.

But now it occurs to me that you are trying to find out what charities I donate to, for reasons that I am sure are for the purposes of attacking me. I usually donate to homeless shelters and other such agencies. I have also donated to scholarship funds for students in need of financial support. But I don't think it is in any way relevant to this discussion.

Since you think donating to charities is so important, maybe you will be interested in this about Joe Biden:

"The Delaware senator and his wife, Jill, showed annual earnings of more than $200,000 and sometimes $300,000 between 1998 and 2007. And they gave relatively very little of it away. In 2007, their most generous year, the Bidens gave $995 to charity. In 1999, their charitable donations added up to $120."

And yes, I make a lot less than the Bidens, and I donate a lot more to charities ($1500 in 2007)..

Erssa
Posts: 1421
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 9:26 pm
Location: Finland

Post by Erssa » Wed Sep 17, 2008 12:48 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6urw_PWHYk

I have to agree with Matt Damon. It's scary to think hockey mom will be the president next year, when McCain dies out of old age.

blackworx
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 601
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 2:04 am
Location: UK

Post by blackworx » Wed Sep 17, 2008 1:56 pm

Apparently her Yahoo email account has been "hacked" by Anonymous. Strangely, she appears to have been using it for her work.

The dirty is here: http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin_Y ... _hack_2008 (unsurprisingly it doesn't appear to be working right now)

xan_user
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 2269
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:09 am
Location: Northern California.

Post by xan_user » Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:49 pm

m0002a wrote:
xan_user wrote:Any "comprehensive" energy plan that doesn't realize fully that fossil fuels are finite, and increasing production only hastens the enviable exhaustion of the stored prehistoric solar energy, is childish at best.

After decades of subsidized fuel , our gas finally rose to near the cost of what the rest of the world pays, and we finally started cutting back and looking for alternatives.

We don't need more gas, we need to use what we have it better.

Do you realize that Cheney and his boys helped erase the electric vehicle before it could even start?
Aside from pure rhetoric, could you explain in detail what Bush/Cheney have done differently from what Clinton did? In other words, what actual changes with regard to the Federal government energy policy (aside from rhetoric) have actually occurred after the new administration took office?

Maybe you can convince me that there was a change for the worst, and perhaps I may agree with you, but I need to see the proof first.
Your more than welcome to peruse my library anytime your in the neighborhood.
Short of that all the info you need is at you finger tips, all you need is desire to find the truth and the ability to open your eyes.

A single Cheney motorcade trip is a bigger waste of energy than my folding could ever be in one year. (and when I fold no one needs to apologize for getting shot in the face.)

Were all the failures in the long search for a Polio vaccine a waste as well?

xan_user
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 2269
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:09 am
Location: Northern California.

Post by xan_user » Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:57 pm

blackworx wrote:Apparently her Yahoo email account has been "hacked" by Anonymous. Strangely, she appears to have been using it for her work.

The dirty is here: http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin_Y ... _hack_2008 (unsurprisingly it doesn't appear to be working right now)
for anyone interested this is still up here...for how long?

http://gawker.com/5051193/sarah-palins-personal-emails

Post Reply