fuman wrote on Jul 29
th, 2009 at 5:48pm:
Pdog wrote on Jul 29
th, 2009 at 5:05pm:
Riffhard wrote on Jul 29
th, 2009 at 4:29pm:
How about you? We know where funman comes down on this issue. He believes every fucking lie that Barry spoon feeds him. He is a certified Obamabot. How about you Pdog? Are you fed up enough with Obama's idiotic spending to call him on it? Because no matter what you say, they are NOT all the same!!! No other president in history would dare even attempt to piss away the nation's wealth the way this idiot is!! Even red China is telling Barry to slow the fuck down!! Do you think he has any plans on slowing down government spending?! Fat fucking chance! Not with idiots like funman happily buying into the shit storm that this Barryfuck is selling!!!
Riffy
I already have called him and the former on idiotic spending... plain and simple... I'm a libertarian minded person.
Now the premise of your question, is that he is spending this nations wealth... We are in debt and everything is on loan, from the banks who run our federal reserve... there is no US wealth in the context of this question. Obama is spending borrowed money. Even if we raised income tax to 75%, where would that money go? To the banks that help run the fed, and loan us our own money back... the system is flawed, not the president or congression spending sprees... and remember, we are all morons, idiots and that is a fact. I know this b/c you said it enough, that is is true, you're yelling at and lecturing a bunch of retards... you might as well be yelling at the sky, you might already be doing that... maybe you should post about music and stones a bit, you do know the past few months have revealed a bunch of Stones stuff happening and more to come soon...
Aren't carrer politicians and lobbyists what's really wrong? I think so, unless someone doesn't take that money, and actually sticks to doing the job these elected officers are to do, which is rare, all we get is crap same old same old. You think the failed promise of Gingrich and the Republicns in the 90's is just as much to blame for our predictment as anything else, man made or god created?
I don't care where you fall, Clinton was way more fiscally responsible than Bush or obama, and the trend, as I see it, is the same... Big govt. out of control spending... complain all you want, I really don't care how much you do that... I never, ever see you offer a solution. I know mine is to eliminate the banks and the IRS and Fed. Reserve system we have in place. Have a real and legitimate tax system.
I do not know what yours is... I never have, all I see is rage, anger and blame to the left side, and the other side is you go along what the extreme right party line agenda is, which is always about homosexuals, religion, minorities, abortion and eco-unfriendly standards.
I've never heard you defend the equal rights of all americans.
you always defend religous views of christians and condemn muslims.
Never have seen you stick up for blacks, not once, ever.
Abortion, or how about real education, so kids who are fucking are doing so with knowledge, not these right wing philosophy, that also btw, persecuates gay teens, back to religion.
And the envoirment... shit, you supported every single act of GWB, and those were written by people who came from industries that pollutted, now you blast obama... Well, he's getting people who make money off of green tech. duh... it's the same kinda shit... you get screwed regardless... at the core of all this, nothing really changes... the only change (haha) is so small, such minor shifts, it is laughable... so much of this spending you talk about, is stuff that is proposed, and hasn't happened yet. You say like the govt. already forked over this money, and that is false, it is proposed and projected spending, and could be cut off or happen... I know this, but then again, you're literally repeating talking points, which are not facts... they are distorted versions, meant to confuse and seperate people from what is real. What is real, is we are experiencing a finanacial sept. 11th... that is real, so get into a solution, like you said we had to do after those attacks... do you see an actual problem and propose a solution or are you just going to tell us how we are now all comunists being sent off to Gulags by a racist president?
I think I agree with all of your political points here. This is the shit that matters.
Sure, we need to slowly change this behavior, so as to retain jobs. But change we must.
example:
We're using untold energy to ship cookies to Europe, who in turn ships their cookies back to our market.
Can't we just exchange recipes via the internet?
Your conscience and your behind. Put them in the same place and stop posting on the internet. Otherwise, we all demand you admit you're a raving hypocrite.
Performing two Google searches from a desktop computer can generate about the same amount of carbon dioxide as boiling a kettle for a cup of tea, according to new research.
While millions of people tap into Google without considering the environment, a typical search generates about 7g of CO2 Boiling a kettle generates about 15g. “Google operates huge data centres around the world that consume a great deal of power,” said Alex Wissner-Gross, a Harvard University physicist whose research on the environmental impact of computing is due out soon. “A Google search has a definite environmental impact.”
Google is secretive about its energy consumption and carbon footprint. It also refuses to divulge the locations of its data centres. However, with more than 200m internet searches estimated globally daily, the electricity consumption and greenhouse gas emissions caused by computers and the internet is provoking concern. A recent report by Gartner, the industry analysts, said the global IT industry generated as much greenhouse gas as the world’s airlines - about 2% of global CO2 emissions. “Data centres are among the most energy-intensive facilities imaginable,” said Evan Mills, a scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California. Banks of servers storing billions of web pages require power.
Though Google says it is in the forefront of green computing, its search engine generates high levels of CO2 because of the way it operates. When you type in a Google search for, say, “energy saving tips”, your request doesn’t go to just one server. It goes to several competing against each other.
It may even be sent to servers thousands of miles apart. Google’s infrastructure sends you data from whichever produces the answer fastest. The system minimises delays but raises energy consumption. Google has servers in the US, Europe, Japan and China.
Wissner-Gross has submitted his research for publication by the US Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers and has also set up a website
www.CO2stats.com. “Google are very efficient but their primary concern is to make searches fast and that means they have a lot of extra capacity that burns energy,” he said.
Google said: “We are among the most efficient of all internet search providers.”
Wissner-Gross has also calculated the CO2 emissions caused by individual use of the internet. His research indicates that viewing a simple web page generates about 0.02g of CO2 per second. This rises tenfold to about 0.2g of CO2 a second when viewing a website with complex images, animations or videos.
A separate estimate from John Buckley, managing director of carbonfootprint.com, a British environmental consultancy, puts the CO2 emissions of a Google search at between 1g and 10g, depending on whether you have to start your PC or not. Simply running a PC generates between 40g and 80g per hour, he says. of CO2 Chris Goodall, author of Ten Technologies to Save the Planet, estimates the carbon emissions of a Google search at 7g to 10g (assuming 15 minutes’ computer use).
Nicholas Carr, author of The Big Switch, Rewiring the World, has calculated that maintaining a character (known as an avatar) in the Second Life virtual reality game, requires 1,752 kilowatt hours of electricity per year. That is almost as much used by the average Brazilian.
“It’s not an unreasonable comparison,” said Liam Newcombe, an expert on data centres at the British Computer Society. “It tells us how much energy westerners use on entertainment versus the energy poverty in some countries.”
Though energy consumption by computers is growing - and the rate of growth is increasing - Newcombe argues that what matters most is the type of usage.
If your internet use is in place of more energy-intensive activities, such as driving your car to the shops, that’s good. But if it is adding activities and energy consumption that would not otherwise happen, that may pose problems.
Newcombe cites Second Life and Twitter, a rapidly growing website whose 3m users post millions of messages a month. Last week Stephen Fry, the TV presenter, was posting “tweets” from New Zealand, imparting such vital information as “Arrived in Queenstown. Hurrah. Full of bungy jumping and ‘activewear’ shops”, and “Honestly. NZ weather makes UK look stable and clement”.
Jonathan Ross was Twittering even more, with posts such as “Am going to muck out the pigs. It will be cold, but I’m not the type to go on about it” and “Am now back indoors and have put on fleecy tracksuit and two pairs of socks”. Ross also made various “tweets” trying to ascertain whether Jeremy Clarkson was a Twitter user or not. Yesterday the Top Gear presenter cleared up the matter, saying: “I am not a twit. And Jonathan Ross is.”
Such internet phenomena are not simply fun and hot air, Newcombe warns: the boom in such services has a carbon cost.
Pages: 
Obama elected President (Read 622,482 times)
