Greenpeace: Amazon Fire Burns More Coal and Gas Than It Should 288
Jason Koebler (3528235) writes "The biggest thing that sets the Amazon Fire Phone apart from its Android and Apple competitors probably isn't the clean interface or the unlimited photo storage—it's the dirty power behind it. When Fire users upload their photos and data to Amazon's cloud, they'll be creating a lot more pollution than iPhone owners, Greenpeace says. Apple has made a commitment to running its iCloud on 100 percent clean energy. Amazon, meanwhile, operates the dirtiest servers of any major tech giant that operates its own servers—only 15 percent of its energy comes from clean sources, which is about the default national average." Greenpeace's jaundiced eye is on Amazon more generally; the company's new phone is just an example. Maybe Amazon or some other provider could take a page from some local utilities and let users signal their own preferences with a (surcharged) "clean energy" option.
Clever editors. (Score:2)
It's funny because "fire" and "coal". /sarcasm
Re: Clever editors. (Score:4, Informative)
So you have no idea if it's true, and you haven't bothered to check - or you just made it up and figured you'd throw it out there anonymously because hey, this is Slashdot and there are always at least a few guys of most any political bent willing to run with absurd stories.
Don't be lazy - if you have evidence, at least post a link so people can discuss it.
Re: Clever editors. (Score:5, Informative)
Here you go. Greenpeace exec commuting on commercial air every week between Amsterdam and Luxembourg. Until he was shamed, then made it every other week.
http://www.nltimes.nl/2014/06/24/greenpeace-director-hypocrisy-scandal-takes-plane-work/
Staff revolts
http://www.nltimes.nl/2014/07/23/greenpeace-staff-want-director-dismissed/
See, like most liberal assholes, it is do as i say not as I do. Anyone who give Greenpeace another nickel is a fool.
Re: Clever editors. (Score:5, Insightful)
Here you go. Greenpeace exec commuting on commercial air every week between Amsterdam and Luxembourg.
That was not a "private jet". Adding yet-another-passenger to a commercial flight emits about as much CO2 as driving the same distance. How far is it from Amsterdam to Luxembourg anyway?
See, like most liberal assholes, it is do as i say not as I do.
That is a dumb standard. You should do what someone says, or not, depending on whether their argument makes sense. That they are hypocrites is irrelevant. In this case, Greenpeace's argument is silly. Electricity is fungible, and it doesn't really mean anything to say that the source of power for one particular use is "clean". All that really matters is the overall emissions. But even that is silly, since subsidizing clean energy is a pretty dumb way to combat global warming. A far better way to reduce CO2 emissions would be to buy condoms for Nigerians. People that are never born emit far less CO2 than those that are. Long term problems require long term solutions.
Re: (Score:2)
How far is it from Amsterdam to Luxembourg anyway?
A four-hour drive by car (359.5 km), according to Google. I'm curious to know if taking a plane is more energy efficient than a car or train.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious to know why Greenpeace would put up with a high level exec commuting that distance regularly. The guy should move to live closer to work, is how I would think the rank-and-file greenpeace activists would think it. Why do they need to employ a CEO who clearly thinks of himself as a jet-setter?
Re: Clever editors. (Score:4, Insightful)
The CEO of Greenpeace is on my list of people to punch.
Re: (Score:2)
They're Marxists and like good Marxists they've implemented a good Marxist model internally with their CEO getting paid a thick wedge of cash and flying to work. What they want is to carry on their pissy little lives promoting policies to prevent you from doing the same.
Not much difference between a Marxist CEO and a Capitalist CEO when it comes to perks. CEO's are more equal than the rest of humanity.
Re: (Score:2)
"Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite." - John Kenneth Galbraith
Re: Clever editors. (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you've managed the trifecta there:
1. Sweeping statements without any explanation or evidence.
2. Use of the word "marxism" in a way that means nothing at all.
3. Claim that those on the left are just trying to oppress you (again without any explanation or evidence, obviously).
Re: (Score:3)
How far is it from Amsterdam to Luxembourg anyway?
A four-hour drive by car (359.5 km), according to Google. I'm curious to know if taking a plane is more energy efficient than a car or train.
Depends on how full the plane, train and car are. A single person in a largish car (he's a CEO, remember) probably won't beat a full short haul flight for the same distance.
Trains are among the most efficient transportation methods (hard wheels on smooth rails = low rolling resistance) but the journey may not be the fastest nor most direct.
Re: (Score:2)
Trains are among the most efficient transportation methods (hard wheels on smooth rails = low rolling resistance) but the journey may not be the fastest nor most direct.
I just started a job at a hospital. The fastest route to the hospital in the morning is a two-hour bus trip (four connections). Not being a major tech employer, its the last stop for the buses and shuttles after winding through all the nearby tech companies. The fastest route home in the afternoon is a one-hour trip via two buses, a commuter train and a light rail train. Taking the train is an extra five bucks per day that I'm not sure if I want to do on a regular basis.
Re: (Score:3)
[. . .]A far better way to reduce CO2 emissions would be to buy condoms for Nigerians. People that are never born emit far less CO2 than those that are. Long term problems require long term solutions.
Well that's quite a foolish (and probably racist) thing to say. According to wikipedia, Nigeria puts out less CO2 than 42 other countries [wikipedia.org], while China, the US, the EU, India, and Russia top the list in that order. I'm willing to bet that Nigerians also probably aren't particularly high-carbon emissions per capita compared to people in my country, the United States.
But this is all a bit much because you probably don't really want to control the population of the biggest CO2 emitters, do you? You're more like
Re: (Score:3)
See, like most liberal assholes, it is do as i say not as I do. Anyone who give Greenpeace another nickel is a fool.
I think you will find that most liberal assholes (myself included) happen to hold a very dim view of Greenpeace.
Also, fuck you.
Re: (Score:2)
The Greenpeace CEO rides a 40 car train, with lignite coal burning steam locomotive, 50 miles each way to work. It is air conditioned with a leaky halon driven system. The menu in the diner car features marbled blue whale steak and fried Goliath frog legs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Greenpeace also opposes Nuclear power. Which hardly puts them in a position to be pointing fingers.
Hipsterism at its finest (worst?) (Score:4, Insightful)
This whole "I buy my energy from green sources" crap is hipsterism at its finest. It's even more hipster than goddamn "walled garden" cell phones with unusable flat UIs, glasses with no lenses, and fedora hats.
It represents everything that's fucked up about hipsters and their toxic attitude:
1) They think they're "making a difference" without actually doing anything beneficial at all.
2) They brag about how they're "making a difference", when they obviously aren't.
3) They feel good about how they're "making a difference", when they haven't done a goddamn thing.
4) They think they care about the environment, when they clearly don't.
5) They subject the rest of us to their "environmental justice" and "social justice" crap without end.
These hipsters make me sick. Give me back the hippies of the 1960s, or the real environmentalists of the 1970s! As obnoxious as they often were, at least they weren't filthy hypocrites like today's hipsters are. They actually managed to practice what they preached, even if they were out of touch with reality. Hipsters today are totally out of touch, and can't even be assed to live by how they say everyone should should be living.
Re:Hipsterism at its finest (worst?) (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hipsterism at its finest (worst?) (Score:4, Insightful)
SD slots on every phone would be worse for the environment. In the cloud, you can store everyones data efficiently instead of using millions of inefficient SD cards. Plus the the SD card approach will create more waste as cars go bad or break.
LOL.... What? Have you had your coffee or energy drink today?
1. Having stuff that you can download and keep on SD cards uses a TON less energy than having to stream it every time. You are missing the energy required to transmit packets, to run routers and switches, etc...
2. Obviously you "know nothing, John Snow...." I've never had a SD card break, let alone stop working. My biggest fear with the MicroSD cards is that I will lose them, they are so tiny... So far so good...
3. Maybe this was meant as sarcasm and I missed it entirely.... doubtful though....
Re:Hipsterism at its finest (worst?) (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh thank god. All this time I was thinking that no storage device is 100% reliable and here you come along and shatter that view. Thank you David_Hart for assuring me that SD cards are 100% reliable and never experience data loss. I am switching to SD cards for all of my backups from now on; both at home and at work! I am sure my boss will love how much money I saved him by switching from costly tape and off site providers to simple SD cards. THANK YOU!
Don't be a tool.
No one is saying you keep your one copy of the nuclear launch codes on a SD card. He is saying they have become relatively inexpensive removable storage and that most phone makers outside of apple have acknowledged this.
Re: (Score:2)
Please DO keep your one copy of the nuclear launch codes on a breakable media. In fact put them on an old punch card and run it through the laundry a few times. We don't want you using those codes!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hipsterism at its finest (worst?) (Score:5, Insightful)
You fail to account for how slow SD cards are so that they need to be powered longer to extract data off them.
Every so often, this argument is brought up. What universe do you live in where the wireless interface is faster than the local storage? MicroSDHC cards read at 832Mb/s (104MB/s = 832Mb/s [wikipedia.org]). 4G LTE tops out at 300Mb/s (wiki [wikipedia.org]). And that's optimal speed, not accounting for latency. On my personal mobile device, playing a 5 minute song from Amazon's cloud service takes 1-2 minutes to buffer and then keeps the radio going the rest of the 5 minute song. From local storage, that song would load into working memory in less than a second.
Regardless of the net energy usage, the propagation of cloud services for things that could very easily be handled locally is completely insane.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hipsterism at its finest (worst?) (Score:4, Insightful)
* I hate the term cloud, I will continue to call it what it is, a file server.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
you are the reason people like me dont take environmentalists seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
It's more efficient to store 1 file on a central hard drive than store millions of redundant copies on millions of SD cards.
Transmitting a copy of that 1 file every time when it is accessed consumes enormous amount of energy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> And I have ones that have failed.
My last Archos 5 with spinny rust inside of it refuses to die. It's fortunate too since no other device I've seen can match it for local storage and disconnected (from the cloud) operation.
I've yet to have an SD card fail. If anything they will become obsoletely-tiny before actually breaking.
It's funny that someone thinks that multiple redundant server farms and the entire network infastructure of the internet and all the phone providers is less of a resource hog than a
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The main way to make datacenters environmentally friendly is to build them near windfarms, and to build more capacity than you need. Then process data in the center where electricity is the cheapest, i.e. where there is an excess of wind at the moment. This increases the profitability of windfarms and leads to more investment.
Re: (Score:2)
The telephone companies have the ability to route each signal to and from specific points. I'm betting plenty of people purchasing green power think something along those lines are happening and they are actually using green power in their home.
So in essence, yes, people expect them to track individual electrons- or to be more specific, route them directly to the house. That's what the people I know who purchase the green power think anyways.
Re:Hipsterism at its finest (worst?) (Score:5, Insightful)
And they tend to oppose nucelar power which is our best way of actually getting enough "clean energy" for modern society.
It's a shame (Score:5, Insightful)
Give me back the hippies of the 1960s, or the real environmentalists of the 1970s! As obnoxious as they often were, ....
It's a shame with all this hostility towards environmentalists.
They were the ones who pushed for cleaner air and water. They were the ones who helped get lead out of gasoline.
If it weren't for them, we'd have the environment of China because businesses do not care. Pollution is the tradgedy of the commons - folks pollute and the rest of society pays for the costs.
During the Summer here in coal powered Metro Atlanta, air quality gets so bad that it kills suseptable young children and the elderly.
But use cleaner and more expensive energy?! Fuck no!
Gotta power all those Chinese made electronic gadgets - especially the big screen TV plugged into the overpriced cable because we gotta have our sports!
And of course there are the gas guzzling SUVs and "manly" pickup trucks - many driven by "No-noes" (folks who drive a truck just to be manly and NEVER actually use it to haul anything). Oh no! Cannot look like a fag driving something a bit more sensible and perfectly adequate with 4 cyclinders.
But I actually walk the walk - and I save a shit load of money.
That's right. Living "green" is CHEAP!
Cheaper cars, lower fuel expenses, no cable bill, no expensive cell phone bills because I don't have a smart phone, cheaper electricity because I don't have a TV in every room or any other energy sucking toys.
I walk to local stores - they're less than half a mile away. See, being "green" also saves money on exercise. Why pay hundreds of dollars and get locked into a shitty gym contract when walking and carrying packages is great exercise?
Much our polution is because of our insane consumerist culture. Buy, buy, buy! Spend money! Go into debt! Sign away your freedom and enslave ourselves with debt because we gotta have those electronic toys, big trucks, cable TV, etc ...
If we learned to live simpler and deeper, we'd be much happier as a society and things would clean up on their own because we would spend time doing important things instead of wasting it on shit doing shit.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm an environmentalist, and I agree, there are a lot of people who say they care about the environment but if you suggest any lifestyle changes they immediately dismiss the idea without accepting that supporting the environment might mean some small compromises. Like a person who owned 10ish properties but wouldn't buy an environmentally cleaning product because of the price is a bit more.
You ask a person with a large SUV is they 'support the environment'.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a shame with all this hostility towards environmentalists.
They were the ones who pushed for cleaner air and water. They were the ones who helped get lead out of gasoline.
The problem is people conflating environmentalists (people who actually give a crap about the environment, learn and understand the problems and try to figure out a sensible way to make our lives cleaner) with "environmentalists" (the likes of Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth who make a lot of noise about saving the planet but don't bother to actually learn about the problems and end up blocking every solution that isn't (in their eyes) perfect, failing to realise that there are no perfect solutions and
Re: (Score:3)
It's a shame with all this hostility towards environmentalists.
Greenpeace is not an environmentalist group.
But use cleaner and more expensive energy?! Fuck no!
Right there, that's your problem. Better has to come at a cost. It's like a religion, and you have to pay for your sin. We could have nuclear, but nope. We have to convince people to live, as you put it, 'simpler and deeper,' change their lifestyles to match what you find aesthetic, rather than improve the means of production.
Cheaper cars, lower fuel expenses, no cable bill, no expensive cell phone bills because I don't have a smart phone, cheaper electricity because I don't have a TV in every room or any other energy sucking toys.
Found that guy. [theonion.com] Okay, you like that, fine, do your own thing. Acknowledge that not everyone wants to live the same way.
I walk to local stores - they're less than half a mile away. See, being "green" also saves money on exercise. Why pay hundreds of dollars and get locked into a shitty gym contract when walking and carrying packages is great exercise?
Unless you've b
Re: (Score:2)
The "businesses" in China, in contrast to the environmentally cleaner portions of the world, are essentially part of the government. Chernobyl wasn't exactly a private enterprise either.
The solution to the tragedy of the commons is private ownership and liability in order to change the incentives, not more government go
Re: (Score:3)
The solution to the tragedy of the commons is private ownership and liability in order to change the incentives, not more government government regulations.
Just because you say it doesn't make it so. Government regulations on energy production are the only thing that's keeping the US from looking like China.
Re: (Score:2)
so the environmentalists made the USA cleaner but pushed the pollution generation to China which where the devastation is to much larger land and water areas, and threat to more people. mission accomplished?
Re: (Score:2)
I too thought Apple was "buying" clean energy. But it turns out they have actually built a solar plant at their datacenter along with fuel cell backups.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/05/17/apples_icloud_data_center_to_use_100_renewable_energy_by_end_of_year [appleinsider.com]
http://www.cleanenergyactionproject.com/CleanEnergyActionProject/CS.Apple_Maiden_iCloud_Data_Center___Hybrid_Renewable_Energy_Systems_Case_Studies.html [cleanenerg...roject.com]
This article peaked my interest though:
http://www.imore.com/apple-google-microsoft-come-out-clean-g [imore.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Nice rant about hipsters, but do you have any actual arguments against what Greenpeace is saying?
I'm actually surprised that Amazon is doing so badly. Most large data centres realized that since energy is one of their biggest costs and they have all that otherwise unused roof space they might as well rake in some solar power. The up-front cost is relatively minimal and the pay off term pretty short for heavy users. Even fairly far north it's worth doing.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice rant about hipsters, but do you have any actual arguments against what Greenpeace is saying?
Given he felt he had to invoke the same angry and vague rant five slightly different ways - and even numbered them for some bizarre reason - it's obvious he does not.
Hipsterism? You just defined the whole .... (Score:2)
... environmental movement in a nutshell!
Seriously, I think most sane human beings DO care about trying not to trash up the only planet we've got. But that thinking doesn't require big special interest groups pushing agendas! It doesn't even require our schools to waste valuable classroom time teaching recycling and shoving feel good eco/Green stuff down our kid's throats!
If companies see a true FINANCIAL benefit to using clean energy, they'll willingly and even happily switch to it. I'm pretty sure Amazon'
Re: (Score:2)
Given that 'green' energy can't meeting total demands anyway, switching to 'green' energy merely relocates the issue.
Total energy use = green + dirty, and your specific part of that equation doesn't change the equation.
As soon as greenpeace touches it (Score:4, Insightful)
It loses all credibility. perhaps its true, but once they make a claim i almost always assume that its another exaggeration or outright lie.
I don't hate the environment, i just don't believe anything those idealistic eco hippies say.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
whoosh (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Or ill go with the hillary soundbyte of "what difference does it make!~"
greenpeace IS a terrorist org, they may not have always been that way, its possible, hell probable that our government pushed them to become so, but the fact is that they are, regardless of what atrocities have happened.
Re:whoosh (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So you support state sponsored terrorism. Tyranny, fun for the whole country....
If the state-sponsored terrorism is applied to Greenpeace, then yes. Yes I do. Wholeheartedly and enthusiastically. I think someone ought to sink another one of their boats, just so they get the fucking message.
Re:As soon as greenpeace touches it (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you've giving vegetarianism a bad name there.
Bad name? I said that it is in principle a great idea.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been a vegetarian for 15 years and can run a marathon. How about you?
Well, for starters, obviously vegetarianism causes insanity.
Re: (Score:2)
From the paper
Vitamin B12 is only provided in animal derived proteins
By definition there is no vegetarian or vegan diet that is not deficient in B12.
By definition, the difference between a vegan and a vegetarian is that a vegetarian will consume animal derived products (including proteins), just not animals themselves. Hence your statement is correct for vegans, false for vegetarians.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This was my thought exactly. I thought it was odd that the title makes "Greenpeace" so prominent. Author (or editor) seems to think that adds credibility.
Re:As soon as greenpeace touches it (Score:5, Insightful)
i just don't believe anything those idealistic eco hippies say.
Do you realize how stupid that is?
John Stewart Mill made the point that you should consider every argument, even if only one person in the entire world is making it against the consensus of everyone else, on its merits. The person speaking does not matter, only the merits of the argument.
Effectively you harm yourself by dismissing things that could be beneficial for you, simply because you dislike the messenger.
Re: (Score:2)
John Stewart Mill made the point that you should consider every argument, even if only one person in the entire world is making it against the consensus of everyone else, on its merits. The person speaking does not matter, only the merits of the argument.
Knowing that someone has a very warped perception of reality - at least from your point of view - pretty much destroys all their credibility to make arguments about the real world. If the argument had any merit then "normal people" would use it too, it's not worth the effort to track every argument back to the underlying root causes. Very often it boils down to "that's not the way real people act or the real world works" because so many get caught up in an ideology and forget to ground their beliefs in real
Re: (Score:2)
Do you realize how stupid that is?
No. Let's just say you have someone who you know lies, and lies often. The last thing the said was a blatant lie, the thing they said before that was also a lie. Now they make a new claim. Do you run out and put time and effort investigating the claim, or just assume that, given the history of falsehoods and deceit, this is also likely a lie. Greenpeace lies. A lot.
Now, you're right, what they say here could be truthful, they could very well be right, but I see no reason to assume this is anything but
Greenpeace... (Score:3, Insightful)
Greenpeace are those hippies that told us nuclear power is bad, so we should keep using coal and gas power, right?
Wrong (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, they are these hippies that prevented Shell to sink an old oil reservoir deep in the North Sea to take rid of it an minimize pollution. They claimed the reservoir contained toxic heavy metal, they chained themselves to the reservoir to prevent Shell to sink it and eventually the public opinion was on their side and Shell was mandate to dissassemble the reservoir on land to find out there was no toxic heavy metal in it and the operation proven to be way more polluting on land than if they had sunken the
Re: (Score:2)
Right! And Greenpeace wants us to use wind and solar which are also dirtier and more lethal than nuclear!
And also aren't great at providing base load supply.
Don't get me wrong, I think wind(*) and solar are good ideas, but pushing for them to be our *only* source of power is a pretty good example of why the political "environmentalists" like Greenpeace are a problem.
(* But I tend to think that the variability of wind power should be coupled with a load that can be varied to match rather than trying to balance wind power against other generators. For example, when there's an excess of power being produced, uti
Re: (Score:2)
"The former requires fundamental breakthroughs which have yet to materialize and may never arriv"
what? I thought dam technology was already here. Are you telling me I get to invent pumping water into a reservoirs to store potential energy and the release it when the is a higher demand?
Sweet.
I can think of many ways to store the surplus energy.
And Greenpeace runs its ships on pure sunshine (Score:3, Funny)
...although that sunshine was 100 million years ago which was then coverted into fossil fuels.
Re:And Greenpeace runs its ships on pure sunshine (Score:4, Funny)
They use 100% organic whale oil - a fully renewable fuel!
Re: (Score:2)
They offset it by buying magic unicorn credits
Re: (Score:3)
Straw man. Greenpeace do not argue that all fossil fuel use is automatically bad and should be avoided, they simply argue that the current massive scale of use is bad.
I'm really starting to dislike the way every debate about the environment, women, nuclear power, guns and many other topics instantly gets flooded with ad hominem attacks, straw men and other logical fallacies. It's like a tabloid newspaper or low quality TV news channel. I'm sure Slashdot wasn't like this a few years back.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually Greenpeace is about the white middle-class telling everyone else that they can't develop because they will cook the planet. And every argument they make about the cooking of the planet is couched in ad hominem attacks against people who disbelieve everything that comes from their mouths.
What exactly does Greenpeace do running these ships? It ain't useful to the planet that's for sure.
Oh, come on. (Score:2)
Greenpeace is to the ecology roughly what Autism Speaks is to the autistic community, or what Bennett Haselton is to articles that aren't painfully stupid.
This is not news, and it does not deserve attention or reporting.
Greenpeace Blecchhh (Score:3)
No credibility whatsoever. I've caught them in outright lies far too often.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. I see them blatantly lying about my field (plant science) all the time, sometimes even attacking research, and their efforts have helped set it back by at least a decade. I have a very hard time trusting them about anything else when they so readily disregard facts to drum up controversy.
Re:Greenpeace Blecchhh (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Green Party, if you're in the USA. Not that I agree with them on everything...
Time to start building more nuke plants as long as (Score:2)
Time to start building more nuke plants as long as they are not.
SNPP
chernobyl
3 mile island
Fukushima
they are safe.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
TMI safety both failed and succeeded depending upon how you look at things.
It failed to prevent a partial meltdown of the reactor core.
It failed to prevent a significant release of radiation to the general environment as 15 curies (560 GBq) of iodine-131 (the most concering portion due to biological uptake to the thyroid)
It succeeded in terms of avoiding the wide-scale problems of Fukushima or Chernobyl
It failed in terms of public opinion of nuclear power being a reasonably source of energy production. Nucl
Re: (Score:2)
Funny fact: 3 Mile failed because of a safety procedure. When a gage went bad, it was red tagged. Good idea ... unless it hangs over the gage that would have warned the operators the reactor was going wonky. So, as you say, they interpreted the conditions on the gages they could see, not the critical one the couldn't, and made the wrong call.
Legacy (Score:2)
Fast forward to today and that legacy commitment is a yoke around their corporate neck that creeps toward a negative aspect.
Reminds me of how the large telcos want to squeeze every last penny out of all that copper still in the ground.
Please STFU and show yourself out (Score:5, Insightful)
I support Apple's initiatives and I'm glad they're setting a good example as an industry leader. However, I could not possibly care less that a given cell phone might be accessing a server that isn't "green". Yes, Amazon Fire will be running "on top of" AWS. This is an absolute given. It will also be leaning on servers from Google, Apple, Rackspace, and Joe's Server Shack.
Greenpeace, shoo. You're not involved in these discussions and you're not relevant to the task at hand. It's cute that you want to be a part of the conversation, but this is the adult table.
I had a Greenpeace membership once... (Score:2)
GREENPEACE ARE DISHONEST, AS WELL AS INCOMPETENT (Score:5, Informative)
Last time they ranked Amazon poorly for datacenter power, I checked some numbers and compared with other agencies rankings.
Amazon got about 27% of it's power from nuclear.
No CO2, but Greenpeace didn't credit anything for it.
Dell's datacenters had higher CO2 emissions, only ~7% nuclear, but a little more renewables.
The anti-nuclear geniuses at Greenpeace gave Dell a cleaner ranking than Amazon.
They only credit CO2 abatement, if they agree with the method.
Not only that, they don't even MENTION all CO2 abatements.
In fact, I found that Amazon's emissions were far better than average.
I think they had the 2nd lowest fossil generating share of about 10 US datacenter operators compared.
In addition, Amazon was investing heavily in PSU, rack density, and cooling improvements, and virtualization is a known resource saver across all components. Ever heard of virtualization at Amazon?
I doubt that anyone at Greenpeace understands any of this.
Any electrical engineers there? HVAC engineers? POWERPLANT engineers?
Greenpeace are dishonest, technically ignorant, and thoroughly foolhardy;
and will destroy your World if you let them.
TFA shouldn't have even been posted here.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, it will just generate useless overhead (unless you use a light-weight "virtualization" like FreeBSD Jails, LXC, Solaris Containers).
Re: (Score:2)
assertions without proof. Running 30 virtual machines in one physical blade is the norm, virtualization helps over no virtualization.
Those other solutions are useless to a business that requires a supported OS for there applications.
Re: (Score:2)
Greenpeace is my go-to guide on enviro issues (Score:3)
When an environmental issue comes up, I look up the Greenpeace position on it and automatically know that the opposite must be true. For example, the Amazon Fire 'burns coal' because Greenpeace wouldn't let us have nuclear.
The most pressing environmental issue in my area currently is the impending shortage of water. So I looked up the Greenpeace platform on drought. Presto! Now I know that the ultimate solution to our shortage will de desalination.
More ammo for debbie downer (Score:2)
When you give your spouse one at Christmas, Debbie Downer will be there to remind you of he ecological implications. :-). Out of all seriousness, its not bad to have an interest in efficiency, but, does a phone really consume so much power that it would make much of a differece, You could save a heck of a lot more using a clothesline.
alternative energy (Score:2)
Any 100% nuclear DC? (Score:2)
Amazon, .... only 15 percent of its energy comes from clean sources, which is about the default national average.
Well that sucks!
Are there any 100% nuclear powered DCs out there?
Re: (Score:3)
Turns out the iPad still worked after two years, only for the user to feel that they had to replace it.
Is this an Apple issue, or a user issue?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh come on. By the time the battery is half dead it will be replaced by the latest iPad lest the user be seen with last years model in public. Oh the shame that would bring them.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh come on. By the time the battery is half dead it will be replaced by the latest iPad lest the user be seen with last years model in public. Oh the shame that would bring them.
I still don't get the whole throw-away culture... People seem to think I'm nuts because I don't have the latest everything..
Examples: up until recently I had a ~12 year old ADSL modem running my internet connection. At one point my ISP expressed surprise about this and suggested that I should upgrade it. I have no idea why - a new one would do *exactly the same job* as the old one, which still worked fine(*), so what's to be gained in me spending money to replace it?
(* ok, it was a buggy piece of shit; b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://dailycaller.com/2014/07... [dailycaller.com]
Except when it is true or always?