While I don't necessarily agree with the law, I think it may be blown out of proportion. What it's actually restricting is the quiescent current (the amount of power a circuit/device uses when effectively turned off) of a device, not the full-load power, and the allowable amount actually increases as more powerful components are added.
Jays Two Cents explains it pretty effectively: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5fc5ZX6Kzk On Wed, Jul 28, 2021, at 3:01 AM, Matthew Gibson via PLUG-discuss wrote: > greg zegan via PLUG-discuss said on Tue, 27 Jul 2021 14:16:27 +0000 > (UTC) > > >https://www.zerohedge.com/political/59-million-americans-prohibited-buying-high-end-dell-gaming-pcs > > > > Allow me to change the headline of this article to... > > "Six States Responsible Enough to Limit Computer Power Consumption" > > Anyone prioritizing their video game performance over the starvation, > water wars, crop failures, climate refugees, underwater cities, deserts > replacing farmland, and normalization of cat 5 hurricanes that will > surely come if we don't handle this situation correctly, is an ethical > cripple. > > And anyone, who just has to have that superburner computer, of an age > not likely to live until 2060 is just borrowing on a future they know > they won't repay. > > And it's not like you can't wait 4 years and have a computer using a > couple hundred wats that performs like today's 1000 watt gargantuan. > > SteveT > > Steve Litt > Spring 2021 featured book: Troubleshooting Techniques of the Successful > Technologist http://www.troubleshooters.com/techniques > > > > > > > > mmmmmm No, I reject your attempt at gas-lighting the discussion away from > liberty infringing regulations. I reject your blithe attempt to validate > power hungry government attempts to slowly curtail the freedoms of Americans. > > All of those crises can and will be addressed by private industry and not by > some pencil pushing bureaucratic cubicle rat. The Federal Government (one > could also include state governments) will never ever be able to address > problems faster than private industry will be able to. Look into FEMA’s > response to hurricane Katrina back in the late 2000’s as a prime example. > Look into that same organizations response to Puerto Rico and their recent > natural disaster. > > The climate changes. Humans need to adapt. To think that we can hold back > change of this magnitude is hubris. We need to take better care of our > things. Yes. But we also need to take care of ourselves while we do that. You > think a family in India, or Africa is going to give a hoot about a 2 degree C > increase in global temperatures over the next 100 years? I suggest you > rethink that methodology if you do. Those families are only concerned about > where their next meal will come from. > > Anyone who wants a superburner computer and has the capital to spend on it > should be able to purchase it, and then also worry about how they will power > it. It is unethical to restrict another human’s right to their pursuit of > happiness so long as that pursuit doesn’t directly infringe on another’s > right to life, liberty, and their own pursuit of happiness. > > I think it’s an amazing thing that technology makes such marvelous advances > in such a short time. Not a reason to limit someone else’s liberty at this > date. > > > > > > > > Aaron Jones via PLUG-discuss said on Tue, 27 Jul 2021 15:04:58 -0700 > > >Those are some dangerous statements. > > Dangerous statements? What, are my statements going to insurance rates > going up? > > https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/a27180829/global-warming-is-already-costing-the-insurance-industry-historic-amounts/ > > Insurance rates? Why is that even being brought up? It’s a problem for the > insurer and the insuree to discuss. If the insurer doesn’t like the risk of > insuring someone’s hair brained idea to build on the coast as the coast > recedes….. sounds like a problem for the person with the hair brained idea to > build where climate change is going to destroy their hair brained idea. Only > dangerous to that person… > > > > > Perhaps my statements could cause an increase in annual hurricane > energy: > > https://weather.com/storms/hurricane/news/2020-11-18-top-10-most-extreme-hurricane-seasons-2020 > > Oh, I know. My statements are dangerous because they caused 20 years of > drought to the farmers in Western Colorado: > > https://www.cpr.org/2021/07/23/western-slope-drought-cattle-ranching/ > > It must be nice to be able to wave your hand and claim adverse weather as > proof to support your theories of what is dangerous. Here’s a theory you can > prove: living is dangerous and fraught with risk at all points of life. > > I wasn't discussing China, but since you brought it up: Why in the > WORLD should China go through the inconvenience of reducing carbon > emissions and all forms of pollution if the US doesn't reduce energy > use everywhere it can: Cars, airplanes, trucks, busses, lightbulbs, and > yes, computers? > > Why should China reduce their carbon footprint? Maybe because they are the > worst offender of greenhouse gas emissions? Maybe because Their reduction of > emissions will actually do more for your cause than severely hampering > America’s economy will? How many days did they need to shut down their > industry leading up to the 2008 Olympics for clear skies? > > List of countries by greenhouse gas emissions - Wikipedia > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions> > > if you don’t like Wikipedia, maybe this site? Greenhouse Gas Emissions By > Country 2021 (worldpopulationreview.com) > <https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/greenhouse-gas-emissions-by-country> > > of course, you should probably take most of these reports with a grain of > salt. Who knows if they are valid and genuine? *Shrug* > > > Now I'll admit that those Dell Alienware computers, which from their > components sound like they're about 500 watts at full use, don't sound > excessive. And 20mpg highway didn't sound excessive in 2000 either, but > now it does, because these laws and regulations forced car > manufacturers to increase their gas efficiency, and now breathing in LA > is a lot easier, and we're not as close to the tipping point as we > otherwise would have been. > > > But if you are war > >hawking here and trying to bait us into a pollution debate so you can > >get everyone to do the whole “war with China thing…” then you got my > >reply and I admit I got baited. > > Whoaaa, war with China? Huh? Where'd THAT come from? > > > > War with China… came from a place more realistic than pointing to increased > Hurricane seasons and Rainfall in Colorado… The only way China is going to > curtail their economic development is by direct global action in the form of > military might. > > > > Meanwhile, I'd be interested in hearing your age. I'm 71, so I don't > have a dog in this fight: I'll be safely in my grave before this thing > is more than an expense (hurricane insurance and repairs, higher food > prices) and an annoyance, but my kids will be around long enough that, > if we play this wrong, they'll be impacted by climate refugees, water > wars, famine-causing drought, the whole bag of horrors. That's why I > don't get indignant when they tell me how much power to use. > > > > Ooooo look! An appeal to experience. Aside from an attempt to browbeat us > young whipper-snappers into silence… Why is your age even a discussion point? > > > > > > Eric Oyen via PLUG-discuss said on Tue, 27 Jul 2021 21:22:33 -0700 > > >It is also interesting that those very same states that push EV’s also > >have not upgraded their power systems in quite some time. California > >is the leader on this list of shame with rolling blackouts and > >brownouts each summer. > > I think this is unfair to California. Much of California is the hottest > in the US. Greenhouse gasses are created by everyone, but California > can least afford to gain a degree. California is also the most > populous state in the nation. So in spite of EV's and all their other > moves to limit environmental damage, they can't reduce the heat that > radiates or blows into California, so they can't keep all their > citizens' houses below 85 Fahrenheit. Hence the rolling blackouts. > > > > No. Not unfair to California, their power grid is their responsibility to > maintain. If they fail to plan for the future and prepare for dry seasons and > update their infrastructure, their rolling brownouts are on them. No where > else has had this problem even though California is not the only one affected > by increased temperatures. California needs to take better care of their > things. Plain and simple. > > > They also want to put up more windmills, off > >shore! Talk about throwing good money after bad and causing those of > >us with computers that are capable of running linux no end of trouble. > > I'm not sure how windmills cause havoc with Linux. I thought that was > done by Microsoft. > > California could sure use more fission reactors, but in a place where > 7+ earthquakes are frequent, doing so is just too likely to cause > another Chernobyl. Plus, anything near the coast is likely to go > Fukushima with a tsunami. They don't have a river capable of generating > huge power from its current. They can't import from surrounding states, > and back in the day, when they imported from Texas, the Texan power > companies stiffed California's power grid in order to make a bigger > profit. > > So, other than solar, wind and conservation, I don't see what other > options California has. > > > > First. Chernobyl cannot happen in the West because we never built RBMK > reactors with a positive void co-efficient. We place reactors inside > containment vessels to help curtail fallout in the event of a disaster. > Attempt to invoke Chernobyl disaster as anti-nuclear argument denied. > Fukushima is more relevant because of California’s relative location and > geographical environment. That said. Nuclear plants have only continued to > become safer and more efficient. Safer and more efficient than coal, gas, and > maybe even “renewable sources” Nuclear should be more seriously discussed as > a viable alternative power source. > > > > It leaves us with 60 million people who can't game quite as hard. Boo > hoo hoo. > > > > It leaves us with our liberty just slightly more chipped away at. It leaves > us with a government emboldened to infringe on rights just ever so more. > > What's this fascination with China that you all have? China uses the > energy equivalent of 27,018 million barrels of oil for 1394 million > people, equalling 19.4 barrels per person. The US uses the equivalent of > 18,684 million barrels and has 328 million people, equaling 56.9 > barrels per person. > > See above discussion on China’s CO2 production. Oil is only a part of that > carbon footprint. Go do more research. > > > So here's the question: If some country using almost triple the energy > per person than your country says *you* are the problem and should cut, > and they won't do squat until you cut, what would you say to them? > > > > Question invalid. Communist Dictatorships don’t give a hoot what outsiders > say. Unless that speech is in the form of military might bearing down on said > dictatorship. > > You ask where it leaves us. Hey, if you're 60 years old, it leaves you > having lived a pretty fun life. If you're 20 years old, it leaves you > with a very hard (and probably considerably foreshortened) second half > of your life. If you were just born today, by the time you graduate > college, the world will be rife with climate refugees and water wars, > and by the time you're 50, if you last that long, the population > decline will be brutal and pretty universal except for the very rich. > All because everybody in 2021 said the other guy should cut his > emissions first. > > Life is hard. Always will be. There will always be something new to be a risk. > > > One more thing: Some friends of mine ran the numbers and according to > them the California computer energy standards aren't as strict as those > of the EU. > > I feel not a bit of sorrow for the 60 million potential gamers who play > at a slight disadvantage, if they play at all. I feel sorry for their > grandchildren. > > > > Your feigned sympathy just undermines your attempts at argument for your > cause of infringing on liberty. > > > > Final Analysis, You must hate the freedom Linux provides to its users and the > liberty with which we may embark upon through its use. > > > > Olive Branch: If you would like to meet up at a park where we can social > distance and have a veggie burger while I grill up some brats, I'd be willing > to bring the makings for a BBQ and we can discuss these details in a more > civil manner than Keyboard Warriors. > > > > Matt > > > On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 1:13 AM Steve Litt via PLUG-discuss > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Eric Oyen via PLUG-discuss said on Tue, 27 Jul 2021 22:53:09 -0700 >> >> >So, guys, nice little debate we all got snagged into here because of >> >some state regulations that would prevent nearly 60 million people >> >from owning technologies that would make their lives more convenient. >> >Regulations put in place by politicians who know nothing of real >> >science and are trying to kiss up to china. Now, where does that leave >> >us? >> >> It leaves us with 60 million people who can't game quite as hard. Boo >> hoo hoo. >> >> What's this fascination with China that you all have? China uses the >> energy equivalent of 27,018 million barrels of oil for 1394 million >> people, equalling 19.4 barrels per person. The US uses the equivalent of >> 18,684 million barrels and has 328 million people, equaling 56.9 >> barrels per person. >> >> So here's the question: If some country using almost triple the energy >> per person than your country says *you* are the problem and should cut, >> and they won't do squat until you cut, what would you say to them? >> >> You ask where it leaves us. Hey, if you're 60 years old, it leaves you >> having lived a pretty fun life. If you're 20 years old, it leaves you >> with a very hard (and probably considerably foreshortened) second half >> of your life. If you were just born today, by the time you graduate >> college, the world will be rife with climate refugees and water wars, >> and by the time you're 50, if you last that long, the population >> decline will be brutal and pretty universal except for the very rich. >> All because everybody in 2021 said the other guy should cut his >> emissions first. >> >> One more thing: Some friends of mine ran the numbers and according to >> them the California computer energy standards aren't as strict as those >> of the EU. >> >> I feel not a bit of sorrow for the 60 million potential gamers who play >> at a slight disadvantage, if they play at all. I feel sorry for their >> grandchildren. >> >> SteveT >> >> Steve Litt >> Spring 2021 featured book: Troubleshooting Techniques of the Successful >> Technologist http://www.troubleshooters.com/techniques >> --------------------------------------------------- >> PLUG-discuss mailing list - [email protected] >> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: >> https://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss > --------------------------------------------------- > PLUG-discuss mailing list - [email protected] > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: > https://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
--------------------------------------------------- PLUG-discuss mailing list - [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: https://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
