I want to publicly thank Binaryreap3r for their professional ethical hacking service which is fast very impressive service. I'm happy to recommend to you.
Has your Social account been attacked by a hacker? Do you need to get back into your Facebook, Twitter, Instagram or Google+ account?, Have you lost your email or social media password and want to crack/recover it from computers?. Are you being cyber stalked and wish to find the source and stop the cyber predator?, Have you been scammed online? Do you need to locate and report the perpetrator?. Do you want to encrypt your data and protect your sensitive informations?. Any social engineering problem you may have. I know a white hat hacker that delivers!. He helped out with an issue and I think he's good what he does. Contact binaryreap3r@gmail.com or text +16155497267 for all your professional hacking needs.
Google's controversial groundwater withdrawal sparks question
41–50 of 92 posts
Re: Google's controversial groundwater withdrawal sparks question
#42"The price of tap water has risen faster than gold or real estate . . ." What an odd pair of benchmarks. We don't expect the prices of either of those items to rise particularly fast. What was the actual rate of increase in the price of tap water? According to the Case-Schiller index, national housing prices have roughly doubled in the last twenty years (I don't know if the index accounts for inflation). That doesn't…
Prima facie we don't expect them to rise fast, but they are probably the two best-known things which have risen reasonably fast (at least in the popular consciousness) in the past twenty-odd years.
Re: Google's controversial groundwater withdrawal sparks question
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
Economics beats morality. Making it about morality is counter-productive. Water is a resource with a price, just like land or gasoline. If Google had a cheaper way to cool their servers, they would. If we have plenty of cheap water then we should use it to cool the server or for watering lawns or whatever. If the price of water is too low, then we should raise the price of water so that it's cheaper for Google to use…
Also, old people have little to no economic use. We should dispose of them. Looking at everything as a psychopathic economic agent is fun!
That’s a pretty uncharitable reading of parent comment. When things are not correctly priced, these issues will constantly crop up. A simpler thing to do would be to price common resources correctly and rebate those who have special needs (like old people, or the poor, etc.).
Re: Google's controversial groundwater withdrawal sparks question
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, it's not like the water is being destroyed, or even rendered undrinkable, it's just being warmed...
Right, but > The Google aquifer permit application states it will reuse water before eventually discharging it to the sewer system, but the company did not provide details when asked by The Post and Courier. And 2 paragraphs down > Groundwater can be returned to the aquifer after use, but some is lost to evaporation and the operation is costly, according to industry sources. There are other alternatives. The National…
This is why skepticism is warranted whenever politicians and business people bemoan environmental regulations.
Alphabet management bears no cost and gives no shits about contributing to aquifer depletion in South Carolina. Of course the people running South Carolina probably don't either!
Re: Google's controversial groundwater withdrawal sparks question
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
Economics beats morality. Making it about morality is counter-productive. Water is a resource with a price, just like land or gasoline. If Google had a cheaper way to cool their servers, they would. If we have plenty of cheap water then we should use it to cool the server or for watering lawns or whatever. If the price of water is too low, then we should raise the price of water so that it's cheaper for Google to use…
Also, old people have little to no economic use. We should dispose of them. Looking at everything as a psychopathic economic agent is fun!
We use economics to understand how resources can be exchanged for human benefit. If google had offered 100 billion dollars for this water, none of us would believe it immoral for them to make this transaction because the money could be used for good by the community.
Obviously however, 100 billion dollars is too high a price so the problem becomes not if it is immoral for google to take this water but what price is this water worth such that both google and the community come out ahead.
Re: Google's controversial groundwater withdrawal sparks question
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is basically how we cool our house in Montana during the summers. Cold water is pumped up one well and hot water is returned down another well. It uses much less electricity than a conventional AC system.
Wow. I've thought about this, using tap water to cool the house, but it's so wasteful it was never more than a playful thought. But then the Netherlands' summers are reasonably survivable even if they make me feel shit all day and all night.
At the end of the day, net zero water is 'used' it is all returned to the ground.
Its actually a strong net water savings: the production of electricity in Montana uses around 16 gallons of water per kilowatt hour.
Re: Google's controversial groundwater withdrawal sparks question
#47Water has an exceptionally high heat capacity, I get it. But using drinking water to cool our servers (in the interest of seeing the very best ads) seems like an exceptionally short-sighted choice for us to make. If there is a less worthwhile thing for us to be doing with potable water, I can't think of it.
Economics beats morality. Making it about morality is counter-productive. Water is a resource with a price, just like land or gasoline. If Google had a cheaper way to cool their servers, they would. If we have plenty of cheap water then we should use it to cool the server or for watering lawns or whatever. If the price of water is too low, then we should raise the price of water so that it's cheaper for Google to use…
Water is a resource with a price, just like
land or gasoline.
For example, in California alfalfa growers pay $70 for an acre-foot of water, while urban users in Los Angeles pay $1,000 per acre-foot. The growers use 34.1 million acre-feet a year, while urban use totals 8.9 million acre-feet a year.
Needless to say, growers get very rich from this and make big political contributions; if they had to pay market rate they'd all be out of business pretty quickly. The political contributions work; voters widely support this baffling state of affairs.
Re: Google's controversial groundwater withdrawal sparks question
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
Economics beats morality. Making it about morality is counter-productive. Water is a resource with a price, just like land or gasoline. If Google had a cheaper way to cool their servers, they would. If we have plenty of cheap water then we should use it to cool the server or for watering lawns or whatever. If the price of water is too low, then we should raise the price of water so that it's cheaper for Google to use…
Water is a resource with a price, just like land or gasoline. I don't know about South Carolina, but as I understand it in the west of America this isn't the case, as the heaviest water users are subsidised by taxpayers. For example, in California alfalfa growers pay $70 for an acre-foot of water, while urban users in Los Angeles pay $1,000 per acre-foot. The growers use 34.1 million acre-feet a year, while urban use…
It still has a price. It just happens that the price is artificially low. That's why the comment you quoted said the price should be increased in this case.
Re: Google's controversial groundwater withdrawal sparks question
#49Why would anyone need to use potable water as a coolant, and why is potable water completely ruined and transformed into grey water by its use as a coolant?
It needs treatment so it doesn't destroy the pipes
Does it really? Cannot there be a separate water system for both operations? For example, for nuclear cooling, there is one pipe network that cools the steam, and another water system that cools the pipe network that cools the steam.
Re: Google's controversial groundwater withdrawal sparks question
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, old people have little to no economic use. We should dispose of them. Looking at everything as a psychopathic economic agent is fun!
That’s a pretty uncharitable reading of parent comment. When things are not correctly priced, these issues will constantly crop up. A simpler thing to do would be to price common resources correctly and rebate those who have special needs (like old people, or the poor, etc.).
Every dollar spent keeping unemployed venerables alive is a dollar stolen from the young. Liquidating those near death should not be a controversial position.