Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Maedhros" data-source="post: 332073" data-attributes="member: 17242">Well.... I tend to agree with ooze. Let your computer stand-by or hibernate and not produce CO2. We have plenty of that already. And not to be cynical or anything, but right now I think the environment is a bit more important than folding@home. Has it even been solidly proven that there have been results from this? I know how it works and everything (was studying a bit of bio-technology and was folding myself in a lab). However, has the software produced concrete evidence of cures or so?You have to remember that even if you let it run only when you have the computer turned on anyway, you STILL use up a lot more power, since your computer will be at full load most of the time. There may be as much as 100-150W difference between idle and full load. That's also quite a lot of CO2 in one year.I just read an interesting article about consoles in the US (only) taking 16 billion kilowatt-hours, or the equivalent of the city of San Diego. That's A LOT!I wouldn't be surprised if PCs (in the US) are taking up the equivalent of New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and the State of Texas all together. Damn....Considering that if we stop releasing CO2 now, we won't see the effects of it until 40 years from now. And we have huge problems with the environment today! Well.... I, for now, choose the environment over the little chance that the Folding@Home, at the cost of many tons of CO2 every day or week, will generate significant results to find the cure for cancer.I used to do this a long time ago before I became aware of the odds for finding a cure versus the odds of my home being flooded, hit by a tornado or a hurricane..... well.... climate changes are here, it's a fact, a fact that many people won't admit.... or choose to ignore.... I would rather that a few people has cancer versus hundreds of people dying in a flood in France, England, Poland, or somewhere else.The most recent hope is anti-proton radiation on cancer-cells... meaning nothing to do with proteins.... They expect to be able to target and kill tumors far far more effectively in 5-10 years from now.... save the energy for those machines instead ;-) ... Sorry.</blockquote>

Verification