- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Is 'green' software possible?
|
|
|
Comments (47)
Online docs..
My experience is pretty much the opposite.
I find it a lot easier to keep track of documents on my hard disk than on my shelf. Even docs several years old. You cannot 'google' your shelf space. Nobody 'borrows' docs from your hard drive and forgets to return them.
Sure, annotatability etc. can always be better. But there exists excellent software that does just that and does it well... the fact that you're not using that, but rather something homegrown (?), is no argument in general in the paper vs. silicon debate. If it is a solution foisted upon you, dll's and all, you have my commiseration ;-/
I find it a lot easier to keep track of documents on my hard disk than on my shelf. Even docs several years old. You cannot 'google' your shelf space. Nobody 'borrows' docs from your hard drive and forgets to return them.
Sure, annotatability etc. can always be better. But there exists excellent software that does just that and does it well... the fact that you're not using that, but rather something homegrown (?), is no argument in general in the paper vs. silicon debate. If it is a solution foisted upon you, dll's and all, you have my commiseration ;-/
>I find it a lot easier to keep track of documents on my hard disk
That's fine if you don't do substantial reading in the presence of porcelain facilities...
That's fine if you don't do substantial reading in the presence of porcelain facilities...
> That's fine if you don't do substantial reading in the presence
> of porcelain facilities...
Yes, I wouldn't recommend using hard discs for wiping...
Yes, I wouldn't recommend using hard discs for wiping...
I'm waiting for an affordable ebook reader so I can take those PDFs I downloaded "for later" to a bus... Public transport is a wonderful way of increasing population's literacy ;)
> I'm waiting for an affordable ebook reader...
Define affordable. :(
The Nokia 770 with fbreader makes a great ebook reader, but it's rather pricey (though woot.com just sold a bunch for $140 or so a few weeks ago). The Nokia 800 would probably work equally well.
The Powerplay Vs is more affordable at $100, but since I believe it only supports text files, it's a much more limited option. You can find it at http://www.powerplaydevices.com/estore_powerplay_USD.php
Define affordable. :(
The Nokia 770 with fbreader makes a great ebook reader, but it's rather pricey (though woot.com just sold a bunch for $140 or so a few weeks ago). The Nokia 800 would probably work equally well.
The Powerplay Vs is more affordable at $100, but since I believe it only supports text files, it's a much more limited option. You can find it at http://www.powerplaydevices.com/estore_powerplay_USD.php
Well, I'm in an Eastern Europe, so for me "Affordable" means something different :) I'll probably wait forever... Luckily, I'm good at it.
> ...so for me "Affordable" means something different .
Understood. That probably lets out the Asus Eee PC then, which is priced at $199. It looks very interesting though, and I may be interested in one when they actually come out.
http://www.asus.com/news_show.aspx?id=7317
Understood. That probably lets out the Asus Eee PC then, which is priced at $199. It looks very interesting though, and I may be interested in one when they actually come out.
http://www.asus.com/news_show.aspx?id=7317
Yeah, I'm also drooling at the Asus Eee... have already an N770, and it's a fine PDF reader (and many things more)
Personally I don't like reading much text from a small screen. I'm waiting for a decent reader with e-ink or e-paper that is actually affordable.
> I'm waiting for a decent reader with e-ink or e-paper that is actually affordable.
That will probably be a while yet, unfortunately. :(
That will probably be a while yet, unfortunately. :(
Ways in which free sofware is greener
16 earlier comments in the full thread.
I think the whole carbon offset is not so much about making it better but about not making it worse.
>I think the whole carbon offset is not so much about making it better but about not making it worse.
That's all it can be, and it can only work if everyone in the world plays, which means, it's a feel-good measure designed to make some people very, very rich.
That's all it can be, and it can only work if everyone in the world plays, which means, it's a feel-good measure designed to make some people very, very rich.
> It all depends a bit on how the CCs are initially distributed.
It also depends on our being able to trust China to keep their word and not just lie about what they're doing. How confident are you of that? And what would you propose that we do if it turns out they do lie?
It also depends on our being able to trust China to keep their word and not just lie about what they're doing. How confident are you of that? And what would you propose that we do if it turns out they do lie?
Carbon offsets are the "Here, have some cash and shut up already" of Great Politics.
> Martin got it right on the theory
Dino, thanks for the backhanded compliment ;-)
Dino, thanks for the backhanded compliment ;-)
> Don't mean to rain on the parade, but there are some of us out here who believe all this human engineered "Global warming" stuff is a crock
Yeah. And some of us believe that the Apollo moonflights happened in Hollywood, and that the Earth is flat and was created 6000 years ago.
"Believe" doesn't cut it.
Yeah. And some of us believe that the Apollo moonflights happened in Hollywood, and that the Earth is flat and was created 6000 years ago.
"Believe" doesn't cut it.
> "Believe" doesn't cut it.
If it's proof you want, you'll be waiting for a fairly long time, no matter which side you choose to believe. There's no way to prove that matter in either direction. You look at the evidence and make your best judgment, trying to keep in mind that you may be entirely wrong.
We simply don't know enough about our climate and the forces which affect it to be certain about what's happening or what's causing it. Those who claim we do are lying.
If it's proof you want, you'll be waiting for a fairly long time, no matter which side you choose to believe. There's no way to prove that matter in either direction. You look at the evidence and make your best judgment, trying to keep in mind that you may be entirely wrong.
We simply don't know enough about our climate and the forces which affect it to be certain about what's happening or what's causing it. Those who claim we do are lying.
>We simply don't know enough about our climate and the forces which affect it to be certain about what's happening or what's causing it. Those who claim we do are lying.
I would pretty much agree with you on both counts, except that I'm busily lashing myself down as protection against the residual effects of the record number of hurricanes everybody has predicted for this...wait - what's that you say? Really? Never mind.
We do, however, know that man affects the climate, even if we aren't always good at figuring out how, how much, and in which direction. All other things being equal, it makes sense not to put needless crud into the atmosphere and not to use up finite resources needlessly. Trouble is, all other things never stay equal, and that's the rub. "Do something" needs to be balanced against ALL of the consequences.
I would pretty much agree with you on both counts, except that I'm busily lashing myself down as protection against the residual effects of the record number of hurricanes everybody has predicted for this...wait - what's that you say? Really? Never mind.
We do, however, know that man affects the climate, even if we aren't always good at figuring out how, how much, and in which direction. All other things being equal, it makes sense not to put needless crud into the atmosphere and not to use up finite resources needlessly. Trouble is, all other things never stay equal, and that's the rub. "Do something" needs to be balanced against ALL of the consequences.
Dino pretty much sums it up.
jdixon: are you suggesting we should all become climatologists? The approach you propose is actually the one followed by the scientific community of climatologists, following time-tested scientific practice, peer review etc. And no, I don't hear any of those folks claiming to have the final answers. Only the best ones currently on offer. Which IMHO responsible policy should be based on.
I'd rather believe the gist of what that community of practitioners is telling me, uncertain as it is, than the "belief" of some arbitrary LXER poster :-/
jdixon: are you suggesting we should all become climatologists? The approach you propose is actually the one followed by the scientific community of climatologists, following time-tested scientific practice, peer review etc. And no, I don't hear any of those folks claiming to have the final answers. Only the best ones currently on offer. Which IMHO responsible policy should be based on.
I'd rather believe the gist of what that community of practitioners is telling me, uncertain as it is, than the "belief" of some arbitrary LXER poster :-/
> ...are you suggesting we should all become climatologists?
No, but I am suggesting that you use the evidence the climatologists and meteorologists are providing rather than what those with political goals tell you. Then make your decisions based on that evidence.
> Only the best ones currently on offer.
Which, to summarize, as best I can tell it, is: Yes, the climate is changing. Yes, humans are contributing to the changes. At the moment the trend appears to be towards global warming. No, we don't know the exact cause or causes. No, we don't know what percentage is being caused by human activity. Yes, there is some cause for concern, but we're not certain exactly how much. Oh, and it might be a good idea to start considering what we can do to about it, if anything. And, of course, we could be wrong on all of the above. And no, there is no consensus about the matter; science doesn't work that way.
Given the above, and comparing it to the proclamations of impending doom from the various political groups out there, are you surprised that many people write the entire thing off as a scam? Especially when those same groups are advocating world wide political changes which will involve significant economic hardships for some people and greatly increase government powers around the globe.
No, but I am suggesting that you use the evidence the climatologists and meteorologists are providing rather than what those with political goals tell you. Then make your decisions based on that evidence.
> Only the best ones currently on offer.
Which, to summarize, as best I can tell it, is: Yes, the climate is changing. Yes, humans are contributing to the changes. At the moment the trend appears to be towards global warming. No, we don't know the exact cause or causes. No, we don't know what percentage is being caused by human activity. Yes, there is some cause for concern, but we're not certain exactly how much. Oh, and it might be a good idea to start considering what we can do to about it, if anything. And, of course, we could be wrong on all of the above. And no, there is no consensus about the matter; science doesn't work that way.
Given the above, and comparing it to the proclamations of impending doom from the various political groups out there, are you surprised that many people write the entire thing off as a scam? Especially when those same groups are advocating world wide political changes which will involve significant economic hardships for some people and greatly increase government powers around the globe.
>I'd rather believe the gist of what that community of practitioners is telling me, uncertain as it is, than the "belief" of some arbitrary LXER poster
Umm -- I'd rather they present me convincing data AND account for questions, not view the community of scientists as some sort of priesthood for the modern age, which is what seems to be the case for this highly political issue.
We have this new value of "consensus" - whatever that means for science. It seems to mean that, if you get enough scientists, many of whom are not any more climatologists than you or I, that it is sacreligious to question their combined wisdom. Scientists -- even respected climatologists -- are "deniers", and people who do have the temerity to question are lumped with holocaust deniers. That's not hyperbole on my part, by the way. Ellen Goodman of the Boston Globe made precisely that comparison, and others seem to make it implicitly.
The sad thing is that consensus is not a high value in science, especially for relatively new science. You need only ask 2005 Nobel Prize winners Barry Marshall and J. Robin Warren about that.
Data matters. Communicating that data honestly -- including the warts and anomolies matters. It has to matter. We are asked to vote based on the information we get. We can't afford priests in lab coats.
Umm -- I'd rather they present me convincing data AND account for questions, not view the community of scientists as some sort of priesthood for the modern age, which is what seems to be the case for this highly political issue.
We have this new value of "consensus" - whatever that means for science. It seems to mean that, if you get enough scientists, many of whom are not any more climatologists than you or I, that it is sacreligious to question their combined wisdom. Scientists -- even respected climatologists -- are "deniers", and people who do have the temerity to question are lumped with holocaust deniers. That's not hyperbole on my part, by the way. Ellen Goodman of the Boston Globe made precisely that comparison, and others seem to make it implicitly.
The sad thing is that consensus is not a high value in science, especially for relatively new science. You need only ask 2005 Nobel Prize winners Barry Marshall and J. Robin Warren about that.
Data matters. Communicating that data honestly -- including the warts and anomolies matters. It has to matter. We are asked to vote based on the information we get. We can't afford priests in lab coats.
> Umm -- I'd rather they present me convincing data AND
> account for questions, not view the community of
> scientists as some sort of priesthood for the modern
> age, which is what seems to be the case for this highly
> political issue.
Unfortunately being successfully on the receiving end of this -- which would be great! -- pretty much requires you to become a climatologist yourself. Not an option, not even for me, a geoscientist. (Did you try to read IPCC 4 -- not the exec summary?)
I don't second-guess my docter; I may get a second opinion. And yes, I do expect her to at least try to explain things to me in terms I understand, well knowing the limitations of that. Sometimes you just have to accept other people's judgment.
Believe you me, those scientists don't want to be priests! They would love nothing better than everyone understanding precisely what it is they are doing, it would make many things so much easier. That others are suffering from this priesthood thingy should not be pinned on the scientists.
Unfortunately being successfully on the receiving end of this -- which would be great! -- pretty much requires you to become a climatologist yourself. Not an option, not even for me, a geoscientist. (Did you try to read IPCC 4 -- not the exec summary?)
I don't second-guess my docter; I may get a second opinion. And yes, I do expect her to at least try to explain things to me in terms I understand, well knowing the limitations of that. Sometimes you just have to accept other people's judgment.
Believe you me, those scientists don't want to be priests! They would love nothing better than everyone understanding precisely what it is they are doing, it would make many things so much easier. That others are suffering from this priesthood thingy should not be pinned on the scientists.
> Unfortunately being successfully on the receiving end of this -- which would be great! -- pretty much requires you to become a climatologist yourself.
I don't believe that's true. Now, some of the more esoteric physics theories, yes, but not climatology.
I don't believe that's true. Now, some of the more esoteric physics theories, yes, but not climatology.
> jdixon:
> No, we don't know the exact cause or causes
You are seriously understating the level of our understanding. The physical mechanisms involved are _very_ well known.
The problem is more that of instability in the climate system itself: model outcomes are highly sensitive to small changes in some of the model assumptions. (It's a bit like with weather predictions, even perfect models will not allow you to predict far into the future. The nature of this instability is quite different though.) Much current research is going into this problem.
Cloud formation is one of these problems btw where the micro-level affects the macro-level in intractable ways. Condensation nuclei for clouds can be aerosols, like the soot particles from airliners, or the secondary cosmic ray showers that get modulated by solar activity (the probable cause of the "little ice age"). These things are not hard to understand, but are _hell_ to model correctly.
> No, we don't know what percentage is being caused by human activity
Currently not, no... but it's not going to stay that way. CO2 emission is an exponential growth process, doubling time some 30 years (assuming business-as-usual). This is what makes it somewhat important to predict what is going to happen before rather than after it happens ;-/
> And, of course, we could be wrong on all of the above
Not likely... high school physics (what this is) is not going out the window.
It is still (barely) within the range of possibilities that the increase in global mean temperature will be zero by 2100, but only if some rather large effects were to cancel rather precisely. Like cloud cover increasing just enough to offset CO2 greenhouse forcing.
Even if that were to happen, non-global climate changes would still occur. Shifting of fertile and arid zones, melting of polar ice, extreme weather events, the height of the tropopause... the world's climate would still profoundly change, only not this one number everybody looks at.
> And no, there is no consensus about the matter; science doesn't work that way.
Actually it does when scientific issues get settled and turn into textbook matter (there is a consensus, e.g., on the hot origin of the universe), but wrt climate change we're not there yet.
And yet, I see a consensus of sorts appearing, as modelling results are starting to converge. Anyway, already a view held by over 50% of those whose job it is to know these things, should be taken very seriously by decision makers.
IMHO of course ;-)
You are seriously understating the level of our understanding. The physical mechanisms involved are _very_ well known.
The problem is more that of instability in the climate system itself: model outcomes are highly sensitive to small changes in some of the model assumptions. (It's a bit like with weather predictions, even perfect models will not allow you to predict far into the future. The nature of this instability is quite different though.) Much current research is going into this problem.
Cloud formation is one of these problems btw where the micro-level affects the macro-level in intractable ways. Condensation nuclei for clouds can be aerosols, like the soot particles from airliners, or the secondary cosmic ray showers that get modulated by solar activity (the probable cause of the "little ice age"). These things are not hard to understand, but are _hell_ to model correctly.
> No, we don't know what percentage is being caused by human activity
Currently not, no... but it's not going to stay that way. CO2 emission is an exponential growth process, doubling time some 30 years (assuming business-as-usual). This is what makes it somewhat important to predict what is going to happen before rather than after it happens ;-/
> And, of course, we could be wrong on all of the above
Not likely... high school physics (what this is) is not going out the window.
It is still (barely) within the range of possibilities that the increase in global mean temperature will be zero by 2100, but only if some rather large effects were to cancel rather precisely. Like cloud cover increasing just enough to offset CO2 greenhouse forcing.
Even if that were to happen, non-global climate changes would still occur. Shifting of fertile and arid zones, melting of polar ice, extreme weather events, the height of the tropopause... the world's climate would still profoundly change, only not this one number everybody looks at.
> And no, there is no consensus about the matter; science doesn't work that way.
Actually it does when scientific issues get settled and turn into textbook matter (there is a consensus, e.g., on the hot origin of the universe), but wrt climate change we're not there yet.
And yet, I see a consensus of sorts appearing, as modelling results are starting to converge. Anyway, already a view held by over 50% of those whose job it is to know these things, should be taken very seriously by decision makers.
IMHO of course ;-)
> You are seriously understating the level of our understanding.
Which you then take several paragraphs to dispute and prove my point. :)
> Actually it does when scientific issues get settled and turn into textbook matter (there is a consensus, e.g., on the hot origin of the universe), but wrt climate change we're not there yet.
No. It doesn't. Even supposedly textbook matters change all the time. Look at a matter as simple as the number of planets in the solar system. We're always accumulating more data, and that data often contradicts what we thought we knew.
> Anyway, already a view held by over 50% of those whose job it is to know these things, should be taken very seriously by decision makers.
There's a wide gulf between taking it seriously and the vast increase in government powers many of the doomsday folks are calling for. Do you really want the UN to be able to tax you for breathing?
Which you then take several paragraphs to dispute and prove my point. :)
> Actually it does when scientific issues get settled and turn into textbook matter (there is a consensus, e.g., on the hot origin of the universe), but wrt climate change we're not there yet.
No. It doesn't. Even supposedly textbook matters change all the time. Look at a matter as simple as the number of planets in the solar system. We're always accumulating more data, and that data often contradicts what we thought we knew.
> Anyway, already a view held by over 50% of those whose job it is to know these things, should be taken very seriously by decision makers.
There's a wide gulf between taking it seriously and the vast increase in government powers many of the doomsday folks are calling for. Do you really want the UN to be able to tax you for breathing?
Martin -
> CO2 emission is an exponential growth process, doubling time some 30 years (assuming business-as-usual).
One question -- I understand that CO2 forcing is not linear, that at some concentration -- not radically higher than the current level, it has, for all intents and purposes, done all the forcing it's going to do. Is that right?
>And yet, I see a consensus of sorts appearing, as modelling results are starting to converge.
This is the stuff that scares me.
Consensus comes from people who think alike. Thinking alike can be because the data demands it. Conversely, the data can seem to demand it because the people who collect it think alike.
Don't know about the rest of the world, but, in the US, the academic process has degenerated into one that rewards conformity. Publish or perish + the tenure process = one big happy, if contankerous, family.
This is an area with lots of potential for covariance and lots of mechanisms pushing in different directions. Lots of room to fudge in favor of your politics and personal biases. Especially scary because we have the politics of energy and, er, politics involved as well - whether it be weaning from oil or justifying nuclear power plants.
IMHO, it is an area in which scientists have to be especially squeaky clean and work hard to avoid politics because they are the source of the most objective data we have. When scientists stop worrying about the factual details to serve their idea of "the big picture" (are you listening, Dr. Hansen?) they undermine the trust we should have for the science they do.
> CO2 emission is an exponential growth process, doubling time some 30 years (assuming business-as-usual).
One question -- I understand that CO2 forcing is not linear, that at some concentration -- not radically higher than the current level, it has, for all intents and purposes, done all the forcing it's going to do. Is that right?
>And yet, I see a consensus of sorts appearing, as modelling results are starting to converge.
This is the stuff that scares me.
Consensus comes from people who think alike. Thinking alike can be because the data demands it. Conversely, the data can seem to demand it because the people who collect it think alike.
Don't know about the rest of the world, but, in the US, the academic process has degenerated into one that rewards conformity. Publish or perish + the tenure process = one big happy, if contankerous, family.
This is an area with lots of potential for covariance and lots of mechanisms pushing in different directions. Lots of room to fudge in favor of your politics and personal biases. Especially scary because we have the politics of energy and, er, politics involved as well - whether it be weaning from oil or justifying nuclear power plants.
IMHO, it is an area in which scientists have to be especially squeaky clean and work hard to avoid politics because they are the source of the most objective data we have. When scientists stop worrying about the factual details to serve their idea of "the big picture" (are you listening, Dr. Hansen?) they undermine the trust we should have for the science they do.
Quoting:Don't know about the rest of the world, but, in the US, the academic process has degenerated into one that rewards conformity.
It's a good think then that there's a lot of stuff going on outside the U.S. (where, incidentally, roughly the same conclusions are being drawn with regards to climate change)
>It's a good think then that there's a lot of stuff going on outside the U.S.
I don't know that it's any different elsewhere. I don't have any experience that would lead me to a conclusion one way or the other.
I don't know that it's any different elsewhere. I don't have any experience that would lead me to a conclusion one way or the other.
Dean:
> One question -- I understand that CO2 forcing is not linear, that at some > concentration -- not radically higher than the current level, it has, for > all intents and purposes, done all the forcing it's going to do. Is that > right?
Hmmm, it's a bit more complicated than that. I understand that the effect is logarithmic -- every further doubling (or percentual increase) of CO2 will add the same amount of greenhouse forcing to the mix. The formula looks like
W = const. x ln(C/C0),
where C is the concentration and C0 the pre-industrial concentration. This is a simple bulk expression summarizing the (in reality extremely complex) behaviour of global climate models. And the latest generation of models agree pretty nicely on the value of the constant. (No, all different code bases.) (If you are referring to the 'saturation idea' -- i.e., a greenhouse with double glass panes is just as effective as one with single panes, because the first pane already absorbs all there is to absorb -- then, no. The atmosphere is no glass pane. This fallacy comes up again and again and was even mainstream up to the 1950's.)
> Consensus comes from people who think alike. Thinking alike can be because > the data demands it. Conversely, the data can seem to demand it because the > people who collect it think alike. The second would scare me too. But you can quote me on the first applying here -- if you look at the community of actually active climate modellers. BTW have a look at the "Priesthood Blog" ;-) : http://realclimate.org. These are the actual people I mean. Contrary to your stereotyped depiction (which may refer to some bandwagon politicos) these folks are desperate, not only to get the message out, but to get people to gain a conceptual understanding of the physics involved (and chemistry, and biology, and astronomy...). And they do a pretty good job at it too. Read their debunking of saturation for instance!
> One question -- I understand that CO2 forcing is not linear, that at some > concentration -- not radically higher than the current level, it has, for > all intents and purposes, done all the forcing it's going to do. Is that > right?
Hmmm, it's a bit more complicated than that. I understand that the effect is logarithmic -- every further doubling (or percentual increase) of CO2 will add the same amount of greenhouse forcing to the mix. The formula looks like
W = const. x ln(C/C0),
where C is the concentration and C0 the pre-industrial concentration. This is a simple bulk expression summarizing the (in reality extremely complex) behaviour of global climate models. And the latest generation of models agree pretty nicely on the value of the constant. (No, all different code bases.) (If you are referring to the 'saturation idea' -- i.e., a greenhouse with double glass panes is just as effective as one with single panes, because the first pane already absorbs all there is to absorb -- then, no. The atmosphere is no glass pane. This fallacy comes up again and again and was even mainstream up to the 1950's.)
> Consensus comes from people who think alike. Thinking alike can be because > the data demands it. Conversely, the data can seem to demand it because the > people who collect it think alike. The second would scare me too. But you can quote me on the first applying here -- if you look at the community of actually active climate modellers. BTW have a look at the "Priesthood Blog" ;-) : http://realclimate.org. These are the actual people I mean. Contrary to your stereotyped depiction (which may refer to some bandwagon politicos) these folks are desperate, not only to get the message out, but to get people to gain a conceptual understanding of the physics involved (and chemistry, and biology, and astronomy...). And they do a pretty good job at it too. Read their debunking of saturation for instance!
Martin -
Thanks. I'll go over there. For US folk -- the latest Scientific American's cover story is on the science behind global warming. I have only just started to go through it, so I don't know how good it is.
Thanks. I'll go over there. For US folk -- the latest Scientific American's cover story is on the science behind global warming. I have only just started to go through it, so I don't know how good it is.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
Frankly, until we have, and can afford, something like a true ebook, which you can have sitting on your desk with 100% of your documentation and notes on it, that lets you mark pages in some real visual fashion, like you can postit pages in real ones, and where you can make note in the margins, and it *doesn't* run on the same machien you are doing the fracking development on, its still more efficient to have a book shelf full of manuals, "green" or not.
Oh, and unlike online manuals, books don't *break* because some dll got corrupted, deleted or replaced with one that doesn't have the right "function" for some obscure tag or trick your "document" uses, nor can it be accidentally deleted, lost in the wrong folder, etc., short of theft, or moving the office and forgetting to pack it, neither of which are quite as likely as what does happen to documents on your network (usually).
Why is it that "green" always seems, in some cases, to mean, "Waste more time and effort on X, so you can save Y, even though you also waste more fuel, power, etc., to do X."? That isn't solving the problem at all, its just wasting different resources.