Getting more computing power per kilowatt-hour saves me a lot of money on my electric bill which is a good thing. [As a biologist, I also see the evidence of climate change.] However, the unfortunate side effect of Moore's "Law" being regarded as an entitlement is that software grows at an even higher rate to utilize all that available computing power. The result is that the logo at the top of the web page consumes more memory than my old CBM 8032 computer contained ... and my original 32K (yes kilobyte) word processor is still the fastest that I've ever owned. If only the hardware could get ahead of the anti-virus software and bloatware and deliver a faster, more responsive computer than ever before to end users.
The Editor's note states, "the great majority of us" think mankind is warming up the planet. I don't think so, these days. And people are not anywhere as concerned about it as they were. Especially after the evidence continues to come in of climate scientists fudging the numbers and the previous predictions such as 50 millioin global warming refugees didn't materialize.
Appeal to me that lower power usage will help lower my costs because current leaders are intent on destroying the coal and electrical industries while refusig to fast track nuclear plant construction and commodity brokers seem intent on driving up the cost of petroleum. That I can understand. Not the puny works of mankind compared to the big yellow thing that comes up on the eastern horizon every 24 hours.
It is unfortunate that so much of the global warming information is politicized and, thus suspect. Somewhere out in all of the rhetoric is the real science. It's just obscured by all of the media hype and pseudo science.
That being said, even if you don't believe it or don't believe that the days of fossil fuel are numbered, reducing power draw reduces cost. Everything else aside, simple economics dictate that switching to solid state and then to more efficient solid state, is the way of the future.
Many of us remain skeptical because the science linking CO2 emmissions is highly questionable. We should design the best and most efficient systems because it is the right thing to do not becuase of what has become a false religion to many. I am old enough to remember the coming ice age rhetoric and the dire predictions from that as well.
Though some skeptics steadfastly refuse to accept a link between CO2 emissions and climate change, the great majority of us acknowledge the need to reduce them and recognize that the need to reduce our society's reliance on fossil fuels is both a moral and practical imperative. [/quote]
What an incredibly loaded statement. The article itself is quite nice. It's too bad that it feels marred by an editorial comment that is rife with logical fallacies.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.