This is great, but I bet apple's suppliers and manufacturers aren't anywhere close to this level of renewable energy.

"This is great but everything isn't perfect yet, so meh."

"Meh" is a pretty good way of summarizing humanity's energy relationship with the environment.

Data centers are one of the fastest growing power consumers, something like 1.5-2% of all power today (eg http://www.analyticspress.com/datacenters.html). We should all be excited that Facebook, Google, Apple et al are seriously working on reducing that impact.

Clearly there's a lot more to be done (manufacturing, transportation, etc), but I don't think that undermines the progress being made in datacenters.

I wonder how much of the growth of data centers is due to people moving their computational workload "out of the closet" and into "the cloud"?

If cloud virtualization and app hosting is truly a significant driver of data center growth, it seems likely that DCs represent a category shifting and a net reduction of power consumption. So someone concerned with global or national overall energy consumption shouldn't want anyone "working on reducing that impact", they'd want that impact DCs increased.

From your linked report:

Growth in the installed base of servers in data centers had already begun to slow by early 2007 because of virtualization and other factors. Growth in the installed base of servers in data centers had already begun to slow by early 2007 because of virtualization and other factors. The 2008 financial crisis, the associated economic slowdown, and further improvements in virtualization led to a significant reduction in actual server installed base by 2010 compared to the IDC installed base forecast published in 2007

Also, perhaps more directly:

Because cloud computing installations typically have much higher server utilization levels and infrastructure efficiencies than do in-house data centers (with PUEs for some specific facilities lower than 1.1) increased adoption of cloud architectures will result in lower electricity use than if the same computing services were delivered using more conventional approaches.

So what's the point? Do you think its still better than not using renewable energy or not? Also there is no mandate to use 100% renewable energy is there?

The point is that this is green washing, and the bulk of their manufacturing operations is excluded from this "100%" figure.

I don't understand. The article clearly says the data center is using renewable energy right? You say it like its a bad thing. Every one knows the manufacturing side is what it is. Where is the intent to fool anyone here? Please point me to it.

In the linked article Apple also states that the entire company runs on 75% renewable energy. This is the figure I am criticizing.

Even there they only say corporate facilities and nothing about manufacturing (which is done by outside companies). Do you think they are lying about their corporate facilities using 75% renewable energy? If so can you please point me to any article contradicting that?

Never said they were lying. I am saying its a purely PR number that doesn't accurately depict the amount of energy that is used for them thrive as much as they have.

Basically, they are talking about their corporate operations and ignoring the actual resources consumed during their products' lifecycle from manufacture->distribution->sale->use->recycling/disposal. Hence my comment that they are green-washing.

Wow. Sorry to harp on this but you can criticize Apple when they deserve it not because you want to. You are essentially saying they are lying (green-washing) and accusing them of covering up their energy usage in their manufacturing flow. When all they talked about was their energy usage on the corporate side. Are you even reading the same article that the OP posted? Where are you reading that Apple tried to lie? This is a non-story, nothing to read into it at all. A simple nod would have been enough. There is no conspiracy or lying or cover up here. If you see it point it to me.

I never said they lied, spin is a better word for it. Look it up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwashing

From their website (http://www.apple.com/environment/our-footprint/) facilities make up 2% of the 'footprint' of Apple products. Making a big deal about 75% of 2% being green, I call that green-washing. I agree, it's a non-story.

Are those suppliers and manufacturers supplying and manufacturing for Apple only, or for other companies too?

I am saying Apple makes physical products and its probably the biggest part of their business and its not represented in their renewable energy numbers. I don't think wrong to want more clarity and less PR when it comes to the environment.

This article, like many articles on Hacker News equates the value of education into dollars. Education, intrinsically, cannot be solely measured in dollars. The problem isn't people getting useless degrees, its degrees that don't correspond to high paying jobs in the current economy costing too much. THERE IS NO SHAME IN GETTING A DEGREE IN LITERATURE. Education should be free.

I just get a knee jerk reaction to any article like this because it wholly overlooks how education is supposed to make you a better human being, not a money making machine.

Articles like this take the easy way and basically say ASSIMILATE or die. Yea, thats going to solve the problem...

> THERE IS NO SHAME IN GETTING A DEGREE IN LITERATURE.

I agree with you, but the supply side of the education system agrees with you all the way to the bank.

The real point is: the traditional education model is usually a bad financial deal. If you want to learn, do so -- but don't be swindled into taking out loans for it.

I agree with your real point, however, I would not say the current model is the traditional or even universal model. Countries other than the US have much better models. I just get tired of the discussion not focusing on the problem and instead accepting it. Universities are often the best place to get an awesome education in the humanities. Withholding that opportunity because education has been transformed into some financial investment, instead of a holistic investments that not everyone can take is just plain sad.

I think its also important to point out that the skills and concepts you learn in areas such as the social sciences and humanities are still financially lucrative. As long as our economy is dominated by big corporations there will be managers and CEOs whos only job is to delegate tasks to and organize the humans beneath them. Understanding human power structures and having the ability to persuade and communicate effectively with people will always be the real big money ticket.

Absent massive political change, the only way the price will come down for humanities degrees is if people stop signing up for them. Supply and demand.

It is the logical next step to tell the colleges: "No, I will not pay the same for your Art History degree as for an Engineering degree - Engineering will pay for itself at that price by getting me a good job while Art History won't."

There is no shame in pursuing a career in literature, but whether it is wise or not to spend $200k to get there instead of 75 cents in late fees at the public library..that's another thing altogether.

No shame in going to the library, either. (Less snob cred, though.)

HN, Pinboard popular and recent, New York Times, Reddit

I went over to Pinterest and took a look at the popular and found nothing worth looking EVERY DAY. That's when I realized you said PinBOARD and not PinTEREST.