RTFA, it doesn't matter how you measure, mature trees win either way.

Run Windows VMs and keep adding them until the boxes are under some level of resource contention (3:1, 4:1 vCPU:pCPU). If you don't see a difference, I'd be highly curious of your workloads and configuration.

This is exactly correct. I myself replaced a SQL Server cluster that was using boxes with dual 12-core AMD procs with one using dual 4-core Xeons a couple years ago. Performance and responsiveness went way up while the bill to Microsoft dropped massively.

I was a solid AMD enthusiast from the original Athlons all the way up until about 5 years ago. They went from huge underdog to reigning champion for a long time while the marketing guys ran Intel's product offering into the ground with everything from Northwood to Prescott and all the stuff in between. But the landscape has shifted for AMD. They've simply gone downhill. As of the last couple of years, I can no longer justify buying AMD procs at work and I'd already switched at home. That AMD could boast significantly more cores was the last leg they had to stand on in the server market; now they're a has-been.

I sincerely hope they recover and blow past Intel as they've done in the past. I think that's healthier for the market and I think we all win when that competition heats up. But at this point, there's little to justify their existence in the server space and the market share numbers reflect that (dropping from >25% share to ~3%).

Either it's sarcasm or you're an idiot, because it's easy to release carbon. What's hard is putting it back in the bottle.

I will choose to believe that you were being sarcastic, because it will make me feel better about the world I live in.

What? I say, what did you say, son? A quick google search would have proven you wrong, but you didn't even do that. Or, you know, having paid attention to any of these discussions here on slashdot in ages, since I bring this point up every time we have one. I haven't been bothering with links and citations until now, but nobody has asked so I didn't feel it was important since I'm not the only person who knows how to use google, am I? I don't want to fall into the trap of thinking I'm smarter than everyone, but I have this sneaking suspicion that I've been giving the average slashdotter way too much credit — and it wasn't that much, in my estimation.

It's not even that simple. The percentage of carbon which is released instead of being fixed into the soil is related to the rate at which decomposition occurs. However, even tropical rain forests are net carbon sinks. As well, when you harvest timber and build things out of it, you keep the carbon fairly well-sequestered, at least until the wood gets successfully attacked by a fungus or set on fire, etc etc. But mature trees fix more carbon than young trees, further complicating the issue. The truth is that planting the world over with trees is no substitute for not having cut them down in the first place, and no amount of wishing will make it so. That's not an argument against replanting, just an argument against any further cutting of old growth. It should simply not be permitted, unless those trees absolutely will fail regardless — and soon.

What we care about is not forested area, although it's relevant to weather patterns, but forest mass. Older trees put on mass faster than young trees, and most of a plant's non-water mass is carbon from the air. Strangely enough, this simple fact seems to go mostly ignored in discussions about global climate and carbon, and I have to bring it up in literally every discussion on this subject here on Slashdot. I can use the karma, but I'd prefer that more of you land-rape apologists would wake up and smell the burning.

You've got to take it on a species-by-species basis. Take, for example, Sequoia Sempervirens. Right up until the trees fall down because they outgrow their root systems, older trees put on more mass and thus fix more CO2 than the same area filled to capacity with younger trees.

Even trees which aren't getting taller are often getting thicker, so the question for a given species is whether younger or older members put on more mass for a given area. Virtually all of the non-water mass of all vegetation is carbon, and nearly all of the carbon of all vegetation (even relatively high soil carbon users like corn) comes from the air.

The former encourages the latter. The more unpleasant it is to look at reality, the more time they're likely to spend looking away.

Hemp is harder on the soil than its proponents would have you believe. Bamboo is even more efficient than hemp, you can harvest it and build stuff out of it every five years or so, sequestering carbon. And you can do it all with hand tools. You do need water, but it can be pretty crappy water.

The proper solution will be varied.

We already have a way to fix CO2 on your roof, it's called a green roof.

Not cutting down the trees is a useful step, because mature growth fixes more CO2 than new growth.

They think this will help because they are thinking from the standpoint of the educator. They are trying to validate their existence, so they're pretending that they haven't become mere waldos to the will of the state, or hand puppets if you will. NCLB and various other unfunded mandates and defunding efforts have led to class sizes and a lack of attention which compromises the best efforts to educate. Education is underfunded on one hand, and forced to waste what money it does have on the other.

The primary value of primary school, therefore, can not be education. What, then? Simply, the socialization and social contacts made during school are important to success later in life for most individuals. And by segregating by gender, the school system is deprecating this characteristic. Our society is already awash in gender issues. STEM employees are already stereotyped as being socially awkward, and with good reason — they often are undersocialized as a result of being shunned for, sadly, being brainy or just for being awkward.

But what's truly puzzling is why they think that new, segregated schools are even necessary to provide more STEM schooling to girls and more English-language classes to boys. There is simply no need for that whatsoever — instead, add in more counselors (who are needed anyhow) and have them counsel the students towards the needed classes.

If they want to improve education, then perhaps they should reduce class sizes. Building more schools is a good idea, but segregation is not, nor is it even particularly helpful if you goal is to steer children towards particular careers based on gender.

If they really want to solve this problem, then then answer is to promote intelligence as a value. Perhaps we should start by making government a meritocracy of some sort, instead of a collection of ex-lawyer sleazebags who got the job because they were the most successful at hiding how slimy they are.

These schools are stupid and misguided because what is needed is not to provide more education, but to increase the demand for education. Kids are going to school and fucking off because they don't see a future for themselves. It's getting harder and harder to argue with that attitude.

What? 1. attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of gender roles. You fucking tool. You don't even know how to use a dictionary.

It will harm everyone, unless your goal is a sex-segregated society. Just look how well that works elsewhere in the world! What a fantastic idea!