Can you beat the system?

This is a discussion on Can you beat the system? within the General Discussions forums, part of the Community Boards category; WWF Footprint Calculator The "challenge" is to come up with a score that doesn't make you look like some sort ...

  1. #1
    and the hat of wrongness Salem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    The edge of the known universe
    Posts
    32,530

    Can you beat the system?

    WWF Footprint Calculator
    The "challenge" is to come up with a score that doesn't make you look like some sort of environmental lout, with no need at all to sign up to "free" service.

    Just blow away the cookie file for that site if you want to play again.
    The lowest I've managed is 1.36

    If a score <1 is in fact impossible on that site, then it's a scam.
    If you dance barefoot on the broken glass of undefined behaviour, you've got to expect the occasional cut.
    If at first you don't succeed, try writing your phone number on the exam paper.
    I support http://www.ukip.org/ as the first necessary step to a free Europe.

  2. #2
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    49
    2.55 putting in real values.

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    49
    2.55 putting in real values where possible and best estimates otherwise. Example, our house has gas central heating which does base load, but we also have a wood burning stove to top up when it is cold - the quiz lets you pick one or the other.

    [edit]Hmph, so I try to edit and end up duplicating.[/edit]

  4. #4
    Registered User whiteflags's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    7,689
    You should be ashamed. 2.31 being as much of a dick as possible and lying.

    I realize now that this wasn't the challenge; my mistake

  5. #5
    spurious conceit MK27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    segmentation fault
    Posts
    8,300
    I got 2.0 being honest.

    Trying to get as low as possible, I get 1.23, which implies that it is impossible to live in Northern Europe* without using a disproportionate amount of resources.

    I imagine that's true, but I still think the survey is a little silly. For example, if it were applicable to a wider range of circumstances you could check and see what your footprint would be if you decided to go live in a shack in Venezuela. Certainly, it would be much more informative if the whole formula were explained. Rather dumb otherwise.

    * the questionnaire could not apply to many places, because there was no "no heat" option, and bonus points for better insulation in the tropics is absurd -- also no questions about air conditioning, which is horrific in scale here in NYC
    Last edited by MK27; 06-18-2010 at 10:54 AM.
    C programming resources:
    GNU C Function and Macro Index -- glibc reference manual
    The C Book -- nice online learner guide
    Current ISO draft standard
    CCAN -- new CPAN like open source library repository
    3 (different) GNU debugger tutorials: #1 -- #2 -- #3
    cpwiki -- our wiki on sourceforge

  6. #6
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,453
    My footprint is 3.34. The shoe size of the abominable snowman.
    Some of the questions clearly indicate this is aimed at industrialized countries with a high lifestyle. Fail! And probably why you don't get <= 1 in any possible way.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  7. #7
    spurious conceit MK27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    segmentation fault
    Posts
    8,300
    I think there is a for real bug/screw-up in the interface. If you look at the end, your "extra planet" is a total of all your points from each category, and you can obviously not get a negative score anywhere, you just get a lower positive one. My total was 100%, not 200%. Why the extra planet? It's a mistake.

    If you subtract one from the result, the lowest possible score is actually 0.23, not 1.23.
    C programming resources:
    GNU C Function and Macro Index -- glibc reference manual
    The C Book -- nice online learner guide
    Current ISO draft standard
    CCAN -- new CPAN like open source library repository
    3 (different) GNU debugger tutorials: #1 -- #2 -- #3
    cpwiki -- our wiki on sourceforge

  8. #8
    Devil's Advocate SlyMaelstrom's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Out of scope
    Posts
    4,069
    All I got out of this test was a sudden urge to kill a hippie.
    Sent from my iPad®

  9. #9
    Ecologist
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Utah.
    Posts
    1,291
    These things are nonsense. They neglect far too many
    variables and assume far too much to provide an accurate
    assessment of one's impact on the planet.

    The dietary questions (Vegan, Vegatarian, Carnivore)
    especially irk me
    Last edited by Cheeze-It; 06-18-2010 at 01:39 PM.
    Staying away from General.

  10. #10
    Registered User kryptkat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    638
    i got 0.69 meow.

  11. #11
    spurious conceit MK27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    segmentation fault
    Posts
    8,300
    Quote Originally Posted by kryptkat View Post
    i got 0.69 meow.
    You're a liar! You cannot get less than 1.00. I've already tried all the combinations. It's a mistake in the interface.
    C programming resources:
    GNU C Function and Macro Index -- glibc reference manual
    The C Book -- nice online learner guide
    Current ISO draft standard
    CCAN -- new CPAN like open source library repository
    3 (different) GNU debugger tutorials: #1 -- #2 -- #3
    cpwiki -- our wiki on sourceforge

  12. #12
    Super Moderator VirtualAce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    9,596
    2.39. What a load of bull. I could live on this planet for four lifetimes and still not consume 2.39 planets worth of resources. Based on the panda bear logo this survey was done by the same idiots who say the panda bears are endangered when populations are higher now than at any point in history since we've been tracking numbers.

    Clearly aimed at morons who believe their garbage. Some of the questions did not apply to the USA very well.

  13. #13
    Ecologist
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Utah.
    Posts
    1,291
    Quote Originally Posted by Bubba View Post
    2.39. What a load of bull. I could live on this planet for four lifetimes and still not consume 2.39 planets worth of resources.
    It's saying that if everybody lived the lifestyle you live,
    it would take 2.39 planets worth of resources to support
    them.

    You're a liar! You cannot get less than 1.00. I've already tried all the combinations. It's a mistake in the interface.
    This particular test seems kinda flakey, but if it's anything
    like Ecological Footprint Quiz by Center for Sustainable Economy,
    it takes countryof residence into consideration. If someone
    who lives in the United States and someone who lives in
    Angola enter the same choices, the United States footprint
    will still be almost 3x as high.

    I tried to pick the most environmentally detrimental answers
    for the myfootprint.org quiz for both Angola as my country
    and the US as my country.

    If everyone on the planet lived my lifestyle, we would need

    Angola: 5.06 Earths
    U.S.: 13.39 Earths
    Staying away from General.

  14. #14
    Ecologist
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Utah.
    Posts
    1,291
    Quote Originally Posted by Bubba View Post
    Based on the panda bear logo this survey was done by the same idiots who say the panda bears are endangered when populations are higher now than at any point in history since we've been tracking numbers.
    They are absolutely endangered due to habitat loss and
    fragmentation. One of the reasons the populations are "higher"
    now than at any other time in history is because past
    populations were underestimated. Newer studies have
    relied on better methods of measure. It's more a reflection
    of better monitoring practices than actual organisms.

    There's only about 1,000 - 2,000 Giant Pandas in the wild.
    Staying away from General.

  15. #15
    Woof, woof! zacs7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,459
    Useless, doesn't take offsetting into account

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. File System Implementation
    By dodgeviper in forum C Programming
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-16-2007, 12:04 PM
  2. Using system icons
    By @nthony in forum Windows Programming
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-13-2007, 06:56 PM
  3. Functions
    By aznballerlee in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-24-2006, 04:20 PM
  4. Linux database system needed
    By BobS0327 in forum Tech Board
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-11-2006, 03:56 PM
  5. BIOS system and memory allocation problem
    By beely in forum Tech Board
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-25-2003, 06:12 AM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21