Slashdot Mirror

You are most certainly wrong here. From what I heard, they will use nVidia Terga GPUs, for which it will be pretty easy to have a driver.

Yeah, I must be wrong. Surely. That's why nVidia GPUs are fully supported by Free Software, and I wouldn't have to loose my rights to nVidias's proprietary software licensing. NOT! On all accounts. Nouveaux isn't really Free Software (it still carries blobs), and nVidias's drivers are as proprietary as it can get.

Besides: What is all that talk about “software freedom”?

It's my rights to run the software for any purpose, study, modify and distribute it. Software licensing that forbids any of these actions is just plain immoral and I can't accept it's terms and conditions.

It’s just a driver. If you really thought that to the end, you would have to only use hardware with all the specs available!

Just a driver, hey? Well, that just only hides that you have a horribly slow interface, perhaps not so energy efficient, without any bells and whistles! Is it still just? Not important at all?

And which are buildable with openly available tools, whose specs are available too, etc, etc, etc. Basically the ability do dig stuff out of the earth, to build machines with it, that build machines, that build your laptop, where you can put your free software on.

Please tell me where I can legally get nVidia's, PowerVR's etc... as Free Software so I can build it with openly available tools. Oh, heck... I don't need code, just get us those specs which are available as well...

Everything else is just ignorance.

And to say the best about you, you must be an ignorant.

Seriously? The top hit for that quote is a website that doesn't cite its sources. Trying to track down the origins of that quote leads to OTHER websites that don't cite their sources either. (c.f. this one, from 2007, this one, which looks suspiciously familiar, from 2005, and this one, which just links back to the first one. You gotta do better than that.

"No-one gives a shit about warning signs dude."

Perhaps that's because organised astroturfers have conviced many people science doesn't apply to AGW.

The fact that the first hit on a google search for 'icecap "global warming"' is the icecap.us site would indicate your pessimisim is warranted. I actually had someone reply to me the other day who said something like "you don't get to quote Nature and Science as evidence for AGW because they are not statisticians".....sigh.

There are several motives for the media and politicians to lie to you about global warming, aside from money and control.

• The media sells more papers, magazines, and television ratings soar when their audience is scared of some imminent catastrophe that your respective service is reporting on. Although, they can't decide whether we're going to burn to death, freeze to death, or drown. http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759
• Environmental organizations and some scientists will lie to you because their funding depends on it. If theres no crisis to work through, then they start losing funding. This is well documented. http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/von_Storch/staged_angst/a_climate_of_staged_angst.html
• Foreign countries are lying to us (by means of the IPCC) because they wish to throw a monkey wrench into the inner workings of western economies, which are the strongest in the world. If our economy slows down, the economic standing of other countries improves because we will no longer dominate the markets.
• Development and industrialization of third world countries will be stamped out, along with hundreds of millions of lives, all under the guise of "saving the planet from climate change". It's absolutely sickening. So, who's really on the "immoral" side? Us or the alarmists?
• Wanna talk about new taxes and restricted freedoms? Try carbon taxes on everything and strict regulations for everyone....all coming soon by convincing you that CO2 & greenhouse gases are somehow evil and you must pay to emit them. Too bad they can't tax the oceans since they are the cause of 96.5% of all greenhouse emissions, naturally, eh! Also too bad they can't go back in time and tax the dinosaurs since CO2 levels were MUCH higher back then and it must have been their fault.

The motives for deception are there. Do your part to fight alarmism!

CO2 is NOT a pollutant!

Educate yourself!

Antarctica is getting colder and thicker: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/12/05/sea-level-rise-not-from-antarctic-melting/), and we know that any fluctuating warming/cooling is due to natural occurrences, and not human activity.

MUST READ LINKS:
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777
"http://globalwarminghoax.wordpress.com/2008/03/
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061121_gore.pdf
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
http://www.junkscience.com/challenge.htm
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmFiZDAyMWFhMGIxNTgwNGIyMjVkZjQ4OGFiZjFlNjc
http://www.cei.org/pdf/5331.pdf
http://www.research.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/spot_sunclimate.html
http://www.research.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/images/sunclimate_3b.gif
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/03/030321075236.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/56456.stm

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2006 0505/20060505_26.html

Statement of Paul Reiter, Professor, Institut Pasteur

Committee on Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Subcommittee on Global Climate Change and Impacts

April 26, 2006

I am a specialist in the natural history and biology of mosquitoes, the epidemiology of the diseases they transmit, and strategies for their control. I worked for 22 years for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), including two years as a Research Scholar at Harvard. I am a member of the World Health Organization Expert Advisory Committee on Vector Biology and Control. I have directed many investigations of outbreaks of mosquito-borne disease, and of others such as Ebola Haemorrhagic Fever. I was a Lead Author of the U.S. National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change. I am presently Professor of Medical Entomology at the Institut Pasteur in Paris, France.

In this brief presentation I restrict my comments to malaria, and emphasise four points:

1. Malaria is not an exclusively tropical disease

2. The transmission dynamics of the disease are complex; the interplay of climate, ecology, mosquito biology, mosquito behavior and many other factors defies simplistic analysis.

3. It is facile to attribute current resurgence of the disease to climate change, or to use models based on temperature to ``predict`` future prevalence.

4. Environmental activists use the `big talk` of science to create a simple but false paradigm. Malaria specialists who protest this are generally ignored, or labelled as `sceptics`.

In the early 1990s, malaria topped the list of dangerous impacts of global warming; the disease would move to temperate regions as temperatures increased. This prediction ignored the fact that malaria was once an important cause of morbidity and mortality throughout most of the US and Europe, even in a period that climatologists call the `Little Ice Age`. In the US, as in western Europe, prevalence declined in the 19th century as a result of multiple changes in agriculture and lifestyle that affected the abundance of mosquitoes, their contact with people, and the availability of anti-malarial drugs. Nevertheless, the most catastrophic epidemic on record anywhere in the world occurred in the Soviet Union in the 1920s, with a peak incidence of 13 million cases per year, and 600,000 deaths. Transmission was high in many parts of Siberia, and there were 30,000 cases and 10,000 deaths in Archangel, close to the Arctic circle. The disease persisted in many parts of Europe until the advent of DDT. Clearly, temperature was not a limiting factor in its distribution or prevalence.

In the mid-1990s, activist emphasis changed to transmission in poorer countries, often referred to as those ``least able to protect themselves``, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. Yet in most of the continent, temperatures are far above the minimum required for transmission, and most of sub-Saharan Africa, transmission is termed `stable`` because people are exposed to many infective bites, sometimes more than 300 per year, so annual incidence is fairly constant. Mortality is highest in ``newcomers``-young children and immigrants. Those that survive acquire a partial immunity that reduces the risk of fatal illness. In other regions, transmission is endemic but `unstable` because annual transmission is variable; the potential for epidemics is great because immunity declines in periods of low transmission. Climatic factors, particularly rainfall, are sometimes-but by no means always-relevant.

In recent years, activist emphasis has shifted to ``highland malaria``, particularly in East Africa. Despite carefully researched articles by malaria specialists, there has been a flurry of articles by non-specialists who claim a rece

As someone else who does computational chemistry, I have my doubts about global warming because the simulations don't match reproducible results. To the best of my knowledge, there has not been a model that accurately describes the current warming trends as well as previous cooling/warming cylces. This http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005 1110/20051110_03.html is the closest that I've seen. Since inconsistencies like this exist, I don't think we can say conclusively that global warming is human caused. The compelling thing is that if global warming is human caused, it might be too late by the time we have conclusive evidence.

"No. It hasn't been for a good solid decade now, and you'd have to be an asshole and an idiot to believe otherwise."

So any scientist (and there are plenty) that disagrees with you is an "asshole and an idiot"? What an open minded way to start your rant.
There are plenty of peer reviewed studies that don't agree with you that global warming exists, or if it does, that we humans are the cause (for instance, what about increased solar output). Check out the abstracts AND the bibliographies @ http://ff.org/centers/csspp/misc/index.html for a good starting point.
Speaking then of idiots, you bring up Al Gore (the famous scientist with no political agenda) discussing articles from unnamed scientific journals and mass media (lot of scientists in the journalism community no doubt). I'd like to see the published list of these journals. I suspect however it is not available. Keeping in mind the sad state of affairs in journalism and the general public when it comes to math & science education, what a bunch of journalists or citizens believe shouldn't be given all that much credibility.
Tine to do a little research yourself instead of casting epithets and parroting the words of others.

Just goes to show that Kyoto isn't the solution, because it ignores emissions by "developing countries" regardless of origin.

From: Margaret Flint
To:Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02 9:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Margaret Flint
1756 H. H. Rd.

Fonda, NY 12068
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a nuisance to
consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech industry.
It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending accompanying it,
to be over. Consumers will indeed see competition in the marketplace,
rather than the courtroom. And the investors who propel our economy can
finally breathe a sigh of relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government should not have
broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, companies like Microsoft
can get back into the business of innovating and creating better products
for consumers, and not wasting valuable resources on litigation.

Competition means creating better goods and offering superior services to
consumers. With government out of the business of stifling progress and
tying the hands of corporations, consumers - rather than bureaucrats and
judges - will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. With
the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will be
encouraged to create new and competitive products and technologies.

Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.

Sincerely,

Margaret Flint