What's the big deal? This site is apparently a "conservative" news site. As such, they take a stance that is pretty uniform among rank and file conservatives: that CO2 emissions are not causing climactic damage popularly called "global warming".
A lot of people on/. are very fond of expousing "science aims to do this" and "science aims to do that". Well, I'm a PhD in theoretical physics, and thus, know a little something about science and its relation to the scientific method. Any reputable hypothesis has an outlet for publishing. This is how science works in modern days. I communicate with my colleagues via publishing. And I have never met a colleague or editor who supressed a paper due to an unpopular viewpoint. We are the priests of the Church of the Scientific Method. We didn't become PhD's for the glory (hah!) or personal gain (double hah!). We followed the path we did because of an unswerving quest for truth, and that includes publishing things that are reputable but not agreeable with our own world-view.
The word reputable is loose here. It can mean evidence. It can even mean educated guess. It can even mean "opinion" if you form a reasonable argument.
It's not hard to publish in the scientific community. So where exactly are all these scientists who dispute CO2 initiated climactic changes? I haven't seen them.
And again, I have to wonder out loud. Where is the news here? This article is about as mundane as reading about how a liberal Democrat is outraged that Bush wants to desecrate the Constitution with an amendment to limit the rights of matrimony to what could be 10% of our population. As boring as an article in a conservative newspaper that outlines why giving out condoms to stop the spread of HIV is a bad thing.
IBM is ok in my book. They put out TechExplorer which allows me to put my LaTeX/TeX documents on the web without having to resort to a gazillion jpg files (latex2html) or even worse, having to learn that mathbbl stuff (just what I need. Yet another language to learn).
They certainly didn't have to support Linux, I'm sure it doesn't net them much $$$ when you include development costs. Yet they seem to be aggresively developing it.
IMHO, this is another piece of evidence that IBM is friendly to Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
I love AdBlock. Before today I had no idea snopes had advertising!
What's the big deal? This site is apparently a "conservative" news site. As such, they take a stance that is pretty uniform among rank and file conservatives: that CO2 emissions are not causing climactic damage popularly called "global warming".
/. are very fond of expousing "science aims to do this" and "science aims to do that". Well, I'm a PhD in theoretical physics, and thus, know a little something about science and its relation to the scientific method. Any reputable hypothesis has an outlet for publishing. This is how science works in modern days. I communicate with my colleagues via publishing. And I have never met a colleague or editor who supressed a paper due to an unpopular viewpoint. We are the priests of the Church of the Scientific Method. We didn't become PhD's for the glory (hah!) or personal gain (double hah!). We followed the path we did because of an unswerving quest for truth, and that includes publishing things that are reputable but not agreeable with our own world-view.
A lot of people on
The word reputable is loose here. It can mean evidence. It can even mean educated guess. It can even mean "opinion" if you form a reasonable argument.
It's not hard to publish in the scientific community. So where exactly are all these scientists who dispute CO2 initiated climactic changes? I haven't seen them.
And again, I have to wonder out loud. Where is the news here? This article is about as mundane as reading about how a liberal Democrat is outraged that Bush wants to desecrate the Constitution with an amendment to limit the rights of matrimony to what could be 10% of our population. As boring as an article in a conservative newspaper that outlines why giving out condoms to stop the spread of HIV is a bad thing.
*yawn*
They certainly didn't have to support Linux, I'm sure it doesn't net them much $$$ when you include development costs. Yet they seem to be aggresively developing it.
IMHO, this is another piece of evidence that IBM is friendly to Linux.