Israel has never been held accountable for any of their crimes. The U.S. will always make sure to veto any UN resolution that doesn't blame the victims^W^W^W criticise the Palestinian authorities equally as Israel. Israel does, on the other hand, have a somewhat stable government that won't be overthrown at the first opportunity. That makes their nuclear weapons slightly more secure.
MS DOS is garbage, though, and it certainly doesn't give the games any more resources, as it has the old '640 KB ought to be enough for everyone' limit. What you love isn't the OS, it's the games it could run.
10.2 wasn't pretty damn good. It was very slow, had crazy memory demands for the time, and equally poor virtual memory management. Whenever it hit swap, multitasking became a pain. And the poor window manager (it still is, compared to kwin) really screams out for something like Exposé just to avoid turning into a mess whenever there's more than three windows open. It was very pretty for its time, though.
Given the choice between OS X 10.2 and Windows XP today, I'd choose XP every time. It's simply a better OS, in every regard. It does demand a certain talent for avoiding malware, though.
Agreed. An while we're at it: OS X 10.0, back in 2001. Just because I feel that whenever people whine about KDE 4.0, they should be reminded that OS X 10.0 was pretty close to unusable, that OS X 10.1 was still shit and that OS X 10.2 was only somewhat promising.
Some guy in a comment above reminded me that there wasn't nearly enough Apple hate here.
Oh wow, so you're not alone! Well, that certainly makes you right then!
By now, it's fairly well known that the 'trick' is about 'hiding the decline' of temperatures as shown by tree ring data, a proxy still thought to have been accurate in the past; and a decline not happening in the real world, unless you have superior measurements. You don't. All you have is FUD.
And no, they haven't been caught doing that. There has been found an email saying something about a "trick" and you choose to interpret it to suit your own prejudice. You have not tested anything based on your prejudice, you just choose to believe what you believe. You're no scientist, and you don't follow any sort of scientific method.
Why should I take you seriously again?
For no reason at all? Because of plain FUD? Yeah, right.
Sorry, but that's simply incorrect. You picked that definition of science up from an Indiana Jones movie, didn't you?
Experimental science follows theory and speculation, forms testable hypotheses and tests them. Why not the other way around? Well, you can't form a testable hypothesis based on fact. Facts don't ask questions. So in science, you can't "follow" facts.
No, you ridicule because you lack arguments. "Absence of anything" == your disregard for everything.
1) CO2 levels are rising. This is measurable, and measured, and consistent with human fossil fuel consumption. 2) The trace levels of C14 in the atmosphere is sinking, consistently with output of fossil carbon lacking C14. Thus we know that much of the excess CO2 does in fact come from fossil fuel. 3) CO2 traps more energy from the sun in the atmosphere. This is experimentally verifiable, and verified. 4) Global temperatures are rising. This is well known, and well researched. I've never seen a convincing argument to the contrary. Yours certainly isn't one.
You're far too easily scared if you think that's 'using fear'. It's simply the truth (as far as I bothered reading; it's saturday, not soberday). If not, please specify how and where, instead of, well, spreading FUD.
Javascript programs running in your browser are, in general, not free software.
Well, saying that he 'needs to STFU' could be interpreted as meaning you want him to STFU. Character attacks instead of arguing against his claims could also be considered an attempt to undermine his position and make people stop listening to him.
Of course, I personally don't think you're a censor because of that; I just think you're a random idiot on the internet.
Let's see... someone gets hold of private data, and tries to use that to force you to whatever, then releases your private data to the internet. This is good, because information wants to be free! Then, someone uses governmental force to get information from the internet (Wikipedia), and this is bad, because everyone has the right to privacy!
This kinda reminds me of a bunch of idiots dancing on a plane to 'Sweet Home Alabama'.
Re:Funny how similar the free Unices are
on
FreeBSD 8.0 Released
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
What utter drivel.
I'm sure FreeBSD some times performs better or with greater stability than Linux, and I'm just as sure that some times it's the other way around. Some times Windows beats them both. And who knows, perhaps even Solaris. It depends on a lot of things, though, and to say that FreeBSD is simly 'better' for 'serious' tasks just makes me convinced that you've never used a computer for serious tasks.
As for your other claims, that "FreeBSD may not have the best accelerated 3D graphics drivers, or the flashiest X desktops and themes": that's also wrong. FreeBSD can use all the X desktops and all the themes that Linux can use. Nvidia makes drivers for FreeBSD, too.
You know you're on Slashdot when a jar full of fanboy wank is called 'insightful'.
1) You'll have to use average temperatures over some time period. NASA seems to prefer the fiveyear mean. As you can expect, it's not linear, and it never will be. 2) The prediction says "up to 6C" 3) This depends on the trends of fossil fuel consumption staying the same. They won't, but you're free to extrapolate from there.
There was a glacial period that ended only 10,000 years ago. The reason why the "current" temperature looks so low on those graphs is that the current interglacial period is too short to be noticed on a scale that shows 10M years as 78 pixels.
Slashdot Mirror
"not what they read on Slashdot"? The internet's number ... 5 or 6, probably, iHype generator?
Slashdot hasn't been a tech site ever since the Apple segment of consumerist morons moved in.
To be fair, the 1985 Amiga wasn't nearly as powerful, nor as capable, as the 1995 Windows PC.
Israel has never been held accountable for any of their crimes. The U.S. will always make sure to veto any UN resolution that doesn't blame the victims^W^W^W criticise the Palestinian authorities equally as Israel. Israel does, on the other hand, have a somewhat stable government that won't be overthrown at the first opportunity. That makes their nuclear weapons slightly more secure.
Yes, and those were neat crutches, but hardly carbon fibre blades.
MS DOS is garbage, though, and it certainly doesn't give the games any more resources, as it has the old '640 KB ought to be enough for everyone' limit. What you love isn't the OS, it's the games it could run.
OS X 10.0 was no more a public beta than KDE 4.0 was (it cost US$129). Kodiak was the public beta, Cheetah was 10.0, with a free upgrade to Puma following swiftly.
10.2 wasn't pretty damn good. It was very slow, had crazy memory demands for the time, and equally poor virtual memory management. Whenever it hit swap, multitasking became a pain. And the poor window manager (it still is, compared to kwin) really screams out for something like Exposé just to avoid turning into a mess whenever there's more than three windows open. It was very pretty for its time, though.
Given the choice between OS X 10.2 and Windows XP today, I'd choose XP every time. It's simply a better OS, in every regard. It does demand a certain talent for avoiding malware, though.
Agreed. An while we're at it: OS X 10.0, back in 2001. Just because I feel that whenever people whine about KDE 4.0, they should be reminded that OS X 10.0 was pretty close to unusable, that OS X 10.1 was still shit and that OS X 10.2 was only somewhat promising.
Some guy in a comment above reminded me that there wasn't nearly enough Apple hate here.
A J-turn or L-turn, depending on direction.
Oh, look. A straw man. You beat that one up pretty good.
Oh wow, so you're not alone! Well, that certainly makes you right then!
By now, it's fairly well known that the 'trick' is about 'hiding the decline' of temperatures as shown by tree ring data, a proxy still thought to have been accurate in the past; and a decline not happening in the real world, unless you have superior measurements. You don't. All you have is FUD.
Incorrect.
And no, they haven't been caught doing that. There has been found an email saying something about a "trick" and you choose to interpret it to suit your own prejudice. You have not tested anything based on your prejudice, you just choose to believe what you believe. You're no scientist, and you don't follow any sort of scientific method.
Why should I take you seriously again?
For no reason at all? Because of plain FUD? Yeah, right.
Apart from where you're factually wrong, show me how this differs from, say, how "creation science" is locked out from evolutionary biology.
Sorry, but that's simply incorrect. You picked that definition of science up from an Indiana Jones movie, didn't you?
Experimental science follows theory and speculation, forms testable hypotheses and tests them. Why not the other way around? Well, you can't form a testable hypothesis based on fact. Facts don't ask questions. So in science, you can't "follow" facts.
Well, if it's produced by a "think tank" whose main product is advice on economic policy, it's 100% guaranteed, certified bullshit.
And you know this because of what? Wishful thinking?
No, that's not the Socratic method. What you did is called a strawman attack.
No, you ridicule because you lack arguments. "Absence of anything" == your disregard for everything.
1) CO2 levels are rising. This is measurable, and measured, and consistent with human fossil fuel consumption.
2) The trace levels of C14 in the atmosphere is sinking, consistently with output of fossil carbon lacking C14. Thus we know that much of the excess CO2 does in fact come from fossil fuel.
3) CO2 traps more energy from the sun in the atmosphere. This is experimentally verifiable, and verified.
4) Global temperatures are rising. This is well known, and well researched. I've never seen a convincing argument to the contrary. Yours certainly isn't one.
Your response? None, really.
Yes, why stop at criticising his claims; why not criticise him for what you imagine he might say instead, the moonbat lunatic.
You're far too easily scared if you think that's 'using fear'. It's simply the truth (as far as I bothered reading; it's saturday, not soberday). If not, please specify how and where, instead of, well, spreading FUD.
Javascript programs running in your browser are, in general, not free software.
Well, saying that he 'needs to STFU' could be interpreted as meaning you want him to STFU. Character attacks instead of arguing against his claims could also be considered an attempt to undermine his position and make people stop listening to him.
Of course, I personally don't think you're a censor because of that; I just think you're a random idiot on the internet.
I'm pointing out your confusion, you drooling moron.
Let's see ... someone gets hold of private data, and tries to use that to force you to whatever, then releases your private data to the internet. This is good, because information wants to be free! Then, someone uses governmental force to get information from the internet (Wikipedia), and this is bad, because everyone has the right to privacy!
This kinda reminds me of a bunch of idiots dancing on a plane to 'Sweet Home Alabama'.
What utter drivel.
I'm sure FreeBSD some times performs better or with greater stability than Linux, and I'm just as sure that some times it's the other way around. Some times Windows beats them both. And who knows, perhaps even Solaris. It depends on a lot of things, though, and to say that FreeBSD is simly 'better' for 'serious' tasks just makes me convinced that you've never used a computer for serious tasks.
As for your other claims, that "FreeBSD may not have the best accelerated 3D graphics drivers, or the flashiest X desktops and themes": that's also wrong. FreeBSD can use all the X desktops and all the themes that Linux can use. Nvidia makes drivers for FreeBSD, too.
You know you're on Slashdot when a jar full of fanboy wank is called 'insightful'.
1) You'll have to use average temperatures over some time period. NASA seems to prefer the fiveyear mean. As you can expect, it's not linear, and it never will be.
2) The prediction says "up to 6C"
3) This depends on the trends of fossil fuel consumption staying the same. They won't, but you're free to extrapolate from there.
There was a glacial period that ended only 10,000 years ago. The reason why the "current" temperature looks so low on those graphs is that the current interglacial period is too short to be noticed on a scale that shows 10M years as 78 pixels.