If there are good reasons to switch to renewables in the future, then we'll see investments in them in the future. There's no idea to invest heavily in a technology, which is not able to deliver. The only renewable, that is able to produce energy reliably is hydro. Everything else is dependant on others taking care of the business, when they fail.
I am all ok with critisizing nuclear power and making sure that it meets its security requirements. But I expect you to as well face the reality, how horribly unreliable solar and wind power is. No matter how much money and innovation you throw at wind and solar, they still have long periods, when they produce nothing or next to nothing. That's a design flaw that can't be fixed and should not be ignored.
We have a plentiful energy source which is sometimes (regularly) available to us. You are saying we shouldn't use it? Really? Your basis for that argument is that we can't use it all the time. This means we should never use it? I feel I must politely disagree with you there. Would you advise farmers not to grow seasonal vegetables because they cant grow them in winter? Would you advise people in a desert not to collect rainwater because it doesn't fall much in the desert? Would you advise me not to socialise with my friends because sometimes they have to work?
You, like the renewables industry, are comparing apples and oranges. Energy is not seasonal vegetables. Energy has to be produced reliably 24/7, 365 days a year, regardless of what kind of weather there happens to be.
The article is about how an industrialised nation has demonstrated that it is economically and industrially feasible to harvest significant amounts of energy from the sun. Anyone want to talk about that?
They have not showed that. They have demonstrated, that you can build a lot of solar panels and wind mills, if you invest a sickening amount of money in them and pay over 100% in subsidies. When you look closer at the results, you notice that it's anything but economically feasible and it's causing a lot of problems:
Why does everyone think that renewable energy sources will be the first technology ever that works completely the first time, solving all the problems right out of the gate?
Gosh, well, where do I start?
1. We all have to pay big and mandatory subsidies. Those subsidies are the main reason, why renewables are being built. 2. When the renewables are built and operational, they don't solve the problem, which is energy production 24/7 based on demand. 3. Renewables have the right to sell their energy even when there's no demand, but not an obligation to produce, when it is needed. 4. Renewables cause disruption in the power grid. 5. Renewables are marketed as a replacement for proven and reliable technology.
I have no problems whatsoever with renewables, if they'd play by the same rule book:
1. No subsidies. 2. 24/7 production, which would require renewables to provide their own backup power plants.
(And turnabout is fair play. If ten or twenty years from now the temperature hasn't gone up any more and the weird weather events go away without us taking any action about it i'll be willing to stand up and say i was wrong. In fact i'd be quite happy to have that event come about.)
Well, the global temperatures have flat lined for 10 years now while co2 has steadily increased. Will it really take 20-30 years of stable temperatures, before you start even considering, that the AGW crowd just may be wrong?
I got interested in the climate science, some 5 years ago. I own a house by the sea, so I wanted to know, how much the sea level is going to rise. So I started to look at the measurements. NOAA has a lot of sea level measurement data from all around the USA. When I looked it up, I couldn't find a single statistic, that showed a accelerating trend. The satellite measurements of the University of Colorado agreed. The sea level was rising at a few mm/year, like they had for the last 100 years.
Then came the Chris Landsea's resignation from IPCC. If IPCC ignored him, it was no good news. Another big thing was Freeman Dyson. If a real genius like him casts doubt on something, it's worth double- and triplechecking. However, these are just names and I don't want to appeal to authority.
Then came the Climategate. I downloaded the zip file right away and started reading. I've spent countless hours reading the e-mails and the material in general. Based on them, I think that Mann and Jones should explain, why they hid the late 20th century decline of the tree ring proxies. I also think, that the way they fought against releasing data was not kosher. All in all, the e-mails cast doubt on the quality of the peer review process.
However, the biggest thing in the whole Climategate zip file is HARRY_READ_ME.txt. It took me 8 hours to read through the whole file. The comments by Ian Harris himself are unbeliavable. The quality of the data is poor, the algorithms are horrible and the poor man swims in this catastrophe for 2 years trying to make sense of it. Reading the file, I tried to find a single comment about quality control, error bars, or a happy end, where all the problems are solved. Instead I read how results of this mess was used in other peer reviewed articles. If you haven't read the file, please do.
If CRU TS is a big mess, NASA GISS is unfortunately not much better either. The homogenization methods are worrisome. The quality of the surface stations is unfortunately also poor. Way too many stations suffer from UHI. IMHO, all current temperature indexes should be thrown away and all work should be started from scratch, using original, unadjusted temperature measurements. And the whole process should be open and transparent with every adjustment being properly researched and documented (movement of temperature station, change of equipment etc.) After that scientists could throw all kinds of statistical methods at the data and come up with reliable results.
When it comes to the Arctic sea ice, I don't think there's a big problem with it. 2007 was a big low, but since then the extent has been growing every winter. At the moment it's pretty close to the 1979-2000 average. However, that's not something you read from the newspapers.
The Climategate is a big gaping wound that needs to be properly healed. As long as IPCC and the scientists involved pretend that is't not a problem, it's going to get worse. I hate the whitewashes, that have been done. The best thing for the whole science would be to admit the errors, bury the war hatches, throw away all unreliable data, start again with an open mind and start doing proper science.
I don't know about you but I'm amazed at how the Slashdot readers react to Climategate and AGW in general. It's like the whole site has been inundated by young environmentalists.
I'd love to send a PM to you and find out, how you think. It's pretty clear, that you care about science but so do I. We probably agree spot on about evolution, plate tectonics, health hazards of smoking etc. That's what makes it so hard for me to understand, how in the world you can support the depressingly low quality of climate science, that Climategate has revealed?
Have you made an informed decision based on the hard facts? Or do you just think, that the skeptics are as loony as the anti-scientific groups, that you mentioned?
What would you label us European skeptics then? Surely not Conservative deniers. Or creationists, as that seems to be predominately a US phenomenon. Maybe a tobacco scientist or a flat earther?
You have a small Slashdot id, which tells me that you're not a trolling activist. But you're here labeling people because they happen to disagree with you. Why are you doing that?
I disagree about AGW because the science behind it is not solid. There's a horrible lack of quality control in the temperature sets. Read HARRY_READ_ME.txt to see for yourself. And every cover up and huge mistake in IPCC reports make me even more skeptic.
Is AGW true? I don't know. I'd love to know but the current climate scientists have done their work so badly, that we don't have a single reliable temperature set for the last 150 years. That is depressing and it's a disgrace considering all the money that has been thrown at it.
Oh catch a breath and calm down. Rants like these show, that you have done absolutely no background checking. There are a lot of scientists, who disagree about AGW and they do it for a good reason. If you really believe, that IPCC is doing a good job and that science is settled, you really have to open your eyes.
OTOH, if you think that it's a good idea to slander people and force feed the green agenda based on faulty data and faulty science, you're doing a great disservice to the environment you claim to care about.
Thank you for posting a link to NOAA's response. Could you also post a link to the complete set of raw temperature data for those 70 stations? 70 separate download links will also do. And I'd certainly like to have the original raw data before any adjustments.
I don't have a problem if you or NOAA or anyone proves McIntyre or Watts wrong. But I need to have some proof instead of rebuttals. These e-mails have changed the situation so, that neither side should be believed without solid evidence. Say-so isn't enough.
It is unfortunate that the signal to noise ratio on the skeptic side is low.
I have no problem with thinking skeptics. I think there should be more of them. But the problem is almost all the skeptics are fanatical mad dog skeptics with solid Ph.Ds in arcmchair climatology backed by B.S's in BS. It's become like evolution vs. intelligent design, only worse.
I think that the fanatic ones are not skeptics at all. They are mostly ignorant people with loud opinions. However, there is an equally big bunch of equally ignorant and loud environmentalists, who are equally bad. This Slashdot article is a prime example of the battle between those two ignorant camps. Way too much noise and partisan moderation. This whole debate should be about data and science and not about people. So we should ignore all the ignorant, loud ones no matter what their opinions are.
I believe, that it is unethical for you to just point out the low quality of those, who don't share your point of view.
I've read through a lot of material of that FOIA.zip. I have no degree in climatology, but I have 20 years of experience in computing and analyzing sensory data and data conversions. From what I've read, there are big problems with how the CRU tempareture data is processed. These problems affect the outcome. How much? Nobody knows, but we all should be interested in finding out.
I have no respect for those, who just repeat, that there's nothing here to see. These people have not read the material. They are just cheerleaders, who support their own team, no matter what. They add no value to the debate.
Even if humans aren't causing global climate change, cleaning up the air is a GOOD THING for our own health.
Reducing pollution is definitely a good thing for our health. However, concentrating on CO2 has lead to boneheaded legislation and subsidies that result in increased pollution.
Random data will not do. They'll definitely do a raw copy of the whole device before trying any passwords. Then they will try your key on two different copies and notice, that the data looks different.
So, you assemble a group of people from different big companies and vastly different backgrounds and expect them to do a good job, think critically and be unanimous? Are you really serious?
If you bring together a big enough group of experts, they seldom are unanimous. Add the outside influence from the big companies and you'd have a recipe for failure.
The group would avoid changing anything big as it would only lead to conflicts. After a while the brightest people would get frustrated and leave. After adding less ambitious people, that group would probably be very good at making decisions on very insignificant matters. Also known as wasting time and money.
America became a world superpower (in part) because it's not afraid to fund such things. I would rather have the government triple NASA's budget rather than buy a couple more golf balls for GM execs...
USA became the superpower because it's letting companies blossom and people use their potential to chase their dreams. As a consequence of that, USA had the manpower, knowledge and resources to shoot for the moon and deliver the glory days.
Government and public money funded organizations do not deliver. Money is "free" for them. What they are good at is wasting money and doing incredibly stupid decisions. It's politics at it's worst.
Really, do not install Windows for your older parents. They will just get in trouble with it. Get them a Mac or some really user friendly Linux distro, like Ubuntu.
The #1 problem with Windows is not usability, but malware. As older people don't probably have any clue about security, it's best to let them use an OS, that will keep them out of trouble.
Wine is one of the most important projects for Linux. The fact that a small project like Wine can run a big number of Windows software is just amazing. However, Wine has a bad reputation among Linux geeks who really don't understand how the world of the end user works.
I have used Linux for more than 10 years. I have never used anything else as a server. I am working at a company that produces software for Windows. That's what we do because our clients have always used Windows. However, we've been also keeping our options open by trying to tie our software as little as possible to Windows. So, a Linux version is possible. It's hard work but it's possible. It could be made in a few months, when the time is ripe.
We have 4000 clients who use Windows and only a few who ask for a Linux version. The demand is not high enough to warrant a native Linux version. Instead of porting, we concentrate on other features our clients want. There can't be more demand for a Linux version as our customers can't use Linux. They really DO need our software. There are NO alternatives whatsoever. There can't be other alternatives as it's not economically viable.
Our situation is not unique. There are hundreds of thousands of small software companies who only have Windows versions of their products. And tens of millions of people who depend on them every day.
What Wine brings is a possibility to even consider using Linux. We've started supporting Wine with our software. Thanks to that a few clients have started using LTSP. They are happy with the solution and that will slowly increate the usage of Linux among our customers. And when there are enough users, we'll have a possibility to start support a native Linux-version. But until then, Wine keeps our customers happy.
Bottom line is: Native Linux-versions of software is important but they can only be done when there is enough demand for Linux software.
> The world-girdling information network is maturing to the point where regular people have access to information that they would otherwise not have. Sources are becoming known as being more or less trustworthy.
In your dreams! There's more information than ever on the internet. Anything can be looked up in a few seconds. And in this time we have:
- Fox News channel
- truckloads of myths circulating
- Americans supporting a war completely because of false information despite virtually the whole world saying so
- people mostly searching for pron
- people believing and repeating complete nonsense about contraception and condoms
- pages like MySpace as most popular sites
- net full of strong opinions based on information that can be refuted in 1 minute
- people never changing their opinion even if they are dead wrong
The fact that we can easily access all the information we ever need doesn't mean that people do read and understand it.
I've been in the business since before the first Windows versions. Usually I make sure to do software so it works with any Windows version. That should be pretty easy as long as you use standard API.
Over the years I've noticed a trend: If you use Microsoft development tools, you end up having problems with backwards compatibility. Either their compilers so a lot of weird things or MS makes sure to break them so even the programmers have to upgrade.
You comfortably forget that people were defending the Soviet Union when it still existed. That same kind of cheer leading is now done to Cuba and Venezuela. Same mistake, different country.
I have a feeling that Nokia was one big reason for Adobe rewriting Flash and doing it properly. Nokia 770 used the old flash implementation while the new Nokia N800 already has Flash9.
Slashdot Mirror
Quite frankly, yes. The amount of energy you can get from a nuclear process is so big, that it's worth it.
If there are good reasons to switch to renewables in the future, then we'll see investments in them in the future. There's no idea to invest heavily in a technology, which is not able to deliver. The only renewable, that is able to produce energy reliably is hydro. Everything else is dependant on others taking care of the business, when they fail.
I am all ok with critisizing nuclear power and making sure that it meets its security requirements. But I expect you to as well face the reality, how horribly unreliable solar and wind power is. No matter how much money and innovation you throw at wind and solar, they still have long periods, when they produce nothing or next to nothing. That's a design flaw that can't be fixed and should not be ignored.
We have a plentiful energy source which is sometimes (regularly) available to us. You are saying we shouldn't use it? Really? Your basis for that argument is that we can't use it all the time. This means we should never use it? I feel I must politely disagree with you there. Would you advise farmers not to grow seasonal vegetables because they cant grow them in winter? Would you advise people in a desert not to collect rainwater because it doesn't fall much in the desert? Would you advise me not to socialise with my friends because sometimes they have to work?
You, like the renewables industry, are comparing apples and oranges. Energy is not seasonal vegetables. Energy has to be produced reliably 24/7, 365 days a year, regardless of what kind of weather there happens to be.
The article is about how an industrialised nation has demonstrated that it is economically and industrially feasible to harvest significant amounts of energy from the sun. Anyone want to talk about that?
They have not showed that. They have demonstrated, that you can build a lot of solar panels and wind mills, if you invest a sickening amount of money in them and pay over 100% in subsidies. When you look closer at the results, you notice that it's anything but economically feasible and it's causing a lot of problems:
http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Bilder_Dateien/Keil_Energiewende_gescheitert/2012-EIKE_Germanys_green_energy_turnaround_V2.pdf
Why does everyone think that renewable energy sources will be the first technology ever that works completely the first time, solving all the problems right out of the gate?
Gosh, well, where do I start?
1. We all have to pay big and mandatory subsidies. Those subsidies are the main reason, why renewables are being built.
2. When the renewables are built and operational, they don't solve the problem, which is energy production 24/7 based on demand.
3. Renewables have the right to sell their energy even when there's no demand, but not an obligation to produce, when it is needed.
4. Renewables cause disruption in the power grid.
5. Renewables are marketed as a replacement for proven and reliable technology.
I have no problems whatsoever with renewables, if they'd play by the same rule book:
1. No subsidies.
2. 24/7 production, which would require renewables to provide their own backup power plants.
(And turnabout is fair play. If ten or twenty years from now the temperature hasn't gone up any more and the weird weather events go away without us taking any action about it i'll be willing to stand up and say i was wrong. In fact i'd be quite happy to have that event come about.)
Well, the global temperatures have flat lined for 10 years now while co2 has steadily increased. Will it really take 20-30 years of stable temperatures, before you start even considering, that the AGW crowd just may be wrong?
I got interested in the climate science, some 5 years ago. I own a house by the sea, so I wanted to know, how much the sea level is going to rise. So I started to look at the measurements. NOAA has a lot of sea level measurement data from all around the USA. When I looked it up, I couldn't find a single statistic, that showed a accelerating trend. The satellite measurements of the University of Colorado agreed. The sea level was rising at a few mm/year, like they had for the last 100 years.
Then came the Chris Landsea's resignation from IPCC. If IPCC ignored him, it was no good news. Another big thing was Freeman Dyson. If a real genius like him casts doubt on something, it's worth double- and triplechecking. However, these are just names and I don't want to appeal to authority.
Then came the Climategate. I downloaded the zip file right away and started reading. I've spent countless hours reading the e-mails and the material in general. Based on them, I think that Mann and Jones should explain, why they hid the late 20th century decline of the tree ring proxies. I also think, that the way they fought against releasing data was not kosher. All in all, the e-mails cast doubt on the quality of the peer review process.
However, the biggest thing in the whole Climategate zip file is HARRY_READ_ME.txt. It took me 8 hours to read through the whole file. The comments by Ian Harris himself are unbeliavable. The quality of the data is poor, the algorithms are horrible and the poor man swims in this catastrophe for 2 years trying to make sense of it. Reading the file, I tried to find a single comment about quality control, error bars, or a happy end, where all the problems are solved. Instead I read how results of this mess was used in other peer reviewed articles. If you haven't read the file, please do.
If CRU TS is a big mess, NASA GISS is unfortunately not much better either. The homogenization methods are worrisome. The quality of the surface stations is unfortunately also poor. Way too many stations suffer from UHI. IMHO, all current temperature indexes should be thrown away and all work should be started from scratch, using original, unadjusted temperature measurements. And the whole process should be open and transparent with every adjustment being properly researched and documented (movement of temperature station, change of equipment etc.) After that scientists could throw all kinds of statistical methods at the data and come up with reliable results.
When it comes to the Arctic sea ice, I don't think there's a big problem with it. 2007 was a big low, but since then the extent has been growing every winter. At the moment it's pretty close to the 1979-2000 average. However, that's not something you read from the newspapers.
The Climategate is a big gaping wound that needs to be properly healed. As long as IPCC and the scientists involved pretend that is't not a problem, it's going to get worse. I hate the whitewashes, that have been done. The best thing for the whole science would be to admit the errors, bury the war hatches, throw away all unreliable data, start again with an open mind and start doing proper science.
I don't know about you but I'm amazed at how the Slashdot readers react to Climategate and AGW in general. It's like the whole site has been inundated by young environmentalists.
I'd love to send a PM to you and find out, how you think. It's pretty clear, that you care about science but so do I. We probably agree spot on about evolution, plate tectonics, health hazards of smoking etc. That's what makes it so hard for me to understand, how in the world you can support the depressingly low quality of climate science, that Climategate has revealed?
Have you made an informed decision based on the hard facts? Or do you just think, that the skeptics are as loony as the anti-scientific groups, that you mentioned?
What would you label us European skeptics then? Surely not Conservative deniers. Or creationists, as that seems to be predominately a US phenomenon. Maybe a tobacco scientist or a flat earther?
You have a small Slashdot id, which tells me that you're not a trolling activist. But you're here labeling people because they happen to disagree with you. Why are you doing that?
I disagree about AGW because the science behind it is not solid. There's a horrible lack of quality control in the temperature sets. Read HARRY_READ_ME.txt to see for yourself. And every cover up and huge mistake in IPCC reports make me even more skeptic.
Is AGW true? I don't know. I'd love to know but the current climate scientists have done their work so badly, that we don't have a single reliable temperature set for the last 150 years. That is depressing and it's a disgrace considering all the money that has been thrown at it.
Oh catch a breath and calm down. Rants like these show, that you have done absolutely no background checking. There are a lot of scientists, who disagree about AGW and they do it for a good reason. If you really believe, that IPCC is doing a good job and that science is settled, you really have to open your eyes.
OTOH, if you think that it's a good idea to slander people and force feed the green agenda based on faulty data and faulty science, you're doing a great disservice to the environment you claim to care about.
Thank you for posting a link to NOAA's response. Could you also post a link to the complete set of raw temperature data for those 70 stations? 70 separate download links will also do. And I'd certainly like to have the original raw data before any adjustments.
I don't have a problem if you or NOAA or anyone proves McIntyre or Watts wrong. But I need to have some proof instead of rebuttals. These e-mails have changed the situation so, that neither side should be believed without solid evidence. Say-so isn't enough.
It is unfortunate that the signal to noise ratio on the skeptic side is low.
I have no problem with thinking skeptics. I think there should be more of them. But the problem is almost all the skeptics are fanatical mad dog skeptics with solid Ph.Ds in arcmchair climatology backed by B.S's in BS. It's become like evolution vs. intelligent design, only worse.
I think that the fanatic ones are not skeptics at all. They are mostly ignorant people with loud opinions. However, there is an equally big bunch of equally ignorant and loud environmentalists, who are equally bad. This Slashdot article is a prime example of the battle between those two ignorant camps. Way too much noise and partisan moderation. This whole debate should be about data and science and not about people. So we should ignore all the ignorant, loud ones no matter what their opinions are.
I believe, that it is unethical for you to just point out the low quality of those, who don't share your point of view.
I've read through a lot of material of that FOIA.zip. I have no degree in climatology, but I have 20 years of experience in computing and analyzing sensory data and data conversions. From what I've read, there are big problems with how the CRU tempareture data is processed. These problems affect the outcome. How much? Nobody knows, but we all should be interested in finding out.
I have no respect for those, who just repeat, that there's nothing here to see. These people have not read the material. They are just cheerleaders, who support their own team, no matter what. They add no value to the debate.
Even if humans aren't causing global climate change, cleaning up the air is a GOOD THING for our own health.
Reducing pollution is definitely a good thing for our health. However, concentrating on CO2 has lead to boneheaded legislation and subsidies that result in increased pollution.
Random data will not do. They'll definitely do a raw copy of the whole device before trying any passwords. Then they will try your key on two different copies and notice, that the data looks different.
So, you assemble a group of people from different big companies and vastly different backgrounds and expect them to do a good job, think critically and be unanimous? Are you really serious?
If you bring together a big enough group of experts, they seldom are unanimous. Add the outside influence from the big companies and you'd have a recipe for failure.
The group would avoid changing anything big as it would only lead to conflicts. After a while the brightest people would get frustrated and leave. After adding less ambitious people, that group would probably be very good at making decisions on very insignificant matters. Also known as wasting time and money.
America became a world superpower (in part) because it's not afraid to fund such things. I would rather have the government triple NASA's budget rather than buy a couple more golf balls for GM execs...
USA became the superpower because it's letting companies blossom and people use their potential to chase their dreams. As a consequence of that, USA had the manpower, knowledge and resources to shoot for the moon and deliver the glory days.
Government and public money funded organizations do not deliver. Money is "free" for them. What they are good at is wasting money and doing incredibly stupid decisions. It's politics at it's worst.
Really, do not install Windows for your older parents. They will just get in trouble with it. Get them a Mac or some really user friendly Linux distro, like Ubuntu.
The #1 problem with Windows is not usability, but malware. As older people don't probably have any clue about security, it's best to let them use an OS, that will keep them out of trouble.
Wine is one of the most important projects for Linux. The fact that a small project like Wine can run a big number of Windows software is just amazing. However, Wine has a bad reputation among Linux geeks who really don't understand how the world of the end user works.
I have used Linux for more than 10 years. I have never used anything else as a server. I am working at a company that produces software for Windows. That's what we do because our clients have always used Windows. However, we've been also keeping our options open by trying to tie our software as little as possible to Windows. So, a Linux version is possible. It's hard work but it's possible. It could be made in a few months, when the time is ripe.
We have 4000 clients who use Windows and only a few who ask for a Linux version. The demand is not high enough to warrant a native Linux version. Instead of porting, we concentrate on other features our clients want. There can't be more demand for a Linux version as our customers can't use Linux. They really DO need our software. There are NO alternatives whatsoever. There can't be other alternatives as it's not economically viable.
Our situation is not unique. There are hundreds of thousands of small software companies who only have Windows versions of their products. And tens of millions of people who depend on them every day.
What Wine brings is a possibility to even consider using Linux. We've started supporting Wine with our software. Thanks to that a few clients have started using LTSP. They are happy with the solution and that will slowly increate the usage of Linux among our customers. And when there are enough users, we'll have a possibility to start support a native Linux-version. But until then, Wine keeps our customers happy.
Bottom line is: Native Linux-versions of software is important but they can only be done when there is enough demand for Linux software.
> The world-girdling information network is maturing to the point where regular people have access to information that they would otherwise not have. Sources are becoming known as being more or less trustworthy.
In your dreams! There's more information than ever on the internet. Anything can be looked up in a few seconds. And in this time we have:
- Fox News channel
- truckloads of myths circulating
- Americans supporting a war completely because of false information despite virtually the whole world saying so
- people mostly searching for pron
- people believing and repeating complete nonsense about contraception and condoms
- pages like MySpace as most popular sites
- net full of strong opinions based on information that can be refuted in 1 minute
- people never changing their opinion even if they are dead wrong
The fact that we can easily access all the information we ever need doesn't mean that people do read and understand it.
It's a $75 + $3 Windows.
I've been in the business since before the first Windows versions. Usually I make sure to do software so it works with any Windows version. That should be pretty easy as long as you use standard API.
Over the years I've noticed a trend: If you use Microsoft development tools, you end up having problems with backwards compatibility. Either their compilers so a lot of weird things or MS makes sure to break them so even the programmers have to upgrade.
You comfortably forget that people were defending the Soviet Union when it still existed. That same kind of cheer leading is now done to Cuba and Venezuela. Same mistake, different country.
...good example of astroturfing
Thank you for correcting me like a true gentleman.
I have a feeling that Nokia was one big reason for Adobe rewriting Flash and doing it properly. Nokia 770 used the old flash implementation while the new Nokia N800 already has Flash9.
The difference between 12C and 13C is nothing. Wind and sunshine/lack thereof affects way more than half a degree Celsius.