We can dismiss the old because ancient man's credibility is in question
That's BS, quite frankly. Ancient man didn't have the science we do, so their theories about a flat earth and such are certainly questionable--even discarded at this point. But much of the Bible, for example, are stories of what ancient people lived, saw and, in some cases, supposedly received directly from God.
To buy into what you're saying you have to essentially believe that all the people that witnessed Biblical events, wrote them down, or received them from God, were outright liars. You can believe what you want, but there isn't any evidence (that I know of) that indicates that they were liars. They saw, they lived, they wrote it down. It's history. You can't just write off history in a sentence--it might not jive with your point of view but to just say that ancient people aren't "credible" because they didn't know the world was round is short-sighted on your part. I might not know how we got to the moon, but I can certainly write down and record the fact that we did. A future civilization might consider that impossible because they don't understand it but unless they call me a liar there is no reason to believe that what I said is false.
This is even more the case in the case of the Bible. So many people were killed for their beliefs. If these beliefs were "made up"--and presumably the first people involved would have to know that they were, that it was just a game to deceive the world--why would they die for those beliefs? To die in the name of a God you believe in makes sense; but would people really die in order to help perpetrate a giant hoax?
Believe what you want but be warned: There are more contradictions in believing your line of thinking than in having faith in the Bible.
Don't fool yourself. The only reason they are doing this is because it costs them time, bandwidth, server resources, and most importantly, customers who will go to other service providers who can provide a better defense against spam.
Sounds like a perfect reason to do it! What's your problem with that? No one is calling AOL a saint or declaring them to be the protector of all that is good on the Internet, but in this case they are doing the right thing and doing something that has the potential to help everyone regardless of whether or not they are an AOL user.
I used to be a CD nut. I had to have it in CD format and, as a result, I have about 500 CDs in my collection--99.5% of them purchased prior to about 1995. I detect things (flaws) in music that most people don't (although many here probably do, too).
That said, I'm fine with MP3 quality. If it is just normal pop music, 128 bit is usually plenty. If I download a 128 bit version and I'm bothered by the quality I might go back for a 192 or 256 bit version. If I'm downloading Enya or a symphony I'll go straight for 320 whereas if it's a comedy act I'll be happy with a 64 bit version (I've seen half-hour comedy sketches recorded at 320 bps. WTF is the purpose of that??).
Point is, one size doesn't fit all. It depends on the person AND the type of music. But for most people, downloading "normal" music at 128 bit is going to be just fine.
Luckily I just don't print that much. Every now and then I do (tax forms, letters, etc.) but they are the exception. I am able to accomplish almost everything electronically these days.
I have an HP 420 color printer right now. The color cartridge ran out of ink about 2 years ago and, due to the price and my relative lack of need, I have been using the black ink cartridge since. If the cartridge cost $10 I'd have bought a new one--at $40 I just don't need it that bad. And, no, I'm not poor, but I just don't need a cartridge enough to justify $40. It's the same as CDs. Maybe someone would spend a buck or two on a whim, but at $20 you make that customer think twice. And $40 for some ink makes me think for two years.
I think my black cartridge is about to run out of ink, too. When that happens I'm going to buy a new color inkjet that costs less than the replacement cost of the cartridge. Silly.
Wow, you have different experience with Yahoo's bulk filter. I hardly ever use my Yahoo account and so all it really gets is spam. I logon and it usually says something like "9 items in bulk folder, 262 in inbox." All of those in the inbox are bulk. Makes me wonder why they even have a bulk folder...
but a lot of the articles i read seem to indicate that human actions have and continue to affect the climate. what about I.P.C.C.?
Citing the IPCC is like quoting just about any other mish-mash of "global warming" scare-mongering produced by environmnetalists. The IPCC was, in fact, ingenious: They cited many otherwise obscure sources in support of global warming, it became some sort of authorive answer because it was sanctioned internationally, and now the environmentalists cite the IPCC documents to support their case. So you have people that try to support the case of global warming by quoting the IPCC documents which are essentially a summary of the arguments of the same global warming advocates--but somehow IPCC is accepted as gospel whereas any given study cited by IPCC could in itself be called into question. Somehow the IPCC has been given a level of credibility and authority that the sum of its parts does not justify.
In addition, the IPCC summarily rejects opposing viewpoints by reducing them to footnotes that acknowledge that there are questions and other viewpoints but they don't get more than a paragraph here or there explaining why they aren't important to the debate.
The IPCC is one of the most one-sided, most political, and least scientific document on global warming; right up there with Al Gore's work. It's used almost as a Bible by global warming advocates, but any neutral person--scientist or otherwise--that looks into the contributors to the IPCC will clearly see they knew the answer they wanted before they started. Hardly scientific.
That said, I agree with what someone else posted in this thread: I agree with making technologies cleaner in the sense of I want viewer visible emissions as well as clear air to BREATHE. CO2 does not cause any significant problems to humans, at least not in anything near the quantities we're talking about. CO and visible emissions should be reduced--unfortunately for the environmentalists, reducing those kinds of emissions don't require wealth transfers to the third world, thus it doesn't meet their political requirements.
what's exceptional, that not every researcher accepts that humans are negatively affecting the climate, while most of them do?
As long as there are some real scientists that have real scientific concerns, it doesn't matter that "most" do. No real scientist accepts that the earth is flat. That the world is round is accepted science. That real scientists have real scientific issues with the concept of human-caused global warming is very significant.
While hating to resort to cliche, "most" scientists used to believe the world was flat. A scientific majority by no means validates a scientific theory.
The ironic thing is that for teh US economy it does not really matter either way - say reducing the amount of bad loans or corruption in bank by 0.5% would in comparison have much larger impact.
While not attempting to justify bad loans or corruption, the fact you think that they would have a larger impact on our economy than some of the changes that "environmentalists" suggest we make either shows that you have no clue as to what environmentalists are pushing for or are blind to those facts.
I saw a silly example of "environmentalism" or "animal rights" (or whatever) just last week. Apparently there were people complaining that the U.S. Navy's use of porpoises to search for mines was a bad thing. Now, without entering the whole Iraq war debate, if we take for granted that the war exists, there are mines blocking the delivery of humanitarian aid to millions of people, the fact that these people find fit to show concern for a few porpoises just goes to show how completely inane and out-of-touch these people are. Perhaps they'd rather we use human beings to look for the mines? Perhaps they'd rather humanitarian aid not reach Iraq? These people need a clue...
The question is whether or not this (unverified) new science is reliable enough to bet our entire way of life on it.
So in other words we should CHANGE our entire way of life based on radical and unproven and disputed claims by environmentalists, but we shouldn't base our entire way of life based on growing evidence that we aren't witnessing anything out of the ordinary.
I'm sorry, but exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. The environmentalists have been making exceptional cliams and prescribing massive changes to our way of life for more than a decade. Before we are expected to accept such far-reaching changes they better well produce exceptional evidence, which they haven't to-date. And this report is just one more thing they had better address.
Oh, and "well even if global warming isn't ocurring we should still reduce CO2 production because it's the right thing to do" is not valid. It's a cop-out, and it's one we're hearing more and more from the "environmentalists." I put that in quotes because if they are making a philosophical decision that reducing CO2 production and transferring wealth to 3rd world countries is the "right thing" in the absence of environmnetal evidence then they are a poltical group known as "communists," not a scientific group known as "environmentalists."
Truth is a beautiful thing, and confronting liars with truth is especially fun to watch.
Sure, Evolution approximates it's look, and offers some of the features, but a clone it ain't.
But many, many people don't WANT a clone. If Evolution were a clone of Outlook I'd still be running Eudora under Wine. I use Evolution hesitantly because it offers more than I want in terms of functionality--I just want an email program, like Eudora--but it doesn't offer all the configuration options for email like Eudora does. But at least Evolution doesn't have as MUCH useless crap as Outlook.
I wish Eudora would be ported to Linux. Then I'd be a happy camper. For now I'm using Evolution, but I often find some email features or configurability missing that I had grown used to using Eudora for the last decade.
You think the music industry is going to tolerate what we are doing much longer?
As already said, "too late." Music is now free. Period. It's not a product, it's not even a commodity. It's free. I've been saying that for years here at Slashdot.
The RIAA has really controlled two industries for decades: The RECORDING industry and the DISTRIBUTION industry. It used to be that to produce a good recording you had to have a ton of expensive equipment. It also used to be that if you wanted to get your music mass copied, put on trucks, and appear in record stores around the country you needed the RIAA.
Thing is, both of RIAA's monopolies are now obsolete. Music can be recorded on equipment that is relatively cheap, and it can (and is) distributed for free. Just like the companies that made horse-drawn carriages became irrelevant when cars hit the scene, the RIAA is now part of history. They served their purpose for decades and made tons of money in the process. But they are no longer needed.
So now, independent artists can record quality music on their own or for relatively cheap without selling their soul and future income to the RIAA. Likewise, they don't need anyone's help to be distributed. Their music, if it is good, will be downloaded from P2P just as easily as Madonna or Phil Collins and their music will be burned, just as easily as the big boys.
That is the reality today. I haven't bought a CD in years in part because there isn't much worth buying, but also because when I happen to hear a song I like or remember one I like, I download it in 5 minutes. Done. No $20 capital outlay and no wasted time driving to the mall to pick up a CD that I'll be bored with in a few days anyway. My sister-in-law, a 21-year old Mexican, collects MP3s. Some of them she likes, but the other thousand she just collects. I don't think she has EVER bought a CD.
Again, the point is music is now free. That's reality. The music industry can't change that, not even laws can change it. To try to do so would be like having tried to pass laws that protected the horse-drawn carriage industry when cars became available. It might have delayed the acceptance of cars for a year or two, but it wouldn't have stopped it. That's where the RIAA is now: They are delaying their demise but they can't avoid it.
I agree. This may become a problem but if it becomes any serious problem then I'm sure Google will adjust their algorithm. Call it blacklisting of known blog sites or simply some kind of feature where not only is the number of links taken into account but the content on the pages that link to it. If it's linked from a page where links make up 80% of the page on a byte-count basis then it's probably worthwhile to actually reduce the "weight" of that link back to the original site.
Point is, this "problem" can be fixed by Google if it becomes a real problem. The fact that some silly "second superpower" term coined by antiwar activists prior to the war has decreased in relevance at about the same time as the antiwar activists themselves have decreased in relevance doesn't sound like a problem to me. Sounds about right!
I guess it doesn't really matter. I haven't bought a CD since 1999. I stopped buying them because there is precious little music worth buying to start with. Those few songs I like usually are one song out of another dozen crap songs on the CD so it's not worth the purchase. CD prices continue to be expensive. I very seldom go to the mall and I'm not going to make a special trip just to buy a song I liked on the radio and which I will tire of after having the song in my collection for a few days.
The fact that they are now making sure that that extraordinary CD that I might have purchased will not work on my computer, let alone be rippable for my convenient addition to my playlist, pretty much guarantees my continued lack of spending on products produced by the recording industry.
Recording industry logic: Prevent people from listening to what the industry has recorded and what the customer has paid to listen to. Great thinking.
My laptop came with XP pre-installed. Always bugged me that my most important Windows apps (Word, VB6 and VC++) all seemed to run SLOWER on a 1.3MHz Athlon with XP than they did under my previous laptop which was a 500Mhz Pentium II under Windows98.
Last month I totally upgraded to Linux on my new laptop. Since I occasionally do Windows contracts in VB6 or VC++ I purchased Win4Lin that allows me to run Windows apps under Linux. I would have been happy if it it had just worked, even if it was half as fast--after all, I don't plan on doing Windows development on a daily basis. However, as it turns out, all my Windows applications (Word, VB6, VC++, an Quicken99) all run FASTER under Win4Lin than they did on XP. I recently tried it. Word takes under 2 seconds to load under Win4Lin and on the same machine it takes 12 seconds under XP!
In all, I am now happily on Linux but for those cases where I have to use Windows applications they actually run FASTER now that I'm on Linux. Go figure.
I live in Monterrey which is very close to the northern border with Texas. I am self-employed and work exclusively for American and European companies. Doing business with Mexican companies is a hassle--they try to get as much "free work" out of you as possible and even then they tend to stall when it comes time to pay your bill. So I stick with American and European companies.
It's kind of irrelevant in Mexico. They can't even enforce the existing copyright laws and most people buy their CDs for $2 from pirates at the local flea market... If they don't just download the music from the Internet.
All in all, it's a bad thing but in practice in Mexico it makes no difference at all.
One word: Bayesian. No, it doesn't fix the spam problem but if everyone uses it (perhaps at the ISP level) then no-one will see spam and the motive of sending spam will go away.
I just finished implementing my Bayesian filter on my system and I'm currently blocking 99.6% of all incoming spam--just slightly higher than what Paul Graham claimed--and not a single spam hjas gotten through in the last week. What a relief...
I'm running 7.3 on my Internet server, my local office server, and my laptop.
By going to 9 doesn't that mean that RedHat will no longer provide any fixes or updates for the 7.x line? If so, bad news. Luckily, I find that 7.3 is quite stable--but I believe this jump to 9 is a mix between marketing and simply being able to abandon the 7.x line...
IANAS (Statistician) but a 0.05% upwards trend with 3 datapoints doesn't seem significant...
Neither do temperature readings from weather stations that used to be far from cities which are now are in the middle of urban heat islands, but that doesn't stop the Global Warming folks from using THAT information as evidence for global warming.
So suppose tomorrow that the Sun increased its output by, say, 1%. If we wanted to keep temperatures the same, reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would be one of the easier ways for us to compensate.
That might be, assuming we are so arrogant to believe that we no better than nature (which has been working fine without us for billions of years).
This is an argument of desperation for the global warming crowd. It used to be that we had to cut CO2 because we were causing global warming. Now it looks like the argument might be "Well, we're not really causing global warming, but we have to do our part to reduce NATURAL global warming."
I have a better idea for the Global Warming PAC: "The gig's up!"
...some country have a scientific comitee (*cough* US *cough*) use this as an argument there isn't global warming due to pollution and that one don't really have to reduce CO2 emission or other Serre-effect gas ?
In other words, we should assume that CO2 and pollution is the cause of supposed global warming despite the fact that there is not convincing evidence that there actually is significant global warming, despite the fact that it is very doubtful that humans are more than a blip on the total amount of global warming gasses in the atmosphere, and despite the fact that almost all work on the global warming issue has been political rather than scientific.
However, along comes scientific evidence that the sun is actually producing more energy and we should ignore this as being a potential cause--maybe even an overwhelming cause--of said global warming?
I'm sorry that scientific information does not fit with the political goals of the Global Warming PAC, but the whole global warming debate has always been more about politics than science.
Being punished? Who's being punished, besides the typical American stockholder?
Ok... And remind me... What exactly did Clinton do to help the situation?
At best you're saying that Democrats are as bad as Republicans. But there's certainly no evidence to suggest Republicans are any worse. It's just more politically correct and funner to pick on big old bad Republicans.
Slashdot Mirror
That's BS, quite frankly. Ancient man didn't have the science we do, so their theories about a flat earth and such are certainly questionable--even discarded at this point. But much of the Bible, for example, are stories of what ancient people lived, saw and, in some cases, supposedly received directly from God.
To buy into what you're saying you have to essentially believe that all the people that witnessed Biblical events, wrote them down, or received them from God, were outright liars. You can believe what you want, but there isn't any evidence (that I know of) that indicates that they were liars. They saw, they lived, they wrote it down. It's history. You can't just write off history in a sentence--it might not jive with your point of view but to just say that ancient people aren't "credible" because they didn't know the world was round is short-sighted on your part. I might not know how we got to the moon, but I can certainly write down and record the fact that we did. A future civilization might consider that impossible because they don't understand it but unless they call me a liar there is no reason to believe that what I said is false.
This is even more the case in the case of the Bible. So many people were killed for their beliefs. If these beliefs were "made up"--and presumably the first people involved would have to know that they were, that it was just a game to deceive the world--why would they die for those beliefs? To die in the name of a God you believe in makes sense; but would people really die in order to help perpetrate a giant hoax?
Believe what you want but be warned: There are more contradictions in believing your line of thinking than in having faith in the Bible.
Sounds like a perfect reason to do it! What's your problem with that? No one is calling AOL a saint or declaring them to be the protector of all that is good on the Internet, but in this case they are doing the right thing and doing something that has the potential to help everyone regardless of whether or not they are an AOL user.
I used to be a CD nut. I had to have it in CD format and, as a result, I have about 500 CDs in my collection--99.5% of them purchased prior to about 1995. I detect things (flaws) in music that most people don't (although many here probably do, too).
That said, I'm fine with MP3 quality. If it is just normal pop music, 128 bit is usually plenty. If I download a 128 bit version and I'm bothered by the quality I might go back for a 192 or 256 bit version. If I'm downloading Enya or a symphony I'll go straight for 320 whereas if it's a comedy act I'll be happy with a 64 bit version (I've seen half-hour comedy sketches recorded at 320 bps. WTF is the purpose of that??).
Point is, one size doesn't fit all. It depends on the person AND the type of music. But for most people, downloading "normal" music at 128 bit is going to be just fine.
I have an HP 420 color printer right now. The color cartridge ran out of ink about 2 years ago and, due to the price and my relative lack of need, I have been using the black ink cartridge since. If the cartridge cost $10 I'd have bought a new one--at $40 I just don't need it that bad. And, no, I'm not poor, but I just don't need a cartridge enough to justify $40. It's the same as CDs. Maybe someone would spend a buck or two on a whim, but at $20 you make that customer think twice. And $40 for some ink makes me think for two years.
I think my black cartridge is about to run out of ink, too. When that happens I'm going to buy a new color inkjet that costs less than the replacement cost of the cartridge. Silly.
Citing the IPCC is like quoting just about any other mish-mash of "global warming" scare-mongering produced by environmnetalists. The IPCC was, in fact, ingenious: They cited many otherwise obscure sources in support of global warming, it became some sort of authorive answer because it was sanctioned internationally, and now the environmentalists cite the IPCC documents to support their case. So you have people that try to support the case of global warming by quoting the IPCC documents which are essentially a summary of the arguments of the same global warming advocates--but somehow IPCC is accepted as gospel whereas any given study cited by IPCC could in itself be called into question. Somehow the IPCC has been given a level of credibility and authority that the sum of its parts does not justify.
In addition, the IPCC summarily rejects opposing viewpoints by reducing them to footnotes that acknowledge that there are questions and other viewpoints but they don't get more than a paragraph here or there explaining why they aren't important to the debate.
The IPCC is one of the most one-sided, most political, and least scientific document on global warming; right up there with Al Gore's work. It's used almost as a Bible by global warming advocates, but any neutral person--scientist or otherwise--that looks into the contributors to the IPCC will clearly see they knew the answer they wanted before they started. Hardly scientific.
That said, I agree with what someone else posted in this thread: I agree with making technologies cleaner in the sense of I want viewer visible emissions as well as clear air to BREATHE. CO2 does not cause any significant problems to humans, at least not in anything near the quantities we're talking about. CO and visible emissions should be reduced--unfortunately for the environmentalists, reducing those kinds of emissions don't require wealth transfers to the third world, thus it doesn't meet their political requirements.
As long as there are some real scientists that have real scientific concerns, it doesn't matter that "most" do. No real scientist accepts that the earth is flat. That the world is round is accepted science. That real scientists have real scientific issues with the concept of human-caused global warming is very significant.
While hating to resort to cliche, "most" scientists used to believe the world was flat. A scientific majority by no means validates a scientific theory.
While not attempting to justify bad loans or corruption, the fact you think that they would have a larger impact on our economy than some of the changes that "environmentalists" suggest we make either shows that you have no clue as to what environmentalists are pushing for or are blind to those facts.
I saw a silly example of "environmentalism" or "animal rights" (or whatever) just last week. Apparently there were people complaining that the U.S. Navy's use of porpoises to search for mines was a bad thing. Now, without entering the whole Iraq war debate, if we take for granted that the war exists, there are mines blocking the delivery of humanitarian aid to millions of people, the fact that these people find fit to show concern for a few porpoises just goes to show how completely inane and out-of-touch these people are. Perhaps they'd rather we use human beings to look for the mines? Perhaps they'd rather humanitarian aid not reach Iraq? These people need a clue...
So in other words we should CHANGE our entire way of life based on radical and unproven and disputed claims by environmentalists, but we shouldn't base our entire way of life based on growing evidence that we aren't witnessing anything out of the ordinary.
I'm sorry, but exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. The environmentalists have been making exceptional cliams and prescribing massive changes to our way of life for more than a decade. Before we are expected to accept such far-reaching changes they better well produce exceptional evidence, which they haven't to-date. And this report is just one more thing they had better address.
Oh, and "well even if global warming isn't ocurring we should still reduce CO2 production because it's the right thing to do" is not valid. It's a cop-out, and it's one we're hearing more and more from the "environmentalists." I put that in quotes because if they are making a philosophical decision that reducing CO2 production and transferring wealth to 3rd world countries is the "right thing" in the absence of environmnetal evidence then they are a poltical group known as "communists," not a scientific group known as "environmentalists."
Truth is a beautiful thing, and confronting liars with truth is especially fun to watch.
But many, many people don't WANT a clone. If Evolution were a clone of Outlook I'd still be running Eudora under Wine. I use Evolution hesitantly because it offers more than I want in terms of functionality--I just want an email program, like Eudora--but it doesn't offer all the configuration options for email like Eudora does. But at least Evolution doesn't have as MUCH useless crap as Outlook.
I wish Eudora would be ported to Linux. Then I'd be a happy camper. For now I'm using Evolution, but I often find some email features or configurability missing that I had grown used to using Eudora for the last decade.
As already said, "too late." Music is now free. Period. It's not a product, it's not even a commodity. It's free. I've been saying that for years here at Slashdot.
The RIAA has really controlled two industries for decades: The RECORDING industry and the DISTRIBUTION industry. It used to be that to produce a good recording you had to have a ton of expensive equipment. It also used to be that if you wanted to get your music mass copied, put on trucks, and appear in record stores around the country you needed the RIAA.
Thing is, both of RIAA's monopolies are now obsolete. Music can be recorded on equipment that is relatively cheap, and it can (and is) distributed for free. Just like the companies that made horse-drawn carriages became irrelevant when cars hit the scene, the RIAA is now part of history. They served their purpose for decades and made tons of money in the process. But they are no longer needed.
So now, independent artists can record quality music on their own or for relatively cheap without selling their soul and future income to the RIAA. Likewise, they don't need anyone's help to be distributed. Their music, if it is good, will be downloaded from P2P just as easily as Madonna or Phil Collins and their music will be burned, just as easily as the big boys.
That is the reality today. I haven't bought a CD in years in part because there isn't much worth buying, but also because when I happen to hear a song I like or remember one I like, I download it in 5 minutes. Done. No $20 capital outlay and no wasted time driving to the mall to pick up a CD that I'll be bored with in a few days anyway. My sister-in-law, a 21-year old Mexican, collects MP3s. Some of them she likes, but the other thousand she just collects. I don't think she has EVER bought a CD.
Again, the point is music is now free. That's reality. The music industry can't change that, not even laws can change it. To try to do so would be like having tried to pass laws that protected the horse-drawn carriage industry when cars became available. It might have delayed the acceptance of cars for a year or two, but it wouldn't have stopped it. That's where the RIAA is now: They are delaying their demise but they can't avoid it.
Point is, this "problem" can be fixed by Google if it becomes a real problem. The fact that some silly "second superpower" term coined by antiwar activists prior to the war has decreased in relevance at about the same time as the antiwar activists themselves have decreased in relevance doesn't sound like a problem to me. Sounds about right!
The fact that they are now making sure that that extraordinary CD that I might have purchased will not work on my computer, let alone be rippable for my convenient addition to my playlist, pretty much guarantees my continued lack of spending on products produced by the recording industry.
Recording industry logic: Prevent people from listening to what the industry has recorded and what the customer has paid to listen to. Great thinking.
Last month I totally upgraded to Linux on my new laptop. Since I occasionally do Windows contracts in VB6 or VC++ I purchased Win4Lin that allows me to run Windows apps under Linux. I would have been happy if it it had just worked, even if it was half as fast--after all, I don't plan on doing Windows development on a daily basis. However, as it turns out, all my Windows applications (Word, VB6, VC++, an Quicken99) all run FASTER under Win4Lin than they did on XP. I recently tried it. Word takes under 2 seconds to load under Win4Lin and on the same machine it takes 12 seconds under XP!
In all, I am now happily on Linux but for those cases where I have to use Windows applications they actually run FASTER now that I'm on Linux. Go figure.
I live in Monterrey which is very close to the northern border with Texas. I am self-employed and work exclusively for American and European companies. Doing business with Mexican companies is a hassle--they try to get as much "free work" out of you as possible and even then they tend to stall when it comes time to pay your bill. So I stick with American and European companies.
All in all, it's a bad thing but in practice in Mexico it makes no difference at all.
-- American living in Mexico for last 7 years.
I just finished implementing my Bayesian filter on my system and I'm currently blocking 99.6% of all incoming spam--just slightly higher than what Paul Graham claimed--and not a single spam hjas gotten through in the last week. What a relief...
By going to 9 doesn't that mean that RedHat will no longer provide any fixes or updates for the 7.x line? If so, bad news. Luckily, I find that 7.3 is quite stable--but I believe this jump to 9 is a mix between marketing and simply being able to abandon the 7.x line...
Neither do temperature readings from weather stations that used to be far from cities which are now are in the middle of urban heat islands, but that doesn't stop the Global Warming folks from using THAT information as evidence for global warming.
That might be, assuming we are so arrogant to believe that we no better than nature (which has been working fine without us for billions of years).
This is an argument of desperation for the global warming crowd. It used to be that we had to cut CO2 because we were causing global warming. Now it looks like the argument might be "Well, we're not really causing global warming, but we have to do our part to reduce NATURAL global warming."
I have a better idea for the Global Warming PAC: "The gig's up!"
In other words, we should assume that CO2 and pollution is the cause of supposed global warming despite the fact that there is not convincing evidence that there actually is significant global warming, despite the fact that it is very doubtful that humans are more than a blip on the total amount of global warming gasses in the atmosphere, and despite the fact that almost all work on the global warming issue has been political rather than scientific.
However, along comes scientific evidence that the sun is actually producing more energy and we should ignore this as being a potential cause--maybe even an overwhelming cause--of said global warming?
I'm sorry that scientific information does not fit with the political goals of the Global Warming PAC, but the whole global warming debate has always been more about politics than science.
Ok... And remind me... What exactly did Clinton do to help the situation?
At best you're saying that Democrats are as bad as Republicans. But there's certainly no evidence to suggest Republicans are any worse. It's just more politically correct and funner to pick on big old bad Republicans.