Suppose that someone we respect *cough* *cough* is in actuality a criminal?
I know you're being sarcastic (or smoking something) but it's a critical point:
Someone you do, is. In fact, many are. And many you think are criminals, aren't. The problems is, we'll never find them all out. So every time you're sure, you're wrong about one thing at least.
I'll end my off-topic rant with others' rants:
We know for certain only when we know little. With knowledge, doubt increases. - Goethe
Doubt is not a pleasant condition but certainty is an absurd one. - Voltaire
Dogs bark at those whom they do not know. - Heraclitus
I'm no nuclear weapons engineer, but everything I've read says dirty bombs,
- Do less damage, to people and things, than a plain old-fashioned bomb filled with nails.
- Can be cleaned up (for contaminated humans, at least) by stripping and washing yourself with a garden hose.
- Cost so much more than a standard terrorist bomb to make, and being less effective (if you discount the hype and resulting fear), that we should hope the terrorists waste their resources on it instead of something more dangerous.
Time isn't money, but all time does have value. (At least, I value my limited time on this planet and I hope everyone else does.)
Money is merely a system for abstracting value so it can be easily traded and transferred, to your children; between millions of consumers, factory workers and shareholders; and instantly across oceans. It's flawed, as you point out, but it's workable and nobody has significantly improved on it (that I've heard of, though I'm no economist).
I think Joel's point is that some open source advocates claim that, because you pay $0 for OSS, it costs nothing. But it does cost time, which does have value. If the time belongs to a for-profit company, then that time has monetary value -- the company pays for those hours, which could be used for something more profitable.
And even if the OSS contributors don't work for for-profit companies, their time does cost them just as much, even if it's hard to attach a number to.
Posted by timothy on Monday February 18, @11:02PM from the can-you-read-this-in-beijing dept.
chowbok writes: "The Weekly Standard writes that despite expectations, the Chinese Government has been very successful in suppressing free internet access for their citizens. Key to this success was the assistance of Cisco, who built a giant firewall tailored to the state's needs, Yahoo (who helpfully censors search results and monitors online chats), and other Western companies."
Slashdot is at its best as an interactive forum, not a PR platform for politicians.
Perhaps if Mr. Love and Mr. Nader posted their ideas on Slashdot *before* they wrote to OMB, they and we would have benefitted from the discussion. Now it looks like fishing for compliments, or more likely, a good old fashioned Press Release (well targeted).
... a software "monoculture" makes the federal government more vulnerable...
... it should place a cap of the market share for any one vendor of PC client software...
We're going to save money buy reducing (even purposely limiting) standardization and making the systems more complicated?
The basic idea of the Federal Gov't wringing tax dollar saving behavior out of proprietary software vendors is good. Free, open source software seems like a great solution for gov't. But these particular changes would only dramatically increase costs; you've got to standardize on something, whether it's Linux, Windows or whatever.
An interesting idea, but you'll never get ten thousand small claims. I'll bet nothing even close to it has ever happened. And seeing that it's never happened, it's not much of a deterrent. The executives of MegaCorp are not working late to prevent ten thousand small claims; they are working right now (9:20pm EDT) to avoid a class action.
Do you think all those poeople will go down to the courthouse, fill out the forms, file them, prepare for trial, then show up? How many class members even know they have a claim? You can't even get them to download an alternate web browser.
These babies integrate seamlessly with Windows, Mac...
With Mac? How did you do this? I called them, and they said they don't support it. I'm hoping to setup a very non-technical user to sync contact info, calendar, and documents with OSX. Thanks in advance for any tips...
The point, for Comcast customers, is not the money. It's only $100; how much compensation do they deserve? It's the privacy and Comcast's behavior. If Comcast loses, neither they nor other ISPs will take a similar risk again. Isn't privacy valuable?
The lawyers take a big financial risk. For risking tens of thousands of their own money (are you paying their secretaries, office rent, research, etc.) and spending so much of their life on the case, should they get only the good feeling of having improved privacy for Americans (if they win)?
The Comcast customers get $xx buck each and privacy. The attorneys who put in their time and money, not knowing if they'd get it back, they get the cash.
I guess even if it will work out, customers might get oh, say, $10. With rest being a fee for the lawyer(s)
We could endlessly repeat well-worn ideas yet never think about them, but let's try:
People complain that class action contingency attorneys pull a scam on their targets (e.g. Comcast) and their clients (e.g. Comcasts customers) and take all the $. Think about it; contingency lawyers (lawyers that collect large sums if they win, rather than smaller sums win or lose) and class action (grouping large numbers of small complaints into one big one: e.g. $100 damages * 1 million people = $100 million lawsuit) are the only way the less-than-rich get access to our court system.
o Contingency lawyers let everyone, not just the rich, use our court system. Our court system was too expensive for anyone but the rich. You must have a lawyer (technically you can represent yourself, just like my grandmother is technically allowed to hack the Linux kernel), and lawyers are expensive. If you couldn't afford one, no justice for you -- very democratic. Now, contingency lawyers take your case based on the hope you'll win and be able to pay them. Think about it -- would you work hundreds (or more) hours, hire experts and make every other investment at your own expense, and risk that if you lose (the other side has attorneys too) that you get $0.00? All that time, effort and money completely sunk? No way to buy dinner? Pay the mortgage? Put the kids through college? Even if you do win, you work now and get paid next year. Now you understand why contingency lawyers demand a larger percentage when they win.
o What other check, besides Class Action, is there on corporations screwing the millions of individuals who buy their products, work for them, share communities with them and invest hard-earned money in them? There aren't enough gov't regulators -- they couldn't even stop the multi-billion dollar Savings and Loan or Enron or other huge scandals -- can they protect the $10,000 of pension money Jane Elderly invested in Creative Financial Reporting Inc.? The citizens of a polluted neighborhood whose health is at risk? Or simply Ed Jones who wasted on their lies about their useless product? What deters some executive from twisting the financial statements, or ignoring the pollution or lying to consumers, simply to protect his job? What motivates the Board of Directors to question instead of rubber stamping their buddy the CEO who gave them their cushy jobs? It's not fear of the a few regulators; it's fear of massive lawsuits on behalf of every one of those people they might screw.
Sure, there are some bad lawyers who fleece the system, but so do some companies, doctors, politicians, bankers, police, programmers, etc. etc. Like everyone else, there are good lawyers and bad ones, and they all have their good and bad days. Plus, lawyers can't fleece anyone unless a jury and/or judge helps.
Funny that it's the part of our court system that serves the politically weak, not the part that serves the RIAA, the Fortune 500 corporations, etc., that gets all the mainstream criticism.
Maybe you know this, but to educate anyone else reading this thread, many (most?) reports in Bugzilla aren't bugs and those that are bugs are unlikely to affect you.
Many (most?) reports are,
o duplicates of already reported bugs
o reports of symptoms of already reported bugs (for example, sharing profiles between Moz and Netscape causes many different problems, all of which are reported over and over).
o reports of problems that either have nothing to do with Mozilla or are unique events (i.e. nobody else can duplicate the problem).
o reports of bugs already fixed (the reporter is using old versions of Mozilla)
o requests for enhancements to Mozilla
Even if it is a real bug, it probably won't affect you:
- Do you use the platform affected by the bug?
- If it's a compatiblity problem (e.g. Netscape profiles), do you use the incompatible software?
- Are you using those particular Mozilla features, in that particular combination?
- Are you trying to load websites affected by that bug?
Perhaps this is a dumb, ignorant question, but what is the difference between Wolfram's Cellular Automata and the relatively old conceptual tool used in artificial life (and maybe used for other things?).
Is Wolfram's idea a generalized theory of the tool used for ALife? A new application for that tool? Something completely different?
Re:The one thing you can say about China...
on
China Plans Moonbase
·
· Score: 2
"Precisely why the current system, despite all its faults from out POV, is reasonably popular in China"
It is? Says who? If you lived there, would you answer the poll honestly? Wishful westerners used to claim the Russians really liked the Soviet system too. If it's so popular, why don't they have a vote?
"a system that can (a) provide stability (b) provide prosperity (c) provide national security"
To whom? A few politically connected rich people in Shanghai? Most of the country is desparately poor. They die in floods, their rights are ignored by the powerful. Who needs security from foreigners (who is threatening them again?) when your own gov't is the greatest threat. And that only describes ordinary citizens -- ask the Tibetans if they feel prosperous or secure, or the muslims in the northwest, or Fulan Gong members, or Hong Kong's citizens, or any group of people that dares to organize themselves for any purspose. You can be prosperous and secure in the Iraq, too, if you're a member of the Baath party.
"better than most other scenarios."
No, just better than Mao, who, being one of the most dictators in the history of the world, isn't a high standard. I mean, Brezhnev was better than Stalin, but still horrible to the people of the USSR.
"How did Western-style democracy go in the former USSR again?"
Actually, after a rough transistion, Russia now has a stable, democratic gov't and a growing economy. I'd much rather live in Russia than China. How did Western-style democracy go in Taiwan again?
Re:The one thing you can say about China...
on
China Plans Moonbase
·
· Score: 2
Who modded up this vague, general nonsense? Even if you don't know any facts, just the fundemental premise is blatently ridiculous -- the Chinese gov't automatically accomplishes whatever goal the leadership sets? Somebody plan the anthem!
Other than that, it is plainly propaganda, which I would hope the (relatively) skeptical, critical thinkers on Slashdot would analyse and debunk instead of modding up. Like all propoganda, there are so many distortions that it's meaningless:
* 1.5 billion say they will? No, a few people in Bejing say it.
* What does it mean anyway? 'A billion people can't be wrong'? Sure, it sounds catchy and maybe stirs the populist inside you, but do you really think it happens in practice? Anyone read a history book recently? Why aren't you investing in Chinese space mines?
* I very much wish it were otherwise, but the historical Chinese trend, at least for the last century, has been *disaster* against the odds. A country with a long history of effective, stable institutions of gov't has suffered a century of upheavel, revolution and more civillian deaths than any country in the history of the world, by a long shot. Sure, the 'Communist' dictatorship has kept some peace since they massacred students with tanks in 1989 (no doubt that was the will of 1.5 billion), but who long will it last? And the peace is ridden with organized crime (and that's not counting the Communist Party), violent rebellion, and of course massive oppression -- also, I'm sure, the will of 1.5 billion.
* Yes, large projects have been completed in China, so ergo they'll build any large project? huh? Would you buy stock if a business made that claim? Also, I'm not sure what the current country has to do with the one that built the Great Wall. Ancient Greece, Egypt, Rome, etc. did some impressive things too.
* Chinese never lie, or fail to meet promised objectives? What does that have to do with nationality? How well did the Great Leap Forward work out? I guess no businesses fail in China, and there's no crime, corruption, poverty.... Would you really trust somebody, or invest in them, just because they were from China?
* It appears the 'Chinese mindset' (isn't using stereotypes so much faster than thinking?) is using a 'western' timeframe: Moonbase by 2010. Promising things 200 years in advance is a bit impractical, no? Did anyone record the promises of 200 years ago? In 2202, will anyone check if we accomplished the goals of today? I wonder what the Chinese emperors planned in the mid-19th centry -- has it been accomplished? I've heard this 'Chinese mindset' silliness before, but if you think about it, it's ridiculous -- ridiculous to claim 'I'll do it in the next 200 years' and ridiculous to imagine that 'all those Chinese' all think alike.
* A moon base will happen someday, maybe not in our lifetimes? Sure. Why not? So will manned flight to Jupiter. I also predict the Sun will turn into a red giant. Such predictions are a waste of bytes; they're spam, meaningless.
I'd agree with an earlier poster: Stick with what you have for now. Software doesn't wear out; as long as you have the features you need, don't upgrade.
If you must upgrade, what about Apple Mac's? Is the Office licensing the same for Office for MacOS?
Another alternative: WordPerfect. The word processor is just as good, if not better than Word; the drawback is that the spreadsheet, while decent for many tasks, isn't suited for power Excel users. The last two versions of WP even run VB.
You should read the IPCC documents; the opinions you posted don't dissent with the IPCC. The IPCC says global warming has occurred -- the 1990's were almost certainly the warmest decade of the millenium -- but (I may be slightly off here, but this is the gist:) it's unproven what has caused it and what the future holds. Was it pollution? A change in the Sun? Some other natural process? It does note that the amount of pollutants in the atmosephere has increased dramatically along with the temperature, but no real scientist infers causality from mere coincidence.
The first two things you mention don't dispute the increase in temperature; they say, like the IPCC, that it is uncertain whether the pollutants caused the increase. (I'm basing that on the linked website and reviews I've read of Lomborg's now famous book; I haven't read the book itself. I don't know anything about the "Environmental Overkill" book).
Again, I encourage you to read the IPCC documents. They are politically very neutral, and state the evidence *very* carefully. After 30 min., you'll be better informed than your friends, the media, most slashdotters, and almost all the politicians.
The most important point is, however, that we must make decisions before we know for sure what is going on in the climate. Like all real life, we must decide with incomplete information. That is nothing new in politics -- in fact, it's the case 100% of the time. But it's not science, which strives to produce timeless certainties. So in the end, the decisions are political, hopefully well informed by the answers science has produced so far.
I can't be the only one who has one, since everybody else I meet on the trail raves about them:
The Petzl Tikka -- $40 'white' LED headlamp; the best innovation in outdoors equipment in decades: http://www.petzl.com/petzl/publicFamille ?id=LAMP&r ub=sport
Compaq's done it's few good things but basically, they've either been too unstable with an okay price or too high priced.
You certainly pay a premium for the quality business-line Compaqs (formerly Deskpro, Armada, iPaq and now Evo); I avoid the cheaper consumer line at all costs. But those expensive business line machines have always been very reliable, and more than pay for themselves in reduced downtime for users, fewer support calls for me, and reduced time per support call due to their well-trained technicians.
The most important question, for me: Will HP keep Compaq's service and support for business personal systems and servers?
Compaq's support is unequalled -- far better than HP's -- in my experience running the systems for many small businesses. The ability to speak to knowledgeable, motivated techs is the #1 reason I buy Compaq.
Before you jump in with your support experiences, remember: It depends on your relationship with the vendor. Buy 5,000 systems, you'll get one kind of support. But my clients buy 10-50; Compaq is the only company that offers them competent support. Don't tell me about Dell -- my support from them is only untrained bureaucrats.
I'd start with the Summaries for Policy Makers, as a way of becoming very well infomrmed in just ~20pp.
AFAIK:
It's a UN organization that is the center of research. Their reports are a consensus of almost all the leading scientists from every country on the globe, and their policy statements are approved line-by-line by governments. Even with all that, there are pretty strong statements.
Slashdot Mirror
Suppose that someone we respect *cough* *cough* is in actuality a criminal?
I know you're being sarcastic (or smoking something) but it's a critical point:
Someone you do, is. In fact, many are. And many you think are criminals, aren't. The problems is, we'll never find them all out. So every time you're sure, you're wrong about one thing at least.
I'll end my off-topic rant with others' rants:
We know for certain only when we know little. With knowledge, doubt increases. - Goethe
Doubt is not a pleasant condition but certainty is an absurd one. - Voltaire
Dogs bark at those whom they do not know. - Heraclitus
I'm no nuclear weapons engineer, but everything I've read says dirty bombs,
- Do less damage, to people and things, than a plain old-fashioned bomb filled with nails.
- Can be cleaned up (for contaminated humans, at least) by stripping and washing yourself with a garden hose.
- Cost so much more than a standard terrorist bomb to make, and being less effective (if you discount the hype and resulting fear), that we should hope the terrorists waste their resources on it instead of something more dangerous.
This troll was copied and pasted from kiro5hin:
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/3/8
It was used on Slashdot before:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3424
Time isn't money, but all time does have value. (At least, I value my limited time on this planet and I hope everyone else does.)
Money is merely a system for abstracting value so it can be easily traded and transferred, to your children; between millions of consumers, factory workers and shareholders; and instantly across oceans. It's flawed, as you point out, but it's workable and nobody has significantly improved on it (that I've heard of, though I'm no economist).
I think Joel's point is that some open source advocates claim that, because you pay $0 for OSS, it costs nothing. But it does cost time, which does have value. If the time belongs to a for-profit company, then that time has monetary value -- the company pays for those hours, which could be used for something more profitable.
And even if the OSS contributors don't work for for-profit companies, their time does cost them just as much, even if it's hard to attach a number to.
Remember this story?
/ 01 22238&mode=thread&tid=153
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/02/19
Posted by timothy on Monday February 18, @11:02PM
from the can-you-read-this-in-beijing dept.
chowbok writes: "The Weekly Standard writes that despite expectations, the Chinese Government has been very successful in suppressing free internet access for their citizens. Key to this success was the assistance of Cisco, who built a giant firewall tailored to the state's needs, Yahoo (who helpfully censors search results and monitors online chats), and other Western companies."
Overall looking very good (other then the Netscape 4 interface).
The "Modern" interface is much nicer:
1. Click Edit | Preferences | Appearance | Themes | Modern.
2. Close Moz *and* QuickLaunch (right-click the system tray icon and choose "Exit Mozilla").
When you start Moz again, you'll have the Modern theme.
Slashdot is at its best as an interactive forum, not a PR platform for politicians.
Perhaps if Mr. Love and Mr. Nader posted their ideas on Slashdot *before* they wrote to OMB, they and we would have benefitted from the discussion. Now it looks like fishing for compliments, or more likely, a good old fashioned Press Release (well targeted).
We're going to save money buy reducing (even purposely limiting) standardization and making the systems more complicated?
The basic idea of the Federal Gov't wringing tax dollar saving behavior out of proprietary software vendors is good. Free, open source software seems like a great solution for gov't. But these particular changes would only dramatically increase costs; you've got to standardize on something, whether it's Linux, Windows or whatever.
An interesting idea, but you'll never get ten thousand small claims. I'll bet nothing even close to it has ever happened. And seeing that it's never happened, it's not much of a deterrent. The executives of MegaCorp are not working late to prevent ten thousand small claims; they are working right now (9:20pm EDT) to avoid a class action.
Do you think all those poeople will go down to the courthouse, fill out the forms, file them, prepare for trial, then show up? How many class members even know they have a claim? You can't even get them to download an alternate web browser.
These babies integrate seamlessly with Windows, Mac ...
With Mac? How did you do this? I called them, and they said they don't support it. I'm hoping to setup a very non-technical user to sync contact info, calendar, and documents with OSX. Thanks in advance for any tips ...
The point, for Comcast customers, is not the money. It's only $100; how much compensation do they deserve? It's the privacy and Comcast's behavior. If Comcast loses, neither they nor other ISPs will take a similar risk again. Isn't privacy valuable?
The lawyers take a big financial risk. For risking tens of thousands of their own money (are you paying their secretaries, office rent, research, etc.) and spending so much of their life on the case, should they get only the good feeling of having improved privacy for Americans (if they win)?
The Comcast customers get $xx buck each and privacy. The attorneys who put in their time and money, not knowing if they'd get it back, they get the cash.
I guess even if it will work out, customers might get oh, say, $10. With rest being a fee for the lawyer(s)
We could endlessly repeat well-worn ideas yet never think about them, but let's try:
People complain that class action contingency attorneys pull a scam on their targets (e.g. Comcast) and their clients (e.g. Comcasts customers) and take all the $. Think about it; contingency lawyers (lawyers that collect large sums if they win, rather than smaller sums win or lose) and class action (grouping large numbers of small complaints into one big one: e.g. $100 damages * 1 million people = $100 million lawsuit) are the only way the less-than-rich get access to our court system.
o Contingency lawyers let everyone, not just the rich, use our court system. Our court system was too expensive for anyone but the rich. You must have a lawyer (technically you can represent yourself, just like my grandmother is technically allowed to hack the Linux kernel), and lawyers are expensive. If you couldn't afford one, no justice for you -- very democratic. Now, contingency lawyers take your case based on the hope you'll win and be able to pay them. Think about it -- would you work hundreds (or more) hours, hire experts and make every other investment at your own expense, and risk that if you lose (the other side has attorneys too) that you get $0.00? All that time, effort and money completely sunk? No way to buy dinner? Pay the mortgage? Put the kids through college? Even if you do win, you work now and get paid next year. Now you understand why contingency lawyers demand a larger percentage when they win.
o What other check, besides Class Action, is there on corporations screwing the millions of individuals who buy their products, work for them, share communities with them and invest hard-earned money in them? There aren't enough gov't regulators -- they couldn't even stop the multi-billion dollar Savings and Loan or Enron or other huge scandals -- can they protect the $10,000 of pension money Jane Elderly invested in Creative Financial Reporting Inc.? The citizens of a polluted neighborhood whose health is at risk? Or simply Ed Jones who wasted on their lies about their useless product? What deters some executive from twisting the financial statements, or ignoring the pollution or lying to consumers, simply to protect his job? What motivates the Board of Directors to question instead of rubber stamping their buddy the CEO who gave them their cushy jobs? It's not fear of the a few regulators; it's fear of massive lawsuits on behalf of every one of those people they might screw.
Sure, there are some bad lawyers who fleece the system, but so do some companies, doctors, politicians, bankers, police, programmers, etc. etc. Like everyone else, there are good lawyers and bad ones, and they all have their good and bad days. Plus, lawyers can't fleece anyone unless a jury and/or judge helps.
Funny that it's the part of our court system that serves the politically weak, not the part that serves the RIAA, the Fortune 500 corporations, etc., that gets all the mainstream criticism.
Maybe you know this, but to educate anyone else reading this thread, many (most?) reports in Bugzilla aren't bugs and those that are bugs are unlikely to affect you.
Many (most?) reports are,
o duplicates of already reported bugs
o reports of symptoms of already reported bugs (for example, sharing profiles between Moz and Netscape causes many different problems, all of which are reported over and over).
o reports of problems that either have nothing to do with Mozilla or are unique events (i.e. nobody else can duplicate the problem).
o reports of bugs already fixed (the reporter is using old versions of Mozilla)
o requests for enhancements to Mozilla
Even if it is a real bug, it probably won't affect you:
- Do you use the platform affected by the bug?
- If it's a compatiblity problem (e.g. Netscape profiles), do you use the incompatible software?
- Are you using those particular Mozilla features, in that particular combination?
- Are you trying to load websites affected by that bug?
Anyway, you get the idea.
Since, according to the reviewer, nobody will be able to digest this book for at least a year, perhaps we could get a Slashdot interview with Wolfram?
Perhaps this is a dumb, ignorant question, but what is the difference between Wolfram's Cellular Automata and the relatively old conceptual tool used in artificial life (and maybe used for other things?).
Is Wolfram's idea a generalized theory of the tool used for ALife? A new application for that tool? Something completely different?
"Precisely why the current system, despite all its faults from out POV, is reasonably popular in China"
It is? Says who? If you lived there, would you answer the poll honestly? Wishful westerners used to claim the Russians really liked the Soviet system too. If it's so popular, why don't they have a vote?
"a system that can (a) provide stability (b) provide prosperity (c) provide national security"
To whom? A few politically connected rich people in Shanghai? Most of the country is desparately poor. They die in floods, their rights are ignored by the powerful. Who needs security from foreigners (who is threatening them again?) when your own gov't is the greatest threat. And that only describes ordinary citizens -- ask the Tibetans if they feel prosperous or secure, or the muslims in the northwest, or Fulan Gong members, or Hong Kong's citizens, or any group of people that dares to organize themselves for any purspose. You can be prosperous and secure in the Iraq, too, if you're a member of the Baath party.
"better than most other scenarios."
No, just better than Mao, who, being one of the most dictators in the history of the world, isn't a high standard. I mean, Brezhnev was better than Stalin, but still horrible to the people of the USSR.
"How did Western-style democracy go in the former USSR again?"
Actually, after a rough transistion, Russia now has a stable, democratic gov't and a growing economy. I'd much rather live in Russia than China. How did Western-style democracy go in Taiwan again?
Who modded up this vague, general nonsense? Even if you don't know any facts, just the fundemental premise is blatently ridiculous -- the Chinese gov't automatically accomplishes whatever goal the leadership sets? Somebody plan the anthem!
Other than that, it is plainly propaganda, which I would hope the (relatively) skeptical, critical thinkers on Slashdot would analyse and debunk instead of modding up. Like all propoganda, there are so many distortions that it's meaningless:
* 1.5 billion say they will? No, a few people in Bejing say it.
* What does it mean anyway? 'A billion people can't be wrong'? Sure, it sounds catchy and maybe stirs the populist inside you, but do you really think it happens in practice? Anyone read a history book recently? Why aren't you investing in Chinese space mines?
* I very much wish it were otherwise, but the historical Chinese trend, at least for the last century, has been *disaster* against the odds. A country with a long history of effective, stable institutions of gov't has suffered a century of upheavel, revolution and more civillian deaths than any country in the history of the world, by a long shot. Sure, the 'Communist' dictatorship has kept some peace since they massacred students with tanks in 1989 (no doubt that was the will of 1.5 billion), but who long will it last? And the peace is ridden with organized crime (and that's not counting the Communist Party), violent rebellion, and of course massive oppression -- also, I'm sure, the will of 1.5 billion.
* Yes, large projects have been completed in China, so ergo they'll build any large project? huh? Would you buy stock if a business made that claim? Also, I'm not sure what the current country has to do with the one that built the Great Wall. Ancient Greece, Egypt, Rome, etc. did some impressive things too.
* Chinese never lie, or fail to meet promised objectives? What does that have to do with nationality? How well did the Great Leap Forward work out? I guess no businesses fail in China, and there's no crime, corruption, poverty.... Would you really trust somebody, or invest in them, just because they were from China?
* It appears the 'Chinese mindset' (isn't using stereotypes so much faster than thinking?) is using a 'western' timeframe: Moonbase by 2010. Promising things 200 years in advance is a bit impractical, no? Did anyone record the promises of 200 years ago? In 2202, will anyone check if we accomplished the goals of today? I wonder what the Chinese emperors planned in the mid-19th centry -- has it been accomplished? I've heard this 'Chinese mindset' silliness before, but if you think about it, it's ridiculous -- ridiculous to claim 'I'll do it in the next 200 years' and ridiculous to imagine that 'all those Chinese' all think alike.
* A moon base will happen someday, maybe not in our lifetimes? Sure. Why not? So will manned flight to Jupiter. I also predict the Sun will turn into a red giant. Such predictions are a waste of bytes; they're spam, meaningless.
You can run Quicken; you just need the right shell.
The book
a ms/
http://www.wolframscience.com/
The downloadable code (4 lines, I suppose)
http://www.wolframscience.com/nks/progr
Stephen Wolfram
http://www.stephenwolfram.com/about-sw/
I'd agree with an earlier poster: Stick with what you have for now. Software doesn't wear out; as long as you have the features you need, don't upgrade.
If you must upgrade, what about Apple Mac's? Is the Office licensing the same for Office for MacOS?
Another alternative: WordPerfect. The word processor is just as good, if not better than Word; the drawback is that the spreadsheet, while decent for many tasks, isn't suited for power Excel users. The last two versions of WP even run VB.
You should read the IPCC documents; the opinions you posted don't dissent with the IPCC. The IPCC says global warming has occurred -- the 1990's were almost certainly the warmest decade of the millenium -- but (I may be slightly off here, but this is the gist:) it's unproven what has caused it and what the future holds. Was it pollution? A change in the Sun? Some other natural process? It does note that the amount of pollutants in the atmosephere has increased dramatically along with the temperature, but no real scientist infers causality from mere coincidence.
The first two things you mention don't dispute the increase in temperature; they say, like the IPCC, that it is uncertain whether the pollutants caused the increase. (I'm basing that on the linked website and reviews I've read of Lomborg's now famous book; I haven't read the book itself. I don't know anything about the "Environmental Overkill" book).
Again, I encourage you to read the IPCC documents. They are politically very neutral, and state the evidence *very* carefully. After 30 min., you'll be better informed than your friends, the media, most slashdotters, and almost all the politicians.
The most important point is, however, that we must make decisions before we know for sure what is going on in the climate. Like all real life, we must decide with incomplete information. That is nothing new in politics -- in fact, it's the case 100% of the time. But it's not science, which strives to produce timeless certainties. So in the end, the decisions are political, hopefully well informed by the answers science has produced so far.
I can't be the only one who has one, since everybody else I meet on the trail raves about them:
e ?id=LAMP&r ub=sport
The Petzl Tikka -- $40 'white' LED headlamp; the best innovation in outdoors equipment in decades:
http://www.petzl.com/petzl/publicFamill
Compaq's done it's few good things but basically, they've either been too unstable with an okay price or too high priced.
You certainly pay a premium for the quality business-line Compaqs (formerly Deskpro, Armada, iPaq and now Evo); I avoid the cheaper consumer line at all costs. But those expensive business line machines have always been very reliable, and more than pay for themselves in reduced downtime for users, fewer support calls for me, and reduced time per support call due to their well-trained technicians.
The most important question, for me: Will HP keep Compaq's service and support for business personal systems and servers?
Compaq's support is unequalled -- far better than HP's -- in my experience running the systems for many small businesses. The ability to speak to knowledgeable, motivated techs is the #1 reason I buy Compaq.
Before you jump in with your support experiences, remember: It depends on your relationship with the vendor. Buy 5,000 systems, you'll get one kind of support. But my clients buy 10-50; Compaq is the only company that offers them competent support. Don't tell me about Dell -- my support from them is only untrained bureaucrats.
... or at least the best science has come up with so far, are downloadable from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
I'd start with the Summaries for Policy Makers, as a way of becoming very well infomrmed in just ~20pp.
AFAIK: It's a UN organization that is the center of research. Their reports are a consensus of almost all the leading scientists from every country on the globe, and their policy statements are approved line-by-line by governments. Even with all that, there are pretty strong statements.Here's better background.