Wasn't windows NT 5.0 the initial release of windows XP?
No, NT 5.0 was renamed Windows 2000; I think the final release of XP was 5.1.
I'm pretty sure 2000 was still in the 4.xx range of windows NT, although service packs way well upgrade it to 5.0 or 5.1 NT status.
It seems unlikely that a service pack would change the major version number; I don't have a service-packless 2000 to test on, but W2K SP1 definitely identifies itself as "5.00.2195" (the 2195 is, I think, the build number). From everything I've heard, W2K was always 5.0; in fact, it appears that beta 2 was, in fact, 5.0, from before they made it "Windows 2000".
Vi was somewhat influenced by Bravo, an editor that was developed on the Alto, according to this interview with Bill Joy:
REVIEW:
Didn't Bruce Englar implement the count fields feature?
JOY: Bruce suggested that. At one point there was an acknowledgment section in the documentation for the editor that mentioned all the people who had helped - I don't know if it's still there in Volume 2.
A lot of the ideas for the screen editing mode were stolen from a Bravo manual I surreptitiously looked at and copied. Dot is really the double-escape from Bravo, the redo command. Most of the stuff was stolen. There were some things stolen from ed - we got a manual page for the Toronto version of ed, which I think Rob Pike had something to do with. We took some of the regular expression extensions out of that.
Calculated on the same basis - using the same definitions of what constitutes unemployment (who is included in the survey to start with, what constitutes an active job seeker etc.), Sweden has approximately 16 % unemployment when using the same criterias as used when calculating the US statistic.
The OECD standardised unemployment rates, compiled for 27 OECD Member countries, are based on definitions of the 13th Conference of Labour Statisticians (generally referred to as the ILO guidelines). Under these definitions, the unemployed are persons of working age who, in the reference period, are without work, are available for work and have taken specific steps to find work.
The uniform application of the definitions results in estimates that are more internationally comparable than those based on national definitions. National unemployment data in some countries only include persons registered at government labour offices. Under the ILO definition, persons without work who are seeking employment through other means can also be classified as unemployed and registrants can be excluded if they worked or were not available for work. The standardised unemployment rates shown here are calculated as the number of unemployed persons as a percentage of the civilian labour force (i.e the unemployed plus those in civilian employment). The standardised unemployment rates are seasonally adjusted.
The standardised unemployment rates for the European Union (EU) Member countries and for Czech Republic, Hungary, Norway, Poland and Slovak Republic are produced by the Statistical Office of the European Communities (Eurostat). The OECD is responsible for the collection of data and calculation of standardised unemployment rates for the remaining countries.
So how do the different measurements of unemployment differ in ways not ruled out by the use of the ILO definition? Or is the Swedish or US rate not using the ILO definition?
The US has the lowest unemployment rates and highest per capita income of any developed country.
Lowest unemployment rates? Not true in January 2003, at least, according to this table from the OECD - the US rate was 5.7%, whereas Austria had 4.1% and Sweden had 5.3%, for example.
Re:Al-Dschasira gets kicked out from more places..
on
4l-j4z333ra 0wn3d
·
· Score: 1
Reuters (US owned)
At least according to the Shareholder Structure chart on their Web site, Reuters shares other than "Reuters ordinary shares held by employee ownership trusts" are 45% UK owned, 39% US owned, 10% owned by shareholders from European countries other than the UK, and so on. The CEO is from the US, but the Chief Operating Officer is from the UK.
Of course, that still means they're predominantly owned by the main countries in the Coalition of the Willing(TM), even if they're not predominantly US-owned.
many of the links between cigarettes and diseases are just that: links. Yet to be proven.
What would constitute "proof" for you? Would the stuff mentioned in this column, such as
The tide turned in 1998. Scientists studying a tumor suppressor gene called p53 demonstrated a direct link between cigarettes and lung cancer. p53 is the cell's error-detecting system, proofreading the DNA before cell division to make sure there is no damage. When it detects DNA damage, p53 halts cell division and stimulates DNA repair enzymes that fix the trouble. Mutations that inactivate p53 remove a key barrier to unrestricted cell division. p53 is inactivated in 70% of all lung cancers. A puzzling discovery was that the p53 mutations in cancer cells almost all occur at one of three "hot spots" within the p53 gene.
The key link that explains the "hot spots" and links lung cancer to cigarettes is a chemical called benzo (a) pyrene (BP), a potent mutagen released into cigarette smoke from tars in the tobacco. The epithelial cells of the lung absorb BP from cigarette smoke and chemically alter it to a derivative form, benzo (a) pyrene diol epoxide (BPDE). BPDE binds directly to the tumor suppressor gene p53 and mutates it to an inactive form. The key evidence linking cigarette smoking and cancer, the "smoking gun," is that when the mutations of p53 caused by BPDE from cigarettes were examined, they were found to cluster at precisely the same three specific "hot spots" seen in lung cancers! The conclusion is inescapable: the mutations inducing lung cancer are caused by chemicals in cigarette smoke.
be sufficient?
For example: how can scientists say that they don't know what causes cancer and then turn around and say cigarettes cause lung cancer?
Where has a particular scientist said both that they don't know what causes cancer and that cigarettes cause lung cancer? (Scientist A saying that we don't know what causes cancer, and scientist B saying that cigarettes are a cause of lung cancer, doesn't count.)
In fact, where has any scientist said that we don't know what causes cancer?
IF they really knew what causes cancer, they'd be very close to a cure.
No, they wouldn't necessarily be very close to a cure. Knowing the cause of a disease doesn't mean that it's easy to eliminate that cause. Just because a defective version of the BRCA1 gene strongly predisposes women to breast cancer, that doesn't necessarily mean you can easily just go in and fix that gene.
Furthermore, there might not be a cause for some disease; there does not appear to be one single magic cause for cancer - it appears that various environmental causes can cause various cancers, as can various genetic problems.
Presumably you've seen this Red Hat 5.1 installation screen shot? I don't know whether they still offer that as one of the installation languages, however; I wouldn't be surprised if it was no longer offered.
(See the footnote - click the "2" - for the reason why that particular language choice was offered.)
Why? Because they dared to disagree with "the greatest nation on earth"? replace the "nation" with "bully" and it would be more accurate.
I suspect the person to whom you're replying is sarcastically mocking the "freedom fries" nonsense some idiots here in the US are coming up with, not supporting it.
Andres and Kasgnoc (1997) estimated the time-averaged inventory of subaerial volcanic sulfur emissions. There inventory was based upon the 25 year history of making sulfur measurements, primarily sulfur dioxide (SO2), at volcanoes. Actual measurements of subaerial volcanic sulfur dioxide emissions indicate a time-averaged flux of 13 Tg/yr sulfur dioxide from early 1970 to 1997. [Note: a Tg is equal to 10E12 grams]. About 4 Tg come from explosive eruptions and 9 Tg is released by passivedegassing, in an average year. When considering the other sulfur species also present in volcanic emissions, a time-averaged inventory of subaerial volcanic sulfur emissions is 10.4 Tg/yr sulfur.
Volcanoes and other natural processes release approximately 24 Tg of sulfur to the atmosphere each year. Thus, volcanoes are responsible for 43% of the total natural S flux each year. Man's activities add about 79 Tg sulfur to the atmosphere each year. In an average year, volcanoes release only 13% of the sulfur added to the atmosphere compared to anthropogenic sources.
so either
your claim is incorrect;
the claim on that page is incorrect;
volcanoes may emit more sulfur dioxide but, if you take all sulfur emissions into account, more comes from man-made sources;
So basically the guy has shot his load now for the publicity instead of waiting for some more data over a longer time period.
Well, perhaps one could argue that for the "This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," quote, although the quoted statement is true, and he does say "if sustained over many decades".
Thats like me taking a look at the stock market for the last 2 years and concluding that the stock market must have been 20 times higher 20 years ago.
No, it's like you taking a look at the stock market for the last 2 years and concluding that, if that trend had continued over the past 20 years, the stock market would have been 20 times higher 20 years ago. (In his case, of course, there is an overall warming trend, so the analogy breaks down there.)
Is this just another saying that we son't need to cut down on oil consumption?
No. The article cites the leader of the study as indicating that you shouldn't draw such a conclusion from it:
That does not mean industrial pollution has not been a significant factor, Willson cautioned.
so he explicitly says that this does not show that you can't blame it on greenhouse gases.
That air pollution really isn't a problem?
No, because there are forms of air pollution other than CO2, and they also cause problems.
No matter whether global warming is due to excess CO2 production or increased solar output, fact remains that our addiction to oil is completely fucking up our climate
So, if global warming is not at all due to excess CO2 production (as opposed to being due to increased solar output and excess CO2 production, which is one possibility), what part of climate fuckage is caused by our use of oil?
That does not mean industrial pollution has not been a significant factor, Willson cautioned.
so, no, this
is not just some evil US/oil company plot to discredit the idea that greenhouse gases contribute to global warming;
is not an indication that all those people saying that greenhouse gases contribute to global warming were wrong and we don't have to worry about continuing to burn fossil fuels.
Note, for instance, that the article also says
In what could be the simplest explanation for one component of global warming, a new study shows the Sun's radiation has increased by.05 percent per decade
since the late 1970s.
The increase would only be significant to Earth's climate if it has been going on for a century or more, said study leader Richard Willson, a Columbia University researcher also affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
(emphasis mine).
I.e., they have only observed it over a approximately 20-year period, so they don't know whether it's been going on for a century or more, but if it hasn't, it wouldn't make a significant difference to the climate.
Re:For those who havn't seen the footage:
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
I'm proud to be an American. It's great to be a part of a country that takes an active role in taking out leaders who oppress people.
Isn't OpenBSD in canada because thats where Theo De Raadt lives?
That might be part of the reason, but this item suggests it's not the only reason:
Why do we ship cryptography?
In three words: because we can.
The OpenBSD project is based in Canada.
The Export Control List of Canada places no significant restriction on the export of cryptographic software, and is even more explicit about the free export of freely-available cryptographic software. Marc Plumb has done some research to test the cryptographic laws.
Hence the OpenBSD project has embedded cryptography into numerous places in the operating system. We require that the cryptographic software we use be freely available and with good licenses. We do not directly use cryptography with nasty patents. We also require that such software is from countries with useful export licenses because we do not wish to break the laws of any country. The cryptographic software components which we use currently were written in Argentina, Australia, Canada, Germany, Greece, Norway, and Sweden.
When we create OpenBSD releases or snapshots we build our release binaries in free countries to assure that the sources and binaries we provide to users are free of tainting. In the past our release binary builds have been done in Canada, Sweden, and Germany.
OpenBSD ships with Kerberos IV and Kerberos V included. The two codebases we use are the exportable KTH-based release from Sweden. Our X11 source has been extended to make use of Kerberos as well.
Slashdot Mirror
No, NT 5.0 was renamed Windows 2000; I think the final release of XP was 5.1.
It seems unlikely that a service pack would change the major version number; I don't have a service-packless 2000 to test on, but W2K SP1 definitely identifies itself as "5.00.2195" (the 2195 is, I think, the build number). From everything I've heard, W2K was always 5.0; in fact, it appears that beta 2 was, in fact, 5.0, from before they made it "Windows 2000".
As others have noted, Windows NT 5.0^H^H^H^H^H^H2000 also supports it.
Vi was somewhat influenced by Bravo, an editor that was developed on the Alto, according to this interview with Bill Joy:
The OECD page that links to the PDF in question says
So how do the different measurements of unemployment differ in ways not ruled out by the use of the ILO definition? Or is the Swedish or US rate not using the ILO definition?
Lowest unemployment rates? Not true in January 2003, at least, according to this table from the OECD - the US rate was 5.7%, whereas Austria had 4.1% and Sweden had 5.3%, for example.
At least according to the Shareholder Structure chart on their Web site, Reuters shares other than "Reuters ordinary shares held by employee ownership trusts" are 45% UK owned, 39% US owned, 10% owned by shareholders from European countries other than the UK, and so on. The CEO is from the US, but the Chief Operating Officer is from the UK.
Of course, that still means they're predominantly owned by the main countries in the Coalition of the Willing(TM), even if they're not predominantly US-owned.
You mean like this?
What would constitute "proof" for you? Would the stuff mentioned in this column, such as
be sufficient?
Where has a particular scientist said both that they don't know what causes cancer and that cigarettes cause lung cancer? (Scientist A saying that we don't know what causes cancer, and scientist B saying that cigarettes are a cause of lung cancer, doesn't count.)
In fact, where has any scientist said that we don't know what causes cancer?
No, they wouldn't necessarily be very close to a cure. Knowing the cause of a disease doesn't mean that it's easy to eliminate that cause. Just because a defective version of the BRCA1 gene strongly predisposes women to breast cancer, that doesn't necessarily mean you can easily just go in and fix that gene.
Furthermore, there might not be a cause for some disease; there does not appear to be one single magic cause for cancer - it appears that various environmental causes can cause various cancers, as can various genetic problems.
That posting really clashes with the article.
Presumably you've seen this Red Hat 5.1 installation screen shot? I don't know whether they still offer that as one of the installation languages, however; I wouldn't be surprised if it was no longer offered.
(See the footnote - click the "2" - for the reason why that particular language choice was offered.)
I suspect the person to whom you're replying is sarcastically mocking the "freedom fries" nonsense some idiots here in the US are coming up with, not supporting it.
"As soon as"?
...and you'll be what gets bent by Beckham.
Citation, please? This page, for example, says
so either
Here's a link to the original item from NASA, which includes a link to the abstract for his paper; unfortunately, the link on that page to the PDF for the paper is broken.
Well, perhaps one could argue that for the "This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," quote, although the quoted statement is true, and he does say "if sustained over many decades".
No, it's like you taking a look at the stock market for the last 2 years and concluding that, if that trend had continued over the past 20 years, the stock market would have been 20 times higher 20 years ago. (In his case, of course, there is an overall warming trend, so the analogy breaks down there.)
(Which is also caused by the use of other fossil fuels, e.g. coal.)
I'm not sure I'd call acid rain a climate problem, though.
No. The article cites the leader of the study as indicating that you shouldn't draw such a conclusion from it:
so he explicitly says that this does not show that you can't blame it on greenhouse gases.
No, because there are forms of air pollution other than CO2, and they also cause problems.
So, if global warming is not at all due to excess CO2 production (as opposed to being due to increased solar output and excess CO2 production, which is one possibility), what part of climate fuckage is caused by our use of oil?
The article says
so, no, this
Note, for instance, that the article also says
(emphasis mine).
I.e., they have only observed it over a approximately 20-year period, so they don't know whether it's been going on for a century or more, but if it hasn't, it wouldn't make a significant difference to the climate.
Except, of course, when we help put them in power, or don't take them out.
...but that doesn't refute any of the claims Rush makes. That hardly counts as a cancellation in my book.
The fact that many people trust somebody doesn't mean that person is truthful, it only means they trust that person.
"Fact"? You have not demonstrated that Rush is honest. Perhaps he honestly believes that, for example, our output of CFCs can't possibly destroy the ozone layer, because the eruption of Mount Pinatubo put out 570 times the amount of chlorine as is in one year's worth of CFC emissions, but, if so, then he's honest but deeply confused.
It seems unlikely, unless Rush has a time machine, that he would have rebutted, in a book that came out in 1992 and was reprinted in 1993, claims made by FAIR in 1994 and later and claims made in a book that came out in 1995, unless you're referring to a later edition of "The Way Things Ought To Be".
Now, if you'd like to share with us a fact-based rebuttal of, say, these responses by FAIR of Rush's claims, please be my guest.
You're right, Rush Limbaugh's never done anything like that.
That might be part of the reason, but this item suggests it's not the only reason:
Here's the page with the quote you cite. (Search for "hydrogen production".)