Well, my point is not that burning the the rain forest adds CO(2). My point is that the CO(2) in the air is used by the rain forrest and converted to O(2) as part of photosynthesis. The rain forrest is the largest converter of CO(2) to O(2) on the planet. As we mow more and more of the rain forrest down, it would stand to reason that CO(2) levels in the atmosphere would go up, would it not.
Andy
Ok, has anyone looked at the correlation between increased CO(2) levels in our atmosphere and the chopping down of the largest CO(2) removing thing on our planet, the rain forests? I mean we can bitch all we want that burning by industry is increasing CO(2) levels in the atmosphere, and they may be, but does anyone even consider that perhaps ripping down forests in order to build houses and provide lumber may be causing this exact effect also.
Novell is a company that develops Windows products, as well as Linux and Netware. They are ALWAYS going to have Windows workstations there. We have a number of Novell DSEs at our company and they ALL run NLD or Suse 10 on their work laptops, and use Vmware to run Windows as needed.
Other Novell support staff needs Windows boxes around to support customers.
I don't think it's possible for them to be 100% Windows free. Their business demands that they run some Windows boxes.
Well, why do we, as humans, feel so arrogant that we NEED to survive the next mass extinction? The planet is going to do what it is going to do. Sure, we should curb emissions because the air quality sucks. But say we should curb emissions because air quality sucks, not because of global warming. And where does the air quality suck? In LA, in New York. Does the air quality suck in the woods in Montana where there are no homes? Nope, the animals there seem to do OK.
And, sure, nature exists in a delicate balance. And that balance is disrupted all the time by nature itself. Those disruptions take evolution in new directions and introduce species that would never arise otherwise. Volcanos, Earthquakes, Tsunnamis, Hurricanes and other disasters have the ability to shape continents and wipe out entire species off this little rock of ours, yet somehow we feel man is the greatest threat to the planet.
If we're all so damn worried about the natural balance of things, why don't we introduce wolves back into areas with deer overpopulation so that NATURE can properly thin the deer herds to what they should be.
If you're worried about balance, sell your house, break up all that concrete that f**ks with the water table and drainage, and live in a teepee like the Native Americans did, so you don't cause issues with erosions, so your fence doesn't mess with an animals natural migration patterns, and so your house isn't in a spot where a dozen trees provided nests for various North American birds before it was built.
Oh, I believe in that. But I don't believe Global Warming is going to wipe us all out, because the climate of the planet changes all the time. I tend to think, if there is a warming trend, then it's part of the natural state of the planet, and not due to the burning of fossil fuels all over the place.
Very interesting read. Makes one realize, that, even if the book is wrong, everyone has an agenda. Sure Bush and Cheney are on the side of the oil companies. But who's side are the global warming people on? The side of the planet? Trust me folks. The planet doesn't need our help. If we wiped ourselves off the planet, new species would evolve to replace us and the planet would go on until the next intelligent species finds our fossils. The only thing we're trying to save is OURSELVES.
Am I buying the right to listen to the contents of the CD, or am I buying the CD? If I buy the right to listen to the content, then the format that content is in is irellavent, whether it's my iPod, the original CD, or files on my PC. If I am buying the CD, then I can do whatever the heck I want to do with it, even sell it used.
You can't have it both ways. CDs need to come with EULA. They can't change the rules on us every week.
Time for someone to file a class action lawsuit against the RIAA on behalf of consumers.
It shocks me that the RIAA doesn't want you to buy CDs. Online distribution channels are a lot harder to control. Any schmo can get web hosting space and start proving music for legal download.
And that would be to continue to develop GnuSTEP and make is as API compatible with Cocoa as possible. Now, I know that Photoshop is an Carbon app, and therefore would not port to GnuSTEP, but there are plenty of other applications for OS X that are Cocoa and WOULD port to GunSTEP with some minor recompiling.
David Pogue, like myself, is a huge Mac geek. I have to treat what he writes with a grain of salt, as he sees the world with a Steve Jobs reality distortion field on him at all times. As much as I love the Macintosh and use one every day, I would never say that David Pogue is an impartial source when it comes to reviewing Macintosh hardware or software.
And that would be the reason why there are no new PowerMac towers with Intel chips. I have seen lots of people using Final Cut Pro on a 2 Ghz dual CPU G5 Tower to edit movies, but not too many people using a 1.67 Ghz G4 PowerBook. The reason why the laptops and iMacs went first is because Consumer level apps are going to be the first to get updated, probably. The average home user can probably get by with iLife and iWork and an iMac.
The only thing the Mac really lacks is a good financial application for consumers. I personally use Moneydance, since Quicken for Mac is aweful, but Moneydance doesn't come on each.
Obviously none of us think the DVD is dead, as we happily buy DVD players and DVDs and give them to our familes for Christmas. You can't call something dead when there is nothing to replace it. Does the MPAA want us to completely stop buying movies just because the DVD is dead and they can't figure out how to best screw over consumers by going through yet another format change.
I am starting to feel that when you buy a movie or music, it should come with a license to get a free upgrade every time the media it is on becomes obsolete...
I have to say the biggest problem they face is that fact that the entire US Government is not on one standard for electronic documents. NARA uses GroupWise for it's e-mail. Other agencies use Exchange/Outlook. Some agencies still use text mode e-mail on a mainframe or UNIX box. People I speak with in the Navy tell me that the whole navy uses a bunch of different formats for everything from e-mail to work processing documents.
The government is only recently adopting PDF files, because PDFs before version 1.5 of the spec were not Section 508 compliant, and a screen reader could not read them.
Flash animations on web sites are out also due to Section 508 compliance. NARA's headache would be greatly reduced if they could standardize on a format that everyone uses across the board in all agencies.
When IE 5 came out for OS 9, it was really very good. It has great standards support, was far better than Netscape 4.x, and was relatively small. Sure it did not render pages the same as IE for Windows, but that was because it was actually standards compliant. It actually caused people to criticize IE for Windows for not having the same compliance to W3C standards as the Mac counterpart. Outlook Express for Mac was also very good, having features that the Windows version lacked, such as message filters for IMAP accounts.
Then something bad happened. IE 5 was ported to OS X. It was unstable, it's UI was ugly. It was just plain aweful to use in OS X. And Microsoft let it languish. Some security updates and that was about it. What was once a great Mac browser turned into a truly annoying program to use.
Outlook Express was never ported to OS X and was left to die. A modified version became MS Entourage that ships with Office 2004 for Mac.
Any person who tells you Mac IE 5 was a pile of dung heap, is just a Mac Zealot that refuses to admit that Microsoft can make a good product for the Mac. I am a Mac zealot (typing on a PowerBook now), and I can tell you Mac IE 5 was great under OS 9. It was the carbon port to OS X that made it fall out of favor with the Mac community. And Apple's release of Safari pretty much nailed the coffin shut for Microsoft.
In my opinion, any version of Safari prior to 2.0 was not really all that great.
The Mac version of IE uses a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CODE BASE from the Windows Counterpart. Releasing the code to Mac IE would in no way reveal any NT secrets.
And to the people that seem to think that IE for Windows interfaces with the kernel...what are you smoking?? IE interfaces with Explorer to a point where explorer doesn't really even exist anymore. Explorer DOES NOT run in kernel space. Explorer crashes on me all the time, and an explorer crash NEVER brings down the OS.
There are plenty of other processes that will happily bring down the OS for you, without needing the browser to do it...
Sure I could do that. I could do that over dialup also, but isn't the point to having high speed Internet that I DON'T HAVE TO DO THAT ANY MORE.
I find Comcast's upload speeds to be a tad low and lacking. I think the average home user can live with 1.5 Mbit down. But as soon as they try to put their holiday photos on some photo service (be it ophoto, shutterfly, or even Yahoo photos), the ISPs help desk will be getting a phone call, especially, if you're uploading 6mp or higher phtoos.
FIOS is not available in my area and Verizon refuses to discuss their rollout schedule, so I don't even know WHEN it will be available. FIOS is, however, available just 10 miles away from me, so hopefully it will be here soon.
Due to distance constraints, I can only get 768K/128K DSL. I told them if they can get me 768K/384K, I would talk, but they won't do that without SDSL that has 384K bidirectional and is too pricy. DSL providers other than Verizon want $60/month or more for the same speeds, which does not make them any kind of deal to me, or give me a better upload pipe. I switched from Comcast to DirecTV. The cable modem is my last holdout to the cable company and I really want to break that link.
Here's hoping FIOS gets to my neck of the woods soon.
I get 6 Mbit down from Comcast, and if they rolled it back to 3 Mbit, I could care less. What I want is more UPLOAD speed. I want faster speeds to VPN in to work, to upload photos to shutterfly, and do other things what would make my Internet more enjoyable. I have been debating a switch to Verizon DSL for cost savings, but I just can't deal with 128K uploads. The 120+ pictures I took at Christmas would take all night to upload to shutterfly at that speed.
Not everyone who wants faster uploads speeds is running as Quake 3 server...
People seem to think that IE for Mac in some way used the same rendering engine that the Windows verison uses. This is far from the truth. The Mac version of IE is much more standards compliant and has none of the quirks that IE for Windows has, which pretty much means that it helps no one on the Mac side view IE specific web pages.
However, the corporate perception of the death of IE is another matter entirely. Though I would hope that the new popularity of FireFox will show IT mamagers that IE is not the only show in town and letting their Mac user use Safari, Shiira, Opera, Camino (my personal favorite) or Firefox is not that bad an option.
I think the Mac platform has far better browser choices than Windows has now. I was really liking K-Meleon there for a while, but I find the UI needs more work.
I have to say this is cool stuff. Any doubts that God's method of making new species is NOT evoluition is slowly being squashed. God made evolution. It works for him, he leaves it alone and lets it do it's job.
OS X has bugs and security vulnerabilities???? No way!
Actually, I am a HUGE Apple fan. They are pretty timely with their updates. They don't let an exploit linger for long. Neither do most Linux distros.
I tend to wonder though, when it comes to MS Patching stuff like IE, does Microsoft delay because the fix breaks too manyu things? MS has said before that IE can't be fully standards compliant because it would break too many intranets.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, my point is not that burning the the rain forest adds CO(2). My point is that the CO(2) in the air is used by the rain forrest and converted to O(2) as part of photosynthesis. The rain forrest is the largest converter of CO(2) to O(2) on the planet. As we mow more and more of the rain forrest down, it would stand to reason that CO(2) levels in the atmosphere would go up, would it not. Andy
Ok, has anyone looked at the correlation between increased CO(2) levels in our atmosphere and the chopping down of the largest CO(2) removing thing on our planet, the rain forests? I mean we can bitch all we want that burning by industry is increasing CO(2) levels in the atmosphere, and they may be, but does anyone even consider that perhaps ripping down forests in order to build houses and provide lumber may be causing this exact effect also.
Andy
Novell is a company that develops Windows products, as well as Linux and Netware. They are ALWAYS going to have Windows workstations there. We have a number of Novell DSEs at our company and they ALL run NLD or Suse 10 on their work laptops, and use Vmware to run Windows as needed.
Other Novell support staff needs Windows boxes around to support customers.
I don't think it's possible for them to be 100% Windows free. Their business demands that they run some Windows boxes.
Well, why do we, as humans, feel so arrogant that we NEED to survive the next mass extinction? The planet is going to do what it is going to do. Sure, we should curb emissions because the air quality sucks. But say we should curb emissions because air quality sucks, not because of global warming. And where does the air quality suck? In LA, in New York. Does the air quality suck in the woods in Montana where there are no homes? Nope, the animals there seem to do OK.
And, sure, nature exists in a delicate balance. And that balance is disrupted all the time by nature itself. Those disruptions take evolution in new directions and introduce species that would never arise otherwise. Volcanos, Earthquakes, Tsunnamis, Hurricanes and other disasters have the ability to shape continents and wipe out entire species off this little rock of ours, yet somehow we feel man is the greatest threat to the planet.
If we're all so damn worried about the natural balance of things, why don't we introduce wolves back into areas with deer overpopulation so that NATURE can properly thin the deer herds to what they should be.
If you're worried about balance, sell your house, break up all that concrete that f**ks with the water table and drainage, and live in a teepee like the Native Americans did, so you don't cause issues with erosions, so your fence doesn't mess with an animals natural migration patterns, and so your house isn't in a spot where a dozen trees provided nests for various North American birds before it was built.
Oh, I believe in that. But I don't believe Global Warming is going to wipe us all out, because the climate of the planet changes all the time. I tend to think, if there is a warming trend, then it's part of the natural state of the planet, and not due to the burning of fossil fuels all over the place.
Very interesting read. Makes one realize, that, even if the book is wrong, everyone has an agenda. Sure Bush and Cheney are on the side of the oil companies. But who's side are the global warming people on? The side of the planet? Trust me folks. The planet doesn't need our help. If we wiped ourselves off the planet, new species would evolve to replace us and the planet would go on until the next intelligent species finds our fossils. The only thing we're trying to save is OURSELVES.
When you compare iPod to their nearest competitor, the Creative players. iPods are actually CHEAPER that their creative counterparts.
The argument that iPods are overpriced doesn't hold water anymore...
Am I buying the right to listen to the contents of the CD, or am I buying the CD? If I buy the right to listen to the content, then the format that content is in is irellavent, whether it's my iPod, the original CD, or files on my PC. If I am buying the CD, then I can do whatever the heck I want to do with it, even sell it used.
You can't have it both ways. CDs need to come with EULA. They can't change the rules on us every week.
Time for someone to file a class action lawsuit against the RIAA on behalf of consumers.
It shocks me that the RIAA doesn't want you to buy CDs. Online distribution channels are a lot harder to control. Any schmo can get web hosting space and start proving music for legal download.
Andy
And that would be to continue to develop GnuSTEP and make is as API compatible with Cocoa as possible. Now, I know that Photoshop is an Carbon app, and therefore would not port to GnuSTEP, but there are plenty of other applications for OS X that are Cocoa and WOULD port to GunSTEP with some minor recompiling.
David Pogue, like myself, is a huge Mac geek. I have to treat what he writes with a grain of salt, as he sees the world with a Steve Jobs reality distortion field on him at all times. As much as I love the Macintosh and use one every day, I would never say that David Pogue is an impartial source when it comes to reviewing Macintosh hardware or software.
And that would be the reason why there are no new PowerMac towers with Intel chips. I have seen lots of people using Final Cut Pro on a 2 Ghz dual CPU G5 Tower to edit movies, but not too many people using a 1.67 Ghz G4 PowerBook. The reason why the laptops and iMacs went first is because Consumer level apps are going to be the first to get updated, probably. The average home user can probably get by with iLife and iWork and an iMac.
The only thing the Mac really lacks is a good financial application for consumers. I personally use Moneydance, since Quicken for Mac is aweful, but Moneydance doesn't come on each.
Shouldn't it be AppleRot then?
Obviously none of us think the DVD is dead, as we happily buy DVD players and DVDs and give them to our familes for Christmas. You can't call something dead when there is nothing to replace it. Does the MPAA want us to completely stop buying movies just because the DVD is dead and they can't figure out how to best screw over consumers by going through yet another format change.
I am starting to feel that when you buy a movie or music, it should come with a license to get a free upgrade every time the media it is on becomes obsolete...
Andy
I have to say the biggest problem they face is that fact that the entire US Government is not on one standard for electronic documents. NARA uses GroupWise for it's e-mail. Other agencies use Exchange/Outlook. Some agencies still use text mode e-mail on a mainframe or UNIX box. People I speak with in the Navy tell me that the whole navy uses a bunch of different formats for everything from e-mail to work processing documents.
The government is only recently adopting PDF files, because PDFs before version 1.5 of the spec were not Section 508 compliant, and a screen reader could not read them.
Flash animations on web sites are out also due to Section 508 compliance. NARA's headache would be greatly reduced if they could standardize on a format that everyone uses across the board in all agencies.
Sadly, the government doesn't work that way...
When IE 5 came out for OS 9, it was really very good. It has great standards support, was far better than Netscape 4.x, and was relatively small. Sure it did not render pages the same as IE for Windows, but that was because it was actually standards compliant. It actually caused people to criticize IE for Windows for not having the same compliance to W3C standards as the Mac counterpart. Outlook Express for Mac was also very good, having features that the Windows version lacked, such as message filters for IMAP accounts.
Then something bad happened. IE 5 was ported to OS X. It was unstable, it's UI was ugly. It was just plain aweful to use in OS X. And Microsoft let it languish. Some security updates and that was about it. What was once a great Mac browser turned into a truly annoying program to use.
Outlook Express was never ported to OS X and was left to die. A modified version became MS Entourage that ships with Office 2004 for Mac.
Any person who tells you Mac IE 5 was a pile of dung heap, is just a Mac Zealot that refuses to admit that Microsoft can make a good product for the Mac. I am a Mac zealot (typing on a PowerBook now), and I can tell you Mac IE 5 was great under OS 9. It was the carbon port to OS X that made it fall out of favor with the Mac community. And Apple's release of Safari pretty much nailed the coffin shut for Microsoft.
In my opinion, any version of Safari prior to 2.0 was not really all that great.
The Mac version of IE uses a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CODE BASE from the Windows Counterpart. Releasing the code to Mac IE would in no way reveal any NT secrets.
And to the people that seem to think that IE for Windows interfaces with the kernel...what are you smoking?? IE interfaces with Explorer to a point where explorer doesn't really even exist anymore. Explorer DOES NOT run in kernel space. Explorer crashes on me all the time, and an explorer crash NEVER brings down the OS.
There are plenty of other processes that will happily bring down the OS for you, without needing the browser to do it...
Only 1.7 Mbit up?? The nerve of those guys! :-)
Sure I could do that. I could do that over dialup also, but isn't the point to having high speed Internet that I DON'T HAVE TO DO THAT ANY MORE.
I find Comcast's upload speeds to be a tad low and lacking. I think the average home user can live with 1.5 Mbit down. But as soon as they try to put their holiday photos on some photo service (be it ophoto, shutterfly, or even Yahoo photos), the ISPs help desk will be getting a phone call, especially, if you're uploading 6mp or higher phtoos.
FIOS is not available in my area and Verizon refuses to discuss their rollout schedule, so I don't even know WHEN it will be available. FIOS is, however, available just 10 miles away from me, so hopefully it will be here soon.
Due to distance constraints, I can only get 768K/128K DSL. I told them if they can get me 768K/384K, I would talk, but they won't do that without SDSL that has 384K bidirectional and is too pricy. DSL providers other than Verizon want $60/month or more for the same speeds, which does not make them any kind of deal to me, or give me a better upload pipe. I switched from Comcast to DirecTV. The cable modem is my last holdout to the cable company and I really want to break that link.
Here's hoping FIOS gets to my neck of the woods soon.
You are correct. Obviously I avoided any and all classes dealing with grammar in College.... :-)
I get 6 Mbit down from Comcast, and if they rolled it back to 3 Mbit, I could care less. What I want is more UPLOAD speed. I want faster speeds to VPN in to work, to upload photos to shutterfly, and do other things what would make my Internet more enjoyable. I have been debating a switch to Verizon DSL for cost savings, but I just can't deal with 128K uploads. The 120+ pictures I took at Christmas would take all night to upload to shutterfly at that speed.
Not everyone who wants faster uploads speeds is running as Quake 3 server...
People seem to think that IE for Mac in some way used the same rendering engine that the Windows verison uses. This is far from the truth. The Mac version of IE is much more standards compliant and has none of the quirks that IE for Windows has, which pretty much means that it helps no one on the Mac side view IE specific web pages.
However, the corporate perception of the death of IE is another matter entirely. Though I would hope that the new popularity of FireFox will show IT mamagers that IE is not the only show in town and letting their Mac user use Safari, Shiira, Opera, Camino (my personal favorite) or Firefox is not that bad an option.
I think the Mac platform has far better browser choices than Windows has now. I was really liking K-Meleon there for a while, but I find the UI needs more work.
I have to say this is cool stuff. Any doubts that God's method of making new species is NOT evoluition is slowly being squashed. God made evolution. It works for him, he leaves it alone and lets it do it's job.
OS X has bugs and security vulnerabilities???? No way!
Actually, I am a HUGE Apple fan. They are pretty timely with their updates. They don't let an exploit linger for long. Neither do most Linux distros.
I tend to wonder though, when it comes to MS Patching stuff like IE, does Microsoft delay because the fix breaks too manyu things? MS has said before that IE can't be fully standards compliant because it would break too many intranets.