Raw material for new rooms on the International Space Station perhaps?
You're kidding, right? Unless you want to put a foundry to melt metal, , something else to fold it into usefull shapes, oh, and welding equipment to put it together in the space station, I don't think raw materials for anything in space is a viable answer. The whole idea that a used 30 year old rocket motor is going to be usefull for someone in a damn space station is ridiculous. It's even more ridiculous than someone on earth trying to re-use the rocket motor.
the only reason it's considered 'junk' is because no one has figured out a way to collect and reuse it
I feel the same way about toxic waste dumps. If someone would just figure out a way to use all that waste, it'd be a goldmine! No need to worry about it leaking toxic waste into groundwater, because surely someone will figure out a way to make a profit from cleaning them up.
Hoping someone finds a way to re-use what was once considered trash isn't an approach to the problem. How much of this stuff is even worth anything if you could somehow find a cheap way of bringing it back to earth un-damaged?
Maybe this is an example of why I'm not a scientist
It is a VERY good example of why you shouldn't be a scientist. Any good scientist knows that correlation doesn't imply causation. Also, any good scientist actually reads the article before going off and making conclusions. The researchers believe the increased risk on one side, and decreased risk on the other is because people were more likely to remember which side they had cancer on if it also was the side they used their cell phone on.
Wrong on both counts. Intel initially planned Itanium to be a replacement for x86. To help in that transition they created a translation layer that they believed would be necessary until vendors made IA64 compiled binaries. The only "inefficiency" is the extra silicon needed to accomplish this, and the IA64 architecture isn't gimped because of it.
I highly doubt losing market share to AMD has anything to do with the decision to dump x86 compatibility on a chip level. No one is using the x86 compatibility, and it also being available in software has made hardware emulation rather pointless. If I remember correctly Intel has for a long time said that the hardware compatibility would go away at some point.
I do agree they should have done it years ago, as soon as the software emulation was available. It only adds more die space and more expense. Apple is now in their 3rd CPU transition, and has never had chip-level backward compatibility. Instruction translation is really only necessary for anything where performance isn't a huge concencern, but the newly compiled version isn't available yet, or never will be. (Like say UPS monitoring software). Anything where high performance is a concern should be re-compiled anyway, or why would you even consider switching to the new chip?
Ever read trade magazines? They often use acronyms in a manner that assumes the reader knows what it is, because they are in the same field. I
Ever read a trade magazine that covered 100 different trades? That's what slasdot is. It just seemed as though you were being callous with the "It's a task to assign to someone" line. You assume that they have people around who need tasking (maybe so, maybe not).
I assume that slashdot actually cares about its readers, and wants to fix problems. Like it or not slashdot is a business, and businesses assign tasks to people. Why is that such a strange way to think of things?
I don't know why you keep talking about acronyms, as I've never actually mentioned an acronym, nor did the original poster. Stop trying to redefine the problem into something you have an answer to.
He said his responsibilities were heavily around Unix. I kinda doubt he's some low level secretary that wants to install linux for fun. Why not give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he's not in the wrong here?
I'm guessing the problem is one of compartmentalization. The IT department doesn't talk to the production department, and so doesn't know there's some people that are running linux and not XP. The standard drone-like response of "We're sorry, but until you're machine accepts the updates we can't re-enable the port." really sounds to me like extreme compartmentalization.
If surfing "bad" sites is THAT important to you, perhaps its time to get your resume out to a company that trusts its employees more.
How do you know he's not about to do exactly that, but first wants to know if the draconian security policies are the norm and not the exception? Or quit complaining to a bunch of slashdotters and present a true solution that benefits everyone. There are ways to have both security and usability.
Any why isn't asking for help from peers a good way of trying to find that exact solution? Where you hear complaints, I hear asking for help. I'm getting pretty tired of the standard "you loser, why are you asking us?" response to any Ask Slashot post.
If you don't know what it is, and you're skimming anyways, then just skip it.
Maybe that's the way YOU use slashdot, but it's not how I use it. Judging from the "what the hell is blah" comments in many stories, the same is true for a lot of people. What you're suggesting is to appeal to the lowest common denominator
No, I'm suggesting defining a base level of knowledge that an audience has. Anyone who writes about anything will do that, it's writing 101. You don't need to explain what TCP/IP or Debian is, but a one line description of what "Google Analytics Services" is would be awfully helpful. There's all kinds of publications writing to specialized audience that have a feel for who they're writing to. Science magazines don't explain atomic theory, but they might have some explanation of general relativity. A physics journal isn't going to explain what general relativity is, but they might explain what some new multi-band laser is.
Slashdot too often assumes everyone knows everything. I might be interested in "google analysics services" if I knew what the hell it was. Explaining obscure and new things isn't dumbing anything down, it's addressing the reality that not everyone on slashdot is an expert in every new thing that was just developed (sometimes literally) yesterday.
Would it be too much to ask if readers who didn't know the acronym, look it up on google
Yes, indeed it would. You try doing a google search on blender and see if you can find the right definition that Slashdot is talking about (without already knowing the answer). The 3d modeling software does actually come up first, but that's just not always going to be the case.
Even if it were a matter of a simple google search, why should we all be forced to search out every random term when the editor could have done it in the first place? I don't know about you, but I don't want to have to do a google search on a story JUST to find out if I'm interested in the story or not.
I don't find it interesting to discuss "Do people know what this particular acronym is". It's just boring.
I think you've misunderstood my point. I'm suggesting the slashdot editors compile a list, not the readers. That would indeed be a boring discussion for readers. It's a task to assign to someone, or a backburner project to do over several months.
Far more than it is to you. But what aspects of the site we choose to think matter most will vary from person to person. I think grammar is secondary.
I'm not a big spelling and grammar guy either. But based on the moderation of the comments I think it's a lot more important to more people than you think it is. Simply guessing at what your audience wants isn't a terribly good way to gauge an audience. Pay attention to what people are modding up. I think they make some awfully good points. I'm sure other media outlets do some kind of surveys. You might think slashdot polls are effective, but that's hardly anything near a random sample.
Stepping back a minute and looking at this entire story and the comments in, it would seem there's a large disconnect between what the audience wants, and what the slashdot editors think the audience cares about. It seems to me you need to be more serious about finding out what people want. Maybe random polling done to logged in users? There's an answer somewhere, and I don't feel qualified to give it, since I'm not a statistician or have any experience in surveys.
This has been discussed over here as well. At our core, we tend to exclude those who are outsiders. We assume a basic level of knowledge, and tend to write to that. If you lack that, you might be lost.
How basic is basic? I have a wide variety of knowledge in processors, development, open source tools, etc. I don't know what Blender is at all. It seems too often slashdot editors assume everyone know everything. How many people honestly are into 3D modeling and rendering? We all know what a Pentium, USB, TCP/IP, etc is, but what the heck is "gold farming"? I figured it out from context, but that's only because the word is pretty obvious to what it means.
Slashdot editors need a better grip on what is well known information, and what is obscure "what the hell is that"? I'm constantly trying to figure out what the hell something is, and a simple one line definition of obscure stuff would be helpfull. Would it really be that hard to collect a list of technologies that everyone on slashdot should be familiar with, and if something isn't in that list, then provide a short description? It might take a few months of editors saying stuff like "do people know what CVS is?" and then debating adding it to the list, but formally establishing an audience knowledge level is important.
Besides, your #6 was to claim that he's not replied, and yet he has replied. You just don't like the reply.
Not my claim, someone elses. But I share man of the complaints others have brought up. Because everybody knows it could be done with a simple little script.
I don't think it could be done with a little script, I think it probbably involves putting in meta tags, keywords, and a human being searching through a few "top hits" of dupes. Don't pretend this is some incredibly hard unsolvable problem. here, and he intimates it will be a semi-monthly or weekly activity. Honestly, were you even here last week?
And this is a very very recent addition. Why do you have such a smug attitude toward this whole thing? It's like the "there's no problems!" attitude of the Bush administration. There was another one today. We'll see if it continues, and if anything actually changes.
Feel better about #6 now? At least a little? I mean, I realize Rob may be completely off base, or even lying or something. But that is his official reply to your #4.
Not really, since Taco's reply is the same, and as lame as ever. The response is essentially "we don't care about dupes, if you do, fix it yourself". Many people could probbably fix it, but Slashdot is a commercial site, not a free community project. Why should I fix Taco's crappy system when he could pay someone to do it?
The entire problem is more systemic. The editors refuse to take action on the same issues that've existed for years. People seem to respond with "it's his site, not yours" as if Slashdot is just a newspaper and its primary value isn't peoples comments. Even newspapers have a "letters to the editor" section where you can criticize the newspaper. Where's the slashdot equivalent? (and no, the comments section just isn't the same thing). The best thing that's cropped up is simply using dupe articles to talk about all the problems with slashdot. I've seen a grand total of ONE article about slashdot itself over the years, and that was about some dumb conspiracy theory about beatles beatles. Where's a serious discussion of dupes, _really_ crappy pseudo-scientific articles being posted, terrible and innacurate article summaries, etc?
Well, I wouldn't agree that American cars haven't caught up in terms of reliability. You're right in terms of profitability, but that's all because of management and bad companies. Blaming unions is like blaming the laws of physics. Unions will try to get whatever they can, and no one should blame them for doing that.
American car companies made money hand over fist for many years. They've since made a lot of bad decisions, like investing a lot in SUVs for instance. Gas prices go up and surprise surprise people don't want to buy SUVs anymore. They really dropped the ball in the 80s and lost a LOT of consumers because of the across the board terrible reliability. Even though American cars are pretty good now there's a lot of people that STILL think American cars are junk. Car companies holds all the cards, and have no one to blame but themselves when they fail.
Of course they do: * Build better cars (thanks cheap labor and stupid US unions)
Gee, and I thought it was due to short sighted American companies. It's strange that American cars have gotten progressively better over the last 15 years or so, despite those "stupid US unions".
Of course the vast majority aren't gold farmers. The thing is, most of the Chinese play on Chinese servers where they can talk and play with other Chinese using a Chinese localized client.
I think you've missed the scope and context of the discussion. Obviously we're talking about english servers here, not chinese servers.
Boy, I wish it even got to the level of junk science. Then it would actually be falsifiable. I don't think there's any science in what this guy claims.
Can someone who plays these games tell me _honestly_ if a large percentage (say over 40%) of Chinese language speakers are gold farmers? If there truly is a large percentage of Chinese speakers, or even non-english speakers who are gold farmers, that certainly seems like an entirely fair bias to me.
The difference is comparing this to an unfair bias. Like saying black people are criminals, Arab people are terrorists, etc. In these cases the vast vast majority of blacks or Arabs are NOT criminals or terrorists.
Bias is something people believe in and use every day. This idea that bias is always a bad thing is ridiculous. If you see a group of guys walking down the street swinging baseball bats in the middle of the night looking like they're drunk, It's a wise move to avoid them. Now that's bias, as you don't know them and maybe they're coming home from a costume party. But you'd be a fool to not start walking on the other side of the street.
There's no news here. I was expecting someone to have actually installed XP on an x86 mac. It's been known for quite a while that EFI would have backward compatility with BIOS. This entire article boils down to this quote:
It seems unlikely that Apple would have left this out. It has already said it isn't doing anything to prevent Windows from booting on a Mac.
I can think of reasons why Apple would have left this out. Why would they want to support this legacy support code for OSX as it gives them nothing? It makes supporting the boot ROM cleaner, and I'm sure the code is smaller by leaving it out. The only reason they might leave it in is if they get the example code from Intel, and it'd be more trouble than it's worth to take it out.
As to Apple saying they wouldn't do anything to prevent Windows from booting on a Mac, well that sounds more like they won't actively prevent Windows from booting like by putting in code to detect Windows, and then booting it. If they take out the legacy BIOS compatibility code for other reasons I just don't see that as preventing Windows from booting, since Vista is supposed to support EFI.
So, I think the question is still very open. Until I see someone with an x86 Mac running Windows natively, the jury is still out.
However, it is worth noting that I really ought not to be able to notice significant changes to the climate within the span of my lifetime.
Why? The climate change records we have would indicate that you will notice changes in climate in your lifetime within a specific geographic region. Global climate change has the world GLOBAL in it, not local. The global part is what's important. Your personal observations obout one specific region over your lifetime are exactly meaningless. And I actually do believe that global climate change is occuring, and humans are influencing it. But the evidence you're claiming is evidence of nothing. If you base your scientific theories off of garbage evidence like this, any fool can knock it down with a meer whisper.
It's really too bad that James Lovelock is perceived as a bit of a nutball in the scientific community...global climate change is a real and accelerating problem
It's really too bad that James Lovelock doesn't do science. Otherwise he might be accepted in the scientific community. Instead he makes wild claims without justification. Global climate change is real, but that doesn't make any of Lovelocks claims real.
One of the hallmarks of nonsense is "scientists" publishing theories in the mainstream media rather than peer reviewed journals. I don't see any evidence or research for this theory he has about a "100,000 year fever" for the earth. I don't see any science here, all I see is political alarmism and dogma. If he has evidence to back up his claims he should present it. Otherwise he should stop claiming he's doing science and start up a religion.
It's crap like this that gives stuff like global warming a bad name. Global warming actually has real data to back up its claims. You can debate about the validity of the data, but at least we're engaging in science here.
Slashdot Mirror
Raw material for new rooms on the International Space Station perhaps?
You're kidding, right? Unless you want to put a foundry to melt metal, , something else to fold it into usefull shapes, oh, and welding equipment to put it together in the space station, I don't think raw materials for anything in space is a viable answer. The whole idea that a used 30 year old rocket motor is going to be usefull for someone in a damn space station is ridiculous. It's even more ridiculous than someone on earth trying to re-use the rocket motor.
the only reason it's considered 'junk' is because no one has figured out a way to collect and reuse it
I feel the same way about toxic waste dumps. If someone would just figure out a way to use all that waste, it'd be a goldmine! No need to worry about it leaking toxic waste into groundwater, because surely someone will figure out a way to make a profit from cleaning them up.
Hoping someone finds a way to re-use what was once considered trash isn't an approach to the problem. How much of this stuff is even worth anything if you could somehow find a cheap way of bringing it back to earth un-damaged?
Maybe this is an example of why I'm not a scientist
It is a VERY good example of why you shouldn't be a scientist. Any good scientist knows that correlation doesn't imply causation. Also, any good scientist actually reads the article before going off and making conclusions. The researchers believe the increased risk on one side, and decreased risk on the other is because people were more likely to remember which side they had cancer on if it also was the side they used their cell phone on.
Wrong on both counts. Intel initially planned Itanium to be a replacement for x86. To help in that transition they created a translation layer that they believed would be necessary until vendors made IA64 compiled binaries. The only "inefficiency" is the extra silicon needed to accomplish this, and the IA64 architecture isn't gimped because of it.
I highly doubt losing market share to AMD has anything to do with the decision to dump x86 compatibility on a chip level. No one is using the x86 compatibility, and it also being available in software has made hardware emulation rather pointless. If I remember correctly Intel has for a long time said that the hardware compatibility would go away at some point.
I do agree they should have done it years ago, as soon as the software emulation was available. It only adds more die space and more expense. Apple is now in their 3rd CPU transition, and has never had chip-level backward compatibility. Instruction translation is really only necessary for anything where performance isn't a huge concencern, but the newly compiled version isn't available yet, or never will be. (Like say UPS monitoring software). Anything where high performance is a concern should be re-compiled anyway, or why would you even consider switching to the new chip?
You need to read the two articles, and compare the differences in date of 8 years. These are very clearly two seperate events.
Ok. It wasn't from a backhoe (but from a software bug) but on January 15, 1990 114 AT&T switching nodes went down and cut off service to at least 60,000 customers. http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~nikitab/courses/cs294- 8/hw1.html
Ever read trade magazines? They often use acronyms in a manner that assumes the reader knows what it is, because they are in the same field. I
Ever read a trade magazine that covered 100 different trades? That's what slasdot is.
It just seemed as though you were being callous with the "It's a task to assign to someone" line. You assume that they have people around who need tasking (maybe so, maybe not).
I assume that slashdot actually cares about its readers, and wants to fix problems. Like it or not slashdot is a business, and businesses assign tasks to people. Why is that such a strange way to think of things?
I don't know why you keep talking about acronyms, as I've never actually mentioned an acronym, nor did the original poster. Stop trying to redefine the problem into something you have an answer to.
He said his responsibilities were heavily around Unix. I kinda doubt he's some low level secretary that wants to install linux for fun. Why not give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he's not in the wrong here?
I'm guessing the problem is one of compartmentalization. The IT department doesn't talk to the production department, and so doesn't know there's some people that are running linux and not XP. The standard drone-like response of "We're sorry, but until you're machine accepts the updates we can't re-enable the port." really sounds to me like extreme compartmentalization.
If surfing "bad" sites is THAT important to you, perhaps its time to get your resume out to a company that trusts its employees more.
How do you know he's not about to do exactly that, but first wants to know if the draconian security policies are the norm and not the exception?
Or quit complaining to a bunch of slashdotters and present a true solution that benefits everyone. There are ways to have both security and usability.
Any why isn't asking for help from peers a good way of trying to find that exact solution? Where you hear complaints, I hear asking for help. I'm getting pretty tired of the standard "you loser, why are you asking us?" response to any Ask Slashot post.
If you don't know what it is, and you're skimming anyways, then just skip it.
Maybe that's the way YOU use slashdot, but it's not how I use it. Judging from the "what the hell is blah" comments in many stories, the same is true for a lot of people.
What you're suggesting is to appeal to the lowest common denominator
No, I'm suggesting defining a base level of knowledge that an audience has. Anyone who writes about anything will do that, it's writing 101. You don't need to explain what TCP/IP or Debian is, but a one line description of what "Google Analytics Services" is would be awfully helpful. There's all kinds of publications writing to specialized audience that have a feel for who they're writing to. Science magazines don't explain atomic theory, but they might have some explanation of general relativity. A physics journal isn't going to explain what general relativity is, but they might explain what some new multi-band laser is.
Slashdot too often assumes everyone knows everything. I might be interested in "google analysics services" if I knew what the hell it was. Explaining obscure and new things isn't dumbing anything down, it's addressing the reality that not everyone on slashdot is an expert in every new thing that was just developed (sometimes literally) yesterday.
Would it be too much to ask if readers who didn't know the acronym, look it up on google
Yes, indeed it would. You try doing a google search on blender and see if you can find the right definition that Slashdot is talking about (without already knowing the answer). The 3d modeling software does actually come up first, but that's just not always going to be the case.
Even if it were a matter of a simple google search, why should we all be forced to search out every random term when the editor could have done it in the first place? I don't know about you, but I don't want to have to do a google search on a story JUST to find out if I'm interested in the story or not.
I don't find it interesting to discuss "Do people know what this particular acronym is". It's just boring.
I think you've misunderstood my point. I'm suggesting the slashdot editors compile a list, not the readers. That would indeed be a boring discussion for readers. It's a task to assign to someone, or a backburner project to do over several months.
Far more than it is to you. But what aspects of the site we choose to think matter most will vary from person to person. I think grammar is secondary.
I'm not a big spelling and grammar guy either. But based on the moderation of the comments I think it's a lot more important to more people than you think it is. Simply guessing at what your audience wants isn't a terribly good way to gauge an audience. Pay attention to what people are modding up. I think they make some awfully good points. I'm sure other media outlets do some kind of surveys. You might think slashdot polls are effective, but that's hardly anything near a random sample.
Stepping back a minute and looking at this entire story and the comments in, it would seem there's a large disconnect between what the audience wants, and what the slashdot editors think the audience cares about. It seems to me you need to be more serious about finding out what people want. Maybe random polling done to logged in users? There's an answer somewhere, and I don't feel qualified to give it, since I'm not a statistician or have any experience in surveys.
This has been discussed over here as well. At our core, we tend to exclude those who are outsiders. We assume a basic level of knowledge, and tend to write to that. If you lack that, you might be lost.
How basic is basic? I have a wide variety of knowledge in processors, development, open source tools, etc. I don't know what Blender is at all. It seems too often slashdot editors assume everyone know everything. How many people honestly are into 3D modeling and rendering? We all know what a Pentium, USB, TCP/IP, etc is, but what the heck is "gold farming"? I figured it out from context, but that's only because the word is pretty obvious to what it means.
Slashdot editors need a better grip on what is well known information, and what is obscure "what the hell is that"? I'm constantly trying to figure out what the hell something is, and a simple one line definition of obscure stuff would be helpfull. Would it really be that hard to collect a list of technologies that everyone on slashdot should be familiar with, and if something isn't in that list, then provide a short description? It might take a few months of editors saying stuff like "do people know what CVS is?" and then debating adding it to the list, but formally establishing an audience knowledge level is important.
Besides, your #6 was to claim that he's not replied, and yet he has replied. You just don't like the reply.
Not my claim, someone elses. But I share man of the complaints others have brought up.
Because everybody knows it could be done with a simple little script.
I don't think it could be done with a little script, I think it probbably involves putting in meta tags, keywords, and a human being searching through a few "top hits" of dupes. Don't pretend this is some incredibly hard unsolvable problem.
here, and he intimates it will be a semi-monthly or weekly activity. Honestly, were you even here last week?
And this is a very very recent addition. Why do you have such a smug attitude toward this whole thing? It's like the "there's no problems!" attitude of the Bush administration. There was another one today. We'll see if it continues, and if anything actually changes.
Feel better about #6 now? At least a little? I mean, I realize Rob may be completely off base, or even lying or something. But that is his official reply to your #4.
Not really, since Taco's reply is the same, and as lame as ever. The response is essentially "we don't care about dupes, if you do, fix it yourself". Many people could probbably fix it, but Slashdot is a commercial site, not a free community project. Why should I fix Taco's crappy system when he could pay someone to do it?
The entire problem is more systemic. The editors refuse to take action on the same issues that've existed for years. People seem to respond with "it's his site, not yours" as if Slashdot is just a newspaper and its primary value isn't peoples comments. Even newspapers have a "letters to the editor" section where you can criticize the newspaper. Where's the slashdot equivalent? (and no, the comments section just isn't the same thing). The best thing that's cropped up is simply using dupe articles to talk about all the problems with slashdot. I've seen a grand total of ONE article about slashdot itself over the years, and that was about some dumb conspiracy theory about beatles beatles. Where's a serious discussion of dupes, _really_ crappy pseudo-scientific articles being posted, terrible and innacurate article summaries, etc?
Well, I wouldn't agree that American cars haven't caught up in terms of reliability. You're right in terms of profitability, but that's all because of management and bad companies. Blaming unions is like blaming the laws of physics. Unions will try to get whatever they can, and no one should blame them for doing that.
American car companies made money hand over fist for many years. They've since made a lot of bad decisions, like investing a lot in SUVs for instance. Gas prices go up and surprise surprise people don't want to buy SUVs anymore. They really dropped the ball in the 80s and lost a LOT of consumers because of the across the board terrible reliability. Even though American cars are pretty good now there's a lot of people that STILL think American cars are junk. Car companies holds all the cards, and have no one to blame but themselves when they fail.
Of course they do: * Build better cars (thanks cheap labor and stupid US unions)
Gee, and I thought it was due to short sighted American companies. It's strange that American cars have gotten progressively better over the last 15 years or so, despite those "stupid US unions".
Of course the vast majority aren't gold farmers. The thing is, most of the Chinese play on Chinese servers where they can talk and play with other Chinese using a Chinese localized client.
I think you've missed the scope and context of the discussion. Obviously we're talking about english servers here, not chinese servers.
Boy, I wish it even got to the level of junk science. Then it would actually be falsifiable. I don't think there's any science in what this guy claims.
Can someone who plays these games tell me _honestly_ if a large percentage (say over 40%) of Chinese language speakers are gold farmers? If there truly is a large percentage of Chinese speakers, or even non-english speakers who are gold farmers, that certainly seems like an entirely fair bias to me.
The difference is comparing this to an unfair bias. Like saying black people are criminals, Arab people are terrorists, etc. In these cases the vast vast majority of blacks or Arabs are NOT criminals or terrorists.
Bias is something people believe in and use every day. This idea that bias is always a bad thing is ridiculous. If you see a group of guys walking down the street swinging baseball bats in the middle of the night looking like they're drunk, It's a wise move to avoid them. Now that's bias, as you don't know them and maybe they're coming home from a costume party. But you'd be a fool to not start walking on the other side of the street.
I can think of reasons why Apple would have left this out. Why would they want to support this legacy support code for OSX as it gives them nothing? It makes supporting the boot ROM cleaner, and I'm sure the code is smaller by leaving it out. The only reason they might leave it in is if they get the example code from Intel, and it'd be more trouble than it's worth to take it out.
As to Apple saying they wouldn't do anything to prevent Windows from booting on a Mac, well that sounds more like they won't actively prevent Windows from booting like by putting in code to detect Windows, and then booting it. If they take out the legacy BIOS compatibility code for other reasons I just don't see that as preventing Windows from booting, since Vista is supposed to support EFI.
So, I think the question is still very open. Until I see someone with an x86 Mac running Windows natively, the jury is still out.
However, it is worth noting that I really ought not to be able to notice significant changes to the climate within the span of my lifetime.
Why? The climate change records we have would indicate that you will notice changes in climate in your lifetime within a specific geographic region. Global climate change has the world GLOBAL in it, not local. The global part is what's important. Your personal observations obout one specific region over your lifetime are exactly meaningless. And I actually do believe that global climate change is occuring, and humans are influencing it. But the evidence you're claiming is evidence of nothing. If you base your scientific theories off of garbage evidence like this, any fool can knock it down with a meer whisper.
It's really too bad that James Lovelock is perceived as a bit of a nutball in the scientific community...global climate change is a real and accelerating problem
It's really too bad that James Lovelock doesn't do science. Otherwise he might be accepted in the scientific community. Instead he makes wild claims without justification. Global climate change is real, but that doesn't make any of Lovelocks claims real.
One of the hallmarks of nonsense is "scientists" publishing theories in the mainstream media rather than peer reviewed journals. I don't see any evidence or research for this theory he has about a "100,000 year fever" for the earth. I don't see any science here, all I see is political alarmism and dogma. If he has evidence to back up his claims he should present it. Otherwise he should stop claiming he's doing science and start up a religion.
It's crap like this that gives stuff like global warming a bad name. Global warming actually has real data to back up its claims. You can debate about the validity of the data, but at least we're engaging in science here.