Righto! So, slashdotters... time to take up the pen. Let's draft that copyright law the way it was meant to be, send it to our friendly congresspeople, and if they don't act on it, threaten not to fix their computers next time it gets clogged with malware.
This is only half a joke. Seriously. I want copyright holders to be respected, but enough is enough. We're at an interesting age where it is possible (or becoming possible) to monitor just about everything a person does. The people in power automatically assume that this is a GOOD THING so it will probably happen. This means that every time I forward an email without explicit permission (not implied permission as is often granted), it's technically a copyright violation. Likewise, if I take a photo and I catch a [building, car, photo, etc.] in it by accident I have violated the [architect's, designer's, photographer's, etc.] copyright. My impression is that most reasonable people do stuff like this every day. As ignorance of the law is no excuse, it seems that we really will all become criminals in short order without real copyright reform.
In short, at this point it seems that copyright is getting in the way of average everyday people living, and that the interest of Society at Large (Consumers) is running in a collision course with the interest of the Creators. However, it should also be noted that said Creators are also Consumers and will also be subject to the draconian measures in a fair [HA HA] world. So what this new law would need to provide is a) true fair use, b) reasonable penalties: if you "pirate" a 99 cent song you pay 99 cents per copy plus a small amount of damages per copy (another 99 cents?), c) a way of getting works into the public domain in a reasonable amount of time. Any thoughts?
OK, so fifteen years instead of ten. Wow! What a difference! In either case, this is not a heck of a lot of time to compile statistics on effectiveness. And for that matter, how exactly DO you quantify how many lives were saved by using tasers when from TFAs it's fairly clear that the tasers are not being used only in life threatening situations. (In short, you can't make the assumption that a gun would actually have been used in place of a taser had tasers not been invented.) Perhaps you can explain to me exactly how tasing someone in handcuffs preserves lives?
I want to reinforce your opinion. I would think that tasers would be used in place of guns as the less lethal alternative. Where one would have the right to fire a gun, one could also, in theory use a taser. All the uses I've read about lately most certainly do not fall under this heading. As for the parent to your post:
How many lives have been saved by the use of Tasers? For instance, without a taser it may indeed be much more likely for cops to have to resort to guns and/or other less predictable violent means to protect themselves.
You know, if tasers had been around for more than about 10 years, I might be inclined to take this argument seriously. Besides in some of these cases, the tasers were used after the "perpetrator" had already been subdued and handcuffed. The use was sort of like a "take that for resisting" motive. Can you imagine police in the US or Canada shooting a perp after having handcuffed them?
This abstract summarizes the situation quite nicely:
These results support the hypothesis that the apparently deleterious effects of marked thinness may be due to low FFM and that, over the observed range of the data, marked leanness (as opposed to thinness) has beneficial effects.
International Journal of Obesity (2002) 26, 410-416. DOI: 10.1038/sj/ijo/0801925
The way it was presented to me at an American College of Sports Medicine seminar last year was that some of the studies that claimed being overweight was beneficial to ones health had not controlled for the extremely old (and often very thin). That said, if it is fair to include over-eaters at one end, it is also probably fair to include anorexics at the other.
Anyhow, you get the gist. As someone who has taught in both High School and College and whose wife tutors middle schoolers, I can't say that I've seen anything they are running that can't be replaced by linux based code (or in rare cases, by Windows code running on Wine).
I think that in the past fewer people were better educated. Now, nearly everybody is literate, but at a much reduced level. Can you imagine *any* of our current politicians writing (not ghost writing, but actually writing) at the level of Jefferson, Franklin, or Adams?
I agree with most of what you've said, although I'd like to comment on some points:
1) Faster. Fast loading, faster opening documents, faster saving documents, faster menu response.
2) Smaller. Higher efficiency. Smaller downloads.
3) More stable. Better code. Less crashing.
4) More compatible. With more types of files (for example, docx, wp, svg)
5) Better documented. End user docs, help, and developer docs.
1) Currently I'm starting up in about 3 seconds using Vector Linux 5.8 with a custom built OpenOffice 2.3. So start time is not an issue. Save and load time are, although I think these may be related to the zipped/XML type format that is used. I have no experience with Office Open XML for comparison.
2) This probably is desirable, although the last time I downloaded it took about 5 minutes. For those without superfast broadband connections, a smaller package would be nice.
3) I haven't had crashing problems with OpenOffice in two or three years. At this point, it just works.
4) Docx is theoretically supported by Novell's OpenOffice, but I've heard bad things there. I suspect that since it is theoretically "open", that OpenOffice will support it sooner or later. As a former WP fan, I would also like this support so that I can import my dissertation. Finally, I'm also with you on SVG.
5) The documentation does leave much to be desired, although it's getting better by leaps and bounds. The really key issue here is that the OO.org website sucks. I'll be the first to sing the praises of the program, but their web site looks bad, and is poorly organized. Even when you know what you are looking for, you can't necessarily find it unless you have inside information.
First, let me say that your experience with OO will depend on what you use it for. As I use it mostly for writing papers for publication in scientific journals, quick spreadsheet applications (usually for classroom illustrations), and for "powerpoint" presentations at conferences, it works just dandy for me.
I do have to respond to your comment that "There is not one single thing in OO that doesn't have an OSS equivalent stand-alone application that is at least as good." I like the concepts of KOffice, and Gnome Office, but KOffice really isn't as functional as OO in any way, shape or form. It used to open faster than OO, but recently, OO has taken just three seconds from click to start on my computer, so I can't complain about that. Gnome Office is not integrated. Abiword is great for very small documents of limited functionality, but is no where near the abilities of swriter. Gnumeric is arguably equal with scalc, but then it doesn't have the same sort of interapplication communication with documents as scalc shares with swriter. As a long time simpress user, I have yet to find either a problem with it interoperating with powerpoint, or another opensource program that holds a candle to it.
So to finish, you are probably right in that OpenOffice has a long way to go in matching every type of functionality as MS Office, but I still can't say it has any real competitors in the OSS world at the current time. [Note to KOffice users: I have seen quite an improvement in functionality over the last couple of years, but you all need another couple of Google Summers of Code to catch up. - No flames intended, it's just my humble opinion.]
Actually, my dad was born in Estonia and lived under both Soviet and Nazi occupations. And one of the things he has always told me was that freedom is a slippery slope. Dictators and tyrants have always used some version of the phrase: "for the greater good" to get what they want. Although you are right in that we are still nowhere close to Stalin's Russia or Hitler's Germany, acceding to this without even questioning the consequences to law-abiding Americans is ridiculous and leads us down the slippery slope.
I, for one, would think that the ideas inherent in the X-server (which had its predecessors) would automatically count as prior art as together they imply a multiple desktop functionality existent in the early 1980s if not late 1970s.
Bingo! One guy comes out with a paper in which he says that the majority of scientific studies have flawed methodologies, and the/. crowd jumps on the bandwagon saying: "See, you can't really believe scientists on anything." It may be that many scientists use flawed methodologies or make calculation errors and whatever else he is alleging. However, as I have been a peer reviewer and know the time it takes to properly review a single paper in a field that I know, his claim to have somehow critically viewed most of the scientific literature out there strikes me as singularly ludicrous. Perhaps he used sampling methods. Still, we're talking about a butt-load of fields (See Elsevier.com if you want a glimpse of what just one publisher offers.
Yes, I know. I have just said that a scientific study is wrong thus supporting this guy's claim (Catch 22). But there's a difference between saying one guy is wrong, and the majority of millions of papers are wrong.
I find that this is modus operandi with most of the big box computer stores. It's like taking your customized car in for new tires and having it returned to you without the new paint job and all your stuff missing. Then, when you ask the mechanic about what happened, he asks what you're complaining about, after all, you did get your car back in mint condition.
Always insist on removing your hard-drive first if you value what's on it.
My intent on posting such admittedly one-sided information was to point out there there were some very observable climate changes occurring right now which one does not need a degree in science or statistics to understand. The particular examples I have picked (especially those concerning the glaciers and North Pole) were intended to present scenarios outside of human experience: sea captains have never been able to navigate a northwest passage in recorded human history and many have died trying. Glacial creep is unbelievably easy to both measure (by experts) and observe by novices. Some of the glaciers in the Alps have been portrayed in landscapes for the last couple of centuries and so comparisons between then and now are possible. When one also analyzes the geological record, it's clear that such glacial recessions in these areas haven't happened for thousands of years. Critics of climate change that have posted here have either not acknowledged such obvious examples, or have stated that solar cycles or the precession of the Earth explain this stuff (without offering any data). My critiques of the solar cycles or precession explanations are that they are built into the models that are so soundly criticized by opponents of climate change: one one hand the opponents hate the models, and on the other hand they use them when their purposes are suited.
The true list of both sides of data is at realclimate. There they fairly discuss both sides of the data (for example the fact that there have been some *gains* in glaciation in Greenland and elsewhere) - and then they put it in the context of ALL of the data. It turns out that such gains are the exception rather than the rule. Unfortunately, the site realclimate.org has been designated here as a left-wing conspiracy so I have tried to avoid linking to it even though it really is a data clearing-house.
All of us who have been presenting evidence of any sort have been soundly criticized as being zealots by folks who have stated that graphs are just a bunch of meaningless numbers and the like. In short the critics of climate change seem to me to be intentionally vague or fond of citing outdated data (IPCC 1) vs (IPCC 4). A number of sites have old links to early IPCC reports that do not include some of the fluid dynamics that are being observed in the Antarctic ice sheets (melting begets more melting in a very non-linear way), sea level rise, and new estimates of carbon emissions.
I myself (as someone with an M.A. from the Center for Space Physics at BU) have revised my opinion of global warming quite a lot since the early 1990s - but only by keeping up with what is happening.
So let me get this straight. You admit you are not a climate scientist. You admit that you don't even understand the science in the example of "modeling done right". Yet you are able to identify bad science. Nuff said. Cheers. You're entitled to your opinion.
Yes, climate does change. Yes, we as humans have to deal with it. However, the trends are very clear from so many disparate sources that it boggles the mind that people are questioning the trends. This is not a question of believing in a single book like the Bible (on which I share your opinion). Rather it is a question of listening to people in climatology, geology, meteorology, space physics, physical oceanography and a whole lot of other disciplines who have come to the same conclusions based on very different data sets.
While I realize that you may have done your homework and remain unconvinced of global warming, you have yet to offer any alternative explanations as to why the Antarctic (thanks!) ice sheets are melting, sea level is rising, glaciers are melting, etc... Until such a time as that, you are offering up your belief and not evidence and therefore stand on rather shaky ground accusing me of being (like) a religious fanatic. Since people on this forum have seemed to be discussing either the "year 2000 glitch" (which does nothing to shift the trends), or have been talking entirely in generalities, I have tried to offer up examples that can be experienced by those skeptical of statistical data. What *are* your explanations of the above phenomena if the globe is not warming? Would you buy land in the Seychelles, Maldives, or even South Florida? Not that you owe it to me or anything, but I am truly curious as to why you think that GW is a load of crock.
Puleese! As I listed in a previous posting, there are certain bits of data that indicate that global warming is real. Everyone here seems to be of the mind that because "one bridge collapses, all engineering is useless".
Now, it might be reasoned that the Earth is warming naturally and that humans can't possibly effect such a change on the environment. If you believe this, I have a bridge in Minnesota to sell you. Have you been to China lately? There, in an attempt to rapidly industrialize, they have churned up so much dust and smoke so as to make most of the air unbreathable. When on travels north from Beijing to Badaling (where the Great Wall is up in the mountains), the smog is so bad it makes LA at rush hour look like heaven.
The examples I have listed above are all things which have not happened in the last several thousand years (esp. the one about the ski areas:-) ) In some cases, one must go back tens of thousands of years to see such large scale changes in the environment. It may be that it's part of the natural cycle. However pundits on this side of the issue have yet to prove that they understand the ice age any better than those on the side of climate change. However, climate scientists *have* shown that increased CO2 can lead to warming in all kinds of closed systems, and the rapid industrialization of the world is contributing to the CO2 that's out there.
In short, if you don't trust the computer models which nobody sees as perfect, don't bury your head in the sand. Look around with your own eyes and you will see that there's tons of other evidence that the world is changing.
Actually, I don't think that it is about control. It is about money. Instead of being satisfied with making money hand-over-fist, these folks want to make money hand-over-hand-over-fist. I know some people like this personally. If they could make it illegal for you to breathe without paying, they would do so and see it as their god-given right.
Right, and that is why on their announcements page it is called KDE 4.0 Beta 1. Those of us who have been following the alphas are well aware of the build process. The developers have been very up front with everything: what's included now, what's in the roadmap, etc.
Many of us in the open source community have expected that beta releases are damn-near finished. The KDE developers are using the terms alpha and beta much more conservatively.
Not that I totally buy the MS selling your email stuff (though I wouldn't put it past them), but based on your logic, the private email I keep via my own server which is given out only to a couple of dozen folks ought to be compromised from simple use (just passing through other people's servers). This email has been with me for nearly a decade and such is not the case. So... the man's email is getting compromised somehow!
I got through graduate school running a 166 MHz PII with 128 MB RAM and a 5 GB Harddrive. We kept most of our data on 100 MB zip disks. I mainly used PV-Wave (an IDL clone), LabVIEW, Netscape, and a high-end (at the time) neural network simulator which would take something like 5-15 minutes to train a given network.
Let the "well in my day we used an abacus" stories begin!
I too did a self-install with my Linux systems. I called, just as you, read off some serial numbers and was up and rolling.
Unfortunately, at one point they changed *something*, and all http requests were re-routed to the comcast website. I called Customer Service and was told that my computer was not communicating with the internet and that I had to change something via Windows control panel. I told them that I was not running windows and this did not even register with the tech support person. She kept going from the script as if I hadn't even spoken! I was very polite at first telling her something to the effect that: "Ma'am, I'm sorry, I am not running a Windows operating system. My computers can clearly see the internet because I can get to the comcast homepage. You just need to unblock the MAC address of my cable modem. (PLEASE!)" She continued to go on like she couldn't here me. When I finally said: "Can I please speak with your superior?", she asked "Why? Has your customer service been less than satisfactory?" and then started fighting with me to talk to someone else. I finally did talk to a superior who fixed my problem, although *she* didn't understand that there were operating systems other than Windows. She basically asked me why I couldn't just follow the first woman's directions.
Another time I had the same problem, I called in and the problem was fixed immediately (I did not mention Linux, and simply asked if they could reset my cable modem).
In short, customer service at Comcast is windows-centric, follows scripts as opposed to understanding any technology, and is hit or miss in the satisfaction department depending on who you get on the line.
I predict a fork. Much as some folks are always worried about KDE being beholden to TrollTech (which has been very friendly to the Open Source movement so far), people should be worried about Apple which has already closed off a portion of the code from redistribution. Yes Apple did the smart move from a business viewpoint, but if it should ever consider itself a foe of Linux operating systems, it could pull the rug out from modern printing support (I'm not talking about crusty old lpd) and leave a number of distros high and dry.
Also, am I the only one who finds a July 11, 2007 announcement about something that happened in February 2007 a little bit strange?
I've been running Linux as my desktop exclusively now for about five years. No viruses. No worms. No adware. Oh yeah, and it's free as in beer. The security on it just works. My vendor sets up the firewall for the appropriate level of paranoia "out of the box". Tools for system auditing (chrootkit, nmap, etc...) are usually installed by default. When windows can do all this for free, I'll give it another go. But until then, any such study I see is largely theoretical.
Slashdot Mirror
Righto! So, slashdotters... time to take up the pen. Let's draft that copyright law the way it was meant to be, send it to our friendly congresspeople, and if they don't act on it, threaten not to fix their computers next time it gets clogged with malware.
This is only half a joke. Seriously. I want copyright holders to be respected, but enough is enough. We're at an interesting age where it is possible (or becoming possible) to monitor just about everything a person does. The people in power automatically assume that this is a GOOD THING so it will probably happen. This means that every time I forward an email without explicit permission (not implied permission as is often granted), it's technically a copyright violation. Likewise, if I take a photo and I catch a [building, car, photo, etc.] in it by accident I have violated the [architect's, designer's, photographer's, etc.] copyright. My impression is that most reasonable people do stuff like this every day. As ignorance of the law is no excuse, it seems that we really will all become criminals in short order without real copyright reform.
In short, at this point it seems that copyright is getting in the way of average everyday people living, and that the interest of Society at Large (Consumers) is running in a collision course with the interest of the Creators. However, it should also be noted that said Creators are also Consumers and will also be subject to the draconian measures in a fair [HA HA] world. So what this new law would need to provide is a) true fair use, b) reasonable penalties: if you "pirate" a 99 cent song you pay 99 cents per copy plus a small amount of damages per copy (another 99 cents?), c) a way of getting works into the public domain in a reasonable amount of time. Any thoughts?
OK, so fifteen years instead of ten. Wow! What a difference! In either case, this is not a heck of a lot of time to compile statistics on effectiveness. And for that matter, how exactly DO you quantify how many lives were saved by using tasers when from TFAs it's fairly clear that the tasers are not being used only in life threatening situations. (In short, you can't make the assumption that a gun would actually have been used in place of a taser had tasers not been invented.) Perhaps you can explain to me exactly how tasing someone in handcuffs preserves lives?
Excellent point!
This abstract summarizes the situation quite nicely:
The way it was presented to me at an American College of Sports Medicine seminar last year was that some of the studies that claimed being overweight was beneficial to ones health had not controlled for the extremely old (and often very thin). That said, if it is fair to include over-eaters at one end, it is also probably fair to include anorexics at the other.
For languages:
For Physics:
For Math:
For geography:
For music:
For Mind-Mapping:
- Semantik
Anyhow, you get the gist. As someone who has taught in both High School and College and whose wife tutors middle schoolers, I can't say that I've seen anything they are running that can't be replaced by linux based code (or in rare cases, by Windows code running on Wine).I think that in the past fewer people were better educated. Now, nearly everybody is literate, but at a much reduced level. Can you imagine *any* of our current politicians writing (not ghost writing, but actually writing) at the level of Jefferson, Franklin, or Adams?
2) This probably is desirable, although the last time I downloaded it took about 5 minutes. For those without superfast broadband connections, a smaller package would be nice.
3) I haven't had crashing problems with OpenOffice in two or three years. At this point, it just works.
4) Docx is theoretically supported by Novell's OpenOffice, but I've heard bad things there. I suspect that since it is theoretically "open", that OpenOffice will support it sooner or later. As a former WP fan, I would also like this support so that I can import my dissertation. Finally, I'm also with you on SVG.
5) The documentation does leave much to be desired, although it's getting better by leaps and bounds. The really key issue here is that the OO.org website sucks. I'll be the first to sing the praises of the program, but their web site looks bad, and is poorly organized. Even when you know what you are looking for, you can't necessarily find it unless you have inside information.
First, let me say that your experience with OO will depend on what you use it for. As I use it mostly for writing papers for publication in scientific journals, quick spreadsheet applications (usually for classroom illustrations), and for "powerpoint" presentations at conferences, it works just dandy for me.
I do have to respond to your comment that "There is not one single thing in OO that doesn't have an OSS equivalent stand-alone application that is at least as good." I like the concepts of KOffice, and Gnome Office, but KOffice really isn't as functional as OO in any way, shape or form. It used to open faster than OO, but recently, OO has taken just three seconds from click to start on my computer, so I can't complain about that. Gnome Office is not integrated. Abiword is great for very small documents of limited functionality, but is no where near the abilities of swriter. Gnumeric is arguably equal with scalc, but then it doesn't have the same sort of interapplication communication with documents as scalc shares with swriter. As a long time simpress user, I have yet to find either a problem with it interoperating with powerpoint, or another opensource program that holds a candle to it.
So to finish, you are probably right in that OpenOffice has a long way to go in matching every type of functionality as MS Office, but I still can't say it has any real competitors in the OSS world at the current time. [Note to KOffice users: I have seen quite an improvement in functionality over the last couple of years, but you all need another couple of Google Summers of Code to catch up. - No flames intended, it's just my humble opinion.]
Actually, my dad was born in Estonia and lived under both Soviet and Nazi occupations. And one of the things he has always told me was that freedom is a slippery slope. Dictators and tyrants have always used some version of the phrase: "for the greater good" to get what they want. Although you are right in that we are still nowhere close to Stalin's Russia or Hitler's Germany, acceding to this without even questioning the consequences to law-abiding Americans is ridiculous and leads us down the slippery slope.
I also remember Open Look. See here for history. It was around in the 1980s and predates the patent.
I, for one, would think that the ideas inherent in the X-server (which had its predecessors) would automatically count as prior art as together they imply a multiple desktop functionality existent in the early 1980s if not late 1970s.
Bingo! One guy comes out with a paper in which he says that the majority of scientific studies have flawed methodologies, and the /. crowd jumps on the bandwagon saying: "See, you can't really believe scientists on anything." It may be that many scientists use flawed methodologies or make calculation errors and whatever else he is alleging. However, as I have been a peer reviewer and know the time it takes to properly review a single paper in a field that I know, his claim to have somehow critically viewed most of the scientific literature out there strikes me as singularly ludicrous. Perhaps he used sampling methods. Still, we're talking about a butt-load of fields (See Elsevier.com if you want a glimpse of what just one publisher offers.
Yes, I know. I have just said that a scientific study is wrong thus supporting this guy's claim (Catch 22). But there's a difference between saying one guy is wrong, and the majority of millions of papers are wrong.
I find that this is modus operandi with most of the big box computer stores. It's like taking your customized car in for new tires and having it returned to you without the new paint job and all your stuff missing. Then, when you ask the mechanic about what happened, he asks what you're complaining about, after all, you did get your car back in mint condition.
Always insist on removing your hard-drive first if you value what's on it.
My intent on posting such admittedly one-sided information was to point out there there were some very observable climate changes occurring right now which one does not need a degree in science or statistics to understand. The particular examples I have picked (especially those concerning the glaciers and North Pole) were intended to present scenarios outside of human experience: sea captains have never been able to navigate a northwest passage in recorded human history and many have died trying. Glacial creep is unbelievably easy to both measure (by experts) and observe by novices. Some of the glaciers in the Alps have been portrayed in landscapes for the last couple of centuries and so comparisons between then and now are possible. When one also analyzes the geological record, it's clear that such glacial recessions in these areas haven't happened for thousands of years. Critics of climate change that have posted here have either not acknowledged such obvious examples, or have stated that solar cycles or the precession of the Earth explain this stuff (without offering any data). My critiques of the solar cycles or precession explanations are that they are built into the models that are so soundly criticized by opponents of climate change: one one hand the opponents hate the models, and on the other hand they use them when their purposes are suited.
The true list of both sides of data is at realclimate. There they fairly discuss both sides of the data (for example the fact that there have been some *gains* in glaciation in Greenland and elsewhere) - and then they put it in the context of ALL of the data. It turns out that such gains are the exception rather than the rule. Unfortunately, the site realclimate.org has been designated here as a left-wing conspiracy so I have tried to avoid linking to it even though it really is a data clearing-house.
All of us who have been presenting evidence of any sort have been soundly criticized as being zealots by folks who have stated that graphs are just a bunch of meaningless numbers and the like. In short the critics of climate change seem to me to be intentionally vague or fond of citing outdated data (IPCC 1) vs (IPCC 4). A number of sites have old links to early IPCC reports that do not include some of the fluid dynamics that are being observed in the Antarctic ice sheets (melting begets more melting in a very non-linear way), sea level rise, and new estimates of carbon emissions.
I myself (as someone with an M.A. from the Center for Space Physics at BU) have revised my opinion of global warming quite a lot since the early 1990s - but only by keeping up with what is happening.
So let me get this straight. You admit you are not a climate scientist. You admit that you don't even understand the science in the example of "modeling done right". Yet you are able to identify bad science. Nuff said. Cheers. You're entitled to your opinion.
Yes, climate does change. Yes, we as humans have to deal with it. However, the trends are very clear from so many disparate sources that it boggles the mind that people are questioning the trends. This is not a question of believing in a single book like the Bible (on which I share your opinion). Rather it is a question of listening to people in climatology, geology, meteorology, space physics, physical oceanography and a whole lot of other disciplines who have come to the same conclusions based on very different data sets.
While I realize that you may have done your homework and remain unconvinced of global warming, you have yet to offer any alternative explanations as to why the Antarctic (thanks!) ice sheets are melting, sea level is rising, glaciers are melting, etc... Until such a time as that, you are offering up your belief and not evidence and therefore stand on rather shaky ground accusing me of being (like) a religious fanatic. Since people on this forum have seemed to be discussing either the "year 2000 glitch" (which does nothing to shift the trends), or have been talking entirely in generalities, I have tried to offer up examples that can be experienced by those skeptical of statistical data. What *are* your explanations of the above phenomena if the globe is not warming? Would you buy land in the Seychelles, Maldives, or even South Florida? Not that you owe it to me or anything, but I am truly curious as to why you think that GW is a load of crock.
Now, it might be reasoned that the Earth is warming naturally and that humans can't possibly effect such a change on the environment. If you believe this, I have a bridge in Minnesota to sell you. Have you been to China lately? There, in an attempt to rapidly industrialize, they have churned up so much dust and smoke so as to make most of the air unbreathable. When on travels north from Beijing to Badaling (where the Great Wall is up in the mountains), the smog is so bad it makes LA at rush hour look like heaven.
The examples I have listed above are all things which have not happened in the last several thousand years (esp. the one about the ski areas :-) ) In some cases, one must go back tens of thousands of years to see such large scale changes in the environment. It may be that it's part of the natural cycle. However pundits on this side of the issue have yet to prove that they understand the ice age any better than those on the side of climate change. However, climate scientists *have* shown that increased CO2 can lead to warming in all kinds of closed systems, and the rapid industrialization of the world is contributing to the CO2 that's out there.
In short, if you don't trust the computer models which nobody sees as perfect, don't bury your head in the sand. Look around with your own eyes and you will see that there's tons of other evidence that the world is changing.
Never mind the fact that scientists are witnessing ice shelves in Antarctica falling into the sea. Or that the North Pole is melting so that there will soon be a North-West Passage which Canada is laying claims to. Or that much of the global warming data does not come from NASA. Or that ski areas in the Alpsare going out of business. Or that there is glacial melting everywhere.. Or that Indonesia's islands are being submerged by rising sea level. Call me a deluded, but it seems that the preponderance of evidence is on the side of these so called "global warming" fanatics.
Actually, I don't think that it is about control. It is about money. Instead of being satisfied with making money hand-over-fist, these folks want to make money hand-over-hand-over-fist. I know some people like this personally. If they could make it illegal for you to breathe without paying, they would do so and see it as their god-given right.
- Visual Guide to 4.0 alpha-1
- KDE 4.0 alpha-2 announcement
- KDE 4.0 beta-1 announcement
Many of us in the open source community have expected that beta releases are damn-near finished. The KDE developers are using the terms alpha and beta much more conservatively.Not that I totally buy the MS selling your email stuff (though I wouldn't put it past them), but based on your logic, the private email I keep via my own server which is given out only to a couple of dozen folks ought to be compromised from simple use (just passing through other people's servers). This email has been with me for nearly a decade and such is not the case. So... the man's email is getting compromised somehow!
I got through graduate school running a 166 MHz PII with 128 MB RAM and a 5 GB Harddrive. We kept most of our data on 100 MB zip disks. I mainly used PV-Wave (an IDL clone), LabVIEW, Netscape, and a high-end (at the time) neural network simulator which would take something like 5-15 minutes to train a given network.
Let the "well in my day we used an abacus" stories begin!
I too did a self-install with my Linux systems. I called, just as you, read off some serial numbers and was up and rolling.
Unfortunately, at one point they changed *something*, and all http requests were re-routed to the comcast website. I called Customer Service and was told that my computer was not communicating with the internet and that I had to change something via Windows control panel. I told them that I was not running windows and this did not even register with the tech support person. She kept going from the script as if I hadn't even spoken! I was very polite at first telling her something to the effect that: "Ma'am, I'm sorry, I am not running a Windows operating system. My computers can clearly see the internet because I can get to the comcast homepage. You just need to unblock the MAC address of my cable modem. (PLEASE!)" She continued to go on like she couldn't here me. When I finally said: "Can I please speak with your superior?", she asked "Why? Has your customer service been less than satisfactory?" and then started fighting with me to talk to someone else. I finally did talk to a superior who fixed my problem, although *she* didn't understand that there were operating systems other than Windows. She basically asked me why I couldn't just follow the first woman's directions.
Another time I had the same problem, I called in and the problem was fixed immediately (I did not mention Linux, and simply asked if they could reset my cable modem).In short, customer service at Comcast is windows-centric, follows scripts as opposed to understanding any technology, and is hit or miss in the satisfaction department depending on who you get on the line.
I predict a fork. Much as some folks are always worried about KDE being beholden to TrollTech (which has been very friendly to the Open Source movement so far), people should be worried about Apple which has already closed off a portion of the code from redistribution. Yes Apple did the smart move from a business viewpoint, but if it should ever consider itself a foe of Linux operating systems, it could pull the rug out from modern printing support (I'm not talking about crusty old lpd) and leave a number of distros high and dry.
Also, am I the only one who finds a July 11, 2007 announcement about something that happened in February 2007 a little bit strange?
I've been running Linux as my desktop exclusively now for about five years. No viruses. No worms. No adware. Oh yeah, and it's free as in beer. The security on it just works. My vendor sets up the firewall for the appropriate level of paranoia "out of the box". Tools for system auditing (chrootkit, nmap, etc...) are usually installed by default. When windows can do all this for free, I'll give it another go. But until then, any such study I see is largely theoretical.