Bush and DeLay rail against "activist judges" when judges threaten to bring down DeLay for breaking the law.
But when they want Terri Schaivo kept alive, they lament that the judges can't find a way to do it. They even pass specific laws to have judges look again, even after the judges (who do know their jobs) say there is nothing they can do.
This whole thing is a canard so the Repubs can undermine judges in preparating for the time when all these illegal deeds (locking people up without trial, DeLay's myriad election misdeeds) are declared illegal by the judges.
Furthermore, the whole idea that judges aren't there to read between the lines runs afoul of two things.
1. The whole point of the judicial branch is to interpret the law. 2. Anyone who has been to law school (or heck, watched The Paper Chase) knows that the law can never be completely specific. The world changes, the law doesn't change as quickly. It is invetiable judges will have to make determinations where the law doesn't cover.
I fully agree that when Congress acts, judges should follow those laws. I fully believe it is Congress' job to change the law. But when there are gaps, it is the Judicial branch's job to make determinations as to what should be done, at least until Congress can go back and make more specific laws.
So, the abortion thing comes up because there is no law specifically addressing it. Well, no law that wasn't found to conflict with the Constution, or more specifically the Bill of Rights.
See, a big part of the problem is the Constitution is the highest law of the land and it is terribly vague in many areas. "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"? That's the supreme law of the land, it's in the Constitution. It is up to a judge to determine what that means, barring an ammendment which clarifies it.
Anyway, this whole thing torques me off, since just last week Scalia was mouthing off, making the headlines in a way very unbecoming the staid image of the Judicial branch. And he will be our next Chief Justice. Yeech.
Have read my follow up to my mis-post which was posted 3 HOURS before you took me to task for not reading before I post.
Mark L. used to work at MS, now he works at Google. Google and MS aren't getting along right now. That's plenty of reason. And I don't know if you've encountered it, but sometimes people just like to tell stories because it's fun. See Douglas Adams telling the stolen biscuits story, claming it happened to him. http://www.snopes.com/crime/safety/cookies.asp
Besides, you don't know this guy. Maybe MS didn't appreciate him. And surely Google appreciates him more (in dollars at least), it's a pretty long leap to take this man's word.
Anyway, you do also realize that Ballmer said that the story was overamped, not just a flat-out lie. People are not video cameras. Their recollections are affected by their feelings. It's very possible that both people recall the same situation differently and that the actual incident wasn't the same as either of them say.
People will believe what they want to believe, I've learned that in my journey through life. I just thought I'd put forth an opposing viewpoint, how a person with different predispositions might see things being differently.
Except you're on dry land, you have water and you have electrical power.
I know just walking away from the Superdome doesn't solve everything. it's a lot better to be on dry land with electrical power and water than to be in a stadium that is described as disgusting now.
I do appreciate those people didn't leave because they felt they had nowhere to go. It wasn't true, there were other shelters, the Superdome was the one of last resort for people who weren't fit enough to travel out of town. On top of this, in NO, once the storm came through, they had no reason to stay either.
I mean, if you are down to nothing, what's so great about an underwater city that you would stay there. If you have to start from scratch, maybe there are better places to do it, especially in the short term!
And again, I do understand this doesn't apply to those in cites outside of NO. Once they decided to stay, and the storm left, they were out of impending danger, and as big a mistake as they made, it was over with. For those in NO, the storm was just the beginning, and once the waters began rising and destroyed all they had, they then should have not compounded their mistake by continuing to stay.
As the to Cuba comparison, we did have sites. Were they prepped? Well, perhaps not as well as they should have been. But they were better prepped than the Superdome. No, they weren't governmental sites (unless you count schools), but they were there and ready for people. The problem was again PEOPLE DIDN'T LEAVE. It isn't an issue of governments. Perhaps Cuba can force their people to leave, we cannot.
You say Bush called to order a mandatory evacuation, but your source says he appealed for one.
To be honest, appealing makes a lot more sense ot me. I don't like the Feds mandating things at the local level (it's called Republicanism).
And honestly, that's all hot air anyway, because the Mayor is not stupid, he was speaking of how bad is was going to be days before Katrina hit. Katrina was possibly going to hit NO square, and so he would have mandated an evacuation anyway.
So Bush didn't save any lives here, not at least in the aspect of whether it was mandatory or not.
IMHO, the deaths in NO can be put square on the people in NO, mostly. Why did they stay there instead of leaving? And why when the levees broke did they still stay? Look at the satellite maps, if you just WALK two miles west (best take a circuituous route to stay in the shallow water), you're on dry land. Why would you stay in a flooded area with no power when you can go to somewhere where there is dry land and electricity? It's not like they had anything left in NO anyway after the waters started to rise.
I know there were infirm people there, that's why the Superdome was a shelter of "last resort". But the rest have no one else to blame for why they are still in a disaster area in a trash-ridden stenchhole days later.
Of course, none of this applies much to the areas east of NO like Biloxi and Gulfport that were destroyed in the storm, not in the floods.
I think just the blame game is way out of hand. What official did or didn't do this or that. Like this: why weren't school buses used for evacuations? Well, did you see reports of people lining up to leave before the storm with no way to go?
If there were buses, these people wouldn't have boarded them. They didn't want to leave, because they didn't think it would be this bad. And they were told if they leave, they possibly couldn't return for weeks, perhaps months.
So they did the math, probably figured that if they left their homes would be looted before they got back, and meanwhile, they're paying to stay in a hotel or something for days or weeks that they cannot afford. So they went to a local shelter of last resort when they should have left.
That's the problem. That's why these people didn't leave. It's not the government's fault.
Now, doubly stupid is once your home is destroyed, your job doesn't exist (at least at the moment), all your possessions lost, and you're in an area with no water and no power, staying there. For the life of me I don't know why those people didn't walk S to the river (the land is highest by the river), W by the river and onto the dry land W of town. There is no breach in the levee down there to stop them or anything. I don't get it.
Who works at a company Microsoft is suing. and more to the point, left Microsoft to be at that company.
And I should mention, I sold Intel at a loss a couple years back when I tound out how they ran their business and treated their employees. You just shouldn't own stock in a company you don't believe in.
This story is alleged to occur this way by a man whom Microsoft is currently suing. Microsoft says it didn't happen that way.
It sounds to me like you don't believe in Microsoft and are predisposed to believe negative things about them. Given this, I highly recommend you don't hold on to any Microsoft stock.
I'm not as certain about what this means for others though.
I will say this, I'm certain Microsoft is feeling a lot of pressure due to the brain drain problems with Google. Every company in tech is.
You're acting like a bigger ass than most Americans do when confronted with concerns about how your country is run.
I live in a 3 strikes state (California), and I don't like it. What can I say, the law isn't perfect, some people have tried to amend it, and maybe we'll repeal it some day. I dunno.
Anyway, you are a great example of how you can't make broad generalizations about people in another country. Three of my friends came here from Saskatoon in the last year. And they're all great. They don't rip into Americans because they don't happen to like our current administration.
Do I blast you for Paul Martin's kickback scandal? No. So perhaps you could find your way not to condemn Americans or the American system for the actions of our government.
I find your post hilarious. It makes several mistakes in evaluating the situation. The biggest is the "we're all reasonable people, we'd never do something like this" one. This rolls several dumb assumptions up into one. Assumptions that Americans are somehow abberant, that because this happens it's somehow representative of the US in general, and the assumption that there isn't some pocket in your own country where people feel sufficiently different from you that it could happen there too.
This is the cost of the monitoring system only. You have to have a person there within a few minutes to save them. So that means this system only works if you have lifeguards on duty.
Houses don't always have lifeguards on duty, which is part of the reason their pools are so dangerous.
So you need to add the cost of a full-time lifeguard for each pool, or close to it. And once you've done that, you probably don't need the computer monitoring, because a life guard is unlikely to miss a person falling into a home pool, which is probably only 40 feet by 20 feet.
You're sure about your math (let alone that apostrophe)?
It just can't be true, at least in current Euros. If the average tax rate is 50%, and a person works on average 40 years, then that means the AVERAGE person in the EU makes 50,000 Euro per year?
That's pretty far out of line with my understanding. I would have to imagine it'd be perhaps closer to 30,000 Euro on average.
If you're gonna do that math, you should also give some other examples of what we could do with the $0.16/year/person this costs.
I have to say, as a non-pool owning, non-kid having, it bothers me that you just go ahead and bundle me in amongst the people paying for this thing. At the very least, it would seem to me that only people who have pools should have to pay for saving kids who fall in them. That way, it's part of the cost of buying a pool, something that should be taken into account when pricing one.
All in all, I have to figure this system, if produced in the volumes required to cover every pool in the US would cost a lot less than $100,000, thus making a lot of this math invalid.
The Mississippi river is higher than the lake. So the water will now flow from the break by the river into the city, then out into the lake.
So the water won't be still at either location.
And besides, fixing the levee on the lake side now will only cause the city to flood more, so the levee that needs fixed most is the one by the Mississippi and it is still flowing just like before.
Hey, don't get me wrong, I'm all for donating blood in principle.
But people are dying of exposure and drowning. Blood transfusions will do nothing for them.
I'm sure there are some injured people around who do need some blood, perhaps more than normal. But given that there aren't refrigerated trucks to get the blood there (hell, there isn't even gas), what good is this influx of blood really going to do?
Honestly, cell phone service would probably be more useful than blood in those areas right now.
I do understand it dropped later, but so did the price of 20G iPods.
Also, "estimated street price" is used by companies to indicate sell prices below MSRP, because they expect discounting. It isn't used to indicate prices above MSRP.
Art ends the moment something is replicated and sold. It becomes business then.
But we disagree on a much larger thing. That is, you somehow feel because you are "arty" you have some kind of right to make your own rules or control whether others turn their art into a business.
I understand, you would never, ever charge for your art. I appreciate that. I think that is great. However, why do you feel this has any bearing on whether others do?
And most of all, why do you say in the final paragraph that you hold the only valid opinion on the matter?
You're objecting to feelings, not words. How do you know those who make the jokes aren't feeling empathy? You're pretty presumptive to say you know what others are feeling.
As to letting others live their lives, you specifically took time out to lecture people on what they should (more accurately shouldn't) do. To me, that's just unwarranted and unnecessary. Let these people be, you're sure not going to make them have any respect they don't already have by telling them how wrong they are.
Actually, before Katrina turned to the east to hit Gulfport, the estimate was 4 months.
If you leave, you cannot return, they won't let you back until the place is "safe". And with people there to loot, what would you return to after 4 months, or 1?
I think many people stayed to guard their houses. I know many people said they stayed in places (not necessarily their homes) that weren't touched by Camille. Except this turned out to be worse, at least in Mississippi and Alabama.
You should head to the poles or even just to Canada some time.
Whether the ability for air to hold water vapor is strictly determined by temperature or not, the principles still hold.
Warmer air tends to hold more water. Cold air holds very little. Your argument says that the cold air could hold as much as the warm air. Perhaps this is theoretically true, but it practice it doesn't seem to actually occur.
Let me use a link here, one pointed to by your link:
"However, because of the ubiquitous presence of condensation nuclei (e.g., dust, salt, etc.), relative humidities in the Earth's atmosphere typically do not exceed 100% at the surface or 102% within clouds."
Or perhaps above:
"Outside of clouds and close to the Earth's surface, you can consider the relative humidity not to exceed 100%."
Apparently your sources might not use the words "The relative humidity can be far higher than 100% in certain situations." as easily as you did.
I'm sorry, but an overage of 2% doesn't undermine what I said at all. One of the effects of rising temperatures would be to put more water into the air, because, in normal conditions air holds more water when it is warmer. And I have to imagine when considering the entire globe, the few cases where this guideline might be violated won't change the overall effect.
The content these devices was likely duplicated bit-for-bit from a master image. That master image had a virus, and was likely made on a machine running Windows.
But it could easily be that the factory uses Linux, and that the machine which duplicated the image onto these affected devices runs Linux.
Is vastly superior to Linux's system. It has a lot more fine-grained system of doling out privileges.
And Linux doesn't force you to use their permissions system. You can log in as root and run your daemons as root all day long if you'd like.
Neither of these statements means that Windows is more secure Linux. But I think that your statement that Linux is inherently more secure due to design principles is a pretty long stretch.
Humidity is measured as "relative humidity". That is because warmer air can hold more water in it. If the global temperature were to rise, the amount of water in the air (think clouds) will go up. Is this more or less than the expansion of the water in the oceans?
So there is a chance that the oceans could stay level or even go down as the global temperature rises.
Slashdot Mirror
Bush and DeLay rail against "activist judges" when judges threaten to bring down DeLay for breaking the law.
But when they want Terri Schaivo kept alive, they lament that the judges can't find a way to do it. They even pass specific laws to have judges look again, even after the judges (who do know their jobs) say there is nothing they can do.
This whole thing is a canard so the Repubs can undermine judges in preparating for the time when all these illegal deeds (locking people up without trial, DeLay's myriad election misdeeds) are declared illegal by the judges.
Furthermore, the whole idea that judges aren't there to read between the lines runs afoul of two things.
1. The whole point of the judicial branch is to interpret the law.
2. Anyone who has been to law school (or heck, watched The Paper Chase) knows that the law can never be completely specific. The world changes, the law doesn't change as quickly. It is invetiable judges will have to make determinations where the law doesn't cover.
I fully agree that when Congress acts, judges should follow those laws. I fully believe it is Congress' job to change the law. But when there are gaps, it is the Judicial branch's job to make determinations as to what should be done, at least until Congress can go back and make more specific laws.
So, the abortion thing comes up because there is no law specifically addressing it. Well, no law that wasn't found to conflict with the Constution, or more specifically the Bill of Rights.
See, a big part of the problem is the Constitution is the highest law of the land and it is terribly vague in many areas. "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"? That's the supreme law of the land, it's in the Constitution. It is up to a judge to determine what that means, barring an ammendment which clarifies it.
Anyway, this whole thing torques me off, since just last week Scalia was mouthing off, making the headlines in a way very unbecoming the staid image of the Judicial branch. And he will be our next Chief Justice. Yeech.
Have read my follow up to my mis-post which was posted 3 HOURS before you took me to task for not reading before I post.
Mark L. used to work at MS, now he works at Google. Google and MS aren't getting along right now. That's plenty of reason. And I don't know if you've encountered it, but sometimes people just like to tell stories because it's fun. See Douglas Adams telling the stolen biscuits story, claming it happened to him. http://www.snopes.com/crime/safety/cookies.asp
Besides, you don't know this guy. Maybe MS didn't appreciate him. And surely Google appreciates him more (in dollars at least), it's a pretty long leap to take this man's word.
Anyway, you do also realize that Ballmer said that the story was overamped, not just a flat-out lie. People are not video cameras. Their recollections are affected by their feelings. It's very possible that both people recall the same situation differently and that the actual incident wasn't the same as either of them say.
People will believe what they want to believe, I've learned that in my journey through life. I just thought I'd put forth an opposing viewpoint, how a person with different predispositions might see things being differently.
Except you're on dry land, you have water and you have electrical power.
I know just walking away from the Superdome doesn't solve everything. it's a lot better to be on dry land with electrical power and water than to be in a stadium that is described as disgusting now.
I do appreciate those people didn't leave because they felt they had nowhere to go. It wasn't true, there were other shelters, the Superdome was the one of last resort for people who weren't fit enough to travel out of town. On top of this, in NO, once the storm came through, they had no reason to stay either.
I mean, if you are down to nothing, what's so great about an underwater city that you would stay there. If you have to start from scratch, maybe there are better places to do it, especially in the short term!
And again, I do understand this doesn't apply to those in cites outside of NO. Once they decided to stay, and the storm left, they were out of impending danger, and as big a mistake as they made, it was over with. For those in NO, the storm was just the beginning, and once the waters began rising and destroyed all they had, they then should have not compounded their mistake by continuing to stay.
As the to Cuba comparison, we did have sites. Were they prepped? Well, perhaps not as well as they should have been. But they were better prepped than the Superdome. No, they weren't governmental sites (unless you count schools), but they were there and ready for people. The problem was again PEOPLE DIDN'T LEAVE. It isn't an issue of governments. Perhaps Cuba can force their people to leave, we cannot.
You say Bush called to order a mandatory evacuation, but your source says he appealed for one.
To be honest, appealing makes a lot more sense ot me. I don't like the Feds mandating things at the local level (it's called Republicanism).
And honestly, that's all hot air anyway, because the Mayor is not stupid, he was speaking of how bad is was going to be days before Katrina hit. Katrina was possibly going to hit NO square, and so he would have mandated an evacuation anyway.
So Bush didn't save any lives here, not at least in the aspect of whether it was mandatory or not.
IMHO, the deaths in NO can be put square on the people in NO, mostly. Why did they stay there instead of leaving? And why when the levees broke did they still stay? Look at the satellite maps, if you just WALK two miles west (best take a circuituous route to stay in the shallow water), you're on dry land. Why would you stay in a flooded area with no power when you can go to somewhere where there is dry land and electricity? It's not like they had anything left in NO anyway after the waters started to rise.
I know there were infirm people there, that's why the Superdome was a shelter of "last resort". But the rest have no one else to blame for why they are still in a disaster area in a trash-ridden stenchhole days later.
Of course, none of this applies much to the areas east of NO like Biloxi and Gulfport that were destroyed in the storm, not in the floods.
I think just the blame game is way out of hand. What official did or didn't do this or that. Like this: why weren't school buses used for evacuations? Well, did you see reports of people lining up to leave before the storm with no way to go?
If there were buses, these people wouldn't have boarded them. They didn't want to leave, because they didn't think it would be this bad. And they were told if they leave, they possibly couldn't return for weeks, perhaps months.
So they did the math, probably figured that if they left their homes would be looted before they got back, and meanwhile, they're paying to stay in a hotel or something for days or weeks that they cannot afford. So they went to a local shelter of last resort when they should have left.
That's the problem. That's why these people didn't leave. It's not the government's fault.
Now, doubly stupid is once your home is destroyed, your job doesn't exist (at least at the moment), all your possessions lost, and you're in an area with no water and no power, staying there. For the life of me I don't know why those people didn't walk S to the river (the land is highest by the river), W by the river and onto the dry land W of town. There is no breach in the levee down there to stop them or anything. I don't get it.
Who works at a company Microsoft is suing. and more to the point, left Microsoft to be at that company.
And I should mention, I sold Intel at a loss a couple years back when I tound out how they ran their business and treated their employees. You just shouldn't own stock in a company you don't believe in.
This story is alleged to occur this way by a man whom Microsoft is currently suing. Microsoft says it didn't happen that way.
It sounds to me like you don't believe in Microsoft and are predisposed to believe negative things about them. Given this, I highly recommend you don't hold on to any Microsoft stock.
I'm not as certain about what this means for others though.
I will say this, I'm certain Microsoft is feeling a lot of pressure due to the brain drain problems with Google. Every company in tech is.
And I happen to like your country.
You're acting like a bigger ass than most Americans do when confronted with concerns about how your country is run.
I live in a 3 strikes state (California), and I don't like it. What can I say, the law isn't perfect, some people have tried to amend it, and maybe we'll repeal it some day. I dunno.
Anyway, you are a great example of how you can't make broad generalizations about people in another country. Three of my friends came here from Saskatoon in the last year. And they're all great. They don't rip into Americans because they don't happen to like our current administration.
Do I blast you for Paul Martin's kickback scandal? No.
So perhaps you could find your way not to condemn Americans or the American system for the actions of our government.
I find your post hilarious. It makes several mistakes in evaluating the situation. The biggest is the "we're all reasonable people, we'd never do something like this" one. This rolls several dumb assumptions up into one. Assumptions that Americans are somehow abberant, that because this happens it's somehow representative of the US in general, and the assumption that there isn't some pocket in your own country where people feel sufficiently different from you that it could happen there too.
Then your salary comes under the TCO.
Any administration costs come under TCO.
Part of Microsoft's arguments are that you need a unix guru around to run your linux servers. I would agree.
However, if you want to run a good MS system, you should have a Windows guru on staff too. So I'm not sure how I see that Windows TCO should be lower.
But I'm sure I could be made to see it that way if someone funded me to make a study. Prospective clients, you can contact me at...
I paid for Winzip too. Just before version 8.
Since then, I've paid a lot of upgrade fees to other companies, but not to WinZip.
I think the last money I spent with them was very well spent and I'll consider that when choosing whether or not to pay them again. I'm likely to.
But if they want me to pay again a year later, they can kiss my shiny metal...
This is the cost of the monitoring system only. You have to have a person there within a few minutes to save them. So that means this system only works if you have lifeguards on duty.
Houses don't always have lifeguards on duty, which is part of the reason their pools are so dangerous.
So you need to add the cost of a full-time lifeguard for each pool, or close to it. And once you've done that, you probably don't need the computer monitoring, because a life guard is unlikely to miss a person falling into a home pool, which is probably only 40 feet by 20 feet.
You're sure about your math (let alone that apostrophe)?
It just can't be true, at least in current Euros. If the average tax rate is 50%, and a person works on average 40 years, then that means the AVERAGE person in the EU makes 50,000 Euro per year?
That's pretty far out of line with my understanding. I would have to imagine it'd be perhaps closer to 30,000 Euro on average.
If you're gonna do that math, you should also give some other examples of what we could do with the $0.16/year/person this costs.
I have to say, as a non-pool owning, non-kid having, it bothers me that you just go ahead and bundle me in amongst the people paying for this thing. At the very least, it would seem to me that only people who have pools should have to pay for saving kids who fall in them. That way, it's part of the cost of buying a pool, something that should be taken into account when pricing one.
All in all, I have to figure this system, if produced in the volumes required to cover every pool in the US would cost a lot less than $100,000, thus making a lot of this math invalid.
The Mississippi river is higher than the lake. So the water will now flow from the break by the river into the city, then out into the lake.
So the water won't be still at either location.
And besides, fixing the levee on the lake side now will only cause the city to flood more, so the levee that needs fixed most is the one by the Mississippi and it is still flowing just like before.
Hey, don't get me wrong, I'm all for donating blood in principle.
But people are dying of exposure and drowning. Blood transfusions will do nothing for them.
I'm sure there are some injured people around who do need some blood, perhaps more than normal. But given that there aren't refrigerated trucks to get the blood there (hell, there isn't even gas), what good is this influx of blood really going to do?
Honestly, cell phone service would probably be more useful than blood in those areas right now.
Cue the hams...
Not when it was released.
e rs/rio/PRD_173483_5548crx.aspx
Just search. There's plenty of places that still list the initial MSRP.
http://www.audioreview.com/cat/portables/mp3-play
I do understand it dropped later, but so did the price of 20G iPods.
Also, "estimated street price" is used by companies to indicate sell prices below MSRP, because they expect discounting. It isn't used to indicate prices above MSRP.
Art ends the moment something is replicated and sold. It becomes business then.
But we disagree on a much larger thing. That is, you somehow feel because you are "arty" you have some kind of right to make your own rules or control whether others turn their art into a business.
I understand, you would never, ever charge for your art. I appreciate that. I think that is great. However, why do you feel this has any bearing on whether others do?
And most of all, why do you say in the final paragraph that you hold the only valid opinion on the matter?
You're objecting to feelings, not words. How do you know those who make the jokes aren't feeling empathy? You're pretty presumptive to say you know what others are feeling.
As to letting others live their lives, you specifically took time out to lecture people on what they should (more accurately shouldn't) do. To me, that's just unwarranted and unnecessary. Let these people be, you're sure not going to make them have any respect they don't already have by telling them how wrong they are.
Actually, before Katrina turned to the east to hit Gulfport, the estimate was 4 months.
If you leave, you cannot return, they won't let you back until the place is "safe". And with people there to loot, what would you return to after 4 months, or 1?
I think many people stayed to guard their houses. I know many people said they stayed in places (not necessarily their homes) that weren't touched by Camille. Except this turned out to be worse, at least in Mississippi and Alabama.
Why don't you live your way and let others live theirs'?
I think you'll find things a lot easier if you just concentrate on being the best person you can be and stop trying to tell others how to live.
Does it even really take away much from your existence if others make poor jokes and you just turn away?
You should head to the poles or even just to Canada some time.
h tml
Whether the ability for air to hold water vapor is strictly determined by temperature or not, the principles still hold.
Warmer air tends to hold more water. Cold air holds very little. Your argument says that the cold air could hold as much as the warm air. Perhaps this is theoretically true, but it practice it doesn't seem to actually occur.
Let me use a link here, one pointed to by your link:
http://fermi.jhuapl.edu/people/babin/vapor/index.
Read the key points.
"However, because of the ubiquitous presence of condensation nuclei (e.g., dust, salt, etc.), relative humidities in the Earth's atmosphere typically do not exceed 100% at the surface or 102% within clouds."
Or perhaps above:
"Outside of clouds and close to the Earth's surface, you can consider the relative humidity not to exceed 100%."
Apparently your sources might not use the words "The relative humidity can be far higher than 100% in certain situations." as easily as you did.
I'm sorry, but an overage of 2% doesn't undermine what I said at all. One of the effects of rising temperatures would be to put more water into the air, because, in normal conditions air holds more water when it is warmer. And I have to imagine when considering the entire globe, the few cases where this guideline might be violated won't change the overall effect.
Not from this at least.
The content these devices was likely duplicated bit-for-bit from a master image. That master image had a virus, and was likely made on a machine running Windows.
But it could easily be that the factory uses Linux, and that the machine which duplicated the image onto these affected devices runs Linux.
Is vastly superior to Linux's system. It has a lot more fine-grained system of doling out privileges.
And Linux doesn't force you to use their permissions system. You can log in as root and run your daemons as root all day long if you'd like.
Neither of these statements means that Windows is more secure Linux. But I think that your statement that Linux is inherently more secure due to design principles is a pretty long stretch.
Run by Steve Jobs.
Revolutionary usually just means it looks really, really cool.
Humidity is measured as "relative humidity". That is because warmer air can hold more water in it. If the global temperature were to rise, the amount of water in the air (think clouds) will go up. Is this more or less than the expansion of the water in the oceans?
So there is a chance that the oceans could stay level or even go down as the global temperature rises.