Linux-Advocacy Digest #179, Volume #29 Mon, 18 Sep 00 11:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (Jim Naylor)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Matthias
Warkus)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Matthias
Warkus)
Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools) ("Joe R.")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Donovan
Rebbechi)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT ("Joe R.")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Donovan
Rebbechi)
Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools) (Jack Troughton)
Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools) (Jack Troughton)
Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools) (Jason Bowen)
Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools) (WickedDyno)
Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools) (WickedDyno)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (Chad Irby)
Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools) ("Joe R.")
Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools) (Jason Bowen)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (WickedDyno)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim Naylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: 18 Sep 2000 14:03:45 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Chad Irby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > "Chad Irby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > But he also said "-- same kernel, same overall features"
> > > > > which is incorrect.
> > > >
> > > > So tell us.. what differences are there between the NT 5 kernel
> > > > and the Windows 2000 kernel?
> >
> > List of Windows 2000 (aka Windows 5) features and improvements over
> > Windows NT 4 deleted...
> >
> > > > Keep in mind that they're the same product, with different
> > > > names.
> > >
> > > Obviously you had no idea what the hell you're talking about, so
> > > why do I even bother trying to educate you?
> >
> > So far, you've told us that NT 5, which was released as Windows
> > 2000, has many features that Windows NT *4* didn't have (noe that 4
> > and 5 are different numbers). When are you going to address the
> > fact that "Windows 2000" and "Windows NT 5" are the exact same
> > product in a different box?
> >
> > IT"S THE SAME GODDAMNED PRODUCT! All they did was change the name
> > before they released it.
> >
> > Please note that Windows NT 4, which was released, was a
> > *different* product than NT 5, which was released under the name
> > Windows 2000 so Microsoft could have a cool-sounding product name.
>
> Windows 2000 isn't NT5. There is no such thing as NT 5 which is why
> the original statement:
>
> --> Actually, Win2K is simply WinNT 5 -- same kernel, save overall
> --> features, the works.
>
> is false.
>
> Windows 2000 is not NT5. And considering that the typo "save overall
> features" exists and could mean "lacking overall features" is
> somewhat misleading as well as the printing of a product name which
> doesn't exist (NT5) I assumed he meant NT4 since that IS an actual
> product.
>
> As far as anyone running Windows 2000 is concerned... the Help/About
> in My Computer (or by simply running "winver' at the command line)
> shows that they are running "Windows 2000 Version 5.0" not NT 5. And
> the MS website describes it as "BUILT on NT Technology" not NT 5. NT
> 5 is not now or has ever been a Microsoft operating system. NT 4 was
> the last version of NT.
Geez, youse guys like dose nits! Now tell us exactly what is is.
--
Jim Naylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 15:50:48 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:24:21 GMT...
...and Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And I understand now what Mawa said about the
> most obnoxious assholes not programming nor
> contributing anything.
I never said that, and I hereby request that you cease to attribute
"quotations" to me which are mostly fiction.
mawa
--
DIE TALSOHLE IST ERREICHT
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 15:54:57 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Sun, 17 Sep 2000 21:38:54 GMT...
...and Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Sooner or later, you're going to have to let the user
> > take the training wheels off. You simply can't get
> > around that without conspiring to cripple the system.
>
> Putting training wheels on the system is stupid in the
> first place. And it makes the users feel stupid too. That's
> why I hate confirmation boxes and warnings. Instead of
> putting training wheels on the bike, you should make sure
> it balances correctly in the first place. It helps immensely
> if the system is not broken by design.
You remind of that guy who said that Emacs should not have a feature
that asks you whether you really want to discard a file if you
quit... I asked the guy: "What about people losing 120-page novel
manuscripts by accidentally hitting C-x C-c?"
He said that it would teach them to be careful in the future.
Yeah sure.
Your kind of person probably never does any meaningful productive
work that deserves to be saved and protected. *I* have lost a 120-page
novel fragment because I had a misconception about the way CR/LF
conversion works. The disaster could have been prevented by a little
protective logic in a stupid little GNU tool (recode). I am not only
angry at me, but angry at recode, too.
mawa
--
Expansion means complexity; and complexity decay.
------------------------------
From: "Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools)
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 14:20:42 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jason Bowen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Joe R." wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > "Jason Bowen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > I'm not the moron here. Temperature determines CO2 levels that is
> > > > rich.
> > >
> > > Yes Kulkis, how exactly does temperature determine CO2 levels in the
> > > atmosphere? Thats such an assinine statement it should be fun
> > > watching you
> > > dig a deeper hole trying to explain it.
> > > Does "magic" somehow figure into your temp. to co2 equation?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Actually, temperature _does_ have an impact on CO2 levels.
> >
> > Within normal limits, higher temperatures tend to increase plant
> > growth.
> > That means more CO2 is tied up in the plant.
> >
> > Of course, that's only one of several thousand things that affect CO2
> > levels, though.
>
> You're not helping Aaron though. If more plants grow at a higher
> temperature than they use more CO2. Where is the CO2 coming from????
> Lets increase the average daytime temperature to 110F and then again
> tell me about the plants. I'd watch most everthing around here wither.
> Plants thrive because of a variety of factors. You can have a lush
> forest in a cool place and rising temperatures there would kill th
> forest off
As I said, there are many other factors. AND, I specifically stated
"within normal limits". If you raise the temperature a degree or two,
you'll get greater growth. If you raise it a lot, you start killing
plants.
The CO2 comes from the atmosphere.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 18 Sep 2000 14:23:43 GMT
On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 15:50:48 +0200, Matthias Warkus wrote:
>It was the Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:24:21 GMT...
>...and Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> And I understand now what Mawa said about the
>> most obnoxious assholes not programming nor
>> contributing anything.
>
>I never said that, and I hereby request that you cease to attribute
>"quotations" to me which are mostly fiction.
I've said something to that effect at least once in this thread, and
will be happy to take credit for the remark (-;
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 14:27:06 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
>
> > That's right. All those things are in the NT 5 kernel, aka Win2K. Which
> > is exactly what Chad and Alan have been saying.
>
> No such thing as an NT 5 kernel.
Sure it is. Until around Beta 3, Microsoft called it NT 5. They changed
its name to Win2K at that time.
For all practical purposes, Win2K is NT 5.
>
> Why don't we just make up personalized names for everything? That will
> surely be of benefit to all wont it?
>
> Boy I saw (aka heard) that Rhapsody (aka OSX) sure is doing bad (aka good)
> in its retail release (aka beta release)
Idiot.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 18 Sep 2000 14:27:29 GMT
On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 15:54:57 +0200, Matthias Warkus wrote:
>It was the Sun, 17 Sep 2000 21:38:54 GMT...
>...and Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> > Sooner or later, you're going to have to let the user
>> > take the training wheels off. You simply can't get
>> > around that without conspiring to cripple the system.
>>
>> Putting training wheels on the system is stupid in the
>> first place. And it makes the users feel stupid too. That's
>> why I hate confirmation boxes and warnings. Instead of
>> putting training wheels on the bike, you should make sure
>> it balances correctly in the first place. It helps immensely
>> if the system is not broken by design.
>
>You remind of that guy who said that Emacs should not have a feature
>that asks you whether you really want to discard a file if you
>quit... I asked the guy: "What about people losing 120-page novel
>manuscripts by accidentally hitting C-x C-c?"
You seem to have missed the point. He's not saying that users "should be
more careful". He's saying that after-the-fact kludges built into
applications that make it harder for users to shoot themselves in the
foot are no substitute for a system that is well designed in the first
place.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Jack Troughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools)
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 10:02:50 -0400
JS/PL wrote:
>
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:Uqgx5.9330$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Global warming is the biggest pile of crap any human has come up with yet
> (well,
> > next to OS/2 <g>)
> >
> > Hear me out on this one:
> >
> > The Earth is a system of balances. If one thing gets out of whack,
> > 10 other things compensate to restore the balance.
>
> You could be correct.
> As far as fearing global warming, let it warm up...see if I care.
> Ice Age? - Whatever, I prefer things a little chilly.
> At any rate none of it will "suddenly" happen, and when it does I won't be
> around to see it.
> I'd be more concerned with the sudden discovery of a 50 mile wide meteor,
> traveling at 60 miles per second towards my roof.
Well, that would certainly be of greater immediate concern. However,
don't make the mistake of thinking that changes like that are
gradual. In the book Chaos, there was a citation of the changes in
Earths temperature between periods of ice age and the periods in
between. When the changes occurred, they occurred very quickly.
Instead of being a sine wave with a smooth transition between a peak
and a valley, they more resembled a square wave with a period of
stability followed by dramatic change, followed by stability,
followed by... you get the idea. Like this:
=====| |======|
| | |
|--------| |-----
instead of like this:
-\ /-\ /-\
\ / \ / \
\_/ \_/ \_
It is a punctuated change, instead of a gradual one.
Perhaps Jason could kick in with a citation about the ice sheet
coming down halfway down Canada in a decade at some time in the
past?
Jack
Montreal PQ
CANADA
------------------------------
From: Jack Troughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools)
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 10:08:02 -0400
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Jason Bowen wrote:
> >
> > Bob Germer wrote:
> >
> > > On 09/18/2000 at 06:38 AM,
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen) said:
> > >
> > > > Except I didn't do that. I pointed to some facts and didn't make claims
> > > > as fact. CFC's are man made and the CO2 level is verifiably higher than
> > > > it has been in 600k years.
> > >
> > > You claim the CO2 level is higher now that it was 600 years ago based on
> > > experiments on artic ice. You claim that CO2 levels are higher in North
> > > America when the facts prove they are in deficit!
> >
> > You don't understand what is being discussed. North America as a continent
>produces less CO2
> > than the plant life on it consumes. The rest of the world produces way more than
>is consumed.
> > It is called the addtive property of numbers and perhaps and elementary algebra
>class will help
> > you understand.
>
> Then maybe you ought to convince those OTHER countries to reform THEIR
> ways, and keep your fucking opinions to yourself in this country.
>
> MORON
You really are into silencing dissent, aren't you? I was under the
impression that the intellectual foundations of the US system of
governance were all about making sure that people didn't keep their
opinions to themselves.
Pity or contempt... either you are too stupid to argue, or too evil
to argue. Take your pick.
Jack
Montreal PQ
CANADA
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools)
Date: 18 Sep 2000 14:28:21 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Joe R. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jason Bowen
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> "Joe R." wrote:
>> >
>> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > "Jason Bowen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > > > I'm not the moron here. Temperature determines CO2 levels that is
>> > > > rich.
>> > >
>> > > Yes Kulkis, how exactly does temperature determine CO2 levels in the
>> > > atmosphere? Thats such an assinine statement it should be fun
>> > > watching you
>> > > dig a deeper hole trying to explain it.
>> > > Does "magic" somehow figure into your temp. to co2 equation?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> > Actually, temperature _does_ have an impact on CO2 levels.
>> >
>> > Within normal limits, higher temperatures tend to increase plant
>> > growth.
>> > That means more CO2 is tied up in the plant.
>> >
>> > Of course, that's only one of several thousand things that affect CO2
>> > levels, though.
>>
>> You're not helping Aaron though. If more plants grow at a higher
>> temperature than they use more CO2. Where is the CO2 coming from????
>> Lets increase the average daytime temperature to 110F and then again
>> tell me about the plants. I'd watch most everthing around here wither.
>> Plants thrive because of a variety of factors. You can have a lush
>> forest in a cool place and rising temperatures there would kill th
>> forest off
>
>As I said, there are many other factors. AND, I specifically stated
>"within normal limits". If you raise the temperature a degree or two,
>you'll get greater growth. If you raise it a lot, you start killing
>plants.
>
>The CO2 comes from the atmosphere.
I know, I know but according to Aaron there is more CO2 because of the
increase in temperature. So where does it come from then? He has his
feedback cycles mixed up apparently heh?
------------------------------
From: WickedDyno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools)
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 10:33:14 -0400
In article
<39c5bf90$16$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bob
Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 09/18/2000 at 06:38 AM,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen) said:
>
>
> > Except I didn't do that. I pointed to some facts and didn't make
> > claims
> > as fact. CFC's are man made and the CO2 level is verifiably higher
> > than
> > it has been in 600k years.
>
> You claim the CO2 level is higher now that it was 600 years ago based on
> experiments on artic ice. You claim that CO2 levels are higher in North
> America when the facts prove they are in deficit!
>
> You claim half of Canada is covered with an ice sheet. Another fiction.
>
> Just what were the CO2 levels in Rwanda in 1922? What were they in
> Bagdadh
> in 1938? What were they in Panama in 1856? What were they in Cairo in
> 1910? What were they in Albania in 1944?
>
> You are very like the 3 blind men describing an elephant based on feeling
> the trunk, tail, and leg respectively.
>
> I'll bet you believe in Piltdown man.
Let's not get into a .origins debate. This is .advocacy, dammit!
--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |
------------------------------
From: WickedDyno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools)
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 10:36:05 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jason Bowen wrote:
> >
> > Bob Germer wrote:
> >
> > > On 09/18/2000 at 05:44 AM,
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen) said:
> > >
> > > > Did you read what I wrote? I don't think you did. We have more
> > > > vegitation because we plant it. We also fight fires. High CO2
> > > > doesn't
> > > > cause more plant life. Did you read the part about starting an ice
> > > > age?
> > > > Ice sheets have come halfway down Canada in a decade because the
> > > > deep
> > > > water formation stopped.
> > >
> > > Talk about junk science.
> > >
> > > First of all, it was pointed out that we do not have high CO2 levels
> > > in
> > > North America, we have a deficit. Deficit - a lack, a shortage, below
> > > normal levels.
> > >
> >
> > Of course the whole Earth as whole, which acts as a system has a higher
> > CO2 level. We use more
> > than we produce but the Earth as a whole has a higher level. Welcome
> > to math 101 and the
> > additive property.
>
> Spot the fallacy.
People like you and Bob think that North America is its own little world?
--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |
------------------------------
From: Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 14:35:21 GMT
In article <bMox5.7336$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chad Myers"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Chad Irby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > So far, you've told us that NT 5, which was released as Windows 2000,
> > has many features that Windows NT *4* didn't have (noe that 4 and 5 are
> > different numbers). When are you going to address the fact that
> > "Windows 2000" and "Windows NT 5" are the exact same product in a
> > different box?
>
> No one said they weren't. I don't know what you're talking about, perhaps
> you should take a valium.
>
> What we're arguing is that... damn I forget his name... implied that
> Win2K is just "NT 5", however, he implied that there's nothing new
> and that they just relabelled NT4 to be NT5/Win2K, which is not true.
>
> Yes, Win2K is NT version 5.0 but there are tons of product enhancements
> and it's not "just the NT 4 kernel relabelled" as was implied earlier.
Actually, the comment was that it was the NT 5 kernel relabeled, which
you misread as NT 4.
All of this was because one guy was too stubborn to go back and read the
text, which was quoted several times in this thread.
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
------------------------------
From: "Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools)
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 14:39:08 GMT
In article <8q58q5$291$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen) wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Joe R. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jason Bowen
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> "Joe R." wrote:
> >> >
> >> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
> >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > "Jason Bowen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > > > I'm not the moron here. Temperature determines CO2 levels that
> >> > > > is
> >> > > > rich.
> >> > >
> >> > > Yes Kulkis, how exactly does temperature determine CO2 levels in
> >> > > the
> >> > > atmosphere? Thats such an assinine statement it should be fun
> >> > > watching you
> >> > > dig a deeper hole trying to explain it.
> >> > > Does "magic" somehow figure into your temp. to co2 equation?
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > Actually, temperature _does_ have an impact on CO2 levels.
> >> >
> >> > Within normal limits, higher temperatures tend to increase plant
> >> > growth.
> >> > That means more CO2 is tied up in the plant.
> >> >
> >> > Of course, that's only one of several thousand things that affect
> >> > CO2
> >> > levels, though.
> >>
> >> You're not helping Aaron though. If more plants grow at a higher
> >> temperature than they use more CO2. Where is the CO2 coming from????
> >> Lets increase the average daytime temperature to 110F and then again
> >> tell me about the plants. I'd watch most everthing around here
> >> wither.
> >> Plants thrive because of a variety of factors. You can have a lush
> >> forest in a cool place and rising temperatures there would kill th
> >> forest off
> >
> >As I said, there are many other factors. AND, I specifically stated
> >"within normal limits". If you raise the temperature a degree or two,
> >you'll get greater growth. If you raise it a lot, you start killing
> >plants.
> >
> >The CO2 comes from the atmosphere.
>
> I know, I know but according to Aaron there is more CO2 because of the
> increase in temperature. So where does it come from then? He has his
> feedback cycles mixed up apparently heh?
>
Not necessarily. As I said, there are many factors, some of which work
in opposite directions.
For example, let's just take the effect of temperature on CO2 levels.
1. Higher temperature (within limits) increases plant growth which will
tend to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.
2. Higher temperature reduces the solubility of CO2 in the ocean, which
will tend to increase CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
3. Higher temperatures (within limits) will increase the metabolism of
animals which generate CO2.
4. Higher temperatures will increase the rate of decomposition of
organic matter which will lead to higher CO2 levels.
You're trying to make it into a single equation. it's not. There are
literally thousands of interlocked differential equations. Many of the
factors have relationships which can go in either direction like the
example above.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools)
Date: 18 Sep 2000 14:39:04 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jack Troughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>JS/PL wrote:
>>
>> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:Uqgx5.9330$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Global warming is the biggest pile of crap any human has come up with yet
>> (well,
>> > next to OS/2 <g>)
>> >
>> > Hear me out on this one:
>> >
>> > The Earth is a system of balances. If one thing gets out of whack,
>> > 10 other things compensate to restore the balance.
>>
>> You could be correct.
>> As far as fearing global warming, let it warm up...see if I care.
>> Ice Age? - Whatever, I prefer things a little chilly.
>> At any rate none of it will "suddenly" happen, and when it does I won't be
>> around to see it.
>> I'd be more concerned with the sudden discovery of a 50 mile wide meteor,
>> traveling at 60 miles per second towards my roof.
>
>Well, that would certainly be of greater immediate concern. However,
>don't make the mistake of thinking that changes like that are
>gradual. In the book Chaos, there was a citation of the changes in
>Earths temperature between periods of ice age and the periods in
>between. When the changes occurred, they occurred very quickly.
>Instead of being a sine wave with a smooth transition between a peak
>and a valley, they more resembled a square wave with a period of
>stability followed by dramatic change, followed by stability,
>followed by... you get the idea. Like this:
>
>
>-----| |------|
> | | |
> |--------| |-----
>
>instead of like this:
>
>-\ /-\ /-\
> \ / \ / \
> \_/ \_/ \_
>
>It is a punctuated change, instead of a gradual one.
>
>Perhaps Jason could kick in with a citation about the ice sheet
>coming down halfway down Canada in a decade at some time in the
>past?
I wish I could find the data, it was in a paper I read. I'm also willing
to admit that it could higher by a power, a century rather than a decade.
I did provide the reference to Viking losing touch with their Greenland
colonies from the ocean freezing over. That's the closest I can come.
>
>Jack
>Montreal PQ
>CANADA
------------------------------
From: WickedDyno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 10:45:40 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > Bob, that sort of logic reminds me of the gun nut's arguments, you
> > know, the
> > fact that the US has a very high % of houshold firearm ownership , and
> > that
> > it also has an extremely high death by firearm rate, but that these two
> > statistics are not realted!!!!
>
> Switzerland and Isreal have even higher rates of firearm ownership.
> Not only that..but FULLY AUTOMATIC RIFLES* and yet, BOTH have lower
> rates of death by firearms.
Both also require military service and so have a much larger number of
people who are highly trained in gun usage and safety.
(FWIW, I wouldn't feel unsafe living in such a society, despite the
number of guns around. I do feel unsafe living in a society that has
fewer guns but even fewer trained, disciplined gun owners.)
> Britain recently outlawed handguns. Murder rates have tripled since.
> Australia outlawed ALL firearms. Murder rates have quintupled.
>
> So...quite obviously, the correlation between gun ownership and
> murder is tenous at best.
Except of course that the issue is correlation between gun ownership and
gun-related deaths.
--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
