Linux-Advocacy Digest #167, Volume #29 Mon, 18 Sep 00 00:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (Chad Irby)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT ("Chad Myers")
Re: Unix more secure, huh? ("Chad Myers")
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (Rick)
Re: Unix rules in Redmond ("James Stutts")
Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools) ("JS/PL")
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT ("James Stutts")
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT ("James Stutts")
Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools) (Jason Bowen)
Software for sale! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools) (WickedDyno)
Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools) ("JS/PL")
Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools) (WickedDyno)
Re: Hardware supported list? (nf)
Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools) ("Chad Myers")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 02:18:34 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Chad Irby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > "Loren Petrich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Actually, Win2K is simply WinNT 5 -- same kernel, save overall
> > > > features, the works.
> > >
> > > Not only isn't it the same kernel, but the overall features have been
> > > enhanced with some new features added.
> >
> > Look at that again. He didn't say NT 4... he said NT 5. "Windows 2000"
> > is merely the release name for the fifth version of WIndows NT.
>
> 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? Keep in mind that they're the same product, with
different names. You might have a point if he had said NT 4, but that's
a whole different generation of NT.
> I grow tired of reading for you people...
You certainly need more practice.
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[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 02:36:25 GMT
"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?
- Plug and play hardware detection and driver loading
- Power management (big one)
- Tons of networking improvements in the TDI which, among other things
allows for dynamic adapter configuration without all the reboots of
the NT 4 implementation
- Drastically revamped file security implementation with encryption,
inheritance, etc (this is partially the file system, but also part of
the kernel)
- An even better SMP implementation than NT 4 (which has one of the
best in the industry)
- too many more to list here
> 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?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix more secure, huh?
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 02:37:14 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Paul 'Z' Ewande©" wrote:
> >
> > "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
> > 8q0n8r$ipc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > <SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
> >
> > > And I supose that all the MS OS users are current on patchs??? I doubt
> > > that.
> >
> > Huh, that's exactly is point. Windows users are expected to be behind
> > security patches, what's funny is that the supposedly smarter Un*x admins
> > aren't all current neither. :)
>
> prove it.
Read the article. This wouldn't have been a problem had they been current
on their stuff.
Please follow the topic
-Chad
------------------------------
From: Rick <[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: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 22:42:53 -0400
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Jason Bowen wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >"Jason Bowen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> > >> You're analogy was very poor. There is proof that CFC's are by-products
> > >> of certain aerosols, simple chemistry shows that. CFS's also destroy O3,
> > >> plenty of proof for that.
> > >
> > >How long does it take for the cfc's to even reach the ozone? I've heard as
> > >high as 50 years. In which case you might as well consider it destroyed no
> > >matter what fix gets implemented now.
> >
> > whoa, wait a minute, you mean you have read on this and don't just spout
> > your belief system?!?! ;-). There are a couple of naturally occuring
> > sources of Chlorine based gases, CH3Cl and HCL. Marine plankton produces
> > a lot but only accounts for 0.6ppb and the current stratospheric
> > concentration is 3.3ppb so obviously there is another source. Volcanoes
> > provide a lot of HCL but most of this is scrubbed from the air by the
> > rain, hence the reason why even major eruptions only affect climate for 1
> > to 2 years and that is from ash and Sulfur based emissions. Little HCL
> > from eruptions makes it to the stratosphere. So most of the CFC's are
> > anthropogenic with lifespans of 60-120 years. The levels have been steady
> > though since Freon-11 and Freon-12, both CFC's, have been banned. Now
> > only if we could take the extra ozone that makes the city air so damn
> > dirty and ship it to Anartica, then we'd have a solution to 2 problems.
>
> You're a nitwit. The only reason R-11 and R-12 were banned is because
> they are cheap, highly effective refrigerants...and it's hard to
> extort money from original equipment manufacturers when practically
> anybody can make the stuff in their garage.
>
> So...the "solution"...outlaw this low-profit margin chemical, so that
> all must bow to the gods of E. I. Dupont de Nemours and Company.
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> ICQ # 3056642
>
... and you expect anyone to take you seriously?
--
Rick
* To email me remove theobvious from my address *
------------------------------
From: "James Stutts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 21:38:28 -0500
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:y0bx5.3134$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:ODNw5.5040$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > The Mindcraft tests showed a real problem, but one that would only
very
> > > rarely be an issue in a production system. The test was carefully
> > > designed to highlight a particular strength of NT relative to Linux.
> > > It was not "rigged", in the sense that the results weren't faked, but
> > > the thing that was tested was not chosen at random. The whole thing
> > > was a marketing exercise, nothing more.
> >
> > Um... so you think that multiple-NICs are never used in a production
> > system? Multiple-NIC load-balancing, etc?
>
> It is rare for that to be a better approach than using gigabit cards.
Gigabit ethernet is still more expensive than multiple 100Mbit cards. For
some clustering applications, it makes more sense.
JCS
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[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: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 22:37:48 -0400
"Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> (c) The extent to which human activity alters global CO2 levels
> is not known, but it is reasonable to believe that several of
> our activities (deforestation, water pollution, and burning
> of fossil fuels, probably in that order) have a measurable and
> detrimental impact.
What if the higher CO2 levels increase the amount of plant life on land and
in the oceans and the warming increases the amount of fresh water?
Maybe global warming is a good thing. The sooner it kicks in the better :-)
------------------------------
From: "James Stutts" <[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: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 21:44:12 -0500
"C Lund" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<snip>
> Sounds like the difference between W2K and W98 are all "beneath the hood".
> WHich means the Win GUI still sucks the bowel movements of a flyblown
> carcass.
That must explain why so many window managers attempt to replicate it.
JCS
------------------------------
From: "James Stutts" <[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: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 21:48:13 -0500
"C Lund" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8q2ts5$jbq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "James Stutts"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > I mean - you guys haven't managed to tell me about *one* single new
thing
> > > in W2K.
> > Active Directory? Game support combined with SMP? Why don't you look
it up
> > yourself?
>
> Why should I? I'm never going to use that OS anyway.
Ignorance isn't a virtue, last I checked. Each OS has a place. I frankly
prefer Win2k
to Linux on the desktop, primarily for CAD application support. For a
generic server
for a workgroup, Linux is fine. For a firewall, I prefer OpenBSD. For a
desktop
UNIX, I'm partial to SunOS or IRIX. Right tool, right job. Never liked
Slowlaris too much. ;)
2.5 wasn't too bad, I suppose. If you really want a user interface
nightmare, I suggest you
research something referred to as Job Control Language (for MVS).....
JCS
------------------------------
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 02:55:53 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
>> (c) The extent to which human activity alters global CO2 levels
>> is not known, but it is reasonable to believe that several of
>> our activities (deforestation, water pollution, and burning
>> of fossil fuels, probably in that order) have a measurable and
>> detrimental impact.
>
>What if the higher CO2 levels increase the amount of plant life on land and
>in the oceans and the warming increases the amount of fresh water?
>Maybe global warming is a good thing. The sooner it kicks in the better :-)
Here is funny thing, North America has a CO2 deficit. We consume more
fossil fuels than anyone but we have increased vegitation to the point of
actually taking more than we put into the air. One thing that is bad
about warming is that the oceans are a major source of heat on the planet.
They are almost perfect black bodies, meaning they absorb almost all the
heat they receive. The ocean currents moderate temperatures in the higher
latitudes, the solar radiation at those latitudes doesn't have the same
affect it does in the lower ones. Dense salty water is formed at the high
latitudes, the salt is forced of of the ice making the water denser. The
denser water goes to the bottom where it slowly makes it way south to
upwell at the lower latitudes. Of course the water moving south is
replaced on currents moving north. If the ice caps melt this flow will
stop and contrary to what you may think, it could start another ice age.
Funny how that works heh? Samples from the ice caps show this happening
many times in the past.
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Software for sale!
Date: 18 Sep 2000 02:42:49 GMT
Software for CAD/CAM designing!
AUTOCAD 2000i $ 60
AUTOCAD 2000i R2 $ 70
AUTOCAD LAND DEVELOPMENT DESKTOP r2i $ 60
AUTODESK CIVIL DESIGN r2i $ 50
AUTODESK SURVEY r2i $ 50
AutoCAD Learning Assistance 2000 $ 50
ArchiCAD 6.5 r2 $ 70
Autodesk Architectural Desktop 2000i $ 70
Autodesk Cad Overlay 2000i $ 50
Autodesk Mechanical Desktop 4 $ 70
Autodesk Inventor R2 $ 60
AutoCAD MAP 2000 $ 40
AutoCAD MAP 2000i $ 50
Allplan 15.01 $ 70
Allplan FT16 MULTILANGUAGE $ 80
PTC Pro/Engineer 2000i $ 60
PTC Pro/Engineer 2000i2 $ 70
PTC Pro/Mechanica 2000i $ 60
PTC Pro/Engineer 2000i3 (280) $ 75
PTC Pro/3D-PAINT 2000i2 $ 50
PTC Pro/CDRS 2000i2 $ 50
PTC Cadds5 R11 $ 40
Solidworks 2000 final $ 60
Solidedge 8 $ 60
Unigraphics 16 FINAL $ 60
Please send us your wish list!
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
339901990
------------------------------
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: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 23:13:29 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> > (c) The extent to which human activity alters global CO2 levels
> > is not known, but it is reasonable to believe that several of
> > our activities (deforestation, water pollution, and burning
> > of fossil fuels, probably in that order) have a measurable and
> > detrimental impact.
>
> What if the higher CO2 levels increase the amount of plant life on land
> and
> in the oceans and the warming increases the amount of fresh water?
> Maybe global warming is a good thing. The sooner it kicks in the better
> :-)
>
>
In most cases, plant growth is soil-nutrient- or moisture-limited, not
atmospheric CO2-limited. The only way I could imagine warming
increasing fresh water would be melting glaciers on continents. This
would be accompanied by melting of polar ice which would raise sea
level, so the increase in fresh water would be offset by the increase in
salt water.
--
| 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: "JS/PL" <[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: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 23:23:44 -0400
"WickedDyno" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
> > > (c) The extent to which human activity alters global CO2 levels
> > > is not known, but it is reasonable to believe that several of
> > > our activities (deforestation, water pollution, and burning
> > > of fossil fuels, probably in that order) have a measurable and
> > > detrimental impact.
> >
> > What if the higher CO2 levels increase the amount of plant life on land
> > and
> > in the oceans and the warming increases the amount of fresh water?
> > Maybe global warming is a good thing. The sooner it kicks in the better
> > :-)
> >
> >
>
> In most cases, plant growth is soil-nutrient- or moisture-limited, not
> atmospheric CO2-limited. The only way I could imagine warming
> increasing fresh water would be melting glaciers on continents. This
> would be accompanied by melting of polar ice which would raise sea
> level, so the increase in fresh water would be offset by the increase in
> salt water.
Rising sea levels would increase the suface area for water evaporation, as
would higher air temperatures. Since plants use CO2,Light,and Water to make
food - plant life would thrive by higher levels of CO2. At least that's what
I get from this page - http://www.greenair.com/genratr1.htm .
I can't say why someone would need to buy a CO2 generator though, It
doesn't seem cost effective for growing food. :-))
------------------------------
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: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 23:33:25 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "WickedDyno" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED].
> ..
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >
> > > > (c) The extent to which human activity alters global CO2
> > > > levels
> > > > is not known, but it is reasonable to believe that
> > > > several of our activities (deforestation, water
> > > > pollution, and burning of fossil fuels, probably in that
> > > > order) have a measurable and detrimental impact.
> > >
> > > What if the higher CO2 levels increase the amount of plant life
> > > on land and in the oceans and the warming increases the amount of
> > > fresh water? Maybe global warming is a good thing. The sooner it
> > > kicks in the better
> > > :-)
> > >
> > >
> >
> > In most cases, plant growth is soil-nutrient- or moisture-limited,
> > not atmospheric CO2-limited. The only way I could imagine warming
> > increasing fresh water would be melting glaciers on continents.
> > This would be accompanied by melting of polar ice which would raise
> > sea level, so the increase in fresh water would be offset by the
> > increase in salt water.
>
> Rising sea levels would increase the suface area for water
> evaporation, as would higher air temperatures. Since plants use
> CO2,Light,and Water to make food - plant life would thrive by higher
> levels of CO2.
As I said; most plant growth is limited by nutrients (nitrates in most
land plants, phosphorous in most algae), not by the amount of CO2. IOW,
if nutrients are kept the same but CO2 is increased, growth will remain
about the same, but if CO2 is the same and nutrients are increased,
growth will increase. Light is a factor in forest understories, but
that's not relevant. A more moist climate could effect plant growth,
but considering the chaotic nature of climate, Global warming might well
result in less moist conditions on average as opposed to more moist.
> At least that's what I get from this page -
> http://www.greenair.com/genratr1.htm . I can't say why someone would
> need to buy a CO2 generator though, It doesn't seem cost effective
> for growing food. :-))
A page trying to sell a CO2 generator promotes the effect of CO2 on
plant growth. How surprising.
--
| 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: nf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Hardware supported list?
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 22:55:05 -0400
In article <8q3ems$s83$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> http://www.linuxdocs.org/
>
> Look at the HARDWARE-HOWTO
>
Thanks. I didn't see anything there on scanners though. I'll keep
looking. (I just gave it a cursory glance)
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[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 03:59:48 GMT
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.
This has been happening over billions of years. Many more catastrophic
things have happened to the ecosystem that Humans could ever cook up
and the ecosystem restored itself in a geological second. The amount
of data we, as humans, have collected scientifically over the past
1-200 years is nothing. It's not even a nano-second in geological
terms. To conclude or attempt to draw anything from these statistics
is meaningless and absurd to say the least.
Dinosaur populations excreted more methane and CO/2 than humans
could ever hope to generate. It's rather arrogant and self-important
to think that humans are so powerful that we could permanently change
or destroy the ecosystem and have it stay permanently dead. We will
kill ourselves with war or accidentally releasing a deadly virus
into the world before we'll ever hope to destroy this planet.
Granted, we shouldn't try, I agree we need to control ourselves, but
this world has been through huge floods, all sorts of geological
disasters (giant earthquakes, massive volcanoes spewing millions of
tons of CO/2, methane, and all other sorts of noxious gasses into
the atmosphere) and look where we are today, paradise. We're do for
another ice age here in about 25-50,000 years or so, we're probably
just seeing the cycle repeat itself and seeing the ecosystem building
up and building up for the next ice age when it'll all start over
again and the same thing will happen 100,000 years after that like
it's done for the past several million years.
Humanity is not even a blink of an eye in the Earth's history and
it's not about to be destroyed by us.
Give me a break...
-Chad
"WickedDyno" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "WickedDyno" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED].
> > ..
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > >
> > > > > (c) The extent to which human activity alters global CO2
> > > > > levels
> > > > > is not known, but it is reasonable to believe that
> > > > > several of our activities (deforestation, water
> > > > > pollution, and burning of fossil fuels, probably in that
> > > > > order) have a measurable and detrimental impact.
> > > >
> > > > What if the higher CO2 levels increase the amount of plant life
> > > > on land and in the oceans and the warming increases the amount of
> > > > fresh water? Maybe global warming is a good thing. The sooner it
> > > > kicks in the better
> > > > :-)
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > In most cases, plant growth is soil-nutrient- or moisture-limited,
> > > not atmospheric CO2-limited. The only way I could imagine warming
> > > increasing fresh water would be melting glaciers on continents.
> > > This would be accompanied by melting of polar ice which would raise
> > > sea level, so the increase in fresh water would be offset by the
> > > increase in salt water.
> >
> > Rising sea levels would increase the suface area for water
> > evaporation, as would higher air temperatures. Since plants use
> > CO2,Light,and Water to make food - plant life would thrive by higher
> > levels of CO2.
>
> As I said; most plant growth is limited by nutrients (nitrates in most
> land plants, phosphorous in most algae), not by the amount of CO2. IOW,
> if nutrients are kept the same but CO2 is increased, growth will remain
> about the same, but if CO2 is the same and nutrients are increased,
> growth will increase. Light is a factor in forest understories, but
> that's not relevant. A more moist climate could effect plant growth,
> but considering the chaotic nature of climate, Global warming might well
> result in less moist conditions on average as opposed to more moist.
>
> > At least that's what I get from this page -
> > http://www.greenair.com/genratr1.htm . I can't say why someone would
> > need to buy a CO2 generator though, It doesn't seem cost effective
> > for growing food. :-))
>
> A page trying to sell a CO2 generator promotes the effect of CO2 on
> plant growth. How surprising.
>
> --
> | 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
******************************
