Maybe, combined with some legal pressure, our ISPs would actually start upgrading their backbone, and delivering on their promises (or promising more reasonable things).

MPEG-4 is still patent encumbered. So if we switch to it, we aren't really gaining that much. How about we finally go to audio/video standards that people can use without worrying about being sued?

I have been calling for Flash to be killed with fire for a long time. It's by far the worst internet technology still in use. It even beats out ActiveX (possibly even for vulnerabilities too!). I strongly hope google does this.

You sound like those crazy sociology professors who get pissed at words like "manhole" and "mankind." It's part of the presentation style, relax.

They basically don't. The summary and title is flat out wrong. They basically were granted some tax freedoms, that's all.

Did nobody else notice the title of "The plural of anecdote is not data"? This mean's the GP is admitting that it's anecdotal, in case you're a bit thick.

I've never understood this long living love for XP. The longer I work with it (I'm a support tech), the more I hate it. It genuinely has the feeling of an OS that was organically grown, without any fore planning. Wireless control often ends up in the hands of a user-space program instead of in the OS (wtf?), and updates are done through a god awful activex webpage. Blech. The long term (and even short term) stability of XP these days is poor at best, and I have no clue why everyone claims to love it.

On the other hand, most people I've met who make fun of Vista, never used it. My dad was slamming it earlier "Did you ever use it?" "... No". The vast majority of complaints about it stemmed from 2 problems:

• The so called "power users" always complain about any change, regardless of whether or not it's good.
• Underpowered machines were marked as "Vista Capable" when they were not.

And to honest, 7 is quite good. This is coming from a die hard Linux user (who actually liked Gentoo).

Okay, so I know there are other open source licenses. And some of them are quite good. But that's not the point. The point is that they've suddenly declared an ideological issue with the GPL, and thrown away (probably) good code.

This is the sort of in fighting that hurts open source a lot. Although admittedly, I do not believe that MonoDevelop is a good program. It hardly provides anything beyond a context aware editor. The Mono projects I looked at (Gnome Do and its plugins specifically) had long since abandoned MonoDevelop for their project management, and merely used it as an editor (if even). I personally had nothing but problems with its project files being constantly broken. We will see how this will go over, but overall I think this will hurt the growth of the MonoDevelop project.

I'll agree with you, they work good, when they work. The problem with the official drivers is that they're a binary blob, thus most distributions (none I've ever seen) ship with them enabled. This is an issue if the default nv driver crashes your machine. Because of this, I'm going with ATI next time, I've heard they're way more Linux friendly now.

You act like this is new. That's what search warrants do, they give the government a warrant to search through your stuff. Weird how that works, eh?

Well, that's very true in Physics, Biology, Chemistry, etc. But the issue is that a lot of climate study work is based around these data sets, which often take a long period of time, and lots of money to get. If we had to wait another 20 years for another data set (which would be insufficient), we would have already made a choice, possibly a bad one. Worse, it seems the only way to get the necessary money these days is to tow the AGW line before starting, or side with those for which AGW would be a disaster (oil companies), neither of which seems academically honest to me.

Besides, unless if you royally messed up the collection of data, collecting a new set would be a waste of time. What needs to be done is a testing (not verification as they say) of their models, and a checking of their statistics. Claim all you want, but I think that'd be a lot easier with raw data as well. I'd like to see proof that the data was actually destroyed in the 1980's, they were talking about it in their emails more recently.

I've never seen a debunking. All I've seen is "It's out of context." And it's harder to deal with "hide the decline." Besides, the computer code (and the comments from their hapless programmer) are far more damning.

You gotta eat. If you want to ignore the GNP, and sacrifice it completely for the environment, start farming again (whoops! That's our #1 producer of CO2), as your job, and all the super markets you probably buy your food at (or those organic markets that I can't afford to shop at) will go away real quick.

And many people who loudly advocate AGW are willing to cut the standard of life for everyone else. This is why a lot of people doubt, it doesn't look so good when your major prophets (yes, AGW is becoming a religion, since people have begun to speak in terms of "Believers" and "Deniers"), fly around in private jets (hello Al Gore!).

Does it mean AGW is false? No, of course not. Do I believe it's true? Not really, but I think reducing our output of CO2 and other pollutants would be a great idea anyways, for a myriad of reasons.