You will need to have some sort of captive portal. Even though it will be free, the property must indemnify themselves from potentially illegal activity. To do this you will need to have DHCP logging, web traffic logging and most importantly, Terms of Service that require the users to accept that their actions are their own and that they may be logged. ClearOS is nearly done with a captive portal module that brings the costs of this way down, outside of this it provides the logging required to make this work.

Feel free to join the ClearOS Core team. ClearFoundation produces the same specification on the code, has corporate backing, with open involvement from the community. We want you and are willing to listen and allow participation from everyone.

Good luck with that. It has been my experience that higher educational institutions just want your money. I'm sure if you donated enough of it to them, they would give you a piece of paper just for that merit alone. Once you understand that motivation, you will know why they want to purchase as much of their product as possible.

1) Post the names of these payment processing companies and their mail servers.
2) Link how these processing companies are responsible for attacks on the Pirate Party and Anonymous.
3) ??????
4) Profit

CFCs effects on ozone are well documented. But the potential widespread use of H2 as an alternative 'clean' energy is not often associated with its effects on O3. Hydrogen is quite reactive with O3 and can cause severe problem by causing excessive cooling in the upper atmosphere. Lest we forget that the ozone hole over Antarctica is partially due to extreme cold in the upper atmosphere.

We saw this happen this morning at ClearFoundation and are already building against 6.1 for our 6.0 release. Look for it soon.

You can download it here

ClearOS reports this and will give you all the function you need. It is great for both seasoned and beginner Linux users. The alternative is to set it up yourself. It is free and will run on that old computer you have in your closet.

Thanks for all your hard work Pamela. The open source community has benefited greatly from your efforts. Good luck in you future endeavors!

The false 'prophets' of science can bend the attitudes of people as much as the false 'prophets' of religions. We seen this with unscrupulous doctors of science introducing non-facts (lies) into the body of science for their own gain. It happens in religion too, and that all to frequently. Equating science to religion is difficult because they both address the human condition and everything as it pertains to us. Not understanding the intricacies science does make the belief in it faith and it is the exact same condition as any other belief system. Faith is believing in something that is not seen or personally witnessed but it is true. It is not a religious concept only and it is not non-scientific either (excuse the negativity, double or otherwise). I have faith that the poster 'grub' is a human and not a sophisticated bot. I cannot prove it with my own resources but I know it to be true. If I apply some science to my hypothesis, it will either validate my faith in my hypothesis or invalidate it and reveal that my faith was unfounded (this is a proper phrase when exposing a belief as being false). Do not fall into the easy trap of equating faith to religion. Scientists exercise faith all the time or else they would never attempt an hypothesis.

Also, 'grub' insists that faith has NO EVIDENCE to back it up. This in not true, those accepting the concept of an atom as being real are as much a 'true believer' as any other idea put to religious believers. Though intelligent, they trust that such thing exists because they trust the witness or witnesses as being truthful. They do this in the EXACT same way as a child trusts all the adults around them that there is a Santa Claus. To that child, Santa is real and the evidence is astounding! The doors of the house were locked and in the morning there were presents around the tree. On account of two respected witnesses, the parents, an unexplained force left the presents. Is this not real then? Is this not demonstrable and repeatable? Is there a higher truth to be had, absolutely! I encourage you to watch James Burke's "The Day the Universe Changed" in order to have a greater appreciation for the concept.

Is it possible for a religion in the world today to be correct however improbable? Is it possible for there to be a sentient creator of the universe? I concede that it is possible...and extremely improbable. Since religion is a philosophical fountain and deals with the human condition from the basis of the end product (cognition, morality, and truth) rather than the material components or building blocks (biology, psychology, and facts), it would be have to be in absolute harmony to the laws of sciences at the end of the day. For such a religion to be true it would have to be:

1- perfect truth and the one true original (its truth must be truth itself. It would have to be true, and it would have to have existed before the big bang. This does not require that its adherents must be perfect)
2- singular (since all other religions which are unequal are imperfect)
3- would require communication to the sentient creator of the universe (or else its foundation is unrevealed and its answers to new questions and situations would be prone to error)
4- would be testable (else it would not have the power to convert or sway opinion. See number 3)
5- would have an improbable story (by the prevailing belief of science of that day) that defies explanation at the time of its introduction but would be validated later science as science became fuller and more closely describes found truth (this is required since our understanding of the universe would be constantly wrong until such time that science is perfect)
6- compatible with scientific absolutes (scientific absolutes would be truth itself therefore it would be equivalent See number 1)
7- as science advances, the religions original philosophies and positions would be validated and vindicated (corollary to number 6)

The plethora of religious ideas should show you that the plethora is wrong. Just as the plethora of scientific ideas should show you that the plethora is wrong. Yet there is a fact to be found and a truth to be realized. The advantage of science is that it can be self-correcting while all religions must stick to their guns and say "we had it right all along." If they cease to say that, they invalidate their claims to being the one true original. The advantage of the one true religion is that it would ultimately be vindicated by science.

Lightning from thunderstorms produces ozone in the troposphere. Ozone in the troposphere is a pollutant and causes respiratory ailments in animal life. Moreover, it is too volatile to ever hope to make it 'back home' to the stratosphere. Lightning does not build the ozone layer but rather radiation from space. The problem with H2 is that it does NOT combine with O2 unless burned which it cannot do unless it is in concentrations of >4%. It is, however, reactive with ozone and water in the upper atmosphere is a bad thing.

Part of the reason for the hole in the ozone layer above the poles in the winter and spring is due to the fact that it is, at times, too cold for ozone to form as a stable layer. So a reduction in the temperature of the stratosphere due to water in the upper atmosphere can cause an additional decay. H2 recombining with O3 produces water which lowers the temperature of the upper atmosphere causing further depletion of the ozone. Additionally, oxygen is heavier than nitrogen so the process of 'balancing' the system only serves to deplete the stratosphere of oxygen in all forms.

Nobody, to my knowledge, has even studied the affects of ground sourced H2 and existing monatomic oxygen in the mesosphere. Lastly, leaking and unspent H2 which doesn't react with ozone doesn't 'build up' in the stratosphere but rather it goes into space leaving the 'balance' you mention unanswered and having the effect of stranding the oxygen on the planet. Remember that Oxygen is a pollutant too and at 35% (we are currently at 21%) we get massive fires from a highly combustable atmosphere and huge spiders and frogs.

I accept that Hydrogen power is a better alternative for the time being to that burning fossil fuels at an unsustainable rate. But it is so popular to say that hydrogen is green and the answer to all our problems when there is this caveat and very little has been done to properly research the downside.

PS. I think it would take a long time for us to turn that much water to Oxygen through leaking H2 into space and thereby making massive frogs. Although it might be fun to see!

Hydrogen's effects on the upper atmosphere is not yet well known but there are indicators that it is bad, very bad. They only reason sheeple are jumping on the hydrogen band wagon is because:

Hydrogen Fuel != Fossil Fuel

Fossil Fuel == Bad

Therefore (they conclude):

Hydrogen == Good

The proponents of Hydrogen Fuel say that the only waste product in the burning of H2 and O2 is H2O but this is NOT true. Because you do not get a 100% efficient burn and because H2 is very leaky stuff even in a fuel cell, the other waste product they fail to mention is the fuel itself. So the question is what happens to H2 and O3 in the upper atmosphere? We were is such a rush to eliminate CFCs (quite heavy molecules in comparison) because of their effects should they reach the ozone. How ironic that so many now turn to H2 as a panacea of clean energy when it can be demonstrated that it affects on ozone and unspent and leaky H2 has no where to go but up. http://eands.caltech.edu/articles/LXVI/H2.html

Hmmm, I guess we should start taking Chinese espionage seriously?