1veedo

No, I know the "X" wasn't what I meant. I went and looked it up though on wikipedia. There was some other operating system way back in the day who's entire purpose was to run the X server. Like, people thought it was a big deal or something. Not macs though sorry.

X11 has definitely been an optional package. If you go to mac's website ( http://developer.apple.com/opensource/tools/runningx11.html ) they specifically tell you, "X11 is available as an optional install on the Mac OS X v10.3 Panther, and Mac OS X v10.4 Tiger install disks. Run the Installer, select the X11 option, and follow the instructions." One version (though not server) doesn't even ship with the CD cause I remember having to download it once. I know lol we had tiger and now leopard in one of the labs at school and none of them have X11 installed, though the professor says he's going to install it. The good thing about having X11 is that you can ssh to another computer and run X11 apps. (I found the computers rather useless w/o X. You can ssh but you can only run console apps.) It's hard to multitask though. You pretty much have to use one application at a time and switch between them. The funny thing about all of this is that Mac OS originally was running X. I don't know why or when they quit but the original purpose was something like X Operating System. True. You can't say firefox is "built for" XULRunner or X completely though. I'm sure hopefully everyone knows this but just to clarify, when developing open source applications it's not like anyone specifically makes the application for something like X or Windows. Most of the codebase is independent of the specific implementation. Like on Linux and Windows firefox uses gtk but you can compile it w/o gtk and it looks really ugly. Almost all open source and free software is at least compatible with X, if not solely developed for X though. Bluefish for instance is developed for Linux/X but this isn't done on purpose. If someone wanted to they could add support for Windows, it's just that nobody has.

If you don't run X apps that's perfectly fine lol. I'm not telling you that you have to install the X server on your mac, I just suggested it. I happen to prefer abiword, eclipse, and bluefish for instance. There are quite a bit of games that wont run on macs w/o X support, too. And you can run giftd, one of the better file-sharing apps (still subpar to shareaza which only runs on Windows and wine). I'm trying to think, my mac is at home right now (I'm in a dorm) but I have streamtunner installed and I want to install banshee who's only competitor as a music player/organizer is amarok (amarok is actually better I think but it's qt, where banshee is gtk. There aren't a lot of differences between the two though.). Windows really lacks in the music department if you consider quality, how much systems resources it takes to play a song, and the fact that you cant run banshee nor amarok on it. Banshee should run on a mac just fine, provided X support. And the default terminal for macs you even have to admit sucks. gnome-terminal is by far the best available on any platform. It's cool though really, google about running X on macs. There is plenty of really good software running on X. In fact X holds de facto the free software market because most free applications run on and/or are developed for X. Firefox, pigeon, abiword, quanta, OO etc are all developed for X and their Windows counterparts and simply recompiled for Windows (actually I think if they're gtk then it's completely cross platform, I'm not sure -- there's a gtk version for Unix/X and one for Windows. qt is trying to do this too -- the next version of KDE will supposedly run on Windows). It's not like there are hardcore platforms though. Many applications can be compiled for X, Windows, or Mac support. It's just that the vast majority of Unix applications (read: macs are Unix) run on X so you're kind of selling yourself short if you run a mac w/o X. Firefox is an X11 app. Firefox actually has a lot of issues on os x. You can get firefox-x11 for the mac though; it runs considerably better but doesn't look as well (this is mac's fault, not firefox, for not havn't the greatest X client in the world). X ships with it but is not installed by default. On most versions it was an optional package. I think on tiger you actually had to download it from their website. And Wireshark runs just fine on Linux meaning it has X support. Well I just happen to have never used many of those, I'm sure some have good "alternatives" though. Maybe if I needed any of those applications I would be less inclined to use Linux. On the flipside one of the reasons I don't like Windows and originally didn't like macs was because I couldn't run a lot of [free/open source] software. Windows just doesn't have a lot of software for it compared to Linux, and neither do macs if you don't install X. The only reason I considered getting a mac in the first place was because it's unix so I assumed it could run all standard unix applications (little did I know that modern mac OS X doesn't run X. Even w/ X it's kind of buggy. Leopard is running gnome just fine for me, tiger had a few issues). Gnome is waaay better than the standard OS X desktop IMO -- the only problem I've ever really had about the mac desktop is that it's very non-standard. I like having an applications menu and a list of everything I'm running. Multiple desktops is a huge plus, too. And when you close an application on macs they don't even really close! You hit close and up at the top the menus are still there. I don't know why but that's always bugged me lol -- it's like Mac dedicates itself to one application at a time with the whole menu bar thing at the top. If you want to open a menu from another app you have to first click on that application and then access the menu from the top. Linux has always been better when using more than one application compared to both macs and windows. In Windows and OS X you have to keep switching between applications which is really annoying. I love transparency when typing papers and such cause I can keep typing in abiword and read in document viewer or firefox. Windows wont even let you scroll another application if it's not your active window. Anyway that's all I really have to say. I'm not that big on discussing different operating systems like fanboys or whatever. Linux is not a third world operating system though lol I remember Linux way back when Fedora Core 2 was coming out. Even some recent distros of Linux are still kind of backwards -- you have to understand unix to use it very well, but some distros like PCLinuxOS and Ubuntu 7 work surprisingly... how you say automatic and/or elegantly. Things just work right out of the box. Windows which is supposedly user friendly doesn't even do this, as I've found out setting up my friend's Vista laptop (I've actually read a couple articles saying Linux is now more user friendly than Vista, and we're talking all of this has changed dramatically within the previous 6 months. I mean everything has been there all along but nobody had bothered to automate things or make guis before -- there's even a gui that sets up your X config file now which Linux has needed for a very long time. All it does is run X -configure and has a parsing script that'll change your resolution and stuff). Windows is really a 3rd world country I have to say I'm sorry, especially Vista. Windows is always behind trying to play catch up. My porta rican friend gets so pissed off at Vista -- "why does it do that?" "It just does, Windows is like that." It does this weird thing where it beeps annoyingly for no reason and sometimes bluescreens. Nothing seems to work, either. His laptop is like twice as fast as my computer but it runs 4 times slower and I have all the "latest and greatest" unstable compiz fuzion running. Like I really don't understand it my computer does way more than his, runs faster, and it's running on older hardware. And add to that Windows is just plain ugly. Macs really don't look all that great to be honest with you but the theme goes together and macs are kind of flashy. Someone needs to port emerald to macs -- all OS X really needs in that department is a better window decorator.

Yeah I saw that. Apparently it's more of a joke than an actual mainstream drug. I also found this funny, Yeah there are different strengths. 20x peaks for like 5 minutes and can last for 20 (aftereffects, not tripping). Anything less than 20 doesn't even make you hallucinate. It has other effects though besides its hallucinogenic properties. Lots of incense have slavia in them to pick up your mood. I've never tried it but me and a friend are doing some 20x this weekend. It's really expensive though, Mag is right fermenting shit in the sun is a lot cheaper.

Lol you have no idea what I'm talking about, do you? I'm not comparing Linux. I said if you get rid of the default OS X desktop and install the boxed X server you can have all the X apps you want. OS X does have a couple neat apps by default or that you can install but X apps are generally better, and there are more of them (don't get me wrong though I love leopard, macs are nice. iPhoto really really sucks though lol, so does safari). The great thing about installing the X server on mac OS X is that you can still use the defaults on top of just about any other application you want. So you have OS X apps, all the Windows applications that run on macs (office etc), and X apps. Meaning on a Mac you can really run just about any application out there (not games, and not all X apps will run on the OS X kernel, but for the most part this is true). Sheesh talk about impulsive posting, bascule. A lot of people do this, it's very popular -- it's really the only reason to get a mac unless you like the clunky default setup. Which is all a matter of personal opinion, and you can keep the default desktop and still do this -- I just happen to like gnome a lot more than the standard desktop and only use a couple of the applications that came with the mac (like the camera). If only they could fix all the bugs, I like macs but os x has a long way to go. Btw just FYI I do have to disagree about what you say about Linux, but you're the one trying to go off topic, not me, so I'll stop there.

Have you ever tried it? X apps are sooo much better than the default stuff you can put on your mac.

Mac OS X is good if you get rid of all the OS X stuff and install the X server / gnome or KDE.

Too bad these kids had never heard of salvia before trying this jenkem shit. I actually fell sorry for not just the kids but the parents lol.

If you read that article they are indeed referncing the work done by Solanki et al. It turns out that they were wrong and sunspots are not at an 8000 year high.

Well whether or not you believe it this is what the science indicates. I've given you references a couple times now which indicate temperatures would be slightly cooler today than they were 150 years ago if you remove the human influence. If you don't accept this you're just ignoring the basic data involved. edit -- SkepticLance I don't want to accuse you of being dishonest but I just happened across this study from Nature, "How unusual is today’s solar activity?" They reference a study done by Solanki et al which is presumably what you're citing as proof that "Sunspots are NOW at an 8000 year high." (which isn't true) "Solanki et al.1 propose that solar activity dur-ing recent decades was exceptionally high compared with that over the preceding 8,000 years. However, our extended analysis of the radiocarbon record reveals several periods during past centuries in which the strength of the magnetic field in the solar wind was simi-lar to, or even higher than, that of today." "In any case, and irrespective of the data set applied, the recent solar activity is not excep-tionally high (Fig. 2). The 14 C results are broadlyconsistentwithearlierreconstructions based on 10 Be data from the South Pole, which show that production rates around AD 1780 and in the twelfth century were comparable to those observed today 11 We conclude that the link between the visually based sunspot numbers and solar-modulation parameter is neither straightforward nor yet understood, and also that solar modulation must have reached or exceeded today’s magnitudes three times during the past millennium." And when looking at both Solanki et al and S. K. Solanki et al, they agree "solar activity reconstructions tell us that only a minor fraction of the recent global warming can be explained by the variable Sun." So even the study which claims an 8,000 year high sunspot peak disagrees with your conclusion that this peak has a large role in global warming. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/raimund/publications/Muscheler_et_al_Nature2005.pdf http://cc.oulu.fi/%7Eusoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf

Nah she's not slutty enough. You know, being halloween and everything. That is a really good costume you're wearing btw, YT2095.

I don't like most vegetables. Potatoes, corn, and ceasar salad are good though. Most people don't like vegetables probably because most aren't rich in much of anything but water.

There are a lot in the Philippines. (serious)

Several studies indicate this. You can look in Climate Change: The Scientific Basis for instance. You have to look at nets here. There are other factors in the climate than sunspots, and sunspots haven't been "really high" during this entire period.

When the fastest historical period of warming within the past 65 million years or so was 3 orders of magnitude less, 1 degree C is a startling amount. Today the Earth is warming even quicker though, at a rate of about 3 degrees C over 150 years (.2C/decade * 15). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene-Eocene_Thermal_Maximum If you've ever had any basic biology you'd know that slight changes in the climate have far-reaching effects.

Finally you're starting to realize this. There are older threads where you were vigorously trying to simplify things to the point where you're simplified version of the climate system didn't look anything like the real climate system. "Well between 1940 and 1976..." and then "1910 to 1941..." even earlier in this thread I think lol, anyway. You are trying to pretend that anthropogenic global warming has only been going on for the past 30 years when in reality humans have been steadily causing the Earth to get hotter for over 150 years now, and possibly even longer. To say otherwise is a missinterpretation of what the science says, eg it's a straw man. Just because the human impact on the climate has not always been the overwhelming factor does not change the fact that in the previous 150 years we have caused the Earth to get warmer by about a degree celsius. Where natural factors have caused the temperature to bounce up and down a little during this same period, human factors have steadily been pushing mean temperatures further and further up. If you look at only the natural factors in the climate the Earth would actually be cooler today than what it was 150 years ago, but because of the human influence over this entire period temperatures are much warmer now. It's not as simple as looking at periods of warming and cooling. During periods of cooling anthropogenic factors were still causing warming, the warming effect was just overshadowed by the cooling. If we remove human factors completely these cooling periods would have gotten even cooler and the Earth would be about a degree cooler today than it is.

We've actually put a lot more methane in the atmosphere than CO2. Not by volume but where CO2 has increased about 100 ppm to 380ish, methane has gone up from ~700ppb to 1700ppb. The effects of CO2 as a direct greenhouse gas though isn't the reason CO2 is so potent. CO2 effects many other climate systems and it has the effect that it increases the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere which traps a lot of heat in the climate. No, the data CDarwin posted clearly shows that volcanoes amount to about 1% of CO2 by volume. I always find it amusing when global warming deniers talk about volcanoes because volcanoes actually have the effect that they cool down the Earth. Yeah, volcanoes might be hot if you're standing right next to one but their impact on the climate is one of cooling, not warming. Right now, not millions of years ago, humans are pumping CO2 and other ghgs into the atmosphere which have sense like 1750 increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from ~280 to ~380ppm (and rising, I can never keep track of the "current" amount but it's up there at 380).

The excess man-made greenhouse gases have slowly pushed the amount of ghgs in the atmosphere up. It is true that humans emit fewer ghgs than nature does but nature does a good job balancing it out with negative feedback systems, or climate sinks. About half of all anthropogenic ghgs have been absorbed by these feedback sinks, most of it in the oceans, but the other half has just accumulated in the atmopshere. Sense it has no place to go it just sort of hangs out and makes the Earth hotter.

I've waveboarded before, it's a lot of fun. Instead of pushing your feet against the ground like you do on a skateboard you propel yourself by moving your feet back and forward. You kind of stay on it instead of setting yourself up so you can ride around indoors.

It might not be nerve gas but a small fluctuation of CO2 in the atmosphere has huge consequences on the climate.

Weren't you telling me earlier that sunspots were a better indicate of climate change than solar irradiance? That's like the third time I've read something of yours which contradicted something else you said.

O.K. I see where you're going with this.

I clearly gave you a link to a publication by NASA written by James Hansen, who is I believe head of GISS. If you look at said link you can see the predictions made in the 80s and the path that the climate has actually taken through 2005. Still today (2005 at least) those lines match up. I don't see how you can draw any other conclusion from it lol. On a side note I think I read somewhere that due to changes in the output of anthropogenic CO2 this model will be wrong in like 20 years or something. The models work, the only problem with modeling the climate is predicting what humans are going to do. They kind of have to make educated guess as to how much CO2 we're going to release at some point in the future. But what this allows us to do is see "what if." "What if we pollute at X rate, or what about Y rate?" Well X rate looks pretty bad and Y rate looks OK so lets try to pollute at Y etc.

It's measured in parts per million just like anything else in the atmosphere. Many models have in fact proven themselves to be very accurate. Besides the study bascule keeps posting there's also the first GISS analysis done in the 1980s (on computers not nearly as powerful as they're using today). According to NASA, the model is, still today, "right on the money"*.

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=26603&page=2