Runaway Global Warming Possible!

Joshua Halpern a écrit dans le message 4LbNd.11868$wc.2037@trnddc07...
Fred J. McCall wrote:
"oðin" wrote:

: It was a service of the French national telephone service, I think,
: and you could get these little chintzy terminals to hook up to it.
: The advantage was that it was really cheap. I'm still trying to
: remember the name of it.
:
:Minitel? Total crap... but it was well bfore the WWW.

But WWW and the internet are NOT the same thing. Hell, I was on the
internet for years before Mosaic showed up.

Here's a reasonable timeline for things internet:

http://www.zakon.org/robert/internet/timeline/

According to it, Minitel was deployed in 1981. The first internet
design work was done in the latter part of the 1960s and ARPANET had
already had its first system-wide crash by then.

Minitel still exists. It even has an internet gateway (Wanadoo) and is
functioning as a yellow pages on steroids. Comapare, for example to Yahoo.

Minitel was an attempt to control access to the internet by the government
of the time. When it came about the French government controlled all the
broadcast TV stations and most of the radio stations and did not like
the idea of free access to information. You will find that
the USA was just about the only country that allowed "free" or for the most
part uncensored use of electronic
media. In france and many other countries one must pay a tax or licence to
have a TV. In our case this is greater
than our property tax.
Mintel was cheap to install but using it was and is very expensive.

JOL

maison.mousse wrote:
Joshua Halpern a écrit dans le message 4LbNd.11868$wc.2037@trnddc07...

Fred J. McCall wrote:

"oðin" wrote:

: It was a service of the French national telephone service, I think,
: and you could get these little chintzy terminals to hook up to it.
: The advantage was that it was really cheap. I'm still trying to
: remember the name of it.
:
:Minitel? Total crap... but it was well bfore the WWW.

But WWW and the internet are NOT the same thing. Hell, I was on the
internet for years before Mosaic showed up.

Here's a reasonable timeline for things internet:

http://www.zakon.org/robert/internet/timeline/

According to it, Minitel was deployed in 1981. The first internet
design work was done in the latter part of the 1960s and ARPANET had
already had its first system-wide crash by then.


Minitel still exists. It even has an internet gateway (Wanadoo) and is
functioning as a yellow pages on steroids. Comapare, for example to Yahoo.


Minitel was an attempt to control access to the internet by the government
of the time.

Since Minitel was introduced in 1981, care to tell us what the state of
the internet (such as it was) was in 1981. Minitel gave all of France
access to information services in an environment where bitnet was just
the state of the art, and there were no ISPs. OTOH, in an astoundingly
short time people found uses for the mintel system that were not even
dreamed of by its creators.

When it came about the French government controlled all the
broadcast TV stations and most of the radio stations and did not like
the idea of free access to information. You will find that
the USA was just about the only country that allowed "free"
or for the most part uncensored use of electronic media.

Really, you mean I can set up a radio station in my backyard? Your
statement is contentious twaddle. I've used electronic media in a lot
of countries, and the media was uncensored in all of them except the
People's Republic of China.

In france and many other countries one must pay a tax or licence to
have a TV. In our case this is greater than our property tax.

You have really low property taxes. Probably high income taxes, but say
hay.

I've paid TV fees in the UK and Germany. I pay nothing in the US for
signal access and looking at what is offered, the price is right. OTOH,
I pay ~$50/month for cable. In Germany, I had a guarantee of a good
land signal, AND I paid nothing for ASTRA satellite signals from ~ 30
channels (non of them were worth watching either) after I bought the
receiver. I could pay $50/month or greater and have a few hundred
digital satellite channels.

So much for free.

Mintel was cheap to install but using it was and is very expensive.

True. OTOH, I pay ~$50US/month for my internet connection, so it ain't
free either. (That's $600US/year, which is not zero.)

josh halpern


JOL

Joshua Halpern a écrit dans le message ...
maison.mousse wrote:
Joshua Halpern a écrit dans le message 4LbNd.11868$wc.2037@trnddc07...

Fred J. McCall wrote:

"oðin" wrote:

: It was a service of the French national telephone service, I think,
: and you could get these little chintzy terminals to hook up to it.
: The advantage was that it was really cheap. I'm still trying to
: remember the name of it.
:
:Minitel? Total crap... but it was well bfore the WWW.

But WWW and the internet are NOT the same thing. Hell, I was on the
internet for years before Mosaic showed up.

Here's a reasonable timeline for things internet:

http://www.zakon.org/robert/internet/timeline/

According to it, Minitel was deployed in 1981. The first internet
design work was done in the latter part of the 1960s and ARPANET had
already had its first system-wide crash by then.


Minitel still exists. It even has an internet gateway (Wanadoo) and is
functioning as a yellow pages on steroids. Comapare, for example to
Yahoo.


Minitel was an attempt to control access to the internet by the
government
of the time.

Since Minitel was introduced in 1981, care to tell us what the state of
the internet (such as it was) was in 1981. Minitel gave all of France
access to information services in an environment where bitnet was just
the state of the art, and there were no ISPs. OTOH, in an astoundingly
short time people found uses for the mintel system that were not even
dreamed of by its creators.

When it came about the French government controlled all the
broadcast TV stations and most of the radio stations and did not like
the idea of free access to information. You will find that
the USA was just about the only country that allowed "free"
or for the most part uncensored use of electronic media.

Really, you mean I can set up a radio station in my backyard? Your
statement is contentious twaddle. I've used electronic media in a lot
of countries, and the media was uncensored in all of them except the
People's Republic of China.

In france and many other countries one must pay a tax or licence to
have a TV. In our case this is greater than our property tax.

You have really low property taxes. Probably high income taxes, but say
hay.

I've paid TV fees in the UK and Germany. I pay nothing in the US for
signal access and looking at what is offered, the price is right. OTOH,
I pay ~$50/month for cable. In Germany, I had a guarantee of a good
land signal, AND I paid nothing for ASTRA satellite signals from ~ 30

True. OTOH, I pay ~$50US/month for my internet connection, so it ain't
free either. (That's $600US/year, which is not zero.)

josh halpern




You have zero idea what you are talking about.

JOL

Len Lekx wrote:
On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 19:07:31 -0600, "Paul F. Dietz"
wrote:

HIV is found universally in patients with AIDS. It is observed
to attack and destroy the cells that are depleted in AIDS. It is

Can you provide me with references to this? So I may see for
myself.


I hear India is starting an AIDS vaccine test based on the premise
that HIV does in fact lead to AIDS... maybe you should volunteer? ;-)

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

"gresham" wrote in message
...
in article , oðin at

wrote on 2/1/05 10:36 AM:

OK, as I said, how can we increase a gas that traps heat and not have
any
heat trapped? Is the gas changing its properties once in the
atmosphere?
Is it magic?

CO2 is a green house gas, so yes it does trap heat. And that does mean
that
the portion of CO2 that humans produces will increase temperatures. But
the
IPCC models cannot be trusted to predict the size of this effect. They
also
cannot determine whether all the other effects (direct and feedabck) on
temperature will have an opposing effect, so it is still not clear if
the
temp will go up or down.


You are quite right in all you say, but the real important factor is that
CO2 is a very minor part of the atmosphere (abt. .04%). The real green
house gas that traps a lot of heat is our friend water vapor. So why
pick
on CO2 ? Because they can.

The amount of water vapor that the atmosphere can hold depends on the
temperature. A large part of the projected warming due to human emissions of
CO2 is in fact due to the increased amount of water vapor in the atmosphere
due to the CO2 induced warming.

What could you do about clouds ? ASSUMING
that
all this has anything to do with anything at all.
gresham

"Dick Morris" wrote in message
...

"gresham" wrote in message
...
in article , oðin at

wrote on 2/1/05 10:36 AM:

OK, as I said, how can we increase a gas that traps heat and not have
any
heat trapped? Is the gas changing its properties once in the
atmosphere?
Is it magic?

CO2 is a green house gas, so yes it does trap heat. And that does mean
that
the portion of CO2 that humans produces will increase temperatures.
But
the
IPCC models cannot be trusted to predict the size of this effect. They
also
cannot determine whether all the other effects (direct and feedabck)
on
temperature will have an opposing effect, so it is still not clear if
the
temp will go up or down.


You are quite right in all you say, but the real important factor is
that
CO2 is a very minor part of the atmosphere (abt. .04%). The real green
house gas that traps a lot of heat is our friend water vapor. So why
pick
on CO2 ? Because they can.

The amount of water vapor that the atmosphere can hold depends on the
temperature. A large part of the projected warming due to human emissions
of
CO2 is in fact due to the increased amount of water vapor in the
atmosphere
due to the CO2 induced warming.


Dick,

I view this as an overly simplistic assertion. Water vapor is an excellent
heat transfer medium, meaning that as temperatures rise and the water vapor
content of the atmosphere increases, there will be increases in convective
heat transfer as water vapor condenses into rain high in the atmosphere. If
you take a look at the percent increase in water vapor per deg F, you will
see that the concentration of water vapor rises at a substantial rate at the
current average temperature of the earth.

Other negative feedbacks include increased cloudiness as more water vapor
condenses, and possibly more snowfall at high lattitudes (increased albedo).
I am not trying to paint a totally rosy picture on this issue, but I am
trying to point out that many of the feedbacks are negative precisely
because water vapor is condensable (obviously, CO2 is not).

What could you do about clouds ? ASSUMING
that
all this has anything to do with anything at all.
gresham

"maison.mousse" wrote in message
...
You have zero idea what you are talking about.

Actually, he knows a great deal about the subject.

Your blanket rejection of fact with a single line, content free, response,
on the other hand is quite illustrative of your level of expertise in this
area.

All Republicans are liars.

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
You don't read very well, do you?

Oh, on the contrary. You are quite transparent.

The ignorant always are.

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 22:38:19 -0500, "Vendicar Decarian"
wrote:

All Republicans are liars.

... as are all Democrats. ;-)


--------------------------
Statistics are like lamp-posts to a drunken man... more for Leaning-On
than Illumination.

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
Would you enter a room with 100% H2O?

Most people call the activity swimming. Although to be precise they
usually spend most of their time skimming mostly below the upper wall of the
room, occasionally making excursions completely inside.