iJohnHenry
Mar 14, 06:19 PM
We Brits always made do with punkah wallahs. Useful local employment opportunities and saves on polluting the atmosphere.
Ah, the glory days of the British Raj. LOL Thanks for the laugh.
Ah, the glory days of the British Raj. LOL Thanks for the laugh.
samcraig
Mar 18, 09:09 AM
How is someone stealing bandwidth, if they are paying for unlimited data. If anything ATT is stealing from them by not allowing them to use their data that they paying for....
ATT isn't stealing anything. And they are giving you unlimited data on your phone and your phone only because THAT is what you agreed to.
If you want to change the rules, then att can enforce the rules YOU agreed to.
ATT isn't stealing anything. And they are giving you unlimited data on your phone and your phone only because THAT is what you agreed to.
If you want to change the rules, then att can enforce the rules YOU agreed to.
sprakope
Aug 29, 11:21 AM
Besides, I said that Apple is doing what they can.
Actually, the last shareholder meeting had the vote to start the computer recycling program. The board of directors recommended that the shareholders vote "No" but the shareholders decided that the recycling program was important.
I love Apple as much as the next guy, but that recommendation was irresponsible and backwards. Apple deserves this bad press.
[edited to fix the quote. i quoted the wrong post]
Actually, the last shareholder meeting had the vote to start the computer recycling program. The board of directors recommended that the shareholders vote "No" but the shareholders decided that the recycling program was important.
I love Apple as much as the next guy, but that recommendation was irresponsible and backwards. Apple deserves this bad press.
[edited to fix the quote. i quoted the wrong post]
CaoCao
Mar 26, 12:58 AM
Are you serious? That's a horrible thing to say. They should deprive themselves of sex because your 2000 year old book says so? That's crap. God made them born that way, for what? Just to torture them for their whole lives? I hope you understand that this makes no sense. And as for the catholic church recognizing that they are born that way and do not choose it, that's a load of crap. If you believe that, then you are seriously misguided. If god is so loving, wouldn't he have made them born heterosexual so they could live a normal life and have sex with members of the opposite gender? Why would god make someone gay? Your logic is so flawed im having a hard time expressing myself in words.
We have no idea what causes homosexuality although we have ruled out choice.
Prove why I should be denied the right to copulate in public
Because it is basically unsanitary. Similar to urinating on the sidewalk (urine is sterile upon exiting the body, but it does not stay that way very long).
If we are doing it through the fly of our pants what makes it unsanitary?
Give me a break. Now you are just minimizing what is a violation of civil rights.
Being able to have a "wedding ceremony" is not the issue. It's having the same rights as our heterosexual counterparts. This involves about 1000 tax benefits and simple things like hospital visitation.
We will be equal when men are allowed to marry men and women are allowed to marry women. There was a time when a Black man and white woman didn't have the right to get married. That wrong was righted and so will this one.
Luckily I don't recognize what the Catholic Church recognizes. So they can call themselves to chastity. As I said, they need to worry about cleaning their own house, and stay out of mine.
heterosexual marriage is beneficial to society by the stability it provides. Homosexual marriage is only based on love and thus is unstable because things built on only love lack perseverance.
Priests can't even follow their vows of chastity yet they expect it of Catholic lay people too—divorcees and homosexuals. Never worked, never will.
Lay people, snicker.
Some priests fail, not all. We as people experience moments of weakness, priests are people too. Also you laughing at "lay people" is puerile
Matthew 5:10-12
Is est a subcribo of contradictio frater
Pax
We have no idea what causes homosexuality although we have ruled out choice.
Prove why I should be denied the right to copulate in public
Because it is basically unsanitary. Similar to urinating on the sidewalk (urine is sterile upon exiting the body, but it does not stay that way very long).
If we are doing it through the fly of our pants what makes it unsanitary?
Give me a break. Now you are just minimizing what is a violation of civil rights.
Being able to have a "wedding ceremony" is not the issue. It's having the same rights as our heterosexual counterparts. This involves about 1000 tax benefits and simple things like hospital visitation.
We will be equal when men are allowed to marry men and women are allowed to marry women. There was a time when a Black man and white woman didn't have the right to get married. That wrong was righted and so will this one.
Luckily I don't recognize what the Catholic Church recognizes. So they can call themselves to chastity. As I said, they need to worry about cleaning their own house, and stay out of mine.
heterosexual marriage is beneficial to society by the stability it provides. Homosexual marriage is only based on love and thus is unstable because things built on only love lack perseverance.
Priests can't even follow their vows of chastity yet they expect it of Catholic lay people too—divorcees and homosexuals. Never worked, never will.
Lay people, snicker.
Some priests fail, not all. We as people experience moments of weakness, priests are people too. Also you laughing at "lay people" is puerile
Matthew 5:10-12
Is est a subcribo of contradictio frater
Pax
Moyank24
Mar 25, 11:18 AM
I am a firm believer in that you are entitled to your own opinion, as long as you dont force your opinion on others.
So someone doesnt like the idea of gay relationships, attacking him for this isnt going to change his opinion. And just makes you a cretin.
I hardly think he is being attacked. He entered this thread willingly and joined the discussion. Of course, we are all entitled to our own opinions. Unfortunately, his opinions and those of the people like him are directly resulting in my civil rights being violated. We are cretins because we want things changed?
So someone doesnt like the idea of gay relationships, attacking him for this isnt going to change his opinion. And just makes you a cretin.
I hardly think he is being attacked. He entered this thread willingly and joined the discussion. Of course, we are all entitled to our own opinions. Unfortunately, his opinions and those of the people like him are directly resulting in my civil rights being violated. We are cretins because we want things changed?
CTYankee
Oct 25, 10:40 PM
Each process is it's own thread. And most processes have multiple threads. Unless you only always have one program open at a time, more cores always can help speed up your system.
Open and doing something. Safari, Mail, iTunes, and working in photoshop probably won't benefit much from quad cores. Batching in PS, Aperture and doing a render in FCP would.
I am on the brink of buying something. What, time will tell. If the quad core does make a marked difference when running PS and at most one background process I'll consider it. Otherwise its a Dual core 2.66 for me.
Open and doing something. Safari, Mail, iTunes, and working in photoshop probably won't benefit much from quad cores. Batching in PS, Aperture and doing a render in FCP would.
I am on the brink of buying something. What, time will tell. If the quad core does make a marked difference when running PS and at most one background process I'll consider it. Otherwise its a Dual core 2.66 for me.
i3iz
Sep 26, 02:00 AM
old news...check this webpage:http://anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2832&p=6
"We grabbed a pair of 2.4GHz Clovertown samples and tossed them in the system, and to our pleasure, they worked just fine. Our samples used a 1066MHz FSB, although we're expecting the final chip to use a 1333MHz FSB, but the most important part of the test is that all 8 cores were detected and functional. "
"We grabbed a pair of 2.4GHz Clovertown samples and tossed them in the system, and to our pleasure, they worked just fine. Our samples used a 1066MHz FSB, although we're expecting the final chip to use a 1333MHz FSB, but the most important part of the test is that all 8 cores were detected and functional. "
SuperCachetes
Apr 25, 10:06 PM
But Allah is a great poster boy for Atheists as to why religion is the root of all problems lol
Uh, what lol?. :rolleyes:
Do try to keep your bias contained to yourself.
Uh, what lol?. :rolleyes:
Do try to keep your bias contained to yourself.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 22, 08:17 PM
I consider myself an atheist who tries to back up my points with facts. I've seen most other posters who are atheists do the same. I hope you are wrong about it being a "trendy" thing to do but I do hope more people see the reasoning behind atheism and join us for the correct reasons. As far as agnostics go, I know the difference between us and I couldn't care less....close enough in my eyes!!!! An atheist and an agnostic arguing to me is like hearing a Catholic and a Protestant argue....such a small difference in something so important.
Nope, most people identify with atheism but when challenged to defend their points they just say "because God doesn't exist" or something along those lines. They don't try to do the simple paradox argument, or the existence of evil argument. It would therefore lead me to conclude that they're atheists because they were exposed to it in pop culture or something.
When someone tries to say there must be a God because the probability of mankind existing is x I counter it with "In a universe that is thought to be forever cycling through big bangs and big crunches eternally probability becomes meaningless. Intelligent life would eventually evolve anyway, without a divine hand to guide it.
There are arguments and counter-arguments to both camps, which is why I choose to be agnostos. In the face of a dearth of evidence it's more rational to withhold judgment than leap to an extreme position.
Nope, most people identify with atheism but when challenged to defend their points they just say "because God doesn't exist" or something along those lines. They don't try to do the simple paradox argument, or the existence of evil argument. It would therefore lead me to conclude that they're atheists because they were exposed to it in pop culture or something.
When someone tries to say there must be a God because the probability of mankind existing is x I counter it with "In a universe that is thought to be forever cycling through big bangs and big crunches eternally probability becomes meaningless. Intelligent life would eventually evolve anyway, without a divine hand to guide it.
There are arguments and counter-arguments to both camps, which is why I choose to be agnostos. In the face of a dearth of evidence it's more rational to withhold judgment than leap to an extreme position.
appleguy123
Apr 22, 09:11 PM
someone hasn't posted in that thread for 5 months ... why would people all of a sudden want to revive it ... today we have this one.
I would be willing to bet that if given time this thread will be a carbon copy of that one.
That thread should be stickied, because I can't really think of any issue(relevant to this topic) we didn't cover in it.
I would be willing to bet that if given time this thread will be a carbon copy of that one.
That thread should be stickied, because I can't really think of any issue(relevant to this topic) we didn't cover in it.
darkplanets
Mar 11, 06:38 PM
And this is why we have passive cooling and shutdown systems, so you don't have to rely on mechanical means for core safety. It is my understanding that these reactors should have control rods to pretty much kill the core, however since it's a BWR that doesn't mean the heat will stop. I'll bet money that the safety systems aren't up to par, and since these were constructed in the 80's there certainly isn't any passive control systems.
Moyank24
Mar 25, 11:07 AM
As marriage is licensed by the state, it is in fact a privilege. The fact that it is near-universally granted doesn't make it any more a right.
I agree with you here. And that is the problem. It shouldn't be a privilege. Every consenting adult that wants to get married should be allowed to.
I agree with you here. And that is the problem. It shouldn't be a privilege. Every consenting adult that wants to get married should be allowed to.
Drizzt
Oct 25, 10:21 PM
Intel is really making Apple quick with those revisions...
legacyb4
Sep 12, 06:28 PM
Hate to say it, but I agree... I've got an old P4/2.8 running MCE2005 with a TV tuner and while not outputting the highest quality video, it's fulfilling the role of what I want in my living room; namely, a digital recording device for TV content that can also play back DVDs and downloaded content. It'd be a plus if I actually used the computer but I'm a Mac man suffering the Windows solution for something that Apple hasn't fully provided me yet...
When this thing surpasses the capabilities of my Windows media center and Xbox 360 combo then I will be impressed. Until then Apple is playing catch up to MCE and playing it poorly.
When this thing surpasses the capabilities of my Windows media center and Xbox 360 combo then I will be impressed. Until then Apple is playing catch up to MCE and playing it poorly.
maclaptop
Apr 10, 11:41 AM
This shows how much Apple has learned from the past. They will not make the same mistake they did during the Mac vs. PC era by ignoring games. They're throwing the best mobile GPUs into their products and advertising gaming heavily, good for them.
Sometimes Apple is a very slow learner. They finally realize that the harder they go after the kids, the more money their parents will cough up. This is especially crucial as Apple centers its business on entertainment. Hook the little kids on games andthey'll be Apple's new faithful.
Make the interface of the laptops look like iOS, load them with games, and focus on simplification. The kids market is ripe for Apple.
Sometimes Apple is a very slow learner. They finally realize that the harder they go after the kids, the more money their parents will cough up. This is especially crucial as Apple centers its business on entertainment. Hook the little kids on games andthey'll be Apple's new faithful.
Make the interface of the laptops look like iOS, load them with games, and focus on simplification. The kids market is ripe for Apple.
theheadguy
Aug 29, 02:27 PM
I have to say, I am APPALLED by the irresponsible attitude of some people on this forum (and probably the world). Businesses, corporations, governments, AND individuals should all be behaving in a socially and environmentally responsible manner. This is in no way "anti-progress". When did you all gain the right to be so selfish, self-centred, and bigoted in your beliefs?
Absolutely. People act as if this world is expendable. As soon as you mention Greenpeace, morons seem to go on auto-pilot and once they do that you can't stop them.
Absolutely. People act as if this world is expendable. As soon as you mention Greenpeace, morons seem to go on auto-pilot and once they do that you can't stop them.
jayducharme
May 5, 02:26 PM
Coworkers of mine that have switched from Blackberry on AT&T to iPhone have reported an inordinant number of disconnected calls since switching to the iPhone, even though it's the same carrier, same phone number and same physical location of use.
There seems to be a real split in this thread: people who get lots of dropped calls with the iPhone and people who get none. I haven't had any dropped calls in the two years I've had my iPhone. But there have been many calls that never rang and instead went straight to voicemail.
I'm wondering if Apple might have produced a slew of defective iPhones, and those are the ones that are dropping calls. It's so strange that people are having such vastly different experiences, regardless of the call area. It sounds more like a hardware/software problem.
There seems to be a real split in this thread: people who get lots of dropped calls with the iPhone and people who get none. I haven't had any dropped calls in the two years I've had my iPhone. But there have been many calls that never rang and instead went straight to voicemail.
I'm wondering if Apple might have produced a slew of defective iPhones, and those are the ones that are dropping calls. It's so strange that people are having such vastly different experiences, regardless of the call area. It sounds more like a hardware/software problem.
bryanc
Aug 29, 01:55 PM
...
The other 90%+ of the greenhouse effect (the REAL reason the Earth's climate is warming) is caused by....drum roll....naturally occuring water vapor!
...
Let's also not forget that 30 years ago (when manmade pollution was FAR worse than it is today) these same people were warning us of a coming Ice Age.
I didn't know we had a climate scientist in this forum, let alone one of the tiny percentage of scientists who dispute that human activity is a large factor in current climate change? Please enlighten us... that is, unless you're just some guy with an uneducated opinion. By all means, tell us why you know so much more about this well-studied topic than the hundreds of thousands of climate researchers around the world who've reached an almost unprecedented consensus regarding the roll of human activity, and CO2 production, in climate change.
But, to get back on topic, I do think Apple should release well-documented information regarding what they are doing to reduce their environmental impact, and how they're going to change in the face of these criticisms.
Apple is supposed to be 'Different', and these challenges regarding the treatment of their labour force, and their environmental policies, should be viewed as opportunities to be a good example (and thereby earn more customer loyalty), rather than something to be spun and handled with PR.
Cheers
The other 90%+ of the greenhouse effect (the REAL reason the Earth's climate is warming) is caused by....drum roll....naturally occuring water vapor!
...
Let's also not forget that 30 years ago (when manmade pollution was FAR worse than it is today) these same people were warning us of a coming Ice Age.
I didn't know we had a climate scientist in this forum, let alone one of the tiny percentage of scientists who dispute that human activity is a large factor in current climate change? Please enlighten us... that is, unless you're just some guy with an uneducated opinion. By all means, tell us why you know so much more about this well-studied topic than the hundreds of thousands of climate researchers around the world who've reached an almost unprecedented consensus regarding the roll of human activity, and CO2 production, in climate change.
But, to get back on topic, I do think Apple should release well-documented information regarding what they are doing to reduce their environmental impact, and how they're going to change in the face of these criticisms.
Apple is supposed to be 'Different', and these challenges regarding the treatment of their labour force, and their environmental policies, should be viewed as opportunities to be a good example (and thereby earn more customer loyalty), rather than something to be spun and handled with PR.
Cheers
SandboxGeneral
Mar 13, 09:44 AM
I'm all for nuclear power. It's the cleanest and usually the safest type of electricity available that can produce energy on a large scale.
There are inherent risks with nuclear power and there is the waste issue yet to be solved. But likewise, there are risks for other types of power, whether it's gas, oil, coal or even hydroelectric. Choose your poison.
As for the safety of nuclear energy, there are only two disasters that I know of, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. I think there was a 3rd more minor one once, but I don't recall.
I'm sure there have been more disasters with all the other types of energy plants that have happened over time. However, when a nuclear plant has a problem, it's always going to be a big one.
Despite the risks of nuclear power, I still support it's use in countries that are responsible.
There are inherent risks with nuclear power and there is the waste issue yet to be solved. But likewise, there are risks for other types of power, whether it's gas, oil, coal or even hydroelectric. Choose your poison.
As for the safety of nuclear energy, there are only two disasters that I know of, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. I think there was a 3rd more minor one once, but I don't recall.
I'm sure there have been more disasters with all the other types of energy plants that have happened over time. However, when a nuclear plant has a problem, it's always going to be a big one.
Despite the risks of nuclear power, I still support it's use in countries that are responsible.
appleguy123
Mar 24, 06:56 PM
The Catholic Church doesn't hate homosexuals
"People are being attacked for taking positions that do not support sexual behaviour between people of the same sex," he told the current session of the Human Rights Council....
"These attacks are violations of fundamental human rights and cannot be justified under any circumstances," Tomasi said."
Is this not exactly what the Catholic Church has done to homosexuals? Do they not have "Fundamental human rights"?
Sounds like hate to me.
"People are being attacked for taking positions that do not support sexual behaviour between people of the same sex," he told the current session of the Human Rights Council....
"These attacks are violations of fundamental human rights and cannot be justified under any circumstances," Tomasi said."
Is this not exactly what the Catholic Church has done to homosexuals? Do they not have "Fundamental human rights"?
Sounds like hate to me.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 13, 02:21 PM
Most of the major power sources in use today come with major safety/environmental risks. Nuclear is in some ways potentially the most risky. However, people will continue to use it because it works.
We are only as safe as the weakest nuclear power plant, and some of the old Soviet designs still operating are truly scary. But I see a discussion over whether or not to use nuclear power as being 60 years too late - nuclear power is here to stay, due to pressure to satisfy civil power demands that will require them to remain in operation and even expand in numbers. At this point in time renewable energy sources are producing only a fraction of the energy they must produce if we are to start decommissioning nuclear plants.
We are only as safe as the weakest nuclear power plant, and some of the old Soviet designs still operating are truly scary. But I see a discussion over whether or not to use nuclear power as being 60 years too late - nuclear power is here to stay, due to pressure to satisfy civil power demands that will require them to remain in operation and even expand in numbers. At this point in time renewable energy sources are producing only a fraction of the energy they must produce if we are to start decommissioning nuclear plants.
alex_ant
Oct 11, 04:36 PM
Javajedi, what you've done with your benchmarking is very helpful and I believe provides much insight. I too was surprised to see that the PowerPC performed as poorly as it did. Sorry if I missed you addressing this, but did you use GCC 3.x on the PPC?
There are a few conclusions I could draw from this performance data:
1) AltiVec acceleration is crucial to attain performance competitive with x86.
2) In the best case, AltiVec-accelerated code will perform several times faster than optimized x86 code. However, the best case is very rare and limited to specialized tasks like BLAST, RC5, SETI, certain Photoshop filters, and so on.
3) In the worst case, AltiVec-optimized code will perform barely any better or perhaps even worse than non-optimized code.
4) The G4's integer and floating-point units are extremely weak.
4a) Even MHz-for-MHz, they appear to be slower than those of the Pentium 4.
4b) The 750FX's integer unit is stronger than the Pentium 4's clock-for-clock, but considering the Pentium 4 is clocked 4x higher at the moment, it does about 4x better overall.
5) The c't SPEC benchmarks from a while back (the only source of G4 SPEC results I'm aware of) weren't that far off.
I'm disappointed but not surprised to see that gopher has split from the thread. Oh well, I'm sure he'll reappear at a later date oblivious to everything that has just been presented in this thread.
Alex
There are a few conclusions I could draw from this performance data:
1) AltiVec acceleration is crucial to attain performance competitive with x86.
2) In the best case, AltiVec-accelerated code will perform several times faster than optimized x86 code. However, the best case is very rare and limited to specialized tasks like BLAST, RC5, SETI, certain Photoshop filters, and so on.
3) In the worst case, AltiVec-optimized code will perform barely any better or perhaps even worse than non-optimized code.
4) The G4's integer and floating-point units are extremely weak.
4a) Even MHz-for-MHz, they appear to be slower than those of the Pentium 4.
4b) The 750FX's integer unit is stronger than the Pentium 4's clock-for-clock, but considering the Pentium 4 is clocked 4x higher at the moment, it does about 4x better overall.
5) The c't SPEC benchmarks from a while back (the only source of G4 SPEC results I'm aware of) weren't that far off.
I'm disappointed but not surprised to see that gopher has split from the thread. Oh well, I'm sure he'll reappear at a later date oblivious to everything that has just been presented in this thread.
Alex
ct2k7
Oct 7, 11:12 AM
This is by far far the most ridiculous request I have ever read.
wdogmedia
Aug 29, 02:26 PM
I didn't know we had a climate scientist in this forum, let alone one of the tiny percentage of scientists who dispute that human activity is a large factor in current climate change? Please enlighten us... that is, unless you're just some guy with an uneducated opinion. By all means, tell us why you know so much more about this well-studied topic than the hundreds of thousands of climate researchers around the world who've reached an almost unprecedented consensus regarding the roll of human activity, and CO2 production, in climate change.
30 years ago climate scientists warned us to expect an imminent ice age....it even made the cover of Time, if I'm not mistaken.
I noticed that you didn't dispute the fact that the dominant greenhouse gas is water vapor. This is not a disputable fact; no climate scientist will argue with you there. Global warming is also not a disputable fact; it is well-documented and has been occuring since records were first kept. However, saying that scientists have reached an "unprecedented consensus" is absolutely false; and would that even matter? How often do you read a story on CNN or MSNBC that begins with the phrase "Scientists NOW think...." Science is in its very nature an evolutionary process, and findings change over time. Who remembers when nine of out ten doctors smoked Camels more than any other cigarette?
I'm ranting now, sorry. The point is that I've never heard a satisfactory answer as to why water vapor isn't taken into effect when discussing global warming, when it is undeniably the largest factor of the greenhouse effect. But according to the Department of Energy and the EPA, C02 is the dominant greenhouse gas, accounting for over 99% of the greenhouse effect....aside from water vapor. This certainly makes C02 the most significant non-water contributor to global warming...but even then, climate scientists will not argue with you if you point out that nature produces three times the CO2 that humans do.
Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.
No climate scientist will argue the fact that global climate change has, in the past, universally been the result of cyclical variances in Earth's orbit/rotation, and to a lesser degree variances in our Sun's output. Why then, since pollution has been reduced dramatically, and since climate change is known to be caused by factors outside of our control, is it so crazy to believe that we're not at fault anymore?
And since when does being in a "tiny percentage" denote right/wrong? Aren't you a Mac zealot? :)
30 years ago climate scientists warned us to expect an imminent ice age....it even made the cover of Time, if I'm not mistaken.
I noticed that you didn't dispute the fact that the dominant greenhouse gas is water vapor. This is not a disputable fact; no climate scientist will argue with you there. Global warming is also not a disputable fact; it is well-documented and has been occuring since records were first kept. However, saying that scientists have reached an "unprecedented consensus" is absolutely false; and would that even matter? How often do you read a story on CNN or MSNBC that begins with the phrase "Scientists NOW think...." Science is in its very nature an evolutionary process, and findings change over time. Who remembers when nine of out ten doctors smoked Camels more than any other cigarette?
I'm ranting now, sorry. The point is that I've never heard a satisfactory answer as to why water vapor isn't taken into effect when discussing global warming, when it is undeniably the largest factor of the greenhouse effect. But according to the Department of Energy and the EPA, C02 is the dominant greenhouse gas, accounting for over 99% of the greenhouse effect....aside from water vapor. This certainly makes C02 the most significant non-water contributor to global warming...but even then, climate scientists will not argue with you if you point out that nature produces three times the CO2 that humans do.
Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.
No climate scientist will argue the fact that global climate change has, in the past, universally been the result of cyclical variances in Earth's orbit/rotation, and to a lesser degree variances in our Sun's output. Why then, since pollution has been reduced dramatically, and since climate change is known to be caused by factors outside of our control, is it so crazy to believe that we're not at fault anymore?
And since when does being in a "tiny percentage" denote right/wrong? Aren't you a Mac zealot? :)