Linux-Advocacy Digest #821, Volume #25 Sun, 26 Mar 00 14:13:09 EST
Contents:
Re: Giving up on NT (Bobo shows his hypocrisy yet again) (When in LA)
Re: Giving up on Tholen (George Marengo)
Re: Windows 2000 has 63,000 bugs - Win2k.html [0/1] - Win2k.html [0/1] ("Jim Ross")
Re: Predatory LINUX practices with NETSCAPE Navigator! (abraxas)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (Joseph)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: When in LA
Reply-To: When in LA
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bobo shows his hypocrisy yet again)
Date: 26 Mar 2000 18:12:36 GMT
On Sun, 26 Mar 3900 03:53:32, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
|Bobo wrote (using a pseudonym again):
|>
|> On Sun, 26 Mar 3900 02:19:35, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
|>
|> |Bobo wrote (using a pseudonym again):
|> |>
|> |> On Sun, 26 Mar 3900 01:44:49, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
|> |>
|> |> |Bobo wrote (using a pseudonym again):
|> |> |>
|> |> |> On Sun, 25 Mar 3900 06:43:53, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff Glatt)
|> |> |> said:
|> |> |>
|> |> |> |>> It is a fact that it has also been mentioned several times in this
|> |> |> |>> newsgroup that you abused your employer's computer facilities and were
|> |> |> |>> reprimanded for doing so.
|> |> |> |
|> |> |> |>I just finished telling you that there is a difference between a fact
|> |> |> |>and a claim of fact, Glatt.
|> |> |> |
|> |> |> |I just finished telling you that it is a fact that it has also been
|> |> |> |mentioned several times in this newsgroup that you abused your
|> |> |> |employer's computer facilities and were reprimanded for doing so.
|> |> |> |
|> |> |> |>Your "mention" of some alleged abuse and
|> |> |> |>some alleged reprimand constitutes the latter, Glatt.
|> |> |> |
|> |> |> |Prove it, if you think you can, loser.
|> |> |>
|> |> |> It is incumbent on the person leveling the charges to produce evidence
|> |> |> and prove the claim Fatglatt.
|> |> |
|> |> |How ironic, coming from the person who (in his absurdly
|> |> |long-to-the-point-of-rude signature) continues to foist a baseless, unproven
|> |> |accusation of Sutherland attempting to get Tholen fired for using a word.
|> |> |Will Bobo's hypocrisy never end?
|> |
|> |Note: no response. It continues still.
|>
|> My response is you get riled up regularly about Sutherlands own words.
|
|On what basis do you claim that I am "riled up"? That notwithstanding, how
|does that constitute "your response"? You'll stop at nothing to avoid
|retracting an unsubstantiated claim, eh Bobo?
You are riled up Marty. And I am not going to retract my claim as
there is plenty of evidence from Sutherland's own words to
substantiate it. In fact, if there were not, you wouldn't even be
claiming I am still making a claim.
|> In fact,
|
|What does fact have to do with anything you have written?
|
|> for my less than learned friend,
|
|Who would that be? Germer perhaps?
|
|> all I do post in my signature box is in fact the evidence
|
|Liar. Your signature does not provide any evidence for your claim. Every
|time I've asked you to demonstrate how it does, you have either ignored the
|request or changed the subject. How transparent can you get?
Those are Sutherland's posts Marty. If you doubt it, then search Deja
News for yourself and find out.
|> and I don't even post the claim,
|
|Obviously not, as your signature has nothing to do with your claim, let alone
|support it, in spite of what you attempt to lead others to believe. It is
|quite obvious you'd like to bury your unsubstantiated claim in the depths of
|history and lie about it rather than retract it. We all know the type of
|person you are and this comes as no surprise.
The very fact you are complaining about my signature box disproves
your theory.
|> the evidence by itself is profound enough for people to come a
|> conclusion,
|
|So why have you "embellished" it with your misleading editorial comments? You
|have yet to address this question each time I bring it up.
Nothing seems misleading about my "editorial comments". You will have
to be more specific.
|> in fact it is what gets you riled up.
|
|You are erroneously presupposing that I am riled up, while simultaneously
|attempting to draw attention away from your unsubstantiated claim. How
|predictable.
No quite wrong Marty. In fact, I have the evidence in my signature
box to draw attention to it, not from it.
|> How cute, is all I have to say on the matter.
|
|How hypocritical, "is all I have to say on the matter".
Evidence please!
|
|> |> |> The defense's job is to respond to evidence presented, and is not
|> |> |> burdened with the proof that there is no evidence.
|> |> |
|> |> |So why have you failed to present evidence to back up your claim that
|> |> |Sutherland tried to get Tholen fired for using a particular word? Will
|> |> |Bobo's hypocrisy never end?
|> |
|> |Note: no response. No evidence presented to substantiate his claim, proving
|> |his hypocrisy yet again.
|>
|> Again you mistake the evidence for the claim.
|
|Not at all. Again you miscomprehend what I wrote. I have noted your claim
|("BO> Sutherland admitted to doing so and Glatt supported the attack.") and
|noted your lack of presentation of evidence to substantiate your claim. This
|led me to (rightfully so) note your hypocrisy in stating:
The evidence from Deja News of Sutherland's attack in his own words is
in my signature box. Glatt does not allow his posts to go to Deja
News, but he did support Sutherland's attack. You can ask him if you
wish.
|BO> The defense's job is to respond to evidence presented, and is not
|BO> burdened with the proof that there is no evidence.
|
|Those are your own words to which you have not lived up. No surprise for
|long-time Bobo fans, however.
Evidence please!
|> |> |> Of course there are exceptions to that rule. . . .
|> |> |
|> |> |Like you for example? How convenient.
|> |
|> |Note: no response. He obviously considers himself to be above his own words.
|>
|> Strange that you have turned around evidence versus claims. All I do
|> present in my signature box is the evidence.
|
|Still having reading comprehension problems? I've done no such thing. I've
|pointed out your hypocrisy in not substantiating your own claim while
|extolling the virtues of doing so to others (which reduces the act to so much
|hot air on your part).
There was no alleged claim in this thread, why did you jump in?
|> |> |> like in Lewis Carrol's "Wonderland."
|> |> |
|> |> |Or Bobo's own line of home-brew fairy tales.
|>
|> You can claim all you wish that I made that stuff up Marty.
|
|I made no claim that the quotes in your signature file were "made up". I was
|referring to your lies and misinformation.
Evidence please!
|> But anybody who has any doubt about it can go to Deja News and see for
|> himself.
|
|But what they won't see, no matter how hard they look, is evidence to
|substantiate your claim.
Each person can judge for themselves Marty.
|> All your clamouring is for naught.
|
|How ironic, coming from someone whose verbal masturbation has involved (but is
|not limited to) responding to articles removing the entire content save the
|signature, and responding to articles as if they were written by another
|person such as your referring to me as Glatt.
Hmmm, more sexual innuendos. I thought you had a problem with that
Marty? Or are you just a hypocrite?
|> |> |> And "loser"? Losers don't have jobs as a professor at a major
|> |> |> university.
|> |> |
|> |> |I beg to differ (based on several examples).
|> |> |
|> |> |> Losers are unemployed bums or guys that can't hold a steady job.
|> |> |
|> |> |Being a loser has nothing to do with holding down a job. A loser can be a
|> |> |bookkeeper, for example.
|> |
|> |Note: no response.
|>
|> Not withstanding exceptions to the rule, losers are good for nothings,
|> bookkeepers that can hold a steady job are usually at a minimum good
|> for bookkeeping.
|
|As you mention, there are exceptions. Hence my point about employment being
|irrelevant stands.
The existence of exceptions does not invalidate the general rule
Marty. If so how do you deal with the general rule that "there are
exceptions to every rule"? Does your black and white mind fail to
comprehend the greyness of such a rule?
|> |> |> When is the last steady job you had Fatglatt?
|> |> |
|> |> |Running interference through your verbal masturbation and inventing your own
|> |> |topics again?
|> |
|> |Note: no response.
|>
|> My such a preoccupation on sexual stimulation Marty.
|
|My such as misinterpretation of a metaphor, Bobo. Not surprising considering
|the intelligence you've demonstrated thus far in this forum.
Metaphor? It is sexual Marty, why do you consider a sexual activity
as a metaphor for discussion?
|> Must be about the 1,000th time you have used that construction.
|
|Try again. I've only used it when it fit the bill, so you've no one to blame
|but yourself for its usage. If you'd like to see me stop using that phrase,
|then stop posting in such a self-gratifying way, using your imagination to
|fill in the pieces that don't exist.
When it fits the bill? Are you getting off on the idea that various
people may be attaining sexual satisfaction from their posts? Quite a
vivid sexual fantasy, Marty. Does this lead to masturbation on your
part?
|> Is it really all that stimulating to you?
|
|Stimulation is irrelevant. The appropriateness of the metaphor is relevant.
Well since I don't know, nor care, if anybody around here is using
their genitals to type verbal messages it would seem to be appropriate
only if you have an unusual interest in such matters.
|
|> |> |Still demonstrating your inability to prove your claims? How
|> |> |embarrassing! No matter how many times you repeat it, it does not
|> |> |magically produce evidence that Sutherland tried to get Tholen fired
|> |> |for using a word, especially in light of Sutherland's reproduction of
|> |> |the letter he actually sent to the U of H. I ask again (again noting
|> |> |the lack of previous response), where is the part that proves that
|> |> |Sutherland tried to get him fired for using a word? Can't find that
|> |> |part, can you? Too bad.
|> |>
|> |> Hmmm, if you can't find it, then what is your objection to it? Do you
|> |> see any claims there?
|> |
|> |How many times are you going to lie about not making this claim? Here it is
|> |*AGAIN*. Ironically, it immediately followed the quote from me which you've
|> |plastered all over your signature, yet you somehow neglected to include this
|> |part in there:
|> |
|> |M> If Glatt, Sutherland, yourself, or myself tried to get someone fired for
|> |M> using a particular word it is a despicable act.
|> |
|> |[How ironic that you have included this very line in your erroneous reasoning,
|> |but "forgot" what your response was to it. How convenient.]
|> |
|> |BO> Sutherland admitted to doing so and Glatt supported the attack.
|>
|> That wasn't in the post Marty.
|
|<forehead smack> That's the point, Bobo.
Oh you are asking me to add this to my signature box? You actually
want me to try to influence peoples opinions?
|
|> Still having a problem with last month's posts?
|
|Still unable to substantiate your claim? I know you'd like to pretend you
|hadn't made such an assinine statement, but you have and you can't change
|history.
The substantiation is in the signature box. If that substantiation
leads you to a different conclusion, that is your right Marty.
Perhaps it is time you started recognizing other peoples rights?
|> |If that's not an unsubstantiated claim, then I don't know what is. How many
|> |more times do you think you can get away with lying about it?
|>
|> How many times did I post it?
|
|At least one too many times. How many times have you retracted it or admitted
|that you can't substantiate it?
Well lets try a metaphor here Marty. Lets take a look at the Oklahoma
bomber, Timothy McVeigh. Nobody actually saw him put the bomb there.
They know he was making and testing bombs, they know he was in
Oklahoma, they now he rented the van, etc. But according to your
theory, if no one actually saw him deliver the bomb, he must be
innocent. Is that right.
If not, then how do you go from the notes from Sutherland in DejaNews
with the fact nobody here actually has transcripts of exactly what
Sutherland said to the Uof H authorities to a lack of substantiation.
The bottom line Marty is in David's own words, he believed Tholen
should be fired, that his own employer would fire him, to his
admission to notifying UofH authorities of the alleged transgression.
What more do you need?
|> |> Nope little guy,
|> |
|> |To whom are you referring, bookkeeper?
|>
|> Bookkeeper? Who is a bookkeeper? Is there something in your view
|> wrong with being a bookkeeper?
|
|Little guy? Who is a little guy? Is there something in your view wrong with
|being a little guy?
|
|Amazing how easy it is to turn your own idiocy back on you.
You are a little guy though, and this was not meant as a size
metaphor, but a brain metaphor Marty. And yes there is something
wrong when little guys (as in pea-brains) get ahold of an internet
connection.
Perhaps you can elucidate on what is wrong with bookkeepers and what
bookkeepers have to do with this thread.
|> |> there is only your statement and David's statements.
|> |
|> |Surely you are "forgetting" something. How convenient. (See above, you lying
|> |hypocrite.)
|>
|> Well, you are the hypocrite
|
|Typical, predictable, unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. Back to your
|"monkey see, monkey do" style of argumentation again I see.
Your stock in trade Marty. At least you understand it.
|> as you had to go back into historical posting to pull out "THE CLAIM".
|
|This fails to make me a hypocrite.
Sure it does. You claimed I made a claim then had to go back a month
to produce it. What the hell does that have to do with the current
thread Marty?
|> That was not posted in this thread.
|
|This fails to make me a hypocrite. Not that it is at all relevant,
|considering your new lie which I was refuting:
|BO> there is only your statement and David's statements.
|
|You have again conveniently glossed over your unsubstantiated claim. Now why
|is that?
What unsubstantiated claim Marty?
|> |> If you see something there, then there indeed must be something there.
|> |
|> |Yes. There's your unsubstantiated claim, sitting there just where you left
|> |it. I don't suppose you'd like to do something about that, now would you?
|> |(other than lie about it and pretend it never existed)
|>
|> Where I left it? What date was it posted Marty?
|
|Does the fact that it is a few months old magically make it a true,
|substantiated claim? Of course not. It does, however, show your hypocrisy in
|blowing your hot air extolling the virtues of backing up one's claims.
Incorrect Marty. The statements by David Sutherland, in my signature
box, are substantiatable by going to Deja News and seeing that these
statements were made by Sutherland. You have attempted to refute them
with a statement by Sutherland made after the fact when he was
groveling around trying to deny what he did and these statements are
not substantiatable as being in his mind at the time of his offense.
In addition, Sutherland claimed to Tholen he had made more than one
contact to Tholen's employer, yet he has only produced an unverifiable
copy of only one of the "alleged" letters.
All this is unverifiable. The only verifiable evidence around is
statements by Sutherland at the time of the crime. They paint a very
different picture of what was in Sutherland's mind at the time.
You and Sutherland and Glatt can grovel and whine all you wish about
this being continued to be placed in plain public view, you can call
such an act dispicable, you can claim that Sutherland didn't do what
he did, but the evidence is there plain as day Marty, it is
unrefutable, it is verifiable, and it is true.
|> |> Marty Amodeo says: "If Glatt, Sutherland, yourself, or myself tried
|> |> to get someone fired for using a particular word it is a despicable
|> |> act."
|> |
|> |to which Bobo responded:
|> |BO> Sutherland admitted to doing so and Glatt supported the attack.
|>
|> Just look at the signature box Marty. David's words are there.
|
|Irrelevant, as the words there do nothing to prove your claim. They contain
|no admission from Sutherland that he attempted to get Tholen fired for using a
|particular word. I have challenged you time and again to show otherwise, and
|as expected, you failed.
They include Sutherland's belief he should be fired, they include a
statement of his belief that he would be fired by his employer, and
they contain an admission that he provided the information to Tholen's
employer. Many people have been convicted of attempted murder with a
whole lot less.
|> As far as Fatglatt goes he doesn't deserve my efforts to look up his
|> support, why don't you just ask him Marty?
|
|Because he's not the one making the unsubstantiated claim that I am
|addressing. Why should I ask him to prove what you've said against him?
Hey he can either say he does or he does not. Of course his posts are
memorialized in posts by those who replied to him, but hey if he wants
to distance him from this matter now, I will see it as a sign of shame
for what he did. So ask him Marty and see if he has the balls to
stand up for David.
|BO> The defense's job is to respond to evidence presented, and is not
|BO> burdened with the proof that there is no evidence.
|Amazing how your own words debunk your continued idiocy, eh?
Well since you are playing defense attorney why not take the evidence
presented and carefully outline where it falls short Marty. Your
attack on me, simply demonstrates you have little to refute the
evidence with.
|> Or hell Marty I will save you the trouble.
|>
|> Hey Jeff Fatglatt, did you support David Sutherland on his attack on
|> Tholen? A simple Yes or No will suffice.
|
|Do you enjoy beating your wife, Bobo? A simple Yes or No will suffice.
I didn't say "Hey Jeff Fatglatt do you "enjoy" supporting David
Sutherland. . . . you moron.
|You'll note that an erroneous presupposition was involved in at least one of
|the above cases.
Yes yours.
|> |Still demonstrating your inability to prove your claims? How embarrassing!
|> |No matter how many times you repeat it, it does not magically produce evidence
|> |that Sutherland tried to get Tholen fired for using a word, especially in
|> |light of Sutherland's reproduction of the letter he actually sent to the U of
|> |H. I ask again (again noting the lack of previous response), where is the
|> |part that proves that Sutherland tried to get him fired for using a word?
|> |Can't find that part, can you? Too bad.
|>
|> Hey, Marty, I am entitled to my opinions and you are entitled to
|> yours.
|
|You are even entitled to make unsubstantiated claims and I am entitled to call
|you on them. You are even entitled to be a hypocrite and I am entitled to
|call you on that as well.
You can call me on them all you want Marty. But you look like a fool
doing it without any evidence to refute the claim and simply relying
on attacks on me instead.
|> Some of yours are in fact so good it is memorialized in my
|> signature box.
|
|Some of yours are so idiotic that I've immortalized them in my signature.
I have no problem with your signature line Marty. I said those things
indeed. And in the context they were said they were even appropriate.
In fact, I can hardly think of a more appropriate guy to have those
comments permanently appended to than posts of yours, Marty,
forgetting Fatglatt for a moment anyway.
|
|> Of course, if my signature box reminds you of my opinion,
|
|Your signature reminds me of your unsubstantiated claim, Bobo. It also
|reminds me of someone so desperate to denigrate another person who has posted
|in this group that he'll deliberately arrange information in a misleading
|fashion and add editorial comments to quotes which he claimed "speak for
|themselves".
It is indeed amusing that you consider David's words to be self
denigrating Marty.
The order is of no importance Marty. I will rearrange them if you
feel it will help you change your opinion about them. Tell me what
order you want them in that you will find satisfactory. In fact, I
will even include dates they were said if you think that will satisfy
you. Also if you think removal of the editorial notes will aid in
reader comprehension and this satisfies you, I will remove them also.
See I am not such an unreasonable guy Marty. I will work with you on
this.
|> well I can't help that now can I?
|
|I suppose it's in your nature to be a devious, lying hypocrite. Too bad
|you're too transparent to get away with it.
Well if you can not substantiate a satisfaction from my agreement to
rearrange my signature box to your satisfaction Marty, then it will be
you who is the hypocrite. The gauntlet has been thrown Marty. Can
you actually answer the call to the starting line? Or are you going
to try to weasel out once again.
|> But you will have to just get over it Marty and live with yours and
|> David's own words.
|
|Translation: I can't substantiate my claim nor do I have any intention of
|doing so. I will continue to present misleading, out of context quotes, and
|pretend they prove my point.
A month ago I agreed to add any context that you brought to my
attention in those posts that might mitigate their meaning Marty. The
offer was genuine but you made no effort to take me up on it. All
your whining about this is coming from an empty head Marty.
BobO
Marty Amodeo says: "If Glatt, Sutherland, yourself, or myself tried
to get someone fired for using a particular word it is a despicable
act."
David Sutherland made the following quotes in posts residing on
Dejanews:
If I posted anything remotely like Tholen's "queer" [Editor: Note
particular word in quotes] comments with my employers name
anywhere within that message, I would be escorted to the door,
and rightly so.[Editor: Note euphemism for firing]
If Tholen doesn't apologise in full, publicly and at great length, I
*will* advise his university, as this kind of bullshit *should* and
*will* be challenged.[Editor: Note threat]
I've asked Kenneth P. Mortimer, President, University of
Hawaii ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) for his opinion on how
certain members of the faculty are spending their time.[Editor: Note
admission to personal notification of employer]
Tholen used "queer" [Editor: Note particular word in quotes] as an
insult and a means to attack someone. This is discriminatory. He did
so from his employers account. His employer has a policy against
discrimination. Tholen acted against the policies of his employer.
Tholens employer is now aware of this. [Editor: Note reason for
contacting employer]
Pretty despicable, I have to agree Marty.
------------------------------
From: George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on Tholen
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 18:16:36 GMT
On Sun, 26 Mar 2000 08:21:56 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Jeff Glatt writes:
>
>> No, but he's one of the first people whom Tholen has applied this
>> treatment in COOA from RoadRunner, now that the University of Hawaii
>> reprimanded him to stop abusing their facilities to post his nonsense
>> to COOA
>
>What alleged reprimand, Glatt? What alleged abuse, Glatt?
Here is an opportunity to clearly state what happened:
For years you have posted from the University of Hawaii.
Now you are posting from a Road Runner account.
Why are you no longer posting from the University of Hawaii account
and are instead posting from a Road Runner account?
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.redhat
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 has 63,000 bugs - Win2k.html [0/1] - Win2k.html [0/1]
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 13:22:59 -0500
Len Philpot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>Almost sounds like he is on the M$ payroll or their band wagon one.
> >>After win95 who needs M$?
>
> And the scary part is that Win98 is even worse...
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> - Len Philpot -> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal)
> ---------------> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work)
> ----- ><> -----> http://www.centuryinter.net/lphilpot/ (web)
No, W2K is worse.
Can't wait until they tie MS-BOB onto it and parade it around.
Or maybe AOL will continue on the path of becoming a full OS itself
w/instant messager instead of a start button.
Jim
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Predatory LINUX practices with NETSCAPE Navigator!
Date: 26 Mar 2000 18:39:18 GMT
Francis Van Aeken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> First of all, I was pointing out that MS makes IE for at least one version of UNIX.
> Can at least the truth be said?
They actually make outlook express for the same version of unix. IE on that
platform is stable, but is severely lacking in alot of the features contained
within IE for mac and windows.
Outlook express is also stable under said unix, but is hardly competition for
other mail software available for said unix.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 10:47:12 -0500
From: Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
When, in, LA wrote:
>
> On Sun, 26 Mar 3900 01:01:40, Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> said:
>
> |On 03/26/2000 at 02:14 AM,
> | When in LA said:
> |
> |> If you tune into TV forecasters you will find a big falling off of
> |> forecast accuracy from the real meteorologists who actually man the
> |> weather stations, run the forecast models, etc. I dislike listening to
> |Also, the ABC affiliate is tied in with Accuweather which is usually a bit
> |more accurate than NOAA. Until recently the CBS outlet had as its chief
> |met guy a former Navy pilot who was a trained meteorologist and also did
> |extremely well day to day.
> |
> |Now, in the Washington and Baltimore markets, the locals are not so good.
> |Ditto for New York with the exception of WNBC.
>
> Very interesting Bob, have you actually done a rigorous test of your
> hypothesis though? Advertising is a great way to tell the public all
> you are doing, but often it is just fluff with no real substance.
>
> For instance, a guy who used to be with NOAA, is in fact a guy that
> used to be with NOAA. He now has a new job, and it is almost
> certainly not a job to pour over the various weather products and come
> up with a forecast. He is doing his joke rehearsals, he is in the
> make-up room, he is getting his suit pressed, and when not at the
> station he is out doing public appearances, sponsoring charities,
> attending events, doing other reporting duties to promote the station.
> I have never heard of a TV company actually giving the guy a full
> lab.
The federal government's National Weather Serivice (Dept. of Commerce)
is the only entity allowed by law to produce weather forecats. NWS use
a mix of techniques (emperical and physical models) and participants to
produce the technologies (federal, private and university). The results
(multiple forecsts from different forecasting models) are published and
national the local weather forecasters interpret the results.
A local person is expected to understand which forecasts are more
accurate for a location and also if some are better as mesoscale weather
conditions change over the year. That is why a local forecast can be
more acccurate - they apply experience to interpret from the general
forecast. Other entities like WeatherUnderground use Java programs to
suck in this forecast data and automatically produce local weather maps
for newspapaers.
I've seen a trend towards longer term, 3+ day forecasts. These are less
reliable because they are longer term and therefore are less accurate
than short term, 3 day, forecasts. Overall, weather forecasting has
been improving.
There are many other entities doing CLIMATE forcasting: NOAA, DOE, NASA,
NCAR, UC SanDiego, CSU,.... Climate and Weather are different.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
