Tuesday, May 23, 2000
In "Eros in Space", NSD 6.05, you note that the NEAR spacecraft's arrival at Eros (Greek Goddess of Love) on Valentine's day was possibly just a coincidence. Not so. It was quite intentional and cleverly planned.
Proof? Check out the Wired Magazine article "The Art of Falling" (issue 7.12, Dec. 1999). NASA's Bob Farquhar is said to be an artist with celestial mechanics and spacecraft trajectories, and he frequently works the trajectories so that important points in the spacecraft's journey coincide with important dates. Sometimes these dates are only important to him, but nonetheless they are not coincidence.
As noted in Wired, regarding NEAR's original flight path:
"It was no coincidence Farquhar had visited his first wife's grave that morning; December 20 was Bonnie Farquhar's birthday. January 10, 1999, the day the (NEAR) spacecraft was due at Eros, was the fifth anniversary of his civil marriage to his second wife, Irina. The mission's nominal completion date, February 6, 2000, was the anniversary of his church weddings to both Irina and Bonnie.
Farquhar fine-tuned the mission's design to get NEAR to Eros a little earlier than it would otherwise have done, in order to commemorate the loves of his life."
And later in the article, regarding the altered flightpath due to the bad orbital burn at the termination of the original flightpath, and the Valentine's Day arrival:
"Farquhar and Dunham combed the contingency plans for the best possibilities. One involved a maneuver on December 28 that would have gotten the probe into orbit around Eros on July 20, 1999. Farquhar quite liked that - it would be the 30th anniversary of the first Apollo moon landing. It would also be the 23rd anniversary of the first American robot landing on Mars - an event originally intended for July 4, 1976. (Farquhar is not the only person in the space program who has a weakness for anniversaries.)
Some of the people at NASA headquarters and APL thought a rocket burn so soon after getting the spacecraft back would be a bit too risky, however. Another orbit was produced, and on January 3, 1999, having been told not to be quite so sensitive to a bit of rocket-induced roughness, NEAR fired its main engine perfectly for what was probably the last time.
On February 2, 2000, NEAR's little maneuvering engines will apply the final touches to its new trajectory. With well over a billion miles on the odometer, the tiny spacecraft will rendezvous with Eros on February 14 - Valentine's Day. Even in extremis, Farquhar has had time to indulge himself."
So was the Valentine's Day encounter with Eros a mere coincidence? Not by a long shot.
Mark Gottschalk
Let me be the four-millionth writer to comment on your heading, "Netsurfer Need a Writer" (NSD 6.08). Only in England will this subject/verb construction work.
Ain't it always the way?
JD Grinnell
Uh, we meant that as satire. Yeah, that's it. - LN
Now you see why we needs a writer.... - AB
I give up! What is CHUDs?
Jerry H. Good - 33º57.0946' North, 117º23.117' West
See the Internet Movie Database. I think it stands for Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dweller, or something very close. - LN
Just curious how many people would have picked this reference to "Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dwellers" - a great movie in the worse '80s schlock horror sense. :)
Mark Neely
Hey, I was right. - LN
NSD 6.12: "You know, there's no doubt the Earth's climate is warming."
Don't perpetuate lemming pseudo-science embraced by the wackos in Greenpeace. Even the NCDC admits: "The warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S.) have cooled" There is significant controversy about the issue. If you're even slightly interested in objectivity, report the facts: "A 1992 Gallup survey of climatologists found that 81 percent of respondents believed that the global temperature had not risen over the past 100 years, were uncertain whether or not or why such warming had occurred, or believed any temperature increases during that period were within the natural range of variation. Further, a 1997 survey conducted by American Viewpoint found that state climatologists believe that global warming is largely a natural phenomenon by a margin of 44% to 17%."
Paul Nickel
What a load of half-truths. Of course warming wouldn't be uniform. Climate change means weather pattern change, which means some areas of the globe would cool. The overall mean temperature of Earth is increasing, however.
The 81% of respondents is a meaningless statistic. It means that 81% believed one or more of:
That's useless information. All it means is that 19% of those surveyed felt sure global warming exists and is due to unnatural causes (i.e. humans).
The 1997 American Viewpoint survey says exactly what we said in NSD - that the warming is occurring, but you can argue over why.
Groups as divergent in political views as Greenpeace and hyper-conservative think tanks agree that Earth is warming. More agreement comes from the NCPA.
Heck, the NCDC link you provided above says "Global surface temperatures have increased about one degree F (0.3 to 0.6C) since the late-19th century, and about one half degree F (0.2 to 0.3C) over the past 40 years (the period with the most credible data).... Indirect indicators of warming such as borehole temperatures, snow cover, and glacier recession data, are in substantial agreement with the more direct indicators of recent warmth."
What the various factions argue over is the responsible agent, be it human activity (increased CO2 or other greenhouse gases, loss of ozone, etc.), increased natural solar radiation, or natural long-term cycles such as the Milankovich cycles. And that was our point. - LN
a) global mean temperature had not risen
b) didn't know if such warming occurred
c) didn't know why such warming occurred
d) warming was due to natural variation
That "there's no doubt the Earth's climate is warming" is not a true statement. With any raw data analysis, interpretation can be varied and is much more complicated than a single sound bite. There is doubt among scientists. Look at this:
"In the winter of 1989 Reginald Newell, a professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, lost National Science Foundation funding for data analyses that were failing to show net warming over the past century. Reviewers suggested that his results were dangerous to humanity."
Politics have taken over this area and I'm simply pointing out how "cause-based" research (e.g., cyclamates, ozone layer, alar, etc.) has now become the horse following the cart of public activism. Journalists complete the self-perpetuating cycle by feeding such "science" back to the masses. If you had said, "There's some evidence the earth's climate may be warming," I wouldn't have blinked an eye.
- PN
Actually, it isn't true. If you care to examine and disseminate the facts, read and publish this:
Congress Action: January 11, 1998
COLDEST YEAR ON RECORD: "In the lower stratosphere 1993 was extremely cold, the coldest temperatures on record." -- National Climatic Data Center of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Did you miss the headlines across the country which revealed that 1993 was the coldest year on record? How about the news that the most reliable measurements of atmospheric temperatures have shown a consistent COOLING trend for nearly the last 20 years? (The lower tropospheric temperature trend has been calculated to be -0.04 degrees C/decade. -- NASA Marshall Space Flight Center). Missed that headline also? Don't worry, you didn't miss anything. Those two items might rank among the best kept secrets of environmental science. But you didn't miss the more recent news screamed across the newspapers of the nation: "1997 Was Hottest Year on Record". (That might come as a surprise to the representatives who attended the Kyoto Boondoggle in December: The Washington Post reported that "...the thousands of environmental and industrial activists and journalists covering the event shivered through the wee hours in a press gallery where the heat had apparently been turned off.")
According to Tom Karl, a senior researcher at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as reported by the Associated Press, "The increasing trend of temperatures that we see, we believe, is at least partially attributed to human activities...". "...the odds that we would be wrong, that there is no relation to human activity, is in the area of 5 to 10 percent." Bill Clinton, of course, wasted no time capitalizing on the 'news': "We need a national consensus to do something on global warming. It is significant and what we need is an understanding that we can grow the economy and still preserve the environment." Even Karl admitted, however, "Based on the data we see, we certainly couldn't predict a catastrophic event." But how many stories on the 'proof' of global warming which Karl announced will include that little reservation?
Anyway, there is no fundamental conflict between 1993 being the coldest, and 1997 being the hottest, is there? After all, didn't Bill Clinton tell us about an "...increase in highly disruptive weather events"? And didn't Al Gore tell us about "...extreme weather events...that have long been predicted to become more common in a world where temperatures are rising even slightly."? Yes, the Bill and Al juggernaut did say those things, but perhaps they simply made them up because they sounded good. Because such statements are not based on any science, not even based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. "...NOAA...has documented a decrease in the intensity of hurricanes, and the total number of hurricanes has also followed suit. Overall, it seems unlikely that tropical cyclones will increase significantly on a global scale. ...observations have suggested that this variability in much of the northern hemisphere's midlatitudes has decreased...". Those statements came, not from some "fringe" scientists, as Al Gore would call them, but from scientists who served on the IPCC itself! Those evaluations are contained in an article published in May, 1997, in the journal Scientific American by three IPCC scientists: one a senior scientist in the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, another a climate modeler at the United Kingdom Meteorological Office, and the third scientist none other than Tom Karl of NOAA himself.
Among the other minor items which NOAA researcher Tom Karl somehow forgot to mention were some other findings from his own agency: "There are inadequate data to determine whether consistent global changes in climate variability or weather extremes have occurred over the 20th century." "The range of natural year-to-year temperature variations is quite similar to the size of the warming that appears to have occurred over the past century (0.3-0.6 C). Moreover, the 16th to 18th centuries appear to have been unusually cold, and the climate may still be recovering from that time. So scientists cannot yet claim to have found an unambiguous temperature related 'greenhouse signal'." "The earth's climate varies naturally for many reasons...". No kidding.
Global warming, of course, is based on no observable scientific data whatsoever, but rests entirely on theory propounded by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). At least, allegedly propounded by the IPCC. Unfortunately for scientific integrity, the IPCC itself doesn't support the scenarios attributed to it: "Any human-induced effect on climate will be superimposed on the background 'noise' of natural climate variability, which results both from internal fluctuations and from external causes such as solar variability or volcanic eruptions." -- Summary for Policymakers: The Science of Climate Change, IPCC (1995). "Our ability to quantify the human influence on global climate is currently limited because the expected signal is still emerging from the noise of natural variability and because there are uncertainties in key factors." "None of the studies...has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed changes to...increases in greenhouse gases." -- IPCC report (1995). In fact, one of the scientists involved in the IPCC process, Professor Frederick Seitz, a past president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, is pretty upset at the political way the IPCC report is being used, and distorted. Fortunately for the fearmongers, nobody cares what the IPCC report really says, and the fearmongers themselves only care about what political mileage can be wrung out of lying about what the IPCC report says.
Anyone who disagrees with the official line on global warming has been subjected to personal vilification from everyone from the Vice President on down to every liberal extremist. Those poor misguided naysayers are part of a "disinformation campaign being run by the fossil fuel industry", was the conclusion of a representative of the Union of Concerned Scientists, voiced at a symposium sponsored by Environmental Media Services at the National Press Club, Washington, D.C., December 18, 1997. Also in attendance at the symposium were representatives of the World Wildlife Fund, World Resources Institute, National Environmental Trust, Natural Resources Defense Council, Senator John Kerry (D-MA) (by telephone), the U.S. Department of Energy, and various other assorted environmental extremists committed to reducing the American living standard to a Third World level: According to the New York Times, "As for enforcing a national energy diet, no one knows what combination of rewards and punishments might be needed to change course and head toward the targets that would be imposed under the new regime." Note carefully those words "punishment" and "imposed".
Well, the secret is out! Global warming doomsayers are also part of a disinformation campaign! It may surprise people to learn that virtually all of the global warming hysterics are up to their eyeballs in a massive conflict of interest: they are in the pay of...the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT!!
And what about all those other scientists continually touted by the administration to justify their socialist schemes? The Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation researched the backgrounds of those 2600 'scientists' and found lawyers, landscape architects, a philosopher, a dermatologist and a diplomat. The Foundation found that only 11% of the signatories were specialists in anything even vaguely related to climate science. And just 15 clearly specialized in atmospheric science. As for the other 89%, they ranged from anatomy to zoology, certainly not experts in climate science.
"International discussions by political leaders are currently underway that could constrain energy use and mandate reductions in carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. Although we understand the motivation to eliminate what are perceived to be the driving forces behind a potential climate change, we believe this approach may be dangerously simplistic. Based on the evidence available to us, we cannot subscribe to the so-called 'scientific consensus' that envisages climate catastrophes and advocates hasty action. ...there does not exist today a general scientific consensus about the importance of greenhouse warming from rising levels of carbon dioxide. On the contrary, most scientists now accept the fact that actual observations from earth satellites show no climate warming whatsoever. ...we consider 'carbon taxes' and other drastic control policies -- lacking credible support from the underlying science - to be ill-advised, premature, wrought with economic danger, and likely to be counterproductive." -- The Leipzig Declaration On Global Climate Change.
For more information...
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Climatic Data Center
Chuck Donabedian
That article is a load of propaganda, mixing differing sets of statistics and coating it all in hogwash.
> COLDEST YEAR ON RECORD: "In the lower stratosphere 1993 was extremely cold,
Fine. So what? A single data point says nothing, especially when it measures the lower stratosphere and most global warming discusses the atmosphere closer to the surface. In fact, if there is global warming, you'd expect the extra heat to be kept in by the lower atmosphere - which would lead to a drop in temperature in the stratosphere, which lies above all weather.
> Did you miss the headlines across the country which revealed that 1993 was
Here is that report.
In essence, satellite measurements of the bottom five miles of the atmosphere show a slight cooling trend. On the other hand, "temperature measurements on land and ocean are up. Thermometers taking the temperature at the surface show a warming trend of about +0.10 to +0.15 degrees Celsius per decade."
[snip irrelevant material]
> According to Tom Karl, a senior researcher at the National Oceanic and
OK, but plenty of people think human activity has almost no contribution to warming.
> Bill Clinton, of course, wasted no time capitalizing on the 'news': "We need a
What the President says is irrelevant to the scientific debate, although not the political one.
> Even Karl admitted, however, "Based on the data we see, we certainly couldn't
On the other hand, they can't predict a catastrophe wouldn't happen either. That's the problem.
> Anyway, there is no fundamental conflict between 1993 being the coldest, and
Here surface temperatures are compared with stratospheric temperatures.
> After all, didn't Bill Clinton tell us about an "...increase in highly
Irrelevant, except to the author's political agenda.
> Because such statements are not based on any science, not even based on the
So, it seems that warming is reducing the severity of hurricanes. What's the point?
> Among the other minor items which NOAA researcher Tom Karl somehow forgot to
Anybody with an ounce of statistics training would see through this. A small increase in annual temperature is independent of the range from year to year.
> Moreover, the 16th to 18th centuries appear to have been unusually cold, and
Exactly our point. The cause of the global warming trend is not really known. It could be completely natural.
> Global warming, of course, is based on no observable scientific data
An outright falsehood. Want observable data? Try these:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ol/climate/globalwarming.html: "Global surface temperatures have increased about one degree F (0.3 to 0.6C) since the late-19th century, and about one half degree F (0.2 to 0.3C) over the past 40 years (the period with the most credible data).... Indirect indicators of warming such as borehole temperatures, snow cover, and glacier recession data, are in substantial agreement with the more direct indicators of recent warmth."
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/tiempo/floor2/data/gltemp.htm
http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/releases2000/mar00/noaa00020.html
I could find more, but this is enough.
>Unfortunately for scientific integrity, the IPCC itself doesn't support the
I agree. Our point is that "the observed changes" do exist.
> In fact, one of the scientists involved in the IPCC process, Professor
Hehe, like in this article.
[load of irrelevant propaganda snipped] - LN
> the coldest temperatures on record." -- National Climatic Data Center of
> the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
> the coldest year on record? How about the news that the most reliable
> measurements of atmospheric temperatures have shown a consistent COOLING
> trend for nearly the last 20 years? (The lower tropospheric temperature trend
> has been calculated to be -0.04 degrees C/decade. -- NASA Marshall Space
> Flight Center).
> Atmospheric Administration, as reported by the Associated Press, "The
> increasing trend of temperatures that we see, we believe, is at least
> partially attributed to human activities...". "...the odds that we would be
> wrong, that there is no relation to human activity, is in the area of 5 to 10
> percent."
> national consensus to do something on global warming. It is significant and
> what we need is an understanding that we can grow the economy and still
> preserve the environment."
> predict a catastrophic event." But how many stories on the 'proof' of global
> warming which Karl announced will include that little reservation?
> 1997 being the hottest, is there?
> disruptive weather events"? And didn't Al Gore tell us about "...extreme
> weather events...that have long been predicted to become more common in a
> world where temperatures are rising even slightly."? Yes, the Bill and Al
> juggernaut did say those things, but perhaps they simply made them up because
> they sounded good.
> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. "...NOAA...has documented a
> decrease in the intensity of hurricanes, and the total number of hurricanes
> has also followed suit. Overall, it seems unlikely that tropical cyclones
> will increase significantly on a global scale. ...observations have suggested
> that this variability in much of the northern hemisphere's midlatitudes has
> decreased...". Those statements came, not from some "fringe" scientists, as
> Al Gore would call them, but from scientists who served on the IPCC itself!
> Those evaluations are contained in an article published in May, 1997, in the
> journal Scientific American by three IPCC scientists: one a senior scientist
> in the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, another a climate modeler at the
> United Kingdom Meteorological Office, and the third scientist none other than
> Tom Karl of NOAA himself.
> mention were some other findings from his own agency: "There are inadequate
> data to determine whether consistent global changes in climate variability or
> weather extremes have occurred over the 20th century." "The range of natural
> year-to-year temperature variations is quite similar to the size of the
> warming that appears to have occurred over the past century (0.3-0.6 C).
> the climate may still be recovering from that time. So scientists cannot yet
> claim to have found an unambiguous temperature related 'greenhouse signal'."
> "The earth's climate varies naturally for many reasons...". No kidding.
> whatsoever, but rests entirely on theory propounded by the United Nations
> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). At least, allegedly
> propounded by the IPCC.
> scenarios attributed to it: "Any human-induced effect on climate will be
> superimposed on the background 'noise' of natural climate variability, which
> results both from internal fluctuations and from external causes such as
> solar variability or volcanic eruptions." -- Summary for Policymakers: The
> Science of Climate Change, IPCC (1995). "Our ability to quantify the human
> influence on global climate is currently limited because the expected signal
> is still emerging from the noise of natural variability and because there are
> uncertainties in key factors." "None of the studies...has shown clear
> evidence that we can attribute the observed changes to...increases in
> greenhouse gases." -- IPCC >report (1995).
> Frederick Seitz, a past president of both the National Academy of Sciences
> and the American Physical Society, is pretty upset at the political way the
> IPCC report is being used, and distorted.
Just a reading sampler for you.... (Sorry for the poor quality of the editing. I had to strip out all the high ASCII characters - because some people just don't adhere to standards - and I wasn't inclined to replace them all by hand.... - LN)
----------
U.S. HEALTH REPORT QUELLS FEARS
The long-awaited results of the U.S. National Assessment of Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change are beginning to see the light of day.
And though we would never have guessed the reports results would be anything but negative, its beginning to look like our own assessment of the reports potential was overly dour, as some of the early results surface.
Mandated by Congress, the U.S. National Assessment (USNA) is supposed to assess the risks and opportunities for the United States, its people, its environment, and its economy associated with the increased climate change.
From what we are hearing so far, things just don't sound so bad. About one month ago, for example, in a pre-release press conference, the authors of the USNAs hydroclimate section presented their analysis, which was fairly even-handed.
Yet the media remained in denial, refusing at first to let this absence of gloom and doom stand in the way of a good scare story.
For instance, the Philadelphia Inquirer on Feb. 21 breathlessly reported that Global warming is so real and hard to stop that Americans will have to learn to cope with a hotter and quite different lifestyle in coming generations - including harvesting Southern forests to keep them from dying and building higher bridges. But none of that is in the report, nor was it covered in the news conference. Instead, this inaccurate, sensationalistic reportage was based on a conversation the reporter had with a high-level National Assessment administrator in the hallway.
A month later, however, the Inquirer seemed to be getting the idea. A March 30 article on the mid-Atlantic Assessment section toned down the alarmist rhetoric in favor of more balanced coverage, including such commentary as A warmer region with more carbon dioxide in the air would actually be a boon for agriculture, The region will simply adapt to the relatively mild changes in climate, and lead researcher Ann Fishers remark that, Were not judging if [climate change] is good or bad. It will just be different.
The Los Angeles Times was quicker to catch on. The following headline appeared in its March 16 edition: Study Finds No Support for Global Warming Fears. Yes, this was a real headline in a major U.S. daily. As Dave Barry says, we are not making this up! Admittedly, the story was buried on page 2 of the Metro section, but minor miracles, such as the press reporting a positive global warming story, are worth celebrating even if they're carried under Land Transactions.
Their tone was correct, as the following phrases, excerpted from the USNA health sections abstract, attest:
The levels of uncertainty preclude any definitive statement on the direction of potential future change for [any] health outcomes.
Although we mainly addressed adverse health outcomes, we identified some positive health outcomes, notably reduced cold-weather mortality.
Even more remarkable is that the lead author, Jonathan Patz (from Johns Hopkins) and one of his co-authors, Paul Epstein (from Harvard), have in the past been perhaps the two most vocal extremists on how global warming will allegedly increase the spread of death and disease.
This USNA section, which summarizes their health outcomes workshop, appears in the April issue of Environmental Health Perspectives, addressing the following topics: Temperature-related death and disease; extreme weather events; air pollution-related health impacts; water and food-borne diseases; and diseases transferred by insects and rodents.
Heat-related mortality. On the subject of temperatures and deaths, the report states, There is evidence that heat-related illnesses and deaths are largely preventable through behavioral adaptations including the use of air-conditioning and increase fluid intake, although the magnitude of the mortality reduction cannot be predicted. By 2050, air-conditioning will be available in nearly every U.S. household.
Extreme weather events. In the section on extreme events, the authors note that Climate models currently are unable to accurately project changes in extreme events such as floods, hurricanes, and tornadoes, making it difficult to assess future potential health impacts of such events.
Of course, projections aside, there's little observational evidence that extremes are increasing, despite the rise in greenhouse gases. It is pretty obvious that fewer people are dying because of weather. How realistic is it to assume that that trend will suddenly take a turn for the worse?
Air quality. Air pollution is a trickier problem, since it is only indirectly related to climate change. Most greenhouse gases are not pollutants, so we are left with theoretical arguments such as higher temperatures increasing the reaction rates of certain pollutants. Furthermore, its not possible to determine the impact of air pollution on health without first accounting for the weather. Some studies even indicate that weather is far more responsible for deaths than pollution.
Even so, this report properly notes that ambient levels of regulated air pollutants have generally dropped since the mid-1970s.
The spread of disease. The focus of the water- and food-borne disease section is on drinking water contaminated by flooding. Although not cited in the report, in a recent comprehensive study of U.S. streamflow in nonurbanized catchments, Lins and Slack (1999) reported that, while low streamflows have generally been increasing, the frequency of flooding conditions has shown no general trend. So it is unfair to insinuate that more drinking water will be flooded and thus contaminated.
The section on insect- and rodent-borne diseases was the responsibility of Paul Reiter of the Centers for Disease Control, who has long explained that applied technology (e.g., hygiene, infrastructure, even window screens) is a better way to control vector-borne disease than attempting to affect the climate. He notes that most of these diseases were long ago eradicated in the United States, mainly because of changes in land use, agricultural methods, residential patterns, human behavior, and vector control.
Unpredictably Accurate
For once, a government global warming report is right on the money, admitting that there is no possible way to determine the potential climate impacts on these areas because future climate is not predictable! Despite the multiple millions governments annually pour into global climate models, their output provides zero useful guidance on what the future climate will be like.
So we are left to rely on history to anticipate the future.
Overall death rates are declining rapidly; in fact, so few people now die during heat waves that the impact of heat in many cities is almost indistinguishable from the impact of pleasant temperatures.
People are less susceptible to severe storms: The major hurricane that hit Galveston in 1900 killed more than 8,000 people in the United States; the similarly intense Hurricane Andrew in 1992 killed only 23 people in the United States.
And if you're concerned about global warming making rats and insects more infectious, consider the following data: From 1980 to 1996, there were 50,333 dengue fever cases in the three Mexican states that border the Rio Grande - and 43 cases in Texas. The last time we checked, the climate was the same in both places.
The common thread here is that technological improvements have made our country a cleaner, safer, and healthier place to live. Given that fact, its hardly surprising that the National Assessments health report concludes that, In sum, we found that most of the U.S. population is protected against adverse health outcomes associated with weather and/or climate. And that is the only scientifically defensible conclusion.
References:
Davis, R.E., et al., 1999, Decadal changes in summer mortality in the U.S., Proceedings of the 10th AMS Conference on Applied Climatology, Asheville, N.C., 4 pp, forthcoming in May 2000.
Kalkstein, L.S., 1991, A new approach to evaluate the impact of climate on human mortality, Environmental Health Perspectives, 96, 145105.
Lins, H.F., and J.R. Slack, 1999, Streamflow trends in the United States, Geophysical Research Letters, 26, 227230.
Patz, J.A, et al., 2000, The potential health impacts of climate variability and change for the United States: Executive summary of the report of the Health Sector of the U.S. National Assessment, Environmental Health Perspectives, 108, 367376.
----------
SEA-ING NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN
One little known mystery of global warming is an event that took place some 24 years ago. Now known as the 1976 Pacific Climate Shift, this steplike change in ocean temperature appeared to immediately correlate with a similar change in the temperature over much of the troposphere as measured from 5,000 to 30,000 feet by weather balloons (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Weather balloon measurements of temperatures in the lower atmosphere show a jump in about 1976.
That shift first came to public attention some 22 years after it happened (which shows us just how obvious climate change must be!), with the publication of an article in Science by Thomas Guilderson and Daniel Schrag.
A new study in the March 24 Science only deepens the plot. Sydney Levitus and colleagues have published the first global compilation of ocean temperatures extending down as far as 10,000 feet. And, as might be expected, the team found mean warming. Looking at the top 1,000 feet, where the most data are available, they found an average temperature rise of 0.31C in the last four decades - about 0.08C per decade.
That is warming that has not been delivered to the atmosphere. But, using the accepted (maybe erroneous) belief that one watt of surface-energy change will raise the lower atmospheric temperature one degree, it looks like the ocean has squirreled away about 0.3 degrees of warming. (In 1997, NASA climate modeler James Hansen estimated the differential would be somewhere around 0.6 degrees - pretty good for government work!)
Needless to say, the publication of Levitus's paper prompted the usual news carnage - this time with a twist. On March 24, the Washington Post reported that critics of climate model results have noted that many models predict two or three times as much warming as has been measured at the earth's surface. By implication, then, Levitus new work makes those (us) critics look stupid.
The fact of the matter is that the critics were (and are) merely looking at the difference between coupled ocean-atmosphere climate forecasts and what has been observed. The key word here is ocean. It is the models that have been wrong, not the critics, who merely compare the model results with reality.
But what of the 1976 shift? It appears to show up in Levitus's work, too. Figure 2 shows their global ocean heat and temperature change. We have broken the data for 1976 and find the same thing that Guilderson and Schrag showed. Data for the free troposphere temperature data reveal no statistically significant trend in the data before 1976, and none after. Yet Levitus shows there is an overall trend (19481998) in the data. What a testimony to the power of the 1976 shift, inducing a 50-year trend! That leads to the obvious question: Are these things related? The concurrence of the 1976 Pacific shift, the 1976 world ocean warming shift, and the 1976 sudden warming of the free troposphere fairly clamors for an explanation. We don't know what can explain this coincidence - which is the most profound warming event of the last half of the 20th century - but we do know what cannot: The climate model.
Figure 2. New findings from Levitus, who measured ocean temperatures, also reveal this shift.
References:
Guilderson, T.M., and D. Schrag, 1998, Abrupt shift in subsurface temperature in the tropical Pacific associated with changes in El Nino. Science, 281, 24043.
Hansen, J.E., et al., 1997, Radiative forcing and climate response. Journal of Geophysical Research, 102, 68316834.
Levitus, S., et al., Warming of the world ocean. Science, 287, 22252229.
----------
SPLIT PERSONALITY
Mutually Inconsistent Models Published by Same Authors
While both the skeptics and Gaia have been saying for years that global warming was overblown by inadequate computer models, the community that makes those models, understandably, has taken some time to acknowledge the message of the data. And, in doing so, some of the explanations that have been tendered to date for the lack of warming just don't hold together.
The recent Climate Change 1995 report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which bills itself as the Consensus of Scientists, acknowledges the problem and immediately segues into an explanation that something has been hiding the klimadmmerung:
When increases in greenhouse gases only are taken into account...most GCMs [climate models] produce a greater mean warming than has been observed to date, unless a lower climate sensitivity [to the greenhouse effect] is used....There is growing evidence that increases in sulphate aerosols are partially counteracting the [warming] due to increases in greenhouse gases.
In other words, either its simply not going to warm up that much after all, or something is compromising the greenhouse warming.
Obviously the first response of the Consensus of Scientists would be to try to explain away the lack of warming with some competing compound. After all, no one wants to publish a letter that says, Dear World Leaders, we are sorry but we goofed and really didn't understand how the greenhouse effect would change the climate after all. Anyway, it looks like no big deal (or at best a moderate one), so ta ta, Yours Truly, the Consensus of Scientists. P.S. Thanks for the billions. Hope you get your carbon tax.
Who's on First? What's on Second?
Now come two papers, published within six months of each other by the same authors, that are so mutually inconsistent that even the most ardent apocalyst must now acknowledge that the default solution - that its simply not going to warm up that much - is the likely resolution of the greenhouse debate.
The first, a much-discussed Nature paper by Santer, Taylor...Mitchell...and Tett shows that the evolution of atmospheric temperature patterns most resembles an atmosphere in which greenhouse warming is being hidden by sulfate cooling. The second, which appeared recently in Science, by Tett, Mitchell, Parker, and Allen, includes virtually no sulfate cooling (which they say is more realistic than their earlier paper).
Instead, the new Science paper claims that the mean temperature changes are best simulated with only a small sulfate effect and a very large relative (and probably unrealistic*) cooling as a result of ozone depletion.
The problem is that these results are mutually inconsistent. In the Nature (sulfate) paper, there's a big warming in the midlatitude Southern Hemisphere that is both predicted and observed. This, along with a more modest warming of the Northern Hemisphere, is largely what makes the model match up so well with the observations. In the Science (ozone) paper, warming over the same region is not observed, nor is it predicted, and this model performs better than one with sulfates and greenhouse gases only!
Wait a minute...were looking at the same atmosphere, right? Readers of this Report know that the Nature paper only used data through 1987, and that when we included all the data (through 1995), the Southern Hemisphere hot spot disappeared.
Figure 1 shows the upper air temperature data used in the Nature paper compared with the one used in the Science paper. Clearly the big blob of Southern Hemisphere warming that makes Santer, Mitchell, and Tett (Nature) right (because of sulfates) disappeared. It must make Tett and Mitchell wrong. But Tett and Mitchell use a different upper air record (19611995) than Santer, Mitchell, and Tett (19631987) and now they're right too! They have only a minimal sulfate effect, and, surprise, no observed anomalous warming precisely in the spot that made Santer, Mitchell, and Tett sulfate model correct.
Figure 1. TOP: The upper air temperatures used by Santer, Mitchell and Tett to match the sulfate-induced model results. BOTTOM: The upper air temperatures used by Tett and Mitchell to match the ozone-induced model results. Is this a great atmosphere, or what?
Lost in the Ozone?
Perhaps the best part of all of this, which may be the biggest whopper in a profession where hubris is considered humble, is that the explanation that ozone depletion causes the lack of warming is at best suspicious.
The models have always had very difficult time explaining why the upper portion of the lower atmosphere (upper troposphere) has been cooling. All the calculations say it should be warming because of greenhouse gases, unless, of course, ozone depletion is causing the cooling.
Alternatively, the cooling could be due to the greenhouse effect itself, which would neatly explain the modest mainly-night (winter) warming, increased clouds, and a propensity for increased rain and longer growing seasons.
If ozone depletion were causing this cooling, then it should begin to appear around the time that the large late-winter ozone depletions developed in high latitudes. Tett and Mitchell claim, rather optimistically, that this depletion may have been evident as early as the mid-1970s.
In Figure 2, we present the mean upper troposphere temperatures (30,000 to 50,000 feet) averaged over the Northern Hemisphere by Angell et al. from 1958 through the present. The cooling from 1958 to 1975, when there is no ozone depletion, is no different than it was from 1975 through the present. Obviously this region was cooling long before ozone may have bumped down a bit.
Figure 2. Temperature in the atmospheric layer between 30,000 and 50,000 feet in the Northern Hemisphere. It is within this layer that the effect of ozone depletion should be most noticeable. The trend line is derived from the period from 19581976 (solid circles) when no ozone depletion was occurring. Since 1975 (open circles) there has been no deviation from that trend.
The only thing that was constantly (and smoothly) changing during this entire period was the greenhouse effect itself. So, how may years is it going to be before that letter gets written? Dear World Leaders, we are sorry...
References:
Angell, J.K., (1994 and updates) From Trends 93, U.S. Department of Energy, 636672.
Santer, B.D., K.E. Taylor, T.M.L. Wigley, T.C. Johns, P.D. Jones, D.J. Karoly, J.F.B. Mitchell, A.H. Oort, J.E. Penner, V. Ramaswamy, M.D. Schwarzkopf, R.J. Stouffer, and S. Tett (1996). A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere, Nature, 382, 3946.
Tett, S.F.B., J.F.B. Mitchell, D.E. Parker, and M.R. Allen (1996). Human Influence on the Atmospheric Vertical Temperature Structure: Detection and Observations, Science, 274, 11701173.
Zhong, W., R. Toumi, and J.D. Haigh, (1996). Climate forcing by stratospheric ozone depletion calculated from observed temperature trends. Geophysical Research Letters, 23, 31833186.
Good Timing!
The funny thing about all of this is that at least Mitchell and Tett, two of the authors on both of the papers, knew that if all of the data were used, the most important lower atmospheric warming in the July Nature paper - where the midlatitude Southern Hemisphere warms relative the Northern Hemisphere - would disappear. They knew this before it was published.
Want proof? The Nature paper - which touched off the latest political firestorm on global warming - was first submitted on April 9, 1996, revised by May 30, 1996, and published on July 4. Page proofs for this paper were supplied to the authors around June 20. The Science paper, which uses all the data and shows no relative warming (and therefore would have shown that the Nature paper was wrong) was submitted on June 5, 1996. In other words, the authors knew the initial paper was in error, and let it run anyway, knowing full well that it could be used as an excuse for one of the greatest government interventions ever proposed.
----------
BABBIT, ADMINISTRATION SLANDER SCIENTISTS, INDUSTRY
(Text not included here, but you can read it through the link - LN)
- CD
> U.S. HEALTH REPORT QUELLS FEARS
This entire article argues that the effects of global warming will be minimal, not that global warming doesn't exist. In fact, it implicitly accepts that the Earth is warming - otherwise, the article has no reason to exist.
> SEA-ING NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN
That proves my point - that warming has occurred. No, it hasn't been a steady increase. And no, it hasn't matched climate model predictions. But that doesn't mean it hasn't happened.
> Data for the free troposphere temperature data reveal no statistically
No, it's the power of statistics. The authors of the above analysis either don't understand statistics or are attempting to deliberately mislead their audience.
> SPLIT PERSONALITY
> While both the skeptics and Gaia have been saying for years that global
Exactly. There is warming - but why there's warming is under debate.
> Want proof? The Nature paper - which touched off the latest political
No way. Ever work in science? Papers published = money. I bet they let it run to increase their publication count.
> BABBIT, ADMINISTRATION SLANDER SCIENTISTS, INDUSTRY
What does Babbit's propaganda have to do with the scientific investigation of climate? Why include this?
> Some Like It Hotter
Again, most of this talks of the effects of warming, not the fact of warming.
> In the Atlantic basin, the number of intense hurricanes, those scaled between
Ho ho ho. Care to guess why they didn't include the last five years? But again, irrelevant to the debate of whether warming is occurring.
> Since climate change will have only a very small effect on the worlds health,
How shortsighted. When Miami, San Francisco, and New York start approaching sea level, I hope the mosquito netting can be turned into sandbags. Still irrelevant to the debate of whether warming is occurring, though.
> Low-Down From Down Under
More propaganda.
You haven't provided any evidence that surface temperatures have not been increasing over the last 50/100/400 years. You have provided lots of political sputum and debate on the effects of such warming. - LN
[snip]
> A new study in the March 24 Science only deepens the plot. Sydney Levitus and
> colleagues have published the first global compilation of ocean temperatures
> extending down as far as 10,000 feet. And, as might be expected, the team
> found mean warming. Looking at the top 1,000 feet, where the most data are
> available, they found an average temperature rise of 0.31C in the last four
> decades - about 0.08C per decade.
>
> That is warming that has not been delivered to the atmosphere. But, using the
> accepted (maybe erroneous) belief that one watt of surface-energy change will
> raise the lower atmospheric temperature one degree, it looks like the ocean
> has squirreled away about 0.3 degrees of warming. (In 1997, NASA climate
> modeler James Hansen estimated the differential would be somewhere around 0.6
> degrees - pretty good for government work!)
> significant trend in the data before 1976, and none after. Yet Levitus shows
> there is an overall trend (1948-1998) in the data. What a testimony to the
> power of the 1976 shift, inducing a 50-year trend!
> Mutually Inconsistent Models Published by Same Authors
> warming was overblown by inadequate computer models, the community that makes
> those models, understandably, has taken some time to acknowledge the message
> of the data. And, in doing so, some of the explanations that have been
> tendered to date for the lack of warming just don't hold together.
> firestorm on global warming - was first submitted on April 9, 1996, revised
> by May 30, 1996, and published on July 4. Page proofs for this paper were
> supplied to the authors around June 20. The Science paper, which uses all the
> data and shows no relative warming (and therefore would have shown that the
> Nature paper was wrong) was submitted on June 5, 1996. In other words, the
> authors knew the initial paper was in error, and let it run anyway, knowing
> full well that it could be used as an excuse for one of the greatest
> government interventions ever proposed.
> three and five (five being the most violent), has actually declined during
> the 1970s and 1980s. The four years from 1991 to 1994 enjoyed the fewest
> hurricanes of any four years over the last half century.
> why are so many rushing to impose onerous taxes and controls on U.S.
> industry? The carbon tax that the administration suggested and then withdrew
> would cost Americans about $180 billion per year. Spending only one-tenth of
> that to provide clean water or mosquito netting would contribute far more to
> the worlds health than attempting to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
I think that you do a great job with producing the really fine piece of work that you do each week, NSD. It is packed with interesting information, good writing, and in general is a lot of fun to peruse. I look forward to it each week and hope that I have time to check out most of the articles and links.
NSD 6.13 had an article with the catchy headline: "Everybody Needs Sex - Er, X!" I thought that it would be a good idea for me to take the advice and get some free space - maybe go for the 1.0+ GB of disk space at FreeSpace.com and MyDiskSpace.com (same folks). What a huge mistake that was!
FreeSpace.com has two software features that one downloads to make using their service possible, theoretically. They are cutely called "Drag and Drop" and "Web Clipper" but in reality they are very unstable, full of bugs and quite frankly, they don't work! Not only do they not work when one follows the directions to the T, they cause illegal operation notices to pop up incessantly and then without warning, fatal exceptions.
After trying to figure out what was up with their less than reliable software on my own, I decided to go ahead and contact support@FreeSpace. I let them know of the problems that was experiencing, gave them all of the necessary key page faults and error messages and got no response for two days. Then I received auto generated responses stating "we want to help you with any questions that you may have," "go to our FAQ page for most of the answers," and "download the new drag and drop if you are experiencing any problems, we have worked out most of the bugs." Yeah, right. They haven't worked anything out at all. They especially have not worked out the fact that they need to pull their heads out of their rear ends, stop the misleading advertising and fraudulent claims and start running the business that their hyped up trivial PR garbage states they have or start dumpster diving. Really, companies like FreeSpace.com should be held accountable for their slop but of course they never will be.
I thought it would be best to let you know there at NSD about these digital gutter varmints. I do, however, want to be clear that I totally understand that NSD staff need not be blamed in any way about the misdoings of a company mentioned and hot linked in one of the articles. There is no way that anybody could possibly have the time to check out all of the possible variables with companies like FreeSpace.
Like I said earlier, I enjoy NSD immensely and I think that your staff does a terrific job. I feel equally strongly that FreeSpace.com is a bogus outfit with a service that is inept, software that is corrupt, and customer support that is non-existent, and that any referrals to their service should state just that.
Thanks for your time and more importantly, for NSD.
Jonathan Buckmaster
Was just reading your story about the ILOVEYOU virus, and of course it's been all over the regular news. So here is my question: Why does it seem that all these viruses go after computers running Windows? I have computers at the house running Win95, Win98, and Mac OS8.6 (love my iMac). Maybe it is just my perception, but Macs don't seem to get attacked as often. Just curious....
Dan Johnson
You're absolutely correct in your observation. There aren't that many viruses for the Mac, and I can't recall any Net-born Mac viruses.
I think the reason is two-fold. First, if a hacker wants to spread a virus, he needs to program that virus to use common software. Since the virus code is almost always specific to an operating system, it makes sense to program an attack on the most common OS, which is Windows. Combine that with the integration of e-mail clients such as Outlook with the Windows OS and you have a fertile breeding ground for viruses.
The second reason is in the construction of the OSes themselves. The Mac OS was designed as a stand-alone OS and at its heart, it still functions best all alone. Windows was designed as a networkable OS. The offshoot is that Macs are very much harder to hack than Windows machines. In fact, besides ping-of-death and other data-overloading tricks (which don't break into computers but can cause crashes), I don't believe any Mac has ever been hacked into over a network. (That will change soon, with OS 9 and OS X, by the way.)
On the other hand, those same features also reduce the effectiveness of the Mac OS servers. It's a trade-off.
So there you have it - the Mac OS is rarer and more secure. It makes more sense to target Windows. - LN
Volume, volume, volume.
Crackers expend effort on the most "valuable" targets. If you can crack Windows you have de facto entry into most of the computers in the world. The Mac, by comparison, is not an attractive target because it is not widely used.
The other reason is that most virus writers probably have a PC, not a Mac, again simply because most computers are PCs in numbers that dwarf the Mac distribution. So most virus writers are educated on PCs and can test on PCs.
There's also a secondary effect in that Windows is now so complex and such a hack that not even Microsoft understands how it works. This makes it easy to find lots of holes in the OS which can be exploited. The software is notorious for its insecurity. - AB
Isn't the ILOVEYOU "virus" actually a worm? If i missed your tongue-in-cheek perspective, please forgive me. However, NSD usually seems to be quite accurate about its use of technical terms.
Jim Uchizono
Symantec defines:
Virus: A virus is a segment of executable code or script that implants itself into an executable file or script-enabled document and spreads systematically from one file to another. This systematic process of self-replication differentiates viruses from other virus-like computer infections such as Trojan horse programs and worms.
Worm: Like viruses, worms replicate themselves. However, instead of spreading from file to file they spread from computer to computer, infecting an entire system.
So I suppose you're right. I come from a biology background, though, and so I see any code that takes advantage of a system to replicate itself and send out copies as virus-like. So I let it pass. I shall endeavour to be more anal in future. :) - LN
Thanks for the quick and honest reply. I appreciate it.
I too come from a bio background. Perhaps the a more "bio"-like analogy would be the comparison of a single person with cancer vs. an epidemic. :^)
I really like NSD and definitely appreciate the work and effort you folks do.
- JU
NSD 6.17 features Raging search from AltaVista. Admittedly, I have not checked since the day it was introduced, but on that day a search with Raging and a regular AltaVista search returned exactly the same results.
Not much of a raging search if you ask me. Just thought you might not have noticed that.
Jerry Allen
I have to agree with that assessment, although I'd still rather use Raging for its clean lines. I don't like search engines dressed up as portals. - LN
There is nothing substantially different between AltaVista and Raging - they use the same database and use virtually the same ranking algorithms. They may experiment with some tweaks that will produce slight difference, but the biggest change between the two is really cosmetic. You might also want to see my Search Engine Report article on this.
Danny Sullivan
I agree. Google remains my first choice. - LN
It is heartwarming to read the (edited, truncated, linked, hidden-in-plain-site) attempt at commentary about Napster vs. Metallica.
It seems to me that the music business has been polluted and surcharged (I'm old enough to remember "payola") with a mass of people inserting themselves between the notes played and notes heard. Standard contracts (I think) leave the musician a great chance for huge debt, and the promise of wealth only after everyone else has theirs.
I guess I'm not surprised that a band has fired the first legal shot in Napster's direction, because Napster represents a potential siphon of traditional demand. A different, unforeseen model is being created, both for distribution and marketing, by affordable digital equipment. How about Napster as Pandora? The only question in my mind is will the bodies be pulled off the lid, or will they jump?
Allan Clark
Looks like Laurie is lining up for a new position with Metallica's law firm. :-)
Here's a nice pair of quotes from Napster users' favorite heavy metal drummer, Lars Ultra-Rich, as delivered by ditherati.com (April 17, 2000).
"We take our craft ... very seriously, as do most artists. It is therefore sickening to know that our art is being traded like a commodity rather than the art that it is." (Metallica drummer Lars Ulrich, explaining his band's decision to sue fans who trade song files over a CRT screen, E! Online, April 14, 2000)
"We really felt - and ultimately were proven right - that this would be the first major creative marriage between a song, a rock band and a film." (Ulrich, explaining the band's decision to commodify its art for the silver screen in the upcoming "Mission: Impossible 2", Metallica.com, April 14, 2000)
David Utter
All of the intellectual discourse deserves a far more public airing rather than being buried in "this miniature Letters to the Editor page."
Without taking any position as to whether or not Michael Luke has a valid position with respect to his logic, that logic deserves to be aired. If there are other defensible viewpoints with respect to the topic, they too deserve to be aired, and, once again, not be relegated to "this miniature Letters to the Editor page."
The cleaving of Michael's comments, however well-intentioned, smacks of censorship. To make it more difficult to access his thinking (by having to go to a link to a separate letter to the Editor page, which, of course, most people will not take the time to do) makes it seem that one would prefer his thoughts not to be viewed. Whereas, I am relatively certain that that was not your intent, it surely could be construed in a deprecatory light.
An alternative interpretation is that the removal of Michael's comments construe a tacit endorsement of Metallica's (and the music industry's) position. I have no difficulty with anyone expressing endorsement of the music industry's position (or Michael's for that matter) with respect to these issues, but those expressions need to be explicit, not tacit. Embracing a body of thought (the music industry's thinking) by tacit omission of another viewpoint (Michael's position) is intellectually dishonest.
So, open things up, air them out and we will be all be stronger for the open discourse.
Ron Samuel
The problem with that is the inherent restrictions of NSD format, which is limited to a dozen lines per article.
As editor I take ultimate responsibility for what goes in NSD. It's my job to make sure I can defend anything in it. I couldn't defend Michael's opinion, so I removed it. On the other hand, I didn't want to stifle his opinion, either. Given that I wasn't going to put Michael's comments in NSD and given NSD's format, I gave Michael's comments the best press I could. I could have just as easily lopped off his opinion and buried it in my backyard.... - LN
Michael Luke's words are the first thoughtful and challenging piece of writing that I have heard yet on this whole Napster/Metallica thing. It makes me wonder, "Does Michael Luke know what the heck he is talking about?" If so, tell me more.
I also believe in law, as well as in the right of a creative individual to own and control the fruit of their creativity. Consequently, I have little respect for the MP3 world's version of script kiddies. These barely pubescent variants of the WTO anarchists are simply children (or graying children-wannabes) who are experiencing difficulty in coming to terms with world views and legal rights that conflict with their own hormone-inspired ravings. That's my sweet and simple summary of this whole Napster-inspired intellectual property discussion.
However, now Michael Luke comes along and says something that gives me pause. I like that. However, I do not have the background in copyright law to evaluate whether he knows what the heck he is talking about. Where does he come up with the belief that "these 'rights' are not absolute", that "they are supposed to set a balance between the public good and the private good"? Is their some basis in law or public discussion or philosophy for these comments? If so, tell me more. If they represent his own creative thinking, tell me more.
Daniel Gartland
Are you in some kind of sabbatical? The last release I received was on December 24. I really miss your most entertaining and valuable material. It led me to the best of the sites I treasure in my bookmarks. Please keep going!
Enrique du Mortier
We take a break for the holidays. - LN
Can you tell me what software you use to assemble and publish NSD? It's really really good and I'd like to try a low tech newsletter at our school. I'd appreciate any information you could give.
Oh, your journal is really tops. :)
Raymond Bucko - Syracuse, New York
I get the text from our writers as e-mail and I edit it into shape with a simple but powerful text processor called TexEdit+ on my Mac. When I'm done with that, I add tags (not HTML tags) to the plain text:
So basically, short of convincing Arthur (our publisher) to surrender his PERL programming (hasn't happened yet), there's not much more help I can provide.
I will say, however, that if the PERL stuff were taken out of the loop, I'd be able to use the MacOS's AppleScript and TexEdit's own HTML translating facilities to do pretty much the same thing. - LN
The URL for the Web Log article (NSD 6.05) produced a 404 error. Even backing up the URL tree did not find the server (pine.cs.yale.edu) itself.
Robert Morse
Yeah, the server went down for a while. It did work when we finished the issue. I check every link before sending each issue out. - LN
I'm a new subscriber who went looking for the text version of the newsletter. Then I found in the FAQ that you don't offer one.
One reason why I prefer a text-based format is because the e-mail always prints properly. I might be in the minority but I hate reading multi-page documents on the monitor. I prefer to print long e-mails so that I can read them anywhere and anytime - and more comfortably. Your HTML format cuts off the right side of the text when I print the document.
Could you offer a printable version of the newsletter? If not, could you change the format slightly so the existing newsletter prints properly?
Scott Randolph
Did you try to copy and paste the text into a word processing app, then print from there? - LN
In your FAQ sheet, question 16 states, "also take a look at this document from the Internet Press Guild for more info on sending press releases." But there is no link or reference to the Internet Press Guild. Is this right?
Bruce
The link is built into the FAQ Web page, but I guess it's lost in the text mailing. The link is http://www.netpress.org/ipg/careandfeeding.html. - LN
I have only subscribed to NSD for a few weeks now, but appreciate the range of interesting and often valuable references. Today's recommendation of the Firewall book title prompts me to ask related Linux questions. Which is the preferred version of Linux to choose, and how best approach learning Linux through self study?
I have recently got certified in Win NT 4.0 as MCSE, and working toward establishing myself in network administration. I have done some very rudimentary user level stuff with UNIX apps, but I'd like to acquaint myself better with Linux, especially for server and firewall applications that will complement my network administration aspirations. II expect to continue focusing on other MS BackOffice products, but I want to get started on Linux too.
So, shall I start with Debian Linux? or some version less likely to get thorny early on? What about some hand-holding guides to get me up and running? Have you any suggestions? Thanks for your help. Keep up the great surfing!
Wayne Olsen
I'd suggest Red Hat. It seems to be settling into being the leading distribution, and is very popular in big business. With regard to self study, you can pick up any number of books which specifically talk about Red Hat. Go browse in a large book store computer section and browse through them. The SAMS series is pretty good, as is the O'Reilly one - several books in each. Specifically with regard to firewalls, the best way to start is indeed by reading the book we recommended, "Building Linux and OpenBSD Firewalls".
There are many, many Linux resources out there so you should have no problem finding material to study. - AB
I have signed up for a subscription at least six times but I am not getting my NSD! Regardless of what I do, NSD never comes. I feel I am helpless since there is no real person to talk to or to even contact via e-mail about this problem.
Can you help?
Barney Poston - @freewwweb.com
Sure there is, you got to me - but I probably cannot help. Your e-mail address is on our mailing list. This means we are actively sending the issues to you. Somewhere on the way the mail gets lost. I'd check with freewwweb.com - they may be incorrectly classifying it as bulk mail/spam and not letting it through. - AB
I checked with Freewwweb and Freewwweb answered:
Freewwweb should not be stopping this mail. Did the editor say that the messages he sent to you were getting bounced back at all? Thank you for the e-mail and we look forward to hearing back from you.
Regards,
Tech Support
We're making progress. Freewwweb doesn't think it's blocking this e-mail, and checking our bounce logs it looks like the message is not bouncing. Checking our logs, it looks like we sent out three issues to you on these dates:
nsd.06.01.log:01/13 23:51:42
In our error logs I find this:
nsd.06.01.19425.ba:AD 452:xxxx@freewwweb.com
This means that when we attempted to send the e-mail to you, we contacted the freewwweb mail host and sendmail returned code 452. (The last line just means that we put the 06.03 issue on the retry list).
According to RFC 821, which defines how SMTP mail protocol works, code 452 means "Requested action not taken: insufficient system storage".
And there's your problem. We're trying to send the message to you, but the host which is supposed to accept the message is out of resources - low on disk space (or maybe RAM?).
Feel free to forward this to your support person and tell them to contact me if they need any clarification.
Finally, thank you for your persistence in following this up. - AB
nsd.06.02.log:01/21 20:33:20
nsd.06.03.log:01/29 21:00:21
nsd.06.02.5212.ba:AD 452:xxxx@freewwweb.com
nsd.06.03.25728.ra:xxxx@freewwweb.com
I receive NSD, and think it's great. However, it is considered bulk mail by my e-mail service provider, Yahoo, and is automatically sent into the bulk mail folder as junk. I've contacted Yahoo, but have not heard back. Is there any way you can alter the address so it's not considered spam-junk?
Stephen Zwirn
I enjoy NSD and don't want to miss an issue.
Yahoo's mail filters misclassify NSD and toss it in the bulk mail folder as suspected spam. Each time, for more than a month now, I faithfully click the "This would be better in my in-box" notification link, so they can adjust their filters.
You might consider asking readers to do the same.
Will Cook - Kansas City, Missouri
I've been meaning to complain to Yahoo about it, but I can't find the appropriate e-mail address to do it. That's the problem with those giant sites, you never know who to deal with. But you're right, we should let our readers know how to get around this. - AB
This is the first and last e-mail I get from you unless you can give a good explanation as to why you don't put my e-mail address in the "To:" field. I have filters which send any mail not addressed to me to the trash bin, and if I don't check the trash folder before dumping it I don't see it. The info is great but the way you deliver it is not standard e-mail practice. It is the same way a spammer would avoid being tracked down, and I don't like spammers. I am not saying you are spammers because I did subscribe, and on a referral from Steve Gibson's e-mail service.
Please consider the above mention format in future mailings. Thank you for your time.
Joseph Willingham
We used to use plain vanilla e-mailing to each subscriber, but it got to the point where it took us four or five days to send each issue out to them all. There's only 86,400 seconds in a day and at five seconds per e-mail, that's 17,280 issues every 24 hours, assuming everything goes perfectly. We have almost 100,000 subscribers now. See the problem?
What we do now is e-mail each domain only once, with instructions for that domain's servers to distribute NSD to the assigned recipients. (I think - I'm not the tech guru here.) Yes, it is similar to the methods spammers use - for the same reasons - but we limit ourselves to our subscribers.
Here's an idea: could you make a NSD mailbox, and have anything from editor-bounce@netsurf.com filtered into that? - LN
There's a good technical reason why we don't do this. Your ISP has 354 NSD subscribers. In order to send our e-mail most efficiently to such a large number we use advanced SMTP commands which basically send one e-mail message text file to all those addresses. By doing it this way we save a lot of bandwidth.
For example, if one issue is 50 kB in size and each address is about 100 bytes, then we only send 50 kB + (354 addresses x 100 bytes) = 86.6 kB worth of data. If we customized each file for each user, and included their e-mail address in each file we'd be sending 50 kB x 354 files + 354 addresses x 100 bytes = 18,160.2 kB worth of data. That's over 18 MB just to one ISP. You can see that this really adds up after a while. The way we do it, we save money not only on our own bandwidth costs, but also on bandwidth costs for the ISPs, while at the same time being good Net citizens and saving bandwidth on the transport networks.
Bottom line, this is actually a feature not a problem. It protects your privacy, and we're being good Net citizens by not wasting bandwidth. Spammers probably don't care about your privacy (obviously) but they also care about bandwidth costs, so they use the same quite legit bandwidth saving technology.
That's the trade-off. Much lower bandwidth usage vs. customized files with individual To: addresses for each reader. It's an easy choice. - AB
I signed up for NSD with my e-mail address and not as nobody@capsouth.com which is the type of addressing scheme that spammers use. In fact, my antispam software tried to delete your incoming mail.
1. Why is your system sending mail for my subscription to nobody?
2. If you can't fix it and address it properly, then I will no longer fight with my anti-spam software and I will just allow it to delete your newsletter - sorry!
Paul de Freitas
Most of this was answered above, but why can't you set a filter on your antispam software so that NSD is not filtered? - LN
1. It's not. It's sending it to you xxxx@capsouth.com. Look at your e-mail
headers. What I bet is happening is that your spam filter is looking at
the "To:" field of the e-mail. We set our header to be:
To: Subscribers of Netsurfer Digest:;
Your spam software is probably expecting an e-mail address there, and not
finding it, or not recognizing the destination, rewrites the delivered
e-mail address to be "nobody". Bad design.
2. I perfectly understand. Talk to your anti-spam software developers and tell them that they need to think through their filters. You should be able to configure it to let through legitimate e-mail which is using an efficient and perfectly legit e-mail delivery mechanism. Meanwhile if you don't want to fight the software anymore, feel free to read us on the Web.
And thanks for reading in the first place. :) - AB
For your non-HTML readers, why not just send a plain-text table of contents and a link to the newest version of NSD?
Some corporate users are forced to use non-HTML-enabled e-mail readers. I'm sure they'd appreciate it. All that copying, pasting, and renaming is just going to make them mad at you.
Zac Jennings
We're trying to spread the load. We don't want 100,000 people trying to access our servers all at once with each new issue. I suspect that even HTML-capable people will begin to opt for notification rather than the entire NSD - LN
I've found a problem with NSD and Outlook 2000. Whenever I try to open up your newsletter, a script error comes up - seven times, in fact, no matter whether I say Yes or No to the question or whether I'm online or not. After that, the newsletter is fine, and I enjoy it, but I get countless other newsletters, several HTML, and only see this problem in yours week after week. I've confirmed that it happens on systems with IE 5.01 (Win98SE) and even a system with IE 5.5 beta (Win2000).
Another issue, though a minor one, is the odd lack of a return address and a "Sent" date on the newsletter. Again, this is unique for any newsletter I receive. I'm not sure how or why that happens, but I should also mention that when Outlook 2000's Junk Mail filter is turned on, your newsletter goes right into the trash. This happens with a lot of legitimate mail, but the solution is to create an exception based on the sender's e-mail address or domain. Unfortunately, in the case of NSD, there is no e-mail address with which to make an exception.
Brian Fumo
We have no problem looking at NSD with 4.72 under Win95 and WinNT. We suspect it's some bad Java in one of the ads. Read on for filtering problems. - LN
Right now when I get NSD, the From field is blank (which a lot of spammers do) so Hotmail thinks it is spam. I get digests from other groups who include the From info therefore I can tell Hotmail not to junk it.
I think what Hotmail is doing is a great thing. I don't like going through my inbox and deleting all the junk I get everyday.
Anil Coumar
I get the idea. Right now our From field looks like:
From: editor-bounce@netsurf.com
I think if we change it to this:
From: Netsurfer Digest
Hotmail and other spam filters will handle it better.
Mind you, I think that's a Hotmail problem, since Hotmail should be showing the e-mail address in the absence of any text in the From header. Somebody didn't read their RFCs over at Microsoft. - AB
I have been a subscriber for a few months now and thoroughly enjoy your publication - nice job!
As of late, I have been unable to read your newsletter. I get the e-mail and it has the header, but no text below. I suspect it may have something to do with my changing security settings but thought I would write and ask for some suggestions. I am currently running ZoneLabs personal firewall and CookieCop and have my browser security settings pretty high - would any of this cause me a problem?
Sean Morrissey
That sounds highly likely. I suspect your security settings may be interacting with the JavaScript in the advertising. It could be that your firewall/security settings are filtering out anything with any sort of scripting content in e-mail. The Flycast ads from our ad service may be setting it off.
Turning off JavaScript and such in your e-mail is actually a very prudent thing to do as a general rule. Ultimately what you want to do is to selectively grant permission to certain content providers to send you that kind of content. For example, I'm not particularly worried about the NYT sending me any malicious JavaScript. Ditto for Netsurfer. :) But I certainly don't want a general permission to receive and execute JavaScript and be assaulted by potentially destructive spam. Unfortunately, not every firewall/security setup is that flexible.
My suggestion is that you relax your security somewhat - you'll have to figure it out for your own setup. Don't block Java and JavaScript entirely in your e-mail, just prevent it from being executed. You can always save the file and read it in a browser later if you decide you trust it. Both Explorer and Netscape allow you to specify what to do with Java/JavaScript stuff in your e-mail. It sure sounds like your setup just completely blocks the delivery of the file - what you want is to accept delivery but disable JavaScript execution for most e-mail, and if possible enable it for sources you trust.
Hope that helps. - AB
Spot on about DoubleClick (NSD 6.03). I have adopted the habit of discarding all cookies periodically - yes, shocking. Their deletion is a minor inconvenience, but somehow I feel cleaner.
Joseph Wise
I've just cancelled my subscription to NSD. I'm not sure how long I've been receiving it, but it's been a long time. Many thanks for an excellent service, and I leave with a great deal of regret. David Strom's newsletter explains why I've chosen to leave.
Steve Reynolds - Adelaide, Australia
Uh, no it doesn't.
Our ads use cookies. What you get in your e-mail is exactly what's on our Web site. We could not stay in business if we did otherwise since then our ad service could not track ads in our e-mail and pay us for them.
It all comes down to an issue of trust. There's lots of stuff we could be doing both on our Web site and in our e-mail which could strip your hard drive to the bone. Sucking ID information via cookies is the least of it. There are JavaScript, Java, and ActiveX hacks which can easily compromise all sorts of information on your computer, and other techniques which can spoof what you see on seemingly legit big-name Web sites and extract sensitive IDs and passwords. And guess what, we know all about them. But part of being in business for the long haul (and we've been at this longer then just about anybody on the Web) and of being a reputable company with a track record is that you just don't do such nasty stuff to your customers. So you either trust us or you don't. No biggie if you don't, we perfectly understand.
If you don't like it, well, so be it, we're not out to change anybody's mind about it. For our readers the tradeoff is cookies and ads in exchange for neat content. If it's not a tradeoff you want to make, you are of course perfectly free to unsubscribe.
Anyway, thinking of all such HTML tricks as evil is a simplistic view of what is in reality a large and convoluted economic/security/utility/implementation issue. Lots of tradeoffs involved.
Strom writes:
"In defense of this practice, there isn't much in terms of your own identity that is being captured here, other than whether or not you clicked on a particular link. But the issue is more of perception of privacy invasion, and the fact that none of these companies is clear about what information is collected and how it is used. Sure, there are privacy statements galore on their various web sites, but they contain so much mumbo-jumbo that it is hard to understand exactly what they mean."
And we say in our FAQ (and mean it):
"The only individual information Netsurfer collects is the email address of our subscribers, which we need - obviously - to deliver our ezines. Netsurfer does not sell or rent its mailing list."
If you don't believe us or, as I wrote earlier, it's not a trade-off you're willing to make, feel free to leave. But do so as an informed consumer, not as a scared one.
Thanks for reading. - LN
I am a veteran subscriber to NSD and would like to register my disgust with a Playboy ad that graced an edition of NSD.
While I am writing I would like to thank you and your staff for NSD which I find entertaining and sometimes very useful and informative.
David Rapport
Does NSD have a say in what ads get displayed in its newsletter? I did not like being presented with "give your browser a new skin" ads (replacing the IE5 button bar with a background of immodest women).
Michael Malak
The answer to your question is yes and no. Yes, we have broad discretion to block any advertiser so that their ad will never show up in our publications. No, we don't control when any given ad will show up.
If we think that any ads are inappropriate, we'll block the advertisers. As usual it's a matter of taste, and obviously we can't be expected to satisfy the purity requirements of all our 70,000 readers. - AB
I read NSD in Pine and can't use embedded links in Netsurfer Recommendations. I need the URLs to paste into my browser. Please bring the URLs themselves back, in addition to the links.
Bill Casti
It's a question of our format. The recommendations are the only items in which we allow links within the text, and even then rarely. Sorry it gets lost for you. - LN
Any particular reason why all recent NSDs (since 1/1/00) are delivered with a 12/31/69 date stamp? A case of Y2K or are you just hiring retired hippies?
Steve Murray
NSD 6.03 had an item on network logo bugs on TV. Those logos don't irritate me as much as the two Wells Fargo graphics in the middle of each NSD which slow me down as I scroll through. Can they be turned off?
Karen L. Pagel
No. But just consider the time spent as your subscription fee, 'cuz that's how we make our money. - LN
I've delayed sending this missive for a long time, because I'm in the publishing business myself, and I know there are lots of good reasons why you do things the way you do. I'm a long-time subscriber who values your publication, and I recognize that, after all, I am getting it for free.
But every time the issue comes in, I'm irritated by the unacceptably long response times from your advertiser's ad server. The problem is compounded by the fact that the code reruns every time I reload the page from my cache - so every time I click on a link and then return to the cached page, the load wait recurs, and I'm actually disinclined to pursue links as a result.
I've tried opening the links in a new window each time, and closing the second window to return to the page, but I don't think I have to explain the many reasons that's messy and inefficient.
Now, it doesn't take a genius to go into the cached HTML code and strip out the ad calls, which is what I'm doing. Thus I don't see any ads at all now.
I know that your advertiser is paying your bills, and I'm not at all opposed to seeing ads in return for a free, really great source of information. But in the final analysis, you're being badly served (heh, heh) by flycast, and I would urge you to approach them about the poor quality of their service. I can't be the only subscriber irritated by the delays, and it certainly doesn't do flycast's business plan any good to have your subscribers going to the trouble of stripping out their ads.
Well, now, I've gotten that off my chest. But I'll still keep stripping the ads until the response times come down.
Best wishes for a successful resolution.
Dan Olinger
I conduct Net training classes in more than a dozen local libraries. The ad that appears near the top of NSD 6.06 that looks like a Win9X error message confuses the heck out of new computer users. (It has been popping up all over the place lately.) They believe that it is a genuine error message. Clever but deceptive and - from the point of view of someone who is trying to help people learn - shameful. "More signal. Less Noise"? Not in this case.
Ditto the "Telemarketing Survey" ad which isn't. Boo!
Jay Gerard
I just subscribed, on a recommendation from the Internet Tourbus. Looks good; I enjoyed the first issue. However, I ask you to thoughtfully reconsider your relationship with Amazon.com, in light of their recent actions to stifle competition in the online marketplace. I'm a software developer, and the precedent that may be set by Amazon troubles me.
Chris Grayson - Austin, Texas
The problem lies with the Patent Office and the legal situation rather then with Amazon, or indeed any business which is forced by the realities of the business climate to apply for these absurd patents.
If the Patent Office did not grant utterly stupid software/business process patents, or if they bothered to do some investigation and find all the precedents, then none of this nonsense would be necessary. Unfortunately because they grant such dreck patents, businesses like Amazon have to run after patents if for no other reason then self-protection. If they did not, then somebody else could easily go out, get a similar patent and happily go after a deep pockets company like Amazon. That would cost big money, and reduce shareholder value, which is the holy grail of prudent large public company management.
By applying for the patents, stupid as they are, Amazon covers its ass in two ways: people can't go after it by claiming Amazon is violating a patent for an essential Amazon business process, and they can trade patent portfolios with other big businesses in a kind of mutual-assured-destruction pact - "you don't sue us over your patents and we won't sue you over ours". Without a patent portfolio some hot-shot competitor's lawyer would eat them for lunch.
Bottom line, Amazon is simply exploiting a business survival niche, and their behavior has little to do with some malevolence or attempt to stop competition. The real problem is the asinine patent and legislative/legal system which creates this patent ecology.
It's easy to jump on the bandwagon and have a knee-jerk reaction to these issues, but nobody who runs a business the size of Amazon is stupid. They have to exist in a particular complex business environment and they would be derelict in their duty if they did not exploit every advantage to protect their investment. This may appear to be a simple anti-competitive issue on the face of it, but anybody who thinks that has never been involved in costly business destroying litigation or high stakes business negotiations. So it's absurd to blame Amazon for playing by the stupid rules. Your time is better spent campaigning to change the stupid rules. - AB
I see your points, but I'm still mad at Amazon. Getting patents to cover your ass is one thing - suing Barnes and Noble with them is quite another.
If nothing else, the online bookselling market is competitive enough that this kind of offensive (to me) behavior warrants shopping elsewhere. I like Amazon - I've had good experiences shopping there - but all else being equal I'll be just as happy ordering from BN, Powell's, Fatbrain, or wherever. In my case, Amazon's attempts to increase shareholder value will backfire.
You're absolutely right about the root of the problem being the USPTO. Maybe you could include a blurb in a future NSD regarding the issue and what people could do to affect a change?
- CG
We'll cover the whole controversy in NSD 6.08, at least to the extent that we can in one paragraph. And on a personal note, thanks for not flaming! :) - AB
It really disappoints me to see that after everything Amazon.com has done to restrict freedoms on the Internet that you still support and are in partnership with them. Really, really disappointing!
Ron Borth
If you've been following our coverage of Amazon's patent flap you'd understand that it's not a black and white issue. And if you've been reading us for any length of time you'd understand that you're preaching to the choir as far as freedoms are concerned (if you only knew!).
There are genuine and reasonable differences of opinion on how companies like Amazon need to deal with the current economic/regulatory environment, and it's simplistic to dismiss one view as completely evil. We continue to use Amazon because it's good business, and better than the alternative (Barnes and Noble). Without good business we wouldn't exist, and if we didn't exist we would be unable to influence the course of events (modestly though it may be) by promoting intelligent thinking about complex issues like this.
Anyway, your mileage may vary and you're free to vote with your mouse and unsubscribe if you think we're all that evil. :)
Thanks for reading, and for bothering to write. - AB
"Most people outside California or Hawaii get to know surfers through beach movies,"
Heh, heh. ;-) Who's a parochial editor then? And who's the current world champion? "Baywatch" your thing then? Oooooooo!
Paul Rogers - Brisbane, Australia
Doh! Yeah, I forgot Oz. But so did the writer. :) And we said "most". So there.
And I'm Canadian. What the heck do I know about surfing? - LN
I have been an avid reader of NSD for close to three years now, and I would like to extend to you my much delayed congratulations on a job well done and your weird sense of humor.
Well, with that out of the way, I would like to report that for some reason on Eudora Pro 3.0.1 (Spanish), the date does not show on the date column. It shows as blank. Although this is no biggie, it is sometimes annoying. The last issue that shows right is NSD 5.18.
Thank you again and keep up your good job and sense of humor.
Arturo Esquivel - Zapopan, Mexico
I received an interesting response when I tried to test out the T-Mail site mentioned in NSD 6.01:
>Your e-mail message contains an email address or was carried through
>a network belonging to Media One, AT&T or Lucent Technologies.
>
>Because of the heavy processor load to rapidly translate a T-Mail message,
>we have been forced to limit the use of T-Mail.
>
>For a series of inexcusable encounters with AT&T and its subsidiaries, we
>opted to reduce our server workload by excluding these providers. Users
>of these e-mail accounts and corporate networks are not allowed to use
>T-Mail.
>
>We suggest you or the person you are e-mailing get a new service provider.
>
>No messages to, from or through these domains will reach a human. If
>you wish to use T-mail or need to contact us, use a T-Mail approved
>network and e-mail account.
>
>Our apologies for any inconvenience but we do not allow these companies
>to use our service. By extension, their customers are also blocked.
>
>Sincerely,
>Admin
>admin@t-mail.com
Banks
To the brother of Jeff Nyveen: your brother Jeff is a big phony who deserves miserable treatment from women!
LeslieNCal
If you wanted to cite Web sites re Hillary Clinton (NSD 6.05), you could have done so without the editorial comments. Regardless of your personal opinions of Ms. Clinton, it was beyond the standards of civility to assume that she is ashamed of being a Clinton or a Rodham. For years now, the media have called her Hillary, instead of Ms. Clinton or even Mrs. Clinton; it was inevitable that she would have to accept this (although I have always felt that it was an indication of disrespect). Frankly, I was disappointed by your take on this subject; I am quite used to the ongoing snide approach that is applied to almost anyone in public life. Nonetheless, I hadn't expected to find it your newsletter. I was most disappointed by this; I expect to read a similar citation re Mr. Giuliani!
K. H. Fitzpatrick
Other candidates aren't as newsworthy.
I think you underestimate the political wile. You can bet that if the Hillary team felt that Bill Clinton was a positive that she'd be running as Hillary Clinton. If her Rodham grandfather had been a respected NY governor and she didn't have a brother, you can bet she'd use Rodham.
Maybe we went too far to use the word "ashamed", but you can bet that if her team thought either name was an asset, she'd be campaigning by it. - LN
Do I detect a hint of irony here? Or have you really been taken in by publicity from the "free" world's most undemocratic, power-hungry, and generally over-bearing organization ("Vive le Parlement Europeen", NSD 6.05)? The idea that this unwanted and unnecessary building stands for anything other than French bully-boy tactics is absurd. It cost the French taxpayer oodles to build and costs European taxpayers even more to send the Parliament - which is also based in Brussels - down to Strasbourg for a few weeks every now and then. All because of petty French schoolyard politics of the "do as I say or I'll take my ball home!" variety.
The idea that the EU is in any way democratic, or that the parliament has any power whatsoever would be hilarious if one didn't have to live with it! Just be thankful that you are on the outside looking in. And read a little wider before falling for EU propaganda in future.
John
Hi! Just wanted to let you know something:
> You have subscribed to receive the HTML version of Netsurfer Digest.
>
> Here is what you can expect to receive. All files will be in the range
> of 15K-30K in length.
I have just subscribed. I have already received a digest. It's 54K. :) Other than that, all is very good. :)
Mark Popescu
Well, this was written in 1994 during the days of 19 kbps modems. The Net has grown a bit since then. :)
I'll have to go in and correct that. Thanks for the sharp eye and thanks for reading. - AB
I find your semi-stealthy support of Benetton (NSD 6.06) disgusting. Count me outta here.
Roger Miller
What gives you the impression that we support Benetton? - LN
Those of us who consider the death penalty, a system that has been in existence for millennia, an acceptable form of retribution against societies worst barbarians do not feel the need to "debate". So it makes sense to me that those who want to "debate" and those who think that the "debate" sounds eloquent are of a like mind.
Not everyone agrees, and so there is debate which, in my opinion, is healthy.
You know that "debate" is the academicians' subtle way of starting an argument where there was none. For instance, the clown that I think Princeton hired, he believes that newborn babies can be aborted up until three months of age. Guess what? He just started a new "debate". Is this debate healthy, or is it going to be destructive? How about "Man Boy Love Association" debate about "children's right" to consensual sex with adult men?
It's my belief that not all debate is good debate.
Frank Christensen (NSD 6.06) is a very poor choice for NSD. His site is poorly designed, of questionable intent, and inaccurate in its content. You may see this as a battle against kiddie porn. I see it as a battle against eager censors. This guy is probably getting off on the URLs he collects while "investigating" for offensive content. Meanwhile, he waves the flag of protecting our children. I suggest you spend a little more time investigating your contributors, at least try to find those that use a spellchecker.
Dale Kent
As a new subscriber, I shouldn't be negative so soon, but I want to take exception to an item in NSD 6.06. You mentioned a dearth of Canadian singers to do the South Park song at the Oscar show, and named a couple who wouldn't be available. Have you not heard of Shania Twain? Amanda Marshall? Alanis Morisette? Brian Adams? Roch Voisine? Alana Miles? If you'd like a group, there's always the Tragically Hip, or Crash Test Dummies (if they're still around).
Sorry for the hissy fit. Other than that item, I enjoyed your newsletter and am looking forward to future issues.
Judi Chapman
Your article about Africa (NSD 6.05) was well begun but you miss the most important item: who is responsible? This information is easily obtainable from Lyndon Larouche's Executive Intelligence Review. It names the responsible individuals and the organizations behind them. Even the CBC (Fifth Estate) broadcast a good report about the situation in Sierra Leone (and how it relates to the diamond trade for the UK and Canada). Please don't tell me this is a tribal war! I don't know if you are sincere or not (it is my first contact with your newsletter) but your treatment of this Africa item indicates that you didn't do your job properly or that your agenda is another one of disinformation like so many others.
Jacques Brochu
Perhaps before you make comments about the Iditarod such as "The humans involved make sure that the dogs are well cared for during the race," (NSD 6.08) you need to check out the Sled Dog Action Coalition.
The dogs faced some horrible conditions in this event which basically is simply a showcase for the human winner, yet those conditions are well hidden from the public by the event coordinators. Yes, sled dogs are genetically made to pull, but there is no sense behind this race except that someone wants to win it and beats up their animals in order to make that happen.
There are lots of less traumatic ways for these dogs to do what they were bred to do, including competitions that are not life and death like the Iditarod.
Lori
I am writing in response to something I read in NSD 6.09: "That's the name of Eric Idle's latest tour, coming to the US (and Vancouver and Toronto, which almost count, too)...."
I am a Canadian, and have been subscribing to NSD for quite some time now. However, I take great offense to the above remarks, and am considering unsubscribing. Is there some logical reason why we aren't as important as you Americans? I know you know nothing about us, and we seem to always be the object of jokes for you, but in the great scheme of things I thought we were all supposed to be equal and, seeing as we are neighbours, you would treat us with the respect we deserve just as much as you seem to think you do. Too bad you don't seem to feel the same. And to think, I always defended your arrogance.
Lana Grimard
I'm guessing by now y'all know I'm Canadian, too. - LN
I tried subscribing to the Wall Street Journal Interactive Edition on Amazon.com, as you recommended, but the server replied that the package can't be supplied outside the US. Whoa! That defies the entire idea of the Internet! Why can't I just download the access kit?
Netsurfer is a popular e-zine among readers outside the US, so why would you suggest something that's not globally available?
Arik Isaak
Obviously because we had no idea that they would put such a stupid restriction on it. I for one can't conceive of a good reason why the WSJ would do this. Like you say, it's utterly silly given the nature of the Net. Somebody there obviously just doesn't get it - not surprising given the stodgy nature of those old line big newspapers.
Sorry we led you astray, even if it was unintentional. - AB
I'd like to thank you for including Tiger Territory in NSD and rather making my day. The influx of e-mails told me the news. :)
I never thought I'd be good enough for your publication and I'm a one-lady-band so it was a great surprise and very rewarding. Do you have an icon or graphic you issue to sites which you have listed? Normally I do not clutter my site with things of that type but I'm terribly proud of this (grin).
Loadstar
We have a little logo at http://www.netsurf.com/nsd/redist.html - LN
Kudos, to say the least, for having a paragraph on the third-year med student's trials and tribulations (NSD 6.03)! I read the whole thing yesterday (except Appendices, will try to read those today) despite Super Bowl "pressure".
Thanks again.
Floyd Maxwell
I just subscribed to NSD and really like it. You have good information, so keep it up.
Rhonda Bright
I am the owner of Offtherunway.com. Just wanted to say thank you for featuring me on your site. I am going to put a link to your article on my home page, although it probably changes daily! Thanks again! And I really like your site!
Nicole Tzougrakis
I wanted to be sure to let you know how much I appreciate your publishing a link to my Crumpledpapers.com site (NSD 6.04) as well as your wonderful description. The description made my day. The feedback has been tremendous and heartwarming.
Listings such as yours inspire and motivate me to continue in my quest to improve the site as well as support the people I admire. I have truly enjoyed my subscription to NSD. Thank you again for everything.
Bobbie Osborne
It was great to read your comments about the America's Cup racing here in New Zealand (NSD 6.04). This yacht racing so far has been fantastic. It is far more exciting than watching the processions of Formula One Motor racing. The TV coverage, the excellent commentary team and the "smell" of the sea from the Hauraki Gulf is very stimulating for us couch potatoes.
Thanks for NSD.
Arthur T. Edwards - New Zealand
Thanks so much for a wonderful, useful, humorous, and thoroughly delightful Web site. I signed up about a month ago and look forward to each issue. Thanks!!!
Micky Earnshaw
Delightful. I just read my first issue and enjoyed every - well, nearly every word. Thank you for a pleasurable as well as informative e-zine.
Cilla Larkin
I am a new subscriber, and am thoroughly enjoying the humor. I'm looking forward to a long time with you all. Besides, I hate wailing and gnashing of teeth, nor desire to be party to someone throwing themselves on the point of their mouse pad. (A cheesy joke? Oh, the power of cheese.)
Thanks for the welcome.
Jon C. Randall
Like most people, I don't have a great deal of so-called free time. I don't normally subscribe to anything - newspapers, 'zines, Internet sites, or newsletters, but yours is a major exception. You have just the right balance of the frivolous (or is it really?) and the significant. Thank you for being "right on", at least for this jaded consumer of information.
Jim Weaver
The "jaded consumer of information" has been our target audience since day one. I'm glad we're still on target. :) - AB
Thanks so much for putting something in the issue about Doug Henning. After losing Tom Landry and Charles Schultz the same week, the media didn't pay much attention to the passing of a uniquely talented human being.
I'm appreciative he made it into NSD.
Regan Avery (NSD writer)
Thank you for your wonderful e-zines. They are the best! I really enjoy them. I have been subscribed since December 1998. I have just published my very first home page and have puts links to your site on the e-zine page.
Once again, many thanks.
Vanessa Ford - Pietermaritzburg, South Africa
I just subscribed (I think you were referenced by the Langalist?) and it's exactly what I was looking for!
Gary Harper - Corpus Christi, Texas
I've just finished reading NSD 6.06 and find NSD the best e-zine I've found yet. Thanks a lot, and thanks too to Steve Gibson's Web page which put me on to you.
Mugwump
Just read my first issue of NSD. I'm delighted to find so much of interest, and in a style that is fresh and fun. Keep up the fine work; I'll tell your sponsors the first time I get the chance.
Mark
Thank you so much for the feature on Askmen.com (NSD 6.06). I couldn't agree with your reviewer more! It's a great site, and I'm hooked on it! Finally, a site that helps men - just what i needed. Great job guys, keep up the good work!
vs
Just wanted to let you know how much I enjoy getting your e-zines. I can usually find at least one page to throw into the favorites and peruse at a later date. I haven't really come across any bad or broken links. Good job, keep it up.
kbrixius
As you can see from what follows, I am a newcomer to NSD. I am writing to express my delight at your welcome letter. It is impressive in the extreme and, although you probably don't hear much about it, I am certain that my reaction is shared by many. Your tone is perfect - respectful and considerate without being even a touch obsequious or undignified. Wow!!
I have never written a reply to a canned letter before, but yours is really a masterpiece! I couldn't resist.
Rod Mathewson - Montreal, Quebec
I love your product. I'm sitting here listening to "All Songs Considered" (discovered in NSD 6.07) and have sent about eight of your Web site reviews to friends and co-workers. I love what you choose to present and the way you present it. I look forward to each issue, even though I know I'm going to lose about 45 minutes of my day reading it, exploring the sites, and passing tips on to my network buds.
Thanks for not wasting bandwidth.
Ron Schaumburg
Just wanted to show my appreciation for your very kind comments about my
Wheel of Time MUD site in NSD 6.05. Thanks guys, made my week. =)
Johan J. Ingles-le Nobel
You distill the gargantuan array of Internet sites into usable selections of excellent caliber and extraordinary uniqueness.
Susan Brennan
I was pleasantly surprised to see my "Free Cash Online: Fact or Fiction?" site listed in NSD 6.07. I can't thank you enough.
My online time is very limited and I tend to stick within my own little corner of the world. Because of this there are so many great sites that I miss out on - and NSD is one of them. I've just spent the last half hour or so surfing around and it's really a wonderful site.
I am putting a link back to your site on my "Other Sites of Interest" page, and I hope that some of my visitors will take the time to subscribe.
Thank you again!
Terri Iversen
Good info (OK, excellent info) and a great sense of humor. If your goal was to create something useful, you've succeeded.
David Wilder
Just wanted to express my appreciation for the great review of my site ("Grotesques and Gargoyles of NYC", NSD 6.08). My server is groaning from the amount of traffic!
Joe Chiffriller
I just want to thank you for the way you conduct your business. I appreciate it and it is obvious you don't want to mimic some of the bad behavior others have shown you. I appreciate that and all I can offer you is sincere thanks.
Steve
Keep up the great work... totally enjoyable! Look forward to each article and surf information. Tell Arthur that I said, "Thumbs Up... Real Kewl."
Carol
It won't be news to you that you are doing a great job, but I will tell you anyway. I just read an edition of NSD - the first one I've read - and know that I have at last found an intelligent source of news and reviews on the Internet that is comprehensive, takes an interest in everything, is knowledgeable well beyond the surface, technically and in general, knows how to pack content into a few words, provides excellent links, has good taste, and can write the English language with style and grace. It's what I have been searching for on the turgid and cluttered trails of the Internet for a year and a half. My instincts told me that there must be intelligent life out there somewhere, and I feel I have now found it.
Harold Pohl
I enjoy the style and content in NSD. I am sympatico with your outlook on Net life, those parts of it that I understand. Underneath your glitzy packaging and your relentless high-pressure sales techniques, I discern a depth of knowledge behind each issue of NSD that I respect. From casual clues that you have dropped, I detect that some of you are Canadian, or used to be, which makes us compadres. What I am driving at is this: If you moved into my trailer park, we'd be watching Oprah together in no time.
Les Leyne
Thank you for the positive review of "How I Earned $500,000 (A MONTH!) As An EPIC POET!!" (NSD 6.09). I appreciate it.
Chris Sumberg
Thanks for publishing the article about RecordTV in NSD 6.09! We got more visitors in one day then in our entire last five months combined! You all have some real clout. Unfortunately, since we didn't know we were going to be published today, we weren't prepared for the onslaught and you brought our Web site to its knees (but it was still a very good thing). Thanks again.
David
Awesome. Deafening signal-to-noise ratio. Gibson sent me your way. Keep up the good work.
Cass McNutt
I would just like to say that you have a great choice of links. I'm very satisfied, so keep on like this. You're the best.
Sara
Just from what I've seen so far, NSD is going to be my favorite netzine. You sound like people who have been on the receiving end of spam etc., and I appreciate the honesty you show. Keep up the good work.
Phillip Connelly
Steve Gibson gave your site a glowing report and even encouraged us to subscribe to your newsletter - something about a lot of new stuff to learn (if memory serves me even remotely correctly) - so I immediately took his advice. I hit the Submit button and like magic my very first e-mail from you appeared. I read and absorbed all you had to say (I even read the fine print) and then I arrived at the bottom where you gave the instructions on how to unsubscribe. Oh, my gosh - I laughed so hard I woke the entire house up. Thank you for the facts along with the free entertainment. Now on with the journey!
Twin
I've been a subscriber to NSD since Ms. Lieu (I think it was she) made a presentation to the Bay Area Internet User Group in 199X, a long time ago.
I continue to look forward to each issue. The descriptions of the links were and still are well written, interesting, and relevant. There are always two or three links that I feel compelled to follow.
Tom Rubens
You probably have all the admirers and hangers-on and wannabees and groupies any site could collect. But, like, hey--here's another.
What lots of others try to do, you do good. Selection of material is broad and varied, your comments exemplify informed opinion (i.e., you're not without lean, but we know in which direction your wind blows, which lets us weigh your judgment), and your writers know their craft and use it well.
You hold true to your tagline (which reminds me of Roberta Wohlstetter's "Pearl Harbor: Warning and Decision" - probably the finest analysis of the attack by a historian with some training in signal analysis).
I've sent your work on to more people than anything else I've come across in cyberspace.
Pressure to "improve" must be everywhere, especially on the Web. But the only improvement I could see to what you do is to go to frames. If you're concerned a frames-based site might reduce audience, I'd suggest your likely audience is not drawn from surfers wedded to Netscape 2.
David S. Locke
Thank you for your kind and flattering review of my Images for Reflection (NSD6.09). With your permission, I would like to include it on my links page.
Scott L. Sakansky
I don't think you can post just one review out of NSD, but you can certainly link to it. - LN
There should be only four working days a week; the remaining day should be spent digesting the weekly NSD.
Guy Heerema
You continue to do an excellent job with topic selection, timeliness, thoughtfulness and literate terseness, an amazing accomplishment in this time and place.
Harold Pohl
Since I just don't have time for long-winded crap in my e-mail, it is a true pleasure to read NSD. Quick, clean, to the point. I like it.
Ken Schuster
I like your book reviews, but would find them even more interesting if you gave the retail price. It would save having to log on to Amazon for this info.
Renaud Olgiati
The reason we don't is that the price can change, and our reviews - well, suggestions really - are going to stay in our issues for eternity. However, sometimes if there's a good special price or rebate on something we'll point it out. - AB
Thank you for a first-class publication. I especially like the layout. I look forward to it each week. Keep up the good work!
Fred Klein
Just to say that 6.12 is another great issue. Thanks.
Harold Pohl
Just to let you know that I love NSD - great research, fine choices, good writing. Glad to be on board!
Thanks for a well-realized effort.
Jacqueline Cohen
I'm a writer and a wannabe geek, which means I'm often trying to explain technology in simple terms for the rest of us. NSD is one of the few things I always read, enjoy, and use. Just thought I'd let you know how good your work is.
Debbie Lee
Thanks for your great recent issue, NSD 6.14. It had wonderful links to things I'd never have found and very much enjoyed (the Korean diary, the historical documents page, the photographs of Frank Hohenberger). Thanks a lot.
Ed Schmookler
I disagree that Death Row, Texas (NSD 6.14) is the most tasteless, non-porn site on the Web. As someone who has changed from being in favor of the death penalty to one who is opposed to the death penalty, I find this information excellent. The number of people either acquitted or who had sentences reduced certainly shows that execution should be outlawed. How would justice have been served if these people had been executed? Not all had sentences reduced to life without parole. Some went on to be paroled.
Without the Texas Department of Corrections site and the information it provides most of us would not have access to information that helps us to discuss the death penalty factually as opposed to emotionally.
Ed Parker
You people are something else! Reporting is excellent! I love those tidbits as well as the links. Keep up the very good work. If newspapers printed news like you people are reporting, we wouldn't be paying 75 cents for 25 pages of advertisements.
R. Pelech
Just wanted to say that I appreciate and look forward to your posts - not something I can say about most of what I sign up to receive. There's always something of interest. Keep up the good work. Ignorance is only bliss to the ignorant... it pisses the rest of us off.
Marcelo - Miami, Florida
Your digest is absolutely wonderful! Keep up the good work. A small point regarding a recent article (NSD 6.16): "we discovered that Illinois has the world's largest catsup bottle."
Your facts are correct. I've seen the bottle. However, in Illinois, it's ketchup. :}
Roger Pearson
A note to express my appreciation for NSD. It is #1 when I check my mail.
Many thanks for your work. Keep it going.
David Braun
Thanks for the nice words about the Art Bin (NSD 6.17).
Karl-Erik Tallmo
I have found NSD to be way readable, especially at +/- 4 a.m. I - nay, the world, needs bits such as these.
Allan Clark
I've been receiving NSD since I first got on the Net (about five years ago) and wanted to drop you a note, as I have done occasionally in the past, to thank you and the NSD staff for a great publication. I always look forward to receiving it.
Bruce R. Beaman
Thanks for an interesting 'zine.
Chris Thompson - Oxford, England
Just wanted to share that I think of your newsletter as "that annoying thing", when I go to read it. Read it, I do, however. I like the content, but I have trouble with the form.
Barry Salant
Thanks for the review of January Magazine in NSD 6.15. You're right: we're definitely book lovers around here. I'm so glad that it shows! All of the things you guys said about us were super nice. It's very much appreciated.
Linda Richards
I just wanted to express my thanks for listing Irv Valenta's site, and the excellent article you did about his stories (NSD 6.15). I cannot begin to come close to expressing the joy it brought him, or his gratitude for your kind words.
Bob Boyd
It's been a seemingly long time since Wednesday, July 14, 1999 when NSD 1.01 was produced. My congratulations on surviving and along the way informing, annoying and otherwise providing anticipated diversions.
Joseph Wise
Well, of course, the moment I pressed the send button some part of my brain said: Volume 6, started in 1999? That was, of course, the start date for Netsurfer Education. Despite my lagging mathematical skills it does reveal two points: my opinion of your opinions is high enough that I retain them; and the latest edition, 6.15, was interesting enough for me to want to stroke your egos and thank you for the service.
Joseph Wise
Just wanted to thank you and your contributors for NSDs. I've been receiving them for probably two years and whilst there may have been some flat moments (when things got a bit mainstream lowest common denominator and yahooey) they've usually been informative, reliable, and varied.
Great stuff
Grant Thonemann
I just love NSD. It's witty, smart, and informative... and since I forward much of the information to many of my associates and friends, it makes me appear to be witty, smart and informed, also. Thanks. From one writer to many: absolutely top drawer!
Wendy Wilson
Few puns of any kind were used in the making of this page.
Publisher: Arthur Bebak
Address your letters to editor@netsurf.com.
Editor: Lawrence Nyveen
Letters and signatures edited for clarity and brevity.
NETSURFER DIGEST © 2000 Netsurfer Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.
NETSURFER DIGEST is a trademark of Netsurfer Communications, Inc.