Blog note

Well I’m not an IT geek, far from it. Mac has always suited me for what I need to do, but I think commercial considerations have made it into what I always criticised Microsoft for: the boy scout continually helping the old lady over the road – whether she wants to cross or not. I think Mac reached an optimum in usefulness and stability with OS 10.4 and it’s been downhill ever since with their slicker but ever more intrusive system updates. I have always detested most of the iLife apps and they haven’t succeeded yet in forcing this square peg into a round hole; – on the other hand I don’t like working in ugly Windows environments, which I find it still is.
Yes, Al is on the Apple board – and that of Google – but I suspect, only for a few more years until his inevitable downfall with the rest of the AGW crooks. Apple at least for the moment has the wherewithal to weather that storm and I for one hope it does.
—BTW you’ll have gathered that I’m not into gaming.

Pamela:
I assume you’re being sarcastic in your “astonishment” that the staff at CRU would stoop to attempting to subvert the peer review process. I think we all know that the leaked emails prove this beyond any reasonable doubt. But to answer your question, no, I’m not claiming (in this case) that reviewers of the same article talked directly to each other. I’m claiming (and Briffa’s own email proves this) that 1) Briffa, as editor of the paper in question, revealed to reviewer 2 the main gist of what reviewer 1 had to say about the paper, and 2) Briffa specifically asked reviewer 2 for a bad review of the paper.
The request for a bad review was right there in black and white in Briffa’s email, “Confidentially I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting [an unnamed paper] to ­support Dave Stahle’s and really as soon as you can.” The Guardian article quoted this line from Briffa’s email to Cook, and RealClimate then tried to explain this as not being in context. Gavin said, basically, that there was an implied “if you recommend rejection”, and thus Briffa was not really requesting a bad review so much as making the point that IF Cook was going to give a bad review, then he needed to make it thorough, which, according to Gavin, is quite common and perfectly acceptable in the peer review process.
But, even if you accept this lame excuse, the word “confidentially” at the beginning of Briffa’s quote reveals that, whatever it was Briffa was doing, he didn’t want anyone outside of Cook and himself to know about it. So why would he want to keep this a secret, if it was on the up-and-up? Gavin’s answer was just as lame as his first answer. He said that the entire peer review process is supposed to be confidential, and reviewers aren’t supposed to see each other’s reviews – only the authors (he later amended this statement, allowing editors to see all reviews, and allowing reviewers of the resubmission to see reviews from the original submission.) And, according to Gavin, this is the kind of confidentiality that Briffa was referring to when he said “confidentially”, not some attempt to hide a shady request.
Now, I don’t have a clue what the rules are for peer review, so I’m taking Gavin’s word on this. But, if one reviewer is not supposed to see another reviewer’s review, then Briffa violated this type of confidentiality by telling Cook that Stahle didn’t like the paper. So it’s hard for me to accept the notion that Briffa would remind Cook of a confidentiality rule that every reviewer already knows, then in the same sentence, violate that same confidentiality rule himself. (It’s also hard for me to accept the notion that Briffa thought Cook needed a reminder of this well-known confidentiality rule, but didn’t need to be told that Briffa’s request for a “hard and … extensive case for rejecting [the paper]” was contingent upon Cook actually recommending rejection, but Gavin didn’t post this comment, and thus didn’t have to answer it.) Gavin’s answer for Briffa’s own violation of the confidentiality rule was that Briffa sent this email to Cook during review of the SECOND submission of the paper, and that his reference to Stahle’s review was actually Stahle’s review of the ORIGINAL paper (this is where Gavin had to expand upon his description of the “author’s eyes only” rule).
In my final comment sent to RealClimate, I first asked Gavin for a clarification of the “author’s eyes only” rule, since he seemed to be changing it to support whatever point he was trying to make at the time. I then went on to say that it didn’t really matter because, if Cook’s review was to be in “support” of Stahle’s review (which it clearly was), then the only review by Stahle he could possibly be referencing was Stahle’s second review. The re-submitted paper, presumably, took Stahle’s first review into account. At the very least, the author(s) submitted a written response to each of Stahle’s criticisms. At that point, Stahle’s original review was meaningless. Of course, he apparently STILL didn’t like the paper, and said so in his second review. And this second review by Stahle was the only review by Stahle that Cook could support at that time. And Briffa very clearly revealed to Cook that this second review was a bad one, that Stahle still hated the paper, even after it was re-submitted. (Actually, in context, it appears to me that Briffa had, in a previous email, included Stahle’s entire second review, but I can’t prove that, so I’ll have to settle for the FACT that Briffa revealed the main gist of Stahle’s second review to Cook while requesting a second review from Cook.) Of course, this in itself is a violation of the “author’s eyes only” rule, even under the relatively lax version of it that Gavin later changed to. But, more importantly (at least for my original point), it re-establishes (after Gavin’s lame attempt to un-establish it) the fact that Briffa had no concern for the type of confidentiality that he was supposedly (according to Gavin) reminding Cook of when Briffa used the word “confidentially”.
I know, that’s a lot of work to get around Gavin’s lame excuse for Briffa’s use of the word “confidentially”. The excuse was patently absurd, and most people would just dismiss it out of hand. And ultimately, all that work was for naught because Gavin completely omitted that last half of my most recent post on RealClimate. Because he didn’t have an answer for my total destruction of his excuse for Briffa. I guess it’s no big newsflash for those who have, on occasion, posted comments on RealClimate that Gavin doesn’t allow comments there that make him, or his cohorts, or his AGW theory, look bad. But I just wanted to document the entire discussion (including those parts omitted by Gavin) here.
Regards,
Trevor

All I can add is that if you like Windows 7 and like the idea of Ubuntu, then you should try SuperOS. You can even upgrade your Ubuntu to SuperOS.
It is a modded version of Ubuntu, which does not quite feel like a Linux to use, and everything works, including wireless networking, printers, sound, Nvidia video card, USB, media files, DVDs, my Epson scanner, and everything else I have thrown at it so far. Most applications install more easily than Windows, using the package manager or AppRunner.
If you have the hardware to run Windows 7 or Vista, all that is needed for those windows apps, is to load VMware or Virtualbox and install a virtual XP or Windows 7 installation, and install your Windows applications there.
No need for a dual boot system, and the lovely double width workspace is really useful. And it is all free.

Thank you for the help.
Will this work in Windows 7?
There is another method to install software i.e. using safe mode. Just press the F8 key when you start your windows. You can also copy the CD to your hard disc and can run the install from set up. Try to run the install from your hard drive in safe mode and see if things work.
If you are still getting the problem to install software then you can just check the manufacturer details on the CD or can visit to the manufacturer’s site. Just get in touch with them over phone or can mail them at their e-mail address.
If you have just downloaded software from the manufacturer’s site then you can visit the site and ask for the trouble shooting. Some good manufacturing sites have message board where you can post your complaints and you will get the answer instantly by the experts.
Nowadays, one can see the number of pornographic, betting, gift offering websites cropping up. The people who have a PC at their places are a worried lot. They want to save their children from these sites ill effect. To counter this people use spyware software to keep a check on their child’s activity. As we all know in the adolescent age the chance of watching pornographic site is quite high and an alert guardian can not afford to ignore this act. Apart from this, there are number of sites where one can get the entire nuisance in the internet sites. However, the software alone can not play the roles of the guardian but definitely it can save a lot of damage. One can see the alert guardians using net nanny software to other spycam to keep a tab on their child. This will help them to keep a track of what they are doing and they could be warned before they fall into any trap. So one can install software and get rid of all their woes.