Posted July 27, 2008 by
http://www.pronetworks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=770803#770803
And I love that many of my plants are actually from Hawaii - one mail package at a time. Last trip we sent back 7 boxes (or 30lbs) of plants.
A few of the things I grow (many you won't usually find around here):
BANANA - Basjoo Banana, Dwarf (and Super Dwarf) Cavendish Banana, Pink Fruiting Banana, Abyssinian (False Red) Banana, and an unknown Hawaiian Banana.
GINGERS - Blue Ginger, Red Ginger, Torch Ginger, Kahili Ginger, Butterfly Ginger, Beehive Ginger, Elizabeth Ginger, Curcuma Elata Ginger, and Shampoo Ginger.
ELEPHANT EARS - Colocasia (Gigantia and Traditional), Alocasia (Odora and Macrorrhiza), Borneo Giant
PALMS - Christmas (Manila) Palm, Royal Palm, Majesty Palm, Windmill Palm, Sago Palm, Chinese Fan Palm, and Bottle Palm
BIRD OF PARADISE - Giant White Bird of Paradise, and Orange Bird of Paradise
TRAVELERS PALM - One of my favorites and I guarantee no one else has them (I have 12)
PLUMERIA - Various colors (Red, Yellow, Pink)
HAWAIIAN TI - Red and Green
HIBISCUS - Various types (Red, Yellow, Off White, etc)
HELICONIA - Various types (Parrots Beak, Lobster Claw, etc)
PHILODENDRON-LIKE - Pothos (lots of Pothos), Monstera Deliciosa, Tree Philodendron, Congo Green (and Moonlight). I'm especially proud of my very rare variegated Monstera.
CANNA - Banana Canna and the regulars (lots of them)
SCHEFFLERAS - Various types
BAMBOO - Various types (mostly clumping types)
HOSTAS/CROTONS - Various types
TREE FERNS - Australian Tree Ferns and Hawaiian Tree Fern
SUCCULENTS - Agave, Century Plant, and some giant Hawaiian Agave (literally as big as a house)
Problem is, I'm now running out of yard (I only have one undeveloped back corner to go). Might not be a bad thing, if my yard were any larger I'd probably go broke. Having these nice warm temps all year round would be nice too. Half this stuff has to move into my garage and/or greenhouse all winter. It's our own little paradise though... sorta
111 Views and 0 Comments
OK, perhaps I've missed something amongst the arguments and debate. But why NOT go green? I hear lots of arguments that are either for or against drilling, but no one seems to have an answer for why we should NOT go green. Kermit said it best, it's not easy being green. Darn right. But WHY?Here's my logic... tell me where I'm wrong.
We've been stuck on oil for well over 100 years now. It's a fossil fuel and that ultimately means it's a finite resource - in other words, it's going to run out, and likely sooner than later (within 100 years by most solid estimates). We also know that despite any global warming debate that it does put Carbon back in our atmosphere, and a lot of it. Most (note I said most) scientists now agree it's unnatural and likely is causing global warming, mostly in polar regions. It's complete effects are unknown, and it's up for a lot of debate. Regardless, we can all agree it puts Carbon (a known GHG) in our atmosphere at an unnatural rate. We know oil is becoming more and more expensive to both find, drill, and extract from the ground and deep ocean reserves. We also know for a FACT that if we did start off shore drilling and/or drilling in Alaska, it would take a MINIMUM of 5 years and as long as 10 years. Plus, there's plenty of folks on the oil business who say it's the lack of refineries that is the problem. Where do these suddenly pop up from? We build those too? The cost of such an endeavor (drilling, extracting, and refining) would be very costly, and who knows what the world economy will be in 5-10 years, and thus the demand and price of oil. You don't think China will be using more oil in 5-10 years? Are you kidding? Is that in our equation of supply and demand?
Oil also clearly requires our dependence on OTHER nations - and a lot of them are in the middle east. Look, it isn't a secret we're not making tons of friends there at the moment. Everyone seems to agree that we need energy independence, but it also seems a blatant fact we would not have anywhere near the oil needed to be self-sufficient, even if we drilled endlessly around this nation. Our demand is much larger than our supply (even our theoretical supply). There simply isn't enough oil in the ground to support our energy needs TODAY much less 30 years from now. Our energy needs will grow by up to 45% within 30 years; and that may be a conservative guess. We say we can increase our efficiency, but we've had 30 years to do it since the 70's and we didn't. Oil is old news. The United States in the Brer Rabbit and guess what the tar is?
In the middle of oil and true green there is nuclear. But many agree we only have so much space to put spent nuclear fuel (and no one wants it). Who can blame them, it's radioactive for MILLIONS of years. What happens when a big earthquake breaks open one of those underground vaults? Impossible? Worth the risk? We also know for a fact that penny for penny, nuclear is the most expensive energy to make per Watt. Nuclear plants also pose a huge security risk. I live within 40 miles of one, and honestly, it's scary even though I'm well outside the immediate danger zone.
So... with all that in mind. Lets look at true green energy (take your pick of solar, geothermal, wind, tidal, etc). We know for a FACT these sources of energy are INFINITE - or that they will not run out. We know for a FACT they produce NO emissions; so there would be no need to even debate environmental impact (other than a few environmentalist who have issues with the exact methods of each; i.e.; birds killed by wind turbines). We also know that we can start using green energy IMMEDIATELY. We also know green energy would make us truly independent with our energy needs, and that our oil/coal reserves could become a backup only. We'd never have to rely on foreign countries again for energy. If we spent the same money developing and installation green technologies as it would cost to drill and refine the oil we THINK is offshore and in Alaska, there's a good chance we could fuel the bulk of this country. With better technology, maybe ALL of this country. Many wind/solar proponents argue that the sun beat deserts of the southwest and open prairie of Montana and the Dakotas could power the United States TWICE. There's nothing out in these remote areas, and there likely never will be - so there's no sacrifice to real estate. The real issue is transporting that power over long distances. Again, one would assume like any good investment - that through time you discover new ways of doing things and ultimately hone them to a precise skill. In other words, we could likely find a lot more efficient ways to produce green power if and when we start using it more. Let good old capitalism play out in that market for a change, where everyone has a chance - not just big oil companies or foreign governments.So what am I missing? I don't want any more argument about why oil is better. I want to know why green energy isn't the solution. What's the problem with it and why is it NOT a smarter choice than oil?
200 Views and 0 Comments
Posted March 13, 2008 by in Politics
This story was written by Jonas Kane, The Villanovan
Even Mitt Romney knew when to hang it up.
The man who would say anything (see "double Guantanamo") realized it was best to say no more. His continued presence, he realized, would do nothing but hinder the transition of opponent John McCain into the Republican presidential nomination.
And now And now Hillary Clinton stands confronted with a similar predicament: How does she face admitting that the campaign to which she has dedicated her past year, the campaign that she was probably told she would easily win, is now merely a faded pipe dream?
Romney, for all the horrors born of his campaign, handled the decision with grace. John Edwards also chose to bow out and let his issues live on - which they have - rather than play the role of kingmaker at the Democratic National Convention.
Clinton cannot win the nomination through pledged delegates - the ones selected by the people - and would need a radical shift in support among unpledged delegates, coinciding with the seating of delegates from the unsanctioned primaries in Michigan and Florida, in order to win. To be blunt, she can only win if the process were to somehow overturn the will of the people.
Certainly supporters and her own feelings will tell her she can go on after her wins in Ohio and Texas. And she has every right to go on if she desires and thinks it best. But her internal drive and persistent campaigning will undeniably cloud her reasoning in this decision, especially following the euphoria of acceptance she experienced in Texas and Ohio last week.
It's hard not to consider the thought process going through her mind. In any other year, Clinton would almost certainly have been the nominee. She had the name recognition, the political machine and an increased Clinton nostalgia to go against the Bush fatigue.
But something happened along the way she hadn't prepared for, something that shattered her cloak of invincibility: a fresh face emerged, offering not only divergence from the current administration but also a step forward from the unproductive squabbling and fear-mongering of the past.
Blindsided, Clinton never offered a compelling rationale for her candidacy - "I'm in to win," she said at the start - and often found herself unable to recognize the immediate concerns of the people. Her continued inability to offer coherent positions on pressing issues such as NAFTA or Iraq has put her out of touch with voters. Her only remaining line of attack has been, well, attack, as seen by her baseless diatribes on who is best equipped to take an early morning phone call to deal with troubles in the world. (Though the answer, of course, is John McCain - older people tend to get up earliest).
Despite the faulty grounding from which her campaign rose, Clinton garnered significant support and has kept the race close enough to argue that she can continue.
But whom would she be helping? Certainly not herself or her husband, both of whose legacies are damaged by the intellectually hollow and malignantly divisive slander they have dished out like candy as a result of her eroding support. Certainly not her party, which stands to be hammered by internal strife should she seek to wrestle away the will of the popular vote.
Instead, Clinton should seek solace in the fact that, while she may not be destined to lead this country, she can continue to lead on the issues she cares about. Edwards, on exiting, ensured that his opponents would make combating poverty a renewed priority in their campaigns. Clinton could do the same. Her signature issue has clearly become health care, and as a senator, she could lead the push to ensure that all Americans, regardless of wealth, receive access to affordable coverage.
Or she could stay in the race, tarnishing her own legacy and damaging the prospects of Barack Obama, the candidate most likely toenact the changes she claims to want.
Behind her blind ambition, she must know which path to choose.
Even Mitt Romney knew when to hang it up.
The man who would say anything (see "double Guantanamo") realized it was best to say no more. His continued presence, he realized, would do nothing but hinder the transition of opponent John McCain into the Republican presidential nomination.
And now And now Hillary Clinton stands confronted with a similar predicament: How does she face admitting that the campaign to which she has dedicated her past year, the campaign that she was probably told she would easily win, is now merely a faded pipe dream?
Romney, for all the horrors born of his campaign, handled the decision with grace. John Edwards also chose to bow out and let his issues live on - which they have - rather than play the role of kingmaker at the Democratic National Convention.
Clinton cannot win the nomination through pledged delegates - the ones selected by the people - and would need a radical shift in support among unpledged delegates, coinciding with the seating of delegates from the unsanctioned primaries in Michigan and Florida, in order to win. To be blunt, she can only win if the process were to somehow overturn the will of the people.
Certainly supporters and her own feelings will tell her she can go on after her wins in Ohio and Texas. And she has every right to go on if she desires and thinks it best. But her internal drive and persistent campaigning will undeniably cloud her reasoning in this decision, especially following the euphoria of acceptance she experienced in Texas and Ohio last week.
It's hard not to consider the thought process going through her mind. In any other year, Clinton would almost certainly have been the nominee. She had the name recognition, the political machine and an increased Clinton nostalgia to go against the Bush fatigue.
But something happened along the way she hadn't prepared for, something that shattered her cloak of invincibility: a fresh face emerged, offering not only divergence from the current administration but also a step forward from the unproductive squabbling and fear-mongering of the past.
Blindsided, Clinton never offered a compelling rationale for her candidacy - "I'm in to win," she said at the start - and often found herself unable to recognize the immediate concerns of the people. Her continued inability to offer coherent positions on pressing issues such as NAFTA or Iraq has put her out of touch with voters. Her only remaining line of attack has been, well, attack, as seen by her baseless diatribes on who is best equipped to take an early morning phone call to deal with troubles in the world. (Though the answer, of course, is John McCain - older people tend to get up earliest).
Despite the faulty grounding from which her campaign rose, Clinton garnered significant support and has kept the race close enough to argue that she can continue.
But whom would she be helping? Certainly not herself or her husband, both of whose legacies are damaged by the intellectually hollow and malignantly divisive slander they have dished out like candy as a result of her eroding support. Certainly not her party, which stands to be hammered by internal strife should she seek to wrestle away the will of the popular vote.
Instead, Clinton should seek solace in the fact that, while she may not be destined to lead this country, she can continue to lead on the issues she cares about. Edwards, on exiting, ensured that his opponents would make combating poverty a renewed priority in their campaigns. Clinton could do the same. Her signature issue has clearly become health care, and as a senator, she could lead the push to ensure that all Americans, regardless of wealth, receive access to affordable coverage.
Or she could stay in the race, tarnishing her own legacy and damaging the prospects of Barack Obama, the candidate most likely toenact the changes she claims to want.
Behind her blind ambition, she must know which path to choose.
310 Views and 0 Comments
Posted March 12, 2008 by in Tech Analysis, Windows / Microsoft
Just how bad is Windows Vista really hurting? Maybe web trends can answer that. I've monitored several sites over the last 30 days that I have Analytics data on. Since I'm a webmaster, and I work as one professionally, I'm fortunate enough to have a wide array of sites to evaluate. Now I know Google Analytics has some flaws - but in general I believe it captures a decent picture. I am a fairly advanced PC user and I don't blog its data tools and I doubt more than 5% do. I also believe that most folks using XP and Vista are definitely using the internet, so my sampling should give a decent picture of the trends. So I'd estimate a 5% chance of error at best. Let's take a look at the statistics.
Tech Oriented News/Support Site. The demographic here is highly male and age is typically 20-45. Typically very intelligent crowd including casual visitors.
XP - 53.51%
Vista - 43.49%
Travel Oriented Site. The demographic here is mostly female, but not by much. Age is typically over 35. Typically very wealthy crowd.
XP - 81.76%
Vista - 13.72%
Television Station Site. The demographic here is varied amongst many age groups, but typically is more predominant amongst older adults. Visitors are usually well educated and somewhat wealthy.
XP - 83.13%
Vista - 12.59%
Education Portal. The demographic here is mostly schools, students, and teachers. The average age is like under 20. Visitors are split between male and female. Education is usually K-12.
XP - 88.96%
Vista - 7.06%
Even the tech oriented site (PROnetworks) is 10% in favor of XP. That honestly surprises me. But the landslide margin of XP to Vista on the other sites is really incredible. So I ask, just how much IS Vista really hurting? Apparently if you consider the above statistics across a wide demographic... it's hurting a lot.
651 Views and 5 Comments
Being a student of climate classes in college I can't help but wonder how NOAA got it so wrong the past two seasons. Granted no one could have seen El Nino (aka the 'Hurricane Killer') being a factor last year (and it was), but what about this year? Wait, that's right - there were a few major storms including some Categories 5's. Least we forget eh? Of course, none of the major storms hit the U.S., so the media and public mostly ignored them. And that's bad news for the U.S.
The last two years our nation has had a mindset about coastal safety much like we did about air safety following 9/11. Of course, fear subsides in time when no new threats keep you, shall we say, aware. The same way many folks now are aggravated by the security of flights - so too will they be aggravated by the government and meteorologists for their 'exaggerated' forecasts these last two years. No doubt some politically-driven folks will shout this is proof global warming is a scam or that science is yet again out to make a buck. These people are all narrow-minded; seeing only the short term picture.
Like I said... I'm not a student of meteorology, but climatology. Climatology looks at the long term records - the big picture if you will. And I can promise you that the lapse in activity these last two years is not a sign of anything other than sheer coincidence. It was by chance that El Nino formed in 2006, and basically pure luck that nothing major hit our borders in 2007. It could have been a lot worse. Consider for a moment the activity of these storms around the world (the big picture) and you'll find anything but a lull in activity.
No doubt many forecasters will feel the need to tame their forecasts next year because of this two-year 'drought' in activity. But I encourage them, in all seriousness, to stick to their guns and forecast what they feel is the true potential of activity in the Atlantic and Pacific basin. The weather guy on the local channel never says he's sorry when he forecasts rain for 5 days and then it's sunny... and it's because he goes by the data that's available. He (or she) makes the best guess. And we need that from the forecasters; their best guess. Hurricanes are not just a passing shower. They are storms that can destroy lives, families, industry, and whole economies. Anything less than a serious forecast could result in disaster. And I seriously hope that the public will heed their warnings each year; the same way we continue to tolerate security in the air. Neither is something we can become 'soft' on. Hopefully we've learned that lesson. Hopefully!
The last two years our nation has had a mindset about coastal safety much like we did about air safety following 9/11. Of course, fear subsides in time when no new threats keep you, shall we say, aware. The same way many folks now are aggravated by the security of flights - so too will they be aggravated by the government and meteorologists for their 'exaggerated' forecasts these last two years. No doubt some politically-driven folks will shout this is proof global warming is a scam or that science is yet again out to make a buck. These people are all narrow-minded; seeing only the short term picture.
Like I said... I'm not a student of meteorology, but climatology. Climatology looks at the long term records - the big picture if you will. And I can promise you that the lapse in activity these last two years is not a sign of anything other than sheer coincidence. It was by chance that El Nino formed in 2006, and basically pure luck that nothing major hit our borders in 2007. It could have been a lot worse. Consider for a moment the activity of these storms around the world (the big picture) and you'll find anything but a lull in activity.
No doubt many forecasters will feel the need to tame their forecasts next year because of this two-year 'drought' in activity. But I encourage them, in all seriousness, to stick to their guns and forecast what they feel is the true potential of activity in the Atlantic and Pacific basin. The weather guy on the local channel never says he's sorry when he forecasts rain for 5 days and then it's sunny... and it's because he goes by the data that's available. He (or she) makes the best guess. And we need that from the forecasters; their best guess. Hurricanes are not just a passing shower. They are storms that can destroy lives, families, industry, and whole economies. Anything less than a serious forecast could result in disaster. And I seriously hope that the public will heed their warnings each year; the same way we continue to tolerate security in the air. Neither is something we can become 'soft' on. Hopefully we've learned that lesson. Hopefully!
257 Views and 0 Comments
Posted November 17, 2007 by in Google
Saw this at PRO Blogger (not related to this site)
I have to admit... I've also noticed the change. How about the rest of you? The only good thing about this might be the fact Google's Adwords advertisers (which I'm one of by the way) will pay more per hit. After all, this cuts way back on accidental clicks by users.
Read more and view samples of the new clickable regions: Here
Read Google's official announcement: Here
"Yesterday it was revealed that AdSense were making the clickable portions of their Ad Units Smaller. Today we’re seeing these changes rolling out on different publishers sites. It seems that this means different things for different ad unit sizes. For example 468×60 and 234×60 ad units still seem clickable on the text of ads - perhaps because they don’t have a URL on these ads. All other ad units that I’ve seen just have the title and URL clickable.
So my question to you is - have you noticed any decreases in CTR yet?
We probably won’t see the full impact of the changes in today’s earning results as they’ve been rolling out during the day - but my own CTR is lower today than any other day for this month. Having said this - I’ve had lower days (2 were lower in October) - so I won’t really know what impact it’s had for a few days as things do tend to rise and fall."
I have to admit... I've also noticed the change. How about the rest of you? The only good thing about this might be the fact Google's Adwords advertisers (which I'm one of by the way) will pay more per hit. After all, this cuts way back on accidental clicks by users.
Read more and view samples of the new clickable regions: Here
Read Google's official announcement: Here
282 Views and 1 Comment
Posted November 06, 2007 by in General, Tech Analysis
Quick, name the 5 largest companies in the world...
Chances are you got at least two of the five right if you surf this site regularly. Microsoft ranks in at number 3 with a market value of $272,912 billion and AT&T ranks in at number 5 with a market value of $246,202 billion. The other three you'd likely nod and say, "Of course" when told, but you might not think of them immediately. In fact, I was rather surprised I completely missed number two, at least until I heard the conglomerate's name, General Electric (GE) - market value: $363,611 billion.
So who's number one? In today's world it's likely no surprise that Exxon Mobile is numero uno with a market value of $429,567 billion dollars. $377.6 billion of that came alone last year in profits. Let that sink in for a second. And speaking of profits, one has to wonder how long Microsoft will retain its lofty ranking. Of the top ten companies in the world, it was 9th in profit last year - second (worst) to only China's national bank. Granted the $51 billion Microsoft earned isn't chump change, but it's certainly a sign of changing times.
Oh and I know, I know you're thinking Google's like number six right. LOL, guess again. Thinking top 20? Keep guessing! Top 50? Nope!
Google surprisingly (or not) ranks in at number 51, with a market value of $105,421. Profits last year only accumulated to around $10 billion. But kudos to finishing one spot ahead of Pepsi Google.
Here's a few more stats that may surprise you in their rankings.
Even though 4 out of the 5 richest people in the world are related to Sam Walton, Wal-mart ranks in at number 14 with a market value of $193,643. But keep in mind Wal-mart also made $351 billion last year. That's more than it's worth!! Guess all those employees add up.
Of the top 25 in the world... six are Oil and Gas companies, six more are Health or Insurance companies (or both), and another six are banking related. Kinda makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside don't it? Only ONE company in the top 25 is a automotive company - Toyota. This just in, "I'm sorry, GE and Ford who?"
IBM (31) isn't even in the top 30, and Coca-cola (44) is just barely in the top 45. Verizon debuts at number 45, a far far cry behind rival AT&T (5) - "can you hear me now?"
Intel is number 46, and just for grins...skipping a few... the 100th company is Canon. Even Home Depot (97) beat them out.
Oh, and in case it pissed you off I left out number 4 earlier - it's Citigroup (bank) . No snub was intended.
Interesting stuff. This list is current as of March 2007. A new list is likely to be published early next year.
View more at this Wiki page
Chances are you got at least two of the five right if you surf this site regularly. Microsoft ranks in at number 3 with a market value of $272,912 billion and AT&T ranks in at number 5 with a market value of $246,202 billion. The other three you'd likely nod and say, "Of course" when told, but you might not think of them immediately. In fact, I was rather surprised I completely missed number two, at least until I heard the conglomerate's name, General Electric (GE) - market value: $363,611 billion.
So who's number one? In today's world it's likely no surprise that Exxon Mobile is numero uno with a market value of $429,567 billion dollars. $377.6 billion of that came alone last year in profits. Let that sink in for a second. And speaking of profits, one has to wonder how long Microsoft will retain its lofty ranking. Of the top ten companies in the world, it was 9th in profit last year - second (worst) to only China's national bank. Granted the $51 billion Microsoft earned isn't chump change, but it's certainly a sign of changing times.
Oh and I know, I know you're thinking Google's like number six right. LOL, guess again. Thinking top 20? Keep guessing! Top 50? Nope!
Google surprisingly (or not) ranks in at number 51, with a market value of $105,421. Profits last year only accumulated to around $10 billion. But kudos to finishing one spot ahead of Pepsi Google.
Here's a few more stats that may surprise you in their rankings.
Even though 4 out of the 5 richest people in the world are related to Sam Walton, Wal-mart ranks in at number 14 with a market value of $193,643. But keep in mind Wal-mart also made $351 billion last year. That's more than it's worth!! Guess all those employees add up.
Of the top 25 in the world... six are Oil and Gas companies, six more are Health or Insurance companies (or both), and another six are banking related. Kinda makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside don't it? Only ONE company in the top 25 is a automotive company - Toyota. This just in, "I'm sorry, GE and Ford who?"
IBM (31) isn't even in the top 30, and Coca-cola (44) is just barely in the top 45. Verizon debuts at number 45, a far far cry behind rival AT&T (5) - "can you hear me now?"
Intel is number 46, and just for grins...skipping a few... the 100th company is Canon. Even Home Depot (97) beat them out.
Oh, and in case it pissed you off I left out number 4 earlier - it's Citigroup (bank) . No snub was intended.
Interesting stuff. This list is current as of March 2007. A new list is likely to be published early next year.
View more at this Wiki page
292 Views and 1 Comment
Posted November 05, 2007 by in Google, Tech Analysis
If you've noticed a drop in your website's page rank lately, you're not alone. PROnetworks and many other sites, including the Washington Post, Forbes, and others have watched their Page Rank (PR) go backwards. Luckily, PRO only dropped a notch from 6 to 5, but others were hit a lot harder, some as many as 4 page rank spots.
Take a look at some of the major sites affected:
Source
Read More Here
Take a look at some of the major sites affected:
· http://www.washingtonpost.com/ PR7 to PR5
· http://www.forbes.com/ PR7 to PR5
· http://www.suntimes.com/ PR7 to PR5
· http://www.sfgate.com/ PR7 to PR5
· http://www.statcounter.com/ PR10 to PR6
· http://www.masternewmedia.org/ PR7 to PR4
· http://www.autoblog.com/ PR6 to PR4
· http://www.pro-networks.org PR6 to PR5
· http://www.engadget.com/ PR7 to PR5
· http://www.problogger.net/ PR6 to PR4
· http://www.copyblogger.com/ PR6 to PR4
· http://www.joystiq.com/ PR6 to PR4
· http://www.tuaw.com/ PR6 to PR4
· http://www.searchengineguide.com/ PR7 to PR4
· http://www.searchenginejournal.com/ PR7 to PR4
· http://www.johnchow.com/ PR6 to PR4
· http://www.quickonlinetips.com/ PR6 to PR3
· http://weblogtoolscollection.com/ PR6 to PR4
· http://andybeard.eu/ PR5 to PR3
· http://www.seroundtable.com/ PR7 to PR4
· http://www.blogherald.com/ PR6 to PR4
Source
Read More Here
371 Views and 1 Comment
Posted October 31, 2007 by in Tech Analysis, Windows / Microsoft
Earlier I read a Blog at CNET Networks that very much reflected my own thoughts.
As many of you are aware, I think Windows Vista is a blunder. And with its annoying UAC system and horrifically slow operation, it won't take long before the majority of home users agree with me. If the recent figures showing Mac OS X is already gaining market share is any indication of the future, look for Leopard to outsell Vista by a staggering margin.
Simply put, Mac OS X Leopard is one of the most significant operating system achievements we have witnessed in years. Not only does it add functionality that Microsoft could only have dreamed of, it does so in a snappy environment that doesn't annoy you with pop-ups asking for permission or all of those security threats we have come to know (and hate) in Windows.
But my belief that Vista will soon bow to Leopard goes far beyond the operating system itself. In fact, the major reason Vista will succumb to Mac OS X has little to do with Apple, but quite a bit to do with Microsoft's current focus. Regardless of where you stand on the issue, one thing is abundantly clear: Microsoft fears Google and is doing everything it can to become the Google slayer instead of competing in its core business--software.
The company is on a slippery slope, and to be quite honest, I don't think it can get off too easily.
As many of you are aware, I think Windows Vista is a blunder. And with its annoying UAC system and horrifically slow operation, it won't take long before the majority of home users agree with me. If the recent figures showing Mac OS X is already gaining market share is any indication of the future, look for Leopard to outsell Vista by a staggering margin.
Simply put, Mac OS X Leopard is one of the most significant operating system achievements we have witnessed in years. Not only does it add functionality that Microsoft could only have dreamed of, it does so in a snappy environment that doesn't annoy you with pop-ups asking for permission or all of those security threats we have come to know (and hate) in Windows.
But my belief that Vista will soon bow to Leopard goes far beyond the operating system itself. In fact, the major reason Vista will succumb to Mac OS X has little to do with Apple, but quite a bit to do with Microsoft's current focus. Regardless of where you stand on the issue, one thing is abundantly clear: Microsoft fears Google and is doing everything it can to become the Google slayer instead of competing in its core business--software.
The company is on a slippery slope, and to be quite honest, I don't think it can get off too easily.
338 Views and 0 Comments
Posted October 24, 2007 by in Politics
I was reading my local newspaper on Monday afternoon, and one reader has written in to sharply criticize the Nobel committee for awarding Al Gore their prestigious award. He went on to say how GW (Global Warming) was a hoax and liberal propaganda. Having studied climatology in college and been an avid fan of research on it since those days, I felt obligated to respond. My response was printed in 'The State' today:
"It never ceases to amaze me just how blissful ignorance must really be. Christopher Lampman must have been on cloud nine when he wrote his letter about how Al Gore’s recent award has tarnished the Nobel Peace Prize.
At what point will society wake up and realize that our environmental issues are not a political problem, not some left-wing tree-hugging propaganda and not an economic constraint but a very real, very serious world problem?
How daft are we as a society that the pieces can’t be logically put together in our minds?
You extract tons of carbon from the Earth, burn it and expect its presence in the atmosphere to mean nothing?
Regardless of the Earth’s natural cycles of warming and cooling, man has tipped the scales, and eventually we’re going to see how far. The evidence of warming we see today is thanks to the ignorance of two generations ago.
This climate “sham” is about to become very real indeed for future generations. Whatever happened to environmental responsibility and taking care of our only home? As Winston Churchill said, “The price of greatness is responsibility.”
It’s about time we faced that truth. Kudos to Mr. Gore for his efforts.
JOHN DERRICK"
I sincerely hope that we can all move beyond this stage of wearing blinders. It's easy to get caught up in the storm of hype, no doubt. But it's also foolish to ignore the findings of thousands of scientists. While some scientists will always be about fame, glory, and headlines - there are countless others who are very serious and dedicated to their work. To ignore their findings is incredibly ignorant on our part - and eventually, it'll be downright stupid. We take so many things on faith in this world - yet we ignore and dispute the evidence of science until it's so blatantly clear we can no longer deny it. I will never fully understand our species... but, after all, we did once live on a flat planet that was the center of the universe.
"It never ceases to amaze me just how blissful ignorance must really be. Christopher Lampman must have been on cloud nine when he wrote his letter about how Al Gore’s recent award has tarnished the Nobel Peace Prize.
At what point will society wake up and realize that our environmental issues are not a political problem, not some left-wing tree-hugging propaganda and not an economic constraint but a very real, very serious world problem?
How daft are we as a society that the pieces can’t be logically put together in our minds?
You extract tons of carbon from the Earth, burn it and expect its presence in the atmosphere to mean nothing?
Regardless of the Earth’s natural cycles of warming and cooling, man has tipped the scales, and eventually we’re going to see how far. The evidence of warming we see today is thanks to the ignorance of two generations ago.
This climate “sham” is about to become very real indeed for future generations. Whatever happened to environmental responsibility and taking care of our only home? As Winston Churchill said, “The price of greatness is responsibility.”
It’s about time we faced that truth. Kudos to Mr. Gore for his efforts.
JOHN DERRICK"
I sincerely hope that we can all move beyond this stage of wearing blinders. It's easy to get caught up in the storm of hype, no doubt. But it's also foolish to ignore the findings of thousands of scientists. While some scientists will always be about fame, glory, and headlines - there are countless others who are very serious and dedicated to their work. To ignore their findings is incredibly ignorant on our part - and eventually, it'll be downright stupid. We take so many things on faith in this world - yet we ignore and dispute the evidence of science until it's so blatantly clear we can no longer deny it. I will never fully understand our species... but, after all, we did once live on a flat planet that was the center of the universe.
291 Views and 1 Comment
Posted October 03, 2007 by in Politics
I tell you, American politics never ceases to amaze me and it certainly never gets boring. Living my whole life in the south I've had to listen to plenty of groups holler (that means rant and rave down here) about succeeding from the Union. In fact, lots of folks in the fine state I call home (South Carolina) swear we never even rejoined the Union after the Civil War. Being the *gasp* liberal that I am, I've quite frankly never understood this mindset and I find it ridiculous. But...
Apparently crazy exists on both sides of the fence. Now left wingers (those liberals) in Vermont want to succeed to. And the shared cause has brought the two groups together in what must be the strangest marriage of cooperation I've ever seen in my life. Mr. White Supremest... meet Mr. Hippie. I'm sure those meetings aren't uncomfortable or anything. *yikes*
This whole subject seems to be taking the nation by storm too. Some 25 states now have official secession groups. Even my beloved Hawaii and Alaska have several groups fighting for independence, though of all the states they might both have the best argument (Hawaii's kingdom actually was illegal overthrown by the US military, and many Alaska groups never have wanted to be in the US). But money and strategery (Bushism) talks and I doubt the US government's going to let those two go anytime soon.
I think the ultimately point is... we may not always like our government. We may not like our leaders, and we might not like their decisions. But that's why we vote. Granted I'm completely in the crowd of folks who point and shout and say "Only millionaires become president and that's a problem." I, like a lot of you, want to b*tch slap the American public to wake up and elect the BEST leader for this nation (not themselves, not their state, the nation). We are stronger together than alone. This whole concept of live together die alone isn't going to work in America. We're either together as a country, or we aren't. So many people in this country are hung up on the tragedy of 9/11 that they still live there, in fear. Now they want to start WWIII and bomb Iran. Others can only see the Iraq war and have forgotten about the real fight in Afghanistan; they forget pulling out completely won't work, not even in Iraq at this point. We should never forget 9/11, but we must move on to a 9/12 world... where life goes on, and we need to get back what made American great - working together. We've become the United States of Fighting Terrorism, but unfortunately the word terrorism has been warped into a hideous monster. You're either a hawk or a dove and you get labeled a pissed off redneck or a traitor. How'd we come to this? How'd we come to secession groups?
People, listen up. In 13 months you get a choice to change the direction of this country. You can vote anyway you want, for anyone you want - hell, you don't even have to vote for the guy on the ballot. But whatever you do, vote. Stop fighting with your neighbors, stop arguing with your coworkers, and stop emailing and calling your senators (who I think we all agree do little or nothing). Put your efforts into getting every single last person you know to vote - for the country, for what we want for. No far left wing president is going to work any better than a far right one. No liberal senator is going to represent this nation better than a bible-thumper from the right. No, we must find the common ground, the common leader, and join together as one. You want to send someone who represents your individual values, then vote them into the House. But the Senate and the White House need to be bipartisan. This do nothing government train has to stop. We have to make change happen next year.
And then... in another 4 or 8 years, we do it again. But we've ceased to be United. And it doesn't have to be that way!
Apparently crazy exists on both sides of the fence. Now left wingers (those liberals) in Vermont want to succeed to. And the shared cause has brought the two groups together in what must be the strangest marriage of cooperation I've ever seen in my life. Mr. White Supremest... meet Mr. Hippie. I'm sure those meetings aren't uncomfortable or anything. *yikes*
This whole subject seems to be taking the nation by storm too. Some 25 states now have official secession groups. Even my beloved Hawaii and Alaska have several groups fighting for independence, though of all the states they might both have the best argument (Hawaii's kingdom actually was illegal overthrown by the US military, and many Alaska groups never have wanted to be in the US). But money and strategery (Bushism) talks and I doubt the US government's going to let those two go anytime soon.
I think the ultimately point is... we may not always like our government. We may not like our leaders, and we might not like their decisions. But that's why we vote. Granted I'm completely in the crowd of folks who point and shout and say "Only millionaires become president and that's a problem." I, like a lot of you, want to b*tch slap the American public to wake up and elect the BEST leader for this nation (not themselves, not their state, the nation). We are stronger together than alone. This whole concept of live together die alone isn't going to work in America. We're either together as a country, or we aren't. So many people in this country are hung up on the tragedy of 9/11 that they still live there, in fear. Now they want to start WWIII and bomb Iran. Others can only see the Iraq war and have forgotten about the real fight in Afghanistan; they forget pulling out completely won't work, not even in Iraq at this point. We should never forget 9/11, but we must move on to a 9/12 world... where life goes on, and we need to get back what made American great - working together. We've become the United States of Fighting Terrorism, but unfortunately the word terrorism has been warped into a hideous monster. You're either a hawk or a dove and you get labeled a pissed off redneck or a traitor. How'd we come to this? How'd we come to secession groups?
People, listen up. In 13 months you get a choice to change the direction of this country. You can vote anyway you want, for anyone you want - hell, you don't even have to vote for the guy on the ballot. But whatever you do, vote. Stop fighting with your neighbors, stop arguing with your coworkers, and stop emailing and calling your senators (who I think we all agree do little or nothing). Put your efforts into getting every single last person you know to vote - for the country, for what we want for. No far left wing president is going to work any better than a far right one. No liberal senator is going to represent this nation better than a bible-thumper from the right. No, we must find the common ground, the common leader, and join together as one. You want to send someone who represents your individual values, then vote them into the House. But the Senate and the White House need to be bipartisan. This do nothing government train has to stop. We have to make change happen next year.
And then... in another 4 or 8 years, we do it again. But we've ceased to be United. And it doesn't have to be that way!
312 Views and 0 Comments
Posted October 03, 2007 by in Social Networking
Say what?
Yes, I'm saying it now, ahead of time, and getting it in writing so no one can refute me in a few years when I boldly say, "Well I said that would happen a year ago." Social networking will die! Call it a hunch, or just gut instinct, but I've seen this all before and it's too deja vu for me. Some of you probably can see my logic, even without hearing my reasons, and others I'm sure think I've lost my mind.
It's like saying Google will fail - and no, I don't think they will. But I did think they'd get *this* big and I, like all of us who knew that, I should have bought stock. Still kicking myself for that; but hey, I was in my first years of college and money didn't grow on trees for stock investment. Sure it's easy to say that now - I didn't put it in writing and I can't be refuted. So again, that's the purpose of this post. Social Networking will die!
There's a few good reasons for this, but mostly - people just aren't going to give a hoot what you, your girlfriend, your dog, or your bar buddies did last weekend for that much longer. No, seriously - we do NOT care. Most of us don't care already, but since you guys love to catch the headlines on rare occasions with your missteps in life (how obsessed is this country with nudity still, I mean really?) we can't help but get dragged along. OK, so not all of us with MySpace, Facebook, whatever.com accounts have a naughty picture lurking around the web or skeletons hanging in our closets. Sure we love chatting with our friends and staying in touch. But how long does this last before the next thing comes along? I remember a time with Instant Messenger ruled the days of chatting; now it's going the way of the Dodo thanks to Social Networking and cell phone texting (which is something else I must not be in tune with...OMG it's NBD - just call them!).
Don't get me wrong, instant messaging is by no means dead or gone, but it's certainly not what it used to be. Social Networking is also probably not even at its prime yet, but it's getting close, and ultimately I think something new will draw the crowds away. I'm sure that seems like a blatantly obvious observation, but technology trends make this change fast, faster than we probably expect. Just ask any landlane phone company how cell phones have affected them. Ask any newspaper how the internet has hurt their bottom line. Global business is local business in today's world.
I genuinely believe that people will loose interest in reading every personal detail of everyone else's life within the next year or two. This system can't sustain itself for that long - or at least I sure hope it can't. Whatever happened to privacy? Whatever happened to protecting kids from the predators that lurk around the net? Believe me, if we don't shift away from these sites on our own, Big Brother will probably help the cause in the long run. Just this week Facebook got caught up in more legal woes over it's failure to protect kids. Granted MySpace is ten times worse, but that's only further making my case.
So when this great shift happens, what's next? Hrm, if I knew I'd already be working on it. But if I had to guess, it'll be more about user-created content, including how we search the web. The Digg.com model I believe has great potential to let users shape the internet how they want to see it. Logically what other people are interested in likely will appeal to me too. Not always, but most of the time. If we can rid the exploits of this model, I think it has great potential. I think as we care less about what everyone else is doing, or about posting our ridiculous videos and photos online that we'll ultimately care about what we really need from the internet - information. In a lot of ways the internet has turned into a giant toy with social networking. But as it progresses, it also becomes more of a joke. And young people don't stay interested in things like this but for so long. I predict that as time goes on, we'll continue to see more of this social networking for a while, but that ultimately the web will resort to a tool for information. It'll always be a way to connect with other people, but I believe the next 'best thing' is just around the corner - waiting to be the silver bullet to Social Networking sites. If there's one thing about technology we must not forget, it comes and goes like the wind. So do our interests. Technological Darwinism at its finest. Maybe the first OS built completely integrated into the web will be the next spark.
Yes, I'm saying it now, ahead of time, and getting it in writing so no one can refute me in a few years when I boldly say, "Well I said that would happen a year ago." Social networking will die! Call it a hunch, or just gut instinct, but I've seen this all before and it's too deja vu for me. Some of you probably can see my logic, even without hearing my reasons, and others I'm sure think I've lost my mind.
It's like saying Google will fail - and no, I don't think they will. But I did think they'd get *this* big and I, like all of us who knew that, I should have bought stock. Still kicking myself for that; but hey, I was in my first years of college and money didn't grow on trees for stock investment. Sure it's easy to say that now - I didn't put it in writing and I can't be refuted. So again, that's the purpose of this post. Social Networking will die!
There's a few good reasons for this, but mostly - people just aren't going to give a hoot what you, your girlfriend, your dog, or your bar buddies did last weekend for that much longer. No, seriously - we do NOT care. Most of us don't care already, but since you guys love to catch the headlines on rare occasions with your missteps in life (how obsessed is this country with nudity still, I mean really?) we can't help but get dragged along. OK, so not all of us with MySpace, Facebook, whatever.com accounts have a naughty picture lurking around the web or skeletons hanging in our closets. Sure we love chatting with our friends and staying in touch. But how long does this last before the next thing comes along? I remember a time with Instant Messenger ruled the days of chatting; now it's going the way of the Dodo thanks to Social Networking and cell phone texting (which is something else I must not be in tune with...OMG it's NBD - just call them!).
Don't get me wrong, instant messaging is by no means dead or gone, but it's certainly not what it used to be. Social Networking is also probably not even at its prime yet, but it's getting close, and ultimately I think something new will draw the crowds away. I'm sure that seems like a blatantly obvious observation, but technology trends make this change fast, faster than we probably expect. Just ask any landlane phone company how cell phones have affected them. Ask any newspaper how the internet has hurt their bottom line. Global business is local business in today's world.
I genuinely believe that people will loose interest in reading every personal detail of everyone else's life within the next year or two. This system can't sustain itself for that long - or at least I sure hope it can't. Whatever happened to privacy? Whatever happened to protecting kids from the predators that lurk around the net? Believe me, if we don't shift away from these sites on our own, Big Brother will probably help the cause in the long run. Just this week Facebook got caught up in more legal woes over it's failure to protect kids. Granted MySpace is ten times worse, but that's only further making my case.
So when this great shift happens, what's next? Hrm, if I knew I'd already be working on it. But if I had to guess, it'll be more about user-created content, including how we search the web. The Digg.com model I believe has great potential to let users shape the internet how they want to see it. Logically what other people are interested in likely will appeal to me too. Not always, but most of the time. If we can rid the exploits of this model, I think it has great potential. I think as we care less about what everyone else is doing, or about posting our ridiculous videos and photos online that we'll ultimately care about what we really need from the internet - information. In a lot of ways the internet has turned into a giant toy with social networking. But as it progresses, it also becomes more of a joke. And young people don't stay interested in things like this but for so long. I predict that as time goes on, we'll continue to see more of this social networking for a while, but that ultimately the web will resort to a tool for information. It'll always be a way to connect with other people, but I believe the next 'best thing' is just around the corner - waiting to be the silver bullet to Social Networking sites. If there's one thing about technology we must not forget, it comes and goes like the wind. So do our interests. Technological Darwinism at its finest. Maybe the first OS built completely integrated into the web will be the next spark.
466 Views and 4 Comments
Archived Blog Entries by JCDerrick
-
No archived entries to date...
Recent News-
October 06, 2008
-
October 06, 2008
-
October 06, 2008
-
October 06, 2008
-
October 06, 2008
© 2008 PROnetworks and Hawaiian Style Organization LLC.
Feedback- |
Contact Us - |
RSS - |
About Us
