Blogosphere Entries
Recent Entries
Tech Analysis
PoliticsPosted 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
57 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?
Green Energy - Why NOT? continued...
135 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.
Knowing when to call it quits continued...
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.
Knowing when to call it quits continued...
261 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.
Windows Vista feeling the pain continued...
533 Views and 5 Comments
Posted November 26, 2007 by in General, Tech Analysis
It is time to once again install a dual boot system for me, I think.
I have been using Vista solely for business purposes for about 7 months or so now. It works great with the exception to reading drives or storage devices over the network.
Now that I have purchased Unreal Tournament III and Crysis, I think I have now decided to put XP back on just for purely gaming. UT III was jumpy and lagged some but Crysis runs good for everything so far but I think I may have had enough and need to see XP again. I am either going to install XP PRO N 32 bit or XP 64 Bit. Now remember this will be just for gaming.
In case you are wondering how this install will take place, I have a Sata 350gig and 400gig laying around so I am going to use my Sata 350 gig just for XP. I personally have had success with this upcoming way of installing XP after Vista. I am going to unplug all my drives except for the new drive. Install a fresh copy of XP on it and then plug my other two drives back in. Now my Vista, Data, and XP will be Channel 1, 2, and 3 respectively. I will change the boot.ini and then copy the three files necessary for XP to Vista root drive. Go into VistaBootPro and add the entry for XP system. Reboot and it all works. I have been very successful by doing a dual boot this way and it has worked the first time every time I have done it.
Any ideas or suggestions are welcome.
I have been using Vista solely for business purposes for about 7 months or so now. It works great with the exception to reading drives or storage devices over the network.
Now that I have purchased Unreal Tournament III and Crysis, I think I have now decided to put XP back on just for purely gaming. UT III was jumpy and lagged some but Crysis runs good for everything so far but I think I may have had enough and need to see XP again. I am either going to install XP PRO N 32 bit or XP 64 Bit. Now remember this will be just for gaming.
In case you are wondering how this install will take place, I have a Sata 350gig and 400gig laying around so I am going to use my Sata 350 gig just for XP. I personally have had success with this upcoming way of installing XP after Vista. I am going to unplug all my drives except for the new drive. Install a fresh copy of XP on it and then plug my other two drives back in. Now my Vista, Data, and XP will be Channel 1, 2, and 3 respectively. I will change the boot.ini and then copy the three files necessary for XP to Vista root drive. Go into VistaBootPro and add the entry for XP system. Reboot and it all works. I have been very successful by doing a dual boot this way and it has worked the first time every time I have done it.
Any ideas or suggestions are welcome.
340 Views and 0 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!
215 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
234 Views and 1 Comment
Posted November 16, 2007 by in General
The topic title says a lot. To begin with I am a high school teacher who teaches engineering at a local high school. I teach Design Egnineering, Principles of Engineering, and Digital Electronics. The students I teach are usually honors students or students who really want to learn.
Another note on the side is I am also a degreed Mechanical Engineer who worked in the industry for 17 years before accepting a teaching position. Therefore I have been around and know what is going on in the real world.
The students are eager to learn and I really enjoy teaching them. I enjoy sharing my real world experiences with them. The one major problem I have is when I try to teach the students; I find myself first having to teach something I learned in my 7th and 8th grade years in order to teach them the curriculum. Instead of being able to teach the topics of interest, I have to reach twice as much in order to teach the engineering topics.
I feel like that the teachers of math, science, and even English are not teaching at all. My sophmores through seniors do not even know what writing a paper APA style is; So I have to teach English. Just the other day I had to teach a junior what pathagorim theory was; I learned that in 8th grade.
The point I am trying to get to is we are supposed to be advancing and moving forward but yet I feel like we are moving backwards. The things we were taught in 8th grade should now be taught in 6th grade or earlier by now.
I am going to leave my thoughts at this, due to I do not have an answer for the problem. I do not figure many have the answer to it neither. I just wanted to voice this to the public in hopes of the next generation will be better. I am working on my next generation in the hope of a better education and hopefully a better life.
Another note on the side is I am also a degreed Mechanical Engineer who worked in the industry for 17 years before accepting a teaching position. Therefore I have been around and know what is going on in the real world.
The students are eager to learn and I really enjoy teaching them. I enjoy sharing my real world experiences with them. The one major problem I have is when I try to teach the students; I find myself first having to teach something I learned in my 7th and 8th grade years in order to teach them the curriculum. Instead of being able to teach the topics of interest, I have to reach twice as much in order to teach the engineering topics.
I feel like that the teachers of math, science, and even English are not teaching at all. My sophmores through seniors do not even know what writing a paper APA style is; So I have to teach English. Just the other day I had to teach a junior what pathagorim theory was; I learned that in 8th grade.
The point I am trying to get to is we are supposed to be advancing and moving forward but yet I feel like we are moving backwards. The things we were taught in 8th grade should now be taught in 6th grade or earlier by now.
I am going to leave my thoughts at this, due to I do not have an answer for the problem. I do not figure many have the answer to it neither. I just wanted to voice this to the public in hopes of the next generation will be better. I am working on my next generation in the hope of a better education and hopefully a better life.
226 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
236 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
295 Views and 1 Comment
Archived Blog Entries
-
October 31, 2007
-
October 24, 2007
-
October 03, 2007
-
October 03, 2007
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.
533 Views and 5 Comments
Posted November 26, 2007 by in General, Tech Analysis
It is time to once again install a dual boot system for me, I think.
I have been using Vista solely for business purposes for about 7 months or so now. It works great with the exception to reading drives or storage devices over the network.
Now that I have purchased Unreal Tournament III and Crysis, I think I have now decided to put XP back on just for purely gaming. UT III was jumpy and lagged some but Crysis runs good for everything so far but I think I may have had enough and need to see XP again. I am either going to install XP PRO N 32 bit or XP 64 Bit. Now remember this will be just for gaming.
In case you are wondering how this install will take place, I have a Sata 350gig and 400gig laying around so I am going to use my Sata 350 gig just for XP. I personally have had success with this upcoming way of installing XP after Vista. I am going to unplug all my drives except for the new drive. Install a fresh copy of XP on it and then plug my other two drives back in. Now my Vista, Data, and XP will be Channel 1, 2, and 3 respectively. I will change the boot.ini and then copy the three files necessary for XP to Vista root drive. Go into VistaBootPro and add the entry for XP system. Reboot and it all works. I have been very successful by doing a dual boot this way and it has worked the first time every time I have done it.
Any ideas or suggestions are welcome.
I have been using Vista solely for business purposes for about 7 months or so now. It works great with the exception to reading drives or storage devices over the network.
Now that I have purchased Unreal Tournament III and Crysis, I think I have now decided to put XP back on just for purely gaming. UT III was jumpy and lagged some but Crysis runs good for everything so far but I think I may have had enough and need to see XP again. I am either going to install XP PRO N 32 bit or XP 64 Bit. Now remember this will be just for gaming.
In case you are wondering how this install will take place, I have a Sata 350gig and 400gig laying around so I am going to use my Sata 350 gig just for XP. I personally have had success with this upcoming way of installing XP after Vista. I am going to unplug all my drives except for the new drive. Install a fresh copy of XP on it and then plug my other two drives back in. Now my Vista, Data, and XP will be Channel 1, 2, and 3 respectively. I will change the boot.ini and then copy the three files necessary for XP to Vista root drive. Go into VistaBootPro and add the entry for XP system. Reboot and it all works. I have been very successful by doing a dual boot this way and it has worked the first time every time I have done it.
Any ideas or suggestions are welcome.
340 Views and 0 Comments
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
236 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
295 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.
282 Views and 0 Comments
- Archived Blog Entries
-
No archived entries to date...
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?
135 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.
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.
261 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.
238 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!
247 Views and 0 Comments
- Archived Blog Entries
-
No archived entries to date...
All Recent News
Most Popular-
August 20, 2008 in Security NewsViewed 61 time with 0 comments
-
August 13, 2008 in Security NewsViewed 125 time with 0 comments
-
August 11, 2008 in Security NewsViewed 89 time with 0 comments
-
August 07, 2008 in Security NewsViewed 124 time with 0 comments
-
August 06, 2008 in Security NewsViewed 450 time with 0 comments
© 2008 PROnetworks and Hawaiian Style Organization LLC.
Feedback- |
Contact Us - |
RSS - |
About Us
