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?

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.

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 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.

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