So if the sea has been rising by 1.7 mm for the last 100 years, How does that coincide with global warming theory. Could this be explained by anything else? Underwater volcanic activity? Deposits from Rivers? etc.
It has been said that the Global temperature rising by 1-2 degrees? Average temperatures vary by more than that every year. Also 50 years ago without Digital thermometers the measurements could have been off by 1-2 degrees.
It is also a proven fact that temperatures are warmer within cities than outside of cities. They may try to take that into account when figuring out Global temperatures, but a Corn field from 50 years ago will be warmer now that it is paved and full of buildings. Remove the data from larger cities and your global warming becomes more of a regional warming. While other regions are getting cooler.
And how exactly is it that the ice caps are going to completely melt with a 1-2 degree change in temperature? If the temperature moves from -89 to -87 nothing is going to melt.
If all the glaciers are melting where is the rise in sea levels?
When the winters and summers are extra warm everyone blames Global warming. Why when it is extra cold can we not discount global warming?
Weather patterns are cyclical it will get warmer and it will get cooler. I would prefer warmer vs cooler.
I wish Global warming was more than just a fairy tale. I am sick and tired of shoveling snow. Last winter was the coldest winter in a long time. This winter is looking about the same. We have had about 2 feet of snow in the last 3 days.
Until free software does everything needed by every department there will still be a need to purchase software for each laptop.
1,000 laptops(1 per student) * $1000 = $10,000,000
Laptops cost more not just for the initial hardware, but also for the increased strain on the wireless infrastructure, Shorter lifespan, increased support time, Replacement batteries, dropped, spilled on, etc.
250 desktops * $1000 = $2,500,000
For 10,000 students a savings of 7.5 million sounds pretty good to me. Sure you can buy cheaper computers but then you usually pay more in support costs. Also with Cheaper laptops you will have a lower quality smaller screen which will not work well for those who are visually impaired. Users generally get more work done with a full keyboard and mouse as apposed to a laptop keyboard and touch pad.
There is still the need to manage Software, Antivirus, etc on the laptops that will be on your network. Unpatched laptops can spread viruses. Wireless networks would need to be upgraded. Most access points will not handle a hundred simultaneous connections. Many won't handle more than 16 without dropping packets.
Why don't we just have Government provide a laptop and free Internet to all US citizens? Just think how smart everyone in the US would be if they all had a nice new shiny laptop with High speed Internet. And Who cares if some would like to have a Mac Book, and some would like to have a Dell, or HP. The Government knows best and will make those decisions for you. And oh by the way to make this possible you will only be asked to increase your Federal income tax contributions by $2,000 per year.
Every Student can have a computer they just have to pay for it!
Why should Government provide a computer to each student?
Are students now days too good to used a shared computer in a computer lab?
I have never seen a Higher Education facility that didn't have enough Computers or a High speed internet connection.
Has anyone mentioned that computers are an extremely bad investment? In most cases after 5 years they are worth next to nothing, and past five years they are usually a liability. If Colleges are going to buy computers they should be in a computer lab that allows them to get full usage, instead of buying them for each student that will not use them for Class work from 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM.
With most Government entities running short on money, why waste it? Why borrow money to buy computers. The computers will be in the trash before they get paid off.
Many of the items you mention fall under the responsibilities of State and local Governments. The needs and wants of New York City will be much different than the needs and wants of a small farming community. As was shown in this presidential election most large metropolitan areas voted for Obama and bigger government, yet most rural communities voted against Obama and against larger Federal Government.
The county I live in has 7,933 square miles and the population density is 2 people per square mile. Compare that to New York City's 26,403 people per square mile. Many laws needed in New York are not needed where I live. There are many differences when it comes to pollution, crime, Guns, Welfare, schools, Gangs, Roads, wilderness etc.
Much that was left out of the constitution was left for the states to decide. If you don't like the laws in your state you can move to the next. If you don't like the high taxes in your state you can move to the next. When laws are made at the Federal level it makes it a little harder to just move to the next.
So which are more influential in creating distinct smells, genetics, diet, exercise, or environment? Is it impossible with billions of people on this planet to have 2 people with the exact same smell?
Animals seem to have the same distinct smell properties as they use their own scent to mark their territory.
Obama certainly didn't win with white votes because he only got 43% of those, vs 55% for McCain. It is pretty sad when Democrats can only win on the votes of people that don't consider the issues, but have voted traditionally for Democrats for decades.
Alan Keyes vs Obama I only see one wacko between those two. Go and read Obama's website he has promised money to every special interest group there is. You have to listen to what he says, not how he says it. His great plan for the economy is to take money from people that create jobs, run it through the Government and let it trickle back down into the hands of those that have shown how inept they are at making, and managing money.
I do not vote based on the color of ones skin. I voted for Alan Keyes in the 2000 presidential race and would have no problems with him as a black president. I do however have many issues with Obama and his socialist agenda. With Obama promising more than any other president I can remember it looks as if we now know which groups want a handout. There are certain groups that seem more likely to want Government to take care of them. Apparently the White Demographic prefers freedom to socialist bonds.
Still there is a big difference between 5% and 12% and I think it is clear that Obama does not have the full support of the largest demographic in the United States.
I voted for Alan Keyes in the 2000 primary, I don't have a problem with anyones skin color. I do however have to take issue with the media portraying Obama as a great unifier and a president elected by all, when the facts clearly show he was less popular among white voters.
Obama won with a landslide in the electoral college, but the popular vote was not really any better than Bush in 2004.
1992 Clinton 45 million 1996 Clinton 47 million 2000 Bush 50 million 2004 Bush 62 million 2008 Obama 65 million
Blacks, Hispanics, and other minorities voting overwhelmingly for a socialist that has promised them more handouts just seems like they might have just been voting for the candidate that will give the most handouts instead of the one with more experience. I know that is true of many of the Minorities I talked to.
The real loser in this election was the American values of work, and self reliance. They has been replace with Punishing those who succeed to give to those that don't work, can't manage their money, and want Government to fix all their problems.
If you would like to know what Obama plans to do just listen to what he has said, and then you can go read the exact same stuff in the communist manifesto. Obama is a marxist despite what you may hear just look at what he does. 4 years should be enough for anyone with a truly open mind to figure this out.
White privilege? What? Government gives out more money percentage wise to minorities than to white people. Freedoms apply to all, and now Obama will be increasing Government and restricting those freedoms for all.
Obama was running to steal money from those that have worked hard and earned it to give handouts to those that have not earned it.
95% of Blacks voted along racial lines. That sounds pretty racist to me.
How many presidents have lost the white vote by 12%? Just wait until all those black voters don't get their free houses and free gas and everything Obama promised everyone. I have never seen a candidate promise so much to so many. I suspect enthusiasm will not be as high in 4 years, when all he promised will have been just that with nothing more.
As for McCain he was despised among republicans, and only won the nomination of the party due to non Republicans voting in the Republican primary. I am happy to forget McCain even though he was the lesser of 2 evils.
"Press Favored Obama" Bet you won't see this on Nightline. It is amazing that you can have a major news outlet like ABC claiming to be "Unbiased" yet they put a former Clinton advisor like George Stephanapoulos in charge of grading the debates. Surprise they were all declared victories for the Democrats.
The main stream media will say Obama won because "Obama was more in touch with their concerns" must then realize that Obama lost among white voters 55% to 43% which puts Obama out of touch with the white majority in the United states.
The media was still mad at Bush because he beat their hand picked liberal republican candidate in 2000.
When it came time for the media to choose between Obama and McCain they decided in favor of the most liberal of the two. The media did not do their job, and they were not objective in their reporting of Obama. Their coverage of McCain was fair, but they did not want to damage in any way their favorite candidate Obama.
The media has since the election been talking non stop about this "historic" election and how Obama was the clear choice, and act as if everyone helped elect Obama. Failing to note that according to ABC exit polls Obama lost 55% to 43% among the white majority in the United States. Obama also received around 64 million votes compared to 62 million votes for Bush in 2004. In 2004 the media was not falling all over bush for his win. Instead the media was in shock because they expected Kerry to win.
If Obama's message did "strike a chord" as the media would have everyone believe then why according to ABC's own exit polls did Obama Lose among white voters 55% to 43%?
Obama received around 64 million votes. In 2004 Bush received just over 62 million votes. Listening to the media you would think that Obama had overwhelming support, yet he did not receive many more votes than Bush in 2004, and he lost by 12% among the Nations white majority.
Again the media has not mentioned that Obama outspent McCain 3 to 1. In 2004 the media was claiming that bush was buying the election with the money he spent. Obama spent more money than Bush and Kerry put together in 2004.
The media is so full of Obama they fail to mention that Obama LOST among white voters 55% to 43%. This election was more about race and Obama worship by the media than anything else. 95% of Black voters voted for Obama. This 12% loss among the majority race in the United states I think would be news worthy.
McCain's side felt they needed to go negative to point out all the negative aspects of an Obama presidency. I don't remember anything negative pointed out about Obama by the main stream media.
Obama didn't need to go negative because there was constant negative stories about McCain/Palin. And there was constant belittling of McCain/Palin on the late night talk shows. For a political figure I have never seen anyone get a pass on the late night shows like Obama.
Godwin's law was created by Socialists to discount any valid point of how their agenda is similar to the socialist/Nazi party of Hitler
Examples of things that would be shot down on Godwin's law without any real discussion:
Hitler was a great orator and due to his great speaking abilities had people doing exactly what he asked. Much like Obama is a great orator today and has asked the American people to drop their principals and become a socialist country.
Hitler killed those that were old, weak, and considered inferior. Kind of like what the governments of some socialist Governments have decided to do to keep down the costs of socialized medicine. Sounds like a good reason to go along with Obama's socialized medicine right?
Slashdot Mirror
So if the sea has been rising by 1.7 mm for the last 100 years, How does that coincide with global warming theory. Could this be explained by anything else? Underwater volcanic activity? Deposits from Rivers? etc.
Wow, that story about where snow comes from is almost as far fetched as global warming.
It has been said that the Global temperature rising by 1-2 degrees? Average temperatures vary by more than that every year. Also 50 years ago without Digital thermometers the measurements could have been off by 1-2 degrees.
It is also a proven fact that temperatures are warmer within cities than outside of cities. They may try to take that into account when figuring out Global temperatures, but a Corn field from 50 years ago will be warmer now that it is paved and full of buildings. Remove the data from larger cities and your global warming becomes more of a regional warming. While other regions are getting cooler.
And how exactly is it that the ice caps are going to completely melt with a 1-2 degree change in temperature? If the temperature moves from -89 to -87 nothing is going to melt.
If all the glaciers are melting where is the rise in sea levels?
When the winters and summers are extra warm everyone blames Global warming. Why when it is extra cold can we not discount global warming?
Weather patterns are cyclical it will get warmer and it will get cooler. I would prefer warmer vs cooler.
I wish Global warming was more than just a fairy tale. I am sick and tired of shoveling snow. Last winter was the coldest winter in a long time. This winter is looking about the same. We have had about 2 feet of snow in the last 3 days.
Laptops cost more and have a shorter life span.
Until free software does everything needed by every department there will still be a need to purchase software for each laptop.
1,000 laptops(1 per student) * $1000 = $10,000,000
Laptops cost more not just for the initial hardware, but also for the increased strain on the wireless infrastructure, Shorter lifespan, increased support time, Replacement batteries, dropped, spilled on, etc.
250 desktops * $1000 = $2,500,000
For 10,000 students a savings of 7.5 million sounds pretty good to me. Sure you can buy cheaper computers but then you usually pay more in support costs. Also with Cheaper laptops you will have a lower quality smaller screen which will not work well for those who are visually impaired. Users generally get more work done with a full keyboard and mouse as apposed to a laptop keyboard and touch pad.
There is still the need to manage Software, Antivirus, etc on the laptops that will be on your network. Unpatched laptops can spread viruses. Wireless networks would need to be upgraded. Most access points will not handle a hundred simultaneous connections. Many won't handle more than 16 without dropping packets.
Ah, the old "Yes we can" argument.
Why don't we just have Government provide a laptop and free Internet to all US citizens? Just think how smart everyone in the US would be if they all had a nice new shiny laptop with High speed Internet. And Who cares if some would like to have a Mac Book, and some would like to have a Dell, or HP. The Government knows best and will make those decisions for you. And oh by the way to make this possible you will only be asked to increase your Federal income tax contributions by $2,000 per year.
Every Student can have a computer they just have to pay for it!
Why should Government provide a computer to each student?
Are students now days too good to used a shared computer in a computer lab?
I have never seen a Higher Education facility that didn't have enough Computers or a High speed internet connection.
Has anyone mentioned that computers are an extremely bad investment? In most cases after 5 years they are worth next to nothing, and past five years they are usually a liability. If Colleges are going to buy computers they should be in a computer lab that allows them to get full usage, instead of buying them for each student that will not use them for Class work from 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM.
With most Government entities running short on money, why waste it? Why borrow money to buy computers. The computers will be in the trash before they get paid off.
Many of the items you mention fall under the responsibilities of State and local Governments. The needs and wants of New York City will be much different than the needs and wants of a small farming community. As was shown in this presidential election most large metropolitan areas voted for Obama and bigger government, yet most rural communities voted against Obama and against larger Federal Government.
The county I live in has 7,933 square miles and the population density is 2 people per square mile. Compare that to New York City's 26,403 people per square mile. Many laws needed in New York are not needed where I live. There are many differences when it comes to pollution, crime, Guns, Welfare, schools, Gangs, Roads, wilderness etc.
Much that was left out of the constitution was left for the states to decide. If you don't like the laws in your state you can move to the next. If you don't like the high taxes in your state you can move to the next. When laws are made at the Federal level it makes it a little harder to just move to the next.
Is there any group Obama didn't promise money to?
On his website he listed more spending and Govenment intervention as a fix for practically every problem.
I don't think Obama has seen a spending bill he didn't like so I am sure NASA will get their money.
That new Dell case looks real cool! It has to be an huge improvement over the GX270.
So which are more influential in creating distinct smells, genetics, diet, exercise, or environment? Is it impossible with billions of people on this planet to have 2 people with the exact same smell?
Animals seem to have the same distinct smell properties as they use their own scent to mark their territory.
Now are they going to go after the RIAA for price fixing?
Do identical twins put off the same odor?
The communist manifesto reads just like the Obama play book.
Obama is compared to Marx because he has the same ideas as Marx.
As for Palin she has more executive experience in Government than Obama, Biden, and McCain combined.
Obama certainly didn't win with white votes because he only got 43% of those, vs 55% for McCain. It is pretty sad when Democrats can only win on the votes of people that don't consider the issues, but have voted traditionally for Democrats for decades.
Alan Keyes vs Obama I only see one wacko between those two. Go and read Obama's website he has promised money to every special interest group there is. You have to listen to what he says, not how he says it. His great plan for the economy is to take money from people that create jobs, run it through the Government and let it trickle back down into the hands of those that have shown how inept they are at making, and managing money.
I do not vote based on the color of ones skin. I voted for Alan Keyes in the 2000 presidential race and would have no problems with him as a black president. I do however have many issues with Obama and his socialist agenda. With Obama promising more than any other president I can remember it looks as if we now know which groups want a handout. There are certain groups that seem more likely to want Government to take care of them. Apparently the White Demographic prefers freedom to socialist bonds.
Still there is a big difference between 5% and 12% and I think it is clear that Obama does not have the full support of the largest demographic in the United States.
I voted for Alan Keyes in the 2000 primary, I don't have a problem with anyones skin color. I do however have to take issue with the media portraying Obama as a great unifier and a president elected by all, when the facts clearly show he was less popular among white voters.
Obama won with a landslide in the electoral college, but the popular vote was not really any better than Bush in 2004.
1992 Clinton 45 million
1996 Clinton 47 million
2000 Bush 50 million
2004 Bush 62 million
2008 Obama 65 million
Has there ever been a President besides Clinton that was President without winning the White vote?
When Clinton won in 1996 he lost the White vote by 4%.
Obama lost the white vote by 12%
Obama won the election by 6%
He lost among white voters by a margin double his win margin overall in the popular vote.
And..... Kerry lost.
Blacks, Hispanics, and other minorities voting overwhelmingly for a socialist that has promised them more handouts just seems like they might have just been voting for the candidate that will give the most handouts instead of the one with more experience. I know that is true of many of the Minorities I talked to.
The real loser in this election was the American values of work, and self reliance. They has been replace with Punishing those who succeed to give to those that don't work, can't manage their money, and want Government to fix all their problems.
If you would like to know what Obama plans to do just listen to what he has said, and then you can go read the exact same stuff in the communist manifesto. Obama is a marxist despite what you may hear just look at what he does. 4 years should be enough for anyone with a truly open mind to figure this out.
White privilege? What? Government gives out more money percentage wise to minorities than to white people. Freedoms apply to all, and now Obama will be increasing Government and restricting those freedoms for all.
Obama was running to steal money from those that have worked hard and earned it to give handouts to those that have not earned it.
95% of Blacks voted along racial lines. That sounds pretty racist to me.
How many presidents have lost the white vote by 12%? Just wait until all those black voters don't get their free houses and free gas and everything Obama promised everyone. I have never seen a candidate promise so much to so many. I suspect enthusiasm will not be as high in 4 years, when all he promised will have been just that with nothing more.
As for McCain he was despised among republicans, and only won the nomination of the party due to non Republicans voting in the Republican primary. I am happy to forget McCain even though he was the lesser of 2 evils.
"Press Favored Obama" Bet you won't see this on Nightline. It is amazing that you can have a major news outlet like ABC claiming to be "Unbiased" yet they put a former Clinton advisor like George Stephanapoulos in charge of grading the debates. Surprise they were all declared victories for the Democrats.
The main stream media will say Obama won because "Obama was more in touch with their concerns" must then realize that Obama lost among white voters 55% to 43% which puts Obama out of touch with the white majority in the United states.
The media was still mad at Bush because he beat their hand picked liberal republican candidate in 2000.
When it came time for the media to choose between Obama and McCain they decided in favor of the most liberal of the two. The media did not do their job, and they were not objective in their reporting of Obama. Their coverage of McCain was fair, but they did not want to damage in any way their favorite candidate Obama.
The media has since the election been talking non stop about this "historic" election and how Obama was the clear choice, and act as if everyone helped elect Obama. Failing to note that according to ABC exit polls Obama lost 55% to 43% among the white majority in the United States. Obama also received around 64 million votes compared to 62 million votes for Bush in 2004. In 2004 the media was not falling all over bush for his win. Instead the media was in shock because they expected Kerry to win.
If Obama's message did "strike a chord" as the media would have everyone believe then why according to ABC's own exit polls did Obama Lose among white voters 55% to 43%?
Obama received around 64 million votes. In 2004 Bush received just over 62 million votes. Listening to the media you would think that Obama had overwhelming support, yet he did not receive many more votes than Bush in 2004, and he lost by 12% among the Nations white majority.
Again the media has not mentioned that Obama outspent McCain 3 to 1. In 2004 the media was claiming that bush was buying the election with the money he spent. Obama spent more money than Bush and Kerry put together in 2004.
The media is so full of Obama they fail to mention that Obama LOST among white voters 55% to 43%. This election was more about race and Obama worship by the media than anything else. 95% of Black voters voted for Obama. This 12% loss among the majority race in the United states I think would be news worthy.
McCain's side felt they needed to go negative to point out all the negative aspects of an Obama presidency. I don't remember anything negative pointed out about Obama by the main stream media.
Obama didn't need to go negative because there was constant negative stories about McCain/Palin. And there was constant belittling of McCain/Palin on the late night talk shows. For a political figure I have never seen anyone get a pass on the late night shows like Obama.
Godwin's law was created by Socialists to discount any valid point of how their agenda is similar to the socialist/Nazi party of Hitler
Examples of things that would be shot down on Godwin's law without any real discussion:
Hitler was a great orator and due to his great speaking abilities had people doing exactly what he asked. Much like Obama is a great orator today and has asked the American people to drop their principals and become a socialist country.
Hitler killed those that were old, weak, and considered inferior. Kind of like what the governments of some socialist Governments have decided to do to keep down the costs of socialized medicine. Sounds like a good reason to go along with Obama's socialized medicine right?