Computer Advertising from the beginning

January 31, 2007 at 8:41 am | Posted in Apple Inc, One-liner | Leave a comment

This is a link to a site that has many videos of personal computer advertising from the beginning.

Advertisements

PodTech:Intel says goodbye to Silicon Dioxide in new 45 nanometer fab

January 30, 2007 at 8:52 am | Posted in Apple Inc, One-liner | Leave a comment

Another video describing performance
of these new chips.

[podtech content=http://media.podtech.net/media/2007/01/PID_010055/Podtech_Intel_45NM_part1.flv&postURL=http://www.podtech.net/scobleshow/technology/1329/intel-says-goodbye-to-silicon-dioxide-in-new-45-nanometer-fab&totalTime=2421000&breadcrumb=3F34K2L1]

PodTech:Intel Says 45 Nanometer Microprocessors Due Later This Year

January 30, 2007 at 8:48 am | Posted in Apple Inc, One-liner | Leave a comment

Here is a video of Intel and its labs. Apple will be using these chips.

[podtech content=http://media.podtech.net/media/2007/01/PID_001917/Podtech_Intel45nM_revised.flv&postURL=http://www.podtech.net/home/technology/1971/intel-says-45-nanometer-microprocessors-due-later-this-year&totalTime=520000&breadcrumb=3F34K2L1]

Federal Minimum Wage Disinformation

January 26, 2007 at 11:16 am | Posted in Hold that line!, Laying it the line ;-), One-liner | Leave a comment

From the Wall Street Journal via Say Anything:

The strong bipartisan support for increasing the federal minimum wage to $7.25 an hour from the current $5.15—a 40% increase—is a sad example of how interest-group politics and the public’s ignorance of economics can combine to give us laws that manage to be both inefficient and inegalitarian.

An increase in the minimum wage raises the costs of fast foods and other goods produced with large inputs of unskilled labor. Producers adjust both by substituting capital inputs and/or high-skilled labor for minimum-wage workers and, because the substitutes are more costly (otherwise the substitutions would have been made already), by raising prices. The higher prices reduce the producers’ output and thus their demand for labor. The adjustments to the hike in the minimum wage are inefficient because they are motivated not by a higher real cost of low-skilled labor but by a government-mandated increase in the price of that labor. That increase has the same misallocative effect as monopoly pricing.

Although some workers benefit—those who were paid the old minimum wage but are worth the new, higher one to the employers—others are pushed into unemployment, the underground economy or crime. The losers are therefore likely to lose more than the gainers gain; they are also likely to be poorer people. And poor families are disproportionately hurt by the rise in the price of fast foods and other goods produced with low-skilled labor because these families spend a relatively large fraction of their incomes on such goods. And many, maybe most, of the gainers from a higher minimum wage are not poor. Most minimum-wage workers are part time, and for the majority their minimum-wage income supplements an income derived from other sources. Examples are retirees living on Social Security or private pensions who want to get out of the house part of the day and earn pin money, stay-at-home spouses who want to supplement their spouse’s earnings, and teenagers working after school. An increase in the minimum wage will thus provide a windfall to many workers who are not poor. . . .

Let’s hope that if Congress passes a stiff increase in the federal minimum wage, George Bush will emulate Mayor Richard Daley and veto it. Several months ago the Chicago City Council, by a lopsided but not veto-proof vote, passed an ordinance requiring companies that have more than $1 billion in annual sales, and own stores in Chicago having at least 90,000 square feet of floor space, to pay Chicago employees a minimum wage of $9.25 an hour plus $1.50 an hour in fringe benefits, respectively rising to $10 and $3 by 2010. About 40 stores would have been affected.

The ordinance was surpassingly foolish. The retailers that would have been most affected, such as Wal-Mart, Target and Home Depot, are at best only marginally interested in placing stores in large cities because space for large stores and for the parking they require is much more expensive than in suburbs and smaller towns. Moreover, these companies could offset much of the effect of the ordinance by opening more stores in suburbs within easy reach of Chicago, or by holding their floor space to just below 90,000 square feet. Fewer jobs would be available to low-skilled workers in the city, and families with modest incomes who seek low prices rather than elaborate service would be hurt more than the affluent by the increase in prices and reduced availability of big box outlets.

Who would favor such a bad ordinance? Conventional supermarket chains and clothing stores, of course, and unions—the latter not only for the usual reasons but also because big box companies oppose unions; the ordinance sent a signal that unions have enough political clout to make life difficult for large nonunion retailers. The absence of opposition to the ordinance from low-income consumers is not surprising because they are not organized to exert political pressure. The aggressive support of the ordinance by most of the council’s black members is more difficult to understand, but the explanation may be that they are allied with unions. They may have realized that their constituents would be harmed by the ordinance, but believed that in return for taking this hit they would get the support of unions for measures that would help low-income families.

Read the whole thing.

My take on it is:
The minimum wage is for setting a “Federal Minimum” that can be used in salary negociations between labor and management. Some multiple such as twice the fed wage for beginners in a given industry. Etc. etc. States set their own minimum wages which each state follows.

Living Green?

January 26, 2007 at 10:12 am | Posted in Laying it the line ;-), One-liner | Leave a comment

A site about how San Fransisco approaches the “Green Revolution

Linux vs Windows

January 25, 2007 at 11:46 am | Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Here is a link to a site that is useful for comparing Linux to Windows and the problems that new users have. Here is a link to pricing on the new Windows Vista.

Democrats say (about Iraq)ca. 1998-2003

January 25, 2007 at 11:32 am | Posted in Hold that line!, Laying it the line ;-), Lineup, One-liner | Leave a comment

Dems Speak da Truth

They just don’t mean it. Lest we forget (the dems sure have, even their own words) how we came to this fateful place and time. hat tip mdd

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

“There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.”
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. “[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

Global Warning Scam

January 22, 2007 at 9:31 am | Posted in Laying it the line ;-), One-liner | Leave a comment

Here is a link to a great Globle Warming smack down of the Al Gore and his Inconvenient one sided Truth.

Also this site offers a 70 page PPT presentation of Global Climate Constraints on Global Climate Variability.

Mac vs Windows/Vista

January 22, 2007 at 8:45 am | Posted in Apple Inc | Leave a comment

Below and here is a link to a wonderful point/counterpoint of the Mac Vs Windows vs Linux argument and open source (free) software.

Why don’t you and Joe Volz and Delores Maminski (library) come to the next Mac Users group on Feb 10th at 10am in the Walkersville Methodist Church Social Hall ?

We have some great programs and buying and trading hints and hardware. We meet every second Saturday of the month. More info? Go to the web at http://frederickapple.com/

As one the writers in the information week blog said:

Get a Mac Mini for $500 and experience Mac and compare it to Windows or Linux all running on the same Mac Mini.!

Then see which one has the best user integration and satisfaction and ease if use and productivity rather than non productive tear your hair out down time.

PS Pass this on to the IT staffs of both the county and the Bd of Education.

Link:
http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2007/01/mac_os_or_vista.html

Emmitsburg Lions Scholarships

January 12, 2007 at 6:16 am | Posted in Emmitsburg, Lions | Leave a comment

The Community Foundation deadline for application is March 1, 2007.

Summary of the steps to a valid application and timeline for applicants to follow.

  • This is subject to change as of 1/15/07. Look for new instructions by 1/20/07
  • 1. Complete and submit by March 1, 2007 an acceptable application for the Community Foundation Scholarships.

    Inform the applicants that to be eligible for all (Morningstar, Gauss and Prongas) Emmitsburg Lions Scholarships they must have submitted an application that is acceptable to the Community Foundation and is eligible to be judged for the Community Foundation Scholarships. (Our club will check with the Community Foundation to verify eligiblity)

    2. Complete and submit an application to Emmitsburg Lions Scholarship Committee following local guidelines as they appear on the emmitsburg.net/lions web site.

    3. Must be postmarked by March 1, 2007

    4. Judging

    5.Announcing

    6. Awarding checks.

    Next Page »

    Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.
    Entries and comments feeds.