Finally, after weeks of bidding on binary watches on ebay.
I won an auction!
Monday, January 29, 2007
Saturday, January 27, 2007
This is a Test Run
I have just installed Grease Monkey plug in for Firefox, which enabled me to install the Technorati Script. What it does is allows me to further control my blog page with Tags, and have more control over my HTML codding. Instead of always having to rely on the template editor.
Friday, January 26, 2007
Gimp
I have recently downloaded Photoshop 7 from lime wire. But then a substitute teacher told me about Gimp. It is almost to a "T", an exact copy of Photo Shop. The only two differences is that it is open source and it is free.
http://www.gimp.org
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
The State of the Union - Energy
WASHINGTON, Jan. 23 — Vowing to reduce the nation’s thirst for foreign oil, President Bush called on Tuesday for a huge government-mandated increase in renewable fuels — mainly ethanol — and tougher mileage standards for cars and light trucks.
The State of the Union
It was the second year in a row that Mr. Bush made “energy security” a focal point of his State of the Union address, but his proposals on Tuesday were modest, and perhaps less achievable, than those he made a year ago when he said the nation was “addicted to oil.”
The centerpiece of Mr. Bush’s proposal, which he said would cut the projected use of gasoline by 20 percent over the next decade, was a nearly fivefold mandatory increase in the production of ethanol and other alternative fuels for cars and trucks. The most obvious beneficiaries would be makers of ethanol and other biofuels, but it could also promote the production of liquefied coal.
Mr. Bush called for a mandatory requirement that makers of fuel produce 35 billion gallons of alternative fuels a year by 2017, replacing about 15 percent of the projected gasoline use in that year.
A second major plank of Mr. Bush’s energy proposal calls for increasing fuel-efficiency standards of cars and trucks by 4 percent a year — about one mile per gallon — starting in 2010 for cars and 2012 for trucks.
That was a significant change from Mr. Bush’s approach last year, when he called for “reform” of the corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE, rules, but avoided suggesting specific mileage requirements.
In a third proposal, Mr. Bush called for doubling the amount of oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to about 1.5 billion barrels of oil. The doubling would take place at a snail’s pace over the next 20 years. Even so, advance word of the idea helped push up oil prices by $2.46 a barrel on Tuesday to $55.04.
“It’s a big change that the president has endorsed these new fuel-efficiency standards,” said Frederick W. Smith, the chief executive of the FedEx Corporation and a co-chairman of the Energy Security Leadership Council, a group of executive and retired military officers. These standards, he said, match their recommendations, “which are achievable.”
But the proposals face an array of obstacles, both practical and political. On a practical level, skeptics noted that Mr. Bush’s goal for ethanol would require big advances in “cellulosic ethanol,” a form of ethanol made from plants like switchgrass that has yet to be produced at anything close to competitive prices. It could also require up to 40 million additional acres devoted to growing the plant material involved as well as a sprawling new infrastructure for transforming the feedstock into fuel.
On a political level, Mr. Bush faces a Congress that is now controlled by Democrats, some of whom criticized him on Tuesday for proposing little to reduce the production of heat-trapping gases implicated in global warming.
“I am disappointed,” said Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico and chairman of the Senate Energy Committee. He said Mr. Bush was “completely silent” on energy efficiency and reduction of carbon dioxide from electric power plants, which contribute 40 percent of these emissions.
Cars and trucks account for about one-third of heat-trapping gases that result from burning fossil fuels. Electric utilities and other “smokestack” sources were not addressed.
“If this was a real effort to solve the climate problem, it would include large stationary sources and utilities,” said Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, a nonpartisan policy research group.
Ms. Claussen and other environmental leaders also criticized the absence of any proposal for a mandatory cap on emissions of heat-trapping gases.
Many supporters of ethanol and other renewable fuels praised Mr. Bush’s proposals. The Union of Concerned Scientists estimated that the mileage requirement could save 550,000 barrels of oil per day in 2017, and reduce emissions equivalent to “taking 14 million of today’s cars and trucks off the road.”
But many cautioned that the goals would be difficult to attain, might do little to reduce gas emissions and could lead to higher food prices as farmers cater to energy demand rather than food production.
Philip Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust, said, “The big numbers may sound impressive, but this is nothing more than stay-the-course on global warming.” The proposal, Mr. Clapp said, represents a 1.5 percent cut in carbon emissions a decade hence. “They will still go up by 14 percent over the next decade.”
And if liquefied coal, which produces double the heat-trapping gases of regular gasoline, is part of the alternative-fuel mix — as coal-industry lobbyists and environmental groups say is the case — the emissions reductions would fall significantly.
Mr. Bush called for increasing the requirement for annual production of alternative fuels to 35 billion gallons a year. That would almost quintuple the current mandate of producing 7.5 billion gallons of ethanol by 2012. Spurred by tax breaks and soaring oil prices, ethanol production has climbed rapidly and is expected to hit 6 billion gallons this year.
But energy analysts say that corn-based ethanol, which accounts for virtually all of today’s production, will not be able to produce more than about half as much alternative fuel as Mr. Bush envisions by 2017.
Mr. Bush also laced his proposals with numerous “safety valves” that could delay attainment of his goals.
Alexei Barrionuevo contributed reporting from Chicago, and Matthew L. Wald from Washington.
Monday, January 22, 2007
My Version of Google
This is my version of Google. I made it in my early days of HTML programming, don't judge me on my abilities becuase basically it sucks. But I thought I would just put it on here anyways.
Download It Here
Password
I added a password to view my blog. If you want it just email me at:
mailto:collin.cerbus@gmail.com
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Friday, January 19, 2007
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Sheehan ‘n Sean
Cindy Sheehan appeared on Sean Hannity’s show today, and made mincemeat of him.
Cindy has now gone public with her suspicion that the Great 9-11 was done with complicity of neo-con forces.
Sean indignantly asked her for evidence.
So Cindy gave him evidence: the “coincidental” standing down of Norad.
So then Sean repeats his question, but with a twist: “do you have proof? No you don’t have proof.”
Sean, not all evidence constitutes, by itself, proof; that doesn’t mean it is not evidence.
Sean is the master equivocator and sleight-of-hand distractor.
+++++++++++++++++++++
A guy called in and when Sean saw who he was, bumped him to the front of the line, cutting someone else off. So it must have been someone important in Sean’s eyes.
The fellow’s point? that Cindy didn’t really “stay in a tent” at some demonstration in Crawford, Texas. Cindy denied the charge and I believe her.
But more important: as if that’s important, fellow!
A real cad.
Others called in and spouted the old cliché, that yes a world without war would be wonderful, but that’s not our world.
True, but that’s another distraction. Why are we killing Iraqis in this war?
+++++++++++++++++++++
Sean needs to share the blame with Rush for several things.
Redefining conservatism as knee-jerk pro-war.
Indeed, that being pro-war is the only non-negotiable to count as a conservative.
The loss of belief in reason and law in justifying their position. Rhetorical tricks are fine if done in service to the neo-con war machine. The Right is becoming vulgar, unthinking, and party-spirited under the tutelage of Rush and Sean.
+++++++++++++++++++++
Though Cindy was quite magnificent, something needs to be said in criticism of her stated position as well.
She said we have no business waging this unjust war when people are starving in our own land.
Forget the minor premise (”there are starving people in America”). That’s not the issue here.
The major premise (”if people are starving then we have no business waging an unjust war”) opens up the possibility that waging an unjust war might be an option, provided no one is going hungry.
Of course she doesn’t mean that. But pushing an enthymeme whose major premise won’t stand up under scrutiny will weaken our position in the long run, even if it scores short-term points.
+++++++++++++++++++++
Why is Sean submitting to putting someone on that, overall, makes so much sense compared to him? when usually the “opponent” is just there to be an easily-bullied patsy?
I would worry a bit, if I were Cindy, that she is now experiencing the “good cop” handling. The neo-cons would rather lure the restive colts back into the pen — get them to scamper in voluntarily –, rather than, right off the bat, putting bullets into their heads
Monday, January 15, 2007
.JPG)
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Wikipedia How To
http://www.wikihow.com/Become-a-True-Ap-Student
This is the link for the Wikipedia How To Page that I just created.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
New Blog
Hey this is the new version of my blog. The old one was in beta form. So bear with me as I learn the new features. I will constantly be adding stuff.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)