Follow Me On Twitter!

Saturday, January 22, 2011

I Have Seen The Future Of Computers....

....and it is Chrome OS! Yes, the Google OS called Chrome is going to revolutionize the computer world. And it is based on Cloud computing. All that really means is that your storage, instead of local on a harddrive, is over the internet. When you save a file the file is saved on hardrive on a server somewhere.

Actually, it is more technical than that. The file is backed up, and it also has redundant protection (RAID) built into that storage. It is infinitely safer than storing it on local media. Unless you are rich and can afford your own SAN array.

Anyway, back to the Chrome OS. You can take a glimpse of the future for yourself. First, go here and download and install the Chrome web browser:

Once you have the browser start using it to surf the internet. Chrome has become my favorite web browser even over Mozilla's Firefox. Then go to the web store:

The web store is where you download apps and extensions to the Chrome browser. And this is where the meat and potatoes are. When you start using Chrome applications and extensions what you are basically doing is using Chrome OS! The only difference is that you are using it within your Windows operating system. However, Google is already working on Chrome as a standalone OS, and in fact have been giving away 60,000 Google Chrome OS laptops! You can sign up to try to get one here:

The Chrome OS is basically just the Chrome web browser. You can see a demo of the Chrome OS in this video:

Believe me, this is the future!

Thursday, January 13, 2011

After 2 Years Of Polarizing Us, Obama Tells Us To Chill

Huh? Seriously, this guy is the problem, but he thinks he has the solution. Right....

Dear Obama, please shut-up and don't presume to tell me what to do. Thanks in advance.

Thursday, January 06, 2011

Liberals consistent? Of course not!

I recently came across this article being touted by liberals on a forum:

Click here for story: Retracted autism study an 'elaborate fraud,' British journal finds

The short story is a reporter wrote a series of articles bashing the publisher of the study that linked autism to vaccinations. Here is the basis for his findings:
The series of articles launched Wednesday are investigative journalism, not results of a clinical study. The writer, Brian Deer, said Wakefield "chiseled" the data before him, "falsifying medical histories of children and essentially concocting a picture, which was the picture he was contracted to find by lawyers hoping to sue vaccine manufacturers and to create a vaccine scare."
What? So no other study was done? Just a reporter making accusations.

Now understand, I am not saying that what this reporter is saying is wrong. He may very well be right and there may be no proven link between vaccinations and autism. But the liberals' lack of consistency on this type of thing is what galls me.

First off, I have no idea why liberals care if I decide to not have my kids vaccinated or not. For any reason. Maybe I don't trust the vaccine because of the substances used in them. Or I don't want to risk my child's life, as a percentage of people die from bad reactions to all vaccinations. Or maybe I don't want to risk autism, whether there is a proven link or not, in my child.

But liberals were spitting mad at this study. They were out destroy it. So when a reporter claims that the study is flawed, they jump all over it whether or not the reporter offers any real proof.

Now let's juxtapose that with the Climate-gate emails. If you've forgotten, leaked emails showed that the global warming "experts" were purposely manipulating the data to make the warming seem more extreme than it actually was. Remember, these were emails written by these climatologists themselves, in their own words. "We need to manipulate the data to tell the story we want to tell." That's basically what they were saying.

Liberals refused to believe it. Brushed it aside. Pretended it wasn't true. Didn't care. Dismissed it. Completely ignored it.

So for liberals, if someone is caught red-handed in their own words that isn't nearly as much proof as a reporter making an accusation. Of course, the truth is they'll believe whomever sings the song they want sung.