Profile

  • Dave Small
  • Member Since Sep 5th, 2006

Are you Dave Small? If So, Login Here.

Recent Comments:

Fighting Off Hackers: 5 Things You Need to Know {AOL Small Business}

Jan 14th 2011 11:52PM I just think this is breathlessly bad advice, in my personal opinion.

If your website isn't hosted on a professional "hosting site server", it damned well should be. The days of hosting a site out of your back room are over -- and typically you can't even get a static IP from Comcast, Qwest, et all, to DO it! It's specifically banned.

Sure, you can get a T1/E1 line, if you want to pay through the nose.

A good professional server generally takes care of this stuff, because:

(1) They've been hacked more than once.
(2) They're calm because they've been through this stuff.
(3) They know what to do because it has happened to them before.

That's my advice.

-- Dave

Maureen Dowd Caught Plagiarizing? {Politics Daily}

May 18th 2009 12:05PM Shame on you, David Knowles, for saying that obvious plagiarism is only of interest to the "right wing blogosphere". It was Huffington Post and Josh Marshall who found this, and only someone heavily on acid would call them even faintly conservative! My personal opinion is Maureen Dowd has been writing the most hateful stuff imaginable, waaay over the top, for years. She's redefined the color "yellow" in "yellow journalism" all by herself. As a writer, I can tell you that a good editor, willing to edit my copy, or reject it if needed, improves my work. If the editors at the Times were on the job, she'd have a collection of reject slips. Dowd's writing abilities have suffered from the free pass she's gotten; I've noticed her columns have gotten sloppy. And sadly, she got so lazy that she committed the ultimate writer's crime: plagiarism.

Pelosi on Bush Administration, CIA: They Misled Us All the Time {Politics Daily}

May 14th 2009 12:38PM "I did not sleep with that woman!"

Intel: What's a little antitrust fine when orders are improving? {Daily Finance}

May 13th 2009 2:49PM This is just my opinion, but, I think it's time for Intel to slap an embargo on shipping to EU countries until this silliness stops.

Of course I'm serious. What, it's Intel's fault that AMD has not come out with a quad core chip?

Having a group of faceless EU bureaucrats trying to extort a billion and a half dollars from Intel smacks of blackmail.

There is a lesson here for us, about letting our government take over and run companies. This sort of decision is the way that some would have us go. After some time running companies as the EU would, there won't be any. There is a long, very clear track record of this.

Thanks,
D

Five reasons for economic optimism {Daily Finance}

May 11th 2009 7:09PM Clap. [silence] Clap. [silence]. Clap. [silence]

Oh, everyone else has left. No wonder it's so quiet.

I think the optimistic author of this optimistic article needs to go for an optimistic walk to an optimistic shopping mall to see the optimistic stores optimistically closed & locked.

I think he needs to stop taking massive doses of Prozac. (Or heroin.)

There is no "recovery" and it takes little brains to figure out there won't be. The Thousand Billion Dollars ("one trillion") that have been handed out now TWICE is going to have to come from somewhere. That somewhere is called "taxes".

To show you how idiotic this is, two trillion dollars, with the US population at 306 million, is $6,535 dollars for every one of us. It's actually far worse since that population figure is everyone, not just people who are taxed.

It's all very nice to say we'll "tax the rich", but before Obama was elected, 60% of ALL income taxes were already paid by people making over $200,000. "tax the rich" is just a sad lie once you know that. Bear in mind the people saying it know this but are saying it to your face. That's what they think you'll believe.

Remember, the US population is rapidly aging, the "baby boomers" are all getting "AARP" cards in the mail. The number of taxable people is dropping fast.

Do you really think promises to not tax "the middle class" are going to mean anything the next time somebody wants to hand another trillion dollars to their political friends?

Thanks,

D

Why I Can't Reduce My Carbon Footprint {News Campus Blog}

May 2nd 2009 4:15PM
I wish there was a way to have a quiet, sensible conversation about this topic without people immediately going to Extremist Screaming points-of-view, which really doesn't help anyone. Good grief, why don't we bring up abortion and gun control, too? Answer: Everyone is burned out on arguing those.

Hello global warming people:

First, programming computer models of something as complex as the Earth's climate is probably impossible, and you need to stop saying you've done it. There are too many mathematically chaotic conditions, and too many things we don't know anything about, which twist the climate around. I have a Bachelor's degree in Computer Science and seeing the claims put out by these folks is embarrassing. Look. I, too, can take a computer and make it show the world is heating up. So? I can also make it show it's cooling down. Or it's going to end in 2012. Or the Sky Is Falling. Or you're all aliens.

We do not really know why the Earth goes into Ice Ages or why it comes out of them, but we do know it has them periodically.

There is considerable geological evidence that there were was ice in Maine 10,000 years ago, and in Ohio 20,000 years ago. We are coming out of a recent Ice Age, and the planet is warming up. The planet has done this before. This is supposed to happen.

Please stop pissing and moaning about ocean levels coming up six inches. They came up THREE HUNDRED FEET not that long ago. Somehow you never mention that basic fact, because it makes six inches look lame. This is lying by omission.

Hello anti-global warming people, there is some data that may indeed show that infrared heat being re-radiated from the Earth may be reflected by CO-2 and other gasses. Right now we think about 10% of the CO-2 is manmade, 90% is from Good Old Mother Nature. If indeed we are overwarming the planet ... which is one damned tricky thing to figure out ... then possibly we should do something about that.

What's needed is good science and good basic research. Regrettably, many on both sides have helped to poison the wells for basic research. It's nearly impossible to get a paper published in Science or Nature if you're not "for" global warming. And just try getting a grant. And if you need to eat, you'd best be studying something related to global warming, because that's where the money is. I know, I know, studying "Underwater Basketweaving in an Age of Global Warming" sounds like a stretch, but it'll work.

Sensible people need to boo and hiss whenever the extremists start yelling, and just calmly point out, "Hey, there's evidence on both sides of this. Let's do some real science, investigate, and quit the dramatics."

-- Thanks,

Dave

Obama's First Hundred Days {Politics Daily}

Apr 27th 2009 2:33PM Press is getting very desperate. "Obama is like Reagan"? Oh Puhleeze! Obama is not even on the same ball field, or league, as Reagan. Obama *may* grow to become a Reagan; we don't know yet. But after throwing a trillion dollars to leftist causes, and calling it "stimulus" (what a lie!), maybe Obama will start to learn that he had better not be controlled by Nancy Pelosi, who has no clue.

Reporters like this guy only talk, in semi-mystified tones, about how Reagan was like "teflon"; nothing bad seemed to stick to Reagan. (It drove them crazy because they *wanted* something bad to stick!) It still makes them nuts that Reagan is one of the most popular presidents ever.

Reagan had a "secret", but it's not really a secret. He was genuine. He just plain liked people. He was never underhanded or vicious, something that the New York Times cannot say. And make no mistake, the rabid-attack-dog mode the NYT went into is directly responsible for their financial ruin; you can only sneer at half of your readership for so long until they cancel their subscriptions. (Of course the NYT blames "The Internet", not Maureen Dowd-like columns).

Reagan also had great courage, and a dream of bringing down the Soviet Union, and he did it.

Obama inherited a world that was not always 30 minutes from thermo-nuclear destruction because of Reagan. And THAT is the difference. It's so huge that this columnist is incredibly clue-----less.

Thanks,

David

Teabaggers get ready for their big party {Daily Finance}

Apr 14th 2009 6:45PM My, my, my. It isn't enough to just present the news, we have to present our spin, don't we?

This used to be called "unprofessional in the extreme".

Peter thinks this is about the last election. Wrong. It's about the insanity of spending trillions. Peter may believe these trillions come from the Andromeda galaxy, but they really come from taxes. That's the problem.

In an incredibly dumb sentence, Peter says it'll be a "little" party, then says it'll be "a nationwide protest in 500 cities", all in one sentence. Peter needs a check of his meds; his short term memory is having problems. I think this sentence really means that Peter *wishes* it were a little protest.

Peter than says that he has "no problem with this, in theory". Good Grief! That's nice, it's only the Bill of Rights that he has no problem with, "in theory". That's a pretty scary sentence. Is he going to have a problem with, say, Freedom of Speech "in practice"? In the next sentence.

Peter starts down the slippery slope to Hell. He says that "As long as the they pay their taxes, they have a right to express their opinion about how the government is spending "their" money..." Weirdly, he puts quotes around "their" as if it weren't "their" money.

Hello, Peter. Pop Quiz!
Government money comes from:
a) Andromeda, b) Saturn, c) Mars, d) Taxes on our incomes.
Please, take your time answering.

So, people only have a right to express their opinion about taxes if they pay taxes ...
Peter has now walked down the slippery slope to Hell of repealing the right to freedom of speech.
Peter is not stupid.
Peter hasn't forgotten that a big percentage of Americans don't pay taxes at all. The percentage is disputed, and depends on what source you come from, but it's between 1/3 and 1/2 of Americans. Remember that percentage that Obama was going to give a "tax cut" to, except they weren't taxed in the first place? The government cut them a check. Here's the price they paid: Peter does not think they have the right to express an opinion about government spending.

Finally, Peter thinks the tea-bagging ceremonies are like "throwing spitballs in sixth-grade history class." I, uh, actually don't see the analogy there. But obviously Peter has far more experience with spitballs than I do. For example, this column could be wadded up into a spitball, and actually gain merit by that process.

He says all of this in one paragraph!

Then, Peter says, If the teabaggers were "real patriots"... okay, Peter, as defined *by who*? Anyway, he says, "real patriots would come up with real alternatives to fix the problems about which they're complaining".

Uh, Peter, what they're complaining about is reckless spending by the President and Congress. I know that you support the causes that just got a trillion dollars poured into them (and it was called "stimulus". Har!)

They feel like their votes don't count, because people like Peter are, well, saying that their vote should not matter, and their freedom of speech should be yanked if they don't "pay taxes" for all of Peter's little pet causes.

And gee, Peter, you've just said a fair amount of America has no right to an opinion about this.

It's a shame you don't read history, Peter. The English acted pretty much the way you're acting, and the Boston Tea Party was a way of showing that Taxed Goods ... did you know it was about taxes, Peter? ... weren't welcome. The taxed stuff got tossed into salt water.

Good luck trying to sell this junk to anyone but some Poli-Sci professors at some universities.

Thanks for such an enlightening column of why this Tea Party is *such* a good idea.

-- Dave

Moral Outrage Fuels Tea Party Movement {Politics Daily}

Apr 10th 2009 1:46PM So ... Jimmy Carter returns. It's cyclic; this happens. Every so often America elects someone like this, and then pays for it later.

Some of you aren't old enough to remember him. He made decisions based on how he "felt". He let the Shah in Iran fall, which gave us Khomeini in Iran, our embassy taken over, and a Soviet Union that took over Afghanistan. Carter destroyed the operations side of the CIA, then was just astonished that there weren't CIA people on the ground in Iran. And Carter spent a lot of his time managing the tennis court schedule at the White House. I'm not kidding.

HypnObama can give a good sounding speech, but when you go back and look at what he said, it's basically... nothing. Carter couldn't give a good speech. Apart from that, they're pretty much the same.

HypnObama is proposing massive defense cuts, like killing the F-22 stealth fighter, right as the original Stealth F-117 is being retired. Yeah, that's -real- smart.

Truman did massive cuts after World War II, and then the Korean War happened. Carter did it, Afghanistan happened. Obama's going to do it. It doesn't take much intelligence to figure out what's going to happen.

More Women Seeking "No Strings" Sex {Lemondrop}

Nov 6th 2008 8:05PM First, the article is only talking about a 9 percent rise -- 9 women in 100.

Anyone who has been to divorce court knows that women ALWAYS walk away with a pile of money, custody of the children which means child support payments for 18 years, alimony which means checks for who knows how long. This happens no matter how awful the woman is as a mother or how good a father the guy is. I've literally seen drug addicts handed house and children and money -just because they're women-.

It's really a shocker to me that women want "no strings" sex. You should withhold sex and get the guy to marry you, then divorce him. Then you're set for life, can sit around and watch "The View", and retire rich after screwing him twice.