Google Fools: Web Service Through Toilet

Everyone loves a good gag.  Hat’s off to the evil empire, Google for a good laugher over the weekend.  The clock has started on how long it will take for some schmuck to sue because he spent all weekend with his head is the crapper trying to surf porn.

Google Fools: Web Service Through Toilet –

Presiding over a company with a market value of $143 billion apparently gives Silicon Valley’s most famous billionaires a good sense of humor – and a case of corporate potty mouth. Senior executives at Google Inc. launched their annual April Fools’ Day prank Sunday, posting a link on the company’s home page to a site offering consumers free high-speed wireless Internet through their home plumbing systems.

Code-named “Dark Porcelain,” Google (nasdaq: GOOG news people ) said its “Toilet Internet Service Provider” (TiSP) works with Microsoft Corp. (nasdaq: MSFT news people )’s new Windows Vista operating system. But sorry – septic tanks are incompatible with the system’s requirements.

The gag included a mock press release quoting Google co-founder and president Larry Page, a step-by-step online installation manual, and a scatological selection of Frequently Asked Questions. On some Google sites, the company’s official logo – a multicolored “Google” that changes according to the season and on holidays – substituted a commode for the second “g.”

“There’s actually a thriving little underground community that’s been studying this exact solution for a long time,” Page said in the facetious statement. “And today our Toilet ISP team is pleased to be leading the way through the sewers, up out of your toilet and – splat – right onto your PC.”

The Great Global Warming Swindle

Video is available in the pod viewer. I have a companion ppt. sent to me by a Canadian scientist who has asked to remain nameless. I’ll be putting all of this on the homepage as soon as my webmaster can get the video and ppt. embedded.

Story Here @

Man-made global warming is a hoax. It is a theory based upon some scientific evidence, which conveniently leaves out a lot of scientific data, which would otherwise, disprove it’s credibility.

What you are about to watch is an excellent documentary, aired on UK TV Channel 4, which disproves the hysteria behind the theory of man-made global warming. It uses scientific data to show that climate change is a natural occurrence, which is mainly caused by the Sun. Of course, other factors are involved, but it all comes back to the Sun.

You might call this film man-made global warming anti-propaganda, which grossly discredits Al Gore’s (the world’s leading scientist, inventor of the Internet, and self-proclaimed savior of the world) film, An Inconvenient Truth, which makes the claim that the Earth’s climate is changing on the basis that man’s industrialization has lead to higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere.

In this documentary, scientific data shows that rises in CO2 are a result of climate change, not the other way around (CO2 causes climate change). In other words, the Sun warms and cools the planet, and the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are a result of this change, in reaction to the ocean’s and the atmosphere’s temperatures –heated by the Sun of course.

The documentary features Richard Lizden, a renowned and credible scientist, one of the world’s foremost experts on Meteorology, and man-made global warming skeptic, as well as many other respected scientists in the field.

This is one of the most intelligent arguments that I have seen thus far. All of it makes sense, and is supported by scientific evidence. Much of the hysteria created by the hoax known as man-made global warming has such a lack of real scientific evidence that it is laughable.

The extent of the sheer absurdity and hysteria that people like Al Gore (the world’s leading scientist, inventor of the Internet, and self-proclaimed savior of the world) have created has reached to the outer edges of the extreme. And to sustain itself [the hysteria] has must go further and further to the extreme to remain of vital interest. Money and politics are at the center of this scam and it is a story which the mainstream press gobbles up like a Thanksgiving feast, because everyone knows that doom and gloom sells, especially to those without the capacity to question it.

What the environmentalist extremists do not want you to know, is that there is real scientific data which disproves their theory. There is also evidence that there is a true political agenda behind this; one which is sponsored by those who see communism as a good idea.

This is an excellent and thought provoking documentary which gives great support in disproving the [un]scientific theory of man-made global warming/cooling/climate change/pick your buzzword.

What Al Gore Really Wants

A great piece on the Algore and his crowds agenda for globalization and primitivism.  Or you could just stop reading now and pretend that the Global Warming scare is scientific fact. 

RealClearPolitics – Articles – What Al Gore Really Wants

In New York’s Newsday, Ellis Hennican describes a three-on-three debate held last week in New York City, in which opponents of the global warming hysteria–including that meddling novelist Michael Crichton, along with distinguished British scientist Phillip Stott and MIT’s Richard Lindzen–took on some of the scare’s defenders. The interesting things about this debate is that the organizers polled the audience before and after the event. The result? The number of people who thought that global warming is a “crisis” dropped from 57% to 42%.That’s why folks like Al Gore have to keep claiming that there is an iron-clad “consensus” on global warming and that the debate is “over”–because the moment the debate on the scientific merits of global warming is actually allowed to begin, the alarmists start to lose.

Al Gore is trying to dragoon science in an attempt to win over converts who don’t share his sense of personal spiritual crisis and don’t find his anti-industrial moral vision compelling. But the moment people see through his charade–and realize that what Gore is really pushing is a not a scientific campaign against “pollution” but a quasi-religious crusade against industrial civilization–his campaign will collapse.

Billionaire Hands Over Homes To Homeless, Japanese Property Mogul Opens Up 3 Multimillion-Dollar Hawaii Homes, But Is He Scheming?

Seems everybody is worried about this man’s motivations.  I say, who cares!  They’re his homes.  If wants to allow homless families to live in them, that’s his business.  So what if he asks them to vacate later down the line. Only in America do people criticize free rent.

Billionaire Hands Over Homes To Homeless, Japanese Property Mogul Opens Up 3 Multimillion-Dollar Hawaii Homes, But Is He Scheming? – CBS News

(AP) Japanese real estate mogul Genshiro Kawamoto handed over three of his many multimillion-dollar homes in Oahu’s priciest neighborhood to homeless and low-income Native Hawaiian families.

Tears ran down Dorie-Ann Kahele’s cheeks Thursday as she accepted the key to a white columned house worth nearly $5 million. Her family will live in the mansion rent-free.

Kawamoto plans to open eight of his 22 Kahala neighborhood homes to needy Hawaiian families. He says they will be able to stay in the homes for up to 10 years.

Kahele, 39, and her five daughters had been living in one small room at a homeless shelter for the past five years.

“What we need to do is appreciate,” said Kahele. “As fast as we got it, it could disappear.”

Kawamoto, whose eyes started welling up when Kahele cried, said he will not charge the families anything to live in the homes. They will, however, have to pay their own utility bills.

The billionaire is one of Japan’s richest men. He said he was embarking on the unusual venture because it made him happy. He also gave each family 10 $100 bills to help them move in.

Native Hawaiians are disproportionately represented among the state’s homeless and working poor.

Kawamoto owns dozens of office buildings in Tokyo and his been buying and selling real estate in Hawaii and California since the 1980s.

He has been criticized for evicting tenants of his rental homes on short notice so he could sell the properties, as in 2002, when he gave hundreds of California tenants 30 days to leave.

Two years later, he served eviction notices to tenants in 27 Oahu rental homes, saying they had to leave within a month. He said he wanted to sell the houses to take advantage of rising prices.

Kawamoto selected the eight low-income families from 3,000 people who wrote him letters last fall after he announced his plan. He has said he tried to pick working, single mothers.

He added it showed more dedication to helping the homeless than just handing out cash.

Kawamoto laughed when asked if he was concerned about losing money on the effort, saying, “This is pocket money for me.”

Kahele became homeless two years ago when her landlord raised her rent from $800 to $1,200, putting the apartment beyond reach of her salary as a customer service representative.

Some neighbors are unhappy with Kawamoto’s plan, saying he is trying to drive down real estate values so he can buy even more homes.

“Everyone’s paying homage to him, but in reality, he’s the problem,” said Mark Blackburn, who lives down the street from Kahale’s new home. “Houses are homes. They’re made to live in; they aren’t investment vehicles.”

In response, Kawamoto said, “The people who don’t want to live near Hawaiians should move.”

Chiquita pleads guilty in terror probe

Just remember, this administration is in the pocket of big business. <sarcasm>

Chiquita pleads guilty in terror probe – Yahoo! News

WASHINGTON – Banana company Chiquita Brands International admitted in federal court Monday that, for years, it paid Colombian terrorists to protect its most profitable banana-growing operation.

The company pleaded guilty to one count of doing business with a terrorist organization. The plea is part of a deal with prosecutors that calls for a $25 million fine and does not identity the several senior executives who approved the illegal protection payments.The agreement ends a lengthy Justice Department investigation into the company’s financial dealings with right-wing paramilitaries and leftist rebels the U.S. government deems terrorist groups.

Prosecutors say the Cincinnati-based company agreed to pay about $1.7 million between 1997 and 2004 to the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, known as AUC for its Spanish initials.

The AUC has been responsible for some of the worst massacres in Colombia’s civil conflict and for a sizable percentage of the country’s cocaine exports. The U.S. government designated the AUC a terrorist group in September 2001

Chiquita has said it was forced to make the payments and was acting only to ensure the safety of its workers.

But federal prosecutors noted in court Monday that from 2001 to 2004, when Chiquita made $825,000 in illegal payments, the Colombian banana operation earned $49.4 million and was the company’s most profitable unit.

“Funding a terrorist organization can never be treated as a cost of doing business,” U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Taylor said.

Chiquita sold Banadex, its Colombian subsidiary, in June 2004 for around $43.5 million.

In addition to paying the AUC, prosecutors said, Chiquita made payments to the National Liberation Army, or ELN, and the leftist Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, as control of the company’s banana-growing area shifted.

Leftist rebels and far-right paramilitaries have fought viciously over Colombia’s banana-growing region, though the victims are most often noncombatants. Most companies in the area have extensive security operations to protect employees.

Court documents listed 10 unidentified company employees who participated in the illegal deals and helped conceal them on company books. Prosecutors would not identity them or say whether they remain with Chiquita.

They assured U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth, however, that two executives who approved the plea deal — CEO Fernando Aguirre and Senior Vice President James Thompson — were not among those in court documents.

The company is set to be sentenced June 1. By law, it faces up to nearly $100 million in fines if Lambreth does not accept the $25 million deal with prosecutors.

Biofuels boom raises tough questions

Biofuels boom raises tough questions – Yahoo! News

NEW YORK – America is drunk on ethanol. Farmers in the Midwest are sending billions of bushels of corn to refineries that turn it into billions of gallons of fuel. Automakers in Detroit have already built millions of cars, trucks and SUVs that can run on it, and are committed to making millions more. In Washington, politicians have approved generous subsidies for companies that make ethanol.

And just this week,

President Bush arranged with Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva for their countries to share ethanol production technology.

Even alternative fuel aficionados are surprised at the nation’s sudden enthusiasm for grain alcohol.

“It’s coming on dramatically; more rapidly than anyone had expected,” said Nathanael Greene, a senior policy analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

You’d think that would be good news, but it actually worries a lot of people.

The problem is, ethanol really isn’t ready for prime time. The only economical way to make ethanol right now is with corn, which means the burgeoning industry is literally eating America’s lunch, not to mention its breakfast and dinner. And though ethanol from corn may have some minor benefits with regard to energy independence, most analysts conclude its environmental benefits are questionable at best.

Proponents acknowledge the drawbacks of corn-based ethanol, but they believe it can help wean America off imported oil the way methadone helps a junkie kick heroin. It may not be ideal, but ethanol could help the country make the necessary and difficult transition to an environmentally and economically sustainable future.

There are many questions about ethanol’s place in America’s energy future. Some are easily answered; others, not so much.


Ethanol is moonshine. Hooch. Rotgut. White lightning. That explains why the last time Americans produced it in any appreciable amount was during Prohibition. Today, just like back then, virtually all the ethanol produced in the United States comes from corn that is fermented and then distilled to produce pure grain alcohol.


Any car will burn gasoline mixed with a small amount of ethanol. But cars must be equipped with special equipment to burn fuel that is more than about 10 percent ethanol. All three of the major American automakers are already producing flex-fuel cars that can run on either gasoline or E85, a mix of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline. Thanks to incentives from the federal government, they have committed to having half the cars they produce run on either E85 or biodiesel by 2012.


About as fast as farmers can grow the corn to make it. According to the Renewable Fuels Association, a trade group, ethanol production has doubled in the past three years, reaching nearly 5 billion gallons in 2006. With 113 ethanol plants currently operating and 78 more under construction, the country’s ethanol output is expected to double again in less than two years.


For all the environmental and economic troubles it causes, gasoline turns out to be a remarkably efficient automobile fuel. The energy required to pump crude out of the ground, refine it and transport it from oil well to gas tank is about 6 percent of the energy in the gasoline itself.

Ethanol is much less efficient, especially when it is made from corn. Just growing corn requires expending energy — plowing, planting, fertilizing and harvesting all require machinery that burns fossil fuel. Modern agriculture relies on large amounts of fertilizer and pesticides, both of which are produced by methods that consume fossil fuels. Then there’s the cost of transporting the corn to an ethanol plant, where the fermentation and distillation processes consume yet more energy. Finally, there’s the cost of transporting the fuel to filling stations. And because ethanol is more corrosive than gasoline, it can’t be pumped through relatively efficient pipelines, but must be transported by rail or tanker truck.

In the end, even the most generous analysts estimate that it takes the energy equivalent of three gallons of ethanol to make four gallons of the stuff. Some even argue that it takes more energy to produce ethanol from corn than you get out of it, but most agricultural economists think that’s a stretch.


If you make ethanol from corn, the environmental benefits are limited. When you consider the greenhouse gases that are released in the growing and refining process, corn-based ethanol is only slightly better with regard to global warming than gasoline. Growing corn also requires the use of pesticides and fertilizers that cause soil and water pollution.

The environmental benefit of corn-based ethanol is felt mostly around the tailpipe. When blended into gasoline in small amounts, ethanol causes the fuel to generate less smog-producing carbon monoxide. That has made it popular in smoggy cities like Los Angeles.


Making ethanol is so profitable, thanks to government subsidies and continued high oil prices, that plants are proliferating throughout the Corn Belt. Iowa, the nation’s top corn-producing state, is projected to have so many ethanol plants by 2008 it could easily find itself importing corn in order to feed them.

But that depends on the Invisible Hand. Making ethanol is profitable when oil is costly and corn is cheap. And the 51 cent-a-gallon federal subsidy doesn’t hurt. But oil prices are off from last year’s peaks and corn has doubled in price over the past year, from about $2 to $4 a bushel, thanks mostly to demand from ethanol producers.

High corn prices are causing social unrest in Mexico, where the government has tried to mollify angry consumers by slapping price controls on tortillas. Lester R. Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute, predicts food riots in other major corn-importing countries if something isn’t done.

U.S. consumers will soon feel the effects of high corn prices as well, if they haven’t already, because virtually everything Americans put in their mouths starts as corn. There’s corn flakes, corn chips, corn nuts, and hundreds of other processed foods that don’t even have the word corn in them. There’s corn in the occasional pint of beer and shot of whisky. And don’t forget high fructose corn syrup, a sweetener that is added to soft drinks, baked goods, candy and a lot of things that aren’t even sweet.

Some freaks even eat it off the cob.

It’s true that animals eat more than half of the corn produced in America; guess who eats them? On Friday the Agriculture Department announced that beef, pork and chicken will soon cost consumers more thanks to the demand of ethanol for corn.

It’s also true that there’s a difference between edible sweet corn and the feed corn that’s used for ethanol production. But because farmers try to grow the most profitable crop they can, higher prices for feed corn tend to discourage the production of sweet corn. That decreases its supply, driving the price of sweet corn up, too.

In fact, many agricultural economists believe rising demand for feed corn has squeezed the supply — and boosted the price — of not just sweet corn but also wheat, soybeans and several other crops.

America’s appetite for corn is enormous. But Americans consume so much gasoline that all the corn in the world couldn’t make enough ethanol to slake the nation’s lust for transportation fuels. Last year ethanol production used 12 percent of the U.S. corn harvest, but it replaced only 2.8 percent of the nation’s gasoline consumption.

“If we were to adopt automobile fuel efficiency standards to increase efficiency by 20 percent, that would contribute as much as converting the entire U.S. grain harvest into ethanol,” Brown said.


Most experts think it will take an array of renewable energy technologies to replace fossil fuels. Ethanol’s main drawbacks come not from the nature of the fuel itself, but from the fact that it is made using a critical component of the world’s food supply. Ethanol would be more beneficial both environmentally and economically if scientists could figure out how to make it from a nonfood plant that could be grown without the need for fertilizers, pesticides and other inputs. Researchers are currently working on methods to do just that, making ethanol from the cellulose in a wide variety of plants, including poplar trees, switchgrass and cornstalks.

But plant cellulose is more difficult to break down than the starch in corn kernels. That’s why people eat corn instead of grass. Plus it tastes better.

There are also technical hurdles related to separating, digesting and fermenting the cellulose fiber. Though it can be done, making ethanol from cellulose-rich material costs at least twice as much as making it from corn.


Some experts estimate that it will take 10 to 15 years before cellulosic ethanol becomes competitive. But Mitch Mandich, CEO of Range Fuels, thinks it will be a lot sooner than that. The Colorado-based company has started building a cellulosic ethanol plant in Georgia that converts wood chips and other waste left behind by the forest products industry. Another company, Iogen Corp., has been producing cellulosic ethanol from wheat, oat and barley straw for several years at a demonstration plant in Ottawa, Canada.


Studies suggest that cellulosic ethanol could yield at least four to six times the energy expended to produce it. It would also produce less greenhouse gas emissions than corn-based ethanol because much of the energy needed to refine it could come not from fossil fuels, but from burning other chemical components of the very same plants that contained the cellulose.


The U.S.

Department of Energy estimates that the United States could produce more than a billion tons of cellulosic material annually for ethanol production, from switchgrass grown on marginal agricultural lands to wood chips and other waste produced by the timber industry. In theory, that material could produce enough ethanol to substitute for about 30 percent of the country’s oil consumption.

A University of Tennessee study released in November reached similar conclusions. As much as 100 million acres of land would have to be dedicated to energy crops in order to reach the goal of substituting renewable biofuels for 25 percent of the nation’s fuel consumption by 2025, the report estimated. That would be a significant fraction of the nation’s 800 million acres of cultivable land, the study’s authors said, but not enough to cause disruptions in agricultural markets.

“There really aren’t any losers,” said University of Tennessee agricultural economist Burton English.


There might be losers. Simple economics dictates that if farmers find it more profitable to grow switchgrass rather than corn, soy or cotton, the price of those commodities is bound to rise in response to falling supply.

“You can produce a lot of ethanol from cellulose without competing with food,” said Wallace Tyner, an agricultural economist at Purdue University. “But if you want to get half your fuel supply from it you will compete with food agriculture.”

There may also be ecological impacts. The government currently pays farmers not to farm about 35 million acres of conservation land, mostly in the Midwest. Those fallow tracts provide valuable habitat for wildlife, especially birds. Though switchgrass is a good home for most birds, if it became profitable to grow it or another energy crop on conservation land some species could decline.


Ethanol is certainly a valuable tool in our efforts to address the economic and environmental problems associated with fossil fuels. But even the most optimistic projections suggest it can only replace a fraction of the 140 billion gallons of gasoline that Americans consume every year. It will take a mix of technologies to achieve energy independence and reduce the country’s production of greenhouse gases.

“I think we’re in a very interesting era. We are recognizing a problem and we are finding lots of potential solutions,” said David Tilman, an ecologist at the University of Minnesota.

But if we’re serious about achieving energy independence and mitigating global warming, Tilman and other experts said, one of those solutions must be energy conservation.

That means doubling the fuel economy of our automobiles, expanding mass transit and decreasing the amount of energy it takes to light, heat and cool our buildings. Without such measures, ethanol and other innovations will make little more than a dent in the nation’s fossil fuel consumption.

Bank of America gets credit: Charge cards for illegals seen as ‘natural’

I don’t know whatelse to say other than ths a complete and total crock of shit!  It’s bad enough that our federal government is willing to mortgage ou future on the backs of a 5-8% population of illegals.  But now Amreicans are going to foot the bill for their bad debt too.  Don’t we do enough of that on a governmental basis?  Now we need to extend it down to individuals? 

Bank of America gets credit: Charge cards for illegals seen as ‘natural’ – Business –
It may be only a matter of time before illegal immigrants in Massachusetts are charging up purchases on credit cards issued by Bank of America and other institutions – even if they don’t have Social Security numbers.
Critics say the move, assuming it comes to pass, would aid and abet those living here illegally – and may pose national security risks.
But local bank officials said yesterday that Bank of America’s plan to roll out a nationwide credit-card program for illegal immigrants is “interesting” and logical, considering the federal government requires banks to provide other services to undocumented workers.

Dixie Chicks sweep Grammy Awards – and can kiss my ass!!!!

This story is the epitome of how the the left in Hollywood and the media are so pervasive in the manipulation of what is perceived as the pulse of America. For the last three years, Natalie Maines (or whatever her fucking name is) and her crappy little band have been rejected by their commercial audience. This is entirely caused by their choice to alienate their core constuency by refusing to understand their values and motivations. In the real world, the choices of the Dixie Chicks have caused them much pain and financial hardship. A lesson that should be heeded. Entities that engage in activities for profit must understand the needs, wants, desires and motivations of those that consume their product. But last night they were emotionally bailed out by the 11,000 voting members of the recording academy (roughly .004% of Americans).

However, in the alternate reality that is the media and Hollywood elite, the real world economic factors no longer apply. In an era where entertainment puveyors have become convinced that they can drive policy, validating the sentiment of those like the Dixie Chicks has become paramount over stark economic realities. I don’t mention this because I disagree with the views of Natalie…whatever. I mention it because it is yet another symptom of the paradigm shift in American society.

Increasingly, industries whose sole aim was to return a decent profit to their shareholders have entered into the political arena. These folks are championed by high profile baby boomer types and Hollywood elites with their eyes set on social change. Hey, advocating social change is awesome. But when it comes at the price of the principles of capitalism, I find it troubling.

Many will argue that capitalism has many flaws. And I’m willing to argue those points. But, to date, it’s the best thing we have going. And when for profit entities opt to forgo profits to make a political statement, I grow concerned. Americans have had the power to vote with their pocketbook for generations. Last night showed that precedent is changing.

Dixie Chicks sweep Grammy Awards – 2007 Grammy Awards –
LOS ANGELES – The Dixie Chicks completed a defiant comeback on Sunday night, winning five Grammy awards after being shunned by the country music establishment over the group’s anti-Bush comments leading up to the Iraq invasion.

The Texas trio won record and song of the year for the no-regrets anthem “Not Ready to Make Nice.” They also won best country album, which was especially ironic considering that the group says they don’t consider themselves country artists anymore.

“I’m ready to make nice!” lead singer Natalie Maines exclaimed as the group accepted the album of the year award. “I think people are using their freedom of speech with all these awards. We get the message.”

Google Encounters Hurdles in Selling Radio Advertising

SAN FRANCISCO, Feb. 9 — When Google acquired dMarc Broadcasting, a company whose software allows marketers to place ads on radio stations, for up to $1.24 billion early last year, it was seen as a clear sign of Google’s ambitions to extend its dominance over Internet advertising to other media.

Now, there are indications that Google Audio, as the company’s foray into radio advertising is known, has hit some snags. The two brothers who founded dMarc in 2002 have left Google amid growing speculation by analysts and radio and advertising executives that the Internet giant is finding it harder than expected to muscle its way into the radio business.

Industry insiders cite everything from culture clashes to resistance in the radio industry, which relies heavily on sales representatives, to automate its advertising systems. But the hurdle mentioned most often is Google’s apparent inability to secure enough air time, or inventory, to make its system attractive to advertisers.

“At a high level, dMarc and Google are both trying to move mountains and reshape traditional media,” said Jordan Rohan, an Internet analyst with RBC Capital Markets. “That’s not easy to do. If Google Audio were to be successful, it needs to have prime-time and drive-time inventory in major markets.”

Google, which began testing radio ads late last year, confirmed the departure of Chad and Ryan Steelberg, the dMarc founders, which was first reported on Thursday by, an industry blog. In a statement, the company said it was happy with the progress of the tests to date and remained committed to the audio business.

And during a conference call with analysts last week, Jonathan Rosenberg, senior vice president for product management at Google, said the radio test was “pretty robust in terms of scope.”

“I believe we had over 700 radio stations in more than 200 metros in the network,” Mr. Rosenberg said, according to a transcript of the call published by Thomson Financial.

But radio analysts said that they were not impressed by the numbers themselves, stressing that Google’s access to air time may be limited, by and large, to what the industry calls “remnant inventory” — ad time sold at the last minute and at low prices.