Question On Buying A Computer From You Smart People

It’s been awhile since I’ve purchased a laptop. My Samsung lasted 6 years before the hard drive died. I’m still pretty tech savvy, but, thought I would ask you smart people what you think.

I’m looking at 3 laptops, but, the primary two are the HP Envy X360 at Best Buy and the HP Pavilion 15Z at CostCo. The first is $670 and the latter is $649.

The X360 has an AMD FX 9800, running at 2.7ghz. The 15z runs an AMD A9-9410 at 2.9ghz.

Graphics card slightly faster on the X360. Both have 1Tb memory. Both have 15.6″ screen. Both have lighted keyboards. Same screen resolution. Both touch screen. Both quad core. Same 2gb cache. Most things are pretty similar.

Here’s where they diverge. The X360 has 8gb of ram, no DVD player, no ethernet port, and has a 7200rpm hard drive, so that HD is fast. It is also a 2 in 1, so the screen folds all the way back. Nice, but does mean that the screen wobbles a little when you move it. Keys are soft.

The 15z has 16gb of ram, DVD burner (cannot find if it is dual layer), ethernet port, and the HD is 5400rpm.

Kinda leaning towards the X360, because, while less ram (and not upgradable), that hard drive blazes. I do have an external DVD burner which can be used for installing programs (have a couple that require this), and can always get both a dual layer dvd burner and an ethernet to USB adaptor, both cheap.

What are your thoughts? Of course, it also depends on whether Costco actually has it in stock.

BTW, I prefer HP’s over Dells and Lenovos, of which can get some pretty good ones from $500 to $700. I like where HP puts the US on the right side, high near screen, due to using a mouse so close to the laptop.  Sadly, Samsungs are expensive and hard to get. I will not purchase without touching and playing.

Read: Question On Buying A Computer From You Smart People »

If All You See…

…are trees dying from too much carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Daley Gator, with a post wondering if California will attempt to ban all semi-automatic rifles.

Read: If All You See… »

It Snowed In The Sahara: Can You Guess What’s At Fault?

It’s you for your poor choice in wrapping paper and planning on serving meat at Christmas dinner. You had to know someone would do this, right?

Climate change: For the first time in 37 years, snow in the Sahara

In 1984, charitable supergroup Band Aid sang, ‘And there won’t be snow in Africa this Christmas time’.

Had it been this year, they’d have got it wrong — on December 19, a freak snow shower coated the dusty red dunes of Aïn Séfra, Algeria’s ‘Gateway to the Desert’.

The snow — the result of a combination of atmospheric factors — stayed for about a day before melting.

The Washington Post reported that a weather map analysis from the day of the snowfall shows that temperatures in the area, at the foothills of the Atlas Mountains, were about 10 to 15 degrees colder than normal when the event occurred. Also, a very strong patch of low pressure had been created at a high altitude, which rapidly sucked up air and cooled it, creating conditions for the extremely rare snowfall.

Seriously. They’re blaming this on ‘climate change.’ Snow.  These people are nuts.

Rather pretty, eh?

Read: It Snowed In The Sahara: Can You Guess What’s At Fault? »

Everybody Panic: ‘Climate Change’ Is Going To Destroy Your Christmas Favorites

This is all your fault, for refusing to give up your fossil fueled travel and big carbon footprint….no, no, it doesn’t matter than all those pushing this issue haven’t walked the talk, because they are doing something more important, spreading awareness…, causing your own Christmas doom

Climate change is coming for your Christmas favorites

A little indulgence over the festive season is our reward for enduring a curious and challenging year. But brace yourselves once more, for many treats we’re looking forward to are already under threat from climate change.

Verisk Maplecroft’s newly released Climate Change Exposure Index (CCEI) highlights that changing weather patterns over the coming decades are likely to impact the quantity — and quality — of a range of festive goods, from fine wines to perfume to Christmas nibbles.

For consumers, climate change may affect the price and availability of the goods we’re buying. But for luxury products, the more significant threat is that the exclusive characteristic of a brand that makes it so desirable could be irretrievably altered.

It’s a real shame that you’ve refused to give up your use of an ice maker, which has caused weather patterns which had been the same for 4.5 billion years to change. Seriously, this will mess with wine and champagne. They never grew wine grapes in areas that were cooler, you know. Like Britain during that mythical Medieval Warm Period.

And Channel perfume! Jasmine flowers from near the town of Grasse, France, may not grow there, and it is against the Laws Of Magic to grow it anywhere else!

And it would be preposterous to grow vanilla in other places! And nutmeg, cloves, cinnamon, cocoa, sugar, coffee, and so much more!

Climate shifts in other nations may make them more suitable producers of luxury goods. However, it remains to be seen whether Christmas party hosts will admit to serving sparkling wine from Kent, rather than Champagne.

Kent! Kent!!!!! The horror! And this all might maybe possibly sorta we think happen, so, guys and gals, you must give up your liberty and freedom and accept paying lots more for everything in order to stop the global temperature from going up 0.0.5C, at best.

Read: Everybody Panic: ‘Climate Change’ Is Going To Destroy Your Christmas Favorites »

White Working People Voted Against Themselves Or Something

Liberals and their compliant media are still in utter denial as to just why Hillary lost the election. They’ve created elaborate Excuses, rather than simply dealing with the notions that a) Hillary was a horrible candidate, b) she and her team had a poor strategy, and c) Democrats policies are unpopular in practice. Instead, we get things like this (it’s no wonder Trump will continue to tweet directly to the People)

Why the white working class votes against itself

Why did all those Economically Anxiousâ„¢ Trump voters reject policies that would have helped relieve their economic anxiety?

Maybe they believed any Big Government expansions would disproportionately go to the “wrong” kinds of people — that is, people unlike themselves.

Or, maybe the real reason is that they’ve seen that the Democrat Party policies of the past 8 years do little to help themselves, and, instead, help the coastal rich elites while creating more governmental control. And along comes Donald Trump who spoke directly to these people, who campaigned in their home areas, and who never said anything about putting them out of work.

Hillary Clinton’s unexpected loss, particularly in traditionally blue strongholds, has led to lots of rumination about what the Democrats must do to reclaim their political territory. Smarter marketing, smoother organization, greater outreach and fresher faces are among the most commonly cited remedies.

But there seems to be universal agreement, at least among the Democratic politicians and strategists I’ve interviewed, that the party’s actual ideas are the right ones.

And opinion piece writer Catherine Rampell won’t disagree. She apparently has orders from the DNC. Regardless, if the Democrat policies are so great, why have they lost so many elected seats starting at the federal level and going down to the local level?

Democrats, they note, pushed for expansion of health-insurance subsidies for low- and middle-income Americans; investments in education and retraining; middle-class tax cuts; and a higher minimum wage. These are core, standard-of-living improving policies. They would do far more to help the economically precarious — including and especially white working-class voters — than Donald Trump’s top-heavy tax cuts and trade wars ever could.

Here’s the problem. These Democratic policies probably would help the white working class. But the white working class doesn’t seem to buy that they’re the ones who’d really benefit.

Is this starting to look like a DNC press release? And one of the reasons why so many said “to hell with the Democrats and Hillary and the media”? This is the typical Democrat elitist opinion, acting like mom and dad trying to tell people what’s best for them, when these voters have different ideas. The whine continues on and on and on, cementing the wrong ideas for the Democrat party on their loss. People are tired of the nanny state government, they’re tired of it picking winners and losers, they’re tired of being called racists and denegrated, tired of seeing their jobs go overseas and to imported labor, tired of being patronized, tired of the government acting like mom and dad, and tired of the silly Social Justice Warrior policies of the Democrats.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: White Working People Voted Against Themselves Or Something »

Unhinged Hillary Supporter Harass Ivanka Trump On Plane

I guess this is all part of that tolerance and stuff. It would be called a hate crime by the Southern Poverty Law Center and other far left outlets if this was a Trump supporter haranguing a Hillary worker

(UK Daily Mail)  Ivanka Trump made it very clear on Thursday that she has no problem staying cool and calm under pressure.

The 35-year-old mother-of-three was travelling with her children to Palm Beach, Florida from New York City on a JetBlue flight when a man began to accost her.

‘Your father is ruining the country,’ said Dan Goldstein, a lawyer from Brooklyn, who had a  child in his arms according to TMZ.

Goldstein then began screaming out: ‘Why is she on our flight. She should be flying private.’

Ivanka paid as little attention as possible and tried to preoccupy her children with some crayons to diffuse the situation until the crew escorted him off the plane.

Of course, his husband disputes her unhinged childish behavior, which got them kicked off the flight

However. just an hour prior to that Lasner wrote on Twitter: ‘Ivanka and Jared at JFK T5, flying commercial. My husband chasing them down to harass them. #banalityofevil’

Lassner also took a photo of Ivanka sitting on the plane writing that they were kicked off for ‘expressing displeasure about flying w/ Trumps.’

And while Goldstein was happy to go after Ivanka and Lasner was eager to defend his actions, neither of the men confronted Ivanka’s husband Jared Kushner, who was right next to her on the flight standing in the aisle the entire time.

Right. Attack the woman with children. We’d hear about the GOP War On Women if the situation was reversed. Oh, and notice the part about this being sorta planned. Both men have deleted their Twitter accounts. Lots more at the article.

Read: Unhinged Hillary Supporter Harass Ivanka Trump On Plane »

If All You See…

…is wrapping paper that you really hope is sustainable and has a low carbon footprint, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is NoTricksZone, with a post on the “Hockey Stick” collapsing.

Read: If All You See… »

Good Job, Warmists: Environment/Pollution Ranks Last In List Of Concerns

The problem here is that the Cult of Climastrology members have turned every real environmental problem into on involving ‘climate change’, which gets people to tune out

(Daily Caller)  Only 3 percent of Americans listed “environment/pollution” as their most important issue in 2016, according to a new Gallup poll.

The poll is part of Gallup’s annual survey, which ranks the issues Americans say are the most important to them each month throughout the year. While public opinion on the 25 issues listed on the poll varied from month to month, “the environment” ranked consistently as the lowest in national importance for most Americans throughout the entire year, tied with “guns.”

Gallup’s results found that “the economy” was the most important issue to Americans, with 16 percent of those polled saying it was their top concern. “The government” came in second at 13 percent, while “unemployment/jobs” came in third at 9 percent. Race relations and immigration competed for the fourth spot with about 7 percent of respondents considering both as the top issue.

So, people do not care about ‘climate change’, and they do not care about grabbing guns. They also find little concern for income inequality. Heck, people with “no opinion” ranked higher than all three.

Despite the heavy media and political pressure, Americans aren’t very concerned about global warming compared to citizens of other countries, according to a Pew Research Center study published in December. Thirty-six of the forty industrialized nations surveyed were more concerned about global warming than America.

When it comes down to it, most citizens aren’t really concerned with the things Democrats push. This is one of the reasons Trump won. He talked about what mattered. The bread and butter issues. Hillary talked about non-important stuff.

Sadly, these Warmists have done more harm to real environmental issues than helped with their insanity.

Read: Good Job, Warmists: Environment/Pollution Ranks Last In List Of Concerns »

Hey, I Bet You Wanted Tips On Talking Climate Change This Holiday Season

Yes, it is the holiday season. Christmas, New Year’s, Hanukkah, and a host of others. So, you obviously need tips on nagging talking to people on ‘climate change’. These are critical tips, if we go by the writing in the browser bar at Eco Watch

5 Tips on How to Talk Climate Change This Holiday Season

We’ve entered a new political era and emotions are raw—even over a scientifically settled topic such as climate change. Discussions that escalate into arguments can easily ruin a family holiday party or sour a dinner with friends.

That doesn’t mean sensitive topics or opposing views must be swept under the rug.

The trick is to use patience, tolerance, an optimistic tone—and last, but not least, a keen understanding of your audience—to nudge your climate-skeptic sister or father-in-law. You may find they’re suddenly open to your views.

Here are five tips to keep in mind as you get ready for the conversation:

Missing from the list is “Stop. No one is interested in your pseudo-religious views, no one wants to listen to you nag, we’re watching football here, and, hey, if fossil fuels are so bad, why’d you drive here?”

  1. First of all: Don’t get angry. (good luck with that. You’re a Leftist, after all)
  2. Leave apocalypse to the movies. (the suggestion is to talk about economic benefits and stuff, but, really, 97% of Warmist utterings are about doom)
  3. Seek common ground. (this is about showing respect for opposite views. So, yeah, it can’t happen, because liberals only show tolerance for radical Islam)
  4. Tell your own stories. (because the beach eroded, the Earth is doomed or something)
  5. Stick to the facts. (well, since Eco Watch trots out the 97% canard, facts have gone out the window)

That should work out well, right?

Having your facts straight is important, so do your homework and offer to get back to your father-in-law with more information if you can’t answer a question.

This is a suggestion to prepare talking points prior to attending an event, meaning this is a suggestion to intentionally engage your friends and relatives in a political conversation they would prefer to not have. To annoy people. To nag them. And then you’ll wonder why they tell you to go outside till dinner, then rush you out the door afterwards.

Read: Hey, I Bet You Wanted Tips On Talking Climate Change This Holiday Season »

Trump’s Tweets Are (Still) A Threat To National Security Or Something

Previously, it was Politico trotting out the meme that Trump tweeting is a threat to national security, now we the far left New Republic’s Jeet Heer giving it a whirl, with something new

The Washington Post has created a nifty tool designed to address one of the novel problems of our political era: a president-elect who persistently uses Twitter to spread lies. A web-browser extension for Chrome and Firefox, RealDonaldContext annotates some of Trump’s tweets with fact-checking from the Post. For instance, last month Trump tweeted, “In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally.” Below that, if you use the extension, is a note saying, “This is incorrect or false,” with this explication: “Trump didn’t win in a landslide in any sense—but more importantly there is absolutely no evidence that there were a significant number of votes cast illegally, much less ‘millions’ of them.”

Remember how the Washington Post did this for all of Obama’s tweets, whether from the POTUS account, White House account, or the BarackObama one run by his old Organizing for Amerika pals? No? And the media wonders why people seem them as biased and overly partisan.

Yet fact-checking, while necessary, is also only a partial solution. Trump’s core supporters, and the Republican Party that has decided to appease them, have proven willing to swallow his lies wholesale; they are immune to fact-checkers. Moreover, the problem with Trump’s tweets isn’t just that they often contain falsehoods, but that they are deliberate provocations with the potential to cause real conflict.

Consider Trump’s tweets after China seized a U.S. underwater drone: (see them at the article)

Yes, they are upset that Trump would be tough on China. This has Heer soiling his panties. He further skidmarked said panties over Trump noting the violence from Islamists in Europe. And more doom and gloom and stuff, because the State Department weenies need clear guidance to be weenies, ending with

Trump isn’t even president yet, and already his tweets are causing diplomatic turmoil. Fact-checking tools are helpful, but Trump’s political opposition—not just Democrats, but Republicans dismayed by his foreign policy, like senators John McCain and Lindsay Graham—they need to make the case to the American public that his tweets are a threat to U.S. foreign policy, and even to its national security. Otherwise a President Trump could start a flame war on Twitter that turns into a bloody war in real life.

Do you know what the real problem here is? It’s not about the minuscule potential for conflict (it ain’t gonna happen, folks. Nations might get Offended, but, they won’t be starting conflicts), it’s, as I wrote when Politico tried this “Trump brings his message directly to The people, rather than going through the media, who filter and spin his message. The MSM does not like this in the least. And, really, no matter what Trump does, the media will find a way to say “this is horrible!” And they’ll go looking for things, just like with Bush.”

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Trump’s Tweets Are (Still) A Threat To National Security Or Something »

Pirate's Cove