Is this essay outline ok?

Human Dependency: Computers

I. Computer history.
1. Statistics and History
A. The computer has been around for eleven years as of 2011.
B. As of 2008 there are 1,018,057,389 active internet users.
2. What Computers are Capable of.
A. Computers can process; numbers, word documents, and files.

3. Entertainment 1950-2011 & Thesis statement
A. 1950’s: Plays & silent movies. 2011: 3D movies, plays, amp theaters, and the internet.
B. Thesis Statement: People all around the world have become too independent on computers: TV, books, news, and music are available at a click of a button: therefore, there is no need to go out and physically get what you need, if the public wishes to lead an active and healthy life style for generations to come, it will need to limit time on computers.

II. Reasons for the internet.
1. Entertainment Purposes.
A. Different websites; YouTube, Facebook, Hulu & Fancast.
B. How these websites are profitable.
2. Business Purposes.
1. Online taxes / E-Stocks & E-trade
A. The ability to trade stocks and monitor taxes.
3. Car insurance through the internet.
A. Fast and instant reliability.
B. Saves a trip to the DMV.
4. Businesses that need the internet to keep clientele.
A. Google, Yahoo, Comcast, Time Warner, K12, Willington and Winks.

.

III. How computers are taking several companies’ clientele.

1. Magazines/news papers closing.
A. In 2009 “507” news paper companies were shut down.
B. Online news.
2. “New” reading compared to “old” reading.
A. Old reading, “paper” new reading, computer screens.
3. Analyzing magazine and news paper sales from the past 50 years.
4. How both magazines/news papers intend on thriving in a “new environment”.

IV. Child obesity internet concerns.
1. Electronic cigarettes appeal to kids.
2. Too much time spent on computers for youth.
3. Internet time should be regulated by parent or a guardian.

4. Eye strain & Hand cramps
5. Not exerting energy through the day or inactive.
6. Obesity levels through out the last 50 years.

V. Conclusion
1. Evaluating the pros and cons of computers.
A. Health for the current generation, and future generation’s.
B. How much profit comes from internet
C. Will the future fully rely on the internet.
2. Final Thoughts/ Conclusion.

Why PM went for Nuclear liability Bill that would clip wings of India’s nuclear technology?

Former chairman of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, A. Gopalakrishnan, has said the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill will lead to clipping the wings of India’s indigenous nuclear technology capabilities.

Mr. Gopalakrishnan, a stringent critic of the India-U.S. nuclear deal, told The Hindu that the new law would open the doors for the U.S. and French nuclear industry to “extensively sell their very costly and unproven light-water reactors (LWR) to India.”

He said that back in 2008, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had, without consulting the Indian Parliament or the public, promised the U.S. administration to purchase 10,000 MWe worth of LWRs from that country. This, Mr. Gopalakrishnan claimed, was under pressure from the U.S. administration for getting the `123’ agreement passed by the U.S. Congress.

Mr. Singh had also promised French President Nicholas Sarkozy to purchase French reactors, in return for his help to circumvent the Nuclear Suppliers Group’s conditions. Without a liability law that lets the reactor manufacturers off the hook in case of a nuclear accident, these companies would not dare to do business with India, he said.

Mr. Gopalakrishnan pointed out that India is a leading country in thorium breeder reactor technology and is poised to build thorium-based reactors routinely by 2040. The country had abundant resources of thorium raw material in the sands of Kerala’s shores.

He contended that the plan to import 40,000 MWe worth reactors during 2015-35 would shelve the thorium-based breeder reactor technology currently under development. “We have two generations of top-class nuclear scientists and engineers who have been painstakingly trained; we have the technological and industrial capability; and we have abundant raw materials,” he said. “All these will go to waste if we predominantly start relying on the import of the highly expensive U.S. and French reactors.”

Mr. Gopalakrishnan thinks that had Prime Minister Singh’s secret promise (in the form of a letter by India’s Foreign Secretary to the U.S. Under-Secretary of State) on September 10, 2008 been made public at the time, the Opposition parties and the public would not have perhaps let the India-U.S. nuclear deal through.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article582271.ece

The PM and his govt had repeatedly proved that national interests are of least concern to them. The low compensation agreed against the Bhopal tragedy with US based Union Carbide by Rajiv in the past, is typical of the present sell out of our interests “to adhere to the Convention on Supplementary Compensation (CSC) for Nuclear Damage…” whereby the national law should legally channel the liability for all nuclear accidents in India absolutely to the `operator’ of the nuclear facility!!!

What are your views on this suicidal deals of the UPA govt?
Dear Pquaint, I wish to answer your points:

You say: 1. Before attempting to answer this question, I’d like to read the views of Dr. Anil Kakodkar, Dr. Srikumar Banerjee and Dr. R. K. Sinha also. Like “one swallow doesn’t make a summer”…this person’s views need to be validated by other nuclear scientists too.

We know that it requires lot of grit to speak hard truths against a serious wrong of a powerful Govt like UPA’s about whose chairperson, even Media thinks several times before a comment! If as much exposures as about Sonia family’s alleged deposits abroad had been made against any other leader in the country, the media would have made tons of comments by now!

But they keep studied silence when the Task Force under Gurumoorthy publishes details before the Press Reporters daring Govt to take action if they were proved wrong! So I would least expect most elite critics and bureaucrats or scientists to speak out against Govt in the sensitive issue!

2. PM being In charge of DAE
2. PM being In charge of DAE wouldn’t make any deal without consulting eminent scientists…and weighing all pros and cons!!!

In that case let him give his rejoinder to the elite scientist who spoke to the media. A person of Dr G’s stature would not talk serious things without solid facts, like politicians do. And we had seen how the MM govt had acted in the various issues! He would not hesitate to call even the infamous Spectrum deals as akin to ”food subsidy”!

3. By now I have pretty good idea of political leanings of members like yourself and a few other answerers who suspect EVERY move Congress leaders make…totally ignoring and/or overlooking the fact that India has made great progress in science and technology under the able leadership and policies of Congress party.

Yes I do not make any secret of my serious doubts about the Congress leaders just as people of your group do about the major opposition groups! But people know, learned sister, that any progress in any field
any field in the country is happening in spite of the bunglings of this govt! The talk of Second Green Revolution etc are still pathetically sneering at us!

4. To say that “The PM and his govt had repeatedly proved that national interests are of least concern to them” is SLANDEROUS!!!

Please note that I had not blindly commented in the forum about any contentious issue without good reasons. Mr Gopalakrishnan had not given just his sweet opinions without facts, but given plausible reasons and facts which you cannot call ‘’slanderous’’

Can anyone put this into an outline for me?? 10 points!!?

Ida Tarbell helped transform journalism by introducing what is called today investigative journalism. Through her achievements she not only helped to expand the role of the newspaper in modern society and stimulate the Progressive reform movement, but she also became a role model for women wishing to become professional journalists.Born on the oil frontier of western Pennsylvania in 1857, Tarbell was among the first women to graduate from Allegheny College in 1880. After trying her hand at the more traditional women’s job of teaching, Tarbell began writing and editing a magazine for the Methodist Church. Then, after studying in France for a few years, she joined S. S. McClure’s new reform-minded magazine in 1894. Initially she wrote two popular biographical series–on Napoleon and Abraham Lincoln. In 1902, she embarked on her ground breaking study of John D. Rockefeller�s Standard Oil Company, or what was called the Standard Oil Trust. Her History of the Standard Oil Company, published in 1904, was a landmark work of expos� journalism that became known as “muckraking.” Her exposure of Rockefeller’s unfair business methods outraged the public and led the government to prosecute the company for violations of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. As a result, after years of precedent-setting litigation, the Supreme Court upheld the break-up of Standard Oil.As the most famous woman journalist of her time, Tarbell founded the American Magazine in 1906. She authored biographies of several important businessmen and wrote a series of articles about an extremely controversial issue of her day, the tariff imposed on goods imported from foreign countries. Of this series President Woodrow Wilson commented, �She has written more good sense, good plain common sense, about the tariff than any man I know of.�During World War I she joined the efforts to improve the plight of working women. In 1922, The New York Times named her one of the “Twelve Greatest American Women.” It was journalism like hers that inspired Americans of the early twentieth century to seek reform in our government, in our economic structures, and in our urban areas. Along with other muckrakers like Lincoln Steffens, Ray Stannard Baker, and Upton Sinclair, Tarbell ushered in reform journalism. Ever since, newspapers have played a leading role as the watchdogs and consciences of our political, economic, and social lives.Although Tarbell was not, herself an advocate of women�s issues or women�s rights, as the most prominent woman active in the muckraking movement and one of the most respected business historians of her generation, Tarbell succeeded in a “male” world � the world of journalism, business analysis, and world affairs, thus helping to open the door to other women seeking careers in journalism and, later, in broadcasting.By the early 1900s, John D. Rockefeller Sr. had finished building his oil empire. For over 30 years, he had applied his uncanny shrewdness, thorough intelligence, and patient vision to the creation of an industrial organization without parallel in the world. The new century found him facing his most formidable rival ever–not another businessman, but a 45-year-old woman determined to prove that Standard Oil had never played fair. The result, Ida Tarbell’s magazine series “The History of the Standard Oil Company,” would not only change the history of journalism, but also the fate of Rockefeller’s empire, shaken by the powerful pen of its most implacable observer.Born in a log home in Hatch Hollow, northwestern Pennsylvania, on November 5, 1857, Ida Minerva Tarbell grew up amid the derricks of the Oil Region. Her father, Frank Tarbell, built wooden oil storage tanks and later became an oil producer and refiner. “Things were going well in father’s business,” she would write years later. “There was ease such as we had never known; luxuries we had never heard of… Then suddenly [our] gay, prosperous town received a blow between the eyes.” The 1872 South Improvement scheme, a hidden agreement between the railroads and refiners led by John D. Rockefeller, hit the Pennsylvania Oil Region like a tidal wave. It hit the Tarbells too, leaving behind painful memories that would be rekindled thirty years later. “Out of the alarm and bitterness and confusion, I gathered from my father’s talk a conviction to which I still hold — that what had been undertaken was wrong.”After graduating from Allegheny College, the sole woman in the class of 1880, Tarbell moved to Ohio to teach science, but resigned after two years. She would find her true calling just months later back in Pennsylvania, when she met the editor of a small magazine, “The Chautauquan,” published in Meadville, Pennsylvania. Tarbell’s inquisitive mind and her determination to have a career pushed her to become intensely invested in her writing and research projects. At 34, fascinated by the story of Madame Roland, the leader of an influential salon during the French Revolution, she moved to Pari

A question for the Cena haters: don’t you see how vital he is to the future of the company (more inside +BQ)?

Everyone’s entitled to their own opinions, but i wanted to make a case here on something. There are obviously a lot of folks out there who do not like Cena, but i wanted to point something out quickly that i hope Cena haters can take in mind, and that is the future of the WWE.

The whole PG era, Cena, it all is trying to focus on the younger generation, the “kids” and whatnot. A lot of people complain about this, but what i think these people are overlooking is the need to keep the WWE going. People my age, we’re only here for so long. What happens when we’re gone? The WWE could cease to exist. It’s vital to continue to maintain an audience, so that the company can survive, and the best way of doing this is by focusing on the younger generation. We can’t expect the WWE to tailor to our wants and needs, and i don’t necessarily think it’s tailoring to the kids’ wants and needs either: it’s a business decision that has nothing to do with making money, in my opinion at least, but more so so the WWE can continue to live on long after the older generation has passed.

related BQ: We could have the WWE go back to being TV-14, but don’t you think parents would keep their kids from watching it? The Attitude era was great, memorable; those who witnessed it will never forget it. But i think people need to realize that the WWE will never go back to TV-14. It will lose viewership and will receive even more scrutiny than it already does. i think one of the largest reasons why the WWE went PG had nothing to do with “Mattel,” but because if they didn’t lighten things up, they may have been threatened to have been removed from television, as there were (and are) children watching the WWE. A parent doesn’t want their 5 year old hearing curse words, seeing wrestlers bleeding profusely, seeing Divas in bra and panties matches; it has so much more to do with the future of the WWE.

i think that’s why Cena is the way he is, why the WWE is PG. Forget about Cena’s move set, his gimmick, whatever else people complain about, and forget about WWE being rated PG. If the WWE only concentrates on us, versus also the children, the WWE will come to an end. Keeping the younger kids into it will lead to even further, eventual viewers in their kids, and so on and so forth, therefore keeping the WWE alive.

What are your thoughts on the matter? Am i just talking nonsense here, or can Cena haters (and PG haters) see where i’m coming from?

How accurate is the answer pasted below regarding the government bail out?

I had asked a question about the government bail out and this guys response is how I feel but I’m not sure how accurate it is. Please over look his typos as we all make mistakes when we are typing and trying to answer in a hurry.

His response:

They need tobail out wallstreet because of the fiat money system. Our politicians hate having to raise taxes, it is very unpopular and leads to being tossed out of office. Instead the politicians love to spend borrowed money, and then pay it back with interest so it appears to the people as if taxes remain the same, and there is only the hidden tax of inflation. When governments get to the point where they have to pay back more in interest then they raise in revenue, then you get hyperinflationary depressions such as the one we are going through now. If we allow the big companies to fail, there will be about 12 months of hardship while smaller fiscal institutions step up to the plate and take over the business the failed banks left in their passing. Eventually things would be restored to normal, and life would go on with new names in the world of domestic banking.

The bailout will prolong our recession and eventually it will lead to an even bigger nastier crash, and the big banks will consolidate and form mega huge bank conglomerates and own and dominate the public until there is revolt and possible civil war.

The bail out benefits the average tax payer by making you take on the toxic wate derivatie garbae that the free market has finally priced to their actual value of zip. Once we the tax payer own these worthless assets we will also take on the debt that these worthless assets have incurred. We will then spend the rest of our lives, and the lives of our future generations paying off the unpayable debt, a debt that is greater then all the actual assets of the entire world.

End of his response.

I understand that the bail out is to try and save the economy but isn’t it just a little bandaid on a huge gushing wound?

I would like to know your opinions on whats right and whats wrong with the statement above. Thanks