Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Camera Card Reader

Reply
Thread Tools

Camera Card Reader

 
 
Chris H
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-31-2008
In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, John Navas
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 17:35:40 +0000, Chris H <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
>in <(E-Mail Removed)>:
>
>>In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, John Navas
>><(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>>>On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 03:29:06 -0600, Ron Hunter <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>wrote in <(E-Mail Removed)>:
>>>
>>>>> You'll look at it differently when gas hits $10 per gallon.
>>>>>
>>>>It's currently about $1.36 a gallon here. When do you expect $10 a
>>>>gallon pricing?
>>>
>>>Certainly within 10 years, and quite possibly even within 5 years.
>>>When the world economy recovers, the billions in China, India and the
>>>rest of Asia will go back to consuming oil like there's no tomorrow,

>>
>>But they don't consume at anything like the rate the average American
>>does.

>
>What you're missing is that they are rapidly closing the gap, and that
>there are so many more of them that even modest closing of the gap has
>massive consequences.



Closing the gap? The Average American uses 4 times the amount the
average Chinese does. China is also a hell of a lot bigger than the US.

I think the Chinese will slow down when the US does.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-31-2008
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, John Navas
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >> There are cabs virtually everywhere.
> >>

> >HAH! NOT!
> >I can tell you are a 'city boy'.

>
> Even in the little towns of Indiana there are cabs.


but not so much in montana where towns are 100 miles apart.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Keith nuttle
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-01-2009
HEMI - Powered wrote:
> John Navas added these comments in the current discussion du jour
> ...
>
>>> WHAT? OH NO! To hear the environmentalists rave, ONLY the US
>>> is responsible for pollution. The people in South America
>>> burning the rain forests, and those in China with pollution
>>> causing industry, putting chemicals in things they export,
>>> INTENTIONALLY, and things like that are to be ignored because
>>> the US is the 'Great Satin', bent on destroying all life on the
>>> earth with our decadent lifestyles. Where have you been hiding,
>>> John?

>> In the real world.

>
> First and foremost, the BIG polluter is NOT mankind at all, it is
> Mother Nature in the form of billions and billions of metric tons
> of CO2 "emitted" by decaying plant life and often animal life,
> including that which is converted from barren soil to grass or
> other greenery so that livestock can graze.
>
> Second, a FAR larger and dangerous form of greenhouse gases is
> again only from Mother Nature - that of Methane coming up from
> fissures in the ground and even more going pretty much undetected
> on the ocean floor. Methane is some 29X as dangerous to the
> environment than is CO2, so let's start by enacting another
> bullshit law called "Methane cap and trade and force Mother Nature
> to reform.
>
>>> We can't blame ANYONE but the US. It's not politically correct.

>> That's silly nonsense. No offense intended.
>>

> Besides greenhouse gases, the emerging economies such as China emit
> HUGE amounts of pollutants long ago eliminated by the Western
> Civilizations.
>
> This all boils down to an inescapable fact: NO ONE can prove that
> what mankind is doing is actually dangerous and worse, no one can
> prove that proposed solutions do not cause other types of damage in
> centuries to come. But perhaps the biggest fallacy in all of this
> is that there is NO WAY to pay for what the Far Left Loons and
> Green Nazis want to force on the planet, estimated well into the
> hundreds of trillions of dollars just over the next 50 years alone.
>

Don't try to confuse these people with facts, They live in their own
virtual world where facts do not matter. Facts like chemistry, physics,
and, etc..

Sources of greenhouse gases that you did not mention are mammals, of
which man is included. Every time a human passes gas he is contributing
greenhouse gases, but I suppose in the virtual world some of these
people live in, no one passes gas as that was not in the game station
program.
 
Reply With Quote
 
ASAAR
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-01-2009
On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 03:33:49 -0600, Ron Hunter wrote:

>> What we have to do, instead of falsely accusing environmentalists, is
>> make lighter, smaller, and more efficient cars (which we already know
>> how to do), and reduce the need for those cars (which we also know how
>> to do).

>
> Well, there are several ways to reduce the need for cars. We could let
> half the population of the country starve because they suddenly don't
> have food because some idiot decided to solve the pollution problem by
> just limiting the number of cars and trucks. Of course some solutions
> are worse than the problems they solve. That one is similar to the
> Stalin approach.
> Then there was Hitler's approach to population control... Nature often
> uses a variation on that theme, and none of those ideas are pretty.


Those that don't share your opinion follow the paths of Stalin
and/or Hitler. Interesting. Their approaches and worse could
never, ever occur right here in the good ole USA now, could it? And
now Paulsen and his Bushy ilk are hoping against hope that a swing
towards "socialism" might cure the cancer that they encouraged and
benefited from.


> I don't believe anyone suggested 'paving over' the country, just some
> rational approaches to transportation, such as building highways that
> are adequate for the projected traffic.


Somewhat like providing sufficient nourishment to cope with
projected tumor growth, rather than attempt to shrink or excise the
cancer, to return to an oncological theme. Don't reject the better
solutions others suggest, just because it sounds like "My way or the
highway!"

 
Reply With Quote
 
ASAAR
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-01-2009
On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 03:39:08 -0600, Ron Hunter wrote:

> Not putting Montana down, as I suspect
> that most people there wouldn't have it any other way, but people in
> urban areas just don't understand the rural way of life.


Sez you and others such as Palin, that thrive on bludgeoning
others with the "moral, small town values" stick that time after
time whups them up side the head when their hypocrisy is exposed.
If you believe swill such as "people in urban areas just don't
understand the rural way of life", can you honestly say with a
straight face that those that live in rural areas understand
anything other than their own way of life? Not putting Montana or
Texas down, of course. Well, maybe the rural outposts of Dallas.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Gaston Ryan Coake
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-01-2009
On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 09:35:33 -0600, HEMI - Powered wrote:

> John Navas added these comments in the current discussion du jour
> ...
>
>>>WHAT? OH NO! To hear the environmentalists rave, ONLY the US
>>>is responsible for pollution. The people in South America
>>>burning the rain forests, and those in China with pollution
>>>causing industry, putting chemicals in things they export,
>>>INTENTIONALLY, and things like that are to be ignored because
>>>the US is the 'Great Satin', bent on destroying all life on the
>>>earth with our decadent lifestyles. Where have you been hiding,
>>>John?

>>
>> In the real world.

>
> First and foremost, the BIG polluter is NOT mankind at all, it is
> Mother Nature in the form of billions and billions of metric tons
> of CO2 "emitted" by decaying plant life and often animal life,
> including that which is converted from barren soil to grass or
> other greenery so that livestock can graze.
>
> Second, a FAR larger and dangerous form of greenhouse gases is
> again only from Mother Nature - that of Methane coming up from
> fissures in the ground and even more going pretty much undetected
> on the ocean floor. Methane is some 29X as dangerous to the
> environment than is CO2, so let's start by enacting another
> bullshit law called "Methane cap and trade and force Mother Nature
> to reform.
>
>>>We can't blame ANYONE but the US. It's not politically correct.

>>
>> That's silly nonsense. No offense intended.
>>

> Besides greenhouse gases, the emerging economies such as China emit
> HUGE amounts of pollutants long ago eliminated by the Western
> Civilizations.
>
> This all boils down to an inescapable fact: NO ONE can prove that
> what mankind is doing is actually dangerous and worse, no one can
> prove that proposed solutions do not cause other types of damage in
> centuries to come. But perhaps the biggest fallacy in all of this
> is that there is NO WAY to pay for what the Far Left Loons and
> Green Nazis want to force on the planet, estimated well into the
> hundreds of trillions of dollars just over the next 50 years alone.


Facts being what the are, it should be pointed out that you /personally/
give off enough methane to cause measureable damage.

Now, O Great Pontificatory One, how about some citations for all of this?

Or even for some of this?

It would be a refreshing change to see you back up your words with some
facts, Brownie.


G


--
Scarecrow: I haven't got a brain... only straw.
Dorothy: How can you talk if you haven't got a brain?
Scarecrow: I don't know... But some people without brains do an awful lot
of talking... don't they?
Dorothy: Yes, I guess you're right.

-- Wizard Of Oz


 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-02-2009
On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 19:09:45 -0800, John Navas
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 20:17:07 -0600, Ron Hunter <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote in <(E-Mail Removed)>:
>
>>John Navas wrote:
>>> On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 03:43:10 -0600, Ron Hunter <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>> wrote in <(E-Mail Removed)>:
>>>
>>>> WHAT? OH NO! To hear the environmentalists rave, ONLY the US is
>>>> responsible for pollution. The people in South America burning the rain
>>>> forests, and those in China with pollution causing industry, putting
>>>> chemicals in things they export, INTENTIONALLY, and things like that are
>>>> to be ignored because the US is the 'Great Satin', bent on destroying
>>>> all life on the earth with our decadent lifestyles. Where have you been
>>>> hiding, John?
>>>
>>> In the real world.
>>>
>>>> We can't blame ANYONE but the US. It's not politically correct.
>>>
>>> That's silly nonsense. No offense intended.
>>>

>>Yes, it is, but it IS how most of the rest of the world seems to think,
>>and not a few radical environmentalists in the US. Expect to see some
>>rather draconian laws in the next 4-8 years.

>
>Let's hope not.
>More regulation is badly needed.
>"Draconian" laws are not.


The two go together, don't they? Regulation is imposing control by
law. That which is Draconian in law, is cruel and strict. The
difference between a law that is cruel and strict, and a law that is
fair and just, is the perspective of the person who is affected.

If the law allows me to do what I want, the law is fair and just. If
the law stops me from doing what I want, the law is Draconian.

To put this on-topic for a photography newsgroup, a law that prohibits
the copying of a studio photographer's work is fair and just from the
photographer's perspective, but Draconian to the family who paid for
the original and feel they should be able to make copies for
additional distribution.




--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
ASAAR
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-02-2009
On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 20:15:42 -0600, Ron Hunter wrote:

>>> Not putting Montana down, as I suspect
>>> that most people there wouldn't have it any other way, but people in
>>> urban areas just don't understand the rural way of life.

>>
>> Sez you and others such as Palin, that thrive on bludgeoning
>> others with the "moral, small town values" stick that time after
>> time whups them up side the head when their hypocrisy is exposed.
>> If you believe swill such as "people in urban areas just don't
>> understand the rural way of life", can you honestly say with a
>> straight face that those that live in rural areas understand
>> anything other than their own way of life? Not putting Montana or
>> Texas down, of course. Well, maybe the rural outposts of Dallas.
>>

> Some of us do. I lived in a small town for the first 23 years of my
> life, so I understand both the advantages, and disadvantages.


The "Some of us do." is reasonable, but you only applied it to
your side, being more judgmental of an implied *all* of the "people
in urban areas" that "just don't understand the rural way of life".
I'm one of those from the urban areas, and spent quite a bit of time
when young visiting relatives that were mostly farmers, who grew
lots of corn, cotton and tobacco, had hogs, horses, chickens,
outhouses and chamber pots, wells and no running water, and lived a
very good life. Good people too, and they were religious and had
the kind of family values that would later become used as a weapon
by right wing politicians to divide Americans. Lots of racist Klan
members no doubt thought of themselves the same way. When I was in
the army there were many good ole southern boys that loved to listen
and laugh along with 33rpm records of some southern comedians that
disparaged blacks with jokes about chiggers and "chegroes" and such,
and these army "buddies" were quite fond of saying with a smile "The
South shall RISE again!". When I watched and listened to Palin at
some of her political rallies make false accusations against Obama
to a backdrop of some of the worst of her supporters who shouted
"Kill him!", it sounded all too familiar. Tell me again how I just
don't understand the rural life. It's not just the "South" or rural
life, it's a state of mind. The North, West and Midwest has its
share of loonies, Klan members, white supremacists, religious
fanatics that shoot, bomb and kill doctors and innocents in clinics,
and conspiracy nuts such as Timothy McVeigh. They also love the
rural and despise the urban life. Despite your views I don't lump
you in with those nuts, but you do tend to reinforce the stereotypes
that they thrive on and try to spread.

BTW, the name of that "comedian" just came back to me, Brother
Dave Gardner. He's got a Wiki page that's probably accurate but
only briefly touches on his racial "humor". He was a "good ole boy"
fer sure. Ever hear of him?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brother_Dave_Gardner

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
card reader or bar code reader in ruby ? URGENT HELP Pokkai Dokkai Ruby 1 03-24-2008 02:11 PM
Need a Good Quality xD USB Card Reader or Multiple Card Reader Mike Digital Photography 7 08-31-2006 11:20 PM
card reader for 1 gig type m xd card reader? aaronep@pacbell.net Digital Photography 5 12-16-2005 08:31 PM
External card reader can't read SD card from Kodak LS443 camera Matt Biskup Digital Photography 3 05-26-2004 08:52 PM
Should SD card with pictures from KODAK Easyshare camera be readable in SD card reader in the pc? Zebra Digital Photography 3 01-02-2004 01:30 PM



Advertisments