Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Support > Re: Choosing a laptop mount for the car?

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Choosing a laptop mount for the car?

 
 
in2dadark
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-21-2010
On Mar 20, 6:11*pm, Jane Galt <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> =?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= <(E-Mail Removed)> *wrote
> :
>
> > Can't always do that. If Jane has a gig like mine, you never know when
> > the phone is going to ring and your boss is going to tell you you need
> > to be in East Cupcake in three hours.

>
> I'm the boss, but somnething like that...


He wouldn't know, he lives with his mother.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
in2dadark
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-21-2010
On Mar 20, 10:05*pm, Jane Galt <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> =?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= <(E-Mail Removed)> *wrote :
>
> > On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 17:25:46 -0500, OldGringo38 wrote:

>
> >>> Can't always do that. If Jane has a gig like mine, you never know when
> >>> the phone is going to ring and your boss is going to tell you you need
> >>> to be in East Cupcake in three hours.

>
> >> That's bull ****. *Stop at the next phone and check in.

>
> > Riiiight...the next phone is where, exactly? I don't know what's up on
> > Planet Gringo, but here on Earth the few pay phones there are are few and
> > far between and usually require a credit card. Not about to.

>
> WHAT pay phones? With the advent of cellular, almost all the pay phones have
> been taken out.


They were run over by people who were driving while on the cell phone.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Aardvark
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-21-2010
On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 23:42:51 -0400, Hachiroku ハチãƒ*ク wrote:

>> You pay tax to watch TV? That's unusual.

>
> Have they done away with the telly tax in the UK?


There's never been a 'telly tax'. There is, in fact, a licence fee which
is to be paid annually by any household which owns a television set, and
which pays for the BBC- multiple local and national radio stations and
local and national television.

Because the BBC is non-commercial and public service (a one hour American
TV programme shown on the BBC fits in a 50 minute slot with time to spare
when shown on the BBC) the licence fee is required to pay for it.

You watch commercial television channels, which are paid for by way of a
kind of 'tax' which is collected by the businesses which advertise on that
station (as part of the price you pay for the products they sell) because
they include the cost of advertising in the price of their products.

I should think that over a year of watching commercial television and
buying the products advertised thereon you pay quite a bit more for each
single commercial TV channel than the annual cost to us of all the high
quality radio and TV that the BBC provides. That strikes me as a pretty
good deal.

The main advantage of the BBC being funded by licence-payers (ie the
general public) is that they have no advertisers to answer to, which makes
for a more balanced and fair output.

Which do you think is more likely to make a balanced report on a
particular story? Fox News or BBC News?

Hint: which one has to keep their editorial stance in keeping with what's
acceptable to their advertisers?


--
Top posting because your cursor happens to be there is like shitting in
your pants because that's where your asshole happens to be.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-21-2010
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 12:42:30 +0000, Aardvark wrote:

>
> I should think that over a year of watching commercial television and
> buying the products advertised thereon you pay quite a bit more for each
> single commercial TV channel than the annual cost to us of all the high
> quality radio and TV that the BBC provides. That strikes me as a pretty
> good deal.


I have a satellite dish service. So...yes, I am paying. And I tend to
stick to the non-commercial venues more. I had almost forgotten what a
commercial was!

>
> The main advantage of the BBC being funded by licence-payers (ie the
> general public) is that they have no advertisers to answer to, which makes
> for a more balanced and fair output.
>
> Which do you think is more likely to make a balanced report on a
> particular story? Fox News or BBC News?


My recent dealings with BBC World Service is that they have slammed far to
the left. The BBC used to be my favorite news source, but in the past
three years their agenda has become quite apparent.

I especially like their Science editor, who said unequivocally that Global
Warming is caused by "us". Some Science editor.

It seems all I heard about for a year listening to the BBC every night was
Climate Change, Carbon Footprint, Muslim women's headgear and what a cluck
Gordon Brown is. Oh, and what a Saviour Barack Obama is.

Dr Who is pretty cool, though.


>
> Hint: which one has to keep their editorial stance in keeping with what's
> acceptable to their advertisers?


 
Reply With Quote
 
Aardvark
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-21-2010
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 11:46:24 -0400, Hachiroku ハチãƒ*ク wrote:

> On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 12:42:30 +0000, Aardvark wrote:
>
>
>> I should think that over a year of watching commercial television and
>> buying the products advertised thereon you pay quite a bit more for
>> each single commercial TV channel than the annual cost to us of all the
>> high quality radio and TV that the BBC provides. That strikes me as a
>> pretty good deal.

>
> I have a satellite dish service. So...yes, I am paying. And I tend to
> stick to the non-commercial venues more. I had almost forgotten what a
> commercial was!
>
>


They're a ****ing pain in the ass, true.

>> The main advantage of the BBC being funded by licence-payers (ie the
>> general public) is that they have no advertisers to answer to, which
>> makes for a more balanced and fair output.
>>
>> Which do you think is more likely to make a balanced report on a
>> particular story? Fox News or BBC News?

>
> My recent dealings with BBC World Service is that they have slammed far
> to the left.


Are we watching the same BBC? The one that's accused of bias with
monotonous regularity from both ends of the political spectrum? It's the
fact that this happens that convinces me that it strikes a perfect balance.

> The BBC used to be my favorite news source, but in the past
> three years their agenda has become quite apparent.
>


Their only agenda is providing quality public service broadcasting, as it
always has.

> I especially like their Science editor, who said unequivocally that
> Global Warming is caused by "us". Some Science editor.


It's accepted wisdom that climate change has a large anthropogenic
component (except among flat-earthers, of which we do have a few). Climate
change *isn't* a party-political thing here. Never has been.

>
> It seems all I heard about for a year listening to the BBC every night
> was Climate Change,


An important subject about which the public must be informed.

> Carbon Footprint,


You do of course realise that irrespective of whether one believes or not
that climate change is man-made, or even exists for that matter, that
living in a way that one is told will reduce one's carbon footprint has
the result of saving one cash in the form of reduced energy bills, and
therefore, by extension, saves the country money in the form of energy
import?

So ****ing what if CC exists or not. I want to save money.

Don't you?

> Muslim women's headgear


I think there may have been a programme about that recently. I didn't
watch it. It wasn't shown one either of the two mainstream BBC channels.

> and what a
> cluck Gordon Brown is.


I doubt that the BBC would show bias in that way.

> Oh, and what a Saviour Barack Obama is.


He might very well have been. That crock of **** health bill of yours
should have had the health insurance and pharmaceutical companies
squealing and crying instead of making approving noises if it was of any
good to the American Joe in the street.

>
> Dr Who is pretty cool, though.
>


David Tennant? Or do you watch earlier episodes.




--
Top posting because your cursor happens to be there is like shitting in
your pants because that's where your asshole happens to be.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-21-2010
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 16:12:43 +0000, Aardvark wrote:

> On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 11:46:24 -0400, Hachiroku ハチãƒ*ク wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 12:42:30 +0000, Aardvark wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I should think that over a year of watching commercial television and
>>> buying the products advertised thereon you pay quite a bit more for
>>> each single commercial TV channel than the annual cost to us of all the
>>> high quality radio and TV that the BBC provides. That strikes me as a
>>> pretty good deal.

>>
>> I have a satellite dish service. So...yes, I am paying. And I tend to
>> stick to the non-commercial venues more. I had almost forgotten what a
>> commercial was!
>>
>>
>>

> They're a ****ing pain in the ass, true.
>
>>> The main advantage of the BBC being funded by licence-payers (ie the
>>> general public) is that they have no advertisers to answer to, which
>>> makes for a more balanced and fair output.
>>>
>>> Which do you think is more likely to make a balanced report on a
>>> particular story? Fox News or BBC News?

>>
>> My recent dealings with BBC World Service is that they have slammed far
>> to the left.

>
> Are we watching the same BBC? The one that's accused of bias with
> monotonous regularity from both ends of the political spectrum? It's the
> fact that this happens that convinces me that it strikes a perfect
> balance.
>
>> The BBC used to be my favorite news source, but in the past three years
>> their agenda has become quite apparent.
>>
>>

> Their only agenda is providing quality public service broadcasting, as it
> always has.
>
>> I especially like their Science editor, who said unequivocally that
>> Global Warming is caused by "us". Some Science editor.

>
> It's accepted wisdom that climate change has a large anthropogenic
> component (except among flat-earthers, of which we do have a few). Climate
> change *isn't* a party-political thing here. Never has been.


It sure is here. The Left says it's caused by man, the Right says it's all
hooey. Having studied geology, I think it's natural, and if the past is
reliable it's the signal of the beginning of a new Ice Age (and not just a
'glacial period'). I'm afraid not any of us are going to live long enough
to find the truth.

>
>
>> It seems all I heard about for a year listening to the BBC every night
>> was Climate Change,

>
> An important subject about which the public must be informed.
>
>> Carbon Footprint,

>
> You do of course realise that irrespective of whether one believes or not
> that climate change is man-made, or even exists for that matter, that
> living in a way that one is told will reduce one's carbon footprint has
> the result of saving one cash in the form of reduced energy bills, and
> therefore, by extension, saves the country money in the form of energy
> import?
>
> So ****ing what if CC exists or not. I want to save money.


LMAO! You said it. I don't care what Al Gore or Congress says, I use
flourescents because it cuts about $10 off my electric bill! I drive
Toyotas because mine all get about 33 MPG. If they help 'save the planet',
OK. But I'm more interested in saving my wallet.

Over here it is mandated by Congress that we are to use flourescent bulbs
beginning next year. Then it comes out about the mercury hazard, with
special handling and disposal instructions. I had a cheap Chinese made
bulb burn up! Burned a hole right through the glass. Wonder where the
mercury went?

>
> Don't you?


Yup!

>
>> Muslim women's headgear

>
> I think there may have been a programme about that recently. I didn't
> watch it. It wasn't shown one either of the two mainstream BBC channels.
>
>> and what a
>> cluck Gordon Brown is.

>
> I doubt that the BBC would show bias in that way.


What I am describing is the BBC World Service radio program. I get it
unfiltered through XM Satellite service. They are so far to the left I
stopped listening to it. It is a shame because 10-15 years ago they were a
fairly neutral news service and it was a joyt to hear something without
bias for a change.

Now they have gone leftist like a lot of the news services.
And before you say a lot, I don't really like Fox all that much, either.
Even though I lean to the Conservative, they are too far to the other
direction. That's what I liked about the old BBC radio service. Squarely
planted in the middle.

Shoot, I would PAY for the service if they would go back to that!

>
>> Oh, and what a Saviour Barack Obama is.

>
> He might very well have been. That crock of **** health bill of yours
> should have had the health insurance and pharmaceutical companies
> squealing and crying instead of making approving noises if it was of any
> good to the American Joe in the street.
>


We'll find out about that sometime today. Like our Speaker Of the House of
Representatives said, "I can't wait until it passes so we can find out
what's in it!"

There's a vote of confidence in our elected officials!

>
>> Dr Who is pretty cool, though.
>>
>>

> David Tennant? Or do you watch earlier episodes.


I like David Tennant. The guy before him seemed a bit more sinister, while
Tennant brought back a bit of the humor Tom Baker used to use back in the
70's.

They haven't caught up with the next Dr over here yet.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Aardvark
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-21-2010
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 13:20:05 -0400, Hachiroku ハチãƒ*ク wrote:

> Over here it is mandated by Congress that we are to use flourescent
> bulbs beginning next year.


Incandescents have already been phased out here in the EU:

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-o...nt_light_bulbs >

> They are so far to the left I
> stopped listening to it. It is a shame because 10-15 years ago they were
> a fairly neutral news service and it was a joyt to hear something without
> bias for a change.


I suppose you haven't considered that the BBC lack of bias has remained
constant, whereas the political bias of US governments, US media and
therefore the US populus has radicalised and become much more reactionary
than it used to be.

> Even though I lean to the Conservative,


Really? I would never have guessed in a million years.

> Shoot, I would PAY for the service if they would go back to that!


The BBC hasn't changed. Just your perception of their news broadcasts.

> I like David Tennant. The guy before him seemed a bit more sinister,


Christopher Eccleston? I liked him, but you're right in that although he
had humour, it wasn't as overt as that of Tennant. Ever heard David
Tennant being interviewed? His real accent isn't English, but Glaswegian.

> while Tennant brought back a bit of the humor Tom Baker used to use back
> in the 70's.


Baker ain't an actor. He's a Thespian. That puts him in a whole different
league. He's totally nuts too- ever watch 'Little Britain'? I know you can
get it over in the colonies.

> They haven't caught up with the next Dr over here yet.


Nor here. No episodes starring Matty Smith as the new Doctor have yet been
shown here (or anywhere).


--
Top posting because your cursor happens to be there is like shitting in
your pants because that's where your asshole happens to be.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Aardvark
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-22-2010
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 21:30:16 -0500, Jane Galt wrote:

> The result of government ownership of the media?


Where is this fictional country you're talking about where the government
owns the media?

Hint: carefully read and digest the fourth word of my question.

--
Top posting because your cursor happens to be there is like shitting in
your pants because that's where your asshole happens to be.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-22-2010
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 21:30:16 -0500, Jane Galt wrote:

> =?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
> :
>
> "Global warming" is a myth perpetrated by the progressives to promote
> global socialism and eliminate the United States as a nation. ( Soros and
> his bunch ) It's more a religion to them, than based in any fact. The
> globe has been cooling, polar bear populations on the rise, etc.


Oh, the earth is warming, but it has very little to do with what the alarm
ringing Al Gore types are professing.

It is NOT us, it's a natural cycle as evidenced by ice core samples.
And if the ice core samples are any guide (and they show a very clear
history covering 650,000 years) we're just about at the top of the warming
trend. The cooling trend is much, much more rapid (almost like falling off
a cliff) so when it does get cold, it's going to get VERY cold VERY fast.

Of course, the alarm ringers aren't going to tell you that.

>
>> Dr Who is pretty cool, though.

>
> The newer one anyway. The old one had 1930's FX in a 1960's series, it was
> pathetic. The result of government ownership of the media?


I used to work in an aircraft accessories manufacturing plant and we
tested some of the older stuff, so our rigs were rather antiquated. When a
friend of mine used to visit he'd call it the Dr Who set storage area.

I thought some of those effects were funny. Corny, but fun.

>
> But the newer Dr. Who producers still havent discovered HDTV, so it's
> getting boring to watch low def blurry stuff just to follow the series.


Still haven't stepped up to HD.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-22-2010
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 22:36:57 -0500, Jane Galt wrote:

> =?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
> :
>
>> Oh, the earth is warming, but it has very little to do with what the
>> alarm ringing Al Gore types are professing.

>
> Nope.
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...ng-coming-say-
> leading-scientists/


Ah, you did it now! You quoted Fox News as a source!

Everyone KNOWS you need to use MSNBC or CNN. After all, THEY are the only
credible sources, after Air Ameri...er, scratch that...



 
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
Re: Choosing a laptop mount for the car? Rocky Computer Support 7 04-03-2010 05:34 PM
Re: Choosing a laptop mount for the car? Ray O Computer Support 0 03-21-2010 06:09 AM
Sigma Announces SD-30--30 Megapixel,Universal Lens Mount, Digital SLRSigma Announces SD-30--30 Megapixel,Universal Lens Mount, Digital SLR sigmaphotojapan@yahoo.com Digital Photography 6 04-01-2005 05:26 PM
Re: Sigma gives up on Foveon and SA mount lenses, turns to Kodak for Sensor, and moves to Canon Lens Mount Steven M. Scharf Digital Photography 5 05-18-2004 09:06 PM



Advertisments