wifi radiation

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Shane, May 22, 2007.

  1. Shane

    Shane Guest

    I seem to recall getting a fair amount of... ribbing.. for having concern
    about wifi installations at home/school
    There was even suggestion that there is more radioactivity associated with a
    mobile phone than a wifi ap.

    Whilst that may be true, the british study which first concerned me found
    the following:
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10441276&ref=rss

    Radiation levels from wireless internet in schools are being investigated
    after a British study found emissions in a classroom there three times
    higher than those from a mobile phone mast.

    It followed the discovery by BBC researchers that the maximum signal
    strength one metre from a Wi-Fi laptop in a classroom was three times that
    measured 100m from a mobile phone mast nearby.



    I certainly hope my mobile phone isnt emitting the same as a mast, and
    granted the mast was measured 100m away, and the wifi AP 1m away. Still,
    it could be HT powerlines instead...


    --
    Q: What do you get when you cross a mosquito with a rock climber?
    A: Nothing. You can't cross a vector and a scalar.
    Shane, May 22, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Shane

    Adam Cameron Guest

    > I seem to recall getting a fair amount of... ribbing.. for having concern
    > about wifi installations at home/school


    Good. And so you should.

    > There was even suggestion that there is more radioactivity associated with a
    > mobile phone than a wifi ap.


    And automatically ***RADIATION*** is always bad!!!!!

    I think it's all a case of "slow news week", or something. Anyway... the
    Beeb didn't quite go as far as admitting "actually, we talk shit", but they
    come close:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6676129.stm

    Hopefully you can sleep safely tonight, Shane. But put the tinfoil hat on,
    just in case, eh?

    --
    Adam

    PS: your sig made me laugh. Cool.
    Adam Cameron, May 22, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Shane

    Shane Guest

    Adam Cameron wrote:

    >> I seem to recall getting a fair amount of... ribbing.. for having concern
    >> about wifi installations at home/school

    >
    > Good. And so you should.
    >


    Thats what nz.comp is for :)

    >> There was even suggestion that there is more radioactivity associated
    >> with a mobile phone than a wifi ap.

    >
    > And automatically ***RADIATION*** is always bad!!!!!
    >


    Its not what I would put in a healthy diet..

    > I think it's all a case of "slow news week", or something. Anyway... the
    > Beeb didn't quite go as far as admitting "actually, we talk shit", but
    > they come close:
    >
    > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6676129.stm
    >
    > Hopefully you can sleep safely tonight, Shane. But put the tinfoil hat
    > on, just in case, eh?
    >


    Dunno, the uni is doing experiments with focussed wifi beams.
    Essentially, as I am told, the university has consumer grade wifi cards (as
    in nicked out of a laptop/desktop) that they are using to transceive over
    >20km (Yes twenty kilometers). For those that havent guessed, most of the

    magic is in the high gain antennas they employ. (woks anyone?)

    Talking to one of the grad students involved with it, apparently they are
    getting ~11 Mb/s instead of the theoretical 54 Mb/s maximum because of
    transmission errors, interference from microwave ovens, and the like

    At any rate, a tinfoil hat may be overdoing it.. but a tinfoil box? :)


    --
    Q: Why do mathematicians often confuse Christmas and Halloween?
    A: Because Oct 31 = Dec 25.
    Shane, May 22, 2007
    #3
  4. Shane

    Allistar Guest

    Shane wrote:

    > Adam Cameron wrote:
    >
    >>> I seem to recall getting a fair amount of... ribbing.. for having
    >>> concern about wifi installations at home/school

    >>
    >> Good. And so you should.
    >>

    >
    > Thats what nz.comp is for :)
    >
    >>> There was even suggestion that there is more radioactivity associated
    >>> with a mobile phone than a wifi ap.

    >>
    >> And automatically ***RADIATION*** is always bad!!!!!
    >>

    >
    > Its not what I would put in a healthy diet..


    It's everywhere. You cannot avoid it. All transmitting devices do is encode
    data into the radiation.

    Light is a form of radiation.
    So is sound (although not electromagnatic).
    Do you want to ban all magnets too?

    We couldn't live without radiation. It's essential.

    [snip]

    Allistar.
    Allistar, May 22, 2007
    #4
  5. Shane

    Shane Guest

    Allistar wrote:

    > Shane wrote:
    >
    >> Adam Cameron wrote:
    >>
    >>>> I seem to recall getting a fair amount of... ribbing.. for having
    >>>> concern about wifi installations at home/school
    >>>
    >>> Good. And so you should.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Thats what nz.comp is for :)
    >>
    >>>> There was even suggestion that there is more radioactivity associated
    >>>> with a mobile phone than a wifi ap.
    >>>
    >>> And automatically ***RADIATION*** is always bad!!!!!
    >>>

    >>
    >> Its not what I would put in a healthy diet..

    >
    > It's everywhere. You cannot avoid it. All transmitting devices do is
    > encode data into the radiation.
    >
    > Light is a form of radiation.
    > So is sound (although not electromagnatic).
    > Do you want to ban all magnets too?
    >
    > We couldn't live without radiation. It's essential.
    >
    > [snip]
    >
    > Allistar.



    *sigh*


    --
    Math problems? Call 1-800-[(10x)(13i)2]-[sin(xy)/2.362x].
    Shane, May 22, 2007
    #5
  6. Shane

    Kent Smith Guest

    Allistar wrote:
    > Shane wrote:
    >
    >> Adam Cameron wrote:
    >>
    >>>> I seem to recall getting a fair amount of... ribbing.. for having
    >>>> concern about wifi installations at home/school
    >>>
    >>> Good. And so you should.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Thats what nz.comp is for :)
    >>
    >>>> There was even suggestion that there is more radioactivity
    >>>> associated with a mobile phone than a wifi ap.
    >>>
    >>> And automatically ***RADIATION*** is always bad!!!!!
    >>>

    Yes, even ambient temperature is radiation, otherwise we'd be at 0 deg
    kelvin (-273 deg C) :)

    The problem with cellphone towers is they 'look bad'. AP's can get away
    with it because they are small and you can hide them. :)

    It's as bad as farmers arguing transmission lines should be subterranean and
    then they argue health risks of overhead lines. Now if they were
    subterranean, they would be ~6M deep. If they were overhead they would be
    ~200M high. Now, you'd think the disbursement of radiation at 6M be more
    concentrated/stronger than at 200M. But as long as they can't see them,
    when they walk over them, it's fine. :)


    -KENT
    Kent Smith, May 23, 2007
    #6
  7. Shane

    Adam Cameron Guest

    >>>> And automatically ***RADIATION*** is always bad!!!!!

    >>> Its not what I would put in a healthy diet..

    >>
    >> It's everywhere. You cannot avoid it. All transmitting devices do is
    >> encode data into the radiation.
    >>
    >> Light is a form of radiation.
    >> So is sound (although not electromagnatic).
    >> Do you want to ban all magnets too?
    >>
    >> We couldn't live without radiation. It's essential.


    > *sigh*


    What are you *sighing* about? He's RIGHT.

    --
    Adam
    Adam Cameron, May 23, 2007
    #7
  8. In message <f2vesk$rn5$>, Shane wrote:

    > I certainly hope my mobile phone isnt emitting the same as a mast, and
    > granted the mast was measured 100m away, and the wifi AP 1m away. Still,
    > it could be HT powerlines instead...


    What do the following things have in common:

    * ESP
    * Cold fusion
    * Health effects from non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation

    Answer: they have all been studied for close to twenty years (or in the case
    of ESP, even longer). Every now and then somebody comes up a with a result
    that seems to indicate that the effect is real. But then nobody else seems
    to be able to replicate that result.

    In other words, you get this ongoing, low-level intermittent background of
    spurious positives. Which is exactly what you would expect if the effects
    do not exist, but a whole lot of people are continuing to look in the
    belief that they do.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, May 23, 2007
    #8
  9. Shane

    Craig Shore Guest

    On Wed, 23 May 2007 10:02:43 +1200, Allistar <> wrote:

    >Shane wrote:
    >
    >> Adam Cameron wrote:
    >>
    >>>> I seem to recall getting a fair amount of... ribbing.. for having
    >>>> concern about wifi installations at home/school
    >>>
    >>> Good. And so you should.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Thats what nz.comp is for :)
    >>
    >>>> There was even suggestion that there is more radioactivity associated
    >>>> with a mobile phone than a wifi ap.
    >>>
    >>> And automatically ***RADIATION*** is always bad!!!!!
    >>>

    >>
    >> Its not what I would put in a healthy diet..

    >
    >It's everywhere. You cannot avoid it. All transmitting devices do is encode
    >data into the radiation.


    I wonder how powerful the transmission off a 2.4ghz phone that you hold against
    your head is compared to an AP?
    Craig Shore, May 23, 2007
    #9
  10. Shane

    Ken Guest

    On Wed, 23 May 2007 07:06:54 +1200, Shane <-a-geek.net> wrote:

    >I seem to recall getting a fair amount of... ribbing.. for having concern
    >about wifi installations at home/school
    >There was even suggestion that there is more radioactivity associated with a
    >mobile phone than a wifi ap.
    >
    >Whilst that may be true, the british study which first concerned me found
    >the following:
    >http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10441276&ref=rss
    >
    >Radiation levels from wireless internet in schools are being investigated
    >after a British study found emissions in a classroom there three times
    >higher than those from a mobile phone mast.
    >
    >It followed the discovery by BBC researchers that the maximum signal
    >strength one metre from a Wi-Fi laptop in a classroom was three times that
    >measured 100m from a mobile phone mast nearby.
    >
    >
    >
    >I certainly hope my mobile phone isnt emitting the same as a mast, and
    >granted the mast was measured 100m away, and the wifi AP 1m away. Still,
    >it could be HT powerlines instead...
    >
    >




    The BIG worry is that these things are related to Killing Bees..

    No Bees not Food..
    Ken , May 23, 2007
    #10
  11. On Wed, 23 May 2007 11:15:27 +1200, Kent Smith
    <> wrote in
    <news:f2vtih$42a$>:

    > Allistar wrote:
    >> Shane wrote:
    >>
    >>> Adam Cameron wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> I seem to recall getting a fair amount of... ribbing.. for having
    >>>>> concern about wifi installations at home/school
    >>>>
    >>>> Good. And so you should.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Thats what nz.comp is for :)
    >>>
    >>>>> There was even suggestion that there is more radioactivity
    >>>>> associated with a mobile phone than a wifi ap.
    >>>>
    >>>> And automatically ***RADIATION*** is always bad!!!!!
    >>>>

    > Yes, even ambient temperature is radiation, otherwise we'd be at 0 deg
    > kelvin (-273 deg C) :)


    You mean zero Kelvins. Kelvins are units of temperature in their own
    right, not degrees on a scale.

    >
    > The problem with cellphone towers is they 'look bad'. AP's can get away
    > with it because they are small and you can hide them. :)
    >
    > It's as bad as farmers arguing transmission lines should be subterranean and
    > then they argue health risks of overhead lines. Now if they were
    > subterranean, they would be ~6M deep. If they were overhead they would be
    > ~200M high. Now, you'd think the disbursement of radiation at 6M be more
    > concentrated/stronger than at 200M. But as long as they can't see them,
    > when they walk over them, it's fine. :)


    Where do they have overhead transmission lines supported two hundred
    metres above ground?

    >
    > -KENT




    --
    Nicolaas.

    2007 Pricelessware CD now available. 600Mb of the best of the best in
    Freeware. E-Mail me for details.


    .... Of course I don't look busy - I did it right the first time!
    Nicolaas Hawkins, May 23, 2007
    #11
  12. Shane

    Kent Smith Guest

    Nicolaas Hawkins wrote:
    > On Wed, 23 May 2007 11:15:27 +1200, Kent Smith
    > <> wrote in
    > <news:f2vtih$42a$>:
    >
    >> Allistar wrote:
    >>> Shane wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Adam Cameron wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>> I seem to recall getting a fair amount of... ribbing.. for having
    >>>>>> concern about wifi installations at home/school
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Good. And so you should.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Thats what nz.comp is for :)
    >>>>
    >>>>>> There was even suggestion that there is more radioactivity
    >>>>>> associated with a mobile phone than a wifi ap.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> And automatically ***RADIATION*** is always bad!!!!!
    >>>>>

    >> Yes, even ambient temperature is radiation, otherwise we'd be at 0
    >> deg kelvin (-273 deg C) :)

    >
    > You mean zero Kelvins. Kelvins are units of temperature in their own
    > right, not degrees on a scale.
    >

    Thanks for that
    >>
    >> The problem with cellphone towers is they 'look bad'. AP's can get
    >> away with it because they are small and you can hide them. :)
    >>
    >> It's as bad as farmers arguing transmission lines should be
    >> subterranean and then they argue health risks of overhead lines.
    >> Now if they were subterranean, they would be ~6M deep. If they were
    >> overhead they would be ~200M high. Now, you'd think the
    >> disbursement of radiation at 6M be more concentrated/stronger than
    >> at 200M. But as long as they can't see them, when they walk over
    >> them, it's fine. :)

    >
    > Where do they have overhead transmission lines supported two hundred
    > metres above ground?


    Er- yes, a bit high - sorry, typo, I skim read somewhere 200ft :) so
    should be ~60M. Still further away than 6M though eh?

    >
    >>
    >> -KENT
    Kent Smith, May 23, 2007
    #12
  13. Shane

    Fred Guest

    <Ken > wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Wed, 23 May 2007 07:06:54 +1200, Shane <-a-geek.net>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>I seem to recall getting a fair amount of... ribbing.. for having concern
    >>about wifi installations at home/school
    >>There was even suggestion that there is more radioactivity associated with
    >>a
    >>mobile phone than a wifi ap.
    >>
    >>Whilst that may be true, the british study which first concerned me found
    >>the following:
    >>http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10441276&ref=rss
    >>
    >>Radiation levels from wireless internet in schools are being investigated
    >>after a British study found emissions in a classroom there three times
    >>higher than those from a mobile phone mast.
    >>
    >>It followed the discovery by BBC researchers that the maximum signal
    >>strength one metre from a Wi-Fi laptop in a classroom was three times that
    >>measured 100m from a mobile phone mast nearby.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>I certainly hope my mobile phone isnt emitting the same as a mast, and
    >>granted the mast was measured 100m away, and the wifi AP 1m away. Still,
    >>it could be HT powerlines instead...
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    >
    > The BIG worry is that these things are related to Killing Bees..
    >

    And of course they cause global warming as well.
    Fred, May 23, 2007
    #13
  14. In message <1cwho7qa4h404$>, Nicolaas Hawkins wrote:

    > On Wed, 23 May 2007 11:15:27 +1200, Kent Smith
    > <> wrote in
    > <news:f2vtih$42a$>:
    >
    >> Allistar wrote:
    >>> Shane wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Adam Cameron wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>> I seem to recall getting a fair amount of... ribbing.. for having
    >>>>>> concern about wifi installations at home/school
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Good. And so you should.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Thats what nz.comp is for :)
    >>>>
    >>>>>> There was even suggestion that there is more radioactivity
    >>>>>> associated with a mobile phone than a wifi ap.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> And automatically ***RADIATION*** is always bad!!!!!
    >>>>>

    >> Yes, even ambient temperature is radiation, otherwise we'd be at 0 deg
    >> kelvin (-273 deg C) :)

    >
    > You mean zero Kelvins. Kelvins are units of temperature in their own
    > right, not degrees on a scale.


    No, I think he meant 0 degrees on the Kelvin temperature scale. It is a
    scale, because it measures absolute temperatures, not distances between
    temperatures.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, May 23, 2007
    #14
  15. Shane

    JohnO Guest

    On May 23, 11:29 am, Adam Cameron <> wrote:
    > >>>> And automatically ***RADIATION*** is always bad!!!!!
    > >>> Its not what I would put in a healthy diet..

    >
    > >> It's everywhere. You cannot avoid it. All transmitting devices do is
    > >> encode data into the radiation.

    >
    > >> Light is a form of radiation.
    > >> So is sound (although not electromagnatic).
    > >> Do you want to ban all magnets too?

    >
    > >> We couldn't live without radiation. It's essential.

    > > *sigh*

    >
    > What are you *sighing* about? He's RIGHT.
    >
    > --
    > Adam


    Shane emits a *sigh* when he's trying to hide the fact that he has no
    intelligent reply.
    JohnO, May 23, 2007
    #15
  16. Shane

    JohnO Guest

    On May 23, 7:06 am, Shane <-a-geek.net> wrote:
    > I seem to recall getting a fair amount of... ribbing.. for having concern
    > about wifi installations at home/school
    > There was even suggestion that there is more radioactivity associated with a
    > mobile phone than a wifi ap.
    >
    > Whilst that may be true, the british study which first concerned me found
    > the following:http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=1044127...
    >
    > Radiation levels from wireless internet in schools are being investigated
    > after a British study found emissions in a classroom there three times
    > higher than those from a mobile phone mast.
    >
    > It followed the discovery by BBC researchers that the maximum signal
    > strength one metre from a Wi-Fi laptop in a classroom was three times that
    > measured 100m from a mobile phone mast nearby.



    Hardly surprising given that radiated signal strength must be
    inversely proportional to the cube of the distance from source.

    So the sensible way to view all this is that is that if WiFi radiation
    is low then cellphone tower radiation is infinitessimal.

    >
    > I certainly hope my mobile phone isnt emitting the same as a mast, and
    > granted the mast was measured 100m away, and the wifi AP 1m away. Still,
    > it could be HT powerlines instead...


    Just wear a tinfoil hat and tinfoil undies and you'll be fine.

    >
    > --
    > Q: What do you get when you cross a mosquito with a rock climber?
    > A: Nothing. You can't cross a vector and a scalar.
    JohnO, May 23, 2007
    #16
  17. On Wed, 23 May 2007 13:57:54 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    <_zealand> wrote:

    >In message <1cwho7qa4h404$>, Nicolaas Hawkins wrote:
    >
    >> On Wed, 23 May 2007 11:15:27 +1200, Kent Smith
    >> <> wrote in


    >>> Yes, even ambient temperature is radiation, otherwise we'd be at 0 deg
    >>> kelvin (-273 deg C) :)

    >>
    >> You mean zero Kelvins. Kelvins are units of temperature in their own
    >> right, not degrees on a scale.

    >
    >No, I think he meant 0 degrees on the Kelvin temperature scale. It is a
    >scale, because it measures absolute temperatures, not distances between
    >temperatures.


    No, he should have stated "otherwise we'd be at 0 kelvin (-273.15 deg
    C)".
    The Kelvin scale is not expressed as degrees.

    There is a pedants anonymous meeting next Sunday starting at
    5:45:18pm. :)

    --
    Regards
    Malcolm
    Remove sharp objects to get a valid e-mail address
    Malcolm Moore, May 23, 2007
    #17
  18. On Wed, 23 May 2007 13:57:54 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    <_zealand> wrote in
    <news:f306vi$6lu$>:

    > In message <1cwho7qa4h404$>, Nicolaas Hawkins wrote:
    >
    >> On Wed, 23 May 2007 11:15:27 +1200, Kent Smith
    >> <> wrote in
    >> <news:f2vtih$42a$>:
    >>
    >>> Allistar wrote:
    >>>> Shane wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Adam Cameron wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>> I seem to recall getting a fair amount of... ribbing.. for having
    >>>>>>> concern about wifi installations at home/school
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Good. And so you should.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Thats what nz.comp is for :)
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>> There was even suggestion that there is more radioactivity
    >>>>>>> associated with a mobile phone than a wifi ap.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> And automatically ***RADIATION*** is always bad!!!!!
    >>>>>>
    >>> Yes, even ambient temperature is radiation, otherwise we'd be at 0 deg
    >>> kelvin (-273 deg C) :)

    >>
    >> You mean zero Kelvins. Kelvins are units of temperature in their own
    >> right, not degrees on a scale.

    >
    > No, I think he meant 0 degrees on the Kelvin temperature scale. It is a
    > scale, because it measures absolute temperatures, not distances between
    > temperatures.


    You may have been right prior to 1954 - however your information is some
    fifty years out-of-date. Don't take my word for it, look it up. Then
    apologise. My post stands.

    I do not post on such matters without knowing whereof I speak.

    --
    Nicolaas.

    2007 Pricelessware CD now available. 600Mb of the best of the best in
    Freeware. E-Mail me for details.


    .... For a bad cough, take a strong laxative: you won't DARE cough!
    Nicolaas Hawkins, May 23, 2007
    #18
  19. Shane

    Fred Guest

    "Malcolm Moore" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Wed, 23 May 2007 13:57:54 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    > <_zealand> wrote:
    >
    >>In message <1cwho7qa4h404$>, Nicolaas Hawkins wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Wed, 23 May 2007 11:15:27 +1200, Kent Smith
    >>> <> wrote in

    >
    >>>> Yes, even ambient temperature is radiation, otherwise we'd be at 0 deg
    >>>> kelvin (-273 deg C) :)
    >>>
    >>> You mean zero Kelvins. Kelvins are units of temperature in their own
    >>> right, not degrees on a scale.

    >>
    >>No, I think he meant 0 degrees on the Kelvin temperature scale. It is a
    >>scale, because it measures absolute temperatures, not distances between
    >>temperatures.

    >
    > No, he should have stated "otherwise we'd be at 0 kelvin (-273.15 deg
    > C)".
    > The Kelvin scale is not expressed as degrees.
    >
    > There is a pedants anonymous meeting next Sunday starting at
    > 5:45:18pm. :)
    >

    That's pedants' anonymous meeting ........
    Fred, May 23, 2007
    #19
  20. Shane

    Don Hills Guest

    In article <4653be67$>, "Fred" <> wrote:
    >
    >"Malcolm Moore" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >>
    >> There is a pedants anonymous meeting next Sunday starting at
    >> 5:45:18pm. :)
    >>

    >That's pedants' anonymous meeting ........


    No, Malcolm was right. The meeting isn't anonymous, so no apostrophe.
    Alcoholics Anonymous, Knights Templar, Brothers Grimm.

    --
    Don Hills (dmhills at attglobaldotnet) Wellington, New Zealand
    "New interface closely resembles Presentation Manager,
    preparing you for the wonders of OS/2!"
    -- Advertisement on the box for Microsoft Windows 2.11 for 286
    Don Hills, May 23, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Patrick
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    563
    Patrick
    Feb 17, 2004
  2. Bill Johnson

    low radiation monitors

    Bill Johnson, Dec 16, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    7,662
    john_MSEE
    Aug 28, 2010
  3. masterreport@science&technolofy.org

    DVDs Kill from radiation

    masterreport@science&technolofy.org, May 5, 2005, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    464
    Zeligg
    May 5, 2005
  4. JohnO

    Re: wifi radiation

    JohnO, May 23, 2007, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    922
    Shane
    May 23, 2007
  5. JohnO

    Re: wifi radiation

    JohnO, May 23, 2007, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    397
    Shane
    May 24, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page