Re: [H] Making XP legit...genuine :{)
On 14 Jan 2007 at 7:08, FORC5 wrote: > FWIW this is a older version of the one I dl'ed. mine is 773kb and this > one is 663kb and a different version in properties. strange. sure it > does the same thing. Here's the M$ link to the newer 773kb file: http://download.microsoft.com/download/9/e/6/9e6e3904-f159-4cea-8e19- e79a40fa4702/KeyUpdateTool.exe Dunno if it matters or not. Vince
Re: [H] OT - Looking for a good keychain
On 6 Jan 2007 at 12:36, Brian Weeden wrote: > Anyone got any suggestions? http://www.ledshoppe.com/ They have some keychain/lights in the $3 section (within the $5 section), or just add one of the small inexpensive lights to the keychain you linked. Vince
Re: [H] Trapped in a hostage situation
Wayne wrote: > My doc wanted me to try another calcium blocker, Norvasc at it's > lowest dosage that is not suppose to affect the heart directly but > rather like Gary's relaxes the arterial walls but I'm having a real > hard time with the dizziness which is not surprising with all the > other meds I'm on. I was going to mention Norvasc, for the exact reason you mentioned, but if it's making you dizzy... They might be able to discover what other drug it is reacting with and change THAT drug. Amazing how this gets to be like musical chairs. Vince
Re: [H] Trapped in a hostage situation
Sam wrote: > Have been changed off 2 now because of the side effects. Not all Docs > are aware of all the side effects. The first one Metoprolol, the doc > who stopped it said everyone should have known it was causing my > problems. The second one Labetalol was the same saga. That's because they substituted one Beta-blocker for another Beta- blocker. Did they actually think you would react differently ? Metoprolol is generic for Lopressor and Labetalol is generic for Normodyne. Jeff wrote: > I use lisinopril-hctz 10/12.5 and have never noticed any side effects > at all. I think it is a generic of something else. Lisinopril is an ACE inhibitor and generic for Zestril. It is a pretty good drug (not that it's automatically good for everyone). My best bud is a pharmacist. Vince
Re: I prefer water was RE: [H] -ot- Hydrogen fuel
On 22 May 2006 at 18:42, Chris Reeves wrote: > The USDA is overly optimistic because they are estimating based on all > parts of the process using biodiesel or ethanol What's wrong with that ? The by-products are valuable commodities such as corn or other oils, corn or other meals, beverage sweeteners, and high protein cattle feed. It offsets part of the costs. BTW, biodiesel is a completely different animal. Vince
Re: I prefer water was RE: [H] -ot- Hydrogen fuel
On 22 May 2006 at 11:23, Gary VanderMolen wrote: > You don't suppose that USDA has a vested interest in making > corn growers look good? If you check you'll discover that many private-sector ethanol facilities are reporting similar or even better returns, dependent upon what they utilize for fuel. If both the government and the private-sector are reporting the same results, yes I would tend to give it more weight than an academic study. Vince
Re: I prefer water was RE: [H] -ot- Hydrogen fuel
On 21 May 2006 at 12:18, Gary VanderMolen wrote: > More fossil energy is used to produce ethanol than the energy > contained within it: > > http://www.coe.berkeley.edu/labnotes/0305/patzek.html Big oil propaganda. "The US Department of Agriculture reports a net energy balance for ethanol production of 1.67. In other words, for every one unit of energy used to produce ethanol and its accompanying co-products, 1.67 units of energy results. However, the US Department of Energy reports that petroleum refining can actually have a negative energy balance. For example, every unit of energy expended in gasoline production is reported to result in only 0.79 units of energy in the form of gasoline." http://www.cleanairchoice.org/outdoor/E85Background.asp Vince
Re: [H] XP Pro Upgrade
On 20 Apr 2006 at 16:46, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Just make sure you install with the same version of Windows, (Upgrade, > Full or OEM.) If you do not, the Product Key on the COA will not work. I got an OEM to work with a COA key, but others have had mixed results. As to the Upgrade, in the old days, there was a file you could create to force the Upgrade to do a full install. Probably superseded with XP. Vince
Re: [H] XP Pro Upgrade
On 20 Apr 2006 at 13:27, Thane Sherrington (S) wrote: > Here's a problem. I have a customer with an XP Pro COA, but no > CD. I don't have a CD in the shop for the upgrade, and the COA won't > work with a full version of XP Pro. Does anyone know if I can get a > CD from MS? You should be able to purchase a "Re-install disk" from the original manufacturer, but if you have any OEM CD handy, you might be able to utilize that and substitute the COA registration upon installation. YMMV Vince
Re: [H] surveillance camera
On 13 Apr 2006 at 20:50, Winterlight wrote: > I want to set up a bullet proof video surveillance camera so I can > keep an eye on my dad's room. He lives with me, and has Alzheimers. My sympathies. I'm in a similar situation. > What will I need, and how do I get the video display... is this just > transmitted across the network to softwareor through the Internet > via a web page streaming video? Something like this would work. I got one for friends of my brother. It's a Linksys Wireless-B Internet Video Camera ( WVC11B) that: "Unlike standard 'web cams' that require an attached PC, the Internet Video Camera contains its own web server, so it can connect directly to a network, either over Wireless-B (802.11b) networking, or over 10/100 Ethernet cable." "Once it's connected to your home network, you can 'see what it sees' from any PC in the house, while the video stream is secured from the outside world, hidden behind your Router." http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=9701558873&category=48632 You can search the model number around for pricing. Vince
Re: [H] [OT] FJ Pics
On 11 Apr 2006 at 17:52, GM wrote: > For those who have not seen the FJ Cruiser > > http://mysite.verizon.net/gmrtn/ Nice. This weekend, 'Motorweek' is scheduled to review the FJ. I wish Jeep would bring the Willys2 into production: http://www.autointell.com/nao_companies/daimlerchrysler/jeep/jeep-willys2/jeep-willys2-01.htm or for those with wrap: http://tinyurl.com/jdfrz Vince
RE: [H] desktop laser
On 1 Apr 2006 at 11:53, Bobby Heid wrote: > You are in luck! Office depot has a $100 MIR off of select HP printers > $199. Note that I am cutting and pasting the information. This > rebate ends today. > > The HP LaserJet 1022 should be a nice low-end printer. Just did this for a relative two days ago. HP 1022 LaserJet Printer http://www.officedepot.com/ddSKU.do?id=290352 Item# 290352 $199.99 $30 off $150: 52530833 FREE Shipping HP $100 REBATE: http://forms.young-america.com/38086_OD1202046v2-033006.pdf Final price: $199.99 -$30 Coupon > $169.99 - $100 Rebate > $69.99 + tax Vince
Re: [H] [N] IDF 2006 - Conroe Performance
On 8 Mar 2006 at 15:21, Julian Zottl wrote: > lol, makes me wonder, did they go back to one of the PIII cores and > throw in some M tech. hahahaha. According to IT Jungle: "The new Core Microarchitecture, which is a derivative of the Pentium M processor for laptops, is the foundation of the future Intel chips, which put as much emphasis on energy efficiency as they do on raw performance." http://www.itjungle.com/breaking/bn030706-story01.html Vince
Re: [H] Failure Cars Standard with Wings was....
On 7 Mar 2006 at 15:57, Greg Sevart wrote: > >> The NBER did NOT say that 9/11 deepened the recession. > > > >>From YOUR quote: > > > > "The attacks clearly deepened the contraction" > > > > SHEEZ. > > > > > >> They stated that 9/11 could be why what could have been a minor > >> contraction fell into a recession in the first place. > > > > It wasn't minor. > > > > > > From the first part of the quote: "Before the attacks, it is possible > > that > the decline in the economy would have been too mild to qualify as a > recession." > > I don't think it gets any more clear than that. As I already explained, that's because they had assumed that GDP in the private-sector went positive in the 4th QTR of 2001, which it did not. > Regardless, I'm calling this my last post on the thread. This has > clearly gone beyond the 3 day OT grace period, and to be honest, I > don't even care that much. BYE. Vince
Re: [H] Failure Cars Standard with Wings was....
On 7 Mar 2006 at 13:48, jeff.lane wrote: > It started in 1939 and we were sending huge amounts of supplies to > Britainremember the U-boats?? Our industry started to ramp up > dramatically in '38 and '39 which rapidly slowed and eliminated the > Depression. The Nazis didn't even begin their bombing campaign against England until the Fall of 1940, so there was nothing to "ramp up" or send to England in 1938 or 1939. Vince
Re: [H] Failure Cars Standard with Wings was....
On 7 Mar 2006 at 13:10, Gary VanderMolen wrote: > >> "GDP rose at a 1.4 percent rate in the fourth quarter. Another > >> factor was strong government spending, the result of the war in > >> Afghanistan and counter-terrorism efforts. It's interesting to note > >> that without the government's increase, GDP would have been > >> negative..." > > > > It is money going in to the economy. Is it somehow invalidated by > > the fact that it came from the government? > > And isn't that also what Franklin D. Roosevelt did to mitigate the > Great Depression of the 1930's? Some say that going to war in 1940 is > what really ended that depression. Then they would be wrong, as the depression was over by 1938, and WWII didn't start until 1941. Vince
Re: [H] Failure Cars Standard with Wings was....
On 7 Mar 2006 at 14:00, Greg Sevart wrote: > You used the word dismal, not me. To me, dismal implies a pretty > extreme state. Again, bankruptcies are at the highest level in history, home foreclosures are at the highest level in history, federal budget deficits are at the highest level in history, Poverty has increased each and every year over the last five years, the number of uninsured has increased each and every year over the last five years, Long-term Unemployment is at the highest level in thirty years, and there are millions fewer workers in the national workforce now than there were in 2000. If that is not dismal, by definition, then I don't know what is. > Long-term unemployment decreased as of the most recently reported > figures, labor force participation is up (though down, for obvious > reasons, since Katrina) year-over-year, unemployment in general is down > to 4.7% (from a peak of 6.3% in June of 2003), and GDP has been > positive for the last 17 quarters. How can unemployment be down if there are fewer workers in the national workforce than five years ago ? Once the unemployment benefits of jobless workers expire, they are no longer counted as unemployed. The Unemployment Rate has declined because there are fewer jobless workers being counted, not because jobless workers have returned to work. The GDP numbers are reflecting military spending, not private-sector growth. > Are all indicators pretty? No. But things aren't as bad now as they > were a couple years ago. They're worse. > The NBER did NOT say that 9/11 deepened the recession. >From YOUR quote: "The attacks clearly deepened the contraction" SHEEZ. > They stated that 9/11 could be why what could have been a minor > contraction fell into a recession in the first place. It wasn't minor. > The NBER's comments do not invalidate my original comment, though I > clearly spoke with more absolution than I should have. Really ? Ya think ? Do you want me to add "Dude" ? > > However, as was explained by Erika Miller, a correspondent for > > Nightly Business Report, on February 28th, 2001: > > > > "GDP rose at a 1.4 percent rate in the fourth quarter. Another > > factor was strong government spending, the result of the war in > > Afghanistan and counter-terrorism efforts. It's interesting to note > > that without the government's increase, GDP would have been > > negative..." > > It is money going in to the economy. Is it somehow invalidated by the > fact that it came from the government? It's not the private-sector economy. It is, by definition, Socialism. If that's what you favor, fine. Vince
Re: [H] Failure Cars Standard with Wings was....
On 6 Mar 2006 at 18:00, Greg Sevart wrote: > >> But that was very possibly just a cyclical event destined to be > >> short lived. > > > > No, it was a predicted reaction. > > > > Predicted, 'eh? Clearly, with your magical powers of absolute economic > analysis, you should have succeeded Greenspan. Give me a break. "Magical powers" ? Given the historical track record of failed RightWing policies, it was a slam dunk. > >> Add to that the costs of war and the far-reaching impacts of > >> Katrina (especially as it relates to employment), and I think we're > >> doing pretty well. > > > > You are in a distinct minority of Americans, particulary given the > > dismal economic conditions. > We're still here, didn't fall into a depression Care to set the bar any lower ? > and things are improving (albeit slowly) Where ? > ...but you're right, I might be biased by the fact that I recieved a > double-digit raise last year. I did write that you were in a "distinct minority", didn't I ? > Economy be damned, competence still wins. How ? The overwhelming majority of the vast majority of workers whose wages went backwards over the last five years are competent as well. > >> With regard to the recession being declared in March of 2001, that > >> classification wasn't made until late November of 2001--after the > >> attacks. > > > > It's always made well after the fact. > > Yeah, because a slump doesn't always mean a true recession until > significantly more data is collected for subsequent time periods. No, because there is a time lag until the data is released preliminarily, then revised, then revised again, and again, over time. > >> It is very possible that the small decline would have never > >> qualified as an actual recession had the attacks never occurred. > > > > Wrong, and referring to the worst downturn since the Great > > Depression as a "small decline" is rather revealing. > > > > No, I'm sorry, it is you that is clearly wrong. According to a source > that YOU first cited, the NBER: > > "Q: The NBER has dated the beginning of the recession in March 2001. > Does this mean that the attacks of September 11 did not have a role in > causing the recession? > > A. No. Before the attacks, it is possible that the decline in the > economy would have been too mild to qualify as a recession. The > attacks clearly deepened the contraction and may have been an > important factor in turning the episode into a recession." (from the > recession announcement in November of 2001, > http://www.nber.org/cycles/november2001/) A) You did not contend, as the NBER does, that 9/11 just "deepened" the recession, you stated: "I think it is pretty clear that the reason why real wages haven't increased since 2001 is because of the economic recession kicked off by 9/11." Dead wrong on both counts. B) The NBER thought the recession was "mild", because they incorrectly assumed the recession ended in November of 2001, as they were relying upon the false data released by this administration. They accepted that GDP went positive in the 4th QTR 2001, as that's the number the administration released. However, as was explained by Erika Miller, a correspondent for Nightly Business Report, on February 28th, 2001: "GDP rose at a 1.4 percent rate in the fourth quarter. Another factor was strong government spending, the result of the war in Afghanistan and counter-terrorism efforts. It's interesting to note that without the government's increase, GDP would have been negative..." The same happened with the 1st QTR of 2002. From Gretchen Morgenson, a financial writer for the New York Times, appearing on the May 6th broadcast of the 'Lehrer News Hour': "the 5.8 percent GDP growth in the first quarter was really largely a function of government spending and an increase in inventory buildup at corporations." The administration stopped releasing the separate data after that (for obvious reasons). They have been counting military spending as GDP to give the appearance that the national private-sector economy is performing well, to this day. The administration also killed off a Labor Department program that tracked mass layoffs by U.S. companies over a year ago, and is presently proposing to eliminate a Census Bureau survey on the economic well-being of U.S. residents. The Bushies don't care for reality when it's negative. Vince
Re: [H] Failure Cars Standard with Wings was....
On 6 Mar 2006 at 14:27, Greg Sevart wrote: > You're entirely missing the point. YES, the economy was slowing down. No, it wasn't just "slowing down", it went into recession in March of 2001, five moths before 9/11. > But that was very possibly just a cyclical event destined to be short > lived. No, it was a predicted reaction. * As reported by the private-sector Conference Board, Consumer Confidence plummeted by more than 10% in November 2000 (the largest drop in over 10 years, not seen since the last recession, eleven years earlier). * Consumer Confidence again plummeted by another 10% in December 2000 (again, the largest drop in over 10 years, not seen since the last recession, eleven years earlier). * A 20% drop in Consumer Confidence in less than 60 days is a massive shift in consumer sentiment, not seen in a post-WWII American economy, yet it continued to drop even further in January, February, and March. Given that Consumer Spending comprises more than seventy percent of the American economy, it's no surprise that the nation's economy finally sunk into recession in March of 2001. > 9/11 (and all actions as a result of) is the factor that pushed things > down so far and so fast Wrong. > and that's why it hasn't been easy to grow out of. Wrong. > Add to that the costs of war and the far-reaching impacts of Katrina > (especially as it relates to employment), and I think we're doing > pretty well. You are in a distinct minority of Americans, particulary given the dismal economic conditions. > With regard to the recession being declared in March of 2001, that > classification wasn't made until late November of 2001--after the > attacks. It's always made well after the fact. > It is very possible that the small decline would have never qualified > as an actual recession had the attacks never occurred. Wrong, and referring to the worst downturn since the Great Depression as a "small decline" is rather revealing. Vince
Re: [H] Failure Cars Standard with Wings was....
On 5 Mar 2006 at 17:55, Gary VanderMolen wrote: > Contrary to popular opinion, neither the political party in power nor > the president has much control over the general US economy. Economic > cycles wax and wane, based on many factors so complex that no one can > forecast them with any assurance. That's merely a myth. Vince
Re: [H] Failure Cars Standard with Wings was....
On 5 Mar 2006 at 20:09, Greg Sevart wrote: > On the contrary, I think it is pretty clear that the reason why real > wages haven't increased since 2001 is because of the economic recession > kicked off by 9/11. Nope. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research (which is the private-sector authority on the matters), the national economy officially entered recession in March of 2001, five months before 9/11. > We're climbing out of the recession now Then why are there fewer workers in the national economy now, as a percentage, than there were in 2000 ? The National Labor Participation Rate is lower now than it was in 2000. Bankruptcies are at the highest level in history, home foreclosures are at the highest level in history, federal budget deficits are at the highest level in history, Poverty has increased each and every year over the last five years (after declining each year of the previous eight years), the number of uninsured has increased each and every year over the last five years, and Long-term Unemployment is at the highest level in thirty years. > and energy prices seem to be stabilizing to a degree Last week the non-core CPI was reported to have increased +0.7% for the month. That is an 8.4% annualized inflation rate. > so I fully anticipate that real wages will be on the increase again > shortly. Not unless publicly policy is reversed. > Saying that the American experiment/standard of living is now going to > face a constant decline based on an extrapolation of numbers since > 2001 is an egregious error It would be, if anyone had made that claim. Vince
Re: [H] Failure Cars Standard with Wings was....
Jim, > Oh, the standard of living in the USA is driving the world up. Actually, the "standard of living in the USA" has gone backwards each and every year of the last five years. According to the report 'Survey of Consumer Finances', recently released by the Federal Reserve, even though there was a 1.6% increase in the median income between 2001 and 2004, when inflation was factored in, the median wage actually fell 6.2% (Preliminary data from 2005 follows the same pattern). The drop in real before-tax family income between 2001 and 2004 stands in stark contrast to the gains for the preceding three-year period, as well as the three-year period before that. From 2001 through 2004, mean income fell 2.3 percent. Over the preceding three-year period, from 1998 to 2001, the mean income had increased 17.3 percent. Thats about a 20% reversal. The change over the 2001-04 period was strongly influenced by a 6.2 percent decline in the overall median amount of wages measured in the survey and a 3.6 percent decline in the mean; as wages represent the largest share of family income. http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2006/financesurvey.pdf Vince
Re: cars was [H] google search for "failure"
Hayes, > Exceptyou do not need soybeans to make biodiesel! Pretty much any > vegetable oil can be used at this point Or grapeseed oil, canola oil, peanut oil, and many others. Vince
Re: [H] google search for "failure"
On 3 Mar 2006 at 8:45, FORC5 wrote: > also takes more energy to produce then gas Actually not. "The US Department of Agriculture reports a net energy balance for ethanol production of 1.67. In other words, for every one unit of energy used to produce ethanol and its accompanying co-products, 1.67 units of energy results. However, the US Department of Energy reports that petroleum refining can actually have a negative energy balance. For example, every unit of energy expended in gasoline production is reported to result in only 0.79 units of energy in the form of gasoline." http://www.cleanairchoice.org/outdoor/E85Background.asp Vince
RE: [H] google search for "failure"
Chris, > Everyone is so terrified of Nuclear Power, which numerous other places > in the world use to great success, that they are willing to do almost > anything else with other permanent damage because they find it much > easier to "sell". Without the major federal subsidies (meaning your tax dollars as Corporate Welfare), "Nuclear Power" is one of THE most expensive forms of energy. Vince
Re: [H] Happy Holidays, Merry Christmas
Merry Christmas everybody. Let's not forget Happy Festivus. Get yer Festivus poles here: http://www.festivuspoles.com/pages/festivuspoles.htm Vince
RE: [H] OT - Intelligent Design dealt harsh blow by NJ Judge
On 23 Dec 2005 at 18:13, Neil Atwood wrote: > One thing is very, very clear: Jesus claimed to be the incarnate Son > of God, and any other conclusion as to his nature and role was > unacceptable to him. So, if you want a discussion about that, we have > to start there and use the best source material available: the Bible. I would be careful about taking a bible literally: * The bible states that slavery is OK as long as it involves people from foreign lands * The bible considers women as property * The bible states you cannot wear clothes made of two different types of fabric * The bible states that one cannot separate fruit from the seed on the Sabbath, which means you cant eat watermelon on Sunday * The biblical reference to not engaging in homosexual acts only refers to men, not women (apparently God has the same rule as the Playboy Mansion) Vince
Re: [H] OT - Intelligent Design dealt harsh blow by NJ Judge
On 21 Dec 2005 at 7:25, Ben Ruset wrote: > Didn't most of the school board get voted out of office there as well? All EIGHT of them were voted out in the last election. The newly elected members have no intention to appeal the judge's ruling. Vince
Re: [H] OT - Intelligent Design dealt harsh blow by NJ Judge
>From da judge: "Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. THE BREATHTAKING INANITY OF THE BOARD'S DECISION IS EVIDENT when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources." AMEN.
RE: [H] -OT- Cuba
Chris, (This was stuck in my server's SPAM filter, for some unknown reason): > I'm not sure how we can connect this to some right-wing American jihad > against Cuba(?) The Embargo went into effect in 1962 (Kennedy) Who was acting on biased info from the CIA, which is as RightWIng as you can get. Remember, they were trying to get JFK to illegally back the CIA's paramilitary invasion of Cuba at the 'Bay of Pigs'. > Fact is, it isn't a Right Wing craziness that keeps are methods toward > Cuba, it's an electoral one. Cuban voters turn out at the highest > rate of anyone in the US - almost 90%. And amongst them, the > sentiment in Florida is high in opposition to Cuba. Actually, that has shifted over time. After the RightWing Cubans made fools of themselves over Elian Gonzalez, apparently the silent majority was awakened, as the pollsters now say the majority of Florida Cubans are either not anti-Castro or are neutral and just don't care. Vince
RE: [H] -OT- Cuba
Hayes, > Let me remind you that the American "jihad" against Castro was not > spawned from the right wing. That would be news to the American supporters of the RightWing dictator Batista. Vince
RE: [H] -OT- Cuba
On 14 Dec 2005 at 18:00, Chris Reeves wrote: > Having extended family (Wife's aunt) who lives there, though, I'd say > it's not as neat of a visit as you might think ;) With white sands beaches, mid-level accommodations, and great food & boos, the dollar-denominated resorts are indistinguishable from those in the rest of the Caribbean, only cheaper. On another note, the rest of the world is doing big business with Cuba (especially Canada), yet the American RightWing continues it's jihad against Fidel, while cozying up to China. Beyond silliness. Vince
RE: [H] -OT- Cuba
On 14 Dec 2005 at 15:57, 007 wrote: > For US Citizen, there are limits to the # of entries to Cuba. Americans can fly to Cuba from any of the Caribbean Islands, and Cuban customs won't stamp your passport. So as far as the U.S. government is concerned, you were never there. :] Vince
Re: [H] cell to land line
Jim, > I've been thinking about ditching verizion telephone service and just > adding a cell line with the home number. It would be nice if I could > integrate two 900 MHz telephones for use since the cell is small and > does not make a loud enough ring to here throughout the house. Anybody > have experience in this or has looked into something like this? A while back, I remember seeing a small docking station that you could cradle your cell phone in, and it allowed you to plug in another phone, like a cordless, so you could answer the cell phone with the regular phone, as long as the cell was cradled. Vince
Re: [H] Investment opportunity or scam
On 13 Sep 2005 at 12:03, Thane Sherrington (S) wrote: > Any one hear of these guys? > http://www.grgems.com/index.html Nope. > They claim to buy and sell gems and are offering small business owners > an opportunity to invest. It seems iffy to me, but I'm wondering if > anyone else has heard of it. They are with the Canadian BBB, that would likely be the first place to start, then whatever Canadian government agency has oversight in that area (like the American FTC). As to the investments in general, "jewelry" is not normally a very good investment, as everyone has different tastes. Gems CAN be a very good investment, ASSUMING of course, that one is not buying retail and selling wholesale, which is what a lot of gem dealers do to clients. Vince
Re: [H] It's bad, really bad - Katrina
I was done with this thread, but since this was sent directly at me... On 1 Sep 2005 at 17:40, jeff.lane wrote: > Vince, > > In keeping with your thought of "pre-positioning ship" It wasn't my "thought". It was part of a plan that FEMA had laid out under the previous administration, part of 'Project Impact', which this administration killed. > my question would be just where in the hell would you "pre-position" > those ships with a wiggling cat 5 hurricane, 250 mile > diameter(conservatively), headed somewhere in the direction of NO. Well, since the intention of the ships with the massive pumping stations was to pump the water out from behind the levees surrounding New Orleans, if it was hit, then quite obviously they would be pre-positioned right off the coast of New Orleans, eh ? > But please throw into the mix the fact that the storm could have turned > north, at any time, toward the Florida Panhandle. Then they would not have been needed, would they ? > I have been reading this thread from the beginning and, for one, am > tired of hearing the garbage and agenda you are peddling. Just the facts. If you can't handle the truth, don't read my posts. > We have people dying down there(maybe into the tens of thousands after > all is said and done). I can hear enough crap and political innuendos > on CNN(THE Communist News Network) network. And just who is holding a gun to your head, forcing you to watch CNN ? > I wonder how much comfort the folks on roofs would take from your > statements. How much comfort are the Bushies providing, three days late ? > I hope someone save this kind of stuff so the survivors can see how > some of these people supported them. Thank God there were few of these > types around after Pearl Harbor or we would be flying Swastikas and > meatballs on our flag poles...and you think we have > troubles now..but that's probably before your time. Non sequitur ? > Of course, on the other hand, some of my friends and relatives, died > so you can shoot your mouth off. You are doing a good job at that. Thanks. Vince
RE: [H] It's bad, really bad - Katrina
Chris, > Vince, I really don't think we are arguing bitterly with each other Gee, I would hope not. > and I think we have a lot of grounds of agreement. I want to state > that right off. OK. > The concept of coming up with $50M/yearly, as you point out, fails to > put into perspective that the number will go up, considerably, with > inflation and difficulty. The more weight applied to the levees, the > less stable, level and manageable they are.. the heavier the levee is, > the faster it sinks as the soil doesn't have enough base rock value.. > this is something that everyone knows, it's something that nature > cannot deny.. the more tributaries bring in water and the undercurrent > (like the Mississippi) the more you get a shift. > > Other issues also play into it which make it more difficult as well... > anyway, I will agree with you that $50M a year is not only every year, > but it is a figure that will go up drastically every year, even with > the best upkeep imaginable because of the nature of the problem. Keep in mind that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers requested $27 million for this fiscal year (2005) to pay for hurricane-protection projects around Lake Pontchartrain. The Bush administration countered with $3.9 million, and the Republican controlled Congress eventually provided $5.7 million. Michael Parker, a former Republican Mississippi congressman who headed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers from October 2001 until March 2002, told the 'Chicago Tribune' today: "I'm not saying it wouldn't still be flooded, but I do feel that if it had been totally funded, there would be less flooding than you have". > So, I tend to go along with a very unpopular recommendation.. in 1993, > it was proposed that we consider "moving" the city, basically, by > slowly planning for it to go away by just the design of nature. Even > several environmental groups lobbied that the demolition of the levees > would create a giant boom in natural wildlife and restore the original > marshlands much closer to their intended state. > > I have no problem with that. Move people to more solid ground, make > where New Orleans a nice, gigantic national wildlife preserve, and you > save all the money.. and you do something nice for mother nature.. and > you immediately increase a big area of wetlands which provide for a > nice buffer later when you need it ;) I think that argument has gained some additional weight given what has happened. Vince
RE: [H] It's bad, really bad - Katrina
> Understandable. But to say "where were they to come up with $40-$50M" > is somewhat laughable also.. New Orleans spent over $320M in the last > three years divided between the New Orleans Saints stipend program, > Superdome rebuild, and guarantees in fees paid to the now New Orleans > Hornets. Well, you're singing to the choir in regards to Corporate Welfare for billionaires. However, the money spent on the Superdome came from hotel/motel occupancy tax collections, which is dedicated by law just for that purpose. The money for the Saints was from the state of Louisiana, in the form of a retention program. What revenue would be lost if they now picked-up and moved to another state ? The money for the Hornets was primarily for a new arena, which would obviously be an investment that would have returns over many future years. And all of this, as you stated, was over a three year span. I still contend that coming up with an additional $50 million EVERY year for the foreseeable future would be daunting. Vince
RE: [H] It's bad, really bad - Katrina
Chris, > I'm not proclaiming oppossition to that. Yet that is exactly what was stopped by the budget cuts. > > "Federal flood control spending for Southeastern Louisiana has been > > chopped from $69 million in 2001 to $36.5 million in 2005, according > > to budget documents. Federal hurricane protection for the Lake > > Pontchartrain vicinity in the Army Corps of Engineers' budget > > dropped from $14.25 million in 2002 to $5.7 million this year." > > > > "Both the New Orleans Times-Picayune newspaper and a local business > > magazine reported that the effects of the budget cuts at the Army > > Corps of Engineers were severe." > > As I noted, because the ACE submitted their budgets which were mostly > gutted, they didn't plan on dispersement well Look again. That was more than just cuts to the ACE. There were also cuts in (separate) flood control programs and cuts to a federal hurricane protection program for that area. Vince
Re: [H] It's bad, really bad - Katrina
On 1 Sep 2005 at 15:15, j m g wrote: > You know what, we can go back and forth about why and who should have > paid for what, state, local or federal funding. But this is a big, > big, disaster, where is the federal response? On vacation. Vince
RE: [H] It's bad, really bad - Katrina
Chris, > WTF do they need 40-50 BILLION to upkeep the current levee's? The > Federal Budget was just 70 million for the levees. Sorry, that was a typo. That should be $40-$50 MILLION. That's what the cuts were, annually. Vince
RE: [H] It's bad, really bad - Katrina
On 1 Sep 2005 at 14:03, Christopher Fisk wrote: > > The issue is that the repair, maintenance, and beefing-up of the > > levees, the very levees that broke through, was STOPPED in 2004, for > > the first time in 37 years, because of the Bushies massive budget > > cuts. > > Why didn't the city of NO pick up where the federal government > stopped? I mean hell, it's thier Levees! How are the locals supposed to raise an additional $40-$50 BILLION ? Vince
RE: [H] It's bad, really bad - Katrina
Chris, > So, did both the feds & the state make a mistake? Yes. Did that > mistake make any substantial difference in the outcome? I don't think > so So it's your position that finishing the repairs on the the levees, the pre-positioning of many pumping ships and hospital ships, let alone the organization of a coordinated air lift, would not have made "any substantial difference in the outcome" ? Vince
RE: [H] It's bad, really bad - Katrina
Chris, > The problem with the repair was that many even within the department > disagreed with the project entirely. Rebulking the current sitting > levees (not a redesign, a reset & repair) was something that even > those within the USMS had some oppossition to.. the current weight and > buttressing of the sitting levees was creating infrastructure problems > (or at least they contended) and the continual enhancement of them was > causing the nearby land area to "sink" even more then doing nothing; > so, the Army Corp of Engineers proposed that such projects were "fools > errands" and they argued that they were not the solution, they were > the problem.. they contended that spillways and secondary runoffs were > the most viable solution. You're still off some tangent. Several areas of the levees had been down to FOUR FEET in height, and the repairs were in progress. I'd like to see the opposition to THAT, and I don't mean by anti-tax groups that don't want to spend money on anything besides a national defense. > At the same time, efforts to rebuttress the current levees did > diminish - in proposal, with the cuts taking direct impact in the FY > 2006 budget. Nope: "Federal flood control spending for Southeastern Louisiana has been chopped from $69 million in 2001 to $36.5 million in 2005, according to budget documents. Federal hurricane protection for the Lake Pontchartrain vicinity in the Army Corps of Engineers' budget dropped from $14.25 million in 2002 to $5.7 million this year." "Both the New Orleans Times-Picayune newspaper and a local business magazine reported that the effects of the budget cuts at the Army Corps of Engineers were severe." Vince
RE: [H] It's bad, really bad - Katrina
Chris, > I think if you read through the ACE report to the senate in 1997, they > argued (and several argued against) that without a complete > reconstructure of upstream levees and a redesign of spillways, there > was very little with the ground given.. outside of massive imminent > domain claims as city projects were built too close to current levees. > > Many argued this was the wrong way to look at it, but four times this > was proposed. > > I do agree with those who say "hey, just because people protested" > that's right, occassionally the government has to do what is > politically unpopular. But let's be honest, with so many groups > protesting, and so many in office in the senate / house on both sides > living and dying off of the goodwill of the people who support those > causes, no one had the testicular fortitude to do the right thing. But you're still referencing the future plans to REDESIGN the entire infrastructure, and I assume there was plenty to argue about on that count. The issue is that the repair, maintenance, and beefing-up of the levees, the very levees that broke through, was STOPPED in 2004, for the first time in 37 years, because of the Bushies massive budget cuts. Vince
RE: [H] It's bad, really bad - Katrina
Chris, > You also, however, forget that several people were indicted for > embezzlement out of the project and that a congressional budget audit > made clear that the books could not be reconciled. > > Project Impact was always designed at small grants given to > communities to develop planning.. example: > > http://www.fema.gov/regions/vii/1998/98r7n033.shtm > > Grants were generally smaller then $250,000. > > As an example of their guidelines: > > Project Impact is built around 3 basic principles: 1) preventative > measures must be decided at the local level; 2) private sector > participation is vital; and 3) long term efforts and investments in > prevention measures are essential. That was a different segment of the program, which dealt only with the items you just outlined on the state and local level. > The idea of project impact was never "the government provides the > plan" rather it was that the government would provide seed money for > the community to develop a strategic plan.. Au contraire. 'Project Impact' also involved federal planning to mitigate the damage done by large natural disasters by taking measures that would be crucial to a strategy to save lives and cut recovery costs. FEMA had pre-planned "a New Orleans nightmare scenario", in which "the federal government figured it would pre-deploy nearby ships with pumps to remove water from the below-sea-level city and have hospital ships nearby". Since 2001, the Bushies have been slashing key federal disaster mitigation programs, and FEMA's 'Project Impact', created by the Clinton administration, has been outright cancelled. The result ? No pre-deployed ships to pump out the water, and only ONE hospital ship has been allocated to the area, but it didn't leave it's port until Friday, AFTER the hurricane struck. http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/12528233.htm > So, the proposal was to create upstream spillways through a split > levee system, to have a "break point" on the inflow of water or a > controlled spilloff to lower the water table. > > But the problem is, people everywhere protested. > > Wildlife Defense Fund protested; Conservative Taxpayer Network > protested; etc. > > Also amongst groups that protested: > > PETA, World Wildlife Fund, National Conservation Society, (Left) Turkey > Watch, TaxPayer Network, Government Abuse Hotline (Right) Except those 'protests' were about the REDESIGN and expansion of the levee system and it's spillways and locks. It's a different kettle of fish that because of the Bushies budget cuts, "the Corps essentially stopped major work on the now-breached levee system that had protected New Orleans from flooding. It was the first such stoppage in 37 years, the Times-Picayune reported." http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/12528233.htm Vince
Re: [H] Weird one for you...
Hosfelt has a red blinking LED for $.55 each: http://www.hosfelt.com/en-us/dept_214.html but I doubt the interval is one minute. They also have a Dual Color Bright Green/Blinking Red LED depending upon the polarity, for $1.49 Vince
[H] Re: CFLs
On 19 Aug 2005 at 15:50, Wayne Johnson wrote: > & they fit in normal light fixtures or are they the ones for free > standing lamps only ? Most of the ones I've seen you couldn't put in > ceiling fan lights or anything that has a globe. Yeah they fit standard fixtures. The newer generation are smaller. They utilize a dual-spiral that is actually smaller than a standard 40W bulb. I haven't found anything they won't work in. They're not going to replace those small globe bulbs, but those have a smaller socket. Actually, the only problem I had was with a small table lamp that had a 25W bulb in it, and the CF was too small for the wire clamping thingy that held the shade on, so I had to bend it a bit so the shade would cling to the bulb. The only other issue involved is the color of the light. The standard CFLs from Home Depot are not color corrected. They put out a 'warm white' light, but they're just fine for most applications. However, if the light will be close to food, or anyone is applying make-up in a mirror, I would spring for the color-corrected versions, which put out a true white light. They cost a bit more. Seeing food with the 'warm white' light really makes it look sick. Vince
Re: CFLs was > [H] Gas prices
On 19 Aug 2005 at 6:47, FORC5 wrote: > tried those, hope u have better luck then me, mostly they didn't last > and I got tired to the not instant on. That was the first generation models. The current ones are instant on. Check out Home Depot, they have three-paks for $5. Don't look by the light bulbs, they have them in the lighting department, where the light fixtures and ceiling fans are hanging. > I would like to invent a bathroom fan switch with a built in timer of > only a couple of minutes, on and off in a couple of minutes instead of > sucking all the cooling/heating out of the house when u forget to turn > it off. Beat ya to it. I bought a timer switch that replaces the wall switch. So instead of flipping the switch, you turn the knob. The timer is variable from one to thirty minutes. Vince
RE: [H] Gas prices
On 19 Aug 2005 at 0:12, Tony Antoniou wrote: > Bush made the BS oil inflation happen with his "War on Terror". Sorry > to all you militant Bush supporters out there but Bush and his family > of oil-riggers are laughing all the way to the bank, along with the > people above them pulling the strings. In October of 1996, Dick Cheney, who was then a member of Congress from Wyoming, said: Let us rid ourselves of the fiction that low oil prices are somehow good for the United States Vince
Re: Re: [H] Gas prices
On 18 Aug 2005 at 8:20, Greg Sevart wrote: > In the case of oil, prices have recently been driven NOT by supply and > demand, but by the fears of supply and demand. Easily 50% of the cost > of oil today is a premium built not on actual supply or demand, but > mere speculation and the fear of supply disruptions. Currently, there > is plenty of supply to meet demand, but the margin is slim. > > Economics 101 doesn't (directly) apply here. Agreed. Same with gasoline prices. The last time that gasoline prices spiked like this was in the Summer of 2000. The price only spiked to around $2.00/gallon, but from a much lower base price. We heard the EXACT same tired old excuses back then that were hearing now. That demand was high, that there was a shortage, that there wasnt enough refining capacity, that refineries had closed down for maintenance/weather/fire, that the EPA requirements of 40 different blends was the problem. In the subsequent quarter, the oil companies and refining companies reported MASSIVE profits. Exxon Mobil's operating income was up 89%, BP Amoco's operating income rose nearly 93% and Texaco's operating income increased by 127%. Refiners also cleaned up: Diamond Shamrock saw earnings increase 310% and Sunoco saw earnings increase by 743%. This sparked an investigation by the Federal Trade Commission, which concluded that the spike in gasoline prices was caused by refiners, WHO HAD ILLEGALLY WITHHELD GASOLINE FROM THE MARKET TO MAXIMIZE PROFITS. All the other excuses had been fraudulently manufactured and propagandized. Too bad there are no regulatory cops on the beat with this administration. Vince
Re: [H] Gas prices
On 18 Aug 2005 at 13:06, Hayes Elkins wrote: > Why would a power company who's end goal is to make money want to > cripple their revenue stream by making homes super efficient? I see > short term cost savings in this example but I fear there is really no > incentive for power companies to encourage energy savings. Because some power companies are 'Green'. In many parts of the country you can purchase power from wind, hydro, and other alternative sources. Vince
Re: Re: [H] Gas prices
On 18 Aug 2005 at 7:04, Greg Sevart wrote: > It wouldn't be near $80/barrel. I had seen testimony from oil drilling firms who stated that because of the difficulty of drilling through permafrost, only having seasonal access (because they can't drive the big rigs over it during the thaw months), and all the extra safeguards to prevent oil spilling in a wildlife protected area, the cost per barrel would be over $80. I assumed they knew of what they spoke. Vince
Re: [H] Gas prices
On 18 Aug 2005 at 3:17, Stan Zaske wrote: > A better idea is to ban all incandescent lights for compact > fluorescents which only use 1/4 the energy! Now that you mention it, there was a study published by the Rocky Mountain Institute (http://www.rmi.org/) a while back, when the electric utility in Colorado had submitted plans to build a new electric power generating plant, that showed that if the utility bought CF lights,and passed them out for free to all of their customers to replace all the incandescent lights in their homes, it would save MORE electricity than the new plant they were planning on constructing would generate operating at full capacity, and save them the tens of millions of dollars of the cost of the construction of the new plant. Amazing. Vince
Re: Re: [H] Gas prices
On 17 Aug 2005 at 18:29, Greg Sevart wrote: > ...but given that we produce something like ~40% of our oil > DOMESTICALLY, and the majority of the remainder comes from Canada, > Mexico, and Venezuela, we wouldn't need to replace 100% of our oil > consumption with oil from the ANWR. Even if we only replaced 50% of are imported oil, that would merely double the six months to a year. > When I was researching the issue back in spring of 2002, the figure > that I heard was that ANWR oil could COMPLETELY REPLACE middle-eastern > imports for a period of 30 years. I seriously doubt that. Remember the rest of Energy Secretary Abraham's quote: "Americans should not overestimate this region's ability to provide the nation with energy independence" Something I doubt he would say if the region could "COMPLETELY REPLACE middle-eastern imports for a period of 30 years" > That being said, I have mixed feelings on drilling in the ANWR. It > would be 5-12 years before any useful oil came from it Not to mention that because it would involve drilling trough permafrost, it would be North of $80/barrel oil or more. That won't help us with the price at all. Vince
Re: Re: [H] Gas prices
On 17 Aug 2005 at 15:58, Ben Ruset wrote: > Didn't drilling in Alaska just pass? No, it is supposed to be jammed into the upcoming budget bill. > I consider myself an environmentalist and I support drilling in Alaska. You'll likely be disappointed. Spence Abraham, who was this administration's Secretary of Energy in the first term, told the Sacramento Bee newspaper that: "Americans should not overestimate this region's ability to provide the nation with energy independence" and that: "the roughly 10 billion barrels of oil expected to be found there would be the equivalent of JUST SIX MONTHS OF U.S. CONSUMPTION" http://www.sacbee.com/news/special/power/032001abraham.html Vince
Re: Re: [H] Gas prices
On 17 Aug 2005 at 15:26, Ben Ruset wrote: > Further proof that the oil companies are gouging customers outside the > mideast. You can't tell me that there is a ~$1.60/gal charge that goes > to only pay transport and taxes. > > >From: Zulfiqar Naushad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Date: Wed Aug 17 15:17:29 CDT 2005 > >To: The Hardware List > >Subject: Re: [H] Gas prices > > >Gas prices expensive??? > > > >Here in Saudi Arabia the state price (i.e. nothing less or more than > >the state price is available at any gas station) is .90 halalas (cent > > equivalent of a riyal(dollar)) per liter. > > > >i.e 1 Gallon = 90 US cents. To really get your blood boiling, gasoline in Venezuela is only 25 cents a gallon. Anybody want to captain a tanker full of gasoline back to the U.S. ? (Talk about ridin' a rocket) Vince
RE: [H] US not a nice place to travel through
Hayes, > Declarations of war in the 21st century are meaningless and will > probably never be used again. Likely true. > We are at war. The SCOTUS ruled we are not (at least in regards to the POTUS being able to unilaterally declare anyone he wishes an 'enemy combatant'). It may seem like semantics, but these technicalities are important when matters of the balance of powers are involved. Vince
RE: [H] US not a nice place to travel through
Hayes, > This has technically always been the case since WWII when the POTUS was > allowed to designate an individual as an enemy combatant. At that time, the SCOTUS ruled that he could have that power only because the Congress had enacted a 'Declaration of War'. Last year, the SCOTUS ruled that minus a "Declaration of the War', the POTUS does not have such power unilaterally, that a hearing had to be held to determine whether a person was an 'enemy combatant', then the administration could proceed from there. So far, no hearings have been held, and only sham hearings are scheduled. Vince
Re: [H] GTA San Andreas Pulled from Shelves
On 24 Jul 2005 at 10:03, Ben Ruset wrote: > No shit. I was quoting Hayes post: The point that seems to be escaping you is that the ESRB ratings for video games are not interchangeable with the MPAA ratings for films. Vince
Re: [H] GTA San Andreas Pulled from Shelves
On 24 Jul 2005 at 8:06, Ben Ruset wrote: > Ahahahahaha that's great. Definately R rated. There is no 'R' rating for video games. Vince
RE: [H] GTA San Andreas Pulled from Shelves
Hayes, > Please show me genitals engaged in what they were designed to do, or > anything depicting something that is NOT in a PG-13 or R movie: > > http://files.gtanet.com/gtasa/videos/hotcoffee.wmv A) I don't have a movie player. B) Where does it state that the depiction of "genitals" is the only manner the 'M' rating can be exceeded ? Vince
RE: [H] GTA San Andreas Pulled from Shelves
On 24 Jul 2005 at 11:12, Tony Antoniou wrote: > That's very funny Vince. It is ? > So if I take my car and modify it to break the speed limit quicker than > anyone else, it's the manufacturer's fault for supplying me with the > necessary tools to do that? Non sequitur ? > Spare me dude. It was a hidden feature which a group of hackers > released, not the manufacturer. Ah, dude, it was the "manufacturer" that admitted they included the content within the game. It was NOT released by a "group of hackers". Only the ACCESS to the content was hacked and readily available for download to anyone of any age. Releasing a video game under one rating while it has content of another rating is fraud. Vince
RE: [H] GTA San Andreas Pulled from Shelves
Hayes, > I mean, GOD FORBID there is the natural act of love in a game, > nevermind that for over 5 years this series encourages you to KILL > COPS and saw people in half. But OH NO! TITS! HUMPING! THROW THEM IN > GITMO! > > One of the few times I agree with the rest of the world when I join > them in laughing at the spectacularly stupid double standard of > America's shunning of nudity in mainstream media and unabashed > acceptance of wanton violence. I agree completely with the double-standard involving violence, but nevertheless, 'Take-Two' still violated even the limited ratings system that they signed onto. Vince
Re: [H] GTA San Andreas Pulled from Shelves
On 23 Jul 2005 at 6:32, Al wrote: > Ben Ruset <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > As I understand it, she pretty much launched a campaign against the > > game. Well, the game-maker, Take-Two, has admitted they buried X-rated material within the PC, Xbox and PlayStation 2 versions of the game. They fraudulently sold games containing X-rated content with a 'Mature 17+' rating. Not to mention that many retailers sell the 'M' rated games to those under 17, and there's plenty of reason for parents to be upset. Vince
Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.
On 5 Jul 2005 at 12:24, G.Waleed Kavalec wrote: > Next time somebody kills their spouse with a hammer, the next of kin > should sue Sears. Only if Sears was "promoting" the illegal use of the hammer. > On 7/5/05, j m g <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > But what it also doesn't do is give clarity to allowing the suits in > > the first place. They've opened the door to folks to let the courts > > decide if there was any 'promotion of infringement' by the hardware > > or software vendors. > > > > My Subaru's tv ad had 0-60 times as 5.4 secs - are they promoting > > reckless driving? Can they be sued for it? I'm sure if you checked the fine print, they state somewhere that you must be within legal speed limits. The bottom line of this ruling is they have to be "promoting" the illegal use of their product. Check the disclaimer that Grokster makes you agree to before commencing use. Imagine a hotel that advertised that if you rented one of their rooms, it was perfectly OK with management if you used the room to traffic in illegal firearms. I imagine they would be subject to prosecution for aiding and abetting. Vince
RE: [H] Crashing Cruzer Mini
On 11 Jun 2005 at 13:17, nobozoz wrote: > Well, guess what. > > I was able to pull most of the important stuff off the Cruzer by > repeatedly mounting the drive in WINXP and copying one root-based > folder at a time. About 20 of the 34 or so root folders managed to make > it to the HDD intact Not too shabby. > the rest were lost because they couldn't be read at all - even > partially. Ouch. Jim, Now that you listed the number of folders you had on the drive, it reminded me that my brother mentioned that a corporate IT guy where he works told him that the jump drives do not play well if they have too many files contained within too few folders. Something you might want to investigate. Does this make any sense to anyone ? Vince
RE: [H] Crashing Cruzer Mini
On 10 Jun 2005 at 19:13, nobozoz wrote: > Thanks for your response. > > The drive mounts fine - initially. It gets a drive letter OK; I can > open 'some' folders and view files OK; but when I try to COPY, I get > file read errors often enough to be a royal PITA. There is over 200 MB > of files and folders on that Cruzer. Easily more than 2,000 files in > about 34 folders at root level. Yeah, my brother has one with thousands of files on it as well, but he can't even get it to mount, and all the recovery software states that the jump drive must at least show up in "My Computer" for it to function. > I took a look at 'BadCopy', but there's no way to tell if the > 'recovered' files are corrupt or not. That's not good enough for me to > open my wallet for. Their demo mode is akin to going to a dealership, > watching a video and calling it a test drive before buying a car. I wasn't quite sure how that worked. They say it will tell you what files CAN be recovered, but the evaluation copy won't allow them to be copied, but I see what you mean, they could be copied and still be corrupted. Vince
Re: [H] Crashing Cruzer Mini
On 9 Jun 2005 at 23:08, nobozoz wrote: > Does anyone know how to get data off a crashing USB memory stick? > > The stick is sometimes recognized in WIN2K and when it is, I can see > the basic directory structure, but I am unable to copy the files to my > HDD due to a read error. "BadCopy Pro" claims it can copy the files off the stick: http://www.jufsoft.com/badcopy/ Also, your jump drive may not be mounting correctly because another device is using the same drive letter as it has used in the past. The tell-tail sign is supposed to be that the jump drive will be visible in "Unplug or Eject Hardware", but its file system will not visible in "My Computer". You have to go into "Admin Tools" under "Computer Management" and use "Storage" > "Disk Management" to re-assign the drive letter for the drive. Another solution you might want to try is to insert the USB drive while the computer is on, then reboot the machine and see if it's properly detected when it restarts. Vince
Re: [H] Best encryption for a thumb drive?
On 22 Apr 2005 at 23:53, warpmedia wrote: > Better to buy the hardware version (JD Secure, AES) or use DriveCrypt > or TrueCrypt in traveler mode. Didn't he request "free" ? Vince
Re: [H] Best encryption for a thumb drive?
On 22 Apr 2005 at 18:11, Chris Klein wrote: > What's the best freeware package out there if I want to encrypt my > entire thumb drive? I have a sandisk if that makes any difference. I > want to keep it encrypted at work in case anyone grabs it. Sandisk offers their own "CruzerLock data security software". Vince
Re: [H] partition encryption
On 11 Mar 2005 at 21:17, warpmedia wrote: > So excuse me if I'm a little too enthusiastic with my opinions! You're excused. :]
Re: [H] partition encryption
On 11 Mar 2005 at 13:47, warpmedia wrote: > Right, and what peer groups has reviewed them? How the hell should I know ? I wasn't recommending it for professional use, merely for individuals. A 256-bit AES key or a 448-bit Blowfish key used by StealthDisk is fine with me. If it's not good enough for you, by all means don't use it. > DC is not MagicFolders, it's true OTF encrytpion with ability to > Stenography, etc... And exactly where did I make any negative remarks about it ? Vince
