pluto77189There’s essentially 2 choices you have: Buy a camcorder that records DIRECTLY onto
DVD, or one that records on tape.
If you buy a DVD camcorder, or a mini-dv camcorder, you’re getting the same, dvd quality
video and audio, in digital format. Image/sound quality is not a factor in the decision
making process.
A mini DV camera gets 1-2 hours of video on a small tape(around3″x2″).
A mini DVD camera gets about 30 minutes of video on a 3.5″ DVD.
Rewritable DVD’s are available, but cost a lot of money – tapes, lasting 2-4 times as long
are cheaper than 30 minute DVD/RW’s.
Mini DV is much cheaper to record on.
Mini DVD cameras are neat, because you can just send them to other people, or just put
the thing into a DVd player.
Mini DV cameras require the camcorder to play back the tape.
If you want to make low quality copies, either can be copied onto a VHS tape – no edge
here.
If you want to make exact copies, digatial copies – you have to dump the video onto a
computer, or a DVD recorder. In either case, firewire or USB2 is what you use.
Both do it the same way. Edge goes to mini DV, simply because you get more than 30
minutes of video!
If you want to make copies, don’t waste money and time on a mini DVD camcorder – mini
DV tapes are far more practical, and much more common.
You’ll pay about twice as much for a DVD camera than for an equivalent(or maybe even
superior) mini DV Camera.
I worked at an electronics store for a while – almost every digital camcorder user copies all
of their movies onto full size DVD’s. This means that you’ll have to put 4-6 3.5″ dvd’s
worth of footage onto a computer to fill up a standard DVDR. If you’ve got a Mini DV
camera, one tape will take up most of it.
If you have any plans on making DVD copies of the movies for grandparents, the ngo with
a mini DV tape camera – they’re the standard in digital camcorders.
If you don’t have a computer able to do digital video or don’t want to bother doing digital
video editing on a computer or DVD recorder, then a mini DVD camera would be ok – if
you only want ONE copy of each DVD!
I bought a sony mini DV camera – it’s great. I’m saving up for a new computer with a DVD
burner and firewire, so I can make home movie DVD for our parents – I have a new baby
girl, she was bron in January. So I’m in the same boat as you are.
pluto77189There’s too much corruption in the UN. It needs a massive overhaul.
Why is there too much corruption? Because it’s a beurocracy of beurocracies, a compilation of nations, many of whom have corrupt leaderships.
Most governments have corruption in them, so th eUN will have soe as well. IT’s how the corruption is delt with that makes the difference.
Hopefully, this will get delbt with, cause it’s really disgusting. The guy in charge of the UN’s involvement in the Congo(an American) seemed to be very lax about the situation. He didn’t seem disgusted enough for me. These people took pictures of them raping little girls for god’s sake!
I’m just amazed that it’s taken this long to get “out” in prime time news.
And just for the record, there’s a difference in the humiliation-torture of criminals at abu-garhaib, and the systematic rape of innocent little kids.
The Un bette rbe tough on these people. If not for justice, but for their own image. Coupled with the oil for food “issue”, this just really makes the UN look really really awful. We have had a disaster, but don’t let the UN come, they deal with corrupt tyrants and allow the rape of children.”
It doesn’t help their image. I mean, look how bad michael Jackson’s image has become since he started molesting kids.
pluto77189The details give it away. they give the off-boresight angle and all, where it impacted the Mig….yeah, right…
It’s like the serb articles describing how the B2’s were shot down, they described in detail the terror, pain and suffering of the US pilots final moments as their “invisible” aircraft was burning to the ground… and exactly HOW did they know what was going on in the minds of the pilots. Oh, they embellished THAT part…and the rest of it too.
If you see details like that in a story, it’s probably not true. The military doesn’t give those details out like that. they give boring facts.
pluto77189It wasn’t 4 F-22’s, it was 2 raptors and 2 super hornets. The raptors were in front, and it was dark, so it was harder to see the hornets.
Pretty cool though. I was just thinking “the pregame was very military-oriented, hell, the SSB was sung by the combined military choir, they should ave an F-22 in the flyby…oh…look at that…they did.”
God I loved that commercial with the cat and the tomato sauce. Funniest commercial ever.
pluto77189To say winners or losers is a bit off. It is a victory for those who want freedom and democracy, self-governance and individual rights. It is a defeat for those who tried to stop it from happening, the terrorists that kill innocent iraqis every day, and the regiemes in Iran and Syria that decry democracy as an “evil” act.
to say that it is a victory for Bush and the US is not inaccurate. But simply because much of Europe was against us does nto mean this is a defeat for them. to say so is ignorance, plain and simple. To most of europe, and even the american left, this is a victory for freedom. to those of the US and Europe that wished to see it end in disaster, it is a defeat.
But to those of you that opposed the war, despise GWB, and think America is overstepping its bounds: Who wasn’t happy to see the Iraqis participating in free elections?!?!?
Regardless whether you were for the war or not, or THOUGHT the elections wouldn’t happen, this is a voctory for freedom.
It’s stupid to say that Old Europe was given a defeat, simply because they were against the war, or thoguth the elections were going to fail. Only if those people WANTED to see them fail, would this be considered a “defeat”.
As far as I can see, any free election is a victory for humankind, regardless of the outcome. My guess is that most of the positions filled by this election are going to be either presently in power, or with religious affiliations–people they are familiar with. Things will go from there.
pluto77189Megs lived in shallow water. Their teeth are found in areas that were relativly shallow at the time. If a large shark lives in deep water, it would not be megladon. Their teeth were designed for large animals. A large animal could live in the deep water(6 gilled shark for instance) but it would not be specialized for large prey, as meg was. It would be specialized for squid, or small animals in large quantities.
the 6 gilled shark is bigger than the great white, but its not a big game hunter, it’s a scavenger. There is probably not enough food in the deep to maintain something as large as a meglodon without having specialized feeding abilities. Sperm whales use echolocation, and can stun entire groups of squid. This lets them devour an entire school of squid with minimal effort. A shark of comprable size wold need less food, but aquiring it in the deep would be near impossible.
Megs probably are more large fish than whales. whales take too much time to grow. Something had to eat giant fish – just look at the size and number of giant bluefin tuna in the ocean – I imagine there were bigger things than that at one point.
Regardless, MEgs had huge teeth. those teeth were in a big, wide set of jaws. Those huge jaws were useless for anything other than huge prey. Huge prey isn’t found in deep water in large numbers. So, if there’s massive, unknown animals deep in the ocean(which there are, most certainly) they are not likely to have big powerful jaws with huge teeth. They’ll probably be specialized scavengers, or fish eaters.
pluto77189oooh, very cool. I don’t see why not- Giant Squid and whales abound- and prehistoric sea creatures didn’t have the fatal human interaction some of their land cousins did- also, if it truly was a meteor that altered earths weather and killed off the land dinosaurs..would it have affected deep sea creatures? With my oh so limited knowledge of the subject- I’d be willing to say they are still around.
They don’t. While in Charleston, I spoke to one of the guys who was the first to activly collect meglodon teeth. He’s one of the guys that builds the giant jaws out of fossil teeth.
After doing some research, and talking to him, the reason behind the myth that they’re still alive is pretty funny.
Megs were shallow water fish. They lived along the coast, and when they died, their teeth settled to the bottom. What was once the bottom is now the east coast. Rivers wash out the teeth from the fossil matrix, and into the ocean at the river mouths, in great concentration, ON THE SURFACE of the ocean floor. Because they are found loose, and on the floor, people have come up with the belief that they are not fossils, but simply lost teeth–and that they’re still alive. They are all fossilized, and several hundred thousand years old at the most recent.
Plus, if alive, they’d be seen. Their teeth were big-game teeth, and they wouldn’t be able to survive deep in the water. huge animals like Sperm whales get so big because they eat small prey that is available in massive quantities all over the ocean–squid. Squid occur in such quantities, predators that feed on them can get so big. Sperm whales and elephant seals. Of couse, sperm whales do eat bigger things(fish and giant squid) but they get big by eating numbers of smaller squid. I remember reading that the total biomass ingested by the earth’s population of Sperm whales exceeds that of the entire population of man. That the ocean can produce such abundance in SQUID is amazing.
pluto77189Why do we press harder on a remote control when we know the batteries are
flat?
because the contact on the buttons often gets worn out, or develops a layer of film or corrosion over time. Pushing harder on the button can cause a greater part of the contacts to touch, enabling the button to function.
pluto77189accidently posted before I was done…
The F-23 would have been better suited for the “get in and get out fast” role of a strike aircraft. Shooting down enemy aircraft would not have required the manuerability of the F-22 in most cases. The decision was made with the role of the plane being “A”. the F-22 was better at “A”. The F-23 was better at “B”. Now, the aircraft chosen for role “A” is going to do role “B”.
Kinda like the F-16. marketed as a cheap, lightweight fighter, now it drops tons of bombs and does mostly strike missions.
pluto77189No, I’m talking about the F-22. It’ll get more use as a replacement for the F-117 than the F-15(as far as weapons fired). the stand-alone F-22 can drop 2 1,000lb jdams, AND carry 4 A2A missles, all the wihle going in fast and stealthy–the F-117 is only stealthy. When the SDB is introduced, the F-22 will be able to carry 4 of them, plus 3 AIM-120’s and 2 AIm-9’s. OR, it could carry 8 SDB’s and 2 AIM-9’s, giving it quite a nasty strike ability, much more versatile the the slow undefended, and unarmed F-117.
The proposed FB-22 will retain the air to air ability, if only a pair of sidewinders or Amraams, but the weapons bay would be greatly enlarged to allow for more SDBs.
pluto77189exactly, which is why I didn’t want to(but couldn’t help but to) get involved in another discussion on the war, which will ultimatly end up with the conclusion that only time will tell whether the war was just or not. You will interpret facts the way you do, and I will do the same.
We can’t even agree on why INDIVIDUALS should/shuld not have rights to weapons, tangenting the discussion to the war in Iraq will get nowhere!
pluto77189I liked th eF-22 at the time. I thought it was better looking, not too futuristic looking. However, the reasons the F-22 won are:
1. Least risk, most conservative approach. gotta give them this. Particularly the weapopns bay. IT was roomy, but would have needed to be extended for Aim-9’s. Also, the AF did not like the way the AIM-120’s would be stored–stacked. A malfunction/failed launch in one meant the other was written off as well.
2. Manuverablility. F-22 was a better fighter, should it need to dogfight. Not really much of a reason now. Probably would be weighted less today, though if we had lost an F-23 close up, people would be talking…
for the combined strike, ninja-fighter approach, I think the F-23 was a better design. It was faster, stealthier, and probably better at holding SDB’s(like a bomber).
The F-22 is more well rounded–it can dogfight with the best of them. And it’s missle launching system should be very redundant:each missle is independant of the others, one fails, still have use of the rest.
I think the F-22 is a better choice for what we need: and Air superiority fighter.
For what we’re going to use it for most of the time, the F-23 would probably have been better.
I think the FB-22 is likely. What it’s going to be is a more F-23 like F-22. It’ll probably lose the TV, and get strectched a bit…maybe a bit thickend too.
Though it’s going to be a combo Air superiority/strike aircraft(which would have been better suited with the F-23, I think). Should the situation arise when it needs to shoot down an enemy up close, the pilot will be glad he’s flying the more manuverable of the two. I’m guessingthat TV could come in handy in evading missles, if not pointing a helmet mounted sight.
pluto77189Example of how the media misrepresents guns. On “cold Case” last night, a little girl is killed during a drive by shooting, where a ful-auto Mac-10 is used. It turns out that the gun was illegally converted to automatic, then thrown away after the crime, where it was found, and sold at a gun show–where they don’t need to do background checks. What a crock. Giving the public the impression that anyone can just buy a full auto at a gun show(they can’t)–and then without a background check!(you need one).
It would be laughable if I knew it wasn’t making the public mis-informed on the subject.
By the way, there were plenty of reasons other than the WMD’s for invading Iraq. The media latched onto that one. As far as I’m concerned, the simple fact that Saddam was not listening to the UN for 12 years was enough to warrent getting rid of him. Had the media focused on that a bit more, and less on the WMD’s, things would be a bit better. Unfortunatly, the UN didn’t seem to be too keen on going to war because of “Deadlines” and “Resolutions”, “defiance” and “tyranny”. For ME, they were enough. So much so, that when defending the reasopn for war, I made no mention of “WMD’s”. For me, it was Saddam’s record, combined with his ambitions and power that make his very position as tyrannical leader of Iraq a threat to the rest of the world.
pluto77189I’ve neve rseen F911 either–so I don’t momment about it. I am farmiliar with Moore’s other work, which I have enjoyed quite a bit. After I did some research on “Roger and Me” I was a little upset to see that it wasn’t all true, but I still enjoy the movie. Moore edits things to a point that he changes th emeanings. An example in Columbine is when he has several of Hestons speeches edited in a way that makes it seem like he was making one big, insensetive speech. He makes it seem as if the NRA didn’t care about columbine, which is far from the truth.
He is very good at insinuating something, while not really stating it.
I’m planning on watching columbine and F-911 eventually. Now that Bush has won, and th eassault weapons ban died, I can watch them both with glee!
pluto77189Nobody has said that it was. Afghanistan’s Taliban had permitted Al queada to reside there, and refused to give them up. So we went in. You do know that al zarkawi, the #1 A-hole in Iraq now, lost his leg in Afghanistan fighting US and Afghan troops.
Our target was not Afghanistan, our target was IN afghanistan. There was no “retaliation” for 911, not “revenge”. Only a response to prevent further attacks, revenge existed, I’m sure, but at a personal level.
The way Clinton handled Somalia, bosnia, and Iraq while in office demonstrated a lack resolve and courage. Terrorists interpreted it as a lack of the ability of America to take casualties. The way he responded to the attack on the world trade center and the USS Cole, and the Kobar towers…they demonstrated that the US was afraid to go to war, and would treat terrorisim as a police action, as a criminal investigation–not an act of war.
When confronted with a military problem, Clinton responded with a, well…response. He never got anything accomplished, he wouldn’t commit to ground troops. All he did was send in a few missles, or drop bombs. that doesn’t accomplish much. Certainly when you’re fighting terrorists.
It was not his fault that they attacked us(again). He certainly didn’t help with his actions. The terrorists did have a perception that America would not fight back. They woudl not risk losing lives to stop them. They got this idea from the way we acted in the past–stemming form the way us(and th eUN) let Saddam go after the gulf war, the way we pulled out of Somalia, after losing less than 20 men, the way he refused ground troops in Afghanistan, the way he refused to allow Bin Laden’s killing, despite his declaring a jihad. It gave the terrorists the idea that they would get away with it.
So again, it was not his fault we were attacked–that lies solely on the people who planned, financed and executed the attacks. His actions just made them think they were going to get away with it. He was too concerned with how things would look, not what he accomplished.
Sign In
