I need somebody to explain GoPhone to me from Cingular please-From Europe..=/?
We're moving to Florida from North Spain next year... but I will still spend a lot of time here and in the neighbouring country Andorra. We have been looking at the Virgin USA phones... and they seem quite cheap to use and to call abroad and use in Europe. But it would have to be pre-pay or we would get a CrAzY bill - Calling in America is SO much more expensive than here ! 35€ everything free except for the Internet o_O ! You're looking at 75$+ in the USA. I can't work out if you CAN use the GoPhone in Europe... I don't see why you can't. I've tired E-Mailing them but I haven't got a response... & I don't understand enough to call them. I've seen this; http://www.wireless.att.com/travelguide/coverage/coverage_details.jsp?MNC=CING&CIDL=20&dropFormChoice=1.29%3B1.29%3B20&product1rate=%241.29&product2rate=%241.29&x=43&y=5 - could someone please explain.. I could recive American calls ? but not National ? Does that mean I couldn't recive calls from Spain ? just USA ? xD This GoPhone is VERY Confusing the way the right everything... !! Thanks' It say's the same thing for Spain...You may not be able to place calls to international destinations other than United States while roaming in this country. Calls can be completed within the visited country and back to the United States.
Other - United States - 1 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
VIRGIN USA phones wont work at all outside the US. sadly gophone u can't roam internationally on them. ATT/cingular sees gophone/prepaid as an inferior thing. well i recommend u get an unlocked phone in spain i know u can get those easily (i lived there) and when u come to the US u buy a cheap gophone and get the card and put in on that phone u got in spain and when u got to andorra u get a prepaid card from their mobile operator and there.. u can have those prepaid plans without money for a long time better than the US ones.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Could armies be disbanded eventually similar to what Iceland and Costa Rica have done
Could armies be disbanded eventually similar to what Iceland and Costa Rica have done?
Both countries are leaders for peace in the fact that they have disbanded their armies for the primary fact that they have disbanded their standing armies. Costa Rica maintains a police force for policing reasons and internal security and Iceland maintains a Coast Guard and police force. Japan only maintains a peacekeeping force but no official army (though this is due to a treaty from World War 2). Other countries who have disbanded their armies (some more successfully than others) are Dominica and Grenada (Grenada was another by force). Other countries also have no standing army but these are generally from lack of need (Vatican City), never having formed one (Andorra), or other less clear reasons. So do you think that this is a good idea? Costa Rica leads a couple of peacekeeping councils and a University of Peace that is UN funded in their country. Is it the world's countries slowly disbanding their armies that is going to help with bringing peace or is this naivety on these countries' parts? As far as first world superpowers, wouldn't the slow and controlled disbandment of the world's countries' armies make sure no country gets an advantage from it? Similar to how Russia and the US ended the Cold War by destroying nuclear weapons supplies a little bit at a time. Would this work or is it impossible? @Comrade: Yeah i realized my brilliance to after the fact. I was typing this in a disjointed fashion and kind of jumping around as new thoughts popped into my head. Sorry about that.
Politics - 12 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
"the fact that they have disbanded their armies for the primary fact that they have disbanded their standing armies." That's brilliant!!! *sheesh* Japan does have a standing army, currently at about 300,000.
2 :
Sure, but those who beat their swords into plowshares should expect that eventually they'll find themselves plowing for those who don't.
3 :
War has always been the tool to control the masses ! Without wars, politicians wouldn't have a job !
4 :
Not unless you have a super power to take care of yours. Both of these countries are protected by the US.
5 :
If Costa Rica leads peacekeeping councils because of UN funding, then Costa Rica leads peacekeeping councils because of the United States. The US funds most of the worthless UN. Also, Costa Rica and Iceland are not a target for terrorists. I do think we can pull our troops out, to save money, but I don't think disbanding them is a good idea.
6 :
It's a good idea in theory, but what happens when everyone has disbanded their army and then one country invades all the countries with no armies.
7 :
They don't need a military because they don't have anything anyone else wants. If they did have something like natural resources or a strategic location, they would need a military to keep someone else from taking over their country.
8 :
It would be good in an ideal world, but the world works under the "Realist" theory of international politics. Basically, according to the realist view, the world is anarchical (no central government, all countries are really alone), every country wants power, must survive, and thus needs an army for self-defense and take more land if necessary. It is impossible to trust your neighboring countries, because you never know if they will be your enemy tomorrow. Nor can you trust others enough to disband your army, because a more ruthless and power hungry State will take advantage of it and attack. this is specially true with world powers, who rely on their armies and military operations to hold on to their positions of power and provide a stable life for the citizens of a country. Imagine if the U.S. gets rid of the military, trying to start a weaponless peaceful world. Countries such a north Korea, Venezuela, and Cuba, which are weak States, will be among the first to attack a defenseless U.S. Another world power would then take the opportunity to achieve regional hegemony in the American continent, and we would probably be screwed. A defenseless world is just a dream, and an impossible one at that.
9 :
Read up on the Cod wars The U K sent in war ships to push Iceland around Now granted they well only push around little countries but Iceland needed to defend themselves
10 :
"The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world not destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside ... Horrid mischief would ensue..." Thomas Paine, Thoughts on Defensive War
11 :
You have bought into Lamestream Media propaganda. Costa Rica may not have an army officially, but it does have a national police force called the Civil Guard, which is unusually heavily-armed for a so-called police force. The Civil Guard fought a number of bloody border skirmishes with the Sandinistas back in the 80s and stood up to them fairly well, so you tell me: Does that sound like a police force to you? Ditto for the Iceland situation. True Iceland doesn't have an army, but it does have an unusually large and heavily-armed coast guard, which it used in the "Cod War" with the Brits a decade ago. In both areas, the international situation has been stable for a long period of time. The states of Central America were US satellites from about 1850 until the overthrow of Somoza in the early 80s. Under these circumstances, the Costa Ricans could afford to disband their army because the Pax Americana guaranteed their borders. A similar situation prevailed in the North Atlantic where Iceland is located. The British Empire, and later NATO, and now finally the EU have guaranteed Iceland's territorial sovereignty. Thus, no local army was required. In all of these cases however, the dominant state and/or alliance most certainly did require an army, as well as a navy and an air force, to ensure compliance with it's hegemony.
12 :
"It makes no difference what men think of war, said the judge. War endures. As well ask men what they think of stone. War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner. That is the way it was and will be. That way and not some other way." BLOOD MERIDIAN by Cormac McCarthy
Both countries are leaders for peace in the fact that they have disbanded their armies for the primary fact that they have disbanded their standing armies. Costa Rica maintains a police force for policing reasons and internal security and Iceland maintains a Coast Guard and police force. Japan only maintains a peacekeeping force but no official army (though this is due to a treaty from World War 2). Other countries who have disbanded their armies (some more successfully than others) are Dominica and Grenada (Grenada was another by force). Other countries also have no standing army but these are generally from lack of need (Vatican City), never having formed one (Andorra), or other less clear reasons. So do you think that this is a good idea? Costa Rica leads a couple of peacekeeping councils and a University of Peace that is UN funded in their country. Is it the world's countries slowly disbanding their armies that is going to help with bringing peace or is this naivety on these countries' parts? As far as first world superpowers, wouldn't the slow and controlled disbandment of the world's countries' armies make sure no country gets an advantage from it? Similar to how Russia and the US ended the Cold War by destroying nuclear weapons supplies a little bit at a time. Would this work or is it impossible? @Comrade: Yeah i realized my brilliance to after the fact. I was typing this in a disjointed fashion and kind of jumping around as new thoughts popped into my head. Sorry about that.
Politics - 12 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
"the fact that they have disbanded their armies for the primary fact that they have disbanded their standing armies." That's brilliant!!! *sheesh* Japan does have a standing army, currently at about 300,000.
2 :
Sure, but those who beat their swords into plowshares should expect that eventually they'll find themselves plowing for those who don't.
3 :
War has always been the tool to control the masses ! Without wars, politicians wouldn't have a job !
4 :
Not unless you have a super power to take care of yours. Both of these countries are protected by the US.
5 :
If Costa Rica leads peacekeeping councils because of UN funding, then Costa Rica leads peacekeeping councils because of the United States. The US funds most of the worthless UN. Also, Costa Rica and Iceland are not a target for terrorists. I do think we can pull our troops out, to save money, but I don't think disbanding them is a good idea.
6 :
It's a good idea in theory, but what happens when everyone has disbanded their army and then one country invades all the countries with no armies.
7 :
They don't need a military because they don't have anything anyone else wants. If they did have something like natural resources or a strategic location, they would need a military to keep someone else from taking over their country.
8 :
It would be good in an ideal world, but the world works under the "Realist" theory of international politics. Basically, according to the realist view, the world is anarchical (no central government, all countries are really alone), every country wants power, must survive, and thus needs an army for self-defense and take more land if necessary. It is impossible to trust your neighboring countries, because you never know if they will be your enemy tomorrow. Nor can you trust others enough to disband your army, because a more ruthless and power hungry State will take advantage of it and attack. this is specially true with world powers, who rely on their armies and military operations to hold on to their positions of power and provide a stable life for the citizens of a country. Imagine if the U.S. gets rid of the military, trying to start a weaponless peaceful world. Countries such a north Korea, Venezuela, and Cuba, which are weak States, will be among the first to attack a defenseless U.S. Another world power would then take the opportunity to achieve regional hegemony in the American continent, and we would probably be screwed. A defenseless world is just a dream, and an impossible one at that.
9 :
Read up on the Cod wars The U K sent in war ships to push Iceland around Now granted they well only push around little countries but Iceland needed to defend themselves
10 :
"The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world not destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside ... Horrid mischief would ensue..." Thomas Paine, Thoughts on Defensive War
11 :
You have bought into Lamestream Media propaganda. Costa Rica may not have an army officially, but it does have a national police force called the Civil Guard, which is unusually heavily-armed for a so-called police force. The Civil Guard fought a number of bloody border skirmishes with the Sandinistas back in the 80s and stood up to them fairly well, so you tell me: Does that sound like a police force to you? Ditto for the Iceland situation. True Iceland doesn't have an army, but it does have an unusually large and heavily-armed coast guard, which it used in the "Cod War" with the Brits a decade ago. In both areas, the international situation has been stable for a long period of time. The states of Central America were US satellites from about 1850 until the overthrow of Somoza in the early 80s. Under these circumstances, the Costa Ricans could afford to disband their army because the Pax Americana guaranteed their borders. A similar situation prevailed in the North Atlantic where Iceland is located. The British Empire, and later NATO, and now finally the EU have guaranteed Iceland's territorial sovereignty. Thus, no local army was required. In all of these cases however, the dominant state and/or alliance most certainly did require an army, as well as a navy and an air force, to ensure compliance with it's hegemony.
12 :
"It makes no difference what men think of war, said the judge. War endures. As well ask men what they think of stone. War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner. That is the way it was and will be. That way and not some other way." BLOOD MERIDIAN by Cormac McCarthy
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Do you still view England as a bad team
Do you still view England as a bad team?
It seems whenever I bring up England, the general response is what needs to be done, what needs to be changed, what players need to be called up, what players need to be benched etc. Fair enough, post-Germany, England were pretty bad, especially with the whole Euro 2008 qualifying saga. But since Capello took over, have they really been that bad? Let's look at their results: 2-1 over Switzerland 0-1 to France 2-0 over USA 3-0 over Trinidad and Tobago 2-2 with Czech Republic 2-0 over Andorra 4-1 over Croatia So out of 7 games, we've won five and only lost one...to France. Is this really the work of an awful team? I'm not saying England are back to their best or that they're set for a great World Cup 2010 run, but I think it's unfair to still treat England like the joke they were in 2007.
English Football (Soccer) - 4 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
they were never a bad team.........they just under perform. considering the reputation of those players with their respective clubs.
2 :
After Capella came england lost no matches they beat Croatia in oppositions ground and england is the first team to beat Croatia in they ground.
3 :
not since cappello took over they might win the world cup if they don t have to meet brazil, argentina,,,italy germany, and holland the teams taht can beat englnd hihi
4 :
NO
It seems whenever I bring up England, the general response is what needs to be done, what needs to be changed, what players need to be called up, what players need to be benched etc. Fair enough, post-Germany, England were pretty bad, especially with the whole Euro 2008 qualifying saga. But since Capello took over, have they really been that bad? Let's look at their results: 2-1 over Switzerland 0-1 to France 2-0 over USA 3-0 over Trinidad and Tobago 2-2 with Czech Republic 2-0 over Andorra 4-1 over Croatia So out of 7 games, we've won five and only lost one...to France. Is this really the work of an awful team? I'm not saying England are back to their best or that they're set for a great World Cup 2010 run, but I think it's unfair to still treat England like the joke they were in 2007.
English Football (Soccer) - 4 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
they were never a bad team.........they just under perform. considering the reputation of those players with their respective clubs.
2 :
After Capella came england lost no matches they beat Croatia in oppositions ground and england is the first team to beat Croatia in they ground.
3 :
not since cappello took over they might win the world cup if they don t have to meet brazil, argentina,,,italy germany, and holland the teams taht can beat englnd hihi
4 :
NO
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Can anyone suggest a video camcorder, under £150 that is suitable for a ski trip as well as general use
Can anyone suggest a video camcorder, under £150 that is suitable for a ski trip as well as general use?
I am going skiing in Andorra in February and I am looking for a compact, cheap video camera that would be suitable for on piste shooting as well as more general use. I am not interested in 'helmet-cam' type products. The closest thing i have found to what I am looking for is the Flip UltraHD, however this has severe judering when you move and is probably not going to work when skiing. Any advice would be much appreciated. Please remember that I have a 'Student budget' of £150 or maybe just a bit over, definately less than £200. Thank you for any help you can give! The most important thing is image stabilisation, ability to deal with glare and low light levels, and clear crisp colours. in that order. I just re-read my post, and i don't think that i put enough emphasis on the importance of stability settings, as primarily this camera will be for a ski trip. Anybody got any other suggestions given this?
Camcorders - 6 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
I have a Canon FS100 that I highly recommend
2 :
camcorders are bit expensive, try the sony cybershot 12.1 megapixel camera its good for video recording you get 1080 x 720 HD its $160 at bestbuy its worth it for a ski trip get a case thats suited for weather conditions
3 :
Take a look on QVC.com under electronics. I just purchased one(Panasonic) that has a great image stabilization, but it was $299. Good luck.
4 :
http://www.currys.co.uk/martprd/store/cur_page.jsp?BV_SessionID=@@@@1803263009.1261602079@@@@&BV_EngineID=cccfadejehjlfikcflgceggdhhmdfoi.0&page=Product&sku=105407 Just a Tad over Sony Flip Camcorder http://www.comet.co.uk/shopcomet/product/523267/SONY-DCRSX30ES.CEH?cm_sp=FeatureEnd-_-Camcorders-_-position Same type £149.99 also in blue on comet website Jools,
5 :
I would suggest Panasonic SDR-S15 Flash Memory Camcorder Ultra Compact Size Intelligent Auto Mode 0.6 sec Quick Start YouTube Uploading Function http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B001QXDLFG?ie=UTF8&tag=computer09-21&linkCode=as2&camp=1634&creative=19450&creativeASIN=B001QXDLFG but if you really want under $150 Flip Video Ultra High Definition Camcorder is a good choice. http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B0029U29AI?ie=UTF8&tag=computer09-21&linkCode=as2&camp=1634&creative=19450&creativeASIN=B0029U29AI
6 :
yes, I love Flip ultraHD camcorder:http://camcordershighdefinition.com/camcordersHD/?s=Don't+buy+the+Flip+UltraHD+Camcorder+120+minutes+until+you+read+this+review! Excellent review! I bought it before Christmas, but I think now the price is lower. Just go to : http://camcordershighdefinition.com and look for review: ' Dont' buy the flip ultrahd camcorder 120 minutes until you read this review! or just type in search box: flip ultrahd camcorder 120 minutes and it should bring you the review as well. I hope it helped. Have a nice day!
I am going skiing in Andorra in February and I am looking for a compact, cheap video camera that would be suitable for on piste shooting as well as more general use. I am not interested in 'helmet-cam' type products. The closest thing i have found to what I am looking for is the Flip UltraHD, however this has severe judering when you move and is probably not going to work when skiing. Any advice would be much appreciated. Please remember that I have a 'Student budget' of £150 or maybe just a bit over, definately less than £200. Thank you for any help you can give! The most important thing is image stabilisation, ability to deal with glare and low light levels, and clear crisp colours. in that order. I just re-read my post, and i don't think that i put enough emphasis on the importance of stability settings, as primarily this camera will be for a ski trip. Anybody got any other suggestions given this?
Camcorders - 6 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
I have a Canon FS100 that I highly recommend
2 :
camcorders are bit expensive, try the sony cybershot 12.1 megapixel camera its good for video recording you get 1080 x 720 HD its $160 at bestbuy its worth it for a ski trip get a case thats suited for weather conditions
3 :
Take a look on QVC.com under electronics. I just purchased one(Panasonic) that has a great image stabilization, but it was $299. Good luck.
4 :
http://www.currys.co.uk/martprd/store/cur_page.jsp?BV_SessionID=@@@@1803263009.1261602079@@@@&BV_EngineID=cccfadejehjlfikcflgceggdhhmdfoi.0&page=Product&sku=105407 Just a Tad over Sony Flip Camcorder http://www.comet.co.uk/shopcomet/product/523267/SONY-DCRSX30ES.CEH?cm_sp=FeatureEnd-_-Camcorders-_-position Same type £149.99 also in blue on comet website Jools,
5 :
I would suggest Panasonic SDR-S15 Flash Memory Camcorder Ultra Compact Size Intelligent Auto Mode 0.6 sec Quick Start YouTube Uploading Function http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B001QXDLFG?ie=UTF8&tag=computer09-21&linkCode=as2&camp=1634&creative=19450&creativeASIN=B001QXDLFG but if you really want under $150 Flip Video Ultra High Definition Camcorder is a good choice. http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B0029U29AI?ie=UTF8&tag=computer09-21&linkCode=as2&camp=1634&creative=19450&creativeASIN=B0029U29AI
6 :
yes, I love Flip ultraHD camcorder:http://camcordershighdefinition.com/camcordersHD/?s=Don't+buy+the+Flip+UltraHD+Camcorder+120+minutes+until+you+read+this+review! Excellent review! I bought it before Christmas, but I think now the price is lower. Just go to : http://camcordershighdefinition.com and look for review: ' Dont' buy the flip ultrahd camcorder 120 minutes until you read this review! or just type in search box: flip ultrahd camcorder 120 minutes and it should bring you the review as well. I hope it helped. Have a nice day!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)