Vivitar DVR 892HD review.

So I have been after an action/pocket camera for quite some time. Looking around I found the Vivitar DVR 892HD for a reasonable price. It came with an SD card, and software, etc..

After arriving, it wasn't until a few days later I decided to try it out.
It wouldn't work.
It would turn on and nothing would happen. So I was going to send it back.
The next day, I needed an SD card for a quick file transfer, and seeing the camera I decided to take the card out and use it. I put it in my computer, and the computer said it was locked. Took it out and checked it. Slider in unlocked position. Tried again. Card locked.
So wondering if this was the problem with the camera, I put another SD card in it. Lo and behold, it worked.
So I took a couple of films to try it out. Took card out and put it in computer, card locked. Checked tab. It said unlocked. Put it back in computer, and it said it was locked. Put card in camera and camera stopped working.
I tried a third card, with the same results. Worked fine. Went in camera. Recorded. Card in computer. Locked. Back in camera, and camera stopped working.

Now before people suggest my card reader is at fault, I would like to point out several things.
1. The first card went into camera first.
2. Second card was erased by computer before going into camera.
3. Third card came straight from my stack of formatted cards into camera.
4. Since then, I have used the card reader successfully to read and save onto other cards.
5. Tried cards in card reader on another computer.

So I can only surmise that somehow this camera damages cards to incapacitate then to some extent. How? I have no idea.
And to be honest, the Video quality isn't that great either.

One final issue with the camera, when plugging it into the PC, the PC cannot detect it. So you cant just fit a card and leave it in there either.

The camera came with an 8gb card, and also destroyed a 16gig card and a 4gig card.

So if you are coming across this blog wile researching this camera, do not buy it.

This is what is wrong with this world. . .

I am not going to rant about this, but this is one of the many reasons we should not be in Europe.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23230419

So Europe has decided the life sentences of three killers goes against their human rights?
/sigh.

My Volvo V40

Well, I have owned this car for a little over 2 weeks now and so far?

It's nice.

It's nice to look at, it's nice to drive, it's nice to be in, it's nice and comfortable, it's nice and relaxing, it's nice and fuss free, it's gear change is nice, it's handling is nice, economy is nice, the heated leather seats are nice, and hold you in a nice way, the visibility is nice, the heater is nice.

I can't say anything bad really.

Except one thing.

It's nice.

Don't get me wrong, I like the car. It is hard not to. But I like it in the same way I like not having the clap.

It is a lot of car. It has enough toys to keep anyone happy. It has nice features like the light you home headlamps, and the little plastic clip on the windscreen for holding parking tickets.
I can get in it knowing that it will work. It's a Volvo for christ sake. As long as it has an engine and 4 wheels, it will work. It is not an unpleasant car.

But, it isn't fun.
The Vitara I had was fun. No matter where I drove, I did so with a smile on my face. The Vitara was fun to drive, fun to be in, fun to look at, fun knowing that despite having a foot of snow on the roof, it will still start and go. I got in it with a smile on my face, and I got out with a smile on my face. I put that car through hell and back, and it just laughed back with that look of 'Let's do it again' about it. The exhaust got ripped off in blaenau ffestiniog, and it charged down the M5 sounding like a WW2 fighter bomber. I had ear defenders on my head, and I still had a smile on my face.

I don't get that fun factor in the Volvo, but to be fair, a Volvo isn't meant to be fun. It's meant to be,
Well....


Nice.

Lady goes to market?

"Lady goes to Market, Prim prim prim.
Gentleman goes to market, Trott, trott, trott.
But the farmer goes to market, Jigga jigga jigga jigga jigga jigga jig."

These words were often recited to me while I was growing up. Mostly by my Grandmother on the Smith side of the family. All my infanthood, I heard this. As younger cousins grew up, I heard these words, As the children of my elder cousins grew, they were subjected to these words.
So it is only natural that I recite these words to my children as they grow.

I thought this was a common rhyme. Said when jigging the child upon your knee. But while recently visiting my youngest child, his mother told me off for saying it, because it is 'made up shit'.

So in a lull from my usual internet activities, I decide to google this rhyme.
1 result.
Yep, just one result.
A very brief mention of the rhyme, on emma's diary.
That is it.
So is this rhyme rare, or is the lack of info about it on the net a sign that rhymes are dying?
Maybe, it is a Black Country rhyme. As my grandmother was from there.
Who knows. But because of the lack of mentions of it, I decided to give it one.

Lady goes to Market, Prim prim prim.
Gentleman goes to market, Trott, trott, trott.
But the farmer goes to market, Jigga jigga jigga jigga jigga jigga jig.

Wierd things I think of #1

Car ages:

I was thinking earlier, that the car I currently own is the newest I have owned. It is a 1997 P reg.
Or is it?
It is the newest in the sense that it is newer than the rest of the cars I have owned, if I still had them all. But is it the newest car relative to when I owned it?
No

My first car was a 1982 Austin maxi. I owned this in 1993. So that was 11 years old.
Next was a MK4 Cortina. 1976. It was 17 years old when I owned it in 1993.
Next was a 1983 Ford Escort MK3. I owned this in 1994. 11 years old.
Mk3 Capri. 1983 again. I had this in 1995. 12 years old.
Sierra Sapphire. 1987. I owned this in 1995. 8 years old.
Mk3 Escort. 1982. Owned in 97. 15 years old.
Peugeot 309GTi. 1988. owned in 98. 10 years old.
Mk2 Sierra. 1990. owned in 2000. 10 years old.
MK5 Escort. 1993. Owned in 2002. 9 years old.
Vauxhall Senator. 1992. owned in 2004. 12 years old.
Renault Espace. 1990. Owned in 2004. 14 years old.
LDV200. 1997. Owned in 2005. 8 years old.
Vauxhall Astra. 1996. Owned in 2007. 11 years old.
Suzuki Vitara. 1997. Owned in 2008. 11 years old.
Vauxhall Frontera. 1997. Owned now. 15 years old.

So the Sierra Sapphire, and the LDV200 were both 8 years old when I got them. So maybe they were the newest cars I have ever owned?

But there is one last thing to consider. I used to be the registered keeper of a van that the re-enactment group I am with once owned. We bought it in early 2000, and it was a 1997 N reg. So could that be the newest car I have owned?
We had it 10 years before we scrapped it in 2010. It did us well.

The naked Rambler.

RE: BBC News
I see nothing wrong here.
It is the prudishness of others that cause a problem. I reckon if the naked rambler was a woman, then there would be no problems.
Hiding the human body is a way of saying we should be embarrassed about our bodies. Well we shouldn't. Our bodies are part of who we are. No one should ever be embarrassed about who they are. Why should we cover up to spare the blushes of others. We come into the world naked, we create life naked and for the early parts of our evolution we were naked. Clothes are there to keep us warm, not keep us hidden. Yes there is an element of decency in wearing clothes, but this again has evolved from fashion. Not from necessity.
This guy should be left alone to do whatever he is doing in peace. He is harming no one except himself.

Another thought, by telling people that the body must be covered, you end up with people embarrassed about their bodies. I have had several partners over the years that refused to wear skirts, short sleeved or strapped tops, or even shorts on extremely hot days. Why? Because they were embarrassed about their bodies. I myself used to refuse wearing shorts for many years due to scarring on my legs. One day, it was just too hot to be wearing jeans so I cut the legs off. I haven't looked back since.

Enjoy your body. It is the only one you will ever have.

Royal photos.

So Prince Harry gets naked, with friends, at a private party. Photo's are leaked, and the publike are outraged at his behaviour.

Kate Middleton gets naked on holiday, a pervy photographer takes a picture, and the public sympathise with her.

What's the difference between the two?
Why is Harry being singled out here?
Why does the public hate Harry so much, when all he has done nothing wrong. I bet many of you have been naked at parties. I know I have.