Best Coolpix for HD and low light too?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: David Ruether on 20 Jun 2010 15:22 "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote in message news:ibidnUrDG9EEzYPRnZ2dnUVZ_hmdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message news:53is16dkovafkbf5oqevdt2r68ql8atjn9(a)4ax.com... >> Apples and oranges. At the cocktail party you have visual >> identification with the person. You are seeing something that you >> expect to be one thing that is represented as something else. >> >> A posting is gender neutral. You have no expectations based on what >> you see. >> >> "Larry Thong" doesn't write things you would expect to see only from a >> male or only from a female. When you start reading things into a >> written post that have male or female characteristics you are making >> assumptions that may be entirely off-base. > Not entirely apples and oranges. I'm still curious as to why someone would pretend to be the gender he is not. Not making a > federal case out of it, just curious. It *is* curious. Perhaps more basic are questions like: why are there genders, why/how is there such a thing as gender identity, and why/how are there gender or other attractions. The first can be answered easily and logically, but the other two still cannot be answered, and these commonly also show the widest range of possible variations in people/animals who are "normal"... --DR
From: David Ruether on 20 Jun 2010 15:27 "Jane Galt" <Jane_G(a)gulch.xyz> wrote in message news:Xns9D9CCF18916B5JaneGgulchxyz(a)216.196.97.142... > Tried finding any handgun ammo on the shelves at Walmart, since Obama > Nation got into office? It's 18 months later and the shelves are STILL > bare, people are still scared and hoarding. Kinda demonstrates that stupidity is catching, I guess... --DR
From: J. Caldwell on 20 Jun 2010 15:56 On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 15:27:28 -0400, "David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote: > >"Jane Galt" <Jane_G(a)gulch.xyz> wrote in message >news:Xns9D9CCF18916B5JaneGgulchxyz(a)216.196.97.142... > >> Tried finding any handgun ammo on the shelves at Walmart, since Obama >> Nation got into office? It's 18 months later and the shelves are STILL >> bare, people are still scared and hoarding. > >Kinda demonstrates that stupidity is catching, I guess... >--DR > Actually most of the runs on ammo this year are due to them changing the manufacturing process, not any overthrow-the-government conspiracies (though it's getting there). All new ammo of any gauge is now micro-tagged. I only wanted to buy some LR 22s not long ago for a vintage rifle I was refurbishing. (Needed to lathe an internal shoulder on the worn firing-pin to extend its reach and give it a more solid impact, reshape the worn firing-pin head, and retensioning the spring a bit as well.) I couldn't find 22s on the net or on any store shelves. I was wondering what the hell was up. People have been buying out the last clean non-tagged supplies before Big Brother stuck their lousy noses even deeper into everyone's daily lives. All old stock was bought out everywhere. Silly me, I found 8,000 rounds of LR 22s still sitting on a back shelf of mine that I hadn't checked. A bulk deal I got for $20 once. Decent Remingtons. Not one dud yet. Lack of ammo disaster averted.
From: Neil Harrington on 20 Jun 2010 16:20 "David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote in message news:hvlppa$j9e$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu... > > "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote in message > news:ibidnUrDG9EEzYPRnZ2dnUVZ_hmdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message >> news:53is16dkovafkbf5oqevdt2r68ql8atjn9(a)4ax.com... > >>> Apples and oranges. At the cocktail party you have visual >>> identification with the person. You are seeing something that you >>> expect to be one thing that is represented as something else. >>> >>> A posting is gender neutral. You have no expectations based on what >>> you see. >>> >>> "Larry Thong" doesn't write things you would expect to see only from a >>> male or only from a female. When you start reading things into a >>> written post that have male or female characteristics you are making >>> assumptions that may be entirely off-base. > >> Not entirely apples and oranges. I'm still curious as to why someone >> would pretend to be the gender he is not. Not making a federal case out >> of it, just curious. It *is* curious. > > Perhaps more basic are questions like: why are there genders, That's easy. Generally speaking, they are necessary for reproduction. If there weren't two genders, none of us would be here having this discussion. > why/how > is there such a thing as gender identity, Why would there NOT be? Knowing who and what you are is a useful thing. Those who are confused about their "gender identity" obviously have a harder time of it as a result. > and why/how are there gender or > other attractions. The first can be answered easily and logically, but the > other two still cannot be answered, and these commonly also show the > widest range of possible variations in people/animals who are "normal"... Reproduction is still the easy answer. You believe questions "cannot be answered" when you know the answers are really there, but inconvenient to your sexual politics.
From: Jane Galt on 20 Jun 2010 16:36
John McWilliams <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> wrote : > Jane Galt wrote: >> This is such fun, I hate to get back on topic, but does anyone know of a >> comparison table that compares the features of the G11 and SD4000IS? >> >> It's kinda coming down between those two. >> >> The S8000, while having f2.0, is also said to have some slow problems, in >> some of the reviews I saw. > > dpreview.com; ->Buying guide-> side by side comparison. > > However, the highest SD number I saw there was 3500.... > Thanks John! Yeah, I'm surprised at how little I've seen on the SD4000IS so far, but am still tempted. But: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/technologylive/post/2010/05/review- canon-sd4000-is/1 "So, I love the low light and manual controls, but could never justify spending $350 on a point and shoot. At least, not for this one." Is the guy being a snob? -- - Jane Galt |