Best Coolpix for HD and low light too?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Dudley Hanks on 21 Jun 2010 08:58 "Jane Galt" <Jane_G(a)gulch.xyz> wrote in message news:Xns9D9DF25E5E4D5JaneGgulchxyz(a)216.196.97.142... > "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote : > > >>>>Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy >>>>of >>>>God and the rule of law: > > Rule of law? You put stock in that? What if some "democratic" types vote > to > make all jews wear stars on their clothing? > > "Rule of law" can mean rule of tyrannical law. > > As far as "God", some people may put no stock in that either, and consider > it > mythology. > > So where can our rights justly be derived from? > > Some claim that rights and values derive from "God", but they needn't. If > one > has a good philosophy like Objectivism, the derivation comes from the most > primary ownership of our own lives. > See http://www.PlanetaryBillOfRights.org/ > specifically > http://www.planetarybillofrights.org/ThePlanetaryBillofRights.html > > Another absurdity is the notion of "collective rights", and that > governments > have them. > > The only legitimate rights are individual rights, AKA HUMAN rights and > only > individual humans can have them. > > Governments and collectives can only have powers, given to them by the > people, and they can be modified or even withdrawn by the people, if the > people only realize that they hold the power to do so. > > > -- > - Jane Galt I put more stock in the rule of law, as composed by a democratic legislature / committee, than I do in the rule of law as composed by a lunatic neighbour with a handgun... Take Care, Dudley
From: Tzortzakakis Dimitris on 21 Jun 2010 09:22 � "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> ������ ��� ������ news:NsSdnSpapeKI4oPRnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > "Tzortzakakis Dimitris" <noone(a)nospam.com> wrote in message > news:hvlooh$rml$1(a)mouse.otenet.gr... >> >> � "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> ������ ��� ������ >> news:sO-dnSv3Mbo604PRnZ2dnUVZ_jadnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>> >>> "Jane Galt" <Jane_G(a)gulch.xyz> wrote in message >>> news:Xns9D9CCF18916B5JaneGgulchxyz(a)216.196.97.142... >>>> "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote : >>>> >>>>> >>>>> "Jane Galt" <Jane_G(a)gulch.xyz> wrote in message >>>>> news:Xns9D9BC09504A1JaneGgulchxyz(a)216.196.97.142... >>>>>> "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote : >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Jane Galt" <Jane_G(a)gulch.xyz> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:Xns9D9A8F95FCC1AJaneGgulchxyz(a)216.196.97.142... >>>>>>>> tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote : >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ooooh. My kinda woman. (Though I'm mainly a Beretta guy myself.) >>>>>> >>>>>> As in 9mm? Wuss? LOL >>>>> >>>>> Yep. I've loved the 9mm Luger/Parabellum/NATO/x19 cartridge since long >>>>> before it became as commonplace as it is now. It's the perfect pistol >>>>> ammo and was probably designed by God. Not too big, not too small, >>>>> it's >>>>> just right -- Goldilocks would have loved it too. >>>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> I guess I have enough of a hoard already, and I've got plenty of brass, >>> primers, powder and bullets in case I need more. I haven't shopped for >>> ammo in many years now. Actually I haven't been doing any shooting >>> lately either. >>> >>>> >>>>>> I was carrying an XD-9 for awhile but the guys in my gun group kept >>>>>> bugging >>>>>> me about its lack of "stopping power" ( heck it had 9mm +P JHP! ) >>>>> >>>>> Then it was for all practical purposes the equal of any .45 Auto in >>>>> stopping power, though of course you will never, never, ever convince >>>>> the .45-adoring guys of that. >>>> >>>> I know, so I finally went for the Xd-45 ACP. :) If ya cant beat em, >>>> join >>>> em. >>> >>> That's really not good thinking. You didn't join the Obama mobs, did >>> you? >>> >>>> >>>> COme to think of it, I still have that XD-9 around and need to sell it. >>>> <sigh> But a woman cant have too many guns. ;-) >>> >>> I'd sell the XD-45 instead and keep the more sensible 9. >>> >>> Just on the remote chance the survivalists are right and our gummint may >>> fall apart some day leading to massive civil disorder, it's not a bad >>> idea to have something that will accept military ammo. There will ALWAYS >>> be millions and millions of rounds of 9mm NATO around SOMEWHERE. And >>> there will be people who have ways of getting to it. >>> >> Not to mention the 7.62 mm NATO round or the ubiquitous .50 BMG API >> tracer...(Armor Piercing Incendiary) > > Or any other flavor of .50 Browning for that matter. > Ball (FMJ), HEAPI tracer...(High Explosive Armor Piercing Incendiary).... They told us in the camp that Ball rounds for the .50 BMG are banned by international treaties, because they would mince the unfortunate enough to be in the receiving end of it.... >>>> >>>>> They do LOVE their pumpkin rollers! They >>>>> think a bullet that big just must be best -- never mind that it comes >>>>> out of a basically low-pressure cartridge (the .45 Auto can't handle >>>>> more than half the chamber pressure of the 9mm Luger) and has about >>>>> the >>>>> trajectory of a slingshot. >>>> >>>> Yeah, but hit a bad guy in the shoulder and the whole arm will be gone. >>>> :) >>> >>> BALONEY. And don't believe those silly stories about the .45 having >>> "knockdown power" either. No handgun has "knockdown power" and no rifle >>> does either for that matter, unless it's something like a .300 Magnum >>> being used on a chipmunk. >>> >> I wouldn't like to be in the receiving end of it. > > I wouldn't like to be on the receiving end of a .22 Short, as far as that > goes. I read several years ago about a couple of boys who fatally wounded > an elephant in a zoo with .22 Shorts. I think it took the poor beast more > than a day to die, but die it eventually did. > Poor beast.... >> Officers in infantry carry the .45 browning pistol, also tank drivers and >> machine-gunners. > > What .45 Browning? Do you mean the Browning-designed M1911 (etc.)? > No idea, the officers that trained men fit to shoot it (just once) called it just "the .45 Browning pistol" > I believe infantry officers are still issued the M9 Beretta, though some > units and assignments have always allowed variety in personal sidearms. > And general officers of course can choose whatever they like -- Patton > carried a .45 Colt six-shooter and a S&W .357 Magnum. > Yes, of course. They can also use the G3A4 assault rifle, if they feel like it (7.62) >>>> >>>> You should see the hand of the woman who was running the "ladies night" >>>> I >>>> used to attend, at the local gun shop here. She accidentally shot >>>> herself >>>> through the hand with a 9mm JHP. What a mess. Havent seen her in >>>> awhile, >>>> but she said it would take years of rehab to use the hand again. >>> >>> Nasty business. But I'd sure like to know how she managed to shoot >>> herself through the hand. >> A policeman did that to himself in a firing range. > > With one of those evil Glocks, I'll bet. It still mystifies me how anyone > can do that. > No, with a 9 pistol, and right through the palm, in a shooting. >>>> >>>>> Read the book "Handgun Stopping Power: The Definitive Study" by Evan >>>>> Marshall and Edwin Sanow. They are (or were) two cops who spent years >>>>> evaluating actual shootings and comparing the ammunition used in terms >>>>> of "one-shot stops" -- actual shootings of people, not just theories >>>>> about the subject or blowing holes in ballistic gelatin. Their >>>>> conclusion: the best 9mm JHP load did the job better than any .45 or >>>>> other cartridge in their accumulated data. Now that was their first >>>>> book >>>>> and they've written a couple of others since, which I haven't read, so >>>>> maybe that has changed. >>>> >>>> I KNOW. Much of the "9mm doesnt have the stopping power" tales come >>>> from >>>> the military, when the idiot politicians make them use FMJ. >> How about the incendiary shell for the 4.2" mortar? With white >> phosphorus? Totally legal... Or the high-explosive shell for the same >> mortar, which shrapnel can go to 500 meters? Or the ubiquitous 90 mm >> bazuka HEAT (High Explosive Anti Tank) round, which will roast the crew >> of a tank like chicken? Or the Milan anti-tank missile, which can pierce >> half a meter of tank grade steel? Talking about deterrence... > > Half a meter? Now that's impressive. > And I think 1 meter of reinforced concrete. When they shoot a live Milan missile, they pick a rock thick enough, and it pierces a hole, like an enormous drill, to the rock, after they target it. Its a wire guided missile. >>> >>> Well, to be fair, it's the Geneva Convention that makes them do that. >>> Any type of expanding bullet is outlawed in war because it's "inhumane." >>> OK to use napalm or flamethrowers on people, but not expanding bullets. >>> Actually the .303 British in its Mk VII loading had a bullet with >>> aluminum nose cone under the jacket, making the bullet tail heavy so it >>> would topple when it hit flesh, thus comparable to a JSP or JHP in >>> destructiveness, but that was OK because it was full metal jacketed. And >>> our 5.56mm rifles have (depending on model) an abnormally slow rifling >>> twist for that caliber, causing the bullet to be only marginally >>> stabilized and also possibly topple in flesh -- still perfectly legal >>> because it's FMJ. >>> >> Loophole. > > Sure. Silly rule to begin with. I understand it started after the British > adopted a soft-point load for its improved stopping power at their Dum Dum > Arsenal in India, which annoyed some politicians who thought warfare > should be carried out on a more considerate and compassionate basis. So > the SP ammunition didn't stay around long, though the term "dum-dum" for > expanding bullet is still in occasional use. Ball rounds are deadly enough, the army doesn't need anything more efficient. (IMHO). -- Tzortzakakis Dimitrios major in electrical engineering mechanized infantry reservist hordad AT otenet DOT gr
From: Tzortzakakis Dimitris on 21 Jun 2010 09:28 � "Jane Galt" <Jane_G(a)gulch.xyz> ������ ��� ������ news:Xns9D9D9FD3D9BC4JaneGgulchxyz(a)216.196.97.142... > "Tzortzakakis Dimitris" <noone(a)nospam.com> wrote : > > >> http://www.flickr.com/photos/44148682(a)N02/4718346638/ >> I haven't got an actual photo of the .50 BMG, unfortunately... I didn't >> have the pleasure either to shoot one, but I had the pleasure to drive >> the "Leonidas", I even passed the exams for its driving license, >> following the 1 month course...I even passed the medical, of course. > > I like the name "Leonidas" and know the story. Molon lave! This tank is made in Greece, by ELVO (Greek Vehicle Industry), that means they get the motor, the gearbox and the transmission from Germany, and they weld the steel plates and assemble everything. This is 320 HP, with a displacement of 10,000 cm^3, 2 tanks that hold each 181 lts of diesel, turbo intercooler and has a crew of 10 men and its weapon is a .50 BMG plus what the crew carries (LAW {Light Antitank Weapon}, hand grenades etc.)Its endurance is 520 km, and has a furnace for heating in winter. Its cost is like 1,500,000 euros per unit. It has a radio, plus a periscope for the leader of the crew (not the driver). -- Tzortzakakis Dimitrios major in electrical engineering mechanized infantry reservist hordad AT otenet DOT gr
From: LOL! on 21 Jun 2010 10:11 On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 12:58:12 GMT, "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote: > >"Jane Galt" <Jane_G(a)gulch.xyz> wrote in message >news:Xns9D9DF25E5E4D5JaneGgulchxyz(a)216.196.97.142... >> "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote : >> >> >>>>>Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy >>>>>of >>>>>God and the rule of law: >> >> Rule of law? You put stock in that? What if some "democratic" types vote >> to >> make all jews wear stars on their clothing? >> >> "Rule of law" can mean rule of tyrannical law. >> >> As far as "God", some people may put no stock in that either, and consider >> it >> mythology. >> >> So where can our rights justly be derived from? >> >> Some claim that rights and values derive from "God", but they needn't. If >> one >> has a good philosophy like Objectivism, the derivation comes from the most >> primary ownership of our own lives. >> See http://www.PlanetaryBillOfRights.org/ >> specifically >> http://www.planetarybillofrights.org/ThePlanetaryBillofRights.html >> >> Another absurdity is the notion of "collective rights", and that >> governments >> have them. >> >> The only legitimate rights are individual rights, AKA HUMAN rights and >> only >> individual humans can have them. >> >> Governments and collectives can only have powers, given to them by the >> people, and they can be modified or even withdrawn by the people, if the >> people only realize that they hold the power to do so. >> >> >> -- >> - Jane Galt > >I put more stock in the rule of law, as composed by a democratic legislature >/ committee, than I do in the rule of law as composed by a lunatic neighbour >with a handgun... > >Take Care, >Dudley > Your biases borne of ignorance show clearly. How about the lunatics at the button ready to launch a nuclear attack if they're having a bad day and finally snap under mass psychosis and paranoia? You know, those "might makes right" lunatics put in place and making their lunatic "law" decisions by your beloved democratic process. How are they immune to lunacy? They are already all proven lunatics just for considering a nuclear attack and having nuclear arms in the first place. Don't you get it? Of course you don't. You're just as fuckingly insane and fucked-up in the head as they are. LOL!
From: LOL! on 21 Jun 2010 10:29
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 09:59:23 -0400, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >Reading her posts, one gets the impression that nothing would please >Ms Galt more than for someone to attack her so she can blow them away. >Kind of a "Make my day" attitude. What's the point of having the >firepower if you never get to use it? Now that's funny. That's a perfect description of every "law abiding cop" I've ever known. LOL! |