Best Coolpix for HD and low light too?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: David Ruether on 21 Jun 2010 15:06 "Jane Galt" <Jane_G(a)gulch.xyz> wrote in message > Free and democratic are oxymoronic. > > Democracy is forming a mob and forcing everyone else to provide your needs > and whims, and voting on how to oppress people in your favorite ways. > > It's essentially akin to two sheep and a wolf voting on what's for dinner. > > While with true libertarianism and/or Objectivism, the sheep is armed. > -- > - Jane Galt DING!, DING!, DING!, DING! (That's my "absurdity alert" going off...) Hey, I think you might enjoy residing in Somalia more than here, perhaps? No effective government, thus social chaos - yum, yum, huh?. Or perhaps in the time of the rapacious robber barons (with the "wolves" who owned everything who fed off everyone else). Enough nonsense, so BYE! <PLONK!> --DR
From: David Ruether on 21 Jun 2010 15:11 "Pete" <available.on.request(a)aserver.invalid> wrote in message news:2010062112311959231-availableonrequest(a)aserverinvalid... > On 2010-06-13 20:19:13 +0100, Jane Galt said: >> I'd like to consider a newer purse sized Coolpix. I have the 4500 which is >> nice, but not exactly purse sized. >> >> I like to do a bit of low-light shooting without flash, so it looks like the >> S8000 isnt up to that, though the 10x optical zoom sounds nice. >> >> I enjoy mostly scenery and non-flash shots of our shoulder pet birds. >> >> My purse cam is now a Sony Cyber-Shot DSC-S750 but the image quality isnt as >> nice as the Coolpix. I suspect Nikon makes better quality lenses? >> >> So suggestions? >> >> I need to keep this in the under $300 street price range. > From the way this thread has progressed I would say a Nikon is not your best choice. A cannon would be more suitable. -- > Pete 8^), 8^), 8^) --DR
From: Dudley Hanks on 21 Jun 2010 15:15 "Jane Galt" <Jane_G(a)gulch.xyz> wrote in message news:Xns9D9E7CD37CBD2JaneGgulchxyz(a)216.196.97.142... > "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote : > >> >> "Jane Galt" <Jane_G(a)gulch.xyz> wrote in message >> news:Xns9D9E76ECAD002JaneGgulchxyz(a)216.196.97.142... >>> "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote : >>> >>>> 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... >>>> >>> >>> How do you feel about things like: >>> >>> * Fiscal Responsibility >> >> It's great, as long as EVERYBODY pays a fair part of the cost of running >> a society where every citizen has a shot at exploring their true >> potential... > > Oh I see. And that "fairness" currently equates to the rich paying 90% of > the taxes and the middle income down paying none. > The division is open for debate. > And does "where every citizen has a shot at exploring their true > potential", does that mean at someone else's expense? Guaranteed outcomes > or just equal opportunity? Opportunity is worthless to a disabled person if attitudes have already prejudiced a potential employer... But, that same disabled person, who starts his working career with government assistance, ends up creating more wealth and opportunity for the community than it costs his peers in the first place... > >> >>> * Constitutionally Limited Government >> >> It's great, as long as the limitations don't hamstring the government's >> ability to provide for the happiness of the free and democratic masses >> that cast votes... > > LOL! Idiot, you just contradicted yourself. Ok, you're for no limits on > government then. You must be a graduate of LOL's speed reading and quick comprehension course... How's it working out for you in contractual fine print evaluation? > >>> * Free Markets >> >> They're great as long as their are adequate protections against unfair >> business practices, monopolies, and other forms of fraud / corruption >> ... > > Keep up the contradictions, this is very revealing about you. Ever heard of counter-balances? It's a well documented political technique, rather popular in the States... > > "They're great, but, except...." Ever read a legal contract? notwithstanding, moreover, see Addendum ... > >>> * Smaller government >> >> They're great as long as they're big enough to take care of business... > > Whose business? Everyone's? > Ah, for once, you've got it... Not just the business you approve of... Also, the business others approve of... great as long as they don't skew the balance in favour of >> minority based right by might... > > And you're smearing the individualists like Beck as "stupid". How sad. > I haven't said a word about him / her? Once again, that LOL reading comprehension course is paying off... > > -- > - Jane Galt Take Care, Dudley
From: Dudley Hanks on 21 Jun 2010 15:21 "Jane Galt" <Jane_G(a)gulch.xyz> wrote in message news:Xns9D9E839297CC9JaneGgulchxyz(a)216.196.97.142... > "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote : > >> >> "Jane Galt" <Jane_G(a)gulch.xyz> wrote in message >> news:Xns9D9E777CEF27JaneGgulchxyz(a)216.196.97.142... >>> "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote : >>> >>> >>>> 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... >>> >>> And what if your mob ( legislature ) votes to seize everything you own >>> and send you to a re-education camp? >>> >>> I know, serviles like you always trust your governments, up until they >>> toss >>> you into cattle cars, but keep in mind that the British just finally >>> apologized for the thuggery of Bloody Sunday, which was, oh, way back >>> in ancient history - 1972. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> - Jane Galt >> >> And, if you'd been around in Germany with a pistol in your pants, you'd >> have held off the SS for how long? >> > > Oh that's right, Mr. Defeatist. I may as well have just given up. Why try > to > take some of them with me, like the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto did? Why > they > should have just given up too. > > If they'd had a simpering wimp like you with them, they likely would have > slit your throat to stop your whining, so they could save their precious > bullets for the Nazis. > > > > -- > - Jane Galt That's not my message... You might want to ask LOL for your money back for that speed reading and quick comprehension course... I've said all along, I defend myself, even going so far as to go one-on-three with some cops who were exceeding their authority... But, I don't let isolated instances blind me to the true nature of the whole system, nor let past mistakes of other governments blind me to the virtues of present policies... In short, I don't adhere to any given doctrine; rather, I judge individual policies on individual merits and apply them to specific situations... Good luck, if you ever find yourself swarmed, like that woman in New York a few years back... Take Care, Dudley
From: tony cooper on 21 Jun 2010 15:23
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 14:13:01 -0400, "David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote: >I will add that I don't think Glenn Beck is either >stupid or misinformed. He knows exactly what he is doing, which >is rabble-rousing-for-ratings. He risks the wellbeing of the nation >(and of its people) for his own financial gain (as does Rupert >Murdoch, Rush Limbaugh, and far too many others). Of course he's not stupid. He's studied the ways of the snake oil merchants of old and built a fortune on those techniques: it doesn't matter what's in the bottle, it's the hype that you use to sell it that brings in the money. Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity and others of that ilk have taken a page out of Sen Joseph McCarthy's book and packaged their snake oil around the spectre of Communism under every bed. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |