Best Coolpix for HD and low light too?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Die Wahrheit on 21 Jun 2010 01:40 On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 00:24:25 -0500, Jane Galt <Jane_G(a)gulch.xyz> wrote: >Die Wahrheit <diewahrheit(a)somewherehonest.net> wrote : > >> On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 04:56:27 GMT, "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: >> >> Which god? I have a book titled "Encyclopedia of 1500 Gods & Goddesses". >> All of them valid in their cultures that believe in them. Most all of >them >> much older and wiser than any immature god that was recently invented in >> the middle-east. Do you respect others' gods as much as you do your own? >Or >> are you saying that your god doesn't know anything about respect. And if >> that god of yours knows nothing about respect, it knows nothing about >love >> either. Because love is a false love without respect. You cannot love >> unless it is first based on respect. Respect is more important and more >> powerful than love. Unfortunately that little tidbit has been >conveniently >> left out of all of the middle-east's versions of god, otherwise they >> wouldn't have spanned the globe trying to kill all others in the name of >> their god. >> >> Which "laws"? Laws are only someone's opinion put on paper. It doesn't >> matter how many people might agree, the majority has never been right. As >> the old saying goes: "If even 5 billion people say and believe a foolish >> thing, it remains a foolish thing." The number of people agreeing is >never >> an affirmation of them being right. >> >> > >"A man is none the less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new >master once in a term of years. Neither are a people any the less slaves >because they are permitted periodically to choose new masters. What makes >them slaves is the fact that they are now, and are always hereafter to be, >in the hands of men whose power over them is, and always is to be, absolute >and irresponsible." --Lysander Spooner, 'No Treason'. > >"Two men have no more natural right to exercise any kind of authority over >one, than one has to exercise the same authority over two. A man's natural >rights are his own, against the whole world; and any infringement of them >is equally a crime; whether committed by one man, or by millions; whether >committed by one man, calling himself a robber, (or by any other name >indicating his true character), or by millions calling themselves a >government." - Lysander Spooner > >Or as someone else taught me, no government has any right to do anything I >have no right to do myself. Since you are a fan of quotables, you might like this one: "Authority isn't something that someone else has. It's something that you've freely, foolishly, and irresponsibly given away -- all by your little self." (author: myself)
From: Jane Galt on 21 Jun 2010 01:42 Gilford Brimly <gilfordbrimly(a)spamless.com> wrote : > On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 04:50:47 GMT, "Dudley Hanks" ><dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote: > >> >>And, you actually think you can open your purse, drag it out and get >>into firing position before a well-prepared thug rips your bag from your >>shoulder and renders you immobile? > > You certainly don't know much about purse designs for holding guns. > There is generally a freely opened pocket at one end where the gun can > be reached even as the "perp" is trying to wrest it from one's grasp. > They grab the purse and pull it off the gun in your hand. Quick and > easy, the perp actually helps to unholster the gun. > > If it gets to that. Meantime I'd be beating him senseless. The school I went to taught kempo, which they described as great self defense for close quarters, like in a phone booth. At the higher belt levels they required sparring, which got pretty rough at 2nd brown. They waited until the end of a 4 1/2 hour test to do it, so we were tired. On that test, I literally mopped the room from one end to another, with a guy my size. -- - Jane Galt
From: Jane Galt on 21 Jun 2010 01:49 "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
From: Dudley Hanks on 21 Jun 2010 01:51 "Jane Galt" <Jane_G(a)gulch.xyz> wrote in message news:Xns9D9DEF6671CE1JaneGgulchxyz(a)216.196.97.142... > "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote : > >> >> "Jane Galt" <Jane_G(a)gulch.xyz> wrote in message >> news:Xns9D9DE80252B19JaneGgulchxyz(a)216.196.97.142... >>> "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote : >>> >>>> >>>> "Jane Galt" <Jane_G(a)gulch.xyz> wrote in message >>>> news:Xns9D9DDEE835DB7JaneGgulchxyz(a)216.196.97.142... >>>>> "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote : >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I've nothing against self-defence, have gotten into more than a few >>>>>> scraps myself takin' care of business... Even had to go one on >>>>>> three with a few cops one night when they "exceeded their >>>>>> authority." >>>>>> >>>>>> But, my concern with the general public carrying weapons is that it >>>>>> merely escalates the likelihood of innocents getting hurt. >>>>> >>>>> Actually quite the opposite. More guns, less crime. >>>>> >>>>> http://www.gunownersalliance.com/hupp-10.htm >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> - Jane Galt >>>> >>>> Not really, current stats are based on a low percentage of gun owners >>>> to general population. >>>> >>>> As guns become more prevalent, criminals become more cautious, up >>>> until they reach a point where the criminal element knows there's >>>> going to be armed resistance, so they take precautions and get more >>>> organized. >>>> >>>> Statistics from the old "wild west" would be more appropriate to a >>>> modern civilization where concealed carry weapons are common place. >>> >>> The old wild west was safer than modern day London. All that you posted >>> above is thoroughly debunked marxist propaganda, aimed at disarming and >>> dissolving the United States. >>> >>> "All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist >>> party must command all guns, that way no guns can ever be used to >>> command the party." -- Mao Tse Tung "Selected Works of Mao Zedong," >>> 1965 >>> >>> yet: >>> >>> Only an armed people can be the real bulwark of popular liberty. - >>> Vladimir >>> Lenin >>> >>> >>> -- >>> - Jane Galt >> >> I thought you'd come back with the populist babble of the NRA as your >> ideological doctrine, but am rather surprised that, as a republican >> American, you quote instead from communist doctrine, a Doctrine which >> was the basis of the Russian Federation. > > I never said I was a Republicrat, nor have I ever been one. > > There are only two parties I've ever joined in my life, the LP and more > recently the Objectivist Party. Sorry, my mistake, but you fit the profile... > > >> Do you remember how the USSR came to an end? It was overthrown, not by >> guns, but by peaceful democratic ideals. Where was the necessity for an >> armed citizenry, even in one of the most totalitarian regimes? > > I was just stating it in terms that I thought a comrade like yourself > might > relate better to. Socialists have never objected to guns, they only use > such objections to dupe "useful idiots" into helping them disarm their > intended victims. Good job with that, comrade. You confuse democratic socialism for communism... > >> Also, the Chinese communist doctrine you so freely quote is also slowly >> being undermined, not by an armed citizenry, but by peaceful democratic >> ideals... > > Like I said in another post, I certainly wouldnt equate democracy with > freedom. But, as a Libertarian, you simply exchange the vote for physical / armed might... > >> Your country chose the armed revolution to free itself from British >> tyranny, Canada chose peaceful diplomacy. We both ended up in the same >> place, but with a fair bit less bloodshed.. north of the border. > > I believe that diplomacy didn't work in our case. Read your history books. > It's not so much that it didn't work, but that the right process was never discovered... But, I can understand how that might be a sore point with you... > The founders of this country appealed to King George for years in such > efforts. They sailed back and forth doing it, to no avail. In spite of my sarcastic scribble above, I actually sympathize with pre-revolutionary Americans... It was a different time, a different place. Canada and the States were on different paths, and the British Crown seemed to adopt different approaches to the colonies. The breaking point was reached, and history took its course. I salute the fact that your Founding Fathers directed your country in a direction more oriented to the welfare of the masses than had the former Empire. > >> BTW, I can't help but notice you don't have any links to statistics on >> how peaceful Dodge City was in comparison to modern day London... > > An armed society is a polite society. > > Has anyone got stats on violent crime before and after the various states > passed their concealed carry laws? > > Things have sure tamed down here since 2003 when concealed carry was > passed > in Colorado. People are much more polite and less likely to be surly and > rude to others in public, because you just never know who's armed. > But, as I've pointed out, that situation isn't necessarily going to be the same once a critical mass of hidden weapons is reached... > "Let the wookie win!" > > -- > - Jane Galt Aw, don't give up so easily... It's tough finding a debate with somebody who doesn't resort to insults when the going gets tough... It's been a pleasure... Take Care, Dudley
From: Jane Galt on 21 Jun 2010 01:52
"Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote : > > And, if the perp is aware of purse designs, he comes from behind and > hits you hard with a stun blow to render you nearly unconscious, calmly > grabs the bag and the scenario continues... > > All of your supposed claims of how great is the protection of the gun > are based on the presupposition that the thug is a complete idiot... Yours are based on the presupposition that the thug is omnipotent and omnipresent. If someone is planning a well thought out military operation against you, that may be closer to it, but a random thug? Come on. You're a self defeatist, and again I ask you; what are your suggested alternatives? Bargain, plead or reason with him? What if you cant? "Listen, what's the most horrible experience you can imagine? To me - it's being left, unarmed, in a sealed cell with a drooling beast of prey or a maniac who's had some disease that's eaten his brain out. You'd have nothing then but your voice - your voice and your thought. You'd scream to that creature why it should not touch you, you'd have the most eloquent words, the unanswerable words, you'd become the vessel of the absolute truth. And you'd see living eyes watching you and you'd know that the thing can't hear you, that it can't be reached, not reached, not in any way, yet it's breathing and moving there before you with a purpose of its own. That's horror. Well, that's what's hanging over the world, prowling somewhere through mankind, that same thing, something closed, mindless, utterly wanton, but something with an aim and a cunning of its own." -- Steven Mallory, The Fountainhead, by Ayn Rand |