Best Coolpix for HD and low light too?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Neil Harrington on 19 Jun 2010 20:08 "John McWilliams" <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:hvgp8r$8kj$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > Neil Harrington wrote: >> "John McWilliams" <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >> news:hvg9ra$dna$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>> Neil Harrington wrote: >>>> "Jane Galt" <Jane_G(a)gulch.xyz> wrote in message >>>>> Exactly. I'd love to have a nice Nikon DSLR, so I could have a >>>>> polarizing >>>>> lens and all, but it IS for my purse and I already have a bunch of >>>>> stuff in >>>>> there, including the XD-45 ACP, >>>> Ooooh. My kinda woman. (Though I'm mainly a Beretta guy myself.) >>> Kinda like Rita, I bet. A lady but not a woman. >> >> Really? What makes you think that? > > The same sorta stuff that made me know "Rita", aka "Larry Thong" recently, > was a guy. > > Were you the one who was so skeptical about my claim re "Rita" when you > first came to this NG? I never did get an enthusiastic thank you from the > guy whoever he was. Yes, that was probably me. I was skeptical at first; now I believe you're right, but I guess I'll never know for sure. But thank you anyway, I guess. I don't know if that's "enthusiastic" enough . . . :-) I cannot understand why someone would pretend to be female when he's male, or vice versa. But I accept that some do, of course. What is it about Jane Galt (or "Jane Galt") that makes you suspect the same thing, though? I'd agree the name is odd, looking like perhaps a variation on the John Galt of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged," but that in itself doesn't mean the gender is faked.
From: ron_tom on 19 Jun 2010 20:49 On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 20:08:44 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote: > >"John McWilliams" <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >news:hvgp8r$8kj$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> Neil Harrington wrote: >>> "John McWilliams" <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >>> news:hvg9ra$dna$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>>> Neil Harrington wrote: >>>>> "Jane Galt" <Jane_G(a)gulch.xyz> wrote in message >>>>>> Exactly. I'd love to have a nice Nikon DSLR, so I could have a >>>>>> polarizing >>>>>> lens and all, but it IS for my purse and I already have a bunch of >>>>>> stuff in >>>>>> there, including the XD-45 ACP, >>>>> Ooooh. My kinda woman. (Though I'm mainly a Beretta guy myself.) >>>> Kinda like Rita, I bet. A lady but not a woman. >>> >>> Really? What makes you think that? >> >> The same sorta stuff that made me know "Rita", aka "Larry Thong" recently, >> was a guy. >> >> Were you the one who was so skeptical about my claim re "Rita" when you >> first came to this NG? I never did get an enthusiastic thank you from the >> guy whoever he was. > >Yes, that was probably me. I was skeptical at first; now I believe you're >right, but I guess I'll never know for sure. But thank you anyway, I guess. >I don't know if that's "enthusiastic" enough . . . :-) > >I cannot understand why someone would pretend to be female when he's male, >or vice versa. But I accept that some do, of course. > >What is it about Jane Galt (or "Jane Galt") that makes you suspect the same >thing, though? I'd agree the name is odd, looking like perhaps a variation >on the John Galt of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged," but that in itself >doesn't mean the gender is faked. > You basement-life city-boy "males" are so out of touch with reality. While staying at a hunter's-camp in the Everglades for a whole winter I met up with a gal from Miami that wanted to come and have a place to practice firing her .50 caliber handgun. Rounds are pricey so we recovered as many shells as we could for reloading.
From: Neil Harrington on 19 Jun 2010 21:22 "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. > > 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. 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. 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. Based on the ballistics figures alone, I would expect the 10mm Auto to be best in stopping power (with the possible exception of some of the humungous wheelgun cartridges), but I doubt there's enough data on the 10mm in actual shootings to prove that. Next best would probably be the shortened version of the 10mm, the now very popular .40 S&W (which some wags called the ".40 Short & Weak," but they were of course comparing it to its daddy). That does look like a very effective round to me, better than either the 9mm or .45, and it's pleasant enough to shoot, but it's not enough better to make me switch to it. All my reloading gear is in 9mm/.38/.357 and this late in life I'm not going to take on a new size. I've owned a lot of .45 automatics (all Colts), also one S&W target revolver in the same caliber, and liked them all a lot. When I was shooting in competition in the '60s and '70s I had to have a .45 since one-third of an NRA outdoor tournament requires that caliber (and actually most competitors use their .45s in the Center Fire third as well). But I haven't owned a .45 since, and have no interest in owning another one. I still like the 1911 configuration, just don't care that much for the cartridge. It DOES make sense for military purposes because of the Geneva Convention FMJ rule, I'll say that for it. But I'm satisfied that for civilian purposes the 9mm in JHP loads does at least as well. > and telling > me to carry a .45 ACP. So I figure if 14 rds of 45 ACP JHP wont do the job > now, I gotta call in Jack Bauer. LOL Jack Bauer doesn't use a .45 either. At least, not in the shows I've seen (which were only from the first season). My recollection is that he was using a SIG-Sauer, so presumably either a 9mm or a .40. > >> >>> so it's already pretty full and slightly >>> heavy. ;-) >> >> Leave the extra magazine home and that'd save the weight of a pretty >> good-sized compact camera. :-) > > Already do that. <sigh> > > "A pistol is just something you use to fight your way back to your rifle." > > LOL Well, I suppose there is something to that thought.
From: George Kerby on 19 Jun 2010 21:29 On 6/19/10 7:49 PM, in article 81pq16dmgb404eksfmd61tgvhnglbkb72o(a)4ax.com, "ron_tom" <findme(a)someaddress.org> wrote: > On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 20:08:44 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> > wrote: > >> >> "John McWilliams" <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >> news:hvgp8r$8kj$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>> Neil Harrington wrote: >>>> "John McWilliams" <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >>>> news:hvg9ra$dna$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>>>> Neil Harrington wrote: >>>>>> "Jane Galt" <Jane_G(a)gulch.xyz> wrote in message >>>>>>> Exactly. I'd love to have a nice Nikon DSLR, so I could have a >>>>>>> polarizing >>>>>>> lens and all, but it IS for my purse and I already have a bunch of >>>>>>> stuff in >>>>>>> there, including the XD-45 ACP, >>>>>> Ooooh. My kinda woman. (Though I'm mainly a Beretta guy myself.) >>>>> Kinda like Rita, I bet. A lady but not a woman. >>>> >>>> Really? What makes you think that? >>> >>> The same sorta stuff that made me know "Rita", aka "Larry Thong" recently, >>> was a guy. >>> >>> Were you the one who was so skeptical about my claim re "Rita" when you >>> first came to this NG? I never did get an enthusiastic thank you from the >>> guy whoever he was. >> >> Yes, that was probably me. I was skeptical at first; now I believe you're >> right, but I guess I'll never know for sure. But thank you anyway, I guess. >> I don't know if that's "enthusiastic" enough . . . :-) >> >> I cannot understand why someone would pretend to be female when he's male, >> or vice versa. But I accept that some do, of course. >> >> What is it about Jane Galt (or "Jane Galt") that makes you suspect the same >> thing, though? I'd agree the name is odd, looking like perhaps a variation >> on the John Galt of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged," but that in itself >> doesn't mean the gender is faked. >> > > You basement-life city-boy "males" are so out of touch with reality. While > staying at a hunter's-camp in the Everglades for a whole winter I met up > with a gal from Miami that wanted to come and have a place to practice > firing her .50 caliber handgun. Rounds are pricey so we recovered as many > shells as we could for reloading. > So many socks - so little time...
From: Jane Galt on 19 Jun 2010 21:56
"Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote : > > "John McWilliams" <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > news:hvgp8r$8kj$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> Neil Harrington wrote: >>> "John McWilliams" <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >>> news:hvg9ra$dna$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>>> Neil Harrington wrote: >>>>> "Jane Galt" <Jane_G(a)gulch.xyz> wrote in message >>>>>> Exactly. I'd love to have a nice Nikon DSLR, so I could have a >>>>>> polarizing >>>>>> lens and all, but it IS for my purse and I already have a bunch of >>>>>> stuff in >>>>>> there, including the XD-45 ACP, >>>>> Ooooh. My kinda woman. (Though I'm mainly a Beretta guy myself.) >>>> Kinda like Rita, I bet. A lady but not a woman. >>> >>> Really? What makes you think that? >> >> The same sorta stuff that made me know "Rita", aka "Larry Thong" >> recently, was a guy. >> >> Were you the one who was so skeptical about my claim re "Rita" when you >> first came to this NG? I never did get an enthusiastic thank you from >> the guy whoever he was. > > Yes, that was probably me. I was skeptical at first; now I believe > you're right, but I guess I'll never know for sure. But thank you > anyway, I guess. I don't know if that's "enthusiastic" enough . . . :-) What silly speculation, and you apparently only do this to women who post? Is a woman somehow not a woman if she likes guns and martial arts? ( pretty insulting to the NRA women I've met and the ones who attended the same dojo with me ) Have you ever questioned whether one of the "guys" posting here, really was one? Wanted to turn him upside down like a cat, lift those hind legs and check? How boorishly inappropriate. This is what drives women away from posting in usenet groups. > I cannot understand why someone would pretend to be female when he's > male, or vice versa. But I accept that some do, of course. Maybe you're not really a man, but actually a cross dressing woman. Who cares? Are you polite and respectful to people in the group? That's all I'd personally care about. > What is it about Jane Galt (or "Jane Galt") that makes you suspect the > same thing, though? I'd agree the name is odd, looking like perhaps a > variation on the John Galt of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged," but > that in itself doesn't mean the gender is faked. Thank you. That's exactly why I picked the nym. I'm a female Objectivist. Sue me? -- - Jane Galt |