jfitzpat

It's either a really big Garmin, or a fairly small person...

"JFitzpat, I don't want to get into a debate over statistics. Obviously, anyone can use/manipulate statistics to "prove" their case." Well, I would say that most people selectively cite quotes and random data as "proof" of what they already believe. Properly applied, statistics is a good tool for science. But, I agree that it is grossly miss-applied much of the time. "If I'm being robbed at the point of a gun..." If you are being robbed under threat of physical harm, I agree you have every moral and legal right to protect yourself. "I am not so stupid, and I don't believe any jury would be, either, to think that I can get away with using lethal force to protect my TV..." I don't think you are stupid, and never meant to imply as such. But, I am not talking about legal standards, but a personal moral one. The Supreme Court has made it clear that lethal booby traps (window sash guns, rigged shotguns with trip wires, etc.) are illegal. Some people think that the Supreme Court is wrong. I, in turn, think those people have questionable moral compasses. "Even the simple act of brandishing a firearm in a confrontational situation can literally backfire on you!" I couldn't agree more. Just displaying a concealed weapon takes a situation to Defcon 4. Once the sharp end is pointed at a human being, everyone involved is in true peril, in many ways. "It's so much easier and safer to train yourself to be constantly aware of your surroundings, to sense when things don't seem right, and to take the steps needed to stay away from trouble." That is what I have said all along. So, what can I do but agree? -jjf

"JFitzpat, I don't want to get into a debate over statistics. Obviously, anyone can use/manipulate statistics to "prove" their case." Well, I would say that most people selectively cite quotes and random data as "proof" of what they already believe. Properly applied, statistics is a good tool for science. But, I agree that it is grossly miss-applied much of the time. "If I'm being robbed at the point of a gun..." If you are being robbed under threat of physical harm, I agree you have every moral and legal right to protect yourself. "I am not so stupid, and I don't believe any jury would be, either, to think that I can get away with using lethal force to protect my TV..." I don't think you are stupid, and never meant to imply as such. But, I am not talking about legal standards, but a personal moral one. The Supreme Court has made it clear that lethal booby traps (window sash guns, rigged shotguns with trip wires, etc.) are illegal. Some people think that the Supreme Court is wrong. I, in turn, think those people have questionable moral compasses. "Even the simple act of brandishing a firearm in a confrontational situation can literally backfire on you!" I couldn't agree more. Just displaying a concealed weapon takes a situation to Defcon 4. Once the sharp end is pointed at a human being, everyone involved is in true peril, in many ways. "It's so much easier and safer to train yourself to be constantly aware of your surroundings, to sense when things don't seem right, and to take the steps needed to stay away from trouble." That is what I have said all along. So, what can I do but agree? -jjf

Folks, I know we all love our brands, but if Macro is consistantly within 20-30' of caches, no consumer purchase is really going to help. That's about as good as it gets with either a top of the line Garmin or a top of the line Magellan. WAAS, different ant., etc. *may* give a few feet of improvement on some caches, but there is not going to be an order of magnitude in difference. -jjf

Folks, I know we all love our brands, but if Macro is consistantly within 20-30' of caches, no consumer purchase is really going to help. That's about as good as it gets with either a top of the line Garmin or a top of the line Magellan. WAAS, different ant., etc. *may* give a few feet of improvement on some caches, but there is not going to be an order of magnitude in difference. -jjf

quote:Originally posted by Rich in NEPA: Personally, I have little fear of wild animals. I've had enough close encounters with eastern black bears to know that in most cases they are more afraid of me than I am of them. And when I'm in bear country I make a habit of making my presence known should momma and cubs be along my path. If rabies have been reported in the area, I tend to be very wary of smaller animals. My greatest fear, however, is the deranged drug-head who will not think twice about killing me for the change in my pocket! I _will_ be prepared to _at least attempt_ to defend myself, family, friends and property using whatever force is necessary in an apparent, life-threating situation. And the more people who know it, the better. BTW, I find it noteworthy that in States which have enacted "shall issue" laws (for concealed-carry permits), the violent crime rates decline significantly but go up correspondingly in surrounding State which do not have similar laws. Gee, I wonder why!? _~Rich in NEPA~_ http://img.Groundspeak.com/user/1132_1200.jpg __=== A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ===__ Rich, I have great respect for you and have always found your posts well considered and thoughtful. However, I must disagree with you two points. First, the statistics point appears to be false. Both sides of the gun debate are in the habit of clouding the air with 'bull-istics'. Trying to connect crime rate to "shall issue" requires pretty dubious math, as does trying to connect a 10 year decline in violent crime to assault weapons bans and Brady bill type cooling off periods. Both only work if you pick and choose your numbers to fit the result you want to get. I'm not saying you made it up, just that virtually no one, on either side, can be blindly trusted to get the facts right. The second issue is personal. I have no problem with "any" force necessary when it comes to protecting self, family, or fellow members of a community. However, I have a real problem with the concept of lethal force to protect property. Think of it as a golden rule sort of thing. I know, in my heart, that my children are a lot more important than your TV, car, or even your house. Conversely, I then accept that your children are a lot more important than my TV, car, or house. Everyone has to have their own set of moral standards, but, for me, being willing to kill someone for stuff is the problem that I expect a gun to help protect my family from from. Not a moral code that I want a gun to enforce. -jjf

quote:Originally posted by Rich in NEPA: Personally, I have little fear of wild animals. I've had enough close encounters with eastern black bears to know that in most cases they are more afraid of me than I am of them. And when I'm in bear country I make a habit of making my presence known should momma and cubs be along my path. If rabies have been reported in the area, I tend to be very wary of smaller animals. My greatest fear, however, is the deranged drug-head who will not think twice about killing me for the change in my pocket! I _will_ be prepared to _at least attempt_ to defend myself, family, friends and property using whatever force is necessary in an apparent, life-threating situation. And the more people who know it, the better. BTW, I find it noteworthy that in States which have enacted "shall issue" laws (for concealed-carry permits), the violent crime rates decline significantly but go up correspondingly in surrounding State which do not have similar laws. Gee, I wonder why!? _~Rich in NEPA~_ http://img.Groundspeak.com/user/1132_1200.jpg __=== A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ===__ Rich, I have great respect for you and have always found your posts well considered and thoughtful. However, I must disagree with you two points. First, the statistics point appears to be false. Both sides of the gun debate are in the habit of clouding the air with 'bull-istics'. Trying to connect crime rate to "shall issue" requires pretty dubious math, as does trying to connect a 10 year decline in violent crime to assault weapons bans and Brady bill type cooling off periods. Both only work if you pick and choose your numbers to fit the result you want to get. I'm not saying you made it up, just that virtually no one, on either side, can be blindly trusted to get the facts right. The second issue is personal. I have no problem with "any" force necessary when it comes to protecting self, family, or fellow members of a community. However, I have a real problem with the concept of lethal force to protect property. Think of it as a golden rule sort of thing. I know, in my heart, that my children are a lot more important than your TV, car, or even your house. Conversely, I then accept that your children are a lot more important than my TV, car, or house. Everyone has to have their own set of moral standards, but, for me, being willing to kill someone for stuff is the problem that I expect a gun to help protect my family from from. Not a moral code that I want a gun to enforce. -jjf

quote:Originally posted by Steak N Eggs: [snip] I do have a question I could used answered. When I have it pluged into power, the batts seem to run down. Now I am useing the power cable from the 315 to power it. Does the Meridian take moew "juice" than the 315? I have not gone to the Magellan web site yet to check on my answer.... "My gps say's it RIGHT HERE". http://www.geogadgets.com 1240 plus miles and only 8 caches? I've seen this on a friend's GPS320 and the adapter cable he uses on his boat. The problem I found on his boat is that the adapter is 'regulated', that is, it does not deliver raw boat power, but power at a fixed, or 'regulated' voltage. In his case, the problem was that the regulated voltage was a bit low at the connector, so the batteries were actually draining. Sorry, I know it's not much help, but it is the only thing close that I can think of. Good Luck, -jjf

quote:Originally posted by Steak N Eggs: [snip] I do have a question I could used answered. When I have it pluged into power, the batts seem to run down. Now I am useing the power cable from the 315 to power it. Does the Meridian take moew "juice" than the 315? I have not gone to the Magellan web site yet to check on my answer.... "My gps say's it RIGHT HERE". http://www.geogadgets.com 1240 plus miles and only 8 caches? I've seen this on a friend's GPS320 and the adapter cable he uses on his boat. The problem I found on his boat is that the adapter is 'regulated', that is, it does not deliver raw boat power, but power at a fixed, or 'regulated' voltage. In his case, the problem was that the regulated voltage was a bit low at the connector, so the batteries were actually draining. Sorry, I know it's not much help, but it is the only thing close that I can think of. Good Luck, -jjf

You can test your serial port with a communication program and a paper clip. HyperTerm is usually included with Windows 98. Run the terminal program, select a comm port ("Direct" for Hyperterminal). And just take the default settings. When you get to the terminal screen, type. Nothing should appear. Then put the paper clip between pins 2 and 3 on the DB9 connector for the comm port (transmit and receive). Now when you type, the characters should be echoed to the screen. Once your serial port is confirmed working, you can test your data connection with the same program. Just select 4800,8,n,1 and 'no handshaking' for comm settings on the Communication Program. Set your GPSr to NMEA at 4800 baud. If the connection is good, the GPS should start spitting out messages every few seconds that you can see on the terminal screen. If memory serves, the Legend has a sparkly translucent case. That plastic doesn't compression form as well. You might have to push a little hard on the Garmin end of the connector to make good contact as well. Good Luck, -jjf

You can test your serial port with a communication program and a paper clip. HyperTerm is usually included with Windows 98. Run the terminal program, select a comm port ("Direct" for Hyperterminal). And just take the default settings. When you get to the terminal screen, type. Nothing should appear. Then put the paper clip between pins 2 and 3 on the DB9 connector for the comm port (transmit and receive). Now when you type, the characters should be echoed to the screen. Once your serial port is confirmed working, you can test your data connection with the same program. Just select 4800,8,n,1 and 'no handshaking' for comm settings on the Communication Program. Set your GPSr to NMEA at 4800 baud. If the connection is good, the GPS should start spitting out messages every few seconds that you can see on the terminal screen. If memory serves, the Legend has a sparkly translucent case. That plastic doesn't compression form as well. You might have to push a little hard on the Garmin end of the connector to make good contact as well. Good Luck, -jjf

quote:Originally posted by mcb: It seem that I have hit a raw nerve here jfitzpat and for that I am very sorry. I did not mean to be flipant about the incident you witnessed. The grin was for that fact that I find it funny how much critters in general find human a smelly creature in the woods. Nonetheless I do apologize I did not mean to belittle your expereince. But I find it anoying that most (not all) attacks could have been avoided using just a little bit of common sense and paying attention to your god given senses. On another note a five second draw of and firing a handgun is slow. I believe the current quick draw record is drawing a double action revolver firing six rounds, reloading with the aid of a quickloader and firing another six rounds in just under 2 second. All round had to be on target, only 10 yards, but still on target. That is quick drawing! 5 second is not unreasonable for someone with just a little training and some practice. I have grown up with guns and they are very much a part of my life. I know many people have not grown up with them and do not have the same fondness for guns that some do, but a gun is just another tool like your GPS , pocket knife, walking stick, etc. It has it uses but can't do everything all the time. As for stopping power. A .44 mag. with the correct amunition will stop a bear dead in his tracks 600 pound or not. There are not many thing that can sustain over a 1000 ft-lbs of energy projected on such a small area. Nonetheless all that said I am sorry if I offended you. The stigma guns carry with them is something that I don't think any comments I make on my beliefs and uses of them will change your opinion. I do think that in the woods carring a handgun has save many backwoods hikers and campers mc Yes, you did strike a nerve, which is why I replied carefully. What I find most interesting is how you go off about "stigma" and "[my] opinion". Where, in any post, did I take any stance whatsoever on if a person should, or should not carry a gun? I have only stated that, should a person carry a gun, they should not let it give them a false sense of confidence. That is, a gun is no substitute for good planning and prevention. Because, a gun cannot always deal with every potential danger. Since you mentioned that bears should be avoided in the first place. It seems reasonable to suppose that you at least sometimes heed my suggestion, even if you vehemently argue against it here. Now, as to the awsome 44. Yes, a .44 Magnum revolver has a muzzle velocity of about 1600 fps, and a muzzle force of over 1000 ft lbs (about 10 times the force of a little .22 LR). But that force drops rapidly over distance, as does the accuracy of the weapon. But, a .30-30 Rifle delivers about 1300 ft lbs *at a 100 yards*. IE, you can deliver more punch across a football field than you can with a .44 Magnum pressed to the side of a bear's head. A .243 delivers more oomph still, and a .30-06 delivers a whopping 2300 ft lbs of force at 100 yards, over 1100 ft lbs at *500* yards. And, of course, these rifles can actually deliver a projectile with reasonable accuracy out to even greater distances. This is why a rifle is my back country weapon of choice. In addition to defense, you can also more effectively hunt with it, more effectively signal for help (higher muzzle velocity usually means louder report), and so on. That said, I would always keep in mind that even a canon is no gurantee. I don't have it handy, so I'll have to look up the name, but in about '86 there was an attack involving a professional hunter in Alaska. He shot a grizzly *through the heart* with a .30-06 from about 40 yards. The animal dropped and he approached it. When he was *sure* it was dead, he put down his rifle and got ready to take pictures and measurements. *NOTE TO SELF* Be really, REALLY sure... The animal leaped up, stood on its hind legs, lifted him off the ground and kissed him - as in it bit off his face and crushed his jaw. Amazingly, he lived. More amazingly, the carcus was found several miles away. Shot, in fact, through the heart... Now, I'm sure you could go on and on about munitions, energy distribution and so on. Conversely, having hunted bear, I could go on and on about why bears are hard to kill. Bottom line, any creature that can take a large bore rifle shot to the head and have the shot bounce off without measurable cranial damage is, as you mentioned a creature best kept out of handgun range... -jjf

quote:Originally posted by mcb: It seem that I have hit a raw nerve here jfitzpat and for that I am very sorry. I did not mean to be flipant about the incident you witnessed. The grin was for that fact that I find it funny how much critters in general find human a smelly creature in the woods. Nonetheless I do apologize I did not mean to belittle your expereince. But I find it anoying that most (not all) attacks could have been avoided using just a little bit of common sense and paying attention to your god given senses. On another note a five second draw of and firing a handgun is slow. I believe the current quick draw record is drawing a double action revolver firing six rounds, reloading with the aid of a quickloader and firing another six rounds in just under 2 second. All round had to be on target, only 10 yards, but still on target. That is quick drawing! 5 second is not unreasonable for someone with just a little training and some practice. I have grown up with guns and they are very much a part of my life. I know many people have not grown up with them and do not have the same fondness for guns that some do, but a gun is just another tool like your GPS , pocket knife, walking stick, etc. It has it uses but can't do everything all the time. As for stopping power. A .44 mag. with the correct amunition will stop a bear dead in his tracks 600 pound or not. There are not many thing that can sustain over a 1000 ft-lbs of energy projected on such a small area. Nonetheless all that said I am sorry if I offended you. The stigma guns carry with them is something that I don't think any comments I make on my beliefs and uses of them will change your opinion. I do think that in the woods carring a handgun has save many backwoods hikers and campers mc Yes, you did strike a nerve, which is why I replied carefully. What I find most interesting is how you go off about "stigma" and "[my] opinion". Where, in any post, did I take any stance whatsoever on if a person should, or should not carry a gun? I have only stated that, should a person carry a gun, they should not let it give them a false sense of confidence. That is, a gun is no substitute for good planning and prevention. Because, a gun cannot always deal with every potential danger. Since you mentioned that bears should be avoided in the first place. It seems reasonable to suppose that you at least sometimes heed my suggestion, even if you vehemently argue against it here. Now, as to the awsome 44. Yes, a .44 Magnum revolver has a muzzle velocity of about 1600 fps, and a muzzle force of over 1000 ft lbs (about 10 times the force of a little .22 LR). But that force drops rapidly over distance, as does the accuracy of the weapon. But, a .30-30 Rifle delivers about 1300 ft lbs *at a 100 yards*. IE, you can deliver more punch across a football field than you can with a .44 Magnum pressed to the side of a bear's head. A .243 delivers more oomph still, and a .30-06 delivers a whopping 2300 ft lbs of force at 100 yards, over 1100 ft lbs at *500* yards. And, of course, these rifles can actually deliver a projectile with reasonable accuracy out to even greater distances. This is why a rifle is my back country weapon of choice. In addition to defense, you can also more effectively hunt with it, more effectively signal for help (higher muzzle velocity usually means louder report), and so on. That said, I would always keep in mind that even a canon is no gurantee. I don't have it handy, so I'll have to look up the name, but in about '86 there was an attack involving a professional hunter in Alaska. He shot a grizzly *through the heart* with a .30-06 from about 40 yards. The animal dropped and he approached it. When he was *sure* it was dead, he put down his rifle and got ready to take pictures and measurements. *NOTE TO SELF* Be really, REALLY sure... The animal leaped up, stood on its hind legs, lifted him off the ground and kissed him - as in it bit off his face and crushed his jaw. Amazingly, he lived. More amazingly, the carcus was found several miles away. Shot, in fact, through the heart... Now, I'm sure you could go on and on about munitions, energy distribution and so on. Conversely, having hunted bear, I could go on and on about why bears are hard to kill. Bottom line, any creature that can take a large bore rifle shot to the head and have the shot bounce off without measurable cranial damage is, as you mentioned a creature best kept out of handgun range... -jjf

quote:Originally posted by mcb: Sure bear are strong and fast but what in the world were you doing that close. If you know your in bear country you better make sure your making enough noise that the bears know you there too. For the most part bear do not hunt humans. If they attack it because you probable walked up on them and startled them. They are only defending themselves from a precieve threat. If you make enough noise then they will just slip away and you won't even see them. We smell bad and taste almost as bad to them. If you go sneeking around in bear country your asking for it. As far as wielding the weapon. I probable couldn't get a large handgun out and fire in 2 seconds but I could in less than 5 and in 15 I could have emtied the entire gun puting most rounds on target. If your going to carry the gun you better know how to use it. It like your GPS if you don't know how to use it your just as lost as if you didn't have it at all. mcb I'm going to answer carefully, because a smiley icon and a mental image of a gutted human being don't mesh well for me. In brief, I, and three friends, saw a couple mauled about 150 yards ahead of us on trail. The attack was sudden, from the left side. None of us, although all experienced, had seen or smelled (almost always the first indicator) any sign of bear all day. After the attack started we, perhaps stupidly, tried to scare it away by shouting and throwing debris down the trail. A hand gun would have been useless at the range. But, even with a rifle, which I did not have, I would probably not have risked shots, since the young lady and bear were both moving back and forth across the same line. The bear moved off to the right almost immediately. As we approached we thought we heard, but did not see, a cub. It would be a nice explanation, but, like it or not, bears frequently do not act in a consistant, predicatable, manner. About 5 minutes later, the bear returned about 20 yards down trail. Three times the bear loped a few paces towards us. Each time we shouted, mostly obscenities, and, retreated a little, dragging the young man with us. In hindsight, moving an injured person is never a good idea. Since he had already lost conciousness and quickly went into shock, the bear might have left him alone. There are rules of thumb, play dead, don't play dead, climb a tree, don't climb a tree, run, back away, etc. for different bear species, but again, bears often refuse to be predictable. With a black bear, you are not 'supposed' to play dead, but, frankly, rules of thumb had nothing to do with our actions. Anyway, the bear wondered off, again to the right. Since cell phones didn't exist yet, my friend Tim dropped pack, grabbed water, map, and compass, and ran ahead to a spur trail (ahead being the closest help, and him being the fastest runner). Miraculously, both of the victims survived, despite my then limited first aid skills (I was inspired by the event to obtain better training, I still maintain a wilderness first responder certificate). NOW - people reading this should not suddenly be terrified of bears. Serious injuries are rare, and often can be directly attributed, at least in part, to poor judgement on the part of the attacked. But, I'll stand by what I said. Yanking out a hand gun and emptying it into a 600 pound bear will not insure your safety. A high power rifle shot to the heart will bring a bear down, but again, under attack that is world class shooting. Now, "mcb", if you think that a young couple taking a nice day hike down a well marked, reasonably crowded trail were somehow "asking" for what happened to them, and that, through your superior intelligence and quickdraw practice, the same thing could never happen to you, you are not as outdoor savvy as I would have given you credit for. -jjf

quote:Originally posted by mcb: Sure bear are strong and fast but what in the world were you doing that close. If you know your in bear country you better make sure your making enough noise that the bears know you there too. For the most part bear do not hunt humans. If they attack it because you probable walked up on them and startled them. They are only defending themselves from a precieve threat. If you make enough noise then they will just slip away and you won't even see them. We smell bad and taste almost as bad to them. If you go sneeking around in bear country your asking for it. As far as wielding the weapon. I probable couldn't get a large handgun out and fire in 2 seconds but I could in less than 5 and in 15 I could have emtied the entire gun puting most rounds on target. If your going to carry the gun you better know how to use it. It like your GPS if you don't know how to use it your just as lost as if you didn't have it at all. mcb I'm going to answer carefully, because a smiley icon and a mental image of a gutted human being don't mesh well for me. In brief, I, and three friends, saw a couple mauled about 150 yards ahead of us on trail. The attack was sudden, from the left side. None of us, although all experienced, had seen or smelled (almost always the first indicator) any sign of bear all day. After the attack started we, perhaps stupidly, tried to scare it away by shouting and throwing debris down the trail. A hand gun would have been useless at the range. But, even with a rifle, which I did not have, I would probably not have risked shots, since the young lady and bear were both moving back and forth across the same line. The bear moved off to the right almost immediately. As we approached we thought we heard, but did not see, a cub. It would be a nice explanation, but, like it or not, bears frequently do not act in a consistant, predicatable, manner. About 5 minutes later, the bear returned about 20 yards down trail. Three times the bear loped a few paces towards us. Each time we shouted, mostly obscenities, and, retreated a little, dragging the young man with us. In hindsight, moving an injured person is never a good idea. Since he had already lost conciousness and quickly went into shock, the bear might have left him alone. There are rules of thumb, play dead, don't play dead, climb a tree, don't climb a tree, run, back away, etc. for different bear species, but again, bears often refuse to be predictable. With a black bear, you are not 'supposed' to play dead, but, frankly, rules of thumb had nothing to do with our actions. Anyway, the bear wondered off, again to the right. Since cell phones didn't exist yet, my friend Tim dropped pack, grabbed water, map, and compass, and ran ahead to a spur trail (ahead being the closest help, and him being the fastest runner). Miraculously, both of the victims survived, despite my then limited first aid skills (I was inspired by the event to obtain better training, I still maintain a wilderness first responder certificate). NOW - people reading this should not suddenly be terrified of bears. Serious injuries are rare, and often can be directly attributed, at least in part, to poor judgement on the part of the attacked. But, I'll stand by what I said. Yanking out a hand gun and emptying it into a 600 pound bear will not insure your safety. A high power rifle shot to the heart will bring a bear down, but again, under attack that is world class shooting. Now, "mcb", if you think that a young couple taking a nice day hike down a well marked, reasonably crowded trail were somehow "asking" for what happened to them, and that, through your superior intelligence and quickdraw practice, the same thing could never happen to you, you are not as outdoor savvy as I would have given you credit for. -jjf

quote:Originally posted by embi: Well being from Downunder we just use hand signals to tame the wild beasts (you must have seen Crocodile Dundee by now!) But seriously...never had a gun, don't know anyone who has one, never even seen a hand gun (except the ones the police carry). We obviously have a much safer world down here. embi It's out there...let's go get it! Reminds me of a local, Jerry, pointing out a "Blue Bottle". I asked him if a sting would hurt, he said "a bit..." Payback was mine. About 3/8" (1 cm) of box jellyfish stinger brushed on my wrist between glove and wet suit on my next visit down under (long story in its own right). For the record, I wept like a baby. It felt like someone hit my wrist with a blow torch for almost an hour. I still carry a nasty allergic scar. But, when Jerry asked me on the phone if it had hurt, I simply replied, "a bit..." The last time I checked Australia has more plants and animals in top-ten-most-dangerous lists than anywhere else on the planet. Still, an amazing place. Certainly one of the friendliest. -jjf

quote:Originally posted by embi: Well being from Downunder we just use hand signals to tame the wild beasts (you must have seen Crocodile Dundee by now!) But seriously...never had a gun, don't know anyone who has one, never even seen a hand gun (except the ones the police carry). We obviously have a much safer world down here. embi It's out there...let's go get it! Reminds me of a local, Jerry, pointing out a "Blue Bottle". I asked him if a sting would hurt, he said "a bit..." Payback was mine. About 3/8" (1 cm) of box jellyfish stinger brushed on my wrist between glove and wet suit on my next visit down under (long story in its own right). For the record, I wept like a baby. It felt like someone hit my wrist with a blow torch for almost an hour. I still carry a nasty allergic scar. But, when Jerry asked me on the phone if it had hurt, I simply replied, "a bit..." The last time I checked Australia has more plants and animals in top-ten-most-dangerous lists than anywhere else on the planet. Still, an amazing place. Certainly one of the friendliest. -jjf

If you are using a PC, you should be able to test your cable using the Waypoint Exchange on LostOutdoors. Just plug in the cable, turn on the GPS, and go. Another way would be to run a terminal program (ex. Hyperterminal on a Windows PC), select 4800 baud, 8, n, 1, and 'no handshaking'. Then set your Garmin to NMEA out for 'Interface'. After the GPS initializes, you should start seeing messages on the terminal page. They should basically always start with a $ and end with *. Once you know that your serial port and cable are good, setting up other packages should be a snap. The problem is usually if a serial port is disabled in the BIOS so that the interrupt can be used for another peripheral. Good Luck, -jjf

quote:Originally posted by apersson850: [snip] Well, I can't say I've beaten my wife - err, my Vista, I mean - but still, occasionally there is a problem with the connection to the display. When this occurs, the display gets dim, and usually shows flickering vertical lines over the display. The flickering changes if you turn the light on, or sometimes the display turns off completely when the light is lit. By holding the unit and twisting it a little, or by pressing with the thumb just besides the click-stick, it comes back to its senses again. [snip] That does sound like a loose connection (board to board or chip to board). I'm afraid to take my Vista apart (lest it never be truly waterproof again). But, if you are already out of warantee, Garmin might give you some pointers via email on unit disassembly. -jjf

Well, I would have to say that, for serious hiking and backpacking, BOTH Garmin and Magellan are pretty much worthless. Their resolution is about 1:100000, which is just too small for serious on-foot navigation. IE, you can't decide which ravine to take if they don't even show up on the maps. Both take their points-of-interest from the USGS GNIS database. So, they are often off the mark by as much as a 'second' (some even more). The maps are nice for a basic 'orientation' of your position, but really, you are much better off with a printed map to use in conjunction with your GPS. -jjf

quote:Originally posted by markl32:That, my friend, is a bear tooth pick. FWIW, there is a big difference between hunting a bear - IE, tracking it, sneaking up, and killing it with a firearm, and being endangered by a bear. If you think that even something fairly hefty, like a .306, makes you dramatically safer, think again. Having seen a 'common' black bear (female) crush a man's spine with a single swipe within a few seconds of anyone even spotting it, I can personally attest that bears are even stronger and faster than you think. Few of us have both the training and luck to pull off world class shooting with a slung weapon in the 2-15 seconds that the bear uses to decide to strike. The good news is that, statistically speaking, you are more likely to be accidentally shot by a hunter than attacked by a bear in most of the US. Shooting back at the hunters is probably illegal, though a jury in TX or MT would almost certainly acquit you... Seriously, a legally owned and carried firearm is a personal choice, but don't let it lull you with a false sense of security or invulnerability. When a dangerous creature (2 or 4 legs) means you harm, it is often at the ready before you even know it is there, and as such has a distinct advantage. Better to learn to watch out for trouble and avoid it than to count on a weapon to bail you out after it begins. Just my two cents... -jjf

quote:Originally posted by markl32:That, my friend, is a bear tooth pick. FWIW, there is a big difference between hunting a bear - IE, tracking it, sneaking up, and killing it with a firearm, and being endangered by a bear. If you think that even something fairly hefty, like a .306, makes you dramatically safer, think again. Having seen a 'common' black bear (female) crush a man's spine with a single swipe within a few seconds of anyone even spotting it, I can personally attest that bears are even stronger and faster than you think. Few of us have both the training and luck to pull off world class shooting with a slung weapon in the 2-15 seconds that the bear uses to decide to strike. The good news is that, statistically speaking, you are more likely to be accidentally shot by a hunter than attacked by a bear in most of the US. Shooting back at the hunters is probably illegal, though a jury in TX or MT would almost certainly acquit you... Seriously, a legally owned and carried firearm is a personal choice, but don't let it lull you with a false sense of security or invulnerability. When a dangerous creature (2 or 4 legs) means you harm, it is often at the ready before you even know it is there, and as such has a distinct advantage. Better to learn to watch out for trouble and avoid it than to count on a weapon to bail you out after it begins. Just my two cents... -jjf

As many people pointed out, you can use rechargable AAs in most units. The problem with only accepting a charge pack type system is that you won't get the life and temperature range in more extreme outdoor environments. Accepting standard cells give the user more options. For example, you can use rechargable cells in modest environments (day trips), lithium cells winter backpacking, and so on. -jjf

The ironic thing is that I've been squirted not once, but twice! Once at a fashion show at the Hollywood Palace in Los Angeles (the furs were all synthetic), and once standing with some faculty and graduate students at UCLA. The problem with seeing shades of gray is that you get bagged on by the black-and-white types at each extreme... -jjf

The ironic thing is that I've been squirted not once, but twice! Once at a fashion show at the Hollywood Palace in Los Angeles (the furs were all synthetic), and once standing with some faculty and graduate students at UCLA. The problem with seeing shades of gray is that you get bagged on by the black-and-white types at each extreme... -jjf