winsor

Wrong. nice one

Prosecute her to the fullest extent the law will allow. Of course, to do that you also have to prosecute Cheney and Bush for war crimes, but I'm fine with everyone involved going to prison. I agree with you. When Germany invaded Poland in 1939, they went to great lengths to fabricate a casus belli by faking an attack on a radio station near the border. The fact that we invaded Iraq without anything approaching the Third Reich's claim to legitimacy is disquieting. That we then proceeded to conduct ourselves in a manner contrary to a laundry list of treaties and accords - many of which we were not only signatories but authors - is simply appalling. If we were willing to throw Dick Nixon out of office for actions that are trivial by comparison, we should hold this crowd entirely responsible for completely violating their oaths of office. Not bloody likely, I'll admit, but well justified. Blue skies, Winsor

Torture is, and has always been, one of the least effective means of obtaining intelligence. Virtually all of the "confessions" obtained by the Inquisition were purely fiction. When you use torture, "truth" becomes whatever one can say to get the torture to stop - usually whatever the torturer wants to hear. The fact that we took a page from the Inquisition rulebook - it's not really torture if you don't draw blood, right? - decreases, rather than increases, the credibility of the policy. Emilio Douhet came up with the theory of strategic bombing that supposed that it would invariably break the will of the masses. In fact, very few things have proven better at pissing people off and stiffening their resolve than is flying overhead and dropping bombs on them. Similarly, the list of negative results from torture is extensive, and the list of benefits is nearly nil. Anyone tasked with interrogation who is witless enough to rely on torture is incompetent. While I have zero sympathy for islamists, that does not translate to the idea that being mean to them is an effective policy. Cunning has it all over raw cruelty, any way you cut it. Blue skies, Winsor Again, I just don't think you, or the average American, has a very good perspective on these people. People who have never seen extremists and never seen their culture, or seen the bodies of your American brother and sisters strew about, can easily say from behind a desk in a comfy chair that "torture" is wrong. There is just no perspective, all people seem to know is what the television tells them. I guess I am one of the few and far between with some true insight into the subject. Where has torture been proven to be the "Least effective means of obtaining intelligence"? Where do you get your information, because last time I checked, there is little to no information from any country on their torturing of prisoners. How can you conduct a study on something whose information is privileged? Also, I cant grasp the concept of Americans wanting other Americans put in jail for insurgent treatment. Its simply pathetic, THESE PEOPLE KILL YOUR SISTERS, MOMS, BROTHERS, DADS out of pure spite, how can you honestly sit there and accuse an American of war crimes? Why not point the finger at the extremists and their entire religion base, because thats where the true crime lies, brain washing people from birth to believe that Americans are scum and should die because of it. Perspective is a nasty bastard when the truth is given in black and white. :) -Evo You seem to confuse my results-oriented approach to intelligence gathering with somehow being naive, touchy-feely, and generally un-American. Again, to say that I am unsympathetic with our adversaries is an understatement, but I will not elaborate upon that here. Also, I am addressing neither the merits of our presence in Southwest Asia nor whether our hamhanded policies merit treatment as war crimes. It seems to be a big surprise to discover that our adversaries have all the charming qualities of feral predators. Anyone who had taken the time to peruse the history of the area over the past few millennia could have told you that. The intelligence organizations that have had the best track record of obtaining high-quality information do not use torture. This is not because they are inherently nice people - they would typically kill you as soon as look at you if it suited their needs - it is because the goal is to obtain information, rather than to extract vengeance. At least they keep vengeance part of the deal as a separate issue. In any event, such activities as waterboarding are indicative of incompetence on the part of the organization responsible for interrogation. Blue skies, Winsor

Torture is, and has always been, one of the least effective means of obtaining intelligence. Virtually all of the "confessions" obtained by the Inquisition were purely fiction. When you use torture, "truth" becomes whatever one can say to get the torture to stop - usually whatever the torturer wants to hear. The fact that we took a page from the Inquisition rulebook - it's not really torture if you don't draw blood, right? - decreases, rather than increases, the credibility of the policy. Emilio Douhet came up with the theory of strategic bombing that supposed that it would invariably break the will of the masses. In fact, very few things have proven better at pissing people off and stiffening their resolve than is flying overhead and dropping bombs on them. Similarly, the list of negative results from torture is extensive, and the list of benefits is nearly nil. Anyone tasked with interrogation who is witless enough to rely on torture is incompetent. While I have zero sympathy for islamists, that does not translate to the idea that being mean to them is an effective policy. Cunning has it all over raw cruelty, any way you cut it. Blue skies, Winsor

WWJD for a Klondike bar?

I considered the classifieds, but figured this forum was where people who know what is what, and how to safely use it, would be found. Also, my goal was more to make this stuff available to the part of the skydiving community that would actually value it than simply to list it "for sale." There are people who would drop the bucks for display or other purposes, and I have put too much time and effort into making it airworthy for that. Thus, I think this forum is the best place to effect a handoff. Blue skies, Winsor

I have been accumulating gear for decades now. I put it together into jumpable form, then store it in the loft until such time as the opportunity arises to air it out. With my schedule being what it is, I don't jump the half of it. In any event, this forum seems to be populated with people who might be able to put to good use my duplicate items - for vintage gear jumps or just for fun. I have the usual assortment of B-12/C-9 setups, with either 4-line release or modifications. I have a couple of bellywarts, to include a T-10R and a C-9 with quarter bag, kicker plate and MA-1. I have a UT-15 (Russian PC class canopy) and a couple of MK-1s. One of the PCs is in a Mini-System. If there is anyone that wants any of this - hopefully to put it to good use, since it is all in good working order - contact me. I will let it go for less than I have invested in it; I just don't want any of it turned into car covers or kids' playthings. Blue skies, Winsor

Abortion is a poor choice of birth control, but it works. In the first trimester a zygote is hardly a viable citizen, and termination of a pregnancy prior to the "quickening" was considered quite acceptable up until the mid 20th Century - by virtually all religious persuasions. Frankly, a vast array of social ills could be kept in check if abortion were kept safe and legal until the fetus can vote. Thank God for abortion! Blue skies, Winsor

Nonsense. Go to the store and see how many American goods there. Then make a conclusion - which formed a black hole in the world economy. Who made nuclear explosions in cities with civilians? Forgot? I assume you have a point, but have no idea what it might be.

Which, logically, indicates that you will take the word of the climatologist who publish their research in respected peer refereed scientific journals over the sophist rhetoric of Michael Crighton, since they are professionals in their field (and have subjected their work to a much higher standard of rigor), while Crighton wrote fiction professionally. Typically, the religious fervor comes from the same people who are in denial about reality. Utilizing the peer review process is pretty much the opposite of demonstrating religious fervor. If those who would have us believe that AGW is not real would make their case in respected scientific journals instead of in newspapers an blogs, then they would gain a tremendous amount of credibility. Until then, all of their rhetoric is nothing but an indication of the, as you say, religious fervor of the Deniers. Logic is not your long suit. I gave two options, and you chose to (inaccurately) draw conclusions about a third. The peer review process is not without flaws, and I don't "take the word" of much of anyone. I reserve the right to think for myself. No one but an adherent would use such a term as "Deniers" in context, and you have thereby discredited yourself further. What you think you know may or may not be true, but I can see no indication that you could tell the difference one way or another. Blue skies, Winsor

Chemical, Mechanical (Thermo/Fluid) and Electrical (Systems & Controls). I do not operate on the basis of "belief," one way or another, so we have a disconnect at the outset. My contention is that, regardless of the numbers that may be bandied about, A) the claims of causality are subject to very sloppy scientific backing and B) the claimed solution to the alleged problem is by no means the only, or even least destructive means of addressing the issue. Let's take an example of an inflammatory issue for comparison. Problem: "They have Weapons of Mass Destruction! We know! We have the receipts!" Solution: "We must Free them from Tyranny! It is the ONLY thing we can do!" Taking a step back, we may ask what's the big deal about WMDs? Israel, Pakistan, South Africa, India, France, Britain, Russia, China, North Korea and North Dakota all have them. In general, they are an economic black hole and security nightmare for nations that possess them, and they really don't provide much (if any) benefit. As far as starting a war to fix a perceived problem, that's been tried once or twice. An afternoon spent in the History section of the local library might have proven enlightening as to what results one may expect if doing so. I suggest that, by the same token that we might have been better served by taking a different approach to our differences with Mesopotamia, we could be better served by taking a different approach to the perceived threat to our global climate. Put another way, even if what is claimed to be a problem is a problem, what is put forth as the only solution is not necessarily the only solution, the best solution - or a solution at all. Whenever someone rattles off their version of Climate Change orthodoxy, I am underwhelmed by their clarity of thought as much as I am overwhelmed by the hysteria with which it is put forth. I do not claim to be right, I leave that to True Believers (tm). I do reserve the right to observe that the arguments in support of Climate Change and its remedies are ill conceived, badly formulated and smack of religious conviction. My support of sustainability is not the result of knee-jerk adherence to the liturgy of any political orthodoxy, and I will not pretend to respect conclusions drawn from any such ideology. Stupidity is not a virtue, the campaign for "self esteem" aside. Blue skies, Winsor

I didnt say anything about NASA or a conspiracy. I commented about the liar Hansen. Today, there is as much science that says you are wrong as there is that says you are correct in your positions. So, the debate should go on. The greenies dont want that. As data is looked at and gathered none as of yet has established man made CO2 as a culprit. I think we have already established that your salary depends on your not understanding what's going on here. Ad Hominem (circumstantial). I'll take a professional in a field over one possessed by religious fervor any time. Any merit there is to the "Climate Change" argument is outweighed by the junk science used to support it. Ecology is not pretty, and most of the people on the ecological bandwagon take a Walt Disney view of the subject. The temperature distribution on Planet Earth is a complex dynamic without human influence, and for us to claim that we are now the prime mover in the thermal characteristics of our environment is pushing it. Sure, we have a number of effects on climate, both micro and macro. Researchers have used various models to consider the effects of our influence on the earth's surface and its atmosphere, and there is hardly any consensus regarding which set of influences prevail. Where I have a problem is when people adhere to one model or another with religious fervor, discounting anything that might call into question the conclusions to which they cling. Are "Greenhouse Gases" a factor? Of course. Are they the be-all, end-all of the trend of our climate? Not bloody likely. If you focus on such concepts as "carbon footprint" and ignore such things as population, I call bullshit. If the population of this planet was a million humans, everyone could drive around all day in coal-fired locomotives and have less impact than a population of 10 billion who all live without electricity or the use of fire. The "climate change" issue is largely an emotional one. People with marginal to nonexistant technical credentials (the legislature) control the funding for research, and those who get the money and attention are deemed correct. NASA is one of the organizations that is funded by political criteria. We have some very real and immediate challenges to face, some of which are likely not surmountable. To be distracted by something as far down the list of importance and immediacy as "climate change" is sheer idiocy. As an aside, both W and Algore are certified morons, but, ironically enough, it is W who is a Green poster child. It is Algore who keeps the coal mines working overtime to keep his plantation in operation. Blue skies, Winsor

Not at all, it can be accounted for by the economics of grants, cherry picking data, creative extrapolation and poorly constructed tests of correlation. This may be news to you, but the global temperature average is not a single-input single-output system. This gives a nicely reasoned treatment of the subject. This provides a theory of Global Climate Change equally as valid as anything Algore could concieve - from someone with much better technical credentials. It also provides hope that the situation off the Horn of Africa might straighten things out. My issue is not with Global Warming or Climate Change per se; I just cannot abide Comic Book Science. I have spent enough time in technical academia to have personally witnessed Junk Science at its finest, in institutions with apparently impeccable credentials. Politically motivated research is about as reliable as faith-based science - any resemblance to the truth obtained thereby is purely coincidental. Blue skies, Winsor

"Universal Health Care" - like all buzzword issues, the quick fix is guaranteed to be "eine Schlimmverbesserung" (literally "bad improvement" - it doesn't translate well into English). As H. L. Mencken said, "for every complex problem there exists a solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong." There are a couple of flaws to the proposed solution to the "Health Care Crisis" that are immediately apparent to me. First, we have an organization that is almost completely comprised of Attorneys (the Legislature) that wishes to define the standards by which Physicians ply their trade. This is akin to having wolves establish the rules by which a flock of sheep shall be managed. Does anyone else note the smallest conflict of interest? The fact that medical care costs orders of magnitude more than its nominal value is largely due to legislation and litigation. The staggering cost of Malpractice Insurance is compounded by the resultant tendency to use every diagnostic in the book at every turn - to the detriment of clarity. Having to wade through a stack of test results that resembles a small phone book makes it hard to find any relevant data. so the quality of care becomes inversely proportional to its cost. The second thing that leaps out at me is the concept that, given a service that is too expensive for someone to afford, by providing a lesser amount of money to the most inefficient and ineffective bureaucracy one might imagine, this officious, ponderous and bloated bureaucracy will somehow provide the desired level of service. The law of unintended consequences applies to most novel tax schemes. In the case of "Universal Health Care," it is assumed that "the Rich" will pay for the whole thing. Unfortunately, most rich people did not get that way by being stupid, or by sitting around while people tried to separate them from their money. By and large, "the Rich" are the ones that can afford to leave at their leisure, and go somewhere that the Government is not trying to turn them into "the Poor." Witness Zimbabwe, where they found out that "the Rich," far from keeping "the Poor" down, were responsible for a better quality of life for a large part of the population than was possible after their removal; in fact, the overall health of the economy was contingent upon the efforts of "the Rich" in the first place. We somehow view the Legislature as Santa Claus, who knows whether we've been naughty or nice but never does anything about it, and will somehow come down the chimney with all sorts of gifts with no strings attached. We cherish this fantasy while willfully ignoring the fact that they screw up damned near everything they touch, and overlook the fact that not one in 100 has the background to understand the technical ramifications of the issues they seek to address - even if they actually had the time to read the details of the legislation itself. It is said that a people get the Government they deserve. If that is so, I suppose we must largely consist of morons who glory in mediocrity. As Ron White observed, "you can't fix stupid." Blue skies, Winsor

The link between Socialism and Fascism is rather fundamental. Benito Mussolini, to whom Fascism owes its identity, was a long time Socialist before morphing to Fascist. His father was an Anarchist, and he was in the higher echelons of the Italian Marxian Socialists, editing the Socialist Party newspaper "Avanti!" The NSDAP, the National Socialist German Workers Party, had some seriously Socialist core values. For better or worse, the Wehrmacht broke with the semi-Feudal Prussian military traditions; the likes of Erwin Rommel would not have had any chance of becoming a General, much less a Field Marshal, under the Imperial system. As an aside, Socialism as we know it is largely the result of Ashkenazi Jewish tradition. Survival of the Jewish community in Eastern Europe depended upon cohesive community in Shtetls and ghettos of various descriptions. Many of these values were codified by Ashkenazi Jews such as Karl Marx, and the European Communist movement was disproportionately Jewish. Similar to the morphing of Jewish tradition into Christianity by Europeans, the Socialism upon which the survival of the Jewish community was based showed up as a completely different animal when adopted by Europeans. In each case, the converts vllified the originators of the system of belief they adopted. The Inquisition and the Holocaust thus shared a similar heritage. In any event, it becomes problematic to use such sweeping and vague terms as "Liberal" and "Conservative," or "Fascist" and "Socialist." Depending on who you ask (to include "authorities" on each subject), you can get varying and/or contradictory definitions of what is what. Thus, most buzzwords approach meaningless in common usage, and they serve to achieve obfuscation, rather than clarity. Blue skies, Winsor

Dilemma, hell. Charge Bill with a host of felonies consistent with his actions. Run Adam through the shooting board in accordance with procedure. Cut Carl loose and cover all expenses related to shooting him. You can't object to someone else breaking laws to which you do not adhere. Blue skies, Winsor

No thanks. If being Jewish was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me.

fa ce tious [fuh-see-shuhs] –adjective 1. not meant to be taken seriously or literally: a facetious remark. 2. amusing; humorous. 3. lacking serious intent; concerned with something nonessential, amusing, or frivolous: a facetious person. Dude, get a clue.

Moderate? Arlen Sphincter? Shirley, you jest! There are many things wrong with the GOP. There are equally many things wrong with the Democratic party. Each is a national embarrassment of similar magnitude. The Senator from Pennsylvania is the kind of person who gives a bad name to whatever he is. The fact that he is affiliated with one party or another is immaterial. Blue skies, Winsor

That would depend entirely upon ones perspective. And thus the poll.

You make it too complicated. How about: A) Heroes. B) Assholes.

I'm not so sure I think that guns and marijuana are such a great combination -- isn't there some sort of law against GUI (gunning under the influence) Wendy W. Typically yes. Handling firearms while impaired - regardless of whether by prescription or OTC medication, alcohol or illicit drugs - is proscribed pretty much everywhere, as well it should be. Blue skies, Winsor

Be careful that you don't confuse the means of calculation with the means of presentation. Not a problem - I start by checking calculations. In the 1970s the same data were used to support the concept of global COOLING. Then they decided that the trends really said WARMING. Now they have thrown in the towel and simply say CHANGE. Kinda covers their bases with that one. AlGore does not have the credentials to take a Freshman course in the subject at - nor to be admitted to - a reputable institution of technical education. The idea of him "educating" anyone about much of anything is nothing short of ludicrous. Junk science is junk science, and the idea that there is enough substance in the "climate change" model to warrant much attention at all is absurd. We have problems that are orders of magnitude more compelling than anything the AlGore crowd can envision, and I will not waste the time to be polite to those who espouse nonsense. Blue skies, Winsor

so, by your logic we should just call every bankrupt poor person a 'banker' and give them lots and lots of money (nuclear fusion = possible energy source) I now realize my error in expecting coherence on your part. My bad. FWIW, "logic" is a clearly defined process, not just a word you throw in to round out a sentence. For the record, I think that any policy of handing out money is suspect at best, to include bank bailouts and Sally Struthers solving the underpopulation problem of starving regions. We already have nuclear fusion energy available in abundance, though the efficiency by which we convert said energy into a form usable by us is poor. The radiation from nuclear fusion is responsible for countless deaths every year, and the energy is in fact, the core basis for "climate change." Even with the reactor kept at a safe distance - in this case 93 million miles - nuclear fusion is not without its dangers. Blue skies, Winsor

so, sterilise the bankers (they took vast amounts of our money) have you heard of nuclear fusion? Okay, stay with me here. A bank is a legal entity. The bank hires people called bankers. The bank and the bankers are separate legal entities. The banks took the bailout funds, not the bankers. If the banks were allowed to fail, the bankers would either be self-sufficient or not. Odds are that they would have sufficient resources to do quite nicely. If the bankers were not self sufficient after the failure of the banks, and chose to seek public assistance, then yes, they should focus on things other than offspring. What the hell does nuclear fusion have to do with anything? Blue skies, Winsor