DrewEckhardt

Bud Light. That is truly tasteless.

Of course. That would be the Read The Bills Act http://www.downsizedc.org/page/rtba_legislation That won't happen since its not in the law makers best interest and we can't get enough legislators who disagree without abandoning our first-past-the-post electoral system and perhaps switching to proportional representation at a national level without geography based districts that render opposition spread throughout the states impotent. Legislation is about Congress creatures bringing home more dollars to their districts that the feds collected from the and/or their neighbors. It grows until there's enough in it for enough legislators to pass. It's about giving enough concessions to enough lobbyists that the politicians can afford to win their next election. Legislators need to pass big bloated bills (the HELP committee version of the bill I saw had only grown to 615 pages) to do that. That only matters if the local Republican or Democrat who opposes the representative believes differently and stands a chance of winning. With two nearly identical parties (think big government) being the inevitable result of first-past-the-post voting they probably think the same (although the marketing message may be different). With gerrymandered districts in most places the opposition isn't electable.

You're not. You only have to pay for it and play along.

Altimaster II on a chest or mudflap mount. It's readable in any body position, can be seen my people across from you in a belly formation, won't tangle with lines, and doesn't have batteries. You can replace the lens if you scratch it. Available for under $50 used. Has worked great for over forty years. I have over 1500 jumps on a pair - I broke the first one and bought the second used for less than the standard repair fee.

There was a time when women were chattel, property didn't pay for dinner, and a loving father would expect some evidence that a suitor was likely to continue paying for his vessel. That time has passed among enlightened people. There are two reasonable situations: 1. The relationship is a partnership, with costs split fairly. Maybe it's 50/50 or every other date for like career stage and obligations. Maybe there is economic asymmetry so the parties treat according to their means, with one springing for fine dining while the other one cooks or buys tacos. Maybe one person buys more when the other is unemployed. There's some reasonable effort to share. 2. The relationship is prostitution, with the party getting sex they otherwise wouldn't paying for dinner and non-sex entertainment which is legal and less frowned upon in more places than a straight cash transaction. In both cases common courtesy would be expected with thanks given. It's nice to be appreciated. It goes on until the situation changes, with a happy "ending" being a set of joint bank accounts for "our" money one of which is designated for incidental expenses. There's one unreasonable situation: Some one is mooching because they can. I have acquaintances who'll take whatever they can get while giving as little as they can. While I don't fault them for their logical actions, I don't associate with them more than necessary.

I've asked for 2050' on accuracy jumps since it that meant my container was unambiguously open before the BSR minimum. Where that didn't matter I've taken 10 second delays from 2000' since it's not that much more time on the aircraft and you might as well enjoy the free fall.

Use firefox with mozex so that you can edit text input using the editor of your choice.

1. The problem here is that when things (housing in over-hyped markets, unskilled labor) cost more than they're worth people find market alternatives (rent, checkout machines which each eliminate 3 clerks). Artificially inflating labor prices just encourages automation, moving jobs over-seas, and position consolidation all of which eliminate jobs. 2. While it might be nice to work just 40 hours a week, financial pressure from things like low cost labor overseas means that isn't a reality for many of us.

That doesn't cover the whole defence department. I still fail to see your point. We have been adding debt for 30 years so we should just keep doing it with no plan to offset cost? Hell no. Spending too much is going to take down the United States the same way it turned the Soviet Union into a non-entity. It's just that there's nothing we can do about it until we collapse under our own or external influences and have to rebuild. Two nearly identical parties are the inevitable result of first-past-the-post electoral systems. Unless that changes (to something like proportional representation at the national level which will not happen) we're not going to get dissenting fiscal conservatives like Libertarians in office who are opposed to deficit spending. Congress creatures are evaluated based on how much money the Feds collected from the Several States comes back to their their districts and how much legislation they pass. There's no limit to how big bills get with over 500 pages being reasonable for omnibus bills, they bounce around until there's something in it for everyone, and the politicians voting on the bills aren't even required to read the bills or make them available for public comment. Obviously changing this is not in the current ruling parties' self-interest. The net result is accelerating credit abuse ending in bankruptcy. Ok. Correlate how we're going to pay for the proposals. We're not. Cutting it to 1/10th the size would reduce it to a defensive force bigger than other first-world countries (where equipment is affordable and people valuable). With other first world countries covering their entire countries for less than just the feds per-capita Medicare and Medicaid spending it could cover health care if that was what you wanted. Or paying down the debt which would be better for the Nation. I didn't say it was acceptable. In fact, it's going to destroy the United States. Recognizing it now may help you plan for a soft landing some place else, off-the-grid, or whatever your preferred coping strategy will be. I like tropical Central American countries with 15% top tax brackets, $40,000 houses inland a ways, and $200K beach front property which I couldn't match for $1.4M around here away from the ocean.

The military budget is roughly $500B a year. During fiscal 2008 we spent $741B in the Department of Defense plus $52B separately for "Homeland Security" for a $793B total. We can cut $500B a year, still outspend #2, and still spend 7 times what another similar (slightly more land mass, a lot more coast line, first world labor costs, it's Canada eh ) country does. Your question is irrelevant. Nearly 30 years of history show that even with spending increases taxes will decrease on the low earning half (or more) of the population. That's my point and consequently why my question is relevant. History has provided a tax system that doesn't cover our expenses. If it doesn't cover the expenses now then it certainly won't support a universal healthcare plan. It doesn't matter. Including the Social Security Trust Fund and adjusting for inflation, debt has increased continuously since the 1970s. We've spent more than we took in for 30 years and will do the same for universal health care. Correlation does not imply causality. A majority of the population has supported deficit spending for 30 years. A majority of the population has allowed a minority to cover an increasing share of taxes for 30 years. None of that is likely to change unless something drastic happens, like a significant chunk of the real tax payers renouncing their citizenship and moving to a low-tax haven like Costa Rica (_Atlas Shrugged_ may be the most relevant literary reference) or the Chinese refusing to buy Treasury debt instruments. With the coming collision between first and third worlds and current economic correction I think both are becoming non-trivial probabilities. That has little relevance on whether Universal Health Care will pass; only how the timing interacts with how the political winds are blowing. The best you can hope for is minimal deficit + tax increases with benefit to the population being a bigger factor than benefit to the healthcare and insurance industries. I'm not saying that it's right. It is a political inevitability. It's not out of line with other things the government does in terms of spending, funding, or constitutional liberties. I could argue it's the only politically viable path to fix real problems with the American health care system (examples include individuals who've had insurance their entire life being dropped if they develop an expensive condition and tax treatment encouraging more expensive coverage).

You should be jumping a 170 now and could downsize to a 150 when you reach a hundred jumps (assuming you're comfortable making low flat turns and flare turns). While you shouldn't have any problems landing a 150 without any riser input into a wide open field you are likely to break bones when you have to avoid obstacles like other jumpers or unseen fences/power lines when landing out on the sunset load or decide to learn swooping because it isn't exciting enough. Canopies need to be sized for that landing out scenario which also involves down-wind landings in the only open area which happens to be a paved road. http://www.bigairsportz.com/pdf/bas-sizingchart.pdf With average levels of testosterone poisoning and reasonable coaching you'll go through 2-3 rigs and at least 6-7 canopies ending up at a point where you don't want to down size and the first container will last just 400 jumps which may not be 2 years. Regardless you'll only loose about $2 a jump on depreciation regardless of how many canopies and containers you go through provided you buy used (less if you do a good job shopping and selling). Combine that with depreciation and rental fees and "used" for everything as a package is nearly always the right first choice. used with a new harness (< $400 modification at the maker, less time than a new container) may be the correct second choice. If you insist on a new container I wouldn't buy a new Javelin. Other vendors have better construction with lower price tags. I wouldn't buy a new Mirage. You can get the same construction with a lower price tag. Try Wings, Icon, or Infinity. The Vector Sky Hook MARD is a fine idea. Bill's spectra reserve ripcord is a fine idea. But it's an expensive rig. Separately, used AADs are often over-priced. You need to look at how much you're going to be spending each month - divide months of life into the quantity purchase price plus inspections+batteries less trade-in allowance. Having seen a reserve without span-wise reinforcing tapes across all line attachments split into 2 and 5 cell pieces held together by the tail, I wouldn't buy a reserve without span-wise tapes if I intended to freefly or do AFF jumps which put me at higher risk for an over-speed deployment due to some one grabbing my reserve handle, a Cypres fire free flying, or a Cypres fire after getting knocked out. All PD reserves and Smart reserves were built this way. Tempos after 2001. Ravens in the current R-max series. Height alone isn't the correct metric to use for sizing used rigs since inseams vary radically - although I'm six inches taller than my wife she can still borrow my jeans. height - inseam - 20 inches is a rule of thumb that's close.

And it doesn't cover our budget now. Not by $1.7T. How are we going to add universal healthcare to that? 1. Replace our military which is more expensive than every other country's put together and constitutes the largest Socialist program in America with one sized for defense. You could save $5T over 10 years. 2. Get rid of inefficiencies in our system (malpractice, wage distortion due to subsidized student loans, market size limitations from what MDs can do where a nurse would be fine, billing overhead) that have us spending as much to insure 25% of our population (Medicare and Medicaid cover 80M people between them, making the US government the largest health insurer in the country) as other first world countries (like France) do on their entire population. This disregards what we're spending privately to insure 180 million Americans. I'd say "especially with the Republicans" but that's a distraction. Wealth transfer is the inevitable path to power in a democracy regardless of what you call your political party. With 50% of the income tax payers covering 3% of the taxes we're past the point of the masses voting for their bread and circuses. Some people argue that this doesn't tell the whole story due to other taxes but that's dishonest. Most of the Federal remainder is FICA, although with Social Security benefits dependent on contributions it's more a mandatory retirement program than a tax and a progressive one at that since the rate of return decreases with income and savings (indirectly due to benefits becoming taxable with other tax deferred savings). Medicare is just 2.9% on employee+employer shares and FUTA stops at a silly low wage base (about $7000 the last time my LLC taxed as an S-corp had me as an employee). Revisiting the "Republicans are no better" theme you can look at the ratio of income taxes to income share. Regan's reforms changed the AGI calculation so his increases in progressiveness are understated - sorry. I don't care enough to find numbers for Carter - my big deal here is that as a fiscal conservative neither party caters to you and when you choose the lesser of two evils it's probably a Democrat. I've listed the final full year a president was in office, since although taxes are due on April 15th for most people it's on a Jan 1 - December 31 fiscal year. Tax is a percentage of income taxes, income a percentage of AGI, ratio the simple ratio between the two, and change per year the average annual change in the ratio so we're fair to one and two term presidents. If I planned ahead I'd have done Income/Tax so positive meant more progressive but I didn't; feel free to do your own better looking arithmetic. Tables don't seem to look good here; sorry. President Year Tax Income Ratio Change per year Carter 1980 7.04 17.68 .39 Reagan 1988 5.72 14.93 .38 -.001 Bush 41 1992 5.06 14.92 .34 -.01 Clinton 2000 3.91 12.99 .30 -.005 Bush 43 2008 3.01 12.51 .24 -.0075 IIRC data on the top 10% meant Bush 43 was more progressive than Clinton but I don't care enough to pull that up - the point is that even Republicans are giving token payers more while charging them less. Raw data in convenient tables can be found here: http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html The CBO and IRS web-sites have the same thing but don't make it as easy to extract incriminating information. Your question is irrelevant. Nearly 30 years of history show that even with spending increases taxes will decrease on the low earning half (or more) of the population. Most tax payers are voters. 50% of tax payers contribute only 3% of the Federal income taxes with the share decreasing faster than their share of income. It's not hard to see where this is going.

Approach speed makes no difference in when the canopy stops flying, although it may give you more time to establish altitude below standing/running height which is then converted into deceleration. People who can't land gracefully straight in or even from half brakes and "need to swoop to get a good landing" don't know how to fly their parachutes unless they're under ragged out old F111 canopies that have lost their flare power.

Assuming that you're not overloading the canopy for your density altitude (At 5000 feet MSL on a hot summer day that would be over 1.9 for Samurais, 1.7 for Stilettos feet, 1.5 for Monarchs. Spectres are between Monarchs and Stilettos. Subtract about two sizes for sea level) and the control lines are long enough you've yet to get anywhere close to optimal on your control inputs. Most likely is that you aren't flying the canopy all the way to the ground and are putting weight on your feet too early. Set up for a swoop ending in the pea gravel, keep your feet off the ground, and keep adding input until the canopy won't support your weight. That's how slow you can go. There are two approaches once you've figured out how slow that is. The slowest landings on any terrain result when you approach so that you are below standing/walking height. Before the canopy runs out of lift you affect a pitch change which brings you back to ground level and halts its forward progress. You can nearly stop rather small parachutes this way. On smooth ground (divots will ruin your day here) you can gradually transfer weight to your feet so some weight is borne by the canopy even after it's going to slow to support your full weight. Slide to a stop. Obviously larger canopies make getting close to optimal less important for a comfortable and graceful landing, although there will be times when you land with a tail wind and it's a good skill to have. Getting it figured out before you have a really small parachute is a prudent move.

I know one girl who didn't buy her beer. Eventually the karma caught up with her in the form of two broken wrists. After that she bought her beer and suffered no additional injuries. More seriously, people are out at the drop-zone to have fun. Most people maximize fun by jumping with the same crowd that successfully builds formations and doesn't try to kill them. Your chances of being invited on loads with those people go up with the 23 introductions included in a case of beer. Many skydivers have extra gear lying around. Sometimes it's great gear they've out grown; sometimes it's just airworthy and not worth the effort to sell; or maybe it's just something that doesn't see a lot of use. It's nice to have a canopy to jump while yours is out for a re-line or a Cypres to own for the cost of the 8 year. Your chances of getting those deals go up with the 23 introductions included in a case of beer. Tunnel time is cheaper when bought in bulk. Your chances of getting 10 minutes out of some one's block plus free coaching gets better when you've used the 23 introductions in a case of beer. If you have moral problems with beer (the under-aged can send some one to the store for them, and have 24 introductions) solid food products are a nice substitute. A pizza joint executive did as well with his za as the average jumper did with their beer. Boulder Bob's fish-fry (trout caught that morning) was more memorable than a case of beer.

A 190 would be inappropriate prior to the 300 jump mark and not legal to jump in some countries with the original poster's experience level. 210 200 jumps. A 230 would be a fine starting point on which to learn skills like flat turns, flare turns, down-wind landings, and cross-wind landings since you need those skills to save your life (or at least bones). http://www.bigairsportz.com/pdf/bas-sizingchart.pdf

America has the most or second most progressive income tax out of the entire OECD. Looking at the ratio of tax percentage to income percentage in the top decile we're ahead of Ireland, Italy, Australia, the UK, New Zealand, Canada, the Netherlands, Czech Republic, Germany, Finland, the Slovak Republic, Luxembouorg, Belgium, Austria, Jorean, Poland, Japan, Norway, France, Denmark, Sweden, Iceland, and Switzerland. http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23856.html

Either it forgot its convergence information, you have a fault in the convergence circuits, or a convergence yoke has failed. In theory you could have a problem with the main horizontal + vertical deflection circuits but I think that's less likely. The Dallas non-volatile memory chips used on some (G90) Sony projectors have a 10 year lifetime after being activated. If you're not measuring from the build date you could be within that time window. Look at the convergence settings in Service Man mode. If they've been reset to 128 I'd blame the non-volatile memory. Otherwise you can probably isolate it to a specific board with a little help (try avsforum.com with the CRT board, or curtpalme's site) and swap it with a known working board from some one who does (Curt Palme?) does board level Sony repairs. If you're electronically inclined, the Sony service manuals are good as far as what the wave forms should look like at various points and you can probably isolate the failed chip with an oscilloscope + differential probe. I used to own a Sony 1292 9" projector which had color filtered C-elements and would resolve 1080p. The plasma now hanging in my bedroom isn't in the same league. Or maybe you mean a one-piece rear projection TV? That's not quite the same thing and I haven't a clue on what the settings should be or whether boards are easy to find.

We've had ours for over a year and a half now. It's still wonderful. You flush the toilet an extra time each day, drop a cartridge in every 30 days, rarely add new granules, and might fix a couple clogs during hairball season. Problems have included warranty replacement of the "processing unit" because it stopped recognizing the cartridge (the revenue model seems to emphasize consumable sales, with a non-volatile chip in the cartridge limiting uses like an ink-jet cartridge), immediate replacement of the replacement because it wouldn't dry, and a couple clogs during hairball season plus when my mom brought a fabric toy which Willard ate and passed pieces of (the impeller is plastic so while it breaks feces it doesn't cut anything, and the outlet hole in the impeller pump chamber is smaller than the hose). Warranty service is great. They ship out the new part and include a shipping label to get the broken piece back in the same box. Exactly. With one or more cats you want a cat genie. Disconnect it for weekend excursions if you're worried about a hairball clog.

Depends on the parachute and arrival angle. Coming in vertically you want your feet together in case the ground is uneven or you're a little fast and want to PLF. With a small parachute you want to be lower than you'd need to be for standing height so you're at walking altitude when you make a big pitch change at the end to kill your forward speed to land slower than you would if you flew the canopy until it lacked the lift to support you. I like to come in daffy with one toe dragging because it feels good, with one foot in front where it's easy to start walking (or faster with bad energy management). Where first point of contact matters I don't drag a toe.

Ozomatli concert.

Blind Pig IPA http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/863/22790 Current review by DwnTwnBwn: Smell: Taste: Mouth feel: I'd say it's medium carbonation; but I got mine in a bottle. Over-all: I drank my last four cases of Arrogant Bastard and both the cars are broken so getting more is inconvenient.

The manual is available online http://www.tridenthc.com/manual.pdf and gives enough information for an inexperienced rigger to pack it. Closing loop construction is detailed here: http://www.tridenthc.com/closingloop.htm http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_attachment;postatt_id=97972; A few tips on bulk distribution and making a good pilot chute crater will produce a good looking pack job on the second try. A search on dz.com will turn up such tips with some from riggermick who designed the Reflex. I own two Reflexes. My first reserve pack job was on one; and while better than some of what I'd seen my cypres bulge was bigger than I like. It opened nice and on heading anyways. Second reserve pack job was on one too and it looked good. Special tools needed are a 40" piece of spectra, T bodkin ($13 from Paragear), and soft bodkin (just a piece of spectra with a finger trapped loop in one end) if you have an AAD. Hemostats make it easier to get the free end of the closing loop under the cap; I think I paid $6 for my big set, but small needle nose pliers work in a pinch. He's an idiot and/or has an agenda. Some riggers don't like that the closing loop tension can be adjusted with the rig closed and sealed. Avoiding the hypothetical liability problems which go with that is an acceptable reason to not pack Reflexes, but not to declare them at their end of life.

it also fails to account for other federal payroll taxes, such as FICA. FICA is mostly a retirement plan, with disability and life insurance thrown in. Single earner low wage couples have 75% of their income replaced after retirement in exchange for just 6.2% before which isn't a bad deal. FUTA/SUTA are insurance policies for when people become unemployed. It's arguably inappropriate to call the premiums attached to these mandatory employee benefit plans "taxes".

Your forward speed will be like jumping a canopy 1-2 sizes smaller (the later in summer, where it's both high and hot)