DrewEckhardt

That's almost the case. While you needed a little income to get the checks, you didn't need any t ax liability. Even people paying nothing in taxes and getting refundable credits back were elligible.

The check was a tax cut, just paid in advance. - there's nothing wrong with the word "welfare", so LYING to satisfy some form of political semantics is just sad Tax cut = welfare? Let's get the words straight. The stimulus check this past year, like the one in 2001, was an advance payment to cover a tax cut that would be in effect when you filed the following April. The bottom two income quintiles have negative average income tax rates due to refundable credits. 1/3 of Americans workers aren't required to pay income tax. The subset of these people reporting at least $3000 in income were elligible for refunds; they just had to bother to file income tax returns. That's wellfare.

If I get a check I'll save it for when I have to pay for everyone's stimulus checks and bail-outs, whether directly in the form of increased taxes to cover debt payments or indirectly as the dollar is devalued.

The cutaway decision altitude is 1800 feet for all licensed skydivers. If you're not doing hop-and-pops (which give you 3.5 seconds to accelerate to 1800 feet with nothing out when you open at 2000 feet, and mean your canopy opens in less altitude) or jumping a fast (unacceptably so according to many skydivers) opening canopy that precludes a 2000' pack opening altitude. A 2000' hop-and-pop with a fast opening square canopy isn't a big deal. You'll be open by 1950 feet. 2000' with fast opening square canopy at terminal is getting closer, but may still have you fully open by 1800' with a somewhat higher than steady state descent rate. A 2000' hop and pop with a moderately soft opening canopy like a Stiletto will have you open pretty close to 1800' and you won't be going that fast if it doesn't. At 2000' at terminal with a slow opening canopy the slider will still be all the way up the lines when you go through 1800' at 90 MPH. This also ignores the 1800 foot decision altitude being predicated on canopies with low decent rates (you won't loose that much altitude while finding your handles and cutting away) while malfunctioning and little risk of a hard cutaway due to the slow spins and mechanical advantage offerred by big 3-rings.

You can play with other people without any contact involved. Send some one out the door and have them take a few seconds of delay before opening. Fly down to them, and then descend below them so they can play catch up. Repeat. Always turn right to avoid a collision. Don't get too close until you know what you're doing. Etc.

YYYY-MM-DD-HH-MM-SS should be the canonical date format, since it sorts without any special collating order. Leave off a few fields and it still sorts right.

With no wind, you adjust your pattern so that it looks less like a perfect rectangle. Maybe the turns from down wind to base and then onto final have a wider radius, or you fly slightly off the wind line (say 15 degrees making a 105 degree turn onto your base leg) to allow for a longer base leg. By the time you're on final approach you shouldn't have to do anything. After planeout you can pop up and kill your speed and land on target in a stall so you're a bit shorter than you otherwise would be but swoop accuracy comes almost entirely from what you do above 1000 feet. With wind more brakes down-wind and on final land you shorter. Going from some brakes to full flight will make a modern canopy go a little steeper. That would invite a collision from some one behind you.

Sure we do. I'm all into groovy. In the 90s I tried to get into the swing of things and be more modern and say things like "radical ninja" but it just didn't have the same groovy vibe.

In other words, with the brakes stowed the reserve will be going no faster than you would after stepping off a second story roof (20 feet). While usually not enough to kill people that's not going to be pleasant.

The good thing here is that Barack is smart. He's going to look at what's been historically "successful" without getting the Democrats thrown out. A ban on new sales is most likely, followed by a ban on all transfers, and then a ban on transfers plus registration of "offending/viable" guns like the "Street Sweeper" shotgun ban. That's not going to fly with 9mm, .223, and .45 ACP being obscenely popular. It's about priorities. I could spend $X,000 on guns this year. What do I buy first?

I've been looking into something like that, too. Not sure it's too high on my priority list, though, because the one's I like all tend to be bolt action (or single shot) and I don't think that's going to be banned. Even the semi-autos with 10 round mags aren't probably up for banning real soon. Gun bans are about the intersection of what scares ignorant people (All .50 BMGs fall into this category as guns with a mile range that go through armor) and what has limited use/support among "mainstream" sporting firearms owners (at a couple thousand for the gun, dollars a round, and even .223 staying supersonic out to 1000 yards with heavy VLD bullets .50 BMG qualifies). Based on historic precedent, I'd expect the next national gun bans being 1. "Questionable" imported guns. A "sporting purposes" test is applied to imports. BATF gets to define sporting purposes, with BATF being part of the Treasury Department of the Executive Branch serving at the president's pleasure. The 1989 import ban came from a Bush 41 executive order. The single stack mess is an executive order. Note that this also applies to domestic guns built from imported pieces due to the 10 components law. 2. Sport utility guns 3. Regular capacity magazines 4. .50 BMG of all persuasions even single shot. Maybe a blanket ban on rifle calibers bigger than .458" groove diameter so .458 Magnum and .460 Weatherby are OK for "sportsmen" The smartest thing here might be to redefine "Destructive Deviice" to relflect the groove dimaeter OR case volume beyond xx cubic centimeters. 5. Concealable hand guns (they have a _lot_ more proponents than big rifles, but see #1).

What exactly IS an assault rifle? Under the expired federal ban, the capacity to accept detachable magazines and two of several mostly cosmetic features including - A pistol grip - A flash hider or threaded barrel to accept one - A grenade launcher (could be a muzzle appliance that fits available rifle grenades) - A bayonett lug. Generally such rifles are black and scary looking. A semi-automic action, ability to accept a detachable magazines, and more than one of the aforementioned evil features. An AR15 pattern rifle with welded compensator and no bayonet lug was not classified as an "assault weapon" under the Clinton ban. Sure, although it's about political expediency not logic. The hunting rights association gets its knickers in less of a knot over "assault weapon" bans than prarie dog hunting. It still arguably cost the Democrats control of Contress. Calling hunting rifles "sniper rifles" and banning them will have most of the supporting senators gone in 6 years, president 4, and representatives 2. Yes, I make that mistake too.

I'd think of "assault weapons" and "high capacity" guns+magazines first, since they were what the Democrats were able to ban the last time they held the presidency and Congress and even the Republican majority haven't been too in favor of them. AR15 and lifetime supply of magazines. Great for target use with a heavy upper, great for social use out to 150 yards with a light one. Good ergonomics. Insanely accurate with a decent floating barrel. Great for girls. Instead of a cheek weld you just stick your nose on the charging handle. With cheap (Federal American Eagle 55gr) ammo as a mediocre shooter I've managed 194-8X on a 100 yard small bore target with iron sights (I never shot enough to learn to deal with wind, and the public range days stopped at 100 yards) You _need_ a decent AR15. (My favorite gun. In a storage facility) .308 semi-auto battle rifle of your choice and lifetime supply of magazines. While you can't beat the price of metric FAL magazines (I didn't pay $6 each for a case of 50) I'm not terribly enamored of guns where I can't tell how well I'm shooting. I have a fondness for Galils; folding stock, decent sites, and OK trigger. Who can't love a gun with a bottle opener built in? An HK G3 might be nice (accurate, good sights, still work with broken extractors). Maybe a .308 AR. I didn't get around to buying a .308 I was especially fond of before moving to the Peoples' Republik. Wide body pistol of your choice and lifetime supply of magazines. Get a Glock - decent trigger, good ergonomics, high capacity. I own a fat 1911 (Para-Ordnance 16-40) and it would be my second choice - it needs some work to be as accurate, but is definitely a neat gun (18+1 rounds of .40 S&W in its fat little belly). 10-22 and lifetime supply of high-capacity magazines. Very fun and cheap. Should have an AK and lifetime supply of magazines. They're cheap. Then I'd move onto other things, because Barack is both an urban bet-wetter (who tend to have a significant distaste for guns) and exceptionally charismatic (he stands a good chance of getting his legislation through). He might try the tricks with pistols and .50 BMGs that the schmucks have places like Kalifornia. A concealable pistol. The .380 Keltec has a decent trigger and is smaller than many .25 and .22s. I've been meaning to buy a HK P7M8 in 9mm - good dimensions, the barrel is fixed to the frame (it's gas retarded blow-back), single action trigger (squeeze cocker), they're great. High capacity shotgun. I don't know - maybe a short Mosberg 590 with the big magazine. .50 BMG. Before I got caught up in moving (to Kalifornia for now, yuck) I thought the Serbu guns with Walther barrels were nice and affordable. Ammo. Then (antique guns and class 3 are pretty much off the radar): Antique mauser rebarrelled in the modern 7.92x57JS caliber. Legally it's not a gun so there's no paperwork. Probably will have to be a model 92 instead of an early 98. In a free state I might think about a legal Mac (supressed) and supressed Ruger 10/22 and Mk II pistols. They're registered and could be confiscated. OTOH, with the illegal retention of NICS data and scanning of 4473 forms from gun shops that have gone out of business you probably have a lot of "registered" guns anyways.

Should be fine.

It might depend on where you jump. As long as you don't make a white leg strap (that was a mistake), use Scotch Guard, and wash it every 200-300 jumps it'll be fine if you jump someplace somewhat grassy (almost alpine desert, with a grass landing area and flood irrigation in surrounding farm fields. Wetter places like the Pacifc Northwest dust is not an issue) Especially if you're just looking at stills and video. White lines and canopies quickly turn brown in Eloy and I wouldn't be too surprised to see the same happen with cordura; although you might just have to wash it more often.

You have fine taste in colors, and didn't put much white in an area which people tend to fall on. While I have no plans to move away from black white and royal blue, if I ever have another custom rig made I'm not going to use white on a leg strap. Just black and white is a bit boring.

1 Timothy 4:1-4. It says that Vegetarians have given heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils.

When I was 12 or 13 they sent me into the wildnerness with a swiss army knife and canteen. I had to make a shelter and sleep in it. I don't remember if that was more or less fun than starting fires without matches or lighters. At 14 or 15 the neighbors trusted me to watch their kids while they were at work. At 15, the kid should be able to look after himself for 24 hours unless he has a criminal record you don't know about.

I've yet to fill out a tax form which had a section like 11. Total children: 12. Bastards born out of wedlock: 13. Dependants for tax purposes (subtract line 12 from 11): 14. Dependant deduction (multiply line 13 by $3300): Instead, they just list dependants without regard for marital status or relationships.

Indeed. The tax burden is shouldered rather heavily by them Huh? The blue state are where the money is at. The red states are where the spending is at. DC - $6.17 per $1 in federal taxes paid ND - $2.03 NM - $1.89 MS - $1.84 AK - $1.82 .... If we in the blue states seceeded, those red state loosers (in the War of Northern Agression) would have to get second jobs to pay the bills. Or maybe you're being sarcastic? It's so hard to tell on the internet.

The two "parties" both favor a strong federal government and aren't too far apart as the natural effects of a first-past-the-post electoral system dictate. They do market themselves differently, but it all comes down to how they vote when they can win where they're pretty much the same (the Republican majority did not repeal gun laws or pass significant anti-abortion legislation). There isn't any real polarization. At least not in the way things are marketed. Democrats are for the little guy, yet Clinton kicked people off welfare. Republicans are for the wealthy yet tax collections became more progressive under Bush 43. The whole Red vs. Blue thing is a distraction from the real issues aimed at people who think "Fooball! Good! Red team! No Blue team! Tastes great! Less Filling! ". Imagine an $80,000 standard deduction for married couples, 1% tax rate above that, and 7% marginal rate for the ultra-rich making $10M a year. That's where the income tax started (2007 dollars) with a real minimal government.

No. We've entered an age where the purpose of education is scoring well on standardized tests (which can't score on original thought, because that's too hard) and we have a post-literate population which gets their news from a small number of news sources with government granted monopolies they got by providing information that was most pleasant for the peoples' consumption. I've hung out with people who live in shacks with tin roofs, no windows, and no running water. I've had beers with NYPD officers, African runners, Amsterdam drug addicts, soldiers in the South African Special Forces who served during the fall of Apartheid, lawyers, energy healers, Jewish gun nuts, vegans, Mexican conscripts, industry people (DuPonts), holywood people, ren fair people, conservative christians, exotic dancers, etc. I can't keep track of where all the immigrants I've known came from. I've decided that people are pretty much the same (as smart, good, bad, etc) every where; we just get different opportunities and challenges. The poor countries now aren't much different than our country was historically. I've read my history books and watched film/video beyond the first televised presidential debates and see that we're getting less real information now (you should be able to find Nixon vs. Kennedy - it's an eye-opener) than then. We're no better than we were then or other countries are now. Even if we were, a lot of places the issues being decided don't fit on the ballots. They say we can vote to spend more on law enforcement, when the whole bill means prosecuting 14 year olds as adults (I didn't have good judgement until after becoming 18 in spite of having two good parents living in the same house), throwing people convicted of drug crimes out of public housing, denying bail to illegal immigrants (I can't come up with a good reason why my great grandparents (some penny-less after the potato famine) were OK and the newcomers aren't apart from my family being white and the new guys brown which doesn't sound American), allowing hearsay as evidence, and requiring a 75% super majority for future changes in the law (California Proposition 6). Reading the ballot isn't enough. Watching and listening to the media isn't enough. Reading the current law and proposed changes is but few people have time and motivation for that. Things get worse once you add indirection to the process. Most people won't throw out their legislators because they voted for or against a bill which bloated to 19,000 lines before passing. The only hope for salvation is getting away from this madness and agreeing on principles or letting the people who care vote electronically on issues of interest. Principles would mean things like "Should we be able to convict people on evidence that may have been planted?" "Can we torture suspected criminals to extract information?" "Should we seize suspected criminals' property without a trial?" with specifics like "Lots of evil people infect computers with viruses which download illegal pornography. We have no evidence that Joe tried to acquire that pornography but we found it on his computer and he must be guilty". Obviously that sort of power shift isn't going to happen until after something really bad does.

The United States was created as a loose confederation of the Several States who had banded together for the purposes of trade (like the EU) and common defense (like NATO). The Federal government was intended to do little, being required to meet only once a year starting on December First. It was important to represent those states interests, regardless of whether their economies were based on farming or manufacturing and trade and how many people settled there. The Electoral College made that work. Now things not dividing on clean geographic boundaries is a reason to re-evaluate the system not discard it. The original system allowed for minority representation in government. That was a good idea. Now that things are more complex, it needs to grow instead of being abandoned. As a geeky Grizzly Adams sort of guy, regardless of where I live at the time I share more with my nerdy brethren along the metaphorical Bay Area to Boston axis and Rocky Mountain dudes than the locals. My vote doesn't count for much whether cast in California where the "liberals" wet their pants about guns or Colorado where they cling to their guns and religion (it's a cliche about one minor aspect of politics, although this is one short post on a recreational web site and not a dissertataion) I'd like to see actual proportional representation. When up to 15% of the population self-identify as libertarian, it would be nice seeing 1 of a 7 member executive branch, 15 senators, and 65 representatives in that camp. The electoral college is an anachronism which helps us in the few places where differences between more and less populous states correspond to party preferences in a system where the two are essentially the same. Getting rid of it will just move us farther down the path of two indistinguishable political parties. Fixing the underlying problem where political minorities are insufficiently represented will actually make a difference. People claim that there are differences between Republicans and Democrats but I disagree. The Republicans used to have the reputation of being for smaller government, yet they were responsible for the largest discretionary non-defense spending increases in history. The Democrats used to have the reputation of being for wealth-transfer and tax-and-spend, yet were responsible for welfare reform and a budget balanced under accepted accounting rules. The Republicans have a reputation for favoring the wealthy yet are responsible for tax collections becoming more progressive. Republicans call Democrats Socialists yet socialize banking. The Republicans claim to be against abortion and for guns, yet they don't pass any real anti-abortion or pro-gun legislation (both the 1986 and 1989 bans were passed under Republican leadership). Based on the laws passed the two are the same. The popular vote for president has differed by less than 2% in the prior couple elections (the current one being an exception, due to unusually bad economic times and an especially bad president). There's little difference because the two are the same. Fixing things to satisfy the intent of the Electoral College and legislative apportionment will go a long ways to fixing our current problems.

No. I got fed up with all the distracting animation in advertisements and installed an ad-blocker plugin. Now I have an ad-free dz.com.

It did, but if it refused all advertising it didn't agree with, there would be a different controversy. Frankly it doesn't seem like the most effective form of advertising, given its one state concern. Google is aware of where IP addresses are located geographically, so those of us who live in California are much more likely to see those ads. They do get it wrong sometimes. I was amused when I moved a few miles from their headquarters in Mountain View and google.com thought I was in Germany,.