champu

Right, and I know it varies state to state as well, hence my comment was just my opinion. In the locked glovebox / trunk / case I would consider definitely not "carrying." In a holster on you? Definitely "carrying." In a holster / stowed location in the vehicle that's easily/quickly accessible from the driver's seat and you're in the drivers seat? Eh... materially no different from "carrying."

Drunk with car - clear danger to society. Drunk with gun - no problem. Only in America. What's that you like to say about our opinions on the internet versus the opinions of the court system? That said, having a (presumably loaded) handgun tucked in next to your seat while driving does cross over from "merely having a gun in the car" to "carrying concealed" in my opinion. But I wasn't at the traffic stop and I wasn't involved in the court proceedings. You'll note the specific detail of the gun's location was not presented as a quotation in the article, so that's the author's description of where the gun was. If there's a gun somewhere in one's house and a car in one's garage and that person is at home and drunk, I don't consider either to be a "threat to the community" because he or she is not operating either of them. If it is possible for there to be a gun in one's car that they are not legally considered to be operating, and I believe that's true, then it is possible for one to merely be driving drunk and to be cited as such, even though there is also a gun in the car. That's what the court decided in this case. I don't like the idea of looking at a situation like this and concluding, "Well, if only we'd aggressively thrown the book at this guy he wouldn't have the right to have a gun anymore." DAs don't need any more encouragement to routinely throw the book at everyone they come across.

If this forum had an ignore user function I don't think it would change the dynamic very much.

Anyone here able to translate this into English? What I see here is the ramblings of a crazy person whose words were translated into 5 different languages and then back into English. I suspect that was the intent - you can't argue with crazy. It's not that it isn't English or that it's undecipherable. The conversation just reads like you're arguing with kallend's original post on the phone and SkyDekker is in the room with you only hearing your half of the discussion and heckling you.

As I've pointed out before kallend's favorite hobby here is not having said things. In this case, however, He's made a string of posts that make clear he is talking about guns being stolen from legal owners because they were careless / negligent and then those guns subsequently being used in crimes.

No, the problem is the people proposing these erosions (Feinstein, HCI, etc) are all on record for their wish to eliminate all private weapons, and of their intent to do it incrementally if necessary. Sorry, Jeanne, I understand your take on it, but I lean more towards Kelp's read on it. The anti's are MUCH more fanatical and extreme and unreasonable about the issue. Makes it extremely difficult to find a true solution when they are ridiculous and uncompromising. I'm fairly outspoken here on firearms issues, as most have probably observed, and I will acknowledge it is through the lens of someone who lives in California where "compromise" means only half of all the new gun restrictions that are proposed get passed and signed into law every year. If you live somewhere where you write your representatives and get as ignored as I do but in the other direction, I empathize with you.

The problem I have, as I stated before in another thread, with what I'll call the "California AB 1014 Solution" is that if a person is crazy and dangerous enough to issue a court order to go and confiscate all their firearms, then you better do more than just confiscate their firearms. I don't believe there's some "perfect amount of crazy" where taking any guns they might have access to and calling it a day makes sense. If you make any action that easy there are going to be a lot of false positives, and I think everybody knows it. The idea of "everyone needs to be prepared to get locked up with a minimal amount of evidence that they might do something wrong" is unpalatable but it's easy to sell "firearm owners need to be prepared to have their property confiscated given a minimal amount of evidence they might do something wrong and be forced to get a lawyer to get it back" Because enough people don't own guns and couldn't care less about those that do. To me this starts to feel similar to the civil forfeiture situations where you have law enforcement agencies suing a pile of cash and taking it because they don't have a winnable case against the person.

So people go bird hunting and or clay shooting in that area and the guy knows his target audience, so what? If they ran background checks on winners it's really no different than any other "get out and vote" effort. The prominent photo of the woman standing there with her finger on the trigger solicits a slow head shake though.

One of them has his hands on the harness of his buddy and as it turns out strips only one cable out of the cutaway housing of his buddy. Of course it was the RSL side cable. ... d) don't do that. I hadn't heard about that incident. It sounds similar to this one and both sound like really good reasons not to take MLW grips out the door. In the situation you describe, since he had a skyhook/RSL and since he didn't notice what had happened, yes, a Collins' Lanyard made a bad situation better. I completely understand the function and reasoning behind including a Collins' Lanyard but I think it has about the same small chance of helping as it does hurting, and I think avoiding the situations where it would help is an easier, or at least more straight-forward, thing to do. No argument there. My concern is not with the skyhook itself, I think they're a great addition to the sport.

Updated results for me are 0.50 and -3.38 respectively.

Know about the 50Hz/60Hz difference but never thought about why. What's the historical story behind the two different grid setups? An American company and a European company independently chose almost the same answer for roughly the same reasons and thus the two standards were born. There are advantages and disadvantages to using higher or lower frequencies for AC grids, but there's really not a big enough difference between 50 Hz and 60 Hz to get hung up on either.

He was taken down with mace. Seems as if Wayne is wrong. A good guy doesn't necessarily have to have a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun. Wayne's "the only thing..." quote was idiotic as is just about everything people like deLeon say regarding firearms when someone puts a microphone in front of them. Public figures in the gun control debate have become the polarized strawmen that should really only exist in YouTube comments, but instead people are getting behind them.

They can have our 60 Hz grid when they pry it from our cold dead hands.

APAS is the international standard for manned space flight; isn't it? "The nice thing about standards is that you have so many to choose from." -Andrew Tanenbaum Dragon v1, Cygnus, HTV, and the US orbital segment modules use CBM. STS, Dragon v2, and Zarya, use APAS (as did Apollo-Soyuz and Shuttle-Mir) ATV, Progress, and Soyuz use a Salyut probe and drogue Most of the Russian segment is held together with a hybrid of the APAS and Salyut systems The Chinese use a home-brewed APAS look-alike on their spacecraft. To make matters worse, NASA cooked up another "standard" called NDS which will result in stacked adapters in two locations on the ISS (CBM to APAS then APAS to NDS)

Hey Ryan, will you please explain what you mean by "potential failure modes it creates"? Scenarios where the Collins' lanyard is loaded by anything other than the right main riser leaving the rig... http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3458726#3458726 http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4115298#4115298 I want to be clear that I don't think the Collins' lanyard is a primary failure mechanism; if it's getting pulled the wrong way, you're already having a bad day. But if you're worried about a situation where your reserve container is open while you're half attached to your main then your solution ought to not add another way for you to end up with your reserve container open while you're half attached to your main. If you a) use cutaway cables that are the correct length so that the non-rsl side releases first when you cut away, b) use risers that were sewn correctly and are not dogged out and c) assemble your three-rings correctly, then you have a vanishingly small chance of needing a Collins' lanyard.

By the way, how did it occur to you that Russian roulette is dangerous? Is there a regulatory entity you turned to for their opinion on the matter?

Why do you have to be such a lockstep liberal Bill?

I read the text of the article and (disclaimer: I'm an electrical engineer involved in the architecture and implementation of very high-speed wireless communication systems and not a quantum physicist) I find this experiement to be interesting from a potential security point of view, but not as a step closer to faster than light communication. Apparently, experiments to date have methods to a) get the quantum states of two distant particles entangled, b) impart a state on one of the partcles, c) measure the state of that particle, d) transmit some of the information about the measured state to where the second partical is classically, and e) use the classically receieved state information and a local determination to deduce the actual receieved state and confirm that teleportation happened. What this experiement seems to have focused on is the decoupling of a) from c) and e). Along the way they also demonstrated improved/more reliable methods for performing a), b), and c). What this was not was a decoupling of d) from e). Unless I'm fundamentally misunderstanding something here, which is entirely possible.

Screw that. Teleport my Starbucks to me, and skip the office. It would probably be easier to save a copy locally and reproduce it when you wanted it... assuming you always get the same thing.

Which is part of my problem with the new proposed AB1014 a few posts up. Ignoring, for a moment, the "court discretion" standard of evidence for issuing one of these orders and people weighing as much as a duck... we'll fast forward to where the police have the order in hand. Consider that the person the order is being served against is either a) not actually an immediate danger to his or herself or others or b) actually an immediate danger to his or herself or others. Either way, what could possibly go wrong? "Hey Elliot, we heard you're going through some troubles and you feel isolated and alone and the world is against you and that sucks and all but what's important now is we make sure we take any guns you might have and then leave..."

Skydiving and BABC jumping are not the same sport.

Speaking of new gun control laws...

for reference... http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3869475;#3869475

Does PD sell soap-on-a-rope with 300 Orange Vectran? If they don't offer it with 300 Orange Vectran I'm not interested.

Eh, just take a look at the child safety lock when you get in and make sure it's disengaged... you'll be fine. By the way, I'm a fan of the "let the DZO look into their potential employees and make their own decisions about their business" approach in this matter. The rest of my posts are just me being my usual broken record self, lamenting the spread of "someone oughta..." syndrome.