champu

Sweet! In the last four years their estimate has gotten worse by four years. In a manner of speaking kallend was correct, this isn't risk, this is certain abject failure.

If you're looking for area swaths of weather/fire/ocean plumes and stuff like that you can check out the MODIS website (Terra and Aqua together image the entire Earth twice a day at 250m resolution): http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime They also have a gallery where they pick out some specific events here: http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/gallery/

Nonsense on stilts.

It's entirely possible for what someone intended to convey and the implications of what he or she wrote to be different without malfeasance on the part of the reader. A Rorschach test, this post was not. Indeed, in this particular venue, the better money in any misunderstanding is on the writer having caused it intentionally.

I have a feline he was up to something no good.

In general if you're reading an article about an event, and you find yourself reading about other incidents that the author wants you to be thinking about by the second paragraph, you've got some bias issues going on. Calm down. Get done telling me what you know about this event, then (if you must) go ahead and mention some past events you'd like to compare it to. Jumping around all scatterbrained because you're way too excited that you have another data point you think confirms your world view is annoying. This goes for whatever the latest thing some Muslim did, or an asshat shooting people, or skydiving incidents, or an air strike in Yemen, or whatever.

I would rather base our laws on known data, as opposed to basing them on "There's no telling." Voter ID law is based on a solution in search of a problem. I'm inclined to agree with this sentiment. I too would have no problem showing an ID or a voter registration card, but I'm always skeptical of laws set out to stop a problem if it's unclear if the cure is worse than the disease. "Oh well, doesn't affect me" is a crappy litmus test for supporting a new law.

I have a fire safe with a 16TB NAS in it that all my computers back up to, so no worries on data. I also keep all my old miniDV tapes, log books, and a bin with old greeting cards and keepsakes I've hung on to in there. Everything else is insured, but I have a piece of artwork that would be difficult to replace so I'd probably grab that.

I think your response is 25% us disagreeing and 75% me perhaps not having clearly said what I meant. What I meant was that when you're inside your car looking out at other cars, there's a tendency to see them as lifeless objects/obstacles. The humanity of the other drivers can easily become lost on you. That's what I meant by, "subconsciously strips the people around you of their humanity." It doesn't effect the other people, it affects how you see them. Insofar as a person buries their nose in their smart phone all day texting, reading facebook, twitter, sport scores, whatever, they are putting up that same kind of barrier. People around them just become moving obstacles. I'm assuming you've encountered people walking down the street reading/typing on a smartphone. If your phone is in your pocket, no. Just like simply owning a car doesn't change your behavior. This is where I was very much not clear, I should have said "Using your smart phone all the time" rather than "Having your smart phone on you all the time." Again, I didn't mean to say that this actually does anything to other people, I'm saying it changes the way you will see/evaluate/treat others. /edited: I apparently can't spell "obstacles."

There are too many people today that are too self-absorbed to even notice they're being rude to you. And everyone being constantly "plugged-in" is only going to make it worse over time*. Having your smart phone on you all the time creates that same anti-social barrier you get when you're inside the glass and steel of an automobile driving. It subconsciously strips the people around you of their humanity. I'll boldly state it does this to a greater extent than carrying a handgun on you does. (yes, obviously with different consequences if things go pear-shaped.) This incident reminds me of the Louis CK bit when he's talking about letting kids watch TV all day. He said, "If you don't think it's bad to let kids watch TV all day, try this. Sneak up behind them while they're watching it and just turn it off and see how they react." "Hey! MEEEH! WAH!" "You think that's healthy?!?" This ex-cop was known for bringing more SWAT-like behavior to the day-to-day police force, and responded here how police are more and more likely to respond as time goes on. And the idiot responded as more and more people are going to when asked to interact with people in their immediate vicinity. * he complained... on the internet...

billvon and kallend (and many others here, but specifically them 'cause I know you rag on them a lot about this) haven't expressed an interest in banning assaulty weapons, at least not on this site. I doubt either of them could readily tell you if any given person in government representing them was actively trying to, because they probably don't care, but that's par for the course for most people in America and part of a problem that's bigger than firearms regulations.

If either of the men involved had the kind of sense to find humor in this incident when reading about it then none of us would be reading about it.

Why not? Sure, they would be handy when we war to war with China or whoever is next in line.Derk-a-Dere I'm not entirely sure where to start with this thread... At some point we crossed a threshold where the level of discussion on posted links in speakers corner is below that of the comments at the bottom of the linked article/video.

It is true... you can, however, win the competition to see who jumps the largest number of GoPros. Right now I think GoogleJeb and GoogleJeff are the front runners.

Does using the term "marriage" to describe a union automatically include people in your church community and give you jurisdiction to intervene? Interesting question. I have no jurisdiction to intervene but my pastor has indicated he will take action. I do not know what he has decided he will do. He has stated that the world church government of our denomination will revoke the license of any minister who performs a homosexual marriage. It really is not a big concern in my community. We are more focused on the day to day survival necessities, leading people to Jesus Christ and planning our new church development. We have the property, twenty acres, and need to build the structure. If your pastor acts on behalf of the church community then he acts on behalf of its members. It pays to pay attention to those who do things claiming they have your support. If, in fact, they don't... say something. (that's a general comment.) The motive behind me asking the question was the idea you bring up of one's church community, and it being the last boundary in your list beyond which you observe "folks are free." I think a healthy understanding of what constitutes one's church community, if theyone chooses to have one, and what does not is very important. That is, more important than people being free to pursue sexual outlets if they are outside your church community, theypeople are free to declare themselves completely and entirely outside of your church community and any opinions, standards, regulations, or restrictions thereof.

I would do a bunch of jumps with it in an inside pocket using it just as a logger before mounting it externally to see what the data looks like. Also, you could consider asking around your dropzone if someone has an altimeter calibration chamber (or you could make one, basically just a vacuum chamber with a see through side.) Toss it in there with a "real" altimeter and throw it through some loops and see if it stays accurate. But always be wary of being too clever for your own good with 50 jumps. And I mean that in the least condescending way possible. I remember having 50 jumps and solving problems that didn't exist, like making my own plexiglass mudflap altimeter mount. And regarding helmets, it's generally good to have specific-purpose helmets. I have a full face skydiving helmet, an open face, a camera helmet, a helmet for BASE, one for bicycling, and another one for snowboarding. They all have design features specific to their intended use (unlike, say, the four motorcycle helmets you have to match the paint scheme on each of your bikes )

Does using the term "marriage" to describe a union automatically include people in your church community and give you jurisdiction to intervene? the idea that a group has a moral imperative to intervene in the personal lives of individuals is a bit socialistic and overbearing IMO. It's my main issue with the left, and the far right. Stop skipping ahead dammit.

Does using the term "marriage" to describe a union automatically include people in your church community and give you jurisdiction to intervene?

It's not about changing the location of the brake settings in the line, that would be if the guide rings were some weird location relative to the top of the risers. What this thread was talking about is the distance between the bottom of your toggle stroke and the top of the risers. Your overall brake line length should take this into account so you don't stall your canopy at your shoulders or still have the tail pinched down with your arms all the way up.

E = -1/2 GMm/a a = (r1+r2)/2 E_elipse_orbit / E_circle_orbit = a_circle_orbit / a_elipse_orbit = (in this case) 0.8228 ...so it's about 82% of the way there in terms of total energy. You do have to use some energy to eventually lower the apoapsis (which is more or less "wasted"), but this is less than the energy saved by performing a plane change from 22.5 deg to 0 deg at 90,000 km vs performing it at 36,000 km.

Hell, I don't even care for the Neptune because I think something being both a visual and an audible is silly.

I know what you mean, but I think you said this the wrong way around. And to Wendy's point, yes I've been a vocal critic of the "OA" portion of "OASDI", and even if I stopped contributing to my 401k today it would still likely be worth over $1M (in CY$) by the time I retire. Paying social security tax and getting social security payments when you retire has an abysmally terrible return... You may be better off playing a slot machine.

Huh? What are you supposed to say when someone sneezes? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responses_to_sneezing Across the languages is a smattering of statements in regards to the person's health and/or gods. Curious creatures, people. I generally say "Salud" because it's shorter than saying "Gesundheit" and I'm not going to say "bless you" or "God bless you" because those are kinda stupid things for an atheist to say.

Probably because they didn't arrive there after a philosophical journey. As I said in post #155, I think the biggest reason we execute people is because it's a tradition.

Every item you sited is directly connected to defense, an articulated responsibility of the federal government. If there is spin-off all the better. But that is a far cry from dumping a half a billion dollars down the pockets of Solyndra executives. Energy is a pretty serious defense concern. Also, I parse your last statement as, "Those things that worked out well are a far cry from something that did not" which, while true, is not very interesting.