champu

Echoing people's advice to not buy new for your first gear, and take your time regardless of what you end up deciding. I downsized to about a 1.2:1 wing loading pretty quickly, but then I stayed there for about 1000 jumps. I think you can just as easily stay at a 1:1 or 1.1:1 for that same 1000 jumps and still enjoy yourself and learn. Almost 10 years and 3000 jumps in at 2.1:1 and having jumped smaller canopies a handful of times I can honestly say I'll never downsize beyond 90 sq ft.

I'm fairly up to date on the conflicts in the ME, this was just some terminology confusion. I'm not used to hearing weapons described as "smart" simply for having any guidance system at all. On one hand I suppose it's all relative, on the other, it kinda misses the point of the moniker.

You keep referring to "smart weapons" and their "potential to kill hundreds" and be "devastating" and I'm curious what you're on about. ...not sure if you're being sarcastic.

This post is a great example of one of the ways in which politics has gotten so screwed up in this country, and why I think it's ridiculous that people put candidate bumper stickers on their car. It's virtually impossible to not be disgusted by every candidate. But even going beyond what any one candidate actually supports, the things people group together under one political epithet are so goofy, of course everyone thinks "the other side" are nuts.

Life does not begin or end with each conception, pregnancy, abortion, miscarriage, or death. Life goes on despite all of that. If you want to argue about when a life (i.e. a person, a citizen with rights, etc.) begins, then go right ahead. But since this whole debate is an exercise of precision in language, I think a correct starting point is in order. Back to the subject of the thread though... if the intention is for physicians to let the woman know that abortion is an emotional and hormonal mind-fuck, and that they strongly recommend psychological/grief counseling should they choose to go through with it, then I really don't have a problem with this law. But, and my religious right cynicism alarms are going off pretty strongly here, if the intention is to guilt or filibuster a woman into YOUR decision FOR HER from however many hundreds or thousands of miles away you happen to be (both literally and figuratively), then this is disgusting, and supporters on those grounds should be ashamed of themselves and their underhanded ways.

It's good to hear the people of South Dakota are fighting against prospective mothers being coerced into their decision on abortion by making their doctor tell them that they're terminating the life of a whole separate, unique, living human being, that people who do are more likely to kill themselves as a result, and to come back three days later.

I was -13 (to the day) didn't I meet you at Snore? If so you were not 13 in 1969 Indeed, note negative sign.

I was -13 (to the day)

There's about 8 seconds between impact and when you can hear him yell back up to the camera guy. I don't speak Russian but I would imagine, "I'm okay!" (relatively speaking of course) would be the standard fare.

I wouldn't change anything, but that's not the same as saying I don't regret anything. It may sound counterintuitive, but your statement that nobody lives the perfect life is kinda the point. If you go back and change one thing you end up having to change something else, and before long you're Phil Conners in Groundhog's day trying to get yourself and Rita to land in the snow in just the right way after the snow fight. It is interesting (however philosophically trivial it may be) that when asked the question of what one thing a person would change about their situation that some people look at what they'd change about their past and some people state what they'd like to be able to do in the future. /edited to add (speaking of changing things): ...what Lisa said

Fun Fact: The sky surfer in that scene is a tandem instructor at Skydive Elsinore.

Too often, doing shit does involve others. If, my horse throws me, kicks me or bites me in the ass, only involves me. If, you can guarantee me that folks doing dope doesn't hurt someone else then, git after it! He needs to be more careful about his language. It's not whether it hurts others, it's whether it infringes upon the rights of others. People don't have a right to "not be hurt" in the general sense of the term. People have a right to not have you run them down and trample them with your horse, but they don't have a right to feel a little bit safer knowing that can't happen because horses are banned. Similarly, people have a right to not catch a bullet fired through a wall of a neighbors home because a deal over illegal drugs went bad, but they don't have a right to feel a little bit better thinking that can't happen because drugs are illegal. The [ironic] difference here is, it's the law that sets up the infringements of the rights of others that result from the use of the drug... all emotional hurt aside.

150 grand is only part of what she's seeking, that doesn't include money she feels she's owed for "pain and suffering." An amount the article doesn't mention. As noted in the article the home-owners insurance the parents carry covers the count of "negligent and careless" behavior and if that's all the plaintiffs were alleging then the insurance company would likely settle out of court and we wouldn't be reading a news article about it. But the plantiffs also are claiming it was "intentional and reckless" behavior and that the husband lost "services, society and consortium" of his wife. Home-owners insurance doesn't cover those types of accusations.

It reminds me of The Most Tactical AR15 Ever

That apartment is your 'home'. You have, if I'm not mistaken, entitled to the same rights as a home owner. Seems to me, if you have a grow permit, there's nothing the landlord can do. Ah, sounds like I was latching onto a bit of language in your original suggestion that wasn't really what you meant. Fair enough then.

I was more conservative at 20 and slowly becoming liberal as I age into my forties. Crap, I'm going to be a heartless idiot. And I though the whole "gateway drug" concept has long been known as disproven and not even considered as an argument. But I rarely read other anti-legalization pieces. A lot of them disappoint me. Maybe you were wise beyond your years and you've just grown into it. My point was simply that "crumpy old people" never go extinct.

Why, would cities be a problem? No back yard? The permit would be for personal use. Get a large planter pot, put some dirt in the pot, plant the seeds in the dirt and water as necessary. Maybe a little Miracle Gro to speed-up the process. So, what's the problem. Unless, your consumption is greater than a couple plants. Chuck It'd be awfully hard to grow "on your own property" if you don't own property. Shoot, people have roof-top gardens in the big cities. Planter boxes with flowers, potted plants and so-on. All it takes is a little imagination. I knew a guy who raised pot in his house till the beetles got to it and ate all his plants! Chuck Oh I've grown tomatoes, peppers, cucumbers, herbs, etc. in potted plants on my patio back when I rented apartments, that wasn't my point. My point is I was renting the apartments.

Why, would cities be a problem? No back yard? The permit would be for personal use. Get a large planter pot, put some dirt in the pot, plant the seeds in the dirt and water as necessary. Maybe a little Miracle Gro to speed-up the process. So, what's the problem. Unless, your consumption is greater than a couple plants. Chuck It'd be awfully hard to grow "on your own property" if you don't own property.

How does the saying go? If you're not liberal when you're 20 then you have no heart and if you're not conservative when you're 50 then you have no brain. I think the handful of people in the thread still arguing against legalization are having a hard time distinguishing behaviors attributable to using the drug and behaviors attributable to obtaining anything illegal on a regular basis. It wouldn't surprise me if the only thing that contributed to a "gateway drug" effect was that obtaining pot and other drugs has all been made to happen through the same avenues. No one worries about beer leading to pot but then both aren't for sale in the same supermarket. Also, the idea to allow personal-consumption growing licenses has a small problem, namely, cities.

Just because you bought a condo at a shitty time is no reason to summarily dehumanize three million people. Especially since all but a relative handful had nothing to do with you being (apparently irresistibly) enticed into doing so.

No difference. The blast came from the shotgun, and could not have occured without the person holding the shotgun. What none of those quotes bother to mention is that there had to be a PERSON operating the shotgun who initiated the blast. And that's the point of it being brought up in this thread. They're talking about these deaths as if the shotgun or "shotgun blast" was solely responsible for it. In some cases there was a police officer behind the shotgun, and the papers seem to want to refrain from accusing a police officer of murder, so they blame only the shotgun for the death. In other cases, the shooter is unknown, so once again they blame the shotgun. This is bad reporting. The simple fact is that in all cases SOMEONE was operating that shotgun, and they should be mentioned in the same sentence. For example: Headline: "Danziger Bridge shooting victim killed by shotgun blast to back of the head" The truth: "Danziger Bridge shooting victim killed by policeman with a shotgun blast to back of the head" Headline: "Gabe Ben-Meir was killed by a shotgun blast to his head" The truth: "Robber with shotgun killed Gabe Ben-Meir with blast to his head" Headline: "Shotgun blast killed man in Oriole Park, police say" The truth: "Unknown male suspect killed man in Oriole Park with shotgun blast, police say By isolating the guilt to only the tool, and not the person holding the tool, they are demonizing firearms to the eyes of the public, instead of properly placing the blame where it belongs - on the criminal who was operating the gun. And then we wonder why some people think all guns are bad. How about if we report low hook turn fatalities with a headline like; "Skydiver killed when parachute makes low turn near ground". Doesn't everyone already hate it when the media reports "Parachute failed to open", which implies that the jumper did everything properly but the parachute equipment failed? When in fact the case is usually that the jumper never even initiated parachute deployment. This gun stuff, above, is just more of the ignorant and deceitful media reporting that we see all the time with skydiving accidents. This is a really good post John. I had a discussion with my brother-in-law last fall when talking about reporting of another category of events that I'll refrain from naming. The argument I made that got him thinking (keeping in mind he taught at UNC for a while) was to imagine watching a college basketball game being cast by Dick Vitale while you were rooting for the team playing against Duke. He may not say anything factually inaccurate, but through emphasis and omission you can bias the shit out of any story.

My understanding from the new conference this morning was that hatch opening was early A.M. tomorrow (Saturday), most of the cargo transfer operations would occur Monday and Tuesday, and that undocking, deorbit, and splashdown would be later next week. I think future missions will have a longer berthed duration, but that this demo flight was operating on an abbreviated timeline.

Jeans and a collared shirt is the standard at my work. Although there are plenty of non-collared shirts that still look nice and that's fine too. Most people, myself included, avoid running shoes in favor of more low-key Vans or Sketchers. If I'm at universities, on travel for meetings, or working with vendors or customers, I'll bump it up to slacks/khakis and a dress shirt. If I'm presenting at a major review or whatnot I'll wear a suit and tie. If I have to be out on the floor with flight hardware it's been anything from an ESD smock and a bouffant cap to a full bunny suit. (over my normal clothes of course)

So full of hatred, is that how Christians are supposed to behave? It is the American sense of humor. I guess thats why they put canned laughter on all your sitcoms. We don't even have sitcoms anymore, we just have zombie/vampire dramas and "reality" shows.

I was thinking about that too as I started reading the thread but I don't know how often it's going to come up. You don't have to be in a total wreck for a seatbelt to help you and keep you at the wheel, but I'm not sure how good a job most drivers do in terms of damage control driving after an accident has occurred. That may just be my cynicism talking, I really don't know. That's a really poor comparison. Most people don't do their own general contracting. I'm guessing those who don't approve of seat belt laws still approve of crash safety ratings and the requirement that auto manufacturers fit proper seat belts in their cars. In California it's just a 30k liability minimum. Just raise it to $1m and good to go. You seem to be confusing the point of liability insurance. That, or you're suggesting people who don't wear seatbelts should expect others to be able to pay for their more extensive injuries, which I don't think you meant.