jfields

Kallend, I can certainly understand your choice. As my frustration grows, I may do the same. Where I was being critical of Mark was not in direct relation to flying or not flying, but of being critical of the government, yet doing nothing about it. Not even anything as quick and fundamental as voting.

Why not? You are a pretty vocal critic of the government. Is it all hot air? Are you willing to do anything to help, or just be a sideline heckler? What you choose to do is up to you, but if you care, do something. I would be pretty annoyed if it happened to me. So I can work to get the laws that we both dislike changed or repealed. At the same time, I'm using my brain and not painting a gigantic "kick me" sign on my back. I agree with you there. Actually, yes. My "little ol' vote" can take them right out of power, when combined with other individual little votes. The person they don't care about is you, since you are waiving your say, however small it may be. Of course not.

Oh, come on! Where is your sense of adventure?

Heh!

Polypro layer + wool layer is a good combo! Nice and warm, without being too itchy. The only downside is that the wool is too bulky for some applications.

Once again, you miss the point. I am "speaking up", by voting, for one. I am working to prevent the problem through our democracy, while also taking the practical measure of not doing stupid things to bring attention to myself. What are YOU doing to remedy the situation? So far, I've heard nothing. Show me where I'm wrong.

Mark, I don't like the ridiculous expansion of governmental powers and intrusion on privacy any more than you do. But where we differ is in what we choose to do about it. I choose to vote and work with the systems under which our country was founded. Getting hysterical, predicting more doom than Nostradmus, and citing gun ownership as the answer for all society's problems doesn't do anything to help. I'm not worried about people showing up at my door. I've done nothing to merit it. Even if they did, maintaining a cool head and not brandishing my home arsenal would probably be more effective anyway. Since you aren't voting, what are you personally doing to fix the situation?

And I stand by the comment. Yes. First, how does your not voting do anything to change the type of "Outrage" you linked to in that TSA hassle story? Second, how does gun control factor into that situation at all? Going to start shooting up the security people? They might be jerks, but is that a better answer? Finally, the conclusion that the incident directly caused a breach baby is a farce. Stress may be a factor, but putting the blame on them for what may have happened anyway is just silly.

PhreeZone, The problem with Champaign is that the airfares are like twice as much as flying into Chicago. It would actually be cheaper to fly into Chicago and rent a car myself than to fly into Champaign. Annoying, huh? Edit: Plus, DC -> Chicago are almost all non-stop flights. Getting to Champaign is at least one transfer, if not two. That extra time kills a good part of a jumping day.

I thought about that, but I just didn't know how well it would work coming in mid-week like that. I figure there will be a flood of people heading to the airport on Sunday evening, but the Wednesday morning arrival might be a problem. Either that or kinda late on Tuesday night. How well did people do getting to and from the airports with bummed rides? It would totally suck to try it and get stranded.

I made plans with some people for WFFC 2003, but they are already dropping like flies. Slacking bastards! So, I'm looking for some advice. I am planning to do way more jumping than heavy partying, so the proximity of where I stay to the "action" isn't important. Getting a decent night's sleep and being ready for the next jumping day is a higher priority. My plan is to be at the WFFC from the 6th to the 10th. Which option do you think is the best? 1) Fly In + Rental Car + Hotel 2) Fly In + Rental Car + Tent 3) Fly In + Rental Minivan (to sleep in) 4) Fly + rely on DZ.com'ers for getting from Chicago to Rantoul and splitting room Other thoughts or suggestions?

Windows on D, Linux on C? Bad omen there. Windows doesn't like to play that way. It can, but often leaves some things on C anyway. That isn't a problem if you are using something with a compatible filesystem. Telling Linux to use C probably changed the filesystem and screwed the boot record or something. If you want to be a compu-geek, you need to get yourself some crappy spare hardware and start playing. If you are just doing it for educational purposed, snag some low-level pentium box, wipe it clean, and put Linux on it. Don't mess with the dual boot until you have the basics of Linux down a little better. You don't want to lose some term paper because your computer croaks.

Don't have an MBA yet, but I read the thread as I plan to start fairly soon. In my case, all I have to spend is time and effort. Once I knock out my MCSE, my boss said he'd pay for me to get an MBA. If the boss is paying, I'll do the studying.

Thank you! Finally, someone who understands the magnitude of the issue. I'm just waiting for Kallend, or perhaps BillVon, to weigh in the the scientific and political subtleties of toilet seat usage.

Dave, you have a wussy ass. Is yours also one of those elevated padded ones like that have in retirement homes for people that can't stand up from a standard toilet seat height?

Toilet seats are like hiking boots. You have to keep them for awhile for them to get nice and comfy, at least if you use wooden ones. The wear patterns match your ass, so it is just a nicer experience. Our are all getting formed to the "Fields bootie pattern" and we don't want to mess with that. A nicely broken-in toilet seat takes time, and like hiking boots, also the occasional wetting. Actually, I just totally made that all up. Yes. You are a freak, but in a fun way.

Professor Kallend, How many up/down cycles do you think is the mean time between failure on toilet seat hinges? And when people (regardless of gender) spray and miss, do the droplets that land on the hinge have any contributory lubricating effect on the hinge, or do they just contribute to rust? In your estimation, is this a national crisis that we should take seriously and create a new cabinet-level division of the government to address?

Lisa, What do you do when you are counting and need to go higher than 22?

I mean, why bother clicking on a thread that you won't even make eloquent and meaningful additions to, like Muenkel just did? We look for subjects where we can contribute meaningful dialogue, not just inane postwhoring repetitions of other people's ideas. Right, Muenkel? I know you're with me on this.

True, but I understand Narcimund's point. We like to waste our time selectively and efficiently.

Someone (Gawain?) posted it like two days ago. Slowpoke! http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=340667;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread

That would depend on what my wife did to my reproductive organs when she found out.

Bill, Either way, I was just illustrating that "survival of the fittest" is not nullified by technology. Whether poorer or richer people are more likely to reproduce is irrelevant to that point. Culture changes evolutionary paths. When women are deciding between men as potential mates and fathers to their children, they aren't looking at the exact same things they were 1000 years ago, much less 5000 years ago. The fact that my eyesight isn't that great is not a major hindrance to my reproducing. It might have been if I hadn't worn my glasses and had mistaken someone else for my wife, but that didn't happen. In a hunting culture, I would be at a serious disadvantage, and my worth as a potential husband would be much lower. My chances for procreation would have been smaller. I agree that we are inadvertently selecting for many things we wouldn't intentionally choose. You listed many problems that can come with success. You're right. Natural selection is at work there too, weeding out those that can't resist the temptations or balance their lives. The poor have other problems, such as malnutrition and inferior health care. However you look at it, I think you'll agree with the general gist of my response to Scott, which was that humans are not exempt from natural selection.

I disagree. It applies exactly the same. The difference is in the evolving definition of "fittest". It used to be how big/strong/fast you were and how well you could hunt. Now it may be how smart and adaptable you are, and whether you can hold a good job that puts plenty of food on the family table, giving you plenty of time to reproduce. There is still a spectrum of success and failure, but our changing society is emphasizing different means of differentiating who will reproduce and who won't. Technology does not alleviate the pressures of natural selection. For example, income is part of the equation. With a higher income, you can have better dietary options, better healthcare, better enviroment, and more spare time to reproduce. Those advantages are frequently passed on to children as well, making them more successful. I'm not saying financial darwinism is good or bad, just that there is a factual basis that it exists.

Nice analogy. But you missed one factor. The nice restauranteur that offered the cost cut on the meal forgot to take into account the cost of his food, labor, rent, bombing of foriegn countries, etc. So the reduced $80 meal actually cost him $98 to get onto the table. But because he is stubborn and his customers now expect it, he continues giving $98 meals for $80. Instead of charging $100 and pocketing $2/meal for a rainy day, he loses $18 per meal. Eventually, the poor guy goes bankrupt. The diners are still hungry, and want their below-cost meal. So they find the former owner of the restaurant, chop him up, and eat him. I love economics!