idrankwhat

Thanks for the info. I just placed the order with B&H.

FYI: These guys have a great price but resellerratings.com only gives me a three out of four chance of having a good experience with the transaction. How lucky do I feel today.........

Thanks, I could have sworn that they didn't have it when I started looking yesterday. Weird. Better order quick! Thanks again,

Anyone know where I can find a Raynox HD-5050 Pro? Every site I've checked but one has it listed as back ordered. (And I'm pretty sure that the one site that says they have it is playing bait and switch). Is this lens actually having some production issues or is that lens being phased out or are there so many new skydiving vidiots buying gear that they're sold out? Any leads would be appreciated.

Try ice climbing, there's got to be plenty of places in Ohio to keep you busy. I used to climb in the winter but I have to travel a few hours to do that. With the DZ only 5 minutes away it's just way too easy get a fix.

I'll have to dig into this model a bit more but I abandoned this idea for a couple of reasons a while back. I think that the notion of putting a microwave transmitter next to the head was one component which relegated the mount to the plane. I still think that it would be cool if we could transmit from the plane to a live TV during jump run for the benefit of the folks on the ground, and possibly for some sort of combined edit. The fact that we typically use a leased plane negates a permanent mount. And the fact that I was going to have to dig into my own pockets for the experiment was the killer. Of course the reality that I may not know even the slightest bit about what I'm talking about may have played into it as well. Might be worth revisiting though.

I paid less for mine. (well, at least initially)

Out of curiosity, anyone know the dimensions of the FTP or vapor pro, as a comparison? Dave BH's website for the FTP: Flat-Top - The Standard Top Plate (with ‘L’ bracket) Measures 9.5 inches long x 7 inches wide - The Extended Top Plate Measures 11.5 inches long x 7 inches wide.

Cool! Can you do me a favor and measure the depth and width of the top plate? I want to compare it to my BatRak (my current camera helmet). ltdiver 5 1/4" x 8 1/4".

I thought if I left them as is that I might be able to catch at least one full line group Just kidding, that's why I posted the ring sight disclaimer earlier. I've got mixed thoughts on what I'm going to do about the sight. The helmet came with a post but I'm thinking of pulling the articulating bracket off of my old helmet (the one with the nylon mounting screws and short posts). If I jump this tomorrow I'll probably just detach the hazard and use a paper asshole. Thanks for lookin' out for me though.

I've had it about a week now. The solid chin and the bone is what clinched it for me. I'm quite happy with it so far. It's much lighter than the FTP and the visibility and range of head motion is excellent.

I don't normally post my junk but.......

Ok, you tell me. Which bank executives deserve a taxpayer funded bonus? Which stockholders deserve a taxpayer funded dividend from a failed bank?Neither, and I have stated on this site many times the bailout is fucked up If you consider that "earning" money as opposed to wealth distribution then I have no idea what to say. But if you support Obamas plan then you are worse than what you post you hate. Personally I think that the bank executives that are involved in the bailout should give back their last year's salary, exercised stock options and bonuses. I understand that letting the banks fail could be very bad, but any plan that doesn't include accountability is incomplete.

Ok, you tell me. Which bank executives deserve a taxpayer funded bonus? Which stockholders deserve a taxpayer funded dividend from a failed bank? If you consider that "earning" money as opposed to wealth distribution then I have no idea what to say.

I can live with a 97% approval rate.

You've got some seriously strange ideas as to what "earned" means.

I can't speak for everyone but I sure did.

I wasn't dodging any questions. I was throwing a wrench into what I perceived to be more of a Dem bashing exercise than the mission statement that the thread implied. It's difficult to dig the questions out of a partisan tourettes tirade. Some of the finer points get lost. I basically was able to cull out "I expect the R's to not be goat fucking, moronic, turd brained fuckwads". Not much of a platform if you ask me. You're right. I don't want to re-hash that topic. That's what the "search" function is for. The only reason to bring it up would be to participate in a Dem bashing exercise. I also don't want to talk about Clinton's BJ either. I don't really want to talk about this either but do you think that the Dems were right about Ashcroft? I'd say so. He was a lousy AG with regard to representing the people but he only looks good because his successor was one 6 short of the anti-christ. (That's called hyperbole) Yea, and again, Bush scored with 97% of his picks. Not getting 100% is not "thwarting the will of the people". Congress had a 1% advantage to one side. That doesn't mean you get to ignore 49%. So the Dems have a race problem? Kind of an ironic statement, especially this week. That's a nifty sound bite but again I'll assert that Adam Smith would not hold up the last decade as positive model. However I don't recall his views on the upward redistribution of wealth so I could be wrong. I wonder if he even considered using taxpayer money to pay for bonuses for failed business leaders. He may have, but I'll bet it made beer shoot out of his nose.

Nope. And I don't expect him to but I'm not the one calling him the Messiah. He seems like a person who thinks through his choices before he makes a decision, which I think is a good thing. Sure. I'm guessing he'll factor in his ideology and temper it with the reality that he's still presiding over a split electorate. I don't expect him to abuse the recess appointment process nor do I expect him to basically tell 48% of the country "you lose! Sucks to be you! I'm the decider! Get over it!" Of course I could be wrong. I mean there IS precedent. Of course he gets to choose. But his choices will not come to fruition unless the Senate consents. Them's the rules.

I want to respond to you and Marc and I'll do so later. My son's Dr's' appointment and parent/teacher conference takes priority. Sorry. But I'll leave you with this quote: The President . . . shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law. . . . (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2) Contrary to recent interpretation, it's not "advise and consent". Consent is not mandatory. If the Senate consents to the nomination, then the Pres can appoint. If they don't consent, he can't. As for the nominee, political ideologues are not good candidates for judicial nomination. Just out of curiosity, what did you think about how the Harriet Miers nomination was handled?

Then I assume you remember that over 97% were approved. But I can't remember exactly how many of Clinton's picks were held up in committee. I think it was over 60. Nuclear option? Schiavo? Middle of the night roll call votes? Ignoring voting time limits and holding them open until a colleague is beaten down and agrees to change his vote? Hiding committee meetings in secret and excluding the minority from attending because they're not part of "the coalition of the willing"? Taking the gavel and walking out of a committee meeting that you're chairing because you don't want to debate the issue at hand? Unilaterally changing bills after they've been approved by committee? Approving torture? Repeated record earmarks, some of which were made anonymously? Freedom Fries?....and that's the short list. Who made fools of themselves? Sorry dude, I was going to let the original rant slide due to your sad state of mind after the election. But you've had time to get over the shock and I'm beginning to worry that you actually don't remember the last 8 years. Revisionism isn't the road to recovery

No. And I didn't say that. I really don't know how to measure the influence of race so I don't try to. I can only say that I'm sure that some people, on each side, used race as their primary determinant. I'd like to think that number is as small as your

They'll be evaluating the poll figures for quite a while and I'm sure that someone will put together a more comprehensive picture for us soon. But until then, from what I've seen/heard the biggest increase was in the under 30 and first time voter crowd. But being unable to nail it down to any particular demographic, IMO I think this quote from a NY Times article sums up the main factor for Obama's win: Mr. McCain’s inability to separate himself from the Republican president — and Mr. Obama’s success in ceaselessly tying his rival to the unpopular president — was clearly a factor in the results. The Republicans don't like Bush and neither do the Dems, Libertarians, Independents, Greens etc. It's no real surprise that Obama was able to use that to his advantage.

And the 10% swing this time? And the record turnout? The Dems gained voters in EVERY demographic except the over 65 crowd. And the record turnout primarily had to do with the empowerment of younger voters and the complete disgust with the last two terms. If you want to ignore that and cherry pick the rationale for the win then so be it. But crediting the win to some people who voted for Obama simply because of his race (ignoring the fact that some voted against him for the same reason) is disingenuous.

No, it's about party affiliation for more than 40 years.