Andy9o8

http://homebrewedtheology.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/chimp.jpg

You're either misunderstanding or intentionally misrepresenting the document. But I gotta hand it to you, Marc, you've kept these guys on the hook for almost 100 posts now, by doing nothing more than being repetitive. At this point the shame's on them for continuing to reply. Kudos.

See, now I'm not sure. I just looked at the video (which I hadn't done yet when I made my last post), and it seems to show them practicing 8-jumper stars. So I dunno.

Roswell, eh? Here's their aircraft on jump run.

The woman on the left has remarkably straight teeth.

That's a great statement, Tim. Keep up the pressure!

I take it you've been married.

To my experience, they seem to correlate more or less to the ideological spread & proportions found in the general population in any particular region. So, for example, a higher proportion of conservative jumpers in Texas and the Deep South than in the Northeast US, etc. Which is logical. FWIW, and this is very anecdotal and un-scientific, that's actually more the case over the past 20 years or so than it was (or at least seemed to me) back when I started in the mid-1970's. Back then, it seemed to me that there was a higher proportion of blue-collar and non-college educated people among the more experienced jumpers in the sport than is the case today; and that cohort traditionally trends to the more conservative.

Looks like 10...probably. Could be better written to make it clear at the beginning. 3/4 of the way down it says, "We do not want the same 10 skydivers who have been on every record attempt ever made at your DZ taking up all the slots", so I'm presuming from that it means 10. You know, probably. ------------------ Anyhow, I feel compelled to say: "No-show/no-contact" speed stars are the shit, man. Linked exits are for wusses.

I didn't, unless you choose to take it that way. I realize you stand by your posts, but I stand by mine. Sorry to have been abrupt, but I just didn't feel like taking the time to squabble about it.

Your cavalier summary dismissals and minimizing of her credentials throughout this thread are silly. It's not worth the energy to type the longer version of that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_warren

Agreed - though it could be said that Walmart has hedged it bets somewhat by having recently branched-off into having supermarket departments in their stores. Still, you have to get the customers to come in to the store in the first place; but that's more a marketing issue.

>>the gov't wont have it. they dont want Walmart in banking because it might help shareholders. That is illogical. Walmart is a big corporation, and those in the elected side of the US govt (and their patronage appointees) - both Repubs and Dems - who generally are financially beholden to corporate money for their positions - are allied with big corporations' interests - in particular, corporations' efforts to squeeze out every penny of value they can for their shareholders. That said, though, I do agree with you that: >>banks are against it too and they have alot of political power. Put succinctly, Walmart (and it peer competitors) does have a lot of political clout, but by comparison the banking industry has MASSIVE political clout with the US govt, and that simply trumps Walmart's clout. So, Walmart has to suck it on that deal.

Well the wild card is the political element, not the legal. The US State Department may choose to support an extradition request from Italy per the treaty because it wants to assure reciprocal extradition to the US of fugitives like Snowden. FWIW, though, the final legal decision will still be made not at the political level, but by a US District Court at an extradition hearing.* * 18 U.S.C. § 3184.

Yeah, the extradition issue is really the only reason I was interested enough to dig into it. I still think that legally the basis for extraditing her is weak from the US perspective - not only due to double jeopardy issues, but also because she was re-tried in absentia. And to those who would point out that she chose to absent herself from the court, I would answer that the Italians allowed her to leave the country pending appeal, rather than, for example, simply granting her bail but requiring her to remain on Italian soil under supervision until the appeal was decided. The Italians knew fully well that she'd never return voluntarily and that extradition was iffy at best when they made the decision to let her leave the country.

From Sky News Well, what the professor (Alan Dershowitz, a serial self-promoter, FWIW) conveniently neglects to mention is that it's not quite that simple, and that, in fact, "It depends." In the US, if an appeals court rules a conviction was based on inadmissible evidence, then they can remand the case back down to the trial court for re-trial without the inadmissible evidence; and double jeopardy does not prevent such a re-trial. But if the appeals court rules that the admissible evidence at the trial simply was insufficient to convict, then the conviction will be overturned and the case will be over - in that instance, the double jeopardy rule prevents a re-trial. I'm still trying to ferret it out, but so far it seems to me that in Knox's case, the "third court", in large part, basically reviewed pretty much the same evidence as was presented at the first trial; but this time, decided that that evidence was enough to convict. I'm not sure that would have been permitted under US law - for reasons of double jeopardy.

Why?

That's a pretty fancy name for "hot chick goes wild".

Sometimes the crux of the back-story - what's really behind this - gets buried in the telling. Here it is:

I'm cautiously hopeful she'll be less of a crony to Big Banking than Larry Summers would have been, or that most (well, all) of her predecessors have been. And, she stood up to Greenspan when many others were cowed by him, and I admire that. That's partly why I supported her over Summers. On the other hand, as baronn points out: she's just a girl. So her credentials be damned.

OMG, what a delicious straight line. The possibilities are endless.

This is a large part of why you feel so discouraged- because you think each AFF level is a test, so needing to repeat a level is "failure". Well, that's not correct. AFF levels are not tests, they are training - practice - in a radically new skill set that you've never tried before, in a radically foreign environment (freefall). It's just that each level is so expensive, it feels like a test. That's unfortunate, but it's the nature of the AFF training method. Just as when you learned to drive, you had to practice certain maneuvers (like parallel parking) multiple times to do it correctly, your new skydiving skills need to be practiced multiple times to learn them, too. The first tries aren't "failure", they're just practice.

Utterly brilliant. The world is filled with fucking idiots, and they have an endless supply of foot-soldiers.

The link to a document that's not part of the Resolution? Yeah, you misread it. This is the Resolution. Tell me where it requires anyone to contribute to a registry of anything? This is a link to the website of the UN's registry of Conventional Arms, a site which Member States voluntarily contribute to, which keeps track of military weapons stockpiling and procurement, and international arms deals at State level. And yes, The US already reports to it. What sort of registry did you think it referred to? It's very simple: the Resolution deals with nation-state actors mutually cooperating to keep the weapons possessed by their military forces from being diverted to the ultimate use of terrorists and paramilitary actors. Nothing more, nothing less. That's the proper reading of the document, in its entirety, and in proper context. As you and others have recognized, the propagandists and their intellectually-lazy (or simply obstinate) foot-soldiers are cherry-picking language out of context to make an argument that it would restrict the type of civilian freedom of ownership of firearms that is accorded by, for example, the US's Second Amendment. They are simply wrong. Yes, the document is a bit long and ponderous, and I'll be the first to admit that lawyerly gobbledy-gook leads to documents like this being mis-used or misunderstood, but they're still wrong. At the end of the day, it's a matter of reading it carefully, in its entirety, and properly understanding what it does or does not say. Those who are determined to see boogeymen will see them, and rationalize it, despite all reason, logic or careful explanation.

Who took the picture?