Andy9o8

That's all well and good when there is a significant time lapse between the time one is exposed until they are contagious, such as with ebola. What happens when that time lapse is significantly reduced or nearly eliminated? Or when time of exposure is unknown (e.g., transmitted via common insect), and death follows within a day of the first symptom presenting itself? Such as kids passing meningitis when they share sodas, or from other causal contact? That one kills SO much more quickly from the onset of the first symptoms. Yet where is the outrage and panic over the fatal exposure to all the victims of that disease? Wish we could all keep our heads a bit cooler. Well, on the bright side, the school closures in TX & OH should put a crimp in the meningitis rate for a while.

Seriously; it's as bad as the Squirrel Snatch pilot chute. I'll never look at a squirrel quite the same way again.

The temperature was 99.5, within the normal range. The news stories I've seen are ambiguous about whether she specifically told the CDC that she had cared for Duncan in the hospital. But until I'm shown otherwise, I'm (rebuttably) presuming that, as a matter of human nature, she probably did. I'm not a medical doc, but I have a sense about "standards of care" - in potentially very dangerous situations, you use the highest degree of caution practicable, because even a little mistake and/or a lower-probability event can have a catastrophic result. (Obviously, most skydivers understand this intuitively.) To me, that means that, in an abundance of maximum caution (appropriate in this instance), they should have warned her off that plane.

In fairness to the perfection of hindsight, I don't see why a CDC expert couldn't have hopped a plane and gotten the hell over to Dallas ASAP to provide on-site guidance.

Don't look now, but you just admitted to being Anvil! Hows that? He admitted they share a computer at work. Well, I don't care what anyone says, I think they're a lovely couple.

Future health workers caring for Ebola patients can thank Nurse Schmuckatelli for their mandatory supervised quarantine. Update: this morning it's reported that she actually called the CDC - and they gave her clearance to fly. Sigh.

See what laziness gets you? Check your facts before you post, boy.

You've probably violated copyright laws. I'm not taking the blame for that.

You do know clearing your cookies resets the count on those silly websites? That would be unethical.

Great. Thanks to you, I've now used up 1 of the 10 free articles I can read in the Portland, ME Press Herald this month.

My god, we're neglecting other threads!! Duty calls, and there's work to be done.

Still fixated on guns, guns, and nothing but guns, I see, as if that's the only other Constitutional right worth a damn. We're still waiting for your answer to this question: Or you could just keep screaming: "Guns!!" as a distraction from the topic your alter ego started the thread with. Ooh, look, shiny!

Of course, unless the volume of sales to bike commuters and walkers alone is sufficient to keep the store open, the parking lots do serve them by providing a place to park for the motoring customers whose purchases help justify keeping the store open in the first place.

Yeppers. Lets tar n feather em, cuz, you know, there's an epidemic of it. It's like Ebola.

Supply and demand deals with such hidden costs very poorly. For example, as a car-free bicycle commuter, I am forced to heavily subsidize motor vehicle use. My taxes help pay hidden costs of petroleum, and I contribute far more money to road maintenance than the wear and tear caused by my use of the roads costs to repair. I'm forced to subsidize motorists in other ways, too, but those make my point. Greetings; may I parse? Presumably you don't live off the land in the wilderness. Thuswise, the motor roadways, and the petroleum used as fuel thereupon, comprise a huge part of the infrastructure that provides goods and services to you. Oh! ETA: how dare you resent the taxes you pay.

Guns, guns, guns. OK, now tell us which of these Constitutional rights routinely require a photo ID to exercise: religion, speech, press, assembly, to petition the government for redress, speedy, public jury trial in criminal cases, public jury trial to adjudicate civil lawsuits

I believe that Chap. 11 doesn't mean an outright elimination of debts, with the creditors losing all their money due. Instead, I think the court arranges for smaller payments to allow the business to continue, so that it can eventually pay off the debts. In other words, the creditors aren't screwed out of their money completely, they just have to get it in smaller amounts over a longer time. Exactly. Not sure what his comment has to do with Crosskeys, rather than just a general objection to the bankruptcy process. But anyway, you can only get so much blood from a stone. At least with a Chap 11 there's the reasonable likelihood of most creditors getting something, and the business staying alive to continue contributing to the economy, rather than just "wilderness rules" where 1 or 2 creditors quickly scoop up all the remaining assets because they got their claims in first, the business closes its doors, and the rest of the creditors truly get screwed because they wind up getting zero.

Way to burn the site, dude.

Look, none of us are trying to make you defensive or show you any disrespect, and sorry you felt the need to delete your OP. It's a useful thread because it teaches valuable lessons that seem fairly common for newer jumpers, such as, for example, - thoroughly investigate gear before you purchase, and - a high-performance canopy is still a high-performance canopy even if it's lightly loaded, and should only be jumped by people with a high degree of canopy piloting experience and skill. Separately, it also, hopefully, is a heads-up to instructors to be very discerning about the advice they give to newer jumpers.

I would argue that a denied vote is worse. The Constitution provides for standards that, if met, guarantee one's right to vote. It does not, however, require that these be minimum standards to be allowed to vote. For example, the 26th Amendment does not require one to be eighteen years of age to vote, but rather guarantees that no citizen who reaches the age of eighteen shall be deprived of the right to vote. If a state wanted to allow sixteen and seventeen year-old to vote, the Constitution does not prohibit such a standard. I agree. I also believe that we should find a way to not deprive anyone of their legal right to vote while at the same time securing the voting system. I've not heard one liberal suggest that alternative. That would lead me to believe that they don't want the voting system secured and are ok with the (albeit minimal) fraud that is happening currently. Then you're ignoring what's been repeatedly said in this thread. "Voter fraud requiring better ID" is a manufactured issue. It doesn't genuinely exist in reality. It does worse than simply "solve the possibility of a problem" - the kind of "new laws" that conservatives love to rail against. But worse, it's a deliberate cover for the true agenda, which is a partisan attempt to reduce the voting population of the ideological opponents. Every time you parrot the bullshit slogan of "securing the voting system", you're just doing what your programmers have programmed you to say. I see no reason why liberals, or even moderates (believe it or not, they do exist) should buy into the game to suggest "solutions" to a non-problem. Think, man - you guys are being played, and you're being used. Have some dignity and Just Say No.

Usually on the internet it's easy to warn people that they should talk to their instructors. This is not one of those cases. Let me guess, you weight about 135lb max? I say that because they're probably thinking that since you're loading it lightly that it's no big deal. I've seen many a light person put on canopies too small or too agressive because someone gave them that advice. One has a permanent spine injury. Yeah, sell it and get something more like what you've been jumping. Agreed, it sounds like terrible advice, and makes me shake my head. Unfortunately, the OP (and I mean no insult) made the classic rookie mistake of buying gear on price only, without researching the gear before the purchase. Back to the "advice" that he'd be ok jumping that canopy now. Calling Brian Germain - I hope you read this thread and weigh in here.

Why is the crushing weight of the preceding 100+ posts, judicial opinions and law review articles so difficult for you to understand? http://blog.contagiouscompanies.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/lalalala-listening.jpg

And no-one grows old in a small town? That aside, he didn't fact - check his premise.

You sure you don't want to amend that (for substance)?

How about starting with the technology of drug testing? You mean like peeing in a cup? Come to think of it, if everyone stood for thousands of miles along a single line of longitude and, in unison, whizzed in a westerly direction, the eastward thrust would be substantial.