DSE

I understand the description, I'd like to *see* one for purposes of comparison. Hopefully with the thousands of video's you've shot, you've got a favorite that you might upload?

Mike Leavitt, current Secretary of Health and Human Services in the Bush administration, and close friend/confidante of Mitt Romney was the governor of the State of Utah prior to being sworn as a Cabinet member. His records of office are now being released, and it's been uncovered that he held early morning "seminary meetings/classes" in which he and top advisers discussed how to incorporate "just and holy" Mormon principles into his governance, archival records show. The gatherings included his top staff and trusted advisers, including chief of staff Charlie Johnson, now chief financial officer at Health and Human Services; former U.S. Attorney David Jordan; Matthew Durrant, whom Leavitt later appointed to the Utah Supreme Court; Henry Eyring, the son of the Mormon general authority; and former Brigham Young University professor Bud Scruggs. Over several mornings in late 1996, the group delved into the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants, exploring the lessons from Mormon scripture and how they apply to modern government. Leavitt claims he has not done this as a Cabinet member either at Health or when he was appointed to the EPA. Leavitt as governor, hid these meetings from the public, and once they were brought to light, he's asking that the recordings of these meetings be made private and not part of the state archives. Can anyone honestly believe that Mitt Romney's Mormonism won't play a significant role should he be elected? Does America really want as president, a man who believes in fantasy, plates of gold taken back to heaven, rocks that translate ancient writings when put in a hat, secret handshakes through curtains, and women are property, not partners? Romney was raised in a religion shrouded in conspiracy and secrecy, that has an official doctrine of "Lying for the Lord" (it's OK to lie, cheat, steal, if God benefits). If God benefits from Romney making it to the White House, it's entirely likely Romney has been lying about several issues during the campaign process.

You might find it a little wide. Take your helmet to the store and see if it looks to fit. I think it'll be wide. Removing the handle strap will reduce width, but not by much. Great little camera, however.

Search Paralog is slightly cheaper and does a great job. Jumptrack is less cheap and does a great job. I have both, personally prefer Jumptrack due to the interface, but Paralog offers more fields for various information. You can insert those fields into Jumptrack, but it's more hassle.

200.00 NZD = 154.50 USD We had much of this discussion in the photo forum a while back. Because of the time investment and gear investment, I suggested that there is nothing wrong with the vidiot making more on a jump than the TI, if he's spending the time to make great video. To use Walt Appel's words, that went over "like a turd in punchbowl".... I'd like to see tandem vids that tsalnukt, JP, CSpenseFly, DaveLepka, and others feel are good/benchmark benchmark videos and worth the approx 100.00 or so that folks are paying for video jumps.

Spend some time poking around the HDD, as the file structuring is the biggest difference overall. The OS isn't much different than XP or Vista. Remember to shut it down properly, Macs aren't often happy with power-button shutdowns. You don't need to shut down, however, just sleep it/close it. My Mac gets restarted every couple of weeks, whether it wants to or not. I recommend you purchase DiskWarrior as well. When you do end up with a corrupted disk, (and you will), DW does an awesome job rebuilding it. This is one aspect of Macs that you don't see on the PC side, you can more easily rebuild a folder on the Mac side than the PC side, but then again, the folders become corrupted more easily on the Mac side. Dismount drives properly. This is critical. Don't just plug/unplug a USB or Firewire drive like you can with a PC. Macs buffer differently. Drag the drive from the desktop to the trashbin. Seems counterintuitive, but this dismounts the drive. Or rightclick/Appleclick the drive and eject it that way. If it's a Macbook Pro, consider Bootcamp and Parallels. Parallels can't be used for video yet, but should be so eventually. This will let you run your favorite Windows software on your Mac. My powerbook runs about half n' half for Mac and Windows use. I love this aspect. Most of all, have fun with it. Congrats on the new purchase!

Not here. A bunch of elk just took down the fence in my east pasture. It's never fun fixing fencing in the snow.

Monkeyboy, thanks for all the great hospitality. Looking forward to flocking again, hopefully I'll have more skillz at the next one. I put a few pix up with a few more to come soon's I get a few extra.

unless you're one of these guys

Well spoken, good points. Thanks for sharing!

Uh...the technology already exists. And is expected to be less than a $1000.00 on a desktop by 2015 if not sooner. No, it wouldn't. The ratio is about 25,000:1

We're never going to reach complete agreement here, so I'll leave these thoughts... You want your right to privacy, so do I. However, when any crime is committed, rights to privacy are tremendously diminished. The Constitution doesn't contain the word "Privacy..." The Fourth Amendment does. It prevents a government agency from searching citizens or their property without facts or apparent facts that are reliable and generate a belief that incriminating evidence can be found on the citizens or the property. Well...if you're downloading/uploading illegal media, the computer is obviously involved. It's where the media is stored, therefore, the illegal property is in the computer, which means your computer has no right to privacy once a warrant is obtained based on facts or apparent facts that are reliable and generate a belief that incriminating evidence can be found in the computer. A court could potentially say that for example, Outlook is off-limits to the search. However, that's probably where passwords and usernames to file sharing sites can be found, so it's not likely. Either way, "presumption of guilt" isn't so much a part of the process as the requirements for obtaining a warrant. Hopefully we can agree that a warrant isn't something easily or frivolously obtained? You want to protect individual rights. So do I. Very much so. What about MY individual rights as an artist? Our songs, films, photos are our product, no different than PD's product is a canopy for which they enjoy patent protection. Norman Kent's product are photos and video. He's entitled to payment for use and protection from unauthorized use. I hope we agree here. Would you have a problem if he had an attorney send a letter to a DZ for selling unauthorized copies of "Willing to Fly?" Would you have a problem if the DZ refused to quit selling the DVDs, and he litigated, winning the maximum allowed by copyright law, both civil and criminal? When our products are illegally reproduced, a crime has taken place. When those products are uploaded beyond the control of the creating individual, damages cannot be specifically measured. Copyright law provides for specific civil and criminal damages, aside from punitive damages. If you're unhappy with the damages set forth by your representatives, I'd urge you to write them to attempt changes in the laws/proscribed damages. Hopefully we can agree that while the RIAA and other industry organizations influenced Congress in setting compulsory fees, Congress acted as our representatives through the legal process that makes our country what it is? You want the punishment to fit the crime...how does one measure the damages? Madonna's American Life experiment (while bungled and counterproductive) demonstrated that the damages easily run into the hundreds of thousands. Actual damages cannot be assessed. The point of the litigation is to demonstrate zero-tolerance, not recover money for artists. No doubt, the damages are extreme, and likely will be for a while, until an amendment is made to the laws of the land. You specifically said "I'll sue your ass" is a replacement for "I'll kick your ass." Doesn't that infer that in your opinion an asskicking is preferable to litigation? If so, imagine 50Cent showing up on Jammie Thomas' doorstep with his 9mm because she illegally shared his music. Im' sure we both can agree this wouldn't be good for anyone. Even if we come from the perspective that the "punishment doesn't fit the crime," I'm sure we can agree that if a crime is committed, then a crime has been committed. Regardless of who commits it. Maybe 3-4 years ago, a parent could plead innocent to knowing their 12 year old was pillaging Napster for everything he could get. Today...parents, universities, churches, etc are responsible for what is downloaded to their computers. Your argument that someone could arbitrarily put music on your computer as a means of skirting the law or setting you up seems pretty far-fetched. I can steal a car and put it in your garage but that doesn't make you liable for the theft of the car, unless you knew it was there. I don't believe for a moment that the RIAA wants to "search every computer on the internet." The technology they use to identify persons illegally uploading/downloading music isn't terribly different than software technology used to identify distributors of child pornography. Do you suppose your local state Attorney General's office wants to search your computer for that kind of content? I'm reasonably confident we can agree that this isn't a rational belief. It's not about a single or even a few dozen $1.00 downloads. It's about a few million downloads, created by a few thousand uploads. It's rampant. nearly 75% of those under the age of 25 have admitted to stealing AT LEAST $1000.00 worth of music. Roughly 10% of those over the age of 30 have admitted to "a few illegal downloads." I think we can agree that if 70+% of the 14-25 y/o age group admit to stealing "at least $1000.00 value" in illegal music, it's not insignificant, and a lot more than a $1.00 download. I believe we've already agreed that artists deserve to be paid for their work. IMV, the only place we significantly disagree is you appear to feel that since the industry is heavy handed, and the punishment doesn't fit the crime, so the crime should more or less be overlooked. In my mind, this is the same as condoning theft. Heavy-handed though it may be (and I disagree with the $222,000.00 Thomas judgement as a punitive gesture, but it did send a hell of a message

I believe you can order one through GetHypoxic.com I've spent part of today mounting mine, I got one at Eloy last week. Very nice, well made, and makes the helmet much easier to pack into a case/bag.

no, they don't. They never have. That would be ASCAP, SESAC and BMI, and those organizations have been overseeing elevator music, bars, hospitals, churches, jukeboxes corporate on-hold music, and other licensed uses of compositions for longer than you or I have been alive. They are not involved in the RIAA at all. They're not "mafioso." Their *primary* responsibility is to see that artists are paid when their music is played on a jukebox or radio station. But if a church broadcasts/podcasts copyrighted works, then the church must pay a very small CCLI licensing fee (about 300.00 per year for the average church up to 1000 members). Why should Christian (or any other religious artist) be required to donate their music to churches who already rake in serious cash? I call bullshit. Just like the original point of this thread turned out to be bullshit. Walt, you're right, if you're coming from the perspective that theft is acceptable. You feel it's acceptable for people to steal, and those that they're stealing it from need to sit back on their asses and do nothing? I'm absolutely certain that if I took any belonging of yours without permission, you'd track me down and do whatever necessary to retrieve that article, and in the process, attempt to mete out whatever punishment you felt appropriate for my theft, including "sticking your nose up my ass" to see if that's where I stashed it or beating me into submission until I revealed its location. In reading many of your posts, it's very obvious that this is EXACTLY what you'd do if that's what it took to recover your stolen property. In the case of computers, there are only two likely places the stolen media may be stashed; The computer or MP3 player. And if it's on the MP3 player, there will be evidence of that theft still on your computer, in all likelihood. It's really quite simple; -Creative works are property. -Owners of that property are entitled to being able to protect their property, just as you're entitled to locks on your home and car doors. -Stolen property is recoverable. It's interesting how you avoid each and every specific analogy I've drawn to the problems. If military personnel steal music, of course the RIAA is going to go after them, "too." If a soldier beats the shit out of a civilian in a bar, guess what? The police go after that soldier, whether in Iraq or Bendover n' Squeal, Arkansas. That's really your point??? So you feel Don Kirlin deserved to lose his property because he didn't tell the squatters to quit using it? Am I correctly understanding ? You honestly feel it's OK to steal, and expect no repercussion from your actions? C'mon...gimme a break. A few posts ago, you inferred you'd rather the RIAA simply "Kick your ass" rather than sue the thieves. This sorta runs counter to your "I don't like bullies." If you've stolen something and "hidden" it in your computer, OF COURSE your right to privacy is diminished, because you hid the stolen goods in the same place you "hide" your porn. If you're a drug dealer and a search warrant is issued, and in that search, bondage equipment is found, guess what? It'll be referred to in court documents and media. I don't accept, approve, condone, nor appreciate theft. I'm sorta funny that way myself. You understand that you're defending theft out of fear for "potential abuse" in a situation where the "potential abuser" has already been irreparably damaged? Is that truly your position?

If I understand you correctly; ~San Marcos charges $XX.00 for 35mm roll of 24 or 36 pix. ~if the student prefers digital images, San Marcos charges $XX.00 for the pix, plus 20.00 for digital? What is your $XX.00 charge before the digital add-on?

Congrats! May you lives be filled with beauty.

Why is this so personal to you? Have you been threatened with a lawsuit for stealing music? Has a family member/loved one been sued for uploading stolen music? Did your boss lose his company, and subsequently your job as a result of uploading stolen music? As far as what they represent, I *am* the RIAA. I'm a recording artist, I'm a publisher. In some relatively insignificant way, I'm a label. You're calling me "despicable" because I'm in that mix/organization. They represent me. I don't like everything about the RIAA in the same way many skydivers don't appreciate the USPA. But like the USPA, they are champions for their respective industries. And I've sued for copyright violation. And will likely have do so again. When multiple written requests of "Stop stealing the music, stop uploading stolen music" don't work, the damaged party has no option but to sue. To not sue means they may likely lose the right to protect themselves in other, future situations. This issue is not entirely unique from how Don Kirlin lost his land in Colorado; he failed to stop the neighbor from illegally using it, and lost his right to the property. Had one letter of "Please stop using my property as a pathway" been sent, the Kirlins would likely have their dream lot, and probably their dream home by now, right? Would Don Kirlin have been despicable for wanting to protect his land rights? Somehow, I can't find it in myself to think so. Honestly, can you? Is your hatred for property rights limited to musicians and creative endeavors or is it fairly distributed amongst all property owners? If the recording industry doesn't spend the money, time, and resources protecting their property, they run a substantial risk of losing the right to protect their property. Maybe you'd prefer to see Warner/Sony/BMG/Virgin/et al individually go after the theives, and an individual who stole media from 30 labels would have 30 separate lawsuits against them. Wouldn't you find a greater degree of "despicable" in that scenario?? Perhaps you'd prefer that the record labels simply send Sluggo, Gino, and 50Cent over there to "kick the thief's ass?" I don't give a damn whether the the RIAA is loved by you or not. The US military isn't particularly loved in the Middle East, either. They have a job they've sworn to do, and so does the RIAA.

Me. I'm confident what keeps me awake at night is far different from that which keeps you tossing and turning.

With or without labels, RIAA will continue to exist, as it's also a representative organization of Recording Artists (Recording Industry Association of America). Yes, I believe we'll start seeing more psuedo-direct releases, just as Madonna has pledged to do through her label for internet marketing, and as Jennifer Lopez' label experimented with via Rhapsody, and so forth. I'm involved with a band called 10 Man Push that is going this route too. I believe in this format of distribution and marketing, and have put some $$ behind my belief in it. But I am, and likely always will be, a member of the RIAA, warts and all. And expect that you'll continue to see Madonna, Garth Brooks, Radiohead (RIAA members) continue to push for protection of artists content. The $222,000.00 judgement seems heavy-handed; tough shit. She was begged, pleaded, warned to stop uploading music. She gave the industry and artists the finger. She's no different than someone who breaks into a bank and steals our money with zero FDIC to protect the depositors. She stole thousands of dollars in creative works, and then re-distributed those works, even after receiving several letters of cease and desist. No one can estimate the damage that is done to the label and/or artist once the music is in cyberspace. It can be huge. The Eminem and Madonna experiments proved it can easily run into the tens of millions for one song. What will become less influential, are the big labels like Sony/BMG, Warner, etc. The boutique labels that specialize in internet marketing will rise to greater power. And most of them are members of the RIAA, because they are first and foremost, representatives of recording artists, and distributors of recorded music. I for one, am proud to be a member of the RIAA, and a proud defender of my copyrights. I'm saddened that my job is apparently of such significantly less value than someone else', that I'm deemed "despicable." BTW, equating uploading guitar tab to ripping/sharing songs over the internet is ludicrous. Uploading tab is a "how to play" and nothing more. The artists performance isn't stolen, the essence of the song isn't stolen. And the RIAA had nothing to do with David Taub's vids being pulled from YouTube. The Stone's publisher sent him an email indicating it "could be a violation of copyright." He pulled them himself. I guess the Stones are despicable too, for trying to protect their creations.

Congrats, JP!

I've articulated what they do for me as an artist, writer, and publisher of music. Would you please articulate specifically how the RIAA has harmed you? You seem like someone of integrity, based on your posts, so I'm really confused by your position here.

Thanks for that, Walt. hadn't seen this, and have spent the last 20 mins searching for info that goes more deeply than what is reported in the newsletter. For clarification, if you're gonna call the RIAA despicable, recognize that the RIAA is just a coalition of record labels, like the MPAA is a coalition of movie studios, like AMA is a coalition of doctors, etc. RIAA does what the labels demand, and for the most part, the labels do what its artists want (in the broad view). Who here has recorded, written, or produced for an RIAA-membership label?

Til I see a specific citation of litigation over an authorized use, I'm not buying. I haven't followed this particular case, I merely look at the newsletter action reports (kinda like the "new" in Parachutist) and it is presented differently there. After some searching, it's presented in pretty much the same context as Engadget reports it. Illegal downloading, not ripping. The industry has some stupidity, but until I see the actual filing, I'm not buying it that he's being sued for simply ripping. Microsoft and Apple would have been easier targets.

This Xmas gift had a lot of "X" in it... Buying something new from Walmart and finding porn on it??

Our DZ is all-digital as well. No dig, no still jumps.