DSE

So then we can agree that Fox, Bill OReilly, Glenn Beck, CBS, anything owned by Sinclair, Belo, the Mormon Church, and other conservative broadcasters are yellow journalism, deceptive, and at worst, lies?" I could agree with that. You swing a 10lb hammer my way, I'm likely gonna swing a 10 or 12 lb hammer back. Moore does take the extreme view, but it's important, because of all the bullshit the other viewpoint shovels out. They've been shoveling bullshit for years, so why are they so damned afraid of a 90 minute response?

Are you telling me people weren't talking, aware, and pissed off before Moore released SICKO? Moore does not present new issues. Moore presents issues that people are already talking about, aware off, and pissed off about because Moore knows that this will yield the largest amount of money. Talk is cheap. I've asked before and I'll ask again. Does anyone have an actual plan on how to implement socialized healthcare in a capitalist economy that will provide a higher quality of healthcare than the current system? What a ridiculous position to take. Of course people were talking, that's what would have inspired the film. People weren't talking nationally, there weren't talk shows dedicated to the subject, society as a whole weren't talking. People talk here on the forums. Search the forum and find me an in-depth discussion that debates the merits of a social system vs privatized in the past. Yet here, people talk about everything. This is one of the roles of creative works in society; it can cause social focus. People had been talking for decades prior to "Schindler's List," but the release of the film changed perspectives and informed many individuals. "Brokeback Mountain" brought a new view to certain social issues, as did "An Inconvenient Truth," "Crash," or "Good Night, Good Luck," "Supersize Me," and *so* many other films over the past 80 years. Hollywood rarely leads discussions; they respond to discussions and brings them to the fore. A documentary such as "9/11," "An Inconvenient Truth" or "Sicko" doesn't present 'new' information, but rather generates a collective of what's already there and puts it to a form that society can comprehend. And people *want* to comprehend. Prior to "Farenheit 9/11," no film in the same category had made it to the big screen. It opened the doors (and minds) to the American public that a documentary didn't have to be a dry PBS presentation. "An Inconvenient Truth" and "Sicko" are following on that same trail, and there are other similar works that'll be in theatres over the next years. Yes, people were 'talking, aware, and pissed off' because it was personal. Now, we know it's social and nationwide, and we know more about it because the film brought out information on a wide scale of which most people were unaware. We all knew that McDonalds and other fast foods were bad for us, but "Supersize Me" generated a lot of radio, talk show, and comedic chatter that helped pave the way to suggested (and some forced) reform in the fast food world. "Sicko" may or may not (likely not) have a similar impact. As far as a national system? No one has the answers, but there are some damn good proposals. PNHP has a great proposal that has been tested/modeled on a 25 year system. It worked. Real world use will probably prove it to fail because big money means graft, greed, and dishonesty. But it's a good suggestion, IMO.

3:12:4 With 2 initial experience night jumps on Sat, set a new personal record for a day of jumping/packing. Jumping in 102 heat isn't much fun though.

Mix a small amount of this stuff in water, and use [url "http://www.testclear.com/Cocaine-Drug-Test-Kit-P27C0.aspx"this product[/url] to learn if it's coke or not. If it's coke, you've got a very valuable baggie that you'll have to figure out. You should be able to do the same to test for meth with [/url "http://www.ipassedmydrugtest.com/_methamphetamine_drug_test_kits.asp"]this product[url]. The bigger deal of course, is how you got through airport security with it. If it wasn't in your rig, I'd also be suspicious that a test sample made its way into your bag but didn't make its way out. TSA test items are routinely accidentally left in luggage. Remember the people that found a block of dummy C4 a while back?

Amen

Probably so. Worse, I'm sure that some enterprising filmmaker that wants to walk in Moore's shoes or ride his coattails is already figuring that one out now.

This is a big point in the film. Indigent people, criminals, illegals etc get better treatment at no cost than those of us that pay for our insurance either through HMO's or outright payment. Insurance companies coupled with dishonest doctors and patients are responsible for high costs, toss ambulance chasers in there and it skyrockets. Look at the situation in Utah last week; inmate goes for his THIRD MRI because "his back hurts." He shoots/kills a guard, and gets away for a few hours. His medical records were released as part of the "investigation." Turns out the state has spent nearly 90K on just him alone over the past 3 years. My insurance provider would/could drop me in a heartbeat if I needed that kind of cash. If nothing else (and this is where I think Moore's value liest), this film has people talking, aware, and pissed off. What I find incredible are the insipid posts by persons who haven't seen the film. I'm incredulous. People that bitch about how uninformed the general media is about skydiving are the same people making uninformed comments about a film that they haven't seen, based on what they've heard in the media. "I've never seen, touched, tasted, smelled, nor heard a monkey, but I'm an expert on them." Wow.

So, spent half the day testing the new Panasonic SD1 for a magazine. Nice little camera, but a scary disappointment for skydiving. I haven't jumped the Sony CX7, but if it's anything like the Panny...it's bleak. Very bleak. The SD1 shut off the second it hit the hill on every jump except one. We were baffled as to why, other than wondering if something in the camera was being affected by relative wind. After wrapping the camera in neoprene and trying again...no go. The *only* time the camera stayed on was when I belly-mounted it and jumped towards the tail of the aircraft so no wind hit, and so it was always "protected" more or less. So...aside from no LANC (Panny has never licensed LANC) and aside from no eyepiece, it still seemed like a sweet cheapo alternative for the extreme sports videographer. We were wrong. Picture quality is fairly good, considering AVCHD's challenges, transfer time for a 5 minute tandem video is nil, but it can't be used for freefall purposes. This week, we jump the CX7. I'll say that for rockclimbing and mountain biking, the CX7 has shown to be a killer cam. Now if it will only work in the sky....

No, I don't "make your point" because you haven't seen the film. First, he doesn't portray the Canadian system as being a great role model. Nor does he sugges that it's the best thing ever. But it is an alternative that somewhat works, which is better than nothing. My point was, and still is....go see the film. Commenting on a film that you haven't seen is just as absurd as a wuffo trying to tell a skydiver about relative work.

I'll raise a to ya, Sparky. The Blue Angel is flying night loads tomorrow.

Uh....go see the film before making such silly statements. At least 10% of the film takes place in Canada.

I'm quite confident I'm older than you...and you're definitely better looking than me. You know you sat right across from me a couple months back, right?

Yeah, if you don't mind the rendering time it takes to turn out at DVD that is... ltdiver what rendering time?

I understood the point, to which my response is: Should I forego a display of my patriotism because an accident might occur? I could be wrong, but I'd bet a banner representing the flag would offend/upset some folks more than seeing the flag touch the ground. More importantly, many times the Star Spangled Banner is playing and/or people reciting the pledge as the flag comes in. It's not appropriate to recite the pledge nor play the national anthem when something other than the flag is flying in, is it?

this whole new direction of the thread is ridiculous, IMO. Look at Gene's situation. Could he plan for a child to run into the landing area? Should he have stayed his course and potentially killed the kid, but hey...no one could say the flag touched the ground. Or in the process of saving the child, should he have died so the flag didn't touch the ground? Shit happens. You plan for success, but to ignore that sometimes situations go beyond your control? No one *wants* to see the flag touch the ground, no one intentionally drops the flag to the ground. But you can't always control the crowd, wind, or other potential issues that may come into play. It's absurd to suggest that not touching the flag to the ground is paramount to a flag-bearers safety. I'm driving down the road, flag on my antenna, and a 4x4 hits the side of my car, spilling oil onto my flag and dropping it to the ground. Have I just disrespected the flag? Should I forego a display of my patriotism because an accident might occur?

Norm Kent shot it at Mile Hi in Colorado, but I don't know any of the jumpers in it. There is a thread here somewhere, TDog shot some ground pix. 6-8 skydivers, the rest is all CG.

I really don't know why they used ZP. Maybe someone from PD will chime in. I believe it had something to do with how it was sewn, due to the detail involved, strength of fabric, or maybe color pop.

I dunno about "devoted" as I take him at face value. I'll suggest that on the whole, the people that view and comprehend his films are likely of greater intelligence than those that whine about his films but never see them.

So then you're suggesting your behavior is "smarmy?" I wouldn't have thought so. Moore's position is called "balance." At this point, Hollywood could spend the next ten years making anti-government films entirely based on truthful accounts, propagandizing the nature of our leadership, and *never* balance the scales of what crap comes out of Washington. Your point about ideology is...? Relativistic? Everything is "relativistic." No matter where you come from or what you're doing. Relative to me, you're an idiot. Me relative to Kallend, I'm an idiot. Relative to Bush, Moore is a saint. Relative to Colin Powell, Moore is a scoundrel. And so goes the circle.... Have you seen "Sicko" yet? I have, which gives me an informed view on what it contains and says. If you haven't seen it, you're merely repeating rhetoric without your own thought or experiences, right? In other words, you've been "distracted by shiny things and yelling" instead of making the journey and seeing the elephant for yourself. I went. I don't agree with everything I viewed and heard, but at least I've made my thoughts based on what I saw and heard and aren't limiting myself to responding to the prejudiced viewpoints of what others told me. You're pissing at the messenger but you never heard the message. WWJD? he'd probably go see the film. But it's all 'relative', right?

I'll have to grab my Dbox from the DZ and look. Seems like you'd have to cut back the edges of the flare on the Dbox. I have a Cookie box, not a Bonehead box, but I think they're about the same. That said, I've pretty well quit using a box on the HC series of cams,

Kinda like telling the world that Saddam had WMD's? Or telling the world we'd won the war? Saying that "By 2042 the Social Security system would be exhausted and bankrupt? Saying we have top-secret satellite photos showing amassed troops and weapons near an oil field, so we've got to go into protect it (when there weren't) Moore's stretching of the truth barely rates a play by comparison to the out-right lies of this administration. I don't believe Moore lies as a general practice. He does stretch the truth. IMO, that's no different than the bible or any other example of opinion-turned-fantastic. Presenting the bible (the world's greatest deception, IMO) in order to sway opinion or as reason to go to war doesn't help credibility much either. Moore doesn't deceive; he presents facts in a way that your mind makes its own decisions about thsoe facts. I distinctly heard George Bush say he supports OBGYN's having sex with their patients when I watched "Sicko." From that, I inferred that he supports pediatricians having sex with their patients. Is that what Bush meant? Nope. Is that the subtext that I heard? Absolutely. Is that what Moore wanted me to think? Maybe. So is the departure from the truth Moore's responsibility? Or mine? Whose truth? My truth? Your truth? NCClimber's truth? None of the above? Truth can be bent, stretched twisted, turned, manipulated, tweaked, modified, or hidden in itself and used as a propaganda bullet for either side of any argument. Wrap it red, it's Republican truth. Wrap in blue, it's Dem truth. Wrap it in multicolor hues, it's everyone's truth, but still may not be accurate. It's true for example, that true followers of Islam want to kill all Americans. I know several followers of Islam and have broken bread with them. We've laughed, cried a bit, traveled a lot, and they've had every opportunity to slit my throat. Why am I still here if that's the truth? Truth is a fleeting moment of context.

IMO, Moore's presentation is as far to one side of the pendulum swing as it is, because it must be so. The bullshit that comes out of our government is so far swung to one side, that the extremity of the opposite side is needed. If someone is coming at you with a 50lb blackjack, do you hit them back with a 5 lb blackjack? Or would you hit them back with a 75lb blackjack? As said before, I think he's a big smelly arrogant turd, but he's a turd with creativity, and he tells the truth. It might be that he stretches the truth to it's thinnest point, but it *is* the truth. Facts/numbers can be skewed to represent whatever they need to represent. Washington and major corporations do it every day to pull the wool over our eyes. What's wrong with Moore taking creative license to do the same thing? ~Is there a huge problem of being insured and receiving medical care in America? ~Are people now more aware of it? If you honestly answered the second question, then Moore has been successful as an artistic provocateur.

Depending on whether you want to match focal lengths of the still cam to the video cam, you'll prolly be best with the Raynox .3 if you have $$, or the Royal .3 37mm if you don't. The Raynox is somewhat of an HD lens, it's not full resolution but it's better res than any SD lens out there. HD does not have any impact on the focal length, you're still dealing with small chips/sensors, so focal length from what you're used to dealing with is very close to identical. The .5 will be very close, but you can't zoom through it. You'll have more noticable abberation, but at the same time, that probably doesn't matter much for most of what you're doing. The benefit of HD is that you can crop the edges anyway (if you're delivering SD).

I'm marginally faster than the analog guys using MX. But, I have a template (several, actually) that helps a lot. Plus, in Sony Vegas I can crank up the speed of the entire timeline, and do all the work at double, triple, or quadruple speed. Once you learn to recognize the waveforms for what they are, you can cut damn fast. My template includes titles for their names (very personalized) sound effects, etc. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8xrUXIEFlQ has a 7 minute edit. That includes building a couple extra graphics and animations, because her husband's brother in law is a skydiver. Flying is for shit on this one, you'll see where he ran into me on exit, but that's a piss poor excuse for what I turned out here. But it was a fast edit, which is the salient point. The slow down is rendering/burning the DVD. If you're starting with MPEG content or have a fast computer, the render/burn is equal to finalizing time. If you have a slow computer or are starting with DV, it's slower than finalize. If you have a fast computer and start with MPEG source, it's quite a bit faster on render/burn. HDV is MPEG, so it's only resized, not transcoded.

Absolutely you're violating copyright. Doesn't matter if you're profiting from it or not. In fact, copyright violation (once a civil-only offense) is now a criminal offense as well. You didn't pay for the music, you paid for the right to listen to the music. You own a shiny silver disc but you don't own it's contents. Only the writer and/or publisher own the content. yes, he is. It would be odd to sell pictures on a website without spelling out the license granted, though. Example; I shoot pix of a race, and I have a particularly cool pic of a nose over the finish line. I sell the shot as a print. This is my right of course. The person that bought the print scans the print and uses it on a website, Tshirt, or whatever. That person is now in violation of copyright. I allowed them to "license" one copy of the picture, the copy that I provided them. I didn't give them the right to scan it and use it elsewhere. This is no different than using a song from a popular (or unpopular) CD. I for one, will not use copyrighted works. Not only is it unethical, but for me...there is too much at stake. I either write my own, or use royalty free. Last month I attended a NARAS gathering where they showed us song-identification software that can find songs on Youtube, LiveLeak, etc. It can also identify the IP from which the content was uploaded. Eventually, the RIAA *will* be coming after you. Maybe not today, maybe not next week or next year, but bet the farm that you are a target in the future for using copyrighted works. Google for "My Voice, My Choice" and you'll find an article I wrote on this subject a while back. it provides explicit examples of violation.