AndyMan

Why? Honest question here: What on earth have they ever done to the US? What are they threatening to do? _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Did you click through and read any of the other questions in the poll? It became obvious very quickly this wasn't the case. I'd love to know what you mean by "Then again, it's a poll." Granted that I took statistics in Canada and not the US, but the way I learned it, it's a pretty simple science that usually gives some pretty accurate numbers. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

While there most definately is bian in every medium, the assumption goes that the bias is constant. IE, even though the question asked may have been leading (reading the question myself, I don't think so, but I'm just a geek, what do I know?), when the same leading question is asked over time, you can not argue the trend. Even if the question was biased, the same question was asked over a long period of time, and produced a clear trend. Statistics isn't rocket science. If organizations are truely faking polls, it becomes obvious quickly. __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

So you don't think the opinion of the president dropping 10% in a week has anything to do with the french embassador getting a standing ovation in the UN last week? How do you explain it dropping 10% in a week? You don't think these numbers are poignant, at all? Did you click through and read the rest of the numbers? I didn't post them all for brevity, but did find it interesting that a full 59% of americans want the US to wait for more inspections... strangely, just like the french are saying. Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

From : http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/politics/20030214POLL/20030214poll_results.html Summary: Bush's popular support is at the lowest point ever. He's completely wasted any support he gained following 09/11. It dropped a full 10% in the last WEEK. 56% of the US population feel the US is on the "wrong track", the highest number since the Clinton impeachment trials. It seems to me, Americans think a bit more highly of French then the media let on. 1. Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as President? Approve Disapprove DK/NA 2/10-12/01 CBS 53 21 26 3/8-12/01 60 22 18 4/4-5/01 CBS 53 35 12 4/23-25/01 CBS 56 29 15 5/10-12/01 CBS 57 30 13 6/14-18/01 53 34 13 8/28-31/01 CBS 50 38 12 9/11-12/01 CBS 72 15 13 9/13-14/01 84 9 8 9/20-23/01 89 7 5 10/25-28/01 87 8 5 12/7-10/01 86 9 4 1/5-6/02 CBS 84 10 6 1/15-17/02 CBS 82 11 7 1/21-24/02 82 12 6 2/24-26/02 CBS 78 14 8 4/1-2/02 CBS 77 17 6 4/28-5/1/02 73 18 9 5/13-14/02 CBS 77 16 7 5/19-20/02 CBS 71 18 11 6/18-20/02 CBS 70 20 10 7/8-9/02 CBS 74 19 6 7/13-16/02 70 20 9 7/22-23/02 CBS 65 27 8 8/6-7/02 CBS 66 25 9 9/2-5/02 63 28 9 9/22-23/02 CBS 66 27 7 10/3-6/02 63 29 8 10/27-31/02 62 28 10 11/20-24/02 65 27 9 1/4-6/03 CBS 64 28 8 1/19-22/03 59 35 6 2/5-6/03 CBS 63 28 9 2/10-12/03 54 38 8 2. Do you feel things in this country are generally going in the right direction or do you feel things have pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track? Right direction Wrong track DK/NA 1/83 1 34 59 7 6/83 NYT 1 47 44 9 11/83 NYT 1 47 43 10 9/85 1 46 44 11 1/91 57 31 12 3/91 51 42 7 10/91 33 60 7 11/94 CBS 30 65 5 12/95 NYT 25 64 10 9/96 44 47 9 9/96 CBS 41 48 11 12/96 NYT 39 51 11 3/97 2 34 62 4 6/97 2 37 60 3 8/97 3 39 57 4 1/98 2 44 50 6 1/98 4 61 34 5 2/98 54 36 9 10/98A 46 47 7 10/98B 52 42 7 5/00 48 44 7 3/8-12/01 40 54 6 4/23-25/01 CBS 37 58 5 6/14-18/01 42 53 5 10/25-28/01 61 29 10 12/7-10/01 64 27 10 1/24-27/02 52 35 12 7/13-16/02 42 48 10 7/22-23/02 CBS 39 53 8 8/6-7/02 CBS 41 51 8 9/2-5/02 43 49 8 10/3-6/02 42 48 10 10/27-31/02 41 52 8 11/20-24/02 41 49 10 2/10-12/03 35 56 9 __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

16 videos in two days is fine. It's when people try to grab 300 videos in one night that problems start to happen... _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Is there an easy way to get video into Premiere from my VCR using my PC120 as an intermediary? Do I have to record to DV, then import, or is there a way I can grab the analog signal off the VCR without first recording to DV? Thanks, _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Or Japan, Thailand, New Zealand, or Australia. The list really is endless. Yes, I'm sure you're about to tell us how US forces are "protecting" Japan, but you don't really believe that, do you? As for Canada, Canadians generally oppose "protection" from the US - take for example their oposition to the Missile Defence Initiative. More often them not, they accept it because Washington ties it to otherwise unrelated items like free trade. Washington really does "force" protection onto Canada, whether its wanted or not. Canadians have always been quite able, and willing to protect themselves. Washingtons "protection" has been arguable. Washingtons idea of "protection" is that any inbound missles should be shot down over Canada, rather then the US. That's hardly "protection", if you ask me. Moreover, in the 60's, Canada wouldn't have even been a target if it were not for its proximity to the US. Most protections Canada has from Norad is by convenience, in that the US wants more then 8 seconds of warning, and that most Canadian populations live close to the US border. But I must say, you did avoid my question quite effectively. Again, I ask - what was your point again? _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

I wouldn't use that to take a picture of my dog. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

It's interesting how many other countries there are in the world that don't have US service men and women to protect them, but do have the same (if not more) rights then Americans. What was your point again? _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Exactly! _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

I'd love to, but the problem with one connection is that IE seems to be bad at closing connections when its done with them, also IE is very bad at actually reporting error messages. I might turn it down to 2. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Still smoke free since August. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

It's interesting that the US government is telling us that the UN is becoming irrelevant over their inaction. The US media is being their mouthpeice, by repeating this ad-nauseum. It's much more interesting to read the media from Canada and Europe, where the consensus is that the UN is playing exactly the role they were mandated to do in its creation - by avoiding unnecesary role If the US were to pull out of the UN, it would only go to reinforce the notion of continued US unilateralism, and rapidly increase tensions between the US and the rest of the world. The rest of the world already has little trust for the US. Pulling out of the UN would be a very bad sign. Repeat after me: Unilateralism is BAD. Say it again, alltogeather now: Unilatersalism is BAD. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Think: Walley-vision in a big way. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

I wear two. One pro-track and one pro-ditter. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

In this post, I said the UN must act. You decide if I'm "firmly entrenched". The point of debate is not resolution. If a debate ever ends with all parties argreeing, the topic wasn't worth debating in the first place. Saturday night I was at a debate over Intelectual Property. The presenters were some of the countries most prominent lawyers, artists, and ivy league professors. The debate over intelectual property has the music, film, and publishing industry on one side, and artists on the other side. It will never be "resolved". What I hope though, is that ideas that came out of that debate will propagate into the national psyche - the idea that when Walt Disney knocked off "Steamboat Bill" by creating Steamboat Willy (later mikey mouse), he was exercising the exact same rights as the next guy who downloads an MP3 off Kazaa. No politician was at that debate, no transcript will be sent their way, but the people there - just like the people here, took something from that debate, and in their own way they will influence others in ways we can only imagine. I digress. I hope that people following this debate will take from it not a decision of wether it's "right", or "wrong" for the US to invade Iraq, that really isn't the issue that I see as relevant. What I personally want people to take from it, is the idea that just because the US is the only remaining Super Power, It is not right, nor desirable for them to use their supremacy on a whim, without international co-operation. The US maintains military supremacy only because the rest of the world allows them to. The US has supremacy only because other countries in the world choose not to fund their military. The recent sabre rattlings of the US is changing this. In the last 3 monthes, I can name over 8 countries that have significantly increased their military funding, including Canada, France, Germany, Italy, and Switzerland. They've done this not because they want to take part in activities like invading Iraq, but singularly because they're concerned over the the US expanding their unilateral tendencies. Let me repeat, and make it clear. The US's alies are building up their militiaries because they're scared of the US. This is bad. If the US wants to continue to be the "top cop" of the global community, they must do so with the respect and following of that community. Right now, they don't - and that scares me. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Pretty much the entire world is shouting "show me the money", including some of the US's strongest allies. You don't think Bush should be honest and upfront with them? That's really what this is all about, not showing ME, or showing anyone else, but showing the security council, France, Germany, Russia, Canada. Just last week, the Canadian Prime Minister, in a speech in Chicago, questioned the motives for Bush wanting to go into Iraq. That's HUGE. The entire world is shouting "show me the money", and so far, bush has refused. That is a throroughly depressing idea, and we are all fortunate most Americans don't believe it. The principles of democracy are at stake. If you don't like informed opinionated debate, stay out of it. Just don't belitle those who see that change is important. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

I was at an intelectual property debate last night with Stanford law processor Lawrence lessig. Lawyers can teach you the coolest things, somtimes. He pointed me to 'V-Jamm' - a tool used mostly by club DJ's. It's software, you can get a demo copy here. The nutshell is that it allows you to link to up to 16 videos, then assign each video either to a key on your keyboard or a MIDI keyboard, and "play" the video streams in rhythm. It excels at its ability to create video mixes in realtime from disparate video sources. Worth a check out, _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Try turning Javascript off.... _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

What makes you think he isn't an English patriot? Is there a difference between American patriotism and that held by others in the rest of the world? Am I allowed to be a Canadian patriot while living in Chicago? _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Poynters manual lists it as being sold by Thomas Sports Equipment of East Yorkshire G.B. First introduced in 1982, with a mandatory service bulletin in 1988. It appears to be a knockoff of the original Vector. A good place to start would be the manufacturer, you can find their website at http://www.thomas-sports.com/ _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Also, I don't think at any point did I see your brakes down near your crotch. You seem to be finishing your flare near your belly button. This seems odd. This may go to what SkyCat was saying, that you're brakes aren't long enough. If that is the case, then this is irrelevant. Generally, the "sweet spot" on the flare is lower, which is why I say people usually flare to the crotch. If your brakes are too short, the sweet spot will be higher. If your brakes are set correctly, you're not flaring enough. If your brakes are too short, you are hitting the sweet spot. I can't say either way. I guess my point here is that it's important that you get to full flare. Whether or not or are doing this is something we can't really tell by seeing the video. The Sabre has a perfectly strong, good flare. You should be able to not only COMPLETELY stop your vertical descent (which I'm not seeing), you should be able to get enough lift out of the canopy so that you actually go UP. Once, on a straight in approach, I flared a Sabre over a barbed wire fence I didn't see, for example. I suspect that you don't trust the flare in your canopy enough to take it lower. I suspect you're starting your flare early because you don't think it will stop quickly enough if you take it lower. It will. For a canopy to flare efficiently, it needs all the airspeed it can have. Airspeed = lift (more or less). If you approach your landing at full speed, flare rapidly and smoothly your canopy WILL generate enough lift to pop you up. This isn't necessarily a good thing, but it's a good lesson in the power of a good flare. If you start your flare too early, and flare too slowly, the canopy will have slow too much by the time you finish it, that there's no power left. I think this is whats going on. Again, criticisms, arguments, insults always appreciated. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Please don't confuse conspiracy freaks with the left. They have nothing in common. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Clearly much better, but I think some of the points I mentioned earlier still apply. She's starting her flare quite high, planing out, and stalling while still a few feet off the ground. Of course, I've got a few screen captures to show this. In flareStart.jpg, you can see the deflection of the tail, and her arms are out in front of her. She's started the flare. It's dificult to judge exactly how high she is because you can't see the ground, but I would guess she's close to 20 feet. WAY too high to flare. I disagree with SkyCat, I don't think her brake lines need lengthening. I couldn't find any frame where the tail was deflected in full flight. The next picture I want to talk about is "finished.jpg". Again, at this point, the canopy is completely stalled out and she's falling down, rather then flying forward. My overall impression of her flightpath is estimated in the drawing flightpath.jpg By the speeds she's flying at, it seems like she's flying at a somewhat high wingloading. (eg, not 1:1). She should really be concentrating on bringing the start of her flare down quite a bit, concentrating on getting the canopy to plane out with her literally one foot off the ground. She should be able to just put down her feet and slide off the landing. The big steps she's taking right at the start of her run is cause by the "fall" after the canopy stalled. Lastly, take a look at Combined.jpg, where I show the difference between where the canopy stalls, and where she touches down. Thoughts, corrections, insults, and abuse of course are always welcome. Edited to add: Pammi seems to be flaring in a "flare off / Flare on" strategy. There literally are 4 frames on the video where she goes from full flight to full flare, and this happens quite high. ZP canopies need to be flown ALL the way to the ground. The flare should be a very gradual process which finishes just before she touches down. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.