AndyMan

Nordic countries have always encouraged the spring hunt. If left unchecked, adult seals will destroy whats left of the fishing industry. In other news, veal is tasty. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Motorcycle racers are usually on flat, smooth, paved surfaces... Not bumpy hills of varying pitch. Secondly, the airplane landing on the runway is very close to having his glide match the runway, but often times the pilot errors which results in a hard landing. It'd be extremely difficult for a wingsuit jumper to perfectly match the angle of the hill, since that hill will almost invariably change its pitch throughout the run, never mind accounting for human error. The wingsuit jumper should not plan on hitting it 100% right on, since that is nearly impossible, certainly implausible. Any plan for landing a wingsuit succesfully must have a margin of error. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

I think I might have to pick one up.... _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Are you sure you don't mean a Copyright? I don't see anyway to patent a t-shirt. Patents, by definition, have to be new ideas. T-shirts aren't new. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

In Canada, where a salestax has been inplace for close to 15 years now, basic staples like food have always been tax free for everyone. Housing, and medical, as well. Of course, in some ways that gets complicated. If you buy a single donut, it's a snack and taxable. If you buy a dozen, it's groceries, and are not. It works. Grumbling about high taxes aside, the gov't makes good revenue from it, and people are taxed on what they spend. Avoid taxes by saving more. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Geeze, ANOTHER thread about engagement rings? C'mon! _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

I do! It was the foam-party pics that did it for me. Don't tell my wife. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

I use my Suuunto to help determine the correct altitude for initiating swoops. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Dumbest. Thread. Ever. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Make sure to also check out the 350D. More advanced than the 300D, and lighter than both the 10D and your D60. I believe it's still cheaper, too. The D60 is quite old. Newer, lighter, and cheaper models exist. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Stones do not appreciate in value. After adjusting for inflation, they lose value. Stones sell on the street for usually about half of what they are "appraised" for. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Your best bet would be to buy a book. All of the good tech publishers have versions. QUE, or SAM's.... _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

I've known about it for 3 years, and there's a few threads on here about it. Bonehead doesn't have the priveldge of closing up for the winter when northernites are snowed in, and not buying gear. They need to pay the staff somehow when the market is in an expected seasonal downturn.... A good thread about it here. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

I can't believe I actually agree with you! _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

"Old town", is gorgeous. Great shops, great restaurants, it really is a bit of "Old Europe" right here in North America. It can be a bit touristy during the summer. My best advice would be to take some time to walk the old parts. Even if you don't care for history too much, the place just exudes it... You can't help but tune in. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Absolutely good deals. I bought one helmet for myself, and my wife got one too - both using "BondBonds". As long as you don't mind the wait, they're fantastic. We live in Chicago, so we time the wait with the off-season, we get great new helmets in the spring, at incredible prices. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

I have a similar story. Forgive me, because this is long. After dating Craichead for more than a few months, we ended up visiting my parents over the Easter holidays. The point of the trip was primarily for the two of us to enjoy some time traveling together, but it also served to introduce her to my family. Towards the end of the long weekend, my mother pulled me aside and handed me her late mother’s ring, on the slim chance that I might need it. Both my grandparents grew up on the farm in southwestern Ontario, and came from very humble origins. Nobody got rich working the farm back then. Life was hard, even in the good times. When the depression hit, my grandparents hit the road, and traveled to Toronto where my grandfather hoped he could find work. He eventually did, as a school teacher. With barely a dime in his pocket, living in a new city, at a job that barely paid at all during the depression, he managed to scrape together enough to buy a ring to propose to his girlfriend. To say the ring was humble would be the understatement of the century. A white gold ring with three miniscule "stones", I use that term loosely because the "stones" have more in common with grains of sand, than real diamonds. She accepted his proposition, and they married. He worked hard as a teacher, and prospered. Gradually he'd make "department head", then Vice-principle, and eventually became the principle of a handful of well respected Toronto schools. They had two children - two girls, one of which is my mother. They had a great life together, and in the 60's started traveling abroad once jet-airplanes became common. I remember when they took out life-insurance policies before their trip to Japan in the 70's, because they had trouble understanding how a plane could really fly that far safely. Once he was more successful, and they had more cash, they chose (as some here have suggested), that they "upgrade" the ring. They did in fact to that, and they replaced the ring with barely 3 grains of sand with one with a single solitary, but much larger stone. Of course all things are relative, and by today’s standards the "Much Larger" stone is still quite small. About .25K, it's the kind of stone that jewelers today use as ornaments around a larger stone. When my mother handed me the ring, she also gave me appraisal papers from the 70's which show the ring was worth $300. Jewelry appraisals being what they are, that means it probably would have sold for $150 on the street. After my mother gave it to me, I took it to a jeweler and wondered about its current value, and they informed me they might give me a $100 discount on a new ring if I traded in. The moral of this tangent is simple: gems do NOT appreciate in value. In 30 years, the street value was basically unchanged - even despite the effects of inflation. This means they lose financial value over time. Anyways, to get back on track, that's the ring I gave my girlfriend, when she became my fiancée. I would have happily given her the smaller ring with the miniscule diamonds, and I know she still would have accepted. I gave her the larger one because it was the ring my grandmother loved, and it was the one my mother and aunt knew. I know that when we have our kids together, one of them might be so lucky to be offered the original ring, and someday our grandkids might be offered the second ring. I hope they don't choose to "upgrade" their rings. The diamond merchants have done wonders of advertising by convincing millions of people to buy bigger and bigger otherwise worthless stones each year, presumably so they'll turn down the "free" rings from relatives. If this continues, I think we'll be seeing the "Hope Diamond" as the new standard in a generation or two. Last month, Craichead and I closed on, then moved into our first home together, a condo in downtown Chicago. Partly because of the money we didn't spend on lavish rings for our wedding, we were able to do significant upgrades to our home, like high end appliances, cabinets and hardwood floors. Additionally, we've got the same heirlooms to pass on as someone who bought an inexpensive ring today. The rings were never expensive; they were always humble for the periods they were purchased. They're still great heirlooms. That's the thing about the pieces of history that gets passed down; they don't have to be expensive to be meaningful. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

It's true. Contemplating setting down in Hawaii. Current location is a few hundred miles east of Japan. Slashdot discussion here. News buletin from Virgin here. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

I used to be pretty heavily into downhill racing, and I can't stress enough that it seems very unlikely for someone to survive landing a wingsuit on a ski hill. The relative zero horizontal airspeed is only half the equation. Even if performed perfectly, you still end up sliding down a ski slope on your belly at over 100MPH (combined horizontal + vertical airspeed). Skiiers often have life threatening injuries from accidents that usually happen around 60-70mph. Few skiiers have survived accidents at over 80MPH... The only way I could ever see someone surive landing a wingsuit is if it were involve some kind of runway, with "landing gear" of some kind. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Here's the link again, the trailing period was causing a problem. https://waiver.tfr.faa.gov __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Quite honestly, I'm really quite disapointed that you think this is the slightest bit relevant. Personally object to their business practices all you want, and in fact I'll chime in with you on this case. But when a director of the USPA starts interfering with legit attempt to recruit and train instructors, that person has a gross misconception about the USPA's mission. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Even though you seem to reguarly jump out of planes with non-TSO gear, it does not mean that recomending others do so is good advice. Ultra-lights are still very much airplanes, and you expose yourself, the pilot, the DZ, and the USPA to significant legal risk by jumping one without TSO'd gear, much less effectively admitting to such in public. Stop being stupid. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

It wasn't an analogy. It was a question. I'm not surprised that you avoided answering it. I'm entertained by the notion that skydiving is "safe" if you use a reserve. I hope you see the obvious falacy. Skydiving isn't "safe", and you still risk major health care expenses, even if do you use a reserve. In the name of ethics, I hope you don't expect others to help pay for your injuries. Personally, no it's not. I've been fascinated by the dichotomy you've shown by repeatedly making contradicting statements. You'll say "on one hand, I don't want people telling me what to do with my life, but on the other hand gay people shouldnt' do that icky, dangerous stuff". I have no dichotomy. I don't want people telling me how to live my life, and I return the favor by not telling others how to live theirs. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Man, I'm even more confused. Hell, I'll go even further. I'm ignorant! First you say this: "What I find strange is that people feel like they can comment on my personal behavior like smoking habbits, or eating habbits. There are groups who do nothing but lobby to stop freedoms we have in this country because they deem them bad. ". You complain about people who lobby to "stop freedoms". Then, just a few paragraphs later, you say in bold: "Any one who is HIV+ or has AIDS, and knowingly has unprotected sex with someone else should be jailed. Consent or no consent." You say that you want people who are fully aware of the risks, but choose to have unsafe sex with the the partner they love to be jailed. I can't think of a better example of hypocrisy, myself. I'm amazed... Usually people post such conflicting points in separate posts, rarely do I see them in the same one! I generally really don't care about other peoples opinions. I'm generally of the belief that people have the right to be racist, or homophobic, socialist, communist, capitalist, republican, democrat, or Christian - and it's really none of my business. I get upset though, when people get on their soap box about issues they don't really understand. Even though they often have some a grain of opinion they think is important, they often present arguments that are so absurd, it seems clear any semblence of rationality disapeared long ago. I think that is whats going on here. What's funny is that the issues you're trying to argue really aren't that explosive. Like I said earlier, the gay community knows full well it's got a problem with HIV. It certainly is not earth shattering for anyone to hear you proclaim it as such. It's not even an issue of "Political Correctness", it's as close to common knowledge as you can get! The problem is that you wrap that simple notion in so much conspiracy, falsehood and vitriol, that a careful reader can't help but think you've flown the coop. You would do much better to drop the vitriol, simply state your opinion, and make sure your facts are well researched. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

I don't understand. To start with, I don't even understand your anecdote about the fat lady complaining about you being a smoker. The taxes you pay on your cigarettes more than pay for any health care expenses you'll ever cost the taxpayer. As far as I'm concerned, more people should smoke, because that means I'll pay less in taxes. The second thing I don't understand is how HIV is costing you money. America stands alone in the industrialized world as having a capitalist health care system. The base system is such that the "user pays". Only for the very poor and the very old, does the government help with health care costs.. Some people choose to use Health Insurance to help manage their health care costs, but that is entirely a choice. Most employers will allow anyone to "opt out" of the company health policy, and get the cash they would have paid. If you really don't want to pay for anybody elses HIV medication, you have a very easy solution. Cancel your health insurance, and self-insure. A great many people do self-insure, and unless you're in a high risk group for anything, it's often the financially prudent way to go. Of course, you're a skydiver (i think...), so you are in one particular "high risk group", yourself. As an aside, I wonder if you ever did have a skydiving accident and break your tib/fib and femur, would you expect others to pay for it? Or, would you turn down the insurance money, and insist to pay the hospital the full cash price, just on principle? Clearly, you risk such injury by engaging in such a risky sport. Getting back to things I don't understand, I don't understand how you think anyone would possibly argue "all day long" that in America, the gay population is the largest demographic group affected by HIV. That HIV once decimated the gay community is clear and well known. That the gay community still has challenges in stopping the spread of the disease is also clear. Indeed, as I pointed out to you in this thread: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1360253, the CDC reports a full %44 of new cases of HIV are due to male:male sexual contact. CDC stats here. For others reading, these stats to paint an interesting picture, and are certainly worth a read. I did some extrapolation in Excel and posted the numbers here. As that same report also points out, the difference in rates of homosexual and heterosexual infection isn't terribly large, nor is the differences in rates between heterosexual and IV drug use terribly large. Clearly an effective policy to rid us of this scourge would require targetting all three. I believe current national HIV policy does infact do that. The last thing I don't understand about is where this rant is coming from. I'm not aware of any big push by the gay community to get anyone to pay for any new drugs. I can only assume that this rant is just another example of you wearing your ignorance and intollerance on your sleeve. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.