SudsyFist

It's been said I might be making a few more in the next couple of weeks. Hey, wanna cookie?

Oh, no, not the hair! JT's part right -- only that which grows below the neck for smoother glide... ripped for her pleasure. Where'd you hear that rumor, anyway?

No, actually it's Where... the fuck... are yooooooouuuuu? Why, I'm just gettin' on my way to LA to see System of a Down, actually! I can't promise anything, but come... hang... aw, fuggit. Hey, I dropped in on SC now and then, too! I'll pass your greetings on to the other sluts. Thanks!

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=perris,+ca&ll=33.761248,-117.215796&spn=0.007389,0.007858&t=h&hl=en

Airwhores Tour d'West Coast 2005, 10-23 Aug So, who misses my ass? And who's gonna get to see it on this trip? Steve (edit: destinations in subject line)

Greets, folks, A small group of us sluts are road tripping way-the-hell North (read: Canada) to escape the SoCal summer heat next week and hitting a bunch of DZ's on the way: Wed, 10 Aug: Skydive San Diego Thu, 11 Aug: Skydive Elsinore, Perris Valley Skydiving Sat, 13 Aug: Skydive Monterey Bay Sun, 14 Aug: Bay Area Skydiving (Byron) Mon, 15 Aug: Parachute Center (Lodi) Thu, 18 Aug: Pacific Skydivers, Ltd. (Pitt Meadows [Vancouver area], BC) Fri, 19 Aug: Kapowsin Air Sports Sat, 20 Aug: Kapowsin Air Sports Sun, 21 Aug: Kapowsin Air Sports I know it's short notice, but if anyone wants to join, even for just a portion of the trip, lemme know and I'll coordinate carpool arrangements. Otherwise, we'll be looking forward to gettin' jiggy with all you freaks on our way up. Don't worry, we won't bite. Hard. Steve

How'dya guess? That's what logic tells me, but Ari's experience is intriguing. Perhaps we're focusing too much on the fabric and not enough on other factors like the cut of the suit, style of flying (think tracking, atmonauti, or even carving vs. falling straight down), etc. Ari advised me on the backchannel to check with Nancy at Ouragan, so I've sent an email asking specifically about ZP's affect on drag, lift, and fall rate, as well as their tunnel suit's affect on the same. I'm deferring to her response, so until then I'll try not to speculate further.

That *would* be a good analogy, but canopy != freefly suit. The canopy is an airfoil which requires maintained inflation (thus, minimal air penetration through the fabric) and low drag for optimal performance and lift, two strong characteristics of ZP fabric. Although I'm not a wingsuit pilot, I presume wingsuits share these requirements. Freefly suits, on the other hand, don't seem to require inflation and low drag to generate efficient lift. Quite the contrary, they seem to need higher drag to generate more lift (in the context of freeflying). Unless these particular suits inflate? That's what puzzles me. If that's the case, I'd *love* to know how so, because it seems so bloody counter-intuitive to me. Any techies in the house?

I found one in which he posted a quote from Matter that seems to confirm what I'm saying: ZP = less drag = less lift (than other suit fabrics). Totally, wholeheartedly, passionately agree with you there. I would phrase that as, "If you can get your desired flight characteristics from different fabric..." Again, unless I'm missing something, it seems to me that ZP on a suit reduces drag and lift, which happens to work VERY well for some flyers (floaty types, those who want faster air for maneuvers, etc.) -- not at all a bad thing. But the notion that ZP gives more lift and drag than other suit fabrics seems like a misconception, and it may lead some flyers who are seeking more drag to erroneously purchase ZP, only to get the exact opposite effect as in my previous example. If I'm way off here, someone please give me the smackdown...

Please forgive me for sounding a bit confused, but I'm a bit confused by this. I've read/heard several references to the use of ZP fabric for a suit with that tagline/slogan ("more drag, less bag"), but it doesn't make too much sense to me. ZP, to me, is a very low-drag fabric to begin with. After all, that's what canopy manufacturers use to build our wings, and something tells me that less drag on a wing surface, whether rigid or otherwise, is a good thing. Conversely, more drag on a wing surface would be a bad thing, leading to less efficient flight. So ZP's low-drag properties seem pretty prominent to me. Taking this into consideration, it seems to me that wearing ZP in body flight would actually reduce drag compared to a suit made of heavier fabric. Add to that a close-fitting cut ("less bag"), and it sounds a lot like flying naked, without the obnoxious flapping. Case in point: we have a fast faller at our dropzone who picked up a ZP jacket for sit-flying, under the same impression of getting "more lift." Needless to say, I was skeptical. We did a jump, and the dude was averaging 175mph throughout the dive, struggling to slow down in a WIDE SIT. He switched back to a cotton/poly long sleeve, and the his fall rate immediately dropped by about 20mph. A good test would be to be riding shotgun down the freeway with your tunnel suit (sleeve, at least) on. Stick your arm out into the wind and feel the drag, then switch to a longsleeve or a sweatshirt or something else with similar fit but a higher-drag fabric and try that. You should feel a pretty significant difference. Is there something I'm missing here (perhaps additional elements to the suit construction), or is the whole "ZP suits create more lift and drag" thing a misconception? I'm figuring that ZP suits are great for flyers who wish to have more speed with which to execute maneuvers (or are naturally floaty), along the same lines as competition 4-way suits. This seems to be in stark contrast to those who are seeking more drag/lift. My impression at this point is that if you want "more drag, less bag," your best option is a close-fitting suit made of high-drag (perhaps multi-layer) fabric. But I'm young and impressionable; someone help me out here.

Thank Dale; she rocks! I neglected to mention that she also has articles posted there, too, including an awesome one on technique (PDF) which covers safety, progression, and flying with a camera flyer. Good stuff.

Dale Stuart, bless her heart, compiled and published info on 300 freestyle moves (!) on her website for all to enjoy. Although a number of new moves and positions have entered the fray since then, it's still the bomb-diggity of resources with which to begin.

Short answer: web servers use Robots.txt files to advise search engines (and other automated crawlers) what areas of a web site not to crawl or index. Whitehouse.gov has a HUGE robots.txt file, which some speculate is meant to allow the White House to revise published documents (particularly those regarding 9/11 and Iraq) without the search engines' providing an archived audit trail; in other words, facilitating revisionist history. There are decent arguments both for and against the speculation, so it makes pretty interesting reading for both conspiracy theorists and blind followers alike. More info:Wikipedia: Robots Exclusion Standard Wikipedia: White House, The Website Technorati (blog) Search For: whitehouse.gov robots.txt Google Search: whitehouse.gov robots.txt http://www.whitehouse.gov/robots.txt

"intelligence" is what it has always has been... "analysis" as applied in the geo-political spectrum has changed... Although I'm thinking we agree in spirit, it's important to note that "analysis" is an essential component of intelligence, whereby raw intelligence data (preferably from multiple sources) is transformed into a usable intelligence product for consumption by decision makers: policy makers at the strategic level, or commanders at the tactical level. In fact, looking at it in detail, the process closely resembles a supply chain model. As with a physical chain, there are a number of points at which breakdown can occur, from the tasking and collection of the raw data clear through the comsumption and interpretation of product by those who make decisions. Many mistakes have been made over the years, and the community's procedures have adapted and evolved to reflect the respective lessons learned. Quite well, I might add. Still, however, there is not and never will be a perfect system. Today, some assets are still tasked with low-value targets whilst more critical targets make their way without notice; some collected data is just simply wrong due to human error; much data is not even reviewed in a timely fashion due to an overwhelming backlog; some analysis is contaminated by external pressure to generate product that conforms to a specification, rather than what the analysis would yield otherwise; and some policy makers simply misinterpret, whether erroneously or otherwise, the product they're provided. This all has been going on for years, under the Bushes, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, and on back (don't get me started on Kennedy ). There's just recently been a spotlight shown on the community, largely prompted by the latest and freshly cliché buzzword-and-scapegoat-of-the-presidential-term: "bad intelligence". Much like highway patrol or state police, being a member of the intelligence community is mostly a thankless, and as of late, a largely and unjustifiably discredited job: these folks, under great pressure and some under even greater risk, find more proverbial needles in continent-sized haystacks than most will ever know. Sure, they have their sportos, motorheads, geeks, sluts, bloods, wasteoids, dweebies, dickheads, et al, but I think they deserve just a wee bit more credit than they're eking out right now. Apologies for the thread hijack. Back to your regularly scheduled programming.

Nunchaku skills... bow hunting skills... computer hacking skills...

In a previous life, I drank, ate, pissed, shit, and dreamed about little else than the Korean language and DPRK political and military matters. During the Yongbyon nuclear issue in 93-94, I was working in country (ROK) providing support to our (US) activity there. Issues of this nature have many causal factors -- trying to pinpoint it to just one grossly oversimplifies the issue. There are a number of causes to the current situation in the DPRK, some of which are small (but add up), whereas others are more significant. The latter is usually indicated by pivotal changes in climate or policy in response to the cause. Famine, fluctuating relations with China, and the rapidly growing need for economic policy change are all examples of recent contributors to the situation. If we really want to point fingers and find blame, we have our choice of innumerable related decisions or policies to scrutinize, hell, all the way back to the Truman administration's lack of foresight into pending (and forewarned) Chinese involvement in the Korean War. The argument that "the current administrations hard line approach" is the reason for the current situtation is without a doubt narrow and short sighted; however, one would be hard pressed to dispute the approach's role as one of the more significant current causal factors to the situation -- the DPRK is responding directly to current US rhetoric, policy, and actions. As far as "years of neglect and cowardice on the part of the clinton administration [with regard to the DPRK]," I'm a bit lost. I mean, as much as I disapproved of his election and had little respect for him as a person (proven justified time and again), his administration's dealings with the DPRK didn't seem neglectful. Quite the contrary, actually. I mean, there was this crusty old crone who just happened to be US Secretary of State under Clinton when she made a historic visit to the DPRK and met with Kim Jong Il, capping a monumental, ongoing diplomatic effort in attempting to stabilize and normalize relations between the US and the difficult-to-deal-with-is-the-understatement-of-the-century DPRK. This effort was largely catalyzed by the earlier Yongbyon crisis, to which, as you may or may not know, the Clinton administration quickly responded with an aggressive, hard line posturing (I love that word) that skyrocketed tension on the peninsula. It wasn't quite Cuban Missile Crisis tension, but it was definitely along the same lines, only more localized. There wasn't much cowardice to go around at the time: it was pretty balls-to-the-wall. That aggressive response quickly led to a suddenly-diplomacy-sounds-real-good DPRK, which allowed for our favorite toothy peanut farmer to make some progress with the soon-to-be-dead Great Leader. Just how effective the followup DPRK policy was under Clinton is certainly debatable (too accommodating, etc.), as is almost any policy, but calling it "neglect and cowardice" just sounds too much like parroted silly emotional partisan rhetoric/propaganda. Feh. I'll agree, though, that the manner with which the Clinton administration dealt with the DPRK is certainly a contributing factor to the current situation, even if for no other reason (we all know there are more), by providing an environment with which the Bush administration's approach so sharply contrasts. Google Search: Clinton North Korea Curious readers beware: if the article's title somewhat resembles, "Clinton Submissively Licks Kim Jong Il's Balls," then you're probably in for, well, a sorta biased perspective (just as if the titles were similar to, "Bush Succeeds Marilyn Manson as Anti-Christ Superstar"). Please people, don't blindly believe everything you read; think of the kittens.

Reelect them?

Call me a bit uninformed, but despite my experience in this particular area, I'm having a hard time figuring out to what, exactly, you are referring; could you help me out a bit and fill me in? Links to references would also be tremendously helpful. Thanks! Steve

At long last, Sony has put their PC-1000 docs online, allowing for a feature-by-feature comparison with its predecessor, the PC-350: Spec Sheets DCR-PC350 Spec Sheet DCR-PC1000 Spec Sheet Manuals DCR-PC350 Manual DCR-PC1000 Manual Reviews camcorderinfo.com: Sony DCR-PC1000 Camcorder Review CNET: Sony DCR-PC1000 review Dropzone.com: Cookie Steps Forward General Much, much brighter, more lifelike colorHardware 3-chip sensor in a PC series form factor (!!!) Slightly smaller (1.77% by volume) and lighter (15oz -> 14oz) Increased LCD Display size (widescreen; 2.5" -> 2.7") Slightly lower power consumption, viewfinder only (3.1W -> 3.0W) Assignable manual dial (focus, exposure, AE Shift, etc.)Software Tele Macro Function, opens aperture for macro from afar (like, wow) New Pict Effect: Skintone ("Makes skin texture look more smoother [sic] and more appealing.") Steps Backward General Higher minimum illumination (5 lux -> 7 lux) No Nightshot (IR) function More moved to touch-screen menu (hardly any buttons/switches left)Hardware Smaller, cheaper sensor (1/3" CCD -> 1/6" CMOS) Lower resolution (3.31M pixels -> 0.79M pixels; impacts stills) Poorer low light performance Potential issues with existing add-on lenses (TBD)Reduced aperture range (1.8~2.9 -> 1.8~2.4) Battery Issues Heavier (45g -> 50g) Lower capacity (5.6wh -> 4.9wh; 15min less rec time) Enclosed battery compartment: larger batteries won't fitNo microphone jack New, proprietary accessory shoe With the PC1000, Sony continues their trend of making great strides to keep competitive, while at the same time working against themselves with what seem to be some really asinine moves. The single biggest plus here is that they've managed to give us a 3-chip camcorder in a PC form factor at the same cost as the PC350 ($1,299 list). The improvement in color richness is impressive, to say the least, especially when taking into account the quality of the CCD used in both the PC330 and PC350; side-by-side, video from the PC1000 makes that from the PC350 look drab and washed out -- it's that brilliant. On the other hand, Sony has cut the cost corner by implementing CMOS sensors instead of CCD's. CMOS's can be produced en masse at a much lower cost than CCD's, but the technology is arguably not quite at the level that it can compete with CCD's video quality at this point, particularly in low light conditions. Sony has implemented some software workarounds for this (i.e., reducing overall image brightness to reduce graininess in dark shots), leaving much to be desired. Adding insult to injury, Sony touts the lower power consumption of CMOS vs. CCD as an advantage in their product marketing (read: ruse), then completely eliminates the effective benefit by introducing yet another new battery that just so happens to reduce power capacity by over 10% (!), leaving us with fifteen minutes less recording time compared to the PC350 (90 min total, viewfinder only). How they can get away with this, *and* make the battery heavier is beyond me. And don't get me started on the enclosed compartment issue (see the camcorderinfo.com review for more info/rant). And what's with their obsession with relocating easy-access buttons and switches from the camcorder body to deep-buried touch screen menus? Is it a style thing? Or just another way to cut costs? I have to be honest, I thoroughly enjoy shooting video with my old PC120 much more than these newer models; the LCD and viewfinder are clearer and of better quality (higher res), and I have all the camcorder's features and functions at my disposal, within finger's reach. Now, it's all about click-click-click-click-click-click, all while seeing the action framed in an LCD that makes the old Gameboy look high res. Oh, and as I mentioned before, no more spent-the-night-in-Paris Nightshot moments... *sigh* In short, the PC1000 contrasts its much improved color with reduced versatility, particularly with regard to light (you need a lot of it) and recording time (you ain't got much). From a skydiver perspective, the PC1000 seems to be a good buy if you're willing to spend that kind of money for really beautiful 3-chip video coming from a PC series camcorder that goes to bed early -- the only bit of falling-down-drunk-at-the-boogie-bonfire moments you'll be capturing with this unit is the audio. And that's if your battery even lasts that long. Steve PS Any corrections, comments, or other input would be much appreciated! Other Keywords: PC 350 1000 PC-350 PC-1000 digital dv minidv mini-dv camera

Will look forward to your feedback, Daedalus. Thanks! I did a hasty side-by-side comparison of the PC350 and the PC1000 at Fry's a couple of days ago. Three things really stood out: Weight/Form Factor: The PC1000's slimmer and trimmer Color: OMFG, the PC1000's color is gorgeous, putting the PC350 to shame Night Shot: MIA on the PC1000. No more spent-the-night-in-Paris videos...I'll work on putting together a more substantial comparison as soon as Sony gets on the ball and publishes the PC1000's manual and spec sheet online. Steve

Thanks, Cookie -- you rock! I may beat you to it, however; my trigger finger's a-twitchin'. Until then, if anyone else has further input, then please do let us know. Steve

Bummer. Has anyone else tried jumping the new PC1000 (as opposed to the HC1000) yet? It's retailing now, listing at $1,299 at Sony Style, but online merchants have it going for $1049 and up (Pricegrabber.com, Shopping.com, mySimon, eBay, etc.). I'm sure I'm not alone in wanting to hear more feedback on this unit from a skydiver perspective. If it's air-worthy, then I'll be sure to put up another comparison. The possibility of a three chip camcorder in a PC form factor had me pretty excited, but I'm kinda feeling like I've been talking to a "hot" chick all night and the house lights just came on. Too bad I don't drink. Steve

As a few of you know, I'm pretty intimate with this particular stuff, so I hope I can shed some light on some misconceptions thus far: Ron's post Prior to his father's death, Kim Jong Il served in several key positions managing party message/propaganda, with particular focus on the divinity of their Great Leader, Kim Il Sung, the absolution of Juche, and the reunification of their divided peninsula under their policies and political ideals. Regarding the latter, he did what any good propagandist/lobbiest/spindoctor/insert-euphemism-here would do, and distilled the major obstacles to that goal into a single enemy that could be easily personified and vilified: the U.S. He personally oversaw an extremely effective campaign to breed a zealous hatred for the U.S. among the people of his country, consisting of daily doses of extreme anti-U.S. messages in broadcast and print, while also infecting the South (Republic Of Korea/ROK) with the same message to bolster support there. With the younger Kim now heading the state, the hateful anti-U.S. message continues. Although I agree that he fears U.S. aggression, Kim has unquestionably and reiteratively proclaimed his hatred for the U.S. That's a serious oversimplification. Their push for a bilateral non-aggression treaty with the U.S. seems to be their foremost political goal right now. JohnRich's post By information we currently have, that is incorrect. The 1993-1994 Yongbyon nuclear issue was enormously complex and multifaceted, with much happening behind the scenes. I was in country at the time, and it wasn't fun. Although I personally wouldn't directly credit Clinton for the solution (there were too many hands in that pie), the agreement (fact sheet) was a huge step in the right direction. The DPRK was finally cooperating with IAEA inspectors, and production of weapons-grade plutonium in Yongbyon had ceased. Now, here's the caveat. Does cooperation with inspectors mean that they had completely smooth, uninhibited access to everything they want? Of course not. When does this ever happen? Consider a lawsuit in discovery phase. One party requests all emails dealing with a particular issue. The other party goes in their email system, performs a few searches, and bulk exports the requested email messages. What commonly happens next is the emails are printed onto reams and reams of paper, loaded without categorization into boxes, and shipped to the case's document depository. Why not just send a DVD, you may ask? To make it more difficult for the other party to find what they're looking for. How about Clinton during the inquiry/impeachment? Or Bush during the aftermath of 9/11? (It's not SC without bringing presidents into it. ) This kind of behavior is common, expected, and to some extent, tolerated within the framework of such agreements. There will be back-and-forths on trying to work around such obstacles, but as long as opposition doesn't take the form of outright refusal to comply, things tend to move forward in one way or another. Now, was the DPRK immediately violating the agreement, building more nukes, while Clinton was boasting the successful end to the crisis? We have no evidence of this. There were, however, disputes on details on which the DPRK didn't follow up, with their reasoning that the U.S. didn't follow up some of their obligations (again, at the detail level). This resulted in a stalemate on some issues. We do know that in the years following, the DPRK continued to pursue nuclear technology, at the very least. This activity without question violated the spirit of the agreement, but I'm not certain whether it violated the agreement outright. Some intelligence (defector reports, etc.) indicated that work continued with fissible materials, with some indications that weapons were continuing to be built, but this wasn't thoroughly substantiated. In 1993, Yongbyon was confirmed. In these cases, we didn't have much to go on. It wasn't until the end of 2002, some eight years after the agreement was enacted, that the DPRK admitted to having an active nuclear program (outright violating and effectively terminating the 1994 agreement) and expelled the IAEA inspectors, resuming production in Yongbyon. It is through this activity that the DPRK has the capacity to effectively build nuclear weapons. DPRK nuclear weapon production capacity prior to this is speculative, at the very least. dorbie's post Let me play devil's advocate for a moment. From the text of the agreement: By the time ground was broken on the light water reactor, completion had slipped to 2007. Lawyers can debate the meaning of "target date", but the DPRK contends the late delivery was a violation of the agreement. Although the detail items below this header focus on denuclearization, the wording here specifically spells out working together for peace and security. The DPRK contends the "Axis of Evil" rhetoric (which came some 21 months before their admission of an active nuclear program), followed by the subsequent invasion of Iraq violates this stipulation. Again, just playing devil's advocate here, but the same could be said, from an opposed perspective, about an agreement with the U.S. in this case (ABM, etc. notwithstanding) -- the two arguments can cancel each other out. That being said, however, the DPRK has a history of disregard for even its own word, whenever it's convenient for them. In this case, however, it could be construed as tit for tat, much as their violation of the agreement resulted in the halt of oil shipments. Kennedy's post That's just a plain prejudicial blanket statement. Example: the younger Kim's militant propaganda had included his promise to bury his father in Seoul. Tension hit a second peak in 1994 when ol' daddy kicked the bucket, but I don't recall T-72's rolling down the corridor. crozby's post The DPRK follows its own policy of Juche, which is derivative of communism. Although some of their propaganda discusses spreading their love and joy throughout the world, it's not likely that this is anywhere near the DPRK's actual agenda -- they're isolationist. The furthest they have indicated actually wanting to spread Juche is to the ROK. DPRK Motives With regard to the DPRK's motives with the current nuclear issue, I think Ron and JohnRich have nailed it on the head: Great discussion. As for me, I'm no fan of Kim Jong Il, but I think his going public with their nuclear program (versus his father's keeping things relatively mum in 1993) is the smartest move he could have made to protect his regime, both internally and externally, and he continues to play it smart. If, however, one of his devices somehow makes it into the wrong hands, he'll have committed to his own destruction. I pray that never happens, as the loss of life will be catastrophic on all sides, even if the conflict stays conventional. Now, back to your regularly scheduled programming.

Viking: Yeppers. And good point regarding the inability to reuse batteries from previous models; however, the stats on battery life with this particular model show a gain with the entry-level battery. This could be due to the lower overall power consumption of the PC350, though, rather than the battery performance itself. But we already went over that on the phone... heh. Lew: Another great point. I s'pose I should've said "purely from a fun jumper perspective" that the concession seemed "worth it". For those who often need to transfer video between jumps (tandem/aff, 4-way, etc.), the HandyCam Station feature could very well be the straw... Matt/newshooter12: Doh! P. 16 of the manual walks through attaching the power cable to the HandyCam Station for battery charging, but p. 140 shows DC-IN on the camera itself. Good catch! Although I haven't seen an official spec on how the format scales, my understanding is that Memory Stick Pro has capacities up to 2GB, whereas current Memory Stick Pro Duo products have capacities only up to 512MB -- only 1/4 the capacity of the slightly bigger stick. Not to mention the higher price tag (per MB). Catherines: I had come across that review prior to my post, but a glaring inconsistency early in the article left it tasting a bit lacking in credibility to me: A quick glance at the side-by-side photos directly above and below this statement shows that the lens diameter is, indeed, different. After reading it through this time, though, it notes the PC330's having better low-light stills than the PC350... perhaps this is what we're looking for (smaller lens)? Thanks for getting me to look at it again. *yawn* Why the hell am I up so late? Steve

Comparing the documentation, here's what I came up with -- please post if I've missed anything: Spec Sheetshttp://www.sonystyle.com/intershoproot/eCS/Store/en/documents/specifications/DCRPC330.pdfhttp://www.sonystyle.com/intershoproot/eCS/Store/en/documents/specifications/DCRPC350.pdf Manualshttp://www.docs.sony.com/release/DCRPC330.pdfhttp://www.docs.sony.com/release/DCRPC350.pdf Steps ForwardGeneralCheaper! (List $1699 -> $1299)Lower Minimum Illumination (7 lux -> 5 lux), despite smaller lens?HardwareSmaller and 21% lighter (19oz -> 15oz)New batteries (FM -> FF) further reduce camera profileBroader aperture range (1.8-2.1 -> 1.8-2.9)Less power consumption; longer battery life (10min extra rec time)SoftwareAdditional still image size (640/2016 -> 640/1600/2016)AE Shift (8 step); adjust auto-exposure incrementallyZebra pattern; helps with manual brightness adjustmentCinema Effect; BOTH 16:9 & Progressive (330: one or the other) Steps BackwardHardwareSmaller (37mm -> 30mm) filter/lens diameter; less light on CCDBattery recharging requires attaching separate Handycam StationFirewire/USB requires Handycam Station; can't dub on the flyReduced LCD Display resolution (211K -> 123K)Reduced Viewfinder resolution (180K -> 123K)Uses new, expensive, smaller capacity memory stick ("Duo")No headphone jack It seems to me that Sony had three sales objectives with this product "upgrade": make it cheaper, make it smaller, and promote the new Memory Stick Duo format. To Sony's credit, this is exactly what they achieved. By using cheaper hardware components (LCD Display, Viewfinder LCD, lens, e.g.) and offloading the DV/USB and battery recharging to the separate Handycam Station (likely allows the use of cheaper components for those, as well), Sony was able to reduce the MSRP by $400 (!) while also reducing the camcorder's form factor and weight. Implementing the new memory media format, although much to the chagrin of those many customers who have invested in multiple Memory Stick Pro media, was a no-brainer: need to promote new/smaller media + new smaller camcorder = cha-ching. So, the PC350 is generally the same camera as the PC330 -- only smaller, lighter, built with some downgraded components, and carrying a few extra software bells and whistles. Looking at the PC350 purely from a skydiver perspective, it's a pretty simple tradeoff: Pros400 bones cheaper, with the same great CCDSmaller & lighter, with the same great CCDLonger battery life ConsHandycam StationNeed to carry yet another piece of hardware aroundMakes Firewire dubs very inconvenient at the DZ From this standpoint, the concession seems worth it. If the camcorder will be used for other purposes (trips, family events, pornos, etc.), however, then the other line items come into play, the value of each being highly subjective. As for me, the reduced resolution in both the LCD Display and Viewfinder is a show-stopper. When playing with a unit at Fry's yesterday, I was appalled by the display quality. Sure, the colors were good, and yes, a subject can still be easily framed, but the looking-through-a-screen-door effect was downright irritating, not to mention crippling when trying to get the focus just right. If the majority of a user's visual interaction with a product is through its display, there's no excuse for downgrading the display hardware on a new version of the product -- upward is the only way to go. Without seeing side-by-side video and image comparisons between the PC330 and PC350, no one can really say much, aside from theory, about the effect of using the smaller lens. I'm definitely concerned about it, but I'd like to see the side-by-side output before passing judgement. Any volunteers? Steve PS Hope this helps folks make informed purchase decisions. PPS Hope folks post more info on this cam to make this thread more complete. PPPS 'sup fockers? Other Keywords: PC 330 350 PC-330 PC-350 digital dv minidv mini-dv camera