wolfriverjoe

Talked with the people about this. I'm at Summerfest right now. The unit is encased in a "boot" sort of thing. Fully protected. The pic is to show what it looks like inside. I'm not sure about water resistance. The basics have been covered. GPS signal goes to a cell signal sent to their place. Then a text is sent to a (or several) cell phones, and the app will let the owner see exactly where it is. Price is around $170 (USD), service is $99/year or $500 for "lifetime", which will follow the user if there is a device upgrade in the future. The point was made that it could be used as a "find me" device too. If someone lands out and is hurt, they could (in theory) pull the cable out and activate it. If they had set it up to send a text to a second phone (manifest or jump partner or whatever), it would be simple to find them. FWIW, after spending quite a while searching for an "out-lander" from last night's sunset jump, cell phones are being required tonight. I thought about it and will probably pass. I have a fairly old Sabre2, not worth a ton of money. But I know of several people who have lost brand new (or nearly so) Valkyries. Worth it for them, probably. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

There's also the fact that the so-called "pro-life" crowd is often pro-death penalty, pro-war, pro-gun rights, pro-hunting and on and on and on. Only truly "pro-life" in one particular, specific situation. But try to call them "anti-abortion" and they get pretty irritated. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Freightliners and Internationals. I've been over the road for about 15 years now. I've never had a truck that was capable of more than 85 or so. Running around 1400 rpm at 65, redline is 1800 - which is about 85. Those were/are all company trucks, and all of them were governed to about 65. I'm out there for a living. Getting my "doors blown off" by another big truck doesn't happen that much. I took a car trip out to California last year. Ran 85 or so across most of the western plains & desert. Only had one truck keeping up with me. He was running a little over 80 east of Salt Lake City. Owner-Operators can spec their trucks out any way they please, and many of them choose higher (lower numerically) final drives to get more speed and better fuel economy. 80 plus? Sure. 90? maybe. 100? doubtful. And a couple other things: 2 "major" tickets (15 over qualifies) and a CDL is pulled. Radar detectors are illegal in commercial vehicles everywhere in the US (federal law). The "detector detector" technology is getting better and better. Getting caught with one is not trivial. Radar & laser jammers work to some degree, but again, getting caught with one is not cheap. And the cops are getting better and better at catching speeders. For the most part, LIDAR isn't "beatable." A "laser detector" is not going to warn you ahead of time, it's just going to tell you when you've been caught. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Fair enough. He definitely had a small pick-up truck. Don't remember what kind, except that it was small. And yes, towing a load too heavy for it. But he told me the drive was going fine until the truck blew by him going at least 100. The air blast was enough to get the swaying started until he lost control and rolled everything. There was another 18 wheeler behind him who hit his brakes and stopped to help. He saw the whole thing. I'm gonna call BS on the "At least 100mph" part too. The power needed to get a big truck going that fast is a lot more than most people would believe. The gearing needed is also very unusual. I would be redlined at about 85 or so (if I wasn't governed a lot lower than that). There are a few trucks out there that can hit 100. But they are very, very rare. And for a driver to be caught going that fast is a very serious penalty. It's also really stupid to do it anywhere except open, empty roads (like wide open - out on the plains or out in the desert). The stopping distances & room needed to maneuver or change lanes or anything like that are also a lot more than most people realize. If your buddy had a seriously unstable setup on his trailer, it wouldn't require much for the trailer to get upset, start swaying and go over. His simple reaction to the truck going by fast (80 or so would be really startling) could be enough. If he "flinched" and jerked the wheel just a little, then he was done for. Most people vastly overestimate the speed of a car passing them at high speed. Ever since I got adaptive cruise control on my truck, I've learned how bad I was at it (the CC display gives a speed readout on the car in front). "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Ahhh... Thank you. That makes perfect sense. I fully agree that statistics only tell us about the past. They can be helpful in predicting the future, but only to a certain degree, and that degree drops greatly as the sample size does. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

I understand that the statistical pool is small, and getting good data is difficult. But if you look at the USPA fatalities, lack of RSL, lack of AAD & small canopies are major factors in a large percentage of deaths. Cutaways at adequate altitude, but no reserve pull. Greatly reduced by having an RSL (not eliminated). No pull fatalities. Greatly reduced by having an AAD (again, not eliminated). Bad landings under small canopies, either intentional swoops or just bad landings (often off-field or in marginal conditions). Again, reduuced but not eliminated by larger canopies. I just dug out my Parachutist from April, and with a quick look, 12 of 24 deaths could have been (not would have been) prevented by these three things. IIRC, previous years have shown similar trends. So, while it is a lot of "gut feeling" (stomach), and injuries are not in the mix; I can show at least some evidence to back up my claim. And as a sidenote: I am not advocating any sort of requirement for AADs or RSLs. I am in favor of minimum experience requirements for advanced canopies. I'm mainly pointing out that the "average" risk in the stats can be reduced by a significant amount by making certain choices. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

I don't see it. If all would jump large only or small only - proportions of numbers would be the same. When data is mixed, the results are misleading. I don't understand what you mean. Can you elaborate please? "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

You are making a bit of a mistake by considering all "skydiving" the same. Choices that jumpers make can drastically change the risk level of a jump. For example, jumping with an AAD & RSL, jumping a larger, lighter loaded canopy and not making aggressive landing approaches will greatly reduce the risk of a jump. At least the past fatality reports seem to indicate that. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Well, in all fairness, the "dropper" probably isn't the baby's mom. However, some parents teach their kids amazingly "upstanding" and "appropriate" behavior... Like throwing fireworks at people. As a "prank." http://kfor.com/2015/07/23/it-was-just-a-prank-couple-arrested-after-allegedly-setting-homeless-man-on-fire/ "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Grizzlies & mountain lions? Anacondas & Capybaras & Sloths? Kangaroos & Koalas & Tazmanian Devils? Pandas & Orangutans? Galapagos Tortises? And if so, how could two of everything (plus food) fit on a boat of the size described in the Bible? You are free to believe what you wish, but the "Noah Story" doesn't even pass the simplest of "How did that work?" questions. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Al Franken, has never succeeded at making a single person laugh. He was, possibly, worse at acting and comedy, than he is at politics. but, dog gone it, people like him He was a writer on Saturday Night Live for a long time. I personally don't find him all that funny, but some people do. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Yeah, suuuuuuuuure it was a friend of his. You did your part. Now its on her to catch him again. She can't be naive at this point going forward. Whenever I sign up for sites like that, I always use my alias: "Billy Vance". Bastard... Well, if you read the OP carefully, Nataly said she saw dude's picture. She didn't say whether or not it was under his real name. So no matter what name you do (or don't) use, if you post your face, your friends (and the local post office regulars) will recognize you. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Thank you for being honest. Access to guns makes it easier for suicidal people, especially men, to commit suicide. To all the kneejerkers, I'm not saying soldiers shouldn't have guns, or all soldiers are suicidal. I'm simply pointing out that the suicide rate would likely go up if servicemembers were required to be armed at all times. It's not a value judgement, it is a statement of fact. If you're okay with that as the price for making recruiting centers "harder" targets, then at least be honest about it. I personally don't think arming all soldiers in garrison would solve anything, but would create a whole host of other problems. I wouldn't be in favor of requiring them to be armed, any more than I'm in favor of prohibiting it. But allowing it? You bet. Personally, I've always liked the look of the Marine dress blues with a pistol holster (can't find an image of it, but I'm pretty sure I've seen it). Or perhaps concealed to "avoid scaring the women and the horses." In any case, publicizing that some of them are armed might give pause to these sorts of attackers. It wouldn't stop an ambush, where there wouldn't be any time to pull out a gun, but then again, nothing will. And: As it is now, the civilians can protect themselves (outside of the "gun free" zones). I can legally open carry in Wisconsin, and carry permits are "shall issue" with Hunter's Safety, Honorable Discharge from the military or completion of a training course. So, right now, we do have 2 classes. Civilians who can carry the means to protect themselves, and military who cannot. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

I think you ask yourself two questions: 1. If I were her, would I want to know? 2. From what I know of her, would she want to know? If the answers are: yes and yes, I would definitely have told. If no and yes, I probably still would have told. If yes and no, I would consider what I knew about the person, and whether I felt I was in a position to override her preferences. And if no and no, then I would not have told. ^This. Big time. I would absolutely want to know if my SO was cheating. If I found out that any of my "friends" knew and hadn't said anything, I'd feel seriously betrayed, both by her and them. But, for me, honesty and fidelity are at the very top of the "list" of things in a SO. Others may feel differently. And: So you found the profiles of myself and WolfRiverJoe? I don't have a Santa suit. I don't wear diapers, and haven't stuck any feathers up my arse... Yet. She didn't mention bullwhips, large steel swords or laying out on the hood of a 928 like Rebecca DeMornay in Risky Business. 'Twasn't me. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

And don't forget JFK; The loser lost a perfectly good PT boat to the Japanese. Well, he was from Massachusetts. The way they drive there, the accident was probably his fault. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Goodfellas was great. Absolutely amazing movie. It "fiddled" with the truth a bit, but that's standard procedure. And Tommy DiSimone was a "Grade-A Psychopath." The stuff Pesci did (the instant rage, beatings and shootings at the slightest provocation, ect) was accurate, but only really scratched the surface of what a monster the guy really was. But you have to realize that Gotti was only a slight bit better. Don't forget that the guy who accidentally ran over Gotti's son "disappeared" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_John_Favara I've been interested in the mob and that sort of stuff since I was a kid. Because I'm closer to Chicago & Milwaukee, I'm a bit more "up to speed" on what has happened in those places instead of New York. So my first thought on a "Pesci Character who got whacked" was the one from "Casino" instead of "Goodfellas". I thought Goodfellas was a better movie. Although it's far more "ethnic looks" than anything else, Pesci bears a strong resemblance to both of the people that he portrayed. The first row and a half are Pesci, DiSimone & Spilotro. https://www.google.com/search?q=Joe+Pesci+Tommy+DeSimone+Anthony+Spilotro&rlz=1C1TSNO_enUS478US478&espv=2&biw=1366&bih=643&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CCAQsARqFQoTCNnyuJv35cYCFciliAodfj8Bkg "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

I have to admit, my first thought was: "Why would a New York wiseguy take out a Chicago guy?" But I was thinking of Pesci's role as "Nicky" (Tony Spilatro) in "Casino", not as Tommy in Goodfellas. And there's no such thing as a "38 Magnum." It sounds like an interesting book. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Sons of Guns had the appropriate FFL at the time to construct that drone No FFL required to build (construct) a gun, as long as it isn't being built with the intention to sell it, which then requires a manufacturer license, which is a special type of FFL Link to types of FFL (first thing I found on a quick search). http://www.fflanswers.com/ffltypes.html "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

I think they have found themselves with a client who won't take "no" for an answer, refuses to listen to reason and is no longer fully in touch with reality. There may be "other stuff" involved that they won't refuse the work (family connections, favors owed, that sort of stuff), it may be that they are willing to do the work as long as it's paid for, knowing full well the outcome (and advising the client what the outcome is likely to be). Or maybe they simply don't want to make an enemy of Kim. It's proven to be a nasty thing to do. As was pointed out above, Kim won't stop. She believes she is "Right" and that she'll prevail. However, $67k in costs and (hopefully) another $116k in attorney fees will be a pretty solid "speedbump" for her to surmount. The cost stuff on pages 5-7 that Ryoder said to read are hilarious. Asking for compensation for "mental and physical injuries", yet refusing to submit to an exam to determine the extent of them? Claiming "Trespass by Noise"? And the appeal filing is a joke. I don't remember enough details (if I even knew them to start with) to know which witnesses were not allowed and why, but my memory is telling me that the ones for the plaintiff that weren't allowed were truly ridiculous. The idea that the standard be applied to a "Normal Person" instead of an "Average Person" is hilarious. What's the legal definition of "Normal"? I can find "Reasonable Person", but not "Normal". And I have a funny feeling that a "Reasonable Person" would find noise at a level slightly above ambient as "not a nuisance." And the idea that local laws can supersede FAA regs on airplanes has been fought in court a lot of times. The FAA always wins. I bet a case of beer that the appeal fails. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Absolutely. There is nothing better for determining cause than video. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Look over the court ruling I linked to. Notice that attorney's fees are not in there. The $67,000 is just reimbursement for court fees and hiring expert witnesses. That is a drop in the bucket compared to what they actual spent for legal defense. Well, perhaps I should have said "make the plaintiff pay some of those costs." I saw that attorney's costs weren't addressed. Too bad those aren't. But it doesn't change the fact that Kim owes Mile Hi $67,000. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Wow. I hadn't seen that before. Right after the ruling, someone (Unstable?) asked why Kim & her friends couldn't keep filing lawsuits under different names and in different courts to keep after Mile Hi and bankrupt them. There were (and are) a variety of different reasons that wasn't going to happen anyway, but here is just under seventy thousand reasons why not. Because when someone files a frivolous lawsuit, and makes the defendant pay a bunch of money to defend themselves, then the judge can make the plaintiff pay those costs, especially when the ruling is unanimously against the plaintiff. I said it before, but I really don't see an appeal going anywhere. I thought the judge was being very lenient towards the plaintiffs, refusing to allow the study done by the airport, allowing the site visit, ect. That all makes a lot more sense now. The judge made damned sure that there weren't going to be any avenues for the plaintiffs to appeal. The primary case was the "nuisance level" of the noise. Everything else hinged on that. The study done by the airport, while accurate, might have been "appealable" because the airport manager had shown clear favor towards Mile Hi. Having an independent survey done removes that. Kim can't claim that the study "wasn't fair" because the airport manager was against her. Similarly, the site visit seemed to be unnecessary. Both studies agreed that the noise level was barely above the ambient noise level. But by going out there and seeing it "in person" (the court really isn't a person, but you know what I mean), Kim couldn't claim that the studies didn't reflect the reality of the situation (of course, she claims that the plane "flew differently" that day). Combine that with Kim's own video where she has to whisper to keep from drowning out the plane with her narrative, and the "nuisance level" of the noise is clearly not met. So Kim is simply going to spend more money, perhaps making Mile Hi spend more money that she should hopefully have to reimburse, to find out that an appeal because "I didn't like the ruling" won't go anywhere. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

You know what they call a a Quarter Pounder with cheese in Paris? They don't call it a Quarter Pounder with cheese? Silly, they call it a 0.11 kilo with fromage. The metric system, that's right. Check out the big brain on Monkey. You're a smart motherfucker. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

So I take it you were smart enough (and sober enough) not to launch any from your body (like your head or your chest)? "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Well, there's 2 aspects to this. #1 - Most of the shootings are gang members or other criminals shooting each other over "drug turf" or previous disputes (the little kid that was killed was in his father's arms - the father was a gang leader). Most concealed carry instructors will be very clear that a CCW permit doesn't make the holder a cop. That the person should be very, very careful about jumping into the middle of a dispute. I've heard of one class where the instructor has the students make a list of everyone who they would be willing to die for, go to prison for the rest of their life for and lose all their money & possessions in a wrongful death lawsuit for. They then say that unless there is a person on that list who's life is being threatened, think very carefully about getting involved. Even "clean" CCW shoots will cost a lot of money. AggieDave quoted $50k (yes, Fifty thousand dollars) for a "No Bill" CCW shoot. For a "good guy" to jump into the middle of a gang fight would be pretty foolish. Even if the shoot is clean, and the guy doesn't get arrested, the gangs would probably come after him. #2 - The "good guy with a gun" mentality takes a while to catch up. Chicago pretty much prohibited pistol ownership until they were forced to in 2011, and then they fought tooth and nail to restrict it with training requirements, pistol permits and so forth until 2013. If you remember Florida in the 90s - They had fairly permissive gun ownership for a long time. Then in 92, the first widely publicized "Shall Issue" permit law went into effect. It took a few years for enough people to get permits and regularly carry before it became widely known that the criminals had realized this and started targeting tourists in rental cars (back then, the rental cars had plates ending in "Z" and were easy to spot). So it might take a while before there are enough "good guys with guns" making it difficult for the criminals for any real effect to be seen. And I highly doubt that the gang fights will be broken up by those "good guys." It's simply not worth the risk for an uninvolved civilian to do anything but take cover. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo