Southern_Man

That's a good start, but it is not nearly enough. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Just as relevant to my vote as Ted Nugent. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Good point, I go with both... "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

The inquiry revealed that not only did Clayton fail to report her lottery winnings and other employment earnings, as state law requires, she also "allegedly collected approximately $5,475 in food and medical benefits" she would have been ineligible for. According to Michigan law, welfare recipients must report any changes in assets or income to the agency within 10 days. Yeah, I think there was probably a lot of political pressure to charge her. I also agree that there is probably a lot of value in making an example of her and discouraging future fraud. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Sometimes it is, and this is an area that government should and has to mirror business. An easy example is retail. One of the biggest costs to any retailer is shrinkage, which includes shoplifting, theft form employees and other merchandise that is spoiled or goes missing. No retailer can afford to ignore shrinkage as it cuts directly and substantially into profit margins. It theory every retailer would love to have shrinkage of 0%. However at some point the cost of enforcement outweighs the cost of the shrinkage and the store decides it is cheaper to let some merchandise get out of the store. Of course they are constantly trying to come up with lower-cost more efficient ways to reduce shrinkage as well as tracking any new schemes that aim to take advantage of holes in the system. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

(Trying to avoid the political mess, really) Bill, what about in terms of absolute power generation--how does the 1500MW compare to growth from other sources? "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

well what do you call it?! Pud or hackey, if you are referring to what you are grabbing at the end of your pilot chute, which is what I think you mean. Mine is usually a piece of plastic like this chap's http://www.flightgear.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Parachutist-splash.jpg Generically all of these systems would be referred to as handles. The type you use I've heard called a tube. Not sure if there is another name for it. Toggles are attached to the risers and are what you use to steer and land. Not in play until the parachute is deployed and out of the bag. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Not everyone has income. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Honestly I think basing your vote on what Ted Nugent says is not a very wise decision, but you are free to do what you want. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

well what do you call it?! Pud or hackey, if you are referring to what you are grabbing at the end of your pilot chute, which is what I think you mean. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

The "Buffett Rule" is pretty much the exact same concept as the Alternative Minimum Tax. Of course we keep changing that every year because it is unpopular, was written poorly, and was never indexed to inflation. It would make more sense to change any structural parts of the tax code that led to such a situation in the first place rather than to put another "patch" in like the AMT. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Right, REAL athletes skydive. Well, they don't choose fashion over performance...for everybody but skydivers jumpsuits went out of fashion in the 70s. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

No good deed goes unpunished. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

I take nothing on faith. But I require legitimate evidence to convict. In its absence, whether or not I have misgivings about the guy, he must be released. I agree 100%. Given my understanding of the standards required to assert a self-defense argument in FL I doubt there will be enough evidence to convict. However I am quite sure that none of us know all of the evidence so I could be mistaken. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

That is what I think, too. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

there's evidence....snort. That's like asking her to identify the killer out of a lineup of GZ and TM. So she doesn't know the sound of her own son? You think she's lying. I cannot take on faith the testimony of a grieving mother eager for justice, that the cries on a poorly recorded cellphone call are definitely her son's. Is she really going to say it was the other guy?? Do you take on faith the claims of a guy who has a self-interest of clearing himself from charges? "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Eh, you can go back a little further than that to the Puritan jeremiad's about how the country was in line for divine retribution because the younger generation was turning their back on God and his commandments.... Of course no poster around here would ever use a similar line of reasoning... "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Book Sales and investments. Why do you care if he got a refund or not A refund just means he overpaid (and very likely in estimated taxes since so much was not salary). That means he gave a free loan to the government. (Does the free loan mean he is not a hypocrite?) "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Neanderthals are extinct -- doesn't that mean they didn't fuck enough? Wendy P. They still live on in the gingers. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

There is reason to believe Osbon "may presently be suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent" to understand the case against him and assist in his defense, the U.S. attorney's office said in a Texas court filing last week. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

body suits are designed to be low-drag. Somehow they have only gained limited acceptance in track and field. Cathy Freeman, the Australian 400m runner, wore one in Sydney, she is probably the most famous. The research is mixed on how much they help. In swimming, by contrast, there was a lot of evidence that they helped a lot with drag and for a brief while they were worn frequently. However currently the rules for suits state that they can't go past your knees and maybe shoulders as well. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

No, I haven't. I jump a 210 and have relatively low jump numbers. I'ver heard the turbulence thing a lot, though. I choose the phrase "may be" intentionally because I am not fully convinced one way or another. Particular models also seem to come into play. FWIW, I am on my first canopy and am in no hurry to downsize simply because I don't see much gain to it. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

How is that more applicable than the self-defense? SYG only removes a duty to retreat - Zimmerman was on the ground with nowhere to retreat to in any case, so SYG doesn't even come into play in that regard. Well, the case law is pretty undeveloped so it is hard to make many definitive declarations about SYG. Except that the conditions are that 1. he was at a place where he had a legal right to be 2. was reasonably in fear of his life and 3. not meeting one of the disqualifying conditions (such as being in the act of committing a felony). As best I understand it, Zimmermann is asserting he met all of those conditions. Stand Your Ground, as best I can understand it, should be thought of as a sub-category of self-defense, not a separate category. However, procedurally it is given preferential treatment in Florida courts as being heard as a pre-trial motion. Again, there is no downside to pleading SYG at a pre-trial motion. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

(Just replying to last post in thread) The attorney should definitely plead Stand Your Ground. This is essentially a free bite at the apple, as it is a pre-trial motion and a hearing before the judge. If the judge buys the story than Z goes free without a trial (and, as I read the law, the state has to pay for any expense he has already incurred to defend himself). There is no downside, as if he loses at the pre-trial hearing he just pleads self-defense at the trial which is what he would have done anyway. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Larger canopies give you a much, much greater margin of error. Flare a little high or a little low? On a large lightly loaded canopy you will be OK if you PLF or maybe you will sprain your ankle. Small highly loaded canopy--tib-fib and welcome to the titanium club. Larger canopies are easier to land accurately, so that off landing into somebody's back yard is a lot more likely to have a positive ending. One advantage of small canopies are that they are able to penetrate more in winds and may be less susceptible to turbulence. Jumping in higher and more turbulent winds is not an unmitigated good, however, it brings problems of its own. The faster turning speed is true, however it is counterbalanced by the fact that everything happens much, much faster on a smaller canopy--so, yes, you can turn quicker but you have to turn much quicker to avoid a canopy collision because you are closing with the other canopy (or obstacle) at a much higher rate of speed. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"