bdazel

Frames are Radiators. Contact lenses are Biofinity toric. The glasses are worn under a Bonehead Mantle, which keeps them nice and snug. Often air circulates between the sunglasses and my eyes, but it is not enough to disturb the contact lenses.

Yeah. I've had no problem with Gatorz and contacts.

There was also a Cessna that went in after a jumper had a main pin come lose on the step and the bag entangled with the gear. 2004 http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=1312925;page=1;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25; Correct me if I'm wrong, but was that incident in Illinois, and not in Indiana?

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=3287376;page=1;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25; This was in 2008. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1716277;search_string=richmond;#1716277 This was in 2005. As far as major injuries - I don't know. None that I can recall.

Some parts of the bill are an exact copy of the similar Nevada law (although in Nevada, there is no administrative enforcement mechanism, and there is no licensing requirement). The outdated verbiage (i.e. "jumpmaster") is in both the Nevada law and this Indiana bill.

Bertt, all good points. But perhaps there is an enforcement provision against instructors. There is a colorable argument based on the definition of "skydiving business" that any instructor is an "operator" of a "skydiving business." But under that definition each instructor (tandem/AFF/coach) would be required to obtain a state license from INDOT in order to lawfully operate his/her "skydiving business." That would also mean that traveling instructors would be prohibited from doing any training whatsoever in Indiana without obtaining a license, including tandem instructor examiners, etc. Can you imagine the difficulty if every state had a statute with this affect? But somehow I don't think this result is what Waltz envisioned with this bill, and I hope he doesn't get that idea. Regardless, the bill as written is unclear. "Operator" is not defined in Title 8 of the Indiana code. The meaning of the word has been litigated in other cases involving different statutes, which may or may not lend guidance to the meaning of the word as used in this bill. Once INDOT creates agency rules for implementing this act, it may become clearer. Hopefully it doesn't get to that point.

I'll throw in for the Smartcarry. Although I'm not sure how it will work with a SR9. I use it for smaller frames. One note though, be sure to cover any exposed velcro (the hook side) because it can tear up your clothing.

Same as Phil. The C-wing jacket arrived with RSL clips attached, but in a completely non-functional position. I had to un-stitch the RSL attachment points and re-sew to make the wings work.

You are right, the current beta version of Lightroom 3 doesn't support AVCHD. I was on an Adobe forum a couple days ago, and there was much speculation about whether the final release will support AVCHD.

Thanks for the info. Guess that's just one more item to add to the list of reasons to upgrade to Vegas Pro. I'm not sure which would be more efficient: organizing video clips in Lightroom 3 with corresponding photos, or in Vegas with easier integration with the editing program. Guess I'll just have to demo both.

Is Sony Vegas Media Manager stand-alone? Or is it part of Vegas Pro? I like the idea of having something that integrates with the editing software, but currently I'm using Vegas Movie Studio Platinum.

Interesting. Thanks for the heads up. That would be a good solution, as I currently use Lightroom to manage all my photos.

Does anyone know of software that can be used to organize and index video file clips? Something like Lightroom (without the editing capability) or Adobe Bridge is what I'm thinking of. It would be nice to be able to flag certain video clips and even add comments or keywords. This would save lots of time when looking for particular clips, or compiling bits of video by theme or subject matter.

The first pair of skydiving apparel I owned was a pair of Tony cargo pants, bought 10 years ago. Those are bullet proof. They are still holding on strong, even after 1000s of jumps and some tunnel time. My favorite ever piece of skydiving apparel. One year ago I bought another pair of Tony cargo pants. Sadly, Tony's quality is now in the toilet. The fabric is already showing serious signs of wear, and will not last the season. The stitching is poor. Every couple weeks I have to reinforce something. The pockets are dumbed down. But the price is still very high. DO NOT BUY TONY. You will not get what you pay for. They now appear to rely solely on their name for business, and no longer put out a quality product. Best to find a newer jumpsuit maker who still takes pride in quality.

Very nice.

>This happens when an otherwise intelligent person is not willing to admit something. Too bad that's not the case here. >I have studied a bit of political science, but it is only among several subjects I have studied. What would that have to do with "the crap I am pulling," anyways? There are more than enough copies of guys like you in poli sci classes who are poli sci majors. They pull the same kind of stunts that any other smartass in the class is willing to do. They are also some of the loudest because they take every chance of approaching something objectively and take offense at others making their points instead of providing counterexamples. Every day, there was crazy religious conservative guy screaming at the teacher and crazy coffee-shop liberal screaming back. No change of opinion was made as a result. Every once in a while there was a Tom Aiello telling everyone else they were crazy socialists, but he usually made interesting points. You aren't that guy. I've heard from several law professors how much they dread reading exams written by poli sci students because they spend so much time trying to spin magic out of words without actually saying anything. You are that guy. By the way, you are incorrect to label me religious. That goes back to number 2. >Clearly you have issues with Mormons. Go see a therapist >Nope. I have issues with your people who come to my door wearing white button-ups with ties and packpacks. Enough. Leave me the fuck alone about your religion. Thanks. My people? Go see a therapist. >Nope. Lazy employee is lazy because he chooses to be. Very simple >Great. So you justify "the employee is lazy because he chooses to be" with "the employee is lazy because he chooses to be." You're begging the question. Bad bad boy. Wow. Let me dumb it down a little more: Employee is lazy because he chooses to be. Is that better? >You go left, or you go right. You seem to be running in circles in the intersection. There is no other road dude. >You can't end the road where it begins in logic without committing a fallacy. Still running in circles. It's not a roundabout; it's a fork. Shall I draw you a picture? "Employee has two choices: 1. Be lazy. 2. Don't be lazy." >Why are they lazy? Because they choose option one, and option one is Be Lazy. Fascinating. Still trying to throw the blame elsewhere. I find it sad. You find it fascinating. Liberal cancer.

You are quoting me for something that I never said. Foul play dude.

>Thus, rendering quite a chunk of the responsibility on the employer as well as the employee. Responsibility for what? The employee's laziness? The employer can and will make a change or go away if that change is necessary for his survival. But the employee possess the free agency to change his behavior. Whatever he chooses is his choice, not the choice of the employer. >Bullshit. The responsibility is on both the employer's and the employee's shoulders. You admitted it when you said that the employer is free to make the change and needs to do it for the success of their business. Thus, the responsibility is shared. Uh, Bullshit right back dude. Assume you are still talking about responsibility for the employee's laziness? If so, I admitted no such thing. The employer can change his own actions and provide incentives - he has the free agency to do that. But he cannot force the employee to not be lazy if the employee chooses to be lazy. The responsibility for the employee's laziness sits on his shoulders only. >I'll tell you: Often. (You even said it yourself, you said its EXACTLY right. Uhh. Wait. No, it's not for the reasons you agreed to above) Relevance: We've heard guys like you say it a million times. It is relevant, because even you admit to something that would give us reason to negate it, even if it s only so in some cases. You must have a liberal arts degree. Political Science maybe? You are making no sense. Guys like you try to pull this crap all the time. >I'm not your dude, dude. (You probably wouldn't watch South Park, considering they hate mormons) (Just kidding dude. I don't hate mormons, and it's not your fault if you are) Clearly you have issues with Mormons. Go see a therapist. >Your lazy employee is blaming his own laziness (something over which he has complete control) on someone else. >Isn't that a bit circular for you to be using it as justification for defending the business? "Why is lazy employee lazy? Because he is lazy. Nope. Lazy employee is lazy because he chooses to be. Very simple. >Great, so your saying: If he chooses not to be lazy, then the employee has the free agency to get his butt in gear. Well how is that possibly false? You haven't proven anything outside of the assumption you made to the right of "IF." IF A occurs, then A occurs. Fucking amazing. I never knew that if something happened, that something happened. You've labeled me stupid for 8 posts, and you expect something like THAT to be sufficient for arguing with? Of course it is VALID, but how does that move us forward? Back to third grade are we? Is it English Lit? I'm dying to know. Let me dumb it down for you. Employee has two choices: 1. Be lazy. 2. Don't be lazy. Employer is not sitting somewhere in the back of the employees mind controlling his actions. If employee chooses 1, he is responsible for his laziness. It's like coming to a fork in the road. You go left, or you go right. You seem to be running in circles in the intersection. There is no other road dude. Bottom line here: A chooses of his own free will to be lazy. You claim B is to blame for that laziness. That mentality, my friend (my dude), is American Liberal cancer.

>Why should the employer blame themselves for providing a shitty job? They can blame themselves if they want to. If the turnaroud is so high that it affects profits, or if they simply can't get employees - then the employers dug their own hole, and will be forced to change or go away. If they go away, then they screwed up, and another will come along and take that place, hopefully learning from the mistakes of the former, and providing a more motivating environment. The employer is free to make that change, just as the employee is free to find a new job. > Hell, it's the worker's fault for not finding a better job or being more motivated to do something more fulfilling, right? Exactly. >(How often have we heard THAT before) Don't know. Don't care. It's irrelevant. >The business owner is guilty of projection too, dude. Projecting what, dude? laziness into the employee? > Oh shit, you even said it for me: "A capitalist would say "Quit and find a job that motivates you."" And the capitalist employee would do just that (assuming his society still allowed him that freedom). >This happens often with business owners and managers as well. "Why, if only the laws were less stringent that manager would be able to fire that employee!" >Or "If only taxes were lower my business would be successful" Or "If only socialism didn't have its presence here, the free market would have allowed me to be successful as opposed to that other corporation" Ah. Big difference here. The business owner is bitching about or blaming things that are out of his control (and with good reason). Your lazy employee is blaming his own laziness (something over which he has complete control) on someone else. Your lazy employee has the free agency to get his butt in gear and not be lazy if he chooses, but he CHOOSES instead to 'project' his laziness on the employer. Liberalism makes this choice easy and attractive - and the cancer spreads.

Which position is that? If you again quote my original post - you again show your mistake. Sadly, I didn't have to. Not nearly as well as other great thinkers in America today. But I will point out one example: You stated earlier that if an employee is lazy, it is the fault of the employer for not providing enough incentive. I think this mindset captures some of the essence of the cancer. This mindset prefers to not take responsibility for its own actions and blames others. A capitalist would say "Quit and find a job that motivates you." (In a capitalist economy, you have that freedom). A liberal would say what you did, and throw the blame on others, assuming that he/she is entitled to the job and that if he/she is lazy it is the fault of the job-creator for not catering the job to his/her liking. That, in my opinion, is a cancerous mindset that is in sharp contrast to that which made this country great.

" You're oblivious. That's all the headway I need. " Point made (again).

#8. You're oblivious. That's all the headway I need.

Ok. You called out the possibility of your own stupidity in post #30. Now I have to agree with you.

And we're back to number one.

And there's the seventh. Awesome.