• Content

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  • Feedback


billeisele last won the day on April 11

billeisele had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

28 Neutral


  • Main Canopy Size
  • Reserve Canopy Size
  • AAD

Jump Profile

  • Home DZ
    Skydive Carolina
  • License
  • License Number
  • Licensing Organization
    USPA 5618
  • Number of Jumps
  • Tunnel Hours
  • Years in Sport
  • First Choice Discipline
    Formation Skydiving
  • First Choice Discipline Jump Total
  • Second Choice Discipline
  • Second Choice Discipline Jump Total

Ratings and Rigging

  • AFF
  • Tandem
  • USPA Coach
  • Pro Rating

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Bill - yes, IMO canceling the wall doesn't make sense. Especially in light of the statements made by DHS. But that is not the point of my post. My point was the last paragraph about the accuracy of the $17 billion figure.
  2. Jerry - Yes almost all contracts have the standard Termination Clause, 52.249-2 is for a fixed price contract. It's a mandatory clause. I use the word "almost" to avoid an argument but I've never seen or heard of a contract that did not have a Termination Clause. There is termination for cause, default and convenience. This one is a Termination for Convenience, commonly called T for C. It protects the government and the contractor. The premise is simple to follow but the details can be complex based on the complexity of the contract. Building an aircraft carrier vs. a wall would be the two ends of the spectrum. A wall contract would not be difficult to write. The complexity would be in handling differences in terrain and site access. Usually the government places the burden of these type things on the contractor and it's their responsibility to figure it into the price. This is most likely a Fixed Price Contract and there may be some type of adjustment for swings in material (mostly steel) costs. It's expected that the contractor can predict labor costs. The contract you worked under was most likely a 1-year contract with four optional extensions, they are typically called 5-year contracts. They are fairly common and often used for Service Contracts that are primarily labor. If they are canceled at the end of a period it's simple. The wall would not have been a Service Contract. Mostly likely a Firm Fixed Price Construction Contract. There may have been allowances for changes in material (steel) prices because of the length of the contract. The government expects the contractor to be able to predict labor costs. Info on the clause is 52.249-2 Termination for Convenience of the Government (Fixed-Price). | Acquisition.GOV Note that in a termination the contractor recovers the cost to provide the accounting and everything else it takes to settle the contract, and profit on those costs. My main point was that the $17 billion savings figure may not be the real number. Would like to see the details.
  3. DHS stated that the wall allowed them to focus their immigration efforts at controlled entry points, and that the wall significantly reduced drug, gun, and human smuggling. Are there certain parts of this that you disagree with?
  4. The administration has decided to cancel all projects involving the wall and return funds to the Pentagon. Biden administration to return billions in border wall funding diverted from Pentagon ( For those familiar with government contracting they are aware of the Termination Clause that exists in federal contracts. The contractors will be paid for work-in-process to the extent the expenses can't be recovered, along with other termination charges. That means that pre-fabricated wall sections waiting for installation will be paid for, materials ordered that can't be canceled will be paid for, housing, transportation, food, leases, rentals, and other contracts that can't be canceled will be paid for, the cost to demobilize will be paid, the costs to cancel the contracts and unwind subcontracts will be paid. Yes the termination cost will be less than the cost to continue. The difference being that the government, the taxpayers, get nothing in the termination except rusting materials. And then will be the cost of the contracts to address the erosion and levee issues. Those would have been taken care of with the wall construction. Essentially that work will almost be paid for twice due to remobilization and contracting costs. I'm wondering if the $17 billion is the net number? Regardless, it would be enlightening to see the numbers in the whole process.
  5. These are 2019 statistics using 2020 population data. For the purposes of this report a mass shooting is an incident where four or more people are shot. I didn't insert any data on states that may or may not have some form of gun control other than what is done with assault weapons. There doesn't appear to be any corollary between assault weapons bans or regulation, and the number of incidents or deaths. An interesting note is that in a "mass" shooting one has a 77% chance of survival if shot. No shootings are good. The media focuses on the sensational mass shootings and tends to ignore the (unfortunately) common street fights, drive by shootings, bar arguments and domestic violence where guns are used, quite often among people that know each other. The attached file provides detail on each shooting and a hyper link to the story. One could read all of them and develop the stats on race and age groups. For example this is a screen shot of the 9 incidents in SC. If someone wants to look at more detail or add to the EXCEL file, it's attached. State # of Incidents Dead Injured Total Population (thousands) Incidents / million people % Deaths of total shot Assault Weapons status Alabama 12 17 50 67 4,921 2.44 25% Alaska 0 0 0 0 731 0.00 Arizona 5 6 23 29 7,421 0.67 21% Arkansas 5 7 15 22 3,030 1.65 32% California 44 52 186 238 39,368 1.12 22% banned Colorado 4 2 20 22 5,807 0.69 9% Connecticut 3 0 13 13 3,557 0.84 0% banned Delaware 2 0 10 10 987 2.03 0% Florida 20 34 62 96 21,733 0.92 35% Georgia 19 18 70 88 10,710 1.77 20% Hawaii 1 3 1 4 1,407 0.71 75% banned Idaho 0 0 0 0 1,827 0.00 Illinois 41 37 172 209 12,588 3.26 18% Indiana 12 9 55 64 6,755 1.78 14% Iowa 4 7 11 18 3,164 1.26 39% Kansas 5 5 20 25 2,914 1.72 20% Kentucky 5 6 18 24 4,477 1.12 25% Louisiana 23 27 85 112 4,645 4.95 24% Maine 0 0 0 0 1,350 0.00 Maryland 21 15 82 97 6,056 3.47 15% banned Massachusetts 4 7 12 19 6,893 0.58 37% banned Michigan 12 13 41 54 9,967 1.20 24% Minnesota 1 0 5 5 5,657 0.18 0% regulated Mississippi 8 9 29 38 2,967 2.70 24% Missouri 15 12 53 65 6,152 2.44 18% Montana 2 5 4 9 1,081 1.85 56% Nevada 3 1 12 13 3,138 0.96 8% New Hampshire 0 0 0 0 1,366 0.00 New Jersey 14 13 62 75 8,882 1.58 17% banned New Mexico 5 8 17 25 2,103 2.38 32% New York 9 7 44 51 19,337 0.47 14% banned North Carolina 15 21 47 68 10,601 1.41 31% Ohio 16 20 79 99 11,693 1.37 20% Oklahoma 8 11 22 33 3,981 2.01 33% Oregon 1 0 5 5 4,241 0.24 0% Pennsylvania 18 9 86 95 12,783 1.41 9% Puerto Rico 1 8 0 8 3,189 0.31 100% Rhode Island 1 2 2 4 1,057 0.95 50% South Carolina 9 10 39 49 5,218 1.72 20% South Dakota 0 0 0 0 893 0.00 Tennessee 7 3 33 36 6,887 1.02 8% Texas 40 90 165 255 29,361 1.36 35% Utah 0 0 0 0 3,250 0.00 Virginia 11 22 44 66 8,591 1.28 33% regulated Washington 3 7 7 14 7,694 0.39 50% Washington, D.C. 7 2 30 32 713 9.82 6% banned West Virginia 1 1 5 6 1,785 0.56 17% Wisconsin 3 6 9 15 5,833 0.51 40% Wyoming 1 2 2 4 582 1.72 50% Totals 441 534 1,747 2,281 329,343 1.34 23% Gun data, 4-21-21.xlsx
  6. 2019 Stats 38,355 gun deaths, 23,941 suicides, 14,414 homicides There were 434 mass shootings resulting is 517 deaths and 1,643 injuries in 2019. In this stat the definition of a mass shooting is 4 or more shot in one incidence. The vast majority of these were people shooting people they know or were in an argument/fight with. List of mass shootings in the United States in 2019 - Wikipedia Note that CA had 43 and IL had 40 (19% of the total events) - both of those states have strong gun control laws. Texas had 41 and has no gun control laws. South Carolina had 9 and we have a ton of guns and no gun control but only 5 million people. If this data was normalized based off total population it would help. Population: CA 39 million, IL 13 million, TX 29 million, SC 5 mill. So events per million: CA 1.10, IL 3.08, TX 1.41, and SC 1.80. Not enough data for a pattern but it is interesting. Someone else is welcome to complete the stats. Suicides - some may have not occurred without the availability of a gun, same for homicides 56% want more gun control, 35% want no changes, and 9% want less control. It would be interesting to know where the people are located and their opinion. Wondering if dense cities want more and rural areas want same or less. The demographics could tell us a lot. 9 states ban assault weapons, 1 state regulates. What is an assault weapon?
  7. Seems that the suggestion is gun registration. The US has somewhere around 400 million citizen-owned guns. Some stats show that 42% of households have a gun and it's 1.2 guns per person. A monumental task but possible, to have them registered. The cost would be high if contracted to private industry and 3X higher if done by the government. Regardless, it would be a big number. A common fear is that registration then leads to confiscation. That fear will cause many (don't know but guessing 20-40%) to not register. That starts a list of issues with the main one being a formally law abiding upstanding citizen is now a criminal for not registering. Do we register all guns or just non-hunting guns? Suspect the answer is all since some use those scary looking guns to hunt. To the problem of those that aren't registered. If in the hands of a criminal they may eventually appear. In the hands of the law abiding citizen they may never appear, or as a minimum it would take many years. But since those guns are not used for crime maybe that's not a huge problem. Well, except when it gets stolen or inherited by someone less responsible. I agree that something needs to be done. The challenge is what.
  8. 1 & 2) Yes, the number of guns would decrease. Wonder how long it would take for there to be an effective decrease in guns? One thing it would do is remove guns from those that aren't hardened criminals. That would decrease many street shootings. Also wonder how long it will take for the cartels to begin shipping guns into the US. Once guns became less available and criminals shift towards knives or some other weapon, what then? Yes, laws do decrease crime. There are plenty of laws already on the books and crimes still occur. There must be some other ideas that would work. It seems to be clear that high density poverty areas have high crime rates. There are solutions but it's not easy.
  9. If guns are highly restricted in the US and criminals have difficulty getting them it seems logical that the cartels and others would find a market in the US for guns. But that could take years to occur. The challenge is the sheer number of guns that are already in the US.
  10. OK. So let's assume that stiff gun ownership laws are enacted. How will guns be removed from the hands of criminals? How will gun importation from Mexico be stopped? All the current laws haven't stopped drugs and other illegal cross border issues. I also disagree that police are "trigger happy." The vast majority of police are good at a difficult job. Yes, there are definitely bad cops that use the badge for protection. From your next post. Yes, the police do have to assume folks are armed, and yes they probably are more nervous because of that. And yes that can lead to errors. Following on your point that there are more police shootings - yes, suspect that is true. When the "suspects" shoot the police fire back. I'd like to see the stats on: # of police stops, # of shootings of armed suspects and unarmed suspects. It would also be good if the stats had race of the suspect and the cop. I know that where I live there are plenty of bad white folks that use guns.
  11. Obviously you have missed prior posts, but that's OK, no one reads all this stuff. I've posted FBI and other sources of data and facts. And have made posts about binary triggers, bump stocks, magazine capacities, and the lethality of shotguns and handguns. Have also suggested methods that might be feasible to restrict guns. The point is simple. Making it more difficult or impossible for a law abiding citizen to own and/or carry self protection is a problem. Criminals will remain armed regardless of the laws.
  12. Thanks for the article, quite interesting. If the battery is big enough it certainly could be a valuable asset to stabilize the grid. I can say from first hand experience that when uncontrollable events impact the grid the system operators will grab anything they can to help control and stabilize it. Our option of last resort was a rolling blackout. We had it in the plan and did simulations to be prepared. Other parts of the country use it on a regular basis as a standard operating practice. Public broadcasts to reduce usage were surprisingly effective. Then you can squeeze more with voltage reduction. We also had a voluntary interruptible program and a program where companies would run IC generators on request, these programs worked well. Losing the grid was always considered "not an option."
  13. Bill - The article seems to be about technical feasibility not economics. It would be interesting to know the cost and if Telsa is cutting them a deal to demonstrate their battery. Certainly Apple can afford it with their high product prices, and CA laws on renewables and electricity cost. Would also be interesting to know the tech facts and cost on the Apple Park HQ building. It was built with many unique features to control energy use. Economics is still a real issue not just technical feasibility.
  14. CNN stock is currently at $124. Down from a high of $310 in June 2018. About back to a value of $110 in April 2016. From Sept '96 at $67 to $115 today. Fox Corp data for the same dates is $37.50, $33 and $22. From Sept '96 at $6 to $37.50 today. Neither of these are publicly traded as they are subsidiaries of larger companies, CNN of AT&T and Fox news of 21st Century Fox.