dpreguy

Members
  • Content

    886
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Posts posted by dpreguy


  1. I'd listen to Terry on the machine of choice for sewing multiple layers such as toggle tips. Once again, I don't think the Adler 98 short arm pictured is the machine for that. In my experience, it isn't a thick material machine.
    And yes, my 98 longarm cost about $5500 10 years ago. Plus a hefty shipping fee to get it (900 miles away).

  2. I have had a longarm Adler 98 and it for sail repair.
    Used constantly for 10ears. It is a GREAT machine for doing long runs of zigzag. Not sure it is particularly heavy duty for punching thru heavy stuff. Pretty heavy stuff, but not a barn burner for multiple layers. Doubt it is the machine for toggle tips. I'd go with a programmable short throat machine.
    Plus side: It is a trouble free and great machine for sail repair. I love mine.
    If it is a long arm, sell it to Councilman so he can start repairing sails.
    If it is a long arm, and councilman doesn't want it I might buy it. Can you PM me if you or Urban don't buy it? (only interested in longarm)

  3. I appreciate the picture of the Gopro built in. Yes a step in the right direction.
    But, what I am envisioning is a helmet without protrusions and bumps and warpy looking top bulges like the one pictured. That the observer couldn't tell any difference between a helmet with or without the camera inside it.

  4. One obvious improvement, sorely needed, is to design a helmet with the camera inside of it. Cameras are small enough now to do that. One guy (saw it on dz.com) took a smartphone apart and put the camera part inside with the lens being just behind a small hole.. Can you do that with a new small camera? (Without taking the camera apart)

  5. Not here to give my opinion whether the commutation was justified. Or not. Make up your own mind; but all should know Bradley Manning's release of the emails to WikiLeaks had consequences. He violated his oath to his country, an oath given and taken by all members of our uniformed services. An oath administered for good reasons. I get it that he is sorry for what he did. Or at least he, now she, says so.
    Manning, through his lawyer, insisted that at the time of the theft of over 92,000 communications, (some sources say 150,000) that Manning had, in his own mind a lofty moral motivation. To wit: same as Assange's statement: "...any risk to informants’ lives was outweighed by the overall importance of publishing the information." What follows is a criticism of Julian Assange, (And by implication, of course, Manning.)

    Reprint of the article follows:
    Mr Assange said: “No one has been harmed, but should anyone come to harm of course that would be a matter of deep regret — our goal is justice to innocents, not to harm them. That said, if we were forced into a position of publishing all of the archives or none of the archives we would publish all of the archives because it’s extremely important to the history of this war.”

    ...Assange is giving us a wonderful lesson in why things are classified during war. His cavalier attitude toward the safety of the people he exposes to mortal danger, as if a really terrible context like a war provides justification for adding further risk to their lives (and his repeated, and thus far unsupported, accusations that Afghans who help us are criminals), is beyond immaturity and callousness, though—it is monstrous.

    Julian Assange is the worst sort of moralist, one whose sense of justice is so selective (secrecy is of utmost concern for Wikileaks’ sources and employees, but not the government), and his comprehension of consequences so short-sighted and defined by ideology rather than fact, that he doesn’t care who he has to offer up to murderous bastards to satisfy his sense of moral outrage. ...

    Anyway, so the Taliban are doing exactly what I said they would do, in my pieces for PBS and CJR: they are vowing to hunt down and murder anyone who is identified in the Wikileaks archive as having worked for the U.S.

    Exclusive: The Taliban has issued a chilling warning to Afghans, alleged in secret US military files leaked on the internet to have worked as informers for the Nato-led coalition, telling Channel 4 News “US spies” will be hunted down and punished.

    Speaking by telephone from an undisclosed location, Zabihullah Mujahid told Channel 4 News that the insurgent group will investigate the named individuals before deciding on their fate.

    “We are studying the report,” he said, confirming that the insurgent group already has access to the 92,000 intelligence documents and field reports.

    I hope Julian Assange sleeps well at night. His victims certainly won’t.
    End of article.

    If one googles this subject it is revealed that the Al Queda zealots actually did read these emails/communications and did in fact ,"Go on a killing spree" and cold bloodedly murdered, in fantastically cruel ways many many Afghans who they believe cooperated with the Americans/coalition forces, or even anyone who they suspected-justified or not.

    A few days ago I recall Manning's lawyer said that no one was harmed, and that other then embarrassing some US Embassy officials what he did was harmless, or words to that effect.

    We will never know how many Afghans were tortured and butchered by Al Queda, and will continue to be hunted down, for but know that Manning has Afghan blood on his hands. Probably a lot of it.

  6. Seth is correct. The Plaintiff will simply sue both you and your LLC. Your LLC status does nothing for you in regard to protecting you from liability or getting sued. The LLC (Limited Liability Corp.) is effective if you are in business and making contracts, etc... but it is meaningless in regard to your liabililty in case of personal injury. Really a waste of your time and energy.

  7. Indyz
    Agree about walking foot machines - not so hot- for canopy work.
    All of my rigger trainees love my Singer 188K for canopy work. I do too. Change stitch length at a touch with a convenient wheel. Remember Rags Raghanti's canopy patching demos at PIA? He used the Singer 188K. He shipped it to the Symposiums. One of the best canopy fabric machines ever made.

    I am not a fan of the machines that change stitch length by pushing a button down on the bed and rotating the mechanism. My Juki double needle is so equipped. Don't like that feature.

  8. All the footnote comment said was that staying under, (or exceeding) the FAA 65 db standard cannot be used as the sole standard for a nuisance in all cases.
    The general noise standard they did note/confirm was, that to be a nuisance the, " ...noise produced by (X) has to be so offensive, annoying or inconvenient to a degree that a normal person would consider it unreasonable." They noted that this is the statutory standard which is here in Colorado. OK so far, as they simply stated what was already contained in the Colorado statute.
    Importantly however they continued on, stating that since the City had adopted the Airport Master Plan that DID establish a specific 65db threshold, that in this case it was/is the standard; and stated that the trial court was correct in applying it... This affirms the trial court's legal analysis and her ruling.

    Fun stuff: They did note the Plaintiffs' sensitivities to airplane noise were greater than those of normal citizens. I read this as a cleverly worded insult, stated in a 'tongue in cheek manner' but worded to be politically correct. They could have come right out and said the Plaintiffs' sensitivities were manufactured for this lawsuit, unreasonable and that the complainants were not normal. They chose the 'gentle landing' wording approach. Pretty funny, actually.

    In my humble opinion, the Ct Appeals did not have to make a remand/reconsideration of the atty fee award on Respondeat Superior, as there was no award made to plaintiffs. Just because the trial court didn't make comments of the merits of it this issue doesn't warrant a remand. I give them no credit for objectivity on that one. So...atty fees, and the issue itself were sent(remanded) back to the trial court for determination or denial of the Respondeat Superior claim and the atty fees resultant. I think they could have-should have left that one alone. Guess they thought the award of the atty fees on that issue was too mean to Plaintiffs?

    Respondeat Superior = was (owner personally- or his closely held corporation-Mile Hi), liable for the acts of his contractor/pilots?

    Still my opinion: The Ct Appeals shouldn't even care since Plaintiffs were awarded no fees or damages. Can't figure out why they sent that non-issue down for determination.

    In all though, Mile Hi was the clear winner and most of the attys fees were affirmed.

    It looks to me that the Ct Appeals slapped the Plaintiff's firm down over and over again on the allegations of damages and injuries etc. which were alleged and not proven. Pretty much implied that alleging unprovable-frivolous claims amounts to poor decision making. As I recall, Defendant's appeal atty called it a "shotgun approach". And the Ct Appeals pretty much said so too.

    More fun stuff: One or two sentence affirmations of the trial court's summary judgement on numerous issues are equivalent to intellectual 'slap downs'. Embarrassing to have an appeals court uses terms like, "..no evidence", "..not meritorious", "..no genuine disputed issue", "no error" over and over. It's like the Ct Appeals graded many of plaintiff's pleading and trial decisions and gave out a bunch of F's.




    Good victory.

  9. If she is unsuccessful on ALL appeal issues. Does not prevail on ANY of them...NO REMANDS to the District Court Judge for reconsideration on ANY point; a claim for atty fees, prep fees etc can be made. Proceeding to appeal on a case with NO MERIT can bring repercussions. Outcome of such a claim is not certain, but a claim can be made.

    In such a claim, Appeals court balances the NO MERIT claim for fees and costs against the "chilling effect" it may have on appeals in general. However, appealing for exercise and vexation (appeal just because you can) is not favored either. Let's see.

  10. "Intelligence agencies have concluded that the Russians gave the Democrats’ documents to WikiLeaks".
    OK. The Russians hacked the Democratic Party emails and Hillary's and her campaign manager. Gave them to WikiLeaks.

    Now, the liberals and Democrats and Hillary supporters are parroting the "outrage of the day" principally thru the Liberal rag=the Washington Post. If they are simply complaining about Russia doing this; then yes the Russians did influence the outcome. Not a good thing at all. OK so far.

    But.... There would have been no material to influence/sway the election with had the Democratic Party, Hillary herself and her campaign manger all been clean parties. Now, as I see it, these (above) parties are not really complaining about the fact that the Russians did it, but more about the election's outcome and how it could have been different if only the dirty stuff had been kept secret. Ignoring the fact that if there had been no dirt to discover, then the Russians or whoever would have been left with an empty result - nothing to show for their efforts. Nothing to sway with, so to speak.

    Complaining about the Russians' hacking is fair game. Complaining about the outcome of the election because the dirt was brought to light, thereby swaying the election, is not. It's an obvious semantic tactic to blend the two, hoping the less intelligent citizens (in this case, the sore loser Liberals) will swallow it and make it a Washington Post/Obama rallying cry. Obama wants to 'get to the bottom of this hacking issue'. Uh, right...? Actually more like saying that his elves didn't win the election and the excuse is that the Russians are to blame. Possibly he, and the others should look inwardly.

  11. Richy R
    If you are going to get the old school slider (like the one pictures or one from Para Gear) it would be to your advantage not to have long risers. Lunging up to get the Dacron releaser line is distracting. All at a time when you may also be on the lookout for other jumpers. Shorter risers are a good thing for these sliders.

  12. The report, as I see it says:
    ,"...did not find any systemic or specific equipment design issues" "...All systems...they function as designed and are within C-23 test program..." "...not been able to determine a definite cause for the LRO(low reserve opening)issue"...

    Sounds like all of the rigs tested did OK, but the data shows some performed better than others. And yes, we'd like to know which rig was represented in each data set, but probably won't ever know that. A condition of each mfg to keep this secret?

    I was at PIA when the test program was initiated with Dave Singer as the lead. Thanks for all of the efforts.

    The LRO issue will apparently continue to be a scary enigma; despite the great efforts of this testing program.