speuci

Consider this. Barry said he would abide by the funding guidelines and then backpedalled at the last minute. Given enough money, you and I could run an awsome campaign by simply hiring the right people. Yeah, that's a tad shiesty, but would you have made a different decision? I would have done the same were I him. He probably thought at the time that money was going to be the only way to win. Money aside, his campaign is powerful because of its unprecedented use of volunteers, technology, and promotion. His war chest is still huge, so even though he outspends McCain significantly, I don't think the structure (with maybe the exception of the infomercial) would have eroded with public finance.

Ahhh, now to a valid point albeit one not relevant to this thread. Consider this though, Obama has run one powerful, well organized, well managed campaign against McCain, who has been campaigning his entire life. All the experience in the world means nothing if you can't execute. BTW, I'm a libertarian and a federalist who started in McCain's corner. I'm still not a liberal, but Obama has my vote.

I'll give you a task. Dig up an article detailing which professors at either UOC or Columbia AFFIRMATIVELY refuse to associate with the man. Universities bring in controversial professors all the time, because diversity of opinion sets a foundation for debate and argument progression. Even in the face of controversy (such as Rumsfeld going to Hoover at Stanford) it is not uncommon to see faculty dinners, parties, etc among colleagues with vary ideologies. Using associations from contemporaneous University employment for political gain is deceptive, trite and feeble.

You are WAY overthinking this. Here's instructions anyhow: 1) Go to supermarket 2) Go to beer aisle 3) Grab beer you like as long as it isn't shit, get atleast 12 (well - elsinore, so grab 24) 4) Go to DZ 5) Give beer to someone

Seriously? The tape was (per the LAT) provided on condition of anonymity. Its probably not what's on the tape, rather, the identity of the person who videotaped it that the anonymity condition is protecting. Wow, three UOC professors with differing political views associating! The Horror! Damn them all! Only a weak mind would be persuaded by this crap.

Yeah, I was abstracting a lot!

Above post is very good. Let me share an anecdote from my experiences.... cat C was very shakey for me, choppy and started to spin when I was released. Went to the windtunnel in between C and D and couldn't get control in there. Then, on the actual D jump, everything worked flawlessly (did several mental walk-throughs and convinced myself not to make any radical movements when falling - don't fight it!) Its all been gravy since then... you'll be fine.

The central issue here is where the effigy is hung. On your own property = likely protected speech. On someone else's property = likely threatening and not protected speech.

No you can't, because the consitution is written in broad strokes. Even the Code which provides finer strokes doesn't freqeuntly enumerate specifics. I interpret this as the ability to play on a more level playing field. This IS NOT NECESSARILY an equal playing field. We are an equal opportunity country, but not an equal accessibilty country. Socioeconomic position has a huge impact on what opportunities we will be presented with in our lives. To the extent that tax dollars are shifted around from rich-people (who have low marginal value of an extra dollar) to poor-people (who have high marginal value of an extra dollar), and further, to the extent that those shifts are done only to the extent necessary to enable poorer people to cover the costs of necessaries, I'm all for *REDISTRIBUTION* even if i'm the one whose wealth is being redistributed.

No new laws needed here. Inevitably, there will be a civil lawsuit naming both the instructor and the venue and citing negligence or some other causes of action. There will then be a settlement that will probably be costly (don't want to let this one get to a jury!!!!!!) Then, all gunshows will prohibit eight year olds from shooting weapons for fear of the liability. Thats my guess as to how this plays out...

I tried this the other day on my fairly new ZP canopy and found that it was easier to hold the burrito together once I pulled the topskin out and rolled it around. That said, never saw anyone do it pre watching that video...

This IS a tragedy. Yes the Court recognized certain civil rights, but without an ability to improve one's economic situation, one cannot assert these rights. Thus, the recognition of these rights was, and still is illusory to many. The Tragedy is recognizing that these rights are still infringed upon today and the victims largely lack either the money or the knowledge to enter courts and vindicate these rights. And I'm amazed at how many people hinge on word *redistribution*, when all it means is a tweak to existing graduated tax schedules and a few mroe dollars in social programs that will benefit society at large.

I don't find this damning at all. Moreover, I find the drudgereport caption: "2001 OBAMA: 'TRAGEDY' THAT 'REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH' NOT PURSUED" ignorantly misleading. When he talks about expansive rights *recognized* by the Warren Court, he says the tragedy is that dispossessed people never learned to organize and participate in the political process to improve their economic situation.

Guess I'm headed up Sunday morning... Weather looks too bad to jump tomorrow. Good luck though!

I know I know.... Well, lived in Cali for the last ten years so I only have to deal with cold when I snowboard. My permanent home will be Manhattan shortly, so I expect to be jumping in even COLDER climates...

Who's going? Which days are you going?

I just moved to Northern Virginia (temporarily), from beautiful Northern California. The first thing I noticed was how cold it is! I have my rig with me, and want to jump this weekend. I don't have a jumpsuit yet, but what should I wear/buy, and what surprises am I in for? Thanks!

I always get in arguments with my buddies about who can sue and when. What my friends don't seem to get (and I do because I'm an attorney) is that the first question is not *can I win a lawsuit* but rather *do I have atleast a shred of an argument such that I can make it expensive for the other side*. Ergo, blame the lawyers. I did my AFF1 my second year of lawschool. I read the waiver and laughed to myself. No waiver is bulletprrof because certain things cannot be waived by contract. The waiver I had was so outrageous I figured (if need be) a good lawyer could get most of it severed. The reality is that almost any provision of any waiver can be challenged in court. Challenge is often sufficient to get settlement leverage. That is a shitty way to think and the reason I would not piss on a lawyer if they were on fire. If someone agrees to something, that should be it. It should not be,"Well, I'm going to sign this but if I get hurt I am going to sue anyway. People that think like this suck and the lawyer that encourages this suck more. Let me clarify, hopefully you don't all think I'm a schmuck yet. I accept responsibility for my actions, however, of the multiple skydiving waivers I've seen, each one has overreached. Overreaching is attempting to waive liability for 'gross negligence' or 'intentional conduct'. Under almost every state's laws, you can't waive these sorts of things because public policy prohibits it. Dropzone's need to maintain SOME level of liability exposure (in lawyer speak: internalize some costs) to make sure they install the adequate controls. If I F@#$'d my own pack and screwed up my landing, my bad. If I rented gear as a student and it was packed incorrectly, THEIR BAD. I've now jumped at several dropzones and seen several things which made me uncomfortable. I saw a rig jumped by an experienced guy which was the first pack attempt of a student. I've had a packer misroute the bridal on my own gear which might lead to a pilute chut in tow. Etc.... People should definately accept all responsibiltiies for their actions, however, dropzones should not attempt to extricate themselves from all liability because then they fail to take basic steps to mitigate high risks. These egregious waiver provisions are what I laugh at when I sign waivers. ---- As to the OP's original question, business would continue as usual until an accident, at which time the DZO would probably get shut down. Same applies for instructors, they probably aren't to scared of the threat of liability since in my experience, most (regrattably) have few assets themselves and live paycheck to paycheck. The likely result would be that only a few operations would remain... I think....

I always get in arguments with my buddies about who can sue and when. What my friends don't seem to get (and I do because I'm an attorney) is that the first question is not *can I win a lawsuit* but rather *do I have atleast a shred of an argument such that I can make it expensive for the other side*. Ergo, blame the lawyers. I did my AFF1 my second year of lawschool. I read the waiver and laughed to myself. No waiver is bulletprrof because certain things cannot be waived by contract. The waiver I had was so outrageous I figured (if need be) a good lawyer could get most of it severed. The reality is that almost any provision of any waiver can be challenged in court. Challenge is often sufficient to get settlement leverage.

Interesting article I dug up: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&&scp=2&sq=STEVEN%20A%20HOLMES&st=cse Now ask yourself this: If you were Bush, would you have killed the Clinton policy? Hell no you wouldn't, you would be labeled racist. RE: Mark-To-Market Agree with OP, we should undue FAS 157 and loosen mark-to-firesale-price. Should be some other regulatory scheme which keeps asset-holders honest, but damned if I'm smart enough to know what that is. RE: Bailout Me thinks the greatest problem with the bailout is calling it a bailout. To me, bailout used to mean government assumption of a corporations liabilities with the concurrent wiping out of all equity holder stakes. This "Bailout" is rather an investment. Government buying on its own account mortgage related CDO's. Government could stand to make a KILLING on this (provided some people still make their mortgage payments)

I was gonna buy a 310 last week for a 150 main / 143 reserve combo (preserving the ability to downsize to a 135) but I just found a deal on a used rig with a Silhoutte 170 and Smart 160. So, my question right now is: Is there a container that can fit a Smart 160, as well as a ZP 150 and ZP 135? Also, could i temporarily squeeze a Silhouette 170 in there if I were a good packer? (i.e. I pay for a good packer)?

He said this in all seriousness? If so, you should name the DZ. Also, I'm curious as to why a group of free-flyers would be last out as opposed to FIRST out... That load order sounds dangerous to me (but I'm a newb to though...)

Where?

I demo'd a Vector last weekend with a freefly handle and had a bit of trouble with it. I don't freefly yet, but when I went back to a rental rig with a hackey I felt much better. Has anyone used the hackey with the tuck tab? I'd be interested in hearing how it worked...

Is the basic V-split design an extra 200? Or is the 'split option' only charged if you want each side of the container to be a different color? I'd rather have the V-Split design than the Standard design, but not if it costs me an extra 2 bills....