ManagingPrime

I can send you mine. I'd never give up my garlic press. However, I don't have a pizza stone. For the life of me I can't figure out why I do not own one yet.

I'm on the fence. A lot of people already have Bluetooth in their helmets and are taking calls, playing music, etc. If the functionality is smoother it MAY be safer than current Bluetooth configurations. Since I already have Bluetooth in my helmet I'd be willing to take it for a spin to see if distraction is decreased.

40,001 now.

It's called a static line. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opuwWB855HE Doing one with a skydiving reserve sounds sketchy at best. The crowd is not quite as friendly over at basejumper.com, but it's a good place to get information specific to the base jump component.

You may also want to look into renting a house/condo. They book up fast so you may no longer be able to find anything in arecibo, but it's worth a look...particularly if you are going with a group. I'm staying in Isabela which is an acceptable distance for me since I don't plan on jumping everyday. EDIT TO ADD: Book your car rental NOW. I've heard from more than one person that the car companies over book and if you don't book early you can find yourself in PR with no available cars.

I'll wade in...I'm sure other jumpers with a ton more experience will chime in shortly and can get much more granular, but I'll get the ball rolling as this sounds fun. Skydive onto building and BASE jump from building has been done (felix baumgartner comes to mind). I can't find the video of that one, but here's a skydive with a building landing. Note the 7 cell canopy...these are ideal for accuracy landings. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr3Iq3dR3Vk 1. Not as experienced as you might think. The typical recommendation is 200 skydives before attempting a BASE jump. If you are talking about landing on top of a building as opposed to a very small balcony there are many skydivers that could accomplish that task, but not that many would be willing. If someone wanted to train specifically for this type jump they could do it in less than a year and with less than $50K. 2. Any number of jump planes could be used from a single engine Cessna to a twin engine turbo prop. Location of the tail is important. If the tail is low the jumper could hit it on exit. Any altitude could work from 2K feet to 15K feet plus. Above 15K feet oxygen is required. 3. A building a 20+ stories would be required. In theory, the jumper could skydive his main canopy and BASE jump his reserve canopy (modern parachute systems come with two canopies). Or he could jump with a BASE rig and a belly mount reserve and use the belly mount reserve for the skydive portion. 4. It depends on how tall the object is. BASE jumps from buildings tend to have short free fall times (less than 4 seconds) and short canopy flights (less than 10 seconds). 5. Most building BASE jumps are done in the middle of the night. Generally, there is enough light to see where to land.

+1 It's been relatively freezing here in AZ, so i have not jumped for 4 weeks or so. I've not been the nicest person this last month. LOL

What points do you disagree with?

"...she thrives at being a bomb-thrower from the inside." I think that statement sums her up pretty succinctly. I've been reading her with enthusiasm all morning... a sharp mind and a true humanist, you don't see that very often.

You should trademark that idea (or whatever you have to do to claim it as yours) THIS MINUTE. That's gold, my friend. Gold. I mean in a business idea. I'm still against the cams. Other people won't be. It's been done. However, I don't think there is any App to make it easy. I'm ok with the idea. There is an app available that uses bio-metric data to advise what percentage of the patrons are male and what percent are female, it also breaks it down into age groups and advises how close the bar is to capacity... it's kinda useful for when deciding what bar to go to with friends.

I've gone the goggles route and full face...and my preference is hands down a full face. With glasses helmet fit is key as it can get uncomfortable. I prefer the G3. My vision is not so bad that I can't jump without glasses. Often, I've jumped in just my liquids and an open face. I've given some thought (not pulled the trigger yet) on obtaining prescription liquids. You may want to consider this option as well.

No worries. As someone involved in the industry I see a lot of comments, even by people who claim to be in the industry, that indicate 5+ years later people still don't understand the roles played by the govt, gse's, banks, consumers, ratings agencies, etc. in the whole mess. In regards to the specefics of the BAC and JPM cases as discussed on DZ, seems there is a better grasp than many "professionals" have.

It's difficult to use a history of 20 DU findings on the same loan with varying program codes and income and asset figures until and"Approve/Eligible" comes back as evidence, I'm guessing because you would have to prove intent. You're right, it's a lot easier when management is shooting emails back and forth to each other about how their loans are crap.

The settlement is for loans packaged and sold to FNMA by BS, WAMU AND JPM...this was happening with every originator and packager. The JPM settlement was not just for the misdeeds of bear stearns and washington mutual before the acquisition. Even JPM admits this by saying that these two accounted for 80% of the bad loans that were packaged and sold to F&F. Originating loans that were not quite up to snuff and then selling them to F&F was SOP with all the major lenders...JPM and BAC are special cases in the sense that they inherited so much bad paper, but they were just as guilty. It is however convenient for BAC and JPM that they can point to CW, WAMU and BS and say "it was those bad companies not we were forced to buy...not us".

People seem to be confusing the facts around this JPM settlement and the BAC trial. This has nothing to do with CDO's, derivatives, "liar loans", etc. The cases tend to revolve around the fact that originators (JPM, CW, WAMU, BAC, etc.) all had a TON of fannie and freddie loan volume. Operations departments became seriously bogged down and management decided to "streamline" operations, essentially doing less due diligence during the underwriting phase of these loans. Compliance and quality control departments within these lenders made note of the deteriorating loan quality due the streamlined process, the deficiencies were ignored and the loans were packaged up and sold to fannie and freddie with assurances that all due diligence was performed....it was not...the lenders knew this and still represented and warranted that it was...fraud...case closed. Interesting enough, this money is all going to the US treasury via net sweep agreements.