VTmotoMike08

Interesting, thanks. Not trying to get off topic but... how can I tell if my Mirage has cotton or nylon leg straps? It seems thicker and of a different texture than javelin and vector webbing, which seem to more often have the SP-888 hardware, and it does not have the yellow tracer tape. But thats just from what I've seen at my DZ.

Mirage has a picture of the different types on their website, and I bet it is the same as vector- http://www.miragesys.com/products/?loc=detail&id=1&iid=1066 The "French Hardware" is also called the SP-888, it provides friction by running the webbing thru 2 pieces of stainless steel instead of one with a bar. Is it better than the other options? Usually yes, according to my master rigger, although even it will sometimes have a problem. One data point- I get slight slippage on my Mirage leg strap hardware (standard cadmium) and I plan on eventually replacing it with the SP-888 hardware. Everyone I have talked to who has it claims they get no slippage. I would get it if I were you.

Nice work

26 page PDF describing the changes to a Texas middle school social studies book: http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/teks/social/MS_TEKS_amended.pdf Screen shot of a particularily poorly written section: http://whyevolutionistrue.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/p-7-high-school-standards.jpg?w=529&h=263 Just wanted to post those, I might comment later tonight if I get some time when I am less busy

I'm on the east coast so I use John Heady at Skydive Orange, VA. He was a big Atair dealer back when they cared about the sport market and he has continued his service of making line sets. I sent him my canopy on a Monday, and had it back on my doorstep by Friday with new lines!

What do you need it for? I've owned 2 cobalts and a space canopy and I've been able to find two different master riggers that have made line sets for me and can do any other maintenance. So if its for a cobalt line set or similiar that I would really recommend using one of these guys, one can do it in a 1 week turnaround

>>The problem is that you are presupposing that those job would not be created by investments in non green areas. Um, no. I clearly stated that there are many oppurtunites opening up on the demand management side that do not cost jobs else where because they are things that not being done in place of other projects, but are being done in addition to other projects. This is a good thing, because there's a lot of people sitting at home instead of work right now. And I agree that corn ethanol was a big mistake. It has a very low EROI (energy returned on energy invested)

Sure. Your study says that green jobs are a net loser on total employment because it counts as losses jobs that will not happen because investment capital got redirected to clean tech and some jobs will be lost as energy intensive industries move else where. It counts as jobs gained: construction and O&M of the new generation infrastructure. This is an incomplete picture of how our economy is changing because it does not take into account changes that will happen on the demand side in response to changes in generation. It totally ignored the demand side of the total energy picture. Green jobs also include dozens of positions in demand side management, smart rid R&D and deployment, sealing leaky homes, smart home energy management devices (black boxes), electric vehicles, etc. This is a big omission. I believe the study I referenced from Berkeley gives a better idea of the entire picture- and green jobs come out as a big winner! Just like the internet, clean tech is changing the whole economy. Some sectors will be losers (hummer) and some will be big winners (electrical engineers). We don't even totally know about all the new opportunities that will be created. You can resist change, but it will be costly in the long run.

Lots of wind turbines in China does not exclude having a lot of them here too. This is another problem that will self correct when energy prices rise- it will get more expensive to ship them from China and we will start making them here.

I've heard of that project before, but I am skeptical of their zero- waste, zero emissions claim. It seems to violate just a couple of the laws of thermodynamics. Really, to make those statements all they have done is picked a very small, arbitrary boundary and said there is zero emissions within that boundary. Of course the city still creates emissions when you consider the concrete used to support those windmills, the production of all those PV panels, etc. Nevertheless, it is an admirable project and it will provide many lessons for sustainable development.

Ya, I got that the first time you posted it. Probably would have been better to post that PDF in the first place instead of pajama media. I read it, and then I listed two things that appear to be missing from the study and take away a lot from its credibility and I also posted another study that shows a different conclusion. Do you have any response to my previous points?

consistency in regulations takes away power from politicians - you won't see it happening look at the nuclear industry - special interests have so strangled that area of energy it's nuts Probably right But that does not mean we should give up. The most likely scenario seems that we will continue to have our balls squeezed by the Saudis until there is a REALLY BIG energy crisis, then we will have enough motivation to impliment smarter energy policies that we should have done a long time ago.

There's a lot of discussion about this same topic on a linkedin group that I am a part of. I go there when I actually want to hear from people who have experience and education in the industry

Not really, if you look at the sources you can see that they used data from real PV and wind installations, not hypotheticals. And data on employment from coal and gas is everywhere. We can each choose which report we want to believe, but I've pointed out some flaws in the OP report. Again: 1. It fails to address jobs created in the energy effieiency sector. Since we know that every dollar spent on energy effieciency saves you $3- $5 on renewable energy generation (for PV), this is a BIG hit on the study's credibility. 2. The PV and wind industry are currently too vulnerable to changing regulations that affect investor confidence. Depending on who is in power in congress, the feasability of these sources changes so often that no one wants to make the initial investments to get the industry off the ground and scaled up to a level where they can compete with fossil fues without recieving subsidities. If the idiots in congress would get around to making lasting regulations that don't expire every 3-5 years then you would see a lot more investment in clean tech which will bring the price down a lot.

See below, research from UC Berkley which concludes that jobs in PV and wind create more jobs per megawatt of power than any of the fossil fuels. Table is on page 3. http://rael.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/very-old-site/renewables.jobs.2006.pdf Furthermore, lets evaluate what you get without green jobs and with green jobs: Without: mass traffic jams With: mass transit Without: foreign dictators who get rich off oil and want to kill us With: energy independence Without: blue collar jobs that can easily be outsourced With: green collar jobs that have to be done here at home (granted not all of them fit this category) I could go on. Futhermore, jobs in energy efficiency (which appear to be totally ignored in the study that was the origin of this post) have low entry level requirements but tremendous room to move up. Laid off blue collar works could get a job in solar or wind installation today, or retro fitting homes for efficiency, which requires no more than an HS diploma, and move up into designers and project managers, and eventually into owners and investors. I suspect one of two possible reasons for the flows in the study from the OP. First, they might have deliberately or unintentionally not looked at the whole picture. Second, the are looking at the renewables industry while it was in one of its down swings. Just look at how the wind industry crashes every time the regulations change- we need set standards and non-volatile prices to encourage investment. I could expand on this but I've done enough research for tonight. My experience with people who are afraid of green collar jobs has generally been that they are resistant to change and afraid of what they do not know or understand. Not saying this is the case with you because I don't know you but I think you should try to better understand the industry before you judge it.

The pajamas media site is obviously questionable, but the study that it references in the first page is a good read. I only had time to read the executive summary. It seems that the study has only considered jobs lost as a result of capital that would have been invested elsewhere and jobs lost because of energy intensive companies moving else where. What it seems to miss is jobs created on the energy efficiency side. With rising prices, every single consumer will have incentive to use the best available technology with regard to energy efficiency. That's a whole lot of new appliances to manufacture, new windows, insulating, etc.... I think that in the best case scenario, cost per KW-hr would increase but your total monthly bill could decrease because so many homes currently use no where near the best available technology. I might have missed it but I'm not sure that study has taken the whole picture into account.

Care to expand on "stuff"? I've noticed that you have a very broad technical knowledge base, from renewable energy to brewing beer, and I'm interested in what you really do.

>>what's a low turn if you dont mind me asking? A low turn is when you go on a website and ask silly questions just to try and stir the shit... o wait, nevermind thats called trolling

Simple idea, incredibly complex to realize- make a device that beeps in your ear if your canopy will not have time to recover from its dive before you hit the ground. If you hear the alarm, time to start digging out of that low turn. Given the dozens of choices for main canopies and infinite variations in wing loading, this will be very difficult. But you wanted ideas. In general, if everybody says you should understand the sport before trying to invent something for it, maybe they are right

I am an engineer I design water and sewer infrastructure. It's a remarkably thanksless job when you consider that you can't be a first world country without it yet everyone takes it for granted because it is generally very reliable.

What about him? He wants to pay for it before passing it. To me, that is called responsibility. Dems want to pass it, and then maybe eventually, if its convenient, perhaps find a way to pay for it. IMO, that is being irresponsible. Neither side has a monopoly on fiscal responsibility. I acknowledge that both views have some merit, but personally I would rather find a way to pay for it first.

They give you a discount for that? No? Jumpshack does... Discount for all black or additional charge for colors other than black? Depends on how you look at it I guess

Is it called the Stealth Racer because it's all black If so then I have a stealth Mirage

and they're both wrong

I would like to point out that Lucky and mnealtx just agreed on somthing for what must be the FIRST time ever. BEER!