mattp

Ravenna might be a good choice as there are not so many "good samaritans" driving by. How about Husky Stadium? A 60 meter rope touches down on a grassy lawn just north of the service drive leading to Adobe at the north end of the bridge.

What's your point, PP?

If they continue to "refine" things so those who pay more come up on top of a search list and load faster and etc., it may not be as you suggest, PP. In addition, I heard a guy on the radio saying that the telephone companies that run Internet services are deliberately setting up signal interruptions or slow downs or something to interfere with web-based telephone calls, so they can't as effectively compete. Some might call that "free market," I suppose, but others will call it "anticompetitive market manipulation."

Allright then. The guidebook is not out yet, so I've updated the name.

Climb: Aurora Bridge-Dropping Coils Date of Climb: 6/30/2006 Trip Report: I bought a new rope last night, and at lunch time I took it to the Aurora Bridge to dangle it over the edge and shake out the kinks before I take it climbing this weekend and get all tangled up. I tied it to the guard rail so I wouldn’t drop it, and fed it out over the edge, and I guess some passing driver thought I looked suspicious and called 911. Just as I was finished coiling it back up again, two police cars pulled up and the cops jumped out and were ready to wrestle me to the ground if I tried to jump or maybe start a protest or something. "What are you doing?" They demanded. “Untwisting a new rope,” I replied. "What are you doing?" (Again) “Untwisting my rope. (Again). “WHAT ARE YOU DOING?” (One more time). Obviously, answering the question wasn’t working, so I asked one of my own: “did you think I was going to jump or something?” They demanded I climb over the fence to stand next to the police car and I said I didn’t really want to climb over the barrier that was there to protect pedestrians. I said “I’m sorry to cause you all this trouble,” and they told they weren’t going to arrest me or anything, but I still had to get in the car so they could drive me off the bridge. Be warned. Suspicious persons on the Aurora Bridge will be phoned in by someone who has a cell phone and just wants to do you a favor. Gear Notes: Dress slacks and shirt. Approach Notes: Pedestrian walkway. What would have happened if I did this on Friday night? How about if I wore some wild costume? I can understand the concern, sort of, but me thinks Seattle drivers and police are a little over-reactive here.

Climb: Aurora Bridge-Dangling Cord Date of Climb: 6/30/2006 Trip Report: I bought a new rope last night, and at lunch time I took it to the Aurora Bridge to dangle it over the edge and shake out the kinks before I take it climbing this weekend and get all tangled up. I tied it to the guard rail so I wouldn’t drop it, and fed it out over the edge, and I guess some passing driver thought I looked suspicious and called 911. Just as I was finished coiling it back up again, two police cars pulled up and the cops jumped out and were ready to wrestle me to the ground if I tried to jump or maybe start a protest or something. "What are you doing?" They demanded. “Untwisting a new rope,” I replied. "What are you doing?" (Again) “Untwisting my rope. (Again). “WHAT ARE YOU DOING?” (One more time). Obviously, answering the question wasn’t working, so I asked one of my own: “did you think I was going to jump or something?” They demanded I climb over the fence to stand next to the police car and I said I didn’t really want to climb over the barrier that was there to protect pedestrians. I said “I’m sorry to cause you all this trouble,” and they told they weren’t going to arrest me or anything, but I still had to get in the car so they could drive me off the bridge. Be warned. Suspicious persons on the Aurora Bridge will be phoned in by someone who has a cell phone and just wants to do you a favor. Gear Notes: Dress slacks and shirt. Approach Notes: Pedestrian walkway.

It is not as confusing as we've managed to make it sound and (just like so many other things in climbing) everyone has their own "must do" rules that in many cases directly contradict and which may or may not be helpful.

That gunks.com article has some discussion of this "alternate clipping" method favoring a reduction in potential falls while clipping, as opposed to the more traditional double rope technique oritented more toward concerns for rope drag.

Catbird has referred to a past conversation we have had, I suppose in order to generate more to talk about, but he has not accurately stated what I said in that past conversation: I believe that on most climbs there are relatively few (but more than zero) placements where the extra shock put on a piece due to clipping both ropes will make the difference that causes the piece to fail. In a placement with questionable rock, like maybe a thin flake or a flared crack or whatever, I’ll certainly be more likely to favor only clipping one rope. When climbing on good rock, and where I am worried about falling shortly after placing pro, I am often more concerned about my belayer's having difficulty feeding one rope out while taking the other in and keeping a good grip on both ropes. It is all a matter of sizing up the situation. Also, and Dru or Catbird may disapprove of this, but I frequently violate the "rule" that if you are using separate pro anywhere on a pitch, you should not clip both ropes into the same biner anywhere else on that pitch. Again, each situation is different, and I do what makes sense balancing a bunch of unrelated factors such as (1) how solid do I think the pro is, (2) am I emotionally more secure about having both ropes clipped to that last piece whether it is "technically" correct or not (3) how much do I want to / can I stand there and dink with the pro, (4) what will the placement do to rope drag, (5) how will it affect my second's belay, (6) do I trust my belayer to feed one rope out while taking in the other and keep both snug as possible, (7) what did I have for breakfast. Also, Dru left out category 2.5: pieces that will blow if shock loaded with a falling climber but will withstand body weight.

Aside from "big corporations suck," and "government intervention is always bad," does anybody know more about what the actual issues here are? Who is going to make/lose money over this? What actually is proposed for regulation? How might it affect my future browing experience?

Dru and Catbird are both correct, but from what I've seen in 20 years of climbing on double ropes, both here and in Europe, the reality is that much of the time the fall comes on one rope or primarily so. I believe that the difference between ropes rated for "twin" and "double" is largely due to this factor. Where I expect a fall, I will try to place pro so both ropes will be involved in the "catch," because it just plain makes me feel safer, but this is by no means something that is always possible. To suggest that you are using double ropes "wrong" if you do not always place your pro on both ropes at or near the same length is again incorrect. Here is an illustration from Gunks.com There is a good article there, outlining a lot of advantages of double rope technique, but it doesn't answer your question which (I guess) is how can they get away selling thinner ropes for double and not suggesting you use two "normal" ropes. http://www.gunks.com/index.php?pageid=67&pagenum=1&smGroup=2&smID=4

I'm not sure what Dru is saying, but I think he may be wrong. In normal usage, people usually do not place two pieces of pro on the two different ropes at close to the same height unless they are unusually sketched - and of course this assumes they even have the opportunity to do so. Also, frequently with double ropes one is "left" and the other "right" (not necessarily alternating) for rope drag purposes. If you clip one rope, climb another distance and clip the other, and then if you fall somewhere above that second clip, you will have less rope out on that "other" rope, and the piece it runs through will be higher than that on the first rope. You will be caught by the "other."

Are the people who live in an area covered by a cell tower really paying all the cost of installing and operating that tower?

I don't agree with any simple "let the market decide" argument. Consider the telephone: without regulation along the lines of what I understand "net neurtrality" to be, you'd have no telephone service in rural areas or at least no affordable service because it is so much more expensive to install phone lines that run long distances with comparitively little traffic. I DO think the Net is a public utility, and it should have some degree of regulation, but the question remains to what extent and how it should be regulated.

It seems to me that I’d like cc.com or even smaller sites to have the same access and same service speed and same search engine presence and everything else as some large business enterprise like MSNBC or whatever, and those arguing for Net Neutrality say that without some regulation, we will lose this as the business interests take over "our" Internet for commercial puroposes. I think it is likely that Internet business will almost certainly warp even more than it already has so as to favor big players over the small guy without some kind of government or regulatory intervention, but what do you folks make of the argument that the currently proposed regulation or other efforts to protect “equal access” on the Internet will “stifle innovation?” Do we care if Google or Microsoft don’t make quite as much extra profit by developing or marketing new services? Just what kind of "innovation" might we stand to lose? What are the real issues here?

larger image

I think it is a spectacular traverse, and I highly recommend it. You gotta have a tolerance for vegetated rock and adventure climbing, though. It is not for everybody. You and your partner better be pretty efficient if you plan on completing the trip in a single day. When I did it, my partner and I were far from efficient but we were both in good condition and neither of us was anything like a beginner. We spent the night on some heather benches descending from the Middle Peak even starting from Lake Serene. Go fairly soon and you may still be able to find water (snow patches) on the route. You'll find more information in a search of old threads.

Everybody bring their best tie dye and we can pose for a picture to put on a get well card for Kurt. He loves tie dye.

That used to be a regular practice here, too. However, I believe the police take a dim view of this as some kind of "interference" with a police officer or "obstruction." Try that in Lynnwood some time and I bet you get pulled over.

On KUOW they were recommending knitting cell phone holders. The new potholder, I guess.

OK then, here's a map. You'll need it, as we live on a screwy street, and our house is out of order on the block. 7:00 - 11:00 or so. I'll have some salad or something, and if you wanna eat some meat bring a sausage or steak or tofu or whatever floats your boat.

Oh yes. I have a couple of barbeque grills and for those not so inclined to drink beer on a Tuesday night, we could have some ice tea with mint leaves plucked out of the garden. How yuppie is that?

By the way, my "argument" that you objected to was not that I was right and you are wrong; it was that virtually all of the information that you cited as the basis for your reevaluation had previously been published and most of it was published three or four years ago. The question is how did a few self-seving members of the administration manage to cow the military and so completely fool most of the American public when the intelligence community was saying that there was no uranium purchase, no Prague meeting between Iraq and al queda, no evidence of an ongoing nuclear program, etc. etc. (And how do they continue to blame "intelligence failure" and get away with it?) If you were reading carefully and objectively, the information was really pretty clear but it was all passed off as "liberal media bias."