W

I have a Kenwood KR-V6050 receiver for sale. 100 W/channel at 8 ohms. It's in great condition and is a quality receiver. Have the owner's manual and the remote control to go with it. $150.00. I also have 3 Kodak slide carousel trays, each one holds 140 images. Will trade all 3 for 12 micro brews. Or...$5 each.

Also, Oly- thanks, regarding the S80. I've read a number of reviews about the sliding lens cover on the S70 and S80; seems to be a universally reviled feature by all, and while climbing, sounds like something easily broken.

I know the Panasonic is using a Leica lens- that is good- but they use a "Venus" image sensor, which thus far is getting decidedly poor reviews- tons of noise at all levels. The Leica camera's main drawback for me is the price, but curious if anyone actually handled one of them. One thing I'm currently rethinking though- I took it as given that I wanted an alpine camera that at least has aperture priority if not also shutter priority. But, for the past 9 years I've used a Contax TVS (film), which has aperture priority. But the more I think about it, while climbing/belaying etc, the camera has spent about 95% of the time on auto exposure- sometimes (yes, on cold climbs particularly) trying to tweak with the controls is too much hassle, and if the camera's auto exposure is reliably accurate (the Contax's definitely is), then it's rarely needed anyway. In consideration of this, the Canon SD800-IS or the SD700-IS suddenly leaps high on the list, and both specifically mention that their exposures are excellent (they don't have manual control over shutter/aperture). Comments on those models? Oly- you have the SD 600, maybe it compares well? Thanks again everyone- ps- I'd keep using the Contax forever, if it wasn't for scanning-I'm over it!

Have heard some of the sunnier climbs got a bit affected during the past few weeks due to lack of precip, but things are holding up fine. However there's a major avy cycle in process at the moment and forecast for the weekend sounds like it'd be a good idea to stay away from the big drains for awhile. "Considerable" through the weekend. Parks says they are bombing Mt. Wilson, and the Bourgeaus today.

After a lot of research, I've narrowed down my choice of digital point and shoots. I'm curious if anyone has direct experience with any of these: Canon Powershot S80 Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX2 Leica DLux 3 I've read lots of online pros and cons for these; most notably, the Panasonic gets ripped for having very "noisy" photos even at low ISO settings, a pity since it otherwise has everything I'm looking for. As such, the Canon seems to be the winner for me, but I haven't found as much info on the Leica except that it's a bit pricey. I'd appreciate anyone's opinions on these models, especially from the climbing photographer's standpoint; or if you know of a model that offers similar functions that will serve well as a camera for technical climbing, I'd like to hear your thoughts. I'm particularly picky about image sensor quality and lens quality, and was hoping to find a 7-8 MP camera that does RAW capture (the old S70 used to). As well, a wider angle lens (28-ish) is preferred. Thanks in advance!

A good diet of hard aid climbs, combined with lots of climbing on bolted mixed rigs, enables hard mixed trad ascents in the mountains. In other words, it's all just practice for the real thing. IMHO.

Great climb, John and Dave! That looks like a really fun outing.

Finger pulled, Colonel Mustard!

Nice. Colin, I see you didn't wear shorts this time

You know I have gone back and forth about this for myself- having spent much time out of the country, usually in much poorer countries than this one, I always come back and immediately notice the US culture and how in-your-face it is and how stressed out everyone is, and the media hype, etc.etc. I always think "back in _____ (whatever country) it was so mellow". But then, I wasn't LIVING there...I was visiting and wasn't wrapped up in trying to pay my bills, make a living; didn't have any neighbors, political concerns, whatever- I was an objective, fascinated observer without any investment in the culture. So it seemed free of my condemnation in a relative way. But I would venture to guess that if my everyday situation was transplanted into it, I'd begin to find fault in the systems, especially when your money suddenly doesn't go so far. Money surely isn't everything- lots of Nepalis who seem very happy despite not having a great deal to eat or many options in climbing the economic ladder will tell you this. One thing that separates US culture from almost all others, though: Almost everyone in this country actually believes that someday they will be filthy rich- from the hard driven business man to the guy driving the delivery truck to the guy digging the ditch, to the welfare recipient playing the lottery. For most it's an illusion, but some will get there. I don't know if this is good or bad, but it surely distinguishes American culture from most others. New Zealanders seem to know they have virtually no chance of being ultra rich, yet they're indifferent because everyone has a job, plenty of food, health care, they have a safe country, and their priorities are different. Everyone climbs, hikes, rafts, kayaks, runs. The money pervading US culture has definitely made us a bit weird.

I'm still intent on living/working in another country at some point in my life, just for the parity and the experience. But until or unless something drastic happens (and maybe it will?), I'll just be keeping my investments in US dollars, thank you. And maybe this country needs you, me, and others to stick around and be a voice and an action calling for a responsible government tending towards cooperation and diplomacy instead of wars and bellicose threats and imperialism. Your voice holds more weight to effect American politics if you live here than if you go somewhere else.

Sadly, none of these leaders are the ones running for office, they are out serving the country. Running for office involves serving your ambitions.

I know it is the latter. I'm not sure it ever really was the former. 100 years ago the country was ruled by robber barons and corporate interests, and in the mid 1800's it was very much a one party system. There's a lot of faults with this culture and this system, but through all that, this country remains one of the best places in the world for it's opportunities and standard of living. Not to say there aren't many great countries one could have a very comfortable life, but it's still true.

We already know what it does to the corrupted. But don't idolize despots just because they are poor and don't have any real power. Call them what they are. Government by the people is great but human fallibility cannot be ignored. When you or anyone figure out how to address this, let the world know please!

social democracies seem to provide a fertile ground for general happiness. In theory only. When the leaders are corrupt and self serving it doesn't matter what the label is.

I will bet you anything that if Castro was not sequestered on an island, and had access to, say, 2 billion workers and limitless natural resources, like, say...China...he'd be destroying the planet on par with anyone else. And Chavez...if I recall, isn't his main business in oil? I see your point in relatives, yet the only reason Bush seems worse is he's president of the US, not some dirt poor country. He's got the power, they don't. If they had the same power to wreak havoc, you might not distinguish between them.

Oh c'mon...you got the moron part right, but Chavez and Castro "good"? With the support of the people, Castro overthrows a dictator, then strips everyone of their rights and declares himself king for life. So much for the "people's revolution". And Chavez seems to be going the same road, but time will tell. Either way, both are just a couple more egomaniacs with too much power. Well all of them are, of course.

The two paragraphs I posted came in the same rant, minutes apart. So if anyone's wondering where the denial for global warming has it's motivations... Apparently it's our patriotic duty to express open ended joy at the record profits of price gouging energy industries, whether your invested in them or not.

And moose in the streets.... They're in the streets of Los Anchorage- heck, their in my fricken driveway- every winter. There's signs on the roads every year with the flip-number thing telling you the moose roadkill body count for the season.

Rush Limbaugh was nominated. Here's some recent great stuff from the man himself: On economics: On that Global Warming myth: Yeah...snow falling in Alaska in the winter- that settles it. Actually, in truth, statistically most of AK's precip is from July to October. In the winter, snowfall varies but generally, the heaviest ones happen when...it's REALLY WARM.

The fact that I fundamentally disagree with the above defacto statement trying to define alpinism for the rest of us, is a topic for a whole different discussion. In this case the lack of the summit is indeed pretty much irrelevant since they wandered past the highest snow bump 100 feet below it while trying to find the west buttress descent in a whiteout. But, that statement- which is used in an unnecessary attempt to qualify this obviously impressive climb- almost delivers the opposite effect intended since, if taken at face value, in my opinion it lowers the bar for everyone and helps give people an excuse and an opportunity to adjust their stated goals after they fail on their objectives. Summits indeed are not everything but increasingly, "new routes", or even just "ascents", are getting defined as anything one climbs until the weather got bad or the technical difficulties "ended". Back on topic...my main point is this: With all due respect to Turgeon's and Menard's Denali climb, which was an outstanding and bold achievement by any measure, I just plainly and simply feel that Colin and Jed's climb was more impressive and deserving of the award, (if we even have to have such contrived and subjective awards). That's just my opinion. Although Denali has the altitude edge, the south face has been well traveled, with 4 independent routes established prior to this one, all of them with multiple repeat ascents. The Moffit route- which was the first highly technical route done on the face- also appears to have: more sustained climbing (including a 25 foot roof and tons of steep, wet rock), poorer escape possibilities, poorer rock quality, poorer bivies, higher objective hazards, a more difficult descent, and is in a very remote place. And, Jed and Colin walked out of the mountains after their climb. So while heavy props are due to the Canadian Direct-I'm just not convinced it was "the most significant ascent done in Alaska this season".

Continue up Dana's Arch above the 11b bolt ladder and you'll have a fun time.

There's a place called the "Renaissance Cafe" on one of the backstreets that used to have a killer breakfast. I haven't been there in awhile though.

Oh and, Colin and Jed.

The bigger shame is that this- one of the most significant new climbs accomplished in Alaska in the past 5-10 years- not to mention one of the most remote- gets relegated to "honorable mention". It's probably the product of the same demographic of "experts" who, when asked why Blood from a Stone (Easton/Steck) on Mt. Dickey was not selected for a similar award reportedly replied "it's only Mt. Dickey...".