JayB

Also - loosen up the settings on the clipless pedals if you have them (another thing worth getting if you dont have them...way safer/more efficient than the other options)

I ride in those stretch pants, and wear my marmot precip for my top. No, I don't have fenders... I have a mountain bike too, and am debating if that will be my winter ride (with thinner tires) I'd get the fenders on whatever you choose to ride, and ditch the precip in favor of something a bit more breathable, and maybe get some cold-weather cycling pants. I think they make some that are waterproof/windproof on the front/ breathable on the back of the legs. Ditto for tops - more wind/water resistant on the front-side, breathable on the sides and/or back. Getting waterproof shoe-covers that extend up to your ankles also makes a huge difference.

Well, I bus when I don't ride, and it's not cold here. It's the rain that gets to me... the prospect of getting dripped on in 40 degree temps and soaked, and having all the road grit collect on my gears, and messenger bag. 1). Consider being out in every kind of weather mental/physical conditioning that may help you cope when conditions turn to shit in the mountains, and/or survive an epic. 2). Invest in gear that makes riding in the rain more comfortable. Nothing will keep you totally dry, but some works better than others for this. I tend to favor breathable, "water resistant" fabrics over laminates for riding in the rain, as the hot/sweaty/soaked feeling gets to me more than the soaked feeling. I assume you already have good fenders on the bike?

My ride is only ~ 3 miles each way, but it's been an everyday thing, even during those balmy winter days that the Northeast is famous for - and one surefire way to keep the motivation going is to wake up each morning certain of the fact that no matter how unpleasant the ride is, getting to work any other way would suck far more. The funny thing about riding to work in the winter is that I think I'm often warmer and more comfortable than the folks in their cars - since after about a minute of riding I'm totally warm, and their still hunched over, freezing their asses off while waiting for the heat/defrost to kick-in, and they have to deal with all of the headaches and hassles of driving in a dense-urban area in winter conditions.

The New-World-Order/Zionist-Occupation-Government has instructed me to send along the following comments: 1)They have known where your bunker is located all along. 2)They find your antics amusing, especially the way you scamper behind mailboxes, bushes, etc - when you hear the sound of an approaching helicopter. 3)"Booga-Booga!"

The cc.com equivalent of the "Free Tibet" bumpersticker.

I thought libertarians were against government imposing its ways on the people. Pegged you for a lockstep neocon right away. You are consfusing libertarians versus anarchists. Libertarians aren't necessarily opposed to rules, but they generally agree that whatever rules are in place should apply to everyone, and are generally opposed to the government using the said rules as a mechanism by which to order society in a manner which favors or elevates certain groups or interests who satisfy whatever arbitrary standards of virtue or merit the majority happens to favor at any particular point in history.

Endorsing the democratic process as a means to a particular set of socio-political ends that we believe it's in both our interest and their interest to support is one thing, endorsing and subsidizing every outcome that the process generates - even when it's detrimental for all concerned - is quite another. How will all of the values that most folks that self-identify as progressives claim to value above all else fare under the stewardship of either Hamas or whichever band of Islamists assumes control of Pakistan? In most settings a democratic process of some sort is the best mechanism for securing the rule of law, a broad set of personal freedoms, etc - but this isn't always the case at all times, in all places. I don't think that an official policy of promoting democratic rule around the globe obligates us to support - much less subsidize to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars - each and every outcome that the democratic process brings about today, any more than it did after the election that took place in the Reichstag a few decades ago. There may also be times and places where the folks likely to be brought into power via popular vote are likely to be even more repressive and "un-democratic" than the regime that they replace. This was true in Russia in 1917, in Iran in the late 1970's, and there's reason to suspect that this is a distinct possibility in the Pakistan of today. I think the best option in cases like this is to support a process of gradual democratization that provides an outlet for popular resentment before it boils over into precipitous revolution, but translating whatever impulses happen to be animating the population at that moment in time into a new government may not be the ideal means of doing so. Or, to summarize: "Democracy is not always best perceived as the power of the majority to do everything to everyone else." - Oscar Wilde.

Endorsing the democratic process as a means to a particular set of socio-political ends that we believe it's in both our interest and their interest to support is one thing, endorsing and subsidizing every outcome that the process generates - even when it's detrimental for all concerned - is quite another. How will all of the values that most folks that self-identify as progressives claim to value above all else fare under the stewardship of either Hamas or whichever band of Islamists assumes control of Pakistan? In most settings a democratic process of some sort is the best mechanism for securing the rule of law, a broad set of personal freedoms, etc - but this isn't always the case at all times, in all places. I don't think that an official policy of promoting democratic rule around the globe obligates us to support - much less subsidize to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars - each and every outcome that the democratic process brings about today, any more than it did after the election that took place in the Reichstag a few decades ago. There may also be times and places where the folks likely to be brought into power via popular vote are likely to be even more repressive and "un-democratic" than the regime that they replace. This was true in Russia in 1917, in Iran in the late 1970's, and there's reason to suspect that this is a distinct possibility in the Pakistan of today. I think the best option in cases like this is to support a process of gradual democratization that provides an outlet for popular resentment before it boils over into precipitous revolution, but translating whatever impulses happen to be animating the population at that moment in time into a new government may not be the ideal means of doing so.

But will the snowpack on the East suck any less than last year. This is the question...

Sweet. Looks faster, safer, and easier. And from Petzl of all places... Thanks for the link.

I'm a big reverso fan, but from time to time I've had to lower folks that I've been belaying off of the anchor in auto-lock mode, and it's been kind of a P.I.T.A. Thankfully, they've been conscious, in a position where they could help unload the rope, and it wasn't an emergency situation - so I've installed either a second belay device in the brake line - or set up a munter hitch - and had them unweight the load strand. Once they've done so, I just remove the Reverso and transfer the load to the belay-device/munter, and lower. This isn't always terribly easy when someone's in free-hanging mode, and I've started thinking about a way to use a bit mechanical advantage to unlock the Reverso that involves a minimum of clusterage. I'm not sure where I saw this, but the best idea I've come across so far involves: 1)Girth-hitching a prussik-loop to the top of the Reverso. 2)Clipping a carabiner to something that's at least a few inches above the reverso. 3)Running the end of the prussik-loop through the carabiner that you've clipped above the Reverso. 4)Clipping a second carabiner to the back of the Reverso, then running the end of the prussik-loop through this carabiner to create a z-pulley. 5)Pulling up on the end of the prussik-loop with one hand, while keeping the brake hand on the brake line. I was able to use this system to release (pretty easily) a 140-lb free-hanging load, and control the lowering by using the tension on the prussik-loop and the brake line, and it took all of about 30 seconds to set-up. Release the tension on the prussik-loop and the Reverso locks immediately, so your chances of dropping the person you are lowering are effectively nil. Anyone else have a different system? Comments? I couldn't find a picture that showed this set-up elsewhere on the web, so my artistic rendering of this system is below.

I use the "Digital Media Converter" program for this kind of thing, which is available for around $40, and allows you to specify the format and the size/quality of the output file. It's worked pretty well for me so far, with the only caveat being that huge files take a fair amount of time to convert. Available here: http://www.deskshare.com/dmc.aspx

Can't give a ringing endorsement because I only went there once, with a problem that I identified myself, but - Pacific Rim Automotive on Stone Way might be worth looking into. Seemed competent with reasonable prices. A good friend takes his care there as well, and hasn't had any complaints that I'm aware of.

Seen on a T-Shirt... "Would anyone care for some tat?"

Serious questions: 1)Where were you educated? 2)How would you rate your ability to translate your thoughts into written English? dont go off topic just yet. read it again.- ctp belief, differ rant is not wrong by deaf-a-nation. 3)(When you can summon a moment of coherence - take your time)If you work, do you work in a field which requires you to communicate with others in written English? you cannot stay on topic, simply because truth is ignoring you. The topic in question is you. I am honestly trying to figure out if you have a profound handicap of some sort that you are contending with, and have yet to overcome, which impairs your ability to use written language in general, and the English variety in particular. I strongly suspect that you could not compose more than a couple of sentences with anything approaching correct grammar, syntax, or punctuation without an inordinate amount of effort, and I wonder how it is that you manage to earn a living with such an impairment.

Lets see. (1) The Bush team has expressed consistent support for a repressive regime (Saudi's) even when it was not on our side, and (2) doing so has been contrary - if not detrimental - to our national interests. Isn't that what you asked about? I was hoping for something a tad more substantive, like the manner in which the Bush administration's policies towards the Saudi's differs from those of the Clinton administrations (or those of any sitting president of your choosing), what new policy initiatives or modifications would constitute an improvement in your view, etc. My own view is that there's a genuine case to be made that the status quo that prevails in Saudi Arabia has the potential to result in outcomes that are not in the interest of the Saudi Royal Family or the remainder of the population, and that there are changes that could be made which benefit both Saudi Arabia and the US. In particular, I think that this administration or any that succeeds it should argue that in the absence of substantial political and economic reforms, there's a very real chance that the chickens of jihad that the Saudi state is setting loose - through the direct funding of violent, extremist Islam, the export of jihadis, domestic repression, failure to cultivate economic development in non-state sectors, etc - could eventually come home to roost in a manner that would make the Bolshevik's treatment of the Romanov's look like a cotillion by comparison, and that this outcome is all the more likely if Iraq goes under. I think that this is but one of many ways in which the US could manage the relationship with the Saudi's differently, but I'm more interested in hearing what course of action you'd advocate.

Why don't you start by telling us why it is that you have concluded that you are right in this case.

Serious questions: 1)Where were you educated? 2)How would you rate your ability to translate your thoughts into written English? dont go off topic just yet. read it again.- ctp belief, differ rant is not wrong by deaf-a-nation. 3)(When you can summon a moment of coherence - take your time)If you work, do you work in a field which requires you to communicate with others in written English?

Serious questions: 1)Where were you educated? 2)How would you rate your ability to translate your thoughts into written English?

This is exactly my point. As a population, we overlook the wrongs of a person, a government, or a group of people as it suits us. All of this at the behest of the government's idea of who is, or isn't an enemy at the time. Does the government have it's reasons? Yes. That doesn't mean that we, as citizens shouldn't question the motives. FYI - you didn't provide any substance to the argument. Your statements have been diversions from the point and questioning my motives, not discussing the issue. You are very good at arguing, but you are not good at discussing and furthering a conversation. I am not sure that anything that you've contributed merits consideration as an argument, actually. You have stated certain convictions that you hold, which appear to be articles of faith, concerning the relationship between government policy and popular opinion in the USA. The "American's (except for an elite cadre that includes - incidentally - me) Are Government Controlled Drones" riff is tired as hell, easily refuted, and evinces the very absence of critical thinking which it has ostensibly been put forward to lament and bemoan. American public opinion frequently runs counter to both the wishes of, and the policies championed by, the Executive Branch and/or Congress. This suggests that the policies established by the government, and the manner in which the government advocates for, or defends them - is but one of many variables that influence whether or not the public supports any given policy. And yes, of [yaaaaawn] course we are all free to question the policies established by our government, and the motives and judgments behind them. Ditto for the reasons why our fellow citizens support a given policy or take exception to it. However, if you want to have a sincere discussion which furthers the inquiry into the reasons why someone has elected to do one or the other, the rhetorical stance you've chosen "Everyone else believes what the government tells them to..." seems like an especially poor means to achieve this end.

As ususal, no rebuttal. Do you let your ego sit by the computer or just lean over your shoulder? I'll bow out now and you two can continue your conversation. This reads less like a response to anything I've written than it does a transcription of the recriminations echoing to and fro between the rational and emotive portions of your brain.

I invite you to leave me out of your intended audience entirely - especially in my capacity as a rhetorical device that makes it unnecessary to make a substantive argument that supports the claims that you've made - and address your points to whomever else may read this thread. In the case of the Saudis, I hardly think that they enjoy the unqualified trust and admiration that you insist characterizes their perception in the government or the broader population. I'd argue that the manner in which the US has dealt with Saudi Arabia is an example of the multifaceted, nuanced foreign policy that's frequently held up as an and ideal.

Just out of curiosity, what's the price differential between Michelin and Nokian? $50 per tire?

I just want to clarify - this was, in fact, an attempt to defend your original statements about the manner in which advertising dollars hopelessly undermine both the breadth of the "political discourse" in the media, and relentlessly crushes the prospects of all promising young reporters who get the story right while reporting on topics that are at odds with the prevailing adverto-consensus? All except for Jim, the brave, solitary dissident who's managed to shed the manacles that encumber lesser souls and peer at the back of the media equivalent of Plato's cave.... Gotta love narcissm and conceit masquerading as sober, disinterested analysis that we've got here.