JayB

I'm amazed the guy didn't dump a 64oz slurpee on the dude's head then follow with some Tito Ortiz grave-digger pantomimage after the last bit of the beating... http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=403_1185268268 [Contains footage of punk catching a massive MMA style ass-whupping after a failed attempt to rob a convenience store of some sort. Don't click on the thread if you don't like the idea of a young hoodlum trying to terrorize a convenience store clerk by pretending to have a gun getting his ass kicked in a Chuck-Norris fashion by some dude hailing from somewhere between Egypt and Sri Lanka...]

Yeah. Anything that takes years of disciplined effort and determination to build the various capacities required to accomplish it is pretty bogus. I'd be much more impressed with all of those Olympic atheletes, concert pianists, etc if they hadn't seiged and rehearsed their way to the top. [gvideo]-200477265572892748[/gvideo]

Wow. Impressive.

This isn't a software fix, but if it were me I'd send a mass e-mail to all of your clients asking them to include their names and a short description of the attachment in the business e-mails that they send to you, along with a brief description of why it is that you are asking them to do so. I think that there are a few commercial programs that scan attachments for malicious code as well, but I'll leave that part to the IT wizzes that frequent this site.

Cool. Some very impressive shots in there. Thanks for sharing.

You could probably also find out how much the claim would affect your rates if the tickets weren't there and have this person pay that amount, but it sounds to me like this particular person didn't offer to pay anything after wrecking your car, and you had to broach the subject of her paying the increase in your rates, so nothing short of some sort of legal action would do much good.

Yeah - I guess if someone doesn't offer to pay, and you still think that despite this, their other qualities make ongoing friendship something that you want to maintain, then sucking it up is the only option. I guess the person's situation would make a big difference with regards to the kind of judgment I'd make about them and their character if I was in your shoes. If the person was making decent money and could pay but just didn't want to, that would be way different than if I was dealing with someone who was strapped for cash and struggling to pay the rent, going through a major transition in their life, etc. I'm not sure that anyone that fell into the first category is someone that I'd want to keep around as a friend unless they had a lot of previous credit on the ledger in terms of loyalty, favors, sacrifices, sins/shortcomings/mistakes of mine that they'd forgiven, etc.

Looks like your only option is to compare the total costs of paying out of pocket yourself - including the interest/return that this money will no longer be earning for you - versus the lifetime increase in insurance costs that will result from filing a claim. Sounds like your best bet is to let the insurance cover it and prepare to deal with higher premiums. If I was your friend, and responsible for wrecking your car, then if I couldn't cover the costs of the damages out of pocket, I'd at least offer to cover any increase in your premiums that resulted from the accident for as long as they affected your rates.

What happens if your friend pays the claims out of pocket (no claim filed with your insurance? Would it be possible to have your friend pay the claim directly, and then seek reimbursement from his insurance? If your friend doesn't have that kind of cash, do you have enough cash lying around to pay the damages out of pocket, then have your friend pay you back later, whether that's with insurance money he gets, or his/her own money? Might be worth asking your insurance company what happens in the event that they don't have to pay a claim for the damages.

Don Ryan: you have dragged my name into many threads where I was not an active participant or where names were otherwise not used, and you routinely attack people by name while posting anonymously. If you want, I can return the favor by following you around this website, adding your real name at every post you make. Or should I propose we simply change your screen name to "Don Ryan?" JayB knows what he was doing, he is smart, and he is perfectly capable of firing back on his own. He doesn't resort to the kind of character attack, innuendo, and clown pictures that you find so entertaining. Those statistics are cumulative for arms purchases between 1973 and 1990, but anyone who observed the weaponry that Iraq put out in the field in the first Gulf War would have noted the fact that everything from their aircraft, to their artillery, to the weapons that their infantrymen carried were not of US origin. There's no question that the US sided with Iraq in the war against Iran, but the nature and extent of the support needs to be viewed in light of the support provided by Russia, China, France, and other weapons powers - and doing so will not support the conclusion that the US "armed" Iraq. As for the other claims, the nature of the materials that US corporations exported to Iraq under license from the commerce department are an odd means of supporting the notion that the US was actively engaged in a clandestine program to provide Iraq with chemical and biological weapons since: -Providing them with the materials through covert means would be much more efficient if the objective was to provide them with weapons that would impact developments on the battlefield. Translating precursors into functional weapons isn't trivial, and can take several years to develop this capacity, by which time the war could have been lost and the materials could have conceivably fallen into the hands of the Iranians. -Exporting them to Iraq via publicly searchable export licenses granted by the Department of commerce is hardly the conduct one would expect for a covert program of this magnitude. -Some of the bacterial strains and other pathogens cited in the reports were provided by *The Centers for Disease Control* and again, shipments were part of a public record. Unless you are suggesting that the physicians and the scientists at the CDC were engaged in a clandestine program to provide biological weapons to Iraq - then you may wish to reconsider this claim. Et - it hardly needs to be said - cetera. Here's more from your Wikipedia reference: "n December 2002, Iraq's 1,200 page Weapons Declaration revealed a list of Eastern and Western corporations and countries—as well as individuals—that exported chemical and biological materials to Iraq in the past two decades. By far, the largest suppliers of precursors for chemical weapons production were in Singapore (4,515 tons), the Netherlands (4,261 tons), Egypt (2,400 tons), India (2,343 tons), and Germany (1,027 tons). One Indian company, Exomet Plastics (now part of EPC Industrie) sent 2,292 tons of precursor chemicals to Iraq. The Kim Al-Khaleej firm of Singapore supplied more than 4,500 tons of VX, sarin, and mustard gas precursors and production equipment to Iraq. [12] By contrast, Alcolac International, for example, a Maryland company, transported thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor, to Iraq. Alcolac was small and was successfully prosecuted for its violations of export control law. The firm pleaded guilty in 1989. A full list of American companies and their involvements in Iraq was provided by The LA Weekly in May 2003. [13][14] On 25 May 1994, The U.S. Senate Banking Committee released a report in which it was stated that "pathogenic" (meaning disease producing), "toxigenic" (meaning poisonous) and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq, pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce. It added: "These exported biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction."[15] The report then detailed 70 shipments (including anthrax bacillus) from the United States to Iraqi government agencies over three years, concluding "It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the UN inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program." To answer your question, though, I do think that supporting Iraq against Iraq was the right call to make at the time, as was furnishing Arms to the Afghanis against the Soviets - but I don't have the time to argue those points at length tonight.

You, JayB, aren't qualified to comment here. But your statement is so incredibly stupid, I feel obligated to remind you that never in any of my posts (including this one) will you find me stating that climbing ability carries weight in ethical debates. Yet the number of times wankers on this site have stated that we should defer to hang-dogging 5.13 climbers regarding the legitimacy of sport climbing is......"greater than zero". This beer-induced, late-night post was simply a reaction to the notion that pope's peers are convicting him. Again, I ask, "What peers?" BTW, the summer I soloed 30 pitches before lunch (up to 5.10c at Castle Rock, Snow Creek Wall and Givler's Dome) was not twenty years ago (more like 12). Regardless, these climbers you mention who are superior to pope.....you ain't among them. Not today, not twenty years ago (if you were even out of diapers). I can out-climb you on your best day and I could out-drink you right now. Yes, but climbing is but one measure of a man, and I have no doubt life provides you with no small number of rather stark reminders of this fact rather more often than you'd like.

"Just as where we armed Saddam against Iran..." Imported weapons to Iraq (IRQ) in 1973-2002 Country $MM USD 1990 % Total USSR 25145 57.26 France 5595 12.74 China 5192 11.82 Czechoslovakia 2880 6.56 Poland 1681 3.83 Brazil 724 1.65 Egypt 568 1.29 Romania 524 1.19 Denmark 226 0.51 Libya 200 0.46 USA 200 0.46 South Africa 192 0.44 Austria 190 0.43 Switzerland 151 0.34 Yugoslavia 107 0.24 Germany (FRG) 84 0.19 Italy 84 0.19 UK 79 0.18 Hungary 30 0.07 Spain 29 0.07 East Germany (GDR) 25 0.06 Canada 7 0.02 Jordan 2 0.005 Total 43915 100.0 Did Quitney analyze the massive program that the US undertook to arm Stalin in WWII? Taking secondary effects that may or may not materialize at some indefinite point in the future into account is sensible, but these things have to be weighed against the magnitude of the primary threat, and the probable consequences of inaction. It's not inconceivable that in an equal number of cases the consequences of inaction will be at least as bad or worse. In some cases the analysis may argue for inaction, but I hardly think that a careful analysis would support the conclusion that inaction and neutrality ought to be the default policy of the prudent statesman. Rwanda, the ethnic slaughter in the Balkans, and the ongoing carnage in Sudan demonstrate that inaction is not without costs, or secondary consequences.

Proof: A War We Just Might Win By MICHAEL E. O’HANLON and KENNETH M. POLLACK IEWED from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration’s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place. Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with. After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated — many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work. Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference..... Michael E. O’Hanlon is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Kenneth M. Pollack is the director of research at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings.

The "defer to the judgments of the guy who has the hardest free-solo" argument is rather odd one forward given that the number of climbers who are superior in this respect to both the Pope of twenty years ago, much less the Pope of today, who have no problem with bolted sport climbing is greater than zero.

Not sure what he saw, but from what I can recall it was just BMC shooting the policeman.

I'd give yourself a few days to think things over before you make any permanent decisions. I know from experience that when you see or you, or someone else that you care about, is on the receiving end of something like that it can take days before the adrenaline and anger settle down to the point where you can think rationally. One rational step would be to see if your neighbor would like to press charges, and volunteer yourself as a witness. Another might be to get an alarm system for your home. I'd also find someone who provides firearms training for a living and have a serious talk with them about your motivations for wanting a gun, then get extensive training on their operation and use if you decide that you are a good candidate for gun ownership.

Sort of OT - but there was a case in New Hampshire a few months ago that's somewhat germaine to the topic. Evidently there was some bad blood between a local cop and one of Bode Miller's cousins that had been going on for a while. Cop sees BMC speeding (I think), pulls over BMC, BMC says call another cop when he sees that it's the cop that he's got the bad blood with and drives off. Cop in question pursues BMC into lot where he's now stopped, rams BMC's car three times while BMC is showing hands. Cop then gets out, walks over to BMC's car and sprays mace on BMC through window, walks back to car, and BMC pulls out handgun and kills policemans with several shots to the back. Ex-marine happens to drive by, sees shooting, exits vehicle, grabs policeman's service revolver, points it at BMC and tells him to drop the gun. BMC refuses and/or does nothing and ex-marine shoots BMC twice in the chest and kills him. No charges are filed against ex-marine.

Let's get back to the part of the conversation where the two of you attempt to define a set of ethical criteria in bolts used to establish and protect slab routes are acceptable, but those used to establish and protect face climbs are not.

Zu2Qqi9bzkc

Me and pope should create a coloring book explanation for the likes of you. Or should it contain flow-charts? When you figure out a way to use the "substance of the means," argument in a manner which excludes bolted slab routes, feel free to make use of whichever of these two methods you're most comfortable working with and accustomed to conveying your ideas in.

Are the bolts on slab routes not the substance of the means? Even on friction pitches where the only bolts, and the only protection, come in the form of a bolted anchor (rather difficult to get any "rarer") - I don't see how one can argue that the bolts don't facilitate the climb in a way that no other means of protection could. I don't think that Online, for example, would have ever seen an ascent, much less regular traffic without the protection afforded by bolts. I'm not aware of too many people that would consider the route a sport-route, either. So here we have a bolted route, that is not a sport-route, for which bolts provided the substance of the means. Time for a new ethical criterion, methinks. This makes me question how much climbing you've really done. If you're climbing slab between bolts placed at large intervals, and if you're also climbing close to your limit, the bolts won't provide the substance of the means. They will simply catch you and hopefully prevent injuries greater than a sprained ankle. You won't be able to yard up on the bolt by your hip so that you can then clip the bolt by your shoulder, followed by special little mime sequences while your buddies yell "Send it!" as you comb your hair. You'll actually have to climb the rock, and because the bolts are spaced greatly, you'd probably better be in control. So now on routes in which the bolts "will simply catch you and hopefully prevent injuries greater than a sprained ankle" and so as long as the bolts aren't close enough together to aid from one to the next, the bolts are no longer provide "the substance of the means." This includes the majority of sport routes. Thanks for clarifying.

Are the bolts on slab routes not the substance of the means? Even on friction pitches where the only bolts, and the only protection, come in the form of a bolted anchor (rather difficult to get any "rarer") - I don't see how one can argue that the bolts don't facilitate the climb in a way that no other means of protection could. I don't think that Online, for example, would have ever seen an ascent, much less regular traffic without the protection afforded by bolts. I'm not aware of too many people that would consider the route a sport-route, either. So here we have a bolted route, that is not a sport-route, for which bolts provided the substance of the means. Time for a new ethical criterion, methinks.

Per the BMI table, at 5'10", I am currently 1-2 pounds shy of falling into the overweight category. Now I have a goal. Becoming overweight will be a piece of cake, but making it into the obese column may be beyond my capabilities.

How about making this the "Videos that Will Appeal to Dave-underscore-Schuldt" Thread. oBJ4zJkc9Eg

Lecture in Seattle as part of his tour to promote his book, "God is Not Great." Many here will probably appreciate the manner in which he eulogizes Jerry Falwell. Video 2 of 5: OgS-YJDVF6E Remainder of his lecture available on youtube.