ashw_justin

I am confused... I was under the impression that if any grades around here were accurate, they would be the ones at Index? Isn't it supposed to be similar to Yosemite? (I have not climbed there.)

Looks like he took it back, might as well let him off the hook Gary, nobody will appreciate reading that. Rap however you want man. This thread is about tying knots in the rope, even though most of us usually don't. Some people might find it safer.

Oh my God! How didn't we stop this man!? He could be one of Chavez's agents! http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003689390_freeway02.html

I think the best gym training philosophy is to ignore the actual numbers. Try challenging stuff and try not to fall off. Sometimes that's a good way to go while outdoors too. All practice routes should be sandbagged. I think of it as resistance training, like those guys who sprint with parachutes behind them to get faster.

I agree that there is a misleading dogma that carbs=good and fat=bad. Dietary fat is a perfectly acceptable energy source; excess carbs are converted into fat for storage. Some metabolisms may not be genetically adapted to high carb consumption, and refined sugar may even short circuit regulatory pathways. Most of those differences however are irrelevant as long as calorie consumption is not in excess. In terms of basal energy utilization ('low intensity'), fat and carbs are metabolized quite similarly. So, drop the calories while making sure to eat enough protein (so that you don't have to use your own body protein for energy). That's pretty simple, no? The danger I see, however, is that if you combine a low-calorie, high protein diet with a lot of aerobic exercise, you'll burn mostly dietary protein for energy and this could hurt both health and performance. This is where I think that the concept of any approximate optimal ratio is likely bunk--the appropriate ratio of Protein:Other probably varies drastically depending on how much aerobic exercise you do. It shouldn't hurt you to eat more carbs as long as you are burning that extra energy. Is that something that you guys think about, or do you just stick to strict percentages?

I don't think Twight would be saying that at 9.8 m/s/s. Correction: safe speed is safety.

Indeed, witness the striking parallels to the demolition of the al-Sarafiya bridge in Baghdad (indeed foreshadowed by Bush's "mission accomplished" groundbreaking ceremony)... The embezzlement of public domain over to private development interests, as lucrative as it seems, moves forward only in situations of dire need and fearful distraction... now the wounded ground is ripe for heroic saving by noble corporations with deep pockets...

Eat smaller, balanced meals. Would you believe that people make money selling this idea using words like 'zone diet.' As if that is anything new?

A private company would have constructed that out of impervious Reardon Metal.

I think that before parading under the banner of 'private efficiency,' we better think through the implications of a system in which the only voting we get to do is with our dollar.

So if it is possible for the 'second' to 'downclimb on lead,' then what prevents the 'first' from 'downclimbing on toprope' while placing gear? It would be much slower than rapping, but much safer as both would be tied in to the rope--and it would save your rope the abuse of lowering. (Granted, there could be a gray area between lowering and downclimbing.)

What about accountability? The article itself seems exited by the notion of immunity from the public. That bit about voting is scary. We're talking about turning the public into enslaved serfs to corporate lords--from a respresentative government subject to the will of the people, to feudal lordships in complete dominance over their subjects.

If the government is inefficient it should clean up its own act, not cop out like this. The government should do its damn job, not try to wash its hands of the problem by turning the control of public domain over to private interests, just because it seems cheaper and easier. Private "efficiency" is not magic, it's cost-cutting for a profit, or in other words, stealing from the poor in order to give to the rich (that being the company and those with a stake in it). I don't trust a private company to handle public business because it is inherently selfish. The government is meant to serve the will of the people. A company serves only itself.

Yeah but where does the generated revenue go? That's the difference, right?

Replace "pay for upkeep" with "maximize profits" and then maybe we are talking about the Real World. Tolls will go up, and only a fraction of the increase (if any) will come back in any form to the 'consumer.' Why? Because they can. And they will (if they went to business school). All hail neofeudalism!

Yes, the Iraqis need a peacekeeping force, but one that actually means it when it says that violence is wrong--and that cannot be the U.S. Yes the casualties (with all due respect) are relatively low (50,000 in Vietnam?), and this suggests that 'war' is a misnomer for our activities in Iraq. Our war is over (we attacked and defeated Iraq), and what remains is a civil war that we can't fight (and aren't) for them even if we wanted to--we can only try to mediate how the rival factions in Iraq work out their differences. Unfortunately, the U.S. executive branch is in no place to defuse the situation, because it already showed that as far as it's concerned, violence trumps diplomacy. An international peacekeeping force that isn't commanded directly by the United States would be more appropriate, and certainly more acceptable to the peoples and powers of the region. Unfortunately, the current U.S. government has never been interested in being a team player. Why? One possibility is that the notion of essentially owning (overtly or covertly) a middle eastern country is far too attractive.

Trick question. The true UNIX guru knows not to become enslaved through public knowledge of their wizardry. Here's another trick question: What is the answer to a question that has not been asked? uh, try %d

a hell of alot more than the 50 or 60$ it takes now for a tank Yeah I think so to. Which suggests that $4/gallon will not actually affect the average person's driving habits very much. The effect ought to be more pronounced for industries that strongly depend on oil (pretty much everything), and this will lead to higher prices for everything in this country that depends, directly or indirectly, on a mainline fix from the black crack pipe.

I've never been in a full car on the way to work, but I have been in a full car to go climbing many times. (Then again, I don't drive to work.) How expensive does gas have to get before the majority of commuters will carpool or use public transportation?

Let's not forget the real victims of this tragedy: Ford and G.M. What highly overpaid corporate expert could have predicted, 10 years ago, that the vehicular arms race would come to its bitter end so soon. But doesn't size matter?!!

Since we are on the topic of political maneuvers today... What if gas prices rise now, so that they may be rolled back to the great relief of people and business, right in time for the next presidential election. Oh wait no. How about all of a sudden, oil is really expensive, so we better stay in Iraq because they have some. Cheney/Ginrich in 2008.

"This one appears to have been a dud, sir."

1. The 'war' is already over. Your war was on Iraq, and you won, beating the shit out of a pitiful little country. Now get the fuck out, and pray that the UN can clean up your mess instead of Iran. (ps. You can't have a 'war' with terrorists. Call them guerillas or something, then maybe you can have a 'war.') 2. People fighting for power amidst anarchy is not 'terrorism,' at least not in the Bushite sense. If you didn't expect people to be rampantly killing each other to fill the void of power you left in Iraq (who saw that one coming), then you shouldn't have fucking destroyed their government. How many people killed each other in our civil war? Were they all 'terrorists?' Even now, after we have seen that this propaganda is complete bullshit, the administration still refuses to acknowledge what true reasons there are for occupying Iraq. Just tell us, please, why it was so important to occupy Iraq. Don't sweet talk us anymore. Was it for oil? Do we need more military bases there? Are you worried about controlling the most important region in the world for the next 100 years? Had we not threatened Iran enough yet? Did you need a route and more reasons to invade Iran? Are we defending Israel somehow? Just be honest. We'll try to understand how you're helping us. Or are you seriously risking the lives of over 100,000 of our troops (and 25 million Iraqis) simply because you want to 'spread democracy' to Iraq? Because honestly, that's the fucking stupidest excuse I can think of for violently destroying a country (and our global reputation), and not to mention the most obvious failure of this whole situation.

I wish that this message wasn't mired in politics like the carefully calculated political maneuver it is--but I guess that's what you get in a two party system. Isn't it a little late to be saying no to the 'war?' I hold two branches of runaway government and two self-interested parties responsible for this resounding 'fuck you' to the American people, the Iraqi people, and the rest of the world. They should have done something about this four years ago when it would have actually meant something. IMO these spineless 'democrats' are unfit to represent the people that they should have been listening to all along, i.e. the people that vote for them. It's not as bad as illegally murdering defenseless countries on knowingly false pretenses, but it's still unforgivable. God help us adopt some kind of runoff voting system so we can send all of these misanthropes packing.

ironically, he might still get put away on drug/gun charges