tvashtarkatena

Sorry. I designed heart monitors. Not my decision, mon.

At the expense of the taxpayer/state unemployment fund? Last time I checked the State wasn't sending me a dime. And, I guarantee you I've paid more taxes to date than you will in several lifetimes. Now get back to work, little bitch. I've got to go sharpen my ice tools.

I am lovable. Ask me Mum.

erm, you aren't getting it are you? no light reflecting from the ground reaching your eyes = no information light reaching eyes = information that your brain processes I'm just not getting any of this. The brilliant light reflecting off of Carl's boundless knowledge of high school introductory physics must be blinding me. His inability to realize that he's the butt of this joke is even more astounding, however. Lecture on, Carl! We are but empty vessels!

This is really fascinating stuff, LB. Carl's really, really smart. And all this time I though polarized glasses meant they were manufactured north of the arctic circle. I guess I had the wrong 'information, if you well'.

Could you post a lolcat in a tin hat? That would be funny.

When you Vote on a Diebold, You're Voting with Hitler.

Don't worry, we still love you, Carl.

Sounds like the short answer is to switch to a 900MHz cordless phone or just use your cell phone when you're spraying.

I got them when ramping up too quickly for a marathon once. Your posting is right on. Ramping up mileage 10% or less per week has been a longstanding guideline, but you may need to go more gradually than that. You also may be overtraining. Two long runs a week is plenty to increase distance endurance. The workouts in between can be much shorter, and need not even involve that much running. Higher shock loads (pavement, bad shoes) will stress this sheath, exacerbating the problem.

Damn. I used to work at Protocol Systems right up the street. I probably jogged past your house.

That inreadable graph is sure going to help the original poster here. Anyway, Lightning, you can separate the wheat from the chaff in these replies. Most of them have been spot on. The main thing is, have fun and stay out of the ER.

See what I mean? Good luck, Matt.

I've found the best way to have a political discussion with any depth is to put guy's like KKK on ignore and focus on folks who don't consume fantasies like "Left Coast" and "Coronations". They're simply not familiar enough with the political process, having never worked a compaign, gotten out the vote, or represented their districts in a caucus, to understand the democratic process first hand. They have a conspiracist's, media fed idea of what it is that has little to do with reality.

People need to quit this nonsense. Of course it's what he thinks. He wrote it. Not everything needs a disclaimer. People need to quit this nonsense. Not every comment on a comment needs to be commented on so that people don't comment on comments. Heh heh.

The media does what makes the most money with the least amount of effort. Candidate debates are a great example. Is it a real debate? No. It's a series of soundbites concerning issues largely framed by the media host. The media knows how to cover 'issues' and candidates in a certain narrow way, so that's what they do. Having said that, the NYT has maintains an excellent scoreboard of elections, positions, polling data, etc. I've also seen some great post election analysis there that completely contradicts the talking head drivel you hear on radio and TV. There are talking heads I think put some effort and thought into their analysis, however. David Brooks is my personal fave. I used to like Saphire back in the day. Krugman comes out with some good stuff occasionally. But they are few and far between. A candidate's voting record is really where the rubber meets the road, but few people are willing to dive in that far, and the media is COMPLETELY disinterested in that level of detail. When I give talks on civil liberties, people are often surprised to find out, for example, that Caldwell's voting record has been quite a bit more supportive than Murray's: this fact defies their perception that Caldwell is a 'corporate hack' while Murray is 'caring mom in tennis shoes'. (Both have decent voting records on this issue, BTW, it's just that Caldwell's has been consistently more in line with preserving constitutional freedoms). These soundbite descriptions, which are so often thrown around on this forum (Hillary will press the button! Romney is a cultist!) are carefully crafted PR messages deliberately released by competing campaigns for mass consumption. They are the fast food of politics, designed to reinforce one's pre-existing political tastes, and people eat them up. The candidates, when studied a bit closer, are always quite a bit more complex in their records and beliefs, however.

Specifically on the leg training: Extend a leg press (if you have access to one) all the way out, then work your calves, tiptoe to heel down, nice and slow, till muscle failure.

Well, the conservative position has prevailed since Reagan, and here we are, right where we all want to be. The conservative position has been about looking backward to a time that never was, trying (unsuccessfully) to attain US dominance over the rest of the world, and social control: the expansion of government into the private lives of individuals. Too much of the conservative agenda is focused on steroid bloated national security; the movement has grossly overblown the threats we face and thus cost us an enormous amount of money, opportunity, credibility, morale, civil liberties, and not a few young lives. Every one of this mega-projects has been an abject failure. Why? Because their not based on any reasonable approximation of reality. They're base on myths. In contrast, the core of the liberal position has been about trying to solve problems that we are or will be facing: poverty, the environment, healthcare.

Today's media has a stupidity bias.

1)Polarized glasses suck for skiing and mountaineering - they reduce surface reflections so you receive less information about things like ice. they are nice for water sports though. What you should say here is that YOU think they suck...but you probably won't find too many experienced backcountry travellers that agree with you. Again, it's whatever works for the individual. I get plenty of 'information' through my polarized glasses, and can easily recognize icy conditions. Never had a problem. Perhaps it's the wearer, not the glasses.

New shoes. Run on trails. Ramp up for distance training more slowly. Leg weight training.

Deepen my sado-maso leather nazi relationship with Ivan. Bugaboos Bear, unless Ivan's within 100 miles of it. NE butt Booker Waterboard Rob Lib Rdg N face Maude Icecliff Gl Gunsight/Sinister/Dome/Agnes Tiger Mt, solo, alpine style Peaks in Spickard/Redoubt area. Lead a WI5 without crying like an angry baby

Remember, this is a guy who a) believes I'm trying to hack into his PC or b) is trolling to make others believe the same. He apparently doesn't get much.

If you're squinting or getting a headache, get darker glasses. It partly depends on your eye's sensitivity to light, which varies a lot from person to person. My eyes are sensitive, and I use changeables in winter: yellow lenses with thick clouds, amber if brighter. Most decent sunglasses are 100% filtered for UV, so it's all about how much visible light your eyes can comfortably take. I just use a reasonably dark pair of wrap around polarized glasses for summer+snow. The polarization cuts down snow glare and makes the scenery look extraterrestrial. The wrap around style seems to negate the need for side shields, which cause fogging, but again, it's whatever works for you.

It would be cool if he duct taped a chainsaw to his stub.