Neuffy

One hopes. I've got moldable liners (only molded once) so ... theoretically I can have them remolded? Tested out the custom insoles tonight, and they seem to be able perfect. Iono, do moldable liners shrink over a couple years of abandonment? Eh, if the shells are big enough but the liners not I guess I can probably go up a size in liner. I've pretty much got until next winter to sort this out. Actually, I should put the weights down and stop. It sucks in a lot of ways. All of a sudden, you notice that your suit jacket's too tight across the chest and in the shoulders. You find your well-fitted dress shirts won't button up. You need to buy a whole new wardrobe.

Let your body fat get low enough...

Responses in chronological order: My last exam is on the 21st. I think I might manage one day trip out, and that's it. Considering the use I've gotten out of the board, I'm pretty happy with the idea of using it late-season/last-minute and getting a few scrapes and some damage. Just means I'll have more incentive to buy something new and shiny. (Right.) Thanks. I put on a little more weight than I'd like. When I was 170 and boarding every day my bodyfat was low enough that if I fell on my back I'd take kidney damage and start bleeding. Now I'm slightly heavier than what I'd like to be, but still in pretty decent shape. Sure, that'd be great. Och, kids eating up life seems something pretty reliable. Dodging that bullet though :p --- Since I'll be shopping for a new board (for the 2010-2011 season), any Western Canadian opportunities next winter to try out some of the new designs?

Well, just saying hi, really. Four years ago, I bought some Suzukas and TD2s from BomberOnline and a Coiler AM177 from D-Sub. I spent the winter living and snowboarding in Lake Louise, Alberta. Came home slightly before the season ended due to the horrible bad timing of starting dating the girl of my dreams four days before moving away. After a winter of Greyhound buses (sometimes for a single day off! Bus out at 5pm, arrive at midnight, leave the next evening to arrive at 6AM and start work), it got to be too much so I came back. The wedding is this fall. After I came back, university killed snowboarding for me. Money, time, everything. Now I'm graduating in three weeks, missing snowboarding like crazy and I'm looking to get started again. On a side note, I've been trying my boots on, and then it came to me: my shoe size has increased! My feet are now a centimeter longer than they were when I was 19. I'm just hoping a bootfitter can fix this for me - I really don't want to buy another pair of boots since I only got one short season out of these so far. I may have to buy another board though - the Coiler AM177 D-Sub sold me was great, but I've gone from 170 to 220 pounds in these four years. It was probably a little too stiff for me then - but I'm not sure about it now. Guess I'll just have to try it out, and if not, buy a board for next year. So, hi. Looking forward to getting started again, really looking forward to trying out the BTS unit I've had installed but never used. Wanting a custom snowboard along the lines of a Coiler AM200metal sidecut12m waist 22cm. Annoyed that TD3s exist because now I'm going to have to buy some but not quite yet. Wishing soft E-rings weren't yellow but rather black. Hope to see some of you on the mountain in coming seasons.

Well, that part's bad. Ouch. The other part is...mew.

Yeah...we've got it here as well. Just...not so much, relatively. Still a lot though. I know quite a number of conservatives and liberals (or of other affiliations) who quite simply cannot accept that another political party could do anything good. I know liberals who think the conservatives are evil incarnate. I know conservatives who think the liberals are evil incarnate. I know conservatives who believe that their party can do no wrong. I know liberals who believe their party can do no wrong. I enjoy shooting both down when they are foolish about pursuing the "party line" in an illogical manner. It's as though many who identify as belonging to a political party (partisans) see it as defining their beliefs and values, rather than the other way around. Actually, since we're deep into politics, I'll comment on our last election: Best possible result: Minority conservative government - the liberals get smacked down for some corruption scaldal issues, but we do not get a conservative government that can do whatever it wants without getting agreement from at least some non-conservatives. Actually, the federal conservatives have been rather nice this time around, even going so far as to chastise our provincial conservatives for their privatization programs and attempts. I like minority governments, which is why I want proportional representation. Well, that and the fairly major facet of getting more than two viable political parties, although if I could I'd do away with parties altogether. We really need to get on that...(either/or/both)

The Kushiel Series - One of the books has the only scene I've ever read in a book (or seen in a film or .. well, anything that is passively absorbed) that made my knees weak enough to not be able to stand up. Just...wow. (If anyone's read it, it's the Flechette scene...) "Stranger in a Strange Land" was good, although it seemed that Heinlein had a few...interesting...ideas about free love. Quite enjoyable, particularly the ideas about how seeing the universe differently could change things. "Guns Germs and Steel" was quite decent. Reading it, it seemed to mostly mesh with what I know of biology, evolution and sociology. Actually, I should pull it out and go through it again. It's been a while. Charles Sheffield's "The Mind Pool" was truly excellent. All I know is that I want me a simulacrum setup. 'Cause damn, but that'd be fun.

Fixed. (With partisan meaning - someone who firmly identifies as belonging to one political affiliation, who considers those of other political affiliations as being both very, very wrong and utterly possessed of absolute unchangeable [and immoral or evil] opinions that are focused on destroying the life, country, society, culture, and family of others.) This is why I hate partisan politics. The either/or setup means that polarization, and the dehumanizing of the "enemy" is very nearly inevitable. Why can't I support some policies from one side that I agree with, while supporting other policies that are "politically opposed"? Why do two-party systems (left/right) have these particular groupings of policies or political ideologies, and force me to choose one or the other? I'd much rather just vote for individual policies, or for individuals who I believe possess integrity, honesty, the will to do what they set out to do, and a true intention to do good than decide if I want to compromise some of my values for others. I am very much tired of the "Liberals are evil"/"Conservatives are evil" mudslinging. It's bad enough that upon occasion, one party will refuse to back the other's attempt to do something that both parties likely think is the right thing.

No no no .... controls we place upon ourselves and others are natural too!

I own both, and I think it's less effort and commitment to be domesticated by a cat than it is to domesticate a dog. I know if I'm living in a condo/apartment I won't have a dog. No yard, no dog.

That's adorable. It's wonderful when they get along. I wonder if the kitten will grow up to chase the dog. Mine did, to some degree. Really funny to see my large, clumsy dog that never grew up (still a puppy...somehow...) trying to be playful with my small manx cat, and then having the cat decide that it's not time to play and chasing him off.

skategoat: What's wrong with the D62U? I'm currently looking at the 37" GP1U, which is basically a D62U with a few more inputs (notably DVI) and lower signal delay. Too bad it's $2k for a 37" 1080p :(

It really seems to be based upon the perception of the world as a dangerous place or not; to feel threatened. I don't. If I did, I probably would want a gun. But except for one part of town that I avoid (mostly) after dark, I don't feel threatened or vulnerable as an unarmed person. Then again, I'd feel a lot more vulnerable if I was significantly smaller, or female. So...I guess it varies. Then again...it may be more dangerous where you are than where I am...although I do live in the murder capital of Canada, virtually all of that is either drug-based, gang-based (with surprisingly little collateral damage, other than family) or club-based (and I don't go clubbing).

Seriously...I don't know why so many people like it. It's rancid. (And yeah, I tried it a couple times, just to make sure it wasn't a bad batch.) I don't drink beer much though. I either go for girly drinks, or hard liquor. Or both.

Funny that you'd mention Hite...I've got a couple friends who order that whenever we're out for dinner, but they've never gotten drunk off of it (and I don't drink it at all since I'm always driving, dammit - although perhaps that's a good thing, after your description of it). My worst? Guiness. Oh. My. God. It's horrible. Hell, Colt 45 (an ultra-cheap, extra-large bottle beer usually purchased by alcoholics, the homeless or teens) is better. Although I will need to try skittlebrau sometime. Actually, I've never had a hangover, so I can't comment on beer giving me that. But to finish on a more positive note, berry coolers and traditional beer go very well together - one in each hand, sip back and forth, bliss indeed.

The primary reason I do not cycle very much in my city is the drivers. Aie. I actually know a few people who have steel bars on their bicycles, for that very reason. Then, I know one guy who's just insane. He doesn't get passed by cars. Realistically, I think that weapons just escalate situations, so instead of people getting beaten up a bit, or punched out, we end up with gunshot wounds and deaths. Here, there has been a rather large surge in murders recently, due to people carrying knives and guns. Sure, levels of altercation may have gone up, but altercations alone tend not to result in death, when weapons are not involved. The problem's also that the economy's so brutally hot right now, we have large numbers of single males coming in to town with large amounts of money, not a whole lot of time to blow it, and fairly machismo attitudes. On the duelling note, anybody think we should bring back duelling?

Well, that friend's just a bit messed up, IMO. Children who are not well behaved simply should not be taken to restaurants. You're absolutely right that people should not have to tolerate badly behaved children, although occasionally it seems that some people believe that they should not have to tolerate the existence/presence of children, full-stop. For example, the breast-feeding-in-public issue. Oh, and food fight? The hell? That's an instant "You have to leave now" if the parents don't do the appropriate "We're leaving now/pay/leave." Then again, my experience is a .. tad different. I've been going to formal events since I was three (at least, that's my earliest recollection thereof), and know a dozen or so kids who went to some of the same events as I did when I was somewhat older, peacefully and appropriately. I guess I just operate on the assumption that if people of any age are misbehaving, they will be told to leave, and work from there. The issue seems primarily one of a dispute over the idea that babies are _supposed_ to be the primary focus of their parents. Aren't they? If they're not, how can we complain that they are not raised with appropriate diligence and effort? If they are, how can we complain that they take up too much of their parents' attention? Of course, this doesn't mean that your example is not valid, it just means that I think we can reasonably expect lifestyle changes upon sprogging (what an amazing ability CFers have for inventing new words to describe the very process of reproduction, childraising, childbearing and so forth!). Favorite...response to undisciplined children (albeit this does perhaps both begin a little early and go a little far): http://files.redvsblue.com/web/images/comic/RT_Comic_Ep89_Public.jpg

Oops. I really didn't mean to give that impression. I think a lot about the government's damn messed up. I also think that in some circumstances the government can provide benefits. If what I've said implies that government is the solution to all our problems, I'm a little confused as to what you feel is the solution, as most of what I've said (to me) appears necessarily to do with government, the only obvious alternative being an anarchist society. While government may be inefficient, the stability it can provide is the tradeoff. Here are things that I feel are done properly by my Canadian government (I do not mean the current one, I mean the overall bureaucracy): 1. Income taxes - I just filed, as did my family, my girlfriend and her family. As I am a postsecondary student, I purchased textbooks. I didn't need my receipts, because the textbook etc. deduction is based upon months in school, not receipts. The ease in which tuition amounts are transferred between family members is amazing, and filing (with QuickTax->Netfile, not manually) was a breeze. I will say, however, that those who are not self-employed have good reason to find income tax a little...aggravating (the amounts, not the process). 2. Previously mentioned seatbelt laws. 3. Helmet laws for motorcycles and under-18s on bikes. 4. The Medicenter network (at least in my city) provides prompt, good service for a variety of minor and medium medical concerns (from infections to x-rays, prescriptions etc). 5. City roads and traffic signs - sure, some road repairs have been delayed, but that's 99% due to the insane economy and the failure of contractors. I really don't see how this could not be a government function, unless you're advocating private roads only. Things I think are totally incompetent: 1. The level of oil taxes here in Alberta is brutally low. So low, we could triple it. What the hell.... 2. We messed up the gun registry but good. Damn, that was a disaster. 3. If anyone recalls the Whyte Avenue Hockey riots in Edmonton (we're idiots - unlike Europeans, who riot when their teams loses or if the ref makes really bad calls, we riot only if we win!), they initially had a cop with a near-perfect plan for dealing with them (cameras to prosecute vandals later, cops and medical care off to the side in case immediate intervention is necessary, etc)...who we replaced because he "wasn't doing enough." His replacement basically set up a police line, shoved partiers around, arrested huge numbers of people and provided a focal point for the rioting. When you go from a working system to a broken, exacerbating one, that's incompetent. 4. Privatization of energy, etc. companies. The government screws up by privatizing these, and then the companies screw us way worse than the government ever did up to the point of privatization. Realistically, of course if we want real change, people need to change. The government usually cannot force change, if for no reason other than that people react very badly to being forced to change (let alone screwups). However, many services are necessary, and are far better off government-controlled than in private hands. Just because the government screws some things up, does not mean that nothing should be done by the government.

Really? Hm...what kind of punishments do you have? Here, standard is a three-month license suspension, assuming that there hasn't been any injuries or deaths. I believe that if judgment is sufficiently bad to drink and then drive, that one shouldn't be driving at all (no, I don't think people get to make judgments on how their driving ability is after drinking). By "drunk" you mean after 1-2 drinks? I'm not entirely clear on this, but my policy is that I will never drink at all if I'm going to be driving. I think it's just too much of a slippery slope. On a somewhat related note, I'm totally opposed to ignition-linked breathalyzers. I often use mouthwash right before leaving the house (for sparkly clean teeth and sweet, wonderful breath!) and this would pretty much break that. If you want "minority report" style enforcement, try (I can't remember where, but I'm pretty sure it's occured on multiple locations) having police officers arrest people who are drinking _inside_ bars if they drove to the bar, regardless of plans to have someone else drive the vehicle home or engage a taxi/driver service (where they send two people, one of whom drives your vehicle to your house - awesome service). Edit: Dan, doesn't the change in modern militaries (to the point that an armed populace is screwed if they go against a modern military) sort of defeat the whole armed populace argument? Back when those arguments were formulated, generally the army and the general population was using the same guns, and probably had reasonably similar ability. Oh, and Iraq references to an armed populace vs. a modern military do not count, because in a true conflict of governmental overthrow, the modern military is not going to worry about inflicting collateral damage. If you can't flip the military, you can't overthrow the government.

You mean, free-for-all with BACs while driving until you have an accident?

Funny,....this was meant to be a joke, and I agree with a couple of the things: Driving ages: BS. Driving tests - hell yes. Every five years _everybody_ should have to re-take their driver's exam. It's sick how many people would fail (eg. should not be driving) and it would take care of those growing too old to drive without discriminating based upon age (only discriminates based upon knowledge and skill). Seatbelt laws - They've worked here. Ten years ago, half of people+ did not wear seatbelts. Now, due to the awareness raised by having a seatbelt law, virtually all people wear them not out of fear of a fine, but as a matter of habit and safety. But then, we can justify this more than Americans can, thanks to socialized health care (you causing yourself to become injured for no good reason (seatbelt's dead easy to put on, virtually no inconvenience unlike, not partaking in high-risk sports which would be a huge inconvenience - this is my justification) costs everyone else money. Ugh...just did taxes. 75 MPH? Isn't that...around 120 km/h? I don't really have a comment here, other than that variable speed limits based upon road conditions (digital) would be awesome. Dry and perfect visibility on a straight, flat road? 180 km/h speed limits here I come. Cell phones while driving? Oh hell no. That's quite simply negligent, and really should not be legal. If you look at just how much accident rates go up while using a cellphone (particularly a non-handsfree phone), it's ludicrous. Quite simply, it's excessively distracting, taking the focus of the user off of driving. MP3s (headphones) at a loud enough volume to prevent you from hearing other cars/horns? Eh, too hard to enforce, so no point in bothering. I guess you can get these people by having a cop try to pull them over, and then fining them for not pulling over when they don't notice the siren/police car... Drunk Driving? I think we're too lenient. I find the .08 BAC limit here to be fine (what's the point in lowering it? To get more false-positives?), but really think that those who blow .16+ (and then have it backed up with blood tests of course) should have an automatic license suspension of three years, not three months. Realistically, I feel that anybody who has more than a single drink and then drives lacks the responsibility and judgment to safely drive to begin with, regardless of alcohol involvement (although the number of fatal accidents involving alcohol - 30-50% here - is sick). Motorcycles are generally fine because they usually only kill the user (barring pedestrian collisions). You want that risk, fine. Now, pointless, giant trucks and SUVs... The thing is, we're not talking about one life. A 10% reduction, by your numbers, is 3919 lives. I believe many of this things can be integrated into current systems and result in improvement without violating civil rights or causing much inconvenience at all - unless you're doing something reprehensible currently. Some people want the convenience of going to the bar and then driving home. Too bad. Of course, this is not to say that MADD and other groups have gone off their rockers...some people just is crazy. .05, the hell? Most people in accidents that actually resulted from alcohol are .15+. (eg. the six fatal accidents involving people I knew from school. No driver below .16.)

Wouldn't it be great if everybody had a gun? ...There'd be no crime, and nobody'd get shot?

QFT! Then again, I'm in a permanent relationship that has been a permanent relationship from, well, day one. So, I may be just a little bit biased. Personally, I just don't get the "dating" thing, where you date individuals that you do not yet know. As far as I can tell, at least in my part of the world, "dating" is on a fairly severe downswing among those 18-30, as people are preferring to get to know people as friends before they become a couple. [And because I saw CF above: I think a lot of people get CF confused with anti-child. Very odd juxtaposition of not wanting children, not wanting badly-raised children around, and then complaining about people who want children and do indeed raise them well (eg. the classic "my friend had a baby and now she's no fun" thing). Actually, it very near a perfect parallel of rather a lot of topics, most of which involve "choice" meaning that you are not allowed to make "traditional" choices at all. - Oh, and this is truly OT - I totally agree about that guy being an ass....so this really isn't related at all. I was tired :rolleyes: ]

Hm...let's see: "sane" - how to determine this? Just the standard "has-not-been-committed" test? It'd be interesting if we defined, oh, I don't know, belief in things that we had no evidence of as insanity...or vice versa. But there we go with groups disqualifying other groups that they do not agree with. "patriotic" - So...um...says that they are patriotic? Memorizes something or other? I dunno here...this seems like a method for disqualifying those who you don't agree with more than anything (not that I'm saying that you meant it this way, just that this is the only way I can see it being used). Other than that, I'm pretty sure the end result would be the lowering of many types of crime, but with the side-effect of a hell of a lot more gun deaths due to accidents and spontaneous shootings (eg. when unarmed people get in a fight usually nobody dies, when armed...).

Just to clarify, in case it wasn't clear: I'm not saying that about any "side" of the political spectrum. I am objecting to Coulter specifically and personally. It wouldn't matter what side she was on. If she was a hard-core left-wing extremist, I would be equally amazed at the things she says. This is NOT about politics. While some may view the dichotomy as an absolute, left-versus-right all-or-nothing setup, there are individuals on both sides that espouse opinions that, regardless of political orientation, are horrific. Moore is not one of them. Coulter is. That's all. It has nothing to do with disagreeing with how anybody thinks.