I remember, once last winter, Perry scoffing at this PA state park webcam focused on a snow measuring stick, as only a couple inches of snow were on the ground despite the stick being able to measure up to 3 feet. Well check out the Laurel Ridge XC ski area now!
Options,Account, Forums
That is snow. Not like that ludicrous failure last year.
It's a 5k. It hurt like hell...then I tried to pick it up. The end.
I have made a number of facebook faus pas over the years but I think I made my biggest last night. So Kara had a picture of herself with Faith and had a sacrastic comment that she has the best costume ever as someone told her she is probably looking forward to finally having the child (she had her daughter Sunday). I looked at the comment and picture quickly not detecting the sacarsm in the comment and not really looking at the picture carefully and assumed she was a pregnant woman for Halloween and commented as such.
Then I watched TV for a hour, then I went back and saw the other comments were going in the opposite direction and then realized my mistake. Whoops. I deleted my comment, my I had no idea women's stomachs are swollen after giving birth. The women in my office said that when they are pushing the baby out they are actually moving around your organs and it takes a while for every thing to go back to normal. When I actually clicked on the picture so that it was large I could see she was not pregnant and no customed as a pregnant woman, but from a quick glance at the small picture I made the mistake. Yikes.
Phil, as a legal professional you should know that it's not the crime that makes you infamous --- it's the coverup. That is to say, if she actually saw your comment, she probably would've scoffed at it and thought, "Come on, Phil, get you sh!t together." But then if she only saw the Facebook notification that she had a comment from you ... but then saw that the comment was mysteriously missing, she'd be left wondering what could've given you such a guilty conscience as to retract your statement.
But to clarify, did you assume that she'd stuffed pillows or some such device under her jacket to make herself appear still pregnant post-birth-giving for the sake of a Halloween gag? (When in truth she was just still a bit swollen.) In that case, yes, I could see the comment being rather offensive.
I'm not back to regular running yet, but I notice that the connectors on my watch no longer seem to be getting the watch a reliable charge. For the last six months or so my watch has claimed 100% charge whenever I put it on the charger regardless of whether it was full or not. That was a problem I could deal with. As long as I put it on the charger every night I knew it would be fine for the next day. But then more recently the manual connection wouldn't get good contact. Fortunately the watch beeps when it recognizes contact, so during intermittent times if I'm nearby I can hear it make a beep. More recently, though, the watch is just beeping regularly whenever I have it charge and no amount of cleaning the connectors seems to be helping. I went for a run this past weekend on a mountain trail I've never run before and the first time I looked at my watch after I had started I found only a blank screen. Not real helpful running for the first time on a trail in the middle of nowhere. I think I'm going to need a new watch. The 610 supposedly fixes a lot of what I disliked with the 405. My only concern with the 610 is if the touchscreen might go haywire if I wear a jacket over it that rubs across it.
Hm. Not too cheap. A 5sec google look, and they seem to run $300-$400.
From the striders facebook page:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0025UHKNS
405CX for $190
Of course, that is the wrong idea, as you're looking to get away from the 405 problems...
Interesting. I didn't hate the 405. I couldn't use all its features, but I was pretty happy with what I had active even with the bezel locked.
A runner's Christmas tree: http://i.imgur.com/jnLwG.jpg
Is everybody getting nervious about the fiscal cliff? Most of the regular posters here have some skin in the game as we are either gov't employees or work for defense contractors. If nothing happens and we go over the cliff, I think there is a good chance I'll lose my job. I am the least senior civilian employee in my office and the DOD is estimating about one in ten DOD civilian employees will have to be fired if we go over the cliff. My guess is that seniority will play an critical part in who is let go. I think analysts think that eventually Defense contractors will be hit equally hard, but it will be gradual as most contract money is already allocated for 2013, so its more of a thing that as contracts expire they may not get renewed, but even that is scary.
Phil, I wasn't nervous ... until now!
I think most people think still think a deal will work out. Defense is going to cut no matter what, but if we go over the cliff, under the legislation from 2011 defense has to cut 10% of its budget almost instantly for the 2013 year. Whereas if a deal is worked out, most people think Defense will have to sustain about a 3% cut rather than the 10% cut over the next 10 years.
Well, it doesn't help my job security, but I'm in favor of reducing the defense budget. As far as I'm concerned the #1 proposal available right now is to let the fiscal cliff happen. The sides can't agree on a fair deal, so right now just about the most fair thing seems to be a generic 10% cut that will force the smaller agencies to decide how to cope.
The problem with the recession, though, is jobs. Cutting Government spending isn't a bad idea, but I think both political parties probably agree that a sudden loss of more jobs would be really bad for the economy as a whole, because household spending would plummet.
I think most defense budget reduction discussions do not go far enough. Most proposals involve reducing the future increases to the budget, but do not try to lower the budget from where it is right now. In most of the scenarios they are debating there will not be an actual immediate reduction of any funds, but instead the budgets won't grow in the future. That means inflation and employee raises are what force the layoffs down the line, but not cuts themselves.
In the interest of keeping jobs, I'm not really sure they can cut Government spending and have that work out well for the country. The situation would just get worse most likely, because then you have no spending.
Consequently, I'm mostly in favor of addressing the issue through changes to taxes and then changes that hit people pretty equally.
-Make the rich pay more
-Give out fewer handouts to the poor
-Tax the middle class more, too, but somewhere between the other extremes
I do think any tax increases should come with a reduction to Government spending, though. Otherwise you have what appears to be the Government increasing taxes to ensure their own pay at the expense of all the non-federally employed citizens. Unfortunately this may be the direction we're headed with the recent negotiations. If the net result of all this is that households spend more to keep the federal payroll strong, then I'm going to be left fairly bitter about it. I would have preferred simply decimating the federal budget and letting the chips fall where they may.
As a contractor I lump myself in with the feds, as they allocate the budgets that eventually pay contractors.
Full disclosure: My ideal scenario involves taking 75% of the Department of Defense budget and allocating it to the State Department instead. While tax reform and spending cuts should stay on the table, insurance companies may be ruining the economy for every demographic of people and I think more money is available there than in tax reform or spending cuts.
I got a text about 10 minutes ago right as I got into my car to leave for work that there was a two hour delay due ot snow. How is the weather out in St. Mary's?
We got nothing, Phil! Merely rain.