tyrius.

But that really has no bearing on the risks of having an accident. Even if every person died in every significant plane crash flying would STILL be safe. Most car accidents are slow speed accidents and no one really gets hurt. However, those massive pileups that occur sometimes on the interstate system are typically very deadly. Wouldn't it follow that you should then be worried about driving on interstates or at high rates of speed? Also, not everyone dies in every plane crash. Sully crash landed his plane on a freaking river and no one died! All you have to do is look at the odds. For the safest carries (US ones) you have to fly 9.2 MILLION flights to die once.

What's sad about the whole situation is that actual news reporters were the ones hyping this as something that it wasn't. It's just another instance of how the news in the US is no longer about the facts and is all about the entertainment value.

It was probably US Airways flight 808. http://blog.bahneman.com/content/it-was-us-airways-flight-808 It's clearly NOT a missile.

And this evidence all points to the relative safety of passenger flights. Aircraft failure and especially terrorist activity is so small that it should hardly be considered as even happening in the total population of flights that occur each and every day.

In reality I doubt planes are checked out as often, or as thoroughly, as they are suppose to. And the basis for your statement is? I'd wager it's simply a way to feel better about your irrational fear of flying. FYI, the jet (not jets) that had it's engine blow landed safely with no passenger injuries or deaths. Planes are overengineered and rigorously safety tested. Tallydude probably has as good of a chance of dying of hypothermia in Florida as he does of dying in a plane crash. The odds of dieing on 1 flight on one of the top airlines is 1 in 9.2 million. So, you'd have to fly 9.2 million times to crash and die once! The terrorist threat is WAY overblown too. http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm

Jones should step away from the GM role, but Phillips SUCKS as a head coach. The Cowboys have been underacheiving for years by playing sloppy football (turnovers and penalties).

I turned it off shortly after Kitna threw his first int. I'm assuming that he had more, but it wasn't really worth watching. The defense is what really annoys me. The way they are playing they couldn't stop a D3 college team.

Uhh scholarships = FREE tuition.

You are right! I guess the Cowboys mgmt isn't quite as dumb as I think they are.

Thank god someone picked him up before the Cowboys could get him! I don't know what I'd have done if they would've made this season even worse by picking him up.

The bolded text is the only rational words in the entire post. The rest is just typical hate against the Cowboys.

Hmm, they top the list in Super Bowl appearences and are tied for second in total Super Bowl wins. Seems to me that they've won a lot.

So, to get to the forum you need to email yourself the link to the forum http://www.bassresource.com/bass_fishing_forums/YaBB.pl If you use that link in your phone then you'll get to the forum.

As noted by the quote and the quotation marks, "on the rise" was a quote from another post and not my comment. Not really surprised that it touched a nerve though. ;D

Yep, but many of those same people get squeamish when a player is put on a backboard and carted off the field. There's a fine line between a crowd pleasing hit and a major injury. The NFL has to walk that line and they'd be better served (from a brand and legal standpoint) from being on the "too much protection" side of the line. It's why the NFL "coddles" the QB's. They're protecting the big name players which people want to go and watch on a weekly basis.

My point is that the NFL has to look at this from a standpoint of ALL of their fans. If they allow this to continue and someone gets paralyzed or players are getting put on backboards and immobilized then the NFL as a whole will start seeing problems from their fans. The marginal fans will stop watching, the people who watch despite the injuries will stop watching (many people aren't interested in seeing people get hurt, which is why MMA and boxing have smaller followings), parents will push their kids away from playing football and into other sports, etc, etc. The NFL has to look at this in relation to its effect on the popularity of its product and make decisions to maximize the profitability of their product. If next week someone gets paralyzed again then the NFL product will be worth less than it is today. Players accepting the risks has nothing to do with it.

Steven Dubner (Freakonomics fame) had a podcast about this very issue. They discussed how increasing the effectiveness of the safety equipment has resulted in players using their bodies more as weapons than they ever did before. It's a process that is not sustainable and the NFL needs to address it before someone gets seriously injured (ie paralyzed) again. The players do sign up for the risks, but the NFL as a product will be hurt significantly if a player gets paralyzed because they allowed these hits to continue.

Why would I go with something that's "on the rise" when I can have something that's already at the top? ;D

His boat, his rules. Simple really. If the boater says no then you should abide by that, but the position you're taking is much different than this. So, don't try and make the people who disagree with you look bad by misinterpreting what they're saying.

Not even remotely similar.

No idea, the forum works just fine on my phone. I go directly to the forum page and not the BR homepage though.

Then don't fish draw tourneys or don't take your "unknown" co angler to your "secret" spots. The minute you take them there your spot is no longer secret. Do you boaters put blindfolds on your coanglers and drive in circles to confuse them so that they can't find their way back to your honey holes? The analogy of cheating of your test is ridiculous. What you're really doing is giving your answers to your coangler. It may not be "fair", but that's how draw tournies are setup. If you don't like it, don't fish it. Complaining about it just seems lame to me. But, I'm not a tourney angler. Don't need these headaches.

I'm a geek, what can I say? I did skip one step of the work. Solving for Assets (which isn't the same as net assets) 7,166,250 = Assets - Liabilities Assets = 7,166,250 + Liabilities The beginning formula is Debt Ratio = Debt/Assets

Book value per share is 22.75 X 315,000 = 7,166,250 net assets which is assets minus liabilities. So 0.44 = Debt / (7,166,250 + Liabilities) which is Debt = 0.44(7,166,250+Liabilities) According to the answer the Total Assets = 12,796,875. According to that Liabilities = 5,630,625. Which is the answer you were given, so that means they are using Debt and Liabilities interchangably (which I'm not sure is correct). Debt = 0.44(7,166,250) + .44(Debt) Debt = 3,153,150 + 0.44(Debt) Debt - 0.44(Debt) = 3,153,150 0.56(Debt) = 3,153,150 Debt = 5,630,625

It's much easier to tie a palomar onto a snap and a palomar is much stronger than a loop knot. So, using a snap with a palomar gives me a much more secure connection to the lure. Tie line to snap and hook snap directly to lure (no split ring).