Why stop there?
Windows 5000 sounds awfully kick ass. Certainly more so than Windows 11. Maybe after that they could go with Windows 21 Jump Street followed by Windows 42.
Really, it all comes down to the number that sounds like it wants to kick some ass.
Dude, why the hell would you RTFA? This is
Never underestimate the deception of an unmarried woman. This poor bastard had no idea she would turn into this. Hell, he probably still doesn't know.
What they are sorting for is people stupid enough to give an insurance company another excuse.
I'd wager that what they are after is a treasure trove of data on what kind of people are driving where at what times. That is valuable data that will fetch a snappy price from the highest bidder.
Most of the potential I see involves anything that generates data which can later be sold. It's not about making our lives better, it's about making money.
These things will probably end up in a pair of shoes so that citizens can be tracked
because 99.9% of the tourists (including you, it sounds)
Honestly, and with few exceptions (Black Canyon being one, but that's a permit that can take years to get), I prefer to stay out of the National Parks, as they tend to be exactly the type of place I am looking to avoid when I visit nature. Yes, you can avoid the crowds and go hike in somewhere. Even then you're dealing with a bunch of weekend warriors (including you, it sounds) that get territorial about camp sites and cock-sure with all that fancy gear that gets used twice
Go on a single day hike (several days in a row, of course) up and down a Western river canyon. If you know what you're doing, you can time the bug hatch with the off-peak Mondays and Tuesdays following holidays so as to also avoid all that weekend warrior traffic to and from the cities as a bonus.
Even beyond that, "camping" should not involve a 3-4 day hike to get somewhere to avoid crowds. That's called backpacking. The camping I refer to in my previous comment is done on gravel lots with a parking space adjacent and a number on a post and some over-zealous retiree driving around in a golf cart. This fact alone makes your entire post redundant.
He uses an RC raft boat you insensitive clod! After all, what better image of a "toy" than a guy standing on the side of a river with an RC raft boat driving his wife down that tricky class IV!
I was also not talking libre not gratis when I wrote free.
Either way, National Parks are among the most restricted places in the country. You can't have dogs. You pay to get in. You have to stay on the trails. Any kind of fishing/hunting is highly restricted. Camping involves setting up a tent in what amounts to a parking lot.
National Parks have a lot of beauty and I appreciate some of these rules, but they are definitely not places where you are free to do as you wish.
Sure, let's find out. I was heading up to Indian Peaks Wilderness this weekend to take some fall color photos. I have a tripod that looks and acts more like a hiking staff. My girlfriend was going to wear a nice dress, so I guess she's going to be a model.
And in the event I actually see anyone else up there, I'll be sure to let them know where to find my permit.
Couple days late, so yeah
I didn't mean to offend with my comment, I was simply trying to think of a book that would be worthy of banning based on my own moral views. I honestly couldn't think of one, but the Book of Mormon was as close as I got.
What about a not-so-simple tripod? I use a Trek-Pod. Does this mean hiking staffs shouldn't be allowed either?
It's no mystery as to why the number of board feet of timber harvested in NFS controlled lands in 1988 was nearly 12 billion, while in 1999 it was less than 2 billion (2013 was a similar number).
While I don't discount the fact that presidential policies might have had an effect, but do you think that maybe there were less trees harvested in 2013 because they had all either died and decomposed or burned already? Take a trip to a Western forest affected by Mountain Pine Beetle and it will be evident when you look up the mountain side and see 90% of the trees standing dead. Here's some images that should give you an idea
In fact, if you're on the lands managed by the FS and you don't have a permit you're likely there illegally. It's the national parks that you have free access to.
Where do these people come from? Free access to National Parks? Hardly. While I admit that a National Parks Pass is one of the greatest deals around, it is certainly not free. National Forest, on the other hand, I have never once paid to use (outside of camping with friends that prefer to use the paid campgrounds instead of open forest access). I did pay I think $7 to get a firewood permit when I lived in Summit County (allowed to cut standing-dead beetle kill only), so that wasn't free, but it was hundreds of dollars cheaper than buying the firewood for the winter. Also, I will admit that tomorrow the National Parks will be free (instead of the $10-25 entrance fee you would normally pay).
Most of the lands you are going onto as an outdoorsman are managed by the NPS and not the FS.
I would be curious to see what you come up with as a citation. The majority of Federal land is in the West. The majority of that land in the west is part of the Forest Service. There's lot of National Parks as well, but their area is nothing compared to NFS and/or BLM land.
I am an avid fisherman, and I can probably count on a single hand the number of times I've bothered to fish in a National Park. With few exceptions (Slough Creek and some of the other "Holy Grail" type streams that exist in National Parks) there are just too many people to have any fun. National Forests, on the other hand, are generally the best places to go for public fishing access.
I suggest you familiarize yourself about the Mountain Pine Beetle.
In the context of Climate Change, would it be better to have millions of dead trees burn, millions of dead trees decompose, or millions of dead trees built into furniture?
You do know, logging is only allowed in National Forests, and not National Parks, right? Just checking.
Except we're talking about neither. We're talking about Wilderness Areas. Resource extraction does exist in Wilderness Areas, though it is quite limited and generally due to those acts being grandfathered in since they occurred before the Wilderness Act. Also, FTFA:
Close didn't cite any real-life examples of why the policy is needed or what problems it's addressing.
It's tough for the media to report on this story accurately when the Forest Service won't even acknowledge why this policy is necessary or what situations it addresses. Without that everyone is simply left to guess what this is all about.
This file will self-destruct in five minutes.
