Rich in NEPA

_ You'll know I'm there when you see this: Cheers ... ~Rich in NEPA~ === A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ===

quote:Originally posted by BassoonPilot:I think that in many areas, such a challenge would be accepted. That's funny. But, honestly, would you? I can say for a fact that when I am out in the boonies, I would NOT mess with anyone's vehicle 'cuz I'd have no idea if the owner is close by and might also be hunting or is "carrying". I'll grant you that a sign or even the typical vehicle alarm warning decals may not be very effective. Perhaps in central Jersey these are actually considered invitations!?!?! (Who pays attention to car alarms going off anymore?) Cheers ... ~Rich in NEPA~ === A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ===

quote:Originally posted by BassoonPilot:I think that in many areas, such a challenge would be accepted. That's funny. But, honestly, would you? I can say for a fact that when I am out in the boonies, I would NOT mess with anyone's vehicle 'cuz I'd have no idea if the owner is close by and might also be hunting or is "carrying". I'll grant you that a sign or even the typical vehicle alarm warning decals may not be very effective. Perhaps in central Jersey these are actually considered invitations!?!?! (Who pays attention to car alarms going off anymore?) Cheers ... ~Rich in NEPA~ === A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ===

Jeremy Irish is indeed the Bill Gates of Geocaching! ~Rich in NEPA~ === A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ===

Jeremy Irish is indeed the Bill Gates of Geocaching! ~Rich in NEPA~ === A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ===

I did not vote on this one because I believe it asks the wrong question. Here's my reasoning, and perhaps someone here can tell me what I'm missing: I, for one, am not convinced that it's such a good idea to allow Geocaches in the Nat'l Parks System, but (and this is important) not for many of the reasons typically cited. Let's face it ... the Nat'l Parks represent such a tiny portion of the lands that are already available to us. The Nat'l Parks are more than familiar to all of us as places of uniqueness and nearly pristine beauty, so much so that we don't need contrived incentives to get us to visit them. What exactly is the point of placing a Geocache in one of them anyway? I see it mostly as a case of "placing caches on a whim." I can easily admit that the Parks are spectacular, and for the first-time visitor the experience can indeed be so overwhelming that they can't resist the urge to pass it along to others, and the first thought that comes to mind as Geocachers is, why not put one here? Yet, so many of our own local parks are under-utilized and under-appreciated. When I'm out Geocaching I really am hoping to be taken to some obscure location and shown some unique aspect which I probably wouldn't have found or known about on my own. Others times I want a challenging hike or mountain bike ride and having a superficial goal like a Geocache can add an air of purpose to it. There are so many places just like this in my own backyard that it truly amazes me whenever someone points them out! It doesn't always have to be the grand scenic ... here in the East many of us are used to discovering the "remarkable" on a microcosmic scale. A quiet grove of hemlocks. A rippling brook. Cascading miniature waterfalls. An isolated meadow brimming with wildflowers. These kinds of things aren't on any maps, spelled out with big, bold letters proclaiming "National Tourist Attraction!" Personally, I prefer it the way it is. I do try to avoid the Nat'l Parks during their busiest seasons. I'm not in favor of keeping people out of them, and even though I like to experience them from time to time in solitude, that's my own personal dilemma to work out. I've had some very fine experiences with people I've encountered on trails, summits, and overlooks. Therefore, I suggest leaving the Nat'l Parks out of the Geocaching picture simply because they don't need Geocaches. [bTW, I hunted and found a Geocache once in a Nat'l Park before it was finally removed and archived. At the time I was both enthused and a little uneasy about doing it, and soon after realized what it was that bothered me about it.] Cheers ... {flame shields on} ~Rich in NEPA~ === A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. === [This message was edited by Rich in NEPA on March 13, 2002 at 08:57 AM.]

quote:Originally posted by Alphawolf: I dunno why the link on my signature showed a link and not a picture! Or, you can use the Instant UBB Code button for "Image." ~Rich in NEPA~ === A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ===

quote:Originally posted by MajBach: Curious, what would happen if I stuck a rechargeable alkaline in one of these charges OR in one of my old NiCd chargers? If I leave it in for a determined time to avoid damage I mean. would I be able to get away with charging and alkaline battery? It probably wouldn't be a good idea. How would you determine the charge time and rate? The biggest problem with alkalines is that they are not good for high current drain applications. In a GPS receiver they could be acceptable, but not for use in a digital camera, flashlight, etc. From what I know, they are NOT good for very many recharge cycles. Good NiMH's can be recharged 800-1000 times. ~Rich in NEPA~ === A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ===

quote:Originally posted by idahoflyer: Here You go Rich! ~Rich in NEPA~ === A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ===

MajBach, my guess is that the charger in question is a simple "C10" charger, meaning that it charges at a very low rate and requires 10 to 14 hours for a full charge. It's what is known as a "dumb" charger as opposed to a "smart" charger that is electronically controlled. Nearly all good fast-chargers are smart chargers. And yes, there is a very important difference between the charging circuits for NiCad and NiMH batteries. It has to do with the manner in which a full charge is detected. With their higher charging currents, smart chargers need a way to determine when to safely stop the charge cycle so as not to overcharge and overheat (destroy) the batteries. NiCad use "negative delta-V" detection circuitry, and NiMH's use "zero delta-V" detection. (You can charge NiCad's in a NiMH charger, however, you won't get a full charge, but DO NOT try to do the reverse without severe damage. That's why the switch.) Believe it or not, NiCad's still serve a useful function because their self-disharge rate is lower than NiMH's and they are able to handle more abuse. However, for most pratical high-current applications NiMH's are definitely the way to go! My personal opinion is DO NOT waste your money on rechargeable alkalines. Hope this helps. Cheers ... ~Rich in NEPA~ === A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ===

quote:Originally posted by idahoflyer: Here You go Rich! http://www.geocities.com/idahoflyer1/geocaching/geocaching-dummy.jpg I don't think Geocities allows linking through another website. Just copy the link to the address bar and hit GO to see the image. Thanks, IdahoFlyer1!!! ~Rich in NEPA~ === A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ===

... for all the reasons stated in the above posts: quick indentification, convenience, sorting, mass-deleting, etc. However, I think 95% of the kinds of icons that Garmins provides have little other practical value. I would prefer having the ability to upload my own set of customized icons. Cheers ... ~Rich in NEPA~ === A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ===

quote:Originally posted by Jeremy Irish:My thought to this is that, although a cool feature, this would not be the reason for creating this function. I guess I don't see what other valid reason there would be. Can you explain? If it is to prevent plundering, how would this achieve that result? I can understand the advantage of a MO Cache in this situation, but even that is no sure guarantee, right? TIA. ~Rich in NEPA~ === A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ===

quote:Originally posted by Jeremy Irish:My thought to this is that, although a cool feature, this would not be the reason for creating this function. I guess I don't see what other valid reason there would be. Can you explain? If it is to prevent plundering, how would this achieve that result? I can understand the advantage of a MO Cache in this situation, but even that is no sure guarantee, right? TIA. ~Rich in NEPA~ === A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ===

Yes, yes, yes! Please, please, please! ~Rich in NEPA~ === A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ===

... not so much because "it's my cache," but because I would like to know how many times my cache pages have been visited. (Curiosity killed the squirrel? ) I was considering adding a simple counter on my own, but I certainly wouldn't mind if it was built in. I am in favor of requiring anyone who views the details of a cache page to be logged in first, but it shouldn't be necessary just to see a list of caches in an area. Anyone who is merely checking out the Website and who doesn't have an account (I don't mean the paid account) can still get an idea of the number and proximity of Geocaches by entering Zip Code or their State/Country from the homepage. Thanks for listening. Cheers ... ~Rich in NEPA~ === A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ===

... not so much because "it's my cache," but because I would like to know how many times my cache pages have been visited. (Curiosity killed the squirrel? ) I was considering adding a simple counter on my own, but I certainly wouldn't mind if it was built in. I am in favor of requiring anyone who views the details of a cache page to be logged in first, but it shouldn't be necessary just to see a list of caches in an area. Anyone who is merely checking out the Website and who doesn't have an account (I don't mean the paid account) can still get an idea of the number and proximity of Geocaches by entering Zip Code or their State/Country from the homepage. Thanks for listening. Cheers ... ~Rich in NEPA~ === A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ===

If you've seen or read this book, you'll know why! Good one, Dorky Dog! Now, we need a "Geocaching for Dummies" book. Cheers ... ~Rich in NEPA~ === A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ===

The one important thing that you are forgetting in all of this is that the possession of a lethal weapon is meant primarily to be a deterrent. As members of a "civilized society," we don't put people to death for capital crimes because we like to see them die or even that they deserve it, we do it because it serves as a most effective deterrent to future crimes. The problem with this, however, is that the criminal Justice system has gotten so far out of whack that it's easier to get off for murder than it is for stealing a bicycle! Most rational citizens are getting fed up with the fact that this kind of deterrent isn't working anymore. The reason that violent crime rates go down (whether anyone chooses to believe it or not) in "shall issue" States is not because gun owners think of themselves as vigilantes, but because criminals are afraid to take the chance of getting shot. Plain and simple. Not knowing whether a person is "carrying" is a dadgum good deterrent! So they go where the pickings are easier. For your sake, I hope you live in a "shall issue" State because even if you don't own a gun (for whatever silly reason), you are much safer because of those that do! Cheers ... ~Rich in NEPA~ === A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ===

The one important thing that you are forgetting in all of this is that the possession of a lethal weapon is meant primarily to be a deterrent. As members of a "civilized society," we don't put people to death for capital crimes because we like to see them die or even that they deserve it, we do it because it serves as a most effective deterrent to future crimes. The problem with this, however, is that the criminal Justice system has gotten so far out of whack that it's easier to get off for murder than it is for stealing a bicycle! Most rational citizens are getting fed up with the fact that this kind of deterrent isn't working anymore. The reason that violent crime rates go down (whether anyone chooses to believe it or not) in "shall issue" States is not because gun owners think of themselves as vigilantes, but because criminals are afraid to take the chance of getting shot. Plain and simple. Not knowing whether a person is "carrying" is a dadgum good deterrent! So they go where the pickings are easier. For your sake, I hope you live in a "shall issue" State because even if you don't own a gun (for whatever silly reason), you are much safer because of those that do! Cheers ... ~Rich in NEPA~ === A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ===

quote:Originally posted by jfitzpat:Everyone has to have their own set of moral standards, but, for me, being willing to kill someone for stuff is the problem that I expect a gun to help protect my family from from. Not a moral code that I want a gun to enforce. JFitzpat, I don't want to get into a debate over statistics. Obviously, anyone can use/manipulate statistics to "prove" their case. As far as violent crime rates after the enactment of "shall issues" laws, these have been pretty well established. But, the point I really want to get back to is the one dealing with the protection of property. What I am talking about is the "justifiable" use of lethal force. If I'm being robbed at the point of a gun, I'm not about to believe for one second that the robber is only going to take my wallet and simply leave. Nor do I care to end up being a dead hero--whether that happens during the crime, or as the result of a trial where I'm accused of murder. Many States do not limit the use of lethal force to exclude the protection of personal property. You might want to check if you are living in one of them. In most States there is a clear line between defense against an armed robber and shooting a burglar as he absconds with your TV. Also, I know of no State that doesn't distinguish the difference between "reasonable force" and "excessive force." I am not so stupid, and I don't believe any jury would be, either, to think that I can get away with using lethal force to protect my TV. My earlier statement about the protection of life and property is meant as a generalization, and of course is not applicable in all instances or in all States. There is a huge amount of responsibility that comes with carrying a weapon for self-defense and it is important to know the laws in your State. Even the simple act of brandishing a firearm in a confrontational situation can literally backfire on you! One of the best books on the subject of the moral and ethical consequences of the use of lethal force is "In the Gravest Extreme" by Massad F. Ayoob. I would very STRONGLY suggest that anyone who keeps a gun for self-defense read this book. You may not agree with all of this, but, frankly I don't really care. Don't take this as an attempt at disparagement directed to you personally. None of the people I know that "carry" are out there specifically looking for trouble ... on the contrary, they make great efforts to go out of their way in order to avoid it, and so do I. To me this means that the use of lethal force is a last resort and a desperate one. It's so much easier and safer to train yourself to be constantly aware of your surroundings, to sense when things don't seem right, and to take the steps needed to stay away from trouble. Cheers ... ~Rich in NEPA~ === A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ===

quote:Originally posted by jfitzpat:Everyone has to have their own set of moral standards, but, for me, being willing to kill someone for stuff is the problem that I expect a gun to help protect my family from from. Not a moral code that I want a gun to enforce. JFitzpat, I don't want to get into a debate over statistics. Obviously, anyone can use/manipulate statistics to "prove" their case. As far as violent crime rates after the enactment of "shall issues" laws, these have been pretty well established. But, the point I really want to get back to is the one dealing with the protection of property. What I am talking about is the "justifiable" use of lethal force. If I'm being robbed at the point of a gun, I'm not about to believe for one second that the robber is only going to take my wallet and simply leave. Nor do I care to end up being a dead hero--whether that happens during the crime, or as the result of a trial where I'm accused of murder. Many States do not limit the use of lethal force to exclude the protection of personal property. You might want to check if you are living in one of them. In most States there is a clear line between defense against an armed robber and shooting a burglar as he absconds with your TV. Also, I know of no State that doesn't distinguish the difference between "reasonable force" and "excessive force." I am not so stupid, and I don't believe any jury would be, either, to think that I can get away with using lethal force to protect my TV. My earlier statement about the protection of life and property is meant as a generalization, and of course is not applicable in all instances or in all States. There is a huge amount of responsibility that comes with carrying a weapon for self-defense and it is important to know the laws in your State. Even the simple act of brandishing a firearm in a confrontational situation can literally backfire on you! One of the best books on the subject of the moral and ethical consequences of the use of lethal force is "In the Gravest Extreme" by Massad F. Ayoob. I would very STRONGLY suggest that anyone who keeps a gun for self-defense read this book. You may not agree with all of this, but, frankly I don't really care. Don't take this as an attempt at disparagement directed to you personally. None of the people I know that "carry" are out there specifically looking for trouble ... on the contrary, they make great efforts to go out of their way in order to avoid it, and so do I. To me this means that the use of lethal force is a last resort and a desperate one. It's so much easier and safer to train yourself to be constantly aware of your surroundings, to sense when things don't seem right, and to take the steps needed to stay away from trouble. Cheers ... ~Rich in NEPA~ === A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ===

quote:Originally posted by geospotter: I buy them at any surplus store, right next to the metal ammo cans. I've never seen them before. I assume they are U.S. surplus, right? Now, I wonder if Cheaper Than Dirt has them? Thanks for the info. ~Rich in NEPA~ === A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ===

quote:Originally posted by geospotter: I buy them at any surplus store, right next to the metal ammo cans. I've never seen them before. I assume they are U.S. surplus, right? Now, I wonder if Cheaper Than Dirt has them? Thanks for the info. ~Rich in NEPA~ === A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ===

Personally, I have little fear of wild animals. I've had enough close encounters with eastern black bears to know that in most cases they are more afraid of me than I am of them. And when I'm in bear country I make a habit of making my presence known should momma and cubs be along my path. If rabies have been reported in the area, I tend to be very wary of smaller animals. My greatest fear, however, is the deranged drug-head who will not think twice about killing me for the change in my pocket! I will be prepared to at least attempt to defend myself, family, friends and property using whatever force is necessary in an apparent, life-threating situation. And the more people who know it, the better. BTW, I find it noteworthy that in States which have enacted "shall issue" laws (for concealed-carry permits), the violent crime rates decline significantly but go up correspondingly in surrounding State which do not have similar laws. Gee, I wonder why!? ~Rich in NEPA~ === A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ===