rehmwa

good point - in a polite and armed society, it's a lot less likely that someone will try to aggravate an assault if they think there's a possibility the other guy is just as well armed. I'd suspect that anyone that does carry might just always have that thought in their heads more than someone that doesn't caviat - this barring the old westerns where the kid does that just to try and boost his reputation as a quick draw expert - then all bets are off. The short answer to that situation is not to play poker with a smart aleck farmhand with twitchy hands and a squint ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

agreed, but it's still not uncommon to hear these kinds of comments. even today. So worth the discussion. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

perhaps he can move the stereotype or bias to a particular race, gender, or culture while we are at it I guess if I see an INDIVIDUAL with problems that the tunnel might help, I'd recommend that, in addition to trying to spend more time with that INDIVIDUAL working on whatever we need to find to make their experience more successful and fun my absolute worst AFF student was kid right out of high school (funnest most challenging AFF jump I've ever done - he violently fought freefall for the first 5000 feet and very glitchy the last 2000 - total panic), my 2nd worst was a young and very athletic man from India who just froze up the entire freefall portion and was nearly too strong for me to put his hand on the ripcord. Stable, but pretty much a stone statue (in the end both met the objectives, and it was up to the instructors to do what it took to get it done and give a productive debrief so the next one was better) I had one little old lady ever, that fits his description - both in freefall performance, and under canopy (great body position, great practice touches, but couldn't grip the handle for some reason (assisted pull and she didn't lose the ripcord) and she didn't follow the radio instruction at all from the radio person). I saw zero reason to ASSUME she'd perform that way on that day based on her ground preps - she was sharp and aware, further there were three others in the same group and they were all perfect performers (for a Cat A). My personal cynicism and reaction to the OP's post aside - I think having a published bias to any specific group is tricky business practice that one needs to scrutinize very carefully for potential problems. I'd recommend revising that to a decision the instructor can make for individuals only based on performance in the class or on the first jump only. I'd say that's a true move to safety, not the original proposal. That said - if it's Troy's DZ, it's Troy's rules. I hope it works out for him. But that post really rubbed me the wrong way. Particularly in today's Play Station generation where I'm finding 50 year olds to be in better shape than most teenagers (how's that for an unreasonable generalization?) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

the specific example up above - I don't think it was Pops - was one where a guy started the fight with only words - so I'm assuming the answer (at least from some posters) is 'yes'. I'm being wry here - his example was someone purposely aggravating another with the intent of a fight. But there you go - how do you really address intent. For that matter, what if you come up to a known wife beater, who's wife is really a whore, and then call them on it with the "intent" to try to get these two into therapy........and then he attacks you. Apparently you need to sit back and take a beating. Or,.....you see a pimp beating on his wife and yell - "Hey, stop beating your whore wife" - Apparently you need to sit back and take a beating if he interprets that poorly. on review - apparently I mixed up "wife is a whore" with "kid raping" - the wry discussion can still progress, just replace the words above ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

weird stuff in this thread: The max track has nothing to do with the angle of dive to the earth, nor the angle of drive from the base. That's silly, it's just the body, and the airflow to define it. if you assume the body is just a flat surface (yes, please crap all over this assumption for simplification purposes ) - then the most horizontal (outward - tracking) force that you can apply to that body is if the body is angled at 45 degrees to the relative wind (max sideways force). With MOST surface area you have available contacting the airflow. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean the body is flying at a 45 degree angle to the earth - like a knife cutting through. It just means the wind is hitting it at a 45. anyone TRYING to purposely drive at a 45 (relative to the ground) to achieve maximum horizontal aerodynamic force is using his physics wrong. The goal is max force by orienting relative to the airflow, not the planet. I can get the 45 pitch by just diving down my head (removing surface area up top) - I'll descend REALLY fast though.... OR I can that same great body pitch angle by adding more drag to my booties (which would also be more NET "lift" to the whole body) - I'll actually descend slower, then, vs when I was flat. I'd rather use the second technique - I get going just as fast (goosing it at first doesn't HAVE to use a downward burst, it can goose what addition of more bootie surface) the second way - the visuals are better, and I can track just as fast and for more seconds since I descend slower. (here, the MOST potential will be the flat flyer that's really arching his ass off during the dive - when HE turns to track, he'll have ALL that extra surface area to use for his track - and He'll definitely take off and UP relative the formation he's leaving) take it to the extreme - I can go REALLY fast straight head down, but I don't make any progress horizontally. the Outward force requires MORE surface to interface with the airflow, not less. and the more you get out, the more 'lift' you get as a side effect anyway - so an 'indication' of max (personal) track really should be the view of rising away, not going below. I think the 'sounds' right, but it's still based on a reference to the base, not simply the body to the air - so suspect it's not really applicable - (unless you just intend to mean the person's specific profile) - still would be fun to run Jan's picture with a couple hot wheels on race tracks. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

you're so clever ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

seems you departed from the concept of "execution" these are all really more risks for LWOP ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

you actually are accepting his premise - you just don't like being reminded of what your position might cost - even if you (as stated) are willing to pay for it, or have someone else pay for it the argument also balances the opposite viewpoint you just prioritize the beta error over the alpha error and there's nothing wrong with that - it's a legitimate point - However, this statement you make is disturbing "even if the cost on the other side is that some people who commit heinous crimes are eventually freed" the cost on the other side is not a guilty person going free - the equivalent COST for this debate is the guilty person going free and killing, raping, torturing another innocent justice is NOT about punishing the criminal - it's about protecting the innocent from the criminal Both sides of the debate are arguing to protect someone potentially innocent - I find that bit heartening at least. So the debate only works if each side acknowledges the other's motivations: Pro-CP advocates have to acknowledge their opposition is motivated by protecting execution of innocent defendants Anti-CP advocates have to acknowledge their opposition is motivated by protecting society from further heinous acts if they don't, then it's just a couple groups demonizing their opposition and running around with fingers in their ears yellling "LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

well, pretty current for Kallend, or popsjumper anyway ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

so you are contending that no voter fraud by either side occurred in that election? I think the point was this election was so VERY close, that voter fraud definitely DID have the ability to turn in a fraudulent result either way - that would have disenfranchised every single legal citizen voter in the entire country it's not about Bush v Gore - it's about the consequences and ability of fraud to affect fake results - it's about each fraud cancelling a legal voter's vote Edit: so still credit to your position that fraud vs the natural error band is a good discussion ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

the point of the 1st caviat is to personalize the execution by putting yourself in the position of executioner the other caveat's point is to personalize the consequences of failure of LWOP to someone close to you - since our responsibility is to protect ALL those in society and not just those close to us by personalizing both of the caveat's in this manner - you then mimic the effect/mindset of being personally responsible for society in general - which is the real point of justice (not revenge, etc, but balance and protection) you take exception to the second caviat but not the first - your bias is showing - you can put yourself in the person of executioner and appreciate the difficulty - we already know that from the emotive arguments you take exception to the second caviat - so you are willing to play the lottery that any negative potentials to LWOP are born by a stranger instead of you, I'd think someone so empathic about the issue and the affect on societal morals would care about the consequences even if it's some stranger Davjohns is 'trying' to be objective in the thread by posting caveats in a balanced manor - play the rules and challenge your perception a bit - each of us will find it harder to accept one role over the other (executioner vs future victim), but both are valid edit: I was unnecessarily confrontative in the original wording, changed it to be let obstructive. mea culpa ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

+++++ for our teams, this was huge - OC at 9:00 (but trying for 10 or 11) IC at 3:00 (but trying for 4 or 5) - the hockey stop move is a bit ahead of the count - As OC I make room for IC's hips on exit by getting forward in the door a LOT - point doesn't have to have shoulders out the door really - YMMV then point and tail just had to place themselves correctly - absolutely point out last, and anchoring a little bias towards the IC takes all 4, but no rotation at all just feels great (along with that instant key) But really, there's no substitute for letting us view a few exits. edit: when I'm helping new teams, E, H, D type exits - I find that a lot of the rotation comes from one of two things (or a combo of both) - the OC isn't launching out and forward enough the allow the IC to get out of the plane early enough. Or, the IC is just leaving face first, instead getting the hips moving. (see how important I think the IC is on these kinds of launches? an IC's center of body awareness, IMHO, really needs to be just south of his belly button, not his head) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

The ID is taxpayer funded - nothing is free but maybe this is likely something worth funding, IMO - if everybody gets one, it's not preferential ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

wow - there's 4 people causing this. post slo-mo video - or show an experienced competitor. I personally find that the inside people have more input to initial rotation on a bow - but point can sure help or hurt the cause ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

sure you do - you give your buddies who own a crappy failed solar power company a LOT of money and they remain your friends for life and will work to vote you in next time if you don't call that a 'direct' return, then I can't help you ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

That would be great except the US trails the rest of the 1st World Countries when it comes to making and keeping engineers. if they weren't subsidized so easily, maybe the students make better choices for their futures if the universities weren't subsidized so much (directly and indirectly) maybe the price would come down and more people could afford it ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

me too - HOWEVER, I'm always grateful when they offer; or notice something and bring it to my attention I'll always ask before touching a rig - but looking is free ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Govt backed student loans should only be for degrees like engineering, liberal arts do not have the ROI. from this ^ post down to the latest is a great example of the flaw of social politics everyone is arguing about who should get the freebies and who shouldn't. How about staying out of it and letting individuals decide what they want and they can pay for it or get loans as the market allows. Instead, it's just a struggle over who gets to screw over who in a situation where everybody gets screwed a bit just so the favored class of recipients can get a minor benefit in exchange for voting a certain way. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Oh, OK. So if I build a jail in my house and keep someone in it against his will, I shouldn't go to prison for that. Because it would be hypocritical of the government to put me in prison for imprisoning someone else. exactly, and if I go and take someone's money, I shouldn't go to jail - "role model" and all that ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

sure, but mostly it's their performances in those jobs - not the job description itself that's the real proof ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

I see you've tried to post stuff on dz.com before.. ("their" is a word) nice post ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

pretty much in any job, for every couple of creeps, most of the rest are decent people. My real problem, apparently, is actually being stationed in DC for nearly a decade and surrounded by real life top level star ranked people. But, most of them I never did read about in any history book. Just met in real life. guess you got me there. my real position in lawrocket's question is pretty much I don't care what job they have or had. I care about their character, positions on key topics, and ability to communicate and work and lead. Anything else still infers some sort of pre-conception about the type of people that occupy certain careers. Other than most of the suggestions seem to imply a high level of capability or connections, I don't think any other inference is worthwhile. Wouldn't we rather just vet out each candidate as they come? the rest of the thread is pretty much people using their stereotypes to vet out occupations. those that do it knowingly and for jest are fun to read - those that do it seriously are just standard Speaker's Corner tripe ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

I'll take your bet. But I get to choose where and what time of year I make the attempt. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

I'd say he's pro-choice the analogy is a bit obvious, isn't it? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

I do agree a military type is no good - 1 - Jack Nickolson in A Few Good Men - he was horrible - you want the truth? 2 - That Colonel in Avatar - no way I'd want that guy in charge 3 - Sargeant Hulka - nope 4 - the list is endless yup - I wouldn't want any movie stereotype of a high ranking military person in charge either fortunately, most of persons of star rank that I've personally met have been smart, data driven, uniform in treatment, non-biased, practical, direct, results oriented and kind. they were very aware of their responsibilities and recognized that the consequences of any decision affected thousands of people from all walks of life....that would really suck. Let alone the idea of hiring someone that pretty much gives their entire career to serving a country when they would have been able to make a LOT more money with their abilities in the private sector (or even retire at 20-30 years on pension and then join private industry). Star level military types are pretty much the definition of a successful diplomatic professional. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants