rehmwa

mailmen push the envelope more than all you jokers ... 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

Too much thinking going on here. 1 - like Dave said - have a simple plan and practice it mentally. Whatever you've practiced is what you'll execute the fastest 2 - like Billvon said - if you lose track of altitude, then clearly you are below your lowest decision point (any other assumption is dangerous), execute the plan for that altitude ... 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

Good - you judged the individual by his actions only. The rest is just descriptive details that may or may not have a causal relationship. But, in the end, only the actions count. ... 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

Do you think that being a Muslim is an additional indication of mental instability, then? You imply that the "Muslim" part of the sentence is what he was referring to as "important". Perhaps he meant "Honor" Killing", not Muslim. I'll play that game - Do you consider honor killings to be very sane and a wonderful aspect of any culture? ... 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

Who said we're segmenting it like that? And if we are, what about people who don't leave enough exit separation, pull at an altitude different than the one specified, track poorly, track in the wrong direction, backslide up jump run as they learn to sitfly etc, etc, etc All of those are situations where "an element of additional uncontrolled risk was introduced at some point during the dive" and you haven't allowed for those. At least the swooper is planning to swoop. Those others are unintentional. I think it's fair to see if the "classic" list of fatality causes is decreasing. Intentional Swooping, including traffic collisions related to the activity, are fairly new compared to the rest of the list, and if it's an outlier vs the other activities, then it should be objectively analyzed as special cause warranting specific scrutiny. Similarly, for example, the advent of new parachute designs and whether we get more or less high speed mals or low openings might also warrant separate scrutiny. Wanting to just lump a new cause in with the rest is head in sand stats - when it likely does require special scrutiny, is kinda silly. If it's just another, equal, separate category, then sorting it out would certainly come out in the analysis. But, there is certainly concern, and even a consensus that swooping is new and more of an impact than any other category - else why would be seeing calls for controlled progression, checklists, better training, etc. why should the proposal bother you? it's not really a witch hunt in any way. edit: and you make the excellent note - "At least the swooper is planning to swoop. Those others are unintentional." so if swooping is a high fatality activity (relatively speaking) then your comment is absolutely key in terms of fix effeciveness - hint: it indicates a cultural issue that requires correction, those are tough ... 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

higher taxes, higher dues - that's pretty much just an increase to the constant pocket lining that's always running ... 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 the "intent" is to design to fight poverty. The results are exactly the opposite. So either it's really insidious, or really incompetent. I'd error on the side of good intentions, but lousy ability to separate real effect from intended effect. Or at least denial that intentions didn't 'really' happen. Human nature to be reactive to info - that's why people buy stock that's gone up for while instead of buying low, etc etc etc. Same reason why social programs "feel" like they should work, but eventually exacerbate problems even worse. Edit: And then I read the rest of your post. Nicely done. ... 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

amazing, isn't it? it's not 'nuanced', or 'complicated', or anything like that. It just makes sense. the key point is right in there - it's their decision and they pay for it - you need both conditions in place to get the best decisions. ... 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

+1000 AND - they get to raise taxes too. "or else we'll be short on firefighters and policemen and schools - why do you people hate firefighters and children?" ... 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

first off: +1 on that entire rant p-man morality belongs to the individual and the farther we get away from the individual, the less power MUST adhere to government - so local is fine for a little bit, state, a little less, feds? absolutely none The original system was designed to avoid this pitfall by emphasizing individuals, state's rights over feds, and private property rights. point is, the founders TRIED to do it right. The point of the system being designed for the quagmire of the populace being diverted by social background noise and power accumulating in the hands of the powerful? I'd say it's been "perfectly and on purpose REdesigned" - and that is no accident what kills me is that so many are brainwashed into thinking the fix to this is pushing power even more to the feds rather than exactly the opposite way (to the locals and individuals) ... 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

OK - Now we're back to what the parties represent. Count on Iowa to always pick a religious panderer on the R side and the socialist weirdo on the D side. Candidates that are socially extreme are fiscal SPENDERS. We need this religious right panderer about as much as we need Obama. Two sides of the same tax and borrow and spend spend spend coin. If the GOP actually ends up with this election's version of church lady (Bachmann or Santorum) then we all deserve Ospender for another 4. Fortunately, Iowa is terrible in predicting the winner - they picked 'churchy' last time - and this time he's only third (and she's dead last). Though I am encouraged with RP's support so far - that's very unexpected. ... 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

typical - they are complaining because the state is trying to generate revenue. They only complain because they are being hurt personally. nowhere in here is the option - "Washington chose to cut (program, or etc) as a necessary budget-neutral action to allow the state to continue funding........" people cry because their favorite areas get cut - but we never hear them offer alternative ways to fund those benefits ... 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

One more point to this particular point. This is the reason why, all other things being equal, I vote for Democratic presidents: because presidents appoint SCOTUS justices, most of whom are with us for decades. And execrable, Constitution- and liberty-savaging laws like this one, the Patriot Act, etc., etc. are far more likely to be upheld by Justices appointed by Republican presidents, and rejected by Justices appointed by Democratic presidents. To people who think it doesn't much matter which party's person gets to be president, this is an example of why it really does. So your point isn't that you like Dem-appointed justices (VERY prone to be activist and legislate from the bench), but that you are just MORE fearful of Rep-appointed justices (considered to uphold laws you don't like). So I'm not clear yet - Do you want justices the uphold the actual law (where constitutional) and contain their authority to exactly that? or do you just want activist justices provided they are only activist toward your bias? I think it's really telling when potential justices are being interviewed - regardless of party, as soon as a judge makes a statement like "I have political views, BUT, as a justice that doesn't matter, I uphold and interpret the laws as written and will not let my personal views bias that judgment" those are the judges that those congressmen try to kick out - they are scared of them. it's real shame I really liked when Roberts had to remind the senators that justices don't write laws. The very people interviewing wrote laws and they didn't even know it. edit: i only wrote this because you choose to make it about party. Kennedy wrote it correctly - he thinks it's unconstitutional and hopes the justices agree. and he'll not vote for congressmen that aren't aligned with it. he gets 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

your belief system states there is only one god - so by definition it has to be the same There are exactly as many gods as leprechauns. I've never taken a census of either, so I wouldn't know. Nor would I really care. ... 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 - religion, politics and entertainment prevails - I suspect if you had to just create a list of "people you've heard about" it would likely balance out about the same then..... ... 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

your belief system states there is only one god - so by definition it has to be the same ... 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

ahhhhh, the good ol' days (if you think women are petty and mean nowadays, imagine them having that little gambit in their arsenal today) ... 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

Wherever there is injustice, you will find us. Wherever there is suffering, we'll be there! . . . Line! . . Wherever liberty is threatened! You will find... ... 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

How dare he state - essentially.... that he wants people to be judged by the content of their character rather than by the color of their skin that we treat all individuals equally rather than create artificial schemes to prefer ANY group over ANY other group that'll derail the entire left, and the religious right completely the nerve ((go to many major liberal arts programs, and this philosophy is absolutely taught and referred to as a racist position)) ... 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 back to your original comment then - it seems that here's a response...... As far as what someone considers a "religious" person - It's not a wide swath, it's a very narrow one. It specifically refers to people who have a diety based belief, to the point that they want their views enforced onto the rest of society. And those folks are an ever-shrinking small and irrelevant minority in America. They make a lot of noise, but they no longer have any power to accomplish their dreams of a religious state ... 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

did you type this with a straight face? Maybe conflicts are escalating for, I don't know, the last 14 centuries or so, because there are, in fact, different Gods in Abrahamism? your tone is disagreement, but your words are agreement though I'd still say the the conflicts are not "because" of these cosmetic little differences - rather the conflicts are rationalized by these things and the real reasons are the same as always, more power, more land, more control, etc. any excuse would do, the religious rationalizations are just easier to sell to a devoted populace ... 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

did you type this with a straight face? because this is pretty much the kind of stuff that gives excuse to escalate conflicts - it's pretty much the entire point of debate, so it's a big ol' blind tangent that proves the point ... 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

Removing the beam from your own eye would show his description to be valid, as their basic argument comes down to 'guns are bad'. Seems to me, that Andy's point is acknowledged his own beam. Returning the comment to JR is a courteous return of the gift JR offered him. ... 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 loved my frap hat. Comfy, kept my ears warm, etc. Back then, RW was slower, less power in the moves. Then it evolved, those feet and heads are moving a LOT faster, so am I. Once I took a heel across my chin in the tunnel, I bought a full face that season. And I like it. I didn't have a cyprus - then I had a kid. I like my cyprus. I opened at 2000 (max) for years. Nice, trusty Maverick over my head, opened in less than 500 feet. and when it took longer, I'd just cut a bigger hole in my slider. problem solved. Then canopies evolved. My newer canopies take a little longer to open, so I try to pull at 2500 (min) now - still in the saddle at about the same altitude. I like it, and I compensated for the difference - didn't need a BSR to make me, that'll only happen if people refuse to recognize it for themselves. So the 'old timer' cliche attitudes are fine - as long as their jumps and gear aren't evolving either. As for a hard hat in the shower - I just don't see plumbing changing that much in the last 25 years that involves reassessing my shower risk....., but I'll take a second look if you like.. ... 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 disagree. I don't think the average citizen should be prevented from owning a weapon an off duty police officer is allowed to own. this is funny - those are two equivalent statements However, the phrasing certainly indicates a different philosophy in the approach. One is based on gov restricting rights - the other is about the gov staying out of 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