JackC

I think we shouldn't rule out the idea that some time in the future, George W. Bush invents a time machine, goes back in time and jizzes into the primordial ooze. Until the cause can be fully understood the possibility of Bush jism being responsible remain valid.

Yup. Great discoveries in science are not met with the exclaimation "eureka" but with "that's weird".

That's not right. It's not even wrong ~ Wolfgang Pauli

You are close to grasping the quantum nature of Christianity, it can actually be both. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH!!!!! Perfectly on cue! And you also said: Unless atheism truns out to be the one true way, it is just a false religion, like so many others. So ladies and gentlemen, Maadmax thinks that Christianity isn't a religion but Atheism is. That is exactly the sort of insane gibberish I find so utterly hysterical. Sorry but it's impossible to take such delusional bollocks seriously.

What really makes me chuckle is when people say that Christianity isn't a religion (it's a personal relationship with God) and 2 minutes later tell you that Atheism is a religion. You just can't reason with that kind of logic.

It's quite simple. Anyone with the right chemicals and an electrical outlet can perform abiogenesis experiments and produce amino acids in their basement. Meanwhile, the number of confirmed divine entities remains at zero. That's what makes abiogenesis a plausible theory. Godidit is not even a half decent hypothesis.

I'm really sorry, that's tough news. My grandfather died of cancer when I was 7. My parents didn't tell me he'd died and I found out from a cousin (also 7) a day later. I was absolutely furous with my parents for not telling me and I can assure you, that is not the way I would have chosen to find out. Good luck, it's a difficult thing to do but a necessary one.

Interesting. Is global thermonuclear war natural?

Well first you need to define what you mean by "nature decided". I would guess that many recent extinctions could be traced to man made changes that lead to it, either by introducing a non-native species, changing the habitat, hunting or whatever. Or do you consider man (and their activities) to be natural? Dunno, that's one for the biologists, I'm no expert. That's probably why a Mammoth would be viable, Elephants are close enough to do the job. Maybe there is another river Dolphin species that would be suitable parents. But it would be nice to ask the Elephant/Dolphin what they thought first.

Yes exactly, I think we are a bit over confidant. I truly do not believe that we know the true implications of such actions, and introducing a new species that has been extinct might produce problems that we have not even thought about. If you're talking about Pterodactyls, Iguanodon or even a Mammoth then maybe you have a point. But the Yangtze River Dolphin bcame extinct in 2006, Western Black Rhinoceros (2006), Sturdee's Pipistrelle (2000), Lord Howe Long-eared Bat (1996), Greater Short-tailed Bat (1988). Bringing those species back would just be undoing a recent fuck up, wouldn't it?

Cripes, I've always hated that expression. Even assuming, for discussion, the existence of a FSM, She gave humans intelligence to be applied in practice, not merely held in reserve. Exactly. I want my Dodo goddamit!

Well Mammoths have been dead a long time but we could bring back Dodo's and Thylacines and Passenger Pigeons and Yangtze River Dolphins and Desert Rat Kangeroos and Nendo Tube Nosed Fruit Bats and Javan Tigers and Scicilian Dwarf Elephants and Quaggas and Labrador Ducks and Great Auks and Tahitian Red-Billed Rails and Pig-footed Bandicoots and...

Maybe, but Protestant and Catholic made for convenient identifiers for all those tit-for-tat murders.

Well it has been discussed on here to death but you've only got to stick you head out of a plane to know it doesn't work. I remember looking out one time as people exited and you could look down all of the groups from first to last and they were all in a nice neat line, over 45 degrees from the plane. You hit 45 degrees about 0.2 seconds after exit. I think someone (Billvon or Quade maybe?) posted a video of it. The fact is that people tell other people that the 45 degree works and because it comes from a position of "authority", they don't question it even though the evidence contradicts it. That's pretty much the definition of faith. Well I've felt it so I know there is a particular psychological condition or brain chemistry that people call love. So why would I need faith when I have evidence? If I was incapable of feeling it and had never whitnessed anyone acting out of love, I might need a bit of faith to think it actually exists but that's not the case now is it? Actually love isn't a good example. Now spirituality, or spiritual truth or whatever you guys call it, I have no idea what that is and if I were to try to believe in it, it would require more faith than I could possibly muster.

That's to do with the subtleties of scientific language. People erroneously think that the progression of scientific knowledge goes from hypothesis, to theory, to law. It doesn't work like that. A physical law is merely a mathematical statement of fact. Newton's Law of Gravity doesn't give you any help in understanding what causes gravity, it merely states the relationship between mass and force. A theory must contain information as to why something happens. Einstein's General Theory of Relativity crucially explains why mass is related to gravitational force. To be called "theory" is the highest status that any physical model can attain. Physical Laws are relatively trivial things by comparison. Not at all. Argumentum ad populum is not a valid reason to believe anything. Physical theories do not gain status by being popular, they gain status by withstanding repeated and detailed scrutiny. And they'd be wrong. The Bible is no more proof of God than Harry Potter is proof of wizards. The fact that something is written in a book in no way proves that it is true. I would imagine that some people would try, but as long as there exists a flying thing (paper plane, insect, cloud) it would take a pretty hardcore naysayer to deny that flight is possible. Studying is good but I'll try and avoid faith thanks. The 45 degree rule is perpetuated by faith.

To know requires proof. To believe requires evidence. To have faith requires neither. Birds are known for their ability to fly. Ergo we "know" that flying is possible because we have proof in the form of flying birds. If you apply Newton's second law to fluid motion, add some fluid stress terms, you should end up with the Navier-Stokes equations. These equations describles fluid flow and are the basis for the Computational Fluid Dynamics software that can be used to predict the aerodynamics of aircraft, trains, cars and even parachutes to spectacular accuracy. We "know" that the Navier-Stokes theory is useful because it accurately predicts real life situations. We "believe" the Navier-Stokes equations to be correct because the accuracy of the theory is evidence that it is correct. So I have both proof and evidence relating to the theory of flight. The only time I would need faith is if I were too lazy to look for and understand the evidence. Luckily, I'm not that lazy. I've solved the Navier-Stokes equations and related the results to experiments that I also performed. So no, I don't have faith in the theory of flight, I don't need it.

It's not a book (although it bloody well should be) but you should definately read this

Thinking about it, yes I think it could matter. If the pin is pushed all the way home (this is advised against in the manual but not all packers know this) then the bridle pulls on the lower side of the pin hoop while the leg of the pin stops the pin rotating in the closing loop by pressing against the closing flap. This could try to invert the pin and possibly let it dig into the closing flap causing a pilot chute in tow. I'd rather avoid that if possible.

Unfortunately (fortunately?) you can't get it in any other way. The only way I could change it would be to unstitch the bridle, turn the pin around and then sew it back up again. Since I'm no rigger, I'll leave it alone. The only other alternative is to put a half twist in the bridle attachment point. If I shortened the closing loop, I wouldn't be able to close it at all. The Vortex manual shows the grommets not lining up and my rigger mentioned that they weren't supposed to so I'm happy that it's correct. http://www.parachutesystemsusa.com/pdf/packingmanual.pdf

You're probably right, I just wondered if there was a reason for it being the way it is.

It's not the curve I was thinking of, it was the side the bridle is attached to the pin. If I was designing it, I'd attach the bridle so it sits on the upper side of the hooped part of the pin not the lower, but I'm no rigger.

What's the thinking behind closing pin orientation? On my rig (Vortex II), the manual says right to left, smiling upwards but that puts the bridle attachment on the lower side of the pin (see photo). Now this seems a bit wrong to me because the bridle will pull on the lower side which makes it more difficult to stand the pin up before pulling it out. Does anyone know what the thinking is here?

You get the reward of knowing that you're a nice guy, and if you're very lucky the people around you might notice it too. Apart from that, no. +1 You do the right thing because it's the right thing to do, not because God or karma or government welfare will be nice to you for it.

It isn't complex at all. If you lob missiles into Pakistan without authority from the Pakistan government, they would be quite justified in lobbing missiles right back at you. You'd have us believe it is complicated simply because Pakistan probably won't fight back so the US could get away with it. Well that doesn't make it right and just because Pakistan might not fight back, doesn't mean the Pakistani people won't. This policy will almost certainly come back to haunt you.

That is exactly the hypocrisy - I'm glad you see that. Other countries should not attack the U.S., and in kind, we should not invade other countries. Sound reasonable? Perfect. Now we just need to get everyone else to agree.