winsor

Ya know the nova got all the bad rap. The design just previous to that was the Ariel. It was never marketed. I jumped and landed it twice. The second time was just stupid. Blue Skies, DJ Actually, the Nova got the rap it deserved. The semi-symmetric airfoil on the Nova was a far cry from the high-lift airfoil found on the Ariel. Troy Loney sent me an article (in Russian) that got into the dynamics of the instability mode to which the Nova was/is subject. In aerodynamics there is a principle that states that instability is the handmaiden of maneuverability. In the case of the Nova, the problem was that instability was courted in order to achive a brilliantly efficient airfoil; the periodic expulsion cycles to which the ramair airfoil is subject tended to move the stagnation point to the upper skin under conditions of high rate of change of angle of attack. At that point the canopy tends to fold up instantly (the "self packing parachute"). The likelihood of this flight regime could be reduced - but not entirely eliminated - by high wing loadings. Glide Path recommended a minimum loading of 1.35 pounds per square foot, IIRC. I jumped a 170 Nova when someone traded with my Blue Track for one jump, and I was just over 1 psf. At 500 feet I decided to try out the front risers for speed control in the flare; bad idea - the canopy ate the nose. I swung out forward of the canopy with my heels pointed skyward, the canopy reinflated and dove under me, I fell past slack lines and missed the nose of the canopy, and was back under a flying canopy just in time to flare and land uncerimoniously. I did not quite make it to the peas as I had intended. A guy on the ground said "wow, that was cool! Could you do it again?" Loading the living snot out of it like Charlie Mullins did seemed to work. He jumped an 88 when he tipped in at 135 pounds dripping wet, and performed maneuvers that should not be tried at home. The Nova was a great design, which usually did not kill the pilot. BSBD, Winsor

A) To whom is the quote attributed? B) Is there any reason for the execrable grammar? C) One can understand every level of nuance and deem it nonsensical. Rubbish is rubbish.

So...it's your perception that people only post here because they want to debate? I have it on good authority that some people post here simply to ridicule the patently idiotic. As far as talking anyone out of their beliefs goes, what is the percentage in that? Who cares what they think - assuming they do in the first place? If someone wants to believe in Leprechauns, that is their prerogative. It is also my right to laugh at them if they are dumb enough to come out and admit it.

and you an introductory course in being human... (which means you don't describe other humans as 'rats') Clues - $.50 you haven't got one... I realize you are convinced that your standards are universal we're all human if that's what you mean... That MUST be what I mean!

and you an introductory course in being human... (which means you don't describe other humans as 'rats') Clues - $.50 you haven't got one... It's on order. I realize you are convinced that your standards are universal, but there exists the distinct possiblity that there are a very few people in existence that do not share your values. They must be wrong, of course, but they do not know it. Given that you are the Keeper of The Truth (tm), please be kind to the people who are not as enlightened as are you. It must be a daunting task trying to bring the world up to your level of cosmic awareness. I certainly do not envy your burden. BSBD, Winsor

and you an introductory course in being human... (which means you don't describe other humans as 'rats') Clues - $.50

Stupid argument. Why would that apply to estate tax, but not to any other tax? All taxes involve taking something of value from someone. Stupid assessment. But I'll explain it for you in spite of your PhD...we can work around that. It's about the greed of wanting what the other fellow has, not about the tax. Do try to keep up, John. Oh,wait...nevermind. The discussion is about taxes. Every tax ever invented involves taking something from someone. Estate tax is no different from any other. Fairness and greed are not relevant, it's all about raising revenue to run the country with the least whining. Right now the biggest whiners are the rich and the right wingers. Seeing how deadbeat left-wingers are the primary recipients of any windfall the government might choose to orchestrate, it is hardly surprising that only the people left holding the bag voice the odd complaint.

I should, simply to help out the family. As far as the Government goes, they are the ones with the printing press so they can do as they please. Since we send aid to the assholes who are sworn to kill everyone in Israel, it seems only fair to send a few bucks to Israel to balance things out a bit. In general, however, I oppose insitutionalized aid by the US Government. We tend to screw up everything we touch, and to blow staggering amounts of money in the process. We should quit while we are behind. BSBD, Winsor

I am a skeptic, so belief is not part of the equation. Al Qaeda is consistent with the mindset of people I have known over the years (and do not particularly like). It fits. "God?" You have to be kidding. I am not big on invisible friends. Santa Claus? In the sense of the Byzantine prelate Nicholas, it is historically consistent. The Thomas Nast interpretation makes comic books seem like Science texts. BSBD, Winsor

May I suggest an introductory course in Reading Comprehension?

Intelligence is not bad. Intelligence uncovers the ways of God through science. But when that knowledge is trumped up and used as the basis for dismissing God, it becomes a major impediment. Spiritual growth is squelched by such pride. Gibberish.

Oh, I think Haiti is but a case in point for the principle that, should you choose to breed like rats, you may expect to live and die like rats. I do, of course, recommend otherwise.

Name one that did not. The cross would have been viewed as the ultimate in bad taste by those under Roman (pagan) rule - certainly to include Jesus and his followers - since it was a means of execution by torture used exclusively by the Romans, on unruly subjects in particular. It was not until the Romans had successfully hijacked the movement (which was, ironically, geared toward freedom from Rome) that the cross became the symbol of the rebranded movement. Kind of like the mosque in southern Manhattan, eh? Ho Ho Ho (wasn't that the Jolly Green Giant's catch line as well?), Winsor

And so we cut to the chase. Regardless of "climate change," when it comes to quite how much food we can reliably produce, there exists a finite limit. It is a singularly bad idea to determine that limit experimentally. In our glassy-eyed determination to "feed the hungry," we have gone out to unsustainable populations and afforded them the means to increase their numbers exponentially. "The road to hell..." and all that. Killing people, while often justified, is messy, inefficient and makes for bad press. The trick is to limit the next generation, which is not a lot easier in practice. One thing that comes to mind is to have, say, Medicins sans Frontieres pair with aid organizations and make aid contingent upon sterilization. If you can't feed yourselves, you sure as hell can't feed the next generation; if you want us to feed you, you are done having kids. The same goes for Welfare. This, of course, will never fly. In practice, administration of said policy would fall to people of the caliber of TSA - people who give the mentally retarded a bad name. Since stupidity is the common denominator of humanity, a global appeal to ignorance may be our only hope. The major religions would serve nicely if they could be brought on board. Think of the Vatican's interpretation of the Mitzva to "go forth and multiply;" were they to borrow GWB's "Mission Accomplished!" banner they would make a huge step. In any event, regardless of the merits of CO2 vs. climate, treating that as the primary issue is akin to treating the symptoms melanoma as one would a rash. Someone hung up on secondary issues is clueless, stupid, avaricious or a combination thereof. If we address the underlying issues, the "climate change" issue will be moot; if we do not address the underlying issues, "climate change" will be the least of our worries. BSBD, Winsor

It's obvious. The climate is changing in ways we don't completely understand. That's ridiculous. We have complete control over the climate. Everything the climate does is because of us. If the climate punishes us, it is because we have sinned by our carbon emissions. If we purchase indulgences in the form of subsidies to "underdeveloped nations" or carbon credits we may atone for our carbon sins and find favor in the eyes of the climate. Beware - if you dispute any of this you are a DENIER, and shall be smitten. Thus it is written.

I draw the line at Kwanzaa. "Christmas" is but the political hijacking of a perfectly good pagan celebration, and it retains the bulk of the Yule festival with just enough of the "baby Jesus" dreck to make it acceptable to Rome. As well as can be verified (difficult when trying to sort through mythology) Cousin Jesus was born in the Spring anyway. As typified by "Christmas," much of what we know as "Christianity" is the politically motivated rebranding of whatever suited the Grand Poobah de jour; the relatives of Cousin Jesus got pushed to the side and the people who killed him and anyone who looked like him took charge. Paul and Constantine come to mind. As far as some fat Germanic type flying around with an aircraft powered by Arctic quadripeds goes, I really do not see the religious significance. The link between the Thomas Nast version of "Santa Claus" and the Byzantine bigwig Nicholas is weak, indeed. Having a bash to celebrate the point at which the days are no longer getting shorter is a good thing. Short days suck. Frostbite sucks. Frozen pipes suck. You get the drift. So break out the Yule Log, hang stuff on the good old Pagan Tannenbaum, give each other some chachkas (the commercial says a Mercedes is in order, but I was thinking a sweater would be good), and "sacrifice" the odd virgin ('there was a virgin here a while ago, but not anymore - did you kill her?' 'Not exactly...'). Chanukah is a very minor holiday (on a par with Purim - any Goyim know what that is?), which ostensibly celebrates the Children of Israel withstanding assimilation. Ironically enough, it is the most assimilated of all Jewish holidays. Luckily, the food centers around Latkes instead of "perforated cardboard" (matzos). Kwanzaa, OTOH, is a bad joke. It came from someone who did not understand the significance of "Black is Beautiful, the check is in the mail, and I promise I won't cum in your mouth." Kwanzaa makes Scientology or Mormon seem legitimate by comparison; Leprechauns and the Tooth Fairy have more solid precedent in tradition. In any event, a "Christmas Party" has so little to do in practice with anything religious that I am quite happy to show up and eat cookies and drink eggnog. If it really was all in honor of Cousin Jesus the spread would be strictly Kosher, so treif makes it secular, right? So Merry Christmas to all. Sholom, Winsor

Holy shit! He asked that you think about the science. Call me stupid but I didn't see anything he posted that says he embraces anything one way or another. Even base jumpers look before they leap....well, most of them anyway. Besides that, he asked that we put politics aside and lo and behold...we find that it's impossible for people to do that. That, in and of itself, says more than anything. I really could not care less about politics as such. Stupidity knows no political persuasion. I reserve the right to be offended when some asks me to be "open minded" when they seek to sell me a bill of goods. When you have issues laden with religious overtones pawned off as "science," it is all the more repellent. BSBD, Winsor P.S. This guy's batting average is over 85%, and he does not take CO2 into consideration.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/22/science/earth/22carbon.html When you have an article that immediately puts forth the link CO2=>"climate change," the presumption that the ecosystem is an SISO system reveals its basis to be junk science. The dynamical equations for climate modeling, as developed by someone with the barest modicum of familiarity with systems analysis, contain rather a few significant terms. For someone to point to the term related to CO2 and claim "this term prevails to the exclusion of all else!" is ignorant in the extreme. Yes, it is a factor; no it is not the dominant factor by any means. If you wish to hold forth on the subject, I can recommend a course of study (assuming you qualify to enter an accredited program) that will bring you up to the barest minimum of credentials to be taken seriously. It should not take you more than three or four years if you apply yourself. In the meantime, rest assured that everything you think you know is wrong. BSBD, Winsor

You're begging the question. I am stunned! Someone who accurately used the concept of begging the question/petito principi!

http://www.alternet.org/vision/149294/vision%3A_time_for_a_new_theory_of_money_/ As far as economic theory goes, the author of this piece is somewhere shy of clueless. The US of A has adopted fiat currency (IOUs) as its means of exchange, as opposed to fractional or reserve currency or specie (gold, silver), and this is hardly without precedent. The outcome of reliance upon fiat currency in light of staggering debt has been consistent throughout history. Investigation of the inevitable outcome of unsecured national debt using fiat currency is left as an exercise for the reader. BSBD, Winsor

The Forum Rules: 1) No personal attacks. 2) No jokes about or references to pedophilia. None. 3) No advertising in the forums. 4) Post to the correct forum and stay on topic.

just aint sure what's better for "home-protection", eg. what should i keep under my pillow! A 12 gauge shotgun with a 50cm/20" barrel loaded with birdshot is about optimum. At close range it has twice the energy of the vaunted .44 RM and has enough momentum to hit someone wearing body armour with sledge-hammer authority. If dissipated by even a single layer of wallboard, the shot pattern of 35 gm/1 1/4 oz of #6 shot is such that the worst you are likely to do to someone in the next room in the event of a miss is to put their eye out. Thus, with a scattergun the equation goes: against the subject up close, you are sure of a one-shot stop, most everyone else is in the clear. The 5.56x45 mm/.223 Rem. is an okay round for varmint shooing, but it is forbidden to use against anything larger than coyotes in most locales by virtue of being inadequate. If you hit a deer with one it may die, but will likely run a km or more first. A human may die, but will often be able to get off one or more shots of return fire first. A 7.5x55 mm is better in terms of a one-shot stop, but has the drawback of overpenetration, (as does the 5.56x45 mm to a lesser extent). For home defense, long range is not a factor. If someone is in the next Kanton, you really do not have to worry about them. A pistol, being primarily a short-range defensive firearm, is a better choice than is a rifle, but requires more training to be used effectively. There is some discussion regarding the effectiveness of this facet of operation, but racking the action on a Remington 870 reportedly has a more profound effect on an intruder than does firing a warning shot - particularly when this is accompanied by a blinding light in one's eyes. As an aside, asking which firearm is "safe" is like asking how "safe" skydiving is. People have been killed with Daisy BB guns, guns with "safeties" applied have killed people and so forth. If you ever have to use a firearm in self-defense, the issue is in doubt in the first place. The concern at that point is the greatest effectiveness from a defensive standpoint, with the lowest likelihood of collateral damage. On the basis of these criteria, the scattergun rules. BSBD, Winsor

Sometimes you don't have the luxury of taking care of one problem at a time. If you're half-way across a train trestle and you see the train coming, the fact that you have cancer won't change the fact that you have to get off the trestle before the train gets there. Of course population is an issue, you yourself expressed skepticism about reducing population size. The most effective tool we may have to do that is economic development, due to a phenomena called "demographic transition", which is the easily observed correlation between economic wealth and reduced population growth rates. As societies and individuals become better off economically, they tend to reduce the number of children they have. In the developing world children are cheap labor for the family farm, and your retirement plan, and you better have a bunch of kids because some will die of disease and most won't make much money, so you better have a lot of surviving kids to take care of you when you get too old and frail to work. In the developed world we have pension plans, social security, etc, and on the other hand kids cost a lot to raise and educate, so they become a net financial liability (they do have other things going for them fortunately). As a result, people voluntarily reduce the number of kids they have, to the point where several countries now have net negative population growth (discounting immigration). If you really want a lower population, you should support economic development in the so-called 3rd world countries. Of course the process takes time, a few generations at least, for cultural attitude about family size to change. However, if that economic development means that people in developing countries increase oil consumption and CO2 output to match our American prodigious levels, we will still have a huge problem. CO2 output will just be a part of it, all those people will be competing with us for oil and other resources, driving up prices. Better for us if we can reduce our own dependence on fossil fuels, so we won't have to compete to buy an ever scarcer and more expensive resource. Even better if developing countries could by-pass dirty fossil fuel based technologies, and go straight to energy efficient technologies. It could be in our long-term interests to help them do that, even if it costs us up front. Don Given that the bulk of humanity is breeding like rats, the resources do not exist to provide sufficient prosperity to stem population growth as a function of wealth. All that has to happen for our "carbon footprint" to come into accord with the rest of the world is for the US Dollar to revert to its inherent value (zero). We will then go from using 20 million barrels a day to 4.7 million barrels a day - if we are lucky. There is a strong chance that people using currency that retains value will be able to buy US produced oil that WE can no longer afford. Witness the food produced in 1923 Germany that was purchased by foreigners, because people paid in Reichsmarks were outbid by anyone paid in another currency. All this nonsense regarding the CO2 boogey man is an exercise in stupidity and an excuse for swindlers to fleece the credulous. Given the truly idiotic things people are given to espouse, it is hardly surprising that the "climate change" scam is so popular. BSBD, Winsor

Absolutely! What could be worse than the prospect of countries actually cooperating to solve common problems? Much better they resort to the old tried-and-true ways: war, or ignoring problems until they become insurmountable. From each according to their ability to each according to their needs, eh comrade?

It is Argumentum ad Populum either way. My beef with Global Warming/Global Cooling/Climate Change is that it is a poster child for Junk Science. Is the climate going to change? Yup. Is the presence of mankind over the planet likely to be a factor in climate change? Yup. Is atmospheric CO2 level a factor in climate change? Yup. Is atmospheric CO2 level the only human-related factor in climate change? Not hardly. Is atmospheric CO2 level the single dominant factor in climate change? Not a chance. Is climate change the primary reason for limiting CO2 emissions? Not by a long shot. The fervor with which the True Believers adhere to the Holy Science of Climate Change rather discredits their claims. The treatment of the global weather system as a SISO (single-input single-output) system is simplistic in the extreme, and does not withstand even the most cursory scrutiny. Any scientist worth his salt is a skeptic. A sanity check on one's own work is the hallmark of credible research. Any school of thought that brands those that challenge their particular ism as heretics (or deniers) may safely be dismissed as unworthy of serious consideration. Even though I may agree that rising CO2 levels are a bad thing for a variety of reasons, Al Gore is still full of shit. What he knows for sure about Thermodynamics, Heat Transfer, Gas-Vapor Equilibria and related subjects would not require a 3x5 card to record. The issue is complex, and he is a simpleton. When the basis of one's analysis is flawed, the results are meaningless even if they are accurate. An example is the shaman whose job it is to perform the dance that causes the sun to rise. He does his dance, the sun rises, and all is well. The causal connection between the dance and the sun rising is not good, regardless of how passionately his followers believe that it is. For us to view CO2 levels as a primary issue is akin to worrying about what type of Band-Aid is best for the treatment of cancer. If climate change were anywhere near the top of our list of the most significant issues faced by humanity, we would be in comparatively fantastic shape. As it is, climate change but is a minor symptom of much more serious problems we face, like a nervous tic developed as a side-effect of terminal cancer; fix the tic and you still have terminal cancer. Our worrying about CO2 levels per se is absurd. If we addressed the underlying problems that result in increased CO2 (say population), CO2 would take care of itself. Thus any focus on climate change that distracts us from figuring how to achieve a sustainable population (like that is going to happen) is an exercise in futility. If you're cool with 10 billion (mostly hungry) people, you should learn to love CO2. BSBD, Winsor