mr2mk1g

guess you didn't read the 60th anniversary thread eh?

You'd probably hate me more if I let on that I had a signed "human slaves" T-shirt from when I saw his Bewilderness tour... You can always pick up a DVD of the show here: http://www.bill-bailey.co.uk/merchandise/products.php?Category=DVD%2FVIDEO

Went to see 'Part Troll' live... great show... also spoke about skydiving... funny guy.

ohh... hang on... is that... Ricky Gervase? ... no wait - it was Bill Bailey wasn't it?

You're a-licensed. I'd tell you it was off and tell you to go get on the plane and jump with it turned off since that's obviously how you wanted it seeing as you checked your gear thoroughly and all. (maybe not a big thing to you; maybe it would be) Then give you a talking to when you got down. If it is a big thing to you to jump without a cypres then jumping knowing it's off might just make you check your gear properly in future. If not, then the talking to would help... maybe also a gear check exam.

One DZ I jump at asks packers for their static line gear (direct bag) to do something vaguely similar. The lines are split into their respective sides for the last couple of stows and there are further stows on the actual container for each side of lines. This supposedly helps the bag stay straight as it starts to come away from the student in the first few moments after exit. They're take quite an interest in everything they can do to keep the bag straight during deployment since they're static lining students out of a Let 410 with a relatively high run-in speed. As for the bag "dancing" with normal stows, that is indeed a known possible source of problems. I think it's Wings for example who have recently developed a bag where the bridle attaches to a triangular extension of the D-bag rather than simply straight to a grommet to help transfer the force of the pilot chute to each edge of the bag in an effort to keep it straight in the air flow and reduce the "dancing" effect. In recent years a number of manufacturers have moved their stows from the outside edge of the bag to near the outside of the center flap of the D-bag (or at least provided both options on the same bag). This is supposed to help reduce the "dancing" as the bag rotates less before reaching the next stow and starting to rotate the back other way. The downside to this as pointed out by Bill Booth recently is that there are more stows, closer together and thus more potential for lines to become confused or loop over an adjacent stow causing a malfunction. As Stumpy points out above, this would also be a drawback of your idea... although there is no shortage of people wanting to use the middle stow method described above despite Mr. Booth's concerns. I think if your idea works there may well be people who would try it as they see the risk of their canopy spinning up because of a dancing bag to be greater than the risk of a baglock due to confused lines stows and thus the risk/benefit equation would swing in favor of using it.

Is there any reason you would think you might pass out in freefall? If there is then perhaps taking up skydiving isn't a great idea - seek medical advice. If there isn't anything in particular about your medical history which would suggest a pre-disposition to falling unconscious at random times or under stressed conditions then I think you might simply be imagining a risk which isn't really there... or at least isn't really that great.

ha - how do you explain Jacko then???

ah you're just sore about the current cricket score

umm... isn't that litterally exatcly what pommie blood is?

True. I'm just shocked that at the time of writing the majority of people chose "No, even if I had that brand, I think canopy choice is personal.[and would therefore not continue to jump there]" I.e. those who answered that think that a DZ has absolutely no right to interfere with what they jump while they are a visitor on the DZ's property. They think that if a DZ tried to exercise their right to mandate how people behave while guests on their property then the jumpers ought to move DZ's in protest that the DZ had been so bold as to exercise that right. The question you posed does not examine whether or not jumpers have the right to choose what they jump - it examines if jumpers think DZ's should have any say in what goes on at their DZ. Clearly many people here think a DZ has no right to decide what happens on their property, because if a DZ did choose to decide what happens on their property they would walk in protest that they exercised that right. As I said I am shocked. People obviously believe that property owners must bow to the demands of the people who visit their land and that they should face economic sanctions if they don't.

Of course you have the right (no one can force you to jump at a particular DZ). But does the existence of the right make it right to exercise the right? Do you honestly think there is some kind of point of principal that a DZ ought not have any rights to decide what goes on at their airfield? Do you really think it is "right" that jumpers bully an owner into doing something they consider to be less safe? (bullying them into doing something more safe is another question again) It's the DZs choice who jumps, how, when and what while they're a visitor on their property. We can choose not to jump there because they wont allow us to use the equipment we want to... but to suggest that we ought not jump there on a point of principal; because you believe that you as the customer should be allowed to dictate to the owner what he is and is not allowed to do with his DZ? Moving because you want to jump with friends who can't jump there or because you yourself fall foul of the rules is different.

Who wants to start a petition that that dock goes into the FAI randoms for FF comps next year?

We agree then on all of that - I would simply say that I think it would be equally bad of the jumping community to vote with their feet with a view to changing the DZ's mind. It's the owners DZ. We have no right to mandate what they let people jump there. Sure, walk because you don't want to use the reserve system they mandate - but your poll options indicate that you're asking if people would walk even if they did have that reserve system and simply wanted to make the point that the DZ was somehow overstepping the bounds by mandating people use a specific reserve. I can't agree that there is some kind of point of principal that a DZ ought not be permitted to mandate what happens on their property and that if they did people should walk in protest even if the ruling didn't directly effect them.

If anything you'll probably enjoy the flight characteristics of the sabre more... that said "enjoy" is subjective and all but if there were a "fun factor" on canopies I think the sabre would have slightly more stars than the spectre. As far as specifics go, the sabre will have a slightly better glide and will be easier to surf the landing... given that the landing will be slightly different pay attention to what you're doing. You've already picked up on the difference in the openings. Now watch for all the replies saying they think the spectre's more fun - didn't I say it was subjective.

I just don't think it's our line to draw. What authority do we have to force a DZ to let us do what we want? - it's their DZ, thus their decision what goes on there. Sure we should have the right to jump whatever reserve/main/container/AAD/whatever that the FAA (etc) say we can. All we have to do is find a DZ that will let us do it on their property. If the DZ doesn't want us to use that item on their property that's hardly a decision we have any right to argue about. The only power we have as jumpers in the issue is that of the market ecconomy and the almighty dollar... personally I think we would be just as "wrong" trying to force a DZ's hand that way as they would be by mandating a specific reserve... if not more so.

Would be interested in the answer to your question... but this might also help you get the card you need. Table shows actual upload speeds for many cards. http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007-7303

I'd like to hit "yes if I already had that brand" but in reality that ruling could easily drive a lot of friends away (as they'd have different reserves) and I would probably move DZ's to continue to jump with my friends. ps, while canopy choice is personal... so is who the hell jumps at the DZ you own. If it's your DZ you can make up the rules. It's the DZO who has to fill in the paperwork if you biff in... if you don't like his rules, give your money to someone else. Same goes for your AAD thread... it's a personal choice who the DZO lets jump at their DZ.

ok, lets see now: pistol grip, check magazine, check bayonet lug... oh wait no bayonet lug... damn

If you're shooting on manual the XT gives you very little more. If you're learning you can learn an awful lot with the camera you have. Do that. By the time you've learnt a shit load from that the XT will be cheaper still. Then upgrade... it is certainly worth it if you can use it... but for just a nicer lens and 5 more megapixels running on auto... I probably wouldn't bother with the extra weight/bulk and keep my grand.

I'm reminded of that old tale of how the US spent millions developing a zero-G pen while the Russians took a pencil: http://antivirus.about.com/od/vendorpressreleases/a/kushnir.htm Of course I have to say I prefer and endorse only the AOL way.

What about if this 5D offers full frame shots? Note the pick shows an EF lens not an EF-S. (still say the pdf is fake... just feels wrong... camera, I dunno about).

Politicians? Surely the current example would be a human having a monkey child? BTW I am now a devout FSMist... with a pirate/temperature graph t-shirt on the way.

Yes, very much so. The point some were trying to put earlier in this thread is that a societies morals depend on how much peril it is under. This is, I guess, how we got onto the topic as we're supposed to be talking about the 60th anniversary of Nagasaki. During WWII the west was at a huge peril. We (the Allies) adopted a widespread bombing campaign of civilians in Germany. We dropped two nukes on civilian population centers causing massive loss of civilian life. We did things which today we would consider to be war crimes. Yes we had a lot of justification for doing them... but our morals were different then because it was a time of great peril (note our morals weren't different at the start of the war when we didn't realize what peril we were in – during the early days of the war the RAF instructed their bomber crews to ensure that when distributing bales of leaflets by air that the bales were properly disbursed before leaving the aircraft for fear that a bale of leaflets damage civilian property). Today we do not consider the bombing of civilians as morally acceptable, as we didn't during the peace before the war. But what if we were at great peril again? As I said above, our command structure has already decided that were we to be at great peril (and I do mean GREAT) we would nuke the opposing country's population centers. Our morals in that instance would again be predicated by the peril in which we found ourselves. What has been posted earlier in this thread is essentially a logical extrapolation of that fact. If either one of our countries were occupied, it is possible that our citizens would start taking it upon themselves to conduct suicide bombing missions against the occupying force. I doubt we would target civilians - they would after all be our own people - but we already know our society would hail those who blew themselves up as heroes and we already know that we would also accept targeting enemy civilians because we have done so extensively in the past while in great peril... therefore I can't rule out the idea that some in our society might decide to conduct suicide bombing missions against the enemy's civilian population should the opportunity arise. That there however is a key difference between most of the suicide bombings in Iraq and what we might hypothesize could happen in the US or UK or anywhere else because as pointed out above, the majority of the suicide bombings in Iraq are actually foreigners who don't care what happens to the country so long as they're harming Americans.

Remember though it's not simply what happens in the film that is relevant - it is how society (both in the film and, more importantly, in real life) see the actions which the film portrays. If the real American film going audience see a US suicide bomb attack as being a heroic action as they did the crop-duster pilot in ID then why wouldn't they see a real event as a heroic action were the nation to be faced with a similiar sort of peril? If society in general would see such an act as heroic... I don't doubt there would be people out there willing to stand up and be called a hero. I think that's all Billvon was saying: if a nation - ANY nation - is under enough of a threat, society will see the actions of those defending it as heroic... even if those actions are also moraly questionable. It all merely depends on the level of the threat.