DrewEckhardt

Speaking from personal experience with a container that's not too undersized it's not a big deal to free pack (using the tail pocket) a 0-3 CFM BASE canopy into a skydiving container. Apart from leaving riser parts hanging out the CRW guys don't even have any problems with ZP lightnings.

Full story: Rasmussen They should be honest. Politicians who will actively work to eliminate infringements on our right to keep and bear arms (change state laws on concealed carry from discretionary to shall-issue, eliminate bans on unpopular guns like .50 caliber rifles and sport-utility weapons) should identify as pro-gun. Those who will vote for neither anti-gun nor pro-gun legislation but should identify as abstaining if they exist. Those who will vote for anti-gun legislation of any sort should identify as anti.

It doesn't matter. Large model airplanes have no legitimate use in our society, no constitutional protections, and should be banned for safety before terrorists abuse them. Should this be before or after swimming pools and coathangers? Before. Swimming pools let disabled people with joint problems exercise so they don't run up our insurance bills as much from heart disease and would be hard to do away with given the level of government support in the form of public pools. Coat hangers keep your business clothes from getting wrinkled and therefore have a legitimate use. Private citizens have no need for toy planes and rockets, especially large ones which could be used in terrorist attacks.

It doesn't matter. Large model airplanes have no legitimate use in our society, no constitutional protections, and should be banned for safety before terrorists abuse them.

The ideal wing loading for classic accuracy is about .7 pounds per square foot so such canopies come in big sizes (past 300 square feet). EIFF Classic, PD Zero, Jalbert Parafoil. The same thing applies to BASE jumping with tight landing areas. Flik/Fox, Mojo, Troll, etc.

That's a bad idea. Civilians don't need toy planes with wing spans over 5' or more thrust than you can get with a 15cc motor. Civilians don't need toy rocket motors with over 20 Newton * seconds of specific impulse. By allowing sane people without criminal records to buy such dangerous goods you let criminals and terrorists get them too via straw purchases and private sales. Instead we need to ban them outright with exemptions for law enforcement and military personnel who have legitimate uses for such devices.

It depends. For example, California is a non-recourse state. As long as you have a first mortgage here that wasn't a refinance the banks can't do anything about some one who walks away apart from dropping their credit score. The IRS can't do anything either because cancellation of non-recourse debt is not considered taxable income. In recourse states the banks can come after you; although under the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007 forgiven debt from a principle residence doesn't count as taxable income.

Nothing. $25 to the rig manufacturer to get my name on a mudflap. $0 otherwise. Nothing.

The card in my wallet says "United States Parachute Association" not "United States Skydiving Association" or "United States Jumping From Airplanes Association" 300 skydives isn't appreciably more descriptive than 300 parachute jumps where in both cases the majority of the jumps could be classic accuracy hop-and-pops, freestyle, skysurfing, solo or flocking wingsuit jumps, head-up, head-down, atmonauti, or something else which is at best tangentially relevant to whatever sort of jumping you plan on doing. That's what jump numbers and USPA octa-hepta-nona-dodeca-golden-diamond-wing awards are for. How you perform in person and the reputation which precedes you are much more indicative of how you're likely to do on whatever sort of jump.

There's no contradiction between the two. Even when paid all at once capital costs usually must be depreciated over a period of years. Example: I have an LLC which opted to be taxed under subchapter S with corporate profits taxed as share holders' personal income. By July I've made $1M in profits of which the government would let me keep $650,000. I decide to invest all I can in more offices which are real property with a 39 year depreciation schedule and am allowed to write off just 1.391% which is $9042 this year for a negligible $3164 tax savings allowing my to put about $653,000 into new locations. If the government decided to up the top tax rate to 50% I'd be able to put about $503,500 into my business, which is $149,500 less to invest. Over the remaining years I'll be able to reduce my income by the depreciation, although that money in the future has little to do with the cash I have available to invest today.

Government employees in this country have a long history of convicting the innocent which is exacerbated by a voir dire process that often screens more for people the lawyers can influence than those who make logical legal decisions which in turn means trials are as much about who's the better lawyer than guilt or innocence. He should remain living in prison until he dies (naturally or by his own choice) or later has his conviction overturned.

People like new and intense experiences and drugs are a lot easier and less expensive than things like skydiving. A bad landing skydiving, crash riding a motorcycle, or failed startup business can all do the same thing. All those things are fun and have acceptable risk for many people. It's less boring than being sober and watching TV. Having a landing area built in a national park below a cliff, chartering a Bell Jet Ranger to shuttle you to the top, and doing some big wall BASE jumping is a lot more fun but 1) Is much more expensive 2) Doesn't fit into the few hours people have between work and sleep 3) Is even more illegal in America 4) Is more dangerous (two out of seven jumpers on our trip left early - one from a sprained ankle; the other from a broken pelvis, tail bone, and various spinal vertebrae) A startup business can also be more fun than drugs. The last failure I was involved with 1) Spent $20 million getting there 2) Was an 80+ hour a week endeavor (I often slept under my desk and my wife slept in her car so we could work except when sleeping or eating) 3) Left one guy with night terrors who didn't work for a year 4) Led one guy to quit his career 5) Led to one divorce

Government "by the people" would probably do the same thing (on average they're easily manipulated) The California constitution can be amended by ballot initiatives passed by popular vote. Some of those initiatives come from the California prison guards union (California Correctional Peace Officers Association) which has an 80% success rate passing legislation. Net effects of that legislation have been to increase increase the number of prisoners (25,000 in 1980 to 168,000 in 2009), prisons (23 new prisons), and prison guards (5,600 in 1980 and 30,000 in 2009).

Nope. The following explains American government: There are three classes in this country 1. Those who pay to elect the government. 2. Those who pay for the government. 3. Those who barely matter. It costs about $8.5M per term or $1,417,000 a year to land a US Senate seat paying $174,000 for a net pay of -$1,243,000 a year. It costs about $1.5M per term or $750,000 a year to become a US Representative with the same pay for a -$1,152,000 return on your investment. To make the arithmetic work Congress Critters pay for their election with hard-money contributions to their campaigns and soft money contributed to the party. Only .4% of Americans contribute over $200 to a candidate, with some candidates receiving the majority of their hard money from people donating the $2500 per individual/$5000 per couple legal maximum. That less than .4% and various companies + PACs pay to elect our government. America has the most progressive tax system out of the OECD 24. By 2008 the top 1% were paying 38% of federal income taxes, top 5% 59%, and top decile 70%. These people pay for the government. The bottom half pay 2.7% of federal income taxes with the average tax rate negative for the two bottom quintiles. These people pay for neither elections nor government and therefore barely matter. An inheritance tax increase would anger the people paying for elections (generally you need to be wealthy to be handing out $5000 to each of your favorite politicians on a regular basis which implies a sizable estate) and limit campaign contributions. With FICA covering just 1/3 of a professional class widower's working income below the social security cap and that likely to get worse we need to set aside at least $3-$4M in todays dollars which will quickly reach the estate tax exemption as Congress neglects to adjust it for real inflation. We're likely to safeguard the left over for our children by voting against people who'd like to increase estate taxes which can decide closely contested elections. The rest would like higher inheritance taxes with a lower exemption. They'll get some media coverage to keep their shouts down (Elected officials like to talk about such things and even introduce bills that can't pass) and generally be voting on other issues which affect them personally when they get to the polls so they barely matter. This also explains other things like our immigration policy. We don't have open borders because professionals like doctors, lawyers, and engineers coming from other countries with lower standards of living would cause downward wage pressure and tax collections among the people who pay for government. We do have porous borders and lax enforcement (we're required to have an easily forged photo ID and social security card when hiring people and don't have to use the database matching SSNs to names) of employment laws which allow unskilled and semi-skilled labor in (such people aren't giving much up to come like houses or sacrificing much if they get deported) to keep costs down among the people paying for elections although it hurts the people who barely matter.

With a competent pilot under a modern canopy you can get comfortable flares starting at half brakes. More speed means a given control deflection will have a more significant effect but there's nothing stopping you from applying more toggle faster when you're starting with less air speed. [QUOTE] Again standard left hand turns on final and conservative front riser turns. My question, does this help or hinder my ability to deal with adverse conditions? [/QUOTE] Hinder. If you screw up things will be happening faster and you'll have a lot more kinetic energy to break things.

Where the contractual and statutory penalties for breaking a contract are less than the cost of adhering to it, breaking the contract is the best business move and arguably better for society since it maintains economic efficiency (For instance, by breaking his mortgage and spending less on housing Shah will be able to stimulate the economy by spending more money on strippers and beer with the dancers and bar tenders also spending more) This is called "Efficient Breach" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient_breach In 2009 when they went under water Morgan Stanley surrendered 17 million square feet of office space purchased in 2007 for $6.5B to Crescent Real Estate Equities. Later that year they turned their five five San Francisco sky scrapers over to Blackstone. The Mortgage Bankers Association bought their DC headquarters in 2007 at the height of the boom for $79M with a $5M down payment and got rid of it in a short sale for $41M in 2010. It's the same thing. The banks also gamed the system to home and MBS buyers' detriment with inflated appraisals and credit issued for loans unlikely to be repaid both jacking up purchase prices. Given the political situation justice can only be served with jingle mail instead of summonses. Just be sure to have a handle on the legal aspects with your personal situation.

Why do you believe you matter? To net jobs paying $174,000 a year Congress critters spend an average of $1,416,666 a year to land Senate seats and $750,000 a year for the House. That comes from individual hard-money donations, with just .4% of Americans coughing up more than $200 and some candidates receiving the majority of their contributions at the $2500/individual ($5000/couple) legal limit plus unlimited soft-money contributions to the parties often from industry PACs. The guys who matter in the financial industry would like to continue earning their big bonuses and profits while America assumes the risk (for instance, since the housing correction Government Sponsored Enterprises have been buying or guaranteeing up to 90% of the mortgages written while the banks profit from origination and processing fees). The congress critters would like to keep their seats and power. A little quid pro quo is a win-win for everyone who matters. Start donating $2500 to each of many campaigns, become a bundler for important politicians, and you might matter.

Most mortgages are bought or guaranteed by Government Sponsored Enterprises (they've had a 50%+ market share since the 1970s and accounted for 70% of the mortgage market activity in 2009 with FHA and VA programs accounting for another 25%). Nearly all those not bought by the GSEs are sold to investors. Private banks just collect profits in the form of origination and servicing fees. You'd still have the mortgage money without banks and would just need some one else to handle the paper work and payments like the US Postal Service which has convenient locations around the country and seeing its primary business disappear. Not necessarily. My current mortgage came from a credit union which is 1) Technically not a bank 2) A not for profit organization which can often pay higher interest rates on deposits and loan money at lower rates than banks which need to make money for their share holders.

Right.

We haven't had pure capitalism and free enterprise in this country for a long time. Citizens of my city didn't like our cable provider. In a capitalist society we'd just buy product from another one that'd be willing to take our money in exchange for what we valued; although in our corporatist country there was a government granted monopoly we voted to not renew. Unfortunately that was overturned because federal law makes it illegal to stop doing business with a cable franchise without first holding public hearings in which the program content (like people want the cartoon and sci-fi networks full-time instead of six shopping channels) cannot be a reason not to renew. I just bought a home and got a mortgage. Although I paid origination fees to a privately owned bank and they'll be collecting additional profits from the payments for loan servicing, there's a 90% chance that loan will be sold to or guaranteed by a government sponsored enterprise that's assuming the risk. With capitalism and free enterprise the banks would look at how credit-worthy I was, charge an interest rate appropriate for the risk, and I'd probably have paid less for my home (with a smaller down payment) because covering the risks would have required higher interest rates (requiring lower prices for a given payment) and capped appraised values. I set aside money for metaphorical rainy days and would be happy to pay less for health insurance with a bigger deductible where the insurer doesn't need to charge more to cover for people who don't. With a free market I would. With special tax treatment exempting employer provided health insurance from federal income tax, state income tax, both halves of Social security, and both halves of Medicare it'd need to be 54% less expensive to cost the same. This ignores that the resulting market demographics + risk + cost can cause individual insurance to cost more. It also ignores Obama Care which requires us to buy insurance from private companies regardless of cost with a minimum coverage standard including routine maintenance (like if the states made us buy car insurance that covered oil changes). With capitalism poorly run businesses fail. With corporatism poorly run large businesses get rescued. Look at AIG, GMC, and friends. There's also the socialist US military funneling tax dollars to defense contractors like Boeing with the side benefit of directly employing nearly 1.5 million active duty personal plus 1.5 million in reserve. While defense is good, other first-world countries with our landmass and border length (Canada, eh?) get by $22 billion compared to our $663B. That sort of overage is about serving corporatist interests not defense. Etc.

Cover with worchester, add Lawrys season salt, good to go with garlic, but rub in some McCormicks Montreal Steak Seasoning. I ENVY YOU...YOU BASTARD Tasty meat doesn't need sauces, herbs, or spices. A little sea salt on the outside does the trick nicely.

Not really. The same concept applies and will allow me to land a modern canopy pretty much like an accuracy canopy. The difference between full and braked flight is less on a no wind day, but on a ~10 MPH day I can land a modern canopy pretty much like a traditional accuracy approach to include the sink straight down from 8-10 feet. With a 10 MPH head wind. The accuracy canopy will do it with zero wind or a slight tailwind if you can tolerate a less than vertical sink. Only with a head wind.

Yup. Classic accuracy canopies and some other traditional seven cell designs have a range of glide ratios from about 2.2:1 in full-flight to straight down in a full-sink with 2/3 brakes providing a 1:1 descent that still produces a soft landing with a full flare. The canonical classic accuracy final approach tries for a 1:1 glide path aimed just past the target and terminates with a sink over the top (preferably onto a soft surface like a tuffet or pea gravel so you can sink from higher up). You make the glide path steeper or flatter to accommodate where your final approach started and finish it off where ever you need. Modern skydiving canopies have a flatter glide in full flight, get flatter still with some brakes, and pretty much stay there until just short of stalling. Instead of controlling where you land without wind brakes just determine how fast you get there. Contemporary skydiving wing loadings (about 0.7 is ideal for classic accuracy) wouldn't produce enough aerodynamic drag after they stop flying to land you softly after a sustained sink even if that was easy to get to. So accuracy with them is largely about turning onto final approach at the right spot + altitude. Some wind gives you control over the steepness of your approach and makes modern canopies act more like accuracy canopies. That's how it works. With contemporary canopies, no wind, and nothing bad happening when you miss (flying into a boulder/tree/stadium) an accelerated approach followed by popping the canopy up, stalling, and sinking when you get where you're going works well. OTOH, with extra speed getting that wrong makes it easier to break things.

The more you post the harder i find it to believe you have a University level education Speaking as a fourth generation engineer who's worked with too many PhDs and turned down jobs with "scientist" in the job title I'd suspect more than an undergraduate degree. As peoples' degrees increase in loftiness and number they tend to know more about less with the most extreme case being people who know almost everything about nearly nothing. Shah admits to earning an engineering degree and working on an MBA.

How do you know they are schmucks? They don't choose where they are sent to fight. Exactly. They sign up to go wherever the politicians send them (instead of signing up for a job where they know the sort of work they'll be doing, who their co-workers are, and the office location). Sixty years ago that meant to fight Axis forces which had actually attacked America. Until the Soviets went bankrupt trying to keep up with us 20 years ago it may have been to protect us from a rather large military. Since then they've gone where directed as projections of politicians' personal power and/or quid pro quo to the PACs and 0.4% of American individuals paying for election campaigns. They signed up to follow orders which hasn't been the same thing for decades. In WWII one of my grandfathers signed up. The military was defending America against countries who attacked us on our home soil so he ended up protecting us flying around in a PBY Catalina looking for submarines that might attack us. Today one of my cousins signed up. Apart from the Coast Guard which rescues boaters who are in trouble, today's military is playing in middle eastern sandboxes instead of doing useful work. He's schlepping around Afghanistan where he's not defending us against credible threats (I'm assuming the Afghanis haven't built a secret camel carrier that they're about to launch for an attack on the United States). While I hope he doesn't get his ass shot off and will consider him a victim of our own government if he does, he's still a schmuck for falling for the advertising campaigns and other propaganda that keep the American military/industrial complex converting tax dollars into corporate profits.