champu

Q: What's the difference between a comedian and a comedy writer? A: The comedian will witness an event and say something funny, the comedy writer will witness an event and say something really funny... half an hour later. Q: What's the difference between either of them and people who write political blogs? A: Political bloggers write down what they heard some other comedian say that they thought was funny a month after the fact.

I don't think that diagram is DoDAF compliant.

At Elsinore we have a glider port on the airfield with us. As it happens, they're just as interested in us not running into them as we are. They stay west of the airport over the Ortegas and really only come over by the airport to land, at which point they're below freefall altitudes. I scan around for inbound planes surrounding the dropzone between door and green when I'm in the first group out because, hey who knows... and it gives me something to do while I'm waiting. It is kinda funny, however, when someone in the first group starts freaking out when there's a sail plane three and a half miles west of the dropzone flying around in circles. (jumprun is typically about 320deg, so this is the first place people look when they open the door.) /edited to add: It's not reason enough to write off looking around altogether, but in surfbum's defense: If you're the last person out on jumprun and an MD-80 going 250 knots at 8000 feet is going to hit you, do you really think someone in the first group is going to see it 7 miles away? Note that this situation constitutes both "close calls" (a couple thousand feet of horizontal separation) I'm aware of since I've been jumping at Elsinore.

This is kinda what I was getting at. The reason I suggest re-evaluating how important some of these people actually are is because I'm assuming waiting around for a clean shot is more resource intensive than just taking what you get, and it may limit the number of targets you can go after. I think that if armed drones are to be used they must not kill/maim civilians. That's actually a higher standard than for deployed troops, but we've demonstrated that we can do it. I have no idea what kind of time window these strikes are conducted in, or how fast the Pakistani military can get to anywhere in their country discretely enough to capture someone, but that may be an alternative. Of course, exchanging fire in a small village when everything doesn't go perfectly presents a lot of the same problems as with the drone strikes.

I gathered up a bunch of articles hoping to illustrate the spectrum of people being targeted. I may not have ordered the classes of actors in the same priority as someone else might, I just think it's an aspect that needs to be considered. It's about replaceability. Is this someone who is particularly effective at training others? Is this someone who has a skill that's not easily transferable and accomplishes a lot as a one-man-outfit? Is this someone with particular contacts outside of AQ that may not be easily re-established by another member? Concur. What are the critical variables for that? The two off the top of my head are first, human intelligence. You have to know when & where. And second, technical or a material capability, i.e., need a drone, missile, and control system capable of that precision there at the right time. The former is more challenging than the latter. Agreed. The latter is simpler (read: we're better at that sort of challenge, and some might think us crazy for actually believing that's the easy part.)

Barno's comment about the strikes being "disruptive" is one that I think needs attention. The first and simplest question being how is it disruptive? From various news articles it appears we're targeting technical resources, operations planners, propaganda distributors, and Taliban liaisons. In other words... ...just kinda... ...whoever, really. It's apparent the drone strikes aren't popular with the locals, so the next question is is it really worth the hassle to kill someone who is extremely replaceable like a liaison or a propaganda guy? Stronger arguments could be made for going after operations planners and bomb makers (i.e. the ones who dream stuff up and the ones who make it happen) but I think this should be broken out into two separate considerations. My third question came up when I was looking through articles and noticed that one of the guys was in a truck with his two buddies when he got hit and another was in a car with one other person. Should that be an engagement that is specifically and exclusively pursued? It seems to me if you attack a hideout in a village you are asking for trouble. If you strictly hit guys in cars on roads away from all bystanders I think you can get what you want and still be able to sell yourself to the local population (i.e. have your COIN and eat it too.)

Actually, this was a solid conspiracy theory move: make false generalizations about people's attitude towards two or more conspiracy theories, and imply that constitutes a larger conspiracy. The final "holy grail" of the community, of course, being the Conspiracy Theory of Everything (CTOE) in which everyone is, has been, and always will be in on everything... ...except the theorist. Style points deducted here for failing to include a "...coincidence?!?!?!?!?!" at the end of the original post.

Well, my point was just that when people try to figure out whether someone has a certain skill set before they're allowed on a jump it rarely involves checking what license they have or physically examining their log book. I wasn't always famous (tongue in cheek) and back then when I'd ask to be on a jump at a boogie or something the organizer would just ask me how many jumps I had and I would tell them, no logbook or license check involved. And if you want to go on something bigger or a demo or something and the organizer doesn't know you, you'll fair much better giving them a reference than busting out the old skylog and shoving it under their noses. This is irrespective of how many real or fake skydives you've done.

For people squeamish about low child limits we could always make it... say... a baker's dozen. Problem is, that wouldn't really do anything. There are a lot more couples having 3-4 kids than there are having 20. 20 is just a drop in the bucket. Like most things you can make a worthless law that makes people feel better or you can make a law that accomplishes what you intend, pisses everyone off, and guarantees you won't get reelected. Who am I to complain really? I'm the youngest of three. A person isn't just another mouth to feed, but 300 million people are 300 million mouths to feed, cars to power, miles of road to pave, healthcare to provide, phones to network, etc. etc. It's foolish to look down your nose at someone with perspective that tries to plan for the future of the human race while you fill a house with "Lord's miracles." It's also foolish to think people will ever give a shit about your plans for the human race.

Radicals rallied against a number of Scandinavian countries (including the one in your example) over political cartoons. It does not "take a military village" to raise radicals. Opting to replace one unsustainable extreme with another is silly. This is completely true, but it's not really the fault of the military or the surgeon, is it?

Better yet, how about you have to crash your canopy into the ground and sustain an injury (but not die, of course) before getting a D. And then we could make the D-license a requirement to jump a wing loading in excess of 1:1. (only 80% kidding here...) To the original topic, I got a protrack to help in keeping track of jumps and freefall time back when I had 90-something jumps. I copied information to my log-book and put a short description down. Around 1300 jumps or so I switched to logging days of jumping, and I would simply list the jump range and sum up the day (e.g. "such and such team training: 11-E-B-10, C-20-1, etc.") and I'm still using that same logbook. From a practical standpoint, it helps to have a reminder of what you've done if you want to get better at things. Also, I use it to keep track of gear maintenance (How many jumps do I have on this line set? this pilot chute? these risers?) Neither of these have anything to do with proving anything to anyone else.

That final caveat seems to put a subjective spin on the comparison, making the comparison itself meaningless, but I could be misunderstanding you. Do you feel that homeland security (as defined in mission statements, etc) itself isn't a right or need? Or do you feel that what your interpretation of what the department of homeland security actually does isn't a right or a need? Keep in mind that no amount of rights do you any good if someone comes into the country and kills you.

I was shooting VFS video jumping a prototype-ish liquid sky suit back when Julio first started putting magnets in the flap that protects the zipper. The torso cut was a little long for me and about half way through the jump the bunched up flap opened up and started hammering my chest and chin. hooooooly crap it felt like I was bleeding when I got down. No blood, just brutal bruising and welts. I'm happy to report he's since changed the cut of his suits around the collars so this doesn't happen anymore. If you have a suit with magnets and you've never experienced this... you're welcome.

First off, I believe the media acting as a whole (each organization is willing to cross the line on certain issues and, since there are so many these days, together they pretty well blanket the full spectrum) is completely absent any sense of discretion when it comes to information obtained in violation of policies, laws, and/or treaties. I would bet there are news outlets that would publish daily troop movement maps if they somehow had access to them and felt they could push their story with them. Note that this is not entirely their fault, it's what the masses seem to want... rise of the information age and all. In this case, to expand a little on my last post, when people say there's nothing in the document that's of any concern they are either a) lying intentionally as a feeble means of damage control or b) so lacking in imagination that their position as an official with any kind of pull in the TSA is downright terrifying. As with Tom, I'll avoid specifics so not to be part of the problem. Hopefully we're looking at an "a" situation and this might actually force them to rework some of their practices. I think anyone who has gone through airport security a few times lately can tell that's needed.

Having the document in hand is useful because that way when you read things like this: You can know that they're lying.

Nah, but you have a fairly meat & potatoes posting style. While "passe' " is more... escargots. ...you mean freedom snails? and to the OP...

Agreed. But also think its a bit deeper than just the promise of an afterlife. Its the miracle of life itself that holds the depth of that concept within the individual Surely this is true right? Im sorry, I dont know pascals wager... sounds like if you believe and your wrong, then you've wasted your life, but if you believe and your right then your going to heaven? Help me out. If thats what it is, then I must say philosophy class sounds like it is getting much more boring to the ever evolving wonder in the human imagination. Pascal's wager was an acknowledgement that reason couldn't conclude whether or not God exists and an attempt to determine what a person should believe given that. It asserts that if you believe and you're correct you go to heaven (an infinite gain) and if you don't believe and you're wrong you suffer for eternity (an infinite loss.) It then also asserts that there is nothing significant to be gained or lost in believing or not believing if there is no God. No one is arguing that if you believe and you're wrong that you're wasted your life. I'm arguing that people as a whole, as a result of believing, have wasted millions of lives through wars and repression of human rights. This is hardly insignificant. As I wrote above, if all anyone ever did as a result of thinking there was an afterlife (or, less specifically, believing in a god) was be nice to everyone, no one would bother arguing about it. I'm not asking you to answer for those who have done terrible things in the name of their god, I'm simply asking you to acknowledge that such atrocities are a byproduct of belief in general.

The problem people have with the concept of an afterlife, imao, stems from examples of people doing things in life that affect others negatively that they wouldn't do if they had no such belief in said afterlife. If all anyone ever did as a result of thinking there was an afterlife was be nice to everyone, no one would bother arguing about it. If you put yourself in the shoes of someone who believes that what we see around us is all we have, and we owe it to ourselves to make the most of what little that is, you'll see just how screwed up Pascal's Wager really is. The cost of believing and being wrong is written over and over again in history; it's unimaginably large.

Once you're past seven full years you're qualified to comment on anything you damn well please. WTF is right. People had better cake walk through AFF... They have people holding them stable.

Well, the issue of the actual relative sizes of a JVX-063 vs a VC-071 notwithstanding, I think you guys are missing my point. You can't take a fixed wingloading and apply it to an ever larger or ever smaller wing and get balanced flight characteristics across the events.

Well, if everyone kept holy the Sabbath, held no other gods before Him, and refrained from misusing His name ... that... that would kinda constitute an "organized" practice that one might call a "religion."

It's in my profile, but Redondo Beach, CA.

After hearing police sirens squawking on and off from various directions and garbled PA announcements for the last hour, I poked my head out my front door to find... Santa's sleigh being towed around by a police car with three other police cars in escort, summoning parents and children to come out and tell Santa what they want for Christmas. Seems kinda bizarre to me... I guess I never associated Santa Claus with law enforcement. (naughty and nice lists not withstanding)

God created people whose cups runneth over with intelligence to be lacking in faith that they may be properly challenged in finding the light. Once doing so by way of their gracious gift, they shall act as his most proselytic servants, to help guide those with neither faith nor intelligence.

Absolute canopy size is an issue, just like wing-loading is. People can argue back and forth about what the "ideal" wing loading is for particular canopy designs or for particular events, but you can't argue that there are diminishing returns for getting to that wing loading by simply jumping a smaller canopy. JayMo can wear 70 pounds of lead or whatever and swoop 678 ft on a 103, but he's not going to pull off the same feat with no lead and a 79. Down below the 68-71 sq ft class of canopies even small guys (and gals) with lead on will start hitting a wall, even if they're not yet at an "ideal" wing loading.