champu

If you tell a mass of people that something is science enough times, some of them will believe you. You can speed up the process by throwing a bunch of letters before and after your name when you sign your article. But you're less likely to stumble across a valid scientific result at the end of a sentence in the media that begins with, "A recent study shows..." than you are in a real scientific journal / publication.

If you'd like another example of body position trumping other sources of drag, take a look at freeflying with a large freefly tube. Those things generate a fair amount of drag and it's really not that difficult to maintain head-down speeds while holding one in a head-up position.

Brian Buckland (Team Mandrin) jumps a prototype Vapor that he fitted with a replacement Oxygn visor. That may be the helmet you're thinking of. Anyway, I'm glad to see this helmet on the market now. The more platform helmet designs out there, the better my chance of finding one that really fits my head well.

I don't feel I restructured your argument by drawing that parallel, but then I also don't think there's anything special about humans that would limit this discussion only to us. But since you insist, I'll let it go. That's all valid up until the last statement. Plato cannot agree to get inside of a relativist box and then draw global conclusions from within it. Protagoras faces a similar problem, and the whole exercise becomes trivial. A more fundamental problem with the way you're going about this whole discussion is that you're making a hidden assumption that morals (what's right or wrong) are as logically well-behaved as truths (what is true or false) Do you understand the problem this creates?

Noting the absence of an absolute moral standard is not, in itself, a moral standard. Since you seem to enjoy logical/mathematical explanations, compare: If you give me three equations in a linear system that are inconsistent, and I tell you there is no solution, that statement, in itself, is not a solution to the system. btw, this has nothing to do with Russell's paradox. The problem you're always going to face in trying to define a moral standard that should apply universally is that morals themselves are as arbitrary as the structure of the society that they are born of. Step back from this western vs middle-eastern debate for a moment and look at... I dunno... lemurs. Do you think lemurs give a shit about murder or theft? No, they don't. You know why? Because their social structures are so completely alien to us, and ours to them, that such a comparison is ridiculous. To realize how terrified we are of, and thus more likely to try and discount the validity of, a moral rule book derived from a social structure different from the one we have always known in our own lives, we need look no further than any post-apocalyptic movie. Something terrible happens (nuclear war, meteors, zombies, etc.), society as we know it is ruined, and a "new society" is born where the morals we've all gotten used to have been replaced by a set that we find completely appalling as viewers. John Q Protagonist won't stand for this, and we identify with him as he restores our sense of "justice" and other "fundamorals." But as you watch this and react to what you see in a predictable fashion, don't confuse the warm fuzzy feeling of familiarity with the sometimes cold and uninviting feeling of the truth. There was nothing wrong with what was happening, it simply wasn't conducive to the society we've gotten used to, and maybe even depend on.

If your canopy opens on heading with only one brake set, there's something wrong with it.

It is not uncommon that they don't survive. Largely depends on medical care post-punishment. Marg Are women allowed to receive medical care under Sharia Law? (maybe only if the doctor is their husband... or another woman... but then again, are women allowed to be doctors under Sharia Law?)

Just a guess, but I don't think the woman in the article would mind a couple more of our laws and a few less of theirs, but there's clearly no one over there interested in what she wants (except maybe the lawyer in the article who was disbarred for trying to defend her.) You are right though, we don't have any real authority, let alone obligation, to do anything about it. Women in Saudi Arabia are perpetually in the wrong place at the wrong time. Life can be cruel that way.

I agree. I have about 700 jumps on my current canopy and I said to a friend this past weekend regarding the new (smaller) canopy I have on order... "I can't wait to get my new... er... I can't wait to have a couple hundred jumps on my new canopy... then I can start really having some fun with it."

Always remember the 30-60-90 rule for dating a whuffo. First 30 days: "Wow! You Skydive!?" 60 days: "Boy, you sure do skydive a lot!" 90 days: "It's skydiving or me."

When you chose to start ignoring my responses to your posts, I decided addressing your questions was a waste of my time. After this thread, I've decided reading your posts to be such a waste as well. Consider this my unilateral denunciation of your presence here. Have a good evening.

And she patented frequency hopping - now a key technology in communications. (this was factored into my previous statement.

I thought Zapatero was being polite in his admonishment, and it was silly of Chavez to talk over him like that. I also couldn't help but notice, and thought it was a bit amusing, that Morales was seated at the complete opposite end of the panel from Chavez. (or is seating alphabetical by country?)

your very own spy? You should be honored. Side note regarding your sig line: Hedy Lamarr was awesome.

I actually don't run into many people that ask this question anymore. I have a few skydiving photos amongst others on the wall in my office and the only conversations they have started were with people who did maybe a couple dozen jumps way back when, so there was some understanding. But I did head a university skydiving club for a year (which involved sitting at a lot of booths and answering questions) so I have a few responses I'd use depending on how sporting the person was being about it. Remember, they're indirectly calling you an idiot, and they think that makes them clever. Your response should indirectly call them something else, be creative. "It was the natural next step after I turned off my perfectly good television and got up from my perfectly good couch."

I take it you actually tried it on yourself? That takes guts, or stupidity! Just because it said it would irritate the skin. I would certainly image a 95 megawatt laser would irritate the skin.

No kidding... It was flying day after day for a couple weeks and I never got over how eerie it was to watch. I've never seen a plane that looked more like it was in the process of crashing at all times.

Alright, I'll bite. What did you intend for the course of this thread?

Government contracts for space missions aren't always awarded to the lowest bidder. There are other figures of merit.

That might work, Chief, if loss and profit were synonyms. But they're not, kind of like a dog's tail isn't a fifth leg. You're a professor of graduate level physics, right? He's saying it reminds him of other situations where people displayed a misunderstanding of microeconomics. In your defense, yes, his example was of a much more glaring case. Simply put, "Economics ain't linear."

Hey, go for it. While it may not sit 100% well with me either, it's hard to argue that licensing of EM transmissions isn't a good idea or isn't important to the success of wireless communications. That said, I don't think restrictions should ever be applied to what anyone can do with what they receive over-the-air. caveat trador.

Don't take this the wrong way, but what the hell kind of a "No Fly List" do you call that? Worst. Ban. Ever.

Since you've moved into the plural, between the arson incidents, the downed power line, the explosion of a transformer and welding accident in LA County, and idiots throwing cigarettes out of cars there is plenty of blame to go around. However, a fire needs an ignition source, AND fuel and oxygen. Idiots or criminals didn't supply the dry grass, trees and shrubs. Sources of ignition come and go, and the brush has been pretty dry for most of the season. If anyone here isn't familiar with Southern California and the phenomenon we experience here, I'd like to point out it wasn't by random chance that all these fires started on the same day. These winds were brutal that day. I watched a tree (not shrubs, not downed branches... a tree) slide down the 91 freeway at a pretty decent clip while driving out to the desert the morning of the 21st. Now the tree was at least considerate enough to stay on the correct side of the freeway (and even in the slow lane too, which I had to chuckle about later) but nevertheless it was a pretty messed up thing to see, and something I hadn't before in SoCal.

This is the same utilitarian process we've used forever and why this country is so fucked up. When we start weeding cause we think they're imposters, we will certianly snag some "real" students. The death penalty is like this, just killem all if they smell a little guilty and we'll be sure to get the bad ones, sorry about the extra ones. Education is for everyone and to claim some don;t belong is, well, very Republican of you. I wasn't arguing that education wasn't for everyone. I was asking if people thought college (i.e. getting a bachelor's degree in what-have-you) was for everyone. I think a "college for everyone" program is doomed to failure and will end up crapping on what's left of the middle class in this country. I think addressing problems in primary and secondary education should come first, and I think after that a wider range of education opportunities would be much more practical and useful than shuffling everyone off to college. I dunno... maybe a program that lets people work a few less hours a week and take trade classes to get jobs that are more skilled, higher paying, and that they actually enjoy? I honestly don't know why the hell I respond to your posts anymore. You don't read a damn thing I write.

The number of people you can observe when in undergrad that don't take college seriously, don't really care what their degree is in, and are probably only there because their parents expect them to go and are paying for the whole shebang leaves me divided on this. In an ideal world, one for which this sales pitch appears to have been drafted, this will make college available for more people who actually want to be there and get something out of it. As a natural side effect, the limited capacity of universities will prevent uninterested people from going through the motions for four years to receive a piece of paper of which they can't remember the significance. In a wretched world, capacities of universities will be driven up degrading overall course quality, disadvantaged but motivated people will still come from poor lower and secondary education systems and not be properly prepared to get what anyone should out of attending college, universities will find legislation tied to this bill imposing quotas on acceptance of people being helped by this program, motivated people who could afford school get passed over while loud parents of unmotivated kids pull strings to ensure their kids get the slots on their side of the quotas, and a whole new torrent of people who go to college but don't really care about being there will be seen. In the real world, we're going to get something in between. The question I have is how much of each can we likely expect, and is what we get going to be worth the price we pay? "Is College for Everyone?"