metalslug

If the 'offender' acted with malice and intent and if your revenge strategy is legal, then revenge is usualy worth it, IMO. If you fail to act, then you may be perceived as a soft target for future similar acts by the same person or by others. Comparing it to the justice system; if you're robbed and you report the crime and the suspect is arrested and convicted. You may feel a sense of 'closure' and satisfaction at the verdict and the justice system will claim to have 'sent a clear message to the community'. It's little more than state-sanctioned, bureaucratic revenge.

$6 per packjob ? In that case, I'm feeling quite fortunate. The going rate at most DZs in my country is R25 which translates to $3.88 at current exchange rates. I've only packed about 10 of my own jumps so far. Although I agree that packing for oneself is the best solution, IMO there are some valid reasons for me to use a packer. I honestly believe that most packers can do it better than me. It's a fairly new canopy and I would hate myself for giving it line burn or chopping it (and perhaps losing it) due to my own packing error at an early stage in it's life. Some DZs do not have well shaded packing areas for everyone, so the duration of the packing is sometimes relative to my gear's exposure to sunlight. The money I spend on a 10-minute packjob, as opposed to my 30-minute packjob, is perhaps worth it in those circumstances. Some of the packers at the DZs I visit really need the money, often for more urgent expenses than just jump tickets. I can easily afford to pay for packjobs and dont enjoy packing, so it's a win-win to give them some business. - No 'mericans were harmed during the making of this post.

I'm a member of a goverment organization that monitors and polices alien life on planet Earth. Now, if you would all look closely at the device in my hand... You did not see an alien named Girlfalldown.

The 'psycho packing' that was explained to me should perhaps rather be called 'psycho bagging' because it's the same as a pro-pack up until the stage where one would roll the tail. It was also suggested to me that the disadvantage of psycho packing is that it creates more wear and friction on the canopy over time. A psycho pack is rolled from the wide end of the 'cone' and so the bridle ends up protruding out the side of the rolled cone rather than out of the center of an S-folded cone. The tension on the bridle that extracts the canopy from the bag during deployment therefore occurs at an unusual angle and this can potentialy cause more wear and friction on a canopy than an S-fold would. Anyone else heard something similar to this?

Good for who? Bad for who? If all people were dead then good and bad would really not be relevant to us, we'd either be in oblivion or in . Would it be good for the planet? Maybe, but only slightly better, and only in the long term. In the short term, a lot of non-human life (pets, livestock, agriculture plantations) would die too because of their dependence on humans. In my opinion, the planet suffers a 'loss' every time a species becomes extinct, and the same would be true if the extinct species were humans. - No 'mericans were harmed during the making of this post.

Sky News is reporting that a group affiliated to Al Qaeda has claimed responsibility. - No 'mericans were harmed during the making of this post.

I've also heard from several South African jumpers (where Hornets were quite common) about the hard openings. Those same people have however also said that the early Hornets had sliders that were a bit small. PISA is alleged to have subsequently enlarged the slider on later production Hornets and that jumpers with older Hornets had much better results when their riggers fitted bigger sliders. The 'hard opening' Hornets may just be the older ones.

Small animals and children are 'cute'. 'Hot' is sexy, mature, fsckable. If someone told me I was 'cute', I wouldn't be sure if they meant it as a compliment or an insult.

That back burner boy/girl could well be the cause of Plan A's failure. The time you spend with them could cause your SO to suspect that you're unfaithful. If that leads to a breakup and you then get it on with Plan B, the Ex will be certain in their mind that you were cheating all along and it will be tough to claim the moral high ground, even if you're innocent. - No 'mericans were harmed during the making of this post.

Girlfalldown had a memorable opening on her Cobalt last year and speaks about it here. Not necessarily the fault of the canopy, but the opening looks brutal on video. - No 'mericans were harmed during the making of this post.

Oh, I know someone who does: here and here and here.

If anyone would cheat on their Significant Other, then that 'Other' is obviously not significant. By the logic of word definitions, this question has an automatic answer that applies to everyone: No.

In the film "Phenomenon", the lead character says something along the lines of: "If I could choose between a flash of light from some alien craft and a brain tumor, I'd choose the tumor, because it's here, inside of us. I am the potential for what everyone can be. The tumor just helped me get here." Of the listed powers, most of them have conspicuous effects that may cause people to shun you from fear and bigotry when they see what you can do. However, two of the powers (in my opinion) are more subtle and potentialy possible for exceptional mortals. The one is Super Intelligence and the other is Ultra Seductiveness. I think Super Intelligence would be something of a curse. Lesser minds all around you would make you feel like you were living in a zoo, with nobody to really talk to and nobody else capable of understanding some basic (in your mind) principles. Could make a person lonely and frustrated. That leaves Ultra Seductiveness... to live the dream that most of us have had since we were teenagers.

IMO, this issue is more about responsibility than knowledge. Meaning, sometimes two very experienced instructors may still have different advice on specific situations. Some advice may be the same as a low-timer's opinion, and other advice may be different. The important thing is that, if someone is ever hurt on a skydive and mentions during the investigation that he was following your advice (even if it's excellent advice), you will probably feel happier if he had said that he followed an instructor's advice.

Sooo difficult to answer that really. Humans are such complex people. I do think its true that "water seeks it's own level." Attractive people will seek out attractive partners. Highly intelligent people will seek out highly intelligent partners, people that only have personality will seek out people that only have personality (well, okay, maybe the guys wont). The final factor I think is balance. The balance between "who can I afford?" and "how soon / how badly do I want a partner anyway?" Some people will wait years to find Mr/Miss Perfect and some will settle much sooner for Mr/Miss Adequate. Me? I'll admit to being a bit shallow, a good physique pretty much does it for me. Great personality is very often included in that package anyway. I have found that people that look good almost always have a 'positiveness' and self-confidence in their whole attitude to life, and that makes them fun to be with.

What exactly is a "detached" home? I'm hoping they mean a stand-alone house on its own property with ample space around it for ventilation. What sort of exhaust gasses will this unit produce and in what quantities? I'm wondering if hosts will be telling their guests to avoid walking around the back of the house "...coz it stinks there."

I believe HooknSwoop made my argument for me in his own post here. In short, he agreed that when doing wingsuit jumps (a higher risk type of jump), he offset that increased risk by using a larger canopy (Safire 189) instead of the VX-60 that he would use on most other "lower risk" jumps. Would Derek have ever accepted a "dare" to do a wingsuit jump with his VX-60? Only he can answer that but his answer is probably; "Why take the unecessary risk?" I believe this analogy is not very different from a jumper that chooses to offset the increased risk of freefly by insisting on a good AAD. Would they "dare" jump without one? Maybe, but why take that unecessary risk? - No 'mericans were harmed during the making of this post.

It certainly could be; probably Dutch, Flemish or South African (Afrikaans) in origin.

Chelle's going to be riding on that? *sigh* I so wish I was a bike. - No 'mericans were harmed during the making of this post.

So, uhm.. should I be jumping at JSC this weekend?

Skydive Xtreme, Nylstroom, South Africa.... Nicknamed 'Zappi' or 'Zap wagon'.

Ever heard of tonsil hockey?

Agreed, and many static-line progression students worldwide are doing their 3s, 5s and 10s delay freefalls without any altimeter at all. The primary goal of any skydive is to survive without injury. Surely a device such an altimeter does more than merely assist you in doing that? If people should be prepared to jump without an altimeter, then how precise should their altitude awareness need to be when relying on only their senses? Accurate to within 500ft? 1000ft? It is true in most circumstances that deploying a canopy too low would result in less altitude to deal with a malfunction, and deploying too high could endanger other jumpers still in freefall. Are these two possibilities of a much lesser concern than being able to demonstrate that a person survived a skydive without devices?

OMG, they got me. It must have been the publicist's name that suckered me. My middle and last names are "Andrew Farr". Go figure.