Bolas

Too much of the former and not enough of the latter is why government debt and spending are out of control. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

So they have to spend $x million just to maintain the status quo? Okay, they should look at it as "How much do we predict to lose?" and see if the predicted losses in direct tax revenue, not business loss, comes anywhere near what they'd have to pay. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

4 or 5 years ago this would be considered extremely restrictive. Now it's considered centrist. Thanks for allowing all jump types still. How quickly we've gone from: * No restrictions. * Separation by time or space. * Separation by time and space. * No turns over 90/removing swoop ponds. Makes me wonder what group will be next. Most likely wingsuiters. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

What, because some one is accidentally going to slip and pull a 180 or 270 instead of stopping their turn at 90 degrees? I don't think so. It's not like eschewing high performance landings completely leaving people with no experience landing at faster than trim speeds which happens when they fail to turn flat enough at low altitudes and 90 degrees still yields enough energy for low-altitude and post-plane out carves. If one has only ever been allowed to make 90 degree approaches, if put into a situation where they need to turn more than 90... It's sort of like when people were told "no low turns" and either panic turned at the last minute or had collisions with easily avoidable objects. This is not an issue per se for swoopers as they tend to know their canopy. Just another example of misguided attempts to protect people from swooping putting them at risk in other ways. Can you indicate a situation where a front riser 180 down low would be necessary? Does that scenario outweigh the hundreds and hundreds of injuries and fatalities we have seen over the years? And not just to the jumpers involved, but the jumpers they have collided with, spectators hit on the ground, etc. top No turns over 90 is just that, be they initiated with toggles, harness, or risers. Scenario. A non swooper goes too far on their crosswind leg over trees and to adjust back to their landing area now has to make a turn larger than 90. As they've never done this and were NOT even allowed to: * They make the larger turn and unfamiliar with the added speed ... * They do a 90 and then do another turn after, possibly too low... * They do their 90 and crash into trees or panic turn at the last minute to avoid... It's highly likely that the above jumper even if allowed to make larger turns wouldn't practice or try them but that would be theirt whereas if a DZ bans them it becomes the DZs fault for limiting a jumpers "bag o' tricks" they can practice/use.[ Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Why would one want private investors who demand ROI and a piece of the profits when they can get "free" government $$$ simply by saying they'll bring in additional money to the area and letting them use the stadium when they aren't using it neither of which costs them anything or very little. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Why? Return on investment can be non-monetary. When I invest in my child's education, I do not expect to get that money paid back with interest by my child. When a municipality invests in their community, they similarily do not look at the return as solely a financial matter. So the government should treat us as children? The issue is it should be looked at as a solely financial matter. Expected tax revenue increases as well as what monetary value they're getting for their "investment." Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

What, because some one is accidentally going to slip and pull a 180 or 270 instead of stopping their turn at 90 degrees? I don't think so. It's not like eschewing high performance landings completely leaving people with no experience landing at faster than trim speeds which happens when they fail to turn flat enough at low altitudes and 90 degrees still yields enough energy for low-altitude and post-plane out carves. If one has only ever been allowed to make 90 degree approaches, if put into a situation where they need to turn more than 90... It's sort of like when people were told "no low turns" and either panic turned at the last minute or had collisions with easily avoidable objects. This is not an issue per se for swoopers as they tend to know their canopy. Just another example of misguided attempts to protect people from swooping putting them at risk in other ways. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

So, they fucked up on the deal. That doesn't invalidate the concept. what's the concept? That public investment in these types of arrangements pay off? I believe there are more loss events like this than the fantasy of the profitable investment. Given the unequal plane of the negotiations between cities and team owners, this shouldn't be a surprise. Can we stop calling these investments? Unless if successful, money is directly paid back with interest, they aren't investments. A city that spends $x million on an item, even if it brings in $x million in new business still is in the red as they only get a portion of that back in taxes. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

How can anyone safely downsize? It's simple, spend adaquate time on each canopy size and type that you can develop, practice and demonstrate a full range of canopy control skills in a full range of conditions. If you only have access to a '90 only' DZ, then you simply have 90 degree turns as your 'top skill'. Want to downsize? Great, put in the time to build up to, and then demonstrate a solid, reliable, 90 degree turn on your current canopy, then get a smaller canopy and start over at the beginning. What's the point in learning or concerning yourself with a bigger turn if you only have access to DZs that only allow 90s? Even if you travel to a DZ with no turn limitation, as a jumper from a '90 only' DZ, it's your responsibility to recognize that and limit your activites to those within your abilities. This could lead to people jumping highly loaded cross braced canopies that have never done more than a 90. To me that's a way scarier thought than allowing large turns separated by space and time. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

That's hilarious. The only way to ensure enforcement is video surveillance. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[ Agree with you but if someone is jumping at a 90 only DZ or only has 90 only DZs near them, who/how are they going to get this training? Without being able to do larger turns, how can they safely downsize? Unless the 90 only DZ allows larger turns on low passes the only way they'll be able to get more speed is to downsize Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

it's a shame since that's the real solution Not really a solution. Mitt Romney has stated that he is even against same-sex civil unions, and I'm sure a lot of people agree with him. North Carolina just voted to ban same-sex civil unions as well. I don't buy the semantics crap. I've always seen "marriage" as a legal thing. If others choose to see it as religious, then that's their business, and there's no reason to get the government involved if they don't want to. I just heard a decent discussion on this. Let me see if I can express it here. (This I agree with) It is none of my business if a man marries a man or woman or, a woman marries a woman. I could care less. For those (of any sexual combination) who chose to commit to another, (monogamous if you will) I feel they should have the same benefits under the law when it comes to medical visitation, medical choices, inheritance law, tax law and so on. This part is easy. Here is where the debate went a direction I had not considered before. If same sex marriages are allowed, the line between man and woman is made unclear. There are definite differences and those lines would be blurred if what marriage is was changed He gave the example of when two guys sued to be hired as waitresses at Hooters (the judge tossed it because he stated the company can hire who and what gender it wants too) What about sports? We already have an example of a high school state championship game being forfeited because one team had a girl on the team. And girls wrestling in boy’s high school wrestling? What you all think? Non government supported companies and orgs should be allowed to do whatever they please and then the customers decide if they want to support their decisions. As for government, why should there be a line at all? One standard for all. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

best to solve this one issue..... still the problem is now that couples of all types now have special rights that single people don't so it's still not equal for EVERYONE, we just took one more demographic (gay couples) and put them in the special club (with non-gay couples) and still individuals are left out in the cold the only real solution is for government to get out of it completely and treat all their citizens as individuals - regardless of how or if they partner up - with all the same rights So you don't think there are any rights currently afforded to married couples that should survive? I'm fine with this too as long as nothing is missed. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

it's a shame since that's the real solution Not really a solution. Mitt Romney has stated that he is5 even against same-sex civil unions, and I'm sure a lot of people agree with him. North Carolina just voted to ban same-sex civil unions as well. I don't buy the semantics crap. I've always seen "marriage" as a legal thing. If others choose to see it as religious, then that's their business, and there's no reason to get the government involved if they don't want to. It boils down to this. Gay couples just want the same rights and privileges as heterosexual married couples. The only way to currently get that is being married. There are 3 ways to accomplish this * Let them marry. Easiest solution but does not reform outdated marriage laws. * Give them ALL rights but make it a separate process. "Separate but equal", sounds familiar. * Reform marriage laws so all are treated consistently by the government. Part of this might be conversion of all marriages to civil unions. This would take the most work, but would prevent similar issues in the future. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

What's worse is, can you imagine little Bolases running amok? I'll quell those concerns. No little Bolases.

What is the difference between a legal marriage and a legal civil union? Aside from the fact that other countries might not recognize the "civil union" . . . Right now, if people don't want the government involved, they can do whatever ceremony and call their relationship whatever they want to call it. You can choose not to have the government involved in your relationship. (Well, unless you split up and your ex decides to involve them.) And it's not even on the table to change all legal marriages to civil unions. So for now it makes more sense to extend the privileges/responsibilities of marriage to same-sex couples. Unfortunately there are still certain rights, particularly with healthcare, that are only given to married people. There are also certain tax benefits in some situations. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

I'm not saying my morality is right for anyone but me nor would I want to force my "values" on others. At the same time I don't want someone else's forced on me. Let consenting adults make their own choices. I'm not opposed to morals and values, I'm opposed to any legislation that makes certain acts between consenting adults illegal or criminal. So then why do you disagree with the rights of gays to marry? Doesn't that also full under the category of "acts between consenting adults"? I don't disagree. All "marriages" should be civil unions in the eyes of the government. If a couple want to get to have their civil union ceremony performed in a church that's between them and the church. They can also call it marriage or whatever else they want.

I'm not saying my morality is right for anyone but me nor would I want to force my "values" on others. At the same time I don't want someone else's forced on me. Let consenting adults make their own choices. I'm not opposed to morals and values, I'm opposed to any legislation that makes certain acts between consenting adults illegal or criminal. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Yeah, well, sometimes that's a good thing and sometimes it's a bad thing. Generally speaking, if humans have been doing something since before recorded history, not as a societal thing, but rather as a thing that generally was part of nature, like, i dunno, let's say not taking a crap where they eat their meals or being repelled by other people's vomit, then there is probably a good biological reason for that. A number of helpful antibodies are transferred from mother to offspring through breastfeeding. It's entirely likely we in the US actually ARE doing it wrong since generally speaking we're stopping breastfeeding before an entire year has taken place and therefore are not giving the child a full range of antibodies. This could, for example, explain the generally higher occurrence of allergies in the last several decades. Just a thought. Possibly. Have a feeling all the antibacterial cleaning products and special diets probably aren't helping either. Plus most kids just don't get dirty like they used to.

Yep, and when we get desensitized and depraved enough for that, then we can involve minors...like limiting the age of consent to physical sexual maturity...who are we to argue with nature? People use drugs and pay for sex anyways regardless of legality so not sure how decriminalizing these acts has any impact on desensitization or depravity on society as a whole. Those that oppose can still oppose and choose not to do it. Just because something is legal doesn't mean people are forced to do it. States that now allow gay marriage are not forcing straight people to gay marry. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Slight edit: If unbiased, and proper and consistent data collection and criteria used, statistics can be very useful. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

The flip side of that argument: should religion have the final say on what constitutes the definition of marriage? If all were civil unions, they or anyone else could call it and define it however they wanted within their group. I think eventually gays will get the right to marry, which is unfortunate as that will mean that the government is still involved and the next group that wants to recognize their union will have to go through all this again. Again, you keep complaining that government is too involved and my response is that religion is too involved. What "next group" did you have in mind, BTW? And my point is religion is involved because government involved them. Religion want to hang onto that power even though we should have complete separation between church and state. Who knows what the next group will be? Bigamists, polygamists, etc.People are becoming more tolerant of others and what lifestyles they choose. The whole point is that government should not be in the business of legislating "morality." What consenting adults do between each other is their own business. Legalize all drugs, prostitution, pretty much anything that doesn't involve minors. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

The flip side of that argument: should religion have the final say on what constitutes the definition of marriage? If all were civil unions, they or anyone else could call it and define it however they wanted within their group. I think eventually gays will get the right to marry, which is unfortunate as that will mean that the government is still involved and the next group that wants to recognize their union will have to go through all this again. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Actually the logic is sound. If the number of people per 1000 died doing lake activities at the same rate that they do skydiving, watersports would be banned just for the fact they are considered relatively "safe.". The only reason our numbers are low is the number of people is low and the number of licensed jumpers and non tandem students is far lower. So, by what factor if skydiving were to grow would the number of fatalities bring an end to the sport? Actually, the political direction may be headed such that Professional Football is soon banned. It seems to be causing brain and other damage at quite a bit higher rate than skydiving. But then "we" love our football, and there's a hell of a lot of money involved. If we keep bullshitting people that "it's safer than driving" or whatever nonsense get's peddled to get people to do a tandem it will be sooner than if we admit it's risky. Things may have been better when the general public reaction to a skydiving death was, "Some actually live? Oh well, one less crazy person." Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Thanks everyone.