yoink

Firstly - I don't believe for a second that there isn't a DZ in new zealand that can't cater for student jumpers. I'd look closer to home first. Secondly - SLOW DOWN. You're talking about D licenses and progression but there's no rush. I know you're super excited about skydiving, we've all been there , but it isn't a race. It took me a YEAR to get my A license, and about 24 jumps. Sure, I didn't do a whole lot of skydiving in that time, but I learnt a shitload about the sport - gear, rigging, dz operations, who to listen to and who not to... and because of all that I stuck around for a decade. Look at all the threads here on 'AFF what next?' - student jumpers are rushed through their qualifications and sure, they're skydivers, but they still have NO idea how to survive in a DZ environment - how to find people to jump with, what they should be working on, what are the right interim goals for them etc, and so lots and lots of them find it lonely, burn out and quit. A weeks jumping does not a skydiver make, no matter how many jumps you do in it. There is far, far more to do on a DZ than just skydive and it's all of the other stuff that will enable you to enjoy the sport for longer - maybe even long enough to get your D license and travel to foreign boogies and events!

Remember, the weather in scotland is almost universally shite. It could well take much longer than you expect to get your license in the UK compared to the US. Be prepared to lose lots of days sitting at the DZ on weather holds, but don't equate that with not being able to learn anything.

Quoteso heres a hypothetical situation guys [] so say take someone with 800-900 jumps that is a pretty good pilot but may not be ready for a velocity yet If they're not ready for a velocity yet, then they shouldn't get a velocity... It's not rocket science. If they're jumping in conditions that makes it UNSAFE to fly a non-crossbraced wing, then the answer is that they should jump another day, not switch to a wing they're not ready for. Expecting a crossbrace to save you from those types of conditions is idiocy, to say nothing of using it as an excuse to make the step up. All of this is assuming that they're jumping at a loading where the crossbraces would make any difference at all anyway... I think someone's yanking your chain for a laugh.

Get over yourself. Seriously.

So since the article turned out to have a misleading title (in other words, a lie), will you be choosing other news sources in the future? Or checking the data in the ones that you post from that source? Wendy P. hahahahahahaha when pigs fly.

Couldn't agree more. There are some things that joe public shouldn't do.

Please tell me that you're not suggesting about profiling entire nationalities for immigration purposes based upon a subset of the population? Even you're not that crazy.

Will you please stop saying this? 'Human Nature' is not equivalent to one mans opinions, ideals or beliefs. If it were 'Human Nature' then we'd all (or the vast majority) share that trait... You're using a term that implies fait accompli to bolster an argument that is ENTIRELY based on beliefs. Franklins BELIEFS on safety vs freedom, and your BELIEF that it is impossible that this might have changed over the course of a quarter of a century. and you seem to be doing exactly the same thing. Are you implying that coco's beliefs are only 'one man's beliefs'? human nature has remained the same, many many humans still believe they are entitled to defend themselves against abuse from gov't or from criminals, and just because you don't doesn't mean that you can simply discount the beliefs of millions of americans to suit your own fancy. These polls of 90 % are a fallacy. It may be that a majority of americans want better laws, but it is also obvious that laws these people offered were not what the majority wanted. I don't know what you mean by 'coco', so can't answer this properly. My point was that you can't trot out the phrase 'Human Nature' for something that is a belief of a particular subset of humanity. Something like empathy? I'd go for yes, that's part of Human Nature that is separate from most experiences or upbringings. The need to provide for ones offspring to see that they succeed? Yes - I think that is human nature. A belief of HOW humanity should behave in a particular civilization? No. That's learned through experiences, not human nature. Applying the moniker of 'Human Nature' to these specific parts of the constitution is, I believe, intellectually dishonest. edit: definition of Human Nature taken from dictionary.com

The difference between 80 and 90 isn't insignificant. It's the difference between 9:1 and 4:1. 84% would be just over 5:1. Cheating a bit by rounding doesn't markedly change the For side, but it has a huge effect on the Against side. It's still SIGNIFICANTLY canted to one side... 5:1. 4:1 even 3:1... imagine an argument you were on the other side of. Where you were on the 3 side of the 3:1 - what argument would YOU be making?

That number came from a summary of a summary of a poll. The original poll question was about supporting more background checks. 84% of the respondents (a little over 1000 people) said yes. Someone summarized that to about 85% and someone else summarized that to 90%. So when you say 90% of those polled support more stringent controls, you're using a bad number and the wrong poll question. 84% of those polled supported more background checks. There is also a gallup poll that shows that only 4% of those polled (again, a little over 1000) felt that gun control was the most important issue facing the country. That's a very specifically written question. So while the two numbers may appear to be diametrically opposed, they really can not be compared. The poll question authors are the best liars. You can make statistics fit almost anything if you try hard enough. That's one of the drawbacks of any sort of analysis like this. However, 84%, and 90%? They're still 'most' in my view and is a reasonably fair rounding. Even if they rounded DOWN to 80%... so be it. It's still 'most'. I'm not going to get into an argument over statistically insignificant percentage points. Doing that in this case will only hurt your argument. The gallup poll information is interesting... I haven't heard that before. While it's deplorable that we don't tackle every problem in precisely the most important order as defined by opinion poll, the reality of the situation is that THIS is the issue on the table right now, rightly or wrongly. It's been brought about by actual events and political pressure, so that's what we're questioning... The same type of shifting arguments are made by people who say 'but cars kill more people than guns!' and my answer is the same - why pick and choose what we have to target first. Put resources into both... It's irrelevant if only 4% of the polled people think it's the most important issue at the moment. It's the issue on the table... and given that, if 80% of those then polled are in favor of more control and that isn't realized in policy then I suggest that there is a problem.

One of the things that sticks with me from secondary school is the phrase 'show you working' on every exam I ever took. It's interesting that it takes so long to pick up errors like this on such an important document!

Please define what you consider to be 'real history' as opposed to what is currently taught... I'm genuinely curious.

That's a possibility, certainly. Maybe the polls were inaccurate... In scientific methodology when you get a result that doesn't align with your expectations you go back and check to see if you messed up something in your initial expectations. If you find that mistake (in this case it'd be the '90% of people' bits then you can run with the result you've got... You could probably say 'see - Government works!' However if you go back and check and find out that that the polls WERE accurate, what then? What if 90% of the people are for more stringent controls but the system that's in place allows for Senators to be cajoled, bribed, blackmailed, forced, persuaded or otherwise convinced to act against those indicators for political expediency - what then? We have a disparity between expectations and results. Something is wrong somewhere in the system... We should probably find out what.

Hells yeah. Out flag has titties on it, too. Looks ambiguously androgynous. Could be man-boobs. I've never seen that flag before. Why is the guy in a dress holding a massive grey pahllus?

Will you please stop saying this? 'Human Nature' is not equivalent to one mans opinions, ideals or beliefs. If it were 'Human Nature' then we'd all (or the vast majority) share that trait... You're using a term that implies fait accompli to bolster an argument that is ENTIRELY based on beliefs. Franklins BELIEFS on safety vs freedom, and your BELIEF that it is impossible that this might have changed over the course of a quarter of a century.

Pressure cookers are super trendy at the moment. Along with water baths...

With very little training, effort or knowledge you could go out, buy a firearm, load it and then kill a dozen people if that's your thing. It requires no special effort and as such is perceived as incredibly easy. Too easy in the eyes of the 'liberals'. Try doing that with the homemade bomb scenario... First you actually have to know what goes into it, and then in what ratios. I could GIVE you all the ingredients you need and chances are you couldn't make them explode. So then you have to actually make the damned stuff and construct the device itself without blowing yourself up. Then you have to fashion a detonator. Only then can you go out and kill a bunch of people... That's only ONE of the reasons why it's an apples / oranges comparison. I don't believe anyone has said that nutters couldn't use bombs to commit an atrocity. Just historically they don't... The nutters, the ones who seem to have no reason to kill a bunch of people before offing themselves, just seem to prefer guns. That suggests to me that we should attempt to control that situation, before looking at other ones that might further impose on peoples freedoms.

[inline spoon.png]

Arsecunts! shouted with a thick scottish accent.

Yes, why would you possibly need those at a major event with thousands of participants and spectators? Large crowds never generate any waste. In London we had all our buns removed in public spaces and transport hubs as people kept putting bombs in them. Please tell me you meant "bins". The other image is just too horrible. Have you got any idea of how much damage you can do with a well placed cream bun?

I agree, but that doesn't mean it can't be improved, we just have different ideas of how to accomplish that and what those improvements are. You honestly don't see any problem with the idea that people are so willing to kill others to hold onto their guns, and think that this is the only way to protect those rights? Martin Luther King and Ghandi would be turning in their graves... There are always alternatives.

It's a republic. By democratic process.

Just so we're clear, you're contending that the US is not a democratic country?

Now you're just sounding ridiculous... Who cares about history? This isn't a grey area we're discussing. If a law was passed by a legal government in this democratic country then resisting it, especially with lethal force is both criminal and immoral. You can put whatever justification you want on it - it's not like you're living in some dictatorship where rebellion might be be justified. This would simply be a case of 'no, I've decided I'm outside the law and I'll kill anyone who tries to impose it'. How would that, in any measure of reality or sanity, be the RIGHT thing to do? Why do you get to pick and choose what applies to you? Either you reap all the benefits of living in society and share the burdens, or you get none of either... Once again - this will never happen. Precisely because you don't see a problem with this scenario. That's just batshit crazy to me.

I agree on all of the above, which is whyit will never be done. However, I also think it's a terrible reflection on the culture of society that it is EXPECTED that a large number of people would violently refuse to adhere to a law that was democratically passed. The basis of civilized society is that all laws apply equally to all citizens - you don't get to pass on being subject to a law just because you don't agree with it. And to make the next step to actively killing your own people who are abiding by it makes those people nothing short of murderers.