yoink

All - Stop feeding the troll.

I agree. HRC was an awful candidate. Better than Trump but that's all. I wish people would just let her die (figuratively, of course).

All guns should be restricted. Probably by one of the methods discussed here ad nauseum. It doesn't matter whether a shooter is a man, woman, child, arab, christian or left OR right wing nutjob. Guns don't care about your politics or sex. Look, story is open again. That was simple enough.

So Sad. So many haters and losers. Dammit. You got the reply before I managed to delete my post! My experience (and it's limited so may be wrong) is that Persian people don't like being called Iranian, despite that being their country of origin. I'm sure they don't like being called Iraqi any more than I would.

So far this morning I've heard / seen reports of her being Iraqi, Iranian, Turkish and Afghani. She's Persian. Don't worry about it America. All those shithole countries are the same anyway. Totally populated by losers.

If you can tell me a way to take guns away from just the losers than I'm all ears. Of course first you'll have to define it... The US is the only country I can think of where a solution to having personal issues seems to be to go and murder a bunch of innocent people. How did we get here?

They're targeting $3bn. We hit $50bn. WE WIN! It's the rule of BIGGER.

]http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43635864 4 injured in shooting at YoTube HQ. Thoughts and prayers. Anybody see the Padres game?

Tell you what. You come at me with a knife. I'll have a gun. Who do you think will come out worst? So yes - WHY people choose to attack each other is a psychological issue that goes back to the roots of our humanity which will probably never be resolved until we evolve into sentient gas-clouds or something, but the ABILITY to murder a bunch of people with little to no effort is a result of the weapon of choice. Guns are designed to kill stuff. That's their purpose and they're MUCH better at it than knives. You can't simply say 'people can attack each other with sponges so we need to be allowed guns.' It's a nonsense argument.

I have 1 -2 cups of coffee or tea a day, much less than I used to drink a few years ago. 6-8 was more the norm. I do think that ADD / ADHA is over diagnosed at the moment and that people medicate their kids too easily today.

Even if you have time to turn and land in the direction that fits the DZ policy, Bill? So you stick with a First man down policy always, unless it puts you in danger?

Hooray for Wendy.

Wasn't that basically the Shawshank Redemption?

You're opinion doesn't matter - You're just getting used by the NRA and right wing media as a mouthpiece. You don't have any opinions of your own. I feel sorry for you!

Yup, that's the way it goes. To be honest it's probably the simplest solution for you.

Why?? That's the real issue here. It's not that complicated to follow a first-man-down rule, even if you don't agree with it. Unfortunately without strong enforcement skydivers tend to think policies don't apply to them which is WHY you get people landing in different directions. If you start grounding people for landing in the wrong direction you'd see people start paying a LOT more attention to how people before them are landing. This is another example of how shit we are at self-policing.

Why not? If the second guy follows the first, and the third follows the second it'll translate all the way up. If the policy at the DZ is to follow the first guy down you follow that policy. It's not rocket science - If you don't like it you don't jump. The WORST possible thing that can happen is people deciding under canopy that they're either unsure about the policy or don't agree with it, or deciding to ignore the policy when it's explained to them. We're in danger of splitting this thread - the original post was in response to a specific question. I suggest discussion about which is the RIGHT policy would be best in a separate thread. (FWIW I prefer a fixed tetrahedron on light wind days).

You really should as best as possible. It's the first thing I was taught when learning to drive also. Assume everyone else in the sky (on the road) is a homicidal maniac and fly (drive) to avoid them. If you don't do this, you're handing off control of your survival to people with potentially unknown skill. There's a very small group of people I don't look at with suspicion when I'm under canopy; many with significantly more experience than me are not included. There's a difference between being aware of people and overburdening jumpers with policies and procedures for every possible contingency. It's why we teach students a simplified emergency procedure to cover as many situations as possible. The solution to situations like this isn't to cover every possible error with procedures - it's to remove the error in the first place. DZ sets the policy. Jumpers follow it. Breaking the policy leads to immediate grounding.

You can't plan for someone not following policy, or at least you shouldn't. The DZ has the responsibility to have a policy in light and variable winds and to ensure that all jumpers know what it is. It is the responsibility of the jumper to ensure that they know what the policy is and to follow it. Wolfriverjoe has the right answer for me, so both answers in your poll are correct - just not at the same DZ.

It's not necessarily that simple - if you start offering a benefit for this one guy you have to do it for others in the same job position. You're not allowed to make an exception just for him. That means that for a small business while it MAY be just a $60 expense for one guy, what happens if the next day 15 guys all want to take advantage of it? All of a sudden your P&L isn't looking so good. Benefits are a real problem for small companies because they can be very variable and the trick to being successful when you're small with low profit margins is to keep every expense as fixed as possible.

It almost certainly wouldn't during a gear check before emplaning because the lines are all stowed. You wouldn't be able to see a flip through, would you? It SHOULD have been caught by a continuity check during packing.

That's OK. We've got years to indoctrinate them into the right way of thinking. MORE GUNS!

Good ones can and do. There's a difference between a bad attitude and a bad circumstance and a decent HR department works to distinguish the two. If you don't care about retaining the good workers then you treat them both the same. If you want to keep the best people it's a good idea not to make exceptions but rather to have policy that can help in situations like this. If he can't do his job ONCE the child care thing is sorted then by all means, fire away.

'Heaven for climate, hell for company'

I don't know you personally. Maybe you've lived a life of trying to make life better for people in general but I'd guess not. People who can do that typically don't categorize their fellow countrymen as their 'enemies'. Extreme religion of any denomination spreads hatred, animosity and fear - If you're not one of us you're damned for ALL ETERNITY! Your babies are doomed to SIN! etc. Join us or be damned! Religion is divisive, not inclusive - it gets it's insidious power by separating people into 'us' and 'them'. For all the Bible's preaching about loving everyone a lot of very religious people seem to take that as 'love only those who I choose to love' and damn the rest. And it's OK because your ultimate answer to ANYTHING is 'but I believe in X so it's OK / justified'. I think it's a cowardly way of living, but that's just my belief. And by the way, if you're argument is man WILL develop self consciousness THEREFORE he is born sinful because it is guaranteed to happen without intervention it directly contradicts your hypothesis of a foetus having a spiritual relationship with God. Relationship with God = not sinful (your definition). Foetus = relationship with god (therefore not sinful) As ego develops = sinful Ego does not instantly develop at the second of birth but sometime over the first 2 years (your definition) Instant of birth = sinful. BZZT. Does not compute. Illogical argument. Say it with me - babies are NOT born sinful. You can't have it both ways.