yoink

Sounds like a liberal pinko commie to me. Get him!

I've been proposing this idea since 2014.

What then would be a better way to determine readiness? An official camera flying qualification - something akin to an AFFI qualification with in air evaluation as well as a written exam... You could put yourself forward for it with 50 or 100 jumps AND a recommendation from your ST&A. The course would need to be something that tests in-air skills and awareness, as well as camera skills to actually get a decent shot. You're teaching someone to be a camera flyer. It's not just a couple of jumps with a coach to get the rating. Have 2 levels, one that qualifies you for fun jumping with a small form factor video camera, and another for professional tandem photography that involves a stills camera. I think the technical differences might require that. I'd get rid of the idea of 'just putting a camera on for me' being different to 'proper videography', and lump it all into a serious 'camera work' qualification. Either you do it right or you don't fly camera, but when you DO have it, then you should be good to fly with freefall teams, CRW dogs or tandems (other prerequisites not withstanding) I'd do it in this formal manner so that the training syllabus would be consistent across dropzones and steer away for the 'mentoring' way of doing it which could lead to massively variable results.

I don't even see how this design would solve that non-problem... If a tandem student is messing with your gear enough to pull your pin out (and who hasn't seen dozens of main containers open and flopping around in the back of the plane on every jump! ), then they would be able to do just the same with this piece of junk.

What were the arguments put forward by the 50 jump wonder as to why this is a good product? I'm curious what the designer is actually telling the newbies.

Your submission doesn't fall into the agenda that the OP has.

Because we won. We could not tolerate, even comprehend, Hillary as POTUS. No. That Trump won has nothing to do with the fact that you deliberately ignore provable facts if you don't like them. The two events are not causally related.

Trite, but not true in my experience - at least when you're talking about communicating with random people. If someone knows you really well as someone who doesn't lie then that strategy has value, but if it's to someone who doesn't really know you then it's worthless. You certainly don't want to lie about everything, but lying well is a skill that has to be learned and practiced. It's like any other form of social manipulation. If you're lying for the first time ever to save the lives of your family to some random kidnapper then I wouldn't give them great odds.

It's habitual at this point, and like any habit is really hard to break. When I was quite young I found myself in a similar habit. I'd lie compulsively about everything just because I could - it hadn't really come back to bite me in any serious manner and generally ended up with a benefit for me so it became self-reinforcing. Needless to say it eventually caught up with me in a big way and I started to understand that there were consequences. It took years and serious consequences for me to alter that behaviour. That's what Trump has never had - He's been so protected and pampered his entire life that he has no real idea of the possible consequences of lying. To him at the moment this is just how you communicate. I'm sure he either thinks that everyone else is doing it (hence all the Fake News stuff), or that it's a net positive in the medium to long term.

Remeber, Ron has actively said that he doesn't believe facts if they conflict with his beliefs. Trying to have a logical debate with someone like that is utterly pointless.

You're obviously not a 'HyperElite jumper' xx!xxx!!!1 ===EVERYTHING ON CRACK x 10!!==== WOOOO!!111xXXx Out of interest, is the designer a 12 year old video gamer? I don't see how this negates the need for a pin-check.

Lets keep a database so we can responsibly police ourselves... you know, like we say we do.

Same reason Style did. Too much effort for too little appreciation.

You are absolutely wrong! You are using YOUR own interpretation here!!! That law is very clear. Then it should be very simple for you to quote it then. Once again, I'll wait for proof - just like you couldn't provide any earlier... You've made a statement of fact, now back it up. In case this isn't clear by now, every time you do this I'm going to demand that you provide evidence to back up your 'facts'. Not links to some right-wing article that you skimmed the title of but actual official documents or first hand evidence. The law was quoted in the link. And proven to be deliberately misquoted. Lummy wrote a great post about how you're being manipulated by articles like that. THAT'S why we provide links to sources. Go back to the original source... Give me a link from the official US justice code, not an article that has an agenda trying to interpret it.

You are absolutely wrong! You are using YOUR own interpretation here!!! That law is very clear. Then it should be very simple for you to quote it then. Once again, I'll wait for proof - just like you couldn't provide any earlier... You've made a statement of fact, now back it up. In case this isn't clear by now, every time you do this I'm going to demand that you provide evidence to back up your 'facts'. Not links to some right-wing article that you skimmed the title of but actual official documents or first hand evidence.

You got it!!!! I'm just going to leave this here as proof for the pointlessness of trying to talk about 'law' with rushmc. Rush, you seem unable to differentiate between the way you want the law to work, and the way it actually works in reality. Try this experiment - take your car out and hit 100 in front of a cop. When you get pulled over tell them that it was an accident and that you didn't mean to... Let me know how that goes for you.

While I have no issue with a standard for incident reporting, I do have a problem with some of your suggestions: Why not? If someone hoses my spot because they spent too long messing around with their cameras resulting in me taking an off landing that is an increase in the risk on my jump directly because of the camera fixation. Your methodology of disregarding any previous incidents is also transparently biased. A literature review of previous data is absolutely standard for any scientific study - you don't just get to pretend that it didn't happen. If you really want to do this you take into account all issues, and then maybe classify them into direct and indirect risks.

Because speeding IS a crime. Therefore there are legal ramifications. A fine, points etc. Carelessly storing sensitive data on an unsecured server isn't, despite whether people think it should be or not. That's the FBI's finding, not my interpretation. 'I learned my lesson' didn't get her out of legal trouble, in the same way that it wouldn't get you and me out of it. Edit: actually, she's a powerful politician, so 'I learned my lesson' might actually get her out of trouble more than it would you or me. Just not in this case.

That in itself is fucked up.

Great post! Don't forget that rush thinks that outcome of an event is also part of whether it is a crime, as well as the lack of intent. His position has always been that since Russian interference in the election didn't alter the result then this current investigation is a complete waste of time since no crime can have been committed. So no intent required for an action, AND a definite impact as a result of the action. So Hillary's still not guilty of anything...

What you obviously can't do is provide the evidence you claimed. All the weaseling in the world isn't going to get you out of this one. You have claimed that in the Congressional testimony Comey directly provided evidence of Clinton's crimes, but you can't provide one shred of evidence to back that claim up. 'Fake News' indeed.

No. How do you not get how this works? You make a statement of fact therefore it's up to you to back it up with evidence or be proven a liar. Show me a direct statement from Comey in his Congressional testimony that states Hillary is a criminal as you've alluded.

Again, I ask you to provide the EVIDENCE that you say you have that Comey presented evidence of a crime Hillary committed in his Congressional testimony. That's what you stated. : Sorry this statement is a lie. Please provide evidence of what they found to back up your position. Comeys Congressional testimony. So where it it, Rush? Link me to the evidence that directly contradicts him stating in that very congressional testimony "We did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information" "Based on our review, we have not changed our conclusions that we expressed in July" Because from the above it looks suspiciously like you're the one lying.

Lets also not forget this: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/742771576039460864 From Donald Trump - 14th June 2016:

By tweet, of course... Seriously. Twitter is now how we communicate government policy. Edit: forgot the link https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/890193981585444864