yoink

Thanks for the help guys! Much appreciated.

This happens every day, in every possible market you can imagine, and it has happened the other way too - they've driven the price up as well. What's the point you're trying to make?

A friend of mine is trying to make something for his 6 year old son - some sort of tennis-swingy-gadget. (That's the technical name). He's asked if I have any old lines he could use. I don't - but I was hoping someone here might have and wouldn't mind mailing me a few they don't need anymore? I'd guess either dacron or spectra would work - he didn't specify. please send a PM if you could help out. Many thanks!

This is the one that disappoints me. All it proves is that people who know something about aviation don't necessarily understand skydiving... what a pathetically provincial world-view from someone who by their own admission has no stake in the game anymore. I bet there's a deeper story there.

No lesson to be learnt here.

So what about extending voting rights to millions of US citizens? Partisan either way, or just unpopular for some other reason? Because they'd probably have a disproportionate number of votes to population (thanks, electoral college!) and no politicians could be arsed traveling to Guam to canvas them.

Thanks guys! Some really helpful stuff here!

Wow. Hardcore. Hope she's Ok.

As a foreigner living in the US, I really don't understand the 'sacred-ness' (is that a word?) of the constitution. Every conversation about changing those rights seems to devolve to 'BUT IT'S THE CONSTITUTION!' without any real thought being given about the validity or process needed to implement any change. It's just a document of rules. It's been amended 33 times already because some of those rules were either flawed or didn't apply anymore. Doesn't that mean that it really should be an evolving document to reflect the society we live in as well as the society we want to build? I'm all for checks and balances. Big rules must to be hard to change and must have good reasons and should be representative of the population if they are to do so - but it should have some flexibility too, at least to my mind. I'd be genuinely interested in hearing some US folks put their thoughts down on why the constitution seems to be inviolate at the moment (or is that just my perception?). If you could refrain from the standard 'You're a Brit, you don't get it!' and other such pettiness which usually goes with a foreigner asking about the constitution, that'd be awesome.

*specifically, the high-velocity type used to suck cool air in through windows at night and vent out of the attic space, rather than the low-velocity always-on ones. Any HVAC folks out there with recommendations on how to pick a whole house fan? Are the any better or worse brands, or things to avoid? Is the sizing / airflow just based on the space of the house? Any advice gratefully received!

Unless you're a cat.

$100 a year as a subscription seems high given the frequency of cutaways and the number of those cutaways which result in a lost canopy, and the actual amount of data which will be transmitted. If you offered a model which worked with users existing SIM cards (albeit at a higher initial price point) I might be more interested. I'm not sure it's a big enough problem for an average jumper to require a solution, unless you're regularly jumping in wooded terrain or have a much higher than expected frequency of cutaways. I'd also be concerned that in those types of environment you wouldn't necessarily receive a 3G signal. What happens in the case of a canopy being cutaway and no signal being received - either due to signal loss or device failure? Do you reimburse all of the subscription paid, or replace the canopy?

Unless you're a cat.

There are a load of British skydivers on here. I'm sure if you let them know where your home dropzone is, they could verify you're actually a skydiver and that may help you getting some help.

I was trying to be polite. How about 'I'm trying to make it harder for guns to get out of the control of their proper owners, or if it does happen, then they're more difficult to use'?

Yup. If people who knew what they were talking about defined 'secure' and listed your measures then that's fine. I've seen the police specify certain types of doors and deadbolt & alarm combinations when I was a student, and I seem to remember insurance companies doing the same. I'm not trying to keep guns away from gun owners. I'm trying to make it harder for guns to accidentally find their way into the hands of people who shouldn't have them. Now ask if rushmc would abide by it... Would you also agree that if those types of definitions were put in place, then there should be a penalty for irresponsible gun owners who leave their firearms easily accessible?

You did better than me. I remember getting in the plane and that's about it! Absolutely no memory of the first jump at all.

Nope. I'm not an expert in home security, crime or firearms. Likewise though, neither are you so neither of us should be trying to define it. What we should agree on is that a definition of 'secure' should be put forward, and agree to follow that recommendation. I'd imagine a combination of the police / FBI, professional locksmiths and the NRA would be able to put together a minimum definition of 'secure'. If they were to say that keeping in it in a drawer in the kitchen is secure, then fair enough - I'm wrong. But I bet they wouldn't!

that is absolutely not what I said. Don't put words into my mouth. What I said was I also thought I made it fairly clear that once those standards are defined by knowledgeable people - locksmiths, police etc then those standards should be adhered to, and that there should be a civil penalty for it. I think that's as clear as I can be. Try not to deliberately obfuscate the matter to serve your own ends. Thanks.

I forgot to stow the brakes on my Sabre precisely once. That opening scared the shit out of me. Super hard and messy. Coincidence? Possibly. My sabre didn't have a habit of opening hard though. Since then I decided it was important to remember.

But then you seem to be a responsible gun owner. I don't know what the definition of 'secure' is. I don't think it's just whatever is standard for a house. This is detail - the specifics of what constitutes 'secure' can and should be worked out. I don't know enough about guns to speak knowledgeably. I DO know that you simply can't stop a determined thief. What I believe is your responsibility as a gun owner is to not present an easy target.

I actually think a little bit of deceit and secrecy is necessary for people who aspire to be world leaders. If the people knew everything that was happening we'd never get anything done. It'd be death by committee. What Hillary did wrong was to get caught. If I'm going to have a leader who keeps secrets, I damn sure want them to be smart enough to keep them well!

I'm not in favor of them being charged as an accessory to a crime they didn't commit and had no participation of. I would be in favor of them being charged with breaking a law that required guns to securely stored. The penalties for those should be extremely different. In my world, lets take a hypothetical: A burgler breaks into your house and steals your gun and uses it to murder someone. They get caught and are charged with murder and are sent to a cell for the rest of their life. If they've broken into a secured gun safe to get the weapon then you're safe from prosecution. You've done everything you could reasonably be expected to do. If you've left it lying on your bedside table however, then you face some sort of charges for THAT - not for the murder, but for the lack of responsibility to allow someone who shouldn't get access to your firearm and you should have those privileges revoked. You've proven you can't be trusted with them.

I hope so!

Out of all the freedoms the government takes away every year, this seems like such a non-event that it's ridiculous. We've been criticized with not putting forward any viable solutions to the gun problem - (if you think there is one.) Pro gun advocates are always talking about 'Responsible gun ownership'. When we try and suggest that the recommendations by the biggest gun lobby in the world be backed by some sort of sanction (I'd suggest confiscation and inability to own a firearm for a period of time) then it suddenly becomes a civil rights issue. If you have a demolitions license to buy explosives you are REQUIRED to store and handle them in a certain secure way. If you have a license for cylinders of compressed gasses (like hospitals have) you are REQUIRED to store them in a certain secure way. I'm sure there are other examples. How if this any different? The pro-gun advocates preach responsible ownership but refuse to follow advice given by their lobbying body. How can any of their stances be taken seriously with that level of hippocrasy?