labrys

That's what prompted my response. This is a skydiving forum. I imagine that contructive discussion of climbing is more suited to our sister site. Asking the question here feels mean to me. Owned by Remi #?

wtf? does anyone else think that this is a pointless, heartless question? Owned by Remi #?

***the moment the engine cuts in the cessna gets me going as well, Quote No... I wasn't talking about the cut. That's one of the most fun moments to me. This is soemthing that happens soon after take-off. Owned by Remi #?

There's a moment at about 700 feet from the ground that the sound of the engines on our Otter changes pitch. Someone explained the reason for this to me once but I didn't really understand and so I didn't retain the info. That's almost always the scariest part of the skydive for me. Even though I've grown to expect it, I still feel a brief shock of anxiety when it happens. It got worse after I was a lucky passenger on a single engine plane, at a DZ I was visiting, that decided to spit out some vital engine components during a climb.... luckily that was at about 4000' and it sounded a little more dramatic than a change of pitch. Owned by Remi #?

I forgot to update this, sorry. I sent the manufacturer an email on a Friday night and got an answer Saturday morning. I didn't expect such a fast reply. According to them, low battery voltage won't cause this behavior (it happened on a second jump, BTW). They recommended turning the altimeter off (it's been in econmoy mode) and back on and returning it to them for service if it misbehaves after that. Owned by Remi #?

Clear a runway???????????? Owned by Remi #?

There's nothing in your profile to indicate where you are, where you jump, any organizations you might belong to, or how much experience you have so your question is hard to answer. If you're in the USA and you've jumped at one DZ most of the time they can probably help you recreate your log book if you don't have many jumps. Owned by Remi #?

Ahh... the image of St Peter patrolling the foggy entrance to the Pearly Gates wearing an overcoat and snazzy leather boots... greeting new arrivals: "Paperz, pleeze..." Owned by Remi #?

I think they require a memory test http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/safety/detail_page.cgi?ID=622 Owned by Remi #?

Okay, I'm going to try to word my opinion in tighter terms. A person standing accused of a crime in a court of law is not facing the part of our legal system that is designed to preserve individual rights. They are facing the part of the legal system that is designed to protect society as their primary mandate. There is another branch of the legal system that's designed to make sure that the individual's personal rights were not violated in the process. That's our appellate system. I disagree that the court of law trying to prosecute a crime has the indivdual's rights over the rights of society as a priority. I agree that the appellate system holds indivudual rights as a priority, but they have conceded that the courts of law can revoke some rights in some cases. I don't think we disagree as much as we might think we disagree

Wow. That's a great outlook. Owned by Remi #?

I'm not advocating anything. I'm just giving my opinion. I've made it clear that I agree with the current system and have no desire to change it. The overall intention of the Constitution is to defend and preserve individual rights. I don't argue that point at all. The overall intention of our legal system isn't quite the same. I don't understand how you can claim that the primary goal of the legal system is to preserve individual rights when the legal system in question has the right to revoke individual rights pending it's ability to prove guilt. If reserving the right to revoke the freedom of an individual until they have been determined innocent isn't placing the needs and rights of society as a whole over the rights of the individual then what is it? Owned by Remi #?

Okay, take it apart a little at a time and help me understand. 1. Do we not require that convictions require that someone be considered quilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Not absolute proof, just reasonable doubt. I find it hard to accept that the framers of the Constitution didn't understand that "reasonable doubt" meant that there was potential to convict an innocent person. If you disgaree then we have a difference of opinion. 2. If the Constitution allows for reasonable doubt then how is that placing individual rights over those of society? The idea that individual rights are preserved ahead of anything else exists only within the idea that the individual is acting within legal boundries in the pursuit of those rights. Once the individual is suspected of crossing those legal boundries, they are held to account for their actions to the rest of society with society at a burden to prove them guilty. In the mean time, they may lose their rights. Ask any person who's spent time in jail awaiting a trial in which they were eventually found innocent to tell you whose rights were put ahead of their individual rights? Owned by Remi #?

Okay, I think I may have read this the wrong way. Starting over. We don't jail everyone who's arrested. We give them what we call "due process." In that process, we trade off the possibility of convicting an innocent person with the idea that if we require absolute proof of guilt, we will suffer dire consequences. What do you think a "very high burden of proff" is? Is it absolute? Owned by Remi #?

I would argue that our legal system is designed to provide the maximum protection of society while still preserving individual rights where it can. Hence the "reasonable doubt" clause. You really contradict yourself in this post. Bottom line is that you think you should be assumed innocent without absolute proof and everyone else should hang? Owned by Remi #?

Every time I've had jury duty, that's exactly what I've done. It made me strive to do the best job I could. That's the way our legal system is designed to work. How do you suggest we change the system to make your goal a reality? Change the burden of proof to "beyond any doubt" instead of "reasonable doubt? Put yourself in the shoes of the countless increased crime victims that would create. What's your suggestion to change the system? I know very well that there's a chance I could be wrongly convicted of a crime under our system. I continue to accept that system because I'm willing to take that hit to prevent 1000s of criminals from going free. That's called accountability. It's part of the package deal along with being free to pursue happiness Owned by Remi #?

The only way to accomplish that goal would be to require irrefutable proof of a person's guilt. That eliminates the need for a jury. Our system is designed around the idea that your peers (that's another debate) listen to the evidence against you and make a decision under the instruction that they declare you innocent if there is a "reasonable doubt" of your guilt. "Reasonable doubt" means that some innocent people WILL be wrongly imprisoned. THe alternative is that MOST guilty people will walk free to prevent innocent people from going to jail. There no way that would work out. Owned by Remi #?

Guess I'll seek meaning elsewhere Owned by Remi #?

Does that mean that not having enough soy in the diet will make women lesbians? Owned by Remi #?

That isn't a very complex system. There was no one who could determine why the cable / handle wouldn't clear? I find that hard to grasp. Owned by Remi #?

Ahhh... sorry. My mistake Owned by Remi #?

That isn't true. I have fewer than 500 and I suggested trying both. Owned by Remi #?

Then why did you say you thought it was 23K? Owned by Remi #?

Well... if you have the money saved up, take a small hit and try one of each, then pick your path. Owned by Remi #?

"The 250 million dollars I stole is hidden under the...." Owned by Remi #?