SBS

what do they have in common??? The canopy pilots that fly them tend to get hurt or killed under these canopies due to shoddy design & manufacturing...PD Rules!!! Check out the latest article in this months Skydiving about the Xaos pilot in VA...this is starting to become really sad. Companies are starting to put out some dangerous canopies without doing the proper research, design & testing. Dont even mention the Nova... --------------------------- NOTE - The canopies that you mentioned were all made by the same manufacturer. We have yet to hear of any substantiated reports of issues with Crossfires that were manufactured in Icarus' European facility. You have made a general statement regarding the industry that is not necessarily reasonable. If you could detail out the design and manufacture process that PD uses and compare it side by side with that of Icarus, Aerodyne, Atair, PISA, etc., that would be a little more acceptable. PD is a great company that makes fantastic products. They are not the only ones, though, who pour money into R&D and put out a good product. Steve

First off, I don't believe that anyone is "raised to believe" anything. When you are raised, your parents try to instill certain values in you, but it still comes down to being a value judgement on your part as to whether you decide to view things that particular way or not. ---------------------------- You are correct, that there are choices that you make that will form your beliefs. If you are raised in Taiwan, your actions and beliefs will more closely resemble that of your Taiwanese neighbor than that of somoene that comes from California. If you were raised by someone like BinLaden, the chances that you would believe that America is evil and Americans should die would be much greater. ----------------------------------- Can you think of an example where this is always true? If it's not always true, then that fits into the "not true" area. ----------------------------------- In order to show it as not true, as you pointed out, examples are needed to show that it is not true. That is why I am asking you to come up with examples of where it would not be true. Why the hell would I argue against my own statement? You are the one that is saying that it's not true, so I'm asking that you please go further in your thinking and actually try to disprove it, as opposed to making the blanket statement "it's not true". -------------------------- This statement is flawed from the get-go. It is impossible for "All other things to be equal." So that only emphasizes the ludicrousness of the rest of the statment. ----------------------------- I still have yet to see you make a reasonable arguement against it. Have you ever heard of someone looking at a movie star that snubs a fan and saying "if I were famous, I would never do that"? Guess what, that person isn't famous. If they were famous, they would not be who they are today. Therefore, they could not make the statement that they would not be like that if they were famous, because in simply being famous, their entire person would be different. So, what they are saying is, "being who I am today, I would not be like that if I happened to be famous". That is a statement that they can make, even though it wouldn't happen. The previous statement is not one that they could make, because they don't know who they would be if they were, in fact, a celebrity. This isn't a flaw, it's a hypothetical that is necessary in order to isolate a certain aspect of a situation and identify the influence it has on a variable. We are variables. Who we are depends on everything that has come before. That does not mean that if you are raised by Christian parents that you will be a Christian, but means that your experience of the past will lead you to the religion that you choose. That would be experience with family, friends, the books that you have been exposed to, the movies, the tv, your experience in the hospital when you were 5, etc. EVERYTHING. When you are raised in a culture where something is the norm, something is socially acceptible, everything is going to point you towards that end, and barring anything else that may lead you to not doing that thing, you have no reason not to. So, "all other things being equal" means this. It is altogether possible that someone who was born in a time and place where rape was ok, that they would have a small penis and for fear of people finding out, he would never rape a woman. Or, he may be gay, and not attracted to women, or he may never see a woman to whom he is attracted. These are all factors that need to be removed, and can be for the sake of this demonstration. Another example...it's ok to take something without paying for it. What if I never saw anything that I wanted? These are factors that apply to the whole situation, but are introduced after the belief is formed. So a)belief b)other factors c)end result so - a)I believe that raping women is ok b)I have a small penis that I don't want anyone to see c)I won't rape women a)I think taking things without paying for them is ok b)I never see anything that I like c)I never take anything without paying for it All other things being equal, to me, means that part b becomes no factor, as follows: a)I think taking things without paying for them is ok b)I see something I like c)I take it without paying for it a)I think raping women is ok b)I am not ashamed of my body and I see a woman to whom I am attracted but denies me sex c)I rape that woman If you have one person who thinks it's ok, but has a small pecker, he may not follow through on his desires because of that fact. On the other hand, you have someone who is happy with his, but believes that raping is wrong, and the result is the same...he doesn't rape. Nothing has been said here...you have to remove the part B, in order to get comparable diagrams. You may not agree, but could you elaborate a little more than just calling this reasoning ludicrous? Steve

No...I was told by random people, but when I asked Icarus about it, they said "no". ------------------------- So, take us through this step by step...I would be particularly interested in what exactly you were on, or how hard you had hit your head right before you authored the following snipets... "I just got an e-mail back from Icarus today in regards to their new Safire that is coming out. Here is what they wrote me:" *********I would have to assume that you mean that you spoke to Icarus somehow, probably by e-mail, and the following is their response********** Yes we will be releasing a generation 2 Safire canopy however, it is unlikely that this would be within the next 6 months. It would be more likely to take place mid next year. As a result, you're probably best to not wait. ************I would try to translate this to make it more clear, but I don't really think it's possible...the closest word I see to "no" in there is "not", and that's not referring to the canopy. Seems like they have done exactly what they told you they were going to do************ Do you discriminate in your bad mouthing, or do you talk about everyone like this when things don't go your way? Steve

I asked them if they were coming out with one the next year (this year) because I heard a lot of people talking about it. However, they denied it up and down and said that there wasn't. -------------------------------- Funny, that's not what it seemed to say in the post that you made in September, quoting an e-mail from Icarus directly. Why don't you call Apple and ask them if they are releasing anything new within the next couple of months...I'm sure they'd be happy to share with you. So we can assume that you would have remained canopyless for the past 6 months in anticipation for the Safire2? So, everyone in the skydiving industry should stop their R&D when someone purchases a canopy? If you purchased a canopy that you were happy with, then what's the problem? Get a grip, it's really not that big a deal. Steve

I have a feeling after the Crossfire quality control incident last year, they probably wanted to make extra sure the product(s) were perfect before getting anyones hopes up. ---------------------- Reasonable speculation, but that really wasn't the issue. They were still testing, but there was much more to it, in the canopy itsself and how it would be marketed. Steve

"Sorry, I have a no dial up policy =( Dont take it personal...." --------------------------- Damn...should have tried... "Dial up's are good...it'll give us more of a chance to get acquainted while we wait for the pages to load." Hey...I think I just figured out why I'm single... :-) Steve

Not true. At least I don't believe it is. -------------------- Can you think of an example where this would not be true? -------------------------- Maybe that's why I got a C in my college Sociology class. -------------------------- It's kind of a philosophy/sociology thing that not everyone is always going to agree with. I have yet, though, to hear an arguement that I would consider completely valid as to why it isn't true. People have a funny tennancy of not looking at culture and upbringing as the source of their beliefs and behavior. They believe so deeply that what they do is so right, they believe that THAT is why they believe as they do, because it's the right way, not because that is how they have been raised. I guess it's kind of a scary thing to buy into, because it would mean that if brought up differently, any one of us would have had the potential to be Hitler, Mousellini (sp?), Stalin, Bin Laden, Dr. Evil, or even Bill Gates. :-) Steve PS - one more thought...someone may just not want to do something. So, even though this person was raised in a society where raping women is ok, he may just not want to, because he's doesn't feel good, or he has a small penis that he doesn't want anyone to see. So, I must make an amendment, and add to the beginning of that statement, "All other things being equal, if one was raised in a society where ----------- was socially acceptible, then he/she would ------------."

Even then a barrage of lawsuits (and settlements) can still damage the finances of manufacturers, DZs, instructors, etc. to the point that they may go out of business. -------------------------------- I agree completely...If you read the statement made that I was responding to, though, you will see that it says specifically "ONE lawsuit could EASILY put RWS...etc etc etc...OUT OF BUSINESS". If that were true, we wouldn't have manufacturers in business...the big ones would have been taken care of already, and the small ones would have never seen their stability and had the balls to start up. And we wonder why equipment is so expensive... I agree as well with the rest of your statements regarding the liability that the sport would undertake in general. I like the age being 18...hell, let's up it to 21...any supporters? :-) Steve PS - I was just kidding...please don't start yelling at me...anyone. :-)

Ignore them...they're just bitter cause they're old. :-)

One lawsuit could easly wipe out RWS/Jumpshack/Etc.., Airtec, PD/Icarus and the DZ where something happens if a underage youth goes in on a tandem and the parents sue.... --------------------- A SUCCESSFUL lawsuit. Ask Bill Booth sometime about how many lawsuits he has seen come and go. There is another thread on another forum that referred to a couple. With the rules that are in place with the manufacturers at this point, they can still be sued, but the chances of someone winning are none to worse. I think everyone is always going to have to answer to the lowest common denominator (in this case, the age limit of 18 in places such as California), as manufacturers are world wide. They want to be covered no matter where an incident may occur. Steve

Just as it is not politically correct to make racial jokes, sexual orientation jokes, etc., I would assume it should not be politically correct to make anti-catholic jokes. ------------------------------- So what kind of jokes is one allowed to make, in this day and age of everything being examined under the microscope of political correctness? Can you honestly say that you have never told or laughed at a joke that would have been offensive to someone in the world? Seems to me that unless one can honestly say that, then he/she should be relatively light hearted when the spotlight is pointed at them or something that they care about. Steve

I now have to agree with Scottbre on this one. There is no evidence that Rape is rooted in sexual desire, but rather, the desire to dominate or control. It is an anger issue. ------------------------- These are two different issues that share the common theme of a man inserting himself into a woman against her will... One motivation, which you are referring to, is not related to sex, but happens to involve it in the end. The other, which I believe Bill is referring to, is motivated by sexual desire. They are both rape, which you have pointed out...they are not the same situation, though, and that needs to be understood in order to see this point. ------------------------- According to most studies, most men who have sex drives that go unchecked tend to become addicted to pornography, masturbation, being with prostitutes, etc. In other words, they become sexaholics. This has nothing to do with those prone to sex crimes. People who become sexaholics generally never learned how to use the act of sex in its proper and mature context, meaning selflessly giving satisfaction to their partner. Instead, they see sex in and of itself as a means to an end. Their act is selfish and they have no regard for the pleasure of their partner. --------------------------------------- I think we need to look back at the statement about different forms of rape. I have to agree with you here, that rape as defined today, is mostly driven by the desire to control, etc., and not by sexual desire. BUT, forget that, and when you read Bill's statements, think about the act of having sex with a woman against her wishes. THAT is what rape is...the end result is the same...the motivation is what differs. I can't see how anyone can possibly disagree with the idea that men (and many women, for that matter), have desires that are held in check by "acceptable social behavior", which has formed who we are. This isn't limited to sex, but can apply to most anything we do in life. If it was socially acceptable to kill, we would be killers...if it were socially acceptable to take things without paying for them, we would be theives (although in this example, the social acceptability of stealing would mean that we were, in fact, not stealing at all, mearly taking something with implied permission as defined by society). Make up your own... "If one were raised to believe that ---------- was socially acceptible, then he/she would ----------." Regarding people being led to masturbate, etc...this is a perfect example of the drive being kept at bay by other means...do you really think that this person would prefer his hand to the alternative (even IF he had sat on it for an hour til it was numb so it felt like someone else)? These people, though having a different drive than others, still adhere to social standards regarding sexuality. Anyone ever read Stranger in a Strange Land? This goes farther than that book did, but it is still a good illustration of people being molded by society. Steve

I had a similar question, as well as the following: Wouldn't this put more beurocracy into our sport that we don't need? What are the actual statistics of people who have had incidents with faulty risers, and would they merit said beurocracy? Would manufacturers really want this added liability? Would riggers really want this added liability? If this were to be done, I liked the suggestion of a "junior rigger", but could you imagine the paperwork that would be involved on the part of the FAA to get this done? In addition to the work that we would have to do in the skydiving industry? Again, would the benefit be worth the cost in this area? If someone were to lose a cutaway handle, they would no longer be able to get one from their loft and be jumping the same or next day. Correct? If someone owned a container and wanted risers from anywhere else, regardless of reason, they would not be able to use them, as they would not be TSO'd with the system, correct? What would happen to all the risers that are out there now? Would every single set of risers have to go through an inspection? Would this subject the actual manufacture of the cutaway handle to a TSO? It seems to me that education is the key to making sure that we don't have problems with main risers. The junior rigger idea, like I said, sounds like a way that this could be done, but it seems like this process would be way over the top. Seems like we could come up with a better way of educating, without putting ourselves farther under the microscope of the FAA. This is way to complicated to draw out a big scenario, but what about cases with intentional cutaways, 3rd canopies, etc.? Which is the main in those cases? Does the canopy right before the one that is your last resort have to have the 3-ring release? It's nitpicky, but there are a lot of questions that would have to be answered. Seems like as far as the FAA is concerned, we should leave this one alone...if education is needed, then let's educate...let's just not get them involved more than we need to. Thanks for listening to me ramble. :-) Steve

I love the title of the thread... I'm going to speculate on what is hidden in the ... in the title... Not to stir the pot, but...oh, look, here's a pot...oh, hey, and here's a stick...I'm bored...stirring sounds like fun... :-)

"Anyone know if there have been studies done on its frequency in different regions/populations/ethnic groups? THAT would be interesting." I'm not sure, but I think there is a pretty good portion of male flight attendants that are. :-)

I believe some men/women chose to be gay by choice and some are just naturally gay. Good point...I don't think anyone can argue that there are those who most definitely live that lifestyle by choice. I still say it doesn't matter either way, when talking about showing respect to another human being.

That's an interesting article. Just some thought... It seems to me, as stated in the article, that one could look at this difference in brain development as a sort of genetic defect. One that is sympathetic to the trials and tribulations of homosexuals, may choose to look at it as normal genetics. Either one presents the possibility of reasonable arguement. I think that arguing that point, though, causes us to lose sight of the fact that we are talking about human beings that deserve to be treated and respected as such. Whether they choose to be gay, just like I have chosen the path of my life with skydiving etc., or if they are genetically different, like blacks are from whites, men are from women, etc., we all deserve to be treated as part of the human race. It seems to me that in order to have understanding among different races, genders, sexual preferences, etc., this is the area that needs to be addressed...not why people are the way they are, as much as the fact that we are who we are, and are no less human than any other. It's pretty well known that blacks are genetically different from whites, that Asians are genetically different, etc. etc. etc. That said, we still encounter prejudice between races...scientific answers will not eliminate prejudice, the answer will be found at its source, not its targets. Scientific proof is great, but let's keep in mind that it pales in comparison to what would truely be great...valuing one another for no good reason. :-) Steve

"Happy birthday Steve! Lisa spilled the beans in another post. So solly!! hehe............" Thanks! I'll be drunk in just a few short hours. I just hope I don't have to fly solo for my birthday sex...it's my own personal challenge. :-) Steve

I never said we went to London together, and Seinfeld is NOT my favorite show... Get it right, dammit!!! :-)

"Not the work of a brilliant man. Of course, there's nothing that says our president has to be particularly smart, if he's a good leader and makes good decisions on who to listen to. I just hope his advisers are smart people." Einstein also wasn't very good at simple mathematics. I'm not saying he's Einstein, and like to make fun of his blunders as much as the next guy. When it comes to talking about intelligence, though, I find it funny that people would refer to the elected leader of the free world as an idiot. If he is, I just hope that I can be half as stupid as he is when I grow up, cause he has acheived what very few people ever dream of...I'm sorry, you don't do that by being a complete and total moron, as some would make him out to be. Steve

"He has the right to do what he is doing but is it what he should be doing? No" I see what you mean, and completely understand where you are coming from. I think this is a great question, but one that we are not in a position to answer with any sort of certainty. "Should" is very subjective. There are going to be positives and negatives regarding all decisions that the President makes...I'm not so sure that being silent regarding his beliefs would be the best option either. Just a thought. Steve

Well said, Tiger. Steve

"Bush is not a smart guy in my opinion and this is just added coal to the fire." Although I do not agree with some of what he says and/or does, we have to remember that he is the President of the United States...he can't be all that dumb...he just seems it sometimes. :-) Steve

The batrack isn't being made anymore, making room for the Optik in Bonehead's arsenal. I use a flattop and love it. I think for serious camera people, it's the best on the market. Getting out of a little plane isn't going to be any more of a problem with the flattop than with the batrack. I've jumped cessnas with this helmet, and it really wasn't an issue. Just my opinion. Steve

110...just glad I didn't kill anybody.