dorbie

I wish I'd seen your FreeZR helmet earlier. It looks more like what I was looking for a while back, i.e. light with better than token protection.

It's a waste of good meat is what it is.

Well it was oral sex. I thought according to one of your ex presidents oral wasen't defined as sex Well the woman could have impregnated another woman the guy didn't have sex with, so sex of any kind with the mother would hardly be a requirement under these circumstances.

I think all the guys in this thread will agree with me that she should have swallowed, and from now on I'm going to make that a condition of unloading in anyone's mouth. You can't be too carefull.

For those so motivated I think they're all smart enough to figure out what the number is and aspire to reach it anyway. In the mean time looking at the modified table you can better see what the real proposal means. Again it's not my intent to make this proposal or offer anything novel, just point out what your numbers actually represent.

Yep dropping a toggle can be fatal, I will be changing the way I hold my toggles and my risers after a recent canopy control course from an experienced swooper warned me of this. I will also not be taking a wrap at altitude on my brake lines for other reasons he warned me about. Any of this might save my life some day. The first CC course I was on never even mentioned this. It's interesting to me that canopy control coaching from multiple instructors provides valuable life saving insights that even 1000 jump experts could benefit from. Even if you've been coached there's always more to learn. When on AFF I had multiple instructors and everyone on the DZ staff seemed to understand that there was significant benefit in having multiple instructors to get good coverage of the subject matter. I don't see CC as any different even if you had a standard curriculum.

An A license does require quite a bit for canopy control. Look at the card. B, C & D require nothing beyond accuracy and with the number of jumps you're going to get a lot of that with minimal skill anyway. I actually prefer a license and wing load restriction but it will only be fully be justified when you start to load B and C licenses with canopy training requirements. There's no reason you can't say to get a C license you need to attend canopy instruction class (just as you need water training for B) and people with a B license won't park there if they need a C license to move beyond a wing loading limit. I've seen at least one DZ with a policy like this now. But that's really for a different proposal and different discussion.

Seems reasonable but if you look at the +.2 loading modifier it affects all licensed jumpers and the initial table looks restrictive until you understand this, but when applied may look excessive. I try to make this clearer below: How many students have over 100 jumps? Here are the modification to the wording in the version I have appended: 1) Built the +.2 bias into the table and eliminating the +.2 for license 2) eliminated the redundant DZ discretion statement 3) eliminated the D license unlimited size clause 4) added a 50 jump category at 1.1 for licensed jumpers 5) added student 1.0 load restriction If you don't like the new numbers, that's what the original version actually proposed although it also allowed 1.2 under 50 jumps so I've only made it clearer. My initial observation is this regulation automatically gives everyone permission to load at 1.6 after 400 jumps more experienced minds may find this a problem, I don't have an opinion on that. He'd have to be a big guy given the modifier at 150 ft^2. Note that this is in practice almost the same regulation, it's just presented differently and IMHO makes what's being proposed a bit clearer w.r.t. the +.2 modifier for licensed jumpers. It's not my proposal, it's not my intent to offer anything significantly novel here, just bring clarity and brevity to the proposal. I. The maximum wingloading a USPA jumper may use: a- For All Licensed Jumpers: as specified by the Suggested Wing Loading Maximum chart (section x.y) b- Jumpers on student status may not exceed a wing loading of 1.0. --------------------------------------------------------------- SIM: Suggested Wing Loading Maximum (with credit to Brian Germain) [modified with +.2 bias] Wingloading is determined by dividing the canopy size by the total exit weight of the jumper. The recommended max is based on experience, measured by logged jumps. Because smaller canopies are more responsive, subtract .2 for parachutes under 150ft2. Because of lower air density, subtract .1 for every 2000ft of altitude at the LZ. < 50 jumps 1.1 < 100 jumps 1.2 < 200 jumps 1.3 < 300 jumps 1.4 < 400 jumps 1.5 < 500 jumps 1.6 < 600 jumps 1.7 < 700 jumps 1.8 < 800 jumps 1.9 < 900 jumps 2.0 < 1000 jumps 2.1 > 1000 jumps unlimited It is not necessary nor recommended that a jumper load at the maximum, especially above 1.3. Using canopies at this level requires a higher level of currency. Downsizing should be done incrementally. If a newly purchased canopy is significantly smaller the jumper is advised to do some jumps on intermediary sizes before going to the new one. The DZ ST&A should be consulted when considering a change in canopy.

To about half of Canada that's a compliment.

This is a classic phishing attempt. I've seen legit ones from Citibank and BofA. There was a bug in IE a while back that allowed them to spoof the IE address bar contents so that even the clickthrough URL looked legit. Now they have to settle for obfuscating the address after an IE patch. Any email asking you to return to a site to reenter "authentication" information of any kind is bogus. Even the ones masquerading as security warnings. They are classic phishing attacks and legit smart companies don't do this.

Aliso Viejo in California almost banned this, no I'm not joking: http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,1176710,00.html

It's a scam but game him back. Make him send you images, get excited sound dumb. Try to get a P.O. box, string him along. Tell him you went to the bank but the fee for the order was too high, etc etc. Post here and keep us entertained with your progress.

I understand. There are two issues, one is that you can trivially mail order this thing over the web without checks, the other is that they misled over the legality of it.

From your description, this is exactly the guy that you are looking for. ...plus he dresses stylishly and is spending time at the beach. A personals ad come true. Am I sick for thinking that freak has nice legs?

What more illustration do we need that the administration should listen to the impartial voice of academe?

Inaccuracies are a problem but reporters should be allowed to pursue investigations like this. How else are they to demonstrate/discover they can buy a gun like this? Get her on issues with the story but witchunting her over the order is just sour grapes over what she "unvovered".

Kallend, you're right again. It seems difficult in this forum though. Any hint at opposition even a call for data is misinterpreted & greeted with hostility. It wins few allies to a worthy cause. Bill, I never said subject matter experts here don't know what they're talking about. I have only accurately pointed out issues with interpreting these data. This isn't about some newbie disagreeing with experts. If every expert agreed with your opinion on restricting the actions of the 32,000 USPA members this would be a regulation and not a debate.

Sweeeeet. I hope he had a mouthful of coffee when he read that line in the morning.

Did you ever consider that it may have blocked that content for a good reason?

The US can be arrogant but those who assume the US is always wrong are profoundly ignorant and arrogant too. I trust the motivation of the US before most other countries. It has a track record that puts them all to shame. I don't think China has much to offer from millenia of "culture". They have a communist dictatorship running their country and their record on human rights is attrocious. There's not a leader there over 100 years old and it's evident that their millenia of culture barely makes an impact. I'll take America's 250 years of freedom over their culture any day. China is currently being bank rolled by the US, instead of isolating the band of thugs running that country we're pouring manufacturing dollars and turning them into a force to be reckoned with, yes they may relish turning around and fucking the US one day as you say. The hope is that it will remain in their crucial economic interests to maintain ties with the US, as the Brits hooked them on opiates the US hope to hook them on $$$$, but you don't need gunboats to make someone take your $.

Some but mostly not, but My DVD player (actually a *lot* more complex than a cypres and a lot less critical) will self diagnose and give me an error when it is on the blink. I also don't need to send it for service regularly and can buy a new one for about the cost of a Cypres service. I have no idea how reliable an AAD is, I take a lot for granted but I don't expect it to be perfect, all my training tells me not to rely on it and for good reason. Even if the AAD works and I switch it on there have been issues with cutter/loop/container/packing combos. There may be more. Analogies fail here. AADs require a different type of highly specialized engineering for a different market and after years of leading the way the incumbent has an enviable position. There are huge barriers to entry in the business. Look at the post that started this. The guy has an acceptable alternative to Cypres and yet he won't even consider a Vigil. This is from a guy who wants to jump *without* an AAD?! Vigil has already had a recall increasing their overheads and has been hurt by all sorts of resistance over various issues some seemingly trivial or irrelevant. Basically if they don't clone a Cypres and do it exactly as Airtec do it people tend to use any difference against them. Even innovations are perceived by some as design flaws. Basically it's a tough crowd they're selling to. If they clone a Cypress they'd still be seen as the second choice by the detractors. If AADs got a lot cheaper would enough people buy them? I can still buy a DVD player for thousands of dollars and it does a better job than your no brand clone. I might consider the expensive item if my life depended on it and I perceived it was better. It is interesting that we have no information in the relative reliability of Cypres vs Vigil, we go mainly on reputation. I bought mine based on availability and reputation not on any real data about reliability if I were to fuck up, I didn't really have better information and my student rig had a cypres, not an insignificant psychological factor.

Presumably you want the government to simultaneously reduce some other tax proportionately or it will serve to demonstrably stifle the economy. In reality this would only accelerate the export of manufacturing industry to another nation that does not have the CO2 controls, or any other environmental controls while probably increasing CO2 output due to reduced efficiency/technology.

Sorry I don't understand, what does this mean?

lol -- where's that Homer Simpson x-ray when you need it. Where's my surgical 2x4 when I need it?

Should I make out the check to the U.N.?