Zennie

Since I was listening to Megadeth just this morning on the way to work, and since we're on the topic of skydiving celebrities.... does anyone know if Dave Mustaine still skydives regularly? And how 'bout Dexter Holland & Noodles? I read something somewhere about Dexter doing Birdman jumps and Noodles BASE jumping. Just coo-rious. "Zero Tolerance: the politically correct term for zero thought, zero common sense."

Another thumbs-up for Mandrake. The install is a breeze and it supports my dual flatpanel monitors without a problem. "Zero Tolerance: the politically correct term for zero thought, zero common sense."

Absolutely. Nobody should stay in a one-way relationship. Heck that isn't even a relationship. Nor should one tolerate psychological or physical abuse. It's all dependent on circumstances, of course. My comments were more of a general lament with people today just giving up on relationships without ever really trying to work through the inevitable tough times. I don't think Skystorm's relationship is worth staying in. Sounds like he's pretty psychologically abusive. I'm just saying don't expect even the good ones not to be work. "Zero Tolerance: the politically correct term for zero thought, zero common sense."

Communication is everything. Most bad relationships are the result of poor/nonexistent communication. Just from what you've written it doesn't sound like he's terribly interested in that, even though you've tried. Being married for going on seven years, and been with the same person for 10, with many changes on both our parts in between, I'm here to tell you we would never have made it without both of us working terribly hard at cultivating our relationship. That means communicating and compromising. It also means sticking with it even when you're initial feeling is to say "Fuck it". Now in your case, you aren't married and you've only been together a year. You've sort of seen what he's all about and, quite frankly, I don't think he's interested in doing what needs to be done to maintain a relationship. So yeah a cutaway is in order. But, just understand, there is no such thing as a perfect relationship. Even in the best relationships you'll have your share of fights. Just be discriminating of who you are getting involved with and what their attitudes about relationships are. Make sure they basically jibe with yours. Don't get too head-over-heels too fast. People always are on their best behavior when a relationship starts out. You don't see the "real" person until much later. Just my $0.02. "Zero Tolerance: the politically correct term for zero thought, zero common sense."

I'd consider it another flavor of UNIX. But then again, I consider Linux really a flavor of UNIX. The "other" I would consider the mainframe stuff like AIX and VMS. As far as DBs go, I've heard good things about mySQL. The only problem with the Linux DBs is that they don't have trigger or stored procedure support. That's why I tend to favor Oracle. Which, BTW, does anyone know if there's an Oracle for Linux? "Zero Tolerance: the politically correct term for zero thought, zero common sense."

You have one of those too eh? Only mine's a she. I cringe every time she goes back into the computer room because all I wind up hearing is a bunch of swearing and then she comes out in a foul mood. Oh, and if it's between Gateway and Dell, I'd go with Dell, their customer service is better from what I hear. "Zero Tolerance: the politically correct term for zero thought, zero common sense."

Amen. When I read the subject, the first thought that popped into my head was "Frankenstein".... "Zero Tolerance: the politically correct term for zero thought, zero common sense."

I hate you. I hate you all. "Zero Tolerance: the politically correct term for zero thought, zero common sense."

Curse you!!!! I'm going to be stuck at work troubleshooting Internet Component Download all week. Any .inf file Gods out there? May be able to skip out early & head to S-land on Friday though.

Or in Clay's case, Merry Meat. "Zero Tolerance: the politically correct term for zero thought, zero common sense."

Congrats! Keep it up! The real test when you first quit is to be able to refrain from smoking when out drinking. You do that and you know you have it licked. "Zero Tolerance: the politically correct term for zero thought, zero common sense."

Yeah New Orleans rocks. Great food, great music, great architecture. I spent two days just walking around with my camera. And yeah, I'm a midwest to Texas transplant myself. May I recommend Houston? "Zero Tolerance: the politically correct term for zero thought, zero common sense."

This post is a follow-up to Richard's "Blue Skies Shane" thread in the Talk Back forum. I'm crossposting it in Talk Back, Safety & Training, and Swooping & Canopy Control forums so that maybe people can learn from it. As I said in my post, I wasn't there when it happened, but I've talked to people who witnessed it. One point of clarification... Shane wasn't filming a tandem. He never filmed tandems, though he was learning to fly camera. This is what happened as far as what I've gathered from others... Shane exited a Cessna and had an uneventful jump & canopy deployment. At somehere between 60 and 100 feet, flying downwind, he initated a hard front riser 180. He hit the ground still in double-fronts. My understanding is that he wasn't flying too-heavily a loaded canopy... somewhere between 1.4 & 1.7. Still obviously enough to kill you. It is also my understanding that he was not really known for doing hook turns. That's what puzzled a lot of people. The two theories being floated around are: 1. He was low, downwind and heading for the tree-lined fenceline. Being boxed in, he decied to try to get back into the wind, opting for a riser turn rather than a toggle hook. 2. The fact that he, procedurally, did a textbook 180 front riser turn indicates he was doing an intentional hook. He initiated with a front riser and finished in double fronts. Both theories have their problems. If he was boxed in, why not opt for a braked turn? And why would you be in double fronts at the end of it if you're just trying to get turned around? If he was really trying a hook turn for the first time, why so incredibly low? Ultimately, why he decided to try a hard front riser 180, so close to the ground, for apparently the first time, is only known by him. None of this is intended to be casting blame. The best we can do from terrible accidents such as this is to try and learn from them. That is the spirit in which this is offered. And if anyone here did witness the accident or knows I got something wrong, please offer your correction. Blue skies forever Shane. Let's all play safe! "Zero Tolerance: the politically correct term for zero thought, zero common sense."

This post is a follow-up to Richard's "Blue Skies Shane" thread in the Talk Back forum. I'm crossposting it in Talk Back, Safety & Training, and Swooping & Canopy Control forums so that maybe people can learn from it. As I said in my post, I wasn't there when it happened, but I've talked to people who witnessed it. One point of clarification... Shane wasn't filming a tandem. He never filmed tandems, though he was learning to fly camera. This is what happened as far as what I've gathered from others... Shane exited a Cessna and had an uneventful jump & canopy deployment. At somehere between 60 and 100 feet, flying downwind, he initated a hard front riser 180. He hit the ground still in double-fronts. My understanding is that he wasn't flying too-heavily a loaded canopy... somewhere between 1.4 & 1.7. Still obviously enough to kill you. It is also my understanding that he was not really known for doing hook turns. That's what puzzled a lot of people. The two theories being floated around are: 1. He was low, downwind and heading for the tree-lined fenceline. Being boxed in, he decied to try to get back into the wind, opting for a riser turn rather than a toggle hook. 2. The fact that he, procedurally, did a textbook 180 front riser turn indicates he was doing an intentional hook. He initiated with a front riser and finished in double fronts. Both theories have their problems. If he was boxed in, why not opt for a braked turn? And why would you be in double fronts at the end of it if you're just trying to get turned around? If he was really trying a hook turn for the first time, why so incredibly low? Ultimately, why he decided to try a hard front riser 180, so close to the ground, for apparently the first time, is only known by him. None of this is intended to be casting blame. The best we can do from terrible accidents such as this is to try and learn from them. That is the spirit in which this is offered. And if anyone here did witness the accident or knows I got something wrong, please offer your correction. Blue skies forever Shane. Let's all play safe! "Zero Tolerance: the politically correct term for zero thought, zero common sense."

This post is a follow-up to Richard's "Blue Skies Shane" thread in the Talk Back forum. I'm crossposting it in Talk Back, Safety & Training, and Swooping & Canopy Control forums so that maybe people can learn from it. As I said in my post, I wasn't there when it happened, but I've talked to people who witnessed it. One point of clarification... Shane wasn't filming a tandem. He never filmed tandems, though he was learning to fly camera. This is what happened as far as what I've gathered from others... Shane exited a Cessna and had an uneventful jump & canopy deployment. At somehere between 60 and 100 feet, flying downwind, he initated a hard front riser 180. He hit the ground still in double-fronts. My understanding is that he wasn't flying too-heavily a loaded canopy... somewhere between 1.4 & 1.7. Still obviously enough to kill you. It is also my understanding that he was not really known for doing hook turns. That's what puzzled a lot of people. The two theories being floated around are: 1. He was low, downwind and heading for the tree-lined fenceline. Being boxed in, he decied to try to get back into the wind, opting for a riser turn rather than a toggle hook. 2. The fact that he, procedurally, did a textbook 180 front riser turn indicates he was doing an intentional hook. He initiated with a front riser and finished in double fronts. Both theories have their problems. If he was boxed in, why not opt for a braked turn? And why would you be in double fronts at the end of it if you're just trying to get turned around? If he was really trying a hook turn for the first time, why so incredibly low? Ultimately, why he decided to try a hard front riser 180, so close to the ground, for apparently the first time, is only known by him. None of this is intended to be casting blame. The best we can do from terrible accidents such as this is to try and learn from them. That is the spirit in which this is offered. And if anyone here did witness the accident or knows I got something wrong, please offer your correction. Blue skies forever Shane. Let's all play safe! "Zero Tolerance: the politically correct term for zero thought, zero common sense."

My condolences to you, Shane's wife and family and all of his friends. I was really hoping he would pull through. I'm sure the details of the accident will be out soon. I wasn't there the Friday it happened, but I was there the day after and talked to people who witnessed it. "Zero Tolerance: the politically correct term for zero thought, zero common sense."

Hey Frank, This isn't a subject I've taken lightly. I honestly think that an RSL would cause me more problems than it would solve. That's why I don't have one. I know many disagree on this, but this is my choice and I will either live or die with it. I personally think my odds of living with it are pretty good. Thus my decision. YMMV.

As soon as I got off student status I unhooked it. There are just too many situations where if you have one, you have to remember to unhook it. If I don't have one, I just have to remember one thing... if I pull the red pillow, pull the silver handle. And if I forget to pull the silver handle... then I guess Darwin was right. "Zero Tolerance: the politically correct term for zero thought, zero common sense."

Bwahahahaha!!! Thta's good, but your landings have been good every time I've seen them. Just keep me around, maybe I'm your good luck charm. "Zero Tolerance: the politically correct term for zero thought, zero common sense."

Heh. I have the ultimate BattleBot. It's called a 12 gauge Remington 1100. Put an end to that real quick. "Zero Tolerance: the politically correct term for zero thought, zero common sense."

Well my family seems to fit the results of the poll. I'm the oldest of two. My bro is about the same as me in terms of trying just about anything. Hell, we've bungee jumped together. My Dad races cars (teaches road racing, actually) so I'm guessing it's a genetic thing. What's funny is that he can wreck his car, and he still thinks I'm crazy for wanting to BASE jump. Go figure. "Zero Tolerance: the politically correct term for zero thought, zero common sense."

Heya Eric! Glad to see you made it to the boards!

Boy... Pad Thai. Chocolate chip cookie dough blizzards. A good margarita. Quality time with family. Montana. A good skydive (RW, freefly, swoop, it doesn't matter). A good scuba dive. The Bears winning the Super Bowl.

Yep. Even Liz, who isn't into hard rock at all, said "He's actually kind of likable!". He totally doesn't take himself seriously. They're actually fairly normal... in a weird and funny sort of way. "Zero Tolerance: the politically correct term for zero thought, zero common sense."

Yeah, that's pretty much as rough as it can get. My thoughts and best wishes go out to you. As far as the worst thing to happen to me? I can't really say because even the bad things shape your life in one way or another. What's "good" or "bad"? It's hard to say because they're events that make you who you are now. "Good" & "bad" is just a label for our interpretation of the event. I mean I pretty much pissed away my entire college experience. Four years pretty much gone (with 2 DWIs in there). I lost my job at Enron last December. My Mom has had cancer once and my Dad twice. Bad things. But I am who I am now because of them and I'm pretty content. If those things hadn't happened, who knows where I'd be now, who I'd be married to (if anyone) and what I'd be doing. This isn't meant to take away from anybody's pain. But I guess I see life as sort of a journey. The road has been pretty rocky sometimes, pretty smooth sometimes, but here I am.