DanG

We have to do something. I have no problem with cruise missile strikes. You can be assured that there will be some sort of international coalition, but the UN will not act. (To insert the SC required partisan rant: I'd like to point out that 99% of the time, conservatives have nothing but disdain for the UN. The one time it might make Obama look bad, suddenly the UN is the gold standard of international prestige) Nuclear/biological/chemical (NBC) weapons are the worst kind of indiscriminate weapons. It is impossible to isolate damage to military targets. With conventional weapons, damage can be limited to military targets. Obviously, it often is not limited, but the capability is there. The only purpose for NBC weapons is to terrorize a population. The international community should not tolerate their use. Period. And please don't argue that we used them in the past, so can't protest their use now. That's like saying to your child that if he bites his sister, he should never speak up when he sees another kid biting. Hopefully we've learned from our past. We need to pass those lessons on. - Dan G

Unnecessary BS aside. I thought you were above that. - Dan G

The rules aren't for smart people who know they can't open their main within a few hundred feet of their AAD activation altitude. The rules are for the guy who (at Orange years ago) had an AAD fire and two-out after a helicopter jump. It never even occured to him that sucking it down low (because the helicopter was only giving 5,000ft) could result in a two-out. And yes, he had most certainly been taught this in his student days, which were years behind him. You're right. This will not affect most people directly. It will however, change attitudes about what is "low". Given the state of modern gear, and the trend toward slower and slower opening canopies, I think that is a good thing. - Dan G

Let's assume for the sake of argument that raising the minimum pull altitude means people will actually pull highigher. I've seen the argument here that people will continue to pull low, but that's begging the question, so I'd like to put it aside for now. If people pull higher, they will have longer to deal with a partial malfunction before getting to the point that their reserve is useless. Don't discount the extra time. There have been fatalities, including recently, where people futzed around with partial malfunctions, finally gave up, and cutaway too low to survive. If they had a few extra seconds, perhaps they would have either fixed their problem, or cutaway at a survivable altitude. My last cutaway happened when I hit my hard deck after messing with a spinning line twist. I was just about out of the twists. The temptation was there to keep working on it for just a little longer. I can't see how having an extra 7-10 seconds of working time could possibly hurt in a situation like that. The only thing that cures a loss of altitude awareness is become altitude aware. If you have another 7-10 seconds for that to happen, it's better than being interrupted by impact. I don't agree that preventing two-outs is a dubious concern. Two-outs are rarely fatal, but they are most certainly dangerous, and can turn an uneventful low pull into a life threatening situation. - Dan G

I know of a paralyzed skydiver that made a handful of jumps after he lost use of his legs in a plane crash. He had to quit after breaking his femur on his last jump. IIRC, he was trying out a new harness/leg restraint system that didn't go so well. The plane crash was in 1996. I'm not sure when he made his jumps, but probably around 1997. He is still active in the sport, but doesn't jump anymore. - Dan G

The War on Whites is just as real as the War on Christmas. I'm guessing that a Venn diagram of the people who believe in each would indistiguishable from a circle. - Dan G

I'm not going down this road again, I've written about it extensively in other threads. But, in response to: Obviously not. But they should arrest everyone who kills someone else in a public area. - Dan G

BTW, sorry for the "Pay attention" line. That was unnecessarily snarky. I though you were intentionally missing my point, but I see now I just wasn't being very clear about it. - Dan G

My argument is perfectly vaild if you believe the courts decide guilt or innocence, not the cops. I'm not in a gang, so I don't know what peeling a cap on a wood is. What am I supposed to wake up to? That the Man is now after whitey? Give me a break. - Dan G

The topic of discussion is whether this case is a reverse Trayvon case, as it relates to racial outrage. I contend it is not, because the perps are not being let go without a trial. If Zimmerman had been arrested, and charged with murder from the get-go, none of us would have ever heard of that case. - Dan G

Okay, I'll play the "whatever" game. If you aren't going to listen, there's no point in talking. - Dan G

Please pay attention. The outrage happened because initially Zimmerman was never even going to appear before a court of law. That's what people objected to, among other things. - Dan G

The main difference between the two cases, at least as pertains to this discussion, is that the murderers in this case aren't being let free. If they were let go, the profile of this case would go through the roof. - Dan G

As if this guy is landing anywhere near the DZ. - Dan G

I think you're misremembering what the outrage was about (not that I agreed with the outrage). In the Trayvon Martin case, people were upset because they thought that Zimmerman targeted Martin because he was black, and then the police decided not to arrest him for the murder. Again, I didn't agree with the racial rage, but this case is not at all similar. - Dan G

That might be true if the government were taking any action against the clown. As far as I know, it's just a (stupid) private entity bending to (stupid) pressure from another (stupid) private entity. There are no Constitutional protections against (stupid) private entities. - Dan G

In part I do disagree. I think most of the political sniping lawrockt is talking about happens in the media and non-scientific community. Scientist can surely be petty and motivated by ego or politics, but the vast majority are quitely working away, not getting in the public eye or appearing on talk shows. And, in the same vein, lighten up, Francis. - Dan G

Fixed that for you. - Dan G

QED - Dan G

You know who else loved parades? Nazi's, that's who. Please note winky, I'm joking. Personally, I hate parades. Of course, I hate free form jazz, too. There's a happy middle ground between absolute uniformity, and anarchy. Having one's own ideas is not a bad thing. - Dan G

Whatever. Every time certain posters post something about Obama, two or three others predictably post cheesy one-liners in support. It's just groupthink, and it's annoying. - Dan G

This thread is the perfect demonstration that to some people, the only valuable amendment is the 2nd. I'd like to note that those people self-identify as conservatives. - Dan G

And the right wing high five trifecta is complete! - Dan G

The Muslim Brotherhood isn't getting the funding. The military which performed the coup would be getting it. Don't you get that? - Dan G

Stop and frisk infringes the rights of honest citizens. - Dan G