DanG

I can see the S&TA waiver the altitude for PRO level demos without much liability risk. For regular jumps, after a couple years no one is going to ask for a 2,000ft opening altitude anyway. 2,500 will be the new norm, which is fine given the majority of gear out there these days. - Dan G

I don't think you're an extremist. What are your views on religion in government? I don't think you've talked about it much. One of the things that marks a right wing extremist to me is that they want the government to be explicitly run on Christian principles. This includes Christian prayer in public schools, Christian based laws, and rejection of laws that could be in conflict with Christian concepts (gay marriage comes to mind). - Dan G

When HBO did "Game Change" about Sarah Palin I didn't hear anyone complain about equal time. Of course, it painted a less than flattering picture, but by most accounts, it was pretty damn accurate. The GOP complainers don't know if the Hillary movie will be all puppies and roses, but I doubt it will. - Dan G

I know in Virginia, and probably most states, there is a statute of limitations on such claims. In Virginia it is 2 years. Just a reality check. - Dan G

You're right, I realized that's what he meant. Of course, he can't just say that. - Dan G

It does have to do with wikipedia. Call me what you will. If I've mischaracterized what you're trying to say, please correct me. I believe you're saying that ThinThread would have stopped 9/11, but the current programs wouldn't. Is that it? If not, you're going to have to try a couple complete sentences. - Dan G

So you're saying that wiretapping US citizens, with privacy standards in place, would reduce terrorist attacks, but for some reason removing those privacy standards renders the same information useless against terrorists? That makes no sense. - Dan G

I've never been an S&TA, but I was a DZ club president (unpaid) for three years. We had two fatalities during that time, both students. believe me, I felt like it was pretty hung out there. BTW, one of the student's family sued the DZ. They didn't name the S&TA, but did name the instructor. That's only one data point, but it shows that the S&TA is not the only person who takes on liability when they show up to the DZ. Has an S&TA ever been personally named in a lawsuit? I'd be interested to know. - Dan G

It's not BS, it's true. If we shut the NSA down entirely, the risk of attack will go up. How much? No one knows, but it's silly to say that it won't. I'm personally willing to accept that risk to increase freedom. Many are not. I find that sad, but it's true. - Dan G

I was attacking your position, not you personally. Anyway, I'm done regardless. I've made my points, you've made yours. We won't agree on this, clearly. - Dan G

Raising the minimum depolyment altitude won't improve the odds for someone without an AAD? You're off the deep end on that. Of course it will. As far as the jumper who cuts away low, you're right that the manufacturers need to fix any problems with their gear. That's the only fix for someone who cuts away low. But you can't simultaneously hold the position that AAD users should adjust their procedures, but people with slow opening reserves, or super tight packs jobs shouldn't. If we're going to put it all on the individual jumper, then there's no need to change the rigs or canopies. People should be aware that their gear combination is more likely to open slow, and adjust accordingly. That's essentially your position regarding AAD users, why doesn't that apply to other gear choices? Are BSRs that are currently S&TA waiverable never waived? Of course they are, if the S&TA thinks the operations can still be conducted safely. If they can't, then the S&TA is right to refuse to waive a requirement. At my DZ we had a waiver for student landing area size for years. By your argument, no S&TA would ever waive that requirement, but it, and others, get waived all the time. - Dan G

The risk of a two-out will go up. Two-outs are not as dangerous as no-outs, but the frequency of potential two-out situations is a lot higher than the frequency of no pulls. One of the main reasons people give for not using an AAD is that they don't want a safety device that could increase their risk in certain cimcumstances. Raising the AAD deployment altitude without adjusting general behavior regarding activation altitudes and hard decks will increase the risk that a safety device will kill someone. - Dan G

You guys are the master of the dodge. Don't want to discuss a topic? Fall back on an old standby partisan jab. Very impressive. My point was, this has been going on for a long time. The fault lies in a lot of places. If we want it to stop, we need to make it a priority issue. We also need to be prepared to accept that the risk of a terrorist attack will go up some small amount. I'm fine with that risk, but many people on both sides of the aisle are not. - Dan G

Yeah, I was trying to see if you were one of those people who think all rules are bad. As far as the gist of your argument, it really makes no sense. So you like the rule (or at least don't dislike it) but you're hung up on why it was implemented. Are lives saved only valuable if they are saved for the "right" reason? Can you not understand the complicated "if...then" structure of the BOD logic? The ultimate reason behind the rule (IMO) was to save lives. There are two ways to do this vis a vis the current problem. One, which you are right to demand, is to fix the slow reserve deployment issues through rig/canopy redesign. Even if everyone involved jumped on that immediately, it would take years to be effective. The second way to fix the problem is to raise deployment altitude, thereby letting the AAD manufacturers raise their firing altitude. Of course they're going to want to limit their liability. Why wouldn't they? Allowing the AAD manufacturers to make the change be liability neutral is not "being a mouthpiece" for anyone. It's addressing a problem in an expeditious way. As far as adding liability to an S&TA, you're right in a gross sense, but the difference is that an S&TA can evaluate each jump/jumper/event/situation individually. If they feel the liability (read risk of injury/death) is too high, then they should refuse the waiver. That's the S&TA's job, using their knowledge to make jumps as safe as possible. If they don't want to do that, they should get out of the S&TA position. - Dan G

I'd wager you're right. What does that have to do with anything? Or is everything bad in the history of the US now Obama's fault? - Dan G

Just to figure out where you're coming from, can you name a BSR that you agree with? - Dan G

And you were probably in junior high in the J. Edgar Hoover/McCarthy era. It wasn't true then, either. Can you imagine what J. Edgar wlould have done with today's technology? - Dan G

Why should the pilot be punished for the bad actions of the jumper? Without this BSR, there is nothing USPA can do to punish jumpers that try to jump drunk. The drunk jumper only runs afoul of the rules if they manage to succeed in jumping drunk. With the new BSR, jumpers, and more importantly instructors, can have USPA action initiated against them for trying to jump drunk, even if they don't succeed. And, enforcement is no longer limited to the pilot, who's done nothing wrong. - Dan G

In general I agree. The photography was great, the effects were not intrusive or over the top, and the plot was good up until the end. My biggest problem, though, was internal consistency. SPOILER ALERT!!! The baddie used an army of Tom Cruise clones to take over the world. What did it fool them into thinking? They all obviously knew that they were clones, why keep that a secret from maintenance man Tom Cruise? If it can get an army of clones to destroy their own planet, why does it need such an elaborate ruse to keep a few maintenance men working? The answer: to keep the audience fooled. As soon as I found out the overall storyline, the fourth wall was broken for me. The movie was trying to keep a Sixth Sense type secret from the audience, but the secret didn't fit with the universe created to house the secret. - Dan G

Do you think there should be no BSRs at all? - Dan G

What?!? I thought that was a documentary. - Dan G

Um, no thanks. SPOILER ALERT!!! The whole method of invasion made no sense. Why go through the trouble? The only way the species can attack a planet is make clones of whoever they send up, and then fool them into thinking they're fighting for the good guys? Please. And more importantly, why let him onto the mothership at the end? You've got technology capable of all the shit that the aliens can do, but you can't tell that there's a bomb on the ship (that you made)? It seemed like about 3/4 of the way through filming they sat down and said, "Okay, how are we going to end this thing?" - Dan G

That movie sucked balls. It was visually great, but the plot, especially the ending, made absolutely no sense. - Dan G

Um no. The "death panels" do not look at individual cases and decide what treatments a patient gets. They set rates for treatments, and determine which treatments are prefered on a cost vs. effectiveness basis. - Dan G

I had no idea of the politics of any of my engineering professors. Even the liberal arts ones weren't always obvious. My limited experience is that political indoctrination is not nearly as prevalent as some would have you think. - Dan G