DanG

[cranky] Or the approximately 7 million other threads asking the exact same question. At the risk of being squashed like a bug, is there something about weighing more than 250# that makes it impossible to use the Search function? This question keeps getting asked, and the responses are always the same. [/cranky] - Dan G

Why anyone would want anything other than D-22351 is beyond me. A-50000 jumps at my DZ. He's not a VIP (he's a punk ass packer, much love John), his paper just happened to be in the right spot in the stack. - Dan G

Thank you. We're making progress now. Rush, pay attention, that wasn't so hard. Something less obviously biased would be prefered, but I'll take it. I've got to question the statement that he made 1,400 interviews on this topic. At an average of 30 minutes each, that's 87.5 eight hour days of nothing but interviews. If that were the case, he's have to spend over four working months of doing nothing other than granting media interviews. I doubt it. 1,400 news stories citing or quoting him is much more believable. Here's some of the articles talking about Hansen's complaints (taken from Wikipedia cites): http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/science/earth/29climate.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19162-2005Jan18.html http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1555183 That took me about three minutes. - Dan G

1) 1500ft above highest deployment is the minimum recommended breakoff. It needs to be higher if you are doing anything other than a 4-way or smaller RW. Higher speeds, larger groups, less experienced people, are all reasons to increase the break-off altitude. 2) Tracking perpendicular to jump-run is only practical on a 2-way. Anything larger, and the need to get away from the people in your group takes precedence over the need to stay away from the next group. 3) The "flare" period of three seconds should include waving and looking. If you track for 5-6 seconds, flare for three, and then wave and pull you're going to need more than 1500' to do it in. When I work with students, I not only give them an altitude for pulling, but I make sure they realize that the pulll procedure (waving while looking for others, reaching, and throwing) should start about 500' feet above the intended opening altitude. - Dan G

I'd venture to say that when a geologist makes claims about the economy people tend not to view his opinion as expert. Why should an economist making claims about ecology be viewed any differently? - Dan G

Yes or no question: did you read the paper, or just the synopsis on the climatesci.org page? I don't think the paper says what you think it says. It fact, it doesn't say anything about global, long-term climate change, or its possible causes. But don't let that get in the way. Keep posting links to things you haven't read or don't understand. - Dan G

Are you even fucking listening to yourself? What you've posted "proves" nothing other than the fact that you don't read what you write (or what any body else writes, for that matter). Hansen has not been quoted or referenced by anything your posted other than an article that says some other guy at NASA disagrees with him. You haven't shown anything with regard to him being hushed up other than the other guy claiming he wasn't, and then turning around and saying that Hansen was violating policy by speaking out. Which is it? Either he was allowed to say what he wanted, or he wasn't. You can't have it both ways. Frustration level is rising. Now I remember why I usually don't bother. - Dan G

It also must hurt keeping your head buried in the sand. Oh snap. I pointed out your error about five posts ago. If you'd read what people wrote before replying it might make this easier on everyone. - Dan G

Hansen not mentioned. Please read before replying. God you're frustrating. - Dan G

My necks hurts sometimes. I think I sleep on it funny. What the fuck does that mean? And why post a reply with a link to another thread that discusses the exact same thing? Yet again another example of your belief in quantity over quality. - Dan G

Please read before replying. The original link (Post 1) did not refer to Hansen at all. Your second link was about a guy who was characterized as Hansen's boss (although he wasn't), who thinks Hansen is wrong. Neither link says that Hansen is a denier. Neither link discusses Hansen's being hushed up. Please stop asserting your beliefs as factual and then posting links to unrelated articles as proof. You're wasting everyone's time. - Dan G

As pointed out in another thread, the analyst in question is an economist, not a scientist. The EPA claims they included his report in their internal review and incorporated some of itys suggestions in the final report. Cover-up? Maybe. But not quite as black and white as it seems on its face. - Dan G

Also from the link: What happened to your passion for hearing both sides of the story? Only when the other side is yours? - Dan G

Source for either? The previous cite, as I pointed out, was some other guy at NASA saying how Hansen was wrong. And the fact that Hansen had to violate employees rules sort of implies that he was told to keep quiet. There's a profile of Hansen in last week's New Yorker. He is most certainly not a skeptic. - Dan G

Or, maybe you're relying on the fact that people are lazy, because even a cursory review of your links shows they are not at all what you claim. Do you read the shit you reference? This blogger actually wrote the following on the cited page, "Just stop spewing so much of that bad old CO2 stuff - you know that pesky gas that comes from things like trees and plants - into the air and everything will be just dandy." Please continue to take your environmental advice from people who think trees emit CO2. That piece (written by Congressional Republicans) is about how someone else thinks Hansen is wrong. I don't have time to read all the links provided, but quite a large number of them are not from peer-reviewed journals as claimed, some are even from blogs and non-scientific news outlets. Also, that link is from 2007, so it hard to say how much of that information has been refuted. Not sure what you're trying to show here. The link brings up a blank search page. Thanks anyway. Just putting a bunch of URL's that you haven't read into a response is not the same as providing evidence of anything. - Dan G

You're seriously complaining about US taxes to a Brit? - Dan G

Thanks. This is exactly why America won't get off the oil teat until it is too late. - Dan G

I realize you are being over-the-top and sarcastic, but I don't think JohnRich is. 1. No one ever said the EP was a worthless document, and no one certainly said (as JohnRich claimed) that it should be denounced. 2. Slavery did persist past the end of the war, to deny that is to deny history. The institution does not persist, but I think most (realistic) people would admit that the average black American does not start on equal footing with the average white American even to this day. 3. I can't comment on JohnRich's current slave holdings. He is, after all, a Texan. 4. The congress essentially spent all of zero time on this. The resolution was read aloud to a mostly empty chamber, and voted on by lack of dissention. The implication that this resolution was a waste of time implies that there was actual time spent on it. There has been more time wasted bitching about this on dz.com that actually spent on it by the congress. Sheesh people, who cares? - Dan G

Where's the poll option for, "Who gives a shit about this 'story'?" - Dan G

For those of us on the sidelines, can you explain why you used the term "Precedent" when refering to the President? I don't get it. - Dan G

No there wasn't. - Dan G

I suggest you read the article. The author does a much better job of explaining the situation than I can. That being said, no one is implying that a profit is a bad thing. The problem comes when doctors place the desire for profit over the needs of the patient. One example given in the article is how doctors are paid to be consultants to hospitals and clinics and basically being bribed (legally) to send their patients to the same facilities for unnecessary work. The problem is not with small practice physicians, it only becomes a problem when those physicians become interwoven into a network of clinics, labs, and hospitals who all profit by patients rotating through their facilitiies whether they need the care or not. The author (who is a physician) makes the point that it doesn't really matter who writes the checks (the patient, private insurance, or the government) as long as the decisions for what care to provide are being decided based on the botttom line and not the health of the patient. - Dan G

There was a fascinating article in the New Yorker recently about culture change beeing necessary to save US healthcare. The fascinating part is that the culture needing change is the doctors', not the patients. The article (long but very good) is here: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande My short synopsis: doctors in many areas have created business structures and institutions where they are rewarded by the quantity of care they provide, not the quality. The author contrasts the most expensive region in the country (McAllen, TX) with other similarly sized regions, and finds that the quantity of care (tests, specialists visits, surgeries, etc) being provided in McAllen is much higher than other areas, but the quality of care is no better. He describes the culture of the doctors working in McAllen and other high cost areas as one driven by a strong profit motive instead of a desire to treat and heal patients. To bring down healthcare costs in the US, he suggests we need to find ways to compensate doctors other than by how many tests and labs they order. One suggestion is to pay doctors a salary instead of paying them by the procedure. This method is one of the things that sets the Mayo clinic apart from others. The doctors are free to treat patients as their condition requires without woorying about their personal bottom line. - Dan G

I thought the right didn't believe in moral relativism. Guess that's true only when convenient. - Dan G

You may be right about the leg straps. Another thing to think about is your head position. Keeping your chin up will not only help accentuate the arch in your upper body, but will give you a better reference on the horizon to help you control pitch with your arms. A lot of newer jumpers experience the same type of instability you're experiencing, you just have fewer control surfaces. Overcorrection is a common problem, meaning that when you feel yourself pitching forward, you give input to pitch back, then when you pitch back you give input to pitch forward, and the cycle intensifies. The wind tunnel is a great place to work you how much control input to give, and when. Good luck. - Dan G