DanG

Right, which is why you should have a pre-set direction, not a first-man down rule. I agree, but what does that have to do with landing direction? They would have some hint of the landing direction, if you have a pre-determined direction instead of a first-man down rule. None of your points reflect situations where a first-man down rule would be superior. - Dan G

I can't stand the first man down rule. It creates a number of safety hazzards in my opinion: 1. People are expected to keep their eyes on the landing area to make sure they spot the first person's direction instrad of scanning their immediate surroundings for other canopies. 2. The second person down may have already set themselves up to land in one direction when they get passed by someone else. Now what is the third man supposed to do? 3. AFF students (off radio) are often landing well after everyone else is down. How are they supposed to know which way to land? I prefer a tetrahedron or pre-declared landing direction. I fail to see why this is not a better solution. Some people have said that they prefer the first-man down rule in places where the winds are strong, but change direction. Why is a mystery direction set by a swooper preferable to a predetermined direction even in those cases? How is someone supposed to elect to land off because they don't like the direction if they don't know what that direction is until 10 seconds before they land? Trying to follow the first man down rule is like trying to be safe at a DZ where the DZO walks over to the windsock and holds it at some random angle just as you get on your base leg. It is unsafe. - Dan G

If four people out of the eight way go low, then the base was too slow. If one person goes low, it's easy to blame him, but if half of your group is low, you need to pick up the fall rate. - Dan G

'Kala kadu' means melon head. That's the only jibe I remember since it was innocent enough to use with kids. It probably wouldn't work in the application at hand, although imagining Clint Eastwood saying, "Go ahead, melon head, make my day," gives me a smile. - Dan G

We did. They keep coming back. - Dan G

The war in Afghanistan is not about killing bin Laden or Mullah Omar. Afghanistan is a fertile ground for extremists of all stripes. In fact, if I had to pick anywhere in the world to start up a terrorist group, Afghanistan would be at the top of the list. You have the following main ingredients: an uneducated, illitertate population of mostly young and unemployed people, no functioning central or local government, extremely rugged terrain that is hard to patrol, a xenophobic, warrior culture, essentially unlimited funding from the poppy trade, and weapons of all kinds that are readily available. It is the perfect storm for extremism. Until we fix all these issues, Afghanistan will continue to be a global problem. We are already de facto working with the Taliban, although I don't know if you'd call it negotiations. When I was in Afghanistan there were a number of mid-to-high level authorities who were known to be actively working with the Taliban. We worked with them, too, when it benefitted the immediate situation. When they became less useful to us, they were arrested. In the real world the lines of goodie vs. baddie are not so clear. We should negotiate with the Taliban to end the current violence so that we can get started on the real problems listed above. The Taliban should have a seat at the table if they agree to put down their arms and recognize the central and provincial governments' authorities. Afghanistan has decades to go before it is a stable country. Even after the last shot is fired, we need to stay there and rebuild, teach, and strengthen the national and local institions. Unfortunately, I doubt we will, but I can always hope. - Dan G

Where is that from? When I was much more current my decision altitude was 1,500ft. I've since increased it to 1,800ft. I decided that all by myself. There is no "minimum". - Dan G

If there are no moving parts, how is the heat tranferred into electricity? Or does that happen remotely from the concrete unit and is not considered part of the nuclear system? I'm assuming these mini-plants are just steam powered turbines like conventional nuke plants, but have no need for an active control system? The article didn't provide any technical info. - Dan G

You are assuming that elderly ladies are immune to the corrupting influence of absolute power. I doubt it. The only potential benefits to restricting the franchise exist in fairy tales and science fiction. In the real world there is no evidence that a class of intelligent, educated, and wise souls exist that would selflessly make decisions for the good of the unwashed masses. In the real world those people become dictators. - Dan G

I see the regular cycle of elections as an important check on absolute authority. Any additional restriction on the right to vote above a simple age and citizenship requirement would create the potential to remove that check. As soon as the ruling group is given the ability to restrict who has a voice, they will no longer need to be responsive to the will of the populous. This is the argument for universal sufferage from a practical standpoint. From an ethical standpoint, the government is charged with creating and enforcing laws that concern all of the people of the country. Since the laws apply equally to all, all should have an equal voice in the direction of government. Our current system of government assumes that citizens have equal legal rights, and equal legal responsibilities. By limiting the franchise to certain people, the balance is not maintained. Expecting all of the citizens to abide by the same legal responsibilities, but not grant them the same rights, is unethical. Congrats on the book deal. Are you writing a book for general consumption, or it is more academic in nature? - Dan G

There was a tandem incident. I'll be posting something in Incidents later today. - Dan G

Sigh. Whites and blacks are equal. They do not, however, have an equal history. Would you call a white friend, "boy?" How about a black friend? Can you not see that certain words or symbols can be perfectly harmless when taken in a neutral context, but can still be racially charged? If you can't, then forget it, I clearly won't get you to see things from a historical perspective. - Dan G

And the disorderly conduct arrest could have been for their behavior during the arrest, or during the actual hanging of the effigy. You're dying to find a double standard here that is not backed up by the article. And frankly, if you want to get past the platitudes and other bullshit, there is a double standard. White mobs publicly hanging black people from trees was done in the post-bellum South as a means of racial intimidation and coersion. The same can not be said about blacks hanging whites. Right or wrong, saying the noose is not taken as a symbol of racial hatred and threats is like saying burning crosses are just done because it gives off a nice light. You have intentional blinders on if you believe otherwise. - Dan G

Yes you can. Just call and ask them to stop sending you one. It may take a month, but it'll stop coming. (You don't get a discount, but do save a tree). - Dan G

The point is, that when you have 100 jumps, 150 jumps may seem like "many". When you have 1000 jumps, 150 jumps is not so much. The least number of jumps I've put on a canopy before downsizing is 300, and that was between jump 100 and 400 when I went from a Sabre 170 to a Spectre 150. It seemed like a lot of jumps at the time. Now, not so much. Your experience level does matter when talking about downsizing. That's all there is to it. If you are insecure because you dont have a lot of jumps, that's your bag, but don't expect to get experienced related advice if you're not willing to post your experience. And if you actually bothered to read everything, you'll see that a lot of people, myself included, have tried to give you practical advice. No one was attacking you until you climbed up on the "jump numbers are meaningless" high horse. - Dan G

Actually, that comment wasn't referencing you, AggieDave. I'm sorry that wasn't clear. I was trying to say that gearless_chris was wrong regarding crabbing. His advice could actually be dangerous if someone found themselves landing unexpectedly crosswind and really thought they needed to hold the upwind toggle down to fly straight relative to the ground. Sorry for the confusion. I'm often full of shit, but at least you and I post reasonable jump numbers and time in the sport (even if not always up-to-date) so people can choose to listen or not based on something resembling the real world. And to those folks who always go on about how jump numbers don't mean anything and you could just put any number you want, let me say this: people who have been around for a while will pretty quickly figure you that you're full of it. You may be able to fool some noobs, but noobs are the people who are most likely to be hurt by inaccurate info. Take some responsibility and if you don't know something, just say so. - Dan G

I think the important point is that pulling down on a toggle 12 inches will result in a turn regardless of what the direction of the wind is (and yes, you can compensate with riser/harness to continue flying straight, but that's not what gearless said). Another good point is not to take canopy piloting advice from people on the internet, especially people who have so few jumps they refuse to post their true experience. - Dan G

And just to help out JohnRich, the master of the selected quote, here's the rest of the story, from the same source: Any of you law and order types want to argue that burglary and theft are now okay? Puh-leeze - Dan G

I never claimed to be an expert, just someone who doesn't believe tossing aside our most needy citizens is the best answer. Although the link provided is out of date and highly biased if you actually read it, I wanted to show that a 54 trillion dollar expense over 30 years is not as large as people make it out to be. I wasn't trying to justify welfare spending by comparing it to war spending, I was just trying to put in in perspective. Perhaps that intent was not clear. Although the cited article had a couple numbers in it (and a lot of opinion) no one has yet given any evidence of all the supposed millions of lazy fuckers lying around eating the government cheese and putting spinners on their Escalades. Sure there is fraud, but you can't seriously believe that every welfare recipient is a fraudster. And yes, there is a return on investment for well managed social programs. The return on investment is helping people become productive members of society who then contribute to the GNP. Or we could just spend it to make Iraqis productive members of their society instead. - Dan G

That article was written in 1995, so it does not encompass the changes described by billvon up thread. Either way, 5.4 trillion over 30 years, as mentioned in the article, is 15 billion a month. We currently spend 10 billion a month in Iraq. Some might argue that providing food, medical care, and housing to needy Americans is worth more than 1.5 times the expenditure of an unnecessary war 7,000 miles away. - Dan G

Good question. I suppose society has decided that people who are permenantly injured while working for someone else deserve to receive disability compensation from that entity as long as the injury remains. That is what insurance is for, and many companies have disability insurance that does exactly that. I suppose you could consider the VA as the disability insurance provider in my case. I was working for the government when I was injured, so the government gives me a check every month until my arm grows back. I think society has also chosen to recognize the sacrifice made by wounded servicemembers as something special. Whether it is or not can be debated. I suppose you could make the argument that a wounded soldier is no different than a carpenter who fell off a roof at work. I think most people believe that solders, sailors, and Marines are serving a higher purpose than just a regular job. If you disagree, that is fine. I believe you'd be in the minority, at least these days. Maybe less so during the Vietnam era. From a practical standpoint, I think it would be pretty hard to recruit for the Army if potential soldiers knew they wouldn't be taken care of if they became seriously injured. - Dan G

I agree about job retraining. I don't agree about kicking someone off the disability roles once they get another job. For temporary disability, sure. For permanent disability, just because you got retrained to be a clerk/typist, the leg won't grow back. People with permanent disabilities have additional financial needs than people without. What was your wheelchair budget last year? Probably zero. For someone with no legs, their wheelchair budget is probably pretty hefty, whether they are working or not. I recently lost my prosthetic arm (good story, I need to get around to posting it). If I hadn't been in the VA system, it would have been extremely difficult to replace. These things are frickin expensive. - Dan G

I've flown Stilettos in every size from 190 at 1.1 to 120 at 1.9 (I was fatter) and they all fly similarly in my opinion. I'm not sure what people mean by "fly like crap". I like the light toggle pressure, soft openings, and flat glide. I dislike the high front riser pressure, fast recovery, and tendancy for off-heading openings. Size doesn't seem to change these characteristics much, IMO. I agree there are more modern canopies on the market, but I still think the Stiletto is one of the best overall canopies out there in terms of versatility. To millertime24, I would not recommend a Stiletto, even a large one, for a novice skydiver (anyone with less than 300+ jumps). I think a lightly tapered canopy like the Sabre2 is a much better choice. You'll learn more and be safer at the same time. In fact, my next canopy will probably be a Sabre2 170 at around 1.2. I've owned a Sabre2 190 in the past, and didn't like the high toggle pressure at the time due to an arm injury. Now that I've got the strength back in my arm, I'll probably go back to the Sabre2. My comments about swooping the Stiletto were not meant to imply that the Stiletto is a better swoop canopy than the Sabre2. I have about 900 jumps on Stilettos and 100 on Sabre2's. Give me another 800 jumps on a Sabre2 and I'll probably be swooping it farther. Again, not the canopy, the pilot. - Dan G

Shut up, noob. - Dan G

Spend some time on the canopy and don't assume it is as low performance as you think. A good pilot will be able to do quite a bit with a Sabre2 at 1.05. I know it sounds like a boat, but you'd be suprised once you start to improve your skill set. I fly a Stiletto 190 at about the same wingloading. I can fly it a hell of a lot better, and swoop it much farther, than a lot of the newer jumpers with much smaller wings. It's not the canopy, it's the pilot. Use this canopy to help you become that pilot. - Dan G