AndyMan

I'd like to use that in a presentation on safety day. Can you post a higher resolution version? _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

My left knee is a pretty good barometer, that was a skiing incident a few years ago. My left ankle often disagrees with my knee about the weather. My ankle was hurt in in a running "incident". My left ankle also made me an Award Winning Skydiver (tm). I won "muppet of the year" at my DZ in 2002. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

clicky no worky _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Yah. I've done 157 on my belly, and I pretty much assume I can keep up with anyone. 176 is amazing... _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

go read the post again..... D'oh!

I didn't believe this, so I looked it up. According to mapquest, Beaumont to El Paso is 831 miles. Beaumont to Chicago is 1094. Granted those are driving miles, it may be different if you calculate As The Otter Flies. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

I've got an offer from the local video consession to do some tandem video work when the DZ is busy. I'd like to do it, it'd be nice to finally get SOME cash back... at least to pay for my wife's jumping! I don't have a still, so I'll need to get one. Unless my finances change very quickly, I most definately can not afford any of the current digital SLR's, so I'll probably just buy a cheap 35mm Rebel and go with that. The video consession doesn't care if I go digital or film. So, here's my question. I'm pretty good at shooting video. I'm nailing most of my exits, have a good idea of framing, and have shown half decent flying skills. What's going to be different when I strap on a still? What kind of skills will I be missing? Learning to shoot with a 35MM seems like it could be expensive, with developing costs included. What kind of learning curve should I expect, and what troubles will I have in developing a product worth selling? _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Basing it on numbers of jumps would suck, because that will just cause everyone to fake their jump numbers. I'd be happy to get rid of them. I WOULD like to see something that identifies which people are actually knowledgable - ie, topical experts, and such. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Ha-Ha! [1] Happy Birthday Marc, one more lap around the track. Good luck in the coming years... _Am [1] I'm still 29. __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Interesting read, but really no different then Volkswagon, or a plethora of other german companies at the time. I do have few Boss suits, and they really are very nice. That said, their marketing seems so incredibly disconnected from reality I really don't see the point. It is interesting to see skydiving as glamour. I like that a whole lot better then the drug-infused culture its usually depicted as. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

You're absolutely right she should have been handed a fine. That said, you simply can not be handed a fine without admitting responsibility. Stewart never admitted responsibility, in fact she denied her involvement all the way through, even in the face of mounting evidence against her. I have absolutely no doubt that had she quietly admitted everything up front she would have walked away relatively unscathed. Some people say she was prosecuted because she was famous. To this, I say... They're probably right. Because she was a celebrity it offered the gov't an opportunity to send the message that lieing to prosecutors and securities regulators is not an option. Because of her celebrity, that message is loud and clear. That said, I think its clear that Stewart is being dragged over the coals only because she consistently lied about her involvement. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Her victims are the same people as if she were acting alone - everyone who traded in the stock without the benefit of insider information. Why is that complicated? Giving or receiving insider information is not a crime. It's only when you act on that information that the crime takes place. Sam Waksdale (sp?)can legally give insider information without penalty. Its only when someone acts that is becomes criminal. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

No, I'm talking about the artifacting on the image as posted. That said, a quick google search does show up references to the event, so it's possible that its real. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Look carefully at the grey sky around the letters of the banner. The clouds are a different color than the grey surrounding them, and on my monitor it's "dithered". "Dithering" is a technical term that describes odities in color approximation, usually taking the form of small dots of different colors, sort of like the impresionist era technique of "pointilism", or a granular newspaper photo. Edited to add: The effect of dithering is common when text is added in photoshop, then saved as a JPG. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

That clearly is a very poorly done photoshop job. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

You said I was a safer skydiver because I've done one jump without a Cypres. You'll have to forgive us for not seeing a terribly big gap between being "safer" and being "better". As for wether someone is dependent on it or not, the only test I can see is to have someone intentionally not pull. That's the only case I can see someone truely be dependent on a Cypres.... To not pull. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

As he said, simply turning 90 degrees off the line of flight should be sufficient. Most people who "slide" in a sit ar sliding either forwards or backwards, so as long as you're pointed off the line of flight you should be fine. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Are those two mutually exclusive? _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

I think the guys who post and talk a lot about who they want to screw are really just trying to overcome feelings of insecurity, probably related to either their small penis, or their inability to get anyone in the sack. Thats just one mans opinion, though. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

It may not be desirable, but it certainly isn't unreasonable. Adjusting 500 feet is only 2.5 seconds of freefall, or maybe packing a slammer instead of a snivel - dificult to pinpoint since we don't know what kind of opening we're about to have. Depending on an additional 500 feet of vertical to avoid this situation will be prone to failure. Ensuring proper horizontal separation will serve you much better, hence my comments about proper exit timing. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

If you're going to be doing high performance landings, it is absolutely critical that you wear good footwear. This excludes workboots, or "parachute boots", from the olden days. Wear shoes you can run in on every jump. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

1. I don't think adjusting your opening altitude is necesarily a good solution. You said you were in the saddle by 2000 feet, and your profile says you have 50 jumps. That doesn't seem like an unreasonable altitude to be in the saddle at 50 jumps. 2. Keeping your head on a swivel is certainly a good idea. But here's my 3. Proper exit separation might have helped avoid this situation. All jumpers on the plane need to understand what a good separation is, and stick to that plan. Also, the jumper you opened close to may have been flying up the jumprun. If this is the case, jumpers need to be reminded that this isn't smart, and puts themselves and others in danger. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Is there anything else holding the EOS to the helmet besides the tripod screw? I've seen a few of the plastic cameras break under a harder opening when setup like this - especially when there's a heavier wide angle lens. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Chicagoland has a -27 porter I'm sure they'd love to send your way. www.skydive.com _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

Personally, I care very little about what temperature the earth SHOULD be. I have no doubt the temperature has changed wildly between the extreemes of ice-ages and near total drought. I don't think any scientists presume to even contemplate what point between these extremes is the "correct" one. I do know that there's a range of temperatures where humans have the ability to lead cost-effective productive lives. This is what we should be putting our brain power towards, ensuring that our environment is supportive of US. A lot of environmentalists make the mistake by framing the discussion in the attitude of "saving the world". This is a mistake, the world does not need us to save it. The planet known as earth will far outlast humans no matter what we do, even considering nuclear holocaust - the world will do just fine. What is threatened is the ability of humans to prosper. We don't need to save the planet, we need to save ourselves. Humans are pretty much the only species on earth that have the ability to change the macro-environment to fit our needs. The problem is that for the last few centuries we've been doing it accidentally, and the changes we've been making are only hurting us. We need to identify what we need to live thrive and survive, and make sure thats what gets done. The problem is that the changes we've been making ar accidental, and are not in our best interests. _Am __ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.