Skwrl

Members
  • Content

    1,235
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3
  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by Skwrl

  1. Fuck, Scott, there you go being the voice of reason and all. It's more fun to wig out at the n00b. /I second teh Bland, in all his wisdom. Let's let this one die. Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork
  2. No, ma'am. I think I win the "biggest coward" award. (Is your wingloading
  3. iMovie will recognize the PC109 automagically, but (as Phil points out) if it's connected via the firewire port. I found that sometimes I needed to open iMovie, then toggle on and off the camera for it to detect it. If you have one of the new Macs that does not have a firewire port, I'm not 100% sure how you would connect it. PM me if that's the case, I can ask around if no one else chimes in with the correct answer. Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork
  4. Actually, I can honestly say I started at 195 and should have waited till ~250. Does that prove anything to you? Please listen to Phil's and Matt's input. That's the sum total of my input on this thread. Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork
  5. Well, that's all fine and good for free flying and RW, but one could never get kicked in the face in a wingsuit, right? Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork
  6. Is this the video? http://mx.truveo.com/MODERN-MARVELS-Sports-Gadgets-Foil-Board/id/1744301787 Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork
  7. DSE - At the risk of triggering a "...let me tell you why [X] is the best [Y] on the market" discussion..." (I'm looking at you, Peggs ) how are the Voodoo "dynamic corners" different than the others' "open corners"? Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork
  8. That's a different issue. Right now, I have a long (9 foot, I think) bridle. I don't have the container modification (yet). I know the Flock U instructors either "very strongly recommend" or "require" (forget which) a long bridle. I know they "recommend" the cut corners, but I believe it's considered less critical. I'm sure someone else will chime in on the relative merits of cut corners, but I think most people feel that an extra long bridle is a Good Thing. I'll let someone else post a pic of the cut corners. Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork
  9. "Open corners" a.k.a., "Cut corners" a.k.a., "Dynamic corners" (someone in marketing was involved with the last name, no doubt). Basically, the bottom of the container is opened (think sort of like an accordion), so that the dbag comes out straight(er). Either that or it makes the main explode in a fiery ball of doom on deployment. Those who have hung out with me for any length of time know that the latter will happen with mine, I just wanted to be able to say "yeah, I knew that" when it somehow does spontaneously combust. It can be done as an aftermarket modification to the Vector 3 by a master rigger. I'm having my Vector 3 done next week. I specifically contacted UPT about this to find out if there was any secret (or any special warnings) to it. They said "The only thing [your rigger] needs to do is open the corners up." So to have open corners, you need to open the corners up. Who knew? Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork
  10. Let me give one (very simple) example of why the Constitution requires "interpretation". We've been focusing on the Establishment Clause, so let's use an example from another part of the First Amendment, the Speech Clause: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." Read this clause slowly. Now, imagine that the Department of Homeland Security (or any other agency) promulgates a regulation that says "No one can say anything unflattering about the President in any media." Read the clause slowly again. Regulations aren't laws. Regulations are adopted after notice to the public and the opportunity for public comment. They are adopted by agencies (Article II of the Constitution) not Congress (Article I). Using your method of reading the Constitution (which I've never heard any legal scholar think actually, you know, makes sense), my hypothetical law is OK, at least with respect to the First Amendment. It's not a law and its not made by Congress. Now stop and think about how utterly goofy that interpretation is. It would be wonderful if all laws were self-contained systems, complete with all interpretations (although, for what it's worth, Kurt Godel would like a word with me about that assertion). You would probably be happier (though still not happy) with the legal systems of continental Europe. See, as part of our English heritage, we have inherited a "common law" system, which basically means that statutes are promulgated and courts interpret what the statutes mean (these are called "findings of law") as well as what the facts are (these are called "findings of fact"). In continental Europe, which uses a "civil law" system, the drafters of the laws attempt (with varying degrees of success) to define all of the key terms, meanings, etc., so that less interpretation is needed. However, at the end of the day, there are situations where interpretation is still necessary (any experienced drafter will tell you you simply can't draft for all possibilities). In those cases, depending on the jurisdiction and/or situation, the interpretation is either made by the legislature or the courts. So you're battling against 200 years of US history, as well as about 800 to 1000 years (depending on how you measure) of European (specifically English) history. Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork
  11. This shouldn't be surprising to anyone. Washington, although nominally an Episcopalian, was really more of a Deist. (Pro-tip: Deists aren't Christians.) Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork
  12. So did Majel Barret Roddenberry (Nurse Chapel from the old Star Trek). You never saw both of them in the room at the same time, did you? I think we've uncovered the real conspiracy. Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork
  13. This is good news (not for his political stance, but for getting politics out of science - well, as much as you can...) I just wonder if we'll see more NIH funding... Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork
  14. This is one of the interesting bits of US constitutional history... So basically, if you read the constitution, it sets forth the Legislative (Article I), Executive (Article II) and Judicial (Article III) branches. If you ask any school kid, they will talk about "checks and balances" in the Constitution (each branch has controls on the powers of the other branches). But what's interesting is that some of those powers aren't actually in the text of the Constitution. So, for example, nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Judiciary can rule that a law is unconstitutional. In 1803 (in Marbury v. Madison), the Supreme Court basically took the position that it - and it alone - had the power to interpret the meaning of the Constitution. What evolved from that has been over 200 years of the Supreme Court trying to "interpret" the Constitution - because no, it's not always clear on its face what it means. Basically, there are two schools of thought on how to interpret it. There are "original intent" folks: these are the people who make the argument that the Constitution means what the founding fathers would have said it mean if you asked them when they drafted it. The problem with that is that we, as a nation, have changed a lot since then (see, e.g., the Civil War - before that, we were a collection of states with similar interests, after that, people spoke of being "American" as opposed to being a "New Yorker" or a "Georgian"). I suppose strict constructionists would say that freedom of the press would be limited to the media that existed in the day, and that the right to bear arms is limited to flintlocks (but few of them are actually that consistent). Read Justice Scalia or Justice Thomas' writings if you want to see semi-consistent strict constructionist thinking. Other people (most of the rest of the court, maybe not Chief Justice Roberts) take the position that the Constitution is a "living document" that can be adapted through interpretation to our modern society. (In other words, even though the founding forefathers would have been talking about printing presses, we can extrapolate that to freedom of speech on the internet). That's where you get ideas like a "Right to Privacy" (found nowhere in the Constitution, at least not expressly), and the idea that some of the provisions of the Bill of Rights apply to both the Federal AND state government (so, it's not just the Federal government that can't conduct unreasonable searches and seizures, the state governments can't either). The problem with this line of reasoning is "where do you draw the line"? I'm done with this thread - work to do. Later, guys... Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork
  15. You are fighting a battle that was lost in 1803 in Marbury v. Madison: "it's exclusively the province of the judiciary to say what the law is" (when it comes to the US Constitution...) (Although I'm only a dabbler in religion and religious history, I'm a lawyer and - very early in my career - did work on First Amendment cases, so this part I know.) Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork
  16. You can't JUST read the First Amendment (or any other amendment, for what it's worth) to understand it. (Well, you can, but you'll come to some wacky conclusions.) You need to read the cases (particularly the Supreme Court cases) that have interpreted it. There's a decent (though by no means complete) list here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_church-state_separation_case_law Laws that are religious (like holidays) are not unconstitutional if they have a secular purpose. The folks who established the holidays would probably argue that the purpose would be to allow the largest percentage of workers to be available on non-holidays (i.e., if they had to work Christmas, people would have to take it off). I'm not saying the logic is great, I'm just saying that's been the explanation in the past. Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork
  17. See, here's where I historically would have argued with you. While I don't have any personal faith, I was raised in a family that accepted the Gospels as the word of Christ, but didn't accept the non-Gospel NT. (Not written by Christ, not Christ's words, etc.). If you've ever heard of a Jeffersonian Bible, you get the concept. So, to them, quoting from Acts would be meaningless - or at least non-authoritative. Again, back to my point - not all Christians believe the same thing, so it's awfully good we don't have a faith imposed on us, directly or indirectly, by the State. Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork
  18. Well, we agree on this part. Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork
  19. And you're right that he rebuked the 11, but I still think that's not a complete answer. For those at all interested, this is right after the stone has been rolled away, the tomb is empty, and Jesus has been appearing to various folks: In context, he is saying, "Go out and convert people. People who convert will be saved, those who aren't, won't. You'll know if people have been converted if they do those four things..." My point is not to quibble about this passage, or even to argue over Biblical Inerrancy arguments (though see Bart Ehrman's great book Misquoting Jesus http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060738170 for a great historical analysis of how the Bible developed). My point is that not even all Christians believe the same things you do. Since different denominations and sects believe different things. Extrapolate that to the discussion about other faiths, atheists and non-theists, and I keep coming back to the argument that the separation of Church and State was a really, really, cool idea. Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork
  20. I thought Nicea dealt with the Arian and Meletius issues and setting dates for Pesach/Easter. Council of Carthage? Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork
  21. No. I fully realize and understand your argument and the way that the relationship between the New Testament and Hebrew Bible now have (but didn't always have) in many (but not all) Christian denominations. A few thoughts. You make the assertion that the Bible is effectively complete. Do you know how the books in the Bible were chosen to be there? Largely, they were selected by a man - not God - named Athanasius. Did you know that some books weren't included (e.g., the Gospel of Thomas) whilst other books (e.g., Revelation) were the subject of much debate at the time as to whether they should be "canon"? To say "the Bible is complete" is to ascribe God like powers to certain people other than Jesus. Think carefully about that. I have long before heard the explanation of Mark 16, I just think that you are inferring additional words (you are saying that Christ meant "you apostles and you alone have this power"). You're adding words to the Bible. I thought you said it was complete. Anyway, I'm fully versed with many of the arguments that you link to. Not all Christians interpret the Bible similarly, however. Which presents one of the great reasons why the separation of Church and State adopted by the Founding Fathers was a pretty nifty idea. Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork
  22. The amusing part about his post is that it's also demonstrably wrong about the Bible. There are not, as it states, 10 commandments. There are 613 in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament alone. The reference to "10" is to the two sets of what are referred to as "Ten Commandments" (Exodus 20:2–17 and Deuteronomy 5:6–21 - and they are different from one another.) But that's not all of "The Law". Christ said there's really only two commandments, by the way, (see Mark 22:34-40: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.” This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.” On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."). For what it's also worth, Christ also said that you're not following his message unless you are keeping all 613 laws (Mark 5:18: "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.") So you should be keeping all of the laws of Leviticus, too (like not eating shrimp, see Leviticus 9:11-12, and not wearing cotton/polyester blends, see Leviticus 19:19). And don't try to explain it away by quoting Paul - Paul wasn't Jesus and never even met him. It's OK, though: I just assumed you weren't really a believer, since Christ said: "These are the signs that will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; even if they drink any deadly poison it will not hurt them; and they will place their hands on the sick, and they will recover." So I guess you better grab a snake. I won't insist on you drinking poison. /agnostic (there's no way to know about the "unknowable" by definition), but pretty doubtful. Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork
  23. Well, that explains the smell on day 2... ...and why you looked like one of the floats at the Thanksgiving Day parade on day 1. Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork
  24. Last year, oxygen was provided, which maes sense because per FAA regulation, oxygen is required for all passengers above 15,000 feet.
  25. .... but flying backwards is so badass! Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork