Mak

Hey hey - look who it is!. Prepare to strap in and feel the G's... I'm getting in to LAX at around 10:30. I have a rental car booked and I should be able to give a ride to a couple of people if necessary.

Isn't this a good reason not to trust BISTs (Built In Self Tests) over the life of a system? If the Vigil passed its self-test on the third try and showed a normal set-up, it wasn't that unreasonable to conclude that it was good to jump. To be fair, it's not easy to design a really good self-test for any system, far less in the absence of the primary parameter the system is observing - altitude-induced changes in air pressure. Thanks, but no thanks. I'll take the higher life-cycle cost and accumulated experience of Airtec until the test jumpers have finished with the Vigil.

I'd have to go read Newsmax's reporting of the survey. My point was that the tone of your post made it appear as if Newsmax was showing a bias toward Fox, and pointed out that the polling company's own report, as well as the other reports listed all confirmed the same story. --break break-- Ok, I've read the Newsmax report, and see the part talking about it leading the network news... I still disagree with your point. Fox News garnered 10% of the vote, ABC/NBC took 4% each, and CBS 3%. For Newsmax to say "Fox news led the broadcast networks by substantial margins" is certainly the truth, but perhaps a bit shaded, if you want to look at it in that light. The bald words are certainly true. A better gambit would have been to say "Fox News and CNN News both led the broadcast networks", and would certainly have been equally as true. I agree completely. Unfortunately if a reader did not actually go and look at the globescan results they'd never know how much to weigh the conclusion. Another detail that is relevant to the results is that the survey had a margin of error of +-3%. When you factor that in, Fox may lead CNN by a little over 6% (very very unlikely) or CNN may lead Fox (by a little less than 6% (also very very unlikely)!. Finally, Yahoo, ABCNews and the other outlets are repeating what Reuters reported without actually analysing whether the Reuters writer drew an accurate conclusion. That's one of the drawbacks of syndicated news. The only way to really make sure is to read the report.

I didn't dispute that the survey showed Fox led CNN. 11% for both indicates that they were close, and with the ordering of the networks names it is clear that Fox News led CNN. I said : 1. "CNN and Fox are about even according to the survey" 2. "The more appropriate comparable is CNN (and MSNBC or similar)" That you chose to attribute my response to a preference for CNN vs Fox is an example of the jump to conclusions and the eventual degeneration of the discussion that I was talking about to start with. FYI I don't depend on either (though I read both, along with the WSJ and the BBC). Regardless of what my personal views are, can you in all honesty say that Newsmax reported what the survey found, completely and accurately after having read the actual survey results?

This is an excellent example of two things: 1. Laziness - it took me all of 3 minutes to find the actual survey data. I wish some of the more prolific posters on this board would do the same instead of immediately launching into the usual right-vs-left debate. We'd save so much bandwidth and rancour! 2. Confirmation bias - The "report" agrees with what I already think, therefore it must be right (or the other way around). Here are the actual results from the company that ran the survey for Reuters and the BBC: http://www.globescan.com/news_archives/bbcreut.html "The most trusted specific news sources mentioned without prompting by Americans include FOX News (mentioned by 11%), CNN (11%), ABC (4%), NBC (4%), National Public Radio (3%), CBS (3%), Microsoft/MSN (2%), USA Today (2%), New York Times (2%), CNN.com (1%), Time Magazine (1%), and friends/family (1%)." Now, go back and read the Newsmax report and see if it sounds like they reported "the whole truth". Fox News is not a broadcast channel like NBC, ABC or CBS. The more appropriate comparable is CNN (and MSNBC or similar). But, because Newsmax is presumably pushing its own agenda, and the facts(that CNN and Fox are about even according to the survey) does not fit their plan, they've selectively chosen to omit that little detail. You couldn't do much worse than believing what Newsmax publishes without at least occasionally checking for yourself.

Hey CSS'ers, Long time no see - I'm trying to catch up on the threads. Joe - congratulations on making the big time! Foxes - congrats on switching from purple to pink! I'll be stuffing my face at the fund-raising breakfast and joining the punters at the raffle. I've been missing you all and CSS terribly, and want to make it down for one more weekend of jumps over the July 4 boogie. I'm in New York today and all signs point to me living in a van down by the (east) river! Wonder why I thought finding a place to live in a crowded city would be easy... See you guys (hopefully) this weekend! Cheers Mak

Hey CSS'ers, As much as I try to deny it, my vacation from the real world is rapidly coming to an end. I'm going to be moving to New York in a couple of months to rejoin the rat race. Thanks for showing me such a good time. I couldn't have asked for a better group of skydiving friends or a better DZ to call home. I will really miss you all. I'm going to be traveling and jumping as much as I can over the next two months, one last blast before I head out. See you at the DZ! Much love, blue skies, calm winds and all that other sentimental stuff

Who is this Max Power of whom you speak?

Yeah - who *was* that geek? I hear they came this | | close to making the second point before they impacted!

Hey! I guess I should've been paying attention to this thread. It was great to see so many CSS'ers at Z-hills. I had a blast (esp the New Year's Eve party) - hope to see you guys soon at the DZ. Mike - congratulations! Sorry I wasn't able to make it to Deland.

Hey Marion, yes that's me and Joe - yes there were a lot of us "Dukies" at PDC last night (and some of us until early this morning!).

Hey Eric - I guess I found the thread. UNC vs Duke skydiving? Hmm - tell me more :) A bunch of us from school are going to be in Chapel Hill tonight at Players for an early Halloween party. An open bar and bus rides back mean this could be trouble...

Sikhism has very little to do with Islam other than having evolved at a time when Islam was spreading into the Indian subcontinent. The faith is very different from Islam and some Sikhs would be very offended at being called a branch of Islam.

That's pretty convenient. So you're calling it a "slang term" now? Have you considered that some of the readers on this board may be objecting not as members of the PC police but as members of the "raghead" community (or other "slang terms" as you now call them)? There are many other "slang terms " I'm sure you don't bandy about quite as flippantly. Honestly - would you try to defend your definition of a raghead to an Arab friend? If not, you should ask yourself why you use it online.

Sorry to butt in again (this thread's got me worked up!) - but why should one have to choose? Both are reprehensible and there is no compulsion to agree with either one. Edited to add: I don't mean to imply I support suppressing non politcally correct viewpoints - I just think there's a difference between racism and PC.

I agree completely. What I was objecting to was the argument that because Al-Qaeda doesn't distinguish between civilians and the military, the US should not either (I'm paraphrasing loosely). Unfortunately you may be right. I'm assuming by "bitch about name calling" you are referring to my objection to the term "raghead". I would have much rather seen a discussion of the strategy. But the two issues are somewhat independent and by choosing to call it a "Raghead Doctrine" prejudices the comparison even before it's begun. The reason I chose to bitch about name calling is that Harju has used the term numerous times. I want to highlight the fallacy of identifying the enemy by appearance - it's racist for one thing (and doesn't do a good job for another). I'll carry this further in PMs if anyone wants to do so (or maybe a different thread if someone opens one). Harju just raised my hackles with his repeated use of a racial epithet (despite his protestations about its selective applicability).

There really isn't any reason to try and backtrack from your original comment using a sarcastic substitution. If you honestly believe something, why not stand up for it? Namely, if you stand by your original assertion that "ragheads" are not all Arabs but only those Islamists trying to shove their religion down other throats, why not leave the term in there? Could it be that you realize the indefensibility of that position?

The US is not at the same level as Al-Qaeda. That is what differentiates us from them. If we were to go down to that level, fixing the problem would be trivial. Nuke every Islamic country in the middle east and be done with it. To compare the US to Al-Qaeda is a childish argument. And every picture of him also has a beard. Should we call all terrorists "beards"? No Ron, raghead was an epithet well before 9-11 and Harju's attempt to justify using it still sucks. To classify evil by appearance is very insidious. This is what leads to all Arabs (or all Muslims) being lumped together as terrorists, treated as such and eventually being driven to act as such. What I meant was that the discussion hence forth in this thread is going to focus around "raghead" instead of "RAND".

I don't like getting involved in political discussions on an anonymous board like this one, but this is the second time I've seen you reference "ragheads", so here goes: And you wonder why the Arab world hates the US. With attitudes like yours it is no wonder. You do realize that "raghead" refers to the dress of Arabs and your use has no other connotation other than a racist one? (despite your lame attempt to qualify that definition). How do you distinguish between a "raghead" who meets your definition of trying to force Islam down your throat, and one who couldn't care either way? Just curious - do you also have a similar qualification for crackers, niggers, dotheads and gooks? The content of the Rand Corp study is of course now lost in the noise that your attitude has added to the discussion.

Be careful of making that assumption. Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Maybe I'm slow but shouldn't E and W be interchanged on that sign?

Look up "risk homeostasis" on google or similar. The equipment might have become 10x reliable, but the fatality/injury rates have not matched that improvement. That's what Bill and Ron are trying to convey in the AAD threads - we're taking risks we would not normally take because we have AADs, hence the injury/fatality rates have not tracked the improvements in gear/training.

Before writing off the insurance company's perception of risk (as reflected in the premiums we pay for coverage) as unreasonable, realize that they do not go by what the actuary "perceives" as risky. Their rates are based on statistics. And statistically, skydiving is a dangerous activity. Our personal experience has little to do with the rates they charge, since they see an entire population of skydivers compared to most of our experiences. That being said, it's funny how often I see the same reasoning repeated among my fellow skydivers - "I've been in/seen x number of car/motorcycle/whatever wrecks, but never been hurt skydiving. Therefore, skydiving is safer." I don't see too many of the 1000 jump+ folks say this - I wonder why. And just to counter the numerous examples of happy safe skydiving vs deadly highway driving, in the five years I've been jumping I've known more people hurt/dead skydiving than I know hurt/killed in any other kind of accident. This doesn't mean that my experience reflects reality, it's just another data point and insurance rates are based on a collection of many such data points. So, why the long-winded reply? Here's how to avoid paying high premia - get lost in the noise. For example, work for a big company which has many workers - where the additional risk you impose on the health carrier is within the statistical limits of the insurance company. Or, at the very least, don't draw attention to the fact that you skydive. If the contract doesn't specifically exclude skydiving you win. If it does the company you work for isn't likely going to pay higher rates overall just because of you anyway. The HR guy asking the insurance agent about you specifically is a bad move IMO. Similarly for life insurance which often specifically excludes skydiving/GA accidents. Join a large enough group that has low-risk individuals - for example the ACM or IEEE (the engneers will understand), and get insurance through their group plans. But don't be under the illusion that skydiving is safer than most other things you do in life. It might make you feel better, but unless you're in a really hazardous occupation or you drive under the influence, it probably isn't true. Mak

To all the San Fran/Bay Area folks: I'm in the middle of an MBA program and looking for a summer internship in the area - preferably with a tech firm. Anyone have any contacts they could pass along? I'd really appreciate the help! Mak

Just a thought - I believe the USPA regulations said you needed a C licence before doing an intentional cutaway (I haven't checked recently). I notice you're not a US jumper, but you may want to consider the risks of jumping with a more complex system and get some advice before doing it.