BMFin

I saw this video a while ago where someone flew his setup so that as he got to his initiation altitude he placed his hands on the rears and initiated a 270 by harness input only. It turns out he never uses his fronts for turning and this way he has hes hands ready on the rears in good time. I never heard of this technique. Obviously a lot of people use harness input of the latter revolutions, but I never really thought about not using fronts at all. Anyone else doing this?

Shameless plugin for my photo Voting will only take 1 second. http://kuvakilpailu.nrj.fi/#/photo/8130 Click the + symbol after the text "ÄÄNESTÄ TÄTÄ KUVAA" Thanks!

Upload the file to a server?

http://iloveskydiving.org/view/videos/friday-freakout-wingsuit-malfunction-cant-cutaway/ If im not mistaken this guy would have been in much more trouble if he had SOS system.

Is the racer handle only 25$?

Good analysis! One thing I would do differently (other than jumping this equipment) would be to not open the brakes on the reserve. As long as it looks like Im going to have to land with two canopies, I definetly wouldnt want to open the brakes on either one.

I agree...it's an emotional issue. I agree. Its emotional. And the reason why this raises such emotions here is because the skydiving community considers Eddie as someone who stabbed th e skydiving community in the back by raising this discussion. I also think this is way too polarized. IMO both sides have good arguments and the DZ was put in a hard spot.

When it came out, I considered it as the best choice for skydiving. Still is an excellent body. However, I would rather take something like 10-22 + 400D than 7D+15-85 for skydivng. The more you shoot, the more you realize how little importace the body has. EDIT to add: The weigth difference on the 7D is only ~200grams more than the lightest models. Makes no difference what so ever IMO. Actually I could easily mount two of them if needed.

Even If I wanted to answer that, I would have to peruse this incident much more than I have reading this thread on DZ.com IMO it is kind of irrelevant to talk about legal action. I doubt that there is ever going to be any. I merely wanted to say that based on the little info I have on this, I understand both sides here, and since you are so keen on only seeing the other side of this I wanted you to know that perhaps Im not as misinformed on my opinions as you thought I am. Thats all.

IMO this is a difficult case. There are arguments towards both sides here. IMO the reason why many here are against you, is because of the PR nightmare this has caused towards the DZ. As I take it, it is an unwritten rule in skydiving that who ever takes legal action towards the DZ is no longer a member of the skydiving community. In this case, even though there is no legal action taken, the PR-shitstorm kind of resembles the effects of a legal dispute and therefore people are taking the side of the DZ. Basically I agree with you that you should be allowed to wear a tattoo that expresses the lack of your religious thoughts. I also think that this sort of resembles discrimination based on religious beliefs. On a more humane level, I wouldnt consider your tattoo as overly provocative taken into consideration your history. Having seen your friends killed in action and remain totally objective towards the people you were dealing with is a lot to ask from anyone. I dont really think there are many of us who could do that. Many people here havent seen war, nor have I. However, living in a country that has been in war many times during the 20th century, I can see how difficult it is here for the older generations to look at things objectively. Its easy to judge other peoples attitudes from above, if you have always been watching things from the TV or reading history books. And for Zenister (and perhaps others) who may see me as misinformed and clueless about the law, I should add that Im currently finishing my masters degree on law, and I would hope I have already learned a thing or two during my years in the university.

Or how about if he said, I got the tattoo, when I was taken as a POW in Iraq. The insurgents branded me with this label. Perhaps I should drag my sorry kafir ass away form your sight.. That might have led the conversation to a whole new level

The word kafir is a derogatory word for a non islam believer. Quote from wikipedia: "Unbeliever. First applied to Meccans who refused submission to Islam, the term implies an active rejection of divine revelation. In Islamic parlance, a kāfir is a word used to describe a person who rejects Islamic faith" "All four major Sunni schools of thought hold that whoever follows another religion besides Islam is an unbeliever (kafir)" According to the wikipedia article the Quaran actually refers Kafir as someone who should be mocked, punished, terrorized, destroyed, slayed, crucified, cursed etc.. Similarly Nigger is a derogatory word used by white people. If a black person were to tattoo this on his skin, it would be comparable to an american tattooing the word kafir to his skin. Now if a muslim takes it as an insult when the subject uses the word kafir of himself, it would be comparable if a white man takes it as an insult when a black person starts calling him self a nigger.

As mentioned earlier, the analogy in this case would be if a black person had the nigger tattoo, and a white man found it offensive. (I agree the person most likely has been provokative and if so, I think its not very mature. I just find it kind of strange how this word kafir suddebly turned around to be offensive towards muslims)

Thanks. I already did read that comment much earlier. I have no doubt about what he said in that comment. Im willing to accept that muslims take the world offensively. (though perhaps not by the radicals as suggested) Im simply trying to understand how, why and when did this word turn completely around to be offensive towards muslims themselves as it originally was on the contrary.

In your example you're talking about black people and white supremacists. The Muslims in this story are not analogs to white supremacists, more simply ordinary white people. In fact, I doubt radical Islamists (the better supremacist analog) would take offense to the tattoo. I am not an Arabic linguist, however I think the connotation is more akin to a black person going around saying all white people are white supremacists. I'm not sure how well that analogy works though because as a white person I'm impervious to being offended. Ok, I think I understand what you are saying. So in other words, as I now understand it, the word Kafir originally was a mocking word for all non islam believers, but nowadays the majority of muslims have seceded from such thinking and therefore if a non muslim calls him self as a kafir, the majority of muslims think that he still percieves all muslims seeing him as a kafir? (which they find offensive, since they dont see him as a kafir?)

Without taking any sides here, Im simply trying to understand what the word Kafir means. Here is what wikipedia says about the word: "Unbeliever. First applied to Meccans who refused submission to Islam, the term implies an active rejection of divine revelation. In Islamic parlance, a kāfir is a word used to describe a person who rejects Islamic faith" According to the wikipedia article: "All four major Sunni schools of thought hold that whoever follows another religion besides Islam is an unbeliever (kafir)" So if I read this correctly, it is a mocking word for a non islam believer established by islam believers. According to the wikipedia article the Quaran actually refers Kafir as someone who should be mocked, punished, terrorized, destroyed, slayed, crucified, cursed etc.. Heres the part what I still dont understand: If a non islam believer willingly tattoos this mocking word to his skin, why exactly is this suddenly considered as an insult towards muslims? Shouldnt it still be an insult towards the person wearing the tattoo him self? If an african american were to tattoo the N-word to his skin, would this also be considered as an insult towards the white supremacists? Perhaps someone could explain this to me in a simple way? Thanks!

I consider my self as an atheist. If I were to tattoo it on my skin, I would consider it to be discriminating, if a christian came and told me it is offensive. Perhaps this christian had declared a war on atheists? Would you consider my tattoo offensive?

Swastika in indian religion means "good" or "to be good" If you ever see a swastika tattood on a person, please consider it may have many meanings and some of them by no means are offensive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika Nigger most likely is an offensive word. However, it could hold another meaning if the person wearing the tattoo was an african american himself.

Freedom of religion is an internatinally recognized human right. Like I said it contains the right to belong to a religious group, and it contains the right to NOT belong to a religious group. This person expressed his human right for the latter. IMO it is very much a protected class.

Yes, and what Im saying is that the business decision was discriminating.

And that, to devout Muslims, is offensive. Many muslims believe that Allah has decreed that Muslims declare war on infidels. You have to step outside your cosy Western perspective to understand that others may be offended by things that do not offend you. I personally am not offended by the words "nigger" or "cunt" but I fully accept that many people are and I temper my use of them to allow for this, regardless of my right to freedom of speech. If these muslims were to enter Finland they would have to respect the fact that the majority of us are these infidels and by our constitution we have the right to express our infidelity. (just as much as the muslims have their right to express their islamic beliefes) Like I said, im not an expert on US law, but I would be suprised if you didnt respect this human right.

I fail to see how this "kafir" tattoo would be the same as saying fuck you to muslims? I tried googleing it and found it to be transalated as "unbeliever," "disbeliever," or "infidel." IMO it merely states that the person wearing the tattoo does not believe in the islamic doctrine. I dont know about the US, but where Im from we have this thing called freedom of religion. The positive side of it means that everyone has the right to be a member of a religious group. The negative side of it means that everyone has the right to not be a part of a religious group. IMO this person wearing the tattoo, expressed his right to freedom of religion in its negative meaning. Also, where Im from, private businesses have the right to choose their customers. However, it is considered illegal to discriminate customers based on their religion, ethnic backroung, age, sexuality etc... In this case, the DZ pretty directly discriminated this person based on his religious beliefes.

Hey Chris! Hope all is well! Would be interesting to hear your thoughts on pulling the risers on opening? Its an interesting topic since even the top CP pilots seeem to be divided by this question. Also it seems to be perhaps canopy dependant.

I dont understand how time & altitude could both be the same. If the altitude is the same, then the time must be shorter since the speed is higher. On the other hand if the time is same, then the altitude must be more, since the speed is higher.

They can, but I think most of the times there was something wrong with the gear if it cannot tolerate the usage it was designed for. Either the problem was there to begin with, or the gear wasnt properly maintained. Im quite suprised if you think a tandem drogue shouldnt be designed and maintenced to tolerate a 3 second delay. Personally I think all tandem drogues should be designed to tolerate a drogue throw from drogueless terminal speeds. (which to my experience is not much different if the tandem is headdown or on its belly) Sure, it adds some additional stress to the gear, but the gear should be designed and maintanced to tolerate a reasonable amount of extra stress.