TomAiello

We can always hope. But until I actually see that, I think I'll continue voting Libertarian. My trust in both the Democrats and the Republicans is pretty much non-existent. It seems to me they're both headed in the wrong (i.e. Statism is the solution to all problems) direction. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I'm not sure I agree with President Carter here. He is correct that the use of presence and threat may enhance our image in some places--mostly the fairly nice, civilized ones where our friends live. I am not convinced that backing down at this point will enhance our status with some of the less than friendly folks in the world. I can't help but wonder what the strategists in Pyongyang are thinking, as they watch. Remember, these are the guys who test fire missiles during inauguration ceremonies, to demonstrate their strength and defiance. Backing down will only encourage trouble in other places. Being nice is all well and good. But there are places in the world (and quite a few of them), where "nice" will always be interpreted as "weak". Being seen as weak in those places is an open invitation to more attacks--not less. From where we are now (I wish we weren't here, but we are), I think the lowest cost to America, in the long term, will be had by pressing forward. I actually also think that this will be the best thing for international peace and stability, in the long run. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I also can't see it. I suspect that this is a browser related issue. I also suspect that it's the same reason that Narcimund and I (among others) can't view full profiles. Magistr8, can you view full profiles, or do you get a "expired session" error message when you try do do so? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Definitely true in 99% of cases. In the above case, I was discussing a possible exception to the rule--where the decrease in turning time can actually decrease the forward travel during the turn, due to a relatively high wind, which would push the canopy toward the cliff during the (longer duration--that's time) riser turn. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your question. Can you explain where the confusion was? Thanks, -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

In high school, we used to joke "we do more before 7am than the army does all day." This was when the army had their "we do more before 9am than most people do all day" ad campaign. As far as I could tell, in college, the only people getting up earlier than us were the crew teams (that's boats, not canopies). -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

2-3 hours, twice per day. Usually it was something like two hours in the morning, an hour of dry land, and two hours at night. Nowadays, I'm lucky to make it to my one hour per day. I was a butterflyer--and I _hated_ the 200 fly. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Nope. I've pretty much gotten slower every year since college. Since I swim about 1/4 the workout time now that I did up until the end of college, that's pretty understandable. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Here's a short version. These are my opinions only. I use it on my FOX (um, when I have a PC on it). I have around 400 jumps with the multi. I haven't really been able to tell a difference, but I haven't worked too hard at it (I've never jumped the same canopy consecutively with and without the multi, to compare, for example). The multi has to be manufactured into the canopy (since you essentially have to create four bridle attachment points). CR does not offer a multi on their gear (although I heard a rumor a while back that they were working on a blow-off multiple attachment system--you might want to ask Adam directly about that). That's open to a lot of discussion. The consensus appears to be that center cell strip is a problem on ZP topskin canopies. BR addresses this with the multi, CR addresses it by not putting ZP around the attachment point (i.e. composite topskin). I personally think that center cell strip is still a problem, but I am not convinced that the multi is the best solution. Vertigo uses a system called a top gate, which I think is probably the first step in the direction of a better solution. Pros: Reduces center cell strip, makes deployment a little neater (somewhat arguably). Cons: Some (minimal) chance for a weird entanglement. I'm not personally convinced that it's worth the extra $150. I do know that some scandinavian jumpers have removed the multis from their canopies entirely, because they felt that it was actually hurting their opening headings. I haven't felt that way on my multi jumps, but they obviously felt strongly enough to remove them. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I've swum masters for the last 8 years or so. Our club has an annual tradition called "The Brute Squad." We have a little intersquad meet where everyone swims the 1650, the 400 IM and the 200 Fly. Awards are given based on cumulative time. I hate the Brute Squad meet... -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Um, yes. But they are equally likely to do so whether or not the French, Germans and Russians are participating in (or have given their approval for) the campaign. I wasn't really questioning whether military action would lead to an increase in terrorist incidents. The issue was whether international approval would effect the rate of such an increase. I doubt that the war refugees you are referring to will know or care whether or not the Russian ambassador to the U.N. approved of the campaign. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

What I fear is that the world (and history) will share your judgment. I do not think the U.N. has failed, _yet_. I'd prefer that we help it to succeed. Which is more important? Another Security Council Resolution, or the diarmament of Iraq? While they can hopefully both be achieved, I believe that disarmament and regime change in Iraq are both more important goals than yet another U.N.S.C. resolution. What leads you to this conclusion? I, honestly, anticipate approximately the same amount of terrorist reprisal regardless of whether we "go it alone" or not. Do you honestly anticipate that the insulted French, Germans and Russians will start a suicide bombing campaign in the U.S.? Or are you just hoping that if they get dragged along, the suicide bombers will spread their attentions evenly (which I doubt), and we'll be able to share our pain with the Europeans? The world is fairly interdependent these days. The question you ought to ask is: "Is our $30 billion better spent domestically, or internationally? Which of these two uses will best ensure future peace and prosperity?" The answer is most emphatically _not_ a definite "spend it at home." Ignoring international affairs to concentrate on our domestic well being is, in political science, called "isolationism." In broad terms, it has been a leading factor in the causation of several very negative international events (like World War II), which had major repercussions on domestic well being. International and domestic prosperity are inextricably linked. We cannot ignore the world, and expect everything to just go along fine at home. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I am not certain that I agree with you. At this point, I believe that any solution that does not involve a regime change (and a complete and open divestiture of weapons of mass destruction) will be counter productive. I do not believe a regime change is possible without military action. (Note that I do not favor a complete disarmament of Iraq. Creating a big, soft, vacuum in the center of the middle east is not going to lead to stability.) I just don't see that kind of solution happening without military action. I can't see real cooperation coming from the current Iraqi regime. Any solution that involves leaving Saddam Hussein in power will have pretty much all the same negative consequences that a climb-down would. At this point, it looks to me like the best option is to go, go now, go hard, and go fast. Further hesitation will only serve to embolden those who are watching from the wings (and those on center stage). -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

It's easy to pick out bits of postings and ridicule them for incoherence. It's a bit harder to actually look for the meaning behind them, and discuss that meaning. I challenge you to try the latter. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

While I might not have supported a war five years ago, at this point, I believe that it is our best course forward. We cannot climb down without serious consequences--consequences that are, in my mind, far worse than the war being contemplated. The biggest reasons for war are all negative. In other words, what will be the impact on world peace and stability if the United Nations backs down, after threatening "serious consequences" (that's UN-ese for war) in a unanimous Security Council resolution? Here are some probable consequences of a failure of the UN's collective backbone. 1) The UN loses massive credibility. Dictators the world over (do you suppose Mr. Kim is watching this from Pyongyang?) will hear the message loud and clear: "If the UN demands that you disarm, feel free to ignore it. It will lose all resolve, and self-destruct in bickering, before those 'serious consequences' ever materialize". I believe that you, Bill, argued that maintaining the UN's credibility is important to our future security. 2) Saddam Hussein emerges a hero. Iraq, currently none too popular amongst the other mid-east states, will gain a "David and Goliath" reputation. Mr. Hussein will be toasted, feted and honored in capitals from Damascus to Tunis (and, of course, Pyongyang). Not only will this be a major boost to an avowed enemy of the U.S., it will also be a major blow to the multi-lateral world order represented by the U.N. Another clear message: "If you defy the U.N. (or the U.S.), you will be a hero. You will retain your power base, you will be able to continue your domestic "programs", and you will be courted by regional and world leaders." 3) Iraq continues to research and build increasingly effective weapons of mass destruction. Encouraged by Iraq's victory, North Korea does the same. If we are _very_ lucky, they may even collaborate on some new weapons systems. As a result, not only the middle east, but also the far east, is plunged into a deepening arms race. Massive resources, that might otherwise be devoted to improving life for billions, are devoted to regional arms development. Governments from Tokyo and Seoul to Teheran, Riyadh and Jerusalem begin militarizing, in anticipation of upcoming wars, or at the very least in fear of their newly strutting neighbors in Baghdad and Pyongyang. The long term peace and security of the world will be best served by military action. I would prefer that the U.N. Security Council bless action in North Korea. In my opinion, they have already blessed action in Iraq, but I'd love to see a re-statement there as well. However, failing that, I think that the U.S. will be doing a great service to the future prosperity of the entire world (and not least, to the safety of our children) by taking decisive and overwhelming action. And by doing it soon. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

There was a thread about it in Talkback last night. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I think that a large part of the frustration we experience in any discussion about impending war (or any other political issue, for that matter) is that almost everyone falls into the "smart people think like I do" trap. There are, obviously, "flag-waving 'me-too's'" at every point of the political spectrum. There are, perhaps less obviously, also thoughtful, educated people standing right beside them at each of those points. We all have a great tendency to think that anyone who is standing somewhere other than by our side must be a mindless flag waver. Worse, we throw such labels at people we ought to know are quite thoughtful, merely because they have the gall to consider the situation for themselves, and come to a conclusion which does not agree with our own. As a wider question: What's wrong with the "me-too's"? We are specialized in almost all the other areas of endeavor in our lives. We cannot all afford the time and energy to carefully analyze every political issue. Hence the profusion of political parties, citizens' groups, and other forms of political organization. If we all want to be chiefs, and sit in our wigwams all day debating policy, there will be no braves to bring home food for our children. Perhaps the truly wise citizens are the ones who have long since realized that this is all a waste of their time, and that they would rather be in the yard, mowing the lawn and playing with their children. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Bill, don't you think you might be guilty of intentional failure to translate, here? Rhino is speaking Rhino-ese, and you are speaking Billvon. In his defense, the majority of Americans speak something a heck of a lot closer to Rhino-ese. In my best approximation of Billvon-ese, his statement comes out as: Iraq can be affirmatively demonstrated to have strong links to a variety of terrorist organizations. Iraq's support for these organizations includes funding, refuge, and provision of armaments (one particularly egregious Iraqi offense is the offer of a "reward" for the families of suicide bombers). This specific argument for war (that Iraq is a sponsor of terrorism) is valid, regardless of Iraq's real or imagined support for any particular terrorist organization (such as Al-Quaeda). Just because you have a sky-high IQ, excellent language skills, and articulate presentation, does not mean that everyone does. Even less does it mean that everyone who possesses these qualities necessarily agrees with you. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Dude. Why you gotta diss the Uneasy Rider like that? "...who owns this car with the mag wheels, the peace sign..." -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

What?! Sacrilege! He's _Charlie Daniels_. You can't be serious. Please. Maybe the Devil Needs to Go Up to Philly. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

This is a tricky question. The short answer is "yes", but in this case I believe the short answer is insufficient. A canopy in flight with more forward speed will respond in a shorter time to control inputs. It will not necessarily respond in a shorter distance. In avoiding object strike, the most important measurement is the horizontal distance travelled toward the object. This distance can usually be minimized by minimizing forward speed on opening. In general, a canopy with zero forward speed will be stalled, so a canopy must open with some (minimal) forward speed. However, a canopy with secondary (bottom skin) inlets will be able to maintain inflation with far less forward speed. So, if you are likely to be facing a solid object with less distance than a toggle turn can be initiated in, you are, in my opinion, best off with a canopy that has secondary inlets. The secondary inlets, combined with well customized deep brake settings and riser input, will likely be the optimum combination for minimizing forward (i.e. toward the object) travel prior to and during the turn. Again, the short answer would appear to be "yes." In fact, I'd always prefer a more responsive canopy. A more complete answer, though, would be: the best canopy to avoid object strike is the one that will use the minimum distance (both horizontal and vertical) to turn away from the object. Secondary inlets will greatly enhance the responsiveness of a canopy with minimal forward speed on opening. Thus, if you are planning a jump in which you will open close enough to the object to require riser correction to avoid striking, you are best off with a vented (or valved) canopy. Obviously, the optimum setup depends on the object you are jumping. Equally obviously, even the most gear-headed rigging freak isn't going to be able to precisely adjust forward speed or turn response on every jump. There is only one situation in which I could argue that more forward speed on opening could be positive. This is a jump from a big wall (hence, lots of horizontal separation), with a relatively low pull (hence, little vertical separation), and/or a strong headwind (blowing you into the wall). A 180 in these circumstances could result in an object strike from wind (you'd get blown into the wall) [or altitude loss (you sink into the object during your turn)]. Even if your canopy sits perfectly still in both the horizontal and vertical components, relative to the air around it, you will still strike the wall in a fixed time. In this situation, you need to make your turn in the shortest possible time, as opposed to the shortest possible distance. In this case, forward speed on opening might work to your advantage. However, since this combination of circumstances is likely to arise on less than 1% of your jumps, you are probably better off to keep your gear dialed in for more "normal" deployments. In this (unusual) case, I'd recommend correcting the off-heading on toggles, rather than risers, to make the correction in the minimum time (so the wind has less time to blow you into the object), and with minimum altitude loss (so you don't strike the ground (or underhung portion of the object) during the turn. Truthfully, the vast majority of off-headings on beginner, or even intermediate, jumps can easily be corrected on toggles. If you don't have enough distance to correct on toggles, then things become more interesting. But for all the standard objects in my (and most--cue D-Dog here with a comment about how in his neck of the woods they pitch 5 jump beginners off underhung cliffs) area, any timely off heading correction can easily be made on toggles. And any time that you have enough distance to correct on toggles, your forward speed on opening is more or less irrelevant. This is one of the reasons that so many jumpers are running around with wildly shallow break settings (and setting themselves up for trouble the first time that they experience a serious off heading on an advanced object). This has all definitely come out garbled and unclear. I guess what I'm trying to say is this: Forward speed can give you a turn in less time, and less vertical distance. In general, these two components are far less important than horizontal distance. To minimize horizontal distance, you must (in 99% of cases) minimize forward speed on opening. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Ah. You appear to be correct. When was the photo taken? He looks so un-Lukas... -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I think there must be some re-formatting when you close (and save) the project. It seems like the first time I open an old project, it's pretty bad. But if I save and close it, then re-open it, it's much improved. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

It's not Lukas. Edit: Photo of Lukas, without his glasses, attached. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I just spent a few minutes messing with it. On my high end (Dual G4 gig) system, it's fine (but it was before, too). It still feels kind of slow on my laptop (400 mhz G4), though. Some weird skipping on the audio track. Video is ok, but there are still a few weird glitches slipping in. Bummer. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I noticed this in another thread: This statement appears to be based on a mis-conception about canopy forward speed. Please forgive a short lecture. There is an important difference between a canopy's available forward speed, and a canopy's forward speed on opening. Forward speed on opening is the relative forward motion of the canopy during and after the opening sequence, prior to releasing the control lines from the deployment brakes. In other words, it's how fast the canopy is flying before you pop the toggles. Forward speed on opening is primarily governed by the brake setting used for the jump. A canopy with brakes set deeper will open with less forward speed. Of course, overly deep brake settings can result in a deployment stall. It is for this reason that it is absolutely essential that BASE jumpers customize their own deep brake setting, dependent on their own personal weight and canopy type. It is forward speed on opening that is undesirable in the event of an off heading opening facing an object. It is important to note that forward speed on opening is almost completely within the control of the canopy owner, and, for the most part, is independent of canopy design. Available forward speed is the canopy's maximum speed, with no brake pressure applied (more strictly, with hard front riser input, as well, but that's not really relevant for this discussion). In other words, it's how fast the canopy can fly in full drive. Available forward speed is largely determined by two factors, canopy type and wingloading. Assuming equal wing loadings, the available (maximum) forward speed of a canopy will depend on the canopy's design. Assuming good canopy control skills, having more available forward speed can never be a bad thing--you can just fly the canopy in brakes to reduce forward speed. A canopy with a wider performance envelope (i.e. higher maximum speed and lower minimum speed) is (again, assuming good canopy skills) always superior to a canopy with a narrower control range. This is because the canopy with a wider envelope can always be flown within the control range of the other canopy. The canopy with less performance envelope can, of course, not be flown in those parts of the wider envelope that exceed it's own. The bottom line is that a canopy that can fly faster need not always fly faster. A canopy that can fly both faster and slower, is (in terms of flight) almost invariably superior. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com