ernokaikkonen

>>So how did you find all this out >> >Days of experience. I'm totally worn out ! > Spare us the details: >GETTING A SECOND ERECTION: If you are: >20-29 years....................................36 Calories >30-39 years....................................80 Calories >40-49 years....................................124 Calories >50-59 years....................... ..............1972 Calories >60-69 years....................................7916 Calories >70 and over....................................Results are still pending

I did a search on this and the main answer seems to be 'None, unless you're really rich'. Oh well. I'm thinking of buying an 'entry-level' digital still-camera for non-skydiving purposes. However, knowing myself, sooner or later I'm going to bolt it on my helmet and go jump with it. So, while I know I wont get optimal results with anything cheap and digital, I don't want to buy anything that's completely unsuitable for skydiving. So the things I should look at include(but are probably not limited to): -Cycle times between shots. How bad can this get? I have little experience with digital cameras, how slow are the slowest ones? -Connector for a remote. I guess this is something that wont be found in most inexpensive cameras? -Manual focus? Since autofocus should be turned off when shooting video, is this the case with stills also? The camera should have a possibility to use manual focus? -Shutter speed? Not all digital cameras are suitable for hi-speed action photography? Is there something else I should take into consideration? Does anyone have an actual suggestion for a camera?

>Dying to tell you my Suomi College story but it's probably best >to relate in person. Someday we'll connect, I'm sure. I'll be sure to look you up during my world tour of DZs. Don't hold your breath though, the financing of the tour isn't exactly complete yet...

>I don't have limitless disc space, so when I'm building a movie I >do it the old fashioned way... I think he was referring to a some kind of archiving solution, so that you wont end up with a pile of 56 unlabeled 60-minute miniDVs... A database that would include just the information on the contents of all the tapes, not the data itself. Something like that would be a lot of help if you have a situation where you remember 'I have just the clip to insert here, it was that 3-way sitfly jump that's probably somewhere on one of those three tapes labeled "summer-2001". Damn.' With a database, you could just look up "sitfly, 3-way, 2001", and end up with tape numbers and time-codes that have matching material. Of course it'd be no use if you wont bother entering the data to the database... Or then again I could be completely off here and I could shut my mouth which knows next to nothing about video stuff...

>it is " Thunder... Thunder... Thunder Cats, HO!" Thunder, thunder, thundercats... D'oh!

>It's to stow two lines in the back of the canopy. Probably the steering lines. Maybe it's some kind of anti-lineover thingie. I have this feeling that I might have read somewhere that BASE jumpers use something similar sometimes. (I wonder if that was unsure enough) Perhaps one of our resident BASEists could chime in?

Thundercats are go!

Woohoo! Hauskaa syntymäpäivää HH!

Whoa. I guess you could be allowed to take a break while going to work... I suppose those spawns of devil could be used responsibly too. But what I see in them is lazy fat couch-potatoes taking one to the corner-shop because they'd get winded just by walking there. BTW, Did you say she'd run a marathon on the Antarctica?? Twice??? My hat'd be off if I had one.

>Walking takes too long. Bicycle? Rollerblades? Running? Those things are evil. People are lazy enough as it is.

Well he was overly sensitive... You have a commanding presence, young Viking!

How about just peeking out the door and yelling towards the cockpit: "5 LEFT!"

Ok, I think I got it now: without atmosphere: -Drop a cannonball or football on a planet; they hit the ground at the same time for any practical reasons. -Drop a moon on a planet, it wouldn't hit the ground any sooner than the football, except that the planet would be falling at the moon too, so they impact sooner. And with atmosphere: - Me with my weight-vest falls faster than me without it, because... ... Nope, it's getting late on this side of the globe, I'm not getting it...

>>But heavier objects must fall faster. >> > >That rumbling sound? Galileo turning in his grave. So why do I bother wearing a weight vest?

Woohoo! Useless statistics!

>>gay or straight and he is no longer a boy >> > > no... he'd probably end up being someone's bitch... He probably wouldn't consider that an improvement...

Poor guy...

works fine with me.

>In a vacuum, but you wouldn't like that, you'd probably explode Actually, in a vacuum there would be no terminal velocity... He'd accelerate until impact. And weight would still play a part in his rate of acceleration. (edit:) Umm.. No? Yes? Now I'm second-guessing myself... Earths gravitational pull causes acceleration of ~10m/s^2. But heavier objects must fall faster. SO where does weight come in the equation? damnit. BillVon? Help, please?

Yeah, it's a shame that practically all the answers to his post are by gyus...

>The Alpha was also known as the Space. And the 'Impulse', I think.

> At least we have sex on his mind WTF? Nevermind actually, please don't tell the details... Something in that sentence just seemed so very wrong...

>We like the thrill of the chase just as much as the boys ... We like the thrill of the chase?

I heard there's a video on ftp.skydivingmovies.com showing Felix Baumgartner in a wingsuit being towed by an aeroplane... The server is a bit crowded (as usual) so I can't check it rigth now. As I recall it was in the "from television" -folder... from a german tv-show(?)

I've used NWS as in "Not Work Safe" It seems somehow appropriate...