JackC1

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    578

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by JackC1

  1. JackC1
    That does seem to be it exactly. When watching the video I was trying to figure out just what exactly happened. It wasn't obvious to this noob. Pulled out my rig and it didn't take me long to reproduce it. I guess I just learned one more thing. I'm sure if the line had become unstowed like that on me before now, it wouldn't have occurred to me how cautious I'd have to be. So regardless of the intent of posting the video, I'm glad it was posted and discussed.
  2. JackC1
    Looks to me like he did that to himself. At 1:47 you see him pull the toggle through the loop in the excess brake line that had come unstowed (or wasn't stowed properly when it was last packed). If that's what he did, it was an avoidable malfunction.
  3. JackC1
    That wasn't a rude hand gesture, it was the internationally recognized break off signal.
  4. JackC1
    Are you sure you're not thinking of a wing suit?
  5. JackC1
    Put the suit on backwards. The inlets are on the front so if you put the suit on backward, the inlets will be on the back and you have a back tracking suit instead of a front tracking suit. Otherwise the suit will depressurize when you're on your back. I didn't think it was that hard.
  6. JackC1
    I think the trick is to wear the tracking suit back to front.
  7. JackC1
    I looked up the RSA and GIF US patents and they're for apparatus, not algorithms. So the algorithm is fair game so long as you don't use it on a computer or other suitable algorithm running apparatus. You could argue that this is an algorithm patent in all but name and I might agree with you, but it would cost you an arm and a leg to push the idea in court; and that is what a patent is there for. They're the nuclear deterrent of the corporate world.
  8. JackC1
    You'd have to reverse engineer the manuals and patents to dig that info out. Even then it might be impossible to figure it out since algorithms are proprietary and unpatentable so there is no incentive for manufacturers to publish that information in its entirety and every incentive to stop their competitors from finding out how they do what they do. Well Vigil's successive approximation method doesn't necessarily mean the algorithm gets more accurate as the jump progresses. It could be used for that, or it could be used to weed out unphysical firing conditions and prevent misfires, or it could do both. If Cypres don't have something similar, then they must be doing it off pressure alone and their algorithm is as robust all the way down as Vigils was when the Vigil first left the aircraft. If that's the case, chalk one up to Vigil. My guess is that Cypres have either found this either isn't needed or they've got their own way of doing it. They probably wont tell either way.
  9. JackC1
    I've only read the claims quickly but I wouldn't say it patents an algorithm. In the Vigil patent, the claims are for a device that records and processes data to activate a parachute. The interesting bit is the device compares previously stored theoretical dive data to provide an estimate of remaining altitude/freefall time. The part in any patent document that counts are the claims, the rest of the document is generally there to provide context only. Maybe Vigil have presented their algorithm in the text, I haven't read it yet, but it doesn't appear as a claim. I'd actually say that the user manual would be a better place to find algorithm information as patents are usually difficult to read, intentionally vague and obfuscated, and often only loosely related to what the commercialized device actually does.
  10. JackC1
    One thing I've learned is that patent law is very, very weird and what might squeeze past one examiner, might not squeeze past the next. But from USSC Gottschalk v. Benson (1972), European Patent Convention Art. 52(2) and others, in general terms you cannot patent an algorithm. If you have (and it is entirely possible you squeezed one past your examiner somehow), then you either have a challengable patent or your algorithm is tied to some implementation thereof. I would also be interested to know how you managed to get a world wide patent since they don't exist. To get one you'd have to patent your design in 190+ different countries which again is possible if you were prepared to fund your patent attorneys new yacht on the back of it.
  11. JackC1
    That's because you can't patent an algorithm, only the hardware designed to process the algorithm. Have you got the patent numbers?
  12. JackC1
    ^^ that's about right. Toggles are essentially an airbrake that distorts the outer rear section of the aerofoil, so when it stalls it tends to stall from the outer cells inwards and you get that progressive mushiness that turns into a bow tie before it collapses completely. With a rear riser stall you are deflecting the entire rear half of the canopy which puts a step profile in the aerofoil. When the laminar flow breaks to create a stall, it does it over the entire width of the aerofoil at the same instant so the collapse is sudden and it folds up along the center span.
  13. JackC1
    That is the whole point. People claim the spirit is separate to the body, that it is an eternal force or something that can exist independently from the body. But no one can prove it hence it might well be, and probably is, total BS. You seem to be claiming spirituality is nothing more than another emotion, like greed, jealousy or anger. If so, and you could well be right, then spirituality exists in the same way that fear does. As a chemical brain gravy, that can be affected, modified and changed with other chemicals. Take a pill and be cured of your religious tendencies. Spiritual enlightenment through recreational pharmaceuticals. Side effects may include reduced rationality and chronic delusional psychosis.
  14. JackC1
    A rational person would alter their beliefs according to the available evidence; yet when asked what evidence, logic or argument could sway a religious person from their beliefs, they invariably say that nothing in the world could do that, even in principle. Changing their opinion is not even an option because it is fundamentally contrary to the concept of faith. How exactly can you argue against an illogical, incoherent and downright dangerous position that absolutely cannot be swayed no matter what argument is presented? Is that not crazy?
  15. JackC1
    I think slavery is a moral issue above being a political issue. But yeah, that doesn't mean it has anything to do with religion. It does if that religion claims to be a religion of morality.
  16. JackC1
    That's the problem, the question isn't defined. Agnosticism presupposes that one at least understands the question enough to have a position on whether it can be answered or not. No, that's pretty much what I meant. For example, if I asked you do you believe that blarnfargles exist, you probably ask what a blarnfargle is before going any further. Without that crucial definition, the question is meaningless.
  17. JackC1
    Before you can even have an idea as to whether the question of god can be answered (let alone what the answer is) you first need to define the question. According to you I'm not an atheist because I don't categorically believe that god doesn't exit (since I don't know what this god is) and I'm not an agnostic because I don't know enough about the question to tell whether it's answerable or not. So what am I?
  18. JackC1
    That combo is self contradictory. Atheist states a conclusive "belief" (they hate it when it's phrased that way) Agnostic states either conclusive belief is not possible (and doesn't likely matter) Rubbish. An atheist lacks a belief in god, that's all (a=without; theist=god). An agnostic isn't sure either way. So you can have agnostic atheists (doesn't know but doesn't believe either), agnostic theists (doesn't know but believes anyway), even atheist christians (doesn't believe god is real but thinks Jesus' teachings are worth following) all without contradiction. Personally, I find god a meaningless concept which puts me in the atheist camp since I don't place any faith in meaningless concepts.
  19. JackC1
    Reading this forum is like having your IQ extracted through your eyeballs with a pair of pliers.
  20. JackC1
    Why? You gonna use your mind ray on me? I hate to shatter your ego, but this ain’t the first time I’ve had a voodoo curse pointed at me.
  21. JackC1
    Nothing in the world could do that. Which is why faith is a very dangerous thing.
  22. JackC1
    In my case faith is based on first experience. Things happen when you humble yourself at the foot of the cross of Jesus Christ. Ah, but what would make you change your beliefs?
  23. JackC1
    A person that cannot be persuaded from their false beliefs by any reasoning, evidence or fact is by definition delusional. I have, on occasion, asked religious people what reasoning, evidence or fact would make them change their beliefs and often they find this a difficult question to answer because it conflicts directly with the concept of faith. It seems to me that faith and delusion are rather intimate bed fellows.
  24. JackC1
    The Euro was never going to work It's dead. Bury it already.
  25. JackC1
    I always watch a WiDI load before manifesting.