Dolph

To get federal tax money. New Hampshire is the only state in the union that has had the spine to keep the seatbelt a personal choice. Live free or die. If you had socialized health care (fully covered by the government through tax payers money) I suspect the economic reality might persuade you to think of seat belt laws as a good idea. Bit of a tangent I know since you don't but to be fair, in reference to AAD being mandatory, there are some issues other than personal safety that has a minor impact.

It's judged to save more lives than it takes at a relative modest investment in energy and money. The civil aviation authorities like it and are a little less likely to take over all aspects of the sport because of it. There are insurance issues (we're to some extent covered by our membership). Because it's generally a good idea to have an AAD as a backup. Same with a reserve - that's also mandatory here. My gear has to go through a check every year for airworthyness and I have to hang in a harness and pass a yearly emergency procedures test as well. Any Instructor I can ground me if he thinks I'm unsafe. We have wingload restrictions in place as well as a certification needed to do relative work and demo jumps. Probably sounds very restrictive to you, but it really doesn't bother me. This sport is inherently dangerous after all. Not hearing too many complaints about it really and I don't object to. Some people are proud of their relatively (to us) unregulated skydiving world and quick to point of the freedoms but it's mostly some odd form of boasting I don't quite understand. People still die skydiving, here and elsewhere. I can see your point from a philosophical point of view (self reliance and governance, personal responsibility) but I view these restrictions as relatively minor. Your mileage may vary.

Where does such pressure come from? What sort of pressure - peer pressure, pressure backed by violence etc? I've found that if I veryy much disagree with a book, radio channel or tv show, closing/shutting it it off removes the annoyance. Part of life. Life is a dance on roses, rather than rose petals. You must be prepared to step on some thorns. Dealing with uncofortable and downright nasty things is part of what define us as humans. Still, I suspect that with the prosperity and knowledge in our respective countries, this is about the most comfortable period ever for people to be alive in. You may want to reconsider participating in skydiving. Some really, really ugly things happen in the sport. Chances are someone you like will be injured or killed. Chances are you will witness it. Kind of puts TV shows into perspective, doesn't it? Really good and useful question, if directed at yourself. Useless, if you expect others to answer it.

Whether it's Christians or Muslims trying to ensure that their local ethical standards are followed, what such a campaign shows is that in any large enough religious group, there's going to be a substantial group of people trying to tell others what to do and think based on their religious convictions alone. Protect yourself and your kin from the outrages as you wish. Don't try to limit my rights and freedoms in the process, that's all. Religious faith is personal and cannot be argued with sensibly. It'd help if there was some kind of peer pressure review system of general religious ideas. Of course there is - but Christians not following the lines are just labelled "not *real* Christians.

What makes jumping in sunglasses inherently unsafe?

Depends on the kid, doesn't it? Some are little thinkers. All are inquisitive by nature. As a kid, I had no problem correlating bad behaviour with punishment. As my siblings also did, I thought about why it'd be happening though. My conclusion, as a 7-year old, is one I've found to hold true today, 23 year laters. "Because they can, and because I can't stop it". This is perhaps a more valuable lesson than "oops, shouldn't hit my little sister". It's a dangerous lesson though. A couple trains of thoughts: 1) I want this position. I should obtain it. 2) I want to be able to stop it. At the very least, I want to test if "they really can". 3) Nothing to be done about it. I better behave, I better fit in, I better conform. #3 is the easiest one to take and causes least friction. #1 turns ya into a bullying asshole. #2 will get ya beat up in school and have other consequences later in life - but at least you're standing your ground, frequently against #1 types. My point is: the same material may teach two students two different things. As such, I don't think there is any one right answer to spank/not spank. Children are astute observers and extremely adatable, unburdened by too much baggage and reinforced behaviour.

Dammit dude, you keep beating me on delivering the Good Points(tm)! I have taken note of this behaviour. You, Sir, are clearly a stalker. Not much to add really. Guilt or innocence dictates whether a person should be punished. The act the person is guilty of dictates what the punishment will be. Guilty/Not guilty --> to punish or not Act guilty of --> determines range of punishment Not range of punishment --> affects "degree of guilt".

80 jets? Shite, that's more than the entire Danish air force. I doubt the Iranians will blink though. Current regime is too fanatical. If the US bombs Iran, I would suspect the Iraq insurgency would be boosted by "Iranian irregulars". That's their best card; proximity to the big arena.

Murder by definition is an unlawful killing. State sanctioned killing usually don't fall into the murder category (although it can). I have a bit of an issue with this self justice bit. Combine it with a religious "God's Will" hands off approach and any murder can be justifiable. Just a matter of opinion. This is why we have Big Brother tell us who we can kill, when we can kill them and to some degree how we may kill them. Arbitrary rules on killing lowers productivity, and of course causes a lasting sense of insecurity in the population of course. Can't have that. Taxes means money, which means power. We're not too good at self governance with regards to killing. The effects are clear to see in a post-war country that's been defeated or liberated and where a formal state structure is weak or non existant. Few official figures exist but it is well known such things took place here after WWII (nazi collaborators "disappearing"). It's also evident in Iraq today. I don't condone unsanctioned killing. Heh, I don't like killing in general. It is necessary from time to time. I just can't personally have a leisurely relationship to it. Rehmwa hit the issue right on, fair and square

Alright, we'll just agree to disagree then. At any rate, my argument is just about semantics anyhow. Hahah, thanks bro. I'm nearing my third year now, hoping to reach 1000 before that. First year I only did 60, after that it picked up a bit. I live in Denmark though and the weather here doesn't allow for many more jumps a year. So, since I have no kids to not spank/spank when necessary, I go abroad once every summer for a couple of weeks. It helps :).

Really depends on the job you're applying for. If you're applying for a job where competitiveness, independence and the ability to handle stress and *act* when action is needed it may do you some good to mention it. Developer at a small software company or some such. Depends on lots of variables though. If you're going for a cubicle job in a large rigid corporation, same attributes aren't necessarily viewed upon favourably. These guys have procedures and want the exact same thing day after day - predictability being a huge factor. So whether to use whatever connotations skydiving has really depends on the situation and circumstances. Requires good judgement. My boss had to know. Small software company and he's gotta be able to get hold of me even in weekends if the shit hits the fan. For the majority of jobs out there though, being predictable is more important than being independent. Easier for middle managers and HR girls/guys to manage to workforce and anticipate needs that way.

Question is if you want to spend the rest of your life like that. If ya feel unappreciated and ya make an effort and she knows it yet continues acting like you're a mere nuisance or servant, I doubt it does any of you good. May have to cut your losses here. I feel for ya bro.

Spanking is violence. violence n 1: an act of aggression (as one against a person who resists); It's a mild form of violence and ist most often done to educate rather than harm. But I bet kids don't like being spanked and would resist it if they had any viable options (other than not doing whatever caused the spanking in the first place). They may develop a sexual interest in spanking later on in life but the people I know pretty much all agree that spanking wasn't something fun. Ain't arguing about the effectiveness now, just about the violence bit. If you bitch slap a co-worker, that is violence. The force applied is probably around the same as when a kid gets one on his ass. As long as it hits the kids ass, it's spanking. If the kids was smacked with the same force on the face, it would qualify as child abuse. The threat of violence is one method to keep people in check until they develop a mature moral compass and the ability to follow it. The threat of spanking is in essence: failure to comply will result in pain and possibly humiliation. I personally think there are times when that is warranted. But I will not play a redefine game on violence. I didn't call you a child abuser Jon. Am merely saying that all that oppose spanking don't do it because they were abused as kids. Then I related the arguments they've presented to me - they're not mine, they're not new and they're a matter of personal belief to those that hold them. But slapping someone is being violent to 'em. Some years ago, students in classes were subjected to "disciplining" when they failed to perform to a teachers satisfaction. Whether you call it disciplining or spanking, when you deliberately bring pain to someone, you're being violent towards them. It may be justified. It may benefit the individual. The act of inflicting pain is a violent one, even if it is part of an act of compassion.

Yeah. Show a good golfer go under par and they're impressed. Show a video of world class freefliers and they ask "uh, so what's the big deal?" Looks so easy. Talking skydiving with whuffos is 99% of the time sure to result in one thing: both parts being bored.

Most of the people I've spoken to who're anti "traditional spanking" (whatever that is) object to it on moral grounds rather than because they were abused as children. Their argument goes that with proper techniques, it's not necessary. And of course that and adult has an incredible physical and mental advantage of a child. Using violence on relatively helpless creatures being who they are (children) is wrong in their eyes. I don't know. I haven't got any kids, I don't know about the challenges of raising them. For adults a threat without any sort of backing is an empty threat and begs to be ignored. For kids - dunno if the threat has to be of violence to come. Mostly very mild violence for the sake of education sure, but violence nonetheless.

I agree with Jeff here. If the argument is that it targets poor people, it's pure BS. A McD meal is more than twice as expensive for me than a normal one I cook myself. But the argument seems to be elsewhere: Overworked teenagers. Quit. Get a new job. Or accept the conditions. I work 60 hour weeks. I may bitch and complain about it but if I didn't think it was OK, I'd found a new job. If you can't find a new one, endure while you get training. Also, overworked people are found in all industries, not only the fast food ones. Go talk with yer local programmer who's competing with an Indian who costs 1/10th as much. If you find the exploitation argument compelling; step away from the computer. The industry relies on an overworked exploited work force. If ape shit tastes like heaven and makes my hunger go away, I don't care it's ape shit. Gross, but true. Pathetic argument for staying away from fast food. You either like it or you don't. Personal preference. Oh, and the feces comment - it's not unique to the fast food industry. A little digging would make ya starve to death if you stayed away from the stuff. Well, exaggerating, but hey so are they :). As opposed to the little cottage industry of proletarian comrades, working from their homes, raising ecological cattle that are killed by playing classical music. Because that's where all the OTHER meat is coming from. C'mon dude. And lack of federal oversight is a matter of getting the government to do what they are paid to do - their jobs, which include oversights and enforcing laws. Must say the peak sounds rather disappointing. I hope the author tackles the problem of there being too few of the good stuff in certain candy packs next.

I'm not sure it's a rich man's sport. It's all about priority. If you want a house, a boat, a big new Mercedes and send your kids to the best college while saving good money for your pension, you need to be rich. If you live in a small apartment, no car, no kids and have a normal paying job, ya have the funds. It's more about the amount of available fun-money than the total amount of money earned/in the bank I think. I'm definitely not rich and I spend money at the same rate I'm making it. I've cut a lot of (in my view) unnecessary costs away and can live comfortably doing around 500 jumps a year using the prices of today. A doubling of jump prices would mean half as many jumps per year for me. I'd still jump though. Interesting stuff Tom, thanks for sharing. Inflation tends to be forgotten when the cloud of nostalgy descends :).

Close friends know it and aren't surprised I find it interesting. I have less time to spend on them and they know where to get hold of me in the weekend. I talk to them when it's appropriate, mostly as a source of inspiration. Others - if they ask what I did in the weekend, I tell them. I've found myself unable to describe what I get out of it or any way to make a discussion about the smoothest way to do a spock interesting, so it's usually a short conversation such as "yeah, I think it's pretty awesome." Not to exclude them from anything because they don't jump but there just isn't enough value in the discussion. They'll be bored with details and I'll be fed up trying to explain stuff I know I can't explain adequately and which they'll not get anyway. It's sort of like I feel when the dudes at my DZ start with their military talk. Lots of military guys, lots of stories/preferences on weapons. I haven't been in the military, can't relate, find it boring, so I drink beer and see if i can find some girls instead. When I do, they're also military

Understandable, and I do not disagree. But, whether a decapitation of an innocent child was done as an unprovoked act of aggression or as an act of response to aggression, the innocent child still loses its head. Of course context has to be considered when judging an action, but the action itself has considerable influence on the moral justification. In other words, once aggression has commenced against a country, that country is, in essence, given a Carte Blanche in terms of actions - all will be considered justified and morally defensible? Putting words in your mouth, sorry; a response of the same magnitude of cruelty is morally defensible then? I'll need to give that some thought before I can give a good answer to that. Agreed, that is indeed the lesson. My question is more: does aggression justify equal behaviour? Would it be morally right and defensible to systematically kill German civilians in death camps, since they'd done it? I personally believe no. Your mileage may vary.

It was funny when I read it the first time about 4 years ago. Hell, it's still funny. I'm working on my €uro English but am somewhat hampered by the CIA flights that keep buzzing my place with their black UN helicopters.

They did try to break the British morale by bombing Lodong. A massive blunder from their side, allowing the British air force to get a breather and come back from near obliteration. On the other hand, if you call them psycho killers for this, consider the British and American raids later in the war. Admittedly, the US did much to attempt to target primarily military targets but that's pretty hard when you're carpet bombing. Consider the case of the bombing of Dreseden. It was done to destroy communication facilities, trains taking troops to the east and so forth. Its population included over 200 000 refugees from the war, and this fact was well known to the Allies. The firebombing of this city created firestorms. Killed were between 35 000 and 135 000 people, almost exclusively civilians. The difference here between the German psycho killers and the US/UK is not that huge. Both did it to achieve military goals. The US/UK felt justified by the fact that the Germand had started it. Still, if a psycho killer starts cutting up your relatives, if you in response start cutting up his relatives and you stood next to each other, blood stained clothes and hands, you'd both look like psycho killers to me. The Nazi regime was a murderous one that comes the closest to any human definition I have seen of evil and only rivaled by Stalin and his cronies. The bombing of London is not a particularly good example of the differences between the good vs the bad I think. Much better one would be treatment of civilian population in general, occupied/liberated territory, prisoners of war and post-war actions. They're not as "sexy" though but those are the reasons I'm very thankful for US intervention.

I agree - it's a Eurocentric view of the war, totally neglecting the fighting that took place in the pacific for instance which was extremely fierce and where the US definitely (at very least initially) had harder circumstances to handle than their opponent. If the US hadn't been involved at all in any way in the European theatre, the Germans would have beaten the Russians. They'd run out of raw material and equipment and wouldn't have had the opportunity to move much of their industrial complex away from the front. It's worth mentioning that US civilian sailors took big risks here to get the supplies to the Russians, losing men and ships along the way. There's no doubt the world would be a much different place had the US elected to continue on an isolationalist path during WWII and after. The US has been and still is Europe's strongest ally and while there have been differences in the past, it's still our strongest ally, sharing similar views on human rights, democracy, equality and so forth. It sort of pisses me off that people on both sides of the Atlantic whine about the few differences we have and create an us vs them situation. The US is Europe's little brother who's grown up to be much more powerful than its older brother. Europeans gotta accept that, and stop bitching. The US gotta be graceful about their newfound position and respect that their older brother has been there, done that through history for a very long time. When the stuff hits the fan in a big way the next time, I'm confident we'll fight side by side again.

The Russian front would have collapsed if the US hadn't sent massive quantities of equipment, steel and so forth to the Russians. That'd allow Hitler to take his troops elsewhere. As far as the west front - the vast majority of German troops were fighting in the east. Their best took a serious beating there after the Russian war machine was moving at full speed. I doubt the west front was necessary to win the war - the Germans would have been beaten by the Russians anyhow. Would have taken a little longer though. If the US had not directly intervened in the war, we'd speak a different language here. It'd be Russian, not German though.

Heh, was using Ye Olde Metaphors. . Americans are the jocks of the world. The Europeans are the math nerds. When you say "get of our backs", we hide the smiles caused by the irony of the situation behind our calculators so we won't be beaten up

You're the big dude who gets all the hot women. We're the math nerds and farmers. And we should cut you some slack? I hope your 'vette gets keyed, dude. Incidentally, do you know how to calculate the braking distance of that thing if it's going 100 on a cow pasture?