Dolph

Mandatory in Denmark from 2006 on. New regulation. No exceptions. I even saw an FXC on a belly mounted reserve. Guy was jumping a T-10.

I call all that "Doing Your Thing". Doing your thing primarily is oriented around two things. 1) Being honest about yourself, your needs and go about fulfilling them 2) Taking the consequences of that. Which includes the bad stuff. Self fulfilling prophecies. You may call it divine intervention when something good happen; I call it personal drive coupled with luck. You may call it a Test of Faith when bad things happen; I call it consequences to my actions. But basically, we're doing the same thing, we're just using different terminology. You should (if your religion allows) be proud of yourself for being able to Do Your Thing properly. It's commendable and it's something I respect very much.

Being in SC is like playing Fireball. You don't know if that burning fuel soaked roll of toilet paper will explode and put you on fire until a little after you've given it a good kick. Having said that, some threads are actually a little educational. It's nice to get various (and often extremely diverse) opinions. And add a little fuel here and there

Oh my goodness. I just fell in love.

The US state department wouldn't even back Denmark up on an issue of freedom of press. Instead, they made an apology to those who wish to enforce their religious dogma to a free and democratic country. It took embassies burning before there was a response - and then only to the burning embassies. Germany. Norway. Italy. France. These countries have supported Denmark. It seems there is some way yet before Europe's name is cowardice. And it seems other continents seek appeasement where none can be found. Fortunately, there still is a good deal of good, upstanding individual citizens across the pond. I find comfort in their support. Even when they're yelling "USA-USA-USA! Yurop SUCKS!", blinded by a shroud of patriotism. At least somewhere we're fighting for the same thing

Ours (C-182) can take us to 13 000 (five jumpers plus pilot) at about 20 minutes in the winter, 25 in the summer. For Hop'n pops it's superfast. We have a 330hp engine in it, which helps.

Normal layered thin gloves are enough here. Sure, you sometimes get a little cold but nothing that disables you from feeling or pulling your handles. Packing in an unheated hangar afterwards will do that just fine

Perhaps you can make decisions about what is essentially a parasite (to some) within your own body and let others decide what to do about what's in theirs? parasite n 1: an animal or plant that lives in or on a host (another animal or plant); the parasite obtains nourishment from the host without benefiting or killing the host. A fetus could, should one be so inclined, be defined as a parasite. But that's just a funny twist to the discussion for me. I don't like parasites, human or not. The law prevents me from eradicating human parasites that directly affect me. I do have some success in the merciless slaughter of non human parasites. I do not have any personal motives for banning or allowing abortions; I'm a man so this situation is extremely unlikely to apply to me. Can only happen by proxy. At any rate, some argue that abortion should be allowed in certain circumstances. Mother's life in danger. Rape. Severly handicapped children. If one is of the opinion that a fetus is a person or child, then it is so regardless of all three things mentioned. These exceptions hold no relevance to whether terminating the pregnancy is ok or not - it would be killing of a child/person regardless of the circumstances leading up to or during the pregnancy. It's basically just being inconsistent about one's views. One of them really brings in an interesting question though; who's life is worth more? The unborn child (let's go with that definition) or the mothers? Are we not all equal in theory under the law, if granted personhood etc? This would suggest that nothing should or can legally be done in favour of either person, some argue. Others argue that if one person is endangering another, this person can be terminated. There's precedence for that view. Whatever your views, my opinion is that one better remain consistent.

Hey look on the bright side. It's the physical absence of someone you share a reciprocal loving relationship with. It's not the absence of such a relationship. Gotta count for something, right?

You *could* reinstall Saddam again. Make him promise not to give the baddies bad stuff.

Works well here. Scandinavian countries are the least corrupt in the world. Of course, the countries ain't no commie countries. But socialist ones - certainly. Not that I'll vote for a socialist. It's just about right as it is right now. Don't need more.

Pajarito, I'll apologize again in advance if I come off as bashing your faith. The arguments presented are thoughts in my mind put to words and should be construed a such. God's moral law spelled out in ten commandments. But they are primarily don'ts - they're there to prevent you from doing evil, they're not encouraging in themselves good deeds. Aside from the first five or so, they say "don't be evil". Agreed - but not being evil does not automatically translate to being good. Following rules does not a moral man make. The motives behind your behaviour, thoughts shared and withhold, actions taken and not taken drives morality. And all is filtered through a layer of culture. The False Choice. Choose between eternal pain and eternal bliss. This choice is not one made on moral grounds; rather it inspires a selforiented egotistic choice. It is so heavily loaded had it been a canopy, even Jim Slaton would go "dude, wtf?!?". Looking out for number one gives you the reward. Disobeying the rules gives you the punishment. A truly altruistic, moral deed is one that is done for the benefits of others, despite no reward for it - or even despite severe punishment for the act. If the motive is to get rewarded or to avoid punishment - well, that is rational in itself as Cicero eloquently argued - but the morality of the act (and not the good it does) can be questioned. For the religious the answers, what you must do, are there - and it is generally speaking not a lot. It covers "do not mess things up too badly and try to do good". You are forgiven for your weaknesses, for your selfishness, for your lack of doing better. This is God Given, if you follow the rules. I envy you for having such faith; for me there is no such relief. I know I can do more, yet I do not act. There is one person I have to convince - myself - and that's proving exceedingly difficult. I started out thinking it is harder for religious people to obtain an inner positive belief in their morality. That belief has been weakened somewhat. Because, quite basically, we're not doing nearly enough. Not even close. Each of us with such a great potential. The powers that may be must indeed be generous if they can forgive us.

If in doubt, land out. Might avoid that low turn up against the wind that get-home-itis sometimes produce. Sure, your landing could be uncomfortable, given that it's hard to judge ground conditions from up high. Still, a broken ankle beats a broken everything.

What disqualified the firing squad as a viable method in the US? I'm no supporter of the death penalty but if it is implemented, why would a firing squad not be an option? For me, rather that than lethal injection or (specifically!) the electric chair.

N/A

No disrespect at all intended; to me it sounds like a cop-out. God doesn't give you a path to walk. He gave you free will, and the intelligence to use it for good, bad or in between. It cannot be right that it is "my path" to be, comparatively speaking, filthily rich, living in luxury while it's millions of kids path to die of malnutrition, forced to become child soldiers or prostitutes and so forth. It isn't right, because it is neither right or wrong. It just is. I'll just stop the thought there. At 30, one has outgrown the youthful exuberance and bullet-proofness. One is still young enough to feel that one *really can make a difference* yet hardened enough to know the odds of doing so. It gives rise to some tough questions. The most beneficial thing about having faith, in my opinion, is that faith equals certainty. On the other hand one should not dismiss the value of a pizza and two beers.

Hah, that's funny!

Hi Rehmwa. yes, serious answer is what I would like. I was perhaps a bit narrow in my original question, focusing primarily on physical aspects. While these are no doubt interesting, the psychological ones are probably more so. It's no a question asked just for the hell of it. I'm honestly trying to edu-macate myself a little

QuoteChristians judge others, gossip,etc. NO one is perfect. This is why God is so amazing--He continues to love us despite our imperfections. Not to outshine the G-man or anything, but all my family members do that too. And I'm still not reconciled or satisfied with the idea of not giving your all for the greater good while still maintaing some kind of moral standing. It's cheap and dirty to hold back, no matter our imperfections. I'm not even holding us up against godly standards. But hey, that's me. Cheap and dirty and high and mighty at the same time. And, to be intellectually honest, what a poor excuse that last line is. But, excuse or not, it's true. Now I shall go eat pizza and forget I had this discussion .

I call BS on that one. You are into martial arts, travel...ect. You have more in your life than just jumping. I'm a noob by that definition. Funny thing is I don't even feel it's sad. Of course, I'm a noob by two other definitions too; years in sport and jump numbers. There may very well be a correlation. I'm open to the idea that jumping will be relegated to something less in the future. Right now, I'm not complaining though.

A statement by Billvon in a threat in Speaker's Corner has made me wonder about what these are, how they manifest themselves and what is generally done about it. Pretty interesting stuff that I really have paid very little thought to, thinking that the deviation within each group is greater than the deviation between the groups. He mentioned issues such as weight distribution, fall rate and wingload. I'm pretty ignorant about the gender specific differences - I'm aware of concepts relating to body weight and distribution in general, but not related to differences between the two genders. Could anyone elaborate a little on this and how it manifests itself in freefall and while piloting the canopy? I'm trying to restrict it to these two topics (skydiving mechanics in essence) and not go into other aspects (medical, social etc.). Edit: Link to Billvon's post here

For an interesting perspective on that, read Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene. We're mere carriers or vehicles for our genes in a sense. Of course, he takes it quite far and omits some aspects, but an interesting perspective nonetheless. The effectiveness is evident by people's desire to have "their own kids".

|337 d00dz b00gi3 Only for computer geeks. Disciplines include: xtreem programin: hack your way through the Pentagon mainframes. You may pull when done, but not before. Make-fun-of-un-elite people. Come up with ways of calling people dumb that are hard to understand for n00bs. Such as "A few DLLs short of a successful compile" "A few bits short of a byte" Whitest Legs competition. Flaunt your lack of complexion. Spelin B for progamurs ppl who rite code. Winner get an Unnecessary Shiny Gadget. Rules: All participants must use altimeters that use the binary system. All must have propellers on their helmets. All must be secretly bugged by the NSA. Communication must be done in |337 sp33k. It's gonna be cool.

Hm yes, but that'd be anatomical differences between men and women. Of course if we expand the original subject from gay boogie to chicks rock, I see your point. But, as a counter point I say this: men have unique issues with regards to fallrate, weight distribution and wing loading. . On a more serious note, is it not possible that deviations from the standard so to speak may in general terms be larger within each group than between them? A fatty compared to a skinny in each group can represent both ends of the scale. Humm, you're right about that. Some kind of automatic assumption on my part. Pretty dumb one, too. My apologies to anyone I've offended by that.

Precisely. It is democracy. And in the very real sense, people get exactly what they put in. Support is never unconditional. Can it be used as a bargaining chip? Yes. Is it used? Naturally. But the people are given the choice, which they take. They must then face the consequences. The consequences isn't military intervention but rather a halt to assistance. If their democracy is allowed to flourish, it is great. If their democratic state turns into an enemy - well, that has happened before. Halting of aid, severing of diplomatic relations and war have happened before and will continue to happen between democratic nations. Democratic nation or not - if it threatens my life and my freedoms, I'll defend both with all I got. My country should reserve the right to use economical, political and military methods to do so.