craichead

Don't worry, it's not you. The Flyaway wind tunnel is somewhat primitive compared to the other tunnels being built these days. My husband and I tried out the Pigeon Forge wind tunnel a couple years ago for giggles. We were in Knoxville visiting my family at the time. Anyway, we're fat asses, so we had to wear HUGE balloon suits with air vents to fly in the tunnel. I'm sure if we hadn't had those we would've been on the grate the whole time, too! Edited to add: Apparently there's a SkyVenture Tunnel in the works for Colorado! http://www.skyventurecolorado.com/ Also, here's a North America view of exisiting and proposed SkyVenture wind tunnels: http://www.skyventure.com/tunnellocations/locationsmap.aspx?region=north%20america _Pm __ "Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)

I remember your pie at Hinckley! And the paper plate stuck to the back of your head just so perfectly...you looked like an ! I can't wait to get pied! _Pm __ "Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/solar.htm The Hazards of Solar Energy Many groups and individuals are proposing that our government spend tax money on research and development of systems to utilize solar energy. They urge construction of vast solar energy collectors to convert sunlight to electricity to supply our energy needs. They would even put solar collectors on roofs of homes, factories, schools, and other buildings. Proponents of this technology claim that energy obtained from the sun will be safer and cleaner than coal, oil, or nuclear energy sources. We view these proposals with alarm. Unscrupulous scientists and greedy promoters are hoodwinking a gullible public. We consider it rash and dangerous to commit our country to the use of solar energy. This solar technology has never been utilized on such a large scale, and we have no assurance of its long-range safety. Not one single study has been done to assess the safety of electricity from solar energy as compared to electricity from other sources. The promoters of solar energy cleverly lead you to believe that it is perfectly safe. Yet they conveniently neglect to mention that solar energy is generated by nuclear fusion within the sun. This process operates on the very same basic laws of nuclear physics used in nuclear power plants and atomic bombs! And what is the source of this energy? It is hydrogen, a highly explosive gas (remember the Hindenberg?) Hydrogen is also the active material in H-bombs, that are not only tremendously destructive, but produce dangerous fallout. The glib advocates of solar energy don't even mention these disturbing facts about the true sources of solar energy. What else are they trying to hide from us? In addition to the known dangers cited above, what about the unknown dangers, that very well might be worse? When pressed, scientists will admit that they do not fully understand the workings of the sun, or even of the atom. They will even grudgingly admit that our knowledge of the basic laws of physics is not yet perfect or complete. Yet these same reckless scientists would have us use this solar technology even before we fully understand how it works. Admittedly we are already subject to a natural `background' radiation from the sun. We can do little about that, except to stay out of direct sunlight as much as possible. The evidence is already clear that too much exposure to sunlight can cause skin cancer. But solar collectors would concentrate that sunlight (that otherwise would have fallen harmlessly on waste land), convert it to electricity and pipe it into our homes to irradiate us from every light bulb! We would then not even be safe from this cancer-producing energy even in our own homes! We all know that looking at the sun for even a few seconds can cause blindness. What long term health hazards might result from reading by light derived from solar energy? We now spend large amounts of time looking at the light from television monitors or computer screens, and one can only imagine the possible long-term consequences of this exposure when the screens are powered with electricity from solar collectors. Will we develop cataracts, or slowly go blind? Not one medical study has yet addressed itself to this question, and none are planned. In their blind zeal to plug us in to solar energy, scientists seem to totally ignore possible fire hazards of solar energy. Sunlight reaching us directly from the sun at naturally safe levels poses little fire threat. But all one has to do is concentrate sunlight, with a simple burning- glass, and it readily ignites combustible materials. Who would feel safe with solar energy concentrators on their roof? Could we afford the fire insurance rates? These scientists, and the big corporations that employ them, stand to profit greatly from construction of solar-power stations. No wonder they try to hide the dangers of the technology and suppress any open discussion of them. Proponents of solar energy present facts, figures and graphs to support their claim that energy from the sun will be less expensive, as conventional fuel supplies dwindle and technology of solar energy systems improves. But even if this is so, what will stop the solar energy equipment manufacturers and solar power companies from raising prices when they achieve a monopoly and other fuel sources disappear? Of course every technology has risks. We might be willing to tolerate some small risk—if solar energy really represented a permanent solution to our energy problems. But that is not the case. At best, solar energy is only a temporary band-aid. Recent calculations indicate that the "Sun Will Go Out in a Billion Years As Its Fuel Runs Out" (Source: newspaper headline) As that calculation was made a year ago, we now have only nine-hundred ninety-nine million, nine-hundred ninety-nine thousand, nine-hundred and ninety-nine years left during which we could use solar energy. Wouldn't it be better to put our human resources and scientific brains to work to find a safer and more permanent solution to our energy needs? (c) 1978, 1994 by Donald E. Simanek, Lock Haven University, Lock Haven, PA 17745. Before sending comments, read this additional information about this important issue. __ "Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)

Just at work? How about here in the forums? _Pm __ "Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)

Why is that a bad thing? Have you been paying attention? You never answered my question if this was a good thing: So if BSRs are broken every day, what's the point of having them in the first place? By this logic, we should get rid of the SIM all together because apparently nobody pays attention to it, anyway. Do you really think that changing one word is going to make more people abide by the SIM and help them develop good common sense about the sport? What good would changing that language really do, if any? Perhaps the SIM needs clarification, but certainly not misleading language. Is that right? Wow, you must know everything there is to know about me to make that kind of a judgment call. Yes, I will make my own choices, but based on the knowledge and experience that is already out there and that is (as far as everyone knows) not faulty. Is it not true that you are ultimately responsible for yourself in this sport? Considering what? That I support having information make sense in the SIM? I have not claimed to know everything about the sport. My only claim is that your suggestion doesn't make sense. _Pm __ "Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)

Yup, all of those suggestions are just as sensible as changing "Recommendations" to read as "Requirements" in the SIM. _Pm __ "Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)

I didn't say 150ft, I said 1,800ft. Changing "Recommendation" to "Requirement" will discourage those common-senseless people from chopping unlandable canopies at safe altitudes. Why is that a good thing? Recommendations paired with good common sense allow for me to cutaway at 1,800ft to save my butt even though I have an A license and should not be cutting away below 2,500ft. Recommendations also allow me to cutaway at 150ft if I choose to do so. I probably wouldn’t, but the option is there. Ultimately it's my choice and not a requirement dictated by the USPA. _Pm __ "Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)

Oh, I see! Then we really should be getting rid of the SIM all together so that we can foster development of common sense in skydivers! _Pm Common sense comes from common knowledge. __ "Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)

Okay...so let's say you got your wish. Under the SIM's requirements of dealing with a malfunction, I need to have made and executed a decision by 2,500ft because I have an A license. What if I'm flying along and a malfunction occurs at 2,000ft; say somebody flies/falls into my canopy and damages it beyond controllability. Since I know it's against the requirements to cutaway and pull my reserve at 1,800ft to save my butt, I'll just ride in the spinning malfunction and hope for the best. I'd hate for the USPA to have to discipline me. _Pm __ "Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)

I can't believe I'm doing this but I'm with Ron on this one. The SIM is updated often so each person could be looking at a different year. I suggest everyone read the new one. Judy Yeah, I agree with that statement, as well. However, he was claiming that a general recommendation was a basic safety requirement. An instructor should not only know the information contained in the SIM, but s/he should also know the difference between a recommendation and a requirement! _Pm __ "Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)

I don't know what SIM you're reading. Section 5 of my SIM is titled "General Recommendations." Section 2 is titled "Basic Safety Requirements and Waivers." I see nothing about dealing with malfunctions and minimum cutaway altitudes in Section 2. Since when did a general recommendation become a BSR? _Pm __ "Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)

AndyMan and I have an extra copy of The Parachute and its Pilot. Would you like to borrow it?

hehe....... haha..... HA... HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! ok... whew! Sorry. Why are you laughing? Didn't you know that flying an airplane is exactly the same as flying a canopy?! _Pm __ "Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)

Yeah! Usually they need at least 100 jumps before they know everything! He must be a quick learner. _Pm __ "Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)

Yay yay yay! I'm so glad that you're getting less scared and more comfortable and relaxed with skydiving! As Brian said, being scared doesn't help anything...fear is the enemy. It was great meeting you, too! When you get your license and I get back in the air, we should all do a jump together! We'll get Amy Jo in on the action, too! AndyMan loves jumping with us low-timers. _Pm __ "Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)

Wait, I'm confused...were you grinding your teeth at night because you were playing sax and clarinet? Or were you grinding your teeth when you were actually playing the instruments? The only reason I ask is because my husband sometimes grinds his teeth at night, and he used to play the clarinet in high school...hmm. _Pm __ "Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)

Then why did you choose to point out that von Hagen's father was a Nazi? Did you not want to imply that von Hagen's himself was a Nazi conducting evil Nazi-like experiments on these bodies? The fact is that I don't know. I didn't even claim to know--I said, "I think...." I think it's unlikely because there are far more effective ways of learning how to hurt people. As Bill said, yours is a pretty silly angle. I won't know until I have asked them. Since I've been to the exhibit, I've had at least the opportunity to see the visitors and their reactions. As a result of merely being at the exhibit and observing other visitors around me, I have a better base to work on than you do (more RELIABILITY, as it were). From my brief observations within the exhibit, I can say I'm fairly certain that there are a number of people who go for the shock value. I'm pretty sure there are also a lot of people who go there to satisfy their curiosity and to learn something. There were several people there who were there because they were with a school group and were required to go. From you, all I see is that you're still making assumptions about the way people think and act. You seem to think that you know everything about human behavior and why people go to see this exhibit without even asking them why. You're authentically naive enough to think you know what they would say if you did ask them why. Wow. At least I'm aware enough to know what I don't know. Well, you're still trying to speak for the people who've gone to see the exhibit and why they went to see it. You consulted a few people who think exactly the same way you do? So what? This discussion proves nothing. It may support the idea that the Americans/English think of death differently than Slovenians, but what difference does that make? Every culture views death differently. No surprise there! I said no basis in fact. Let's see what we've garnered so far: Have you been to the exhibition? No. Have you asked several random people who've been to the exhibition why they went, what they do for a living, what their experience was, etc.? No. Do you know what the exhibit really looks like and how it's displayed? No. Everything that you've read about the exhibition and every photograph that you've looked at are merely representations of the exhibit and not the real thing. You know very little of what the exhibit actually is. So, you're pretty much basing your assumptions on extremely incomplete representations and the opinions of others. Pretty weak assumptions. When are you going to understand the idea that you can't know what something is really like by reading about it and looking at pictures of it? Do you really think imagination is sufficient and can be equated with experience in reality? You are certainly free to think that what von Hagens does is "VERY not OK," and that's okay with me. A lot of other people see great value and benefit in what he does. Right now, it seems that the people who see the benefit are outweighing the people who object to it. So, the exhibition will continue regardless of your opinion. Where did that come from? I didn't even make that argument. I asked you a simple question of "would you go to a doctor who learned purely from realistic (but fake) models and textbooks?" Since you seem to think that realistic 1:1 models and illustrations in textbooks are entirely sufficient for learning about the human body, why would we even need bodies for doctors (and forensic scientists, nurses, paramedics, physical therapists, etc.) to dissect as part of their curriculum? All the information is already out there, right? And if it isn't sufficient for the education of professionals who work with the human body, why would you deny that information and real experience from the "common" people? Do you think that only medical/scientific professionals have the right to possess that knowledge and the experience of seeing the inside of a real body? I think it's because people are emotional, form deep attachments and have a hard time letting go of their loved ones. Maybe all of these elaborate rituals and traditions give people some illusion of being with their loved ones longer. Then maybe it gives them the opportunity to say goodbye and then some semblance of closure. I don't really know. I think those rituals are kind of silly and wasteful, but people are generally free to do whatever they want that makes them feel better about a loved one's death. I'm all for organ donation. After I'm dead, I hope that my family will choose a combination of these options: 1) donate my body to science 2) harvest the usable organs for patients in need of transplants 3) dispose of the rest (in any manner they wish). If some manufacturer wants to take the fat (I've got plenty to spare) and make soap (you've been reading too much Fight Club), then they're free to do that, too. I don't think there's huge market for that right now, though. Nice avoidance. You also seem to have ownership and control issues. I don't own this body...borrowing or leasing is the way I look at it. I'm merely using it on this go-around to experience and learn as much as I can about this life and the world I live in. When it's dead, it's dead. I can't use it anymore. If someone else can use it for education or living another X number of years, they're free to take it! Oh, so these are the world's standards? Oh, I see...you're still trying to speak for the whole world. I should've known. Yes, you can make opinions on anything you like. If I bestow appreciation (or an opinion) on something you've done, only you can give it a sense of value since the appreciation is directed towards you. You may value my opinion or you may not. I don't really care how you value it. I don't really care how anyone else values it, either. Yeah, I see what you mean, but what you're referring to is criticism, not necessarily the same as appreciation. They're both opinions, to be sure. However, appreciation is admiring or recognizing the value in something. Appreciation is pretty much positive all around. What you've just illustrated is criticism, which can be positive or negative in nature. Subtle differences. Learn them. You'll be much better at your silly polemics games if you do. You've pretty much discredited yourself with your own argument. If an opinion or criticism is more valuable because of the greater knowledge and experience behind it, then your arguments and opinions against Body Worlds have very little value and reliability because you have minimal knowledge and NO real experience of the exhibition. _Pm __ "Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)

Woohoo, congrats! Too bad Andy and I couldn't be there for the weekend, but we were at SDC on Thursday and Friday for Brian Germain's canopy control course. Did you get to meet him? That dude rocks...his zen vibe is contagious. A real pleasure and a great honor to learn from him.

Wow, a lot of shoulder issues here... Better yet, I think we should form a shoulder injury support group for skydivers! _Pm __ "Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)

Well, I'm sort of in the same boat as Brains (pass the beer)... Essentially my orthopedic surgeon still says, "No jumping from great heights for you! More range! More Strength! Maybe in June! But go have fun in the wind tunnel!" Oh well. I'm at work, too. Just finished Brian Germain's awesome canopy course, though. Even though I couldn't jump, I made like a sponge and absorbed TONS of useful information that I will definitely be using when I get back in the air! _Pm __ "Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)

My first post was about getting Playboy magazines for my boyfriend (now husband

Is that what they're teaching in the penal colony these days? I kid the Squeak! See here: The Apostrophe Protection Society Who knew there was such a thing?! _Pm PS - abbreviation __ "Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)

Do you want to edit that now before too many peole see it What's wrong with that? It's grammatically correct. "One's" is the possessive form of one. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=in%20one's%20interest A simpler way to look at it would be to replace "one" with, say..."Squeak." As in, to pique Squeak's curiosity or interest. So who's the one who needs to edit? _Pm PS - You misspelled "people." Don't mess with me--I used to be a newspaper copy editor. __ "Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)

Don't forget: Pique: to excite or arouse by a provocation, challenge, or rebuff As in, to pique one's curiosity or interest. _Pm

Right now, Chipotle Hot Sauce from Rick Bayless' Frontera Kitchens. But pretty much I love what I refer to as "Thai ketchup"--Sriracha Chili Sauce. _Pm __ "Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)