Leaderboard

I've now bookmarked this thread for future usage, should anyone ever doubt me when I tell them "Confidence can get you much much further than ability alone".

Well this is probably needed too:

Ooohhh the Battle of the Climate Change Deniers! In this corner we have BrentHutch, veteran climate change denier and DZ.com troll, claiming of COURSE that CO2 is increasing, warming the planet and miraculously promoting plant life. He's said that all along, you see! In the other corner we have Zoe, who once took a science class, and who claims that without a doubt anyone who thinks that CO2 is doing anything to warm the planet is nuts, an idiot, a stooge, "how ignorant can you be?" (Oh, and that Venus is an extrasolar planet that magically became our second planet.) Will they duke it out? Will there be blood on the pages of DZ.com? Will there be a grudge match? Or will they just join forces, since their objective is denial rather than science?

I wrote this for a science forum a while back. I am reposting it here because with the recent additions of woo to the forum, people might be interested in my take on how to quickly determine if you're reading nonsense or not. Warning - it's long, since it was the result of a collaboration and other contributors added some material as well. ------------------------------------------------- Top Signs you are Reading Woo Cranks often enjoy posting on science forums. Once they feel the thrill of making up some pseudoscientific woo, telling it to a friend and having the friend think they are clever - they come on line, find a science forum and post away, hoping for kudos and compliments on their imagination and intelligence. We see them here all the time. But how can you tell a true crank from someone who is just confused, or someone who has a reasonable idea that is just not developed? How can you tell plain old errors from woo? Below is a guide to help with that decision. It lists several characteristics of cranks. If you see one of these characteristics, be wary. If you see several, well - either ignore the fellow or have some fun with him. ============================ 1) The Einstein gambit. This gambit is perhaps the most popular attempt that cranks use to justify their woo. "Sure, they're laughing at me, but they laughed at Einstein too, you know!" By equating his situation to that of Einstein, the crank hopes to make it seem that his intelligence is akin to Einstein's - thus granting more validity to his woo. 2) The sheeple claim. Once a crank uses the word "sheeple" for the first time - to distinguish his own brilliance from the dull conformity of all the other "sheep" on a given forum - you know he's all woo. Use of this word is nearly inevitable for some types of cranks, especially 9/11 truthers and UFO believers. 3) The mathematical obfuscation. Often, cranks attempt to "prove their point" by throwing a bunch of math on the forum. This can be done several ways. Most commonly it's just unrelated math - constants with improbably large numbers of significant digits is a good clue here. More clever cranks will often use unrelated but accurate math to support their woo. For example, someone claiming zero point energy might post a few derivations of Maxwell's Equations to attempt to prove his point, then claim "if I'm wrong, show me where the math error is!" Support for tools like LaTex increases the odds he will try this, by making it easier to post equations. 4) Webster Rescue. Often when a crank is losing an argument he will resort to redefining words to try to ameliorate a previous error. For example: "The results you have presented show greater than 100% efficiency, which is thermodynamically impossible." "Well, really, what's the definition of efficiency? Can't it mean that . . . " He will then search out various online dictionaries until he finds a definition that is at least not entirely clear, at which point he will claim that that's the definition that is in common use. 5) The retcon. In comic books and science fiction, the "retroactive continuity" trick is often used to clear up previous continuity problems.. It is in effect saying "what REALLY happened is . . . ." Perhaps the most famous retcon is in episode V of Star Wars, where Obi-Wan tells Luke "well, yes, I told you your father was dead, but in fact turns out he's Darth Vader due to this complex explanation." On-line, people often use this angle to claim "Yes, I may have said this, but what I really meant was . . ." For example, a 9/11 conspiracy theorist might claim that no steel building has ever collapsed due to fire. When examples are presented, he might change his story to "what I REALLY meant was that no TALL steel building has ever collapsed; that was obvious from my post." 6) The secret government conspiracy. Sometimes when a crank is challenged, and he feels he is unable to defend his point further, he will pull out the government conspiracy. He WOULD have more proof for his claim, you see, but the government is trying to suppress the information because blah blah blah. In general you will get no more useful information after this point, since if you try, he will accuse YOU of being part of the conspiracy. 7) Occam's Glue. In general, Occam's Razor describes the general rule that the simplest explanation that explains something is usually the correct one. Cranks use a version of that I call Occam's Glue - if something CAN be the explanation, it must be the explanation, even if simpler explanations suffice. UFO believers use this one a lot. "Yes, it could have been aircraft lights, or a meteor, or a planet, or low clouds - but how can all those explanations always be true? Some MUST be space aliens." 8) Woo prejudice. Oddly, most cranks will reject other people's woo quite strongly even when it is closely related. "There's no possible way those objects could be space aliens. They were clearly angels." This, while common, unfortunately does not help distinguish a crank from anyone else, since most people reject woo once it's clear that that's what it is. 9) Magical thinking. If part of someone's proof for their woo is the list of wondrous boons that this technology will grant mankind, the odds are high that he or she is engaging in magical thinking - the belief that a fervent desire for something will make it valid. Cold fusion believers, for example, often will list all the beneficial changes in society that cold fusion will bring about - and therefore declare that it is a real power source. 10) The Googleblast. Some cranks, facing skepticism, will make a somewhat late attempt to justify woo by searching the Internet for support. They cannot, of course, do any serious research, since that would tend to disprove their woo. However since anything is available on the Internet, they can always find something to at least marginally support them. Their cycle goes like this: Read (forum) Search (google) Pick (something that says something close to what they are claiming) Post (link to related information.) This read-search-pick-post cycle can go on for dozens of posts. They feel that by posting enough marginally related links they have found independent proof of their claim. 11) Cyberturfing. This is related to the point above. In politics the term "astroturfing" is used to describe the false "grass-roots" support that politicians can fabricate. By funding political media efforts and making it look like the support is coming from many independent voters, they can claim much wider support than they otherwise could. Likewise, cyberturfing attempts to generate so many emails, websites, links, studies and articles that the crank can point to the mass of material and say "see? EVERYONE agrees!" They will often use tactics like submitting papers to vanity journals so they can claim their woo is "peer reviewed." 9/11 truthers are especially good at this. 12) The Patriotism Ploy. Often a crank will attempt to confabulate his woo with some other laudable ideal like patriotism, family values, freedom, prosperity etc. Thus, rather than arguing the validity of his woo, he can argue the desirability of prosperity - which is a much easier argument to make. For example, a climate change denier might say "you can't believe in climate change! If you do it will bankrupt the US and make Al Gore rich. Do you really want that?" 13) Quote-mining. Often cranks will search out quotes from well-respected people to support their position (the classic "appeal to authority") - and often will not be able to find the support they want. However, a carefully extracted quote might make it appear that they have such authoritative support. The most popular is a quote from Charles Darwin, ofen used by creationists: "To suppose that the eye . . .could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." The next lines then go on to explain how it is NOT absurd, but since cranks often gather most of their information via the above-mentioned read-search-pick-post method, they will generally miss that. 14) Prove Me Wrong. Cranks who propose an unusual theory (say, that UFO's are space aliens) will often not listen to alternative explanations that better explain the data. Instead they will propose their woo and ask "can you prove that that's NOT what's happening? Can you prove that that sighting was just a weather balloon?" This lets them sit back and wait for someone to provide an impossible level of proof for the more-reasonable explanation. 15) As seen on TV! Links to Youtube videos are one of the hallmarks of cranks. Whether this is due to cranks getting most of their information from videos, or whether it is due to the fondness of conspiracy theorists for Youtube, masses of Youtube links are one of the most common signs of the crank. 16) The argument from incredulity (i.e. "if I can't understand it, it is incorrect - and thus the explanation that I DO understand must be the correct one") is very common among cranks. Since they invariably have a very high impression of their own intelligence, any theory/explanation/process they do not understand must be incorrect. And last but not least: 17) The Grand Trampling Exit. Often cranks, once they have realized that they are not going to get kudos and attaboys for their unconventional thinking, will make a "final post" that is usually along the lines of "you're all a bunch of idiots! I'm going to leave this once and for all, and deny you all the pleasure of my company. Instead I am going to post on a board where intelligent people have open minds!" Reading the Grand Trampling Exit, readers of the forum might be tempted to breathe a sigh of relief as the signal to noise ratio improves. However this relief is often short-lived. Cranks love attention, and thus more often than not they come back sometime later, often with a statement along the lines of "well, I just had to say one more . . ." or "I realized you wanted me to leave, so I'm going to stick around to get back at you!" ===========================

"In the long run we are all dead"; someone famous from Cambridge.

A couple others: Load capacity (how many jumpers go up in a given day?) Availability of student gear (will there be a student rig available when you want it?) Quality of the student gear goes along side that. Not necessarily age, but what kind of shape is it in and how well is it taken care of? The 'open 7 days' will be a pretty busy DZ. That can be good, because you'll get more opportunity to jump. But it can also be bad because you might not get the level of personal attention you want. One of the bigger ones will be 'atmosphere' and 'comfort level'. How are you treated as a student? How are the other fun jumpers treated by the DZ? One of the things I love about the bigger DZ I jump at is the way the DZ & DZO treat the fun jumpers. We're a community. There are social events on a regular basis. Cookouts, musical events, just hanging out around the bonfire at night. The DZO has been quoted in an industry article that he wants that community. He wants a fun place for him, his wife and kids to jump. His 2 sons both jump and his wife is a pretty hardcore competition jumper (multiple medals in a couple events at a few different levels). The DZO has also said that any student who has made his/her first jump is now a part of the community and is welcome at any of the 'social stuff'. They are actively encouraged to hang out after jumping and join the shenanigans. Price & distance (as long as it's not 'stupid far') would be last. The cost of training is a rather small portion of what you're going to spend. I drive a half hour to the 'nearby' 182 place. Or two hours to the bigger one (mentioned above). I have no issues going that far, and typically take a tent and spend the whole weekend down there. I've done "Friday afternoon through Sunday night, come back Monday morning" a couple times. More often it's 'leave early Saturday morning, come back late Sunday night' though.

Gotta love how this type makes sure to point out the 'holes' in scientific theories, while simultaneously advocating a point of view that has zero validity. Sure the current models of how the Solar System formed has a lot of holes. As those holes get 'filled in', I'm pretty sure that the theory will get adjusted. Maybe a lot, maybe a little. Maybe it will be tossed and something completely new will replace it. But what sort of evidence, what sort of facts back up the idea that Venus was a 'stray' that was captured? What sort of models even show that it would be possible? This is little different from the people who say "evolution is just a theory" and then point to the Bible as support for their claims.

Where is the hypocrisy in their getting warnings and bannings? Or did you want floggings? As far as warings and/or bannings, there were explanations available to you. The chart from Texas was not the cause, and you know it. And, as you also know, too much meta-discussion or pushback on moderation is also a warnable or bannable offense. These are the rules. They may be arbitrary, but the site is proprietary, not a utility. Wendy P.

Oh, I've seen way dumber threads The peace sign was actually built from two semaphore signs; yeah, they didn't pay attention to the panzer division insignia first. From Britannica. I agree that the CPAC sign was probably not designed as a Nazi dog whistle (well, unless Stephen Miller designed it -- I'm afraid I'm not very open-minded when it comes to him). Wendy P.

Well, they get warnings first... But yeah. Wendy P.

Hey Oscar, thanks for the advice. I did get it set back to 0. The bezel rotates easier now that I have got it moving for the first time.

I contacted them, they said the bezel turns really hard, and they were right! I'm not the strongest but I'm not the weakest either lol and I had all I could do to turn that thing. I think that some people will have to resort to using pliers.

They're arguing with an ignorant troll?

As far as we can tell there is no particular reason to believe that rules (not laws) were broken. Poor judgement is not against the rules. Sometimes when people in positions of responsibility make mistakes we want to hold them to a high standard and bring them down. Like for example, a politician leaving his frozen state for a holiday in Mexico during a crisis. It is not against a rule, but it is not the standard we expect. Going after answers in this forum is unlikely to bring you any. If those involved are reading this they would be fools to start replying with words that would bring endless continuing questions. I'm Canadian and I don't know what USPA procedures are, but I also find it unlikely that this is something that requires any "investigation". It may require an incident report that would most likely be used for statistical reasons. Probably that has been submitted.

I know this thread is titled "White privilege" specifically, but I think that's muddying the waters more than it should be, and I also think you're making a genuine effort to understand better. The core principle of privilege (as I understand it) that addresses what seems to be your main concern, is the phrase "All other things being equal"... All other things being equal, being white (in a Western nation) will give you an advantage over those who aren't. All other things being equal, being male will give you an advantage. All other things being equal, being heterosexual will give you an advantage. All other things being equal, being born into a middle-class family will give you an advantage over those who were born into poor families. Etc, etc. I'm a straight white male, as were all my peer group growing up. But they were largely middle class and above, with both parents around, whereas I grew up fairly poor with a single mother (for most of my childhood). All other things being equal, their economic privilege gave them a measurable leg-up on me. I could have done better than I did with hard work, but I also didn't have the role-models to show me how and why. It doesn't mean you need to feel bad about your successes, or that you didn't earn them. It's just a matter of acknowledging that others didn't always get the same opportunities you may have, based on something they had no control over. Comparing Tiger Woods to an average white Joe in Appalachia is pointless, because of course he enjoys some privileges they don't. If you compared him to a white golfer of similar fame levels though, you might see some divergence. That's all privilege really is.

I made that same rookie mistake. Mine worked for a year or so... In the future, buy this: https://www.alti-2.com/

Hi folks, And, the update: The Biden administration’s BLM Friday rescinded a grazing permit that was granted to Eastern Oregon ranchers who were previously convicted of arson on public lands. Hammonds’ grazing permit rescinded by Biden administration - OPB Jerry Baumchen

1-35 д1-5У 36-150 230sqft-150sqft 150-180 Saffire 129 wl1.4-1.6 180-230 Odyssey 115 wl1.6-1.85 I jump mainly for piloting