Leaderboard

The best way to ensure peace is to continue to demilitarize Russia via Ukraine. Russia has no ability to reconstitute a modern military without the import of Western technology. Its meager economy is continuing to contract and it is in a demographic death spiral which it can not reverse. We are witnessing the death throes of a 19th century empire. Let’s pray that it ends in a whimper and not a bang.

But then he would have to give back his magic Trump decoder ring! I'm sure you are aware that investing any time or effort at all in educating yourself automatically makes you an elitist and part of the deep state. The only people who really know the truth are the people who refuse to learn anything factual. The less you know, the smarter you are!

Are you Ukranian in Ukraine? If not, you don't speak for them. If they want to negotiate, they'll ask for it. Not through you, a random Florida man.

Both. Because he's killing some Nazis, along with a whole lot of non-Nazis. Kind of like how COVID killed some criminals, along with a whole lot of non-criminals. That doesn't really mean that COVID is God's justice being realized. Wendy P.

Isn't he the one pretending to be a policeman? Can see why he'd appeal to people like Ron who pretend to be christian.

Over the weekend I was jumping at Skydive Carolina; great place, good people, good jumping (and a friend I hadn’t seen in over 40 years). Drove in the evening to NC to visit my godmother (94 and still going strong). Decided to take the scenic route on the way to Thursday in Mississippi, where we have some RV service scheduled. So here I am in the middle of nowhere, between two ridges, no cell service, and all of a sudden the van starts making the thudding sounds upshifting that says “this is bad.” I make it to the top of the very winding and steep hill, because did I mention there was basically nothing in The Valley? And try to downshift on the way down, but the engine just races. And the engine light comes on. I coasted the next few miles until I came to a wide spot, and now after a tow I’m in a small town, in between the two closest dealerships for service. Im glad we have towing insurance; this would not be a cheap tow, and tomorrow’s (the service departments were closed already) wouldn’t be cheap either. Of course, neither will the service, but that’s just the way it works. 8 years and 100,000 miles on this van, and this is the first issue. G’night, all Wendy P.

Fossil fuels have allowed us to achieve a standard of living that was beyond that to which what royalty could aspire in the remarkably recent past. They have also allowed the population to expand to previously unimaginable levels. The fact that fossil fuels are finite seems to escape some people. We will never completely run out of coal, petroleum and what have you, but we will reach a point where it will take much more time, energy and money to extract that last ton or barrel. To those people who think producing oil is simply a matter of sticking a tube in the earth and sucking it out, I recommend studying up on the geology involved, as well as the technology involved. I won't digress into that, but suffice it to say that it is not that simple. The bottom line is that there are 8 some odd billion people on this planet, most of whom are dependent on fossil fuels for their way of life - if not for life itself. When sufficient fuel is no longer available to power agricultural equipment, and synthetic fertilizers and pesticides go away, things will get interesting indeed. At that point we might wish that 'climate change' was the worst of our problems. I'm reminded of a line in an old movie where a woman, whose life has just been saved by Jimmy Stewart, asks "just what is a human life worth?!" To which Stewart's character replies "whatever the market will bear, lady, whatever the market will bear." Thus it is with petroleum. BSBD, Winsor

I'd take that article with a major pinch of salt, but it's funny the Brexiteers quoted who'd leave the party because of Sunak, a man who was already campaigning for Brexit back when his mum still packed his lunches. So since he's not a remainer, what problem would a big bunch of Brexit voters all have with Rishi Sunak? Answers on the back of a postcard

Hi Robert, Also, let us not forget this oldie but goodie: Arbeit macht frei - Wikipedia Jerry Baumchen

In the spring when the flowers return.

Well, having created the current mess by trying to lower taxes on the rich they're clearly about to try and pay for the damage by cutting benefits and services for the poor, so there's a certain dark humour in that. But I get your point, without the circus level clown show below the existential dread of their anti living human being policies does kinda drown out the comedy.

I would suggest you don't debate the merits of your sources with people who get the backing for their ideologies from cereal box decoder rings, and reading patterns in the dog shit that got stuck to the bottom of their shoes. You seem like a nice guy, and I don't want you choking to death on the irony.

Probably only the third or fourth time that i would agree with you. "demilitarize Russia via Ukraine" would seem to imply a loss of Ukrainian lives. Which should not be part of the equation.

Well, I'm sure the Ukrainians would accept peace terms that were fair. Something like: Immediate departure of all Russians from all Ukrainian territory (including Crimea). Immediate return of all kidnapped Ukrainians from Russia. Russia to surrender all leaders (both military and civilian) credibly accused of war crimes to the Hague. Russia to pay for all damages to Ukrainian property. Lifting the trade embargo and allowing Russia to sell oil and gas would go a long way towards paying these reparations. I doubt this will happen, but it would be nice.

The original vaccine proved to be VERY effective at preventing infection. The mRNA vaxes were over 90% effective. That is, over 90% of people vaxxed were protected from being infected by the virus. Later variants were able to infect vaxxed people. But those later variants came out after her quoted statement. So her statement was accurate at the time it was made. I strongly suspect that someone knows this. I also strongly suspect he knows what VAERS is and does (and doesn't do). He should know that the data is unverified. ANYONE can report ANYTHING. The site itself says so. https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/dataguide.html It's very useful for what it is intended for. But to pretend that the raw data can be used to determine the effectiveness or safety of a vaccine is pretty stupid.

Certainly looks like you haven't taken your pills.

For me personally, it depends. How many other people are in the air, what are we doing, how current am I etc. After a sequential jump I have had no problem with accepting a center dock at, say, 2K or 1500 if we're doing 2-way. I've also been known to be part of a "post-stack" which is complete at the altitude previously indicated, but flown down to 100 ft or so. I do that only with people I really know and trust. Offset docks, that ends at 3-3.5K if we're doing 2-way and isn't happening at all after a larger sequential jump. I don't coach people for their first canopy formation jumps (I'll leave that to @IJskonijn) , but I'd like to submit that the minimum docking altitude would also greatly depend on what gear everyone is on. For the purpose of this discussion I regard bumping endcells as "docking" where newbies are involved. The most important thing to know is, cross your legs once you reach the minimum altitude you're comfortable with and people know to stay away.

Good. Because Pence can take some votes from people who voted for Trump for Trumpian reasons, but who really aren't down with insurrection. And he's way better than Trump, because he does, in fact, respect the system. I disagree with him pretty much down the line, but I can stomach him long before I can stomach Trump. Or DeSantis, for that matter. I get the impression that the job is more important than the power to Pence; it's the other way for Trump and DeSantis Wendy P.

Clearly, this is not the place for reasoned analysis--and nor is pretty much any other place online, but is everyone really satisfied with their diatribes of "my side is right", "your side stinks..." or rather: you are "woke" commies (has there ever even been such a thing??) or racist fascists? Anyone interested in trying to figure out what's actually going on? Regarding inflation: I'd say it's completely valid to argue either side of "is Biden or the current government doing a good job reacting to the current economic situation?" Personally, I don't see neither genius, nor abject failure--but the real, scary truth for most people must clearly be that the all powerful president of the United States simply does not have much power to do anything about this. Here is a chart of current inflation rates, by country: The US is pretty much smack dab in the middle--doing a little better than the EU on average (again, in my opinion the most reasonable point of comparison). Who is most "successful?" China! So...we want to be more like them??? As for gas prices: Same applies here: They are up everywhere, but comparing them is even more pointless without a whole lot of additional information. I really wonder if most people are actually aware of the fact that these things generally don't mean sh..t in regards to which side is right, and just use it as cannon fodder anyway, because actually understanding stuff and looking for solutions is difficult and boring--or if most people actually think that this stuff proves their point...just like they write it. (seems hard to believe, to me) Another case in point: Ukraine: It's true that an invasion by a mentally ill dictator (Putin) cannot be tolerated and must be responded to in the strongest terms. It also seems to be true that the russian government is highly corrupt. Yet, if you just look back a little into historic articles--let's say in the New York Times--the same was true for Ukraine, and no: It wasn't just when the pro-russian leaders were in power...and yes: There were a series of articles about neo-nazi groups in the Ukraine, and their reach and almost popularity. These articles stopped right after Russia's invasion, because they don't fit the currently convenient narrative. These groups also seem to be very much involved in the resistance against Russia now. So: It's complicated, a complete mess, and never an easy story to be used to prove that MY SIDE IS RIGHT and YOU OTHER FOLKS ARE CRAZY AND EVIL. But, boy, is that a boring piece of information...

Dear Orphan Blue, Ideally skydivers would get an additional block of canopy instruction before they fly every new canopy and before they write the exam for the next license. That block of instruction should start with BillVon's list of "things to know before you down-size" including sign-offs by senior instructors, canopy coaches or S&TAs simply to keep overly-ambitious jumpers honest. Canopy skills are complex and perishable and change with every different canopy, ergo we need more formal instruction at every level.

I would like to make a point that I think is overlooked in AFF. For the most part AFF instructors have a lot of experience skydiving, and most of them jump small cross braced canopies, and why wouldn't you they are fun to fly. However I feel like the students would do better if the instructors were jumping canopies that they could slow down and take the student from free fall to canopy pilot. Show the student the pattern, make the student find your canopy in the air and do a find a follow type pattern. I was taught skydiving by static line, and we learned how to fly the canopy first, and then free fall was slowly added. As I remember on the freefall skydives I found my instructors canopy very fast and it helped me relax and learn all the way to the ground.

no, that statement stands by itself, no explanation needed. it's not right, but it's not wrong. i married a stripper once.

Well, Putin is the one threatening to use nukes. And I’m still curious as to why it’s OK for Russia to invade Ukraine, but not OK for Ukraine to defend itself. Wendy P.

DZs are sky families the way strippers are your girlfriend.

Woah woah woah there! It's not fair to get all fact-y when someone is on a FOX roll.

Yes and I remember when gas prices were $1.70 under Clinton. We should really elect another Clinton so that we can have gas prices that low again.

My life has been really crazy the last couple months and I'm late to the party, but I have some pretty strong unpopular opinions on this I'd like to share. I've thought carefully about this so if you choose to respond, please do so in kind. I watched the stream live from beginning to end. Luke asked for permission to do the stunt, they were denied permission, and they did it anyway, obviously breaking the law. This is inaccurate. "Permission to do the stunt" was never required or requested or a thing of any kind. They requested an exemption to one specific reg, 91.105, which was denied. They did the stunt, and now the FAA says they violated 91.105. That's the situation. Well, Luke must have understood they were about to break 91.105 or otherwise they wouldn't have asked for the exemption. This is a logical leap. It's entirely plausible that Luke believes he did not violate 91.105 and has already had a compelling argument prepared for some time. Asking for the exemption implies Luke felt there was some risk that the FAA would accuse him of violating 91.105 (doesn't make it true), and that he'd prefer to avoid the conflict all-together if possible. Legally he should be no worse off than if he had never asked for the exemption or worked with the FAA at all. Just read 91.105, it's obviously an air-tight open and shut case, duh 91.105(a), which determines whether or not (1) and (2) below it apply, is not clear at all. I'll split (a) into two parts because I have two completely independent arguments: What does this mean? Surely if it was intended to mean "in flight", they would have just said that instead. Is an aircraft in a nosedive straight toward the ground "en route" by any meaningful sense of the phrase? By any legal definition? I haven't seen any argument for this beyond you can clearly tell by the way it is and you're an idiot for even asking. Maybe this platform can do better than Facebook and Reddit. I've not been able to find an applicable definition for "required flight crewmember" nor have I seen an argument that the number of required flight crewmembers can't ever be zero for any flight. (Again, beyond the usual you can clearly tell by the way it is and you're an idiot for even asking). I had the pleasure of being called naive and stupid by Paul Bertorelli on Facebook for posing these arguments, so that's cool. Of course, he made no actual attempt to refute them. He claimed he did later and I had to remind him no Paul, all you did was call me naive and stupid. I think he may be getting senile. Let's talk about the spirit of 91.105 in the context of the rest of the FARs I think this audience understands perfectly well that you can (for example) drop a car from an airplane without breaking any FARs, without any exemptions, and without any "permission" from the FAA. The only thing that makes this stunt special is the fact that the object happens to be an airplane which brings in 91.105. From a safety perspective, this does make sense: a car will more or less fall straight down, while an airplane could glide off into the sunset and crash into who knows what. But, that can be mitigated pretty easily. First, they designed the aerodynamics and autopilot to keep the plane travelling straight down. But, obviously that's pretty complicated and even though they tested it many times with a safety pilot, something unexpected could happen. So, as a failsafe they added the BRS. But the BRS failed--clearly they had no idea what they were doing! Everyone seems to be assuming that the BRS was intended to save the airframe and I think that's really silly. First, if you look at BRS on production aircraft, they are generally not intended to save the airframe, they are meant to save people. The Cirrus for example, which seems to be entirely designed and marketed around the BRS, is not expected to be reusable after a deployment. Now you look at this one-off experimental 182 with a giant airbrake hanging off the belly and you somehow imagine that the BRS was put there to save the airframe? This requires a bit of inference and speculation on my part, but to me it's pretty obvious that the real reason for the BRS was that in the event something went so wrong that the empty aircraft entered some sort of stable flight regime that threatened to take it outside the safe zone, they could remotely deploy the BRS which would very reliably turn it back into a falling object. This mitigation essentially makes the stunt no more dangerous to nonparticipants than dropping an object, therefore the exemption to 91.105 should have been granted. Period. Yes, lots of other precautions needed to be taken for this to be done safely and legally, just like dropping a car. These are covered by other FARs that were not part of the exemption request. The FAA's job here was not to analyze the stunt as a whole and give a red or green light. IMO the FAA denied the request simply because they wanted to so they made up a reason. There's nothing Luke could have done to change that outcome. People handwringing about this being a bad look for the USPA are being overly dramatic. This is an ultra-partime unpaid elected position on the board of a parachute club and I think the FAA is smart enough to be able to tell when he's representing us and when he isn't. If you're more worried about this than the Noonan incident, I think you're crazy.

Taking the canopy out of the picture, your main differences are going to be ease of reaching the slider and how high you'll need to reach to get good leverage for rear riser maneuvers (post-deployment avoidance turns, riding the rears back from a long-spot, planing out with rears for landing, etc). If they're longer, you'll need to reach higher. Putting the canopy back into the picture: Whether you notice a difference on regular straight-in landings depends on the canopy, too. If your main has a fairly long control range with most of its flare power at the very bottom end (like the Pilot does, in the larger sizes), then the combination of short arms and short risers makes it very difficult to get a solid finish to your flare. Conversely, with canopies which have a stall point higher in the control range, and a lot of flare power higher in the control range, shorter risers may make it less likely that you'll stall it during your landing flare, particularly if you have longer arms, because they'll keep you from digging in as deeply. Some mains also have a very large control range in rears specifically, and that may be easier to explore and take advantage of with longer risers. I'm 5'7" with shoes on, with a 5'3" wingspan (T-rex arms ), and used 19" risers with my first rig because one of my coaches suggested it, saying it would be easier to reach my slider. With the Pilot I was flying, that meant a good, shut-down flare was very difficult when the winds were light or nil, even with the control lines shortened a couple inches. I didn't have that problem on the demo Pilot I flew before buying - mainly because the demo risers were 22s. 3 inches can make a lot of difference. My current rigs have 21" and 22" risers. While I have to stretch a little I can still reach the slider with the 22s, and both of my current canopies are much happier with having the extra few inches at the bottom of the control range when it's a hot, no-wind day (which is about 1/2 the year at SDAZ). The added performance at the bottom end makes it worth having to stretch to reach the slider. Ultimately, if I were buying new risers for myself, I'd go with 21s; for me, with my reach and those two canopies specifically, 21" is a good middle ground in terms of bottom-end power and rear riser leverage. So take the flight characteristics and the stall point of your chosen main(s) into account as well as your reach. You don't want risers so long you can't reach the slider at all, but beyond that there isn't a "standard" for how long the risers should be for a certain arm length. There isn't even a standard across container manufacturers; Aerodyne demo risers are 22"; VSE standard-length risers are 22" (they charge you extra for any other size). RI standard is short (18"? 19"?) from what I've been told from a couple people who have Curvs (but take that as hearsay; ask RI if you are looking at a Curv); UPT gives you a choice in 2-inch increments from 19" to 25", Mirage standard-length risers are 20"...