NoCoSkyDiver

That's it! Thx for the help..

A couple of years ago, somebody posted a letter about what to expect during your first skydive. If I remember correctly it was associated with his family member skydiving (possibly a daughter). I do remember that it was very well written. I tried to search for it, but I could not find it. Does anybody have this, or have the link to this?

My son did glider training at Boulder. The typical approach of the gliders is a midfield crosswind, downwind, base, and then final. Currently my son flies in owl canyon (ft collins). Although, he received very good training, I always thought that the airspace was very tight. I have not jumped there; but I would feel more comfortable with an off field landing given the chance. The physical space seems much smaller than mile hi.

Agreed, inference or observation leads to the hypothesis and the scientific method. I was only responding that scientific proof is from the scientific model not looking at facts.

Real science starts with a collection of facts and then draws conclusions based on evidence.


I probably really should not respond here because I am not the right person to get in a debate with you on creationism. The only point that I have to make is that the scientific method does not start with the collection of facts. The scientific method starts with a hypothesis. An experiment is developed and performed. Data(facts) are collected. Then the hypothesis is accepted or rejected. If your hypothesis is sound and your experiment is reproducible, then the scientific community may universally accept the hypothesis.

Looking at facts and making conclusions is not science; it is inference.

I have spent the better part of the last decade trying to look at this debate. If you honestly try to be open to both sides, your head might want to explode. I really do not want to open a big debate because my faith has been messed up enough getting into it.

I hesitate to give it, but in my opinion, the science behind Darwin's theory and the Big Bang theory is weak. That is why they are called theories and not laws ( such as newtons laws. They really do not scientifically prove creation or evolution. That is why most are somewhat intolerant of criticism.

The problem with the creation scientists is that they do not come up with a specific hypothesis that can not be tested. They have have very elegant arguments against evolution and the Big Bang theories that are quasi scientifically based. They don't prove anything either.

Either way you have to have faith. Faith that the universe came out of a creator or out of nothing.

First thanks to everybody for their comments. I think that I do have more sensitive eyes than usual given the fact that I have never really been able to get comfortable with contacts. My left eye is still red and teary, but not painful. My right eye is much better.

I know it seems pretty stupid that I did not reach up and flip my visor down. This was my first jump ever with a full face helmet, and the feeling of wind against my face was something that was norm to me. I was concentrating on getting to my slot on a speedstar and really did not realize the wind against my eyes until after canopy opening. At that time, I noticed my eyes were teary. I was wearing my normal glasses (nothing tight fitting). Maybe they provided a little bit of wind protection that I did not notice until later. I am more aware of body position, surroundings, etc than let's say 20 jumps ago. Maybe this is a reminder that I still have a ways to go.

So I did something stupid yesterday. On my first jump with a full faced helmet, I forgot to flip my visor down. Made additional 4 jumps. My eyes were ok. Last night my eyes started getting red. This morning my eyes are red, tearing, and sore. I am assuming I have windburned eyes. Anybody else experience this? Do eye drops help? Anybody know about how long it takes to get better?

For what it is worth from a complete noob. I have a new pulse 190 with about 30 jumps on it. I find the flare to be good and have been happy with my selection so far.

Quote

Quote

Yet, only four out of every 10 adults in the US is employed.
http://rt.com/usa/jobs-us-employment-welfare-749/

Russia has no vested interest in misrepresenting US realities.

Do they?

Paul,

What was stated in the article that the Russians misrepresented?

May or may not hurt, I do not know. I really do not have a dog in this fight. Not a NRA member,etc. I just wanted to point abut a statement of fact was not a fact.

I have a problem with states w/o helmet or seatbelt laws: it causes everyone else's auto insurance premiums to go up.



I was a resident working at the trauma center in TN. I remember reading a study that showed the health care costs to the state of TN went down after passing a law stating that a helmet was optional. I assume it was from people dying before making it to the hospital to incur the big bills. I don't remember anything about seatbelts. Are there any states where seatbelts r optional?

Quote

Quote

Quote

But stronger background checks work.

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120725200047.htm

As a scientist, you should know that one study that shows a barely statistically significant result does not prove a fact. To quote from the source you provided.

"We think our findings indicate comprehensive background checks may help, but it would be a mistake to think of them as a panacea," Sen explains.

Better if you said background checks may work. It appears your own bias is clouding your scientific judgement.

In the 1960s scientists researching road accidents thought mandating improvements to brakes, installation of seatbelts, etc. *might* help reduce accidents. People like YOU decried the idea. However, turns out the scientists were correct. Traffic fatalities per mile down by 80% since 1960.

It's not an all-or-nothing proposition.

I think that you are comparing apples to oranges. I was born in the late 60s, but I can not imagine arguing that better brakes would not help prevent accidents.

What you have done is take one study ( having marginal statistical significance ) which happens to fit your bias and made it fact. An objective scientist will just go with the results of the aggregate of the studies take him. The person who wrote the study did not even make the claim stronger background checks work.

Quote

But stronger background checks work.

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120725200047.htm

As a scientist, you should know that one study that shows a barely statistically significant result does not prove a fact. To quote from the source you provided.

"We think our findings indicate comprehensive background checks may help, but it would be a mistake to think of them as a panacea," Sen explains.

Better if you said background checks may work. It appears your own bias is clouding your scientific judgement.

Sesquipedalianism


There have been a couple of times when I used this word. Usually something like this: "Why do you always practice sesquipedalianism?"

It is pretty fun to see the offenders reaction after they look it up.

I have to admit that I am confused by everything that you are trying to say. The American taxpayer has a budget item that is interest on debt: 5th largest item here: http://www.usdebtclock.org Looks like it is an obligation that we have to pay. How is this different than credit card debt?

Quote

Quote

The only place you can increase taxes are on the very wealthy.

Sorry. That's just the way it is.

The average overall federal tax rate on the richest 400 Americans in the last year for which data are available (2009) was 19.9%. A whole lot of middle class Americans, including, I'm sure, many who post here, paid a higher rate than that. That also is the way it is, and it's wrong.

The dems always cite statistics about the super rich, then place in effect policies that effect people outside that bracket.

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The believe in class warfare by taxing the rich...

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the way wealth has been rigged over the last 30 years, they're pretty much the only ones you can tax. They're the only ones with money. Trying to get additional revenue out of minimum wage workers at Taco Bell certainly isn't going to work.

Just curious: to balance our budget, what % of income tax should the top 10% or 2% or whatever pay in your opinion?

It can't be done by looking at ONE tax rate. It has to be looked at in terms of a combination of individual, corporate and investment income taxes. Right now, the mix is screwed up because of loopholes created and perpetuated by the 1986 reforms.

So why not just roll back to the rates and policies pre-1986? The world has changed. It wouldn't work.

What are the exact rates? I dunno, but clearly what we have now is too little. You can cut spending all you want on the "optional" parts of government, but what's left over you still can't pay for everything with the tax rates the way they currently are. You could reclassify some things we currently consider mandatory and cut those too, but it's a Catch 22 because those things employ people and if they're out of a job then the economy is even worse.

There HAS to be compromise. We have to cut some spending and increase some taxes. The only place you can increase taxes are on the very wealthy.

Sorry. That's just the way it is.

Can you provide some statistics from a nonpartisan source to back up the above claims. I went to treasury.gov and searched. Found the attached income mobility study. Does seem like the lower and middle income brackets did fairly well and better than the upper income brackets for the periods 1987-1996 and 1996-2005. I have included the conclusions. http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/Documents/incomemobilitystudy03-08revise.pdf. Btw, I agree that trying to get revenue from the minimal wage income worker won't work. However raising taxes on the 20% up probably should happen.


This study examined income mobility of individual taxpayers age 25 and over for the period from 1996 through 2005 using information reported on individual income tax returns. The key findings are that there was considerable income mobility of individuals in the U.S. economy during the 1996 through 2005 period and that the degree of income mobility among income groups is unchanged from the prior comparable period (1987 through 1996).
The analysis found that more than half of taxpayers (56 percent by one measure and 55 percent by another measure) moved to a different income quintile between 1996 and 2005. About half (58 percent by one measure and 45 percent by another measure) of those in the bottom income quintile in 1996 moved to a higher income group by 2005.
Economic growth resulted in rising incomes for most taxpayers over the period from 1996 to 2005. Median incomes of all taxpayers increased by 24 percent after adjusting for inflation. In addition, the real incomes of two-thirds of all taxpayers increased over this period. Further, the median incomes of those initially in the lower income groups increased more than the median incomes of those in the higher income groups.
The analysis also found that the composition of the very top income groups changes dramatically over time. Less than half (40 percent or 43 percent by different measures) of those in the top 1 percent in 1996 were still in the top 1 percent in 2005. Only about 25 percent of individuals in the top 0.01 percent in 1996 remained in the top 0.01 percent in 2005.

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The democrats are against both of what you just said. The believe in class warfare by taxing the rich only now and spending increases. If they throw a spending cut in there it is way in the future and minuscule.

Doctors don't really care about patients, they only care about getting rich, playing golf and screwing nurses on the side. If a patient gets better, it's just a happy accident.

I'm not making wild accusations about the dems policies. They propose taxation of the top 2%. They also want to increase spending. I just observed that it was contrary to the previous posts solution.

As for me, I don't play golf. I am happily married and don't cheat , and I can bet that I have provided more charitable care than 99% of the lawyers out there. Sure there are probably some bad apples.

Oh, I didn't really mean any of that stuff. I was making a certain point: don't demonize an ideological "opponent" by purporting to speak for what he believes, for you're probably the last person qualified to do so.

"They believe in class warfare"? Seriously? With your brains and ability to articulate, you actually said that? Save that for FoxNews when they're feeding histrionic slogans to the simpletons that comprise their audience; but it's beneath you to emulate that.

Sorry, I watch the nightly news. I listen Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. I can pretty easily come to the conclusion they are interested in class warfare. Watch the news tonight listening for it; I bet you could hear it too.

Quote

Quote

The believe in class warfare by taxing the rich...

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the way wealth has been rigged over the last 30 years, they're pretty much the only ones you can tax. They're the only ones with money. Trying to get additional revenue out of minimum wage workers at Taco Bell certainly isn't going to work.

Just curious: to balance our budget, what % of income tax should the top 10% or 2% or whatever pay in your opinion?

Quote

Quote

The democrats are against both of what you just said. The believe in class warfare by taxing the rich only now and spending increases. If they throw a spending cut in there it is way in the future and minuscule.

Doctors don't really care about patients, they only care about getting rich, playing golf and screwing nurses on the side. If a patient gets better, it's just a happy accident.

I'm not making wild accusations about the dems policies. They propose taxation of the top 2%. They also want to increase spending. I just observed that it was contrary to the previous posts solution.

As for me, I don't play golf. I am happily married and don't cheat , and I can bet that I have provided more charitable care than 99% of the lawyers out there. Sure there are probably some bad apples.

Quote

>Not related

Neither will solve the problem. We have to cut spending - which means actually having fewer wars, actually cutting Social Security, veteran's benefits, new roads, new jets etc. You can't just say "cut the money and they will starve." They will keep borrowing as they always do.

We also have to increase taxes - which means increasing taxes on most people, not just the rich.



The democrats are against both of what you just said. The believe in class warfare by taxing the rich only now and spending increases. If they throw a spending cut in there it is way in the future and minuscule.

My wife and I were talking about this a couple weeks ago. We used to ski Winter Park (Mary Jane), Copper, and Steamboat Springs since they are included in one pass. We now have access to a condo in Breckenridge and have been skiing Breckenridge, Vail, Beaver Creek, and Keystone the last couple of years. I would say that you will find that all the resorts in CO good. The runs on average are significantly longer than east coast resorts.

We decided that we like skiing Mary Jane at Winter Park the best. You can park at the base of the lifts and ski to your car for lunch using Sleeper run. Good vibe with tailgating. My wife likes blue runs the best and Parsons Bowl IMO is the best bowl for blue runs around. You can get some easier glade skiing in. If you want something more challenging ski the trade winds lift. A gem of black runs. If you want double black you do do Vasquez ridge but requires a mile hike. Can not beat the moguls as mentioned earlier if that is your thing. Winter Park town not as flashy as the other resort towns

The attached pic puts the sequestration into perspective. It pretty much changes nothing.

I only watched it once. It's not an issue that I really care about too much. Nothing I can do about the rising health care costs and I think ACA will make it more expensive, not less.