mbohu

Not true. The population increase has already stopped. The number of Children in the world is not growing anymore. The rest of the projected growth in population is only an effect of the people already born growing old:

But what does it mean "to have X % of their business done in the states"? Report x% of their income here? Have x% of production here (only the one owned by the company or also all suppliers and supplier's suppliers, etc.?) Have x % of their sales here? How should that be calculated, reported and enforced? No one wants to admit it, but we are simply entering (or have entered already) a time where most BIG problems--economic, ecologic and political--are simply connected worldwide and need global solutions. As much as it is going to set all the "world government" conspiracy theorists off, ultimately SOME form of world government is going to be necessary. May it be a democratic (or better) one and may it be focused on governing as in: "organizing and finding solutions" and not governing as in: "ruling over" In the meantime --and again this is unpopular on all sides--some form of global collaboration and global agreements will be necessary between nation states or regions. Again, may they be focused on the needs of humanity as a whole and not just on the needs of global corporations... but necessary they are in any case: In this case, the best way to ensure no tax evasion is to simply not create any tax havens ANYWHERE in the world. It could easily be made part of a global agreement (such as the TPP or what will eventually replace it)

This is a really interesting example. In this case I would pull this apart into 3 separate things related to "racism" 1. If an employer simply has some kind of process that he uses to weed out people with the trait of "lazyness", and they apply this process to everyone equally, and then it happens that people of a specific race get weeded out more than others (when looking at the results AFTER the fact) then the employer isn't racist (in the traditional meaning of the term: prejudiced against a certain race) 2. HOWEVER, the employer's process may rely on his personal judgement and his personal judgement may not be as objective as he thinks (even if he has the best intentions)--in which case he may be affected by his unconscious bias (certain clothing or hairstyles may indicate "laziness" to him, while they may be more related to cultural standards, for example)--I don't think it's useful to say to that employer "you are a racist!" (as probably all of us are to some extent prone to unconscious bias--it's UNCONSCIOUS after all!) It may be useful to educate him about this, though. 3. Even if no (conscious or unconscious) "racism" by the employer is involved, this is a case of the effects of institutionalized racism. If, for historic reasons, people of a specific race (as you said, billvon) are now less educated and less prepared for employment, then I think it is reasonable to want to do SOMETHING to help them make up that gap and even the scales at least to some extent. But HOW to do that is a tricky thing: Can you force the employer by law to have to hire less qualified people solely to make up a certain quota from specific races (or other groupings)? (Man, that would be a hard pill to swallow for my small business! I'd sure prefer a different way...but would/should I be willing to make that "sacrifice"?) So the HOW is really something we can argue about, I think. (Many people even argue the IF of this question, but I think it shows at least a certain lack of empathy) LASTLY: If the employer simply believes (correctly or incorrectly) that people of a certain race are lazier than others and therefore bases his decision on being "on the safe side, statistically" and does not hire people of that race, then I'd say you can clearly say he is racist (in any definition of the word.) EVEN if he was correct that statistically certain groups are more likely to have certain undesirable characteristics (for whatever reasons) he should not be allowed to make his decision based on membership in the group (race). I think that one is easiest to agree upon.

To complete my thought on this: If you are redefining "racism" to mean "systemic racism" only, the someone cannot be "racist" as such. In this case it is not possible for an individual to be racist. Only a system or a society's institutions can display such racism. An individual may be complicit in allowing these institutions to display systemic racism, but cannot himself be "racist" If an individual can be "racist," the word has to have its original meaning: denoting an attitude and a prejudice that an individual can display. So: When someone is saying "only whites can be racist" then 2 definitions of the word "racism" get mixed together, and that is either purposefully obfuscating (as the right would like to accuse--and sometimes they may be correct) or simply confused communication that muddies the waters unintentionally.

Yes, and this is exactly what I meant. There is a tendency to want to define "racism" to mean systemic racism ONLY. This quote from the article makes that clear: "Racism is completely different from prejudice, because it’s systemic, ..." From what I have heard and read, this way of defining racism is common in the younger generation because it is the way that it is being defined and taught at universities in various social science courses. Most of "us lefties" here probably come from a different generation and I think that's one reason why we are not even that aware of this. This is a wonderful exposition on this topic (and I happen to agree with David):

Yes, I know. But I'd say that is a relatively small minority AND more importantly: It is something that has its origin in a confusion (or re-definition) of terms: If, by "racism", you mean "institutionalized racism"--that is: a long standing historical discrimination against people based on their race via laws, and cultural institutions, such as slavery, jim crow laws, segregation, housing discrimination, and many others, which has a lasting effect now through the generations and has disadvantaged members of certain races over others--then, in THIS country, there really isn't any racism against "white" people. When laws are now enacted to reverse SOME effects of this history (as ALL can probably never be erased) and these laws now seem to disadvantage "white" people then this is generally NOT institutionalized racism as it only intends to balance out the scales somewhat. (Otherwise it's like you're cheating at the beginning of a race and then, once you are miles ahead, you suddenly say: NOW we have to be all fair and we cannot let the ones behind move forward to make up for your cheating.) If by "racism" we mean a personal attitude that discriminates against others, fears them, dislikes them, etc. because of their race, then this can be displayed by members of ANY race. I think that the later definition is the more commonly used one, and the word "racism" shouldn't be redefined to mean the former. If you mean the former, you can use "institutionalized racism" to clarify what you mean. I agree with you that some parts of the left--some call it "woke culture" or SJWs--seem to want to redefine the word "racism" to mean the former definition, more or less for political purposes, or to invalidate ANY kinds of arguments from the "white, straight, male" side of the population. I think that is a big mistake.

Yes. AND: From ryoder's description it is clear that it wasn't just about this particular comment, but that his old man was just itching to get his prejudice out, and the "think about the children" statement was just a way to do it that probably sounded acceptable to himself. (so he couldn't be accused of racism.) THAT is why that is racist, and if the same was the case with a man of any other race it WOULD be just as racist.

That's exactly the interesting question. Who I think he and most people in this discussion are referring to, is an image we construct in our minds of "the crazy conservative gun nut" and the "stupid libtard progressive", which has barely anything to do with reality. We hardly ever argue (much less listen to) each other out here in actual reality, but instead have this private fight with the image that we set up in our minds. The moment we perceive this image of "the enemy" we can already feel our emotions and defenses rise, and all we want to do is obliterate this imagined "person". There is a feeling of satisfaction when hurling our stinging words at them. The problem is, we can't win this argument because both sides exist only in our minds. "Projective Identification" is a psychological term that fits this scenario. The funny thing is, that this can be so tempting, that it can actually draw other people into the fantasy, making them take on the position of the projected image. So you suddenly find yourself arguing like "the crazy gun nut" or "the libtard progressive", even though you usually have a much more nuanced position. (And of course there are interests that take advantage of this in the world of politics and money) For sure! And "being new" constantly, is actually the best way to fight that dynamic and have a chance of hearing what is actually being said--right here, right now...rather than projecting one's own images and assumptions

So the argument is that Americans are more selfish than people in other countries (as people in other countries are apparently able to make that sacrifice) and the conclusion is that nothing can be done about it? (hard to cure selfishness)

For anyone who IS interested in him, here are 2 interesting links. The first one is an interview from someone who sees Peterson in a quite positive light, but doesn't come from the political corner that most indicate here that his supporters would be limited to: (Peterson himself appears around 5:50 into it, if you're the impatient or busy type) The second is coming from someone who clearly doesn't like Peterson. I think the host of this show is tremendously annoying, and it may be better to watch the original interview with Joe Rogan (who is much less so--actually quite the opposite, I find) but if you can get through the annoying bits, he has a really good point about Peterson's philosophy sometimes contradicting itself very much: So: He's very much a mixed bag, I would say.

0. I think you may be missing the point here, kallend: If anything, my statement was actually helping your earlier argument about rifles, because it is those specific types of mass shootings that are probably perpetrated more with the kinds of rifles that it sounded like you are in favor of regulating more (I am too, by the way) --but see, that shows again how hard it is to hear each other. You probably saw me agreeing with something Coreece wrote, thought that he/she is "pro-gun" (although nothing I've read from Coreece indicated that) and therefore assumed I was too--therefore setting up a need to argue against me. 1. Right. If you look at the 2 statements I wrote again, you'll see that I used them as examples of emotionally motivated "solutions" that weren't looking at data or reality. Since I can probably at this point make the safe assumption that you are for some kind of regulation in regards to guns, the question becomes twofold: 1) WHAT exact kind of regulation? 2) HOW can we make this a reality in this country? (There is of course also the other important question of "what ELSE, other than gun-related regulation can and must be done to really have an effect on this problem", but let's just stay with the gun regulation issue) re. 1) we HAVE to look at the actual data. Do we want to ban certain types of guns? Would it be more effective to base any bans on magazine sizes? Is it better to regulate WHO can own guns? Is it better to have some kind of licensing and training program for gun owners with possibility of loosing the license under certain circumstances? Does all of that need to be combined? For all of these questions, some data exists, that may point into the right direction of what may or may not be useful (and yes, in some cases--logically--people who actually deal with guns in their lives may know some useful stuff that those of us who don't, simply aren't aware of.) re. 2) Given the cultural attitudes in this country, do you think that screaming at "the other side" and criticizing their penis sizes (emotionally satisfying as it may be) is going to help move this forward? If so, why hasn't it done that so far? Could another strategy be more helpful here?

Well, yes...and no! See, now you fall prey to a similar thing: You suddenly bring in "white, christian, conservative" when none of these words or concepts were part of the comments above. Maybe you do so, because the people above were saying things that makes them seem like other people who blame things on "white, christian, conservative", or maybe because they have used these words in other unrelated posts, or maybe you even know them personally. In any case, though, none of this was said, and none of this is staying on the track we were on: facts, solutions, etc. I think, all that proves is that none of us is immune to using these types of "arguments". Now if I tried to extract the very kernel of truth from these kinds of statements (the comments above), it would be that: Our attitude towards guns (and weapons as a tool to display "strength" versus a tool of destruction) is most likely very much influenced by our psychology, although I think it has much less to do with the size of certain appendages (especially considering that about half of us don't even have them), but probably grows mostly out of our early childhood experiences: What made us feel safe and in control as children, versus what made us feel weak and small and helpless. This psychological aspect, is a whole other aspect of this debate; but since we are barely ready to start talking about just the plain data and physical realities, I am afraid we are far from facing this additional reality with any kind of objectivity.

Yes. These are some excellent articles with real data. Again, I think that when most people talk of "mass shootings" they think almost entirely only of the well-publicized incidents--and then data from completely different definitions of "mass shootings" gets used in talking points to justify whatever political statement someone wants to make. In all fairness, though, apart from the fact that media "loves" these kinds of incidents because of their shock value, they are somewhat qualitatively different, because they seem to really rattle our very idea of a civilized society: In most other instances we can still have this idea that these types of events somehow don't apply to us: "I wouldn't be in relationship with those kinds of people" (domestic violence), "I don't live in those neighborhoods and don't associate with these people" (gang related), etc. Wrong (or incomplete) as these thoughts may be, it's understandable that shootings that involve completely random bystanders in public places are so disturbing to us. It is almost logical that there are only 2 reactions that people intuitively come up with to make themselves feel safer: 1. I need to be constantly armed myself, so I can protect myself in such a random occurrence 2. We need to take these kinds of guns away from everyone to minimize the chance of something like this occurring. Moving the discussion into a direction that looks at the actual data and starts out by defining what we even want to address here, is always going to be hugely challenging. I'm actually quite surprised to see the nature of your posts here. It's not often that you see such illuminating commentary on this issue. Thanks!

The NY Times article headline (the one brenthutch linked) is "California Drought Is Made Worse by Global Warming, Scientists Say"; it says among other things: "Global warming caused by human emissions has most likely intensified the drought in California by 15 to 20 percent, scientists said on Thursday" "Even though the findings suggest that the drought is primarily a consequence of natural climate variability, the scientists added that the likelihood of any drought becoming acute is rising because of climate change." "Some scientists have argued that the ocean and atmospheric factors that produced the ridge have become somewhat more likely because of global warming, but others have disputed that" "On the question of the effects, scientists have been much clearer. Rising temperatures dry the soil faster and cause more rapid evaporation from streams and reservoirs, so they did not need any research to tell them that the drought was probably worse because of the warming trend over the past century. The challenge has been to quantify how much worse." Really nothing here that seems in the least extreme or over-hyped. If anything, the article is written in an exceptionally careful and "under-hyped" way.

I recently actually spoke to a rigger that pointed out one subtle advantage in one feature of the Vortex, when I asked him about downsizing and keeping my current rig: The Vortex has the attachment point of the closing loop at the back wall of the container, so when you close the container, the closing loop stretches over (and compresses the middle of) the D-bag first, before it goes through any of the flaps. This means that the D-Bag puts additional tension on the loop. This should make it generally less problematic to have a slightly smaller than ideal main canopy in the container--when compared to a rig that has the closing loop attached to the top of the container--because in the latter case the only tension comes from the flaps themselves, and if the D-bag is not pushing against them enough, there isn't enough tension. He showed me this and it made sense. (The Vortex isn't the ONLY rig with this arrangement, but it's one of few) It's just interesting because that is a detail, I would never really have considered otherwise.

I'm certainly no expert, but this sounds more like prejudice to me. Sure, I love my Vortex, and sure, I've not jumped other rigs that much (and the ones I have jumped weren't custom-sized for my body, so it's not surprising they didn't feel as good) But: I've seen and talked to a number of hard-core jumpers, many of them competitive jumpers, who jump Vortexes and not one of them had anything bad to say about their containers. Certainly never heard the words "cheap knock-off" applied to them. (See also various threads here on these containers. Never really see anyone say anything bad about them...)

Stand up landings will come. A canopy course (probably after you completed AFF) will help. Personally, I think it's wise to not try to stand up your landings at first, unless it seems like you're coming in just right. If you take a course, you'll probably change how you're landing anyway. As for the ride up: Take what everyone is saying and combine it into a nice, consistent pre-jump routine: I do this on EVERY jump: 2-3 (or more if it's a complex jump) mental walk-throughs of the jump with eyes closed (include the exit, and canopy-stuff, if you're planning to do specific things under canopy); Relaxing breathing exercise (once or twice): I take a deep breath in through my nose, hold it for a specific count, then release it through the mouth all the way to empty, then hold at empty just a little bit; as I'm letting the breath go I can feel my shoulders relax more (I actually do a sort of mantra in my head, instead of a count--the words "safety" and "gratitude" are part of it...that's just me ) Do 2 gear-check/practice touches run-throughs; At somewhere between 6k and 10k I put my gloves on, helmet on (if not on already) put the visor down & back up (to check it's clear); the rest of the time I joke around or just relax and enjoy the scenery. The consistency of the routine really helps (professional golfers do that too before every shot...) As for how relaxed I want to be: In 4-way FS we call it "On the line"; "over the line" would be too tense; but you don't want to be so relaxed that you're not paying attention and ready to respond in every fraction of a second. Anyway, I think most of this comes automatically if you keep jumping and want to get better and pay attention. Blue Skies!

Not flying a wingsuit, but I love, love, love the openings on my Spectre. Straight and smooth every time.

That isn't quite the same: "Them coming for anyone at all" isn't something that should be happening, period. So this saying just illustrates that you should care, if something bad happens, even if it doesn't happen to you, or people that you care about. If we were arguing "They should be coming for law abiding gun owners", i.e. putting them in prison or deporting them without any legal due process or reason other than they are gun owners, then your argument applies here. The typical "slippery slope" argument is a different one: It says, we should not consider taking action A, which in itself is potentially a good action, because it may then lead to action B, which leads to action C,D,E,... and because at the end of that line, somewhere between E and Z is an action that is so extreme that nobody can justify it, we should never take action A. It tries to get around even arguing about if action A, in its own right, is a reasonable and useful action. It kills any subtlety in a debate (and usually also tries to make it look like proponents of action A would be in favor of the completely crazy action Z at the end of that line.) In both cases one should instead be looking at the proposed action itself: "Coming for the socialists", which probably means putting them in prison or something like that, purely on the basis of their political belief is in and of itself a bad thing--I think most would agree on that--even if they are opposed to their philosophy. Regulating dangerous and deadly weapons in some way, shape or form, is not in and of itself a bad thing. It is something that can reasonably be argued about. Not looking at this by itself, because eventually it could lead to the complete banning and confiscation of all kitchen knifes, is not a well reasoned argument.

That's what I thought was likely. It's somewhat common sense, I would think. Here is another issue: It looks the commonly cited statistic is, that there were over 250 mass shootings this year already in the US, which means there were over 1/day. However, I can "only" think of less than a dozen that were reported as mass shootings. It looks like the definition of mass shooting only takes into account how many people died (I think it's 3 or more) as a result of a firearm incident. The popular, colloquial definition of "mass shooting" seems to be more something like: "someone with a lot of guns went to a crowded place and indiscriminately started shooting people he didn't even know at all--usually expecting to get killed himself in the process". This particular definition of mass shooting seems to make them so unique to America (and usually seems to involve rifles with large capacity magazines). It does muddy the waters a bit, when it is unclear what one is talking about when using the term "mass shooting."

First: I am loathe to play into the storyline that "the mainstream media" is purposefully distorting news, not because I don't think they do it, but for 2 reasons: 1. Mostly they do it for purposes of attracting eyeballs, turning news more into sensationalizing content (see CNN Democratic debate), because they think it gives them more viewers and sells more advertising--so in a word: out of financial and commercial considerations and much more rarely for ideological reasons (but apparently that happens too) 2. Because the "not so mainstream" news sites all over the internet are mostly even worse than that, often having no relationship to factual truth whatsoever But: This headline at first surprised me and, after some simple research (which included simply reading their own article) started to really get on my nerves: "Fact check: Bernie Sanders has made the same false claim about health spending for 10 years" ( https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/09/politics/fact-check-bernie-sanders-health-care-spending/index.html ) The statement that they are referring to is: "that the US spends twice as much on health care, per capita, as any other country in the world." The headline makes it seem like Bernie is straight out lying and the US is probably not spending much more than most comparable countries (if more at all) Well: Here is the data: https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-spending-u-s-compare-countries/#item-relative-size-wealth-u-s-spends-disproportionate-amount-health (the article uses the same data as this link--but most people probably only read the headline) If you look at that, all but 2 other countries are spending five thousand something per capita or (much) less. The US is spending ten thousand something. The 2 countries that spend more than that are Norway and Switzerland (two small countries with very high standards in socialized healthcare) and even these 2 countries are spending much less than the US. So, while it is in principle true that Bernie should have said: "The US is spending ALMOST twice as much as all other countries, except for Switzerland and Norway, who are still spending much less and have much better results than the US, and is spending MORE than twice as much as as the great majority of other countries" (...and by now no one would be listening because that is just too much detailed information...) The headline is MUCH more misleading than Bernie's simplified statement. The essence of the point of his statement is absolutely accurate, and what that article is even about is very suspect. Again, I don't think it's a conspiracy against him as such, but the person who wrote that article clearly had an agenda, as there are sooooo many statements from politicians that would be better candidates for pointing out as truly factually inaccurate.--very frustrating!

Weren't the guns used in both recent deadly mass shootings .223 caliber rifles? Do you have a link the "the data" that proves this? What is the percentage of deaths caused, versus the percentage of guns used? Over what period of time was this data collected?

But isn't this the case for any issue in a country of laws? Assuming everyone is always a "good," considerate and reasonable person, then there is really never a need for any restrictive law. In such a world, we'd all be extreme libertarians. In a society, where there are all kinds of people, I always decide to give up SOME freedoms in order to make the entire system work for everyone. This is the contract that we make by agreeing to organize ourselves into a modern society. This has been the project of humanity for thousands of years. Sure: Way in the future, there may be a better way, but it doesn't seem like we are there. Why do I agree to follow all kinds of restrictions, laws and regulations that really wouldn't be necessary for me, since I would not abuse my freedoms? I do so, because I understand that in this society it is the best way we have found to make it work for everyone. What a whole lot of proponents of gun-restrictions can't fathom is that gun rights proponents aren't willing to make the slightest sacrifice in view of the consequences we are experiencing. Do I think the FAA needs to legally require me to keep a very specific distance from clouds when jumping? No. I'd make sure we would agree on safe procedures on our load (are the clouds at opening altitude, what kinds of jumps are being done on the load, what are the real dangers in that specific situation, etc.) However, it's likely proven that the existing rules in the US do make it generally safer for everyone. I'm willing to make that sacrifice.

Hi, I'm almost certain that there must have been a post about this previously as it's such an obvious thing, but I couldn't find one: The previous version of DZ.com used to jump straight to the first unread post in a long forum topic with many replies: So if I click on a link in the list of recent posts, for example and it's a thread with 5 pages of replies, of which I had already read all the ones down to half of page 4, the link would take me straight to page 4 and scroll down all the way to the first unread post, half way down the page. In this version, I am always taken to post 1 on page 1, no matter how often I have been in that thread. Then it's left to me to somehow find my way back to where I was. Does this version of the forum software you are using not have the capability to identify which posts are new to me? It does seem to mark threads with unread posts in bold, so it seems to know what is new to me, even though that feature seems to be a bit inconsistent--but going straight to the correct post in a thread would make this forum much more usable!

Yes, that's what I'm saying. If they left first, as the OP stated, it seems more dangerous. So I don't see any reason why they shouldn't ALWAYS leave last. If they leave last, since they fall slowest, there is never a chance for any conflicts with non-wingsuiters. It sounded to me like you were saying in your first post, that it doesn't matter if they left first or last (other than who gets to be next to the door ) That's the part of your comment I didn't understand. Personally, I'd be scared if I exited after a group of wingsuiters (especially if I exited quite a few groups after them) as my safety would completely rely on their flight pattern, which I can't control.