mr2mk1g

To be fair, there is an exemption for anyone who has either prior experience or is in good physical condition. So all those marathon runners would have been fine. So would the ex-squaddie who did a couple of rounds 35 years ago. The BPA have also just relaxed the rules to drop the need for medical signoff for tandems over 40 years old.

Once upon a time getting an A licence meant you were competent enough to look after yourself, and were ready to learn new skills. Newer jumpers were guided through their careers by the more experienced. At no extra cost, because the experienced jumpers had already benefitted themselves from a similar system, and new jumpers would add to the pool of jumpers available for their own jumping. A positive cycle that everyone benefitted from. There weren't more incidents or accidents back then. I don't see why it is now necessary to have a whole new raft of requirements "in the interests of safety" that have to be paid for before people can begin to have fun. A cancer on the sport. If people who get their A licence aren't basically competent, that tells me that their instructors have failed to do their job properly, after charging a lot of money for it. And that's not good enough. I was lucky enough to grow up that way too as I started via a university club. I have never paid for fs coaching (and I'm sure many will say it shows) but older jumpers put in the time to get me up to speed. I feel I have more than paid back that investment and that I am happy to continue to do so. Times are different however and I accept that FS coaches need to be able to charge for what they do. I just feel that things are now more stringent than they were ever intended to be.

I don't have an issue with the requirement for FS1 before being permitted to do larger FS groups - it's a fairly sensible rule which in one form or another is seen across much of the world. Nor do I have a general issue with the BPA. I think the problem is in what market forces has led FS1 to become in practice. It's been thoroughly monetised. There's a cottage industry of FS instructors who, by accident or design, end up wringing every penny out of newbies for training. The logic behind the rules is that it is there to make sure new skydivers have the basic abilities to be able to jump with one another without being a danger to one another. There does seem to be a general impression however in the FS 'industry' that the bar should actually be far, far higher - to be good enough to be a good FS flyer. These days it seems from watching newbies come through the ranks that it's significantly harder and takes an awful lot longer on average to get FS1 than it does to actually get an A-licence! That seems odd to me. (I've no idea how it compares cost-wise). What was intended to be a basic safety rating has in fact become something much more. Do newbies really need to be able to do a 10-point 4-way from 15k in order to demonstrate they're safe enough to get out of a zoomi newbie's way? (The OPs manual calls for a 4-point 4 way. The training manual that has grown out of it though suggests far higher standards). That would get you mid-table in the rookie's at nationals for goodness sake. Why do they need to know all 4 4-way exit positions if they're just fun jumping - surely that stuff can to come later rather than as basic safety training? Why not reduce introduce FS2 to take people to the standard of a decent 4-way flyer - what we currently call FS1 - and retain a stripped down FS1 as the basic safety standard it theoretically is?

Race relations in America are definitely improving. Despite the recent events. Y'all still have a lot of work to do, but at least you're talking about it. We are still a very segregated society. What we need is an inner city refugee program so blacks can spread out beyond the long arm of the law. - like 1 black per 10 whites in any given city. We have like 10 black people up here in a population of 1000 - and they love it. We certainly can find room for about 90 more. Anton plays charity poker with us and runs the bowling alley karaoke on Friday and Saturday nights - tho sometimes it goes to his head a bit. He reminds me a little bit of Chris Rock and Tim Meadows in the movie Grownups: These are My White People https://youtu.be/gOmdVGrQUlA?t=17 Ron would have a conniption fit.

Hello? Is there anyone there? I know the US didn't bother turning up until it was almost over but this was something fairly significant in world history...

Tomorrow marks the 100th anniversary of darkest day in British military history. On the first day of the battle we suffered 57,470 casualties and indeed, most of those occurred in a couple of hours in the morning. Strictly to put that figure in perspective (as this is in no way a competition) that's more than US war dead in the entire war. It's only a few hundred short of US deaths in more than 10 years of involvement in Vietnam. In a couple of hours.

And now Boris has bottled it.

I would have thought it too dangerous for them not to communicate - the audible could then communicate safe to swoop because it detected the conditions of canopy open because it's inside your helmet whereas the AAD in your rig may not have detected the same conditions (both air pressure and any accelerometer readings could both be significantly different between the two locations, as well as any other multitude of inputs that they might be using).

https://youtu.be/-a6HNXtdvVQ

Sounds like a logical outcome in some respects but, oddly enough, would be vetoed by Spain. No I'm not joking.

To put it into American terms it's a "states' rights" argument. There is an element within the EU which wishes to move towards a federal EU and essentially end up with a 'country' set up in similar vein to the US. There's lots of push back to that idea and a lot of people across the EU don't want it to happen. What the UK gets from EU membership is multifaceted. We get a lot of inward investment, albeit at a hefty membership fee. We could simply spend that money ourselves internally. In the EU however we belong to the largest economy in the world which represents an awful lot of negotiating power. It's also the worlds largest single market which represents a lot of people to sell to. Outside we either face trade barriers or, if we want into the single market, then we have to accept EU rules without having any say over them when currently we have a very powerful voice in the EU including a power to veto. The idea behind richer countries sending economic aid to poorer countries is that if we rebuild their economies (either post WWII or post Communism and the fall of the USSR) we create market places to sell to. If they become richer, we become richer. What do people in NY think when federal taxes are sent to New Orleans to help rebuild after Katrina? Muslim immigration doesn't (or at least shouldn't in right minded people) be a factor. I say that because the muslim immigrants we have in the UK are generally not from the EU. They're from the rest of the world - conflict zones from which we have accepted refugees and commonwealth countries from which we have accepted migrants. Pakistan for example is muslim but also ex-empire so we have taken a lot of immigration from there. Short answer - nothing will change about the number of muslim people in the UK (who have largely been here for decades in any event) and if anything if we cut off EU migration our non-EU migration is likely to go up. Currently it's about 50/50 between the EU and non-EU so the fact that immigration is at the level it is tells you a lot about what it's going to be in the future given that if we wanted to we could have slashed it in half and haven't. I'm sure some people voted based on their views on 'muslamic extremists' but it would have been based on flawed logic at best. Is it true whether we have no say about migration? It is within the EU so, say a French person can come and live in the UK and vice versa. Again, think of the EU like the USA; someone from Colorado can go live in Florida and vice versa and companies in those states can trade with each other without barriers. Outside the EU though and just like outside the USA, it's up to individual countries who they let in and how any applications for visas or rights to remain are assessed.

This would have to include you then? BTW Here in the states the politicians are supposed to elected to represent their constituencies NOT make decisions for them. But anyway.... You have gone back to your old stance that if the people disagree with you or vote contrary to your views they must be uninformed, uneducated stupid or worse. Proof from your own post ***Leaving major, emotional issues up to the general mass of the population is kinda like giving a tweenager the keys to a Ferrari That is a mighty high horse you have placed yourself on. The people have decided. The people are not that stupid. Now you get to live with it or move. You do have a choice. The way in which you have misread Jakee's post makes it clear that you do not understand the issues raised by this referendum. You have, understandably as someone who doesn't know about the issues, read his words entirely incorrectly. He says "the people don't have clue what the deal is either way" and you criticise him because you think that he's espousing the view that whoever doesn't agree with him must be "uninformed, uneducated stupid or worse". That's not what he meant by saying nobody knows what the deal is. His point is, nobody knows what the deal is. Nobody. So we've voted out - what does that mean? We don't know. Does it mean we will no longer have access to the single market? Maybe - if we refuse to accept freedom of movement (like those who are worried about legal migration within the EU want) then we wont get access to the single market. That means trade barriers and tariffs. That's going to massively impact the economy. But there's a very strong likelihood that we will accept freedom of movement because we want access to the single market because we don't want our economy to tank. So what of all those promises about controlling migration? But which is it? We don't know. The out campaigners don't even know. What about all the complaints about regulation from unelected bureaucrats? Well if we have access to the single market we have to accept their regulations whilst also giving up the say we currently have on what the regulations look like. Have we voted to get rid of those regulations? Er... we don't know, we know we've voted out of the EU, but we don't know what that will actually mean. What about EU migrants currently here - will they stay or be forced to go? What about UK migrants over there - will they be allowed to stay or be forced to come home? We have a very large ex-pat community of retirees in Spain, much like you have in Florida. Are they all to be relocated to Swindon? We don't know and probably won't know for going on half a decade. A massive slice of our economy is the financial services offered by London. Will that still be able to operate or will it all disappear to Frankfurt? We don't know. What about the money we send to the EU? (Never mind the fact that we get a good deal of it back either from Thatchers rebate or on direct investment by the EU into UK projects) - will there be any left to spend if the economy tanks because we no longer get to sell to the worlds biggest market? Will we use what we no longer send to the EU on those that currently benefit from EU money or will they lose out as we spend it on HS2 or Hinkley C? We don't know and we didn't know yesterday when we went to vote. It goes on and on and on. We've voted out but no one _no one_ who voted knew then or now what that will actually result in. Not even the politicians pressing for an out vote knew and there wasn't even an attempt to say "if we vote out this is the sort of deal we'll be looking to achieve". No one was setting out a clear view for what out looked like It was all: control immigration (ps - we might not do that) take back control of the regulations (ps - we might not do that) do more trade with the rest of the world (ps - we might not do that) continue to trade with the EU (ps - we might not do that). Brave new world, we can do it etc etc I get that and I'm sure we'll be fine in the long run. But yesterday's vote was very much a vote based on emotional concepts (and a very British desire to say 'fuck you' to the EU every now and then) rather than a choice between two clearly delineated versions of the future. Because there wasn't one.

Bugger.

I've heard several people say that. I remember watching a British CRW team train at Perris years ago. They would fly in and land a 4-stack with the team leader calling the flair from the top slot. Every single time they would come in: [smack] [smack] [smack] [perfect landing]. Got to be that everyone would stop to watch whenever they were coming in.

1 of these 3 things is a constitutionally protected right. Derek V It's easy to bust out that old trope. The key question is though - should it be, and if so, on what terms? Slave ownership was only abolished by the 13th - you are allowed to amend the thing you know. The issue of gun ownership isn't some magic talisman which is beyond all reproach just because it's protected by the constitution - it's it's constitutional protection which is fundamentally at the heart of the issue. It's also why nothing much is going to change in the near future because of the level of division within the US social and political system - not enough of a consensus and too much vested interest to get anything to change.

What the title says. Could be interesting in skydiving. Iirc, already banned in competition though from many years ago. https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/revl-arc-the-world-s-smartest-action-camera--2#/updates

I bet authoritarians who are rigidly opposed to homosexuality like lesbian porn though. I mean... Who doesn't like lesbian porn? Gay blokes basically, that's it.

What logic or argument? I didn't proffer any/one. I just said what I believe to be the case. I put that belief no higher than anyone else's. That's the point. It's just a belief. I'm not suggesting a need for evidence either way because there is and can be none unless some bloke turns up one day and goes "hey everybody [poooof] who want's some bread and fish? Here, let me fix those mangled legs for you [poooof], PS I'm god, [poooof] have some wine, YOLO! Who want's to be touched by MY noodly appendage? " I'm assuming he'd no longer wear sandals though, or hell, he could be a many-armed elephant or something, depending on which of the religions, if any, is right. Hell, the Kastom people of Vanuatu worship Prince Philip as a deity - probably pisses the racist old bastard right off. Your question as to whether or not someone is an atheist is again, attempting to take words far beyond their original meanings. Atheists, in the traditional meaning of the word, profess that there is no god. Whilst I accept that that definition has slipped in the popular vernacular, frankly I think it's a shame that people have taken some perfectly useful words and buggered them up for everyone so that no one knows what the hell anyone is saying anymore. I don't profess non-existence, it's just what I believe. I have to tacitly accept however that I can't know for sure. Whilst I don't believe there is one, I'm not going to go toe-to-toe with someone in an attempt to prove the point. It's impossible. For that reason, plus I really don't give that much of a shit, I'm not going to profess the non-existence of a god. It's just a belief I hold. And though a rather odd non-sequitur, I agree with your point re omniscience and omnipotence. Logically, if a god is both omniscient and omnipotent then he is also an arsehole given what we see in the world. If he's not an arsehole then he can't possibly be both omniscient and omnipotent. I'm not sure that proves much though as it's quite easily the result of balls-up in church dogma. Look at the mess the early church got itself into with their trinity nonsense. On the arsehole point - I'm not a bad person. If I'm wrong about everything and some day suddenly wake up in front of a set of pearly gates in a tangled mass of lines after hooking in then a non-arsehole god will see me right. If not and god's got the hump with me because I didn't wear my hair in little ringlets by my face and I cut my beard and didn't wear the right little doylie hat and went skydiving on a Saturday then frankly, screw that. I'd rather not be associated with such a capricious little shit. Mazel tov to him but I'm ooot. You can consider me an atheist if you like, I don't really care. If push came to shove, I'd probably stick myself in that category too as, given the historically recent bastardisation of the traditional definitions of the words atheist and agnostic, as discussed above, I don't really have a definition to call my own anymore. Ideally, I'd probably combine the two terms.

I don't agree with you at all. You can say atheists believe that there is no god just like they believe there are no leprechaun's. But it's still not a belief. You are simply wording it in a way to make the claim that it is a belief. In reality it's a disbelief which is the opposite. Disbelief can not be a belief. While this is all semantics you are misrepresenting what atheists believe in an effort to make agnosticism seem more reasonable. When someone identifies as an Atheist the only thing that tells you about that person is that they don't believe in one specific claim and that is they don't believe that any gods exist. Agnosticism is simply avoiding the question all together. Because either you believe there is sufficient evidence to convince you there is a god or there isn't but aren't willing to give your opinion. LOL, don't presume to put words into my mouth. I am most certainly not attempting to present any particular 'label' as more reasonable than another. Nor am I unwilling to give an opinion. It's simply that don't have any particular axe to grind here as I really don't care that much. The words however do have original meanings, which have gradually become distorted and/or are being adopted by people to suit their own particular idiom. Whilst I am personally in favour of a somewhat more structured approach to linguistics, I accept that the modern trend is for constant change, albeit at the significant loss of clarity. Take, for example, the word "chronic". In 'proper' usage it means something persisting for a long time - see chronology or chronometer for it's roots in the Greek word for 'time'. In modern parlance however, it has adopted a meaning of generally bad, (or weed perhaps, in some circles), which causes all sorts of problems in making yourself understood when one group of people understand the word to mean one thing and everyone else thinks it means something entirely different. However, let's see if we can't (in a very un-speakers corner way) try to move towards some common ground.

You're confusing agnosticism with atheism. Agnostic's don't profess to know and therefore don't hold any particular firm belief one way or the other. They don't have any, (over perhaps a mildly held), belief in the existence or non-existence of a god. Atheists believe that there is no god. They positively believe something to be true - that there is no god. That's a belief. The clue is in the ancient Greek roots of each word: "a theos" = "without god" vs "a gnostos" = "without knowledge".

Which god?

Meh, when I'm out for a drive I navigate by the sun. That and a rough idea of where you start and how long you've been going in any one direction gives me enough of an idea of where I am by dead reckoning to work out which way to turn to find somewhere I know. Other than that, I'm still waiting on a mapping algorithm that works out a route based on the roads 'wiggle quotient' - ie, the winder and more wiggly the roads are the better. Double points for hairpins and switchbacks. Even better yet, if the road has those signs up warning you about how many motorcyclists have been killed in the past few years... you know you're going to be on a good driving road.

Congratulations - you're the first American I've seen use that phrase correctly in a very long time. 10 winning points for you.

Didn't realise they had one at Hinton. Might have to take a trip back over to my birth dz. I wonder if they'll honour 10 year old a ticket...

Fixed it for you. Fucking crazy decision by council.