DrewEckhardt

***No, not for me. For a younger relative who trusts me. Has a good circle of friends who are trying to help. Has tried therapy (but has prejudice against therapy from parental opinions). Doesn't want to take drugs. Does have financial resources (fortunately), but would rather not use all of them. Currently unemployed because of company, not performance, issues. Given my (yes, not specified for privacy reasons) relationship, I suggested that they A. Get more regular exercise [/QUOTE] That helps. Your relative should also get their vitamin D level checked - mine's at half the minimum even when I spend 1-2 hours a day in the sun. Eating 1 5000 iu pill a day gets my blood levels up to normal and really improves my mood. Guys should get their testosterone levels checked, looking at totals and what's bio-available. Fixing that made a big difference for one of my friends. Regardless, this calls for professional help. [QUOTE] B. Find either a job or volunteer gig that they believe in, that needs them, and that preferably keeps physically busy. [/QUOTE] That's not going to do anything to fix biochemistry that's off.

MIchelle and Brian Germain told me you should be able to rotate both directions on all three axes while head-up: back flip, front flip, left cartwheel, right cartwheel, left turn, right turn starting and ending standing. Tamara Koyn's web page from 1994 is good: http://www.koyn.com/CloudDancer/articles/Surf.html Double wing sit suits providing more drag to stay on top of the board were common. You can have a channel sewn down the leg for the cutaway cable and velcro added for a pud. Some of us used to wear webbed swimming gloves to give our hands more input on our yaw axis. [QUOTE] A person or two said when it came out most people didn't even know how to free fly. They were belly jumpers who just threw it on and figured it out. [/QUOTE] Freestyle was fringe but well-established. Sit fly with double wing suits was not uncommon at the time. Head-down was a new thing kids were doing in Arizona and Florida.

In other words, Trump is following in Obama's footsteps with a revolving door between Goldman Sachs and his administration. Standing on a giant's shoulders like that gives him the potential to be the greatest president ever!

The wage limit is indexed to average wages and increases faster than inflation In 1996 it was $62,600 ($96,295 in 2016 dollars). In 2006 it was $94,200 ($112,775 in 2016 dollars). In 2016 it was $118,500. That's an extra $6931 annually in nominal dollars and $2753 inflation adjusted for employer and employee shares of Social Security for some one earning more than the limit.

Many rigs fit airline permitted roll-aboards with a helmet around a top corner plus room for jump suit + extras. Most should fit with the main out of its pack tray if you can't get down to that size (I used to travel with a pair of 245 square foot base rigs in a carry-on). Larger rolling luggage is an option if you can't get down to that size with the main out of its pack tray. While you still don't want to deal with security and other issues dragging one everywhere, that makes necessary travel on foot more pleasant.

In other words he's the next Bill Clinton but less charismatic and not as intelligent.

Trump isn't a pathological liar. He lied as needed to get elected, not compulsively. His campaign was a show trying for high ratings, like professional wrestling, Miss Universe, and The Apprentice. "Crooked Hillary" was great for that, but is not good for the president of a country evenly split between his party and hers, especially if he wants Democratic legislators working with him and a second term. It won't be coming back next TV season.

I used a Givi Maxia 50L top case on a rack for one rig / jumpsuit / helmet / etc, adding an airline legal carry-on on the passenger seat under a cargo net for a second.

Figuring 10g/round, that comes to like 200 cases of 1,000 rounds of 5.56x45mm ammo. [/QUOTE] US Army Advanced Marksmanship Unit member PFC Kattie Harris answered "how often do you practice" with “Monday through Friday, 0900 to 1630. We will shoot 1000 rounds per day, and our training intensifies two weeks before a match to prepare us for them.” 5000 rounds a week, 20,000 rounds a month. An avid amateur could go through that cache by the time we recover from the Panics of 2016.

His present position is less anti-gun than Hillary's. He's the least of the electable evils. It'd be good to donate to PACs spending money to land him electoral college votes in swing states. On the Today Show, asked if he'd ban assault weapons Trump replied he "absolutely wouldn't" "There are millions of them already out there, millions upon millions, so they're already out there," Trump said. "People need protection. They have to protect. So the bad guys will have the assault rifles and the people trying to protect themselves will be standing there with a BB gun." After getting the nomination, he said [QUOTE] Studies were done after the 1994 “assault weapons” ban expired. They clearly showed that the ban didn’t protect anyone, didn’t reduce crime. It just made it harder for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves with the firearm of their choice. Like with all things, I believe in what works, and gun bans don’t work [/QUOTE] OTOH, maybe they are the same. Hillary Clinton was a Barry Goldwater supporter and may not support the civil rights act.

Mixed to be pedantic. Trump is less bad in practical erms. Things like [QUOTE] I believe weapons of war have no place on our streets. [/QUOTE] where calling modern sporting rifles "weapons of war" is like calling abortion "baby murder." versus [QUOTE] Over the past 15 years I’ve learned a great deal about how we can protect the good people of this country from those who mean to do us harm. Gun control is not the answer—protecting the rights of law-abiding citizens is the answer. Furthermore, gun bans don’t work. Studies were done after the 1994 “assault weapons” ban expired. They clearly showed that the ban didn’t protect anyone, didn’t reduce crime. It just made it harder for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves with the firearm of their choice. Like with all things, I believe in what works, and gun bans don’t work. I have two sons who don’t just believe in the Second Amendment, they live it. They hunt, target shoot, shoot competitively and carry firearms for personal protection. They’re NRA members, and so am I. I also have a concealed-carry permit. Our commitment to the Second Amendment is unshakable. [/QUOTE] Trump is the lesser evil

*** Right, just disarm inner city blacks, why do they get constitutional rights anyway? [/QUOTE] Law abiding inner city blacks need guns and their rights should be respected. It's too bad American politics force the rest of us to sacrifice their rights to protect ours. [QUOTE] She's never said she wanted to do anything about the 2nd. [/QUOTE] WRONG. “I was proud when my husband took [the National Rifle Association] on, and we were able to ban assault weapons, but he had to put a sunset on so 10 years later. Of course [President George W.] Bush wouldn’t agree to reinstate them,” said Clinton. “We’ve got to go after this,” Clinton continued. “And here again, the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get.”

He says he does, which is the opposite of what his opponent says. He's the lesser evil (partly because of that), not a good choice.

You want some one outside the establishment when your college educated children can't afford to live on their own, every pay raise is eclipsed by rising costs, and the reflating housing bubble means you're unlikely to own one again with $100K annual increases and $900K-$1M starter houses. Among electable candidates in the primaries that meant Sanders or Trump. Although I and many others voted for Sanders in the Democratic primary, only Trump remains.

Unfortunately no chairs were thrown although the candidates otherwise acted like Jerry Springer guests. That would have made the proceedings even more entertaining.

Sure. although he hasn't been as vocal about it as Hillary and doesn't belong to a party with banning modern sporting rifles as part of their 2016 platform.

Some BASE (Vertigo Dagger) and reserve (PD reserve) canopies fly more like contemporary skydiving mains and less like classic accuracy canopies. Without the ability to flare all the way I might stick with something more traditional which slows down horizontally and vertically with brake application and is more tolerant of not finishing a flare.

Some sort of accuracy/demo/BASE (not vented) 7-cell around 300 square feet with the brakes set short to allow a full flare. If using a BASE canopy have a sail slider made to make the openings pleasant. Below 1000 feet at terminal you want them to be speedy, but at skydiving pull altitudes you have plenty of time.

***You're both right about accuracy canopies, though I wouldn't consider accuracy landings to be "good", rather they're acceptably shitty and it's your job to hit the soft target :). [/QUOTE] They can be great, even atop big boulders where you need to run to the front edge to keep your pilot chute out of the river (Don't get down-wind of a tight landing area when no place looks like a suitable alternative). Unlike more modern shapes which flatten out with a little brake and maintain a similar glide until just short of stalling, more toggle steepens the approach (even with no wind) from about 2:1 in full flight to straight down in a full sink. Normally you fly your approach at a 1:1 glide ratio using 2/3 brakes. Transition to a full sink high above a target and you won't have any lift left to provide a soft landing without padding from pea gravel or an inflated tuffet. Don't finish your approach with more than 3/4 brakes and there's enough flare to land softly. [QUOTE] But my impression was that demostalker1 was not asking for a classic accuracy canopy, but rather hijacking the original thread to ask about a canopy that will land softly in general tight spaces that aren't accuracy tuffets with limited brake range (I'm guessing for demos maybe? Or maybe just a very small LZ). For which a Parafoil is not necessarily the answer. But I might be wrong of course. [/QUOTE] Some form of accuracy/demo/BASE canopy with life left (a $100 1000 jump F111 car cover won't work) loaded around 0.7 pounds per square foot is the right tool for that application. With experience and consistent winds you can get frisbee-disc accuracy out of a sport canopy stopping within a step or two with full-flight or accelerated approaches, even at higher (~1.8 pounds/square feet, 8000 feet density altitude) wing loadings. Unfortunately, a 5 MPH wind change for 10 seconds of final approach is a 70 foot change in where you'll be landing with a contemporary sport canopy appoach. The huge range in glide with accuracy or BASE canopies means that's not an issue. It gives you a lot more latitude in approach precision - you don't need to be at a particular spot 1000' off the ground.

Parachutes shaped (thick airfoil) and sized (0.7 pounds/square feet) for classic accuracy approaches land great on hard ground (you can use a big boulder instead of a tuffet) from about 3/4 brakes although you sacrifice pin-point accuracy by not finishing with a sink to a controlled crash landing.

He's more into drone strikes with an annual body count of innocent people quadruple that which Dianne Feinstein attributes to sport-utility guns.

KLMO Longmont, CO

I could afford to do that if governments stopped acting on behalf of corporatist interests to prop up housing, medical, and education costs.

An immigrant with a pen stroke, not one without. That trivial technicality doesn't merit a mention. When the last of my ancestors showed up everyone was welcome except the Chinese and America was still the greatest nation on the planet. That's nice. I'm glad I live someplace so much better than the rest of the world people are willing to go through such great lengths to get here. I'll worry when Americans leave en masse for Mexico and Canada.

Everything except the name.