The111

So let's continue our work on decreasing the cost of alternate forms of energy. Every new technology decreases in cost as it matures. You spoke earlier of third world despots, but there are plenty of 100% American companies within driving distance of my house who are working on just this. You might even say they're capitalists. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

You dodged the question again. If you could increase your own life span by 20 years but had to put in effort (actions), would you? What about 10 years? Or 5? What about just 1? At what point does the number become small enough for you to label it insignificant? What if you actually didn't know the exact number, but you knew that some actions would increase your life by some number of years? Would you take those actions? Your argument here seems to be that no matter what we do (actions), it won't make a big enough difference because of what you suppose (words) other people might do. So, you suggest we do nothing. Which is a much better example of valuing words over actions. Nobody can predict what other people will do, but a man can choose what he himself does. Moreover, the right moral choice is the right one regardless of what one or all of your neighbors are currently doing, regardless of what one or all of them "might" do in the future. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

It would keep it below that level for a longer amount of time. The planet will die eventually regardless, should we not try to keep it alive as long as possible? If somebody told you that you could extend your life by 20 years, would you say it would be "pissing into the wind" since you'll die eventually anyway? A more apt analogy (for NOT trying to improve the planet, or your own life, because it/you will still die one day anyway) would be "giving up." Furthermore, the 35% figure would probably increase as developing nations catch up. That is, if we start by setting the right example. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

The questions I asked you, the ones you're not answering, were about things you said. Namely, that NOTHING == 35%. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Your own OP implies it could dent the problem by 35%. The word NOTHING means zero. Why do you equate 0% to 35%? Here's a scenario that might be more to your liking. You and some friends are in the mall surrounded by 1000 innocent people, when all of a sudden a large group of gun-wielding terrorists storms in and starts attacking the innocents. You and your friends (who are also gun-wielding) have the time somehow to stop and think about your odds. You realize that you can probably kill all the terrorists, but not before they kill 65% of the mallrats. One of your friends says, "well, at least we can still save 35% of them, let's go for it!" Would you laugh at him and tell him that he was suggesting doing "NOTHING"? On the actual topic at hand, it's important to remember that developing nations usually follow industrialized ones. If the industrialized ones do reach zero emissions or something close to it, it's not unreasonable to expect that someday the developing ones will get there too. Even if they don't, it's still the right thing to do. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

I can't speak to all industries, but in the modern software engineering industry, all degrees are equal. Meaning, they're all equally unimportant compared to what actual skills you have (which are easy to test for in an interview). An applicant with an online degree from a shitty school (or even no degree at all) but excellent skills can land even the most competitive and sought after SWE jobs (of this I am living proof), whereas an applicant with a "not online" degree from Stanford and no skills will not be able to get a job at any of the top tier tech companies, because he won't make it through an interview. As a sidenote, Stanford (and many other big name schools) offer online degrees, and those degrees are 100% equal to their "non-online" ones. No distinction. But again, in the SWE world you don't even need to worry about having a big name on your resume... you just have to worry about knowing your actual shit. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

For the new guys who haven't even seen a webby: webbies all around (almost) Jeff Nebby webby another of Jeff www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Having the money in your bank account does not protect you from anything. Chargebacks can be initiated even after you have withdrawn the funds, and your balance will go negative. Your questions need to be answered by PayPal. This isn't really a skydiving issue. If they can't answer all your concerns and guarantee that you are protected against chargebacks in this scenario, then I personally would refund the money and go a different route for payment. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Are you able to recommend a suit for impressing tandem passengers while waiting for the plane? I have found that the Vampire Race is very effective at this, but I have a specifically female target in mind. Try this one. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

So to be clear, you are saying that adding weight to a canopy can make it descend slower? www.WingsuitPhotos.com

That's exactly what he said. Read the words: just because you load a canopy more does not mean it will descend faster. "Not faster" means slower. I'd hope so, but I'm not sure, since Anachronist seems to think it might be one of the great unsolved mysteries of aerodynamics. Also, the next sentence from the post I originally responded to claims that higher loading can equal "more glide" which is also 100% false. It equals the same glide, only faster in both directions (as you clearly understand). www.WingsuitPhotos.com

There is some truth to that statement (ignoring your assumptions about what "we" think), but zero relevance to what I was saying. While there are certainly unanswered questions in both physics and aerodynamics, these questions have no bearing on the many things that we do know, and one example of such a thing that we do know is that if you take two identical airframes and load one higher than the other, it will descend faster. More specifically, if you load a canopy higher, it will descend faster. To claim otherwise is unbelievably wrong. A skydiver with any experience should know this with no other knowledge of aerodynamics; I'm surprised they would give a USPA license to anybody who did not understand this. Do you honestly think loading a canopy higher might somehow make it magically go slower? www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Yes, it does mean just that. This is Aerodynamics 101. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

This is dangerously bad advice! (And as a sidenote, it shows that the DZ.com adage of "ask your local instructors" doesn't always work in practice, see also e.g. the 45 degree rule). Your spine is designed (or evolved, or whatever) for compression, not bending. There are obviously limits for both kinds of loads, but the bending load limit is much more easily reached if you cantilever a heavy load far off-center of the spine. That same load can easily be supported when centered above the spine though. However, we don't even need to consult modern knowledge of engineering and physiology. Just ask any primitive man! Humans have been carrying heavy loads on their head since the beginning of time. How do you think they position their head when doing it? [inline brickhead.jpg] A) Setup your camera helmet with the weight as low as possible, and centered both side to side and front to back over your spine. B) When you deploy, keep your body position slightly head high (so that you rotate less when getting stood up by the canopy). A rotation is an acceleration and can cause whiplash, so it's good to minimize rotation. C) Throughout the entire deployment, keep your focus on or slightly above the horizon, to keep your camera weight centered over your spine. It will try to move forward because of the rotational acceleration mentioned. Once you are starting to get stood up, you can brace your helmet (chin/cheek area) with your hands if you want, taking into account two considerations: (1) if you do this too early, i.e. while you still are using your arms to fly, you'll go head low because of the reduced drag, which will make you fail "B" above and (2) if you have really bad crazy line twists, and your arms are wrapped around your head in some silly configuration, in theory it could be possible for risers/lines to trap your hands to your head, which would be disastrous for obvious reasons. D) Jump a canopy that snivels a lot (and pull high) and put Dacron lines on it. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

+1 The only response this post needed. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Or in this case: "We'll add the duct tape for you!" www.WingsuitPhotos.com

This is true, but your post seems to discount suit design. There were suits designed more than 15 years ago where it was literally impossible for the handle to get swallowed. Some of today's "new and improved" suit designs cannot claim this. But hey, they guarantee you won't have your performance harmed by the massive drag your chest strap causes! www.WingsuitPhotos.com

2010 www.WingsuitPhotos.com

How is this for headsup: don't jump a suit design that can swallow your reserve handle. I can't for the life of me understand why so many people take this risk and buy these kinds of suits. Also, why not just unzip the suit to get access to the handle again? Preferably while still under canopy. Don't cutaway until you have access to both handles... first jump basics. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Have you? His math is correct. However, his logic is still fucked. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Sentence one: filming was not on my mind after exit. Sentence two: here is a thought I had about filming while in freefall. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

I smell an illegal immigrant. Can't they just enter the forums through the legal course? www.WingsuitPhotos.com

About as funny as your stereotyping of "those who defend this student." www.WingsuitPhotos.com

That shot at 3:20 is insanely beautiful. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

One reason hop n pops are soft is because they keep you head high (relative to the ground) if you deploy on the hill. One thing most people overlook is that an opening feels "hard" or "soft" not just due to overall airspeed, but also orientation. Acceleration is a change in linear velocity or angular velocity. The hardest opening I've had in my life was a subterminal reserve opening. But the reserve opened toward my feet, and pulled my head toward my feet with it when it opened. This resulted in a very quick angular acceleration, i.e. whiplash. With cameras on my head soft is my number one priority, and I don't do a huge flare, I simply: 1) slow forward speed if I have a lot, using legs/arms/chest 2) close legwing completely (if the suit allows it) to put my head high and my body's angle as close to vertical as possible (thus less rotational change will occur during deployment) 3) focus on horizon and keep my eyes there or higher during snatch/snivel Steps 1 & 2 can be combined and replaced with a flare, but it's a bit harder to get right and timing becomes critical. This when done right results in openings that feel softer than hop n pops, IMO. The key is having my head above my cg before the deployment starts, and keeping it there through the whole deployment. Even without cameras on your head, the same is true. In normal freefall your max rotational change during deployment is 90 degrees, from flat on belly to vertical under canopy. Most wingsuit deployment styles produce more rotational change than this. But if you do it right you can end up with less. www.WingsuitPhotos.com