njasshole

Excuse me for interjecting, but to me this doesn't seem like the proper attitude. How shitty are you going to feel if, when he starts jumping with another group, he goes through one of their canopies and kills someone on the jump? Wouldn't working with him a bit be the better option? Remediating his poor awareness and tracking ability would not only make you safer in the sky (you, of course, still have the option of not jumping with him) but everyone else as well. Point him in the right direction at least.

You're actually thinking along fairly profound lines in this analysis. Your lack of familiarity with the skydiving community, however, has led you to make this wrongful key assumption: skydivers are anomic. Though a certain degree of detachment from society's dominant norms and values might lead one to jumping, you deny in your analysis the distinct cohesiveness of skydiving subculture. It is this cohesiveness that discourages anomie and, by extension, prevents the egoistic suicide about which you've hypothesized. See Emile Durkheim's writings on Egoistic Suicide in his 1897 book "Suicide", and read about the detachment from society required to provoke it. Then, compare that to the skydiving community's tenacity. You won't still believe we're suicidal.

waiting for a helmet and want to record my jumps until i get it

Any dangers associated with mounting a protrack on a rig's (non-adjustable) main lift web with the supplied mount and wire ties? Could the wire ties wear down the webbing over time? Anything else? Thanks -ben

That's the same thing I said... There's an inverse correlation between MAO and neurotransmitter. If the enzyme which breaks down neurotransmitter is not there in normal quantities, there will be a RELATIVE excess of neurotransmitter present in the neural synapses. Relative, in this instance, refers to a comparison between the brain with decreased MAO and the model of the normal (baseline, if you will) brain. "Adrenaline Rush"'s explanation of naturally decreased MAO is effectually identical to that which is achieved when taking monoamine oxidase inhibitors; mood is elevated. This, of course, is the exact opposite of saying that dopamine DEFICIENCY encourages risk-taking. In the dopamine deficiency hypothesis, pleasure-inducing neurotransmitter levels are relatively low. In Adrenaline Rush's hypothesis (as when taking MAOIs, like you said correctly), these levels are relatively high.

I doubt very seriously that neurotransmitter deficiencies are the fundamental phenomena in the encouragement of risk behaviors. I say this principally because there exist many neurobiological theories of risk which are, unfortunately, explicitly contradictory. Recall if you will a countertheory antithetical to your dopamine deficiency hypothesis presented in "Adrenaline Rush: The Science of Risk"; here, risk takers were conjectured to have lower levels of monoamine oxidase (MAO) - an enzymatic degrader of synaptic neurotransmitters. Of course, this implies by extension the relative excess of serotonin, norepinephrine, and dopamine in the risk-taker's brain. In short: The imax movie's citation --> Better moods lead to risk-taking Your theory citation --> Worse moods lead to risk-taking Confirmation bias, maybe? In my opinion, the etiology of risk behavior must be evaluated individually and, most definitely, has a definitively experential component. Of course, while this could in turn effect neurotransmitter balance, brain chemistry does not act independently to ellicit risk-taking. While one person might jump to feel normal, another might jump to complement their already-existing satisfaction. What do you think?

I want to see music brought to a time when talent is the reason for a singer's popularity. When I go to a concert, I'm paying to hear their actual voice. These days, its come to this. Watching an Ashlee Simpson concert is like taking a girl out to dinner: You're paying 80 bucks to wish she would just shut the fuck up and take her clothes off.

A bit of history for the uninformed.... The year is 1947. The current medical consensus states that the clitoris is the center of sexual pleasure in the female. Doctors are still debating whether or not they believe the female orgasm is even possible. Enter German OB/GYN Ernst Grafenberg. He postulates not only that women are capable of having a clitoral orgasm, but that there also exists an area 3-5 inches posterior to the vaginal opening on the anterior vaginal wall which he believes to be a second concentration of female sexual pleasure. He believes, heretically, that this spot can produce an even more sensational orgasm than clitorally possible. In reference to his last name, the region becomes popularly known as the "Grafenberg spot". It's later shortened to "G-spot".

Saw a post about SCUBA and Skydiving and it got me wondering. From typical exit altitude (13.5k, of course ), and assuming an open parachute by 3000 feet, a skydiver is subject to a 10,500 foot change in air pressure. Can anyone tell me, before I need to break out the calculator, how much depth the equivalent pressure change would yield in salt water?

Hey everyone what are everyones thoughts on using bridge day as a first jump? ive heard the site is good, but will it be enough to go through the fjc there or should i look for some more instruction.. im planning on talking to local jumpers, of course, but wanted your opinions as well. thanks for the help!

Just in case you ever need to strip a wire during a malfunction.... The Parachutist

OK.... I recently got my A-license, and I'm ready to get some gear. Im wondering whether or not I should jump with an RSL. Ive read a few incident reports where RSLs caused dual deployments, and, in some cases, double mals. In some instances, the jumper would have had plenty of altitude to completely cutaway before manually releasing the reserve Do the advantages of jumping with an RSL outweigh the possible disadvantages? Ill be using a cypres for backup at minimal altitude. Thanks everyone!