jakee

Just because a certain alcohol level used to be legal doesn't mean it 'never used to cause problems'. Go back far enough and you'll probably find a time that there were no drink drive laws. Does that mean it was safe to get shitfaced and drive back then? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Rough estimates I just found (yes I am that bored) said that the Chinese GP was expected to have around 1.4 billion viewers, the 2002 world cup final had around 1.1 billion and, surprisingly enough, any cricket match between India and Pakistan gets around 600 million. There wasn't anything to back those up though so they coulda been made up. Still, it's a hell of a lot more than the superbowl Do you want to have an ideagasm?

You won't find any skydiving magazines in the shops (I never have, anyway) but once you join the BPA (not USPA that's American) you will get subscription to Skydive The Mag, the BPA's publication Ty looking at their site http://www.skydivemag.com/ It's pretty good. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

On the other hand a few conservatives probably wish it was true. Edit: Only talking about the wacko's on the fringes, not the mainstream. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

What the fock, over!! Do you want to have an ideagasm?

But is marriage fundamentally based on procreation? You don't need to be married to have kids, nor do you need to be married to raise them, in fact you don't need to even have a partner to raise kids succesfully (though it probably makes it easier). Isn't marriage just a gesture of total commitment to another person whether you can have kids with them or not? As others have pointed out no-one has any objection to a sterile couple being married. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Damn you guys type fast. I had some whole quiche vs pizza reply worked out but now its just way too late. Aah it was probably crap anyway. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Thats probably OK because weren't most raptors quite small? If so they'd need something like that to even the odds. If it had been something big like T-rex's using tree trunks with nails in then that would just be bullying. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

I think John Rich was trying to turn it into a weapon thread for a sec there. Although I'm not sure if Dinosaurs could use guns or swords, did any of them have opposable thumbs? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

What about a small business run by a gay couple? Y'know, take away quiches or something. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Just look at where the photo was taken, Avebury in Wiltshire. What with Stonehenge, the burial mounds, all the crop circles etc. that place is like the English paranormal equivalent of Roswell. Nutters and hoaxers all over the place. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

But not a very good guide if you have to read it and decide which bits are good and which bits make you sick at the thought. I'm afraid I didn't get whether or not you believe the bible was divinely inspired. If not then surely there are far better, less outdated moral guides to be found. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Bill, I'm sure I've seen you post several times about the existence of god where you suggest that god is a sort of vague mystical force that binds the universe together and simply allows it to be. Surely this belief is not compatible with believing the bible to be divinely inspired. If thats right (and I apologise if its not) then why defend the bible? Without divine inspiration its no more valid than any other book of moral philosophy whether god exists or not. And you've got to agree that there is some fucked up shit in that book Do you want to have an ideagasm?

And of course, some would completely denounce whats in all those other religious books just because it ain't the bible Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Take a look at this http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993008 Y'think gay sheep are victims of peer pressure? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Depends on how windy it is. If you're in light winds then a touch of rears will probly still help you. If the winds are stronger and you have minimal ground speed then rears or brakes will not help and you will either stop altogether or start going backwards. Anywhere in between those two examples I suppose it just depends on canopy, WL and the input you give. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

All that typing and we weren't even argueing! I guess I'll have to go do something productive now. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

I think we may be very close to agreeing, it could just be the internet language barrier getting in the way. This is something we definitely agree on Great. What I'm saying is that the airflow seperation in a stall situation is caused by an AOA greater than the critical AOA for that wing. Every time. Just to make sure we're on the same page here AOA has nothing to do with the horizon Your fighter jet can be standing on its tail pipes blasting it's way straight up and the AOA will be next to nothing. Why? Because the relative wind is now coming from straight up. On the flip side with insufficient airspeed you can be flying wings level nose pointed at the horizon and still be in a stall. Why? Because with less airspeed you lose lift and the AC begins to sink, the nose is still level but the AOA has increased beyond critical because the airflow is now coming from beneath the wing. I'm probably going to argue a bridge too far here but what the heck. You can be flying in an aircraft with the airspeed less than Vso and not be stalled. You can't do it for very long and the chances are that in a few seconds time you will be stalled but you can do it. Granted you'll be in the incipient stall but you won't actually be stalled. What you cannot do is fly beyond critical AOA and not be stalled. Are we agreed? Either way that might be enough thread hijacking for now It was actually your comments about stalling the canopy on good landings that I wanted to talk about in the first place. D'oh! Do you want to have an ideagasm?

LOL. That was translated by Yoda! Do you want to have an ideagasm?

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_12/attack_story.html http://www.geocities.com/damado26/aero1_4.htm Seperation of the airflow over the wing IS a stall, to find out what causes that seperation you have to look at AOA. In practical terms thats right. However put a wing section in a wind tunnel and you can crank the airflow right down to zero without stalling the wing. So in the real world why do wings stall at low airspeeds? Because the loss of speed gives a loss of lift from the wing, which causes our canopies to either sink through the air, (or us to add toggle to compensate) this causes AOA to increase which at a certain point causes a stall. Absolutely correct. At high speeds abrupt control inputs are usually the only way to increase AOA enough to cause a stall. I wasn't going to bring this up again but then comments about aero for dummies just get me in a fighting mood. As for practical terms, How much toggle do you need to use to flare to a standstill (ground wise) in 20mph winds. I don't know about your canopy but on mine its not even half. You think thats a stall when I've still got my canopy over my head in half brakes with 20mph of airspeed? Granted thats just one example but it should make you think. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

I think that you are talking attitude relative to the ground, Angle Of Attack is attitude relative to the airflow and it IS what causes stalls. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

OK, correct me if I'm wrong but surely the aim at the end of ANY landing is to put your feet on the ground with the canopy flying at the minimum speed possible while still supporting all your weight. If your canopy is stalling you have lost pretty much all of that lift and it is NOT supporting your weight. That is what will end up with you pounding in. Landing with a canopy (or indeed any wing in pretty much any kind of aviation) that is still flying is what will give nice soft landings. The bit about speed is right though, you can stall a wing at any speed, it is dependant on angle of attack. Have you never landed in medium winds, added a bit of toggle and kept your canopy flying over your head (in a non crowded landing area) just for the hell of it? Sure don't seem stalled. Edit to add: I dont swoop yet but i think that kinda illustrates my point. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Ah, interesting. Just a wild stab in the dark but did you mean to say 'suicide' bombers? Makes sense now. Either way I don't really see how blowing yourself up makes it worse than just blowing innocent people up. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

You think thats the only bomb the IRA (or factions of) ever planted? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Something like this maybe? It's pretty famous, I'm sure you must have heard about it. Not the same scale maybe, but sick none the less. Do you want to have an ideagasm?