SivaGanesha

There seem to be many theories: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-history-of-the-fahrenheit-scale.htm However the link you provided suggests that human body temperature was key to Fahrenheit's scale. So my basic point--that Fahrenheit was interested in creating a scale with benchmarks corresponding to temperatures of real interest in human life--still stands even if that is the correct theory. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

In most cases the metric system makes sense but this is one area where they messed up big time. Fahrenheit had a very reasonable approach, setting 0 to be the minimum and 100 the maximum temperature recorded during a year in the European city in which he lived. Although there are certainly some places where it gets colder and other places where it gets hotter, the majority of human experience is within those values and this seems a reasonable scale to use for weather/room temperature/etc. An additional convenient feature is that blood temperature is 98.6 degrees F so anything over 100 begins to put one into dangerous fever territory--making a simple rule of thumb. For scientific purposes, Kelvin makes the most sense. Celsius just doesn't have much to recommend it. 0 is set to the freezing point of water and 100 to the boiling point of water. The problem is that the only time, in human life, when the boiling point of water really comes into play is while cooking. And if one is in fact cooking, there are much higher temperatures that also come into play, so using the boiling point of water as some sort of baseline seems a bit arbitrary to me. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

Yes the senior Nazis were hiding their ill-gotten wealth in Swiss bank accounts. Some of their activities were things they didn't want Hitler to know about (they were selfishly putting aside some wealth for themselves in case Hitler went down). So they successfully talked Hitler out of invading Switzerland--although eventually he would have done so anyways if he'd continued to meet with unchecked military success. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

It's not the primary topic of this thread, but I'd be curious to know how this rule is applied to Holocaust-era crimes. Let's say you have an old Nazi guy in his eighties who is accused of heinous Nazi war crimes back when he was 17. Even a fairly brief, slap-on-the-wrist punishment for this guy might be a de facto life without parole sentence given his present age. Is there any precedent for this situation? "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

All of the above are good reasons for supporting Israel. If, OTOH, one supports Israel because of misguided Christian prophecy that somehow Jesus is going to reappear in Israel in a second coming and convert all the Jews, Arabs, etc--that's not such a good reason for supporting Israel. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

I have some sympathy for the father for the reasons you say. I have none whatsoever for his colleagues from work who helped him. They haven't been mentioned at all in this thread but, IMHO, they are by far the worst offenders in this sad episode--far worse than the father, the boyfriend, or the daughter. They had the power to stop this crime--to commiserate with the father for the difficult situation but to talk some sense into him so he wouldn't commit a crime that would ruin everyone's lives. That was their job as friends--and they failed completely. If I were sentencing these three, I'd show some mercy to the father for mitigating circumstances--he was understandably angry. But I would have no mercy for the two "friends" who helped him if they are ever caught. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

The man is willing to pay. The woman is willing to be paid. It is consensual. Where, exactly, is this different from prostitution? "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

But the same argument could equally be applied to real prostitutes. A prostitute--as in someone actually walking the street--probably also spent a lot of money on makeup, a sexy outfit, etc--so that she can attract customers. It is part of the cost of doing business for her. If she is good at what she does her revenue will exceed her expenses. Now with regard to "dating" situations--I'm not saying that all women are "gold diggers" but just speaking about women who might be described as "gold diggers". For such a woman, the real financial reward isn't the free dinner during the date, but the much greater financial rewards that will come when the man is persuaded to "commit". I agree with you that it is becoming less and less common for women to want financial support out of a dating relationship. But for those women who do--and they still exist even if rarer--the dynamic is not so different than with prostitution. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

What a disappointment it will be for Isaac this year when he realizes Christmas falls on Shabbat and he finds himself in the synagogue, not the Bahamas.

I'm strongly against illegal immigration, but the anchor baby situation is a very tough one, because it is not clear where you draw the line. Imagine the following scenario: A 90-year old man--can prove he was born in the USA--can prove that he has lived in the USA his entire life except when he served his country honorably in Europe in WW2--and is now living primarily on Social Security. Unfortunately he can't prove that his parents were legal here, because they were born 130 years ago, records are sketchy going back that far, and he's no longer well enough to aggressively do the genealogical legwork that possibly might prove their long-ago status. Do you cut off his Social Security check because his parents might have been illegals? "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

Palin will only take it if she thinks she has a shot of winning. Dole was an old guy and it was clearly his last chance. Palin is a young gal (by presidential standards) and is unlikely to take the risk of losing unless her chances are good. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

Actually don't the candidates usually declare themselves in January of the year before the election--in this case it would be Jan 2011? I'm waiting to see how the Alaska Senate race turns out before forming an opinion on Sarah Palin. Right now the Alaska race seems to have become a real mess largely of Sarah Palin's making, but maybe something will shake out in the next 8 weeks that will prove Palin to actually be an inspired mad genius

The interesting question for me is...if you were George W. Bush who would you most want to see win big this coming week? The Republicans? Or the Rangers? "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

Is that a requirement in Canada? Not so in the U.S. - you can do RW before you even have your A license... Oh...interesting...so it's a Canada-USA difference then. I had always thought it was a difference between now and my first pass at this sport 20+ years ago. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

I believe Shah has a license even though he hasn't updated his profile. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

Everyone always says that but my own experience has been the exact opposite. I always find it really, really hard to find a new job if I have one--but easy to find a new one once laid off. When you have a job, they always ask: "Why are you thinking of leaving your current job?" If I'm out of work, they always ask: "Why did you leave your last job?" I've always found the first question much harder to answer than the second question. The reason the first question is so hard to answer is because I always try to present the current job in positive terms because, after all, I'm trying to use it to sell employers on hiring me for the new job. But then the question always arises, and it is VERY hard to answer: if everything is so great about this job, why are you thinking of leaving? The second question is much easier, not least of which because, if I'm laid off, I always make sure I leave on good terms, which gives me good, recent, references--something I don't have if I'm still working. Then I can say something like "the company had to scale back, and had to let some people go, but they were happy with my work, would hire me again if their fortunes improved, and are willing to provide a reference to back this up." That leaves everyone feeling so much better than if I have a job and try to sneak around to get a new one. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

The President isn't elected by the general public and never has been. They are elected by the Electoral College (albeit with a little help from their friends on the Supreme Court in the case of that particular President). Since when is a President answerable to a public which, constitutionally, has no direct role in electing him in the first place? If we were talking about members of the House, or members of the Senate since the passage of the 17th, then I might agree with you, or at least agree that you have a stronger case. The only person who seems to have held this opinion is Bush. And I fully agree that Bush was full of shit. But there is no constitutional bar, last time I checked, to a President being full of shit. Indeed, the constitution places certain checks and balances on presidential power specifically in anticipation that there may be times when a President is, indeed, full of shit and shouldn't have absolute power. But the President is still the President, even when he is full of shit. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

Uhhh...the Supreme Court vote was 7-2 on this. That means that a significant part of the Court's liberal wing sided with Bush on this--this is clearly NOT just a liberal-conservative partisan issue. If this were a "RWC" sort of thing one would expect a 5-4 vote one way or the other. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

They (Bush' team) clearly thought she might try to do so and decided not to take the risk. That was their prerogative, not hers. Every administration, Dem or Rep, deals with these kinds of issues. It is clearly each President's right to do so in his/her own way. Also, a bumper sticker definitely IS an attempt to express one's views to those who might prefer not to listen. It is usually seen as fairly innocuous but, again, the President had the right to interpret it differently. Someone driving a car with a bumper sticker expressing a controversial view is, by definition, not interested solely in listening quietly. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

I'm not a big fan of Bush, but I'm on his side on this one, at least in terms of his right to have made that decision. It would clearly be unreasonable to interpret the 1st to mean that the president has an obligation to listen individually to the views of each and every one of the 300 million Americans. Even in 1790, when the 1st was written and the population was only 4 million, that would have been unreasonable. Clearly the founders intended that the president be able to make choices in who he listens to. Since he is properly the boss of the Executive Branch, he gets to listen to anyone he chooses to in carrying out his duties. She wasn't denied the right to express her views. Bush simply refused to listen. That was certainly his prerogative. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

As long as you yourself weren't governed by all those rules you want to impose keeping under-18's from actually doing anything.

Any time you run a business--ANY business, but a DZ is no exception--you are exposing yourself to penalties and consequences. If you try to follow all the rules that the lawyers will try to lay down, you'll never get your business off the ground (literally if it is a DZ). A good entrepreneur listens to the lawyers but it is the entrepreneur, not the lawyers, who runs the business. Or--to put it more succinctly--robinheid is right. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

My own answer, which isn't listed, is: As long as everyone is a consenting adult and in full compliance with the immigration laws of the country in question it's A-ok. A lot of prostitution these days seems to center around women who are abused because they are illegal immigrants in the country they are forced to prostitute in. That is definitely not A-ok, although it is the people involved in the human trafficking, and not the prostitutes themselves, who should be charged under immigration laws in such cases. The government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation, but it does have a place on the borders of the nation, and in any situation where prostitution and immigration violations occur together, there is almost certainly some abuse going on. When it involves adults who are truly free agents economically, prostitution should be fine. Basically prostitution has gotten a bad rap because it often seems to involve women who are forced into it because of limited options--and in recent years human trafficking and immigration violations have been a sad, but big, part of the picture. But it is certainly possible, and it definitely does happen in practice, for a woman to recognize that she is physically attractive and can make good money by prostitution, and to make a free choice to do so. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

SWOOP == South Western Ontario Organization of Parachutists Skydive SWOOP There are still some DZ's organized as clubs left around. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

What would you recommend as an alternative? If someone continues to rent, then there are costs to that as well. If you pay the DZ $50/day to rent a $5000 rig, then you are effectively paying 1% of the cost of the rig per day. If you plan to jump more than 20 days in a year, then even charging a rig to a 20% p.a. credit card is going to be a wiser move. Not to mention the fact that someone renting isn't going to be taken as seriously in the sport, and may be subject to "student rules" even if they have a license, etc. And it's probably going to be tough to save while shelling out all that money for rentals. If you advise someone to quit the sport entirely and come back when they have money to buy a rig, then there can be a dollar cost to that too, especially if they need to go through some of AFF again. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014