DARK

nono sorry i know what it is i was wondering what the tso'd weight of the pd reservces were

the only law you can break is not in regards to WL (those are not mandated by FAA), but in regards to maximum suspended weight. we are governed by FAA - and FAA are the ones that issue the TSO which on PD Reserves mandates the max suspended weight. In other words you would be breaking an FAR by violating a TSO. .................................................................... Sooner or later, insurance companies are going to figure out that jumping tiny reserves violates Federal Air Regulations, then they are going to use that as an excuse for refusing to pay medical expenses. Kind of like wrecking your car - while violating rules that prohibit drinking and driving - means that most car insurance companies will try to weasel out of paying any damages. Yes, I know that my comments may constitute "feeding the lawyers," - as I have said several times before on dz.com - lawyers are free to quite me in court (and court documents) as long as they pay my $10,000 expert witness fee every time they quote me in court. Rob Warner FAA Master Rigger CSPA Rigger Examiner Strong Tandem Examiner what is that maximum suspended weight does anyone know?

which is what?are you talking about the tso'd weight of the canopy? asking without telling us the weight is usless

so have you been able to watch one minute of al jazeera yourself and be able to understand it yourself enough to make a judgement on what they are talking about?

haha an american telling someone form a different country to butt out........now thats ironic i wouldn't vote for charlie sheen, i would vote for the character his father played in the west wing if it was a real person and his entire administration were real as well but thats as close to the white house as the sheens will ever be getting.

hiding what evidence? also i accept that that is how it is and obviously if it mattered enough to me i would not work somewhere that drug tested, it dosn't but that does not change the principle which is the employer should not have the right to drug test the employee

but how do you now he is involved in criminal activity? its not you place to investigate weather he is or not and its n ot your determination to make. if an employee is charged with and found guilty of paedophilia of course you have the right to fire him, same goes for any crime. you dont have the right to take the law into your own hands however cool so i guess an employer can refuse to hire women on the off chance they get pregnant or they can put in their contract that they can fire them if/when they do get pregnant. i guess its ok for an employer to put in the contract that if they find out your gay they can fire you. we already limit the rights of the employer in favour of the rights of the employee in many areas. i believe that there should be no discrimination against anything done in your personal life that does not affect your work life your tattoo is not a valid example as your tattoo could very well affect your work if a customer / client was to see it and reconsider doing business with your company. a business owner ALREADY CAN'T do whatever he wants with his business thats exactly what im proposing because I believe it is wrong for a business owner to discriminate and take the law into their own hands in that way. not in the slightest. business's are already controlled and regulated this is just one more way i think they should be. there are other ways i think they shouldn't be and if they ever come up for debate ill let you know what they are as well i wasn't aware that some states had no employee protecting at all. that is obviously a disgrace they shouldnt be allowed fire you for them either

i never said it wasn't. there are plenty of choices that we make on a day to day basis that employers are not allowed discriminate on, appearance being one, children being a more important other one anyway the details do not matter there are two choices, employers should be able to discriminate against people about things in their personal life that have no bearing on job performance or they shouldn't be able to. it really is as simple as that

i dont think it is the employers place to do the work of the police or the court system if you are caught in possession and prosecuted then i think its perfectly acceptable for you to lose your job for numerous reasons. bringing the organisation into disrepute would be one of them obviously if you are shown to have broken the law then i dont care if you lose your job. i do care if an employer takes it upon themselves to judge my personal life. what if they decide they dont like the fact that i have a dog or any other aspect of my life? they shouldn't be able to arbitrarily make those decisions and discriminate. and as you said there were laws brought in to prevent discrimination, this is just another form of discrimination imo

why should you have to work somewhere though? its not as simple as the employer makes the rule and you like it or lump it employers were making rules preventing women or black people form getting / keeping jobs for years and years that dosnt make it ok you are either entitled to do whatever you want in your personal life as long as it dosn't impact on your work performance or your not. thats what it boils down to. if that something you want to do is illegal, then there are already instruments in place to catch/punish you for that and if that happens then obviously your employer has the right to choose weather or not you continue in their employ or not but thats it.

http://breakthematrix.com/alternatives/top-10-cannabis-studies-the-government-wished-it-had-never-funded/ Top 10 Cannabis Studies the Government Wished it Had Never Funded [B]10) MARIJUANA USE HAS NO EFFECT ON MORTALITY:[/B] A massive study of California HMO members funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) found marijuana use caused no significant increase in mortality. Tobacco use was associated with increased risk of death. Sidney, S et al. Marijuana Use and Mortality. American Journal of Public Health. Vol. 87 No. 4, April 1997. p. 585-590. Sept. 2002. [B]9) HEAVY MARIJUANA USE AS A YOUNG ADULT WON’T RUIN YOUR LIFE:[/B] Veterans Affairs scientists looked at whether heavy marijuana use as a young adult caused long-term problems later, studying identical twins in which one twin had been a heavy marijuana user for a year or longer but had stopped at least one month before the study, while the second twin had used marijuana no more than five times ever. Marijuana use had no significant impact on physical or mental health care utilization, health-related quality of life, or current socio-demographic characteristics. Eisen SE et al. Does Marijuana Use Have Residual Adverse Effects on Self-Reported Health Measures, Socio-Demographics or Quality of Life? A Monozygotic Co-Twin Control Study in Men. Addiction. Vol. 97 No. 9. p.1083-1086. Sept. 1997 [B] [IMG]http://breakthematrix.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_cool.gif[/IMG] THE “GATEWAY EFFECT” MAY BE A MIRAGE:[/B] Marijuana is often called a “gateway drug” by supporters of prohibition, who point to statistical “associations” indicating that persons who use marijuana are more likely to eventually try hard drugs than those who never use marijuana – implying that marijuana use somehow causes hard drug use. But a model developed by RAND Corp. researcher Andrew Morral demonstrates that these associations can be explained “without requiring a gateway effect.” More likely, this federally funded study suggests, some people simply have an underlying propensity to try drugs, and start with what’s most readily available. Morral AR, McCaffrey D and Paddock S. Reassessing the Marijuana Gateway Effect. Addiction. December 2002. p. 1493-1504. [B]7) PROHIBITION DOESN’T WORK (PART I):[/B] The White House had the National Research Council examine the data being gathered about drug use and the effects of U.S. drug policies. NRC concluded, “the nation possesses little information about the effectiveness of current drug policy, especially of drug law enforcement.” And what data exist show “little apparent relationship between severity of sanctions prescribed for drug use and prevalence or frequency of use.” In other words, there is no proof that prohibition – the cornerstone of U.S. drug policy for a century – reduces drug use. National Research Council. Informing America’s Policy on Illegal Drugs: What We Don’t Know Keeps Hurting Us. National Academy Press, 2001. p. 193. [B]6) PROHIBITION DOESN’T WORK (PART II): DOES PROHIBITION CAUSE THE “GATEWAY EFFECT”?):[/B] U.S. and Dutch researchers, supported in part by NIDA, compared marijuana users in San Francisco, where non-medical use remains illegal, to Amsterdam, where adults may possess and purchase small amounts of marijuana from regulated businesses. Looking at such parameters as frequency and quantity of use and age at onset of use, they found no differences except one: Lifetime use of hard drugs was significantly lower in Amsterdam, with its “tolerant” marijuana policies. For example, lifetime crack cocaine use was 4.5 times higher in San Francisco than Amsterdam. Reinarman, C, Cohen, PDA, and Kaal, HL. The Limited Relevance of Drug Policy: Cannabis in Amsterdam and San Francisco. American Journal of Public Health. Vol. 94, No. 5. May 2004. p. 836-842. [B]5) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART I):[/B] Federal researchers implanted several types of cancer, including leukemia and lung cancers, in mice, then treated them with cannabinoids (unique, active components found in marijuana). THC and other cannabinoids shrank tumors and increased the mice’s lifespans. Munson, AE et al. Antineoplastic Activity of Cannabinoids. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Sept. 1975. p. 597-602. [B]4) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER, (PART II):[/B] In a 1994 study the government tried to suppress, federal researchers gave mice and rats massive doses of THC, looking for cancers or other signs of toxicity. The rodents given THC lived longer and had fewer cancers, “in a dose-dependent manner” (i.e. the more THC they got, the fewer tumors). NTP Technical Report On The Toxicology And Carcinogenesis Studies Of 1-Trans- Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol, CAS No. 1972-08-3, In F344/N Rats And B6C3F Mice, Gavage Studies. See also, “Medical Marijuana: Unpublished Federal Study Found THC-Treated Rats Lived Longer, Had Less Cancer,” AIDS Treatment News no. 263, Jan. 17, 1997. [B]3) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART III):[/B] Researchers at the Kaiser-Permanente HMO, funded by NIDA, followed 65,000 patients for nearly a decade, comparing cancer rates among non-smokers, tobacco smokers, and marijuana smokers. Tobacco smokers had massively higher rates of lung cancer and other cancers. Marijuana smokers who didn’t also use tobacco had no increase in risk of tobacco-related cancers or of cancer risk overall. In fact their rates of lung and most other cancers were slightly lower than non-smokers, though the difference did not reach statistical significance. Sidney, S. et al. Marijuana Use and Cancer Incidence (California, United States). Cancer Causes and Control. Vol. 8. Sept. 1997, p. 722-728. [B]2) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART IV):[/B] Donald Tashkin, a UCLA researcher whose work is funded by NIDA, did a case-control study comparing 1,200 patients with lung, head and neck cancers to a matched group with no cancer. Even the heaviest marijuana smokers had no increased risk of cancer, and had somewhat lower cancer risk than non-smokers (tobacco smokers had a 20-fold increased lung cancer risk). Tashkin D. Marijuana Use and Lung Cancer: Results of a Case-Control Study. American Thoracic Society International Conference. May 23, 2006. [B]1) MARIJUANA DOES HAVE MEDICAL VALUE:[/B] In response to passage of California’s medical marijuana law, the White House had the Institute of Medicine (IOM) review the data on marijuana’s medical benefits and risks. The IOM concluded, “Nausea, appetite loss, pain and anxiety are all afflictions of wasting, and all can be mitigated by marijuana.” While noting potential risks of smoking, the report added, “we acknowledge that there is no clear alternative for people suffering from chronic conditions that might be relieved by smoking marijuana, such as pain or AIDS wasting.” The government’s refusal to acknowledge this finding caused co-author John A. Benson to tell the New York Times that the government “loves to ignore our report … they would rather it never happened.” Joy, JE, Watson, SJ, and Benson, JA. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. National Academy Press. 1999. p. 159. See also, Harris, G. FDA Dismisses Medical Benefit From Marijuana. New York Times. Apr. 21, 2006

but that rule is not acceptable for weed no? ***THC is absorved by fat cells and can remain detectable in the body for weeks. Daily use would be detectable, and you would be considered under the influence of mind altering drugs. who would consider you under the influence? i accept that the law MIGHT be worded this way but any reasonable person can see that this is not actually the case if i smoke an amount comparable to the drinker drinks and stop at the same time and wait your 8 hours (probably sleeping) i am at least as capable of performing as the drinker is and personally i would argue more so as i wont be hung over in anyway

is daily alcohol use by someone on the dropzone a safety issue?

cool that makes sense, sorry to hijack the thread. what does bmi stand for?

] Seems to me the BSR is pretty clear/clean. 200 jumps before any wingsuit. You can always go to a non USPA dropzone. I don't know what a non-USPA DZ would allow. Phoenix-Fly coaches must obey the USPA rule, however. Additionally, if you're a USPA Coach and a PFC and you disregard the BSR, even on a non-USPA DZ...kiss your USPA Coach rating goodbye. whats the difference between a wsi(i assume that means wing suit instructor) and pfc (phoenix fly coach)? and why is one bullshit adn the other not?

maybe it would help if the people debating what is ok to go in or not put up the wind speeds they are talking about for all we know chuckakers sit down speed and phoenixs' are the same were i work the tandems take a 1 hour stand down if the wind hits 30mph no matter what, if it hits 30 again that resets the hour. some ti's will have sat down before this anyway. if 3 sit down then the plane is grounded students are kept on the ground if it goes over 10mph licence limits generally start to come about somewhere between 20/25mph if its gusting thats a different story and its judged on a case by case basis. it could be 10mph gusting to 20/25 and everyone will be on the ground we had ridicolous wind conditions at our biggest boogie last year and all the locals were on the ground enjoying the other activities of the weekend but there were still visitors sending up loads. most of us chose not to watch those loads

http://www.circumcision.org/studies.htm

thanks pharmer velocity and 111

So what ? Have we gone so far to the right that there's no room for lefties to even speak or be heard ? Also, it simply doesn't follow that she would "loathe" her son. Plenty of parents still love children who make life choices other than what the parent would've wanted. She still lost her son, she IS entitled to grieve, isn't she ? I have no problem with her grieving. I have very little problem with her blaming GWB for her son's death, protesting outside the ranch in Texas or the other stunts she pulled (although most seemed to be for media attention more than anything else). She has the right to speak her mind, publicly and without government retaliation, which is what happened. I found it very ironic that she went to Venezuela and publicly praised (worshipped almost) Hugo Chavez. Chavez loved her because of her criticism of GWB. But (and here is the irony) any Venezuelan who criticizes Chavez experiences severe government sactions. Including confiscation of personal property and businesses, loss of jobs and jail. And Cindy Sheehan loved him. so she is an idiot to boot, perfect, so who cares what she does or dosn't think? her being a communist ( i imagine in reality she is just fairly left of center which in america automatically means your a communist) and her being an idiot are mutually exclusive

ye i agree in theory because for some reason i seem to have less sensitivity then my friends, they would never consider a pa piercing like i am and i was the only one who thought the swab in the sti clinic didn't hurt so maybe im just a freak of nature but it can be ye and i wouldn't be letting thorns near it voluntarily thats fo sho

thanks for that, that helps alot am i mad to think that i should take advantage of my youth / strength / health while i can and put up with the extra weight while i can for the possibility of getting some great shots? for tandem video and stills grand i could probably use go pros and the customer would be happy but id like to train with and be able to jump with top of the range gear and expect high quality results from myself

care to list those hygenic reasons? Protect it from what? to protect it from rubbing against your boxers or jeans if you like going commando.. why, for fucks sake, do you have eyelids? even though i am on your side that is a bit of a loose argument, i doubt whichever animal(it might have been us i dont know) evolved to have a foreskin first was wearing to many armani boxers. the procedure is just completely unnecessary and americas opinion on it is just wierd although im yet to encounter a woman who cares either way so i think that whole 'women prefer it thing' is a myth anyway

thanks, i would like the hd filming feature but dont know if its worth the extra money after the inevitable price drop of the 550 but do you know what the difference between this body and the 7d body would be given the same lens after my 30d i always had it in my head to go for the next range up, 7d/5d but as i have sold all my lenses and stuff if i did that id have to settle for a kit lens for a while wereas if i was to get the 600d i could probably afford one or two really good lenses

op, define revolt

can any of the people who think that every baby should be circumsised give me one compelling hygene argument instead of just saying its unhygenic?