nathaniel

and so the ad homiem arguments resume... how would his points be any more or less valid if they had been submitted anonymously? nathaniel My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

That's odd. At Ohare 2 weeks ago I got nothing, and at Bradley (Hartford) yesterday I got nothing more than a 10 second glance at the X-Ray counter...could be Bradley is too small to get up to date on the rules tho. No hook knives, tho. nathaniel My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

yo momma so fat when she jumps out a window she gets caught in the air yo momma so fat you could park a car in her shadow My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

I think the two features that have me sold on mozilla are * stops annoying moving GIF images * cookie permissions dropzone.com yes, doubleclick.com no I couldn't use IE on this computer if I wanted to...but even at work I use mozilla. nathaniel My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

Just because you didn't see it as a line item before doesn't mean you weren't paying for it. Think of it as a cash discount instead of a credit card fee. I like the idea, actually. For a business accepting credit payments can be fiendishly expensive due to hidden fees etc. IMO jumpers paying in cash shouldn't have to subsidize those paying with credit. Nathaniel My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

Pure scam. It's called overpayment fraud. They give you a bad check or draft for too much money and you deposit it in your bank account. The money appears in your account and the check appears to have been good. You send back the difference and all's well and good, until several days later you see their check didn't clear after all and you are out the money you sent "back" to the scammer. Checks and drafts can take many days to clear -- no matter which bank "issued" them. If the instrument is a cashier's check or bank draft it is just a counterfit. As a service most banks will credit the money to your account before the check is fully processed so it appears the check was good when it is still outstanding -- under the assumption that most checks are good. The check you write to the scammer is good and when their check finally bounces you are SOL. Professional escrow services can help prevent this type of scam -- the scammer is proposing his own intermediary instead of an accredited escrow service as a diversion here. This "intermediary" if he exists at all is surely part of the scam. nathaniel My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

wish I could have been there to see it. Looks crazy fun =) congrats, mister My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

.......beeeeeEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRR! nathaniel My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

thats an easy one...I think it's inappropriate to use this forum for prescribing medicines and treatments. decisions on treatments should be between doctors and patients, not by interested laymen such as you or me. nathaniel My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

A couple times someone's pointed the same main cover flapping thing to me with my J1 (mfd 96). My rigger suggested tucking the main cover tuck tab in between the left and right container flaps instead of between them both and the bottom flap as I usually do (did, anyway)...Combining this with several rubber bands around the main cover tuck tab makes a world of difference on my rig. nathaniel My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

He'll probably want a thorough inspection of the rig...no telling what an incompetent might have subjected it to... There should be a way of charging people that steal rigs with crimes greater than theft... nathaniel My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

In Illinois, It's a start... nathaniel My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

thread drift is a problem technology can solve. $0.02 nathaniel My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

Please accept my most humble apologies nathaniel My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

I don't know where to start with this one... we can't act at all without facts. How would people even suspect WL if we didn't have incident reports? For that matter, skydiving can be an academic exercise, and can certainly be simulated on computer...look no further than Mr. Kallend's freefall drift and exit separation simulations. If the number of incidents is statistically insignificant, why does anyone maintain the illusion that we can do anything about them? Or that we'd know if we did anything about them? I'm starting to think much of the "problem" in this sport is epistemological in nature. nathaniel My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

Agreed. It makes me wonder what changes are significant and which are not, which aspects are built in to the various proposals and which are not, and which aspects should be built in to the proposals and which should not. nathaniel My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

USPA SIM section 5-6 weighs in on the subject a. The pilot and all jumpers on board the aircraft should be informed in advance whenever an opening is planned to be above the normal opening altitude (generally 5,000 feet and lower). Doesn't say don't advise for lower, but... nathaniel My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

Arbitrary in that they are based on impressions instead of figures. I trust figures--especially pedigreed figures--more than I trust anyone's impressions. Even the most experienced among us is human...and humans are notorious for getting things like this wrong when they don't formalize their methods. I'd like at least to list which factors (real or perceived) are built-in to the numbers, like, popular wingloadings, fatality rate, accident rate, DZ layouts (incl hazards), canopy designs, demographics etc. How would we know in 15 years if the same numbers we propose to use today will be appropriate? If the idea struck Ron or Billvon or the distinguished Mr. Germain 10 years ago, what numbers would they have proposed then, and what numbers in retrospect would have been most appropriate? In retrospect would any WL restrictions or advisories have been appropriate? What would be grounds for dismissing the whole idea of WL regulations or recommendations and taking a different approach? That the USPA has fudged it before and survived (and even come up with some good rules) is the same "I've landed this thing before" mentality that gets jumpers into trouble. We are smarter than this. nathaniel My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

On this we agree... I think we disagree in that I see scant good in most of the WL proposals so far... nathaniel My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

You are very good at getting under my skin... I appreciate the opportunity to practice keeping calm. You have very much distorted my words by taking them out of context. Patchworks are in order for new, arbitrary rule classes, such as the various WL numerology schemes--the more so when there is disagreement on the scope and nature of the means and ends. What ground do you stake to assert your particular numbers are more appropriate for the USPA than the ones from KS or the crazy ones I suggested above? Patchworks are obviously not appropriate between groups that have established agreement, such as consensus on right of way, or on minimum pull altitudes. To the extent that there is not consensus, then yes, heterogeneity may be appropriate. nathaniel My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

I meant that the amount of choice edit choice of rule sets under the USPA-wide rule would be no more or less for people with only 1 DZ to choose from. The arbitrariness of all of the rules in question bugs me. I'm not in danger of violating most of the proposals (except my some of my earlier crazy ones). I just applied for my C license, I'm jumping at 1.0 WL and I don't intend to change that anytime soon... An impediment to forming an opinion on all of the proposals is the hand-waving factor. I'd rather let Smith's "invisible hand" make the choice than make everyone's choice myself. Who knows, maybe jumpers and DZs would actually be better off with tight policies like this KS one. The possibility doesn't lead me to endorse it, tho. I think it's at least equally likely the only noticeable effects would be fewer, more pent-up jumpers. nathaniel My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

Nobody makes you jump at a particular DZ...heaven forbid that jumpers might have a choice about which rules edit: rule sets are more reasonable than others. I think patchworks are the order of the day. Some people with only 1 dz nearby will get no choice b/c there's no competition, but that's no worse than under the BSR or SIM changes proposed... nathaniel My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

To the risk-averse, driving cautiously is easily justified without experience, just as is conservative canopy flight. Your experience-as-proof argument as-is has nothing to do with canopy sizes--you could plant such a statement in any debate and it would be just as fallacious as it is here. Experience alone isn't proof, although experience may lead to the knowledge that drives the proof. If experience has led to knowledge that justifies these proposals, by all means explain how! There should be no secrets here. Conclusions drawn on experience without the benefit of knowledge and logic are indistinguishable from superstition. The last thing we need in this sport is more superstition*. Which is not to say that all superstitions are necessarily false... edit to add: If experience has given us a hunch, then let us derive the knowledge that gives us proof. nathaniel * eg, 45-degree exit separation rule, several of the roll-this roll-that tweaks to canopy folding, people buttsliding in instead of PLF, some of the RSL and AAD pro/con arguments etc. My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

I just finished Neuromancer by WIlliam Gibson. 2001: A Space Odyssey, Arthur C Clarke. I'm thinking Phillip K Dick or Proust next. nathaniel My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

I've often declined to do things at my job, and I still get along fairly well with my boss (he's doing a tandem sunday