What I call "good" is acting according to the golden rule...treating others as I would have them treat me. That means always honestly, even when it's uncomfortable. You don't need to know the 'truth' to not lie. It also means thinking before acting of the possible consequence to others as well as myself.
I agree, if thought crime is the same as real crime, I'm a terrible person, but I prefer to judge people's actions as I think it gives better insight to who they are.
If judged by the 10 commandments, I'm still hosed simply by not believing in the unbelievable. I would guess that if thought crime counts on that front, heaven is an empty, lonely place filled only with Asperger's sufferers and other abnormaly brained people, as those requirements are not possible for normal humans.

Heaven is filled with people just like you and me, who absolutely cannot qualify to get into Heaven on account of their own righteousness. When you stand before God you will be judged one of two ways, either by your righteousness or the righteousness of Jesus Christ, which is credited to your account through faith. No one has what it takes..I screw up all the time but God is always there to help me. Through His help I am doing a lot better than I did, but I have a long way to go. I didn't and still don't deserve anything God has done for me. Put your trust and faith in Jesus and you will be prepared for eternity.

Your plane analogy doesn't hold water. Instead of jumping from a plane, I think it's more like being led, blindfolded and deafened, to a doorway, being told by dozens of people the differing things they are CERTAIN are on the other side of the door (but not one of them has ever seen it open) and deciding to trust one line of belief and putting that parachute on because your guy said you're on a cliff and need a parachute, but you might as easily be underwater and need scuba gear instead, then your parachute is a trap, or in space and it's just useless, etc.. Since there's no way to know what's beyond the door, many prefer to go unencumbered by anything, accepting it's likely there's absolutely nothing there, but ready for what may come. In the unlikely event that in the end there is a just god there judging my life, I feel I'll be fine unless ritual is more important than action. It's not a possibility I feel is likely.

Only God can reveal Himself to you. It won't be because you feel the possibility is likely that suddenly you will start to believe. I didn't believe it was likely either; the last thing in the world I imagined would happen was that I would become a Christian. It is only because God gave me personal revelation that He is real and Jesus is His Son that I became a Christian. God is knocking on your door right now, and if you choose to open yourself to what He wants to show you, He will reveal Himself to you as well. That's what happened to me; He didn't just make it clear, He made it crystal clear and He'll do the same for you too. Ask Him to show you what the truth is so that you do not have to deal with possibilities. Pray and ask God to show you whether He is there and Jesus is His Son. Read the gospel of John and pray and ask God to show you whether it is true or not. God isn't hiding from you, it is simply a matter of whether you are willing to repent of your sins and turn to Jesus, or not.

What I call "good" is acting according to the golden rule...treating others as I would have them treat me. That means always honestly, even when it's uncomfortable. You don't need to know the 'truth' to not lie. It also means thinking before acting of the possible consequence to others as well as myself.
I agree, if thought crime is the same as real crime, I'm a terrible person, but I prefer to judge people's actions as I think it gives better insight to who they are.
If judged by the 10 commandments, I'm still hosed simply by not believing in the unbelievable. I would guess that if thought crime counts on that front, heaven is an empty, lonely place filled only with Asperger's sufferers and other abnormaly brained people, as those requirements are not possible for normal humans.
Moral perfection is an impossibility. What's morally perfect from one viewpoint may not be from another.
Your plane analogy doesn't hold water. Instead of jumping from a plane, I think it's more like being led, blindfolded and deafened, to a doorway, being told by dozens of people the differing things they are CERTAIN are on the other side of the door (but not one of them has ever seen it open) and deciding to trust one line of belief and putting that parachute on because your guy said you're on a cliff and need a parachute, but you might as easily be underwater and need scuba gear instead, then your parachute is a trap, or in space and it's just useless, etc.. Since there's no way to know what's beyond the door, many prefer to go unencumbered by anything, accepting it's likely there's absolutely nothing there, but ready for what may come. In the unlikely event that in the end there is a just god there judging my life, I feel I'll be fine unless ritual is more important than action. It's not a possibility I feel is likely.

But what if the 'holy spirit' tells me clearly that I don't need to believe in any supernatural insanity to be a good person (which is the most important, and often missed lesson of religion)? Or that my 'heavenly reward' is in life, in knowing I'm a decent person to others, no afterlife required?
It seems that should be just fine, according to some scripture (not that I care about or believe in scripture) and should be enough to get proselytizers to let me be, but it's not.

It depends on what you mean when you use the word good. I'll venture that you are using a relative standard of good, but that isn't the standard that God uses. Usually, when we call ourselves good it is in comparison to other people. You might think, I've never raped or murdered, and I am certainly no Adolf Hitler or Ted Bundy, so I am good by basis of comparison. Yet, what God calls good is moral perfection, and everything that falls short of that He calls evil. His standard is an absolute standard, not a relative one, and so our relative standard of good is not good enough.

When people call themselves good, generally, what they really mean is that they have good intentions. In our hearts we want to do right and think good things about people, yet the reality is usually starkly different. If you examine yourself in the light of the 10 commandments, even just four of them such as do not lie, do not steal, do not covet, do not take the Lords name is vain, you probably find them that you've broken them hundreds if not thousands of times in your life. Jesus took the standard even higher and said that if we hate anyone, we've murdered them in our hearts, and if we look at a woman with lust we have committed adultery with them in our hearts. If our lives were an open book and people could see not only what we've done but also what was going on in our hearts, would anyone call us good? I can say for myself it would be an open and shut case.

This is why we need a Savior; we will be judged for what we do in this life and our goodness isn't good enough. That is why Jesus came; to pay the price that we cannot pay so that we can be forgiven for our sins and have eternal life. Whether you care about the scripture, think about whether you would ever jump out of a plane without a parachute. That's exactly what you are prepared to do by entering into eternity without Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.

Wow.

So, smokers who get lung cancer can go fuck themselves? Same for people who live with smokers? No sympathy for those assholes. They should've known better. Having said that, Amy Winehouse can go fuck herself as well, everbody knows the risks of alcoholism. And no sympathy for Paul Walker either. Speeding, really? And those idiots dying in parachuting accidents deserve what's coming to them as well. Should've stayed on the ground. Same with every somewhat dangerous sport. Applies to you too, Michael Schuhmacher.
Fuck all those people who did something potentially dangerous and got seriously hurt or killed because of it. Empathy is for pussies anyways.
This is especially valid for people who cause others financial harm as they deserve death the most. Preferably by having the head crushed under a tire.

It sounds like a good idea in theory (entertainment wise) But in practice...a lot of a fight gets taken out...

-Your on a short time limit so endurance doesn't come into full effect

-The notion of balance is different, which might be interesting, but take downs or throws become less useful. However, posturing to compensate for wind comes into effect.

-Safety, what happens if someone gets hit to hard near parachute time. I've heard there are altitude activated parachutes but it still comes down to what can go wrong. How much of an actual fight gets removed to accommodate the jump?

-What constitutes a victory? You have a short amount of time to knock someone out? Let out some anger on your opponent?

If you have a look at this picture, the rock seems to be falling at a constant velocity, as it should if it was a meteor fragment - it should be falling at its terminal velocity.
It's hard to judge distance and speed, but might be falling at - say 1-2 meters per frame. If it is shot at 25fps, this would mean that it's falling at 25-50m/s (90-180 km/h, 55-110mph, 80-160 ft/s) faster than the parachute jumper, and would be very close to a probable to the terminal velocity of a falling rock.

I retract my earlier statement.

A bit skeptical - it didn't seem to go that much faster than the jumper - even with parachute deployed.

What they meant by this is to use all power available. They got 100l of fuel to go full 1½h race. The fuel flow is limited to 100l/h. That means they need to use around 67l/h on average, this of course decreases during braking and is almost at max during acceleration. Also energy recovery and the release of that energy has some leeway to be used in different ratios, it is limited to 33s per lap. How that energy is divided, is up to the team.. So they will have the full boost of 160hp from ERS and full 100l/h fuel flow when using "push to pass" button but it's nowhere near the common definition of that function. Traditional push to pass is high boost, on 2014 F1 it means few percentages of power. The correct term would be "overtake mode".

RBR infringed fuel flow rule and no other team had been even warned, FIA has guidelines that teams should calibrate with enough margins to void minor differences between sensors. RBR refused to do this and counted on FIA not counting that marginal change. FIA had stated pre-season that in no case there will be extra fuel flow allowed, it's almost zero tolerance policy.

They've done this before, made a marginal rule infringement and got away with Charlie Whitings slap on the wrist:"change it to the next race".. Their camera mountings is already one of those little things that is technically legal and at the same is not.. It all depends if the TV crews can find a suitable camera. If they say "no", the rules are clear: they need unobstructed view.. That small hole hardly allow high quality picture, the only lens that could even remotely suffice is fisheye lens with a mask: it is not their standard equipment.. RBR most likely will have to change those too (imho, so should merc camera pods and mclaren parachutes too). Compare that to Williams 360 camera pod and it's pretty clear what FIA means by "enough room to fit camera" means.

Last year they had holes on the floor in monaco: ruling was, change them to the next race.. Then there was the TC scandal, RBR used illegal engine mappings.. They used them last year too when there was a ban of feeding fuel to exhaust during zero throttle to feed the blown diffuser: RBR chuckled and used them anyway.. They still have the duct inside the nose, it violates the intention of the rule but is legal technically. Of course the severity of the punishment is a clear sign: FIA just showed that no more of that bullshit, RBR has to start respecting rules.

Wingsuits have already been landed twice without a parachute: once into a giant pile of boxes and another French guy fell into some trees when he stalled out above a forest. Jeb Corliss skipped off a boulder and only broke his legs, which is close enough. However 76 people died - those are pretty shitty odds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEP8juRSBRo
http://vimeo.com/50817449
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFk6hxHIR0Q
http://www.blincmagazine.com/forum/wiki/Fatality_Statistics

So I stand by the notion that he was pretty darn close to dying - one might say that he was almost there.

But, if you guys really want to be the semantics police, here are some more illicit video titles for you guys to fix:

http://videosift.com/video/Almost-Died-Whoa-that-was-close-WHOA
http://videosift.com/video/Girl-nearly-gets-decapitated-for-a-photo
http://videosift.com/video/Day-9-Story-Time-How-I-Almost-Died
http://videosift.com/video/Near-death-trainspotter-47-secs

I agree that it's only a matter of time before someone survives another crash, particularly if it is into snow, but first keep in mind that those guys are in a dive and flying closer to 130-140mph and they are also flying head first. Taking a hit in that position would hardly ever be survivable.

Quick research reveals some stuff about wingsuit flying over snow.

Those wingsuit skydivers are probably traveling about 60-100 mph. During that near miss, when the one skydiver flairs his suit, he probably dropped down to as little as 40 mph.

Ski racers can travel around 50-100 mph. We see crashes at those speeds all the time in snow and the skiier is generally uninjured.

The fastest skiiers, in the aerodynamic suits, are travelling 120-150 mph. Those crashes are obivously survivable, although catastrophic injury happens.

So, it stands to reason that a serious accident involving a wingsuit flyer over snow is very survivable. With some time to flare, there's no reason they couldn't walk away with little more than bruises. In fact, I suspect it's only a matter of time before we finally see a wingsuit pilot land without a parachute. Maybe over snow first, eventually over water and ultimately...why shouldn't we see someone with the skill to land on solid ground. With appropriate advances in equipment.

Oh, man that was disturbing.
..and if this doesn't convince you that it isn't easy to dig yourself out after an avalanche.. remember that in episode S02E16 "Out in the cold", MacGyver was buried in an avalanche, and couldn't get himself out. Good thing Pete is such a good friend and wouldn't let the rescue team stop looking until Mac was able to fashion a blow gun from his ski pole, and a signal parachute from his bandana and a zipper pull.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yG3Iapth75I

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Close, Calls' to 'Close, Calls, wingsuits, parachutes, base, jumpers, extreme sports' - edited by kulpims

Well, technically speaking, I think the faster human free fall was around 800mph, unaided by propulsion. It was a matter of being in the right angle and wearing the right fabrics…. and the right altitude. So realistically speaking, they *could* parachute insert a lot faster than terminal velocity . . . If they tried hard enough.

There were a few similar stories from the second world war, none from a spitfire that I know of, but all incredible:

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?173042-Amazing-Parachute-Survival-Falls-of-WWII

As mentioned, these are basically all historical footage of transportation accidents, and famous ones at that. There are definitely a couple in here that are straight up snuff by sift guidelines, but the entire piece as a whole is more of a documentary.

It's not just "Hey look, this guy got shot and now he's bleeding out, lets watch", it's more "This is a look at some of the most terrible accidents mankind has had, each with a backstory as to why it happened, and is generally part of a larger event."

I actually read up on practically every one of these incidents, and to my surprise each one I looked up had detailed information of events that happened up to 100 years ago. The first clip being of a man who wanted to test his parachute idea, so he convinced french authorities to let him test it by having it go over the side of the Eiffel Tower. What he didn't tell them until the day of, however, was that he wasn't going to use a dummy, he was going to test it himself. In a sense, it's the first ever Darwin award caught on film.

Each clip has history to it, and a timestamp / title allowing research into what they are, and is in a sense educational on the broader sense. Again, not just "Hey, this guy was flying too low at an airshow, so lets watch him crash."