mr2mk1g

You gonna come out with what you're actually thinking of doing? It's kinda like a HP canopy but not quite, and kinda like a skysurf board but not quite, can cause you to spin and is always cutaway before deployment... sounds interesting

IIRC the student union is boycotting them - so no students throughout the country even have the oportunity to buy Nestle products as they're not available in any of the shops.

Would have to be a student cypres as in the past an expert model failed to fire during a high G spin - it was thought the spinning board generated enough lift to keep the decent speed lower than 78mph. Student cypres though would mean no swooping or even agressive canopy manouvers under many canopies.

The only place I see it having a use are on these tiny experimental canopies where they're jetisoned above 2k anyway and jumped on a three canopy rig.

That's why we have The Monster Raving Loony Party. http://www.omrlp.com/ They often actually get a fair few votes.

Go real chuffing simple. Stick a big lead ball/weight half way along a steel cable. First half of cable leads up fixed hard housing to leg and cutaway pad (assuming sky surf board). Second half of cable leads down fixed hard housing to three ring circus where a pin is swadged on the end. Pin takes place of Teflon cable in three ring circus. Where the lead ball is there is no hard housing. There must be room between the lead ball and the upper hard housing to allow pin to be pulled from circus by pulling on the cutaway pad. During high speed spin centripetal force (ok I know we physics-whuffos never get the right force) works on lead weight/ball. Lead moves away from hard housings (which are fixed along most of length but not last inch or two to allow for articulation). Thus force on weight pulls on both ends of the steel cable. Cable at top is attached to cutaway pad which cannot move through hard housing. Cable at bottom is therefore the only point of movement and thus pin is pulled. Three ring circus works its magic and board (in case of skysurfer) released. Ball can’t fly off and hit a house as cable is still within hard housing. You could even prevent the cable from doing anything but bowing out where there is no hard housing by ensuring the pin has a greater diameter than the internal diameter of the hard housing. This would require a lot of thought about forces to make sure weight was sufficient to activate circus at a low enough spin but light enough to survive ordinary usage. I would also worry about cleaning inside the system as there’s no obvious way to dismantle it without major works. DO NOT DO ANYTHING SILLY WITH THIS IDEA. I CAME UP WITH IT DURING MY LUNCH, HAVE PUT VERY LITTLE THOUGHT INTO IT, AND IT MAY WELL BE CRAP!!

Is this a backup saftey system or just the way in which you want to do it every jump?

Did CDG to LAX last year. Had appalling service. First off the smelly frogs who load the plane went on strike (its in the French constitution that every French worker must strike every third week) so we got crap packets of weird picnic stuff which was horrible instead of in flight food. No provision for vegetarians which pissed off my travel companion greatly. Had TV’s at intervals in the isles instead of in the back of head rests. Staff were all French and uppity. Vowed never to travel with them again. But then if the price was right... and I might have just had a couple of crappy planes.

Most self defence laws do. The important thing is to make sure the balance is right between protecting the innocent would be victim and not encouraging slap dash assessments. What the "right" balance is will be determined by the society to which the law applies. My point is I don't know how far the balance is swung as I have no idea how or how easy it is to rebut that presumption... I can only presume that the legislature will further define things before the law hits the books. The fact that it is a presumption though is nice as it starts things off couched in the correct terms – the home owner has the legal upper hand unless... [blank].

Problem with a system based on g forces will be it has to withstand the g forces inherent in opening shock. So you'll either need a computerised system which has an algorithm in it which only cuts away if it detects X lb of force for Y seconds or a far more simple system whereby the operator holds a dead man's handle during deployment before switching to a pure g force system.

Twin cutter tandem cypres with the white loop of the risers passing through the cutter. Disadvantages: you better hope you're going more than 78mph if you want it to fire. won't stop g-loc from killing you above 1900ft. Or just hook cypres cutters (or similar) on the white loops again, up to a dead man's handle - maybe a bite switch or something? Then have permanent way of completing the circuit (eg inline flick switch) before cutting away the experimental canopy (assuming that's what you're thinking of here).

I guess that depends on to what the finished law applies or whether "such force" refers to the defence of the home bit or the no duty to retreat bit. eh? The presumption is that the intruder is there to commit violence not that they're there illegally. The wording above (assuming that accurately reflects the law... which would in its self be surprising) says: "a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home..." [so that is who it apply to – people who trespass (ish)] "...is there to cause death or great bodily harm" [this bit is the presumption – that they are there to cause death or great bodily harm]. Showing that they were a licensee/invitee would simply mean they are not the subject of the clause and that it therefore does not apply to them – an equally good way to get out of it but not really rebutting the presumption. What I'm wondering about is how the presumption in the clause may be rebutted (if at all... though one would assume a presumption can be rebutted or it wouldn't be worded so). So say you came downstairs and found someone who fell within the meaning of a "criminal who had forcibly intruded into your home" but they were simply a little old lady who had a been attacked and was seeking shelter from a maniac outside... would that (or some other odd circumstances) rebut the presumption that they were there to cause death or great bodily harm and thus cause the person who shoots them to be guilty of a crime? That's why I'm interested in what would rebut the presumption. Is it the objective facts of the situation, subjective facts, reasonable facts known to the home owner, reasonable facts to an officious bystander, facts which ought to have been known under the circumstances?? That's where the battle ground of this law is going to be if the legislature don't sort things out before the bill is enacted.

Damnit already voted. Even with taxes at 90% I think their other policy may well win them some votes.

As a lawyer reading this thread I think it's quite clear that the majority of people here do not fully understand the finite nuances of the definitions of the crimes discussed. That's not exactly surprising - there's a hell of a lot to defining a complicated crime like rape. I would have been more surprised if you all had known - after all, the law of rape and sexual assault we have in this country (UK) took decades of case law and statutory tinkering to get to the point it is now. All of the situations you're discussing have been covered, there's very little new in the book. Want a case about nailing someone's dick to a table and putting stinging nettles on his balls – see R. v. Brown... it's all been done before and there are answers to all your "hypothetical" situations. Didn't anyone tell you we Brits are perverts? But there's an awful lot more to it than you think you know, and I don't have nearly enough time to go into it as this thread appears to want. You guys are actually touching on some quite difficult topics here (well done by the way)... to deal with them properly I'd have to write pages, most of which would be completely irrelevant as you're mostly yanks applying US law to a Norwegian case. Chucking UK law into the melting pot is hardly going to help things, even if it did explain the way one jurisdiction at least did things. Besides you'd only argue with me. And no one would read a 3 page post... I've made them before and they get ignored.

Voted already. Had to chose between a party who will never win, and two others who want to do everything exactly the same but use slightly different shades of paperwork. pffft! You guys get far too excited over politicians. If things can't be done with a little bit of decorum they're not worth doing.

way to cause yourself difficulties - wear fancy dress on your 21st jump. Still, the media appear to have made a story of someone who just plane flew into a tree under a functioning canopy into a positive event. Could have been worse - could have been a lutz story.

Thought that was recently beaten by a Canadian? http://www.snipercountry.com/Articles/KillingShot_2430Metres.asp

ok, so what is the current record for a kill about 1.5 miles isn't it? Yeah, you're right, she's wrong there. I don't know - how far away could you hit a vehicular target? edit: I guess she's getting her 4 mile thing from the maximum range figures for the M107... but I wouldn't like to think how poor the velocity would be out that far. I figure the round would be tumbling by then too so no good on accuracy?

Hmmm taking the skydiving analogy further it’s the same as saying someone with a velo 96 could swoop over 500ft while someone on a sabre 190 could not… but in reality only an exceptional individual could swoop over 500ft after dedicating a hell of a lot of training to it even with a velo… and that same person would still be a bad ass swooper under the sabre190… just not over quite the same distance. She’s effectively right that someone could shoot anything (within line of sight) within a 4 mile radius with a .50 cal and that in all likelihood the same shot would not be possible with a lesser rifle… but hell they’d have to be good… and besides, that really good sniper would be just as lethal over shorter distances with a lesser rifle… say like am 1891 6.5mm mannlicher carcano Italian heap o'junk(for the buffs).

The kinetic energy it carries. If I'm gonna get hit by something I'd much rather be hit by a .308 than a .50. I thought the logic behind these laws were that .50 weapons were not just designed as anti-personel weapons but also to take out vehicles and equipment. Thus they were worried about terrorists taking out planes with them.

Hey, is this going to make it illegal for me to use that nice Desert Eagle they have at the gun range I go to when visiting Perris? After all the Desert Eagle is a .50 calibre and has a rifled barrel. Not exactly a great weapon for snipers mind.

ps. I'm on the lookout at the moment for a nice .62 calibre ex-military snipers rifle... I don't even need a license for it... even has a bayonet lug.

Rebore your rifle to .51 calibre and put slightly bigger but legal holes in everything.

That's right - pick on the hispanics again

Note that this phrase: Will mean that anyone prosecuted and found not guilty of exceeding their self defence rights will have an almost automatic cause of action against the police. I wonder how this will affect police willingness to prosecute things like affrays, assaults and small time crimes like that. Simply claim self defence and sue the police in an open and shut case. Loadsa money. No duty to retreat clause is a great idea though. I wonder who came up with the idea of the duty in the first place. I note that the fact that the person in your home being there to cause death or bodily harm a presumption – is there any word on how/if that will be rebuttable?