mr2mk1g

Man I'm so turned on... does that mean I get to go to hell now? They do custom work; we just send them measurements... why don't we ask them to make us up one of these: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=58458&item=5368610394&rd=1

I believe you; I’ve been watching them go. Just try getting an e-bay seller to ship a high value item outside of the US or to an address other than the one on your paypal/ebay account. US second hand camera prices are somewhere around £100-200 lower than the UK... I just generally get a polite "piss off" when I ask about shipping. Even if I find a cheap auction that will ship overseas (which I’m sure will come up at some point) there’s always the specter of customs who might take a fancy to it and whack 23.5% on top – then it would cost the same as a domestic camera. The prices I’m working with really have to be UK market. Plus the sources I’ve listed will give me a 12months warrantee in the price.

I can find either the D60 or 300D for about £350... the 10D is roughly twice the price. The 20D is more again, and the 350D is going to be arround £800 for the kit. Personally I'd rather save the £400 given that the 350D doesn't even exceed the D60's fps. The problem I have is I'm comparing prosumer tech from a couple of years ago to consumer tech of today. They both have their advantages. The other models price themselves out of my consideration.

To be fair, it's also quite possible a someone on the jury decided that no cop was going down for killing a purp/black guy/imigrant/someone before ever reaching the courtroom. That's why both sides get to scratch jury members.

The cop said this guy lunged at him and grappled for the gun... perhaps the guy made a tackle attack at the cop... shooting down at the guy would end up hitting him in the back... in fact I can think of a couple of scenarios where the cop legitimately ends up shooting the assailant in the back during a struggle. But then I wasn't there. The cop also admits to shooting the guy after he backed up... that could have been in the back. That's a significantly less defendable.

I'm looking at both the canon 300D and D60. I can get them both at pretty much the same price... they seem to be near as damn it identical. I know both sets of specs inside out so I'm just looking for opinions on which you would get. So would you go with the newer 300D, its lighter plastic shell, EF-S lens and quicker focus or would you go for the D60, with it's tougher but heavier build, faster fps and slower focus? Any other hidden quirks that would sell you on one or the other? Initially this would be used on the ground to learn all about SLR's as this would be my first, but would eventually get bolted up top of my noggin some time towards the end of the season.

The wording in the post giving Icarus's answer would seem to indicate that this sizing issue only effected canopies made by Precision... thus only those one's in the states. Canopies made in NZ or in Spain may therefore not be effected... but I don't know - this is simply what the post above seems to indicate.

He was aquitted of being the head of the Bali bombers.

Yeah, speed skydivers use the technique all the time. They eat gaseous foods the day before their competition jumps and make use of an afterburner effect.

Or the schwartz.

For me it comes down to a simple who's telling the truth exercise for the jury. If they buy the cop's story he'll get off. If they figure he's lying he ought to go down. Simple as that. None of us are on the jury; thus none of us can possibly second guess their call.

And Cuba...

I know of one lot of people who played Gary Glitter's music. See Gary was put in Horfield Prison in Bristol... that's a few miles away from my home... just down the road from the pub I call my local. It was well known round here that on Gary's first night in the clink the whole prison sang "you wanna be in my cell, my cell, my cell, you wanna be in my cell, my celllll?"

No one gave a damn when I sold a load of .303 rounds in stripper clips about a year ago. They were innert but still had the round and used percussion cap on them. Guess I'm just crap at advertising.

That's my point - all my mother did was load the OS. I stuck on a couple of programs that near half filled the drive and turned the machine off. That's all that's been done to it. I figure nearly half the hard drive will never have been touched and so ought to be recoverable. I'll have to whip the drive out tonight - I've got a USB hard drive port already... not sure if it'll take a laptop drive though. I just wondered if anyone had a preferred program to use other than the first ones to come of Google.

Yup, that was the very term I used when I spoke with my mother.

Yeah, thats what I figured - the problem is that's gonna be a pain in the arse as it's a laptop drive. Anyone know a program that runs on the machine itself? I figure the empty section of the drive ought to be just as recoverable as any untouched drive. All depends on where on the drive the photo's were. I've already told her there's a low likelyhood of retrieving anything much... anything I do get will be a bonus.

Anyone want to recommend a good data recovery program for image files that have been lost on a re-formatted hard drive? So I ask my mother 5, maybe 6 times if she's got absolutely everything she wants to keep off of her laptop before she goes through an install. “After we do this anything on there is gone forever”, I say. "Yes", she assures me, "I've taken off all the documents I need". So I send her a brand new, sealed copy of Win 98 version 2 so that she can re-install everything. I spend at least an hour or so talking her through things over the phone. Then she gives up and sends me the laptop so I can complete the install. She got the OS on… but wouldn’t listen to me about how it’s best to install programs. I put most of the programs on she needs in one night in front of the TV. Half her hard drive is now full. So today I get a phone call from my mother who has just realized she left on every digital photograph she ever took over the last 8 years on the laptop. No she’s never backed anything up – I only gave her a CD burner half way though last year. So... anyone got any recommendations?

I like it - that's the kind of ruling Denning would have come out with (very influential "militant" judge we had over here who died a couple of years back).

man that's fucked up. I guess I have no problems with it if the second head was not self aware. That appears to be the case here - so I'd have to say it's the right thing to do. If it was though... jeez. I guess I couldn't agree with it's removal if it was self aware. More what if games - what if it was self aware, it would be impossible to survive on it's own (more than likely) but a failure to act would mean the death of the girl? Now that's something to think about.

ah, you'd just melt it down. That way you could include the crap in their teeth.

Genius - you could train the hounds to hunt the scent of burburry! Who needs a bounty system - you'd just get to keep the bling off any you caught!

Exactly - I simply don't agree that the courts should be set up to compound the womans actions like that. Sure, I understand the child is always the first consideration and the court probably sat there thinking - "well, we know this guy is the biological father, even if it is by hook and by crook. Somebody's gotta pay for the kid, it might as well be him". I simply don't agree with this stance. It's happening here too in other ways. Contact is a classic example. The legislation allows courts to punish the woman who withholds contact. They never do. If a man withholds maintenance he gets stuck in the clink. In my view - where contact is sought and warranted, if contact is withheld I see no issues with withholding maintenance. Sort of a, “you want money - you let me see my son” scenario. This simply never happens. Of course the child needs to be protected from hardship – but when withheld contact is the cause of the problem it should be the mother at fault and not the father. The courts are so caught up in looking after the kid's welfare (as of course they ought to be) that they forget about the fathers’ rights. (Note it’s almost always the father in this situation, although there is nothing technically preventing it from being the mother). There has to be balance. IMO the courts on both sides of the pond have lost sight of the fathers’ rights. He's seen as a third class citizen - behind both the kid and the mother. I think he should be a second class citizen - behind the kid, EQUAL with the mother. At the moment that’s just not happening. I think this case is just yet another example.

I got a couple of those knives free. I spent about half an hour with a couple of riggers in the Loft at Perris looking at them and how we could go about putting one on my rig. We concluded that they didn't belong on my rig given the kind of flying I was doing. I gave one away to one of the riggers there who was a CRW dawg – we figured it wouldn’t be so bad for him as a third knife somewhere. For me freeflying - we figured it would be a bad idea. The knife has relatively sharp edges to it and effectively a serrated handle. That's the area that's exposed to other jumpers. A moderate collision - maybe even a bit of a rough linked exit - we concluded that the sharpish serrated edge, exposed to other people's kit could easily cause their kit damage - never mind what a bit of movement could cause it to do to my kit. I keep my benchmade in my rig bag for cutting all those things that stupid people use their rig's hook knife on. Not saying there’s not a way to mount them safely... I just agree with the riggers I talked with at Perris that there are better knives on the market.

I was professionally involved in a case here in the UK which could be seen as a prior authority (albeit cross jurisdictional so actually has no effect). I'll reiterate the bits that made the press as the matter was quite high profile. Childless couple – woman diagnosed with ovarian cancer. They go through early stages of IVF – her embryos are fertilized with his sperm and frozen. She then has cancer treatment rendering her infertile. The couple then breaks up for unrelated reasons. She wants to use the fertilized embryos (now her last chance to conceive with her own embryos) to complete the IVF treatment. He's not happy that little spawns of him and the ex. will be running round demanding maintenance. He takes out an injunction against her use of them. They went to court. Whilst the trial turned on the precise provisions of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, it was clear that in order for implantation to take place, both parties must consent. It cannot be left to one party alone to decide on the positive use of the others genetic material. Whilst this could be distinguished from the present case by way of the legislative framework in which the case rested, I think the two scenarios could be seen as highly analogous. Both involve the use of the other's DNA without their consent. Think if this present case had come before the court before she made use of the sperm. The sperm is sat frozen in a cup in her kitchen and an injunction lands on the judges bench seeking a court order preventing the woman from inseminating herself. What judge in his right mind would allow her to do that without the man's consent? It's his DNA - it doesn't cease to be his DNA once it's left his body. I think this is an entirely bizarre state of affairs and a prime example of the disarray that is common to both our jurisdictions with regards to paternity and fertilisation legislation. It's high time things were done about these problems on both sides of the pond. Men deserve rights too. As for the case I was involved with... long after I dealt with it, the case went on up to the Court of Appeal who dismissed the woman's claims, which were again rejected by the House of Lords in only November of last year. She cannot use his DNA without his consent. I believe that should have been the outcome here. It's a pity it wasn't.