mr2mk1g

All joking aside, there are some really cool bits of tech out there these days to reduce industrial injuries. At a site visit last month one of my clients mentionned thye were looking into a new kind of circular bench saw with sensors that stop it dead with explosive bolts if it comes into contact with flesh. Pretty impressive: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbndZtkfcqs

The solution really is to reduce the hours of exposure to mowing, thus dramatically cutting the total potential risk. They need one of these: http://laughingsquid.com/honda-creates-a-130-mph-lawn-mower-for-bbcs-top-gear-magazine/

Now give us the baby, say Welsh THE Welsh have demanded the royal baby be given to them so the initiation can begin. The dark and mountainous principality, which believes it is ruled by the baby’s grandfather, has dispatched a team of tiny warrior monks to collect the child from Kensington. The monks will take the prince to the Hall of Dragons on the tip of the Gower Peninsula. There he will be placed in the arms The Great Gryffd, who will school him in the mystic ways. The process, known as ‘The Rite of Caradog’, will take seven years after which the child will be returned to his parents, filled with ancient wisdom and resentment. Owain Glynwyryn, of the Council of Elders, said: “We will teach him how to fight, not with his fists but with his mind. And also with a bottle. “We will tell him tales of heroes and victories until we have washed every drop of Englishness from his true Welsh heart. “And if that doesn’t work we’ll just hold him upside down.” After the monks collect the baby they will ride at full gallop for the Welsh border where the infant’s loyal subjects will line the road, holding burning torches to light the way to the Hall of Dragons. Glynwyryn added: “Release him unto us, for it is his destiny.” A Buckingham Palace spokesman said: “Absolutely not.”

Cameron doesn't have the power to enact laws either - in fact he doesn't even have the veto power BHO has. Overall, the two systems (US and UK) effectively work in very similar ways. Cameron (and indeed, any MP) can propose a law, which gets drafted as a bill and laid before the lower house, voted on, amended, and goes through 3 readings and at least 1 committee stage. If passed by the lower house it's sent to the upper house who can vote on it and propose amendments and it again gets 3 readings and a committee stage. If not passed, it goes back to the lower house and bounces back and forth (basically) until there's a mutually acceptable version of the bill. 'Liz then signs off on it because that's "the done thing" and no monarch has ever refused in more than 300 years (ie, almost a hundred years before our friends on your side of the pond decided to do your own thing) and it would take one heck of a constitutional crisis for any modern monarch to withhold consent. Any member of parliament, from any of the parties, can propose a law which Cameron doesn't like and get it passed through both houses if it has enough support. Equally he can blow all the hot air he likes in support an official government proposal which ends up going nowhere without sufficient support in parliament. As such, overall he holds a lot less individual clout than BHO does. He is only the 'Prime Minister' after all - primus inter pares - the first amongst equals - at the end of the day he's just another a minister like all the rest. Likewise, even if the law passed both houses without significant amendment, there's no saying the Court's would let it stand. Will probably just end up in the Supreme Court and declared against one human right or other... in the highly unlikely event it passed. /here endeth the lesson

The Constitution though is not inviolable. If the vast majority of people want, say, blacks, 18 year olds or women to vote, the Constitution gets to change. Even with a Constitution, it's the people who have the say - even the Constitution can be changed if enough people want it to. And no, you're not a democracy, you're a federal republic which is a specific type of representative democracy ie it operates through representatives that come to power by through a democratic process. If that democratic process breaks down, the system itself is at risk of collapse.

Looking at it from the outside, you've got two parties who are polar opposites, that do nothing much but fight each other. I get the feeling that most people just want something in the middle. Most people are not right-wing nut jobs or left-wing socialists. Most people are fairly 'normal'. All that ends up happening is each party scuppers any attempt by the other to do anything. All the big topics just end up with, at best (worst?), watered down legislation that doesn't really achieve anything or nothing happens at all. Over here we've seen exactly the opposite, with a race to the centre ground as, over the past 20 years, the political parties have realised that most people are pretty moderate in their views and just want things to work. Labour (left leaning) got elected in '97 by taking a big leap to the right and taking up the middle ground. They dropped a lot of their most extreme leftist ideals and held power for more than a decade. They lost power in part because the left leaning part of the party took over from within. The Conservative party (right leaning) came to power in a coalition which sits fairly centrally, especially as they're being moderated by a leftist party. They're now under a lot of pressure from their party old core because they're no where near as right wing as the older iterations of the party were... but then they wouldn't be in power at all if they adopted those policies. In the US though, all I see is divisiveness and a race to the polar opposites. Pretty odd behaviour from both parties frankly as if they want to hold power, surely the middle ground is where the most votes are? Why don't they adopt such a policy then? Because the party leaderships are governed by people hanging on to relatively extremist views who want the country to go down either a left or right wing path and will do anything they can to achieve that. Over here, whilst there's just as much bickering between the parties and party politics as in the US, (just watch PMQT for example - you would be shocked at the jeering and cat calling) at least both parties are striving to adopt the middle ground - where the voters are - and shake off the worst of their old party ties. US political parties, it seems, have forgotten how democracy works. You get elected by the people for the people. Parties were set up to serve particular interest groups, fine. But if that's all you do at the expense of serving the majority of the population, you're going to have a hell of a time getting elected. If that's all anyone is doing, the very system is going to start falling apart at the seams.

Put her on a formal performance improvement plan with a date by which she needs to be able to do her job correctly and if she doesn't get her house in order, fire her.

Sounds like you're doing cracking to me. So your mates are further through the course than you - fuck 'em. You're progressing at your rate and you're doing just fine thanks. Keep up the good work and the progression will follow.

It's ensure. To insure something is to take out a contract with a third party to underwrite a loss. When you ensure something you take steps to make sure it comes to pass.

I don't get why a barrel role was advcated in the first place. It was a head up jump - the standard breakoff should be a traffic check followed by a controlled transition into a back track and finally a roll to the belly. There's no point in a barrel roll. If the low timers said to have been on the jump can't break off with a controlled transition to a back track they should not be in a group big enough to need this kind of organising. If the group's not got the skills to keep everyone relative to one another on a head up jump so that people don't know where everyone is come breakoff time, it shouldn't be going out the door and ought to be broken up into two smaller jumps. What would I have done? I wouldn't have been on the dive as it is said to have included multiple low timers. If the group was big enough that the organiser thought it would have been a good idea to do a barrel roll, I don't want multiple low time jumpers on it with me unless I know them and how well they fly... in which case it wouldn't have needed an organiser. Kind of a catch 22.

Quite a few Airbus management are jumpers. My buddy works for them and was out in Spain working on the A400M a couple of years ago and got to be part of the first jumps from the aircraft. They've done a few events since with many of the top brass doing tandems out of it. edit - in fact, as that photos from 2010, that's probably the jump he was on.

Reference this post from 10 years ago: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=749053#749053

They don't get a release date, they get a review to see if they should still be in jail. Fine, let me review your case... oh, you're still a nut job; stay in jail. And the bunch of incompetents that make up G4S... they didn't "murder" anyone, they accidentally killed someone while trying to restrain him. And he was a convicted criminal by the way having just been released from a 2-year jail sentence, not just "alleged", not that it makes it any better but it doesn't exactly make it look like you read the article. And it's hardly "perfectly ok" given the unlawful killing verdict and the CPS looking at bringing charges.

Don't tell them you want to take a "cutting device" onto their plane.

There's your problem. They don't care much about AAD's. They do care about compressed gas cylinders found in bouncy aids you might jump with if near a body of water. Your AAD does not have a gas canister in it. You told them it did. That means it can't go on. By then going on to tell them you had an explosive device sat there you set off further alarms for them. Yes, there are American documents showing CYPRES is fine for travel but you were transiting between Australia and New Zealand and just told security you had a small explosive device sat in front of them. There's no wonder you got a grilling. Less is more. "Does it contain a gas canister?" "No, it does not have a gas canister in it". (true) "What's this red button thing here?" "It's called an AAD, it's a little computer that automatically activates the reserve parachute if I am unconscious. I don't know exactly how it works. Neat though isn't it". (also true, you're not privy to proprietary CYPRES algorithms) "have a nice day sir" Don't use the word "explosive". Don't use the word "charge". Don't say it "fires". Don't use the word "cutter". You don't need to lie, but equally, you don't need to use words which make security type's butt holes twitch like a rabbits nose. Edited to add: try to avoid having to turn it on for them. Security types also get twitchy when they see something counting down to zero. If you do have to, explain what's going to happen first.

I hope that's an open list; I've never had any of those kinds of sex, but I've definately had perverted sex! The case has nothing to do with sex. It only addresses whether or not same sex couples get the same tax break as heterosexual couples. No one actually has to get buttfucked (unless they want to - lube presumably is optional though I'm given to understand that provides significant assistance). In keeping with equality, any buttfucking, if said buttfucking were to take place, is without reference generally to the gender and/or sexuality of either buttfucker or buttfuckee. IE, "moral sex" between man and wife can, under the law at least, include buttfucking if the parties mutually consent to the same, (though I understand He has something to say about that also).

Let's face it, Turtle's argument is basically that some (unidentified) people (he's drawn back from actually saying he has a problem personally) have a right to be upset that a certain sub-category of people are now allowed to sit where they want on the bus whereas previously, they had to sit at the back. The bus ride for these people has now been devalued by the fact that this sub category of person can now sit amongst them and enjoy the same kind of bus ride as anyone else. They bought their season ticket on the basis that they wouldn't have to sit amongst these people who their religion considers to be sub-human/abominations - pick your flavour. Now, without any recourse to them, they suddenly find the goal posts have changed and these people from the subset now are permitted to enjoy the same kind of ride as this imaginary person once enjoyed on their own. Just because (1) the majority thinks it's only fair and (2) the constitution says all people are equal and we can't discriminate against any sub-set of the population and (3) separation of the State (tax/bus policy) and the Church (what a book says about how this sub-set of people are "Abominations unto Nuggan" (Pratchett reference)). I can understand why this unidentified person with a bus season ticket is now upset (feels harmed) by the "arbitrary" change that they consider "devalues" their bus experience. Where I depart from Turtle's argument however is that rather than feeling concern on their behalf, my response to this imaginary person who has such an issue is: "go fuck yourself, bigot". (To be clear - that's not to Turtle - he's openly clarified he doesn't personally have such issues but is merely concerned on the behalf of such individuals, should they exist).

+1 Then there's the old "extreme" sport thing - it can't be an "extreme" sport unless it involves risk of a fall from height. For "ultimate" it must involve fire. It's why I never got ultimate Frisbee. Where's the freaking fire?

I've a W13 that I had a 176 in. It was very tight and I switched it out once I'd found a 160. It did fit though. I think the W13 is essentially the same size reserve pack tray as the W14.

ba-dum-tish

I make no comment on either Obama's policies or Bush's... but you realise that internationally there was a hell of a lot more laughing going on under the last guy, right? Especially when he got elected a second time, I mean, the world did a collective "seriously America?!?". Like I say, no comment on either guy from me, just an observation the world-wide zeitgeist.

Yes, I'd walk. Manuals are for people who actually want to drive their car rather than simply be a passenger. Auto boxes are significantly inferior* if you want to drive the hell out of your car. In fact in general, you're going to go slower and have worse gas consumption in an auto. For a waft-mobile for getting from A-B in comfort theyre great... but your goal there is essentially to be a passenger rather than a driver having fun driving. My daily drive is a manual and whilst, depending on what it was, I would countenance an auto for it but I would prefer a manual. My fun car is a manual - hell, what would even be the point in having a fun car with an auto box? *except for high end sports cars like Fezzas, Lambo's etc with double / triple clutches etc which then are actually semi-auto with paddle shifts and frankly even those are crap the moment you take them off a track and try to do something as mundane as parallel park them.

Mine was Iain Firkins. His was 'only' a Sabre 2 150 at maybe 1.6ish. He wasn't even hot-dogging, he just fucked up jump 800-and-something. He too knew not to front riser turn into the ground, he just fucked up one day. We still keep his death-day and have a piss-up each year for him. I filmed his father doing a tandem for his ash dive. His family played Mr. Blue Skies at his funeral.

Secret forums? I thought DSE said his name was Ted?

Here's what happened to my friend: [img]http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b16/mr2mk1g/20120420_120409.jpg [/img] Caught on packing a rig he'd borrowed. Obvious problem of course and one anyone should spot with or without training (you'd hope... though perhaps not by someone who just can't be bothered with learning about their gear (edited to add: not directed at you)). The point is though, it could have been spotted before it failed. He was damn lucky it didn't kill him on the jump on which it failed. It could have been checked when packing for the jump on which it failed. He could have avoided the risk of it letting go in a swoop. Or if events turned out differently and it had let go when he performed a swoop... he could have avoided his own death. It could also have been avoided if the person who owned the gear knew how much torque to put onto the barrel to minimise the chances of it working loose (too much is also bad by the way and can also lead to failure). This stuff is important. At least the link is installed the right way up (yes, many will argue that there is a right way up and a wrong way up). That link is the right way up. Maybe that's why my mate didn't die. Probably a good idea if people learned that and why. I essentially agree.