mr2mk1g

I’d just like to point out that outside of the US no one is suggesting any direct links between Beslan and Al Qaeda. I think that is something you might look at taking on board. The only evidence to link the two (so far) is the brutality of the attack and the fact that some of the hostage takers were Arabs. Neither fact is terribly surprising given the history of the Chechen conflict and would be likely to exist anyway, even in the absence of any Al Qaeda link. Just remember that it would serve the US administration well if this was an Al Quaeda attack… maybe even the Russian administration too. So don’t just immediately jump on the idea that this was linked to Al Qaeda. Instead use your impartiality, and your intelligence. Look for evidence backing up newspaper claims and question what you are fed.

Depends on the definition of "documented". There's a first hand account of someone sliding down the SL on this site in the Scary Stories from the Old Days thread (IIRC). Unless of course it's the same guy... The DZ that trained me had this procedure: You were to put your hands on your head so they knew you weren't about to dump out your reserve. They showed you a big f*%king knife carried on the plane. Then they cut you away. It was then up to you to do the rest. If you were unconcious or not able to pull for whatever reason then you have a cypres. If it doesn't work - well, you pay's your money you take's your chance. I remember that this rule had only been adopted since they fitted SL gear with Cypres's - before that it was a carabina on the SL and the JM had to do it the hard way. Edit: found the account. It was Airtwardo, here:http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=793766#793766

I'm doing this: http://www.parachutehistory.com/humor/teddy.html

I'm not trying to speak for you. That is a genuine argument I've seen made by some Americans as reported in the UK press. I've also seen it made here in varying degrees. You are quite able to make your own arguments independant of other people who have made that one. You do not have to agree with it. I have in no way intimated that you do. I have not made a single comment about any of the arguments you have made - I understand and agree with a lot of what the Bush camp says about Kerry. I simply pulled out the argument in question because no one else seemed to be concerned by it - that surprised me. I in no way intimated it was your argument. Drivel - yes absolute drivel, that's my very point. But it's not an argument I have made, but one made by Bush supporters. You are allowed to say that one argument made by the people who support the same candidate as you is nonsensical if you feel it is.

If you know how to re-attach the risers correctly I'd go with Ron's advice and cut away. I've found that to be a good deal easier than trying with the container still attached as you can work on one side at a time.

Calm down dude, you can stop trying to sell your candidate to me - remember I don't get to vote. I'm neither pro Bush nor Kerry, just surprised. All I was doing was questionning ONE particular argument being run. Pointing to other arguments regardless of who is running them does not adress that concern in the slightest.

Why 1 in 4?? surely that's too often??:4:4 And got the UK equivalent of my Pro Rating too.

Yep - I'm not denying any of the arguments you raise. I'm simply not getting into them. Remember I'm entirely impartial here; I don't even get a vote in your elections. I'm just voicing my surprise and indeed concern that some may actually be taken in by the arguments that some Bush supporters raise. I'm not attacking Bush - just some of his supporters who appear to have gone a bit wonkey in the old noggin. I’m sure there are elements of the Kerry campaign I would find odd if I’d heard them… it’s just this one point struck me as excessively strange, even for a US election campaign.

Well AirTec certainly won't be telling me it's safe to jump with - whether I'm eastern european or otherwise. It'll damage Cypres II sales and could open them up to lawsuits if they're wrong. It's accademic to me as I still have a few years left and I have a plan to chuck a dummy out equiped with my cypres when it does die. If I weren't planning to do this my cypres would sit on a shelf, not in someone's rig - I don't want to facilitate that choice... but I acknowledge that others may be comfortable doing so. As I said, it's a personal choice - you've made yours in line with AirTec policy and no one can argue you're anything but tecnically correct. Not everyone came up with the same answer however... even some who post here openly jump with an out of date cypres.

I know there has been digging on both sides - good.

Well I meant to donate as opposed to sell but that's a side point when it comes to the ethics of it. Mostly the argument about the 12 year life span thing was answered by the fact that 12 years was picked as it was the life span of the cutter explosives. Change the cutter and that limitation is no longer there. None of us have information about the life span of the actual unit itself. A lot of people on the thread I mention went through the same wrestling with their conscious as you. Would it be "right" to allow someone to take that risk? On one side it's the jumpers choice but you as the donor of the cypres are the facilitator of that choice and all which flows from it, good or bad. Each are to make their own mind up I guess. A lot of the questions are removed when it comes to donating a 20 year old 5 cell reserve in an old container because in many cases it genuinely would be safer than what was currently being jumped... but the 12 year cypres thing introduces questions which none of us are really equiped to guage... Again - a personal choice.

Why not both? They're both gunning for the same very important role. Why not investigate the hell outa both of them?

There's not as much loyalty as you might at first think. And the Yanks love them FARRRR more than we do. All we ever do is take the piss out of them, but thus is the British way. From a pure bank balance stand point; the Royals make far more for charity than they cost to run (as it were). They make equally good financial sense if you look at their effect on tourism and all the foreign money they draw to the country. Simply put, they're very cost effective. Plus Prince Philip is funny as piss. As for the % sums - the overlap simply accounts for those American's who don't know what they know... a sizable proportion of any countries "members of the public" will fall into that bracket.

Become a member of an illegal organisation. They would be breaking the law if they were to contract with you. Of course the down side would be that you’d be liable for imprisonment on the grounds of being a member of an illegal organisation… but at least you wouldn’t have to pay for your mobile any longer.

There was a thread a while back about sending old gear out to Eastern Europe where there are jumpers who would eagerly make use of it - perfectly legaly by their countries regs and safer than what they have been using. I guess there's no way of knowing if you increase or decrease your risk factor by jumping a 13 year old cypres... maybe we should write and ask them in a few years. They were keen to use them in any case. You can find cypres's on e-bay with 2-4 years left for less than $200 to replace the one you donate.

That’s the kind of problem you’d set law students! Private nuisance is not a criminal offence for which you can be arrested. You may sue the individual in the civil courts but your only remedies would be injunctive or in damages. Public nuisance can be a criminal offence however. Here it could depend on just how many people are getting the e-mails, although the fact that they are each individually addressed may pose problems. I'm not aware of whether or not case law exists on if mail (snail or e) could fit into the public nuisance bracket although I suspect it could were the net cast widely enough. The problem would be if you could show it was public nuisance (ie everyone's getting the mail) you would then have to show that you were inconvenienced more than anyone else... but you just showed that everyone was getting the mail. Difficult, but I’m sure circumstances could exist. Normally a summons would be issued as opposed to simply the arrest of the perpetrator and only if the recipient were to fail to appear would the Court take the step of issuing a Bench Warrant for their arrest. Against whom they would issue the warrant I hesitate to even think. They would have to find a “controlling mind” which would probably be either the campaign manager or the candidate himself. Constable Plod wouldn’t then be able to simply swan off to Capitol Hill and cuff the man though. Whilst the harm took place in the UK, Plod has no jurisdiction in the States and therefore no power of arrest. Thus extradition proceedings would have to be sought… those could take ages. In general, I doubt there’s case law on how to deal with nuisance where the act was carried out overseas but caused harm in the UK. Nuisance tends to be a somewhat local act as it generally involved interference with your right to “enjoy your land”… it’s difficult to do that from far away. No one ever said the law was simple.

No, they're apparently not allowed to question Bush as he's their C-in-C and thus to do so would be sedition. Or so goes the argument...

On behalf of Her Majesty the Queen Elizabeth the Second, Defender of the Faith, Sovereign of England, Wales, Scotland Northern Ireland, the Commonwealth and all her other Territories and Dominions, (including Berwick-upon-Twead), I do hereby reject the revocation of your Declaration of Independence. Cheers… but we wouldn’t ‘ave you if you paid us… and there’s no need to start tipping up tea chests this time, I'm sure Boston has a Starbucks. PS. You may find these short self-help books of use; available now from all good bookshops: “Democracy for Dummies” “16 Steps to Democratic Process” “Self Rule for the Self Obsessed” “Dude – how do I rule my country?” “7 Minute Democracies” (available on video) “So you’ve got yourself a country – What next?” “DIY Government” (kit form - some assembly required, please seek adult supervision). (And seriously - this really does need to be kept here in the Bonfire, lest the tongue come out of the cheek and people actually start to take this as anything other than the joke that it is).

Then you get one end nuked to death and the other one chilled. Best way to use a microwave is to give your food short blasts and frequent turns. If it's big, like a chicken (eg) you're better off using a combi oven and microwaving on low power whilst you roast it. Come post whore while you wait. Short of different tech. good food still takes a little wait.

That’s the problem with this sort of technology. It’s so far “out there” that people have difficulty conceiving it. Go read up on carbon nanotubes and come back and tell us why this thread has anything to do with steal.

If you're worried you could always have them sign a little slip saying that they have been informed that their main canopy (or whatever) is unsafe to jump without remedial work and that without said work there is an increased risk of it failing to function leading to injury, death and or further damage to their equipment. I was under the impression however that there were no requirements anywhere that we jump a "safe" canopy as our main. I thought that in the past kits had been sold to build your own main and that theoretically you could hook your bed sheet up as a main and jump it to see what would happen - all perfectly legally. If so, so long as the jumper knows of your concerns I'd say you have no obligation nor indeed any right to ground/confiscate/require remedial works on the canopy. It would appear that the powers that be took the view on drafting the regs. that it’s the jumpers life – they can jump whatever stupid contraption/worn out rubbish they like so long as they have a reserve. Any litigation could be met with the fact that the main does not have to meet any requirements whatsoever and that a canopy inspection can be performed for informational purposes only. The jumper was made fully aware of the deficiencies in the canopy when compared to the manufacturers specs. but that they were perfectly within their rights to jump the canopy anyway. See – here’s a bit of paper where they signed to say they knew it was clapped out.

I'm sure you're right. I had started talking about the two together but edited out what I'd said about the 182 before posting to save confusion.

I’m continually astounded by the level of emotion in US politics. No one seems to be saying “I support X because of his polices on Y”. No one actually appears to care what the policies are. What I do see/hear a lot of are these sorts of comments: “I support X because he’s great” “I support X because he’s in Y party” “I support X because of his military record” “I support X because I hate Y“ “I support X because of Y’s campaign” “I would never support X because of his military record” “I would never support X because he seems stupid” “I would never support X because he miss-read a statement once” “I would never support X because of his wife” Now some of those are understandable stances – voting for the lesser of 2 evils or voting based on party politics for example, but I find the others just odd. Most of all I’m surprised by the almost complete lack of knowledge about the policies of each candidate. No one seems to actually care about policies, only records and dirt digging. The most worrying kind of comment I see though is: “I support X because he’s the leader of our country… we need to support our leader; to question them or vote against them is tantamount to treason.” Talk about shock and awe! Do those people actually grasp the concept of democracy? The party’s even leading with that kind of message – support your commander in chief. Ok, there’s wartime support and that’s necessary – but NOT during an election. An election is not the time to be supporting someone simply because they are currently in power – that’s ridiculous.

I guess the efficiency you’d be looking for in this instance would be a version of power to weight ratio. So you’d want the best thrust / the weight of the unit or alternatively X amount of thrust / the weight of unit + weight of fuel required to create X amount of thrust.

“You say he has a barbed wire tattoo on his left arm and jumps an infinity?… nah, we ain’t seen no one round hear that fit’s that description Officer”