mr2mk1g

Here's my movie educated take on it... How about putting your helmet on and walking around your house like that all evening (without the camera's so you don't get a sore neck)? If you do it a lot you will get used to the sight and simply see through it instead of simply seeing the sight itself. If necessary, try upping the intensity of the training by introducing more complicated tasks such as driving. What's that movie where they're training helicopter pilots to use their eyes independently? In the movie instead of spending his flying time trying to master this very difficult trick, (and consequently failing his tests) his friends make the pilot drive around the base with periscopes strapped over his eyes until he gets used to it. He does and passes the test. Apply the same principals here. Why waist jump money and risk your life being disoriented simply to learn how to adjust your eyes to the sight? You should be able to do much of that training on the ground. After all, you’re not having a problem with skydiving with the sight, but with actually using the sight itself. Give it a go, at worst you look like a prat wandering round with some odd helmet thingy on your noggin, at best you solve your problem in the course of a week and get straight to practicing using your sight in the air.

Did later designs of the Talon ever get any better, or would they be referred to as Talon 2's ?

Just curious, what was the site and why did they link to skydivingmovies.com?

First off - guys, do you really believe you are going to win an argument by attacking the others religious beliefs? It doesn’t work like that. Quit calling each other fruit loops cos they either do or do not believe that God speaks to people. I believe he doesnt... but then I can't exactly prove that... so I can't really call someone nuts when they believe he does. That's kinda the point of a belief. The problem only arises with those who do not wish to acknowledge God. The its suddenly not just the acknowledgement of God, it's suddenly a very big thing to them. Reverse the tables and think how you might feel. You obviously hold Christianity very dear to yourself, and I respect that. Lets create an imagineary country. What if you lived in "Bobland" where you were free to practice any religion and you exercise that freedom by choosing to be a Christian. Now Bobland is a good country that encourages it's citizens to be free, so everyone’s fine with your choice to be a Christian. But in Bobland every morning all your friends and colleagues and the teachers of your children get up and pledge to the flag of Bobland that God does not exist and that Bobland exists beyond the control of any God. (as close to the opposit of "under God" that I could come up with) Would you be comfortable with that? Would you be comfortable that every morning your children hear that God does not exist and that moreover, cannot hear their prayers in their own country, nor help them in their time of need? Might they start to believe that even though you tell them otherwise, even though their beliefs tell them otherwise? They are only children after all. What the lord giveth, the lord taketh away. In Bobland you're given religious freedom... and yet at the same time the government makes it very difficult for you to practice that freedom. Does that sound at all like "the American way"?

Brits also consider those to be funny. They first appeared a couple of years ago in a couple of brave nightclubs. Never took off. You won't find more than a handful in the whole country. Good idea though. Womens bogs take up far more room and have a far slower turn over. I imagine it must make catering for women at events a nightmare.

vertical or horizontal? Yhy on earth would answers differ? I don't care if the guy above me has the most horribly slamming sabre ever created, it still won't open fast enough to prevent him killing my ass if he's only 100ft above me.

Absolutely not. They're there to protect the far more numerous people on the ground and or loss of national monuments. I just don't see that there is a greater risk of dieing just because there is a fighter close by. Escorting is a long way from causing a friendly fire incident. You gotta have a jumbo doing something odd and orders from base, presumably confirmed by code key. That's before you even arm you're weapons system. Besides, if there's any time, your just as likely to get shot at by some scrambled fighters if you havent already got an escort. I don't think blue on blue is an issue. The only question in my mind is would the terrorist prefer to plow a plane into, for example, the houses of parliament, or would they want to cause an international incident by getting plane shot down. I don't know which they'd choose. Getting shot down is a possability anyway. Do you seriously think you are far more likely to die on a flight with an escort than one without?

I'd want a discount on the NON escorted flight, given the slightly lower chance of reaching ones destination. If a terrorist is gonna crash you into a big building, it hardly matters if you're shot down first... either way you're a gonner. Surely the fighter can only serve as a deterrent.

A couple of month ago I saw my boss act like a complete twat and maliciously cut someone up in traffic causing them to have to go through a red light and get ticketed for it. I saw his face and he had this evil roadrage stare thing going on. He didn't see me. I wondered if I should bring it up with him and use it in some way but couldn't be bothered in the end. Odd cos in the office he's really nice. Was your boss embarased for what he did?

Yes. It's allowed by the military rules of most nations. It would not be legal under civilian law but those take a back seat under 9/11 circumstances. No, although it could probably be used as such if the "victim" country really wanted to go to war against the other. As I said, most nations acknowledge the circumstances in thier military doctorine so this would simply be accepted as a nessasery evil. Maybe - you'd have to check your insurance docs. Many exclude acts of terrorism. Many don't. Many exclude it in certain geographical areas. If war was declaired after the event (for example if it was state sponsored terrorism) you may have significant dificulties as virtually every policy excludes acts of war. The Warsaw convention limits the liability of airlines tio $75,000 except in the case of willful misconduct. In the locaby case, Pan Am was held to have had a willful disrigard for the passengers lives when its poor security allowed the bomb on board. This would depend on the individual circumstances of the terrorist act though. Remember the greatest risk is on the outbound leg shortly after takeoff. That is when the plane is carrying most fule and is most effective as a bomb. Inbound the plane would be running dry and far less effective. There is a school of thought which suggests the twin towers would have survived a hit from dry planes as it was only the intense fire from all that Jet-A that melted the steel structure of the building. If you really want to read up on the legalities his this site: http://www.solent.ac.uk/law/public.html

In the end I fear this epic battle between a divided forum would simply end with the Speakers Corner lot stood round hitting each other over the head with effigies of Kerry and Bush, regardless of what they initially started out arguing about and the Bonfire lot would simply tail of into a discussion about boobies, endlessly repeated one line comments of "1:2:0: " and displaying pictures of guinea pigs with pancakes on their heads to each other.

ah you know I was just yankin yer chain

look at my post... I said "highspeed chase"

Well... deploy this in police cruisers and all of a sudden high speed vehicle persuits are a thing of the past. Crook steps on gas... cops zaps crooks car. Crook coasts to a halt. Hey presto, no more running over kids on your 200mile 70mph chase.

I guess, as it’s a Friday morning and I can’t be bothered to deal with things yet, I’ll deal with the judgement too. The case did NOT consider the actual argument. Please don’t confuse it as having done so. All it said was that the guy could not ask the court to make that call. It was exactly as if one of you people here had brought the case. The court said: “Nice question… but you have no right to ask it. Go away”. There was something called obiter dictum, which is where a judge talks about the subject in general terms. This can be cited in court, (at least in the UK anyway – lawrocket will have to confirm that for the US), but it has little authority. It’s simply like saying to the judge “so and so has this opinion”. The judge has the right to say, “that’s nice… I don’t”. This is very different from saying to the judge “in the case of A v. B the Supreme Court decided that you MUST do this…” The judge would then be bound to do as the Supreme Court did and has no discretion in the matter. In this instance the Supreme Court did not decide anything as to the constitutional correctness of the pledge of allegiance. This case decided nothing other than the question of whether or not the father could bring the case… that in its self should have already have been established principal. If you want to cite it as a victory you still have the obiter dictum, the significance of which is not to be overlooked. But do not fool yourself into believing that any real legal decision was made on the subject. The constitutional correctness of the pledge is still undecided… which as I highlighted in my last post, means it is currently constitutional but it may subsequently be decided that it has always been unconstitutional. We can argue till the cows come home as to whether or not it is constitutional. The difference is, that none of our opinions actually count in the scheme of things. Not till one of us is appointed to the Supreme Court.

I just want to clear up the argument a couple of pages back over whether or not something is constitutional or not in the absence of a verdict from the Supreme Court. The short answer is that it is presumed to be constitutional, but that does not necessarily mean that it is. Once a verdict is reached however, that law/practice was NEVER constitutional. It is deemed to have been unconstitutional right from the very day it was enacted or first took place. You see the constitution will not have been changed. What it says after the verdict it said before the verdict. Therefore what is unconstitutional after the verdict was equally unconstitutional before the verdict, as it had to comply with the exact same constitution. It’s just no one realised it was wrong until then. This doesn’t mean that all activities and laws are unconstitutional until ruled constitutional, just that once ruled as such, they are to be considered to have always have been unconstitutional. I guess this is a kind of halfway house between everyone’s arguments earlier in this thread.

Can someone who actually knows, confirm if the pledge of allegiance is included as a requirement in the immigration process? I know I've seen clips of new immigrants reciting it and I've always understood it took place but is it actually a requirement? In the UK for example we recently changed the law to make it a requirement to take a short pledge to the UK (one avoiding reference to any religion if it makes a difference to anyone).

ah - they are saying it. Well they can have a diddy doughnut if they're right... somehow I don't think I'm in much danger even though I've eaten the last one already.

I remember Jeremy Clarkson (UK car journalist/reviewer etc) driving along in Texas on one of his programs, drinking from a can of beer and shooting a gun in the air whilst telling the viewers that what he was doing was perfectly legal in that state. Just an idea...

and if you're stopping in oxford then go punting on the river (imagine those gondoliers in Venice but down a country river bank as opposed to a city). traditionally oxford type thing to do.

Read up on roundabouts - they'd be the hardest change. Oh, and no right (or left for that matter) turn on red lights, but I'm sure you knew that. When I have to stay in London I use this hotel: http://www.bonnington.com/ It's like £50 a night if you book on line and its not a peak week or something. It's a very nice hotel, something like a 3 or 4 star, but not palacial or anything. There's parking in an underground car park next door but be warned, it is RIGHT in the centre of london so getting there may be a nightmare. Just north of the very city centre about 500yds from tube station in Zone 1 (holbourn). (tube tickets are zoned - all the cool stuff and city centre is in zone 1 - the outer rings things tend to tail off and become more residential... and the ticket price goes up). It's also less than a mile from Lincoln's Inn (http://www.lincolnsinn.org.uk/) which is where I was called to the bar. This is a cool place to visit with loads of very old architecture where all the barristers hang out and just round the corner from the Royal Courts of Justice, again a nice cool, very very old building. You can easily find hotels boasting more stars and facilities etc, but I've never been able to find one as nice as the Bonnington for as little as £50 a night... not in London. Remember the congestion charge if you're driving in London. You'll prob be able to buy it from the rental people - its a kinda permit for being allowed to drive in the centre of london. There are cameras up which take your registration plate and send you a fine if you don't have one.

I understand that the creators of America may well have intended it to be a Christian nation and even may well have instilled that into the constitution. I don't know the constitution so I wouldn't argue with that concept. But it seems perfectly logical in any case. My point is mealy that the overriding principal of America was that it's supposed to be the land of the free. That includes freedom for religion as you rightly point out in your post. That's a very cool thing. But where is the freedom for the person who wants to be a Buddhist? They live in a country where the oath of their country says "under god". To be included they have to pledge to be "under" something they do not believe in. That can't exactly make them feel particularly free to practice their religion. As for people not being compelled to make the pledge.... is it not part of the immigration process? I understand you have to make the pledge at that point. Are Buddhists not welcome as immigrants? I sympathise with the premise that the authors of the constitution thought America would be a Christian state but that does not necessarily mean that things that are manifestly Christian are automatically constitutional.

silly web page.

So atheism is not a religion? Is Buddhism a religion? They deny the existence of a supreme being… Should buddhists have to swear "under god"?

[sigh] the bismark was launched in 1939! You got the wrong war. On valentines day curiously....