mr2mk1g

No doubt this is a fairly accurate critique on modern reporting teqniques, but it's not terribly accurate historically. I note there's no reference to the 3 British beaches, all of which went pretty much to plan. If I'd written the article I'd also have slagged off American refusal to accept British help in the form of "Hobart's Funnies" and paltry use of British DD-tanks (major causes of the dificulties at Omaha). I think the quote: "At Utah Beach the situation is also grim" is possably one of the most innacurate statements I've ever read, although I do not know if that is part and parcel of the critique of todays reporters or a problem with Mr. Mayer's history books.

It would be my love for skydiving that would keep me from doing it this way. I love the sport and the people too much to do something like this to them. Skydiving has given me way too much to hurt it and its community by killing myself on a skydive.

Manual was on line on cypres website so I assume it was the current one. I think the cypres reps adressed the poster's question by saying there was no issue with what heppend.

What he said...

Well currently in the UK we all hold photo drivers licenses (a few will still be paper, but most now include a photo). If I'm ever asked for ID for any reason this is ideal as it's official and credit card sized so I can keep it in my wallet. This makes it a good comparator for the proposed ID cards. All it is is a plastic card with a photo and my signature. Now, how easy is it to simply print another photo over the top of this? Or even to print your own with a home made slip of plastic and a laser printer... How easy is it to simply blue-tack another photo ontop? We know it's extremely easy because teenagers do it all the time over here to buy alcohol and to get into pubs. If a 14 year old can do it then so can a crook or asylum seeker. Biometric ID cards are going to be more difficult because the information is going to be digitally encrypted on a data chip. Now of course I'm not suggesting that this is going to be impregnable but it's an incredible step from a pair of scissors and some glue. First you have to buy expensive equipment to read the chip and write to it. You'll have to learn how to use that equipment. You'll probably need a PC (roughly double the US price to see how much they cost over here). Then you have to break the digital encription, which I imagine would be no mean feat. Then you have to write to the chip in a way that will not be detected as a fake by the machine that scans it. Now none of that is likely to be impossible, but it is more difficult than before. I think it important that we keep in mind that the main reason that these cards are being introduced in the UK is to help handle the immense problems we have with illegal immigration at the moment. These people are not after billions of dollars from our banks, nor are they trying to electronically disappear people a-la "The Net". They're not even here to plant bombs. They're simply here to get free government handouts, unemployment benefits, free housing and free healthcare and generally scrounge off of our society. They don't really have the resources to start faking these cards. But they can afford some glue and a pair of scissors. Nacmacfeagle: that's what I've been trying to do throughout this thread - separate the arguments between having a compulsory ID card, and having one that's biometric. I agree, they are two entirely different questions. I totally agree that there are serious questions to be asked about whether or not we really need compulsory ID cards. But if we are going to have them, I want them to be as secure as possible, and photo's and a signature simply do not cut it any longer. People seem to be scared of biometric data in the same way that they might sit in a corner with tin-foil on their head. It's frickin wierd how intelligent people can degenerate into whackos when it comes to a subject like this.

That's true, other than the fact that these cards will be an awful lot more difficult to fake than curent photo ID's, there is little to prevent that kind of abuse. Of course, that's not to say they would be worse than a photo ID but simply just as bad as a photo ID. That's the only question I've been asking. How are biometric ID's worse than photo ID's? The only reason I can think of is that they may initially generate a degree of complacencey in that people will believe them to be infallible. That wont last long though if criminals start to crack the system.

This is a quote from an article on jumpers at the Golden Gate Bridge: If it's 1500lb/inch at 75 mph I'd hate to think what impact you suffer at 120 mph. Water is just as lethal as concrete. Due to the laws of physics, (I forget the technical terms) if you try to move through a liquid quick enough it takes on the properties of a solid. Water can litterally act like concrete.

It's not just your opinion - it's the law. If you signed a bit of paper with writing on it, you're deamed to have read every bit of writing on that page. If you sign something that refers to standard terms and conditions and those conditions are available on request or even just stuck up on a big sign. Guess what. You agreed to them. You don't get to bitch about something you agreed to. You don't get to un-volunteer yourself. Thus they're still volunteers.

Fair enough - good job it'll have our retina scan on there too then

is this recently?

It can also be canopy specific to a good degree. By that I mean that not all Sabre's will open hard. There are plenty of people, myself included, who will tell you that their Sabre opened lovely and softly. My 190 never slammed me and I used to leave the nose hung, unrolled, down the front of the packjob (a clasic way of speeding openings). There's one simple way of solving your dilema. Test jump it. It is slams you, and you can't find ways to slow it with packing methods (almost always possible) you know you're looking at a modded or replacement slider to control the openings. You can then make you decision to buy armed with that knowledge.

If you get your B-license before too long you will not be required to use a cypres. From (I think) some point this season the BPA are going to require a cypres for ALL A-license jumpers. Several DZ's require cypreses for all or some jumpers and this is something that is becoming more common. Do not be put off the idea of buying a cypres because, if nothing else, it will make your life easier at some DZ's. And I bet you said tandem when you ment two-way. Believe me, you will really want to do two-ways soon enough - so the risk is real enough. That rig sounds quite cool to me - but I've not seen it so that's no reccomendation. Nor am I qualified to comment. Ok, the colours may suck a bit, but everyone has been there. Virtually all skydivers have jumped kit which just plain makes them want to vomit - it's a fact of life in this sport sometimes and no one will look down on you for having crappy colours. Don't base your choice on colours - base it on the quality of the kit. People are not going to refuse to jump with you just cos you look like a fashion reject. People might refuse to jump with you if your kit is unsafe. Safety has to be your first consern. You'll be waisting time and money if you hang out for something that makes you look the shiz. Also, that rig will not be worthless when you've finished with it. There's always a resale value, even if it's depreciated significantly. A new rig will probably have depreciated by arround £650 anyway as soon as you've put your first jump on it, so how much are you really risking. The price of the rig certainly isn't outside the norms for UK gear. I sold my first rig last week. I was innundated with offers of £1000 for my 1992 Javelin with 800 jumps on the main and no cypres. Gear in 170 and 190 sizes is damn hard to come by in this country and the price generally reflects this fact. All that said, get a riggers opinion on the gear before you consider it, don't just buy cos it's cheap - it must be airworthy and cheap.

knock the guy out and let the AAD do its job??? Hell who even wants a plan for that situation, it's beyond contemplation. fuck...

It's not conscription and is still a volunteer army. They volunteered for a very specific set of rules. Those rules include stop-loss. They volunteered to be bound by stop-loss rules. They cannot now complain that they are bound by a rule they volunteered to follow.

How do you do this? Your fingerprints do not match those on the card? Your retina does not match that on the card? How are you going to use this card for anything? We are a very very long way from being able to clone fingerprints or retinas. Unless you know of some miracle way of doing this a biometric card with fingerprints and retina scans on it relates to me, and only me and can never relate to anyone else. If it cannot relate to them it is useless to them. This is linked to your argument about revocability. If they can't use it why do I care if they have it? I can just get a replacement... my fingerprints will still match down at the bureau because they are attached to my hands. Their fingerprints and retina scans will never match the card so the card will never be of any use to them. It is revoked in all practical sense - as soon as it leaves my possession the ability to use it has been revoked, as you do not match up with the card. Gluing a photo of yourself on top of it quite simply no longer cuts it. You put the argument that it is the data that is important as opposed to the card itself. Ok, you now have my fingerprints. Now what are you going to do with them? How are you going to use that data against me? You can't reproduce my fingerprints, so what use is the data to you.

Which textbooks? All textbooks? Modern History textbooks? Just phisics textbooks? Remember the word "textbooks" means some text books, not nessaserily all text books. The litteral meaning of the above sentance could be anything from a school with 1000 text books, 2 of which do not mention SH (well they are about butterflys anyway) right the way through to a school with 5 text books about modern history and who governed the country for the past 25 years, none of which mention SH. That to me seems pretty vague.

I think it's merely poor wording that has led to this argument. "remove references to SH" could mean merely that references to him as a great physicist that discovered atomic power have been removed for example, as opposed to all references to him in any book esp modern history. I think with the bland imprecise wording in the letter, there is room for both statements to be correct.

He has an advantage over the rest of the industry as all he has to do is switch to one of the thousands of other personalities he has whizzing round his head and hey presto - he's acting like another person. Great guy.

Seen it before, but last time round it wasn't a medic home on leave. Not to say that the content isn't accurate of course... PS. apparently Sgt. Reynolds is not a medic. He does communications work in the 234th Signal Battalion. He's a police officer in the civ world. edit: see this page for a discussion on it: http://www.orwelliantimes.com/2004/04/26.html

Hmmm. Maybe it's the Yorkshire man in me, but all I can think of is the devaluation of the resale on your reserve. I mean, once you've jumped it you can no longer sell it on with the attractive statement "8 packjobs, no deployments". Hell, it'd probably work fine, but my kit would be worth less after i'd done it.

I have to say one of my favourite ever movie quotes come from the Alien movies. From Alien 2 - "Aliens": Newt: "They mostly come at night......... mostly". We end up adding a forlorn ".......mostly" onto a lot of people’s comments where we consider them to be a hyperbole, as a kind of critique of that grammatical style.

Dead Poet's Society Saving Private Ryan Glory IMHO We Were Soliders totally over did it and went all out to move you. As such all I felt was that they were trying too hard and rammed it down my throat. That sucked. The result was that I didn't want to be moved, I wanted to be pissed off by the film makers. It could have worked if they'd just shown you the events and "let you be moved" instead of activly trying to move you.

I just wish there was a lip coming out from the side of the helmet to meet the d-box. This is a feature of all the other helmets boasting integrated camera mounts. A lip like this would effectively prevent a line from going in between the box and the side of the helmet as it creates an area of overlap between the box and helmet. With this design, as the box only closes flush with the helmet, there still exists a slight risk that a line may be able to sneak on up there if forced. Ok so this is hardly something to worry about but why not design the risk out if you're asking this much for a helmet? Maybe someone could tactfully suggest a slight remodelling to the designer? The only reason I can see for not having the lip is so that the same helmet can be offered as a simple flat side mount without the integrated box thus saving money on having two designs. Have two designs and really market the safety of the Hard-Deck helmet. It's a winning strategy.

Yeah I recognise that the cypress will continually adjust to atmospheric pressure changes. But the manual is silent on where the boundary lies between mere weather change and a prolonged flight. I didn’t like the term “locked” when I used it, but it’s the term used in the cypress manual. The point is, I don’t see the manual actually warning against anything done in the above description. That’s not to say we can do it safely, just that the manual is silent on the points. I just wondered if there was something somewhere which does tell us that it’s not safe to do as above.

Big trucks are exactly the sort of vehicle that benefit the most from diesel engines. Diesels give more torque and low end power so are perfect for big vehicles. I suspect they would consistently outperform petrol engines on vehicles like this... it's that they're just not fashionable. The technology is there now. If they wanted, people could be driving the exact same truck, but with more power where it counts and a cheaper monthly gas bill. There is no excuse for society, for government, or for industry... it's that they're just not fashionable. Should the need arrise these same trucks, with the exact same engines and no or next-to-no modifications can run off biodiesel grown on fields in the good old US of A. The US could become an exporter of bio-diesel and the OPEC countries wouldn't have a hope in hell of retaining their strangle hold on the world ecconomy given their arrid climate. But diesels are just not fashionable. I drive a car with a very big petrol engine and bitch about fuel prices. I don't wear fury ear-muffs cos I'd look like an idiot - but they'd keep my ears warm in the winter.