mr2mk1g

I like the idea. The point of the card is that as it's biometric and will include two different identifying features (ie fingerprints and retinal scan) it should be impossible to carry out identity theft. Stealing a card is similarly simply not an option. It will have something of a role in fighting terrorism, although how big a role is wide open to debate. According to the radio debate I listened to yesterday, the politician who is backing this has been doing so well before 9/11 and on 9/13 was asked in Parliament about his proposed ID card scheme and if it is intended to fight terrorism. He replied it would help but that terrorism was only a side issue in his reasoning for the introduction of ID cards. Terrorism is wrongly being pushed by the press as the reason for the introduction of these cards. We have a massive problem with illegal immigration in this country. Whilst I know there are similar issues with illegal immigration in the US, just imagine all those Mexican migrants living of social security and using healthcare you paid for in taxes instead of propping up your primary industries as they are doing. That is the problem faced by the UK at the moment – these people are able come over here because of the free movement of people within Europe, and they disappear into society. We only ever find out that they’re here when they’re washed up on Morcombe beach! They commit ID fraud and then welch off social security and make liberal use the NHS without ever paying a penny in tax. If they were required to show a fraud proof ID card before receiving their weekly handout or before they got their free healthcare, Britain would be a far less attractive target for these international squatters. They wouldn’t be able to work here, they wouldn’t be able to get healthcare, no free housing and no government handouts. If it’s impossible for them to live here illegally they would be forced to leave or gain a legal status. There’s nothing wrong with legal migration. Things are only going to get worse after the expansion of the EU. I’m willing to live with a little card in my wallet if it means that British taxpayers money goes into the well being of British taxpayers.

Thanks - from that I was able to pull the full judgment from the Court Service. The important section is here: http://www.courtservice.gov.uk/View.do?id=2362 And if anyone is really that interested the full judgment is here:http://www.courtservice.gov.uk/judgmentsfiles/j2362/g-v-ss_home_department.htm

Article’s disappeared. Synopsis anyone? I'll let you know when adressing the jury ceases to be part of my job description.

Do the lives of the 23 jumpers and the pilot count? What happens if the nutter biker fubars and rides himself through the prop just as the plane lifts off? Would you like to have to design another memorial?

aerodyne soft links can be installed on any reserve - they have a seperate TSO and are a seperate componant. See here: http://www.parachuteriggers.com/documents/Aerodyne/AeroResSoftLinkJuly03.pdf

I think yes, other countries would have picked up on the fact that a nuke went off if it had been one. N Korea must be one of the most highly surveilled areas of the planet – something would have seen that sort of energy. I bet they would have been able to tell the difference between a big explosion and a tactical nuke. Re radiation, my father was a civil engineer and the co he worked for was involved in some nuclear power plants over here. Apparently within days of Chernobyl one of his friends set off the alarms at one of the plants he was visiting and they traced it back to Chernobyl fall out – if it was a nuke there would be fall out and someone would know about it. Anyone ever heard of the Halifax explosion? Ship carrying WWI munitions out of Halifax nova Scotia was rammed by another ship and went up levelling the whole town. This kind of huge explosion is not unprecidented - even when you are "only" talking conventional explosives or their componants. This one killed about 1600 people and the ship's ancor flew over 5km. See here: http://www3.sympatico.ca/goweezer/canada/blowup.htm

I've always loved the idea of getting someone who is allergic to peanuts and making them play Russian roulette with a bag of Revels. (In case they're not known in your part of the world, Revels are little a little bag of virtually identical chocolate balls. Some contain peanuts, some toffee, some malt balls, some are plain chocolate.)

I have a feeling it's got as much to do with keeping the insurance market happy as it has to do with skydiver safety.

The way I hear it's best done: 1: stick a bit of tape on the manual focus ring to stop it moving in freefall. 2: have the camera auto focus on something at the approximate distance your subject is going to be in the air (or manualy do i't if you recon you're better than the camera). 3: flick the camera back to manual focus so it wont change in the air. Camera will now be focused on anything in front of you at that distance. Fly your body to keep the subject at the right distance.

when did they move Stonehenge to wales?

Its still operating - one of the nicest DZ's in the country although lately having a few problems with its neighbours and thus curtailing its opening hours. Check out its new website here: http://www.rafspa.com/

How about you just take away the quantative powers US juries currently enjoy? Over here a Judge makes all calls about the actual value of an award and his decision is based on case precedent. Counsel are even invited to point the Judge to the cases they believe are indicative of the correct award to ensure the Judge has a ballanced view of the cases. There are guidelines set down by the Judicial Studies Board giving value brackets within which each type of injury falls. This provides a firm framework within which individual cases may be judged whilst still allowing a significant level of discretion on behalf of the judge. These guidelines are updated regularly to take account of inflation and shifting trends and are supplemented by a comprehensive collection of cases detailing previous awards for a whole host of injuries. Here a great many cases can be easily quantified to within a 10% of the likely award long before trial, which promotes early settlement and prevents the lottery I hear about in the US. It also keeps awards sensible, fair and representative of the injury sustained. Ditch jury awards. In my opinion they’re a root cause of a great deal of the troubles seen in the US judicial system today.

Awsome helmet - absolutely the best protection from line strickes you can buy and a fantastic build quality. It is one of the most expensive helmets though - but at least you get what you pay for. There are other fully enclosed helmets out there which you may want to look at before dropping your money on one. Different people fit different helmets. See the RAWA and a Dutch one I forget the name of right now - they're the most comprable. I don't think you'll find anyone who will not recomend the FF2, (not always nessaserily over another, but they'll recomend it). Its a good helmet.

At a guess there would be a common law defense to an action for trespass in English law on the grounds of necessity or that it was inadvertent. I can think of a couple of similar authorities for these concepts but nothing directly associated with skydiving. In general I would think a UK skydiver would have a defense so long as they caused no damage and left by the quickest, most practicable route. I've searched in the past for case precedent but there doesn't appear to be any in the UK. This of course would't really cut it for BASE jumpers as there can not really be any hope of claiming you inadvertently climed up the tower or that you accidentally landed down by your mates in the field. I think the DZ could certainly be had under Rylands v. Fletcher 1868 though where the DZ is strictly liable for the “mischief” of anything “unnatural” it has “collected” on its land and subsequently “escapes”. (cool and funny old law) My home DZ has a problem with its farmer McNasty in that they will reportedly be fined £2,000 for every instance of trespass after they lost an earlier court case with them. We have to agree to pay this should we land out in the small area highlighted on the map. I’m curious about this arrangement – its certainly a very odd state of affairs although I can think of a couple of situations it could occur. For some reason the DZ seems unwilling to discuss the finer points of the judgment with me – it would have been interesting.

I always figured it was nonsense. It's digital - you either get a degradation in signal or you don't and I've never noticed any problems. That said I'd appreciate the opinions of people who acutally know.

Too bad you have it on VHS then. Nothing you take off VHS will look very good. You should only need a TV card and some softwear to record from VHS. You're best off with one that uses S-video or video composite rather than just a coax cable as this will maximise what quality there is.

Many US riggers are covered by their DZ waiver. This can't account for all though as you've only signed it if you jump at that DZ and the rigger's only covered if they're attached to the DZ. In the Commonwealth you can't waive liability for death and personal injury anyway so no one tries.

my girlfriend didn't when I e-mailed her the link together with the note "consider yourself warned"

Your firewire port will either be 4 pin or 6 pin. For swapping footage from cam to cam you need a 4 pin - 4 pin cable. For transferring footage from your camera to the computer you will need either a 4 pin - 4 pin or a 4 pin - 6 pin depending on what your firewire card requires. Read the box to find out.

According to Paragear its 4 sq foot bigger.

Anyone else think its odd that its referred to as a "crash" ? I read it as the plane caught fire whilst taxiing, the pilot got out the quickest way possible and the plane rolled to a halt.

Its kinda dumb to admit doing tripple digit speeds in a public forum. Its even dumber to post photo's of it... remember the story behind this video where the driver was convicted off the evidence of the video alone. Of course now, I have never taken my car up to freefall speeds, let alone freefly freefall speeds on the open road.

As Lawrocket pointed out “Itch” is more properly used as a noun only although it has come to be popularly used as a transitive verb also. Thus “itch” and “scratch” can both be verbs and when used as such are synonyms for one another – therefore you can both itch and scratch something and on each occasion you would be doing the same thing. Both may also be used as nouns, although as Beth pointed out, in this instance their meaning differs slightly. An itch is an irritable tickling sensation whereas a scratch is a minor abrasion or cut. Therefore you may both “itch a scratch” and “scratch an itch”, but you are not doing the same thing in each instance. Now get back to licking windows.

You have at least 32 photo's and you share 4...

hell yeah... and I can't spell at the best of times.