mr2mk1g

Shit-house - as in an outside lavatory. Since they were commonly of a flimsy wooden construction, (not least to allow their occasional movement from one part of the garden to another), a brick-built outside lavatory would be something of unusually sturdy construction. i.e., the subject of the comment is a woman who's very well built and unusually robust. AKA a Russian shot-putter.

In practical terms probably yes, but in absolute terms no. By that I mean simply that I would suspect religion will recede ever more increasingly into the fringe. I suspect in the future, (of non-descript distance), we will most likely see a world where the vast proportion of the population will have no religious beliefs whatsoever but that there will always be a small minority of individuals (who I suspect would be increasingly regarded as absolute nutcases), who believe in some form of supernatural being / creator. Is doubt organised religion as we know it today will survive very long into the future – belief though will probably still exist.

Ordered a pack earlier today. Mcmaster Carr e-mailed back saying that "Due to the ever-increasing complexity of U.S. Export regulations... we cannot accept your order" (This was re an order to be sent to the UK). Who knew that exporting tiny nylon screws attracted so much difficulty with export regulations.

Spot 'em waaay deep. See just how good they are at landing in someone's back garden that's crossed by powerlines. Paint on the side of your canopy in big, child-like writing, "katana 120". [dont do this ]

My pet peeve saying: "I could care less". What are you a retard? If you "could care less" about something then you obviously care about it to some degree. People with so much as an ounce of sense use the phrase, "I could'nt care less" indicating that they care so little about the subject that it would be physically impossible to care any less about it. Fuckwits... all of 'em. [end of rant]

"Wendy, I can fly!"

I was cut as an adult. I've had it both ways. I'd recommend uncut - it is clearly superior for owner by a significant margin.

Sorry, hit the wrong button. See Craig's post.

Yes it did. See BPA Form 261 here:

From the article: "It has been estimated that more than 50 per cent of toothfish traded is illegally caught..." So... 50% of them are legally caught... and thus presumably legally bought and eaten by folk like Gore; or you and me for that matter. Methinks someone's jumped the gun somewhat in branding Gore on this one unless they can demonstrate his daughters nuptial fare was poached. Besides... he's campaigning about global warming, not diminishing fish stocks. These fish are supposedly endangered because of over-fishing, not because of climate change. They're two entirely un-related issues, albeit both of a green hue. Now if someone were to bitch about the "carbon footprint" of these Southern Ocean fish which were presumably flown all the way from the Southern Hemisphere up to his daughters wedding - now THEN they'd have a point.

What he actually said though, not what the paper has spun it into - is actually right on the money: "It's almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that. "After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it, and it put the leader of that country in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted." Why is that not a perfectly valid comparison to 9/11? That event has given Bush the political capital to pretty much do whatever he wants, at home and abroad, on the grounds of hunting down the perpetrators and protecting society at the expense of civil liberties. There's no need for the paper to invoke Godwin's law in their headline - his actual statement is quite apt. Besides, he doesn't compare Bush to Hitler, but rather the political ramifications of 9/11 to those following the Reichstag fire.

I used to use variations of that recipe to go ratting. It can flare and shoot 10ft jets of flame in random directions. You do NOT want that strapped to yourself.

As far as I was aware it can be done. I don't want to contradict Dragon, as I've never done it with a 109 so can't directly comment, but I have definitely done it with my old PC101E... and I don't recall having to do anything funky to get it done. Once it was on the PC it was still in NTSC mind and thus pretty much useless to me for my PAL edit... and no I couldn't be arsed to convert it... but I got it on the PC at least and I guess I could have converted it if the footage was really worth it. Maybe try fiddling with your capture settings - make sure you have adobe set to capture NTSC because I thought the PAL camera was able, (effectively at least), to output in NTSC - as such I would have guessed that Adobe had to think it was capturing NTSC when I would guess it's probably set to capture PAL if that's your usual settings... though of course I could simply be wrong... ...but I am sure I've done it in the past, with a PAL camera using footage shot in NTSC and fire-wired over to my camera.

Try working in law. Your client may be required to accept primary liability based on an argument of rais ipsa loquitur though they do dispute causation as well as run an argument in con-neg even though the Protocol Period has now expired because the LOC was sent in Feb and never responded to by AXA, although to be fair the triennium period is still a long way off so Limitation's not a worry. So you send out an FOA and register the matter with the CRU of the DWP. You then receive a medical report indicating spondylolisthesis and spondylolysis in L4/L5 but not spondylosis or any facet joint weakness leading you to decide to put P35 Q's to the FRCOG as to why they're trespassing into the remit of a someone with an FRCS(Orth), followed up with a P36 to the TPR for 10k in respect of GD only, (not SD in general, LoE, LoU, or PAV mind you), to cover your back in case of costs consequences pursuant to the CPR. I could give you worse but that's what I was doing this morning.

Here's a germane post for you. I'm a British lawyer. I don't know the facts of the case - the reporter probably doesn't really either. I've seen cases I've been involved with so badly reported you would be hard pushed to know for sure it was the right one. The only people who know for certain what went on in that shop are the guy, the robbers and probably a couple of lawyers. The fact he was advised to plead guilty says a lot to me, a lot about what the CPS and defence lawyers knew – then again he might just have had a shitty lawyer. This quote makes me think twice: "He did punch one of them to get him off. In the heat of the moment he kicked him once or twice. Initially he was acting in self defence. Frustration at the situation took over." Bear in mind this was his defence counsel putting as nice a spin on it as he could. Ie, the guy initially acted in self defence… then he just resorted to giving the guy a good kicking. As I said, who knows what actually happened and who knows what the CPS could actually prove. Hell, maybe there's a shop security video showing him just trying to fuck the kid up that his defence lawyer bargained out of being shown to the Beak? We'll never know what went on in the Court robing room. The law in England and Wales is quite clear – you have a very good right to self defence – far greater in some respects than allowed by some US states even! Florida for example has only recently given people the people the right to strike first – a right which has always existed here. One point of commonality between our two jurisdictions however is that the law in neither country will protect someone from just settling down to give someone a good kicking once they are no longer imperilled. I see no reason why this case couldn't also have happened in the States, assuming the defendant truly had overstepped the mark of course, and that we can't tell from a mere newspaper report. As for this being indicative of English laws on self defence – frankly I really don't think anything a Magistrate, (a lay version of Judge Judy), does is a particularly good example of substantive English law.

And one post earlier he was discussing firearm homicides. Besides, he's actually using homicide rates and then adjusting them for population. So in his mind, (according to what he posted above at least), if the US has a homicide rate 3 times that of the UK rate... then that means in his mind that the UK, with a 5 times smaller population, has more homicides per capita than the US... Does that not strike anyone else as just being incredibly bad math??

Are you seriously trying to tell me you think there are only 138 firearms related homicides in the US per annum??? Either you are hideously ill informed or you really, really suck at math!

Yes there must be reports about it somewhere – as you may expect however the print news were stereotypically reserved about the matter. The real comedy came from the TV media who interviewed the baggage handler who ran up to stove the bombers head in. He was hilarious and classically Glaswegian about his deeds with his quote; "This is how we do justice in the West of Scotland baby." See here for a start: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2020607.ece, though I suspect utube may be your best bet for a laugh.

Problem is, our violent crime rates have plumeted over the last decade. See attachment on a previous post here: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_attachment;postatt_id=86666; Ps: Scotland is not the same as "the UK". Scotland is that windswept country to the north of England and Wales. It's a country that when their principal airport was bombed last week by Islamic terrorists... passer by's went up and kicked the living shit out of the suicide bombers while they were still on fire. Violent crime in Scotland in the form of consensual brawling is kinda like a hobby for a lot of people.

HAHAHAHAHAHA Seriously, that's classic. There were a grand total of 46 firearms homicides last year in this country. "Approaching US levels"...HA! You people crack me up!

Yeah I just use one wide stow band and put it round the lens barrel right where the zoom barrel rotates round relative to the housing. It stays in place in freefall and if I ever want to zoom on the ground it will still rotate with a little force (the force is simply friction between the rubber housing and the rubber band so no biggy). As for doing any of these things to the stock 18-55... pft, they're only worth what, two jump tickets? If you bust the thing just throw it away and use it as an excuse to buy a nice lens... now that one you might want to look after. Somehow I think though that with all the abuse that we put our camera gear through, they're gonna be dead long before the gaffers tape gets the best of them anyway... that or really outdated given the pace of change these days.

Methane will be absorbed by the blood but it is not toxic. You're right in that it's the fact that its the lack of O2 that kills, not the methane, but post mortem levels of methane in the blood would demonstrate if inhalation before death O2 starvation and thus asphyxiation. Hence I said "suffocated". Coupled with a lack of aspirated manure this would indicate death had occurred as a result of asphyxiation before they were submerged in the 18inches of cow poop and it was inhalation of O2 displacing methane that had done for them. In any event it's far more likely to be hydrogen sulphide, rather than methane as the report suggests, that caused their initial problems. Methane is lighter than air and would more likely disburse. Hydrogen sulphide on the other hand is heavier than air and so more likely to accumulate in a manure pit. It would kill through asphyxiation in the same way as methane but its also highly toxic, binding with iron and preventing cellular respiration. In the event however, I suspect that unless the gas concentrations were really really high, they wouldn't have killed them outright and they would be more probably have simply been unconscious when they hit the deck and it was in fact aspirated cow crap that finished off the job. Point is, an autopsy would easily reveal the answer.

Yeah... probably the easiest autopsy ever actually. Q: is there shit in their lungs? A: Yes - they drowned in shit No - they probably suffocated first (backed up by) "ah yes, the blood tox report indicates lethal levels of methane in their blood".

If you go with the ever popular stroboframe; mount it "backwards" so that the nice hook shaped spring plate is hidden by your camera enclosure and not the right side of your head where it will grab at lines.

Do you actually understand where Britain is? None of those were British news sites, (aside from the BBC Ireland page, a British page which is not usually shown to British citizens unless they go looking for it). And no, the "co.uk." doesn’t indicate Britain. Do I think there's a cover up? Nope - the Govt doesn't exercise nearly enough control over the media to achieve that. Do I think it's noteworthy that there are regular bombings in Northern Ireland which never even make the British papers never mind the world news? Yes, however you cut it that is odd. We get to hear about similar minor and foiled plots by ETA and oodles of stuff about Baghdad - why not PIRA et al bombings on our own doorstep?