mr2mk1g

nah - they're pink I think and start "DUI". Last I heard a bill had just been tabled to bring the law in to Jeffrey's home State... as I post above. Not really much of an issue until you realise they give police instant probable cause to stop you without the need for any other grounds. Some would say that sounds a lot like a police state...

OK: CLEARWATER --A Republican senator wants a law to require bright pink license plates on vehicles driven by people with restricted driving privileges due to convictions for driving under the influence. Sen. Mike Fasano, of New Port Richey, filed a bill earlier this month that requires the first three characters on the plate to read "DUI." "Maybe it will embarrass people and keep them from drinking and driving," Fasano said. "Maybe they'll think twice." The bill also says police "may stop any vehicle that bears a DUI plate without probable cause to check the driver." Ohio and Michigan have similar laws in place. Other states have debated the issue, but failed to pass it due to privacy reasons. "Pink plates would hold out individuals for punishment as well as ridicule. We are very opposed to it," said Larry Spalding, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union in Florida. About 840,000 of Florida's 15 million licensed drivers have an active DUI sanction on their driving records, said Frank Penela, Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles spokesman. A small percentage of those have limited driving privileges, such as permission to drive only to and from work, Penela said. "It could take two years to get the support, but I think it's worth the effort," Fasano said. "If I can't get a House sponsor, then maybe I can get it passed in the Senate and attached to a larger transportation bill." It has a hell of a lot to do with the subject of the thread: "Why not require VIOLENT CRIMINALS to "register" like sex offenders have to??". Besides - the concept of not living under the specter of surveillance these days in ANY country is laughable when 1m resolution satellite imagery is available to private citizenry never mind governments and everyone's mobile phone can place them to within inches at any given time. And really Jeffrey - do try to remain civil or you'll end up getting yourself banned AGAIN from this forum and then have to beg Sangiro AGAIN for him to let you back on. Somehow I doubt he'd be so willing to let you back next time you get yourself banned given the relative peace that had descended on the forums since you were so heavily reprimanded and finally promised to behave. What changed? Oh that's right - your 1 year ban you got for being disruptive and constantly attacking the UK with your vitriol ran out last month and guess what - within days of the ban running out here you are again, up to your old tricks again, attacking things that conflict with your own private agenda. Are we to take bets on how long you will last this time before you actually get banned for good because you simply cannot be trusted?

You realise of course that it is American states which require drivers with certain motoring offences to register and to put up signs on their cars warning people?

No: A doctor once wrote an article in the British Medical Journal about the lethality of long chef's knives. That is a hell of a long way from floating a serious political proposal!

Cheers guys. Saw the racks but don't like them - would rather keep my walls clear. The thing I was after was a set of draws. Maplins (uk electricals store) was selling a great set that held 20 for a fiver (plenty cheap enough) but they discontinued them. Just wondered if anyone had a lead on some similar draws.

Airtwardo posted a first hand account of an occasion when he had to slide down a static line back in the 70's. Look here: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=793766#793766

I wish that once - just once Jeffrey, that you would actually have a clue about what you were talking about. The "possible new law" to which the first poster is referring came into force in January 2005 (ie a year ago) having been passed the previous November. The "possible" bit to which the original poster referred was not proposed by the government or even any of the opposition parties, but by a small number of back bench rebel Labour MP's who were going against the wishes of their party. Needless to say they were substantially defeated. The law as it was enacted permits parents to smack their children all they want. It does however clarify that if they smack their children so hard as to occasion a wound or actual bodily harm to the child then they could fall fowl of the law. If you personally feel the need to beat the shit out of any children you have until their faces are cracked and bleeding and their kidneys fail then you Jeffrey would find yourself in difficulty as a result of this law. I suggest if that is how you wish to treat young children that you avoid visiting England, or for that matter any other civilized part of the world. If however, you wish to smack them because they gave you lip then you would be perfectly within your rights to send them to bed with no tea and a tanned arse should they complain about their treatment. There certainly are some that are fucked in the head Jeffers... but it ain't England in this instance.

Anyone know of somewhere that I can get a set of mini DV storage draws so I have somewhere to archive all my old tapes? The only one's I've found are a set of HAMA draws holding 15 tapes which look terrible... and I've seen HAMA products before and wont touch them - ever. Any leads? Cheers

My interpretation of it was that the Army doesn't pay for free freefly training for soldiers. I've not heard of anything that would prevent a soldier or civilian for that matter turning up at Nethers or South Cerney and paying for freefly coaching like they would anywhere else in the world.

Bumbled onto this site during lunch. It's a revision site for kids... how do you do? http://www.bbc.co.uk/apps/ifl/scotland/education/bitesize/standard/gigaquiz?path=physics/forces_and_motion/gravity_and_movement_test&infile=gravity_and_movement_test

I'm afraid John I simply cannot reconcile the author's statements with what the BCS actually says. The British Crime Survey 2004-05 (which the author specifically cites) does not conclude that "All categories measured by the British Crime Survey... showed a rise of between one and six per cent." That is patently false and is either an outright lie by the author or the result of a most heinous miss-citation. Either way it is highly troubling Here, for your convenience are some of the things that the BCS does conclude: "The BCS shows a fall of 11 per cent in the number of violent crimes experienced by adults living in private households between 2003/04 and 2004/05." "Longer-term trends in BCS violence show substantial declines. Violent crime reported to the BCS has fallen by 43 per cent from the peak in 1995 to the current level and by 34 per cent since 1997." "Since peaking in 1995, BCS crime has fallen by 44 per cent, representing 8.5 million fewer crimes, with vehicle crime and burglary falling by over a half (both by 57%) and violent crime falling by 43 per cent during this period." I've continually invited you to look at the primary sources themselves John, instead of relying on poorly written media articles which misquote and miss-cite their subject matter, if not actually lie to you. If you would just take me up on that invitation you would avoid these embarrassing mistakes. Please see the attached graphs which are published in the British Crime Survey; they really ought to make the position quite clear for everyone. If anyone doubts the accuracy of my quotations or attachments please do feel free to drop in on the original BCS documents, hosted and free to access on the Government's website.

The low profile Wings reserve ripcord handle I've used is triangluar (basically).

John - your news item is from SCOTLAND. It's like pointing to policing in Canada and saying LA has a crime problem because of it.

I had a look at it this weekend. It looks like a nice camera but it only shoots 3 frames before the buffer is full (assuming the blurb on it is talking about JPEG of course and not RAW). On the plus side though it does appear to take the same battery as my Sony DV (NP50) so many camera flyers will already have spares for it.

To save re-hashing arguments had litterally only a month ago, please fully review this thread: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1928384#1928384. If you have any further enquiries not covered by the above thread, please do not hesitate to return and discuss these with us.

...well technically it's someone with an IQ below 20... but that probably wasn't exactly what you were looking for.

For those worried about grandfathering vs. people suddenly being banned from jumping their current canopy; the answer is to make the chart advisory for the first* year and than mandatory from then on (maybe even first 2 years). As everyone would know the published regulations well ahead of time and the fact that they would be mandatory by a known deadline, they will have plenty of time to either upsize or get enough jumps/training to fall within the allowed bracket on their current wing. If the jumper can't get inside their bracket in that time then hell, they probably ARE too far outside their safety brackets and should be prevented from jumping the canopy (or just damn uncurrent anyway and then the same goes) On the other hand, a previous history of hundreds of jumps on a canopy much smaller than allowed by the chart could mean they fell within the individual skills exclusion appended to the chart and may therefore still be allowed to jump their canopy if the S&TA saw fit to sanction it.

No - I'm a tractor.

"Should all professional writers change their sig lines to..." "And all computer professionals should change theirs to..." Maybe some on here should change their sigs to "even though I'm a Catholic, I don't bum choir boys". It's disheartening to see the arguments I've seen here.

Sell the ipod and buy something decent like an archos. Then it would just work.

Laura Bush, April 30th 2005.

That would be a different matter if that truly is the case. Are you sure it is? The vast majority of packers in the UK are not actually DZ staff members. Those who are staff members are not generally acting as a member of staff when packing but as an unconnected individual packing for reward. How do you know this guy was staff and was required to pack your rig for the DZ as part of his staff duties? That would be something of an irregularity in the UK.

So essentially you're saying the DZ, Instructor, manifest/office etc were all absolutely great to you and tried to help you out with the problem you had with one packer (who are in England generally nothing to do with the DZ itself) and when you perhaps understandably got fed up with the packer the DZ refunded you your money even though they did not actually have to and appologised for the way the likely third party packer treated you. yeah man... I can see why you hate the DZ. ...course you could have just said one of the self employed packers was a twat.

kinda a clue is in the name thing huh.

Do you mean evolution in the Darwinian sense or are you using a wider meaning there?