mr2mk1g

In its informal usage it's also listed as being a synonym for "few". Given the fact I was using it to crack a joke informality was implied. Besides; writing is still a misquote.

I think actual liability is highly unlikely. I think the specter of liability hanging over you (which in itself could be enough to bankrupt you) is also unlikely (although note I've dropped the "highly"). That said, I can envisage situations where you could perhaps make a crappy tool which creates a latent defect in an item and thus a portion of liability could find its way all the way back to you. It would not be unreasonable therefore to knock up a little document stating that the rigger assumes all responsibility for choosing to use the tools you create and that they are to examine each one for suitability for the task for which they intend to use it. Note that you profess no knowledge of these tools but are merely copying originals provided by the rigger, that any deviation from the original is at the riggers specific behest and that you have no knowledge as to the manner in which the tools are to be used or the specific tasks in which they will be employed save for the fact that they will be used in some way within the parachute industry. That should not be seen as an exhaustive or even authoritative list; it's just what came off the top of my head. You should either come up with your own document or if you want to be certain see a local lawyer about it because you can be certain your home made document won't be perfect... but it would be better than nothing. As I said though even with nothing in place I think in practice you're probably worrying about nothing... but better safe than sorry. Of course if you wanted to cheap out on the problem, just ensure your rigger friend suffers from amnesia about where he got his tools.

Screen wipes stolen from my office. It's a screen... I wanted to wipe it... seemed logical.

Another Voltaire moment I'm afraid.

At least quote me right - I said "a couple of hundred years ago" not "200". Let me give you an example of something bad we did "a couple of hundred years ago"... I don't know, how about the British naval attack on Copenhagen in 1807? That was pretty nasty. Firebombing civilians in a neutral city. Hell it even fits your misquote of 200 years. Do I agree with it? NO. Do I think it was the right thing to do? NO. Would I have held my politicians to account if I was arround at the time? YES. Does this mean I can't say that muslim extreemists are bad because they bomb civilians? FUCK NO. Your argument is probably THE most retarded I have EVER come across on here.

I have a very good handle on British history thanks. That doesn't mean I can't crack a funny. And hey - when I said "a couple of hundred years ago" how's about wonder if I was referring to something bad we did "a couple of hundred years ago". I'm quite aware we have a checkered history in more recent years too. Hell I'm one of the first on here to put my hand up and say - WE were a big part of the cause of the problems in the Middle East in the way we handled the creation of the state of Israel - that partly OUR fault. WE did that. WE fucked up WE dropped the ball. That was OUR bad. Does that mean that by virtue of past errors and indiscretions by my ancestral countrymen I am now prohibited from calling into question the fuckups of other nations? You bet you left nut it doesn't! So yes - my funny that your argument is that the cop is not permitted to stop you for speeding because he was once stopped for speeding is right on the money. As Ian said - try it the next time you get pulled over.

Could be the case in some instances of course but it's kinda moot now the Pentagon has admitted deliberately targeting troops with WP (note in my post above though I'm not actually say that such acts are in themselves illegal).

No he can't and shouldn't. But that's different. What you can't and shouldn't be able to do is stop and search him whenever you like on the sole basis of a past conviction.

Sure they would. But no impromptue CRW please.

No - his argument is that the cop was caught speeding once a couple hundred years ago so he's not allowed to pass comment on the guy he just caught speeding. Try that the next time a cop stops you.

If you do a tandem you can go up in the plane together and exit one after the other. You will separated in freefall by several hundred yards but under canopy you could arrange before hand that you fly within shouting distance of each other if the instructors are happy to do that for you. To truly jump together you will have to become qualified. This requires about 20 training jumps and a whole lot more commitment to learn as you must be able to do everything yourself safely. Even then there are still safety concerns about two newly qualified people jumping together... there's a reason tandem skydives aren't really cheap - you're paying for a whole lot of experience strapped to your back. Sorry if that's not exactly the answer you were looking for.

Don't have a problem with it other than: While it has obvious benefits - previous convictions are not reasonable suspicion (our equivalent of probable cause) over here and I do not think they should be.

From the second link (the bbc one). That's the sentence that worries me. The documents the Telegraph printed about Galloway were later proved to be forgeries. I hope for the sake of those relying on them that these documents don't have too close a link with the former ones.

There's even been an empty windows folder sold on e-bay. The winner would have the folder e-mailed to them on clearance of their funds.

Hey guys. I think this whole thing swings on a technicality. War's not nice. People are going to get fucked up. Hell that's the point - people are trying to fuck each other up. WP is not banned in and of itself. Up until last month the Pentagon said that they used WP in Fallujah sparingly as an obscurant and to illuminate combat areas. This is all obviously legal and I don't know that anyone is suggesting otherwise. Prior to this however the Pentagon had issued repeated denials about any other kind of use. Now the Pentagon has admitted that WP was used in other ways. They admit that it was fired directly at insurgents. This is where the technicality arguments start. First the Pentagon is saying that they didn't want to kill anyone with WP but only scare them so that they could be killed with HE rounds. This is an incredibly tardish argument but hey. I don't seriously expect even the Pentagon thinks anyone will actually buy the whole "we didn't mean to kill anyone by firing incendiary rounds at them honest gov'nr" argument. Besides, the fact is people were killed by it - they have the bodies. This therefore, isn't where the real argument lies. The Pentagon says that if WP kills it does so by burning them to death and that those burns are thermic in nature. This is a compelling argument. Phosphorus in the presence of oxygen ignites spontaneously and burns. It continues to burn even when in contact with your skin. The burns produced are thermic in nature (ie it is the heat of the exothermic reaction which causes damage to you not the chemical interaction between components of your skin and the chemical in contact with it). This burning will kill you or fuck you up (see the start of my post). This is legal. Others acknowledge that but say that WP works in other ways too. Phosphorus is extremely hygroscopic - ie if absorbs water rapidly. In contact with a water molecule phosphorus forms an acid. Acid burns. It burns in a chemical way (ie the damage to your skin is because the chemicals effect on proteins and fats rather than the simple presence of extreme heat). The inhalation an acid vapor causes serious damage to the lungs leading to mortality through oxygen depravation. Water vapor is present in the atmosphere. When phosphorus smoke is also present in the atmosphere you will get a cloud of acid which will lead to chemical burns wherever you also have that third element 'human' present in the atmosphere. Use of acid as a weapon would be controlled as a chemical weapon. I don't know if that makes WP a chemical weapon. I'd say from my uneducated point of view that the primary mode of death would clearly be the thermic reaction of the burning phosphorus under most circumstances. I do acknowledge however that if you fire this stuff at someone they will most likely also be subjected to chemical burns. While inhalation of phosphoric acid would damage your lungs, perhaps fatally, the likelihood is you'd be far more damaged by also inhailing the phosphorus itself which would burn through the tissue of your lungs, thorough your ribs and out the other side. Now that might sound really bad... but as it's a thermic reaction I can't see how it's currently controlled. Of course I may have missed something... but I've done my best.

In that case my beer money's on Andy Copland. Sorry. Try contacting the BPA if you haven't already on 0116 278 5271 On the other hand I happened to be present at a certain DZ in America a year or two ago where they had a white guy wearing a latex mask doubling for James Earl Jones on a skydive... can be done if necessary.

Right - can't find a direct contact for him. Last I knew he was a tandem instructor at Hinton Skydiving Centre. They'll have a contact for him so try here: http://www.bpa.org.uk/dzf/pages/hinton.htm His name is Brian. Hope that helps.

I know a man. He's a pretty good match for those stats. He's a tandem instructor so ought to be plenty experienced enough. He'd be working normally this weekend doing tandems so prizing him away from that probably won't come cheep but then if you're filming professionally I doubt budget is going to be that much of a concern for you. If you're not them don't be surprised if he's not interested. I shall try and track down his contact details for you.

Oh I agree - I was merely talking about this proposed exemption. It was proposed by a Republican so is not likely to exist in order to curry votes for Democrats. The original amendment which this exemption we're discussing is attached to may well have been proposed to curry votes for the proposer or party of the proposer - whoever that was. Same thing happens over here and I'm sure many other places.

(In reference to your numbered paragraphs) 1) I state on the first page I don't know the actual wording of the proposed law – just what is reported in the media. It evidently applies to the CIA or the White House wouldn't be trying to exempt them from it. 2) If they're not permitted to torture currently then this exemption either has no effect as other laws would still cover the CIA anyway (so why ask for the exemption other than for political gain or shear stupidity) or (depending on what the actual wording of this legislation is) it could change things drastically and mean the CIA could pick you up and torture you if they wished without breaking any laws. 3) I realize this - I meant that I agreed with you - the attempt to exempt the CIA (which was merely voiced by Cheney) could be an attempt to win votes ffor the Republican Party.

Remember the proposed law is that no US serviceman can torture a detainee. That’s not been proposed by the White House and in itself probably won’t help deter terrorists much. The action which sparked my poll is Cheney has demanded that the CIA be exempt from this new law. If the law does not change anything why does Cheney need the CIA to be exempt? If the exemption would not change anything then is the US as a whole aware that the CIA is currently permitted to torture detainees? I agree however that there is also the possibility that the Cheney proposed this exemption to win votes without truly expecting it to be allowed by the House.

So why does the CIA need to be exempt from laws against it?. I'm sure fear of torture could be achieved in the detained much much easier than tacking on an exemption to a rider to an amendment to a military funding bill. The only reason the Govt. would push such an exemption is because they want to use it.

So it should be legal but only if it's never used?

And that's supposed to be good? If our roads were shitty I'd take a Evo or something - more than 200HP PER LITRE!

No. I like cars to handle well. This means they must have tough suspension, low centre of gravity and a rigid chassis. In the UK we have lots of bendy roads which are fun to drive along. My experience of US roads are that they are generally in much poorer condition by comparison to UK roads necessitating soft suspension (don't take that as an attack – it's only natural to have poorer condition roads given the huge number of miles they cover out there). While in the UK softer suspension would mean shitty handling and a quick sale of my car, in the US it doesn't matter since you guys don't build bendy roads. If the conditions were the same – ie really really cheap fuel; shitty, straight roads etc... well maybe I'd reconsider my enjoyment of sports cars and buy a rally car instead. It would have to be a Jap car though - US cars are crap. (besides I disagree with the whole ethos of simply putting a massive lump of metal under the bonnet to get a lot of HP - we've moved on form the Model T guys... it really isn't that much to ask of a car to get more than 50 HP per liter of engine displacement). edit: (ie: My personal dislike of SUV's is not their petrol consuption... it's because they're shit).