mr2mk1g

No, because when they collect these statistics they put in the following paragraph at the very front of the publication so everyone can see just how weak the statistics are: If people then go on to repeat the statistics without that very strong caveat they are either misinformed or attempting to mislead. Now after our last discussion on this topic we all know you are not misinformed about it.

As I posted above (almost a year ago ) I've seen this done a couple of times. None of the cameras had a problem with the extra wire - the only problems were created on one of the camera mods by the numbnuts who thought he'd fiddle with the thing while he was in there and discharged the capacitor against his thumb. That "learned" him quick enough. I'm not remotely qualified to comment on the electrical side of the mod – all I know is I've seen it done successfully by simply leading a second set of wires from the switch to a 2.5mm socket in the body of the camera. What you plug into that socket simply completes the circuit required to fire the camera. I guess if it causes problems you could always remove the mod? Given the sheer volume and diversity of cameras out there, I wouldn't be surprised if there were some where this kind of ghetto mod just wouldn't work. It's up to you to determine what's going to happen if you fiddle with the thing once you've got the body open. Someone else on here though might be able to advise on the electrical engineering side of things mind.

hehe, good luck trying to get a kid to drink real ale no matter what picture you put on the front. There's just not enough sugar in it to keep kiddies happy.

There's one less lever in the system so by definition there is more force transferred to the teflon cable than with standard risers. This can increase the pull force and in a high-force spinning mal this could make the difference between being able to cutaway or not.

As I've pointed out several times now though John, you are on your own in that conclusion. The people who produce the statistics on the number of recorded crimes say not to use their statistics because they don't show a true picture of trends because of a whole host of deficiencies. Everyone instead says that you should use the BCS stats that you don't like because they've stayed the same for the past 25 years and thus provide a constant data form. In fact this advice is reproduced in the preface to the BCS. As it is by all the academics in the field. And all the statisticians. In fact, it's only you and the odd reporter or politician pedaling an agenda who actually try to rely on police reported crime figures alone. Crime is higher than police records alone show – oddly enough they don't get ALL crimes reported to them. Who'da thunk it? Crime in the UK has also been quite conclusively shown to be going down, NOT up as you keep claiming. Now, didn't I say in my last thread with you on this topic that if you tried claiming this again without noting that you are actually out on a limb of your own, without any support for your mad-cap ideas from anyone else in this field that we'd all know once and for all that you were knowingly and deliberately trying to misleading people?

They're in the minority. (88% Muslim 3% Catholic). Minorities rarely commit genocides - they just don't have the power. For example: Bratunac where the Christian majority tortured to death the minority 350 Muslim civilians or Srebrenica, where the majority Christians massacred the minority 7,079 Muslim civilians and buried them in mass graves.

I ate a banana on my 200th jump during a horny gorilla.

I don't think it would matter much if he had. IIRC the report on those shells concluded they had been looted at some point between the wars - as such Saddam wouldn't have actually had access to them anyway - he'd already lost them to theft long before we invaded.

The "he had them cos he gassed the Kurd's argument" is retarded. We know he had WMD back then - we sold them to him. What we didn't know for sure was whether or not he had them prior to Gulf War II. Turns our the intelligence claims he had stocks of them which could be deployed against British and US interests within 45 minutes (ie the reason we were told we had to go to war) were wrong and based primarily on some Uni student's essay from the early 90's. When we look back at who thought he had WMD prior to the second invasion we have to consider where they were getting their info. A lot of the time their conclusions can all be traced back to the same few places - such as British and US intelligence agencies who we know from hindsight were wrong. The fact that everyone thought he had WMD is merely self corroboration and there's a good reason why that kind of evidence is not admissible in court.

Is that currently accurate? Last I heard the USPA reinstated their group membership pending hearing their appeal - sure everyone's pretty sure the appeal will fail but at present they still have their GM... or has the appeal happened by now?

probably some of these things: 1. no one would care 2. you'd risk sullying the name of skydiving 3. no publicity is bad pubicity - you're only helping to imprint the brand into people's heads 4. you'd probably be staring down the barrel of a defamation lawsuit. You might feel you have perfectly good justification for saying what you say, and truth is a defence to defamation suits - but if they chuck enough shit at you theres always a chance some of it will stick.

hell many places that's not even illegal.

Cool! When are we invading Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Sudan, and half the Indonesian subcontinent?

Yes I know - but the point is it's still the kill line which looses calibration, not the fabric. So what difference does it being F111 or ZP make? About the same as on a bungee pc. It's still the retraction method which goes out of whack rather than the fabric itself.

same goes for kill line pc's though surely... ?

Especially when all I did was stick a few key words into google and read up on what I was about to post about... BEFORE I hit the "reply" button.

Apparently the California legislature billed the law (called Prop. 187) as being an attempt to get rid of illegal aliens. They described it as "the first giant stride in ultimately ending the ILLEGAL ALIEN invasion" (note that's their words not the courts or mine). So yes, California - the state who created the law, said that the law was specifically intended to get rid of illegal aliens. Apparently your 14th Amendment says that states can't do that - only federal laws can. So evidently California broke the 14th amendment and not only the court thought they did, but the Californian legislature told the court that's what they were trying to do. So yes, from my admittedly very brief reading of the subject I consider it a correct interpretation. You gonna tell Chris you agree with the court now?

A very quick google search shows that your complaint that the court overruled a Californian rule regarding "aid for illegals" was all about the removal of access to public education. Apparently you guys have something somewhere in your constitution which says that states cannot seek to control immigration and rather that immigration control is the sole remit of federal regulations. The court held that removing access to public education in California was an attempt to regulate immigration and thus a breach of the requirements in the constitution that this remain a federal matter. As such the Californian law removing access to public education was unconstitutional. If that's the case, it's not exactly a great example of judicial activism. Not personal knowledge of course – just a quick google.

Probably more important than it's age is what make of reserve is it?

See the bottom of this page: http://www.bpa.org.uk/skydive/pages/articles/dec03/cutting-away.html

Everybody knows retards from Alabama are the best runners.

Ok, I'm interested. Would this be assuming us flying into Simferopol airport or another one? cheers

Assuming you weren't employed by them or in some kind of contractor relationship with them when you wrote that text they may be infringing on your copyright and you may just have found yourself at the back of a long list of people they appear to have assfucked.

My standard holiday medical cover will pay out for injuries I have at home (UK) and gives me a lump sum payout for any major disabilities. "Bounces" are by far not the major cause of injuries. Most serious injuries are botched landings, either high performance, avoidance maneuvers or simply screwed up. Every jumper falls into this risk bracket.

Could it be mild hypoxia? Smoke heavily, asthma etc or any other symptoms?