mr2mk1g

You've got things the wrong way round. Individuals are allowed to do anything they like unless there is a law saying they can't. Institutions are not allowed to do anything unless there is a law saying they can. Where is there in the Consitution something saying that the Govt. is allowed to make a law infringing on the rights of the individual to do with their body as they wish?

I really wish you'd taken the time to read my post all the way back at the start of this thread. I know you said you didn't have time, but it really could have saved you a lot of wasted time posting in the long run. It really could have helped you understand the point. Remember, "a stitch in time saves nine". You say Roe v. Wade should have been legislated not decided in a court. All that the Court did was tell everyone what the law is and has always been. It didn't make law. If Roe v. Wade had never happened the law would have still been exactly as stated in Roe v. Wade. People may have been acting illegally in violation of that law, but the fact that they did not know they were doing it wouldn't have made their actions any less illegal. The nine in black robes didn't make anything or any law. They just pointed out the fact that people were already breaking a law that had stood since the very creation of your country.

He takes a long time to basically say that because the US Army Field Handbook says that the US army doesn't adopt sovereignty of a nation just by occupying some of it’s land there was no sovereignty to hand over to the interim government. Thus the interim government does not have sovereignty and as such the US is an occupying power using the interim govt. as a puppet government. The Hague Regulations of 1907 states that no occupying power may effect major legal changes in a country and as such the new constitution is illegal and Bush and Blair can be charged with war crimes for trying to change Iraq’s laws. His biggest problems are: 1) hiding his actual point within a load of silly allegations which, however valid simply detract from what he's really trying to say 2) taking the opportunity to make it look like he knows something about international law at the expense of actually making his point 3) generally having the written skills of a baboon. Relying on the US Army Field Handbook as authority for the position of the occupation in International Law is something I wouldn't even expect from a first year law student. That really is the height of stupidity. The sad thing is he might actually be on to something with his conclusions... it's just because he's writing in such a blatantly partisan manner and fails to actually go to the source instead relying on some soldiers handbook he simply going to be looked on as a crank.

He doesn't sound much like a law professor to me. He's using the US Army Field Manual as authority for his position on the status of the occuaption of Iraqi in International Law. Tard. It's idiots like this who undermine any legitimate attempts to hold administrations to account for their actions. The guy needs strining up - not by the right, but by the left. 'Course... he's got the right to speek as much nonsense as he likes... it's just a pity for him that what he's saying is actually far more damaging to his cause than anything the Bush administration could ever publish.

hehehe. someone should print this thread out and laminate it. This is too funny.

Nah – he came to this conclusion after studying photographs of the empty warehouses where they found no WMD. He's conducted an in-depth investigation into the precise angles of the shadows in the boot print on the sandy floor concluding that since the shadow is at a slightly different angle to that of the sun the photographs must have been staged in a Hollywood studio. The real warehouses in Iraq are actually full of WMD but the left wing media won't print those photographs as it would make Bush look good. They only want to print the Hollywood fakes showing empty warehouses. Besides – it's a complicated camera and the astronauts wouldn't be able to operate the mechanisms well enough with their thick space gloves on... ...Damn! My bad; wrong conspiracy.

I see; no worries. The maths on your wingloadings just didn't make sense. Maybe note you might end up loading the Crossfire lower than it's minimum recommended WL if you're right about your current loading on the Sabre2. Personally I have no idea what effect that might have on their performance – I know more about maths than HP canopies - you'll have to get that advice from others on here.

Sorry - you've said you're going from a 1:1 loading to a 1:4 loading on a 120. Unless that's incorrect you must be going from a 170 skipping both the 150 and 135 size brackets and going straight to a 120. Or loading up on lead of course... Or have we been talking getting our wires crossed somewhere?

Just playing devils advocate here... but... would it not be a better idea to do one or the other? You're already skipping two canopy sizes at once by going straight to a 1.4 loading... why not make that jump then go elliptical later? Or step down by less than 3 canopy sizes in one go and go elliptical? You've obviously not rushed your canopy progression to date - why start now?

Sorry, I stopped reading after that.

Cool, glad to help.

One of the rationales behind what some refer to as judge created law is that it is not actually a new law, but merely a proper enunciation of what the law has always been. (lets make up a law to make sure this remains hypothetical) Say in one state it has been illegal for red heads to speak at the weekend. This has been the rule for the last century or so and there are many instances of people being prosecuted for it. It's established law. This would obviously be against their right to freedom of speech however and one day someone takes the state to Court over the point. Now some may say hang on – there's nothing in the constitution which protects red heads specifically. This requires a new law to protect them, or maybe an amendment to the constitution. Some would say that if the ''Activist Judge'' handed down a ruling that red heads must indeed be afforded the right of free speech just like everyone else then they are ''making new law'' and that they are over stepping the boundaries of the judiciary, eroding the constitutional importance of the separation of powers etc. However what is really happening is the Judge is simply saying that from the date of the constitution, the law against red heads speaking on the weekend has been illegal. As such any laws or activities countermanding that have been illegal. His judgment is not ''new law'', but old law properly stated. All previous laws and judgments have been mistakes and that this is actually the way it always was – just everybody failed to see it. Sometimes what is actually happening when the aggrieved party stands up and shouts about activist judges making new law, is that the judge is upholding a very old law and removing the relatively new laws which have been illegally encroached upon it. They are not saying ''from now on read heads must also be afforded protected freedom of speech'' they are saying ''redheads have always have protected freedom of speech, just no one has realized until now''. A subtle but important difference. Sometimes anyway... sometimes I'm sure there are instances where they've just plain made shit up. There are always people who get things wrong or there wouldn't be a need for courts in the first place.

Yes. 3.

Let me get this straight; you want to go from a 1:1 loading to a 1:4 loading in one go AND go elliptical at the same time?

***OK, the floater is DEAD. The first person to arrive says, um...she's dead. However, the first person to arrive is also high on dope, so the "fault" is now the taxpayers, right? *** Not over here, no. Here the claimant's wouldn't get anything unless they can prove causation. There are many elements of that must be shown in cases like this; proving a loss here is easy - someone's dead. Negligence and a duty of care again probably easy – it's likely established principle that the county has a duty of care to ensure ambulance cover (I'm guessing). Failing to prevent your paramedics getting off their face on smack while they're on duty is probably going to be seen as quite negligent and therefore also doesn't probably present much of a hurdle. Causation though as I said, is the biggy here. The claimants would have to prove that the loss happened because of the negligent conduct of the defendant. Here as you point out that may well have been very difficult to show (although we're all guessing as to the true state of the evidence available). This is the state of the law in the UK and I would be surprised if this was not also the case in the States, (although can't comment authoritatively of course). In which case I suspect the settlement was reached simply to keep the case out of the media. While some media obviously have picked up on this - imagine the papers response if this had gone to court and the County won. There would have been a complete shit storm hit the press. The headlines from the County point of view probably didn't bear thinking about. Essentially I think what you have is a great example of the county paying people off to keep the things quiet and claimants holding the County to ransom over some damaging info. Where private companies are concerned this is perhaps less worrisome – they understandably don't like bad press and it's often worth paying out a lawsuit you think you would win simply because it's cheaper than the loss the bad advertising is going to cause you. When it's a public body however, such as here where you're talking about a whole County – well that is a different situation. You may be looking at an example of where a publicly elected body paid public money (taxes) to someone to keep the public (their bosses) from finding out how badly they've fucked up. I doubt the case would have any merits whatsoever in the UK. I can only guess about the States; but my guess would be that it's the same situation there. I'm guessing that's only going to make you madder though...

In freefall you are doing roughly 176 ft/second so very roughly you're looking at between 4 and 5 seconds (at freefall speeds) to account for the difference between your appreciation of deployment altitude and the pro-tracks appreciation of deployment altitude. How much of that time do you think was spent looking at your alti, registering the altitude you were at, deciding to pull, reaching back, grabbing the hackey, pulling and throwing, feeling the container open, having the d-bag move to line stretch? All of that is done at roughly terminal velocity, thus if it a took only 3 seconds you've already covered more than 500ft. during that sequence of events before you even start to slow down. That leaves you with 300ft. How long is your snivel? Can you tell the difference between 4100ft and 3800 ft on your alti during freefall? Where do you mount your pro-track? That's part of the answer. For more of the answer others could look at how burbles affect altitude readings or even consider which event the pro-track uses as its trigger for determining deployment altitude.

I know - see the two links I posted on the first page. I was referring to the UK primarily – hence the CCI remark. I think we're probably less likely to see a UK CCI or DZO allowing such a jump to go ahead (assuming they know about it of course) than a US S&TA or DZO. That's not meant to disparage the system in the US at all mind - it's just things over here tend to be somewhat more authoritarian and there is more control over what people do on a DZ. Remember, waivers don't work here.

Standard agreement between friends on borrowing anything round here is "you break it you buy it". ie - if you break it, loose it, trash it, get it nicked, damage it or whatever - you pay for it to be replaced or repaired. It's so commonplace it goes without saying - everyone just expects those are the rules. That's certainly how it works round here anyway.

Nah - that was the old idea. Now they're just going to have various giant hamster feader bottles sticking out of the wall of the tunnel each filled with a different spirits, beer or mixeer. All you have to do is fly up to the nozzle and start drinking.

I couldn't decide which response to write.

I think it ought to be up to the DZ to absorb that cost as it is an inherant risk of owning rental equipment; the rental price should be chosen accordingly. That said - the DZ is almost certainly free to contractually place the burden upon the student if they so wish. AFF is a contract for services like any other - who must pay for any lost equipment ought to be covered by that. If not there are probably general clauses in the waiver or membership agreement that would cover the situation.

1) Drill second hole and create slot 2) take washer, put blob of weld on one side close to hole. 3) file weld to be the size of half the slot. 4) insert filed weld blob/washer combo into slot - affix camera. 5) when you want to mount the other camera remove washer, rotate 180deg so filed weld is at other end of slot and affix camera. 6) if you want to get dead fancy you could countersink the washer.

I basically saw the show as being an examination of three different mechanisms which can lead to survival of a high fall. 1) a crumple zone - case study: the paratrooper. He survived because he PLFed and his leg also absorbed a lot of energy when it was crushed. 2) soft landing area - case study: the climber. They survived because they landed in soft snow. 3) drag - case study: the skydiver. She survived in part because she had two malfunctioning canopies out slowing her descent to as little as 40mph.

maybe fill the old hole with resin or chemical metal or something before drilling a new hole?

Just so I'm sure: which way up are you holding the PC when you say the apex is "below" the skirt? By the bridle or the hackey?