mr2mk1g

Yes, England is pretty much half metric. Eg: Beer and milk are in pints; petrol is spoken about in gallons but priced in liters; coke just comes in liters. You can find examples of this in most other kinds of measurements. Many people are entirely "measurement bilingual", being comfortable with the use of either unit. Most people are partially "measurement bilingual", in that they are comfortable with some measurements and are able to easily convert at will with others... 'course some are just think but eh, what'ya gonna do? Hope that finally clears things up.

Looking back now while pumped up on pain killers do you think in hindsight 20-25 jumps was enough? There's a good lesson there for everyone; thanks for posting it and swift recovery.

I hear tell the Silhouette is actually a Navigator in smaller sizes. Check out the PD website (if you have the right flash plug in of course otherwise I guess they no longer want your custom nor wish to support you ) and you will see both canopies have many of the same features including plan form. Not that this is proof that they are indeed the same, but I've certainly never found anything to refute what I've been told. I guess what I'm getting at is that either way, if you like one you'll probably like the other.

Things are getting along the road to being like this over here too and I think it's a crying shame. There's nothing wrong with the mechanisms of law (here at least) in my opinion. There does need to be a way for people to sue councils and park owners where equipment in them is dangerously defective, but that's not what I see happening. People are abusing the system and the system is allowing it. That is where the flaw is. I personally feel that there needs to be a re-think by the courts on what level of personal responsibility it is reasonable to expect of an individual. If that individual is a child then what is reasonable to expect of their parent. If equipment is dangerous because of a flaw – ok I buy that. If equipment is merely inherently dangerous (say a zip-slide or swing bridge or hell even swings as you can fall from them) then people need to take that into account when they let their kids play on them. Liability needs to be placed on the parent for failure to supervise their children appropriately or for consenting to their playing on that kind of equipment. We need not see warning signs or disclaimers on park equipment – everyone's played on a swing so everyone should be perfectly able to appreciate the danger in using them. High things are high things – gravity should come as no surprise to any adult. If they choose to allow the use of that equipment then it is their problem if their child is injured as a result of an inherent feature of that equipment. If kids are not using them the way they were intended then the kids need to be supervised by the parents. I personally object to their being a duty on the park owners to supervise their use – that on public policy grounds is not possible. If kids and vicariously parents, choose to use the equipment in a manner in which they were not intended then they should accept the responsibility for anything that stems from that misuse. There really does need to be a re-evaluation of the standards to which we hold people. Society need not molly-coddle people in their daily lives. Sometimes bad shit happens. Sometimes you should have just been watching what you were doing. Sometimes it IS your fault. Shit pisses me off.

The one your instructor recommends. Read up about "wing loading" and fully understand the concept, with the aid of your instructor if possible. Remember the equation uses your fully geared up weight not your naked weight. The standard advice is to stay at or below 1:1 for your first canopy. And read the article that Lisa is about to refer you to. [edited to add: damnit she got in with it above me] Anything described as "elliptical". Don't buy it! If it's "semi-elliptical" or "tapered" then talk to your instructors. There are a lot of brands out there - talk to instructors about the first canopies they recommend.

I don't know; I'm not a scientist. My joking comment in the other thread was simply observing the fact that the majority of world scientific opinion is that the answer is in fact clear and that they have concluded that mankind is having an impact on climate. While I know there are dissenters to that established worldwide opinion... it is important that we all recognize them as just that - dissenting voices. (again, not to say that they're wrong... just descanting. The kid at the back of the class who just doesn't get subtraction might after all just hit upon a new and genius mathematical theory... but don't rush down the bookies hey. )

Yes.

Of course you can have an opinion - they're like assholes, we all get to have one. But just remember that many will not care to pay much attention to your opinion because of your background. Ever listen to a whuffo tell someone about how it's impossible to breath in freefall? Sure they've read about the phenomena in their research and formulated a theory about the physics of it based on their knowledge of how fast the "wind" is going and hell they've even put in a little observational evidence based on the tandem they did. Doesn't mean they're right though...

Hey, c'mon now. That's way over the top. The war wasn't for oil.

Kallend has not presented his opinion, merely asked for the qualifications on which you base yours. Others here, such as Billvon with that graph, have presented the opinion and data of scientists who have conducted studies into climate change. You however are merely presenting your own opinion. On the one hand we have scientists presenting scientific studies and data. On the other hand we have your opinion. I could point out which would normally be seen to carry the most weight... but I guess that's probably not necessary.

Look here: http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007-6425 Note you can change the camera model in the top right corner which can change the results. I'm shooting with a 300D onto a 1gig Kingston Elite Pro that you can pick up on e-bay for £30 (most competitors retail at £70 upwards) it noticeably out-performs others sold to friends for far more and recommended by shop staff as being as good as the camera can handle.

Cheers. You really ought to adopt a far less insular outlook on life. The vast majority of attacks are not against NYC, nor are the vast majority of threats. And... um... you do realise that this threat was made against seven cities right? A really remarkable attitude to take.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/kodakz740/ I don't see a remote shutter release.

http://www.redmeat.com/redmeat/2003-11-18/index.html

If your 200lb is naked weight you'll be looking at something in the region of at least a 230 sq foot canopy as a good first canopy. If the 200lb is your geared up weight then at the very least a 190 or more likely a 210. Your instructor will be able to give you more precise and accurate advice and obviously overrides anything you hear on the web.

Saw this a while ago. Cool movie. Like the way they ended it. Some great directorial calls on what bits went in - I think those shots the audience really don't expect help make the movie what it is in many ways.

I've been in one of those. Not bad.

I have 340 jumps and have been jumping for 4 years. I'm a competent canopy pilot who has been certified to perform display jumps requiring a separate canopy handling qualification. I wouldn't jump a stiletto 170 - it's too hot for me. I don't have the experience to jump it safely on every jump. I'm not passing any judgment on your canopy skills; I do not know you and have not seen you fly... but seriously pay attention when people with more experience than you say the canopy you want to jump is too radical for them. Also have you ever flown a 150? How do you feel flying a 150 for the first time over a town while you look for a back garden to land in having deployed it at 1000ft? Plan (and buy) for the bad jumps, not just the straight in approaches over the peas on days with perfect winds.

I'm about 230 out the door and my protrack says I can hit and hold 104mph filming flat monkeys in my ordinary FF suit.

No, I'm simply exercising my knowledge of international constitutional law. Mainly for my own ammusement but also partly for the edification of anyone who cares to read

The power to arrest a serving head of state does not exist by virtue of Article 39 of the Vienna Convention. Only after Bush stepped down from all state functions would he loose his diplomatic immunity. As for the secret service... he's not going to be able to take enough servicemen with him wherever he goes after retirement to prevent his arrest by a foreign power. The likelihood is arrest would only occur one he stepped foot on foreign soil. Just as with Major General Doron Almog last week who I referenced earlier. There have also been instances of SAS snatch teams descending from helicopters to arrest people accused of similar crimes. I most certainly cannot envisage that happening... but the legal principle is there. No it probably wouldn't really – at least in some of these hypothetical situations we can conjure up in order to examine the legal situation anyway. No need. As I point out above, at length, courts in EVERY country that has signed the International Convention against Torture have not only the power but the DUTY to prosecute individuals suspected of ordering or allowing torture. There's no need to ship suspects to Brussels - the trial can go ahead in ANY of the signatory nations. Yes, that's the point. That's what generally happens. People here are acting like the situation I describe is without precedent!? The rules of evidence that would apply would be whatever rules of evidence found in the national courts of wherever the case was to be heard. If in England, they would be the English rules of evidence. If in France - the French. If in Iraq - Iraqi. Simple as that. As for how the evidence came out, well maybe in the same way as perhaps that "zippergate" evidence "came to light". In this fictional scenario that we have conjured up which leads to Bush's arrest on torture charges perhaps he has already resigned in a storm of public protest in the US? Perhaps it's just leaked memos like those which came out earlier this year regarding White House re-classification of what "torture" meant. Those memo's (from memory) couldn't be linked to Bush and didn't actually prove any torture went on anyway but what if memo's which did, "came to light"? What if Bush admitted it all in a resignation speech just as Clinton did? Since this is all just a hypothetical scenario we can only make things up and look at the legal situation that would then arise. I was simply commenting on the theoretical legal position should "such evidence come to light". I've already noted on the first page of the thread that the evidential problems are more likely to exceed the legal ones. The legal questions (again as already mentioned) are actually already answered (in the UK at least), so it's actually rather easy to hypothesize on what could happen were "such evidence to come to light". That's all I've done here - clear up the legal frame work for those who might wish to hypothesize about what evidence there may be out there. I've already said "no" to that one. It is highly unlikely he would be executed as a result of such charges. Very few countries world wide to which a retired Bush is likely to travel still use the death penalty. If one of those who do have the death penalty requested the extradition of Bush from somewhere where he was then again, many countries have a policy of not extraditing a suspect to a country where they would face the death penalty.

No, I’m quite serious. If Bush has been complicit in torture and there is evidence of that come to light then he could be arrested, tried and convicted by any court anywhere in the world where the country is a signatory to the International Convention Against Torture. Just look at what happened with Augusto Pinochet. A former head of state who was arrested and charged in a foreign country for acts he committed against his own citizens. The legal doctrine in the UK at least has already been well tested.

As I indicate above, UK the Criminal Justice Act 1988 incorporated the International Convention against Torture. Were someone to bring charges against Bush in a UK court they would do so under the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The International Convention against Torture prevents torture of any persons, irrespective of who they are or under what circumstances they're held. There is no need for them to be classified as any specific kind of detainee and there is no way to loose the protection of the convention – it covers EVERYONE. Under that convention you cannot torture ANY person. ANY torture of ANY person is considered to be a "crime against humanity" and as such ANY court in ANY country where the convention has been given national authority has the power to hear the case. This is how former head of state Augusto Pinochet was arrested and charged in the UK in 1998 for the torture of civilian occupants of his own country. They were not afforded any protection of the Geneva Convention either – but that didn’t stop Pinochet from getting fucked by international law. Trust me, if it is shown that an individual has been torturing ANY kind of detainee ANYWHERE in the world, this law would allow ANY of the signatory states to take legal action against the perpetrator. Depending on the national law that can even include former heads of state. There is no technical legal bar to Bush being convicted on such charges were the right evidence to come to light.

Evidentially perhaps, yes. Legally; no. Bush could easily be held culpable on an international stage were the right evidence to become available. All it would take is a couple of leaked documents. (Were such documents to exist of course; I'm looking at this on a purely theoretical basis you understand).

The Cypres II however was only released a couple of years ago and marketed at swoopers right from the start. (not suggesting anything by this other than the fact that no argument can be made or defeated by looking at swooping relative to the original cypres).