mr2mk1g

What's the phrase... if you can't die doing it it's a game and not a sport. Lightning doesn't count. Can you be an athlete and not engage in a "sport"?

Police state they have arrested one of the 4 who failed to detonate their bombs last week: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1710339,00.html

It seems Mrs. Blair doesn't entirely agree with her husband: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/PA_NEWA19526691122420252A00?source=PA%20Feed&ct=5

Any tertiary source is open to criticism John. Why don't you go straight to the statistics cited in the article themselves instead of relying on something written by a reporter who knows less about criminology than you do? If you'd gone to the statistics straight off you would have seen what they had to say about their own reliability: (Home Office introduction to police recorded crime figures 2004/5). That's essentailly the heading to your own "damn source" John. The beeb report you post is citing recorded crime figures and when you look at the heading to those figures you get the above text. You cited a report which discredits itself! Christ John do you not see how shaky the ground you are on is? If you'd taken some time to research this... or even just follow the links I've previously posted, you might also have seen the Home Office's commentary on reported crime figures and their statistical efficacy called the "Statistical Bulletin". Sure it's a secondary report, but it's written by criminologists and statisticians, it's reliable in its interpretation (unlike some random reporter at the beeb). This is what they say: (Heading to Chapter 3 of the Home Office Statistical Bulletin on Crime 2004/5 – Reporting and Recording). No one does what you are seeking to do now and rely on reported crime figures alone. They are flawed. The only people who rely on them are reporters seeking to get a scoop and a nice little sound bite from an opposition politician... oh, that's right, that's what you posted as something you were relying on. Close but no cigar. Yes violent crime was always that high, in fact the BCS' findings are that there are double the number of violent crimes than the police record. It does not necessarily follow however that the figure is not falling though, indeed as I've shown you already the figure is down 43% in the last 10 years and down 11% in the last year. There have been countless discussions on this forum about the 45 degree rule and how it is fatally flawed; about how only counting and calculations of wind speeds ensure satisfactorily separation. If you saw someone who was party to each one of those discussions telling someone on here that the 45 degree rule was the best way to ensure separation would you think they were: a) being disingenuous and knowingly spreading false information b) simply too stupid to get it We've had this same conversation now John somewhere near half a dozen times. Each time I explain why no experts in this field rely on reported crime figures alone and how those statistics are fatally flawed. Each time I post primary sources. Each time I show you what the "experts" say. Each time I explain it in minute detail. I explain the NCRS and shown you what all the experts say about your little theory. I've done it again above with the latest set of figures, just as I have done several times before. And yet I still find you on here telling people that crime is up because it said so in a newspaper report which quotes reported crime figures. Why? Have you forgotten all you have learned in our past conversations? Do you simply not understand how flawed reported crime figures are, despite having had the fact explained to you many times? Is it really that hard to understanding? Or is it slightly more sinister than that and are you fully aware of how wrong you are and are simply willfully misleading these people into believing something you yourself know to be untrue? My side of the story does have all the credibility. I've just shown you the primary sources that say so. I've just showed you secondary commentaries which confirm it too. It is indeed quite clear cut. No experts will back you up in relying solely on police reported crime figures John. Experts know what they're talking about. Face it John, you're wrong. Even when you look at "your own damn source" you see that the report it references warns the reader against relying on it because of the flaws you continually ignore. Oh my god. It always comes down to guns for you doesn't it. How pathetic!

Read your own damn source John: Given the number of times we've discussed this very topic and the effect of the NCRS, your continued reliance on reported crime figures alone does indeed suggest seriously disingenuous reporting on your behalf.

Fax spam's been arround for decades. We get stacks of it. Not seen 419 fax's before though... though I doubt this is a first.

First thing you want to do is find out the exact questions that were asked in the poll. Then you can see past any spin the paper might be putting on the figures and make your own mind up as to their voracity. Sadly the pollsters webpage doesn't show them having conducted the poll the Guardian is quoting (I presume it simply isn't up on line yet). You could wait a week and take a look here: http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/latest-polls.asp - they seem to be pretty good about posting their exact questions and methodology. Or you could e-mail/call them direct about it if you're that interested. http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/company/contact-us.asp Either way, the exact questions and a proper look at their methodology would be the first step I'd take. It is true though that the results on face value are rather concerning. Certainly worth watching.

A big part of why UK cops don't have guns is because they don't want guns - straight from the ACPO. The last survey of police officers on the question returned the result that 79% of officers were not in favor of their being routinely armed (police federation survey). They also don't need them for the most part. Remember this is the UK, not Baghdad, Lebanon or the US. The vast majority of incidents are handled perfectly well without a firearm - if they weren't it stands to reason that the ACPO and the officers themselves would want firearms, wouldn't they. You know now that this is not true. Violent crime is dropping and has been doing so for some time now. When we last spoke about this about 6 months ago, I showed you statistics from the BCS which put violent crime down 36% in the last 10 years and in the last year it had dropped a further 3%. Since then a further BCS has been published by the Home Office which show that now violent crime is down 43% in the last 10 years and that it has fallen 11% in the last year. Don't pedal your lies here John, I have no tolerance for them and I will call you on them every time I see you posting them. This has to be the 4th or 5th time I've picked you up on this specific lie so far. It's becoming exceptionally tiresome! (crime statistics from the British Crime Survey 2003/4 and 2004/5)

Regular beat cops don't simply get given guns in situations like this - this was an incident involving armed police. The US equivalent would be S.W.A.T. although in this instance they were plain clothed. Thus the shooter was not only used to being armed he was very well trained at it too (hence the 7 head shots, several of which it now appears were delivered before the guy hit the ground). p.s. the guy was probably running because he was an illegal immigrant. He'd been granted a student visa some years ago which had since expired and he was working illegally in a profession he was unlikely to get granted a work visa.

Personally it's "smoke away just keep your eyes on the goddamn road even if you have just dropped your fag and set your arse on fire". If you can't do that then don't smoke while you drive. If your peers can't do that reliably then don't be surprised if the ball gets confiscated and no one gets to play.

cool - I'll have to try those. Does adobe give you the odd or the even lines or do you get a choice? Depending on the shot I've found it can make a huge difference.

There's one way that Superman doesn't end up in a spin. And it's far easier to see it like that when I go back and read the newly elongated and edited version of the post I responded to. I'm sure everyone's aware though that that is not the only way to take a suggestion that you're only "safe" if you hide behind a keyboard.

Yeah, there's probably a good name out there for him too. Yeah, my beef's not with you man. I'm simply concerned about the fact that you seemed to be intimating that no one could criticize anyone in Iraq unless they were willing to do so to their face and that they should be afraid to do so because the contractor would then beat them up. That sparks my brain off into some cyclic catch-22 because I'm not terribly enamored by the concept of someone who would beat you up if you criticized them while in striking distance That in itself would lead me to want to criticize them... which I can't do unless I do so to their face, but I ought to be scared of that because they would beat me up... which again makes me want to criticize them... The whole thing then spins round and round till the world stops and Superman can go back and save that woman's life. Seemed like something about the situation had to be wrong somehow.

I can think of many better words for someone who would assult someone who calls them a name.

Are you seriously suggesting Ron that people should not say something for fear of being beaten up by the subject?

All that is required for lethal force to be legally employed in self defence is that the force is used to defend your own or another's life and that it is reasonable under all of the circumstances. Those circumstances include the fact that the day before, 4 blokes tried to blow up 3 trains and a bus in suicide attacks, they're still at large and 2 weeks ago 4 blokes killed 56 people and wounded hundreds others in an identical attack on 3 trains and a bus... oh, and that this guy was running towards a packed train after failing to stop when challenged by police who had been told to trail him because he was a terrorist suspect. I'm no jury but...

why risk it? seriously, what's to be gained? why not simply borrow a canopy 1 size up for a jump or two... if they're happy, then go back to their old wing. what do they lose?

I've just hooked up with Andy from Euphoria who now jumps at south cerney mostly/some. He's promised us (my friends and I) coaching and if required other team mates will turn up pretty much on demand. They've also got this cool in-air-comms system for coaching dives. Fordy's a good freefly coach. He's based at Weston... although I have no idea how much coaching he's going to be up for now he has his tandem rating.

Is anyone using their stroboframe backwards? I'm just about to mount a stills on my FF2 and wanted to confirm something first. Stroboframes are supposed to be mounted with the red corners facing backwards so the leaver action of the lens works against the fixed side of the bracket. This means the release leaver (that nice snagalishous hook thing) hangs out over the right hand side of my helmet. If I mount the stroboframe the "wrong" way round the hook is hidden by the camera box and would be very hard to snag. So anyone think I'll have a problem mounting the bracket backwards? This would put the leaver action against the smaller, spring loaded edge of the bracket.

ooo... from memory it's in "file"... "export"... "frame" or something like that. It's in there somewhere... you get to export the frame your marker is currently on as a jpeg or a number of other options just as if you were saving an image file from a paint program. A good tip would then be to open it with psp or photoshop or whatever you have and de-interlace it. This will improve the quality greatly to the point you can even get ok small prints from it.

It's two weeks after the initial terrorist attacks. They've identified all four bombers, found their car and forensic evidence contained within it, found further evidence in their houses, linked them to a chemist arrested in Egipt and are tracking down links to others still at large. 1 day after the attempts yesterday, they've arrested 3 people in connection with the explosions, shot another linked who they suspected to be running onto a packed train carrying a bomb and have footage of all 4 out there in the public domain for people to ID. That sounds like pretty damn good going to me. Knowing the British public these guys will be fingered from their mug shots pretty quickly too. Crimewatch (a uk program) gets a much smaller audience than these photo's must be getting and they're exceptionally sucsessful at identifying people from photo's like those now released.

Update: the police just released pictures of the 4 who attempted to further terrorist attacks on the tube yesterday: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/05/uk_london_bomb_suspects/html/1.stm

It wasn't a word game - you were challenging him to explain something he didn't say. See my post above for one thought on it. Short answer is though, I don't know. I'm open to other's suggestions. The other note is that until 2 weeks ago we could have said the same about the UK... we don't know what the future might bring...

That's a good question. Someone help me out with the demographics here, I have a theory. What are the concentrations of Muslims in the US? Here we have large concentrations of Muslims in some parts of the country. The community is also very established and brought over much of the cultural identifiers from the countries of origin (much like there being a little china or the like in some cities). I think that perhaps radical extremism is much easier to ferment where there are other radical extremists to talk to. It’s a much bigger step to talk yourself into a suicide attack than it is for someone else to fill your mind with extremist propaganda. At least that's one theory... do the demographics of the US support it? Are Muslims found in small communities or are there millions of them in large concentrations?

He never said there would be Ron, go re-read his statement. He said: "no-one who feels good about their situation in life becomes a suicide bomber." That is not the same as saying "everyone who feels bad about their situation ipso facto must become a suicide bomber". This isn't just word games, the two statements are VERY different.