dorbie

You can't ban a lawsuit by one jumper against another, but you can sure as hell remove it from the coverage offered by your insurance policy. Suing some broke skydiver is less enticing than suing the deep pockets of an insurance company. Guys, you might DIE skydiving, that's actually the worst outcome and you get nothing, everything you have and ever would have been is wiped out in an instant. There's no insurance for that. Most other outcomes are LESS severe. If you can handle the consequences of dying you should be able to take your chances of getting sued by some other jackass or of being injured by one. How dumb do you think insurance companies are? They're a business to make money not toss it on the bonfire. Skydivers suing eachother and each side covered by the poor sod who's the only company who offered you insurance. Of course you're going to pay out the wazoo.

And you wonder why you're paying out the arse for BPA membership. It's one thing to cover your ass when someone 3rd party goes after you after an accident be it deserved or otherwise but if you're not prepared to live with the medical coverage you all have (NHS) and accept the consequences of participating in your sport then you heartily deserve the Right Royal Reaming you're all getting right now. That adds £60 to your coverage so I guess it's optional first party coverage. Hopefully the insurance company can make it work and it may even discourage 3rd party suits but it hikes your annual costs to £210.

All of the following is just my opinion of course: Isn't this related to two arsehole skydivers who fucked up then sued each other and your insurance company has to pay through the nose no matter what the outcome of the case is? (Can you opt for an insurance policy that doesn't cover jumpers for injury to each other?) Or was it some negligent fuckwit who swapped a worn out ratty old main you wouldn't want to jump with a reserve of the same model to save a few quid and killed a tandem passenger? I understand that in the UK you can't sign a waiver of liability to stop these kind of repercussions in future (although I doubt a waiver would have excused the worn out used reserve here), and the place is turning sue happy, you're directly paying for this even in a country where a basic level of health care is free when you injure yourself. It must suck to be caught between idiots who use end of life canopies as reserves, selfish sue happy fuckups, a legal system that leaves you no options and an insurance system that really doesn't enjoy discovering new and interesting ways in which British skydivers can cost them a small fortune.

You don't have to contend with any of that when you miss the track completely.

So you're building the tunnel after laying the runway?

Well that merely sounds like high tech homeopathy. Another prevalent quack medicine (excuse the pun) that HAS been scientifically tested and found to be rubbish (when double blind methods are used).

Good yellow fever is natural, she'll have a blast contracting that. Let Darwin's discovery take it's natural course.

Not sure the question is stated as intended. An object inside a nuetron star, measuring 1" square, takes up 1" square of space inside the nuetron star. Maybe what was meant was how an object 1" square when outside a nuetron star can take up less space when moved into the center of the nuetron star? I'd agree that a given object of perceived fixed size moving fast enough to experience time dilation undergoes a change in volume and mass; but a static object (experiencing no acceleration in any dimension takes up exactly the volume of space that it possesses itself. I'm open to hearing differently, but would like to know the mechanics involved in a static object taking up less space than it's own volume. Ignoring the volume squared vs cubed gaffe, it's easy to argue that it depends on your frame of reference in both situations. Why? gravity is acceleration for these calculations

The guy was running backwards? Dorbie, where's the video? Posted somewhere? Sorry I have confused two incidents. Specifically I was recalling the shooting of Elio Carrion, another soldier (edit: Air Force?) presenting no threat who was shot by a police officer.

Disgraceful, there was video of this. It was murder plain & simple. [edit to say this was a different incident I was recalling]

Go to skydivingmovies.com and search for Blue Peter. The clip you want is: BluePeterSimonThomasAFFPart2 You have a choice of quality. At 14:58 on the video his spring loaded pilot chute on his student rig gets caught in his burble then quickly clears. Not the best overall video to show a student, but if you want video of a pilot chute caught in a burble, there it is, you could edit that clip to show without all the drama.

With simple color.

Improved version.

If you like those guys check out this site: http://www.theskepticsguide.org/ Their podcasts are great and they have some very entertaining guests. They have a lot of James Randi, favorite critique "Oh come on people." .

Obscene would be a better description.

I think the attached image should fit the bill.

On youtube search for: doctor who part 1 The other parts should also get linked if you see an episode you like (and you can click on the poster to get them too) episode names should help your search, you can also look up an episode guide online and search for specific episodes. For example: doctor who dalek 2005 part Also try searching for: Torchwood Part 1 The first episode will come up searching for: torchwood everything changes I like it almost as much as the new Dr Who. You're in for a treat. I've seen them all :-( It's best to watch them in order.

Big deal, my degree is in Architecture including some specialized study in "buildings, climate and energy", and I worked in a CAD bureau that specialized in energy conservation in design decades before it was fashionable. NOTHING is stopping Gore from practicing what he preaches, you cite examples everyone is guilty of, but not everyone jets around chiding the rest of us. You're only highlighting that there can be costs involved, and clearly Gore is unwilling to bear those costs even as he seeks to impose them on the rest of society. He's just one privileged hog telling the rest of us to consume less even as he increases his consumption.

So burning 20X the fuel in his own home somehow persuades others to consume less? Nonsense. He's a hypocrite and a profligate energy hog. It has nothing to do with his V.P. role. The heart of the issue is that he is not willing to alter his lifestyle in ways that he insistts everyone else must. That is the central issue, talk is cheap. The return on investment in solar panels is clear. The rest of your post is less compelling and does not address the original point of the thread.

Yup, I jumped out of it on Saturday and it was well worth it. I was first to exit too (one of the benefits of flying coach

I would if he wasn't telling us all to cut our consumption or even if his own consumption hadn't gone UP since he released his movie. This makes him look like a hypocritical pig.

http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367 Energy conservation, just for the rest of us so that Gore can live in style.

"Death awaits ye all with nasty big pointy teeth" "Why, it's just a little bunny rabbit!" He should have called the U.N. and waited for the peacekeepers to arrive instead of hitting it with a frikin paddle.

Awesome, I'd seen this before but without the arrows and never realized they hopped the drain. WOW.

It's basically a farmed animal. Taking your post to its logical conclusion, everyone who enjoys a beef stake is an asshole.