dorbie

It's not just about the dignity of the condemned. Some people must have dignity thrust upon them.

I'm sorry to hear about that. For future reference, proper car stop edicate is to: 1. Roll all your windows down 2. Put your car in park and shut your motor off 3. Remove your keys from your ignition. Then place the keys on the dashboard 4. Both hands on the steering wheel 5. Interior lights on if it's at dark outside 6. Wait for the police officer to approach your vehicle and await for his instructions Sigh, There's a procedure? Shame we can't all learn how to obey with appropriate obsequience at the academy. Bullshit, he's supposed to **KNOW**! He's got to SWEAR to this under oath, his word carries all the weight in a seatbelt case, if he doesn't know he should STFU, if he doesn't STFU he should lose his badge and go eat his donuts between shifts at the local mall.

The U.S. judge clearly had no say, so your point is moot. You can't stop people shopping any old crap before a judge.

P.S. having looked at the OP article this is quite sickening, anyone who pulls this crap needs to be forced out of public office, my apologies Kallend.

With the more recent method the hangman has a table of drop distances required for different body weights to snap the neck without severing the head. There have of course been mistakes or deviations. The may add weight to some, I don't know. This is not a consideration everywhere. It was in the UK and I suspect in the USA, however it is Iraq that will implement the execution and I wouldn't wager on an instant demise.

That instance is a classic case of one scientist playing politics, much like yourself Kallend. The entire story is highly suspect and of course the guy went on a campaign.

Why would anyone be surprised. The Bush administration has over-ridden scientists at NIH, NOAA and other government labs for doctrinal or political reasons. Those bodies advise, they don't dictate policy. Individuals there who aspire to make the decisions are of course free to run for elected office.

There was a sociologist on a video I once saw called Richard Head, of course they captioned him as "Dick Head", I am not making this up, it was a housing planning/urban development video possibly taped from the Open University in the UK.

______________________________________ The city I recently moved from, wanted to put cameras at intersections where folks were running red-lights and stop-signs all too often. The purpose: to get tag numbers and send the owner of the vehicle a ticket. Those folks, went nuts! Letters were written to the editor of the local newspaper stating their civil rights would be violated and the like. Personally, I think, it's a great idea! It answers the question: 'Where's a cop, when you need one?' Chuck A fine idea (which they do use in some cities), but my concern is this: the offender in a moving violation is the driver, not the owner. If the camera system photos both the license plate AND the driver's face, that's fine with me. But if the camera only identifies the car and plate, and not the actual driver, then - in my ever-so-humble (as always) opinon - a presumption that the owner is also the driver is improper. It is common policy in the USA to reduce the amber light transition times on intersections with these cameras. This causes rear ends and fatalities all to rake in a few extra bucks. I think it's OK to catch red light runners, but not to create them by gaming the light timing for maximum revenue. It's absolutely obscene that towns and cities get away with this.

They shouldn't hang him because it is too expensive, the years of appeals and millions in legal expenses will tie up the system, it's better to let him rot in jail....... What's that you say? 30 days! But, but, but... I can't use my favorite cannard! And Muslim extremists have plenty of martyrs already and most hate Saddam. It's just amazing we have to hear reports of a few barbarians threatening bloody revenge of Saddam dies, when that's all they've been vowing for the last 15 years. "More bloody revenge?" "Yes a plague upon your house, you will open the gates of hell if you kill Saddam." "The gates of hell, again? I thought they were already open." "This time we really mean it you've seen nothing yet." I think they should just remand him into the custody of the Kurds, and dispense with all the sophistry. Where were all the do nothing bleeding hearts when Saddam was torturing & butchering with impunity? NOW they have something to say?

Or maybe the police got caught up in trying to "serve and protect"? Ever been driving and had to stop short? Did you throw your arm up to protect the passenger from the dash (Maybe to cop a feel on a hottie )? That is an automatic reaction, your arm would not really do anything in a crash, but you do it anyway. The cops might step in front of a car since that is where the best shot (not safest for them) can be taken. The target is moving at you so you don't have to lead and it is getting bigger so you don't have to rush the shot. Also, the chance of a miss flying through the car and hitting someone is less. Point is that people often make automatic moves to do what they think is right. You amy think they stepped in front so they can claim they were in danger (possible, but stupid to do). While I would think they just got caught up and tried to stop the suspect. There is something deeply troubling about an officer placing himself in front of a vehicle and then killing the driver for presenting a risk to the officer. I've seen this happen where the driver was edging forward slowly and the officer was intentionally hovering on the corner of the vehicle where he moved to place himself. In many countries that would be called cold blooded murder. Should you get away with calling a car a deadly weapon then CHOOSE to place yourself in front of it and shoot the unarmed driver as a consequence? These policies sound good when presented in black and white but reality is not, it is so subject to abuse and the training & implementation is inadequate and troubling.

I've seen video of cops jumping in front of fleeing cars to stop them then using deadly force when the cars didn't stop or moved slightly from stationary, or gunned the engine out of gear. Basically the police tried to create a pretext for shooting a suspect. This is a clear abuse of SOPs that they routinely get away with and one of the reasons LA recenty changed it's policy.

The problem will be solved when the babies grow up and sue the everyone concerned into a financial crater.

My L&B has a digital volume setting, check your manual, mine is a different model.

Revealing the source was against national security interests. In this instance the source was obviously the UK government. The real secret hidden by these last ten pages was that the UK government was spying on their own citizen and passed the information it gathered to the US government. The national security component from a US perspective was hiding that fact, implicitly to keep that conduit of informantion open. i.e. It is in US national security interests that the UK is left unmolested to secretly spy on its citizens and pass the intelligence to a foreign superpower. The real implications are profound but not for Americans so I guess this mundane document is not news anymore.

Why misrepresent what I wrote again? Does it make you feel smarter to flagrantly distort what others write & use that distortion to ridicule them and dismiss sound argument that you cannot refute rationally? I'd expect your brand of dishonest riddicule in a schoolyard pushing match. Debate the issues but don't lie about what I've written.

My use of the word insulation meant thermal insulation and I was saying that the pile was heavily insulated, but keep bending over backwards to invent a conspiracy. Most of the Earth's rock is still molten because of radioactive decay (it would have cooled long ago otherwise) now ordinarily radiation doesn't generate enough heat but with miles of rock to insulate it the heat is sustained at levels high enough liquify rock. With enough insulation a lot of heat can build from small exothermic contributions. Look under a glowing log the next time you have bonfire, that can melt glass and aluminium. Oh what the heck, you're not interested in science and rational explanations, you have your preferred conclusion and damn the evidence, physics and all.

It's be impossible to determine how much of the energy was lost to noise dissipated into the ground through the quake, spend moving air around and breaking chemical bonds in an endothermic way. But just intuit it though, the energy would be proportional to the mass and distributed over the mass approximately, now imagine you fell 1/8 mile & impacted, would you spontaneously combust? Would you expect your temperature to raise even slightly? You might get the odd local bit of damage through friction burns on your clothing but the heat gain would be pretty small overall.

So did you ever figure out what thermite actually is? Maybe you should look again. QAnd maybe you should also read to see that the only 'evidence' of thermite presented is temperature on that page. As for the heat, when you have insulation in a pile like that there is nop lace for the heat to go and all sorts of stuff burns like that including metals, the heat builds up provided there is still an exothermic reaction which a little air through convection would provide. With aluminium, steel and fuel burning under an insulated pile it's nonsense to claim any evidence of thermite.

Why are you so invested in this hokum while ignoring physically sound explanations for what happened? When buildings collapse there are complex chains of events set in motion, some of the details are unknowable, but you're a testament to just how goofy this crap gets. The really big obvious knowable stuff is confounded by statements of "fact" that have no basis in reality. We SAW the fuel laden aircraft fly into the buildings. People who actually know what they're talking about have explained in some detail what happened and the architect anticipated the collapse while watching TV. They haven't refused to look at alternatives, they analyzed the data and came to a conclusion based on sound judgement. Steel buildings are well known to collapse when their steel structures are heated by fire and this obviously contributed to the collapse. Steel frame buildings are required by law to have intumescent fire protection or the equivalent to protect the steel from fire if their contents burn WHY? Because buildings act like furnace ovens when they burn & will weaken the steel, even this protection is rated to give limited protection to facilitate an escape, so quit running around making foolish claims about steel, go buy a book by a qualified engineer & read it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intumescent The danger with people running around making these crazy claims is that most citizens are not equipped to understand just how utterly demented the arguments are. Watch the video and you can see debris falling faster than the building, unless you're claiming it magically accelerated faster than 1G until it reached terminal. You don't even need a video just look at a still image and see heavy sections of wall & support structure falling floors below the compaction level. http://www.conservationtech.com/MAIN-TOPICS/5-NYC-World-Trade/FEMA-WTC-photos/08.tower1.collapse.ap.jpg See all that heavy shit falling below the collapse, proving the collapse was not frefall? Look at all the images, they're full of a constant shower of heavy debris falling under the line of collapse. Use your OWN capacity for simple investigation & THINK!

People outside the USPA have no say in it's rules and have as much right to skydive as you or I. The only entity with a valid objection here is the dropzone who have probably choosen to operate under USPA guidelines and were lied to and their business/reputation placed at risk. Worse things happen. kids do drugs, teens street race, students binge drink, idiots base jump. So some guy learned skydiving the old fashioned way and got lucky. I doubt everyone fully appreciated the risks, but it went OK. He should be discouraged from trying it again though. Another friend might freak and I've seen some insane AFF video. It's a dumb thing to do but it's done now and legally.

It is a lot easier, quit pretending this is like anesthesiology. Anestheseology is a balancing act between consciousness and death. Execution is nothing of the sort. Experts no doubt including anesthesiologists devised this 3 drug cocktail dog & pony show that now requires an anesthesiologist to figure out what the heck is going on. With the right drug in sufficient quantity death will be inevitable and can be relatively painless and needn't require fishing for veins, hint err on the side of excessive dosage and pick the right SINGLE drug. I'm leaning towards CO now though. Why is this even an issue? I'm sure there's a willing vet who could do this, they're far better qualified and and do this all the friking time, one could service the entire U.S. Of course the squeamish phonies would of course object to using a vet, they'd much rather have some bozo fishing for a vein & missing. This whole debate is pathetic though, half the phonies who pretend to care about the suffering condemned have no issue with endemic prison violence & rape and a lifetime of pain, cruelty & misery in the big house, even relishing it & joking about it.

Morphine (along with other pain medications) comes in pill form, could be given during the last meal and thus an anesthesiologist is not needed. So the condemned must effectively commit suicide then? Good luck with that plan. It may have worked with Socrates but not everyone will be as cooperative. You don't need to be an anestheseologist to administer an overdose of diamorphine, alternatively how about carbon monoxide gas via a small face mask? Simple clean and relatively safe with a few simple precautions. It's not difficult to do this right, it makes me wonder why some of these other half assed methods are used.

Your sudden faith in the transparent integrity of a politician and a Bush is inspirational. . Ha ha. You exhibit a remarkable talent for total misinterpretation. My intent was not to interpret your comment but to highlight the rank hypocristy it represents, alas the misinterpretation is yours.

More veneer and an absloutely feeble attempt at evasion. He's a politician, the systematic opposition to the death penalty by any means is tied to the anti death penalty agenda. This is clearer in the recent California decision also mentioned in this thread. The affected squeamishness of politicians and other phonies is a sight to behold. Gov. Bush has shown no indication at all of having an anti-death-penalty agenda. In fact the Bush brothers have signed more death warrants than any other family in recent history. You are rambling. Your sudden faith in the transparent integrity of a politician and a Bush is inspirational. I could come up with a half dozen relatively painless methods of execution in a weekend, they might not be pretty enough for these phonies though. I'm convinced a good number of people relish the suffering of the condemned, while others enjoy this issue because they can attach political labels to proponents. Geeze, how about an overdose of diamorphine? I doubt it'll ever happen in America though. Instead we have pointless cases wasting court time.