nigel99

I don't think that money plays a major role in "class". I have a friend who was a bank manager who defined himself as working class. Here in the UK, a number of people are proud to be working class and I have observed the following references: Chavs - our equivalent of trailer trash (although people like Vic Beckham who is loaded is often placed in this category) Working class - people who work for a living. Toffs- inbreds who live off the sweat of others. I find the whole concept quite interesting especially having relocated from a country where we were relatively wealthy, to a place where we are towards the middle of the foodchain in terms of income. I find that amongst people who define themselves as "working class" there is a general apathy towards learning and self development lack of competitive spirit and a general resentment towards people who have more than them. This resentment is a key identifier and I would define a middle class person as someone who believes that to have a better lifestyle/income they need to work harder and or obtain better eduction, whereas lower class/working class see others wealth as unfair and believe that the wealth should be "shared" more equally. Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

Your viewpoint is pretty interesting & appears to align with the statement made by JR as 1 of the major reasons that the right bear arms in the US is the ability of the populace to use force against a tyranical governement. I don't see how the ability of civilians to be armed is related to the government abusing our rights. I would appreciate it if you could expand. Personally I think that the UK tends to suffer from extreme voter apathy, 2 political parties that are very closely aligned making voting a joke - and I think this contributes to the rapid erosion of civil liberties. The UK has spent years fighting for mediocrity it is so deeply embedded in the general populace mindset (I could quote a whole bunch of examples, but the best is school sports days where it is common not to reward "winners" because it makes the others feel bad). The direct result of this mediocrity is that nobody stands up for anything. Look at the Iraq war - nobody here supports it, but on the same token nobody gives a damn they just let it drift on. Yes in the US you have freedoms that are not present in the UK. However it is when you analyse the differences that it becomes really scary. For example in the US as I understand it "free speach" means that you can ligitimately hold a "negative/dissenting world view". Take for example the KKK I believe that it is legal. So you can take a stance of I don't like skydivers,lawyers,different race etc and it will be tolerated so long as you are not violent & engage in criminal activity. Whereas in the UK these types of opinions are crushed - this is very unhealthy. I mean even fringe political parties are largely held as something to be concerned about. Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

Clowdburner. I toyed with a title along the lines of "reduces right to life" but felt it was to strong. I won't argue that the UK is a surveillance society. The personal privacy issue is a major concern, and amazingly the average person here does not protest. I would bet you that in 10 years time we will have satellite tracking of our cars for so called "green taxes" and charging by the mile. This will then be "enhanced" over a period, to isolate criminal activities etc, and eventually here in the UK you will no doubt get a visit from the cops because you were "kerb crawling" at 11pm in a known area for prostitution... and the list will go on. Despite this I would still argue you are more likely to get a violent response from US police than UK police. There are very few accusations of excessive force by police officers here. Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

I would say that this reinforces the argument that "armed" civilians increase the likely use of deadly force by the police. I was using relative terms comparing the US/UK and not absolutes. The growing threat of suicide bombers mean unfortunately that if you or I are mistaken for a terrorist we are now more likely than ever to be killed first and questions asked later. It is a nasty side effect of terrorism. Due to the ability of a single individual I can sympathise with the police response. I may be speaking out of line here but those were counter-terrorism police who I imagine would have greater freedoms than your average "bobby on the beat" - for 1 thing most UK police are not armed and (all?) US police are armed. Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

Ok thanks for the response. Completely hijacking the thread now and dooming into the Iraq circle of discussion... With a view like that - you must surely understand & be able to accept the stance taken by the "insurgents" in Iraq? I am being specific here about armed actions against the Coalition forces/Iraq government. I am certainly not trying to trick you/con you into being accussed of being a sympathiser to suicide bombers. Also back to my original argument - would your accept that as police in the US are more likely to encounter an armed person on a callout - it is reasonable to accept that the police have greater freedom to use deadly force as a direct result? Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

Question for you on this. Surely by this definition you condone a terrrosist response to government policy? As I understand what you have said means that if you feel that all other means of changing your governments policy have failed you have the right to resist - if necessary with deadly force? To be very honest the 5th reason that you have given scares me as personally I see that a very slippery road. Regarding collecting guns - I can understand the kick out of playing with them. Out of interest I know someone (not a friend) who collected 2nd world war fighters, and he got a "visit" from bailifs for something and they found one of the planes had "active" machine guns. Not legal here and really funny as he had been flying around over key areas etc... He didn't have a clue Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

You worded this a little more along the lines that I intended. Rather than heavy handed, I mean't I expect that police NEED to respond as if the worst case scenario is happening. Where legal gun ownership exists the stakes are immediately higher than where they do not. So whereas in the US I would expect police to attend a domestic with a weapon, in the UK I would not. My point is that everything comes at a price. Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

I have been thinking about the discussions here regarding guns and general difference between the US and UK. First some context, I think guns can be nice toys & given the opportunity I would go sport shooting/hunting, however I don't own a gun. Generally the law 1)assumes that a person is innocent until proven guilty. 2)expects the police/public to use "reasonable force" when dealing with a situation So my observation is that in the UK where the population does not have the right under law to carry lethal weapons, the police response to an incident (disturbance at a private home etc), does not require an armed response team, as under the presumption of innocence reasonable force ASSUMES that the people are unarmed. Granted this has the disadvantage for the police that if the person/people are criminal and do have weapons the police are seriously disadvantaged. However as most people, are not criminal and having non-armed police response results in a lower likelihood of a bystander/misunderstanding where an innocent (aka you & I) are killed through the use of deadly force. Contrast this with the US, where civilians have the right to weapons, a measured and reasonable response from the police has got to assume from a risk assessment that the disturbance mentioned above COULD have a someone in an agitated state with a legal weapon. Therefore it is reasonable and proportionate in the US for police to be armed. Similarly if a person is deemed to be a threat then it is right to allow the police to intervene first, prior to a 3rd party being injured/killed. So my basic argument is that your right to bear arms in the US, comes at the price of a "heavier handed" police force, that that in the UK. Another consideration to the arms argument is the reason for owning a weapon and I can only see 4 reasons: 1) Sport (Hunting & range) 2) Collectors item 3) Self Defense 4) Criminal activity. In the UK there is limited scope for hunting and rifle ranges etc (kids/people can't realistic use small caliber guns in the back garden due to size) and therefore for us this is not a major outlet, Granted the US has much more scope for this. Collectors - well whatever floats your boat, but I believe (and may be wrong, that in the UK you can collect so long as they are disabled) Self defense - see my arguments above, as well as there being substantial evidence that your average Joe Bloggs is at more danger with a weapon than without due to the will & skill to use it when required. Criminal activity goes without saying that the law is not a deterrent, although I do believe that at least the police have a route to prosecuting someone in the UK due to illegal ownership prior to an event. Legal ownership in the US appears to make it more difficult for police to be proactive. It is ironic that a spell check offers Uzi as an alternative to UK!! Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

I think it comes back to context. Initially looking at the video I felt that the police used excessive force, and I am still inclined to believe that the situation could possibly have been handled differently. However the police actions shown in the video clearly are a snippet in time, by the sounds of it the culmination of an evenings events. If this person only did what was shown on video then the police should be brought to account. If as appears to be the case this guy, was causing trouble earlier then the video lacks context and the response was possibly justified. On a side note, the US police/military does have a perceived reputation for being aggressive relative to other countries. For example in the UK you would not crap yourself if pulled over by the police on the roads, whereas people feel very differently about the police in the US. I remembered this post from Tonto http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1311995;search_string=police;#1311995 Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

I don't know that I entirely agree with you. Personally it would scare the crap out of me if I was suddenly grabbed by police. There was another shorter but clearer video on youtube, and it appears that the guy get a little carried away stepping away from the mic and gesturing, but not really approaching anyone, more like your average tele-evangelist! It appears that he got extremely distressed and the police made the situation worse (the female copper screaming in his ear, could not have had a calming effect). I would really like to hear the opinion of a practicing copper (Scoop?) - because I thought crowd control/disruption was generally to de-escalate situations. Granted there are things like background checks etc, so I might be defending a known arsonist/GBH person here! Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

Jeez America home of the brave and free What a freaking joke, it appears from the video that the guy was just asking a long question - you don't really hear him being told to shut up... Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/6992936.stm Excuse the sensational title - it was specially done for JR as it seems to have been missed in his crime spotting from across the pond Seriously though I heard a little analysis on the radio and they were questioning how the police could be lying in wait and yet 2 people still died. Police shootings are pretty rare here, and it is probably unprecedented to have 2 fatalities. Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

My reply was tongue in cheek simply because I feel that there isn't a solution that seems to stick, now that this can of worms has been opened. I don't make it a habit to grade dictators on their good points & strengths so I can't choose the type for you

As Squeak says you can use the first row as labels. If you are wanting to keep your heading visible you can "freeze panes" to keep the heading visible as you scroll down. Similar with printing you can repeat at the top of each page. Slightly updated with frozen pane to illustrate. Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ - Number of civilian deaths 72000+ (low figure) http://www.zmag.org/lancet.pdf Conservative figure of 100,000 high figure of 285,000 Iraqiyun Survey - 128,000 violent deaths (2005) Note that both the Lancet and Iraqiyun surveys are a few years old now and so I find the figure of 100k a realistic minimum, and would imagine that the upper figures from the Lancet (285k) are probably fairly accurate by now. I think that the people whos heads are in the sand are those claiming that any "progress" is being made in Iraq. The US strategy of surges only works locally - so there is an increase in troop strengths in Baghdad and deaths fall in the vicinity (possibly) however they rise elsewhere. It is a very complicated mess and I suspect that the only short term solution is to empower a dictator, with the necessary military strength to crush the insurgency bringing an end to the war lord type activities. In short Saddam sounds like an ideal candidate Sometimes it is better the devil you know... and maybe a few lessons that perhaps enforcing democracy through military might, doesn't really work. Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

http://users.skynet.be/J.Beever/pave.htm This might be a repost - but it is of a similar theme. I would really like to see something like this... Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

With regards to people jumping once a month or so. I can relate to this. I started jumping when I was a student and my desire to jump was obsesive, but cash extremely limited. This meant that I could only jump once a month. I did static line progression and it was very slow. It took me over 30 dives to progress to free fall although I was cleared after the 5 or 6, because I lacked confidence and also I couldn't afford the 2 jumps in a day that were required (dummy rip & first free fall had to be on the same day). I eventually progressed rapidly when 2 or 3 fellow jumpers helped me out and gave me 10 jump tickets - this kickstarted me into freefall. As to performing reasonably, I was never any good at anything other than accuracy, but I always had a blast and do not regret my time jumping. Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

Pirana I am not parroting anyone on thermodynamics. I can appreciate that external forces can reduce local entropy (normally on a temporary timebase). Multiple species number millions/billions is not very local - but granted maybe if you accept a scale/relative point of view then accross the entire universe millions of species is "small" and localised. On a personal level (& I am not trying to be as you put it "artful at mangling meanings... etc). I see entropy at work - people age & die, machines & systems left alone decay and stop working. Pretty much everything that I know left to itself goes to its most stable state - stopped & flat on its back. Both you and Jakee has stated increases in order on a local scale - I wouldn't mind an example or 2? Is not a very tenant of evolution that "very small" populations interbreed to create a "new" species. A very simple example lets say that the white "race" was born out of 2 albino children long ago procreating. In order for this to propagate/solidify into a race mixing of their offspring can't occur as it will dilute the genetic makeup. It is on this basis that I make the statement. What about the lion populations out of interest? Finally I never said that there is evidence in Genesis - I was trying to separate my argument from the bible. What I said is that I am "open minded" about the problem - and do not put myself in either of the heavily defended "camps". Each of which has their thousands of "minds" at work. 5 pages added over a weekend I understand - what I don't is the working week how do people get work done? Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

Jakee - How do you say that evolution does not contradict the 2nd law of thermodynamics? - taken from Wikipedia - wiki explanation of entropy... Therefore entropy = chaos/unstructured behaviour and a tendency towards decay and the most stable state. A living form is not a "stable" entity - it is a highly complex and unstable organism. Evolution says that organisms increase their order, structure and complexity. In short you are easier to kill than a cockroach you are more complex than a cockroach and yet evolution says that you are a natural progression from a cockroach. Nothing that I have said here is based in creationism/the bible just good old science and statistical theory. without referring to religion you are welcome to explain why evolution does not contradict chaos/entropy. In-breeding - thorough breds/pedigrees often have problems with health more than "mongrels". Many of our laws relating to incest/marring your brothers and sisters are because the narrow gene pool causes problems. to be honest I don't know much about this at a scientific level - I am much more at home in maths and physics due to my job. Regarding EM/gravity we are constantly looking for refinements on EM theory. And as far as I know nobody really understands gravity and its causes. People research and look for the mathematical basis. Personally I see very little "mathematical" and scientific thought put into evolution - the ultimate objective of science (in my opinion) is to resolve everything to a mathematical form. Evolution is very far from this and so rather than being zealously followed I believe there should be more open "thought". I see parrallels in todays society attitude towards evolution as 200 years ago the "ether". I am not advocating that religion is right - just that evolution is to unfounded in science to be treated with the level of reveree that it is. Your point about people researching into evolution is true - but how many just like the religous zealots are thinking "inside the box". I see alot of information on people looking at Evolution through archialogical digs - on this basis I agree there are thousands of people. What I don't see is alot of analytical debate/questioning as to whether the theory itself is right. I believe that Darwin provided an initial theory that was accepted because science was growing rapidly at the time (Michael Faraday etc are from that error). As far as I know Darwin is the first "departure" from religous views and the first departure is not normally the right solution. Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

Thats pretty much where we were when the US decided to invade Iraq... As to if people ever learn - it looks like Mr Bush has learnt as I don't see any talk of troops - just bomb the place. I hope that he doesn't as the US is disliked enough without unilateral & illegal wars (I doubt it would get UN sanction). I also doubt that many EU countries (hopefully us in the UK included) would not give clearance for military aircraft through their airspace. Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

Bill Do you not agree that evolution is a theory and not a law of physics? If so should we not be looking to pick holes in the theory - look for evidence that supports/contradicts it? It amazes me the zealousness that evolution is defended with and just how quickly any God or evolution thread degenerates into an evolution thread with 100's of posts. My biggest problems in accepting evolution as fact/law is that it contradicts a number of scientific laws as opposed to theories (2nd law of thermodynamics is probably the biggest - where entropy and not order happen over time). Another aspect is "inbreeding" which is a central construct of evolution and yet we know that it causes terrible problems. We don't fully know how gravity and electromagnetics work. Take the speed of light - is it really a constant? Personally I do not think that Genesis 6 days is factual, however neither do I believe there is any more evidence that can reliably be called on to fully support evolution - as the origins of life & diversity as we see it today. Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

"to be honest..." I have that saying even though I do it myself. Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

Sorry but that seems a bit unfair considering your president holds the same beliefs. Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

This post is a bit of a rant having nearly been injured twice in a 1 week by Burka's! Instance 1 - woman crosses road about 50 meters from a pedestrian crossing, she didn't look and just plodded across the road with no visibility and not a care in the world. Fortunately my brakes were quite good, but I don't like emergency stopping the bike. 2 - Woman with the full kit and looking out of her little slit driving out of the local panel beaters (maybe thats a hint) nearly knocked me off the bike. Well I am pretty peaved by it right now and I doubt the local coppers would let any of us drive around with full face masks on in our cars without someone being charged with dangerous driving sooner or later - why the exemption? At least in islamic countries women are not allowed to drive so it isn't a factor. Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

you could get a small adapter board madeup with through hole pins and a 1206 footprint on the board. Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.