Something that I had observed in my car was that my fuel economy increased as my speed increased.
I've experienced the same thing, although my sample size is still too small to be conclusive.
If I can sustain 75 mph (which is possible in parts of my state), I seem to get about 29-30 mpg. If speed limits require me to drive slower (60-65), I get 26-27 mpg.
In the United States and some other places, they didn't bother to do that. Instead, the wireless networks are overlaid on top of the landline networks, so there's no way for the originating CO in another area code to know that it's placing a call to a wireless phone -- or, even if it does, it can't bill the caller differently because it's in the same NPA/NXX as landline phones. So they came up with the crazy idea of billing the wireless subscriber for all airtime regardless of whether the wireless phone is placing or receiving a call.
There's nothing in the US phone system that prevents billing someone for toll charges if it's in the same area code. When the area codes covered larger areas (because there were fewer phones), it was quite common.
The reason that cellular subscribers pay for the airtime for receiving calls (or at least have it decremented from their monthly pool of minutes) is because "local" calls are free through most of the US.
Elsewhere, "metered" service is the norm, even for a call down the block. The charges are small for "local" calls, but not zero. In the US, local calls within your calling area are "free", i.e. they are included in your monthly fee. Metered service has been (and may still be) available in a few places, but it is not common in the US.
In my state, the public utility commission expressly prohibits charging any kind of per-minute fee or additional fee for a call from a land-line phone unless the number '1' is dialed first. Therefore, if calling a cell-phone in your local calling area required the caller to pay airtime fees, it would effectively be treated as a long-distance call.
The cell phone companies in the US wisely recognized that such a policy would greatly discourage people from calling cell phone numbers. Therefore, in order for cell phones to be treated as "local" calls within a calling area, the cell phone subscriber has to pay for both incoming and outgoing airtime.
GPS with WAAS will replace the glidescope. It's computed on the fly.
With enough satellites in view, GPS provides altitude. That can be (and has been) used to generate a glideslope indicator that is indistinguishable from one generated by an ILS (instrument landing system).
However, GPS doesn't always provide sufficient accuracy for an approach to a 200-foot decision height (the minimum for a Category 1 approach). And it doesn't quickly (and clearly) indicate when the GPS signal is insufficient, either because of satellites in view, satellite geometry, atmospheric distortion, or a sudden malfunction.
WAAS (Wide Area Augmentation Service) addresses this problem. A network of 25 monitoring reference stations across the US measure the received signals, and generate a GPS correction signal which is broadcast from a pair of geosynchronous satellites over the US.
The FCC rule says you can't use a cell phone while airborne.
The FAA rule says that the operator must prohibit the use of electronic devices in flight, unless the OPERATOR is sure that they will not interfere with the aircraft systems.
Re:I think the cliff he hit was the problem
on
Fossett's Plane Found
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Exactly... An engine failure in something as slow as a Citabria would be easy to to "pancake" as they call it. Chances are he never saw the mountain which is very easy to happen..
Fossett was an experienced pilot. He wouldn't have been flying in IMC (instrument meteorological conditions) in the vicinity of a mountain below the minimum sector altitude, at least not intentionally.
Given that he was in a different area than he was expected, I suspect Steve had some sort of medical problem that incapacitated him. If the airplane was trimmed properly, it could have flown for a while before impacting the mountain at cruise speed.
Heh, I went to the USA for the first just a year ago, and I was shocked by fox news as well. The reporter started to tell an interviewee that they were wrong! Very strange indeed.
This is standard fare in US news, at least in television news. Fox is hardly the only one to do it.
The adversarial relationship between broadcast journalists and their targets used to be confined to the Sunday morning talk shows and other forums that were the rough equivalent of a newspaper's editorial page. But now, even your standard talking head is predisposed to conflict -- because that's what generates better ratings. Remember, they have to compete with "Survivor" and "Big Brother".
It's also another way in which a particular reporter's bias is manifested: the questions they ask are designed to entrap or promote the subject of the interview.
I know that sounds a bit strong, but I was just so shocked at the level of dishonest manipulation Fox News are involved in. And horrified that there are people in the USA who actually watch this trash and BELIEVE that it's real news!
The first thing one must realize is that in the US, news and entertainment are almost indistinguishable. Fox News is just one example of an professionally-produced entertainment program that is carefully targeted at its intended audience.
The second thing one must realize that every other news organization does the same. Their target demographics are just different from Fox News.
Like the other poster that responded, I read a large variety of news sources. Fox News is the most blatant about it, but every news organization exhibits bias, usually by careful omission of facts that don't support their viewpoint.
The repairs wouldn't be completed until the beginning of the LHC's planned winter shutdown -- for either planned maintenance or to conserve electricity, depending on which article you read.
So businesses merely need to refrain from putting social security numbers, drivers license numbers, and passwords in email and other insecure communication channels and they're good.
If any business is currently sending SS and driver's license numbers via email, they are being irresponsible.
Pre-emptive warning: it's a partisan blog, but the explanation is quoted in full.
Short version:
After Palin's email addresses were publicized, the account was locked by all the people trying to login.
Someone went through the password recovery dialog and was able to guess answer "Where did you meet your spouse?".
He looked through all the emails, was disappointed that he couldn't find anything incriminating.
Announced it on/b/
Someone else reading/b/ changed the password and notified a friend of Palin.
The account has since been deleted.
The original cracker attributed his/b/ posting to another yahoo.com address. He claims to have done all this through a single proxy, but admits that he is a bit scared of the FBI at the moment.
Pardon my ignorance, but what in the hell is a "transfer station" and why would you drop your trash there?
In this context, it's where the curbside pickup trucks transfer it to larger trucks for transport to the landfill or recycle center.
I have carts provided by the city that can be picked up and emptied by mechanical means, so the driver never leaves the cab. But, if you have a bulky item or a large amount that won't fit in the trash or recycle cart, you can deliver it yourself to the transfer station. The utility bill is used as a token to limit the number of "free" trips.
The issue isnt 'receiving your bills (notification that you owe)', the issue is who controls the initiation and amount of money being transferred from you to who you owe. Eg, who has access to *take* money directly from you, in an amount that they have determined.
Agreed, and that why I like Paytrust. I've authorized only Paytrust to take money from my checking account, which they use to pay my bills. And I control the disposition of bills upon receipt, through their website.
I really like the idea of 'outsourcing' bill paying but I don't trust anyone to manage it properly except myself.
It's certainly not "fire and forget". I monitor bill payments with a calendar in Quicken, and reconcile my checking account automatically (online) a couple of times a week. So, I recognize a missing payment before it becomes a problem, and make a manual payment if necessary.
Since moving to Paytrust, the problems has always been the biller. At one point, a company actually cut off my service for non-payment, and it was Paytrust that provided the proof that the bill was paid via EFT.
Except for the utility bill itself, which in quite a few situations is accepted as "proof" that you live at the given address.
That's a good point -- In my city, the utility bill is a "token" to accept trash at the transfer station. They either stamp or punch it each time, so you can only make a drop-off twice per billing cycle.
I can always print the PDF scan of the bill -- I do so when submitting expense reports for reimbursement. But although I doubt the city transfer station would accept that, it has never been an issue for me, in the past 8-9 years.
Geez, do you guys really find it that difficult to pay your own bills? Are you too busy fighting evil or something?
Not that it's any of your business, but I started using a bill-payment service when I was traveling every week for a consulting job. I could handle them on-line at any time, and it was one less thing to do when I was home on the weekends. And, I didn't have to worry about just barely missing a bill due date.
But I'd really like to say "Pay the water bill automatically as long as it doesn't exceed $X". Can Paytrust, or anyone else, do that?
Yes, Paytrust can do that. If the bill exceeds your specified limit, you get email notifying you that the bill was not paid and requires action.
Even for paper bills: they scan the bill and determine the amount -- I think it's done with OCR rather than a human. Long ago, I had them pick up a the wrong payment amount from a bill, but other than that it's been accurate.
Martin Luther King's niece remembers it differently: She claims that Nixon voted for the 1957 Civil Rights Law, and that Kennedy voted against it. When MLK's father appealed to both Nixon and Kennedy after his son was arrested in Atlanta, Nixon remained silent (he was VP at the time), but Kennedy came to his aid. By several accounts, that appears to have been the turning point.
The Civil Rights Act of 1968 was certainly the trigger for the Wallace candidacy, but after the blowout of 1972 (Nixon against McGovern), the South was solidly Democratic for Carter in 1976. Reagan won handily in the South in 1980 and 1984, but those were hardly competitive contests, at least for electoral votes. Ditto for Bush in 1988.
Clinton split the South in 1992 and 1996. It wasn't until 2000 that Bush swept the South in a competitive election. So, it's not accurate to say that the South was majority Republican until then. But, it coincided with a shift in state governments to the Republicans, as well.
Why did it happen? One thing that seems to be lost on many people is why the South was overwhelmingly Democrat until the past few decades. It was because of resentment against the Republicans for Reconstruction, in which racist laws and policies were forcibly dismantled by the federal government to enforce the 14th Amendment. These attitudes persisted until the late 60's. In many states, most elections were decided by the winner of the Democratic primary -- the outcome of the general election was never in doubt.
However, the fiscal policies of these Democrats were mostly indistinguishable from the Republicans (well, at least the Republicans at that time, which shouldn't be confused with the spendthrifts we have today). So, what happened?
I'm not going to try to explain it for all southern states, but there's no doubt in my mind about what happened in Texas: the shift from Democrat to Republican occurred over fiscal and social policy. It wasn't about racism, it was about taxation and spending issues, and social issues (abortion, gay rights).
Democrats that would have been Republicans in any other non-Southern state were marginalized by their association with the national party. Some of them switched parties, but others hung on they either retired or were defeated by a Republican candidate. As a result, every major state office and both houses of the legislature switched control from Democrat to Republican in Texas over the span of about 30 years.
I was an early adopter with Paytust (back when they were PayMybills.com). They were bought out by Intuit.
A clarification: PayMyBills.com was originally a separate company. They were acquired by Paytrust.com in September 2000.
I started with PayMyBills. I abandoned them and switched to Paytrust after PayMyBills got behind on processing incoming bills and were making late payments.
Slashdot Mirror
Something that I had observed in my car was that my fuel economy increased as my speed increased.
I've experienced the same thing, although my sample size is still too small to be conclusive.
If I can sustain 75 mph (which is possible in parts of my state), I seem to get about 29-30 mpg. If speed limits require me to drive slower (60-65), I get 26-27 mpg.
In the United States and some other places, they didn't bother to do that. Instead, the wireless networks are overlaid on top of the landline networks, so there's no way for the originating CO in another area code to know that it's placing a call to a wireless phone -- or, even if it does, it can't bill the caller differently because it's in the same NPA/NXX as landline phones. So they came up with the crazy idea of billing the wireless subscriber for all airtime regardless of whether the wireless phone is placing or receiving a call.
There's nothing in the US phone system that prevents billing someone for toll charges if it's in the same area code. When the area codes covered larger areas (because there were fewer phones), it was quite common.
The reason that cellular subscribers pay for the airtime for receiving calls (or at least have it decremented from their monthly pool of minutes) is because "local" calls are free through most of the US.
Elsewhere, "metered" service is the norm, even for a call down the block. The charges are small for "local" calls, but not zero. In the US, local calls within your calling area are "free", i.e. they are included in your monthly fee. Metered service has been (and may still be) available in a few places, but it is not common in the US.
In my state, the public utility commission expressly prohibits charging any kind of per-minute fee or additional fee for a call from a land-line phone unless the number '1' is dialed first. Therefore, if calling a cell-phone in your local calling area required the caller to pay airtime fees, it would effectively be treated as a long-distance call.
The cell phone companies in the US wisely recognized that such a policy would greatly discourage people from calling cell phone numbers. Therefore, in order for cell phones to be treated as "local" calls within a calling area, the cell phone subscriber has to pay for both incoming and outgoing airtime.
GPS with WAAS will replace the glidescope. It's computed on the fly.
With enough satellites in view, GPS provides altitude. That can be (and has been) used to generate a glideslope indicator that is indistinguishable from one generated by an ILS (instrument landing system).
However, GPS doesn't always provide sufficient accuracy for an approach to a 200-foot decision height (the minimum for a Category 1 approach). And it doesn't quickly (and clearly) indicate when the GPS signal is insufficient, either because of satellites in view, satellite geometry, atmospheric distortion, or a sudden malfunction.
WAAS (Wide Area Augmentation Service) addresses this problem. A network of 25 monitoring reference stations across the US measure the received signals, and generate a GPS correction signal which is broadcast from a pair of geosynchronous satellites over the US.
It is an FCC rule, not an FAA rule.
Actually, it's both:
The FCC rule says you can't use a cell phone while airborne.
The FAA rule says that the operator must prohibit the use of electronic devices in flight, unless the OPERATOR is sure that they will not interfere with the aircraft systems.
Exactly... An engine failure in something as slow as a Citabria would be easy to to "pancake" as they call it. Chances are he never saw the mountain which is very easy to happen..
Fossett was an experienced pilot. He wouldn't have been flying in IMC (instrument meteorological conditions) in the vicinity of a mountain below the minimum sector altitude, at least not intentionally.
Given that he was in a different area than he was expected, I suspect Steve had some sort of medical problem that incapacitated him. If the airplane was trimmed properly, it could have flown for a while before impacting the mountain at cruise speed.
Certainty of lack of bias generally indicates denial.
I like that! Can I use it? :-)
Fox News is fair and balanced - it said so right there on the screen!
Long ago when Fox News was just getting started, I posed the rhetorical question:
Can an organization that incessantly promotes itself as "fair" and/or "balanced" possibly be either one?
Heh, I went to the USA for the first just a year ago, and I was shocked by fox news as well. The reporter started to tell an interviewee that they were wrong! Very strange indeed.
This is standard fare in US news, at least in television news. Fox is hardly the only one to do it.
The adversarial relationship between broadcast journalists and their targets used to be confined to the Sunday morning talk shows and other forums that were the rough equivalent of a newspaper's editorial page. But now, even your standard talking head is predisposed to conflict -- because that's what generates better ratings. Remember, they have to compete with "Survivor" and "Big Brother".
It's also another way in which a particular reporter's bias is manifested: the questions they ask are designed to entrap or promote the subject of the interview.
I know that sounds a bit strong, but I was just so shocked at the level of dishonest manipulation Fox News are involved in. And horrified that there are people in the USA who actually watch this trash and BELIEVE that it's real news!
The first thing one must realize is that in the US, news and entertainment are almost indistinguishable. Fox News is just one example of an professionally-produced entertainment program that is carefully targeted at its intended audience.
The second thing one must realize that every other news organization does the same. Their target demographics are just different from Fox News.
Like the other poster that responded, I read a large variety of news sources. Fox News is the most blatant about it, but every news organization exhibits bias, usually by careful omission of facts that don't support their viewpoint.
the LHC will end it quicker than that. They estimate some 90 days until they've got their repairs done ;)
I was hoping to see an article posted about this, but your joke is as good a place as any to do so:
LHC to restart in Spring 2009.
The repairs wouldn't be completed until the beginning of the LHC's planned winter shutdown -- for either planned maintenance or to conserve electricity, depending on which article you read.
So businesses merely need to refrain from putting social security numbers, drivers license numbers, and passwords in email and other insecure communication channels and they're good.
If any business is currently sending SS and driver's license numbers via email, they are being irresponsible.
There's a posting here from someone that observed the entire episode:
The story behind the Palin e-mail hacking
Pre-emptive warning: it's a partisan blog, but the explanation is quoted in full.
Short version:
The original cracker attributed his /b/ posting to another yahoo.com address. He claims to have done all this through a single proxy, but admits that he is a bit scared of the FBI at the moment.
The fact is they didn't make SUVs back then.
Yes, they did. The Chevy Suburban was first built in 1935, and the International Harvester Travelall was built from 1953 to 1975.
He might find this meets some of his needs:
Jitterbug
However, it looks like you have to also buy service through them.
I've had a cell phone rep lie to me, probably several times, possibly not even on purpose.
How does someone lie, but not on purpose?
Call it clueless, misinformed, or just plain incorrect. But, a lie is an intentional falsehood.
Ray, that's a funny picture, but it's not even a good photoshop job:
http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/palin.asp
Pardon my ignorance, but what in the hell is a "transfer station" and why would you drop your trash there?
In this context, it's where the curbside pickup trucks transfer it to larger trucks for transport to the landfill or recycle center.
I have carts provided by the city that can be picked up and emptied by mechanical means, so the driver never leaves the cab. But, if you have a bulky item or a large amount that won't fit in the trash or recycle cart, you can deliver it yourself to the transfer station. The utility bill is used as a token to limit the number of "free" trips.
The issue isnt 'receiving your bills (notification that you owe)', the issue is who controls the initiation and amount of money being transferred from you to who you owe. Eg, who has access to *take* money directly from you, in an amount that they have determined.
Agreed, and that why I like Paytrust. I've authorized only Paytrust to take money from my checking account, which they use to pay my bills. And I control the disposition of bills upon receipt, through their website.
I really like the idea of 'outsourcing' bill paying but I don't trust anyone to manage it properly except myself.
It's certainly not "fire and forget". I monitor bill payments with a calendar in Quicken, and reconcile my checking account automatically (online) a couple of times a week. So, I recognize a missing payment before it becomes a problem, and make a manual payment if necessary.
Since moving to Paytrust, the problems has always been the biller. At one point, a company actually cut off my service for non-payment, and it was Paytrust that provided the proof that the bill was paid via EFT.
Except for the utility bill itself, which in quite a few situations is accepted as "proof" that you live at the given address.
That's a good point -- In my city, the utility bill is a "token" to accept trash at the transfer station. They either stamp or punch it each time, so you can only make a drop-off twice per billing cycle.
I can always print the PDF scan of the bill -- I do so when submitting expense reports for reimbursement. But although I doubt the city transfer station would accept that, it has never been an issue for me, in the past 8-9 years.
Ah, he reveals everything we need to know about him. He's too busy listening to Rush Limbaugh to pay his own bills.
No, all I did was reveal that you are a partisan hack that seized the opportunity to turn a lame joke into a political attack.
Oh, and I mostly listen to the comedy channel(s) when I listen to my radio.
Geez, do you guys really find it that difficult to pay your own bills? Are you too busy fighting evil or something?
Not that it's any of your business, but I started using a bill-payment service when I was traveling every week for a consulting job. I could handle them on-line at any time, and it was one less thing to do when I was home on the weekends. And, I didn't have to worry about just barely missing a bill due date.
But I'd really like to say "Pay the water bill automatically as long as it doesn't exceed $X". Can Paytrust, or anyone else, do that?
Yes, Paytrust can do that. If the bill exceeds your specified limit, you get email notifying you that the bill was not paid and requires action.
Even for paper bills: they scan the bill and determine the amount -- I think it's done with OCR rather than a human. Long ago, I had them pick up a the wrong payment amount from a bill, but other than that it's been accurate.
Martin Luther King's niece remembers it differently: She claims that Nixon voted for the 1957 Civil Rights Law, and that Kennedy voted against it. When MLK's father appealed to both Nixon and Kennedy after his son was arrested in Atlanta, Nixon remained silent (he was VP at the time), but Kennedy came to his aid. By several accounts, that appears to have been the turning point.
The Civil Rights Act of 1968 was certainly the trigger for the Wallace candidacy, but after the blowout of 1972 (Nixon against McGovern), the South was solidly Democratic for Carter in 1976. Reagan won handily in the South in 1980 and 1984, but those were hardly competitive contests, at least for electoral votes. Ditto for Bush in 1988.
Clinton split the South in 1992 and 1996. It wasn't until 2000 that Bush swept the South in a competitive election. So, it's not accurate to say that the South was majority Republican until then. But, it coincided with a shift in state governments to the Republicans, as well.
Why did it happen? One thing that seems to be lost on many people is why the South was overwhelmingly Democrat until the past few decades. It was because of resentment against the Republicans for Reconstruction, in which racist laws and policies were forcibly dismantled by the federal government to enforce the 14th Amendment. These attitudes persisted until the late 60's. In many states, most elections were decided by the winner of the Democratic primary -- the outcome of the general election was never in doubt.
However, the fiscal policies of these Democrats were mostly indistinguishable from the Republicans (well, at least the Republicans at that time, which shouldn't be confused with the spendthrifts we have today). So, what happened?
I'm not going to try to explain it for all southern states, but there's no doubt in my mind about what happened in Texas: the shift from Democrat to Republican occurred over fiscal and social policy. It wasn't about racism, it was about taxation and spending issues, and social issues (abortion, gay rights).
Democrats that would have been Republicans in any other non-Southern state were marginalized by their association with the national party. Some of them switched parties, but others hung on they either retired or were defeated by a Republican candidate. As a result, every major state office and both houses of the legislature switched control from Democrat to Republican in Texas over the span of about 30 years.
I was an early adopter with Paytust (back when they were PayMybills.com). They were bought out by Intuit.
A clarification: PayMyBills.com was originally a separate company. They were acquired by Paytrust.com in September 2000.
I started with PayMyBills. I abandoned them and switched to Paytrust after PayMyBills got behind on processing incoming bills and were making late payments.
Intuit acquired Paytrust in late 2004.