Is there a particular reason you have so many phones, especially since I thought European phones all have exchangeable SIM chips? For that matter, I'm aware of multiple line phones so somebody can have a work line and a home line on the same device.
I don't dispute that some will have multiple phones, or replace them faster. But I figure the pace will eventually slow for the non-techie types.
As for unlocking - I'm in the USA, many phones don't even have SIM chips, which complicates unlocking/transferring. And good luck getting a decent phone without a contract for under a hundred US.
Still, I'll note that they go on about this being the 'fastest growing part of the US waste stream'. First, I imagine that it's the fastest growing part of the WORLD's waste stream. Ever considered how many cellphones China has? While yes, 350k cell phones might be tossed every day, and this seems a lot, it's scare tactics. First, the growth is unsustainable. Much longer and you'd have to assume either everybody starts carrying multiple phones or starts disposing of them faster. Not incredibly likely. After all, cellphones are starting to reach the point where they already do everything people want, so they won't necessarily trade out every couple years, plus they've improved battery technology substantially - I'd imagine that a large number of replacement cell phones were because the battery wasn't lasting very long anymore.
Second, consider appliances. How many cell phones does it take to equal a fridge? Figure a fridge lasts 20 years. That means with a 2 year lifespan for cellphones, you'd only toss 10 cellphones per fridge. Maybe 20 if you figure on being a 2 phone family. The fridge is still a LOT more material.
Still, doesn't mean we can't do more by making chargers more universal, remembering that the batteries are replaceable, and get the cell phone companies to stop locking their phones up so tight that poorer people can get a donated phone, maybe spend $20 on a new battery and add a prepaid plan chip. After all, reuse beats recycling in the chart I was taught - Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.
I mean, it doesn't really matter what you're recycling, doesn't it make sense to reduce shipping and recycle the stuff where it can go a short distance to a facility to be turned into a user product again? IE recycle paper near paper mills/printers?
, would that increase costs for shipping the waste there?
Not really, the stuff is inert until you start disassembling and burning stuff. What it would do is increase the cost such that Guiyu wouldn't be making so much profit selling the resulting materials. Though substantial infrastructure upgrades(IE a PROPER recycling facility) would be more efficient, but would take decades or more to return on the investment.
ecyclers would probably look for another poor nation to accept the waste
why are these ecycler moving the waste to begin with?
Let's say I'm a recycling collection facility. Doesn't matter what I take. I collect various recyclable materials, from batteries to aluminum cans to paper to whole computers and refrigerators. I don't actually recycle anything myself. What I do is collect and sort the stuff. When I have around a semi-load of it, I get on the market for this stuff, keeping in mind shipping costs, and sell it to the highest bidder(IE who's willing to pay me the most), or to the lowest for stuff where I have to pay for them to take it.
International shipping is cheap - especially since with the trade balance ships are normally quite a bit lighter on their way back to china. So Guiyu wins the bids and gets the stuff because their 'processing' is extremely cheap and they gain enough money from the resulting materials to make a profit.
then the material would stay where it started its life cycle as waste. how would it be dealt with then?
1. If it's still economically viable to recycle in a less polluting manner, then it'll get recycled 2. If the host nation STILL insists it be recycled, you'll see recycling fees tacked on to either the purchase or disposal end to deal with the added expense. Like car tires here in the USA. 3. If they don't, it'll be placed in a landfill until an economical method to recycle it comes along(or raw material expenses goes up) making it profitable to dig it out of the landfill.
When somebody sends out an email with incorrect information? Oops, I just noticed that I said 3 pm for the meeting, but I forgot about the timezone change so it's actually 2 pm. Or I just mistyped. Whatever.
Do a recall and replace - that way you don't have people thinking the second email was just a duplicate.
But that's a capability/requirement built into the broadcast systems. It's not like the president's plane can brute force override radio transmissions.
While he probably occasionally brings some journalists along, I don't remember ever hearing about this being a regular thing. Being on the flights is normally restricted to government types.
Using a smaller plane probably wouldn't actually make it that much cheaper, given all the other expenses associated with the plane. Then, as other posters have mentioned, often the president's flight actually requires multiple transport planes(as opposed to fighter escort), so there goes financial savings with a smaller one if you go from 3 planes to 4, etc...
What happens if he wants to hold a conference with all of his departmental secretaries? That'd fill the plane up pretty fast.
I was just trying to figure out how small of a plane we could realistically expect the president to use. Given the sheer expense of converting a plane to meet presidential standards, it's a case were the cost of the airframe ends up being a minor cost. So you might as well go with a bus over a SUV.
Heh, good point about the employers. I misread it as 'employees' first, and started to say 'more like 300 million employers'. Ah well... Doesn't change the fact that he's responsible to and for all US citizens.
I don't care about impressing anybody else; I'd be more impressed if a visiting dignitary said "Such meager conditions for such a powerful man!" and our president said "I work for the American people and refuse to waste their money for my pleasure."
Great, fine, dandy, but not many cultures think this way. In many cultures the president, as the head of government, is seen as the representative of his people - and what people couldn't afford to nicely appoint their representative, their head of government?
Whether or not the current CEOs are worth the money paid to them is something of a different argument. In many cases, just like for the POTUS, you never now the complete ramifications of any given president until well after they've left office.
For example, I believe that most of the union deals/labor contracts predate the current CEOs of the big three. You also have unhealthy amounts of 'good ol'boy' and 'star pitcher' syndrome. By that I mean that they select people they know, but also go after 'the best', paying in competition whatever they have to to get 'the best'. Note: The best is subjective and hard to measure. It inflates costs.
Of course, I'm at the point that the Big three executive boards could walk onto a used car lot and end up paying the new car retail price for a used one. Horrible, horrible, bargaining skills.
Back when the Big three were profitable companies, and the CEO functioned much like the president, it made sense. Even now, assuming the CEOs operated like they're supposed to, they should/would be quite valuable.
The CEOs time would be, much like the president's, be spent in high level analysis to plot the future course of the company, also auditing and motivation. Time on the factory floor, for a manufacturing company like GM/Ford, should be expected.
For that matter - Consider this. You can expect about 250 days of work out of an employee a year. Traveling commercially, for the most part, you can figure on losing two days of work whenever you fly him, due to connections, air port security, lack of direct flights to many locations, etc...
Now figure we have an extremely well paid employee - $1M a year. Not shabby, but not 'overblown CEO' level. Each If a (rental) private plane costs $2k but cuts this in half, it makes sense to rent a plane to ship him around when you have to. Why? You're effectively paying him $4k a DAY. The plane's cheap in comparison. Scale down if you have to send a team, scale up as the employee gets paid more(more valuable). Then consider that the Big three are global companies, with holdings all over the planet, including Asia, Europe, and South America. Even more time & effort can be saved when the CEO has to visit a foreign facility.
I also figure that while they might be dropping the CEO plane, they're keeping a number of their corporate jets in a 'pool' - normally used by troubleshooters, managers and such. For a company that large and spread around, having a few planes makes sense.
The driving stunt was more about making the CEOs bow down before congress to get their money than saving actual money.
By the time you finish adding the required countermeasures, refueling capabilities, distinguished visitor quarters, etc... The larger the plane, the longer the range, on average. You might as well go with the larger plane. It'd probably cost more to shoehorn everything into the smaller plane anyways.
Remember, impressing foreign delegates and heads of state(like oil sheiks) is still part of the president's job. Impressions of luxury is part of that.
Not to mention I agree with the argument that the president, as much as possible, should be free to concentrate on the duties of being the president. He's effectively the CEO of the largest company of the planet. He has well over a million employees, is responsible for over 300 million citizens, life and death.
By hostile EW I meant stuff like the PsyOPs missions - where you're trying to break or override the enemy's communication equipment, as opposed to simply trying to break their targeting locks and such.
You do realize that even if it goes forward as planned it's not going to enter service until Obama is on his way out, even assuming he's a two term president? (Delivery of first craft in 2017). Well, he might get to fly on it for his last presidential flight.;)
Presumably, there is usually some need for a larger transport.
Exactly. Just off the top of my head: 1. Should be able to take his family. 4 including the president. 2. Security detail. 4-8 Secret Service 3. Presidential staff. 3 aides 4. Be able to haul a Secretary along(like 'of state). 3 more people 5. Contain extensive communication abilities 6. Have transcontinental range 7. Mount defensive equipment normally seen on military craft 8. People to run the plane. 8 more people (dedicated EW and comm people bump it up some).
I get 26 people. While a 747 in most configurations can seat over 300, we don't really know how much space all the comm and defensive equipment take up. The 300 figure also doesn't figure in actual cooking areas, a medical facility, office space, etc... They added the ability to aerially refuel. Heh - the 26 people is just the crew, the actual plane has a 76 passenger capacity. They also upped the max speed a touch.
On the other hand, the Senate scolded the American Big Three for their corporate jets. Maybe the Air Force should be a better role model, and go for something smaller.
I understand the scolding in the context, but I still believe that after a certain point, a corporate or even personal plane makes sense. While a corporate plane might be a little slower in the air, it has the advantage that it can fly direct to anywhere in it's range, with extremely flexible takeoff times.
When somebody is that valuable, it makes sense. For the big three, a mid-point would have been if all three(and their assistants), had taken the same private plane.
For the president, he has to worry about presenting himself to 50 different states covering a quarter of the globe. He also has to represent the country to the world - adding in other areas. He's actually an active target for assassination, so security is very much a concern. He has to be contactable at all times for security and political reasons. You have to worry about the nuclear football.
This whole thing is that the current craft are 19 years old and pushing the uneconomical part of the maintenance spectrum; they have a lot of hours on them. Time to retire them and get new planes. Now they're doing the equivalent of new car shopping - which plane is the best for us?
Well Air Force One is suppose to be the ultimate warfare command center in the sky. Able to control the whole of the US armed forces and override any media coverage if needed. I think flares are just the tip of the ice berg so to speak.
Actually, while it's the top warfare command center when the president's on it, I'd hardly call it the ultimate, as AWACS planes have far more capability in that aspect.
There's a lot more than flares in there, but exactly what's in there is still classified. I imagine it has both commercial and military satellite communication methods, various air to ground radios, etc...
It's not designed to do hostile EW warfare. While I'm sure they can do telecasts from it, it can hardly 'override' ground broadcasts on it's own.
What about the people who CAN'T get vaccines? Like newborns, people alergic to eggs, had a reaction in the past, have a supressed immune system due to disease or drugs for a transplant?
Another point would be that vaccines, depending on the vaccine, are only 90-99% effective. Some people's immune systems either don't learn, or don't keep the antibodies. I have an aunt like that. You can vaccinate her against chicken pox all you like, 3 months later or so and she'll be vulnerable to it again.
oh yeah, you could use that magnet to wipe the platter while you've got the drive open.
Probably not strong enough, sadly enough. In order to store more data in increasingly smaller spaces, platters are made to be much more resistant to magnetic changes today. Same with tape and stuff.
Depends on the value of the information. Are you willing to spend $500-$10000 on a professional recovery service, or is your information not worth that much? Can it be reconstructed through different means?
The DoD has to worry about enemies getting ahold of the disk and sending it to a multi-million dollar clean-lab with stuff like electron microscopes and post-doc engineers to recover the information.
Something properly classified 'Top Secret' is done so on the basis of it being possible for it to cause 'exceptionally grave damage'. IE lives lost, cities nuked, embarrasing the POTUS, etc...
The reason you destroy the information in so many different ways is in case one of the ways fail. For example, degaussing is often possible in-house, but what if the degausser doesn't work well enough? On the other hand, sending it to a facility capable of smelting it down requires transporting it - an opportunity for it to be lost. So you degauss it first to make it harder to retrieve data in the facility, then send it to the smelter 'to make sure'.
You're probably thinking about potential differences in potential. Run copper cable between two sufficiently separated ground rods(like to a different building), and you can actually get some impressive voltage on the cable.
It can get interesting when you're dealing with equipment that wants separate signal grounds.
Personally, I'd go for what I saw in the military - a sliding lockout panel for manual transfers. It blocks the breaker for the power generator being turned on while the utility breaker is on. To go to backup, you flip the utility breaker off, allowing the metal panel to slide such that the backup generator is no longer blocked - but blocking the main breaker in the process. Reverse to go back to utility.
If you want, wire in a small status light to tell you which power sources are actually providing power.
Slashdot Mirror
Is there a particular reason you have so many phones, especially since I thought European phones all have exchangeable SIM chips? For that matter, I'm aware of multiple line phones so somebody can have a work line and a home line on the same device.
I don't dispute that some will have multiple phones, or replace them faster. But I figure the pace will eventually slow for the non-techie types.
As for unlocking - I'm in the USA, many phones don't even have SIM chips, which complicates unlocking/transferring. And good luck getting a decent phone without a contract for under a hundred US.
Still, I'll note that they go on about this being the 'fastest growing part of the US waste stream'. First, I imagine that it's the fastest growing part of the WORLD's waste stream. Ever considered how many cellphones China has? While yes, 350k cell phones might be tossed every day, and this seems a lot, it's scare tactics. First, the growth is unsustainable. Much longer and you'd have to assume either everybody starts carrying multiple phones or starts disposing of them faster. Not incredibly likely. After all, cellphones are starting to reach the point where they already do everything people want, so they won't necessarily trade out every couple years, plus they've improved battery technology substantially - I'd imagine that a large number of replacement cell phones were because the battery wasn't lasting very long anymore.
Second, consider appliances. How many cell phones does it take to equal a fridge? Figure a fridge lasts 20 years. That means with a 2 year lifespan for cellphones, you'd only toss 10 cellphones per fridge. Maybe 20 if you figure on being a 2 phone family. The fridge is still a LOT more material.
Still, doesn't mean we can't do more by making chargers more universal, remembering that the batteries are replaceable, and get the cell phone companies to stop locking their phones up so tight that poorer people can get a donated phone, maybe spend $20 on a new battery and add a prepaid plan chip. After all, reuse beats recycling in the chart I was taught - Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.
I wouldn't consider this flamebait.
I mean, it doesn't really matter what you're recycling, doesn't it make sense to reduce shipping and recycle the stuff where it can go a short distance to a facility to be turned into a user product again? IE recycle paper near paper mills/printers?
Same deal with our electronics.
, would that increase costs for shipping the waste there?
Not really, the stuff is inert until you start disassembling and burning stuff. What it would do is increase the cost such that Guiyu wouldn't be making so much profit selling the resulting materials. Though substantial infrastructure upgrades(IE a PROPER recycling facility) would be more efficient, but would take decades or more to return on the investment.
ecyclers would probably look for another poor nation to accept the waste
why are these ecycler moving the waste to begin with?
Let's say I'm a recycling collection facility. Doesn't matter what I take. I collect various recyclable materials, from batteries to aluminum cans to paper to whole computers and refrigerators. I don't actually recycle anything myself. What I do is collect and sort the stuff. When I have around a semi-load of it, I get on the market for this stuff, keeping in mind shipping costs, and sell it to the highest bidder(IE who's willing to pay me the most), or to the lowest for stuff where I have to pay for them to take it.
International shipping is cheap - especially since with the trade balance ships are normally quite a bit lighter on their way back to china. So Guiyu wins the bids and gets the stuff because their 'processing' is extremely cheap and they gain enough money from the resulting materials to make a profit.
then the material would stay where it started its life cycle as waste. how would it be dealt with then?
1. If it's still economically viable to recycle in a less polluting manner, then it'll get recycled
2. If the host nation STILL insists it be recycled, you'll see recycling fees tacked on to either the purchase or disposal end to deal with the added expense. Like car tires here in the USA.
3. If they don't, it'll be placed in a landfill until an economical method to recycle it comes along(or raw material expenses goes up) making it profitable to dig it out of the landfill.
Given that it quotes the plane as 'over six feet high', and carrying 53,611 gallons of 'gas'. I think the article is a tad over simplified.
The article does mention where the journalists are boarded - but doesn't mention whether this is regular.
When somebody sends out an email with incorrect information? Oops, I just noticed that I said 3 pm for the meeting, but I forgot about the timezone change so it's actually 2 pm. Or I just mistyped. Whatever.
Do a recall and replace - that way you don't have people thinking the second email was just a duplicate.
But that's a capability/requirement built into the broadcast systems. It's not like the president's plane can brute force override radio transmissions.
While he probably occasionally brings some journalists along, I don't remember ever hearing about this being a regular thing. Being on the flights is normally restricted to government types.
Using a smaller plane probably wouldn't actually make it that much cheaper, given all the other expenses associated with the plane. Then, as other posters have mentioned, often the president's flight actually requires multiple transport planes(as opposed to fighter escort), so there goes financial savings with a smaller one if you go from 3 planes to 4, etc...
What happens if he wants to hold a conference with all of his departmental secretaries? That'd fill the plane up pretty fast.
I was just trying to figure out how small of a plane we could realistically expect the president to use. Given the sheer expense of converting a plane to meet presidential standards, it's a case were the cost of the airframe ends up being a minor cost. So you might as well go with a bus over a SUV.
Heh, good point about the employers. I misread it as 'employees' first, and started to say 'more like 300 million employers'. Ah well... Doesn't change the fact that he's responsible to and for all US citizens.
I don't care about impressing anybody else; I'd be more impressed if a visiting dignitary said "Such meager conditions for such a powerful man!" and our president said "I work for the American people and refuse to waste their money for my pleasure."
Great, fine, dandy, but not many cultures think this way. In many cultures the president, as the head of government, is seen as the representative of his people - and what people couldn't afford to nicely appoint their representative, their head of government?
Whether or not the current CEOs are worth the money paid to them is something of a different argument. In many cases, just like for the POTUS, you never now the complete ramifications of any given president until well after they've left office.
For example, I believe that most of the union deals/labor contracts predate the current CEOs of the big three. You also have unhealthy amounts of 'good ol'boy' and 'star pitcher' syndrome. By that I mean that they select people they know, but also go after 'the best', paying in competition whatever they have to to get 'the best'. Note: The best is subjective and hard to measure. It inflates costs.
Of course, I'm at the point that the Big three executive boards could walk onto a used car lot and end up paying the new car retail price for a used one. Horrible, horrible, bargaining skills.
Back when the Big three were profitable companies, and the CEO functioned much like the president, it made sense. Even now, assuming the CEOs operated like they're supposed to, they should/would be quite valuable.
The CEOs time would be, much like the president's, be spent in high level analysis to plot the future course of the company, also auditing and motivation. Time on the factory floor, for a manufacturing company like GM/Ford, should be expected.
For that matter - Consider this. You can expect about 250 days of work out of an employee a year. Traveling commercially, for the most part, you can figure on losing two days of work whenever you fly him, due to connections, air port security, lack of direct flights to many locations, etc...
Now figure we have an extremely well paid employee - $1M a year. Not shabby, but not 'overblown CEO' level. Each If a (rental) private plane costs $2k but cuts this in half, it makes sense to rent a plane to ship him around when you have to. Why? You're effectively paying him $4k a DAY. The plane's cheap in comparison. Scale down if you have to send a team, scale up as the employee gets paid more(more valuable). Then consider that the Big three are global companies, with holdings all over the planet, including Asia, Europe, and South America. Even more time & effort can be saved when the CEO has to visit a foreign facility.
I also figure that while they might be dropping the CEO plane, they're keeping a number of their corporate jets in a 'pool' - normally used by troubleshooters, managers and such. For a company that large and spread around, having a few planes makes sense.
The driving stunt was more about making the CEOs bow down before congress to get their money than saving actual money.
I was thinking about how far somebody would have to travel to visit any point of the USA. Hawaii increases the travel distance substantially.
By the time you finish adding the required countermeasures, refueling capabilities, distinguished visitor quarters, etc... The larger the plane, the longer the range, on average. You might as well go with the larger plane. It'd probably cost more to shoehorn everything into the smaller plane anyways.
Remember, impressing foreign delegates and heads of state(like oil sheiks) is still part of the president's job. Impressions of luxury is part of that.
Not to mention I agree with the argument that the president, as much as possible, should be free to concentrate on the duties of being the president. He's effectively the CEO of the largest company of the planet. He has well over a million employees, is responsible for over 300 million citizens, life and death.
By hostile EW I meant stuff like the PsyOPs missions - where you're trying to break or override the enemy's communication equipment, as opposed to simply trying to break their targeting locks and such.
You do realize that even if it goes forward as planned it's not going to enter service until Obama is on his way out, even assuming he's a two term president? (Delivery of first craft in 2017). Well, he might get to fly on it for his last presidential flight. ;)
Assuming all goes well.
Presumably, there is usually some need for a larger transport.
Exactly. Just off the top of my head:
1. Should be able to take his family. 4 including the president.
2. Security detail. 4-8 Secret Service
3. Presidential staff. 3 aides
4. Be able to haul a Secretary along(like 'of state). 3 more people
5. Contain extensive communication abilities
6. Have transcontinental range
7. Mount defensive equipment normally seen on military craft
8. People to run the plane. 8 more people (dedicated EW and comm people bump it up some).
I get 26 people. While a 747 in most configurations can seat over 300, we don't really know how much space all the comm and defensive equipment take up. The 300 figure also doesn't figure in actual cooking areas, a medical facility, office space, etc... They added the ability to aerially refuel. Heh - the 26 people is just the crew, the actual plane has a 76 passenger capacity. They also upped the max speed a touch.
On the other hand, the Senate scolded the American Big Three for their corporate jets. Maybe the Air Force should be a better role model, and go for something smaller.
I understand the scolding in the context, but I still believe that after a certain point, a corporate or even personal plane makes sense. While a corporate plane might be a little slower in the air, it has the advantage that it can fly direct to anywhere in it's range, with extremely flexible takeoff times.
When somebody is that valuable, it makes sense. For the big three, a mid-point would have been if all three(and their assistants), had taken the same private plane.
For the president, he has to worry about presenting himself to 50 different states covering a quarter of the globe. He also has to represent the country to the world - adding in other areas. He's actually an active target for assassination, so security is very much a concern. He has to be contactable at all times for security and political reasons. You have to worry about the nuclear football.
This whole thing is that the current craft are 19 years old and pushing the uneconomical part of the maintenance spectrum; they have a lot of hours on them. Time to retire them and get new planes. Now they're doing the equivalent of new car shopping - which plane is the best for us?
Well Air Force One is suppose to be the ultimate warfare command center in the sky. Able to control the whole of the US armed forces and override any media coverage if needed. I think flares are just the tip of the ice berg so to speak.
Actually, while it's the top warfare command center when the president's on it, I'd hardly call it the ultimate, as AWACS planes have far more capability in that aspect.
There's a lot more than flares in there, but exactly what's in there is still classified. I imagine it has both commercial and military satellite communication methods, various air to ground radios, etc...
It's not designed to do hostile EW warfare. While I'm sure they can do telecasts from it, it can hardly 'override' ground broadcasts on it's own.
I still have mine, so I'll be fine
What about the people who CAN'T get vaccines? Like newborns, people alergic to eggs, had a reaction in the past, have a supressed immune system due to disease or drugs for a transplant?
Another point would be that vaccines, depending on the vaccine, are only 90-99% effective. Some people's immune systems either don't learn, or don't keep the antibodies. I have an aunt like that. You can vaccinate her against chicken pox all you like, 3 months later or so and she'll be vulnerable to it again.
Herd immunity is still a good thing.
oh yeah, you could use that magnet to wipe the platter while you've got the drive open.
Probably not strong enough, sadly enough. In order to store more data in increasingly smaller spaces, platters are made to be much more resistant to magnetic changes today. Same with tape and stuff.
Depends on the value of the information. Are you willing to spend $500-$10000 on a professional recovery service, or is your information not worth that much? Can it be reconstructed through different means?
The DoD has to worry about enemies getting ahold of the disk and sending it to a multi-million dollar clean-lab with stuff like electron microscopes and post-doc engineers to recover the information.
Something properly classified 'Top Secret' is done so on the basis of it being possible for it to cause 'exceptionally grave damage'. IE lives lost, cities nuked, embarrasing the POTUS, etc...
The reason you destroy the information in so many different ways is in case one of the ways fail. For example, degaussing is often possible in-house, but what if the degausser doesn't work well enough? On the other hand, sending it to a facility capable of smelting it down requires transporting it - an opportunity for it to be lost. So you degauss it first to make it harder to retrieve data in the facility, then send it to the smelter 'to make sure'.
From my understanding of the way it works, you'd STILL hold the copyright, you've just granted an unlimited license to everyone with that.
Like the guy said, avoiding making copyrighted material is actually pretty difficult.
Personally, the short stories I wrote back in school for class would count as copyrighted, so I'm a copyright holder.
You're probably thinking about potential differences in potential. Run copper cable between two sufficiently separated ground rods(like to a different building), and you can actually get some impressive voltage on the cable.
It can get interesting when you're dealing with equipment that wants separate signal grounds.
Check your sarcasm detector...
Personally, I'd go for what I saw in the military - a sliding lockout panel for manual transfers. It blocks the breaker for the power generator being turned on while the utility breaker is on. To go to backup, you flip the utility breaker off, allowing the metal panel to slide such that the backup generator is no longer blocked - but blocking the main breaker in the process. Reverse to go back to utility.
If you want, wire in a small status light to tell you which power sources are actually providing power.