I have actually known quite a few junkies with drinking problems, but most of them hadn't had sex in years outside of the services they provide (usually clothed) for free drugs.
The diet story consisted of an interview with some truly skankish woman who claimed that every time she got hungry she had sex instead and then otherwise kept herself too drunk and high to go out to eat or visit a grocery store.
She claimed to have dropped 30 pounds in six weeks this way and went on to further cast doubt on the diet-industry's emphasis on exercise and nutritionally-dense food choices.
I cut out the story and took it to a hot friend of mine who had offered to help me any way she could with my dieting struggles.
While very high in entertainment value, if you start posting stories from Weekly World News we're in for a ride. These are the people that are also reporting that Saddam made a gay porn film in 1968 in which his "acting" almost moved the reviewer to tears.
My favorite was the sex, liquor and drugs diet I saw about this time last year in WWN.
I've lost about 75 pounds in the last year. This guy and all the commenters are correct, you lose weight by eating less and exercising more.
However, this is a lot like saying you become rich by making more money than you spend. 100% accurate and 100% useless.
No one would get fat if the only issue were balancing food intake and energy expenditure. Obesity is dangerous, uncomfortable and one of the few remaining PC stigmas, i.e., it's still socially acceptable to ridicule and humiliate fat people, if in abstract only. No, people get fat because acheiving a balance with energy expenditure is only one minor issue involved in eating habits with people who struggle with this problem.
We live in an eating disordered society. US food producers produce an excess of some 1300 kcals/day/person more than the population needs to sustain health, much of that is available quickly and cheaply at fast food outlets. Indeed, I used to eat about 1800 kcals for breakfast at McDonald's on the way to work. (breakfast bagel, sauage biscuit, hash browns, OJ), now I don't eat 1800 kcals until I have finished breakfast, lunch and part of dinner.
What has changed is simple, but not easy. I'll put it in terms that Geeks will appreciate: I removed the device driver "eating" from my emotional management panel. It only took about $20,000 worth of psychotherapy to do it (it require a re-compile of my kernel to include upgraded emotional management code).
What I've learned from dealing with the weight loss since is real weight loss, i.e., loss that will stick, is SSSLLLLOOOOOWWWW. I can comfortably lose about 5 lbs a month at most.
Upon reflection, I realize that's about the rate I put it on. I think there is an important clue there. I think if you try to exceed this hard-coded weight change rate, the system seeks to correct it and you get the cravings, the buckling of "will power" and whatever. You just have to find your rate and go at that speed.
Remember, these people formerly made all of their business decisions at parties and in hot tubs. Mostly this is a crowd that confuses their ability to make money with being truly significant. They all operate under the same set of deluded assumptions about themselves, they're drawn to this type of community for the insulation from reality it provides.
This doesn't make them bad people, some of them are exceedingly decent human beings in terms of their personal habits, but the "creative" community in Hollywood is really dominated anti-creative forces and incredibly self-absorbed people. It's truly amazing we ever get any good movies at all.
Let me put my cards on the table. I am a technical person by profession, although I am also a Registered Nurse. I work in Health Care IT. I have been using micro's since the Heathkit system that an EE (elec engineer) friend of mine assembled and shared access with me back in the early 80's. I was on terminals for various big iron before that. I bought an XT clone for $1000 in 1989, I have bought at least a machine a year since then, including a Osbourne luggable, a Classic Mac, and a TR-80.
Windows' charm is that it boots up in a bewildering array of hardware combinations. This is good for selling windows licenses, but it comes at a huge sacrifice to stability, customability, and overall performance. Users have a tendency to blame system failures on themselves, since they figure a big successful company like Microsoft must sell a product that works. This has created a environment for business success that is entirely out of line with the overall quality of their code in terms of the long term use of the hardware. It's not stable, not even XP. Toss around all the FUD you want, my Linux boxen stay up, my windows boxen don't.
I began trying to install RedHat 5.2 early one spring, I don't remember the exact day, or year even, but I do remember the exhilaration 14 MONTHS LATER when X finally came up with a cursor I could use. Did I work on a RH 5.2 installation 14 straight months? Of course not, I tried it, gave up, went back, gave up, went back, etc, etc.
Why did I have this sudden flush of success? I tried it on a friend's machine (different video card). Hmm, at that point I began to buy hardware based on what was known to work well with xfree86 and the latest stable kernel. My friends who prefer windows think I am putting the cart before the horse, but I don't.
I now have two machines in my home, one is Red Hat the other is XP. The RH machine I use for Internet traffic, the XP box serves as an entertainment and video editing station. I don't connect the XP box to the Internet (the MAC address is filtered at the router) except to visit windows (and antivirus) update sites about once a month.
If you were to turn on a TV, and it failed to come on, or it stoped working after it had been on for a while, you take that piece of crap back to the store and demand a refund or replacement. It's an appliance, it is supposed to come on.
Computers, on the other hand, because of the component options aren't seen as appliances but as complex interdependant systems configurable to the user's requirements. Consider what life might be like if you bought the components of your TV, assembled them, and then wanted to load another vendor's software on it to turn it on and change channels. It might not surprise you if it didn't work perfectly all of the time.
Linux will seriously catch on as a mainstream desktop option when a distro decides to sell it's own hardware as an appliance, with every bit and screw optimized for the OS and the applications the machine is designed for (without trying be Windows otherwise, or sounding like "windows"). In short, when buying a Red Hat becomes like buying a Mac, then there will be another player with staying power like Apple.
Microsoft's business model is not like GE's. They aren't seeking to build reliable appliances, they seek to sell Licenses, it's always going to be that, it's like a cat in heat, there's nothing you can do about it.
What is the chief bit of instant gratification one gets from buying an OS license? You get to immediately use your pretty new hardware with it. Microsoft exceeds at this task.
What else is wrong with Linux? I can't go and buy Quicken for it. I don't meant to trivilaize the problem, but Microsoft's strategy has worked for their business, it has just miserably failed to advance the potential of technology. That's not a moral issue, it's the hallmark of the emergence of something truly new and the clumsy adjustment of the our economy to it.
If you look closely, you'll see that the digital composition implies that the soldier was directing the civilian with the baby in his arms, implying that this soldier was somehow comforting, directing or otherwise assisting this distressed person.
The actual photos revels that the soldier's raised hand was either unseen by the civilian or directed to something else.
You're right about cat5, it was a typo, I meant 1996. I didn't even get a CPU at home until 1989!
I hadn't thought about the bandwidth problems with 11Mbit (or 54 or whatever), but that also seems upgradable for the last mile.
Perhaps this is why other, smarter people are planning these things...
Oh boy, and look at the beautiful duck pond!
on
Last-Mile Fiber Optic
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Since I have wired every dwelling I have occupied with cat5 and a patch panel since 1986, this doesn't seem so much forward looking to me as finally catching up. I wonder how the community Intranet will be administered, if it is anything like the "community parks" these developments usually include to sell the units, then chances are it is going to be left to virtually grow over with weeds (unpatched servers, slow hubs/switches) after the units have been purchased. Of course, since Microsoft is moving in, it might become yet another way to promote MSN.
Of course, it seems more cost-effective to just blanket the area with Wi-Fi...
the dancing monkeyfish is back in the barrel? I use my XP box for off-line multimedia only, I SP1'd, I did. All the guys were doing it. I didn't know I had a problem, it seems just as slow now as it was before.
My thought was that the credit back would then be handled on a case-by-case basis. I have had water leaks, discovered them via my bill, fixed them, and then asked for and received credit. I doubt I would have gotten the same credit for the following month.
This would be another way to encourage people to patch and protect publicly available servers--which is in everyone's interest (cf. slammer).
What happens to you if someone runs an extension cord from your house or if you spring an unknown water leak? You get a huge bill and you fix the problem. How is this different?
You confuse my observation with an endorsement. No matter, it's really another discussion, but suffice it to say that I am doing everything I can within my own organization to get them to abandon Windows completely.
Having said that, I stand by the assertion that we won't make the transition to an electronic medical record until we can roll out a solution that can do something like what Msoft seems to claim this Office 11 release can do.
Get to a 12 step Al-anon program and pay attention. Your parents can't take care of themselves, much less you. You're being used as a pawn in the battlefied of their relationship. Ignore what they think of you, pay attention to adults that support you and make you feel loved and wanted. Their opinion counts. Take thier advice.
Msoft seems at first glance here to be addressing a need in my industry, health care, to tightly audit and control access to documents. The problem is the preservation of health information privacy while providing free and ready access for authorized users. Network user authentication only goes so far because the same user might need different privileges for the same document at different times, depending on the purpose of the disclosure at the time.
We have a principle in health information security called "minimum necessary" which dictates that information only be disclosed for a particular purpose and only the information needed to accomplish said purpose be disclosed at the transaction level. Meaning, if you come back and have something else to do with the same document, you might need a different level of access. It is a sticky wicket.
No, it isn't a matter of fact (no amount of reading or study will ipso facto change anyone's mind), it is a matter of opinion. I have mine, you have yours.
I understand that it is an anti-spam measure, it is a blunt, cheap, stupid, anti-spam measure made possible by the sheer force of the technological control Verizon had over this user. This FCC action is just going to increase that control.
This was a start-up non-technology company that needed to preserve some Perl scripts that they were using to process e-mail support communication. They didn't have time to re-write it all, recode thier web page, and redistribute their policy material.
Verizon's answer was to buy their Superpages service. Not because it was a product they otherwise needed (which is fine), but because their creativity got caught up in Verizon's snadbox and this was the only way that Verizon was willing to assist.
They went to a competing provider, one that won't exist soon...
The problem wasn't "getting e-mail," the problem was that they already had automated system which checked a pop server for replies. They didn't want to rewrite all the scripts because of a network policy. They went to a competing DSL provider that accomodated their problem. Those similarly afflicted might not have the choice in the future.
When I was a small business systems consultant I frequently encountered a problem with SMTP. The DSL lines for a certain baby bell would not pass outgoing email if the "from:" field did not contain the approved domain. I likened it to the post office refusing to deliver mail that was placed in a box with a return address not on the block where the box resides.
If these companies can lock down these networks, then average users (those not interested/willing to manipulate email fields) are going to be "forced" to use the email domain of the provider as a return address. This provides these baby bell ISP's with a MSoft-ish method for bullying users into using their products (as opposed to just competing on the basis of quality).
This is anti-competitive, un-American and anti-capitalist.
Plenty of cultures have the concept of "legal age", where only someone older than X years can do Y. In many cases there are lots of Y's with X' being close to being a random number. Such definitions appear most common amongst the industrialised nations, who are the people most likely to be using the Internet in the first place.
True, but your argument suggests legalistic enforcement and coercive measures, I was just discussing a voluntary "we're doing the kid thing and we are going to play over here" sort of division. Beyond that, even if one accepts the notion that there is a universal definition of child (i.e., one not yet at puberty), that doesn't really matter.
These sort of Internet divisions are not a zero sum game--having a.kid domain doesn't take anything away from anyone. It would just make it easy to filter content for those who desire the filtering, it isn't going to actually draw any bright lines.
This is sort of the opposite of.porn, with much the same problem of there being no global definition of "child". It would really only make much sense as a secondry or tertiary domain within a geographic TLD. e.g. kid.us, kid.uk, kid.fi, kid.ca.us, etc.
That's an interesting argument, and it suggests by extrapolation something akin to the Linux standard file structure for geo-specific sub-domains like you suggest. That way you'd have porn.us, porn.tw, porn.es as well as kid.us, kid.tw, kid.es, etc. If the sub-domain architecture were standardized for one more level, it would become possible to de novo browse URL's.
I did not attempt to define a child except by suggestion, I think "requires a mature personality to process," subjective a judgement at that is, is possible to define by peer-review.
However, I think there is a global definition of a child, delimited by puberty. I can't think of a culture that doesn't recognize that division.
It ain't gonna happen, but the idea has value.
voluntary censorship by TLD
on
Plans For New TLDs
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
What would really be useful for Internet culture would be a.kid TLD that would be free of content that requires a mature personality to process, such as graphic violence, graphic sex, advertising, etc. I don't have children (and I am no prude), but I can imagine what a problem it can be to manage one's children's Internet use. Having a restricted TLD might help.
In today's (4/29/02) New York Times there is an article (requires login but its free) about a new Blackberry device that also works as a cellphone. I have been so happy with my Blackberry that we call 'em "crackberries" at work because they are so addictive. The email from my 550 (the cheapo unit) always gets out using a store and forward system that waits for a good signal.
Slashdot Mirror
I have actually known quite a few junkies with drinking problems, but most of them hadn't had sex in years outside of the services they provide (usually clothed) for free drugs.
The diet story consisted of an interview with some truly skankish woman who claimed that every time she got hungry she had sex instead and then otherwise kept herself too drunk and high to go out to eat or visit a grocery store.
She claimed to have dropped 30 pounds in six weeks this way and went on to further cast doubt on the diet-industry's emphasis on exercise and nutritionally-dense food choices.
I cut out the story and took it to a hot friend of mine who had offered to help me any way she could with my dieting struggles.
You have to love the WWN...
While very high in entertainment value, if you start posting stories from Weekly World News we're in for a ride. These are the people that are also reporting that Saddam made a gay porn film in 1968 in which his "acting" almost moved the reviewer to tears.
My favorite was the sex, liquor and drugs diet I saw about this time last year in WWN.
Pills are rolled in production, tablets are pressed. Clearly, Taco is busy rolling....
I've lost about 75 pounds in the last year. This guy and all the commenters are correct, you lose weight by eating less and exercising more.
However, this is a lot like saying you become rich by making more money than you spend. 100% accurate and 100% useless.
No one would get fat if the only issue were balancing food intake and energy expenditure. Obesity is dangerous, uncomfortable and one of the few remaining PC stigmas, i.e., it's still socially acceptable to ridicule and humiliate fat people, if in abstract only. No, people get fat because acheiving a balance with energy expenditure is only one minor issue involved in eating habits with people who struggle with this problem.
We live in an eating disordered society. US food producers produce an excess of some 1300 kcals/day/person more than the population needs to sustain health, much of that is available quickly and cheaply at fast food outlets. Indeed, I used to eat about 1800 kcals for breakfast at McDonald's on the way to work. (breakfast bagel, sauage biscuit, hash browns, OJ), now I don't eat 1800 kcals until I have finished breakfast, lunch and part of dinner.
What has changed is simple, but not easy. I'll put it in terms that Geeks will appreciate: I removed the device driver "eating" from my emotional management panel. It only took about $20,000 worth of psychotherapy to do it (it require a re-compile of my kernel to include upgraded emotional management code).
What I've learned from dealing with the weight loss since is real weight loss, i.e., loss that will stick, is SSSLLLLOOOOOWWWW. I can comfortably lose about 5 lbs a month at most.
Upon reflection, I realize that's about the rate I put it on. I think there is an important clue there. I think if you try to exceed this hard-coded weight change rate, the system seeks to correct it and you get the cravings, the buckling of "will power" and whatever. You just have to find your rate and go at that speed.
Remember, these people formerly made all of their business decisions at parties and in hot tubs. Mostly this is a crowd that confuses their ability to make money with being truly significant. They all operate under the same set of deluded assumptions about themselves, they're drawn to this type of community for the insulation from reality it provides.
This doesn't make them bad people, some of them are exceedingly decent human beings in terms of their personal habits, but the "creative" community in Hollywood is really dominated anti-creative forces and incredibly self-absorbed people. It's truly amazing we ever get any good movies at all.
Let me put my cards on the table. I am a technical person by profession, although I am also a Registered Nurse. I work in Health Care IT. I have been using micro's since the Heathkit system that an EE (elec engineer) friend of mine assembled and shared access with me back in the early 80's. I was on terminals for various big iron before that. I bought an XT clone for $1000 in 1989, I have bought at least a machine a year since then, including a Osbourne luggable, a Classic Mac, and a TR-80.
Windows' charm is that it boots up in a bewildering array of hardware combinations. This is good for selling windows licenses, but it comes at a huge sacrifice to stability, customability, and overall performance. Users have a tendency to blame system failures on themselves, since they figure a big successful company like Microsoft must sell a product that works. This has created a environment for business success that is entirely out of line with the overall quality of their code in terms of the long term use of the hardware. It's not stable, not even XP. Toss around all the FUD you want, my Linux boxen stay up, my windows boxen don't.
I began trying to install RedHat 5.2 early one spring, I don't remember the exact day, or year even, but I do remember the exhilaration 14 MONTHS LATER when X finally came up with a cursor I could use. Did I work on a RH 5.2 installation 14 straight months? Of course not, I tried it, gave up, went back, gave up, went back, etc, etc.
Why did I have this sudden flush of success? I tried it on a friend's machine (different video card). Hmm, at that point I began to buy hardware based on what was known to work well with xfree86 and the latest stable kernel. My friends who prefer windows think I am putting the cart before the horse, but I don't.
I now have two machines in my home, one is Red Hat the other is XP. The RH machine I use for Internet traffic, the XP box serves as an entertainment and video editing station. I don't connect the XP box to the Internet (the MAC address is filtered at the router) except to visit windows (and antivirus) update sites about once a month.
If you were to turn on a TV, and it failed to come on, or it stoped working after it had been on for a while, you take that piece of crap back to the store and demand a refund or replacement. It's an appliance, it is supposed to come on.
Computers, on the other hand, because of the component options aren't seen as appliances but as complex interdependant systems configurable to the user's requirements. Consider what life might be like if you bought the components of your TV, assembled them, and then wanted to load another vendor's software on it to turn it on and change channels. It might not surprise you if it didn't work perfectly all of the time.
Linux will seriously catch on as a mainstream desktop option when a distro decides to sell it's own hardware as an appliance, with every bit and screw optimized for the OS and the applications the machine is designed for (without trying be Windows otherwise, or sounding like "windows"). In short, when buying a Red Hat becomes like buying a Mac, then there will be another player with staying power like Apple.
Microsoft's business model is not like GE's. They aren't seeking to build reliable appliances, they seek to sell Licenses, it's always going to be that, it's like a cat in heat, there's nothing you can do about it.
What is the chief bit of instant gratification one gets from buying an OS license? You get to immediately use your pretty new hardware with it. Microsoft exceeds at this task.
What else is wrong with Linux? I can't go and buy Quicken for it. I don't meant to trivilaize the problem, but Microsoft's strategy has worked for their business, it has just miserably failed to advance the potential of technology. That's not a moral issue, it's the hallmark of the emergence of something truly new and the clumsy adjustment of the our economy to it.
The writer in this piece i
How nice, I don't have flash, I can't read the study. I love these guys. Hilarious.
If you look closely, you'll see that the digital composition implies that the soldier was directing the civilian with the baby in his arms, implying that this soldier was somehow comforting, directing or otherwise assisting this distressed person.
The actual photos revels that the soldier's raised hand was either unseen by the civilian or directed to something else.
That's art, not reporting. That's the big deal.
You're right about cat5, it was a typo, I meant 1996. I didn't even get a CPU at home until 1989!
I hadn't thought about the bandwidth problems with 11Mbit (or 54 or whatever), but that also seems upgradable for the last mile.
Perhaps this is why other, smarter people are planning these things...
Since I have wired every dwelling I have occupied with cat5 and a patch panel since 1986, this doesn't seem so much forward looking to me as finally catching up. I wonder how the community Intranet will be administered, if it is anything like the "community parks" these developments usually include to sell the units, then chances are it is going to be left to virtually grow over with weeds (unpatched servers, slow hubs/switches) after the units have been purchased. Of course, since Microsoft is moving in, it might become yet another way to promote MSN.
Of course, it seems more cost-effective to just blanket the area with Wi-Fi...
the dancing monkeyfish is back in the barrel? I use my XP box for off-line multimedia only, I SP1'd, I did. All the guys were doing it. I didn't know I had a problem, it seems just as slow now as it was before.
My thought was that the credit back would then be handled on a case-by-case basis. I have had water leaks, discovered them via my bill, fixed them, and then asked for and received credit. I doubt I would have gotten the same credit for the following month.
This would be another way to encourage people to patch and protect publicly available servers--which is in everyone's interest (cf. slammer).
What happens to you if someone runs an extension cord from your house or if you spring an unknown water leak? You get a huge bill and you fix the problem. How is this different?
You confuse my observation with an endorsement. No matter, it's really another discussion, but suffice it to say that I am doing everything I can within my own organization to get them to abandon Windows completely. Having said that, I stand by the assertion that we won't make the transition to an electronic medical record until we can roll out a solution that can do something like what Msoft seems to claim this Office 11 release can do.
Get to a 12 step Al-anon program and pay attention. Your parents can't take care of themselves, much less you. You're being used as a pawn in the battlefied of their relationship. Ignore what they think of you, pay attention to adults that support you and make you feel loved and wanted. Their opinion counts. Take thier advice.
Msoft seems at first glance here to be addressing a need in my industry, health care, to tightly audit and control access to documents. The problem is the preservation of health information privacy while providing free and ready access for authorized users. Network user authentication only goes so far because the same user might need different privileges for the same document at different times, depending on the purpose of the disclosure at the time.
We have a principle in health information security called "minimum necessary" which dictates that information only be disclosed for a particular purpose and only the information needed to accomplish said purpose be disclosed at the transaction level. Meaning, if you come back and have something else to do with the same document, you might need a different level of access. It is a sticky wicket.
No, it isn't a matter of fact (no amount of reading or study will ipso facto change anyone's mind), it is a matter of opinion. I have mine, you have yours.
They had another choice, they went to a competing provider that was willing to accomodate the problem--a Covad reseller that won't exist in 3 years.
I understand that it is an anti-spam measure, it is a blunt, cheap, stupid, anti-spam measure made possible by the sheer force of the technological control Verizon had over this user. This FCC action is just going to increase that control.
This was a start-up non-technology company that needed to preserve some Perl scripts that they were using to process e-mail support communication. They didn't have time to re-write it all, recode thier web page, and redistribute their policy material.
Verizon's answer was to buy their Superpages service. Not because it was a product they otherwise needed (which is fine), but because their creativity got caught up in Verizon's snadbox and this was the only way that Verizon was willing to assist.
They went to a competing provider, one that won't exist soon...
The problem wasn't "getting e-mail," the problem was that they already had automated system which checked a pop server for replies. They didn't want to rewrite all the scripts because of a network policy. They went to a competing DSL provider that accomodated their problem. Those similarly afflicted might not have the choice in the future.
When I was a small business systems consultant I frequently encountered a problem with SMTP. The DSL lines for a certain baby bell would not pass outgoing email if the "from:" field did not contain the approved domain. I likened it to the post office refusing to deliver mail that was placed in a box with a return address not on the block where the box resides.
If these companies can lock down these networks, then average users (those not interested/willing to manipulate email fields) are going to be "forced" to use the email domain of the provider as a return address. This provides these baby bell ISP's with a MSoft-ish method for bullying users into using their products (as opposed to just competing on the basis of quality).
This is anti-competitive, un-American and anti-capitalist.
Plenty of cultures have the concept of "legal age", where only someone older than X years can do Y. In many cases there are lots of Y's with X' being close to being a random number. Such definitions appear most common amongst the industrialised nations, who are the people most likely to be using the Internet in the first place.
.kid domain doesn't take anything away from anyone. It would just make it easy to filter content for those who desire the filtering, it isn't going to actually draw any bright lines.
True, but your argument suggests legalistic enforcement and coercive measures, I was just discussing a voluntary "we're doing the kid thing and we are going to play over here" sort of division. Beyond that, even if one accepts the notion that there is a universal definition of child (i.e., one not yet at puberty), that doesn't really matter.
These sort of Internet divisions are not a zero sum game--having a
This is sort of the opposite of .porn, with much the same problem of there being no global definition of "child". It would really only make much sense as a secondry or tertiary domain within a geographic TLD. e.g. kid.us, kid.uk, kid.fi, kid.ca.us, etc.
That's an interesting argument, and it suggests by extrapolation something akin to the Linux standard file structure for geo-specific sub-domains like you suggest. That way you'd have porn.us, porn.tw, porn.es as well as kid.us, kid.tw, kid.es, etc. If the sub-domain architecture were standardized for one more level, it would become possible to de novo browse URL's.
I did not attempt to define a child except by suggestion, I think "requires a mature personality to process," subjective a judgement at that is, is possible to define by peer-review.
However, I think there is a global definition of a child, delimited by puberty. I can't think of a culture that doesn't recognize that division.
It ain't gonna happen, but the idea has value.
What would really be useful for Internet culture would be a .kid TLD that would be free of content that requires a mature personality to process, such as graphic violence, graphic sex, advertising, etc. I don't have children (and I am no prude), but I can imagine what a problem it can be to manage one's children's Internet use. Having a restricted TLD might help.
In today's (4/29/02) New York Times there is an article (requires login but its free) about a new Blackberry device that also works as a cellphone. I have been so happy with my Blackberry that we call 'em "crackberries" at work because they are so addictive. The email from my 550 (the cheapo unit) always gets out using a store and forward system that waits for a good signal.