The regs are "rigged," to use your word, in deference to 14 CFR 91.3 (a). It says, and I quote:
91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.
(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
That rule gives the captain complete responsibility for everything on the airplane; if something goes wrong, it's his ass. In exchange for the responsibility, the rules give him the authority to execute that responsibility, which only makes sense: if you're going to hold somebody accountable, he has to have the authority to effect the desired result. The converse of the "final authority" bit is that he has the power to authorize things which would otherwise not be permitted, such as the use of certain devices. As for the AirCell vs. regular cellular network, you have two issues: 1) the AirCell devices are specifically designed to work with avionics without interference (if it's installed in an aircraft, it has to be tested for interference; in an airliner, it has to be TSO'd, which has even stiffer requirements), and 2) besides the FAA, the FCC prohibits the use of cellular phones because it disrupts the network, which is not designed with aircraft in mind (see parent post for explanation). As for your razor, I don't know what kind of cheap-ass razor you have, but I've never seen one that causes interference; in any case, it's weak enough that it won't interfere with a properly designed and shielded receiver (i.e. not your TV, radio, or other consumer devices). A cell phone, etc., is a transmitter, by design. A receiver is an inadvertent transmitter (again, see previous post). And the airlines don't actively jam cell phones, nor would they; that would A) potentially cause the same interference they're worried about, and B) be putting a transmitter in the cellular frequency band at 35,000 feet, which is precisely what the FCC wants to avoid. Cell phones work poorly at altitude for a number of reasons, but not jamming.
On the other hand, having a long, loud conversation on a cell phone is disrespectful of other passengers. It says, "Not only are you not interesting enough to talk to, but you're so insignificant, I'm not going to feel any qualms about interrupting your ride by talking at the top of my voice."
Amen! This is the real problem with cell phones: people assume that the phone is the most important member of the party. Not just on airplanes, but everywhere. When I invite a group of friends to dinner, it's because I want to spend time with them, not with their cell phones (or mine). By answering that phone, you're promoting it over the people in your party. This is particularly rude if you're the host: "I invited you here to watch me talk on the phone, because I'm important." Reminds me of the Dilbert cartoon about the boss teaching himself to play the ukelele (or somesuch). If you're going to take the call (which you generally shouldn't, and Caller ID (included with all phones these days) can make the decision for you), at least excuse yourself from the table, so the rest of the party can continue their conversation.
Finally, somebody who gets it. My kingdom for mod points, and the ability to highlight passages along with the moderation!
Sure you can! In a restaurant, a glass of ice water is a wonderful moderator. In a theater/theatre, your hat (which you did, of course, remove upon entering the building) is a wonderful whacking device. Elsewhere, just join their conversation. "REALLY? I CAN'T BELIEVE SHE DID THAT!"
"About this time, someone is telling you to get on the plane. Get on the plane, get on the plane. I say fuck you, I'm getting IN the plane! In the plane! Let Evil Knievel get on the plane, I'll be in here with you folks in uniform. There seems to be less wind in here!"
My first question is, does this mean we have to buy new mobile phones?
Nope, not at all. You can buy a new phone, or you can just realize that you're not that important after all, and whoever you're calling will still be there in three hours when you land, and save yourself a couple of hundred bucks on the unit, plus service charges.
Damn yuppies, think they always have to be in constant communication with the world. Guess what: nobody really cares about your brother-in-law's hernia surgery.
Penya asks: "Why the use of ANY electronic device is prohibited below a certain altitude, except when sitting still at the gate?"
The simple answer is "because the rules say so." To wit:
14 CFR 121.306 - Portable electronic devices.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command of an aircraft allow the operation of, any portable electronic device on any U.S.-registered civil aircraft operating under this part.
(b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to --
(1) Portable voice recorders;
(2) Hearing aids;
(3) Heart pacemakers;
(4) Electric shavers; or
(5) Any other portable electronic device that the part 119 certificate holder has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used.
(c) The determination required by paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall be made by that part 119 certificate holder operating the particular device to be used.
(14 CFR is the Federal Aviation Regulations, part 121 (and part 135, in some circumstances; 14 CFR 135.144 has identical stipulations) governs airlines)
So the rule is actually a Federal Regulation, not the airline acting unilaterally.
The reason for the rule is to prevent possible interference with not just aircraft avionics, but any systems in the aircraft. In addition to the avionics (comm radios, nav radios (typically just below the AM broadcast band and just above the FM broadcast band), marker beacons, and other devices), there are also sensors and equipment in the airplane that don't respond well to induced signals. I've seen a number of cases of electronics handling RF signals badly: monitors that shut down when I key a ham transmitter (2m (144 MHz), one watt, into a ducky at a distance of a couple of yards from the monitor), cars that activate the brakes when you key the transmitter (damn computer control!), and others. RADAR, in particular, responds badly to induced RF, and every airliner has it, for detecting weather. Some also have Stormscopes, lightning detectors that look for electrostatic discharge. The aircraft's electrical system itself is designed to run at 400Hz (not the usual 60), and inducing RF has the capacity to cause some problems. Introducing RF into the computerized engine controllers (remember, computer = clock = RF oscillator) is a really bad idea.
The reason they allow the use of some devices at cruise is that cruise is a less critical phase of flight. In the terminal area, things happen quickly, with frequent heading changes, altitude changes, and such. Pilots must be in constant communication with controllers, and their navigation must be very accurate, to avoid hitting things that might hurt (which, when you're travelling at 250 knots, is pretty much anything). Approach is a particularly critical phase: the navigation equipment in most airliners is designed to bring the airplane down at about 750-1000 feet per minute (vertical speed) at around 150 knots (average; bigger airplanes are faster), down to 100 feet above the ground (Category II ILS; Cat I is 200 feet, Cat III can go all the way to the surface, with zero forward visibility for IIIc). If the navigation equipment should become unreliable during the approach, the result is usually a Bad Thing. In cruise flight, however, the precision required is much less, communication with Center happens relatively rarely, and there's a lot more time to see and correct a problem before running into something.
The prohibition on the use of cell phones is actually twofold: the FAA prohibits the use of them, for the aforementioned reasons, and the FCC prohibits the use of them because sticking an antenna on a 35,000 foot tower is a great way to expand your signal coverage. Put a cell phone up there, which was specifically designed to have a small footprint, and one phone can simultaneously jam several dozen cells, preventing other people from using the network. It also requires rapid cell-swapping, which further overburdens the network (and eats batteries besides).
The reason some, but not all, devices are approved above a given altitude (usually around 10,000 feet) is because they're generally considered safe, by the fact that they're not designed to radiate RF signals. Computers, CD players, Game Boys, etc., all have an oscillator (clock), but they're designed to keep it internal, and rarely radiate anything. Fine at cruise, but nobody wants to take chances in the critical phases, because there's less margin for error. Radios (receivers) are verboten because they use an internal oscillator (modern designs, anyway; most are superheterodyne, which requires mixing the received signal with a local oscillator), and they have an antenna connected. Even though they're not designed to radiate, they usually do so, to some degree. Transmitters are obvious, particularly aviation-band transmitters. Even if you just listen, you're still running the LO, and handheld radios have a way of getting put in places in such a way as to key the mic, jamming the frequency, which, presumably, had somebody talking on it, or it wouldn't be very interesting. See also: Bad Things.
An interesting trend I have observed is the willingness of people to put themselves at risk, when they don't have the authority (as pilot-in-command) to do so. Passengers who insist on taking off into bad weather (against the advice of the pilot), or who ignore rules (such as portable electronics) because they want to. For example, Penya relates: "Not that I followed the rules because I wanted to take some nice pictures on a flight that barely went above that altitude for long (BGR to BOS)." You're playing dumb games here. No, you obviously didn't cause the airplane to crash, but unless you designed both the camera and the avionics, you didn't know what you were doing. Avionics are remarkably robust (they have to be before they can be certificated), but how do you know that the airplane didn't strike a small bird (I've personally hit two, on a single flight) that knocked loose some shielding or something? Ice, perhaps? Maybe there was a power surge that fried one of the filter capacitors. It has been my experience that the less educated the passenger on the possible dangers, the more willing he is to risk his (and everybody else's) life. Would you have argued if the flight attendant (or the captain) had asked you to turn it off, or would you have complied? (BTW, if you like aerial photography (I love it, as do a lot of pilots), there's a simple solution: a mechanical camera. A lot of them take better pictures than modern electronic ones anyway.
Incidentally, this isn't news: I read about this system a couple of years ago. At the time, AirCell had a model that could be installed in the aircraft, and used only their network, and another model that was portable, and used both conventional (terrestrial) cell networks and the AirCell network, switching automatically between the two.
And yes, I do know what I'm talking about. I'm a flight instructor/instrument flight instructor, and I regularly fly King Airs, among others.
It was Debt of Honor, which is indeed by Clancy. The aircraft in question was a Japanese 767-AWACS bird, and the light was essentially a high-powered spotlight; Clancy described it as having a beam width of 40 feet at a mile's distance, and being bright enough to read a newspaper at the same distance. And yes, it was shined into the cockpit on short final, causing a crash. IIRC, John Clark and Ding Chavez executed the mission.
Creating new elements in particle accelerators must be very, very expensive, and the finished product only lasts for a short period of time. Even if they found that, somewhere down the line, element 315 is stable, it wouldn't matter because they're making these things one atom at a time. If element 315 had an atomic mass of 700, they'd have to produce something like 8x10^20 atoms just to get a gram of it. I vote that we take their grant money and use it to search for near-earth asteroids.
Creating new elements in particle accelerators does alter the way we (well, physicists) think about the world. Creating trans-Uranic elements gives physicists insight into the atomic structure, how atoms are built, what keeps them together. Indeed, the creation (and destruction--how they fall apart is just as important as how they're built) of new elements provides data that are used to shape the most fundamental models of the universe; quantum theory and other such things are derived, in part, from such data.
Additionally, some of those elements do have a practical use; perhaps you've heard of a synthetic element called Plutonium?
My ass. They can try to blur them all they want, but it will be a cold day in hell before my office is in my home. When I go home, I want to get away from work. My employer gets fully a third of my weekday existence as it is (8 hours of 24), plus occasional weekend work when things get tight. I don't want to go home, only to do more work. That's my time for family, friends, or just plain sitting on my couch in my boxers drinking a beer.
We've been way to permissive in allowing our employers to demand increasing amounts of our time, particularly those of us on salary, who don't get overtime pay. We need to grow a backbone, stand up, and declare, in one voice, "NO MORE!" If we fail to do so, we will all be changing our job descriptions to "wage slave," because that's what we'll be.
Withdrawing these people's ability to watch TV would be interpreted as yet another corporate, for the rich policy.
But since those people won't be able to vote it does not matter. [WTF? --me] Any complaints that are made will merely divert attention away from the huge contracts Haliburton and other Bush crony-capitalism companies get to exploit Iraq's oil (bill for security paid for by US taxpayer) and of course the effort to remove the limit on presidential terms... [WTF? --me]
From another post:
But a more relevant consideration is that without the media broadcasting their reassuring pro-Bush propaganda (complete with serious consideration of spurious claims of left wing bias) [Do you even
own a TV? Have you ever watched CNN? --me] there is a serious prospect of regime change.
Does it get hot under that tinfoil hat?
Oh, and incidentally, your.sig calls for Clinton to be returned to power, though he has served both of his allowed terms. How do you reconcile this with what appears to be an accusation that the Republicans are trying to repeal the term limit?
As more and more companies compete for business, customer service is getting more important. As a sysadmin for a major midwestern university, I recently attempted to purchase a new Dell server. I tried for three weeks to get in touch with our assigned representative (remember, higher education = multimillion dollar contracts--we're not talking about some poor end-user with a $600 PC here), with no success. Her voicemail message suggested I e-mail her, but I had several questions to ask, some of which depended on the answers to other questions; besides, I'm the customer, damnit, and if I want to talk to a rep before I make a purchase, I'm damn well going to talk to a rep. Since my rep wouldn't call me back, I tried the main Higher Education line (again, remember higher ed = big contracts). I waited on hold for about 15 minutes before I said "this is bullshit, when somebody answers, I'm going to tell them off, and have them call me back after lunch." An hour later (75 minutes total), I was still on hold, and just said "fuck it." I called Gateway, had answers, and a quote by FAX, in eight minutes. Gateway will get the order, as soon as the request goes through channels. I would have preferred Dell (I think their quality is a little better), but if I have to go through that much to get them to take my money, what will I have to do to get support?
The kicker: when the Gateway server comes in, I'm going to take a picture of myself with that wonderful cow-spotted box. Going to send a copy of it to Dell, along with a letter:
Dear Dell:
Congratulations on my purchase of a new Gateway server. I would have bought a box from you guys, but
...
Thanks again for your great service.
With any luck, somebody will lose his job over it; this sort of situation is bullshit.
Incidentally, the really cool part is that I got more computer for less money by going Gateway over Dell. Even got SCSI drives instead of IDE. Sorry Dell--your loss. Try a little "customer service" next time.
Amen...I've dealt with a couple of companies that will have a computer call me, then either ask me to hold the line, or call them back (one of them didn't even include a toll-free number). I usually hold or return the call, then immediately ask to speak to a manager. When the manager answers, before he has a chance to state his business, I inform them that if they want to talk to me, they can have a human--not a computer--call me, and they will not put me on hold--they want to talk to me, not vice versa. I then inform him that I'm going to hang up, and wait by the phone for five minutes (my phone is right next to my couch and my beer fridge), and that if they want to talk to me, they should call me back immediately. Then I hang up. So far, none of them has wanted to talk to me very badly. Guess it wasn't that important after all.
I am considering rigging up a wardialer for the toll-free numbers, though...
I take offense at this. I am one of those "idiot administrators" of whom you speak--I run an unsecured wireless access point (two, actually). I do so by choice--my home network is for my use, and that of my guests; setting up individual permissions for every guest is a pain. Additionally, I'm happy to share the bandwidth with my neighbors. I keep an eye on my logs, and so far (1.5 years), I've not seen anything that concerns me. My other network is also open to the public. I follow the same security procedures as the wired network to which it connects: if you can plug in, you can get access. With the abundance of public ports, and unsupervised ports, my wireless hub does not affect security in any way. It does, however, add convenience. If you're ever in the pilot lounge at Westheimer Airport (Norman, OK), and notice you have 802.11b connectivity, stop by my office and say hi--that's my hub you're using, and I hope you enjoy it. Idiot sysadmin? No, try generous--there are no security concerns for me, so I share, try to do everybody a favor. I'll shut down the open access when it becomes a problem; until then, enjoy the bandwidth.
The Salon article you mention is inflammatory, trollish, and ill-informed. I've done some research on that accident for my Crew Resource Management class (did I mention I'm a corporate pilot, and a CFI/CFII?). The fact of the matter is that the Dutch captain (who, BTW, was notoriously difficult to get along, due to his demanding and controlling nature) deserves sole blame for the accident. We actually discussed this incident today in class (my instructor, BTW, is a 5000+ hour USAF B52 pilot with substantial combat experience, and a hell of a lot of experience with CRM, both using it and teaching it).
The facts of the crash: The KLM 747 was cleared to back-taxi the runway, followed by the Pan Am 747. The KLM bird was supposed to taxi to the end, turn around, and hold; the Pan Am jet was supposed to taxi about 3/4 of the way down, then turn off onto a taxiway so the KLM jet could depart, then taxi to the end and take off itself. While the two planes were taxiing, the cloud cover came down, and fog began rolling in, instilling a sense of urgency in the Dutch captain, who would have been forced to delay if the fog got any worse. Incidentally, it was that very captain who had appeared in KLM's advertising, advertising which hyped KLM's on-time record; to say that he was pressured to complete the flight on-time would be an understatement. The Dutch captain, upon executing his turn, immediately advanced his throttles to takeoff power. The Dutch first officer retarded the throttles, reminding the captain that they had no clearance; the Pan Am 747 was still taxiing, as cleared. Tower asked the Pan Am jet if they were clear, and Pan Am replied "no, we are not clear, we will advise when we are." The KLM jet received its routing clearance (NOT a takeoff clearance), and the captain again advanced the throttles. The flight engineer, worried about the Pan Am jet, asked the captain if the Pan Am jet was clear, and he replied, impatiently, that it was clear, and proceeded with the takeoff. The FO, still worried, advised tower (and, by extension, the Pan Am crew) that they were "at takeoff" (a non-standard radio call, and somewhat ambiguous). The Pan Am FO heard the call and immediately advanced the throttles and began turning, while advising his captain (who heard the call as well, and was taking the same action). The Pan Am jet was nearly clear of the runway when the Dutch jet struck them. Make no mistake about it: the Tererife crash was the KLM captain's fault. There were other factors, but the KLM captain was the causal factor (or proximate cause, for the lawyers in the crowd). Blaming this on equipment trouble is ludicrous. The Salon article was terrible.
Incidentally, another Salon article, which was linked to in the Tererife story, complained about the Airbus A300. I found that article perhaps even more trollish and less informed than the Tenerife article, and I'm a staunch detractor of Airbus aircraft. I work from the position of "if it ain't Boeing, I ain't going," and even I found the Salon article offensive.
I'm not saying this isn't a cool hack, the epitome of geek, but I'm not going to be really impressed until a robot picks up my laundry, washes it, debits my creditcard and returns it, preferably folded.
They already have this: it's called a full-service laundry, and it may be cheaper than you think. The laundry I use (Highlander Laundry/Fluff 'n' Fold, Norman, OK) charges 60 cents/pound to wash, dry, press, and fold/hang; the laundry facility in my apartment costs more than that. Yes, I do have to take my clothes over there myself, and pick them up the next day, but dropping off/picking up on the way to/from work is no big deal, and there are other services (more expensive, of course) that do offer pickup/delivery. Yeah, it would be cool to have a robot pickup, but probably not worthwhile--acquisition cost and maintenance on a robot would be a lot more than paying some minimum-wage flunky to drive around town, just like the pizza guy. In any case, look into full-service laundries--they're one of life's great conveniences, and may even be cheaper than doing it yourself.
"Mach number" refers to the ratio of your current speed to the speed of sound in the environment through which you are moving (i.e. the air at the current temperature and pressure). The speed of sound changes as you climb (density decreases) and as temperature rises (density decreases).
--Dave Buckles, CFII
When I found out I was nothing more than a bunch of vibrating strings, I realized 'morality' no longer had meaning.
And therein lies the problem. For the last fifty-ish years, morality, the sense of "right and wrong," has eroded, and been deliberately degraded, to the point where it means nothing. The system only works correctly when people (the constituency, the lobbyists, and the elected officials; everybody, starting at the bottom) know the difference between right and wrong, and stand up for right. Unfortunately, nobody seems to know the difference anymore, or at least nobody seems to care. Particularly recently, our culture has adopted an attitude of selfish instant gratification.
Don't see it? Look at our last president. President Clinton had so many shady deals and moral deficiencies (the Whitewater affair, Gennifer Flowers, Monica Lewinsky, and Juanita Broderick, just to name a few*) that it's hard to keep count. He was impeached for lying and obstructing justice, for chrissakes! The most powerful man in the country, the one supposed to be setting the example, the one in charge of enforcing laws (Chief Executive), can't even follow simple laws himself. With that kind of inspiration, who is surprised that the rest of the country is following suit?
We've seen an attack on morality for fifty years. The schools (controlled primarily by the political left, although there are plenty on the right with similar ideas) teach diversity and moral relativism over clear, hard, simple right and wrong. Well, here it is: lying is wrong. Stealing is wrong. It's not OK because everybody else does it, it's not exercising your prerogative based on loopholes in the law/rules, it's not your privilege as an executive, it's wrong. Plain and simple, no ambiguity, wrong. Get it?
There was a study recently concerning what college students are being caught. Seventy-five percent of students said that they are taught moral relativism over a clearly defined, absolute right and wrong. Interestingly, the about same 75% ranked "diversity" above "an accurate balance sheet" in importance. They're saying that if they can only have one, they'd rather ensure that their employee base was politically correct, then be honest to their investors and creditors. Does anybody else see a problem here?
My dad is a lawyer for the USAF Materiel Command, Directorate of Ethics and Fraud Remedies. I seem to recall him telling me that his office alone catches roughly half a billion dollars' worth of fraud a year. Think about that--one office, in one Command (the USAF has 11, I think), in one branch of the service, which is but a part of the government, catches half a billion in fraud every year. When are we as a society going to say "enough! This is unacceptable"? When are we going to step up to the plate and demand that everybody be held accountable for his actions? It's popular now to call for sanctions against the executives of the various companies in hot water, but how about the low-level employees? When are we going to charge the entry-level accountant with fraud? You know, the one who followed the exec's instruction to inflate the balance sheet? Or his boss, who should have seen the error as part of his review (you do review your subordinates' work, don't you?)? Or his boss, or his boss? This isn't the fault of one person at the top of the corporate ladder, it's a concerted effort from the bottom of the chain of command all the way to the top. In some cases, the CEO may not even have known (yes, there are some such cases); that does not, however, excuse him from responsibility. Why are middle managers any different? Why are the people who actually entered the data, the ones who actually committed fraud, exempt?
Ironically, every time there's an initiative to fix the problem at the source, it is shot down in flames, usually by the people crying the loudest about executive corruption. To fix the problem, we have to start instilling a strong sense of ethics in the people. I've heard several proposals for instituting "charactar education" in the schools, but they always seem to be defeated. Instead, we get students who plagiarize essays, and school principals who tell the teachers to let them pass anyway, give them another chance. How are kids supposed to learn right and wrong from that? I'm not talking about elementary school children here, I'm talking about high schoolers! These people are going to be entering the corporate workforce in at little as four years, and we're encouraging the very behavior (through positive reinforcement) that we disdain. College professors who lie about their accomplishments, who claim awards and degrees they haven't earned; when somebody notices, management says "keep it quiet," to prevent embarrassment. Professors who lie about their research; I recall a case recently of an Emory University prof researching gun control history who completely fabricated his research. First he claimed it was from one source, but that source said they'd never seen him; then he claimed it was from a county records department, but the department confirmed that the records he claimed to have used didn't exits--they had been destroyed in a flood years before. He's still trying to find a source, and still works for Emory--why? The Air Force had it right with Kelly Flynn. (For those who don't recall, Lt. Kelly Flynn was a B-52 pilot who was discharged from the USAF for disobeying orders and lying**.)
Those who oppose character education usually say "that's the parents' job." True. So, parents, why aren't you doing your jobs? Is it because you're too busy working twelve, thirteen, fourteen hour days, worshipping the almighty dollar, and letting your kids be raised by the TV and PlayStation, by Disney and Sony? I've met a number of parents in wealthier suburbs of DC, and the attitude is generally the same: placate the kid so you don't have to deal with him, and give him "stuff" to assuage your conscience for not giving him "love" and "attention," which are the things he so desperately needs. Yes, I know you have jobs, but maybe, just maybe, you need to re-evaluate your priorities in life. My dad is a lawyer, and he's home by about 1800 every night. He's not making a million dollars a year, but we live very comfortably on his civil servant's salary (GS-15, with about 25 years). Mom doesn't have a full-time job, or rather, she doesn't have a second full-time job: she is a mother. No, that's not a dirty word, and yes, it an honorable (and critical!) profession. Raising kids, especially at a young age (when they're most receptive to learning) is a full-time-plus job. We as a society seem to hail the "single-mother-by-choice***" as some sort of hero, a cultural icon. This scares me--first of all, a child needs a father in his life as well as a mother, but secondly, unless she's being supported completely by somebody else, then she has to work. How many people do you know that can successfully and properly handle two-plus full-time jobs? That's right, none. There aren't enough hours in the day to do a full-time job (8 hours/day), another full-time-plus job (8+ hours/day), and sleep (8-10 hours/day to be healthy). And, to make it worse, raising a child isn't something you can do on a 9-5 schedule--you have to be there much longer than just your punch in/punch out schedule.
You want to know where the problem is? Parents, first and foremost, failing to do their jobs of raising their kids. We can point fingers all over the place, but it all boils down to parents failing to institute a sense of right and wrong into their children, and enforcing it it from a young age. If parents would do it, and demand that the schools hold their children to the same standard (instead of threatening to sue when they do), this problem would go away. Not today, not tomorrow, not even next week; it would take a generation to work, but that's what happens when you have problems that take a generation to really take root. I know we want a quick fix (see also: instant gratification), but it just isn't going to happen. The only way to fix the problem is to persevere, to plug away at it day by day, hour by hour, for the next twenty or so years. Only then can we hope to see the rebirth of a culture of honor, decency, and ethics.
*For those who say Clinton's personal behavior was probed unfairly, and is nobody's business, you're wrong: he was accused of criminal rape by Juanita Broderick, and the investigation into his behavior was a criminal investigation, which is entirely appropriate--unless, of course, you believe that the president is above the law (like he apparently did). Also, the impeachment was not for the blowjob, it was for lying under oath and obstructing justice.
**Kelly Flynn: same deal. She was booted for lying and disobeying a lawful order, not the adultery. The woman was entrusted to carry nuclear weapons; she has to be trustworthy, and able to follow orders.
***I do not mean to denigrate, or otherwise diminish, the struggles of single mothers who do not do so by choice. I know it's a lot of work to raise a kid, and I respect the desperate struggle these women fight. I'm talking about the ones who choose to raise a kid without a father as a social protest, to "show (or spite) the world" that they don't need anybody. They're using their kids as protest signs, and it's irresponsible, and hurtful for the kid.
Re:You guys are missing the point
on
Penguin Airlines
·
· Score: 1
Yes, this is, indeed, very cool. I've been following the Eclipse for a couple of years, and I'm very excited at the possibility of a twinjet (a jet, for chrissakes!) selling for less than a million clams. I hope this company takes off (pun intended!); I recall reading about a similar proposition being cancelled recently.
Side note: if anybody from the company is reading this, and you need pilots, please (!) drop me a note. I'm an aviation major at the University of Oklahoma, and desperately seeking a flying job. Check out my resume (presently being updated; if it doesn't work, give it 24 hours).
Slashdot Mirror
On the other hand, having a long, loud conversation on a cell phone is disrespectful of other passengers. It says, "Not only are you not interesting enough to talk to, but you're so insignificant, I'm not going to feel any qualms about interrupting your ride by talking at the top of my voice."
Amen! This is the real problem with cell phones: people assume that the phone is the most important member of the party. Not just on airplanes, but everywhere. When I invite a group of friends to dinner, it's because I want to spend time with them, not with their cell phones (or mine). By answering that phone, you're promoting it over the people in your party. This is particularly rude if you're the host: "I invited you here to watch me talk on the phone, because I'm important." Reminds me of the Dilbert cartoon about the boss teaching himself to play the ukelele (or somesuch). If you're going to take the call (which you generally shouldn't, and Caller ID (included with all phones these days) can make the decision for you), at least excuse yourself from the table, so the rest of the party can continue their conversation.
Finally, somebody who gets it. My kingdom for mod points, and the ability to highlight passages along with the moderation!
Only we can't mod people with cell phones.
Sure you can! In a restaurant, a glass of ice water is a wonderful moderator. In a theater/theatre, your hat (which you did, of course, remove upon entering the building) is a wonderful whacking device. Elsewhere, just join their conversation. "REALLY? I CAN'T BELIEVE SHE DID THAT!"
They'll learn, usually quickly.
"About this time, someone is telling you to get on the plane. Get on the plane, get on the plane. I say fuck you, I'm getting IN the plane! In the plane! Let Evil Knievel get on the plane, I'll be in here with you folks in uniform. There seems to be less wind in here!"
My first question is, does this mean we have to buy new mobile phones?
Nope, not at all. You can buy a new phone, or you can just realize that you're not that important after all, and whoever you're calling will still be there in three hours when you land, and save yourself a couple of hundred bucks on the unit, plus service charges.
Damn yuppies, think they always have to be in constant communication with the world. Guess what: nobody really cares about your brother-in-law's hernia surgery.
Penya asks: "Why the use of ANY electronic device is prohibited below a certain altitude, except when sitting still at the gate?"
The simple answer is "because the rules say so." To wit:
(14 CFR is the Federal Aviation Regulations, part 121 (and part 135, in some circumstances; 14 CFR 135.144 has identical stipulations) governs airlines)
So the rule is actually a Federal Regulation, not the airline acting unilaterally.
The reason for the rule is to prevent possible interference with not just aircraft avionics, but any systems in the aircraft. In addition to the avionics (comm radios, nav radios (typically just below the AM broadcast band and just above the FM broadcast band), marker beacons, and other devices), there are also sensors and equipment in the airplane that don't respond well to induced signals. I've seen a number of cases of electronics handling RF signals badly: monitors that shut down when I key a ham transmitter (2m (144 MHz), one watt, into a ducky at a distance of a couple of yards from the monitor), cars that activate the brakes when you key the transmitter (damn computer control!), and others. RADAR, in particular, responds badly to induced RF, and every airliner has it, for detecting weather. Some also have Stormscopes, lightning detectors that look for electrostatic discharge. The aircraft's electrical system itself is designed to run at 400Hz (not the usual 60), and inducing RF has the capacity to cause some problems. Introducing RF into the computerized engine controllers (remember, computer = clock = RF oscillator) is a really bad idea.
The reason they allow the use of some devices at cruise is that cruise is a less critical phase of flight. In the terminal area, things happen quickly, with frequent heading changes, altitude changes, and such. Pilots must be in constant communication with controllers, and their navigation must be very accurate, to avoid hitting things that might hurt (which, when you're travelling at 250 knots, is pretty much anything). Approach is a particularly critical phase: the navigation equipment in most airliners is designed to bring the airplane down at about 750-1000 feet per minute (vertical speed) at around 150 knots (average; bigger airplanes are faster), down to 100 feet above the ground (Category II ILS; Cat I is 200 feet, Cat III can go all the way to the surface, with zero forward visibility for IIIc). If the navigation equipment should become unreliable during the approach, the result is usually a Bad Thing. In cruise flight, however, the precision required is much less, communication with Center happens relatively rarely, and there's a lot more time to see and correct a problem before running into something.
The prohibition on the use of cell phones is actually twofold: the FAA prohibits the use of them, for the aforementioned reasons, and the FCC prohibits the use of them because sticking an antenna on a 35,000 foot tower is a great way to expand your signal coverage. Put a cell phone up there, which was specifically designed to have a small footprint, and one phone can simultaneously jam several dozen cells, preventing other people from using the network. It also requires rapid cell-swapping, which further overburdens the network (and eats batteries besides).
The reason some, but not all, devices are approved above a given altitude (usually around 10,000 feet) is because they're generally considered safe, by the fact that they're not designed to radiate RF signals. Computers, CD players, Game Boys, etc., all have an oscillator (clock), but they're designed to keep it internal, and rarely radiate anything. Fine at cruise, but nobody wants to take chances in the critical phases, because there's less margin for error. Radios (receivers) are verboten because they use an internal oscillator (modern designs, anyway; most are superheterodyne, which requires mixing the received signal with a local oscillator), and they have an antenna connected. Even though they're not designed to radiate, they usually do so, to some degree. Transmitters are obvious, particularly aviation-band transmitters. Even if you just listen, you're still running the LO, and handheld radios have a way of getting put in places in such a way as to key the mic, jamming the frequency, which, presumably, had somebody talking on it, or it wouldn't be very interesting. See also: Bad Things.
An interesting trend I have observed is the willingness of people to put themselves at risk, when they don't have the authority (as pilot-in-command) to do so. Passengers who insist on taking off into bad weather (against the advice of the pilot), or who ignore rules (such as portable electronics) because they want to. For example, Penya relates: "Not that I followed the rules because I wanted to take some nice pictures on a flight that barely went above that altitude for long (BGR to BOS)." You're playing dumb games here. No, you obviously didn't cause the airplane to crash, but unless you designed both the camera and the avionics, you didn't know what you were doing. Avionics are remarkably robust (they have to be before they can be certificated), but how do you know that the airplane didn't strike a small bird (I've personally hit two, on a single flight) that knocked loose some shielding or something? Ice, perhaps? Maybe there was a power surge that fried one of the filter capacitors. It has been my experience that the less educated the passenger on the possible dangers, the more willing he is to risk his (and everybody else's) life. Would you have argued if the flight attendant (or the captain) had asked you to turn it off, or would you have complied? (BTW, if you like aerial photography (I love it, as do a lot of pilots), there's a simple solution: a mechanical camera. A lot of them take better pictures than modern electronic ones anyway.
Incidentally, this isn't news: I read about this system a couple of years ago. At the time, AirCell had a model that could be installed in the aircraft, and used only their network, and another model that was portable, and used both conventional (terrestrial) cell networks and the AirCell network, switching automatically between the two.
And yes, I do know what I'm talking about. I'm a flight instructor/instrument flight instructor, and I regularly fly King Airs, among others.
So *that's* what I've been doing wrong all these years!
It was Debt of Honor, which is indeed by Clancy. The aircraft in question was a Japanese 767-AWACS bird, and the light was essentially a high-powered spotlight; Clancy described it as having a beam width of 40 feet at a mile's distance, and being bright enough to read a newspaper at the same distance. And yes, it was shined into the cockpit on short final, causing a crash. IIRC, John Clark and Ding Chavez executed the mission.
BBC News has an interesting article about how the judge has chided Congress for being inept and unclear.
Congress inept? Never!
Creating new elements in particle accelerators does alter the way we (well, physicists) think about the world. Creating trans-Uranic elements gives physicists insight into the atomic structure, how atoms are built, what keeps them together. Indeed, the creation (and destruction--how they fall apart is just as important as how they're built) of new elements provides data that are used to shape the most fundamental models of the universe; quantum theory and other such things are derived, in part, from such data.
Additionally, some of those elements do have a practical use; perhaps you've heard of a synthetic element called Plutonium?
I thought I would just provide a little more information for those of you who are too lazy to read the article.
You've been here before, haven't you?
There is no AA: in Windows
There should be. I know I start drinking every time I use Windows...
My ass. They can try to blur them all they want, but it will be a cold day in hell before my office is in my home. When I go home, I want to get away from work. My employer gets fully a third of my weekday existence as it is (8 hours of 24), plus occasional weekend work when things get tight. I don't want to go home, only to do more work. That's my time for family, friends, or just plain sitting on my couch in my boxers drinking a beer.
We've been way to permissive in allowing our employers to demand increasing amounts of our time, particularly those of us on salary, who don't get overtime pay. We need to grow a backbone, stand up, and declare, in one voice, "NO MORE!" If we fail to do so, we will all be changing our job descriptions to "wage slave," because that's what we'll be.
Does it get hot under that tinfoil hat?
Oh, and incidentally, your .sig calls for Clinton to be returned to power, though he has served both of his allowed terms. How do you reconcile this with what appears to be an accusation that the Republicans are trying to repeal the term limit?
As more and more companies compete for business, customer service is getting more important. As a sysadmin for a major midwestern university, I recently attempted to purchase a new Dell server. I tried for three weeks to get in touch with our assigned representative (remember, higher education = multimillion dollar contracts--we're not talking about some poor end-user with a $600 PC here), with no success. Her voicemail message suggested I e-mail her, but I had several questions to ask, some of which depended on the answers to other questions; besides, I'm the customer, damnit, and if I want to talk to a rep before I make a purchase, I'm damn well going to talk to a rep. Since my rep wouldn't call me back, I tried the main Higher Education line (again, remember higher ed = big contracts). I waited on hold for about 15 minutes before I said "this is bullshit, when somebody answers, I'm going to tell them off, and have them call me back after lunch." An hour later (75 minutes total), I was still on hold, and just said "fuck it." I called Gateway, had answers, and a quote by FAX, in eight minutes. Gateway will get the order, as soon as the request goes through channels. I would have preferred Dell (I think their quality is a little better), but if I have to go through that much to get them to take my money, what will I have to do to get support?
The kicker: when the Gateway server comes in, I'm going to take a picture of myself with that wonderful cow-spotted box. Going to send a copy of it to Dell, along with a letter:
With any luck, somebody will lose his job over it; this sort of situation is bullshit.
Incidentally, the really cool part is that I got more computer for less money by going Gateway over Dell. Even got SCSI drives instead of IDE. Sorry Dell--your loss. Try a little "customer service" next time.
Amen...I've dealt with a couple of companies that will have a computer call me, then either ask me to hold the line, or call them back (one of them didn't even include a toll-free number). I usually hold or return the call, then immediately ask to speak to a manager. When the manager answers, before he has a chance to state his business, I inform them that if they want to talk to me, they can have a human--not a computer--call me, and they will not put me on hold--they want to talk to me, not vice versa. I then inform him that I'm going to hang up, and wait by the phone for five minutes (my phone is right next to my couch and my beer fridge), and that if they want to talk to me, they should call me back immediately. Then I hang up. So far, none of them has wanted to talk to me very badly. Guess it wasn't that important after all.
I am considering rigging up a wardialer for the toll-free numbers, though...
I take offense at this. I am one of those "idiot administrators" of whom you speak--I run an unsecured wireless access point (two, actually). I do so by choice--my home network is for my use, and that of my guests; setting up individual permissions for every guest is a pain. Additionally, I'm happy to share the bandwidth with my neighbors. I keep an eye on my logs, and so far (1.5 years), I've not seen anything that concerns me. My other network is also open to the public. I follow the same security procedures as the wired network to which it connects: if you can plug in, you can get access. With the abundance of public ports, and unsupervised ports, my wireless hub does not affect security in any way. It does, however, add convenience. If you're ever in the pilot lounge at Westheimer Airport (Norman, OK), and notice you have 802.11b connectivity, stop by my office and say hi--that's my hub you're using, and I hope you enjoy it. Idiot sysadmin? No, try generous--there are no security concerns for me, so I share, try to do everybody a favor. I'll shut down the open access when it becomes a problem; until then, enjoy the bandwidth.
Flashing? Quick, cover it up! Won't somebody think of the children?
The Salon article you mention is inflammatory, trollish, and ill-informed. I've done some research on that accident for my Crew Resource Management class (did I mention I'm a corporate pilot, and a CFI/CFII?). The fact of the matter is that the Dutch captain (who, BTW, was notoriously difficult to get along, due to his demanding and controlling nature) deserves sole blame for the accident. We actually discussed this incident today in class (my instructor, BTW, is a 5000+ hour USAF B52 pilot with substantial combat experience, and a hell of a lot of experience with CRM, both using it and teaching it).
The facts of the crash: The KLM 747 was cleared to back-taxi the runway, followed by the Pan Am 747. The KLM bird was supposed to taxi to the end, turn around, and hold; the Pan Am jet was supposed to taxi about 3/4 of the way down, then turn off onto a taxiway so the KLM jet could depart, then taxi to the end and take off itself. While the two planes were taxiing, the cloud cover came down, and fog began rolling in, instilling a sense of urgency in the Dutch captain, who would have been forced to delay if the fog got any worse. Incidentally, it was that very captain who had appeared in KLM's advertising, advertising which hyped KLM's on-time record; to say that he was pressured to complete the flight on-time would be an understatement. The Dutch captain, upon executing his turn, immediately advanced his throttles to takeoff power. The Dutch first officer retarded the throttles, reminding the captain that they had no clearance; the Pan Am 747 was still taxiing, as cleared. Tower asked the Pan Am jet if they were clear, and Pan Am replied "no, we are not clear, we will advise when we are." The KLM jet received its routing clearance (NOT a takeoff clearance), and the captain again advanced the throttles. The flight engineer, worried about the Pan Am jet, asked the captain if the Pan Am jet was clear, and he replied, impatiently, that it was clear, and proceeded with the takeoff. The FO, still worried, advised tower (and, by extension, the Pan Am crew) that they were "at takeoff" (a non-standard radio call, and somewhat ambiguous). The Pan Am FO heard the call and immediately advanced the throttles and began turning, while advising his captain (who heard the call as well, and was taking the same action). The Pan Am jet was nearly clear of the runway when the Dutch jet struck them. Make no mistake about it: the Tererife crash was the KLM captain's fault. There were other factors, but the KLM captain was the causal factor (or proximate cause, for the lawyers in the crowd). Blaming this on equipment trouble is ludicrous. The Salon article was terrible.
Incidentally, another Salon article, which was linked to in the Tererife story, complained about the Airbus A300. I found that article perhaps even more trollish and less informed than the Tenerife article, and I'm a staunch detractor of Airbus aircraft. I work from the position of "if it ain't Boeing, I ain't going," and even I found the Salon article offensive.
I'm not saying this isn't a cool hack, the epitome of geek, but I'm not going to be really impressed until a robot picks up my laundry, washes it, debits my creditcard and returns it, preferably folded.
They already have this: it's called a full-service laundry, and it may be cheaper than you think. The laundry I use (Highlander Laundry/Fluff 'n' Fold, Norman, OK) charges 60 cents/pound to wash, dry, press, and fold/hang; the laundry facility in my apartment costs more than that. Yes, I do have to take my clothes over there myself, and pick them up the next day, but dropping off/picking up on the way to/from work is no big deal, and there are other services (more expensive, of course) that do offer pickup/delivery. Yeah, it would be cool to have a robot pickup, but probably not worthwhile--acquisition cost and maintenance on a robot would be a lot more than paying some minimum-wage flunky to drive around town, just like the pizza guy. In any case, look into full-service laundries--they're one of life's great conveniences, and may even be cheaper than doing it yourself.
Maybe one of you space-mathematics types out there can educate us on just what 0-Mach 5 in 15 seconds really means!
It means, in layman's terms, "chunky salsa."
"Mach number" refers to the ratio of your current speed to the speed of sound in the environment through which you are moving (i.e. the air at the current temperature and pressure). The speed of sound changes as you climb (density decreases) and as temperature rises (density decreases). --Dave Buckles, CFII
What the FUCK would this be in English?
You're asking on Slashdot...why?
When I found out I was nothing more than a bunch of vibrating strings, I realized 'morality' no longer had meaning.
And therein lies the problem. For the last fifty-ish years, morality, the sense of "right and wrong," has eroded, and been deliberately degraded, to the point where it means nothing. The system only works correctly when people (the constituency, the lobbyists, and the elected officials; everybody, starting at the bottom) know the difference between right and wrong, and stand up for right. Unfortunately, nobody seems to know the difference anymore, or at least nobody seems to care. Particularly recently, our culture has adopted an attitude of selfish instant gratification.
Don't see it? Look at our last president. President Clinton had so many shady deals and moral deficiencies (the Whitewater affair, Gennifer Flowers, Monica Lewinsky, and Juanita Broderick, just to name a few*) that it's hard to keep count. He was impeached for lying and obstructing justice, for chrissakes! The most powerful man in the country, the one supposed to be setting the example, the one in charge of enforcing laws (Chief Executive), can't even follow simple laws himself. With that kind of inspiration, who is surprised that the rest of the country is following suit?
We've seen an attack on morality for fifty years. The schools (controlled primarily by the political left, although there are plenty on the right with similar ideas) teach diversity and moral relativism over clear, hard, simple right and wrong. Well, here it is: lying is wrong. Stealing is wrong. It's not OK because everybody else does it, it's not exercising your prerogative based on loopholes in the law/rules, it's not your privilege as an executive, it's wrong. Plain and simple, no ambiguity, wrong. Get it?
There was a study recently concerning what college students are being caught. Seventy-five percent of students said that they are taught moral relativism over a clearly defined, absolute right and wrong. Interestingly, the about same 75% ranked "diversity" above "an accurate balance sheet" in importance. They're saying that if they can only have one, they'd rather ensure that their employee base was politically correct, then be honest to their investors and creditors. Does anybody else see a problem here?
My dad is a lawyer for the USAF Materiel Command, Directorate of Ethics and Fraud Remedies. I seem to recall him telling me that his office alone catches roughly half a billion dollars' worth of fraud a year. Think about that--one office, in one Command (the USAF has 11, I think), in one branch of the service, which is but a part of the government, catches half a billion in fraud every year. When are we as a society going to say "enough! This is unacceptable"? When are we going to step up to the plate and demand that everybody be held accountable for his actions? It's popular now to call for sanctions against the executives of the various companies in hot water, but how about the low-level employees? When are we going to charge the entry-level accountant with fraud? You know, the one who followed the exec's instruction to inflate the balance sheet? Or his boss, who should have seen the error as part of his review (you do review your subordinates' work, don't you?)? Or his boss, or his boss? This isn't the fault of one person at the top of the corporate ladder, it's a concerted effort from the bottom of the chain of command all the way to the top. In some cases, the CEO may not even have known (yes, there are some such cases); that does not, however, excuse him from responsibility. Why are middle managers any different? Why are the people who actually entered the data, the ones who actually committed fraud, exempt?
Ironically, every time there's an initiative to fix the problem at the source, it is shot down in flames, usually by the people crying the loudest about executive corruption. To fix the problem, we have to start instilling a strong sense of ethics in the people. I've heard several proposals for instituting "charactar education" in the schools, but they always seem to be defeated. Instead, we get students who plagiarize essays, and school principals who tell the teachers to let them pass anyway, give them another chance. How are kids supposed to learn right and wrong from that? I'm not talking about elementary school children here, I'm talking about high schoolers! These people are going to be entering the corporate workforce in at little as four years, and we're encouraging the very behavior (through positive reinforcement) that we disdain. College professors who lie about their accomplishments, who claim awards and degrees they haven't earned; when somebody notices, management says "keep it quiet," to prevent embarrassment. Professors who lie about their research; I recall a case recently of an Emory University prof researching gun control history who completely fabricated his research. First he claimed it was from one source, but that source said they'd never seen him; then he claimed it was from a county records department, but the department confirmed that the records he claimed to have used didn't exits--they had been destroyed in a flood years before. He's still trying to find a source, and still works for Emory--why? The Air Force had it right with Kelly Flynn. (For those who don't recall, Lt. Kelly Flynn was a B-52 pilot who was discharged from the USAF for disobeying orders and lying**.)
Those who oppose character education usually say "that's the parents' job." True. So, parents, why aren't you doing your jobs? Is it because you're too busy working twelve, thirteen, fourteen hour days, worshipping the almighty dollar, and letting your kids be raised by the TV and PlayStation, by Disney and Sony? I've met a number of parents in wealthier suburbs of DC, and the attitude is generally the same: placate the kid so you don't have to deal with him, and give him "stuff" to assuage your conscience for not giving him "love" and "attention," which are the things he so desperately needs. Yes, I know you have jobs, but maybe, just maybe, you need to re-evaluate your priorities in life. My dad is a lawyer, and he's home by about 1800 every night. He's not making a million dollars a year, but we live very comfortably on his civil servant's salary (GS-15, with about 25 years). Mom doesn't have a full-time job, or rather, she doesn't have a second full-time job: she is a mother. No, that's not a dirty word, and yes, it an honorable (and critical!) profession. Raising kids, especially at a young age (when they're most receptive to learning) is a full-time-plus job. We as a society seem to hail the "single-mother-by-choice***" as some sort of hero, a cultural icon. This scares me--first of all, a child needs a father in his life as well as a mother, but secondly, unless she's being supported completely by somebody else, then she has to work. How many people do you know that can successfully and properly handle two-plus full-time jobs? That's right, none. There aren't enough hours in the day to do a full-time job (8 hours/day), another full-time-plus job (8+ hours/day), and sleep (8-10 hours/day to be healthy). And, to make it worse, raising a child isn't something you can do on a 9-5 schedule--you have to be there much longer than just your punch in/punch out schedule.
You want to know where the problem is? Parents, first and foremost, failing to do their jobs of raising their kids. We can point fingers all over the place, but it all boils down to parents failing to institute a sense of right and wrong into their children, and enforcing it it from a young age. If parents would do it, and demand that the schools hold their children to the same standard (instead of threatening to sue when they do), this problem would go away. Not today, not tomorrow, not even next week; it would take a generation to work, but that's what happens when you have problems that take a generation to really take root. I know we want a quick fix (see also: instant gratification), but it just isn't going to happen. The only way to fix the problem is to persevere, to plug away at it day by day, hour by hour, for the next twenty or so years. Only then can we hope to see the rebirth of a culture of honor, decency, and ethics.
*For those who say Clinton's personal behavior was probed unfairly, and is nobody's business, you're wrong: he was accused of criminal rape by Juanita Broderick, and the investigation into his behavior was a criminal investigation, which is entirely appropriate--unless, of course, you believe that the president is above the law (like he apparently did). Also, the impeachment was not for the blowjob, it was for lying under oath and obstructing justice.
**Kelly Flynn: same deal. She was booted for lying and disobeying a lawful order, not the adultery. The woman was entrusted to carry nuclear weapons; she has to be trustworthy, and able to follow orders.
***I do not mean to denigrate, or otherwise diminish, the struggles of single mothers who do not do so by choice. I know it's a lot of work to raise a kid, and I respect the desperate struggle these women fight. I'm talking about the ones who choose to raise a kid without a father as a social protest, to "show (or spite) the world" that they don't need anybody. They're using their kids as protest signs, and it's irresponsible, and hurtful for the kid.
Yes, this is, indeed, very cool. I've been following the Eclipse for a couple of years, and I'm very excited at the possibility of a twinjet (a jet, for chrissakes!) selling for less than a million clams. I hope this company takes off (pun intended!); I recall reading about a similar proposition being cancelled recently.
Side note: if anybody from the company is reading this, and you need pilots, please (!) drop me a note. I'm an aviation major at the University of Oklahoma, and desperately seeking a flying job. Check out my resume (presently being updated; if it doesn't work, give it 24 hours).
--Dave