I think they really don't know what to do with ham radio. Some have tried to take it in a packet radio direction, but realistically that requires encryption. Some have tried to use it for more general-purpose voice communication, but again, privacy concerns come up. Cell phones have made it a lot more difficult to justify the time and expense, and other kinds of unlicensed radio or looser-licensed radio (GMRS/FRS type stuff) makes it harder to justify using ham radio for short-distance communications, and Internet-based voice over IP communications makes it a lot harder to justify using ham radio for long distance communication.
I have a 2m HT and a 10m mobile that needs repair. I last turned on the 2m radio on a road trip so I could listen to a simplex frequency in case anyone else asked for help. I barely received some other parties' rag-chewing, but that was the only time 146.520MHz lit-up. I haven't spoken with anyone in close to a decade; I only renewed my license because it was of negligible cost and effort to do so. I don't know what to do with ham radio even as a licensed operator, and I don't think that most other people do either.
If these changes allow ham radio in the UK to increase in usage, then maybe similar regulation changes in the US could help increase usage and make what was supposed to be something of an educational hobby actually provide something useful and educational again.
Where I live, our lows drop below freezing maybe five nights a year for no more than a few hours at a time. Our highs reach into the high 110s and have crossed 120 a few times. I didn't turn on the heat until the end of November, and it's warmed up again a bit, I could probably turn it off again and not feel it too much.
I could probably live quite comfortably with a modest backup generator as the auxiliary power source if the solar isn't meeting the demand.
They charge for the connection fee because it's their only way of fighting back. They claim that it costs that much to maintain the power grid that one uses. That's a load of crap; back in the day one could buy distribution from one power company and by electrical generation from another power company, and the cost for the connection was nominal, like less than $10/month. This is EXACTLY the same kind of connection, but with the possibility of power coming from the property as well.
This all is simply protectionist. They're trying to preserve what they've got in the face of a paradigm shift. When batteries or other storage tech reaches an optimal point, we won't need them anymore in many parts of the country for probably all single-family housing. How do you think they'd fare if they lost 40% of customer service points over the course of a decade?
Utilities are scared that enough customers will stop using them that they'll have to raise rates with remaining customers in order to continue to pay for the power production machinery that's on-credit, which will further drive away customers to alternative sources of power.
Thing of it is, there's really no excuse for new single-family homes to not have solar on the roof. It's a lot more affordable for the average family if the solar is part of the mortgage than if it's a separate itemized purchase. I'd like to retrofit my house to solar as well, and I'm considering how to do it, but the local power company wants to charge out the ass to solar customers that are grid-tied, basically to make it as expensive as if you're buying power from them, and they want to pay jack and shit (and jack left town) for power that you sell back to them.
the local power company, SRP, is attempting to get permission to charge an insane amount of money for a solar home to be connected to the grid. They're trying to scare-off home solar by making it as expensive or more expensive than being grid-connected. In the middle of the desert.
If nighttime storage issues get resolved, many homes won't need to be on the grid here, as our peak power use is also the time of year with the longest daylight hours and the highest demand is in the mid-afternoon when it's hottest and the HVAC units are running. If they get solar and battery tech going well enough that we can generate all the power we need at-peak and still have enough for nighttime use, then customers won't need the power company anymore.
I am strongly considering this. I have a room that is climate-controlled but not part of the house that could be a battery and inverter room, and I've got enough land that I could install a demand-load generator if my demand or nighttime use peaks above production or storage capability. The only significant downside is that I have no natural gas service, so I would have to have fuel delivered for the generator.
If I had natural gas service I wouldn't think twice about going solar for electricity and getting off-grid for electricity service.
It was a good thing that the Soviets did this too; Buran decompressed and the crew would have probably died had they launched with personnel the only time it flew.
It's a shame that they weren't more successful in many ways. We work a lot better when we have competition.
Somehow I have a feeling they'll use a different 'shuttle' between Earth and Mars, and this will be used as a re-entry vehicle on return.
If that's indeed the case, then they might not even need to take it with them. They'd be better off building another space-station-ish thing, and sending that thing between Earth and Mars. Don't send it into the atmosphere either, use other craft as tenders for that sort of thing.
If Martian space science becomes a big deal, send a permanent orbital facility to Mars tha gets docked-with by the long-distance shuttle, that holds supplies and other bulk-goods at the expense of crew space. It can hold multiple missions' worth of materiel tool, so that one mission that is launched with not-man-rated rockets can send it, while the more expensive man-rated rockets send the human mission.
Based on how Walmart is one of the biggest employers in the country despite their horrible labor practices, apparently they weren't paying attention in school.
Well, I don't know the technical details of it, but I've seen a BYOD environment that successfully did it, without having any directory services on the personal devices.
An interesting thing of it though, it's possible to man-in-the-middle HTTPS. It requires one to be a router in-stream, and to proxy the traffic, and to report one's own SSL information to the web client, then to decrypt, and re-encrypt when proxy-requesting from the server.
This is actually normal behavior on corporate networks. Cisco has products that are specifically designed to do this. An interesting way to see if it's going on is to use a new browser with HTTPS Everywhere running with the SSL Observatory turned on in the wild, then use it on a corporate network and see if one gets warnings.
That's what I was thinking. If one is forced into radical change, then all bets are off.
The thing of it is, I don't really understand what's wrong with e-mail. I've used e-mail since my BBS days in the early nineties, graduating to fidonet, then to my first Internet-connected BBS with PINE in 1994. E-mail clients eventually followed the Usenet model and started threading replies together which is probably Gmail's best feature, and then the interconnectedness allowing mail, contacts, phone entries, docs, etc to work together helped make Google's user services extremely easy to use across devices.
I have my doubts that they can significantly improve e-mail. It still comes down to opening each e-mail and reading it, however it's parsed, sorted, compartmentalized, split, etc.
Do they detain the crew and any passengers on stray boats that are caught within the restricted area?
There was a plot point in a TV movie called Earth II where someone attempted to sabotage a space launch with a rifle at the beginning. I assume that if an important tank or engine component is punctured by rifle fire at the right time it would destroy the vehicle.
No, I don't like tablet computers. As I said elsewhere in this discussion, I don't see an application for them that justifies them over a conventional computer. On the other hand, if there are peripherals like keyboards, stands for them to sit like a screen, etc, then they can be useful like a conventional computer.
The other side of the coin too, is that hydraulic solutions like the conventional automatic transmission and its torque converter can be designed to function entirely without electricity whatsoever, and in the past, the only electricity that went to a conventional hydraulic automatic transmission was for getting gear status (ie, the neutral safety switch). Even early lock-up torque converters were hydraulic. Later electronic controls were added, but fundamentally they're still hydraulic systems that need very little tech to operate.
There's a good reason why the least expensive solution often wins-out, people are cost-conscious first, and only a very small group of people would choose otherwise when the cost to do so is high. Space certainly qualifies, but terrestrially I don't expect something that's expensive and complicated to win-out over something that's inexpensive and relatively simple when the simple solution meets the needs of the application.
And what percentage of kids of all ages in public schools program computers? And of that group, what percentage use a common industry language for their programming, as opposed to a toy language along the lines of LOGO or a teaching language like Pascal?
Education may be run locally, but there are lots of federal programs that help pay for it. The federal government has an interest in seeing its money spent well, and has an interest in anticorruption enforcement that might be hard to achieve at a city or state level.
Slashdot Mirror
I think they really don't know what to do with ham radio. Some have tried to take it in a packet radio direction, but realistically that requires encryption. Some have tried to use it for more general-purpose voice communication, but again, privacy concerns come up. Cell phones have made it a lot more difficult to justify the time and expense, and other kinds of unlicensed radio or looser-licensed radio (GMRS/FRS type stuff) makes it harder to justify using ham radio for short-distance communications, and Internet-based voice over IP communications makes it a lot harder to justify using ham radio for long distance communication.
I have a 2m HT and a 10m mobile that needs repair. I last turned on the 2m radio on a road trip so I could listen to a simplex frequency in case anyone else asked for help. I barely received some other parties' rag-chewing, but that was the only time 146.520MHz lit-up. I haven't spoken with anyone in close to a decade; I only renewed my license because it was of negligible cost and effort to do so. I don't know what to do with ham radio even as a licensed operator, and I don't think that most other people do either.
If these changes allow ham radio in the UK to increase in usage, then maybe similar regulation changes in the US could help increase usage and make what was supposed to be something of an educational hobby actually provide something useful and educational again.
Find something to actively do. Have no more broadcasted stimulation than the radio. By doing something you'll focus your attention.
I tend to work on machinery or cars in my workshop. Still can be very technical when building an engine from a bare block with mains, but needs focus.
Where I live, our lows drop below freezing maybe five nights a year for no more than a few hours at a time. Our highs reach into the high 110s and have crossed 120 a few times. I didn't turn on the heat until the end of November, and it's warmed up again a bit, I could probably turn it off again and not feel it too much.
I could probably live quite comfortably with a modest backup generator as the auxiliary power source if the solar isn't meeting the demand.
They charge for the connection fee because it's their only way of fighting back. They claim that it costs that much to maintain the power grid that one uses. That's a load of crap; back in the day one could buy distribution from one power company and by electrical generation from another power company, and the cost for the connection was nominal, like less than $10/month. This is EXACTLY the same kind of connection, but with the possibility of power coming from the property as well.
This all is simply protectionist. They're trying to preserve what they've got in the face of a paradigm shift. When batteries or other storage tech reaches an optimal point, we won't need them anymore in many parts of the country for probably all single-family housing. How do you think they'd fare if they lost 40% of customer service points over the course of a decade?
Yeah, because I'll be able to buy it at the home depot when I'm 120 years old.
Utilities are scared that enough customers will stop using them that they'll have to raise rates with remaining customers in order to continue to pay for the power production machinery that's on-credit, which will further drive away customers to alternative sources of power.
Thing of it is, there's really no excuse for new single-family homes to not have solar on the roof. It's a lot more affordable for the average family if the solar is part of the mortgage than if it's a separate itemized purchase. I'd like to retrofit my house to solar as well, and I'm considering how to do it, but the local power company wants to charge out the ass to solar customers that are grid-tied, basically to make it as expensive as if you're buying power from them, and they want to pay jack and shit (and jack left town) for power that you sell back to them.
the local power company, SRP, is attempting to get permission to charge an insane amount of money for a solar home to be connected to the grid. They're trying to scare-off home solar by making it as expensive or more expensive than being grid-connected. In the middle of the desert.
If nighttime storage issues get resolved, many homes won't need to be on the grid here, as our peak power use is also the time of year with the longest daylight hours and the highest demand is in the mid-afternoon when it's hottest and the HVAC units are running. If they get solar and battery tech going well enough that we can generate all the power we need at-peak and still have enough for nighttime use, then customers won't need the power company anymore.
I am strongly considering this. I have a room that is climate-controlled but not part of the house that could be a battery and inverter room, and I've got enough land that I could install a demand-load generator if my demand or nighttime use peaks above production or storage capability. The only significant downside is that I have no natural gas service, so I would have to have fuel delivered for the generator.
If I had natural gas service I wouldn't think twice about going solar for electricity and getting off-grid for electricity service.
It was a good thing that the Soviets did this too; Buran decompressed and the crew would have probably died had they launched with personnel the only time it flew.
It's a shame that they weren't more successful in many ways. We work a lot better when we have competition.
Somehow I have a feeling they'll use a different 'shuttle' between Earth and Mars, and this will be used as a re-entry vehicle on return.
If that's indeed the case, then they might not even need to take it with them. They'd be better off building another space-station-ish thing, and sending that thing between Earth and Mars. Don't send it into the atmosphere either, use other craft as tenders for that sort of thing.
If Martian space science becomes a big deal, send a permanent orbital facility to Mars tha gets docked-with by the long-distance shuttle, that holds supplies and other bulk-goods at the expense of crew space. It can hold multiple missions' worth of materiel tool, so that one mission that is launched with not-man-rated rockets can send it, while the more expensive man-rated rockets send the human mission.
That's why I never got involved with Apple's stuff. I saw literally no benefit over my existing method of operation.
Besides, Winamp really whips the llama's ass...
Just go shopping for black turtlenecks. You'll feel better.
Based on how Walmart is one of the biggest employers in the country despite their horrible labor practices, apparently they weren't paying attention in school.
Doesn't matter much when the hotel shuttle will pick me up anyway.
I only see them on my phone, where I don't have all of the anti-infection-anti-annoyance plugins loaded, when I'm associated with my AP at home.
Well, I don't know the technical details of it, but I've seen a BYOD environment that successfully did it, without having any directory services on the personal devices.
Yes. COX is an offender for certain.
An interesting thing of it though, it's possible to man-in-the-middle HTTPS. It requires one to be a router in-stream, and to proxy the traffic, and to report one's own SSL information to the web client, then to decrypt, and re-encrypt when proxy-requesting from the server.
This is actually normal behavior on corporate networks. Cisco has products that are specifically designed to do this. An interesting way to see if it's going on is to use a new browser with HTTPS Everywhere running with the SSL Observatory turned on in the wild, then use it on a corporate network and see if one gets warnings.
That's what I was thinking. If one is forced into radical change, then all bets are off.
The thing of it is, I don't really understand what's wrong with e-mail. I've used e-mail since my BBS days in the early nineties, graduating to fidonet, then to my first Internet-connected BBS with PINE in 1994. E-mail clients eventually followed the Usenet model and started threading replies together which is probably Gmail's best feature, and then the interconnectedness allowing mail, contacts, phone entries, docs, etc to work together helped make Google's user services extremely easy to use across devices.
I have my doubts that they can significantly improve e-mail. It still comes down to opening each e-mail and reading it, however it's parsed, sorted, compartmentalized, split, etc.
Do they detain the crew and any passengers on stray boats that are caught within the restricted area?
There was a plot point in a TV movie called Earth II where someone attempted to sabotage a space launch with a rifle at the beginning. I assume that if an important tank or engine component is punctured by rifle fire at the right time it would destroy the vehicle.
Though they were nearly wiped-out when that committee meeting ran long and no one was present to man the defenses...
*grin*
I wouldn't mind a game of pac-man...
No, I don't like tablet computers. As I said elsewhere in this discussion, I don't see an application for them that justifies them over a conventional computer. On the other hand, if there are peripherals like keyboards, stands for them to sit like a screen, etc, then they can be useful like a conventional computer.
We already have extremely low friction fluid-drive connections, they're called torque converters.
The other side of the coin too, is that hydraulic solutions like the conventional automatic transmission and its torque converter can be designed to function entirely without electricity whatsoever, and in the past, the only electricity that went to a conventional hydraulic automatic transmission was for getting gear status (ie, the neutral safety switch). Even early lock-up torque converters were hydraulic. Later electronic controls were added, but fundamentally they're still hydraulic systems that need very little tech to operate.
There's a good reason why the least expensive solution often wins-out, people are cost-conscious first, and only a very small group of people would choose otherwise when the cost to do so is high. Space certainly qualifies, but terrestrially I don't expect something that's expensive and complicated to win-out over something that's inexpensive and relatively simple when the simple solution meets the needs of the application.
And what percentage of kids of all ages in public schools program computers? And of that group, what percentage use a common industry language for their programming, as opposed to a toy language along the lines of LOGO or a teaching language like Pascal?
buh-buh-buh-configuring! That's it! It costs that much to pay for having them all programmed!
That's why it's so expensive!
Education may be run locally, but there are lots of federal programs that help pay for it. The federal government has an interest in seeing its money spent well, and has an interest in anticorruption enforcement that might be hard to achieve at a city or state level.