Just to give context, the FAA until very recently banned usage of GPS for navigation. They wanted pilots to rely on tried and true legacy practices that were proven. Only recently have they opened up to allowing GPS usage.
Chile appears to buy military planes from the US, from a quick Google search I did. However, they would more likely have utilized a dual system that is called INS/GPS. GPS gives an initial fix, but then inertial navigation system is used. Pilots aren't like car drivers. They don't just turn on the Tom Tom and wait for a voice to tell them, "Turn left in 1/2 mile." A pilot, especially military, will be very highly trained in instrument rated flying, etc and you can't really blame GPS. The closest I've heard to blaming it is when a US plane crashed in Croatia, killing Secretary Brown. After the subsequent investigation, there were directives put out, which mandated systems be compatible with European communication systems (the Europeans had split the 25 MHz-wide signal for Air Traffic, and we had older systems which weren't compliant, so this plane was forced to land on a lesser used runway) and then anything with GPS has to have a standard SAASM chip (ensures proper decryption of the more precise or electronically encrypted signal).
For the reply that GPS knows where it is. If it's JUST a GPS, no it doesn't. GPS sets take a long time when first turned on precisely for this reason. Some will download the entire ephemeris dataset which tells them things like constellation health, etc, but primarily they are starting from scratch in solving for 3 or more distances. A GPS signal is sorta like playing Marco- Polo at the local pool, except the "MARCO" shout is timestamped. The speed of RF is roughly the speed of sound. If you know the time of transmission, roughly the time of receipt and the speed, you can solve for distance. Do this 3 or more times and you have 2 dimensional references (lat and long). 4 satellites give you the 3rd dimension, altitude. As your GPS set continues to track, it's refining the timing reference point, and doing a better job approximating the 3, 4 or more distances. There's also an influence of GDOP, or, geometric dilution of precision. Which simply means, if you track 3 or 4 satellites right next to each other, your fix won't be as precise. You want satellites as far as possible from each other. With 25+ up there (24 operational with spares galore), it's easy to get a fix on 5 or 6 and then pick and choose. Cheap sets won't do this, and hence will take longer to get as precise (if ever).
It's a little known fact, but Ronald Reagan made the decision back in the 80's that we'd allow civilian use of GPS after the Russians shot down the civilian passenger plane that had veered off course, and into their airspace. It was Sept 1, 1983. Selective Avail was set to next to nothing and A/S was off. So civilians had near-military level of precision. In the early 90s it was turned, effectively, completely off. I was on one of the crews and one of 4 Satellite System Operators that turned it the induced error to "0" (zero) on the entire constellation (it took two crews, each with 2 SSOs due to time, and proximity to normal crew changeover)
If it's military, it often DOESN'T want to be easy to track. So I don't think you'll find an RFP from the Program Office for their military planes adding a requirement for a squawk that anyone can track. But, yes they should have on during a normal flight a friend indicator for air traffic control. However, it might be possible their SOPs didn't tell them to turn it on for whatever reason. Only their pilots could answer this question.
Having flown on French, Canadian, German, US and 2 or 3 I'm forgetting, military transport planes, I can tell you there is no "preflight" announcement usually, other than night flights in Afghanistan where they have to remind the idiots to not create any illumination (e.g. iPods, people reading books if you can believe it, etc) so people on the ground have a target to shoot at.
Dude, did you not have a girlfriend in middle school? It's so extremely easy to get quite a "bit of play", even with all the clothes on. Getting in is absolutely no problem with or without pants (of course, pants off is a preferred approach;0 )
The article is describing how you can use the receivers to determine ionospheric and other disturbances by measuring the rate of deviation in radio frequency reception. GPS and ionoshperic modeling is common in GPS to determine how much interference is affecting the timing, and so you can then measure an "approximate additional" disturbance. These are all things any civilian who is a math geek can theoretically do.
What is being described here, AFTAC and NUDET, are onlyp performed by military organizations. On GPS there are two bands for civilian use, since the beginning, which is L1 and L2. The above techniques use those (L1 and 2). NUDET payload, which is a tertiary mission of GPS, has many sensors which then send the data via L3 to AFTAC. It's been about 15 years since I was a GPS satellite operator, so there may be additional sensors, but at the Block 1, 2 and 2A generations, you had optical (BDP), X-ray (BDX), and dosimeters (BDD), to name a few. The satellite in view will accumulate the data, and then cross-link them to every GPS satellite in view. Those satellites will downlink via L3. The logic is that no matter which satellite in the 24 constellation, through cross linking at least one will then send it to Shreiver AFB where AFTAC is located (actually was inside the 2 SOPS GPS ops MOD during the 90s). The NUDET data is entirely for Test Ban Treaty enforcement and not early warning. So this is why I laughed after the N. Korea test when the official stance was, "We don't know." I promise you from all the sensors we have, space, ground and sea based, we know exceptionally precisely what, where and how big it was. We just won't release it, giving the enemy a glimpse into our capabilities. Those from a political and military stand point that have a need to know, do.
I actually feel cheated if I can beat it in a single sit down, which might be doable if I had 10 hours. So, no, I don't prefer something beaten in 10 over 20. However, it needs to be entertaining. Saints Row 2 never got finished because the missions became mindless repeats, meanwhile I've finished GoW 1, 2 and every Halo (except Wars). I have Black Ops, which has never ENTERED single player campaign, but I've prestiged 5 times in multiplayer (yeah, slacking.. I only play 2-3 hours, 3 -4 times a week). I prefer pwning real people who are predictable, rather then AI players, who are just a slight bit more predictable. It's a lot more fun beating real people because you can take them out, adjust position, and then take them out a 2nd time when they dumbly run to exactly where you were... It's no fun agitating an AI and then teabagging 'em.
Yes. I started to post, but then held back. Seeing your comment made me decide to go ahead and reply. There is nothing interesting about the ISAF HQ document. As a matter of fact, it's no longer implemented the same way. I've worked there, and since 2007 they've moved most of the tactical role from the HQ ISAF over to KAIA's IJC, where the 3-Star runs the day to day ops. HQ is now able to strategically look "outward" and concentrate on how to make COIN effective. So a command and control from HQ would no longer be really relevent or even useful to our enemies...unless, as we did with the Space Shuttle, we're duping them into an inefficient way (in this case, of how to run a war).
Don't "feel" it is true? Heh, there's a motorcop in Oceanside that'd "feel" the opposite that day. I did get a chuckle out of his co-workers (waiting for their cases) when mid way through, I said, "I noticed one of the motorcycles parked outside has duct tape all over their laser radar, is that unit yours?" I was laid off, so I had a lot of time on my hands. I didn't mention this but I also sat in court for a few days to get a feel for the cases, etc. I knew I had 0% of winning, and so like I said in another reply, decided to make the most of my $300.
So, there's no way they'd put the County courthouse in a City called Vista, and then someone refer to it by the city? If I said to you, "Go to the North County Superior Court of California," would you know where to go without Google? Or, if I simply said, "Go to the Vista County Courthouse," I think you'd know exactly where I'm referring. To be technically accurate, yes, I should have called it the Vista Court Complex, but that's not terribly descriptive in my opinion.
I had over three pages of questions going through the usage and the manual. The questions weren't three hours straight, as like I said, there were a few recesses. I actually don't know myself why it took so long as I didn't repeat myself and was just working my way through technical aspects of misuse of a laser. Why the judge allowed? Don't know. I got my $300 worth though. Also haven't seen the officer at that intersection in 3 years.
To be honest, I was just irritated he lasered the car next to me (passing me on the right) and wrote me their ticket and so I was returning the favor.
I crossed a cop for about 3 hours in Vista County (San Diego). The judge recessed twice for a break during my cross. By the time I was done I'd gotten him to admit he had no idea how the thing operated (beam width, etc) and didn't know a single warning from the owners manual. I even pointed out his unit had been duct taped (an aftermarket modification). Still found guilty. The lack of certificate was your ticket killer.
I am somewhat in the same boat. I'd love to say I didn't walk away because I didn't want to be a quitter, but when you live in an area with a high concentration of similar skill sets, it's a little more difficult.
I first learned the lesson of this OP when I worked at Sprint PCS. I worked with incredible, intelligent, wickedly clever colleagues. When MCI was rumored to be talking merger with Sprint, the very best immediately left. With about 10 years distance to reflect, I still see it from the same perspective. When an abusive company talks merger, the elite start walking. Let that be your initial "warning shot." The merger never happened but the damage began. Next, we started getting top level leadership from the more "mature" side of the company, the "landline." It's a different culture, leadership style, technology management to dealing with cutting edge (wireless comm) versus entrenched markets (buried copper). Dumb things like, "Work Harder, Work Smarter," start happening, such as deciding, "If X amount of errors occur in a 4 hour maintentance window, then X * 75% will happen in a 3 hour maintenance window." I kid you not, but a senior VP made this decision. Next thing I know, 2nd Tier technical support calls went through the roof.
The next job I was the Director. I knew the company was a market follower and the HR manager even said to me, "We don't expect anyone to stay here more than 2 years." However, I built a good chunk of the group. I enjoyed working with them and it amazed me most of them stayed. When I got called to Active Duty, I returned to a group with a few ready to leave. I put things back in order and the group hummed along. I knew the economy was about to tank and I should have walked away, but again, I enjoyed the people I worked with, even if the job itself wasn't intellectually stimulating.
Which leads to today. I could stay where I am now, but I'm choosing not to. The smartest have walked away, and I'm about to likely follow. In the US, I grew accustomed to certain underlying, accepted facts, that I'm re-learning while working with European software developers and program managers. For me, CMMI level 3 style engineering is a no-brainer, however, here it's unlikely they'd get past level 2. It's not uncommon to ask, "Why does this feature not work, or what should it do?" and get silence. The responses are sometimes worse. "It's not supported." OK, the question was what should it do? These are military systems, so code should be written for a specific requirement. What was the requirement? I won't even follow the next logical question, "Why was the support dropped." So long story still long, I'll have no problems walking away.
I've come full circle. Even though I'm getting mid-career, I'm back to where I want to work with people who are forward leaning, clever, and intellectually stimulating. Maybe I'll regret it, but I'm still an optimist despite 20 years of job experience.:)
And yet, you post up. I guess that makes you the Joe Biden of posting.
I rolled out 2.5G and 3G on CDMA, let me explain
on
The Many Faces of 3G
·
· Score: 2, Informative
First off, there's no technical article that's going to be worse than a person who has no idea what he's talking about, and who's basing his observations on technical details as given by a salesperson. From what I RTFA, it's the basis of this discussion, but it can't be. Using the typical car anaology, you've built a race car with no tires.
First off, 3G is a generic term. If I say 3G for wireless telecomm, I'm referring to CDMA2000, which is a 3rd generation of wireless data protocol. 2.5 G was never really accepted as 3G because it didn't implement all the standards, such as real time allocation, and it was circuit switched packet data (laymans terms: wireless modem). Getting back to "3G", a third generation of iPhone can be called 3G, but still work on the 4th generation of wireless standards, right next to a 4th generation iPhone (4G) running on an older 3G data network (Sprint, whoever). In an attempt to keep this discussion simple, we'll just stick to the wireless, 3rd generation data format when saying, "3G."
Before 3G data was sent over the air on dedicated channels. If you wanted to have more data, you set asside more time, or codes (TDMA or CDMA). However if network modeling was bad, you either banged on the headroom for data (surfing Google took longer), or voice (calls didn't go out or come in). Carriers in the US from my observation are always giving priority to voice. So the common configuration was to give them more "pipe" and higher priority.
Enter 3G CDMA, aka CDMA 2000. Initially there was only one way to implement 3G, later developers came up with newer formats that were backwards compatible in most cases, such as EV, EV-D, and EV-DO. These all have meanings, feel free to Google. In a nutshell though, they're all different implementations of 3G. 3G, or CDMA2000, allows the cell site to allocate pipes by usage and type. So, if you're data surfing at 1am, when no one is around making voice calls, you get the full pipe and your data screams. Use the same phone, on the same cell site at 12 noon, and you get the minimum pipe, and if everyone's on voice calls, you may not get out at all until a slot opens up. This is not to be confused with "breathing" (where cell sites expand and contract RF coverage according to usage). That's at the RF, or Layer 1 if you will.
When you start mingling WiMax and other technologies, you're now blurring the usage of the term. WiFi is not typical CDMA (I'm only hedging with "typical" because I don't know what modulation method wifi uses). Back to car analogies, it's like buying a 2009 car, putting a 2010 engine in it, and calling it a 2010. Yes part of it is a new generation, but it's still a 2009. Adding Wifi to a CDMA phone didn't take it from 3G to 4G, so from a logical techology standpoint, going WiMax isn't either. It's a different format, frequency, and usage.
Eventually, all these technologies will blur and the author will be correct in being confused. The telecom manufacturers (lucent, nortel, etc) have been moving the "ip up the train." In the beginning, they went out a specific trunk to a rack mounted shelf of modems (2.5 G, circuit switched packet data) which either went into another backend, or out a plain old telephone line (POTS). With the original implementation,, data shared RF with voice, came in the tower, went through the switch, which then split out data out a PRI interface (T1) to a server which converted over to TCP/IP and then used Home/Foreign Agents to manage real-time changing points of connection within a network. In laymans terms, you could jump in your car in San Diego, fire up your laptop, and drive from SD to New York without changing the IP address your laptop was assigned. When I left telecom (early 2000s), they were rolling out IP from the Site Controllers back. Meaning, the Mobile Switch back at the main office didn't break it out. The eventual plan back then was IP from the cell site. Everything coming out was TCP/IP, regardless of data or voice. 3G still all applies, because
Mean, Median, Mode all are useful, but not when used in most advertising. If the lottery advertised, "Most of you will get, at best, a $1," would you buy it? No, they say, "You CAN win a bajillion dollars." Will you? Not likely. You are statistically MORE likely to hit the "up to" advertised speed of the broadband speeds on the internet, just possibly not at YOUR (mom's) house (basement). I get the "Up to" speed, but it's during the day. Friday evenings I drop from an AVERAGE (not peak) of 16 Mbps to around 8. I can stream two netflix movies and still surf.
It's funny, I read all sorts of comments but no one realizes it's everywhere. Your network card on your computer is likely "Gigabit," and you wouldn't have bought the 100BasteT card next to it for $5 less, however for various reasons your Gig card rarely goes over 10 Mbps. So maybe Cisco, Dlink, LinkSys, and the like ARE LYING! I mean, everyone knows that wiring termination can be substandard (cross talk reduces bandwidth), people run Windows which is stuffed like a pig at a festival, and various other bottlenecks.
That said, it's painfully onvious because if the original author said, "The average is 5 Mbps, and the standard deviation is 5Mpbs," a large number (if not all) would fail to realize this covers over 10Mbps, the "stated max."
Before I just trolled for GPS articles, but looks like my recent works surfacing here as well. It is true that there is a chat system, it's previous name is mIRC, and it's going to a newer system. NATO has a tool that does the same thing, which is called JChat. The article really doesn't do justice in how integrated all the groups are now. For the comment, "increased surveillance," put on your foil hat and go back to surfing. Unless you're planting IEDs or being stupid in Afghanistan, we don't care or have time to watch you surf p0rN from 23,000 miles up.
Back on the integration, all the teams are linked now. If they call in the IED, the CJOC (Chief of Ops for the Region) knows, the CAS (Close Air Support) and a whole litany of teams know instantly. The 3-Star HQ back in Kabul also knows. They also, as mentioned can not only see it on the UAV feed, but the local ops can see incoming patrols, convoys, anything in a few different Geo-based situational awareness tools....to soon include Google maps.
To expand a little, the increased capability is two fold here: first, the younger guys/gals understand it and use it (huge problem with 42 nations here), and second, they're efficient with it: 1 MEF (RC-S), TIC, Indir SAF, no PID, 1 WIA CAT X (US) GSW, QRF Resp, MTF. I just told you quickly, 1st Marine troops, South near Kandahar, are in contact with insurgents, using small arm fire, shooting randomly at the Marines, that they cant see, one US soldier was lightly injured by a bullet, and a whole lot of whoop ass is on the way... Stay Tuned...
There's a ton more but this gives a good idea. The article is probably one of the best tech military ones I've seen in a long time that didn't embellish, and got the context right. Kudo's to the writer for not taking liberties I so often see/read/hear.
I was a 3G data engineer for Sprint PCS during the launch of 2.5G and 3G data. There are a few problems with the type of testing it sounds like you want to do.
First, I would suggest reading the specs from the IEEE on CDMA 2000, aka 3G. CDMA2000 allows the ability to allocate and de-allocate bandwidth on demand and based upon quality of service configurations. At night, with no one on the cell tower, you're going to get the full pipe for data. You'll see bursts up in speed but then several things can happen. First, voice takes priority. So at midnight in this scenario, I pick up my phone and make a voice call and I take priority. You're pipe just got smaller. The next variable is overall tower usage. Cellular towers shrink and expand RF power with regards to usage. As more users get on, the cell tower will reduce it's footprint. So even if hardly anyone is on the phone, but there are a ton of subsribers on a cell, it can drop it's power. So your bandwidth and RF are variables which change by the second.
So if you're just doing a "Hey lets just see what we see," type of test, then expect a huge array of data with not too many descernable results. If you're looking for data to be compared with something else (carrier vs carrier, region vs region), then it also won't be terribly useful. As a geek, it'll be cool to know you can set the test up, but as a quantitative analysis tool it won't be repeatable or statistically useful. You also can't really compare it to desktop loading times either. The images you "download" via a wireless carrier are not the same. Go to Yahoo and download the GIF for their logo using an aircard or wireless carrier device. Now, download the same with a desktop PC over a wired (or other non-wireless carrier method). Not the same file size, huh?:)
Just as an aside, I used to test it using Stick Figure Death Theater ( www.SFDT.com ) since you can start a really long download and watch the stats. Also, it was entertaining to watch at the same time.
I read the attached article, but I still call BS. From the 2nd until 8th grade,I sold candy at school: Now and Laters, Jolly Ranchers, Blow Pops, and a slew of other "hard candy." Not once did it make a mess. I have a 2nd grader and the kids share candy all the time in the cafeteria. There's no mess. You can paint this anyway you want, but educators know better. Jolly Ranchers aren't new and it's not like there's been a rash of Jolly incidents. Gum, ok, I can understand. However, there's no commonailty between gum and hard candy. FWIW, I take a JR and throw it against the wall as hard as I can and the mess (assuming the wrapper comes open) can be cleaned in about 2 minutes. That's nothing compared to what happens with green peas. Those suckers go everywhere. Should we outlaw peas, carrots, mashed potatoes (hard to get out of ears and noses)? Again, BS.
One thing to keep in mind if you can wait and if you think you'll get laid off is COBRA. Under one of the Acts passed by Congress and approved by Obama, employers in most situations must pay 65% of COBRA premiums (vice the 101% former-employee cost formerly). I got laid off and my new employer's health care was going to cost $500. My old plan had triple the coverage and was going to be around $1200 a month. However, I researched, found out about the law, applied for it and started paying my 35% portion. It ended up being exactly the same amount. So instead of a $1000 cap per year on dental, I've got $2,500 for major and still more coverage for other dental procedures. Funny thing, both plans were with CIGNA.
I agree with you. At first I was getting my butt handed to me by knife yielding asshats, but if you're any good you figure out tactics to defeat them, such as claymores at choke points and choosing your fights with long line's of sight. I built several classes so that whatever map comes up, I've got a way to maximize my capabilities. At first I saw no use for One-Man Army, but I enable it on 60% of my classes so I can switch (I'm 1MA Pro now). E.g. I rarely use a RPG, or Stinger, so I'll run around with a short-range primary weapon, or assualt rifle. If I'm on a team that seems to be ignoring (and dying) a Harrier, I'll find a nice hiding spot, switch to the class with the Stinger and take it out. Only problem is I'm screwed in terms of switching again until I die, but that's usually not a problem. I still occasionally run into very gifted "ninja's" but on Hardcore Team Deathmatch and my tactics, it's now the exception. I laughed at guys who relied on the double shotty. You'll get me the first time, but I usually figure out their game and they become easy pickings (like riot shield noobs).
I usually avoid replying because honestly, most people have no clue about macro or micro economics. Your reply is spot on. I remember loan agents throwing loan docs at me with nothing more than a verbal promise of what I earned. They were willing to give me $750,000 on my word (and home's deed), yet Chase was jacking my rates to 35% if a payment was processed on the due date (which I canceled). Both were huge red flags in my book and both avoided, thankfully. It's funny how easy it is to forget that before the whole collapse there were, I believe on both sides of the isle, people saying the mortgage process/regulatory oversight was broken.
Sorry for the delay. Our internet is really bad at work and yesterday was a heavy training day. I ran 3 miles at lunch, swam laps at an Olympic sized pool for a Masters Swim Class for an hour, and then came home to do Legs & Back. I finished at 11pm and skipped Abs/Core which I normally do after Legs/Back. I was spent plus the work we did in the pool should have worked core pretty well.
Your hunch was right. It's one and a half miles (1.5m) in 12:30 (Twelve minutes, 30 seconds). It's too late for me to stay in the Air Force. Honestly, the irony is I do the equiv to at least 2 sprint marathons a week, and yet according to the Air Force, "I'm not physically fit." My run time, waist and pushups/situps tell them that. *rolleyes* We used to have the "tape and measure" saving grace but they nixed that. Now it's BMI, or Body Mass Index. They take a function of your height and divide by weight (H^2/W ?). So, no matter how muscular, unmuscular, body type, etc, I'm "not fit" according to the BMI until I, as a 5' 10" male, until I weight UNDER 169 pounds. So my soon-to-be-ex commander who's fat as hell and shaped like a pear (not a small pear) is "more fit" according to the AF because he can run for 12 minutes faster than me. Nevermind he looks like crap in uniform. Sorry if that sounds bitter, but it's pretty close. Pacing is an excellent idea. I tried training less miles per week (scaling back from 20-25 miles down to about 8 miles) and sprinting a lot more (all out sprint 100 yards, jog 100, repeat) but that just resulted in extremely painful injuries: plantar fascitis (ultrasound showed over 150% swelling) and my Nikes caused sinus tarsitis to flare up bad. However, I didn't get a pacer. When I ran with my wife, I started dropping times. I should have ran with her for my PT test. It's partially being stubborn and partially conceeding too late that it's what needed to happen. I wanted to do it mano-e-mano, or whatever. I wanted to pass and I wanted it to be all me. Possibly part of my anger should be at that bit of vanity, but it's still primarly aimed at a misguided PT test from the AF. The other irony is if you take my scores and extrapolate out, I pass the Army and Navy tests. Meaning, take my overall pace for 1.5 miles, stretch to 2 miles, use those scores with my situp/push up, I pass.
Plyometrics is part of my current training. I've also incorporated Yoga at least once a week with a well rounded workout (cardio and strength). Then, I'm following a Triathlon training schedule for endurance training. So, as an example, yesterday was 30 minutes running, and 45 minutes swimming. Today is 50 minute bicycle, tomorrow will be 40 minutes running, and Thursday is a "brick". I'll swim for 30 minutes and then immediately bike for 40 minutes. For strength/cardio, yesterday was Legs/Back/Abs (core), today is Yoga for 1 hour 40 minutes, tomorrow is a "rest day", and then Chest/Tri/Abs (core) on Thursday.
I have a lower model Garmin, so I'm not sure what is logs. I used it to just track my pace as I ran and overall speed/time. Now, the iPhone app MotionX logs: Name (you can name the track), notes, elapsed time, average pace (m/min), Distance, and max pace.
So I'm logging the above with my iPhone. Then I have P-90X strength/cardio logs on paper and on-line. The paper logs the number of reps and weight for strength training. The on-line log just logs the workout itself (e.g. Legs & Back on Monday, Yoga on Tuesday, etc). I use an excel spreadsheet from Triathlon Club of San Diego (TCSD) to track my "Beginners Training Guide for a Sprint Triathlon". It logs the exercise per day and the duration. So for yesterday, the Column read "Day 1", on the "Week 3: Run," and "Week 3: Swim" lines. The datafield for run was "30" (for 30 minutes) and swim was around 30 or 40.
I have a cheap $20 Reebok heartrate monitor that I use just to personally watch my training zone on Cardio training days. I'm to the point now I can tell without it where I am and how quickly I'll
I worked out for years without really logging anything. Then I started failing Air Force fitness tests (despite running 15+ miles a week for over a year), and was mandated to log. I logged, but they just wanted "times and type of fitness". Not useful and didn't really get better. Then I started doing an "As Seen on TV" program that had detailed logs and guidance. Immediately I started making gains. Later, I picked up training aides for Triathletes to prepare for their first Triathlon, and I'm again, seeing progress.
Also, doing research on what Olympians log helped me increase my performance. For example, as I mentioned I kept failing AF PT tests (maxed out sit ups, pushups, but my 35" waist meant I needed to run a 12:30 1/5 mile. I could do it at home but not "away" at military drill, 5 hours north) and I was getting frustrated. I'd run a 12:30 at home, and then 5 days later run a 16:00 at Vandeberg AFB. Then I noticed in one Olympic training log they logged such things as "Hours slept". I found hours slept had erratic impact on energy levels (one day I could get 4 hours sleep and feel fine, another time, "lag"), but had a very large, relationship to performance (regardless of "perceived energy level" before the run). This is where I learned very clearly, that logging is highly beneficial. The irony is I'm logging three places (on line, paper workout logs, and iPhone GPS "MotionX" app) and yet I am just about kicked out of the Air Force for not being physically fit, yet able to do triathlons in respectable times.
So back on topic, this peaked my interest because I've been wanting to find something to consolidate all of my training logs. I've got my P-90X (paper and on-line) training logs, my iPhone logged run times, and excel spreadsheet with triathlon training schedule. It's a bit much. Although interesting, I haven't really seen anything that replaces those yet.
To go into another topic, I did start losing weight when I stopped playing Halo3 until 2am every night and started getting 8 hours of sleep. Yes, my diet and training had a large degree of impact, but I think you set yourself up for success or failure with your sleep habits. Much more than most people recognize or practice.
Slashdot Mirror
Just to give context, the FAA until very recently banned usage of GPS for navigation. They wanted pilots to rely on tried and true legacy practices that were proven. Only recently have they opened up to allowing GPS usage.
Chile appears to buy military planes from the US, from a quick Google search I did. However, they would more likely have utilized a dual system that is called INS/GPS. GPS gives an initial fix, but then inertial navigation system is used. Pilots aren't like car drivers. They don't just turn on the Tom Tom and wait for a voice to tell them, "Turn left in 1/2 mile." A pilot, especially military, will be very highly trained in instrument rated flying, etc and you can't really blame GPS. The closest I've heard to blaming it is when a US plane crashed in Croatia, killing Secretary Brown. After the subsequent investigation, there were directives put out, which mandated systems be compatible with European communication systems (the Europeans had split the 25 MHz-wide signal for Air Traffic, and we had older systems which weren't compliant, so this plane was forced to land on a lesser used runway) and then anything with GPS has to have a standard SAASM chip (ensures proper decryption of the more precise or electronically encrypted signal).
For the reply that GPS knows where it is. If it's JUST a GPS, no it doesn't. GPS sets take a long time when first turned on precisely for this reason. Some will download the entire ephemeris dataset which tells them things like constellation health, etc, but primarily they are starting from scratch in solving for 3 or more distances. A GPS signal is sorta like playing Marco- Polo at the local pool, except the "MARCO" shout is timestamped. The speed of RF is roughly the speed of sound. If you know the time of transmission, roughly the time of receipt and the speed, you can solve for distance. Do this 3 or more times and you have 2 dimensional references (lat and long). 4 satellites give you the 3rd dimension, altitude. As your GPS set continues to track, it's refining the timing reference point, and doing a better job approximating the 3, 4 or more distances. There's also an influence of GDOP, or, geometric dilution of precision. Which simply means, if you track 3 or 4 satellites right next to each other, your fix won't be as precise. You want satellites as far as possible from each other. With 25+ up there (24 operational with spares galore), it's easy to get a fix on 5 or 6 and then pick and choose. Cheap sets won't do this, and hence will take longer to get as precise (if ever).
It's a little known fact, but Ronald Reagan made the decision back in the 80's that we'd allow civilian use of GPS after the Russians shot down the civilian passenger plane that had veered off course, and into their airspace. It was Sept 1, 1983. Selective Avail was set to next to nothing and A/S was off. So civilians had near-military level of precision. In the early 90s it was turned, effectively, completely off. I was on one of the crews and one of 4 Satellite System Operators that turned it the induced error to "0" (zero) on the entire constellation (it took two crews, each with 2 SSOs due to time, and proximity to normal crew changeover)
Having flown on French, Canadian, German, US and 2 or 3 I'm forgetting, military transport planes, I can tell you there is no "preflight" announcement usually, other than night flights in Afghanistan where they have to remind the idiots to not create any illumination (e.g. iPods, people reading books if you can believe it, etc) so people on the ground have a target to shoot at.
Dude, did you not have a girlfriend in middle school? It's so extremely easy to get quite a "bit of play", even with all the clothes on. Getting in is absolutely no problem with or without pants (of course, pants off is a preferred approach ;0 )
The article is describing how you can use the receivers to determine ionospheric and other disturbances by measuring the rate of deviation in radio frequency reception. GPS and ionoshperic modeling is common in GPS to determine how much interference is affecting the timing, and so you can then measure an "approximate additional" disturbance. These are all things any civilian who is a math geek can theoretically do.
What is being described here, AFTAC and NUDET, are onlyp performed by military organizations. On GPS there are two bands for civilian use, since the beginning, which is L1 and L2. The above techniques use those (L1 and 2). NUDET payload, which is a tertiary mission of GPS, has many sensors which then send the data via L3 to AFTAC. It's been about 15 years since I was a GPS satellite operator, so there may be additional sensors, but at the Block 1, 2 and 2A generations, you had optical (BDP), X-ray (BDX), and dosimeters (BDD), to name a few. The satellite in view will accumulate the data, and then cross-link them to every GPS satellite in view. Those satellites will downlink via L3. The logic is that no matter which satellite in the 24 constellation, through cross linking at least one will then send it to Shreiver AFB where AFTAC is located (actually was inside the 2 SOPS GPS ops MOD during the 90s). The NUDET data is entirely for Test Ban Treaty enforcement and not early warning. So this is why I laughed after the N. Korea test when the official stance was, "We don't know." I promise you from all the sensors we have, space, ground and sea based, we know exceptionally precisely what, where and how big it was. We just won't release it, giving the enemy a glimpse into our capabilities. Those from a political and military stand point that have a need to know, do.
I actually feel cheated if I can beat it in a single sit down, which might be doable if I had 10 hours. So, no, I don't prefer something beaten in 10 over 20. However, it needs to be entertaining. Saints Row 2 never got finished because the missions became mindless repeats, meanwhile I've finished GoW 1, 2 and every Halo (except Wars). I have Black Ops, which has never ENTERED single player campaign, but I've prestiged 5 times in multiplayer (yeah, slacking.. I only play 2-3 hours, 3 -4 times a week). I prefer pwning real people who are predictable, rather then AI players, who are just a slight bit more predictable. It's a lot more fun beating real people because you can take them out, adjust position, and then take them out a 2nd time when they dumbly run to exactly where you were... It's no fun agitating an AI and then teabagging 'em.
Yes. I started to post, but then held back. Seeing your comment made me decide to go ahead and reply. There is nothing interesting about the ISAF HQ document. As a matter of fact, it's no longer implemented the same way. I've worked there, and since 2007 they've moved most of the tactical role from the HQ ISAF over to KAIA's IJC, where the 3-Star runs the day to day ops. HQ is now able to strategically look "outward" and concentrate on how to make COIN effective. So a command and control from HQ would no longer be really relevent or even useful to our enemies...unless, as we did with the Space Shuttle, we're duping them into an inefficient way (in this case, of how to run a war).
The building just oscillates around him.
Don't "feel" it is true? Heh, there's a motorcop in Oceanside that'd "feel" the opposite that day. I did get a chuckle out of his co-workers (waiting for their cases) when mid way through, I said, "I noticed one of the motorcycles parked outside has duct tape all over their laser radar, is that unit yours?" I was laid off, so I had a lot of time on my hands. I didn't mention this but I also sat in court for a few days to get a feel for the cases, etc. I knew I had 0% of winning, and so like I said in another reply, decided to make the most of my $300.
So, there's no way they'd put the County courthouse in a City called Vista, and then someone refer to it by the city? If I said to you, "Go to the North County Superior Court of California," would you know where to go without Google? Or, if I simply said, "Go to the Vista County Courthouse," I think you'd know exactly where I'm referring. To be technically accurate, yes, I should have called it the Vista Court Complex, but that's not terribly descriptive in my opinion.
I had over three pages of questions going through the usage and the manual. The questions weren't three hours straight, as like I said, there were a few recesses. I actually don't know myself why it took so long as I didn't repeat myself and was just working my way through technical aspects of misuse of a laser. Why the judge allowed? Don't know. I got my $300 worth though. Also haven't seen the officer at that intersection in 3 years.
To be honest, I was just irritated he lasered the car next to me (passing me on the right) and wrote me their ticket and so I was returning the favor.
I crossed a cop for about 3 hours in Vista County (San Diego). The judge recessed twice for a break during my cross. By the time I was done I'd gotten him to admit he had no idea how the thing operated (beam width, etc) and didn't know a single warning from the owners manual. I even pointed out his unit had been duct taped (an aftermarket modification). Still found guilty. The lack of certificate was your ticket killer.
I am somewhat in the same boat. I'd love to say I didn't walk away because I didn't want to be a quitter, but when you live in an area with a high concentration of similar skill sets, it's a little more difficult.
I first learned the lesson of this OP when I worked at Sprint PCS. I worked with incredible, intelligent, wickedly clever colleagues. When MCI was rumored to be talking merger with Sprint, the very best immediately left. With about 10 years distance to reflect, I still see it from the same perspective. When an abusive company talks merger, the elite start walking. Let that be your initial "warning shot." The merger never happened but the damage began. Next, we started getting top level leadership from the more "mature" side of the company, the "landline." It's a different culture, leadership style, technology management to dealing with cutting edge (wireless comm) versus entrenched markets (buried copper). Dumb things like, "Work Harder, Work Smarter," start happening, such as deciding, "If X amount of errors occur in a 4 hour maintentance window, then X * 75% will happen in a 3 hour maintenance window." I kid you not, but a senior VP made this decision. Next thing I know, 2nd Tier technical support calls went through the roof.
The next job I was the Director. I knew the company was a market follower and the HR manager even said to me, "We don't expect anyone to stay here more than 2 years." However, I built a good chunk of the group. I enjoyed working with them and it amazed me most of them stayed. When I got called to Active Duty, I returned to a group with a few ready to leave. I put things back in order and the group hummed along. I knew the economy was about to tank and I should have walked away, but again, I enjoyed the people I worked with, even if the job itself wasn't intellectually stimulating.
Which leads to today. I could stay where I am now, but I'm choosing not to. The smartest have walked away, and I'm about to likely follow. In the US, I grew accustomed to certain underlying, accepted facts, that I'm re-learning while working with European software developers and program managers. For me, CMMI level 3 style engineering is a no-brainer, however, here it's unlikely they'd get past level 2. It's not uncommon to ask, "Why does this feature not work, or what should it do?" and get silence. The responses are sometimes worse. "It's not supported." OK, the question was what should it do? These are military systems, so code should be written for a specific requirement. What was the requirement? I won't even follow the next logical question, "Why was the support dropped." So long story still long, I'll have no problems walking away.
I've come full circle. Even though I'm getting mid-career, I'm back to where I want to work with people who are forward leaning, clever, and intellectually stimulating. Maybe I'll regret it, but I'm still an optimist despite 20 years of job experience. :)
And yet, you post up. I guess that makes you the Joe Biden of posting.
First off, there's no technical article that's going to be worse than a person who has no idea what he's talking about, and who's basing his observations on technical details as given by a salesperson. From what I RTFA, it's the basis of this discussion, but it can't be. Using the typical car anaology, you've built a race car with no tires.
First off, 3G is a generic term. If I say 3G for wireless telecomm, I'm referring to CDMA2000, which is a 3rd generation of wireless data protocol. 2.5 G was never really accepted as 3G because it didn't implement all the standards, such as real time allocation, and it was circuit switched packet data (laymans terms: wireless modem). Getting back to "3G", a third generation of iPhone can be called 3G, but still work on the 4th generation of wireless standards, right next to a 4th generation iPhone (4G) running on an older 3G data network (Sprint, whoever). In an attempt to keep this discussion simple, we'll just stick to the wireless, 3rd generation data format when saying, "3G."
Before 3G data was sent over the air on dedicated channels. If you wanted to have more data, you set asside more time, or codes (TDMA or CDMA). However if network modeling was bad, you either banged on the headroom for data (surfing Google took longer), or voice (calls didn't go out or come in). Carriers in the US from my observation are always giving priority to voice. So the common configuration was to give them more "pipe" and higher priority.
Enter 3G CDMA, aka CDMA 2000. Initially there was only one way to implement 3G, later developers came up with newer formats that were backwards compatible in most cases, such as EV, EV-D, and EV-DO. These all have meanings, feel free to Google. In a nutshell though, they're all different implementations of 3G. 3G, or CDMA2000, allows the cell site to allocate pipes by usage and type. So, if you're data surfing at 1am, when no one is around making voice calls, you get the full pipe and your data screams. Use the same phone, on the same cell site at 12 noon, and you get the minimum pipe, and if everyone's on voice calls, you may not get out at all until a slot opens up. This is not to be confused with "breathing" (where cell sites expand and contract RF coverage according to usage). That's at the RF, or Layer 1 if you will.
When you start mingling WiMax and other technologies, you're now blurring the usage of the term. WiFi is not typical CDMA (I'm only hedging with "typical" because I don't know what modulation method wifi uses). Back to car analogies, it's like buying a 2009 car, putting a 2010 engine in it, and calling it a 2010. Yes part of it is a new generation, but it's still a 2009. Adding Wifi to a CDMA phone didn't take it from 3G to 4G, so from a logical techology standpoint, going WiMax isn't either. It's a different format, frequency, and usage.
Eventually, all these technologies will blur and the author will be correct in being confused. The telecom manufacturers (lucent, nortel, etc) have been moving the "ip up the train." In the beginning, they went out a specific trunk to a rack mounted shelf of modems (2.5 G, circuit switched packet data) which either went into another backend, or out a plain old telephone line (POTS). With the original implementation,, data shared RF with voice, came in the tower, went through the switch, which then split out data out a PRI interface (T1) to a server which converted over to TCP/IP and then used Home/Foreign Agents to manage real-time changing points of connection within a network. In laymans terms, you could jump in your car in San Diego, fire up your laptop, and drive from SD to New York without changing the IP address your laptop was assigned. When I left telecom (early 2000s), they were rolling out IP from the Site Controllers back. Meaning, the Mobile Switch back at the main office didn't break it out. The eventual plan back then was IP from the cell site. Everything coming out was TCP/IP, regardless of data or voice. 3G still all applies, because
Mean, Median, Mode all are useful, but not when used in most advertising. If the lottery advertised, "Most of you will get, at best, a $1," would you buy it? No, they say, "You CAN win a bajillion dollars." Will you? Not likely. You are statistically MORE likely to hit the "up to" advertised speed of the broadband speeds on the internet, just possibly not at YOUR (mom's) house (basement). I get the "Up to" speed, but it's during the day. Friday evenings I drop from an AVERAGE (not peak) of 16 Mbps to around 8. I can stream two netflix movies and still surf.
It's funny, I read all sorts of comments but no one realizes it's everywhere. Your network card on your computer is likely "Gigabit," and you wouldn't have bought the 100BasteT card next to it for $5 less, however for various reasons your Gig card rarely goes over 10 Mbps. So maybe Cisco, Dlink, LinkSys, and the like ARE LYING! I mean, everyone knows that wiring termination can be substandard (cross talk reduces bandwidth), people run Windows which is stuffed like a pig at a festival, and various other bottlenecks.
That said, it's painfully onvious because if the original author said, "The average is 5 Mbps, and the standard deviation is 5Mpbs," a large number (if not all) would fail to realize this covers over 10Mbps, the "stated max."
Back on the integration, all the teams are linked now. If they call in the IED, the CJOC (Chief of Ops for the Region) knows, the CAS (Close Air Support) and a whole litany of teams know instantly. The 3-Star HQ back in Kabul also knows. They also, as mentioned can not only see it on the UAV feed, but the local ops can see incoming patrols, convoys, anything in a few different Geo-based situational awareness tools....to soon include Google maps.
To expand a little, the increased capability is two fold here: first, the younger guys/gals understand it and use it (huge problem with 42 nations here), and second, they're efficient with it: 1 MEF (RC-S), TIC, Indir SAF, no PID, 1 WIA CAT X (US) GSW, QRF Resp, MTF. I just told you quickly, 1st Marine troops, South near Kandahar, are in contact with insurgents, using small arm fire, shooting randomly at the Marines, that they cant see, one US soldier was lightly injured by a bullet, and a whole lot of whoop ass is on the way... Stay Tuned...
There's a ton more but this gives a good idea. The article is probably one of the best tech military ones I've seen in a long time that didn't embellish, and got the context right. Kudo's to the writer for not taking liberties I so often see/read/hear.
I was a 3G data engineer for Sprint PCS during the launch of 2.5G and 3G data. There are a few problems with the type of testing it sounds like you want to do.
First, I would suggest reading the specs from the IEEE on CDMA 2000, aka 3G. CDMA2000 allows the ability to allocate and de-allocate bandwidth on demand and based upon quality of service configurations. At night, with no one on the cell tower, you're going to get the full pipe for data. You'll see bursts up in speed but then several things can happen. First, voice takes priority. So at midnight in this scenario, I pick up my phone and make a voice call and I take priority. You're pipe just got smaller. The next variable is overall tower usage. Cellular towers shrink and expand RF power with regards to usage. As more users get on, the cell tower will reduce it's footprint. So even if hardly anyone is on the phone, but there are a ton of subsribers on a cell, it can drop it's power. So your bandwidth and RF are variables which change by the second.
So if you're just doing a "Hey lets just see what we see," type of test, then expect a huge array of data with not too many descernable results. If you're looking for data to be compared with something else (carrier vs carrier, region vs region), then it also won't be terribly useful. As a geek, it'll be cool to know you can set the test up, but as a quantitative analysis tool it won't be repeatable or statistically useful. You also can't really compare it to desktop loading times either. The images you "download" via a wireless carrier are not the same. Go to Yahoo and download the GIF for their logo using an aircard or wireless carrier device. Now, download the same with a desktop PC over a wired (or other non-wireless carrier method). Not the same file size, huh? :)
Just as an aside, I used to test it using Stick Figure Death Theater ( www.SFDT.com ) since you can start a really long download and watch the stats. Also, it was entertaining to watch at the same time.
I read the attached article, but I still call BS. From the 2nd until 8th grade,I sold candy at school: Now and Laters, Jolly Ranchers, Blow Pops, and a slew of other "hard candy." Not once did it make a mess. I have a 2nd grader and the kids share candy all the time in the cafeteria. There's no mess. You can paint this anyway you want, but educators know better. Jolly Ranchers aren't new and it's not like there's been a rash of Jolly incidents. Gum, ok, I can understand. However, there's no commonailty between gum and hard candy. FWIW, I take a JR and throw it against the wall as hard as I can and the mess (assuming the wrapper comes open) can be cleaned in about 2 minutes. That's nothing compared to what happens with green peas. Those suckers go everywhere. Should we outlaw peas, carrots, mashed potatoes (hard to get out of ears and noses)? Again, BS.
One thing to keep in mind if you can wait and if you think you'll get laid off is COBRA. Under one of the Acts passed by Congress and approved by Obama, employers in most situations must pay 65% of COBRA premiums (vice the 101% former-employee cost formerly). I got laid off and my new employer's health care was going to cost $500. My old plan had triple the coverage and was going to be around $1200 a month. However, I researched, found out about the law, applied for it and started paying my 35% portion. It ended up being exactly the same amount. So instead of a $1000 cap per year on dental, I've got $2,500 for major and still more coverage for other dental procedures. Funny thing, both plans were with CIGNA.
I agree with you. At first I was getting my butt handed to me by knife yielding asshats, but if you're any good you figure out tactics to defeat them, such as claymores at choke points and choosing your fights with long line's of sight. I built several classes so that whatever map comes up, I've got a way to maximize my capabilities. At first I saw no use for One-Man Army, but I enable it on 60% of my classes so I can switch (I'm 1MA Pro now). E.g. I rarely use a RPG, or Stinger, so I'll run around with a short-range primary weapon, or assualt rifle. If I'm on a team that seems to be ignoring (and dying) a Harrier, I'll find a nice hiding spot, switch to the class with the Stinger and take it out. Only problem is I'm screwed in terms of switching again until I die, but that's usually not a problem. I still occasionally run into very gifted "ninja's" but on Hardcore Team Deathmatch and my tactics, it's now the exception. I laughed at guys who relied on the double shotty. You'll get me the first time, but I usually figure out their game and they become easy pickings (like riot shield noobs).
I usually avoid replying because honestly, most people have no clue about macro or micro economics. Your reply is spot on. I remember loan agents throwing loan docs at me with nothing more than a verbal promise of what I earned. They were willing to give me $750,000 on my word (and home's deed), yet Chase was jacking my rates to 35% if a payment was processed on the due date (which I canceled). Both were huge red flags in my book and both avoided, thankfully. It's funny how easy it is to forget that before the whole collapse there were, I believe on both sides of the isle, people saying the mortgage process/regulatory oversight was broken.
I use over a gig a month, every month. I guess the "average" user hasn't discovered....never mind...
Your hunch was right. It's one and a half miles (1.5m) in 12:30 (Twelve minutes, 30 seconds). It's too late for me to stay in the Air Force. Honestly, the irony is I do the equiv to at least 2 sprint marathons a week, and yet according to the Air Force, "I'm not physically fit." My run time, waist and pushups/situps tell them that. *rolleyes* We used to have the "tape and measure" saving grace but they nixed that. Now it's BMI, or Body Mass Index. They take a function of your height and divide by weight (H^2/W ?). So, no matter how muscular, unmuscular, body type, etc, I'm "not fit" according to the BMI until I, as a 5' 10" male, until I weight UNDER 169 pounds. So my soon-to-be-ex commander who's fat as hell and shaped like a pear (not a small pear) is "more fit" according to the AF because he can run for 12 minutes faster than me. Nevermind he looks like crap in uniform. Sorry if that sounds bitter, but it's pretty close. Pacing is an excellent idea. I tried training less miles per week (scaling back from 20-25 miles down to about 8 miles) and sprinting a lot more (all out sprint 100 yards, jog 100, repeat) but that just resulted in extremely painful injuries: plantar fascitis (ultrasound showed over 150% swelling) and my Nikes caused sinus tarsitis to flare up bad. However, I didn't get a pacer. When I ran with my wife, I started dropping times. I should have ran with her for my PT test. It's partially being stubborn and partially conceeding too late that it's what needed to happen. I wanted to do it mano-e-mano, or whatever. I wanted to pass and I wanted it to be all me. Possibly part of my anger should be at that bit of vanity, but it's still primarly aimed at a misguided PT test from the AF. The other irony is if you take my scores and extrapolate out, I pass the Army and Navy tests. Meaning, take my overall pace for 1.5 miles, stretch to 2 miles, use those scores with my situp/push up, I pass.
Plyometrics is part of my current training. I've also incorporated Yoga at least once a week with a well rounded workout (cardio and strength). Then, I'm following a Triathlon training schedule for endurance training. So, as an example, yesterday was 30 minutes running, and 45 minutes swimming. Today is 50 minute bicycle, tomorrow will be 40 minutes running, and Thursday is a "brick". I'll swim for 30 minutes and then immediately bike for 40 minutes. For strength/cardio, yesterday was Legs/Back/Abs (core), today is Yoga for 1 hour 40 minutes, tomorrow is a "rest day", and then Chest/Tri/Abs (core) on Thursday.
I have a lower model Garmin, so I'm not sure what is logs. I used it to just track my pace as I ran and overall speed/time. Now, the iPhone app MotionX logs: Name (you can name the track), notes, elapsed time, average pace (m/min), Distance, and max pace.
So I'm logging the above with my iPhone. Then I have P-90X strength/cardio logs on paper and on-line. The paper logs the number of reps and weight for strength training. The on-line log just logs the workout itself (e.g. Legs & Back on Monday, Yoga on Tuesday, etc). I use an excel spreadsheet from Triathlon Club of San Diego (TCSD) to track my "Beginners Training Guide for a Sprint Triathlon". It logs the exercise per day and the duration. So for yesterday, the Column read "Day 1", on the "Week 3: Run," and "Week 3: Swim" lines. The datafield for run was "30" (for 30 minutes) and swim was around 30 or 40.
I have a cheap $20 Reebok heartrate monitor that I use just to personally watch my training zone on Cardio training days. I'm to the point now I can tell without it where I am and how quickly I'll
Also, doing research on what Olympians log helped me increase my performance. For example, as I mentioned I kept failing AF PT tests (maxed out sit ups, pushups, but my 35" waist meant I needed to run a 12:30 1/5 mile. I could do it at home but not "away" at military drill, 5 hours north) and I was getting frustrated. I'd run a 12:30 at home, and then 5 days later run a 16:00 at Vandeberg AFB. Then I noticed in one Olympic training log they logged such things as "Hours slept". I found hours slept had erratic impact on energy levels (one day I could get 4 hours sleep and feel fine, another time, "lag"), but had a very large, relationship to performance (regardless of "perceived energy level" before the run). This is where I learned very clearly, that logging is highly beneficial. The irony is I'm logging three places (on line, paper workout logs, and iPhone GPS "MotionX" app) and yet I am just about kicked out of the Air Force for not being physically fit, yet able to do triathlons in respectable times.
So back on topic, this peaked my interest because I've been wanting to find something to consolidate all of my training logs. I've got my P-90X (paper and on-line) training logs, my iPhone logged run times, and excel spreadsheet with triathlon training schedule. It's a bit much. Although interesting, I haven't really seen anything that replaces those yet.
To go into another topic, I did start losing weight when I stopped playing Halo3 until 2am every night and started getting 8 hours of sleep. Yes, my diet and training had a large degree of impact, but I think you set yourself up for success or failure with your sleep habits. Much more than most people recognize or practice.