I had a hard time finding a translation "walgvogel" other than as dodo, so I'll put it here for others. From An Etymological Dictionary of the English Language I discovered that:

I also discovered that both dodo and booby (the bird) are probably portuguese words.

Is that right? I thought that their networks are sufficiently under their control to allow them to exclude whomever (and whatever) they want. Am I wrong?

Perhaps a carrier like T-Mobile ignores out-of-defined-use of smartphones, but do other carriers?

That should be "and," rather than "ad." GCI doesn't serve up ads as you use their service.

I don't have a contract, and will never have another one again. When I was on a contract, I hated being locked in when I discovered that AT&T sucks in interior Alaska and couldn't switch without incurring a penalty. (While in Cantwell, I had a signal, but couldn't make a call: They couldn't tell me why. There were at least two more reasons I wanted to switch away.)

I have a vague memory, though, of reading that carriers can get the model of your phone, and will happily add data if they find you're using a smart phone without a data plan. Perhaps I should be more bold.

Right now, I'm paying $30/mo for a local plan, with an older phone. It includes unlimited calling ad unlimited texting with 1 GB of data and fantastic coverage. I don't have a strong incentive anymore for trying to dump the data fees, though I did give it serious thought and eliminated the possibility because of the limitations I perceived.

Do you mind sharing which carrier you use?

How did you (or she) manage that? Every carrier I've seen requires data with any smartphone connected to the network, and I thought I read that they can detect the phone. I've thought about doing exactly this, but haven't been bold enough to give it a go.

Sorry, I should have expounded a little more. I read the article and the discussion here intending to ask the same question that ericlowe did. I answered much too concisely after I looked up the definition, so I skipped some of the thought process.
I didn't mean to imply that it was successful, only that the machine deployed from its lander. I suppose that I would have been more complete had I said that it had deployed properly up to "x" point, then failed at "y." (In the example that dictionary.com provided, even if the landing gear of a plane deploys properly, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will "accomplish its mission" and land safely.)

Yes. from http://dictionary.reference.co...:

I calculate the potential energy of water at about 2.7E6 J, while a gallon of gasoline has 130E6 J. A close equivalence, I think, is to assume that only 1/5 of the gasoline can be converted to mechanical energy at the wheels. That leaves about 26E6 J from a gallon of gasoline, ignoring any inefficiencies in the systems on the electric car, about 10X more energy than your hour-long (minimum, assuming an 8% grade) trek to grab water.

For every rhetorical question, there is an answer. I used to live in Beverly Hills, and was surprised when I learned that a permit is required for a garage sale. (I was amused to see in my search on Google that Beverly Hills, TX also requires a garage sale permit.)

I don't think that this is feasible. I ran a quick calculation, and assuming that you wanted to melt an inch of snow within one hour, and also assuming perfect heat transfer, you would need to supply 2.2HP, or about 1.7kW for the heat of fusion, assuming 1,000 sf of panels. (Somebody above suggested this as appropriate to completely supply a home and car.) This is nearly 15A at 120V for a heating circuit, and I've not yet accounted for heat loss or the latent heat to bring it up to 32F.

I've never before commented concerning moderation, so I hope that this carries some small weight in the moderation that follows my reaction. It seems to me that this should be (Score 2 or Score 3, Interesting), rather than the flamebait and troll that seem to dominate. This person has given a reasonable, though not fully considered, response to the grandparent. Please refer to the other responsive comments before you moderate.

Are they? I'm not qualified to say that both of the editors are engaged outside their field. It certainly looks to me, though, like geophysics is closely related to studies of climate change. (The geophysical institute at the university I finished with some years ago has produced a number of researchers on both sides of this particular debate.)

I don't think that you've looked or studied far enough to reach this conclusion: This paper, and lots more like it seem relevant to geophysics. I read the abstracts of the papers in the second edition and begin to sympathize with the publisher, but I'm not qualified to make a blanket statement that the editors are unqualified; are you?