Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Correct. I last flew about two years ago. We don't say "over". Ever. You sound like a trucker on a CB and you're only going to piss off the tower and the other pilots on the freq because you're wasting airtime, and sound like you don't know what you're doing. ATC comms can get super busy, and lives are (literally) at stake. If you listen to even a Class C approach frequency, it will sound like a nearly uninterrupted stream during busy times of the day. There isn't time for extraneous nonsense when Cessna 241H is trying to declare a fuel emergency, or Southwest 2301 needs to expedite their climb. I know it sounds silly "what is the big deal with just saying 'over'?" but that is extra two syllables in every communication between pilot & controller or pilot & pilot which are totally superfluous.
It is superfluous because ATC comms have a cadence that makes it pretty clear when you're finished with a routine call. Pilots and controllers are both familiar with this cadence, so we know generally what information to expect from each other. This is what a typical sequence would sound like at a field in class D airspace:
P: Bolton Tower, Cessna niner five four seven whiskey
T: Cessna niner five four seven whiskey, Bolton Tower
P: Bolton Tower, Cessna niner five four seven whiskey over Lily Chapel, inbound for full stop
T: Cessna four seven whiskey, proceed inbound and report midfield right downwind for runway two two
P: Right midfield for 22, cessna four seven whiskey
P: Bolton Tower, four seven whiskey midfield downwind for two two
T: Four seven whiskey, you're number two behind the Baron on one mile final
P: Four seven whiskey, number two looking for traffic
P: Four seven whiskey has traffic in sight
T: Roger. four seven whiskey, cleared to land runway two two
T: Baron three foxtrot six, turn right on alpha four and contact ground point eight
B: Right on alpha four, ground point eight. good day
T: Four seven whiskey, turn right on alpha three and contact ground point eight
P: Right on alpha three, ground point eight. good day
That is a very normal,typical airspace entry and landing procedure. Even in an emergency, we don't use "over" - because again, time is critical and time wasted saying things that aren't needed is concentration and mental energy taken away from the pilot's number one job - flying the airplane.
The internet has flourished precisely because the government regulators (aka nannies) have stayed out of it. Yes, there were some great engineers earning government paychecks through the military and universities who got it started - but the bureaucrats largely ignored it because they didn't know what it was, or how important it would become.
No good can come from the clowns in Washington "tweaking" the Internet. This is not about "openness" or whatever other word they want to use. This is about exerting top-down control, and the power that comes with that kind of control.
WTF. Are we advocating low impact crimes to help society?
I don't see this as much different than the cash-for-clunkers program. The idea is that after rendering all moving parts inoperable so they can't be sold as used replacements, you smash what was a perfectly good car. Then you give someone $8000 ($4000?) in tax payer money to buy a new car. This helps the economy. If that is really true, we should start leveling houses - to boost the construction industry. We should start breaking legs - to show how beneficial single payer healthcare services are. We should have the National Guard out to burn our wheat fields - so farmers can plant organic crops.
The same logic applies to "low impact crimes can help society". We should encourage these so-called "low impact" crimes so we can increase the pool of "low impact" criminals that will do community service. Except, the criminal smashed something that belonged to someone else. In this clown's case, it was someone's privacy and their personal property (email account). The logic is so absurd it is almost funny - until you find out the people advocating it are completely serious.
With all of the nonsense that AT&T has with iPhone users and their data (plans are now limited, tethering wasn't an option until recently (and imho is way too expensive on top of the not-optional cost for the iPhone data plan), "enterprise" data is more expensive, f'ng with the network in various markets, sometimes shutting it down completely or severely restricting it with no explanation), I cannot possibly see them enabling a "wifi hotspot" feature. Unless of course, your phone is connected over wifi (yes, it defeats the purpose).
Hell, skype video just came to the iPhone. For a long time lots of apps simply weren't permitted to use 3G, including Slingbox and Skype. Any app over 10MB had to be downloaded on wifi (I think the limit is 20 now). I have no doubt this was an AT&T thing to protect their fragile network, rather than an Apple-imposed restriction. Any time I've been to an event that is attended by more than a few people, I get no data on my phone. Apps like twitter just churn waiting for the network. Maybe that last one isn't just an AT&T thing, but holy crap is it irritating.
I'm not a fan of Jerry Brown. I'm not a fan of California, either. A beautiful state is near financial collapse because of total mismanagement and a massive entitlement burden. California has created this mess for themselves.
However, credit where credit is due -- I think this is a great first step. Of course some are going to scream because their toys are getting taken away. But good for Brown for doing this. On the other hand, I'm just cynical enough that I half expect to hear something like "we just saved $20,000,000 with those cell phones
The crime is not likely to be easily repeated
No? It sounds like the city got a "shark bump" as it were. Someone tried stealing a few of the cards, and it worked. Only after succeeding, and no mitigation efforts, the thieves went to town From TFA:
The vandalism began with a few lights in November and we repaired them. Over December the thieves struck again, this time hitting hundreds more, including the ones we had repaired
This isn't unlike homes targeted by burglars who return a couple of weeks later after the owner has purchased all new shiny, expensive electronics.
I think that possibility always exists - from a keylogging app running inside something else innocuous, to something buried in the OS by a rogue developer. Hopefully there are enough checks in place during the development cycle of any given reputable development house/piece of software to avoid this.
Perhaps the benefits of using something like 1Password to generate unique/random passwords outweigh the risk/possibility of the above happening --- in the sense that it is more likely that signing up for a random website with the same email/password you used for your email account and paypal will lead to a compromise of something important.
Finally, if you use a password manager (I've been using KeePassX, it's pretty good and cross-platform), then you don't have to remember passwords anymore, so there's no reason to use a weak password for anything. I don't have any idea what most of my passwords are.
Yep. I use 1Password and have the encrypted file synced through dropbox to my iPhone and other systems. I really don't know what most of my passwords are anymore.
Then there are completely unimportant webfora that insist my password has to be at least 8 characters long and contain letters, numbers and non-alphanumeric characters.
When I worked for a major university a few short years ago, they contracted our paperless pay statements and W2s to Talx -- who only allowed numbers in the "password". Super frustrating, and of course no one in HR understood why I had a problem with this. They may have gotten smarter since then, but doubtful.
Palin may be human but public figures open themselves to criticism.
You're free to criticize her all you like. You are not free to damage, attempt to damage, or otherwise engage in any kind of criminal mischief against her, her family, her property, or her vendors (ISP, hosting provider, etc) because you don't like something she said.
So what you're saying is that if I don't like how you conduct your legally operated business, I have the right to come and smash your stuff, or superglue the locks to your shop? You have to accept the negative consequences of your lousy business decision to sell my competitor plumbing supplies at a good rate.
Wrong. What I did is criminal damaging at the least -- it is illegal for a reason. You have the right to enter into or terminate a business relationship with anyone you please, without any interference from me. I do not have the right to torch your business because I don't like something you said, or something you did. The United States is a nation of laws, not men, not anarchy. I don't have the right to torch your shop even if you did something illegal or unethical.
If you're doing something illegal, I report you to the authorities. If you're operating a legal business and I think you're doing a terrible job, I'm free to open a competing enterprise and do it better. I'm not free to steal your stuff or deprive you of your property/income by theft or damage because I don't like something you said.
Yes, it is. It is also some kind of hubris to scream about Wikileak's "1st amendment rights" to then attack MC, Paypal,
"More speech for Assange and wikileaks --- but no speech may be heard from, no business may be conducted with anyone who thinks this was a stupid/criminal/illegal/unethical thing to do and chooses to terminate their business relationship with Wikileaks!"
I'm not 100% sure, but the HDTV set I bought just a few months ago came w/ a VGA port, but no DVI ports. I think this is because HDMI and DVI are somehow compatible without conversion?
Because HDMI is electrically compatible with the signals used by Digital Visual Interface (DVI), no signal conversion is necessary, nor is there a loss of video quality when a DVI-to-HDMI adapter is used.