satish@globalinfotechinc.com
217-241-2015


VIJAY

OBJECTIVE:
Server Builds -	Sun Servers and Intel servers with networking,
storage, application servers, Volume management, Cluster server, SSH,
Monitoring, troubleshooting infrastructure problems, Software
upgrades, patching, pro-active maintenance for sustaining environment
for 99% uptime, comprehensive troubleshooting of the Environment with
all the above components.

PROFESSIONAL
SUMMARY

=95	6+ years of professional IT experience in Unix System Administrator
(Sun Solaris/Linux) engineering/operations as a UNIX Solaris/Linux
Software administrator supporting mission critical 24x7 projects which
includes more than 5+ years of Assignments on Troubleshooting/
Resolving on services/Applications and hardware Issues in the domain.
=95	 Worked in an environment of 600 Servers and 400 Boxes..
=95	Primarily worked on Widows, UNIX Solaris, Linux platforms, servers
and applications, Client-Server technologies.
=95	Installing and Configuring SUN Solaris 8, 10 on all Spark/sun4u
architecture Servers.
=95	Expertise in Solaris/Linux installation, configuration, design,
implementation, connectivity and maintenance on Sun Solaris, Veritas
Volume Manager, Veritas Cluster Server, Solstice Disk Suite, FTP, TCP/
IP, NFS, DNS, NIS, SSH, LDAP, ZONES, jumpstart, Apache.
=95	Involved in design, implementation and troubleshooting of complex
systems and networks, which span across multiple protocols, topologies
and physical media.
=95	Managing Sybase database, Oracle, Websphere,  Sunone, Iplanet, Site
minder  and Informix Applications
=95	Expertise in implementation of patches and packages on the Server
for performance enhancement on Solaris Platforms.
=95	Managing the Filesystems, Disk management and Crash and Recovery.
=95	Experienced in Sun Hardware Support of Enterprise and Sun Fire/
Virtual Servers.
=95	Handled server, workstations, user training and help desk support,
including UNIX problems.
=95	Worked with Large datacenter applications with High infrastructure.
=95	Run ACT (A Crashdump Tool) against a core dump or live system.
=95	Build new Unix SUN-FIRE 440, V490, V410, SUN E450, E420, E220, E10k =85
etc Unix servers.
=95	Identifying FRU=92s and CRU=92S.
=95	RAID Management.
=95	Installing and Configuring windows 2003 server and managing ADS.
=95	Work on EMC SAN, Solistic Disksuite, Veritas Volume Manager, ZFS,
and Veritas Netbackup 5.0.
=95	Experience in installing Solaris 10, administration of SMF, Creating
a Zones(Containers).
=95	How to Get a Core dump from a Solaris 2.x system.
=95	General the flow of building logical volumes, creating a file system
and mounting it
=95	Designed LAN, handled user application troubleshooting and problem
resolution.
=95	Certified in Sun Certified Solaris Administrator V10 and Microsoft
Systems Administrator =96 MCSA.
=95	Strong troubleshooting, installation and configuration skills.
Attentive to details. Maintained meticulous records of all projects
=95	Installation, Configuration and Administration of VCS 3.0, Growing
File System
=95	Using Vxfs 4.1 and Solstice Disk suite, Disk arrays and quotas
=95	All levels of RAID configuration and management using Raid Manager
EDUCATION

Bachelors in Engineering
CERTIFICATIONS

Sun Certified System Administrator-SCSA V-10
Microsoft Certified Professional-MCP
Microsoft Certified System Administration-MCSA
TECHNICAL
SKILLS

Operating Systems: Sun Solaris V (8, 10), Linux, Windows 2000/2003, NT
4.0.and CCNA.
UNIX Services: NIS, NFS, Auto mount, DNS, SSH, DHCP, FTP and Jump-
start.
Software: VERITAS Volume Manager 4.1. VERITAS file system, ODS, (Disk
Suite), Auto, F-Secure (SSH). VERITAS cluster3.0, VERITAS Netbackup
5.0. EMC with SAN
Tools: ACT, SUNvts, STORtool,
Scripting: UNIX Korn, Bourne shell, Perl, awk, sed. etc.
Resources: ps-mon, ps, net stat, iostat, vmstat, /proc tools, sar,
top, Dtrace.
Monitoring: dmesg and syslog
Security: SSH, ACL etc.
Languages: Shell script
Server Hardware: Entire range of Sun Hardware: SUN-FIRE 440, V490, and
v410, E450 SUN E450, E420, E220 E10K
Networking: TCP/IP networking with Solaris, Linux, Windows 2000, NT.
Network Devices: HUB, Brocade switches, Cisco Routers


EXPERIENCE

September 2007 - 	EMBARQ Corp, Kansas
March 2008	Sr. Sun Solaris UNIX Admin

EMBARQ delivers a suite of leading-edge communications services to
both residential and business customers in 18 states. Every one of our
employees is committed to providing common-sense ideas, reliable
service and a renewed commitment to the communities we serve. It=92s
this commitment to excellence that has propelled our growth, and
EMBARQ is expected to rank among the Fortune 500 in 2008.Embarq
includes all data, applications, systems, hardware, software and
networks.

=95	First responder/break-fix support for the IT midrange server
environment.
=95	Rebuild servers, Configuration & Upgrades for existing servers.
=95	Conducted diagnostic activities/testing.
=95	Diagnosed OBP Boot failure and recovery.
=95	Patches &Packages- Installing and maintaining operating system
patches, Firmware updates, and security patches.
=95	Managed Sybase database, Oracle, Websphere, Iplanet, Site minder and
Informix Applications.
=95	Recovery from System hung/panic systems
=95	Resolved installation and boot failure troubleshooting.
=95	Programming experience using UNIX Korn, Bourne.
=95	Analysis of system performance.
=95	Enable deadmans kernel in case of FATAL crash.
=95	Create a new domain on E10k (Administration).
=95	Force a crash when box in hung state.
=95	Setup and Configure sudoers file.
=95	Recovery file systems from inconsistency state.
=95	Disk error troubleshooting.
=95	Added additional swap space for Swap issues.
=95	New File system creation, resizing and also creating raw
filesystems.
=95	Changed file/directory permissions
=95	Resolved SCSI Errors on different sun hardware.
=95	Cleaned out full operating system directory structures (/, /home, /
var, /usr, /tmp) due to core dumps or improper utilization of system
=95	Checked paging space as a part of trouble-shooting system
sluggishness
=95	Added space after SAN allocation, proactive SAN support related to O/
S
=95	Add or enabling server hardware such as processors/Memory for
existing systems in support of sustaining maintenance or project work.
=95	How to Get a Core dump from a Solaris 2.x system.
=95	Ran ACT (A Crashdump Tool) against a core dump or live system
=95	Installing and Configuring Internetworking with TCP/IP.
=95	Experienced in installing Solaris 10, administration of SMF,
Creating Zones and managing Dtrace tool.
=95	Installation and configuration of VERITAS Volume Manager, VERITAS
File System.
=95	Builded logical volumes, created a raw, block filesystem and
mounting it.
=95	Created Vxfs filesystems in the VVM.
=95	Resized the filesystem in VVM.
=95	Booted the operating system without Volume manager.
=95	Deported and Imported a disk group.
=95	Mirrored the system disk partitions using Solstice Disksuit.
=95	Added additional swap space under the encapsulated root drive.
=95	Changed VxVM kernel parameters.
=95	Configured and Maintain High Availability Clustering-Veritas Cluster
server for soalris.
=95	Storage setups, RAID, Logical Volume Manager, system backup design
and recovery.
=95	Created User, Groups per client requirement.
=95	Disk and File system management through VERITAS Volume Manager4.1.
=95	Configured a Jumpstart including implementing a Jump Start server,
editing the sysidcfg, rules and profile files, and establishing
Jumpstart software alternatives (setup, establishing alternatives,
troubleshooting, and resolving problems)
=95	Configuration and Administration of VERITAS Cluster Server
=95	Installation, configuration and remediation of various Securities.
=95	Open Boot PROM firmware update.
=95	Configured of kernel parameters or Registry changes as required.
=95	SSH configuration.
=95	Configured Cron access, save core, Syslog.
=95	Trouble shooting of day to day system and user problems
=95	Configured of Hardware and Software RAID. Disk replacement and File
system recovery.
=95	Trouble shooting of day to day systems and user problems
=95	Jump-start installation on more than 50 workstations and inter
networking with the operating systems
=95	Hardware installation and repair, NIS configuration and FTP
maintenance, DNS configuration, operating system installation and
configuration, and tape backups.
=95	Designed and implemented a total network architecture and workflow
that increased the productivity within the company.
=95	Created users, granted roles and privileges
=95	Provided Network Logon facility for the departments by implementing
NIS + NFS + DNS+ Jump Start, Auto mount to the client machines from
the domains Root, Boot servers.
=95	Extensive experience in all administrative activities is including
OS (UNIX, Linux, windows) administration, applying patches to the
system, performance tuning. Worked extensively in all aspects of
client management creating, deleting clients in various modes.
=95	Expertise in installation, configuration, design, implementation,
connectivity and maintenance on Sun
=95	Configured LDAP clients on server test and troubleshoot for the
same.
=95	Solaris, Linux, VERITAS Volume Manager, VERITAS Cluster Server,
Solstice Disk Suite, FTP, TCP/IP, NFS, DNS, NIS, Custom jumpstart.
=95	Strong Name Service configuration experience NIS with auto mount
File System experience includes Unix file System, Network File System,
VERITAS file system, FAT, NTFS.
=95	Storage experience with Solstice Disk Suite, VERITAS Volume Manger,
Online Disk Suite,
=95	Recovery a primary boot disk
=95	RAID level Strong experience in VERITAS Volume Manager.
=95	Administration of heterogeneous networks =96 Solaris, Windows 2000/XP,
User Administration, Software Packages and Patches Installation.
=95	Experience in file system creation and redundancy configuration
(Raid 5, RAID 1 mirroring) with Solstice Disk Suite and VERITAS Volume
Manager.
=95	Configured and Maintain High Availability Clustering-Veritas Cluster
server for Solaris
=95	EMC Clarion Management
=95	Brocade Switches & Management
=95	SAN Management: Performed Storage management with Veritas cluster
server using EMC`S connectrix under Oracle9 database running on
Solaris Sparc 6500
=95	Power path configuration and foundation in SAN Technology.
=95	In-depth knowledge on performance monitoring, tuning and
troubleshooting using the native OS command (iostat, vmstat, netstat,
prstat and snoop).
=95	Good Exposure on Sun Mid-Range servers

Environment: Sun Solaris (8, and 10), E10K, SUN-FIRE 440, V490, v410,
E450, SUN E450, E420, E220=85etc. Brocade switches, Legoto, Tivoli, and
EMC CLARION FC4700, Disk arrays A5000/D1000/T-3, Tape Libraries
Storagetek L700/L180, and SAN Storage Works.
Tools: ACT tool, SUNvts, Storetool, SUNWexplo


July 2006 -	INOVIS Inc. (formerly Harbinger)
August 2007	Atlanta, GA
	Unix System (Sun Solaris/Linux) Administrator

Upgraded and administered Solaris8, 10/Linux on large scale Sun fire
4800/12k/15k Enterprise server, sun SPARC Enterprise range servers
environment includes Suns Solstice Suite and Veritas Volume Management
tools configuration and maintenance. Maintained 24/7 operations for
the computing Network infrastructure and performed backup and restore
strategies for the system database Oracle 8I Database and implemented
secondary replica servers for load balance and high throughput

=95	Migrated the Servers with Flash archive tool to store a snapshot of
the Solaris operating with all installed patches and applications.
=95	Responsible for troubleshooting end user and application problems
=95	Monitored the system performance and tuning the kernel to enhance
the system performance.
=95	Created, deleted, managed user accounts and managing user quotas on
the Network.
=95	Created file systems and configuring NFS for easier sharing of files
and mounting on the mount points.
=95	Added cron jobs and at jobs and analyzing processes.
=95	Configured syslog.conf file for effective monitoring of system and
analyzing the application logs and /var/adm/messages log.
=95	Jump-start installation on more than 50 workstations and inter
networking with the operating systems
=95	Hardware installation and repair, NIS configuration and FTP
maintenance, DNS configuration, operating system installation and
configuration, and tape backups.
=95	Designed and implemented a total network architecture and workflow
that increased the productivity within the company.
=95	Created users, granting roles and privileges
=95	Provided Network Logon facility for the departments by implementing
NIS + NFS + DNS+ Jump Start, Auto mount to the client machines from
the domains.

Environment: Sun Solaris (8, 9 and 10), E10K, SUN-FIRE 440, V490,
v410, E450, SUN E450, E420, E220, Brocade switches. Legoto, Tivoli,
and EMC CLARION FC4700, Disk arrays A5000/D1000/T-3, Tape Libraries
Storagetek L700/L180, and SAN Storage Works


June 2004 -	AMDOCS Corp
July 2006	Champaign, Illinois
	Sun Solaris System Administration

AMDOCS is a global leader in providing innovative software and service
solutions designed to help companies build stronger, more profitable
customer relationships and recognized market leader in Billing, CRM
and OSS.

=95	User administration and File system, disk management
=95	Analysis of system performance.
=95	How to recovery file system from inconsistency state.
=95	Added or removed software packages, agents, or Operating system
utilities.
=95	Disk error troubleshooting.
=95	Swap issue troubleshooting.
=95	Resolved new user access issues at as requested by Corporate
Security User access Team.
=95	Resolved SCSI Errors on different sun hardware.
=95	How to Get a Core dump from a Solaris 2.x system.
=95	Ran ACT (A Crashdump Tool) against a core dump or live system
=95	For supporting 20 Sun servers such as Sparc 80, Ultra2, Ultra5,
Ultra 10 for production, development and testing.
=95	Responsible of Installation of, maintaining the Network
Administration and System Administration.
=95	Installed, Configured and Maintained the DHCP, DNS, NFS, and SSH in
servers.
=95	User Account Management, Group Account Management, configuring dumb
terminals, adding modems, formatting and partitioning disks,
manipulating swap, local and remote printer management, taking and
restoring backup, scheduling jobs.
=95	Performance tuning and preventive maintenance.
=95	Solaris/Linux Installation, Configuration and Administration of the,
NFS, Auto mount, NIS, DNS, Jumpstart, and LDAP servers in UNIX with
Linux environment.
=95	Strong Name Service configuration experience NIS with automount
=95	File System experience includes Unix file System, Network File
System, Cache file System, Veritas file system, FAT, NTFS.
=95	To boot without Volume manager.
=95	Deported and Imported a disk group
=95	Storage experience with Solstice Disk Suite, Veritas Volume Manger,
Online Disk Suite, RAID, Shared Storage SAN, and Brocade Zoning.

Environment: Sun Solaris 8.0/9, Linux, Sun Fire 4800/V240/V440/V880,
Enterprise 280R/220R, E10k, etc, Veritas Volume Manager.Etc.

October 2002 -	Key Bank Corporation
June 2004	Cleveland, OH
	UNIX Solaris System Administrator

=95	Responsible for day-to-day systems administration for SUN SOLARIS
and Windows NT, 2000 servers.
=95	Built the Servers with Solaris operating system.
=95	Third Party software upgrade and porting to Solaris.
=95	Storage setups, RAID, Logical Volume Manager, system backup
design.
=95	Systems performance monitoring.
=95	Solaris Operating Systems upgrade, package installations, updates,
patches and software fixes.
=95	Worked with Large datacenter applications with High infrastructure
=95	Built the Sun Enterprise Servers with Sun SOLARIS operating system
2.9 and configured       the A1000 and D1000s using Sun RAID volume
manager and VERITAS volume manager.
=95	Responsible for troubleshooting end user and application problems.
=95	Created User accounts, groups, printer etc
=95	Installed operating systems, patches, hardware, vendor software
packages, system customization and documentation of all departmental
UNIX, PC-based workstations and Terminal.
=95	Monitored system resources, logs, disk usage, scheduling backups and
restoring.
=95	Set up Quotas for the user accounts & limiting the disk space
usage.
=95	Creation/configuration of Additional Swap/tmp dynamically as and
when required.
=95	NFS Management - Take care of user accounts/groups, setting up of
NFS Environment. Solving the problems as & when created when NFS data
being accessed.
=95	Configured auto mounts/maps for the user accounts.
=95	Administration/Configuration of Print Servers/Clients in the Network
=95	Worked closely with database administration staff to ensure optimal
performance of databases, and maintain development applications and
databases.
=95	Designed and maintained Mission Critical applications in 24X7
production environment on Sun servers.
=95	Designed computer displays to accomplish goals using flowcharts and
diagrams.
=95	Installed Operating Systems, Application Software=92s and Installing
the required patches & packages on both workstation and servers.
=95	Monitored the system performance and tuning the kernel to enhance
the system performance.
=95	Created and deleted and managed user accounts and managing user
quotas on Network.

Environment: Solaris 2.9/2.8, Windows NT, 2000, SUNFIRE 3800/4800/280R/
450/250, Ultra machines, VERITAS Volume Manager and NFS, NIS, DNS,
Shell Scripts, DNS servers, and Custom Jumpstart.

Jun 2001 -	Sun Microsystems India Pvt Ltd
September 2002	Kasturba Road  Banglore
	Sun Systems Engineer/Administrator

Handled the network of 30 Sun servers along with 135 clients.
Responsible for building and maintaining a stable production
environment consisting of Sun Solaris servers in a 24x7 environment.
Intec is a Facility providing Software Solutions to Big Corporate in
India. Being a system Engineer to Setting up Unix (SUN OS) volume
manager, and Network Administration.

=95	Diagnosis of Hardware problems like Disk crash, board failures, etc
and work with SUN Microsystems, to resolve the problem. Interacting
with Sun and Software Vendors to fix bugs and Problems.
=95	Resolved TCP/IP network access problems for the clients.
Implementing Remote System Monitoring with Sun Microsystems.
=95	Developed and automating Shell for performance monitoring and Disk
Performance Monitoring and Tuning
=95	Checked health of file system.
=95	Performed daily backup.
=95	Created users.
=95	Attended User related problems.
=95	Grew size of volumes.
=95	Proficient with Sun Enterprise (250, 220R, 280R), Experience in Sun
Solaris Operating systems 2.8-9, Windows 2000.
=95	How to diagnose hardware and software issues and depending problem
=95	Provided solutions or suggest changing the part.
=95	Experienced with user permission administration, backup, debugging.
Proficient with tar, Ufsdump, Ufsrestore. Administration of
heterogeneous networks =96 Solaris, Windows 2000/XP,  User
Administration, Experience in file system creation and redundancy
configuration (Raid 5, RAID 1 mirroring) with Solstice Disk Suite and
VERITAS Volume Manager. Custom Jumpstart installation.
=95	Highly motivated, reliable, team oriented and with excellent
interpersonal skills, analytical and problem solving capabilities.
Have excellent verbal and written communication skills.
=95	Created file systems and configured NFS for easier sharing of files
systems and mounting on to mount point.
=95	Added cron jobs, at jobs and analyzing processes.
=95	Configuring syslog.conf file for effective monitoring of system and
analyzing the application logs and /var/adm/messages log.
=95	Documented the inventory of all Unix Servers, Disks, Storage, Backup
tapes and network devices.
=95	OS hardening, installation of patches/packages and configuration of
SUN tool for remote access through RSC.
=95	Parsing of log files and System activity report
=95	Specified hardware and software resources, recovering the system by
coordinating with hardware vendor ensuring minimum downtime

Environment: Sun Solaris2.8, Windows NT/2000, Cisco Switches/Routers,
McAfee appliances, SAN EMC CX200 storage, Brocade Silkworm 3200, SUN
Volume Manager, Bluecoat Proxy servers appliances, BIND, SENDMAIL,
Enterprise Servers, Sunblade100, Netra T1, SparcStation 10,40, Donovan
SparcStationDonovan SparcStation.

[Posted and mailed]

In article <f2f8aa33-32e9-4902-b490-775949895ede@z24g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
	satish <satishglobalinfotechinc.com@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> satish@globalinfotechinc.com
> 217-241-2015
> 
<snip> 

Let's try again, shall we?

What is it you do not understand about the nature of this
newsgroup?  It is NOT a jobs group, as has been said many
times, but a place where systems administrators "hang out"
and discuss sysadmin issues.

There are newsgroups - hundreds, if not thousands - whose only
purpose is jobs and, wonder of wonders, most have the word
"jobs" in their names.  The offer job announcements, as well as
a place for job seekers to post their resumes.

Having been told this repeatedly, what makes you think that
anybody who frequents THIS group would consder you for even 
an entry level position, given your obvious failure to grasp
even the simplest of concepts:  this is NOT a jobs group?

Now, kindly take your resume, post it in the right place, and
quit bothering the real professionals who use this group
appropriately.

-- 
Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas
-----
Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is the probable
reason so few engage in it.  -- Henry Ford

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
<CcmdnZt3f9DIj4vVnZ2dnUVZ_r2nnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Robert Melson wrote:

In article <f2f8aa33-32e9-4902-b490-775949895ede@z24g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,

OK - a googlespammer

>        satish <satishglobalinfotechinc.com@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> satish@globalinfotechinc.com
>> 217-241-2015

    Web  Results 1 - 10 of about 361 for 217-241-2015. (0.28 seconds)
     
I still haven't made up my mind if they are an ordinary job scam
outfit, or if this kl0wn is really this brain-dead. My feeling is
that it's a troll, because no one can have any of the skills claimed
and still make so many obviously false statements and typos

>Let's try again, shall we?

Call the INS

>What is it you do not understand about the nature of this newsgroup?

Trolls don't have to understand anything

>There are newsgroups - hundreds, if not thousands - whose only
>purpose is jobs and, wonder of wonders, most have the word
>"jobs" in their names.

[compton ~]$ grep -c jobs .newsrc
1157
[compton ~]$ 

but most of them are useless.

>The offer job announcements, as well as a place for job seekers to
>post their resumes.

Only problem is that few people bother with those groups any more
because they were trashed by job spammers. There are two groups that
aim at the Arizona market, and together they've had 12 posts this
month, with 11 of the 12 being blatant spam unrelated to job offers
anywhere. The 12th was a really crude "work from home" scam posted
from an apparent zombie on comcast.   Even the truly brain-dead job
spammers don't bother with those groups any more.

        Old guy

In article <slrng1h8e8.n40.ibuprofin@compton.phx.az.us>,
	ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld (Moe Trin) writes:
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
> <CcmdnZt3f9DIj4vVnZ2dnUVZ_r2nnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Robert Melson wrote:
> 
> In article <f2f8aa33-32e9-4902-b490-775949895ede@z24g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> 
> OK - a googlespammer
> 
>>        satish <satishglobalinfotechinc.com@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> satish@globalinfotechinc.com
>>> 217-241-2015
> 
>     Web  Results 1 - 10 of about 361 for 217-241-2015. (0.28 seconds)
>      
> I still haven't made up my mind if they are an ordinary job scam
> outfit, or if this kl0wn is really this brain-dead. My feeling is
> that it's a troll, because no one can have any of the skills claimed
> and still make so many obviously false statements and typos
> 
>>Let's try again, shall we?
> 
> Call the INS
> 
>>What is it you do not understand about the nature of this newsgroup?
> 
> Trolls don't have to understand anything
> 
>>There are newsgroups - hundreds, if not thousands - whose only
>>purpose is jobs and, wonder of wonders, most have the word
>>"jobs" in their names.
> 
> [compton ~]$ grep -c jobs .newsrc
> 1157
> [compton ~]$ 
> 
> but most of them are useless.
> 
>>The offer job announcements, as well as a place for job seekers to
>>post their resumes.
> 
> Only problem is that few people bother with those groups any more
> because they were trashed by job spammers. There are two groups that
> aim at the Arizona market, and together they've had 12 posts this
> month, with 11 of the 12 being blatant spam unrelated to job offers
> anywhere. The 12th was a really crude "work from home" scam posted
> from an apparent zombie on comcast.   Even the truly brain-dead job
> spammers don't bother with those groups any more.
> 
>         Old guy

Well, yeah.  But it feels so _good_ to LART'em.

Surly Ol' Bob

-- 
Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas
-----
Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is the probable
reason so few engage in it.  -- Henry Ford

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:54:05 -0500,
Robert Melson <melsonr@aragorn.rgmhome.net> wrote:
> Well, yeah.  But it feels so _good_ to LART'em.

You've been reading NANAE too much if you think of talking to a bot
or something suspiciously acting like same as ``LART'em''. To my mind
applying a LART would be to go there and apply the designated tool, such
as a 2x4, until the luser's attitude is suitably adjusted. For online
analogues the attitude adjustment part is still mandatory, and I don't
see this happening. You could perhaps try a more effective action?


-- 
  j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
  This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
  Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
  consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

In article <slrng1hgm1.1tmm.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>,
	jpd <read_the_sig@do.not.spam.it.invalid> writes:
> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:54:05 -0500,
> Robert Melson <melsonr@aragorn.rgmhome.net> wrote:
>> Well, yeah.  But it feels so _good_ to LART'em.
> 
> You've been reading NANAE too much if you think of talking to a bot
> or something suspiciously acting like same as ``LART'em''. To my mind
> applying a LART would be to go there and apply the designated tool, such
> as a 2x4, until the luser's attitude is suitably adjusted. For online
> analogues the attitude adjustment part is still mandatory, and I don't
> see this happening. You could perhaps try a more effective action?
> 
> 
Don't read NANAE.  And we certainly don't know that what
we're dealing with is a 'bot.  As for the rest, while I agree
there's a helluva lot more pleasure to be obtained from
directly applying the appropriate attitude adjustment tool
(I prefer a crowbar applied to the elbows), there is still
some small amount of satisfaction to be derived  from, ahhhh,
lesser means.

In the immortal words of Mehitabel the cat, "tojours gai,
whatthehell, whatthehell!".  Probably time to end this
thread and do what should've been done earlier - killfile
the topic and the poster.  But what _fun_ would _that_ be?

SOB

-- 
Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas
-----
Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is the probable
reason so few engage in it.  -- Henry Ford

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:41:21 -0500,
Robert Melson <melsonr@aragorn.rgmhome.net> wrote:
> Don't read NANAE.  And we certainly don't know that what
> we're dealing with is a 'bot.

I don't know it's human, either. Doesn't act like it at any rate.


> In the immortal words of Mehitabel the cat, "tojours gai,
> whatthehell, whatthehell!".  Probably time to end this
> thread and do what should've been done earlier - killfile
> the topic and the poster.  But what _fun_ would _that_ be?

Yes, a point. When taking action, I'd still advocate taking slightly
less ignorable action, though.


-- 
  j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
  This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
  Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
  consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
<Hp6dneToFLL8VoXVnZ2dnUVZ_jadnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Robert Melson wrote:

>jpd <read_the_sig@do.not.spam.it.invalid> writes:

>> Robert Melson <melsonr@aragorn.rgmhome.net> wrote:

>>> Well, yeah.  But it feels so _good_ to LART'em.
> 
>> You've been reading NANAE too much if you think of talking to a bot
>> or something suspiciously acting like same as ``LART'em''. 

I'm not sure it's a bot, but it's something quite lacking in swifts.
(BTW, good luck with the gas company.)

>> To my mind applying a LART would be to go there and apply the
>> designated tool, such as a 2x4, until the luser's attitude is
>> suitably adjusted.

The question is, where is "there"?

>> For online analogues the attitude adjustment part is still mandatory,
>> and I don't see this happening.

The message ID suggested the id10t is a google-poster, and much as I'd
love to see it, google makes substantial money from spammers, and would
find it EXTREMELY difficult to even notice the complaint. Some have
found it useful to simply killfile anything posted from there (most
competent news readers can filter messages where the Message-ID: string
contains 'googlegroups.com').

>> You could perhaps try a more effective action?

Which is why I suggested the INS.

>As for the rest, while I agree there's a helluva lot more pleasure to
>be obtained from directly applying the appropriate attitude adjustment
>tool (I prefer a crowbar applied to the elbows), there is still some
>small amount of satisfaction to be derived  from, ahhhh, lesser means.

Well, the phone number is from Springfield, Illinois, but fax numbers
that have been posted as alternatives are all over the place (Spokane,
Washington, Long Island, NY just to mention two).   Don't know what the
local law enforcement types are like, but here in Phoenix, the local
(Maricopa country) sheriff (plug "Joe Arpaio" into your favorite search
engine) is having a field day busting illegals. Controversy? Wazzat?

>Probably time to end this thread and do what should've been done
>earlier - killfile the topic and the poster.

I don't use knews, but my spooler has a googlegroups rule that applies
to 8 of the 80 groups I try to scan every day. In two of those, I've
gone further an have a rule that kills _replies to_ googlegroups posts
(References: googlegroups.com>$) because some can't resist replying to
googlespam.

        Old guy

In article <slrng1i49f.8h3.ibuprofin@compton.phx.az.us>,
	ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld (Moe Trin) writes:
> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
> <Hp6dneToFLL8VoXVnZ2dnUVZ_jadnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Robert Melson wrote:
<snip> 
>>Probably time to end this thread and do what should've been done
>>earlier - killfile the topic and the poster.
> 
> I don't use knews, but my spooler has a googlegroups rule that applies
> to 8 of the 80 groups I try to scan every day. In two of those, I've
> gone further an have a rule that kills _replies to_ googlegroups posts
> (References: googlegroups.com>$) because some can't resist replying to
> googlespam.
> 
>         Old guy

knews' kill mechanism is effective, if archaic, and certainly
a lot better than a lot of the other open source newsreaders
floating around.  I'm now globally killing any/everything from
gmail and would do google groups if the mechanism permitted.
It doesn't, so I won't/can't until something better than
knews comes along.

Your mention of Sherrif Arpaio brought a smile and a chuckle.
I personally think he's spot on, pink jpmpsuits, bologna
sandwiches, tentage and all the rest.  That'd sure discourage
me from a life of crime, particularly in a typical Phoenix
summer.

Southwestern Ol' Bob

-- 
Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas
-----
Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is the probable
reason so few engage in it.  -- Henry Ford

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
<RcWdnWw-3MQ2s4TVnZ2dnUVZ_t2inZ2d@earthlink.com>, Robert Melson wrote:

>knews' kill mechanism is effective, if archaic, and certainly
>a lot better than a lot of the other open source newsreaders
>floating around.  I'm now globally killing any/everything from
>gmail and would do google groups if the mechanism permitted.
>It doesn't, so I won't/can't until something better than
>knews comes along.

The news reader should be able to filter based on From:, Subject:,
References:, Date:, Bytes:, Lines:, Message-ID: and Xref:. Using the
message-id works for me.

>Your mention of Sherrif Arpaio brought a smile and a chuckle.
>I personally think he's spot on, pink jpmpsuits, bologna
>sandwiches, 

"green" bologna on 3-day old bread.

>tentage and all the rest.  That'd sure discourage me from a life
>of crime, particularly in a typical Phoenix summer.

The county attorney has mixed opinions - he just issued a legal
opinion that the current immigrant crackdown (asking for proof
you are legally entitled to be here) isn't racial profiling as
some have charged, but he also lost two recent cases where
plaintiffs sued to county for the sheriff's other actions - to the
tune of a megabuck.

Oh, and he does have 'misting coolers' in Tent City[1], which is
just as well as Tuesday hit 99F/37C. Today was cool and windy,
but it ought to warm up soon enough  ;-)

        Old guy

[1] "Tent City" is the "overflow" detention facility, which
basically consists of 15x30 feet (5x10 meter) army style tents
pitched on concrete slabs.  The misters cool nicely when it's
bone dry (2% RH, dewpoint below -18C/0F as it was on Monday) but
aren't very useful in late summer when the dewpoint is above
13C/55F (sometimes waayyyyy above).  Not meant to be a hotel.

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 19:39:21 -0500,
Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
> (BTW, good luck with the gas company.)

Thanks. :-)


>>> To my mind applying a LART would be to go there and apply the
>>> designated tool, such as a 2x4, until the luser's attitude is
>>> suitably adjusted.
>
> The question is, where is "there"?

Valid question. I haven't investigated it; didn't seem necessairy for
the argument I was making.


> The message ID suggested the id10t is a google-poster, and much as I'd
> love to see it, google makes substantial money from spammers, and would
> find it EXTREMELY difficult to even notice the complaint. Some have
> found it useful to simply killfile anything posted from there (most
> competent news readers can filter messages where the Message-ID: string
> contains 'googlegroups.com').

That I took as a given, but you're certainly correct.


>>> You could perhaps try a more effective action?
>
> Which is why I suggested the INS.

Not something _I'd_ contact, but there's plenty of stateside people
reading this group. Question is, is it illegal? Might very well not be.


> Don't know what the local law enforcement types are like, but here in
> Phoenix, the local (Maricopa country) sheriff (plug "Joe Arpaio" into
> your favorite search engine) is having a field day busting illegals.
> Controversy? Wazzat?

Probably something he eats for breakfast. Not commenting on many of his
methods, I do find abusing law, lying about your actions, and so on and
so forth, inexcusable for a supposed upholder of the law.

On another note, I think that the notion of ``illegals'' is becoming
more and more silly. If we don't manage to blow our societies or
ourselves to smithereens in the meantime, in a century or two we may
have done away with borders entirely. In the meantime, it'll require
plenty effort fixing our governments, though.


-- 
  j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
  This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
  Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
  consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

On 2 May 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
<slrng1m6lt.24dm.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:

>Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:

>>>> To my mind applying a LART would be to go there and apply the
>>>> designated tool, such as a 2x4, until the luser's attitude is
>>>> suitably adjusted.
>>
>> The question is, where is "there"?
>
>Valid question. I haven't investigated it; didn't seem necessairy for
>the argument I was making.

Certainly - I know about transmitting electricity over IP, and Orbital
Anvil Delivery Systems, but I haven't seen anything about LART-over-IP.

>>>> You could perhaps try a more effective action?
>>
>> Which is why I suggested the INS.
>
>Not something _I'd_ contact, but there's plenty of stateside people
>reading this group. Question is, is it illegal? Might very well not be.

H1 visas have some very specific requirements, and it would appear that
the people at the other end of that phone number specialize in skating
over the line.   The INS doesn't go searching for violators as much as
other agencies, but they will act when the case is presented to them on
a silver platter.

[Sheriff Joe]

>Probably something he eats for breakfast. Not commenting on many of his
>methods, I do find abusing law, lying about your actions, and so on and
>so forth, inexcusable for a supposed upholder of the law.

The local 'civil rights' groups are ready and willing to take him to
court when they detect a civil or criminal violation of any law. So far,
he hasn't been accused (let alone charged or found guilty) of criminal
violations.  Stupidity has never been against the law - to many
politicians could be convicted if that were the case.

>On another note, I think that the notion of ``illegals'' is becoming
>more and more silly.

It's perceived as a significant problem here, and I'm sure elsewhere.

>If we don't manage to blow our societies or ourselves to smithereens in
>the meantime, in a century or two we may have done away with borders
>entirely.

I suspect not. In the USA, you can cross state lines pretty much
transparently, but the local jurisdictions remain - the states (and
counties and even cities) provide services that are non-national in
nature even if they are normally found everywhere. Fire protection,
policing, public utilities (water, sewer, garbage collection) and
similar are all locally funded. Roads might be owned and maintained by
city, county, or even state but not the national government (national
roads are actually state roads that meet additional requirements)
although the national government does provide some monies for such
roads. On the other hand, air traffic control is nearly always a
national issue, even in cases where a city or similar local entity
owns the airport.

This means the individual cities/counties/states have their own laws
and financial setups. I pay taxes to the city (property tax and a
levy on most sales), county (as the city, but different rates),
state (income tax and levy on sales) in addition to the national
income tax - never mind all of the other annoyance taxes like the
license plate on the car, and so on. There are also four different
school districts (primary, secondary, and two levels of college) who
have their hands into the property taxes I pay. Those borders mark
more than color/shape of vehicle license plates, and it gets really
interesting[.cn] when one lives in one state, and works in another.

While the European Union does have a common currency in most states,
and citizens of the EU can move relatively freely between the various
member states, those local distinctions aren't going away very quickly.
(Actually, Europe does have an extra problem - the individual states
making up the USA had "colonies" for only a short time, and those few
colonies became other states joining the union in the first 30 years.)

Or are all Europeans going to speak a single language some day?  ;-)

>In the meantime, it'll require plenty effort fixing our governments,
>though.

It's going to be a lot more than just the governments.

        Old guy

On Fri, 02 May 2008 19:37:37 -0500,
Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
> On 2 May 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
><slrng1m6lt.24dm.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:
>>Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
>>> The question is, where is "there"?
>>
>>Valid question. I haven't investigated it; didn't seem necessairy for
>>the argument I was making.
>
> Certainly - I know about transmitting electricity over IP, and Orbital
> Anvil Delivery Systems, but I haven't seen anything about LART-over-IP.

Surely, come next year, someone'll come up with an RFC. AKA the ``stab
people in the face over the internet'' protocol.


> [Sheriff Joe]
>>Probably something he eats for breakfast. Not commenting on many of his
>>methods, I do find abusing law, lying about your actions, and so on and
>>so forth, inexcusable for a supposed upholder of the law.
>
> The local 'civil rights' groups are ready and willing to take him to
> court when they detect a civil or criminal violation of any law. So far,
> he hasn't been accused (let alone charged or found guilty) of criminal
> violations.  Stupidity has never been against the law - to many
> politicians could be convicted if that were the case.

I heard of at least one case where a local policeman (chief of the
village's police service, something to that tune) saw himself forced
to resign after losing credibility by doing a fancy `waking up in the
gutter' involving collapsing in a boat after missing a bridge, ISTR
while he was riding a bicycle. That he was entirely not on duty was of
no importance.

It may be a cultural difference that on your side of the pond a sheriff
can get away with bending the law just as much as, possibly more than
anybody else, and here the police certainly can't -- they are expected
to be the good example.

Likewise, the whole outsourcing of military duties to civilian companies
to circumvent international law -- done by the government -- has cost it
a lot of credibility here. ``You're supposed to be better than them, not
pull dirtier tricks'', instead of ``anything for the cause, as long as
it's (you're) successful''.


>>On another note, I think that the notion of ``illegals'' is becoming
>>more and more silly.
>
> It's perceived as a significant problem here, and I'm sure elsewhere.

Yes, sure, as it is now I'll probably not disagree, for a number of
reasons. But if I take the long term view, it's starting to look silly.


>>If we don't manage to blow our societies or ourselves to smithereens in
>>the meantime, in a century or two we may have done away with borders
>>entirely.
>
> I suspect not. In the USA, you can cross state lines pretty much
> transparently, but the local jurisdictions remain - [... examples]

And while that makes for interesting(.cn) work for lawyers when dealing
with the next town over, it's much less of a hassle than having to talk
to a government accross a rigidly enforced border.

Iff we manage to get our governments in order, we may well find that to
be most effective (... at not being seen/heard/noticed while smoothing
everybody's daily lives, instead of peddling influence because that
strokes the politicians' own egos) we end up reducing governments so
much that rigidly enforcing borders will be obsolete.

But like I said, it's a fairly extreme long term view. Or maybe it's
just my wishful thinking. For it certainly would be nice if we could get
rid of the need for all the requirements on border passing.


> Or are all Europeans going to speak a single language some day?  ;-)

California also comes with a sizeable Spanish-speaking population,
probably other places (Texas? New Mexico?) too. So what makes Mexico so
special that the people there have to be kept out?

The trend here seems to be to give more languages (semi-)official
status rather than less. I think the differences in Europe are bigger
than that. We do have more languages to deal with, but in plenty
countries multiple languages are spoken already[0]. Altough people will
increasingly find themselves pressured to speak at least the current
lingua franca, which happens to be English.


[0] EG. Belgium, Switzerland, the Netherlands[1], the UK, others.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_official_languages_by_state
    Interesting to see that the USA also sports a couple regional languages.
[1] Dutch, also Frysk when in Frysl\[^a]n. Most if not all Frysians speak
    perfect Dutch, even if they choose to pretend not to to fsck with the
    non-Frysk-speakers.

-- 
  j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
  This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
  Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
  consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

On 3 May 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
<slrng1p1vo.29q0.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:

>Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:

>> I know about transmitting electricity over IP, and Orbital Anvil
>> Delivery Systems, but I haven't seen anything about LART-over-IP.
>
>Surely, come next year, someone'll come up with an RFC. AKA the ``stab
>people in the face over the internet'' protocol.

There might be less evidence if you used a variation on RFC1097. I'm
honestly surprised that hasn't been incorporated in hypertext or the
various scripting languages already.

>> The local 'civil rights' groups are ready and willing to take him to
>> court when they detect a civil or criminal violation of any law. So
>> far, he hasn't been accused (let alone charged or found guilty) of
>> criminal violations.  Stupidity has never been against the law - to
>> many politicians could be convicted if that were the case.
>
>I heard of at least one case where a local policeman (chief of the
>village's police service, something to that tune) saw himself forced
>to resign after losing credibility by doing a fancy `waking up in the
>gutter' involving collapsing in a boat after missing a bridge, ISTR
>while he was riding a bicycle.

Within the metropolitan area (about 50 mile/80 KM radius), we hear of
an incident at least once a year, regrettably sometimes even more often.

>That he was entirely not on duty was of no importance.

The rule of thumb here is that peace officers may only be scheduled to
work 40 hours a week, but even when off-duty, they are still peace
officers and MAY have to respond.  Consequently, they are held to a
higher standard.

>It may be a cultural difference that on your side of the pond a sheriff
>can get away with bending the law just as much as, possibly more than
>anybody else, and here the police certainly can't -- they are expected
>to be the good example.

Despite often reported abuses, we have the same expectations here.

>> I suspect not. In the USA, you can cross state lines pretty much
>> transparently, but the local jurisdictions remain - [... examples]
>
>And while that makes for interesting(.cn) work for lawyers when dealing
>with the next town over, it's much less of a hassle than having to talk
>to a government accross a rigidly enforced border.

Oh, it's far more than the next town over - even the next state. While
cross border issues are generally the work of "higher" levels (issues
involving multiple towns may be dealt with at county, state, or rarely
national level), the lower levels still try to work together. An
example is our state (Arizona) officials dealing with Sonoran state
(Mexico) officials over common problems. The results may not have the
force of law (international relations are the job of the national
officials), such "unofficial" agreements work well.

>Iff we manage to get our governments in order, we may well find that to
>be most effective (... at not being seen/heard/noticed while smoothing
>everybody's daily lives, instead of peddling influence because that
>strokes the politicians' own egos) we end up reducing governments so
>much that rigidly enforcing borders will be obsolete.

At this stage in the life of civilization, many (most) government actions
are for appearance.  See http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/25.14.html noting
specifically "Air marshals' names tagged on 'no-fly' list" among others.
Does anyone _really_ think the "no-fly list" is worth the CPU cycles needed
to write those words in ASCII - never mind preventing terrorism?   But it
gives the _appearance_ of doing "something".

>But like I said, it's a fairly extreme long term view. Or maybe it's
>just my wishful thinking. For it certainly would be nice if we could get
>rid of the need for all the requirements on border passing.

For individuals, we've pretty much got that situation at the state level.
Both Hawaii and California have agricultural inspections at their border
(mainly to protect their industry against agricultural pests), and many
states have "weigh stations" (where trucks are weighed, and possibly
inspected for safety issues) because of differing local laws, but that's
about it. Crossing into neighboring countries (specifically Canada and
Mexico) is usually comparatively painless unless you are doing so for
commercial gain.

>> Or are all Europeans going to speak a single language some day?  ;-)
>
>California also comes with a sizeable Spanish-speaking population,
>probably other places (Texas? New Mexico?) too.

Spanish?  OK, you also want Arizona, Florida, New York and neighboring
states.

>So what makes Mexico so special that the people there have to be kept
>out?

Ask the citizens of Guatemala, Honduras, and other countries South to
Panama why they have to be kept out of Mexico.

>The trend here seems to be to give more languages (semi-)official
>status rather than less.

While you must "speak, read, and understand" the basic English language
as in common use to become naturalized US citizen (Immigration and
Nationality Act section 312(a)(1), though there are several exceptions),
those people who are born here don't have to meet that requirement. In
many states, that means they voting materials have to be made available
in several languages.  The ballot for the next election (May 20) that
I have is bilingual (English/Spanish), and it's far worse in California
where (for example) Los Angeles County provides printed materials, as
well as oral assistance in seven languages: English, Chinese (though I'm
not sure which dialect[s]), Japanese, Korean, Spanish, Tagalog and
Vietnamese. I know that other languages are used in other areas of that
state.

There has been (and is) a significant opinion of requiring English as
the official language (currently there is no _national_ requirement),
and there have been a number of different ballot initiatives to that
end at the state level. 

>I think the differences in Europe are bigger than that. We do have more
>languages to deal with, but in plenty countries multiple languages are
>spoken already[0].

I doubt we're that far behind, though as stated we don't generally have
an official language. All official primary/secondary schools (meaning
those receiving public funding) are required to teach in English as the
primary language. If the students speak something else as their primary
language, classes _may_ be offered speaking in those languages, but the
language that is _taught_ (rather poorly by the way) is English.

>Altough people will increasingly find themselves pressured to speak at
>least the current lingua franca, which happens to be English.

That's the case here, even though something like 13% of the population
(nationally) speaks Spanish as their primary language.

>[0] EG. Belgium, Switzerland, the Netherlands[1], the UK, others.
>    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_official_languages_by_state
>    Interesting to see that the USA also sports a couple regional
>    languages.

And that list is far from complete. How do you classify our Native
Americans?  In this state alone, we have at least 10 independent groups
speaking their own languages - you may have heard of the Apache, Hopi,
Navajo, and Zuni to mention just four.

>[1] Dutch, also Frysk when in Frysl\[^a]n. Most if not all Frysians
>    speak perfect Dutch, even if they choose to pretend not to to fsck
>    with the non-Frysk-speakers.

That happens here as well for various values of "perfect" $LANGUAGE.

        Old guy

On Sun, 04 May 2008 19:38:34 -0500,
Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
> On 3 May 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
><slrng1p1vo.29q0.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:
>>Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
>>> I know about transmitting electricity over IP, and Orbital Anvil
>>> Delivery Systems, but I haven't seen anything about LART-over-IP.
>>
>>Surely, come next year, someone'll come up with an RFC. AKA the ``stab
>>people in the face over the internet'' protocol.
>
> There might be less evidence if you used a variation on RFC1097. I'm
> honestly surprised that hasn't been incorporated in hypertext or the
> various scripting languages already.

``Cause of death: subliminally stabbed. over the internet.''


>>It may be a cultural difference that on your side of the pond a sheriff
>>can get away with bending the law just as much as, possibly more than
>>anybody else, and here the police certainly can't -- they are expected
>>to be the good example.
>
> Despite often reported abuses, we have the same expectations here.

Which then brings up the interesting question why Joe Arpaio is still in
office. Maybe it's different for elected sheriffs? Elected anythings?


> At this stage in the life of civilization, many (most) government actions
> are for appearance.  See http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/25.14.html noting
> specifically "Air marshals' names tagged on 'no-fly' list" among others.
> Does anyone _really_ think the "no-fly list" is worth the CPU cycles needed
> to write those words in ASCII - never mind preventing terrorism?   But it
> gives the _appearance_ of doing "something".

I had already seen that, though not there, as it too often turns out to
be an excercise in raising my blood pressure. thedailywtf is something
I can laugh about. Would I be in a position to engineer anything, I'd
consider it a mandatory reference of what not to do, though.

Too bad too many people still fall for the ``security circus''; it's
highly annoying for those of us who see right through it, and has real
detrimental effects on privacy and civil liberties, for exactly no gain
to the people. In fact, it also seems to foster dishonesty and outright
theft among the enforcers.


> All official primary/secondary schools (meaning those receiving public
> funding) are required to teach in English as the primary language. If
> the students speak something else as their primary language, classes
> _may_ be offered speaking in those languages, but the language that is
> _taught_ (rather poorly by the way) is English.

So it isn't just excessive use of 13375p34k, the kids really haven't
been taught any better.

It does bring up whether public schools can't be replaced by something
more effective while ensuring close-to-100% levels of functional
literacy for everybody, including the poor and the illegals.


-- 
  j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
  This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
  Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
  consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

On 30 Apr 2008 20:00:19 GMT
jpd <read_the_sig@do.not.spam.it.invalid> wrote:

> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:41:21 -0500,
> Robert Melson <melsonr@aragorn.rgmhome.net> wrote:
> > Don't read NANAE.  And we certainly don't know that what
> > we're dealing with is a 'bot.
> 
> I don't know it's human, either. Doesn't act like it at any rate.

Didn't you know? Consultants are not human.

-- 
Stefaan A Eeckels
-- 
Sometimes I wonder whether the world is run by smart people who are
putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.      --Mark Twain

On Tue, 6 May 2008 00:31:33 +0200, Stefaan A Eeckels <hoendech@ecc.lu> wrote:
>
> Didn't you know? Consultants are not human.

I'm going to go ahead and assume you're parodying an utter jerk on this
one, Stefaan.  Amazingly enough, there are people where I work who feel
that way in real life.

That was intended to be funny, right?

On 5 May 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
<slrng1tluc.2h83.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:

>Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:

>> There might be less evidence if you used a variation on RFC1097. I'm
>> honestly surprised that hasn't been incorporated in hypertext or the
>> various scripting languages already.
>
>``Cause of death: subliminally stabbed. over the internet.''

"I don't know, Inspector - it appears that he died from self-inflicted
but repeated blows to the head by a blunt object - possibly the keyboard."

>> Despite often reported abuses, we have the same expectations here.
>
>Which then brings up the interesting question why Joe Arpaio is still in
>office. Maybe it's different for elected sheriffs? Elected anythings?

elected and re-elected (twice). A lot of people like what he does
overall. (He does go out of his way to present a good image of
upholding the law, being tough on criminals, etc. His "Tent City"
``jail'' is an example of that.)  The result is a lack of decent
candidates to run against the incumbent.  And our polititians in
their wisdom would never allow a "None of the Above" choice.

>> But it gives the _appearance_ of doing "something".
>
>I had already seen that, though not there, as it too often turns out to
>be an excercise in raising my blood pressure. thedailywtf is something
>I can laugh about. Would I be in a position to engineer anything, I'd
>consider it a mandatory reference of what not to do, though.

Unfortunately, most of the rules have no automatic end if they turn out
to be useless, and politicians would NEVER think to manually revoke
such mistakes.  Daylight Savings Time is a good example. The "Uniform
Time Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 260a(a)) was amended by Public Law 109-58
to lengthen the duration of Daylight Savings Time.  Section 'c' of that
law required "not later than 9 months after the effective date" the
Energy "Secretary" shall "report to Congress on the impact of this
section on energy consumption in the United States". Section 'd' of that
act says "Congress retains the right to revert the Daylight Saving Time
back to the 2005 time schedules once the Department study is complete."
Oh, yeah - that's sure to happen.

>Too bad too many people still fall for the ``security circus''; it's
>highly annoying for those of us who see right through it, and has real
>detrimental effects on privacy and civil liberties, for exactly no gain
>to the people. 

The air security rules have increased the ground delays significantly.
For a one hour (schedule times) trip, I now have to _add_ an hour on
the departure end, and a half hour on the arrival end (beyond the
times of several years ago, and this doesn't include the times to and
from the airport. In Europe, you at least have the alternative of
grabbing the train.  Here in Phoenix, we don't even have passenger
train service - the nearest stop is about 50 KM to the South in the
desert - I think there are two trains a day to the East (El Paso, TX)
and West (Los Angeles).    For that one hour trip to LA, it's actually
faster for me to grab a private plane (cruise speed 230 KM/H) at the
local G/A airport. For the shorter trip to Las Vegas, the common
personal car will probably have a shorter overall (door-to-door) time.

>In fact, it also seems to foster dishonesty and outright theft among
>the enforcers.

Oh, you mean something like Senator Ted Kennedy's name showing up on
the 'no-fly' list (March 2004)?  I'm surprised. as many federal laws
and regulations have weasel-words such that they don't apply to
senators and congress-critters, and anyway - you REALLY don't expect
them to fly on a common airliner with ordinary _people_ do you? It's
a huge security problem, where voters would be screaming at them about
some perceived injustice/stupidity caused by congress.   ;-)

>> the language that is _taught_ (rather poorly by the way) is English.
>
>So it isn't just excessive use of 13375p34k, the kids really haven't
>been taught any better.

In another newsgroup, someone mentioned questioning people on the
street and proposing that the average person couldn't name (any)
eight (US) presidents (GWBush the current is the 43rd president). I
suspect this to be an honest assessment, even though I had no trouble
naming the last 13 in order (Hoover, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy,
LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, GHWBush, Clinton, GWBush). I'm older
and our schooling was quite different. Hell, there was a map of the
world on the classroom wall, and we were taught how to read it, and
something about those foreign lands. Guilders? Yeah, I know about those.
Marks? Which one - Finnish Markka or German (which one) Mark? How about
the "franc" (again, which one, as just like the "dollar", "peso", and
"pound", the name is used in several countries).

>It does bring up whether public schools can't be replaced by something
>more effective while ensuring close-to-100% levels of functional
>literacy for everybody, including the poor and the illegals.

Probably won't fly - we already have a controversy over public verses
private verses schools operated by religious organizations and so on.
Then there is the fact that education is _generally_ a state rather
than national issue (though the national legislature dangles the
carrot of federal money if the state requirements follow federal
guidelines).  In the mean time, the cash registers in the fast
food joints have icons denoting the individual food items - and
$DEITY help you if you give the clerk an unexpected amount of coin
to pay the bill (I owe 5.14, and give the clerk 6.04 so I don't
get pennies in the change - no, that blows their talentless minds).

        Old guy

On Mon, 05 May 2008 21:52:08 -0500,
Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
> And our polititians in their wisdom would never allow a "None of the
> Above" choice.

Gee, why would that be?

There was a bit of a discussion about the voting machines lacking an
``invalid vote'' button. With (traditional dutch) red pencil voting you
could write in big angry letters that you didn't agree with the world at
large and so on. That'd be counted as an ``invalid vote''.

I think that lack is a valid objection (in addition to all the other
defects voting machines invariably have).


> Unfortunately, most of the rules have no automatic end if they turn out
> to be useless, [...]

The Belgians have or had a department for cleaning up the rules and
streaming up the process of interacting with goverment. ISTR this mostly
touched on things like combining all N desks you need to talk to for,
say, starting a company, into one, and things like that. Turns out to be
a big moneysaver, both for J. Random Citizen and for the government.


> Section 'c' of that law required "not later than 9 months after the
> effective date" the Energy "Secretary" shall "report to Congress
> on the impact of this section on energy consumption in the United
> States".

There was this report, recently, that said the whole DST thing, not
just the recent tinkering with it, was a big waste of money overall.


> Section 'd' of that act says "Congress retains the right to revert
> the Daylight Saving Time back to the 2005 time schedules once the
> Department study is complete." Oh, yeah - that's sure to happen.

*sigh* Yeah. Just axe the whole thing already. :-)

But as you say, not gonna happen. Politicians need their little ego
strokes. If they'd wanted to actually do something useful they wouldn't
be in politics.


> The air security rules have increased the ground delays significantly.

Yep, here too. And the ``no water'' rule was hailed by the EC as a
really good idea, so let's keep it! Last time I flew I just took one
shoulder bag to avoid losing the luggage, packed one toothbrush, and
left my apparently highly explosive toothpaste at home.

I normally also pack a litre of water, wich was sorely missed.


> For a one hour (schedule times) trip, I now have to _add_ an hour on
> the departure end, and a half hour on the arrival end (beyond the
> times of several years ago, and this doesn't include the times to and
> from the airport.

The airport here is half an hour or so by public transport, and for intra-
european flights with a check-in-at-home printed-it-myself boarding pass I
just had to waste 30 minutes there before the flight. This seems to be a
feature of this airport -- the one hour flight back required 1.5 hours of
walking around the airport like a zombie; the trip had been _busy_. I think
that next time I'll see if I can't get an overnight train back instead.


> In Europe, you at least have the alternative of grabbing the train.

Not always an option, but I do take the train whenever I can. The German
IC trains are quite fast already (the ICE is a bit faster, but a bit
more expensive, if not quite as much of a hassle as the TGV).

I missed a plane from AMS once, due to recently increased security circus,
on a non-refundable ticket (which I hadn't booked myself), so I went down
a couple of stairs, bought a train ticket for a fraction of the air fare,
and was at my destination before the next plane arrived there.

Of course, the British are touting introducing portable security circus
gear to trains, too. If they haven't already done so.


> Here in Phoenix, we don't even have passenger train service - [...]

The Dutch authorities seem to positively hate small airplanes and
airports for such. Berlin is also ditching the old airport there; that
had already had most of its regular flights stripped, but had retained a
few short haul flights and some private air traffic. So using it would
instantly label you ``super rich'' in the eyes of the socialists.

I still want to fly from/to that airport once, before it closes.

As to trains, I heard something about how a functioning service got
killed, and now it's too expensive to re-create that infrastructure
again. Then again, ditching (or rather, not starting) just one war
and use the monies to improve trains should go a long way. Heretical
thoughts, these. *waits for the black helicopters to arrive*


>>In fact, it also seems to foster dishonesty and outright theft among
>>the enforcers.
>
> Oh, you mean something like Senator Ted Kennedy's name showing up on
> the 'no-fly' list (March 2004)?

I was actually referring to occurences like people having to hand over
their laptops ``for inspection'', getting told they'll receive it back
within a week, but a year later, still no laptop. (Happened to a British
woman, as related by The Register.)

I thought the senator on the no-fly list to be a test for the senator:
Instead of using his friends-on-high to get just him off the list, he
should've used the normal procedure, then use his influence to get it
fixed for normal citizens, too. That probably would've been unpatriotic
or something.


> In another newsgroup, someone mentioned questioning people on the
> street and proposing that the average person couldn't name (any)
> eight (US) presidents (GWBush the current is the 43rd president).

I stopped reading here for a moment; I did get to eight with a little
effort. (Missed Hoover, Truman, Nixon, Ford, Carter, all of which turned
out to be at least known names).


Of course, heads of state is not really comparable, as ours is Royal and
thus lasts a while longer. Willem I, Willem II, Willem III, Wilhelmina,
Juliana, Beatrix goes back to 1813.

Eight Dutch prime ministers would give me a bit more trouble. Den Uyl,
van Agt, Lubbers, Kok, Balkenende, covers 1973 to now. I had to peek, as
I'd somehow swapped Kok for Zalm (longest serving finance minister and
also deputy-prime minister). I haven't really been paying attention to
politics lately, and before this list the names are just that to me.


> Guilders? Yeah, I know about those. Marks? Which one - Finnish Markka
> or German (which one) Mark? How about the "franc" (again, which one,
> as just like the "dollar", "peso", and "pound", the name is used in
> several countries).

Most of them now spelled ``Euro'', which I still think is a silly name.
There is an upside of needing to change much less when crossing borders,
easier sending of money and all that, and it is somewhat interesting to
spot a foreign-minted coin when looking for change to fill up a payment.
The downside is that the changeover hid a sizeable hike in prices, and
that the currency now attracts more counterfeiters, gets fscked over by
more governments, and so on and so forth.


>>It does bring up whether public schools can't be replaced by something
>>more effective while ensuring close-to-100% levels of functional
>>literacy for everybody, including the poor and the illegals.
>
> Probably won't fly - we already have a controversy over public verses
> private verses schools operated by religious organizations and so on.

This being a mostly theoretical question, for now anyway, I don't really
care what the political climate is right now. Coming up with something
that promotes kids actually learn something is hard enough without the
usual daily hubhub.


> In the mean time, the cash registers in the fast food joints have
> icons denoting the individual food items - and $DEITY help you if you
> give the clerk an unexpected amount of coin to pay the bill (I owe
> 5.14, and give the clerk 6.04 so I don't get pennies in the change -
> no, that blows their talentless minds).

*Sigh* I do that daily; the teller clerks here are literate enough
that they can at least count the cash and enter it into the register,
which'll then quote a number back that is to end up in my hands again.

As banks charge for supply of small change, this is actually beneficial
for both: They get small change to give someone else, and I end up with
a lighter wallet. Then again, ``the populace'' in .nl decided they
didn't want to deal with 1ct and 2ct coins, because that would bulk up
their wallets too much. Prices are informally rounded at the nearest
5ct, like they were in the pre-euro days (only the exchange rate is
2.2something guilders to euros). Here I get those and hand'em out as
needed too. With a little care I rarely end up with too much small
change, and when, it's usually the larger coins. Which is easily taken
care of the next time I need to buy something to eat.


Plenty of dystopian future portraits assume icons will solve all. Now,
nothing wrong with icons (eg. the Dutch railways use them extensively
to indicate where to buy tickets and where to get out of the joint,
and roadsigns often are ``iconized'' ways to indicate various things,
even if you have to learn how to read them and they thus aren't very
``intuitive''), but that doesn't mean they're suitable for everything.

Teaching math through icons? How about reading a classic novel? Look ma,
it's all icons! I think functional illiteracy will be the death of our
high-tech society.


I did read something about someone figuring a way to muck with programs
for the macintosh' finder to allow dragging and dropping them onto each
other to form ``pipes''. Interesting idea, but ISTR seeing such a thing
packed up as a ``programming language'' in the 100 bottles of beer list,
and that language doesn't seem to have grown beyond the curiosity stage
either. I wonder why.


-- 
  j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
  This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
  Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
  consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

On 6 May 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
<slrng20f8s.2lbu.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:

>Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:

>> And our polititians in their wisdom would never allow a "None of the
>> Above" choice.
>
>Gee, why would that be?

It's been discussed - but no one has ever come up with a decent reason.

>There was a bit of a discussion about the voting machines lacking an
>``invalid vote'' button. With (traditional dutch) red pencil voting you
>could write in big angry letters that you didn't agree with the world at
>large and so on. That'd be counted as an ``invalid vote''.

We've only had this capability with paper type ballots. The mechanical
monstrosity I first used had mechanical interlocks to prevent voting
for other than a valid choice. All you could do was to close the
curtain and not select a candidate for a specific office. However as
I recall you did have to vote for something. (Usually, we have multiple
issues/offices to vote on.  For the machine to be happy, you had to vote
on at least one issue/office, though you could leave all the rest empty.)

>The Belgians have or had a department for cleaning up the rules and
>streaming up the process of interacting with goverment. ISTR this mostly
>touched on things like combining all N desks you need to talk to for,
>say, starting a company, into one, and things like that. Turns out to be
>a big moneysaver, both for J. Random Citizen and for the government.

If the laws were simplified/cleaned up, this would leave less work for
lawyers and officials. Legislators are generally lawyers and recognize
that this would be bad for (their) business.

(I honestly don't know how many rules exist It's an enormous amount.)

>There was this report, recently, that said the whole DST thing, not
>just the recent tinkering with it, was a big waste of money overall.

I know that was the case in California. It's not a significant problem
here, because this state doesn't observe DST (except for that part of
the state administered by the Navaho).

>> Section 'd' of that act says "Congress retains the right to revert
>> the Daylight Saving Time back to the 2005 time schedules once the
>> Department study is complete." Oh, yeah - that's sure to happen.
>
>*sigh* Yeah. Just axe the whole thing already. :-)

Section 260.a.(1)  any State that lies entirely within one time zone may by
       law exempt itself from the provisions of this subsection providing
       for the advancement of time, but only if that law provides that the
       entire State (including all political subdivisions thereof) shall
       observe the standard time otherwise applicable during that period,

That's us because the Native American entities are not subdivisions of
an individual state.

>> For a one hour (schedule times) trip, I now have to _add_ an hour on
>> the departure end, and a half hour on the arrival end (beyond the
>> times of several years ago, and this doesn't include the times to and
>> from the airport.
>
>The airport here is half an hour or so by public transport, and for intra-
>european flights with a check-in-at-home printed-it-myself boarding pass I
>just had to waste 30 minutes there before the flight. This seems to be a
>feature of this airport -- the one hour flight back required 1.5 hours of
>walking around the airport like a zombie;

30 minutes? Which airport is that?  The normal rules here are 60 minutes,
but the airlines usually recommend 90 minutes, and the airport authorities
recommend 120 (and occasionally 150) minutes during busier times.  If you
are changing planes within a terminal, you may seen times as low as 45
minutes, but the normal is 60 or 90 minutes.  If you are changing
terminals (which means going outside the "secured area"), bump those
times up.

>> Here in Phoenix, we don't even have passenger train service - [...]
>
>The Dutch authorities seem to positively hate small airplanes and
>airports for such. 

Oh, we get large rations of sh!t from the authorities, but we have a
large number of airports.  In this county (Maricopa) alone we have nine
airports with control towers (2 military, 7 civil), and at least 10 more
that are open to the public (there are around 30 _privately_ owned
airports at well).  Only two airports have regular scheduled airline
flights.  My airport directory lists 82 airports in the state, but only
7 have airline service.

>Berlin is also ditching the old airport there; that had already had most
>of its regular flights stripped, but had retained a few short haul
>flights and some private air traffic.

Is that Templehof? I was in/out of there a few times in the 1970s, and
the last time I flew in was to Tegal in 1983.

>So using it would instantly label you ``super rich'' in the eyes of the
>socialists.

If it were a one-owner private plane, I'd have to admit you're right.
But I'd suspect most of the aircraft belong to companies, or are air
taxis/charters.  Expensive, but the costs can often be justified by
the time savings, and 'go when you are ready' (non) scheduling.

>I still want to fly from/to that airport once, before it closes.

"Down-town" airports are not all that common any more.  Many that still
exist are under noise pollution attacks even though the airport was
probably there long before the people complaining were even born, let
alone moved there and suddenly discovered that airplanes tend to be
loud - surprise, surprise.

>As to trains, I heard something about how a functioning service got
>killed, and now it's too expensive to re-create that infrastructure
>again.

It's similar to the cost of a motorway, but with the added disadvantage
that they tend to be used by a single owner/entity. Can you imagine any
company with the money to build a "personal" motorway between Amsterdam
and Berlin - for their own limited use (no more than 15 trains an hour)?
Even a national government would find that daunting.

>I was actually referring to occurences like people having to hand over
>their laptops ``for inspection'', getting told they'll receive it back
>within a week, but a year later, still no laptop. (Happened to a British
>woman, as related by The Register.)

That's no worse that a recent incident where a classical violinist was
told she'd have to check that Stradivarius as ordinary baggage.

>I thought the senator on the no-fly list to be a test for the senator:

Apparently this was an ordinary screw-up. What was more ridiculous was
that the problem occurred at Boston, which is the capital of the state
he represents in the Senate. They _knew_ who he was, but were just
following the law.

>Instead of using his friends-on-high to get just him off the list, he
>should've used the normal procedure, then use his influence to get it
>fixed for normal citizens, too. That probably would've been unpatriotic
>or something.

http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/23.50.html

  Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 19:41:02 -0500
  From: Dan Wallach <dwallach@cs.rice.edu>
  Subject: U.S. air travel without government identification

>> In another newsgroup, someone mentioned questioning people on the
>> street and proposing that the average person couldn't name (any)
>> eight (US) presidents (GWBush the current is the 43rd president).
>
>I stopped reading here for a moment; I did get to eight with a little
>effort. (Missed Hoover, Truman, Nixon, Ford, Carter, all of which turned
>out to be at least known names).

That's a bit unfair to you - I wouldn't expect people overseas to know
more than one or two. But this hypothetical question referred to asking
people on the streets of a US city.

>Of course, heads of state is not really comparable, as ours is Royal and
>thus lasts a while longer. Willem I, Willem II, Willem III, Wilhelmina,
>Juliana, Beatrix goes back to 1813.

Yeah, they tend to stick around a log longer.  AND be more popular.

>> Guilders? Yeah, I know about those. Marks? Which one - Finnish Markka
>> or German (which one) Mark? How about the "franc" (again, which one,
>> as just like the "dollar", "peso", and "pound", the name is used in
>> several countries).
>
>Most of them now spelled ``Euro'', which I still think is a silly name.

Well...   But I learned about those in the 1940s and 1950s. By the 1960s,
I had even visited/worked in several of those countries.  I think the
'Euro' name is the best of a very limited set of choices. It would be
very difficult to use the name of an existing currency

>The downside is that the changeover hid a sizeable hike in prices,

That's normal even when they haven't changed the currency. It used to
be that we bought coffee by the pound - one, two and three pound tins
or bags were the rule. Now?  The "three pound can" holds something
between 35 and 39 ounces - metric??? No - one tin hold 39 ounce or 1106
grams - another is 35.5 ounces or 978 grams. Actually, I'm seeing some
"three pound cans" holding 33.5 ounces, or 2.1 pounds - 950 grams. Of
course, the prices for that old "three pound" can isn't much higher
than what it was - even though the can hold less than 70% of what it
used to.  But no one will notice that...

>and that the currency now attracts more counterfeiters, gets fscked
>over by more governments, and so on and so forth.

I _thought_ the Euros were a heck of a lot harder to counterfeit
compared to previous currencies.

>*Sigh* I do that daily; the teller clerks here are literate enough
>that they can at least count the cash and enter it into the register,
>which'll then quote a number back that is to end up in my hands again.

The only reason they can do that is the cash register is telling them
the exact change to return.

>Prices are informally rounded at the nearest 5ct, like they were in
>the pre-euro days (only the exchange rate is 2.2something guilders to
>euros).

Here is MUCH more common for the price to be slightly below the
round number. Heck, gasoline/petrol is sold here with prices to
three decimal places (I paid $2.539 per gallon Sunday evening, but
back in the 1950s when I learned to drive it was ALWAYS listed as
<mumble> point nine cents - with the final digit (for which we
haven't had a coin in more than 200 years) always shown in a font
a tenth the size of the other digits used. That way, it _seems_
cheaper, even though you know the real price is higher.

>With a little care I rarely end up with too much small change, and
>when, it's usually the larger coins. Which is easily taken care of
>the next time I need to buy something to eat.

It was quite common here that you emptied the coins out of the pocket
and put them into a large container - I'm of that vintage, and there
are four empty 1.5 liter whisk[e]y bottles full of coins. Several
times a year the coins get sorted, counted, and rolled for return to
the bank. That used to be a form of "savings".

>roadsigns often are ``iconized'' ways to indicate various things,
>even if you have to learn how to read them and they thus aren't very
>``intuitive''), but that doesn't mean they're suitable for everything.

We've got that here to a lesser extent, but probably for the same
reason - they're international standards, so that foreign drivers
can understand them.

>Teaching math through icons? How about reading a classic novel? Look ma,
>it's all icons!

You teach people to read???   Fancy that.  I suppose someone reading in
standard Chinese wouldn't see anything odd about the idea, but even they
are using roman characters when they need to get an idea across to
someone who can't read the ideographs.

>I did read something about someone figuring a way to muck with programs
>for the macintosh' finder to allow dragging and dropping them onto each
>other to form ``pipes''. Interesting idea, but

I don't see how it would be practical. Either the icon programs will do
very little (and you're going to have a shedload of them to account for
the various possibilities), or you are going to be quite limited in
what they can do.

[compton ~]$ history | grep -c '|'
112
[compton ~]$ 

A separate icon for 'grep -c' - and separate ones for each thing you may
want to count?

        Old guy

On Wed, 07 May 2008 23:13:03 -0500,
Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
> (Usually, we have multiple issues/offices to vote on. For the machine
> to be happy, you had to vote on at least one issue/office, though you
> could leave all the rest empty.)

We don't, and if we do we'd get different ballots, one for each issue.
I'm inclined to think that both many small things to vote for and many
issues on a single ballot could stand improvement, but that may very
well be cultural background.


> If the laws were simplified/cleaned up, this would leave less work for
> lawyers and officials. Legislators are generally lawyers and recognize
> that this would be bad for (their) business.

Meaning they're not there to represent the people they're representing,
other than themselves. Arguably a weakness in the system.


> (I honestly don't know how many rules exist It's an enormous amount.)

Count'em. I come up with ``Too many''. Not quite infinity, but close.


>>There was this report, recently, that said the whole DST thing, not
>>just the recent tinkering with it, was a big waste of money overall.
>
> I know that was the case in California. It's not a significant problem
> here, because this state doesn't observe DST (except for that part of
> the state administered by the Navaho).

Arizona is somewhat of a minority, though. :-)


> 30 minutes? Which airport is that?

That was TXL - Tegel. It also helps that it is laid out in a way that
facilitates getting in and out (provided you don't get lost, the
interior is somewhat confusing). This was when traveling by Air Berlin,
who list short waiting periods for a number of German airports on
internal flights, when not checking in luggage and when printing your
own boarding pass, &c.


>>Berlin is also ditching the old airport there; that had already had most
>>of its regular flights stripped, but had retained a few short haul
>>flights and some private air traffic.
>
> Is that Templehof? I was in/out of there a few times in the 1970s, and
> the last time I flew in was to Tegal in 1983.

Tempelhof (THF), yes. Built in the 30s, megalomaniac architecture, built
around a very clearly circular ``field'' (with two concrete airstrips).
I still can't help but like it, though.


>>So using it would instantly label you ``super rich'' in the eyes of the
>>socialists.
>
> If it were a one-owner private plane, I'd have to admit you're right.

The thing is, I don't agree with the rabid socialists. :-)

I've been around small airports a couple times, and while the people
there usually tend to be more likely of the well-to-do type, extreme
wealth is not necessairy. In fact, forego getting a new fat mercedes
every two years (or just your second one), and you could probably afford
an airplane. Alright, a small one, but even small airplanes tend to
be larger than mercedeses. With a bit of creative financial planning
and/or altering your priorities in a non-conventional way airplanes are
affordable for more people than you think. Thing is, nobody does that.


>>I still want to fly from/to that airport once, before it closes.
>
> "Down-town" airports are not all that common any more. Many that still
> exist are under noise pollution attacks even though the airport was
> probably there long before the people complaining were even born, let
> alone moved there and suddenly discovered that airplanes tend to be
> loud - surprise, surprise.

True. Heck, even the small airport (informally known as EHHO) where I
used to fly gliderplane was under endless attack from someone who lived
under the approach, and knew perfectly well that this was the case when
they'd moved there. And this when the biggest airplane landing there was
a turboprop flying shed picking up parachutists.

But, I like to point to LCY - London City Airport at this point.  It's
down-town, pretty small, doesn't see heavy traffic, doesn't operate at
night, and comes with strict capability and noise-abatement requirements.
Still, it's useful to have where it is, even if you can't use it 24/7.
I would've thought such a model workable for THF, too.

The socialists argument is that THF costs all of 10 million to maintain
each year and it's making losses (because many flights got booted, so
they could make this argument). In the face of an essentially bankrupt
city building a multi-billion brand spanking new airport next to SXF, to
replace all three existing airports, I find that a bit dishonest.


>>As to trains, I heard something about how a functioning service got
>>killed, and now it's too expensive to re-create that infrastructure
>>again.
>
> It's similar to the cost of a motorway, but with the added disadvantage
> that they tend to be used by a single owner/entity. Can you imagine any
> company with the money to build a "personal" motorway between Amsterdam
> and Berlin - for their own limited use (no more than 15 trains an hour)?
> Even a national government would find that daunting.

Except that wouldn't translate to 15 trucks/hour, but more like, oh,
45 roadtrains/hour. If not more.

The comparison is a bit hobbled also in that in Europe it tends to be
a bit harder to find cheap contiguous free land to build railroads on.


>>I was actually referring to occurences like people having to hand over
>>their laptops ``for inspection'', getting told they'll receive it back
>>within a week, but a year later, still no laptop. (Happened to a British
>>woman, as related by The Register.)
>
> That's no worse that a recent incident where a classical violinist was
> told she'd have to check that Stradivarius as ordinary baggage.

Of course. Doesn't make either excusable.


>>Most of them now spelled ``Euro'', which I still think is a silly name.
>
> Well...   But I learned about those in the 1940s and 1950s. By the 1960s,
> I had even visited/worked in several of those countries.

Alright. :-)

Also gives you a reason to not forget; a reason many others don't have.


> I think the 'Euro' name is the best of a very limited set of choices.
> It would be very difficult to use the name of an existing currency

Of course. Doesn't make it snappy or an especially good name.


>>The downside is that the changeover hid a sizeable hike in prices,
>
> That's normal even when they haven't changed the currency.

Yes, indeed. And then there's normal inflation and all that. This was
just one more excuse for everyone to hike their prices a bit.


>>and that the currency now attracts more counterfeiters, gets fscked
>>over by more governments, and so on and so forth.
>
> I _thought_ the Euros were a heck of a lot harder to counterfeit
> compared to previous currencies.

Some european countries' bills were already quite hard to counterfeit,
so while it probably didn't worsen for those, successful counterfeiting
now gives much more choices where to ``cash'' the produce, so trying is
more attractive.


>>*Sigh* I do that daily; the teller clerks here are literate enough
>>that they can at least count the cash and enter it into the register,
>>which'll then quote a number back that is to end up in my hands again.
>
> The only reason they can do that is the cash register is telling them
> the exact change to return.

For some, though the more experienced ones probably could do it by hand.
Their heads don't explode when offered, though. On occasion they'll ask
whether the customer doesn't have an extra $coin to ease change.


>>Prices are informally rounded at the nearest 5ct, like they were in
>>the pre-euro days (only the exchange rate is 2.2something guilders to
>>euros).
>
> Here is MUCH more common for the price to be slightly below the
> round number.

Prices on pricetags, yes. Same here. I was talking about what happens
after the end total is presented. The actual cash that changes hands
there doesn't contain 1 or 2ct coins, and here it does.


> It was quite common here that you emptied the coins out of the pocket
> and put them into a large container - I'm of that vintage, and there
> are four empty 1.5 liter whisk[e]y bottles full of coins. Several
> times a year the coins get sorted, counted, and rolled for return to
> the bank. That used to be a form of "savings".

Then again, I go and get more money whenever I need it (currently once
or so per month), and the less I hand out the longer between intervals.


> I suppose someone reading in standard Chinese wouldn't see anything
> odd about the idea, but even they are using roman characters when they
> need to get an idea across to someone who can't read the ideographs.

Those started out as icons, but learning to read (and write) never
was easy for them. They have 10000 or so ``icons'' to learn. ISTR the
japanese forcibly reducing the number to 2000 for use in newspapers.

Now, learning a language involves learning something like 5000 words
just to get started, and the average learned adult will know 50000 words
or something to that tune (this from hazy memory).

That means that you'd need at least 2000 (newspaper), but more likely
20000, pictograms to have a stab at replacing written language, and
you'll end up spending serious effort at remembering them anyway.


>>I did read something about someone figuring a way to muck with programs
>>for the macintosh' finder to allow dragging and dropping them onto each
>>other to form ``pipes''. Interesting idea, but
>
> I don't see how it would be practical.

Didn't say it was. :-)

It was something ISTR I spotted in a computer hobbyists' magazine, and
was, again ISTR, done on system 6 or 7. Someone'd come up with it and
said it might be interesting.


> A separate icon for 'grep -c' - and separate ones for each thing you may
> want to count?

That, or a way to pass parameters, maybe store them in softlinks, or
whatever. ``unix'' stuffs a lot of things in parameters that other
systems put in specific buttons that you have to find, sometimes buried
deep in multi-level menu structures. I know what I prefer, but *cough*
certain other systems *cough* are also very popular.


-- 
  j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
  This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
  Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
  consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

On 8 May 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
<slrng25er2.2t8q.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:

>We don't, and if we do we'd get different ballots, one for each issue.
>I'm inclined to think that both many small things to vote for and many
>issues on a single ballot could stand improvement, but that may very
>well be cultural background.

I think this has been thrashed out in the monastery. Here, the elected
officials will often put questions on the ballot for voters to decide.
The election in two weeks is such an example - question about keeping
a 0.1% addition to the general sales tax in the county.  One could ask
if the legislature passes these questions to the voters, why are we
wasting money on a legislature - but that's another question.

>> (I honestly don't know how many rules exist It's an enormous amount.)
>
>Count'em. I come up with ``Too many''. Not quite infinity, but close.

;-)

>> I know that was the case in California. It's not a significant problem
>> here, because this state doesn't observe DST (except for that part of
>> the state administered by the Navaho).
>
>Arizona is somewhat of a minority, though. :-)

Puerto Rico, the (US) Virgin Islands, Hawaii and the Pacific islands also
ignore it. Sections of Indiana _used_ to ignore it as well.

>> 30 minutes? Which airport is that?
>
>That was TXL - Tegel. It also helps that it is laid out in a way that
>facilitates getting in and out (provided you don't get lost, the
>interior is somewhat confusing). This was when traveling by Air Berlin,
>who list short waiting periods for a number of German airports on
>internal flights, when not checking in luggage and when printing your
>own boarding pass, &c.

What little I remember of Tegal - I had an escort who knew what they
were doing.

>Tempelhof (THF), yes. Built in the 30s, megalomaniac architecture, built
>around a very clearly circular ``field'' (with two concrete airstrips).
>I still can't help but like it, though.

Park under the roof of the terminal - I kind of liked it, and thought
it world be nice in the winter.

>In fact, forego getting a new fat mercedes every two years (or just
>your second one), and you could probably afford an airplane. Alright,
>a small one, but even small airplanes tend to be larger than
>mercedeses. With a bit of creative financial planning and/or altering
>your priorities in a non-conventional way airplanes are affordable for
>more people than you think. Thing is, nobody does that.

Haven't priced a Merc in a while, but last time I looked, the C-172 or
PA-28 sized plane (Max 2550 pounds / 1160 KG was running about 3 times
the cost of the SL, and got substantially less milage (9 GPH at 120
Kts). And 100LL is selling about twice the price (I paid $6.63 a gallon
two weeks ago - JET-A was $6.60) of auto gas and the cost of "required"
maintenance...  Still, you tend to keep the plane a lot longer than the
car. 

>True. Heck, even the small airport (informally known as EHHO) where I
>used to fly gliderplane was under endless attack from someone who lived
>under the approach, and knew perfectly well that this was the case when
>they'd moved there. And this when the biggest airplane landing there was
>a turboprop flying shed picking up parachutists.

Is that Hoogeveen?  We have this problem all the time. There is some
resistance to this, as aircraft owners took the real-estate agent who
sold the house to court for lack of full disclosure or mis-representing
the property.. The result is that agents now make it a point to mention
"problems" about the house. Yes, anyone who isn't deaf and blind knows
the airport exists, but that does not stop the idiots from buying a
house on short final, and then being surprised months later to discover
there is an airport with the planes skimming 200 feet overhead 15 hours
a day.

>But, I like to point to LCY - London City Airport at this point.

Jeez, we've got dozens - how about KDCA (Reagan National Airport
just across the river from the US capital. But you have the same
thing with Chicago Midway (KMDW), Kansas City Downtown (KMKC), Phoenix
(KPHX), San Diego (KSAN), or San Jose (KSJC), and these are all
used for airline service (and only KMKC no longer has that).

>The socialists argument is that THF costs all of 10 million to maintain
>each year and it's making losses (because many flights got booted, so
>they could make this argument). In the face of an essentially bankrupt
>city building a multi-billion brand spanking new airport next to SXF, to
>replace all three existing airports, I find that a bit dishonest.

Somewhat surprising, as many capital or major cities have more than one
airport serving them. My division office is in the San Francisco area,
and I can get airline service to San Francisco (KSFO), Oakland (KOAK)
or San Jose (KSJC). For non-airline service, there are four more
airports (HWD, SCL, PAO and RHV) about the same distance away (and two
more military airports).

>The comparison is a bit hobbled also in that in Europe it tends to be
>a bit harder to find cheap contiguous free land to build railroads on.

Today, sure. But when the railways were built 100+ years ago, they were
essentially without competition (wagons and canal boats?), and it was
easier to get the land. Today, rail is a special case generally dealing
with bulk goods that are not economical to put on the road. Thus, roads
are easier to sell to the voters. We're still constructing them here (a
"ring road" is being completed at roughly 30 KM radius from down town).

>Some european countries' bills were already quite hard to counterfeit,
>so while it probably didn't worsen for those, successful counterfeiting
>now gives much more choices where to ``cash'' the produce, so trying is
>more attractive.

Yes, I can understand that. We've had this problem for the past 60 years
with everyone and his dog trying to pass relatively poor copies of the
greenbacks. That's also why the older notes are being replaced with
more difficult ones to fake. Still, the people in South Nowhere in
Whooseistan don't know what the real ones look like.

>Now, learning a language involves learning something like 5000 words
>just to get started, and the average learned adult will know 50000
>words or something to that tune (this from hazy memory).

I don't listen to VOA that often, but they used to use "Special English"
which only needed 1000 words. Yes, the native speaker should know 35000
words, and this might peak at over twice that number, but the common
conversation tends to run under 5000 words.

>It was something ISTR I spotted in a computer hobbyists' magazine, and
>was, again ISTR, done on system 6 or 7. Someone'd come up with it and
>said it might be interesting.

I had some exposure to OS7 but never really got into it. Go back to it's
progenitor (Xerox Global-View) if you want to see some interesting ideas
that lead no-where.

>That, or a way to pass parameters, maybe store them in softlinks, or
>whatever. ``unix'' stuffs a lot of things in parameters that other
>systems put in specific buttons that you have to find, sometimes buried
>deep in multi-level menu structures.

But the standard arguement is that this mode only allows you to do what
that application author thought you'd like to do. If you need to do
something else - how many IPv4 addresses are assigned/allocated to .nl?

[compton ~]$ bzcat delegated-[ar]* | grep 'NL.ipv4' | awk 'BEGIN { FS="|"
 } ; { total += $5 } ; END { print total }'
20015912
[compton ~]$ 

That's from the RIPE and ARIN databases, which have lines that look like

ripencc|NL|ipv4|62.25.0.0|16384|20000329|allocated

OK - why would anyone need this kind of data, and how could you arrange
a set of menus, icons, or what-ever to do this, other than by a shell
script or similar?

>I know what I prefer, but *cough* certain other systems *cough* are
>also very popular.

I know what you are saying, but not everyone using a computer in the
world is doing anything like the same tasks.

        Old guy

On Thu, 08 May 2008 23:07:28 -0500,
Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
> The election in two weeks is such an example - question about keeping
> a 0.1% addition to the general sales tax in the county.  One could ask
> if the legislature passes these questions to the voters, why are we
> wasting money on a legislature - but that's another question.

Probably a good `bad' example, but it arguably beats getting hit with
a 3% VAT increase without further ado. There is the problem of ``voter
wear'' or however one'd term that.

The legislature could, in theory, provide a valuable service providing
good choices of what to ask the voters. In practice, as usual, it's
different.


> Haven't priced a Merc in a while, but last time I looked, the C-172 or
> PA-28 sized plane (Max 2550 pounds / 1160 KG was running about 3 times
> the cost of the SL, and got substantially less milage (9 GPH at 120
> Kts).

Plenty of SUVs get close, especially if you factor in traffic jams.


> And 100LL is selling about twice the price (I paid $6.63 a gallon
> two weeks ago - JET-A was $6.60) of auto gas and the cost of "required"
> maintenance...

It was indicated to me that the main difference is water removal and
quality control. Maybe there'll be economies of scale differences,
too. ISTR there are airplane-usable motors that are happy with regular
petrol, though.


> Still, you tend to keep the plane a lot longer than the car.

Which was the point. :-)


> Is that Hoogeveen?

Yep. Haven't been there in a while, though.


> Yes, anyone who isn't deaf and blind knows the airport exists, but
> that does not stop the idiots from buying a house on short final, and
> then being surprised months later to discover there is an airport with
> the planes skimming 200 feet overhead 15 hours a day.

EHHO didn't see heavy traffic; the airplane used to tow gliders was
probably the most intensive use, as winch operation was prohibited, that
with the general aviation strip right next to it (150m wide grass runway,
50m gliders, 100m GA). Other airfields (EG. in Germany) do allow combined
winch and GA operation -- with a bit more separation, of course.

That (club owned) towing plane had a `climbing screw' and was probably
a bit louder than others -- though it did get retrofitted with sound
dampening devices at noticeable cost, that TPTB then ignored WRT its
noise-abatement classification. That wasn't fun.


>>But, I like to point to LCY - London City Airport at this point.
>
> Jeez, we've got dozens - [...]

The idea seems to be quite novel here, though. Or maybe my dark thoughts
about the political agenda are entirely true. Who knows?


> We've had this problem for the past 60 years with everyone and his dog
> trying to pass relatively poor copies of the greenbacks. That's also
> why the older notes are being replaced with more difficult ones to
> fake.

The greenbacks didn't seem to get updated much, compared to some other
currencies. Which lead to speculation that the USA govt. doesn't really
care, as long as the counterfeits stay out of the USA itself.


> Still, the people in South Nowhere in Whooseistan don't know what the
> real ones look like.

There is that, of course.


>>Now, learning a language involves learning something like 5000 words
>>just to get started, and the average learned adult will know 50000
>>words or something to that tune (this from hazy memory).
>
> I don't listen to VOA that often, but they used to use "Special English"
> which only needed 1000 words. Yes, the native speaker should know 35000
> words, and this might peak at over twice that number, but the common
> conversation tends to run under 5000 words.

True enough. As soon as you get into specialised areas, such as, well,
anything, including government (form this, procedure that, yadda yadda),
you suddenly need a slab of extra words.

There was a study in the Bijlmer (of el-al cargo crash fame), as there
are a lot of illegals, aliens, and generally non-native speakers.
The kids there were reported to speak an amalgam of a whole sack of
languages, but with a total vocabulary of 500 words or so. No wonder
they had trouble keeping up in school.


> But the standard arguement is that this mode only allows you to do what
> that application author thought you'd like to do.

With which I agree. ``WYGIWSETYWLTD''?

It already seems to make the populace happy, though. Then again, many
people accept what gets put in front of them, without much thought. I do
recall getting fed up with the default messages of the ticketing system
(rolled out in a s/w development company, by software developing project
managers), and just started hacking on the message templates.

It wasn't difficult to kick out all the unneeded cruft and come up with
messages that contained *only* what was strictly needed plus a minimum
of context to make it useful, formatted for easy perusal.

Instead of the default of, oh, dumping the entire ticket history and
maybe that of adjacent tickets in it as well, with lots of separation
bars and fluff. ASCII-soup, that was. Apparently the populace suddenly
recognized this was more useful and was happier. Hadn't seen much
complaints before, though.

I didn't manage to figure out how to add a workflow that was somewhat
useful to systems administration without interfering with the
development workflow thing. Didn't spend much time on it, as I was
perpetually short on time anyway.

Another pet peeve: Why do ticketing systems all fail to set email
headers such that it works with the built-in threading system in decent
mailclients? (Dark thoughts: because all ticketing system designers
haven't a clue about email. Grr.)

Right now I don't need to use ticketing systems, and just the threading
plus some folders is sufficient. Maybe when I manage to find a paid
position again. :-)


> OK - why would anyone need this kind of data, and how could you arrange
> a set of menus, icons, or what-ever to do this, other than by a shell
> script or similar?

Import into /that one brand of spreadsheet/, then tinker for a while.
The barrier to ``macro-ize'' buttonclicks is probably higher too.


>>I know what I prefer, but *cough* certain other systems *cough* are
>>also very popular.
>
> I know what you are saying, but not everyone using a computer in the
> world is doing anything like the same tasks.

Many people are ``productive'' by the virtue of prefab buttons. Yes, one
could argue that, altough I personally find it a poor show, and I guess
you'd agree, as I'd expect would most in this group.

Then again, open any mainstream computer magazine and see how they
rate computing equipment. With ``(web) content creation'' and
``productivity'', and whatever they thought up this week indices.
Apparently the numbers are a big deal, though to me they're ironically
meaningless. Is it the machine that does the creation now? What would be
the ``productivity index'' of, oh, this here hammer?

Of course, such magazines are full of lies anyway. ``Because $vendor
were lazy asses, this week's top-10 of $products is a top-8''. So it
wasn't a ``top-10'' after all; the entire list was 10 to start with.


-- 
  j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
  This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
  Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
  consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

On 9 May 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
<slrng28chk.31bj.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:

>Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:

>> The election in two weeks is such an example - question about keeping
>> a 0.1% addition to the general sales tax in the county.  One could ask
>> if the legislature passes these questions to the voters, why are we
>> wasting money on a legislature - but that's another question.
>
>Probably a good `bad' example, but it arguably beats getting hit with
>a 3% VAT increase without further ado. There is the problem of ``voter
>wear'' or however one'd term that.

Another initiative working it's way forward for inclusion on the November
2008 ballot is an increase in the 'sales tax' (a tax levied on _most_
sales of goods) of one percent effective for the next 30 years to pay
for additional transportation infrastructure. Various counties and
cities tack more taxes on top of the state levy, and I'm currently
paying 8.9%.

>> Haven't priced a Merc in a while, but last time I looked, the C-172 or
>> PA-28 sized plane (Max 2550 pounds / 1160 KG was running about 3 times
>> the cost of the SL, and got substantially less milage (9 GPH at 120
>> Kts).
>
>Plenty of SUVs get close, especially if you factor in traffic jams.

9 GPH @ 120 KTS is actually 70% cruise, and consumption is higher
during takeoff/climb, and less during descents. But that translates
to 15.3 MPG. You don't have to factor in traffic - the SUV can be as
low as 7 MPG.   It feels so good to be standing at the gas pump and
watching some idiot filling the 40 gallon tank on his penis extension.

>> And 100LL is selling about twice the price (I paid $6.63 a gallon
>> two weeks ago - JET-A was $6.60) of auto gas 

>It was indicated to me that the main difference is water removal and
>quality control.

No, there are substantial other differences - like the fact that it's
usable from below sea-level on up to 25000 feet or more with only an
adjustment of the fuel/air mixture ratio. The vapor pressure of the
two fuels differ drastically, and this shows up in higher altitudes.
If you stay at lower altitudes and aren't flogging the engine, there
are some conversions (Supplemental Type Certificate) that allow use of
auto gas. As I recall, plug life is the pits as is the overhaul period,
and the STC puts an altitude restriction which around here would be
painful. (If I'm not staying in the pattern, I normally climb to 7500 to
10500 feet.)   Oh, and don't forget that 100LL is Low Lead - it contains
Tetra Ethyl Lead which would be death to an automobile catalytic converter,
but is needed as a valve lubricant in the aviation engine. But that's
also true for the pre-1980s monster cars, which is why auto supply stores
have a lead additive you can buy for them.

>Maybe there'll be economies of scale differences, too.

That's certainly the case. 100LL is the only gasoline you can get now,
compared to (example) 25 years ago when you could get 80/87 (Red),
90/96 (Blue), 100/130 (Green) and 115/145 (Purple). Gasoline powered
general aviation is less common.  All of the company aircraft (which
I not being hired as a company pilot can't fly myself) are turbines
of one kind or another.

>ISTR there are airplane-usable motors that are happy with regular
>petrol, though.

As long as you don't beat them. Auto gas is typically 86 to 90 octane
which is cruel and unusual punishment to 1000 inch/16.6 liter engines,
never mind anything larger. And yes, there are a number of R1820s,
R1830s, R2600s, R2800s, and four R3350s flying out of my local. The
"green" additives in auto gas are also incompatible with flight.

>> then being surprised months later to discover there is an airport with
>> the planes skimming 200 feet overhead 15 hours a day.
>
>EHHO didn't see heavy traffic; the airplane used to tow gliders was
>probably the most intensive use, as winch operation was prohibited, that
>with the general aviation strip right next to it (150m wide grass runway,
>50m gliders, 100m GA)

All of the glider operations here are tows, with the rare self-launcher,
but GA outnumbers them by a huge factor. It's not as bad as during the
1970s, but early evenings and weekends may see 4-6 planes in the bump
and go pattern. (In the 1970s, the airports I was flying around had
rules that 7 in the pattern was the limit, which when you add the
normal departures and arrivals meant something like 90-100 operations
per hour per runway.  You got used to busy patterns pretty quickly.

>That (club owned) towing plane had a `climbing screw' and was probably
>a bit louder than others -- though it did get retrofitted with sound
>dampening devices at noticeable cost, that TPTB then ignored WRT its
>noise-abatement classification. That wasn't fun.

Most of the tow birds I've seen are a fine pitch prop if fixed. On
the other hand, it seems that every airport I've been based at had
at least one _large_ single, with a minimum 750 horse engine. There's
something magic about the sound of a Merlin pulling 50 inches of
manifold at 3000 RPM (50 inches rather than 61 because 150 Octane
gas is no longer available).

>The idea seems to be quite novel here, though. Or maybe my dark
>thoughts about the political agenda are entirely true. Who knows?

Many of the "in close" airports were built in the piston era, and
were limited in size. The old Rome 'Ciampino', or Paris 'Le Bourget'
didn't have the room to grow when the jets came in (and an early
B707-320A or DC-8-30 needed a lot of runway - 3500 meters or more -
at gross on a standard day at sea-level). The paved surfaces at
Templehof were 6867 and 6943 feet (2094 and 2117 meters) but because
of the buildings, the longest landing distance was 6090 and 6120
feet (1857 and 1866 meters). Looking at AC 150/5325-4, the 707-320A
and DC-8-30 could marginally _land_ there at light weights, but
neither has enough runway to take off carrying anything useful.
(Even the 727s that Pan Am was flying were weight restricted.)

>The greenbacks didn't seem to get updated much, compared to some other
>currencies.

There were minor changes, but a 1936 era note would not look very
different from it's 2000 counterpart.

>Which lead to speculation that the USA govt. doesn't really care, as
>long as the counterfeits stay out of the USA itself.

Actually, we see plenty of them here. But the government gets very
interested when "larger" sums of money (banknotes or bank transfers)
occur, but we still see the occasional winner get busted in customs
with 10000 dollars in cash. Hard to say if this is a currency or
Darwin violation.

>> but the common conversation tends to run under 5000 words.
>
>True enough. As soon as you get into specialised areas, such as, well,
>anything, including government (form this, procedure that, yadda yadda),
>you suddenly need a slab of extra words.

[compton ~]$ cat news.posts/* old.news.posts/* | wc -w
  16132
[compton ~]$ cat news.posts/* old.news.posts/* | tr ' ' '\n' | sort -uf
 | wc -l
   4915
[compton ~]$

That's a word check on the articles I've posted in the past 14 days
to technical newsgroups - this being one crude example. Yes, I know
I'm posting where readers may not use English as primary, but that's
more than the "special English" vocabulary.

>It already seems to make the populace happy, though. Then again, many
>people accept what gets put in front of them, without much thought. I
>do recall getting fed up with the default messages of the ticketing
>system (rolled out in a s/w development company, by software developing
>project managers), and just started hacking on the message templates.

I haven't done first or even second line support (other than Usenet
where you can ignore things) in years, but I've always found the
information provided to describe a problem - whether to a ticketing
system or verbally face to face has been lacking, and often describes
the wrong things anyway. Starting with the "is smoke coming out of
the hardware" and working down might take longer for a knowledgeable
user, but most users aren't.

>Another pet peeve: Why do ticketing systems all fail to set email
>headers such that it works with the built-in threading system in
>decent mailclients? (Dark thoughts: because all ticketing system
>designers haven't a clue about email. Grr.)

s/about email//.        The system we're using now allows threading
by date, O/S version/install, application and version,  machine asset
tag, and username. With minor hoop-jumping, you can also thread by
IP and subnet. I'm glad I don't support it except in extreme cases.

>Import into /that one brand of spreadsheet/, then tinker for a while.
>The barrier to ``macro-ize'' buttonclicks is probably higher too.

Luckily, we're primarily a UNIX shop, and the support people are
expected to know their way around common commands. We're even
luckier, because there is virtually no Redmondware - it's mainly
at corporate in sales/marketing and a few systems in accounting (to
file on-line crap with the government).

>> I know what you are saying, but not everyone using a computer in the
>> world is doing anything like the same tasks.
>
>Many people are ``productive'' by the virtue of prefab buttons. Yes, one
>could argue that, altough I personally find it a poor show, and I guess
>you'd agree, as I'd expect would most in this group.

Absolutely agree.  My wife tells me they make use of command lists at
her place (some Sloaris and Linux - less than 20% Redmondware). That's
pitiful, as their average worker is old enough to have been trained
to do the jobs by hand (mainly accounting and sales tracking) and you
were expected to think to the extent that you had some clue what the
data should look like, and thus at least identify situations where
things weren't running correctly.

>Then again, open any mainstream computer magazine and see how they
>rate computing equipment. With ``(web) content creation'' and
>``productivity'', and whatever they thought up this week indices.

s/they thought up/the advertiser suggested they use/

>Apparently the numbers are a big deal, though to me they're ironically
>meaningless. Is it the machine that does the creation now?

Remember the target audience - many have no idea what is actually
useful in the computer.

>What would be the ``productivity index'' of, oh, this here hammer?

Probably pretty low - no place to plug in the mouse, and it won't
run vista. (Heck, it won't run a lot of things - not enough RAM.)

>Of course, such magazines are full of lies anyway.

Mainly because the reader is the product that is being sold to the
customer - the company whose ads are in there. The articles are merely
there to support the advertisements.   (Moi, cynical???  Certainly not.)

        Old guy

On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:06:22 -0500,
Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
> On 9 May 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
><slrng28chk.31bj.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:
>>Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
> Another initiative working it's way forward for inclusion on the November
> 2008 ballot is an increase in the 'sales tax' (a tax levied on _most_
> sales of goods) of one percent effective for the next 30 years to pay
> for additional transportation infrastructure. Various counties and
> cities tack more taxes on top of the state levy, and I'm currently
> paying 8.9%.

I don't really like fixed ear-marking practice. Just take all the money
you (well, the state) receives and pass it on to those things that need
it, as needed. Fixed budgets and the games of musical chairs that arise
probably account for multi-percent inefficiencies accross the system.

VAT in Europe varies from... 15% to 25%, I believe. Many places have it
at 19%. So it's a pass-on tax, but 19% is still a sizeable chunk of the
final price.

I wouldn't know where to start with the math, but I do wonder whether
removing all the overhead, including silent overhead spent on
administration details by tax payers, wouldn't pay for the reduced tax
intakes if we'd switch to a flat income tax and perhaps one `unmoving
value' tax, like a property or total wealth tax or something. Just ditch
all the penny pinching on all the little details everywhere. If that
wouldn't work, I'm still interested in finding out what absolute minimum
`touch' would be needed to fund the services the state provides.


> It feels so good to be standing at the gas pump and watching some
> idiot filling the 40 gallon tank on his penis extension.

:-)

Amazingly, you increasingly see them here too. Here, of course, the
taxes on fuel account for, half or more, I forgot, of the final price.

By the same token I don't see any finance-technical reason to add extra
levies on using a car to pay for the roads and such. Efficient use of
fuel presumably correlates reasonably well with efficient use of roads,
with the possible exception of the damage done by overloaded large
road transports). (Dark thoughts again: But apparently an excuse to
follow each individual car wherever it goes --using cameras or RFID or
whatnot-- is what our beloved and wise representatives really wanted.)


[interesting explanation snipped]
>
> Most of the tow birds I've seen are a fine pitch prop if fixed. On
> the other hand, it seems that every airport I've been based at had
> at least one _large_ single, with a minimum 750 horse engine. There's
> something magic about the sound of a Merlin pulling 50 inches of
> manifold at 3000 RPM (50 inches rather than 61 because 150 Octane
> gas is no longer available).

Agree. :-)


>>The idea seems to be quite novel here, though. Or maybe my dark
>>thoughts about the political agenda are entirely true. Who knows?
>
> Many of the "in close" airports were built in the piston era, and
> were limited in size.

That doesn't have to be a problem. LCY has a short runway (1,508m,
4,984ft) but also requires a steeper-than-usual approach. If that has
the side-effect of forcing the use of smaller, new-ish planes with
relatively silent motors, all the merrier.

The big flights should go to the big airport, but smaller short haul
flights and the occasional charter can use a pleasant and relatively
quiet airport. To my mind there should be no need to be ``super rich''
to organize travel such that it's actually enjoyable.


> I haven't done first or even second line support (other than Usenet
> where you can ignore things) in years, but I've always found the
> information provided to describe a problem - whether to a ticketing
> system or verbally face to face has been lacking, and often describes
> the wrong things anyway. Starting with the "is smoke coming out of
> the hardware" and working down might take longer for a knowledgeable
> user, but most users aren't.

Same experience here, whether the asker is some board level waste of
breath or a developer proving himself to be less than clueful. In
fact, talking with newbies and not-so-newbies about C++ and their
problems with it, the experience is the same. It takes an experienced
interrogator to get to the bottom reasonably quickly. In that particular
setting most are non-native speakers of English, and plenty aren't very
good at it either.

Then again, when I have occasion to file a bug or ask for explanation,
it invariably takes more time than expected (altough by now I expect
that) to come up with a good, usable, case description. And that while I
know from experience this is important. Most people don't realise this
at all.

Of course, then there's a good chance the other side turns out to plain
not understand what's wrong and blithely blames something else.


>>Import into /that one brand of spreadsheet/, then tinker for a while.
>>The barrier to ``macro-ize'' buttonclicks is probably higher too.
>
> Luckily, we're primarily a UNIX shop, and the support people are
> expected to know their way around common commands. We're even
> luckier, because there is virtually no Redmondware - it's mainly
> at corporate in sales/marketing and a few systems in accounting (to
> file on-line crap with the government).

Recently flunked a phone interview because, well, a couple of things,
among them the sudden onset of lots of redmondware questions. If any
of that would've been mentioned in the ad, I'd skipped right over it
and saved me a bunch of work. *sigh*.


Personally, I think that setting up systems so that interfacing with
them requires any specific platform (especially commercial, but that
is just icing on the cake, really) means you've deliberately hobbled
and obsoleted your platform, and is inexcusable for public services.


> My wife tells me they make use of command lists at her place (some
> Sloaris and Linux - less than 20% Redmondware). That's pitiful, as
> their average worker is old enough to have been trained to do the jobs
> by hand (mainly accounting and sales tracking) and you were expected
> to think to the extent that you had some clue what the data should
> look like, and thus at least identify situations where things weren't
> running correctly.

Yes, but that doesn't mean they've been trained to use the platform
that now underpins the calculations. Before that, it was ``pencil and
paper'', which is quite different. But I agree that people who know that
part inside out shouldn't have much trouble with training for the pencil
and paper replacement. Providing the training would be useful, though.

The problem with redmondware is that it's sold as ``requires no
training'', with the effect of unleashing many computer illiterates on
computers with the expection they'll pick up literacy as they go. We
don't expect that to work with language, or maths, and so on. ``We''
accept it from computer salesmen, and in fact the loudmouthed wannabe
replacement providers pitch the same thing (with less success). Curious.


>>Then again, open any mainstream computer magazine and see how they
>>rate computing equipment. With ``(web) content creation'' and
>>``productivity'', and whatever they thought up this week indices.
>
> s/they thought up/the advertiser suggested they use/

There is that.


>>Apparently the numbers are a big deal, though to me they're ironically
>>meaningless. Is it the machine that does the creation now?
>
> Remember the target audience - many have no idea what is actually
> useful in the computer.

Well, the computer magazine I actually got this from used to be,
before its merger with the largest competitor (which was pure lies^W^W
commercial) the organ of the /computer hobbyists club/, and for some
token value of that still is. Of course, that only adds to the irony.


>>What would be the ``productivity index'' of, oh, this here hammer?
>
> Probably pretty low - no place to plug in the mouse, and it won't
> run vista. (Heck, it won't run a lot of things - not enough RAM.)

Ram it hard enough into the skulls of the editors and watch the indices
soar. If the metric were anywhere near realistic, the guarantee of not
being able to run windows, notably vista, would increase the numbers
even more. Useful, or at least meaningfully measurable, metrics for that
platform should be called ``eyecandy index'', ``invitiveness to tinker
index'', ``corporate timewasting index'', and so on.

Administratively? ``Expected blood pressure increase index.''


-- 
  j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
  This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
  Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
  consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

On 10 May 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
<slrng2arnr.3ek.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:

>Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:

>> an increase in the 'sales tax' (a tax levied on _most_  sales of goods)
>> of one percent effective for the next 30 years to pay for additional
>> transportation infrastructure. Various counties and cities tack more
>> taxes on top of the state levy, and I'm currently paying 8.9%.
>
>I don't really like fixed ear-marking practice. Just take all the money
>you (well, the state) receives and pass it on to those things that need
>it, as needed.

I don't have actual figures, but the coin that the government gets has
to be divided such that you meet wages (usually set by law), and
so-called fixed expenses (water, power, fuels, postage, telephone bills,
etc.) no matter what. Then there are semi-fixed costs, such as vehicles
and a percentage for maintenance (light bulbs, TP, you name it). Then you
get into improvements, and replacement of non-economical to repair
things, some of which simply must be done (the population of this state
is growing at a significant rate, and that means new schools, police
and fire stations as one example). Government budget procedures are a
problem that isn't solved overnight. "Where can we steal 60 million to
pay for this, which has to be done."  In several states, there are laws
that require a (minimum) percentage of revenue (or in some cases, a
fixed absolute amount plus a yearly increase for inflation) to go to
schools and education - a result of previous years when the schools
didn't get the needed cash. It's a sore spot for people with kids.
Many states also have balanced budget requirements, and in times like
this when the state income is reduced, something has to give.  But then,
you can't stop the construction job and lay off the workers. As the EU
is discovering with the Eurofighter, it may cost substantially more to
buy less than the agreed quantities, or stretch out the delivery times.

>Fixed budgets and the games of musical chairs that arise probably
>account for multi-percent inefficiencies accross the system.

The cost of government - specifically those legislative bodies that
handle the budget - is usually fixed, so having a magic fairy come
in and wave the magic wand to solve the budget overnight (verses the
klowns trashing it out for two-three months) isn't going to improve
costs.

>VAT in Europe varies from... 15% to 25%, I believe. Many places have it
>at 19%. So it's a pass-on tax, but 19% is still a sizeable chunk of the
>final price.

Europe tends to have higher taxes, and more free/low-cost social services.
Different philosophies.  In some areas of this country, a sure way to
unite the voters is to propose increasing taxes. You'd better have a VERY
good argument, or you'll be one the target of the pitchfork and torches
groups.

>I wouldn't know where to start with the math, but I do wonder whether
>removing all the overhead, including silent overhead spent on
>administration details by tax payers, wouldn't pay for the reduced tax
>intakes if we'd switch to a flat income tax and perhaps one `unmoving
>value' tax, like a property or total wealth tax or something.

I doubt it would fly - there are to many variables. Do you tax the
professional couple with no kids (we call them 'DINKs for dual income,
no kids) at the same rate as the single mother of two, or the family of
six kids where the father is working part time as a window washer? What
about those renting their living space verses those who own?  Whose ox
are you going to gore? Who are you going to make happy, and who are you
going to piss off?

A local radio station reported the morning of 01 April 2008 that a late
night session of the legislature passed a law, and the governor signed
it - the would convert three of our state freeways in Phoenix (SR 51,
101, and 202 - roughly akin to the A1, A2, and A4 in Amsterdam) into
toll roads because of the state budget shortfall. The toll on SR51
would be US$0.51, while the toll of SR101 would be US$1.01 and of course
US$2.02 on SR202. Rather than build toll collection booths (think of the
construction time, and the traffic screwup during construction), they
would station toll collectors at each freeway on-ramp (which here tend to
be a mile apart). Oh yes - exact change only and no credit/debit cards.
You might be able to imagine this created a _monumental_ sized shit storm.
With that many toll collectors, the costs would vastly exceed the tolls
collected, what kind of id10t decided on those rates anyway as opposed
to an even dollar or what-ever. Rant, Rave, Bitch, Moan, Revolution, you
name it.  The radio station (and a Department of Transportation spokesman
they conned in) thought this would be recognized as a gag.  It wasn't. It
was interpreted as another example of the way those idiots we've elected
displayed massive st00pidity - a surprising number of people thought it
was real, because they have zero confidence in those elected officials.

>Just ditch all the penny pinching on all the little details everywhere.
>If that wouldn't work, I'm still interested in finding out what
>absolute minimum `touch' would be needed to fund the services the state
>provides.

Do you have any idea where-all the government gets taxes now? When I was
a wee-child in the 1940s, they used to have signs on the gasoline/petrol
pumps listing the base price, national tax, city/county/state tax, and
the total that you actually paid. Those signs disappeared a LONG time ago.
Do you like beverages distilled from various grains? Any idea how bad they
are screwing you there?  Do you smoke?  Those are the obvious ones, but
I also find taxes on my utilities bills, telephone, airline tickets (they
probably also hit train and bus tickets as well).

>Amazingly, you increasingly see them here too. Here, of course, the
>taxes on fuel account for, half or more, I forgot, of the final price.

We've never heavily taxed fuel, because the population is spread out so
much that public transportation is not very useful/popular.  The nearest
bus route to my house is 7 miles in one direction, 6.8 in another. My
commute to work is 19 miles one way, and bus service (every 20 minutes
during commute time) only covers 8 miles of that.  My wife works in a
different direction, about the same number of miles.

The tax on fuel varies WIDELY. For gas, there is a national tax of $0.184
per gallon ($0.244 a gallon for diesel). Then the local taxes are piled
on top, and that varies by state, county, and city. Most of the taxes are
cents per gallon, but some states ALSO hit you with a percent of sale tax
on top of a fixed tax. Lowest tax seems to be around 37 cents/gallon,
while the highest is 65 cents/gallon PLUS ~8 percent of the sale.

>By the same token I don't see any finance-technical reason to add extra
>levies on using a car to pay for the roads and such. Efficient use of
>fuel presumably correlates reasonably well with efficient use of roads,
>with the possible exception of the damage done by overloaded large
>road transports).

I think Unca MikeA discussed this last year in the monastery. Trucks
pay a road tax because they do cause significant wear on the road
even when they are within weight limits.

>> Many of the "in close" airports were built in the piston era, and
>> were limited in size.
>
>That doesn't have to be a problem. LCY has a short runway (1,508m,
>4,984ft) but also requires a steeper-than-usual approach. If that has
>the side-effect of forcing the use of smaller, new-ish planes with
>relatively silent motors, all the merrier.

Landing distance is determined by the distance it takes to put it on
the runway (500 to 1200 feet in airline service), and the measured
distance (function of weight and landing speed) that it takes to
stop the aircraft using brakes ALONE on a level dry runway in zero wind
at standard temperature, plus a percentage to account for wet runways.
Reverse thrust is a bonus that isn't to be counted on.

Takeoff distance is that distance needed to accelerate to a critical
speed, LOOSE AN ENGINE, and then be able to either stop in the remaining
runway (same rules as landing distances) or get that puppy into the air
and climb (at a much reduced rate) sufficient to clear all obstacles.
This is the reason a normal takeoff in a twin is so impressive - they've
got nearly twice the power needed to fly, compared to a 4 engine bird
that merely has 30ish percent extra.

>The big flights should go to the big airport, but smaller short haul
>flights and the occasional charter can use a pleasant and relatively
>quiet airport.

But is it going to be economical to operate that way? LCY verses LGW or
LHR - do all short-hauls need to use the smaller LCY?  How about when
you want to go from Bremen to Brisbane - where are you going to change
planes? Is it going to mean surface transport between airports in a city?
By the way, the A380-800 now flying with Singapore Airlines needs about
400 feet less landing runway, but a 12% shorter takeoff runway than an
A340-[2-6]00 (many airlines) that is half it size.  For giggles, compare
the flights at Chicago (KORD verses KMWD), Washington (KIAD verses KDCA),
New York (KJFK verses KLGA) Dallas (KDFW verses KDAL and KFTW), Houston
(KIAH verses KHOU)... there are a lot more - and I haven't mentioned
Tokyo, Bangkok, Paris, Stockholm or Moscow.

>To my mind there should be no need to be ``super rich'' to organize
>travel such that it's actually enjoyable.

Oh, you mean like the 40 to 60 passengers on an aircraft normally used
for 200?  There are a couple of airlines flying that way - Lufthansa
has a Stuttgart - New York Liberty (Newark) flight daily, as do several
others.     Enjoyable flight... back in the late 1980s, San Francisco
to Tokyo on JAL. Another one was Bangkok to Vienna on Qantas in 1977.
Since then? Nada.

>Then again, when I have occasion to file a bug or ask for explanation,
>it invariably takes more time than expected (altough by now I expect
>that) to come up with a good, usable, case description. And that while I
>know from experience this is important. Most people don't realise this
>at all.

And that's not limited to computers. I spent six hours on the phone with
the medical insurance carrier trying to figure out who was billing who
and why. It sounded like I was transferred up the chain three times
before the person at the other end of the phone understood what I was
asking, and even then it took close to an hour to get the questions
formed correctly (and two days before they got back to me with the
answer).

>Recently flunked a phone interview because, well, a couple of things,
>among them the sudden onset of lots of redmondware questions. 

Pimp, or prospective boss?  At least HR has learned not to "improve"
the job description and technical requirements we put on job reqs. We
had such a problem, and HR didn't see why we were so unhappy with them.
We've also had problems with pimps improving the resumes they offer. It
is hard on the candidate, but we take it out on the pimp or his company
by banning them company wide.

>If any of that would've been mentioned in the ad, I'd skipped right
>over it and saved me a bunch of work. *sigh*.

Is this because the attitude is that "everyone supports redmondware"?

>Personally, I think that setting up systems so that interfacing with
>them requires any specific platform (especially commercial, but that
>is just icing on the cake, really) means you've deliberately hobbled
>and obsoleted your platform, and is inexcusable for public services.

I agree - and see this problem a lot just the same. Commercially, I
simply go elsewhere, but when it's a government site, the cheese can
get binding.

>> My wife tells me they make use of command lists at her place

>Yes, but that doesn't mean they've been trained to use the platform
>that now underpins the calculations. Before that, it was ``pencil
>and paper'', which is quite different. But I agree that people who know
>that part inside out shouldn't have much trouble with training for the
>pencil and paper replacement. Providing the training would be useful,
>though.

And there is the problem. A lot of it is the "just click on this icon"
quality, with little explanation of what their super software is
actually doing under the sheets.   Part of the problem is that there
is no standard. Bookkeeping is done using a computer adaptation of the
ledger that the great-great-great-grandfather of the company president
used back in the 1870s.   If things were standardized, there would be
only a handful of people needed, because all of accounting (for example)
could be run as a cron-job with everything automated. That ain't gonna
happen any time soon, even in one industry.

>The problem with redmondware is that it's sold as ``requires no
>training'', with the effect of unleashing many computer illiterates on
>computers with the expection they'll pick up literacy as they go.

Of course - "It's so simple that only a child can do it."

>We don't expect that to work with language, or maths, and so on. ``We''
>accept it from computer salesmen, and in fact the loudmouthed wannabe
>replacement providers pitch the same thing (with less success). Curious.

Recall that the person who makes the decision to buy is usually dependent
on his secretary to turn on his computer, grab his mail, filter it, and
then print the ones he needs.  He _can't_ do that on his own, and we're
stuck with the results.

>Useful, or at least meaningfully measurable, metrics for that platform
>should be called ``eyecandy index'', ``invitiveness to tinker index'',
>``corporate timewasting index'', and so on.
>
>Administratively? ``Expected blood pressure increase index.''

The son of my golfing buddy says we should be using...

        Old guy

On Sat, 10 May 2008 23:03:49 -0500,
Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
> On 10 May 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
><slrng2arnr.3ek.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:
[snip!]
> The cost of government - specifically those legislative bodies that
> handle the budget - is usually fixed, so having a magic fairy come
> in and wave the magic wand to solve the budget overnight (verses the
> klowns trashing it out for two-three months) isn't going to improve
> costs.

Ah, but I wasn't talking about that. What I wanted to point to, and did
perhaps poorly, was the practice of taking some specific tax and saying
that has to go to some specific goal. What I'd like to do is two things:

First, take the total income from all taxes, dump it on a big heap, then
dish it out as needed, and see if anything is left over (which then goes
to paying off debts, instead of inventing porkbarrels and moneyshowers
for just a few people--less debt means more can be done with less money,
including racking up new debts, if that is the fancy).

Second, reduce the fixation on budgeting, as it results in tucking away
cash by departments just to justify next year's budget, even if it isn't
really needed now.

EG. a military installation was slated for decomissioning in a few
years, so a lot of things were wound down, maintenance among them. Yet
one day a new and freshly laid terrace was added. It turns out there was
an excess in a budget to be tucked away. It would've been more useful to
put the money to work on building maintenance, but that was prohibited.

Now, I don't know how to do budgeting better such that you retain
good enough financial control with less overhead, but I think it's a
worthwhile subject to pursue. Getting rid of ``use it or lose it''
mentality at both the budget users and budget approvers is a start.


So I basically want to remove internal accounting barriers in the
taxflow and see if that doesn't make way for improving efficiency.

You're quite right that this goes right against the grain for
politicians' instincts to meddle.


> Europe tends to have higher taxes, and more free/low-cost social services.

Plenty of things wrong with those social services. More government means
a more pronounced need for good governance and good management, and I'm
failing to see either. It could very well be me, but I'm not convinced.


> Different philosophies.  In some areas of this country, a sure way to
> unite the voters is to propose increasing taxes. You'd better have a VERY
> good argument, or you'll be one the target of the pitchfork and torches
> groups.

:-)

While I like the ideal of solving governmental problems by coming up
with a better-informed and better-educated voter, the reality doesn't
quite live up to that. Not as disastrous as some other large government
experiments, but that doesn't mean there isn't need for improvement.

Then again, I won't expect ever be in a position to fix things, but
that again is no reason not to have an amusing discussion.


>>I wouldn't know where to start with the math, but I do wonder whether
>>removing all the overhead, including silent overhead spent on
>>administration details by tax payers, wouldn't pay for the reduced tax
>>intakes if we'd switch to a flat income tax and perhaps one `unmoving
>>value' tax, like a property or total wealth tax or something.
>
> I doubt it would fly - there are to many variables. [...]

Depends on whether you want to care for the details or not. If it turns
out that not caring will gain more free money through overhead reduction
which in turn would result in a lesser tax burden, then I count it as a
win. Bonus points for taking reasonable precautions that the lower end
doesn't end up worse. But even so, every change in the tax system will
affect changes in the populace as well; most --but not all-- affected
will able to reposition themselves so as to reduce the impact on their
situation.

In a nutshell, I think that it might be the case that our politicians'
wish for ``tax fairness'' costs us more than it benefits us.

The point wasn't to make it fly, though. I was merely wondering what the
numbers would say, taking into account the usual wild guesses and so on.


> A local radio station reported the morning of 01 April 2008 that [...]
>           The radio station (and a Department of Transportation spokesman
> they conned in) thought this would be recognized as a gag.  It wasn't. It
> was interpreted as another example of the way those idiots we've elected
> displayed massive st00pidity - a surprising number of people thought it
> was real, because they have zero confidence in those elected officials.

Ah, let me recount another of those. There was a pretty large turnup at
an ANWB (Dutch AA/AAA/ADAC/...) service outfit a few years ago, as they
had advertised that there'd be free changing of winter air for summer
air in car tyres. Offer valid Today! Only! april first.

Plenty people didn't even understand that it was a gag, after it was
explained to them. The interpretation comes after the falling for it.


>>Just ditch all the penny pinching on all the little details everywhere.
>>If that wouldn't work, I'm still interested in finding out what
>>absolute minimum `touch' would be needed to fund the services the state
>>provides.
>
> Do you have any idea where-all the government gets taxes now? [...]

Yes, I know everything is taxed to the gills. Following the money from
getting paid (and before) down to paying for a cup of coffee may become
a grizly horror story of the taxman ripping your buying power to shreds.
All for the greater good, of course.

So I can't help thinking that with all that plus the extra work needed
to administrate paying the taxman, a lot of it is makework that we can
safely do without: Less administrative costs mean less overhead means
more effective use of tax intake means less need for tax intake.


If we have, say, staggered 30..40..50% tax brackets, causing lots of tax
evasion on the high end, and extra controls, details, things, that keep
lots of bureaucrats plenty busy, and suppose that by slashing it to a
flat-fee 30% income tax we reduce evasion, can boot a lot of overhead
and overall can run a government more efficiently on less income, then
that would be a win.

Or if we'd removed taxes that come with a relatively high administrative
burden on merchants or taxpayers, and as a result also require lots of
taxman oversight. Less wasted time, more time to make money, of which
the government sees some returns too through income taxes.


I'm not saying this is realistic. It may be pure wishful thinking.
Doesn't stop my curiosity in seeing the mechanism, to what degree this
conjecture is attainable, what its effects would be, and whether that
wouldn't net a benefit for government and taxpayer, in the long term.

It will necessairily not be for the individual bureaucrats losing jobs
and having to earn an income in the non-overhead sector. Or maybe
they'll make better wages there too. Who knows? But my concern is with a
leaner government overall that does what it does for the people more
effecgively.


>>By the same token I don't see any finance-technical reason to add extra
>>levies on using a car to pay for the roads and such. Efficient use of
>>fuel presumably correlates reasonably well with efficient use of roads,
>>with the possible exception of the damage done by overloaded large
>>road transports).
>
> I think Unca MikeA discussed this last year in the monastery. Trucks
> pay a road tax because they do cause significant wear on the road
> even when they are within weight limits.

Here it's fuel tax plus yearly (well, quarterly) car-road-right tax,
which is presumably higher for trucks. I don't own roadgoing equipment
so I don't know the details.

The ``extra levies'' I ment were those involving using cameras to
automatically read licence plates and bill you extra based on that, or
do the same but using RFID or some other wireless/smartcard/whatever
technology. That seems to be police state wet dreams built on because we
can technology.


>>The big flights should go to the big airport, but smaller short haul
>>flights and the occasional charter can use a pleasant and relatively
>>quiet airport.
>
> But is it going to be economical to operate that way? LCY verses LGW or
> LHR - do all short-hauls need to use the smaller LCY?

Pretty sure they don't. I wasn't advocating forcing the use of a smaller
airport, just making it available and attractive enough that it runs
economonically. It appears LCY can survive, though I haven't really
looked at the numbers.

The point is to have the service when it's convenient. Large airports
are ``convenient'' in the sense that you can easily transfer, but if
that isn't a goal --on that airport--, them being large, which implies
out of the way, becomes an inconvenience.


> How about when you want to go from Bremen to Brisbane - where are you
> going to change planes? Is it going to mean surface transport between
> airports in a city?

I wouldn't want to, but starting or ending at a small airport doesn't
have transfer problems. Not all travel includes transfers, nor does it
necessairily need to. Nothing wrong with having a ``leaf'' airport in
the city that is much more accessible than the large hub a ways outside
the city. It works in London, with its five(!) airports. Large cities
tend to see plenty ``city hop'' flights where a sizeable chunk of the
passengers will not transfer.

Perhaps I should've added expressly that I wasn't advocating more
than restrictions as to what to allow on the city airport to keep it
palatable for everyone. I'm not advocating removing small flights
from large airports. I'm interested in keeping or creating more
possibilities, not less.


> By the way, the A380-800 now flying with Singapore Airlines needs
> about 400 feet less landing runway, but a 12% shorter takeoff runway
> than an A340-[2-6]00 (many airlines) that is half it size.

Modern planes. :-)

Now for the noise abatement, as larger planes tend to make more noise.
Doesn't have to be, of course. Glimpsed an interesting snipped about
reducing sonic booms by unspecified trickery.


> For giggles, compare the flights at Chicago (KORD verses KMWD),
> Washington (KIAD verses KDCA), New York (KJFK verses KLGA) Dallas
> (KDFW verses KDAL and KFTW), Houston (KIAH verses KHOU)... there are a
> lot more - and I haven't mentioned Tokyo, Bangkok, Paris, Stockholm or
> Moscow.

I skimmed them a bit, but it fit the expected pattern. :-)

And yeah, I don't see why it wouldn't work in Berlin. But if you're
broke, the best thing to do is build a bigger airport from scratch.


>>To my mind there should be no need to be ``super rich'' to organize
>>travel such that it's actually enjoyable.
>
> Oh, you mean like the 40 to 60 passengers on an aircraft normally used
> for 200?  There are a couple of airlines flying that way - Lufthansa
> has a Stuttgart - New York Liberty (Newark) flight daily, as do several
> others.     Enjoyable flight... back in the late 1980s, San Francisco
> to Tokyo on JAL. Another one was Bangkok to Vienna on Qantas in 1977.
> Since then? Nada.

My grandfather liked to fly on friday 13th, as nobody else would. And of
course, being rich enough to fly rotan chair style would be nice too.
But I'm pretty sure those days are gone for good.

I like getting on a flight quickly, short flights, and getting off again
quickly too. Businesspeople seem to like the same thing. I like good
public transport, though, and will use it whenever useful to do so.

I don't like being stuck in a gigantic airport full of weary travelers
or worse, hordes of TOURISTS[3]. The larger the airport the more likely
it is setup for mass handling of masses of people. I hate that.

Apparently, flying cattle class is the only ``good'' flying in the
eyes of the reigning socialists. *I* think that other ways may well be
economocally viable too, provided you don't go out of your way to squash
them with premeditated prejudice.


>>Then again, when I have occasion to file a bug or ask for explanation,
>>it invariably takes more time than expected (altough by now I expect
>>that) to come up with a good, usable, case description. And that while I
>>know from experience this is important. Most people don't realise this
>>at all.
>
> And that's not limited to computers. I spent six hours on the phone with
> the medical insurance carrier trying to figure out who was billing who
> and why. It sounded like I was transferred up the chain three times
> before the person at the other end of the phone understood what I was
> asking, and even then it took close to an hour to get the questions
> formed correctly (and two days before they got back to me with the
> answer).

At which point I'd be inclined to just write a letter or a fax. It also
helps that people tend to have some institutionally ingrained idea of
how to write a letter, where email still causes lots of interesting
atrocities. I dug up a second-hand faxmodem just for that purpose.
Doesn't stop my ISP from ignoring the reports, though. Maybe time to
find another one. (I was actually planning to move far enough to need to
choose from new evils. Doesn't seem to be working so far.)


>>Recently flunked a phone interview because, well, a couple of things,
>>among them the sudden onset of lots of redmondware questions. 
>
> Pimp, or prospective boss?

Prospective technical lead, setup by pimp. Pimp failed to get back at
me after my email to him with the rundown, though. Hm.


> At least HR has learned not to "improve" the job description and
> technical requirements we put on job reqs. We had such a problem,
> and HR didn't see why we were so unhappy with them. We've also had
> problems with pimps improving the resumes they offer. It is hard
> on the candidate, but we take it out on the pimp or his company by
> banning them company wide.

More people should do that. Well, at least people here do. :-)

As to the candidate, I am in the peculiar position of having a
reasonable skillset, but precariously little to show for it, making me a
hard sell. I still don't mind having a company boot the pimp even if I
ended up a ``victim'' of that. Can't imagine I'd notice the difference
from the other shit recruiters pull anyway.

I do have a list of pimps and companies I will no longer talk to, though
in my case it won't make much of a dent. With very few exceptions, the
most successful interviews were landed by going to the company directly.
The most successful jobs so far were all by word of mouth, even.

I probably should stop talking to pimps at all and *cough* strategically
refocus on more effective ways to revenuize my synergies. *cough*


>>If any of that would've been mentioned in the ad, I'd skipped right
>>over it and saved me a bunch of work. *sigh*.
>
> Is this because the attitude is that "everyone supports redmondware"?

I don't know. I'm still sitting on an advert I can't find it in my heart
to apply for, after I called them and asked them about their shop.
There, the redmondware requirement is because they're planning to grow
and move to 24/7 operation, and require the ops to fix everything --
including the redmondware needed to point the dishes. They're soon to
launch their own satellite(s?).

The way this interview went I would've needed to think long and hard
whether I'd really want to work there; I don't think that mere linux
trivia run a good shop, and trying to shoot your applicant with them is
arguably not the most effective way to find *good* unix people. I did
get caught rather embarassingly with a couple questions, so they're not
likely to offer me anything.

Thinking back, I think they should've specified ``linux certification''
and be done with it. Trivia all you want, understanding not required.


> Part of the problem is that there is no standard. Bookkeeping
> is done using a computer adaptation of the ledger that the
> great-great-great-grandfather of the company president used back in
> the 1870s. If things were standardized, there would be only a handful
> of people needed, because all of accounting (for example) could be run
> as a cron-job with everything automated. That ain't gonna happen any
> time soon, even in one industry.

I think I have to disagree on grounds that we're dealing with people.
People cause anomalies that have to be corrected or worked arround and
accounted for, and so on and so forth. Of course, the same pops up with
paper-based bureaucracies.

A lot of things can be automated, but the skillsets are not combined, in
fact so separate as to be entirely different industries. I think that's
one reason why SAP and BAAN are such monstrosities. (There are many more
reasons why they are, too.)

You still occasionally see the odd hobbyist coming up with halfbakery
that through sheer enthousiasm and dedication is transformed into
something commercially usable. I'm not sure whether ``putty'' is a good
example, but it is an amazingly small program for the features it packs.
I know one police department's dispatch desk ran on MSX computers with
custom software someone's came up with in their free time. Of course,
comissioning such a thing is quite obviously risky from a business
continuity perspective, but it does seem to have a better potential to
peak. Not to mention that other models often have hidden risks. ``Does
not work well'', or ``at all'', for one.


>>The problem with redmondware is that it's sold as ``requires no
>>training'', with the effect of unleashing many computer illiterates on
>>computers with the expection they'll pick up literacy as they go.
>
> Of course - "It's so simple that only a child can do it."

:-)

Now for the rest of the world to pick up on the inconvenient truth
that the knowledge and information based society means more training,
especially WRT using the main tool for information dissemination. Ok,
secondary tool, the first is still our brain.


>>We don't expect that to work with language, or maths, and so on. ``We''
>>accept it from computer salesmen, and in fact the loudmouthed wannabe
>>replacement providers pitch the same thing (with less success). Curious.
>
> Recall that the person who makes the decision to buy is usually dependent
> on his secretary to turn on his computer, grab his mail, filter it, and
> then print the ones he needs.  He _can't_ do that on his own, and we're
> stuck with the results.

Which is bad management. I've been reading a bit about that[1]. It can
be fixed, but it'll take a while, and is hard work. Also, it will lose a
lot of warm bodies their cosy management jobs.


[1] _The Essential Drucker_. Took me the better part of a year[2] to get
    through the first reading and understand it, and it's not that thick,
    really. One of the more interesting books I read lately.
[2] This intertwined by me slowly reducing my blood pressure and finding
    shreds of my will to live back, so this is likely not indicative.
[3] Having lived in several small places that saw their fair share of
    tourists, I positively despise the assuming a god-given right to
    obstruct everyone else while deliberately not paying attention to
    people who maybe just want to pass, please. Sure, take your time,
    relax, but do be decent enough to look around you and step aside if
    needed. There is no reason to play roadblock with your supermarket
    cart or your excess of baggage or just your fat asses.

-- 
  j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
  This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
  Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
  consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

On 11 May 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
<slrng2ei80.78p.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:

>Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:

>> The cost of government - specifically those legislative bodies that
>> handle the budget - is usually fixed, so having a magic fairy come
>> in and wave the magic wand to solve the budget overnight (verses the
>> klowns trashing it out for two-three months) isn't going to improve
>> costs.
>
>Ah, but I wasn't talking about that. What I wanted to point to, and
>did perhaps poorly, was the practice of taking some specific tax and
>saying that has to go to some specific goal. What I'd like to do is
>two things:

As noted - in some cases this is already required by law.

>First, take the total income from all taxes, dump it on a big heap,
>then dish it out as needed, and see if anything is left over (which
>then goes to paying off debts, instead of inventing porkbarrels and
>moneyshowers for just a few people--less debt means more can be done
>with less money, including racking up new debts, if that is the fancy).

In a number of cases, this also is against existing laws. At our
national level, taxes collected against airline tickets MUST only be
used on airport/airways improvements. Same is true on motor fuel taxes
only being spendable for road repair/improvement.

>Second, reduce the fixation on budgeting, as it results in tucking
>away cash by departments just to justify next year's budget, even if
>it isn't really needed now.

Unspent authorizations hasn't been a significant problem in a while.
What _has_ been a problem is in-consistent funding of multi-year
programs. Defense and space related projects are the easiest example.
No matter how you try, you can't design, build, launch, and fly a
satellite to Mars in a single year - yet spending MUST be on a yearly
basis. Are you going to tell EADS that we don't have money this year
for the Eurofighter or A400, and they need to stop work until we find
the cash?   I'm sure the workers would appreciate the time off.

>EG. a military installation was slated for decomissioning in a few
>years, so a lot of things were wound down, maintenance among them.

Yeah, I've seen that.

>Getting rid of ``use it or lose it'' mentality at both the budget
>users and budget approvers is a start.

That would be much of the problem. You'll also have to change some
laws, but not that many.

>> I doubt it would fly - there are to many variables. [...]
>
>Depends on whether you want to care for the details or not. If it
>turns out that not caring will gain more free money through overhead
>reduction which in turn would result in a lesser tax burden, then I
>count it as a win.

Part of the bureaucracy is fraud avoidance. The money can be spent
for approved categories and perhaps for specific projects.

>In a nutshell, I think that it might be the case that our
>politicians' wish for ``tax fairness'' costs us more than it
>benefits us.

I don't think anyone has come up with a fair scheme. Someone will
always be seen to be being screwed, but how to correct this without
creating an enormous bureaucracy full of conditions and rules to
meet.  Example - the Alternative Minimum Tax which was designed to
make those with "creative" deductions to still have to pay some
taxes no matter how they wiggled. It did that, but wasn't perfectly
written, and is now effecting far more than the most abusive it was
aimed at.  Re-write it?   Surely you jest.

>> Do you have any idea where-all the government gets taxes now? [...]
>
>Yes, I know everything is taxed to the gills. Following the money
>from getting paid (and before) down to paying for a cup of coffee may
>become a grizly horror story of the taxman ripping your buying power
>to shreds.  All for the greater good, of course.

It's not supposed to happen, but there are situations where you are
paying tax on taxes. A case being the motor fuel in California, where
there is the base price, national and local taxes (about $0.65 per
gallon), and then the entire thing is subject to "sales tax" of 7 to
9 percent more.

Cup of coffee?  Depends on the location, but it may be taxable if
seating is provided (again - California tax law). Here in Arizona,
it is taxable unless sold as part of a (sit-down) meal.

>If we have, say, staggered 30..40..50% tax brackets, causing lots of
>tax evasion on the high end, and extra controls, details, things, that
>keep lots of bureaucrats plenty busy,

We have this - and the Alternative Minimum Tax laws as well.

>and suppose that by slashing it to a flat-fee 30% income tax we reduce
>evasion, can boot a lot of overhead and overall can run a government
>more efficiently on less income, then that would be a win.

You run into a fairness issue - the people at the bottom of the income
pile - earning minimum wage, lots of kids, lots of living expenses will
be hit harder than the singing star whose drug habit is costing 30% of
his income.  There are all kinds of special conditions. To encourage
home ownership, interest on the mortgage is deductible (the lender is
taxed with the interest being considered income).

>Or if we'd removed taxes that come with a relatively high administra-
>tive burden on merchants or taxpayers, and as a result also require
>lots of taxman oversight. Less wasted time, more time to make money,
>of which the government sees some returns too through income taxes.

There are three basic national tax forms - 1040, 1040A and 1040EZ
with more and more restrictions on who can use the "simpler" forms.
Each form comes with a table that estimates how long it takes to
fill out the form (I don't have the forms handy, but recall it was
something like 35, 20 and 10 hours - but that includes the time used
to gather the needed data, etc.).  You wonder why there is a huge
business in software applications, and tax service stores (bring in
the data and your check, and we'll fill in the forms for you... for
only $$$).   To this, you _also_ have to add the time to fill in
similar tax forms for each state where you earned taxable income.

>I'm not saying this is realistic. It may be pure wishful thinking.
>Doesn't stop my curiosity in seeing the mechanism, to what degree this
>conjecture is attainable, what its effects would be, and whether that
>wouldn't net a benefit for government and taxpayer, in the long term.

Each country has their own concepts, and from what I've seen, few
have the perfect solution.  Within the US, each state is different.
There are several states that don't have a state income tax, but they
manage by taxing the daylights out of other things.  Fair?   Hah!

>Here it's fuel tax plus yearly (well, quarterly) car-road-right tax,
>which is presumably higher for trucks. I don't own roadgoing equipment
>so I don't know the details.

Varies by state and possibly by county. Here, there is fuel tax, sales
tax on the vehicle (each time it is sold, along with a transfer tax),
and a calendar tax based on the supposed value of the vehicle (based on
the suggested list price of the vehicle, depreciated over the years).
We don't at this time have toll roads or bridges.  Next state over
(California) has similar rules, but also has toll roads and bridges.
Commercial vehicles (cars used for business, buses, trucks) have
additional use taxes often based on mileage.

>> But is it going to be economical to operate that way? LCY verses LGW
>> or LHR - do all short-hauls need to use the smaller LCY?
>
>Pretty sure they don't. I wasn't advocating forcing the use of a
>smaller airport, just making it available and attractive enough that
>it runs economonically. It appears LCY can survive, though I haven't
>really looked at the numbers.

Unfortunately, those numbers are the killers.  The smaller aircraft
are significantly less efficient (fuel, crew) and each one takes a
similar fraction of space in the air - it doesn't matter if that's a
Cessna 150 or an A380-800 on the runway - the runway is occupied for
half a minute or more.   A trade magazine I read (Aviation Week and
Space Technology) mentions there is a bubble in the 50 seat jet market
for this reason. Are you going to ban older aircraft because they are
less efficient or are noisier/dirtier?  Who is going to pay for that?

>> How about when you want to go from Bremen to Brisbane - where are you
>> going to change planes? Is it going to mean surface transport between
>> airports in a city?
>
>I wouldn't want to, but starting or ending at a small airport doesn't
>have transfer problems.

Well, there isn't direct service, A quick scan of a recent OAG shows
3 flights a week from Europe, but tons of flights from Sydney,
Melbourne, and Darwin. Flights to Sydney from a number of places in
Europe, but not Bremen.   Looks like Frankfort or Amsterdam.

>Not all travel includes transfers, nor does it necessairily need to.
>Nothing wrong with having a ``leaf'' airport in the city that is much
>more accessible than the large hub a ways outside the city.

There has to be the traffic that wants to go "there" at the time[s]
you offer. If it were easy or cheap, the airlines would be doing it,
because they don't make money flying empty planes, any more than they
make it when the bird is on the ground some where or delayed enroute
because of traffic congestion.   That means that when the plane
arrives at the destination, it's got to get into the air flying
passengers somewhere else. The highest maintenance priority is "AOG"
which stands for Aircraft On Ground. Not only is it not _making_ any
money there, it's costing a bundle in parking fees, customer incon-
venience, and so on.   Getting a schedule together such that the
birds are in the air over nine hours every day isn't easy, and the
best (usually long haul) can reach 15 hours a day, but that pretty
exceptional. Then, what do you do when airports in one region are
at/near weather minimums?

>It works in London, with its five(!) airports.

because Heathrow and Gatwick are at capacity.  But then, the Port
Authority (of New York and New Jersey) runs four of the ten air
ports (KSWF, HPN, CDW, MMU, KTEB, KEWR, KLGA, KJFK, FRG and KISP) in
the New York metro area with commercial, charter, or biz-jet ops, and
the big three (KEWR, KLGA and KJFK) are essentially at capacity.

>Large cities tend to see plenty ``city hop'' flights where a sizeable
>chunk of the passengers will not transfer.

In the Southeast US, it used to be said that you couldn't go anywhere
(including to he!! in a hand-basket) without changing in Atlanta. The
same is true for Chicago, Seattle, Denver, Phoenix, KLAX (one of five
major airports in Los Angeles county), or San Francisco.  Those
airports are major hubs, and I should probably include six to ten more
without including air-freight hubs.  Flying from here to my sister's
about 100 KM NE of New York City, again - no direct flights, but I've
a choice of six airlines which means a choice of eight cities where
I'll change planes - from Minneapolis in the North, to Atlanta in
the South.

>Now for the noise abatement, as larger planes tend to make more noise.
>Doesn't have to be, of course. Glimpsed an interesting snipped about
>reducing sonic booms by unspecified trickery.

If we're talking airliners, from 50 to 900 passengers, those of similar
age tend to be _relatively_ similar in noise. Hard to believe, but
true. Sonic booms - lots of interesting tricks, but I wonder if they
will ever be economically sensible. The Concorde was EXTREMELY loud
on takeoff and landing, and ate fuel like it was water. The problem
is drag has to be minimized, and that costs efficiency big time.

>> For giggles, compare the flights at [...]

>I skimmed them a bit, but it fit the expected pattern. :-)

Smaller airports mean shorter range and less payload. In some cases
(KLGA, KDAL, KFTW being notable examples) there are legal restrictions
of size of plane and maximum distance served.

>And yeah, I don't see why it wouldn't work in Berlin. But if you're
>broke, the best thing to do is build a bigger airport from scratch.

Like Tokyo, Bangkok. Seattle and London?  In a few places, they
flat out replaced the older airport, Denver being the most recent
example. Denver Intercontinental is about 8 miles further out of
town than Stapleton, but the old airport was destroyed and converted
to housing.

>I like getting on a flight quickly, short flights, and getting off
>again quickly too. Businesspeople seem to like the same thing.

That's why business class exists, and why short/zero notice fares are
higher.  There are people who will pay.

>I like good public transport, though, and will use it whenever useful
>to do so.

What is this "public transport" you speak of?   ;-)

>Apparently, flying cattle class is the only ``good'' flying in the
>eyes of the reigning socialists. *I* think that other ways may well
>be economocally viable too, provided you don't go out of your way to
>squash them with premeditated prejudice.

Infrastructure isn't cheap - never has been. If you want to fly in
other than steerage, that means more planes to carry the same number,
and that means more airports because of existing capacity restrictions
and that means more fun designing routing from runway A to runway ZWD.
You have an alternative _now_ in the biz-charter and air-taxi market,
but the price per seat-mile/kilometer is _substantially_ higher.

====================

>> Pimp, or prospective boss?
>
>Prospective technical lead, setup by pimp. Pimp failed to get back at
>me after my email to him with the rundown, though. Hm.

Hmmm...  Yeah, I'd be pounding on the pimp

>> It is hard on the candidate, but we take it out on the pimp or his
>> company by banning them company wide.
>
>More people should do that. Well, at least people here do. :-)

There are a substantial number really horrible pimping services. In
a number of cases I've seen what are obviously part-timers working out
of their home or a postal box. We have to watch the legal aspects, but
passing word to friends and colleagues who work elsewhere helps.

>As to the candidate, I am in the peculiar position of having a
>reasonable skillset, but precariously little to show for it, making me
>a hard sell. I still don't mind having a company boot the pimp even if
>I ended up a ``victim'' of that. Can't imagine I'd notice the difference
>from the other shit recruiters pull anyway.

The problem for us is even if the candidate is otherwise interesting,
we can't talk to them if we nuke the pimp. Business law.

>With very few exceptions, the most successful interviews were landed
>by going to the company directly.  The most successful jobs so far
>were all by word of mouth, even.

That's true as well - we give our employees "finder's fees" if they can
recommend some one that we hire and who then lasts a probation period.
It costs the company less than the pimps, and we seem to always get a
better candidate.   I'm guessing, but think that we get over half of
our new employees that way.

>I probably should stop talking to pimps at all and *cough* strategically
>refocus on more effective ways to revenuize my synergies. *cough*

Pimps and pimping companies do get a bad reputation - one doesn't have
to look far to see why.

>> Is this because the attitude is that "everyone supports redmondware"?
>
>I don't know.

You really do  want to be pounding on that pimp to find out.

>I'm still sitting on an advert I can't find it in my heart to apply
>for, after I called them and asked them about their shop. There, the
>redmondware requirement is because they're planning to grow and move
>to 24/7 operation, and require the ops to fix everything -- including
>the redmondware needed to point the dishes. They're soon to launch
>their own satellite(s?).

I'm not in your shoes, nor do I know enough to be accurate, but that
sounds pretty unappetizing.

>The way this interview went I would've needed to think long and hard
>whether I'd really want to work there; I don't think that mere linux
>trivia run a good shop, and trying to shoot your applicant with them
>is arguably not the most effective way to find *good* unix people.

You won't get a disagreement here.

>I did get caught rather embarassingly with a couple questions, so
>they're not likely to offer me anything.

That may actually be good news (yes, I know).

>Thinking back, I think they should've specified ``linux certification''
>and be done with it. Trivia all you want, understanding not required.

I hate to say it, but certification is looked on as a bad word here.
It _usually_ means (there are exceptions) that the candidate has
memorized someones ideas of facts rather than getting the hands and
brane dirty.  All to often, the certification teaching/test is flat out
wrong ("thicknet uses RG6/U or RG8/U" two wrongs for the price of one,
as RG6 is 75 Ohm, and both coax have the wrong jacket material - that
was a Novell test, or "what is the default network mask for a Class A
network" - thanks microsoft and I've seen similar gaffes from A+, and
others who ought to know better).

>> Of course - "It's so simple that only a child can do it."
>
>:-)

Tom Leher - "New Math"

>Now for the rest of the world to pick up on the inconvenient truth
>that the knowledge and information based society means more training,
>especially WRT using the main tool for information dissemination. Ok,
>secondary tool, the first is still our brain.

I find it interesting that the new airliners being built (specifically
the 787, but it's also true of Airbus models) now use laptop computers
as a *major* part of the maintenance tools. Part of it is that things
are getting so complicated that you need all the help you can get,
and part of it is that the old ways of doing things no longer apply.
"Pilot says that VHF#2 is intermittent."  You can't go out to the
plane and swap the radio, because that box is now integrated up the
whazoo, and the problem could be totally unrelated. Another 787 fact
is that we don't use tin-bashers any more - the bird is made of lots of
plastic.  Slightly different skill set required.

        Old guy 

On Mon, 12 May 2008 23:33:56 -0500,
Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
> On 11 May 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
><slrng2ei80.78p.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:
>>Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
>
> In a number of cases, this also is against existing laws. At our
> national level, taxes collected against airline tickets MUST only be
> used on airport/airways improvements. Same is true on motor fuel taxes
> only being spendable for road repair/improvement.

Which I'm saying might not be such a great idea after all. A compromise
might be adding a provision to make sure all needs are covered there
first, and the overflow --if any-- will go to long term interests like
paying off government debts. The interests paid on that are also pure
tax money.


>>Second, reduce the fixation on budgeting, as it results in tucking
>>away cash by departments just to justify next year's budget, even if
>>it isn't really needed now.
>
> Unspent authorizations hasn't been a significant problem in a while.

Because everybody's adept at tucking it away.


> What _has_ been a problem is in-consistent funding of multi-year
> programs.

Which goes to show that politicians can't manage their way out of a wet
paper bag to save their own lives either. Bad management at the overboard
level, but still bad management.


> Part of the bureaucracy is fraud avoidance. The money can be spent
> for approved categories and perhaps for specific projects.

Yes, so, any replacement plan should include ways to prevent or at least
detect-and-deter fraud. Doesn't change that overhead reduction would
still be desirable.


>>In a nutshell, I think that it might be the case that our politicians'
>>wish for ``tax fairness'' costs us more than it benefits us.
>
> I don't think anyone has come up with a fair scheme. Someone will
> always be seen to be being screwed, but how to correct this without
> creating an enormous bureaucracy full of conditions and rules to meet.

That is sort-of what I'm saying: Stop adding thousands of little detail
rules to add ``fairness'' to the system, which will invariably fail in
some way, and see if you can't get a reasonable result with a very few
simple taxes and almost no bureaucratic overhead.

Yes, lots of things will change. I don't think the overall unfairness
needs to rise much, or at all, though. Of course, it goes right against
the meddling nature of politicians. Taoism advocates this, though
(horribly paraphrasing; too lazy to come up with a good reference): The
country is fine as long as the prince sits on his trone, and does nothing.


> Example - the Alternative Minimum Tax which was designed to make those
> with "creative" deductions to still have to pay some taxes no matter
> how they wiggled.

So, first you give them wiggle room, then try to tax that. Sounds
like make-work to me.

The more you make exceptions, the more you need to raise overall tax
levels to make up for it. How is that fair to the rest?


> It did that, but wasn't perfectly written, and is now effecting far
> more than the most abusive it was aimed at. Re-write it? Surely you
> jest.

So we have a system with bugs and source available, but fixing is
not done? Time to fix that, then.

Much like the not-much-a-joke of ISO certification. First thing you
do is document the change process, otherwise you can't change your
processes once you've stuck yourself to adhering to your own processes.


> Cup of coffee?  Depends on the location, but it may be taxable if
> seating is provided (again - California tax law). Here in Arizona,
> it is taxable unless sold as part of a (sit-down) meal.

Silly rules to try to be ``fair''. Why should lawmakers care whether
it's sold as part of a meal and whether you sit while drinking coffee?

If you're interested in taxing sales, you tax sales, so you'd tax the
whole transaction, period. Here, VAT differs based on whether it's a
basic foodstuff or something else. While as a taxpayer I like getting
taxed less, I'd still prefer to have everything be the same (low) rate.

Then again, I'm not sure VAT is such a good idea overall, seeing how
it has wonderful opportunities for fraud and incurs a significant
administrative overhead.


>>and suppose that by slashing it to a flat-fee 30% income tax we reduce
>>evasion, can boot a lot of overhead and overall can run a government
>>more efficiently on less income, then that would be a win.
>
> You run into a fairness issue - the people at the bottom of the income
> pile - earning minimum wage, lots of kids, lots of living expenses will
> be hit harder than the singing star whose drug habit is costing 30% of
> his income.  There are all kinds of special conditions. To encourage
> home ownership, interest on the mortgage is deductible (the lender is
> taxed with the interest being considered income).

My goal would be to reduce the need for taxes as much as possible and
hopefully end up at lower rates overall than we had before, or at least
finding out whether that would be possible.

I'm not really interested in having to decide what's fair and what
is not. In fact, I'd rather avoid creating situations that give rise
to such a need. This is of course the opposite of what bog-standard
politicians like to do. ``Look ma! I decided, very decisively!''

I'm not sure that flatrate taxes are more or less fair than staggered
rates to go after the rich. Why should the government encourage specific
things like home ownership? Why stop at homes and not, oh, subsidize
SUV ownership? Or for that matter, is it really ``fair'' to support the
masses at the bottom for the children they can't really afford?

By the same token, are you saying that earning a lot of money gives
someone else the right to decide that what you do with it is not your
business? If I want to drink myself to death, well, why not? It's
something between me and my family and friends, but not really a matter
for the government. Of course, that only flies as long as I don't
infringe the right of others to not be affected by my actions, where
such a right is recognized. (I would recognize such a right, but hey.)


> Each country has their own concepts, and from what I've seen, few
> have the perfect solution.  Within the US, each state is different.
> There are several states that don't have a state income tax, but they
> manage by taxing the daylights out of other things.  Fair?   Hah!

Are there any states that have only an income tax, nothing else?


>>Here it's fuel tax plus yearly (well, quarterly) car-road-right tax,
>>which is presumably higher for trucks. I don't own roadgoing equipment
>>so I don't know the details.
>
> Varies by state and possibly by county. Here, there is fuel tax, sales
> tax on the vehicle (each time it is sold, along with a transfer tax),

Oh, there's a specific car sales tax here as well, but IIRC only on first
sale.


> The smaller aircraft are significantly less efficient (fuel, crew) and
> each one takes a similar fraction of space in the air - it doesn't
> matter if that's a Cessna 150 or an A380-800 on the runway - the
> runway is occupied for half a minute or more.

Not a problem if you're not /at capacity/. The point is to have the
facility and it would be nice if it could support itself, but that
doesn't mean it has to have to squeeze out every last cent it can.

By its very nature an airport tends to have a geographic position if
not outright monopoly. Until, say, maglev trains finally come along,
it doesn't have much of a competition it needs to keep on innovating
against. Which is why train stations right under the airport aren't a
threat but a good idea.


> A trade magazine I read (Aviation Week and Space Technology) mentions
> there is a bubble in the 50 seat jet market for this reason. Are you
> going to ban older aircraft because they are less efficient or are
> noisier/dirtier? Who is going to pay for that?

I'd make it difficult for old/inefficient/noisy commercial craft on the
small in-the-city airport, much like LCY does, but said nothing about
other airports. Yes, it puts up a barrier for using _that_ airport. That
was the point, with the specific goal of keeping having the facility
palatable to the people living around it.

I said nothing about other airports, as I'm not interested in
restricting them, taking flights away from them, or anything else.


> There has to be the traffic that wants to go "there" at the time[s]
> you offer. If it were easy or cheap, the airlines would be doing it,

Of course. There also will be less traffic if you discourage airlines
from using the airport you want to close, which is what has been
happening at THF. I don't think it's perfectly honest to boot the
airlines then point at absence of same as valid reason for closing the
facility.


> Then, what do you do when airports in one region are at/near weather
> minimums?

I haven't a clue. :-)


>>It works in London, with its five(!) airports.
>
> because Heathrow and Gatwick are at capacity.

I don't think that's the sole reason. Both are large airports and just
going there starts to be a waste of time.


>>And yeah, I don't see why it wouldn't work in Berlin. But if you're
>>broke, the best thing to do is build a bigger airport from scratch.
>
> Like Tokyo, Bangkok. Seattle and London?  In a few places, they
> flat out replaced the older airport, Denver being the most recent
> example. Denver Intercontinental is about 8 miles further out of
> town than Stapleton, but the old airport was destroyed and converted
> to housing.

Berlin's pet project is right next to SXF. It seems somewhat unlikely
they'll demolish the old airport to put housing there. TXL might be, and
THF's grassy field could very well be, which I'd think a shame.


> There are a substantial number really horrible pimping services. In
> a number of cases I've seen what are obviously part-timers working out
> of their home or a postal box. We have to watch the legal aspects, but
> passing word to friends and colleagues who work elsewhere helps.

rate my pimp dot com?

Or to be web two point oh compliant, pimpr dot com. Oh, that already
exists (says whois). Oh well.


>>> Is this because the attitude is that "everyone supports redmondware"?
>>
>>I don't know.
>
> You really do  want to be pounding on that pimp to find out.

I just looked at the ad again (it had been a while since I last saw it,
for various reasons), and it did include vague threats of cygwin/win32.
So mea culpa. Not that I mind the failure much.


>>I did get caught rather embarassingly with a couple questions, so
>>they're not likely to offer me anything.
>
> That may actually be good news (yes, I know).

Yeah, figured as much.


>>Thinking back, I think they should've specified ``linux certification''
>>and be done with it. Trivia all you want, understanding not required.
>
> I hate to say it, but certification is looked on as a bad word here.

You're looking for something different, then. :-)


>>Now for the rest of the world to pick up on the inconvenient truth
>>that the knowledge and information based society means more training,
>>especially WRT using the main tool for information dissemination. Ok,
>>secondary tool, the first is still our brain.
>
> I find it interesting that the new airliners being built (specifically
> the 787, but it's also true of Airbus models) now use laptop computers
> as a *major* part of the maintenance tools.

I remember that the people responsible for maintaining the dutch F16s
were happy with the fancy costs savings of replacing the wall-of-paper
with a few CDroms. This was well before laptops were widespread; back
then CDroms tended to have more capacity than desktop computers too.

Nothing really wrong with that in principle, of course. The trouble
only starts to pop up when it emerges that the platform is inferior,
unmaintainable, infection-ridden, and so on and so forth. Much like you
don't print manuals on toilet paper with vanishing novelty ink.


-- 
  j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
  This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
  Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
  consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

On 13 May 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
<slrng2iusc.f9t.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:

>Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:

>> In a number of cases, this also is against existing laws. At our
>> national level, taxes collected against airline tickets MUST only be
>> used on airport/airways improvements. Same is true on motor fuel taxes
>> only being spendable for road repair/improvement.
>
>Which I'm saying might not be such a great idea after all.

That was what it took to get the tax in place. Recall that the governed
have some say in how their tax money is spent.  Here, it was "you can
impose this tax, but the taxes collected can only go to $FOO."

>> Unspent authorizations hasn't been a significant problem in a while.
>
>Because everybody's adept at tucking it away.

No, because a lot of the excess is siphoned off back to the allocator.
Government spending entities can't salt it away, because that is
against the law.

>> What _has_ been a problem is in-consistent funding of multi-year
>> programs.
>
>Which goes to show that politicians can't manage their way out of a wet
>paper bag to save their own lives either.

They don't have control over the government income, and that is going to
vary every year.

>> Example - the Alternative Minimum Tax which was designed to make those
>> with "creative" deductions to still have to pay some taxes no matter
>> how they wiggled.
>
>So, first you give them wiggle room, then try to tax that. Sounds
>like make-work to me.

So you think that gifts to charitable organizations should be taxable?
Job development credits? Scholarship funds?  Taxes themselves?

>So we have a system with bugs and source available, but fixing is
>not done? Time to fix that, then.

And it goes back to the point of whose ox are you going to gore? No matter
what you do, you are going to screw someone. Who is it going to be?

>Silly rules to try to be ``fair''. Why should lawmakers care whether
>it's sold as part of a meal and whether you sit while drinking coffee?

They try not to tax necessities - basic foodstuff for example is rarely
taxed. PREPARED foods, is not a necessity,

>Then again, I'm not sure VAT is such a good idea overall, seeing how
>it has wonderful opportunities for fraud and incurs a significant
>administrative overhead.

Whose ox are you going to gore?  Remember that tax law wasn't created
overnight, but is the result of (at least) decades of adjustments and
improvements to fix things to (then) current conditions.

>I'm not really interested in having to decide what's fair and what
>is not. In fact, I'd rather avoid creating situations that give rise
>to such a need. 

So you let the politicians decide?

>I'm not sure that flatrate taxes are more or less fair than staggered
>rates to go after the rich. Why should the government encourage specific
>things like home ownership? Why stop at homes and not, oh, subsidize
>SUV ownership?

Give it a try - again, I don't think it will fly. Home ownership is
"subsidized" by taxing the receiver of interest (it's income) rather
than the payer - or would you tax both?  For income tax purposes, the
taxes you pay (to other entities) on the sale or the annual property
tax may be deductible, but you are still paying them.  

>Are there any states that have only an income tax, nothing else?

Of course not. Taxes on products like motor fuel, sales, property,
booze, tobacco, are pretty wide spread (almost universal), although
the rates are different.

>> The smaller aircraft are significantly less efficient (fuel, crew)
>> and each one takes a similar fraction of space in the air - it
>> doesn't matter if that's a Cessna 150 or an A380-800 on the runway
>> - the runway is occupied for half a minute or more.
>
>Not a problem if you're not /at capacity/.

Well, you're going to have to make some incentive that it's not at
capacity.  Right now, the airlines are screaming at the US FAA because
of slot limitations at several key airports. Never mind that everyone
schedules flights at the hour for competitive reasons even though they
_know_ that 25 aircraft can't take off in the period seven to twelve
minutes after the hour. So you are limited to 90 flights per hour
among several airlines - does it make sense to use 50-100 passenger
aircraft, or 300-600 passenger aircraft in a capacity limit situation?

>By its very nature an airport tends to have a geographic position if
>not outright monopoly.

That's why there are five airports in Los Angeles with air service.

>Until, say, maglev trains finally come along, it doesn't have much of
>a competition it needs to keep on innovating against.

I doubt in the extreme that maglev will be here (North America) any
time soon. Cost.  Who is going to pay for it?  Remember, our rail system
is private companies, not state-run. Amtrak is renting the rights to run
over commercial rail.

>> Are you going to ban older aircraft because they are less efficient
>> or are noisier/dirtier? Who is going to pay for that?
>
>I'd make it difficult for old/inefficient/noisy commercial craft on the
>small in-the-city airport, much like LCY does, but said nothing about
>other airports. Yes, it puts up a barrier for using _that_ airport.

But who is going to pay for the lost use?  Aircraft are not cheap, and
are expected to earn their keep for decades.  Are you going to prevent
them from earning the coin to repay the purchase loans?  Aircraft don't
exist in one airport. They have to connect the dots in a manner that
keeps them earning money. In the 1970s, "China Air Lines" (Taiwan)
had one Convair 880, and six days a week it was scheduled to fly 14
hours a day from Tokyo to Taipei to Hong Kong to Singapore or Kuala
Lampur one day, and the opposite on the other day. On Sunday, it flew a
round trip to Taipei and the rest of the day was in maintenance.  Thai
International had five Caravelles flying similar routes, with the
addition of Seoul. Bali, and three places in India. They were
_scheduled_ from about 8 AM to 9:30 PM every day, but invariably
something would happen, and flights would be delayed. Screw up things in
one place, and watch it ripple through the system.

>I said nothing about other airports, as I'm not interested in
>restricting them, taking flights away from them, or anything else.

Who is going to pay for the inability of the airline to fly the plane
so that it makes money? How is the airline supposed to repay the
purchase loan or the lease?

>> because Heathrow and Gatwick are at capacity.
>
>I don't think that's the sole reason. Both are large airports and just
>going there starts to be a waste of time.

When Heathrow was opened in 1946, it had six runways. 4 got closed
because they weren't usable that often AND because there wasn't
convenient room to extend them.  So now you've got 2 (09L/R and 27L/R)
and they are fully in use. They WANT to add a third parallel runway to
increase the capacity.  I don't offer much hope of that, so the solution
is to move the flights to Gatwick (can't, because it's at limits), LCY
(but as you've pointed out, it's to small and restricted), or Stansted
or Luton which both have crap connections.  There are other alternatives
- fly into Manchester or Liverpool.   Nice and convenient.    NOT!

====================

>> We have to watch the legal aspects, but passing word to friends and
>> colleagues who work elsewhere helps.
>
>rate my pimp dot com?

No, it's generally word of mouth.

>Or to be web two point oh compliant, pimpr dot com. Oh, that already
>exists (says whois). Oh well.

No, word of mouth - it's harder to prove discrimination.

>I just looked at the ad again (it had been a while since I last saw it,
>for various reasons), and it did include vague threats of cygwin/win32.
>So mea culpa. Not that I mind the failure much.

If you are going to use a pimp, lean hard on it that you don't do windoze.

>> I hate to say it, but certification is looked on as a bad word here.
>
>You're looking for something different, then. :-)

Experience.  Knowledge.  Symptoms of clue.  Does the person know what a
command line is?  What's the layout of /etc/passwd?  What is the purpose
of /etc/resolv.conf, and what would you expect to find there?  What is the
most common symptom of a missing /etc/resolv.conf?  What is the most
obvious difference between FreeBSD and Solaris? Why? If you are serious,
you may have a box handy - is the candidate fumbling around or has some
confidence?     Actually, if you look in this group, I believe the subject
has been discussed in a lengthly thread in the past 6-8 months.

>> now use laptop computers as a *major* part of the maintenance tools.
>
>I remember that the people responsible for maintaining the dutch F16s
>were happy with the fancy costs savings of replacing the wall-of-paper
>with a few CDroms. This was well before laptops were widespread; back
>then CDroms tended to have more capacity than desktop computers too.

I take it you've never had to "maintain" those paper manuals. Every
couple of weeks, you'd get a package with anywhere from a few to a few
hundred pages that had to replace existing pages in 3 ring binders.
Every copy.  And perhaps once a year, you'd have a manual check, where
you checked every page and page date against a check list.  Great fun.

>Nothing really wrong with that in principle, of course. The trouble
>only starts to pop up when it emerges that the platform is inferior,
>unmaintainable, infection-ridden, and so on and so forth. Much like you
>don't print manuals on toilet paper with vanishing novelty ink.

The electronic manuals I've seen are tremendously useful because you
have them very close to the job. Some seem to be running a crippled
version of windoze or Linux, but the specialized application is
restricted of what it can do, and with whom. You probably have limited
access to central databases, and limited messaging ("I need this part
for aircraft 98345 - hardstand A43" - username, location, and other
details are semi-hard coded).

        Old guy

On Tue, 13 May 2008 22:41:40 -0500,
Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
> That was what it took to get the tax in place. Recall that the governed
> have some say in how their tax money is spent. Here, it was "you can
> impose this tax, but the taxes collected can only go to $FOO."

I'm well aware of the endless horse-trading that passes for democracy.
Then again, reality in no way needs to be a restriction on speculating
on idealized systems. :-)


>>> What _has_ been a problem is in-consistent funding of multi-year
>>> programs.
>>
>>Which goes to show that politicians can't manage their way out of a wet
>>paper bag to save their own lives either.
>
> They don't have control over the government income, and that is going to
> vary every year.

Governments aren't the only ones with that problem. Even so, that can be
managed; some things can be easier skimmed on for this year to support
something else without much damage than some other things -- provided
you make up for it later. However, that requires administrative insight
and a long-term view. This usually is not fashionable in politics.


>>> Example - the Alternative Minimum Tax which was designed to make those
>>> with "creative" deductions to still have to pay some taxes no matter
>>> how they wiggled.
>>
>>So, first you give them wiggle room, then try to tax that. Sounds
>>like make-work to me.
>
> So you think that gifts to charitable organizations should be taxable?

Well, is there a fundamental reason why this type of person (in casu:
non-natural, charitable) should be treated different than other persons?

Plenty of places do tax gifts and inheritances and whatnot. Plenty of
charities are themselves so inefficient as to waste more money than they
would if they were taxed and ran even a bit more efficiently. Remember
that any exception raises the overall cost, so the question to me is not
so much ``having rights'' as it is whether the tradeoff is worth it in
the bigger picture.


> Job development credits? Scholarship funds?  Taxes themselves?

Reduced the number of taxes enough, and plenty of deductibles and
subsidies will have to go too. Some because they no longer make sense,
others on general principle. With less taxes overall, then *overall*
more money will be ``free'' so it would be easier to just add a bit to
the gift to make it ``do'' the same after income tax.

I don't think taxes themselves should be taxed again, but I prefer a
simple solution, such as: If all you have is one single tax at one
point (I took ``income'' a while back), you'll have to contort your own
finances quite a bit to make that one tax apply to itself again. There
is something to be said for a system that's cheaper to use ``straight''
than to spend time and money finding and exploiting its loopholes.

My point is not to squibble over individual taxes and perks, Moe, but to
boot as many as possible and still come up with a reasonable tax system
capable of funding a viable government. I have a hunch it's cheaper in
the long run.


>>So we have a system with bugs and source available, but fixing is
>>not done? Time to fix that, then.
>
> And it goes back to the point of whose ox are you going to gore? No matter
> what you do, you are going to screw someone. Who is it going to be?

If that is a given anyway, as you say, then explain to me why that would
be any reason to keep bad law, instead of trying again, please.


>>Then again, I'm not sure VAT is such a good idea overall, seeing how
>>it has wonderful opportunities for fraud and incurs a significant
>>administrative overhead.
>
> Whose ox are you going to gore?  Remember that tax law wasn't created
> overnight, but is the result of (at least) decades of adjustments and
> improvements to fix things to (then) current conditions.

``Improvements'' often enough in the form of some nitwit's bright idea
or petty hate.


>>I'm not really interested in having to decide what's fair and what
>>is not. In fact, I'd rather avoid creating situations that give rise
>>to such a need. 
>
> So you let the politicians decide?

I think I said something quite different in that paragraph.


--------------------
> Well, you're going to have to make some incentive that it's not at
> capacity.

I wasn't about to, actually. What the airport does beyond comply with a
bunch of noise abatement measures, frankly, I don't care about, except
that it makes enough revenue to pay for its own existence.


> Right now, the airlines are screaming at the US FAA because of
> slot limitations at several key airports. Never mind that everyone
> schedules flights at the hour for competitive reasons even though they
> _know_ that 25 aircraft can't take off in the period seven to twelve
> minutes after the hour.

I would just flat out ignore that ``problem''. This sounds like
something for the respective marketing departments to figure out. :-)

Of course, I'm not the FAA.


> So you are limited to 90 flights per hour among several airlines
> - does it make sense to use 50-100 passenger aircraft, or 300-600
> passenger aircraft in a capacity limit situation?

Flying a 600 passenger aircraft when there's only 50 people willing
to play passenger to the destination probably has problems too.


>>Until, say, maglev trains finally come along, it doesn't have much of
>>a competition it needs to keep on innovating against.
>
> I doubt in the extreme that maglev will be here (North America) any
> time soon. Cost.

I'm not expecting it here either, even if state run. The technology
seems to be just as attainable as that of working, viable aircars.


>>I'd make it difficult for old/inefficient/noisy commercial craft on the
>>small in-the-city airport, much like LCY does, but said nothing about
>>other airports. Yes, it puts up a barrier for using _that_ airport.
>
> But who is going to pay for the lost use?

There's no lost use if the airline has a) only suitable aircraft or b)
enough other lines to use craft not usable on /this/ airport elsewhere.

You're making it sound like the mere existence of aircraft artificially
prohibited from going somewhere is prohibitive for the existing of that
somewhere. If that is your position, I can't but disagree.


====================
>>I just looked at the ad again (it had been a while since I last saw it,
>>for various reasons), and it did include vague threats of cygwin/win32.
>>So mea culpa. Not that I mind the failure much.
>
> If you are going to use a pimp, lean hard on it that you don't do windoze.

He knows I don't own any windows licences and therefore couldn't supply
a word format CV. This seems to've been accepted. :-)

We'll see what he comes up with, if anything. If not, there'll be a
note asking him to delete all info he has on me in a couple months.


> What is the purpose of /etc/resolv.conf, and what would you expect
> to find there? What is the most common symptom of a missing
> /etc/resolv.conf?

*checks* Oh, tricky question. Wrong entries there are somewhat more
interesting, though.

Or the one time a developer/project manager asked for my help with
some unspecified box (turned out to be FreeBSD) as he was getting
``sendto: permission denied'' errors using ping. I remember sitting
there for a minute, stumped, (``permission denied? wtf, this isn't the
filesystem!'') then having the proverbial lightbulb go on.


>>> now use laptop computers as a *major* part of the maintenance tools.
>>
>>I remember that the people responsible for maintaining the dutch F16s
>>were happy with the fancy costs savings of replacing the wall-of-paper
>>with a few CDroms. This was well before laptops were widespread; back
>>then CDroms tended to have more capacity than desktop computers too.
>
> I take it you've never had to "maintain" those paper manuals. Every
> couple of weeks, you'd get a package with anywhere from a few to a few
> hundred pages that had to replace existing pages in 3 ring binders.
> Every copy.  And perhaps once a year, you'd have a manual check, where
> you checked every page and page date against a check list.  Great fun.

I wasn't criticising. In fact, I think most of my reading is from
screens too. I just remember reading about it.

Come to think of it, that was even before CD-Rs existed. I wonder how
they'd do the updates. It might be that even a full CD run just for a
couple hundred CDs back then was economical compared to printing lots of
paper and shipping it everywhere around the globe.


> You probably have limited access to central databases, and limited
> messaging ("I need this part for aircraft 98345 - hardstand A43" -
> username, location, and other details are semi-hard coded).

That runs the additional risk of depending on the manufacturer to keep
the central database running. Local copies stay around longer and can be
passed on with the sale of the thing.

For fighter jets that are otherwise heavily regulated and constricted
anyway that might be acceptable, but for, say, a car, I would really
prefer something that isn't dependent on the whims of the manufacturer's
service division.

You know, a standard file format and a standard board computer interface
would be useful: Just keep (a copy of) the manual on there. :-)


-- 
  j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
  This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
  Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
  consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

On 14 May 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
<slrng2l826.jtm.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:

>Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:

>> Well, you're going to have to make some incentive that it's not at
>> capacity.
>
>I wasn't about to, actually. What the airport does beyond comply with a
>bunch of noise abatement measures, frankly, I don't care about, except
>that it makes enough revenue to pay for its own existence.

I was more referring to the airlines - they're the ones that schedule when
(supposedly) the birds are going where.

>> Right now, the airlines are screaming at the US FAA because of
>> slot limitations at several key airports. Never mind that everyone
>> schedules flights at the hour for competitive reasons even though they
>> _know_ that 25 aircraft can't take off in the period seven to twelve
>> minutes after the hour.
>
>I would just flat out ignore that ``problem''. This sounds like
>something for the respective marketing departments to figure out. :-)

Technically, airspace (and that includes access to runways) is more or
less on 'first come, first served', but then we talk about airport
domination.  I think United has 70% of the flights at Dulles (KIAD),
while US Air has half the departures at Reagan (KDCA). United also is
the major player at O'Hare (KORD), while Delta absolutely dominates
Atlanta (KATL).  The marketing types use that to block competitors.
The FAA finally stepped in and limited flights at some airports because
there was (literally) no place to put the aircraft.  (Thinking about
that, the Chinese recently withdrew authorization for something like 25
flights with the worst "on-time" performance at Beijing - that's 25
flights a day!)

But we've always been dependent on having lots of flights. Before
deregulation (the government used to have some say in fares and who
flew where), there used to be 26 non-stops every day from New York to
Los Angeles (20 more to San Francisco, and 8 others to other West Coast
airports). There were also the same number of non-stop returns just to
balance things. That doesn't include the 7 "one-stops" (meaning no
change of plane, usually at Chicago, St Louis, Dallas or Denver), or
the connecting flights (same cities, plus Washington, Detroit, and
Minneapolis).

>Flying a 600 passenger aircraft when there's only 50 people willing
>to play passenger to the destination probably has problems too.

True - but look at those 26+7 New York - Los Angeles flights. The
smallest aircraft scheduled was 180 seats, and they were the one-stops.

[maglev]

>I'm not expecting it here either, even if state run. The technology
>seems to be just as attainable as that of working, viable aircars.

Wonder how they would handle snow accumulations - say 10 cm.

>There's no lost use if the airline has a) only suitable aircraft or b)
>enough other lines to use craft not usable on /this/ airport elsewhere.

'a)' would be great, but trying to keep your fleet age so low is very
expensive. (An average age less than ten years is unusual, and less
than six unheard of.) The second hand market isn't that robust.  As for
'b)', that can also be interesting. Scheduling is a bit of torture
balancing the "right" size aircraft (capacity, range, cost) verses
restrictions like noise or weight limits or curfews, verses the
departure/arrival times at all of the airports verses flight crew
scheduling, and having a place to go after you've flown from Berlin to
Bremen - does the bird next go to London, Lisbon, Stockholm or... and
where does it go after it gets 'there", and where after that.  There
really is a reason that flight schedules don't change very often.

>You're making it sound like the mere existence of aircraft artificially
>prohibited from going somewhere is prohibitive for the existing of that
>somewhere. If that is your position, I can't but disagree.

No, it's an economical burden to work around those restrictions. Do you
abandon the aircraft, or the airport? It's not as if you can walk down
to the show-room and buy a new aircraft off the dealer's floor even if
you had the cash (which is _highly_ unlikely).  Both Airbus and Boeing
are sold out for the next 2-3 years, and the leasing companies are not
awash in brand new aircraft. Old aircraft we can find, but it probably
won't meet the restrictions either.  Whatever you get has to be
compatible with your existing fleet (spares, licenses and similar) or
you've just opened another can of worms.  If noise is the restriction,
maybe there are operational tricks you can try at the cost of payload
or fuel burn, or maybe you can fit a "hush-kit in a couple of months
(they aren't on the shelf either), but they are costly and are not as
economic as a new aircraft.

====================
>> If you are going to use a pimp, lean hard on it that you don't do windoze.
>
>He knows I don't own any windows licenses and therefore couldn't supply
>a word format CV. This seems to've been accepted. :-)

Aside - did he accept one in troff, or tex?  ;-) I know most are loath
to accept non-editable forms, and it's so hard for them to retype it on
their own windoze box.

>We'll see what he comes up with, if anything. If not, there'll be a
>note asking him to delete all info he has on me in a couple months.

I hope it won't take that long for unrecovery. 

>*checks* Oh, tricky question. Wrong entries there are somewhat more
>interesting, though.

Yeah - or having non-authoritative non-recursive servers listed in
addition to authoritative ones.  'NXDOMAIN' does not mean "ask some
one else".

>``sendto: permission denied'' errors using ping. I remember sitting
>there for a minute, stumped, (``permission denied? wtf, this isn't the
>filesystem!'') then having the proverbial lightbulb go on.

It helps to have run into the problem (or heard about someone else who
has), but yeah that one has several possible causes all of which are
easy to check. But unless you are thinking in that direction, it may
not be obvious.

>>>I remember that the people responsible for maintaining the dutch F16s
>>>were happy with the fancy costs savings of replacing the wall-of-paper
>>>with a few CDroms.

>> I take it you've never had to "maintain" those paper manuals. 

>I wasn't criticising. In fact, I think most of my reading is from
>screens too. I just remember reading about it.

I was merely pointing out one of the less-obvious costs of paper manuals.
On-line manuals are trivial for the user to maintain... as long as you
haven't misplaced the CD - but then you've got the replacement, so the
problem is partially solved.

>Come to think of it, that was even before CD-Rs existed. I wonder how
>they'd do the updates.

The ones I've dealt with, remove and return (or remove and destroy) the
old one, insert the new one - done.

>It might be that even a full CD run just for a couple hundred CDs back
>then was economical compared to printing lots of paper and shipping it
>everywhere around the globe.

Don't forget your customers who have to remove the old paper pages and
insert the new ones - that isn't your direct cost, but your customer
sure sees the savings and appreciates it.  An offset press run isn't
going to be cheap either (photocopies are not acceptable).

>> You probably have limited access to central databases, and limited
>> messaging ("I need this part for aircraft 98345 - hardstand A43" -
>> username, location, and other details are semi-hard coded).
>
>That runs the additional risk of depending on the manufacturer to keep
>the central database running.

Local copies of non-dynamic material saves bandwidth, and that's it. 
For things on the scale of aircraft and aircraft parts (and that goes
down to major automotive parts and similar), as long as the product is
economically in service, the manufacturer may be required by law to
have the support up and running (do you need parts for a Douglas C-47D
that was built in 1943?). For high value parts (the airline industry),
you want the part ASAP, but it's _highly_ unlikely to be stored locally,
so a central database is the only way to go. Few (if any) airlines have
a "complete" set of spares for each type of aircraft in their fleet,
never mind having those spare on the right continent/country.  You say
your left engine just ate a 5 kilo seagull and isn't operating properly?
Hmmm... we own a spare engine, but it's being repaired after another
seagull hit... ah, $FOO airlines has one located in $BAR, while $BAZ
airlines has one in $QUX, and we have parts sharing agreements with
both.  Which one can get "here" quicker?

>For fighter jets that are otherwise heavily regulated and constricted
>anyway that might be acceptable, but for, say, a car, I would really
>prefer something that isn't dependent on the whims of the manufacturer's
>service division.

If the car is under warranty, that's one thing. If it's out of warranty
the manufacturer may be the place to go, but there's usually what's
called "after market" suppliers.  My car hasn't been near a dealer in
three years, but gets regular service and repairs as needed. For normal
consumables (brake pads, filters, tires, light bulbs, batteries, etc.) I
wouldn't think of (an overpriced) dealer.  Had an accident and ripped off
a fender? It's HIGHLY unlikely to see the dealer unless it's really new.

>You know, a standard file format and a standard board computer interface
>would be useful: Just keep (a copy of) the manual on there. :-)

I don't have the specific advertisement handy, but here's an article
that mentions the mechanic using "Boeing's Maintenance Performance
Toolbox, a wireless notebook". The picture isn't large enough to see
a brand name, but the picture credit is Thales.

        Old guy

On Wed, 14 May 2008 21:07:07 -0500,
Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
>
> I was more referring to the airlines - they're the ones that schedule when
> (supposedly) the birds are going where.

The least one can do is not trying to shoo them away from the airport. :-)


> The FAA finally stepped in and limited flights at some airports because
> there was (literally) no place to put the aircraft.

Sounds like someone got a bit greedy.

> (Thinking about that, the Chinese recently withdrew authorization for
> something like 25 flights with the worst "on-time" performance at
> Beijing - that's 25 flights a day!)

China is pretty big. Presumably that means lots of traffic to the
capital. :-)


>>Flying a 600 passenger aircraft when there's only 50 people willing
>>to play passenger to the destination probably has problems too.
>
> True - but look at those 26+7 New York - Los Angeles flights. The
> smallest aircraft scheduled was 180 seats, and they were the one-stops.

Which is pretty different here, as we do have more or less viable
long-range trains, lots of people just drive, and in general
distance*passengers I expect to be smaller.


> [maglev]
>>I'm not expecting it here either, even if state run. The technology
>>seems to be just as attainable as that of working, viable aircars.
>
> Wonder how they would handle snow accumulations - say 10 cm.

Haven't a clue. The coils and whatnot in the rail might have a heating
feature, or just are generally too warm to stay snowed under for very
long (unless it was a lot of snow).

A high speed German (250..300km/h `ICE') train derailed recently because
it ran into a flock of sheep right before a tunnel. In this case the
tunnel walls kept it more-or-less straight so there were a bunch of
wounded, a totaled train, and a score dead sheep. A single sheep
would've been no problem; a flock apparently is.

A couple days later another train ran into cattle. Slower train so
much less damage, except for a bunch of dead cows. Coincidence?


>>There's no lost use if the airline has a) only suitable aircraft or b)
>>enough other lines to use craft not usable on /this/ airport elsewhere.
>
> 'a)' would be great, but trying to keep your fleet age so low is very
> expensive. (An average age less than ten years is unusual, and less
> than six unheard of.) The second hand market isn't that robust.

There are a couple of low cost operators that I'm told keep their prices
low because their fleet is much newer than the incumbments. That and
planning tricks and advertising prices without the airport fees.


> As for 'b)', that can also be interesting. Scheduling is a bit of
> torture balancing the "right" size aircraft (capacity, range, cost)
> verses restrictions like noise or weight limits or curfews, verses
> the departure/arrival times at all of the airports verses flight crew
> scheduling, and having a place to go after you've flown from Berlin to
> Bremen - does the bird next go to London, Lisbon, Stockholm or... and
> where does it go after it gets 'there", and where after that. There
> really is a reason that flight schedules don't change very often.

As you note, scheduling already is quite tortous so that's just a few
more parameters for this one airport. 'Sides, I'm not the airline; at
best I'd be the airport and busy figuring out what the minimum set of
restrictions would be to get what I'm after.


>>You're making it sound like the mere existence of aircraft artificially
>>prohibited from going somewhere is prohibitive for the existing of that
>>somewhere. If that is your position, I can't but disagree.
>
> No, it's an economical burden to work around those restrictions. Do you
> abandon the aircraft, or the airport?

In general, you need both. If a restriction on this airport means you
can't use this airplane there, well, shift it elsewhere and use another
airplane here.


> Both Airbus and Boeing are sold out for the next 2-3 years, and the
> leasing companies are not awash in brand new aircraft.

All the more a pity that Fokker got the life sucked out of it, then
died, right before the market picked up again.


>====================
>>> If you are going to use a pimp, lean hard on it that you don't do windoze.
>>
>>He knows I don't own any windows licenses and therefore couldn't supply
>>a word format CV. This seems to've been accepted. :-)
>
> Aside - did he accept one in troff, or tex?  ;-) I know most are loath
> to accept non-editable forms, and it's so hard for them to retype it on
> their own windoze box.

I'm working in troff, but since recruiters are invariably button pushers
that doesn't help him. He had problems copy/pasting the ghostscript
generated PDF into word (xpdf's pdftotext also gets strange results),
which could have something to do with the tricks I'm using to get the
subsection headers to line out: The heading macros use \Z'' to move back
and forth for the occasion, thus avoiding emitting linebreaks.

I fed it through nroff and fiddled with the parameters a bit to get
non-hyphenated lines to make copy-pasting a bit easier, and sent the
resulting ascii.


>>We'll see what he comes up with, if anything. If not, there'll be a
>>note asking him to delete all info he has on me in a couple months.
>
> I hope it won't take that long for unrecovery. 

It has already taken more, though just now (as noted elsewhere) the
cash is running dry, everybody pops up and wants a piece, and $lastjob
seems to've done painfully (to me) creative tax things, and due to (AOT)
certain people's litigous full-assery I'm going to fail the tax deadline
for fixing that abortion. So it's really a case of seeing whether the
joint burns down or drowns in the quench first. Best of all, I can't
really be arsed to care anymore. But that's neither here nor there.


> An offset press run isn't going to be cheap either (photocopies are
> not acceptable).

A high-volume PS laser could still do it.


>>> You probably have limited access to central databases, and limited
>>> messaging ("I need this part for aircraft 98345 - hardstand A43" -
>>> username, location, and other details are semi-hard coded).
>>
>>That runs the additional risk of depending on the manufacturer to keep
>>the central database running.
>
> Local copies of non-dynamic material saves bandwidth, and that's it. 

That and having a much better probability of staying around after the
manufacturer has stopped supporting $product, or stopped existing for
that matter. If in 100 years some bunch of yoyos wants to restore a
rusty dreamliner to flying condition (I can think of better projects,
but in 100 years I'll be dead), then a scratchy CD with the plans is
preferrable over a database that has long ceased to exist. Though it
may not matter anyway, that with firmware bitrot and all that.


> For things on the scale of aircraft and aircraft parts (and that goes
> down to major automotive parts and similar), as long as the product is
> economically in service, the manufacturer may be required by law to
> have the support up and running (do you need parts for a Douglas C-47D
> that was built in 1943?).

A lathe with the plans available is probably faster and cheaper. Come to
think of it, just a CD with the CNC plans would make for an interesting
airplane kit.


> Hmmm... we own a spare engine, but it's being repaired after another
> seagull hit... ah, $FOO airlines has one located in $BAR, while $BAZ
> airlines has one in $QUX, and we have parts sharing agreements with
> both.  Which one can get "here" quicker?

For that, I agree, a central database isn't a bad idea.


>>You know, a standard file format and a standard board computer interface
>>would be useful: Just keep (a copy of) the manual on there. :-)
>
> I don't have the specific advertisement handy, but here's an article
> that mentions the mechanic using "Boeing's Maintenance Performance
> Toolbox, a wireless notebook". The picture isn't large enough to see
> a brand name, but the picture credit is Thales.

Probably windows, might not even be properly ``kiosked'', but it should
be. If only for trying to keep malware at bay. Pretty amazing how even
many people with deep technical clue (in electronics, other engineering)
often still can't be arsed to learn how to be effective at techical
computing. I no longer think that it is purely my unix bias that
classifies windows as entirely unsuitable for that.

Then again, while I can solder well enough, I wouldn't be able to build
a bridge or design a circuit to save my life. That comparison is unfair,
though. While I don't need to be able to build a pencil from scratch to
draw a bridge design, I do need to know how to use it.


-- 
  j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
  This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
  Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
  consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

On 15 May 2008  in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
<slrng2nvfa.nli.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:

>Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:

>> (Thinking about that, the Chinese recently withdrew authorization for
>> something like 25 flights with the worst "on-time" performance at
>> Beijing - that's 25 flights a day!)
>
>China is pretty big. Presumably that means lots of traffic to the
>capital. :-)

There's only one commercial airport in Beijing, "Capital International
Airport" with two runways. In 2004, it was the 20th busiest airport in
the world, doing about a half the business of Heathrow, or 80 percent of
Schiphol.

>> True - but look at those 26+7 New York - Los Angeles flights. The
>> smallest aircraft scheduled was 180 seats, and they were the one-stops.
>
>Which is pretty different here, as we do have more or less viable
>long-range trains,

I suspect you have more _international_ trains in .nl than we have
inter-city trains in .us. Commuter trains in some of the large cities
like New York, Chicago, San Francisco or Los Angeles, but there is one
train a day between San Francisco and Los Angeles (and it doesn't even
go into San Francisco, but is across the bay in Oakland).

>lots of people just drive, and in general distance*passengers I expect
>to be smaller.

You need only look at our freeway/Interstate highway systems.

[maglev]

>> Wonder how they would handle snow accumulations - say 10 cm.
>
>Haven't a clue. The coils and whatnot in the rail might have a heating
>feature, or just are generally too warm to stay snowed under for very
>long (unless it was a lot of snow).

That doesn't sound good.

>> 'a)' would be great, but trying to keep your fleet age so low is very
>> expensive. (An average age less than ten years is unusual, and less
>> than six unheard of.) The second hand market isn't that robust.
>
>There are a couple of low cost operators that I'm told keep their prices
>low because their fleet is much newer than the incumbments.

That's a comparative statement. Ryanair has a young fleet, but I don't
think the airline itself is that old. Easyjet is similar. Air Berlin is
unloading the oldest aircraft. But none of them are large fleets.

>That and planning tricks and advertising prices without the airport fees.

That's common - at least here, they're required to mention that there are
additional fees and taxes, though they only mention the 'per departure'
tax having a specific value.

>As you note, scheduling already is quite tortous so that's just a few
>more parameters for this one airport.

It gets rather interesting when you are trying to schedule 400+ aircraft
a day when the average flight is 90 minutes (gate to gate), and your
goal is a ground time under 60 minutes. (Southwest Airlines is a bit
harder, with over 500 aircraft, and an average flight time under 75
minutes - and a scheduled ground time under 40 minutes.)

>> Do you abandon the aircraft, or the airport?
>
>In general, you need both. If a restriction on this airport means you
>can't use this airplane there, well, shift it elsewhere and use another
>airplane here.

KLM - nearly a third of their fleet is "old".  Lufthansa... looks like
about 13% (34 of 260), British - 36 of 240, Alitalia... 80 of 150,  well,
you get the idea. Even with small fleets like these, you soon run out of
places when you can use them.

>> Both Airbus and Boeing are sold out for the next 2-3 years, and the
>> leasing companies are not awash in brand new aircraft.
>
>All the more a pity that Fokker got the life sucked out of it, then
>died, right before the market picked up again.

As an aircraft producer, they were aiming at what is a VERY competitive
target. The F28/F70/F100 jets were all "local service" (50-100 pax,
used in flights up to two hours, and they were slow. If you look at the
business today, Bombardier (Canadair) and Empresa Brasilera are the
major players, but companies in Japan, China, and Russia have what look
to be as-good if not better coming down the pipe. But Fokker isn't the
only one who is out of that business. We _used_ to have four very
energetic builders in this country (Convair, Douglas, Lockheed in
addition to Boeing). Douglas got borged twice, and what's left is a
small part of Boeing.

====================

>I'm working in troff, but since recruiters are invariably button pushers
>that doesn't help him. He had problems copy/pasting the ghostscript
>generated PDF into word (xpdf's pdftotext also gets strange results),
>which could have something to do with the tricks I'm using to get the
>subsection headers to line out

"The good thing about standards is that there are so many to choose
from."

>> I hope it won't take that long for unrecovery.
>
>It has already taken more, though just now (as noted elsewhere) the
>cash is running dry, everybody pops up and wants a piece

Nothing new there.

>and $lastjob seems to've done painfully (to me) creative tax things,
>and due to (AOT) certain people's litigous full-assery I'm going to
>fail the tax deadline for fixing that abortion. So it's really a case
>of seeing whether the joint burns down or drowns in the quench first.

Here, the employee is responsible only for telling the employer his
marital status and number of dependents (both effect the "standard"
tax withholding). Everything else is the employers problem, and the
various tax authorities don't tolerate much mucking about.

>Best of all, I can't really be arsed to care anymore. But that's
>neither here nor there.

Sounds as if you really need unrecovery.

>> An offset press run isn't going to be cheap either (photocopies are
>> not acceptable).
>
>A high-volume PS laser could still do it.

Depends on the customer. The government still specifies printing rather
than lasers, even for small jobs. But then, they'll often accept a single
master and they'll do the printing (for a fee). If it's not classified,
office support places like Kinkos will also do the job.

>That and having a much better probability of staying around after the
>manufacturer has stopped supporting $product, or stopped existing for
>that matter. If in 100 years some bunch of yoyos wants to restore a
>rusty dreamliner to flying condition (I can think of better projects,
>but in 100 years I'll be dead), then a scratchy CD with the plans is
>preferrable over a database that has long ceased to exist.

Something like the company in Washington state that is building
copies of the WW2 German Me-262.   They have some of the plans, and
have gone to museums to measure the very few existing birds. The
Smithsonian had completed a _museum restoration several years ago,
and that helped. But the current model is using "modern" engines
(from used Lear Jets) because the original engines simply won't meet
even 40 year old standards.

>> you need parts for a Douglas C-47D that was built in 1943?).
>
>A lathe with the plans available is probably faster and cheaper. Come
>to think of it, just a CD with the CNC plans would make for an
>interesting airplane kit.

As long as you carry no one who is not a required crew member. The
aviation authorities take a VERY DIM view of people hacking parts.
Quality inspections, materials standards, done by licensed people.
And your insurance carrier is going to be charging HUGE premiums
(even larger than what they charge for a fully airworthy Goon, which
couldn't be certified today due to stability problems at aft CG
conditions, and it's difficulty meeting engine out performance).

>> $FOO airlines has one located in $BAR, while $BAZ airlines has one
>> in $QUX, and we have parts sharing agreements with both.  Which one
>> can get "here" quicker?
>
>For that, I agree, a central database isn't a bad idea.

Actually, there are several companies that are in the business of
spare parts support. They own parts, and have them in warehouses at
airports in many countries.  As I said earlier - an Aircraft On
Ground is loosing money big time every minute it on that status. The
parts company can be looked at as an insurance scam that's legal.

>Probably windows, might not even be properly ``kiosked'', but it should
>be. If only for trying to keep malware at bay.

A passenger is sitting in an airliner using his laptop, and on the
screen appears:

  Bluetooth: new device found: Airbus A310

(reported in Risks Digest 23.72 17 Feb 2005 - article dated 13 Feb 2005,
but doesn't mention the issue of *c't* it originally appeared in.) The
manufacturers are aware of that problem, as are the aviation certification
authorities.

>Pretty amazing how even many people with deep technical clue (in
>electronics, other engineering) often still can't be arsed to learn how
>to be effective at techical computing. I no longer think that it is
>purely my unix bias that classifies windows as entirely unsuitable for
>that.

I'm equally distressed to find the attitude that "the computer says" is
an absolute answer. Never mind that it's redmondware and has been 0wn3d,
never mind that the programmer screwed up and didn't (couldn't) test
everything, or that some id10t operated keyed in the wrong data or
fumble-fingered something.  "The computer says" as if to say the problem
is your mistake - the computer being perfect of course.

>While I don't need to be able to build a pencil from scratch to draw a
>bridge design, I do need to know how to use it.

The pencil, or the bridge  ;-)

        Old guy

On Thu, 15 May 2008 22:02:20 -0500,
Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
> On 15 May 2008  in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
><slrng2nvfa.nli.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:
>>Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
>
> There's only one commercial airport in Beijing, "Capital International
> Airport" with two runways. In 2004, it was the 20th busiest airport in
> the world, doing about a half the business of Heathrow, or 80 percent of
> Schiphol.

I don't know what their train situation is. Come to think of it, I don't
know whether the Chinese are even allowed to travel around within China.


> I suspect you have more _international_ trains in .nl than we have
> inter-city trains in .us. Commuter trains in some of the large cities
> like New York, Chicago, San Francisco or Los Angeles, but there is one
> train a day between San Francisco and Los Angeles (and it doesn't even
> go into San Francisco, but is across the bay in Oakland).

And then there's the sleeper trains.

Incidentally, I'll be hopping on an international train in a few
hours, and likely will be off usenet for a week or so.


> [maglev]
>
>>> Wonder how they would handle snow accumulations - say 10 cm.
>>Haven't a clue. The coils and whatnot in the rail might have a heating
>>feature, or just are generally too warm to stay snowed under for very
>>long (unless it was a lot of snow).
>
> That doesn't sound good.

Not particularly, no. Then again, I never understood why maglev was
such a great idea. Sure, the floating-in-air thing is pretty neat, but
a couple of steel bars in concrete sure is a heck of a lot simpeler.
Possibly simpler than a highway, even. (Altough getting high-speed
tracks right is fairly tricky too.) Simplicity and cheapness are pretty
important for the static part of a long-haul transportation system.


>>There are a couple of low cost operators that I'm told keep their prices
>>low because their fleet is much newer than the incumbments.
>
> That's a comparative statement.

Yes, I should've fixed that. Either comment their prices are lower than
the others or drop the newness comparison. I forgot.


>>> Do you abandon the aircraft, or the airport?
>>
>>In general, you need both. If a restriction on this airport means you
>>can't use this airplane there, well, shift it elsewhere and use another
>>airplane here.
>
> KLM - nearly a third of their fleet is "old".  Lufthansa... looks like
> about 13% (34 of 260), British - 36 of 240, Alitalia... 80 of 150,  well,
> you get the idea. Even with small fleets like these, you soon run out of
> places when you can use them.

Which is sad for the airlines, but not unreasonable. If you want to keep
on running filthy planes you'd best be the USA govt. (B52, anyone?)


>====================
>
>>I'm working in troff, but since recruiters are invariably button pushers
>>that doesn't help him. He had problems copy/pasting the ghostscript
>>generated PDF into word (xpdf's pdftotext also gets strange results),
>>which could have something to do with the tricks I'm using to get the
>>subsection headers to line out
>
> "The good thing about standards is that there are so many to choose
> from."

:-)

Altough in this case the problem some specific text handling thing
within one format. Maybe I should go back to the previous method, or
instruct it to artificially insert an invisible linebreak equivalent
into the output stream.


>>Best of all, I can't really be arsed to care anymore. But that's
>>neither here nor there.
>
> Sounds as if you really need unrecovery.

A big bag'o'cash would do it; I've got enough other things that I want
to get around to tinker and play with. I'm getting a bit sick of wasting
time chasing button pushers to no avail and seeing myself forced to do
other things I really don't care about, other than that they give me the
distinct feeling I'm being screwed, hard.


> But the current model [Me-262 replica] is using "modern" engines (from
> used Lear Jets) because the original engines simply won't meet even 40
> year old standards.

That doesn't surprise me at all, with them being the first functioning
jets and all that. We've come some way in the meantime. :-)


>>A lathe with the plans available is probably faster and cheaper. Come
>>to think of it, just a CD with the CNC plans would make for an
>>interesting airplane kit.
>
> As long as you carry no one who is not a required crew member. The
> aviation authorities take a VERY DIM view of people hacking parts.
> Quality inspections, materials standards, done by licensed people.
> And your insurance carrier is going to be charging HUGE premiums
> (even larger than what they charge for a fully airworthy Goon, which
> couldn't be certified today due to stability problems at aft CG
> conditions, and it's difficulty meeting engine out performance).

Oh, I know that. The glider club had an old tubing-and-cloth glider
where some silly bit had broken (the bits of tubing that attached the
tail-sled, I think), and they had to go to the national glider centre to
get it fixed. Five minute welding job, huge price tag. Also: done quite
sloppily; good enough because the welder was ``certified'', but that
doesn't mean he was much good beyond that. The thing is, the guy who had
it done is both a very experienced glider instructor, and a competent
welder. Not surprising he sourly commented he could've done a much
better job -- but he wasn't allowed to due to missing and hard-to-get
paperwork.

To me, most of the paperwork is make-work. Yes, the principles behind
the requirements, or rather, the reasons, are sound and necessairy, but
the implementation could stand some improvement.


> Actually, there are several companies that are in the business of
> spare parts support. They own parts, and have them in warehouses at
> airports in many countries.  As I said earlier - an Aircraft On
> Ground is loosing money big time every minute it on that status. The
> parts company can be looked at as an insurance scam that's legal.

Then again, the airlines could do that themselves too, only they don't
because they choose not to.


> A passenger is sitting in an airliner using his laptop, and on the
> screen appears:
>
>   Bluetooth: new device found: Airbus A310

Ouch.

> (reported in Risks Digest 23.72 17 Feb 2005 - article dated 13 Feb 2005,
> but doesn't mention the issue of *c't* it originally appeared in.) The
> manufacturers are aware of that problem, as are the aviation certification
> authorities.

Technically, it doesn't have to be a problem, but realistically, it's
a vivid illustration why we end up with lots of little rules that bog
down the industry in hopes of stopping planes falling from the sky: This
is clearly not a good idea, but nobody's seen to regulate it away, yet.
Until then, it won't be fixed.


>>Pretty amazing how even many people with deep technical clue (in
>>electronics, other engineering) often still can't be arsed to learn how
>>to be effective at techical computing. I no longer think that it is
>>purely my unix bias that classifies windows as entirely unsuitable for
>>that.
>
> I'm equally distressed to find the attitude that "the computer says" is
> an absolute answer. Never mind that it's redmondware and has been 0wn3d,
> never mind that the programmer screwed up and didn't (couldn't) test
> everything, or that some id10t operated keyed in the wrong data or
> fumble-fingered something.  "The computer says" as if to say the problem
> is your mistake - the computer being perfect of course.

I fully agree. Though, while it is what they're saying, it could be that
they're saying it because they don't know how to perform those changes
in the system. With a paper form it's easy to take a pencil and scribble
something extra on it, hoping it'll fix things -- despite that some
clerks will get all huffy about soiling their beautiful form like that.
Like the missing ``none of the above'' button on voting machines, other
automated systems have similar problems with implementing support only
for narrow use cases and having insufficient exception handling.

There was a mention of a couple of lawyers (where?) working on legal
underpinings for as-of-yet nonexistent AIs to be given ``person rights''
(IIRC legal rights to take certain actions unsupervised, IE. adult
responsibility). I think that before we go there we'll first have to
recognize *and take* responsibility ourselves.

Also, with humans, there are ways to punish and force to pay damages,
but with computers?


>>While I don't need to be able to build a pencil from scratch to draw a
>>bridge design, I do need to know how to use it.
>
> The pencil, or the bridge  ;-)

Depends on whether you're Wylie E. Coyote or not.


-- 
  j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
  This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
  Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
  consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

On 16 May 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
<slrng2qa3f.26l6.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:

>Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:

>> That doesn't sound good.
>
>Not particularly, no. Then again, I never understood why maglev was
>such a great idea. Sure, the floating-in-air thing is pretty neat, but
>a couple of steel bars in concrete sure is a heck of a lot simpeler.
>Possibly simpler than a highway, even. (Altough getting high-speed
>tracks right is fairly tricky too.) Simplicity and cheapness are pretty
>important for the static part of a long-haul transportation system.

No doubt. Maintenance of the right-of-way has got to be substantially
higher, even compared to existing "high speed" rail lines. But the
mechanical tolerances over short distances are probably a bit easier.

>> KLM - nearly a third of their fleet is "old".  Lufthansa... looks
>> like about 13% (34 of 260), British - 36 of 240, Alitalia... 80 of
>> 150,  well, you get the idea. Even with small fleets like these, you
>> soon run out of places when you can use them.
>
>Which is sad for the airlines, but not unreasonable.

It is if you are the one who owns (or partially owns) the planes.

>If you want to keep on running filthy planes you'd best be the USA govt.
>(B52, anyone?)

While the YB-52A dates from March 1952, the only early model still in
existence is the NB-52B (52-008) that was used by NASA Dryden, and it
was retired in 2004. The only ones left are a handful of B-52H models,
built between 9/1960 and 6/1962, and all of those are turbo-fan engines
(TF-33-P3, comparable to the JT3D-7). These are the same engine used on
some very late models of the C-135, E-3 (AWACS) and E-8 (both of which
are based on the late model 707-320B). Now if you'd like to complain
about old/dirty engines, you might look at the older series KC135, such
as are flown by the US and French Air Forces. (Air forces of 21
countries are still flying 707s or C/KC135s).  Or you could also look at
those four old Fokkers or three DC-10-30CFs being flown by the KLu  ;-)

====================
>> Sounds as if you really need unrecovery.
>
>A big bag'o'cash would do it; I've got enough other things that I want
>to get around to tinker and play with.

Big bags of cash are nice, but they tend not to fall from the sky when
you need them, and the banks and transfer companys don't like the idea
of just leaving them on the street for anyone to pick up.

>I'm getting a bit sick of wasting time chasing button pushers to no
>avail and seeing myself forced to do other things I really don't care
>about, other than that they give me the distinct feeling I'm being
>screwed, hard.

I've seen mention of un-recovery in .gb and .nl, but it does seem
spotty. We're probably going to loose several slots merely because
the money isn't available (I'm in the R&D division) due to the slowing
economy. But that doesn't make me feel any better/worse.

>> As long as you carry no one who is not a required crew member. The
>> aviation authorities take a VERY DIM view of people hacking parts.

>Not surprising he sourly commented he could've done a much better job
> -- but he wasn't allowed to due to missing and hard-to-get paperwork.

That surprises me.  A weld shouldn't depend on paperwork, but on the
skill and materials used.

>To me, most of the paperwork is make-work. Yes, the principles behind
>the requirements, or rather, the reasons, are sound and necessairy, but
>the implementation could stand some improvement.

There have been some pretty severe abuses over the years, and that's
where the paperwork comes in. Something as simple as using non-certified
bolts bought on the sly. Turns out the bolts were intended for
automotive service, rather the aeronautical, AND they were rejects
even in the original service. Something like 30 people died when they
failed in flight, and while the authorities were able to prosecute
the mechanic, the inspector who signed off the repair, and the clown
who bought the bolts, it probably didn't satisfy the families of the
victims. In the past (I dunno) 30-ish years, the government inspectors
have been looking hard at unauthorized or unapproved parts, and have
dealt harshly when they find any.

>> Actually, there are several companies that are in the business of
>> spare parts support. They own parts, and have them in warehouses at
>> airports in many countries.  As I said earlier - an Aircraft On
>> Ground is loosing money big time every minute it on that status. The
>> parts company can be looked at as an insurance scam that's legal.
>
>Then again, the airlines could do that themselves too, only they don't
>because they choose not to.

You also don't have to have insurance - you can pay the total cost out
of pocket if it ever comes to that.   The airlines are looking to save
costs where ever they can, and not owning spares that you may never
use, and not having to store and account/inspect for those parts is
another cost. Parts pools, and spare parts companies allow fewer
spares to be available over a wider geographic area, which means the
spare is available sooner.

>>   Bluetooth: new device found: Airbus A310
>
>Ouch.

Yup
>> The manufacturers are aware of that problem, as are the aviation
>> certification authorities.

>Technically, it doesn't have to be a problem, but realistically, it's
>a vivid illustration why we end up with lots of little rules that bog
>down the industry in hopes of stopping planes falling from the sky: This
>is clearly not a good idea, but nobody's seen to regulate it away, yet.
>Until then, it won't be fixed.

What is slightly scary if you're knowledgeable of networking is that the
whole mess is interconnected - the flight control systems and the
passenger entertainment networks are on a common switched network (to
the best of my understanding). Supposedly, they've investigated flooding
the passenger side and that it has no effect on the flight control side.

>> I'm equally distressed to find the attitude that "the computer says" is
>> an absolute answer.

>I fully agree. Though, while it is what they're saying, it could be
>that they're saying it because they don't know how to perform those
>changes in the system.

or as more likely, they haven't got a clue how the system works. "It's
magic" seems to be a common perception.  Risks Digest (nntp://comp.risks)
covers this fairly often.

>With a paper form it's easy to take a pencil and scribble something
>extra on it, hoping it'll fix things -- despite that some clerks will
>get all huffy about soiling their beautiful form like that.

Or that the data is actually entered by character recognition software
that only looks in specific areas on the form. And that assumes that
the papers get put into the scanner in a timely manner. I wasted 20
minutes on the phone waiting to talk to a human and then spent another
10 minutes while he tried to chase things down. A form I mailed in
last month only took 12 days to get entered. On line delivery of the
form isn't possible, and the "local" office is merely acting as an
agent for the national agency, but that's OK because the actual work
is being done in a regional office 1300 miles away. And we can't do
anything by phone, as we need that signature. Smiling service.  The
surely public officials you guys spoke about last month exist here too.
But here, they've got armed guards at the customer entrance (along with
metal detectors) to protect the staff - I suppose if I tried to get in
with a sword-cane, they'd get suspicious.

>I think that before we go there we'll first have to recognize *and
>take* responsibility ourselves.

But blaming the computer is so _convenient_!!! Everyone understands and
accepts that excuse.   "The reason I was late was that the computer in
my car blue-screened."  (Of course I didn't run out of gas.)

>Also, with humans, there are ways to punish and force to pay damages,
>but with computers?

That will be an interesting exercise. Even today, you have some legal
recourse against the company/government that employees the person who
screwed up, and at the same time, it's often difficult to take legal
actions against that employee.   Ah well, more work for lawyers.

>> The pencil, or the bridge  ;-)
>
>Depends on whether you're Wylie E. Coyote or not.

I have _NEVER_ purchased anything from Acme, but he (or a relative)
lives about 350 meters from my house. I hear them every evening.

        Old guy

On Fri, 16 May 2008 20:22:26 -0500,
Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
> On 16 May 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
><slrng2qa3f.26l6.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:
>>Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
>
>>> KLM - nearly a third of their fleet is "old".  Lufthansa... looks
>>> like about 13% (34 of 260), British - 36 of 240, Alitalia... 80 of
>>> 150,  well, you get the idea. Even with small fleets like these, you
>>> soon run out of places when you can use them.
>>
>>Which is sad for the airlines, but not unreasonable.
>
> It is if you are the one who owns (or partially owns) the planes.

Oh, I don't know. But then I'm from yurp where there's laws that
demand silly things like factory plants need to meet at least these->
regulations. Altough that sort of thing invariably leads to huffing and
puffing it doesn't allow for the really old and extremely inefficient
machinery I'm told is still in use in places in the yoosah.

Yes, it's spendy, but in the long run it might be all that bad. OTOH, we
don't have a market force that promotes efficient machinery and reduces
smog-promoting emissions, so we'll have to invent a flawed substitute by
passing laws.

Looking at that again, I could argue that in yoosah the corporations
are to the government as the unions used to be to the employers in
non-continental yurp.


> Now if you'd like to complain about old/dirty engines, you might look
> at the older series KC135, such as are flown by the US and French
> Air Forces. (Air forces of 21 countries are still flying 707s or
> C/KC135s). Or you could also look at those four old Fokkers or three
> DC-10-30CFs being flown by the KLu ;-)

Alright. :-)


>====================
>>> Sounds as if you really need unrecovery.
>>
>>A big bag'o'cash would do it; I've got enough other things that I want
>>to get around to tinker and play with.
>
> Big bags of cash are nice, but they tend not to fall from the sky when
> you need them, and the banks and transfer companys don't like the idea
> of just leaving them on the street for anyone to pick up.

<histrionic> Such injustice! </>


>>I'm getting a bit sick of wasting time chasing button pushers to no
>>avail and seeing myself forced to do other things I really don't care
>>about, other than that they give me the distinct feeling I'm being
>>screwed, hard.
>
> I've seen mention of un-recovery in .gb and .nl, but it does seem
> spotty. We're probably going to loose several slots merely because
> the money isn't available (I'm in the R&D division) due to the slowing
> economy. But that doesn't make me feel any better/worse.

Ah, but the part beyond chasing wasn't directed there, but more at all
those other moneygrubbing people (gas companies, taxmen). Just got a
fully automated letter informing me they're charging me 2.50 EUR for the
privilege of receiving it. They sent it because at their magic checking
point it hadn't seen other money yet, altough it was underway.

``We noticed that [...]'', it starts, but clearly no human was involved
in sending the letter after that automated system got setup. I hate lies
like that, even supposedly polite lies. At least the taxwoman, in this
case, wrote the letter by herself, even if the message wasn't very nice.


>>> As long as you carry no one who is not a required crew member. The
>>> aviation authorities take a VERY DIM view of people hacking parts.
>
>>Not surprising he sourly commented he could've done a much better job
>> -- but he wasn't allowed to due to missing and hard-to-get paperwork.
>
> That surprises me.  A weld shouldn't depend on paperwork, but on the
> skill and materials used.

It's entirely natural for paperwork-frameworks to cause stuff like that.
Any formalised system runs the risk of documenting the completion of
jumping through a series of hoops more than actual skill acquired.

Maybe I should've clarified that in the example the relater of the story
was a tech of the flying club (so craft are NOT experimental), and
he happened to be a very good to excellent welder. The certified guy
clearly was more certified than skilled (``good enough'' welding skill
and had put in the effort to get the paperwork -- supposedly not as hard
if you work at the institute certifying people).

Basically the same complaint ``we'' have about the various ``industry''
certifications, except that those usually don't involve lives at stake.
Of course the complaint there is also that the courses are crap; I can't
comment on the quality of this certification thing, only that this
particular person produced an ugly and not particularly good weld.


>>To me, most of the paperwork is make-work. Yes, the principles behind
>>the requirements, or rather, the reasons, are sound and necessairy, but
>>the implementation could stand some improvement.
>
> There have been some pretty severe abuses over the years, and that's
> where the paperwork comes in.

Regulators rarely manage to come up with the essence of what to
formalise, so lacking ``better'' they'll settle for ``more''.

Every incident causes screams for ``more'' rules, not ``better'' rules.
Even if it is clear that the existing rules failed to work because the
regulatory bodies supposed to make them work failed miserably. Asleep
at the wheel, bribes, lying about it, etc. etc. Even in enlightened and
formalized-to-the-gills .nl.


> Something like 30 people died when [obviously inferior bolts] failed
> in flight, and while the authorities were able to prosecute the
> mechanic, the inspector who signed off the repair, and the clown who
> bought the bolts,

That and kicking them all out of the trade for life is about the only
recourse you have.


> it probably didn't satisfy the families of the victims.

The victims are dead and all we can do is not even ensure it can never
happen again, but only look at what happened and learn from it, to
reduce the chances of it happening and/or reducing the impact when it
does. We can't bring back the dead and 100% security doesn't exist.

Seeking compensation, a popular pastime everywhere and especially in the
USA, is rightly a civil and not a criminal issue.

Of course, if it happened to mine I'd be hopping mad, and I don't know
what I'd do, but in this discussion I'm preferring to look at it from a
perspective a bit larger than that of the individual.


> In the past (I dunno) 30-ish years, the government inspectors have
> been looking hard at unauthorized or unapproved parts, and have dealt
> harshly when they find any.

But as with the mechanic's skill, the key is that the parts are good
enough. If I do have the skills, materials, and machinery to create the
parts and sufficiently assess whether the produce is good enough, there
should be no problem building the parts on-site, then documenting the
whole thing. But, the system for formally documented airplane-quality
parts does not allow for that use case.

I see this as a failing of the system. In itself that is not a critique
for the need for formally documented high quality parts, just of the
implementation of the system that supposedly does that.


>>> Actually, there are several companies that are in the business of
>>> spare parts support. They own parts, and have them in warehouses at
>>> airports in many countries.  As I said earlier - an Aircraft On
>>> Ground is loosing money big time every minute it on that status. The
>>> parts company can be looked at as an insurance scam that's legal.
>>
>>Then again, the airlines could do that themselves too, only they don't
>>because they choose not to.
>
> You also don't have to have insurance - you can pay the total cost out
> of pocket if it ever comes to that.   The airlines are looking to save
> costs where ever they can, and not owning spares that you may never
> use, and not having to store and account/inspect for those parts is
> another cost. Parts pools, and spare parts companies allow fewer
> spares to be available over a wider geographic area, which means the
> spare is available sooner.

So this niche is a result of airlines seeking to reduce costs, altough
they're paying now more per part when they find out what they need. I
don't think it's a scam; there are reasonable alternatives and the niche
is a result of choices by airlines.


> What is slightly scary if you're knowledgeable of networking is that the
> whole mess is interconnected - the flight control systems and the
> passenger entertainment networks are on a common switched network (to
> the best of my understanding). Supposedly, they've investigated flooding
> the passenger side and that it has no effect on the flight control side.

I think it was Marcus Ranum who came up with a bit of math why the
whole due diligence thing of trying to find vulnerabilities first is a
losing proposition. It's basic chance calculations, really. If out of an
imaginary pool of a million vulnerabilities, your team of a hunderd full
time people can pick out, say, ten thousand vulnerabilities, in a year,
what are the chances the 100 vulnerabilities a lone ebil h4xx0r could
pick out of the same pool in the same year are all covered?

Or, how many does the adversary have to find to have at least a 50%
chance of finding one that your team hasn't already found?

How certain are these aviation engineers they've found everything
possible, not just everything they managed to think of?

The military learned this the hard way: If it's important, Just fscking
Disconnect The Network Already.


>>With a paper form it's easy to take a pencil and scribble something
>>extra on it, hoping it'll fix things -- despite that some clerks will
>>get all huffy about soiling their beautiful form like that.
>
> Or that the data is actually entered by character recognition software
> that only looks in specific areas on the form.

Such a system *properly* should signal inability to cope with an
irregular form, dropping it into the slow path. Fast-pathing using forms
is useful in terms of possible cost and handling time savings, but if
you define your entire process to be the fast path and nothing more,
you're doing your dependents/clients/victims/whatever a disservice.

Something also regularly a topic in RISKS, I believe.


[tale of woe snipped]
> The surely public officials you guys spoke about last month exist
> here too. But here, they've got armed guards at the customer entrance
> (along with metal detectors) to protect the staff - I suppose if I
> tried to get in with a sword-cane, they'd get suspicious.

Bad management taken to entirely new levels. Now with 20% extra security
circus.


>>Also, with humans, there are ways to punish and force to pay damages,
>>but with computers?
>
> That will be an interesting exercise. Even today, you have some legal
> recourse against the company/government that employees the person who
> screwed up, and at the same time, it's often difficult to take legal
> actions against that employee.   Ah well, more work for lawyers.

Which then becomes the usual case of justice for those who can afford
it. I think I'd rather have a more transparant in the easier to correct
mistakes sense (and smaller, cheaper) government than extensive
bureaucratics to, say, provide child support. But the latter is an easy
spend of our money buying some politician a bit of popular support.


-- 
  j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
  This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
  Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
  consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

On 28 May 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
<slrng3qdbl.3ms.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:

>Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:

>Ah, but the part beyond chasing wasn't directed there, but more at all
>those other moneygrubbing people (gas companies, taxmen). Just got a
>fully automated letter informing me they're charging me 2.50 EUR for the
>privilege of receiving it. They sent it because at their magic checking
>point it hadn't seen other money yet, altough it was underway.

We see those kinds of messages occasionally because of our efficient
mail system. Mail from individuals is "First Class", which basically
means standard service. Such mail usually travels by air if going beyond
1000 KM or so.  Mail from companies/governments etc. and the junk mail
that predates spam by a century travels third class - which means
surface, and delivery when there is space in the mail carriers bag.
They will print/mail bills several business days after the old bill
was due, but if their computer doesn't see your payment credited, not
only are you past due, there is a late fee that can easily be 10 percent
of the unpaid balance.

>``We noticed that [...]'', it starts, but clearly no human was involved
>in sending the letter after that automated system got setup. I hate lies
>like that, even supposedly polite lies.

It's boiler-plate (standard messages) run from a cron-job.  What do you
mean there was a change in /usr/share/zoneinfo/ ???

>At least the taxwoman, in this case, wrote the letter by herself, even
>if the message wasn't very nice.

How could you tell?   Hand written?  I don't think I've received a piece
of mail from company/government that was individually written in _years_!

>> That surprises me.  A weld shouldn't depend on paperwork, but on the
>> skill and materials used.
>
>It's entirely natural for paperwork-frameworks to cause stuff like that.
>Any formalised system runs the risk of documenting the completion of
>jumping through a series of hoops more than actual skill acquired.

In the dawn of history, when I was in the Air Farce, after I achieved a
documented skill level, I could sign off the fact that I had completed
some task. But some tasks (dealing with safety mainly) required an
additional sign-off by a more skilled individual who inspected the work
(it says here), and he was then the responsible individual if things went
wrong (even though I'd probably have my ass shredded as well).

>Maybe I should've clarified that in the example the relater of the story
>was a tech of the flying club (so craft are NOT experimental), and
>he happened to be a very good to excellent welder. The certified guy
>clearly was more certified than skilled (``good enough'' welding skill
>and had put in the effort to get the paperwork -- supposedly not as hard
>if you work at the institute certifying people).

Ahh, slightly different story.  I know more about aircraft radios than
the guy who services the radios on the planes I fly (I also have a
commercial radio license), but I can't touch the radio (other than to
operate it) because I don't have the FAA certificate _in_addition_to_
the FCC certificate that I do have.  Curiously, my certificate does
allow me to repair radios on ships and motor vehicles.

>Basically the same complaint ``we'' have about the various ``industry''
>certifications, except that those usually don't involve lives at stake.
>Of course the complaint there is also that the courses are crap; I can't
>comment on the quality of this certification thing, only that this
>particular person produced an ugly and not particularly good weld.

That's also well known, though not always true.  Some certifications
have the Paper CNA (Novell) reputation, while others are quite difficult
to pass. An example would be am airline pilot, who effectively has to
re-pass the certification tests twice a year.

>Every incident causes screams for ``more'' rules, not ``better'' rules.
>Even if it is clear that the existing rules failed to work because the
>regulatory bodies supposed to make them work failed miserably.

Oh, you heard about three of our (US domestic) air carriers recent
grounding of a substantial part of their fleets while they re-inspected
the birds for Airworthiness Directives. Up-thread, we spoke about the
scheduling problems you have when one aircraft breaks - imagine the
magnitude when it's around five _hundred_ aircraft out of service.

>Asleep at the wheel, bribes, lying about it, etc. etc. Even in
>enlightened and formalized-to-the-gills .nl.

Asleep at the wheel, and lying about it are not uncommon anywhere.
Bribes - they're a little less common because of undercover 'sting'
operations. Not to say it doesn't happen, just that if you're caught,
they'll crucify you with salt encrusted nails..

>> the authorities were able to prosecute the mechanic, the inspector
>> who signed off the repair, and the clown who bought the bolts,
>
>That and kicking them all out of the trade for life is about the only
>recourse you have.

That's a given. They'll be flipping burgers (or similar minimal pay
job), because no one it going to touch 'em.

>> In the past (I dunno) 30-ish years, the government inspectors have
>> been looking hard at unauthorized or unapproved parts, and have dealt
>> harshly when they find any.
>
>But as with the mechanic's skill, the key is that the parts are good
>enough. If I do have the skills, materials, and machinery to create the
>parts and sufficiently assess whether the produce is good enough, there
>should be no problem building the parts on-site, then documenting the
>whole thing. But, the system for formally documented airplane-quality
>parts does not allow for that use case.

There was a recent incident where a metal refiner failed to follow the
required heat treatment for billets that have been fabricated into
parts of the turbine in certain jet engines. The paperwork allowed
people to figure out where the material went (which serial numbers).
Further testing resulted in allowing the parts to remain in those
engines, EXCEPT that the part has to be replaced if the engine is
upgraded, or if the engine is opened for any reason, AND the scheduled
service life has been cut in half.

[spare parts companies]

>So this niche is a result of airlines seeking to reduce costs, altough
>they're paying now more per part when they find out what they need. I
>don't think it's a scam; there are reasonable alternatives and the niche
>is a result of choices by airlines.

It's an economic decision.  Yeah, they're going to pay a premium if they
need the part, but they're betting that they won't need it, and that the
annual "membership fees" are less than the cost of having to buy the
spares.  On the other side, those spare parts companies aren't going out
of business either.

>Bad management taken to entirely new levels. Now with 20% extra security
>circus.

employing "certified" security guards - some of which are ugly enough
to scare away the customers - don't know how they'd do against real
bad guys.

        Old guy

On Wed, 28 May 2008 19:52:09 -0500,
Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
> On 28 May 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
><slrng3qdbl.3ms.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:
>>Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
>
>>At least the taxwoman, in this case, wrote the letter by herself, even
>>if the message wasn't very nice.
>
> How could you tell?   Hand written?  I don't think I've received a piece
> of mail from company/government that was individually written in _years_!

The first note I got, right after xmas, was a form with some handwritten
text scribbled around the boilerplate. Called her around the start of
the year, got until the end of this month to fix the paperwork. Before
last week I found I wouldn't be meeting that deadline, so faxed a note
I'd be late. Got a not-very-friendly letter back that I have one month
more before she'll slap fines on the whole thing, and that there'll be
no more extentions.

I didn't want to deal with too much at the same time (dealing with the
fallout from $lastjob, what this is about, still gives me conniptions,
as did getting repeated eviction notices, both of them groundless as it
turns out) but the lawsuit took a lot longer than expected.


>>Every incident causes screams for ``more'' rules, not ``better'' rules.
>>Even if it is clear that the existing rules failed to work because the
>>regulatory bodies supposed to make them work failed miserably.
>
> Oh, you heard about three of our (US domestic) air carriers recent
> grounding of a substantial part of their fleets while they re-inspected
> the birds for Airworthiness Directives. Up-thread, we spoke about the
> scheduling problems you have when one aircraft breaks - imagine the
> magnitude when it's around five _hundred_ aircraft out of service.

Heard something about it, yes. That's probably a point where you just
give up and start over with the planning. Though that seems to be a case
where the inspectors caught something and are busily fixing it.

I may have mentioned a couple scandals in .nl where there were blatant
violations in public places: A stack(!) of three cafes on top of
each other stuffed well beyond the allowance with people and clearly
inadequate emergency exits clogged into complete uselessness, then a
fire, and unrelatedly, the exploding of a fireworks trader which just
happened to sit right in the middle of a suburb (term? ``woonwijk'').

In both cases many rules were violated and the people who were supposed
to care for them (sundry bureaucrats, the firemen) had completely failed
their preventive and oversight duties.

The result? More rules, and lots of enforcing of everything. This caused
plenty extra costs everywhere, even with the venues that already were up
to spec and careful to keep clean.

I used to work in such a place, and we (production people, the people
that contributed to making evenings out work for the customers), did
have clear standing instructions and a ``corporate culture'' to double
check things like clear emergency routes before the evening starts, and
keep an eye on it during the evening.

To add insult to injury, just now it emerged that the firemen did have
emergency planning ready for the second location contrary to what they
claimed earlier, but that they completely failed to use it.


Of course, knee-jerking is what a politician does best, but one of the
results is that costs for events are spiraling out of control. This is
clearly visible in ticket prices, and even more clear if you talk to
any organizer. Being an organizer must be really painful now.

I was at WTH (and HAL, HIP, and HEU), and doing FHQ-y things and talking
to people dug up interesting.cn info. Those empty fields over there? Oh,
they're reserved for riot helicopters. Why you'd need those for a week
long event with 2800-odd peaceful geeks[1] is beyond me, but rules are
rules. The police had a permanent post[2] and the organisation gets to
pay for that too, but assessing manpower needed isn't in their hands.
Despite doubling the ticket prices, the event ran at a loss.

WTH++, if it happens, will not be in .nl. Shows how progressive we are.


I heard something about burning man (which is otherwise completely
different) has somewhat similar problems.


>>> the authorities were able to prosecute the mechanic, the inspector
>>> who signed off the repair, and the clown who bought the bolts,
>>
>>That and kicking them all out of the trade for life is about the only
>>recourse you have.
>
> That's a given. They'll be flipping burgers (or similar minimal pay
> job), because no one it going to touch 'em.

Unless you get paid the big bucks, then you can just sneak out.

There was a crash on (the military part of) EHEH a while back, and
in the aftermath a couple of military airport bigwigs claimed they
were free of blame because they ``had delegated'' it. If I had been in
charge I'd've personally booted and blackballed them, then offered my
resignation, because I'd be ashamed to serve with such idiots.

You can delegate tasks, but not responsibility.


> There was a recent incident where a metal refiner failed to follow the
> required heat treatment for billets that have been fabricated into
> parts of the turbine in certain jet engines. The paperwork allowed
> people to figure out where the material went (which serial numbers).
> Further testing resulted in allowing the parts to remain in those
> engines, EXCEPT that the part has to be replaced if the engine is
> upgraded, or if the engine is opened for any reason, AND the scheduled
> service life has been cut in half.

Sounds like a fair resolution. It's the paperwork that made that
possible, of course, but that doesn't mean that more paperwork is
necessairily better. Settling on /just the right amount/ isn't easy,
though. I think we should devote more effort on finding the balance.


>>Bad management taken to entirely new levels. Now with 20% extra security
>>circus.
>
> employing "certified" security guards - some of which are ugly enough
> to scare away the customers - don't know how they'd do against real
> bad guys.

You never know that unless you tried, which is exactly the problem. That,
and wild speculation on who the adversary is and what he'll look like.

So far, all it does is make the companies delivering to the circus
excellent money. Oh, and cost us our privacy and other civil rights.


[1] Who brought their own gear to the camping field and thus have things
    to lose. Heck, they're in the habit of recruiting security personnel
    from the paying visitors and that works well.
[2] ISTR fifty or so people got rotated through in the four days of
    official event. Practically a paid vacation for them. Opportunity to
    walk around as if they're important and ask nosy questions. Then,
    there, they were otherwise completely irrelevant, if expensively so.

-- 
  j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
  This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
  Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
  consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

On 29 May 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
<slrng3tjbo.886.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:

>Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:

>> How could you tell?   Hand written?  I don't think I've received a piece
>> of mail from company/government that was individually written in _years_!
>
>The first note I got, right after xmas, was a form with some handwritten
>text scribbled around the boilerplate. Called her around the start of
>the year, got until the end of this month to fix the paperwork. Before
>last week I found I wouldn't be meeting that deadline, so faxed a note
>I'd be late. Got a not-very-friendly letter back that I have one month
>more before she'll slap fines on the whole thing, and that there'll be
>no more extentions.

I'm not sure I've even seen scribbled text added. About the most
indication of a human I've seen in the past couple of years has been
sticky notes on a piece of paper with an arrow on them, pointing out
that I should sign the document here ---->

>I didn't want to deal with too much at the same time (dealing with the
>fallout from $lastjob, what this is about, still gives me conniptions,
>as did getting repeated eviction notices, both of them groundless as it
>turns out) but the lawsuit took a lot longer than expected.

Sounds as if the shit storm is ending - now all you need is unrecovery?

>> Oh, you heard about three of our (US domestic) air carriers recent
>> grounding of a substantial part of their fleets while they re-inspected
>> the birds for Airworthiness Directives. Up-thread, we spoke about the
>> scheduling problems you have when one aircraft breaks - imagine the
>> magnitude when it's around five _hundred_ aircraft out of service.
>
>Heard something about it, yes. That's probably a point where you just
>give up and start over with the planning.

They were hoping it was only for a day - turned out to be several, but
reworking the schedule is several weeks work even assuming a decent
computer and ignoring the problem of getting the word to customers.

> Though that seems to be a case where the inspectors caught something
>and are busily fixing it.

There was a comment floating around Washington that the FAA inspectors
wanted to get to see what was going on, but couldn't because the flights
had been canceled.   Not exactly true, but close enough.  And a last
note on this, one carrier (AA) announced it will be reducing the number
of flights by 15%, eliminating 40 of the 35-60 seat regional jets, and
"up to" 45 of the ~650 aircraft in their main line fleet (mainly MD-80s
of which they have more than 300 ranging between 14 and 23 years old).
Credit Suisse is predicting similar reductions in Europe with ~10% of
the short-haul fleet being sold over the next year.

>I may have mentioned a couple scandals in .nl where there were blatant
>violations in public places: A stack(!) of three cafes on top of
>each other stuffed well beyond the allowance with people and clearly
>inadequate emergency exits clogged into complete uselessness, then a
>fire, and unrelatedly, the exploding of a fireworks trader which just
>happened to sit right in the middle of a suburb (term? ``woonwijk'').

This morning I wake up to the (radio) news that a construction crane
had collapsed in New York killing 2 - _and_ that the site had been
cited by safety inspectors for some 20 violations this year alone.

>In both cases many rules were violated and the people who were supposed
>to care for them (sundry bureaucrats, the firemen) had completely failed
>their preventive and oversight duties.

I don't know if it's an advantage or not - there are usually legal or
civil consequences of failing to follow the rules - both for the
industry and the bureaucrats.  Last year, we had a fire at a plant
that makes the gas-generators (pyrotechnic devices) for automotive
air-bag systems. The company caught hell, even though that had followed
the rules - and local and state fire officials caught it for failing
to follow/enforce the principle of the law, not just the actual written
requirements. The national authorities _also_ investigated (worker
safety issues) and concluded nothing needed changing, but at least two
local and state officials have had their careers damaged anyway.

>Of course, knee-jerking is what a politician does best,

Remember, you have to _appear_ to be doing something.  Useful isn't a
requirement.

>but one of the results is that costs for events are spiraling out of
>control. This is clearly visible in ticket prices, and even more clear
>if you talk to any organizer. Being an organizer must be really painful
>now.

This has been discussed in the monastery, but it's true everywhere, not
just in events.

        Old guy

On Fri, 30 May 2008 14:25:35 -0500,
Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
>
> Sounds as if the shit storm is ending - now all you need is unrecovery?

There, perhaps, though I'm sure they're looking for more backhanded ways
to annoy me. We'll see what's next. And of course the next thing with a
rather tight deadline, forcing me to look back on things I'd much rather
not looked back on, nevermind the monetary cost (that I can't afford).
Whatever happens I will be stuck paying off for a while.

I do need some source of income, yes. I don't care much where, either,
modulo a few places I'd rather avoid.

My current residence isn't great and I won't shed tears over leaving,
though the city isn't bad. And if I have the chance to extract a pound
of flesh from the new owners I won't refrain from doing so. Not that I
expect to find myself in that position. At least they found themselves
thorougly disagreed with by the judges regarding their arguments. If
anything it'll likely make them more hateful to deal with, though.


> There was a comment floating around Washington that the FAA inspectors
> wanted to get to see what was going on, but couldn't because the flights
> had been canceled.   Not exactly true, but close enough.

Laws of physics, cap'n.


> And a last note on this, one carrier (AA) announced it will be
> reducing the number of flights by 15%, eliminating 40 of the 35-60
> seat regional jets, and "up to" 45 of the ~650 aircraft in their main
> line fleet (mainly MD-80s of which they have more than 300 ranging
> between 14 and 23 years old). Credit Suisse is predicting similar
> reductions in Europe with ~10% of the short-haul fleet being sold over
> the next year.

Sounds like a nice opportunity to snap up a cheap, if somewhat
oversized, corporate jet. And I'd expect to see the railways (where
available) taking up the slack.


> The company caught hell, even though that had followed the rules

That is a poor show.


> - and local and state fire officials caught it for failing to
> follow/enforce the principle of the law, not just the actual written
> requirements.

What, expect the drones to *think* now? Who do they think they are,
playing _a few good men_ or something?


> The national authorities _also_ investigated (worker safety issues)
> and concluded nothing needed changing, but at least two local and
> state officials have had their careers damaged anyway.

It really is hard to understand that despite all the rules, accidents
can and will happen.


Anyway, time to wind up this thread. :-)


-- 
  j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
  This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
  Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
  consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

On 30 May 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
<slrng40p9k.qqb.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:

>Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:

>> Sounds as if the shit storm is ending - now all you need is unrecovery?
>
>There, perhaps, though I'm sure they're looking for more backhanded ways
>to annoy me. We'll see what's next. And of course the next thing with a
>rather tight deadline, forcing me to look back on things I'd much rather
>not looked back on, nevermind the monetary cost (that I can't afford).

Understand that, but one thing at a time (if possible).

>I do need some source of income, yes. I don't care much where, either,
>modulo a few places I'd rather avoid.

Any news from that pimp?

>My current residence isn't great and I won't shed tears over leaving,
>though the city isn't bad. And if I have the chance to extract a pound
>of flesh from the new owners I won't refrain from doing so. Not that I
>expect to find myself in that position. At least they found themselves
>thorougly disagreed with by the judges regarding their arguments. If
>anything it'll likely make them more hateful to deal with, though.

Which is probably a good reason to bail.

>Sounds like a nice opportunity to snap up a cheap, if somewhat
>oversized, corporate jet.

The older stuff, like the MD-80s, are _relatively_ inexpensive, but the
'per hour' cost is significantly higher. I suspect many of them will be
reduced to scrap and recycled.

>And I'd expect to see the railways (where available) taking up the
>slack.

I'm supposed to be going to a 3 day meeting next weekend in Las Vegas.
The choice for me is two airlines ("one hour flight" of 410 KM, to
which you add 2 hours in the airports) or driving 5 1/2 hours. I don't
believe there is bus or train service. Were the trains still running,
the trip would take more than a day, as there never was direct service.

>It really is hard to understand that despite all the rules, accidents
>can and will happen.

What can I say?

>Anyway, time to wind up this thread. :-)

Good luck with the next endeavor.

        Old guy

On Fri, 30 May 2008 19:51:31 -0500,
Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
>
> Any news from that pimp?

As it happens, I got a call yesterday from some girl with the same
organisation; he seems to be on vacation, so she asked all sorts of
questions. I told her she could send out my details to their tentacles
in the rest of Europe too, which she promised she would take up with
her supervisor, but that she could only keep my details for the next 3
months due to privacy issues. After that, well, I'll contact them if I
see something interesting.


[bloody-minded landlords]
> Which is probably a good reason to bail.

True. I need an opportunity, though. Just bailing now probably won't do
me any good. No income means a harder time to find another place to rent.


>>And I'd expect to see the railways (where available) taking up the
>>slack.
>
> I'm supposed to be going to a 3 day meeting next weekend in Las Vegas.
> The choice for me is two airlines ("one hour flight" of 410 KM, to
> which you add 2 hours in the airports)

Yay for security circus. But we mentioned that already.


> or driving 5 1/2 hours. I don't believe there is bus or train service.
> Were the trains still running, the trip would take more than a day, as
> there never was direct service.

Ouch. Just made a 6.5hr train trip (plus assorted 2.5 hr rides, then
4-odd hours back; family+friends tour). Flying would be somewhat faster,
but much more expensive. Certain trains offer early booking reductions
too, btw. And I didn't need to give all sorts of personal details just
to buy the ticket. Didn't get frisked either (yet, bloody british).

A quick look on the greyhound site shows a 8hr phoenix.az -> lv.nv direct
trip next friday, and 11 to 12.5 hour trips with one transfer. Of course,
that might be from the wrong place to the wrong end of town for you.

Traveling always tires me out, no matter what the method. Busses more
so than trains or airplanes. But at least busses are available.

On a completely unrelated note: Across-the-pond cruises by airship.


> Good luck with the next endeavor.

Thanks. And thank you for lending me your ear, of course. :-)


-- 
  j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
  This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
  Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
  consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

On 31 May 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
<slrng42659.sn1.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:

>As it happens, I got a call yesterday from some girl with the same
>organisation; he seems to be on vacation, so she asked all sorts of
>questions. I told her she could send out my details to their tentacles
>in the rest of Europe too, which she promised she would take up with
>her supervisor, but that she could only keep my details for the next 3
>months due to privacy issues.

Is this an EU requirement, or have pimps heard that honesty is useful?
This almost sounds as if they aren't working that hard otherwise. You
didn't sign an exclusive agreement, so you are free to try another.

>[bloody-minded landlords]
>> Which is probably a good reason to bail.
>
>True. I need an opportunity, though. Just bailing now probably won't do
>me any good.

Depends on what the legal climate is regarding harassment, but it's
usually an idea to plan on leaving when you are forced to get them
LARTed. But this is true everywhere.

>  Just made a 6.5hr train trip (plus assorted 2.5 hr rides, then
>4-odd hours back; family+friends tour). Flying would be somewhat faster,
>but much more expensive. Certain trains offer early booking reductions
>too, btw. And I didn't need to give all sorts of personal details just
>to buy the ticket. Didn't get frisked either (yet, bloody british).

With the security systems they're installing now, there's no need of
frisking the traveler, as the new crop of millimeter wave rigs give
a see-through view.  The operator is located out of sight, so this
won't embarrass anyone - surely.

>On a completely unrelated note: Across-the-pond cruises by airship.

Well, the Hindenburg was making the trip in ~70 hours. We have 'blimps'
from several companies mainly used to provide overhead television
pictures at sporting events. One evening several years ago, I'm
returning from a short flight, call the tower, and eventually I'm
number two on the approach behind the Goodyear Blimp which is shooting
touch-and-goes while waiting for the event (and television coverage) to
start.    There has been a lot of talk over the years about using
airships for transport - there's a company in Southern California that
is trying to get a new design certified. "120 Knots, 5740 KM range,
operating to 12000 feet, 64 meters long, _huge_ cabin area of 500
square _meters_ (5400 sq ft) for 28 passengers"  The manufacturer hopes
to have it flying within 3 years and certified by mid-2011. Interesting
concept of varying the buoyancy by compressing/storing/decompressing the
helium gas as needed.  (Worldwide Aeros - model ML866)

        Old guy

On Sat, 31 May 2008 20:31:39 -0500,
Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
>
> Is this an EU requirement, or have pimps heard that honesty is useful?

It is a requirement *I* put in. I see I worded it wrong. I said:

- Please pass `me' on to your presences in other European countries.
- Please delete my details after three months.

I probably should've made explicit that all copies in all countries need
to be marked ``delete on $date'', but, well. This concept is probably
hard enough already. We'll see whether they come up with something and
then if it'll be usable.


> With the security systems they're installing now, there's no need of
> frisking the traveler, as the new crop of millimeter wave rigs give
> a see-through view.  The operator is located out of sight, so this
> won't embarrass anyone - surely.

Surely.


>>On a completely unrelated note: Across-the-pond cruises by airship.
>
> Well, the Hindenburg was making the trip in ~70 hours. [...] There has
> been a lot of talk over the years about using airships for transport -

There's cargolifter(.com) who're based in Berlin who say they're working
on using airships for cargo transport. I'm not sure about their progress.


> there's a company in Southern California that is trying to get a new
> design certified. "120 Knots, 5740 KM range, operating to 12000 feet,
> 64 meters long, _huge_ cabin area of 500 square _meters_ (5400 sq ft)
> for 28 passengers" The manufacturer hopes to have it flying within
> 3 years and certified by mid-2011. Interesting concept of varying
> the buoyancy by compressing/storing/decompressing the helium gas as
> needed. (Worldwide Aeros - model ML866)

That part of their website is completely in flash so I can't access it.

Looks like the 120kn[1] is top speed, not cruise speed. Still, 48h for
crossing the atlantic would be acceptable. The space numbers sound
impressive, but they don't really surprise me: The thing with airships
is that space is relatively cheap, though weight (as usual) isn't.

It'll be an expensive toy for people who have too much money anyway,
unless someone manages to, say start an airship cruise company. I wonder
what sort of prices cruises would need to cost. Airships should be
relatively fuel efficient, though travel time is longer.


[1] The ``official'' abbreviation, says wikipedia.

-- 
  j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
  This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
  Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
  consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

On 1 Jun 2008 10:46:27 GMT, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
<slrng44vg3.vs2.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:

>Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
>
>> Is this an EU requirement, or have pimps heard that honesty is useful?
>
>It is a requirement *I* put in. I see I worded it wrong. I said:
>
>- Please pass `me' on to your presences in other European countries.
>- Please delete my details after three months.

Ah, OK - I know why this would be a requirement. I've seen all to many
complaints about pimps holding data far beyond the expected life, and
worse, submitting it to prospective employers (often to show that they
have a large selection of candidates who will be just perfect for any
opening.

>I probably should've made explicit that all copies in all countries need
>to be marked ``delete on $date'', but, well. This concept is probably
>hard enough already. We'll see whether they come up with something and
>then if it'll be usable.

I'm still a bit concerned that something usable hasn't been turned up
yet.  Is the market really that slow?  I'm seeing ups and downs here,
with some companies cutting back (like us), and others doing significant
hiring.  The balance is marginally positive despite soaring prices.

========================

>> Well, the Hindenburg was making the trip in ~70 hours. [...] There has
>> been a lot of talk over the years about using airships for transport -
>
>There's cargolifter(.com) who're based in Berlin who say they're working
>on using airships for cargo transport. I'm not sure about their progress.

There's also a company in the UK, but I haven't seen anything on either
in the trade magazines lately.

>> (Worldwide Aeros - model ML866)
>
>That part of their website is completely in flash so I can't access it.

I didn't try - I had seen the system reported in a trade mag, the
article more aimed at how they were coping with the current defense
budget (like the Internet, something else from DARPA).

>Looks like the 120kn[1] is top speed, not cruise speed. Still, 48h for
>crossing the atlantic would be acceptable.

I'd agree - though not sure how it would handle winter crossings. The
1930s airships tended to avoid the winter season, just as cruise ships
do today.  And I think Hindenburg had a top speed of 73 knots.

>The space numbers sound impressive, but they don't really surprise me:
>The thing with airships is that space is relatively cheap, though
>weight (as usual) isn't.

Like the aluminum piano on the Hindenburg.

>It'll be an expensive toy for people who have too much money anyway,
>unless someone manages to, say start an airship cruise company. I
>wonder what sort of prices cruises would need to cost. Airships should
>be relatively fuel efficient, though travel time is longer.

I dunno - existing cruise ships come in all sizes, from the 80000 ton
liners down to little more than canal boats.  Quick scan through a
general readership magazine (Smithsonian) shows wind-jammers with 20
cabins (cruisearabella.com), up to 100 guests on smaller ships
(www.accl-smallships.com) (www.americancruiselines.com) - don't bother
with the web-sites, as they're full of stuff trying to attract customers.
Again, you're paying for the small size. I've seen ads for cruises on
various European rivers, as well as archipelagoes like the Greek islands
(or the fjords of Norway), the smaller islands of the Caribbean, and
similar. The Cunard White Star Line had a slogan "Getting There Is Half
the Fun." but that was originally for the trans-pond liners when they
were competing with the DC-4s taking 20 hours for the trip including
stops at Gander or Goose Bay, and Shannon or Prestwick, usually below
12000 feet right _in_ the weather. If you're talking the same _type_ of
"vehicle" (a 50 passenger DC-4 is no comparison to the ships of Cunard
or Holland-America lines), size usually scales the costs, with bigger
costing less per seat/cabin/what-ever.  My experience with cruises is
that the smaller the better, but I've also had the worst experience
on a small (~35 guests) boat.

        Old guy

On Sun, 01 Jun 2008 19:42:07 -0500,
Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
>
> I'm still a bit concerned that something usable hasn't been turned up
> yet.  Is the market really that slow?  I'm seeing ups and downs here,
> with some companies cutting back (like us), and others doing significant
> hiring.  The balance is marginally positive despite soaring prices.

It may be me, still twitching.

I have a stack of sent emails and letters (and now even one fax),
but very few reactions. If it isn't a form-letter of rejection, it's
fairly enthousiastic, so I'm unsure where the problem lies. Except that
non-recruiter reactions tend to be better. In fact, the best results I
get with competent tech people who've haven't seen my CV. I'm not sure
how I could improve my CV on that, but, well.

I've also heard comments that this city is a bit of a blackhole.


One of the factors in having a good programming gig fall through was that
the initial contact was over IRC, just like the job that saw me burn out.
There were a couple of other factors, of course (being high on adrenaline
during negotiations because I just got the first eviction notice for one).


>========================
>
> I'd agree - though not sure how it would handle winter crossings. The
> 1930s airships tended to avoid the winter season, just as cruise ships
> do today.  And I think Hindenburg had a top speed of 73 knots.

135 km/h or 84mile/h -- presumably 1609-odd metre miles -- so 73kn, yes.
Cruise speed given as 125km/h (78mile/h, 67kn)


>>The space numbers sound impressive, but they don't really surprise me:
>>The thing with airships is that space is relatively cheap, though
>>weight (as usual) isn't.
>
> Like the aluminum piano on the Hindenburg.

Which was removed later for weight reasons. Or maybe just because
the gimmick had been done, but nobody'll tell you that. Altough the
last flight had 36 passengers and 61 crew(!), though with 21 crew for
training. On a reported passenger capacity of 72, 40 crew is still a
lot. Nowadays they'd probably stuff in 10 crew worth of automation
hardware and run with another 10 or so.

The numbers I didn't make up are courtesy wikipedia, though some are
easily findable elsewhere too.


>>It'll be an expensive toy for people who have too much money anyway,
>>unless someone manages to, say start an airship cruise company. I
>>wonder what sort of prices cruises would need to cost. Airships should
>>be relatively fuel efficient, though travel time is longer.
>
> I dunno - existing cruise ships come in all sizes, from the 80000 ton
> liners down to little more than canal boats. 
[examples snipped]
> If you're talking the same _type_ of "vehicle" (a 50 passenger
> DC-4 is no comparison to the ships of Cunard or Holland-America
> lines),

Apropos nothing, ISTR seeing (probably on discovery) a converted
catalina used for goofing around the amazon region. Comfy seats
and plexiglas bubbles instead of gun turrets.


> size usually scales the costs, with bigger costing less per
> seat/cabin/what-ever.

So this 28 passenger thing is still going to be on the expensive side,
until it racks up enough reputation to fund a bigger version, then?


> My experience with cruises is that the smaller the better, but I've
> also had the worst experience on a small (~35 guests) boat.

Sort-of same difference between big companies (tightly regulated
mediocrity all the way) and small ones (good service and agreeable
people, or miss big and wonder how they stay in business).


-- 
  j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
  This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
  Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
  consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

On 2 Jun 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
<slrng47965.13p6.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:

>Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:

>> I'm still a bit concerned that something usable hasn't been turned up
>> yet.  Is the market really that slow?  I'm seeing ups and downs here,
>> with some companies cutting back (like us), and others doing significant
>> hiring.  The balance is marginally positive despite soaring prices.
>
>It may be me, still twitching.

It's quite varied here. The noon business report on the local radio
mentions a company I drive past in my commute deciding to cut 290 heads
this week.  I did notice the prominent sign advertising job openings at
their site was gone this morning.

>I have a stack of sent emails and letters (and now even one fax),
>but very few reactions. If it isn't a form-letter of rejection, it's
>fairly enthousiastic, so I'm unsure where the problem lies.

But do those "good" replies lead anywhere?   Even just a request for the
CV?

>Except that non-recruiter reactions tend to be better. In fact, the
>best results I get with competent tech people who've haven't seen my CV.
>I'm not sure how I could improve my CV on that, but, well.

Are they rejecting / black-holing after seeing the CV?   Is there
_any_ feedback?  One piece of advice is to find a HR type who is in
the same _type_ of business, and after making it plain that you are
not asking them for a job, ask them to critique the CV.  This might
also be something to work through the alumni organization at your uni.

>I've also heard comments that this city is a bit of a blackhole.

Can't say - I don't think you've identified the town.

>One of the factors in having a good programming gig fall through was
>that the initial contact was over IRC, just like the job that saw me
>burn out. There were a couple of other factors, of course (being high
>on adrenaline during negotiations because I just got the first eviction
>notice for one).

That's best handled by having a local personal friend you can talk with.
Personal attitude is important too. You're not going to come across best
when you know the avalanche is going to hit momentarily. You want to be
attentive, and interested in the job, but desperation should never show,
even if that truck is going to hit you tomorrow. For the interviewer,
this is a distraction that scores down any good points you have made.
It also causes you to miss signs that maybe this places isn't the best
solution - even a TEMPORARY one.  I imagine you know this all to well.

========================

>> I think Hindenburg had a top speed of 73 knots.
>
>135 km/h or 84mile/h -- presumably 1609-odd metre miles -- so 73kn, yes.
>Cruise speed given as 125km/h (78mile/h, 67kn)

Yeah, but what are the winds like?  In the 40s to mid-50s, no one made
long journies by taking off, pointing the nose at the destination, and
flying straight to there. Like the old story about uphill both ways, in
the snow, without shoes, etc., it was rare not to see some adverse
winds even when flying with the prevailing winds. We called it "Pressure
Pattern" flying, where you sig-zagged around the barometric highs and
lows, in an effort to have a tail wind as much as possible.  The skies
are to crowded today for this to work - it's now desired for you to be
within 12 miles of your assigned course worst case, and withing 100 feet
of the assigned altitude.  If you can do that, you get the more desirable
routes. If you can't, you may wind up being assigned a course that is out
of the way, so you won't be a hazard to others.

[aluminum piano]

>Which was removed later for weight reasons. Or maybe just because
>the gimmick had been done, but nobody'll tell you that.

It was 60 kilos, and as you mentioned weight is a premium.

>Altough the last flight had 36 passengers and 61 crew(!), though with
>21 crew for training. On a reported passenger capacity of 72, 40 crew
>is still a lot. Nowadays they'd probably stuff in 10 crew worth of
>automation hardware and run with another 10 or so.

The Graf Zeppelin II (LZ-130) was under construction, and trained crew
don't grow on trees.  But there are regulations about minimum crew
numbers. A 747 or A-380 needs just two people in the front, but there
must be no less that one cabin crew for every 50 passengers (meaning
11 required for 505 passengers), and airlines routinely assign more
to try to improve some aspects of the cabin service (except back in
steerage). It's a safety issue. There are also duty time limitations,
which is why I have to laugh at the 15 hour flights like SIN/NYC or
SYD/LON which means lots of extra crew members on board.   The law
didn't exist back in the 1930s, but the manufacturer has to demonstrate
evacuating the aircraft in the dark, using a random set of half of the
exits a and untrained passengers representative of the flying public
in 90 seconds ABSOLUTE MAX. Get Out, Get Out, Get Out! No stampede, no
panic, but they will throw you out if they have to.   We don't see it
demonstrated in real life that often, but it does happen - like the
incident at Heathrow earlier this year.

>Apropos nothing, ISTR seeing (probably on discovery) a converted
>catalina used for goofing around the amazon region. Comfy seats
>and plexiglas bubbles instead of gun turrets.

In a way that doesn't surprise me, even though the Catalina was a real
dog of an aircraft (and not to great in moderate seas either).  An
outfit called Island Airways was flying 1930s Ford Tri-Motors (similar
to the Fokker F VIIb-3m from the late 1920s - smaller than the Junkers
JU-52/3m) at the West end of Lake Erie until recently, and there used
to be a sightseeing service out of Oakland California flying a pre-war
DC-3 fitted with large windows.

>So this 28 passenger thing is still going to be on the expensive side,
>until it racks up enough reputation to fund a bigger version, then?

I dunno - it may be enough of an attraction on it's own.

        Old guy

On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 19:51:17 -0500,
Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
> On 2 Jun 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
><slrng47965.13p6.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:
>
>>I have a stack of sent emails and letters (and now even one fax),
>>but very few reactions. If it isn't a form-letter of rejection, it's
>>fairly enthousiastic, so I'm unsure where the problem lies.
>
> But do those "good" replies lead anywhere?   Even just a request for the
> CV?

On occasion. Up to face-to-face interviews (though none of those had
recruiters involved anywhere), some abortive negotiation, even verbal
acceptance once or twice, but so far no actual job.

Some of it indubitably my fault, some of it less so.


>>Except that non-recruiter reactions tend to be better. In fact, the
>>best results I get with competent tech people who've haven't seen my CV.
>>I'm not sure how I could improve my CV on that, but, well.
>
> Are they rejecting / black-holing after seeing the CV?   Is there
> _any_ feedback?

Especially with recruiters, if I get anything it's a lot of enthousiasm
right until they have me in their database, then nothing.


>========================
>
>>> I think Hindenburg had a top speed of 73 knots.
>>
>>135 km/h or 84mile/h -- presumably 1609-odd metre miles -- so 73kn, yes.
>>Cruise speed given as 125km/h (78mile/h, 67kn)
>
> Yeah, but what are the winds like?
[snip: more about winds]

That is a good point, of course. Also: jet stream.

You mentioned it took the Hindenburg 70 hours, so I speculatively
adjusted that figure down for this new toy based on the difference in
speed. I think I used max and cruise speeds of 220km/h and +/- 200km/h.
I made a couple guesses and settled on a convenient figure. Not much
hard math in there. :-)

On another note, 200km/h, comfy, and reasonably straight lines; with
the right price it'd be an interesting competitor to greyhound lines.
Probably easier to add intermediate stops than jetplane run lines, too.

In Europe maybe less so, as at least Germany has very reasonable high
speed long distance rail service. Even the ``IC'', which doesn't cost
anything extra, tops at 200km/h, and the ``ICE'', costing something like
10 EUR extra (on +/- 100 EUR tickets, seat reservation 4 EUR) top at
250 to 300 km/h depending on route. Some of those are available in the
Netherlands as well, (altough ICs don't go above 160km/h there), as are
selected French high-speed trains. But tickets for those are as annoying
as airline tickets, only less operator choice.


>>Altough the last flight had 36 passengers and 61 crew(!), though with
>>21 crew for training. On a reported passenger capacity of 72, 40 crew
>>is still a lot. Nowadays they'd probably stuff in 10 crew worth of
>>automation hardware and run with another 10 or so.
>
> The Graf Zeppelin II (LZ-130) was under construction, and trained crew
> don't grow on trees.

And, of course, the Hindenburg was booked low, so it's easy to stuff in
some extra crew for training. The capacity was there anyway.

But that doesn't change that 40 crew on a maximum of 72 passengers
is much more than you'd see today.


> But there are regulations about minimum crew numbers. A 747 or A-380
> needs just two people in the front,

And for a two or three day trip you'd presumably need at least one more
so there are always two crew on watch in the cockpit.


> but there must be no less that one cabin crew for every 50 passengers
> (meaning 11 required for 505 passengers), and airlines routinely
> assign more to try to improve some aspects of the cabin service
> (except back in steerage). It's a safety issue.

Safety issues might be less of a problem with helium-floated blimps.
Still, one'd probably need some extra for filling multiple shifts.


> The law didn't exist back in the 1930s, but the manufacturer has to
> demonstrate evacuating the aircraft in the dark, using a random set
> of half of the exits a and untrained passengers representative of the
> flying public in 90 seconds ABSOLUTE MAX. Get Out, Get Out, Get Out!
> No stampede, no panic, but they will throw you out if they have to.

Sardine can style airplanes stand a somewhat greater chance of blowing
up, or filling with (combustible or at least definately not-breathable)
smoke, then ``flashover''.

Heck, despite the hysterics, most people survived the Hindenburg
disaster. Most deaths were from people panicking and jumping 30 metres,
not from sedately burning hydrogen[1]. With the right timing people did
manage to just disembark and walk away in reasonable health, if shaken
and without their luggage.

So I think that there's no real need to be as strict with airships,
especially hydrogen-floated ones. Though, let's not forget that you
can't breathe helium either, so adequate ventilation construction
to remove any stray helium or smoke away from humans is probably a
good idea. At least there'll be lots of room to fit such systems in.


>>So this 28 passenger thing is still going to be on the expensive side,
>>until it racks up enough reputation to fund a bigger version, then?
>
> I dunno - it may be enough of an attraction on it's own.

I hope it'll prove economically viable. It is a nice concept. Especially
now that more and more people figure out that trying to live ever faster
isn't going to work in the long run.


[1] As opposed to supersonically exploding ideal hydrogen-oxygen mix. It
    is really easy to forget what could've happened instead, in theory.

-- 
  j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
  This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
  Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
  consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

On 3 Jun 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
<slrng4a7qm.187d.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:

>Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:

>> But do those "good" replies lead anywhere?   Even just a request for
>> the CV?
>
>On occasion. Up to face-to-face interviews (though none of those had
>recruiters involved anywhere), some abortive negotiation, even verbal
>acceptance once or twice, but so far no actual job.
>
>Some of it indubitably my fault, some of it less so.

Not knowing you personally, I can't make any constructive statement.
Do you have any indication if it's skill/experience problems, or do they
not like your physical appearance, or attitude, or the money or...

>> Are they rejecting / black-holing after seeing the CV?   Is there
>> _any_ feedback?
>
>Especially with recruiters, if I get anything it's a lot of enthousiasm
>right until they have me in their database, then nothing.

Thin evidence, but this sounds as if it's not the CV.

========================

>On another note, 200km/h, comfy, and reasonably straight lines; with
>the right price it'd be an interesting competitor to greyhound lines.

A bus is still likely to have lower operating costs (fuel, maintenance,
single crew member, infrastructure at passenger pickup/drop-off minimal
to non-existent), but a much larger problem would be winds.  Right now,
the winds outside my office look pretty light, but they're forecasting
20-30 MPH (9-13.4 meters/sec) tomorrow, and the winds are rarely smooth
or consistent. For a bus, this is meaningless, and as long as the
cross-wind component is within the certified range, is not a significant
problem to aircraft.   An airship (at least right now) requires some
kind of handling crew on the ground, and perhaps a mooring mast.

>Probably easier to add intermediate stops than jetplane run lines, too.

I mentioned the Goodyear blimp doing touch-and-goes - that runway was
2500'/760 meters long with no overruns, and had a steep (VASI = 4.2
degree) approach due to powerlines and a dike on short final, but it was
more than adequate for the blimp. On the other hand, it's to short to be
usable for anything as small as a Beech KingAir at reasonable load/temps.

>> But there are regulations about minimum crew numbers. A 747 or A-380
>> needs just two people in the front,
>
>And for a two or three day trip you'd presumably need at least one more
>so there are always two crew on watch in the cockpit.

Flights over 8 hours require an extra - relief guy. I think 12 hours
requires a second relief. Flying beyond that (that's at least a third
of the way around the world), is going to involve a fueling stop, and
that means a crew change, because of maximum air time limits for crew.

>Safety issues might be less of a problem with helium-floated blimps.
>Still, one'd probably need some extra for filling multiple shifts.

I would expect so, but the current (American and ICAO) regulations
don't address airships in air carrier operations. IANL, but it looks as
if the existing _aircraft_ rules would apply, which are not a good
match for conditions.

        Old guy

On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 15:12:58 -0500,
Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
>
> Not knowing you personally, I can't make any constructive statement.
> Do you have any indication if it's skill/experience problems, or do they
> not like your physical appearance, or attitude, or the money or...

Since I cut off my pony tail in nov 2006, and I do put some effort
toward a reasonable appearance[1], I think it's not that. There's the
now rather huge 3 year CV gap, somewhat papered over with ``sabbatical
for health reasons''[7] and ``consulting''[2], and a lot of trivia I've
just plain forgotten. My skill always has come from intelligence and a
understanding of the background, then building from there; the trivia'll
amass once I'm running. This isn't the kind of thing you expect in an
operator and I don't have the ``proven track record'' to back senior
system platinum engineer architect. Pah.

I'm not the easiest to work with, though that isn't a problem until you
try to make me do 1st level support. I tell anyone who cares to ask that
I do neither that nor any windows. ``Bad for my blood pressure.''

Some interviews worked well, some less so. Some because I decided the
company wasn't the place for me[3] so I overasked[4], some because,
well, they didn't want to negotiate after all, or didn't like me, or
whatever. Even one where both parties wondered WTF they'd met up in
the first place[5] -- still, an interesting(.cn, somewhat) experience.
Sometimes it just doesn't work out. Move on.

One of the latter was an interview where they'd decided my skill level
was ok but I probably wouldn't fit into the corporate culture. I think
they were right[6]. Still, that was one of the better interviews so far.
Very constructive.


Apropos knowing, you probably had a better idea of ``me'' or my skill
level even before this thread than most recruiters rejecting me on
email alone. But then, we've already noted that recruiters, even those
specialising in ``IT'' or even ``Unix recruiting'', are little more than
glorified buzzword grepping shell scripts.


> Thin evidence, but this sounds as if it's not the CV.

I've run my CV by a native Englishman ways back, and it's been polished
over and over since. If nothing else it's as correct as I could make
it in the skills and spelling departments, using the appropriate
no-negatives language.


>========================
>
>>On another note, 200km/h, comfy, and reasonably straight lines; with
>>the right price it'd be an interesting competitor to greyhound lines.
>
> A bus is still likely to have lower operating costs (fuel, maintenance,
> single crew member, infrastructure at passenger pickup/drop-off minimal
> to non-existent),

True enough. Still, especially big airships could perhaps fill the gap
that the absence of reasonable passenger rail service leaves in the usa.

There seem to be el-cheapo long distance tour bus lines too, but I've
never had the heart to explore their services myself -- having been on
family skiing vacations in them and not enjoyed the experience. Though
the situation may be entirely different with greyhound busses.


> but a much larger problem would be winds. Right now, the winds outside
> my office look pretty light, but they're forecasting 20-30 MPH (9-13.4
> meters/sec) tomorrow, and the winds are rarely smooth or consistent.
> For a bus, this is meaningless, and as long as the cross-wind
> component is within the certified range, is not a significant problem
> to aircraft.

Not entirely: There are regularly warnings that buses, lorries, and cars
with caravan should take care on the /afsluitdijk/ or even not use it
at all, due to wind. Of course, in the middle of a land mass you can
usually ignore wind warnings.

Airplanes usually only have to take care at start and landing and can
evade for the rest. An airship going up to 12k feet (3.7km) also has
some ability to evade.


> An airship (at least right now) requires some kind of handling crew on
> the ground, and perhaps a mooring mast.

But that is 70 year old technology. We could perhaps do better now.


>>Safety issues might be less of a problem with helium-floated blimps.
>>Still, one'd probably need some extra for filling multiple shifts.
>
> I would expect so, but the current (American and ICAO) regulations

Is there much of a difference anyway?


> don't address airships in air carrier operations. IANL, but it looks
> as if the existing _aircraft_ rules would apply, which are not a good
> match for conditions.

That would be pretty silly. If so, it's something for the various
governments to get on with right quick.


[1] Admittedly old, but reasonably fitting black suit, good quality
    white shirt, nice silk tie, black socks, shined black leather shoes.
    Variations depending on gig (no tie, swap the trousers for jeans,
    that sort of thing). I still get occasional comments from family how
    nice it looks if I turn up dressed that way. How much of that is
    them meaning well I can't say. It might be I'm somewhat overdressed.
[2] I *have* been reasonably active in certain newsgroups, have I not?
    That and I have an actual project going, though the greater thing it
    depends upon has transformed itself into a classic software project
    fsckup -- complete with denials and consultants seemingly only there
    to spout aggravating lies and disinformation -- and the nature of
    the deal means I don't get paid extra, maybe won't get paid at all.
    I don't mind that toward my employer (nice guy, not his fault), but
    I do mind that the people supposed to make the backend work, fail
    completely. Cheap moneygrubbing scum, the lot of them.
[3] Like the fancy value-added webstat tracker startup. Very clearly
    a marketeer-envisioned and -run gig.
[4] In response they'd emailed they'd chosen someone else, but a couple
    weeks later they seemed to still be looking. Yep, right choice.
[5] I'd invested a week in reading background and about double the
    price of the airplane ticket they refunded me in other preparations,
    and somehow they still managed to completely blindside me in method
    and content. Very strange. Surreal, even.
[6] Started as a VMS company, moved into windows (admin, custom device
    drivers, whatever), with a unix unit bolted on. When asked they
    still (and in chorus) proclaimed they were a vms company! despite
    90% of the business being redmondian. Nice peope tho.
[7] When asked I'll explain it's a funny way to spell ``burnout''. Just
    not something I like to spell out in my CV already.

-- 
  j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
  This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
  Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
  consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

jpd <read_the_...@do.not.spam.it.invalid> wrote:
> Moe Trin <ibupro...@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
>
> > Not knowing you personally, I can't make any constructive statement.
> > Do you have any indication if it's skill/experience problems, or do they=

> > not like your physical appearance, or attitude, or the money or...
>
> Since I cut off my pony tail in nov 2006, and I do put some effort
> toward a reasonable appearance[1], I think it's not that. There's the
> now rather huge 3 year CV gap,

I have long since switched from a chronological resume to
a functional one.  I have a wrapper with my skills buzzword
list and contact data at the top, my chronological postion list,
security clearance history, degree and such at the bottom.
I maintain a list of paragraph sized skills bullets to insert
into the middle.  So for each application I do careful exact
string matches (it says Solaris so I s/Sun/Solaris/ and such)
for each entry and I insert my skills bullet paragraphs in the
order they mention them in their write-up.

This modular approach has several advantages.  I can do a
custom resume ready for submission in a couple of minutes.
Many positions sound the same so I can maintain a generic
rendition on www.dice.com that has the skills bullets sorted
by popularity of the skills.  Since none of my skills bullets
have any dates associated with them a bean counter can't
assume that since I haven't touched AIX in 3 years I must
not be current at it.  Instead I judge what I'm current on (a
trivial 3 years?  May as well be under a week ago...) and
anyone able to do a technical interview gets to figure out if
I am or am not current.

There are a small number of companies that demand a
chronological resume, but so far I've only encountered one
end company that insisted and I passed on them.  Several
recruiters have initially declined the format but I've pointed
out there are unlimited recruiters out there and none
continued to insist.  There's also a down side if you're not
as current as you think you are and the company can pull
off a good technical interview.

> somewhat papered over with ``sabbatical
> for health reasons''[7] and ``consulting''[2], and a lot of trivia I've
> just plain forgotten.

Mentioning health issues is a kiss of death I think.  While
new health issues get handled by insurance rate changes,
old ones are viewed as part of your initial salary.  Until the
labor market is extremely tight many employers will chose
a less qualified candidate than one with known health
problems.  So here's what I suggest - You didn't have burn
out.  You went on a quest to enrich your personal
experience outside of the IT field.  Maybe you did volunteer
work?

> My skill always has come from intelligence and a
> understanding of the background, then building from there; the trivia'll
> amass once I'm running.

This makes a chronological format resume even worse.
You do as well on old topics as on new ones yet here
is a bean counter filtering out the resumes that list
the string matches too far down into the text.

> I'm not the easiest to work with, though that isn't a problem until you
> try to make me do 1st level support. I tell anyone who cares to ask that
> I do neither that nor any windows. ``Bad for my blood pressure.''

Some job, any job, can be viewed as a way to get a
better job.  Many employers are quicker to hire someone
already working than someone between jobs.  Unfair
but real.

> Some interviews worked well, some less so.

I've gone in as a UNIX generalist then splashed when they
turned out to need a very deep AIX specialist.  I've had
interviews where I ended up with no idea why I was talking
to them.  Interviews are a bizarre experience at times.

> Still, that was one of the better interviews so far.
> Very constructive.

My goal as interviewer or interviewee - I am to ask and
be asked questions I can answer and questions I can't.
I am to learn something and teach something.  I am to
solve a current problem as part of the interview, even if
as the interviewer I make up a scenario to have a problem
to solve.

> Apropos knowing, you probably had a better idea of ``me'' or my skill
> level even before this thread than most recruiters rejecting me on
> email alone. But then, we've already noted that recruiters, even those
> specialising in ``IT'' or even ``Unix recruiting'', are little more than
> glorified buzzword grepping shell scripts.

Recruiters and HR departments are obstacles to getting
the interview.  Power past them or circumvent them when
possible.

> [7] When asked I'll explain it's a funny way to spell ``burnout''. Just
> =A0 =A0 not something I like to spell out in my CV already.

Language matters.  That was a time of doing volunteer work
outside of IT to enrich your personal experiences ...

On 3 Jun 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
<slrng4bg8f.1ceb.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:

>Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:

>> Do you have any indication if it's skill/experience problems, or do
>> they not like your physical appearance, or attitude, or the money or...
>
>Since I cut off my pony tail in nov 2006, and I do put some effort
>toward a reasonable appearance[1], I think it's not that.

Pony tails and earrings - a problem with some, a neutral or positive for
others.  OK on the [1]. I'd rather see slight over-dress than under, as
you are trying to give an impression to the management types, not the
actual slaves you'd be working with.

>There's the now rather huge 3 year CV gap, somewhat papered over with
>``sabbatical for health reasons''[7] and ``consulting''[2], and a lot
>of trivia I've just plain forgotten.

That's a much bigger concern - I wasn't aware of the larger gap in
permanent employment.  Conslutting is a suitable substitute, for which
larger gaps between gigs are to be expected, but I'd still expect to
see some customer names that can be verified. Recall, a work history is
a form of confirmation of capability. On the other hand, you might want
to look at a Functional format, rather than the classic Chronological
version, which puts more emphasis on your capabilities/skills than on a
historical listing.  ACK on the newsgroups, though it's not the plus it
used to be. It _does_ show skills of handling problems.    Not sure
about the project - if the employer is happy, and will say so if asked,
that's great. The others - probably don't matter that much unless they
have to provide references.  Re [7], that shouldn't be, and probably
doesn't have to be brought up - other than you're not looking in that
line of work TYVM.

>My skill always has come from intelligence and a understanding of the
>background, then building from there; the trivia'll amass once I'm
>running. This isn't the kind of thing you expect in an operator and I
>don't have the ``proven track record'' to back senior system platinum
>engineer architect. Pah.

ACK - you do have skills/knowledge that is transferable and valuable,
but the most important thing is how those match up against the
specific requirements on the job req. Recall that HR usually doesn't
have technical knowledge, but they sure can read and see if you
match up against their requirements.  Given some of the skill levels
in HR, it's often a good idea if your skills list is in virtually
the same order as their requirements. The order doesn't have to match
exactly, but should be close.

What position are you shooting for - what's the _best_ position for
you, and based on that, what _other_ positions would be attractive or
acceptable. No first line, no windoze - that's reasonable. But what is
the place where you'd fit in best?  Sys-admin? Tape Monkey? Second or
third line? Programming? Mail, net, or firewall admin?

>I'm not the easiest to work with, though that isn't a problem until you
>try to make me do 1st level support. I tell anyone who cares to ask that
>I do neither that nor any windows. ``Bad for my blood pressure.''

That's fine. That got me out of second-line support rotation years ago
(I don't do well with idiots) - but where _do_ you think you'd fit?

>Some interviews worked well, some less so. Some because I decided the
>company wasn't the place for me[3] so I overasked[4],

'Overasking' may be acceptable in _this_ circumstance, but I'd rather
hear a "no, (you|your\ \(company|job\)) aren't right - thanks but no
thanks".    Depends.   If it's just the job that sucks, you don't need
to kill your chances elsewhere with the company. If it's the company
that sucks, remember that the interviewer may leave that company and
turn up elsewhere. (And your take on [4] is definitely correct - seen
that FAR to often.)

>Even one where both parties wondered WTF they'd met up in the first
>place[5] -- still, an interesting(.cn, somewhat) experience.

How did this... happen? Pimp mis-read? Either/both parties miss a
buzzword. clue, or similar? I'm assuming you are taking steps to
avoid a repeat.

>Sometimes it just doesn't work out. Move on.

Fact of life.

>One of the latter was an interview where they'd decided my skill level
>was ok but I probably wouldn't fit into the corporate culture. I think
>they were right[6]. Still, that was one of the better interviews so far.
>Very constructive.

Early 1990s, I was living in San Francisco area, and had neighbors who
were working at NASA, Apple and at Intel. They all fit well, but I
couldn't imagine them swapping companies. Hell, they had enough problems
just being neighbors. (Both Apple and Intel had some rather strange
cultures, and NASA was off in a different direction.)

>Apropos knowing, you probably had a better idea of ``me'' or my skill
>level even before this thread than most recruiters rejecting me on
>email alone.

Mainly through seeing your posts in the BSD groups, which is a problem
because there is more time/incidents visible there than can be put into
a CV, job app, or even a cover letter.   None the less, I am aware of
several people who have included a posting name and list of newsgroups
as an indication of past performance. Depending on the target job, this
may or may not be a good thing.  (Though I don't think I've ever seen a
hell-desk phone with a kill/score file.)

>But then, we've already noted that recruiters, even those specialising
>in ``IT'' or even ``Unix recruiting'', are little more than glorified
>buzzword grepping shell scripts.

But they have the same problem trying to sell bodies. Normally what is
delivered to HR (I never see the actual package) is little more than
a cover letter identifying the job, and a few brief bullet points, and a
copy of the candidates resume/CV. Most of the "sale" to get past HR, and
to attract the attention of the technical manager is the same resume/CV
that you would send in if you knew the requisition existed.  What they
do try to do all to often is to rework the candidates papers so that it
better matches "this" position (but you should be doing the same thing
for each application) - sometimes papering over things that results in
the blindside questions at the interview if the pimp supplied version
doesn't match what the candidate actually knows/did.  Recruiters are an
extra filter you have to pass through, but their advantage is that they
often are aware of jobs that the individual probably couldn't be aware
of - either because the company doesn't want 11000 droolers applying or
because the existence of the requisition might indicate sensitive
information (to competitors) about what the company may be looking at.

Are they the best tool to get a job?  Hell, no. Nothing beats personal
contacts in the company, and in the industry. Are they useless and best
avoided? Overall, that answer would be no, though there certainly are
those who should be treated one level below spammers and nuked on
sight. Are they helpful?   That's a definite "maybe".

What about temp agencies?  I don't think these are as common in .eu
as here, but they often get you in the door. We don't do it all that
often because of the expense, but I see enough 'temp-to-perm' job
offers outside, as well as some well-known temp agencies listed on
CV job histories.  Main advantage for a company is that you get the
worker, but not the problems of hiring only to have to lay-off the
individual if they're not up to expectations.

>I've run my CV by a native Englishman ways back, and it's been polished
>over and over since. If nothing else it's as correct as I could make
>it in the skills and spelling departments, using the appropriate
>no-negatives language.

While that would be great for situations where English is the working
language, I also presume you've got things in order in German, Dutch or
what-ever is appropriate.

========================

>True enough. Still, especially big airships could perhaps fill the gap
>that the absence of reasonable passenger rail service leaves in the usa.

It's not only passenger rail that's leaving - intercity bus service is
declining as well.

>There seem to be el-cheapo long distance tour bus lines too, but I've
>never had the heart to explore their services myself -- having been on
>family skiing vacations in them and not enjoyed the experience. Though
>the situation may be entirely different with greyhound busses.

The tour services are relatively lacking.  The biggest thing in several
parts of the country are what we call "Gambler Specials" - which are
busses that run to the casino areas. It used to be relatively few areas
(for years, Nevada was the only state with legalized gambling), but the
Native American (formerly called indian) nations tend to be able to run
casinos as a tribal industry, bypassing a lot of the "state" laws.
There's 4 "nations" within 80 KM of Phoenix, and each one runs a major
casino AND each one is the destination of privately run tour bus lines.

>Not entirely: There are regularly warnings that buses, lorries, and cars
>with caravan should take care on the /afsluitdijk/ or even not use it
>at all, due to wind. Of course, in the middle of a land mass you can
>usually ignore wind warnings.

Not here. We have the same areas where high winds can and do occur,
such as the Interstate highways about 80 KM East of San Francisco,
and about 150 KM NNW and East of Los Angeles - to the extent that
these are major wind farms (each literally hundreds of modern windmills
that are turning generators). I recall several times when the Altamont
area (East of San Francisco) was not only _closed_ to big vehicles, 
but "not recommended" to ordinary cars.

>Airplanes usually only have to take care at start and landing and can
>evade for the rest. An airship going up to 12k feet (3.7km) also has
>some ability to evade.

Depends - I've been in some awfully harsh turbulence at 12000, and
the insurance carrier who is covering the plane probably wants you
to have a high-altitude or mountain-flying endorsement (instruction
by a certified instructor in the problems of high altitudes and
terrain). Don't forget, we've got some places here where the passes
are above 10.5, and the MEA (minimum enroute altitude) is above
14.5

>> An airship (at least right now) requires some kind of handling crew
>> on the ground, and perhaps a mooring mast.
>
>But that is 70 year old technology. We could perhaps do better now.

Possibly - but that would mean engines running and a crew on-board at
all times. That ain't gonna be cheap.

>> I would expect so, but the current (American and ICAO) regulations
>
>Is there much of a difference anyway?

Some - though it may not be much more than legally significant.

>> don't address airships in air carrier operations.

>That would be pretty silly. If so, it's something for the various
>governments to get on with right quick.

There is a section on 'lighter than air' (mainly sports balloons), just
as there is one for air and sea planes. But the tourist balloons aren't
considered air carriers (airlines). and the limited applicable rules
are part of the 'lighter than air' section. And 14CFR121 which governs
air carriers is a large section (over 100 pages alone - never mind the
tie-ins to aircraft and air/ground crew certification requirements.
Even the airports are certified (mainly relating to safety issues).

        Old guy

On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 12:35:55 -0700 (PDT),
Doug Freyburger <dfreybur@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I have long since switched from a chronological resume to
> a functional one.  I have a wrapper with my skills buzzword
> list and contact data at the top, my chronological postion list,
> security clearance history, degree and such at the bottom.
> I maintain a list of paragraph sized skills bullets to insert
> into the middle.  So for each application I do careful exact
> string matches (it says Solaris so I s/Sun/Solaris/ and such)
> for each entry and I insert my skills bullet paragraphs in the
> order they mention them in their write-up.

This one starts with a fluffily worded objective, has the buzzword
avalanche, then a chronological part in the back. I've recently added some
extra blather so it's now three pages. I probably need to cut it back to
two again. The modular thing is worth trying to fit into the build system.


> Mentioning health issues is a kiss of death I think.

Whoops. Time for a different polite lie, then. Though it seemed to work
better than nothing at all already. Gaps are apparently euphemisms for
being a convicted serial criminal or something.


> So here's what I suggest - You didn't have burn out. You went on a
> quest to enrich your personal experience outside of the IT field.
> Maybe you did volunteer work?

No volunteer work. Bought some books (on management, people skills,
things). Self-study? Maybe a bit optimistic.


>> Some interviews worked well, some less so.
>
> I've gone in as a UNIX generalist then splashed when they
> turned out to need a very deep AIX specialist.  I've had
> interviews where I ended up with no idea why I was talking
> to them.  Interviews are a bizarre experience at times.

Like the ``we haven't quite figured it out yet, but we want someone with
linux certifications and a trivial pursuit diploma'' one mentioned earlier.


-- 
  j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
  This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
  Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
  consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 19:26:15 -0500,
Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
> On 3 Jun 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
><slrng4bg8f.1ceb.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:
>>Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
>
>>There's the now rather huge 3 year CV gap, somewhat papered over with
>>``sabbatical for health reasons''[7] and ``consulting''[2], and a lot
>>of trivia I've just plain forgotten.
>
> That's a much bigger concern - I wasn't aware of the larger gap in
> permanent employment. Conslutting is a suitable substitute, for which
> larger gaps between gigs are to be expected, but I'd still expect to
> see some customer names that can be verified. Recall, a work history
> is a form of confirmation of capability.

Was afraid of that. So far one customer and a near-dead project. Once
that's finished/wrapped up/properly taken out the back and shot/etc.
I'll check with him if I can put something burbly in a portfolio.


> On the other hand, you might want to look at a Functional format,
> rather than the classic Chronological version, which puts more
> emphasis on your capabilities/skills than on a historical listing.

As noted to Doug, I think I'm already doing that, apart from the
chronological appendix.


> The others - probably don't matter that much unless they have to
> provide references.

$lastjob _claimed_ to be unhappy to see me go, but, well, seeing how
they treated me I'd have trouble believing them if they'd say the sun
rises in the east. I don't give them out as references either.


> What position are you shooting for - what's the _best_ position for
> you, and based on that, what _other_ positions would be attractive or
> acceptable. No first line, no windoze - that's reasonable. But what is
> the place where you'd fit in best?  Sys-admin? Tape Monkey? Second or
> third line? Programming? Mail, net, or firewall admin?
[snip!]
> [...] - but where _do_ you think you'd fit?

I can do unix and lan admin, I'd like to expand some into wan admin,
I could do development, though I like to stay away from guis and the
desktop. I could probably do high-level design; I've done low levels
like designing and terminating a lan[1]. I can do lots of things.

In a way I don't really care what as long as I find it interesting (for
a while). I think I'd like to do the high level, not just because the
money's better[2]; long term planning done well can save a lot of day to
day trouble. The details always change, and in a way they don't really
interest me even though as noted the trivia'll stick anyway when I'm
working with something.

The programming I've done for myself lately tended to focus on toying
with protocol parsers (lots of fronts and backs and not much of a
program in the middle -- maybe someday). I probably should admit that's
something I like a lot and should put more structure into those efforts.

Something I also do fairly well is steersman-on-shore[3], ie observing
from a distance, then maybe recommending things. Though a problem with
consulting is getting meaningful feedback as to how it worked out.

Other things I've been toying with the idea of are software and hardware
projects that probably could use a bunch of venture capital, but I
wouldn't know the first thing where to start on how to make that happen.


So, I have so many options I fail to pick one.


> 'Overasking' may be acceptable in _this_ circumstance, but I'd rather
> hear a "no, (you|your\ \(company|job\)) aren't right - thanks but no
> thanks".

My reaction depends quite a lot on how the interview goes. In that case,
it was the way they'd asked that one last question in standing that made
me flap out a large number. Given their response, I don't regret it much.


>>Even one where both parties wondered WTF they'd met up in the first
>>place[5] -- still, an interesting(.cn, somewhat) experience.
>
> How did this... happen? Pimp mis-read? Either/both parties miss a
> buzzword. clue, or similar? I'm assuming you are taking steps to
> avoid a repeat.

No pimp. Someone hopped by in a C++ related IRC channel, and he turned
out to work there, so he passed my details on to HR. The rest is, well,
I'd have to dig up the email correspondence, don't think I kept the IRC
logs. Interview turned out to be completely unrelated to programming.

Whoops.


In retrospect I think that with more patience I could've done the job
but plainly lacked the background to make the right noises right away.
They seemed to've been quite desperate to fill those positions too.


>>But then, we've already noted that recruiters, even those specialising
>>in ``IT'' or even ``Unix recruiting'', are little more than glorified
>>buzzword grepping shell scripts.
>
> But they have the same problem trying to sell bodies. Normally what is
> delivered to HR (I never see the actual package) is little more than
> a cover letter identifying the job, and a few brief bullet points, and a
> copy of the candidates resume/CV.

That could stand some improvement, though it'd require getting chummy
with HR and try and understand what sort of shopping list would be
useful for them; a filter that they *can* meaningfully apply, and if
it's not a technical one, well, that means you'll have to do that part
of the filtering.

Oh wait, I read this the wrong way (dept.->HR instead of recruiter->HR).


> Most of the "sale" to get past HR, and to attract the attention of
> the technical manager is the same resume/CV that you would send in if
> you knew the requisition existed. What they do try to do all to often
> is to rework the candidates papers so that it better matches "this"
> position (but you should be doing the same thing for each application)

I should, but seeing the work it takes me to polish my CV after each
change I settled on keeping that general and tailoring the individual
cover letters. I may have to revise that, and going modular seems to be
a good compromise.


> What about temp agencies? [...] but they often get you in the door.

I've walked along and occasionally into a few, but most that I've seen
specialise in something I haven't a clue about or am not interested in
pursuing (pipe fitters, electricians, what-have-you). I may have to step
up the search for a suitable agency.


> I also presume you've got things in order in German, Dutch or
> what-ever is appropriate.

Actually, the English one is the only one at the moment. I've been
looking at international jobs mostly. This isn't much of a restriction
on the (internationally flavoures) ads I've been looking at. Though, I
will admit that if the ad is written entirely in French or Danish or
what-have-you, the mere listing of English as a requirement doesn't make
me understand the ad any more.


>========================
>
>>True enough. Still, especially big airships could perhaps fill the gap
>>that the absence of reasonable passenger rail service leaves in the usa.
>
> It's not only passenger rail that's leaving - intercity bus service is
> declining as well.

Oh? I would've thought it'd've picked up after the grand opening of the
circus war. Apparently not a lasting change, then.


>>But that is 70 year old technology. We could perhaps do better now.
>
> Possibly - but that would mean engines running and a crew on-board at
> all times. That ain't gonna be cheap.

Lowering a gondola could perhaps work in quiet weather. Fancy mooring
masts don't have to be expensive, even with an operator when needed, at
least compared to airports. Less real real estate needed too.

And to fill the gap between long distance buses and airlines, you'd need
an intermediate number of stopoff places too. I don't see any absolute
show stoppers with the plan.


> There is a section on 'lighter than air' (mainly sports balloons), just
> as there is one for air and sea planes. But the tourist balloons aren't
> considered air carriers (airlines). and the limited applicable rules
> are part of the 'lighter than air' section. And 14CFR121 which governs
> air carriers is a large section (over 100 pages alone - never mind the
> tie-ins to aircraft and air/ground crew certification requirements.
> Even the airports are certified (mainly relating to safety issues).

Stands to reason that after 70-odd years of no airships the rules don't
make allowances for them. That'd still mean the rulemakers will have to
cook up some rules that are actually applicable to airship carriers.

Rules have their use, but if they're standing in the way of something
that would be perfectly viable with appropriate rules, then the fault is
in the rules, not the things that cannot comply. One'd think that the
airship manufacturers know this and would already be working with the
rulemakers to fix any problems.


[1] Left the actual pulling the wires to write-pulling-professionals
    though some were electricians, not low voltage specialists. That is
    an area where you just have to have experience to be efficient, and
    while I could, I'd just as rather not do it myself.
[2] It's been noted that good people generally don't care much for the
    money, but working too hard for too long AND getting paid too little
    makes the whole extra painful. The latter is definately true. So I'm
    still a bit twitchy about making sure I'll be getting paid enough.
[3] A Dutchism. Given the naval background, maybe excusable. :-)

-- 
  j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
  This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
  Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
  consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

jpd <read_the_...@do.not.spam.it.invalid> wrote:
> Doug Freyburger <dfrey...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I have long since switched from a chronological resume to
> > a functional one. =A0I have a wrapper with my skills buzzword
> > list and contact data at the top, my chronological postion list,
> > security clearance history, degree and such at the bottom.
> > I maintain a list of paragraph sized skills bullets to insert
> > into the middle. =A0So for each application I do careful exact
> > string matches (it says Solaris so I s/Sun/Solaris/ and such)
> > for each entry and I insert my skills bullet paragraphs in the
> > order they mention them in their write-up.
>
> This one starts with a fluffily worded objective, has the buzzword
> avalanche,

I question having an objective at all in an on-line resume -

There are search engines that pull the first N words of a
resume to do keyword searches.  The higher the buzzwords
in your on-line entry the more recruiters send you e-mail
leads.  For these search engines every word of objective is
a word of buzzword bingo that gets dropped from their search.
So for years all of my on-line resumes have had a software
list, a hardware list, a supporting-field list with SAN and WAN
and database and NetBackup and whatever but no objective.

As to an objective I wonder if it's used as yet another filter.
Someone wants to move into management and this is a
small shop with no such options?  Shred that one and move
on to the next.  I have considered writing a brief objective
tuned to each submission but so far have left it missing.
Should I decide I'll only move for a management slot I'll
consider switching to having one that states that specifically
to get shredded by the shops where it's not possible.

Interesting that the technical behavior of on-line resume
search engines has effected my printed resumes in this
manner.

> then a chronological part in the back.

Mine has paragraph sized skills bullets not listing any
dates at all, and the chronological part is a solid block of
1-line entries giving date range, company, title with no
specified correlation to the skills bullets.

I even have two different versions of several of my skills
bullets.  There's an outrageous but true one that I use
when not looking and a mild sounding one that i use when
I am looking.  For AIX there's the time I was called in to
rescue a dead large server doing classifed data above my
current clearance that had not recovered from a data
center power outage and came up with spun down drives,
unsynced vlogical volumes, you name it.  And there's a
revenue based one for consulting about when I led the
client through doubling their AIX footprint and thus doubled
billable hours.  And there's one about using locical volume
manager to migrate to a new EMC disk array without
outages.  I have similar levels of brag telling true tales of
my Solaris exploits, ending up as a classroom instructor
between other gigs and so on.

> I've recently added some
> extra blather so it's now three pages. I probably need to cut it back to
> two again. The modular thing is worth trying to fit into the build system.=


I can't imagine a 2 page resume for someone in the field
over a decade.  That's for folks new in the field.  I am aware
this is a minority view on my part.  On the other hand if I
can't trim it down to 4 pages I don't know what matters and
what doesn't.  In the end I struggle between 3 and 4 sheets.

> > Mentioning health issues is a kiss of death I think.
>
> Whoops. Time for a different polite lie, then. Though it seemed to work
> better than nothing at all already. Gaps are apparently euphemisms for
> being a convicted serial criminal or something.

A point of correction - No lies at all IMO.  I don't have a
problem with not mentioning something.  For burn out
did you go unemployed (you spent time doing self study
to refresh the theoretical parts of your skill base) or did
you work out of the IT field (you spent time doing another
career field but just didn't like it as well as IT so you're
ready to come home to IT).  Whatever you did that's
positive and true, say that.

> > So here's what I suggest - You didn't have burn out. You went on a
> > quest to enrich your personal experience outside of the IT field.
> > Maybe you did volunteer work?
>
> No volunteer work. Bought some books (on management, people skills,
> things). Self-study? Maybe a bit optimistic.

Yeah.  Think of something honest, brief enough to fit in
1 line, put it in the chronolgical block near the bottom,
make it not an issue in the skills bullet section.

One thing I tried once before a tech screen interview is I
sent the interviewer a URL giving a search of my posts
here on CUA.  It established technical answers to his
entire qualifications question list so I went in discussing
how he could improve his question list and moved on to
trouble shooting some of his recent issues.  They ended
up hiring a junior in that slot for money reasons but it was
sure considered balls-ie.  Not sure if I'd want to try that
again.

On 6 Jun 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
<slrng4i7t6.25ep.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:

>Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:

>> That's a much bigger concern - I wasn't aware of the larger gap in
>> permanent employment. Conslutting is a suitable substitute, for which
>> larger gaps between gigs are to be expected, but I'd still expect to
>> see some customer names that can be verified. 

>Was afraid of that. So far one customer and a near-dead project. Once
>that's finished/wrapped up/properly taken out the back and shot/etc.
>I'll check with him if I can put something burbly in a portfolio.
>
>> On the other hand, you might want to look at a Functional format

That's probably the better solution.

>As noted to Doug, I think I'm already doing that, apart from the
>chronological appendix.

Hmmm, you may want to hit the public library and see if they have
any books on creating resumes/CVs - it can be a complicated subject.
Minor comment, 3 pages may be OK in some cases, but not in all.
Again, the books might help.

>> but where _do_ you think you'd fit?

>I can do unix and lan admin, I'd like to expand some into wan admin,
>I could do development, though I like to stay away from guis and the
>desktop. I could probably do high-level design; I've done low levels
>like designing and terminating a lan[1]. I can do lots of things.
>
>In a way I don't really care what as long as I find it interesting
>(for a while).

I think I'd suggest being a bit more specialized. It's hard to be
good everywhere.

>So, I have so many options I fail to pick one.

Think about that.  How is that going to make an employer want to hire
you?  Generally speaking, we're hiring to fill a specific position,
rather than a general person who _may_ fill unknown requirements that
might turn up later.

>No pimp. Someone hopped by in a C++ related IRC channel, and he turned
>out to work there, so he passed my details on to HR.

That's a good way to go

>Interview turned out to be completely unrelated to programming.
>
>Whoops.

That isn't.

>> Normally what is delivered to HR (I never see the actual package) is
>> little more than a cover letter identifying the job, and a few brief
>> bullet points, and a copy of the candidates resume/CV.

>That could stand some improvement, though it'd require getting chummy
>with HR and try and understand what sort of shopping list would be
>useful for them;

It's what is in the ad you are responding to. In many cases, the HR
types merely copy the requirements the technical type wrote. In some
cases, they may add some of their own (which can be a sticky point with
the technical manager if the added points are senseless or not relevant
to the job), but getting past HR

>a filter that they *can* meaningfully apply, and if it's not a
>technical one, well, that means you'll have to do that part of the
>filtering.

means jumping through the hoops they've included. Meaningful?
Applicable?   Doesn't matter - because HR is merely checking to see
that you match the requirements (usually buzz-words) in the ad.

>Oh wait, I read this the wrong way (dept.->HR instead of recruiter->HR).

Don't forget, the recruiter can only do so much with what you provided
and matching that to what HR has on the ad.

>> What they do try to do all to often is to rework the candidates
>> papers so that it better matches "this" position (but you should be
>> doing the same thing for each application)
>
>I should, but seeing the work it takes me to polish my CV after each
>change I settled on keeping that general and tailoring the individual
>cover letters. I may have to revise that, and going modular seems to be
>a good compromise.

Yes - polish the modules, so that they can be dropped in without much
work on the individual case.  Note that this works best when you are
responding to a specific ad - and remember, you are _responding_ and
showing that you match what they are interested in.  As far as a 
generic resume suitable for "anything that turns up in the next N
months" thing with a pimp, you'd possibly have better luck giving them
modules - so that they can tailor the response they supply to "that"
ad and opposed to "the other" ad for a different job description.

>> What about temp agencies? [...] but they often get you in the door.
>
>I've walked along and occasionally into a few, but most that I've seen
>specialise in something I haven't a clue about or am not interested in
>pursuing (pipe fitters, electricians, what-have-you). I may have to step
>up the search for a suitable agency.

I'd look a lot harder on that.  They are a useful means of getting in,
and once you are in, the possibilities usually improve AND you have a
better view of "do I really want to work in that position".

========================

>> Possibly - but that would mean engines running and a crew on-board at
>> all times. That ain't gonna be cheap.
>
>Lowering a gondola could perhaps work in quiet weather.

I think you'd want to consider that from the passenger viewpoint. Some
may not be thrilled with the perceived flimsiness.  And again, how often
can you count on the winds being light (say less than 4 m/s)?

>Fancy mooring masts don't have to be expensive, even with an operator
>when needed, at least compared to airports. Less real real estate
>needed too.

You ought to have a look at the "portable" mast used by the Goodyear
blimps. It's a foldable mast on the back of one of the support
vehicles. Still not something you'd be able to put everywhere. Also,
the airship has to be landing/departing into the wind, so that means
a circular area. Modern airports use few runways because the aircraft
can tolerate a significant crosswind.

>And to fill the gap between long distance buses and airlines, you'd
>need an intermediate number of stopoff places too. I don't see any
>absolute show stoppers with the plan.

14CFR139 - the requirements (even ignoring the "anti-terrorist
security") are not trivial.  Yes, some of that is related to existing
aircraft need for lots-of-knots on the ground roll, and for the
presence of significant quantities of volatile fuels, hazardous things
like props or jet-blast, but some of that would carry over to airship
ground operations.

>Stands to reason that after 70-odd years of no airships the rules don't
>make allowances for them. That'd still mean the rulemakers will have to
>cook up some rules that are actually applicable to airship carriers.

;-)

>One'd think that the airship manufacturers know this and would already
>be working with the rulemakers to fix any problems.

Bit problem is that none of them are (yet) envisioning competing
against the airlines. much less other modes of transportation. Many
concepts are advanced (such as using airships as an aerial crane to
lift trees from where they are cut to the lumber mills) but about
the only airships that have been built in the past 60 years are the
small ships used for advertising and aerial television camera.  I
suspect a bit of that is due to the weather - an airship is a large
sail, and "the winds command".

        Old guy

jpd <read_the_...@do.not.spam.it.invalid> wrote:
> Moe Trin <ibupro...@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
>
> > What about temp agencies? [...] but they often get you in the door.
>
> I've walked along and occasionally into a few, but most that I've seen
> specialise in something I haven't a clue about or am not interested in
> pursuing (pipe fitters, electricians, what-have-you). I may have to step
> up the search for a suitable agency.

Does www.dice.com support your geography?  If it
does do some keyword searches on your skills in your
geography.  Almost all entries will be by shops that
specialize in IT.  Get a list of several, then search
their sites.  Bingo, suitable agencies.

On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 07:48:19 -0700 (PDT),
Doug Freyburger <dfreybur@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I question having an objective at all in an on-line resume -
>
> There are search engines that pull the first N words of a
> resume to do keyword searches.
[snip]

Well, you could start with a section of keywords you _want_ indexed
right before the objective.  But otherwise, good point.


> As to an objective I wonder if it's used as yet another filter.

I realize everything in the CV will be used to make decisions either
way. (But do I realize this _enough_?) Also a good point though.


> Interesting that the technical behavior of on-line resume search
> engines has effected my printed resumes in this manner.

:-)

Mine used to have macros to generate different stationery for online and
offline versions (I should put that back in); wouldn't be too hard to
extend the mechanic to blurbs. Though then it might be more useful to
just maintain two sources.


>> I've recently added some extra blather so it's now three pages. I
>> probably need to cut it back to two again.
>
> I can't imagine a 2 page resume for someone in the field
> over a decade.  That's for folks new in the field.

In that sense, I'm still new; at the very least WRT _paid_ unix work.


> I am aware this is a minority view on my part. On the other hand if
> I can't trim it down to 4 pages I don't know what matters and what
> doesn't. In the end I struggle between 3 and 4 sheets.

Then there were the silly valley folks who insisted it had to fit on one
page.

I picked a 10pt font 15pt spacing format and a somewhat spacious layout,
so three pages (2.5 really) would fit on two with a different layout.


> A point of correction - No lies at all IMO.

Of course. Twisting the truth or being very selective with what I'm
saying still feels as if it only makes mere technical difference.


> Yeah.  Think of something honest, brief enough to fit in
> 1 line, put it in the chronolgical block near the bottom,
> make it not an issue in the skills bullet section.

Then I'd have to reverse the chronological block since it's what
I'm stuck with *now*; it's not something that happened years ago.

It'd also require lots of creative writing because most of what I did
was sit on the couch, hang out on usenet and irc, and in the beginning
take long showers ranting at the world[1]. It was pretty bad, but mosty
over now. The reading books bit was more of a sideline.

But you're right, I'll try and come up with something.


> One thing I tried once before a tech screen interview is I sent
> the interviewer a URL giving a search of my posts here on CUA. It
> established technical answers to his entire qualifications question
> list so I went in discussing how he could improve his question list
> and moved on to trouble shooting some of his recent issues. They ended
> up hiring a junior in that slot for money reasons but it was sure
> considered balls-ie. Not sure if I'd want to try that again.

:-)

Yeah, you'd have to have a very confident interviewer who'd still
seriously consider hiring you if you'd do that.


[and pulling in your other post]
> Does www.dice.com support your geography?

Looks like they only serve North America. I'm in Europe, so no. Thanks
though. :-)


[1] I've since written some of it down, pushed the moral buck back to
    the guy in charge (who hasn't reacted[2], well, that I now consider
    his problem no matter what the financial cost to me), and I'm busily
    leaving it all behind. Time for a less stressful challenge.

[2] Also the reason I didn't take the bait when the guy who effectively
    took over after me[3] recently rather forcefully expressed his regret
    at my leaving and his desire of someone of my capabilities.
[3] And whose introduction --but not himself-- was the last straw for my
    stay there. ``HR's'' reaction? ``But we didn't mean it that way!''
    Well, excuse me for taking yet another BOHICA all the wrong way.

-- 
  j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
  This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
  Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
  consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 15:09:18 -0500,
Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
>>So, I have so many options I fail to pick one.
>
> Think about that.  How is that going to make an employer want to hire
> you?  Generally speaking, we're hiring to fill a specific position,
> rather than a general person who _may_ fill unknown requirements that
> might turn up later.

Not always, but it sounds true enough.


> Yes - polish the modules, so that they can be dropped in without much
> work on the individual case.  Note that this works best when you are
> responding to a specific ad - and remember, you are _responding_ and
> showing that you match what they are interested in.

Yes, this is more or less what the recruiter guy of previous discussion
said when asked. I'd seen a different advert with his name under it so
I dropped him a mail with a bit of sell-myself blurb and he returned a
call at oh-too-early 09:30 or so the next day. I happened to be awake
anyway. We'll see what happens next.


Unrelatedly, I dropped a mail to a completely different recruiting
outfit, asking about a recent ad identical to one I reacted to earlier
for which they had held a phone interview with me, and whether there
was an actual job on offer at all. The answer was a wooly ``no'' while
hiding behind not being able to pull the ad (wtf?), plus an expression
of hope they could perhaps assist me anyway. Countered with a question
how they'd envision that, seeing as how they have apparently nothing
to offer. Silence. I think I'll give them a week or so to answer, then
drop'em in the shitlist.


> I'd look a lot harder on that.  They are a useful means of getting in,
> and once you are in, the possibilities usually improve AND you have a
> better view of "do I really want to work in that position".

Alright then, let's see what I can come up with.


>========================
>>> Possibly - but that would mean engines running and a crew on-board at
>>> all times. That ain't gonna be cheap.
>>
>>Lowering a gondola could perhaps work in quiet weather.
>
> I think you'd want to consider that from the passenger viewpoint. Some
> may not be thrilled with the perceived flimsiness.  And again, how often
> can you count on the winds being light (say less than 4 m/s)?

That heavily depends on locality. I was thinking of some sort of
functional equivalent of the movable ramps used on airports. How high
should a movable (mobile?) platform go to make it usable for contact
with a passing airship? A ``platform'' blimp that'll do the ground/air
transport and meet the airship in the air for? Take advantage of
nearby skyscrapers? Any other ideas?


>>Fancy mooring masts don't have to be expensive, even with an operator
>>when needed, at least compared to airports. Less real real estate
>>needed too.
>
> You ought to have a look at the "portable" mast used by the Goodyear
> blimps. It's a foldable mast on the back of one of the support
> vehicles. Still not something you'd be able to put everywhere.

You mean the one that attaches not on the nose but halfway between it
and the front of the gondola? It'd fit on most any support vehicle local
to the landing field.

The biggest concern would be just a large enough field to allow the
airship to land then be held such that it can turn around 360 deg. I
think that isn't much of a problem in rural America and in big large
cities, well, the skyscraper idea might work.

Or even a hangar open to the side and on top of a tall building or
something. Airships don't have the high speed landing problem that comes
with fixed wing aircraft, and neither do they have the choppy bits going
round like a helicopter does. The only problem is that they need *a lot*
of room, which'll pose structural challenges maybe, but not weight or
runway problems.

Yes, far out. But if you set that aside, how doable is it, technically?
Where's a skyscraper architect when you need one? ;-)


> Also, the airship has to be landing/departing into the wind, so that
> means a circular area. Modern airports use few runways because the
> aircraft can tolerate a significant crosswind.

THF is circular. Hm. But will be closed now. Bleh.


> I suspect a bit of that is due to the weather - an airship is a large
> sail, and "the winds command".

There is that. Regular lines have a bit of trouble depending on good
weather, where cruises can adjust more easily. Still...

How about integrating several types of transport? Would that work as
a business model?


-- 
  j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
  This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
  Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
  consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

On 8 Jun 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
<slrng4oa17.2d93.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:

[Managed to get a whole week of vacation.  Wow!]

>Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:

>> Think about that.  How is that going to make an employer want to hire
>> you?  Generally speaking, we're hiring to fill a specific position,
>> rather than a general person who _may_ fill unknown requirements that
>> might turn up later.
>
>Not always, but it sounds true enough.

Believe it.  When I am hiring, I've got to justify the position to my
management - telling them exactly why I need this additional person.
They do not go with "hiring because the person may be useful down the
road".  Generally, I've got to show a specific need for at least a year
to make a permanent hire. Even if I just need a temp, I've got to
justify the position as opposed to using existing people on overtime
(or loaners from another department) which I have to justify as well.

>Yes, this is more or less what the recruiter guy of previous discussion
>said when asked. I'd seen a different advert with his name under it so
>I dropped him a mail with a bit of sell-myself blurb and he returned a
>call at oh-too-early 09:30 or so the next day. I happened to be awake
>anyway. We'll see what happens next.

A "generic" resume/CV is less than desirable, because the chances of
you hitting the right buzzwords is less. The best deal is to have
WHAT APPEARS TO BE a resume/CV that matches as much as possible exactly
what they've advertised for.  Maybe "more" than meeting the requirements
can be a disadvantage some times (they want 5 years, you have 7 - either
you are more expensive than they want, or something else is "wrong"). An
example from several years ago, we advertised for a junior engineer, and
one of the responders was a MS with 9 years experience.  Why isn't he
being hired into a level suited to his education/experience? Why is he
trying for a position this "low" in the barking order?  What's wrong?

>Unrelatedly, I dropped a mail to a completely different recruiting
>outfit, asking about a recent ad identical to one I reacted to earlier
>for which they had held a phone interview with me, and whether there
>was an actual job on offer at all. The answer was a wooly ``no'' while
>hiding behind not being able to pull the ad (wtf?), plus an expression
>of hope they could perhaps assist me anyway.

Maximum power, ease up on the nose - positive rate of climb - gear up -
GET OUT OF HERE - this is not where you want to land!

>Countered with a question how they'd envision that, seeing as how they
>have apparently nothing to offer. Silence. I think I'll give them a
>week or so to answer, then drop'em in the shitlist.

That one smells bad.   Yes, it's possible they might have something
opening up "soon" that they can't talk about yet, and want to have
viable candidates on hand, but I'd like to see some indications before
I'd agree to get within 10 KM.

[temp agencies]

>> I'd look a lot harder on that.  They are a useful means of getting in,
>> and once you are in, the possibilities usually improve AND you have a
>> better view of "do I really want to work in that position".
>
>Alright then, let's see what I can come up with.

It has two positives - it gets money into _your_ pockets, while at the
same time makes you visible (and able to see better).

========================
>> And again, how often can you count on the winds being light (say less
>> than 4 m/s)?
>
>That heavily depends on locality.

And it's a design criteria, I've got a textbook on airport construction
from 1953, which shows a wind rose for Idlewild (original name for JFK
in New York. It's showing "calm" (less than 1.8 m/s) less than 4 percent
of the time, and 6.7 m/s or faster, 28.9 percent of the time.

>I was thinking of some sort of functional equivalent of the movable
>ramps used on airports. How high should a movable (mobile?) platform
>go to make it usable for contact with a passing airship?

Most of the masts I've seen are such that the airship is level, and
the gondola is relatively low - a few meters. The key is to be able
to keep the tail off the ground.  If you increase the height beyond
this, you get into control problems trying to keep the airship
entrance within a few centimeters - less than 20 - of the "platform
where the passengers are. And that platform can't be moving about
chasing the airship - or you'd be out of passengers right now.

>Take advantage of nearby skyscrapers? 

As the British R100 and R101 were designed? The mooring mast at
Cardington was over 150 feet tall. There was an interior passage to
a scoop-like hatch just below the tip of the nose.  There was an urban
legend that the Empire State Building in New York City was to be used
for this, with the airship mooring at the 102nd floor.   I vaguely
recall some limited testing elsewhere rejecting the concept due to
erratic winds, and the fact that _everything_ (pax, baggage, fuel,
stores, etc.) had to use essentially the same access.

>You mean the one that attaches not on the nose but halfway between it
>and the front of the gondola? It'd fit on most any support vehicle
>local to the landing field.

At least for the Goodyear blimp (I've never seen the others in a
ground handling situation), the attach point is the tip of the nose.
This takes a fairly healthy vehicle - possibly ten tons or more.

>Or even a hangar open to the side and on top of a tall building or
>something. Airships don't have the high speed landing problem that
>comes with fixed wing aircraft

No - they have their own problems of mass/momentum.

>and neither do they have the choppy bits going round like a
>helicopter does.

At least one that I'm aware of is using 'ducted' propellers (which can
be swiveled to act as a vectored thrust), but all the rest use ordinary
props, exactly like older aircraft..

>The only problem is that they need *a lot* of room, which'll pose
>structural challenges maybe, but not weight or runway problems.

The mast also has to be strong enough to handle the sail area that the
airship equates to. Depending on the length of the "arm" from the
airship to the "unyielding ground", you may want to run over those
stress and fatigue calculations a couple more times.   ;-)

>Yes, far out. But if you set that aside, how doable is it, technically?
>Where's a skyscraper architect when you need one? ;-)

Hiding.

        Old guy

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:14:54 -0500,
Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
> On 8 Jun 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
><slrng4oa17.2d93.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:
> [Managed to get a whole week of vacation.  Wow!]

Good for you. :-)


>>Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
> Believe it.  When I am hiring, I've got to justify the position to my
> management - telling them exactly why I need this additional person.

Of course. Then again, depending on the situation and cluefulness
of management you can, or should be able to, get a certain leeway
``future-proofing the profile''. This might also depend on the
restrictions on firing people.


> They do not go with "hiring because the person may be useful down the
> road".

My former boss at $lastjob, titled VP of somethingorother, was kept
_well beyond_ his best-before date, think half a year, as a ``simple
programmer'' (his words, but at the same inflated salary of course),
``against future need'' (said the CEO). Which was remarkable as he'd
antagonised so many people that people were directly refusing to work
with him. That wasn't a hiring situation, of course, but, well....


> A "generic" resume/CV is less than desirable, because the chances of
> you hitting the right buzzwords is less. The best deal is to have
> WHAT APPEARS TO BE a resume/CV that matches as much as possible exactly
> what they've advertised for.  Maybe "more" than meeting the requirements
> can be a disadvantage some times (they want 5 years, you have 7 - either
> you are more expensive than they want, or something else is "wrong"). An
> example from several years ago, we advertised for a junior engineer, and
> one of the responders was a MS with 9 years experience.  Why isn't he
> being hired into a level suited to his education/experience? Why is he
> trying for a position this "low" in the barking order?  What's wrong?

Valid questions, but not necessairily reasons to become suspicious
before you hear an answer. Besides, so many outfits tout their amazing
commitment to personal growth and whatnot that nitpicking too much there
visibly belies potential employers intentions.


> Maximum power, ease up on the nose - positive rate of climb - gear up -
> GET OUT OF HERE - this is not where you want to land!

They'll get the polite notice they're shitlisted as soon as I get around
to sending it, as indeed the silence was deafening.

Apropos the same, dropped another re-inquiry on another recruiter, but
haven't seen any response yet. Given that he previously needed two weeks
to answer at all I'll give him a bit of leeway. I've sent emails to so
many recruiters that I can keep up this game for a while yet.


> [temp agencies]
> It has two positives - it gets money into _your_ pockets, while at the
> same time makes you visible (and able to see better).

True enough. Now for a local agency that doesn't specialise in pipe-fitters.


>========================
>>I was thinking of some sort of functional equivalent of the movable
>>ramps used on airports. How high should a movable (mobile?) platform
>>go to make it usable for contact with a passing airship?
>
> Most of the masts I've seen are such that the airship is level, and
> the gondola is relatively low - a few meters. The key is to be able
> to keep the tail off the ground.  If you increase the height beyond
> this, you get into control problems trying to keep the airship
> entrance within a few centimeters - less than 20 - of the "platform
> where the passengers are. And that platform can't be moving about
> chasing the airship - or you'd be out of passengers right now.

Ships of the sea-going kind have had to deal with that for ages.
Moderate movement, when well-managed, is not a problem.

Fix the arm to the airship and have it move with it, and figure
something out to make the transition at the central turning point. A
circular lift cage would do nicely, provided it can correct its own
orientation when descending back down (if necessairy).


>>Take advantage of nearby skyscrapers? 
>
> As the British R100 and R101 were designed? The mooring mast at
> Cardington was over 150 feet tall. There was an interior passage to
> a scoop-like hatch just below the tip of the nose.  There was an urban
> legend that the Empire State Building in New York City was to be used
> for this, with the airship mooring at the 102nd floor.   I vaguely
> recall some limited testing elsewhere rejecting the concept due to
> erratic winds, and the fact that _everything_ (pax, baggage, fuel,
> stores, etc.) had to use essentially the same access.

A quick google search didn't turn up much. I think erratic winds can be
sufficiently accounted for in the desing, and if not I'd be interested
to know why. The access problem is interesting, but if you can make one
connection, you can make it big enough to allow two adjacent walkways,
add a few hoses, that sort of thing. We've made a few improvements in
the necessairy technology in the meantime.

Also, greyhound busses aren't revictualised at every stop. Aircraft are.
Airships very well might not need to either.


>>You mean the one that attaches not on the nose but halfway between it
>>and the front of the gondola? It'd fit on most any support vehicle
>>local to the landing field.
>
> At least for the Goodyear blimp (I've never seen the others in a
> ground handling situation), the attach point is the tip of the nose.
> This takes a fairly healthy vehicle - possibly ten tons or more.

I did a google search for the previous post and all mobile attachment
pictures found for goodyear blimbs showed attachment not strictly at the
tip. An old photo showed a beefed up delivery van, a newer photo had a
bus for an attachment vehicle. It wouldn't surprise me if that was to
prevent pulling the vehicle over, vertically.


>>and neither do they have the choppy bits going round like a
>>helicopter does.
>
> At least one that I'm aware of is using 'ducted' propellers (which
> can be swiveled to act as a vectored thrust), but all the rest use
> ordinary props, exactly like older aircraft..

Though compared to aeroplanes, the relative area of choppy bits to rest
of the vehicle is quite small, to say nothing of comparing to helicopers.
The latter tend to have a rather big rotor on top and a not so large one
at the end, but which can easily swing around and chop random bystanders
in an accident -- much more easily than a prop-plane.

According to the wikipedia article the drag will negate many advantages
at higher speeds (stated at >80mph or so). Presumably ducting the
propellers is easier on an airship, and I'm not sure it doesn't have
*other* drag problems before the drag-from-ducting becomes noticeable.

Airshops being quite large, large propellers shouldn't be too much of
a problem. On that note, internal propellers in a rigid section of the
airship might be an option. i don't what sort of problems the necessairy
airflow engineering will pose.


>>The only problem is that they need *a lot* of room, which'll pose
>>structural challenges maybe, but not weight or runway problems.
>
> The mast also has to be strong enough to handle the sail area that the
> airship equates to. Depending on the length of the "arm" from the
> airship to the "unyielding ground", you may want to run over those
> stress and fatigue calculations a couple more times.   ;-)

True enough, but that still is but one mast on an otherwise empty field.
No need for runways, keeping them free of snow, preventing aquaplaning,
and all that.


-- 
  j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
  This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
  Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
  consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

On 18 Jun 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
<slrng5i5b8.12gg.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:

>Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:

>> Believe it.  When I am hiring, I've got to justify the position to my
>> management - telling them exactly why I need this additional person.
>
>Of course. Then again, depending on the situation and cluefulness
>of management you can, or should be able to, get a certain leeway
>``future-proofing the profile''. This might also depend on the
>restrictions on firing people.

Recall, I'm at an R&D facility, and we're looked at as a non-profit
making entity. They watch our costs fairly closely, and we're not
allowed to be fat and lazy.    Generally, the restrictions on firing
(as opposed to "laying off") are dictated by the lawyers who want to
avoid having to defend the company in court (wrongful termination)
for any reason.  Thus, someone has to screw up and have it documented
before we can fire them.  'Layoff' on the other hand is a different
set of rules. It _usually_ is better if the employee can be
transferred to another job within the company (there is a state tax -
really a insurance premium paid to the state based on the number of
employees who after being laid off apply for unemployment
compensation), never mind that good employees are valuable.

>> They do not go with "hiring because the person may be useful down
>> the road".
>
>My former boss at $lastjob, titled VP of somethingorother, was kept
>_well beyond_ his best-before date, think half a year, as a ``simple
>programmer'' (his words, but at the same inflated salary of course),
>``against future need'' (said the CEO). Which was remarkable as he'd
>antagonised so many people that people were directly refusing to work
>with him. That wasn't a hiring situation, of course, but, well....

That's fairly well known - and is _sometimes_ an acceptable action.
In my first job after military service, I was building electro-
mechanical instruments, and had bought my first new car based on the
decent pay I was getting. Less than a year later, sales were down, and
business was slow - such that I was only working 35 hours a week. The
department I was in "loaned" me to another department where I was
drawing blueprints for special order machine screws. I was able to
continue to make those car payments. That loan only lasted about 10
weeks, before sales picked up, and I was recalled.   On the other
hand, I've seen the "retained at full salary doing day-labor that any
new-hire could do at half the pay-rate" situation, and the company is
in dire straits because of high expenses / low (quality|quantity) work.

["over-qualified" employees]

>> several years ago, we advertised for a junior engineer, and one of
>> the responders was a MS with 9 years experience.  Why isn't he being
>> hired into a level suited to his education/experience? Why is he
>> trying for a position this "low" in the barking order?  What's wrong?
>
>Valid questions, but not necessairily reasons to become suspicious
>before you hear an answer.

As I say, it raises a warning flag.

>Besides, so many outfits tout their amazing commitment to personal
>growth and whatnot that nitpicking too much there visibly belies
>potential employers intentions.

I think you're missing my point. I imagine most companies would like
to hire a 'Gold' employee at 'Bronze' prices, but if the candidate is
willing to accept the lower position, "what is wrong"?  Either the
economic picture as a whole is worse than we're aware of, or this
person really isn't a piece of 'Gold'.  Before we hire, we'd like to
know which.  (Even ignoring any job finder's fees, it costs a medium
pile of coin to hire anyone. Filling out all the forms, due diligence
checks, and the like are an expense - I've seen estimates as high as
two person/weeks which is to say between $14000 and $2000. True, very
little of that comes out of "my" budget, but it's still an expense.

>> Maximum power, ease up on the nose - positive rate of climb - gear up -
>> GET OUT OF HERE - this is not where you want to land!
>
>They'll get the polite notice they're shitlisted as soon as I get around
>to sending it, as indeed the silence was deafening.

About ten years ago, we had a modest expansion of this facility, and I
was watching the newspapers, several Usenet job groups, and the mail
to some scam-trap accounts set up at a couple of local ISPs. Most of
the head-hunters and job-shops in the area were aware of our expansion,
and were drag netting for warm (or at least breathing) bodies in
preparation for us announcing a bunch of job openings.  We wound up 
blacklisting nearly half of the pimps because of their "creative"
techniques.

[temp agencies]

>True enough. Now for a local agency that doesn't specialise in
>pipe-fitters.

They have GOT to exist there.   Have you tried something stupid like
using a search engine?  This news server has well over a thousand
newsgroups with the string 'job' in the title...

[compton ~]$ grep job .newsrc | grep nl | column
llnl.jobs.administrative!       llnl.jobs.scientists+engineers!
llnl.jobs.ee.admin!             llnl.jobs.technical!
llnl.jobs.ee.s+e!
[compton ~]$ 

except these are in Livermore, California (Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory - run by ucb.edu for the Department of Energy.  ;-)  I'm not
saying those who publish in such a group would be good, but it gives
names to start looking around.

========================

>Ships of the sea-going kind have had to deal with that for ages.
>Moderate movement, when well-managed, is not a problem.

Most passenger ships aren't using a single 'anchor' point when
loading/unloading passengers.   They're tied up fore and aft against
the dock or slip way, and all the passengers have to worry about is
any residual pitching/rolling.  If they're tied up to a mooring buoy
out in the middle of no-where, you're using some kind of launch or
small boat as the transfer mechanism, and it gets tied to the pier
when at land, or to the ship when out there - and is otherwise free
to move about.  That would be much more complicated for an airship.

>> As the British R100 and R101 were designed? The mooring mast at
>> Cardington was over 150 feet tall. There was an interior passage
>> to a scoop-like hatch just below the tip of the nose.

>A quick google search didn't turn up much. I think erratic winds can
>be sufficiently accounted for in the desing, and if not I'd be
>interested to know why.

As long as there is no wind turbulence, and the winds are not varying
much in direction, things are not "as" complicated, but they can still
be very interesting.cn - you need only look at sailing vessels.

>The access problem is interesting, but if you can make one connection,
>you can make it big enough to allow two adjacent walkways, add a few
>hoses, that sort of thing. We've made a few improvements in the
>necessairy technology in the meantime.

Watch the weight distribution - shifting ballast and all that. ;-)

>Also, greyhound busses aren't revictualised at every stop.

I don't think I've ever had anything served on a bus - it's all done
at stops. (Busses here rarely carry more crew than the driver.)

>Airships very well might not need to either.

Hard to say, but recall that weight is expensive. For "day trips" (say
anything up to 8-10 hours), you might only feed at "important" stops.

>I did a google search for the previous post and all mobile attachment
>pictures found for goodyear blimbs showed attachment not strictly at
>the tip. An old photo showed a beefed up delivery van, a newer photo
>had a bus for an attachment vehicle. It wouldn't surprise me if that
>was to prevent pulling the vehicle over, vertically.

The few times I've seen ground operations of a Goodyear blimp, the
mast vehicle was a ten-wheeler (dual tandems aft) with the mast
folding forward over the cab. The "registered" weight was around 10
tons.

>The latter tend to have a rather big rotor on top and a not so large one
>at the end, but which can easily swing around and chop random bystanders
>in an accident -- much more easily than a prop-plane.

The airplane/copter driver is supposed to be in control of things, and
the times that they loose it, the bird tends to be damaged by hitting
the ground or big nasty objects more than people.  People aren't
supposed to be that close when things are turning. It's bad for the
pilots morale when they chop up people.

>According to the wikipedia article the drag will negate many advantages
>at higher speeds (stated at >80mph or so).

Huh?  Compare the ducted propeller with a large fan-jet, such as the
Pratt JT9D on a 747 or similar.

>Presumably ducting the propellers is easier on an airship, and I'm not
>sure it doesn't have *other* drag problems before the drag-from-ducting
>becomes noticeable.

The main advantage of a ducted prop, whether in an airship or on a
tug-boat is that the whole mess can be rotated much as you would a
rudder (or elevator in the case of an airship). This gives a form of
vectored thrust. Couple this concept to a controllable pitch prop,
and you can have pretty aggressive control if needed.

>True enough, but that still is but one mast on an otherwise empty field.

Your bean counters may not appreciate that inefficiency.  But then, it
was common to grow various crops on the perimeter of airfields - mainly
vegetables or grasses for hay - till it finally dawned on people that
such land use attracted vermin, which in turn attracted predator birds,
which in turn damaged engines when ingested.

>No need for runways, keeping them free of snow, preventing aquaplaning,
>and all that.

You probably want it graded (avoid turbulence) and packed strong enough
to support a couple of fire trucks.

        Old guy

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 15:05:36 -0500,
Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
> On 18 Jun 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
><slrng5i5b8.12gg.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:
>>Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
>
> [...] I've seen the "retained at full salary doing day-labor that any
> new-hire could do at half the pay-rate" situation, and the company is
> in dire straits because of high expenses / low (quality|quantity) work.

This guy was supposed to be fixing that, not doing it himself.


> ["over-qualified" employees]
>>Besides, so many outfits tout their amazing commitment to personal
>>growth and whatnot that nitpicking too much there visibly belies
>>potential employers intentions.
>
> I think you're missing my point. I imagine most companies would like
> to hire a 'Gold' employee at 'Bronze' prices, but if the candidate is
> willing to accept the lower position, "what is wrong"?  Either the
> economic picture as a whole is worse than we're aware of, or this
> person really isn't a piece of 'Gold'.

Not an either-or question. The person may not be aware of market prices,
is under unrelated pressure to take _a_ job, wants to enter this field,
(eg. IT within finance instead of IT at an IT shop), et cetera.

My point was rather that companies promising prospective employees
the world in terms of becoming gold but turn out to not want someone
who is halfway there -- he has to be at the very beginning and not a
step further -- are acting somewhat hypocritically. Perhaps the person
is willing to accept an immediate pay cut in anticipation of future
increases quicker and larger than attainable elsewhere.


> About ten years ago, we had a modest expansion of this facility, and I
> was watching the newspapers, several Usenet job groups, and the mail
> to some scam-trap accounts set up at a couple of local ISPs. Most of
> the head-hunters and job-shops in the area were aware of our expansion,
> and were drag netting for warm (or at least breathing) bodies in
> preparation for us announcing a bunch of job openings.  We wound up 
> blacklisting nearly half of the pimps because of their "creative"
> techniques.

:-)


> [temp agencies]
>>True enough. Now for a local agency that doesn't specialise in
>>pipe-fitters.
>
> They have GOT to exist there.   Have you tried something stupid like
> using a search engine?  This news server has well over a thousand
> newsgroups with the string 'job' in the title...

I did that ages ago, and am monitoring a sack of local and not-so-local
jobs groups. The keywords are somewhat different though. Language
differences and all that. For those local groups, the pickings are
rather thin, so I'm also looking at a number of websites.

As to temp agencies, I'll dig into the local yellow pages as soon as
I've taken care of some more pressing matters.


>========================
>
>>Ships of the sea-going kind have had to deal with that for ages.
>>Moderate movement, when well-managed, is not a problem.
>
> Most passenger ships aren't using a single 'anchor' point when
> loading/unloading passengers.   They're tied up fore and aft against
> the dock or slip way, and all the passengers have to worry about is
> any residual pitching/rolling.  If they're tied up to a mooring buoy
> out in the middle of no-where, you're using some kind of launch or
> small boat as the transfer mechanism, and it gets tied to the pier
> when at land, or to the ship when out there - and is otherwise free
> to move about.  That would be much more complicated for an airship.

If we're providing infrastructure anyway, an automatic anchor point
movable in a circle around the tower to which you can attach a rear
anchor line could go a long way. The ship can still move with the wind,
and other movements can be dampened.

Launching a smaller airship from an airship will probably be complicated,
but a larger lighter-than-air docking platform may be an option.

Another option is a hangar, but size is a problem. One could contemplate
putting some sort of sail over a small canyon to keep the wind out.

Airships are big, so thinking big helps, even if the idea turns out to
not be feasible. :-)


>>The access problem is interesting, but if you can make one connection,
>>you can make it big enough to allow two adjacent walkways, add a few
>>hoses, that sort of thing. We've made a few improvements in the
>>necessairy technology in the meantime.
>
> Watch the weight distribution - shifting ballast and all that. ;-)

Add, say, a couple of water tanks distributed around the vessel, and
a system to monitor weight distribution and pump the water around to
compensate. Connect it to the tower to handle excess or add extra. Some
human input may be desirable but a large part, if not all, could be
automated.


>>Airships very well might not need to either.
>
> Hard to say, but recall that weight is expensive. For "day trips" (say
> anything up to 8-10 hours), you might only feed at "important" stops.

Expensive, but not as expensive as on an aeroplane, since the lifting
costs very little fuel.


>>According to the wikipedia article the drag will negate many advantages
>>at higher speeds (stated at >80mph or so).
>
> Huh?  Compare the ducted propeller with a large fan-jet, such as the
> Pratt JT9D on a 747 or similar.

At a guess, the difference there lies in using the fan to compress
air for the jet engine. But for a better answer we'll need to ask an
aircraft engine engineer[1].


>>True enough, but that still is but one mast on an otherwise empty field.
>
> Your bean counters may not appreciate that inefficiency.  But then, it
> was common to grow various crops on the perimeter of airfields - mainly
> vegetables or grasses for hay - till it finally dawned on people that
> such land use attracted vermin, which in turn attracted predator birds,
> which in turn damaged engines when ingested.

That is a serious problem for jet engines, but probably less of a
problem for airships. On a dedicated airship field I don't expect
to find many jet engine-equipped craft.


>>No need for runways, keeping them free of snow, preventing aquaplaning,
>>and all that.
>
> You probably want it graded (avoid turbulence) and packed strong enough
> to support a couple of fire trucks.

Some fire fighting solution will be necessairy, but it doesn't need to
be nearly as heavy-duty. I expect to the point of being able to make
the vehicles light enough to not be much of a problem even on a soaked
field, even without making them tracked.

A reasonably flat field is useful but not much work. Once flattened
it'll mostly stay flattenet, and any potholes don't require much more
than a bucket of sand and a couple minutes with the packing tool.

Alternatively, a concrete slab is easily poured as it has very little
structural requirements compared to a runway.


[1] The latter term probably derives more from siege engines than jet or
    combustion engines. Though siege engines combusted often enough.

-- 
  j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
  This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
  Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
  consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

On 21 Jun 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
<slrng5pa7c.1d29.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:

>Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:

["over-qualified" employees]

>> I think you're missing my point. I imagine most companies would like
>> to hire a 'Gold' employee at 'Bronze' prices, but if the candidate is
>> willing to accept the lower position, "what is wrong"?  Either the
>> economic picture as a whole is worse than we're aware of, or this
>> person really isn't a piece of 'Gold'.
>
>Not an either-or question. The person may not be aware of market prices,
>is under unrelated pressure to take _a_ job, wants to enter this field,
>(eg. IT within finance instead of IT at an IT shop), et cetera.

Certainly the latter would be valid, but I'm not sure the former would
be.  The person should be aware of how much they were being paid, and
have some feel where that figure relates in respect to others doing
similar work.  The words are "salary survey".

>My point was rather that companies promising prospective employees
>the world in terms of becoming gold but turn out to not want someone
>who is halfway there -- he has to be at the very beginning and not a
>step further -- are acting somewhat hypocritically.

I'd agree, but don't see how this relates to the above?

>Perhaps the person is willing to accept an immediate pay cut in
>anticipation of future increases quicker and larger than attainable
>elsewhere.

We see this with some regularity, but in a slightly different context.
The "cost of living" is different in different areas. Both my wife and
I took a hit when we moved here (Phoenix) from the San Francisco area.
Simple numbers - housing costs were about half what they were in the
Bay Area. Food and motor fuel prices were about 10 percent less.

>>> True enough. Now for a local agency that doesn't specialise in
>>> pipe-fitters.
>>
>> They have GOT to exist there.   Have you tried something stupid like
>> using a search engine?  This news server has well over a thousand
>> newsgroups with the string 'job' in the title...
>
>I did that ages ago, and am monitoring a sack of local and not-so-local
>jobs groups. The keywords are somewhat different though. Language
>differences and all that. For those local groups, the pickings are
>rather thin, so I'm also looking at a number of websites.

What I was actually aiming at was the names of the agencies.  Yes, the
job news groups are quite slim pickings now, mainly because of abuse by
those offering jobs.  What used to be an important jobs newsgroup here
has declined from ~670 valid posts (out of ~1100) a year five years ago
(that's the oldest data on the logs I have handy, but it was a LOT
busier ten years ago) to... would you believe just 4 out of 80 so far
this year?  Even the most dense of the pimp-houses know they ruined
that means of attracting candidates.

>As to temp agencies, I'll dig into the local yellow pages as soon as
>I've taken care of some more pressing matters.

If you have access to any employers, ask them for names of agencies
they are/have-been using.

========================

>If we're providing infrastructure anyway, an automatic anchor point
>movable in a circle around the tower to which you can attach a rear
>anchor line could go a long way. The ship can still move with the wind,
>and other movements can be dampened.

I suspect this would require some mechanical considerations in the
structural design of the airship.

>Add, say, a couple of water tanks distributed around the vessel, and
>a system to monitor weight distribution and pump the water around to
>compensate.

Look for "Frahm's Anti-Rolling Tanks" that were installed on the
HAPAG line vessels of the 'Imperator' class of Atlantic liners in the
1912-1914 period.  No, they didn't work either.  Problem is shifting
a LOT of water quickly, as we're talking about a cubic meter per ton.
The tanks, the pipes, and especially the pumps are going to be heavy.

>> Huh?  Compare the ducted propeller with a large fan-jet, such as the
>> Pratt JT9D on a 747 or similar.
>
>At a guess, the difference there lies in using the fan to compress
>air for the jet engine.

Around 4.5 to 5 units of air goes around the engine (at an over-pressure
of 1.65 to 1.80:1) for every unit that goes into the core to run the
engine.

>> You probably want it graded (avoid turbulence) and packed strong enough
>> to support a couple of fire trucks.
>
>Some fire fighting solution will be necessairy, but it doesn't need to
>be nearly as heavy-duty. I expect to the point of being able to make
>the vehicles light enough to not be much of a problem even on a soaked
>field, even without making them tracked.

I've no idea what current vehicles are like, but the Air Farce Crash
Rescue trucks I'm familiar with carried 1000 US Gallons (just under
3.8 cubic meters) of water - with two pretty healthy engines (one to
run the vehicle, one to run the pumps) on a six wheel chassis. Even
with big tires (1.3 meters dia, 0.25 meters wide) they still had
a heck of a lot of foot-print pressure.

>Alternatively, a concrete slab is easily poured as it has very little
>structural requirements compared to a runway.

Modern aircraft, with high foot-print pressures and tricycle (note)
landing gear are what demanded paved runways. Prior to that, a well
tended grass was all that was needed. Lots of problems getting the
drainage right for long life, but there were a lot of them built
and the knowledge is there.

        Old guy

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 21:32:20 -0500,
Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
> On 21 Jun 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
><slrng5pa7c.1d29.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:
>
>>Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
> ["over-qualified" employees]
>
> The person should be aware of how much they were being paid, and
> have some feel where that figure relates in respect to others doing
> similar work.  The words are "salary survey".

Well, I wasn't aware of local market rates, as I'd basically hopped in
as an interesting chance and a favour to an IRC-acquintance with similar
interests. Finding out the hard way I had been too trusting and was
getting royally shafted was part of the reason I burned out and why I
now will not work with any of the people responsible again.

You're right that one really should know something of the market, but
OTOH and especially where it is Not Done[tm] to talk about salaries,
it can be tricky to get right.

Still and all, yes, you're right that ``they should''. Doesn't seem much
of a reason to shove'em aside for, though. It's not the knowing how much
they'll be worth to you that you hire'em for.


>>My point was rather that companies promising prospective employees
>>the world in terms of becoming gold but turn out to not want someone
>>who is halfway there -- he has to be at the very beginning and not a
>>step further -- are acting somewhat hypocritically.
>
> I'd agree, but don't see how this relates to the above?

It's the other side of expecting prospective employees to fit neatly
in the mold of the advert.


> [usenet jobs groups]
> Even the most dense of the pimp-houses know they ruined that means of
> attracting candidates.

So they all moved to (ad-supported) websites. Fully justified even, now
that usenet is being villified as a fount of ch1ld pr0n. (Thanks so much
for starting another wichhunt, silly nooyawk attorney general.)


>========================
>
>>If we're providing infrastructure anyway, an automatic anchor point
>>movable in a circle around the tower to which you can attach a rear
>>anchor line could go a long way. The ship can still move with the wind,
>>and other movements can be dampened.
>
> I suspect this would require some mechanical considerations in the
> structural design of the airship.

It isn't much different from the ropes the goodyear blimps sport, really.


>>Add, say, a couple of water tanks distributed around the vessel, and
>>a system to monitor weight distribution and pump the water around to
>>compensate.
>
> Look for "Frahm's Anti-Rolling Tanks" that were installed on the
> HAPAG line vessels of the 'Imperator' class of Atlantic liners in the
> 1912-1914 period.  No, they didn't work either.  Problem is shifting
> a LOT of water quickly, as we're talking about a cubic meter per ton.
> The tanks, the pipes, and especially the pumps are going to be heavy.

Google gives me just two hits on that (with quotes), and a cursory
glance at the google books result[1] seems to indicate that such an
approach could work reasonably well.

Though even without that I'd counter with noting that an airship is a
lot lighter and that one needs to transport much, much less water to
achieve a comparable result than one would in an ocean liner. Though
the airship you mentioned upthread features expanding and compressing
additional helium, which is the much more obvious approach. Of course.


> I've no idea what current vehicles are like, but the Air Farce Crash
> Rescue trucks I'm familiar with carried 1000 US Gallons (just under
> 3.8 cubic meters) of water - with two pretty healthy engines (one to
> run the vehicle, one to run the pumps) on a six wheel chassis. Even
> with big tires (1.3 meters dia, 0.25 meters wide) they still had
> a heck of a lot of foot-print pressure.

But as noted, those are for crash results of fast moving heavy objects
full of fuel and choppy bits and, if dealing with passenger craft,
confining the passengers to a sardine can type hull. I think that the
crash results of slow-moving large objects filled mostly with inert
gasses could be dealt with through less heavy means.

A city fire truck probably only carries one cubic metre of water and
less heavy-duty engines. Wouldn't be surprised if that would be enough
for an airship field. The vehicle at EHHO was even less fancy.


[1] _Liquid sloshing dynamics: Theory and Applications_ by Raouf A. Ibrahim

-- 
  j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
  This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
  Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
  consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

On 22 Jun 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
<slrng5ss7n.1hmj.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:

>Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:

>> The person should be aware of how much they were being paid, and
>> have some feel where that figure relates in respect to others doing
>> similar work.  The words are "salary survey".
>
>Well, I wasn't aware of local market rates, as I'd basically hopped in
>as an interesting chance and a favour to an IRC-acquintance with similar
>interests. Finding out the hard way I had been too trusting and was
>getting royally shafted was part of the reason I burned out and why I
>now will not work with any of the people responsible again.

That sucks

>You're right that one really should know something of the market, but
>OTOH and especially where it is Not Done[tm] to talk about salaries,
>it can be tricky to get right.

You might have to jump through some hoops, but there are ways to gain
some understanding of the local market.  One means would be to use the
SAGE surveys, and then put a fudge factor for the difference in the
local costs of living.

[usenet jobs groups]
>> Even the most dense of the pimp-houses know they ruined that means
>> of attracting candidates.
>
>So they all moved to (ad-supported) websites.

Yeah, I have seen some of that, but it seems to be less common and
has the problem of candidates _finding_ some of the sites. This results
in a poorer selection for everyone.

>Fully justified even, now that usenet is being villified as a fount of
>ch1ld pr0n. (Thanks so much for starting another wichhunt, silly
>nooyawk attorney general.)

He wasn't the only one with the ax, but the reality seems to be that
the ISPs in question (Verizon, TimeWarner/Road-Runner, and Sprint)
ignored multiple warnings that they had crap on their servers. Some
have gone so far as to suggest that this was intentional, with the
intent to eliminate this costly service that isn't all that popular.
Face it, the use of Usenet has declined over the years.  I used to try
to track about 12 newsgroup, and see upwards of 1000 posts per day to
those groups alone. Now, I'm subscribed to 80 groups and the article
count (before/after killfile) for the week was 3203 - 851 = 2352, and
that's a little higher than normal because I've got 27 alt.* groups
and a significant number of posts in those groups are whines about
'what are we gonna do now'?  To me, it looks like a windfall for
news providers outside of the .us (including several in .cn who
probably appreciate the wry humor of the issue).

But if you need the humor, I hear that the French government is pushing
to cut off ISP customers caught the third time downloading pirate
music and/or video for a year. See
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article4165519.ece
if you haven't heard of this little jewel.

========================
["Frahm's Anti-Rolling Tanks"]

>Google gives me just two hits on that (with quotes), and a cursory
>glance at the google books result[1] seems to indicate that such an
>approach could work reasonably well.

It didn't. The much later 'Denny Brown Stabilizers' were far more
successful, but only work at speed (basically side fins controlled by a
gyro which exert a righting moment when the ship rolls - think of
ailerons on an airplane).

[Air Farce Crash Rescue trucks]

>But as noted, those are for crash results of fast moving heavy objects
>full of fuel and choppy bits and, if dealing with passenger craft,
>confining the passengers to a sardine can type hull. I think that the
>crash results of slow-moving large objects filled mostly with inert
>gasses could be dealt with through less heavy means.

So you're planning on heavy-oil engines? While a gas turbine (which
weigh 1/4 to 1/7th as much as a Diesel for comparable power) will burn
such oil, they're normally running on a highly refined and volatile
kerosene that burns quite well thank-you. That Goodyear blimp is using
~25 gallons/hour of regular NATO Type F-18 100 octane aviation gasoline.

>A city fire truck probably only carries one cubic metre of water and
>less heavy-duty engines. Wouldn't be surprised if that would be enough
>for an airship field. The vehicle at EHHO was even less fancy.

The fire trucks at my two local airports (which do not have airline
service and are not rated by 14 CFR 139 "CERTIFICATION AND OPERATIONS:
LAND AIRPORTS SERVING CERTAIN AIR CARRIERS") have a minimum of ~2 meters
of water and there are at least three such trucks at the airport fire
station. I suspect (at least here in the US) that airship fields would
still fall under Part 139. Interestingly, Part 139 separates classes
of aircraft by length, not weight or passenger capacity.

        Old guy

On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 19:10:55 -0500,
Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
> On 22 Jun 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
><slrng5ss7n.1hmj.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:
>>Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
>
> You might have to jump through some hoops, but there are ways to gain
> some understanding of the local market.  One means would be to use the
> SAGE surveys, and then put a fudge factor for the difference in the
> local costs of living.

Yeah, I (now) roughly know what I want, and I also know how much is
overasking to the point of making them go pale. Sometimes worth it,
though. >:-)


On the other hand, negotiating, saying ``in principle yes'', then going
entirely silent I thought quite bad form. But, well, negotiating is
something the ``civilised'' parts of the world do very badly. I never
could until I recently found a little book about it, and tried my
hand at talking to the local arab in his shop full of indeterminate
electronics. Interesting indeed.


> [usenet jobs groups]
>>> Even the most dense of the pimp-houses know they ruined that means
>>> of attracting candidates.
>>
>>So they all moved to (ad-supported) websites.
>
> Yeah, I have seen some of that, but it seems to be less common and
> has the problem of candidates _finding_ some of the sites. This results
> in a poorer selection for everyone.

That, and those sites also getting spammed with excessive amounts of
the same, and poor searching abilities[1], makes clear that the web
is a better everything. Not.

I don't suppose our comments here triggered the recent influx of dimwits
dumping jobs right here instead of the place people would look if they
were looking for a job, did we?


>>Fully justified even, now that usenet is being villified as a fount of
>>ch1ld pr0n. (Thanks so much for starting another wichhunt, silly
>>nooyawk attorney general.)
>
> He wasn't the only one with the ax, but the reality seems to be that
> the ISPs in question (Verizon, TimeWarner/Road-Runner, and Sprint)
> ignored multiple warnings that they had crap on their servers.

Not entirely without justification, as admitting you can filter could
easily mean you've just obligated yourself _to_ filter. Whoops.

People are stupid like that. Not saying these four were shining examples
of responsibility. Though nuking all of alt.* instead of the binary
groups (that are surprisingly well confined given the nature of alt.*)
is also nicely indiscriminate.


> Some have gone so far as to suggest that this was intentional, with
> the intent to eliminate this costly service that isn't all that
> popular.

Partly thanks to the binary shitstorm. Another part is that beyond the
file-hungry masses only the quality customers appreciate this. Those are
much less easily fleeced and milked.


> Face it, the use of Usenet has declined over the years. [...]

``Web forums'' is what the great unwashed sees and wants. I miss the
flexibility of choosing my own client and editor and so on, to the point
of refusing to bother with those piles of wonky security incidents
waiting to happen. Clearly, less choice is more power to the people.

There is a pointed comment about education in this but I'm foregoing
making it in favour of going to bed instead, seeing the upcoming
happenings tomorrow.


> But if you need the humor, I hear that the French government is pushing
> to cut off ISP customers caught the third time downloading pirate
> music and/or video for a year.

They're not the only ones (something about the Japanese trying something
similar). I think it has all the signs of a rear-guard battle for the
copyright conglomerates. It so shows the bankrupcy of a nice idea.


>========================
> ["Frahm's Anti-Rolling Tanks"]
>
>>Google gives me just two hits on that (with quotes), and a cursory
>>glance at the google books result[1] seems to indicate that such an
>>approach could work reasonably well.
>
> It didn't. The much later 'Denny Brown Stabilizers' were far more
> successful, but only work at speed (basically side fins controlled by a
> gyro which exert a righting moment when the ship rolls - think of
> ailerons on an airplane).

Going to take your word for it and perhaps find time somewhere in the
future to look at it more. :-)


> [Air Farce Crash Rescue trucks]
>
> So you're planning on heavy-oil engines?

Not particularly. I don't know if it's much of a factor, seeing your
comment on length below.


> I suspect (at least here in the US) that airship fields would still
> fall under Part 139.

That probably either needs specific rules for airship operations or its
own rules in a different part, but we speculated on that uptread for
other reasons already.


> Interestingly, Part 139 separates classes of aircraft by length, not
> weight or passenger capacity.

I would like to know why that is.

I would've expected (landing) speed, maybe fuel carrying capacity,
things like that. But maybe those are implicit assumptions.


[1] Recently found one that did allow boolean search of sorts. There, NOT
    is a binary operator. Really.

-- 
  j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
  This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
  Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
  consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

On 23 Jun 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
<slrng604cf.1m8t.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:

>Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:

>On the other hand, negotiating, saying ``in principle yes'', then going
>entirely silent I thought quite bad form. But, well, negotiating is
>something the ``civilised'' parts of the world do very badly. I never
>could until I recently found a little book about it, and tried my
>hand at talking to the local arab in his shop full of indeterminate
>electronics. Interesting indeed.

I'm not sure that experience exactly matches, but it's a start ;-)

>> Yeah, I have seen some of that, but it seems to be less common and
>> has the problem of candidates _finding_ some of the sites. This
>> results in a poorer selection for everyone.
>
>That, and those sites also getting spammed with excessive amounts of
>the same, and poor searching abilities[1], makes clear that the web
>is a better everything. Not.

I'm getting to the point where I think that websites are there to show
who you should avoid.  There is the spam, there are advertisements and
fairly obvious fake offers (when your site is advertising for a temp
job and the starting date is over a year ago... WTF?) or has ludicrous
requirements (trust me - no one has two years experience in Vista right
now) - yet the clueless seem to think people will be knocking down the
doors trying to apply for the "job".

>> He wasn't the only one with the ax, but the reality seems to be that
>> the ISPs in question (Verizon, TimeWarner/Road-Runner, and Sprint)
>> ignored multiple warnings that they had crap on their servers.
>
>Not entirely without justification, as admitting you can filter could
>easily mean you've just obligated yourself _to_ filter. Whoops.

Filtering means two things - not carrying the obvious naughty groups
is a start - recall they are not Big-Eight, and such groups are
carried at the whim of the news administrator.  But another defense
that has been used in the past (when the ISP isn't hosting the server
with the forbidden material) is that they are "common carriers". This
means they are carrying packages, and are not responsible for what is
inside those packages. They may set their own limits (you can't ship
high explosives in the mail or similar)...

>People are stupid like that. Not saying these four were shining examples
>of responsibility. Though nuking all of alt.* instead of the binary
>groups (that are surprisingly well confined given the nature of alt.*)
>is also nicely indiscriminate.

Yeah, an most of the screaming I'm hearing is in non-binary groups
within that hierarchy.

>> Face it, the use of Usenet has declined over the years. [...]
>
>``Web forums'' is what the great unwashed sees and wants. I miss the
>flexibility of choosing my own client and editor and so on, to the point
>of refusing to bother with those piles of wonky security incidents
>waiting to happen.

My main objection is that the forums I've encountered have been nearly
useless - several were more interested in presentation/style, than in
the information itself.

>Clearly, less choice is more power to the people.

Whadda mean you have to think???  Why???

>> I hear that the French government is pushing to cut off ISP customers
>> caught the third time downloading pirate music and/or video for a
>> year.

>They're not the only ones (something about the Japanese trying something
>similar).

There was the stink over Sony spyware some time ago, and of course there
is the on-going DRM rights thing at microsoft and region coding of DVDs..

>I think it has all the signs of a rear-guard battle for the copyright
>conglomerates. It so shows the bankrupcy of a nice idea.

Both copyrights and patents have gotten ridiculous.  Part of this is
because no one wants to fund knowledgeable people to examine the
claims - resulting in a legal nightmare that stifles inventiveness
and original thought.

========================

>> I suspect (at least here in the US) that airship fields would still
>> fall under Part 139.
>
>That probably either needs specific rules for airship operations or its
>own rules in a different part, but we speculated on that uptread for
>other reasons already.

Part 139 applies to airfields (and heliports) serving aircraft (which
is defined as "a device that is used or intended to be used for flight
in the air" which basically covers everything) having a seating capacity
of more than 30 passengers. It's meant to be all-encompassing. What it
doesn't cover is water airfields.

>> Interestingly, Part 139 separates classes of aircraft by length, not
>> weight or passenger capacity.
>
>I would like to know why that is.

Some years ago, I asked about this at the FAA Regional Office. The
answer is dumb - length because the fire-fighting capability is based
on a water hose (or equal) being able to throw water a certain distance
and you need more trucks to cover the physically larger aircraft.

>I would've expected (landing) speed, maybe fuel carrying capacity,
>things like that. But maybe those are implicit assumptions.

I would have thought so too, but their job is to protect/rescue the
victims (the "90 second rule" 14CFR25.803 require all passengers/crew
be able to exit an aircraft using half the exits in 90 seconds - when
they did the test on the A380, they got 853 pax + 18 cabin crew + 2
guys in front out in 78 seconds with only one broken leg and 32 mostly
minor injuries).  The requirements of 14CFR139.319(i)(2) are that the
_first_ rescue vehicle reach the furthest part of the airfield in 3
minutes, and the "rest" of the required rescue vehicles be there in 4
minutes.

        Old guy

In article <slrng60raj.fe5.ibuprofin@compton.phx.az.us>,
	ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld (Moe Trin) writes:
<snip>
> job and the starting date is over a year ago... WTF?) or has ludicrous
> requirements (trust me - no one has two years experience in Vista right
> now) - yet the clueless seem to think people will be knocking down the
> doors trying to apply for the "job".

'Minds me of my days in college, when the joke around graduation was
that the recruiters were all looking for a 21 year old PhD with 12
years experience.

Sorta the same thing as "book time" for car repairs.  "The book" says
the job requires 6.5 hours, so that's what's charged, even though
the job completed in, say 2.5 hours.  Go figure.


<snip> 

-- 
Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas
-----
Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is the probable
reason so few engage in it.  -- Henry Ford

On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:43:25 -0500,
Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
> On 23 Jun 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
><slrng604cf.1m8t.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:
>>Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
>
> I'm getting to the point where I think that websites are there to show
> who you should avoid.  There is the spam, there are advertisements and
> fairly obvious fake offers (when your site is advertising for a temp
> job and the starting date is over a year ago... WTF?) or has ludicrous
> requirements (trust me - no one has two years experience in Vista right
> now) - yet the clueless seem to think people will be knocking down the
> doors trying to apply for the "job".

Much like the recruiters who do claim to get CVs from here (presumably
from lurkers?).

I've been wishing for not just boolean search, but detailed agency
filtering. Somehow most search engines are really limited WRT negative
search (``look for these keywords but drop anything from this list of
nitwits''). Google does it, ebay does it, but most of the copycats
can't. monster, which seems to be one of the better sorted jobs sites,
certainly doesn't and its country selection options recently got more
convoluted and less useful. People, how hard can it be?

Bloody hard, that's how. But it can always be worse. Eures[1] is
completely stuck to its bureaucratic job classification modelling
wossname and has no keyword search at all.


> Filtering means two things - not carrying the obvious naughty groups
> is a start - recall they are not Big-Eight, and such groups are
> carried at the whim of the news administrator.

Excercising that whim demonstrates to the uninformed that it exists,
thus that cencorship isn't merely possible, but _easy_. Which invites
demand for the second type of filtering.


> But another defense that has been used in the past (when the ISP isn't
> hosting the server with the forbidden material) is that they are
> "common carriers". This means they are carrying packages, and are not
> responsible for what is inside those packages. They may set their own
> limits (you can't ship high explosives in the mail or similar)...

A somewhat harder argument with USENET (the servers do carry locally
cached copies of the material, after all), but one I'd still accept
on general principles. That is, I find the service useful enough that
I'd like holier-than-thou cencorship to stay well away from it.


> My main objection is that the forums I've encountered have been nearly
> useless - several were more interested in presentation/style, than in
> the information itself.

Agree. This also touches on a pet annoyance of mine; there seem to be
plenty of webmonkeys, executives, and other lesser-educateable-people
that think an input box in a browser is a perfectly acceptable substitute
for a specialized text editor, customized to taste. Same with browser
windows and reader software. Even the smart people at google do it.

And then there's the flock that copy random mailinglists and usenet
groups into their otherwise content-free forum and forget to explain
where their material comes from. Searching for my signature regularly
brings up new examples of that fuckwittery. That, of course, is exaclty
what sprang the three last lines of said signature into existence.


>>Clearly, less choice is more power to the people.
>
> Whadda mean you have to think???  Why???

<monty python's gumby men> ``My bwain huwts!'' </>


>>I think it has all the signs of a rear-guard battle for the copyright
>>conglomerates. It so shows the bankrupcy of a nice idea.
>
> Both copyrights and patents have gotten ridiculous.  Part of this is
> because no one wants to fund knowledgeable people to examine the
> claims - resulting in a legal nightmare that stifles inventiveness
> and original thought.

Too much money in the whole circus to just abandon it, even with a very
clearly dysfunctional patent office and wanton copyright lawyering abuse.


Brings up an interesting question though. What should patents and
copyrights look like to make them functional again?


>========================
>
> Part 139 applies to airfields (and heliports) serving aircraft (which
> is defined as "a device that is used or intended to be used for flight
> in the air" which basically covers everything) having a seating capacity
> of more than 30 passengers. It's meant to be all-encompassing. What it
> doesn't cover is water airfields.

No wonder that previously mentioned airship was spec'ed at 28 passengers.

Brings up another question, though. What is magic about the number 30?


>>> Interestingly, Part 139 separates classes of aircraft by length, not
>>> weight or passenger capacity.
>>
>>I would like to know why that is.
>
> Some years ago, I asked about this at the FAA Regional Office. The
> answer is dumb - length because the fire-fighting capability is based
> on a water hose (or equal) being able to throw water a certain distance
> and you need more trucks to cover the physically larger aircraft.

Put a big large fixed-but-movable water nozzle right on top of the
mooring tower. Seems fairly obviosu to me. Wouldn't eliminate the need
for fire trucks, but could easily reduce that need a notch or two.


>>I would've expected (landing) speed, maybe fuel carrying capacity,
>>things like that. But maybe those are implicit assumptions.
>
> I would have thought so too, but their job is to protect/rescue the
> victims (the "90 second rule" 14CFR25.803 require all passengers/crew
> be able to exit an aircraft using half the exits in 90 seconds - [...]

It's probably a reasonable rule for tin can aeroplanes. But does it
still make sense for a relatively small gondola stuck on a large bag of
inert gas, nevermind the engines and fuel that can be kept well out of
the way?


[1] European union cross-border employment initiative website. I found
    it useless. I explained this to them (well, their helldesk droid)
    in detail and they didn't get it. Oh well.

-- 
  j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
  This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
  Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
  consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

On 26 Jun 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
<slrng67q6u.20ut.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:

>Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:

>> I'm getting to the point where I think that websites are there to show
>> who you should avoid.

>Much like the recruiters who do claim to get CVs from here (presumably
>from lurkers?).

I can't say that I've seen that much.

>I've been wishing for not just boolean search, but detailed agency
>filtering. Somehow most search engines are really limited WRT negative
>search (``look for these keywords but drop anything from this list of
>nitwits''). Google does it, ebay does it, but most of the copycats
>can't.

I think I'd get to the point of "show me stuff posted by" (a list of the
least incompetent - there can't be that many who are posting).

>monster, which seems to be one of the better sorted jobs sites,
>certainly doesn't and its country selection options recently got more
>convoluted and less useful.

Haven't looked at them in a while, but I thought they had a "reasonable"
location capability.

>People, how hard can it be?

As you say

>Bloody hard, that's how. But it can always be worse. Eures[1] is
>completely stuck to its bureaucratic job classification modelling
>wossname and has no keyword search at all.

Does 'wget' work?

>> Filtering means two things - not carrying the obvious naughty groups
>> is a start - recall they are not Big-Eight, and such groups are
>> carried at the whim of the news administrator.
>
>Excercising that whim demonstrates to the uninformed that it exists,
>thus that cencorship isn't merely possible, but _easy_. Which invites
>demand for the second type of filtering.

Some one in the Usenet newsgroups 'news.groups' cross-posted to
'news.groups.proposals' mentions that the A/G's office identified 88
newsgroups (all in the alt.binaries hierarchy - and the server I'm using
carries 6703 ^alt.binar* groups) that had carried images his office
(not, as I understand it, any court) deemed to be child porn. The
several ISPs who included news service took advantage of that by
dropping tens of thousands of newsgroups (the server I'm using carries
35967 ^alt.* groups), which they'd long wanted to get rid of because
they were only an expense, not a profit center. I suspect their dropping
of _all_ of Usenet can't be far behind.  I've been suggesting customers
of the clueless ISPs to drop them as soon as they can get replacements.
Obviously, these ISPs don't want the business, and their customers
should take the hint.

[common carrier defense]

>A somewhat harder argument with USENET (the servers do carry locally
>cached copies of the material, after all), but one I'd still accept
>on general principles. That is, I find the service useful enough that
>I'd like holier-than-thou cencorship to stay well away from it.

True, and in this case, I'm somewhat siding with the A/G as (apparently)
the ISPs did receive warnings and/or complaints about the specific
groups. I'm tending to come down more against the clueless ISPs. I
almost wonder if the ISPs weren't the ones who anonymously complained
to the A/G about the "filth" on Usenet in the first place.

>> My main objection is that the forums I've encountered have been
>> nearly useless - several were more interested in presentation/style,
>> than in the information itself.
>
>Agree. This also touches on a pet annoyance of mine; there seem to be
>plenty of webmonkeys, executives, and other lesser-educateable-people
>that think an input box in a browser is a perfectly acceptable substitute
>for a specialized text editor, customized to taste. Same with browser
>windows and reader software. Even the smart people at google do it.

Part of this this boils back to the knowledge that everything on this
Interweb-thingy is a web page and the only application a luser has to
"learn" is a web browser. (Ran into this recently at an ISP when I
was reporting a news server gone tits-up. Klown on the hell-desk asks
me what the URL of the server was.  HUH???)  Several European ISPs
have come to the conclusion that you don't need to provide an 'abuse@'
address - all you need is some web page they can fill in.  But then,
any information entered automagically goes to the the abuse handler
named Dave Null, so it probably doesn't matter.  But the point is
that everything is a web page, so they expect web authoring tools
are all that exist.

A week ago, we got a WTF message from the NOC at some Spanish ISP
wondering why his customers can't access our domain.  We tried to
reply, explaining that their domain is blocked for gross stupidity
and abuse - and the reply bounced because their NOC and postmaster
accounts return "no such user".  And they wonder why we only accept
mail from/to role accounts now. From what I hear, corporate was going
to respond by snail-mail giving a brief answer that the Spaniards are
not bothering to follow basic Internet concepts, and until they get
their mail system and role accounts working, they and their customers
are going to have a problem communicating.

I assume the web pages you're accessing have finally learned the
different style of postal codes and telephone numbers - or do they
totally depend on your email address?

>And then there's the flock that copy random mailinglists and usenet
>groups into their otherwise content-free forum and forget to explain
>where their material comes from. Searching for my signature regularly
>brings up new examples of that fuckwittery. That, of course, is exaclty
>what sprang the three last lines of said signature into existence.

This has been a problem for at least ten years.  That's why my
followup string states where I'm replying to. Back in the late 1990s,
someone had a run-in with one of the web based forums and explicitly
prohibited copying/saving/displaying his Usenet posts. My memory is
that he tried to take them to court - I _think_ both were in the UK,
but can't recall the result.  But you see this often enough - there is
an Aussie web forum (heck, there are hundreds of them, not restricted
to those in Oz) that was recently trying to include gatewaying posts
to/from Usenet. They're in my killfile, but in the rare event of my
replying to someone who is replying to such a "post" I include some
pointed remarks about fake web forums and Usenet.

I also love the posts from forum creators (invariably using google
as the posting medium) breathlessly announcing this new forum and
inviting newbies and experts to subscribe so you can talk about this
or that problem (while being inundated with crap ads that have
nothing to do with computers or what-ever the subject of the forum
might be).

>> Both copyrights and patents have gotten ridiculous.  Part of this is
>> because no one wants to fund knowledgeable people to examine the
>> claims - resulting in a legal nightmare that stifles inventiveness
>> and original thought.
>
>Too much money in the whole circus to just abandon it, even with a very
>clearly dysfunctional patent office and wanton copyright lawyering abuse.

A long time ago, someone suggested closing the patent office because
everything had already been invented. Unfortunately, many of the patents
I see are strange. An example is US patent 5662408 which is for a plug
in "night light".

   The night light has a case with a front side and a rear side. The front
   side of the case has a portion defining a window. The lamp is secured
   between the sides and covering the window. The lamp has conductors for
   connecting to an electrical supply which are in electrical contact with
   a first and second blade, the blades extending from the rear exterior
   face of the case for engaging an electrical outlet. The blades are held
   in a slot through the rear side of the case and by a portion of the
   blades which engages the interior face of the front side of the case.

Wow - it's got a front and rear side - what an extraordinary idea. (It's
a snap-together housing holding an electroluminescent panel about 3 x 3.5
centimeters with two non-polarized contacts out the back allowing direct
insertion into a common electrical outlet.) I know electroluminescent
panels have been around for decades - as have molded light assemblies,
where the contacts are molded directly into the light, and designs where
the leads of the "lamp" mechanically touch the electrical contacts that
supply power.  Why some klown was able to get this patented is beyond
me. While searching for this patent to get the description above, I find
that there is now another patent (6170958) that builds on this idea by
having the electroluminescent panel _curved_ (which should give better
light distribution). What this patent actually _claims_ is a mechanical
design that reduces the amount of plastic needed in the housing.

>Brings up an interesting question though. What should patents and
>copyrights look like to make them functional again? 

It _appears_ now that patents are granted as long as you fill out the
form, and  the "examiner" is not immediately aware of any conflict. The
patent remains in force as long as some other person doesn't file a
complaint of patent violation or otherwise cite prior art. The crap
that is being patented now doesn't seem to be making significant
improvements. But patents are a business and yet no one wants to fund
well trained examiners (Einstein was a patent examiner in .ch) and
no one has come up with a "tool" that would recognize information on
a patent application (in various languages - character sets) to allow
easy searching of the existing patents. It's still going to take a human
to look at the "new" application and any "older" patents the tool may
find in various archives, but it could help eliminate a lot of useless
patents.   If I had my choice, I'd also revoke "look and feel" patents.

========================
[14CFR139 - "more than 30 passengers"]

>No wonder that previously mentioned airship was spec'ed at 28 passengers.

Part 139 is only part of the woodshed - there is a whole bunch of rules
in 14CFR121 which relates to "Certification and Operation, Domestic,
Flag, and Supplemental Air Carriers and Commercial Operators of Large
Aircraft".  That also has an escape clause for 30 passengers or less and
a maximum payload of 7500 pounds - switching you to 14CFR135 ("Air Taxi
Operators and Commercial Operators") which applies if you are engaged in
air commerce (carrying goods/passengers for hire) but with no _minimum_
size limit.

>Brings up another question, though. What is magic about the number 30?

Other than economics - I don't know. I was going to say something about
required crew size (Part 121 requires a flight attendant for each 50
passenger seats [meaning 1 for 0-50, 2 for 51-100, and so on), but
14CFR135 sets the minimum as requiring one for 19 passenger seats,  

[14CFR139 classes based on aircraft length]

>Put a big large fixed-but-movable water nozzle right on top of the
>mooring tower. Seems fairly obviosu to me. Wouldn't eliminate the need
>for fire trucks, but could easily reduce that need a notch or two.

Assuming they only crash at the mast, and not anywhere else on the
airfield  ;-)

["90 second rule" 14CFR25.803]

>It's probably a reasonable rule for tin can aeroplanes. But does it
>still make sense for a relatively small gondola stuck on a large bag of
>inert gas, nevermind the engines and fuel that can be kept well out of
>the way?

I'd suspect this would still apply even with a helium lifting gas
because the fuel can't be that far away, and the fabric cover is still
likely to be flammable.  As flammable? No, but given passengers who may
panic on seeing fire, it's probably a due diligence type of thing.

It's an interesting thought for an airship - as the passengers begin to
exit with a lot of hustle, it becomes more buoyant and wants to rise...

        Old guy

On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 20:41:56 -0500,
Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
> On 26 Jun 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
><slrng67q6u.20ut.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:
>
>>Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
>
>>> I'm getting to the point where I think that websites are there to show
>>> who you should avoid.
>
>>Much like the recruiters who do claim to get CVs from here (presumably
>>from lurkers?).
>
> I can't say that I've seen that much.

I recall one or two gloating about it. The rest is plain write-only.


[search on recruiter-infested job ads sites]
> I think I'd get to the point of "show me stuff posted by" (a list of the
> least incompetent - there can't be that many who are posting).

It'd preclude seeing new entrants to the market, so I'd prefer to filter
out those who've proven themselves to be clueless. Yet I've not found any
that provide either.


>>monster, which seems to be one of the better sorted jobs sites,
>>certainly doesn't and its country selection options recently got more
>>convoluted and less useful.
>
> Haven't looked at them in a while, but I thought they had a "reasonable"
> location capability.

They changed it to an arbitrary maximum of 20 locations and providing a
metric arseload of silly small locations. Also replacing the ctrl-clickable
drop-down box to a drop-down box full of tickboxes. Yay for the webmonkey.


>>[...] But it can always be worse. Eures[1] is completely stuck to its
>>bureaucratic job classification modelling wossname and has no keyword
>>search at all.

(I think they do have keyword search, but only on subject, not on body.)


> Does 'wget' work?

Wasn't about to filch their entire database then filter it. Not good
for getting in new ads, for one. So I have to admit I didn't try.


>>> Filtering means two things - not carrying the obvious naughty groups
>>> is a start - recall they are not Big-Eight, and such groups are
>>> carried at the whim of the news administrator.
>>
>>Excercising that whim demonstrates to the uninformed that it exists,
>>thus that cencorship isn't merely possible, but _easy_. Which invites
>>demand for the second type of filtering.
>
> Some one in the Usenet newsgroups 'news.groups' cross-posted to
> 'news.groups.proposals' mentions that the A/G's office identified 88
> newsgroups (all in the alt.binaries hierarchy - and the server I'm using
> carries 6703 ^alt.binar* groups) that had carried images his office
> (not, as I understand it, any court)

A minor point. All you have to do is get hysterics involved (``think of
the children'', ``terrorists'', ``commies'') and <flamebait> American
Citizens and American Politicians will poop on American Constitutional
Rights in trembling fear. It's apparently the American Thing To Do.
</flamebait> Not that Europe is much better, if any. The style in which
it happens is somewhat different, though.


>                                      deemed to be child porn. The
> several ISPs who included news service took advantage of that by
> dropping tens of thousands of newsgroups (the server I'm using carries
> 35967 ^alt.* groups), which they'd long wanted to get rid of because
> they were only an expense, not a profit center.

I was under impression that 90% of the volume was in alt.binar*?

Who pushed for the entirety of alt.* then?


> I suspect their dropping of _all_ of Usenet can't be far behind.

It's the natural next step.


> I've been suggesting customers of the clueless ISPs to drop them as
> soon as they can get replacements. Obviously, these ISPs don't want
> the business, and their customers should take the hint.

*cough* aol *cough*


> [common carrier defense]
>>A somewhat harder argument with USENET (the servers do carry locally
>>cached copies of the material, after all), but one I'd still accept
>>on general principles. That is, I find the service useful enough that
>>I'd like holier-than-thou cencorship to stay well away from it.
>
> True, and in this case, I'm somewhat siding with the A/G as (apparently)
> the ISPs did receive warnings and/or complaints about the specific
> groups. I'm tending to come down more against the clueless ISPs.

It's an argument that summarily dismisses the common carrier defense. You
can't insist on being a common carrier while excepting (list of groups).


> I almost wonder if the ISPs weren't the ones who anonymously
> complained to the A/G about the "filth" on Usenet in the first place.

Seems like an awfully convoluted way to go about stopping some service.
If true, it'd mean extreme stupidity on their part, but also that
usenet wasn't quite dead yet, as you'd only do that to tell masses of
complainers ``sorry, out of our hands now''.

I'm more likely to suspect dysfunctional abuse desks and management.


[web forums considered useless]
>
> Part of this this boils back to the knowledge that everything on this
> Interweb-thingy is a web page and the only application a luser has to
> "learn" is a web browser. (Ran into this recently at an ISP when I
> was reporting a news server gone tits-up. Klown on the hell-desk asks
> me what the URL of the server was.  HUH???)

Lkely on the assumption that the least skillset meeting-or-exceeding the
absolute bare minimum is cheapest. Which it overall is not; it creates
extra work and is harmful to customer satisfaction. Management might
count on the customer being too stupid to notice where the real problem
is. Or simply not incapable of understanding what they're doing, either.


> Several European ISPs have come to the conclusion that you don't need
> to provide an 'abuse@' address - all you need is some web page they
> can fill in.

Not just European.


> But then, any information entered automagically goes to
> the the abuse handler named Dave Null, so it probably doesn't matter.
> But the point is that everything is a web page, so they expect web
> authoring tools are all that exist.

Which is pretty amazing, as the developers and webmonkeys doing it
are used to fancy graphical user interface integrated development
environments to come up with this stuff. Ergonomics design? Hah.


> A week ago, we got a WTF message from the NOC at some Spanish ISP
> wondering why his customers can't access our domain.  We tried to
> reply, explaining that their domain is blocked for gross stupidity
> and abuse - and the reply bounced because their NOC and postmaster
> accounts return "no such user".  And they wonder why we only accept
> mail from/to role accounts now.

Har har. Annoying when that happens.

Though verizon dropping all of yurp on the router level was a little
overdone. It caused $lastjob's customer helpdesk lots of grief, that
with getting ever more irate messages from verizon users asking for help
and their replies staying stuck in my outbound queue on timeouts.

I was tempted to 5xx incoming verizon messages with a link to a page
explaining we couldn't reply, but my ``temporary boss'' didn't agree.
In hindsight I should've just done it, foregoing asking. That guy was a
good intention paving the road to hell. Far from the only one, though.


> From what I hear, corporate was going to respond by snail-mail giving
> a brief answer that the Spaniards are not bothering to follow basic
> Internet concepts, and until they get their mail system and role
> accounts working, they and their customers are going to have a problem
> communicating.

Which is somewhat lucid of management. Probably a better idea than
calling them (though I _would_ expect their NOC contact to speak English).


> I assume the web pages you're accessing have finally learned the
> different style of postal codes and telephone numbers - or do they
> totally depend on your email address?

I very rarely give those out, so I wouldn't know. The last time I tried
to change my phone number at ePay it insisted on a NANP format number
(mine is longer, thanks guys). So I just pass it through a regular
message in the rare events that I use them.

Unrelatedly, ePay's email templates are fscked up something fierce.
Another example of not knowing how to write (form) emails so they don't
look like the usual unreadable jumble from spammers, though maybe with
less spelling and grammar problems.

Told them it could (and should, for various reasons) be done better and
offered to help. Doing so required upwards of 10 clicks in their ``help
system'', and of course I never received an anser.


> I also love the posts from forum creators (invariably using google
> as the posting medium) breathlessly announcing this new forum and
> inviting newbies and experts to subscribe so you can talk about this
> or that problem (while being inundated with crap ads that have nothing
> to do with computers or what-ever the subject of the forum might be).

Asking them why their thing is better than the thing they're using to
tell me about their contraption never gets an answer. Surprise, surprise.


[silly patents]
>>Brings up an interesting question though. What should patents and
>>copyrights look like to make them functional again? 
>
> It _appears_ now that patents are granted as long as you fill out the
> form, and  the "examiner" is not immediately aware of any conflict. The
> patent remains in force as long as some other person doesn't file a
> complaint of patent violation or otherwise cite prior art.

That much was clear.


> It's still going to take a human to look at the "new" application and
> any "older" patents the tool may find in various archives, but it
> could help eliminate a lot of useless patents.

Well, with the rather large number of patents, it's going to be a trifle
difficult for a patent examiner to examine them all. I think that's what
made the current situation possible, at least.

So, one could conjure up the idea of encoding the patent in some way
so that it can be automatically indexed if not compared. I don't know
how you'd some up with such a ``soundex for patents'' or whether such a
thing is even possible, but might be worth a research grant or two.


> If I had my choice, I'd also revoke "look and feel" patents.

Agreed. That's taking the art bit to patents a bit too literally.
Might be hard to make stick on the ``where do you draw the line?'' front
for the examiner, but since they're not paying enough attention anyway...


>========================
> [14CFR139 classes based on aircraft length]
>
>>Put a big large fixed-but-movable water nozzle right on top of the
>>mooring tower. Seems fairly obviosu to me. Wouldn't eliminate the need
>>for fire trucks, but could easily reduce that need a notch or two.
>
> Assuming they only crash at the mast, and not anywhere else on the
> airfield  ;-)

Sure. The point was that it's an opportunity to install a heavier duty
fire suppression system than might be possible to bring to bear with
fire trucks (larger capacity, higher positioned, longer reach, quicker
time-to-target) at a point where trouble is likely to concentrate.

This presumes that the airship crashing won't disable the installation.


> ["90 second rule" 14CFR25.803]
>
> I'd suspect this would still apply even with a helium lifting gas
> because the fuel can't be that far away, and the fabric cover is still
> likely to be flammable.  As flammable? No, but given passengers who may
> panic on seeing fire, it's probably a due diligence type of thing.

We've come a long way in making fabric fire retardant. I would hazard a
guess that fire will make passengers panic equal amounts for both. If not
a solved problem, I don't think dealing with it would be much different.

There is of course the stigma of the Hindenburg, but we really ought to
get over that. It's been a while.


> It's an interesting thought for an airship - as the passengers begin to
> exit with a lot of hustle, it becomes more buoyant and wants to rise...

Easy to make it leaky at the top, if that's not already the case because
the hull is on fire.


-- 
  j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
  This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
  Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
  consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

On 28 Jun 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
<slrng6bu59.299n.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:

>Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:

>[search on recruiter-infested job ads sites]
>> I think I'd get to the point of "show me stuff posted by" (a list of the
>> least incompetent - there can't be that many who are posting).
>
>It'd preclude seeing new entrants to the market, so I'd prefer to filter
>out those who've proven themselves to be clueless. Yet I've not found any
>that provide either.

New entrants - worries me because of their probable lack of skill, but
this may also block morphers.

[monster.com]

>> Haven't looked at them in a while, but I thought they had a
>> "reasonable" location capability.
>
>They changed it to an arbitrary maximum of 20 locations and providing
>a metric arseload of silly small locations. Also replacing the
>ctrl-clickable drop-down box to a drop-down box full of tickboxes.
>Yay for the webmonkey.

But it simplifies things for the low grade of monkey they are using to
manage the web-site.    Doug had mentioned, and I don't think you
replied - does dice.com (or net-temps.com, or hotjobs.yahoo.com) cover
your part of town?  'dice.com' at least has a marginally decent
reputation in this country.

>> Does 'wget' work?
>
>Wasn't about to filch their entire database then filter it. Not good
>for getting in new ads, for one. So I have to admit I didn't try.

They may get bent out of shape if you tried that - but I thought you
could use it to grab a reduced set of the database, such as job titles.

>> ^alt.binar* groups) that had carried images his office (not, as I
>> understand it, any court)
>
>A minor point. All you have to do is get hysterics involved

That's true, and I suspect this is one of the important points. On the
other hand, the A/G's office could be considered to be overstepping
their bounds unless the alleged pr0n has already been classed as such
by a court. (Not every/anyone can say "that is pr0n" and have it stick
in court.) However, I don't know to many who would like to challenge
the A/G in court over his definitions.

>> took advantage of that by dropping tens of thousands of newsgroups
>> (the server I'm using carries 35967 ^alt.* groups), which they'd long
>> wanted to get rid of because they were only an expense, not a profit
>> center.

>I was under impression that 90% of the volume was in alt.binar*?

I don't honestly know. The only server I have "behind the scenes"
access to is the one at work, and it doesn't carry ^alt.binar* so
without wasting time subscribing to a bunch of those groups (and
the server I'm using carries 6737 ^alt.binar* groups) I wouldn't be
able to say.  A quick scan of .newsrc shows a significant variation
in group names - suggesting a wide selection of interests, from
computer binaries, photos of lots of things from cars to planets to
naughty-bits to cd/dvd images to games to... you name it. I've no
idea how many might be active, or (given some of the names like
'alt.binaries.hacking.couldn't.hack.their.way.out.of.a.paper.bag')
groups created by bored idiots, or groups a little past their 'Best
By" dates (alt.binaries.warez.atari8bit).

>Who pushed for the entirety of alt.* then?

No details, but I suspect the ISPs volunteered.

>> I suspect their dropping of _all_ of Usenet can't be far behind.
>
>It's the natural next step.

We'll ignore AOL - but TimeWarner already took this step instead of
following the lead by Sprint and Verizon of merely dropping ^.alt.*.
Certainly the 'for pay' news services like slurp.net, giganews, and
newsguy.com are overjoyed.  Another cloud on the horizon is that
California (governor and others) are pushing to get the same
censorship in their jurisdiction.

>*cough* aol *cough*

---
From rec.arts.sf.written, in a thread entitled "What is AOL?"
> An organization set up to give Internetters someone to make ethnic jokes
> about.
          (repeated in rec.humor.funny, rec.humor.funny.reruns)
---
While they are still advertised, I'm not sure how many customers they
have. They've been overtaken by the cable and (to a lesser extent) DSL
providers which come with all the crap that AOL provides, at no extra
cost (but remember people in this category aren't very aware of where
their money is going) and no extra effort (just figure out how to turn
on this computer thingy, and everything is automagic).  Really sad.

[common carrier defense]

>It's an argument that summarily dismisses the common carrier defense. You
>can't insist on being a common carrier while excepting (list of groups).

Not really.  Even the common carriers have to follow certain rules
(thou shalt not carry explosive on passenger aircraft/trains/busses).
The rules exist, but it's the common carriers that do the enforcement
(with the law as a backup if a customer wants to disagree).

>> I almost wonder if the ISPs weren't the ones who anonymously
>> complained to the A/G about the "filth" on Usenet in the first place.
>
>Seems like an awfully convoluted way to go about stopping some service.
>If true, it'd mean extreme stupidity on their part, but also that
>usenet wasn't quite dead yet, as you'd only do that to tell masses of
>complainers ``sorry, out of our hands now''.

Well... the result here is the same. They get to ditch a non-profitable
service, and can point at the A/G's office as the bad guy.  "Nothing we
can do - the A/G made us do it".

>[web forums considered useless]

>> Part of this this boils back to the knowledge that everything on this
>> Interweb-thingy is a web page

>Lkely on the assumption that the least skillset meeting-or-exceeding
>the absolute bare minimum is cheapest.

as someone in the monetary suggested out-sourcing .nl hell-desks to
Suriname.

>Management might count on the customer being too stupid to notice
>where the real problem is.

Probability they are correct: 0.98   - thanks to Gatesware lowering the
bar below ground level, while at the same time making everyone aware
that computers cause all mistakes and crash frequently.

>Or simply not incapable of understanding what they're doing, either.

"I can't see if it's plugged in - the lights are out because of the storm".

>> Several European ISPs have come to the conclusion that you don't need
>> to provide an 'abuse@' address - all you need is some web page they
>> can fill in.
>
>Not just European.

True - I think this is because they can hire web programmers at two
bananas a day who know how to auto-drop all input, whereas creating a
link from the abuse mailbox directly to /dev/null takes a highly skilled
*nix administrator.

>Though verizon dropping all of yurp on the router level was a little
>overdone.

But look at all the spam they get from there - saved their customers a
lot of anguish about their love-life.

>It caused $lastjob's customer helpdesk lots of grief, that with getting
>ever more irate messages from verizon users asking for help and their
>replies staying stuck in my outbound queue on timeouts.

The solution advocated by some (getting a North American mail relay)
might have worked here, but a slightly better response (if you had
snail-mail addresses of customers) is to send a letter stating that
the customers need to scream at Verizon. Perhaps having a web server
set to provide answers to said customers would also work.

>I was tempted to 5xx incoming verizon messages with a link to a page
>explaining we couldn't reply, but my ``temporary boss'' didn't agree.

You're assuming that the customers would actually _see_ the 5xx message
and have some understanding of what it means.  RFC0821 section 4.5.3
and RFC2821 section 4.5.3.1 both set a reply line to 512 characters
max (including the 3 digit code and CRLF) to 512 bytes. Even though
they allow multi-line responses, Verizon probably only uses the
first line, and probably hides the actual response in a "translated"
section saying the remote mail server is b0rked.

>In hindsight I should've just done it, foregoing asking. That guy was
>a good intention paving the road to hell. Far from the only one, though.

Perhaps a better answer would have been a "Attention Verizon Customers"
section on your web-site explaining that Verizon is blocking .eu, and
proposing alternative solutions like hosting a webmail site on your
server that only allowed customer access, and only allowed mails to or
from the company to those customers (and no mail forwarding).

>Which is somewhat lucid of management. Probably a better idea than
>calling them (though I _would_ expect their NOC contact to speak English).

That assumes you can get through to talk to someone in the NOC, and
don't wind up on hold for 2-3 hours listening to crappy tinned music
interrupted every minute or two by "Your call is very important to us,
so please continue to hold and we'll answer the phone some day".

But then, I still don't even know why they bothered. Virtually all of
our customer interaction is through local sales reps so other than
stock-holders there isn't much reason for individuals to try to
contact us directly.

>The last time I tried to change my phone number at ePay it insisted on
>a NANP format number (mine is longer, thanks guys).

"It works here!!1!!"

>Unrelatedly, ePay's email templates are fscked up something fierce.
>Another example of not knowing how to write (form) emails so they
>don't look like the usual unreadable jumble from spammers, though
>maybe with less spelling and grammar problems.

The macaws from Suriname are doing the best they can. It's not their
native language.  ;-)

>Told them it could (and should, for various reasons) be done better
>and offered to help. Doing so required upwards of 10 clicks in their
>``help system'', and of course I never received an anser.

Same monkeys wrote their abuse web page. It works the same way.

>> I also love the posts from forum creators (invariably using google
>> as the posting medium) breathlessly announcing this new forum

>Asking them why their thing is better than the thing they're using to
>tell me about their contraption never gets an answer. Surprise, surprise.

Not really - these are drive-by posts, and in most cases the forum
creator is unable to remember the web page where he was able to post,
and who uses Usenet anyway?

[silly patents]

>Well, with the rather large number of patents, it's going to be a trifle
>difficult for a patent examiner to examine them all. I think that's what
>made the current situation possible, at least.

Several problems - how many countries are granting patents? You'd have
to somehow get the various countries onto the "same page" and using
something resembling a common format - good luck there.

>So, one could conjure up the idea of encoding the patent in some way
>so that it can be automatically indexed if not compared. I don't know
>how you'd some up with such a ``soundex for patents'' or whether such
>a thing is even possible, but might be worth a research grant or two.

It's certainly possible, and may be the only solution. But who is going
to pay for encoding existing patents in every country that grants
patents?  Who is going to come up with the encoding scheme? If it's
detailed enough to reduce the number of patents an examiner has to
look at to say 1000 or so, it's going to have to be fairly detailed.
In the early part of the last century, there were a number of
telegraphic/cable codebooks which reduced "standard" words/phrases
(and even entire messages) to a single "codeword". These lists were
created by people who analyzed messages to see what words/phrases
were common.    Can you imagine the people who would be needed to go
through the existing megaton of patent documents?  There's another
problem - you need to have people who are knowledgeable in various
fields.  A machinist isn't going to understand chemical formulas or
electrical schematics, never mind the "illustrations" included in
many patents to explain the concepts.   But then, we already lack
these kinds of knowledgeable people in the examiners employed now.

>> If I had my choice, I'd also revoke "look and feel" patents.
>
>Agreed. That's taking the art bit to patents a bit too literally.
>Might be hard to make stick on the ``where do you draw the line?'' front

I think a number of companies (the least of which might be Lotus and
Microsoft) have patents on spread-sheet programs.  I'd allow some
protection for the engine/code underneath, but spreadsheets have been
around since the Mesopotamian and Greek eras - so that's out. Shape or
location of some button/icon?  Gimme a break!

>for the examiner, but since they're not paying enough attention anyway...

I don't know what they were paying Einstein, but people of his quality
are not very common. Yet the examiner has to be at least _partially_
familiar with the field.

========================
>> Assuming they only crash at the mast, and not anywhere else on the
>> airfield  ;-)
>
>Sure. The point was that it's an opportunity to install a heavier duty
>fire suppression system than might be possible to bring to bear with
>fire trucks (larger capacity, higher positioned, longer reach, quicker
>time-to-target) at a point where trouble is likely to concentrate.

I dunno - the Navy already has pretty fierce fire trucks on carriers,
but there are limits. Today, you aren't slinging water, but a foam
(AFFF = aqueous film forming foam) that has some problem if the
pressure is to high.  By the way, the most common fire truck I see is
able to throw this foam about 80 or 90 feet in still air - and in
pretty healthy quantities. The trucks have two 300+ HP engines, one
normally used for the pumps, and one for driving, but either can do
the other's job or both at the same time.

        Old guy

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 23:06:49 -0500,
Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
> On 28 Jun 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
><slrng6bu59.299n.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:
>>Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
>
>>[search on recruiter-infested job ads sites]
>
> New entrants - worries me because of their probable lack of skill, but
> this may also block morphers.

Well, if you only positively filter for a limited list of recruiters
you could see if they have rss feeds or something and forego the
middle man entirely. Provided they're savvy enough to set it up.


> [monster.com]
> Doug had mentioned, and I don't think you replied - does dice.com
> (or net-temps.com, or hotjobs.yahoo.com) cover your part of town?
> 'dice.com' at least has a marginally decent reputation in this
> country.

I did -- but in <slrng4kn1a.273u.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>.

Those sites seems to be North-American only (or I'm looking at them
entirely the wrong way?) -- since I'm in .eu, that's not going to work.
Even so, thanks. :-)

Monster.com has sites in .eu (monsterboard.nl, monster.{de,ch,be,...})
and altough I regularly have to look where they hid the option now, I
can issue .eu-wide searches. I'm not aware of many others that do that.


>>> Does 'wget' work?
>>
>>Wasn't about to filch their entire database then filter it. Not good
>>for getting in new ads, for one. So I have to admit I didn't try.
>
> They may get bent out of shape if you tried that - but I thought you
> could use it to grab a reduced set of the database, such as job titles.

Frankly, I'd given up before considering that.


[pr0n is what the A/G says it is]
> However, I don't know to many who would like to challenge the A/G in
> court over his definitions.

Which is what allows him to get away with it. We discussed before
differences between .us and .eu legal systems -- here such an action
would be denounced on the sheer effrontery if not the legal details.


>>I was under impression that 90% of the volume was in alt.binar*?
>
> I don't honestly know.

Alright. I'm going on comments by passing acquintance news admins, from
a couple of years ago, so it may've changed (likely for the worse) in
the meantime. IIRC 1GB/unit text, 9 or 10GB/unit binaries where unit
may've been `day' or `hour', but I don't recall.


> We'll ignore AOL - but TimeWarner already took this step instead of
> following the lead by Sprint and Verizon of merely dropping ^.alt.*.
> Certainly the 'for pay' news services like slurp.net, giganews, and
> newsguy.com are overjoyed.

Until some A/G chooses to go after them.


> Another cloud on the horizon is that California (governor and others)
> are pushing to get the same censorship in their jurisdiction.

Or that.


> [common carrier defense]
>
>>It's an argument that summarily dismisses the common carrier defense. You
>>can't insist on being a common carrier while excepting (list of groups).
>
> Not really.  Even the common carriers have to follow certain rules
> (thou shalt not carry explosive on passenger aircraft/trains/busses).
> The rules exist, but it's the common carriers that do the enforcement
> (with the law as a backup if a customer wants to disagree).

But who sets the rules? If by law, then I can see ``common carrier''
stands, but if they themselves, well, *I*'d start to ask questions.


[no need for abuse@]
> [...] I think this is because they can hire web programmers at two
> bananas a day who know how to auto-drop all input, whereas creating
> a link from the abuse mailbox directly to /dev/null takes a highly
> skilled *nix administrator.

And everybody knows all of the interweb is a webpage, including the
regular email services.


>>Though verizon dropping all of yurp on the router level was a little
>>overdone.
>
> But look at all the spam they get from there - saved their customers a
> lot of anguish about their love-life.

Sure. Though various spam statistics disagreed that .eu was the largest
spam source. Blocking all of .us on the same principle would've been
unacceptable to them.


>>It caused $lastjob's customer helpdesk lots of grief, that with getting
>>ever more irate messages from verizon users asking for help and their
>>replies staying stuck in my outbound queue on timeouts.
>
> The solution advocated by some (getting a North American mail relay)
> might have worked here,

Such a thing was in the works but for various reasons didn't proceed
at much of a pace. The na subsidiary contained a bit too many
incomprehensible indians[1] and hotshot leftover ex-executive
salespeople for them to bother communicating with the systems
administration people (ie, me) to make much of anything work.


>>I was tempted to 5xx incoming verizon messages with a link to a page
>>explaining we couldn't reply, but my ``temporary boss'' didn't agree.
>
> You're assuming that the customers would actually _see_ the 5xx message
> and have some understanding of what it means.

All that is really needed is a

  5xx Please see http://www.company.com/mail/verizon-blocking-us.html

and a web page there with the full story. Perhaps a press release
on the site with the decision and pointing there also.


> Perhaps a better answer would have been a "Attention Verizon Customers"
> section on your web-site explaining that Verizon is blocking .eu, and
> proposing alternative solutions like hosting a webmail site on your
> server that only allowed customer access, and only allowed mails to or
> from the company to those customers (and no mail forwarding).

The webmail idea would've been a bit too much effort for those
circumstances, but it certainly a nice idea.


>>Which is somewhat lucid of management. Probably a better idea than
>>calling them (though I _would_ expect their NOC contact to speak English).
>
> That assumes you can get through to talk to someone in the NOC,

I would assume that the whois technical contact gets me reasonably
close to that, at least for bigger shops, yes.


> and don't wind up on hold for 2-3 hours listening to crappy tinned
> music interrupted every minute or two by "Your call is very important
> to us, so please continue to hold and we'll answer the phone some day".

Ten minutes of that we move to fax, failing that and if warranted, a
letter, no answer then silent permanent blocking. We're not customers,
we're doing them a favour: telling them their systems are broken and
give them a chance to fix it. No need to go overboard.


> But then, I still don't even know why they bothered.

Because trying once is the polite thing to do and might just help.
The internet is still in structure a community effort.


> Virtually all of our customer interaction is through local sales reps
> so other than stock-holders there isn't much reason for individuals to
> try to contact us directly.

May be worth telling the local sales rep what's cooking in their area?
Nothing they need to take action on, but useful information for them
to have available in case the issue pops up.


> [silly patents]
>
>>Well, with the rather large number of patents, it's going to be a trifle
>>difficult for a patent examiner to examine them all. I think that's what
>>made the current situation possible, at least.
>
> Several problems - how many countries are granting patents? You'd have
> to somehow get the various countries onto the "same page" and using
> something resembling a common format - good luck there.

IMO that's looking for trouble. Let's make that work for one or two
countries first, then later work out how to combine them. There's
languages to consider too.


>>So, one could conjure up the idea of encoding the patent in some way
>>so that it can be automatically indexed if not compared. I don't know
>>how you'd some up with such a ``soundex for patents'' or whether such
>>a thing is even possible, but might be worth a research grant or two.
>
> It's certainly possible, and may be the only solution. But who is going
> to pay for encoding existing patents in every country that grants
> patents?

Patents are a government service. If the system doesn't work and/or
is easily abusable by patent trolls, it becomes a liability to its
citizens. The choice then between abandoning an useless liability and
replacing it with a new system that at least isn't a liability.

So the government will have to foot the bill at least initially, and
maybe have the service pay back for itself in, oh, 20 years or something.
Or jack up the fees and keep the old system until a new one is in place.


> Who is going to come up with the encoding scheme?

Well, didn't we have universities tasked with research? Or have yet
another commercial race like the ones the military are so fond of.


> [...] Can you imagine the people who would be needed to go through the
> existing megaton of patent documents?

*Someone* will have to go through them *anyway* for the system to have
any semblance of functionality. Same thing as the next argument:


> There's another problem - you need to have people who are
> knowledgeable in various fields. [...] But then, we already lack these
> kinds of knowledgeable people in the examiners employed now.

So nothing has changed WRT that requirement. If it proves insurmountable
then that leaves us only ditching all patents, and we won't need to look
for a better system.


>========================
> Today, you aren't slinging water, but a foam (AFFF = aqueous film
> forming foam) that has some problem if the pressure is to high. By the
> way, the most common fire truck I see is able to throw this foam about
> 80 or 90 feet in still air - and in pretty healthy quantities.

Which is acceptable as the trucks are expected to move close enough
anyway, and the AFFF stuff is there to make better use of the limited
water carrying capacity of trucks. Suppose you have an unlimited water
supply, then the equation changes. Is mere water good enough? If so, you
can jack up the pressure and gain more reach. If not, a different AFFF
compound? One that's less foamy and more filmy, perhaps?

Interesting questions, but probably open research. :-)


[1] Not the `native-american' kind. The kind that studied at MIT but
    still couldn't write a readable email and spoke heavily accented
    american-indian-english that only their peers understood much.

-- 
  j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
  This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
  Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
  consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

On 29 Jun 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
<slrng6ev0v.95i.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:

>Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:

>> Doug had mentioned, and I don't think you replied - does dice.com
>> (or net-temps.com, or hotjobs.yahoo.com) cover your part of town?
>> 'dice.com' at least has a marginally decent reputation in this
>> country.
>
>I did -- but in <slrng4kn1a.273u.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>.

Must have missed that.

>Those sites seems to be North-American only (or I'm looking at them
>entirely the wrong way?) -- since I'm in .eu, that's not going to work.
>Even so, thanks. :-)

Pity - they are more reasonable than most of the pimp operated sites.

>Monster.com has sites in .eu (monsterboard.nl, monster.{de,ch,be,...})
>and altough I regularly have to look where they hid the option now, I
>can issue .eu-wide searches. I'm not aware of many others that do that.

I've seen positive and negative comments about monster. A number of
alumni organizations seem to use them here.

>[pr0n is what the A/G says it is]
>> However, I don't know to many who would like to challenge the A/G in
>> court over his definitions.
>
>Which is what allows him to get away with it.

Only to the extent that individuals probably wouldn't challenge him
without good reason (as being charged by the A/G for some pr0no 
violation). There are a few organizations - the American Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU) being most prominent - might challenge the ruling. There
is a significant legal precedence for this, including several Supreme
Court decisions that infuriated Bible Thumpers.

[binary vs. text news volume]

>Alright. I'm going on comments by passing acquintance news admins, from
>a couple of years ago, so it may've changed (likely for the worse) in
>the meantime. IIRC 1GB/unit text, 9 or 10GB/unit binaries where unit
>may've been `day' or `hour', but I don't recall.

I don't see any reason to doubt this. I know the text group volumes
seem to be decreasing as users loose interest in Usenet. A quick
look at my logs shows I've been scanning the same groups since mid-2004,
and the totals downloaded (2005 = 959 MB, 2006 = 762 MB, 2007 = 671 MB,
2008 to date = 252.5 MB) have been decreasing. A contact at the local
junior college tells me they had to block access to all but the
sanctioned Big Eight groups (using a proxy server, and firewall) because
of abuse, and malware infestations. He stated that most of the malware
was coming out of the binary newsgroups, and that it kept getting worse.
Used to be, they'd allow the students to bring in their homework on
floppies that had to be malware inspected at the door. That's out, and
now they use plain text email - with a 25 kb quota on the mail.

>> Certainly the 'for pay' news services like slurp.net, giganews, and
>> newsguy.com are overjoyed.
>
>Until some A/G chooses to go after them.

So I switch to servers located elsewhere.

[common carrier defense]

>But who sets the rules? If by law, then I can see ``common carrier''
>stands, but if they themselves, well, *I*'d start to ask questions.

The rules are set by (and if enforcement is needed it comes from) the
various government agencies.

>>> Though verizon dropping all of yurp on the router level was a little
>>> overdone.
>
>> But look at all the spam they get from there - saved their customers a
>> lot of anguish about their love-life.
>
>Sure. Though various spam statistics disagreed that .eu was the largest
>spam source. Blocking all of .us on the same principle would've been
>unacceptable to them.

I count where the mail was sent from, and the source varies quite a bit.
The last stats I ran were to the end of last year, and as of then, Asia
(specifically .cn, .hk, .id, .in, .kr, .my, and .tw) was leading the
list. Part of this may have been filtering (a number of ISPs have
finally started blocking outbound-to-tcp/25 except by their own mail
servers), and some may have been reduced exposure because of
non-(dictionary|phonebook) mail names. Four years ago, close to a third
of my spam load came from zombies on residential cable networks like
comcast, rr, or verizon and the rest of the former baby Bells.

>> The solution advocated by some (getting a North American mail relay)
>> might have worked here,
>
>Such a thing was in the works but for various reasons didn't proceed
>at much of a pace. The na subsidiary contained a bit too many
>incomprehensible indians[1] and hotshot leftover ex-executive
>salespeople for them to bother communicating with the systems
>administration people (ie, me) to make much of anything work.
 
Didn't they have a local sys-admin?

>> You're assuming that the customers would actually _see_ the 5xx
>> message and have some understanding of what it means.
>
>All that is really needed is a
>
>  5xx Please see http://www.company.com/mail/verizon-blocking-us.html
>
>and a web page there with the full story. Perhaps a press release
>on the site with the decision and pointing there also.

I suppose. It would also help if the press release was actually picked
up by the various US news media.

>The webmail idea would've been a bit too much effort for those
>circumstances, but it certainly a nice idea.

As you're aware, most users think webmail is a perfect solution. It
would run into a problem with organizations who think webmail is not
professional.  I'll admit it would take extra effort on your part, but
this would satisfy the customers (especially those stupid enough to
think that electronic mail is anything other than a best effort type of
operation with no guarantees of reliability).

>> That assumes you can get through to talk to someone in the NOC,
>
>I would assume that the whois technical contact gets me reasonably
>close to that, at least for bigger shops, yes.

Just had a look at our own registration - yeah, that gets you to a
person, but you're more likely to get his voicemail and I think that
is set to a 90 second maximum message length. Still, he would get the
message.

>Ten minutes of that we move to fax, failing that and if warranted, a
>letter, no answer then silent permanent blocking. We're not customers,
>we're doing them a favour: telling them their systems are broken and
>give them a chance to fix it. No need to go overboard.

Fun and games - the fax gets you to a different person, on the other
side of the continent. Well, they do talk to each other  ;-)

[silly patents]
>> Several problems - how many countries are granting patents? You'd have
>> to somehow get the various countries onto the "same page" and using
>> something resembling a common format - good luck there.
>
>IMO that's looking for trouble. Let's make that work for one or two
>countries first, then later work out how to combine them. There's
>languages to consider too.

Yes, I was thinking that - but if the idea on a patent application
here is close enough to a patent issued to someone else over there,
should you be issuing a patent here?  You would if it were the same
individual or entity in both countries, but not if the individual or
entity were different. Of course today, checking overseas is not
likely.

>Patents are a government service. If the system doesn't work and/or
>is easily abusable by patent trolls, it becomes a liability to its
>citizens. The choice then between abandoning an useless liability and
>replacing it with a new system that at least isn't a liability.
>
>So the government will have to foot the bill at least initially, and
>maybe have the service pay back for itself in, oh, 20 years or
>something.  Or jack up the fees and keep the old system until a new
>one is in place.

I'm just dreading the idea of the time it's going to take to go through
6 million plus patents here - the older ones probably hand written using
a character set and language style quite different from today.  That's
not going to be a quick task.

>> Who is going to come up with the encoding scheme?
>
>Well, didn't we have universities tasked with research? Or have yet
>another commercial race like the ones the military are so fond of.

Such research is normally in a field taught or related to subjects
the university has some expertise in

========================

>> the most common fire truck I see is able to throw this foam about
>> 80 or 90 feet in still air - and in pretty healthy quantities.
>
>Which is acceptable as the trucks are expected to move close enough
>anyway, and the AFFF stuff is there to make better use of the limited
>water carrying capacity of trucks.

Item in a magazine I read - FAA and Air Farce are experimenting with
fire fighting requirements in "New Large Aircraft" (defined as carrying
more than 450 pax, 125 tons of jet fuel, multiple passenger decks,
composite materials). They've built a mockup of an A380 fuselage
section (in a 30 meter diameter fire pit that can be filled with up to
3 tons of jet fuel), which includes three replaceable panels to allow
firefighting booms with extendable turrets to pierce and penetrate the
upper decks to distribute foam.   So the fire truck comes up to the
crash scene, extends this boom (the picture looks as it it's three
folding sections each about 8 meters long mounted atop the front of the
truck), pokes a hole through the side of the bird with the nozzle, and
turns on the foam deluge system.     Whoopie!

>Suppose you have an unlimited water supply, then the equation changes.
>Is mere water good enough?

Not if you've got magnesium alloys present. That's why the trucks also
carry a significant amount of dry chemicals as well. But my (very
limited) fire fighting training says no - petroleum fires and water
is not the way to go.

>If so, you can jack up the pressure and gain more reach. If not, a
>different AFFF compound?

Out of my expertise - but you only use a stream when you are trying to
blast a hole into things, or push a thing (which might be a pool of
burning fuel) out of the way - normally you want a spray to cover more
area as well as cool or cover things.

>Interesting questions, but probably open research. :-)

Fascinating questions.  Just let me watch from well up-wind.

        Old guy

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 22:35:37 -0500,
Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
> On 29 Jun 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
><slrng6ev0v.95i.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:
>>Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
>
>>[pr0n is what the A/G says it is]
>>> However, I don't know to many who would like to challenge the A/G in
>>> court over his definitions.
>>
>>Which is what allows him to get away with it.
>
> Only to the extent that individuals probably wouldn't challenge him
> without good reason (as being charged by the A/G for some pr0no
> violation).

Sure, but it's extra work dealing with someone who's choosing to make
a nuisance of themselves by causing governmental censorship instead of
doing their job --upholding the law, not making it--, and enforces de
facto ``justice for the rich'' as the poor can't afford to challenge
them. In Socialist Europe, that's frowned upon.

Just pointing out the difference, mind.


> [binary vs. text news volume]
>
> A contact at the local junior college tells me they had to block
> access to all but the sanctioned Big Eight groups (using a proxy
> server, and firewall) because of abuse, and malware infestations.

Probably could've easily left in alt.* without binaries too, but....


> He stated that most of the malware was coming out of the binary
> newsgroups, and that it kept getting worse.

s/most of/all of/ as binaries elsewhere are auto-canceled. Well,
most of them anyway, and even more places also very ``not done''.


> Used to be, they'd allow the students to bring in their homework on
> floppies that had to be malware inspected at the door. That's out, and
> now they use plain text email - with a 25 kb quota on the mail.

See, it really pays to write emails to look like emails and not spam. :-)


[verizon dropping euro-'spam' at the router level]
>
> Four years ago, close to a third of my spam load came from zombies on
> residential cable networks like comcast, rr, or verizon and the rest
> of the former baby Bells.

Which is roughly the timeframe I was talking about.


>>The na subsidiary contained a bit too many incomprehensible indians[1]
>>and hotshot leftover ex-executive salespeople for them to bother
>>communicating with the systems administration people (ie, me) to make
>>much of anything work.
>
> Didn't they have a local sys-admin?

If they had they'd neglected to tell me about it. They were pretty good
at things like sending mails of the ``hey, could you give dave a mail
account?'' type, without bothering to explain whotf this dave guy was.

Back then I knew everybody in the company (at least by face and login),
so introducing new overseas hires this way was a little bit grating.
Nevermind that for some of those I later learned that there shouldn't've
been an account at all. The people there apparently didn't communicate
much among themselves either.

Worse was unannounced registering of new domains and moving their
mailboxes to some local outsourced provider, while still expecting to
have entries in my namespace and system.


>>The webmail idea would've been a bit too much effort for those
>>circumstances, but it certainly a nice idea.
>
> As you're aware, most users think webmail is a perfect solution.

Most users fail to think about their own ergonomics, and if they did,
they'd lack knowledge of what else is available and feel helpless
because they don't have the means to change it.


> It would run into a problem with organizations who think webmail is
> not professional.

I happen to think so, but then I also think most by far people are
incapable to write readable emails, nevermind effective ones. It does
affect my willingness to come up with a helpful answer.

Since such emails often lack vital information I'm much more inclined
to give their homework (``write a good email'') back to them with the
instruction to try again until they get at least the content right.


> I'll admit it would take extra effort on your part, but this would
> satisfy the customers

Had I had the time, setting up such a thing as a courtesy for those
affected by their own provider for the express purpose of communicating
with our customer support (only), sure.


> (especially those stupid enough to think that electronic mail is
> anything other than a best effort type of operation with no guarantees
> of reliability).

Oh, don't get me started on those. Ended up in a shouting match with
such-flavoured shoe-ins that the CFO had single handedly promised I'd
support them as well. As if I didn't have enough to do already.


> [silly patents]
> [...] - but if the idea on a patent application here is close enough
> to a patent issued to someone else over there, should you be issuing a
> patent here?

That is a good question, but a policy related one. I'm willing to ignore
it if it makes coming up with a replacement patent system (much) easier.

The first difficulty is making sure new patents a) are meaningful or
at least mostly something other than a device of abuse, b) are not
duplicates or fully covered by other patents in this pool, and c) can
easily be checked agains non-patent prior art.


> You would if it were the same individual or entity in both countries,
> but not if the individual or entity were different. Of course today,
> checking overseas is not likely.

It's much easier than it was. Still, patents are bound by jurisdiction,
so you'd first need cross-juridsiction means (treaties, etc.) to tie
them together. That is quite the can of worms in itself.


> I'm just dreading the idea of the time it's going to take to go through
> 6 million plus patents here - the older ones probably hand written using
> a character set and language style quite different from today.  That's
> not going to be a quick task.

No, but with the alternative being to ditch them all or at least all
expired ones... that's another way of giving the lie to the system.


>========================
> So the fire truck comes up to the crash scene, extends this boom
> ([...]), pokes a hole through the side of the bird with the nozzle,
> and turns on the foam deluge system. Whoopie!

Nice idea, and makes quite a lot of sense. Except for the minor point of
deliberately weakening the fuselage. Has to be strong enough to withstand
passenger and weather abuse and the daily wear and tear, yet still be
weak enough to be easily poked through within seconds.

Also, what if there's a passenger sitting right next to it, waiting for
the rest of the crowd to disperse enough that he can move? Purely going
on numbers, one passenger kebab to save 500+ others would be acceptable.
For the individual, though, it's a different story.


>>Interesting questions, but probably open research. :-)
>
> Fascinating questions.  Just let me watch from well up-wind.

:-)


-- 
  j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
  This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
  Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
  consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

[posted last night - disappeared?  re-post]

On 30 Jun 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
<slrng6h6q2.cb5.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:

>Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:

>> A contact at the local junior college tells me they had to block
>> access to all but the sanctioned Big Eight groups (using a proxy
>> server, and firewall) because of abuse, and malware infestations.
>
>Probably could've easily left in alt.* without binaries too, but....

I'm not sure why they dropped everything. Their upstream peer is the
local university, and I've noted that most of the posts from there were
using google instead of the university news server.

>> Used to be, they'd allow the students to bring in their homework on
>> floppies that had to be malware inspected at the door. That's out, and
>> now they use plain text email - with a 25 kb quota on the mail.
>
>See, it really pays to write emails to look like emails and not spam. :-)

Actually, they did it to block people mailing in binaries.

>> Four years ago, close to a third of my spam load came from zombies on
>> residential cable networks like comcast, rr, or verizon and the rest
>> of the former baby Bells.
>
>Which is roughly the timeframe I was talking about.

It got to the point where I wrote a tool for home use that polled the
ISP mail servers regularly, and on finding there was mail grabbed the
headers and first ten lines of the body.  There was a white-list, but
after that it got downright snarky. One reason for dropping mail was
the presence of "Received:" headers reporting the delivery source
having no PTR, a generic name that looked to contain the IP address,
or having the strings (cable|client|dial|dsl|dyn|pool|ppp|user|wiley)
in the PTR name. That eliminated a lot of the zombie crap.

>> Didn't they have a local sys-admin?
>
>If they had they'd neglected to tell me about it. They were pretty good
>at things like sending mails of the ``hey, could you give dave a mail
>account?'' type, without bothering to explain whotf this dave guy was.

Aware of those situations. "Dave" was given the password originally
used by Frank - but everyone is using that account because there is no
need to have individual accounts (until Enrico fumble-fingers something
and trashes most of the files in that account).  Our auditor (part of
the security group) likes to remind people that this type of activity
can get people fired. No one has been fired for this in several years,
but the message gets through.

>Back then I knew everybody in the company (at least by face and login),
>so introducing new overseas hires this way was a little bit grating.
>Nevermind that for some of those I later learned that there shouldn't've
>been an account at all. The people there apparently didn't communicate
>much among themselves either.

We avoid some of this problem by requiring advanced written requests
from the department head before creating any accounts. HR gets a copy
of the request, and in the event of a person leaving or being
transferred, we get mail from HR (although the department head is
supposed to tell us this first).

>Worse was unannounced registering of new domains and moving their
>mailboxes to some local outsourced provider, while still expecting to
>have entries in my namespace and system.

POP and IMAP is blocked at the perimeter, and we get stats of web
connections - that isn't a problem here.

>> As you're aware, most users think webmail is a perfect solution.
>
>Most users fail to think about their own ergonomics, and if they did,
>they'd lack knowledge of what else is available and feel helpless
>because they don't have the means to change it.

I think this was already mentioned - the company expects all business
mail to go through the company mail servers, and attempting to do any
company business using a non-company mail account is grounds for
dismissal.  It's simply not tolerated.

>I also think most by far people are incapable to write readable
>emails, nevermind effective ones. It does affect my willingness to
>come up with a helpful answer.

Writing has become a lost art. Part of it is the changing educational
schemes and the dumbing down of the population. On job offers, you will
often see a "requirement" for "excellent communications skills" and I
am sure this is ignored by everyone because such skills are so rare now.

>Since such emails often lack vital information I'm much more inclined
>to give their homework (``write a good email'') back to them with the
>instruction to try again until they get at least the content right.

Oh, you mean the idiots who think that "PowerPoint" is an email tool?
(Some time ago, my wife showed me a mail she had received - the whole
damn thing was a powerpoint style - except that it was from a government
entity who was replying to some state transportation ruling question.
What's worse is that the original mail was a URL to a powerpoint file on
some klowns computer, not an attachment or a text copy.)

>> I'll admit it would take extra effort on your part, but this would
>> satisfy the customers
>
>Had I had the time, setting up such a thing as a courtesy for those
>affected by their own provider for the express purpose of communicating
>with our customer support (only), sure.

When the only other solution is snail-mail, this makes sense. Obviously
you'd restrict it - we don't need another open spam relay.

========================
>> So the fire truck comes up to the crash scene, extends this boom
>> ([...]), pokes a hole through the side of the bird with the nozzle,
>> and turns on the foam deluge system. Whoopie!
>
>Nice idea, and makes quite a lot of sense. Except for the minor point
>of deliberately weakening the fuselage.

They aren't.  That nozzle has the hardware necessary to pierce the skin.
Where it would run into a problem is if it hit a frame, rib, or
stiffener of some kind. With metal aircraft this is no problem, as you
can see the rivet lines even through paint.  It's going to be more
difficult with composite materials. That's why they're experimenting.

>Has to be strong enough to withstand passenger and weather abuse and
>the daily wear and tear, yet still be weak enough to be easily poked
>through within seconds.

Think of a big spear.

>Also, what if there's a passenger sitting right next to it, waiting for
>the rest of the crowd to disperse enough that he can move? Purely going
>on numbers, one passenger kebab to save 500+ others would be acceptable.
>For the individual, though, it's a different story.

Given the way people would be trying to leave (or already had left) by
the time the fire truck arrived (remember that bird is supposed to be
empty in 90 seconds, and it's going to take some amount of time to get
the fire truck in place) this is a comparatively small problem.

        Old guy.

On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:46:09 -0500,
Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
> [posted last night - disappeared?  re-post]

Didn't see a duplicate in the reconstructed thread, so probably.


> On 30 Jun 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
><slrng6h6q2.cb5.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:
>>Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
>
> Their upstream peer is the local university, and I've noted that most
> of the posts from there were using google instead of the university
> news server.

That sounds... like the university needs polishing, specifically
internet use 101, teaching thereof.


> "Dave" was given the password originally used by Frank - but everyone
> is using that account because there is no need to have individual
> accounts (until Enrico fumble-fingers something and trashes most of
> the files in that account).

Don't think we had much of that. People who needed access to other
people's imap folders (or shared imap folders) got that through their
own username/pw instead. Getting such an arrangement wasn't actually
hard, provided they remembered to ask for it (including the reason).


> Our auditor (part of the security group) likes to remind people that
> this type of activity can get people fired. No one has been fired for
> this in several years, but the message gets through.

Well, that's something. :-)


> We avoid some of this problem by requiring advanced written requests
> from the department head before creating any accounts.

We had those, which got extended after I left in an explosion of
drama[1], though the entire informing the right people was lost on, oh,
the execs, the department heads, heck, HR pulled that multiple times.


> HR gets a copy of the request, and in the event of a person leaving or
> being transferred, we get mail from HR (although the department head
> is supposed to tell us this first).

It's nice if at least some of the people do their jobs.


>>Worse was unannounced registering of new domains and moving their
>>mailboxes to some local outsourced provider, while still expecting to
>>have entries in my namespace and system.
>
> POP and IMAP is blocked at the perimeter, and we get stats of web
> connections - that isn't a problem here.

I had no control over their doings or their network. The local one, yes,
but not the hotshot bag of warm bodies over there. I was merely forced
to let them play through the VPN onto my network too.


> Writing has become a lost art. Part of it is the changing educational
> schemes and the dumbing down of the population. On job offers, you will
> often see a "requirement" for "excellent communications skills" and I
> am sure this is ignored by everyone because such skills are so rare now.

Worse, I get the feeling that writing halfway competent emails
embarrasses the receivers more often than not.


>>Since such emails often lack vital information I'm much more inclined
>>to give their homework (``write a good email'') back to them with the
>>instruction to try again until they get at least the content right.
>
> Oh, you mean the idiots who think that "PowerPoint" is an email tool?

I am aware of the more pompous people loving to email each other
powerpoint presentations and then call each other and during the phone
call say ``now go to the next slide''.

Apparently reading is a lost art too.


I was actually thinking of the (mostly plain text) emails containing a
single line with a vague instruction that then requires five or more
further mails to sort at least the meaning of that line, nevermind
coming up with a useful design and starting to implement it.

Sending someone several thousand lines of information at his request,
then getting the entire mail quoted back to me with a single line on top
is an entirely different and possibly more direct insult. Yes, that was
a MIT CS graduate. Why do you ask?


> (Some time ago, my wife showed me a mail she had received - the whole
> damn thing was a powerpoint style - except that it was from a government
> entity who was replying to some state transportation ruling question.
> What's worse is that the original mail was a URL to a powerpoint file on
> some klowns computer, not an attachment or a text copy.)

Writing, nay, _Thinking_ clearly is overrated.


>========================
>>> So the fire truck comes up to the crash scene, extends this boom
>>> ([...]), pokes a hole through the side of the bird with the nozzle,
>>> and turns on the foam deluge system. Whoopie!
>>
>>Nice idea, and makes quite a lot of sense. Except for the minor point
>>of deliberately weakening the fuselage.
>
> They aren't.  That nozzle has the hardware necessary to pierce the skin.
> Where it would run into a problem is if it hit a frame, rib, or
> stiffener of some kind. With metal aircraft this is no problem, as you
> can see the rivet lines even through paint.  It's going to be more
> difficult with composite materials. That's why they're experimenting.

Right, that makes sense.


[1] It helps if you take your systems people seriously.

-- 
  j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
  This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
  Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
  consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

On 2 Jul 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
<slrng6mgf8.kcc.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:

>Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:

>> We avoid some of this problem by requiring advanced written requests
>> from the department head before creating any accounts.
>
>We had those, which got extended after I left in an explosion of
>drama[1], though the entire informing the right people was lost on, oh,
>the execs, the department heads, heck, HR pulled that multiple times.

We have some rather draconian rules based on security concepts. A
further example is for the hardware itself - everything is static IPs,
so we require hardware information before the hostname/IP is enabled.
We're even more anal, monitoring the switches to see what system is
connected to what port using what IP. If a stranger pops up on the
wire, it's usually a race between security and network people as to
who will reach the intruder first.

>> HR gets a copy of the request, and in the event of a person leaving
>> or being transferred, we get mail from HR (although the department
>> head is supposed to tell us this first).
>
>It's nice if at least some of the people do their jobs.
  
Security may also send word if a person moves, and will definitely
send word if they leave.   Paranoia 'R' Us.

>> POP and IMAP is blocked at the perimeter, and we get stats of web
>> connections - that isn't a problem here.
>
>I had no control over their doings or their network. The local one,
>yes, but not the hotshot bag of warm bodies over there. I was merely
>forced to let them play through the VPN onto my network too.

The company net has several links to the world, and on each there is
a firewall blocking lots of things. Within the company, there are
additional firewalls blocking other things. Policy prohibits
personal use (we have isolated boxes in employee break areas owned
by the Employee Association for personal use), and this also means
blocking packets to "home" IP address ranges, open proxy sites, pr0n
sites - you get the idea.

>Worse, I get the feeling that writing halfway competent emails
>embarrasses the receivers more often than not.

I dunno - I think some of them are to incompetent to recognize the
difference in writing style.

>> Oh, you mean the idiots who think that "PowerPoint" is an email tool?
>
>I am aware of the more pompous people loving to email each other
>powerpoint presentations and then call each other and during the phone
>call say ``now go to the next slide''.

I can't imagine how they think that bullet points are communication.

>Apparently reading is a lost art too.

I don't have time for this - just give me the highlights.   Yeah, right.

>I was actually thinking of the (mostly plain text) emails containing
>a single line with a vague instruction that then requires five or more
>further mails to sort at least the meaning of that line, nevermind
>coming up with a useful design and starting to implement it.

Maybe I'm lucky, but most of the emails I see aren't this bad. They
may be (and often are) missing vital details, but at least you have
an idea of what they are talking about. We've had some presentations
where clues about what needs to be included, and what not were shown
to all employees. Part of this was addressing spam problems (how to
recognize spam in your home mail, and how to deal with it), but some
of the concepts run clear over as far as Usenet postings (choose a
short but concise and descriptive subject).  At least we don't get
that many mails the "the internet is broken - when will it be fixed?"

>Sending someone several thousand lines of information at his request,
>then getting the entire mail quoted back to me with a single line on
>top is an entirely different and possibly more direct insult. Yes,
>that was a MIT CS graduate. Why do you ask?

I don't ask - we've got some of those here. We also have some bean
counters from the next school up the street (Hahvad) and they're
at least as bad in spite of being business and English-lit grads.

========================

>> Where it would run into a problem is if it hit a frame, rib, or
>> stiffener of some kind. With metal aircraft this is no problem, as you
>> can see the rivet lines even through paint.  It's going to be more
>> difficult with composite materials. That's why they're experimenting.
>
>Right, that makes sense.

A "letter to the editor" of the magazine that was discussing this issue
reminds people to consider the hazards of the airborne composite fibers
and dust, along with the smoke and noxious gases from burning epoxy
matrix. A recent Australian Transport Safety Board report (AR-2007-02)
that fiber dust can pose an inhalation risk similar to asbestos. Geez,
one thing after another.  ;-)

        Old guy

On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 22:52:16 -0500,
Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
>
> We've had some presentations where clues about what needs to be
> included, and what not were shown to all employees.

IOW, ``luser ed.'' -- still a dirty word to the salesmen and, for that
matter, the lusers themselves. Hit'em hard and never ever admit you're
attempting to educate them.


>========================
>
> A "letter to the editor" of the magazine that was discussing this issue
> reminds people to consider the hazards of the airborne composite fibers
> and dust, along with the smoke and noxious gases from burning epoxy
> matrix. A recent Australian Transport Safety Board report (AR-2007-02)
> that fiber dust can pose an inhalation risk similar to asbestos. Geez,
> one thing after another.  ;-)

It would seem so. Of course, it's entirely too easy to forget that new
materials too do have a .cn part to their properties.


Related to an earlier episode; the recruiters I asked to remove my details
after another few weeks of deafening silence saw fit to follow up with
about a pageful of superfluous blather about how they compared my details
with their database and whatnot in addition to the last two lines affirming
that they'd ``complied with my wish''. Perhaps they were hoping I'd come
running back to them, but I'd already asked them to give me reason why I
shouldn't walk away, to which no answer -- as noted previously.

Poked another recruiter guy, but he seems to have trouble recalling me
at all (quoth ``NO CV attached though matey ;-)))'' -- he already has
that and answers to a *long* list of questions), so poked again with a
``but what jobs do you have, really?''. I think he's going to go out as
well. It's a tiring game, though. Soon I'll be lawnmowing in the snow.


-- 
  j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
  This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
  Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
  consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

On 4 Jul 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
<slrng6s68l.umv.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:

>Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:

>> We've had some presentations where clues about what needs to be
>> included, and what not were shown to all employees.
>
>IOW, ``luser ed.'' -- still a dirty word to the salesmen and, for that
>matter, the lusers themselves. Hit'em hard and never ever admit you're
>attempting to educate them.

One presentation started off with the guy asking "don't answer this out
loud, but how many of you think these [presentations] are a waste of
your time?"  You could see at least half the crowd silently agreeing
with that.  He then continued by explaining that "you want to create
mails that the recipient isn't going to feel is a waste of time. You
do this by"... and then went through a list of typical mistakes,
starting with the 'Subject:', opening abstract, details known to be
needed (but not the entire contents of your hard disk), and so on.
As he was an outside conslutant. he didn't seem to worry about
stepping on high-ranking toes, or kicking sacred pigs. It was one
of the better presentations, and actually improved the average quality
of the boring emails we were getting at the time.

========================

[New Large Aircraft fire-fighting]

>It would seem so. Of course, it's entirely too easy to forget that new
>materials too do have a .cn part to their properties.

But a lot of this isn't all that new. Carbon composites have been used
on military aircraft for several years now, and fiberglass has been in
use for decades - including whole aircraft made of that material.

========================

>Related to an earlier episode; the recruiters I asked to remove my
>details after another few weeks of deafening silence saw fit to follow
>up with about a pageful of superfluous blather about how they compared
>my details with their database and whatnot in addition to the last two
>lines affirming that they'd ``complied with my wish''. Perhaps they
>were hoping I'd come running back to them, but I'd already asked them
>to give me reason why I shouldn't walk away, to which no answer -- as
>noted previously.

As they haven't done anything useful, that's good news.

>Poked another recruiter guy, but he seems to have trouble recalling me
>at all (quoth ``NO CV attached though matey ;-)))'' -- he already has
>that and answers to a *long* list of questions), so poked again with a
>``but what jobs do you have, really?''. I think he's going to go out as
>well.

I know that most pimps are powdered plastic dog poop, but are all of
them in town that bad?   What have you found about temp agencies?

>It's a tiring game, though. Soon I'll be lawnmowing in the snow.

I suppose that's better if you like fresh air, but I spent 3 hours
this morning (today is a holiday) cleaning up the yard after some
thunderstorms passed through some parts of the valley. We didn't
get any rain (last rain was six weeks ago, and before that in mid
February) but we got some lightning (luckily no fires here) and lots
of strong winds.  Somehow, I prefer being indoors, though the +44C
temperatures outside could be a factor.

        Old guy

On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 18:02:43 -0500,
Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
> As he was an outside conslutant. he didn't seem to worry about
> stepping on high-ranking toes, or kicking sacred pigs.

That is one reason to hire consultants, though not all of them are
actually independent enough to do that. Rent-a-yes-man, anybody?


>========================
> [New Large Aircraft fire-fighting]
>
>>It would seem so. Of course, it's entirely too easy to forget that new
>>materials too do have a .cn part to their properties.
>
> But a lot of this isn't all that new. Carbon composites have been used
> on military aircraft for several years now, and fiberglass has been in
> use for decades - including whole aircraft made of that material.

Then again, some properties just take a while to emerge. I don't know
how long it took for asbestos, but seeing how widespread it is....


>========================
>
> I know that most pimps are powdered plastic dog poop, but are all of
> them in town that bad?

I don't know. The ``town'' as in search radius is most of Europe, so I
suppose there should be one or two halfway reasonable ones somewhere,
just so far not the people who choose to react to my inquiries.


> We didn't get any rain ([...]) but we got some lightning (luckily no
> fires here) and lots of strong winds.

The concept of a thunderstorm without rain is fairly alien to me. Of
course, here ``thunderstorms'' are showers with a couple of flashes and
it's over in an hour.


> Somehow, I prefer being indoors, though the +44C temperatures outside
> could be a factor.

And I thought the 30-odd C here was a lot. Well, the cave I live in lags
quite a few degrees behind the outside (without AC or anything, just five
floors above me to absorb all the warmth) so I only notice that when I'm
shopping for groceries.


-- 
  j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
  This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
  Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
  consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

On 5 Jul 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
<slrng6u9mf.11hj.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:

>Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:

>> As he was an outside conslutant. he didn't seem to worry about
>> stepping on high-ranking toes, or kicking sacred pigs.
>
>That is one reason to hire consultants, though not all of them are
>actually independent enough to do that. Rent-a-yes-man, anybody?

I've seen to many who are afraid to make waves because they are looking
for future employment or repeat business.  Yes men might be a bit to
strong a term, but it's close.

========================

>Then again, some properties just take a while to emerge. I don't know
>how long it took for asbestos, but seeing how widespread it is....

"Hanger One" at the former Moffett Naval Air Station about 55 KM South
East of San Francisco was built for the naval airships in the 1930s.
It's about 1150 by 310 by 190 feet (350 x 94 x 58 meters) with a steel
frame covered by corrugated sheets of 1/2 inch  (12 mm) thick asbestos
cement covered steel, (the top 70 feet / 21.3 meters is covered with
2 inch redwood sheathing and that is covered by asphalted felt). The
building gets a regular paint job to keep the asbestos covered.  They
can't remove the asbestos (even if they could find the money and a
fool willing to do the work) or tear down the building because it's
a national and state historic landmark and is protected by law.

The laws have changed considerably in the last fifty years, thanks
in part to an abundance of lawyers here. Consequently, both the
governments and manufacturers are a LOT more sensitive to possible
health hazards.

========================

>> I know that most pimps are powdered plastic dog poop, but are all
>> of them in town that bad?
>
>I don't know. The ``town'' as in search radius is most of Europe, so I
>suppose there should be one or two halfway reasonable ones somewhere,
>just so far not the people who choose to react to my inquiries.

You seem to be finding a lot of them.

>> We didn't get any rain ([...]) but we got some lightning (luckily no
>> fires here) and lots of strong winds.
>
>The concept of a thunderstorm without rain is fairly alien to me.\

They're pretty common here. We don't have enough low altitude moisture
but there is enough at medium altitudes to cause lightning. The result
is a lot of air/air strikes which look pretty, but also a significant
number of air/ground strikes which often result in fires. The July 2008
issue of the "National Geographic" magazine has a 28 page article on
this - they're saying the majority of fires are still caused by man.
For perspective, 15000 square miles or 38833 square kilometers burned
in 2006, two thirds of that in the Western part of the country. There
are several hundred wild fires today in California and most of those
are believed to have been caused by lightning strikes.  The fire
services are nervous enough about it to have electronic lightning
strike finders (basically direction finders) which are monitored.
When a strike is detected in a remote area, they'll send someone in to
look for signs of a fire.   I learned to fly years ago in California,
and one unofficial task that was stressed was that if you see a fire
and don't see indications that the fire services are working it, you
WILL report it via radio and the FAA will forward the information to
the state fire officials.

>Of course, here ``thunderstorms'' are showers with a couple of flashes
>and it's over in an hour.

Suffice to say our thunderstorms can be a lot more violent than that.
While an individual cell may only last a short time, there's usually
a lot more than one. It's not unusual to see line storms, which are
a series of thunderstorms along a weather front - these may be several
hundred miles long.

>> Somehow, I prefer being indoors, though the +44C temperatures outside
>> could be a factor.
>
>And I thought the 30-odd C here was a lot.

You are a little further North, and thus cooler. We've seen a few days
above 50C, but they've been relatively rare. On the other hand, last
year, we had some 33 days in a row with highs over 110F/43C (even though
most publications say the monthly average highs for May to September
are 33, 38, 40, 38, and 36C respectively.  Right now, our nightly _lows_
have been 27 to 32C.

>Well, the cave I live in lags quite a few degrees behind the outside
>(without AC or anything, just five floors above me to absorb all the
>warmth) so I only notice that when I'm shopping for groceries.

This house has 7 Tons (84000 BTU/H = 24.6 KW) of central air conditioning.

You've mentioned elsewhere you aren't a driver. One of the prized
features of many workplaces is covered parking. You learn to avoid
touching metal that has been parked in the sun. (Open doors on both
sides, wait 30 seconds, reach in and remove the sun-shields from all
the windows - get in, start the engine, turn on the air conditioning,
wait ten-twenty seconds more and finally close the doors and drive away.)
And only a really dumb tourist drives a car without air conditioning.

        Old guy

On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 21:50:02 -0500,
Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
> On 5 Jul 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
><slrng6u9mf.11hj.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:
>>Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
>
> For perspective, 15000 square miles or 38833 square kilometers burned
> in 2006, two thirds of that in the Western part of the country. There
> are several hundred wild fires today in California and most of those
> are believed to have been caused by lightning strikes.

I'm told that ``the great plains'' and several other biotopes actually
need or at least benefit and/or derive part of their character from
occasional fire.

Not to endorse random idiots causing fires, of course, far from it. And
now that us humans live just about everywhere... *we* certainly object
to having our homes burnt down.


> I learned to fly years ago in California, and one unofficial task that
> was stressed was that if you see a fire and don't see indications that
> the fire services are working it, you WILL report it via radio and the
> FAA will forward the information to the state fire officials.

At a certain ex-WWII spitfire field[1] where I spent one or two summers
flying gliders the (movable) field shack contained a fire service radio
for exactly that purpose.


>>Well, the cave I live in lags quite a few degrees behind the outside
>>(without AC or anything, just five floors above me to absorb all the
>>warmth) so I only notice that when I'm shopping for groceries.
>
> This house has 7 Tons (84000 BTU/H = 24.6 KW) of central air conditioning.

I recognise one really wants that when it's habitually that hot. I
personally would rather do without if at all possible. Aircos cause me
dehydration which in turn causes nasty headaches that take days to dispel
even when I notice and then make sure I stay over-hydrated. The last time
I ran into that headlong was when I forgot to turn the airco back off
after the cleaning crew had turned it on (*again*) in the appartment we
were staying for a vataction in Greece. Apparently during a heatwave. I
still preferred the heat, despite being ill-suited for it otherwise.

If you're constructing in a habitually hot area, wouldn't it make more
sense to, oh, use really thick stone walls or construct underground or
something, instead of spending 20+ years of energy on an airco?


> You learn to avoid touching metal that has been parked in the sun.

:-)


> And only a really dumb tourist drives a car without air conditioning.

Quite a different situation from getting slightly undercooled during a
long trip sitting still in a slow car[4] with the airco set at 18C or so
(with 25C or so ambient. geez).


[1] 1200 metre and 800 metre grass strips, cross-wise, lots of woods
    around[2]. Quite interesting landing when windy. Fantastic winch, though.
[2] In everything's-a-park-anyway-.nl it was pretty ``nature-ish'' with
    special protection for critters and all that, and everlasting bitching
    by the local treehuggers[3] that the fumes from the two golf carts
    used to fetch gliders from the field and of course the diesel winch
    were baaaaaaad for all the widdle bunnies. Nevermind that keeping
    the field in use as a glider field kept the evironment ideal for the
    perticular critters that the protection status was there for.
[3] I swear it's a religion to them. Thinking is blasphemy. Stupid fundies.
[4] Towing a glider in a not-entirely-suited trailer, so max 70km/h.

-- 
  j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
  This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
  Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
  consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

On 6 Jul 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
<slrng722rs.1af4.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:

>Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:

>> For perspective, 15000 square miles or 38833 square kilometers burned
>> in 2006, two thirds of that in the Western part of the country.

>I'm told that ``the great plains'' and several other biotopes actually
>need or at least benefit and/or derive part of their character from
>occasional fire.

You'll want to read that National Geographic article if you can find
it.  Fires are beneficial, and there is plenty of documentation to this.

>Not to endorse random idiots causing fires, of course, far from it. And
>now that us humans live just about everywhere... *we* certainly object
>to having our homes burnt down.

Again - the article. Some people are starting to believe that the
decision of the US Forest Service director in ~1910 to "banish" all
wild-fires (this after the fires of 1910 burned "millions of acres"
and killed dozens of firefighters with smoke drifting over New England)
set up this problem.  A study of two patches of Arizona forest estimated
they contained about 50 trees per hectare in the late 1800s and after
nearly 100 years without fires, there were 1700 trees in the same area.

>> I learned to fly years ago in California, and one unofficial task that
>> was stressed was that if you see a fire and don't see indications that
>> the fire services are working it, you WILL report it via radio and the
>> FAA will forward the information to the state fire officials.
>
>At a certain ex-WWII spitfire field[1] where I spent one or two summers
>flying gliders the (movable) field shack contained a fire service radio
>for exactly that purpose.

It's always been a problem here in the West. Because we've been trying
to stop all fires, we've generally got a lot of things on the ground to
burn - not just man made stuff.

>I recognise one really wants that when it's habitually that hot. I
>personally would rather do without if at all possible. Aircos cause me
>dehydration which in turn causes nasty headaches that take days to
>dispel even when I notice and then make sure I stay over-hydrated. 

You don't want to be here.  A few minutes ago, they reported the met
numbers, and the relative humidity was 18%.  During the spring and
early summer, we _normally_ see single digit relative humidity numbers.
You know it's bad when it's 40C, but the dew point is below 0C.

>The last time I ran into that headlong was when I forgot to turn the
>airco back off after the cleaning crew had turned it on (*again*) in
>the appartment we were staying for a vataction in Greece. Apparently
>during a heatwave. I still preferred the heat, despite being ill-suited
>for it otherwise.

Two answers - first being replacing (or supplementing) the air
conditioners with what we call 'swamp coolers" or humidifiers. We have
a total of five in the house now, though I'm only using two. The "big"
one holds 28 liters of water, and if I let it run 24/7 I need to refill
it twice a day.  That's actually over-kill for this house, and makes it
to humid.  There are also house coolers running on the same principle,
but you've got to exhaust the moist air about as fast as you are
creating it, lest the house turn into a rain-forest.  The idea of the
swamp cooler is that the air comes out at _close_ to the dew point.
With 38C and 18%, that means the air comes out ~10C.

As far as hydrating, you might get the clue from the convenience stores
that sell cold drinks.  The "small" is a half liter, and the largest
size is usually around 2 to 2.5 liters. When I'm working in the yard
this time of year, it's not at all unusual for me to consume 2 liters
per hour, and I'm taking breaks because even that much time doing
hard labor outside is to much. I keep 10 liters of water chilling in
the fridge just for this reason.  For a 20 minute bicycle ride, I take
along 2 liters of chilled water (well, it's cold when I started).

>If you're constructing in a habitually hot area, wouldn't it make more
>sense to, oh, use really thick stone walls or construct underground or
>something, instead of spending 20+ years of energy on an airco?

When the Spanish missionaries were working the West coast up to about
San Francisco, the mission churches they built were usually quite thick
walls. Underground might be OK, but you'd better hope the waterproofing
was done perfectly lest you be flooded out during a rate thunderstorm.

>> And only a really dumb tourist drives a car without air conditioning.
>
>Quite a different situation from getting slightly undercooled during a
>long trip sitting still in a slow car[4] with the airco set at 18C or
>so (with 25C or so ambient. geez).

25C is a bit below what we cool things down to - it's 27C in this room
as I write this.

>[1] 1200 metre and 800 metre grass strips, cross-wise, lots of woods
>    around[2]. Quite interesting landing when windy. Fantastic winch,
>though.

We've got a lot of interesting.cn airfields - my favorite was a 760
meter runway at Santa Cruz. There are hills all over the place, and the
procedure was to fly the downwind about a half mile to the side at 330
meters above the runway. Passing the numbers, you pulled power to idle
dump full flaps, and made a medium steep turn, rolling out of the turn
over the numbers. That's about a 1:8 decent or about 7 degrees. There
was a hill about 150 meters above the runway about 800 meters out on
final which is why you pulled this stunt.  Great confidence builder
for learning landings to a spot.

>[4] Towing a glider in a not-entirely-suited trailer, so max 70km/h.

70 km/h... 43 mph - you'd better be on the side streets, or you'll get
run over by the herd.

        Old guy

On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 22:43:14 -0500,
Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
>
> You'll want to read that National Geographic article if you can find
> it.  Fires are beneficial, and there is plenty of documentation to this.

Will do. As noted, doesn't surprise me they are. :-)

I was thinking of such an article but couldn't recall, given that the
last NGM I read was... oh only a couple years ago, though the last time
I regularly received them was a little while longer ago.


> Again - the article. Some people are starting to believe that the
> decision of the US Forest Service director in ~1910 to "banish" all
> wild-fires (this after the fires of 1910 burned "millions of acres"
> and killed dozens of firefighters with smoke drifting over New England)
> set up this problem.  A study of two patches of Arizona forest estimated
> they contained about 50 trees per hectare in the late 1800s and after
> nearly 100 years without fires, there were 1700 trees in the same area.

At the very least landscaping influence. Doesn't surprise me that much
of our problems we cause ourselves, either.


> You don't want to be here.  A few minutes ago, they reported the met
> numbers, and the relative humidity was 18%.  During the spring and
> early summer, we _normally_ see single digit relative humidity numbers.
> You know it's bad when it's 40C, but the dew point is below 0C.

Though if it's hot enough I usually manage to keep on drinking. If it's
cool the dehydration sneaks up on me.

Apropos working in the heat, what about doing the garden at night? :-)


> Underground might be OK, but you'd better hope the waterproofing was
> done perfectly lest you be flooded out during a rate thunderstorm.

Or rather, sufficiently deep draining. If it's been very hot for very
long the problem becomes that the ground just won't accept the water
until soaked, rather than high water table.


> We've got a lot of interesting.cn airfields - my favorite was a 760
> meter runway at Santa Cruz. There are hills all over the place, and the
> procedure was to fly the downwind about a half mile to the side at 330
> meters above the runway. Passing the numbers, you pulled power to idle
> dump full flaps, and made a medium steep turn, rolling out of the turn
> over the numbers. That's about a 1:8 decent or about 7 degrees. There
> was a hill about 150 meters above the runway about 800 meters out on
> final which is why you pulled this stunt.  Great confidence builder
> for learning landings to a spot.

Uhm. Yeah. Though with gliders you generally don't have to pull power
to idle in the first place. ;-)

The most interesting landing I've been in to date was flying in very
intermittent showery weather. The vario had gotten moist so it'd only
show anything at +3 or -3m/s or more. So just for training value the
instructor decided to show a landing through the middle of a shower,
with visibility reduced to less than 50m or so. It was pouring down
right until half a minute after rolling to a stop.


Due to various circumstances I haven't managed to get enough experience
and all the papers and they've screwed up the licence system royally in
the meantime. Maybe someday again.


>>[4] Towing a glider in a not-entirely-suited trailer, so max 70km/h.
>
> 70 km/h... 43 mph - you'd better be on the side streets, or you'll get
> run over by the herd.

Not that bad if it's relatively quiet or the motorway has lanes enough. The
limit for heavy vehicles is 80km/h anyway, with the light traffic allowed
100 or 120km/h. Not half as annoying as truckers overtaking each other with
1km/h difference. Don't want to muck about too much in rural routes and
such as there might be (much) less maneuvre room (.nl is flat but also very
full and nowadays sports lots of roundabouts[1]). Going faster and having a
10m+ trailer become unstable *is* a problem, however.


[1] Some of which have special lanes through the middle that can be
    opened for special transports. Otherwise those'll get stuck like
    a low-hauler on a slightly bumpy railroad crossing. Only without
    the regular trains.

-- 
  j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
  This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
  Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
  consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

On 7 Jul 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
<slrng742d8.1djj.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:

>Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:

>> You'll want to read that National Geographic article if you can find
>> it.  Fires are beneficial, and there is plenty of documentation to
>> this.
>
>Will do. As noted, doesn't surprise me they are. :-)

The issue is July 2008, and the cover is a picture of the face of a
mountain gorilla. Article starts on pg 116, with an extra item on pg
158 and 160.

>> You don't want to be here.  A few minutes ago, they reported the met
>> numbers, and the relative humidity was 18%.

>Though if it's hot enough I usually manage to keep on drinking. If
>it's cool the dehydration sneaks up on me.

Minor distraction - when the humidity is so low, you don't appear to be
sweating. You are, but it's evaporating immediately, and that catches
those not used to it.

>Apropos working in the heat, what about doing the garden at night? :-)

Can't see what you're doing.  Normal thing is to do the outdoor tasks
as early in the day as possible. You also have to be careful on the
way to work in the morning, because there's thousands of people out
walking/jogging/biking up until about 9:30.  The National Weather
Service is often issuing "Excessive Heat Warning" bulletins, that are
in effect from (usually) 10:00 to 21:00 on the warmer days.  During
such periods, you are strongly recommended to not be outside unless
you have no choice. As sunset on the summer solstice is 19:42, it's
probably to hot to be out there.  Besides, that's pool time!

>> Underground might be OK, but you'd better hope the waterproofing was
>> done perfectly lest you be flooded out during a rate thunderstorm.
>
>Or rather, sufficiently deep draining. If it's been very hot for very
>long the problem becomes that the ground just won't accept the water
>until soaked, rather than high water table.

One of the major problems with thunderstorms here is flash flooding.
"Dry" washes/creeks/streams/rivers can be inundated _very_ rapidly.
We have the further problem in that we have few bridges. There is a
"river" in downtown (the "Salt River") and 23 roads cross it in the
20 mile stretch centered on Sky Harbor airport. There are a total of
nine bridges, 5 of them freeways, and two crossing an artificial
lake created by damming the river-bed. Hey, the river is dry, so who
needs a bridge? They just run the paved road across the river bottom.
Trouble is, when it rains, you may suddenly find as much as a meter (or
more) of water in this "dry" watercourse.  Happens several times a year
such that we have a "Dumb Motorist" law - if you get stranded because
you drove into a flooded area, they can fine you (I think the fine is
$150) and charge you the full costs of rescue. And it _still_ happens
several times a year.

>> That's about a 1:8 decent or about 7 degrees. There was a hill about
>> 150 meters above the runway about 800 meters out on final which is
>> why you pulled this stunt.  Great confidence builder for learning
>> landings to a spot.
>
>Uhm. Yeah. Though with gliders you generally don't have to pull power
>to idle in the first place. ;-)

Picky, picky.  Actually, they closed that airport in 1992 after the
third fatal accident (downdrafts on short final), and the owner could
no longer get insurance.

>The most interesting landing I've been in to date was flying in very
>intermittent showery weather. The vario had gotten moist so it'd only
>show anything at +3 or -3m/s or more. So just for training value the
>instructor decided to show a landing through the middle of a shower,
>with visibility reduced to less than 50m or so. It was pouring down
>right until half a minute after rolling to a stop.

Ow, violation of visibility minima for visual flight.  Rules are 3 miles,
and remaining 500 feet below clouds, 1000 feet above, and 2000 feet
horizontally. There are special cases where the visibility may be as
low as a mile and two cases where you need only remain "clear of clouds".

>Due to various circumstances I haven't managed to get enough experience
>and all the papers and they've screwed up the licence system royally in
>the meantime. Maybe someday again.

How long ago? Here, things got royally screwed in the 1990s?  They did
add a "Recreational" certificate, with lower requirements.  The Ultra-
Light crowd also has different (much more relaxed) requirements.

>> 70 km/h... 43 mph - you'd better be on the side streets, or you'll get
>> run over by the herd.
>
>Not that bad if it's relatively quiet or the motorway has lanes enough.

Depends on the roads and specific state. In Arizona, the drivers license
manual doesn't specifically mention a minimum speed requirement, although
they recommend avoiding driving to slowly (but don't define that). In
some states, there is a 55, 60, or 65 MPH maximum limit, AND ALSO a
minimum limit - 40 MPH would be typical. Obviously, that is weather and
traffic conditions permitting.  On hills where this minimum would be a
problem, they usually add a designated climbing lane where you do the
best you can (usually at least 25 MPH with lots of black smoke).

>The limit for heavy vehicles is 80km/h anyway, with the light traffic
>allowed 100 or 120km/h.

Varies by state.  On the Interstate Highways well outside of town here,
the limits are 60 MPH for trucks, 70 or 75 for everyone else. Close to
towns, it's 60/60, and may decrease to 50/50 down town where there are
a lot of exits/entries.

>Not half as annoying as truckers overtaking each other with 1km/h
>difference.

Two or more lanes in the same direction - trucks and buses are
prohibited from the left lane. Yes, we do have the same problem. In
_MOST_ (but certainly not all) cases, the truckers try to use common
sense, and the truck being passed _MAY_ slow it down slightly to help
the vehicle doing the passing. In theory, the police might cite the
truckers for obstructing traffic, but this is pretty rare.

>Don't want to muck about too much in rural routes and such as there
>might be (much) less maneuvre room (.nl is flat but also very full and
>nowadays sports lots of roundabouts[1]).

Roundabouts are relatively rare - most of the one's I've seen are in
New Jersey, and a few in Massachusetts. Here in the West, I don't
recall seeing any.  The one problem we _do_ have is slow moving
vehicles. On smaller roads, it's not unknown to see farm machinery
sporting an orange triangle with red border - which means they are only
doing 25 MPH _OR_LESS_ - and it's perfectly legal. 

        Old guy

On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 21:24:36 -0500,
Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
> On 7 Jul 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
><slrng742d8.1djj.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:
>
>>Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
>
>>> You'll want to read that National Geographic article if you can find
>>> it.  Fires are beneficial, and there is plenty of documentation to
>>> this.
[snip]

The nearest library didn't have it so I bought me a copy for the occasion.

It sounds like the usual American pastime of making war on something.
Finding out it can't be ``won'' is just icing on the cake.

Amazingly the whole article spends about one sentence about that Native
Americans used to set fires themselves so they wouldn't be surprised by
``natural'' fires. I can't recall where but I did see that mentioned
previously.

It makes lots of sense to do that, but equally obviously doesn't fit
very well in the /American mindset/. Still, looks like all ya'all won't
have much choice to learn how to do it after all.

Also: Homes there apparently are essentially fancy stacks of tinder.
Here, they're usually brick with fired clay roof tiles too. Or brick
with reeds for roofing. I've seen several burn -- such a fire is very
hard to put out.


>>Apropos working in the heat, what about doing the garden at night? :-)
>
> Can't see what you're doing.

Put up a couple of big lights on poles?


> Besides, that's pool time!

Makes sense. :-)


> One of the major problems with thunderstorms here is flash flooding.

There is that.


> Actually, they closed that airport in 1992 after the third fatal
> accident (downdrafts on short final), and the owner could no longer
> get insurance.

Sounds like a bit of an over-reaction. ISTR hearing that in Aosta (where
_a lot_ of mountain gliding takes place) they don't start to worry about
gliding accident deaths unless there's more than two a year. Except for
the usual learning from any accident routine, of course.


[landing in heavy rain]
> Ow, violation of visibility minima for visual flight.

*shrug* In that case, all users of the field were aware of what we were
doing plus were mostly huddling in the field shed waiting for the rain
to stop. No single-seaters in the air and the other twin-seater had
managed to land right before the shower started (so we knew where it was
on the field as well). We just landed right through the shower. :-)

As for flying, the visibility outside the showers was sufficient.


>>Due to various circumstances I haven't managed to get enough experience
>>and all the papers and they've screwed up the licence system royally in
>>the meantime. Maybe someday again.
>
> How long ago? Here, things got royally screwed in the 1990s?  They did
> add a "Recreational" certificate, with lower requirements.  The Ultra-
> Light crowd also has different (much more relaxed) requirements.

Yes, around 2000 for .nl. Some silly reshuffling by copying the FAA rules
verbatim, which doesn't make much sense for the Dutch small aviation
situation. Another sign our authorities hate small aviation. *sigh*


> In Arizona, the drivers license manual doesn't specifically mention a
> minimum speed requirement, although they recommend avoiding driving
> to slowly (but don't define that). In some states, there is a 55, 60,
> or 65 MPH maximum limit, AND ALSO a minimum limit - 40 MPH would be
> typical.

Dutch motorways used to have a 60 (65?) km/h minimum but it was dropped
with some revision to the road rules perhaps a decade back. One still
sees the really big large _slow_ ``special transports'' signed as such
and with lots of orange blinky lights on occasion, though I'm not sure
what conditions trigger the blinky lights requirements now.


>>Not half as annoying as truckers overtaking each other with 1km/h
>>difference.
>
> Two or more lanes in the same direction - trucks and buses are
> prohibited from the left lane.

It's taken ages for .nl to pick up on that. It's done per road with a road
sign that may or may not carry restrictions on when it is in effect (like,
8:00..10:00 and 15:00..18:00 or something -- I made up the numbers).


> The one problem we _do_ have is slow moving vehicles. On smaller
> roads, it's not unknown to see farm machinery sporting an orange
> triangle with red border - which means they are only doing 25 MPH
> _OR_LESS_ - and it's perfectly legal.

40km/h or 25km/h, depending. And you can see 12 y/o kids driving the
heavy farm machinery -- there's an exception that allows that. Otherwise
the minimum is 18 for getting the licence (or 16 for a moped licence).

Which is another reason why I'd probably take the motorway anyway. There
was a bit of a spat where tractors with (multiple) trailers were taking
heavy loads accross the country on rural roads. Road trains otherwise
aren't allowed, and it probably had tax-evading properties as well. I
can't recall if they made a law expressly forbidding tricks like that,
but at least the police started going after the phenomenon.


-- 
  j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
  This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
  Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
  consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

On 10 Jul 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
<slrng7c8ci.1pmh.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:

>Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:

>Also: Homes there apparently are essentially fancy stacks of tinder.
>Here, they're usually brick with fired clay roof tiles too. Or brick
>with reeds for roofing. I've seen several burn -- such a fire is very
>hard to put out.

Notice the pictures on page 116 (beginning of article) and 122 ("With a
deafening crescendo"). Brick and fired clay is still not good enough
for that. Many of the houses are built of wood to be less intrusive.

Looking at the map (Fires in the West) on page 130, draw a line that
passes through the letter S in Seeley Lake, down the Wyoming/Idaho
border and curving West through Utah to the junction of California,
Nevada and Arizona, and another line from the California/Arizona/Mexico
boarder up the coast to Western Washington state, and while you're at
it, the area of southwestern Nevada - all of that is "earthquake
country". California has rules against brick construction because it
doesn't do well in seismic events.  Choose your disaster...

>> One of the major problems with thunderstorms here is flash flooding.
>
>There is that.

I got 0.54 inches/13 mm last night - while areas about 25 miles/40 km
Southeast got nearly 3 inches 76 mm out of the same series of storms.
More is expected tonight and through the weekend. Nearly all of the
"dry wash" road crossings where closed due to flooding.

>Sounds like a bit of an over-reaction. ISTR hearing that in Aosta
>(where _a lot_ of mountain gliding takes place) they don't start to
>worry about gliding accident deaths unless there's more than two a
>year. Except for the usual learning from any accident routine, of
>course.

Not knowing how active they are (rate per million flying hours), it's
hard to say. Here, two fatals a year within a 50 mile radius would
have the FAA visiting airports in the area talking about safety. As it
is, the five FBOs at Deer Valley airport hold an average of an evening
presentation a year (meaning five or six a year at this one airport)
talking about flight safety.

>Dutch motorways used to have a 60 (65?) km/h minimum but it was dropped
>with some revision to the road rules perhaps a decade back. One still
>sees the really big large _slow_ ``special transports'' signed as such
>and with lots of orange blinky lights on occasion, though I'm not sure
>what conditions trigger the blinky lights requirements now.

What does it here is "oversized load" - over 96 or 102 inch (2.43 or
2.59 meters) wide, or longer than 80 feet/24.4 meters. There's also a
height restriction (13.5 feet/4,11 meters), but the bridges usually
ignore the blinky lights and signs. "Slow" isn't that big of a factor,
as they usually can meet the posted minimums. Occasionally, yes, we
get something like a 100MVA transformer, or a steam turbine alternator
that has to go by road - but they're quite rare (last one I recall
hearing about was 3-4 years ago), and only travel on major highways
during the day with escorts, with frequent stops to get the he!! out
of the way of traffic. 

>It's taken ages for .nl to pick up on that. It's done per road with a
>road sign that may or may not carry restrictions on when it is in effect

24/7.  The only exceptions is within a quarter mile of a left exit
(we have few places where you exit to the left, rather than the right
mainly because the st00pid highway engineer is trying to save a few
coins).

>40km/h or 25km/h, depending. And you can see 12 y/o kids driving the
>heavy farm machinery -- there's an exception that allows that.

15 1/2 for a learners permit, and must be accompanied by a licensed
driver in the front seat.  No, the 12 year-olds are not allowed to
drive on public land/roads.  (Was I 12 when I did that?   Perhaps.)

>There was a bit of a spat where tractors with (multiple) trailers were
>taking heavy loads accross the country on rural roads.

That varies by state, and I think they are legal on designated roads
here. I know that is the case in California.

>Road trains otherwise aren't allowed, and it probably had tax-evading
>properties as well. I can't recall if they made a law expressly
>forbidding tricks like that, but at least the police started going
>after the phenomenon.

Where they are allowed, they've still got to live within an overall
length restriction - which I think is 80 feet.  Beyond that length,
they need the blinky lights escort vehicles which negate most of
the advantage of hauling dual trailers.

        Old guy

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 20:52:58 -0500,
Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
>
> Notice the pictures on page 116 (beginning of article) and 122 ("With a
> deafening crescendo"). Brick and fired clay is still not good enough
> for that. Many of the houses are built of wood to be less intrusive.

There's that. Though not all fire burns that hot, and likely there'll
be more left of the building afterward. Whether that's an advantage is
something else again.

But it is quite feasible to adjust buildings to be more fire resistant,
just like one can make buildings able to survive tsunamis[1]. The ``less
excess trees in the vicinity'' is a good start, as already mentioned.


> California has rules against brick construction because it
> doesn't do well in seismic events.  Choose your disaster...

Alright. :-)

Though there's bound to be more choices than brick and mortar or wood.
Sky scrapers employ all sorts of tricks against earthquakes, so one'd
expect at least some of that would be down-scaleable to single homes.

Then again, I don't know whether letting the home burn then build it
again and re-stock with the usual consumerist crap isn't cheaper.

The mementos and other valuables are another story, of course. A small
heat-resistant vault in the cellar (or the nearest substitute -- some
sunken compartment in the concrete slab underneath the tinder?) might do
it.


> Not knowing how active they are (rate per million flying hours), it's
> hard to say.

If it's a lot, then it's not significant. If it's a few, post a
NOTAM and leave it up to the airmen's own discretion.

If we're going to be indivualist and independent we might as well
be left our own responsibility. AFAIK this has been the culture in
aviation; to make decisions ourselves, and make sure we can do so
responsibly by being well-informed.


> There's also a height restriction (13.5 feet/4,11 meters), but the
> bridges usually ignore the blinky lights and signs.

Cue stories of youth sticking heads out of opened skylight on a
double-decker touringcar and getting beheaded by a passing bridge.


> (we have few places where you exit to the left, rather than the right
> mainly because the st00pid highway engineer is trying to save a few
> coins).

Ugh. What I've seen is things like splitting the N available lanes
in two with each continuing to be a motorway but going in different
directions. Single-lane split-off on the left, uhm, no. This may work
somewhat better in places that allow overtaking on the right.


>>40km/h or 25km/h, depending. And you can see 12 y/o kids driving the
>>heavy farm machinery -- there's an exception that allows that.
>
> 15 1/2 for a learners permit, and must be accompanied by a licensed
> driver in the front seat.  No, the 12 year-olds are not allowed to
> drive on public land/roads.  (Was I 12 when I did that?   Perhaps.)

They're not allowed that here either, maybe except for the bit from farm
to land and back (which would happen anyway). Probably with a 25km/h
restriction even if the thing itself would've been allowed 40. Still,
big huge large machines with all sorts of pointy bits sticking out in
all directions aren't my favourite encounter no matter who drives.


>>There was a bit of a spat where tractors with (multiple) trailers were
>>taking heavy loads accross the country on rural roads.
>
> That varies by state, and I think they are legal on designated roads
> here. I know that is the case in California.

Any road that's not a motorway, basically, though you usually don't see
them on state roads (numbered Nnnn, with Ann for motorways or nothing
for un-numbered roads). Doesn't strike me like there's much excess road
for designating.


[1] By making the ground floor a sacrificial area with figuratively
    cardboard walls and have the upper floors stand be solid and stand
    on a couple struts, leaving lots of room for the water to pass once
    it has knocked away the cardboard and all the crap you were too lazy
    to throw away.

-- 
  j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
  This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
  Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
  consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

On 12 Jul 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
<slrng7hrnt.26q8.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:

>Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:

>> Notice the pictures on page 116 (beginning of article) and 122 ("With
>> a deafening crescendo").

>There's that. Though not all fire burns that hot, and likely there'll
>be more left of the building afterward. Whether that's an advantage is
>something else again.

Most of the larger wildfires are that bad.

>But it is quite feasible to adjust buildings to be more fire resistant,
>just like one can make buildings able to survive tsunamis[1]. The ``less
>excess trees in the vicinity'' is a good start, as already mentioned.

These places are frequently built as vacation/get-away places, which
means they are meant to be rustic looking and not detract from the
woodsy look. But this also means they aren't occupied year-round, and
that means grounds maintenance is spotty.

>Though there's bound to be more choices than brick and mortar or wood.
>Sky scrapers employ all sorts of tricks against earthquakes, so one'd
>expect at least some of that would be down-scaleable to single homes.

The problem with masonry of any kind is that it tends to be to rigid
yet not strong enough to resist the forces involved. Wood is a lot
more flexible. Thus, the foundation is meant to be tied to the "local"
earth (and thus not go walking about), and the building is required to
be securely tied to that foundation.  "One inch bolts twelve inches
long every N (8 I think) feet holding the frame to the foundation. In
the Loma Prieta earthquake of 1989 (Mg 7.2), our house was swaying
pretty well and jumping up/down (a seismograph about a half mile away
recorded ground movement as ~10 degrees off vertical, 11 inches peak
to peak, at ~ 1/2 Hertz) and the damage (other than peace of mind)
was limited to a decorative glass falling off the television stand,
an empty glass bottle falling off the table, and an electrical wall
switch with the lever sheared off by a 2 meter tall bookcase (that
remained upright with all the books in place). About seven years later
when we sold that house, an inspection determined that the brick
fireplace was creaked, and I had to have it replaced before we could
sell. The house was 50 years old, and we had no idea when the cracks
had occurred but there was substantial steel reinforcement of the
brickwork as constructed.

>Then again, I don't know whether letting the home burn then build it
>again and re-stock with the usual consumerist crap isn't cheaper.

We have the same problem with houses built on flood planes. What
generally happens is that the insurance cost (required by the bank
that lends you the money to build) increases - some times quite a lot.

>The mementos and other valuables are another story, of course. A small
>heat-resistant vault in the cellar (or the nearest substitute -- some
>sunken compartment in the concrete slab underneath the tinder?) might
>do it.

It has to be well insulated (the "safe" where some of the valuables
are stored has a one hour fire rating a 3000F) and waterproof. But
that assumes you have your valuables in there, and that 'fire rating'
only means paper won't char - doesn't say anything about plastic stuff
melting..

[Left (i.e. driver side) highway exits]

>Ugh. What I've seen is things like splitting the N available lanes
>in two with each continuing to be a motorway but going in different
>directions.

Those are quite common. I know of several places here with three way
splits (2-3-2 for the most part).

>Single-lane split-off on the left, uhm, no. This may work
>somewhat better in places that allow overtaking on the right.

Legal under specific conditions that would/do include the left exit.
The other minor problem is "High Occupancy Vehicle" (translation "car
pool") lanes, which tend to be the left-most lane. These are generally
for commute times/places, and it's legal for busses to be in those
lanes. Other vehicles risk a $350 file for being there except in an
emergency.  Generally, if I have to go downtown for the day, I'll drive
to the "Park-N-Ride" site - park the car for free (under cover - very
important in Arizona), and grab the Express Bus. The freeway is
invariably jammed at a couple of places, but that HOV lane is rarely
effected and the car pools (minimum 2 people in the car, but 3 in some
states) and busses are whipping along at 80-100 KM/H - while I'm
sitting on the bus sucking on a jug of coffee and reading.  To bad this
service only runs mainly on the freeways. It goes no where near my or
my wife's commute.

        Old guy

On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 20:49:00 -0500,
Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
>
> Most of the larger wildfires are that bad.

Which brings us back to the point that humand did their best to let them
grow large.


> These places are frequently built as vacation/get-away places, which
> means they are meant to be rustic looking and not detract from the
> woodsy look. But this also means they aren't occupied year-round, and
> that means grounds maintenance is spotty.

All right. Another idea. How feasible is it to come up with a concept
of a ``foldable'' building? I'm not talking tent or trailer home, but
some construct that looks and works like a real building when setup, but
when the occupants are elsewhere for extended periods of time, can be
``folded'' into something that is easier to make fire resistant?


> It has to be well insulated (the "safe" where some of the valuables
> are stored has a one hour fire rating a 3000F) and waterproof. But
> that assumes you have your valuables in there, and that 'fire rating'
> only means paper won't char - doesn't say anything about plastic stuff
> melting..

Paper starts to burn at (from memory) 200 C or so, and plenty plastics
melt before water starts to boil. Good point, that is a problem for data
media. Whoops, gone are the backups.


> I know of several places here with three way splits (2-3-2 for the
> most part).

There aren't many roads that wide in Europe, at least not that I know
of (which doesn't say much). 2-2, 2-3, 3-3 maybe (so 2-2-2 might be a
possibility).


>>Single-lane split-off on the left, uhm, no. This may work
>>somewhat better in places that allow overtaking on the right.
>
> Legal under specific conditions that would/do include the left exit.

I was thinking more of acceptability to the drivers. Here, if you find
someone going 60km/u in the left lane, you're not allowed to pass even
if you and it are the only vehicles around. Of course, one ``should''
move to the rightmost usable lane reasonably quickly, but plenty people
don't and thus are a dangerous nuisance to the rest of the road users.


> The freeway is invariably jammed at a couple of places, but that HOV
> lane is rarely effected and the car pools (minimum 2 people in the car,
> but 3 in some states) and busses are whipping along at 80-100 KM/H -
> while I'm sitting on the bus sucking on a jug of coffee and reading.

Some public transport is pretty enjoyable; the closest thing mere
mortals get to being chauffeured around. (Altough I can't read for any
length of time in cars or busses, trains are no problem.)


Of course, sometimes it just isn't. Cue the (turkish?) family of four
with the oldest kid, an utterly spoiled girl of six or so, making a
racket repeatedly. The father clearly wanted her to shut the hell up
but was being singularly ineffective at trying, as apparently it was
the mother's domain. She didn't care much. She figured the rest of the
people in the compartment (50-ish people?) could just suck up the racket
like she had to at home, or something. Being in Germany[1], nobody said
anything. While an interesting show of cultural differences, sitting
next to it I found somewhat painful on ears and nerves. Luckily there
were plenty free seats elsewhere in the train.


> To bad this service only runs mainly on the freeways. It goes no where
> near my or my wife's commute.

What, doesn't everybody live next to the freeways? ;-)


[1] ``IC'', regular long haul trains and usually quite enjoyable.

-- 
  j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
  This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
  Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
  consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

On 15 Jul 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
<slrng7os6d.2l3q.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:

>Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:

>> These places are frequently built as vacation/get-away places, which
>> means they are meant to be rustic looking and not detract from the
>> woodsy look. But this also means they aren't occupied year-round, and
>> that means grounds maintenance is spotty.
>
>All right. Another idea. How feasible is it to come up with a concept
>of a ``foldable'' building? I'm not talking tent or trailer home, but
>some construct that looks and works like a real building when setup, but
>when the occupants are elsewhere for extended periods of time, can be
>``folded'' into something that is easier to make fire resistant?

And still be acceptable looking?  I don't see how the 'make habitable'
or 'put it back in the box' transitions wouldn't take the entire
week-end. What do you do with the furniture and appliances?  Plumbing?

>Paper starts to burn at (from memory) 200 C or so, and plenty plastics
>melt before water starts to boil. Good point, that is a problem for data
>media. Whoops, gone are the backups.

That's why my sister (on the other side of the country) and I have been
acting as remote backup servers for each other.

>> I know of several places here with three way splits (2-3-2 for the
>> most part).
>
>There aren't many roads that wide in Europe, at least not that I know
>of (which doesn't say much). 2-2, 2-3, 3-3 maybe (so 2-2-2 might be a
>possibility).

Around here, four lanes in each direction is not uncommon.  When that
type of road intersects with one of similar size, you may see a 3/2 or
even a 2/3/2 set of lanes, with the 3 being "this" road continuing
through, and the two lanes leading to the "other" road, possibly in
both directions. But elsewhere, it can be quite ridiculous. I know of
a stretch of Interstate 95 near the Newark (New Jersey) airport that
has (or at least had) six lanes of "local" traffic divided from 6
lanes of "through" traffic - for a total of twelve lanes in each
direction (plus "breakdown lanes" on the side where you can stop if
your car dies for some reason). The "through" traffic went for about
10 miles without an exit/entry, while the "local" traffic had 4 or 5
exit/entry points. The "through/local" concept is used in a number of
places to try to speed the commute traffic.

[left exit - passing on right?]

>> Legal under specific conditions that would/do include the left exit.
>
>I was thinking more of acceptability to the drivers. Here, if you find
>someone going 60km/u in the left lane, you're not allowed to pass even
>if you and it are the only vehicles around.

This is more a freeway situation, and someone driving that slow is
violating at least one (maybe two) laws unless traffic in general is
that slow.  The exits are generally built for "highway" speeds, and if
not, they would have a ~1/4 mile deceleration/exit lane _added_ to the
existing road - while the left lane restriction would also not apply
in that rough distance to a left exit.     Yes, we get the idiots
(generally doing speed limit, to 5 MPH under) in the high speed lanes.
Unfortunately, rocket launchers, recoilless guns, and similar hardware
tends to disintegrate the target, and the debris on the roadway may
impede the traffic even more than the idiot.

>Cue the (turkish?) family of four with the oldest kid, an utterly
>spoiled girl of six or so, making a racket repeatedly.

This happens everywhere.   Unfortunately.

>> To bad this service only runs mainly on the freeways. It goes no where
>> near my or my wife's commute.
>
>What, doesn't everybody live next to the freeways? ;-)

It just seems that way.  I'm 8 miles by air from one (14 miles by road)
and 7.5 miles from another (8 or 11 miles to the nearest exits). The
state planning commission claims that they'll be extending another one
so that it's about 2 miles away RSN.   However, the county operated bus
service stops at roughly the nearest freeway (even though the city
border is nearly 15 _additional_ miles beyond that freeway which is 15
miles from "down town").  That supposed freeway extension wouldn't do
anything for our commute, because there won't be a N -> E/W  or E/W ->
N exit (no idea why) - though it would help heading South into the city.

=====================

So - how is it going finding a temp agency?

        Old guy

In article <slrng7ql3j.q4a.ibuprofin@compton.phx.az.us>,
	ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld (Moe Trin) writes:
> On 15 Jul 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
> <slrng7os6d.2l3q.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:

<snip>
>>Paper starts to burn at (from memory) 200 C or so, and plenty plastics
<snip>
Sorry to break in on your conversation, guys.  Couldn't pass up
inserting my US $0.02

Farenheit 451!  Classic SF novel by Ray Bradbury.  Title was chosen
because that (233 C) is the ignition point of paper. 

<snip> 
>>There aren't many roads that wide in Europe, at least not that I know
>>of (which doesn't say much). 2-2, 2-3, 3-3 maybe (so 2-2-2 might be a
>>possibility).

Possibly some of the German autobahnen, especially around Frankfurt,
maybe along the Frankfurt-Mannheim-Karlsruhe corridor.

<good bye to the rest, too>

It's been fascinating "eavesdropping" on your conversation.  It's
revealed a side of jpd that's not ususally on display and, given
the relatively trivial distance between El Paso and Phoenix, I feel
"Moe" is something of a next door neighbor.

Apropos Phoenix (or, as some of would have it, Hell on Earth), I 
worked for a while at the Motorola facility that used to be located
on S. Diablo Way ('bout where I-10 shifts from more-or-less N-S to
E-W, not far from the airport.  I kinda got discouraged at the climate
when I found it was ~100 F in mid-April and, despite the claims that
"it's really a _dry_ climate", found the humidity worse then than
here in El Paso during the mid-summer monsoon season.  Temps at and
above 105, coupled with exceptionally high relative humidity ain't
what I'd call desert - or even pleasant - living.  But as you know
better than I, I'm sure, the micro-climate of the Phoenix basin has
been changed over the last several years due to increased irrigation
and a surge in population.

Ah, well.  'Scuse the interruption.  I'll go away and merely
eavesdrop until something else strikes my fancy - or my plain,
for that matter.

Regards to you both,
Bob Melson
(Surly Ol' Bob of the various genealogy 'groups)

-- 
Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas
-----
Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is the probable
reason so few engage in it.  -- Henry Ford

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
<ANGdnYSOBJ5UHeDVnZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Robert Melson wrote:

>Farenheit 451!  Classic SF novel by Ray Bradbury.  Title was chosen
>because that (233 C) is the ignition point of paper.

I have no idea how long ago it was when I read that.

>>>There aren't many roads that wide in Europe, at least not that I know
>>>of (which doesn't say much). 2-2, 2-3, 3-3 maybe (so 2-2-2 might be a
>>>possibility).
>
>Possibly some of the German autobahnen, especially around Frankfurt,
>maybe along the Frankfurt-Mannheim-Karlsruhe corridor.

I think a number exist near most capital cities as well - Berlin being
an exception.

>Apropos Phoenix (or, as some of would have it, Hell on Earth),

Hey!!! Both Death Valley, California and El Azizia (or is it Al`Aziziyah)
Libya are warmer. It's only hit 120F/49C once so far this year.

>I worked for a while at the Motorola facility that used to be located
>on S. Diablo Way ('bout where I-10 shifts from more-or-less N-S to
>E-W, not far from the airport.

Only moved here in 1996, but it's right about the Az-60/I-10 interchange.

>I kinda got discouraged at the climate when I found it was ~100 F in
>mid-April and, despite the claims that "it's really a _dry_ climate",
>found the humidity worse then than here in El Paso during the
>mid-summer monsoon season.

Ah, but think about the snow birds here in February - "Ah, Margaret, it
is so nice here - let's buy a house and move here".  They're ready to
sell by May at the latest.

Mid-April is right around the end of the wet season, so yeah, the
humidity would be up there a bit. A month or so later, and it's going
to be bone dry.  We've had several days this year when the temps were
over 105F and the dewpoint below 20F, and thats beyond the range of the
humidity table I have here (it's below 6% RH).  It's relatively muggy
right now, 104F/40C with a dewpoint of 55F/13C - that's 20% RH.

>Temps at and above 105, coupled with exceptionally high relative
>humidity ain't what I'd call desert - or even pleasant - living.

During the month of June, the highs were all above 105, and mainly in
the hundred-teens (vaguely 20+ days over 110F), but it was much drier,
with the dewpoints below 40F/4C.  Not sure about the laws in KELP, but
most (if not all) workplaces here are smoke-free, which means the poor
smokers have to go outside (recent law change here - at least 50 feet
away from the building entrance or air intakes), and they're suffering
because the spray misters aren't pulling the temperature down in the
smoking area.   You'd think they'd eventually take the hint.   ;-)

>But as you know better than I, I'm sure, the micro-climate of the
>Phoenix basin has been changed over the last several years due to
>increased irrigation and a surge in population.

That's definitely the case. Were you here after they created "Tempe
Town Lake" in the Salt River bed (about half way between Priest and
Mill, back to about 3/4 mile East of Rural)? It's about 2.5 miles long,
and 500-700 feet wide and a couple of feet deep. And people like me
worry about the one inch or so of water that evaporates off of our
swimming pool every week.  Of course, the rest of the river is dry
(well, except for last weekend, when several thunderstorms flooded
everything).  Another sign of the idiocy is that the Thomas Guide
lists 176 golf courses in the metro area - all watered nightly (with
gray water to be sure - but wow!)

        Old guy

In article <slrng7t8bh.go4.ibuprofin@compton.phx.az.us>,
	ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld (Moe Trin) writes:
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
> <ANGdnYSOBJ5UHeDVnZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Robert Melson wrote:
> 
>>Farenheit 451!  Classic SF novel by Ray Bradbury.  Title was chosen
>>because that (233 C) is the ignition point of paper.
> 
> I have no idea how long ago it was when I read that.

I've never been a big Bradbury fan - much prefer "hard" SF and,
wouldya believe, alternate history - but I dig F451 out every
now and again and reread it.  It really IS dystopic, maybe even
more so than "Brave New World" or "Man in the High Castle" by
Phillip Dick.

<snip> 
>>Apropos Phoenix (or, as some of would have it, Hell on Earth),
> 
> Hey!!! Both Death Valley, California and El Azizia (or is it Al`Aziziyah)
> Libya are warmer. It's only hit 120F/49C once so far this year.

Yeah, but, generally speaking, people don't _live_ in either
place.  But y'r right.  Mebbe Yuma is worse.

<snip> 

>>I kinda got discouraged at the climate when I found it was ~100 F in
>>mid-April and, despite the claims that "it's really a _dry_ climate",
>>found the humidity worse then than here in El Paso during the
>>mid-summer monsoon season.
> 
> Ah, but think about the snow birds here in February - "Ah, Margaret, it
> is so nice here - let's buy a house and move here".  They're ready to
> sell by May at the latest.

Uh-huh.  In many ways, I'd rather live in, say, Minnesota - you can
always put more clothes on to stay warm, but you damn well can't
take enough clothes off to stay cool.  Still, had Motorola worked out
for me, I probably would've relocated to Phx.

> 
> Mid-April is right around the end of the wet season, so yeah, the
> humidity would be up there a bit. A month or so later, and it's going
> to be bone dry.  We've had several days this year when the temps were
> over 105F and the dewpoint below 20F, and thats beyond the range of the
> humidity table I have here (it's below 6% RH).  It's relatively muggy
> right now, 104F/40C with a dewpoint of 55F/13C - that's 20% RH.

I don't recall my time there being particularly rainy - only one
6 inch rain (6 inches between drops) that I remember.  As I said
below, it seems to me that the whole Phx basin has suffered a
change for the worse in terms of micro-climate - irrigation, 
swimming pools, lawns, golf courses all contributing.

<snip> 

> most (if not all) workplaces here are smoke-free, which means the poor
> smokers have to go outside (recent law change here - at least 50 feet
> away from the building entrance or air intakes), and they're suffering
> because the spray misters aren't pulling the temperature down in the
> smoking area.   You'd think they'd eventually take the hint.   ;-)

Well, as a nicotine addict myself, I'd probably find myself a bit
torqued, too.  While I try to be considerate of non-smoking others,
I do tend to expect a similar consideration in return.

> That's definitely the case. Were you here after they created "Tempe
> Town Lake" in the Salt River bed (about half way between Priest and
> Mill, back to about 3/4 mile East of Rural)? It's about 2.5 miles long,
> and 500-700 feet wide and a couple of feet deep. And people like me

ISTR them finishing that particular project shortly before I got
there.  There was a continuing whoop-te-do about it in the local
rag and the TV stations.  Can't say I gave it much thought at
the time.

> 
>         Old guy

Swamp-cooled Ol' Bob

-- 
Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas
-----
Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is the probable
reason so few engage in it.  -- Henry Ford

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
<F5CdnX1W3vbJTuPVnZ2dnUVZ_uadnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Robert Melson wrote:

>ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld (Moe Trin) writes:

>> Ah, but think about the snow birds here in February - "Ah, Margaret,
>> it is so nice here - let's buy a house and move here".  They're
>> ready to sell by May at the latest.
>
>Uh-huh.  In many ways, I'd rather live in, say, Minnesota - you can
>always put more clothes on to stay warm, but you damn well can't
>take enough clothes off to stay cool.  Still, had Motorola worked out
>for me, I probably would've relocated to Phx.

I haven't been up North after about October or before May in many years.
I'd have to buy a whole new wardrobe. Nah, I'll be hitting the pool in 
a few minutes.

>I don't recall my time there being particularly rainy - only one
>6 inch rain (6 inches between drops) that I remember.

2000  no rain between 3/29 and 6/20
2001  1.50" in April (cloudburst on 4/06, small one on 4/22)
2002  0.31" in April - nothing between 4/07 and 7/10
2003  0.23" on 4/15 - nothing else between 3/18 and 7/30
2004  2.38" in April (cloudburst) - nothing until 7/14
2005  0.37" on 4/24 - nothing else between 3/25 and 7/24
2006  0.04" on 4/04 - nothing else between 3/20 and 7/22
2007  0.42 in April (cloudburst) - nothing until 7/24
2008  0.42 on 5/24 - nothing else between 2/23 and 7/11

But don't forget, nearly all of our rainfall is thunderstorms, and they
tend to be hit-or-miss.

>As I said below, it seems to me that the whole Phx basin has suffered
>a change for the worse in terms of micro-climate - irrigation,
>swimming pools, lawns, golf courses all contributing.

I haven't had that much time here before 1996, but I think you're right.

>Well, as a nicotine addict myself, I'd probably find myself a bit
>torqued, too.  While I try to be considerate of non-smoking others,
>I do tend to expect a similar consideration in return.

The 50 foot law went into effect early last year. The company did
add a covered area with misters and ran into minor barbed wire from
an activist. Luckily, the loon wasn't an employee, so we offered to
prosecute for trespass. We still got some bad press over the deal,
but things are calming down now.

>> Were you here after they created "Tempe Town Lake"

>ISTR them finishing that particular project shortly before I got
>there.  There was a continuing whoop-te-do about it in the local
>rag and the TV stations.  Can't say I gave it much thought at
>the time.

You can't do water-sports other than light boating, but it's
supposedly noticeable as small vertical course deviation (air density
change) for aircraft using the South-side runways at Sky Harbor. I'm
told it also makes it slightly cooler in the area, but have no idea
how true that may be.  But it _looks_ nice.

>Swamp-cooled Ol' Bob

7 Tons of central air - but we also have swamp coolers so that I don't
electrocute the cats, or cause the computers to reboot by merely
touching the case.

        Old guy

In article <slrng8017d.6v1.ibuprofin@compton.phx.az.us>,
	ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld (Moe Trin) writes:
<snip> 
> 2000  no rain between 3/29 and 6/20
> 2001  1.50" in April (cloudburst on 4/06, small one on 4/22)
> 2002  0.31" in April - nothing between 4/07 and 7/10
> 2003  0.23" on 4/15 - nothing else between 3/18 and 7/30
> 2004  2.38" in April (cloudburst) - nothing until 7/14
> 2005  0.37" on 4/24 - nothing else between 3/25 and 7/24
> 2006  0.04" on 4/04 - nothing else between 3/20 and 7/22
> 2007  0.42 in April (cloudburst) - nothing until 7/24
> 2008  0.42 on 5/24 - nothing else between 2/23 and 7/11

We're now in the middle of our monsoon season and have had
several substantial rains.  Dries place in the area is
the weather station at the airport, of course, and the rain
pattern is typical of the desert - scattered, moderate to
heavy thunderstorms.

Up til 30 June we were on the verge of having our driest
1st half since they began recording weather in 1879:  from
1/1 through 6/29 we had had 0.23 inch (normal for the same
period is 2.73 inch).  We got just enough rainfall at the
official station of 6/30 to knock this year out of contention
and to remove it from the top 10 driest first halves.  Of course,
we ARE on the northern fringe of the Chihuahuan/Sonoran Desert,
so minimal precip is NOT surprising.

What we don't have in the course of an ordinary year is the
temperature extremes - hottest ever here was 114 F a couple
of years back, coldest since records started -8 F back in the
mid 60s (-19 in Las Cruces, NM, that same winter; 42 miles
more-or-less north of here).  Most summers we'll have a double
handfull of 100-105 degree days, rarely anything above that,
even more rarely anything > 110.  Winter overnights average
in the upper 20s, rarely hit the teens and almost never 
approach 0.  While I said I'd rather do Minnesota than Phx -
some truth to that - climate here is a really nice compromise,
methinks.

<snip> 

> I haven't had that much time here before 1996, but I think you're right.

My first trip to Phx was, hmmmm, mid-60s - I was a helluva lot
younger and Phx was a helluva lot smaller and, dare I say?, nicer.
Trip was early spring, as I recall, temps there were tolerable, but
there was NO humidity to speak of that I can remember.

Soggy Ol' Bob

-- 
Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas
-----
Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is the probable
reason so few engage in it.  -- Henry Ford

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
<hIWdnXxPsNkmiR3VnZ2dnUVZ_qTinZ2d@earthlink.com>, Robert Melson wrote:

>We're now in the middle of our monsoon season and have had
>several substantial rains.  Dries place in the area is
>the weather station at the airport, of course, and the rain
>pattern is typical of the desert - scattered, moderate to
>heavy thunderstorms.

As here

>Up til 30 June we were on the verge of having our driest
>1st half since they began recording weather in 1879:  from
>1/1 through 6/29 we had had 0.23 inch (normal for the same
>period is 2.73 inch).  We got just enough rainfall at the
>official station of 6/30 to knock this year out of contention
>and to remove it from the top 10 driest first halves.

It's difficult to speak about a 'normal' rainfall for the exact reason
you wrote in the first paragraph. Thunderstorm rainfall tends to be
scattered, because a storm cell is rarely larger than a few miles in
diameter, nor lasts longer than an hour. Groups of cells may exist,
but this means only that more random places may get varying amounts.

2000   9.06"       2001  10.53"        2002   5.11"        2003  13.15"
2004  14.25"       2005  17.44"        2006   8.07"        2007  11.45"

So, what is "normal"?  Up to 6/30, we had 4.78" year-to-date, and added
0.74" in three "storms" this month.

>Of course, we ARE on the northern fringe of the Chihuahuan/Sonoran
>Desert, so minimal precip is NOT surprising.

nor is the variability.

>What we don't have in the course of an ordinary year is the
>temperature extremes - hottest ever here was 114 F a couple
>of years back, coldest since records started -8 F back in the
>mid 60s (-19 in Las Cruces, NM, that same winter; 42 miles
>more-or-less north of here).

I remember it getting down into single digits when I did a week of
support at Orogrande in 1970 or 1971.

>Most summers we'll have a double handfull of 100-105 degree days,
>rarely anything above that, even more rarely anything > 110.  Winter
>overnights average in the upper 20s, rarely hit the teens and almost
>never approach 0.  While I said I'd rather do Minnesota than Phx -
>some truth to that - climate here is a really nice compromise,
>methinks.

You're a good bit higher than we (S. Diablo Way is ~1200'MSL, and I'm
all the way up at 1810' - KELP and Briggs are around 3950'), and
you should be ~9 degrees cooler just due to that. I've actually seen
white stuff on the ground here (it was actually hail, but it was quite
cold and the stuff lasted about an hour), but below freezing temps are
relatively rare even though the agriculture books suggest we normally
get killing frosts in January.

>My first trip to Phx was, hmmmm, mid-60s - I was a helluva lot
>younger and Phx was a helluva lot smaller and, dare I say?, nicer.
>Trip was early spring, as I recall, temps there were tolerable, but
>there was NO humidity to speak of that I can remember.

Discussing with ex-residents in California when I moved here, they
mentioned that the North end of town was around Camelback Road (4
miles North of city hall) in the 1960s. The city limits are now about
30 miles North, and 9 miles South. I'm living 20 miles North of that
same reference.

>Soggy Ol' Bob

Forecast says chance of thunderstorms over the weekend.  Your swamp
cooler probably isn't blowing very cold right now.

        Old guy

ibupro...@painkiller.example.tld (Moe Trin) wrote:
>
> It's difficult to speak about a 'normal' rainfall  ...
>
> So, what is "normal"?

Zero dot product according to the math definition.  Normal
rain is rain that falls absolutely straight down without any
wind at all.  ;^)

In article <slrng81tre.g4h.ibuprofin@compton.phx.az.us>,
	ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld (Moe Trin) writes:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
> <hIWdnXxPsNkmiR3VnZ2dnUVZ_qTinZ2d@earthlink.com>, Robert Melson wrote:
> 
<snip> 
>>Up til 30 June we were on the verge of having our driest
>>1st half since they began recording weather in 1879:  from
>>1/1 through 6/29 we had had 0.23 inch (normal for the same
>>period is 2.73 inch).  We got just enough rainfall at the
>>official station of 6/30 to knock this year out of contention
>>and to remove it from the top 10 driest first halves.
> 
> It's difficult to speak about a 'normal' rainfall for the exact reason
> you wrote in the first paragraph. Thunderstorm rainfall tends to be
> scattered, because a storm cell is rarely larger than a few miles in
> diameter, nor lasts longer than an hour. Groups of cells may exist,
> but this means only that more random places may get varying amounts.
> 
> 2000   9.06"       2001  10.53"        2002   5.11"        2003  13.15"
> 2004  14.25"       2005  17.44"        2006   8.07"        2007  11.45"
> 
> So, what is "normal"?  Up to 6/30, we had 4.78" year-to-date, and added
> 0.74" in three "storms" this month.

I tend to look at "normal" in this case as being defined by the
historical weather records - if you will, the statistical norm.
In the case I've described, "normal" over the 100+ years that
weather records have been maintained for El Paso say we should 
expect 2.73 inches of rain for the first half of a year.

In partial rebuttal to my own assertion above, I'd point to Isaac
Asimov's "The Abnormality of Being Normal", in which he pretty
much demolishes the concept of _human_ normality.  While we _are_
dealing with weather and not with humans, the application is 
similar.

> 
>>Of course, we ARE on the northern fringe of the Chihuahuan/Sonoran
>>Desert, so minimal precip is NOT surprising.
> 
> nor is the variability.
> 
>>What we don't have in the course of an ordinary year is the
>>temperature extremes - hottest ever here was 114 F a couple
>>of years back, coldest since records started -8 F back in the
>>mid 60s (-19 in Las Cruces, NM, that same winter; 42 miles
>>more-or-less north of here).
> 
> I remember it getting down into single digits when I did a week of
> support at Orogrande in 1970 or 1971.

No question that it CAN get quite cold - nothing like the Great
White North, of course - but winters are generally pretty
tolerable and much as described.  With the exception of a couple
of weeks in late January/early February, it's possible to run
around in little more than a light jacket or a sweater during
the day and nothing much heavier after the sun goes down.  Other
side of the coin is that, because the RH is so low, the air
doesn't hold heat very well and cools pretty rapidly after
sundown - a blessing in the summer, something of a mixed-blessing
in mid-winter.

> 
>>Most summers we'll have a double handfull of 100-105 degree days,
>>rarely anything above that, even more rarely anything > 110.  Winter
>>overnights average in the upper 20s, rarely hit the teens and almost
>>never approach 0.  While I said I'd rather do Minnesota than Phx -
>>some truth to that - climate here is a really nice compromise,
>>methinks.
> 
> You're a good bit higher than we (S. Diablo Way is ~1200'MSL, and I'm
> all the way up at 1810' - KELP and Briggs are around 3950'), and
> you should be ~9 degrees cooler just due to that. I've actually seen
> white stuff on the ground here (it was actually hail, but it was quite
> cold and the stuff lasted about an hour), but below freezing temps are
> relatively rare even though the agriculture books suggest we normally
> get killing frosts in January.

IIRC, our mean elevation is about 4500 feet.   And, yes, we do
get a bit of the white stuff now'n'again.  About 10 years ago or
so we had 36 inches in some parts of town over a period of 3-4
days.  Most often ("normally"), if we get 6-8 inches over the
course of a week we feel like we've  survived a blizzard of epic
proportions.

<snip> 
> Forecast says chance of thunderstorms over the weekend.  Your swamp
> cooler probably isn't blowing very cold right now.

No, but it moves the air around.

Bob

-- 
Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas
-----
Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is the probable
reason so few engage in it.  -- Henry Ford

In article <f68da433-0a4b-43d2-8104-dffc24ba2d85@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
	Doug Freyburger <dfreybur@yahoo.com> writes:
> ibupro...@painkiller.example.tld (Moe Trin) wrote:
>>
>> It's difficult to speak about a 'normal' rainfall  ...
>>
>> So, what is "normal"?
> 
> Zero dot product according to the math definition.  Normal
> rain is rain that falls absolutely straight down without any
> wind at all.  ;^)

Hey, no fair bein' serious!

Swell Ol' Bob

-- 
Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas
-----
Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is the probable
reason so few engage in it.  -- Henry Ford

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
<f68da433-0a4b-43d2-8104-dffc24ba2d85@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Doug Freyburger wrote:

NOTE: Posting from groups.google.com (or some web-forums) dramatically
reduces the chance of your post being seen.  Find a real news server.

>ibupro...@painkiller.example.tld (Moe Trin) wrote:

>> It's difficult to speak about a 'normal' rainfall  ...
>>
>> So, what is "normal"?
>
>Zero dot product according to the math definition.

That would put it somewhere around 11.07 inches based on 12 years of
data "here", while the National Weather Service says the normal for
Phoenix (like El Paso, the reference site is the airport down town) is
7.11 inches and they've got a lot longer data than I have. Statistically
I obviously don't have enough data, as the standard deviation suggests
years of negative rainfall rates are possible.

>Normal rain is rain that falls absolutely straight down without any
>wind at all.  ;^)

No wind?  During a thunderstorm???   I thought you were in Georgia. ;-)

        Old guy

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
<bM6dndRJTfTA_BzVnZ2dnUVZ_rzinZ2d@earthlink.com>, Robert Melson wrote:

>ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld (Moe Trin) writes:

>> It's difficult to speak about a 'normal' rainfall for the exact reason
>> you wrote in the first paragraph. Thunderstorm rainfall tends to be
>> scattered, because a storm cell is rarely larger than a few miles in
>> diameter, nor lasts longer than an hour. Groups of cells may exist,
>> but this means only that more random places may get varying amounts.
>>
>> 2000   9.06"       2001  10.53"        2002   5.11"        2003  13.15"
>> 2004  14.25"       2005  17.44"        2006   8.07"        2007  11.45"
>>
>> So, what is "normal"?  Up to 6/30, we had 4.78" year-to-date, and added
>> 0.74" in three "storms" this month.
>
>I tend to look at "normal" in this case as being defined by the
>historical weather records - if you will, the statistical norm.
>In the case I've described, "normal" over the 100+ years that
>weather records have been maintained for El Paso say we should
>expect 2.73 inches of rain for the first half of a year.

A hundred years should provide better samples for statistics. As I
wrote in my reply to Doug, I've only got 12 years of data, and it varies
so wildly that statistics suggest years of negative rates are possible.

>While we _are_ dealing with weather and not with humans, the
>application is similar.

The problem is the thunderstorms. If you look at Seattle or New England,
their rainfall varies year to year, but not to the same percentages as
here where the source for everything is thunderstorms.

>No question that it CAN get quite cold - nothing like the Great
>White North, of course - but winters are generally pretty
>tolerable and much as described.  With the exception of a couple
>of weeks in late January/early February, it's possible to run
>around in little more than a light jacket or a sweater during
>the day and nothing much heavier after the sun goes down.

I see you are supposed to get 7.32 inches of rain, and 5 inches of
snow on average.  I am glad we don't get snow - like you, it's
probably bad enough when it rains and drivers suddenly discover the
fact that the roads are slippery.   Astounding!!!

>Other side of the coin is that, because the RH is so low, the air
>doesn't hold heat very well and cools pretty rapidly after
>sundown - a blessing in the summer, something of a mixed-blessing
>in mid-winter.

It doesn't cool down _that_ much. We get about a month in Spring
and Fall when it's possible to open doors/windows for some portion
of the day/night.  That doesn't last long.

>IIRC, our mean elevation is about 4500 feet.

I'm looking at the aviation charts - the river seems to be around
3850', and the terrain North to Southeast seems _relatively_ flat
in the low 4000s, There are hills to the East to a bit over 5000,
but that line to the West gets up to 7200. Across the river, there is
also stuff above 6000.

>> Forecast says chance of thunderstorms over the weekend.  Your swamp
>> cooler probably isn't blowing very cold right now.
>
>No, but it moves the air around.

I've got two small humidifiers running - one in the computer area, one
in the bedroom, as more than that would make it to muggy.  But then,
every room in the house has a ceiling fan, and they run 24/7 the year
round. I did the yard work this morning, because we've got an Excessive
Heat Advisory from 10:00-21:00 today and tomorrow.  You can tell the
humidity is high - I looked like someone hit me with a fire-hose when I
came back in.

        Old guy

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:52:55 -0500,
Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
> On 15 Jul 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
><slrng7os6d.2l3q.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:
>
>>All right. Another idea. How feasible is it to come up with a concept
>>of a ``foldable'' building? I'm not talking tent or trailer home, but
>>some construct that looks and works like a real building when setup, but
>>when the occupants are elsewhere for extended periods of time, can be
>>``folded'' into something that is easier to make fire resistant?
>
> And still be acceptable looking?  I don't see how the 'make habitable'
> or 'put it back in the box' transitions wouldn't take the entire
> week-end.

One button, five minutes. Or it isn't modern technology! ;-)


> What do you do with the furniture and appliances?  Plumbing?

How do those expandable outsized caravans deal with that?

Didn't say it had to be small enough to fit in a pocket, just so it
would be easier to make more fire resistant. Maybe folding isn't the
answer, but it'd be nice to figure out if it'd help.


> The "through" traffic went for about 10 miles without an exit/entry,
> while the "local" traffic had 4 or 5 exit/entry points. The
> "through/local" concept is used in a number of places to try to speed
> the commute traffic.

Does that 6+6 split feed from a 12 lane highway, then?


> [left exit - passing on right?]
> Unfortunately, rocket launchers, recoilless guns, and similar hardware
> tends to disintegrate the target, and the debris on the roadway may
> impede the traffic even more than the idiot.

Bah. Easily fixed with some shovel-y contraption like the cow grate[1]
the steam engines of old[2] sported.


>=====================
>
> So - how is it going finding a temp agency?

Honestly, I've put it on hold for the week as I'd gotten sick (again) of
the endless rejections, non-reacting, lying, and other tricks recruiters
and even small-company CEO's play. We'll see what happens this week.

Instead, I felt like playing with C++ a bit.


[1] Or whatever they're called.
[2] In the cow-infested great plains, at least.

-- 
  j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
  This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
  Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
  consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

In article <slrng857ig.kl1.ibuprofin@compton.phx.az.us>,
	ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld (Moe Trin) writes:
<snip>
>>I tend to look at "normal" in this case as being defined by the
>>historical weather records - if you will, the statistical norm.
>>In the case I've described, "normal" over the 100+ years that
>>weather records have been maintained for El Paso say we should
>>expect 2.73 inches of rain for the first half of a year.
> 
> A hundred years should provide better samples for statistics. As I
> wrote in my reply to Doug, I've only got 12 years of data, and it varies
> so wildly that statistics suggest years of negative rates are possible.

Why only 12 years?  Surely, weather data has been collected for
Phoenix for longer than that.

<snip> 
> 
> The problem is the thunderstorms. If you look at Seattle or New England,
> their rainfall varies year to year, but not to the same percentages as
> here where the source for everything is thunderstorms.

Well, not quite _everything_ is as the result of thunderstorms - we
do have the infrequent soaking rain.  But, then, think what a
thunderstorm entails - usually daytime heating coupled with relatively
high humidity.

<snip> 
> I see you are supposed to get 7.32 inches of rain, and 5 inches of
> snow on average.  I am glad we don't get snow - like you, it's
> probably bad enough when it rains and drivers suddenly discover the
> fact that the roads are slippery.   Astounding!!!

Precip totals - last I looked, we can expect, on average, ~9.5 inches
total, divide it out however you wish.  Problem with a dry climate
is that there's nothing to wash the accumulated oil residues off the
roadways, so that when there IS rain, it creates an oil slick that
makes driving really fun.

But, then, during my sojourn in Colorado Springs a while back I
was astonished at the number of people there who thought that
having a 4wd vehicle cancelled the laws of physics while driving
in a snowstorm,  the attitude seeming to be "I'll just slam it into
4wd and everything will be ok and I can _still_ go 90-per".  As a
sorta aside, the folks in CO seem to treat _all_ traffic signs as
merely advisory and something to be ignored.  While the drivers in
Italy are possibly among the worst in the world, those in CO come
close.

<snip> 
>>IIRC, our mean elevation is about 4500 feet.
> 
> I'm looking at the aviation charts - the river seems to be around
> 3850', and the terrain North to Southeast seems _relatively_ flat
> in the low 4000s, There are hills to the East to a bit over 5000,
> but that line to the West gets up to 7200. Across the river, there is
> also stuff above 6000.

Low point is certainly along the river and it certainly is lower
the farther downstream you go.  But the mean elevation is
somewhere around 4500 feet - bit more, bit less, close enough
for government work.

Ranger Peak is the highest point in the Franklin Mts, the spur
that pretty much divides El Paso in half (and would, save for the
river).  I don't recall the exact height, but the 7200 feet figure
sounds about right.  El Paso owes its existence to the fact that
it is/was the farthest north year-round passage over the
Continental Divide.  Certainly, there were other factors, but that
fact helped draw the railroads and the trans-continental trails
and later highways.

> 

Splendid Ol' Bob

-- 
Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas
-----
Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is the probable
reason so few engage in it.  -- Henry Ford

On 20 Jul 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
<slrng86qg1.g25.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:

>Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:

>> The "through" traffic went for about 10 miles without an exit/entry,
>> while the "local" traffic had 4 or 5 exit/entry points. The
>> "through/local" concept is used in a number of places to try to speed
>> the commute traffic.
>
>Does that 6+6 split feed from a 12 lane highway, then?

At the North end - yes, but it soon divided with parts heading to two
tunnels and another section heading to the George Washington Bridge.
At the South end, it tapered down to 8 and then 6 lanes.

>> Unfortunately, rocket launchers, recoilless guns, and similar hardware
>> tends to disintegrate the target, and the debris on the roadway may
>> impede the traffic even more than the idiot.
>
>Bah. Easily fixed with some shovel-y contraption like the cow grate[1]
>the steam engines of old[2] sported.

"cow catcher" - and they were used in a lot of places. They were less
common in Europe because laws there put the requirement on the farmer
to build fences to keep his cattle off the railroad. But you'd find
the snow plows and streamlining fairings much more common in Europe.

=====================

>> So - how is it going finding a temp agency?
>
>Honestly, I've put it on hold for the week as I'd gotten sick (again) of
>the endless rejections, non-reacting, lying, and other tricks recruiters
>and even small-company CEO's play. We'll see what happens this week.

The temp agencies _should_ be somewhat a better choice - more isolation
from some of the crap.

        Old guy

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
<cdadnZ_1YcWlXh7VnZ2dnUVZ_ovinZ2d@earthlink.com>, Robert Melson wrote:

>ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld (Moe Trin) writes:

>> I've only got 12 years of data

>Why only 12 years?  Surely, weather data has been collected for
>Phoenix for longer than that.
  
Certainly - but not by me. As mentioned, I'm well away from the
official station at the airport, that the weather I see is
significantly different from there.

>> The problem is the thunderstorms. If you look at Seattle or New
>> England, their rainfall varies year to year, but not to the same
>> percentages as here where the source for everything is thunderstorms.
>
>Well, not quite _everything_ is as the result of thunderstorms - we
>do have the infrequent soaking rain.  But, then, think what a
>thunderstorm entails - usually daytime heating coupled with relatively
>high humidity.

I'd suspect the warm front pushing moisture from the Gulf (of California
in our case, Mexico in yours) is pretty rare. Most of the air masses
coming in from the Pacific are pretty well emptied by the mountains to
the West before they reach here.

>Problem with a dry climate is that there's nothing to wash the
>accumulated oil residues off the roadways, so that when there IS rain,
>it creates an oil slick that makes driving really fun.

The other problem with the lack of rain is people forgetting about it.
We have the same problem with flash flooding, and people who insist it's
OK to drive right on through.  Arizona put in a "Stupid" law, that
basically says that if you are stupid enough to drive into a flooded
area and get trapped or swept away, you pay the rescue costs as a fine.

>But, then, during my sojourn in Colorado Springs a while back I
>was astonished at the number of people there who thought that
>having a 4wd vehicle cancelled the laws of physics while driving
>in a snowstorm,  the attitude seeming to be "I'll just slam it into
>4wd and everything will be ok and I can _still_ go 90-per".

CO is _far_ from the only place with that problem.  I've seen the exact
same behavior in the California Sierras,  as well as places in the
Northeast - like PA, NY, and MA off the top of the head.

>As a sorta aside, the folks in CO seem to treat _all_ traffic signs
>as merely advisory and something to be ignored.

That one too.

>While the drivers in Italy are possibly among the worst in the world,
>those in CO come close.

Never been to South East Asia?    They're lousy learners, and the
teachers were the French.

>Ranger Peak is the highest point in the Franklin Mts, the spur
>that pretty much divides El Paso in half (and would, save for the
>river).  I don't recall the exact height, but the 7200 feet figure
>sounds about right.

The chart that tells me "you gotta be THIS high to avoid making a
mess of your bird" says 7197.

>El Paso owes its existence to the fact that it is/was the farthest
>north year-round passage over the Continental Divide.

Your neighbors a bit West if Deming might think otherwise  ;-)

>Certainly, there were other factors, but that fact helped draw the
>railroads and the trans-continental trails and later highways.

I suspect the river had a lot to do with the siting as well.

        Old guy

In article <slrng8abl0.qju.ibuprofin@compton.phx.az.us>,
	ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld (Moe Trin) writes:
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
> <cdadnZ_1YcWlXh7VnZ2dnUVZ_ovinZ2d@earthlink.com>, Robert Melson wrote:
> 
>>ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld (Moe Trin) writes:
> 
>>> I've only got 12 years of data
> 
>>Why only 12 years?  Surely, weather data has been collected for
>>Phoenix for longer than that.
>   
> Certainly - but not by me. As mentioned, I'm well away from the
> official station at the airport, that the weather I see is
> significantly different from there.

Yeah, well, unless the backyard weather station down the block
is sanctioned by NOAA, then the official station's weather
records are the ones that apply.  If we gauged the weather here
in El Pasy by _my_ location, our precip totals would be
a helluva lot higher and the temps would be dramatically
different, as well.  Not something to argue about, to be sure.

> 
>>> The problem is the thunderstorms. If you look at Seattle or New
>>> England, their rainfall varies year to year, but not to the same
>>> percentages as here where the source for everything is thunderstorms.
>>
>>Well, not quite _everything_ is as the result of thunderstorms - we
>>do have the infrequent soaking rain.  But, then, think what a
>>thunderstorm entails - usually daytime heating coupled with relatively
>>high humidity.
> 
> I'd suspect the warm front pushing moisture from the Gulf (of California
> in our case, Mexico in yours) is pretty rare. Most of the air masses
> coming in from the Pacific are pretty well emptied by the mountains to
> the West before they reach here.

All you have to do is see the satellite pics of the moisture plumes
coming in from the Pacific ...  For the most part, our moisture
comes in off hte Pacific, though there ARE times, like this coming
week, when there will be a decidef flow from the Gulf of Mexico
and the tropical storm that's due to come to land somewhere
around Brownsville.  The Rio Grande valley forms a natural conduit
for that kind of flow.

<snip> 
> 
> CO is _far_ from the only place with that problem.  I've seen the exact
> same behavior in the California Sierras,  as well as places in the
> Northeast - like PA, NY, and MA off the top of the head.

No doubt.  ISTR even more idiotic driving behavior in the DC
area when I was stationed there.  The drive in to the District
from Fairfax along US 50 was, shall we say, an adventure. It'd
probably make a helluva good video game, come to think of it.
> 
>>As a sorta aside, the folks in CO seem to treat _all_ traffic signs
>>as merely advisory and something to be ignored.
> 
> That one too.

Yeah, I've noticed that about AZ plated cars here in Texas.  And,
no doubt, there'd be those who'd point out that Texas plated
cars are just as bad in wherever-the-hell.

> 
>>While the drivers in Italy are possibly among the worst in the world,
>>those in CO come close.
> 
> Never been to South East Asia?    They're lousy learners, and the
> teachers were the French.

Been there, done that, plus they were shootin' at me at the
same time.  Still, I'll stand by my assessment.

> 
>>Ranger Peak is the highest point in the Franklin Mts, the spur
>>that pretty much divides El Paso in half (and would, save for the
>>river).  I don't recall the exact height, but the 7200 feet figure
>>sounds about right.
> 
> The chart that tells me "you gotta be THIS high to avoid making a
> mess of your bird" says 7197.
> 
>>El Paso owes its existence to the fact that it is/was the farthest
>>north year-round passage over the Continental Divide.
> 
> Your neighbors a bit West if Deming might think otherwise  ;-)

Hey, you gonna dispute the official propaganda?  No argument that
the divide is a tad west of here, but for all season crossings
of the mountains (Rockies and offspring like the White,
Franklin, and Sacramento in this area), EP is _the_ place.
> 
>>Certainly, there were other factors, but that fact helped draw the
>>railroads and the trans-continental trails and later highways.
> 
> I suspect the river had a lot to do with the siting as well.

Some, to be sure, but it was the railroads and trails through
here that were key.  The original El Paso (now Cd. Juarez) was
a stop on the Camino Real between Mexico City and Santa Fe during
the Spanish/Mexican rule.  Current El Paso (formerly Franklin)
was a staging point on the Butterfield Trail, as well as a
railroad hub.

(hi)Storical Ol' Bob

-- 
Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas
-----
Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is the probable
reason so few engage in it.  -- Henry Ford

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
<MvednelQGKQ_zhjVnZ2dnUVZ_r_inZ2d@earthlink.com>, Robert Melson wrote:

>Yeah, well, unless the backyard weather station down the block
>is sanctioned by NOAA, then the official station's weather
>records are the ones that apply.  If we gauged the weather here
>in El Pasy by _my_ location, our precip totals would be
>a helluva lot higher and the temps would be dramatically
>different, as well.

I've kept precip data at home for years. In California, I was about a
mile from Moffett Field which did make official (Navy) measurements,
but these weren't as commonly available. Likewise, there is a state
Department of Water Resources gauge about 700 feet away, but the data
is never published.

>All you have to do is see the satellite pics of the moisture plumes
>coming in from the Pacific ...

as they have been for the past week. My records and the city agree
that there has been no rainfall, although the area from about
Roosevelt Lake down past Falcon Field got substantial rain last
night - and a half mile length of power poles on Greenfield Road
got snapped off by a microburst. I think the "1.10 inch" in about
an hour was from the control tower at Falcon Field.

>ISTR even more idiotic driving behavior in the DC area when I was
>stationed there.  The drive in to the District from Fairfax along
>US 50 was, shall we say, an adventure. It'd probably make a helluva
>good video game, come to think of it.

I think the worst I've ever seen was a cab driver (naturally) who
was taking me from hotel to airport in Montreal. Every time he turned
around to talk to be (in French - which I don't speak) his foot would
push down on the gas, and the tires would start spinning on the snow
and ice covered street.  Haven't been back since.

>Yeah, I've noticed that about AZ plated cars here in Texas.  And,
>no doubt, there'd be those who'd point out that Texas plated
>cars are just as bad in wherever-the-hell.

Bingo.

>> Never been to South East Asia?    They're lousy learners, and the
>> teachers were the French.
>
>Been there, done that, plus they were shootin' at me at the same time.

Yeah, those taxi drivers really wanted generous fares.   (I was getting
a cab from down town out to Tan San Nhut, and was in a fender-bender.
The two drivers get out, look at the damage, and then the other driver
begins chasing my driver round the wreckage.  I get out of the cab,
pull a 100p note out of the pocket, hold it out - the cab driver grabs
it as he runs by. I hail a motor-cyclo driver - I gotta get to work.)

>Some, to be sure, but it was the railroads and trails through
>here that were key.  The original El Paso (now Cd. Juarez) was
>a stop on the Camino Real between Mexico City and Santa Fe during
>the Spanish/Mexican rule.

Hmmm, learn something new every day.  Didn't realize the original
difference.   "The King's Road"  I lived about 200 feet from it in
Mountain View, California (15 Southeast of San Francisco).

>Current El Paso (formerly Franklin) was a staging point on the
>Butterfield Trail, as well as a railroad hub.

From the non-Hispanic names (never mind the railroad), that would have
to be after the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

        Old guy

In article <slrng8d43t.iic.ibuprofin@compton.phx.az.us>,
	ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld (Moe Trin) writes:
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
> <MvednelQGKQ_zhjVnZ2dnUVZ_r_inZ2d@earthlink.com>, Robert Melson wrote:
> 
<snip> 
>>ISTR even more idiotic driving behavior in the DC area when I was
>>stationed there.  The drive in to the District from Fairfax along
>>US 50 was, shall we say, an adventure. It'd probably make a helluva
>>good video game, come to think of it.
> 
> I think the worst I've ever seen was a cab driver (naturally) who
> was taking me from hotel to airport in Montreal. Every time he turned
> around to talk to be (in French - which I don't speak) his foot would
> push down on the gas, and the tires would start spinning on the snow
> and ice covered street.  Haven't been back since.

Can't think of any traffic events that threatened to turn me old
and grey before my time, tho' there _have_ been some hair-raisers.
Funniest - as a spectator - was on Arlington Blvd (US 50) in
Arlington.  Biker was whipping along, beating the traffic, when
some blind idiot opened the driverside door just as the biker was
going past.  Biker, bike, door and driver were spread from hell
to breakfast, traffic came to a dead halt, people were screaming
at one another.

<snip> 
>>Some, to be sure, but it was the railroads and trails through
>>here that were key.  The original El Paso (now Cd. Juarez) was
>>a stop on the Camino Real between Mexico City and Santa Fe during
>>the Spanish/Mexican rule.
> 
> Hmmm, learn something new every day.  Didn't realize the original
> difference.   "The King's Road"  I lived about 200 feet from it in
> Mountain View, California (15 Southeast of San Francisco).

Yeah, I did some serious growing up along the Camino Real in CA -
Monterey, San Luis Obispo, San Diego.  Got the Fra Junipero Serra
story every school year from 1st-7th grades, at least.  Here 'bouts,
however, the Camino Real ran from Mexico City, through Torrejon,
Chihuahua City, El Paso del Rio Bravo del Norte, to Albuquerque
and Santa Fe.  Santa Fe at the time was the capital of the
Spanish and, later, Mexican territories north of the Rio Bravo.
> 
>>Current El Paso (formerly Franklin) was a staging point on the
>>Butterfield Trail, as well as a railroad hub.
> 
> From the non-Hispanic names (never mind the railroad), that would have
> to be after the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

Actually, no.  The original El Paso was renamed Ciudad Juarez in
commemoration of Benito Juarez back in the 1880s or so - I'm not
firm on the date - and the folks in what was then Franklin decided
they'd appropriate the name El Paso for their growing town.

Swelterin' Ol' Bob

-- 
Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas
-----
Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is the probable
reason so few engage in it.  -- Henry Ford

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
<-omdnVPuWewRBhvVnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Robert Melson wrote:

>Can't think of any traffic events that threatened to turn me old
>and grey before my time, tho' there _have_ been some hair-raisers.
>Funniest - as a spectator - was on Arlington Blvd (US 50) in
>Arlington.  Biker was whipping along, beating the traffic, when
>some blind idiot opened the driverside door just as the biker was
>going past.  Biker, bike, door and driver were spread from hell
>to breakfast, traffic came to a dead halt, people were screaming
>at one another.

That happens to often.  Drivers get bitchy if bikes are not in the
curbside of the curbside lane, while people open doors without
noticing anything. Saw one 2-3 years ago where front AND back seat
decided to open the doors at the same time, and neither noticed the
city bus coming. I'm surprised they weren't thrown under the bus
when it hit both doors. Luck, I suppose.     Heard of another a few
weeks ago in Sydney where a gal on a recumbent bike got doored by
someone. She had ankle damage, but the driver came off worse because
the door got knocked loose, and then he discovered how expensive a
recumbent bike can be to repair (the local bike dealer has been
trying to convince me to buy one - for only $1900 - plus tax of
course - no, I'm not that much of a bike freak.)

>Yeah, I did some serious growing up along the Camino Real in CA -
>Monterey, San Luis Obispo, San Diego.  Got the Fra Junipero Serra
>story every school year from 1st-7th grades, at least.

My wife is native Californian - born in Santa Barbara, and later lived
in San Francisco. She got it too, and gave it to me on a regular basis.

Ever see the statue in the rest area on I-280 just North of CA-92 in
Hillsbourough?  It's fairly close to the spot were they discovered the
bay.  The statue portrays him down on one knee with the arm
out-stretched and pointing - you know "Look at that!!!"  Only thing
wrong is that it's facing the wrong direction (West rather than East)
and the thing he's pointing at is Lower Crystal Springs Reservoir - the
location of the San Andreas fault.  Usually good for a laugh when you
are driving tourist relatives around showing them the sights.

>> From the non-Hispanic names (never mind the railroad), that would have
>> to be after the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.
>
>Actually, no.  The original El Paso was renamed Ciudad Juarez in
>commemoration of Benito Juarez back in the 1880s or so - I'm not
>firm on the date - and the folks in what was then Franklin decided
>they'd appropriate the name El Paso for their growing town.

In a way, that does surprise me.  About when was Franklin formed and
named?

        Old guy

In article <slrng8f3v2.6oc.ibuprofin@compton.phx.az.us>,
	ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld (Moe Trin) writes:
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
> <-omdnVPuWewRBhvVnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Robert Melson wrote:
<snip> 
>>Yeah, I did some serious growing up along the Camino Real in CA -
>>Monterey, San Luis Obispo, San Diego.  Got the Fra Junipero Serra
>>story every school year from 1st-7th grades, at least.
> 
> My wife is native Californian - born in Santa Barbara, and later lived
> in San Francisco. She got it too, and gave it to me on a regular basis.
> 
> Ever see the statue in the rest area on I-280 just North of CA-92 in
> Hillsbourough?  It's fairly close to the spot were they discovered the
> bay.  The statue portrays him down on one knee with the arm
> out-stretched and pointing - you know "Look at that!!!"  Only thing
> wrong is that it's facing the wrong direction (West rather than East)
> and the thing he's pointing at is Lower Crystal Springs Reservoir - the
> location of the San Andreas fault.  Usually good for a laugh when you
> are driving tourist relatives around showing them the sights.

Nope, can't say as I have.  But my years in CA were pre-Interstate;
US 99 and 101 were _the_ N-S corridors, Cal 1 what you took for
scenic.

We've had something of a brouhaha locally over a program to
memorialize important people and events in the city's history.
City commissioned an equestrian statue of Don Juan de Onate, who
was the leader of the first expedition to explore and colonize the
area north of the Rio Bravo (Rio Grande to us gringos).  Onate was
a typical Spanish Conquistador and, politely, brutalized the
Indians both locally and up around Albuquerque.  So, long story
much less long, statue was finished, PC groups protested, city
backed down, renamed the statue "The Equestrian" and more-or-less
hid it near the local airport.  Was finally installed/unveiled
about 2.5 years after it was completed and delivered.  What
neither the city council nor the protesters understand is that
you can't change history by denying it.

> 
>>> From the non-Hispanic names (never mind the railroad), that would have
>>> to be after the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.
>>
>>Actually, no.  The original El Paso was renamed Ciudad Juarez in
>>commemoration of Benito Juarez back in the 1880s or so - I'm not
>>firm on the date - and the folks in what was then Franklin decided
>>they'd appropriate the name El Paso for their growing town.
> 
> In a way, that does surprise me.  About when was Franklin formed and
> named?

Seems to me that the city was incorporated in the 1870s as El Paso -
which naturally caused a helluva lot of confusion.  Before that it
was Franklin, from about 1850 or so.  As noted, the original El 
Paso became Cd. Juarez in the late 1880s, so the confusion didn't
last.

El Paso has been the site of Fort Bliss since the 1850/60 period,
as well, the post having had several locations over that time.  It
was originally down along the river as a cavalry post.  As the times
changed, so did its mission, tho' it was the staging area for
Pershing's expedition into Mexico.

Swell Ol' Bob

-- 
Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas
-----
Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is the probable
reason so few engage in it.  -- Henry Ford

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 20:59:28 -0500,
Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
[ and sorry to break in ;-) ]
>
> I think the worst I've ever seen was a cab driver (naturally) who
> was taking me from hotel to airport in Montreal. Every time he turned
> around to talk to be (in French - which I don't speak) his foot would
> push down on the gas, and the tires would start spinning on the snow
> and ice covered street.  Haven't been back since.

Letting go of anything, pulling the wheel, etc. while looking back
strikes me as singularly unprofessional for a professional driver.

As to bad driving, taking a bus going steeply up on some twisty little
hill[1][2], passing slow traffic (tractor with a fully loaded trailer),
and missing the bus coming down by mere centimeters. The front of the
bus of course full of dangly little charms. They're all catholic there,
but I'm sure it works -- they need it to work. They all paint their hair
black again too.


[1] The Dutch'd call it a mountain. ISTR at least half a km high.
[2] While on vacation on some Canary Island.

-- 
  j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
  This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
  Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
  consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
<sIGdnUMTrtfaAhrVnZ2dnUVZ_ofinZ2d@earthlink.com>, Robert Melson wrote:

>ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld (Moe Trin) writes:

>> Ever see the statue in the rest area on I-280 just North of CA-92

>Nope, can't say as I have.  But my years in CA were pre-Interstate;
>US 99 and 101 were _the_ N-S corridors, Cal 1 what you took for
>scenic.

101 is still a major corridor.  I-280 is merely a 'ring' road around
the West side of the bay area - it continues as 680 on the East side.

>We've had something of a brouhaha locally over a program to
>memorialize important people and events in the city's history.
>City commissioned an equestrian statue of Don Juan de Onate, who
>was the leader of the first expedition to explore and colonize the
>area north of the Rio Bravo (Rio Grande to us gringos).  Onate was
>a typical Spanish Conquistador and, politely, brutalized the
>Indians both locally and up around Albuquerque,

20/21st century mores verses "the way it was" 400+ years earlier.

>So, long story much less long, statue was finished, PC groups
>protested, city backed down, renamed the statue "The Equestrian" and
>more-or-less hid it near the local airport.  Was finally
>installed/unveiled about 2.5 years after it was completed and
>delivered.  What neither the city council nor the protesters
>understand is that you can't change history by denying it.

But it _appears_ to be better to the mind with the six second attenion
span.  We've got the same problem here with the renaming of Squaw Peak
and the nearby freeway. After 370+ years, we now learn this Algonquin
word may be naughty.  The mountain and freeway are now named 'Piestewa
Peak' - after Pfc Lori Piestewa, a Hopi mother of two who, as an Army
truck driver, was killed in an ambush in Iraq while lost during the
invasion in March 2003.

>Seems to me that the city was incorporated in the 1870s as El Paso -
>which naturally caused a helluva lot of confusion.  Before that it
>was Franklin, from about 1850 or so.  As noted, the original El
>Paso became Cd. Juarez in the late 1880s, so the confusion didn't
>last.

Looks like it's time to hit the history section of the city library
around the corner.  

>El Paso has been the site of Fort Bliss since the 1850/60 period,
>as well, the post having had several locations over that time.  It
>was originally down along the river as a cavalry post.  As the times
>changed, so did its mission, tho' it was the staging area for
>Pershing's expedition into Mexico.

The several times I've been to El Paso have all been related to
activities at Bliss and the ranges to the North.

        Old guy

On 24 Jul 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
<slrng8hbja.10rr.read_the_sig@mantell0.local>, jpd wrote:

>Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:

>> I think the worst I've ever seen was a cab driver (naturally) who
>> was taking me from hotel to airport in Montreal. Every time he turned
>> around to talk to be (in French - which I don't speak) his foot would
>> push down on the gas, and the tires would start spinning on the snow
>> and ice covered street.  Haven't been back since.
>
>Letting go of anything, pulling the wheel, etc. while looking back
>strikes me as singularly unprofessional for a professional driver.

Who said anything about a professional?   It's a taxi driver.   ;-)[A]

>As to bad driving, taking a bus going steeply up on some twisty little
>hill[1][2], passing slow traffic (tractor with a fully loaded trailer),
>and missing the bus coming down by mere centimeters.

Where's the problem?  They missed.

>The front of the bus of course full of dangly little charms. They're
>all catholic there, but I'm sure it works -- they need it to work.

That's sort of like the windoze users running all of their anti-mal-ware
software that takes as many CPU cycles as the browser they used to
install the mal-ware in the first place.  I must say that I've seen the
same form of charms on vehicles in Zambia and in the Philippines

>They all paint their hair black again too.

I'm reminded of a Sicilian joke - but we won't go there TYVM

>[1] The Dutch'd call it a mountain. ISTR at least half a km high.
>[2] While on vacation on some Canary Island.

Depends on the island. Lanzarote and Fuertenentura get a bit over 670
meters - Pico de Teide on Tenerife is over 3700 meters. That's not as
high as Mont Blanc or the Matterhorn, but it's still respectable.

         Old guy

[A]  I can laugh at that - my father was a cab driver in the mid 1930s
and again in the late 1950s.

In article <slrng8i7ie.20f.ibuprofin@compton.phx.az.us>,
	ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld (Moe Trin) writes:
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
> <sIGdnUMTrtfaAhrVnZ2dnUVZ_ofinZ2d@earthlink.com>, Robert Melson wrote:
> 
<snip> 
>>We've had something of a brouhaha locally over a program to
>>memorialize important people and events in the city's history.
>>City commissioned an equestrian statue of Don Juan de Onate, who
>>was the leader of the first expedition to explore and colonize the
>>area north of the Rio Bravo (Rio Grande to us gringos).  Onate was
>>a typical Spanish Conquistador and, politely, brutalized the
>>Indians both locally and up around Albuquerque,
> 
> 20/21st century mores verses "the way it was" 400+ years earlier.
> 
>>So, long story much less long, statue was finished, PC groups
>>protested, city backed down, renamed the statue "The Equestrian" and
>>more-or-less hid it near the local airport.  Was finally
>>installed/unveiled about 2.5 years after it was completed and
>>delivered.  What neither the city council nor the protesters
>>understand is that you can't change history by denying it.
> 
> But it _appears_ to be better to the mind with the six second attenion
> span.  We've got the same problem here with the renaming of Squaw Peak
> and the nearby freeway. After 370+ years, we now learn this Algonquin
> word may be naughty.  The mountain and freeway are now named 'Piestewa
> Peak' - after Pfc Lori Piestewa, a Hopi mother of two who, as an Army
> truck driver, was killed in an ambush in Iraq while lost during the
> invasion in March 2003.

Yeah.  That maintenance company was from Ft. Bliss and the ambush and
captivity of several of its troopers was NEWS in El Paso.  As a former
infantry commander, I feel rather strongly about why the convoy was
ambushed and the fact that the troopers' weapons were neither ready
to use nor serviceable in many cases.  For that I fault not just
the asshole company commander but his senior NCOs, as well.  There
was NO excuse for those troops to go in harm's way as unprepared as
they were.  'Nuff of _that_ sermon.

<snip> 
> Looks like it's time to hit the history section of the city library
> around the corner.  

Local history is always fun and interesting, seems to me.  But, then,
I've always liked history.

> 
>>El Paso has been the site of Fort Bliss since the 1850/60 period,
>>as well, the post having had several locations over that time.  It
>>was originally down along the river as a cavalry post.  As the times
>>changed, so did its mission, tho' it was the staging area for
>>Pershing's expedition into Mexico.
> 
> The several times I've been to El Paso have all been related to
> activities at Bliss and the ranges to the North.

That was pretty clear from previous comments.  You get over this
way, look me up and we'll go have _good_ Mexican - none of the
tourist crap.  (Worst "mexican" meal I ever had was in Phoenix,
I'll add here.  To give you an idea, their salsa was canned
tomatoes and bell peppers with a touch of cilantro.  When I
called'em on it, they said most of their customers couldn't
handle the real stuff!)

Bob
-- 
Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas
-----
Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is the probable
reason so few engage in it.  -- Henry Ford

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
<j6ydnTzVsquksBTVnZ2dnUVZ_qninZ2d@earthlink.com>, Robert Melson wrote:

>ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld (Moe Trin) writes:

>> The mountain and freeway are now named 'Piestewa Peak' - after Pfc
>> Lori Piestewa, a Hopi mother of two who, as an Army truck driver,
>> was killed in an ambush in Iraq while lost during the invasion in
>> March 2003.

>Yeah.  That maintenance company was from Ft. Bliss and the ambush and
>captivity of several of its troopers was NEWS in El Paso.

It made the news here as well, because of the al-Jazeera coverage that
showed Piestewa wounded - the Hopi nation gets Phoenix television.

>As a former infantry commander, I feel rather strongly about why the
>convoy was ambushed and the fact that the troopers' weapons were
>neither ready to use nor serviceable in many cases.

That part bothered me too.

>'Nuff of _that_ sermon.

Preaching to the choir

>> Looks like it's time to hit the history section of the city library
>> around the corner.
>
>Local history is always fun and interesting, seems to me.  But, then,
>I've always liked history.

Some years ago, the National Geographic or Smithsonian had a few article
on the New Spain era history of the Southern California to Texas regions
and it referred to several books (which suggests Smithsonian). I recall
finding two of them to be extremely informative, and have tried digging
through my library records to see if I can find them - thus far with no
luck. I suppose that means I have to go pot luck or dig out the last ten
years of the magazine from the boxes in the garage.  My wife would kill
me if I went to a book store.

>> The several times I've been to El Paso have all been related to
>> activities at Bliss and the ranges to the North.
>
>That was pretty clear from previous comments.

Except I'm older and wiser now, and no longer in that racket ;-)

>You get over this way, look me up and we'll go have _good_ Mexican -
>none of the tourist crap.

Will do

        Old guy

In article <slrng8ksk5.k8j.ibuprofin@compton.phx.az.us>,
	ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld (Moe Trin) writes:
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
> <j6ydnTzVsquksBTVnZ2dnUVZ_qninZ2d@earthlink.com>, Robert Melson wrote:
> 
>>ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld (Moe Trin) writes:
> 
>>> The mountain and freeway are now named 'Piestewa Peak' - after Pfc
>>> Lori Piestewa, a Hopi mother of two who, as an Army truck driver,
>>> was killed in an ambush in Iraq while lost during the invasion in
>>> March 2003.
> 
>>Yeah.  That maintenance company was from Ft. Bliss and the ambush and
>>captivity of several of its troopers was NEWS in El Paso.
> 
> It made the news here as well, because of the al-Jazeera coverage that
> showed Piestewa wounded - the Hopi nation gets Phoenix television.
> 
>>As a former infantry commander, I feel rather strongly about why the
>>convoy was ambushed and the fact that the troopers' weapons were
>>neither ready to use nor serviceable in many cases.
> 
> That part bothered me too.
> 
>>'Nuff of _that_ sermon.
> 
> Preaching to the choir
> 
>>> Looks like it's time to hit the history section of the city library
>>> around the corner.
>>
>>Local history is always fun and interesting, seems to me.  But, then,
>>I've always liked history.
> 
> Some years ago, the National Geographic or Smithsonian had a few article
> on the New Spain era history of the Southern California to Texas regions
> and it referred to several books (which suggests Smithsonian). I recall
> finding two of them to be extremely informative, and have tried digging
> through my library records to see if I can find them - thus far with no
> luck. I suppose that means I have to go pot luck or dig out the last ten
> years of the magazine from the boxes in the garage.  My wife would kill
> me if I went to a book store.
> 
>>> The several times I've been to El Paso have all been related to
>>> activities at Bliss and the ranges to the North.
>>
>>That was pretty clear from previous comments.
> 
> Except I'm older and wiser now, and no longer in that racket ;-)
> 
>>You get over this way, look me up and we'll go have _good_ Mexican -
>>none of the tourist crap.
> 
> Will do
> 
>         Old guy

Couldn't resist posting this in view of previous conversations:

Hurricane Dolly remnants bring downpour to El Paso
From Associated Press
July 26, 2008 9:10 PM EDT

EL PASO, Texas - Heavy rain from the remnants of Hurricane Dolly is closing streets and flooding homes in El Paso, and is blamed for causing the death of one person in New Mexico.

The Las Cruces Sun-News reports that a passenger in a sport utility vehicle was killed when the vehicle hit a large puddle and rolled over. The driver and two children were hospitalized.

National Weather Service meteorologist says some areas of El Paso have gotten as much as 3 inches of rain.

The city says it has received 17 reports of flooding in homes. There are 10 reports of street flooding.

The Texas Transportation Department says the Trans Mountain Highway is closed due to rock slides caused by the rain and is expected to reopen Saturday night.

(Trans Mountain Highway is a city arterial but not the major
through corridor.  The rock slides are, IMNSHO, due to poor
engineering of the cuts through which portions of the roadway
run, failure to stabilize same.  Result == closure at least
hint of inclement weather, precip.)

Today set a rainfall record for the date - officially ~2.75 inches
at the official station, previous record ~2.6 in.  Prior to June 30
we'd had 0.23 in since Jan 1.  Since then we've had ~5 inches and
are now about 2 inches above 30 year average.

Soggy Ol' Bob

-- 
Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas
-----
Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is the probable
reason so few engage in it.  -- Henry Ford

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
<irmdnTIn98A8lxHVnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Robert Melson wrote:

>The Las Cruces Sun-News reports that a passenger in a sport utility
>vehicle was killed when the vehicle hit a large puddle and rolled over.
>The driver and two children were hospitalized.

Sigh...   As mentioned, this is why we have the "Stupid Law".

>National Weather Service meteorologist says some areas of El Paso have
>gotten as much as 3 inches of rain.

How much time? My logs show 2.95 inches in a 24 hour period (average of
three rain gauges) back in 1999, and several incidences of > 2.0 inches
as well.

The worst rainfall rates I've ever seen were when I was doing some
equipment testing for ACTIV (Army Concept Team In Vietnam) in the
late 1960s in Da Nang. We had set up the equipment on the grassy
area between the patio at the Navy O'club and the "river", and it was
coming down like no tomorrow (typhoon). I put a pair of tumblers out
on the table, and timed it for ten minutes - 1 3/16 inch, or about 7
inches/hour.

>The city says it has received 17 reports of flooding in homes. There
>are 10 reports of street flooding.

Street flooding is fairly common. In _most_ cases, the grading around
houses is enough to divert the water around the house.

>The Texas Transportation Department says the Trans Mountain Highway is
>closed due to rock slides caused by the rain and is expected to reopen
>Saturday night.
>
>(Trans Mountain Highway is a city arterial but not the major
>through corridor.

State route 375 if Rand McNally is to be believed. Yeah, I can see why
you might have problems there.

>The rock slides are, IMNSHO, due to poor engineering of the cuts
>through which portions of the roadway run, failure to stabilize same.
>Result == closure at least hint of inclement weather, precip.)

Well, it doesn't rain that often...   We have similar problems, and
probably for the same reason. Areas up in the hill country seem to get
it because they're skimping on maintenance because of more pressing
needs elsewhere. We're also running into problems where there have been
wild fires that burn off the ground cover that sorta stabilizes the
soil.  We also run into the problem that when a highway outside of the
metro areas closes for any reason, detours are usually quite arduous
and lengthy because of the dearth of paved roads able to handle the
traffic.

>Today set a rainfall record for the date - officially ~2.75 inches
>at the official station, previous record ~2.6 in.  Prior to June 30
>we'd had 0.23 in since Jan 1.  Since then we've had ~5 inches and
>are now about 2 inches above 30 year average.

That certainly isn't helping matters.  We were supposed to see some of
that moisture, but all I've seen are high clouds. There have been some
light shows, but little rainfall in the area.

>Soggy Ol' Bob

No problem - you'll dry out soon enough.

        Old guy

In article <slrng8pkgd.8p9.ibuprofin@compton.phx.az.us>,
	ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld (Moe Trin) writes:
> On Sun, 27 Jul 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
> <irmdnTIn98A8lxHVnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Robert Melson wrote:
> 
>>The Las Cruces Sun-News reports that a passenger in a sport utility
>>vehicle was killed when the vehicle hit a large puddle and rolled over.
>>The driver and two children were hospitalized.
> 
> Sigh...   As mentioned, this is why we have the "Stupid Law".

Driver was going under the posted speed limit on an allegedly
all-weather highway (well crowned, drained, adequate shoulders,
diitchig), no alcohol involved.  Problem, I suspect, is that it
was coming down faster than it could run off.  Dunno if one can
reasonably fault the driver, tho' I suspect this'll be with him
the rest of his life.  No need for application of the "stupid
law" here.

> 
>>National Weather Service meteorologist says some areas of El Paso have
>>gotten as much as 3 inches of rain.
> 
> How much time? My logs show 2.95 inches in a 24 hour period (average of
> three rain gauges) back in 1999, and several incidences of > 2.0 inches
> as well.

Not certain.  Since the rates/amounts are different for different
parts of the city, it'd be difficult even to guess. 

> 
> The worst rainfall rates I've ever seen were when I was doing some
> equipment testing for ACTIV (Army Concept Team In Vietnam) in the
> late 1960s in Da Nang. We had set up the equipment on the grassy
> area between the patio at the Navy O'club and the "river", and it was
> coming down like no tomorrow (typhoon). I put a pair of tumblers out
> on the table, and timed it for ten minutes - 1 3/16 inch, or about 7
> inches/hour.

Yeah, I remember the monsoon rains in the Saigon countryside - like
a cow pee-ing in a stump.  Typhoons in Japan also tened to dump a
LOT of water in a short period, tho' I was not particularly
interested at the time.

> 
>>The city says it has received 17 reports of flooding in homes. There
>>are 10 reports of street flooding.
> 
> Street flooding is fairly common. In _most_ cases, the grading around
> houses is enough to divert the water around the house.

Well, sorta.  Problem here is that in years past home building
was permitted in arroyos, there are few storm drains and runoff
from the mountains take the easy path (can you say streets).

There's been a big stink lately about "storm water fees", which
are a part of the city's response to the "Great Flood of 2006".
Fee is tacked on to the water utility bill and is based on a home
or business' potential runoff.  The question I've had, and have
asked the city government, is what the hell they've done with
the taxes paid for infrastructure over the last, say, 30 years.
We won't go into that, however.

> 
>>The Texas Transportation Department says the Trans Mountain Highway is
>>closed due to rock slides caused by the rain and is expected to reopen
>>Saturday night.
>>
>>(Trans Mountain Highway is a city arterial but not the major
>>through corridor.
> 
> State route 375 if Rand McNally is to be believed. Yeah, I can see why
> you might have problems there.

Loop 375 or Woodrow Bean/Transmountain Drive.
> 
>>The rock slides are, IMNSHO, due to poor engineering of the cuts
>>through which portions of the roadway run, failure to stabilize same.
>>Result == closure at least hint of inclement weather, precip.)
> 
> Well, it doesn't rain that often...   We have similar problems, and

It's also closed when the wind blows and causes rock slides.  Typical
spring winds can be > 60 mph sustained, and the highway cut is
a natural funnel for'em.  As well, there's the down slope effect
on the "lee" side of the mountains (wind blows from west, becomes
stronger on east side, for example).

> probably for the same reason. Areas up in the hill country seem to get

Most, but not all, Loop 375 is within city limits.  The parts that
are not are on Federal land and on the lower eastern slopes closer to
built up areas.

> it because they're skimping on maintenance because of more pressing
> needs elsewhere. We're also running into problems where there have been
> wild fires that burn off the ground cover that sorta stabilizes the
> soil.  We also run into the problem that when a highway outside of the
> metro areas closes for any reason, detours are usually quite arduous
> and lengthy because of the dearth of paved roads able to handle the
> traffic.
> 
>>Today set a rainfall record for the date - officially ~2.75 inches
>>at the official station, previous record ~2.6 in.  Prior to June 30
>>we'd had 0.23 in since Jan 1.  Since then we've had ~5 inches and
>>are now about 2 inches above 30 year average.
> 
> That certainly isn't helping matters.  We were supposed to see some of
> that moisture, but all I've seen are high clouds. There have been some
> light shows, but little rainfall in the area.

The ground can soak up only so much water, then becomes saturated,
creating additional runoff.  Tropical rains are not typical of the
usual thunderstorm patterms (rain here but not across the street),
but are generally more widespread.  And so it goes.  I thought
the piece interesting, if not earth shaking, particularly given
our earlier "conversation".

> 
>>Soggy Ol' Bob
> 
> No problem - you'll dry out soon enough.

Already doing so.

Saturated Ol' Bob

-- 
Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas
-----
Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is the probable
reason so few engage in it.  -- Henry Ford

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin, in article
<RoOdnemJV_wmZRHVnZ2dnUVZ_v7inZ2d@earthlink.com>, Robert Melson wrote:

ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld (Moe Trin) writes:

>>> The Las Cruces Sun-News reports that a passenger in a sport utility
>>> vehicle was killed when the vehicle hit a large puddle and rolled
>>> over.   The driver and two children were hospitalized.
>>
>> Sigh...   As mentioned, this is why we have the "Stupid Law".
>
>Driver was going under the posted speed limit on an allegedly
>all-weather highway (well crowned, drained, adequate shoulders,
>diitchig), no alcohol involved.  Problem, I suspect, is that it
>was coming down faster than it could run off.  Dunno if one can
>reasonably fault the driver,

I suspect you get the same NWS warnings that we get here. In cases where
they are issuing a Flash Flood {Alert|Warning}, the canned announcement
spends more time warning about driving into water covered roads than
they spend announcing the areas that the {Alert|Warning} applies to.

>tho' I suspect this'll be with him the rest of his life.  No need
>for application of the "stupid law" here.

Another law we have here is that swimming pools shall be fenced in such
a manner as to make it difficult for children to get in unattended.
Several companies (example two major home builders) and government
agencies (example Phoenix Fire) run regular radio advertisements using
the phrase "two seconds is to long" (to leave a child unattended around
water - not just swimming pools).  Some of the ads are positively brutal
to listen to - a 911 call from a distraught father telling how he "just
pulled his pre-schooler out from the bottom of the pool, and he's not
breathing, can you get someone here to help".    FUCK!        They tend
not to prosecute in those cases either.  (Sorry 'bout that - we had one
in the area about a month ago, and the mother was blaming the Fire
Department for the kid's death.)

Of course, these ads have no effect on parents - "as this would never
happen to me or my kid".

>> The worst rainfall rates I've ever seen were when I was doing some
>> equipment testing for ACTIV (Army Concept Team In Vietnam) in the
>> late 1960s in Da Nang. We had set up the equipment on the grassy
>> area between the patio at the Navy O'club and the "river", and it was
>> coming down like no tomorrow (typhoon). I put a pair of tumblers out
>> on the table, and timed it for ten minutes - 1 3/16 inch, or about 7
>> inches/hour.
>
>Yeah, I remember the monsoon rains in the Saigon countryside - like
>a cow pee-ing in a stump.

Another one - between Da Nang and Hue. The camp was on a small hummock
and the rest of the place - including a 2000 foot "runway" was at sea
level. It was raining so hard that the Caribeasts weren't trying to land.
I guess it also made it rough on Charlie.   The cook had some smarts, and
was serving a coffee cup full of hot cream of tomato soup with the meal.
Its raining like there's no tomorrow, the temps and RH were both over 100,
but that soup went down _perfectly_ despite that.

>Typhoons in Japan also tened to dump a LOT of water in a short period,
>tho' I was not particularly interested at the time.

I suppose that depends on where you were, and what else was occupying
your thoughts at the time.

>Well, sorta.  Problem here is that in years past home building
>was permitted in arroyos, there are few storm drains and runoff
>from the mountains take the easy path (can you say streets).

The area I'm living in is a 1400 acre "community" and about a quarter
of that area is washes and retention basins. It seems odd to see an
earthen dam across a valley (about 3 miles long and up to 50 feet tall
roughly 33.71N, 112.05W running due E/W), and a second one much longer
but not as high protecting the canal a bit South of the first dam, out
in the middle of the desert.  I've seen significant water behind the
first dam following locally heavy rains, but the rest of the year, it's
dry.

>There's been a big stink lately about "storm water fees", which
>are a part of the city's response to the "Great Flood of 2006".
>Fee is tacked on to the water utility bill and is based on a home
>or business' potential runoff.  The question I've had, and have
>asked the city government, is what the hell they've done with
>the taxes paid for infrastructure over the last, say, 30 years.
>We won't go into that, however.

Ah, well the cities and county put up signs on roads where there is the
possibility of flooding.  Signs are pretty cheap.   Hey, the road is
flooded!!!  Well, the sign warns that can happen.  ;-)  Actually, the
Cave Creek Wash has finally received a bridge on Deer Valley Road (the
road immediately South of the airport of the same name). Coupled with
the "Loop 101" freeway in the same area, my wife now has three roads
to cross the that wash while going to/from work, rather than the
single one 11 miles South.  Before that, Deer Valley Road would be
closed 3-4 times a year - closed as with a four inch diameter pipe
3 foot above the road level, swung into place blocking all lanes.

>It's also closed when the wind blows and causes rock slides.  Typical
>spring winds can be > 60 mph sustained, and the highway cut is
>a natural funnel for'em.  As well, there's the down slope effect
>on the "lee" side of the mountains (wind blows from west, becomes
>stronger on east side, for example).

Not quite the same here, but the big one in NorCal is the Altamont
Pass - where I-580 goes through the coast range just east of
Livermore. The stretch between where 2 and 205 split, up to a bit
North of the I-580 is an enormous wind farm, with thousands of wind
mills running most of the year. Trucks and house trailers get blown
over/off the road several times a year. Great fun in a tall, but
light car.   The Tehachapi Pass (CA-58 at the West end of the Mojave)
and Grapevine (I-5 at the South end of the Central valley) are about as
bad.

>The ground can soak up only so much water, then becomes saturated,
>creating additional runoff.  Tropical rains are not typical of the
>usual thunderstorm patterms (rain here but not across the street),
>but are generally more widespread.  And so it goes.

We see that all the time. It's quite obvious when you are driving
along a road, come of a wide dip, and notice that the road has been
repaved in the dip - you may also notice boulders 1 to 6 feet or more
in size parked in that low area.   Hmmm, flash flood went through here.

>>>Soggy Ol' Bob
>> 
>> No problem - you'll dry out soon enough.

Before the moss starts growing

>Already doing so.

See!

        Old guy