text:
Excellent question! Several possible answers have been thrown out:
USA/CERL's announced intention is to use GRASS and COTS (commercial off-the-shelf software) for internal uses, to leave the GRASS public web- and ftp-site on its system indefinitely, and to sign cooperative research and development agreements with three companies: (1) the Environmental Sciences Research Institute (ESRI), (2) Intergraph, and (3) Logiciels et Applications Scientifiques (L.A.S.) Inc. The first two agreements encouraged the incorporation of GRASS concepts into ESRI's and Intergraph's commercial GISs. The third encouraged the adaptation of GRASS' concepts and code into a new commercial GIS by L.A.S. L.A.S. also offered to encourage the continuation of a public domain GRASS, as a viable stand-alone system and as a potential source of new ideas and code for L.A.S.'s GRASSLAND. One observer noted that the first two agreements might be akin to someone signing Linux over to Microsoft. The same observer considers the experiment by/with L.A.S. to be an interesting possibility - an attempt to keep viable public domain and commercial versions of GRASS.
Some people believe that GRASS will wither without USA/CERL's central management. Some believe that the Open GIS Consortium will successfully guide industry into an open architecture that will benefit all developers and users. Others believe that OGIS' effort will lead to a cacophony of almost similar (but not quite interoperable) vendor-specific "standards," so the loss of GRASS as an open development platform will be felt sorely.
Some people believe that developments on some campuses and other sites may result in those institutes keeping GRASS for awhile, but in non-standard forms. In short, GRASS will undergo "cell division" and lead to a cacophony of internally valuable, but externally unused, GISs.
Others hope that GRASS' previous management model under USA/CERL has left it ready for a new model. Perhaps:
Under a new mentor, such as NASA (which needs an open, powerful and scientific, GIS integrated with image processing system for its Earth Observing System).
Under a distributed management model... perhaps somewhat like Linux?
Perhaps a bit of a hybrid? Perhaps a Web-based effort could spawn a series of usenet discussion groups beginning with
comp.infosystems.gis.grass, and evolving to:
Clearly the topics are a bit tongue-in-cheek. However, under this model, a Central Committee (including representation of academic, public service [government and nongovernmental organizations], commercial distributors and value added firms, programmers, and users) would guide overall grass development and testing. The other special interest groups would serve their user communities. Academics, for example, would involve GIS and GRASS education, but would also try to pull GRASS development in its direction. Value added commercial developers would serve their own interests, including trying to pull GRASS development in a direction that would help their businesses. Users would help each other learn GRASS, develop workarounds to bugs, etc.
GRASS offers considerable potential for:
Use as a scientific, as well as a traditional graphically oriented GIS. Many GISs can make pretty maps. Many of those GISs cannot easily perform certain scientific analytical functions as easily or powerfully as GRASS. GRASS was designed and developed in response to a perceived need for scientific GIS, specifically for environmental analysis, and the environmental management/protection of public lands. Incidentally, there is at least one Web-based GRASS version. GRASSLINKS, developed at The University of California at Berkeley, uses Web forms to submit commands to the server, which creates .gif-based display output, places the images into pages, and serves them up to the requester. More on that later.
Education. GRASS is easier to teach and learn than some other GISs. It is easier to modify (for those that want to learn GIS as computer science, rather than as "geography") than most other GISs that come without source code and treat the program as a magical black box. And, of course, it is more affordable for the student of GIS than many other GISs.
Applications research and development. Many universities have used GRASS. Its available source code, easy modification, easy scriptability, etc., give it distinct advantages over some more closed systems.
Public Service. GRASS has been used as a scientific GIS for many public service applications. There is considerable value in continuing a robust GIS that can ba packaged with any UNIX workstation. There is considerably more value if that UNIX workstation universe can include Linux (but is not constrained only to Linux).
GIS research and development. For example - do you want to experiment with a different data model? Add it to GRASS!
Commercialization. This document gives contact information for a commercial version of GRASS. That company (and perhaps others?) may welcome your help in enhancing/supporting their product.
Who would be the Linus Torvalds equivalent in this management model? Perhaps no single person. I have been involved in GRASS for about a decade, when GRASS was the only GIS that satisfied my needs in scientific data management and GIS application. Indeed, I had been a dedicated avoider of the user-unfriendly UNIX environment until GRASS forced me to learn it. Several senior GRASS developers are active in GRASS-related activities and would like to see the continued vitality of an open GRASS. It's likely that a reborn GRASS would attract a new crop of friends. Thus the concept of a "Central Committee" to collectively lead GRASS' transition to a more open management and development style.
In short, the Linux community has an opportunity to take under its wing a killer ap. GRASS' current public domain status is slightly different from Linux's. However, that status could be discussed....
Comments would be appreciated!
Prev | Home | Next |
Web-based Support for GRASS (and for GIS Matters in General) | Copyright Notice, and Notice on Support of this Document |
Закладки на сайте Проследить за страницей |
Created 1996-2024 by Maxim Chirkov Добавить, Поддержать, Вебмастеру |


text:
South Africa doctor sees mild symptoms from omicron
South Africa's rapid increase in COVID-19 cases attributed to the new omicron variant is resulting in mostly mild symptoms, doctors say.
"We've seen a sharp increase in cases for the past 10 days. So far they have mostly been very mild cases, with patients having flu-like symptoms, dry coughs, fever, night sweats, a lot of body pains," said Dr. Unben Pillay, a general practitioner in Gauteng province where 81% of the new cases have been reported.
"Most of these patients have been treated at home," Pillay told an online press briefing Monday. "Vaccinated people tend to do much better. We have not seen a vast increase in hospitalizations, but this is still early days. Hospitalizations often come several days after a rise in confirmed cases."
Most of the new cases in South Africa have been among people in their 20s and 30s, and doctors note that age group generally has milder symptoms of COVID-19 in any case. They warn that older people infected by the new variant could have more severe symptoms.
Learning more about the omicron variant is important as nations around the world sought Monday to keep the new variant at bay with travel bans and further restrictions, even as it remains unclear what the variant means for the COVID-19 pandemic.
Japan announced it would suspend entry for all foreign visitors, while new cases of the variant identified days ago by researchers in southern Africa appeared as far away as Hong Kong, Australia and Portugal. Portuguese authorities were investigating whether some infections there could be among the first reported cases of local transmission of the variant outside of southern Africa.
South Africa has seen its seven-day average of new cases over the past two weeks surge from about 200 per day to more than 2,000.
Omicron appears to be more transmissible than previous variants and the surge in South Africa could bring the daily number of new cases to 10,000 by the end of the week, infectious diseases specialist Salim Abdool Karim, told the briefing.
"Our biggest challenge will be to stop super-spreading events, particularly indoors," he said, suggesting that it might be necessary to restrict indoor gatherings to those who are vaccinated.
The hotspot for the new surge is Gauteng's Tshwane metropolitan area, incorporating the capital, Pretoria. The "vast majority" of those hospitalized there have been unvaccinated people, said Waasila Jassat of the National Institute for Communicable Diseases.
"Of recent hospitalizations 87% have been unvaccinated, 13% have been vaccinated," Jassat said of the 455 hospital admissions in the Tshwane area in the past two weeks.
Vaccination appears to have also helped people avoid infection, she said.
Of South Africa's 60 million people, 16.5 million are vaccinated and the number of fully vaccinated who are testing positive is very small, said Nicholas Crisp, the acting director general of the department of health. "It is a very small number of those people who tested positive. It's minute in comparison to unvaccinated people."
To combat the surge of COVID-19 cases attributed to the omicron variant, South Africa is urging vaccinations and is weighing making vaccines mandatory to enter indoor areas, the minister of health said Monday.
The government is not planning to impose centralized vaccine mandates, but will support businesses and organizations that seek proof of vaccination to enter indoor areas, Minister of Health Joe Phaahla told reporters.
The government is considering requiring vaccines for health workers, including those who work at state hospitals, he said.
"We are looking at concrete proposals on how to deal with vaccine mandates in workplaces and health care workplaces," Phaahla said.
A few African countries, including Angola, Egypt, Mauritius and Rwanda, have joined the slew of nations that have placed travel restrictions on South Africa and other countries in southern Africa.
"It's quite regrettable, very unfortunate and I'll even say sad to be talking about travel restrictions imposed by a fellow African country," said Clayson Monyela, spokesman for the Department of International Affairs and Cooperation. He called the decisions "unwarranted and unjustified because it's not based on science,"

subset: commoncrawl


text:
The National Transportation Safety Board has released a preliminary statement on the July 5th collision of two Monorails at Walt Disney World that left one cast member dead. It contains what we have to take as the most accurate description of the tragic unfolding to date. The full report can take 6 months or more.
One of the most heartbreaking details revealed by the NTSB is that the Monorail Purple pilot died while trying to switch his train into reverse and save the lives of his passengers. An upstanding young man and a hero. I hope Walt Disney World finds some way to honor his heroic actions.
Update: The Orlando Sentinel has discovered a potentially unsettling detail. The Manager who was responsible for Monorail Central Control was off property at the time of the crash, although still issuing commands through their radio. They had been asked to take over the Central Coordinator duties after the original coordinator left early due to illness. My sources tell me it's unlikely this was a contributing factor to the crash. But having the coordinator in the station as an extra pair of eyes during switch times is probably a bonus.
The full text of the statement below the cut:
The National Transportation Safety Board has developed the following factual information from its investigation of the collision of two trains on the monorail system at Walt Disney World in Lake Buena Vista, Florida, that occurred early Sunday morning:
At about 2 a.m. on July 5th, a Walt Disney World monorail train, designated the Pink train, backed into another monorail train, designated the Purple train, near the Ticket and Transportation Center (TTC) monorail station. The operator of the Purple train was fatally injured; the six passengers on that train were treated at the scene. The operator of the Pink train, who was transported to the hospital, treated and released, was the only one aboard that train at the time of the collision.
Prior to the accident, the Pink train had been instructed to detrain all passengers at the TTC station and then to operate without passengers past the station and a switch to a point where the train could be backed through the track switch from the Epcot loop over to the Magic Kingdom loop. The operator of the Pink train moved the train past the track switch and stopped.
The Pink train was then instructed to back through the track switch, towards the Magic Kingdom loop. At about the same time, the Purple train, which was inbound to the TTC station, was instructed to stop at the station to detrain passengers. For undetermined reasons that are currently under investigation, the switch had not changed position needed to allow the Pink train to be routed to the Magic Kingdom loop, which resulted in the Pink train backing down the same track it had just come from, putting it on a collision course with the Purple train. The Pink train passed through the TTC station and struck the Purple train while it was outside the station.
There are indications that the operator of the Purple train had brought the train to a stop and had attempted to put the train in reverse prior to the collision. To this point in the investigation, no anomalies or malfunctions have been found with the automatic train stop system or with any mechanical components of the switch or with either of the trains.
The on-scene phase of the investigation is expected to continue for several days.
The parties to the investigation are Walt Disney World, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Orange County Sherriff's Office, and the Transportation and Communications International Union.


text:
(Från Zero Magazine-arkivet. Skribent: Jon Josefsson)
Sweden Midi Music presenterarar nästa generations digitala musikinstrument.
PURITY is a next generation of digital musical instrument workstation and PCM sound module software. PURITY is designed to realize and surpass the hardware musical instrument workstation perfectly on computer-based music production environments offering higher sound quality and more usability.
Come to the Front
PURITY provides rich sound sources to create professional music of any kind and any purpose. PURITY is based on well-sampled PCM wave data including a lot of sound of hardware workstations, sound modules, drum machines, vintage analog synths and even modern digital synths. Moreover, PURITY comes with over 1,300 ready-to-use sound presets that are most popular in each era of the electronic music. The integrated sequencer and the sequenced patches inspire your musical potential.
Forget Everything but Music
PURITY makes you concentrate on your music without being annoyed about anything not related to music. Thanks to NAVIv2 engine and FOEM+, PURITY keeps the fame of the best software instrument with the lowest and most efficient CPU load and RAM usage. PURITY will be the one of your best musical tools which can effectively express the musical idea and feeling that you have.
Ingår gör bland annat:
* 16-part multi-instrument with GM Support
* Integrated Mixer
* Integrated Pattern Sequencer
* Super-fast Preset Browser
* 24 types of Insert Effect
Mer info hittar du på:


text:
A week ago, the American League once again defeated the Neanderthal League (*) in the All-Star Game, securing home field advantage for the World Series. The "This time it counts" mantra about the game is premised on the notion that home field advantage is a significant thing to have (or at least the hope that TV viewers will believe that it is). So it is only natural to look back through history and see how home teams have fared in the World Series.
Let's start off with some theoretical calculations based on a few assumptions. Assume that the two teams are evenly matched, that there is no home field advantage, and that the outcome of each game is independent of any other. Therefore, each team has a 50% chance to win each game, and we can calculate the expected frequency of a 4, 5, 6, or 7 game series using the geometric distribution (I apologize for this digression as many of you know this better than I do):
P(x+r game series for one team) = C(x + r - 1, x)*(1 - p)^x*p^r
Where x = number of failures before r successes, p = probability of success, and C is the combination function
In this case, our successes are victories by the eventual series winner (always r = 4), x is losses by the eventual series loser (0-3), and p = .5.
C(x + r -1, x) is the number of different of distinct sets of wins and losses that can occur in the series. C(3, 0) is used for a four-game series, and is equal to 1--the only string of wins and losses that can produce a four-game series is WWWW. The formula for combinations is:
C(n, x) = n!/(x!(n-x)!)
So C(4, 1), the number of different combinations that can produce a five-game series, is 4!/(1!(4-1)!) = 4*3*2*1/(1*(3*2*1)) = 4. You can confirm this, as there are four possible strings (LWWWW, WLWWW, WWLWW, and WWWLW) that produce a five-game series. In fact, you can logically work out all the combinations fairly easily without the math for this application since we are only dealing with a seven-game series.
In a five-game series, the fifth game must be a win (same for the sixth and seventh games of six and seven-game series, respectively). So the victor can lose game 1, game 2, game 3, or game 4.
In a six-game series, the victor can lose games:
12, 13, 14, 15, 23, 24, 25, 34, 35, 45 = 10 combinations
And in a seven-game series:
123, 124, 125, 126, 134, 135, 136, 145, 146, 156, 234, 235, 236, 245, 246, 256, 345, 346, 356, 456 = 20 combinations
Anyway, doing all the math (and then doubling since we have only considered this from the perspective of one team), the theoretical probability of a given series length is:
4 = 12.5%
5 = 25%
6 = 31.25%
7 = 31.25%
So theoretically (since WS home field sites are on a 12-345-56 pattern), in 43.75% of World Series, the number of home games will be equal. 25% of the time, the team with the home field disadvantage on paper will actually play more home games, and 31.25% of the time the team with home field advantage on paper will get to benefit from it--if and only if there is a game seven.
We'll get back to some theoretical stuff later, but let's look at the actual empirical World Series results. I considered all World Series from 1922-2008 (1922 is when the seven-game series returned permanently) with the following exceptions:
* 1922 and 1923--both Giants/Yankees series, in 1922 they shared the Polo Grounds, and in 1923 they didn't follow the 12-345-67 pattern
* 1943-45--in the war years, a 123-4567 format was used to cut down on travel (and in 1944, the Cardinals and Browns shared Sportsman's Park, which would have made it unusual in any case)
First, let's look at the empirical proportions of series by length:
As you can see, the empirical and theoretical don't actually track particularly well. I'm not going to discuss this phenomenon in-depth here, but it is something to keep in mind when we delve back into theoretical stuff at the end of the post. The assumptions are all faulty to some degree or another--the teams are not evenly matched, the results of the games are not truly independent (Even if you start with the premise that this is largely true during the regular season, one could conjecture that it is less true in a short series as behavior will be highly influenced by the series status--teams down 3-1 behave a lot differently than teams up 3-1 or tied 2-2. This is a classic case of what Bill James called the law of competitive balance.), we have not considered home field advantage, etc. For some more reading on this topic, check out Phil Birnbaum's post at Sabermetric Research and the Baseball Research Journal piece referenced there ("Relative Team Strengths in the World Series" by Alexander E. Cassuto and Franklin Lowenthal, BRJ #35).
Getting back to the actual data, we see what I will call a reverse home field advantage (a 5-game series, in which the "road" team actually hosts 3 games and plays two on the road) 20% of the time, no home field advantage (4 or 6 game series) 41% of the time, and a true home field advantage (7-game series) 40% of the time.
How often does the team with paper home field advantage actually win the Series? Let's break it down by series length:
This is pretty interesting, IMO. The paper home team wins 57% of the series, which seems impressive, but their strongest advantage comes when there is no home field advantage (61%), followed by reverse home fields (56%), and just 53% when there is a true home field.
Of course, the sample sizes aren't great when it's broken down like this, and it is unsurprising that the proportion of series won is less in seven games. What is interesting, though, is that the on-paper home team has such an advantage, and even in series in which they don't really benefit from it in the raw count. Are the first two games at home that much of an advantage, or is there something else going on here?
I'll leave that as a rhetorical question. There are a lot of factors in play here--the sample sizes aren't that large, we have not accounted for the quality of specific teams (which is tough to do in any case because of the fact they play in different leagues which were until recently truly separate in the regular season), etc.--and I don't really want to speculate about the influence of these myriad factors.
I did take a look at the regular season W% of the World Series participants, but as I just said, that's not a particularly telling measure, as it is possible that the leagues were unbalanced in any given year and that a lower W% in one could actually be indicative of a higher-quality team. I checked it anyway, and found that, for the group of series defined throughout this post, the winners had a mean W% of .616 with a median of .616, while the losers had a mean W% of .612 with a median of .610.
Teams with on-paper home field advantage had a mean W% of .615 and a median of .611; teams without on-paper home field advantage had a mean W% of .613 and a median of .610. There's no evidence of any sort of fluky quality difference, at least to the extent that W% captures quality. In terms of W%, the World Series winners, losers, on-paper home teams, and on-paper road teams are all essentially equal.
Let's also break down the series outcomes by on-paper home field advantage coupled with which team had a superior record. These figures will exclude the 1949 and 1958 series as the participants had identical regular season records:
So the team with the worse record has actually triumphed in one more series than their higher W% opponents (for reference, the mean W% for teams with the better record is .635 with a median of .636; the mean W% for teams with the lesser record is .593 with a median of .597, again excluding 1949 and 1958). Teams with home field advantage have been very successful, but those with worse records and home field even more so than teams which had both advantages.
Let's break down the home field W% by each game in the series:
As you can see, games 1, 2, and 6, which are home games for the team with on paper HFA, are the ones with the highest home W%. In game 7, the home field advantage is not particularly large. Those who make a big deal out of WS HFA are fond of pointing out that the home team has won the last eight game 7s, but they were just 2-6 in the previous eight, and I doubt there is anything significant going on. (Although I should point out that the period does correspond to the introduction of the designated hitter in WS play, even if I don't believe that has a significant effect (**)) Between 1952 and 1979 (which includes the 2-6 period mentioned above), road teams were 13-3 in game sevens.
One important caveat on comparing the game-by-game numbers is that as the series extends past the minimum of four games, we should expect to see less of a difference as mismatched teams are eliminated. It doesn't explain why the home field advantages are much smaller in games 3, 4, and 5, though, as there's no reason to suspect that the on-paper road teams are of substantially different quality than the on-paper home teams.
The overall World Series home W% is .573, high compared to the regular season average which is generally somewhere in the neighborhood of .540. Let's use this figure in place of a default assumption of a 50% outcome in each game to model the outcome of a series. Using the combinations detailed above, we can find the probability of any series outcome given these assumptions. For example, the probability of a 4-2 series in which the home team wins games 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 would be .573^5*.427 (five home wins and one road win). Under these assumptions, we get these probabilities for the possible series outcomes (in this table, "home" refers to the teams with on-paper HFA and "road" to their opponents):
Even using the sample home W% of .573, we only expect the team with HFA to win 52.3% of the time. In fact, teams with HFA have won 56.8% of the series (46 of 79). What is the probability that this could have happened by chance, assuming that 52.3% is the true probability and that each series is independent of the others? It's 12.1%. Even if we assume that there is no true home field advantage at all, and each team will win 50% of the time, there is still a 5.7% chance that 46 out of 79 would be observed.
How about the individual game results (home teams are 268-200, .573)? If the true home field W% was .540 as it generally is for the regular season (and given all the other necessary assumptions for use of the binomial distribution), the probability of 268 successes in 468 trials is 7.1%.
So I am decidedly uncomfortable drawing any conclusions about the strength of home field advantage (on the series or game level) in the World Series from the sample data. The actual results show a stronger home field advantage than we might have expected, but not to such an extent that we must conclude that regular season assumptions about home field advantage do not apply.
It's certainly a good thing to have home field advantage for the World Series, or any game for that matter, and I'm not going to try to argue that basing home field on which league won the All-Star Game is anything but a gimmick. However, given that the previous method of determining home field was simply to alternate it yearly between the leagues, I don't think there's any real harm being done by this approach. If you really wanted to reward the stronger league, the overall interleague record would be far more likely to successfully identify the stronger league, but I don't consider the whole matter worth getting exercised over.
I have posted a Google Spreadsheet with the sequence of games in each series if you are interested. The first group of columns marked G1 through G7 indicate whether the eventual WS champion won the game (W) or lost (L). The second group of columns indicate whether the home team in that particular game won (H) or whether the road team won (R).
Finally, I'll close with some useless trivia. You probably know that there have been three series in which the home team won each game (1987 Twins over Cardinals, 1991 Twins over Braves, and 2001 Diamondbacks over Yankees). The most road games ever won in a series (that I considered for this study) is five, which has happened seven times--1926 Cardinals over Yankees, 1934 Cardinals over Tigers, 1952 Yankees over Dodgers, 1968 Tigers over Cardinals, 1972 A's over Reds, 1979 Pirates over Orioles, and 1996 Yankees over Braves.
P.S. After I wrote this post, but before I published it, Sky Andrecheck published a piece on the importance of World Seires HFA at Baseball Analysts. It addresses an interesting question that I will paraphrase as "Since the Dodgers have such a large lead in the playoff race, is the single most important regular season game left on their schedule (with regards to winning the World Series) the All-Star Game?"
I'll let you read Andrecheck's article to find the answer, but there's one minor point which overlaps with this post worth commenting on. Andrecheck notes that the playoff HFA has been higher than the regular season historically, and reasons that this has to do with the home team being the better team more often than not. While this is true for the league playoffs, there's no reason to suspect it to be true for the World Series in which home field alternated between leagues (even if the All-Star result method of determining home field has the effect of giving on-paper home field to a better team more often than not, home field has not been decided by that rule nearly often enough to have any impact on the results, and the amount of noise involved would be incredible in any event). I don't disagree with the notion that we can't say with any certainty that the World Series HFA is of different magnitude than the regular season HFA, but the better team having more home games leaves a lot to be desired as an explanation (again, for the World Series, not the league playoffs).
He also gives the probability of the team with home field winning as 51.26%, assuming that the home W% in the World Series is 54%. I didn't provide this figure in my post, as I approached the question from the standpoint of "Even if .570 is the true HW%...", but I am in agreement with it (naturally, as it is true by definition given the assumptions we both made).
In the comments to Andrecheck's article, there was a link to Cyril Morong's look at WS HFA, published in 2006, which means that I pretty much repeated here what he had done. However, we disagree on the probability of the on-paper home field team winning the series in six games (and thus of course we also disagree on the probability of them winning the series period). I am pretty sure that this is due to a faulty six-game series sequence he used.
(*) Sorry, I can't help it. I SHOULD take the high ground, but the sniveling "It's not REAL baseball" is way too much for me to handle. I'm weak like that.
(**) There was no DH in the World Series until 1978, at which point it was introduced on an alternating year basis. So in 1978, 1980, 1982, etc. the DH was used in all World Series games, and was not used at all in 1979, 1981, 1983, etc. Starting in 1986, the home team's rules were used.
So while the run of Game Seven home wins begins with the Cardinals in 1982 and also includes the Royals in 1985, in those series the road team's rule was being used in Game 7. All of the game sevens that follow, of course, used the home team's rule.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
On the World Series Home Field Advantage
2 comments:
You're right. Total Baseball listed a rule change for the DH in interleague competition starting in 1977, so I incorrectly assumed there had been no DH used in interleague games prior to 1977.
For those who aren't up on the details of the 1976 WS, my mistake won't alter the Game 7 facts, as it was a sweep for the Reds over the Yankees.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)


text:
North Tri-Ethnic Community Center - Youth Sports Coach
Purpose: To enrich kids' lives by teaching them important life skills like teamwork, sportsmanship, discipline and confidence.
Duties: As a coach, you will serve as team liaison, communicating with participants and their parents, scheduling practices, distributing uniforms, managing games and providing all-around leadership. Center staff is able to help with coaching instruction if needed.
Time Frame: Seasonal.
Qualifications: This position requires a background screen. Click here to view our criteria for exclusion.
Job Benefit: Volunteers receive a one-year adult membership to all 22 recreation centers in Fort Worth.
Schedule Summary
This activity generally occurs on
- Monday Evening
- Tuesday Evening
- Wednesday Evening
- Thursday Evening
- Friday Evening
- Saturday - All Day
- Sunday - Evening, Through the night


text:
September 28, 1998
Re: | Memorandum Opinion and Order, In the Matter of AT&T Corporation, et al. v. Ameritech Corp. et al. (File Nos. E-98-41 et al.). |
We write separately to express our firm support for the conclusions reached in this Order and to highlight some of the concerns we hope will shape the Commission's consideration of future business dealings like the teaming arrangements we deem unlawful today.
By adopting the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress sought to unleash the resources, expertise and creative energy of firms that have been legally or practically barred from certain markets, all in the pursuit of one important goal: bringing the benefits of competition to the American public. Thus, we should expect that firms will continue to vie with each other to bring newer and better product offerings to their own customers and, if they are successful, their competitors' customers. Indeed, it is this urge to compete and innovate that is essential to the proper functioning of a competitive market. And it is this urge to compete and innovate that has led the defendants to develop the teaming arrangements at issue, by which they could have brought the benefits of "one-stop shopping" in telecommunications to their customers and, thus, to themselves.
Yet the Act does not give the Commission a blank slate. In our struggle to implement the pro-competitive, deregulatory framework envisioned by Congress, fundamental decisions have been made for us. One of these decisions is that the Bell Operating Companies (BOCs) may not provide in-region, interLATA telecommunications service until they comply with the requirements of section 271.(1) Thus, we are duty-bound to ensure that the BOCs' urge to compete and innovate in the long distance market does not lead them to violate the strictures of section 271. Because we believe the instant teaming arrangements do, according to the detailed factual record they have spawned, violate these strictures, it is without hesitation that we join our colleagues in concluding that the arrangements are barred under section 271.
We also are pleased to support this Order for what it does not conclude. As our support of this Order suggests, we agree that serious questions remain regarding whether or not the instant teaming arrangements violate the BOC defendants' equal access and nondiscrimination obligations under section 251(g). We believe nonetheless that it is both responsible and prudent that we have expressly declined to make conclusions regarding section 251(g). First, it is not necessary to reach the section 251(g) question to resolve fully the dispute before us. As the Order makes clear, the section 271 issues are dispositive with respect to the legality of these teaming arrangements.
Second, we believe that by declining to reach the section 251(g) question in the context of this proceeding, we have successfully resisted the temptation to reaffirm unnecessarily a legal and regulatory regime that Congress required us to reconsider in light of the changing marketplace. Telecommunications policy is steeped in the history of the Modified Final Judgment (MFJ). We are all too familiar with the struggles to break up AT&T and to restrain the pieces of that former monopoly from engaging in anticompetitive behavior. While we may not, in the short-term, be able to walk completely away from that history, neither can we allow ourselves to be haunted by "the ghost of the MFJ." Instead, we must work to exorcise that specter. We must strive to leave behind the fears and rituals of the MFJ era and adopt new approaches and modes of thinking that are consistent with a competitive marketplace.(2)
By declining to reach the section 251(g) question in this Order, the Commission has avoided unnecessarily prejudging our consideration of the equal access and nondiscrimination obligations contemplated under section 251(g).(3) In light of the relatively tight time frame occasioned by the referral of these matters from the district courts, we believe it would have been difficult for us to think through carefully all the complex issues of interpretation that are associated with applying some of the pre-Act precedent to the facts presented to us in this proceeding. We also believe that we did not have time, in the context of this proceeding, to consider all of the issues concerning what equal access or nondiscrimination obligations should apply to BOCs once they have satisfied section 271. We describe some of these issues below. Our intention in describing these issues is not to criticize the other valid questions raised in the Order itself, but rather to share our views regarding the kinds of considerations we should factor into any future consideration of the requirements of section 251(g).
Differences in Factual Context. Because the 1996 Act mandates such a radical change in the framework for regulating telecommunications, we believe we should be circumspect about how we rely on and extrapolate from MFJ judicial precedent. As the Qwest teaming arrangements dramatically illustrate, the drive to compete and innovate fueled by the Act will feed regulators a constant diet of novel and, in many respects, pro-competitive business arrangements. As such, we will constantly find ourselves, as we do here, with facts that the MFJ court did not consider and perhaps could not have even imagined.
In light of the likely absence of MFJ precedent directly on point, we do not believe we would be constrained to give effect to every sentence of every equal access case if we believe the present facts and circumstances are distinguishable from those of the MFJ era; rather, we believe we should look to the broad context and purposes of the Act to determine which general principles should be imported from that precedent and which should not.
Similarly, we should remain cognizant that the overall factual context in which the pre-Act cases described in section 251(g) were decided is very different from the facts we see now. These differing facts should, in our view, suggest different expectations that we should have regarding the threat of anticompetitive conduct and the precautions we should take to prevent such conduct.(4) Many of the pre-Act cases focused on tearing apart one of the world's largest, most powerful and most integrated monopolies, i.e., separating "Ma Bell" from her babies. In contrast, the arrangements we see today and will see in the future may involve new entrants like Qwest that do not have strong historical ties to the incumbent. The precedent also originates in a world in which the BOCs were essentially walled off from several lines of business -- a world that eventually began to erode prior to the 1996 Act(5) and that was eroded in a more fundamental way by the Act itself.
Strength of the Precedent. Related to this unique, factual context of the equal access and nondiscrimination precedent is our concern that the psychology of breaking up deeply entrenched monopolies sometimes led, quite understandably, to sparse analysis and occasionally vague pronouncements by the courts whose duty was to enforce the MFJ. This sparseness and vagueness also may have resulted from the fact that the MFJ court conducted its analysis unconstrained by the intricate web of deregulatory and market-opening requirements woven into the 1996 Act.(6) Simply put, we believe there are reasonably sound arguments that some of the MFJ cases do not provide compelling support for importing propositions that one could glean from these cases to the post-Act context.(7) Thus, we hope we will consider the strength and weakness of the precedent itself in developing and applying equal access and nondiscrimination requirements pursuant to section 251(g).
Equal Access in a Post-271 World. In reviewing the legality of future business arrangements, we also hope we will be especially careful about how equal access and nondiscrimination requirements apply to companies that are legally authorized to provide long distance service themselves. For example, as the Order indicates, BOCs are currently subject to the requirements of both section 271 and section 251(g). Once a BOC satisfies the requirements of section 271, the question would remain whether a BOC's section 251(g) obligations would permit it to team or joint venture with other companies to enable BOC customers to obtain long distance service.
From the perspective of preventing anticompetitive conduct, it seems counter-intuitive that a BOC, having satisfied section 271, would be able to provide long distance itself through a section 272 separate subsidiary, but would not be able to team with Qwest to offer its customers such service. Presumably, we should be more concerned that a BOC will have the incentive and ability to favor unfairly its own section 272 long distance affiliate as opposed to a non-affiliated long distance company.(8) In addition, it would strike us as odd, given the deregulatory emphasis of the Act, that Congress could have intended to preclude BOCs from being involved in the long distance market in any way other than through a section 272 separate subsidiary.(9) Similarly, section 251(g) should not be used to impose any new or additional barriers on carriers entering new markets.
Relationship to Interconnection Obligations in General. In addition, as the Commission contemplates the requirements under section 251(g), we hope we will think through carefully how such obligations relate to the interconnection requirements we have already imposed under section 251 generally.(10) As the Order notes, equal access obligations originally were meant to respond to the government's contentions that, in interconnecting their local networks with the networks of the various long distance companies, the BOCs provided inferior interconnection to AT&T's competitors.(11) In the interest of avoiding duplicative requirements, the Commission should think carefully about whether the goals underlying section 251(g) are achieved through the requirements we have already imposed pursuant to the other provisions of section 251. We also should be circumspect about expanding obligations under section 251(g) and should be cautious about imposing equal access and nondiscrimination obligations on BOCs that are different from those imposed on other incumbent LECs.
Procompetitive Benefits. Finally, in developing and applying the requirements contemplated under section 251(g), we should not lose sight of the ultimate goal of equal access and nondiscrimination, which is to bring the benefits of competition to the public. While new business arrangements involving large incumbent LECs like the BOCs potentially raise anticompetitive concerns, these arrangements also promote competition by allowing smaller entrants in long distance or other markets to establish viability in those markets through creative business relationships with established firms. Such relationships, in turn, may benefit consumers in the form of lower prices and stronger incentives on all market participants to match or surpass the new technologies and services used by the entrants. We believe we also should recognize that entrants' incentive and ability to gain such footholds through arrangements with the incumbent may turn, in part, on the degree to which the entrant can differentiate itself in the marketplace.
Thus, in thinking through the extent to which equal access and nondiscrimination requirements should apply to carriers in the post-Act world, it is our sincere hope that we will be as sensitive to these concerns as we believe the Commission has been in this proceeding. Most of all, we must keep in mind that the equal access and nondiscrimination requirements need to be consistent with the transition from monopoly to a competitive paradigm and should not invalidate or further burden carriers' current activities. It is because of the Commission's wise decision to postpone resolution of these and other issues related to section 251(g) until we can examine them more thoroughly that we are happy to support the Order as strongly as we do here.
We commend the Commission staff for its diligent and speedy work on these complex and elusive issues. Moreover, we look forward to working together with everyone at the Commission as we revisit the issues of equal access and nondiscrimination and as we consider the many novel business arrangements that competition will no doubt bring us.
2. Of course, one can debate the level and permanence of competition in telecommunications today. It is undeniable, however, that competition is and will continue to be more robust and extensive than it was at the time of AT&T's divestiture.
3. See 47 U.S.C. § 251(g).
4. The idea of considering factual differences in assessing what precautions regulators should take against unlawfully discriminatory conduct was not unknown to the MFJ court. For example, in approving a consent decree for GTE that was less burdensome than the MFJ, Judge Green noted expressly that facts that are different from those implicated in the breakup of AT&T could justify different methods of preventing anticompetitive behavior than were used in the AT&T cases. See United States v. GTE Corp., 603 F. Supp. 730, 736 (D.D.C. 1984) ("For these reasons, the Court concludes that the GTE situation is sufficiently different from that which was before the Court when it was presented with a consent decree in AT&T that the public interest does not necessarily require here the remedy that was adopted there."); see also id. at 733-37.
5. See, e.g., United States v. Western Electric Co., 993 F.2d 1572 (1993) (affirming judgment removing information services line of business restriction from MFJ).
6. Thus, for example, one could argue that it would be easy for a court to make unconditional statements regarding BOC favoritism when all marketing of long distance was considered provision of long distance. As the Order recognizes, marketing and provision are not synonymous under the Act. Compare 47 U.S.C. § 272(g)(2) with 47 U.S.C. § 271(a) and 47 U.S.C. § 271(b).
7. See, e.g., United States v. AT&T, No. 82-0192, slip op. at 3 (D.D.C. Apr. 11, 1985) (concluding without explanation that "by granting to National an endorsement of quality, Southwestern Bell has violated the non-discrimination provision of section II(B) of the decree"). One also could reasonably argue that the court deciding the BOC Calling Card case meant to limit its consideration of the appropriateness of the restrictions it enforced to the time and the facts before it. See United States v. Western Electric Co., Inc., 698 F. Supp. 348, 356 (D.D.C. 1988) ("Any Regional Company advertising at this juncture will have the direct foreseeable effect of promoting AT&T services over those of the other interexchange carriers.") (emphasis added).
8. Likewise, it would seem counter-intuitive if equal access obligations designed primarily for BOCs had the collateral effect of prohibiting GTE (which has similar obligations) from teaming with unaffiliated long distance companies; GTE does not have to satisfy section 271 and it has been able to provide long distance in some fashion since before the Act was passed. United States v. GTE Corp., 603 F. Supp. 730, 733 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (approving consent decree permitting GTE to acquire Sprint long distance company). Again, from the perspective of preventing unlawfully discriminatory conduct, we should presumably be more concerned that an incumbent LEC will have the incentive and ability to favor unfairly its own long distance affiliate as opposed to a non-affiliated long distance company.
9. We fully recognize, however, that other glosses on Congress' intent are not without support in the statute.
10. We note that some parties have recognized the potential overlap between interconnection and equal access obligations. See, e.g., Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-98, First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15499, 15677, ¶ 353 (1996) (DOJ and MCI arguing that "superseding regulations" referred to in section 251(g) were the regulations that Commission would issue to implement section 251), aff'd in part and vacated in part sub nom. Competitive Telecommunications Ass'n v. FCC, 117 F.3d 1068 (8th Cir. 1997) and Iowa Utilities Bd. v. FCC, 120 F.3d 753 (8th Cir. 1997), writ of mandamus issued sub nom. Iowa Utilities Bd. v. FCC, No. 96-3321 (8th Cir. Jan. 22, 1998), petition for cert. granted, Nos. 97-826, 97-829, 97-830, 97-831, 97-1075, 97-1087, 97-1099, and 97-1141 (U.S. Jan. 26, 1998), Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd 13042 (1996), Second Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd 19738 (1996), Third Order on Reconsideration and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 97-295 (rel. Aug. 18, 1997), further recons. pending.
11. United States v. Western Electric Co., 552 F. Supp. 131 (D.D.C. 1982), aff'd sub nom., Maryland v. United States, 460 U.S. 1001 (1983), vacated. Indeed, one could argue that the nondiscriminatory interconnection obligations imposed on all incumbent LECs by section 251(c)(2) were meant to encompass the duty to provide equal access and nondiscriminatory treatment to long distance companies. See 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(2) (requiring incumbent LECs to provide to "any telecommunications carrier" interconnection that is "equal in quality" to the interconnection LEC provides itself and that is "on rates, terms, and conditions that are . . . nondiscriminatory"). This could mean, for example, that the Commission merely needs to clarify that the interconnection obligations imposed in the Local Competition Order were sufficient to satisfy section 251(g).


text:
Create trendy Easter baskets out of recycled shoe boxes, shredded paper, and stickers. Start a new family tradition that helps the environment, and you already have all of the items in your home! Use your imagination and creativity, because you …[Continue]
Easter Bunny Fun: Easter crafts for kids and families such as Easter egg projects, coloring eggs, and paper crafts.Easter Bunny House
Create an Easter bunny house to decorate your own home with this holiday. The cardboard house is a great craft project to take on this week, and you can alter its design to match your skill level or your child's …[Continue]
Easy Easter Bunny Cricut Craft
Creating an adorable Easter bunny decoration is easy, fun, and affordable with these very simple directions and materials. This craft is perfect to use for cards, scrapbooks, party favors, or just for fun!…[Continue]
Easter Chick Cards: Watercoloring
Create a beautiful, unique Easter card or name tag using watercolors. Janet demonstrates how to use stamping ink and a special pen to paint a cute image onto an Easter greeting. …[Continue]
Monogrammed Easter Goodie Bags
Create an creative, unique goodie bag for your kids, friends, or coworkers this Easter with the help of Janet Casto. These bags feature a personalized monogram that you can emboss to make it look extra specia…[Continue]
Easter Goodie Bags
Learn how to make cute and festive goodie bags for kids, friends, or coworkers. These bags feature bright, glossy Easter eggs, and you can decide what candy or treats to include! They are the perfect, small gift for any Easter …[Continue]
Learn to Knit a Felted Easter Basket
Want to make a very special Easter basket for someone important in your life? Learn how to knit a beautiful, unique Easter basket and amaze its recipient! Also, find out how to felt the basket so that it shrinks and …[Continue]
Easter Baskets Tutorial using the Celebrations Cartridge
Want to make a very special Easter basket for someone important to you? Use a die cutting machine to create a unique paper basket and impress its recipient with your artistic skill. These custom-made baskets are very cute and are …[Continue]
Easter Bunny Napkin
Sylvia lets you in on a special Easter surprise for your brunch or dinner guests. Learn how to fold and decorate a napkin to create a bunny figure at each person's table setting. These little decorations will be a huge …[Continue]


text:
Though it likely didn't get the readership that "The Deserted Library" did, the Chronicle's Scott Carlson followed up with a good and thoughtful overview of what makes new libraries work and how different libraries conceptualize what they're trying to accomplish, originally published last fall but featured recently in the Chronicle's e-mail alert. It's still a timely piece, well worth reading.
For example, the University of Chicago, in keeping with its traditions, is interested in exposing students to as many physical volumes as possible. They don't want the library to be a student center. According to sociology professor Andrew Abbott, "The faculty is united in thinking that this building is supposed to be the research center of one entire wing of intellectual life at the campus, and we can't afford to let it turn into an Internet cafe."
Hal Shill at Penn State Harrisburg conducted a survey that found fascinating results.
The responses from about 180 institutions revealed surprising patterns. For example, Mr. Shill found that the location of a library on a campus made little difference in its popularity among students. Library size did not matter, nor did the number of study rooms in a building or the availability of wireless access. "The presence of a cybercafe — that was a wash," he says. "It was not a statistically significant feature, but I would recommend it as a creature comfort."
More basic comforts rated highly: the quality of natural lighting, the quality of work spaces, the quality of the heating and air-conditioning system, and the overall ambiance of the building. Computer and Internet access — such as the number of data ports, the quality of the telecommunication system, and the quality of the public-access workstations — were also vital to the success of a building.
I recall the collib-l list discussions when the "Deserted Library" article came out. Many academic librarians feared their presidents would read it and conclude "great, we don't need to spend all that money on a black hole after all." This is an article you don't want them to miss. Send it to your president, your provost, your physical plant director, and your advancement office. Right now.


text:
Advertisement |
Yo-Yo Ma (born October 7, 1955) is a French-born American cellist, virtuoso, orchestral composer of Chinese descent, and winner of multiple Grammy Awards, the National Medal of Arts in 2001 and the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2011. He is one of the most famous cellists of the modern age.
Yo-Yo Ma was born in Paris on October 7, 1955, to Chinese parents and had a musical upbringing. His mother, Marina Lu, was a singer, and his father, Hiao-Tsiun Ma, was a violinist and professor of music. His family moved to New York when he was five years old.
At a very young age, Ma began studying violin, and later viola, before finding his true calling by taking up the cello in 1960 at age four. According to Ma, his first choice was the double bass due to its large size, but he compromised and took up cello instead. The child prodigy began performing before audiences at age five, and performed for Presidents John F. Kennedy and Dwight D. Eisenhower when he was seven. At age eight, he appeared on American television with his sister, Yeou-Cheng Ma, in a concert conducted by Leonard Bernstein. By fifteen years of age, Ma had graduated from Trinity School in New York and appeared as a soloist with the Harvard Radcliffe Orchestra in a performance of the Tchaikovsky Rococo Variations.


text:
I can't remember when I saw so many media outlets, bloggers, and just general 'people' with their panties in a wad over something they didn't really understand. Honestly, who among those 'critics' bemoaning the Sustained G turn requirement changing from 5.3 to 4.6Gs even know everything they need to know as 'inputs' before they could even begin to formulate an informed opinion on the topic? There is STILL insufficient information in the public domain to come to any conclusions, but there's a heck of a lot of presumption and assumption in spite of it.I was neck deep in a home improvement project when Dave Majumdar at FlightGlobal's DEWline blog put up his "What's the operational impact of reducing the F-35's performance specs?" piece. Majumdar gave a pretty big voice to an 'anonymous' but 'highly experienced ' fighter pilot that had all sorts of negatives to pass on to the public. (I believe if you view the Majumdar/Flight Global posts and articles that followed on the topic you'll conclude the voice in question almost certainly was coming out of a Boeing F-18 test pilot). This 'anonymous' fighter pilot's views were counter-balanced at the end by someone who had actual knowledge of the F-35.
Note: I now notice that the entire post I commented on has been rewritten (down the memory hole, eh?) but the parts I lament in my comment seems to have been 'reformulated' elsewhere in an article here. (If I have a major complaint about FlightGlobal's reporting, it is just this kind of 'rewriting history' stuff.)
I commented, in part, the following at that time:
The really disturbing aspect of this 'story' is how an anonymous "highly experienced" fighter pilot somehow is able to gin up some world-class doom and gloom from a few insufficient data points. The doom and gloom gets quoted here, and now this article is being passed around by the anti-JSF crowd-- zipping around the globe as some sort of authoritative source. However, all there is really are two insufficient sets of information that in all honesty should prevent someone from reaching any conclusion other than the program is being 'managed'.
First, let's deal with the changing of the maximum sustained g-force value for the different variant turn performance criteria.
All we know is that 1) The sustained turn g-force objective is a proxy for overall aircraft maneuverability (not even a KPP) and 2) For the particular speed, bank angle, weight, and altitude data points selected, the program office lowered the 'g' value after extensive testing and analysis.
Aside from no real reason to assume the Program Office could or would do so without a good reason, or belief that the differences would not significantly impact operational performance, we should also consider the very real possibility that the F-35's best sustained-g turn performance may have been found to lay outside the pre-selected test conditions. Perhaps by a little, perhaps by a lot. We don't know. Not even "highly experienced" fighter drivers, unless they're on the program, can divine the answer or what it means without more data.
On the one hand, I could have placed more emphasis on the 'unknowns': if only so a few of the others who were/are willfully ignoring them would have been perhaps a little less eager to jump on the 'Lowering the Bar' bandwagon. I COULD have typed "For the particular speed, bank angle, weight and altitude data points selected, [which are unknown to us] the program office lowered the 'g' value after extensive testing and analysis. On the other hand, I shed no tears for the self-identifying ignorami, and find the duping of a small number of media types merely... 'unfortunate'.
Of course, the usual suspects took exception to my comments, and now the whole thread looks pretty silly as the article that I was critiquing, and others were defending (and OBTW also attacking me), is no longer even IN the article we all commented upon. But my prediction of the obvious, that the doom and gloom sound bites from a rather dubious source would spread like wildfire throughout the 'interwebs' while the factual counterarguments would remain alone and unloved proved all too true.
Fortunately, we have a few other data points that we can add to other information, including knowledge as to how programs and requirements 'work' and at least form one or more hypotheses as to what the relevance Sustained G spec change 'means'-- based upon physics, publically released (vs. leaked) information (vs. unsubstantiated suspicions) about the F-35, and more importantly how everything relates to modern fighter design requirement priorities. We can make some assumptions (and identified as same) and use parametric modeling to more thoroughly understand the impacts of the changes, especially as they might either reflect or affect HOW the F-35 might 'fight' in the Within Visual Range (WVR) environment.
This post, as the title reflects, will concern itself with F-35 Sustained G-performance. I'll get to the 'Supersonic Dash' spec change later.
"Sustained Flight"
Let's begin with defining Sustained Flight, Sustained Level Flight, and what makes a 'Sustained G' Turn... a 'Sustained G' turn. If you know basic aerodynamics you can skip this section, and I don't want to hear about anything I 'leave out' or 'over-simplify' in the comments if you don't skip it. I'm not trying to 'dumb it down', I'm trying to leave out stuff I don't need to explain to get to the larger points I'm trying to make.
'Sustained Flight' is the condition where airspeed, altitude, and load factor "n" are all held constant. To be 'constant' Thrust "T" and Drag "D" must be equal, and Lift 'L' has to equal Weight 'W' x n. Straight and level (coordinated) flight is 'sustained' when lifting surfaces are level, the aircraft is not climbing or descending, neither is it accelerating or decelerating, and the bank angle is 'zero'.
When flying straight and level, the load factor equals 1 (n = 1) as in "1 gravity" or 1g. But it is not actually 'gravity'. The load factor n is dimensionless: the ratio of Lift to Weight (L/W), and each component has the same unit of measurement and are thus cancelled out (pounds/pounds, etc). Load factor is referred to in terms of 'g' because it is "perceived" as some 'multiple' of the acceleration of gravity on board the aircraft.
A 'sustained turn' is a turn where not only airspeed, altitude, and load factor "n" are all held constant, but also the (non-zero) bank angle of the turn is held constant. To be 'constant', Thrust "T" and Drag "D" must still be equal, and Lift 'L' has to equal Weight 'W' x n, but 'n' is no longer equal to 1 because of the vector change of the aircraft as the turn is being executed.
For this exercise (and simplicity's sake), we'll assume the earth is 'down' and the aircraft is right side up (not inverted) and just say n is now greater than 1 (n > 1). For an aircraft with a typical wing-body-tail planform to enter and sustain the turn, the pilot/controller provides input to the control system that deflects the control surfaces to induce and then hold a bank angle, while increasing angle of attack needed to increase lift generated per unit of wing reference area to keep it equal to the load factor times the weight (n x W).
This means for any given set of airspeed, aircraft weight, and density altitude values, the load factor- accounted for in terms of 'g's- is a function of bank angle. Specifically, g= 1/cosØ. For example, a 60 degree bank angle (Ø=60), the 'g' value would be 1 divided by the cosine of 60, or 1/.5 = '2gs'.
60 Degrees Bank Angle and Resultant 2g Load Factor |
'G's as a Function of Bank Angle |
So what is 'happening' in the specific region of the curve where the F-35s 'Sustained g' spec change occurred?
Bank Angles: 4.6 vs. 5.3 Gs |
The Only Conclusion: Bank Angles.
After that we need to start making 'assumptions'.It doesn't look like the airplane is doing anything too 'different' (minimal y axis delta) on the curve to get that 'g' difference, does it? That's the first surprise waiting for people who haven't thought much about 'Gs': the difference in bank angle between the two 'levels of performance' is about 1.6 degrees bank.
The difference looks like this:
Depending on airspeed, the bank angle could translate into a 'small' or a 'large' difference in turn rate and turn radius. Without knowing for certain what the weight, speed, and altitude is for the 'performance standard' at either 5.3g or 4.6g, the difference in bank angle between the two figures is all we can conclusively determine. Everything else depends on the missing data.
A Couple of 'Likely Truths'
I'm pretty comfortable making some low-risk assumptions on top of the one conclusion. The first one is that F-35 max sustained G capability for the unknown flight conditions and configuration is actually somewhere in between the 5.3g and 4.6g values. I'm comfortable in doing so largely because the program has already demonstrated conservative programmatic behavior with the B model's "take-off roll" spec change.
[History Sidebar: For the takeoff roll spec change, the JSF Program Office didn't just ease the requirement to make it so the B model would 'pass'. They changed the requirement such that it both met military need AND would allow for further 'bad' surprises without having to revisit the issue. Because of this past program decision, and just using common sense, I suspect the actual performance difference between the original spec and current performance is even less than all the complainers realize.]
The second assumption I'm willing to make--with only slightly less confidence--concerns which 'limit' was hit going for 5.3 sustained 'g's under those mystery (can't repeat it enough) conditions. Max Sustained Turn limits are either "lift limited" or "thrust limited". I believe the 'thrust limit' was hit versus lift limit, for a couple of reasons, and it is important to note now that 'thrust limited' can be viewed as either insufficient thrust for the drag experienced at the specified conditions (weight, speed, and altitude) or higher than expected drag at the specified conditions.
I would almost bet, but have no information to confirm, that the drag rise was higher than expected for the selected set of 'spec conditions'. I remind readers again, we have no direct information as to what those flight conditions were.
Exercise: Exploring Comparative Sustained Turn Rate Performance
If we are to do ANY comparison of the JSF performance with any other aircraft benchmarks we are going to have to make what some (not me) might call a small leap of faith and presume the weight, armament, and fuel loads as well as the altitude and airspeed are the same as what is commonly referred to at F-16.net as the 'Bowman' Paper or Brief.
[Personal Note: If there is any Cosmic Justice in this world I predict it will befall CDR Bowman for 'phoning it in' on his Air Command and Golf paper and the superficial analyses and 'pronouncements' within. If he is still active duty when the time comes, I look for him to standup one of the early F-35 squadrons, if Navy assignment desks are half as evil as Air Force assignment desks.]
For the purposes of our exercise therefore, let us ASSUME (and we all know how that word parses) that the flight conditions and the aircraft configuration for the Sustained G spec is as follows:
60% Internal Fuel
15000 Ft Altitude
Mach .8 Airspeed
I will proceed only in evaluating the 'G-Spec' change for the F-35A model and let others make their own analyses on other variants and other comparisons than the ones I will make. I also caution against assuming that the results for those conditions and aircraft configuration translate linearly to any other set of conditions (they don't) and against assuming that the actual performance at that set of conditions/configuration was the 'best' possible at any one of the given conditions. Just one of the weight, speed or altitude parameters could vary slightly and sustained turn performance could go up or down in a manner out of proportion to the change. I've also noticed that while the specs usually look at a .8M sustained turn, from at least the 'F-15 forward' the best sustained G for US fighters at 10,000-20,000 feet altitude seems to reside somewhere between .85M and .9M.
Keep these curves and data in mind when we move the discussion forward in the next post:
F-15 Turn Rates |
These diagrams come from around the web and a personal reference I picked up at a used book store near Carswell JRB/Plant 4. The web sources are of uncertain provenance, but I found a good ref for the F-15 at a little different weight at 10K ft that correlates well to the F-15 data above. The F-18 data smells like public relations and is more nebulous. I can't tell you how many empty weight values I found for the F-18s, and early in the program the Navy was absolutely anal about couching internal fuel weights as fuel fraction percentages instead of just how much fuel would be carried internally.
The F-16 Blk15 is a good reference-probably the best available-as it has all that vaunted maneuverability the 'reformers' bemoan as ruined with later, heavier versions. The F-4 is a good data point because we have a distinct configuration attached to the performance numbers, and some disparage the F-35 as 'F-4 like'. The Mirage was interesting to me because it is a contemporary of the F-16 and represented the pinnacle of the delta-winged dogfighter (I remember reports of its debut at the Paris Air Show quoting a USAF General as saying "The French have finally perfected the F-106") until the Euro-canards started rolling off the line. In a perfect world, Sukhoi and Eurofighter will e-mail me their E-M diagrams before I go to press on the next post.
I expect the next post to cause a furball all of its own.
Since we're working with 'pictures' and NOT real data, I've had to do some translating which may have brought associated minor errors with it. I don't see anything remarkably out of place at the moment:
Aircraft Performance and Configuration Data Translated From Curves |
If anyone has problems with the table I've assembled below using the charts above, and can come up with either better authoritative released data or good reasons why I shouldn't use this data, I'll leave the door open to changes for a couple of days while I finish doing the 'turn rate' and other math.
I predict that analysis of the data, combined with certain 'truths' about what level of significance should be attached to differences in sustained turn rates, and other things we know about the F-35 and have already covered concerning Energy-Maneuverability in an earlier post will clearly indicate we should be thinking of the F-35 as probably being a 'competent' if not 'solid' "kinetic" dogfighter and definitely NOT 'a Dog' (as people who have 'agendas' or little understanding of 21st Century air combat and aircraft design would lead us to believe).
Next: Part 2


text:
Thursday, May 24, 2007
A Sticky Situation
You see it all starts when I see patients on inpatient ward rounds. Being a "good" doctor, I've been trained that we have to wash our hands before, and perhaps especially after, touching the patient. This makes good sense, I'm told. You don't want to spread all those nasty germs between patients, after all.
I was on call this past weekend. For those of you unfamiliar with this responsibility, call is one of those necessary evils of medicine. Every doctor knows it. Lives and practices are shaped by this responsibility. It is the opportunity to be sure patients care continues over the weekend in an uninterrupted manner and acute issues that cannot wait until the following week are addressed immediately. After all, the practice of medicine does not care if someone becomes sick on the weekend, after 5 PM, or on holidays. Life happens. Illness happens. And so too, therefore, does call.
I have learned over many years that rounding very early in the morning is to your advantage. Patients are seen more efficiently because the nurses are busy documenting in their charts about events of the prior evening (can't stop and chat); the patient is most interested in getting a few more winks of sleep before the daily grind occurs in the hospital (questions are kept to a necessary minimum); and family members have not arrived yet to slow your work progress through the myriad of patients that need to be seen. It is not uncommon for a call physician to round on well over 20-30 patients while fielding new consults, performing some testing, and answering patient phone calls. Since housestaff and patients have yet awoken or arrived to see their patients, a brief uninterrupted work period ensues.
Recently, our hospital (and I'm sure many others) has adopted the use of alcohol hand gels (in lieu of hand-washing) when seeing patients. These gels are handy, since water is really not necessary to rinse the residue from your hands. The gel is good for most bacterial contageon in the hospitals, but some bugs still require the old hand-washing technique (like c. difficile, I'm told). And so the old soap must stay. But this is where I've found it gets, er, sticky.
The damn dispensers are always in a different place from room to room. You have to play hide-and-go-seek to find them, sometimes. But that's not the real problem. Oh, no.
You see there's another medical error that occurs because of mistaken identity - especially early in the morning when the lights are low in a patient's room. We all know how bad having the wrong patient can be, but what about the wrong soap?
This is an egregious error, my friends.
Look at these two dispensers for soap below. One is for the hand gel (that evaporates quickly and requires no water to rinse from your hands), and the other for garden variety liquid soap. (Quickly, can you tell which one? No reading allowed.)
After squirting some of the liquid soap on my hands and walking half way to the next patient's room, I discovered to my horror that the gunk in my hands had to be rinsed off rather than air-dried.
Damn, what a mess.
And did I feel like a fool…
3 comments:
- Margaret Polaneczky, MD (aka TBTAM) said...
I did the exact same thing the other day :)
Here's what I found myself wondering, though. Now that we are all electronic, what kind of germs do you think are on all those keyboards? One might argue that in addition to washing our hands before and after touching the patient, we should also wash befoer and after touching the keyboard.... - Thu May 24, 09:12:00 PM CDT
- DrWes said...
No doubt those keyboards are worse than our neckties! And besides that, the alcohol gel only kills some of the bacteria.
Hey, maybe that soap left on my hands was a clandestine operation coordinated by the infectious disease and Information Systems departments to clean the keyboards!?! - Fri May 25, 08:15:00 AM CDT
- AMiB said...
On first glance of the pictures, I think the "Stat-Rinse" gave it away, but then again in a dark room...y'never know.
at our hospital, we have identical looking dispensers, but one is for alcohol gel, and one for moisturizing lotion. why they felt the need to put up lotion dispensers, i will never understand... - Fri May 25, 03:46:00 PM CDT


text:
Most entrepreneurs struggle with many startup founders quandaries in building their business, and these key dilemmas are probably the biggest source of pain and failure for the entrepreneur lifestyle. People may jump into the lifestyle to be their own boss, achieve great wealth, start a new trend, or all the above. The dilemma is that these goals are usually mutually exclusive.
For example, is the person who starts a new trend likely to be the one who controls it through the growth phase? In a famous Harvard study of 212 new ventures a few years ago, USC professor Noam Wasserman found that half the founders were no longer at the helm after three years, and over time 80% were forced out. That's not an attractive statistic if you crave control and power.
Don't wait for the harsh reality of the demanding business world to start thinking about these tradeoffs. The research from Wasserman and others outlines the following top ten dilemmas that every founder needs to deal with sooner or later in their career as an entrepreneur:
- The make money or serve humanity dilemma. Your great idea for the next Facebook may make you wealthy, but it probably won't help the hungry. The answer is to look hard inside yourself, to see what makes you happy and satisfied. If living on Ramen noodles while you make the world a better place is fine, skip the investors and growth race.
- The right time to start dilemma. The right time to jump is a function of favorable career, personal, and market circumstances. While it's unlikely that all three of these will ever be true at the same time, most experts don't recommend jumping at the first opportunity, but first gaining some skill, financial, and business experience first.
- The founding team size dilemma. Should you start a company solo or find co-founders to help you? With one or more co-founders, you gain complementary skills, spread the workload and responsibilities, and reduce the risk. The downside is loss of control and financial dilution. In my view, two heads are always better than one.
- The cofounder relationship dilemma. While long-time social friends and family may seem like the natural choice for co-founders and team members, these relationships often get in the way of hard business decisions or necessary business adjustments. Old co-workers or new friends with complementary skills usually make the best partners.
- The founder's title and role dilemma. Usually, cofounders expect to get a C-level title associated with their area of interest, like CFO for the financial expert. Make sure these titles are handed out only to people who are willing and able to accept the responsibility and workload of the associated role. It's tough to downgrade titles and roles later.
- The compensation model dilemma. Every founding member wants to be compensated richly for the risk and the unknown. You have very little money, and you don't want to give away your equity. Recognize that the best people don't work for free. Giving equity is realistic, but base it on contribution and role, with vesting after time and milestones.
- The right investors and the right time dilemma. You don't want to take money from friends and family, but it's too early for angel investors and VCs. No one wants to put in money until you have a product, and you need money to build the product. Bootstrap if you can otherwise climb the pyramid of family, friends, angels, and VCs.
- The right motivated employees dilemma. Very early, you need generalists who can cover multiple areas, but you can't pay for experience. Later you need specialists and managers. Offer low cash early, with bonuses or stock options for milestones, to people in your personal network. Later use LinkedIn and other job sources for professionals.
- The founder succession dilemma. Startups are usually founded by product or service experts who don't enjoy the various growth phases. Should the founder keep the company small, try to adapt, or step aside in favor of a seasoned business executive? Transition to a specialist role, plan to exit, be prepared to be pushed out, or plan to fail.
- The control and growth dilemma. If you take investor money, expect a push for hockey-stick growth and a liquidity event, like going public (IPO) or sale (M&A), to get the payback. If you prefer a private company with organic growth, keep control within friends and family, and prepare for the long haul. Otherwise exit and startup with another idea.
Not facing these dilemmas squarely and honestly is one of the biggest pitfalls facing every entrepreneur. You can't have it all, just like your startup can't be all things to all customers. You have to focus on the things you can do and love to do and do them better than anyone else. Turn these top ten dilemmas into your strengths, and you will have a competitive advantage, as well as the fun and satisfaction you sought to find in the entrepreneur lifestyle.


text:
The exhibition (and the book launch) of Famille Summerbelle and Terre et Montagne opened yesterday at Doux Dimanche (Aoyama area). We had a wonderful evening organized by the girls at the gallery. It was such a pleasure to meet many lovely people who knew about my work. My mum was also delighted to show her work for the first time in Tokyo. The exhibition will continue for another couple of weeks.
We only have a day left in Tokyo before we fly back to Paris on Friday. Our week here has gone so fast but it feels like we've been away for a long time as we've done so much. We had such an amazing time. I am also happy to go home to see the children and hug them (ah! I've been missing the cuddles).


text:
Verdict: Touchdown!
By James J. Mangraviti, Jr. & Steven Babitsky (Falmouth, MA: SEAK Inc. 2012). 376 pgs. $130. Order, www.store.seak.com.
Reviewed by Richard H. Ebbott
The need for expert witnesses in law practice has greatly increased in recent years. Generally, expert testimony is allowed when without it a jury would be unable to understand the subject matter or when the expert testimony would otherwise be helpful to the jury. In addition to explaining complex subjects, experts perform the tests on which they base their opinions. If your opponent hires an expert, you need to hire an expert too, if for nothing more than the nullifying effect of opposing experts.
I've used experts many times. In a homicide case, experts testified concerning the distance from the gun to the victim to prove which of two shooters fired the fatal shot. Sometimes an expert is necessary for the technology rather than the opinion. Sometimes the opposing expert is so convincing that the case settles.
The following books are available for review. Please request the book and writing guidelines from Wisconsin Lawyer managing editor Karlé Lester, at email@example.com or (608) 250-6127. Reviews of about 500 words are due within 45 days of receiving the book.
At other times, an expert may be needed because the subject matter is unusual. In one case, the plaintiff fell off a horse when part of the saddle broke. My expert testified that the saddle was not defective when sold but later was subjected to severe stress, probably by a horse trying to get it off. In another case, experts disputed whether my client was negligent in the way he saddled his horse; one expert said the horse's actions were merely a consequence of the hazards of being around horses.
How To Prepare Your Expert Witness For Deposition is a comprehensive and excellent resource, from the executive summary in chapter 1 to the sample questions as a summation to the index. I found the practice pointers in each chapter of particular value. I agree with the authors that having an expert answer a general question with a "headline" and then follow up with "bullet points" should be employed with every expert, every time. This not only gives the expert a way to deal with opposing counsel, but in this world of visual images and sound bites, it is effective in getting the message across to listeners and to readers, whether the deposition is read by opposing counsel, a judge, or an attorney in some form of alternative dispute resolution.
Although most lawyers use expert witnesses, we do not invest the time or money recommended by the authors and we probably have not hired anyone to prepare our experts for us. Therefore, chapter 5, "Deposition Advice for your Expert Witness," might be of particular benefit. I also enjoyed the portions of the book that warn against educating opposing counsel. Although opposing counsel usually knows everything anyway, it is sound advice for working with your expert so nothing is unnecessarily divulged. Other subjects in the book include where to conduct the deposition, what the expert should wear, the expert's demeanor, what to expect from opposing counsel, how to deal with difficult or trick questions, and how the deposition fits into your case.
It would be helpful to have the book's voluminous information ranked in priority order so readers could determine how much is needed in a particular case. Also useful would be guidelines for evaluating your own expert when you are preparing for deposition, as would be more discussion about experts' handling of visual effects such as photographs, charts, and graphs. Finally, perhaps a short discussion of when to get outside help in preparing your expert would be useful.
Depositions are a fact of life in a litigation practice. Experts are involved in much of that litigation. I recommend using this book for its stated purpose and then using it to critique your own experts after they have been deposed. Finally, I would turn everything around and use the book as an aid to prepare for the depositions of your opposition's expert.
Richard H. Ebbott, U.W. 1967, formerly a Rock County assistant district attorney, practices law in Flint, Mich., primarily doing civil trial work.
Verdict: Not for Me, Maybe for You
By Jean-Francois Blanchette (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2012). 276 pgs. $30. Order, mitpress.mit.edu.
Reviewed by Jeffrey J. De La Rosa
Although a relatively short read, this is a very dense book that provides an overview of cryptographic history and the problems and possible solutions regarding the lack of widespread adoption and evidentiary acceptance of digital signatures (aside from the context of package-delivery and retail purchases). The book, full of technical jargon and complex mathematics, appears to have academics and cryptography professionals as its target audience. It explores the evidentiary challenges that exist as technology advances and paper documents disappear or are converted to digital format at some point in their life cycles.
Using digital signatures as a case study, Blanchette examines the evidentiary problems and barriers to societal and legal acceptance of digital signatures and online documents. The author points out that signatures on paper documents have evolved to be a cornerstone of government and law (and bureaucracies), and then discusses why digital signatures have not yet gained similar widespread legal acceptance despite digital signature technology having existed for many years.
The first two chapters introduce cryptography and its history from the Greek and Roman empires through secrecy efforts of the warring nations in World War II to present-day efforts to secure data and communication.
The book then describes various revolutions in cryptography and how those revolutions failed, in spite of mathematical certainty and security, to establish widespread acceptance and trust in cryptography. There is intense discussion of mathematics as the basis for current cryptography, which is much more attractive and secure than previous efforts at securing digital information. Then the author discusses efforts at producing a digital equivalent to written signatures, the secure, algorithm-based digital signature, and other complex mathematical functions.
The final two chapters discuss the fact that law, government, and life have built processes and trust around the use of paper and signatures on paper as evidence of various transactions. The author ends with his thoughts on how to move forward in the digital realm by connecting with the physical realm and taking lessons from it.
This is not a how-to book on how to get society to further accept electronic documents or how to litigate concerning or lobby for or against digital documents or signatures. What the book does do effectively is highlight the complexity of paper and signatures and argue that moving to digitized documents and signatures necessarily requires understanding those philosophical and psychological underpinnings. Blanchette strongly urges using that understanding to guide efforts to establish an evidentiary framework based on current math-based cryptography.
Jeffrey J. De La Rosa, U.W. 1999, is an attorney with the State Public Defenders Office in Jefferson.
Verdict: It's a Keeper
By Hillary Bell Locke (Scottsdale, AZ: Poisoned Pen Press, 2012). 258 pgs. $24.95 (hardback), $14.95 (paperback). Order, www.poisonedpenpress.com.
Reviewed by Dianne Post
Jail Coach was a fun, fast read that took me zipping down a lot of alleys on a quiet Christmas Eve. The main character is a very likeable detective of sorts, and the dialogue is quite clever and funny. The line, "Coming to me for advice about chicks is like asking George W. Bush to help you with your particle physics homework" had me in stitches for some time – and still does.
The schemes seem at times a bit too clever. Although I have never been a criminal defense attorney or prosecutor, I don't consider myself naïve about the criminal world: I did work on domestic violence and trafficking in Russia, Ukraine, and Albania after all. Some of the references and scams, nevertheless, went over my head until many pages had passed, but maybe that's a good thing. Some books are entirely too transparent.
The beginning is a little talky, with too much description of people we don't yet know or care about, but the author soon picks up the pace. Some transitions could be smoother. Characters do some stupid things – but then people do. The political messages, while subtle, will turn off some readers – as they did me – but the ultimate message is a positive one. It's a good winter-night-at-the-fireplace-with-a-cup-of-hot-cocoa kind of enjoyable read.
Dianne Post, U.W. 1979, practiced family law for 20 years and for the last 12 has primarily worked on international human rights related to sexual and gender-based violence.


text:
No Products in the Cart
Pinkfresh Studio Clear Stamps Artistic Magnolias
Hesitating on expanding your stamp line. Don't be! Pinkfresh Studio offers fun trendy stamps, dies, and paper collections for your paper crafting needs. They are the new and happening brand that you must watch out for.
• March 2023 Release
• Perfectly coordinates with Artistic Magnolias die set
AVAILABLE OFFERS (3 Available)+


text:
How to Sell My Stuff on eBay
The popular auction site eBay sees billions of dollars in sales each year. From books and clothes to cars and real estate, sellers can place almost anything on the market. If you want to start generating profits from your cast-off belongings, here is basic guide to selling your stuff on eBay:
Abide by the rulesYou will have to create a seller account before you can start listing items. Once you are ready to start, note that eBay has a set of regulations that make sure sellers stay responsible and within the limits of the law. The seller policy is primarily concerned with prohibited or restricted items, as well as goods that may infringe upon intellectual property rights.
Choose a smart price Once you have chosen what to sell, you should decide on a starting price. A quick search can show you the general price range for similar items. eBay even allows you to search completed listings, so you know exactly the amount paid for these items. Note that heavy objects will increase shipping costs, which may deter someone from bidding. eBay will charge you an insertion fee, which can range from a few cents to several dollars depending on your starting price and whether you want to auction or sell at a fixed price. For auctions, this fee is waived for the first 50 listings each month, but you should be aware of it if you intend to start a full-fledged eBay business.
Take bright picturesPeople are taking a risk when they bid on anything, but a clear picture will minimize that risk for them. If possible, include a catalog or runway photo of the item. eBay recommends taking photos with natural light or evenly distributed artificial light, which will both take brighter photos than a camera flash. You should also take pictures from multiple angles. Depending on what you are selling, you may want to include a common object in the picture to help the bidders gauge size. Someone auctioning a locket may want to include a dime or quarter for comparison. If you are selling clothing, you want to show how the clothes hang on a human model, dress stand or hanger. Write a clear descriptionWhen shoppers browse eBay, they are often faced with a huge list of options. A clear and appealing title can help someone spot your item easily. The best way to choose a listing title is to imagine yourself performing the search. Use the words that you would type into the search bar. Try to use standard phrases: while it may sound poetic to list vintage pants as "trousers," it will also be harder to find. eBay has set an 80-character limit on titles, so you have to pack a lot of information in a little space. Avoid punctuation, which will only use up characters. Prioritize important details like era, color, size or a relevant brand name. If you still have room left over, include a jazzy adjective to describe your item.
"Watch List" and "Buy It Now" eBay offers options for people who do not want to commit right away and for those who just want to buy items immediately. While viewing an auction, the bidder can add the listing to a "Watch List." This list allows the bidder to keep track of the auction without bidding. As the seller, you can view how many people are watching your item, which gives you a gauge for the amount of general interest. If you know exactly the price you wish to sell an item, you can list it with a "Buy it Now" option, which allows buyers to pay a fixed price instead of going through the whole auction.
After the auction Once the auction ends, you can send an invoice to the winning bidder. eBay requires you to offer at least one method of electronic payment, and the most convenient, although fee-filled way, to be paid is PayPal. After all of your auctions, contact the buyers, thank them and let them know when you will ship out the item. eBay's feedback system rates the quality of sellers and buyers. Leave positive feedback if everything went well, and wait for their positive feedback in return. If your item did not sell, simply try again, perhaps with a lower price or better pictures.


text:
All snug on the passenger seat, camera was charged and ready for my first Photo Safari in almost a year. Within ten minutes, I hit the brakes. A mirage, of sorts?
I didn't leave the driver's seat and let the car idle on a divided highway in a safe lane that served as a shoulder. While I snapped away, a Charlotte Mecklenburg police officer thought I was worth watching. Heh. He pulled in front of me slowly and made a California stop before a slow right turn, as an invitation for me to follow. I followed and stopped again on the wrong side of the tiny side street to get a snapshot of the most obnoxious male Belted Kingfisher I've ever met! CMPD officer parked his cruiser on the proper side of the road ahead of me, waiting for me to make another wrong move or to drive by to get my tag. Heh.
The cop completely ruined my outing. How could I concentrate on Hooded Mergansers while being stalked? I work with police officers and adore them. However, fuming and feeling more irritated than threatened, I left the scene and gave him no reason to run my tag. Truth is, I can't break my habit of creating my own parking spaces in the wrong places but they are always safe, they work for me, and no one gets hurt. I see beautiful Hawks on dead tree limbs and wires! Illegal stopping? Maybe. Never illegal parking. On my way home, I mumbled something about cops, donuts, and too much spare time.
Later I returned to a designated parking spot and visited them on foot to find the whole freaky family of Black Vultures had moved the raccoon off the road. Vultures are awesome creatures that have an important job and do it well, although they're more disgusting than I care to think about. I wish these were the lovely Turkey Vulture faces, for dear Lynne.
No apparent aggression. There are usually one or two guards. Then there is the vulture-style "changing of the guards" so everyone can eat.
"Uh, dudes and dudettes… lady approaching. Rev your reflux."
It's never a good idea to scare a Vulture. I backed up and thanked them for a great photo-shoot.
The safari ended in my back yard. The birds don't know me or trust me like they did in recent years and scram as soon as I step one foot on the back deck.
Why bother repeating what I've already done? I have taken at least a dozen Male Cardinal photographs much better than this one.
I challenge myself. I want better, that's all.
Without a new, more sophisticated camera, my shots are boring me. So, why bother?
Ha! I don't have the intellect or time for a more sophisticated camera. Excellent books I own on photography wait for me to read beyond the inside front covers. Will I ever leave the safe haven I've found in "auto" mode? I hope so.
It's warm enough for them to dine, still. The weather today is all wrong.
I love gazing at my foot-long, nameless pets.
My favorite photo of 2011. A grasshopper.
Greet the most cooperative grasshopper in Charlotte, taken in August from my backyard beach chair. I'll eventually frame this one.
Back to the law enforcement issue.
First responders are part of my biological family as well as my work-related family and I respect, admire, and give thanks to all of them. Perhaps this one CMPD officer thought I might need assistance. But come on!
Isn't there enough criminal gumbo to police in Charlotte instead of stalking a blonde female in a red car who wants her Photo Safari mojo back?