How to Learn Which of Your Site's Posts Have Been Dugg

Posted on by
Comment

Satisfy your curiosity.

I wondering how many of my posts have been dugg and decided to try searching the digg Web site for the answer. It wasn’t difficult. Here’s how.

  1. Use your Web browser to visit http://www.digg.com/search to display the Search Digg form.
    Searching Digg for a URL
  2. Enter the domain name or starting path for your blog in the big Search box.
  3. Choose URL Only from the first drop-down list.
  4. Choose All Stories from the second drop-down list.
  5. Choose From All Time from the third drop-down list.
  6. Click Search.

Digg searches through its archives and displays a list of posts from your blog that have been dugg, along with the number of diggs.

It’s as simple as that.

Twitter / johnedwards

Posted on by
Comment

A Web 2.0 campaign.

It’s really out of control. All the candidates interested in appealing to younger, hipper voters have begun using Web 2.0 technology to reach the masses.

John Edwards is doing it with Twitter.

Twitter — in case you don’t know — is a relatively new Web service that’s like a huge chat room. You enter your comment about what you’re doing at that very moment and it appears in a public timeline, which is automatically refreshed every 2 minutes. The result: an almost live list of what twitterers all over the world are doing.

John Edwards has a twitter account, and although he doesn’t bore us with regular reports of what he’s eating and thinking and watching on television every five minutes (like many other twitters do), it isn’t exactly interesting reading. (Actually, none of it is.) But he’s got over 1,000 “friends” on Twitter who watch his twitting — is that the right word? — and they might just vote for him.

Any thoughts on Twitter? I’d like to read them. Use the comments link.

I’d also like to read opinions about other political candidates and their Web 2.0 efforts.

And if you’d like to read the drivel I’m adding to Twitter, you can find it here.

Blog for Money?

Posted on by
1

Yeah. Right.

Today I had my last correspondence with the folks at yet another blog-for-money Web site.

It’s a new trend. Someone with a server and bandwidth and a Google Adsense account starts a multi-blog site. They lure in bloggers who’d like to be paid for their blogging efforts. They get these people to contribute original content to the blogs, which are just jam-packed with Google Adsense ads, and sit back to collect the revenue, giving a portion of the proceeds to these bloggers.

They tell you up front that you’re paid based on the ad revenue earned by your blog or topic or “channel.” They even admit that you won’t get 100% of the money. Sometimes they hint at how much you could earn. They always tell you how little work you’ll have to do.

You sign up and go at it, meeting your obligations. But because the blog is poorly promoted, no one visits except your fellow bloggers. And they don’t click ad links. And let’s face it: blog readers have lots of blogs to read. Launching a new blog by yourself is no small feat, especially when the blog’s format is set in stone and obviously created to display the maximum number of ads.

So there’ s no revenue on the 50-100 hits you can expect each week.

The end result: a complete waste of your time.

I know this firsthand. I bought into one of these schemes and almost bought into another. Fortunately, the first one taught me a lesson. (Too bad I came up with such a nice domain name for these folks to register.) The one I worked for had more window real estate dedicated to ads than content. That should have been a good hint at what it was all about. I’ll be clearing out all my content later this week. They can find some other sucker to add fresh content to the site.

Have you been tempted or even lured in by one of these schemes? If so, I’d like to hear from you. Use the Comments link to tell your tale. You don’t need to get specific with domain names or other details. But you can if you like. Just let the rest of us know what’s out there.

Understanding Engineers

Posted on by
1

Some engineer jokes.

My friend Stan sent me these.

Understanding Engineers – Take One

Two engineering students were walking across a university campus when one said, “Where did you get such a great bike?”

The second engineer replied, “Well, I was walking along yesterday, Minding my own business, when a beautiful woman rode up on this bike, threw it to the ground, took off all her clothes and said, “Take what you want.”

The second engineer nodded approvingly and said, “Good choice; the clothes probably wouldn’t have fit you anyway.”

Understanding Engineers – Take Two

To the optimist, the glass is half full.

To the pessimist, the glass is half empty.

To the engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

Understanding Engineers – Take Three

A priest, a doctor, and an engineer were waiting one morning for a particularly slow group of golfers.

The engineer fumed, “What’s with those blokes? We must have been waiting for fifteen minutes!”

The doctor chimed in, “I don’t know, but I’ve never seen such inept Golf!”

The priest said, “Here comes the greens keeper. Let’s have a word with Him.” He said, “Hello, George! What’s wrong with that group ahead of us? They’re rather slow, aren’t they?”

The greens keeper replied, “Oh, yes. That’s a group of blind fire fighters. They lost their sight saving our clubhouse from a fire last year, so we always let them play for free anytime.”

The group fell silent for a moment.

The priest said, “That’s so sad. I think I will say a special prayer for them tonight.”

The doctor said, “Good idea. I’m going to contact my ophthalmologist colleague and see if there’ s anything he can do for them.”

The engineer said, “Why can’t they play at night?”

Understanding Engineers – Take Four

What is the difference between mechanical engineers and civil engineers?

Mechanical engineers build weapons and civil engineers build targets

Understanding Engineers – Take Five

The graduate with a science degree asks, “Why does it work?”

The Graduate with an engineering degree asks, “How does it work?”

The Graduate with an accounting degree asks, “How much will it cost?”

The Graduate with an arts degree asks, “Do you want fries with that?”

Understanding Engineers – Take Six

Three engineering students were gathered together discussing the possible designers of the human body.

One said, “It was a mechanical engineer. Just look at all the joints.”

Another said, “No, it was an electrical engineer. The nervous system has many thousands of electrical connections.”

The last one said, “No, actually it had to have been a civil engineer. Who else would run a toxic waste pipeline through a recreational area?”

Understanding Engineers – Take Seven

Normal people believe that if it isn’t broke, don’t fix it.

Engineers believe that if it isn’t broke, it doesn’t have enough features yet.

Blogging the FARs: ELTs

Posted on by
13

What’s required…and what’s smart.

I recently got into a disagreement with another helicopter operator about the requirement for emergency locator transmitters (ELTs).

An ELT is a device that sends out a signal in the event of an unplanned landing or crash. Rescuers can use the signal to find the aircraft. Most ELTs are activated by impact, but they can also be manually turned on, either by a switch on the unit itself or a switch wired into the cockpit of the aircraft. My helicopter’s ELT has impact activation, a switch on the unit, and a switch inside the cockpit.

ELTAn ELT is a piece of equipment you hope you never need, but one you pray is working right when you do need it.

Who Needs It?

FAR Part 91.207 covers the requirement of an ELT. It starts out like this:

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section, no person may operate a U.S.-registered civil airplane unless–

(1) There is attached to the airplane an approved automatic type emergency locator transmitter that is in operable condition for the following operations, except that after June 21, 1995, an emergency locator transmitter that meets the requirements of TSO-C91 may not be used for new installations:

(i) Those operations governed by the supplemental air carrier and commercial operator rules of parts 121 and 125;

(ii) Charter flights governed by the domestic and flag air carrier rules of part 121 of this chapter; and

(iii) Operations governed by part 135 of this chapter; or

(2) For operations other than those specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, there must be attached to the airplane an approved personal type or an approved automatic type emergency locator transmitter that is in operable condition, except that after June 21, 1995, an emergency locator transmitter that meets the requirements of TSO-C91 may not be used for new installations.

This is the FAA’s way of saying that you can’t operate an airplane without an ELT attached unless the flight meets the requirements of paragraphs (e) and (f):

(e) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, a person may–

(1) Ferry a newly acquired airplane from the place where possession of it was taken to a place where the emergency locator transmitter is to be installed; and

(2) Ferry an airplane with an inoperative emergency locator transmitter from a place where repairs or replacements cannot be made to a place where they can be made.

No person other than required crewmembers may be carried aboard an airplane being ferried under paragraph (e) of this section.

(f) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to–

(1) Before January 1, 2004, turbojet-powered aircraft;

(2) Aircraft while engaged in scheduled flights by scheduled air carriers;

(3) Aircraft while engaged in training operations conducted entirely within a 50-nautical mile radius of the airport from which such local flight operations began;

(4) Aircraft while engaged in flight operations incident to design and testing;

(5) New aircraft while engaged in flight operations incident to their manufacture, preparation, and delivery;

(6) Aircraft while engaged in flight operations incident to the aerial application of chemicals and other substances for agricultural purposes;

(7) Aircraft certificated by the Administrator for research and development purposes;

(8) Aircraft while used for showing compliance with regulations, crew training, exhibition, air racing, or market surveys;

(9) Aircraft equipped to carry not more than one person.

(10) An aircraft during any period for which the transmitter has been temporarily removed for inspection, repair, modification, or replacement, subject to the following:

(i) No person may operate the aircraft unless the aircraft records contain an entry which includes the date of initial removal, the make, model, serial number, and reason for removing the transmitter, and a placard located in view of the pilot to show “ELT not installed.”

(ii) No person may operate the aircraft more than 90 days after the ELT is initially removed from the aircraft; and

(11) On and after January 1, 2004, aircraft with a maximum payload capacity of more than 18,000 pounds when used in air transportation.

Our argument centered around the point that this operator uses his helicopter for training, including cross-country flights in excess of 50 miles ((f)(3) above). So under the above rules, it seemed to me that he should be required to have an ELT on board. He argued that the rules applied to airplanes, not helicopters. And although the wording of the rule certainly supported his claim, I couldn’t believe that the FAA would exempt helicopters from the requirement.

So a few days later, while taking my Part 135 check ride, I asked my examiner. Actually, he asked me. And I told him about the disagreement I was having with my unnamed friend — I didn’t want to get him in trouble — and that I thought an ELT was required.

I was wrong. Helicopters are not required to have an ELT on board unless they’re doing Part 135 operations. [Note: The previous edit was made after a reader, Mark from Teterboro, confirmed that helicopters are not required to have ELTs, even for Part 135 operations. Read our discussion in the comments for this post to get the details. Thanks very much to Mark for taking the time to correct this.]

Personally, I think this is nutty. I wouldn’t dream of flying a helicopter some of the places I fly without that piece of potentially life-saving equipment on board. I don’t spend most of my flying time buzzing around a city or the suburbs where someone would notice a helicopter on the ground in their backyard or local park. I fly places where there aren’t paved roads for miles and miles. For example, on a straight-line flight from Wickenburg to Laughlin, NV, I fly over only two paved roads in a distance of 80 miles. And there ain’t many unpaved roads, houses, or even cows under me, either.

But the regs are the regs, so if my ELT broke or simply stopped functioning, I could continue to fly legally under part 91 as long as I wanted to. Would I do that? No.

The Rest of the Reg

Part 91.207 also covers requirements for mounting the ELT, testing it, and replacing its batteries. All of this maintenance stuff should be clearly logged in your Aircraft Log book, just in case someone comes along to take a peek at it — perhaps as part of a ramp check.

It’s another interesting example of how helicopter regulations differ from airplane regulations.