moverfive

Long-winded explanation as to what is going on here..... I think he is referring to UMTS/HSDPA. Right now Cingular, T-Mobile, and any of other GSM based carriers are at crossroad. While GSM is great for voice and limited data usage (due to its medium speed), to take it to the next generation of data speeds they will have to build out a NEW, separate network called UMTS (aka W-CDMA, which is not Verizon's CDMA). Again, this will be a NEW network - so these carriers will have multiple networks in operation - TDMA, GSM, and UMTS. Whereas Verizon, Sprint, and the other CDMA based carriers only operate one (well, Sprint has two, the second for former Nextel). This is why Verizon has been winning the "network wars." Maintaining and improving one network is easier than multiple ones. This is why all of the hype with Cingular going to UMTS - this will eventually be their one and only network. Anyway, Verizon and Sprint are in the process of upgrading to 1x-EVDO (I think that is the acronymn) which is about 3x - 4x faster than their (and Cingular's) current speeds. Cingular will be immediately upgrading their UMTS network to HSDPA and eventually HSUPA (download and upload). Based on the available spectrum and equipment, this network will be equal (and possibly exceed) to T1 speeds. In reality, this network will give 400-700kbs throughput because of current spectrum limitations. So to answer your question more directly - I am assuming the "new type" of PC card is referring to HSDPA. I know some computer manufacturers are going to be integrating these cards into their systems. Just understand that this new network is going to initially be launched primarily in metro areas - it is going to take a little time to get the wider availability that EDGE currently offers.

They do on my plan; the old AT&T->Cingular "$24.99 Unlimited data" plan-- any tethering is extra, and even sometimes when I'm not tethering, they still charge me for it, so then I have to decide if I want to call and bitch about 17 cents. Yeah, I just checked with the guy over data about costs for tethering and he said that there was a period where they tried to restrict actual internet type usage via a phone and therefore might have had charges or even tried to outright restrict. But on current plans, that is no longer the case. Those older "unlimited" plans were really meant to be for data used on the phone itself (mMode or Media net) and not PC type usage. So yeah, you could be charged for tethering with an old plan.

In the case of Cingular's network, it is all EDGE now. But if you use your phone as the means to connect, you will typically get slower speeds that you would if you used a PCMCIA card (also, if you are using a phone that isn't EDGE capable, then you will only connect using GPRS). And if the signal quality isn't wonderful, that would also degrade your throughput - so it would seem that you are only getting GPRS rates even when connected via EDGE. So depending on the combination of equipment and signal - throughput could vary dramatically. But with that said, Cingular doesn't charge extra if you use your phone to connect as opposed to a dedicated PC card - just charge for the amount of data consumed based on your plan.

Yes, the cards they are referring to require a SIM. And yes, if you are planning on using your computer on the internet with the normal volume that you would normally use if connected to a cable or DSL modem, then odds are a 'limited' mb plan would be too small. And for Cingular - the speeds are going to depend on the card you have. The are a lot of older cards out there that are not EDGE capable. But if you have a newer one (typically a Sony Ericsson), then it is probably EDGE. So if you are using Cingular with an EDGE card, you should be getting anywhere from 100 - 140kb/sec throughput. The new network that has been launched is UMTS and then HSDPA - initially, this network will give about 400 - 700kb/sec. The capability of this network exceeds 14mb/sec - but given limitation of network support and spectrum, I think 1mb/sec will be closer to reality in the near future - still, about 10 times faster than EDGE.

But them are some PRETTY pennies! Very well said..... The one comment that I would be curious to hear opinions on. Going back about 10 or so years ago, we had LOTS of sponsored shooters - with varying levels of support. With that additional support, we were able to practice more, attend more matches, and therefore be a little more on top of our game. All of this because some of the funds, equipment, and/or assistance was provided AND there was a little added pressure to perform. Now that sponsorships are fewer and far between, could part of the lack of success (I hate to use that term because I don't believe it) that Leatham referred to be because the US has reduced the NUMBER of top shooters that are able to treat this like a second job, which I think is somewhat applicable, or...... ......have the international crowd just caught up and are now giving the US shooters REAL competition with an equal chance of winning? I think both is the case. Which brings us back to the point - are the type of matches that the US shoots really off-base? I don't think so. But I think after reading all of these opinions stated, there is room for improvement, but don't sacrifice the fun aspect to satisfy the smaller crowds (and Ron Avery).

Everyone should have that kind of problem - choosing between Benny and Bob. Kind of like which color Mercedes to get. Having had Benny's guns for such a long time, I can definitely attest to the great quality of them. One of the things I like about Benny's guns - what you are buying is what you want in a gun - reliability and performance. While his guns are nice looking, he doesn't spend the time (and your money) on things that you don't need.

But Again, how do you you determine "engaging" and who do you appeal to? It should have been Virginia! You would have to watch the shooter to determine if they actually engaged - which simply means making a legitimate attempt to put one round on each target. Comstock/Virginia or Stacking or not stacking - it doesn't matter. The people that are going to get the highest hit factor on this stage (excluding that miracle run) will shoot this straight-forward. Because you have to make a legitimate attempt to shoot each target, it is a waste of time to double up on one of the passes. For classifiers, you can game, strategize, and whatever else you want - you will get the best hit factor on 99.9% of the classifiers by just shooting them straight. If you have shooters that want to get crazy, let them. They won't change the overall results or their classification.

This sport, which for 99.99% of its participants, is only a hobby. And the organizations, suppliers, and anyone else that makes their living by supporting this hobby has to cater to needs and wants of the hobby's participants - because the customer is spending their discretionary money. And this is where the conflicts begin - not many folks are going to spend $3,000+ on equipment and then travel miles and miles to shoot a bunch of stand-and-shoots. I think making comparisons of yesterday and today aren't very good. Mainly because the sport today has gotten used to 'run and gun' stages.....you don't miss what you never had, well, we now have 'had.' So how do you combine better testing of shooter's skill and fun stages? In my opinion you don't have to go back very far. The biggest difference between stages today and say 12 ago is the distance you find most targets. It was not uncommon back then to find a few 35-yard targets, 25-yard poppers scattered throughout field courses (granted this specific examples were from the '93 nationals when open guns ruled the day). So while we were still running around shooting 30+ round stages, you had to stop once in a while and actually aim at something. The stages were fun, high round count, and you had to aim...sounds like a winner to me. Over the course of a bunch of stages, I would say you tested many shooting skills and the ability to consistently perform those skills. But more importantly, they were fun. I just think if you put too many low round count stages, stand-and-shoots, and other "boring" type of stages in a match, participation and new membership will suffer. Do not read that to mean I foretell doom and gloom for USPSA. I am just saying that I don't think those type of stages encourage someone to spend their discretionary money. So at the end of the day the questions really boil down to - does USPSA want to "sell-out" in order to speak and cater to the masses? Or would they prefer to cater to a very specific type (lower number) of shooters? I think you can have some of both. Granted I don't think my idea of "both" would pass full muster with Robby or Ron. But that is why Hopalong has his signature.

Think of 'dry fire' as theory. You have to eventually put that theory to reality. The two aren't necessarily going to be the same. So to dry fire and then not do the same drill on live fire - you are missing something. Case and point - when I do dry fire, I set the timer .2 seconds faster than what I want to do in reality. For example, if I want a 1.00 draw, I dry fire with a .8 benchmark. For me, reality says that it takes me .2 seconds longer in live fire over dry fire results......but if I were to try and match my dry fire times in a match, I would probably end up being the official taper boy for my squad. .....something to think about.

This question is really two parts. Performance at a match and how do you practice. The simplest comparison is trying to run a mile in four minutes. If I were to take two "equal" people and had one ONLY train/run at the fastest pace that they can run TODAY.....and the other pushes himself to the point to where the first time he tries he cannot finish the mile without having to take a break. After the two have been training for a month, guess what will happen when we finally put these together for a race? The one that has been pushing himself is probably going to win because the other guy hasn't improved.....he has been running the same pace since day one. My point is to practice hard. As long as you are still seeing your sights, even if you miss or have no-shoots, you aren't shooting too fast, just that you aren't used to that speed yet. But when you do shoot a real match, you only shoot at a speed where mistakes/misses are taken out of the equation. But what you will find is that your natural pace has been increased from your hard practice. So while you may be running 90% of your practice speed.....I would argue that that 90% was faster than your previous 100%.

Well said Ron! I haven't gotten my Front Sight yet, but having shot with Avery a few times in the past, I agree he prefers a more "simplified" type of stage. So I can understand why he doesn't like some stages being shot today. USPSA has evolved into more of a "gun-ride," if you will. If given a choice, how many people would prefer to shoot stages like the waterfall stage at the MS Classic or a modified/expanded classifier type of stage? Purists probably would probably prefer the latter and hence what helped form IDPA. And while I don't think anyone will disagree that a good match should test all-around shooting skills......I still say that a good match will be fun first, difficult second. Assuming that the targets aren't two feet away, over the course of 8 to 10 stages, you will be testing a lot of skills. So design the stage with fun in mind first, then difficulty second. So if that result is 'bubble gum,' so be it.

.....welcome to the club. You think I feel like a GM?????

Hey Shred, think we may have a common friend in Marisa Hogan.....at least I think you shot with her in Panama. Nice lady. I hope I can continue doing half of what she is doing when I get close to her age. Now my real question to anyone on the "know." On the HHF's, how are these hit factors actually determined today, not in theory but in reality?? And by that I know they are supposed to be averaging the top scores, blah, blah. But if they are averaging, I am then assuming that they are averaging ALL scores received - meaning primarily the local results where it was shot 100 times and the one miracle run was turned in. I am asking because I have shot some classifiers that I thought were solid runs, maybe not GM runs, but good runs.....and yet, I didn't even crack into the 80's! But unfortunately for me, the opposite has also been true....I have the same 'solid run' that was 107% of the HHF. The HHF's just don't seem to be very consistent and so was just wondering how they are actually determined.

Make that "3 others are on the way" from this area...... ....just got mine mailed off.

Mr. Sam, way to go! Congratulations!

According to who you ask, there is a rule for that..... .....by most definitions (I say that from two previous arbritrations similar to this) - the course descriptions says to engage the targets. And to many that definition means to make a legitimate attempt to put at lease one round on each required target. The key to this is 'legitimate attempt.' Whether you hit the target or not is immaterial. But for most RO's, you have to look like you really did try.....and therefore, dumping into the berm will probably not pass that smell test.

I just mailed it in!!!!

he can help you out on your remodeing l too! Guess I had better hurry up and get my application in! Remodeling? Are talking about Excel or the fact that I didn't know what a backsplash was???

One of the best answers as to the difference in shooting a local match versus a real match came from JoJo a few years back. His answer was to shoot local matches at 110% and then when you shoot a real match, back it off some. Now at first, I didn't really understand what he was saying and therefore this method didn't really work for me. But now I think I do understand the theory. I now shoot local matches as practice. So I shoot locals a little more aggressive/experimental. But because it is a match and you only have one shot at a stage, I don't get crazy and risk a complete trashing. The end result is that my timing is increased and I learn what I can and cannot do at certain speeds. Then when I get to a real match, I shoot my dot. And by that I mean I get a little more deliberate in watching my dot. But because my timing and confidence was increased from local match practice, I am still able to move through a stage at a quick pace WHILE being more deliberate with my shots. In other words, the dot is slowing me down below that 110% I shoot at locals. But my ending pace is faster than what it would have been if I ONLY shot at one level. And that is what I think JoJo was meaning to say initially. Something to think about.

Google's e-mail service is definitely one of the best..... .....I really think it is MUCH better than any of the other online e-mail services. Plus it is POP, allows forwarding, and has 2.6G of storage (and growing). So I use it with both Outlook and Thunderbird....but because it is online too, I get access to the e-mail from everywhere (phone, blackberry, and etc) when you aren't near your computer - even the stuff sent via Outlook. And in the year of so I have had gmail, I probably haven't received 10 pieces of spam. Plus, as long as Google doesn't go out of business, you won't have to worry about ever changing your e-mail address again.

Make this a guessing game, huh? Well, since Johnny is already a four-timer, he was my logical guess. However, I have never seen him touch a revolver.....so that might be my guess-breaker. Will just have to wait and see, huh?

I am assuming you are refering to Mr. Brister???? And what happened to your hand?????

Congrats John! Yeah, you might want to start buying his guns now while you are still financially able AND the wife allows you to. I hear them things get quite expensive, kids that is.

As I stated when Bruce first asked if anybody had concerns or whatever with the proposed IPSC rulebook and then the follow-up concerns about having a waiver and therefore a separate USPSA rulebook - I still say that the US should not be requesting a waiver, we should be demanding a waiver. Without the US, IPSC would only be a shadow of what it is today. As as Jim specifically pointed out, do we want to lose our current divisions and/or make radical changes to some (i.e. limited vs standard) in order to completely follow IPSC? I believe that it is these divisions and other specific rules that are not within IPSC have that have played a significant part in the reason USPSA has been growing in the past few years. So as I stated in an earlier post - USPSA itself needs to understand why we are growing and we are enjoying the success we have today......and THEN see if those answers perfectly match the IPSC rulebook. If not, then we should make it very clear that these are the rules we will operate under - either change the IPSC rulebook or give USPSA a waiver. We should not be "requesting" or limiting ourselves for the sole reason to conform with IPSC.

Congratulations!