Digital_Cowboy

Do you have any evidance to back that claim up? The first thing I did when I got my GPSr was to turn on the WAAS, and I can't say as I've noticed it eating up the batteries with it on. When the batteries I've got in it finally "die" I think that when I put the new set in that I'll turn the WAAS off and see how long they last. Then when they "die" and I replace them I'll turn it back on and see how long they last. If there isn't any signfficant differance I'll just leave it on. Save your energy. Even though there is no proven meaningful additional battery drain added by the enabling of WAAS, there will always be a segment of the population that will never accept the fact. Since they have managed to convince themselves that WAAS actually delivers positional data that is LESS accurate that that which is obtained by using that portion of the technology. That is unless you get extreme pleasure out of banging your head against the proverbial brick and mortar. I just worry about the Nu Bees who see this crap. Team Cotati, Ok, thanks I'll just leave it on and not worry about it.

Good point, or say a person buys an empty lot. And instead of building a house they pitch a tent on their property. Does that make them "homeless" because they choose to live in a tent verus' an actual house???

Do you have any evidance to back that claim up? The first thing I did when I got my GPSr was to turn on the WAAS, and I can't say as I've noticed it eating up the batteries with it on. When the batteries I've got in it finally "die" I think that when I put the new set in that I'll turn the WAAS off and see how long they last. Then when they "die" and I replace them I'll turn it back on and see how long they last. If there isn't any signfficant differance I'll just leave it on.

Ok, that brings up a question that I have. Let's say that I go out and I hide a cache with my Garmin eTrex Legend. WITH WAAS enabled I have say a 10' accuracy reported by the unit. Does that mean that IF another cacher goes out and THEY have a Garmin eTrex Legend also with WAAS enabled and they're given a 10' accuracy. That they'll find my cache at the exact location that I posted?

If it were me, I'd rather someone steered me toward getting the help I needed instead of ignoring the issue. Veterans Village IS a place where homeless vets can go to have a roof over there heads as well as having the services of the VA made available to them. That aside, IF a person is homeless, and is not a danger to themself, or to others, or are not causing any damage to the area that they are living in, does anyone really have the right to forceably move them? Just because "we" feel that it is in their "best interest" to do so?

That was very well said.

Actually, you did chop out the first sentence, which made part of my point, so I will make it again. Do you really think that the people who maintain the arboretum don't already know that there is a homeless camp there? Don't you think that if the solution were as simple as you imply, the arboretum management wouldn't have had the homeless removed by now? It's amazing how a person's station in life can change the perception of their weaknesses. If you make $100,000 a year, get hooked on drugs or alcohol, and check yourself into a facility to clean up, your friends pat you on the back. When you come back, you are admired for your courage in dealing with the problem. If you are at the bottom of the social scale and get hooked on drugs or alcohol, there is no 28-day program, no health insurance, and those who are more fortunate blame you for your condition. Many homeless people are mentally ill, and are not capable of acting in their own best interests. Some have been schizophrenics since early adulthood. Some were once productive members of society, but fell on hard times. If you have never suffered severe depression, you may not be aware of how debilitating it is. The number of homeless in this country took an enormous jump in the 60s and 70s, when "deinstitutionalization" became the vogue in treating mental illness. Like many fads, it was taken too far. You right-wingers will be interested to read about how this movement began as a well-meaning, but misguided initiative of a liberal, Democratic administration. See this article. For an interesting article on a better approach, read this article. Let's also not forget that during that time that a LOT of Viet Nam vet's were coming home to cries of "baby killer" and being spat on by the very people that they were trying to defend and protect. And that a LOT of the homeless vet's are Viet Nam vet's. Men who when returning to "civilian" live did NOT get the the help that they needed upon being discharged from service.

Just because YOU don't "buy" the "there but for the grace of God go I." Does NOT make it any less true. Also keep in mind that there are quite a FEW people/families out there that ARE only one or two paychecks, OR a major illness/surgery away from being homeless. And trust me after working with the homeless vet's in the Tampa/St. Pete area for two wks I can tell you that the "there but for the grace of God go I" IS very true. As is the fact that a lot of them have been burned so many times by those claiming to want to help them that it is understandable that they would become cautious of trusting those who say that they want to help. NOT everyone who is homeless is so because of choice or because they've "given" up on society, BUT because society has given up on them.

Forgive me for mincing your post, but I think your point is still there. It has been said, that one of the problems with getting homeless persons the services that, unlike you and I, they need is that they exist out of the system. It often takes intervention to push these people to these services. Imagine a situation where these people are removed. They are taken to a shelter and are able to access services. Those that choose to accept these services get some hot meals and warm beds (and needed medical treatment). Some of those actually get back into an employable state. They get jobs (perhaps not great ones). Step by step, they get back on their feet and are no longer homeless. By ignoring the problem and letting the people squat, how are they being served? Aren't they better off getting the services that they need to get back on their feet? Maybe I'm not the heartless one in this thread.. And what IF they don't want to "come in for help?" Do we have the "right" to force them to do something that they don't want to do? And what about those who have come to learn that that "pretty nice lady" who is offering them a warm place to sleep, a hot meal and a check-up doesn't mean what she says? And that when "they're" done with them for the day drops them off 10, 20, 30, or more miles away from where they were living, and they've now lost the only "home" that they've come to know, but also all of their belongings? No, matter that to "us" that their "belongings" are nothing but "worthless trash." To them it is "all" that they own in the world and it is as important and valuable to them as "our" belongings are to us. So who are we to sit in "judgement" of their life or quality thereof. IF they pose no danger to themselves, or others, or the property on which they're living who are we to say that they are "wrong" for doing what they're doing? Also why do they "have" to go to where the services are? Why can't services go to them? The last year that I was in the Reserves back home in St. Pete, Fl. We didn't go out of state to do our two wks training. We set-up "camp" at Bay Pines and had as many of the area's homeless vet's come in for check-ups, and to let them know of the various services for them at the VA. I would have to say that as long as they do NOT pose a danger to themselves, and they do NOT pose a danger to those around them, and are NOT causing any damage to the area that they are living in. That we should just leave them alone.

I see no reason to assume that the arboretum management doesn't already know about the homeless people. Assuming that they do not, however, that leaves three choices: A) Remove the homeless people in order to protect a tupperware box full of trinkets that is part of a game being played by comfortable, middle-class geeks. B ) Remove the Tupperware box full of trinkets to a new location so as not to disrupt people who are barely able to survive. C) Leave both in place, but maybe let geocachers know that the land is occupied so they can approach with caution (and bring some bananas). While you are ponder those choices, ponder this, also. It is easy to look at homeless people and see them as not quite human--to think that they must be to blame for their own predicament--to think that you could never let yourself sink to that condition. But maybe--if the dice had rolled differently for you once or twice--you might not be so well off. Maybe less separates you from those people than you think. I don't know what the future holds for me. Considering that I work in the I/T industry, and Republicans are running the country, I guess I could end up sleeping in a refrigerator box under a bridge some day. But I am relatively certain that I will never sink low enough to go with option A. I think that "C" is the best choice. A friend of mine back in Tampa, Fl had a VERY good idea/suggestion for those who want money. Instead of just giving them money that most of "know" will "only" be used to by drugs or alchol with. Go to McD's, or BK's, etc. and get a book of gift certificates. Then when approached by someone who wants money. Give 'em a certificate.

I'd have to say that as long as they aren't making a nusance of themselves, and aren't bothering anyone, and aren't doing any damage to the property. Then why hassle them? I've known several Service Members who have ended up as homeless or would have without places like Veterans Village in Tampa, Fl. And yes, I know that there are plenty of "proffesional" homeless people out there, but there are also those who are homeless who don't want to be, but because of circumstances they are. And IF they are actually doing something to help maintain the area around them, then they should be appuladed for their efforts and not critized. Yes, I do know that there are also plenty out there who would just as soon "gut ya as look at ya." BUT you can run into that kind of a person just about anywhere you go these days. Digital Cowboy

Ya know that sounds like it's a lot more closer to the truth then most may realize. And it reminds me of something I read in 2600 a while back. It seems a gentleman was reading an issue of 2600 on a plane and an FA walked by him and saw an article about "hacking passport" and called security on him. He was guessing that she thought that it refered to the hacking of passports that people travel on. When it was really about MS' Hotmail "passport." I would have to think that sadly there are as many people who are as clueless to what a GPS is (and can do) as well as most consumer level electronics as there are who are as clueless as to what 2600 is and stands for. And just jump to erroneous conclusions. That "JUST" because it is something that they don't understand that it is somehow "BAD" and needs to be "locked" away. So as to keep the "good" people "safe. . ."

I guess the same person can tell 'em that Sprint, Cellar One, T-Mobil, etc. aren't going to turn off their towers either. . . ;-)

True, but sadly MS Streets & Trips WON'T tell you if you're off course. Delorme's Street Atlas will.

Has anyone hooked their GPS up to their laptop, and tried using it in conjuntion with say MS Streets & Trips while flying? Any ideas as to how say MS Streets & Trips would interpert that data??? I'd think that that should be an interesting track. . . Digital_Cowboy

Uh, "dumb question" time, BUT considering that GPSr's are recevers and not transmitters. JUST what kind of a "danger" do they present? I mean even IF a person's GPSr is turned off and in the carry on baggae AREN'T the GPS signals STILL being broadcast, and "intercepting" the airplane??? Digital_Cowboy

Ok, how do we go about doing that? Plug your GPS computer cable into the serial port. Make sure the GPS is set to use NMEA senteces. Go into S&T, on the menu click on tools:GPS:configure reciever and select the right serial port go back to tools:GPS: and select track position Make sure the GPS is on and can see some sats and you are ready to go. Thank you, very much.

Ok, how do we go about doing that?

StarBrand, I just checked Target's web site and they've got a $170.00 bundle. The bundle includes a carrying case, and an instructional video. Digital_Cowboy

briansnat, That's a $170.00 IF I walk into a Circuit City, it's $151 and change IF I order it online. Digital_Cowboy

$170.00 is not a real good price, tiger GPS has the legend for $143.00 Tigar GPS JohnnyVegas, Thanks for the link. It took a little looking but I found the Legend. What do you think of the Garmin eTrex Legend C for $293.07? It normally goes for about $375. Digital_Cowboy

VegasCacheHounds, I was at Garmin's web site and the data cable is still included. They want close to $200.00 stright from Garmin. If I go to Circuit City's web site I can order it for $150.00 and change. Digital_Cowboy

VegasCacheHounds, Thanks for the info. Do you ever hook your's up to a computer do d/l info into it? If so is it easy to do? Digital_Cowboy

I was wondering if the Garmin eTrex Legend™ Handheld GPS Receiver is a good first GPS Receiver? Circuit City has them on sale for about $170.00. Digital_Cowboy

quote:Originally posted by Gaddiel:I think this has been posted earlier in this thread, but here is a quote from Jeremy Irish on another similar thread: "Adult themed caches are considered off-limits to list on the web site. Geocaching.com considers the activity "family oriented," not "family creating." Not everyone reads the cache pages, so an "adult only" cache isn't appropriate for the sport. Besides, I'd apply the same reasoning regarding food in caches to adult toys." I agree completely. I agree that "Adult themed" caches should be considered off-limits, but again to suggest that a cache that is on or near a nudist/clothing optional facility is somehow an "adult themed" cache is a bit ludicris. As it has already been pointed out in this thread, the "Good Ole" USofA is about the only country in the "civilized" world that has a hang up over public/social nudity. I would like to suggest that IF there are anyone out there who have fallen "pry" to the myth that nudist are "sex addicts or exobishenests" that you go spend a weekend at a nudist/clothing optional facility and learn the truth for yourself. Digital_Cowboy