• latest news
  • Car tech
  • Cell phones and smartphones
  • Computers and hardware
  • Digital photo and video
  • Gadgets
  • Gaming
  • Green tech
  • Home theater
  • MP3 and portable video players
  • Televisions
• awards
  • Best of CES
  • People's voice
• video
• photos

About me

My posting summary

1 to 10 of 68

My comments

• It's about time carriers have real no-hands-tied plans. If I have my own phone and want service for it why do I need to pay the same as those that get the 'subsidized' phone and contract? Actually I'd like a pay-for-what-you-use data plan as well. I'm a gadget geek like the next guy but paying two broadband bills per month is a bit much. Of course this all depends on how much you'd use it and what that use is worth it to you. A personal proposition. I'm perfectly happy with my unlocked GSM quad band phone with a T-mobile togo plan. I would also happily pay per minute or MB for data usage but pre-paying $40 (or some amount like that) for the occasional web browse isn't worth it to me. In reply to: "Just how free will the Nexus One be?"

  December 31, 2009

  0 replies

• You are absolutely right. The setup 'wizard' is a scam. What are these people thinking over there? Is FB run by more than 1 minor? If I'd let the wizard to its thing it would have opened up all my information to far more people than it was before. I'm sure we'll get some mea culpa in a few weeks and they'll be laughing the board room as they just got millions and millions of people to open up their information more than they wanted to. In reply to: "How to fix Facebook's new privacy settings"

  December 10, 2009

  1 reply

• I would appreciate a 'pay for what you use' data plan. I wouldn't mind buying a smart phone (iphone, whatever) but I refuse to subsidize people who suck down gigs of video every day and pay the same while I read email and check an occasional web page. Unlimited should be unlimited. Charge accordingly so you can build a network that supports the phones you sell. But also offer a cheaper plan with either monthly caps or a free plan that charges by the MB. If ATT and others stick with current 'unlimited' pricing models then they'll have to build out their networks and increase prices accordingly.
  
  I use a T-mobile togo plan and pay $0.10 per minute when bought in $100 increments. Saved me hundreds in the last few years. I'd like a data plan like that. I don't think anyone offers that.
  
  Not everyone sits there glued to their smart phone. I don't think ATT is worried about the few thousand data hogs that will leave in indignation because their unlimited plans aren't so unlimited after all. These customers cost them money directly by consuming more than what they pay for *and* by turning of more moderate users who are not getting the service they expect. Throw data hogs under the bus and have many more happy customers. Do it publicly so people know ATT is serious about protecting the majority of their customers rather than catering to the extremists.
  
  Smart. In reply to: "AT&T considers incentives to curb heavy data usage"

  December 10, 2009

  0 replies

• I'm not sure why they bother with a pilot. Airplanes like this will always be slow and fragile. There is really no need for such an airplane to move people around. The real use is for unmanned, probably high flying, solar powered airplanes that can serve as comunication relays and other tasks that you'd typically use a satellite for. Recall the NASA project to build the Helios a few years ago (http://www.pvresources.com/en/helios.php).
  
  So this is cool and neat but not very useful, IMO. Perhaps their plan is to fly with a human pilot to work out the kinks and then turn it into a UAV. Seems it would be less risky and less expensive to skip the pilot immediately. Make it a giant remote controlled airplane before making it autonomous. In reply to: "New solar plane takes first test flight"

  December 3, 2009

  1 reply

• I thought that underground compressed air storage seems quite attractive. I'd be concerned about leakage when natural caverns are used. Another problem is there's never a good cavern around when you need one. So an option may be to simply drill a hole straight down and line it with a thin coat of concrete or plastic or both. The Earth will provide pressure resistance, the coating keeps the air in.
  
  This could work on both large and small scale. Use a simple post hole boring machine to drill 'tanks' in your back yard. Use a TBM (tunnel boring machine) type machine to drill a much larger vertical hole for utility size storage. In reply to: "Utility energy storage no longer just giant batteries"

  November 25, 2009

  0 replies

• I heard from a friend who lives in CA that PG&E has some of that type of technology available. The problem is that they don't provide an incentive to users. So by installing this equipment you allow PG&E to power down your AC while your neighbor who said 'no thanks' gets to keep his AC at full blast. Not very attractive. So to compensate PG&E should offer a lower electricity rate, not just when they do cut your power but at all times. Or some other kick-back mechanism. In reply to: "Utility energy storage no longer just giant batteries"

  November 25, 2009

  0 replies

• Hmm, the energy it takes to split water is pretty much determined by laws of physics/chemistry. What you want is high efficiency and if this catalist can provide it that may be a step in the right direction. Then you need high efficiency when converting that chemical energy back into electricity with the fuel cell.
  
  The other obstacle is storage of hydrogen and oxygen. Neither is easily liquifiable so they'll need to be compressed. That means you need pressure vessels and pumps, two of each at least as the gasses need to be stored separately. Hydrogen is notoriously difficult to store so you'll have leakage during the day. And while this is is stored you are essentially putting a bomb in the house that this is installed at. It doesn't get much more energetic than hydrogen and oxygen together after all. There are ways around that such as putting the tanks outside or underground but still.
  
  I have to say this looks like a solution looking for a problem rather than the other way around. The amount of equipment required to safely pressurize and store hydrogen and oxygen sounds expensive and since it's at least partially mechanical (pumps, valves) it'll require maintenance as well. I don't see how this could be viable for an average household. In reply to: "Sun Catalytix secures money for low-cost solar fuel"

  November 23, 2009

  0 replies

• Put the B@stards in prison. Not just everyone who's responsible at those 'loyalty' companies but the people that signed on the dotted line to hand over CC info and receive a cut.
  
  All the noise about Russian and Nigerian online scams and the biggest crooks are right here in the US. In reply to: "Feds: Top e-tailers profit from billion-dollar Web scam"

  November 17, 2009

  0 replies

• Why do you think this bulb is expensive? Of course every aspect of production has to be included in the value proposition. Luckily the price takes care of that. Did you really think that the captain of the ship that transported the bulbs here didn't get paid? Or that the wafer fab that created the LEDs gave them away? Of course not.
  
  So your position is essentially correct but your assumption that somehow all these factors are ignored is not.
  
  The one factor that's not included is any increase in pollution during manufacturing. Extra CO2 or contaminant expelled does not increase the cost. That's why cap/trade programs are still needed. In reply to: "Six-watt dimmable LED bulb comes to U.S."

  October 2, 2009

  0 replies

• Ha, good point. I thought of this as well. In the summer time I am the 'lights off' police as my wife fails to understand that almost every Watt of lighting that's on has to be pumped out by the AC. On cold days the heat from the bulbs is not 'lost'. It heats the house. You could argue that electric heating is less efficient than oil heating (I'm not sure it is) but at least the waste heat isn't waste. In reply to: "Six-watt dimmable LED bulb comes to U.S."

  October 2, 2009

  0 replies