But that is just my opinion.
C|Net is reporting that wireless operators are accelerating their plans to beef up the wireless networks. More capacity is needed to accommodate the growing numbers of wireless data users, a trend first started with the iPhone. While I see a need to upgrade the networks, part of the "problem" was created by the carriers themselves and they continue to grow it with the new rules regarding rate plans. I am referring to the mandatory data plans for mid level and greater smart phones.
At least two operators, AT&T (my carrier) and Verizon are making data plans mandatory for many of their smart phones. Now if a data plan is mandatory then that means people are going to be more prone to use it, hence putting a greater strain on the network. With the greater strain comes more expense to the operators and greater customer service issues and costs.
I take this kinda personally because I own two smart phones (one was issued by my work and one is my personal line) and while one has data (work) I do not use it all that much. If I am forced to have data on my personal line, then I will have data on two phones (a huge waste of money) and I will be tempted (heck, I will want to) use the data for trivial things, causing more of a load on an already stressed system. I think that is stupid.
To be honest I have a smart phone for the PDA functionality of it. I like having a contact/memo list as well as a few apps (world clock, TZ tool, converter, PW safe, Geocaching aid, calendar, e-book reader, dictionary, thesaurus, and some simple games) in my phone, but data is not really needed (although it has been helpful at times). Why does the mobile industry think that just because I have a smart phone I want/need data?
The telecoms industry is not stupid. They have been losing money on the rapidly declining land line market and are seeking to recoup some of that revenue. A lot of people I know have ditched land lines and are mobile only, saving $30-50 a month. Well, the telco's believe they should not lose that money, so they offer you wireless web for approximately the same amount. That increases the strain on the network, causing issues for the customer and the telco. Endless cycle of needing revenue to upgrade the network so you sign on more customers increasing the strain on the network so you cans spend that money to update the now horribly outdated and overstressed system.
I cut the land line to save money. Right now we pay a tad less for two mobile phones with plenty of minutes than we did for a land line, long distance, and one cell phone with half the minutes we have now (thanx to an employee discount). Adding data only would increase my monthly bill.
Rollnig out network upgrades is not cheap and we are the ones who pay for it. The telco's get a good deal from the companies who provide the equipment (I know, I worked for one of the largest for seven years and have been supporting them for almost seven more) and we get to pay for that network with increases in our mobile phone bills and more features we may not need.
I received notice that I would be charged for a data plan if I did not pick one for my Palm Centro on AT&T's network. The Centro is not even a 3G phone and I will get charged smart phone rates when the best data I can get is EDGE. Stupid.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Worth It?
I read an article on C|Net about PG&E financing rooftop solar panels for people's homes. The more I read, the more I liked the idea and wondered, could this work nationwide? I have read in a few places that without any changes to current power usage, rooftop solar panels could provide between 50-80% of all electrical power needed the average consumer.
Think of it. Every home equipped with rooftop solar panels generating power for that home to use, financed by the power company. You would be charged only for the power you use plus the cost of the solar panels. Or, the utility company could rent them to you. Most people would see a huge drop in their electric bills, even with the cost of the solar panels added.
Would this not solve one of the many problems we have with getting a kickstart on renewable energy?
Let's go one further. If you live out of the city in an area with a lot larger than one acre, have the utility company put up wind turbines in addition to solar to allow extra energy to be created for the grid. The land owners would not have to pay for the turbines and get free power (up to a limit, of course) for allowing the wind turbine to be on their property.
The more solar panels and wind turbines that are installed would drastically reduce the need on using coal to power the grid. It would also give the added integrity to allow more electric vehicles to be added and charged on the grid, reducing the need for foreign oil.
Would it work?
Think of it. Every home equipped with rooftop solar panels generating power for that home to use, financed by the power company. You would be charged only for the power you use plus the cost of the solar panels. Or, the utility company could rent them to you. Most people would see a huge drop in their electric bills, even with the cost of the solar panels added.
Would this not solve one of the many problems we have with getting a kickstart on renewable energy?
Let's go one further. If you live out of the city in an area with a lot larger than one acre, have the utility company put up wind turbines in addition to solar to allow extra energy to be created for the grid. The land owners would not have to pay for the turbines and get free power (up to a limit, of course) for allowing the wind turbine to be on their property.
The more solar panels and wind turbines that are installed would drastically reduce the need on using coal to power the grid. It would also give the added integrity to allow more electric vehicles to be added and charged on the grid, reducing the need for foreign oil.
Would it work?
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Urban Survival
A biological weapon is released into the public water supply causing 10's of millions of Americans to get sick and die. Public services as we know them cease to exist because the strain on the system is so great. Widespread power failures keeps you from going to the store, bank, or work. You are now on your own with what you have in your house and car. What do you do? How do you survive?
If you lived in the city and this were to happen, things would get ugly very quickly. Mob mentality would quickly set in and people would begin looting and destroying. Your safety would be threatened. Survival would be difficult. But not impossible.
In my previous post I mentioned "The Rules of Three" in survival. Most people think these apply when you are out in the elements, but the same rules apply in urban survival as well. Let's review the rules:
Three hours - this is how long the human body can survive exposed to the elements without shelter in extreme conditions without permanent damage.
Three days - this is how long the human body can survive without water under normal to moderately extreme (hot/cold) conditions without permanent damage.
Three weeks - this is how long the human body can go without food without permanent damage.
In an urban survival situation, if you are at or near home, your chances of surviving are much better. Your shelter is already there, but if it is winter and you just lost your heat, what next?
As you can see, the rule of three applies to urban survival as well. You need to get shelter first. Once that is secure, you need to assess your water supply and then your food. This is where it gets hard for the urban and suburban dweller.
Life in the city and suburbs is all about convenience. Microwave this, instant that, the internet...everything is geared for making life easier. There is nothing wrong with that. That is what you pay for. But if things got bad and you were without all these trappings, what would you do?
Living in the 'burbs, think about these things...especially when I hear about survivors of natural disasters. While these people suffer, the good news is that unaffected nations come to aid them. But what if it happened to you and no one came to your aid? You follow the rules of three.
1) Make sure you have shelter and are warm/cool. You can be exposed for up to three hours in extreme conditions before you suffer damage.
2) Make sure you have water for the next few days. The human body can only go without water for three days before it begins to show signs of damage.
3) Make sure you have food. This is last because you can go up to three weeks without food before you suffer any real damage.
Back in the days of The Great Depression (late 20's and early 30's) many poorer people took on a "packrat" mentality. They would tend to collect things and never throw anything away. While this is not normally a healthy lifestyle, in a survival situation this attitude becomes a necessity. When SHTF, nothing is garbage. Everything can be used beyond what it is designed for.
If you lived in the city and this were to happen, things would get ugly very quickly. Mob mentality would quickly set in and people would begin looting and destroying. Your safety would be threatened. Survival would be difficult. But not impossible.
In my previous post I mentioned "The Rules of Three" in survival. Most people think these apply when you are out in the elements, but the same rules apply in urban survival as well. Let's review the rules:
Three hours - this is how long the human body can survive exposed to the elements without shelter in extreme conditions without permanent damage.
Three days - this is how long the human body can survive without water under normal to moderately extreme (hot/cold) conditions without permanent damage.
Three weeks - this is how long the human body can go without food without permanent damage.
In an urban survival situation, if you are at or near home, your chances of surviving are much better. Your shelter is already there, but if it is winter and you just lost your heat, what next?
As you can see, the rule of three applies to urban survival as well. You need to get shelter first. Once that is secure, you need to assess your water supply and then your food. This is where it gets hard for the urban and suburban dweller.
Life in the city and suburbs is all about convenience. Microwave this, instant that, the internet...everything is geared for making life easier. There is nothing wrong with that. That is what you pay for. But if things got bad and you were without all these trappings, what would you do?
Living in the 'burbs, think about these things...especially when I hear about survivors of natural disasters. While these people suffer, the good news is that unaffected nations come to aid them. But what if it happened to you and no one came to your aid? You follow the rules of three.
1) Make sure you have shelter and are warm/cool. You can be exposed for up to three hours in extreme conditions before you suffer damage.
2) Make sure you have water for the next few days. The human body can only go without water for three days before it begins to show signs of damage.
3) Make sure you have food. This is last because you can go up to three weeks without food before you suffer any real damage.
Back in the days of The Great Depression (late 20's and early 30's) many poorer people took on a "packrat" mentality. They would tend to collect things and never throw anything away. While this is not normally a healthy lifestyle, in a survival situation this attitude becomes a necessity. When SHTF, nothing is garbage. Everything can be used beyond what it is designed for.
Survival Of The Fittest
Last weekend I was scheduled to go camping with PapaKilo at ESP but that just did not work out. While I was all game for it, the weather forecast was calling for temps near ZERO degrees Fahrenheit with a wind chill below zero. While I am far from a coward, temps that low can be dangerous so we skipped it.
Sad that we did since that was the last weekend in January we both had off. However, this weekend (if the rain stays away) is shaping up nicely and next weekend is looking the same. While I will not be heading out with my BiC (Brother in Christ) PapaKilo (PK as we call him) I will be able to try my hand at solo camping. I am looking forward to it.
All this desire to get back to camping has moved me to read more on survival tactics. One rule that has stuck in my mind since ever I heard it a few weeks ago is "The Rule of Threes":
Three hours - this is how long the human body can survive exposed to the elements without shelter in extreme conditions without permanent damage.
Three days - this is how long the human body can survive without water under normal to moderately extreme (hot/cold) conditions without permanent damage
Three weeks - this is how long the human body can go without food without permanent damage.
So, with this in mind, when you set up camp, you know what you need to do first. You need to get shelter and build a small fire, if possible...shelter first. Once this is done, you work on acquiring water and lastly, food.
While camping is enjoyable for me, I do have an ulterior motive. I am hoping to get to a point where I can hike into a secluded parcel of land with just a pack and survive a few days with just what I bring with me. Ultimately I would like this to include trapping small game (rabbit) or using a slingshot (wrist rocket) to bring down a squirrel to use as food. Of course I am no where near this stage yet. My current level allows me tent camp without a lot of the trappings of home life. I have not tried to build a shelter or get a good night's sleep without a blanket or sleeping bag. Right now I am in the process of gathering all I need to tent camp comfortably solo. Once I reach that point, I will work on "lightening the load" to allow me to backpack camp (carrying everything you need to your camp site on your back in one trip). Once I get to that point, then I can work on "survival camping" where instead of backing in with a full hikers pack (50 + lbs.) you pack in with a smaller hunters pack (25 lbs or less). Obviously survivalist camping requires you to pack less and what you do pack should be multipurpose. Pack as little and as light as you can.
Sad that we did since that was the last weekend in January we both had off. However, this weekend (if the rain stays away) is shaping up nicely and next weekend is looking the same. While I will not be heading out with my BiC (Brother in Christ) PapaKilo (PK as we call him) I will be able to try my hand at solo camping. I am looking forward to it.
All this desire to get back to camping has moved me to read more on survival tactics. One rule that has stuck in my mind since ever I heard it a few weeks ago is "The Rule of Threes":
Three hours - this is how long the human body can survive exposed to the elements without shelter in extreme conditions without permanent damage.
Three days - this is how long the human body can survive without water under normal to moderately extreme (hot/cold) conditions without permanent damage
Three weeks - this is how long the human body can go without food without permanent damage.
So, with this in mind, when you set up camp, you know what you need to do first. You need to get shelter and build a small fire, if possible...shelter first. Once this is done, you work on acquiring water and lastly, food.
While camping is enjoyable for me, I do have an ulterior motive. I am hoping to get to a point where I can hike into a secluded parcel of land with just a pack and survive a few days with just what I bring with me. Ultimately I would like this to include trapping small game (rabbit) or using a slingshot (wrist rocket) to bring down a squirrel to use as food. Of course I am no where near this stage yet. My current level allows me tent camp without a lot of the trappings of home life. I have not tried to build a shelter or get a good night's sleep without a blanket or sleeping bag. Right now I am in the process of gathering all I need to tent camp comfortably solo. Once I reach that point, I will work on "lightening the load" to allow me to backpack camp (carrying everything you need to your camp site on your back in one trip). Once I get to that point, then I can work on "survival camping" where instead of backing in with a full hikers pack (50 + lbs.) you pack in with a smaller hunters pack (25 lbs or less). Obviously survivalist camping requires you to pack less and what you do pack should be multipurpose. Pack as little and as light as you can.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)