|
7701. thoughtful - 12/13/2008 5:40:59 PM So we met with yet another a/v person last night to discuss the audio video home security situation for our new house and are extremely unhappy.
He started out like the first guy offering us a great system for "only" $40,000 +
He's nuts
So I explained what I'm looking for and got it down to probably in the realm of $15-20k, but that still seems excessive.
I'm thinking of trashing the whole idea...getting just a security system and then having the electrician pull the CATV wires where we want them and leave it at that...individually we can handle the surround sound and go wireless in the house and be done with it.
My extreme frustration is that somehow, with all this electronic wizardry, getting a system that is smart, simple, and easy to install/operate and inexpensive by this the 21st century should be a done deal. Instead it seems it's only gotten more expensive, more complicated, and further from end-user friendliness than ever!
Garrrr! 7702. wonkers2 - 12/13/2008 6:12:56 PM Our security system consists of secure locks on the doors and motion detector-actuated outside lights. Also we use timers to turn several inside lights on when we aren't home. We live in a low-crime suburb. Total cost under $50. 7703. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 12/16/2008 5:00:22 AM Assault on Science: Hall of Fame
7704. wonkers2 - 12/16/2008 6:40:11 AM Thanks, Wiz. I was surprised to see that Ben Stein won an "assault on science" award. I wasn't aware of that side of him. He doesn't go into intelligent design in his NYT columns. 7705. wabbit - 1/24/2009 7:50:52 PM The Impossible Project
I don't know if these folks will ever make a profit, or break even for that matter, but I wish them well. It was fun to play with the emulsions. 7706. alistairconnor - 1/26/2009 7:37:34 PM There is also the world's last VHS tape factory which has just closed down, in southwestern France, if anyone wants to buy that...
Probably doesn't have the same sentimental value. 7707. iiibbb - 2/2/2009 11:26:02 PM
Protein synthesis as interpreted by people on something. 7708. arkymalarky - 2/3/2009 4:14:37 AM Just saw Thoughtful's post. We have a gun and dogs, but we have a good friend who does video cameras for cheap. Motion lights would be hard out here. All of which reminds me, I hate those Brinks fear-mongering commercials. 7709. iiibbb - 2/3/2009 6:25:50 AM Not just because of the fear-mongering... I just start thinking "stab stab stab stab stab". How's Brink's gonna stop that? 7710. robertjayb - 2/15/2009 3:45:34 AM Thought I was feeling a bit warm...(Reuters)
CHICAGO (Reuters) - The climate is heating up far faster than scientists had predicted, spurred by sharp increases in greenhouse gas emissions from developing countries like China and India, a top climate scientist said on Saturday.
"The consequence of that is we are basically looking now at a future climate that is beyond anything that we've considered seriously," Chris Field, a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, told the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Chicago.
Field said "the actual trajectory of climate change is more serious" than any of the climate predictions in the IPCC's fourth assessment report called "Climate Change 2007."
Come back, Al Gore. All is forgiven...
7711. alistairconnor - 2/17/2009 11:39:14 AM Well, I was just thinking that a really deep recession, with a precipitous decline in manufacturing in China and India, might give us a bit of a climate reprieve. (you do realize, Robt, that the current "cold snap" is all about La Niña plus sunspots? I'll explain one of these days)
On the other hand, less industrial smoke from Asia might well have the opposite effect : coal smoke in particular creates a "global dimming" effect that literally blocks out the sun and has a marked cooling effect on regional climates. 7712. thoughtful - 2/17/2009 8:31:21 PM I don't know why you are worried about gcc...after all the world will end in 2012. The Mayan calendar ends in 2012, St. Malachy's list of popes ends with the guy after Pope Benedict, and a very big solar maximum is expected to be reached on 2012 which means our entire electrical grid can be wiped out by one large solar storm, helped by the earth's weaker magnetic field as it enters a phase of reversing magnetic poles. 7713. alistairconnor - 2/24/2009 12:30:50 PM Here ya go, Robt and Tful :
2008 was the COLDEST YEAR OF THE CENTURY!! ... and the ninth warmest since records started in 1880...
“Given our expectation that the next El Niño will begin this year or in 2010, it still seems likely that a new global surface air temperature record will be set within the next one to two years, despite the moderate cooling effect of reduced solar irradiance,” said James Hansen, director of GISS. The Sun is just passing through solar minimum, the low point in its 10- to 12-year cycle of electromagnetic activity, when it transmits its lowest amount of radiant energy toward Earth.
So if Con's magnolia tree survives this winter, it will surely flourish. 7714. robertjayb - 3/12/2009 4:09:11 AM MIT claims better battery...
CHICAGO (Reuters) - U.S. engineers have found a way to make lithium batteries that are smaller, lighter, longer lasting and capable of recharging in seconds.
The researchers believe the quick-charging batteries could open up new applications, including better batteries for electric cars.
And because they use older materials in a new way, the batteries could be available for sale in two to three years, a team from Massachusetts Institute of Technology reported on Wednesday in the journal Nature.
7715. robertjayb - 3/24/2009 12:37:02 AM Oh dear! Cold fusion is baaaaaack...(HouChron)
A U.S. Navy researcher announced today that her lab has produced “significant” new results that indicate cold fusion-like reactions.
If the work by analytical chemist Pamela Mosier-Boss and her colleagues is confirmed, it could open the door to a cheap, near-limitless reservoir of energy.
That’s a big if, however.
Today’s announcement at the national meeting of the American Chemical Society comes in the same location – Salt Lake City – as one of science’s most infamous episodes, the announcement 20 years ago by chemists Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann that they had produced cold fusion.
Unlike nuclear energy reactors and bombs, which split atoms, the atoms in stars such as the sun fuse together to produce spectacular amounts of energy, so much so that we are warmed by a stellar furnace 93 million miles away.
Devising a fusion-based source of energy on Earth has long been a “clean-energy” holy grail of physicists.
7716. alistairconnor - 3/26/2009 6:34:30 PM Friend of yours, vonK?
Microsoft billionaire is first repeat customer for space tourism
I suppose that answers the question "is it really worth it?"
I've always wondered if it would really be as much fun as one imagines. 7717. vonKreedon - 3/27/2009 5:57:15 PM No, don't know the guy. But I am envious. 7718. wabbit - 4/2/2009 7:06:52 PM Anyone who wants to clear out the clutter on a webpage and just read the article (think about a site like CNN) might want to try Readable App. Depending on how you set it up, it also enlarges the text on sites that lean toward small, like the Christian Science Monitor. I've tried it in Firefox 3, IE7 and Chrome, and so far it works well enough, though there are bound to be some bugs. 7719. robertjayb - 4/13/2009 7:34:00 PM Thorium?,
The Houston Chronicle's Science Guy:
Could thorium power the United States into next century?
If you're looking for an always-on, carbon-free, sustainable source of energy for which the reserves won't run dry for more than a few centuries, there's really only one choice.
7720. wabbit - 4/13/2009 11:31:36 PM I was reading through the comments on that article and came across this bit of dittohead wisdom: I guess thorium would work fine, and I agree that your option c is the most likely, but not because of "business as usual". It is because of the laws of economics and what is called rational economic behaviour. You see you always choose the lowest priced alternative that offers the same level of utility. It so happens that fossil fules are simply the cheapest and most abundant eneregy source, period. You have to face reality, even though the well funded and politically powerful Big Enviro Lobby wants to continue to deny reality and rational economic behaviour.
I also think uranium is preferable to thorium since it requires no additional expensive research to immediately start replacing ALL fossil fuel based electric generation. What's the holdup? Chu and Obama refusing to use Yucca Mountain for political reasons? That is not an economic or scientific rationale, just politics. And even so there are numerous other places to safely store spent fuel, like WIPP. And uranium is in abundant supply, many mines around the US closed in the '70s when Australia flooded the market with cheap uranium, we still have it all. Why spend decades doing thorium when uranium can do it NOW? Politics again?
Posted by: Dr. J at April 13, 2009 08:57 AM
Uh, hey Dr, J (what's the Dr. for, I wonder?), wasn't Yucca Mountain first proposed as a storage facility in 1987? Oh wait, even though we had a Republican President, Congress had a Democrat majority until 1995, so it must have been their fault. From 1995-2001 Republicans controlled Congress (Lewinsky became a verb in 1997, remember?), but since Clinton was President, it must have been his fault. From 2001-2003, Congress was kinda screwy, so let's just say it was Clinton's fault. 2003-2007 had a Republican controlled Congress and a Republican President. Ok, that must have been a combination of Clinton and the liberal media. And obviously everything since 2007 is the fault of the Democrats and Obama.
I must have misplaced my Rove letter.
|
