Unscheduled maintenance account nuked

Today our microwave died. It was a good old microwave and had given its various owners many years of faithful service. Lately however it had begun to act strangely. Last month it inexplicably stopped running. A quick unplug fixed it. Then randomly it would activate its exhaust fan - often in the middle of the night. Then the little lightbulb inside burned out, as well as the little light underneath.

Finally, today at 12:15pm as I attempted to make a bag of popcorn to watch the pilot of season 1 of Heroes (I'd never seen it before) on Netflix, I discovered it was no longer heating anything.

The fan, the light, the random shorts...that I can handle, but a microwave that doesn't heat just isn't acceptable.

Fortunately, I recently started an unscheduled maintenance account. Thus, the $160 microwave was fully covered. However, having just started the fund, the account is now empty...but my wife was certainly happy that we had it! Maybe I'll ask her to use our new microwave to make me some cookies (can it do that?).

Overcomplicated pricing plans

I was in a CVS pharmacy the other day having some photographs printed. A while back the only thing to do at these one-hour photo places was drop off your film, which was put into a little bag, and then come back to pick it up. You paid per roll of film.

Now however there are 5 different ways of getting your photos to them, as well as other ways of getting them back...not to mention about 6 different pricing plans just to get a stack of regular 4x6 pictures. To drop off your photos you can give them a CD, a memory chip, upload them online to their website, give them a roll of film, or give them a hard-copy of an existing photo. In return you can get real photographs, or you can get a CD. A combination of these various options of course yield different pricing structures.

On the advertising sign outside they advertise one price for photo printing. On their board inside they advertise 4 different prices. There are actually 6 different prices, however, once you get to the fine print (not on the board, but on small cards near the register.

You now pay by each photo printed. If you print using the little kiosk, it will cost you $.29 each. If you hand them your disc/roll/chip, it costs $.19 each. But only if you get more than 50. Under 50, which is the typical size of a traditional "roll", and it costs $.25. If you want them in an hour, it will be $.19 each, but only if you use their "club card". If you want them in a few days, it will be $.15 each - but after you read the fine print, this only applies if you upload them online to their website first. Otherwise, the few days option costs $.19 each.

Of course, you'll be better suited calculating the cost on your own. My cashier priced it wrong, at $.29, even though I had gone the $.19 route. The machine apparently defaults to the highest price, via the UPC on the little box they give you, and then must be adjusted down using a small card with various UPCs on it that apply "discounts" in the register POS. No doubt many people end up being charged full price because they were not paying attention.

It was a real headache just trying to figure out how to get the per-photo price that was displayed in huge numbers on the billboard. Its enough to drive you to just buy your own photo printer.

Cribs recalled

A series of cribs were recalled recently. Many news sources have been reporting that the cribs were defective in some way. According to the CPSC report, they were not. Consumer Affairs has a decent summary and you can read the full announcement at CPSC.gov. There is also a video (the video is a little weird - they have a little intro and then images of the crib with an incorrect installation and how the babies could get caught, then about 2 minutes of a video of a baby sitting in a completely different crib for no apparent reason while a mom operates the drop-down door).

In short, these cribs failed because of improper assembly. The CPSC has been exemplary in its efforts to inform consumers of the issue. However I disagree with their public statement.

"A crib is one of the few products that's actually designed for a parent to leave a child unattended. When there's a problem of this magnitude with a crib, there's a huge breach of trust with the manufacturer," she said.

Yet the cause of the failure is incorrect installation. I do not know if the instructions itself is incorrect, or whether this is just a failure to follow instructions, but it does seem to be that the supposed problem is that the gate on the crib was not designed to be impossible to install incorrectly. In other words, the manufacturer is being blamed for not making the product so idiot-proof that it would be impossible to mess it up.

A crib is certainly nothing to put together yourself if you don't know what you are doing. If you think it is possible that you can assemble it wrong, and there is always that possibility, you may want to have someone else do it for you. It is ultimately the parent's responsibility to ensure that the products they use are safe and secure for their children.

If you ask me, the drop-down mechanism on the crib is a little strange to begin with. After watching the video, it seems to do offer nothing and the door and mechanism even in the fancy non-recalled crib looks pretty shaky. Buy a high quality, solid crib.

How to ruin a household brand name

I have discovered 5 easy steps to taking a million dollar brand name and run it into the ground so it not only loses credibility, but becomes synonymous with the exact opposite of its original intention.

• Step 1: Create a fantastic concept and sweep it nationwide. Base your concept on giving folks tips on making beautiful household decorations, foods, and crafts out of everyday items. Become so popular that your very name brings to mind a do-it-yourself can-do attitude and quality and sophistication. Be the model by which all domestics aspire to.
  
• Step 2: After your reputation is established, begin licensing your name to mass produced merchandise sold in big box stores known for low quality cheap goods sold largely to low income markets. Add a shred of credibility to the project by at least selecting colors, patterns, and themes.
  
• Step 3: Abandon the DIY attitude and focus on themes that encourage people to buy more mass produced products instead of making things on their own with everyday household items.
  
• Step 4: Overprice these goods so that the low income market they are catering to will not want to buy them, and the high class market that they would appeal to won't have them available because they are sold in stores that they wouldn't step foot in.
  
• Step 5: Abandon all pretense of class by taking an existing product already in popular and in mass production and slap a label with your name on it and jack up the price for no apparent reason.

As a big wine drinker, I am appalled that Martha Stewart is "rebranding" Ernest & Gallo wine. Not only does Martha bring nothing to the wine business by doing this, but she has yet again chosen a product that is known for it's cheap availability. She could have only done worse by putting her face on a box of white zinfandel.

It is sad that Martha Stewart, who was once the "diva of all things domestic" has become a poster child for commercialization and brand consumerism. I would probably try Martha Stewart wine if it wasn't for one important thing, she doesn't have a vineyard, so Martha Stewart Wine really doesn't mean anything.

The good news is that if you already enjoy Ernest & Gallo, you're already drinking her "new" vintage.

Unecessarily complicating a simple product

I just bought a new wall clock. It's a pretty typical clock - the analog kind with a second hand and a quartz movement, battery powered, in the back. As you can expect, these clocks take a AA battery and last, well, forever.

Not anymore. Whoever made this clock thought it was too simple. So they added a small LCD indicator on the back to set the date/time/zone so that it would automatically change to a new time during daylight savings time. Because really, turning the gear on the back of the clock is more work than the average consumer can do twice a year.

But they were too lazy to actually make a new clock with this fantastic design, so they just screwed on a MORE complicated LCD box that is simply wired into where the original AA battery. Now it needs 2 AA batteries. AND the LCD box needs its OWN small lithium battery (those coin-like batteries).

So we went from a simple quartz timepiece with a AA battery to a quartz timepiece with a second LCD clock attached to the back that now requires 3 batteries - all so I don't have to spend 10 seconds changing the time twice a year.

Thanks!

17 year old sells modded iPhone for depreciating good

When I heard about the 17 year old hacking the iPhone to work on the T-Mobile network, I was pretty impressed. If you are not familiar with the story, the boy spent about 500 hours over the summer physically modifying the new Apple phone with the help of 2 online friends. Someone give this kid his engineering degree, already. No doubt he has a fine future in the technology industry ahead of him.

But I was disappointed to hear he just gave away gadget for a car. The Nissan Z Roadster starts at $27k, though is probably worth a few thousand less now that it has been titled. I don't think a 17 year old would balk at $50/hr as a summertime job, but I just can't help but think a much better deal could have come out of this.

The real question is what Apple's response will be. If they keep their phone locked, the company that bought the teen's idea could stand to make a lot of money. Much more than a Nissan Z. On the other hand if Apple renegotiates with at&t and unlocks their phone, the $27,000 invention could become worthless.

Still, I can't help but plug in $27,000 in cash and think that this kid could have had a million by retirement without putting in another dime.

Restricting ads to children

If you've been interested in the subject at all, you'll know that advertising to children has been getting some attention for the last several years. Most notably is the Teletubbie/McDonald's fiasco. Advertising to children is nothing new. The new Transformers movie is based off of an 80's cartoon show that was created for the sole purpose of selling Transformer toys.

Parents don't seem to get upset when media and corporations turn their kids into mindless consumers, but they do get upset when it makes them fat.

Are food and drink firms going to restrict advertising to children? I doubt it. But saying you are is certainly good PR. They aren't going to stop advertising (or even restrict it), they are just going to shift it to something else. It probably won't be as obvious, and I bet most parents will fall for it.

The self-imposed rules include pledges by seven companies who will no longer use licensed characters, such as those made popular through movies or TV shows, to advertise online or in print media unless they're promoting their healthier products.

Emphasis added by me. See, McDonald's (infamous for placing popular cartoon characters on the sides of a happy meal) already heavily promotes "healthier alternatives", which I put in quotes because they generally aren't healthier; they just have the appearance of being healthy. Check the nutrition information on those salads and after you add the chicken and the dressing, you might be better off with a Big Mac.

Anyway, McDonald's knows it doesn't have to emphasize only its unhealthy junk food. It can advertise its healthy food all day long, but once the kid steps through the door, are they going to order a salad with a cheap tasteless fruit cup or with hot salty french fries? Hmm.

Four other companies said they do not advertise at all to children under 12.

No, they advertise to children over 12. And who do children under 12 look up to? Right, the children over 12. There's a trickle-down effect with child marketing. Do you really think a 9 year old is not going to be affected by the same ad that is "marketed" to a 12 year old? And do you think 9 year old Billy is going to be happy with a fruit cup when his 12 year old brother is scarfing down a delicious box of artery clogging fries?

McDonald's USA said it will advertise only two types of Happy Meal to children younger than 12: one with four Chicken McNuggets, apple dippers with caramel dip and low-fat white milk, or one with a hamburger, apple dippers and milk. They both meet the company-set requirement of less than 600 calories, and no more than 35 percent of calories from fat, 10 percent of calories from saturated fat or 35 percent total sugar by weight.

Ah, so much for the fruit cup. Do you know what "apple dippers" are? It's an apple, obviously, with a rich calorie dense sauce that you smother it with. There goes your healthy snack. Have you met a 10 year old? Do you think they are going to be satisfied with 4 measly nuggets and a few apple slices? It may be 600 calories, but if the kid has to have a snack before dinner just to fill his tummy, its NOT a "meal under 600 calories".

But wait, could the entire article be an ad? The first paragraph...

The companies, including Campbell Soup Co.(CPB), General Mills Inc. (GIS) and PepsiCo Inc. (PEP), announced their new rules ahead of a Federal Trade Commission hearing Wednesday that steps up pressure on the companies to help curb the growing child obesity problem through more responsible marketing.

...with links to the stocks of each company (and McDonald's in the subheader). Sponsors?

Parents, this is all just more marketing. It's all a ploy to get you to spend more money and stuff your kid's face with their food by tricking you into believing they give a rats behind about your fat child. The answer is not restricting advertising or coming up with wacky meals under some bizarre calorie limit (as if limiting calories is the only factor of a healthy meal, puhlease!). The answer is for you to learn how to say NO!

The iPhone fine print

You always have to read the find print. No deal is ever as good as it is advertised. Call me cynical because well, I am. Anyway, here's a little page about the fine print on the iPhone.

All uses of the network are always rounded up to the nearest kilobyte or minute.

This is pretty common and has been around in cellphone-land since they first came out. Most of the "fine print" in this article are not exclusive to the iPhone, but of service in general.

Customers can be billed even though the call doesn't go through, even if it is the networks' fault. Customers also get charged for unsolicited messages.

A failed call is still billed for a minute?

International messages are charged additional fees as are files over 300Kbps.

Unless you've used a smartphone before, this may be something to watch out for while using your new iPhone. I assume he means 300kb not 300kbps. It doesn't say what the additional fees are.

Top speed seems to be 200Kbps

I think this is due to the slow EDGE network. By comparison the average DSL speed is 500kbps, over twice as fast.

Prohibited uses include VOIP, like Skype or Vonage.

You can't use it for Internet calls, though you could probably only do this if you were connected to a decent Wifi anyway.

Except for content formatted in accordance with AT&T's content standards, unlimited plans cannot be used for uploading, downloading or streaming of video content (e.g. Movies, tv), music or games

This part I don't understand. AT&T decides what kind of files you can transmit via your iPhone? Seems awfully restrictive.

The whole page is a bit conspiratorial, but an interesting read. Read the specific terms yourself here, just click "Plan Terms".

Here's why I would never consider the iPhone. It's not revolutionary.

“If Apple wanted to be "revolutionary," it would sell an unlocked version of the iPhone that, like a computer, you could bring to the carrier of your choice. An even more radical device would be the "X Phone"—a phone on permanent roam that chose whatever network was providing the best service…Of course, getting that phone to market would be difficult, and Apple hasn't tried.”

Why the iPhone reminds me of a Zune

When I think of how the iPhone was implemented, I immediately think of the Microsoft Zune. Both MS and Apple were new players in well established markets. They both came out with a heavily marketed device with the auspices of revolutionizing said market. They both suffered a serious problem; rather than revolutionizing the industry, they tried to just produce a flashy product that would sell. When was the last time you heard about the Zune? Exactly. Expect the same hype over the iPhone to all but disappear within a month.

The Zune's "revolution" was that it could trade songs between other Zunes via Wifi and it had a scratch-proof casing. Of course, MS completely crippled the Zune's outstanding feature, essentially caving to pressure from the music industry.

Following their footsteps, Apple has crippled every potential feature in the iPhone. But at least it looks fancy.


The Wifi in the iPhone has the ability to connect to the Internet instead of using the provider data service, but whether or not you use the provider's service you still have to pay for it. They force you into an unlimited data plan when you get the iPhone. So, other than the fact that the EDGE network (which you are also forced to use) is potentially slower than a hot Wifi spot, what good does the Wifi do? Nothing. It's a useless feature. Who cares about Wifi when I'm paying for unlimited provider data service anyway?

Signing an exclusive contract with at&t was just a bad move. First, you've alienated a huge business market. This makes the iPhone, which potentially has a lot of business applications, strictly a consumer product. It also means that the majority of your rabid customers will have to wait until their contracts expire before buying the iPhone, unless they are willing to pay $150 and up to severe a contract. If Apple had created a GSM/CDMA phone that could work on just about all American networks, it really would have had something special.

Refusing to subsidize the phone was a huge mistake, because you still have to sign a 2 year contract and pay early termination fees. Why tether yourself to a provider, much less tack on restrictive terms that could turn away potential buyers of your product? Apple is not in the cellphone provider business, they are in the electronic goods business, so why is Apple catering to at&t and crippling its device just to please them (and make more money for at&t in the process with frivolous ETF charges and long term contracts)?

Sorry Apple, the iPod revolutionized the portable music scene. The iPhone is overpriced and crippled. It will be soon forgotten.

Motorola honors my supposedly voided warranty

My wife, last year, upgraded her old phone to one of those RAZR phones. It's a thin silver flip-open phone with flat buttons. A nice enough phone, but several months after owning it the hinge broke off. A plastic bit actually cracked from the case and the little screw holding it together fell out. Otherwise it still worked.

So she took it in to Cingular, our provider. They refused to fix it because we didn't have a phone protection plan (and instead tried to get her to buy a new phone). They also refused to send the phone in to Motorola because the phone was physically damaged, voiding an warranty, so it would cost up to $150 for repairs. When she asked what options there were, he told her she should just superglue the hinge back together.

Upset about this, I called Cingular and explained that this was not an abused phone, just apparently a very cheaply made one, and asked what I can do to get it repaired. I also told her what the in-store rep said. According to the Cingular CSR, they could do nothing because it was physically damaged, but also told me that supergluing the phone would have definitely voided any warranty. Good to know. She also said we could send in the phone for repairs by paying a hefty repair fee.

So left with a broken phone and no help from the provider, I called up Motorola. They were more than happy to help and gave me the address to send the phone in to. We sent it off in certified mail with a polite and detailed letter and waited. Within a few weeks the phone came back repaired under warranty!

The moral of the story is to check all your options and contact everyone related to your product for a resolution before handing over any cash for something you feel should be done for free.

A revolutionary printer - and I want one!

This is an absolutely revolutionary little printer that can fit right on your desktop, called the Desktop Factory. Okay, so it's way out of the price range of most sane consumers, but the prices will come down as more companies pick up on the technology and begin mass producing them. Remember how expensive laser printers were back in the day? I now have a great little laser on my desk that I paid $50 for.

This printer allows you to create your own 3D objects in plastic. Just about every inventor is going to want to own one of these, and I want one for myself. I'm always working on some project and find that I need some kind of specific part, but am unable to locate one (or it just doesn't exist). Sometimes you just need a really specific piece of plastic to finish the job.

I can think of an perfect example. Just this weekend I needed to buy a new roller for my vacuum cleaner. With this product I could have made a plastic wheel and glued it onto the roller and repaired it myself, OR the manufacturer could have offered a download of the "schematics" of the roller so I could print one out immediately - minus the bristles of course.

This was just too exciting not to write about it.

A mirror on the cover wasn't enough

Wired magazine is offering a new service. You can now have your own face on the cover of its magazine issue. I have to write it again just so it sinks in. The magazine is personalizing its issues to include your face on the cover.

Ahem. Apparently having a magazine put a mirror on the front so you can look at yourself and say "I'm the best person of the year!" wasn't enough, now we need to have our photos in bold color print. The whole idea was rather silly, but this new venture is a true testament to our growing narcissism. Over 5,000 subscribers went out of their way to submit their photographs to this magazine so they could see themselves on the cover of the next issue.

But I wonder what the point is? No one else is going to see it, unless you drag the issue to work and force your coworkers to look at it. Really, this does nothing but let the subscriber sit in his living room and gaze adoringly at himself on the cover of a magazine.

Of course, the real reason for this is not just to draw us in by stroking our self-loving egos, but to engage the audience in a new kind of magazine; one that is personalized for each subscriber. What will this mean? If you guessed "Advertising" you get a gold star (and a party with a banner that reads "You're special and super smart!"). Its really a brilliant idea. Food companies (especially those that sell frozen processed boxed stuff) advertise heavily in magazines, and there is a huge database of what kind of products you are buying sitting in some grocery stores computer that you have been kindly assisting them in compiling as you swipe your "club card".

The article ends with this:

If your cover is on a national magazine, but only on the issue you receive, does that qualify as your 15 minutes of fame?

No, but at least no one else will know you did it.

Target doesn't support my 10 year old vacuum

I have two busted vacuum cleaners. The first is a Dirt Devil that is a few years old. The second is a Hoover that is about 10 years old. As near as I can tell, vacuum cleaners have become expensive throw-away items. The average price for a vacuum cleaner at Target is $100. However they only sell the belts and accessories for the vacuum cleaners that they stock, and the models change every single year. Worse, the manufacturers have different belts and bags for just about every model (my Dirt Devil is a bagless upright though). I recall when a Hoover had 2-3 belt styles and any large store would stock all 3. The newer models used the same belt as the older ones. And why not? You can easily design your newer vacuums to use one size of belt.

It's bad enough that all vacuum cleaners are now made entirely of plastic, except for the screws holding them together.

Dirt Devil however does sell parts for my machine. I had to order a new roller for $15 plus $5 shipping. 20% of the whole vacuum price, ouch! Hoover's website however only stocks the basics for my vacuum; bags, filters, and belts. If that Hoover should break (right now it just needs a new belt, but Target nor anywhere else sells it) it will be going in the trash; I can't get parts for it.

Am I wrong to expect a manufacturer to support an appliance for its entire life? This vacuum is great; it runs perfectly with no problems. Should I expect to be able to buy parts for it? Or have vacuum cleaners just become disposable?

State of hybrid tax credits

The tax credits available for hybrid vehicle purchases is declining. One article gave the amount of the credits for each vehicle. There was quite a big range (1,300-2,600), so I was curious how the tax credit was being applied to vehicles. What determined how much credit you should get?

In spirit of the whole idea of this tax credit, one would think that you gain a tax credit based on how much gas you are saving. The more gas mileage a hybrid gets than its nonhybrid counterpart, the greater the tax credit. Was my theory true? Here is a list of several of the vehicles they reported with the mileages of the hybrid and their regular ICE counterparts. I averaged the highway/city miles and figured out the difference, and then divided to see how many dollars the government was giving you per mpg you are saving. Here are the results.

Ford Escape Hybrid 2WD ($2,600)    NonHybrid: 23/26 [24.5]    Hybrid: 36/31 [33.5]    Difference: 9 or $288/mpg Ford Escape Hybrid 4WD ($1,950)    NonHybrid: 21/24 [22.5]    Hybrid: 32/29 [30.5]    Difference: 8 or $243/mpg Honda Accord Hybrid AT ( $1,300)    NonHybrid: 24/34 [29]    Hybrid: 28/35 [31.5]    Difference: 2.5 or $520/mpg Mercury Mariner 4WD Hybrid ($1,950)    Nonhybrid: 21/24 [22.5]    Hybrid: 32/29 [30.5]    Difference: 8 or $243/mpg Toyota Camry Hybrid ($1,300)    Nonhybrid: 24/33 [28.5]    Hybrid: 48/38 [43]    Difference: 8 or $162/mpg Toyota Highlander Hybrid 2WD and 4WD ($1,300)    Nonhybrid: 22/28 [24]    Hybrid: 32/27 [29.5]    Difference: 5.5 or $236/mpg

The Accord stood out the most. What a pathetic vehicle, but its quite clear now why Honda discontinued it. The Accord hybrid should never have qualified for any tax credit.

Then it gets interesting. Guess which vehicles give you the most credit for the least gas used? The SUVs of course. The best vehicle, which gets a fantastic average of 43 mpg gets by far the worst tax credit. The Mariner and Escapes, all SUVs, gain about the same amount in fuel economy as the Camry, and of all 4 the Camry by far gets the better gas mileage, yet it gets the lowest tax credit.

So, I'm confused. What exactly is the tax credit supposed to be rewarding?

$10 at&t DSL plan

at&t has apparently been forced to offer a DSL Lite plan for $10 a month. It requires a one year contract with a $50 termination fee. My local one offers 768 kps downloads and 128 kps uploads. It's specifically called the "AT&T Yahoo! High Speed Internet Basic Package". It doesn't let you take advantage of any other deals though, like the 1 month free, and you must be a new Internet customer. They typically charge you $50 for the modem, but will get a rebate slip for the total cost (of course you won't get your rebate check for several months I imagine). However just below it is an offer for new customers for an "Instant Credit", no rebate required. Of course this is all assuming you accept the self installation kit. You must also have existing phone service with them (but of course unless you have decided to do without a landline, you probably never had a choice anyway).

Interestingly, there is also a plan called "High Speed Internet Basic Package" that has the same speed (they have always offered this plan) for $15/mo. The difference is that the $15 one has no contract.

For all their other plans you can actually get no term or sign a 1 year term contract for the same monthly price (they may offer the free month incentive if you sign up with a contract). This plan is ideal for dial-up users who are probably paying around $10 anyway for a slower connection. However, at&t is only required to offer this plan for 2 1/2 years (not sure how that works into having 1 year contracts!), so don't expect it to stick around. Still, over the comparable $15/mo plan that's a total savings of $90.

There are no ads for this new service on their website. To get to it, go to atandt.com residential, and where it says $19.99 Internet click "View All Internet Services" (at some point you may have to enter your zip code so the site knows your area has DSL available), scroll down from the "Featured Services" and click "View All Internet Services" again. Then click "Popular Plans" and it should be there on top. As always, scroll to the bottom and read the "See important details" page.

I would order this over the Internet so you have a paper trail you can print out, rather than calling it in over the phone.

Disney dangles the carrot, leaves us high and dry

This is actually old news, but my wife and I recently discovered that Disney long ago canceled its Chronological collector series. We had purchased the first two volumes of the Donald Duck DVD sets and loved them. Each was about $30. They were going to issue a new volume until they had released all of the shorts.

After waiting for volume 3 to be released, we couldn't find it anywhere on their website. So we called the ordering number and were informed that the whole series (including the others like Mickey Mouse) had been canceled by Disney. They just cut it off in the middle of set! Now they've switched to a "Treasures" collector set, but its not chronological. Unfortunately, Disney won't be selling us any more collector sets. At least not with the same business model.

The solution to this problem (companies deciding to arbitrarily discontinue ongoing series) is to wait until all of them are released and then buy them at once. You can't do that with Disney, because they intentionally stop the sale of videos after release. This is common with their movies. If I waited until the end, I would only be able to get the last release.

The only choice is to either throw money at Disney buying their products and hope they don't decide to shove it to us, or just avoid their series products altogether. My solution is the latter, why would I start buying the Treasure series? Sorry Donald.

What is an electrolyte anyway?

I was standing in a convenience store trying to find the Red Bull (because every once and a while I like to enjoy a useless heavily caffeinated cold beverage, and its cheaper than a Starbucks frappawhataever) and found myself staring at the Gatorade. Gatorade, it claims, restores valuable electrolytes after exercise. That sounds pretty important.

Does anyone know what an electrolyte is?

I didn't, so I decided to use the net to find out. I ended up at Wiki, because that's usually a pretty decent source of generic information like this. Here's what I found (and you can see the page here)

Electrolytes are commonly found in sports drinks. In oral rehydration therapy, electrolyte drinks containing sodium and potassium salts are used to replenish the body's water and electrolyte levels after dehydration caused by exercise, diaphoresis, diarrhea, vomiting or starvation. Giving pure water to such a person is not the best way to restore fluid levels because it dilutes the salts inside the body's cells and interferes with their chemical functions. This can lead to water intoxication.

So electrolytes are sodium and potassium salts (with some other elements mixed in). Like...in a banana? Anyway, replacing these electrolytes only seems to be important after you are dehydrated. In other words, Gatorade, which replaces electrolytes and is commonly used while exercising, is completely useless when compared to plain water because it doesn't matter if you are replacing electrolytes unless you are severely dehydrated.

Good to know.

Jumpsnap

I saw 'reports' on this product on no less than 5 different news sites. It's an invisible jump rope called JumpSnap. This is the stuff of late night QVC shows, gizmos invented where there really was no need for it. Its right up there with the hundreds of onion choppers, magnetic stimulation belts, and x-ray glasses. This little device will set you back around $60.

It is basically a pair of handles with weights. As the weights spin, the handle counts the revolutions and clicks as each revolution is completed. It's an invisible jump rope. And it's completely pointless.

Jump ropes cost $5-10. You can probably make one out of junk in your garage for free. An invisible jump rope? Put a ROCK in each hand and pretend to jump rope. You have just accomplished what this $60 product does for you.

Smartcar coming in 2008

Start saving now, the Smartcar is coming to to the US in the first quarter of 2008. This little 2-seater commuter/urban vehicle has a 64hp engine and gets 40+ mpg, better than anything available in the US. This is a bare bones commuter on the entry level (starting at around $12k) coupe; even the radio is an option!

A small, high mileage, low-impact vehicle is just what the US market needs. It will offer some tough competition to other commuters like the Toyota Yaris, and might spur other carmakers (GM, I'm looking at you) to revive some old vehicles with fresh designs and 40+ mileage.

Need a little more space than a 2-seater can provide? I'm with you, and will probably wait a few years to pick up a forfour when they become available, as they will probably be priced around $16k. Buy used? I bet these are limited production and will resist depreciation, like the Prius. We shall see.

What does $6k of TV get you?

I recently reviewed 2 television models from Best Buy. One is a newer technology flat plasma, the other is a older tech rear-projection unit - the kind we've had around for 10+ years. Rear projections have improved quite a bit. They are brighter, clearer, and thinner (the unit here only measures 17 inches in depth, the plasma is 4 inches but once you put on the stand it still needs 13 inches of table space).

The big difference is the price. The plasma is six thousand dollars! The rear projection is $1,700. Quite a difference! I posted the comparison specs below, but here's the skinny: the plasma is thinner (can be wall mounted), 'slightly' better resolution (a difference you probably couldn't see with the naked eye) and pretty much the same in regards to features, inputs, etc. Where the plasma comes out ahead is in the contrast ratio, clearly the plasma is much crisper than the projection set.

But they're both High-Definition, so is better contrast and the ability to hang it like a painting worth $4,300? Call me cheap, but I don't think so.

Models: Samsung 61" DLP HDTV vs Philips 63" Plasma HDTV

Screen Size: Plasma 63, Projection 61
Built in HDTV Tuner: Both models
Resolution: Plasma 1366x768, Projection 1280x720
16:9 Widescreen Ratio: Both models
HDMI Inputs: 2 Both models
S-video: Plasma has 1 extra up front
Composite: 3 Both models
PC Input: Projection
USB Port: Both
V-Chip Parental Controls: Both models
Warranty: Same
Dimensions: Plasma 40x62x4 (wall hung) & 43x62x13 stand mounted, Projection 38x55x17
Built-in DVR: Neither
Native Mode: Plasma 768, Projection 720
Contrast Ratio: Plasma 10000:1, Projection 2500:1
Remote: Plasma standard, Projection universal
Price: Plasma $5,999, Projection $1,699

If anyone's wondering, I have a 70" front projection in my media room/office for watching movies. It's a 2004 model I purchased used in 2006. It displays crisp vibrant movies. It may not be up to speed with a 2007 plasma, but its larger and with the projector, screen, and surround sound theater DVD/VHS system it cost me about $550. That's quite a bit better than $6,000, if I do say so.