Category: Social Commentary

The Sublime Art of Thankfulness

As we prepare for another Thanksgiving with the usual turkey, parades, and sports, it’s time to consider the sublime art of thankfulness. For many people, please and thank you, when offered at all, are quickly proffered sentiments, rushed out at a moment’s notice. However, on this particular day, something a little more noble is required, in keeping with the holiday. After all, the very act of breathing is reason for praise for someone with emphysema. Why not for the rest of us?

It’s a privilege to discover the source and emanation of true thanksgiving at times when life has handed you something less than ideal gifts in the minds of those around you. Seeing the foot of a loved one move when the doctors have said that she’ll never walk again is a wonderment beyond measure. A joyous occasion evoking streams of tears at something so small and commonly accepted as normal. The delight of a sunrise, flowers in fall, family togetherness, and more all provide reasons for thankfulness because they can be so easily taken away, never to return.

Thankfulness is a process of the heart, not of the mind. The mind doesn’t understand it, but heart feels it to the bottom of the soul. An overflowing cup rarely consists of the material, but rather those things that can’t be purchased with any amount of money nor with any labor, no matter how monumental. So on this day of Thanksgiving, take time to consider thankfulness, the divine moment of gratitude for all that we have and not the rash expression of any lack. It’s my sincere wish that you have an amazing Thanksgiving filled with the delights of laughter and the closeness of those you love most.

Rebecca and I will be taking Thanksgiving weekend off. For this reason, you won’t see any posts from me either Thursday or Friday. We’ll continue working through the GrabAPicture program next week. Thank you for your continued support of me and the materials I write. I’m truly grateful that you’ve given me the opportunity to serve your needs.

 

Considering the Inefficiency of a Global Economy

A lot of people have said a lot about the global economy—how it exists and is pretty much unstoppable. However, a recent article in ComputerWorld, amongst others, have highlighted problems with the global economy. In this case, flooding in Thailand has impacted the availability of hard drives—driving up the price that everyone pays. If manufacturing were decentralized, flooding in a single country wouldn’t have much of an effect. In short, the emphasis on cost of individual products instead of emphasizing the reliability of multiple sources of hard drives at an increased cost has proven a shortsighted strategy that inevitably hurt the world supply.

Some countries are using the global economy as a source of blackmail. According to the New York Times, China has consolidated its grip on rare earth metals used for everything from compact fluorescent lights to displays used in smartphones. The blackmail started after a disagreement with Japan. As a consequence, the price of any item that requires rare earths has gone up and will continue to increase. It’s another instance where price advantages offered by a global economy have come back to haunt us. In fact, this problem is so significant that the United States government is doing everything it can to create alternative sources, no matter the cost. Unfortunately, it will require nearly 15 years to fully develop those alternatives.

These two stories, and many more, only hint at the potential problems of a global economy. The problems are actually far more severe than you might initially think. When someone ships a hard drive all the way from Thailand to your home, the carbon footprint of that drive is quite large. It takes a lot of gas to move that hard drive. What the global economy does is it trades fossil fuel for price. The cost of the oil, plus the cost of the object (whatever it might be), is less than the cost of producing the object locally. The short term monetary gain takes priority over the cost to the environment and its eventual cleanup. In the long term, that hard drive will cost everyone a great deal more than if it had been purchased locally.

This blog has contained more than a few self-sufficiency posts (60 as of this post). You’ve seen discussions of how to grow your own food and reasonably recycle products instead of dumping them in a landfill. I even told you how to obtain CFLs for free (see CFLs for Free). All of these posts are practical—I’ve worked hard to write posts that demonstrate techniques that improve the condition of your wallet, decrease your health problems, and still help everyone around you by producing a greener environment. Even with these measures, I’m well aware that my carbon footprint is huge because a global economy forces me to buy articles from overseas. These items aren’t available locally and I can’t make them myself.

In the long run, it’s unlikely that we’ll be able to sustain a global economy unless the equation changes dramatically. Fossil fuels aren’t unlimited—we’ll eventually run out, so from a practical perspective, transportation of items from overseas must change or we won’t be able to transport them. However, long before that happens, the damage to our environment will take a dramatic toll on everyone. The question is why anyone would wait around to see it all happen? Is the world determined to wait until everyone is so sick and so without resources that we have no choice but to toe the line? Does no one think about the effect they’re having until it’s too late?

I ask these questions because the global economy is simply a bad idea. Producing goods locally is far more efficient, even when the initial price for the good is higher. Eating and using what you can produce locally is far better for everyone. You do have a choice. Even with the global economy in full swing, you can buy local goods—in fact, insist on them. Tell local stores that you’re willing to pay more for local goods that are good for the environment. Your money matters. When stores find that they can’t sell those overseas items at any price, they’ll buy locally. “Give the customer what they want” is a cliche, but it’s also a fact. Vote with your cash to bring down a global economy that is ill conceived and killing us all. Let me know your thoughts about the global economy at [email protected].

 

Profession Versus Job

I often find inspiration for posts in places that you wouldn’t think to look. Today’s post comes courtesy of Bill Bridges from his Green Market Press blog. The post in question is the Taipei Journal entry for today—there are many of these journal entries, all entertaining and educational about the human condition. Bill is a professional journalist and a good friend who has often inspired me to excel with his seemingly simple posts. The reason that today’s post struck a chord with me is that it answers part of the question of how to become a programmer. My initial post discussed the mechanics, the precursors that someone might pursue to become a programmer, but that post didn’t answer the question of how to make programming a profession.

Today’s journal entry answers the question of profession versus job rather succinctly. Susan writes an article that constantly mentions “the French system of government” without ever explaining what the term means. Bill asks her about it and her response is, “I did sort of wonder about that.” Susan has a job, Bill has a profession. Education, no matter how complete, is only a precursor to a profession. In order to turn a job into a profession, one must also become involved, learn to think for oneself, and have a desire to excel. An aspiring programmer must have integrity as well and be willing to devote long hours toward the goal of delivering the best possible code. Mind you, the code a particular individual delivers is unlikely to be perfect and it’s always possibly that someone else will write better code—I’m talking here about excellence within the individual’s ability to deliver it.

Anyone can perform a job. Only a few people have a profession. However, I’m not talking about a particular sort of profession. When Rebecca and I lived in San Diego, we’d go to a particular restaurant (the name escapes me at the moment, but the restaurant is no longer there anyway). There was a man named Kevin there who waited tables—it was his profession. You could see it in the way he performed the tasks of his trade—with enthusiasm, vigor, and more than a little subtle humor. You felt honored to be served by him and the lines were often long with people who specifically asked for him. Application development is a trade that requires no small amount of education, but I’ve seen more than a few people obtain the required skills by simply reading a book. The difference between a job and a profession remains the same—the professional takes responsibility for successful completion of the task and delights in seeing the task well-done.

While my previous post described a job, this one describes a profession. Many people have questioned why America has been losing it’s place in many different technology areas. First of all, I submit that statistics lie and often tell the story that they’re designed to tell. Don’t believe the lies that you read—think for yourself. Americans still have what it takes to create some of the most amazing technologies ever and I’ve discussed more than a few of these technologies in previous posts. If America has truly lost its edge, then where do these technologies come from? Second, far too many Americans are focused on getting a job, rather than a profession. When you view America of the past, you discover that we have had an array of professionals that delivered new technology is all sorts of ways—many never thought about before.

The bottom line is that you need to consider what sort of programmer you’re going to be as part of your journey. Education isn’t enough. If you really want to become a good programmer, then you must be willing to do what it takes to become a professional. As a professional, you’ll have a higher quality of life, discover the benefits of job satisfaction, and contribute to society in ways that you can scarcely imagine. So what do you have—a job or a profession? Let me know your thoughts at [email protected].

 

More on CFL Usage

Readers came back with a few questions about CFLs after reading my CFLs for Free post. The one thing I want to get across clearly is that the article is emphasizing that you can buy new CFLs using the savings from previous purchases. You need to make the investment in the first CFL to get started and then use the savings from that investment to buy future CFLs. No one is going to mysteriously pay you to buy CFLs, but if you buy smart, you can indeed get future CFLs for free after making the initial purchase. Eventually, you’ll pay off the initial purchase using the savings as well.


A number of people asked about the startup surge (also known as inrush current). The startup surge is something that occurs when you first apply power to the light. This surge is extra electricity that’s required to get the bulb started. The amount of power the bulb requires decreases as it gets to operating temperature, which isn’t very long in most cases. Of course, some people are worried about this electricity surge as some people often think they are experiencing a power surge. Luckily, these two things are quite different. If a homeowner did experience a power surge, it would be worth them contacting a company like Safe and Sound Electric to install some surge protection to prevent this happening again. However, this bulb requires that extra surge, so don’t be concerned if you notice a quick surge. I’ve read a number of conflicting opinions about the startup surge of CFLs. My take on everything I’ve read is that the startup surge will vary by bulb vendor and type of light. A tube light has a smaller startup surge for a significantly smaller time than the twisted bulbs. Vendors who meet Energy Star requirements tend to produce bulbs that have a smaller startup surge than the less expensive bulbs.

A few readers also asked about long term efficiency of CFLs. From personal experience Rebecca and I have found that CFLs do provide an efficiency advantage if you use them for one long interval, rather than several short intervals. In other words, if you burn the light for four hours solid instead of two, two hour intervals, you’ll gain an efficiency advantage. In addition, turning the light on and off reduces its life expectancy.

Efficient energy use is why Rebecca and I tune our work schedule to follow the sun. We get up at 5:30 am (sometimes a bit earlier) during the summer months to make maximum use of the daylight hours, but we get up at 7:00 am during the winter months to ensure we won’t have to turn the lights on in the morning. The actual difference between summer and winter work times is 2½ hours due to the effect of daylight saving time. We do work later into the evening during the winter months to make up for the later start time, so everything evens out. Using this approach has had both health and monetary benefits, but we also understand that it’s not a solution that most people can use.

There are a lot of myths, misconceptions, and outright controversies about CFLs online. In addition, I’m finding that people have individual experiences based on how they use lighting in their home. However, after researching this topic intensively, I’m finding that the following tips about CFLs seem to be true for just about everyone:

  • Buying CFLs with the Energy Star label tends to pay dividends in reduced operating costs and longer life, but you must weigh these benefits against the increased initial cost. In general, buying Energy Star products save you money.
  • If you must use a CFL in a socket controlled by a dimmer, buy a CFL designed for that purpose. Using a standard CFL in a dimmer-controlled socket greatly reduces bulb life and could damage the dimmer.
  • CFLs require more air to work properly. They’re more heat sensitive, so putting one in a can or recessed fixture will result in a reduced life expectancy. The exception is that there are CFLs specially designed to work in recessed fixtures, but you’ll also pay a premium price for them.
  • CFLs also don’t like
    damp or wet conditions. If you need to use a CFL in a damp or wet
    condition, make sure you get one rated for that purpose.

  • Standard CFLs don’t work well in fixtures that vibrate, such as the lighting kits for fans. If you want to use a CFL with a fan or other fixture that will vibrate, you need to get a CFL designed for the purpose. (I finally gave up using a CFL in my garage door opener light socket because even the CFLs designed for use in vibration don’t last long in that particular application.)
  • Excessive on and off cycles in a given day will most definitely reduce the life expectancy of your CFL. I researched this one a lot and didn’t get a definitive answer for you. The most common guidelines say that you should strive to keep on/off cycles below 20 for any given CFL during one day. It’s commonly said that CFLs have a life expectancy of 7,000 on/off cycles if you observe the 20 on/off cycle per day limit. The source of problems in this case is the electronic ballast that CFLs use, which aren’t designed for heavy on/off cycles.
  • Faulty wiring affects CFLs considerably more than incandescent bulbs. If your wiring is such that it causes flickers or flashing with an incandescent bulb, it might be a cause for concern and you should probably look to get more info from an emergency electrician. Your CFL also won’t last very long in this instance. Even if you can’t see the flickering, small dips in power can cause early CFL failure. If you find that your bulbs aren’t lasting very long, have the power checked and bring in an electrical repair company similar to https://electricalsynergies.com/ to fix it. Faulty wiring also affects the cost savings from a CFL in a big way because the bulb never quite gets to its operating range.
  • Line noise will also affect CFLs. For example, if you have a heavy duty motor (such as a refrigerator) on the same line as a CFL, the drop in line current when the motor starts can affect the life expectancy of the CFL. Line noise will also affect the cost savings you see from a CFL because the bulb isn’t operating properly.

Some readers have pointed out that CFLs are overrated. I’m not quite sure how to respond to this question other than to say that there isn’t any free lunch. Just about every solution we now have for fixing the planet’s carbon problem is flawed. Even if we were to all go back to burning candles, there would be problems. However, I did spend some time online looking for something a bit less hysterical and a little more scientific than something that says CFLs and other modern technologies are bad. You should embrace CFLs and other good for the planet technologies with open eyes. The best post I found on these issues is one entitled, “Directory:Compact Fluorescent Lighting (CFL) Downsides.” If someone else has a non-hysterical source of additional information, I’d be happy to address it in another post.

I’d welcome verifiable tips from other people. I verified each of these tips against three sources (including government sites when available). That doesn’t mean that every tip will work for you personally, but most people find that these tips work for them. Let me know about any additional thoughts you have about CFLs at [email protected]

Exercising Personal Privacy

In my post, “Is Privacy a Right?,” I tell developers that they really need to consider the right of the user to a certain amount of privacy. Books such as C# Design and Development will need to include sections on privacy as part of any update. In fact, privacy is a topic not covered to any extent in any development book on my shelf. The few mentions of privacy appear in older books I’ve written, along with a few moldy references to old books by other authors. If you really want to get a modern treatment of privacy as a question of what the individual requires, you need to look at a non-development book such as “Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other.” Unfortunately, this book discusses social ramifications—not the techniques a developer uses to ensure privacy. Of course, no matter what the developer does, the user can always thwart any effort to provide privacy, which is the topic of this post.

I find it amazing that people willingly give up their privacy for apparently little or no reason. I read John Dvorak’s post, “I’m Not Home Right Now. Please Come In.” with great interest this morning (after having read the news report that he discusses). The idea that a husband would be able to check up on his cheating wife through an iPhone application is amazing to me. The private detective industry should take note that they’ve been replaced by a phone. It won’t be long before someone comes up with an application to surreptitiously take pictures of the dupe who loads one or more of these applications on their cellphone.

After thinking about this issue for a long time, I’ve come to the conclusion that some people have watched one too many episodes of CSI (and shows of that ilk). There is a sense that someone is going to reach out and grab each of us, and that our cellphones are the only way anyone will find us again. It’s also human nature not to be left out. If people don’t know where we are, we might miss out on something that we think is important at the time, but turns out not to be much of an issue at all in hindsight. I’m sure that little Jerry can find his sock just fine without dad’s intervention over the telephone (a little self-sufficiency does everyone good). The announcement that Maggie has a new tooth can easily wait until mom gets home from the store.

There should be alarm bells going off in the minds of every person who currently owns a cellphone, OnStar, or any other tracking technology. Do you really want someone to follow absolutely every move you make in the interest of providing some uncertain sense of security? Privacy, once lost, is incredibly hard to regain. People should learn how to disconnect in comfort, keep their privacy intact, and discover the wonderful world of being alone every once in a while. I think you’ll find that you’re a lot less stressed once you get used to it. Consider Remembering to Rest as not just beneficial to yourself, but those around you.

Most of all, it’s time that people learn to demand privacy from their technology. Whoever created the new tracking application in the iPhone wasn’t thinking and people should disable it sooner than later. It’s not necessary for vendors to track your every move online. No one gains anything by knowing you’ve gone to the store to buy this week’s groceries. All of the applications that are tracking you are stealing your privacy and making you a target for all of the things you fear most. Don’t give criminals (or marketers) an edge. What is your privacy worth to you? Let me know at [email protected].

 

Not Mere Words

A number of readers and editors have asked me about the pains I take in choosing words for my books and articles. Let’s say that it was a revelation that has prompted me to work so hard to create the right word combinations. It came to me one day while I was looking at samples in a paint store. I was looking at paint chips for just the right sort of white. The store must have had twenty or more versions of white—everything from antique white to Arizona white. The winter white intrigued me because it almost looked a bit blue in the store’s light. The idea is that each name is supposed to express the nuance of color—to create a picture in the viewer’s mind.

Many people see words as text. However, text is an abstraction of a word—the presentation of that word on paper or on screen. Words are expressions of ideas. A word creates a picture of an idea or object in the viewer’s or hearer’s mind. Using the right word transfers an idea precisely from your mind to the mind of someone you want to share an idea with. Consequently, like the paint samples in the store, the nuance of words you choose is important if you want to maintain the clarity of the idea. Winter white isn’t the same as antique white, much as submitting to someone’s authority isn’t the same as acquiescing to someone’s authority. You’ll find both words on the same page in a thesaurus, but they’re different. There is a nuance of difference in the meaning.

There is another important lesson you can learn from paint chips. When you place a winter white chip next to a blue chip, the blue in winter white stands out clearly. However, place the same winter white chip next to a red chip and suddenly winter white looks more white than blue. The context of the paint chip has changed. Likewise, the subtle meaning of a word changes in relation to the words around it. You must consider the context of the word in order to understand its true meaning. In fact, most dictionaries include multiple meanings for a word in order to convey this sense of context.

However, a word is an expression of an idea and not the idea itself. Both the writer and the reader must understand the word in order for the transference of an idea to take place. When the writer and reader have the same understanding of the word, the transference is clear, but it become less clear as the understanding of the two diverge. When a reader doesn’t understand a word, there isn’t any transference at all. Consequently, a well-read author could use terms that a reader doesn’t understand, with the result that reader is confused, not educated or entertained. So, better authors define unusual terms in context, to help readers understand the term and still derive the nuance of meaning the author originally intended.

Technical writing is perhaps one of the more difficult mediums when it comes to word choice. An author needs to convey ideas precisely, which means that a significant range of word choice is both warranted and necessary. However, in order to educate the broadest range of readers, the author is necessarily limited by the need to simplify the text, so as many people as possible can understand it. This dichotomy presents the author with a serious dilemma that editors can sometimes make worse by insisting only on accuracy or only on simplicity, without considering the art behind the writing. (A good editor supplies alternative terms that the author can choose from in order to retain clarity without increasing complexity.) The need to convey ideas clearly in a form the reader can understand is one of the reasons I use beta readers to help refine the content of my books. Beta readers act as a sanity check by helping the author determine which words truly are beyond the average reader’s understanding.

All this leads to a practice that I’ve had since the day of my vision in the paint store. I learn a new word each day. In fact, I use two sources: A.Word.A.Day and Dictionary.com. Both sources send a new word to my e-mail each morning and I choose the word I want to learn that day from them. I may not use all of these words in a book, but the words do expose me to new ideas that will appear at some time in my books. Words are expressions of ideas—the more you learn, the more ideas you possess. What is one of your favorite words? Have you ever found yourself unable to convey an idea because you lack the appropriate word? Let me know at [email protected].

 

Is Privacy a Right?

One of the readers of C# Design and Development took me to task some time ago for not discussion the matter of security in my book. He has been the only reader to ever ask me about the issue of privacy, so I didn’t think too much about it at the time. When I wrote the book, I thought it far more important to discuss security-keeping the data, application, and user safe. In fact, the book makes security part of an application triad the developer must consider during the design process. My thinking at the time was that privacy is a matter settled by management as part of a policy that is often implemented outside the developer’s control. To a certain extent that perception is still valid, but I’ve since learned that the developer does bear some responsibility toward the user when it comes to privacy.

A recent ComputerWorld article has made me think yet again about the whole issue of privacy. In this case, OnStar is collecting absolutely every last bit of information they can about you, without your permission, and selling it to anyone with a few pennies to spend. (A later article says that OnStar is reversing course on this decision.) They do tell you about spying on you, but you’ll only find this information if you read through the legalese contained in the Terms & Conditions. However, there are some people who don’t think you have any right to privacy in the first place. Industry leaders that include Facebook chief Executive, Mark Zuckerberg, Google chief, Eric Schmidt, Sun Microsystems chief, Scott McNealy, and Oracle chief, Larry Ellison would prefer you not to have any privacy whatsoever. They’d simply love to dig into every aspect of your life. The use of newer technologies, such as super cookies, have also proven that companies have a strong desire to invade your privacy.

The design of supercookies and the obvious desire of some technology leaders to invade your online privacy and collect data on you has subsequently inspired many to find ways to hide their IP address. A lot of the time, we are so caught up in luxurious technology, such as iPhones or Macbooks, that we don’t even realize that these devices are collecting data on us and feeding it to all sorts of websites. It’s no surprise that people are now opting to look into VPN’s and proxies to not only hide their IP and therefore protect their personal data, but to unblock websites on Mac and other devices.

So, the developer is faced with a number of questions when it comes to privacy. The most important of which is whether privacy is a right. According to the ComputerWorld article, the senate has finally woken up and decided that perhaps privacy is a matter they really should consider, especially when it comes to such brazen violations such as the one by OnStar. There is some validity to the belief that the Constitution and Bill of Rights offers at least some protection of privacy. Some laws, such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) add additional rights. However, I imagine that we’ll experience years of delays, political wrangling, and legal interpretation before those rights are specifically spelled out in a way that developers (and others) can understand.

Assuming that a certain level of privacy is a right and that it’s legally protected, the developer still has a host of questions to answer. Here are some of the things you should think about as a developer when designing an application.

  • What is the company policy regarding privacy?
  • How does an application specifically guard or expose a user’s privacy?
  • When does a user’s right to privacy override the desire of management to invade it?
  • Which rights does a user forfeit as a member of an organization?
  • Is privacy configurable as an opt in or an opt out selection?
  • Precisely what information does the company collect?
  • Precisely what information does the company actually need to conduct business?


If the developer of the OnStar system had included a simple switch for turning the device off (disallowing any eavesdropping of any sort), the whole issue discussed in the ComputerWorld article would be moot. Unfortunately, no one thought to include such a switch, despite the fact that it would have been an obvious design addition. Of course, we don’t need to look specifically at OnStar as a bad example of privacy thwarted. Many applications today include a “call home” feature and won’t even work if you don’t have an Internet connection. In short, someone somewhere is spying on you constantly.

When you look for privacy-related design information for the developer online or in books, you find it mysteriously missing. The reader who called my book into question was right to do so. I hope that this small article has at least started you thinking about privacy and overcomes the omission in my book. Future posts will fill in some additional gaps, but I’d like to hear your perspective on the issue of privacy first. What questions do you have about privacy? How would you design an application that protects user privacy while meeting organizational needs for information? Let me know at [email protected].

 

Labor Day, Eh?

Few Americans realize it, but Labor Day began as a Canadian celebration. That’s right, it was first celebrated in Canada in 1872 with parades in support of the Toronto Typographical Union’s strike for a 58-hour work week. At the time of the parade, it wasn’t unusual for workers to work a 66 to 72 hour work week. Unfortunately, as I write this, many workers are still engaged in a 66 to 72 hour work week—some work even longer.

The first celebration in this country didn’t occur until September 5th, 1882 when New York’s Central Labor Union marched into Union Square as a sign of solidarity and to focus on all the benefits organized labor provides to society. At least a few people credit the original Labor Day as another Irish holiday in this country. I probably wouldn’t go that far. However, the union leader was Irish. There is some confusion as to whether it was Peter McGuire or Matthew Maguire who led the union at the time. Labor Day began as a
festival for the unionized labor in this country and is supposed to
include parades and speeches centered on the importance of the union in
assuring worker’s rights.

The first federal recognition of Labor Day came in 1894 when President Grover Cleveland pushed it through congress after the devastating Pullman strike in May 1894, where many workers lost their lives after being shot by police, U.S. Marshals, and the military. The purpose of Labor Day is political—reconciliation with the labor unions. The president and congress hoped the holiday would help quell any further disputes. It’s a fact that many of the rights that workers enjoy today are written in the blood of laborers of the past who weren’t afraid to say no, even if it meant losing their lives to do it.

Today, the original purpose of Labor Day is all but forgotten. It has become a time for picnics, kids going back to school, the end of summer, and a time when women stop wearing white. (According to most sources I found, the rule against wearing white started in the early 20th century and has now mostly gone out of date.) I’m sure there will be a few parades and possibly a few mentions of organized labor, but many people will simply view it as a nice time to take a day off to review the summer before engaging in the work of the fall months.

It’s important, especially in these economic times, to consider the role of organized labor in establishing the lifestyle we enjoy today. Many Americans don’t truly appreciate how well we live, but we do live quite well compared to many other places on the planet. Labor, organized or not, has helped make that quality of life a reality. Where would we be without carpenters, plumbers, electricians, factory workers, and the like? So, while I’m taking Monday off to celebrate the holiday by smoking some meat (an all day event), I’ll give some thought to people like my father who worked in grueling conditions so that I might enjoy a high quality of life. Let me know your thoughts about Labor Day at [email protected].

 

CFLs for Free

If you haven’t heard about the Compact Fluorescent Light (CFL) by now, then you haven’t been paying much attention. They’re talked about on billboards, the television, radio, magazines, and in stores. In fact, it seems as if you can’t escape the CFL. Yet, many people are still buying the old incandescent bulbs created many years ago by Edison. Yes, incandescent bulbs were a marvel at the time, but today they’re costing you money.

A CFL is basically a fluorescent tube light put into a compact form. They consume considerably less energy than incandescent bulbs and last longer too. When I talk to people about CFLs, the biggest complaint I hear is that they cost so much money to buy. (The second biggest is that CFLs output harsh light or that the bulbs have a short life expectancy, neither of which is true any longer.) Of course, the expense is a legitimate complaint—one that I plan to address in this post.

Rebecca and I have switched our entire house to CFLs. When we first moved into our home, our average monthly bill was over $120.00 a month. Today, due to a number of energy saving techniques, we often get by for $50.00 a month despite a lot of price increases over the years. CFLs are a big part of that savings.

There are some tricks you can use to make the changeover a lot more palatable. Start by investing in high quality CFLs. Avoid the cheap Chinese knockoffs—get a good bulb from GE or Sylvania, even though the initial cost is higher. Track the amount the bulb saves you each month. You can do that quite simply by checking your bill for a reduction or you can do things more scientifically. Keep a log of how long you use the bulb each day for a month—this represents the hours you use the bulb, then use this equation:

Savings = ((Bulb Watts / 1000) * Hours) * KWH Rate


Let’s say that you replace a 100 watt bulb with a CFL equivalent and you use the bulb for 4 hours each evening for a 30 day month. Your KWH rate (available from your electric bill) is $0.12. The new bulb takes only 26 watts. The original cost of using that bulb is:

((100 / 1000) * 120) * 0.12 or $1.44 per month


The cost of the new bulb is:

((26 / 1000) * 120) * 0.12 or $0.37 per month


Your savings are $1.07 per month from just that one bulb. OK, you can pocket that $1.07 and buy half a cup of coffee with it, or you can put it aside. In one year you’ll save enough money to buy a 12 pack of 100 watt CFL replacements for free (at least, you will if you shop smart). Now you can replace 12 incandescent bulbs and it won’t cost anything.

Here’s the payoff. Each of those replacements will also save on your electric bill. If you use each of those bulbs for the same amount of time each day, your savings increase to $13.91 each month, which means that you can buy the next package of CFLs in a month and end up with around $1.47 in change.

As you get new bulbs that haven’t cost you a penny because you would have spent that money on incandescent bulbs anyway, you can quickly replace all of those incandescent bulbs with CFLs that last longer, produce the same quality of light, and reduce your electric bill.

If you are interested in reducing your electric bill further, then you might want to consider using someone like the best electric companies in Texas, as sometimes changing providers can help reduce your electricity bill as well (although, the best thing that you can do is get things like new bulbs, to help you when it comes to energy savings).

Now you can move onto other things. Start with a programmable thermostat. You’ll find that it saves you money each month as well. If you use your CFL savings to buy the thermostat, it won’t cost you anything. You can extend this to weather stripping and all kinds of other energy saving additions—each of which provides a payoff—an incentive for using it.

It took us about 5 years to replace everything we could in our house that would readily provide a payoff and achieve that energy savings that I talked about earlier. Now, we’re pocketing that extra money. The cost savings will help keep our costs low (and in this economy, who can afford to turn away extra cash).

Eventually, we’ll look at other technologies to reduce our carbon footprint. There are many technologies now that we’ve looked at carefully that don’t actually put any money in your pocket. For example, we looked at windmill technology. By the time you pay for your own personal windmill, not to mention batteries, inverter, and other requirements, you’ll have to wait way too long for payback. Hopefully, this technology will improve with time. The same problem occurs with solar power and some other promising technologies—they have no payoff right now (they don’t put money in your pocket).

The next technology that does look promising is solar heated hot water. Right now you still have to replace the system before you get a payoff (the longest lasting setup I could find is about five years—not long enough for payoff), but I think this is going to change in the near future. As the reliability of these systems improve and more people use them, but the cost will come down and there will be a payoff for those of us who have to be concerned about payoff.

There are also some changes we’ll make simply because we have to, even if there isn’t a payoff. For example, we’re going to have to replace our windows at some point. The old wooden windows are literally rotting in place. When we do make a replacement, we’ll look into buying a higher quality window that will at least partially pay back its installation cost in reduced energy costs. What I’ll try to do is balance the expected energy savings against the additional cost to find that magic point where I get a payback of a sort (the windows won’t ever pay for themselves, but the energy savings will ultimately make the windows less expensive than if I had bought cheaper windows).

Do you often find that the people selling energy saving devices miss the point? I find that the brochures stop short of telling people what the payoff is and how to obtain the devices without spending anything. There is usually some message about doing the planet some good and saving it for our children. These are certainly laudable goals, but the question that concerns me most is, “What’s in it for me?” In our case, it has turned out to be about $70.00 per month—well worth the effort involved. Let me know your thoughts on using energy saving devices at [email protected].

An Update On Special Needs Device Hacking

I previously posted an entry entitled Security and the Special Needs Person where I described current hacking attempts against special needs devices by security researchers. In that post, I opined that there was probably some better use of the researcher’s time. Rather than give hackers new and wonderful ways to attack the human race, why not find ways to develop secure software that would discourage attempts in the first place? Unfortunately, it seems as if the security researchers are simply determined to keep chewing on this topic until someone gets hurt or killed. I never even considered this topic in my book, “Accessibility for Everybody: Understanding the Section 508 Accessibility Requirements” because it wasn’t an issue at the time of publication, but it certainly is now.

Now there is a ComputerWorld article that talks about wearable devices used to jam the signals of hackers trying to attack those with special needs devices. What do we do next—encase people in a Faraday cage so no one can bother them? I did find the paper referenced in the article, “They Can Hear Your Heartbeats: Non-Invasive Security for Implantable Medical Devices” interesting, but must ask why such measures even necessary. If security researchers would wait until someone actually thinks of an attack before they came up with a remedy, perhaps no one would come up with the attack.

The basis of the shielding technology mentioned in the ComputerWorld article is naive. Supposedly, the shield lets the doctor gain access to the medical device without allowing the hacker access. Unfortunately, if the doctor has access, so does the hacker. Someone will find a way to overcome this security measure, probably a security researcher, and another shield will have to be created that deflects the new attack. The point is that if they want the devices to be truly safe, then they shouldn’t send out a radio signal at all.

The government is involved now too. Reps. Anna G. Eshoo (D-CA) and Edward J. Markey (D-MA), senior members on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, have decided to task the the Government Accountability Office (GAO) with contacting the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) about rules regarding the safety and security of implantable medical devices. I can only hope that the outcome will be laws that make it illegal to even perform research on these devices, but more likely, the efforts will result in yet more bureaucracy and red tape.

There are a number of issues that concern me about the whole idea of people wearing radio transmitters and receivers full time. For one thing, there doesn’t seem to be any research on the long term effects of wearing such devices. (I did find research papers such as, “In-Body RF Communications and the Future of Healthcare” that describe the hardware requirements for transmission, but research on what RF will do to the human body when used in this way seems sadly lacking.) These devices could cause cancer or other diseases. Fortunately, the World Health Organization (WHO) does seem to be involved in a little research on the topic and you can read about it in their article entitled, “What are electromagnetic fields?“.

In addition, now that the person has to wear a jammer to protect the implantable medical device, there is a significant chance of creating interference. Is there a chance that the wearer could create unfortunate situations where the device intended to protect them actually causes harm? The papers I’ve read don’t appear to address this issue. However, given my personal experiences with electromagnetic interference (EMI), it seems quite likely that the combination of implantable medical device and jammer will almost certainly cause problems.

In summary, we have implanted medical devices that use radio signals to make it more convenient for the doctor to monitor the patient and possibly improve the patient’s health as a result. So far, so good. However, the decision to provide this feature seems shortsighted when you consider that security researchers just couldn’t leave well enough alone and had to find a way for hackers to exploit the devices. Then, there doesn’t seem to be any research on the long term negative effects of these devices on the patient or on the jammer that now seems necessary to protect the patient’s health. Is the potential for a positive outcome really worth all of the negatives? Let me know at [email protected].