GeekLimit

When my home state of Illinois originally rolled out its electronic tolling program, I-PASS (Illinois' version of E-Z pass, the national standard) the toll authority said that the transponders in the vehicles would never be used to track your location, only to collect tolls as you pass through the tolling gateways. This being state government, no-one believed them, and it appears that that day is upon us. During the last year or so, Illinois has virtually forced its residents to purchase the electronic tolling transponders by doubling the tolls for users paying with cash. For me, that would mean going from $0.40×4 tolls ($1.60 for about a 20-mile commute) to $0.80×4 tolls ($3.20 per day, $16/week, $64/month, $768/year). I can't afford to pay the extra $384 per year, so I had to purchase the $15 transponder, along with just about every other commuter in Chicago. Once everyone had the I-PASS transponder, all toll plazas in the Chicago area went under construction to have "open-road tolling". This basically means that you don't have to slow down to pay your toll, they get your transponder number as you go underneath the sensor array.

Case in point, there is a toll booth for motorists entering or exiting I-355 to/from I-55. Here is a satellite map of this toll plaza. You can plainly see the open-road tolling lanes on the inside, and the toll booths on the outside, both for motorists without I-PASS, and people with trailers, etc. that have special tolls they need to pay.

9 blocks north of this toll plaza is the 75th street overpass, about a half mile away. What you can't see on the satellite map is that there are a second set of sensors hidden between the girders underneath this bridge. I wouldn't have noticed them, if it weren't for the spotlights that enable a set of cameras to record the rear license plate of cars as they go through.

It does seem a bit odd when you approach the bridge at night. Most bridges are lit from a few fluorescent rods at night, while this one is incredibly bright. It isn't until you pass under the bridge that you notice that all of the lights are facing with traffic, pointing at the back of the cars as they go through the overpass. It's blatantly obvious coming the other way, as the lights are shining towards you. There are no lights or sensors on the southbound side.

In the old days, the older I-PASS transponders used to beep when they were read. I think this caught the Illinois DOT by surprise, because some people still have them, and her is now a sign next to the highway, reading "I-PASS Users: ignore beep, you were not charged."

So what purpose, exactly, would an installation like this serve, if not to catch speeders? Can we expect this on every overpass? Setting up a system like this only seems to serve two purposes, as I can see…

Here is some advice when looking into some of the newer widescreen-format TV's… with excel sheet data, of course…
(by the way, 16:9 (for example) is a type of measurement in how the sides of the screen relate to each other. 6 inches tall for every 9 inches wide. This is called aspect.

So basically, throwing the marketing aside, I have a 30" Sony Wega. Here are the stats for that unit:

(also 163 pounds. That doesn't have to do with anything, it's just fun to point out how ludicrous moving it around is…)

So if I wanted the same amount of screen space (square inches) in a 16:9 TV, I would have to do the following: 31.8-inch diagonal

So now that we're viewing the signal from Comcast in widescreen mode, I can see more of the signal being sent to me. In the past, where my TV would have been cutting off the sides of the signal to show it in 4:3, it now shows the entire signal being sent in its native 16:9.

But wait! Something's wrong here. If I watch a DVD on both TV's, it's true that I get to see more of the picture with the widescreen (1.85 inches on either side). But because this is 16:9, my "32 inch" 16:9 TV displays people in the movie 2.4 inches shorter! In effect, a person on my 16:9 TV is the same size as on a "26 inch" 4:3 TV. I gained extra picture on the sides of the 16:9, but the actual size of what's being displayed gets smaller on a 16:9 if you compare the 16:9 and 4:3 "32 inch" TV's next to each other.

Well that just won't do. I want to keep the same image size I'm used to, but just get the extra inches on the sides that I've been missing. In order to replace my 30" Sony and keep the same image size, but add the extra picture on the sides, I would have to look into a 16:9 TV with the following specs:

Whoa! A "36.7 inch" TV? Yep, if I wan to keep the picture I am used to, but get the benefit of the extra picture on the sides, that's what I'm looking at. And that's what you should be looking at if you're thinking of switching from a 4:3 TV to a 16:9. So what if you don't have a 30" TV? Well, the chart at the bottom should help you out.

So what's the bottom line? Well, it just so happens to work out that no matter what size diagonal your 4:3 TV is, if you take the inches diagonal of the 4:3 (30", for example) and multiply it by 1.2238, the number you get will be the size diagonally that you will need in your 16:9 so that you have the same height screen as your 4:3.Here is the excel sheet to prove it!

I love these thing. Here's some specs I found on a few alternative-powered motorcycles. (US conversions done by me)

Diesel-Electric

Motoring – Hybrid eCycle is fun and super-eConomical:

Motor: Air-cooled two-stroke diesel twin.
Capacity: 125cc.
Power: 7.5kW. (10 hp)
Induction: Parker Aerospace Macrospray injectors.
Ignition: Compression.
Starting: Electric.
Transmission: 2-speed constant mesh with final drive by belt.
Suspension: 48mm FAR inverted cartridge forks at front, Penske Racing hydraulic shock absorber at rear.
Brakes: 298mm (11.73 inches) disc with four-pot opposed piston Grimeca calliper at front, 216mm (8.5 inches) disc with single-piston Grimeca calliper at rear.
Tyres: Front: 110/70-17 tubeless. Rear: 130/70-17 tubeless.
Wheelbase: 1321mm. (52 inches)
Seat height: 762mm. (30 inches)
Dry weight: 132kg. (291 pounds)

Electric

GprHome:

Motor: Rare Earth Magnet
Power: 15 Peak Horsepower
Top Speed: 45 to 65 mph (adjustable)
Range: 20 to 40 miles (adjustable)
Brakes: Dual Hydraulic Disks
Charge Time: 3.5 hours

What's nice about this is that you can actually buy one of these, unlike the eCycle, from what I have found. The downside (?) is that it's entirely electric, so it's range is limited by who will let you plug in.

However, with its range, it remains a viable solution for commuters or weekend fun, but probably wouldn't be too good on the interstate highways, with a max speed of 65 mph.

Still, for a $7000 bike, not bad performance at all. 

Project Name: Compact Fluorescent Replacement x 50

Initial Cost: $250
Recurring cost: $250 every 8000 hours, plus $14.92/month
(new bulbs and energy costs, bulbs will probably be cheaper by then)
Time involved: 90 minutes
(Get the bulbs, remove old, install new)
Time to pay off initial investment: about 8 months
(varies, the more you use them, the faster they pay off)

GEEK MONEY: $31.37/month for every 50 replacements
(about 63 cents per bulb replaced)

When I first moved into my townhouse, I couldn’ figure out why my electric bill was so bad. I had attributed it to summertime and the air conditioning, but soon noticed something else…
The fire hazard

A light bulb had burned out, and while replacing it, I noticed that the bulb was a 70-watt unit, and the recessed lighting receptacle was only rated for 60W. This can be a fire hazard, so I checked a few other bulbs – all 70 watts! A few were even 100 watts, with the labels on the recessed lighting turning brown from the heat!

This was bad. I counted how many 60W bulbs I would need. For my small house, I needed about 50. Ouch. “But wait”, I thought, “If I have 50 bulbs at 60W each, and I pay ComEd 8.275 cents per kilowatt/hour, I can figure out how much these bulbs are costing me.”

A kilowatt/hour is a measurement of how much energy is flowing to your house. It represents 1000 watts being used in an hour. So let’s say I have my lights on for about 43.5 hours per week… (when I’m home during the week, and 8 hours on the weekend)
Excel to the rescue

60W x 50 bulbs = 3000 watts
3000 watts x 43.5 hours per week = 130,500 watt/hours = 130.5 kilowatt/hours
130.5 kW/hours per week * 4 weeks = 522 kW/hours per month
522 kW/hours per month * 8.275 cents per kW/hour = $50.39 43.20 per month

$50 per month! Just for these lights! That doesn’t count for computers, bathroom lights, fridge, TV, AC, etc.

OK, so settling down, I could just go and buy 50 60W bulbs. This would cost me about $1.00 for a 4-pack from Home Depot, or about $12.50. It would also save me $7.19 per month, making my bill about $43 instead of $50. I would pay off the new bulbs in 1.7 months, and save $7 per month after that. Pretty weak, especially since 60W bulbs usually need to be replaced about every 400-800 hours (on average), which means every 9-18 weeks.

However, Home depot also sells Compact Fluorescent bulbs. compact fluorescent bulbs are basically like the big, long bulbs you see at work or in the grocery store. They are filled with a gas that glows when a small amount of electricity is applied to it. They use hardly any energy, and are more efficient than a regular bulb, which uses a lot of electricity to heat a small wire. compact fluorescent’s are different than the big, long ones, in that someone made the tubes very narrow and curled them all into the shape of a normal light bulb. Sometimes there is even a glass covering over the fluorescent tubing to make it look more “normal”.

The good thing about the compact fluorescent bulbs is that you can get a 6-pack that costs less than $30 these days, with each bulb putting out as much light as a 60W bulb, while only using 13 watts each. In addition, these bulbs are rated for anywhere between 8000 to 10,000+ hours.

The bad part is that each bulb costs about $5, instead of 25 cents.

OK, so let’s see what would be better over the course of 8000 hours of use, the equivalent of 3.8 years of use for me.

Regular bulbs
Cost for bulbs: 50 bulbs, each replaced (on average) every 800 hours = $125
Cost of electricity for 8000 hours: $1,986.00
Total cost: $2111, or about $46.29 per monthcompact fluorescent bulbs
Cost for bulbs: 50 bulbs, lasts for 8000 hours = $250
Cost of electricity for 8000 hours: $430.30
Total cost: $680.30, or about $14.92 per month

Conclusion

So what do I do? Replace the 70W bulbs with 60W bulbs, or bite the $250 bullet and go with the 13W bulbs that output as uch as 60W bulbs?

The compact fluorescent bulbs, of course.

In fact, I then replaced every bulb in my entire house with compact fluorescent, including bathrooms, lamps, outside lights, even the garage light. Total cost was around $325, no small amount, to be sure. But then again, saving $50 per month on 70+ bulbs…pretty sweet.

With the coming age of municipal wi-fi, it won't be long before Companies like Google will integrate their Local Search into location-aware vehicles. Here are a few Car-puter applications I see as being the killer mashup apps in the first 2-3 years of vehicle-integrated wi-fi.

Navigation + gas price search In this product, your car will be giving you navigation as many cars do today, but with the option of GPS or by wireless location awareness. However, by tying into the vehicle's engine control computer, the application will know how far you can go on your remaining fuel, and suggest the cheapest place to refill along your route. Now there are some caveats with this system. It should probably only make you fill up when you're below 1/4 tank or so, and there might not be a way to make sure that you're being told to fill up in a safe neighborhood. But the option is there to save you a few bucks on fuel, and to remind you when it's time to fill up.

Navigation + congestion avoidance We've seen this before. Even early navigation systems have a feature where you can tell it 'skip the next mile of my commute', and it will find a detour. However, with so much traffic data online, it would be a shame to not use this information to your benefit. With every vehicle connected, getting a real-time snapshot of current traffic conditions within a mile or so would be a snap. (this algorithm could increase the range of the forecasting depending on what types of roads are on your route…local forecast for city streets, long-range for the highways) In addition, by tying into the engine control computer, a vehicle could broadcast when its airbags are deployed, and automatically ping rescue personnel. In addition, that area could be red-flagged for everyone else to avoid, if the detour would not be too much of a time penalty. note: no personally identifiable information should be broadcasted for traffic monitoring, although you could count on the govt. eventually building a database of MAC address vs. VIN, even if they promise not to do so when the concept is launched…it's just too enticing. (Remember how long toll booths were supposed to be around?)

Navigation + Networked retail Take a home that is networked to your amazon wish list, etc., and have it alert you when someone has a deal on your stuff on the way to wherever you're going. In addition, have the car alert you to deals you've opted in to know about. Your grocery store knows you always buy tomatoes when you come in (already implemented in those 'club cards'), so come to the store on your way home and get a good deal today. Pizza place on your way home? press yes on the dash to order whatever you ordered last time, we'll give you $2 off for being a good customer, and we'll time it so it comes out of the oven as you're pulling up to the curb. Billed to your PayPal account, of course.

All of the above suggestions should most likely be done as the car is started, and after the driver has used a very easy-to-use navigation system to quickly choose from their most frequent destinations ('favorites list') They should NOT be done while in motion. Not only is it dangerous, but would put the businesses at enormous liability. However, here is one suggestion for while the car is in motion.

Feedback system + Heads Up Display Ooh, I like this one. Implement an eBay-like feedback system for other drivers. You know that guy that just drove up the shoulder, like he's too good to wait with the rest of you? point at the license plate, and the computer will allow you to give him a -1 courtesy feedback. Someone wants you to slow down and let them in, even though you're not legally bound to? Well, this one has a +200 courtesy score according to the HUD, (her details showing up automatically when she has the turn signal on), so she deserves it. Uh oh, though, an alarm just came up on the HUD of a vehicle approaching the same intersection as you. -4 accident score! Beware! The idea here is to make the person's individual score an indicator of how considerate they've been, and to penalize those who aren't. Subject to abuse, I know, so there would probably have to be some sort of mechanism where all your scores move one point towards zero every week. This would mean that you would have to be consistently good (or bad) to maintain any score. In addition, this may be an alternative to speed limits altogether. Everyone is allowed to do whatever they do, and if anyone if flagged multiple times, the police will check out the situation, since multiple random people are seeing the same thing. In addition, it wouldn't be difficult to also display on the HUD how people are ranking others. Likewise, if an account is consistently marking others down with reckless abandon, that would be something to look into, and possible penalize.

OK, Geeks, what else can you think of? Remember, demand drives innovation here, so if you can dream it, it can (and might) be built!

Now here's an interesting concept .  This new carbonated cola contains all sorts of ingredients to increase thermogenesis in the body. 

 Thermogenesis, from Wikipedia:

Thermogenesis is the process of heat production. Non-shivering thermogenesis usually occurs in brown adipose tissue (brown fat) that is present in newborn and hibernating mammals and in human infants. It is a process where substances such as free fatty acids (derived from triacylglycerols) remove purine (ADP,GDP…) inhibition of thermogenin (uncouping protein-1) which causes an influx of H+ into the matrix of the mitochondria and bypasses the ATP synthase channel. This uncouples oxidative phosphorylation and the energy from the proton motive force is dissipated as heat rather than producing ATP from ADP.

Oh-kaay…  So basically it's the process where fat->heat. 

But does it work?  Who knows, they don't sell it here yet.  But for anyone around the hardware overclocking scene, you know that more energy = heat, so conceptually if you can drink something to raise your body temp a few degrees, that takes more energy, which expends fat at a faster rate, which, theoretically, should train your body to habitually burn fat faster than it should to maintain its temperature.  Of course, this might also train your body to store more fat in anticipation of needing it later…which would give the opposite result when you went off the soda.

At least you don't have to worry about turning into a fireball when your heatsink falls off . 

So is it healthy?  Probably not.  But if you're looking to speed up your metabolism without doing anything physical, maybe this is what you're looking for.  On the other hand, maybe don't monkey with your body's internal functions, you could go also work out / stop eating junk instead.  That works too.

We polled our authors as to their favorite Geek movies of all time.

Here's what they came up with:

Read the rest of this entry »