Using technology to keep warm

Even though I live in California, it still gets cold in the winter. No, not as cold as in the midwest or the northeast or in northern Europe, but still you're not going to walk around in shorts. So how do you stay warm? I like layered clothing.

The base or inner layer takes away sweat to the other layers. I have always used thin polyester based long sleeved products that are actually designed for outdoor activity. But I don't ski. I use the shirt as simply a device to keep me warm. I have a short sleeved undershirt, followed by the long sleeved base layer. I follow this with a fleece sweatshirt. According to Wikipedia, the traditional mid layer is wool, with fleece as an alternative.

Fleece is made from synthetic fibers. It's soft & mimics wool, but it doesn't weigh as much, & it's cheaper. And frankly, it's easier to find fleece shirts. One problem with fleece is if you have a garment a long time, the more it gets washed, the fleece basically disappears.

I usually follow this with a sweater, but not always, depends on the temperature. What is important is how you use the layers. Different companies have created different systems, like underarm vents. None of my clothes have that, mainly because those tend to cost too much for how i am going to use them. If I was doing activities like skiing or hiking then maybe.

More and more companies are bringing out multi-layered clothing because of the winter activity market. Skiing is very big out west despite the high cost, thus all kinds of companies are testing ways to create comfortable cold weather clothing. but as I have said, it also helps us stay at homes who simply want to keep warm without having to blow our home energy bills through the roof.

Tech fail-Where's instant heat for home?

With all the advances in technology over the recent past, one thing hasn't been done. A way to heat up the house in a short time. Now you living in the snow are welcome to curse me, but it took me an hour to get my house from 58° to 66°. That would be a major problem in a colder part of the country than Northern California. Still it's uncomfortable. I wonder about the possibility of instant on heat. Maybe it's a power issue. How much energy would be needed to heat up that fast?

This probably could be accomplished with microwaves. After all, cooking a meal in a Microwave oven takes much less time than a traditional one. Check the cooking times listed. A frozen fried chicken dinner takes 3-5 minutes in the microwave, but 45 minutes at 350° in a regular one.

The question would of course be, is it safe. This has always been a question with microwaves. But running my furnace for over an hour just so I don't freeze in my home doesn't seem like the best plan, plus causing my energy bill to skyrocket, especially at a time of year that has so many other bills (Christmas presents, entertaining, property tax).

I will be spending Thanksgiving in a house where the fireplace has a gas insert. Theses are expensive, but since I've been visiting my family at this house for over 30 years, I can tell you that the house is at least 10° warmer than when they were burning wood. So the technology should be out there to warm up homes faster & warmer than I am able to do.

Netflix to start streaming only service

Netflix wants to move to a streaming only system because of the cost of sending out DVD's. This would be fine if the selection was the same. I just spent a half an hour trying to find something to watch on my computer. The problem was 90% of the videos were unavailable.

So I'm supposed to spend over $100 for a Roku or Wii so I can stream from my computer to my TV, but the selection is only 10% of Netflix's DVD list. Uh not quite. Sorry, try again. Why would I do that. Most of the films available are either old, made for TV or 2nd rate re-makes. Yes there are some classics, but those are usually on TCM.

There is a claim that Netflix is making deals with the studios to get more on streaming video, but since I was on their site today I can tell you that is just not the case. The studios are fighting this tooth & nail. That's fine for now. I would much rather watch a movie on my TV anyway. And I don't see why I should put out an additional $100-200 for another device to transfer movies from my computer to my TV anyway.

Yes it costs them to ship out DVD's through the mail, especially since they pay for the shipping. But they are making a ton of money. Blockbuster declared bankruptcy because they couldn't compete with the convenience of DVD's coming in the mail. Not everyone has a computer that meets the requirements. For instance, I don't have the requirements to watch in HD. Most people don't. I suspect this won't change for a long time, & while high income people may be able to avail themselves of this deal, the rest of us will just have to wait...for our DVD's to come in the mail that is.

Satellite TV weather issues overblown

When I had Comcast I used to me amused by their commercials that made fun of people with satellite dishes. The one I remember had someone complaining that not only did the dish go out when it rained, but also (ha ha) when the dog sneezed! Of course they were being facectious.

Most of the time, there are no problems. In fact, in 5 years I remember my dish going out maybe twice, & neither were weather related. For instance, I had the TV on Saturday night for  maybe 3 hours after I got off work. Not until I turned it off to go to bed did i realize that not only was it raining, but it was raining really really hard. I have also watch it when the wind was really strong (another one of Comcast's supposed dish bugaboos).

I can't complain too much about my signal. As long as I can watch my shows I'm happy. Although I wish it had gone out yesterday afternoon so I wouldn't have had to endure the sickening display my Niners put on. Oh well.

The curse of the printer

So I have this HP printer that I've had for months, & this morning it didn't feel like doing it's job. Why? I have no idea. I have a little template that I use to print my shopping list. I do this every week. Never had a problem before. This morning I hit print apparently 6 times because it said I had 6 documents waiting but the printer was offline.

Offline? Why? I didn't launch Firefox this morning because I wasn't planning on using it. Why do i need to be on the web to print a document I'm writing? So I loaded it. Same thing. HP help. Worthless. Nothing about what to do when it won't print. Finally I rebooted the computer. Didn't launch Firefox or anything, but guess what? It started printing all those copies. WTF?

What is it with technology, that it can't "just work"? (Go away Linux fanboys) And why is so hard for Microsoft to have in it's help center some info for when something like this happens. I'm no genius, I need help when this happens.

Stumbling around the web

There is a website called Stumble Upon. It puts a toolbar on your browser & everytime you hit stumble it takes you to another random site. You make a list of things you are interested in, & that's how it edits itself.

I find that this site, while entertaining, probably comes across something interesting once every ten sites. Boy there's a lot of boring sites out there. Also a lot of photo sites that don't work that well (photos don't show up, or tracking doesn't). I have found some that were good, but the majority have nothing to offer. but that's the web in general. And it depends where you are. I'm sure people in other countries get to stumble other stuff than I do.

Technology causes two goal switch in NHL game

Hockey is a sport that relies on technology more than other sports. The reason is because scoring is more difficult to see than in any other sport. That's why the goal judge & the red light to announce a goal. But last night was a special case.

During the San Jose Sharks/Los Angeles Kings game, Ryan Smyth scored a goal, but the ref didn't see it so play continued. Torrey Mitchell had a breakaway that resulted in another goal. At this point the video goal judge looked at the previous play, realized Smyth had scored, rewarded him with a goal, & turned back the clock to the time when he scored. This meant Mitchell had technically not scored.

Mitchell admits that he thought Smyth had scored, but he doesn't get too many breakaway chances so he took it. The reversal meant that the score went from 4-1 Sharks to 3-2. The team could have reacted badly to this weird turn of events, but they didn't. Apparently most thought the first goal happened, so they kept playing & ended up winning 6-3.

Again, this is technology at work. It is harder to see a goal in that sport than any other because the puck might just squirt under the goalies pads, & no one will see it. this is a perfect example of that. In football it's using video to see if a receiver has both feet inbounds after a catch, or if a lost ball is a fumble or the QB was throwing an incomplete pass, or who recovered a fumble. During the World Cup, they shaded the goal area to show if a player was offsides.

So I am not against technology in sports. I do however object to refs who take forever to make a decision when it's clear what the result will be. That's just delaying the inevitable.