DWP - Futurist At Large

A Direction for Near Future Tech

With current technology there is a trend towards the combining of functions and technologies. Perhaps it is not a "Swiss Army Knife" of technology we are looking at, but when you look at all that is being included in some items like your typically carried Cell phones -- there is a lot there.

I believe that all Cell phones include a phone book in them to record the numbers of calls coming in or going out. This is of course more convenient when tied in with the service of call display which many if not most subscribe to or have included in their service. Most if not all the phones also have some sort of calendar function in addition to a watch function and at least rudimentary alarm function if not one that can be programmed in conjunction with the calendar. Combining these they often have a virtual appointment book ability which would have been the envy of any business executive 20 years ago.

Nearly everyone could if they wish, have access to voice mail as well for missed calls or be able to forward calls to or from a regular phone service to their mobile one. They also have options to send or receive text messages. The price for them of course varies depending on service contract and location. (Not to mention date, phase of the moon, tide, which direction the last dark bird flew past your gaze...)

Those are pretty well standard sorts of communication things you might expect.

A bit more than that are Internet capabilities including being able to access eMail, Internet Chat services, and actual World Wide Web access. You might pay a bit heftier dollar for that ability and even more if you would like to be able to plug your portable computer into your cell phone whether it is a Notebook or Net book computer.

Beyond that... many of not most cell phones have the ability to take digital photographs if not short digital videos. It seems to me that the 1 Megapixel resolution level is very common if not greater. That is a log greater than most people might need for use in digital images for the Internet. Of course we are not talking about the needs of photographers here.

The phones -- and we aren't talking about the expensive sort really -- very often include the ability to download and play games in addition to other things like "ring tones" and background art for the control screen that nearly all phones have. That is the same screen you screen your digital pictures and videos on as well as check your messages and everything on.

The phone as well can often be used to play music on and can do well as an mp3 player with only the addition of decent headphones or earbuds.

All those things on fairly normal cell phones.

Then we get to the "smart phones" which are virtually tiny computers with complete keyboards or alternate methods for data entry. Some have nearly gone away from keys completely opting for total touch screen control -- that allows for the entire top surface of the device to be used as the device screen. Those can act as total digital assistants... or PDA -- Pocket Digital Assistants -- like the Palm Pilots of all. They seem to have superceded the Palm Pilots if you ever try go shopping for them.

The mp3 player has expanded as well to include the abilities to record sound like a portable voice recorder. The mp players also routinely include FM radio recievers and have enough memory to allow them to carry digital computer files within -- thus acting as "pen drives" or "memory sticks". Of course the mp3 players themself can use memory cards which gets sorta circular. The mp3 player also expanded into playing video and being an mp4 player. This is where they overlapped or became or inspired or...(?) the portable video player. The really nice ones also forgo the buttons for touch screens... and are nearly identical to the cell phones with the same screens. They just don't have the cell phone function. Though the mp3/video player ones did gain the wireless networking capability tha allows them to comunicate wirelessly and hence the good ones can access the Internet and do everything else those cell phone ones can do. They even play the same games in the same ways... and I believe from the same sources. Did I mention the phones can download and play the same videos the video players can?

Then there are the portable game players -- they have gotten more and more powerful and gained the ability to network wirelessly as well, and you can access the Internet as well as computers with them. Many of them have touch screens and they can be used to play videos or watch pictures on -- much like the mp3/video playes I have mentioned and the cell phones.

There are also eBook players out there whose purpose is to hold and display eBooks in various formats. They connect either through networking cables or more commonly now through wireless networking.

I might finally mention the digital picture frames which are very limited and the PDAs that I think morphed into the "smart phones" and mostly disappeared.

Perhaps the edges between these things are very much blurring -- especially if you take into account the notebook/laptop computers and their slightly smaller cousin the net book. I do see a direction that things might take with this blurry tech fog.

I think that people will start thinking of what their primary focus is and then go for the device that handles that best. Then they will purchase a device that does that best -- meaning with all the features of that dedicated device -- and have that device fitted with all the other features that would be convenient not to have to carry as separate devices.

Here is an example of what I am speaking:

Let's say I have a hobby that is photography. I would go to a camera shop and purchase a nice camera. It would have the lenses or a lens system that I would want. (I am not a photographer, so please bear with me as I am not so conversant with the terms and stuff.) Having chosen the camera I would also have a camera that would have digital memory for digitally recording the images as well as recording them on film. (Providing it took film photographs as well as digital ones.) It would be able to record sound and some video as well. The camera would be able to play mp3 files as a music player through headphones or ear buds although they might be bluetooth wireless ones. I would also be able to watch video content on the display screen of the camera if I should so choose. The camera would also have wireless networking to connect with WiFi hotspots or my computer and if I should choose I should be able to activate it to a cell phone plan and use it as a cell phone with a handy blue tooth headset. Not to mention using the camera for "texting" messages or as an address or date book.

Conversely if my prime usage were as a student, perhaps all of these functions might take place through a portable computer -- probably a net book for portability -- that I would use for all those functions.

I guess the idea sort of falls apart if you don't want to carry the large item everywhere, like when you don't want to carry the net book to everything, or the camera, or the digital tape recorder, or the electric guitar (with the phone etc. built in...)... But for the photographer, videographer, reporter, author, or other person who always carries their tools around with them...

Hmm, I guess they aren't building them into paint brushes or pens quite yet... but how about those scientific or engineering calculators... they still make calculators don't they?

Later!
~ Darrell

158.

Too Real

When is it too much toy?

"Talk To Me Elmo" is an interesting toy. Now I have not seen one in action in person, but I have heard one in action over the phone being played with by my friend's 2-year-old and have seen the slightly more venerable "Tickle Me Elmo" which started that toy ball rolling. It was very interesting listening to "Elmo" chattering away with my "niece" while my friend was on the phone. My friend described how Elmo was flapping his arms and how my niece was flapping hers and later how she had set Elmo up at her drawing table expecting Elmo to do some drawing.

(image to left of "Talk To Me Elmo" from USA TODAY.com)

Now I don't think that "Talk To Me Elmo" is quite up to doing any drawing... yet ... but it did get me wondering about what people have said in the past about the effect of television on children. I was wondering about the effect of such life-like toys on children. There was always this controversy about how children might not understand the difference between reality and fiction, or reality and fantasy with the television offerings they had. That was combined with the large number of hours of TV viewing that children were starting to have.

Toys like the new Elmo might be bending that line further. Perhaps not too much problem with the current generation of Elmo toys, but what about the near future?

This Elmo can interact with the child at least by touch and "...remembers a child's name and habits..."¹ according the the 2005 article on USA TODAY.com. The current one I know does much and probably more than the 2005 edition.

I am not sure if we should be worried or at least be concerned over the direction toys might be taking in blurring the boundaries between toy and reality... or is it toy? These toys are small robots and computers and the children are becoming very comfortable with them.

Of course perhaps we have to watch about not the boundary between reality and illusion, fiction, or fantasy -- but rather the boundary between life and automation.

Later!
~ Darrell

153.

__________
¹ "New tech toys walk, talk and play tunes this Christmas" Sept 6 2005; Angela Moore; Reuters USATODAY.com -- Tech Products..

Electronic Coveralls

Why I Want a Cellphone

I have told many of my friends and my relatives in the past that I really do not need a cellphone. I still really do not need one, but I think I want one and I have my reasons. It isn't really to chatter with to friends, relatives, business contacts, or even enemies. I want one to reduce clutter. Just the way a pair of coveralls will cover and protect both your pants and shirt with one garment instead of a work smock and work pants, I want a cellphone to cover a few bases.

You see with my writing I like to have a camera at hand. I also want to have a source of radio-music and other audio at hand including a voice recorder. I use an mp3 player for voice recording, FM radio access, and for listening to audio books and music as well as for using as a USB flash drive. It would also be nice to carry a digital phone book, date book, and calculator. I could carry a digital camera, mp3 player, and some sort of PDA. But considering I would probably be content to be carrying around a digital camera that was 1 or 2 Megapixels, a halfway decent cellphone might cluster all those functions into one device.

I really don't want to make many calls... even a low minute regular plan is a bit extravagant to me so I am looking at pay-as-you-go or "no contract" cellphone plans. I don't need to web surf, though it would be nice to make the odd emergency call and to be able to text message the transit info for the schedule of the next 6 buses to come through at the stop I am standing at. I think it also would be neat to be able to read eBooks on.

I know I'll probably pay between $100 and $200 for the phone instead of getting it "free" on a 3 year plan, but I'll also probably only be paying $10-$15 per month if that... Hmm... now how soon 'til it balances out?

Later!
~ Darrell

141

__________
Unattributed images are from Image*After.

Tub Needs a Plug!

Ships in Harbour a Source of Air Pollution -- To be Plugged... In.

Commerce and tourism are two important parts of the economy of many communities and MetroVancouver¹ is one of those places where it plays a very important role. With that importance comes a price and there are prices in polution to be paid to do with the port.

Something many people might not consider -- when looking at the powerful freighters moored in the harbour or docked at the term; or watching the graceful cruise ship sailing under Lions Gate Bridge (image to left -- image from Dubman Tours) to dock at the passenger terminals --  is that those ship while parked keep engines running the whole time in order to run generators for electral works and other systems on the ship the whole time in port. Undoubtedly they aren't running their main engines and producing the same amount of exhaust as they would at sea, but they do produce a substantial ammount. I was surprised recently reading how substantial it is and on a percentage basis how much it might become.

The Vancouver Sun²:

Collectively, ship exhaust emissions comprise one of the biggest sources of air pollution in the Metro-Fraser Valley region - port electrification would allow marine vessels to switch off their engines
and plug into the grid instead.

Seattle Post-Intelligencer³:

But the image also has a less obvious, troubling aspect. For every day it's in the harbor, the ship's smokestacks may be spewing as much nitrogen oxide into the city's air as 12,500 cars, as much as an oil refinery.

Seattle Post-Intelligencer³:

A 2003 British Columbia study said marine vessels have produced more than a million tons of pollutants in a year, more than half the total there. The Greater Vancouver Regional District, which put together the study, predicts the marine industry will produce a growing percentage of key pollutants in that region as ship traffic grows and auto pollution is reduced.

A partial solution is to provide some sort of method for ships to connect to the electrical grid of the port that they are docked at. Metro Vancouver is towards implementing that. Port Metro Vancouver wants to see cruise ships plugged in for the 2009 summer cruise season. One of the large issues is a lack of federal money. There is a need for $4 million needed to add to contributions from Metro Vancouver port authority, the region, the marine industry, and the province.²

The system of providing shore power to cruise ships is something that was first implemented on the West Coast at Juno Alaska in 2002 and since then Seattle has provided shore power plugs to tow of their three berths. In  Long Beach, San Pedro, San Francisco and San Diego there are plans to do so as well.⁴

In addition to ports providing the infrastructure to allow ships to plug in to shore power there must also be provision for the ships to be able to take advantage of this as well. Holland America and Princess Cruise ships are able to plug-in in Seattle.⁴

Power provided by the shore electrical grid costs about the same as that generated by diesel on the ship if you discount the investment for a transformer on the ship required to plug-in to the grid.

The cruise ship industry has been a first step because it is in the public eye seem to be more willing to comply with requests. Two container terminals in the inner harbour -- I am assuming that is referring to Coal Harbour or elsewhere on Burrard Inlet between First and Second Narrows -- have the infrastructure in place for wiring to go to the dockside. The new third berth at Deltaport on Robert's Bank will have that infrastructure when it is completed.⁵

There are some hurdles to do with BC Hydro and the BC Utilities Commision in order to develop pricing schems for these customers. The port authority has formally applied to BC Hydro for the interconnecting service.

(image to left, 2005 registration of merchant ships - image from Wikipedia⁶)

There are greater difficulties in dealing with pollution issues in the shipping industry as most of the oceangoing ships are "foreign-flagged" so reducing emissions takes significant amounts of time.³ This action would help with emission issues for when the ships are travelling in and out of harbour -- and of course at sea -- as well as if they have to be running engines for power at anchor. But acting on merchant shipping is something that has to be initiated on an international level -- the International Maritime Organization (IMO), a United Nations agency.³ When regulations are put into effect by the IMO they would be enforced by individual nations and ports. The IMO was looking at revising their 1997 regulations in 2006.⁷

(image to right from Wikipedia⁶)

Plugging into shore power will solve problems of idling ships which are docked, but for ones at anchor in the harbour... Personally I wonder what solutions might there be other than improved air-pollution standards internationally. Somehow I think that providing docking stations in the harbour at anchorages so that ships could plug in would be prohibitive in cost. Perhaps tenders or barges with huge hydrogen fuel cells might provide these plug-ins? They'd be refuelled and moved where needed. Perhaps in future ships might have hydrogen fuel cells or solar panels for in port and other needs on their own? Perhaps a power barge might have fuel cells, solar panels, wind turbines, and wave power generators all in one? (I can really be a dreamer.)

Perhaps someday there might be solutions for ships at sea, but for now while we think globally we have to act locally and work on the pollution on more local selfish levels like the increase to pollution burdens in our cities.

Later!
~ Darrell

137

__________
¹Metro Vancouver is the name of what was once known as the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) or colloquially as Greater Vancouver and which Statistics Canada defines as "Vancouver CMA" (Census Metropolitan Area) "having perfectly coterminal boundaries with Metro Vancover" -- Metro Vancouver - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

² "Plug-in power a key to cleaner air" Scott Simpson, Sept 4, 2008; Vancouver Sun.

³  "Air pollution from cargo ships stirs growing concern" Larry Lange, January 20, 2004; Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

⁴ John Hansen, President of the NorthWest CruiseShip Association - Vancouver Sun "Plug-in power a key to cleaner air" Sept 4, 2008

⁵ Darryl Desjardins,  Environmental programs director for Port Metro Vancouver - Vancouver Sun "Plug-in power a key to cleaner air" Sept 4, 2008

⁶ "Ship transport" Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

⁷ "Plan May Ease Air Pollution at Ports" Dan Weikel, July 6, 2006; Los Angeles Times

Unattributed images from Image*After.

Mile i Pod

Watching What You Want to Watch Where You Want to When You Want to

Alright here is something perhaps new for you... Where do your rights start when it comes to where you can watch or surf something on the privacy of your own PED (Personal Electronic Device -- Notebook or Laptop computer; iPod; Portable DVD player; mp4 player; personal video player...)?

American Airlines has an in-flight Wi-Fi service now for passengers which started on some flights August 20th¹ and there are concerns voiced by flight attendants and passengers about people using the service to access porn sites while on flights. An article on Bloomberg.com mentions that there were "a lot of complaints"¹and that the Association of Professional Flight Attendants has brought up the issue with management  They recommend that American filter its Wi-Fi service -- blocking black-listed sites -- in order to block offensive content² as I believe there are plans to screen VoIP service as well³. VoIP is Voice over Internet Protocol which basically is the primary way of making telephone calls by way of your Internet connection. (image to left* from Image*After)

There are a number of issues involved. There are the worries that passengers will complain that their neighbouring passengers are watching objectionable material on their PED. Of course there are also worries that passengers might be disturbed that their ability to access any site they could from home would be blocked in a form of censorship. More seem to be accepting of this in the case of the VoIP¹. Perhaps they can see that is in direct competition with the telephone service the airlines already charge for on flights?

Flight Attendants in addition to not wanting to get an eyeful of something they'd rather not see on someone's PED also do not want to become "moral policemen"¹ and have one more area where they might have to lay down the law. They have their hands full with other aspects of the job and likely don't want to have to settle disputes between passengers -- which might be either "they've got something objectionable on their screen" or "the person behind me keeps looking over my shoulder". Another aspect is people doing lewd things while watching explicit content.

(image to right from Image*After)

This is not something that came up just with the introduction of WiFi and Internet connectivity on airliners. This issue also comes up with whether an airline can prohibit what sorts of DVD or other content a passenger is viewing on their PED. A person can have a DVD with nearly any sort of content imaginable and pop it into a player -- whether computer or not -- and play it with no Internet involved at all. Likewise for video podcasts or even audio ones -- remember the "faked orgasm scene" from "When Harry Met Sally".

Of course these things did not appear with digital electronics. The same problems can be said about explicit magazines. Anyone could flip open the magazine of their choice on the airplane and start "reading the articles". Things like this have been a part of life for quite a while and are not really new.

Anyone who is offering the service of an Internet hookup probably has the right to say what they want to provide or block -- perhaps other than the actual providers? If  coffee shop provides WiFi connection to its customers, they probably can block access to some sites with blocking programs. I know when I go to places that provide such services the first thing I get when I try to access the Web is a screen asking if I accept the limits and risks imposed on me and that I might be exposed to by connecting to the Internet there. I can just imagine someone suing a coffee shop for a virus they picked up on their computer when the were downloading pirated game software.

(Image to left from Image*After)

I am not sure if it is a "non-problem" really. I don't know that it has been a problem with people sitting in coffee shops drinking Latte and watching XXX. For the most part regular people behave themselves in public. The times they don't seem to tend to be the times when they are getting intoxicated or high... and that is an issue on its own whether on land, "see" or airline. Control the booze and you likely won't have to worry  about controlling the people.

(image to right from Notebook Review¹¹)

Of course if you control porn sites, then you'll want to control pirate software sites too. You'll want to screen out any site that would have illegal activity on it. But what about violent video games? ...music with violent lyrics? ...content that might be deemed offensive for racial, religious, or other sexual reasons? What if someone is watching news content from an enemy country? ...or news from a country that has opposing views to your own country? What if one person is offended that the person next to them is watching religious programming?

I think that often the answer given by peace officers is "then don't look" -- though sometimes it is hard when it is presented nearly on your own lap. Luckily nearly everyone has the decency to use headphones or earphones. I think that rather than blocking things, it perhaps should all be taken care of on a case by case basis.

I was remembering back when I was in university and calculators were a novel thing still, but becoming commonplace. There were worries about people cheating by seeing the numbers on someone else's calculator. I think that manufacturers foresaw this because it wasn't very long before calculators -- at least scientific and engineering calculators -- had recessed numbers so that you could only read the display from where you were using it. If you were to the side at all you couldn't read the numbers.

Anti-glare shields that came out for early computer monitors (image to left - image from Ergo in Demand) also had this function and it was considered to be a feature for offices where you wouldn't want confidential information seen by people nearby. With some older laptops it was difficult to see the screen unless you were in front of them. But because many people want to share what they show on their laptop screen, many consider it a bonus to have the screen viewable from a broad range of angles -- otherwise there would be less problem with neighbours seeing what you see.

But there are purposes for such a product for notebooks especially and perhaps there are such products out already... Yup There is a 3M PF14.1 - notebook privacy filter! (image to right - image from CDW Canada)

Perhaps though there might be a market for disposable/resusable "blinders" for computers? Perhaps the airlines might offer them for safe viewing? They could also double as glare shields from the cabin lighting.

Protection provided for your viewing pleasure.

Later!
~ Darrell

135

__________
¹ "American Air Attendants Urge Fiters to Bar Web Porn (Update3)" Mary Schlangenstein, Sept. 10, 2008; Bloomberg.com: News.

² "Porn on a plane: Flight attendants fret over inappropriate Web surfing" David Carnoy, Sept. 12, 2008; Crave, the gadget bog -- CNET, news.cnet.com.

³ "Airlines planning to filter, censor in-flight 'Net access" Jacqui Cheng, Dec. 24, 2007; From the News Desk -- ars technica.
"Porn on a plane! Concerns raised over naughty in-flight WiFi" Jacqui Cheng, Sept. 12 2008; From the News Desk -- ars technica.

¹¹ "Coffee Shop Laptop Zombies" Andrew, May 23, 2007; Notebook Forums and Laptop Discussion - Notebook Review

* Images of airliners not intended to represent American Airlines or specific airline

A Different Perspective

Looking at Things From a New Angle

I think there has been a change in how many people look at things in the Western World. For much of the 20th Century -- up until the 1970's or 80's we were very much driven by paper. If we were doing a report or take notes we would write it on paper that was oriented vertically. Our TV's and movie screens however were oriented horizontally. The current terms used for these orientations -- at least in the world of the Internet, so far as I know -- are "Portrait" (image to left by DWP¹) and "Landscape" (image to right by DWP¹).

Where this comes important is when video digital terminals and later personal computer monitors came into common use. The terminals and monitors were nearly all in landscape orientation. There were a few notable exceptions I'll get to. This wasn't of great importance until people began to be able to compose documents on the computer or electronic word processor. The screen just didn't fit the printed word on paper. Paper of course normally in publication is in the portrait orientation.

To begin with there was little issue because people wrote on the computer and what they wrote was really not in the same format as what they expected to see printed on paper. Good "word processors" would have a tool for previewing what the printed document should look like and it was okay if this just took up a portion of the landscape oriented screen. Later word processing software and office suites -- to be joined with actual "Desktop Publishing" software -- actually was WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get). That meant that what you saw on the screen more and more resembled what was actually going to be seen on paper and at full size. Of course the screen went one way and the paper the other. For the most part that has just been accepted and programs have included modes that let you see shrunken versions that will fit on the monitor screen or just let you see a part of the page. Sometimes it is nice to see a two page or even multi-page preview on screen to see how things fit together as a whole document.

Apple did take a step forward with their Portrait Display for the Macintosh²³ (image to right - image from "myoldmac.net"). It was monochrome like the original Macs and since so were printers at the time, black print on white screen was just fine. (or many shades of grey) There also was pride on very white screens if I recall the term "paper white screen. There were also monitors developed that would rotate from landscape to portrait orientation. I think that the portrait oriented monitors were/are mostly used by people who do a lot of desktop publishing.

With the ability to have multiple monitors hooked up to computers now and shared desktops and so forth, there is a resurgence in use of portrait oriented monitors. (image to left - image from "MacNN Forumsª")  Probably the new thin designed screens also makes it easier to design and implement considering the lighter components inside without the hefty cathode ray tube (CRT) and transformers.

Note how the second portrait monitor fits so nicely to the left of the main, quite large monitor.

Consider this though: will there be a bias when people design pages, for them to design to the landscape page more often now than the portrait? I got to thinking about that a few years ago when designing event posters for the museum I volunteer at. (The Port Moody Station Museumº) I was designing the posters to fit on regular "letter" sized paper and thought about how we orient such stuff on the paper. Often maps will go landscape while small posters go portrait. When people put together websites although the screen tends to be landscape, the pages tend to either be designed to fit one page landscape or extend portrait style.

I was wondering if people seeing more and more things in text on a landscape screen would be tending to design documents on that landscape orientation? I know some things just fit better one way or the other. Many people do read things more easily in narrower columns so a wide page is a problem. (Sorry but I can't cite a source at the moment on that, it is something told me by teachers and I have read in articles on learning disorders. It has to do with the eye skipping up or down a line more easily on long lines.) But a wide page can take multiple columns like the news papers have.

Still I think people are more used to scrolling down a long web page than across one. Though the trackpad on my Macbook and the MightyMouse I bought for it can scroll horizontally with equal ease, most mice I have come across are intended to scroll vertically. I wonder though if younger people have less bias against horizontal scrolling and horizontally presented pages? Of course... do people have any bias at all in either direction? .

Later!
~ Darrell

134.

__________
¹ "DWP" -- That's me.

² "myoldmac.net -- Apple Macintosh Portrait Display -- Buy it!"

³ "Apple Portrait Display" MonitorWorld.com.

ª "The New Power Mac Picture Thread -- Page 13" blakespot; Sept 29, 2006, 6:00 pm: MacNN Forums

º "The Port Moody Station Museum Blog" 2734 Murray Street Port Moody, British Columbia, Canada (604) 939-1648 run by the Port Moody Heritage Society

Of Belts and Books, Briefcases and Backbacks... Part-1

Belting One On -- Front Seat Bad-Backseat Good

I come from a reckless generation... perhaps lucky we were wreck-less.

When I grew up, cars seldom had seatbelts as standard equipment -- as I mentioned in "Wandering Wags: Travelling Time With Your Dog" -- with our first car with seatbelts being a '66 Meteor. (image to right -- image from "Winged Messenger - Canadian Cars") That is referring to our Parent's car, that is. Our '72 Mercury was the first care that had convenient seatbelts and we only really started regularly using them towards 1976 or so. Those were such reckless times...

Back then too, my Sister and I considered it a treat to ride up in the front seat with Dad. There really were only a few times when that happened: When Mom stayed home -- she didn't drive and so the passenger seat was Mom's seat; when we went on a long highway trip and my Sister got carsick -- and Mom would have her sit up front with her; when there were more than two guest passengers in the car meaning that the back seat was full so there'd be three up front; and when on a few rare occasions when the trunk was so full of stuff -- like when Grandpa gave Dad a side of beef one Christmas -- that the suitcases took up the half of the back seat that my Sister normally sat on and so she had to sit in the front seat. Those were such reckless times...

(image to left, 1972 Mercury Monterey -- image from "Down On The Street")

I won't say my Parents were neglegent. Things were different in the 60's and early 70's. My Parents were quite strict actually that my Sister and I were to stay seated in the car while we travelled and that we were not to be standing on the seat like it seemed at least half the parents let their children do. They also didn't let us hang out the window like the family dog either like it seemed some families did. Even our dogs were required to keep their heads inside the car... true they were allowed to have their front paws on the back of the front seat so their nose could get out the window, but they had to keep their head in the car.

As time went on, accelerated -- perhaps with my defensive driving courses which my parents thought it was a good idea to have -- I began to figure it a good idea to wear a seatbelt. I worked to get myself into the habit of wearing one which was enforced in Driver Training. I decided I would always wear one driving and that it became part of my driving ritual when I got my first car when I was 17. I have always worn one since if there was a seatbelt and if it was at all possible or prudent. On some jobs as a security officer doing patrols on the dock it wasn't prudent. Driving without wearing a seatbelt feels naked to me.

Airbags seemed like a good idea to me. I did worry about people deciding not to wear seatbelts becausethey had airbags, but... people will be people. I do recall there being discussions early on about the dangers of airbags, but airbags were only found on upscale cars as options. Issues about dangers of airbags to children and smaller adults were something that were in the hands of the people who opted for the airbags. Things were different when airbags started becoming the norm. (airbag deployment image to right -- image from "GarageLibrary.com")

That is history. Since then seatbelt use, like helmet use on motorbikes and now bicycles, has become manditory and enforced by law. (image of child in bicycle helmet to left from "HAMAX") There have been stricter and stricter regulation on seating for children riding in motor vehicles. At first the regulations did rankle me because I was a poor student and though I had a car never had much money and I tended to taxi around friends who did not have cars yet had children. I could not afford to buy carseats for children or modify my older though well loved and cared for cars. Still since then there have been put into place resources for low income families to buy carseats for their kids even if they don't have a car so that they have them when it comes time to transport their children.

I think that carseats are a good idea, just like I think seatbelts are. (image to right from U.S. Census Bureau) I think that other safety equipment like airbags are good things too.

But there is something that has been bothering me... it is about the whole thing of it being a bad thing for children to be in the front seat of a car. I can agree that if the airbag is dangerous to children and small adult, that a child should ride in the backseat. ...but... I think there is a problem -- the problem not being with where the children ride, but why they must ride there. I think that the problem is with airbag design and rather than moving children and small adults out of the front seat, airbags should be made safer!

I see many arguments about the back seat being inherently safer from objects penetrating the interior of the car or crumple damage. There is validity there, and long, long ago I recall Mom talking about the front passenger seat being called "the suicide seat" -- though a lot of that was from pre-seatbelt days due to the fact that the front passenger would be catapulted through the windshield since they didn't have anything in front of them to stop them. The driver had the steering wheel and the back seat passengers had the back of the front seat to stop them from hurtling forward... remember this was before people so regularly wore seatbelts.

Okay so there were more dangers in the front passenger seat. That is especially true I know when nobody wears seatbelts. I think though where the argument wears thin is that if the back seat is safer... why let even the driver sit in the front seat? I know that sounds stupid. But if the seat is dangerous, then should anyone be allowed to sit there? Couldn't the front seat be made as safe as the back?

(image to left of forward facing car seat from "AAP -- Car Safety Seats: A guide for Families -- 2008")

I think in part the airbags and shoulder harness in the front seats -- especially for the passenger seat -- were to increase that safety, as were things like padded dashboards and so forth.

I think rather than all the propaganda to push children to the back seat, airbags that are not dangerous to them should be designed! There is a flaw in the airbags if they injure. I would have thought more research would have been done in the time since they were invented to solve this problem. There are better airbag systems coming out now and in development, but I rather think that kids are being asked to sit in the back of the bus.

Later!
~ Darrell

130.

Surge's Up!

Look Ma! No Wires!

Something I have just come across on the technology news is something demonstrated by Intel -- a wireless power system!

Their demonstration involved a stand with a 60-Watt light bulb powered by their magnetic resonance technique. This technique uses a tuned coil to resonate with the same frequency as that of the oscillating magnetic field in the power source. (image to left -- image from Daily Tech¹)

Intel demonstrated the system August 22, 2008² with the 60-Watt bulb possibly because it "...uses more power than a typical laptop computer."² While transmitting power has been possible with different technologies since the times of Nikola Tesla -- back before power-lines crossed the countryside. ...Tesla came up with the technique of AC power.

Nikola Tesla was looking for ways to transmit power over long distances; thinking that nobody would be interested in laying grids of power lines across city and countryside. Of course we now now different with our cities and countrysides criss-crossed with networks of powerlines carrying Tesla's multi-phased AC current. Image to right of Nikola Tesla demostrating wireless power transmission. (image to right -- image from Serbia the Golden Apple³)

The Intel demonstration however was of shorter range and not intended for sending power across the city, rather its intent is to power devices within the home or office without wires. It might only mean not having to plug in your cell phone, but it charging whenever at home or in the office -- or perhaps being able to use your notebook computer anywhere in the house or office without draining the battery and without needing to plug in... ever.

Another area is peripherals for the computer. Consider wireless keyboard and mouse which will never need you to replace or recharge a battery. I have been writing about cell phones and computer stuff -- perhaps focusing on it because I am writing this article on a computer and that was what they talked about in the article. Perhaps this is also because Intel is aiming in this direction. There are likely many other applications that you and I can discover.

I wonder if there are medical possibilities for keeping artificial hearts and other devices charged and running? The main power-source kept outside transmitting power to the device - magnetically coupled to the source outside?

MIT team and their setup to power 60 Watt bulb. (image to left - image from MIT News Officeª)

The efficiency of the demonstration system with the light bulb was only 75% efficiency at around a metre distance so you might not want to think about tossing away every power-cord. On the other hand, you might be able to have power stations for certain tasks... like for instance your desk might have one and all the computer equipment and peripherals might be powered by a local station in the desk. That might include charging your PDA, cellphone, mp3 player, notebook computer, portable hard drive and similar equipment as well as powering the mouse, keyboard, and other equipment without any cords crisscrossing the desk.

Still I think you might have some resonant frequencies for the desk, kitchen, entertainment unit, and...

Of course... there are always the spectres of health issues. They say that the interaction at the frequencies used with biological materials is minimal... but how minimal is minimal and what effects might there be? People are starting to consider the growing background of microwave radiation we are being bathed with even if we don't use cellphones, cordless phones, or wireless networking. Perhaps those people who line their hats with tin foil might have a good idea.

Later!
~ Darrell

125.

__________
¹ "Intel Demos Bizarre Tesla-esque Wireless Power Transmission System" Jason Mick (blog) August 22, 2008 - Daily Tech.

² "Intel demos wireless power system" AFP August 22, 2008 - Canada.com.

³ "Genius From Smiljan" Serbia the Golden Apple - Nikola Tesla (Serbia).

ª "Goodbye Wires... - MIT News Office" MIT news.

Other links: "Travelling magnetic field for homogeneous wireless power transmission"; "Technology Review: TR10: Wireless Power".