Sunday, December 9, 2007
Financial: Save those United Miles
Friday, December 7, 2007
Travel: Products for Travlers
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Tech: Jabra BT620s
When I saw that Tiger had Jabra headphones for $30 I had to jump on it (this price was still good when I wrote the post). Note Tiger is a real company and I only have nice things to say about working with them. They don't do electronic rebates (like Stables) but these headphones don't need one.
I did of course check the reviews for example CNET which gave it a mixed rating. I think comfort has a lot to do with head size, or more specifically diameter. My head is tall and narrow and I have found these comfortable to wear for 4-6 hours (limited by available time not comfort). Note these are not light, they might not be very comfortable for jogging or other active endeavors. As to the hiss, at moderate volumes it is not obvious (but I am listening to rock, which tends not to have too many silent passages). The headband does not seem the most robust, I'll keep you updated on that.
One thing you will find is that several people complain of sound quality. You must pair these as stereo headphones. When properly connected for music you should see "Jabra BT620s Stereo-headset" if you connect as "Jabra BT620s Hands-Free unit" then you will get lousy sound. Bluetooth is awesome, I can get pretty far from the computer ~30feet and still have reception. The stream is either there or not, it does not degrade smoothly. Note if you leave a computer playing and get out of range you computer may default to playing with the speaker (potentially embarrassing at work).
On a laptop with an IO gear adapter I get excellent performance (the headphones stay alive even under very heavy CPU utilization). On my home machine they don't work, with exactly the same bluetooth adapter. I'll update with what the problem is when I find it.
Just today I got them paired with my shiny new TX. To do so you need a program, audio gateway from Softick. This appears to be the ONLY A2DP bluetooth profile for Palm OS. The good news is that this worked flawlessly. It also made me a little happier that the E2 was squished because apparently it does not have the horsepower to drive the headphone profile at high quality. The negative is that blutooth sucks the battery down. I got about 4 hours of MP3 time.
An obvious question is how well do these headphones work with a bluetooth phone. Well the sad answer is I currently don't have one. So, until I get one that test will have to wait.
Jabra BT620s
Plusses
- Reasonable price
- Pairs with computer/tx/laptop/phone (sure it will work)
- Simple interface
- Good battery life
- Much cleaner sound than RF style headphones
Deltas
- A little heavy, but I have not tested the Motorolas
Overall, a purchase that was well worth the cost.
Energy Efficiency: Green Roofing
Plusses:
- Life time
- Recyclable
- Light (less weight than asphalt)
- Much cooler in the summer (this is a big plus for us) and not appreciable cooler in the winter.
- Excellent for rain water collection (leaches fewer chemicals)
- Possible increase in resale value (lasts longer) see comment below
Deltas
- Initial purchase price
- Rain is suppose to be louder
- Aesthetics
- Possible decrease in resale value (because some people don't like them)
The first disadvantage is definite, but most calculations seem to show them cheaper over the long haul.
The rain question is up in the air, when we get a metal roof I will let you know (see comment below).
Aesthetics, seems to me that with the range of metal roof options this should be a non-issue. We don't have one yet, so I'll let you know. Metal roofs don't have to look like commercial structures see for example
- Interlock this is a 50 year transferable warranty
- Metal Roofing Alliance at http://www.metalroofing.com/
Did I mention that the first picture is not spanish tiles but a metal roof! By the way Spanish tile is also a pretty efficient roofing material but it is very heavy and expensive.
It would also be intersting to see, but I supsect properly installed their failure rate is much lower. Let's say each shingle has a 1/10000 rate of failure, does not take too many shingles to get to an appreciable rate of failure. Most metal roofs are made up of many fewer panels. Just a little quick math with 1000 shingles (about right for our smallish New England house, don't get me started on home prices). The odds of the roof failing are now 1-(9999/10000)^1000 or about 10%. A rough guess is that a metal version would have 20 times less pieces, and probably a lower failure rate. However, even assuming the same failure rate we have a .5% chance of failure. Now, the statistical method is fine but I have no idea if this is a reasonable failure calcualtion for a roof.
You can find a basic article that covers some of this athttp://home-exteriors.suite101.com/article.cfm/shingle_roofs_vs_metal_roofs