Fragrance Plugins: Fruits of the Devil

As I was busy plugging in a new air freshener this morning, I noticed a little power usage annotation on the back… ~ 2.1WAnd I thought - what the heck - these things *draw* that much power? They don’t do anything!!!!And then I started looking around to see if anyone else had noticed this - and what the power consumption actually is for these plug-in air fresheners.

Total electricity consumption then is: * 20 million units x 2.5w x 24 hours x 365 days / 1000 = 438,000,000 kWh (kilowatt hours, the standard measurement in the US for power consumption over time) * To power a year’s worth of Glade Plug-Ins therefore requires almost 26 million gallons of oil, or 613,000 barrels (one gallon of oil produces 17kWh of electricity, there are 42 US gallons in a barrel, so 714kWh per barrel) * It also equates to 1/8 the output of a typical 500 megawatt coal-fired power plant. In the course of producing this much energy, the power plant will also create 1250 tons of sulfer dioxide (causes acid rain) and almost half a million tons of carbon dioxide (causes global warming).

Richardsona // Adam Richardson’s Blog - Blog - The Surprising Energy Consumption of Glade Plug-Ins

More info over at Apartment Therapy indicates that the plug-ins aren’t only enviro unfriendly, but also contain chemicals that can have an impact on our health!!!!

Air fresheners have become a staple in many American homes and offices,marketed with the promise of creating a clean, healthy, and sweet-smellingindoor atmosphere. But many of these products contain phthalates(pronounced thal-ates)—hazardous chemicals known to cause hormonalabnormalities, birth defects, and reproductive problems.

This is uncool. I’m pretty sure I’m a bit of a goof for using these things.

(jules now walks through the house unplugging everything)

Alternatives:If you can’t totally unwind from having interesting smells, you gotta switch to the infusion choices:Fragrance Diffusers at Fruits and Passion

The Body Shop’s Fragrance Diffuser

Blogged with the Flock Browser

When Does The Expense of Driving Out-Weigh the Revenue of Commuting?

I’ve been pondering this question for almost a year now. Since moving out the GTA a few years ago, and switching to a more friendly organization, I’m a fairly hard core teleworker these days. It helps that 90% of the work I do involves people outside of the province, out of the country and out of the continent, and the support of the organization has been outstanding. I suppose it also helps that there are no wee monsters running around the home office. It’s peaceful and productive.

That being said - every time I drive into the analog workplace, I’m consumed by the question of how folks can afford to commute full time. I see the 404. How many of those people are going to be able to afford to drive downtown every day when gas prices hit $1.20/litre? Dont’ even get me started on the 400. What would companies have to do in terms of pay increases to keep their workforce in an office downtown? How many folks are going to ditch their jobs that require commuting and search for employment either close to home, or EASILY accessible via transit?

I can tell you, even if I *wanted* to take transit to my analog office, I don’t think I could. It would take about 3.5 hours… each way. There goes my workday. :-(

• Viva bus south for an hour to the subway.
• Subway south halfway through the city.
• Another subway to the west end of the city
• Bus north-west to the airport area.
• walk the last 2 km to the office.

I tell you. It wouldn’t work.

In the long run, either companies are going to *require* folks to work remotely, to avoid pay increases, or they are going to run the risk of losing employees, simply because a $60K job isn’t worth the $600/month in gas.
A $40K job is going to look so much more attractive, if there isn’t the expense of travel and commuter time attached to it.

CityNews: Gas Prices Soar To Highest Levels In Three Years

Technorati Tags: Gas prices, Petro Canada, teleworking, commuting

Personalize Your.... Kleenex?

I'm oddly amused and slightly interested in this.Kleenex takes a *page* from Jones Soda and creates an environment where end users can customize the product. My first thought - if this doesn't get get kids blowing their nose on their own, nothing will.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Tags: kleenex, jones soda

My New Blackberry 8830 - Pearl

I’ve just become the proud parent to a Pearl. Finally. :-)
After making the decision, and second guessing myself for the past few days, I think I’m glad. I like the size, and the weight; last night we bonded a little. It’s so very different from all the other Blackberry phones that I’ve had over the past [10] years, that it’s hard to make comparisons.
I’m getting used to the *nipple*. If you’ve got one, you know what I mean. If you don’t - it’s the little nubbin that has replaced the track wheel of the olden days.

I’m totally addicted to the camera (of course) and I’m utterly peeved that Rim decided to change the size of the headset jack. Who in their right mind uses a 3.5 mm headset jack!?!? Arggh.
I’m going to add music, to see how the sound is, and I’m already using the Facebook app that generously came pre-loaded. How’s that for work productivity? ;-)

I can’t wait to give the voice dialing a whirl. Now that’s an improvement that I’m looking forward to. And I don’t even mind the suretype keypad any more. (i’ve been using one for the past years now anyways.

Stay tuned to see how well the berry and mac play together. Word is that the bluetooth connectivity is out of this world.


Technorati Tags: Blackberry, Pearl

Blogging on Topic: Creating Personal Interest?

“I Help You Blog” has an interesting conversation regarding frequency vs topic, for blog publishing.

Here at jules.ca, I try to stay focused on telecom bits and technology pieces.  That being said, there is likely a plethora of commentary that could be related to neither. Be it photography or little personal anecdotes. Why? Well, it’s illustrating a side of me that’s beyond bits an bites, I suppose.

Well, here’s my arguement, and it’s completely a personal one - there are about two dozen blogs i read religiously and they’re very focused, but the posts that seem to resonate the most are the ones that show a glimpse into their real lives. Darren Barefoot does this really well. Alec Saunders has it figured out…So does Liz Strauss. And Seth Godin.

So - i guess the question is - do you post on topic to attract an audience, and keep them by creating personal interest?

Maybe this blog is more like a mullet: Business in the front, party in the back?

That’s a shameful comparison ;-)


Technorati Tags: blogging, Alec Saunders, Darren Barefoot, Liz Strauss, Seth Godin