blog 2 life

You must have heard about the recent news about HHO gas conversion kit. It is basically a car kit that can be used to power your car with water. If not, read on and you will find out more.

The scientific principle behind this new technology is not new and has already been discovered about a century back. The whole “run a car on water” technology makes use of Brown’s gas or HHO which is extracted from water through electrolysis. Brown’s gas is a clean gas that aids the combustion of gasoline in our engines which is otherwise inefficient.

Benefits of Using HHO Gas Conversion Kit

The end results of using such Brown’s gas kits on our cars are these:

1. Improved gas mileage of more than 15%
2. A cleaner engine with lesser carbon deposits ie unburned fuel
3. A longer lasting engine
4. Lesser noise from engine and knocks
5. Tax claims from IRS from driving an environmentally friendly vehicle
6. Fuel cost savings

Rather than to spend money purchasing a hybrid car, why not spend less than $90 and build a HHO gas conversion kit for yourself?

All the parts are built using simple off the shelf fittings from local hardware stores. The car kit can be assembled within a few hours. You can set aside 2 to 3 hours during the weekend to build it.

With the rising gas prices nowadays, hitting way above $4 per gallon, converting your car to run on water is a wise decision to make.

Thousands of drivers have already fitted their vehicles with these kits and benefiting from the improved gas mileage and lower fuel costs.

Perhaps it is time for you to build one such HHO gas conversion kit for your car to run on water fuel today.

Build your HHO hydrogen generator easily with this step by step manual on how to run your car on water for less than $150.

Sitting in Union Square, in the heart of San Francisco, you will find many languages spoken. People come here from all over the world to experience San Francisco, one of America’s, if not the world’s, best cities. They also come here to shop.

If you walk into any of the stores outlining the beautiful palm-tree lined park of Union Square, Macy’s, Saks, Nieman Marcus, you will find foreigners here to buy goods on the cheap.

Foreigners, especially Europeans, are flocking here to get goods on the cheap (at Saks, no less) like Americans use to do in their countries.

What is going on? Is America the new Mexico, with foreigners coming to our shores to get all their proverbial silver on the cheap?

The answer may be right here in Union Square, where I sit with my laptop amidst all the foreigners. Here, I can get wireless Internet access provided by Google. Google offered to blanket all of San Francisco with free wireless Internet access in early 2005, but they were refused and had to deal with an endless bureaucracy.

Why would a city refuse or delay an offer for free wireless to all of its citizens?

Perhaps a better question to ask is this: Who stands to lose if Google provides free wireless access to the whole city?

We need look no further than my situation to answer that question. I currently pay about $80 per month to the phone company, AT&T, which is broken down as follows: $40 a month for the active phone line (which I need for Internet) and $40 a month for the actual Internet. If google provided reasonably fast free wireless Internet access, I would cancel my phone service immediately. I use my cell phone for all calls anyway; the only people who call my land line are salespeople.

Thus, AT&T would lose $80 a month from me. No big deal right? Well, let’s assume that 500,000 residents of San Francisco are in my exact situation. In that case, AT&T would lose $40,000,000, yes that’s $40 million, dollars a month in revenue.

Now, Google would like to implement this wireless service nationwide. Let’s assume then, perhaps conservatively, that 30 million people would cancel their land phone and Internet service. That would amount to $2.4 billion dollars each month in lost revenue to the phone company.

With these huge potential losses, do you not think that the phone companies are using every last lobbyist and lawyer on the payroll to block this progression?

And therein lies the problem. America’s past success story inhibits future successes, inhibits advances, inhibits progression.

Many other countries bear no such burden of past successes and, because of this, might just pass us right by. For example, many third world countries are unencumbered by entrenched land-based communication services. Thus, they will go straight to wireless unimpeded by lawyers and lobbyists.

In this article in Technology in Society, the authors posit that “as emerging markets look for opportunities to “leap-frog”, they can quickly adapt to next-generation wireless technologies like Wi-Fi and WiMAX, thereby gaining advantages over other traditional wired infrastructures.”

This phenomenon is not exclusive to the communications industry; it exists in many industries-entrenched companies preventing, or deliberately squashing, technologies that will enable America to compete in the future.

Paying a lot for gas right now? Do you ever wonder what happened to the idea of the electric car? Read more about how the auto industry squashed the electric car. In his article Electric Dreams, Patrick Quinton writes “how the automakers are so distracted by the effort to maintain the status quo that they short circuit the technology and neuter the ingenuity that could ultimately save their futures.”

Hyperbole?

Well, it might not be unreasonable to ask this question: Would America be at war with Iraq right now if everyone drove an electric car? If the answer to this question is “no”, General Motors, who deliberately squashed the development of the electric car, is directly responsible for the lost lives of countless Americans.

I don’t sit here in Union Square in San Francisco intending to bash General Motors, AT&T, or any other company for that matter. That’s Michael Moore’s purview.

However, I do wonder aloud why our country has become the new Mexico, with foreigners all around us not to embrace our culture, but to exploit our weak economy and buy stuff cheaply.

I wonder about this.

Do you?

There is hope. Recently, Google, combined with Earthlink, did receive the contract for free wireless throughout San Francisco. This proves that companies like AT&T will fold when they realize that they are fighting a losing battle.

However, when these companies finally acquiesce, will the battle already be lost?

Richard Cummings is a writer, technologist, and traveler who chronicles his thoughts and opinions on his daily blog Live Your Way which can be found at: http://www.thisishowyoudoit.com/blog/ - He often ponders economics here: http://www.thisishowyoudoit.com/blog/category/economics/

An electric bike is an outstanding alternative to more conventional means of transportation. If you live or work in a densely populated area and have to frequently travel relatively short distances, if you want to do your part to reduce the emission of greenhouse gasses and reduce global warming, or if you simply enjoy being outdoors, owning an electric bike can serve your needs.Advantages of Owning an Electric BicycleElectric powered bikes are an easy way to maneuver around in crowded areas. With an electric bicycle, sitting in traffic jams will become a distant memory; you will have access to routes that cars and motorcycles cannot reach. Thus, whether you’re running errands or dashing off for a work meeting, an electric bike saves you time. Beyond convenience, you’ll also accumulate significant financial savings since you don’t have to pay for gasoline, car maintenance, and insurance.An electric bike is ideal for the person who has either lost their driver’s license or has no license, as it provides a reliable means of transportation without the licensing requirements. However, it’s the electric bike’s environmental friendliness that appeals to many electric motor bike owners. CO2 emissions are a source of concern to everyone, and an electric bike significantly reduces your personal carbon footprint. Electric Motor Bike for ExercisingIf you bicycle for exercise, you can be assured that an electric bicycle allows you to pedal, but with little effort. You can climb hills more easily and travel a longer distance than with a conventional bicycle. When compared to a stationary bicycle, an electric bike will still allow you to achieve your fitness goals, but provide the added benefits of feeling invigorated from riding in the fresh air and strengthening your muscles without making them ache.Electric Bicycles for WorkUsing your electric bike for commuting back and forth to work helps clear your mind and makes you feel good all day. When you ride your electric bike to work, you don’t have to worry about the excess perspiration, which can be an issue with a conventional bike on warm days. You move faster on the electric bike, which increases wind chill, thus keeping you cool. When the weather is hot, you maintain a normal speed by letting the electric motor take over. In cold weather, you can turn the motor off.Once you arrive at work, you have a few minutes to relax because of the time saved by not having to ride the bus or go through the hassle of searching for a parking space.Electric Bikes are Great for Any LifestyleElectric bikes give adults of all ages a sense of freedom. They are appropriate for people of all fitness levels, and electric bicycles take the hassle out of traveling in densely populated areas. Moreover, riding an electric bike is great for the environment and easy on the conscience. So, choose an electric bike to fit your lifestyle, and enjoy yourself!

Chris Robertson is an author of Majon International, one of the worlds MOST popular internet marketing companies on the web. Learn more about Electric Bikes for Your Lifestyle or Majon’s Recreation directory.

On May 11, 2005, President George W. Bush signed into law the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005 (U.S. House 2005). In a nutshell, the bill was introduced as a way to get federal funds out quickly for use in times of emergency such as the title suggests. However, also contained within this legislation was the REAL ID Act of 2005, which says that within a timeframe determined by the federal government, each state will be required to comply with the a regulated set of federal standards on the issuance of a national identification are for all Americans (U.S. House 2005). The initial act did not give a specified set of regulations for the Real ID, as those were to be determined by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) at a later date. In March of 2007 the DHS issued a draft of its requirements for the Real ID, and on January 11, 2008, the final regulations. Among other things, these rules say the government will begin enforcing the laws as laid out by the original act starting in May of 2008. Since its inception, the Real ID Act has been an extremely controversial issue on many levels. Supporters of the Real ID believe that the issuance of a national identification card by each state, but in accordance of regulations laid out by the federal government under the Real ID Act of 2005, will help make America safer from terrorism, as well as improve security on other domestic issues.

Proponents of the Real ID all cite protection from terrorism, by combating illegal terrorist activities, as the primary reason for the issuance of a national identification card (Carafano, 2007). However, also included in their argument, are uses such as helping to prevent illegal immigration, identity theft among Americans, and easing the use of shared information among states in domestic criminal situations. Those in favor argue that if a national id card were to be implemented it would greatly reduce the ability of a terrorist to enter the United States illegally through false identification. The September 11th attacks are obviously the first and foremost example cited for this argument. House Judiciary Committee Chairman and Wisconsin Republican F. James Sensenbrenner, who first introduced the Real ID Act points out, “[The 9/11 terrorists] chose our driver’s licenses and states ID’s as their forms of identification because these documents allowed them to blend in and not raise suspicion or concern.” He goes on to note that one of the primary highjackers had a six month long visa to stay in the United States, but then received a Florida driver’s license that was good for six years (Lungren).

In my opinion the Real ID should not be adopted by the Federal government, or any state government, because it infringes on our Constitutional and civil liberties. As Congressman Ron Paul points out in a speech given in the House of Representatives in opposition of the Bill, the creators of this law always advertise that it is, in fact, voluntary. However, by choosing to voluntarily not adopt the ID, citizens will become “non-persons” because as far as the federal government is concerned, their current ID will not be accepted. Specifically this means they would not be able to fly, either domestically or internationally (Paul 2005). In an article on the Real ID from the University of Illinois Journal of Law, Technology & Policy, Govindaiah also points out that people without the card would also not be able to receive Medicare (Govindaiah 2006). So, while it can accurately argued that the Real ID is voluntary on paper, in reality, if the federal government decides to seriously enforce the law, there will be nothing voluntary about it. This type of federally controlled identification reminds me of old war movies where the Nazi soldiers are always asking people to “show me your papers” before they are allowed to cross borders or get on trains.

A website established by the American Civil Liberties Union lists several other good reasons why the Real ID is going to create problems for our country. These include increased risk of identity theft, a huge increase in bureaucratic red tape in many aspects of our daily lives, and billions of dollars cost that will have to be paid by the states even though the federal government mandated the law (ACLU 2008).

Besides ALL of the reasons listed above that show how the Real ID would invade our lives, each ID card is also supposed to contain a Radio Frequency Identification Tag (RFID). This tiny implanted electronic device would allow the government to know exactly where the carrier is at any given time they walk by an RFID tag reader. This sounds inconsequential at first because one would think; well it is not like there are RFID tag readers on every corner. Actually, there are. Those security systems at the door of every type of store across the country that beep loudly if it thinks you stole something, are in fact, RFID tag readers. These will be used, without modification, to track anyone going near one of these devices. It is quite literally, 1984 come to life.

In my opinion, the Real ID could be acceptably adopted if, and only if, it truly was optional, and held no consequences for those who chose not to participate in the program. It would also only be acceptable if there were no rules implementing the RFID tag, or any other type of electronic identification within the card.

In conclusion, I believe a compromised solution is possible for the Real ID. First and foremost, allow the states themselves to opt out. The government can go ahead and pass all of the needed legislation, and begin the Real ID program, however each state, as is required by the constitution, must be able to opt out of the program with no consequence whatsoever, to its citizens. Secondly, even for the states that do choose to allow the Real ID, any citizen must be able to opt out and not have a card if they do not want to. Finally, the Real ID could be constitutionally and civilly acceptable, if it were to be issued without any type of electronic identification attached, such as the RFID tags. If each of these suggestions was adopted by the federal government I believe almost all of the controversy surrounding the Real ID would disappear. Some people would get one and feel they are helping fight terrorism and those who feel civil liberties are more important would still be able to keep their constitutional rights.

Want to read more about the REAL ID Act and other current events out of Washington? Read more articles like this one here.

Works Cited

U.S. House. 2005. Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005. 109th Cong., 1st sess., H.R. 1268.

U.S. House. 2005. REAL ID Act of 2005. 109th Cong., 1st sess., H.R. 1268.

Lungren, Jeff. “Sensenbrenner Introduces Terrorist Travel Legislation.” U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary Newsroom 26 Jan 2006. 03 Feb 2008 judiciary.house.gov/newscenter.aspx?A=430

Carafano, J.J. (2007).Making REAL ID a reality — Concerns, challenges, choices, solutions. The Heritage Foundation. 1-6.

Govindaiah, M. (2006).Driver licensing under the real id act: Can current technology balance security and privacy?. University of Illinois Journal of Law, Technology & Policy.

American Civil Liberties Union, What’s wrong with the real id. Retrieved April 10, 2008, from Real Nightmare Web site: realnightmare.org/