advanced vehicle

The U.S. Department of Energy made an announcement just recently that could really be beneficial for our cities. The department will provide $300M in stimulus funds to 25 projects aimed at putting 9,000 more alternative-fuel vehicles of America. These projects is also aimed at building the infrastructure needed to power them, including 542 fueling and charging stations across the country. These are big projects indeed under the banner of  the DOE’s “clean cities” program.

This is surely a novel concept. It could cut petroleum use by up to 38 million dollars a year. That’s nearly a million barrels of oil. That’s good for the country’s economy, good for nature and definitely good for the people.

But before the money is given, each of the 25 projects need to raise twice the matching funds allocated for them. This will allow more capital-intensive projects. The bulk of the funding will be used to advance adoption os hybrids, electric vehicles, plug-in electric hybrids, as well as natural gas and biofuel-powered vehicles.  Imagine these vehicles running around America. I wonder what it’s like to have one of those?

Of course having this different type of vehicles means needing different type of refueling stations. That’s why part of the plan is to have refueling stations designed to power cars running on natural gas, propane, biodiesel, ethanol and electricity. Right now, the designers of this concept are probably having interesting imaginations.

DOE is not awarding the money on companies tackling in these areas. It, instead, funds the local government organizations assigned with greening transportations in their jurisdiction.  It also encourages recipients to introduce these advanced vehicles with industry partners in order to incite eventual commercial adoption. If this concept is starting to be realized, I’m sure it will not be hard to commercialize.

The “Clean Cities” program is not created by the stimulus package. It is said that 15 years ago, the goal of this program has always been to cut the country’s petroleum consumption in transportation. With this new stimulating concept, “Clean Cities” program will be a step closer to it’s goal.

Facebook

Facebook explained on its blog that its okay to not to accept all requests. Including friend requests. If you worry about your privacy, it’s best to accept friend requests only from those you know. The person who requested you will not be notified about it. Likewise, if you accept someone as a friend, but later decides to un-friend them, they will not be notified. This means that they will no longer be able to see your information, nor you will be able to see their’s. If you don’t want to accept them and also don’t want them to attempt to friend you again, Facebook suggests that you leave their requests pending. I’m abit confused on this part though. If we leave their requests pending, then we will keep seeing their requests on our home page.

There are, I guess, rumours  that Facebook is very close to launching their location funtionality. I’m not sure if this would create a positive response from users because this will make it easier for other people to know your location, besides your status, your links, etc.

Also many users use this social networks with a major purpose of spreading and sharing information and links & also to let other people know what they are doing. This makes protecting privacy complicated & confusing. You want to accept as many friends as possible to let them know the updates of your life but also, you want your privacy protected. This I believe is the challenge that Facebook is trying to solve.

Facebook is approaching 300 million users. Along with this growing number of users is the growing number of challenges and issues which I believe Facebook is happy to face. Having 300 million users is a kind of problem that any social networks would like to have.

As for the individuals who think privacy is more important than the leisurely experiences in Facebook, better accept only the request of those you know. And always remember that it’s okay to click “Ignore”.

meat

This is a cool concept that would keep the markets honest about the foods’ expiration dates. This idea must have come out after a few scandals in Japan involving food providers tampering with expiration dates.

It is a Fresh Label Sticker that  would detect ammonia emanating from the product within and fades out accordingly. Once the ammonia level reaches a level deemed unsafe, the label will no longer be readable. I have to say it’s really a smart system that can’t easily be manipulated.

Since it’s reasonably cost-efficient, we could see it being adopted in large scale. However, since these stickers never lie, some think that some meat industries might not want to adopt this. I’m confident though that our beloved meat industries in the US do have serious sanitary procedures to ensure good food quality.

Some also think that this is a good idea but there are always some geniuses who could find ways to manipulate this. Some also argues that just like many other good ideas, it’s not usually as good when it becomes a reality. There are always some flaws, maybe the cost, maybe it will not work as good as we thought. But despite many opposing opinions, many still think that it’s a great & useful concept. One of them is me.

However, since this is still a theory and not yet a reality, for now we still have to rely on our noses to smell fresh food.

Recently, the International Monetary Fund released a statement that “Global recovery has started”. A chief economist of IMF said that United States finally improves its economy by focusing on exporting products in parallel to the importation done by Asia.

But, is it an overstatement to say that economic recovery is at hand? Well, probably all nations are starting to recover from the economic crisis but there is still a problem as to how to sustain this so-called recovery.

According to the article released by Olivier Blanchard, before there was a financial crisis, the potential economic result may be lesser. He admits that for US to return back to its stable economy, it has to go through a diffucult process. And even if it will turn out positively, there will always be “a deep scar” left which can affect the future supply and demand.

Due to this economic crisis, about three-forths of US household has gone through losses. In fact, Americans no longer follow their “free-spending ways”. Not just the US constituents, but all people around the world have a difficult time adjusting to this economic difficulty.

In my own opinion, this event has taught all of us to save money. Previously, everyone is happy-go-lucky and would mostly spend. But since the crisis, with prices starting to soar while salaries are stuck at the same rate, everyone learned a good lesson.

I just hope that what the IMF said is true. Hopefully, their economic technique of focusing on exporting rather than importing will always be implemented. This is one way to keep the Dollar purchasing power on the top among all other currencies. May we able to sustain the global recovery.

Source: CNNmoney

obama's yes we can

Digitizing health records is a big part of the Obama administration’s health reform agenda, with the president arguing that EHR (Electronic Health Records) will save taxpayers from wasteful spending by making health care more efficient. Well, this sounds like an idea.

A recent study at the Christiana Care emergency room in Wilmington, Del., showed that just having the ability to download and print out a file with a patient’s medical history saved the ER $545 per use, mostly on reduced waiting times. “Doctors are paid by the minute, and they don’t have a clue who the patients are,” said David St. Clair, chief executive of health tech company MEDecision, which conducted the Christiana Care study. “Anything the system can tell them makes workflow easier and faster.”

This is great. It saves money and if waiting time is reduced, doctors can be more productive and, thus, will be able to attend to more patients. But how much does it? Is it as good as it sounds?

The health-care system, as currently devised, allows savings for the health insurers. Electronic health records cost tens of millions of dollars upfront for a typical hospital to implement. They also take years to set up and hours to train physicians. “I’m still shocked that there is a business argument for electronic medical records because it kills the very thing that makes hospitals money,” said David Brailer. “The way we pay for health care penalizes efficiency.”

The first step is usually the hardest to take. The health care industry is poised to realize huge savings by implementing electronic health records systems, but who really benefits is up for debate. Whatever is the result of this idea, I hope it’s the best for America.