http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Update to Prepaid Cellular Site - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/0b9c64361ec1224e?hl=en
* Unplug your cable. Get TV over the internet - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/ac4fe22465227d21?hl=en
* Are there good reasons to leave your computer on? - 6 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/687c8842ea058153?hl=en
* Britney Spears for Vice President! - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/41617a060889d131?hl=en
* Electricity Rates - wasRe: Home heating oil price? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/25ab6d7a439ac7f1?hl=en
* Do you still do your own oil change? - 3 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/00739344169b1364?hl=en
* Anything wrong with canned tomatoes? - 2 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/7fb7868def5d6f0e?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Update to Prepaid Cellular Site
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/0b9c64361ec1224e?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 9 2008 3:12 pm
From: imascot
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in
news:xuxxk.20404$jI5.10460@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com:
> I have updated my web site on prepaid cellular service at:
> "http://prepaiduswireless.com/"
>
> This is a non-commercial site that I put together because I was
> constantly e-mailing people information regarding which prepaid
> wireless plans were the best deals.
>
> There are presently four ways to get prepaid cellular for under $2.50
> per month:
>
> T-Mobile: As low as 74¢/month, as low as 8.8¢/minute (T-Moble network)
>
> PagePlus: As low as $2.35/month, as low as 5.4¢/minute (Verizon
> network)
>
> 7-11: SpeakOut $2.08/month, 15¢/minute (AT&T network)
>
> ARN: As low as 21¢ per month, as low as 25¢/minute (CDMA and AMPS
> networks))
>
> If you know of any better deals than these, let me know.
>
Great site, very informative. However, my Page Plus phone roamed just fine in Vancouver, and it
also roamed in the U.S. Virgin Islands.
J.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 9 2008 3:23 pm
From: SMS
imascot wrote:
> Great site, very informative. However, my Page Plus phone roamed just fine in Vancouver, and it
> also roamed in the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Interesting. Two years ago my kids had them in Canada (Calgary) and
there was no service at all on them. I'd expect it to work in the Virgin
Islands. Were you charged the higher rate for roaming?
PagePlus is really amazing. I'm hoping that Verizon continues to let
them resell service for a long time.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Unplug your cable. Get TV over the internet
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/ac4fe22465227d21?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 9 2008 3:42 pm
From: " Frank"
"Gordon" <gonzo@alltomyself.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9B1495E0A82B8greederxprtnet@194.177.96.26...
> Back in March I posted a message where I told everyone here
> that I was pulling the plug on Comca$t and I was going to
> get all my TV viewing off the internet. Well, the results
> are in and the results are mixed. I thought that the rest
> of the group might be intrested. So I created a web page
> at www.gordonreeder.com/content/TVoIP.html. I'm not selling
> anything, there are no ads, and no click throughs. Just
> trying to share some knowledge.
>
The above link doesn't work. Is this the one?
http://mysite.verizon.net/g_reeder/Content/TVoIP.html
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 9 2008 6:04 pm
From: "Bob F"
" Frank" <x> wrote in message
news:38KdnaF9fINtZlvVnZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>
> The above link doesn't work. Is this the one?
> http://mysite.verizon.net/g_reeder/Content/TVoIP.html
>
Thank you. I've been hoping to find such a description.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Are there good reasons to leave your computer on?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/687c8842ea058153?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 9 2008 3:51 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Seerialmom <seerialmom@yahoo.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> Seerialmom <seerial...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>> h <tmcl...@searchmachine.com> wrote
>>>> James <j0069b...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Considering 24X365 hours in a year, if electricity costs 1 cent
>>>>> per hour for your computer, it would cost $87 a year or over $170
>>>>> if 2 cents per hour.
>>>> I need my computer at least once an hour, 16-18 hours a day.
>>>> Waiting for it to boot would waste a helluva lot more than 16-18
>>>> cents of my time.
>>> I agree with you on that; it's all dependent on how often you need
>>> to access it. Right now I have an iMAC (Strawberry, 400 mhz) that
>>> I leave in "sleep" mode and wake up by shaking the mouse. Sleep
>>> mode does use power, but not as much as fully on/running.
>> And hibernation speeds up the boot dramatically too.
>>> In the "olden days" the reason for keeping the computer on
>>> was to avoid wearing out the powersupply via multiple restarts.
>> Nope, that is not correct.
>>> From what I understand this isn't as much of an issue anymore;
>> It never was.
>>> saving power expenses is.
>> Not really. And like you say, its trivial to fix that if you want to.
> Yes it is correct.
Nope, fraid not.
> That was the thinking about 10 years ago;
Nope, fraid not.
> maybe not in your neighborhood but here around Silicon valley it was.
Nope, fraid not.
And you can use groups.google to show that it wasnt even a common belief around Silicon valley either.
> It was common thinking that multiple cycles would shorten the life of the powersupply.
Only the fools that didnt have a clue about the basics.
> Kinda like flicking a light switch off/on can kill a light bulb faster than leaving it on.
Nope, nothing like. The reason you get that effect with an incandescent light bulb
is because you get a large inrush current with the cold filament because the resistance
of the filament varys dramatically with the temperature of the filament and the large
inrush current can blow a filament that has been thinned by evaporation of the filament.
There is no effect anything like that with a PC power supply and there never was either.
== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 9 2008 3:52 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Seerialmom <seerialmom@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 9, 1:53 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Seerialmom <seerial...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Sep 9, 1:01 pm, "JonquilJan" <war...@imcnet.net> wrote:
>>>> Don't know if this helps or not - but I not only turn the computer
>>>> off in the evenings when I am done - I unplug computer and monitor
>>>> when I am finished. Basic reason is because of sudden storms and
>>>> power outages during my sleeping/bed hours. Yes I do have a surge
>>>> protector - but that doesn't protect againist lightning - at least
>>>> that's what I've been told.
>>
>>>> JonquilJan - and open to practical information from informed others
>>
>>>> Learn something new every day
>>>> As long as you are learning, you are living
>>>> When you stop learning, you start dying
>>
>>> The other "good thing" that does by unplugging the computer/monitor
>>> at night is you're killing a known energy vampire. Computers and
>>> newer monitors (LCD's) still draw power when plugged in, even if
>>> they're off (motherboard will show a light, monitor will show the
>>> orange light).
>>
>> That power use is microscopic tho.
> Ok, it's a baby vampire then :p
It isnt even a baby vampire. Not even a glow worm.
== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 9 2008 4:11 pm
From: Vic Smith
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 08:35:13 -0700 (PDT), James <j0069bond@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>Considering 24X365 hours in a year, if electricity costs 1 cent per
>hour for your computer, it would cost $87 a year or over $170 if 2
>cents per hour.
Those numbers are meaningless. Figure out how much juice *your*
computer uses. There can be wide variations.
Then ask yourself the same question about a light bulb using the same
watts. Any good reason to leave it on when you're not using it?
I boot my computer at least 3 times a day. Been doing it for years.
Never had any failures I'd attribute to that.
Don't mind waiting for it to boot, since I flip on the nearby TV to
keep me occupied, or start the computer a few minutes before I know
I'll use it. Not staring at the computer monitor as it boots is a
good habit
I pretty much treat it like a light bulb as far as turning it off.
If I think I'll be away more than 1/2 hour or so I turn it off.
Not telling anybody else what to do.
No way I would leave it on if I leave the house.
Power supplies and CRT's occasionally catch on fire, so like any other
appliance keep your computer away from curtains or anything that can
feed a fire.
--Vic
== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 9 2008 4:26 pm
From: " Frank"
>
> > In the "olden days" the reason for keeping the computer on
> > was to avoid wearing out the powersupply via multiple restarts.
>
> Nope, that is not correct.
>
Yes it is correct. That was the thinking about 10 years ago; maybe
not in your neighborhood but here around Silicon valley it was. It
was common thinking that multiple cycles would shorten the life of the
powersupply. Kinda like flicking a light switch off/on can kill a
light bulb faster than leaving it on.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree! That was the thinking too over 30 years ago when Andy Grove was just
an author of a good solid state book and Bill Gates was in school. Not only
the power supply but the hard disk and other components as well. Its the
switching transients that kill components, i.e., di/dt. I know companies
than that leave the computers and lights on 24/7. Cost of early computers
were much more expensive. A desktop CPM computer based on the Intel 8080
chip could run over $20K and energy was very cheap. Further, cost of
maintaining light fixtures and lamps were higher than cost of energy. So it
was cost effective just leave it on 24/7.
== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 9 2008 5:49 pm
From: "h"
"Dennis" <dgw80@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:g8mdc4tltlf8leitkndba13sep1rg2ejuq@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 14:56:45 -0400, "h" <tmclone@searchmachine.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"James" <j0069bond@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:8190553d-c364-4f39-a152-b741d9b145b7@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>>> Considering 24X365 hours in a year, if electricity costs 1 cent per
>>> hour for your computer, it would cost $87 a year or over $170 if 2
>>> cents per hour.
>>
>>I need my computer at least once an hour, 16-18 hours a day. Waiting for
>>it
>>to boot would waste a helluva lot more than 16-18 cents of my time.
>>
>
> I have mine set to go to sleep (the lowest level of standby, HD off,
> fans off) after a period of inactivity.
Well, yeah, doesn't everyone? Of course it's set to "sleep" or "hibernate"
or whatever they're calling it this year, but it's still "on" all the time.
== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 9 2008 11:56 pm
From: "friesian@zoocrewphoto.com"
On Sep 9, 12:25 pm, johns <johns...@moscow.com> wrote:
> I build those things for a living. Leaving a pc turned
> on lowers its useful lifetime to about 3 years. Then
> it goes flakey, and I hear all the stupid reasons
> from the users ... what "they" think is wrong.
>
I used my first desktop computer for 8 years, and I left it on most of
the time.
Learn how to use "hibernate mode" and the thing
> will reboot in about 30 seconds all the way
> back to the application you left open.
I actually had problems with the hibernation mode. After using it for
a couple months, my computer started crashing a few times an hour. The
tech help told me the hibernation mode was only for short times, not
overnight, or for more than an hour or so. After I quit using the
hibernation mode, the crashing problem stopped.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Britney Spears for Vice President!
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/41617a060889d131?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 9 2008 4:19 pm
From: krw
In article <jTnxk.22437$uE5.2865@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com>, riley44
@hotmail.com says...
>
> Don't pay any more attention to all that boring stuff. The GOP has
> some exiting news for you! They have combined forces with the Alaskan
> Independence Party to bring you Britney Spears for Vice-President. Okay
> so they couldn't get the real Britney nor Paris Hilton so McCain settled
> for Sarah Palin instead.
If you're going to lie, at least be funny.
--
Keith
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 9 2008 8:21 pm
From: "B. Peg"
Fwiw, Palin has been a Republican since 1982. Check current Newsweek.
However, I feel the Muslim Obama will be better for America in the long term
since the Muslim religion is the largest in the world. His (sealed)
racist's wife's doctoral thesis from Princeton should appease the
African-Americans as well. Between the two, America should be safe from the
divisive problems experienced in Europe like France's recent Muslim
demonstrations and burnings.
B~
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Electricity Rates - wasRe: Home heating oil price?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/25ab6d7a439ac7f1?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 9 2008 5:03 pm
From: Neon John
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 09:58:50 -0700, "Matthew Beasley" <nobody@spam.com> wrote:
>Dump them and form a co-op..... I'm a free market guy, but a utility isn't
>a free market.
Want to go to the moon? Then build a rocket and go. That'd be about as easy
as forming a co-op in an area with existing infrastructure.
Co-ops are the product of the New Deal and REA. REA money paid for the
infrastructure and acquiring the right of ways. That money isn't available
now. Nor are the right of ways. REA ROWs were acquired long before an area
was built up and the government could and did use condemnation when necessary.
All the silly press aside, as a practical matter, that isn't possible today.
A co-op wouldn't save them any money in Larry's situation anyway, since it
would have to buy power from for-profit generators. Look at his delivery
charge. That would remain, at least in part, with a co-op, as the power has
to be delivered to the co-op's boundary.
Co-ops work best in places like here where the power is delivered by a public
utility - TVA - and passed through at cost plus operating expenses. A
well-run municipal utility can do it even cheaper. For example, the same TVA
power is about a cent a kWh cheaper in Cleveland (Cleveland Utilities, owned
by the city) than here under a Co-op.
I'm generally a free market guy but clearly electricity is one area where
public owned (government) utilities do it better. I love how commercial
utilities try to cloud the issue by calling themselves "publicly owned
utilities". TVA, BPA and the other government-owned utilities supply the
cheapest power in the nation, especially when judged by the amount of mark-up
over the cost of the inputs.
>The other nice part is that the co-ops, MUD's and PUD's are exempt from the
>political shenanigans that the PUC tries to force upon us. We are our own
>PUC, and when we vote, we vote for cheap reliable power as our first
>consideration.
>
Just out of curiosity, what Co-op are you with? Do they have a rate card
available on-line?
John
--
John De Armond
See my website for my current email address
http://www.neon-john.com
http://www.johndearmond.com <-- best little blog on the net!
Tellico Plains, Occupied TN
It isn't Global Warming.... It's Jerry Falwell arriving in hell.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Do you still do your own oil change?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/00739344169b1364?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 9 2008 6:14 pm
From: "Bob F"
"Dennis" <dgw80@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:lf8bc455ogc859hoqnqueehe0ui4kn5l67@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 17:37:36 -0600, timeOday
> <timeOday-UNspam@theknack.net> wrote:
>
>>Dave wrote:
>>> "James" <j0069bond@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:01ca5dea-74f9-428c-9c7c-e00c9909960b@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>>>> I keep saying to myself I'm too old to do it just to save 5 bucks.
>>>> However every time they have a special on oil and filters I get
>>>> another batch.
>>>
>>> How do you save 5 bucks? The materials alone are usually more than it costs
>>> to have our garage do it. Then you have to consider the gas you will burn
>>> when you haul the used oil to a recycling facility. -Dave
>>
>>
>>Yeah, I figured it out last time, and you hardly save any money at all
>>doing it yourself.
>
> Four quarts of oil and a filter cost me US$7-8. How much does it cost
> to have your oil changed at a garage?
> Dennis (evil)
And how much time and gas does it take to drive somewhere to get it done?
And then there's the parts left off because the oil place doesn't like them in
the way. The one time I paid for an oil change (After surgery), they left the
cover under the engine off when they returned it to me. When I complained, they
told me they should have charged me more because of the cover, then put it back
in place.
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 9 2008 6:17 pm
From: "Bob F"
"1297" <1297@npspam.com> wrote in message
news:6ilfngFqr7i7U1@mid.individual.net...
>>> Only a fool changes the oil every other month.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Only a fool doesn't change oil every 5k miles.
>
> Barking mad.
>
>> I expect my vehicles to last a minimum of 250K miles.
>
> My last one lasted 35+ years with no oil changes at all outside the first
> year.
>
>> Oil changes are a minimal / essentially negligible cost to extend the life
>> span.
>
> Have fun explaining how mine lasted 35+ years, 300K miles without any outside
> the first year.
Of course, you did have to add a quart or two with every fillup.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 9 2008 8:13 pm
From: "1297" <1297@npspam.com>
Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:
> "1297" <1297@npspam.com> wrote in message
> news:6ilfngFqr7i7U1@mid.individual.net...
>
>>>> Only a fool changes the oil every other month.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Only a fool doesn't change oil every 5k miles.
>>
>> Barking mad.
>>
>>> I expect my vehicles to last a minimum of 250K miles.
>>
>> My last one lasted 35+ years with no oil changes at all outside the
>> first year.
>>
>>> Oil changes are a minimal / essentially negligible cost to extend
>>> the life span.
>>
>> Have fun explaining how mine lasted 35+ years, 300K miles without
>> any outside the first year.
>
>
> Of course, you did have to add a quart or two with every fillup.
Nope, nothing like it.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Anything wrong with canned tomatoes?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/7fb7868def5d6f0e?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 9 2008 8:12 pm
From: Derald
Dennis <dgw80@hotmail.com> wrote:
>buck-an-ear gag. ;-)
...but he isn't in FL any longer
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 9 2008 8:12 pm
From: Derald
Dennis <dgw80@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I keep thinking that I should put it to
>use as a vertical container garden for strawberries or some such.
>Seems like it would be fairly low/easy maintenance. Hmmm...
Good thimking. You know, this past growing season (fall-winter) a
guy down the road a piece opened a small u-pick strawberry patch grown
in similar contraptions: Vertical pipes with three or four
circumferential tiers of wedge-shaped pots that appear to be constructed
of styrofoam. Of course, the assemblies are arranged in regular rows;
top spray irrigated. No idea what the growing medium is. I didn't check
but suspect that he uses the spray irrigation for freeze protection,
otherwise, ISTM, drip irrigation of some kind would be more efficient.
Don't think they're identical but closely resemble the "original" item
pictured here: http://www.theezgro.com/index.html
>
>I can now laugh at the nation-wide hop shortage and resulting high market prices.
I'm hip. If I brewed my own, I'd be envious, I guess. IIRC, a
number of craft brewers are "sharing" their excess at the prices they
purport to have paid. Magnanimous, they.
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "misc.consumers.frugal-living"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to misc.consumers.frugal-living+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com?hl=en
No comments:
Post a Comment