I can agree on the shower heads but I did have a shower-saver that gave a great shower. Not sure of the flow but it was a nice pattern.
As for the rest, you are free to waste your money. In the pst year I switched to 2 toilets with 1.6 gallon flush and they perform better than the old 3 and 5 gallon flushers we had. The older models from a dozen years ago were useless but now they are excellent. Comfort height too!
If they were cowards a year ago, what makes them so different now? As I recall, they did get in the libs face about it, it's just that they had no end game plan. Which is exactly the problem this time. Mitch McConnel said exactly that and he's right.
I'd rather have a process that's been proven to work, has no risk and that doesn't end in a defeat. The court process was used to undo Obama's illegal recess appointments. He had made appointments when Congress was not actually in recess. The SC handed him a right proper unanimous smackdown. Yeah, it took a couple years, but I'd rather have that than a rerun of a total Ted Cruz fiasco right now, that goes nowhere.
The SC similarly has handed Obama defeats on about 10 other things. The claimed right of law enforcement to search everything on a cell phone without a warrant was a recent example where the SC in another unanimous decision said the administration was wrong.
Did he do that in the case of the recess appointments or the cell phone ruling? And if he did try it here, as you suggest, *then* the Republicans would have a legitimate issue. In the Obamacare case before the court, it would be virtually impossible for him to do some executive order that would fix it. The issue is at the very heart of the whole scheme, ie the legality of the feds subsidizing the states without their own exchanges. If that gets ruled illegal, the whole thing is broken.
I'd like to see a source for that. Prior to the GOP doing it recently, the last shutdown of any significance that I recall was 20 years ago, in the Clinton era.
I don't know who the "we" is that needs to get in the media's face. There are two parts to the problem. One is that by their very nature, most of the mainstream media is liberal. IDK how you propose to change that. And even if you could, it would take decades.
The second part of the problem is that the Republicans are totally incompetent in getting their message out, on focusing on what's important, delivering a consistent message, etc. When you listen to the Democrats about some controversial issue, everyone is using very similar soundbites, terms, etc. It's like they get a daily messaging memo and follow it, which they probably do. The Republicans are just all over the place. But, that's the army you have at the moment. I don't see the point in sending it off into a battle that it can't win, because there is no end game.
So, because it wasn't a total disaster, it's a good idea to play with fire again? The only reason it didn't result in Armageddon last time was that the GOP finally admitted a humiliating defeat and caved in. You want that again? If not, then if you push it far enough, something bad is going to happen. How about this... Due to the budget crisis and partial shutdown, something bad happens. An ATC screw-up that results in a plane crash, a security breach that results in a successful terrorist attack. The GOP poll numbers were a disaster last time, what would they be if that happened? And again, we agree that the media is in the tank for the Democrats, so how do you think that would play out?
So then why do you want the same bunch to go to war and repeat the same fiasco of the past? You think that is going to help in the critical presidential election that is 22 months away?
The GOP says "Kill Obamacare or we won't fund the govt". Kill the Exec Order on immigration, or we won't pass a budget. The Democrats, in control of the Senate say no, Obama says no. How exactly do you see that ending favorably for the GOP?
At times, yes. But this isn't one of them. They don't even have control of the Senate yet and you want to start the same war we lost last time, driven by the same loons, eg Ted Cruz. What they just did makes very good sense to me. They approved a budget for the whole year for everything except Homeland Security, which they funded through February. That leaves their options open to figure out what they want to do about the immigration order when the new Congress is seated. They can still decide not to fund it if they want to. And at least then, unlike now, they could get the Senate to take up bills, they could pass bills, put them on Obama's desk.
I'd agree with Ed Pawlowski on shower heads. I once switched from an old style head to a water-saver type and the latter was much better. The heads they make now are very good at very low flow. I suspect, though, that good water pressure is necessary to get a forceful stream through those tiny holes.
I don't think much of low-flow toilets. It's only recently that the design is catching up, so that they can work properly with 1.6 gallons. For years toilets were just retrofitted to hold less water. Even now it's expensive to buy something like a Toto that *really* works properly with 1.6 gallons. And even then, getting it through the toilet isn't sufficient if it clogs the sewer pipe.
I find it odd, also, that the issue isn't in context. If you live in S. California then conserving water is crucial. Here in New England we run a hose for an hour on our garden, just to keep it as green as possible, then we go and save a gallon or two by using a barely functional toilet.
With the lightbulbs, I pay < .15 per KWH for electricity. If I sit at my computer for three hours in the evening with my 75w light on, that's about 3 cents of electricity. My computer/monitor is probably using 4 or 5 times that. Given my use of lighting (I don't leave them on when I'm not in a room) I probably spend about 10 or 15 cents per day on lights. That's hardly a big expense that justifies jumping in to buy expensive, experimental replacement bulbs. Like you, I have plenty of incandescent bulbs to last for several years, by which time the dust should have settled on what's the best replacement option.
It's interesting how irrational we can be when it comes to money. I think we all have our saving quirks -- saving a few cents on electricity but then blowing 10 times as much by leaving the TV on, or buying a $4 coffee at Starbucks, or going for a unnecessary drive in our car and wasting a couple of gallons of gas. I don't know anyone who's fully rational about money.
I wonder about your characterization of "federal thugs", though. The simple fact is that we need to start conserving and people won't do it by themselves. People can't be forced to flush toilets less often or to take shorter showers. It would probably make most sense for men to just pis in the sink. Why not? It all goes to the same place. :) But we're not going to make those changes. The only change that can be enforced is business regulation: forcing toilet companies to make smaller toilets.
Why?
cost. where have you been?
Hmmm... You sound a little defensive there. Or are you always just rude?
In any case, for a 60W bulb, the difference between an LED & an incandescent is a few dollars, right? Over, say, 10 years, that's less than $0.50/year. Doesn't seem worth the time it took to post your opinion.
you are the rude one. Why spend $5.00 on a room or closet that is only lit a couple minutes a year? Better to give the extra five bucks to charity.
Think carefully if you wish to reply - it may not be worth the time for another of your silly posts.
That is a huge problem for people on a well. Typically you have 20-40 or 30-50 pressure switches and these heads are set up for ~80 PSI
We just bought a new American Standard that gets the job done but we do occasionally have that problem of it simply sending the cargo down the pipe a ways without getting it all the way out. One more reason to wash your hands ;-) (the extra water will send it on it's way)
Two issues. Cost vs payback period and the fact that CFLs will fail sooner if they are turned on and off a lot. Again it affects your payback time. You eat many hours of expected service every time you do an off on cycle.
Both of those sound true.
Many believe it possible, and fail to notice that it isn't working.
Of course, there's one little benefit of DST. Twice a year you get to set your clocks (set them right, hopefully).
A. Do rational people really spend time worrying about the difference of a few dollars for one light bulb in a closet? I'd just leave the bulb that's in there in there until it burns out, if it ever does, then replace it with an LED, which will probably be much cheaper by then. Even if I only live in that house for 10 years, the difference is just pennies a year.
B. How did CFLs get into this discussion?
40 watt equivalent closet capable LEDs are quite regularly available around here for $2.50 or less with a coupon. I have half a dozen LED units that would work in a closet that I bought for $2.25 each with NO coupon.
That's one I hadn't considered. Sometimes the heat (from an incandescent bulb) is good for something.
However, wouldn't a snow-blocked light look like one with a power failure? Around here, people treat those as 4-way stops.
... snip drivel ...
This post is compelling evidence that we are already in the age of ignorance, if not stupidity.
"trader_4" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com... What exactly would you have done? Go through another budget crisis and govt shutdown? How well did that work out for the Republicans last time?
It's not about light bulb control.
It's about control.
- . Christopher A. Young Learn about Jesus
I can't imagine how you figure that?
Honey! What's this mean????
- . Christopher A. Young Learn about Jesus
Payback. Or lack of it. If a bulb burns a few hours a day, you want to save as much as possible. Often, the closet light is on a minute while you grab the blue jacket instead of the black one. It will take many years, possibly decades, to pay back the $10 bulb with the savings. The living room lamp that is on 12 hours a day will save you real money with an LED.
Benefit varies if you are on the leading or trailing edge of the time zone. In summer, it is light here at 5 am with DST. Without, it would be light 4 am. I'd rather have the additional light at the end of my day. OTOH, instead of fiddling with clocks we can just say,"Hey guys, next week we work 6 to 2 instead of 7 to 3.
We are probably using around 1000 watts or so to light the house at night. We prefer the quality of light given by incandescents and can afford the electric bill.
They are thugs. Violent, psychopathic thugs. (Refer to any history book for the body count.) The only real difference between government and the Mafia is that that the Mob has considerably less blood on its hands.
Every act of government is an act of violence. Here you are basically stating that you believe the best approach to designing toilets is to have a cadre of armed goons force your values ("smaller toilets") on others under threat of violence.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.