Better start hoarding those 60-watt incandescents...

Page 6 of 7  
snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com writes:

Well, you are now.

To reduce unnecessary electricity usage which is good for all of us.

I suppose you can pretty much do any stupid thing to bring violence on yourself. Pushing a police officer is near the top of the list.
Selling untaxed cigarettes isn't even close to what brought on the violence. Up until he started pushing all he faced was a fine.
(A well deserved fine.)
So, as far as "real point", looks like you missed more than one.
--
Dan Espen

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
'Mark Lloyd[_11_ Wrote: > ;3321793']

> too.

I bought my candelabra base 4.7 watt LED bulbs from Costco. You might want to check your local Costco to see if they're still selling them. The LED bulbs give a very attractive white light that doesn't take time to come to full brightness.
'Mark Lloyd[_11_ Wrote: > ;3321793']

Well, I could see a professional photographer preferring a film camera because of their very much higher resolution that film allows if the image is in proper focus. But your point is well made; digital cameras meet our needs the vast majority of the time, and they do it without our having to pay for film and film processing. Within my lifetime we have gone from photography costing $6 for a roll for film plus $12 for processing to digital cameras costing less than $100 that take as many pictures as your camera's battery and spare memory sticks will allow; literally hundreds of pictures per battery charge. I call that progress, and I really don't see the government at work trying to seize control of our digital cameras in any way.
--
nestork


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, December 15, 2014 3:17:18 PM UTC-5, nestork wrote:

You fail to follow your own analogy. The point isn't the govt seizing control of digital cameras. The point is, did the govt ban film based cameras to force people to digital?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Or banning film cameras. The marketplace and informed citizenry knows best.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 15 Dec 2014 10:52:35 -0800 (PST), snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrote:

Actually you ARE if you can find them to buy and sell without manufacturing or importing them. If you have a 60 foot trailer full of them out behind the barn you are free to sell them to whomever you please. You cannot make more or import them when you run out.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca writes:

You can, however, make and sell as many 57 or 95 watt bulbs as you wish.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/15/2014 04:03 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
[snip]

Buy our 95-watt bulb now and receive ABSOLUTELY FREE a 5-watt bulb included as part of the structure*.
* - 95W bulb for 100% more. 5W bulb is integral and can not be used separately. Offer void in California and where prohibited.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/16/2014 9:11 AM, hah wrote:

You, I like!
- . Christopher A. Young Learn about Jesus www.lds.org .
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
trader_4;3321976 Wrote: > On Monday, December 15, 2014 3:17:18 PM UTC-5, nestork wrote:-

> time

> cameras

> our

> have

> seize

No, neither my government nor yours did anything to ban the manufacture, importation or sale of film based cameras or photographic film. People migrated to them on their own. You can't even buy a film based camera anymore, not because they're banned, but because no one is making or selling them anymore.
Your point would be that if CFL and LED's are so much superior to incandescents, no legislation would be required to get people to change.
And you do have a point.
My response would be that incandescent bulbs are more than just a personal preference, cost savings or convenience. They represent a large portion of the electricity used in the country, and hence a large portion of the CO2 being spewed into the atmosphere at electric generating stations. With lighting, people hoarding incandescent bulbs and refusing to adopt CFL's and LED's as replacements has a direct effect on the carbon footprint of the nation. I think it's THAT environmental aspect that our governments felt warranted the use of legislation to eliminate the continued use of incandescent bulbs.
Five gallon flush toilets are similar in that right now some cities in the USA are facing a looming water shortage. Phoenix, Arizona, for example gets it's water from an underground aquifer. Being a former petroleum engineer, I can tell you that in general, underground aquifers are absolutely HUGE compared to oil reservoirs. So much so, in fact, that in Alberta, one of the forces driving the production of oil from underground oil reservoirs is the pressure maintenance afforded by the water in the underlying aquifer expanding as oil is removed from the oil reservoir and the pressure in that oil reservoir drops.
We have come to believe that water is nearly incompressible, but here, the volume of water is so huge as to partially maintain the pressure in the overburden oil reservoirs as oil is removed and the water level in the oil reservoir rises to encroach on that oil bearing rock because of water expansion from the underlying water aquifer.
Still, aquifers are finite in size and cannot keep supplying a city the size of Phoenix with fresh water indefinitely. They become depleted of water just as oil reservoirs become depleted of oil, and that's happening in Phoenix right now, where you can get a fine for watering your lawn when there's a restriction on water usage.
Similarily, the water supply for Las Vegas is the Colorado River (IIRC) and water is being pumped out of it to irrigate farm land in both Nevada and Arizona.
Both Phoenix and Las Vegas are facing an uncertain future because they can't continue to provide water for their residents, and so water conservation is far more important than someone's preference, cost savings or convenience. I believe it's that concern for the future of the American south west that prompted the laws concerning water usage of flush toilets.
Ditto for the gas mileage and emission standards imposed on automobiles by the State of California.
Ditto for the ban on CFC refrigerants in refrigerators and in air conditioning systems cuz it was causing a big hole in our ozone layer, and that was resulting in Australians not being able to go outside without exposing themselves to potentially dangerous amounts of UV rays from the Sun.
Ditto for the ban on the pesticide DDT cuz it kept on killing long after it was washed out of the soil and into the rivers and lakes by rain.
Laws to control what we do are sometimes necessary when the results of our being careless about stuff can be disasterous. I realize that flies in the face of the independant spirit which is the cornerstone of American culture.
--
nestork


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, December 15, 2014 10:17:18 PM UTC-5, nestork wrote:

People were not refusing to adopt CFLs, LEDs. They were buying them. They were selling them. The market was working. But that wasn't good enough for the heavy handed govt. It had to go force people.
Why don't they force guys like Alec Baldwin and Al Gore to live in smaller houses? Or stop flying in G5s? How much CO2 does AF1, the two C17s, spew when Obama goes flying several times a week across the country raising campaign money? If I have to give up incandescents for my outside light, how about he cut back on some of his non-essential travel? How about we put a ban on him?
I think it's THAT

Of course it was. And if you look at the change it made in global CO2, it's spit in the ocean. Obama just went over to China, agreed to let them continue to increase their CO2 emissions until 2030 and only after that do they need to start reducing them. He hailed that as a great victory, which of course is a joke. Why didn't he get them to force their people to use CFL?

Then maybe it's a better idea for the people in those areas to have their own states pass laws that solve their problems instead of the feds shoving it down on the whole country. I do agree that in the case of toilets it would be harder for the free markets to make the transition. When you buy a toilet, for most people whether it uses 1 gallon or 2 isn't going to make much of an impact on the buying decision.

I agree sometimes it's necessary. But it should only be done when absolutely necessary. The market was adopting CFLs, they were converting over, the price was dropping. People were putting them in applications where they made sense. And continuing to use incandescents where they made sense, eg a closet, outdoors where it's cold, etc. That is way different than CFC or DDT. In the case of CFLs, it's just that big govt wanted to force us to give them up, right now, by their methods. Did Obama get China to give up their incandescents?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You think so?
Residential electricity use is a small percentage of total electricity use. Lighting is a small percentage of residential electricity use. So home lighting is a VERY small percentage of total electricity usage. And electricity generation is a small percentage of CO2 generation. So exactly how much CO2 was saved by banning incandescents?
Don't forget to consider the energy and resources needed to build a CFL/ LE D bulb compared to an incandescent. That is reflected in the 20x cost.
Have you ever taken apart an LED or CFL light bulb to see what is inside?
Do you know that the heat from incandescent bulbs can actually be usefull i n the winter, and that heat delivered near to where it is needed, allows me to lower the thermosadt a few degrees? In the winter the incandescents sa ve me energy and reduce CO2 if that is important to you. Yes, I swap them out for CFLs in the summer. As I am sitting here typing this right now, a 75 Watt incandescent bulb is helping to keep my hands warm.
As a degreed engineer, I think I can decide for myself which lighting techn ology is best for me to use in my home, not some politican in Washington.
Thats the point, freedom is what this country was founded on and it should not be taken away so lightly (pun intended).
Mark
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 15 Dec 2014 16:12:58 -0800 (PST), trader_4

Do you watch Fox News? If so, do you find it "fair and balanced"? Do you think their "reporting" as roughly as accurate as CNN or CBS or NBC or the BBC? How would you rate the quality and accuracy of Fox News with, say, The Economist?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, December 15, 2014 10:14:25 PM UTC-5, Jennifer Murphy wrote:

I'd say Fox is more fair and balanced than the other networks. They have liberals on all the time and allow them to make their case. Folks like Dennis Kucinich, Bob Beckle, Juan Williams, Allen Colmes, Charley Rangle, Luis Guitierrez, Austin Goolsbee, Robert Reich, etc. They'd have more on, but most of them are afraid to show up, Pelosi being an example. She and many others have a standing invitation to come on, but won't.
As far as accuracy, there is no comparison. Yes, Fox has a conservative leaning, but they are fair, honest on the facts. Compare that to the crap on CBS from just last week. For two days CBS continued to call the weapon the 12 year old was holding in Cleveland a "toy gun". It was not a toy. It's illegal for a minor to buy one. It's illegal for a minor to possess one unless an adult is present and supervising. That "toy" can easily put a person's eye out at a distance. And close range, in rare cases, it can kill. It's not a toy gun, it's an air pellet gun. Now either CBS is incredibly stupid, or they are lying, your choice. It's hard to believe that in two days, no one pointed out to them that they had it wrong.
And while we're at it, another example from last week on CBS. They had a panel of 6 everyday people, 3 white, 3 black to talk about race relations. Half way through the reporter asks "How many of you were involved in protesting Ferguson/Garner? All 6 raise their hands. He appears incredulous, "All of you..." Good grief. The only possible way he could wind up with 6 people who were involved in protesting those events was to have hand picked them. In other words, A - it was loaded, and B - he pretended it wasn't.
You want an example of outrageous bias that is easily provable by hard fact? Look at the coverage hours that those networks gave to the IRS scandal compared to Christie's bridge scandal. They spent 15 times more airtime on the bridge lane closing in just a two days as they did in 6 months on the IRS scandal. And which is worse? Closing some lanes that make getting onto the bridge more difficult, or having the IRS target citizens, use the power of the IRS, based on their politics?
I could go on, but you get the point. Now perhaps you can share some factual examples about Fox to back up your claims.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ed Pawlowski;3322009 Wrote: >

>

Sometimes I think that the only government Americans trust less than their own government are those of North Korea and Iran.
--
nestork


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If the standard is popularity, then obesity, tobacco, prejudice, hatred, mysogyny, aliens, and religion are all good for you. ymmv

Have you ever watched the BBC or read the Economist? Can you even read?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/15/2014 11:19 PM, Jennifer Murphy wrote:

I've consistently found that kind of superior attitude, with you libs and also the insulting snide digs.
I'll save you the trouble, I'm both illiterate and also a racist.
- . Christopher A. Young Learn about Jesus www.lds.org .
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Is your retort a semantic argument or a hidden hypocrisy? Will you be 'illustrating' your views of the government as you illustrate them here (Usenet) in your next talk at sacrament meeting when the bishop asks you to speak on the 12th article of faith?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| Have you ever watched the BBC or read the Economist? Can you even read? |
It goes both ways. You're calling conservatives idiots. They call you an idiot. Conservatives often think "the government" is instituting disempowering socialism. On the other hand, liberals often think rednecks are forcing everyone to live by a particular, mono-paradigmatic, fear-based social dogma. There's some truth to both accusations.
The other day I was watching Bill Moyers interview a man who, if I remember correctly, is the editor of Harpers magazine. The man pointed out that only recently had the NYT decided to stop avoiding the word torture in reference to Guantanamo and the CIA in general. I can attest to that kind of behavior from the NYT. I get the NYT. I don't read much of the news section. I wouldn't say it's liberal, the way the Limbaugh -ians fear. Rather, it's skewed in favor of power and money, which has no political party. As the wealthy political activists increasingly like to say: "I'm socially liberal and fiscally conservative." Which means, "Who cares how you people live, so long as I end up with the bucks?"
What I'm getting at is that to some extent, liberal vs conservative is the bread and circuses of the age.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, December 16, 2014 9:54:12 AM UTC-5, Mayayana wrote:

Apparently he's an idiot:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/12/09/world/cia-torture-report-document.html
"The Senate Committee's Report on the C.I.A.'s Use of Torture"
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/11/opinion/a-scathing-report-on-cia-torture.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/11/opinion/a-scathing-report-on-cia-torture.html
"A Scathing Report on C.I.A. Torture"
I can attest to that kind of behavior from

Sure, I believe that. The NYT treated Bush and Reagan the same way they treat Obama. They treat the Koch brothers the same way as George Soros. Who was the last Republican candidate for president that the NYT endorsed? Eisenhower. In over half a century, they didn't endorse a sinlge Republican presidential candidate. Good grief.
As the wealthy

Which wealthy activists are you referring to? Are you as sure about that as you are about the fairness of the NYT?

I'd say it's the determining factor as to whether the USA endures as the great country and super power it has been, or descends into the hell of becoming the next Greece.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If you can't see the fallacy in this, you're a perfect fox viewer.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.