Bootleg 100W Incandescent Bulbs ALREADY on Ebay

Page 1 of 2  
*** BOOTLEGGING IT ***
They're starting out early on Ebay with the 100W Incandescent Light Bulbs. One seller has 4 pack for $3.50 plus $5.50 s+h Item number: 150718831241
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Incandescent-Light-Bulbs-While-They-Last-/150718831241 ?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&var=&hash=item68c91e2792
Then there's the seller who has a 4pack of GE soft white 100w bulbs for $108.51 *Buy it now*, plus $6.25 shipping. Item number: 180769428770
http://www.ebay.com/itm/GE-41036-Incandescent-Light-Bulbs-100-Watts-/180769428770 ?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2a16b29522
Of course we aint seen nothing yet. Just wait till they ARE illegal to sell, and they will be selling for $4999.99 per bulb, and when the mailman drops it in your mailbox, the FBI will be right behind them, ready to handcuff you. All part of Communist America and 2012 Light Bulb Prohibition. Wait till people start getting fined $12,000 for posession of one 100w bulb, and serving life in prison for possession of a whole case of 100w bulbs.
All the while, the great dictator Obama sits in his throne laughing his ass off as his commie congress bans other things in our lives such as toilet paper, peanut butter, rubber tires and boots, kitchen knives, charcoal, soda pop, common nails larger than 10d, bathtubs with a capacity over 0.75 gallons, gasoline cans larger than 1.45 gallons, chocolate chips, rubbing alcohol, hammers heavier than 14oz, newspapers, condoms (unless prescribed by a doctor), bullets (guns are legal, but not bullets), and of course the final ban will be voting ballots.....
*** Not the land of the free nor the home of the brave !!!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Uh ..., the law says "manufactured or imported". Nothing wrong with buying or selling 100W standard bulbs after 12/31/11. There's going to be existing stock rattling around for years and silly people paying way too much for it.
No doubt there will be some illegal bulb imports from Canada and Mexico too. Can't wait to see how that's handled.
Tomsic
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

http://www.ebay.com/itm/GE-41036-Incandescent-Light-Bulbs-100-Watts-/180769428770
They are being banned here in Canada, the land of the snow. It seems that incandescent bulbs produce a lot of heat when making light. Wow, here in southern Canada, where winter is at least 5 months of the year, a little heat production is welcome. In summer, when we run air-conditioners, the bulbs compete with the A/C wasting electricity, but wait, the sun rises at about 5 in the morning and sets at about 9 in the evening, this is no big deal. Way up north, where the sun never sets, who needs to turn on the heat producing light bulbs. Canadian politicians are doing a "me too", when there is no real need or reason. What it does do, is require us to buy expensive halogen or LED bulbs to fit our light fixtures or to change our fixtures where the mercury filled curly bulbs won't fit.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 12:14:27 -0500, "EXT"

Living in the northern US, those CFL bulbs simply do not work in the winter in unheated buildings such as my barn, garage and tool shed. I flip in the switch, and get about as much light as a flashlight with failing batteries. Sure, I can stand there shivvering from the cold and wait 3 to 5 minutes for the CFL bulbs to get to half brightness so I can somewhat see what I'm doing. And they never get much past half brightness in cold weather no matter how long I wait.
However, in those minutes I wait for the damn thing to light up, I could have already grabbed the tool I wanted and be back in the warm house, or fed the animals in the barn, or drilled a hole on the drill press in the garage. But no, I have to stand there like a fool, developing pneumonia from shivvering, and wait for the goddamn bulb to get to at least a level where I can see whare I am standing. Not to mention that if I'm in the barn, by the time the bulbs gets bright enough to see, I may have been knocked down by a hungry cow or horse quickly grabbing to get a bite of the animal feed I'm carrying. So not only are these lights annoying as hell, but they are downright dangerous,,,,, or maybe I used the drill press and damaged something or got injured due to a lack of lighting......
Of course the morons im Washington DC never go to cold barns, garages or tool sheds, nor do they have livestock or operate power tools, so why should they give a fuck about the rest of us.
Anyhow, that little extra heat given off by incandescent bulbs in my cold winter barn, garage or shed is welcome for both myself and my animals.
But here's he clincher. I like to save money (can you imagine that?). So, in the hot weather months, I replace all the light bulbs in my out buildings with CFL bulbs to save money on the power bill, even though that time of year I'm normally done with my outdoor chores because the daylight lasts until nearly 10:00pm.
My point is this. I know what kind of bulbs I need for certain times of year and weather conditions. Of course the morons in Washington dont think any of us have the intelligence to use the type of bulb for the situation and weather. To them, we're all total idiots incapable of doing anything without them.
I dont want to see anyone hurt, but it's going to happen. Some farmer or outdoor worker is going to have an accident because of inadaquate lighting. When this happens, I highly encourage major lawsuits against the morons in Washington for causing the accident. I'll tell you right now, when I need to do a tractor repair during cold winter weather, and need a trouble light with a 100w bulb to do the repair, but have to rely on using a candle, or CFL lightbulb giving the equivalant output of the candle, accidents are going to happen. There are a lot of spinning belts, chains, and gears that need to be handled carefully, but if I cant see them, accidents are going to happen......
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

There's a simple solution. Use either halogen or rough service bulbs. The halogen meet the EISA requirements and the rough service types are exempt. Congress gets blamed for a lot these days (and, yes, they often deserve it); but the bulb legislation was initiated by the energy advocates, not Congress. They are well organized, do their homework and the politics of 20007 was quite different than it is today -- there was a consensus that actually saving energy was a good thing. So, use the bulbs that work the best for you and stop whining about lawsuits and accidents. Farming in cold weather is no fun (been there, did that); but there is just no reason that you can't have the light that you need.
Tomsic
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Great memories and I agree with much of what you've said -- can't match your cold night experience though. The worst thing I experienced on the farm was a pile of snow on my bed one morning due to high wind and a leaky window frame. The basement coal furnace and cook stove in the kitchen kept us more than warm.
The good thing about the light bulb phase-out legislation is that people are becoming more educated about products which have been commodities for years and we've seen informational web sites such as www.lumennow.org show up. Manufacturers used to advertise bulbs (remember Mr. Magoo), but when was the last time that you saw a light bulb ad?
I worked for a while in the complaint department of one of the bulb makers responding to consumer letters. Oh, the rants and bitterness about short life, burned fingers, low light output, broken glass and other "hazards" of incandescent bulbs -- even fires. Note that incandescent bulbs are not UL tested or listed. (Why is that?) But, most of the letters complained about short life. Now we have rants and political hot air wanting to preserve all of that? Let's move on. Sure, keep a few incandescents around to do what they do best, but I like my CFLs, including a nice 3-way model, that have provided a good reading light now for some 7 years with no replacements.
Tomsic
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<stuff snipped>

Ah, the Uppa-U-Ass! (Keep those straight lines comin')

They are getting better, however, and eventually that problem will be licked. My wife complains that the bathroom light, now a tungsten and 23W CFL "combo" takes a full minute or so for the CFL o reach full brightness. I measured it with my old Nikon F2 and it does change almost a full F-stop during warmup. That's why the combo - the lights around the make-up mirror That said, the brand new porch bulb (n:Vision from HD) works in pretty cold temperatures. I've been trying to get the Nikon on that to test it, but it's only been slightly below freezing once this winter. Last night, it was 57F! At 1AM!!!!!!

That sudden blast of cold is good for your heart. People join polar swim clubs to get that effect. Scandanavians run outside into the snow after a sauna! But I do agree, it's a nuisance. The 23W jobs I got from Tru-Value have been problematic in that regard. On the flip side, after a while they don't exhibit that problem because the bulb dims considerably. Once that happens, it appears to reaches full brightness more quickly, but in realityl, it's emitting less light than it did when first new by almost that full F-stop. I couldn't measure any significant difference once that CFL had been cycled a few 100 times. I've actually got my Homevision system recording the number of times that the bathroom lights activate so I can tell very accurately how long a CFL that cycles 10 times a day will last. Newer bulbs are much "sturdier" in that regard. .

What CFL's have meant to us is that where 2 bulbs used to suffice, we now have three - or a mix of CFL and incandescent.

I am sure somewhere a Congressman is making ardent love to a sheep in some barn, somewhere. They do, however, give a fu& about fu&ing US.

Actually, I think things played out exactly right. The impending law encouraged a lot of people to investigate and switch to CFLs for many applications. There's probably not much more to be gained except animus by forcing the remaining people to switch. A solution has been found for many that will reduce the need for all of us to breath in pollutants that come from putting new coal power plants on line. That's good.

Ah, but the legislators, many of them lawyers, who write the laws wrote in a little backdoor called "Sovereign Immunity" which protects them from the sorts of lawsuits you're suggesting. They're the ones that mean it when they say "so sue us!" because they know you can't.

Rough-service bulbs, which you should be using in a work light, were/are exempt. My feeling? With Iran about to go nuclear and NK with a new, Nit-Wit in Chief, we've got far more to worry about than lightbulbs.
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Dec 19, 11:12pm, snipped-for-privacy@myplace.com wrote:

I would go back to your narcotics supplier and demand a refund. Whatever he sold you put you on a heluva bad trip.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robert Green wrote:

Slight correction: A third-party run always hurts the nominee of the party closest to the third-party candidate. Whether the hurt is sufficient, can't be determined until after the election.
The last credible 3rd party candidate that made a difference was Teddy Roosevelt when he ran on the Bull Moose ticket. He siphoned enough Republican votes from Howard Taft to give the election to Woodrow Wilson, an avowed communist (of course this was before communism.)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Perot would, then, be a non-credible 3rd party candidate that made a difference.? Clinton won both times with less than 50% of the vote. (Although in fairness, EVERY single Perot vote would have had to change to essentially tie in '96)
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And Wilson may have been insipid, but he couldn't prevent the Treaty of Versailles, and we now know what that got us.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That make me wonder what future historians will point to as the cause of WWIII. Lots of academics say the great wars have ended, but lots of them said we'll never have another huge depression. The definition of an academic should be "someone who can smoothly explain away previous theories when an event occurs that defies them."
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You know, Bobby G., that I'm not a historian. But it should not be difficult to find real historians who would point to the Versailles treaty as one of the causes of WWII. As far as WWIII is concerned, I hope that I won't feel it, either way. (I live close enough to New Yiork City).
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in
<stuff snipped>

Don't be so modest, Han. You have some seriously detailed historical knowledge along with a pretty impressive "basic overview" of history. Stop most Americans on the street and they probably couldn't tell you the difference between Versailles and Versace. (-:
I made an error, and it's one reason I write on the net. To learn too write less badder.
In my head I was thinking of the future, after what I believe is the inevitable WWIII. I should have written my comment to make it obvious I was talking about a future where they say something like "It was NK's attack on SK with a dirty bomb or some other trigger event that was the true start of WW Three. I was thinking of a parallel where it took years to realize that WW Two had its origins in the war reparations Germany was made to pay that bankrupted its economy and rekindled old hatreds.
In that case, we could have already passed the trigger point for WW3 and not even know it. It could be 9/11 that's seen as the trigger event, and it would be an awful thought that the actions of a handful of nutjobs could have the power to bring the world to war. That would mean they succeeded in their mission: to sow hatred and trick nations into doing their dirty work. My fear is that by elevating them as a realistic war threat, we made them into a force that appeared for more powerful than they really are.

(I live close enough to New York

I unfortunately live near where the terrorists will probably strike next. Terrorist are predictable in at least some ways. They're fond of anniversaries and they like to finish what they started. Their first attack on the WTC was serious, but it did not bring down the buildings. Their second attack did.
They failed to hit their target in DC thanks to a heroic planeload of Americans who rewrote the rules about dealing with terrorists with their blood. I live near enough to the White House and the Capitol that my mailman died, allegedly from the idiots who put bioweapons in the mail. )-: His replacement has been very close-mouthed about what happened to him.
The Potomac river divides the DC metro area in two, making evacuation pretty much impossible since even daily commuting is pretty much impossible. People will end up on the side of the river they started on if there's a big alert. Very few people outside of military folks have realistic evac plans. Even fewer have emergency kits. That's an area where the Mormons have a lot to teach the rest of us. In the long run, DC'er are sort of like California people and quake fears - after a while they not only don't fear quakes, but they're proud of living (perhaps foolishly) without fear. (-:
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/24/2011 9:29 PM, Robert Green wrote:

You have a better chance of being hit by lighting than being killed by a terrorist. Do you fear lighting?
We all gotta die sometime. Sort of pointless to dwell on it.
Life is great. Don't fight it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/24/2011 9:39 PM, JimT wrote:

Your best chance to be terrorized is by the TSA, "Terrorist Screwing Americans". If you resist being molested by them you could be killed. I understand they've moved out of airports to the nation's highways now. Soon you won't be able to travel by car without being protected by the TSA. o_O
TDD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<stuff snipped>

My swarthy looking friend and I got stopped at some sort of random checkpoint set up on I-95 driving a rental SUV. They let us go with a warning (we were speeding just like 99 out of 100 other cars) which was pretty unusual. They did give the SUV a good looking over, though.
In response to HomeGuy's comments, I did a little searching and found that the TSA confiscates, on average, 3 handguns each day and an incredible amount of other weapons or weapon-like material. It's hard for me to believe that anyone could pull a 9/11 style hijack in the US ever again, even if they had a pistol. People would take turns head-punching anyone stupid enough to make a move toward the cabin. There have been several stories in the news about mentally defective people trying to get to the cabin and getting beaten to a pulp. One was even killed, IIRC.
The TSA money would have been far better spent figuring out how to inspect the millions of tons of cargo freight container contents that arrive daily by ships from every corner of the world. And ridding the internet of the thousands of foreign criminals attacking our citizens, our businesses and our military installations every second of every day. Regrettably we've shown that we're always fighting today's wars with yesterday's tactics. While Al-Queda's last big attack was 9/11, computer "terrorists" have been robbing businesses, stealing national secrets and plaguing citizens for decades. Let's address the real threats and not waste money on "security theater" like TSA.
I'd like to restock Guantanamo with all the Nigerian Princes that plague the internet. If we can send drones into another country to kill people, we should be able to "reverse scam" the Nigerians with free tickets for a Florida vacation. (-:
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Just because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean their isn't a threat. Just one suborbital EMP (nuke) weapon could do some serious damage, imagine 50+ nuclear power plant meltdowns occurring simultaneously? We are not prepared for a wide scale long term failure of the grid.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message
<stuff snipped about WW Three>

Excellent point. Anyone following what the Chinese have published about these matters coincides closely with what you've said. They realize their military is no match for ours and so they've plainly stated that in the case of a conflict, their primarily goal will be to neutralize our forces as much as possible. They made a great display of their ability to electronically jam and hijack (as well as shoot down) our satellites in orbit recently to let us know they could potentially blind us, electronically. Much of our ability to protect large carrier groups is dependent on sighting missile exhaust trails when they launch and targeting the missiles while they are still over enemy territory. They know that if they knock out our early warning systems, they elevate their chances of a successful attack dramatically.
http://www.dailytech.com/Govt+Report+Warns+of+Chinese+Plans+to+Cripple+US+Space+Defenses/article23314.htm
<<I. Foreign Nation Gains Access of Two U.S. Satellites in 2007-2008
The disturbing commentary on the satellite breaches was published by the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission (USCC), a government panel established in 2000 by Congress for the purpose of examining how China's growing military and technological power could impact U.S. security. The report [PDF] was the ninth by the panel and it offers some of the most interesting -- and frightening -- commentary yet. It describes attacks on two America orbiters, which appeared to be proof-of-concept probing infiltrations given the satellites' non-vital roles. The first satellite attacked was Terra (EOS-AM-1), the flagship satellite in a series of National Aeronautics and Space Agency orbiters, designed to monitor the Earth's climate. The satellite was attacked twice in 2008, with attackers gaining command-and-control access level.>>
What's most troubling is that the Pentagon is still obsessed with counterinsurgency doctrine and to get promoted, officers have to track what their bosses consider "important." Right now, that's the AfRaqRan situation. Threats from credible enemies like China are being seriously underplayed and even ignored because some people foolishly believe that a magic economic relationship is going to keep them docile or they believe their technology is too primitive to be much of a threat. We didn't think Arab terrorists would ever learn how to fly jetliners, either.
There was a big flap a while back when one of their students detailed what it would take to cause a cascading power grid failure based on studies of accidental failures.
http://www.dailytech.com/Chinese+Grad+Student+Describes+Cascadebased+Attack+on+Americas+Power+Grid/article17951.htm
<<The report went largely unnoticed and unreported until Larry M. Wortzel, a military strategist and China specialist, told the House Foreign Affairs Committee on March 10 that "Chinese researchers at the Institute of Systems Engineering of Dalian University of Technology published a paper on how to attack a small U.S. power grid sub-network in a way that would cause a cascading failure of the entire U.S.">>
What really frosts my cake is that so many people said that the Chinese students were only trying to help us.
Other articles I've read postulate that China already has a small army of saboteurs in place in our country ready to be activated in the event of hostilities.
If we don't get over our obsession with terrorists that have no real military power, we're going to be in for a very rude awakening if and when one of the many hot spots in the far east goes critical and we face a credible and powerful enemy that has been working very, very hard to figure out how to neutralize our current military superiority. That military superiority is now under tremendous threat from within as the Republican engineered budget impasse threatens to throttle back defense spending to dangerously low levels.
Unlike Islamic religious fanatics, China possesses serious military technology and can, in short order, raise the largest army in the world because they have such a huge population. They've also been probing and attacking our DoD and infrastructure networks for decades and have said pretty bluntly that one of the first things they need to do to "even up the sides" in case of a conflict is to take down the US internet.
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

can't
That's what I said. (-: They usually backfire. Teddy's didn't but everyone else, as you note, has hurt the side they're allegedly closest to.

an
One thing interesting about history (and to some extent economics) is that we never see things quite as the people living in the past did. Interning (or interring) the Japs (a term that was used quite a while after the war) seemed like the natural thing to do to a population peppered with stories of Japanese atrocities in the Pacific Islands. Now, to some, it seems unthinkable.
Back in the early part of the last century, many people truly believed the US would go communist. There was serious doubt, hence the Palmer raids and all sorts of other reactions to the waves of socialist revolution sweeping the globe. Now, I doubt there's any chance of us "going commie" because it seems, for the most part that the commies have come around to our way of thinking. Greed is good (in moderation) because it overcomes the innate laziness of people and almost all primates. It's not a bad trait - our laziness drives a constant search to improve efficiency, and that's good.
-- Bobby G.
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.