The era of incandescent light bulbs will soon be extinguished forever.
Beginning Jan. 1, 60-watt and 40-watt incandescent bulbs will start to disappear from store shelves.
Maybe in Canada, but if the US Senate passes the current spending
bill, there is an amendment in it that cancels the US ban on
This from :
"Old fashioned light bulbs still allowed: The bill blocks new energy
efficient standards that would have made incandescent light bulbs
obsolete. Consumers had complained about the new requirements."
Unfortunately, the ship has already sailed I'm afraid...it seems
unlikely to me any manufacturer will pick up production from closed
facilities presuming even the restriction riders do stand up (which I'd
not put much faith in altho anything is theoretically possible in that
On Friday, December 12, 2014 6:29:10 PM UTC-5, Todd wrote:
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?
And right now, the GOP doesn't even have control of the Senate yet.
The smart move on immigration is let it play out in the courts first,
where it will likely be ruled unconstitutional. There is a good chance
that the SC is going to effectively kill Obamacare, they have the case
and will decide it in just 6 months. That's the smart play, not starting
wars that you can't win and that will end in another humiliation.
And if you think it's a grand idea
to try to block an entire govt budget over issues that you lost years ago,
see how you'll like it when the libs
start doing it too. If anything and everything you don't like is now
grounds for refusing to pass a budget that funds the govt, then you'll
have chaos. And you also have the simple fact that last time the GOP
tried it, they failed, capitulated and polls all showed the GOP got
the overwhelming part of the blame. Yet, you want to go there again?
They were cowards and did not get in the libs faces about it.
That will takes years and the courts are packed with libs that
push their own agenda, like gay marriage. Court activists
don't give a s*** about the law.
The emperor will just post another edict and we will still
have Obama care
Every congress had done it. We need to get in American Pravada face
about the biases reporting.
Baloney. Every time we have shut it down, Armageddon never
occurred. And we never had a full shutdown, ever. That
is American Pravda again.
They give in because they are cowards and they are also part
of the problem. They spend like drunken sailors, just like
the libs, except that drunken sailors stop spending when they
run out of their own money. Cowards and hypocrites!
Sorry for venting. The republicans can be such wussies at times
On Saturday, December 13, 2014 7:10:13 PM UTC-5, Todd wrote:
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
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.
A quick quote from Newt:
"There were 12 government shutdowns while Democrat Tip
O'neill was Speaker. Why is media so one sided in its
ignorance of history?"
— Newt Gingrich (@newtgingrich) September 30, 2013
An article on the subject from the National Review:
Here is American Pravda's run down on all of them:
I dearly hope you are correct about the courts. The
totalitarian activists on the SC almost have a majority
and that could easily change. In the lower courts, I
see the totalitarian activists throwing out the EXPRESSED
WILL OF THE PEOPLE with all their gay right decisions.
And the SC refused to hear the first appeal of that
tyranny. So, I hope you are correct, but I fear for
the country anyway.
You made a lot of excellent points in your letter.
They said the same thing about CFL's. In theory it
is the case, except that they packed the crappies
electronics they could find on them and the bulbs
(the electronics, not the bulb) would go out
in the same time as an incandescent, making them
a ton more expensive to run.
White LED's require heat ventilation or they will slowly
stop emitting light. Design that badly to cut costs
and place crappy electronics on them and I can see
LED burning out in record time, also making them
a ton more expensive to run.
If anyone knows of a good LED brand that does not do this,
I would love to hear.
It's best the led runs just slightly warm. When they are attached to a heat
sink, the led die usually is hotter than the heat sink. I always look at
led truck or bus stoplights. Many of them fail. They can really run too hot
in the sun.
I just put up an led fixture over the sink. It's supposed to be 60 watt
replacement, but lumens is on the low end just over 600. It seems ok, as
the whole fixture is some kind of metal, which is just slightly warm. As
long as the control circuit keeps working, I expect long life.
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.