Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
Dan_Musicant wrote:
I use CFL's not to save the planet but because in the long run, I save money. I get it, like a lot of people you believe in being selfish, and worse, you ridicule people who do things for reasons other than selfish reasons. It's called the "Invisible Hand." When everyone acts in their own best interests, the overall good is magnified. When everyone is compelled to act in what is presumed to be the best interest as determined by a few, we have disaster. |
#82
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
Tony Hwang wrote:
Hi, Nearby town of Banff installed LED street lights with solar panels. Very cool looking light and it is cool running, no bugs get attracted kep them clean. Cost a lot initially but for the long run, it's winner. LED bulbs now are expensive but with time the price will come down. I have a few small ones in the house, they use couple Watts per bulb. My city, Houston, is retrofitting its traffic signals with LEDs. They cost more initially, but since the bulbs won't have to be replaced for, what, fifty years, they should recoup the expense fairly soon. Can you imagine what it takes to change the bulb on an overhead traffic signal? |
#83
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
John Barry wrote:
We need more energy. Let's go get it. -Jim Redelfs Nonsense- to the assertion that extracting fossil fuels faster will solve our problems. It'll just bring forward the day of reckoning what to do when it becomes unaffordable. Bah! The Romans cut down the forests of North Africa (and parts of Europe). When wood became expensive, Europe turned to coal. When the coal ran out, or became too expensive, the world began to run on oil. When we run out of (cheap) oil, there'll be something else. There's so much we can do to reduce demand and make much better use of what's in the "pipeline" and what's yet to be invented. Consensus among many seems to be that there's no single solution. Maybe opening our minds to reasonable means to cure our coal/oil/gas addiction will help, AND provide marketable solutions for the rest of the planet. There are those who advocate turning the oil reserves of Saudia Arabia into a "planetary resource," to be administered for the good of everyone. |
#84
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
|
#85
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
Jim Redelfs wrote:
We should drill for oil and gas in ANWR (Alaska National Wildlife Refuge)? Why do you think Seward talked Congress into buying Alaska? Do you think he would have ever believed that there'd come a day when vast miles of it would be virtually off-limits to any resource harvesting? That simply is not true though, as there is no part of Alaska that is "virtually off-limits to any resource harvesting". ANWR, for example, (and the parks on the Canadian side of the border also) was established to protect the resources required for several thousands of people whose very way of life and existence relies upon being able to harvest those resources. Despite incessant impediments from environmentalists, the Tans-Alaska Pipeline was finally built. But, Shazam! The devastation to the environment and wildlife it was predicted to cause never happened. They were WRONG. They're wrong now. Again, that is simply *not* true! In fact the environmentalists did complain loudly about the initial design for a pipeline. That design, fortunately, was never built. The process was held up until the legal status of land title was settled, and in the years (1968 to 1972) while that was happening the State of Alaska began studies on the North Slope to determine the potential impact of oil production. One of the more immediate determinations was that the claims from environmentalist about the pipeline design were valid. By 1974 when construction began, the design had been modified to meet the requirements of both the environmentalists and the State of Alaska; as a result the pipeline has had relatively minimal environmental impact (note that is "minimal", not "non-existent"). CF bulbs and set-back thermostats are NOT the final solution, even if there was a problem. Heck, such measures aren't even a viable stop-gap. We need more energy. Let's go get it. -Jim Redelfs Let's use our heads and not go off half cocked with cock-a-mamie ideas based on false information. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#87
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
|
#88
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
|
#89
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
HeyBub wrote:
Tony Hwang wrote: Hi, Nearby town of Banff installed LED street lights with solar panels. Very cool looking light and it is cool running, no bugs get attracted kep them clean. Cost a lot initially but for the long run, it's winner. LED bulbs now are expensive but with time the price will come down. I have a few small ones in the house, they use couple Watts per bulb. My city, Houston, is retrofitting its traffic signals with LEDs. They cost more initially, but since the bulbs won't have to be replaced for, what, fifty years, they should recoup the expense fairly soon. I doubt the 50 yr thing since I've see LED signals failing. The good thing is that they have a "soft" failure mode, losing a few strings of LEDs rather than the whole thing at once like the old incandescent signals. The power savings of the LED vs. the 300W incandescents they replace becomes significant when multiplied by all the active signals in a city. Can you imagine what it takes to change the bulb on an overhead traffic signal? About an hour, a bucket truck and a cop to handle traffic. |
#90
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
Kurt Ullman wrote:
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote: That simply is not true though, as there is no part of Alaska that is "virtually off-limits to any resource harvesting". ANWR, for example, (and the parks on the Canadian side of the border also) was established to protect the resources required for several thousands of people whose very way of life and existence relies upon being able to harvest those resources. Several thousands of people need several millions of acres and can't spare a little land. They've owned that land for thousands of years. What right do you have to take it, or their resources, and destroy their culture? All told, the ANWR consists of 19 million acres. Congress has put 8 million acres into formal wilderness status and designated 9.5 million acres as wildlife refuge. Those 17.5 million acres form a protected enclave almost as large as the state of South Carolina. Do you have a point? The coastal plain of ANWR (the 1002 Area) is the single such refuge in the Arctic. There is nothing else like it in the world. As part of the original legislation, Congress set aside the remaining 1.5 million acres of the coastal plain for ***potential exploration*** and development because of its oil and gas. (emphasis mine). Before any exploration could occur, additional legislation had to be passed by Congress. That happened in 1995, but President Clinton vetoed the bill. Hence, we have wisely refrained from destroying it. Note that Congress did *not* set it aside for exploration, potential or otherwise. Congress said that option should be studied because there was a potential. It has been studied, and rather obviously it has been consistently determined to *not* be a suitable option, which is why exploration has not passed into law. It is a little hard to make the case that areas that were initially set-aside specifically for exploration could really have that much impact. That is an absurdly erroneous statement. As noted, it was *not* set aside for exploration. And logically there is no correlation between that and whether there would or would not be an impact. As we know positively from the horrendous impact of oil production in the Prudhoe Bay industrial complex, there is no question at all that there is in fact that impact. Let's use our heads and not go off half cocked with cock-a-mamie ideas based on false information. You should try it sometime. You did not even want to question the facts as I stated them, but went of with false statements and illogical philosophy. Do you actually know *anything* about ANWR? -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#91
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 05:08:54 -0900, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote: Do you actually know *anything* about ANWR? He knows everything that Rush Limbaugh told him about it. What more do you need? If true, that is indeed clear enough... ;-( Must be a vast frozen wasteland, totally dark and at -60F for 6 months of the year. That's the place were the liberal press shows phoney pictures from down south, with mountains and so on, and claims it is really ANWR... Except, none of that is true! -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#92
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
In article , Tim Smith wrote:
In article , (Doug Miller) wrote: In article , wrote: Once again, Bush is taking away our freedoms as American citizens. Idiot. That bill came from the Democrat-controlled *Congress*, not from the President. The Democrat-controlled Congress that doesn't have enough votes to override a veto, thereby meaning NOTHING that comes out of that Congress becomes law without the President's agreement and signature? Is that the one you are talking about? ... completely missing the point about whose idea it was in the first place. Idjit above was blaming the President for something Congress did. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
#93
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
|
#94
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
In article , Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article , "HeyBub" wrote: wrote: Once again, Bush is taking away our freedoms as American citizens. Next he's mandate we are only allowed to use one square of toilet paper per day and will require we all spend our own money to buy the toilet paper sheet counter. What makes this any different from taking away our tv signal and forcing everyone on the country to buy a converter. Of course the gov't dont tell us the whole reason for this. That's because the cellphone companies paid the gov't to steal our airwaves so they can make big profits from them. 1. The "one square of toilet paper" idea is being promoted by Sheryl Crow, a Hollywood liberal. 2. The TV re-allocation was established in 1997, during the Clinton administration. 3. The Democratic Congress passed the law. Wrong. In 1997, the Senate had 55 to 45 Republican majority, and the House had a 227 to 204 Republican majority (with 4 seats vacant). 2.Kennedy and Johnson started and expanded the Viet Nam war. Nixon ENDED the fighting and Henry Kissinger got the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts along those lines. Which he shared with Arafat, thus once and for all killing off ANY remaining legitimacy for the "Peace" Prize. Wrong again. Kissinger shared the 1973 Nobel Peace Prize with Le Duc Tho of North Vietnam. Arafat's was 21 years later, shared with Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
#95
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
|
#96
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
|
#97
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
|
#98
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
on 12/24/2007 9:01 AM Pete C. said the following:
HeyBub wrote: Tony Hwang wrote: Hi, Nearby town of Banff installed LED street lights with solar panels. Very cool looking light and it is cool running, no bugs get attracted kep them clean. Cost a lot initially but for the long run, it's winner. LED bulbs now are expensive but with time the price will come down. I have a few small ones in the house, they use couple Watts per bulb. My city, Houston, is retrofitting its traffic signals with LEDs. They cost more initially, but since the bulbs won't have to be replaced for, what, fifty years, they should recoup the expense fairly soon. I doubt the 50 yr thing since I've see LED signals failing. The good thing is that they have a "soft" failure mode, losing a few strings of LEDs rather than the whole thing at once like the old incandescent signals. The power savings of the LED vs. the 300W incandescents they replace becomes significant when multiplied by all the active signals in a city. Can you imagine what it takes to change the bulb on an overhead traffic signal? About an hour, a bucket truck and a cop to handle traffic. If you include the time it takes for the truck to get there, perhaps. Most times, the changing of a traffic signal bulb takes about as much time as a few regular cycles of the light. Take it from someone who used to have to handle traffic while the change was done. -- Bill In Hamptonburgh, NY To email, remove the double zeroes after @ |
#99
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
In article ,
willshak wrote: If you include the time it takes for the truck to get there, perhaps. Most times, the changing of a traffic signal bulb takes about as much time as a few regular cycles of the light. Take it from someone who used to have to handle traffic while the change was done. I was thinking the same thing. Must have a heckuva union (g). |
#100
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
"HeyBub" wrote in message
... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: You said "Let the market decide". That's pretty funny, although you didn't mean it to be funny. "The market" includes millions of fools who have absolutely NO need for the special mechanical characteristics of SUVs, but they bought them anyway because advertising told them to. "The market" made some pretty lousy decisions. "Need" is not the determining factor, "want" is. In your next message, you will say that "the market" will correct this mistake. Don't count on it. It's not a mistake - it's called 'freedom.' Yeah. Freedom to feed more dollars to the country that gave us 9/11. That's called stupid. |
#101
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
"HeyBub" wrote in message
... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: OK, then. How long do you think it's appropriate to wait before finding out that market-driven forces are not going to solve a problem? A year? 20 years? Two generations? Forever. The market is not always right, but it is right far more often than any other technique. Bars here are doing MORE business since it became illegal to smoke in bars. I seriously doubt "the market" would've figured that out without a kick in the pants. And, Detroit *never* would've dealt with car emissions issues without the government stepping in. Automakers had no financial incentive to deal with it. |
#102
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
"HeyBub" wrote in message
... Dan_Musicant wrote: I use CFL's not to save the planet but because in the long run, I save money. I get it, like a lot of people you believe in being selfish, and worse, you ridicule people who do things for reasons other than selfish reasons. It's called the "Invisible Hand." When everyone acts in their own best interests, the overall good is magnified. Nonsense. |
#103
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
wrote in message
... On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 06:21:12 -0800, Dan_Musicant wrote: Fact is you can find CF's that don't take a minute to get usable light. Some are nearly instant on. The only filament lamps I use at all are maybe a couple I haven't bothered to change that I leave on for 5-10 minutes at a time only. I find it grating to read posts which make fun of federal lawmakers. I wouldn't want to spend more than 10 minutes of every year sitting in the halls of congress. I know it's a madhouse, but walk a mile in their shoes before you paint them all with the same brush. Believe it or not, letting people do what they damn well please doesn't work in this country. Do us all a favor and leave the United States of America. This country will be a much better place after you leave. You don't belong here. You'd do much better in a country such as Iraq. Don't let the door slam you in the ass as you leave. Daryl Would you agree that we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil? |
#104
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
"Dan Espen" wrote in message
... Red writes: On Dec 23, 4:40 pm, "Pete C." wrote: Mark wrote: It takes just as much water to turn the turbine whether the generator is producing 1 megawatt or 150 megawatts. NOT TRUE wherever did you get that idea? Mark I think he was trying to say that the water flowing through a hydroelectric generating facility has the same available energy whether you utilize it or not, so you may as well utilize all that is available. I specified hydroelectric and that is indeed what I meant. But that isn't what you said. The volume and head (height) of the water determine how much energy can be produced at the turbine. It takes a lot more water or much greater height to turn a 150 megawatt turbine than it takes to turn a 1 megawatt turbine. True, he wasn't talking about two different turbines. He was talking about one piece of machinery operating at varying capacities. |
#105
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
... "Pete C." wrote in : Phisherman wrote: On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 03:28:42 -0600, Jim Redelfs wrote: Say "goodbye" to the venerable 100w and 75w, cheap, light bulb. (Thomas Alva Edison will surely turn over in his grave). And say "Hello" to additional mercury compounds (from fluorescent tubes) seeping into our soils. Supposedly the 75% power savings prevents more mercury emissions from coal fired power plants than the mercury contained in the lamp. Then they want us to convert to electric autos... Using nuclear power plants will eliminate even more mercury emissions. Not to complicate the issue, but a number of arms control experts have pointed out that there's only one way we'll stop "rogue states" from eventually developing nuclear weapons: Eliminate civilian nuclear power plants. Every benefit comes with a hidden horror show. |
#106
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message ... On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 06:21:12 -0800, Dan_Musicant wrote: Fact is you can find CF's that don't take a minute to get usable light. Some are nearly instant on. The only filament lamps I use at all are maybe a couple I haven't bothered to change that I leave on for 5-10 minutes at a time only. I find it grating to read posts which make fun of federal lawmakers. I wouldn't want to spend more than 10 minutes of every year sitting in the halls of congress. I know it's a madhouse, but walk a mile in their shoes before you paint them all with the same brush. Believe it or not, letting people do what they damn well please doesn't work in this country. Do us all a favor and leave the United States of America. This country will be a much better place after you leave. You don't belong here. You'd do much better in a country such as Iraq. Don't let the door slam you in the ass as you leave. Daryl Would you agree that we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil? It would certainly be a good goal, however it will not in any way solve or reduce the problems that it helped to create. Indeed if we stop buying oil from the ME it could make the situation there even worse. Since China would likely buy whatever we don't that later issue may not be as significant now. |
#107
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message ... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: You said "Let the market decide". That's pretty funny, although you didn't mean it to be funny. "The market" includes millions of fools who have absolutely NO need for the special mechanical characteristics of SUVs, but they bought them anyway because advertising told them to. "The market" made some pretty lousy decisions. "Need" is not the determining factor, "want" is. In your next message, you will say that "the market" will correct this mistake. Don't count on it. It's not a mistake - it's called 'freedom.' Yeah. Freedom to feed more dollars to the country that gave us 9/11. That's called stupid. If we were to stop buying oil from the ME it would not in any way eliminate the problems there that it helped to create, it could actually make them even worse. |
#108
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
"Pete C." wrote in message
... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: wrote in message ... On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 06:21:12 -0800, Dan_Musicant wrote: Fact is you can find CF's that don't take a minute to get usable light. Some are nearly instant on. The only filament lamps I use at all are maybe a couple I haven't bothered to change that I leave on for 5-10 minutes at a time only. I find it grating to read posts which make fun of federal lawmakers. I wouldn't want to spend more than 10 minutes of every year sitting in the halls of congress. I know it's a madhouse, but walk a mile in their shoes before you paint them all with the same brush. Believe it or not, letting people do what they damn well please doesn't work in this country. Do us all a favor and leave the United States of America. This country will be a much better place after you leave. You don't belong here. You'd do much better in a country such as Iraq. Don't let the door slam you in the ass as you leave. Daryl Would you agree that we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil? It would certainly be a good goal, however it will not in any way solve or reduce the problems that it helped to create. Indeed if we stop buying oil from the ME it could make the situation there even worse. Since China would likely buy whatever we don't that later issue may not be as significant now. OK. Now we're getting somewhere. What if a family of four can get a 35% improvement in gas mileage by owning a certain vehicle, without losing any of the REAL (as opposed to imaginary) advantages of an SUV? Is a 35% improvement not worth thinking about, especially if multiplied by the number of SUVs in this country? |
#109
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
"Pete C." wrote in message
... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "HeyBub" wrote in message ... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: You said "Let the market decide". That's pretty funny, although you didn't mean it to be funny. "The market" includes millions of fools who have absolutely NO need for the special mechanical characteristics of SUVs, but they bought them anyway because advertising told them to. "The market" made some pretty lousy decisions. "Need" is not the determining factor, "want" is. In your next message, you will say that "the market" will correct this mistake. Don't count on it. It's not a mistake - it's called 'freedom.' Yeah. Freedom to feed more dollars to the country that gave us 9/11. That's called stupid. If we were to stop buying oil from the ME it would not in any way eliminate the problems there that it helped to create, it could actually make them even worse. Worse? Let me guess: Create more poverty, and thus more unrest? |
#110
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
In article ,
"Pete C." wrote: It would certainly be a good goal, however it will not in any way solve or reduce the problems that it helped to create. Indeed if we stop buying oil from the ME it could make the situation there even worse. Since China would likely buy whatever we don't that later issue may not be as significant now. Of course it would, although to what degree I suppose is open to some debate. China is going to buy the oil no matter what, but if we were able to buy less ME oil (or use less or use our own NEW sources) then the supply/demand curve obviously changes and the price goes down either in real terms or in what it would have been had we stayed at the tap. |
#111
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Pete C." wrote in message ... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "HeyBub" wrote in message ... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: You said "Let the market decide". That's pretty funny, although you didn't mean it to be funny. "The market" includes millions of fools who have absolutely NO need for the special mechanical characteristics of SUVs, but they bought them anyway because advertising told them to. "The market" made some pretty lousy decisions. "Need" is not the determining factor, "want" is. In your next message, you will say that "the market" will correct this mistake. Don't count on it. It's not a mistake - it's called 'freedom.' Yeah. Freedom to feed more dollars to the country that gave us 9/11. That's called stupid. If we were to stop buying oil from the ME it would not in any way eliminate the problems there that it helped to create, it could actually make them even worse. Worse? Let me guess: Create more poverty, and thus more unrest? A distinct possibility considering that the ME has no significant economy other than oil. |
#112
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
"Pete C." wrote in message
... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Pete C." wrote in message ... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "HeyBub" wrote in message ... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: You said "Let the market decide". That's pretty funny, although you didn't mean it to be funny. "The market" includes millions of fools who have absolutely NO need for the special mechanical characteristics of SUVs, but they bought them anyway because advertising told them to. "The market" made some pretty lousy decisions. "Need" is not the determining factor, "want" is. In your next message, you will say that "the market" will correct this mistake. Don't count on it. It's not a mistake - it's called 'freedom.' Yeah. Freedom to feed more dollars to the country that gave us 9/11. That's called stupid. If we were to stop buying oil from the ME it would not in any way eliminate the problems there that it helped to create, it could actually make them even worse. Worse? Let me guess: Create more poverty, and thus more unrest? A distinct possibility considering that the ME has no significant economy other than oil. Based on everything I've read, much of the unrest in Saudi Arabia, for instance, is *already* due to the gross inequities between the royals and everyone else. This is why the royal family continues to support schools whose teachers instruct students that WE are the reason for their miserable lives. We should've fulfilled their fantasies and put THEIR country under new management, instead of Iraq. But, that would've required balls. |
#113
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Pete C." wrote in message ... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: wrote in message ... On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 06:21:12 -0800, Dan_Musicant wrote: Fact is you can find CF's that don't take a minute to get usable light. Some are nearly instant on. The only filament lamps I use at all are maybe a couple I haven't bothered to change that I leave on for 5-10 minutes at a time only. I find it grating to read posts which make fun of federal lawmakers. I wouldn't want to spend more than 10 minutes of every year sitting in the halls of congress. I know it's a madhouse, but walk a mile in their shoes before you paint them all with the same brush. Believe it or not, letting people do what they damn well please doesn't work in this country. Do us all a favor and leave the United States of America. This country will be a much better place after you leave. You don't belong here. You'd do much better in a country such as Iraq. Don't let the door slam you in the ass as you leave. Daryl Would you agree that we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil? It would certainly be a good goal, however it will not in any way solve or reduce the problems that it helped to create. Indeed if we stop buying oil from the ME it could make the situation there even worse. Since China would likely buy whatever we don't that later issue may not be as significant now. OK. Now we're getting somewhere. What if a family of four can get a 35% improvement in gas mileage by owning a certain vehicle, without losing any of the REAL (as opposed to imaginary) advantages of an SUV? Not a valid option as there is no vehicle I'm aware of that gets 35% better MPG than a typical SUV and still has the same real advantages of the SUV. Just because you don't believe someone else needs the capabilities of an SUV does not in any way make those capabilities imaginary. Is a 35% improvement not worth thinking about, especially if multiplied by the number of SUVs in this country? There are other ways to make a more significant improvement without any change in vehicles. A substantial amount of our vehicle use is in unnecessary commuting and solo commuting. The current fuel prices are already improving the situation by triggering more carpooling and more telecommuting. |
#114
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
Not to complicate the issue, but a number of arms control experts have pointed out that there's only one way we'll stop "rogue states" from eventually developing nuclear weapons: Eliminate civilian nuclear power plants. Every benefit comes with a hidden horror show. Just shows you what pussies the so-called "arms control experts are." Even I can think of a way to deal with "rogue states." |
#115
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Pete C." wrote in message ... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Pete C." wrote in message ... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "HeyBub" wrote in message ... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: You said "Let the market decide". That's pretty funny, although you didn't mean it to be funny. "The market" includes millions of fools who have absolutely NO need for the special mechanical characteristics of SUVs, but they bought them anyway because advertising told them to. "The market" made some pretty lousy decisions. "Need" is not the determining factor, "want" is. In your next message, you will say that "the market" will correct this mistake. Don't count on it. It's not a mistake - it's called 'freedom.' Yeah. Freedom to feed more dollars to the country that gave us 9/11. That's called stupid. If we were to stop buying oil from the ME it would not in any way eliminate the problems there that it helped to create, it could actually make them even worse. Worse? Let me guess: Create more poverty, and thus more unrest? A distinct possibility considering that the ME has no significant economy other than oil. Based on everything I've read, much of the unrest in Saudi Arabia, for instance, is *already* due to the gross inequities between the royals and everyone else. This is why the royal family continues to support schools whose teachers instruct students that WE are the reason for their miserable lives. We should've fulfilled their fantasies and put THEIR country under new management, instead of Iraq. But, that would've required balls. So if we remove their source of revenue so there isn't any for them to trickle down to the impoverished masses, this will make the situation better? They'll just point the finger at us yet again and their ignorant masses will mindlessly believe it again. If their masses weren't so mindless they might figure out that they need to overthrow their oppressors. |
#116
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
"HeyBub" wrote in message
... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: Not to complicate the issue, but a number of arms control experts have pointed out that there's only one way we'll stop "rogue states" from eventually developing nuclear weapons: Eliminate civilian nuclear power plants. Every benefit comes with a hidden horror show. Just shows you what pussies the so-called "arms control experts are." Even I can think of a way to deal with "rogue states." Yeah, I'm sure you can think of a way, and it gives you a hard-on. Too bad your way doesn't involve a brain. |
#117
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message ... Dan_Musicant wrote: I use CFL's not to save the planet but because in the long run, I save money. I get it, like a lot of people you believe in being selfish, and worse, you ridicule people who do things for reasons other than selfish reasons. It's called the "Invisible Hand." When everyone acts in their own best interests, the overall good is magnified. Nonsense. Heh! Adam Smith postulated the concept in the late 18th Century. You, evidently, are the only person in 230 years to disagree with the idea. |
#118
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
HeyBub wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote: Not to complicate the issue, but a number of arms control experts have pointed out that there's only one way we'll stop "rogue states" from eventually developing nuclear weapons: Eliminate civilian nuclear power plants. Every benefit comes with a hidden horror show. Just shows you what pussies the so-called "arms control experts are." Even I can think of a way to deal with "rogue states." The whole attempt to link nuclear power and nuclear weapons is just a scam from the paranoid and ignorant anti nuke groups. Nuclear power and nuclear weapons have almost nothing to do with each other besides "nuclear" in the name. Nonsense kind of like trying to link Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging (a.k.a. MRI) and nuclear weapons. |
#119
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message ... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: You said "Let the market decide". That's pretty funny, although you didn't mean it to be funny. "The market" includes millions of fools who have absolutely NO need for the special mechanical characteristics of SUVs, but they bought them anyway because advertising told them to. "The market" made some pretty lousy decisions. "Need" is not the determining factor, "want" is. In your next message, you will say that "the market" will correct this mistake. Don't count on it. It's not a mistake - it's called 'freedom.' Yeah. Freedom to feed more dollars to the country that gave us 9/11. That's called stupid. So, you would deny ME the ability to send money to some country because you don't like what some citizens of that country did? The French have a word for policy, but I don't know what it is. |
#120
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message ... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: OK, then. How long do you think it's appropriate to wait before finding out that market-driven forces are not going to solve a problem? A year? 20 years? Two generations? Forever. The market is not always right, but it is right far more often than any other technique. Bars here are doing MORE business since it became illegal to smoke in bars. I seriously doubt "the market" would've figured that out without a kick in the pants. And, Detroit *never* would've dealt with car emissions issues without the government stepping in. Automakers had no financial incentive to deal with it. You should be outraged! MORE drinking! Doesn't that offend your sensibilities of what's good for people? There's another concept called the "Tragedy of the Commons" that's an exception to unfettered personal actions. You're attempting to expand that concept to all human actions. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Banning incandescent lamps? | Metalworking | |||
Incandescent lamp resistance (from sed} - incandescent.pdf | Electronic Schematics | |||
O.T. Making clear lamps into amber lamps | Metalworking | |||
Spotlight bulbs: R63 100W? | UK diy | |||
100w spotlights in multiple-light fitting - desperately sought | UK diy |