Tis the season to be lumenated
12-14-2011, 07:09 PM
#41
So, it could be said to be wrong to blame liberals. Or have we not realized American politicians have hijacked the meaning behind liberals and conservatives, and what it means in American politics isn't what it means...anywhere else?
Reply
0
0
12-14-2011, 07:15 PM
#43
No, Mg.
I've been pretty clear with what I've been talking about.
Blaming anything on "conservatives" or "liberals" is retarded. Doubly so when you try to brand them all as "liberals" if you support "conservatives", and vice versa.
Our politicians aren't liberal or conservative. They are authoritarian corporatists. Trying to blame it all on "liberals" when you complain about conservatives not being conservatives is incredibly shady. The liberals aren't liberals, and the conservatives aren't conservatives using that definition. Dumping everything you don't like about a label you try to re-define for your own terms and purposes onto an opposing label isn't intellectually honest.
If the conservatives aren't conservatives, that's fine. But then the liberals aren't liberals - and what are we left with?
I say this for a reason. Most of the posters on here are liberals.
However, now there is a giant attempt to re-define liberalism as conservatism. People who try to claim *their* conservatism or liberalism is what it really means frequently don't know what they are talking about.
An example? The biggest liberals we have ever seen were the founders of the US and the first half century of politicians we had. They absolutely were not conservatives as per the actual definition - and much of what is being advocated here is classical liberalism at it's finest.
/Oh no. I went to sources. Oh no, I di'nt. But people are playing fast and loose with definitions to serve their own agenda, and are trying to demonize groups of people without even knowing what they are demonizing.
I've been pretty clear with what I've been talking about.
Blaming anything on "conservatives" or "liberals" is retarded. Doubly so when you try to brand them all as "liberals" if you support "conservatives", and vice versa.
Our politicians aren't liberal or conservative. They are authoritarian corporatists. Trying to blame it all on "liberals" when you complain about conservatives not being conservatives is incredibly shady. The liberals aren't liberals, and the conservatives aren't conservatives using that definition. Dumping everything you don't like about a label you try to re-define for your own terms and purposes onto an opposing label isn't intellectually honest.
If the conservatives aren't conservatives, that's fine. But then the liberals aren't liberals - and what are we left with?
I say this for a reason. Most of the posters on here are liberals.
Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis) is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally, liberals support ideas such as constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, and freedom of religion.
An example? The biggest liberals we have ever seen were the founders of the US and the first half century of politicians we had. They absolutely were not conservatives as per the actual definition - and much of what is being advocated here is classical liberalism at it's finest.
/Oh no. I went to sources. Oh no, I di'nt. But people are playing fast and loose with definitions to serve their own agenda, and are trying to demonize groups of people without even knowing what they are demonizing.
Last edited by blaen99; 12-14-2011 at 08:23 PM.
Reply
0
0
12-16-2011, 04:12 PM
#44
http://www.forbes.com/sites/christop...b-ban-sort-of/
I love old-fashioned, energy wasting, 100 watt incandescent lightbulbs. I love their bright, warm light. I love how cheap and simple they are. And I completely resent the 2007 law, to go into effect January 1, that will ban their manufacture, and eventually their sale, in the U.S. So imagine my glee this morning that I could postpone that year-end trip to the hardware store to stock up on a lifetime supply of 100 watts.
Tucked into the giant 1,200-page omnibus spending bill passed by Congress Thursday night is a provision that prevents the government from spending any money to enforce the light bulb ban. This is effectively a reprieve for the 100 watt, but only temporarily, for the next fiscal year.
The bill does not overturn the light bulb ban, so it will still be law, and it’s likely that some more politically correct retailers will not stock them. And don’t expect any new incandescent light bulb factories to open; America’s last one closed a year ago. Unless congress blocks enforcement funding again a year from now, just try finding them in 2013.
So the battle to save the 100 watt bulb is not over.
Don’t get me wrong: new compact fluorescents and LED bulbs are great. They provide decent light at significant energy savings and because they last longer will also save millions in labor costs as it takes fewer people to screw in fewer lightbulbs. I use plenty of them for outdoor lighting or rooms that I’m not going to spend a lot of time in. But after a while CFLs give me (and plenty of other people) headaches. And LED Christmas lights just don’t look as warm and festive. Plus, people simply look better under soft incandescent light — reason enough to keep them legal.
Incandescents should never be banned by the feds any more than candles or fireplaces or windows. It’s one thing to incentivize and encourage the adoption of a great new technology, but it needn’t be paired with the criminalization of a simple, effective, proven technology. Celebrate today’s little victory over the nanny state by picking up a case of 100 watts next time you’re at the hardware store.
Tucked into the giant 1,200-page omnibus spending bill passed by Congress Thursday night is a provision that prevents the government from spending any money to enforce the light bulb ban. This is effectively a reprieve for the 100 watt, but only temporarily, for the next fiscal year.
The bill does not overturn the light bulb ban, so it will still be law, and it’s likely that some more politically correct retailers will not stock them. And don’t expect any new incandescent light bulb factories to open; America’s last one closed a year ago. Unless congress blocks enforcement funding again a year from now, just try finding them in 2013.
So the battle to save the 100 watt bulb is not over.
Don’t get me wrong: new compact fluorescents and LED bulbs are great. They provide decent light at significant energy savings and because they last longer will also save millions in labor costs as it takes fewer people to screw in fewer lightbulbs. I use plenty of them for outdoor lighting or rooms that I’m not going to spend a lot of time in. But after a while CFLs give me (and plenty of other people) headaches. And LED Christmas lights just don’t look as warm and festive. Plus, people simply look better under soft incandescent light — reason enough to keep them legal.
Incandescents should never be banned by the feds any more than candles or fireplaces or windows. It’s one thing to incentivize and encourage the adoption of a great new technology, but it needn’t be paired with the criminalization of a simple, effective, proven technology. Celebrate today’s little victory over the nanny state by picking up a case of 100 watts next time you’re at the hardware store.
Reply
0
0
12-16-2011, 04:27 PM
#45
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,085
Total Cats: 375
No, Mg.
I've been pretty clear with what I've been talking about.
Blaming anything on "conservatives" or "liberals" is retarded. Doubly so when you try to brand them all as "liberals" if you support "conservatives", and vice versa.
Our politicians aren't liberal or conservative. They are authoritarian corporatists. Trying to blame it all on "liberals" when you complain about conservatives not being conservatives is incredibly shady. The liberals aren't liberals, and the conservatives aren't conservatives using that definition. Dumping everything you don't like about a label you try to re-define for your own terms and purposes onto an opposing label isn't intellectually honest.
If the conservatives aren't conservatives, that's fine. But then the liberals aren't liberals - and what are we left with?
I say this for a reason. Most of the posters on here are liberals.
However, now there is a giant attempt to re-define liberalism as conservatism. People who try to claim *their* conservatism or liberalism is what it really means frequently don't know what they are talking about.
An example? The biggest liberals we have ever seen were the founders of the US and the first half century of politicians we had. They absolutely were not conservatives as per the actual definition - and much of what is being advocated here is classical liberalism at it's finest.
/Oh no. I went to sources. Oh no, I di'nt. But people are playing fast and loose with definitions to serve their own agenda, and are trying to demonize groups of people without even knowing what they are demonizing.
I've been pretty clear with what I've been talking about.
Blaming anything on "conservatives" or "liberals" is retarded. Doubly so when you try to brand them all as "liberals" if you support "conservatives", and vice versa.
Our politicians aren't liberal or conservative. They are authoritarian corporatists. Trying to blame it all on "liberals" when you complain about conservatives not being conservatives is incredibly shady. The liberals aren't liberals, and the conservatives aren't conservatives using that definition. Dumping everything you don't like about a label you try to re-define for your own terms and purposes onto an opposing label isn't intellectually honest.
If the conservatives aren't conservatives, that's fine. But then the liberals aren't liberals - and what are we left with?
I say this for a reason. Most of the posters on here are liberals.
However, now there is a giant attempt to re-define liberalism as conservatism. People who try to claim *their* conservatism or liberalism is what it really means frequently don't know what they are talking about.
An example? The biggest liberals we have ever seen were the founders of the US and the first half century of politicians we had. They absolutely were not conservatives as per the actual definition - and much of what is being advocated here is classical liberalism at it's finest.
/Oh no. I went to sources. Oh no, I di'nt. But people are playing fast and loose with definitions to serve their own agenda, and are trying to demonize groups of people without even knowing what they are demonizing.
Reply
0
0
12-16-2011, 05:12 PM
#46
It's kind of interesting...
One of the "little things" I found really interesting about spending a month in Germany late last year was the high availability of LED-based light fixtures, and at a cost which was not nearly so high as what you see here in the US. At both OBI (compare to Home Depot) and Kaufland (compare to Super Walmart) there were probably as many LED-based fixtures on the shelves as incandescent, and the price was maybe 1/2 to 1/3 what we'd pay in the US, which is doubly noteworthy when you consider that, on average, most regular consumer goods seemed to cost 20-30% more on average.
I'm sure there's probably a good theory about why this is a conspiracy supported by American energy producers and light bulb manufacturers, along with Greenpeace and the EPA (because if the environment were pristine, they'd have nothing to complain about / regulate.)
Does anybody actually use 100w light bulbs? I ask this in all seriousness. So far as I can recall, I only have a few incandescents at my house in the first place, and they're all fairly low-wattage:
1: 1x Ceiling-mounted in living room, on dimmer (60w)
2: 4x fan-mounted in bedroom, on dimmer (maybe 25w each?)
3: appx 6x in bathroom vanity (fairly small- maybe 20-25w each?)
4: 1x in oven
5: 1x in fridge
6: 1x inside microwave oven, 1x below (as range light)
And that's pretty much it. All of the garage lighting is either CFL or tube (including the light in the garage door opener) as is the lighting in the kitchen (both ceiling and under-cabinet), the main lighting in the bathroom and the outdoor lighting.
Ok, so it's evil on general principle that "the gubment" is taking away our freedom to choose our primary illumination source. Gubment took away my right to choose to run leaded gas in my '59 Mercury, too.
One of the "little things" I found really interesting about spending a month in Germany late last year was the high availability of LED-based light fixtures, and at a cost which was not nearly so high as what you see here in the US. At both OBI (compare to Home Depot) and Kaufland (compare to Super Walmart) there were probably as many LED-based fixtures on the shelves as incandescent, and the price was maybe 1/2 to 1/3 what we'd pay in the US, which is doubly noteworthy when you consider that, on average, most regular consumer goods seemed to cost 20-30% more on average.
I'm sure there's probably a good theory about why this is a conspiracy supported by American energy producers and light bulb manufacturers, along with Greenpeace and the EPA (because if the environment were pristine, they'd have nothing to complain about / regulate.)
Does anybody actually use 100w light bulbs? I ask this in all seriousness. So far as I can recall, I only have a few incandescents at my house in the first place, and they're all fairly low-wattage:
1: 1x Ceiling-mounted in living room, on dimmer (60w)
2: 4x fan-mounted in bedroom, on dimmer (maybe 25w each?)
3: appx 6x in bathroom vanity (fairly small- maybe 20-25w each?)
4: 1x in oven
5: 1x in fridge
6: 1x inside microwave oven, 1x below (as range light)
And that's pretty much it. All of the garage lighting is either CFL or tube (including the light in the garage door opener) as is the lighting in the kitchen (both ceiling and under-cabinet), the main lighting in the bathroom and the outdoor lighting.
Ok, so it's evil on general principle that "the gubment" is taking away our freedom to choose our primary illumination source. Gubment took away my right to choose to run leaded gas in my '59 Mercury, too.
I've gotten used to it. At first it was weird but now it's normal.
Reply
0
0
12-17-2011, 02:39 PM
#48
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,049
Total Cats: 6,608
Maybe because GE suggested to Washington they should pass this law, and pretty much own the market segement, set the price, and laugh all the way to the bank? And since GE is a heavily invested stock in Congress, the two, holding hands, laughed all the way to the bank?
I was at Home Depot yesterday morning, buying a 60w incandescent bulb and a porcelain base to put it in. Ironically, I bought it specifically to use as a heat source, as I needed to run a thermal stress test on a device that failed in the field. (Put it into a cardboard box along with the lamp, instrument the box with temperature probes, plug it in, and wait for the device to fail.)
While there, I took note of the selection of light bulbs, of which they have many. The major brands were all represented (GE, Philips, Sylvania) and I noted that, ignoring the large outdoor halogens, the proportion of CFL and LED light sources was much higher relative to the incandescent than I remember from the last time I paid attention. >50% of the shelf space was given over to them.
Now, here's the interesting thing. There were a lot of GE bulbs on the shelf, but not a single one of them was either a CFL or an LED. GE had a fair share of the halogens, and more than half of the standard incandescents, but not a single "high-efficiency" bulb. The CFLs and LEDs were split mostly between Philips and Ecosmart, which is the Home Depot house brand, manufactured by Lighting Science Group Corporation.
From left to right, starting with the outdoor halogens. 75% Philips, 25% GE:
Flood/Spot and CFL. The middle section is all the Ecosmarts:
Getting into the standard indoor lamps. Left is all CFL / LED, right starts getting into incandescent, mostly GE:
And finally, the "unusual" lamps, such as miniatures, decoratives, appliance lamps, etc. Nearly 100% GE.
It's unfortunate that GE pushed so hard to pass this legislation, seeing as how they appear to be the ones that are going to be most negatively impacted by it.
Reply
0
0
12-17-2011, 05:37 PM
#50
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,501
Total Cats: 4,080
the bulbs I use are rated at 750 lumens iirc. I've tried a CFL bulb rated at something like 2700 and I had a hard time finding the off switch, it was so dim and harsh.
Reply
0
0
07-23-2012, 03:40 PM
#55
So another study confirms some potentially serious health issues with CFL bulbs.
Hope you didn't accumulate too much UV skin damage from your time in Germany, Joe...
Reply
0
0
07-23-2012, 04:09 PM
#57
I converted almost all of my bulbs to LED. The downlights im replacing as they go out due to cost, but all of my a19 are led. You really have to pay attention to the lumens. A 40w replacement is ~ 450lumens, and a 60w is ~ 800 lumens. Good bulbs will be 7.5w to 14w respectively, or better. My next replacement is outdoor floods.
Also pay attention to the color. Cheap leds have blue tint. Quality bulbs have the warm white light.
LEDs and nuclear pwr will chande the world.
Also pay attention to the color. Cheap leds have blue tint. Quality bulbs have the warm white light.
LEDs and nuclear pwr will chande the world.
Reply
0
0
07-23-2012, 04:18 PM
#58
Elite Member
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Overland Park, Kansas
Posts: 5,360
Total Cats: 43
9W 810LM White 9-LED Ceiling Lamp Light with LED Driver (85~265V) - Free Shipping - DealExtreme
A select few of them have received some pretty good reviews and they're mostly sub-thirty dollar complete lights..
Reply
0
0
07-23-2012, 08:20 PM
#60
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,049
Total Cats: 6,608
If I recall correctly, the lighting inside the drydock barn was mostly the ole' sodium vapor stuff. On ship, it was a combination on incandescent and LED, with very little CFL except in places like the head.
OTOH, I tend to take reports like that with a grain of salt. And by "like that", I mean those which give no quantifiable data. I mean, Grand Central Terminal in Manhattan is radioactive, because of all the granite. But does it give off as much ionizing radiation as a banana? As Denver, CO? As the interior of the confinement structure at Chernobyl #4?
Reply
0
0
