|
Bad outcome
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 18:09:44 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 1/19/14, 5:51 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 17:41:26 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 1/19/14, 1:46 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 12:43:01 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 1/19/14, 12:37 PM, wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 11:45:03 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 1/19/14, 11:12 AM, wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 10:12:02 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: The concept of citizens in this country taking on armed governmental forces is absurd. All the armed citizenry in this county, and there are lots of citizens with guns in this county, couldn't take on the county sheriff. That is absurd if you are talking about more than a few people hiding out in a cabin. Our military has not been very successful in stopping asymmetrical warriors whether it is Vietnam, The Middle East, Africa or South Asia. They kill a lot of people and win most of the battles but they lose the war. (much like the Brits in the latter 18th century American war).. Hey, there's always hope a large number of righties will start an insurrection in the United States and get wiped out...it'll definitely improve the gene pool. :) I do not actually believe that we would ever allow a government to get that oppressive before we enacted a political solution but it would be the left who ended up organizing the revolution if it did. I do believe it would come out of a massive financial collapse and the well intentioned desire to find a strong leader with an agenda that sounded good in the beginning and then descended into a dictatorship. Bear in mind every dictator of the last 100 years started with a socialist agenda. Most have the word "socialist" in the title of their government. The only way socialism can exist as a governmental policy is if you have an overbearing government. (be it the Cubans, Venezuela, the Soviets or the Nazis) My Northern European buddies in socialist countries report no problems with overbearing government. Your buddies don't even complain of the overbearing taxes? Wow, mine has started doing that big time. He's also not very happy with providing housing to all the Moroccan and Turkish folks that have been flooding Holland since the borders went away. Funny, fifteen-twenty years ago he was very happy with his 'socialist' country. Times have changed. Good to know your buddies don't mind oppressive taxes. My Norwegian friend who was seriously injured in an offshore drilling platform accident was financially supported and retrained as a teacher and is quite happy with how things turned out. He didn't lose his house or his healthcare or his pension, and his kids went to college. In the USA, he'd be out on the street. Norway would be a great place for you to live. You could get herring prepared in a tremendous variety of ways - including raw. Been there, done that. On a motorcycle trip to Stockholm, we took a ferry from Kiel, Germany to Gotenberg, Sweden. For an extra 25 Deutsche Marks, we got the buffet on the ferry. One whole counter, about 15 feet long was devoted solely to herring in its many forms = fried, pickled in various sauces, raw with various sauces, and so on. What a pig out! One of our group didn't want to spend the money. The next day, about halfway across Swededn, he got hungry. We stopped at a little highway diner where he paid about the same amount of money for a hamburger, fries, and soft drink. Sweden may be a socialist heaven, but it cost me almost $50 to fill my motorcycle tank and about $5 for a wrapped (the cheap kind) loaf of bread at a supermarket. But they put on a pretty good motorcycle rally. No question that prices are higher in Europe for many things, but, on the other hand, a lot of that comes back to ordinary citizens in terms of guaranteed vacation time, guaranteed sick leave, a decent retirement, health care coverage, education, retraining if necessary, et cetera. My Norwegian friends are middle class. Most of them have nice but smaller houses than most of us have, and they make do with one car. They work hard and they are sans the awful worries that plague many Americans. *Not* spending upwards of $700 billion a year on their military means there are funds for programs for people. Thank God the USA whipped the Germans, eh? And it's probably a good thing we kept the Fulda Gap closed for all those years afterwards. I suppose learning Chinese would be no problem for one with your education. |
Bad outcome
On 1/19/14, 6:16 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 18:09:44 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 1/19/14, 5:51 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 17:41:26 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 1/19/14, 1:46 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 12:43:01 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 1/19/14, 12:37 PM, wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 11:45:03 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 1/19/14, 11:12 AM, wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 10:12:02 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: The concept of citizens in this country taking on armed governmental forces is absurd. All the armed citizenry in this county, and there are lots of citizens with guns in this county, couldn't take on the county sheriff. That is absurd if you are talking about more than a few people hiding out in a cabin. Our military has not been very successful in stopping asymmetrical warriors whether it is Vietnam, The Middle East, Africa or South Asia. They kill a lot of people and win most of the battles but they lose the war. (much like the Brits in the latter 18th century American war).. Hey, there's always hope a large number of righties will start an insurrection in the United States and get wiped out...it'll definitely improve the gene pool. :) I do not actually believe that we would ever allow a government to get that oppressive before we enacted a political solution but it would be the left who ended up organizing the revolution if it did. I do believe it would come out of a massive financial collapse and the well intentioned desire to find a strong leader with an agenda that sounded good in the beginning and then descended into a dictatorship. Bear in mind every dictator of the last 100 years started with a socialist agenda. Most have the word "socialist" in the title of their government. The only way socialism can exist as a governmental policy is if you have an overbearing government. (be it the Cubans, Venezuela, the Soviets or the Nazis) My Northern European buddies in socialist countries report no problems with overbearing government. Your buddies don't even complain of the overbearing taxes? Wow, mine has started doing that big time. He's also not very happy with providing housing to all the Moroccan and Turkish folks that have been flooding Holland since the borders went away. Funny, fifteen-twenty years ago he was very happy with his 'socialist' country. Times have changed. Good to know your buddies don't mind oppressive taxes. My Norwegian friend who was seriously injured in an offshore drilling platform accident was financially supported and retrained as a teacher and is quite happy with how things turned out. He didn't lose his house or his healthcare or his pension, and his kids went to college. In the USA, he'd be out on the street. Norway would be a great place for you to live. You could get herring prepared in a tremendous variety of ways - including raw. Been there, done that. On a motorcycle trip to Stockholm, we took a ferry from Kiel, Germany to Gotenberg, Sweden. For an extra 25 Deutsche Marks, we got the buffet on the ferry. One whole counter, about 15 feet long was devoted solely to herring in its many forms = fried, pickled in various sauces, raw with various sauces, and so on. What a pig out! One of our group didn't want to spend the money. The next day, about halfway across Swededn, he got hungry. We stopped at a little highway diner where he paid about the same amount of money for a hamburger, fries, and soft drink. Sweden may be a socialist heaven, but it cost me almost $50 to fill my motorcycle tank and about $5 for a wrapped (the cheap kind) loaf of bread at a supermarket. But they put on a pretty good motorcycle rally. No question that prices are higher in Europe for many things, but, on the other hand, a lot of that comes back to ordinary citizens in terms of guaranteed vacation time, guaranteed sick leave, a decent retirement, health care coverage, education, retraining if necessary, et cetera. My Norwegian friends are middle class. Most of them have nice but smaller houses than most of us have, and they make do with one car. They work hard and they are sans the awful worries that plague many Americans. *Not* spending upwards of $700 billion a year on their military means there are funds for programs for people. Thank God the USA whipped the Germans, eh? And it's probably a good thing we kept the Fulda Gap closed for all those years afterwards. I suppose learning Chinese would be no problem for one with your education. The United States along with many allies "whipped" the Germans, and without the sort of military budget this country has today. I have to admit, the Cold War against the Sovs was a wonderful way for the military establishment and contractors in both countries to keep lots of men in uniform and lots of corporations in the black. We're spending far, far too much on the military. We should start cutting it in half over a 10 year period, and then see if we can cut it in half again. As for learning Chinese, it would be a wonderful idea for American schools and American kids to have as mandatory the teaching of a second language. It was that way back when I was in high school...if you were in the "college prep" high school divisions, you were required to take four years of foreign language. I don't recall all the offerings, but among them were German, Russian, Italian, French, Spanish, et cetera. Many of us took two languages. I took Latin and Russian, the latter because many of my relatives here spoke Russian and I could practice with them. I remember the Russian teacher, a fellow named Mr. Crosby. Chinese would be a very worthwhile addition, considering the importance of China in today's world. |
Bad outcome
In article ,
says... In article , says... On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 13:05:28 -0600, Boating All Out wrote: Name one law against things people want that has not caused a massive underground enterprise to supply that item and short circuit any effort to regulate it.. Incandescent light bulbs. There does not seem to be any shortage of 100w incandescent bulbs If it really became something people wanted in any quantity, they would be coming in by the truck load. http://www.elightbulbs.com/Halco-063...UOOg odHSYAtg There's no shortage because virtually nobody wants them. Would you rather have a incandescent bulb or a potential super-fund clean-up CFL? I think "people want" is variable. People in Mass wanted gun registration. They got it. It'll happen federally, when the times comes. Guns don't care about state borders. Again, how relevant is gun registration if more than half of the guns never get registered and nobody who plans to use them criminally ever registers one. We've been through this. It's simple mechanisms that get it done. The gun owning population is much less than that of car owners. How many cars are unregistered? If it's decided to register guns, it will be done. You will be dead before it happens, so you won't hve a say. That's part of getting it done. Old farts dying off. "shall not be infringed!" |
Bad outcome
On 1/19/14, 7:12 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 15:16:43 -0600, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 13:05:28 -0600, Boating All Out wrote: Name one law against things people want that has not caused a massive underground enterprise to supply that item and short circuit any effort to regulate it.. Incandescent light bulbs. There does not seem to be any shortage of 100w incandescent bulbs If it really became something people wanted in any quantity, they would be coming in by the truck load. http://www.elightbulbs.com/Halco-063...UOOg odHSYAtg There's no shortage because virtually nobody wants them. Are you moving the goal post? I think "people want" is variable. People in Mass wanted gun registration. They got it. It'll happen federally, when the times comes. Guns don't care about state borders. Again, how relevant is gun registration if more than half of the guns never get registered and nobody who plans to use them criminally ever registers one. We've been through this. It's simple mechanisms that get it done. The gun owning population is much less than that of car owners. How many cars are unregistered? If it's decided to register guns, it will be done. You will be dead before it happens, so you won't hve a say. That's part of getting it done. Old farts dying off. Cars are registered because the states like getting the money. It certainly does not affect the 40,000 people who die in cars one way or another.. Criminals don't seem to have any trouble using cars for their crimes. Let's do nothing about gun violence because nothing can be done. Got it. |
Bad outcome
In article ,
says... In article , says... On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 15:16:43 -0600, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 13:05:28 -0600, Boating All Out wrote: Name one law against things people want that has not caused a massive underground enterprise to supply that item and short circuit any effort to regulate it.. Incandescent light bulbs. There does not seem to be any shortage of 100w incandescent bulbs If it really became something people wanted in any quantity, they would be coming in by the truck load. http://www.elightbulbs.com/Halco-063...UOOg odHSYAtg There's no shortage because virtually nobody wants them. I think "people want" is variable. People in Mass wanted gun registration. They got it. It'll happen federally, when the times comes. Guns don't care about state borders. Again, how relevant is gun registration if more than half of the guns never get registered and nobody who plans to use them criminally ever registers one. We've been through this. It's simple mechanisms that get it done. The gun owning population is much less than that of car owners. How many cars are unregistered? If it's decided to register guns, it will be done. You will be dead before it happens, so you won't hve a say. That's part of getting it done. Old farts dying off. Uh, I'd venture to say that an unregistered car is much easier to spot than an unregistered gun. No? Registration begins upon sale. Nothing to do with size. How is the transfer from the legal owner to the illegal owner occur? Does the criminal go down to the police station and register the gun he just stole from someone? I've got a small .38 Chief's Special, unregistered anywhere. How would it get 'done' unless I did it, or someone searched my house and found it? Up to you. If it's the law, it's your choice to break it. When are we going to require the registering of other arms? The second amendment is not just about guns. |
Bad outcome
On 1/19/2014 6:05 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 14:07:50 -0600, amdx wrote: On 1/19/2014 1:37 PM, wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 13:05:28 -0600, Boating All Out wrote: Name one law against things people want that has not caused a massive underground enterprise to supply that item and short circuit any effort to regulate it.. Incandescent light bulbs. There does not seem to be any shortage of 100w incandescent bulbs If it really became something people wanted in any quantity, they would be coming in by the truck load. http://www.elightbulbs.com/Halco-063...UOOg odHSYAtg But, it's not a standard 100 Watt light bulb. You not seeing them at Walmart, Kmart etc. Mikek He said "incandescent" That is an incandescent bulb. Your trusty old A19, non halogen. But as I said, it's not a standard 100 Watt bulb. It is a 130 Volt bulb, there's an exception for them at least for now. Mikek |
Bad outcome
On 1/19/2014 8:42 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/19/14, 9:31 AM, amdx wrote: On 1/18/2014 4:20 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 15:38:19 -0600, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 10:20:37 -0600, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... I wonder...could that be due to the population increase over the past 40 years coupled with the source of the increase? The number of small arms either manufactured or imported during the past 25 years has gone from about 3.7 million to 8.7 million. I suppose DHS accounts for a bunch, but it has only about 230,000 employees. Even giving each of them a couple guns doesn't account for the growth. The handgun chart is really weird, showing 5% gains and drops in household possession in two year periods. http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/co..._with_handguns You can't get accurate stats on guns. Violates the 2nd. In what way? Unless guns are universally registered, it's just guessing. Do you think universal registration violates the 2nd? I have no opinion on that. You might have an opinion. But the reason for lack of registration is the 2nd. In any case, statistics on ownership are garbage. I don't think universal registration, in and of itself, violates the 2nd. I do think that universal registration makes universal confiscation much more feasible. I think that's what make it violate the 2nd . The founders gave us the right to gun ownership so we would be able to fight oppressive government. If you give THAT government the ability to confiscate those guns, the 2nd is not in effect. Mikek My thread has drifted! What the founders did with the Second Amendment was express their disdain for a standing army, and it was an outgrowth of the Brits housing uniformed troops in the homes of the colonists. What they created was a mechanism for a trained and armed citizen militia that could easily be organized when necessary. That trained and armed militia these days might be the National Guard. It certainly isn't the untrained, undisciplined rabble of firearms owners. The concept of individuals here successfully pursuing a military action against local, state, or national government is laughable, at best. It happened once, I think it was 1947. |
Bad outcome
On 1/19/2014 8:05 PM, amdx wrote:
On 1/19/2014 8:42 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: The concept of individuals here successfully pursuing a military action against local, state, or national government is laughable, at best. It happened once, I think it was 1947. AUGUST 2 1946 http://www.constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen.htm Mikek |
Bad outcome
On 1/19/2014 11:43 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/19/14, 12:37 PM, wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 11:45:03 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 1/19/14, 11:12 AM, wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 10:12:02 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: The concept of citizens in this country taking on armed governmental forces is absurd. All the armed citizenry in this county, and there are lots of citizens with guns in this county, couldn't take on the county sheriff. That is absurd if you are talking about more than a few people hiding out in a cabin. Our military has not been very successful in stopping asymmetrical warriors whether it is Vietnam, The Middle East, Africa or South Asia. They kill a lot of people and win most of the battles but they lose the war. (much like the Brits in the latter 18th century American war).. Hey, there's always hope a large number of righties will start an insurrection in the United States and get wiped out...it'll definitely improve the gene pool. :) I do not actually believe that we would ever allow a government to get that oppressive before we enacted a political solution but it would be the left who ended up organizing the revolution if it did. I do believe it would come out of a massive financial collapse and the well intentioned desire to find a strong leader with an agenda that sounded good in the beginning and then descended into a dictatorship. Bear in mind every dictator of the last 100 years started with a socialist agenda. Most have the word "socialist" in the title of their government. The only way socialism can exist as a governmental policy is if you have an overbearing government. (be it the Cubans, Venezuela, the Soviets or the Nazis) My Northern European buddies in socialist countries report no problems with overbearing government. My Norwegian friend who was seriously injured in an offshore drilling platform accident was financially supported and retrained as a teacher and is quite happy with how things turned out. He didn't lose his house or his healthcare or his pension, and his kids went to college. In the USA, he'd be out on the street. I doubt it, he'd sue win several million, spend it foolishly, oh, then be out on the street. Guess you're right! But he had fun for a short time. Mikek |
Bad outcome
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 18:28:07 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 1/19/14, 6:16 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 18:09:44 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 1/19/14, 5:51 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 17:41:26 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 1/19/14, 1:46 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 12:43:01 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 1/19/14, 12:37 PM, wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 11:45:03 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 1/19/14, 11:12 AM, wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 10:12:02 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: The concept of citizens in this country taking on armed governmental forces is absurd. All the armed citizenry in this county, and there are lots of citizens with guns in this county, couldn't take on the county sheriff. That is absurd if you are talking about more than a few people hiding out in a cabin. Our military has not been very successful in stopping asymmetrical warriors whether it is Vietnam, The Middle East, Africa or South Asia. They kill a lot of people and win most of the battles but they lose the war. (much like the Brits in the latter 18th century American war).. Hey, there's always hope a large number of righties will start an insurrection in the United States and get wiped out...it'll definitely improve the gene pool. :) I do not actually believe that we would ever allow a government to get that oppressive before we enacted a political solution but it would be the left who ended up organizing the revolution if it did. I do believe it would come out of a massive financial collapse and the well intentioned desire to find a strong leader with an agenda that sounded good in the beginning and then descended into a dictatorship. Bear in mind every dictator of the last 100 years started with a socialist agenda. Most have the word "socialist" in the title of their government. The only way socialism can exist as a governmental policy is if you have an overbearing government. (be it the Cubans, Venezuela, the Soviets or the Nazis) My Northern European buddies in socialist countries report no problems with overbearing government. Your buddies don't even complain of the overbearing taxes? Wow, mine has started doing that big time. He's also not very happy with providing housing to all the Moroccan and Turkish folks that have been flooding Holland since the borders went away. Funny, fifteen-twenty years ago he was very happy with his 'socialist' country. Times have changed. Good to know your buddies don't mind oppressive taxes. My Norwegian friend who was seriously injured in an offshore drilling platform accident was financially supported and retrained as a teacher and is quite happy with how things turned out. He didn't lose his house or his healthcare or his pension, and his kids went to college. In the USA, he'd be out on the street. Norway would be a great place for you to live. You could get herring prepared in a tremendous variety of ways - including raw. Been there, done that. On a motorcycle trip to Stockholm, we took a ferry from Kiel, Germany to Gotenberg, Sweden. For an extra 25 Deutsche Marks, we got the buffet on the ferry. One whole counter, about 15 feet long was devoted solely to herring in its many forms = fried, pickled in various sauces, raw with various sauces, and so on. What a pig out! One of our group didn't want to spend the money. The next day, about halfway across Swededn, he got hungry. We stopped at a little highway diner where he paid about the same amount of money for a hamburger, fries, and soft drink. Sweden may be a socialist heaven, but it cost me almost $50 to fill my motorcycle tank and about $5 for a wrapped (the cheap kind) loaf of bread at a supermarket. But they put on a pretty good motorcycle rally. No question that prices are higher in Europe for many things, but, on the other hand, a lot of that comes back to ordinary citizens in terms of guaranteed vacation time, guaranteed sick leave, a decent retirement, health care coverage, education, retraining if necessary, et cetera. My Norwegian friends are middle class. Most of them have nice but smaller houses than most of us have, and they make do with one car. They work hard and they are sans the awful worries that plague many Americans. *Not* spending upwards of $700 billion a year on their military means there are funds for programs for people. Thank God the USA whipped the Germans, eh? And it's probably a good thing we kept the Fulda Gap closed for all those years afterwards. I suppose learning Chinese would be no problem for one with your education. The United States along with many allies "whipped" the Germans, and without the sort of military budget this country has today. I have to admit, the Cold War against the Sovs was a wonderful way for the military establishment and contractors in both countries to keep lots of men in uniform and lots of corporations in the black. We're spending far, far too much on the military. We should start cutting it in half over a 10 year period, and then see if we can cut it in half again. As for learning Chinese, it would be a wonderful idea for American schools and American kids to have as mandatory the teaching of a second language. It was that way back when I was in high school...if you were in the "college prep" high school divisions, you were required to take four years of foreign language. I don't recall all the offerings, but among them were German, Russian, Italian, French, Spanish, et cetera. Many of us took two languages. I took Latin and Russian, the latter because many of my relatives here spoke Russian and I could practice with them. I remember the Russian teacher, a fellow named Mr. Crosby. Chinese would be a very worthwhile addition, considering the importance of China in today's world. Good night, Harry. Believe what you will. Hopefully your kids know better. |
Bad outcome
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 1/19/2014 3:07 PM, amdx wrote: On 1/19/2014 1:37 PM, wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 13:05:28 -0600, Boating All Out wrote: Name one law against things people want that has not caused a massive underground enterprise to supply that item and short circuit any effort to regulate it.. Incandescent light bulbs. There does not seem to be any shortage of 100w incandescent bulbs If it really became something people wanted in any quantity, they would be coming in by the truck load. http://www.elightbulbs.com/Halco-063...UOOg odHSYAtg But, it's not a standard 100 Watt light bulb. You not seeing them at Walmart, Kmart etc. Mikek I installed two, 60 watt LED bulbs in my loft studio ceiling. They are shaped like regular old light bulbs and illuminate in the same, non-directional pattern. I like them. Plenty of light, doesn't have any funny color and I have them controlled by a regular dimmer designed for incandescents. No problems dimming them although it doesn't like controlling only one. Not enough load. The LEDs may be OK. But the mini fluorescent. More expensive, do not last any longer and are toxic waste. Ow many land fills will become superfund sites with the bulbs? |
Bad outcome
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 1/19/14, 7:12 PM, wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 15:16:43 -0600, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 13:05:28 -0600, Boating All Out wrote: Name one law against things people want that has not caused a massive underground enterprise to supply that item and short circuit any effort to regulate it.. Incandescent light bulbs. There does not seem to be any shortage of 100w incandescent bulbs If it really became something people wanted in any quantity, they would be coming in by the truck load. http://www.elightbulbs.com/Halco-063...UOOg odHSYAtg There's no shortage because virtually nobody wants them. Are you moving the goal post? I think "people want" is variable. People in Mass wanted gun registration. They got it. It'll happen federally, when the times comes. Guns don't care about state borders. Again, how relevant is gun registration if more than half of the guns never get registered and nobody who plans to use them criminally ever registers one. We've been through this. It's simple mechanisms that get it done. The gun owning population is much less than that of car owners. How many cars are unregistered? If it's decided to register guns, it will be done. You will be dead before it happens, so you won't hve a say. That's part of getting it done. Old farts dying off. Cars are registered because the states like getting the money. It certainly does not affect the 40,000 people who die in cars one way or another.. Criminals don't seem to have any trouble using cars for their crimes. Let's do nothing about gun violence because nothing can be done. Got it. We seem to have a lot more gun violence these days is very correct! Why more these days? Maybe because we have turned in to a welfare society? Because we opened a war on drugs, and made drugs very, very profitable? |
Bad outcome
On 1/19/14, 9:20 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 18:28:07 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 1/19/14, 6:16 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 18:09:44 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 1/19/14, 5:51 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 17:41:26 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 1/19/14, 1:46 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 12:43:01 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 1/19/14, 12:37 PM, wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 11:45:03 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 1/19/14, 11:12 AM, wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 10:12:02 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: The concept of citizens in this country taking on armed governmental forces is absurd. All the armed citizenry in this county, and there are lots of citizens with guns in this county, couldn't take on the county sheriff. That is absurd if you are talking about more than a few people hiding out in a cabin. Our military has not been very successful in stopping asymmetrical warriors whether it is Vietnam, The Middle East, Africa or South Asia. They kill a lot of people and win most of the battles but they lose the war. (much like the Brits in the latter 18th century American war).. Hey, there's always hope a large number of righties will start an insurrection in the United States and get wiped out...it'll definitely improve the gene pool. :) I do not actually believe that we would ever allow a government to get that oppressive before we enacted a political solution but it would be the left who ended up organizing the revolution if it did. I do believe it would come out of a massive financial collapse and the well intentioned desire to find a strong leader with an agenda that sounded good in the beginning and then descended into a dictatorship. Bear in mind every dictator of the last 100 years started with a socialist agenda. Most have the word "socialist" in the title of their government. The only way socialism can exist as a governmental policy is if you have an overbearing government. (be it the Cubans, Venezuela, the Soviets or the Nazis) My Northern European buddies in socialist countries report no problems with overbearing government. Your buddies don't even complain of the overbearing taxes? Wow, mine has started doing that big time. He's also not very happy with providing housing to all the Moroccan and Turkish folks that have been flooding Holland since the borders went away. Funny, fifteen-twenty years ago he was very happy with his 'socialist' country. Times have changed. Good to know your buddies don't mind oppressive taxes. My Norwegian friend who was seriously injured in an offshore drilling platform accident was financially supported and retrained as a teacher and is quite happy with how things turned out. He didn't lose his house or his healthcare or his pension, and his kids went to college. In the USA, he'd be out on the street. Norway would be a great place for you to live. You could get herring prepared in a tremendous variety of ways - including raw. Been there, done that. On a motorcycle trip to Stockholm, we took a ferry from Kiel, Germany to Gotenberg, Sweden. For an extra 25 Deutsche Marks, we got the buffet on the ferry. One whole counter, about 15 feet long was devoted solely to herring in its many forms = fried, pickled in various sauces, raw with various sauces, and so on. What a pig out! One of our group didn't want to spend the money. The next day, about halfway across Swededn, he got hungry. We stopped at a little highway diner where he paid about the same amount of money for a hamburger, fries, and soft drink. Sweden may be a socialist heaven, but it cost me almost $50 to fill my motorcycle tank and about $5 for a wrapped (the cheap kind) loaf of bread at a supermarket. But they put on a pretty good motorcycle rally. No question that prices are higher in Europe for many things, but, on the other hand, a lot of that comes back to ordinary citizens in terms of guaranteed vacation time, guaranteed sick leave, a decent retirement, health care coverage, education, retraining if necessary, et cetera. My Norwegian friends are middle class. Most of them have nice but smaller houses than most of us have, and they make do with one car. They work hard and they are sans the awful worries that plague many Americans. *Not* spending upwards of $700 billion a year on their military means there are funds for programs for people. Thank God the USA whipped the Germans, eh? And it's probably a good thing we kept the Fulda Gap closed for all those years afterwards. I suppose learning Chinese would be no problem for one with your education. The United States along with many allies "whipped" the Germans, and without the sort of military budget this country has today. I have to admit, the Cold War against the Sovs was a wonderful way for the military establishment and contractors in both countries to keep lots of men in uniform and lots of corporations in the black. We're spending far, far too much on the military. We should start cutting it in half over a 10 year period, and then see if we can cut it in half again. As for learning Chinese, it would be a wonderful idea for American schools and American kids to have as mandatory the teaching of a second language. It was that way back when I was in high school...if you were in the "college prep" high school divisions, you were required to take four years of foreign language. I don't recall all the offerings, but among them were German, Russian, Italian, French, Spanish, et cetera. Many of us took two languages. I took Latin and Russian, the latter because many of my relatives here spoke Russian and I could practice with them. I remember the Russian teacher, a fellow named Mr. Crosby. Chinese would be a very worthwhile addition, considering the importance of China in today's world. Good night, Harry. Believe what you will. Hopefully your kids know better. Know better about what? Is there something wrong about learning foreign languages? Are we not spending too much on the military? Did the United States win WW II all by itself? |
Bad outcome
|
Bad outcome
On 1/19/14, 11:22 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 19:21:51 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 1/19/14, 7:12 PM, wrote: Cars are registered because the states like getting the money. It certainly does not affect the 40,000 people who die in cars one way or another.. Criminals don't seem to have any trouble using cars for their crimes. Let's do nothing about gun violence because nothing can be done. Got it. Rudy Giuliani and Ray Kelly showed us how to stop gun violence (among with other crime) and it was not writing new gun laws, it was enforcing existing laws., Unfortunately they got accused of creating a police state. Are you referring to stop and frisk? I thought you weren't in favor of police state tactics. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQfdSBq7flw |
Bad outcome
|
Bad outcome
On 1/19/2014 10:19 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/19/14, 9:20 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 18:28:07 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 1/19/14, 6:16 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 18:09:44 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 1/19/14, 5:51 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 17:41:26 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 1/19/14, 1:46 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 12:43:01 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 1/19/14, 12:37 PM, wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 11:45:03 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 1/19/14, 11:12 AM, wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 10:12:02 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: The concept of citizens in this country taking on armed governmental forces is absurd. All the armed citizenry in this county, and there are lots of citizens with guns in this county, couldn't take on the county sheriff. That is absurd if you are talking about more than a few people hiding out in a cabin. Our military has not been very successful in stopping asymmetrical warriors whether it is Vietnam, The Middle East, Africa or South Asia. They kill a lot of people and win most of the battles but they lose the war. (much like the Brits in the latter 18th century American war).. Hey, there's always hope a large number of righties will start an insurrection in the United States and get wiped out...it'll definitely improve the gene pool. :) I do not actually believe that we would ever allow a government to get that oppressive before we enacted a political solution but it would be the left who ended up organizing the revolution if it did. I do believe it would come out of a massive financial collapse and the well intentioned desire to find a strong leader with an agenda that sounded good in the beginning and then descended into a dictatorship. Bear in mind every dictator of the last 100 years started with a socialist agenda. Most have the word "socialist" in the title of their government. The only way socialism can exist as a governmental policy is if you have an overbearing government. (be it the Cubans, Venezuela, the Soviets or the Nazis) My Northern European buddies in socialist countries report no problems with overbearing government. Your buddies don't even complain of the overbearing taxes? Wow, mine has started doing that big time. He's also not very happy with providing housing to all the Moroccan and Turkish folks that have been flooding Holland since the borders went away. Funny, fifteen-twenty years ago he was very happy with his 'socialist' country. Times have changed. Good to know your buddies don't mind oppressive taxes. My Norwegian friend who was seriously injured in an offshore drilling platform accident was financially supported and retrained as a teacher and is quite happy with how things turned out. He didn't lose his house or his healthcare or his pension, and his kids went to college. In the USA, he'd be out on the street. Norway would be a great place for you to live. You could get herring prepared in a tremendous variety of ways - including raw. Been there, done that. On a motorcycle trip to Stockholm, we took a ferry from Kiel, Germany to Gotenberg, Sweden. For an extra 25 Deutsche Marks, we got the buffet on the ferry. One whole counter, about 15 feet long was devoted solely to herring in its many forms = fried, pickled in various sauces, raw with various sauces, and so on. What a pig out! One of our group didn't want to spend the money. The next day, about halfway across Swededn, he got hungry. We stopped at a little highway diner where he paid about the same amount of money for a hamburger, fries, and soft drink. Sweden may be a socialist heaven, but it cost me almost $50 to fill my motorcycle tank and about $5 for a wrapped (the cheap kind) loaf of bread at a supermarket. But they put on a pretty good motorcycle rally. No question that prices are higher in Europe for many things, but, on the other hand, a lot of that comes back to ordinary citizens in terms of guaranteed vacation time, guaranteed sick leave, a decent retirement, health care coverage, education, retraining if necessary, et cetera. My Norwegian friends are middle class. Most of them have nice but smaller houses than most of us have, and they make do with one car. They work hard and they are sans the awful worries that plague many Americans. *Not* spending upwards of $700 billion a year on their military means there are funds for programs for people. Thank God the USA whipped the Germans, eh? And it's probably a good thing we kept the Fulda Gap closed for all those years afterwards. I suppose learning Chinese would be no problem for one with your education. The United States along with many allies "whipped" the Germans, and without the sort of military budget this country has today. I have to admit, the Cold War against the Sovs was a wonderful way for the military establishment and contractors in both countries to keep lots of men in uniform and lots of corporations in the black. We're spending far, far too much on the military. We should start cutting it in half over a 10 year period, and then see if we can cut it in half again. As for learning Chinese, it would be a wonderful idea for American schools and American kids to have as mandatory the teaching of a second language. It was that way back when I was in high school...if you were in the "college prep" high school divisions, you were required to take four years of foreign language. I don't recall all the offerings, but among them were German, Russian, Italian, French, Spanish, et cetera. Many of us took two languages. I took Latin and Russian, the latter because many of my relatives here spoke Russian and I could practice with them. I remember the Russian teacher, a fellow named Mr. Crosby. Chinese would be a very worthwhile addition, considering the importance of China in today's world. Good night, Harry. Believe what you will. Hopefully your kids know better. Know better about what? Is there something wrong about learning foreign languages? Are we not spending too much on the military? Did the United States win WW II all by itself? Know better enough to stay out of the 47% group of Americans who don't earn enough to pay taxes. Any kid with gumption strives to do better than his parents. Unfortunately some lose track of their main mission of raising their kids properly. |
Bad outcome
On 1/20/2014 7:50 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/19/14, 11:22 PM, wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 19:21:51 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 1/19/14, 7:12 PM, wrote: Cars are registered because the states like getting the money. It certainly does not affect the 40,000 people who die in cars one way or another.. Criminals don't seem to have any trouble using cars for their crimes. Let's do nothing about gun violence because nothing can be done. Got it. Rudy Giuliani and Ray Kelly showed us how to stop gun violence (among with other crime) and it was not writing new gun laws, it was enforcing existing laws., Unfortunately they got accused of creating a police state. Are you referring to stop and frisk? I thought you weren't in favor of police state tactics. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQfdSBq7flw Laws have no effect if they aren't enforced. Capt. Greg was merely stating the fact that there are already enough laws on the books to cover nearly all circumstances. Congress should work at streamlining government and sorting out the quagmire they created. |
Bad outcome
On 1/19/2014 11:36 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 20:01:21 -0600, amdx wrote: On 1/19/2014 6:05 PM, wrote: k He said "incandescent" That is an incandescent bulb. Your trusty old A19, non halogen. But as I said, it's not a standard 100 Watt bulb. It is a 130 Volt bulb, there's an exception for them at least for now. Mikek The point BAO was trying to make was bans work. It sounds like this "ban" is so full of exceptions that it is meaningless. I only buy 130v bulbs anyway. My line voltage cruises around 124v and regular 120v bulbs burn out pretty quickly. Just for a real world example of meaningless bans. In 1994 they "banned" large capacity magazines. The government was not willing to buy back all of the existing ones (that pesky 5th amendment thing) so there was a gray market for "pre-ban" magazines. (much like the pre ban light bulbs) There never seemed to be a lack of pre-ban magazines for sale for the next decade until the law expired and they weren't even that expensive. I believe they were coming in by the truck load. I wonder why the populace can't be trusted to make good choices on their owm. Perhaps it's because they rely on the government to do it for them. I am about 90% converted to led. There are a few flourescent tubes left in my house but no incand. to my knowlege. |
Bad outcome
|
Bad outcome
|
Bad outcome
On 1/20/2014 5:30 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/19/2014 11:43 PM, wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 20:44:31 -0600, Califbill wrote: I installed two, 60 watt LED bulbs in my loft studio ceiling. They are shaped like regular old light bulbs and illuminate in the same, non-directional pattern. I like them. Plenty of light, doesn't have any funny color and I have them controlled by a regular dimmer designed for incandescents. No problems dimming them although it doesn't like controlling only one. Not enough load. The LEDs may be OK. But the mini fluorescent. More expensive, do not last any longer and are toxic waste. Ow many land fills will become superfund sites with the bulbs? My problem with LEDS and CFLs is they do not change color when you dim them. The warmer colors you get from a dimmed incandescent is the whole point. I know they could do this with a color changing LED but at what cost? If I am happy with a $1.50 lamp that will last almost forever running at 75% power, why would I want a $50+ LED that uses almost as much power "dimmed" as it does full bright and may actually fail sooner. I never noticed that the LED bulbs are not "warmer" color-wise when dimmed. I guess that's not very important to me. The room just gets darker. The whole idea behind these types of bulbs is energy conservation, not romantic lighting. Replacing one 60 or 75 watt incandescent bulb with a LED bulb of equivalent lighting may not be huge, but replacing tens or hundreds of millions across the country sure is. Lighting makes up about 13 percent of average residential electricity consumption. Replacing the old bulbs as they burn out with LED equivalents makes sense to me. We've slowly been doing that over the past year or so and also replacing any of those stupid CFL type lights we have with LED types. The built-in ballast used in CFLs seem to pop as often or even more so than the incandescent filaments did. The LED bulbs I bought are made by Cree. They don't cost $50. They are $12.95. 800 lumen, dimmable, 25,000 hour life expectancy, 10 year warranty and consume 9.5 watts. Yeah, but what's 800 lumen? How many do you need to run to make up for one 100 watt incandescent? I have CFL's in our home and I can't see **** half of the time. Most of the lamps are rated for wattages that alllow you to see with real bulbs. Not so much with the fake Chinese bulbs... |
Bad outcome
On 1/20/2014 5:30 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/19/2014 11:43 PM, wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 20:44:31 -0600, Califbill wrote: I installed two, 60 watt LED bulbs in my loft studio ceiling. They are shaped like regular old light bulbs and illuminate in the same, non-directional pattern. I like them. Plenty of light, doesn't have any funny color and I have them controlled by a regular dimmer designed for incandescents. No problems dimming them although it doesn't like controlling only one. Not enough load. The LEDs may be OK. But the mini fluorescent. More expensive, do not last any longer and are toxic waste. Ow many land fills will become superfund sites with the bulbs? My problem with LEDS and CFLs is they do not change color when you dim them. The warmer colors you get from a dimmed incandescent is the whole point. I know they could do this with a color changing LED but at what cost? If I am happy with a $1.50 lamp that will last almost forever running at 75% power, why would I want a $50+ LED that uses almost as much power "dimmed" as it does full bright and may actually fail sooner. I never noticed that the LED bulbs are not "warmer" color-wise when dimmed. I guess that's not very important to me. The room just gets darker. The whole idea behind these types of bulbs is energy conservation, not romantic lighting. Replacing one 60 or 75 watt incandescent bulb with a LED bulb of equivalent lighting may not be huge, but replacing tens or hundreds of millions across the country sure is. Lighting makes up about 13 percent of average residential electricity consumption. Replacing the old bulbs as they burn out with LED equivalents makes sense to me. We've slowly been doing that over the past year or so and also replacing any of those stupid CFL type lights we have with LED types. The built-in ballast used in CFLs seem to pop as often or even more so than the incandescent filaments did. The LED bulbs I bought are made by Cree. They don't cost $50. They are $12.95. 800 lumen, dimmable, 25,000 hour life expectancy, 10 year warranty and consume 9.5 watts. I just realized that the gov't. ban on incands. was created to guide the thrifty among us to stop making phony excuses for an inferior product. I'm saving about $50 a month on my electric bill without changing any thing except light bulbs. And that's not counting replacement cost. My replacement cost last year was $10. (one bulb) You need to relinquish your "Luddite" status. There are those here more deserving. |
Bad outcome
On 1/20/2014 8:20 AM, KC wrote:
On 1/20/2014 5:30 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 1/19/2014 11:43 PM, wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 20:44:31 -0600, Califbill wrote: I installed two, 60 watt LED bulbs in my loft studio ceiling. They are shaped like regular old light bulbs and illuminate in the same, non-directional pattern. I like them. Plenty of light, doesn't have any funny color and I have them controlled by a regular dimmer designed for incandescents. No problems dimming them although it doesn't like controlling only one. Not enough load. The LEDs may be OK. But the mini fluorescent. More expensive, do not last any longer and are toxic waste. Ow many land fills will become superfund sites with the bulbs? My problem with LEDS and CFLs is they do not change color when you dim them. The warmer colors you get from a dimmed incandescent is the whole point. I know they could do this with a color changing LED but at what cost? If I am happy with a $1.50 lamp that will last almost forever running at 75% power, why would I want a $50+ LED that uses almost as much power "dimmed" as it does full bright and may actually fail sooner. I never noticed that the LED bulbs are not "warmer" color-wise when dimmed. I guess that's not very important to me. The room just gets darker. The whole idea behind these types of bulbs is energy conservation, not romantic lighting. Replacing one 60 or 75 watt incandescent bulb with a LED bulb of equivalent lighting may not be huge, but replacing tens or hundreds of millions across the country sure is. Lighting makes up about 13 percent of average residential electricity consumption. Replacing the old bulbs as they burn out with LED equivalents makes sense to me. We've slowly been doing that over the past year or so and also replacing any of those stupid CFL type lights we have with LED types. The built-in ballast used in CFLs seem to pop as often or even more so than the incandescent filaments did. The LED bulbs I bought are made by Cree. They don't cost $50. They are $12.95. 800 lumen, dimmable, 25,000 hour life expectancy, 10 year warranty and consume 9.5 watts. Yeah, but what's 800 lumen? How many do you need to run to make up for one 100 watt incandescent? I have CFL's in our home and I can't see **** half of the time. Most of the lamps are rated for wattages that alllow you to see with real bulbs. Not so much with the fake Chinese bulbs... CFL's suck. There's not much more you can say about them. |
Bad outcome
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 22:19:02 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 1/19/14, 9:20 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 18:28:07 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 1/19/14, 6:16 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 18:09:44 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 1/19/14, 5:51 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 17:41:26 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 1/19/14, 1:46 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 12:43:01 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 1/19/14, 12:37 PM, wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 11:45:03 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 1/19/14, 11:12 AM, wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 10:12:02 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: The concept of citizens in this country taking on armed governmental forces is absurd. All the armed citizenry in this county, and there are lots of citizens with guns in this county, couldn't take on the county sheriff. That is absurd if you are talking about more than a few people hiding out in a cabin. Our military has not been very successful in stopping asymmetrical warriors whether it is Vietnam, The Middle East, Africa or South Asia. They kill a lot of people and win most of the battles but they lose the war. (much like the Brits in the latter 18th century American war).. Hey, there's always hope a large number of righties will start an insurrection in the United States and get wiped out...it'll definitely improve the gene pool. :) I do not actually believe that we would ever allow a government to get that oppressive before we enacted a political solution but it would be the left who ended up organizing the revolution if it did. I do believe it would come out of a massive financial collapse and the well intentioned desire to find a strong leader with an agenda that sounded good in the beginning and then descended into a dictatorship. Bear in mind every dictator of the last 100 years started with a socialist agenda. Most have the word "socialist" in the title of their government. The only way socialism can exist as a governmental policy is if you have an overbearing government. (be it the Cubans, Venezuela, the Soviets or the Nazis) My Northern European buddies in socialist countries report no problems with overbearing government. Your buddies don't even complain of the overbearing taxes? Wow, mine has started doing that big time. He's also not very happy with providing housing to all the Moroccan and Turkish folks that have been flooding Holland since the borders went away. Funny, fifteen-twenty years ago he was very happy with his 'socialist' country. Times have changed. Good to know your buddies don't mind oppressive taxes. My Norwegian friend who was seriously injured in an offshore drilling platform accident was financially supported and retrained as a teacher and is quite happy with how things turned out. He didn't lose his house or his healthcare or his pension, and his kids went to college. In the USA, he'd be out on the street. Norway would be a great place for you to live. You could get herring prepared in a tremendous variety of ways - including raw. Been there, done that. On a motorcycle trip to Stockholm, we took a ferry from Kiel, Germany to Gotenberg, Sweden. For an extra 25 Deutsche Marks, we got the buffet on the ferry. One whole counter, about 15 feet long was devoted solely to herring in its many forms = fried, pickled in various sauces, raw with various sauces, and so on. What a pig out! One of our group didn't want to spend the money. The next day, about halfway across Swededn, he got hungry. We stopped at a little highway diner where he paid about the same amount of money for a hamburger, fries, and soft drink. Sweden may be a socialist heaven, but it cost me almost $50 to fill my motorcycle tank and about $5 for a wrapped (the cheap kind) loaf of bread at a supermarket. But they put on a pretty good motorcycle rally. No question that prices are higher in Europe for many things, but, on the other hand, a lot of that comes back to ordinary citizens in terms of guaranteed vacation time, guaranteed sick leave, a decent retirement, health care coverage, education, retraining if necessary, et cetera. My Norwegian friends are middle class. Most of them have nice but smaller houses than most of us have, and they make do with one car. They work hard and they are sans the awful worries that plague many Americans. *Not* spending upwards of $700 billion a year on their military means there are funds for programs for people. Thank God the USA whipped the Germans, eh? And it's probably a good thing we kept the Fulda Gap closed for all those years afterwards. I suppose learning Chinese would be no problem for one with your education. The United States along with many allies "whipped" the Germans, and without the sort of military budget this country has today. I have to admit, the Cold War against the Sovs was a wonderful way for the military establishment and contractors in both countries to keep lots of men in uniform and lots of corporations in the black. We're spending far, far too much on the military. We should start cutting it in half over a 10 year period, and then see if we can cut it in half again. As for learning Chinese, it would be a wonderful idea for American schools and American kids to have as mandatory the teaching of a second language. It was that way back when I was in high school...if you were in the "college prep" high school divisions, you were required to take four years of foreign language. I don't recall all the offerings, but among them were German, Russian, Italian, French, Spanish, et cetera. Many of us took two languages. I took Latin and Russian, the latter because many of my relatives here spoke Russian and I could practice with them. I remember the Russian teacher, a fellow named Mr. Crosby. Chinese would be a very worthwhile addition, considering the importance of China in today's world. Good night, Harry. Believe what you will. Hopefully your kids know better. Know better about what? Is there something wrong about learning foreign languages? Are we not spending too much on the military? Did the United States win WW II all by itself? |
Bad outcome
On 1/20/2014 8:32 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 22:19:02 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 1/19/14, 9:20 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 18:28:07 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 1/19/14, 6:16 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 18:09:44 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 1/19/14, 5:51 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 17:41:26 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 1/19/14, 1:46 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 12:43:01 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 1/19/14, 12:37 PM, wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 11:45:03 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 1/19/14, 11:12 AM, wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 10:12:02 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: The concept of citizens in this country taking on armed governmental forces is absurd. All the armed citizenry in this county, and there are lots of citizens with guns in this county, couldn't take on the county sheriff. That is absurd if you are talking about more than a few people hiding out in a cabin. Our military has not been very successful in stopping asymmetrical warriors whether it is Vietnam, The Middle East, Africa or South Asia. They kill a lot of people and win most of the battles but they lose the war. (much like the Brits in the latter 18th century American war).. Hey, there's always hope a large number of righties will start an insurrection in the United States and get wiped out...it'll definitely improve the gene pool. :) I do not actually believe that we would ever allow a government to get that oppressive before we enacted a political solution but it would be the left who ended up organizing the revolution if it did. I do believe it would come out of a massive financial collapse and the well intentioned desire to find a strong leader with an agenda that sounded good in the beginning and then descended into a dictatorship. Bear in mind every dictator of the last 100 years started with a socialist agenda. Most have the word "socialist" in the title of their government. The only way socialism can exist as a governmental policy is if you have an overbearing government. (be it the Cubans, Venezuela, the Soviets or the Nazis) My Northern European buddies in socialist countries report no problems with overbearing government. Your buddies don't even complain of the overbearing taxes? Wow, mine has started doing that big time. He's also not very happy with providing housing to all the Moroccan and Turkish folks that have been flooding Holland since the borders went away. Funny, fifteen-twenty years ago he was very happy with his 'socialist' country. Times have changed. Good to know your buddies don't mind oppressive taxes. My Norwegian friend who was seriously injured in an offshore drilling platform accident was financially supported and retrained as a teacher and is quite happy with how things turned out. He didn't lose his house or his healthcare or his pension, and his kids went to college. In the USA, he'd be out on the street. Norway would be a great place for you to live. You could get herring prepared in a tremendous variety of ways - including raw. Been there, done that. On a motorcycle trip to Stockholm, we took a ferry from Kiel, Germany to Gotenberg, Sweden. For an extra 25 Deutsche Marks, we got the buffet on the ferry. One whole counter, about 15 feet long was devoted solely to herring in its many forms = fried, pickled in various sauces, raw with various sauces, and so on. What a pig out! One of our group didn't want to spend the money. The next day, about halfway across Swededn, he got hungry. We stopped at a little highway diner where he paid about the same amount of money for a hamburger, fries, and soft drink. Sweden may be a socialist heaven, but it cost me almost $50 to fill my motorcycle tank and about $5 for a wrapped (the cheap kind) loaf of bread at a supermarket. But they put on a pretty good motorcycle rally. No question that prices are higher in Europe for many things, but, on the other hand, a lot of that comes back to ordinary citizens in terms of guaranteed vacation time, guaranteed sick leave, a decent retirement, health care coverage, education, retraining if necessary, et cetera. My Norwegian friends are middle class. Most of them have nice but smaller houses than most of us have, and they make do with one car. They work hard and they are sans the awful worries that plague many Americans. *Not* spending upwards of $700 billion a year on their military means there are funds for programs for people. Thank God the USA whipped the Germans, eh? And it's probably a good thing we kept the Fulda Gap closed for all those years afterwards. I suppose learning Chinese would be no problem for one with your education. The United States along with many allies "whipped" the Germans, and without the sort of military budget this country has today. I have to admit, the Cold War against the Sovs was a wonderful way for the military establishment and contractors in both countries to keep lots of men in uniform and lots of corporations in the black. We're spending far, far too much on the military. We should start cutting it in half over a 10 year period, and then see if we can cut it in half again. As for learning Chinese, it would be a wonderful idea for American schools and American kids to have as mandatory the teaching of a second language. It was that way back when I was in high school...if you were in the "college prep" high school divisions, you were required to take four years of foreign language. I don't recall all the offerings, but among them were German, Russian, Italian, French, Spanish, et cetera. Many of us took two languages. I took Latin and Russian, the latter because many of my relatives here spoke Russian and I could practice with them. I remember the Russian teacher, a fellow named Mr. Crosby. Chinese would be a very worthwhile addition, considering the importance of China in today's world. Good night, Harry. Believe what you will. Hopefully your kids know better. Know better about what? Is there something wrong about learning foreign languages? Are we not spending too much on the military? Did the United States win WW II all by itself? Come on John. Spit it out. |
Bad outcome
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 23:36:15 -0500, wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 20:01:21 -0600, amdx wrote: On 1/19/2014 6:05 PM, wrote: k He said "incandescent" That is an incandescent bulb. Your trusty old A19, non halogen. But as I said, it's not a standard 100 Watt bulb. It is a 130 Volt bulb, there's an exception for them at least for now. Mikek The point BAO was trying to make was bans work. It sounds like this "ban" is so full of exceptions that it is meaningless. I only buy 130v bulbs anyway. My line voltage cruises around 124v and regular 120v bulbs burn out pretty quickly. Just for a real world example of meaningless bans. In 1994 they "banned" large capacity magazines. The government was not willing to buy back all of the existing ones (that pesky 5th amendment thing) so there was a gray market for "pre-ban" magazines. (much like the pre ban light bulbs) There never seemed to be a lack of pre-ban magazines for sale for the next decade until the law expired and they weren't even that expensive. I believe they were coming in by the truck load. Like this? http://www.sportsmansguide.com/net/c...aspx?a=1150085 |
Bad outcome
On 1/20/14, 8:36 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 23:36:15 -0500, wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 20:01:21 -0600, amdx wrote: On 1/19/2014 6:05 PM, wrote: k He said "incandescent" That is an incandescent bulb. Your trusty old A19, non halogen. But as I said, it's not a standard 100 Watt bulb. It is a 130 Volt bulb, there's an exception for them at least for now. Mikek The point BAO was trying to make was bans work. It sounds like this "ban" is so full of exceptions that it is meaningless. I only buy 130v bulbs anyway. My line voltage cruises around 124v and regular 120v bulbs burn out pretty quickly. Just for a real world example of meaningless bans. In 1994 they "banned" large capacity magazines. The government was not willing to buy back all of the existing ones (that pesky 5th amendment thing) so there was a gray market for "pre-ban" magazines. (much like the pre ban light bulbs) There never seemed to be a lack of pre-ban magazines for sale for the next decade until the law expired and they weren't even that expensive. I believe they were coming in by the truck load. Like this? http://www.sportsmansguide.com/net/c...aspx?a=1150085 There must be a way you can find and attach a 9 mm model of one of those to your new SIG, eh? Might be difficult fitting the assembly in your pocket, though. Maybe not. :) |
Bad outcome
On 1/20/2014 7:51 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/20/14, 5:30 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 1/19/2014 11:43 PM, wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 20:44:31 -0600, Califbill wrote: I installed two, 60 watt LED bulbs in my loft studio ceiling. They are shaped like regular old light bulbs and illuminate in the same, non-directional pattern. I like them. Plenty of light, doesn't have any funny color and I have them controlled by a regular dimmer designed for incandescents. No problems dimming them although it doesn't like controlling only one. Not enough load. The LEDs may be OK. But the mini fluorescent. More expensive, do not last any longer and are toxic waste. Ow many land fills will become superfund sites with the bulbs? My problem with LEDS and CFLs is they do not change color when you dim them. The warmer colors you get from a dimmed incandescent is the whole point. I know they could do this with a color changing LED but at what cost? If I am happy with a $1.50 lamp that will last almost forever running at 75% power, why would I want a $50+ LED that uses almost as much power "dimmed" as it does full bright and may actually fail sooner. I never noticed that the LED bulbs are not "warmer" color-wise when dimmed. I guess that's not very important to me. The room just gets darker. The whole idea behind these types of bulbs is energy conservation, not romantic lighting. Replacing one 60 or 75 watt incandescent bulb with a LED bulb of equivalent lighting may not be huge, but replacing tens or hundreds of millions across the country sure is. Lighting makes up about 13 percent of average residential electricity consumption. Replacing the old bulbs as they burn out with LED equivalents makes sense to me. We've slowly been doing that over the past year or so and also replacing any of those stupid CFL type lights we have with LED types. The built-in ballast used in CFLs seem to pop as often or even more so than the incandescent filaments did. The LED bulbs I bought are made by Cree. They don't cost $50. They are $12.95. 800 lumen, dimmable, 25,000 hour life expectancy, 10 year warranty and consume 9.5 watts. I bought a few of those Cree bulbs at Home Despot. They seem to be working well. Haven't noticed any difference in the color of the room lighting. I confess I was a bit of a skeptic until I tried one. They work fine, to me. Proof will be in the pudding in terms of how long they work. |
Bad outcome
On 1/20/2014 8:17 AM, KC wrote:
On 1/19/2014 11:43 PM, wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 20:44:31 -0600, Califbill wrote: I installed two, 60 watt LED bulbs in my loft studio ceiling. They are shaped like regular old light bulbs and illuminate in the same, non-directional pattern. I like them. Plenty of light, doesn't have any funny color and I have them controlled by a regular dimmer designed for incandescents. No problems dimming them although it doesn't like controlling only one. Not enough load. The LEDs may be OK. But the mini fluorescent. More expensive, do not last any longer and are toxic waste. Ow many land fills will become superfund sites with the bulbs? My problem with LEDS and CFLs is they do not change color when you dim them. The warmer colors you get from a dimmed incandescent is the whole point. I know they could do this with a color changing LED but at what cost? If I am happy with a $1.50 lamp that will last almost forever running at 75% power, why would I want a $50+ LED that uses almost as much power "dimmed" as it does full bright and may actually fail sooner. Because there were lots of "friends of Al Gore" with their hands out for contracts... Wouldn't you be interested in reducing your electricity bill by up to 13 percent/month for the next 10 years or more? I was. |
Bad outcome
On 1/20/2014 9:04 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/20/2014 8:17 AM, KC wrote: On 1/19/2014 11:43 PM, wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 20:44:31 -0600, Califbill wrote: I installed two, 60 watt LED bulbs in my loft studio ceiling. They are shaped like regular old light bulbs and illuminate in the same, non-directional pattern. I like them. Plenty of light, doesn't have any funny color and I have them controlled by a regular dimmer designed for incandescents. No problems dimming them although it doesn't like controlling only one. Not enough load. The LEDs may be OK. But the mini fluorescent. More expensive, do not last any longer and are toxic waste. Ow many land fills will become superfund sites with the bulbs? My problem with LEDS and CFLs is they do not change color when you dim them. The warmer colors you get from a dimmed incandescent is the whole point. I know they could do this with a color changing LED but at what cost? If I am happy with a $1.50 lamp that will last almost forever running at 75% power, why would I want a $50+ LED that uses almost as much power "dimmed" as it does full bright and may actually fail sooner. Because there were lots of "friends of Al Gore" with their hands out for contracts... Wouldn't you be interested in reducing your electricity bill by up to 13 percent/month for the next 10 years or more? I was. I would love to.. but I just can't see in my home with warm white light.. I need daylight or cool colors or I just get a headache all day. Most of the small energy saving bulbs are warm colors... Don't get me wrong, we are all cfl and other energy saving throughout the house, even the back porch lights... But I have to run two or three lamps in a room just to see so I am not sure how much savings we really get.... |
Bad outcome
On 1/20/2014 8:20 AM, KC wrote:
On 1/20/2014 5:30 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 1/19/2014 11:43 PM, wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 20:44:31 -0600, Califbill wrote: I installed two, 60 watt LED bulbs in my loft studio ceiling. They are shaped like regular old light bulbs and illuminate in the same, non-directional pattern. I like them. Plenty of light, doesn't have any funny color and I have them controlled by a regular dimmer designed for incandescents. No problems dimming them although it doesn't like controlling only one. Not enough load. The LEDs may be OK. But the mini fluorescent. More expensive, do not last any longer and are toxic waste. Ow many land fills will become superfund sites with the bulbs? My problem with LEDS and CFLs is they do not change color when you dim them. The warmer colors you get from a dimmed incandescent is the whole point. I know they could do this with a color changing LED but at what cost? If I am happy with a $1.50 lamp that will last almost forever running at 75% power, why would I want a $50+ LED that uses almost as much power "dimmed" as it does full bright and may actually fail sooner. I never noticed that the LED bulbs are not "warmer" color-wise when dimmed. I guess that's not very important to me. The room just gets darker. The whole idea behind these types of bulbs is energy conservation, not romantic lighting. Replacing one 60 or 75 watt incandescent bulb with a LED bulb of equivalent lighting may not be huge, but replacing tens or hundreds of millions across the country sure is. Lighting makes up about 13 percent of average residential electricity consumption. Replacing the old bulbs as they burn out with LED equivalents makes sense to me. We've slowly been doing that over the past year or so and also replacing any of those stupid CFL type lights we have with LED types. The built-in ballast used in CFLs seem to pop as often or even more so than the incandescent filaments did. The LED bulbs I bought are made by Cree. They don't cost $50. They are $12.95. 800 lumen, dimmable, 25,000 hour life expectancy, 10 year warranty and consume 9.5 watts. Yeah, but what's 800 lumen? How many do you need to run to make up for one 100 watt incandescent? I have CFL's in our home and I can't see **** half of the time. Most of the lamps are rated for wattages that alllow you to see with real bulbs. Not so much with the fake Chinese bulbs... Spring $12.95 for one and try it in a place that you currently use a single, 60, 75 or 100 watt bulb. You might be surprised after a while. The LEDs are not like the CFL types. Just make sure you get the omnidirectional Cree. They also make directional types. Also, I am pretty sure they have at least two color temperatures available. I used the "white" light version. I haven't tried the other color temp. Maybe if I did I might feel more romantic. We replaced four incandescent floodlights on the outside of the barn with LED types. Not as much light as with the much higher wattage incandescent bulbs but still very adequate for seeing where you are going at night. |
Bad outcome
On 1/20/14, 9:00 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/20/2014 7:51 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 1/20/14, 5:30 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 1/19/2014 11:43 PM, wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 20:44:31 -0600, Califbill wrote: I installed two, 60 watt LED bulbs in my loft studio ceiling. They are shaped like regular old light bulbs and illuminate in the same, non-directional pattern. I like them. Plenty of light, doesn't have any funny color and I have them controlled by a regular dimmer designed for incandescents. No problems dimming them although it doesn't like controlling only one. Not enough load. The LEDs may be OK. But the mini fluorescent. More expensive, do not last any longer and are toxic waste. Ow many land fills will become superfund sites with the bulbs? My problem with LEDS and CFLs is they do not change color when you dim them. The warmer colors you get from a dimmed incandescent is the whole point. I know they could do this with a color changing LED but at what cost? If I am happy with a $1.50 lamp that will last almost forever running at 75% power, why would I want a $50+ LED that uses almost as much power "dimmed" as it does full bright and may actually fail sooner. I never noticed that the LED bulbs are not "warmer" color-wise when dimmed. I guess that's not very important to me. The room just gets darker. The whole idea behind these types of bulbs is energy conservation, not romantic lighting. Replacing one 60 or 75 watt incandescent bulb with a LED bulb of equivalent lighting may not be huge, but replacing tens or hundreds of millions across the country sure is. Lighting makes up about 13 percent of average residential electricity consumption. Replacing the old bulbs as they burn out with LED equivalents makes sense to me. We've slowly been doing that over the past year or so and also replacing any of those stupid CFL type lights we have with LED types. The built-in ballast used in CFLs seem to pop as often or even more so than the incandescent filaments did. The LED bulbs I bought are made by Cree. They don't cost $50. They are $12.95. 800 lumen, dimmable, 25,000 hour life expectancy, 10 year warranty and consume 9.5 watts. I bought a few of those Cree bulbs at Home Despot. They seem to be working well. Haven't noticed any difference in the color of the room lighting. I confess I was a bit of a skeptic until I tried one. They work fine, to me. Proof will be in the pudding in terms of how long they work. The package I have says it will last 22.8 years at three hours a day until the bulb burns out. In 22.8 years, I suspect the bulb between my ears will dim, if not burn out entirely. I read somewhere...maybe it is a false memory...that you shouldn't put two of these bulbs in a multi-bulb fixture. But there's nothing on the packaging that says that. I'd like to find some "candleabra" LED bulbs. We have a zillion of them in the house and in our outdoor garage and porch fixtures. |
Bad outcome
On 1/20/2014 8:25 AM, Hank wrote:
On 1/20/2014 5:30 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 1/19/2014 11:43 PM, wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 20:44:31 -0600, Califbill wrote: I installed two, 60 watt LED bulbs in my loft studio ceiling. They are shaped like regular old light bulbs and illuminate in the same, non-directional pattern. I like them. Plenty of light, doesn't have any funny color and I have them controlled by a regular dimmer designed for incandescents. No problems dimming them although it doesn't like controlling only one. Not enough load. The LEDs may be OK. But the mini fluorescent. More expensive, do not last any longer and are toxic waste. Ow many land fills will become superfund sites with the bulbs? My problem with LEDS and CFLs is they do not change color when you dim them. The warmer colors you get from a dimmed incandescent is the whole point. I know they could do this with a color changing LED but at what cost? If I am happy with a $1.50 lamp that will last almost forever running at 75% power, why would I want a $50+ LED that uses almost as much power "dimmed" as it does full bright and may actually fail sooner. I never noticed that the LED bulbs are not "warmer" color-wise when dimmed. I guess that's not very important to me. The room just gets darker. The whole idea behind these types of bulbs is energy conservation, not romantic lighting. Replacing one 60 or 75 watt incandescent bulb with a LED bulb of equivalent lighting may not be huge, but replacing tens or hundreds of millions across the country sure is. Lighting makes up about 13 percent of average residential electricity consumption. Replacing the old bulbs as they burn out with LED equivalents makes sense to me. We've slowly been doing that over the past year or so and also replacing any of those stupid CFL type lights we have with LED types. The built-in ballast used in CFLs seem to pop as often or even more so than the incandescent filaments did. The LED bulbs I bought are made by Cree. They don't cost $50. They are $12.95. 800 lumen, dimmable, 25,000 hour life expectancy, 10 year warranty and consume 9.5 watts. I just realized that the gov't. ban on incands. was created to guide the thrifty among us to stop making phony excuses for an inferior product. I'm saving about $50 a month on my electric bill without changing any thing except light bulbs. And that's not counting replacement cost. My replacement cost last year was $10. (one bulb) You need to relinquish your "Luddite" status. There are those here more deserving. I just need to see it for myself sometimes. I had my doubts about LED type lighting but Cree and Phillips have obviously made some major breakthoughs. Jury is still out on how long they last, but the energy savings reflected on your monthly bill is worth the experiment. Believe it or not, one of the reasons I decided to investigate them was a result of searching for stage lighting for the new performance venue I was in involved with. The old PAR-64 type stage lights with mylar color filters are quickly becoming a thing of the past, replaced with very powerful and bright LED array lights that can be programmed to generate any color imaginable by controlling and mixing the LED output colors. These are very high powered LEDs, arranged in a pod and are every bit as bright as the 300 or 500 watt single incandescent bulbs they are replacing. They also draw a tiny fraction of the power and generate very little heat compared to the bulbs they are replacing. Residential, multi-color LED lighting in homes is a growing industry as well. You can change colors, even program sequences, within a room or rooms. |
Bad outcome
On 1/20/2014 9:14 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/20/2014 8:20 AM, KC wrote: On 1/20/2014 5:30 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 1/19/2014 11:43 PM, wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 20:44:31 -0600, Califbill wrote: I installed two, 60 watt LED bulbs in my loft studio ceiling. They are shaped like regular old light bulbs and illuminate in the same, non-directional pattern. I like them. Plenty of light, doesn't have any funny color and I have them controlled by a regular dimmer designed for incandescents. No problems dimming them although it doesn't like controlling only one. Not enough load. The LEDs may be OK. But the mini fluorescent. More expensive, do not last any longer and are toxic waste. Ow many land fills will become superfund sites with the bulbs? My problem with LEDS and CFLs is they do not change color when you dim them. The warmer colors you get from a dimmed incandescent is the whole point. I know they could do this with a color changing LED but at what cost? If I am happy with a $1.50 lamp that will last almost forever running at 75% power, why would I want a $50+ LED that uses almost as much power "dimmed" as it does full bright and may actually fail sooner. I never noticed that the LED bulbs are not "warmer" color-wise when dimmed. I guess that's not very important to me. The room just gets darker. The whole idea behind these types of bulbs is energy conservation, not romantic lighting. Replacing one 60 or 75 watt incandescent bulb with a LED bulb of equivalent lighting may not be huge, but replacing tens or hundreds of millions across the country sure is. Lighting makes up about 13 percent of average residential electricity consumption. Replacing the old bulbs as they burn out with LED equivalents makes sense to me. We've slowly been doing that over the past year or so and also replacing any of those stupid CFL type lights we have with LED types. The built-in ballast used in CFLs seem to pop as often or even more so than the incandescent filaments did. The LED bulbs I bought are made by Cree. They don't cost $50. They are $12.95. 800 lumen, dimmable, 25,000 hour life expectancy, 10 year warranty and consume 9.5 watts. Yeah, but what's 800 lumen? How many do you need to run to make up for one 100 watt incandescent? I have CFL's in our home and I can't see **** half of the time. Most of the lamps are rated for wattages that alllow you to see with real bulbs. Not so much with the fake Chinese bulbs... Spring $12.95 for one and try it in a place that you currently use a single, 60, 75 or 100 watt bulb. You might be surprised after a while. The LEDs are not like the CFL types. Just make sure you get the omnidirectional Cree. They also make directional types. Also, I am pretty sure they have at least two color temperatures available. I used the "white" light version. I haven't tried the other color temp. Maybe if I did I might feel more romantic. We replaced four incandescent floodlights on the outside of the barn with LED types. Not as much light as with the much higher wattage incandescent bulbs but still very adequate for seeing where you are going at night. I will look into it as we are trying to get our electric bill down... "Omnidirectional Cree"... Ok, don't know what it is, but I will look for it in Lowes today when we are there... |
Bad outcome
On 1/20/2014 9:27 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/20/2014 8:25 AM, Hank wrote: On 1/20/2014 5:30 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 1/19/2014 11:43 PM, wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 20:44:31 -0600, Califbill wrote: I installed two, 60 watt LED bulbs in my loft studio ceiling. They are shaped like regular old light bulbs and illuminate in the same, non-directional pattern. I like them. Plenty of light, doesn't have any funny color and I have them controlled by a regular dimmer designed for incandescents. No problems dimming them although it doesn't like controlling only one. Not enough load. The LEDs may be OK. But the mini fluorescent. More expensive, do not last any longer and are toxic waste. Ow many land fills will become superfund sites with the bulbs? My problem with LEDS and CFLs is they do not change color when you dim them. The warmer colors you get from a dimmed incandescent is the whole point. I know they could do this with a color changing LED but at what cost? If I am happy with a $1.50 lamp that will last almost forever running at 75% power, why would I want a $50+ LED that uses almost as much power "dimmed" as it does full bright and may actually fail sooner. I never noticed that the LED bulbs are not "warmer" color-wise when dimmed. I guess that's not very important to me. The room just gets darker. The whole idea behind these types of bulbs is energy conservation, not romantic lighting. Replacing one 60 or 75 watt incandescent bulb with a LED bulb of equivalent lighting may not be huge, but replacing tens or hundreds of millions across the country sure is. Lighting makes up about 13 percent of average residential electricity consumption. Replacing the old bulbs as they burn out with LED equivalents makes sense to me. We've slowly been doing that over the past year or so and also replacing any of those stupid CFL type lights we have with LED types. The built-in ballast used in CFLs seem to pop as often or even more so than the incandescent filaments did. The LED bulbs I bought are made by Cree. They don't cost $50. They are $12.95. 800 lumen, dimmable, 25,000 hour life expectancy, 10 year warranty and consume 9.5 watts. I just realized that the gov't. ban on incands. was created to guide the thrifty among us to stop making phony excuses for an inferior product. I'm saving about $50 a month on my electric bill without changing any thing except light bulbs. And that's not counting replacement cost. My replacement cost last year was $10. (one bulb) You need to relinquish your "Luddite" status. There are those here more deserving. I just need to see it for myself sometimes. I had my doubts about LED type lighting but Cree and Phillips have obviously made some major breakthoughs. Jury is still out on how long they last, but the energy savings reflected on your monthly bill is worth the experiment. Believe it or not, one of the reasons I decided to investigate them was a result of searching for stage lighting for the new performance venue I was in involved with. The old PAR-64 type stage lights with mylar color filters are quickly becoming a thing of the past, replaced with very powerful and bright LED array lights that can be programmed to generate any color imaginable by controlling and mixing the LED output colors. These are very high powered LEDs, arranged in a pod and are every bit as bright as the 300 or 500 watt single incandescent bulbs they are replacing. They also draw a tiny fraction of the power and generate very little heat compared to the bulbs they are replacing. Residential, multi-color LED lighting in homes is a growing industry as well. You can change colors, even program sequences, within a room or rooms. I am not sure if it's the same technology but in the mid eighties I saw Hall and Oates. They had some brand new, super top secret color changing spots by SoundCo if I remember correctly. At the time they were the talk of the lighting industry... |
Bad outcome
On 1/20/2014 9:11 AM, KC wrote:
On 1/20/2014 9:04 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 1/20/2014 8:17 AM, KC wrote: On 1/19/2014 11:43 PM, wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 20:44:31 -0600, Califbill wrote: I installed two, 60 watt LED bulbs in my loft studio ceiling. They are shaped like regular old light bulbs and illuminate in the same, non-directional pattern. I like them. Plenty of light, doesn't have any funny color and I have them controlled by a regular dimmer designed for incandescents. No problems dimming them although it doesn't like controlling only one. Not enough load. The LEDs may be OK. But the mini fluorescent. More expensive, do not last any longer and are toxic waste. Ow many land fills will become superfund sites with the bulbs? My problem with LEDS and CFLs is they do not change color when you dim them. The warmer colors you get from a dimmed incandescent is the whole point. I know they could do this with a color changing LED but at what cost? If I am happy with a $1.50 lamp that will last almost forever running at 75% power, why would I want a $50+ LED that uses almost as much power "dimmed" as it does full bright and may actually fail sooner. Because there were lots of "friends of Al Gore" with their hands out for contracts... Wouldn't you be interested in reducing your electricity bill by up to 13 percent/month for the next 10 years or more? I was. I would love to.. but I just can't see in my home with warm white light.. I need daylight or cool colors or I just get a headache all day. Most of the small energy saving bulbs are warm colors... Don't get me wrong, we are all cfl and other energy saving throughout the house, even the back porch lights... But I have to run two or three lamps in a room just to see so I am not sure how much savings we really get.... Next time you go to Home Depot or Lowe's, check out the LED bulbs I mentioned. There are at least *two* color temps available, one is "white" and the other is designed to be more of a warmer color. You could run 6 of them for the cost of running one conventional 60 watt bulb. The CFLs are horrible. |
Bad outcome
On 1/20/2014 9:39 AM, KC wrote:
On 1/20/2014 9:27 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: Believe it or not, one of the reasons I decided to investigate them was a result of searching for stage lighting for the new performance venue I was in involved with. The old PAR-64 type stage lights with mylar color filters are quickly becoming a thing of the past, replaced with very powerful and bright LED array lights that can be programmed to generate any color imaginable by controlling and mixing the LED output colors. These are very high powered LEDs, arranged in a pod and are every bit as bright as the 300 or 500 watt single incandescent bulbs they are replacing. They also draw a tiny fraction of the power and generate very little heat compared to the bulbs they are replacing. Residential, multi-color LED lighting in homes is a growing industry as well. You can change colors, even program sequences, within a room or rooms. I am not sure if it's the same technology but in the mid eighties I saw Hall and Oates. They had some brand new, super top secret color changing spots by SoundCo if I remember correctly. At the time they were the talk of the lighting industry... It's doubtful that whatever they used was like what is now available. There have been tremendous strides made with solid state, light emitting diodes in the past few years. One of my music friends owns the largest backstage equipment rental company in New England and supplies stage lighting equipment along with sound systems, amps, guitars, keyboards and B-3 organs to all the major performance venues in the Boston and surrounding areas. I was at his warehouse last year because he was donating some equipment for the performance venue I was building. He showed me all the newer stage lighting, wall wash and spotlight systems he uses. All are LED based systems. These are big, industrial systems but use the same basic technology as the systems available for general consumer use. Again, the driver is the fractional power they require while still generating the same level of lighting. The fact that they are individually programmable is also a huge advancement. One fixture can generate any color you want and can be controlled by midi or other programing techniques to generate a light show that compliments a performance by a band or musician. |
Bad outcome
On 1/20/2014 10:14 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/20/2014 9:39 AM, KC wrote: On 1/20/2014 9:27 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: Believe it or not, one of the reasons I decided to investigate them was a result of searching for stage lighting for the new performance venue I was in involved with. The old PAR-64 type stage lights with mylar color filters are quickly becoming a thing of the past, replaced with very powerful and bright LED array lights that can be programmed to generate any color imaginable by controlling and mixing the LED output colors. These are very high powered LEDs, arranged in a pod and are every bit as bright as the 300 or 500 watt single incandescent bulbs they are replacing. They also draw a tiny fraction of the power and generate very little heat compared to the bulbs they are replacing. Residential, multi-color LED lighting in homes is a growing industry as well. You can change colors, even program sequences, within a room or rooms. I am not sure if it's the same technology but in the mid eighties I saw Hall and Oates. They had some brand new, super top secret color changing spots by SoundCo if I remember correctly. At the time they were the talk of the lighting industry... It's doubtful that whatever they used was like what is now available. There have been tremendous strides made with solid state, light emitting diodes in the past few years. One of my music friends owns the largest backstage equipment rental company in New England and supplies stage lighting equipment along with sound systems, amps, guitars, keyboards and B-3 organs to all the major performance venues in the Boston and surrounding areas. I was at his warehouse last year because he was donating some equipment for the performance venue I was building. He showed me all the newer stage lighting, wall wash and spotlight systems he uses. All are LED based systems. These are big, industrial systems but use the same basic technology as the systems available for general consumer use. Again, the driver is the fractional power they require while still generating the same level of lighting. The fact that they are individually programmable is also a huge advancement. One fixture can generate any color you want and can be controlled by midi or other programing techniques to generate a light show that compliments a performance by a band or musician. Look into "SoundCo" in the Eighties, or ask your friend. Whatever those lights were they may have been early led's.... I know the company was very secretive about them and at the time a company rep accompanied the systems and "you" were really not allowed to work on one or dis-assemble them. At the time "the talk" was that if you tried to take one apart, they were designed to emplode to mask the technology but that was probably just rock and roll, smoke and mirrors... |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:35 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com