| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
103
   |
Posted - 2012.01.01 04:08:00 -
[1] - Quote
Like the classic incandescent 100W bulb? Don't like fluorescents? Well, Obama says 'too bad for you'.
Pussified Democrats passed a US ban in 2007, in order to please their eco-freak masters who claim they 'waste energy'.
(never mind that the 'wasted energy' merely heats your home in the end)
Republicans have attempted to reverse it, however Obama and Senate Democrats have obstructed them.
Which means, unfortunately, that ban takes effect today, January 1, 2012. Manufacture and import into the US are now illegal.
Once current stocks are depleted, you either get them from Mexico or the black market.
Of course, if we are lucky, the ban will be reversed when Republicans retake the Senate and the White House from the fascist shitheads currently in charge.
But until then, get your cheap 'soft whites' before the shelves are empty.
Next ban? 75W next on the block. Jan 1, 2013.
|
Buck Futz
Suddenly Violence
Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
8
|
Posted - 2012.01.01 04:17:00 -
[2] - Quote
Good call. cant stand those curlie-Q ones.
I thought it was next year, LOL.  Guess I'll check Walmart tomorrow.
Figure they'll be available for awhile, though. Until their not.
|
Cynosural Siiri
State War Academy
Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2012.01.01 04:22:00 -
[3] - Quote
What? Are they really banning lightbulbs? Some serious stupidity going on in the US the last few years. I know they banned them awhile ago in Scandinavia, but figured they had more sense in the USA. But I suppose if they vote in idiots, idiotic policies like this one are what they get. 
|
Atticus Fynch
209
|
Posted - 2012.01.01 04:23:00 -
[4] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:
Like the classic incandescent 100W bulb? Don't like fluorescents? Well, Obama says 'too bad for you'.
Pussified Democrats passed a US ban in 2007, in order to please their eco-freak masters who claim they 'waste energy'.
(never mind that the 'wasted energy' merely heats your home in the end)
Republicans have attempted to reverse it, however Obama and Senate Democrats have obstructed them.
Which means, unfortunately, that ban takes effect today, January 1, 2012. Manufacture and import into the US are now illegal.
Once current stocks are depleted, you either get them from Mexico or the black market.
Of course, if we are lucky, the ban will be reversed when Republicans retake the Senate and the White House from the fascist shitheads currently in charge.
But until then, get your cheap 'soft whites' before the shelves are empty.
Next ban? 75W next on the block. Jan 1, 2013.
Like classic wax candles too? How about oil filled lanterns? Hung up on those also?
I hear the horseless carriage is catching on too.
Dude, get with the times. Classic bulbs are energy hogs, produce too much heat and poor lighting.
Oh, and the Repugs are not gettin the house and senate so stop deluding yourself. Our economic mess is due to Repug policies and americans are catching on to this.
- |
defiler
Mad Hermit
Wayward Alliance
7
|
Posted - 2012.01.01 04:41:00 -
[5] - Quote
Incandescent light bulbs? How quaint. 
Been banned here in Sweden for a couple of years, and I say good riddance.
I bought a bunch of cheap CFLs from IKEA when I moved to this flat about six years ago and I haven't had to change a single one. They fit in every fixture I've seen and the colour of the light is perfectly fine as well, with or without a yellow lampshade.
I honestly don't see why people get so worked up about this... |
leviticus ander
The Scope
Gallente Federation
115
|
Posted - 2012.01.01 05:01:00 -
[6] - Quote
there's always LED lights. they are a little more expensive, but they have a great lifetime, and they are either as good or better than incandescent. |
Selinate
306
|
Posted - 2012.01.01 05:11:00 -
[7] - Quote
So you're mad because you now have to buy lightbulbs that use less energy, last longer, and produce just as much light?
They even have energy efficient bulbs that give the same glow as incandescent light now.
Are you... Are you retar.ded? Or just looking for something to complain about since there's a black president in office? Because I seriously can't think of another reason for you to ***** about something so petty. |
Gavin DeVries
JDI Industries
32
|
Posted - 2012.01.01 05:15:00 -
[8] - Quote
I can't stand CFLs. If it's cold they don't light up immediately; when I turn the switch on I need LIGHT! Not 15 seconds later I get it. Plus, they all have mercury in them. The stopped making HVAC thermostats with mercury in them, but they're still going to use it in bulbs?
Seriously, LED lighting is where things are going to go. They just need the price to come down. When the CFLs first came out they were $20 each, so it'll eventually drop.
PVP is a question with no single right answer, but a lot of wrong ones. |
Lithalnas
Privateers
Privateer Alliance
89
|
Posted - 2012.01.01 05:22:00 -
[9] - Quote
Just to be the misunderstood scientist in the room. Did you know that CFL lights contain mercury, not in great amounts but normal bulb contain zero. It should also be noted that CFLs are coated on the inside with phosphorus, where incandescence are simply an acid etch glass with no remnant acid.
So if you break a bulb, clean it up right away, open all the windows and doors and turn every fan on in the house. Second, tell no one that you broke a bulb, third, hide it in the garbage can so the garbage man cant see the broken bulb. They are technically considered hasmat and should not be in the regular garbage.
As to them being greener for the environment, in a landfill the mercury is released and the phosphorus also is water soluble and gets into the water supply. They are not more energy efficient in some cases, the bulb must be turned on for at least 15 minutes at a time to beat a incandescent. Recent research has shown that if the bulb is being turned on and off frequently like say a bathroom light, then it halves the useful lifetime of the bulb.
Dont mind me, I live in CA and we have it.
Anyone reminded of MTBE? Put it in gas for less CO2 emissions, few years later its contaminating well water.
How to build a PC for EVE thread (by Akita T)
http://eve-search.com/thread/1559734-0/page/1
|
Christopher AET
Segmentum Solar
Rolling Thunder.
49
|
Posted - 2012.01.01 05:30:00 -
[10] - Quote
yep want an incandescent here in uk 40 is your max. 100 been gone couple yars here too. \\\\\\\\\have to say not been an issue for me |
VKhaun Vex
Viziam
Amarr Empire
244
|
Posted - 2012.01.01 07:04:00 -
[11] - Quote
The whole issue makes me /facepalm.
Light bulbs were a dirty wasteful tech to begin with and they're still dirty and wasteful. The idea behind the legislation seems ahead by a few steps, by adding time as a factor. Yes one new light bulb is more nasty than one old one, but in theory they should last much longer. In theory...  |
Atticus Fynch
211
|
Posted - 2012.01.01 07:28:00 -
[12] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:
Of course, if we are lucky, the ban will be reversed when Republicans retake the Senate and the White House from the fascist shitheads currently in charge.
Dude, you have no idea what real facism is. Read a history book sometime.
- |
stoicfaux
595
|
Posted - 2012.01.01 08:18:00 -
[13] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:
Like the classic incandescent 100W bulb? Don't like fluorescents? Well, Obama says 'too bad for you'.
Pussified Democrats passed a US ban in 2007, in order to please their eco-freak masters who claim they 'waste energy'.
(never mind that the 'wasted energy' merely heats your home in the end)
Republicans have attempted to reverse it, however Obama and Senate Democrats have obstructed them.
2007? President Bush? An evenly split Senate? A meager 31 Democrat advantage in Congress? Are you telling me that Bush couldn't veto it? Because Congress sure as heck didn't have the numbers to override a presidential veto.
Oh wait, a *lot* of Republicans voted for it. The Senate vote was 86 - 8 and the House vote was 314 to 100. Sounds to me like the majority of Republicans and Democrats agreed to ban the 100 watt bulbs via the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. In fact if Bush had tried to veto it, the House, with Republican votes, could have easily overriden his veto.
tl;dr - The bill passed with heavy Republican support. Bush didn't veto it. Blaming Obama/Democrats is just stupid.
< tinfoil >
Did it ever occur to you that the GOP deliberately let the new energy standards bill pass just so they can have something populist to blame on Obama and distract you from the country's real problems? Or maybe the GOP just thinks you're stupid and that you'll believe any old accusation against Obama, trusting that you're too lazy and/or blinded by Obama hate to check the facts?
< /tinfoil >
You can tell me what is and isn't true when you pry the tinfoil from my cold, lifeless head.
|
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
103
|
Posted - 2012.01.01 10:33:00 -
[14] - Quote
Last I checked, oil lamps and candles are still legal to manufacture, sell and use. People just choose not to use them .
According to the marketplace, incandescent bulbs are actually not obsolete at all. We aren't talking about buggies here. We are talking about millions of consumers making rational choices with their own money each and every day.
If standard lightbulbs were truly obsolete, they wouldn't outsell CFLs and LEDs by a huge margin....in countries where they are allowed still allowed to compete in the marketplace. People who want to take those choices away from citizens - are just delusional fascists. They know what is best for society and thus get to decide what the unwashed masses should and should not be allowed to buy.
What I don't get is why Democrats always feel the need to impose their BS velues on others. They scream bloody murder when conservatives talk about social issues, restricting abortion, gay marriage, etc. Yet they have no problem ramming their global warming/tax-the-carbon-you-breathe fantasies right up our asses.
5-gallon flush toilets. V-8 engines. Lightbulbs. Plasma TVs in California.
'Too wasteful' according to their religious beliefs and therefore must be banned. Democrat Congresses ram the bans through and reluctantly signed by Republican presidents who couldn't be bothered to fight them.
Fascism. Its the new, and yet very old and familiar face of the progressive movement. |
Indahmawar Fazmarai
The I and F Taxation Trust
129
|
Posted - 2012.01.01 10:45:00 -
[15] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:I AM SO SMART ASS THAT I DID NOT READ THE GUY ABOVE TELLING HOW REPUBLICANS FLOCKED BEHIND THE REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH AND VOTED IN FAVOR OF THE LAW
You're looking stoopid so far. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
103
|
Posted - 2012.01.01 11:40:00 -
[16] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:
2007? President Bush? An evenly split Senate? A meager 31 Democrat advantage in Congress? Are you telling me that Bush couldn't veto it? Because Congress sure as heck didn't have the numbers to override a presidential veto.
Oh wait, a *lot* of Republicans voted for it. The Senate vote was 86 - 8 and the House vote was 314 to 100. Sounds to me like the majority of Republicans and Democrats agreed to ban the 100 watt bulbs via the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. In fact if Bush had tried to veto it, the House, with Republican votes, could have easily overriden his veto.
tl;dr - The bill passed with heavy Republican support. Bush didn't veto it. Blaming Obama/Democrats is just stupid.
No, George W. Bush signed a MUCH larger bill that included the 'light bulb ban'. He had resisted these kinds of laws in the past (ie CAFE standards for SUV/light trucks) but didn't have the heart to 'go to the mat' with Democrats over it.
Since 2010, however - Republicans have tried to specifically overturn this ban- its clearly Democrats (not Republicans) that are preventing it, as the measure passed easily in the House once the Tea Party Republicans emerged as a political force.
And either way, hardly agree with everything Bush has done. Doesn't change the fact that this ban is stupid, and Obama is even worse on the issue.
Hope that cleared things up for you.
Now, explain to me how why an 'obsolete' product continues to dominate the marketplace? If CFLs and LEDs were such great choices, why aren't people buying them? In fact, the marketplace strongly suggests that consumers are actually REJECTING them, if given a choice.
In terms of volume, CFLs and LEDs never accounted for more than a tiny fraction of all bulb sales, despite aggressive financial incentives (tax subsidies) and promotion by both government and manufacturers.
As recently as July 2011, sales of CFLs were DOWN 16% and incandescent were actually UP 6.5%.
http://www.mrbeams.com/blog/314-cfl-sales-in-big-decline-incandescent-bulbs-gain-market-share
Got that? Market share of incandescent lighting is actually increasing, in the US, as recently as 2011.
How can that be??
Are consumers simply irrational, buying an 'inferior product' out of sheer force of habit?
Is is Evil GE corporate brainwashing?
No, and no.
Correct answer: The classic Type-A bulb is not obsolete. It provides a superior product at a far cheaper cost. Burns more electricity, but it is a price that most households are obviously willing to pay.
The correct, freedom-loving (and non-fascist) way to proceed? Remove the authoritarian Democrat obstructionists, remove Obama, repeal the ban. When LED technology progresses to the point that it clearly is the better product, Edison's Type A will fade away. The beauty of this solution? Dinosaurs like me will still be able to find and use them as a niche product, while all the eco hippies can have whatever high-tech light bulb they choose. We both win.
|
Indahmawar Fazmarai
The I and F Taxation Trust
148
|
Posted - 2012.01.01 12:36:00 -
[17] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote: (...)
Correct answer: The classic Type-A bulb is not obsolete. It provides a superior product at a far cheaper cost. Burns more electricity, but it is a price that most households are obviously willing to pay.
(...)
Superior product as in...
...having a way shorter life span?
...comsuming 4 to 5x more energy for any given light intensity?
...posing a fire hazard? |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
103
|
Posted - 2012.01.01 13:20:00 -
[18] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote: (...)
Correct answer: The classic Type-A bulb is not obsolete. It provides a superior product at a far cheaper cost. Burns more electricity, but it is a price that most households are obviously willing to pay.
(...)
Superior product as in... ...having a way shorter life span? ...comsuming 4 to 5x more energy for any given light intensity? ...posing a fire hazard?
Success in the marketplace is the only measure of success that matters. History is full of 'superior products' that failed to catch on. Technicalities are meaningless if you can't convince people to freely purchase it. Don't you know that money talks, bullshit walks? But I'll humor you.
A) Shorter 'expected' lifespan, but FAR cheaper cost up front.
If you prematurely break an incandescent, you replace it for 35 cents. CFLs cost 10 - 30x as much.
B) electricity is relatively cheap, plus 'wasted' energy isn't wasted. It is converted to heat, which is generally useful indoors unless you are a penguin.
C) Fire hazard? Talk about reaching. Especially when you consider the mercury disposal hazards associated with CFLs.
And you haven't addressed my central point....if CFLs and LEDs are so terrific, why aren't they selling?
Millions of people buy lightbulbs in the United States every month. And they are overwhelmingly buying incandescent light bulbs.
Why are CFLs and LEDs inferior? Simple. Individuals weigh the costs and benefits of each type of bulb, and decide for themselves that 'traditional' bulbs are the best deal....despite government green subsidies and manufacturer advertising campaigns.
Here's the thing though - if YOU weigh the pros and cons, and find CFL or LEDs to be the cat's pajamas, GREAT! Buy em up. Hand em out as Christmas presents. Leave them in children's Easter Baskets. Tell your neighbors. I'm perfectly OK with that.
Why do you feel the need to force me (and the vast majority of average consumers) to conform to YOUR choice? What makes you so brilliant?
When I consider LED bulbs to be the correct choice for my home, Ill switch. Why are you so scared of allowing others that liberty? |
Citizen20100211442
Carebear Evolution
26
|
Posted - 2012.01.01 13:23:00 -
[19] - Quote
Barrack Obongo just signed NDAA, which lets imprison people "suspected by terrorism" in US without any trial, and you discussing this?
To be, or not to be, that's the question. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
104
|
Posted - 2012.01.01 13:46:00 -
[20] - Quote
Citizen20100211442 wrote:Barrack Obongo just signed NDAA, which lets imprison people "suspected by terrorism" in US without any trial, and you discussing this?
Imprisoned? Is that all?
Obama has already ordered American citizens KILLED, without a trial, due process, or any judicial oversight whatsoever.
Ever heard of Anwar-al-Awlaki? Not shedding tears over the bombmaking ****....but if you've ever joined the Michigan Militia or attended any Tea Party rallies.....well, just saying it might behoove you to keep one eye skyward.
Oh, but, sorry. Lightbulbs (and future involuntary lack thereof) was the topic of this thread. You are free to start your own if you wish.
|
Alpheias
Euphoria Released
0ccupational Hazzard
389
|
Posted - 2012.01.01 13:52:00 -
[21] - Quote
I hear American citizens die all the time.
I'd kill kittens and puppies and bunnies
I'd maim toddlers and teens and then more |
Slade Trillgon
T.R.I.A.D
177
|
Posted - 2012.01.01 14:32:00 -
[22] - Quote
Citizen20100211442 wrote:Barrack Obongo just signed NDAA, which lets imprison people "suspected by terrorism" in US without any trial, and you discussing this?
And you act like a Repbulican President would not have signed this bill.
And Herr it is righteous that you will label Democrats fascist without even thinking about all the fascist policies Republicans run their election platforms off of.
I will trade my light bulbs for a women's right to choose, gay marriage, legalization of drugs, and decriminalization of sex for money laws.
So a clue to you my friend, they all fascist. They all want to control you to, and currently the Democrats agendas are slightly less invasive in my moderately ignorant opinion.
Slade |
Citizen20100211442
Carebear Evolution
26
|
Posted - 2012.01.01 14:50:00 -
[23] - Quote
You want ****** marriage, and woman's right "to choose" ? Ok
But seriously why so many people falls into this illusion of democrat vs respublician bs?
This reminds me 100 year old cartoon :
http://dont-tread-on.me/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Cartoon_LOL_01_Progressive_Republicans_vs_Progressive_Democrats_1912.png
To be, or not to be, that's the question. |
VKhaun Vex
Viziam
Amarr Empire
247
|
Posted - 2012.01.01 14:57:00 -
[24] - Quote
Citizen20100211442 wrote:Barrack Obongo just signed NDAA, which lets imprison people "suspected by terrorism" in US without any trial, and you discussing this?
Why don't you make a new thread and link the part of the NDAA you think means that instead of hijacking a thread.
Oh yeah... because you've never read it and you're just following the hype.
Your shepherd says if you follow him you won't be a sheep anymore. |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
1008
|
Posted - 2012.01.01 16:05:00 -
[25] - Quote
Instead of banning the manufacture or use of certain power ratings, they should simply tax them ALL out the wazoo (regardless of wattage) so that the incandescent ones become just as expensive as the other in just about every case.
It has the double benefit of allowing people who hate non-incandescents still use incandescents as much as they like (for a price) and brings more cash to the budget.
I'd call that a win-win situation.
My parents USED to hate the same things about non-incandescent bulbs, but slowly, using better quality ones, they got used to the idea.
The sale of incandescent lightbulbs is NOT banned in Romania and you can still get them just about anywhere, but a larger portion of the population is naturally switching to non-incandescents in increasing quantities.
The only place we still have incandescent lightbulbs in (that are actually used) is on the stairwell and in one of the two bathrooms.
There are a couple of incandescent ones on some switches we seldom ever use, so why bother changing them.
When the remaining incandescent ones burn out, they too will be replaced with non-incandescent ones, with one exception, the stairwell, where we'll always keep low-power incandescents (for reasons not worth going into).
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Contributor_name:Akita_T#Contributions_link_collection |
Selinate
533
|
Posted - 2012.01.01 16:10:00 -
[26] - Quote
VKhaun Vex wrote:Citizen20100211442 wrote:Barrack Obongo just signed NDAA, which lets imprison people "suspected by terrorism" in US without any trial, and you discussing this? Why don't you make a new thread and link the part of the NDAA you think means that instead of hijacking a thread. A ban on light bulbs takes more of your liberty than that bill did, and it's sad so many people who are actually willing to speak out on liberty are too easily distracted to see how it's really taken. Not that I think light bulbs are a big deal, but the fact that the government will make that decision for it's citizens should mean something to you. Instead, you're following baseless hype suggesting a constitutional law professor is taking all of your rights by signing one bill.
Being an American, I say this with some humility and annoyance, at the same time.
I've been watching many of the more ignorant Americans royally **** themselves into oblivion and take others' rights down with them at the same time for a long time now. Choice for women, an epidemic of obesity, lack of decent education, rampant and pointless wars, gay marriage, immigration (read, racism's in-the-closet brother), healthcare, etc. etc. etc.
And ffs, just as a side note, read the preceding paragraph and find all the things that shouldn't even be a ******* issue. Seriously, it's just religious nuts trying to impose their twisted ideals on the whole.
Back to the point, therefore, if congress and the president want to make Americans use more efficient light bulbs, you know what? I agree. If they want to impose more restrictions like this on idiots in this country, I agree. If it helps the idiots in this country make better decisions that make it better for everyone in the long run, I agree.
I get tired of hearing "Obamo the Clown" or other twisted versions of Obama's name where morons think they're being clever.
The real clowns are the Americans who have proven time and time again that they're not capable of making reasonable decisions themselves, and therefore don't deserve the right. |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
1008
|
Posted - 2012.01.01 16:17:00 -
[27] - Quote
Also, those so hung up on liberties and such, how come you weren't raging about having smoking banned in some public places ? I mean, raaawgh, liberties taken away and such...
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Contributor_name:Akita_T#Contributions_link_collection |
Selinate
533
|
Posted - 2012.01.01 16:18:00 -
[28] - Quote
Akita T wrote:Also, those so hung up on liberties and such, how come you weren't raging about having smoking banned in some public places ? I mean, raaawgh, liberties taken away and such...
Because it was done at the state level and not at the federal level, and the state level doesn't always have a Democrat in office to blame. |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
1008
|
Posted - 2012.01.01 16:26:00 -
[29] - Quote
I still say taxing those suckers would have been a more gratifying move :P
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Contributor_name:Akita_T#Contributions_link_collection |
SpaceSquirrels
247
|
Posted - 2012.01.01 16:49:00 -
[30] - Quote
If you're seriously butt hurt enough over ******* light bulbs to write a post...over ******* old light bulbs. You need to reevaluate a few things.
Once again who the **** cares? They're light bulbs! I can't even believe congress wasted energy (pun intended) debating this. This is why **** can't get done because tards debate over light bulbs.
It's odd it's like the lights still work in my house. |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |