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. |
|
Slade Trillgon
T.R.I.A.D
179
|
Posted - 2012.01.01 17:38:00 -
[31] - Quote
Citizen20100211442 wrote:
That was basically the point of my last sentence. The point of the first part of my post was that Republicans tend to flock towards the more invasive forms of denial of personal choice.
To Akita, those of us that mostly understand the concept of personal liberty said that establishments should be given the right to chose to be smoking or non-smoking. Unfortunately those that tend to hold power forget that the diversity of smoking and non-smoking establishments would actually increase the public's expenditure in such establishments. Hell I would bet that if clubs could choose to be smoking that a majority of women, that do not smoke, would choose to go to the non-smoking establishments. Guess what would happen then? Most guys, smokers or not, would then flock to the non-smoking establishments because that is where the ladies are at. Unfortunately not many States saw it from this angle and decided to say all places had to be smoke free.
VKhaun Vex wrote:
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.
There is the fact that there is no clear cut definition of what a terrorist is and those in power could define it any way they see necessary to lock down any dissidents they choose to. So you are correct that the NDAA bill is not a clear cut violation of personal liberties in of itself, but the fact that it is very vague keeps the door cracked for massive violations of individual liberties.
Slade
|
Lumiukko
Initium Malum 0ccupational Hazzard
2
|
Posted - 2012.01.01 18:41:00 -
[32] - Quote
in response to those who are mocking this thread, saying that the newer CFL's (most common energy saving bulbs) are better and therefore banning the older incandescent bulbs isnt an issue, and that anyone who disagrees must therefore be an idiot, let me shed some light on this subject (boom boom)
firstly, i am an optician, so i have a pretty good idea about what im saying. I see on average 2 or 3 elderly patients a week these days who say that while they can read perfectly well in my practice, they take their glasses home and they cant read the paper, or a book, or in some cases cant see well enough to look after themselves at home, while in the practice they can see perfectly well enough to do normal EDLT's (every day living tasks).
The reason is very very simple, since the EU (or whoever, i dont give a damn about the politics) banned the production of the 100 W incandescent light bulbs, retirement homes / sheltered accommodation and a good number of private residences have transitioned to CFL's, believing blindly that the claims on the packaging which says something along the lines of 11w CFL = 60w incandescent in terms of brightness. In fact, they offer somewhere between 50%-60% of the Lumen output of a 60W incandescent bulb, and there is no CFL bulb which comes even close to the performance of a 100W bulb.
this Lumen count is essential for viewing, in low light conditions, our eyes rely on the rods to provide vision, but rods are found around the edges of the eye and not in the center (this is why if you try to find something small in low light, its easier to look out the corner of your eye than to look straight at it, and why in really low light looking straight at something makes it vanish).
the end result is that when you try to read, you look directly at the page. If the lumen count is too low, your ability to see small text is reduced. For even a young totally healthy eye with 6/6 (20/20) vision or better, reducing lighting will result in a reduction in measurable distance vision to potentially 6/12 (20/40), meaning you need to be twice as close to the object to see it as well. For near vision this is more noticeable, however a healthy young eye with 6/6 vision will still be able to read in lower lumen light, so the energy saving bulbs work fine for you and me, but elderly patients with general vision reductions, people with ARMD, cataracts, severe glaucoma or other visual defects simply cannot see properly in lower light conditions.
the changes to the law in europe at least say you cannot produce the bulbs, you can still sell them, so i have a stock of about 250 100w bulbs and over 300 60w daylight simulation bulbs, which i sell to patients who come in with these symptoms, and without fail all of them have returned to say it worked fantastically.
so i say that stopping their use wont save the planet, but it will ruin the lives of many elderly and visually impaired people. Im sure they will all enjoy the few pounds they save on the energy bill they cant read each quarter.
TLDR: optician says that CFL energy saving bulbs suck if you want to be able to read in your old age.
|
Reiisha
Splint Eye Probabilities Inc. Dawn of Transcendence
75
|
Posted - 2012.01.01 19:10:00 -
[33] - Quote
Banning lightbulbs that use more power than a laptop is probably a good idea tbh.
Unless you like wasting money and then come back here to complain about not having money, which some Americans seem to like to do ;p
I do see your point though. Still, there's much less energy intensive lights available that give roughly the same amount of light. Especially if you're sporting more than 1 100w bulb, you will very much notice how much you're saving tbh.
Banning them is a little much though, i admit, even after my previous statement. I didn't realize the implications untill Lumiukko pointed them out. However - People who don't NEED 100w bulbs shouldnt use them, in the same way that people who don't need a 800w power supply for their PC shouldn't buy one either, or people who don't need to leave their lights on even when on vacation, or having a multi-KW christmas decoration hanging around while not being around to enjoy it....
Saving energy is a good thing, because if you add all the little things together you might suddenly notice you've got more than enough leftover for a trip to Fanfest for example.
My parents are freaks, sort of, as far as this is concerned, but their efforts paid off - They're saving 600-1000 euros(!) a year in energy costs since they started looking at what they do or do not need to run or have running a few years ago. If anything people need to at least realize how much money they can save by not wasting energy. |
Indahmawar Fazmarai
The I and F Taxation Trust
150
|
Posted - 2012.01.01 19:42:00 -
[34] - Quote
Lumiukko wrote:in response to those who are mocking this thread, saying that the newer CFL's (most common energy saving bulbs) are better and therefore banning the older incandescent bulbs isnt an issue, and that anyone who disagrees must therefore be an idiot, let me shed some light on this subject (boom boom)
firstly, i am an optician, so i have a pretty good idea about what im saying. I see on average 2 or 3 elderly patients a week these days who say that while they can read perfectly well in my practice, they take their glasses home and they cant read the paper, or a book, or in some cases cant see well enough to look after themselves at home, while in the practice they can see perfectly well enough to do normal EDLT's (every day living tasks).
The reason is very very simple, since the EU (or whoever, i dont give a damn about the politics) banned the production of the 100 W incandescent light bulbs, retirement homes / sheltered accommodation and a good number of private residences have transitioned to CFL's, believing blindly that the claims on the packaging which says something along the lines of 11w CFL = 60w incandescent in terms of brightness. In fact, they offer somewhere between 50%-60% of the Lumen output of a 60W incandescent bulb, and there is no CFL bulb which comes even close to the performance of a 100W bulb.
this Lumen count is essential for viewing, in low light conditions, our eyes rely on the rods to provide vision, but rods are found around the edges of the eye and not in the center (this is why if you try to find something small in low light, its easier to look out the corner of your eye than to look straight at it, and why in really low light looking straight at something makes it vanish).
the end result is that when you try to read, you look directly at the page. If the lumen count is too low, your ability to see small text is reduced. For even a young totally healthy eye with 6/6 (20/20) vision or better, reducing lighting will result in a reduction in measurable distance vision to potentially 6/12 (20/40), meaning you need to be twice as close to the object to see it as well. For near vision this is more noticeable, however a healthy young eye with 6/6 vision will still be able to read in lower lumen light, so the energy saving bulbs work fine for you and me, but elderly patients with general vision reductions, people with ARMD, cataracts, severe glaucoma or other visual defects simply cannot see properly in lower light conditions.
the changes to the law in europe at least say you cannot produce the bulbs, you can still sell them, so i have a stock of about 250 100w bulbs and over 300 60w daylight simulation bulbs, which i sell to patients who come in with these symptoms, and without fail all of them have returned to say it worked fantastically.
so i say that stopping their use wont save the planet, but it will ruin the lives of many elderly and visually impaired people. Im sure they will all enjoy the few pounds they save on the energy bill they cant read each quarter.
TLDR: optician says that CFL energy saving bulbs suck if you want to be able to read in your old age.
Huh... so you stock 60 W daylight simulation bulbs for people who can't get enough lumen from a 20 watt CFL?
Am i missing something here? |
Jhagiti Tyran
Muppet Ninja's Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
199
|
Posted - 2012.01.01 20:03:00 -
[35] - Quote
As someone else already posted incandescent light bulbs where taken off the shelves in the UK a while back. I doubt a lot of people even noticed, the government, local councils and the EU had been giving out millions of energy saving bulbs and CFL bulbs where not much more expensive than Incandescent bulbs. CFLs cost between -ú2-4 and the old bulbs where 80p to -ú1.50p, no idea where OP gets his 10x the price.
Once you have replaced every bulb for CFLs you really begin to see a difference in your electric bill. Back in 2005 I swapped my CRT TV for a LCD one and had changed all the bulbs, I was shocked how much difference it made. The only thing in my house that eats electricity now is my PC because I buy energy saving appliances.
Sure the US government is being a bit extreme making them illegal, they could handle it better by subsidising or incentivising CFL or LED lighting. The US will see benefits in the long run though, imagine how much energy and carbon output a country the size of the United States would save just by modernising lighting. |
Indahmawar Fazmarai
The I and F Taxation Trust
151
|
Posted - 2012.01.01 20:41:00 -
[36] - Quote
Jhagiti Tyran wrote:As someone else already posted incandescent light bulbs where taken off the shelves in the UK a while back. I doubt a lot of people even noticed, the government, local councils and the EU had been giving out millions of energy saving bulbs and CFL bulbs where not much more expensive than Incandescent bulbs. CFLs cost between -ú2-4 and the old bulbs where 80p to -ú1.50p, no idea where OP gets his 10x the price.
Once you have replaced every bulb for CFLs you really begin to see a difference in your electric bill. Back in 2005 I swapped my CRT TV for a LCD one and had changed all the bulbs, I was shocked how much difference it made. The only thing in my house that eats electricity now is my PC because I buy energy saving appliances.
Sure the US government is being a bit extreme making them illegal, they could handle it better by subsidising or incentivising CFL or LED lighting. The US will see benefits in the long run though, imagine how much energy and carbon output a country the size of the United States would save just by modernising lighting.
Well, do you see the OP? Would you let that kind of guy determine how many countries will you have to mess with to feed them with the resources needed to sustain their wasteful old uses? |
Sarpadeon
Rebirth Industries
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.01 21:45:00 -
[37] - Quote
seriously? this again?
they arent banning incandescent bulbs, they are simply requiring them to meet higher efficiency standards. they arent even pulling them off store shelves, simply requiring ones made after the date to meet the new standards, so stores can sell off all the old styles ones.
IE they will still make incandescent bulbs, but they are more energy efficient halogen incandescent bulbs, ie less wattage for the same luminance, 72w halogen = 100w old type etc. ive seen them compared side by side, the light was the exact same shade/brightness.
thats not even considering LEDs which have none of the downsides that CFLs have. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
120
|
Posted - 2012.01.01 23:38:00 -
[38] - Quote
Sarpadeon wrote:seriously? this again?
they arent banning incandescent bulbs, they are simply requiring them to meet higher efficiency standards. they arent even pulling them off store shelves, simply requiring ones made after the date to meet the new standards, so stores can sell off all the old styles ones.
IE they will still make incandescent bulbs, but they are more energy efficient halogen incandescent bulbs, ie less wattage for the same luminance, 72w halogen = 100w old type etc. ive seen them compared side by side, the light was the exact same shade/brightness.
thats not even considering LEDs which have none of the downsides that CFLs have.
Ok, I'm going to mandate that all registered automobiles in the USA get at least 300 miles per gallon of gasoline.
No, no - I'm not banning the gasoline automobile - I'm just requiring they meet higher efficiency standards.
However, the practical effect of this 'efficiency standard' would be to force everyone into electric cars overnight.
Its a 'de facto' ban via higher standards.
I'm faulting Democrats and also calling them hypocrites. They scream bloody murder when evangelicals are 'forcing their beliefs on them' by setting up a Nativity scene at the local Fire Station, yet have no problem imposing their inane eco-nut consumer preferences on the rest of us, even if we don't subscribe to that particular belief system.
Oh, and halogens are next on the hit list.
I'm all for increased efficiency. But not if it costs more and reduces performance. I'm willing to buy slightly more electricity and make that tradeoff.
I get a higher quality light product that I desire. (higher quality light, dimmable, non-toxic, instantly on, even in cold conditions) I pay very little for the bulb, and am not relying on it to last for years to get my money's worth. (though they often do) I pay marginally higher electricity bills, however electricity isn't all that expensive. Of course, that 'wasted electricty' becomes heat - which heats my home - so I get some of that back in slightly reduced heating bills.
Sounds like a pretty good deal to me. I think we just have a lot of people here who buy into the eco-propaganda that we are spoon-fed by corporations and government agencies.
And last I checked at Walmart, you could get 4x 'soft white' 100W bulbs for $1.59. A dimmable CFL, producing inferior quality light costs anywhere from $7-$12 dollars each (20-30x more) A non-dimmable CFL, producing the same inferior light, costs 5x as much as the 40 cent incandescent. |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
1013
|
Posted - 2012.01.02 00:54:00 -
[39] - Quote
Lumiukko wrote:a good number of private residences have transitioned to CFL's, believing blindly that the claims on the packaging which says something along the lines of 11w CFL = 60w incandescent in terms of brightness. In fact, they offer somewhere between 50%-60% of the Lumen output of a 60W incandescent bulb, and there is no CFL bulb which comes even close to the performance of a 100W bulb. The fact that you just don't get the same "illumination" feel from a 11W fluorescent compared to a 60W incandescent is sadly true, but that's where your statement's accuracy starts declining.
Yes, even after fully "powering up" after a few minutes of use, a 11W CFL one is nothing like a 60W filament bulb, and sure, it might be around 50%-60% or so just after powering up, but NOT after warming up. I would say the typical CFL reaches as good as peak in 7-8 minutes, but 2-3 minutes of use give a light level pretty close to peak already, and there are some that have an even faster warm-up curve (but are usually slightly more expensive... like the 24W one I have in the middle of the kitchen ceiling which I say lights it up about the same as a 100W incandescent, if not better (its CLAIMED equivalent lighting level is about that of a 120W incandescent, which I do agree, it doesn't quite match).
I've had various bulbs on the same fixture on different power switches and I can tell you a typical fully warmed up 11W CFL DOES light up the room better than a 40W incandescent but not better than a 60W one, however a typical (fully warmed up) 18W CFL is clearly much better than a 60W incandescent. I would say that on average, you use about 25% of the power for the same illumination level instead of the usually box-claimed 20% after warming up, and the only time your 50%-60% light level statement applies (or, translated, about 30-33% power usage for same light level) is very soon after being powered up only.
EVEN IF the extreme of your claim of only about 33% power usage might actually be accurate, that still voids your statement of no CFL bulb even coming close to a 100W incandescent... not only because in my personal opinion a 24W CFL already matches it, but because I can buy 30W CFLs in stores around here which have a box-claimed equivalent rating of a 140W incandescent bulb, but in reality they're probably closer to 120W incandescents, and even using your metric they're still just about on par with 100W incandescents. Either way, according to me, better than 100W incandescents even seconds after being powered up, and at two thirds energy saved MINIMUM... and only getting better within minutes after being powered up.
P.S. I bet you that after sale of incandescents will be banned, you'll start seeing a wider selection of decent CFLs, and even some with power ratings over 30W. But honestly, a 24W one will generally do just fine. If in doubt, you can always just slap on a COUPLE of smaller-powered ones... and if you do that, I would recommend pairing some of different color temperatures for a more even light spectrum spread. http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Contributor_name:Akita_T#Contributions_link_collection |
baltec1
419
|
Posted - 2012.01.02 01:27:00 -
[40] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:
Sounds like a pretty good deal to me. I think we just have a lot of people here who buy into the eco-propaganda that we are spoon-fed by corporations and government agencies.
And last I checked at Walmart, you could get 4x 'soft white' 100W bulbs for $1.59. A dimmable CFL, producing inferior quality light costs anywhere from $7-$12 dollars each (20-30x more) A non-dimmable CFL, producing the same inferior light, costs 5x as much as the 40 cent incandescent.
I can pick one up for less than -ú2 and gives out the same light. Perhaps you should shop around more.
As for the eco-nut comments. The world is quickly steaming towards an energy crisis which will bring us to our knees and if people wont voluntarily change their ways they are going to have to be forced. |
|
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
121
|
Posted - 2012.01.02 01:52:00 -
[41] - Quote
Hey, Akita prefers fluorescent light, I happen to prefer incandescent light. Thats fantastic. I'm not clamoring for (or trying to justify) bans on LEDs and CFLs.
I just wish that leftists would quit meddling in the name of their 'big green sky daddy', and let the natural forces of the marketplace and technology do its work, in its own time.
All types of bulbs can coexist in the market place, and as new technologies improve and become more cost-competitive, I have no doubt they would eventually gain acceptance in the market.
Sell a CFL for 40 cents, that provides a warm light quality, uses less energy, AND lasts 5 times as long? I guarantee you people would buy them, and incandescent market share would shrink, while still allowing most of us the liberty of voting (with our dollars) for the best product.
Unfortunately, iike many unsuccessful green products - the savings in energy come at a cost in performance - which is a deal breaker for most American consumers.
Its an unsatisfactory compromise between 'being green' and 'works well'.
Because I don't really give a flip about 'being green', I simply tend to prefer my products simply work well.
Its why I drive older American vehicles - cheap, high-torque engines that last forever - LONG after geewhiz high-compression fast revving, turbocharged European engines are on their third set of rings and burning quarts of oil. I don't want to screw with computers. I'll pay for the extra fuel, and actually enjoy driving - as a bonus.
Its why I have a Plasma TV instead of an LCD. Higher picture quality, 33% more energy usage. I'll take the sharper picture every time. Thanks for asking.
I'm not a child - I can weigh the pros and cons of marginally increased energy usage. American consumers do it every day. Leftists and greenies are just butthurt that intelligent people don't share their values and make different choices. Then they go fascist and use government regulations to quietly remove your choices from the marketplace.
I simply call it what it is. Authoritarian BS in the name of a religion I don't accept and never will accept. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
121
|
Posted - 2012.01.02 02:07:00 -
[42] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote:
Sounds like a pretty good deal to me. I think we just have a lot of people here who buy into the eco-propaganda that we are spoon-fed by corporations and government agencies.
And last I checked at Walmart, you could get 4x 'soft white' 100W bulbs for $1.59. A dimmable CFL, producing inferior quality light costs anywhere from $7-$12 dollars each (20-30x more) A non-dimmable CFL, producing the same inferior light, costs 5x as much as the 40 cent incandescent.
I can pick one up for less than -ú2 and gives out the same light. Perhaps you should shop around more. As for the eco-nut comments. The world is quickly steaming towards an energy crisis which will bring us to our knees and if people wont voluntarily change their ways they are going to have to be forced.
First, converting to Pounds, a 100W incandescent would cost about 25-30 P, if Brits were still allowed to buy them. That means a non-dimmable CFL would have about 7x the cost. Where did you get confused? Was it the multiplication that stumped you?
Second, someone from a nation that insulates their homes as poorly as the UK, is hardly is in a position to lecture others on energy efficiency. (Yes, I've lived there, seriously its like R-16 fiberglass and extruded polyurethane had never been invented.)
Third, I REALLY like payoff in the second statement. Window into the mind of the Greens and people who think like them.
"If people won't voluntarily change their ways, they are going to have to be forced."
LOVE IT. Never stop posting.
|
Tobias Sjodin
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
77
|
Posted - 2012.01.02 02:08:00 -
[43] - Quote
I guess Obama is really awesome if the issue of lightbulbs is this big of an issue over there.
The rest of the civilized world are using LED-lamps and low energy lightbulbs that have longer lifetimes. But I guess you're all mad about no longer using typewriters too? Ronald Reagan: I do not like Sweden, they support communism. Minister: Sir, but Sweden are anti-communist, Sir.-á Ronald Reagan: I do not care what kind of communists they are. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
121
|
Posted - 2012.01.02 02:14:00 -
[44] - Quote
Tobias Sjodin wrote:I guess Obama is really awesome if the issue of lightbulbs is this big of an issue over there.
The rest of the civilized world are using LED-lamps and low energy lightbulbs that have longer lifetimes. But I guess you're all mad about no longer using typewriters too?
I wasn't aware that typewriters had been banned. When did that happen? Can you show me where along the line typewriters were banned in favor of word processors?
To the best of my knowledge, anyone is free to buy, sell or manufacture a typewriter in the US.
You obviously aren't understanding the concepts being discussed here. |
Lightnin
PeanutPC Mining Fabracation Corp
7
|
Posted - 2012.01.02 02:15:00 -
[45] - Quote
wow man my heads spinning with all this talk about a light bulb
get a light Go Far Go In or Don't Go |
Grimpak
Midnight Elites Echelon Rising
356
|
Posted - 2012.01.02 02:17:00 -
[46] - Quote
ah yes, here we are in the first days of 2012, complaining about lightbulbs. [img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]
[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right |
baltec1
419
|
Posted - 2012.01.02 02:28:00 -
[47] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:baltec1 wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote:
Sounds like a pretty good deal to me. I think we just have a lot of people here who buy into the eco-propaganda that we are spoon-fed by corporations and government agencies.
And last I checked at Walmart, you could get 4x 'soft white' 100W bulbs for $1.59. A dimmable CFL, producing inferior quality light costs anywhere from $7-$12 dollars each (20-30x more) A non-dimmable CFL, producing the same inferior light, costs 5x as much as the 40 cent incandescent.
I can pick one up for less than -ú2 and gives out the same light. Perhaps you should shop around more. As for the eco-nut comments. The world is quickly steaming towards an energy crisis which will bring us to our knees and if people wont voluntarily change their ways they are going to have to be forced. First, converting to Pounds, a 100W incandescent would cost about 25-30 P, if Brits were still allowed to buy them. That means a non-dimmable CFL would have about 7x the cost. Where did you get confused? Was it the multiplication that stumped you? Second, someone from a nation that insulates their homes as poorly as the UK, is hardly is in a position to lecture others on energy efficiency. (Yes, I've lived there, seriously its like R-16 fiberglass and extruded polyurethane had never been invented.) Third, I REALLY like payoff in the second statement. Window into the mind of the Greens and people who think like them. "If people won't voluntarily change their ways, they are going to have to be forced." LOVE IT. Never stop posting.
As oppsed to the US plywood single pane funshacks?
Sorry but just about everyones house is not only insulated but also has double or triple glased windows and doors. We have no need for aircon and this winter I have barely used the heating. You must have stayed in a right hovel.
The statement you find so amusing is the truth. In our lifetime energy prices are going to skyrocket because while demand will go up greatly the sources of our energy will start to run out. This isnt a green argument its a simple fact of science. We are at least a decade away from fusion power if it is even possible and another decade after that before plants can be built and make an impact. Hydrogen cells for transport only need the investment to take over, the technology is almost ready but thattoo need time to get the infistructure in place which will take years. We are in for some very hard times and the world cannot just continue on as it has.
You are going to have a lot more laws and regulation coming your way no matter who is in power because they will have no option. |
Tobias Sjodin
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
78
|
Posted - 2012.01.02 03:37:00 -
[48] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Tobias Sjodin wrote:I guess Obama is really awesome if the issue of lightbulbs is this big of an issue over there.
The rest of the civilized world are using LED-lamps and low energy lightbulbs that have longer lifetimes. But I guess you're all mad about no longer using typewriters too? I wasn't aware that typewriters had been banned. When did that happen? Can you show me where along the line typewriters were banned in favor of word processors? To the best of my knowledge, anyone is free to buy, sell or manufacture a typewriter in the US. You obviously aren't understanding the concepts being discussed here.
My point was that once new, more environment-friendly, more efficient technology appears the good thing is to adapt. The fact that the 100W incandescent lightbulb is banned is a sanity-check more than anything (just like the healthcare reformation).
But feel free to keep on with your ad hominem type-arguments.
My other point was that this is a pretty lame ass thing to get worked up about. If the point is that "your freedom" is somehow being taken away, then there are far greater examples of that in the U.S. other than lightbulbs that would at least make me extremely pissed off if I lived there. For example: SOPA, ********* legislation, New York state still having a ban on MMA, the fact that censorship is extremely prevalent, and that politics are so heavily influenced by private businesses/ventures that people with money can opt out of a lot of legal ****.
But hey! Let's worry about lightbulbs! I'm sure that is empowering to some people.
Ronald Reagan: I do not like Sweden, they support communism. Minister: Sir, but Sweden are anti-communist, Sir.-á Ronald Reagan: I do not care what kind of communists they are. |
Selinate
540
|
Posted - 2012.01.02 03:51:00 -
[49] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: We are at least a decade away from fusion power if it is even possible and another decade after that before plants can be built and make an impact.
A decade? No no no. We are (however long it takes for idiots like the OP to realize that new energy sources are imperative for our survival + 20) years away from fusion power. |
VKhaun Vex
Viziam Amarr Empire
261
|
Posted - 2012.01.02 04:07:00 -
[50] - Quote
Slade Trillgon wrote:VKhaun Vex wrote:Why don't you make a new thread and link the part of the NDAA you think means that instead of hijacking a thread. There is the fact that there is no clear cut definition of what a terrorist is and those in power could define it any way they see necessary to lock down any dissidents they choose to. So you are correct that the NDAA bill is not a clear cut violation of personal liberties in of itself, but the fact that it is very vague keeps the door cracked for massive violations of individual liberties. Slade
'Fact' he says. But then can't quote anything.
1) No, you can not apply this bill to any citizen. Not even CLOSE. 2) There is no two.
Quote:10 (e) AUTHORITIES.GÇöNothing in this section shall be 11 construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to 12 the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident 13 aliens of the United States or any other persons who are 14 captured or arrested in the United States.
Quote: 15 Subtitle DGÇöDetainee Matters 16 SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED
Quote: 3 (b) COVERED PERSONS.GÇöA covered person under 4 this section is any person as follows: 5 (1) A person who planned, authorized, com6 mitted, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred 7 on September 11, 2001, or harbored those respon8 sible for those attacks. 9 (2) A person who was a part of or substantially 10 supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces 11 that are engaged in hostilities against the United 12 States or its coalition partners, including any person 13 who has committed a belligerent act or has directly 14 supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy 15 forces.
|
|
baltec1
423
|
Posted - 2012.01.02 04:16:00 -
[51] - Quote
Selinate wrote:
A decade? No no no. We are (however long it takes for idiots like the OP to realize that new energy sources are imperative for our survival + 20) years away from fusion power.
I'm a hopeless optimist. |
Lithalnas
Privateers Privateer Alliance
92
|
Posted - 2012.01.02 06:00:00 -
[52] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
As oppsed to the US plywood single pane funshacks?
Sorry but just about everyones house is not only insulated but also has double or triple glased windows and doors. We have no need for aircon and this winter I have barely used the heating. You must have stayed in a right hovel.
The statement you find so amusing is the truth. In our lifetime energy prices are going to skyrocket because while demand will go up greatly the sources of our energy will start to run out. This isnt a green argument its a simple fact of science. We are at least a decade away from fusion power if it is even possible and another decade after that before plants can be built and make an impact. Hydrogen cells for transport only need the investment to take over, the technology is almost ready but thattoo need time to get the infistructure in place which will take years. We are in for some very hard times and the world cannot just continue on as it has.
You are going to have a lot more laws and regulation coming your way no matter who is in power because they will have no option.
Do you have a science degree to back up your statements? First you state that energy sources are going to run out, according to publications we have enough coal and natural gas (possibly oil too) here in the united states to last for the next 200-1000 years and that includes population growth. We also have several thousand years worth of uranium ore that could be mined for powerplants.
Hydrogen cell do not work, they are not practical in any way shape or form and they are definitely not "only need the investment to take over". They are mainly shackled by the low power production per volume of the cell and they also require heavy pressurized tanks to store hydrogen. Also it should be asked on where hydrogen comes from, right now the most efficient in terms of cost AND energy usage is the natural gas/steam method. Energy is produced at an efficiency cost, then is used in the chemical process at an efficiency cost, and then go into distribution at an efficiency cost. Other fuels have only minor chemical and distribution costs and almost no input energy cost.
I have high hopes for fusion, but i do not think it will become reality, its just too harsh to get it to work, you quite literally need the core of a sun to make it work. NIF, or national ignition facility at Livermore labs has a big machine to make fusion happen, but word on the street is that it is really an excuse to develop lasers for the military. How to build a PC for EVE thread (by Akita T) http://eve-search.com/thread/1559734-0/page/1
|
Shivus Tao
Broski Enterprises Elite Space Guild
273
|
Posted - 2012.01.02 06:05:00 -
[53] - Quote
Grimpak wrote:ah yes, here we are in the first days of 2012, complaining about lightbulbs.
In fact, if this is the biggest complaint anyone can muster over the Obama presidency then he's one of the best presidents in the post Nixon era.
Obama = CCP 2012 = Crucible Lightbulbs = new font |
Alain Kinsella
83
|
Posted - 2012.01.02 07:30:00 -
[54] - Quote
Deciding what lights are best for *you* is the final point here. I agree with Akita though that taxing them into non-existence would have been better than an outright ban (direct or implied).
For example, I've worked overnight for over a decade now, and have to admit that 'Full Spectrum' CFLs are much better than their incandescent counterparts.
The first few winters were pretty hard on me, as I was unable to get enough 'natural' light and was prone to seasonal depression and lack of vitamin D. I've used both Halogens and CFLs over the years (and also own two Ott-Lights for common work areas). I refuse to get one of those 'light tables' - they're just huge. Far better to just replace most or every light I'll be near with Full-Spectrum CFLs, it's worked well for me.
Would I prefer 'normal' lights? Probably, but I've become accustomed to the whiter light that a CFL can generate. I'm watching LED developments but they rarely sell those in Full-Spectrum.
Edit - I just checked, I currently use 14W in pairs on a 4-bulb fan light, the other two are using 'Reveal' bulbs because this place is old wiring and did not like all four as CFLs. At the old place there was only a couple of lights, so they were 26+W (usually 150W equiv). I may have come here from Myst Online, but that does not make me any less bloodthirsty than the average Eve player.
Just more subtle.
|
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
121
|
Posted - 2012.01.02 07:40:00 -
[55] - Quote
Running out of energy sources? Really? Fusion is the only answer? Seriously, put down the Star Trek uniform and read the newspapers for a change.
Setting aside the 500 year supply of coal within the United States alone....
Petroleum: Heard of the Alberta Tar sands? Far more oil there than in the Middle East. And with current technology it represents a massive supply of oil that rivals Saudi Arabia. As technology and oil prices increase, even larger tracts of these bitumen deposits will be recoverable. Despite Obama's efforts to sabotage development of these fossil fuels (denying Keystone XL pipeline permits), petroleum sources are guaranteed for the forseeable future. Its impossible to understate the massive supply of recoverable oil trapped in sands and shale. Alberta alone could provide supply the world's demands for 100 years or more.
Natural gas: Many parts of the world are now swimming in cheap natural gas due to advances in extraction technology. 'Fracking' natural gas from shale beds has unlocked a gargantuan supply. New gas deposits are being located and coming online every day and gas prices are expected to drop. We are talking about reserves on a scale that could supply the sum total of US energy demand for at least 100 years - with CURRENT technology.
Yeah, environmentalists are unhappy with these developments, because they don't fit their drama queen bullshit storyline of "Peak Oil" and rapidly dwindling sources of energy forcing a crisis - in which RADICAL measures need to be taken to ration energy consumption.
But being butthurt about reality doesn't excuse you from pretending it doesn't exist. There IS NO LOOMING ENERGY SHORTAGE. Get it through your head.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
1013
|
Posted - 2012.01.02 11:01:00 -
[56] - Quote
To be fair, there is indeed no impending terminal energy crisis (as in "running out of very soon and nothing else is available"). What we are however facing is a slow but steady supply/demand shift which will cause a PRICE increase for energy in a lot of forms, but more importantly, a price increase for energy used as vehicle fuel.
Whatever oil there is, it's getting harder (and more expensive) to bring out and refine to an usable form, even if there is plenty of it in various places. Coal might still be somewhat cheap, but it doesn't exactly lend itself for use in internal combustion vehicles. Electric vehicles are not exactly "there" yet either and the price of materials for rechargeable batteries is not getting any lower. Hydrogen is still a pretty "lossy" energy storage technique and is not exactly as safe to use as gasoline yet (not that gasoline is completely safe either) and requires a more expensive infrastructure.
The current (high) quality of life experienced by most people in the civilized world is linked to the availability of CHEAP energy. So, in a manner of speaking, NOT getting cheap energy IS a sort of crisis, because it will lead to a decline in living standards - more expensive almost everythings (but mainly food and consumables), negligible additional income, stuff like that.
It's only a matter of what exactly does qualify as an energy crisis. For some people in the USofA, gas prices going from US levels (3-3.5$/gallon) to European levels (7-8$/gallon) alongside a similar hike in utility bills (regardless of the continued availability of service) would already constitute a pretty major crisis. Definitions are a b**ch. http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Contributor_name:Akita_T#Contributions_link_collection |
Jhagiti Tyran
Muppet Ninja's Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
206
|
Posted - 2012.01.02 11:01:00 -
[57] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Second, someone from a nation that insulates their homes as poorly as the UK, is hardly is in a position to lecture others on energy efficiency. (Yes, I've lived there, seriously its like R-16 fiberglass and extruded polyurethane had never been invented.)
The UK is better insulated than the US by far, Every single council house has cavity wall insulation, double glazed windows and thick loft insulation. Private home owners where given massive subsidies to fit the same. US houses are just plywood boards nailed to some 2 by 4s with a bit of insulation between. Every single council house here also comes with energy saving rated central heating and hot water supply, and again private home owners got subsidies to modernise their heating.
I don't know when you lived here but over the last 15 years things have changed a lot, not everyone's thinking of the environment or anything but people are defiantly thinking about their cost of living and are making consumer choices that will help them to save energy.
|
baltec1
424
|
Posted - 2012.01.02 11:02:00 -
[58] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Running out of energy sources? Really? Fusion is the only answer? Seriously, put down the Star Trek uniform and read the newspapers for a change.
Setting aside the 500 year supply of coal within the United States alone....
Petroleum: Heard of the Alberta Tar sands? Far more oil there than in the Middle East. And with current technology it represents a massive supply of oil that rivals Saudi Arabia. As technology and oil prices increase, even larger tracts of these bitumen deposits will be recoverable. Despite Obama's efforts to sabotage development of these fossil fuels (denying Keystone XL pipeline permits), petroleum sources are guaranteed for the forseeable future. Its impossible to overstate the massive supply of recoverable oil trapped in sands and shale. Alberta alone could provide supply the world's demands for 100 years or more.
Natural gas: Many parts of the world are now swimming in cheap natural gas due to advances in extraction technology. 'Fracking' natural gas from shale beds has unlocked a gargantuan supply. New gas deposits are being located and coming online every day and gas prices are expected to drop. We are talking about reserves on a scale that could supply the sum total of US energy demand for at least 100 years - with CURRENT technology.
Yeah, environmentalists are unhappy with these developments, because they don't fit their drama queen bullshit storyline of "Peak Oil" and rapidly dwindling sources of energy forcing a crisis - in which RADICAL measures need to be taken to ration energy consumption.
But being butthurt about reality doesn't excuse you from pretending it doesn't exist. There IS NO LOOMING ENERGY SHORTAGE. Get it through your head.
India, China and south Americas demand for energy will double in the next 5 years alone and all of the easy supplies are just about gone. It is going to cost more and more to get it out of the ground and need more and more energy to do it. |
baltec1
424
|
Posted - 2012.01.02 11:20:00 -
[59] - Quote
Lithalnas wrote:
First you state that energy sources are going to run out, according to publications we have enough coal and natural gas (possibly oil too) here in the united states to last for the next 200-1000 years and that includes population growth. We also have several thousand years worth of uranium ore that could be mined for powerplants.
Those publications do not factor in cost of getting those stocks out of the ground or the growth of the rest of the planets needs.
Quote: Hydrogen cell do not work, they are not practical in any way shape or form and they are definitely not "only need the investment to take over". They are mainly shackled by the low power production per volume of the cell and they also require heavy pressurized tanks to store hydrogen. Also it should be asked on where hydrogen comes from, right now the most efficient in terms of cost AND energy usage is the natural gas/steam method. Energy is produced at an efficiency cost, then is used in the chemical process at an efficiency cost, and then go into distribution at an efficiency cost. Other fuels have only minor chemical and distribution costs and almost no input energy cost.
Hydrogen cells not only work but they give simlar range to current cars and iceland is starting to build the infistructure to convert all of its cars to hydrogen and will be the first 100% fossil fuel free nation which will mean it will have the cheapest energy going.
Quote: I have high hopes for fusion, but i do not think it will become reality, its just too harsh to get it to work, you quite literally need the core of a sun to make it work. NIF, or national ignition facility at Livermore labs has a big machine to make fusion happen, but word on the street is that it is really an excuse to develop lasers for the military.
We are building another type of fusion generator in France that uses plasma. It should be the first that can produce more power than it uses and also run for around 30 min. If both technologies fail then we are in real trouble. |
Grimpak
Midnight Elites Echelon Rising
357
|
Posted - 2012.01.02 11:26:00 -
[60] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote:Running out of energy sources? Really? Fusion is the only answer? Seriously, put down the Star Trek uniform and read the newspapers for a change.
Setting aside the 500 year supply of coal within the United States alone....
Petroleum: Heard of the Alberta Tar sands? Far more oil there than in the Middle East. And with current technology it represents a massive supply of oil that rivals Saudi Arabia. As technology and oil prices increase, even larger tracts of these bitumen deposits will be recoverable. Despite Obama's efforts to sabotage development of these fossil fuels (denying Keystone XL pipeline permits), petroleum sources are guaranteed for the forseeable future. Its impossible to overstate the massive supply of recoverable oil trapped in sands and shale. Alberta alone could provide supply the world's demands for 100 years or more.
Natural gas: Many parts of the world are now swimming in cheap natural gas due to advances in extraction technology. 'Fracking' natural gas from shale beds has unlocked a gargantuan supply. New gas deposits are being located and coming online every day and gas prices are expected to drop. We are talking about reserves on a scale that could supply the sum total of US energy demand for at least 100 years - with CURRENT technology.
Yeah, environmentalists are unhappy with these developments, because they don't fit their drama queen bullshit storyline of "Peak Oil" and rapidly dwindling sources of energy forcing a crisis - in which RADICAL measures need to be taken to ration energy consumption.
But being butthurt about reality doesn't excuse you from pretending it doesn't exist. There IS NO LOOMING ENERGY SHORTAGE. Get it through your head. India, China and south Americas demand for energy will double in the next 5 years alone and all of the easy supplies are just about gone. It is going to cost more and more to get it out of the ground and need more and more energy to do it. both are right.
there is no looming energy shortage for the foreseeable future, but the cheap, easy to extract oil/gas is dwindling fast.
this will make everything more expensive, and considering that the cheap oil and gas is mostly on the OPEC, in all honesty, I can expect these countries to fall into a crisis due to the fact that their economy is mostly based on oil exportations.
TL;DR, there's still quite a huge ammout of petrol, it's just that it'll be harder, and thus more expensive to extract, and the end of the "cheap energy" era will bring economical, and thus social, upheval to the, already war-battered near and middle east, if not the entire world. [img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]
[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right |
|
Sidus Isaacs
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
69
|
Posted - 2012.01.02 13:48:00 -
[61] - Quote
Cynosural Siiri wrote: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.
Only some of them. They made a difference between the clear glass and not clear glass ones. I bought some clear glass regular bulbs yesterday.
The make the bulbs so crappy these days so I need to buy several a year (planned obsolecence ftl).
But did not the new "eco friendly" ones have mercury in them? |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks Petition Blizzard
728
|
Posted - 2012.01.02 14:22:00 -
[62] - Quote
Tobias Sjodin wrote:I guess Obama is really awesome if the issue of lightbulbs is this big of an issue over there.
The rest of the civilized world are using LED-lamps and low energy lightbulbs that have longer lifetimes. But I guess you're all mad about no longer using typewriters too? I use CFLs because I hate changing light bulbs, but the light produced by CFLs is horrible compared to a good incandescent. There's also the fact that flourescent lights have been found to cause all sorts of problems for people who have difficulties with learning disorders.
Quality LED bulbs aren't available in the local (rural) market due to cost. There just aren't enough people around here willing to invest the money now to get future savings. And I don't like the idea of ordering LEDs online without seeing what kind of light they actually produce. It would cost hundreds of dollars to convert my house and I'd be stuck with a bad set of lights for quite a while. |
Jno Aubrey
Galactic Patrol
19
|
Posted - 2012.01.02 17:07:00 -
[63] - Quote
Here are the EPA instructions for cleaning up after a broken CFL lightbulb:
http://www.epa.gov/cfl/cflcleanup-detailed.html
Thanks, but I'll take my chances with the old style bulbs. Too much government can be fatal. Name a shrub after me.-á Something prickly and hard to eradicate. |
Sarpadeon
Rebirth Industries
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.02 19:34:00 -
[64] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:Tobias Sjodin wrote:I guess Obama is really awesome if the issue of lightbulbs is this big of an issue over there.
The rest of the civilized world are using LED-lamps and low energy lightbulbs that have longer lifetimes. But I guess you're all mad about no longer using typewriters too? I use CFLs because I hate changing light bulbs, but the light produced by CFLs is horrible compared to a good incandescent. There's also the fact that flourescent lights have been found to cause all sorts of problems for people who have difficulties with learning disorders. Quality LED bulbs aren't available in the local (rural) market due to cost. There just aren't enough people around here willing to invest the money now to get future savings. And I don't like the idea of ordering LEDs online without seeing what kind of light they actually produce. It would cost hundreds of dollars to convert my house and I'd be stuck with a bad set of lights for quite a while.
so dont be stupid by ordering a whole bunch to start with, order a single one to test, and THEN decide if you want to go LED or wait for the halogen incandescent bulbs to hit local stores. |
Squidgey
Perkone Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2012.01.02 22:28:00 -
[65] - Quote
Live in the US.
Haven't seen a 100W incandescent bulb in years. Hell, my bedroom is florescent. Ant not CFL either. |
SpaceSquirrels
249
|
Posted - 2012.01.03 00:21:00 -
[66] - Quote
Lol I love the mercury scare. The actual amount of mercury is so god damn minimal. Don't people remember not to long ago people use to play with mercury in science class? Use to roll that **** around on their bare hands! (HOLY ****! CALL A HAZMAT TEAM!) Somehow that generation survived... And managed to reproduce semi salient off spring. (Course I suppose that's a matter of opinion or point of view).
Then again these are the people that believe sticking sugar water up your ass will prevent brain tumors, Vaccines == the devil (MMR outbreaks in France be damned!) and the same folks that hate seat belt laws. (Though if retards really dont want to wear em who the hell am I to say no? I just dont feel like paying for their stupidity. Me I'll continue to wear mine having been in an accident or 2)
In which case why am i arguing with these people? But honestly can't you make the whole "Slippery slope" argument for anything? You BAN X, Y, Z pretty soon you'll be banning books! or the interwebs!... Or Speech!...or babies... Technically they're not banned btw. |
Taedrin
Kushan Industrial
305
|
Posted - 2012.01.03 01:59:00 -
[67] - Quote
Encouraging the use of CFLs is nice and all, but banning incandescents is the wrong way to go about it.
I am actually pretty fond of Akita T's idea myself. |
Surfin's PlunderBunny
Ponies for the Ethical Treatment of Asteroids
781
|
Posted - 2012.01.03 02:11:00 -
[68] - Quote
Alpheias wrote:I hear American citizens die all the time.
That's just dirty North Korean propaganda |
Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
512
|
Posted - 2012.01.03 03:00:00 -
[69] - Quote
The reason to mandate higher standards is to get us on the right track.
BTW it isn't about just the greenies. Look at the US power grid. It is so old, overloaded, and in dire need of work that a single event on a high use day can knock out an entire region of electrical power.
It is not just one 100W bulb its the millions that get left on for no reason during the day that causes us to produce far more energy than needed and tax our lines to the fullest.
The goal here has to be the mass adoption of LED based lighting. That simply wont happen when clueless people think the 100W edison bulbs that are barely better than the 50s will go on forever. They will get the bulb then complain when they don't save 20-30 USD a year per bulb.
Then we can get away from this "soft white" bs. That is NOT a normal spectrum. Daylight is |
Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
323
|
Posted - 2012.01.03 03:09:00 -
[70] - Quote
OP is a total moron.
|
|
VKhaun Vex
Viziam Amarr Empire
261
|
Posted - 2012.01.03 07:15:00 -
[71] - Quote
SpaceSquirrels wrote:But honestly can't you make the whole "Slippery slope" argument for anything? You BAN X, Y, Z pretty soon you'll be banning books! or the interwebs!... Or Speech!...or babies... Technically they're not banned btw.
Yes, but that's because any time the government tries to tell you what to do it IS a slippery slope. Forcing you to move on for ecological reasons COULD lead to banning books.
EDIT-- Stupid censor. ********* below refers to 'weed'. ---
********* is a good example. The government has tried to tell the citizens that they can use some drugs like tobacco and alcohol but not others. ********* is used, grown, 'imported' and socially accepted. Like most issues many people ignore or even misrepresent facts and blindly love or hate the weed and cliques have formed but the majority are with it overall. The government buckles in all directions with high felony minimum of fifty kg or fifty plants and zero to short minimum sentences for non felony infractions. Citizens continue push. Glass industry, small growers, media acceptance.
I'm not saying it's a 'good' situation or making a statement one way or another on the issue of *********. I'm just citing an example on the edge of that slippery slope when the government tells people what they can do or not do, and what it looks like to fight back. It doesn't involve shooting anyone or tearing down government buildings, it involves LOTS of people continuing to do what they will and the government being forced to cope.
The precedent to see is that prohibition was lifted, and ********* still has people going to jail. Behold the slippery slope. The government does not give in to the people as easily or openly as in the past. |
Zedic
Universalis Imperium Tactical Narcotics Team
4
|
Posted - 2012.01.03 08:48:00 -
[72] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:lots of tears about Democrats.
There there,, you're among friends now. Show us on the doll where progress touched you.
|
Thomas Gore
Nasranite Watch
8
|
Posted - 2012.01.03 13:46:00 -
[73] - Quote
Akita T wrote: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.
That would be much too smart for an American goverment to decide.
|
Selinate
544
|
Posted - 2012.01.03 18:15:00 -
[74] - Quote
Thomas Gore wrote:Akita T wrote: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. That would be much too smart for an American goverment to decide.
No, it would be a democrat raising taxes, which would blow up in said democrat's face because republicans HATE it when democrats raise taxes.
However, it's so strange that republicans can raise taxes on the working class without even batting an eye lash and their party members don't ***** at all... |
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
2692
|
Posted - 2012.01.03 18:26:00 -
[75] - Quote
I only stocked up on said bulbs so I can resell them, I already swapped over to the new gen CFLs they got them in the 100+ wat range already.
And I am waiting on the LEDs.
Takes about 50 hrs of CFL opertating time to outpace the Incadesent also CFLS have mercury then again most fish do as well.
|
Darrow Hill
Perkone Caldari State
23
|
Posted - 2012.01.03 20:41:00 -
[76] - Quote
Lithalnas wrote:Do you have a science degree to back up your statements? First you state that energy sources are going to run out, according to publications we have enough coal and natural gas (possibly oil too) here in the united states to last for the next 200-1000 years and that includes population growth.
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/
I rather enjoy this blog on the topic written by Tom Murphy, associate physics professor UCSanDiego. |
Iosue
UV Heavy Industries STR8NGE BREW
59
|
Posted - 2012.01.03 20:45:00 -
[77] - Quote
just do what i do, buy halogen. that way you spend more on the bulb and power costs; it's the best of both worlds. hey, you want nice light? gotta pay to play... |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
133
|
Posted - 2012.01.04 10:00:00 -
[78] - Quote
I still fail to see anyone addressing my point:
If CFLs and LEDs are so great, why is a ban required?
I see post after post asserting how 'superior' the new bulbs are....but very little evidence in terms of sales numbers and market share.
Explain to me why isn't the public buying them? Incandescent bulbs were obviously entrenched - but this doesn't explain how US market share for incandescent bulbs is actually increasing in the last few years, as consumers reject CFLs.
Why is their market share actually going backwards in the United States - if the 'new bulb' is so self-evidently better?
Answer: Because its not. The new bulbs trade energy use for lower quality and increased cost - and most consumers aren't willing to make that trade off.
Its about as intelligent as banning expensive 4-ply toilet paper - forcing people to use the 'green' alternatives that come apart in your hand when you wipe (and then you use twice as much)
Essentially what the green pro-ban people are saying, is screw consumer choice - because of our fairy tale green religion, we have to ration energy use and we will, despite obvious consumer preferences to the contrary. These are the same idiots who talk about how great Electric cars are - but are confused as to why the public doesn't fall over themselves to buy them....instead of the Ford F-150.
Their Solution: Ban the Ford F-150. (or at least, ban the engines that make them a popular choice)
They are no better than those social conservatives that supposedly want to ban books and set up shop in your bedroom in the name of other religions.
|
Shivus Tao
Broski Enterprises Elite Space Guild
274
|
Posted - 2012.01.04 10:22:00 -
[79] - Quote
Your original posts reeked of neocon propaganda and rage. However your hatred of our faux green religion and apparent hatred of the far right has caused me to reevaluate your overall message.
A like for you. |
Shadowsword
The Rough Riders Ares Protectiva
109
|
Posted - 2012.01.04 10:46:00 -
[80] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote: ...stuff...
Dude, I honestly think you could use some psychological attention. You're making a lot of irrationnal generalisations (like claiming that intelligent people are against the ban, and so implying that all "leftists", you you also claim are all for it, are idiots) to support your hatred of Obama and "leftists". It is borderline fanatical reasonning, and much more harmful to your country that a ban on obsolete lighting tech ever will. |
|
baltec1
425
|
Posted - 2012.01.04 10:47:00 -
[81] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:
I still fail to see anyone addressing my point:
If CFLs and LEDs are so great, why is a ban required?
Because of stupids like you.
Quote:
Their Solution: Ban the Ford F-150. (or at least, ban the engines that make them a popular choice)
"Ford has announced that the 302-horsepower 3.7 will serve up 16 miles per gallon in the city and 23 on the highway in rear-wheel drive models, the latter figure making it the most fuel-efficient full-size pickup on the market. Stepping up the next rung to the 5.0-liter V8 will get you 360 horses and a fine 15 city, 21 highway EPA fuel economy rating, another best-in-class figure."
Jesus **** thats horrid. No wonder people over there are losing their homes, all their cash is getting burned up with these things. |
Shadowsword
The Rough Riders Ares Protectiva
109
|
Posted - 2012.01.04 11:31:00 -
[82] - Quote
For those that don't use a GPM metrics, 16 miles per gallon is equivalent to 14.7 liters per 100km. This is easily four times the fuel usage or a modern european/japanese city car, and this is the most fuel efficient pick-up? Talk about lunacy...
The state should raise the tax on fuel, that would bring some awareness and common sense to the american population. |
VKhaun Vex
Viziam Amarr Empire
264
|
Posted - 2012.01.04 12:17:00 -
[83] - Quote
16mpg is not the most fuel efficient truck, and it's most certainly not a city measurement. A good truck is more like 25mpg city (9.4L/100km).
And for the record, I'm an American and I drive a Smart ForTwo. I don't actually know my MPG on that. Websites and advertisements vary greatly. I estimated 44mpg (5.4L/100km) last time I counted, but that was brand new and mostly low speed. I work 15min from home. It's probably very difficult for the tiny car to manage on the highway. Efficiency probably goes downhill very quickly there and is what makes the tests vary so much... but I'm speculating. |
Jhagiti Tyran
Muppet Ninja's Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
207
|
Posted - 2012.01.04 12:37:00 -
[84] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:]"Ford has announced that the 302-horsepower 3.7 will serve up 16 miles per gallon in the city and 23 on the highway in rear-wheel drive models, the latter figure making it the most fuel-efficient full-size pickup on the market. Stepping up the next rung to the 5.0-liter V8 will get you 360 horses and a fine 15 city, 21 highway EPA fuel economy rating, another best-in-class figure."
Jesus **** thats horrid. No wonder people over there are losing their homes, all their cash is getting burned up with these things.
The best part of those stupid trucks is the build quality and engineering of the truck and the interior, they are like a vehicle from 1970s Europe. They are so bad even British Leyland wouldn't have made them. |
Grimpak
Midnight Elites Echelon Rising
357
|
Posted - 2012.01.04 13:07:00 -
[85] - Quote
Jhagiti Tyran wrote:baltec1 wrote:]"Ford has announced that the 302-horsepower 3.7 will serve up 16 miles per gallon in the city and 23 on the highway in rear-wheel drive models, the latter figure making it the most fuel-efficient full-size pickup on the market. Stepping up the next rung to the 5.0-liter V8 will get you 360 horses and a fine 15 city, 21 highway EPA fuel economy rating, another best-in-class figure."
Jesus **** thats horrid. No wonder people over there are losing their homes, all their cash is getting burned up with these things. The best part of those stupid trucks is the build quality and engineering of the truck and the interior, they are like a vehicle from 1970s Europe. They are so bad even British Leyland wouldn't have made them. what's more is that here in europe, a pickup (which is considered a work car) is usually powered by a diesel engine that provides better fuel efficiency and more torque per litre, which is more important than raw horsepower when you're going offroad and climbing ridges. [img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]
[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right |
Citizen20100211442
Carebear Evolution
27
|
Posted - 2012.01.04 13:54:00 -
[86] - Quote
Shadowsword wrote:For those that don't use a GPM metrics, 16 miles per gallon is equivalent to 14.7 liters per 100km. This is easily four times the fuel usage or a modern european/japanese city car, and this is the most fuel efficient pick-up? Talk about lunacy...
The state should raise the tax on fuel, that would bring some awareness and common sense to the american population.
I would like to see how you would transport 1.5 tons , or pull trailer into hill with your ***-looking japanese or french car. Also USA is bigger and less infrastructured than Europe, so more universal car is allways good. For comparision poor russians in Siberia drives Ural's and various tracked vehicles even as simple A to B transportation, maybe you want argue with them about economy and convince them to drive Smart? To be, or not to be, that's the question. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
135
|
Posted - 2012.01.04 14:02:00 -
[87] - Quote
I love it when people only look at horsepower and completely neglect to consider torque. You know, the other white meat?
American large displacement engines have it three times as much of it as an equivalent horsepower Euro engine.
Its why your run of the mill Chrysler 300 will mop the floor with an expensive BMW M3 at the drag strip without breaking a sweat.
You can't replace displacement. End of story, unless you think a pint of fuel holds more stored energy than a gallon of fuel.
Smaller displacement European engines can increase their power through higher compression, variable timing, and short stroke - but that opens a whole can of worms which you may or may not want to deal with.
-Higher compression means higher octane rating fuel to prevent predet. -Higher compression causes more chamber violence, more maintenence, and leads to performance losses over time as rings suffer. -Variable timing ads a layer of complexity - and a layer of extra maint costs. -Shorter stroke, more revs. More revs = more wear and tear on the engine = shorter lifespan and faster degredation of performance. 50K miles down the road, European power levels will drop much further than an equivalent Domestic.
My point is this: European engines are smaller, achieve respectable amounts of power using less fuel. But that comes at a cost of higher complexity, higher price, higher maintenance costs, lower torque and a narrower 'powerband'.
Now that is a lot of crap to think about when us "Meerikans" (*spit*) can simply make an engine with a wider torque curve, that allows for lower engine rpm to be sustained in high gear, yielding excellent fuel economy, while still allowing it to pull like hell on top. Oh and guess what. No variable mechanical timing, no high compression ratios, no numerous valves, no tons of camshafts, no dismal powerband, and actual block/component strength.
|
Jhagiti Tyran
Muppet Ninja's Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
207
|
Posted - 2012.01.04 14:05:00 -
[88] - Quote
Citizen20100211442 wrote:Shadowsword wrote:For those that don't use a GPM metrics, 16 miles per gallon is equivalent to 14.7 liters per 100km. This is easily four times the fuel usage or a modern european/japanese city car, and this is the most fuel efficient pick-up? Talk about lunacy...
The state should raise the tax on fuel, that would bring some awareness and common sense to the american population. I would like to see how you would transport 1.5 tons , or pull trailer into hill with your ***-looking japanese or french car. Also USA is bigger and less infrastructured than Europe, so more universal car is allways good. For comparision poor russians in Siberia drives Ural's and various tracked vehicles even as simple A to B transportation, maybe you want argue with them about economy and convince them to drive Smart?
Sure people might need something that can carry stuff around, still doesn't explain the fact that they are inefficient and crudely made. |
baltec1
425
|
Posted - 2012.01.04 15:13:00 -
[89] - Quote
Get a ford transit van. Not only will it carry more but it will also do around 40 MPG. |
Riedle
Paradox Collective Choke Point
53
|
Posted - 2012.01.04 17:57:00 -
[90] - Quote
Quote:Sure people might need something that can carry stuff around, still doesn't explain the fact that they are inefficient and crudely made.
Uhhhmm.. When was the last time you were in a new pickup? They are very nice on the inside and ride like a Cadillac. They are some of the nicest vehicles on the road from a comfort perspective not to mention the utility of them. |
|
baltec1
425
|
Posted - 2012.01.04 18:47:00 -
[91] - Quote
Riedle wrote:
Uhhhmm.. When was the last time you were in a new pickup? They are very nice on the inside and ride like a Cadillac. They are some of the nicest vehicles on the road from a comfort perspective not to mention the utility of them.
This is what top gear thinks of the F150 |
Darrow Hill
Perkone Caldari State
23
|
Posted - 2012.01.04 19:11:00 -
[92] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Riedle wrote:
Uhhhmm.. When was the last time you were in a new pickup? They are very nice on the inside and ride like a Cadillac. They are some of the nicest vehicles on the road from a comfort perspective not to mention the utility of them.
This is what top gear thinks of the F150
That's the Lightning. A ******** "performance" pickup.
F150 (or any other light duty pickup) have a very specific purpose, and it's not commuting to and from work or getting groceries.
Sure, hate on the douche bags that drop $50k on an F150 Limited because they look nice in the driveway. But if your out in the field you'll want something with a proper four wheel drive system.
|
Surfin's PlunderBunny
Ponies for the Ethical Treatment of Asteroids
794
|
Posted - 2012.01.04 19:27:00 -
[93] - Quote
I haz an F150
I use it when I have crap to move around. I use my Kia when I want to save money on fuel but still have room for stuff, and my Harley when I want to be awesome |
baltec1
425
|
Posted - 2012.01.04 19:30:00 -
[94] - Quote
Darrow Hill wrote:
That's the Lightning. A ******** "performance" pickup.
F150 (or any other light duty pickup) have a very specific purpose, and it's not commuting to and from work or getting groceries.
Sure, hate on the douche bags that drop $50k on an F150 Limited because they look nice in the driveway. But if your out in the field you'll want something with a proper four wheel drive system.
I dont see how a million of those things get sold a year...
But yea, if people need a pickup just get a Toyota Hilux. |
Jiska Ensa
Unour Heavy Industries
47
|
Posted - 2012.01.04 19:33:00 -
[95] - Quote
Troll success. I've never met anyone who has wanted to keep the old bulbs around - they simply buy them still because they are cheaper. |
Alain Kinsella
87
|
Posted - 2012.01.04 21:44:00 -
[96] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Get a ford transit van. Not only will it carry more but it will also do around 40 MPG.
Or Prius V for above-average loads. Though the normal one can do quite a lot actually (I did most of my last move using mine).
I may have come here from Myst Online, but that does not make me any less bloodthirsty than the average Eve player.
Just more subtle.
|
Jhagiti Tyran
Muppet Ninja's Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
207
|
Posted - 2012.01.04 22:07:00 -
[97] - Quote
Riedle wrote:Quote:Sure people might need something that can carry stuff around, still doesn't explain the fact that they are inefficient and crudely made. Uhhhmm.. When was the last time you were in a new pickup? They are very nice on the inside and ride like a Cadillac. They are some of the nicest vehicles on the road from a comfort perspective not to mention the utility of them.
Exactly, you choose to compare it to a Cadillac and really believe that's a badge of quality.
|
Selinate
553
|
Posted - 2012.01.04 22:31:00 -
[98] - Quote
Shadowsword wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote: ...stuff...
Dude, I honestly think you could use some psychological attention. You're making a lot of irrationnal generalisations (like claiming that intelligent people are against the ban, and so implying that all "leftists", you you also claim are all for it, are idiots) to support your hatred of Obama and "leftists". It is borderline fanatical reasonning, and much more harmful to your country that a ban on obsolete lighting tech ever will.
Welcome to the entire premise that the current republican presidential candidates are running on right now. Fanatical reasoning and ignorant ramblings. |
Selinate
553
|
Posted - 2012.01.04 22:41:00 -
[99] - Quote
Citizen20100211442 wrote:
I would like to see how you would transport 1.5 tons , or pull trailer into hill with your ***-looking japanese or french car. Also USA is bigger and less infrastructured than Europe, so more universal car is allways good. For comparision poor russians in Siberia drives Ural's and various tracked vehicles even as simple A to B transportation, maybe you want argue with them about economy and convince them to drive Smart?
Yes, this is usually what Earl and Jebediah are doing, while driving in their 1995 Chevy Silverado.
NOT.
FFS, most people buy trucks just to feel big and bad, and they don't even bother to use the god damn things for towing or carrying stuff that they couldn't use an economy class sedan for.
Try harder to justify your idiocy. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
138
|
Posted - 2012.01.04 23:13:00 -
[100] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
I dont see how a million of those things get sold a year...
But yea, if people need a pickup just get a Toyota Hilux.
Spoken like someone who got his auto knowledge from TV, rather than the garage. Even basic engine fundamentals go over your head.
But thats OK. You were just born on the wrong continent.
The availability of affordable, powerful engines (which are fun) fosters a US middle-class car culture that has long ago been killed off Europe. Seriously, a rebuilt long block Chevy 350 can be had for around $1000. Thats a lot of bang for your buck.
Americans make the fastest, most powerful engines in the world.
That is what happens when you take an American big-block V-8, a custom racing cam, and twin Garrett turbos - to a heavy frame likely built 40 years ago. And they guy likely did it in his garage in his spare time.
But torque is useful for other purposes, other than neck-snapping acceleration.
Selinate wrote:Citizen20100211442 wrote:
I would like to see how you would transport 1.5 tons , or pull trailer into hill with your ***-looking japanese or french car. Also USA is bigger and less infrastructured than Europe, so more universal car is allways good. For comparision poor russians in Siberia drives Ural's and various tracked vehicles even as simple A to B transportation, maybe you want argue with them about economy and convince them to drive Smart?
Yes, this is usually what Earl and Jebediah are doing, while driving in their 1995 Chevy Silverado. NOT. FFS, most people buy trucks just to feel big and bad, and they don't even bother to use the god damn things for towing or carrying stuff that they couldn't use an economy class sedan for. Try harder to justify your idiocy.
We, in the USA have these things called '5th Wheels'. Large Trailers that are so large they extend over the back of a pickup. Toy Haulers, as well - trailers large enough to live in AND haul 2 Snowmachines or ATVs. Don't forget pulling boats. We live in pretty mountainous terrain here.....but American trucks have the torque you need to pull heavy loads up a mountain without missing a beat. The only place I've seen lots of American trucks? Norway. Because **** weak 6 cyl Ford Transits don't cut it.
And suppose you don't have a lot of heavy toys to haul around...
Big American engines make lots of torque with lower RPMs, which translates into longer engine life and improved performance over the life of the engine. Smaller European engines use higher RPMs to try to compensate for small displacement, but that results in an engine that simply wears out far more quickly. |
|
baltec1
425
|
Posted - 2012.01.04 23:40:00 -
[101] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:baltec1 wrote:
I dont see how a million of those things get sold a year...
But yea, if people need a pickup just get a Toyota Hilux.
Spoken like someone who got his auto knowledge from TV, rather than the garage. Even basic engine fundamentals go over your head. But thats OK. You were just born on the wrong continent. The availability of affordable, powerful engines (which are fun) fosters a US middle-class car culture that has long ago been killed off Europe. Seriously, a rebuilt long block Chevy 350 can be had for around $1000. Thats a lot of bang for your buck. Americans make the fastest, most powerful engines in the world.That is what happens when you take an American big-block V-8, a custom racing cam, and twin Garrett turbos - to a heavy frame likely built 40 years ago. And they guy likely did it in his garage in his spare time. But torque is useful for other purposes, other than neck-snapping acceleration.
Yea I'll stick with getting 100+ mpg on the motoway and good build quality while you wrap your big-block V8 money burner around the nearest tree as you try to nagotiate the first bend. |
Citizen20100211442
Carebear Evolution
27
|
Posted - 2012.01.04 23:46:00 -
[102] - Quote
Selinate wrote:Citizen20100211442 wrote:
I would like to see how you would transport 1.5 tons , or pull trailer into hill with your ***-looking japanese or french car. Also USA is bigger and less infrastructured than Europe, so more universal car is allways good. For comparision poor russians in Siberia drives Ural's and various tracked vehicles even as simple A to B transportation, maybe you want argue with them about economy and convince them to drive Smart?
Yes, this is usually what Earl and Jebediah are doing, while driving in their 1995 Chevy Silverado. NOT. FFS, most people buy trucks just to feel big and bad, and they don't even bother to use the god damn things for towing or carrying stuff that they couldn't use an economy class sedan for. Try harder to justify your idiocy.
Called me idiot in 2 threads, and fortified your "facts" with some kind of names and surnames (I suppose they are some kind of US TV-series stars). Why don't you lift your fat ass from couch and take a deep breath outside? To be, or not to be, that's the question. |
Selinate
553
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 00:01:00 -
[103] - Quote
Citizen20100211442 wrote:Selinate wrote:Citizen20100211442 wrote:
I would like to see how you would transport 1.5 tons , or pull trailer into hill with your ***-looking japanese or french car. Also USA is bigger and less infrastructured than Europe, so more universal car is allways good. For comparision poor russians in Siberia drives Ural's and various tracked vehicles even as simple A to B transportation, maybe you want argue with them about economy and convince them to drive Smart?
Yes, this is usually what Earl and Jebediah are doing, while driving in their 1995 Chevy Silverado. NOT. FFS, most people buy trucks just to feel big and bad, and they don't even bother to use the god damn things for towing or carrying stuff that they couldn't use an economy class sedan for. Try harder to justify your idiocy. Called me idiot in 2 threads, and fortified your "facts" with some kind of names and surnames (I suppose they are some kind of US TV-series stars). Why don't you lift your fat ass from couch and take a deep breath outside?
There the names of the idiots who rant with the same kind of misinformed stupidity you're blowing off in both threads. Try looking them up.
And you want to know where I get my knowledge? From living in the U.S. for my entire life and seeing wasteful people drive around big cars, complain about how those darned liberal europeans live their lives and so forth, when their own country is in the **** hole itself, and we're in this **** hole because of idiots like them. The way they live their lives and the ******* politicans they vote for ruin EVERYBODY'S life.
So yes, you're an idiot. |
Surfin's PlunderBunny
Ponies for the Ethical Treatment of Asteroids
796
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 00:05:00 -
[104] - Quote
I used my F150 to move, did it in 1 trip as my truck has been Beverly Hillbillied with a flatbed on top over the big dohickey that goes over the back that holds stuff.
Got my entire apartment into the truck |
baltec1
426
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 00:27:00 -
[105] - Quote
Surfin's PlunderBunny wrote:I used my F150 to move, did it in 1 trip as my truck has been Beverly Hillbillied with a flatbed on top over the big dohickey that goes over the back that holds stuff. Got my entire apartment into the truck
You totaly drive around in this
Incidently I went digging arounf and found that the F150 gets the same MPG as this |
Surfin's PlunderBunny
Ponies for the Ethical Treatment of Asteroids
796
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 01:03:00 -
[106] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Surfin's PlunderBunny wrote:I used my F150 to move, did it in 1 trip as my truck has been Beverly Hillbillied with a flatbed on top over the big dohickey that goes over the back that holds stuff. Got my entire apartment into the truck You totaly drive around in thisIncidently I went digging arounf and found that the F150 gets the same MPG as this
Still gets better gas mileage than the manliest truck around, incidentally I want one |
VKhaun Vex
Viziam Amarr Empire
265
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 01:43:00 -
[107] - Quote
Confirming America is full of wasteful vehicles. Everywhere I go I see SUV's and vans with only the driver, and trucks of all kinds with nothing loaded. Trying to justify it is idiotic. |
Surfin's PlunderBunny
Ponies for the Ethical Treatment of Asteroids
796
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 01:46:00 -
[108] - Quote
VKhaun Vex wrote:Confirming America is full of wasteful vehicles. Everywhere I go I see SUV's and vans with only the driver, and trucks of all kinds with nothing loaded. Trying to justify it is idiotic.
No justify... we do it because we can |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
138
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 02:24:00 -
[109] - Quote
I'm more of a Chevy guy myself, I just used the F-150 as an example. My European vehicle is a late 70's Chevy Van with a brand new 350, 4bbl carb and a dual exhaust. Gets about 13 MPH on the highway, and responds nicely when you romp on the gas when the light changes. Lots of fun taking it down to Germany, picking up a few hundred Liters of Beer, and getting it over 100 MPH on the autobahn without having to look out for speed traps.
My Chevy in the US has an early 80's 454. 30 years on, its still doing everything I ask of it. Leaks a little oil nowadays, but compression and rings are just fine. Gets about 7-8 MPG. Torque literally rocks the vehicle side to side, and sounds like a beast when those carb secondaries snap open. One of lifes guilty pleasures.
But whatever - Its just find it amusing how people pop off in here...
"Huh huh, Americans are fat and lazy and their cars are big and slow" without even knowing the basics about engine performance.
Baltec apparently is French, and cannot be faulted for knowing nothing about the subject. If the best my county had to offer was Peugeot, I'd probably remain ignorant of the topic as well.
Selinate seems to be your typical self-loathing American liberal who resents the choices his peers make. Calling them idiots makes him feel special, elite, better than them. He has a problem with freedom - because it allows others to make choices that he disapproves of. Really, its none of his business, but it makes him angry, nonetheless.
There are plenty of logical, rational, performance related reasons to want to own a large displacement American engine. I've laid a few of them out here in simple enough terms, but no, I get more of the same idiotic replies:
"You don't 'need' an engine like that." - Who the hell are you to decide what I (or any body else) 'need'? Some people need them for work, others for play. Its their money. Just because people also use them for running errands in town doesn't mean you get to make such a judgement. People who think like that tend to be dangerous authoritarians who get off on controlling people.
"People only buy them are guys that want to feel 'big and bad'." - My guess, you had hippie parents that dressed you in pink and gave you dolls to play with instead of cars. Where I come from, guys just like cars. Knowing how to turn a wrench is just something guys are expected to be able to do. Guys also tend to like outdoor activities that require towing capacity - just not as many women interested in 4x4ing, hauling a dead caribou, or racing around Broad Pass on a snowmachine.
And if I am going to work on my own vehicles I don't want something with loads of computers, tight spaces and expensive parts. I want a 70's era Chevy Blazer where I can SIT INSIDE the engine compartment, with room to spare. |
Mistress Motion
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
16
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 05:32:00 -
[110] - Quote
I'm not sure why the bulbs are considered to always waste big part of the energy it uses, and no-one ever talks what happens to that energy.
This might not be true for big part of US, but much more in scandinavia where they have been banning those for some time already. Now we know that ~90% of the energy the bulb uses is transferred to heat. Living in areas where houses have to be heated most of the year, that energy is certainly not wasted, since it directly decreases the amount of heating you would have to do by other means. While probably not as efficient, it's still not wasted.
Besides, I hate the harsh flickering light from fluorescents. And most people living in cold conditions know what happens when you turn on a fluorescent lamp in a -25c weather outside your house. Meh, wait for 5 minutes before it starts to actually emit decent light. And not to mention the overpriced "energy saving bulbs", which have loads of toxic electronics inside, and break half-way in their promised life-span. |
|
Intar Medris
Globaltech Industries Sanctuary Pact
26
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 06:33:00 -
[111] - Quote
[quote=Akita T]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...[/quote
We voice our opinion, but it goes unheard both liberals and conservatives hate smokers.
|
Firestorm Delta
Wiki Industrialists Wiki Conglomerates
6
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 08:21:00 -
[112] - Quote
You know this has probably been said several times but the issue isn't so much what the government is doing, it's that us Americans keep putting these same idiots in office. The very same people who pass bills like SOPA and bickering with each other, instead of trying to straighten out the budget, or deal with any of the other far more important issues that have been building up since we started having career politicians. Then again this is America, we hop on band wagons then complain when things don't work out well...
Anyway should probably say something on topic here. What bothers me about the light bulb shenanigans is not the fact that they are doing it, its the idea that they are controlling what we can and can not buy when this is a capitalist market. In what way is the government stepping in so directly on the issues of light bulbs considered capitalist? I don't remember them being so forceful with automotives for the longest time, and now suddenly with the whole desire to save energy they bring the hammer down on light bulbs. The effort it took to put this through in the first place, and the effort now to fight it could have been used much better in my opinion. |
Surfin's PlunderBunny
Ponies for the Ethical Treatment of Asteroids
797
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 08:35:00 -
[113] - Quote
Firestorm Delta wrote:You know this has probably been said several times but the issue isn't so much what the government is doing, it's that us Americans keep putting these same idiots in office. The very same people who pass bills like SOPA and bickering with each other, instead of trying to straighten out the budget, or deal with any of the other far more important issues that have been building up since we started having career politicians. Then again this is America, we hop on band wagons then complain when things don't work out well...
Anyway should probably say something on topic here. What bothers me about the light bulb shenanigans is not the fact that they are doing it, its the idea that they are controlling what we can and can not buy when this is a capitalist market. In what way is the government stepping in so directly on the issues of light bulbs considered capitalist? I don't remember them being so forceful with automotives for the longest time, and now suddenly with the whole desire to save energy they bring the hammer down on light bulbs. The effort it took to put this through in the first place, and the effort now to fight it could have been used much better in my opinion.
Yes, this is just as bad as when they made it illegal to buy black people isn't it? |
baltec1
427
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 09:38:00 -
[114] - Quote
Firestorm Delta wrote:You know this has probably been said several times but the issue isn't so much what the government is doing, it's that us Americans keep putting these same idiots in office. The very same people who pass bills like SOPA and bickering with each other, instead of trying to straighten out the budget, or deal with any of the other far more important issues that have been building up since we started having career politicians. Then again this is America, we hop on band wagons then complain when things don't work out well..
A very simple way to save a load of money in the budget would be to scrap subsidized fuel for private use.
Herr Wilkus wrote:
Baltec apparently is French, and cannot be faulted for knowing nothing about the subject. If the best my county had to offer was Peugeot, I'd probably remain ignorant of the topic as well.
While I do drive a french car I am infact British and as everyone knows Britian has the best racing teams and technology on the planet. |
Riedle
Paradox Collective Choke Point
53
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 16:01:00 -
[115] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Riedle wrote:
Uhhhmm.. When was the last time you were in a new pickup? They are very nice on the inside and ride like a Cadillac. They are some of the nicest vehicles on the road from a comfort perspective not to mention the utility of them.
This is what top gear thinks of the F150
Well they had to tear it all apart to put the stearing column in the RHS for one. But if you are content to let others do your thinking for you then fine. |
Riedle
Paradox Collective Choke Point
53
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 16:02:00 -
[116] - Quote
Jhagiti Tyran wrote:Riedle wrote:Quote:Sure people might need something that can carry stuff around, still doesn't explain the fact that they are inefficient and crudely made. Uhhhmm.. When was the last time you were in a new pickup? They are very nice on the inside and ride like a Cadillac. They are some of the nicest vehicles on the road from a comfort perspective not to mention the utility of them. Exactly, you choose to compare it to a Cadillac and really believe that's a badge of quality.
lol ok sure. whatever floats your boat I don't need your approval to enjoy my kick ass truck! yee haw right? |
Riedle
Paradox Collective Choke Point
53
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 16:08:00 -
[117] - Quote
Quote:Baltec apparently is French, and cannot be faulted for knowing nothing about the subject. If the best my county had to offer was Peugeot, I'd probably remain ignorant of the topic as well.
Selinate seems to be your typical self-loathing American liberal who resents the choices his peers make. Calling them idiots makes him feel special, elite, better than them. He has a problem with freedom - because it allows others to make choices that he disapproves of. Really, its none of his business, but it makes him angry, nonetheless.
LOL Nailed it!
Rim shot!
|
Jhagiti Tyran
Muppet Ninja's Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
207
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 16:08:00 -
[118] - Quote
Riedle wrote:baltec1 wrote:Riedle wrote:
Uhhhmm.. When was the last time you were in a new pickup? They are very nice on the inside and ride like a Cadillac. They are some of the nicest vehicles on the road from a comfort perspective not to mention the utility of them.
This is what top gear thinks of the F150 Well they had to tear it all apart to put the stearing column in the RHS for one. But if you are content to let others do your thinking for you then fine.
I have seen a few in person, every year some American manufacturer gets hopeful and drags a few of the silly things to various auto shows. Once I took one for a test drive for lolz too.
It was at a Vauxhall dealer along with some other Chevrolets, I honestly think those HGVs Baltec was linking would feel nicer to drive. |
baltec1
427
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 17:42:00 -
[119] - Quote
Riedle wrote:baltec1 wrote:Riedle wrote:
Uhhhmm.. When was the last time you were in a new pickup? They are very nice on the inside and ride like a Cadillac. They are some of the nicest vehicles on the road from a comfort perspective not to mention the utility of them.
This is what top gear thinks of the F150 Well they had to tear it all apart to put the stearing column in the RHS for one. But if you are content to let others do your thinking for you then fine.
When you send a car to a show that has 300 million viewers you make an effort |
Indahmawar Fazmarai
The I and F Taxation Trust
171
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 17:43:00 -
[120] - Quote
Having watched many debates about US vs European vehicles, my conclussion is that American do something else than transportation with their vehicles. |
|
Riedle
Paradox Collective Choke Point
54
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 19:32:00 -
[121] - Quote
The needs for vehicles in North America and that of Europe is different hence you get different vehicles. Pretty simple really.
I like all types of vehicles and I donGÇÖt actually own a truck although I would like to someday soon as I want to get a camper.
It makes equal sense to have a truck in the centre of London than it does to take a smart car off roading. Different environment and different culture.
Why canGÇÖt we all get along?
=)
|
Indahmawar Fazmarai
The I and F Taxation Trust
171
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 20:39:00 -
[122] - Quote
Riedle wrote:The needs for vehicles in North America and that of Europe is different hence you get different vehicles. Pretty simple really.
I like all types of vehicles and I donGÇÖt actually own a truck although I would like to someday soon as I want to get a camper.
It makes equal sense to have a truck in the centre of London than it does to take a smart car off roading. Different environment and different culture.
Why canGÇÖt we all get along?
=)
The perceived needs, you may mean. The world is filled with places tougher for vehicles than the USA are, and guess what? American vehicles are not "needed" there.
So, as I said, American don't just use vehicles for transportation. There's something psychological to them. |
Darrow Hill
Perkone Caldari State
23
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 20:47:00 -
[123] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:So, as I said, American don't just use vehicles for transportation. There's something psychological to them.
Reasonable car taxes and the lack of punitive import VAT make things very different here.
Cars are status symbols to pretty much all but the most frugal Americans. The difference was immediately noticable when I moved to the UK back in '04.
The expectation of the sales team for a company car was either a 3 series or A4 with a 2 litre diesel. Mainly for the image. However, catch them driving their wives cars and you'll see them willing to pay for not much more than a 10 year old Ford Focus.
In the US, if your car is a couple model years out of date people will assume your either a student or just poor.
As a society, we are just very materialistic. :( |
helpmemyspacebarisbroken
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 23:50:00 -
[124] - Quote
You will still be able to purchase 'industrial'/commercial grade incandescent bulbs in any wattage. The up side of them being a thicker, more robust filament and thicker glass. The down size is increased cost and you probably wont be able to find them at wal-mart.
Flicker, Spectrum, Lumens, warm up time, hazardous materials, heat produced, all kinds of pro's and con's to any type of bulb. I personally find it disgusting that my government would impose something like this.
But thats okay, I solved our problem! |
Riedle
Paradox Collective Choke Point
54
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 00:37:00 -
[125] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Riedle wrote:The needs for vehicles in North America and that of Europe is different hence you get different vehicles. Pretty simple really.
I like all types of vehicles and I donGÇÖt actually own a truck although I would like to someday soon as I want to get a camper.
It makes equal sense to have a truck in the centre of London than it does to take a smart car off roading. Different environment and different culture.
Why canGÇÖt we all get along?
=)
The perceived needs, you may mean. The world is filled with places tougher for vehicles than the USA are, and guess what? American vehicles are not "needed" there. So, as I said, American don't just use vehicles for transportation. There's something psychological to them.
Speaking of psychological - just what level of self-involved narcisism is required to be able to declare what millions of people's needs are with a wave of your hand? I'm actually curious. And to keep your batting average at .000 I am from Canada. Perhaps you will now regale me with what you declare my needs to be as well? |
Surfin's PlunderBunny
Ponies for the Ethical Treatment of Asteroids
802
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 01:05:00 -
[126] - Quote
Riedle wrote:Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Riedle wrote:The needs for vehicles in North America and that of Europe is different hence you get different vehicles. Pretty simple really.
I like all types of vehicles and I donGÇÖt actually own a truck although I would like to someday soon as I want to get a camper.
It makes equal sense to have a truck in the centre of London than it does to take a smart car off roading. Different environment and different culture.
Why canGÇÖt we all get along?
=)
The perceived needs, you may mean. The world is filled with places tougher for vehicles than the USA are, and guess what? American vehicles are not "needed" there. So, as I said, American don't just use vehicles for transportation. There's something psychological to them. Speaking of psychological - just what level of self-involved narcisism is required to be able to declare what millions of people's needs are with a wave of your hand? I'm actually curious. And to keep your batting average at .000 I am from Canada. Perhaps you will now regale me with what you declare my needs to be as well?
A big coat for winter! |
|
CCP Navigator
C C P C C P Alliance
970
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 08:10:00 -
[127] - Quote
Politics and religion may not be discussed on the forums.
Locked. CCP Navigator -Community Manager |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page] |