Perhaps you did not read my initial post where I said, "People have been trying to improve the lightbulb..." I never said that people were trying to improve the incandescent light bulb. You then responded that it was not possible to improve the incandescent bulb and now you are accusing me of misreading what you said.
Yes, that's right. Those "uneducated" people don't know what's best for them, so the government has to tell them. Maybe, those "uneducated" people have different priorities about how to spend their money. Maybe it is more important to them that they not introduce mercury into the environment than that they reduce their "carbon footprint" (you know the way that Al Gore has more important priorities than reducing his carbon footprint), Are you sure that CFLs are really cheaper in the end? Once you factor in the special trip to the recycling center with them once they stop working? What other costs are associated with CFLs that are hidden?
The environment appears to be "free" for most people and businesses.
Which would explain why people began cleaning up rivers and lakes even before the Clean Water Act was passed.
Framing: I know racist ass-hats when I see them, and where I live, the Tea Party is nothing but racist ass-hats who found a new way to appear "respectable" to idiots like you who are too stupid to notice it's the same old crowd, just without the white hoods.
Since when have Democrats been considered members of the Tea Party? Democrats have always believed that blacks need someone to take care of them. They used to think that should be the slave owners, now they believe it should be the government. But they still believe that blacks cannot take care of themselves.
You know what? Those bulbs were available before the government mandated higher efficiency. Of course, very few people were willing to buy them because of how much more they cost than traditional incandescent lightbulbs.
Oh, that explains why they needed to pass laws banning 386 based computers to get people to adopt 486 computers...no wait, that didn't happen. When they came out with improved computers, people bought them instead of the unimproved models. The same thing would happen with lightbulbs.
Phew, I'm glad this is a democracy. Otherwise your beliefs on the subject might matter!
Translation: I'm glad this is a democracy, otherwise, I would have to make decisions for myself instead of some bureaucrat telling me how to live my life.
I am confused. You say that it is not possible to improve on the incandescent bulb, than you say that one day it will be regarded as useful as a candle. The second part seems to imply that you believe someone will design a lightbulb that is an improvement on the incandescent, even though you just said that was not possible.
You appear to be saying that not only have they failed to improve on the incandescent bulb, that it is not possible to improve on them. Is this correct?
If they are an improvement why was it necessary to pass a law to phase out traditional incandescent bulbs to get people to adopt them?
The fact of the matter is that they may be an improvement, but the manufacturers obviously did not believe that the consumers would think so, or they would not have spent all that money lobbying to have traditional incandescents banned. Now we will never know if they are an improvement or not because the market was not given a chance to determine. The fact is that it is possible that they are an improvement for your usage and still not an improvement over all.
People have been trying to improve the lightbulb ever since it was invented. They have, so far, been unsuccessful, which is why they had to lobby the government to get rid of traditional incandescent lightbulbs, so that they could sell the "improved" bulbs they had developed.
If they had actually improved on the traditional incandescent, they would not need to have a law passed in order to displace it, people would have switched. Do people need to have laws passed against old computers to get people to buy new ones?
Nothing, but currently if you buy votes there is some difficulty in confirming that the person you are paying voted the way you paid them to. Of course the way around that is to have them vote absentee, which probably has a lot to do with why certain organizations and politicians are constantly pushing to make it easier to vote absentee (I will leave it up to you to read the news and figure out which party has an interest in enabling voter fraud and a disinterest in any law which might make it more difficult).
Of course what nobody bothers to remember is that the original video release was about the racism of her audience (who cheered when she said that her first reaction was to not help the white farmer).
How do you prevent people from stealing, or buying, people's keys and using them to vote as those people?
The other problem is that not only must the system be private and trustworthy, it must be possible for the average voter to understand the way in which both of these things happen. The average voter needs to know that not only is it possible for the system to be private and trustworthy, but that those whose job it is to set it up that way have done so rather than set it up so as to further their own self interests.
Put a 512bit key, one for each person in America and hand them out with a USB reader, one per household.
So, all I have to do to vote as you is get my hands on your key? Maybe by forcing you to turn it over to me as a condition of employment (unstated of course). Or even simpler I buy them off of people who can't be bothered to vote.
It made a tiny bit of sense in the old days for cities before electric power. But it made no sense for rural areas.
Now that we have this fancy thing called electricity, the entire concept is just asinine.
Except of course, they did not do Daylight Savings Time until after the development of electric lights.
make manufacturers prove substances are safe for consumption before including them as ingredients.
How, exactly, do you propose to prove that a substance is safe for consumption? Salt is not safe for consumption, yet, if you do not consume any you will die.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps you did not read my initial post where I said, "People have been trying to improve the lightbulb..." I never said that people were trying to improve the incandescent light bulb. You then responded that it was not possible to improve the incandescent bulb and now you are accusing me of misreading what you said.
The environment appears to be "free" for most people and businesses.
Which would explain why people began cleaning up rivers and lakes even before the Clean Water Act was passed.
Really, well if those bulbs are such an improvement, why did they have to ban traditional incandescent bulbs to get people to buy them?
Framing: I know racist ass-hats when I see them, and where I live, the Tea Party is nothing but racist ass-hats who found a new way to appear "respectable" to idiots like you who are too stupid to notice it's the same old crowd, just without the white hoods.
Since when have Democrats been considered members of the Tea Party? Democrats have always believed that blacks need someone to take care of them. They used to think that should be the slave owners, now they believe it should be the government. But they still believe that blacks cannot take care of themselves.
You know what? Those bulbs were available before the government mandated higher efficiency. Of course, very few people were willing to buy them because of how much more they cost than traditional incandescent lightbulbs.
Oh, that explains why they needed to pass laws banning 386 based computers to get people to adopt 486 computers...no wait, that didn't happen. When they came out with improved computers, people bought them instead of the unimproved models. The same thing would happen with lightbulbs.
Phew, I'm glad this is a democracy. Otherwise your beliefs on the subject might matter!
Translation: I'm glad this is a democracy, otherwise, I would have to make decisions for myself instead of some bureaucrat telling me how to live my life.
I am confused. You say that it is not possible to improve on the incandescent bulb, than you say that one day it will be regarded as useful as a candle. The second part seems to imply that you believe someone will design a lightbulb that is an improvement on the incandescent, even though you just said that was not possible.
Then why did they need to pass a law doing away with traditional incandescents to get people to buy them (except for special applications)?
You appear to be saying that not only have they failed to improve on the incandescent bulb, that it is not possible to improve on them. Is this correct?
How do you confirm that they voted the way you want?
Are you against having any gas milage requirements for cars, too?
Or energy efficiency requirements for homes, businesses, etc?
Yes...I am in favor of freedom. I do not believe that some government bureaucrat can better determine how I should spend my money than I can.
If they are an improvement why was it necessary to pass a law to phase out traditional incandescent bulbs to get people to adopt them?
The fact of the matter is that they may be an improvement, but the manufacturers obviously did not believe that the consumers would think so, or they would not have spent all that money lobbying to have traditional incandescents banned. Now we will never know if they are an improvement or not because the market was not given a chance to determine. The fact is that it is possible that they are an improvement for your usage and still not an improvement over all.
People have been trying to improve the lightbulb ever since it was invented. They have, so far, been unsuccessful, which is why they had to lobby the government to get rid of traditional incandescent lightbulbs, so that they could sell the "improved" bulbs they had developed.
If they had actually improved on the traditional incandescent, they would not need to have a law passed in order to displace it, people would have switched. Do people need to have laws passed against old computers to get people to buy new ones?
Nothing, but currently if you buy votes there is some difficulty in confirming that the person you are paying voted the way you paid them to. Of course the way around that is to have them vote absentee, which probably has a lot to do with why certain organizations and politicians are constantly pushing to make it easier to vote absentee (I will leave it up to you to read the news and figure out which party has an interest in enabling voter fraud and a disinterest in any law which might make it more difficult).
Of course what nobody bothers to remember is that the original video release was about the racism of her audience (who cheered when she said that her first reaction was to not help the white farmer).
How do you prevent people from stealing, or buying, people's keys and using them to vote as those people?
The other problem is that not only must the system be private and trustworthy, it must be possible for the average voter to understand the way in which both of these things happen. The average voter needs to know that not only is it possible for the system to be private and trustworthy, but that those whose job it is to set it up that way have done so rather than set it up so as to further their own self interests.
Put a 512bit key, one for each person in America and hand them out with a USB reader, one per household.
So, all I have to do to vote as you is get my hands on your key? Maybe by forcing you to turn it over to me as a condition of employment (unstated of course). Or even simpler I buy them off of people who can't be bothered to vote.
Seriously though, we live in a time where we have electricity and light bulbs.
So did the people who actually introduced DST.
It made a tiny bit of sense in the old days for cities before electric power. But it made no sense for rural areas. Now that we have this fancy thing called electricity, the entire concept is just asinine.
Except of course, they did not do Daylight Savings Time until after the development of electric lights.
You obviously have no idea why Europe is less violent today than it was in the Middle Ages. It has nothing to do with "addressing root problems".
Yes, but look at where those people are coming from.
make manufacturers prove substances are safe for consumption before including them as ingredients.
How, exactly, do you propose to prove that a substance is safe for consumption? Salt is not safe for consumption, yet, if you do not consume any you will die.
I am sorry, but working at "addressing root problems" of violence has never worked as a method of reducing violence.
They may not compose a large percentage of converts to radical islam, but they do compose a large percentage of islamic terrorists.