So do pardon. But just about everything the President does outweighs any sort of criminal punishment of one man. As such the President is empowered with the ability to prevent the criminal punishment of anyone for virtually any reason, including himself, explicitly by the Constitution of the United States of America.
Don't like it amend the Constitution or become President and enjoy it. It might appeal to our sense of justice but it really makes very little sense to avoid the President pardoning himself when he can simply order someone else to do whatever it is and then pardon them.
No he should not. He has immunity, so does a congressman, a diplomat from another nation, or even a prosecutor for that matter.
The President can simply pardon himself for such a thing but he won't escape impeachment. He has been trusted by voters with the power to pardon anyone else for any offense so it would be nonsensical to say he doesn't have the right to execute that same judgement when deciding whether or not to shoot someone or otherwise engage in what otherwise would be a criminal act. We have a concept of breaking the law to prevent a greater miscarriage of justice. Punishing a man for his personal actions is just so relatively insignificant compared to the importance of the Office of the President that we make this tradeoff. The President makes decisions that can destroy or save thousands or even millions of lives in the course of his duties or even save or destroy the entire nation. The President can simply order the military to shoot someone what sense would it make to have a policy that is about making sure he can't pardon himself if he pulls the trigger himself instead of having someone else do it?
You use the most extreme example and there is always the difficult to assign a value to a human life. But the fact is that we do exactly that in court judgement, war, capital punishment, etc every day. Those values often and regularly come in dramatically lower than the impact of even minor decisions made by the President.
So there you go, if you want to shoot someone and not go to jail all you have to do to pull it off is get 300 million people to democratically elect you to be the most powerful person in the world, the President of the United States. Or... there are actually dramatically lower ranking positions that reach this bar, seriously there are billions of people and millions die every day.
The last thing you want is someone being able assail the office with things, including accusations, about things like this and interfere with the ability of the President to execute his or her duties. The President, already knowing he isn't guilty, fires his employee who is conducting an investigation that hampers his ability to execute his oath of office and finds a replacement he hopes will focus on helping him do so rather than hamper him. This is the sort of thing is actually a President doing his job. Now if he'd been guilty he might be trying to escape justice but trying to kill an investigation he knows is a waste of time and hurts him politically? That is just intelligently managing resources.
"No, sorry, common carrier is for the service provider."
Hence why I didn't say Facebook IS a common carrier. I spoke to what we should do, not what we currently do.
At this point it should be considered more of a common carrier. The content on their platform is generated by users and not FB, Facebook does not generate content they are a service provider who transmits it. They serve the same function as an ISP but with an additional layer of abstraction. Much like a VPN rides atop your internet connection.
I don't like Warren for Pres but alongside Sanders as his VP candidate she'd be excellent.
For Pres she has too much focus on women's issues and has taken irrational positions falling in with female groupthink. But as long as the subject of women doesn't come up she is actually pretty solid. Since Sanders lost some of her positions have led me to worry she has been folded into the party.
She is one of the few congress critters that has actually worked to help real people and protect consumers from banks. That goes perfectly alongside Sanders, the only longstanding Senator with a track record of integrity. Sanders has supported the right things for the right reasons. Even where you disagree with the lean of his politics you have to admit, if you were going to give try to make those solutions work his approach is closer to what it looks like. These half-assed water down compromises have neither the efficiency and cost savings of central control nor allow a free market with healthy competition resulting in bloated and monopolized anti-consumer markets.
"By this standard Comcast should be paying Netflix because Comcast was receiving way more data from Netflix than was transmitted in the other direction."
You have this backwards.The penalties are because carrying traffic costs money, if Comcast is receiving way more data from Netflix, Comcast has to pay for more equipment to transit that hence Netflix gets the penalty.
In this case they want the content to provider to pay AND the consumer to pay. It's like rinse and repeat. But it won't stop there. The biggest worries about net neutrality are subtle things you can't easily prove are even happening if you even know they are happening at all.
"Well when the telecom providers did the... uhhh.... the bad things.... with.."
There has been a ton of rate limiting and throttling, data collection, double charging for bandwidth. But nowhere near what it will be if they actually win the fight. Right now they are just dipping their toes in the water.
The most scary thing about not having net neutrality is that the worst things they can do will be transparent or otherwise appear normal. Especially if they are at all clever.
Your Playstation Vue, Hulu, Netflix, etc starts pausing and hiccuping randomly because they apply random throttles that target random regions and not everywhere all at once. Start it very light and slowly increase over the course of six months. Everything else is fine, the internet seems fast, must be that Vue is letting their service degrade. You switch a couple more times, they all have periodic issues. Oh these streaming services must all be second rate. I guess I'll switch back to cable I rarely ever had problems there! Or since the carriers have their own competing streaming services you'll switch to that and get the impression that "straight from the source is the way to go, they have the best networks and not these second rate third parties."
That is a perfect example of what commercial fuckery without Net Neutrality looks like. But they can do worse than that, the technology is well established (in large part thanks to China) to dynamically alter content on the fly when you request it. So maybe your Slashdot never shows any stories about net neutrality anymore.or worse shows everything on the topic altered with strawman arguments so that over the course of a few years you are gently guided to independently reach the conclusions the ISP wants you to reach. You know how you would know? Especially if the major carriers colluded in the same way they have always traditionally done. You wouldn't.
Apparently someone with a whole pool of mod points is hammering everyone who dissents. Rampant moderation abuse. Hopefully the meta-mods do their job and hammer these moderations. Mod points are for highlighting valuable comments without taking a stance on the issue, they aren't for burying arguments you don't like hearing.
"What happens when the words become banned and people just move on to new ones; do we ban those to? When will it stop?"
Given how this practice has been used in politically correct speech, it doesn't stop.
Those are different kinds of outlets not alternatives. What is special about Facebook is that everyone is on it and it has achieved a sort of monopoly status. At this point it should be considered more of a common carrier. What you are saying amounts to "you can still protest, you are just required to do it in dark alleyways."
So long as Facebook also censors minority, female, and LGBT empowerment messages I don't see a problem. Really, anything encouraging people to collaborate and identify with or against others on the basis of race, gender, or sexual orientation is safe to move out of the public space altogether. Cherrypicking which to move into the shadows and which to spotlight is a problem.
I agree, it is definitely opinion. But I blame people don't share mine for the fact there are a lot of lousy daylight bulbs that are actually cool (everything looks blue instead of bright yellow) and that many things often default to warm white (sunset colors). If it looks blue it isn't daylight spectrum regardless of what color spectrum they claim on the package. I've found a wide variation. Phillips make a good daylight led.
"I would point out that such light is very strong and normally very harsh."
Strong yes, it illuminates the room quite well which is what a light is for. I'm not entirely sure what you capture with "Harsh" but I prefer to leave lights dimmed or off most of the time.
Warm white is more of a sunset color which means it casts a tinge on the entire room and instead of bring out the natural color variation in the room. It's fine for the bedroom at night in the those last couple hours before bed but in the rest of the house where you are still active and actually need to see?
I'd always assumed that warm white was mostly kept on the shelf by the elderly because the daylight spectrum incandescent bulbs were significantly more expensive but maybe it is daywalkers in general. People who have a biorhythm that shuts down in the evening. Maybe some of you leave work at 5pm and start winding down where the rest of us won't start winding down for at least another 5-6hrs and need functional light between.
"Good grief... Appeal to Nature fallacy applies in the domain of ethics, not in the domain of risk."
False.
An appeal to nature is a fallacy outside of a few subsets of arguments. Aside from an argument about whether or not something is in fact natural. A combination of nature, time, and survival can validly be used to suggest it has found a working solution to an environmental factor. If nature were a sort algorithm it would be the bogosort https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogosort aka the shotgun sort. It tries random solutions and sometimes they survive. It's like trying to sort a deck of unsorted cards by throwing them into the air and then scooping them up and if they aren't in the right order doing it again. Except in the case of nature, it doesn't drop the cards on purpose, it waits for someone to accidentally do so and they don't get dropped again unless someone stumbles again and it never checks to see if the answer is correct.
Nature lacks any sort of consciousness and therefore logical bias and any solution it offers being better for a given purpose are purely a matter of chance. Therefore, since nature lacks any sort of bias toward solutions that are safe or advantageous for humans it is a fallacy to suggest that being natural makes something a superior choice.
The fact you linked to a permaculture video tends to suggest you likely won't listen due to your own bias.
"Toxicity from too much vitamin D is more likely to occur from high intakes of dietary supplements than from high intakes of foods that contain vitamin D. Excessive sun exposure does not cause vitamin D toxicity. However, the IOM states that people should not try to increase vitamin D production by increasing their exposure to sunlight because this will also increase their risk of skin cancer (2)."
"However, additional research based on stronger study designs is required to determine whether higher vitamin D levels are related to lower cancer incidence or death rates."
In short, the evidence is underwhelming and if there is a connection we, unlike nature, have a bias toward our well being, therefore will likely seek and eventually find the underlying mechanism and solution that doesn't require exposing ourselves to harmful UV radiation. Granted it is an anecdote but I've lived in Northern states and in sunny southern states. Skin cancer incidents by the time one is older are everywhere in southern states while you rarely see skin cancer in northern states. The potential vitamin D protection doesn't change that sunlight degrades DNA and is a significant factor in aging.
Generally there is some sort of communication to work out the time of a meeting. I can't just assume the hours of a guy in India who might work the night shift anyway. Now if I'm on the phone with a couple guys in brazil and a couple more in India, when someone proposes a time everyone has to go and start trying to convert it to figure out if that will work for them. Or they trust he is being considerate and don't figure out until later they got screwed. They also might screw up the conversion and make a mistake agreeing to it.
If everyone uses the same clock, they are on the same page about what time is being proposed immediately and can respond immediately.
"Go out and get "soft white" or "warm white" LED bulbs that correspond to the K values specified on this google search: "led lighting k values". If your LED lights are in the 5000K range, they will be really, really harsh. Also, look at the Wikipedia article on Color Temp: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_temperature"
Oh god, you are the guy who keeps those ugly old 80's spectrum bulbs in circulation.
Don't listen to this guy. You want daylight spectrum bulbs people.
"The burden of proof of safety are on those introducing the novelty."
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
The burden of proof is is on Jack Kruse who is making these claims. If he'd proven his claim then there would be a burden on the manufacturer to prove their product is safe.
"When unsure, defaulting to Nature may be the safer bet."
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-nature
Nature is a set of random outcomes. Being natural confers no tendency to be better, safer, or to have better outcomes. Also, humans are natural and the electrical properties exploited to produce LED lighting is also natural. The most natural light would be sunlight, which burns you and damages your DNA, causing aging and cancer.
Sure there is. Well, okay, not literally the same as an incandescent which would burn out in a couple months but when was the last time you actually USED a 10-20yr warranty on something that didn't cost thousands of dollars? For that matter, when was the last time you tried to use such a warranty and had it work?
The devil is in the fine print. First, 80% of people will never try to use the warranty. They'll just buy a new bulb when one burns out in 2-3yrs. Having a 10yr warranty is great but actually still having the receipt and other elements required to claim it is exceedingly rare and even then are they going to own it as a manufacturing problem if the bulb lasted 7yrs? I doubt it, they'll blame your power or something.
There is a reason they sell all those extended warranties at the stores. They are basically pure profit on snake oil. They are a waste of money in literally every case.
LED bulbs don't effectively replace the very high output bulbs. If you needed a 200w+ there is no LED that really gives the same output and penetration. For example I've got a bulb that lights a large room from a high corner, the ceiling is sloped in a way that doesn't let me install a bunch of cans cheaply. A 200w incandescent is required in order to light the room from overhead with just that one point. LEDs are very bright if you are close.
It's the same problem from light poles or if you are growing plants and want penetration deeper than 6".
"Is there anything else left to do? "
You mean other than make all these other bulbs in an LED form factor?
"Have LEDs at home, not saving me any money based on my hours of usage per day. Now, if they last 10 years, then they start paying off.."
Sure it does for the same reason it saves those corporations tons of money. The power that they don't bother metering in residences still has to be generated and still costs money to generate... the power company isn't exactly known for charity, they certainly aren't going to take that cost out of THEIR pockets. Of course they aren't going to stop making you pay for it either, they'll pocket it unless given some reason to do otherwise like competition. That is why prices in deregulated markets are so much lower... unless you are sucker who doesn't check periodically for lower prices.
"It's also an insane opinion that isn't backed by anything other than convenience to the powerful."
How is that an insane position for something like the alleged obstruction didn't impact the outcome of the investigation? I could see your point in a case where the charge can't be proven because of some ongoing obstruction or the destruction of evidence but for something like this it is bit like charging someone for breaking out of prison when they are subsequently proven not guilty. The crime was locking them up, not them getting out. Similarly if the investigation ultimately concludes no crime was committed the crime was having put them through an investigation in the first place.
Trump is... well he is about the worst case scenario for making these arguments about the President. The conclusions people reach tend to be heavily biased based on what they want to see happen with THIS President. But stepping outside that intent of the Constitution is actually pretty straightforward with regard to the President, he or she isn't supposed to be vulnerable to legal attack short of impeachment proceedings and congress shouldn't be using the justice department to investigate him because he has every right to hold loyalty as a condition of employment among his own staff. The executive branch is his staff. If they do use someone from an executive agency their role working from congress should be distinct from their day job which they should reasonably expect to lose when they investigate their boss.
Yes, and the same would be true if we globally all agreed to just use a 24hr UTC standard. I don't know why people have a hard time seeing that they will more or less be doing things at the same time of day as now and the only thing being discussed is what number a clock should display when they do it.
With everything more and more globally connected, especially business, it would be a huge benefit to automatically all know what time an event set for 08:00 is, regardless of where we happen to be located.
"We basically have that with Coortinated Universal Time (UTC). The problem is that, were I to follow this time, I'd be getting up at 1am local time (6am UTC), working from 3am to 11am local time (8am to 4pm UTC), and going to sleep at 6pm local time (11pm UTC). As sunrise tends to be at around 6:30am local time, my day would be a third over before the sun even rose.
You're not going to convince many people to follow this schedule."
Why would you do that? Since you get up at 6am now in your example with a -5 offset you'd get up at 11:00 UTC, you'd work from 13:00 UTC to 21:00 UTC, etc. You'd still get up and go to work and do everything else at the same time of day, and that time would still be different than people in other timezones. You'd actually drop the nonsensical am/pm and go to a 24hr clock and people in different timezones would have the same number on their clocks as you. So when I set a meeting at 6:00 UTC you'd instantly know that is outside your working and even waking hours and respond accordingly and there would be no ambiguity about what time I meant.
You do know the clock is just a coordinated number and it doesn't actually impact the number of hours of light? If you go to work at 8am now and the clock changes to something else, you'll still go to work, sleep, eat meals, etc at the same points in your local sun cycle. If we adapted EST from 24hr UTC you'd just apply your current offset to find the new times and work from there. Nothing would change but the number on the display. You could use your existing alarm clock without change to wake up for work each day (as long as you didn't adjust it for daylight savings) because even though it shows the wrong number, it will continue to happen at the right time.
The difference is that when you communicate that start time to someone on the other side of the globe, they automatically know what time you mean and what that means relative to their own schedule.
Slashdot Mirror
So do pardon. But just about everything the President does outweighs any sort of criminal punishment of one man. As such the President is empowered with the ability to prevent the criminal punishment of anyone for virtually any reason, including himself, explicitly by the Constitution of the United States of America.
Don't like it amend the Constitution or become President and enjoy it. It might appeal to our sense of justice but it really makes very little sense to avoid the President pardoning himself when he can simply order someone else to do whatever it is and then pardon them.
No he should not. He has immunity, so does a congressman, a diplomat from another nation, or even a prosecutor for that matter.
The President can simply pardon himself for such a thing but he won't escape impeachment. He has been trusted by voters with the power to pardon anyone else for any offense so it would be nonsensical to say he doesn't have the right to execute that same judgement when deciding whether or not to shoot someone or otherwise engage in what otherwise would be a criminal act. We have a concept of breaking the law to prevent a greater miscarriage of justice. Punishing a man for his personal actions is just so relatively insignificant compared to the importance of the Office of the President that we make this tradeoff. The President makes decisions that can destroy or save thousands or even millions of lives in the course of his duties or even save or destroy the entire nation. The President can simply order the military to shoot someone what sense would it make to have a policy that is about making sure he can't pardon himself if he pulls the trigger himself instead of having someone else do it?
You use the most extreme example and there is always the difficult to assign a value to a human life. But the fact is that we do exactly that in court judgement, war, capital punishment, etc every day. Those values often and regularly come in dramatically lower than the impact of even minor decisions made by the President.
So there you go, if you want to shoot someone and not go to jail all you have to do to pull it off is get 300 million people to democratically elect you to be the most powerful person in the world, the President of the United States. Or... there are actually dramatically lower ranking positions that reach this bar, seriously there are billions of people and millions die every day.
The last thing you want is someone being able assail the office with things, including accusations, about things like this and interfere with the ability of the President to execute his or her duties. The President, already knowing he isn't guilty, fires his employee who is conducting an investigation that hampers his ability to execute his oath of office and finds a replacement he hopes will focus on helping him do so rather than hamper him. This is the sort of thing is actually a President doing his job. Now if he'd been guilty he might be trying to escape justice but trying to kill an investigation he knows is a waste of time and hurts him politically? That is just intelligently managing resources.
"No, sorry, common carrier is for the service provider."
Hence why I didn't say Facebook IS a common carrier. I spoke to what we should do, not what we currently do.
At this point it should be considered more of a common carrier. The content on their platform is generated by users and not FB, Facebook does not generate content they are a service provider who transmits it. They serve the same function as an ISP but with an additional layer of abstraction. Much like a VPN rides atop your internet connection.
"There's more than one channel."
Do you understand the word "monopoly?"
I don't like Warren for Pres but alongside Sanders as his VP candidate she'd be excellent.
For Pres she has too much focus on women's issues and has taken irrational positions falling in with female groupthink. But as long as the subject of women doesn't come up she is actually pretty solid. Since Sanders lost some of her positions have led me to worry she has been folded into the party.
She is one of the few congress critters that has actually worked to help real people and protect consumers from banks. That goes perfectly alongside Sanders, the only longstanding Senator with a track record of integrity. Sanders has supported the right things for the right reasons. Even where you disagree with the lean of his politics you have to admit, if you were going to give try to make those solutions work his approach is closer to what it looks like. These half-assed water down compromises have neither the efficiency and cost savings of central control nor allow a free market with healthy competition resulting in bloated and monopolized anti-consumer markets.
"By this standard Comcast should be paying Netflix because Comcast was receiving way more data from Netflix than was transmitted in the other direction."
You have this backwards.The penalties are because carrying traffic costs money, if Comcast is receiving way more data from Netflix, Comcast has to pay for more equipment to transit that hence Netflix gets the penalty.
In this case they want the content to provider to pay AND the consumer to pay. It's like rinse and repeat. But it won't stop there. The biggest worries about net neutrality are subtle things you can't easily prove are even happening if you even know they are happening at all.
"Well when the telecom providers did the... uhhh.... the bad things.... with.."
There has been a ton of rate limiting and throttling, data collection, double charging for bandwidth. But nowhere near what it will be if they actually win the fight. Right now they are just dipping their toes in the water.
The most scary thing about not having net neutrality is that the worst things they can do will be transparent or otherwise appear normal. Especially if they are at all clever.
Your Playstation Vue, Hulu, Netflix, etc starts pausing and hiccuping randomly because they apply random throttles that target random regions and not everywhere all at once. Start it very light and slowly increase over the course of six months. Everything else is fine, the internet seems fast, must be that Vue is letting their service degrade. You switch a couple more times, they all have periodic issues. Oh these streaming services must all be second rate. I guess I'll switch back to cable I rarely ever had problems there! Or since the carriers have their own competing streaming services you'll switch to that and get the impression that "straight from the source is the way to go, they have the best networks and not these second rate third parties."
That is a perfect example of what commercial fuckery without Net Neutrality looks like. But they can do worse than that, the technology is well established (in large part thanks to China) to dynamically alter content on the fly when you request it. So maybe your Slashdot never shows any stories about net neutrality anymore.or worse shows everything on the topic altered with strawman arguments so that over the course of a few years you are gently guided to independently reach the conclusions the ISP wants you to reach. You know how you would know? Especially if the major carriers colluded in the same way they have always traditionally done. You wouldn't.
First I am a huge fan of the idea of three page bills. Hopefully they assert actual net neutrality and not Obama era rules.
Neither is white supremacy.
"They want to remove all of those people and have a country that is "whites only.""
Have you ever stopped to consider why they feel this way? What has driven the (ridiculously tiny) portion of the population to these extreme ideas?
"Why do you think that those people can possibly be reasoned with?"
How can you make a statement like that without realizing it is an assertion that you can not be reasoned with?
Apparently someone with a whole pool of mod points is hammering everyone who dissents. Rampant moderation abuse. Hopefully the meta-mods do their job and hammer these moderations. Mod points are for highlighting valuable comments without taking a stance on the issue, they aren't for burying arguments you don't like hearing.
"What happens when the words become banned and people just move on to new ones; do we ban those to? When will it stop?"
Given how this practice has been used in politically correct speech, it doesn't stop.
Those are different kinds of outlets not alternatives. What is special about Facebook is that everyone is on it and it has achieved a sort of monopoly status. At this point it should be considered more of a common carrier. What you are saying amounts to "you can still protest, you are just required to do it in dark alleyways."
So long as Facebook also censors minority, female, and LGBT empowerment messages I don't see a problem. Really, anything encouraging people to collaborate and identify with or against others on the basis of race, gender, or sexual orientation is safe to move out of the public space altogether. Cherrypicking which to move into the shadows and which to spotlight is a problem.
" I would say to each their own."
I agree, it is definitely opinion. But I blame people don't share mine for the fact there are a lot of lousy daylight bulbs that are actually cool (everything looks blue instead of bright yellow) and that many things often default to warm white (sunset colors). If it looks blue it isn't daylight spectrum regardless of what color spectrum they claim on the package. I've found a wide variation. Phillips make a good daylight led.
"I would point out that such light is very strong and normally very harsh."
Strong yes, it illuminates the room quite well which is what a light is for. I'm not entirely sure what you capture with "Harsh" but I prefer to leave lights dimmed or off most of the time.
Warm white is more of a sunset color which means it casts a tinge on the entire room and instead of bring out the natural color variation in the room. It's fine for the bedroom at night in the those last couple hours before bed but in the rest of the house where you are still active and actually need to see?
I'd always assumed that warm white was mostly kept on the shelf by the elderly because the daylight spectrum incandescent bulbs were significantly more expensive but maybe it is daywalkers in general. People who have a biorhythm that shuts down in the evening. Maybe some of you leave work at 5pm and start winding down where the rest of us won't start winding down for at least another 5-6hrs and need functional light between.
"Good grief... Appeal to Nature fallacy applies in the domain of ethics, not in the domain of risk."
False.
An appeal to nature is a fallacy outside of a few subsets of arguments. Aside from an argument about whether or not something is in fact natural. A combination of nature, time, and survival can validly be used to suggest it has found a working solution to an environmental factor. If nature were a sort algorithm it would be the bogosort https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogosort aka the shotgun sort. It tries random solutions and sometimes they survive. It's like trying to sort a deck of unsorted cards by throwing them into the air and then scooping them up and if they aren't in the right order doing it again. Except in the case of nature, it doesn't drop the cards on purpose, it waits for someone to accidentally do so and they don't get dropped again unless someone stumbles again and it never checks to see if the answer is correct.
Nature lacks any sort of consciousness and therefore logical bias and any solution it offers being better for a given purpose are purely a matter of chance. Therefore, since nature lacks any sort of bias toward solutions that are safe or advantageous for humans it is a fallacy to suggest that being natural makes something a superior choice.
The fact you linked to a permaculture video tends to suggest you likely won't listen due to your own bias.
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/diet/vitamin-d-fact-sheet
"Toxicity from too much vitamin D is more likely to occur from high intakes of dietary supplements than from high intakes of foods that contain vitamin D. Excessive sun exposure does not cause vitamin D toxicity. However, the IOM states that people should not try to increase vitamin D production by increasing their exposure to sunlight because this will also increase their risk of skin cancer (2)."
"However, additional research based on stronger study designs is required to determine whether higher vitamin D levels are related to lower cancer incidence or death rates."
In short, the evidence is underwhelming and if there is a connection we, unlike nature, have a bias toward our well being, therefore will likely seek and eventually find the underlying mechanism and solution that doesn't require exposing ourselves to harmful UV radiation. Granted it is an anecdote but I've lived in Northern states and in sunny southern states. Skin cancer incidents by the time one is older are everywhere in southern states while you rarely see skin cancer in northern states. The potential vitamin D protection doesn't change that sunlight degrades DNA and is a significant factor in aging.
Generally there is some sort of communication to work out the time of a meeting. I can't just assume the hours of a guy in India who might work the night shift anyway. Now if I'm on the phone with a couple guys in brazil and a couple more in India, when someone proposes a time everyone has to go and start trying to convert it to figure out if that will work for them. Or they trust he is being considerate and don't figure out until later they got screwed. They also might screw up the conversion and make a mistake agreeing to it.
If everyone uses the same clock, they are on the same page about what time is being proposed immediately and can respond immediately.
"Go out and get "soft white" or "warm white" LED bulbs that correspond to the K values specified on this google search: "led lighting k values". If your LED lights are in the 5000K range, they will be really, really harsh. Also, look at the Wikipedia article on Color Temp: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_temperature"
Oh god, you are the guy who keeps those ugly old 80's spectrum bulbs in circulation.
Don't listen to this guy. You want daylight spectrum bulbs people.
"The burden of proof of safety are on those introducing the novelty."
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
The burden of proof is is on Jack Kruse who is making these claims. If he'd proven his claim then there would be a burden on the manufacturer to prove their product is safe.
"When unsure, defaulting to Nature may be the safer bet."
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-nature
Nature is a set of random outcomes. Being natural confers no tendency to be better, safer, or to have better outcomes. Also, humans are natural and the electrical properties exploited to produce LED lighting is also natural. The most natural light would be sunlight, which burns you and damages your DNA, causing aging and cancer.
Sure there is. Well, okay, not literally the same as an incandescent which would burn out in a couple months but when was the last time you actually USED a 10-20yr warranty on something that didn't cost thousands of dollars? For that matter, when was the last time you tried to use such a warranty and had it work?
The devil is in the fine print. First, 80% of people will never try to use the warranty. They'll just buy a new bulb when one burns out in 2-3yrs. Having a 10yr warranty is great but actually still having the receipt and other elements required to claim it is exceedingly rare and even then are they going to own it as a manufacturing problem if the bulb lasted 7yrs? I doubt it, they'll blame your power or something.
There is a reason they sell all those extended warranties at the stores. They are basically pure profit on snake oil. They are a waste of money in literally every case.
LED bulbs don't effectively replace the very high output bulbs. If you needed a 200w+ there is no LED that really gives the same output and penetration. For example I've got a bulb that lights a large room from a high corner, the ceiling is sloped in a way that doesn't let me install a bunch of cans cheaply. A 200w incandescent is required in order to light the room from overhead with just that one point. LEDs are very bright if you are close.
It's the same problem from light poles or if you are growing plants and want penetration deeper than 6".
"Is there anything else left to do? "
You mean other than make all these other bulbs in an LED form factor?
"Have LEDs at home, not saving me any money based on my hours of usage per day. Now, if they last 10 years, then they start paying off.."
Sure it does for the same reason it saves those corporations tons of money. The power that they don't bother metering in residences still has to be generated and still costs money to generate... the power company isn't exactly known for charity, they certainly aren't going to take that cost out of THEIR pockets. Of course they aren't going to stop making you pay for it either, they'll pocket it unless given some reason to do otherwise like competition. That is why prices in deregulated markets are so much lower... unless you are sucker who doesn't check periodically for lower prices.
I can't speak for that guy but... yes?
"It's also an insane opinion that isn't backed by anything other than convenience to the powerful."
How is that an insane position for something like the alleged obstruction didn't impact the outcome of the investigation? I could see your point in a case where the charge can't be proven because of some ongoing obstruction or the destruction of evidence but for something like this it is bit like charging someone for breaking out of prison when they are subsequently proven not guilty. The crime was locking them up, not them getting out. Similarly if the investigation ultimately concludes no crime was committed the crime was having put them through an investigation in the first place.
Trump is... well he is about the worst case scenario for making these arguments about the President. The conclusions people reach tend to be heavily biased based on what they want to see happen with THIS President. But stepping outside that intent of the Constitution is actually pretty straightforward with regard to the President, he or she isn't supposed to be vulnerable to legal attack short of impeachment proceedings and congress shouldn't be using the justice department to investigate him because he has every right to hold loyalty as a condition of employment among his own staff. The executive branch is his staff. If they do use someone from an executive agency their role working from congress should be distinct from their day job which they should reasonably expect to lose when they investigate their boss.
Yes, and the same would be true if we globally all agreed to just use a 24hr UTC standard. I don't know why people have a hard time seeing that they will more or less be doing things at the same time of day as now and the only thing being discussed is what number a clock should display when they do it.
With everything more and more globally connected, especially business, it would be a huge benefit to automatically all know what time an event set for 08:00 is, regardless of where we happen to be located.
"We basically have that with Coortinated Universal Time (UTC). The problem is that, were I to follow this time, I'd be getting up at 1am local time (6am UTC), working from 3am to 11am local time (8am to 4pm UTC), and going to sleep at 6pm local time (11pm UTC). As sunrise tends to be at around 6:30am local time, my day would be a third over before the sun even rose.
You're not going to convince many people to follow this schedule."
Why would you do that? Since you get up at 6am now in your example with a -5 offset you'd get up at 11:00 UTC, you'd work from 13:00 UTC to 21:00 UTC, etc. You'd still get up and go to work and do everything else at the same time of day, and that time would still be different than people in other timezones. You'd actually drop the nonsensical am/pm and go to a 24hr clock and people in different timezones would have the same number on their clocks as you. So when I set a meeting at 6:00 UTC you'd instantly know that is outside your working and even waking hours and respond accordingly and there would be no ambiguity about what time I meant.
You do know the clock is just a coordinated number and it doesn't actually impact the number of hours of light? If you go to work at 8am now and the clock changes to something else, you'll still go to work, sleep, eat meals, etc at the same points in your local sun cycle. If we adapted EST from 24hr UTC you'd just apply your current offset to find the new times and work from there. Nothing would change but the number on the display. You could use your existing alarm clock without change to wake up for work each day (as long as you didn't adjust it for daylight savings) because even though it shows the wrong number, it will continue to happen at the right time.
The difference is that when you communicate that start time to someone on the other side of the globe, they automatically know what time you mean and what that means relative to their own schedule.