guy asks question, girl gives answer, guy nods and asks again, guy2 gives exact same answer as girl, guy listens to guy2
BTW, if this is happening to you a lot the problem is probably that the way you describe things is different than the way your audience learns things. The annoying third party is an impedance bridge, and can translate between the two communication styles.
These impedance bridges often do not even realize they are doing it.
The problem with your proposal is that sites must change certificates once every few years. So now, every three years the certs change and your browser complains. Say you visit 36 ssl sites. That means that you will have a ssl-alert about once a month - you will just click through, and not check.
In addition to that, this attack, for example, would bypass that! You visit www.mybank.com - all is good, no ssl. You are then redirected to secure.theevilbank.com - again, all is good because secure.theevilbank.com's certificate hasn't changed! The browser can't know that you "meant" secure.mybank.com - it only knows that you submitted a form to "secure.theevilbank.com".
But that is exactly what I am saying - it is well known in the climate community that there is a self-regulation mechanism, that has a relatively short adjustment time scale. Of the 5.5 Gt of CO2 produced by man, only about 1.5 (as I recall) or so ends up in the atmosphere. Most of it goes to places we know about (the ocean, and increased biological activity), but about 20% goes someplace new that no one knows. Just look up info on carbon sources and sinks.
My point is that several hundred gigatonnes of CO2 are produced / consumed by the biosphere each year. The exact amount varies each year. Human activity is a small fraction of that call it 5% or so. It the biosphere was not self regulating enough to correct a 5% imbalance, it would have already gone unstable - we known that variations that large have happened in the recent past (volcanic eruptions, etc.).
but they aren't keeping up with the pace at which we're putting out said CO2
Precisely - but that is why talk about fairies cleaning up is counter productive - there are, in essence, fairies cleaning up.
To take this further, note that the sinks are increasing at a high rate - enough that, although they do not "keep up", they do not fall behind that fast either. That may mean that if we stop increasing the CO2 source rate, the sink rate will catch up. The current sink rate would have completely eliminated any rise 20 years or so ago. So it is possible that if we do hit a "peak oil" or whatever, that things will go back to normal in a very short time.
Presumably, these are the same fairies that prevent the non-human related CO2 released before we existed from baking the Earth...
You are not helping your cause. There are CO2 sources, and CO2 sinks. Most of the CO2 generated is absorbed by the sinks. Human related CO2 generation is completely dwarfed by "natural" CO2 generation through decomposition and whatnot.
We are seeing a rise in atmospheric CO2 - but it is substantially less than the CO2 that humans put out. That means that we are also seeing a rise in the sink levels of CO2 - so I guess the fairies are working overtime.
Good on you, and I don't think anyone will complain about your actions.
The problem lies with people lobbying the government for laws to enforce such things - for example, while you can live with an indoor summertime temperature of 75F, I am partially disabled and cannot. It would literally put me in the hospital. But a law cannot deal with such subtleties - they just have to write me off.
Believe whatever you want - just don't try to force me to make the same decisions you do.
The longer you wait to mitigate, the more mitigation you have to do.
Well, that would be a non-static problem then. I specifically limited my statement to static problems. My understanding is that Global Warming is now predicted to be irreversible at our current technology level. I have heard no discussions about mitigation other than "use less", with no discussion of whether or how much that would actually help.
If there was a predicted disaster within 20 years, then I'd agree that we should work the problem - but probably not by wearing grass skirts, but rather by building dams and moving cities.
Frankly, I'm not seeing a lot of rational discussion about real issues. I'm seeing a lot of OMG, Washington will sink! OMG, polar bears! OMG, frozen Europe! If I saw more of "Canada will be the new breadbasket of the world", and "we will need dikes around New York at a cost of X", I would be a lot more convinced. I am totally uninterested in economists comparing "the do everything to combat Global Warming" case to the "do nothing to combat Global Warming" case, that operate under the assumption that Global Warming happens. Can you see why? To be useful, you would need a more thorough analysis - starting with the fact that if the seas rise at 1 meter per year, that is well below our build rate for dikes. It is stupid to use assumptions like "New York sinks, cause we didn't stop it even when it was obvious."
As it is, there is no difference between Global Warming and belief in Zuul. Both are arguing from the perspective of "it's better to be wrong my way than wrong your way." Pascal's wager is not a way to live your life.
Think I'm wrong? Then explain to me the difference in cost of waiting 20 years when it is obvious that we need dikes (and we hopefully by then know how high to make them), and starting now. And exactly what you mean by starting now.
The problem is that law is a blunt instrument. It does not do a case by case analysis of what is in society's best interest, it says "x% of the time it is society's interest, so 100% of the time it will be done." Properly applied, capitalism is very good at making such nuanced decisions.
Lots of people have great success with CFLs. Lots of people do not. The solution is not for those that have success to assume that those that do not are lying and mandate CFLs - the solution is to make CFLs work for those for whom they do not.
And I don't think the decision is being made monetarily - CFLs are supposedly less expensive. At least for me, a CFL bulb lasts only one month. I have tried 5 different brands over the years with the same results. I finally just went and bought full fluorescents (which seem to be lasting).
Almost certainly there is an issue with the power in my building. Just as certainly, the CFL should be designed to handle such power spikes - it's not like I can change my building's wiring, or install a closer power plant!
I disagree on what economists say - I have only seen one or two even address the issue, and they have said widely diverging things. For example, most global warming scenarios report only the bad - but Canada, for example, makes out like a bandit under global warming scenarios.
To be honest, even if they agreed I would not agree with them. (After all, I have an advanced degree in economics also... I can think for myself.) The problem is that I believe 2 things that invalidate such predictions:
1) We do not know what the effects of global warming will be in enough detail to ameliorate them.
2) We do not know our technology limitations 100 years from now well enough to predict how much it will cost.
A climate scientist may satisfy me on #1 in the next decade. But #2 is not knowable until about 80 years from now - and perhaps not even then. Consider - in 1988 I was working on a Darpa system called Darpanet. Could I have predicted the rise of the internet - even knowing the technologies and ease of communication and control of the then nascent internet? The internet has changed all of our lives to an incredible extent in less than two decades.
Similarly, twenty years ago large scale wind power was impossible. I remember reviewing some articles on the issues (essentially, the worst case arm loading/normal arm loading ratio was too large to make windmills of reasonable mass). Now the US has massive windmill projects.
None of this required any laws to get passed. No one had to be forced into anything. The future just arrived slowly and unpredictably, like it always does.
The one prediction that is always safe: It will be cheaper (in time and resources - not dollars) to deal with a static problem in the future rather than in the present.
Global warming is all about predicting what will happen over centuries - but then people try to predict human behavior over then same, and it falls to pieces.
Following the logic it gives us a very convenient excuse to just sit on our asses and never actually accomplish anything.
And yet following that has lead us to a never ending series of advancements in reality - no coercion has been required. So since reality agrees with my view, I'm afraid your point loses its meaning. It really was pointless of the people in the 1900s to worry about what we would do about the horse manure. That doesn't mean you don't ask questions - it just means that you do not pass laws to try to solve problems that may eventually exist.
Laws are for today's and tomorrow's problems - not for next century's problems.
It is not how it works in practice, in some highly politicized fields. It does lead to bias regardless, as humans have a natural tendency to question more closely things that they do not agree with.
My point is merely that we, as outsiders, cannot evaluate the level of bias that exists. (Bias always exists - the quest is how statistically significant it is.)
Yes, while I attempted the same thing earlier this year - and every single CFL light bulbs I installed burned out within 1 month. Every single one. Three different brands. I caused more pollution in one month with those bulbs than will be made back in the entire time I own my house.
It is critical that we all realize that what is best for ourselves is not what is best for our neighbors. Stop dictating what others should do!
For me, money is basically no object - so I installed normal fluorescents, which are not only brighter but also use less power. But another person in my situation would probably be better off using incandescents. Our power is nuclear anyway.
Note that my solution, being more expensive, is almost certainly more polluting... as is most politically motivated conservation.
If one commutes less distance or drives a more efficient vehicle, for example, is one therefore poorer?
If one is free to make the choice themselves, then the answer is almost certainly no - individuals make choices to maximize their "economic wealth", by definition.
However, if such a thing is forced on everyone (like CFL lighting, for example), some people will be unaffected (those that would have chosen to do so anyway), and some will be made poorer (those that for whatever reason would not have chosen to do so).
Your problem is that you believe that you are better at deciding what is good for others than they are themselves...
Actually, talking about the proposed solution, taxes:
Taxes as proposed is a statist solution - this should not be surprising, since it was developed by governments that are always in the pockets of the current powers, not the future ones. To make this clear, here is the scenario: You own a powerplant, where you burn coal to provide energy. You and all of your current competition is given X credits to allow you to produce, and anything more than X is taxed. Since all the existing producers were placed in the same circumstances, the cost is passed on to the customer and your profits remain the same.
However I create a new company - which uses a new technology to produce energy with less (but non-zero) pollution. Unfortunately, I don't have any credits - so I pay taxes on my entire production.
In other words, the proposed plans are a subsidy to entrenched players - this should not be surprising, since the plan was conceived by entrenched players.
Scientists who actively publish are doing real scientific research.
There is a trap here, however. To be published in a peer reviewed journal, your peers have to agree to it. So in a highly politicized area these sampling parameters have a bias, which invalidates any statistics: to be published, you must agree with what others are saying - otherwise they will not let you pass the peer review. Many people believe this is going on - almost everyone agrees that this is a highly politicized area of research.
Personally, I don't care that much who causes global warming - because the benefits of reversing global warming do not currently outweigh the costs. I think we should carry on studying global warming (so that we can start to predict what will really happen), and keep on our normal path of technological progress. By the end of the 100 year time frame used by the reports, we will have advanced so much technologically that we will be laughing at our current proposals to deal with climate change - just like how we laugh at the people from 1908 meeting to try to avoid the horrors of horse poop.
Well, OK, so not everyone in the stats is a "true Mormon", whatever that is. Not everyone counted as Baptist is a "true Baptist" either...
But anyway, if you look at self-reported "Mormons" from surveys not related to the church, Utah has 1.2 million or so - so worst case number inflation is on the order of 20%... that is actually pretty good, for a church with no official procedures for leaving it. (You can ask for your name to be stricken from the records, but I mean really, who is up-tight enough to do that. Besides you, I mean;} )
Um - you're a little late there. "Mormons" are in pretty much every country on Earth. In the US, there are 6 million LDS church members - so one out of 50 people in the US is a "Mormon". Utah has 1.5 million LDS church members in it - so excluding Utah it is 1 out of 60.
There are 7 million members in the rest of the world - so there are actually more "Mormons" that live outside the United States than that live inside. The church is growing at 3% per year - doubling every 15 years or so.
For fun facts, the country of Tonga is 46% Mormon. The country of Samoa is 36%. Utah is 72%. Hawaii is 5%.
Yes - if the tumor was growing at the same (or lower) rate as the body and had existed as long as the body, I would question my classification of the object as malignant.
Well, yes - but the number of engineering, marketing, etc jobs (that also create wealth) has been increasing at a faster pace than manufacturing has been falling. You saw the same thing when agriculture was receding - the news even said it was the end of civilization back then too...
As a civilization: we find a cool way to create value (farming, manufacturing, communicating); we extract the value, becoming more and more efficient at it as time goes on; until eventually the value is being created essentially for free - only a few percent of the population is involved in the value creation.
The key is to keep discovering new ways to create value. (Or economic wealth, as you say)
Back on the subject of government jobs increasing - I have to admit, I had thought the problem was far worse. I had expected the curve to be exponential, which would show a serious problem. Straight line growth is actually not that bad.
Um, why? A hundred years ago, agriculture was the base of our economy - now less than 1% of the population works in agriculture. This is a good thing!
It's not like there are no other jobs, or that the number of hamburgers you can buy has decreased - the fact is, automation and outsourcing make stuff cheaper. The displaced workers get new comparable jobs. They can now afford more stuff, cause stuff is cheaper!
This is not one of the failing of government or markets - the failing would be if governments and markets did not provide comparable new jobs... and apparently the government is stepping up to that challenge. Ahem.
That's great for you - I'm glad you like CFL lights.
But now Congress is mandating that I must like them... and that is a problem. I have tried 7 different brands - none of them work. The first 4 brands simply burned out within a month. The next three have lasted a year so far, but the initial light output is so low that the light is useless and my wife complains - so I will not be buying any more, of course.
Honestly, I'd pay $50 a bulb if it really did last forever and give good light - but it looks like my power is not "good" enough (I live in the top floor of a 61 floor building - not like I can change my power).
Allowing you to buy CFL is great. Forcing me to buy CFL when they don't meet my needs is not.
Get your pitchforks - it's time to march against Congress again...
Slashdot Mirror
guy asks question, girl gives answer, guy nods and asks again, guy2 gives exact same answer as girl, guy listens to guy2
BTW, if this is happening to you a lot the problem is probably that the way you describe things is different than the way your audience learns things. The annoying third party is an impedance bridge, and can translate between the two communication styles.
These impedance bridges often do not even realize they are doing it.
The problem with your proposal is that sites must change certificates once every few years. So now, every three years the certs change and your browser complains. Say you visit 36 ssl sites. That means that you will have a ssl-alert about once a month - you will just click through, and not check.
In addition to that, this attack, for example, would bypass that! You visit www.mybank.com - all is good, no ssl. You are then redirected to secure.theevilbank.com - again, all is good because secure.theevilbank.com's certificate hasn't changed! The browser can't know that you "meant" secure.mybank.com - it only knows that you submitted a form to "secure.theevilbank.com".
Note that what you have said is, in effect:
"If you accept sufficient limitations, you will survive. That justifies my enforcement of unlivable conditions against you."
You do not know how I live. And perhaps my profession, the process by which I improve society, requires me to not hide in an icebox?
But that is exactly what I am saying - it is well known in the climate community that there is a self-regulation mechanism, that has a relatively short adjustment time scale. Of the 5.5 Gt of CO2 produced by man, only about 1.5 (as I recall) or so ends up in the atmosphere. Most of it goes to places we know about (the ocean, and increased biological activity), but about 20% goes someplace new that no one knows. Just look up info on carbon sources and sinks.
My point is that several hundred gigatonnes of CO2 are produced / consumed by the biosphere each year. The exact amount varies each year. Human activity is a small fraction of that call it 5% or so. It the biosphere was not self regulating enough to correct a 5% imbalance, it would have already gone unstable - we known that variations that large have happened in the recent past (volcanic eruptions, etc.).
It's OK, the fairies will save us! ;-}
but they aren't keeping up with the pace at which we're putting out said CO2
Precisely - but that is why talk about fairies cleaning up is counter productive - there are, in essence, fairies cleaning up.
To take this further, note that the sinks are increasing at a high rate - enough that, although they do not "keep up", they do not fall behind that fast either. That may mean that if we stop increasing the CO2 source rate, the sink rate will catch up. The current sink rate would have completely eliminated any rise 20 years or so ago. So it is possible that if we do hit a "peak oil" or whatever, that things will go back to normal in a very short time.
We don't know.
the little fairies are hard at work
Presumably, these are the same fairies that prevent the non-human related CO2 released before we existed from baking the Earth...
You are not helping your cause. There are CO2 sources, and CO2 sinks. Most of the CO2 generated is absorbed by the sinks. Human related CO2 generation is completely dwarfed by "natural" CO2 generation through decomposition and whatnot.
We are seeing a rise in atmospheric CO2 - but it is substantially less than the CO2 that humans put out. That means that we are also seeing a rise in the sink levels of CO2 - so I guess the fairies are working overtime.
Good on you, and I don't think anyone will complain about your actions.
The problem lies with people lobbying the government for laws to enforce such things - for example, while you can live with an indoor summertime temperature of 75F, I am partially disabled and cannot. It would literally put me in the hospital. But a law cannot deal with such subtleties - they just have to write me off.
Believe whatever you want - just don't try to force me to make the same decisions you do.
In other words, anyone that doesn't fit your mold should be thrown to the sharks?
That's why a war is coming.
The longer you wait to mitigate, the more mitigation you have to do.
Well, that would be a non-static problem then. I specifically limited my statement to static problems. My understanding is that Global Warming is now predicted to be irreversible at our current technology level. I have heard no discussions about mitigation other than "use less", with no discussion of whether or how much that would actually help.
If there was a predicted disaster within 20 years, then I'd agree that we should work the problem - but probably not by wearing grass skirts, but rather by building dams and moving cities.
Frankly, I'm not seeing a lot of rational discussion about real issues. I'm seeing a lot of OMG, Washington will sink! OMG, polar bears! OMG, frozen Europe! If I saw more of "Canada will be the new breadbasket of the world", and "we will need dikes around New York at a cost of X", I would be a lot more convinced. I am totally uninterested in economists comparing "the do everything to combat Global Warming" case to the "do nothing to combat Global Warming" case, that operate under the assumption that Global Warming happens. Can you see why? To be useful, you would need a more thorough analysis - starting with the fact that if the seas rise at 1 meter per year, that is well below our build rate for dikes. It is stupid to use assumptions like "New York sinks, cause we didn't stop it even when it was obvious."
As it is, there is no difference between Global Warming and belief in Zuul. Both are arguing from the perspective of "it's better to be wrong my way than wrong your way." Pascal's wager is not a way to live your life.
Think I'm wrong? Then explain to me the difference in cost of waiting 20 years when it is obvious that we need dikes (and we hopefully by then know how high to make them), and starting now. And exactly what you mean by starting now.
The problem is that law is a blunt instrument. It does not do a case by case analysis of what is in society's best interest, it says "x% of the time it is society's interest, so 100% of the time it will be done." Properly applied, capitalism is very good at making such nuanced decisions.
Lots of people have great success with CFLs. Lots of people do not. The solution is not for those that have success to assume that those that do not are lying and mandate CFLs - the solution is to make CFLs work for those for whom they do not.
And I don't think the decision is being made monetarily - CFLs are supposedly less expensive. At least for me, a CFL bulb lasts only one month. I have tried 5 different brands over the years with the same results. I finally just went and bought full fluorescents (which seem to be lasting).
Almost certainly there is an issue with the power in my building. Just as certainly, the CFL should be designed to handle such power spikes - it's not like I can change my building's wiring, or install a closer power plant!
I disagree on what economists say - I have only seen one or two even address the issue, and they have said widely diverging things. For example, most global warming scenarios report only the bad - but Canada, for example, makes out like a bandit under global warming scenarios.
To be honest, even if they agreed I would not agree with them. (After all, I have an advanced degree in economics also... I can think for myself.) The problem is that I believe 2 things that invalidate such predictions:
1) We do not know what the effects of global warming will be in enough detail to ameliorate them.
2) We do not know our technology limitations 100 years from now well enough to predict how much it will cost.
A climate scientist may satisfy me on #1 in the next decade. But #2 is not knowable until about 80 years from now - and perhaps not even then. Consider - in 1988 I was working on a Darpa system called Darpanet. Could I have predicted the rise of the internet - even knowing the technologies and ease of communication and control of the then nascent internet? The internet has changed all of our lives to an incredible extent in less than two decades.
Similarly, twenty years ago large scale wind power was impossible. I remember reviewing some articles on the issues (essentially, the worst case arm loading/normal arm loading ratio was too large to make windmills of reasonable mass). Now the US has massive windmill projects.
None of this required any laws to get passed. No one had to be forced into anything. The future just arrived slowly and unpredictably, like it always does.
The one prediction that is always safe: It will be cheaper (in time and resources - not dollars) to deal with a static problem in the future rather than in the present.
Global warming is all about predicting what will happen over centuries - but then people try to predict human behavior over then same, and it falls to pieces.
Following the logic it gives us a very convenient excuse to just sit on our asses and never actually accomplish anything.
And yet following that has lead us to a never ending series of advancements in reality - no coercion has been required. So since reality agrees with my view, I'm afraid your point loses its meaning. It really was pointless of the people in the 1900s to worry about what we would do about the horse manure. That doesn't mean you don't ask questions - it just means that you do not pass laws to try to solve problems that may eventually exist.
Laws are for today's and tomorrow's problems - not for next century's problems.
That is indeed how it is supposed to work.
It is not how it works in practice, in some highly politicized fields. It does lead to bias regardless, as humans have a natural tendency to question more closely things that they do not agree with.
My point is merely that we, as outsiders, cannot evaluate the level of bias that exists. (Bias always exists - the quest is how statistically significant it is.)
Yes, while I attempted the same thing earlier this year - and every single CFL light bulbs I installed burned out within 1 month. Every single one. Three different brands. I caused more pollution in one month with those bulbs than will be made back in the entire time I own my house.
It is critical that we all realize that what is best for ourselves is not what is best for our neighbors. Stop dictating what others should do!
For me, money is basically no object - so I installed normal fluorescents, which are not only brighter but also use less power. But another person in my situation would probably be better off using incandescents. Our power is nuclear anyway.
Note that my solution, being more expensive, is almost certainly more polluting... as is most politically motivated conservation.
If one commutes less distance or drives a more efficient vehicle, for example, is one therefore poorer?
If one is free to make the choice themselves, then the answer is almost certainly no - individuals make choices to maximize their "economic wealth", by definition.
However, if such a thing is forced on everyone (like CFL lighting, for example), some people will be unaffected (those that would have chosen to do so anyway), and some will be made poorer (those that for whatever reason would not have chosen to do so).
Your problem is that you believe that you are better at deciding what is good for others than they are themselves...
Actually, talking about the proposed solution, taxes:
Taxes as proposed is a statist solution - this should not be surprising, since it was developed by governments that are always in the pockets of the current powers, not the future ones. To make this clear, here is the scenario: You own a powerplant, where you burn coal to provide energy. You and all of your current competition is given X credits to allow you to produce, and anything more than X is taxed. Since all the existing producers were placed in the same circumstances, the cost is passed on to the customer and your profits remain the same.
However I create a new company - which uses a new technology to produce energy with less (but non-zero) pollution. Unfortunately, I don't have any credits - so I pay taxes on my entire production.
In other words, the proposed plans are a subsidy to entrenched players - this should not be surprising, since the plan was conceived by entrenched players.
Scientists who actively publish are doing real scientific research.
There is a trap here, however. To be published in a peer reviewed journal, your peers have to agree to it. So in a highly politicized area these sampling parameters have a bias, which invalidates any statistics: to be published, you must agree with what others are saying - otherwise they will not let you pass the peer review. Many people believe this is going on - almost everyone agrees that this is a highly politicized area of research.
Personally, I don't care that much who causes global warming - because the benefits of reversing global warming do not currently outweigh the costs. I think we should carry on studying global warming (so that we can start to predict what will really happen), and keep on our normal path of technological progress. By the end of the 100 year time frame used by the reports, we will have advanced so much technologically that we will be laughing at our current proposals to deal with climate change - just like how we laugh at the people from 1908 meeting to try to avoid the horrors of horse poop.
Well, OK, so not everyone in the stats is a "true Mormon", whatever that is. Not everyone counted as Baptist is a "true Baptist" either...
But anyway, if you look at self-reported "Mormons" from surveys not related to the church, Utah has 1.2 million or so - so worst case number inflation is on the order of 20%... that is actually pretty good, for a church with no official procedures for leaving it. (You can ask for your name to be stricken from the records, but I mean really, who is up-tight enough to do that. Besides you, I mean ;} )
Um - you're a little late there. "Mormons" are in pretty much every country on Earth. In the US, there are 6 million LDS church members - so one out of 50 people in the US is a "Mormon". Utah has 1.5 million LDS church members in it - so excluding Utah it is 1 out of 60.
There are 7 million members in the rest of the world - so there are actually more "Mormons" that live outside the United States than that live inside. The church is growing at 3% per year - doubling every 15 years or so.
For fun facts, the country of Tonga is 46% Mormon. The country of Samoa is 36%. Utah is 72%. Hawaii is 5%.
What rock have you been under?
I'm not talking about that - we were discussing government jobs growth.
That money is being completely wasted...
Yes - if the tumor was growing at the same (or lower) rate as the body and had existed as long as the body, I would question my classification of the object as malignant.
Well, yes - but the number of engineering, marketing, etc jobs (that also create wealth) has been increasing at a faster pace than manufacturing has been falling. You saw the same thing when agriculture was receding - the news even said it was the end of civilization back then too...
As a civilization: we find a cool way to create value (farming, manufacturing, communicating); we extract the value, becoming more and more efficient at it as time goes on; until eventually the value is being created essentially for free - only a few percent of the population is involved in the value creation.
The key is to keep discovering new ways to create value. (Or economic wealth, as you say)
Back on the subject of government jobs increasing - I have to admit, I had thought the problem was far worse. I had expected the curve to be exponential, which would show a serious problem. Straight line growth is actually not that bad.
Um, why? A hundred years ago, agriculture was the base of our economy - now less than 1% of the population works in agriculture. This is a good thing!
It's not like there are no other jobs, or that the number of hamburgers you can buy has decreased - the fact is, automation and outsourcing make stuff cheaper. The displaced workers get new comparable jobs. They can now afford more stuff, cause stuff is cheaper!
This is not one of the failing of government or markets - the failing would be if governments and markets did not provide comparable new jobs... and apparently the government is stepping up to that challenge. Ahem.
That's great for you - I'm glad you like CFL lights.
But now Congress is mandating that I must like them... and that is a problem. I have tried 7 different brands - none of them work. The first 4 brands simply burned out within a month. The next three have lasted a year so far, but the initial light output is so low that the light is useless and my wife complains - so I will not be buying any more, of course.
Honestly, I'd pay $50 a bulb if it really did last forever and give good light - but it looks like my power is not "good" enough (I live in the top floor of a 61 floor building - not like I can change my power).
Allowing you to buy CFL is great. Forcing me to buy CFL when they don't meet my needs is not.
Get your pitchforks - it's time to march against Congress again...
Um, there was only a Falcon 1 and a Falcon 9...