I didn't say that killer robots weren't a concern. They most definitely are, on many levels; in capabilities, things that could go wrong, and the whole philosophy of autonomous lethal weapons. What I'm pointing out is that the doomsday clock was supposed to cover, you know, Doomsday: The extinction of humanity. If that is not what the doomsday clock is for anymore, someone should change the wiki. And we probably need a different indicator, that indicates, you know, actual doomsday, because that would be useful.
They changed how the setting of the Clock is chosen a few years back... now it includes anything those making the decision believe to represent a "global threat".
The Clock has always been more political than anything else (the Bulletin being mostly an advocate for arms control and elimination), the change just made that more open.
Ok, thanks. So it's just political now. Nothing to see here, then.
Exactly. I mean, the inexplicable lack of left turn signals at busy intersections in Phoenix, AZ seems pretty dangerous to me. Shall we set the doomsday clock to 4 minutes to midnight?
Ok, I understand nuclear weapons stockpiles, and natural catastrophes... but "killer robots"? Isn't the doomsday clock supposed to indicate how close we are to global disaster? How does "killer robots" enter in exactly? I mean in the real world, not in the Terminator universe.
On the other hand, bail was denied for Reeves, a former cop and the father of a current cop, so a judge somewhere thought there might be something to the allegation of 2nd degree murder.
I am looking at the big picture. Scrubbers at coal power plants are an alternate solution for mercury emissions, and a single back-end solution is better than trying to figure out how to manage millions of front-end sources, most of which are going into landfill and hence into the water supply. (The "single back end" argument is the same way that electric cars are justified, BTW.) Moreover, the great majority of CFLs are made in China with very little in the way of emission control -- google "china" and "environmental disaster".
Geeze, one typo and nobody will ever let you forget it. $2.50, not $250 obviously. Or at $13.40 for six, a little under that, if you want to get pedantic.
> If you clean up the broken CFL immediately and you air out the room properly, there is no real danger.
(Emphasis mine.) Listen to yourself. Is that really what you look for in a lightbulb? What about all the bulbs in landfill? Especially now that they don't last as long.
> Up stream it was stated that running 100watt 130volt bulbs only deliver 75 watts.
And elsewhere it was said that 110 volt household current in the US (on which the 75 watt number was based) is really 120 volts, not 110. Moreover, anyone who's seen a 26 watt CFL next to a 100 watt incandescent will tell you, the 26 watt CFL really isn't equivalent.
> If you need 100 watt equivalent get THESE, [homedepot.com] 1600lumens, 10,000 hours, just under $1.25 each.
Nod. I have two of them in the garage, but I still have to plug in the halogen if I'm doing anything more than picking up another jar of peanut butter.
> If you replace a 100W incandescent bulb with a 25W CFL and run it for 3 hour/day, you save 82KWh/year, or around $10/year at 12 cents/KWh.
Sure. But do I really care about the... 2 1/2 cents a day savings (that's in my head, don't hold me to it), or am I willing to pay that less than three cents a day for a bulb that comes on instantly and doesn't release mercury if it breaks?
Mind you, there's roughly 32 bulbs in use in my house, and many of them are CFLs, where it makes sense to use them. Just pointing out that they were never really a significant savings, and there exists some compelling reasons not to use them.
Sorry, misplaced decimal. $2.50 each (approx) in both cases, computed by dividing cost by number of bulbs in pack. (Not including shipping.) Specifically comparing Newcandescent 100 Watt Rough Usage Incandescent bulbs to GE 26 watt CFLs. (Which requires that one believe that the 26 watt CFL is a 100 watt equivalent.)
> Unless changing the bulb is extremely difficult, wouldn't the bigger concern be the wattage rating? The difference between an A19 and the 11 hard usage incandescents would make itself felt in energy savings pretty quickly.
I guess it depends on one's definition of "difficult". I have two rooms with vaulted ceilings (remodeled "bonus rooms") and the bulbs stick out at right angles, so common bulb changer extensions don't work. It's a pain in the ass. I send my daughter up the freestanding ladder to change them, because I'm more likely to be able to catch her than she catch me. I have a bulb in the stairwell that takes two men to change at significant risk to life and limb. I have three enclosures outside that for God only knows what reason, come apart into 13 pieces including 4 tiny decorative brass nuts that I probably can't buy anymore. So, wattage rating isn't really a concern in those applications. Wife and Daughter both have vanity mirrors with globe bulbs, and they both hate the light given off by conventional CFLs. The most common fixture in the rest of the house are can lights into which a common CFL base (the part with the electronics) will not fit.
There are solutions for most of these issues, and I thought CFLs were a good solution at first, but they don't seem to be lasting very long anymore, and I hate changing bulbs.
> Still, when CFLs are under a buck apiece, and they promise 15 years (and deliver every bit of 4 years), they are still more cost effective.
And when will this be? I just checked on Amazon, and a "100W equivalent" CFL (GE) is just under $2.50 each, and has a rated lifespan of 8,000 hours, a little less than 1 year.
Probably true, but they'll be less likely to ignore the collateral damage of some "green" technologies, especially if they've, by then, found something that's actually better, not just "better" when looking at one inflated metric.
Indeed. Commonly available CFLs actually do not last longer, when compared with modern incandescent bulbs. (8,000 hours vs 10,000 hours -- read the fine print.)
Wasted electrical energy is wasted money. The latest generation, most efficient LEDs (~100 lumens per watt) pay for themselves in hard usage scenarios, even if the CFLs they replace are free. Replace an incandescent with LED and the payback comes even faster. And if you're spending more than $13 for an A19 LED bulb, you're paying too much.
I can buy 11 hard usage incandescents for the price of one A19 LED bulb.
But you do have a point -- hard usage incandescents appear to be rated for longer usage than common CFLs (10,000 hours vs 8,000 hours (GE)) whereas LEDs are rated closer to 30,000 hours. What I find interesting, parenthetically, is that the LED bulbs are advertised as "contains no mercury". Clearly someone was concerned about the mercury issue with CFLs. (If not in our landfills, at very least in the areas in China where they are manufactured.)
Does this go all the way back to the 100W bulbs that were banned a while back? Or only the recent banning of >40W?
I'll let you in on a little secret: 100W incandescent bulbs are still available. The ban had a loophole for "hard usage incandescents" used in (for instance) outside industrial applications. They're available on Amazon, cost about $2.50 each, and last significantly longer than commercial incandescents. Now that the longevity of CFLs have been value-engineered to worthlessness, I'm switching back to "hard usage" incandescents as my CFLs burn out. I'm interested in LEDs, but I suspect that by the time the price drops significantly, they will also have lost much of their longevity advantage.
But keep in mind that they are rated 100W @ 130V, so at 110V, they are giving out about as much light as an 75W bulb while using 85W of power. It's easy to make an incandescent bulb that lasts for decades - you just need a big, inefficient filament.
But (and this is important to me) it lasts for decades.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't say that killer robots weren't a concern. They most definitely are, on many levels; in capabilities, things that could go wrong, and the whole philosophy of autonomous lethal weapons. What I'm pointing out is that the doomsday clock was supposed to cover, you know, Doomsday: The extinction of humanity. If that is not what the doomsday clock is for anymore, someone should change the wiki. And we probably need a different indicator, that indicates, you know, actual doomsday, because that would be useful.
They changed how the setting of the Clock is chosen a few years back... now it includes anything those making the decision believe to represent a "global threat".
The Clock has always been more political than anything else (the Bulletin being mostly an advocate for arms control and elimination), the change just made that more open.
Ok, thanks. So it's just political now. Nothing to see here, then.
Ok, so, works of fiction. How about The Lathe of Heaven for the first one, and Phillip Dru: Administrator for the second?
Exactly. I mean, the inexplicable lack of left turn signals at busy intersections in Phoenix, AZ seems pretty dangerous to me. Shall we set the doomsday clock to 4 minutes to midnight?
Ok, I understand nuclear weapons stockpiles, and natural catastrophes... but "killer robots"? Isn't the doomsday clock supposed to indicate how close we are to global disaster? How does "killer robots" enter in exactly? I mean in the real world, not in the Terminator universe.
Yeah. Supply and demand. I didn't know of their existence until end of December 2013. Immediately bought a case.
On the other hand, bail was denied for Reeves, a former cop and the father of a current cop, so a judge somewhere thought there might be something to the allegation of 2nd degree murder.
It's what google maps should have been.
I am looking at the big picture. Scrubbers at coal power plants are an alternate solution for mercury emissions, and a single back-end solution is better than trying to figure out how to manage millions of front-end sources, most of which are going into landfill and hence into the water supply. (The "single back end" argument is the same way that electric cars are justified, BTW.) Moreover, the great majority of CFLs are made in China with very little in the way of emission control -- google "china" and "environmental disaster".
Geeze, one typo and nobody will ever let you forget it. $2.50, not $250 obviously. Or at $13.40 for six, a little under that, if you want to get pedantic.
So an incandescent lumen is somehow different than a CFC lumen?
Um, no, marketing people lie. I would have thought that would be obvious.
How does this help the workers in China?
> If you clean up the broken CFL immediately and you air out the room properly, there is no real danger.
(Emphasis mine.) Listen to yourself. Is that really what you look for in a lightbulb? What about all the bulbs in landfill? Especially now that they don't last as long.
> Up stream it was stated that running 100watt 130volt bulbs only deliver 75 watts.
And elsewhere it was said that 110 volt household current in the US (on which the 75 watt number was based) is really 120 volts, not 110. Moreover, anyone who's seen a 26 watt CFL next to a 100 watt incandescent will tell you, the 26 watt CFL really isn't equivalent.
> If you need 100 watt equivalent get THESE, [homedepot.com] 1600lumens, 10,000 hours, just under $1.25 each.
Nod. I have two of them in the garage, but I still have to plug in the halogen if I'm doing anything more than picking up another jar of peanut butter.
Someone ask him what his position is on the internet being "a series of tubes".
> If you replace a 100W incandescent bulb with a 25W CFL and run it for 3 hour/day, you save 82KWh/year, or around $10/year at 12 cents/KWh.
Sure. But do I really care about the ... 2 1/2 cents a day savings (that's in my head, don't hold me to it), or am I willing to pay that less than three cents a day for a bulb that comes on instantly and doesn't release mercury if it breaks?
Mind you, there's roughly 32 bulbs in use in my house, and many of them are CFLs, where it makes sense to use them. Just pointing out that they were never really a significant savings, and there exists some compelling reasons not to use them.
Sorry, misplaced decimal. $2.50 each (approx) in both cases, computed by dividing cost by number of bulbs in pack. (Not including shipping.) Specifically comparing Newcandescent 100 Watt Rough Usage Incandescent bulbs to GE 26 watt CFLs. (Which requires that one believe that the 26 watt CFL is a 100 watt equivalent.)
> Unless changing the bulb is extremely difficult, wouldn't the bigger concern be the wattage rating? The difference between an A19 and the 11 hard usage incandescents would make itself felt in energy savings pretty quickly.
I guess it depends on one's definition of "difficult". I have two rooms with vaulted ceilings (remodeled "bonus rooms") and the bulbs stick out at right angles, so common bulb changer extensions don't work. It's a pain in the ass. I send my daughter up the freestanding ladder to change them, because I'm more likely to be able to catch her than she catch me. I have a bulb in the stairwell that takes two men to change at significant risk to life and limb. I have three enclosures outside that for God only knows what reason, come apart into 13 pieces including 4 tiny decorative brass nuts that I probably can't buy anymore. So, wattage rating isn't really a concern in those applications. Wife and Daughter both have vanity mirrors with globe bulbs, and they both hate the light given off by conventional CFLs. The most common fixture in the rest of the house are can lights into which a common CFL base (the part with the electronics) will not fit.
There are solutions for most of these issues, and I thought CFLs were a good solution at first, but they don't seem to be lasting very long anymore, and I hate changing bulbs.
> Still, when CFLs are under a buck apiece, and they promise 15 years (and deliver every bit of 4 years), they are still more cost effective.
And when will this be? I just checked on Amazon, and a "100W equivalent" CFL (GE) is just under $2.50 each, and has a rated lifespan of 8,000 hours, a little less than 1 year.
Probably true, but they'll be less likely to ignore the collateral damage of some "green" technologies, especially if they've, by then, found something that's actually better, not just "better" when looking at one inflated metric.
Indeed. Commonly available CFLs actually do not last longer, when compared with modern incandescent bulbs. (8,000 hours vs 10,000 hours -- read the fine print.)
> Incandescent bulbs suck. They break easily, don't last long,
Demonstrably untrue, by the way.
GE 26 Watt Energy Smart CFL - 100 Watt Replacement, about $250 each -- rated at 8,000 hours
Newcandescent 100-Watt Rough Service Frost A19 Light Bulb, about $2.50 each -- rated at 10,000 Hours
Wasted electrical energy is wasted money. The latest generation, most efficient LEDs (~100 lumens per watt) pay for themselves in hard usage scenarios, even if the CFLs they replace are free. Replace an incandescent with LED and the payback comes even faster. And if you're spending more than $13 for an A19 LED bulb, you're paying too much.
I can buy 11 hard usage incandescents for the price of one A19 LED bulb.
But you do have a point -- hard usage incandescents appear to be rated for longer usage than common CFLs (10,000 hours vs 8,000 hours (GE)) whereas LEDs are rated closer to 30,000 hours. What I find interesting, parenthetically, is that the LED bulbs are advertised as "contains no mercury". Clearly someone was concerned about the mercury issue with CFLs. (If not in our landfills, at very least in the areas in China where they are manufactured.)
Does this go all the way back to the 100W bulbs that were banned a while back? Or only the recent banning of >40W?
I'll let you in on a little secret: 100W incandescent bulbs are still available. The ban had a loophole for "hard usage incandescents" used in (for instance) outside industrial applications. They're available on Amazon, cost about $2.50 each, and last significantly longer than commercial incandescents. Now that the longevity of CFLs have been value-engineered to worthlessness, I'm switching back to "hard usage" incandescents as my CFLs burn out. I'm interested in LEDs, but I suspect that by the time the price drops significantly, they will also have lost much of their longevity advantage.
But keep in mind that they are rated 100W @ 130V, so at 110V, they are giving out about as much light as an 75W bulb while using 85W of power. It's easy to make an incandescent bulb that lasts for decades - you just need a big, inefficient filament.
But (and this is important to me) it lasts for decades.