"Elsewhere in the world, if you want to send a letter, you go to the post office or drop it in one of the post boxes like you can also do in the US."
Thats all well and good for sending mail. But then how do you receive your mail each day? If you do have a box to receive mail in, why on earth wouldn't the postman take outgoing mail? It isn't even as if he has to sort it, he just chucks it in a bag and brings it back to the office with him.
Here in the US we primarily use those seperate postal drop boxes when we want outgoing mail to go in a more timely fashion. All of those boxes have pickup times on them.
Has anyone considered that the real relationship could be economic rather than having anything to do with sprawl?
In that dense urban environment you usually have two classes of people. Extremely wealthy and dirt poor; extremely wealthy just doesn't encompass many people. The middle class live in the sprawling suberbs.
Maybe, just maybe, the poor can't afford the fat cat lifestyles of suberbia.
This should be voted sad, not funny. Under the current administration who is imprisoned and/or executed are not entitled a trial and nobody will ever know about it.
"Unless, of course, Microsoft would like to sell more copies of Windows for people to use to access content."
Lets try this again. THEY HAVE A MONOPOLY. THEY ARE THE ONLY PLAYER. It is impossible for Microsoft to gain a significant market growth through snazzy grabs like more multimedia content BECAUSE THEY ALREADY HAVE THE ENTIRE MARKET. The only way Microsoft can increase their market is for the market itself to grow.
If nobody uses their pc to listen to content as you say, then multimedia content availability isn't a selling point for pc's in the first place. Your argument fails on that point alone. But even if the availability were a selling point, it ignores the fact that Microsoft's profits are not impacted by selling points. They have no competition. Their customers have to use their products whether they are worthwhile or not.
"Additionally, you need to provide evidence for your assertion that TCP will not be able to be disabled at the hardware level."
First, it wouldn't be to Microsoft's credit that you had to go to the hardware to get around their system. Second, bypassing a copy control mechanism is a violation of the DMCA so I doubt hardware vendors will help you with this. Not bypassing the copy control mechanism would mean the hardware being honest with Vista about not having the capability, Vista either does not interoperate with devices that do not support the encryption or interoperates with them at an artificially reduced capacity. The most obvious example of this is display devices.
"No, they don't. Only a small minority of people use their Windows PCs to access the kind of content that's relevant to DRM."
And you are claiming that would somehow put the music industry in a position to strongarm microsoft into DRM support? If nobody is using their pc to view or listen to content then Microsoft would have even less interest in the issue. Since Microsoft profits aren't impacted by whether or not anyone ever purchases content for use on their PC I fail to see your argument here.
I'm sorry dock but for there to be anything to discuss you are going to have to connect some dots on exactly how denying computer users access to multimedia is a threat to Microsoft. It isn't as if the RIAA could refuse to allow content on windows and allow it on some other operating system. Windows is a monopoly, there is no other pc outlet for the RIAA's content. Either the RIAA uses technology that is compatible with the windows operating system or they exclude the PC (including all that itunes revenue they are getting) from their business model altogether.
"TCP and DRM are very different things."
Trusted Computing is a digital rights support platform. Trusted computing will bar unauthorized (unauthorized by the vendor, not the user or pc owner) content from executing. All of the Vista DRM support is part of the trusted computing initiative.
""Your platform needs to support DRM or there won't be any content published on it by us or any of our partners" is "ZERO leverage" ? What planet are you from ?"
Which platform is that? Vista is not a multimedia platform and is also the next edition of the windows monopoly. Microsoft has all the leverage there. Windows media player? Last I checked this is just another way to lock users into windows. Microsoft is a content provider, the content they provide is software. Microsoft had NO connection to music or video distribution when they began the trusted computing initiative.
I don't think there is anyone over the age of 5 in the United States who isn't aware of the negative health problems related to smoking. Perhaps there was an issue once long ago with people not being aware of the dangers (like the 50's?) but in modern times there is more false information and overblown statistics in the anti-smoking campaign.
"No one identifies AS MUCH with the group than they do with their actual selves. (unless they've been brainwashed by a cult or something) So If you sacrifice of yourself for the benefit of the group, it IS altruism, even if you identify also with the group. The marine who was just awarded the medal of honor for throwing himself on a grenade, saving his unit at the cost of his life, did not do it out of self-interest."
You bring up a poor example to make your case. Anyone who has been in the military can tell that the military literally brainwashes recruits into a groupthink. The more advanced the military unit, the greater degree of brainwashing that occurs.
I would also argue that you shouldn't make a blanket statement of 'nobody'. There are crazies and exceptions to every rule. Individuals who make exceptional sacrifices in the interest of a group are probably those who have the strongest tendencies toward group identification.
That aside, technically every neuron in the body is independent and they only operate in the higher level sense we know as a community or collective of independent effects. If your hand lifts to protect your head, is it acting altruistically? Or is it because of a strong collective bond between the parts you identify as your body? Is it because that group of completely independent parts that are acting in a concert you identify as self knows that the portion of the collective known as the hand is less essential to the collective than the portion known as the brain.
Anyway, lets drop the details of what consistutes altruism for a moment. My core point was that on some level you do identify yourself as part of a collective and the activity of the parts of the brain associated with this may be what they are measuring.
"I think altruistic people have a myriad oof reasons - selfish AND unselfish - for helping."
This is the fundemental flaw in your post. You need to look up the exact definition of altruistic. In order to be altruistic the act must be selfless. Helping others in a manner that is not completely selfless is not altruistic.
Nation x and y form an alliance. Nation x is attacked by nation z and nation y comes to their aid and helps fight off nation z. The aid nation y gave is not altruistic even though it cost them without direct gain. Nation y was acting in their own self-interest believing the aid they gave would result in nation x aiding them if the need arose.
People in the US who are not impoverished are loaded with propaganda that there isn't much poverty in the US. Just like we are made to gasp at the elitist class in evil communist nations that hold all the wealth; it is rare to have anyone pay attention to the fact that 95% of the wealth in the United States is in the hands of less than 10% of the population.
The middle class in the United States is only as large as it is because the numbers are twisted to include lower upper class and upper lower class individuals in the middle class. But even more than that, it because the US simply has such vast amounts of wealth that the crumbs from the loaves being handled by the upper class still amounts to quite a bit of bread compared to crumbs seen in other parts of the world.
Is it still altruism if you do something to advance the colony? What if it is because you identify the colony as an extension of yourself? Those who believe in altruism as a natural thing might be inclined to jump on this selfless bandwagon. I see no reason to believe that this region of the brain is associated with anything more than base functions of social and group interaction. If you identify yourself as part of a group then actions to benefit that group are merely selfishness on another level.
Furthermore, in a general sense, helping others is merely promote self interest. Say you are nice to people at the office and help them out whenever possible. When you take these actions there may not be a specific self interest in mind at the moment but you are aware that you are building goodwill toward yourself that may benefit you when you in turn need help.
His response seems to indicate that I interpreted him correctly. His 'victory' is the defeat of DRM in a single battle (within Vista) at the 'terrible' expense of Vista itself.
"To pin it all on Microsoft flatters them, and misses the big picture."
I didn't claim Microsoft was the only villain. I clearly said villainS who advocate DRM should be blamed as well.
I am not a fan of Apple or Microsoft. However, lets be real for a moment. Apple is a big PC vendor and they sell a fair amount of music (they DID publicly fight against DRM when negotiating for ITunes, I remember reading the stories) but who really cares about music? The biggest DRM and copyright threats aren't on the music and video fronts. The biggest single threat is in software. I would be depressed if the quality of entertainment were reduced because of DRM, I will fight where things are wrong is this arena. But outside the murmurings of poets, in the real world, computers are what powers mankind. In this arena, Microsoft with their monopoly that includes the desktop of almost every human with the potential to do their part in driving the progress of our species has the potential to do serious harm.
I know, slowing down the development and the progress of the tools that let men do things, from the small steps to the big leaps, just doesn't have the chilling impact of seeing weeping aids victims or lines of child corpses on the side of an African roadway. It is a problem that most people would never recognize. Of course, slowing human progress would slow medical progress and likely result in more aids victims. Education and industrialization are byproducts of human advancement as well and they usually have an uncanny way of coinciding with the downfall of dictators, kings, and regimes that leave bodies by the road.
People don't get that problem but they get it when they can't share their new CD with their friend. They get it when they can't backup the new Disney movie they bought and have to buy copy after copy as the kids destroy them. People get those things and so that is where the battle lines are drawn.
Microsoft isn't the only villain. But they are the real threat. The RIAA is really only a dangerous animal because of the ways their DRM and DRM laws will empower companies like Microsoft.
"No they weren't. Things like Macrovision are essentially DRM, and they've been around for over a decade. More recently, Apple were well and truly there in force first, with the iTunes store."
Macrovision had the same purpose as DRM, but DRM is by definition to the use of DIGITAL controls. Before DRM was even a publically announced issue Microsoft announced plans to support content restrictions. Apple might have been to market with DRM technology before Apple (I'm too lazy to compare dates between the origin the itunes store and the first content protection support in Windows Media) but Microsoft definately publically announced plans to support DRM. Microsoft doesn't provide content and didn't do this as part of a negotiation to gain content like Apple either. The RIAA had ZERO leverage on Microsoft to push this. Most people know that the reason Microsoft stands so firmly behind DRM but that is another debate.
"Uh, hello ? Apple ? The most popular MP3 player in the world ? The biggest online music store in the marketplace ?"
You are misinformed. Apple has DRM but they did not volunteer DRM like Microsoft. They were forced to implement DRM by the music industry or no store. The same is true of all content providers who had to negotiate contracts with the music industry. Apple in particular actually attempted (at least publically) to lock horns with the music industry over the DRM and each of the individual restrictions. How hard they fought is another debate. I find it interesting that Apple was 'forced' to go along with all the restrictions that would coincidentally lock consumers into Apple's hardware.
A pyrrhic victory would require some sort of substantial loss. I doubt many would call the loss of Microsoft's newest OS a loss.
Your post seems to imply that Microsoft is blameless for leading the DRM charge. DRM and bad copyright legislation are things that we need to fix but that doesn't mean we should ignore the villains who advocate them.
You never saw Microsoft attacking a filesharing program but Microsoft was first in line to implement DRM. Microsoft volunteered to implement DRM measures and led the technological way in the DRM arena. Some companies resisted but caved, some caved without a fight but microsoft is the only company I know of that actually volunteered before any content provider could even think about demanding.
That's terrible. Instead of cutting taxes which gives the biggest impact to the wealthy, they should have used the 'profits' to offset local utility costs. That would benefit everyone in the community.
No, what would you suggest? Some of the aerosol type WD-40?;) I am not the first person to notice this problem with Flourescents though. Those who grow plants under artificial indoor lighting have found the same thing.
Perhaps the manufacturers are fibbing on the lumen numbers for the bulbs? Or perhaps the method used to measure the lumen count is flawed.
There is the other thing people ignore as well. Solar panels simply do not provide enough power to maintain most families current energy usage. This will require adjustments to insulation in the home, changing out your lights, replacing all your working appliances and water heater, and accepting that there will be times when you actually have to walk through dark or dim rooms to make due on the available power of the moment.
I have replaced my bulbs with flourescents ONLY where the flourescents actually light ENTIRE room as well as an incandescent. I have made ADJUSTMENTS on my appliances to optimize them. I shut off lights behind me. Thats the total effort I am willing to put into energy conservation. Quite frankly I think its more than most people are willing to put into energy conservation.
In order for conservation to work, something has to be devised that does not require individual effort. It needs to be passive, cheap, work as well as what we already have (all the time), and needs to be a public installation.
If I am wrong and solar can really provide enough energy to power a home, then start building solar plants. No space? That's cool, give me a substantial tax break and you can use my roof. Hell the infrastructure is there just put the panels on my roof, give me a tax break and feed all the output in to the grid. I will pay the SAME OR LOWER meter rate for what I use, just like I do now. The state keeps the proceeds from selling the power to the grid and that pays for the panels and maintainence.
I have found that fluorescents just don't seem to penetrate as well. They work fine in an overhead light that covers a small area like a hallway. But in my living room I have one lamp in the back corner. That lamp has 1 150w bulb. If I turn that lamp on it illuminates the entire room with a soft yellow light that is easy on the eyes. If I walk to my desk on the opposite corner of the room I can read papers without strain.
If I put a comparable fluorescent in the lamp then my desk is dark and in the shadows. Close to the lamp the light is just as bright as with the 150w. But the brightness drops dramatically with each foot you get from the light.
Slashdot Mirror
Where I come from more people are lard asses than not. So yes, carrying around a bag like a woman is more likely to get you ridicule.
"Elsewhere in the world, if you want to send a letter, you go to the post office or drop it in one of the post boxes like you can also do in the US."
Thats all well and good for sending mail. But then how do you receive your mail each day? If you do have a box to receive mail in, why on earth wouldn't the postman take outgoing mail? It isn't even as if he has to sort it, he just chucks it in a bag and brings it back to the office with him.
Here in the US we primarily use those seperate postal drop boxes when we want outgoing mail to go in a more timely fashion. All of those boxes have pickup times on them.
Not to mention the fact that most people who live in the suberbs can afford the suberbs and most people who live in the city cannot.
Economics can play a large role.
Has anyone considered that the real relationship could be economic rather than having anything to do with sprawl?
In that dense urban environment you usually have two classes of people. Extremely wealthy and dirt poor; extremely wealthy just doesn't encompass many people. The middle class live in the sprawling suberbs.
Maybe, just maybe, the poor can't afford the fat cat lifestyles of suberbia.
This should be voted sad, not funny. Under the current administration who is imprisoned and/or executed are not entitled a trial and nobody will ever know about it.
"Unless, of course, Microsoft would like to sell more copies of Windows for people to use to access content."
Lets try this again. THEY HAVE A MONOPOLY. THEY ARE THE ONLY PLAYER. It is impossible for Microsoft to gain a significant market growth through snazzy grabs like more multimedia content BECAUSE THEY ALREADY HAVE THE ENTIRE MARKET. The only way Microsoft can increase their market is for the market itself to grow.
If nobody uses their pc to listen to content as you say, then multimedia content availability isn't a selling point for pc's in the first place. Your argument fails on that point alone. But even if the availability were a selling point, it ignores the fact that Microsoft's profits are not impacted by selling points. They have no competition. Their customers have to use their products whether they are worthwhile or not.
"Additionally, you need to provide evidence for your assertion that TCP will not be able to be disabled at the hardware level."
First, it wouldn't be to Microsoft's credit that you had to go to the hardware to get around their system. Second, bypassing a copy control mechanism is a violation of the DMCA so I doubt hardware vendors will help you with this. Not bypassing the copy control mechanism would mean the hardware being honest with Vista about not having the capability, Vista either does not interoperate with devices that do not support the encryption or interoperates with them at an artificially reduced capacity. The most obvious example of this is display devices.
"No, they don't. Only a small minority of people use their Windows PCs to access the kind of content that's relevant to DRM."
And you are claiming that would somehow put the music industry in a position to strongarm microsoft into DRM support? If nobody is using their pc to view or listen to content then Microsoft would have even less interest in the issue. Since Microsoft profits aren't impacted by whether or not anyone ever purchases content for use on their PC I fail to see your argument here.
I'm sorry dock but for there to be anything to discuss you are going to have to connect some dots on exactly how denying computer users access to multimedia is a threat to Microsoft. It isn't as if the RIAA could refuse to allow content on windows and allow it on some other operating system. Windows is a monopoly, there is no other pc outlet for the RIAA's content. Either the RIAA uses technology that is compatible with the windows operating system or they exclude the PC (including all that itunes revenue they are getting) from their business model altogether.
"TCP and DRM are very different things."
Trusted Computing is a digital rights support platform. Trusted computing will bar unauthorized (unauthorized by the vendor, not the user or pc owner) content from executing. All of the Vista DRM support is part of the trusted computing initiative.
""Your platform needs to support DRM or there won't be any content published on it by us or any of our partners" is "ZERO leverage" ? What planet are you from ?"
Which platform is that? Vista is not a multimedia platform and is also the next edition of the windows monopoly. Microsoft has all the leverage there. Windows media player? Last I checked this is just another way to lock users into windows. Microsoft is a content provider, the content they provide is software. Microsoft had NO connection to music or video distribution when they began the trusted computing initiative.
I don't know if the poster meant that 8ghz wouldn't be useful or that any method of overclocking that requires liquid nitrogen is not useful.
I don't think there is anyone over the age of 5 in the United States who isn't aware of the negative health problems related to smoking. Perhaps there was an issue once long ago with people not being aware of the dangers (like the 50's?) but in modern times there is more false information and overblown statistics in the anti-smoking campaign.
"No one identifies AS MUCH with the group than they do with their actual selves. (unless they've been brainwashed by a cult or something) So If you sacrifice of yourself for the benefit of the group, it IS altruism, even if you identify also with the group. The marine who was just awarded the medal of honor for throwing himself on a grenade, saving his unit at the cost of his life, did not do it out of self-interest."
You bring up a poor example to make your case. Anyone who has been in the military can tell that the military literally brainwashes recruits into a groupthink. The more advanced the military unit, the greater degree of brainwashing that occurs.
I would also argue that you shouldn't make a blanket statement of 'nobody'. There are crazies and exceptions to every rule. Individuals who make exceptional sacrifices in the interest of a group are probably those who have the strongest tendencies toward group identification.
That aside, technically every neuron in the body is independent and they only operate in the higher level sense we know as a community or collective of independent effects. If your hand lifts to protect your head, is it acting altruistically? Or is it because of a strong collective bond between the parts you identify as your body? Is it because that group of completely independent parts that are acting in a concert you identify as self knows that the portion of the collective known as the hand is less essential to the collective than the portion known as the brain.
Anyway, lets drop the details of what consistutes altruism for a moment. My core point was that on some level you do identify yourself as part of a collective and the activity of the parts of the brain associated with this may be what they are measuring.
"I think altruistic people have a myriad oof reasons - selfish AND unselfish - for helping."
This is the fundemental flaw in your post. You need to look up the exact definition of altruistic. In order to be altruistic the act must be selfless. Helping others in a manner that is not completely selfless is not altruistic.
Nation x and y form an alliance. Nation x is attacked by nation z and nation y comes to their aid and helps fight off nation z. The aid nation y gave is not altruistic even though it cost them without direct gain. Nation y was acting in their own self-interest believing the aid they gave would result in nation x aiding them if the need arose.
HAH! Here in the US we've got you all licked. We tested our nukes on our own soil AND in Japan! Take that!
People in the US who are not impoverished are loaded with propaganda that there isn't much poverty in the US. Just like we are made to gasp at the elitist class in evil communist nations that hold all the wealth; it is rare to have anyone pay attention to the fact that 95% of the wealth in the United States is in the hands of less than 10% of the population.
The middle class in the United States is only as large as it is because the numbers are twisted to include lower upper class and upper lower class individuals in the middle class. But even more than that, it because the US simply has such vast amounts of wealth that the crumbs from the loaves being handled by the upper class still amounts to quite a bit of bread compared to crumbs seen in other parts of the world.
Is it still altruism if you do something to advance the colony? What if it is because you identify the colony as an extension of yourself? Those who believe in altruism as a natural thing might be inclined to jump on this selfless bandwagon. I see no reason to believe that this region of the brain is associated with anything more than base functions of social and group interaction. If you identify yourself as part of a group then actions to benefit that group are merely selfishness on another level.
Furthermore, in a general sense, helping others is merely promote self interest. Say you are nice to people at the office and help them out whenever possible. When you take these actions there may not be a specific self interest in mind at the moment but you are aware that you are building goodwill toward yourself that may benefit you when you in turn need help.
His response seems to indicate that I interpreted him correctly. His 'victory' is the defeat of DRM in a single battle (within Vista) at the 'terrible' expense of Vista itself.
"To pin it all on Microsoft flatters them, and misses the big picture."
I didn't claim Microsoft was the only villain. I clearly said villainS who advocate DRM should be blamed as well.
I am not a fan of Apple or Microsoft. However, lets be real for a moment. Apple is a big PC vendor and they sell a fair amount of music (they DID publicly fight against DRM when negotiating for ITunes, I remember reading the stories) but who really cares about music? The biggest DRM and copyright threats aren't on the music and video fronts. The biggest single threat is in software. I would be depressed if the quality of entertainment were reduced because of DRM, I will fight where things are wrong is this arena. But outside the murmurings of poets, in the real world, computers are what powers mankind. In this arena, Microsoft with their monopoly that includes the desktop of almost every human with the potential to do their part in driving the progress of our species has the potential to do serious harm.
I know, slowing down the development and the progress of the tools that let men do things, from the small steps to the big leaps, just doesn't have the chilling impact of seeing weeping aids victims or lines of child corpses on the side of an African roadway. It is a problem that most people would never recognize. Of course, slowing human progress would slow medical progress and likely result in more aids victims. Education and industrialization are byproducts of human advancement as well and they usually have an uncanny way of coinciding with the downfall of dictators, kings, and regimes that leave bodies by the road.
People don't get that problem but they get it when they can't share their new CD with their friend. They get it when they can't backup the new Disney movie they bought and have to buy copy after copy as the kids destroy them. People get those things and so that is where the battle lines are drawn.
Microsoft isn't the only villain. But they are the real threat. The RIAA is really only a dangerous animal because of the ways their DRM and DRM laws will empower companies like Microsoft.
"No they weren't. Things like Macrovision are essentially DRM, and they've been around for over a decade. More recently, Apple were well and truly there in force first, with the iTunes store."
Macrovision had the same purpose as DRM, but DRM is by definition to the use of DIGITAL controls. Before DRM was even a publically announced issue Microsoft announced plans to support content restrictions. Apple might have been to market with DRM technology before Apple (I'm too lazy to compare dates between the origin the itunes store and the first content protection support in Windows Media) but Microsoft definately publically announced plans to support DRM. Microsoft doesn't provide content and didn't do this as part of a negotiation to gain content like Apple either. The RIAA had ZERO leverage on Microsoft to push this. Most people know that the reason Microsoft stands so firmly behind DRM but that is another debate.
"Uh, hello ? Apple ? The most popular MP3 player in the world ? The biggest online music store in the marketplace ?"
You are misinformed. Apple has DRM but they did not volunteer DRM like Microsoft. They were forced to implement DRM by the music industry or no store. The same is true of all content providers who had to negotiate contracts with the music industry. Apple in particular actually attempted (at least publically) to lock horns with the music industry over the DRM and each of the individual restrictions. How hard they fought is another debate. I find it interesting that Apple was 'forced' to go along with all the restrictions that would coincidentally lock consumers into Apple's hardware.
A pyrrhic victory would require some sort of substantial loss. I doubt many would call the loss of Microsoft's newest OS a loss.
Your post seems to imply that Microsoft is blameless for leading the DRM charge. DRM and bad copyright legislation are things that we need to fix but that doesn't mean we should ignore the villains who advocate them.
You never saw Microsoft attacking a filesharing program but Microsoft was first in line to implement DRM. Microsoft volunteered to implement DRM measures and led the technological way in the DRM arena. Some companies resisted but caved, some caved without a fight but microsoft is the only company I know of that actually volunteered before any content provider could even think about demanding.
Somehow I doubt that. The RIAA just beat the shit out of the WTO AND Russia.
An hour ago I would have corrected that funny moderation to insightful
That's terrible. Instead of cutting taxes which gives the biggest impact to the wealthy, they should have used the 'profits' to offset local utility costs. That would benefit everyone in the community.
No, what would you suggest? Some of the aerosol type WD-40? ;) I am not the first person to notice this problem with Flourescents though. Those who grow plants under artificial indoor lighting have found the same thing.
Perhaps the manufacturers are fibbing on the lumen numbers for the bulbs? Or perhaps the method used to measure the lumen count is flawed.
There is the other thing people ignore as well. Solar panels simply do not provide enough power to maintain most families current energy usage. This will require adjustments to insulation in the home, changing out your lights, replacing all your working appliances and water heater, and accepting that there will be times when you actually have to walk through dark or dim rooms to make due on the available power of the moment.
I have replaced my bulbs with flourescents ONLY where the flourescents actually light ENTIRE room as well as an incandescent. I have made ADJUSTMENTS on my appliances to optimize them. I shut off lights behind me. Thats the total effort I am willing to put into energy conservation. Quite frankly I think its more than most people are willing to put into energy conservation.
In order for conservation to work, something has to be devised that does not require individual effort. It needs to be passive, cheap, work as well as what we already have (all the time), and needs to be a public installation.
If I am wrong and solar can really provide enough energy to power a home, then start building solar plants. No space? That's cool, give me a substantial tax break and you can use my roof. Hell the infrastructure is there just put the panels on my roof, give me a tax break and feed all the output in to the grid. I will pay the SAME OR LOWER meter rate for what I use, just like I do now. The state keeps the proceeds from selling the power to the grid and that pays for the panels and maintainence.
I have found that fluorescents just don't seem to penetrate as well. They work fine in an overhead light that covers a small area like a hallway. But in my living room I have one lamp in the back corner. That lamp has 1 150w bulb. If I turn that lamp on it illuminates the entire room with a soft yellow light that is easy on the eyes. If I walk to my desk on the opposite corner of the room I can read papers without strain.
If I put a comparable fluorescent in the lamp then my desk is dark and in the shadows. Close to the lamp the light is just as bright as with the 150w. But the brightness drops dramatically with each foot you get from the light.