My CFLs don't flicker either. I've been buying CFLs for more than 10 years and I never had one that did flicker.
they won't contain mercury
True but coal fired power plants emit more mercury to produce the electricity to power incandescent lights than CFLs contain. On top of that, I wonder what alphabet soup of toxins are created in the manufacturing of LEDs? And how does that compare to the manufacture of CFLs?
But how much of an improvement will they be over fluorescent lights
Unfortunately what TFA doesn't say is that currently LEDs are only good for spot lighting and not area lighting. In other words they can be used to read a book but not light an entire room. While LED lights for areas are available they are more expensive than other LEDs, which are themselves expensive.
It's also an eCommerce site that went out of business when the bubble burst; it doesn't relate to censorship at all.
It went out of business during the bubble burst yes however it's attack of a Swedish arts group who used etoy as their domain name [WTO page with links to news articles] infuriated a lot of activists. If eToys had never attacked the group they may not of survived anyway, however by attacking them and trying to censor their domain name eToys made sure people would oppose them.
While I grant that libertarians tend to oppose government control of drugs, you are the first one I have heard of who does not think corporations should be able to drug test their employees. So you favor government regulation to accomplish this? Or by what means do you propose?
First, it's because of government that employers started testing for drugs, the government required some employers to test for drug use with the fake War on Drugs. In "The Libertarian Alternative - Questions about Drug Testing" [it's 28 minutes] a speaker (emergency room doctor) in this Google video says Libertarians believe the government mandate for employers to test for drugs is a violation of the 4th amendment, unreasonable search. As for me, I oppose drug testing but I would let the free market decide whether to test for drugs. An employer can choose to test or not test. If a potential employee didn't like being tested then they don't have to apply for employment at a company that requires it.
And what's wrong with that? [regarding the sale of human organs]
Because it forces people who are in desperate financial straights into a decision of their organs or foodstuffs.
I'll start by saying I believe that in a true free market most of those people who would be in any "desperate financial straights" are those who either won't work or who spend too much as compared to how much they make, ie they live beyond their means such as buying that brand new Jaguar every 2 years. In a free market people would be able to make enough money to live a comfortable life, have a roof over their head, have enough food to eat, and could afford health insurance. I do leave out, agree to, the possibility of requiring insurance providers to pay into an insurance pool that would allow those who either can't afford or have been turned down for health insurance to get coverage from the pool. I know about being denied health insurance, more than 10 years ago I survived an accident that left me with a permanent disability and have been denied insurance because of that.
Also I love gardening and believe in city farms or gardens. Besides private gardens, if say you have a 5 blocks X 5 blocks section of a city maybe you could have a lot on the center block that's a garden. People living in the area could have an allotment where they could grow their own food. With big enough of a garden, or more than one, people could hire garden tenders to take care of them.
We'd abolish the limited-liability shield laws to make corporate officers and stockholders fully responsible for a corporation's actions
That voids the concept of a corporation, which is that, due to my limited liability, I can invest only my money, but not my credit/honor/personal future in your idea, and limits access to capital. That combined with yourdesire to return to the gold stndard would destroy the economy.
I'm partially, but not compeatly with you on that. Businesses were originally granted a corporate charter, to limit liability, if the business served the common or public good. The first corporation to be granted a charter and issue stocks was the Dutch East India Company in 1602. The second was the Honourable East India Company in 1604. Both companies were shipping and trading businesses, they shipped goods between the Indian subcontinent and Europe. However shipping was a risky business. Ships could run into bad weather and sink or be attacked by pirates. The owners of the ship were responsible for lost cargo and crew, if a
PV production will never by high enough for Middle America to bid on them, they will never provide Energy Independence
So you are more qualified than the researchers than came up with "A Solar Grand Plan"? Their plan says solar power can generate 69% of the US's electricity by 2050. You also know more than the billionaire Texas oil man T. Boone Pickens, Jr? He's announced a plan to eliminate the need for imported oil. His plan is to erect wind turbines through middle America from Canada to Mexico. The electricity that can be produced is enough to close all the LNG, liquefied natural gas power plants in the US. The Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States published by the National Renewable Energy Labs details the wind resources in the US. Picken's plan is to use all the LNG as fuel for vehicles thus replacing imported oil.
I've spoken to a number of people who had never considered the concept of jury nullification, but where quite interested when told about it and its historical role. Its something that really ought to be widely understood, so educating people about it is just as important as being ready to use it yourself.
Yea, I've posted info about jury nullification a number of tymes on the net. Googling slashdot I get 5 results, though I'm sure I've posted more than that.
Look at the laundry list of charges: "money laundering, mail fraud, wire fraud, counterfeiting, and conspiracy". With the exception of counterfeiting all of these are applied to many other things the government considers crimes and really have nothing to do with local currencies. I'm not sure but I think the Liberty Dollars were made to look like US issued money, which would be counterfeiting. When asked "So are these things legal?" "Lewis Solomon, a law professor at George Washington University and author of a book about local currencies, says local currencies are legal with some stipulations, including that they have to be printed (not coined) and that local money cannot resemble dollars."
Liberatarians are okay with corporations drug testing, possibly even DNA testing their employees.
I know of no libertarian, small "l" or big "L", who agrees it's alright for corporations to require drug tests. Actually the Libertarian Party was started by Republicans when Nixon refused to legalize at least hemp, aka marijuana, among other issues like the gold standard. He had a presidential commission investigate whether hemp should be legalized. He then said no matter what they decided he'd never go along with legalizing it. Which is exactly what the commission decided, that hemp should be legalized. Instead Nixon started the War on Drugs, he used the term first in 1972. I don't know any that support employers testing DNA either.
The more extreme liberatarians are okay with the sale of human organs!
And what's wrong with that? If I have an organ I want someone else to have I should be able to give it to them, whether I donate it or I'm paid. Despite what people in the US think of Iran if a person there needs a new organ they are usually able to find an organ and don't have to wait on a waiting list for years.
There is no difference if the government is one of those several major employers, except the government is required to respect more rights of their employees than private employers are.
"B7. What would libertarians do about concentrations of corporate power?"
"First of all, stop creating them as our government does with military contractors and government-subsidized industries. Second, create a more fluid economic environment in which they'd break up. This happens naturally in a free market; even in ours, with taxes and regulatory policies that encourage gigantism, it's quite rare for a company to stay in the biggest 500 for longer than twenty years. We'd abolish the limited-liability shield laws to make corporate officers and stockholders fully responsible for a corporation's actions. We'd make it impossible for corporations to grow fat on "sweetheart deals" paid for with taxpayers' money; we'd lower the cost of capital (by cutting taxes) and regulatory compliance (by repealing regulations that presume guilt until you prove your innocence), encouraging entrepreneurship and letting economic conditions (rather than government favoritism) determine the optimum size of the business unit."
If I'm wrong, I'd love to learn why
You are wrong, which isn't surprising as both Democrats and Republican have been making Libertarians as lunatics on the fringe. I gave examples above in how you are wrong but if you really want to learn more read the Libertarian FAQ linked to above. The Libertarian Party's platform explains the party stances, and BTW I'm not registered Libertarian (that's why I call myself a small "l" "libertarian" not a big "L" "libertarian"), I am registered "No Party Affiliation" and vote for the person not the party. For any given office I look at where the candidates stand on the issues that concern me and I'll vote for the one that comes closest to me on those issues.
They make their "solar cell windows" from amorphous silicon.
So their PV cells can handle shade then? Unlike single crystal PV cells for which the power output drops fast when not fully exposed to sun, as little as 5% of a cell shaded can cut power 50% if not turn it off, amorphous silicon cells can handle some shade.
If the voters disagree, they can elect a different executive promising a new policy which, sadly in my view, means we'll be swearing in President Obama this January. No such recourse exists for when our unelected robed masters go on a power grab.
Actually Article II Section 4 provides recourse: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Judges can be impeached. Alcee Hastings is one such judge that was impeached.
The US Supreme Court has yet to really, truly define a Right to Privacy, because the Fourth Amendment doesn't specifically name it (it concerns security of one's homes, papers, possessions, etc... of which "privacy" is assumed to be among them, but not named or defined
Though people may not know it privacy has a basis in the First Amendment as well. I don't recall the case now but in the early 1800s the Supreme Court ruled the First Amendment included the right to anonymity in the free speech clause. The ruling said something to the effect that if a person can't reasonably expect to remain anonymous then they couldn't truly have free speech because what they say could be held against them.
a self-locking exclusionary law. no way to prove any damages because - ITS ALL IN SECRET!
This is what's happened with Sibel Edmonds. She was a translator working for the FBI and after 911 she reported shoddy work done in the unit. After testifying in front of congress she was fired then the justice department slapped a gaging order on her. She wanted to sue the FBI over being fired but she had to get permission from the Justice Department to talk to a lawyer first.
How ironic is it that you have to have permission from someone to sue them first.
But it just makes me wonder if that's not another reason the military is lowering its recruitment standards by allowing more criminals in. Small numbers for sure, but getting bigger. It might be easier to get those types to blindly follow any orders.
There were some criminals in when I was in too, though mostly to escape jail. "Serve tyme in the military or in jail" sort of thing. Actually most were good at following orders though I wasn't, I'd ask "why" and "how" and if I thought it was stupid I'd say it. I guess my first CO, Commanding Officer, liked that because he frequently asked me if I wanted to go to this school or that school. For instance one school he sent me to was for Explosive Ordinance Disposal, EOD, after which I was one of the designated EOD experts in the unit. He also asked me if I wanted to take college classes, they offered classes on post and helped pay for them. I went in the military to save money to go to college so I took one class, but had trouble taking more.
While I agree on the sentiments, you realize don't you that ACLU stands for "American Civil Liberties Union"? Their mission isn't so much about what happens in other countries. The Sudan isn't in or part of the USA. Neither is Colombia.
Obviously you missed all the news stories about how poorly protected our convoys are against IED's and how soldiers were ordering better stuff off of eBay and other sites, and many of the campaigns here at home to send our troops better stuff.
And you missed who sent them there, based on lies told to the world about Saddam having Weapons of Mass Destruction. I'm still waiting to see one WMD. You also miss who supported Saddam to begin with, Reagan and Bush Sr. They supported him even as he was using what WMDs he had on not just Iranians but on Kurds, March Arabs, and others inside Iraq.
The typically libertarian line (which I disagree with) is that economic coersion is okay, but the use of force is not
Cite please! I am a libertarian and I don't recall any Libertarian or libertarian saying coercion of any sort, except to prevent another's rights from be violated, is okay.
If enough citizens were dedicated to the point that they would take part in or support a revolution then I think you could change things without the revolution.
Unfortunately, unfortunate because people are apathetic, I agree. If enough people demanded it they could have better representation. The problem here is not everyone agrees with what's better.
People's attitude to jury duty and voting is probably a reasonable indicator of how successful you could be.
I was called for jury duty twice. Both tymes I was hoping I'd be picked to sit on a jury where I could use jury nullification to say a law was bad, such as the drug laws. Forget being picked for a jury, I didn't even go through questioning for jury selection.
The 2nd amendment might protect you from Sheriff Lobo or Mexican banditos, but the Feds will steamroll right over you.
Unlike in China which had to send in outside troops to deal with the protests in Tiananmen Square, the local military units like the 38th refused to attack the protesters, you couldn't get a military unit to attack civilians easily in the US. It would be asking for a civil war in the US military to ask a military unit to attack civilians. Have you served in the military? I have and plenty of those I knew while in would be more likely to frag someone giving such an order.
Slashdot Mirror
That can already be done. You can buy a motion detection switch or lights with built in motion detectors at Home Depot.
Falcon
they won't flicker
My CFLs don't flicker either. I've been buying CFLs for more than 10 years and I never had one that did flicker.
they won't contain mercury
True but coal fired power plants emit more mercury to produce the electricity to power incandescent lights than CFLs contain. On top of that, I wonder what alphabet soup of toxins are created in the manufacturing of LEDs? And how does that compare to the manufacture of CFLs?
Falcon
But how much of an improvement will they be over fluorescent lights
Unfortunately what TFA doesn't say is that currently LEDs are only good for spot lighting and not area lighting. In other words they can be used to read a book but not light an entire room. While LED lights for areas are available they are more expensive than other LEDs, which are themselves expensive.
Falcon
A Dyson Sphere?
Falcon
It's also an eCommerce site that went out of business when the bubble burst; it doesn't relate to censorship at all.
It went out of business during the bubble burst yes however it's attack of a Swedish arts group who used etoy as their domain name [WTO page with links to news articles] infuriated a lot of activists. If eToys had never attacked the group they may not of survived anyway, however by attacking them and trying to censor their domain name eToys made sure people would oppose them.
Falcon
While I grant that libertarians tend to oppose government control of drugs, you are the first one I have heard of who does not think corporations should be able to drug test their employees. So you favor government regulation to accomplish this? Or by what means do you propose?
First, it's because of government that employers started testing for drugs, the government required some employers to test for drug use with the fake War on Drugs. In "The Libertarian Alternative - Questions about Drug Testing" [it's 28 minutes] a speaker (emergency room doctor) in this Google video says Libertarians believe the government mandate for employers to test for drugs is a violation of the 4th amendment, unreasonable search. As for me, I oppose drug testing but I would let the free market decide whether to test for drugs. An employer can choose to test or not test. If a potential employee didn't like being tested then they don't have to apply for employment at a company that requires it.
And what's wrong with that? [regarding the sale of human organs]
Because it forces people who are in desperate financial straights into a decision of their organs or foodstuffs.
I'll start by saying I believe that in a true free market most of those people who would be in any "desperate financial straights" are those who either won't work or who spend too much as compared to how much they make, ie they live beyond their means such as buying that brand new Jaguar every 2 years. In a free market people would be able to make enough money to live a comfortable life, have a roof over their head, have enough food to eat, and could afford health insurance. I do leave out, agree to, the possibility of requiring insurance providers to pay into an insurance pool that would allow those who either can't afford or have been turned down for health insurance to get coverage from the pool. I know about being denied health insurance, more than 10 years ago I survived an accident that left me with a permanent disability and have been denied insurance because of that.
Also I love gardening and believe in city farms or gardens. Besides private gardens, if say you have a 5 blocks X 5 blocks section of a city maybe you could have a lot on the center block that's a garden. People living in the area could have an allotment where they could grow their own food. With big enough of a garden, or more than one, people could hire garden tenders to take care of them.
We'd abolish the limited-liability shield laws to make corporate officers and stockholders fully responsible for a corporation's actions
That voids the concept of a corporation, which is that, due to my limited liability, I can invest only my money, but not my credit/honor/personal future in your idea, and limits access to capital. That combined with yourdesire to return to the gold stndard would destroy the economy.
I'm partially, but not compeatly with you on that. Businesses were originally granted a corporate charter, to limit liability, if the business served the common or public good. The first corporation to be granted a charter and issue stocks was the Dutch East India Company in 1602. The second was the Honourable East India Company in 1604. Both companies were shipping and trading businesses, they shipped goods between the Indian subcontinent and Europe. However shipping was a risky business. Ships could run into bad weather and sink or be attacked by pirates. The owners of the ship were responsible for lost cargo and crew, if a
PV production will never by high enough for Middle America to bid on them, they will never provide Energy Independence
So you are more qualified than the researchers than came up with "A Solar Grand Plan"? Their plan says solar power can generate 69% of the US's electricity by 2050. You also know more than the billionaire Texas oil man T. Boone Pickens, Jr? He's announced a plan to eliminate the need for imported oil. His plan is to erect wind turbines through middle America from Canada to Mexico. The electricity that can be produced is enough to close all the LNG, liquefied natural gas power plants in the US. The Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States published by the National Renewable Energy Labs details the wind resources in the US. Picken's plan is to use all the LNG as fuel for vehicles thus replacing imported oil.
Falcon
I've spoken to a number of people who had never considered the concept of jury nullification, but where quite interested when told about it and its historical role. Its something that really ought to be widely understood, so educating people about it is just as important as being ready to use it yourself.
Yea, I've posted info about jury nullification a number of tymes on the net. Googling slashdot I get 5 results, though I'm sure I've posted more than that.
Falcon
Then why did these guys get raided?
Look at the laundry list of charges: "money laundering, mail fraud, wire fraud, counterfeiting, and conspiracy". With the exception of counterfeiting all of these are applied to many other things the government considers crimes and really have nothing to do with local currencies. I'm not sure but I think the Liberty Dollars were made to look like US issued money, which would be counterfeiting. When asked "So are these things legal?" "Lewis Solomon, a law professor at George Washington University and author of a book about local currencies, says local currencies are legal with some stipulations, including that they have to be printed (not coined) and that local money cannot resemble dollars."
Falcon
Liberatarians are okay with corporations drug testing, possibly even DNA testing their employees.
I know of no libertarian, small "l" or big "L", who agrees it's alright for corporations to require drug tests. Actually the Libertarian Party was started by Republicans when Nixon refused to legalize at least hemp, aka marijuana, among other issues like the gold standard. He had a presidential commission investigate whether hemp should be legalized. He then said no matter what they decided he'd never go along with legalizing it. Which is exactly what the commission decided, that hemp should be legalized. Instead Nixon started the War on Drugs, he used the term first in 1972. I don't know any that support employers testing DNA either.
The more extreme liberatarians are okay with the sale of human organs!
And what's wrong with that? If I have an organ I want someone else to have I should be able to give it to them, whether I donate it or I'm paid. Despite what people in the US think of Iran if a person there needs a new organ they are usually able to find an organ and don't have to wait on a waiting list for years.
There is no difference if the government is one of those several major employers, except the government is required to respect more rights of their employees than private employers are.
"B7. What would libertarians do about concentrations of corporate power?"
"First of all, stop creating them as our government does with military contractors and government-subsidized industries. Second, create a more fluid economic environment in which they'd break up. This happens naturally in a free market; even in ours, with taxes and regulatory policies that encourage gigantism, it's quite rare for a company to stay in the biggest 500 for longer than twenty years. We'd abolish the limited-liability shield laws to make corporate officers and stockholders fully responsible for a corporation's actions. We'd make it impossible for corporations to grow fat on "sweetheart deals" paid for with taxpayers' money; we'd lower the cost of capital (by cutting taxes) and regulatory compliance (by repealing regulations that presume guilt until you prove your innocence), encouraging entrepreneurship and letting economic conditions (rather than government favoritism) determine the optimum size of the business unit."
If I'm wrong, I'd love to learn why
You are wrong, which isn't surprising as both Democrats and Republican have been making Libertarians as lunatics on the fringe. I gave examples above in how you are wrong but if you really want to learn more read the Libertarian FAQ linked to above. The Libertarian Party's platform explains the party stances, and BTW I'm not registered Libertarian (that's why I call myself a small "l" "libertarian" not a big "L" "libertarian"), I am registered "No Party Affiliation" and vote for the person not the party. For any given office I look at where the candidates stand on the issues that concern me and I'll vote for the one that comes closest to me on those issues.
Falcon
They make their "solar cell windows" from amorphous silicon.
So their PV cells can handle shade then? Unlike single crystal PV cells for which the power output drops fast when not fully exposed to sun, as little as 5% of a cell shaded can cut power 50% if not turn it off, amorphous silicon cells can handle some shade.
Falcon
Thanks for the link, I saved it locally as well as bookmarked it.
Falcon
If the voters disagree, they can elect a different executive promising a new policy which, sadly in my view, means we'll be swearing in President Obama this January. No such recourse exists for when our unelected robed masters go on a power grab.
Actually Article II Section 4 provides recourse: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Judges can be impeached. Alcee Hastings is one such judge that was impeached.
Falcon
The US Supreme Court has yet to really, truly define a Right to Privacy, because the Fourth Amendment doesn't specifically name it (it concerns security of one's homes, papers, possessions, etc... of which "privacy" is assumed to be among them, but not named or defined
Though people may not know it privacy has a basis in the First Amendment as well. I don't recall the case now but in the early 1800s the Supreme Court ruled the First Amendment included the right to anonymity in the free speech clause. The ruling said something to the effect that if a person can't reasonably expect to remain anonymous then they couldn't truly have free speech because what they say could be held against them.
Falcon
The actual case is that I had something (the right to be secure) which the constitution explicitly granted me.
The Constitution doesn't grant rights, rights are unalienable.
Falcon
a self-locking exclusionary law. no way to prove any damages because - ITS ALL IN SECRET!
This is what's happened with Sibel Edmonds. She was a translator working for the FBI and after 911 she reported shoddy work done in the unit. After testifying in front of congress she was fired then the justice department slapped a gaging order on her. She wanted to sue the FBI over being fired but she had to get permission from the Justice Department to talk to a lawyer first.
How ironic is it that you have to have permission from someone to sue them first.
Falcon
But it just makes me wonder if that's not another reason the military is lowering its recruitment standards by allowing more criminals in. Small numbers for sure, but getting bigger. It might be easier to get those types to blindly follow any orders.
There were some criminals in when I was in too, though mostly to escape jail. "Serve tyme in the military or in jail" sort of thing. Actually most were good at following orders though I wasn't, I'd ask "why" and "how" and if I thought it was stupid I'd say it. I guess my first CO, Commanding Officer, liked that because he frequently asked me if I wanted to go to this school or that school. For instance one school he sent me to was for Explosive Ordinance Disposal, EOD, after which I was one of the designated EOD experts in the unit. He also asked me if I wanted to take college classes, they offered classes on post and helped pay for them. I went in the military to save money to go to college so I took one class, but had trouble taking more.
Falcon
Well the ACLU only loves specific parts that fit their agenda.
"ACLU Dream Team by Leslie Sacks"
While I agree on the sentiments, you realize don't you that ACLU stands for "American Civil Liberties Union"? Their mission isn't so much about what happens in other countries. The Sudan isn't in or part of the USA. Neither is Colombia.
Falcon
Bullshit, the ACLU doesn't love the constitution, they love their specific pet bits of it. Always have.
Example?
The Second amendment:
"Heller Decision and the Second Amendment".
Falcon
Then how do you explain the current state of our military vehicles and armament of them?
Ah, Clinton didn't send them to Iraq, Bush did. Based on lies.
Falcon
Obviously you missed all the news stories about how poorly protected our convoys are against IED's and how soldiers were ordering better stuff off of eBay and other sites, and many of the campaigns here at home to send our troops better stuff.
And you missed who sent them there, based on lies told to the world about Saddam having Weapons of Mass Destruction. I'm still waiting to see one WMD. You also miss who supported Saddam to begin with, Reagan and Bush Sr. They supported him even as he was using what WMDs he had on not just Iranians but on Kurds, March Arabs, and others inside Iraq.
Falcon
The typically libertarian line (which I disagree with) is that economic coersion is okay, but the use of force is not
Cite please! I am a libertarian and I don't recall any Libertarian or libertarian saying coercion of any sort, except to prevent another's rights from be violated, is okay.
Falcon
If enough citizens were dedicated to the point that they would take part in or support a revolution then I think you could change things without the revolution.
Unfortunately, unfortunate because people are apathetic, I agree. If enough people demanded it they could have better representation. The problem here is not everyone agrees with what's better.
People's attitude to jury duty and voting is probably a reasonable indicator of how successful you could be.
I was called for jury duty twice. Both tymes I was hoping I'd be picked to sit on a jury where I could use jury nullification to say a law was bad, such as the drug laws. Forget being picked for a jury, I didn't even go through questioning for jury selection.
Falcon
The 2nd amendment might protect you from Sheriff Lobo or Mexican banditos, but the Feds will steamroll right over you.
Unlike in China which had to send in outside troops to deal with the protests in Tiananmen Square, the local military units like the 38th refused to attack the protesters, you couldn't get a military unit to attack civilians easily in the US. It would be asking for a civil war in the US military to ask a military unit to attack civilians. Have you served in the military? I have and plenty of those I knew while in would be more likely to frag someone giving such an order.
Falcon
I'm suggesting the use of alternate currencies, which I realize is illegal.
You'd better tell all these communities with their own local currencies in the US what they're doing is illegal.
Falcon