You really should care. Losing the US to power mongers with no ethics and self-serving agendas will most certainly have (as was already evidenced by the Bush/Chenney/Rove period) dire consequences for the rest of the world. The particularly unsettling bit about all of this is that most Americans will either remain in the dark or dismiss happenings such as these as "conspiracy theories." Which is to say preposterous ideas invented by mentally unsound people and should be given the same consideration as the crazies standing on the street corner preaching the world is ending. The scary thing is, should we see more and inevitably worse, of the same, it just might be.
Regardless of the intended purpose and frequency, it's still considered an illegal wiretap. The only way they may be able to skirt this would be if the lease contract volunteered the lessee to be party to this surveillance. Still, the company is treading on dangerous ground should said surveillance happen to capture a minor in compromising state of undress.
It might be the coming of the age of austerity for the west but that certainly isn't true for the east, at least not for China. Pick a discipline, any discipline and you will find evidence of China waxing where the western world (mostly read the US) is waning. If people think the west (also read mostly the US) can continue to dump countless billions of dollars into the money pit known as the middle east through our wars, through our relentless thirst for petroleum, while stripping every last drop of resources from education, basic research, technology research, social services, infrastructure, etc. and still survive as anything other than a crumbled husk of a world power they are terribly mistaken.
There's a pipe dream if ever I saw one. Do you really think the committee will focus on the problem instead of the symptom? The only thing we'll see out of this BS is more BS. We'll get some wonderful draconian laws that restrict the law abiding citizenry while allowing the fundamental issues of IT security to go unanswered. This game has been played out far too many times in a diverse range of venues. To see what you've suggested happen would require a fundamental change in the methods and strategies of the US legislature. Paradigm shifts in government don't happen short of revolution or take over by foreign powers. Our "Change you can believe in" president found this out very quickly when he came to office.
Being that in another post you mentioned Canadian Tire, it may be the case that Home Depot's web site detected you were coming from Canada and provided you with location specific content. For US customers though the EcoSmart 4-pack 14 watt CFL is indeed $2.85 US and the Philips 4-pack equivalent (60 watt) incandescent is $1.27 US. I suppose this suggests that the US market has economies of scale in effect on CFLs. Probably due in large part to this bill they're trying to repeal.
BTW: how did a tire store ever turn into a home improvement store?
Your claims that CFLs ($2.85) are 10-15x more expensive than equivalent incandescent ($1.27) bulbs are grossly exaggerated.
BTW: on a side note the CFL brand I linked to (EcoSmart) are quite good. Two years now, nearly every bulb in house never had to replace a single one, light output pleasant to the eyes.
Don't buy crappy CFLs. Use them in applications for which they were designed. Or don't exaggerate your claim. Under the typical operating environment for which they were intended to be used modern CFLs such as the common stock at a Home Depot last substantially longer than a few months. Nearly every bulb in my home is a CFL. They're in high use, high on/off cycle (bathroom), high humidity/cold (garage), etc. haven't had to replace a single one since I installed them two years ago when we moved in. It is true that not all manufactures are the same, but they certainly aren't the one from a few years ago which ruined people impression of them. If you've had problems with a specific brand name them and shame them.
The mercury contained within one of those bulbs is a fraction of that produced by the coal power plant supplying that bulb. Even if you didn't properly dispose of the bulb you'd still contaminate the environment far less than what you would powering the equivalent incandescent. I suspect the molten glass part is the most energy intensive and both share that.
Not an incandescent ban. Efficiency mandate for common application bulbs. Incandescent bulbs that meet the standard are already on the market. There's an exception for special application lighting. Canned lighting fits that. Either way dimmable CFLs exist on the market they tend to only dim to 10-15% of full but aren't bad and getting better. There's also LEDs. Given time better high-efficiency alternatives will come online.
Actually it doesn't, quit sensationalizing things. Manufacturers are being made to switch the common application bulb to something more efficient. They can already make incandescent bulbs that meet the standard. They can also still make the "normal" incandescent bulbs. They simply are relegated to "special application" like all the other odd ball shape and sized bulbs.
btw, try a fluorescent bulb in anything with a dimming mechanism and you'll go right back to incandescent for that socket... my god the seizure-inducing horror.
They do make dimmable CFLs you know. While the dynamic range isn't quite the same as an incandescent they aren't bad.
You still won't. "Standard" incandescent bulbs aren't going away. You might lose a bit on the economies of scale since manufacturing is switching most production to higher efficiency bulbs but they'll still be around for substantially less than a $40 specialty bulb.
The bulbs are getting much better. I've refitted nearly every bulb in the house with the common brand from local Home Depot a couple years ago. This includes heavy use, heavy on/off cycling (bathrooms), etc. Not a single one has failed. I couldn't say the same about my previous house with the older versions. I had a few of them go after six months or so. I think it's mostly been a matter of manufacturers trying to balance product cost with reliability. Not only are economies of scale kicking in but so too simple manufacturing know how.
Slashdot Mirror
Wouldn't that make him a VB or PHP coder?
You really should care. Losing the US to power mongers with no ethics and self-serving agendas will most certainly have (as was already evidenced by the Bush/Chenney/Rove period) dire consequences for the rest of the world. The particularly unsettling bit about all of this is that most Americans will either remain in the dark or dismiss happenings such as these as "conspiracy theories." Which is to say preposterous ideas invented by mentally unsound people and should be given the same consideration as the crazies standing on the street corner preaching the world is ending. The scary thing is, should we see more and inevitably worse, of the same, it just might be.
Regardless of the intended purpose and frequency, it's still considered an illegal wiretap. The only way they may be able to skirt this would be if the lease contract volunteered the lessee to be party to this surveillance. Still, the company is treading on dangerous ground should said surveillance happen to capture a minor in compromising state of undress.
http://www.supersecurewebsoftware.com/adminPages.aspx?admin=true&customeraccountaccess=true&warmfuzzyfeeling=true
It might be the coming of the age of austerity for the west but that certainly isn't true for the east, at least not for China. Pick a discipline, any discipline and you will find evidence of China waxing where the western world (mostly read the US) is waning. If people think the west (also read mostly the US) can continue to dump countless billions of dollars into the money pit known as the middle east through our wars, through our relentless thirst for petroleum, while stripping every last drop of resources from education, basic research, technology research, social services, infrastructure, etc. and still survive as anything other than a crumbled husk of a world power they are terribly mistaken.
Except for the glowing ball that sometimes stands between the two...
I could certainly think of worse. *cough* W., *cough* Palin *cough* *cough* *cough*
Because it will be all the more amusing when the roll out iCrap 5.
Posted by samzenpus who's only surpassed by kdawson in "I can't believe they posted this..." type postings. Are you really that surprised?
There's a pipe dream if ever I saw one. Do you really think the committee will focus on the problem instead of the symptom? The only thing we'll see out of this BS is more BS. We'll get some wonderful draconian laws that restrict the law abiding citizenry while allowing the fundamental issues of IT security to go unanswered. This game has been played out far too many times in a diverse range of venues. To see what you've suggested happen would require a fundamental change in the methods and strategies of the US legislature. Paradigm shifts in government don't happen short of revolution or take over by foreign powers. Our "Change you can believe in" president found this out very quickly when he came to office.
Being that in another post you mentioned Canadian Tire, it may be the case that Home Depot's web site detected you were coming from Canada and provided you with location specific content. For US customers though the EcoSmart 4-pack 14 watt CFL is indeed $2.85 US and the Philips 4-pack equivalent (60 watt) incandescent is $1.27 US. I suppose this suggests that the US market has economies of scale in effect on CFLs. Probably due in large part to this bill they're trying to repeal.
BTW: how did a tire store ever turn into a home improvement store?
Well, those people who are guilty of an offense are often the most vocal critic... Oh. Wait, was that what you meant by pursues?
Why? Apple.
Those that write software for the medical industry, air traffic control, electric power generation, military hardware, etc. etc.
Wow. And I though software engineering was pedantic work... Congratulations, well played.
Your claims that CFLs ($2.85) are 10-15x more expensive than equivalent incandescent ($1.27) bulbs are grossly exaggerated.
BTW: on a side note the CFL brand I linked to (EcoSmart) are quite good. Two years now, nearly every bulb in house never had to replace a single one, light output pleasant to the eyes.
Somebody's wiki link is wrong then... Since I can back it up I suspect yours is.
Don't buy crappy CFLs. Use them in applications for which they were designed. Or don't exaggerate your claim. Under the typical operating environment for which they were intended to be used modern CFLs such as the common stock at a Home Depot last substantially longer than a few months. Nearly every bulb in my home is a CFL. They're in high use, high on/off cycle (bathroom), high humidity/cold (garage), etc. haven't had to replace a single one since I installed them two years ago when we moved in. It is true that not all manufactures are the same, but they certainly aren't the one from a few years ago which ruined people impression of them. If you've had problems with a specific brand name them and shame them.
The mercury contained within one of those bulbs is a fraction of that produced by the coal power plant supplying that bulb. Even if you didn't properly dispose of the bulb you'd still contaminate the environment far less than what you would powering the equivalent incandescent. I suspect the molten glass part is the most energy intensive and both share that.
Not an incandescent ban. Efficiency mandate for common application bulbs. Incandescent bulbs that meet the standard are already on the market. There's an exception for special application lighting. Canned lighting fits that. Either way dimmable CFLs exist on the market they tend to only dim to 10-15% of full but aren't bad and getting better. There's also LEDs. Given time better high-efficiency alternatives will come online.
Actually it doesn't, quit sensationalizing things. Manufacturers are being made to switch the common application bulb to something more efficient. They can already make incandescent bulbs that meet the standard. They can also still make the "normal" incandescent bulbs. They simply are relegated to "special application" like all the other odd ball shape and sized bulbs.
btw, try a fluorescent bulb in anything with a dimming mechanism and you'll go right back to incandescent for that socket... my god the seizure-inducing horror.
They do make dimmable CFLs you know. While the dynamic range isn't quite the same as an incandescent they aren't bad.
Already do
You still won't. "Standard" incandescent bulbs aren't going away. You might lose a bit on the economies of scale since manufacturing is switching most production to higher efficiency bulbs but they'll still be around for substantially less than a $40 specialty bulb.
The bulbs are getting much better. I've refitted nearly every bulb in the house with the common brand from local Home Depot a couple years ago. This includes heavy use, heavy on/off cycling (bathrooms), etc. Not a single one has failed. I couldn't say the same about my previous house with the older versions. I had a few of them go after six months or so. I think it's mostly been a matter of manufacturers trying to balance product cost with reliability. Not only are economies of scale kicking in but so too simple manufacturing know how.