Constitutionality of light bulb ban questioned - Environmental Protection Agency must be called for a broken bulb

The idea that nothing should be done that "affects the public in general" scares the shit outta me! Such sentiments would make Stalin grin.

It would be impossible to draw all this "little lines". There isn't just one issue here; most of it hyped by the press out of all recognition.

You and I *certainly* disagree here. It is impossible to have an open society and one where people can't have an affect outside their little sphere, as well.

The devil is always in the details. It's that devil I'm afraid of.

Not everything bad that happens is illegal, nor can it be. Nor, indeed, should it. Life is about risks, and should be. Making everything that is bad "illegal" also eliminates the possibility of "good". If you want to live as a drone, move to France. ;-)

As such they simply are tools to push emotional buttons thus aren't useful, assuming your intent is to exchange information rather than propaganda. The mainstream press is good at this.

Not to draw too close a parallel, it is worth looking at the stock market crash of 1929. The laws of the time did not prevent ignorant investors from getting into things way over their head. Certainly some brokers encouraged this as a way for the average 'Joe' to make money. Brokers extended lucrative credit to novice investors that bought stocks on margin because 'everyone' was doing it, and nobody defaults, they just flipped the stock and turned it over to another stock. So brokers weren't losing out and actually made money on the commissions. They didn't worry so much about 'bad risk' borrowers because boom times helped all. They 'got away with it' for a few years because the borrower could always just 'flip' the stock for a goodly profit and move on.

Then stock prices fell and borrowers couldn't pay back the margin-calls. Lots of lenders lost money, lots of borrowers lost all their stocks. Money supply dried up.

Any of this sound familiar? Just replace 'broker' with 'mortgage broker' and 'stock' with 'real-estate'.

After the crash, stricter regulations were put in place about buying on margin and most people got smarter about buying on margin. Probably a similar thing will happen now with mortgages.

daestrom

I like that! :-)

There is a lot of truth there too. The desire for backward compatibility (or at least compatibility with the majority of commercial software already out there) has *got* to be holding a lot of innovation back. Sure, some high priced applications can be recompiled for a different architecture, but at what cost?

daestrom

I've found tubes that are especially low mercury. So low, they are approved for common trash disposal.

daestrom

Hi daestrom,

That's correct. In virtually all jurisdictions, lamps that pass federal TCLP (Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure) regulations can be disposed in the regular household trash just like any other light bulb.

Cheers, Paul

Won't happen.

If stricter rules were employed in the mortgage market, those traditionally deprived, downtrodden, and discriminated against couldn't afford a home beyond their means. Further, segregated and gated communities would remain off-limits to other classes of citizens.

The minions that determine the final regulations are committed to equality of outcome.

Whatever laws the legislative branch writes or whatever rules are implemented by political appointees, the silliness will prevail.

That is not the problem at all. The real problem is "toxic CDOs" and the margins the people who rolled these instruments used. Add in any *slight* downturn and you have a instant busted bank. Like the crash above, the margins on these real estate budles is quite low (as low as 3%, AIUI). A *minute* downturn and it's in negative territory. When you start getting defaults...

True, but not really this issue.

That is definitely true. There is no end to silly season anymore.

In alt.engineering.electrical krw wrote: | In article , | snipped-for-privacy@NOSPAMgmail.com says... |> daestrom wrote: |> >

|> > Any of this sound familiar? Just replace 'broker' with 'mortgage |> > broker' and 'stock' with 'real-estate'. |> >

|> > After the crash, stricter regulations were put in place about buying |> > on margin and most people got smarter about buying on margin. Probably a |> > similar thing will happen now with mortgages. |> >

|> |> Won't happen. |> |> If stricter rules were employed in the mortgage market, those traditionally |> deprived, downtrodden, and discriminated against couldn't afford a home |> beyond their means. Further, segregated and gated communities would remain |> off-limits to other classes of citizens. | | That is not the problem at all. The real problem is "toxic CDOs" | and the margins the people who rolled these instruments used. Add | in any *slight* downturn and you have a instant busted bank. Like | the crash above, the margins on these real estate budles is quite | low (as low as 3%, AIUI). A *minute* downturn and it's in negative | territory. When you start getting defaults...

Then the banks start cutting back on loans and the demand side of the supply/demand ratio drops, leading to even lower prices, more upside- down mortgages, more defaults, etc.

|> The minions that determine the final regulations are committed to equality |> of outcome. | | True, but not really this issue.

it will affect the direction of the solution. The solution used in the stock market can't be the same as used in the housing market because of this.

|> Whatever laws the legislative branch writes or whatever rules are |> implemented by political appointees, the silliness will prevail. | | That is definitely true. There is no end to silly season anymore.

Unfortunately, this is true way too often.

In alt.engineering.electrical Paul M. Eldridge wrote: | On 25 Jun 2008 15:08:35 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: | |>In alt.engineering.electrical Paul M. Eldridge wrote: |>

|>| As with the halogens I identified above, incandescent lamp life is |>| based on the same 50 per cent rule -- that is an industry-wide |>| standard. For a graphical representation of this, see page 2 of: |>| |>|

|>

|>Then something's out of whack somewhere. I see far more than 50% of bulbs |>last beyond 750 hours of usage. That didn't catch my attention before as I |>did not assume something like the 50% basis. | | | Hi Phil, | | A couple possible explanations. One is that although a standard | 100-watt incandescent has a nominal service life of 750 hours, the 25, | 40 and 60-watt versions are typically rated at 1,000 hours. Secondly, | manufacturers have been introducing products that are shifting the | balance between higher lumen output and longer life further towards | the latter, so you may have noticed the elogic lamps in the above link | have a rated life of anywhere from 1,125 hours (95-watt) to 2,250 in | the case of the 40-watt equivalent. Line voltage and the use of | dimmers can also dramatically affect lamp life.

I looked at my spare lightbulb supply today. Most did not have boxes. But one set still did. These are 25-watt and show 2500 hours.

So I guess I should raise the issue not specifically about 5000 hours, but about the 50% basis.

| If you're extremely fussy about spectral distribution, I don't see any | clear winners. Philip's new MasterColour Elite ceramic metal halide | lamps are arguably the very best the industry has to offer; you can | see its distribution graph on page 2 of the following spec sheet and | draw your own conclusions. | | See: |

| | The spectral performance of their TL930 and TL950 lamps can be found | here: | | I have not seen good light from MH lamps, either.

A better fluorescent formulation could fix FL lamps. But it would require so many different compounds to make an even spectrum that it would most likely be prohibitively expensive. I have found that LEDs come in enough discrete wavelengths that this might work. But they degrade at different rates over time, and keeping it in color balance would be hard.

In alt.engineering.electrical krw wrote: | In article , | snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.net says... |> |> David Nebenzahl wrote: |> > |> > On 6/24/2008 4:49 PM krw spake thus: |> > |> > > In article , |> > > snipped-for-privacy@ns.sympatico.ca says... |> > >

|> > > I see you would rather make a fool of yourself than discuss the |> > > issue. |> > >

|> > >>>>

|> > >>>

|> > >>>Would rather read the National Enquirer. |> > |> > Anyone who expresses a preference for the /National Enquirer/ over the |> > NYT *is* a certified fool. |> |> |> Not really. You always know the National Enquirer is lying, but you |> aren't always sure with the NYT. | | You're quite sure with the NYT too, but it's a lot less | entertaining.

Actually, the NYT has been known to "dilute" their publication with some truthful articles from time to time.

Exactly, but it needn't go that far to leave banks, and such, bankrupt. All it takes is a 3% real estate decline and the value of the instrument is negative. Real estate declining to 97% of its value from the peak of a bubble isn't much of a "downturn".

The real problem is that the toxic CDOs have invaded the stock market, as well. Banks are required (after the '29 crash) to keep much higher margins. The stock (bond) market isn't under such restrictions with CDOs. That's why you have money that was borrowed

30 times. Banks can't do that.