Comments for Internet Scofflaw

Comment on Yes Virginia, the bulbs are banned by lighthouse

lighthouse — Tue, 15 May 2012 15:10:45 +0000

Thanks K..
re light quality that is also an issue with LEDs, basically pure light sources like lasers whether in RGB or “white LEDs” that mimic fluorescents with phosphorescent coating
- so spiky emission spectra and low (true) color rendition index,
unlike the smooth spectra of incandescents

Incandescents do usually have a fixed warmer color temperature not always desirable, but that is part of the “all bulbs have advantages” logic, in 45 light average American households

Comment on Yes Virginia, the bulbs are banned by K. Crary

K. Crary — Tue, 15 May 2012 02:42:42 +0000

Sorry for the delay; I moderate.

Comment on Yes Virginia, the bulbs are banned by lighthouse

lighthouse — Mon, 14 May 2012 19:55:48 +0000

About “No one contests the proposition that high-efficiency lighting saves money in the long run”

Certainly that can be contested – as also referenced:
See the energy and savings sections of
Dunday com the “Deception” rundown
- cant post link here for some reason

Comment on Yes Virginia, the bulbs are banned by lighthouse

lighthouse — Mon, 14 May 2012 19:51:28 +0000

Moreover:
The Halogen and other replacement type incandescents have already existed for some time, and are not popular with either consumers or politicians, as they cost much more for marginal energy savings, so politicians have not pushed their use with subsidies etc as with “energy saving” fluorescent bulbs (in California, Ohio, Washington etc replacement programs) .

The replacement incandescents also have differences anyway, in light quality, in running hotter, and so on, compared to traditional simple incandescent bulbs, and in the EU the most popular frosted types are already banned.
More on this issue: http://ceolas.net/#li001x

Finally, one has to be aware that the manufacturers supporting the ban would hardly seek to further improve incandescent technology, given the more profitable alternatives, as covered on the blog and website

Comment on Yes Virginia, the bulbs are banned by lighthouse

lighthouse — Mon, 14 May 2012 19:50:36 +0000

Having problem posting link here..

Certainly it is a ban,
Setting standards that do not allow certain bulbs is obviously the same as banning them, even if it politically sounds more suitable to “phase them out”!

As for “not being a ban on incandescents”, that is in effect not true either.
It is effectively a progressive ban on incandescent technology too, at least in the USA and Europe:
The touted Halogen type replacements, will be banned too on the 45 lumen per watt end regulation, as defined in part 2 of EISA beginning after 2014
– which politicians and journalists keep VERY quiet about..
see Dunday com

Comment on Obama the unsophisticated by IMAO » Blog Archive » 10 Ways Obama is Dumbing Down His Speeches

IMAO » Blog Archive » 10 Ways Obama is Dumbing Down His Speeches — Mon, 07 May 2012 13:44:42 +0000

[...] Linked by Internet Scofflaw (7 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5) Loading [...]

Comment on Union stimulus by Diverse People address diverse grievances « Vigilante Word

Diverse People address diverse grievances « Vigilante Word — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 04:17:55 +0000

[...] of administrations who allow more jobs to be outsourced, more businesses to go offshore, more favors to unions for work on unnecessary public roads, the resurgence of taxes, increased inflation, increased cost [...]

Comment on Spite by IMAO » Blog Archive » Nuke the News: One Last Stab at the Buffett Rule

IMAO » Blog Archive » Nuke the News: One Last Stab at the Buffett Rule — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 17:41:19 +0000

[...] Linked by Internet Scofflaw (8 votes, average: 4.88 out of 5) Loading [...]

Comment on “Changing the rules of politics in Michigan to help Democrats” by K. Crary

K. Crary — Sun, 08 Apr 2012 19:49:58 +0000

According to the Detroit News, the Michigan Repubicans are following the same practices as their Democratic predecessors:

House Democrats have sued the Republican majority over a procedural move to make bills become laws faster — a maneuver the Dems regularly used when they were in power. In 2009, the Democratic majority got all but two of the 242 laws it passed to go immediately into effect after then-Gov. Jennifer Granholm signed them. The next year, Granholm signed 383 laws passed by the House, 365 of which had an immediate-effect clause, Republicans said Friday. In their suit, the Democrats contend the Republicans, who took over the House 15 months ago, have passed 546 of 566 bills with an immediate-effect clause attached.

In any case, it's absurd hyperbole to suggest that making a law take effect 90 days early is tantamount to establishing a dictatorship. Maybe you shouldn't get your news from Rachel Maddow. POSTSCRIPT: By the way, what's this got to do with the four-year-old failed effort to revise Michigan's constitution to favor Democrats, anyway?

Comment on “Changing the rules of politics in Michigan to help Democrats” by James Kessler

James Kessler — Fri, 06 Apr 2012 15:41:14 +0000

Oh you mean like how the Republicans in the Michigan legislature keep on passing laws that take immediate effect despite the fact that 1: the Michigan state constitution requires a 2/3rds majority vote for said law to take immediate effect instead of 90 days after the session ends and 2: the Republicans don’t have a 2/3rds majority but somehow keep on claiming that have a 2/3rds majority voting for laws to take immediate effect even though every single Democrat votes against the law in question? Unless of course you really want to argue that a bunch of Democrats would vote against a law and then when they lose decide to vote for the law to take immediate effect?

Yeah guess what..it isn’t the Democrats trying to steal your state. It’s the Republicans and they already did steal your state and turned it into what amounts to a one party dictatorship.