(OT) Trump admin seeks to roll back light bulb efficiency rule

[Pelle Svanslös]

The Trump administration wants to roll back energy efficiency standards
for certain light bulbs.

In proposal released Wednesday, the Department of Energy (DOE) proposed
repealing an Obama administration regulation that expanded the number of
light bulbs subject to stringent efficiency standards under existing
regulations, effective next year.

Those standards have already greatly increased the market for
high-efficiency light-emitting diode (LED) bulbs and reduced sales of
traditional incandescent bulbs.

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/428832-trump-admin-seeks-to-roll-back-light-bulb-efficiency-rule

Great! First, bob switched the old bulbs to LEDs. Now he can go and
switch the LEDs back to incandescents!

A double engineering whammy!

[*skriptis]

Pelle Svanslös <pe...@svans.los> Wrote in message:

Old bulbs were healthier.

Health and happiness > money
--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[bob]

i actually switched bulbs to LED way before any store or gov't
suggested it. as an EE, i picked the perfect color temperature for the
rooms, and now i get health AND the money. :-)

i am a staunch environmentalist. :-)

bob

[*skriptis]

bob <b...@bob.com> Wrote in message:

Yeah, they promoted
those weird cold bulbs in the beginning.

If the light is warm, then ok. Let's keep the planet.

So that China can pollute it. ;)

[bob]

On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 15:51:31 +0100 (CET), *skriptis

>Yeah, they promotedthose weird cold bulbs in the beginning.

>If the light is warm, then ok. Let's keep the planet.
>So that China can pollute it. ;)

exactly, and herin lies one of the main discussion topics i've had
with that imbecile pelle: trump isn't to blame for destroying the
planet, humans in their entirety are.

chinese, indians, brazilians, americans, swedes - you name it. it's up
to every person to do his part if you want to see any change. so i try
to do my part, and leave the rest to the other 7bil to do their part -
or not. their choice. i'll be dead by then, but i'll die doing my
small part.

bob

[Calimero]

> ...


BS.
The planet is not so easy to destroy.
You crazy tree-huggers always crack me up ...


Max

[The Iceberg]

Oh no you’ve upset max! You forget he likes exploiting all the Chinese peasants in his factories making them work unhuman hours and conditions to make cheap light bulbs for him to con everyone with! He also wants his huge 5 litre gas guzzling car and it don’t bother him cos he lives in his huge air-filtered country mansion and drinks beer with Pelle’s dad!

[Calimero]

On Monday, February 11, 2019 at 4:26:44 PM UTC+1, The Iceberg wrote:
> Oh no you’ve upset max! You forget he likes exploiting all the Chinese peasants in his factories making them work unhuman hours and conditions to make cheap light bulbs for him to con everyone with! He also wants his huge 5 litre gas guzzling car and it don’t bother him cos he lives in his huge air-filtered country mansion and drinks beer with Pelle’s dad!

Our firm doesn't own any factories.
And I don't drink beer with socialists.


Max

[bob]

ok, destroy was too strong a word. ruin? :-)

but again, you're all free to do as you wish, i'll do the same.

bob

[bob]

own, no. invest in? ah ha.

>And I don't drink beer with socialists.

lucky for you AOC is a fine wine type of girl. :-)

bob

[jdeluise]

On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 08:53:03 -0500, bob wrote:

> i actually switched bulbs to LED way before any store or gov't suggested
> it. as an EE, i picked the perfect color temperature for the rooms, and
> now i get health AND the money. :-)

I certainly prefer LED bulbs to CFLs, which I found to be both unnatural
as well as unreliable (although the latest batch I tried are mostly still
functional after well over a year).

[bob]

i had CFLs for about 5 yrs before LEDs were available, but as soon as
they were, boom. CFLs are pretty bad. some of these LEDs are also
unreliable though, the little circuits on them made in china with the
intent that 10% will be throw aways probably. but that's ok.

bob

[Pelle Svanslös]

While others are actually doing something, Trump wants to take us back
to the fifties. He isn't responsible for us being here, but he is for
what happens from this point onwards. "Let others pay".

And of course you, as a Trump voter despite knowing better, share this
responsibility.

> chinese, indians, brazilians, americans, swedes - you name it. it's up
> to every person to do his part if you want to see any change.

The governments are the biggest movers here. Without them, nothing of
significance happens.

[The Iceberg]

yes it does, that's what you Marxist NPCs don't get, unlike you automatons, decent individuals like the bob don't need a cue from the government to try to save or protect the environment we just do it.

It like that classic meme "Vegan feminist anti-oil anti-car pro-Paris-accord...SMOKES!" LOL

[Calimero]

"Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”
(Ronald Reagan)


Max

[*skriptis]

Calimero <calim...@gmx.de> Wrote in message:

Very nihilistic.

No wonder people are on opioids nowadays.

He left a big impact, and his legacy is huge.

[Sawfish]

Thinking about this, I've recently come to the conclusion that one of
Reagan's major benefits, probably unintended, was that he tended to
remove the ambiguity about what the individual might rely on from the
government.

He tended to rhetorically limit the role of the government, and hence
the expectancies for external help, in the daily lives of Americans. In
some ways this was liberating in that once the vague hope for government
help in planning and achieving life goals was laid to rest, the
motivated individual resolved to succeed on his/her own volition, while
the less motivated now realized that they must, as never before, put
concerted effort into how best to survive in the US.

Vague ideas about how governmental action will step in and solve one's
problems tends to paralyze individuals, as they passively wait for the
hoped-for benefits. When these hopes, often unrealistic, are not met,
bitterness and cynicism sets in.

And that seems to be where O-C is headed, whether she knows it or not.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Give me Dadaism, or give me nothing!"
--Sawfish

[*skriptis]

Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

If we can't have government working in our best interests, like
family members work for each others then we don't need it.


Let's have a mad max scenario. I can take care of myself that way,
sure.

Now that would be truly liberating.


For me there's nothing liberating in his cynical message that you
should expect nothing, and don't even care. That's the reason for
the current nihilism in the west. And people killing themselves
rich drugs.

So when you have e.g. Hillary telling coal miners that they're
losers and that they should accept their misfortune that's his
legacy.

Trump turned the tables on that. He restored patriotism.

People expected of Trump not to give them free anything, they
wanted someone who'd love his country and whom could they love
back.


We expect care from goverment. Government is responsible for
planning, but love has to be part of everything. We expect them
to care. Not to give us free stuff.

If you're sending message we are all in it for ourselves, no
matter how much emphasis you put on legal nuances, it destroys
fabric of society.

So what you see as liberating, I see as alienating. He did
liberate people. Liberated everyone from shared collective
identity, expectations, hope.

Humans are social creatures. Both individual and collective parts
are important.

[kaennorsing]

Op vrijdag 15 februari 2019 23:02:11 UTC+1 schreef *skriptis:

You seem to think government is made up of all these innocent, angelic creatures that somehow only care deeply about the populace and to serve and protect them like a mother would her babies... The reality is government is run by power hungry politicians who's sole purpose is to get elected by promising to steal from Peter to give to Paul. Devision is their only solution. Sold as unity. They will step on you if they have to.

That's why Reagan said what he said. He understood it is indeed the problem, as power corrupts and government claims as much power and monopoly as it can get. Like a cancer it becomes deadly if left to run its course. It attracts only the most ambitious of power hungry. And only the nastiest, most despicable make it to the top. Especially in a socialist, big government type of system.

[Sawfish]

It's been that way increasingly since the 70s, I'd say. It was
initialized by the Vietnam involvement, and confirmed by Watergate and
Nixon's subsequent resignation.

Everyone started getting real cynical. You can see where we are now, in
the US.

>
>
> Let's have a mad max scenario. I can take care of myself that way,
> sure.
>
> Now that would be truly liberating.

Hah!

You know, skript, I had a moment of revelation concerning the
desirability of anarchy--which, I am embarrassed to admit, I thought was
desirable for a person like me, being in my mid-20s, and hence
invincible and immortal.

I'd had a few instances where my first wife provoked overt responses
from men on the street, often in poor neighborhoods, or maybe where one
might encounter a group of bikers.

Cold Spring Tavern behind Santa Barbara, in the 70s, springs readily to
mind...

And even when she didn't do this provocative stuff, there was still the
danger that she'd attract a fair degree of sexual attention, and I'd
have to brave it out, one way or another.

Burkas, anyone?... :^)

One day as were getting ready to walk past a bunch of young black guys
near the LA Colosseum and I was trying to figure out how best to deal
with the inevitable situation, it dawned on that in a *real* anarchy I'd
have to carry a gun in order to keep possession of my wife. Every day.

I'd have to carry something intimidating every single time I went
anywhere public with her, because she'd be like a $100 bill on the
ground, and whoever is the most dominant gets to keep it.

It was then that I re-thought my position on anarchy.

"Civilization upgrade", indeed! :^)

I didn't get smart enough to leave her until several years later.

>
>
> For me there's nothing liberating in his cynical message that you
> should expect nothing, and don't even care. That's the reason for
> the current nihilism in the west. And people killing themselves
> rich drugs.

Probably. But that's the reality i have to deal with for the rest of my
life, most likely. So rather than attempt to moderate this, I can weasel
by learning how best to work within this corrupt system.

If I were in my 30s instead of in my 70s, I'd come at it differently...

>
>
> So when you have e.g. Hillary telling coal miners that they're
> losers and that they should accept their misfortune that's his
> legacy.
>
> Trump turned the tables on that. He restored patriotism.

Disagree. There is likely some argument that Trump is the second coming
of Reagan. He's not as encouraging or positive, that's for sure, but...

It sure *feels* that way, here as an observer.

>
> People expected of Trump not to give them free anything, they
> wanted someone who'd love his country and whom could they love
> back.
>
>
> We expect care from goverment. Government is responsible for
> planning, but love has to be part of everything. We expect them
> to care. Not to give us free stuff.

In my experience "caring" went gradually out of vogue after Watergate,
when it became apparent that in order to hold power, no expedient that
promised success, however distasteful, and without direct precedent,
would be off-limits.

It's like dealing with a lot of the posters here on RST.

I'd say that prior to maybe 1980 there was a tradition of limited, but
real, trust in authority in the US. This may have come as a tag-along
from WWII.

After Nixon, Carter *seemed* decent, but was also seen as weak and
incompetent. Reagan was seen as decent--rightly or wrongly--but
optimistic and effective.

It was as if Reagan was Kennedy, but instead of promising that NASA
would land a man on the moon within the 60s, *you'd* land on the moon,
by your own volition, and the administration would stand back and let it
happen.

This is of course silly, but it was very definitely positive and
optimistic. It was "anti-cynicism".

>
> If you're sending message we are all in it for ourselves, no
> matter how much emphasis you put on legal nuances, it destroys
> fabric of society.

It's what's happening here, and if you are not a part of it (look out
for yourself) you will in essence be entering a 100m sprint wearing a 60
kilo weight jacket.

>
> So what you see as liberating, I see as alienating. He did
> liberate people. Liberated everyone from shared collective
> identity, expectations, hope.

No. You fail to realize that what he used as a unifier is that the US is
composed of competent, motivated individuals. For those who bought this,
they felt a sense of unity.

Again, while no one was purposely excluded, many just were neither
prepared, nor confident, and they had some real troubles.

But for most of the rest--and this was increasingly the emergent
Boomers--just as the emergent Millennials bought into Obama's rhetoric
of social restitution for past wrongs.

>
>
> Humans are social creatures. Both individual and collective parts
> are important.

Agreed, but understand: it is a pit filled with the vilest of vipers,
here. You need look no further than the integrity--or complete lack
thereof--of many of the posters here in RST. *That's* what I'm talking
about, and it's why the informed individual here in the US cannot afford
to trust people outside of a circle of proven friends and acquaintances.

You can expect no compromise or cooperation; it's been shown over and
over again...

>
>
> ----Android NewsGroup Reader----
> http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[jdeluise]

On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 15:29:57 -0800, Sawfish wrote:

> Agreed, but understand: it is a pit filled with the vilest of vipers,
> here. You need look no further than the integrity--or complete lack
> thereof--of many of the posters here in RST. *That's* what I'm talking
> about, and it's why the informed individual here in the US cannot afford
> to trust people outside of a circle of proven friends and acquaintances.

lol

[*skriptis]

kaennorsing <ljub...@hotmail.com> Wrote in message:

I know the realities, but you have to have a positive nice story,
that will inspire people.

If you tell them their governments is made of psychopaths, and
government is a ruling elite, the best of the people, and even
more, in a democracy, government is an extension and reflection
of the people, in that case, what do you think, what was your
actual message to those people, and what the end result will be?


Nihilism.


You seem to have a high opinion of him. So be it. He's not my
favorite, for sure.

Atomized society, made of self centered people, in which people
are not connected and are emotionally disconnected from pursuing
common interests, that, as we see, has consequences.



We don't have to be Borg (collective), but some degree of
collectivism is necessary to have a healthy society that can make
people happy.
--

[jdeluise]

On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 15:29:57 -0800, Sawfish wrote:

> Disagree. There is likely some argument that Trump is the second coming
> of Reagan. He's not as encouraging or positive, that's for sure, but...
>
> It sure *feels* that way, here as an observer.

A lying, cheating draft dodger is a symbol of American patriotism to
you? Wow!

[jdeluise]

On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 15:29:57 -0800, Sawfish wrote:

> I'd have to carry something intimidating every single time I went
> anywhere public with her, because she'd be like a $100 bill on the
> ground, and whoever is the most dominant gets to keep it.

As Whisper said the other day, "Classic pin dick by the sounds."

[jdeluise]

On Sat, 16 Feb 2019 00:58:58 +0100, *skriptis wrote:

> If you tell them their governments is made of psychopaths, and
> government is a ruling elite, the best of the people, and even more, in
> a democracy, government is an extension and reflection of the people,
> in that case, what do you think, what was your actual message to those
> people, and what the end result will be?
>

Vote 'em out!

[*skriptis]

jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

Sawfish nice story about dangerous neighborhood.

I value your personal experience about this. And your comparison
with rst is helpful.

Yes, it puts things in perspective. I would certainly not want to
live in a society with people who are vile, selfish, but most
importantly, pushing everything in the direction that I don't
want, and being different from me and my people, they have
different interests so of course they will push their stuff. I
don't often think about that.

When you are in a homogenous society, remember your San Pedro episode.

But since reality is more similar to this story about walking in a
dangerous neighbourhood with your wife, I might understand what
was appeal with Reagan at the time.

I might understand or try to understand what made Reagan desirable
in the eyes of the people, at that particular historical moment,
when he appeared, which was also part of long process that ended
with the today's society. Society in which (until Trump came)
conservatism was somehow linked not with the teachings of e.g.
George Washington, but with open borders, free trade,
overthrowing third world regimes, and other nonsense.


But It's not how would I like things to be, so it kinda looks (for
America) that everything went downhill after they set Nixon up.
That started a chain reaction.

Awful event for America and the world.

--

[Sawfish]

On 2/15/19 4:27 PM, *skriptis wrote:
> jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>> On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 15:29:57 -0800, Sawfish wrote:
>>
>>> Agreed, but understand: it is a pit filled with the vilest of vipers,
>>> here. You need look no further than the integrity--or complete lack
>>> thereof--of many of the posters here in RST. *That's* what I'm talking
>>> about, and it's why the informed individual here in the US cannot afford
>>> to trust people outside of a circle of proven friends and acquaintances.
>> lol
>>
>
>
> Sawfish nice story about dangerous neighborhood.
>
> I value your personal experience about this. And your comparison
> with rst is helpful.
>
> Yes, it puts things in perspective. I would certainly not want to
> live in a society with people who are vile, selfish, but most
> importantly, pushing everything in the direction that I don't
> want, and being different from me and my people, they have
> different interests so of course they will push their stuff. I
> don't often think about that.
>
> When you are in a homogenous society, remember your San Pedro episode.

Exactly.

>
> But since reality is more similar to this story about walking in a
> dangerous neighbourhood with your wife, I might understand what
> was appeal with Reagan at the time.
>
> I might understand or try to understand what made Reagan desirable
> in the eyes of the people, at that particular historical moment,
> when he appeared, which was also part of long process that ended
> with the today's society. Society in which (until Trump came)
> conservatism was somehow linked not with the teachings of e.g.
> George Washington, but with open borders, free trade,
> overthrowing third world regimes, and other nonsense.

You are correct in concluding that after JFK, LBJ, Nixon--all of whom
exercised decisive executive power and leadership, as Trump is doing
now--followed by the weak Carter, Reagan's ideological rhetoric
represented an individualist, rather than a collective, model for success.

I bought into the Reagan-esque ideas about deregulation for quite a
while, until the 2008 liquidity crisis pimp-slapped some sense into me.
I spent a LOT of time analyzing what led to it, and there was no other
conclusion than it was a lack of appropriate regulation.

it has become more apparent to me that some kind of hybrid system would
work best--and China looks something like such a system.

>
>
> But It's not how would I like things to be, so it kinda looks (for
> America) that everything went downhill after they set Nixon up.
> That started a chain reaction.

Nixon is truly a Richard III-like tragic figure. Tremendously capable
and canny, combined with a paranoid anxiety and probably a deep
self-loathing.

>
> Awful event for America and the world.
>

I'm hoping that this is yet another cyclical historic phase, but am
uncertain that anything other than a serious and prolonged existential
threat, enforcing unity as a necessary expedient for survival, would be
sufficient.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sawfish: He talks the talk...but does he walk the walk?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[jdeluise]

On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 17:02:49 -0800, Sawfish wrote:

> I'm hoping that this is yet another cyclical historic phase, but am
> uncertain that anything other than a serious and prolonged existential
> threat, enforcing unity as a necessary expedient for survival, would be
> sufficient.

So you'd like a 1984-like scenario?

[Calimero]

Yes, he ended the Soviet Union and their empire. You must HATE him.


Max

[bob]

On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 13:38:40 -0800, Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com>
wrote:

excellent observation, overall. very astute post.

and as for those claiming partisan politics here:
"ask not what your country can do for you..."

bob

[bob]

On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 23:02:10 +0100 (CET), *skriptis

herin lies the whole discussion: what exactly do people expect the
gov't role to be?

sawfish explained it very well: reagan, whether it was implemented or
not, gave off the impression that people should count less on the
gov't and more on themselves.

bob

[bob]

is this the kaennorsing that i've known all these yrs? :-)

bob