Quote from: Solar on September 02, 2011, 11:24:26 AM
You may want to rethink that statement.
http://www.centennialbulb.org/facts.htm

What does that prove? It's a 4 watt incandescent bulb. Totally useless in a practical sense.

Quote from: elmerfudd on September 02, 2011, 11:22:42 AM
No, I don't litter.  I even pick up trash on my walkabouts downtown. 

But styrofoam lasts forever.  Paper and cardboard will compost.  So if we can find a product to use in place of styrofoam that will compost AND enforce litter laws, won't we be better off? The paleo libertarian thinks so and I do, too.  That may be the only thing we agree on, though.  I think roads, national defense, patent/copyright laws, and safe food and drug laws are VERY important governmental functions.  Especially national defense.

So then why not reformulate it rather than ban it?
They did it with plastic milk containers and carry out bags for stores.

Why is it all or nothing with you libs?
You claim were black and white, yet it is you that isn't willing to find middle ground.

Quote from: Steve Zissou on September 02, 2011, 11:19:55 AM
The incandescent bulb is not an excellent product. It's inefficient, fragile, and short lived.

Uh huh. So we're going to trade it for something that is somewhat less inefficient, five times the price, just as fragile, somewhat longer-lived (according to proponents), able to weakly light small areas, and that presents a haz-waste scenario when broken or disposed of.

What a deal.  :P :P :P

Quote from: Steve Zissou on September 02, 2011, 11:24:52 AM
Civil governance is tolerated only to protect individual liberty, to make sure that one man's liberty does impinge upon any other man's liberty. We all are free to enjoy the commons of the earth, the shared spaces, and if one man's behavior impinges on any other man's enjoyment of the commons it is civil government's duty to do something about it. Hence littering and this regulation are acceptable. And the regulation does not place undue hardship upon private business as there are numerous options.

That encompasses a lot of territory.  Among which I believe would be police protection, national defense, patent and copyright laws, and safe food and drug enforcement.  But not roads. I'll give you that one.  I'd sure hate to live a country run by real paleo-libertarians, though. 

Quote from: Steve Zissou on September 02, 2011, 11:26:27 AM
What does that prove? It's a 4 watt incandescent bulb. Totally useless in a practical sense.

I've seen it, it is quite useful, point is, the incandescent bulb is cheap to make and gives off an excellent light.
Again, this is Gov intruding on our freedoms, the freedom to purchase what we think fits our lifestyle  best.
My mom still uses them as a source of heat in the Winter, just enough to keep the chill of the room while she reads.

So what is your point, are you in favor of Gov dictating what light bulbs I use?

Quote from: tbone0106 on September 02, 2011, 11:29:10 AM
Uh huh. So we're going to trade it for something that is somewhat less inefficient, five times the price, just as fragile, somewhat longer-lived (according to proponents), able to weakly light small areas, and that presents a haz-waste scenario when broken or disposed of.

What a deal.  :P :P :P

LED lightbulbs do not contain hazardous waste. They are currently more expensive, yes. The market will fix that, economies of scale and all that. They are not as fragile, and are far longer lived and much brighter.

Now what?

Quote from: Solar on September 02, 2011, 11:27:20 AM
So then why not reformulate it rather than ban it?
They did it with plastic milk containers and carry out bags for stores.

Why is it all or nothing with you libs?
You claim were black and white, yet it is you that isn't willing to find middle ground.

Well, heck, if there's a way to reformulate it, have at it!!!  I am perfectly willing to find middle ground.   Perhaps the market will be inspired to reformulate now that the less expensive (which it must be, or they would have already reformulated, right?) styrofoam is banned. 

Quote from: Solar on September 02, 2011, 11:31:44 AM
I've seen it, it is quite useful, point is, the incandescent bulb is cheap to make and gives off an excellent light.
Again, this is Gov intruding on our freedoms, the freedom to purchase what we think fits our lifestyle  best.
My mom still uses them as a source of heat in the Winter, just enough to keep the chill of the room while she reads.

So what is your point, are you in favor of Gov dictating what light bulbs I use?

Incandescents do not give off excellent light. They give off very poor light. Ask any photographer. They are cheap, yes. That's about all they have going for them at this point.

And I already said the government had no business requiring any of us to use any particular type of lightbulb.

Quote from: Steve Zissou on September 02, 2011, 11:33:36 AM
Incandescents do not give off excellent light. They give off very poor light. Ask any photographer. They are cheap, yes. That's about all they have going for them at this point.

And I already said the government had no business requiring any of us to use any particular type of lightbulb.

Sorry, but as an Army photographer, they were an excellent source of light.
We had 8 of them placed throughout the studio when I did official DA photographs.
I have no idea where you heard such nonsense.

I dare you to try and find an LED or CFL that can give the same spectrum as an old style Edison.

Quote from: Solar on September 02, 2011, 11:36:58 AM
Sorry, but as an Army photographer, they were an excellent source of light.
We had 8 of them placed throughout the studio when I did official DA photographs.
I have no idea where you heard such nonsense.

Incandescent light (of the type standard bulbs offer) must always be adjusted for. Perhaps you are just used to doing that. Or your incandenscents were specifically designed for photography. Flash units these days use an entirely different color temperature, right?

Quote from: Steve Zissou on September 02, 2011, 10:32:49 AM
It's not a matter of driving demand in this case. There is a pre-existing demand for carry-out food trays. Many restaurants already use non-foam trays.

In the case of the lightbulbs, the new tech is not ready and as such has not made replacing incandescents a viable option for many. Personal preference and many years of experience with that type of light (and light quality is very important to humans) also plays a factor in the switch.

And I agree. The market should be the driving factor except in instances of impingement like this one. Lightbulbs do not qualify, despite the need for power savings.

I hear what you're saying, and littering is an issue, but this legislation seems to take for granted that people will litter, so might as well just give them something less harmful. I don't like that approach. I think something should be done about littering in general, maybe a fine, maybe make them clean up roads. Something like that. Taking away styrofoam doesn't address the main issue.
Just my two cents.

Quote from: Solar on September 02, 2011, 11:36:58 AM

I dare you to try and find an LED or CFL that can give the same spectrum as an old style Edison.

Full spectrum light isn't a high priority these days.

Quote from: CubaLibre on September 02, 2011, 11:39:32 AM
I hear what you're saying, and littering is an issue, but this legislation seems to take for granted that people will litter, so might as well just give them something less harmful. I don't like that approach. I think something should be done about littering in general, maybe a fine, maybe make them clean up roads. Something like that. Taking away styrofoam doesn't address the main issue.
Just my two cents.

It's not just about littering. This legislation addresses the fact that, for whatever reason, foam cartons are appearing in our natural areas. No more foam cartons used equals no more foam cartons in our natural areas.

Quote from: Steve Zissou on September 02, 2011, 10:55:39 AM
What is the stated reason? I'm pretty sure I saw pollution in there.

I don't care what the stated reason is. I care what the real reason is, and that is pure abject stupidity.

Quote from: Harry on September 02, 2011, 11:43:22 AM

I don't care what the stated reason is. I care what the real reason is, and that is pure abject stupidity.

How do you know that? Assumption is a liberal disease.