Anders Hoveland

Yeah, the irony is that most Hispanics vigorously oppose abortion (and any form of contraception it seems judging by the size of their families ) yet they still vote for the Democratic Party. If the issue of abortion was put to a public referendum, I think there would be a very different outcome.

Isn't this exactly what the Democratic Party has been doing? From setting "efficiency mandates", to telling business owners who they have to hire. Did I mention forcing people to buy health insurance?

While you may think that burning fuel to directly provide heat is more efficient, something to consider is that the smoke being vented off carries away much of the heat. Fuel-burning power plants can capture a larger percentage of the heat, although I am sure that factoring in the inefficiencies in generating and transmitting the electric power, burning the fuel where you need the heat is still more efficient. But there are still many situations were it is more practical and efficient to use an electric heater. For example, less energy is used by a portable electric heater to heat just one room than turning on the gas heater that warms my entire house. An incandescent bulb is partly a radiant heater, making it in some ways somewhat more efficient than regular convection space heaters. It does not give off a large quantity of heat (my little portable electric heater is 5000 watts, for comparison, but any extra heat is more than welcome. It gets very cold here in the evenings, and I do not really turn on my lights any other time. As far as I am concerned in my house, my incandescent bulbs are 100% efficient. Even if the quality of LED light was exactly the same as incandescent, I still would not really see any reason to switch. What I just can't understand is why incandescent light bulbs are being phased out in northern Europe and Canada. How much energy is this really going to save people? More than 2,700 people are dying each year in England and Wales because they cannot afford to keep their homes warm, according to an official study: http://www.dailymail...ting-bills.html

The laws, which have already been made, are still in the process of phasing into effect. Those halogens will not be allowed under the law that will come into effect in 2020. In addition, the light from replacement halogen bulbs is not quite the same as the ordinary incandescent bulbs. The light can feel a little more glaring. While the brilliant whiter color of halogens is often a good thing, there are some situations where someone may prefer the more yellowish warm relaxing feeling of the regular incandescents (I have tried a "warm white" colored LED, it is just not the same). And there is also a unique safety hazard if the halogen bulb breaks, because of the extremely hot inner capsule that could potentially explode, causing burns or potentially increasing the risk of fire. I remember some of the old exposed halogen floor lamps occasionally caused a fire hazard. http://articles.lati.../local/me-13253 I just went to a sauna at a local gym, and (I could tell by the off-looking color) they were using CFL bulbs in the above fixture. The sauna is heated by electric resistance elements, so using "energy efficient" bulbs makes absolutely no sense. With all that heat in the sauna, the lifetime of those spiral bulbs are probably also compromised. And remember, just because you read about some new better light bulb in the news does not mean it is actually going to become available any time soon. Here is a typical example: Right before one of the energy efficieny laws was to be voted on, GE made a big press release that they were going to make an incandescent bulb that was drastically more efficient, it was in the newspapers: http://www.environme...ndescent-bulbs/ Many online newspapers and bloggs were citing these HEI bulbs (which didn't even exist yet) in their arguments in favor of the efficiency mandate. But then GE eventually announced that they were going to abandon the project: http://www.treehugge...candescent.html So much for that! Just goes to show you can't believe everything you hear about what the future holds.

The laws, which have already been made, are still in the process of phasing into effect. Those halogens will not be allowed under the law that will come into effect in 2020. In addition, the light from replacement halogen bulbs is not quite the same as the ordinary incandescent bulbs. The light can feel a little more glaring. And there is also a unique safety hazard if the bulb breaks, because of the extremely hot inner capsule that could potentially explode, causing burns or potentially increasing the risk of fire. I remember some of the old exposed halogen floor lamps occasionally caused a fire hazard. http://articles.latimes.com/2000/mar/27/local/me-13253 I just went to a sauna at a local gym, and (I could tell by the off-looking color) they were using CFL bulbs in the above fixture. The sauna is heated by electric resistance elements, so using "energy efficient" bulbs makes absolutely no sense. With all that heat in the sauna, the lifetime of those spiral bulbs are probably also compromised. And remember, just because you read about some new better light bulb in the news does not mean it is actually going to become available any time soon. Here is a typical example: Right before one of the energy efficieny laws was to be voted on, GE made a big press release that they were going to make an incandescent bulb that was drastically more efficien, it was in the newspapers: http://www.environmentalleader.com/2008/12/01/ge-suspends-development-of-high-efficiency-incandescent-bulbs/ But then GE eventually announced that they were going to abandon the project: talleader.com/2008/12/01/ge-suspends-development-of-high-efficiency-incandescent-bulbs/

I thought we have already settled this. While the law in the USA does not specifically mention incandescent bulbs, I don't think there is any doubt that it was designed to ban incandescent bulbs. The law will not allow any incandescent bulb currently in existence. And there is plenty of scientific reason to doubt that such a bulb will ever be available. Incandescent bulbs have been around for over 100 years, and have changed little since the start. If it was so easy to get better efficiency from them, then one wonders why there have been no real improvements after all these years. Even if scientists did manage to develop a such a drastically more efficient incandescent bulb, there is a good chance it may be ridiculously expensive. And I still want to mention that an LED bulb that can replace the old 100 Watt bulbs with the same light output (behind a regular lampshade) is still not commercially available. There is only one brand being sold that can replace a 70 Watt bulb, and some consumers have complained that its quality of light leaves much to be desired, not to mention its very high price. LED bulbs may likely improve, and the prices may likely fall, but the question is how much? We cannot be entirely sure. And how long will all this take? Is it really a good idea to be banning the main alternative so soon? You want to see what women think about the new energy saving bulbs already? Just read throught the comments section here: http://www.classiccasualhome.com/2011/03/changing-light-bulbs.html Those "energy saving" replacement bulbs are just not the same, and have had numerous problems. If they were such an improvement and actually saved consumers money, the government would not have to ban the old alternative, would they? No, consumers have tried the new bulbs, and many have come to the conclusion that they just don't like them.

You do realise that half the American population feels the complete opposite? I still don't see how the freedom to to get an abortion is an advancement towards the freedom of humanity, anymore than the freedom to own slaves promoted the freedom of humanity.

http://www.richsoil.com/CFL-fluorescent-light-bulbs.jsp

Thiere was a study I found from Stanford is comparing how different regions attain economic growth. In the middle of the report, they mention that lowering population growth is a contributing factor to increasing standard of living. Even though this seems obvious to many people, there are still many who cling to the belief that more humans are necessary for a country's well being, while in fact the opposite is true. Even though lightly populated areas do experience economic growth with population growth, eventually a large population becomes a burden that is too difficult to feed, house and employ, and educate as we are beginning to learn in this country. It's particularly notable that they mention education as a factor, since the line of thought coming out of academic institutions for the most part seems to praise population growth. Could there be a conflict of interest here? Obviously educational institutions benefit from more children since it justifies increased government funding. There are two main reasons lower population is good for economic standard of living: First, there is less labor competition so it puts an upward pressure on wages. Employers become obliged to improve working conditions to compete for scarce labor. Better working conditions decreases the unemployment rate. An individual has to be really lazy or seriously disabled to not be willing or able to work when different employers are begging for more workers and are willing to hire whomever they can get. Second, too many people puts pressure on the supply of housing. As long as the population is not increasing, people can generally continue to use the same houses and buildings that already are in existence. When the population increases, new buildings have to be built. This is more expensive, and increases the cost of housing, even the price of the old buildings because there is a shortage of affordable housing available.

While dimmer switches are not frequently encountered in older houses, they are being installed much more frequently in newer houses. The state of California, for example, recently has begun requiring in its building codes that all rooms in the house either have to have dimmers or "high efficiency" lighting (either flourescent tubes or the new more expensive recessed LED fixtures. Considering that 38 million people live in the state, this is going to affect a lot of people. Most home builders are just going to install dimmers because that is the cheapest option, and most homebuyers are not going to like fluorescent tubes in their house. If you hire an electrician to change the lamp fixture in one of your rooms, technically by law they also have to install a dimmer switch also. This will be interesting, with all these dimmer switches everywhere, and the old incandescent bulbs being banned. I wonder how long it will take the public to realise that their new energy efficient bulbs do not operate so well with these dimmers.

So will there have to be more rationing, and more invassive and annoying "efficiency" mandates if we don't start controlling our population now? And should we just cut off immigration and let the third world go to hell, or continue to take all these people in and hope we can solve the problem of overpopulation in the entire world before our countries become overcrowded ?

Okay, not that anyone probably cares, but I found out about a potential disadvantage of the new energy saving halogen bulbs compared to the old incandescents. Whereas putting the old incandescent bulbs on a dimmer increased the lifespan of the bulb, putting these new halogen bulbs on a dimmer can potentially reduce the lifespans of the bulb. One factor is the running at reduced power; halogen bulbs don't like being put on dimmers, since the halogen cycle which redeposits tungsten onto the filament only works at high temperatures; otherwise, they will blacken and burn out very quickly (somewhat slower at reduced power, but life may initially drop sharply before the lower temperature has a bigger effect). Will dimming switches work with a halogen light bulb? Yes, conventional incandescent dimmers will work to dim halogen lamps. However, the effectiveness of the halogen cycle to keep the lamp walls clean and give longer life may well be affected. This cycle depends upon correct lamp operating temperatures, which of course will be changed when the lamp is dimmed. Therefore, using a dimmer may not extend the life of your halogen lamp as much as a dimmer typically extends the life of a standard incandescent lamp. The halogen lamp is designed to prevent the tungsten from depositing on the inside of the bulb wall and darkening it. Because the halogen action stops working when the bulb wall temperature falls below 260 degrees Centigrade, which may happen when the dimmer lowers the voltage, the halogen lamp blackens and its life is not prolonged as much as an incandescent lamp on a dimmer. Eventually a severely dimmed halogen lamp can become blackened and fail. The wall blackening can be partially reversed if the halogen lamp is operated at full power, non-dimmed, periodically to allow the halogen cycle to remove some of the deposited tungsten. However, halogen bulbs are still more dimmable than CFLs or LEDs. Putting a normal CFL on a dimmer switch will drastically reduce its lifespan, much more so than halogens. Another problem is that even for most CFLs or LEDs that claim to be dimmable, their operation is still negatively affected by dimming. The CFLs will lose much of their efficiency at lower powers, and even some of the "dimmable" versions will still result in some flicker if the dimmer is turned down to low. Many of the "dimmable" LEDs actually only dim down to 20% of their brightness. Any lower than that and the light starts to go out, or sometimes there is some flicker, or in some cases it even causes an annoying hum. There do exist, however, LED lighting that are indeed fully dimmable, and putting an LED on a dimmer will not affect its lifespan. For comparison, dimming a halogen bulb, while potentially taking away from its lifespan, will not in the slightest immediately affect the operation of the bulb. All this goes to show that there all sorts of new considerations that have to be made when switching to any of these new energy efficient bulbs. They all have their own special disadvantages in several situations. Most consumers can't be troubled to educate themselves about all the complexities, and just assume these new bulbs work just the same as the old. Then they are surprised when their new more expensive bulbs burn out after only 6 months.

and who does it hurt ? And that's really the main issue. Why do women and minorities (except for east asians!) earn less? Is it just beyond your understanding that there might be other possible reason beside just racism? Affirmative action often only helps a small upper crust of privileged minorities that do not need any help anyway, while doing little to nothing to help the poor.

I'm not sure about banning beef, but I definitely think there should be more laws and regulations to protect farm animals from abuse and neglect in those huge corporate slaughterhouses. The regulations have to affect not only the production within the region, but also the importation of beef from outside, otherwise more regulations will just drive the local price up and shift all the production somewhere else.

It is just nudity. What's the big deal? Children go running around nacked in other primitive cultures.

The quickest and easiest way to justify murder is to establish the "non-humanity" of the intended victim. That is exactly what abortionists are doing to the fetus. How many unborn babies will continue to be tossed onto the altar of "women's rights" ? Barrack Obama summed up the Liberal mentality best when he said abortion would "ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams." In other words, the baby gets in the way of women's equality, so it has to go! About his own two daughters, Obama said "if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby". That's what a baby is apparently — a punishment.

I doubt it is more than daylight, but staring down onto concrete pavement in the day time for several hours continuously probably would not be good for your eyes either. The when you spend many hours of time on the computer every day, staring directly into the screen, all that exposure is cumulative.

No that's just not true. Many LED manufacturers make all sorts of exaggerated claims about their products. Those equivalences only up when the lighting is for directional purposes (such as recessed fixtures). The typical rule is 4 watts of equivalent incandescent light output for every 1 watt of LED power. For some of the more efficient LED lamps (such as the Phillips L-prize), that can go up to 6 watts of equivalent incandescent light. To match the light output of the old 100 watt bulbs, you are going to need at 20-25 watts of LED power. From what I have observed at least, those rated lumen ratings can be misleading.

So who determines whether women are being paid less "for the same work" ? That seems to leave a lot of room open for interrpretation. As much as you might like to, you can't legislate fairness. It is the business owner making the hiring decisions. Ordering him to make certain decisions, and then trying to go back and sue him when you think he didn't follow the right criteria is just absurd. I absolutely object to the notion that you have the right to tell someone who they have to work with. video: http://mediamatters.org/video/2010/05/20/stossel-calls-for-repeal-of-public-accommodatio/165049

Neither political party has a monopoly on lying. But yeah, Romney is willing to say just about anything if he thinks it will get him elected. Republican voters are not happy with Romney, but that is what the Republican Party leaders pushed on their constituency. And now it's "Better Romney than Obama", the reasoning goes. If that link isn't a strawman, I don't know what is.

Also do not foreget that many LCD computer screens have backlighting from cold cathode fluorescent tubes. A small ammount of the UV can escape through the screen, and this can contribute to eye strain after many hours. The old cathode ray tube monitors also had a small ammount of UV, although I am not sure how much. Best to get an computer screen with LED backlights.

I would be curious as to whether some races of humans might have more of a propensity for some families of languages than others. I would imagine whatever differences there might be would be small, so ideally researchers should look at human branches that have been evolutionary separated the longest from the rest us. Particularly in parts of Africa, or possibly natives in Australia.

And photons have a rather large "size" for a subatomic particle. Red light, for example, has a wavelength of 0.7 millimeters. An object that size is just vissible to the human eye (well, it depends who's eyes). If I look closely, I can see some details on a tiny grain of sand that is that size, but I have really good vission. For most people, an object that size looks like just a little black speck. Because of this, it is more difficult to see fine details in red light than in blue light, because the larger wavelength of the red light obstructs things. For example, I probably would not be able to see any details on that tiny grain of sand I was looking at it only under red light. I have also read somewhere that if a grating is made with the right size of holes, blue light can pass through but red light cannot.

Well actually, everything in the universe is entangled It is just some particles are more entangled to eachother than others Whenver two particles interract with eachother, they become entangled to some degree. The interference a particle will encounter in the future is intertwined with the interference its entangled counterpart is encountering in the present.

I think to understand how a particle behaves as a wave, you have to go outside conventional notions of cause and effect. Personally, I do not believe in the wave concept, at least not philosophically. I believe that "when" the universe formed in space-time, there was reason for it to form in such a way as to avoid any actual destructive interference. If you want to think of it this way, if two "strings" of matter going through time ever destructively interferred, even for a single moment, it would effectively "cut" the strings, and their tension would send them flying back like elastics. In other words, destructive interrference is a forbiden state. In other words, to understand why matter seems to behave as a wave in many situations, you must understand why the matter is laid out in space-time the way it is, and why matter/energy in different configurations does not exist. To understand this. you must see all particles as simply existing in time, rather than moving through time. However, I also do not believe in particles in the sense that I do not believe they are actually point-like objects. I believe they have finite volume (again this is philosophical, as it has not been directly supported by any experimental evidence). But I believe that the composition of such particles is indeed a wave, which again is composed of even smaller component particles, somewhat anologous to quarks inside a hadron. To more clearly address the question: I believe that the true fundamental particles do indeed exist as particles, but as part of a composition of a larger wave. The two are inseparable. However, until physicists devise a way of peering inside at the constituents of the electron, this will just have to remain speculation. Bashing two electrons together at high speeds is just problematic, for other reasons. At such speeds, there are relativistic effects, and any particle (whether electrons or photons) begins to behave as if it has a quark-like constituency. But then again, perhaps these "quarks" they see inside the electrons really are these fundamental particles I am referring to. Well actually everything in the universe is entangled It is just that some particles are more entangled to eachother than others. To understand entanglement, you have to go back to the whole "wave-particle" duality thing, and your views on entanglement will be dependant on your philosophical views on the explanation for the double slit experiment. Just my personal opinion, but science educators seem to do a really confusing job of trying to explain entanglement. Basically, entanglement is similar to the phenomena of interference, but is through a duration of time. The interference a particle will experience in the future will affect its intereference in the present. The two are intertwined. There are several different views on this of course; all of them are basically correct, but I prefer this one.