Faith is a good thing. The above doesn't refer to faith, but to "magical thinking", a quality of small children and those who fail to grow up.
Strange that you would assume I was using quotations for instruction.
Here's another that's not at all for that purpose:
god is real - unless declared integer
As to God, consider the difference between it and Santa Claus, The Tooth Fairy, The Invisible Pink Unicorn, Zeus, Last Thursday's Cat, The Great Pumpkin, and millions of other mythical beings.
I don't seem to have a problem with it, none of the recipients of any Email from me have ever complained about Gmail or Hotmail. I use Gmail the most and I like the Gmail Spam filter, it catches 99% or more of the crap. I know, I'll send myself some Email and I'll discover whether or not I'm despicable!
TDD
I don't know about Gmail. I have gotten email from Hotmail, and they added THEIR OWN crap (falsely identified as from the sender of the email).
Also, the fact that nobody complained doesn't mean that much. People get the idea they have to accept things, no matter how crappy. Consider the frozen "beef" enchiladas filled with what looks and tastes like runny dog food.
Thanx for the information. I have never experiemented with light much. This would make interesting studies with all the lighting spectrum hype and lighting technologies being launched.
We'll see what the compalints about ESL lighting are once it becomes more common.
A prism refracts (bends) different wavelengths of light unequally.
A diffraction grating works with diffraction - light hitting or grazing small objects is bent or even reflected into random directions or a range of random directions. The grating has a large number of equally-spaced grooves. That causes the light to go only where the various paths (one for each groove) have distance from light source to destination differ from each other in length by only whole numbers of wavelengths, so that constructive interference occurs.
The effect remains similar to that of a prism. The biggest functional differences between a prism and a diffraction grating are:
Some "spindle packs" of recordable CDs or DVDs have a clear one at the top and sometimes the clear one has the grooves - and that makes that thing an example of a transmissive diffraction grating.
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
Sometimes just leaving things alone is much more economical than making complex solutions to resolve perceived economic problems.
I remember the new Energy Star usage ratings the US announced a few years ago. Some people were getting randy about the huge losses in a freezer and how we were stupid for not throwing out all our old appliances. Turns out the $10 dollars per year, wasted, would never be paid for, in most of our lifetimes, by throwing out my 30 year old freezer with no insulation in the lid. OTOH Canada has had Energy Star usage tags and programmes for more than
30 years now.The whole package has to be considered and determined.
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
In article , JimH wrote: Simply install two lighting systems, and use the appropriate switches in summer or winter. Even better, automate the system so that the same switches will power the correct set of fixtures based on the outside temperature. (That makes it on topic for an automation news group.)
Josepi wrote: LOL. Yup, economic OCD is difficult.
How do you know what runny dog food tastes like? Hummmm?
TDD
Actually it LOOKS like runny dog food and tastes almost, but not quite entirely unlike beef.
On 11/21/2009 9:28 PM Don Klipstein spake thus:
You know, we've only heard you say this here about, oh, 117,000 times.
Your assertion (about CFLs resulting in less mercury contamination) contains a *major* fallacy. It implies that when one use a CFL instead of an incandescent light bulb, the electricity somehow, magically turns "cleaner", with less mercury emitted.
If you run a CFL, your electricity *still* comes from the same mercury-spewing coal-fired power plant. You're just using less of it than if you use an incandescent bulb.
Now, it's true that if *enough* people used CFLs, *and* if the resulting power savings were enough for the power companies to say, "Hey, let's start shutting down our dirty old coal-fired power plants", then one could truly say that the use of CFLs reduces mercury emissions. But that hasn't happened yet. Nowhere near it. They're still burning lots of coal, and planning on building even *more* coal-fired plants.
Oh, you had me worried there for a minute. The stuff is probably soy protein. *snicker*
TDD
All too often, 30 yearold fridges consume more like $6-$10 per month more than new ones.
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
and *again*, you left the following lines short a quotation symbol each.
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
Yes, less mercury is emitted, because you use 70-75% less electricity.
That does get power companies to crank down their plants. The nukes and hydropower will be the last ones to crank down, because their load-related operating costs are low. (Most of the cost of nukes is unrelated to load.)
CFLs are merely slowing demand growth. Most of the incandescents that can be replaced with CFLs are not yet replaced with CFLs, the population is growing, along with use of larger TV sets. If all CFLs were replaced with incandescents of same light output, the situation would be even worse.
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
Feel free to rename all the character sets, if desired. Some may even understand part of your messages.
I have never seen anybody use a quotation symbol for marking lines. Quotation marks usually mean a quotation from a previous piece of text. I think that would be why they are called that.
Many CFLs are a third harmonic problem for the electrical distribution grid. Some claim this may have been resolved in later designs but many don't know the difference between power factor and third harmonics, either.
Transformers must use different designs to help eliminate third harmonics from these nasty bulbs (including HID lamps) and it still depends on balanced three phase harmonic distribution at about 6-10 million dollars per transformer. These nasty little glitches will make love to your furnace and fridge motor. Now who's saving money?...LOL
(f*ck your bottom confusion. It's not worth educating some)
"Don Klipstein" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@manx.misty.com... | In article , David | Nebenzahl wrote: | >On 11/21/2009 9:28 PM Don Klipstein spake thus: | >
| >> Compared to incandescents, in USA on average CFLs actually reduce mining | >> of mercury-containing materials and transfering mercury to the | >> environment. This is because about half of all electricity produced in | >> the USA is obtained by burning coal, a major source of mercury pollution. | >
| >You know, we've only heard you say this here about, oh, 117,000 times. | >
| >Your assertion (about CFLs resulting in less mercury contamination) | >contains a *major* fallacy. It implies that when one use a CFL instead | >of an incandescent light bulb, the electricity somehow, magically turns | >"cleaner", with less mercury emitted. | | Yes, less mercury is emitted, because you use 70-75% less electricity. | | >If you run a CFL, your electricity *still* comes from the same | >mercury-spewing coal-fired power plant. You're just using less of it | >than if you use an incandescent bulb. | | That does get power companies to crank down their plants. The nukes and | hydropower will be the last ones to crank down, because their load-related | operating costs are low. (Most of the cost of nukes is unrelated to | load.) | | >Now, it's true that if *enough* people used CFLs, *and* if the resulting | >power savings were enough for the power companies to say, "Hey, let's | >start shutting down our dirty old coal-fired power plants", then one | >could truly say that the use of CFLs reduces mercury emissions. But that | >hasn't happened yet. Nowhere near it. They're still burning lots of | >coal, and planning on building even *more* coal-fired plants. | | CFLs are merely slowing demand growth. Most of the incandescents | that can be replaced with CFLs are not yet replaced with CFLs, the | population is growing, along with use of larger TV sets. If all CFLs were | replaced with incandescents of same light output, the situation would be | even worse. | | | | - Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
On 12/26/2009 6:47 PM Don Klipstein spake thus:
Here's what I meant to write in my earlier message but forgot to.
In *theory*, everything you say is true. In practice, I doubt it.
Think about it. Let's say I, and my neighbors, and a good chunk of the electric customers hereabouts reduce their usage by installing CFLs. So far as our *lighting* usage goes, we're using 70-75% less juice (to use your figure). But that doesn't mean that we're reducing our *total* usage by that much: me, I've got an electric water heater and an electric dryer, so what they suck up pretty much swamps any savings I get from CFLs. But no matter; let's say for the sake of discussion that I (we) have significantly reduced our electricity usage.
That doesn't *necessarily* translate to the same amount of reduction in electric power plant generation. Think about it: it's not as if there are giant rheostats on coal-fired generators that the electric company can use to calibrate their generating capacity to meet the load. They can basically take a generating unit off-line or put it on-line. So even though we use CFLs like the good citizens we are, that still doesn't mean that we're reducing the amount of coal being shoveled in the front end by the same amount (and reducing mercury emissions as well).
It's an interesting quandary. Jodie says that there is no evidence that she can see and therefore she does not believe. Christianity teaches that faith *is* the evidence of things unseen. :^)
Your choice of words is excellent. According to Christian beliefs, we're supposed to have "faith like a little child."
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you were taking her comments as instruction.
That one's over my head. :^)
I have considered the difference. Here's my take on it:
I'm no Biblical scholar but I've found this much evidence of God. It is in the making choice to believe -- the decision to accept on faith that which is unseen -- that one proves God's existence.
One tough part of that is it only proves it to the one who chooses to believe. I can't prove it to you, only to me. To know for sure you have to make your own choice. As much as it works for me, I can't insist that you believe. I would be foolish to try to "convince" you or anyone else for that matter. It's something you decide for yourself. Besides, it's important to me to respect your right not to believe.
That is not at all what the gentleman is saying. CFLs use less electricity than incandescant bulbs. The rest should be obvious.
Same exact thing applies to Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.
That sounds right. Very different from beef. I have made enchiladas with beef and those are good.
And never grow up. Growing up would be inconsistent with Christian teaching.
OK, although I do wonder why people make that assumption.
Actually it depends on some specialized knowledge, about computer programming. If you understand it, it's funny. If you don't understand it, don't worry about it. I know what it means, and found it an interesting thing to include in my list of quotations.
And God will always be a myth no matter hop many people believe in him. Where's the evidence of any difference here?
Of course, it's real. A very real part of your imagination (The same way Santa and the others are real if you believe). What would be wrong would be the idea that somehow YOU control the external reality that all people depend on.
Also, I can see my cat right here. There's no need for (the non-serious form of) belief, as there is for God.
Most likely true, considering what and where God is.
Do you really think there's evidence in there? You said "that which is unseen". Of course, unseen things can be real. Where is the evidence to suggest this one is? Where is the evidence that even a little bit useful to anyone who could use it?
That "evidence" no more points to God than to Last Thursday's Cat*.
Notice the only people this "proof" works on is those who don't need it. That's one of the characteristics of a scam.
To me belief is something serious, "wanting" has nothing to do with it. That would be fantasy, not belief. That's a good thing, a personal one. I hope it stays personal. =========
BTW, I am not questioning Gods existence, but human behaviors such as belief with no evidence.
BTW2, I have, for a long time, suspected there was something to this "God" thing. I have never found anything, and have never given up.
BTW3, The other reason I get involved in this sort of thing is that I have respect for people, and don't like to see them entangled in these mind-destroying delusions. It's quite stressful so I can't do it very often.
Certainly puts things into perspective and formulates opinions, quickly. OK, your LEDs are great, now. LOL
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 04:53:54 -0500, "Robert L Bass" snipped-for-privacy@bogusemail.com wrote: I have considered the difference. Here's my take on it:
I'm no Biblical scholar but I've found this much evidence of God. It is in the making choice to believe -- the decision to accept on faith that which is unseen -- that one proves God's existence.
One tough part of that is it only proves it to the one who chooses to believe. I can't prove it to you, only to me. To know for sure you have to make your own choice. As much as it works for me, I can't insist that you believe. I would be foolish to try to "convince" you or anyone else for that matter. It's something you decide for yourself. Besides, it's important to me to respect your right not to believe.
Faith is a good thing. The above doesn't refer to faith, but to "magical thinking", a quality of small children and those who fail to grow up.
Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.