Anyone moved to LED Lighting?

Athiests are losing constantly to real logic. Here is some proof.

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.

=========

Santa is OK.

Although if this happened:

"There's a worldwide organization of Santa believers with at least one chapter in every town, where they sing songs about how awful they are and how all good things come from Santa. The "True Santaists" are always going around, disturbing people, and pushing the "One True Santa" on people 365 (500?) days a year. They're insinuating themselves into the national government, making them spend billions of dollars of tax money on "Santa indoctrination centers" (with nicer-sounding names, but really just as bad), insisting on putting "We Love Santa" on legal documents we're all required to have, spreading anti-intellectual Santaist ideas and telling lies about our country and its history (like "This is a Santaist Nation"). They're insisting we all worship Santa at the beginning of all meetings and public events."

THAT would be bad.

Ever notice "Satan" and "Santa" have very similar spellings using the same letters?

Although if this happened:

"There's a worldwide organization of Santa believers with at least one chapter in every town, where they sing songs about how awful they are and how all good things come from Santa. The "True Santaists" are always going around, disturbing people, and pushing the "One True Santa" on people 365 (500?) days a year. They're insinuating themselves into the national government, making them spend billions of dollars of tax money on "Santa indoctrination centers" (with nicer-sounding names, but really just as bad), insisting on putting "We Love Santa" on legal documents we're all required to have, spreading anti-intellectual Santaist ideas and telling lies about our country and its history (like "This is a Santaist Nation"). They're insisting we all worship Santa at the beginning of all meetings and public events."

THAT would be bad.

They switched to LED lighting? Well, that's good news.

We're supposed to grow up and yet still retain child-like faith. I'm not sure which of the two is harder to do. :^)

I didn't.

We're all experts on some things and ignorant of other things.

OK.

That's the problem. I can't give you hard evidence. Faith itself is the evidence. You claim not to have faith in God so I can't prove his existence to you.

If you knew where I've been you'd understand why I believe.

I don't control anything but myself. You're free to believe what you choose. I believe in God. You say you don't... for now.

I can see my PC. It's right in front of me. I don't need faith to believe it's there. However, when I go in the other room and close the door, I still know it's there even though I can't see it. Likewise, I know God is there even when I can't see Him.

I hope you change your mind about that some day.

There's evidence in the changed lives of people who decided to believe. There is evidence in every facet of creation. It's sort of like esoteric PC knowledge. If you understand it, it makes sense. If you don't it sounds like well... Santa Claus.

You're very wrong about that. Those who know God tend to become progressively dependant on Him. Sadly, those who don't are just as needy. They just don't know it.

I don't believe because I want to know God. I want to know God because I believe in Him.

Naah. You created the cat on Wednesday and forgot about it the next morning. :^)

Understood. The point is that faith itself is the evidence. Nothing physical is required. In fact, belief based on that which can be seen is not faith at all.

Keep going. While there is life there is hope.

The truth is, when you add faith to sight, it enhances your mind. Understanding is enhanced. It's like turning on a light in a dimly lit room. You always knew where the furniture was and where the door is. Add light and all of a sudden you can see every detail, including a lot of stuff you missed before. We could go on like this for a long while but that would just annoy a lot of nice people who prefer to talk about CFLs so I think I'll leave it at that.

hahahaa...good one!

They switched to LED lighting? Well, that's good news.

wrote:

hmmmmm. Faith is not evidence. I hope you don't test your alarm systems that way.

It has to be true because so many people believe... or pretend they do.

We're supposed to grow up and yet still retain child-like faith. I'm not sure which of the two is harder to do. :^)

I didn't.

We're all experts on some things and ignorant of other things.

OK.

That's the problem. I can't give you hard evidence. Faith itself is the evidence. You claim not to have faith in God so I can't prove his existence to you.

If you knew where I've been you'd understand why I believe.

I don't control anything but myself. You're free to believe what you choose. I believe in God. You say you don't... for now.

I can see my PC. It's right in front of me. I don't need faith to believe it's there. However, when I go in the other room and close the door, I still know it's there even though I can't see it. Likewise, I know God is there even when I can't see Him.

I hope you change your mind about that some day.

There's evidence in the changed lives of people who decided to believe. There is evidence in every facet of creation. It's sort of like esoteric PC knowledge. If you understand it, it makes sense. If you don't it sounds like well... Santa Claus.

You're very wrong about that. Those who know God tend to become progressively dependant on Him. Sadly, those who don't are just as needy. They just don't know it.

I don't believe because I want to know God. I want to know God because I believe in Him.

Naah. You created the cat on Wednesday and forgot about it the next morning. :^)

Understood. The point is that faith itself is the evidence. Nothing physical is required. In fact, belief based on that which can be seen is not faith at all.

Keep going. While there is life there is hope.

The truth is, when you add faith to sight, it enhances your mind. Understanding is enhanced. It's like turning on a light in a dimly lit room. You always knew where the furniture was and where the door is. Add light and all of a sudden you can see every detail, including a lot of stuff you missed before. We could go on like this for a long while but that would just annoy a lot of nice people who prefer to talk about CFLs so I think I'll leave it at that.

They had to. The heat from the incandescent lights was melting the illusion :-)

BTW, Heaven has been lit with LEDs since March 13, 1777.

I was feeling depressed until I saw that. All the laughter really helped!

Some of the meat substitutes are fairly good especially if the developers get the texture close enough. I have Hippie friends who are into tofu and they can use it to prepare tasty dishes.

TDD

Just like dog and God. Since God can do anything, I wonder if he can lick his........ never mind, My first grade teacher, Sister Godzilla would come back from the grave and bop me on the head if I finished that question.

TDD

Did you read the comments? Atheists are pissed about it. Good advert fr religious addicts.

Athiests are losing constantly to real logic. Here is some proof.

Some say it's a comedian not a Christian. It IS funny.

He **is** a comedian and does this frequently. Research "Edward Current"

Did you read the comments? Atheists are pissed about it. Good advert fr religious addict.

What - you want to be the first in my roughly 14 years of heavy experience in Usenet suggesting that I need to accomodate you despite lack of need to accomodate likewise anyone before you in probably over a thousand posted responses to others?

I give better odds for them to understand mine than to understand yours, at the rate you are going.

Yet, you appear to be unaware of the Usenet convention of having the number of quotation symbols at beginning of each quoted line reflecting the level of quotation. Otherwise, you appear to be fighting such established convention.

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

At least here, you added appropriately a quotation symbol at beginning of line of previously-quoted material - even though you chose a non-standard one.

However, you did something else frowned-upon, maybe to put it mildly: You snipped to edit for space (actually encouraged) without stating that you did so with some sort of description of whatyou snipped.

(I find it customarily acceptable to have snippage limited to signature to not need to be noted, but here I decline.)

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

However, total RMS current of low-power-factor CFLs including the part from 3rd harmonic is less than that of same-light-output incandescents.

That is an issue that was known at least as far back as the mid 1980's.

These glitches have little effect on RMS voltage or difference between total RMS voltage and fundamental-frequency-component-thereof delivered to motors in nearly all industrial applications and even more totally in residential applications.

I advise to know Usenet, its conventions and ettiquette!

(At least you added a quotation symbol per line of material that was already previously quoted in the article that you responded to, although itappears to me that you chose a non-standard one)

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

Does replacing incandescents with CFLs require people to replace non-electric water heaters and dryers with electric ones?

They can crank down some of their on-line generating units. Although in within-day time scale that tends to be in oil-fueled generators, they crank up and down or make usage intermittent for coal above nuclear and hydropower.

Due greatly to electricity demand growth unrelated to choice of lighting technology, such as population growth, and increased usage of larger-screen-area TVs and increased usage of computers.

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

How is this?

" "> Some may even understand part of your messages.

" I give better odds for them to understand mine than to understand yours, "at the rate you are going.

">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. " " Yet, you appear to be unaware of the Usenet convention of having the "number of quotation symbols at beginning of each quoted line reflecting "the level of quotation. Otherwise, you appear to be fighting such "established convention.

" - Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

" At least here, you added appropriately a quotation symbol at beginning "of line of previously-quoted material - even though you chose a "non-standard one.

" However, you did something else frowned-upon, maybe to put it mildly: "You snipped to edit for space (actually encouraged) without stating that "you did so with some sort of description of whatyou snipped.

"(I find it customarily acceptable to have snippage limited to signature to "not need to be noted, but here I decline.)

">| ">| - Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com) " " - Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)" " " - Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)" " " - Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

You have no idea what you are talking about here, do you?

Geeesh. It's getting boring teasing the village idiot, now

" "Don Klipstein" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@manx.misty.com... " In article , Josepi wrote: " >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. " " However, total RMS current of low-power-factor CFLs including the part " from 3rd harmonic is less than that of same-light-output incandescents.

" >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. " " That is an issue that was known at least as far back as the mid 1980's.

" > These nasty little glitches will make love to your furnace and " >fridge motor. Now who's saving money?...LOL " " These glitches have little effect on RMS voltage or difference between " total RMS voltage and fundamental-frequency-component-thereof delivered to " motors in nearly all industrial applications and even more totally in " residential applications.

" >(f*ck your bottom confusion. It's not worth educating some) " " I advise to know Usenet, its conventions and ettiquette!

" (At least you added a quotation symbol per line of material that was " already previously quoted in the article that you responded to, although " itappears to me that you chose a non-standard one) " " - Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

" >"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) " >| " >| - Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com) " >| " >| - Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)