Consumers are too stupid to make good choices

[Quark]

small nit
48% is stretching it by a bit, 40% to 41% is closer to the mark.

I was going off whatever resources I found to quote efficiencies - I think that one was wiki. Is 48% theoretically possible but not used because the costs aren't worth it to the companies?

[Jester]

That's not my point. I'm a nice guy and I love the planet too. But, is there a law that prevents me from being a jerk and burning needless gasoline? No, not that I know about. But, I am prevented from buying a gas guzzling Sherman Tank of an SUV that violates the Cafe standards. Not that I would, but it's more the principle of surrendered liberties I'm getting at. We have a nanny government that chooses to do the thinking for me by outlawing the choices they don't want me to make.

If you're burning that gas, then incorporated into the cost of that gas, probably through taxation, there should be an accounting for the environmental damage associated with it. Make the tax on the gas crippling enough, and nobody in their right mind will buy a gas guzzler unless they have a good reason, and even then, they have increased incentive to drive it less rather than more. That way, you don't have to ban anything, and you get a nice little revenue stream from anyone dumb enough to just burn perfectly usable fuel for no reason.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

If you're burning that gas, then incorporated into the cost of that gas, probably through taxation, there should be an accounting for the environmental damage associated with it. Make the tax on the gas crippling enough, and nobody in their right mind will buy a gas guzzler unless they have a good reason, and even then, they have increased incentive to drive it less rather than more. That way, you don't have to ban anything, and you get a nice little revenue stream from anyone dumb enough to just burn perfectly usable fuel for no reason.

-Jester

Yeah, we got that. The government here gets about 30 cents a gallon for doing nothing. They didn't explore for it, drill it, refine it, or transport it. They just get 30 cents pure profit for every gallon, whether it costs 60cents a gallon or 4 bucks a gallon. They use it to make bike paths, rehabilitate deer that have been bitten by wolves, nature centers in the middle of nowhere for about 100 visitors a year, and handicap accessible wilderness trails.

[Taem]

I think freedom from excessive justification is a worthy cause. (eg: Why do you need a metal pen comrade? You could stab someone with it. Better to use this safe 1 inch wax crayon instead. Or use your finger on the dirt.)

I also think there is such a thing as going too far the other way. Freedom doesn't mean freedom from consequences. There's no absolute 'law' against defecating in one's own pool either. But I'm personally not going to do it just because I have the freedom to do so.

So, you think seatbelt laws, or California's Helmet law is in excess? Does this fit into your qualifications of "common sense?" How far should our institutions go to protect us from our own stupidity?

My personal take on these issues is if *it* - whatever 'it' may be - can cause harm to others, it should be regulated; if it can *only* do harm to yourself, then so be it. There are, of course, some gray areas such as minors, internet crimes, etc.

[Taem]

What I don't understand is how this bulb won't burn out. And I've heard of others. Now if *they* can just find a way to improve upon and manufacture these "ever-burning bulbs", we'd never need to buy bulbs again.

[Lissa]

I was going off whatever resources I found to quote efficiencies - I think that one was wiki. Is 48% theoretically possible but not used because the costs aren't worth it to the companies?

48% is theoretically possible with extreme heat and/or high energy release through quantum mechanisms (yes, Fusion), but for the power sources we have now, 40% to 41% is best possible.

[Taem]

I'm personally happy that I don't have to run around changing light bulbs all the time since we switched to CFL. With incandescents, we couldn't go a week without something burning out. In fact, I was pretty sure that the act of changing one light bulb was what caused another one to burn out somewhere else in the house. :ph34r:

I have no idea what your talking about. My 60W to 100W bulbs lasted for months before burning out. These damn new screw-shaped bulbs seem to last just a little longer than their predecessors. I fail to see how I could possibly be using them incorrectly, so I assume the bulbs just suck and don't do what they advertise on the package (I usually buy a pack of 6-bulbs from Costco). If heat really does play a role in their longevity, then that might explain how certain bulbs seem to always burn out every other month, while others have been working without problem for a least a year and both have been in use about the same amount of time.

[Hammerskjold]

So, you think seatbelt laws, or California's Helmet law is in excess? Does this fit into your qualifications of "common sense?" How far should our institutions go to protect us from our own stupidity?

That helmet law you cited looks to be for bicycles, and for people under the age of 18. I use a seatbelt because even if I survive a hypothetical crash without a seatbelt, there's a real possibility of me crashing through the windshield and onto traffic. So although I certainly think seatbelt and (motorcycle) helmet laws are good in general, I do it because I defer to higher laws like physics and gravity. There's no real sense arguing with that kind of law.

It only becomes excessive to me when people think the world should be made out of nerf.

As for how far should any institutions go to protect us from our own stupidity, well not so far that they don't have time to check their own I suppose.

[Hammerskjold]

I have no idea what your talking about. My 60W to 100W bulbs lasted for months before burning out.

If you're talking incandescent bulbs, what brands are you using? Some of the GE and Sylvania I've been using so far seems to have quality control problems. 1 out of 4 can last months, while the rest seems to go kaputs in weeks.

[Taem]

If you're talking incandescent bulbs, what brands are you using? Some of the GE and Sylvania I've been using so far seems to have quality control problems. 1 out of 4 can last months, while the rest seems to go kaputs in weeks.

I concur with your assessment, however have had the same results with compact fluorescents that burn out after a few weeks. I don't know if the odds are approximately 1 in 4, but it seems to me enough compact fluorescents have burnt out in a short amount of time that I didn't see too big of a difference between them and incandescent bulbs.

[Griselda]

Well, we've had good luck with the fluorescent bulbs here, and couldn't keep the incandescent ones around for any period of time. We have one fluorescent-bulb-eating fixture here at the house, but even that one has had the same bulb for about a year now (after going through 2 in the first 2 weeks).

Of course, we all know the value of anecdotal evidence.:)

[Vandiablo]

Yeah, we got that. The government here gets about 30 cents a gallon for doing nothing. They didn't explore for it, drill it, refine it, or transport it. They just get 30 cents pure profit for every gallon, whether it costs 60cents a gallon or 4 bucks a gallon. x

Who is building your roads? Cleaning up the mess when a tanker overturns? Us.

They use it to make bike paths, rehabilitate deer that have been bitten by wolves, nature centers in the middle of nowhere for about 100 visitors a year, and handicap accessible wilderness trails.

All worthy causes. By us and for us.

-V

[--Pete]

Hi,

It only becomes excessive to me when people think the world should be made out of nerf.

You have completely missed the point. It is not whether seat belts or motorcycle helmets are a good idea that we are discussing, it is whether a law requiring their use is a good idea. Or, to phrase it differently, to what extent should the government protect us from ourselves?

Personally, I think that no laws should exist whose purpose is to protect us from ourselves. Stupidity should be its own (preferably fatal) reward. Or, in the words of Niven and Pournelle, "Think of it as evolution in action." To those who would argue otherwise, I ask where the line should be drawn. Do we ban fatty foods? Late night TV, since so many are sleep deprived? Recreational swimming? Sports, since so many are injured?

--Pete

[Chesspiece_face]

Hi,
You have completely missed the point. It is not whether seat belts or motorcycle helmets are a good idea that we are discussing, it is whether a law requiring their use is a good idea. Or, to phrase it differently, to what extent should the government protect us from ourselves?

--Pete

In both the case of seat belts and motorcycle helmets there is legal reasoning for the laws beyond protecting people from their own stupidity however. They are also there to protect us all from other peoples stupidity. If I am driving and hit your car (the accident being my fault) and you are not wearing your seat belt and end up dying, without the law I am the one put at fault for the death and can easily be charged with vehicular manslaughter. Despite the fact that had you been wearing your seat belt you most assuredly would have survived. With the law accountablity is put on the person not wearing their seat belt. It says "had they not been being stupid and wore their seat belt they would still be alive, thus the fault is on their shoulders."

[Hammerskjold]

Personally, I think that no laws should exist whose purpose is to protect us from ourselves. Stupidity should be its own (preferably fatal) reward. Or, in the words of Niven and Pournelle, "Think of it as evolution in action." To those who would argue otherwise, I ask where the line should be drawn. Do we ban fatty foods? Late night TV, since so many are sleep deprived? Recreational swimming? Sports, since so many are injured?

--Pete

The thing with that is, is it's not always that cut and dried in the real world. Stupid people also reproduce, so to me it's a somewhat necessary evil to have some sort of protection in place. Not for them, but for those unlucky enough to be born into say, a family like the Spears. (That protection to me should have a limit however, like say 16-18 years.)

Banning fatty foods, late night TV, and sports does not to me at least, have much to do with what I was talking about. When I said freedom is not freedom from consequences, I mean that literally. Freedom is to me, paid with responsibility.

Or, to phrase it differently, to what extent should the government protect us from ourselves?

Like I said, but phrased differently as well, not so far that the government has no time to protect us from their own stupidity.

So while I agree on the concept of stupidity is it's own (possibly fatal) reward on some level, unfortunately the world isn't divided into a stupid\non stupid zone. When an idiot on their hands-on cellphone is eating a sandwich while 'driving', they share the same freeway as those who takes their driving more seriously. I mean that literally and figuratively. And you may or may not be surprised that more often than not, it's the idiots who have a higher survival rate. Eg:

http://www.westislandchronicle.com/article...cab-driver.html

Anyway, I'm off for a relaxing ride on my sabertooth tiger. I just installed a new turbo drive on her. (A fishing pole with some raw meat dangling just out of her reach.)


ps. Banning late night TV won't happen. It will cause too much uproar and dissent. Besides, they already got the next best thing, a malfunctioning V-Chip standard in most modern sets. Ask me how I know. ;P

pps. For a more concise and coherent reply, I'd just go with Chesspiece face's reply above.

[Occhidiangela]

In both the case of seat belts and motorcycle helmets there is legal reasoning for the laws beyond protecting people from their own stupidity however. They are also there to protect us all from other peoples stupidity. If I am driving and hit your car (the accident being my fault) and you are not wearing your seat belt and end up dying, without the law I am the one put at fault for the death and can easily be charged with vehicular manslaughter. Despite the fact that had you been wearing your seat belt you most assuredly would have survived. With the law accountablity is put on the person not wearing their seat belt. It says "had they not been being stupid and wore their seat belt they would still be alive, thus the fault is on their shoulders."

You don't need a law to be in the wrong, in tort and negligence cases. You are referring to the problem of contributory negligence, and the uneven application of that concept in civil proceedings, not to mention the financial motive of insurance companies to find any way, to include legislation, to reduce their risk exposure.

Require car makers to equip with seatbelts?

Sure.

Require us to wear them?

Why? I see no reason to waste a cop's time ticketing people over seatbelts when there are more serious road hazards to deal with, in terms of bad driving which is what causes accidents in the first place.

Or is this all a ploy for state and local governments to add to their revenue stream by harassing the citizenry yet again? Let those who are stupid pay the penalty, and let the smart get away with lower risk of injury.

Personal risk management is an element of what it means to have freedom.

Freedom includes the freedom to screw up. Keep your bubble wrap, thanks.

Occhi

[Roland]

I concur with your assessment, however have had the same results with compact fluorescents that burn out after a few weeks. I don't know if the odds are approximately 1 in 4, but it seems to me enough compact fluorescents have burnt out in a short amount of time that I didn't see too big of a difference between them and incandescent bulbs.

I'll have to check what brand I use, but I have CPLs that have lasted for about two years, with heavy use. Using incandescents in their place, they might last a year or less. So... yeah.;)Only had one pop on me, out of the original four in my basement.

Hrmm... Some no-name brand from down the street, at an electrical / plumbing supply company. ESB (Energy Saving Bulb), 75 Watt Equivalents, UB204 is the part number. 1200 Lumens @ 2700K. To be quite honest, the light spectrum is pretty damn close to incandescent. I haven't done a side-by-side comparison, but it's close enough for me not to notice otherwise. Also, they (like all CPLs) take about 15 minutes to truly warm up, but once they do boy do they ever shine bright.:)At 1/3rd the wattage usage of what we used to use (60 Watt), combined with the highly increased longevity, I'd say it was a worthy investment.;)I think they cost me less than 2 bucks apiece at the time.

[Taem]

I'll have to check what brand I use, but I have CPLs that have lasted for about two years, with heavy use. Using incandescents in their place, they might last a year or less. So... yeah.;)Only had one pop on me, out of the original four in my basement.

Hrmm... Some no-name brand from down the street, at an electrical / plumbing supply company. ESB (Energy Saving Bulb), 75 Watt Equivalents, UB204 is the part number. 1200 Lumens @ 2700K. To be quite honest, the light spectrum is pretty damn close to incandescent. I haven't done a side-by-side comparison, but it's close enough for me not to notice otherwise. Also, they (like all CPLs) take about 15 minutes to truly warm up, but once they do boy do they ever shine bright.:)At 1/3rd the wattage usage of what we used to use (60 Watt), combined with the highly increased longevity, I'd say it was a worthy investment.;)I think they cost me less than 2 bucks apiece at the time.

The bulbs I bought from Costco are Coserv-Energy Fluorescents at 13W 120VAC 60Hz 210mA UL #E170906 if that means anything. My wife informed me last night that some of the bulbs have been in use for over a year now around the house. The ones that seem to go out bi-monthly are the front-porch light and a bedside lamp in the kids room (previously in the kids room, we had a halogen lamp with two "bedside" lamps attached to its side and the bulbs burnt out on that thing at least once a month, even with the Fluorescents, so we stopped using the two smaller lamps and stuck with just the halogen, until the kids broke it). That's why I'm speculating on the heat aspect ruining a Fluorescents life-cycle.

[Tris]

CFL's are nasty. Hiding inside each CFL is mercury, which isn't super environmentally great. Also, unless CFL's have improved a lot, in cold climates the use of CFL's outside during winter is... interesting.

I have had little experience with the LED lighting system.

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . When an idiot on their hands-on cellphone is eating a sandwich while 'driving', they share the same freeway as those who takes their driving more seriously. . . .

Again, this statement misses the point. Since someone else's cell phone use, eating, etc., while driving endangers me, then laws prohibiting these actions are, in my opinion, valid and necessary laws. Not to protect the jafi doing these things, but to protect others from said jafi.

--Pete