Consumers are too stupid to make good choices

[--Pete]

Hi,

CFL's are nasty. Hiding inside each CFL is mercury, which isn't super environmentally great.

Yep. Simply means that they need to be added to the list of recyclable or hazardous materials. And the costs to processes them (in money and energy) must be factored in. But, still, under appropriate conditions, they can be worth it.

Also, unless CFL's have improved a lot, in cold climates the use of CFL's outside during winter is... interesting.

They're not really outdoor nor cold area solutions. Maybe that's where LEDs need to be used -- but I don't know for sure.

I have had little experience with the LED lighting system.

Yep, me too. I've seen a few LED 'solutions' at trade shows. They look good for emergency and exit signs, and they seem to have caught on big for tail lights. I don't remember seeing any LED products that would work for any type of general lighting.

--Pete

[Hammerskjold]

Hi,
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

To quote Homer (Simpson), 'Well if we agree, why are we arguing?'

Ok on a more serious note. Maybe what we have here is a failure to commuh-nicate.

You mention where to draw the line, ie: banning fatty foods, late night TV, physical sports. I for one, would defend anyone's rights to eat a big mac, watch late night TV, and go bungee jumping. I don't support 'banning' these things, though I do see a value in making sure a big mac doesn't exceed the government approved level of cyanide, late night programming doesn't have subliminal signals from aliens, and quality bungee cords used with their proper breaking point rating etc.

I draw the line when people starts suing mickey dees for giving them heart problems, because a steady and prolonged diet of big mac and nothing but gave them heart palpitations. Same with someone constantly arriving late for work or driving erraticaly due to lack of sleep because they simply have to watch the Late Late show. It's not Conan O'briens fault. And if I step into a full contact boxing sparring session, I'm not going to blame the gym for getting punched. (If I get hit by a chair that's something else. I didn't sign up for a 'wrassling' match.)

Having said all that, you've probably already know how absurd the world can be. We live in world where shampoo bottles needs explicit instructions that says 'For External Use Only'.

So if your point is idiots should be free to exercise their stupidity to get a Darwin award, I agree. The problem is, sometimes those idiots overachieve and snag a few non-idiots along the way, even if they didn't intend to. That's the problem I see with stupidity.

A hypothetical joke: An idiot decides to play Russian roulette outside his house with all 6 bullets in a revolver. He somehow misses, the errant shot hits a passing bus driver, causing the bus with all it's passenger to crash killing everyone inside. When the authorities arrives and a cop asked him why couldn't he shoot himself in the confines of his own house, he replies, 'do you know how hard it is to get blood stains out of the carpet?!'

ps. LED technology has progressed relatively fast, but they're not quite powerful enough yet to be used say, to replace a 100 watt incandescent bulb. The ones that approach that kind of power, are not quite economical enough for mass production at the moment. At this time, their other problems seems to be heat (they don't like it and needs a properly designed heatsinking or heat management) and need to be more consistent in their tint variation for the kind of large scale production for more general lighting. All of this seems to be improving constantly, and they are IMO, powerful enough to be used for accent, or smaller to medium area general lighting.

But in 3-5 years,LEDs and solid state are probably the ones to watch for if I was a betting man. Names like Lumileds and Cree in particular.

[--Pete]

Hi,

A hypothetical joke: . . .

So, we agree. No law against suicide, just one against missing the intended target:)

Actually, I really don't see how your example applies to this discussion. First, there is no indication of just what nanny law you have in mind. Is it a law against suicide, or does it have something to do with discharging a firearm in public? The first is hard to enforce ('attempted' and 'assisted' are other issues, but not pertinent to your story). And discharging a firearm in public is, quite rightly, against the law in most places.

My point is not that idiots should be free to be idiots. That right ends when they endanger anyone else. My point is that laws whose sole purpose is to protect idiots from themselves are wrong. As are, as far as I'm concerned, laws whose only purpose is to impose one group's morality on the population as a whole.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

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.

You mean like;

As of September 2007, the New York City Council has enacted a law banning the use of non-wood bats.*

The Council declared that the use of non-wood bats poses an unacceptable risk of injury to children, particularly those who play competitive high school baseball.

Specifics of the Law:
• Who: Public or Private High School students ages 13-18 who play competitive baseball for their school team.
• What: A competitive baseball game means an organized game at which a certified umpire officiates in NYC.

So the perceive threat from me burning 20 gallons of gas in my backyard is the release of CO2 into the atmosphere? Is there a law preventing me from needlessly driving to Chicago and back then? How about flying to France for dinner on a whim? How about breathing at a rate higher than would otherwise be needed for survival?

[Hammerskjold]

So the perceive threat from me burning 20 gallons of gas in my backyard is the release of CO2 into the atmosphere? Is there a law preventing me from needlessly driving to Chicago and back then? How about flying to France for dinner on a whim? How about breathing at a rate higher than would otherwise be needed for survival?

If the point of your example is to burn gas directly in your backyard to protest oppressive laws, there are better and more efficient alternatives. Even if you just want to do it out of warmth, firewood is a much better alternative and gives off better fumes to boot.

Come on Kand, step away from the gas fumes for a second. Driving needlessly to Chicago is never needless, since at least you get to see some scenery. Jetting off to France on a whim, you might see the foxy (newer model for this year) Mrs. Sarkozy. Breathing at a higher rate and taking in some extra oxygen, you might as well scold a fish for pooping in the ocean. Though I think you might need some deep breaths and I'll certainly defend that right. So breathe away, nice and deep. Let's all have a nice hit of air.

Isn't that better? Now, why I personally think burning gas in a firepit is not that great has more to do with how valuable that gas is. It can get you to Chicago and France after all. And even though I agree with some of your points, I don't see gas the same way as say tea was in that famous Boston get together.

Tell you what though, if you're so hell bent on burning it to protest, give it to me and I promise to do it for you and save you the mess. For real. I'm definitely not going to use it in my own car or anything. Really. You can trust me. Give me the gas. Give me the gas and just walk away.

Just walk away, and I will give you safe passage through the wasteland. Just walk away. You can trust a face like this.

http://www.justsayn2o.com/images/racing/lg_humungus.jpg

[Jester]

I don't think he's saying that burning gas for no reason is a great idea. He's saying that he should have the liberty to do it.

And, so long as he has paid up front for the environmental damage, I don't see why not.

-Jester

[Hammerskjold]

Hi,
So, we agree. No law against suicide, just one against missing the intended target:)

Yep.

Actually, I really don't see how your example applies to this discussion. First, there is no indication of just what nanny law you have in mind. Is it a law against suicide, or does it have something to do with discharging a firearm in public? The first is hard to enforce ('attempted' and 'assisted' are other issues, but not pertinent to your story). And discharging a firearm in public is, quite rightly, against the law in most places.

The exchange was sparked by the example of burning gas in a fire pit, which led to mention of seatbelt laws, which went to how far should a government go to protect people from their own stupidity. And I said not so far that the government can't protect us from the government's own stupidity. (We might need an announcer re-cap at this point.)

A blunt way of saying it (and hopefully clearer) is I believe most government has a full time job already of keeping their own stupidity in check, without worrying excessively about it's own citizens. Least of all the deserving stupid.

To get it more on topic, I guess I should just say I agree that government does not have the right to mandate what kind of bulb to be used, not so much because of Liberty and Freedom with a capital L and F etc. But because if their track record is any indication, it's a simplistic solution for a complex problem.

If on the other hand, government wants to mandate that a more efficient, longer lasting and higher quality standard for both present and upcoming lighting technology is to be used, pressuring and rewarding manufacturers to do so, I'm all for it. (The government in my area is talking about the incan ban as well, so I have a stake in this too.)

Frankly I'm sick of having to go up on a chair and risking my neck to change that 100w incan in my kitchen area. As of now however, incandescent is the only practical solution for that specific need, that's available to me. So I'm all for government incentive and pressure manufacturers to develop better solutions. The sooner an efficient, fast, clean, long lasting and similar colour spectrum replacement arrives I'm all for it. I have no love lost for the incandescent bulb.

Same goes for things like SUVs. I don't hate all SUVs because they're all hurting mother earth. And banning SUVs would be just as ridicilous as banning incandescent light bulbs. What I do want is better gas mileage for it. Again, my angle is not of the selfless altruistic tree hugger. I actually like some of the older SUVs before they were known as SUVs, when they were called trucks, jeeps and Land Rovers;)etc. Banning them doesn't address the problem. Coming up with better, cleaner, and efficient design and technology is to me, a far better and practical method than trying to legislate a solution.

As are, as far as I'm concerned, laws whose only purpose is to impose one group's morality on the population as a whole.

On that, we never had a disagreement at all.

[Hammerskjold]

I don't think he's saying that burning gas for no reason is a great idea. He's saying that he should have the liberty to do it.

And, so long as he has paid up front for the environmental damage, I don't see why not.

-Jester

While in theory I agree, practically speaking I will most likely, have to pay that tax as well.
I doubt the guy behind the counter will ask Kandrathe if he will burn that gas in a firepit, because if he does he will have to charge him an extra cost for environmental damage, on top of the associated cost with other environmental damage that comes from just using it in a vehicle. (The urge to add another tax is simply too tempting for most government IMO.)

And if they do ask him what he's going to do with that gas, with government approval even, then to me we're getting into the cure is worse than the disease zone.

Maybe I'm a pessimist in this regard. I'm more inclined to believe an addition of a 'firepit' tax vs. using money from an existing environmental damage tax. Even if we are speaking hypothetically.

[kandrathe]

While in theory I agree, practically speaking I will most likely, have to pay that tax as well.
I doubt the guy behind the counter will ask Kandrathe if he will burn that gas in a firepit, because if he does he will have to charge him an extra cost for environmental damage, on top of the associated cost with other environmental damage that comes from just using it in a vehicle. (The urge to add another tax is simply too tempting for most government IMO.)

And if they do ask him what he's going to do with that gas, with government approval even, then to me we're getting into the cure is worse than the disease zone.

Maybe I'm a pessimist in this regard. I'm more inclined to believe an addition of a 'firepit' tax vs. using money from an existing environmental damage tax. Even if we are speaking hypothetically.

Yes, Jester is right. I'm actually a conservationist in practice. I love nature. I'm a primitive camper / backpacker. I make it a point to buy and plant about 50 to 200 trees every year just because it helps the environment. However, I love liberty as well (maybe more). Regulating energy efficiency in products (cars, light bulbs, refrigerators) is case where government has infringed on the market to decide for itself what makes sense. Congress is doing the thinking for us. Next thing you know we'll be watering the fields with gatorade, because its got the stuff plants crave.

[Hammerskjold]

Regulating energy efficiency in products (cars, light bulbs, refrigerators) is case where government has infringed on the market to decide for itself what makes sense. Congress is doing the thinking for us.

While again, I actually very much agree with you on the basic and general points. When I'm looking at our current market however, it's not that black and white. I think government can have a useful role in setting some standards for efficiency (yeah I know it's hard saying that with a straight face). I think it oversteps it's boundaries when it tries to ban something outright, without giving it too much thought whether it would actually work to address the problem, or even enforceable on a practical level.

So far I think we're both on the same page on that matter, I think.

Where I start to differ is when I look at the aisle, there does seem to be a lack of good selection sometimes. So to me at least, it can be hard to make a sensible decision when the choices are limited.

A small example, there are talks in my area about battery recycling fees. I'm all for better recycling technology and facility. But there are new generation of rechargeable batteries that are quite the improvement over older NiMh and Ni-cads, and less toxic to boot. (Eneloops, Hybrids, generically named Low Self Discharge NIMH batteries.)

I've tried these, and from my own use at least, it's the real deal. To the point where I can severely reduce my need to use alkaline disposable batteries. (Not that I was a big user in the first place, but I can now reduce the need for alkaline disposables down to just a few packs for emergency purposes.)

Yet the recycling initiative mostly deals with alkaline, and while that is a great idea, for me I hope it's not a long term plan. Recycling is great, but I for one want to see alongside that, a continual push for improved technology with the long term goal of either eliminating or at least severely reducing the need for disposable products.

Speaking of electronics and waste, if you think I get hot and bothered by just your hypothetical gazoline bonfire, you should see how I hyperventilate with rage when I see the electronics section. What pisses me off even more, is the insanity of manufacturers in building in even shorter lifespan aka planned obsolescence.

And I'm saying this not as a luddite, but as a frustrated fan of technology. I do use a computer, and enjoy such modern magics as MP3 players and the microwave cabinet.

So while I agree in that government can overstep it's limits if it tries to decide what should be in the marketplace, the market place itself IMO, does not always produce the best and most efficient products. Especially when it's not in the be$t interest to do so at least according to the company's bottom line.

I always thought the 3 R's needed a fourth, and that's Repair. But when I take a look at most of what's available today, it's almost designed to be as Repair-resistant as possible. In the worst sense of the word. Why bother to repair it when it's cheaper to just buy a whole new widget? Except I don't see it as cheaper, at least not in the long run.

http://www.recycle.ubc.ca/ewastemain.htm

I don't know if government intervention alone can undo the damage, though I think it can play a role. But I think what's really needed is a revolution in attitude that extends to all kinds of field from industrial design to economics to biology.

Next thing you know we'll be watering the fields with gatorade, because its got the stuff plants crave.

Hehe, well it does have electrolytes. :) By the way, it might be real.

http://taurinerules.blogspot.com/2008/02/b...ergy-drink.html

This post is brought to you by Carl's Jr.

[kandrathe]

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

Yeah. Thanks for that. We get a lions share of the Federal highway money for building our roads.

And... speaking of tankers overturning... I was delayed this morning for an hour (adding to my carbon footprint) by a waste tanker that shed liquid human poop on the road for 1/2 a mile. Unpleasant, yes, but how many times in your life do you get to explain that to your boss as a reason for being late? I was feeling sorry for us drivers that had to endure going past it, but then I saw the poor people who had to do the cleaning up. Then I imagined the people that were directly behind this thing when it began to spew and I forgot all about my troubles.

[Lissa]

Yeah. Thanks for that. We get a lions share of the Federal highway money for building our roads.

And... speaking of tankers overturning... I was delayed this morning for an hour (adding to my carbon footprint) by a waste tanker that shed liquid human poop on the road for 1/2 a mile. Unpleasant, yes, but how many times in your life do you get to explain that to your boss as a reason for being late? I was feeling sorry for us drivers that had to endure going past it, but then I saw the poor people who had to do the cleaning up. Then I imagined the people that were directly behind this thing when it began to spew and I forgot all about my troubles.

Sounds like you had a crappy morning... :whistling:

[kandrathe]

Hehe, well it does have electrolytes. :) By the way, it might be real.

http://taurinerules.blogspot.com/2008/02/b...ergy-drink.html

This post is brought to you by Carl's Jr.

Water is for toilets... BRAWNDO is for everything else. Expecially for putting on your mouth. And on plants. Plants need BRAWNDO, it's got electrolytes.

Brawndo -- The Thirst Mutilator

[Taem]

Yes, Jester is right. I'm actually a conservationist in practice. I love nature. I'm a primitive camper / backpacker. I make it a point to buy and plant about 50 to 200 trees every year just because it helps the environment. However, I love liberty as well (maybe more). Regulating energy efficiency in products (cars, light bulbs, refrigerators) is case where government has infringed on the market to decide for itself what makes sense. Congress is doing the thinking for us. Next thing you know we'll be watering the fields with gatorade, because its got the stuff plants crave.

Yes, well if the Government didn't intercede, then I doubt the media format would ever change (i.e. HDTV). Perhaps there are a few things "we" people need the government to take a stand for because as consumers, we really don't have a choice; we buy what the conglomerates want us too and whatever that is usually falls within the realms of "if the shoe fits, wear it," or better: if its cheap and sells, keep making it. There has been technology available now that will allow terebites of information to be transmitted over traditional phone lines using a broadband modem, but I can almost guarantee that unless the government steps in and regulates it, those with the power and knowledge will first sell the the commercial industry, who will then sell to us for a *premium* rate, if at all.

[kandrathe]

Yes, well if the Government didn't intercede, then I doubt the media format would ever change (i.e. HDTV). Perhaps there are a few things "we" people need the government to take a stand for because as consumers, we really don't have a choice; we buy what the conglomerates want us too and whatever that is usually falls within the realms of "if the shoe fits, wear it," or better: if its cheap and sells, keep making it.

So, I am forced to obsolete my TV when it suits me fine. Does the government really need to set the standard for the number of scan lines? Since ninety-seven percent of poor households in America have a color television; and over half own two or more color televisions we have another hidden tax on the poor. We better raise taxes so that all the "poor" in America can have HDTV, and cell phones, or maybe HDTV on their cell phones.

Did you know that half of the humans on this planet live on less than $2 per day? The only thing that enrages me more than America's poor, are the knee jerk liberal socialist who keep them poor by defining them as such, and by removing any means or will for them to try to change their lot. The liberal socialist tactic here is to demonize wealth, the wealthy, and the means of getting wealth (capitalism), all the while trying to get their hands on more and more of the wealth to be able to redistribute to people who choose not to be productive. We do not focus on becoming healthy, we focus on classifying more and more classes of people as crippled.

You wouldn't deny a poor, crippled person their HDTV would you?

[--Pete]

Hi,

You wouldn't deny a poor, crippled person their HDTV would you?

HDTV is a RIGHT!!!! Health care, OTOH, is a luxury. :huh:

--Pete

[Pantalaimon]

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.

Well, I think going back to a 4-watt carbon-filament bulb would be a step backwards, both in manufacturing costs and in terms of needing more than 10 of them for the equivalent of a CFL:P

[Hammerskjold]

So, I am forced to obsolete my TV when it suits me fine. Does the government really need to set the standard for the number of scan lines? Since ninety-seven percent of poor households in America have a color television; and over half own two or more color televisions we have another hidden tax on the poor. We better raise taxes so that all the "poor" in America can have HDTV, and cell phones, or maybe HDTV on their cell phones.

Did you know that half of the humans on this planet live on less than $2 per day? The only thing that enrages me more than America's poor, are the knee jerk liberal socialist who keep them poor by defining them as such, and by removing any means or will for them to try to change their lot. The liberal socialist tactic here is to demonize wealth, the wealthy, and the means of getting wealth (capitalism), all the while trying to get their hands on more and more of the wealth to be able to redistribute to people who choose not to be productive. We do not focus on becoming healthy, we focus on classifying more and more classes of people as crippled.

You wouldn't deny a poor, crippled person their HDTV would you?

While I agree that government has better things to do than to regulate scan lines, (I want to know whether or not Roger Clemens is juiced! Inquiring minds wants, nay, NEED to know!) capitalism is not always the white hat either.

I'm all for the free market and there is absolutely nothing wrong with profit, after all a lot of products and innovation I enjoy came from that. However, can you really blame anyone when they don't absolutely defend and adore the free market as the end all and be all of Liberty and Freedom and All Things Good?

I'm sure you remember the Enron debacle no? Mattel with their (real or not) ignorance of how lead paint got into some of their toys? How about whenever I crack open the business section, and read yet another CEO who underperforms, and is punished with a severence package that includes a humiliating cash prize worth millions. Hot damn, where can -I- get a job where I can fail onwards and upwards?

http://money.cnn.com/2003/04/29/pf/investi...rance/index.htm

I am not letting the government off the hook either, all too often when it's supposed to be a watch dog it turns into a damn lap dog.

Look at Brawndo, the decision to use it to irrigate the crops was not done overnight. Brawndo first purchased the FDA, paving the way for the new food guide pyramid, and the new improved food guide (DRINK BRAWNDO!), finally reaching the logical conclusion. Brawndo's got what plants crave.

When it reaches that point, to me it doesn't matter if consumers are stoopid or smart to make a decision.
What does it matter if the only choice is between Brawndo, and maybe Starbucks (for some HOT coffee!).

Thankfully "Idiocracy" is only a movie, and certainly not based on anything in our reality. Now if you excuse me, I'm going to organize a petition for FOX to make the show that people needs. 'Ow My Balls'.

[Taem]

Well, I think going back to a 4-watt carbon-filament bulb would be a step backwards, both in manufacturing costs and in terms of needing more than 10 of them for the equivalent of a CFL:P

Perhaps, but why does it keep burning? If they could figure this out, then perhaps a better, longer-lasting bulb could be made? I honestly have no idea about these things, but it seems logical to me.

[kandrathe]

I'm sure you remember the Enron debacle no? Mattel with their (real or not) ignorance of how lead paint got into some of their toys? How about whenever I crack open the business section, and read yet another CEO who underperforms, and is punished with a severence package that includes a humiliating cash prize worth millions. Hot damn, where can -I- get a job where I can fail onwards and upwards?

First, Fox wouldn't be the network for 'Ow my balls', it would definitely be E!

Enron was accounting done wrong, and so if you want to make reading 10Q's by stockholders mandatory you can avoid the Enron scandals. I remember that time, and I would say the market was screaming "buyer beware!" I divested from stocks that spring right before that whole bubble thing exploded because the entire market was insane and "too good to be true". Stocks were trading at 1000x earnings, with no possible way to become solvent in my lifetime. So, while I pity the people who were swindled and ended up with the worthless paper, it was their own fault as well.

Ah, yes, the CEO parachutes. Well, these days with the legal responsibilities of signing 10Q's and risking going to jail if they are wrong I can understand the six digit parachutes. You can give Madonna a billion dollars for singing "Like a Virgin", but you don't understand giving a CEO a few million for running a billion dollar company and employing 10,000 people? I worked for a railroad for awhile, and the first year I was there the CEO was canned for losing 10 million on a boondoggle project, and he walked away with a modest 6 figure severance. The last year I was there myself and some other people in accounting came up with a way to save the company about 10 million. I got the same profit sharing bonus that everyone other rank and file person did and I'm sure the executives got quite a bit more. They get the credit because it happened under their watch. Just like sports, the hot shot player might get some attention, but the coach gets much of the credit and the owner walks away with the profits.