| Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390128 is a reply to message #390115] |
Tue, 07 January 2020 16:40   |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> On 2020-01-07, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>
>> I wasn't alone. They rebuilt a parking lot near by and
>> put in LED streetlights. Not long after installation
>> several heads failed and had to be replaced.
>>
>> I noticed in traffic signals with LED several of the dots
>> are out.
>
> High-power LEDs (or at least their electronics) are getting
> better, but I still see some teething problems. The most
> common failure mode is for the lights to start flickering;
> I've seen this in some warehouse complexes. A few years ago
> in our hangar complex, we replaced 8 wall packs - 70-watt
> high-pressure sodium lamps - with 25-watt LED units.
> The light is much better - white rather than orange - and
> I calculated they'll pay for themselves in power savings in
> 10 years. But two or three of them failed; a couple quit
> entirely, while the other one started flashing once a second
> in a good imitation of an alarm strobe. I took them back to
> the supplier, who replaced them with no questions asked.
>
> Our city has been phasing in LED street lights; I haven't seen
> any problems with them. They can only get better from here.
>
People here have complained when they replace incandescents. Apparently
they’re much brighter. I guess you can’t please everybody.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390130 is a reply to message #389691] |
Tue, 07 January 2020 18:25 |
scott
Messages: 4239
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> writes:
> On 1/7/2020 12:56 PM, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> On Monday, January 6, 2020 at 6:05:55 PM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>
>>> There is one place where I miss the slow startup of CFL's - the bathroom at night.
>>>
>>> When I had the CFL globes in the bathroom, it was much easier on the
>>> eyes to turn the lights on when getting up in the middle of the night...
>>
>> I use a nitelight. They are little fixtures that plug into an
>> outlet and support a 4 or 7 watt tiny bulb. Been around forever.
>> Very good for the purpose. Just enough light to not stumble,
>> but not a strain on sleepy eyes.
>>
> Hell, the dollar store has 1/4W LED nightlights that provide enough
> illumination if you were dark-adjusted already and are going back to bed.
>
> But I interpreted Scott to be getting up for the day, before the sun,
> and just wanting to avoid the shock of getting blasted by light.
O'dark 30 flights :-(.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390133 is a reply to message #390111] |
Tue, 07 January 2020 19:20 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 11:02:52 -0800 (PST), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Monday, January 6, 2020 at 8:25:33 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Mon, 6 Jan 2020 13:20:20 -0800 (PST), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, January 5, 2020 at 2:18:09 AM UTC-5, Dave Garland wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't see why people are so down on CFLs (and presumably
>>>> conventional fluorescents). Of course they're not suitable for every
>>>> application, any idiot can see that. But the "on for hours"
>>>> applications (and in the orientation and with the ventilation they
>>>> were designed for) they work fine, and usually they were cost
>>>> effective otherwise, so long as you didn't need "instant on full
>>>> bright" service. Even the cheap Chinese ones. LEDs are better and
>>>> cheaper now but weren't available at the beginning, and nobody knew
>>>> how long it would be until they were economically effective. Disposal
>>>> is commensurate with conventional fluorescents (i.e. inconvenient).
>>>
>>> I bought some traditional fluorescent 'stick lamps' (the kind
>>> you stick over your kitchen sink mounted on the cabinet).
>>> I discovered that while they lasted a long time and were
>>> efficient, they were not replaceable. Turned out the bulb
>>> was unique and not replaceable, so I had to throw out the
>>> whole fixture.
>>>
>>> As to LEDs, the jury is still out in my uses for plain
>>> lamp lights.
>>>
>>> But in flashlights their service life is horrible. I bought
>>> a punch of what we used to call penlights. Small and compact.
>>> (Though used 3 AAA cells which was awkward). Terrible life
>>> and the entire unit had to be discarded. I still use cheap 25
>>> year old D cell flashlights that still work just fine.
>>
>> "Terrible life"?!?!?!? Compared to an incandescent?!?!?!? What did
>> you DO to the poor thing?
>
> The cheap D cell flashlights lasted a lot better through
> rough service than the LED units that basically sat on a
> shelf with limited use.
>
> The electronics in them was crap.
Did you do _any_ homework before you bought? The last time I
experienced a failure with an LED flashlight it wasn't anything to do
with the LEDs--a battery was so throughly corroded that I couldn't
extract it.
>> And how can you stand those horribly dim battery eating incandescent
>> flashlights after using an LED that gives the same brightness as the
>> incandescent literaly for _days_ or if you are willing to tolerate the
>> same battery life as the incandescent ten times the brightness? Of if
>> you really need to see turn it up all the way and have 100 times?
>
> LEDs consume power too, and get dimmer over time as the battery
> drains.
Reread the paragraph to which you are responding. Nobody has claimed
that LEDs do not consume power, but for a given output they consume a
HELL of a lot less than an incandescent flashlight bulb. As for
getting dimmer over time, that depends on the design.
You really don't seem to know much about LEDs other than that you
don't like them.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390134 is a reply to message #390126] |
Tue, 07 January 2020 19:22 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 14:40:09 -0700, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 6 Jan 2020 13:20:20 -0800 (PST), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, January 5, 2020 at 2:18:09 AM UTC-5, Dave Garland wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't see why people are so down on CFLs (and presumably
>>>> conventional fluorescents). Of course they're not suitable for every
>>>> application, any idiot can see that. But the "on for hours"
>>>> applications (and in the orientation and with the ventilation they
>>>> were designed for) they work fine, and usually they were cost
>>>> effective otherwise, so long as you didn't need "instant on full
>>>> bright" service. Even the cheap Chinese ones. LEDs are better and
>>>> cheaper now but weren't available at the beginning, and nobody knew
>>>> how long it would be until they were economically effective. Disposal
>>>> is commensurate with conventional fluorescents (i.e. inconvenient).
>>>
>>> I bought some traditional fluorescent 'stick lamps' (the kind
>>> you stick over your kitchen sink mounted on the cabinet).
>>> I discovered that while they lasted a long time and were
>>> efficient, they were not replaceable. Turned out the bulb
>>> was unique and not replaceable, so I had to throw out the
>>> whole fixture.
>>>
>>> As to LEDs, the jury is still out in my uses for plain
>>> lamp lights.
>>>
>>> But in flashlights their service life is horrible. I bought
>>> a punch of what we used to call penlights. Small and compact.
>>> (Though used 3 AAA cells which was awkward). Terrible life
>>> and the entire unit had to be discarded. I still use cheap 25
>>> year old D cell flashlights that still work just fine.
>>
>> "Terrible life"?!?!?!? Compared to an incandescent?!?!?!? What did
>> you DO to the poor thing?
>>
>> And how can you stand those horribly dim battery eating incandescent
>> flashlights after using an LED that gives the same brightness as the
>> incandescent literaly for _days_ or if you are willing to tolerate the
>> same battery life as the incandescent ten times the brightness? Of if
>> you really need to see turn it up all the way and have 100 times?
>>
>
> LED flashlights throw a lot of light, but they’re terrible for some
> purposes. Try using one to check a sore throat to see how red it is.
Why would that be an issue?
|
|
|
|
| Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390138 is a reply to message #390134] |
Wed, 08 January 2020 01:33 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:22:35 -0500
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 14:40:09 -0700, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> LED flashlights throw a lot of light, but they’re terrible for some
>> purposes. Try using one to check a sore throat to see how red it is.
>
> Why would that be an issue?
Cheap LEDs ==> lots of light at low CRI.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390140 is a reply to message #389691] |
Wed, 08 January 2020 06:23 |
Andy Burns
Messages: 416
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Huge wrote:
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>
>> but I'd prefer a lot more work to be done on fail-safe designs such
>> as pebble-bed reactors rather than pressure cookers designed to
>> make weapons grade plutonium with power as a side effect of
>> cooling.
>
> *applause*
There was a bit of interest in various thorium based reactors a few
years ago (and longer than back to the oak ridge MSRE) no high pressure
vessels, doesn't produce highly enriched fuels, able to have passive
fail-safe, can "eat" almost any nuclear fuel, yes a few issues such as
preventing cracks in graphite components, etc
It seems "the west" isn't really interested enough in the technology,
and the companies involved now seem to be concentrating on building
"supertanker sized" floating power stations, that can turn up and dock
in parts of the developing world and provide power for "n" years then
get towed away to be replaced and refuelled back at base.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390141 is a reply to message #389691] |
Wed, 08 January 2020 08:46 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
> On 1/7/2020 12:50 PM, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> On Monday, January 6, 2020 at 4:44:00 PM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
>>>> On Saturday, January 4, 2020 at 6:41:31 PM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > FOr the most part, that's caused by people who don't RTFM. CFL's weren't suitable
>>>> > for certain usages (unventilated enclosures, for example) or mounting
>>>> > orientations (base up, in some cases); Improperly mounted or enclosed,
>>>> > the ballast electronics would overheat and fail prematurely.
>>>>
>>>> But what was an ordinary consumer supposed to do? Standard
>>>> incandescents were unavailable. We had to stick the CFL in
>>>> the sealed overhead fixture. (How unventilated could it have
>>>> been since it had to have air for the hot oldstyle bulb?)
>>>
>>> Incandescent bulbs can stand much higher temperatures
>>> without failing than the solid state electronics used in the CFL ballast, of course.
>>>
>>> The ordinary consumer could have troubled themselves to read
>>> the packaging when selecting a CFL to ensure that it was suitable
>>> for the desired purpose.
>>
>> False to fact.
>>
>> The packaging of CLFs did not contain that information.
>
> I can't speak to all brands and ages, but of what I have on hand
> that's still in the original packaging:
> 1)Greenlite CFL 13W: CAUTION.. Do not use.. in totally enclosed fixtures.
> 2)GE soft white 100 (26W) and 60 (15W) (on base of bulb): caution Not
> for use in totally enclosed fixtures..
> 3) GE Energy Choice Biax 60: Use only with portable lamps that are
> provided with lampshades...Do not use.. with enclosed fixtures. This
> is one of the longer U-shaped tubes, probably older than the other
> curlies.
> 4) Buyer's Choice 13W: Not for use on.. totally enclosed recessed
> fixtures..
> and 1 out of package, printed on the base of the bulb:
> 5)Ikea 7W candelabra with plastic globe: Not for use in totally
> enclosed recessed fixtures.
>
> I suspect the issue is more, nobody RTFM, especially when the print
> isn't very large.
Probably true, since they were touted as direct replacements for
incandescents, why would anyone RTFM?
>>
>> Heck, it was hard enough to find the color temperature.
>
> None of mine has color temp info other than "warm white".
>>
>> Further, consumers didn't have a choice of lamp beyond
>> the wattage equivalent.
>>
> It wasn't like they didn't know about this change years ahead of time,
> though. I've also got a stock of 100W, 60W, 40W incandescents that'll
> probably never get used, unless I need a small heat source or it's an
> "on for 5 minutes every few weeks" fixture.
>
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390142 is a reply to message #390134] |
Wed, 08 January 2020 08:46 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 14:40:09 -0700, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 6 Jan 2020 13:20:20 -0800 (PST), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sunday, January 5, 2020 at 2:18:09 AM UTC-5, Dave Garland wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > I don't see why people are so down on CFLs (and presumably
>>>> > conventional fluorescents). Of course they're not suitable for every
>>>> > application, any idiot can see that. But the "on for hours"
>>>> > applications (and in the orientation and with the ventilation they
>>>> > were designed for) they work fine, and usually they were cost
>>>> > effective otherwise, so long as you didn't need "instant on full
>>>> > bright" service. Even the cheap Chinese ones. LEDs are better and
>>>> > cheaper now but weren't available at the beginning, and nobody knew
>>>> > how long it would be until they were economically effective. Disposal
>>>> > is commensurate with conventional fluorescents (i.e. inconvenient).
>>>>
>>>> I bought some traditional fluorescent 'stick lamps' (the kind
>>>> you stick over your kitchen sink mounted on the cabinet).
>>>> I discovered that while they lasted a long time and were
>>>> efficient, they were not replaceable. Turned out the bulb
>>>> was unique and not replaceable, so I had to throw out the
>>>> whole fixture.
>>>>
>>>> As to LEDs, the jury is still out in my uses for plain
>>>> lamp lights.
>>>>
>>>> But in flashlights their service life is horrible. I bought
>>>> a punch of what we used to call penlights. Small and compact.
>>>> (Though used 3 AAA cells which was awkward). Terrible life
>>>> and the entire unit had to be discarded. I still use cheap 25
>>>> year old D cell flashlights that still work just fine.
>>>
>>> "Terrible life"?!?!?!? Compared to an incandescent?!?!?!? What did
>>> you DO to the poor thing?
>>>
>>> And how can you stand those horribly dim battery eating incandescent
>>> flashlights after using an LED that gives the same brightness as the
>>> incandescent literaly for _days_ or if you are willing to tolerate the
>>> same battery life as the incandescent ten times the brightness? Of if
>>> you really need to see turn it up all the way and have 100 times?
>>>
>>
>> LED flashlights throw a lot of light, but they’re terrible for some
>> purposes. Try using one to check a sore throat to see how red it is.
>
> Why would that be an issue?
>
Do I need to go to urgent care? Should I gargle? Etc.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390144 is a reply to message #390121] |
Wed, 08 January 2020 15:02 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Tuesday, January 7, 2020 at 3:23:39 PM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
>> On Tuesday, January 7, 2020 at 2:03:01 PM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
>>>> On Monday, January 6, 2020 at 4:42:04 PM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> > hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
>>>> > >On Saturday, January 4, 2020 at 2:50:27 PM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > >
>>>> > >California suffered disastrous power failures years ago
>>>> > >thanks to foolish ideas.
>>>> >
>>>> > California has _NEVER_ suffered disasterous power failures. Ever.
>>>> >
>>>> > There were brownouts caused by market manipulations, not by any
>>>> > shortage of energy generation capability. Note that the 'brownouts'
>>>> > did not effect the entire bay area (only some 96k customers out of
>>>> > more than 2 million). They certainly cannot be categorized as
>>>> > "disasterous".
>>>> >
>>>> > Please learn about it before writing about it.
>>>> >
>>>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis
>>>> >
>>>> > "California had an installed generating capacity of 45 GW. At
>>>> > the time of the blackouts, demand was 28 GW. A demand-supply gap
>>>> > was created by energy companies, mainly Enron, to create an artificial shortage."
>>>>
>>>> The book "Kochland : the secret history of Koch Industries and
>>>> corporate power in America" presents a different view.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Please, enlighten us further...
>>
>> It was a whole chapter. Lots of bad decisions, lots of greed.
>>
>> the book says the situation was so bad they resorted to
>> rolling blackouts. It made national news and I recall it.
>>
>
> Still have no idea what you mean by "Different View". Do they
> blame Enron or not?
They blame Enron, the Koch brothers, and a host of other
players.
Certainly sounds like they should've left the original system
and business model alone.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390149 is a reply to message #390142] |
Wed, 08 January 2020 19:32 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 06:46:47 -0700, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 14:40:09 -0700, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 6 Jan 2020 13:20:20 -0800 (PST), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > On Sunday, January 5, 2020 at 2:18:09 AM UTC-5, Dave Garland wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> I don't see why people are so down on CFLs (and presumably
>>>> >> conventional fluorescents). Of course they're not suitable for every
>>>> >> application, any idiot can see that. But the "on for hours"
>>>> >> applications (and in the orientation and with the ventilation they
>>>> >> were designed for) they work fine, and usually they were cost
>>>> >> effective otherwise, so long as you didn't need "instant on full
>>>> >> bright" service. Even the cheap Chinese ones. LEDs are better and
>>>> >> cheaper now but weren't available at the beginning, and nobody knew
>>>> >> how long it would be until they were economically effective. Disposal
>>>> >> is commensurate with conventional fluorescents (i.e. inconvenient).
>>>> >
>>>> > I bought some traditional fluorescent 'stick lamps' (the kind
>>>> > you stick over your kitchen sink mounted on the cabinet).
>>>> > I discovered that while they lasted a long time and were
>>>> > efficient, they were not replaceable. Turned out the bulb
>>>> > was unique and not replaceable, so I had to throw out the
>>>> > whole fixture.
>>>> >
>>>> > As to LEDs, the jury is still out in my uses for plain
>>>> > lamp lights.
>>>> >
>>>> > But in flashlights their service life is horrible. I bought
>>>> > a punch of what we used to call penlights. Small and compact.
>>>> > (Though used 3 AAA cells which was awkward). Terrible life
>>>> > and the entire unit had to be discarded. I still use cheap 25
>>>> > year old D cell flashlights that still work just fine.
>>>>
>>>> "Terrible life"?!?!?!? Compared to an incandescent?!?!?!? What did
>>>> you DO to the poor thing?
>>>>
>>>> And how can you stand those horribly dim battery eating incandescent
>>>> flashlights after using an LED that gives the same brightness as the
>>>> incandescent literaly for _days_ or if you are willing to tolerate the
>>>> same battery life as the incandescent ten times the brightness? Of if
>>>> you really need to see turn it up all the way and have 100 times?
>>>>
>>>
>>> LED flashlights throw a lot of light, but they’re terrible for some
>>> purposes. Try using one to check a sore throat to see how red it is.
>>
>> Why would that be an issue?
>>
>
> Do I need to go to urgent care? Should I gargle? Etc.
No, why would LED have an issue with checking a sore throat?
|
|
|
|
| Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390152 is a reply to message #390008] |
Thu, 09 January 2020 01:08 |
Joy Beeson
Messages: 159
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 6 Jan 2020 04:45:38 GMT, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
wrote:
> You have to be fast. Before the casher pulls out a plastic bag, drop
> your re-usable bag (or backpack, if you've been ultra-eco-friendly
> and ridden there on your bicycle) in front of her, and tell her to
> put everything right into your bag.
I often put the pile of bags on the conveyor ahead of the groceries,
or throw it to the bagger. Which works in some stores and doesn't in
others. At the store I most often visit, I've got some of the baggers
trained, and once the cashier said to the bagger "she needs it loose
in the cart." (I'd come on a road bike, and it's easier to fit things
into my panniers if I don't have to unpack them first.)
When I bought my bicycle-shaped wheelchair, I bought a detachable
basket thinking I could take it into stores with me, but it turns out
that baggers haven't the foggiest clue as to how to pack for carrying
on a bike. Which doesn't matter because a "comfort bike" is extremely
uncomfortable to cross a major street on, and the mile and a half to
the nearest grocery is a *long* way to ride on a pedestrian
accellerator.
But such a "bicycle" (well, it *does* have two wheels) is very useful
for exercising an injured leg without putting any strain on it.
--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/
|
|
|
|
| Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390153 is a reply to message #390149] |
Thu, 09 January 2020 02:55 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wed, 08 Jan 2020 19:32:10 -0500
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> No, why would LED have an issue with checking a sore throat?
White LEDs are really blue LEDs shining on a phosphor tuned to a
reddish-yellow. The colour temperature is set by adjusting the phosphor.
Cheap (and highly efficient) ones tend to have a very spiky
spectrum with big peaks in the blue and red/yellow which makes for bright
light with poor colour rendition, sodium lights are an example of very poor
colour rendition and high brightness.
There are expensive LEDs made with more balanced phosphors which
have a high CRI (Colour Rendition Index) mainly sold for photographic
lighting. The cheap way to get good CRI is an incandescent, it will beat
even the best LEDs or fluorescent lights.
You want very good CRI for looking down the back of your throat to
see what shade of red it is.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390155 is a reply to message #390149] |
Thu, 09 January 2020 07:18 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 06:46:47 -0700, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 14:40:09 -0700, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > On Mon, 6 Jan 2020 13:20:20 -0800 (PST), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> On Sunday, January 5, 2020 at 2:18:09 AM UTC-5, Dave Garland wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> I don't see why people are so down on CFLs (and presumably
>>>> >>> conventional fluorescents). Of course they're not suitable for every
>>>> >>> application, any idiot can see that. But the "on for hours"
>>>> >>> applications (and in the orientation and with the ventilation they
>>>> >>> were designed for) they work fine, and usually they were cost
>>>> >>> effective otherwise, so long as you didn't need "instant on full
>>>> >>> bright" service. Even the cheap Chinese ones. LEDs are better and
>>>> >>> cheaper now but weren't available at the beginning, and nobody knew
>>>> >>> how long it would be until they were economically effective. Disposal
>>>> >>> is commensurate with conventional fluorescents (i.e. inconvenient).
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I bought some traditional fluorescent 'stick lamps' (the kind
>>>> >> you stick over your kitchen sink mounted on the cabinet).
>>>> >> I discovered that while they lasted a long time and were
>>>> >> efficient, they were not replaceable. Turned out the bulb
>>>> >> was unique and not replaceable, so I had to throw out the
>>>> >> whole fixture.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> As to LEDs, the jury is still out in my uses for plain
>>>> >> lamp lights.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> But in flashlights their service life is horrible. I bought
>>>> >> a punch of what we used to call penlights. Small and compact.
>>>> >> (Though used 3 AAA cells which was awkward). Terrible life
>>>> >> and the entire unit had to be discarded. I still use cheap 25
>>>> >> year old D cell flashlights that still work just fine.
>>>> >
>>>> > "Terrible life"?!?!?!? Compared to an incandescent?!?!?!? What did
>>>> > you DO to the poor thing?
>>>> >
>>>> > And how can you stand those horribly dim battery eating incandescent
>>>> > flashlights after using an LED that gives the same brightness as the
>>>> > incandescent literaly for _days_ or if you are willing to tolerate the
>>>> > same battery life as the incandescent ten times the brightness? Of if
>>>> > you really need to see turn it up all the way and have 100 times?
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> LED flashlights throw a lot of light, but they’re terrible for some
>>>> purposes. Try using one to check a sore throat to see how red it is.
>>>
>>> Why would that be an issue?
>>>
>>
>> Do I need to go to urgent care? Should I gargle? Etc.
>
> No, why would LED have an issue with checking a sore throat?
>
Doesn’t show color, all looks washed-out.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390159 is a reply to message #390152] |
Thu, 09 January 2020 11:39 |
Roger Blake
Messages: 167
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2020-01-09, Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
> I often put the pile of bags on the conveyor ahead of the groceries,
> or throw it to the bagger.
I don't bother with any of that crap. I drive to the store in a vehicle
that gets 15mpg on a good day and use their throwaway plastic bags to
take away the goods. I just do not give a damn what the eco-weenies
think or want. Bicycles are for children, I drive.
--
------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------
Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.)
The US Census vs. privacy -- http://censusfacts.info
Don't talk to cops! -- http://www.DontTalkToCops.com
Badges don't grant extra rights -- http://www.CopBlock.org
------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------
|
|
|
|
| Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390160 is a reply to message #390159] |
Thu, 09 January 2020 11:40 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Kerr-Mudd,John
On Thu, 09 Jan 2020 16:39:28 GMT, Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid>
wrote:
> On 2020-01-09, Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
>> I often put the pile of bags on the conveyor ahead of the groceries,
>> or throw it to the bagger.
>
> I don't bother with any of that crap. I drive to the store in a vehicle
> that gets 15mpg on a good day and use their throwaway plastic bags to
> take away the goods. I just do not give a damn what the eco-weenies
> think or want. Bicycles are for children, I drive.
>
Are you a Climate change denier too?
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390161 is a reply to message #390159] |
Thu, 09 January 2020 11:52 |
scott
Messages: 4239
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> writes:
> On 2020-01-09, Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
>> I often put the pile of bags on the conveyor ahead of the groceries,
>> or throw it to the bagger.
>
> I don't bother with any of that crap. I drive to the store in a vehicle
> that gets 15mpg on a good day and use their throwaway plastic bags to
> take away the goods. I just do not give a damn what the eco-weenies
> think or want. Bicycles are for children, I drive.
And nobody gives a shit. In a world of seven billion souls, you
are not even in the noise.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390163 is a reply to message #389691] |
Thu, 09 January 2020 15:52 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> On 2020-01-09, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>> Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> writes:
>>> On 2020-01-09, Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
>>>> I often put the pile of bags on the conveyor ahead of the groceries,
>>>> or throw it to the bagger.
>>>
>>> I don't bother with any of that crap. I drive to the store in a vehicle
>>> that gets 15mpg on a good day and use their throwaway plastic bags to
>>> take away the goods. I just do not give a damn what the eco-weenies
>>> think or want. Bicycles are for children, I drive.
>>
>> And nobody gives a shit. In a world of seven billion souls, you
>> are not even in the noise.
>
> And nobody is prepared to talk about the elephant in the room; people.
>
> There are too freaking many of us. Still, the Four Horsemen will be
> along in a while to sort that out.
>
>
Just so long as I’m not the one sorted. Actually, I’m old and don’t much
care, but I worry about the grandkids.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390165 is a reply to message #390163] |
Thu, 09 January 2020 16:11 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Thursday, January 9, 2020 at 3:52:52 PM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote:
> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2020-01-09, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>> Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> writes:
>>>> On 2020-01-09, Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
>>>> > I often put the pile of bags on the conveyor ahead of the groceries,
>>>> > or throw it to the bagger.
>>>>
>>>> I don't bother with any of that crap. I drive to the store in a vehicle
>>>> that gets 15mpg on a good day and use their throwaway plastic bags to
>>>> take away the goods. I just do not give a damn what the eco-weenies
>>>> think or want. Bicycles are for children, I drive.
>>>
>>> And nobody gives a shit. In a world of seven billion souls, you
>>> are not even in the noise.
>>
>> And nobody is prepared to talk about the elephant in the room; people.
>>
>> There are too freaking many of us. Still, the Four Horsemen will be
>> along in a while to sort that out.
>>
>>
>
> Just so long as I’m not the one sorted. Actually, I’m old and don’t much
> care, but I worry about the grandkids.
I think the problem with people is not the raw quantity, but rather
there are too man of them in places that can't sustain them.
That is, there are plenty of places that could accommodate
more people.
There are some lifestyle adjustments that may be necessary,
but nothing too onerous.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390177 is a reply to message #390165] |
Thu, 09 January 2020 17:54 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2020-01-09, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, January 9, 2020 at 3:52:52 PM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote:
>
>> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> And nobody is prepared to talk about the elephant in the room; people.
>>>
>>> There are too freaking many of us. Still, the Four Horsemen will be
>>> along in a while to sort that out.
>>
>> Just so long as I’m not the one sorted. Actually, I’m old and don’t much
>> care, but I worry about the grandkids.
>
> I think the problem with people is not the raw quantity, but rather
> there are too man of them in places that can't sustain them.
> That is, there are plenty of places that could accommodate
> more people.
Space-wise, perhaps. But they'll need housing. And food.
> There are some lifestyle adjustments that may be necessary,
> but nothing too onerous.
At least not for the ones who are proposing these adjustments
(who somehow never seem to have to make them themselves).
The real problem is this belief that our population can and must
increase indefinitely. Efficiency only goes so far; the planet
doesn't care about per-capita consumption, only total consumption.
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390178 is a reply to message #390155] |
Thu, 09 January 2020 18:10 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 05:18:28 -0700, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 06:46:47 -0700, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 14:40:09 -0700, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >> On Mon, 6 Jan 2020 13:20:20 -0800 (PST), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> On Sunday, January 5, 2020 at 2:18:09 AM UTC-5, Dave Garland wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> I don't see why people are so down on CFLs (and presumably
>>>> >>>> conventional fluorescents). Of course they're not suitable for every
>>>> >>>> application, any idiot can see that. But the "on for hours"
>>>> >>>> applications (and in the orientation and with the ventilation they
>>>> >>>> were designed for) they work fine, and usually they were cost
>>>> >>>> effective otherwise, so long as you didn't need "instant on full
>>>> >>>> bright" service. Even the cheap Chinese ones. LEDs are better and
>>>> >>>> cheaper now but weren't available at the beginning, and nobody knew
>>>> >>>> how long it would be until they were economically effective. Disposal
>>>> >>>> is commensurate with conventional fluorescents (i.e. inconvenient).
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> I bought some traditional fluorescent 'stick lamps' (the kind
>>>> >>> you stick over your kitchen sink mounted on the cabinet).
>>>> >>> I discovered that while they lasted a long time and were
>>>> >>> efficient, they were not replaceable. Turned out the bulb
>>>> >>> was unique and not replaceable, so I had to throw out the
>>>> >>> whole fixture.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> As to LEDs, the jury is still out in my uses for plain
>>>> >>> lamp lights.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> But in flashlights their service life is horrible. I bought
>>>> >>> a punch of what we used to call penlights. Small and compact.
>>>> >>> (Though used 3 AAA cells which was awkward). Terrible life
>>>> >>> and the entire unit had to be discarded. I still use cheap 25
>>>> >>> year old D cell flashlights that still work just fine.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> "Terrible life"?!?!?!? Compared to an incandescent?!?!?!? What did
>>>> >> you DO to the poor thing?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> And how can you stand those horribly dim battery eating incandescent
>>>> >> flashlights after using an LED that gives the same brightness as the
>>>> >> incandescent literaly for _days_ or if you are willing to tolerate the
>>>> >> same battery life as the incandescent ten times the brightness? Of if
>>>> >> you really need to see turn it up all the way and have 100 times?
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> > LED flashlights throw a lot of light, but they’re terrible for some
>>>> > purposes. Try using one to check a sore throat to see how red it is.
>>>>
>>>> Why would that be an issue?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Do I need to go to urgent care? Should I gargle? Etc.
>>
>> No, why would LED have an issue with checking a sore throat?
>>
>
> Doesn’t show color, all looks washed-out.
If that's actually an issue for you, look for one with a high CRI.
Usually will have a Nichia 219 emitter, but check the CRI--all Nichia
219s are not high CRI.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390181 is a reply to message #390177] |
Thu, 09 January 2020 18:52 |
scott
Messages: 4239
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
> On 2020-01-09, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, January 9, 2020 at 3:52:52 PM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote:
>>
>>> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> And nobody is prepared to talk about the elephant in the room; people.
>>>>
>>>> There are too freaking many of us. Still, the Four Horsemen will be
>>>> along in a while to sort that out.
>>>
>>> Just so long as I’m not the one sorted. Actually, I’m old and don’t much
>>> care, but I worry about the grandkids.
>>
>> I think the problem with people is not the raw quantity, but rather
>> there are too man of them in places that can't sustain them.
>> That is, there are plenty of places that could accommodate
>> more people.
>
> Space-wise, perhaps. But they'll need housing. And food.
And clean water.
And energy.
>
>> There are some lifestyle adjustments that may be necessary,
>> but nothing too onerous.
>
> At least not for the ones who are proposing these adjustments
> (who somehow never seem to have to make them themselves).
>
> The real problem is this belief that our population can and must
> increase indefinitely. Efficiency only goes so far; the planet
> doesn't care about per-capita consumption, only total consumption.
I suspect the planet has already exceeded its carrying capacity.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390184 is a reply to message #390181] |
Thu, 09 January 2020 19:10 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
>> On 2020-01-09, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, January 9, 2020 at 3:52:52 PM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>
>>>> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > And nobody is prepared to talk about the elephant in the room; people.
>>>> >
>>>> > There are too freaking many of us. Still, the Four Horsemen will be
>>>> > along in a while to sort that out.
>>>>
>>>> Just so long as I’m not the one sorted. Actually, I’m old and don’t much
>>>> care, but I worry about the grandkids.
>>>
>>> I think the problem with people is not the raw quantity, but rather
>>> there are too man of them in places that can't sustain them.
>>> That is, there are plenty of places that could accommodate
>>> more people.
>>
>> Space-wise, perhaps. But they'll need housing. And food.
>
> And clean water.
>
> And energy.
>
>>
>>> There are some lifestyle adjustments that may be necessary,
>>> but nothing too onerous.
>>
>> At least not for the ones who are proposing these adjustments
>> (who somehow never seem to have to make them themselves).
>>
>> The real problem is this belief that our population can and must
>> increase indefinitely. Efficiency only goes so far; the planet
>> doesn't care about per-capita consumption, only total consumption.
>
> I suspect the planet has already exceeded its carrying capacity.
>
Probably, but not with food. I think I read that if food was properly
distributed, and lots was not wasted, that there’d be plenty for everyone
now alive.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390192 is a reply to message #390191] |
Fri, 10 January 2020 09:21 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 13:08:39 +0000
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>
>> the birth rate
>> today is slightly less than half what it was in 1950.
>
> Yebbut, if the birth rate per 1000 is under half what it was, when the
> population itself is more than twice what it was ...
Sure but if the trend continues (it looks pretty solid) eventually
(about 2100 I think) the birth rate falls below the death rate.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390194 is a reply to message #389691] |
Fri, 10 January 2020 11:53 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 10 Jan 2020 16:08:08 GMT
Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> On 2020-01-10, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 13:08:39 +0000
>> Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>
>>>> the birth rate
>>>> today is slightly less than half what it was in 1950.
>>>
>>> Yebbut, if the birth rate per 1000 is under half what it was, when the
>>> population itself is more than twice what it was ...
>>
>> Sure but if the trend continues (it looks pretty solid)
>> eventually (about 2100 I think) the birth rate falls below the death
>> rate.
>
> By which time we're chin deep in shit.
Perhaps, but "Make Room! Make Room!" was set twenty years ago and
based on a pretty accurate global population estimate. We're *still* living
a *lot* better than that, we're even living better (on average) than we were
when it was written.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390195 is a reply to message #390177] |
Fri, 10 January 2020 13:21 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Thursday, January 9, 2020 at 5:55:58 PM UTC-5, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> There are some lifestyle adjustments that may be necessary,
>> but nothing too onerous.
>
> At least not for the ones who are proposing these adjustments
> (who somehow never seem to have to make them themselves).
Certainly, the tree-huggers propose very impractical
solutions that are counter-productive.
But also, conservatives block any discussion whatsoever
of ecology and conserving natural resources. They vehemently
deny any problem exists. (It bugs me that they _deliberately_
ignore recycling and discard cans and glass in their trash;
those items are easily recycled.
Anyway, there are common sense approaches that would save
money and not be inconvenient or onerous. It just takes
people willing to have some common sense, be reasonable,
and look at the overall picture.
> The real problem is this belief that our population can and must
> increase indefinitely. Efficiency only goes so far; the planet
> doesn't care about per-capita consumption, only total consumption.
Ironically, the population is growing the fastest in places that
are least able to support it.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390196 is a reply to message #390159] |
Fri, 10 January 2020 13:22 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Thursday, January 9, 2020 at 11:39:30 AM UTC-5, Roger Blake wrote:
> I don't bother with any of that crap. I drive to the store in a vehicle
> that gets 15mpg on a good day and use their throwaway plastic bags to
> take away the goods. I just do not give a damn what the eco-weenies
> think or want. Bicycles are for children, I drive.
Do you pay the full costs of building and maintaining the
roads you drive on? No, you do not.
Anyway, why would anyone brag about wasting their money in
a gas guzzler?
|
|
|
|
| Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390203 is a reply to message #390190] |
Fri, 10 January 2020 13:51 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2020-01-10, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On 10 Jan 2020 11:52:43 GMT
> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Eventually, we're going to stop having babies; why not start now?
>
> Slow down not stop preferably.
>
> That being said, we are slowing down a *lot*! See the UN crude
> birthrate chart at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_rate, the birth
> rate today is slightly less than half what it was in 1950.
Yes, and governments are having hysterics. Now they're trying to
get population increase back to what it was in the Good Old Days,
by encouraging immigration, baby bonuses, etc.
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390206 is a reply to message #390203] |
Fri, 10 January 2020 14:15 |
scott
Messages: 4239
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
> On 2020-01-10, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>
>> On 10 Jan 2020 11:52:43 GMT
>> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Eventually, we're going to stop having babies; why not start now?
>>
>> Slow down not stop preferably.
>>
>> That being said, we are slowing down a *lot*! See the UN crude
>> birthrate chart at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_rate, the birth
>> rate today is slightly less than half what it was in 1950.
>
> Yes, and governments are having hysterics. Now they're trying to
> get population increase back to what it was in the Good Old Days,
> by encouraging immigration, baby bonuses, etc.
The fundamental tenent of Capitalism as we currently practice it is growth.
Growth in revenue, growth in income, growth in the stock price.
Growth requires one of two things (or, generally, both):
- an increase in per-worker productivity
- an increase in the number of workers.
Given that productivity increases slowly; growth generally needs new workers.
New workers come about either indiginously or via immigration. For
years, USA growth has been facilitated by immigration (skilled in the
silly valley, unskilled in agriculture) due to an indiginous birth-rate close to
the replacement rate of two.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390207 is a reply to message #390203] |
Fri, 10 January 2020 14:16 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 1:52:33 PM UTC-5, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> Yes, and governments are having hysterics. Now they're trying to
> get population increase back to what it was in the Good Old Days,
> by encouraging immigration, baby bonuses, etc.
Back in the 1950s, when the US was having its baby boom,
advertisers often used children as a theme even for ads
that were for other businesses and industry, not families.
For instance, an advertiser for computer paper stock always
had a smiling baby sitting on top of a roll of tape in various
poses.
https://books.google.com/books?id=MDw7AAAAMAAJ&dq=railro ad%20computer&pg=PA82#v=onepage&q&f=false
https://books.google.com/books?id=MDw7AAAAMAAJ&dq=railro ad%20computer&pg=PA130#v=onepage&q&f=false
|
|
|
|
| Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390211 is a reply to message #390206] |
Fri, 10 January 2020 14:53 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 2:15:03 PM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
>> On 2020-01-10, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10 Jan 2020 11:52:43 GMT
>>> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Eventually, we're going to stop having babies; why not start now?
>>>
>>> Slow down not stop preferably.
>>>
>>> That being said, we are slowing down a *lot*! See the UN crude
>>> birthrate chart at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_rate, the birth
>>> rate today is slightly less than half what it was in 1950.
>>
>> Yes, and governments are having hysterics. Now they're trying to
>> get population increase back to what it was in the Good Old Days,
>> by encouraging immigration, baby bonuses, etc.
>
> The fundamental tenent of Capitalism as we currently practice it is growth.
>
> Growth in revenue, growth in income, growth in the stock price.
>
> Growth requires one of two things (or, generally, both):
> - an increase in per-worker productivity
> - an increase in the number of workers.
>
> Given that productivity increases slowly; growth generally needs new workers.
>
> New workers come about either indiginously or via immigration. For
> years, USA growth has been facilitated by immigration (skilled in the
> silly valley, unskilled in agriculture) due to an indiginous birth-rate close to
> the replacement rate of two.
In my opinion, our current immigration policy is a disaster. It
is based on ugly racial prejudice--we don't like brown people--
and not honest economic analysis*. (Certainly no humanitarian
issues are considered). Given the US declining birthrate, we
need new young people.
In my opinion, a particularly ugly and foolish policy was
cancelling out DACA which gave certain young illegals an
entryway. For one thing, it's bad policy when government reneges
on a commitment. Secondly, those people were students and
contributors and we need them.
* The mushroom industry requires lots of manual workers to
do _literally_ backbreaking shit jobs. So they've used
illegals, no one else will do it. With the crackdown,
there aren't enough workers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390214 is a reply to message #390203] |
Fri, 10 January 2020 16:08 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> On 2020-01-10, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>
>> On 10 Jan 2020 11:52:43 GMT
>> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Eventually, we're going to stop having babies; why not start now?
>>
>> Slow down not stop preferably.
>>
>> That being said, we are slowing down a *lot*! See the UN crude
>> birthrate chart at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_rate, the birth
>> rate today is slightly less than half what it was in 1950.
>
> Yes, and governments are having hysterics. Now they're trying to
> get population increase back to what it was in the Good Old Days,
> by encouraging immigration, baby bonuses, etc.
>
Not encouraging immigration much lately. Norwegians always welcome.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390215 is a reply to message #390211] |
Fri, 10 January 2020 16:08 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 2:15:03 PM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
>>> On 2020-01-10, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10 Jan 2020 11:52:43 GMT
>>>> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Eventually, we're going to stop having babies; why not start now?
>>>>
>>>> Slow down not stop preferably.
>>>>
>>>> That being said, we are slowing down a *lot*! See the UN crude
>>>> birthrate chart at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_rate, the birth
>>>> rate today is slightly less than half what it was in 1950.
>>>
>>> Yes, and governments are having hysterics. Now they're trying to
>>> get population increase back to what it was in the Good Old Days,
>>> by encouraging immigration, baby bonuses, etc.
>>
>> The fundamental tenent of Capitalism as we currently practice it is growth.
>>
>> Growth in revenue, growth in income, growth in the stock price.
>>
>> Growth requires one of two things (or, generally, both):
>> - an increase in per-worker productivity
>> - an increase in the number of workers.
>>
>> Given that productivity increases slowly; growth generally needs new workers.
>>
>> New workers come about either indiginously or via immigration. For
>> years, USA growth has been facilitated by immigration (skilled in the
>> silly valley, unskilled in agriculture) due to an indiginous birth-rate close to
>> the replacement rate of two.
>
> In my opinion, our current immigration policy is a disaster. It
> is based on ugly racial prejudice--we don't like brown people--
> and not honest economic analysis*. (Certainly no humanitarian
> issues are considered). Given the US declining birthrate, we
> need new young people.
No we don’t, not really, except for the foolish growth thing. We have
plenty of people here now. Who wants New York to look like New Delhi?
>
> In my opinion, a particularly ugly and foolish policy was
> cancelling out DACA which gave certain young illegals an
> entryway. For one thing, it's bad policy when government reneges
> on a commitment. Secondly, those people were students and
> contributors and we need them.
DACA shows the problems of trying to do things by presidential fiat instead
of thru legislation. What one president does, the next can undo. That’s
going to bite Trump, too, once he’s out of office.
>
> * The mushroom industry requires lots of manual workers to
> do _literally_ backbreaking shit jobs. So they've used
> illegals, no one else will do it. With the crackdown,
> there aren't enough workers.
>
>
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390220 is a reply to message #390196] |
Fri, 10 January 2020 19:48 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 10:22:49 -0800 (PST), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Thursday, January 9, 2020 at 11:39:30 AM UTC-5, Roger Blake wrote:
>
>> I don't bother with any of that crap. I drive to the store in a vehicle
>> that gets 15mpg on a good day and use their throwaway plastic bags to
>> take away the goods. I just do not give a damn what the eco-weenies
>> think or want. Bicycles are for children, I drive.
>
> Do you pay the full costs of building and maintaining the
> roads you drive on? No, you do not.
We each pay our share of those costs. The roads weren't built for
free.
> Anyway, why would anyone brag about wasting their money in
> a gas guzzler?
Beats wasting a lot more money on a gas-sipper that won't carry what
one needs.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Office jobs eroding [message #390221 is a reply to message #389691] |
Sat, 11 January 2020 01:39 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2020-01-11, Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
> It's true that if the per-mile taxes paid for the whole thing, goods
> would be more expensive. But assigning actual costs to price tags
> seems like a reasonable thing to do, rather than having the hidden
> subsidies.
Unless you're a politician. Then it's suicide.
> (In the city, a vanishing tiny number of people _need_ Hummers, Jeeps,
> or pickups with duals on the rear.)
One of the reasons I enjoyed our visits to Scotland and Ireland
was that I didn't see a single Hummer or monster pickup truck.
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
