Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Wrong again. If the price of crude is 10 times higher, the tax is irrelevant.Rod Speed wrote
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:
But the hybrid tractor, series or parallel, will prevail if
only because sooner or later trains will electrify and
a lot or most long haul trucking will disappear.
Electrifiying train lines is HORRIBLY expensive
It must have been cost effective at $10/barrel crude
because that was the situation in N. Europe decades ago.
Wrong, as always. Not much freight moves using rail in northern europe.
True. Even the Royal Mail (British Post Office) moved to trucks only a year or so ago.
But that may change if the cost of transport fuel gets a lot higher.
It won't here because so much of it is already tax,
Wrong again, you can just ban them if you want to.that the impact of the raw material price is much lower than in the US.
You may HAVE to go that way too to avoid 7 litre gas guzzlers.
No it hasnt.Rod Speed wrote
Eeyore wrote
Bret Cahill wrote
But the hybrid tractor, series or parallel, will prevail
if only because sooner or later trains will electrify
and a lot or most long haul trucking will disappear.
Electrifiying train lines is HORRIBLY expensive
It must have been cost effective at $10/barrel crude
because that was the situation in N. Europe decades ago.
Land and (relatively) labour was cheap then too. That's how France
laid the majority of the TGV system without it costing a fortune.
The cost of the sort of land that that uses mostly hasnt increased all that much.
It has in France.
Wrong again. They can use cheap foreign labor if they choose to.As has the labour.
Wrong, as always.SNCF did it at just the right time.
If you want brighter starting and faster warmups, then avoid the ones
with outer bulbs.
** You are SOOOOO full of shit !!
Some of the slowest lighting CFLs are made by Philips and use an exposed
spiral - eg
http://www.lamptech.co.uk/Spec%20Sheets/Philips%20CFL%20Tornado.htm
The "warm up" time is stated to be 2 minutes.
The initial light level is about 10%, it depends on room temp.
Exceptionally extreme dim-starting (according to figures I
consider unverified) and slow-warming (what percentage after 2
minutes? 90%? 99%) spiral that I have yet to see anywhere except
your citation.
I have Philips spirals that are mostly warmed up in less than a minute
and at 1 second after power is applied they are a #@(# of a lot brighter
than 10% of full even at 18 degree C ambient!
Rooms are often colder than 18C and 1 minute to reach half brightness is
an
annoying wait or even dangerous in many situations.
What I "have seen" being *notably absent* in *usual situations* with
*common products* is atually information.
** While most others find it damn annoying.Also, I have found and posted as such that taking half a minute to a
minute to get to more than halfway to full brightness is often not
so bad - I usually find that outright welcome in bathrooms!
Also, colder than 18 C is exception more than rule for rooms.
Furthermore, how the bleep often is light output of 20-25% of
full "dangerous and also lacking escape from danger by waiting for half a
minute to 45 seconds?
** The UK, Australia and all over Asia for sure.Phil Allison wrote:
You also dredged up something from 2004 - but then again,
** Huh ????????
Philips " Tornado " CFLs are on sale right now - asshole.
Where?
Also, in ambient 18 C or warmer, my experience is that bare spirals
start a lot brighter than "one candle"!
** And which CFL was my remark about - asshole ??
One that appears to me
I have had ZERO problems with any CFL except dropping one
once.
** The YOU are clearly NOT in any position to discuss the many
problems with CFLs.
I've been using them for 20 years.
Phil Allison wrote:
If you want brighter starting and faster warmups, then avoid the ones
with outer bulbs.
** You are SOOOOO full of shit !!
Some of the slowest lighting CFLs are made by Philips and use an exposed
spiral - eg
http://www.lamptech.co.uk/Spec%20Sheets/Philips%20CFL%20Tornado.htm
The "warm up" time is stated to be 2 minutes.
The initial light level is about 10%, it depends on room temp.
Exceptionally extreme dim-starting (according to figures I
consider unverified) and slow-warming (what percentage after 2
minutes? 90%? 99%) spiral that I have yet to see anywhere except
your citation.
** Do your own search on " Philips Tornado CFL " .
Why should I...
** There is no published data available from makers.Maybe they are not sold in the USA ( ie no 120 volt version exists)
Maybe there ARE sold in the USA under another name.
Does not matter a damn to the ORIGINAL QUESTION !!!
SLOW LIGHTING CFLs are sold all over.
And you have yet to show much data that the slowpokes include much of
CFLs with bare tubing.
What YOU have NOT seen is not EVIDENCE - asshole.
What I have not seen where I look for it or not seen as
to-your-claimed-extent exception from a rule I have found followed by
about 50 models and about a dozen "brands" with lack of exception in my
experience other than what I call "dollar store stool specimens",
is notably significant data that can't be dismissed so quickly out of
hand.
Room ambients can be way less than 18C too - dickhead.
Distinct minority!
Why should I since you have already presented a citation to those?"Don Klipstein"
Phil Allison wrote:
If you want brighter starting and faster warmups, then avoid the ones
with outer bulbs.
** You are SOOOOO full of shit !!
Some of the slowest lighting CFLs are made by Philips and use an exposed
spiral - eg
http://www.lamptech.co.uk/Spec%20Sheets/Philips%20CFL%20Tornado.htm
The "warm up" time is stated to be 2 minutes.
The initial light level is about 10%, it depends on room temp.
Exceptionally extreme dim-starting (according to figures I
consider unverified) and slow-warming (what percentage after 2
minutes? 90%? 99%) spiral that I have yet to see anywhere except
your citation.
** Do your own search on " Philips Tornado CFL " .
And you have yet to show much data that the slowpokes include much ofMaybe they are not sold in the USA ( ie no 120 volt version exists)
Maybe there ARE sold in the USA under another name.
Does not matter a damn to the ORIGINAL QUESTION !!!
SLOW LIGHTING CFLs are sold all over.
I test a lot of CFLs and that is what I have seen.I have Philips spirals that are mostly warmed up in less than a minute
and at 1 second after power is applied they are a #@(# of a lot brighter
than 10% of full even at 18 degree C ambient!
** So fucking what ?????
What I have not seen where I look for it or not seen asWhat YOU have NOT seen is not EVIDENCE - asshole.
Distinct minority! I relish the mere hours per year that I can get myRoom ambients can be way less than 18C too - dickhead.
What I "have seen" being *notably absent* in *usual situations* with"Don Klipstein"
** Philips "Tornado" spiral CFLs are also VERY SLOW to light up fully.
Even with a room temp of 20C they take about 3 minutes.
Here in USA, I have yet to see a spiral CFL having any reference other
** Could be sold under a different name in the USA.
and I have yet to have a CFL with bare tubing
fail to be a majority of the way warmed up in 1 minute from 18 C or above.
** What you have NOT seen is NOT any kind of information.
Rooms are often colder than 18C and 1 minute to reach half brightness is an
annoying wait or even dangerous in many situations.
Oh please, cite when and where? Besides outhouses and single family"Don Klipstein"
** This complete loon must be one of the biggest JERKOFFs on usenet !!
Rooms are often colder than 18C and 1 minute to reach half brightness is
an
annoying wait or even dangerous in many situations.
What I "have seen" being *notably absent* in *usual situations* with
*common products* is atually information.
** Yaaawnnn - more meaningless drivel.
Also, I have found and posted as such that taking half a minute to a
minute to get to more than halfway to full brightness is often not
so bad - I usually find that outright welcome in bathrooms!
** While most others find it damn annoying.
Also, colder than 18 C is exception more than rule for rooms.
** It is very common in bathrooms, in winter, in many places for the temp
to fall to near 0C overnight.
What a utterly stupid ass you are.
Non-problem to me - I do that often and have done that a lot and beenFurthermore, how the bleep often is light output of 20-25% of
full "dangerous and also lacking escape from danger by waiting for half a
minute to 45 seconds?
** What YOU are too damn stupid to realise is YOUR problem.
Where? Please tell me where I can get one at a retail establishment"Don Klipstein"
Phil Allison wrote:
You also dredged up something from 2004 - but then again,
** Huh ????????
Philips " Tornado " CFLs are on sale right now - asshole.
One that appears to me based on my huge experience to have anAlso, in ambient 18 C or warmer, my experience is that bare spirals
start a lot brighter than "one candle"!
** And which CFL was my remark about - asshole ??
But I have had actual good experience with Philips spirals in USA!You need to learn what a RED HERRING is too - wanker.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi
Exceptionally extreme dim-starting (according to figures I"Don Klipstein"
If you want brighter starting and faster warmups, then avoid the ones
with outer bulbs.
** You are SOOOOO full of shit !!
Some of the slowest lighting CFLs are made by Philips and use an exposed
spiral - eg
http://www.lamptech.co.uk/Spec%20Sheets/Philips%20CFL%20Tornado.htm
The "warm up" time is stated to be 2 minutes.
The initial light level is about 10%, it depends on room temp.
** And which CFL was my remark about - asshole ??
One that appears to me
** Go read the damn thread & see what I was referring to.
I know bleeping well what you were referring to.
I bow to your expertise on insanity, I have no personal experience.stan <smoore@exis.net> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Trying something over and over that doesn't work is the definition of insanity.
Nope.
Now here you have some credibility.
There have always been trolls. In fact one could argue they used to beCould that be lack of interest?
Its more that usenet has always had a real tendency to collect groups of individuals
in particular newsgroups where the newsgroup name only quite losely describes
their general interests and a lot more than that does get discussed.
And there are always a few obsessively anal that hate that too.
You have clearly demonstrated that you haven't a clue about what was orIf there is no other group for their "issue" then why don't they start one?
Because hardly anyone will even notice that they have done that.
And hordes of very narrowly focussed groups works very badly indeed.
I read several groups you aren't disturbing and they work quite well.
Irrelevant to what was being discussed there.
I clearly refered to groups you don't disturb, and by your demonstratedI guess you can't see any groups you don't disturb so you will never see how well they can work.
Guess again. They do tend to get crossposted ocassionally.
Speaking of expected behavior, I think I detect another personal attack.That's truly sad.
Thats truly pathetic, as always with you.
I must admit surprise here; maybe we're making progress. You seem to bestan <smoore@exis.net> wrote
This is the first indication I've seen that you have
any awareness of appropriate behavior on usenet.
You dont get to rule on what is appropriate usenet behaviour. Ever.
This is at best infantile nonsense. If you insist on ad hominem attacksAre you saying that you are aware and understand that
different newsgroups exist to discuss different topic and
that crossposting is rude and unwanted?
That last is just your silly little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasy.
You might want to goggle for better insults, it really doesn't seem toGoogle could easily provide baseball style stats for each poster,
1. The number of OPs.
2. The number of OPs/response postings.
3. The number of responses/OP.
4. The average number of different posters/OP.
5. The above stats over time, a graph to show improvement.
Someone suggest the above to Google.
We could call it the troll index.
You wouldnt know what a real troll was if it bit you on your lard arse.
Sorry I went over your head, I'd try to dumb it down but it's better ifstan <smoore@exis.net> wrote:
Sort of seems like a real lack of imagination and intelligence to be
unable to come up with other possibilities for not wanting to waste
time on off topic posts. To be that limited it must be difficult.
Life is short, consequently time is precious.
Mindlessly superficial.
I see you think about me and your curious. I'm afraid I don't have theThe immature and boorish behavior of trolls is an
unacceptable time sink that should be mostly avoided.
How odd that you waste your time so obviously.
You one of those hypocrites ?
Again your interest is appreciated but I cn't help you.I'll offer an observation. Those with the least to say are often
the loudest, most prolific, and most persistent. I can only
guess but I think they must be driven by a need for attention.
What are you driven by ?
No vulgar, rude, juvenile atttacks? Not feeling well today?I'm truly glad most people grow out of that childhood phase.
What about yours ?
Obvious lie.Rod Speed wrote
stan <smoore@exis.net> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Trying something over and over that doesn't work is the definition of insanity.
Nope.
Now here you have some credibility.
Unlike you.
What is the correct definition?
There is no nice tidy definition thats anything like as simple as that.
I bow to your expertise on insanity, I have no personal experience.
Not in usenet.Even more, anyone who is posting to a tech group but
isn't really interested in technology is irrational *per se.*
Wrong again. Some arent interested in the tech but are interested in discussing other things
Then why aren't they discussing those "other things" on other groups?
Because the other groups have fuck all participating in them.
Could that be lack of interest?
Its more that usenet has always had a real tendency to collect groups of individuals
in particular newsgroups where the newsgroup name only quite losely describes
their general interests and a lot more than that does get discussed.
And there are always a few obsessively anal that hate that too.
There have always been trolls.
You wouldnt know what a real troll was if one bit you on your lard arse.In fact one could argue they used to be better.
The ancient greeks used to sit around in their togas orThey seem to be generally much more immature nowadays.
Thats nothing like how it was actually born.Usenet was born with the idea of newsgroups that were not
unlike private living rooms where people could spend time in
conversation about topics they considered interesting.
And plenty of fools like you that dont have a fucking clue about anything at all too.Unfortunately there are those who insist on barging in where
they aren't wanted and are certainly not considered interesting.
Nothing like it. Much closer to wandering down the pub/bar and getting involved in discussions there.It's the equivalent of finding the door unlocked and
walking into a living room and throwing up on the carpet.
Wrong, as always.If there is no other group for their "issue" then why don't they start one?
Because hardly anyone will even notice that they have done that.
And hordes of very narrowly focussed groups works very badly indeed.
I read several groups you aren't disturbing and they work quite well.
Irrelevant to what was being discussed there.
You have clearly demonstrated that you haven't a clue about
what was or is being discussed in sci.electronics.basics.
You wouldnt know what a real troll was if one bit you on your lard arse.Trolling does not a discussion make.
No such animal in that sense.I guess you can't see any groups you don't disturb
so you will never see how well they can work.
Guess again. They do tend to get crossposted ocassionally.
I clearly refered to groups you don't disturb,
Whereas your behaviour is absolutely impeccible, eh ?and by your demonstrated behavior you are clearly not capable of acting civilized.
Corse you never ever do anything like that yourself, eh ?On your level, any group you participate in is distrubed by your inappropriate and rude behavior.
Corse you never ever do anything like that yourself, eh ?Any post you see was posted to a group you are disturbing.
No one ever said it was, fool.Your idea that other trolls might crosspost into groups you are disturbing isn't really interesting.
You wouldnt know what a real troll was if one bit you on your lard arse.That a troll is disturbed by someone who might dare to deflect attention isn't news, it's expected behavior.
Not a shred of evidence that you are actually capable of thought.That's truly sad.
Thats truly pathetic, as always with you.
Speaking of expected behavior, I think I detect another personal attack.
Your mindless silly shit in spades.You are clearly not the most clever person to attempt to insult me.
How would you know?stan <smoore@exis.net> wrote
I think the easiest way to identify someone posing as
qualified is to check the number of crossposted groups.
More fool you.
I couldn't have proved the point any better.The more groups the more confusion; the metric simply never fails.
Mindlessly silly.