Comments on: Persistence That Lit the World http://www.micfarris.com/2009/06/persistence-that-lit-the-world/ Mashup of science, business, technology, and channeling inner geekness! Tue, 07 Feb 2012 17:19:18 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: How I Make $300 a Day Posting Links Online http://www.micfarris.com/2009/06/persistence-that-lit-the-world/comment-page-1/#comment-36 How I Make $300 a Day Posting Links Online Tue, 30 Jun 2009 23:54:10 +0000 http://www.micfarris.com/?p=71#comment-36 Cool post, just subscribed. Cool post, just subscribed.

]]> By: Michael http://www.micfarris.com/2009/06/persistence-that-lit-the-world/comment-page-1/#comment-33 Michael Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:34:44 +0000 http://www.micfarris.com/?p=71#comment-33 Hey, have you seen this news article? <a>New details about Michael Jackson's Death Emerge</a> I was wondering if you were going to blog about this... Hey, have you seen this news article?
New details about Michael Jackson’s Death Emerge
I was wondering if you were going to blog about this…

]]> By: john http://www.micfarris.com/2009/06/persistence-that-lit-the-world/comment-page-1/#comment-32 john Thu, 25 Jun 2009 09:42:03 +0000 http://www.micfarris.com/?p=71#comment-32 Hey it looks cool but I came across this study thing which is eco friendly, eye soothing and has a battery back up of six hours also tested by one of the biggest eye specialist. Have a look : http://studylite.in/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=30&Itemid=38&cid=cm Hey it looks cool but I came across this study thing which is eco friendly, eye soothing and has a battery back up of six hours also tested by one of the biggest eye specialist. Have a look :

http://studylite.in/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=30&Itemid=38&cid=cm

]]> By: How I Make $300 a Day Online http://www.micfarris.com/2009/06/persistence-that-lit-the-world/comment-page-1/#comment-29 How I Make $300 a Day Online Thu, 18 Jun 2009 07:01:12 +0000 http://www.micfarris.com/?p=71#comment-29 Hey, nice post, very well written. You should post more about this. Hey, nice post, very well written. You should post more about this.

]]> By: Peter in Dublin http://www.micfarris.com/2009/06/persistence-that-lit-the-world/comment-page-1/#comment-25 Peter in Dublin Tue, 16 Jun 2009 17:38:45 +0000 http://www.micfarris.com/?p=71#comment-25 I agree There's a lot of talk about that it's "just old technology" But compare with the similar radio valve (tube) It wasn't banned just cause people preferred transistors. Anyway, people prefer to buy light bulbs over "energy saving" fluorescent lights - 19/20 of US sales, 9/10 EU sales - hence the perverse logic of banning what people want (no need to ban what people don't want!) There's a lot of talk that the new LED lamps will be great, and that "a ban should wait until then": But, again, why ban bulbs if new LED lamps (like transistors) will be so good that people want to buy them anyway?! In that case, like radio valves/tubes, the fewer people using bulbs can be allowed to do so. All about why bans are wrong, from <a href="http://www.ceolas.net/#li1x" rel="nofollow">http://www.ceolas.net/#li1x</a> onwards All lights have advantages, none should be banned. People can make up their own minds about the advantages, including any energy savings, and pay more for using ordinary light bulbs if that’s what they want. Does society need to save energy? No, there’s plenty, including new renewable forms. Does society need to save on greenhouse gases? Yes, on current evidence. But everyone forgets a basic simple fact: Light bulbs don’t give out any gases. Power stations don’t necessarily either. Power station emissions can of course be dealt with themselves (including by new energy forms) - bans are unfair on emission-free households and in the end don’t save that much energy or money or emissions anyway as explained on http://www.ceolas.net/#li13x I agree
There’s a lot of talk about that it’s “just old technology”

But compare with the similar radio valve (tube)
It wasn’t banned just cause people preferred transistors.

Anyway, people prefer to buy light bulbs over “energy saving” fluorescent lights – 19/20 of US sales, 9/10 EU sales – hence the perverse logic of banning what people want (no need to ban what people don’t want!)

There’s a lot of talk that the new LED lamps will be great,
and that “a ban should wait until then”:
But, again, why ban bulbs if new LED lamps (like transistors) will be so good that people want to buy them anyway?! In that case, like radio valves/tubes, the fewer people using bulbs can be allowed to do so.

All about why bans are wrong, from
http://www.ceolas.net/#li1x onwards

All lights have advantages, none should be banned.
People can make up their own minds about the advantages, including any energy savings, and pay more for using ordinary light bulbs if that’s what they want.

Does society need to save energy?
No, there’s plenty, including new renewable forms.

Does society need to save on greenhouse gases?
Yes, on current evidence.
But everyone forgets a basic simple fact:
Light bulbs don’t give out any gases.
Power stations don’t necessarily either.
Power station emissions can of course be dealt with themselves (including by new energy forms)
- bans are unfair on emission-free households
and in the end don’t save that much energy or money or emissions anyway as explained on
http://www.ceolas.net/#li13x

]]>