Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: FJB who wrote (84749)	1/10/2012 3:11:52 PM
From: HPilot	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

Having put in over a hundred in a recent building the rate is less than 2%. Not even close to half. Bashing CFL's because the governement is banning incandescent is silly. Its a bit (just a bit) like bashing cars with seat belts because the government demands they be installed and used. I agree they should not ban incandescents because of other reasons, but to say CFL's are sh!^ does nothing for the arguement. Incandescents should not be banned because there are a few places (very few) where they make sense. And there is no reason for it, costs more money for the government to enforce, and may start a black market on light bulbs. IMO the black market may become popular and end up selling more incandescents than would have been sold legally.