The Best of the Interweb (sic) Easter Sunday 2007

Is Your Blog Biased? Effin Right it is! And it ought to be! That’s why I blog. By Aaron Wall posted on Problogger.net

The Personal MBA meets the NoBS – Seth Godin and Josh Kaufman on Traditional MBA programs.

Why You Won’t Be Rich – You really don’t want to be rich. Don’t worry, most of us don’t want to be rich we just think we do.

Is There a Blogging Backlash? – at Qmusings. Many blogs are becoming incestuous. Blogging has bubble written all over it. I’ve heard the best way to make money blogging is to blog about blogging. Think about that… It’s like saying the best way to make money on Real Estate is to sell Real Estate to Newbie Real Estate agents. How long could that last? Pretty soon there will be a lot fewer newbies, which means – no audience. Sure Darren Rowse and John Chow will be around for the long haul, but we don’t need 25,000 copycats.

The World’s Most Surprising Shortage – Afraid of outsourcing, think again!

Finally Some Supreme Court Justices with Intelligence – Don’t ever give up your freedom in exchange for safety. It’s a Faustian bargain. LOSE – LOSE!.

Outlawing the Incandescent Bulb – You aren’t getting the whole story. Many people get horrible headaches from fluorescent lighting. Does anyone care about them? What about the environmental damage? I bet you didn’t know there was any.

Many Americans see little point to Web – With most of the crap I’ve seen on Reddit and Digg lately, it doesn’t surprise me.

11 thoughts on “The Best of the Interweb (sic) Easter Sunday 2007”

  1. Hi Steve,

    Great decision on the part of the Minnesota Supreme Court.

    I have more doubts about the article on CF lights. a) while the capital costs may be higher (though they are as low as $2 each) lifetime costs to the user are much lower due to decreased electrical usage and extended lifetime b)unlike normal flourescents, they don’t usually have the annoying flicker due to the use of electronic ballasts. color ranges do vary quite a but more, though, which can be irritating e) all flourescent bulbs contain mercury. Only with the use of CF this is a problem?

    I use CF. They’ve been worthwhile over the years. Disposal is a problem, as it is with all flourescent bulbs. I wouldn’t use one in a bathroom. They’ve been susceptible to moisture in enclosed areas. I use them outside, but they are dimmer in the winter than the summer. Requiring their use is wrong-headed. Different types of bulbs are useful in different types of places.

    I own a business. I have to pay for electricity based both on demand and usage. If people really want to limit peak demand, do the same thing for home usage. When hit in the pocketbook by trying to run the fridge, washer, dryer, dishwasher, air conditioner and/or furnace, hotwater heater, etc. all at the same time, peak demand will drop.

  2. Rick,

    I’m with you on the CF. I use them too… in most places in my home…but not all.

    I think CF is fantastic… but…

    Outlawing incandecent bulbs is the issue here. If you wouldn’t use one is a bathroom, what are you to do if incandecent bulbs are outlawed?

    It’s the prohibition that bugs me…
    Not the technology.

  3. What an intro! Thanks for including me on the best of the interweb. I generally don’t write about blogging itself but after reading several posts from different blogs about the direction blogs are going, I felt I had to write something more than a comment here and there.

  4. CFLs are great because their downsides are less than the downsides of incandescents (which should be called heating bulbs instead of lighting bulbs since they are so inefficient at converting electricity into light), but CFLs themselves are just a temporary measure until we can get good quality cheap LED bulbs that can last decades and use very little power.

    Talking about not moving to CFLs because some people have problems with them or because they contain a bit of mercury (less than what comes out of coal power plants, btw — see this: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/06/what_about_merc.php) is like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Incandescents affect negatively the whole of society because they are so wasteful, that’s a bigger problem than the few people affected by CFLs (and it’s not like fluorescents are new in commercial buildings…).

    I know everybody loves a good contrarian story, but be careful.

  5. James,
    Thanks for the comment. I generally agree, but I can only go so far.

    Talking about not moving to CFLs because some people have problems with them or because they contain a bit of mercury (less than what comes out of coal power plants, btw — see this: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/06/what_about_merc.php) is like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Incandescents affect negatively the whole of society because they are so wasteful, that’s a bigger problem than the few people affected by CFLs (and it’s not like fluorescents are new in commercial buildings…).

    This paragraph violates every tenant of human freedom. It is the “forcing by law” that is dangerous. If we use the premise that “being wasteful” is cause to use force (which is what the law is) to change people’s lifestyles, we could ban virtually anything. You name it. Why not ban taking more than one shower a week, a little BO is nothing compared to the amount of energy we’d save.

    Again…
    I have moved to mostly CF in my home too. I think they are a great invention. However people should be convinced to move to the voluntarily. We should ALWAYS be concerned with rights of the few people negatively affected and be sure to give them options within the free market.

  6. To clarify, I wasn’t talking about the outlawing, just the anti-CFL arguments. I’m not in favor of a law like that.

    My preference would be to do strong feebates — put a fee on incandescents and use that money to create rebates for CFLs. Incandescents are still available that way..

    Incandescents have so many downsides that increasing their price would only be “internalizing” so of their real costs that are currently “externalized” and paid by society as a whole (more energy wasted, more coal plants, more smog, more mercury pollution, more global warming, higher electricity rates, etc).

  7. James,

    Sorry…
    I misunderstood.

    I think the freebate thing is reasonable. But it still may be an unneeded government intervention.

    For example we didn’t need a tax and rebate to switch from Cassettes to CDs. To most people it just made sense and after a while they quit producing cassettes.

    The same thing just happened with VCRs. Some people still use them, the government never outlawed them, but most people saw the benefits of DVD, even though it cost more, and converted using freewill.

    I know my examples aren’t about energy, but if CF makes sense economically, people will convert.

    That’s why every time I hear an environmentalist politician complain about high gas prices, I laugh. The best possible way to reduce gasoline consumption is sky high prices. It will force people to make changes and waste less energy.

    SUVs would disappear if gas was 8 bucks a gallon. Urban sprawl would end.

    but again, I’m not promoting that the government raise the price of gasoline via taxation, I’m simply saying high prices will directly promote the changes enviromentalists champion.

    They should pray for oil production to drop and prices to soar.

  8. the difference is that with casettes, time wasn’t an issue. With pollution and global warming, the faster we make the switch, the less problems we’ll have.

    I have no doubt that cleaning and more efficient technologies will win in the long run, but will it be fast enough? Especially considering that we’re subsidizing (directly and indirectly) dirty technologies A LOT. The least we could do would be to level the playing field, but in some cases, it makes a lot of sense to give incentives to make people move faster.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>