Let's say just for the sake of argument that AGW is real

[Papa bull]

I've seen otherwise. I have worked for such a private company that used their own money, and generated great wealth through invention.

I have, too. Some people just adore the government and that's their prerogative, but they go a little far sometimes singing it's praises as a bringer of great technological gifts to mankind (at great expense to taxpayers, of course).

 

[Lord of Planar]

Solar may not be ready to cool your house, but lighting is certainly getting in range of a low end system.

Yes, it is. I'm anxious to get my nanolight. They are now renaming it to nanoleaf. I get a periodic em,ail update, and they are in the manufacturing stage now. I think these kids inventing it will become rich. Thumbs up to them. I backed them with more than the $45, because I believe that have a winning product. You can find various updates on YOUTUBE under nanoleaf or nanolight.

Here's a recent video on it:

 

[Threegoofs]

We were talking about research and development and the fact that taxpayers don't subsidize development done in the private sector. This was a non sequitur. You need to do better with the segue back to your talking points when the discussion isn't working for you any more.

Sorry. Just saw your post under the thread heading, and thought it might be relevant.

Continue to ignore the concept, its working well for you.

 

[Jack Hays]

For those fretting about global warming... let's just scrap all the scientific kerfuffle over whether anthropogenic global warming is real and assume for this argument that (a) the Earth is rapidly warming and (b) it's man's Co2 emissions that are causing it.

What would YOU have us all do about it?

I would have to rethink many of my beliefs since this would mean that Santa Claus might be real too.:mrgreen:

 

[Deuce]

No, but it means you support a one world government. Can you say that you wouldn't, one by one, want other areas of global power?

... no. I wouldn't want that. Doesn't that disprove your point?

Supporting international environmental agreements doesn't mean I support international television content oversight. Supporting same-sex marriage doesn't mean I support human-furniture marriage. Supporting freedom of speech doesn't mean I support freedom of screaming obscenities at every passerby via loudspeaker. The "slippery slope" is called a fallacy for a reason.

Some areas require international agreement because they are inherently international issues. Say, air travel.

But do you really see everything as a yes or no question? Don't you support any international treaties on anything? If yes, why doesn't that mean you "support one world government.?"

 

[MoSurveyor]

Looks like they are down to using 12 watts for 1600 lumen (100 watt equivalent) 88% savings...



I'm one of the backers and expecting my 100 watt equivalent in September. I already have a 60 watt equivalent that if I recall, uses 12 watts of a different brand. Working great now for a year or so. 12 for 60 is 80% savings.

Nice!


I was seeing some at both 12W/60 and 9W/60 and both met the lumens of a standard 60W so I used the lower of the two.

 

[MoSurveyor]

I've seen otherwise. I have worked for such a private company that used their own money, and generated great wealth through invention.

One of the big ones like I was talking about - Bell Labs, Motorola, RCA, GE, IBM, Exxon, Northrop Grumman, Texas Instruments, etc.? TI was a huge government contractor for over two decades up to and including the invention of the IC chip. The original work for the IC at TI was for the Air Force in the late 50's - early 60's.

Bill Gates didn't get any government money, nor did most of Silicon Valley's Rich Boys. I'm well aware of that. I never said the government did it all and plainly said the government didn't pay for R&D for consumer products. That would be stupid. American businesses have always been extremely good at adapting new discoveries to consumer applications. Where they fall flat is pure research and big research projects. The very nature of the capitalist system almost guarantees that. Private industry can't afford to spend money casting around in the dark for new paths to follow - but someone sure as hell has to or we'll stall out.

 

[Papa bull]

Sorry. Just saw your post under the thread heading, and thought it might be relevant.

If you thought it was relevant in relation to what you quoted, then have another cup of coffee and try to reboot your thinker because you've got synapse errors.