A google search didn't turn up anything useful, but it sounds like you've got a good handle on what's available.
Do they offer the 3-way LED bulbs yet? I'm not talking about dimmable ones (I know they exist), but rather the ones that work in sockets designed for these kinds of incandescent bulbs, providing three levels of light. My floor lamps are all of this kind, and I use each of the settings in different situations.
What made the plant here vulnerable is, in part, a 2007 energy conservation measure passed by Congress that set standards essentially banning ordinary incandescents by 2014. The law will force millions of American households to switch to more efficient bulbs.
The resulting savings in energy and greenhouse-gas emissions are expected to be immense. But the move also had unintended consequences.
Rather than setting off a boom in the U.S. manufacture of replacement lights, the leading replacement lights are compact fluorescents, or CFLs, which are made almost entirely overseas, mostly in China.
Consisting of glass tubes twisted into a spiral, they require more hand labor, which is cheaper there. So though they were first developed by American engineers in the 1970s, none of the major brands make CFLs in the United States.
Whether the loss of this factory is a cost worth paying for increased energy efficiency is a different question, but the regulations did shut down a plant.
"Rape"? The case involves him failing to use a condom. The ladies involved have recanted. The prosecutor tried to drop the charges.
This again? Yes, it "involves" him failing to use a condom. But, with respect to one of the counts, it's a lot more than that: the allegation is that he had sex with a woman who was asleep, thus unable to consent. This lack of consent was aggravated by his knowledge that she didn't want to have sex without a condom. The other conduct described might be considered trivial by some, but this act qualifies as rape in most civilized countries.
The U.K. High Court properly held that what he is charged with qualifies as rape under U.K. law, and that it carries a maximum penalty of 4 years in Sweden. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/02_11_11_assange.pdf
Of course, it's possible none of that conduct occurred. Under the EU extradition system, it's not the U.K.'s job - either the government's or the courts' - to decide whether he's guilty.
The alleged "recantation" has been addressed a bit below.
"He looks foreign" in the latter part of the article, by the TSA agent asking for permission to put him through the wringer. Did you happen to miss that?
He didn't miss that, because that's not what the article says:
Not before being interrogated further, though, and this time by local law enforcement officers with the NFTA. Even after being booted, Arijit says that transit cops questioned him relentlessly, asking him about where he got his shirt and for details about his family.
According to Arijits account, an NFTA [(Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority)] officer named Mark radioed in on his walkie-talkie for permission to further interrogate the dangerous potential terrorist.
“He gave a stupid answer,” Arijit recalls hearing the officer say to a supervisor. “And he looks foreign.”
The NFTA is not TSA. It's a local transit police department. No, that doesn't make what happened to this guy OK. It's very far from OK. But the principle villains are the pilot and one local police officer, who was overruled by his supervisor.
It doesn't help to bring attention to problems like this inaccurately. Doing that simply gives the people in charge an easy way to ignore and marginalize the complaints.
We don't just discard the rule of law because someone on the Internet knows it's "obviously" a sham. Sweden made a legitimate request for extradition. It's been reviewed by one court in Sweden and three courts in the UK. There's nothing wrong with the legal reasoning in any of those decisions. He is accused of committing a violent crime. That's all undisputed.
Almost every reason we're given to abandon the rule of law is found, on examination, to be either false or greatly exaggerated. "It's not a real rape - it's only punishable by fine if true." False (see above). "The victims don't want him extradited." False. One of the accusers is working for the the CIA. As tenuous as Bachman's accusations about Muslim Brotherhood sympathizers in the State Department.
We have trials for a reason. When you have two witnesses who allege facts that amount to sexual assault - one of whom alleges she was asleep and incapable of giving consent - we have enough for police to proceed against the accused. Not necessarily to convict, mind you. Again, that's what trials are for.
The authorities are supposed to investigate - by interviewing the alleged victims, Assange, and others who might have relevant information. If the investigation so warrants, charges are brought, and the prosecution attempts to prove its case in court. If he so desires, Assange presents evidence in his defense. Then an impartial trier of fact determines whether the prosecution met its burden of proof and renders a decision. Would you prefer that we not follow the legal process in this case?
Also, in case it's not clear, my account of what happened is a list of the alleged conduct Sweden used to justify its request for extradition. Nowhere did I render any opinion as to whether those allegations are true. Rather, I commented on what the legal effect would be if they are true.
Is that really your response to evidence that the statement "Even if he did do what is being alleged, it only carries a fine as punishment, like a speeding ticket" is false? "Do you honestly think that is what this whole thing is really about?" is simply not relevant to what I posted. People are repeating a now-disproven falsehood in order to bolster their point. If their point is so strong, why the need to lie. Make the case for this being about something else without the lie.
Is the statement "Even if he did do what is being alleged, it only carries a fine as punishment, like a speeding ticket" false or not? If you say not, what's your evidence? It would have to be pretty convincing to overcome the evidence I linked, which is a verbatim English translation of the alleged conduct, which includes penetration without consent.
As to your empirical question, it lacks foundation. This is not an "allegation[] of 'sure I wanted to sleep with him, but I didn't want to go all the way.'" It is, among other things, an allegation that he stuck his dick inside her without her consent while she was asleep. Do you have evidence that EU countries don't extradite on the basis of such allegations?
Can people PLEASE stop spreading this ridiculous lie. The U.K. High Court properly held that what he is charged with qualifies as rape under U.K. law, and that it carries a maximum penalty of 4 years in Sweden. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/02_11_11_assange.pdf
The description of the alleged unlawful conduct includes sex with a woman who was asleep, thus unable to consent, which was aggravated by his knowledge that she didn't want to have sex without a condom. The other conduct described might be considered trivial by some, but this act qualifies as rape in most civilized countries.
Of course, it's possible none of that conduct occurred. Under the EU extradition system, it's not the U.K.'s job - either the government's or the courts' - to decide whether he's guilty.
"The medium is the massage." -- Crazy Nigel
