So, something like this?

As others have noted, you're forgetting the cost to power the bulb. Standard incandescent lasts 1000 hours, the LEDs should last 10K (some claim 20K, but we'll go with the lower figure). So for a 100W equivalent, you buy 10 incandescents for 20 cents a piece, or $2. Let's say the LED costs $60.

Next up is the cost of power. Over 10K hours, the incandescents consume 100W * 10K hrs = 1Mwh (1000 Kwh). The LED consumes 23W * 10K hrs = 230 Kwh. At 10 cents per Kwh (I pay about 12 cents; prices in the U.S. range from 8-25 cents), that's $100 to power the incandescents. And $23 to power the LED.

• LED total cost = $60 to buy + $23 to power = $83 over total lifespan
• Incandescent total cost = $2 to buy + $100 to power = $102 over total lifespan (plus whatever cost you assign to the hassle of changing bulbs 10x as often)

That said, a fluorescent would get roughly the same power cost as the LED, and cost less than a tenth what the LED costs up front. But they're not well-suited to dimmable fixtures, they require special disposal, and they frequently have a delay before they reach full brightness (and some claim they get less "natural" light). If none of that bothers you, then go with fluorescents. But if it does, then your fallback option would be the LED, which is cheaper over its lifespan than even 20 cent incandescents.

If you RTFA, it points out:

1. This cow was never going to be sold for meat.
2. This was a single point case of BSE; it wasn't the result of a transmission vector like contaminated feed, it just arose naturally (like prion diseases do in most mammals on rare occasions)

Ever since we stopped feeding ground up cow parts to other cows, the rate of BSE has dropped to near zero; it's only when cow engage in cannibalism that the disease spreads to enough cattle to produce a measurable risk to any human.

Republican party platform: Life begins at conception and ends at birth.

Per Wikipedia, it was never green, and it may not have been actually called green:

The name Greenland comes from the early Scandinavian settlers. In the Icelandic sagas, it is said that Norwegian-born Erik the Red was exiled from Iceland for murder. He, along with his extended family and thralls, set out in ships to find a land rumoured to lie to the northwest. After settling there, he named the land Grønland ("Greenland"), supposedly in the hope that the pleasant name would attract settlers.

Greenland was also called Gruntland (English: "Ground land") on early maps. Whether green is an erroneous transcription of grunt ("ground"), which refers to shallow bays, or vice versa, is not known.

Your premise is wrong. Care to retract?

And because they're guilty of one type of bad act, they're guilty of all types of bad acts? Like when I shoplifted last week, got caught, and am now on death row for murder, because being guilty of shoplifting makes me guilty of all other crimes.

Let me know when you find the article that says MS sold access to their phones and operating systems to open up a lucrative market. Anti-trust is bad, but it's not remotely related to selling backdoors for market access.

At a certain point, and quantitative difference becomes a qualitative difference. As long as a cop is required to tail someone, a surveillance society would require hiring everyone into the police force. By enabling cheap, unlimited surveillance, you've effectively allowed the police force to go on an infinite number of fishing expeditions.

Or block the particular js files that put up the blocking image.

Stallman wants people to provide software in the way he and his flock want it provided. How people use it is irrelevant. His point is that in an open ecosystem, people can choose to use software however they like, whether it's by connecting to monolithic vertically integrated software stacks or by striking out on their own. Apple didn't provide the choice; if you wanted Apple UI, you had to buy into Apple's whole product line, because you had no other options, particularly on their mobile devices.

In more technical terms, the feds have sovereign immunity; unless a law is passed explicitly waiving the protection against a lawsuit, or the federal government voluntarily consents to the suit, you can't sue them. They don't have to quash the suit, they needn't do a thing for sovereign immunity to apply by default. And to my knowledge, there is no such law relating to IP infringement by the federal government.

IIRC, CFCs can stay active for up to fifty years. So we've got a while before the effect of the ban becomes pronounced. Heck, we only just banned CFC based asthma inhalers this year. I remember being really surprised that my inhaler was CFC based a few years ago.

We have that here in Maryland too. It's pretty common. You can choose who you buy your electricity from, but you still have to pay a separate fee to the distributor. And there is only one distributor in any given area. I was quite careful with my word choice, I said distributor, not generator or provider.

Thus far, the government hasn't done anything to control carbon dioxide aside from making a few noises about the need to. Scientists have been telling people about the problem for decades. Private industry did nothing, because it costs money not to release pollutants, and paying that cost means lower numbers on your next earnings report, a shareholder revolt, and your company going out of business because it was undercut by someone who didn't mind passing the pollution buck to everyone else. I'd welcome some government interference there, whether its cap and trade (which has worked amazingly well in encouraging a free market to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions, and by extension acid rain) or a blanket carbon tax (a bit heavy handed, but at least it assigns some sort of cost to make it clear that pollution isn't actually free).

The day you figure out how to solve the tragedy of the commons (and ideally prevent the creation of a new corporate-style hereditary nobility) is the day I give an unregulated free market a chance.

Only in the small number of markets where multiple large airports service a single population. Anywhere else, a local monopoly is identical to a government monopoly. Claiming there'd be competition is like claiming that you have competition in the electrical distribution market; sure you can switch providers, you just need to sell your house and move somewhere else.

Actually, Mitochodrial Eve lived around 200,000 years ago. You're probably thinking of the most recent common ancestor of modern day humans, estimated to have lived between 2,000 and 5,000 years ago. But that doesn't actually imply there were no other ancestors, only that this particular ancestor is shared by all; there are still many other ancestors that are not commonly shared. It's no basis for supporting the biblical creation myth.