I read that dissertation you linked to - the least you could do is read the fairly short (and factual) news report I linked to. Anyway... the most direct contradiction to the so called "ban" is summed up in this bit, in my opinion: "Mr. Pitsor, the National Electrical Manufacturers Association representative, was asked what the incandescent substitute for a typical 100-watt bulb would be, and he described a 72-watt equivalent. The reason most Americans won’t find it on the shelves this week, he said, is that most shipments went to California, which has bulb legislation that kicked in a year earlier than the federal regulations. Starting next month, he said, the new bulbs will be on shelves everywhere.". So: NO BAN - you will still be able to by ILBs, and they will be more energy efficient to boot!

There sure is a lot of misinformation out there. Much of it seems to have come from right wing talk. Incandescent light bulbs are not going to be banned.
Here is the straight dope from the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/26/garden/fearing-the-phase-out-of-incandescent-bulbs.html?_r=2pagewanted=all&

I agree with you for the most part, but... Mr. allopathic: there are two kinds of medicine: medicine and NOT medicine (homeopathic, reiki, acupuncture, and the rest of the (S)CAM stuff). That is all.

The majority of the posts about this subject seem to be very similar to posts I see from people who lack knowledge of "usda organic" foods. I'm curious how many of you posting "anti-fracking" comments are also "pro-organic"? You need to separate your political ideology from actual science. Just as science clearly shows that "organic" food has no value greater than regular food (same taste, same nutrition, same amount of pesticides), science clearly shows that most of the comments on here are bunk. I personally don't think throwing money into fracking is a good idea. I'd much rather see that money spent developing solar power technology. But... I am not going to let any political ideology or personal bias steer me away from actual scientific data and peer reviewed studies. Neither should you.

Also, Gibson explained that his IIc's drive was an "extra box". The IIc had a built in drive - maybe he had two?

Ha! I was about to write: This must be stopped! It will lead to a bad Highlander movie!
(actually, it seemed a whole lot better when I was a whole lot younger) :-)

Cheers

There ARE actually rules regarding correct grammar use! For example "There's actually rules" means "There is actually rules". So, perhaps before you criticize others, maybe you should check out the rules on "This-That-These-Those": http://esl.about.com/od/grammarforbeginners/a/This-That-These-Those.htm
Also, I'm pretty sure it should be "lazy a**holes WHO think", and you need a period after "Those that (should be who) cannot write like adults.

Based on your rules about who gets an interview and who does not, I believe sir or madam, you would not. Good day!

This "LogMeIn" - how well does it work after the smart thief re-images the hard drive before using the laptop?