Actually, I was trying to unscrew it by the base, but the top exploded -- Can't testify in court that I was not touching the bulb, probably was but I know I was applying minimal pressure. Access to the bulb was wide open in this fixture.

I would say it was a defective bulb, big part of that was no doubt the horrible design from a safety viewpoint of using a twisty glass bulb in the first place. You know, to get the lumens per watt they wanted for a direct-replacement bulb.

I was unscrewing one of the twisty CFL's that died after probably 1000 hours use. It basically exploded in my face, about the top 15% of the bulb was small shards though the rest was intact. Yes, we got screwed by the government forcing them on us before they were ready for prime time, just like the water saving toilets that don't flush unless you cycle them a few times.

You might consider this strange, but none of the people resurrected in the Bible make any reference at all related to their experiences after death. The closest thing you would find related to this topic is the account of the rich man and Lazarus, who both died and were in Hades, the rich man in torment, and Lazarus in Abraham's bosom. The rich man wanted to send a message to his relatives so that they would not end up in torment like him and was told, they have Moses and the prophets (i.e., they were not going to get another revelation from a dead man), and nether would they believe if one rose from the dead.

In short, the Bible denies the near-death experience as a means of religious experience and knowledge.

weapons grade uranium is 90% U-235, natural uranium is 0.7% U-235 -- No, it was not weapons grade a billion years ago, or ever if it was 50% U-235 at formation. Reactor grade is 3-4% U-235, which would exists in natural ores 1.5 billion year ago.

If you are having lots of trouble paying bills, keeping an extra payment in a savings account is not easy as it is so tempting to use it to pay one of those bills. Also, some creditor gets a judge to say so and the balance can disappear or become unavailable you making a car payment.

There is a significant spread in the retail and wholesale price of a vehicle. You cannot repo a "fully depreciated vehicle" and get your money back, much less the cost of doing the repo.

Chippy: 1. Belligerent 2. Female prostitute or promiscuous female 3. A carpenter 4. Resentful or oversensitive about being perceived as inferior:

What exactly are you saying about Einstein?

The clear comparison would be RomneyCare. While certainly smaller, it was more more successful, at least in terms of administrative snafus, etc. The high costs of RomneyCare are very similar however. One obvious difference was that RomneyCare has a higher level of bi-partisan support, thought it is difficult to see how this would account for the difference in administrative competence.The other differences are that Romney has proved competence in a few executive roles and was probably a lot more focused than Obama -- presidents have to wear a lot of hats being at least part of the problem. ObamaCare is arguably a larger structural change that involved more fiefdoms.

From the article.

Thursday's cuts were spread over different countries and teams, the spokesman said. The last wave of cuts mostly affected the handset business of Nokia, which Microsoft bought earlier this year.

Socialism is usually used as a pejorative term by those on the right, e.g, Obama is a socialist. Philosophically, I generally agree with the Libertarians. I would not be inclined at all to say the adding some regulations or holding Comcast, etc. is in any way socialism. The problem is that broadband providers are generally running a protected monopoly already, this is a form of corporate socialism already a.k.a. crony capitalism.

So, one problem is already a result of government interference in the market, resulting in Comcast, etc. having too much advantage over the consumer. Given that a broadband provider may well be a natural monopoly or oligarchy in many if not most marketplaces, some sort of regulation is probably needed in these markets as a free-market approach may not support enough competition or even with competition prices are still high as a result of duplication of infrastructure. A conservative approach would prefer the minimal government interference that still allows and encourages competition, but given the natural monopoly for an broadband provider, a municipal utility may well be the best solution.

So a well-informed economic conservative has not problem with this at all. Unfortunately many conservatives (and others) are not well-informed on any variety of topics, but this often does not prevent the expressing of a opinion, usually in conformance with a priori viewpoints on how things should work in the abstract.

Feel free to extrapolate that regulation, etc. is often needed with respect to other aspects of corporations. We will likely draw the line at different locations re: the best level of regulation. I would prefer these lines to be drawn based on evidence, and I believe it is very likely you share this view. Unfortunately for Comcast, etc. the current regulations seems clearly against the interest of the typical consumer as the US today.

Evidence is not always available, and corporations have a vested interest in pushing their interests via lobbying in various forms. I.e., policy making is hard. Facts are hard to obtain, they may change over time, and everybody has a vested interest in the decisions. I fail to see how condemning one side or the other is useful in actually discussing policy.

It's getting hard to distinguish Lamarckianism, Lysenkoism and epigenetics these days.

There are well-respected scientists still working on LENR/LANR reactions a.k.a. Cold Fusion. Peter_L._Hagelstein is one of them. He teaches a LANR class at MIT. His initial interest in the field was to debunk the claims, the evidence he saw convinced him otherwise. For the past years he has been systematically performing the experiments that determine the conditions for when it works and when it does not work. I.e., he appears to be an entirely legitimate scientists investigating a phenomenon that is not well understood but could have tremendous impact; this is the quintessential science.

ECat may well be fraudulent. Many characteristics of known frauds exist. If you examine the work of Hagelstein and others, you will not see similar evidence of fraud. You will see the work you would associate with scientists doing what they do best, examining the data, proposing theories, testing theories, sharing ideas and data.

The initial experiements that "debunked" cold fusion did not actually do so. In the case of the Princeton debunking, the actual data showed some over-unity behavior that was edited out before releasing the results. These experience were performed in a "race" to replicate and/or debunk because the claims were so exceptional. One could argue that those interested in debunking the claims were motivated by external factors. But others that disputed the claims have no evidence that they were externally motivated to do so.

I am not saying that they will ever be successful in making something commercially viable (though many are convinced this will happen). I am hopeful that this can happen as this would certainly be cheaper and cleaner than hot fusion much less fission. The actual environmental impact would be less than renewable energy technologies as well.

This Seems like a more likely source to me -- after all, not that many koalas.

Well, since the whole purpose of fusion reactors is to make commercially useful power, it is pretty clear that we do not have a working fusion reactor by any reasonable definition.

Despite having spent billions (22 Billion USD on hot fusion research by US alone) on the problem so far, with billions yet to come, we do not have working fusion reactors. Even ITER will just be a prototype with no power generation at all. Cost to develop commercially, unknown but bound to be a lot of money.

The US alone has also spent around 15 Billion developing Fast Breeder reactors, and has little to show for it. Other countries have similar experience.

Estimated cost to develop commercial LFTR reactors seems to be in the range 3 - 20 Billion USD. A commercial LFTR prototype seems to be likely 1 billion USD by most observers.

And you still have to build the reactors -- that won't be cheap either. Every known possible solution to replacing our energy infrastructure has a large economic cost, and significant to large environmental cost as well. Kind of the way large-scale engineering works.

Yet the cost of doing nothing will be larger yet, at least eventually. Peak fossil fuel is coming sooner or later, even if you master shale and methane hydrates with high recovery rates and limited environmental impact. There are a lot of third-world people in this world that would gladly join the first-world lifestyle which puts a severe constraint on expanding fossil fuels usage to match the growth in demand.

Personally, the combination of LFTR and renewable sources seems most likely to me to be commercially successful by 2050. Why, because the needed development seem to be within or nearly withing the capabilities of current engineering in both cases. Engineers are very happy to deliver good enough when the perfect seems unattainable.

Can't Purina use them in Zombie Chow? If so, I would rather feed that to the neighborhood zombies instead of my own gray matter?