Do not put CFLs in areas where the bulb is frequently turned on and off. CFLs are limited more by the number of on-off cycles than the number of hours they run. Their lifetime of CFLs is also dramatically lower if they don't heat up to operating temperature before turning off.

Personally I won't touch CFLs for this reason.

Been experimenting with a set of 12.5w / 60w equiv Phillips Endura LEDs instead. So far I'm pleased with them.

Hostilities is the plural of hostile. Or rather, hostilities is when two sides are fighting each other. One could make the argument that if the other side doesn't (or can't) shoot back that we are just being hostile and are not engaged in hostilities.

WebGL effectively executes code from the web (effectively) in ring0. Silverlight and flash execute code from the web in (effectively) a sandbox.

The woodcarver was also shot in the back. And the DA refused to press charges. The police union also insisted that the shooting was justified and that officer followed proper procedures and training.

I think the number of people killed by police in the Seattle area is similar to the number of murders that have occured in the same time frame...

0.08mSv is a typical dose received from a chest X-ray.
2-6mSv are doses typically received over a year from background radiation
10mSv is the dose received with a CT scan
  50mSv is believed to be safe.
50-250mSv is believed to increase the risk of cancer, but there isn't enough data to determine what (if any) long term health effects there are.
250-500mSv is known to increase the risk of cancer and shorten life, but the long term effects of exposure to this range are not fully understood.
500-2500mSv will cause acute radiation sickness, and is likely to cause cancer, shortlen life, etc.
2500mSv-4000mSv will kill roughly half of the people exposed.
(and it gets worse from there)

Ever hear of The Container Store?

If you earn only $20k per year, you receive government assistance for food and medical needs.

That's beside the point though -- it's tough living on that amount of money. Hell, why don't we just take another $20k from the rich person and just give it to the poor guy earning $20k? Now he's got $40k and the rich person is still rich. But it's tough living on that amount of money too ... even though we just doubled it. So where do you draw the line?

At some point you have to realize that the person earning only $20k per year has made decisions throughout their life which lead them there. THEIR choices led them there. We don't live in a socialist society; the fact that life is hard for person a doesn't give you the right to take something from person b (whom you perceive to have it easy); all men are created equal. The goal is to ensure that people living below the poverty line don't die of sickness or starve to death, not to make their life easier for them because they regret the decisions they've made.

At the end of the day, no matter what you make, if you made x% more things would be easier: you could afford a nicer car, a bigger house, better vacation, take your wife out for a nice dinner, better college for your child, etc. You certainly don't NEED those things, but you want them. And then you find yourself looking at the guy earning over $500k and think to yourself "gee, he's got a lot of things he doesn't need; if only he was a bit less greedy and shared it with me/that poor guy/whomever, I could get something that I WANT."

The you presented your information in relative terms, which is misleading in it convinces the math challenged that the person earning $20k per year pays more in taxes than someone earning over $500k per year. Some of the responses to your initial post clearly demonstrate that effect.

And of course living on $16k is more difficult than living on $521k. Living on $20k is substantially more difficult than living on $21k too. However, the purpose of the tax code isn't to correct perceived inequalities between classes or income brackets -- it is to fund government services.

Even if the guy earning $20k paid no taxes, and the guy earning $537k paid an additional $4k in taxes to make up for it, the person earning $537k earns 26x as much as the guy earning $20k.

The guy earning $20k is dirt poor because he only earns $20k, not because the guy earning $537k isn't paying enough taxes.

It is certainly fair to argue that a person earning more money should shoulder a greater burden of government costs, but don't insult my intelligence by trying to make it look like they don't contribute anything.

To put it in real numbers, if you earn $20k you pay $3460 in taxes. If you earn $537k you pay $15573 in taxes (or about 4.5x as much as the guy earning $20k).

This isn't about a billionaire tax. The state of Washington doesn't have ANY income tax. It's prohibited by the state constitution, which requires "all taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of property". This initiative tries to bypass the constitution by introducing an excise tax. If it passes, two years later the state legislature can monkey with it all they want. Suddenly, your billionaire tax is an everyman tax.

Don't think the legislature would be so stupid? See I-960 ... a voter approved initiative to require a 2/3 majority to raise taxes. For two years, they can't get a 2/3 majority to raise taxes. Victory for the people! Two years passes, at which point only a simple majority is required to modify the initiative, and what do they do? They gut it.

Yes, much better to call them theiving oafs based on another set of questionable figures that don't add up...

Comcast is certainly capable of distributing the channels unencrypted. In fact, they did so for about 3 months here until they flipped the "encrypt everything" switch... Which they did shortly after the FCC granted a waiver allowing them to use a cheap converter box that didn't have a cable card in it. *sigh*

It was called 7 because they were original going to rev the major version to 7.0. Except doing so broke all of the apps/installers out there with dumbass version checks...

Marketshare wouldn't be increasing as a result of those mechanisms -- they've existed for years before Bing and didn't help "live search" marketshare.