Yes, CFLs are not always a slam dunk.

Yes, worrying about the lost joule heating from incandescent bulbs, is silyy in many cases. But then again, worrying about the extra heating in the summer is also silly in many cases. In many places in canada (and the Northern US) residential air conditioning is rare. Plus the nights are short in the summer. If you have 16 hours of daylight, you don't keep the house lights on very long. Yes, this is an edge case, but it is probably enough of an effect, that people in those climates should wait till their bulbs go out to relace them.

Another problem with CFL's at low temperatures is that many of them take some time to heat up. So they start out dim and it may take minutes until they give off their full amount of light.

Personally, I have also noticed that they CFL don't do very well with vibrations. I have had to replace CFLs on my garage door opeer much more quickly than incandescents.

So th main point is that lighting is complicated, and simple solutions like banning incandescents won't take care of all cases.

King,

I know it is a fairly common sentiment, but why isn't Wisconsin fun to watch? Why don't people like stifling defense, and patient, low turnover offense. I am a defense first kind of guy and I bleed Badger Red, so I know I far from an impartial observer. Still, I just don't get it. While some teams that play a wide open style can be fun to watch, the sloppiness that often goes with that style takes away from the fun.

Of course, I also thought the first ten minutes of the UNC vs WSU game last night was the best first ten minutes of a game that I have seen in this tournament. WSU very similar game to Wisconsin, and they did a good job grinding on UNC at the beginning, but they couldn't keep it up for long. I hope that Louisville can do a better job holding UNC, because I agree that it could make for a fun game..

Amy Sedaris in Strangers with Candy is a nice example of dressing ugly for comedy.

If you want a shorter and more fun summary of BSG so far, go watch "What the Frak is Going On?" at http://www.scifi.com/battlestar/ . It is an eight minute video summary with narration that manages to include a review and clips from the miniseries and the first three seasons of the show. It is a fun review to get ready for season four, though it probably isn't enough if you haven't watched thee show at all.

Here's a direct link - http://www.scifi.com/index.php?clip=frak .

This article is just a compilation of desperate arguments.

a) If the system were winner take all, Hillary Clinton would be ahead. The system is not winner take all, and all of the campaigns have formulated their strategies accordingly. Under different rules, both candidates would have apportioned their time differently, and Obama would not have spent so much time on states in which he had big leads.

b) Clinton would be ahead in the popular vote if you counted Michigan and Florida. I am sick of hearing about the popular vote from the supporters of both sides. The popular vote doesn't mean a thing. This is a contest for delegates. It is particularly disingenuous to worry about popular vote when there is a mix of caucuses and primaries. Both Obama and Clinton likely would have gained votes in the caucuses states if they had had primaries instead. Clinton probably would have narrowed the percentage gap she faces in those states, but Obama probably would have gotten more votes. But who knows for sure. The one thing that is certain is that adding primary votes and caucus votes together and pretending like you are getting a meaningful number is silly, especially since some states didn't even release vote totals for their caucuses.

As for Michigan and Florida, they knew what the rules were and they played accordingly. I hope that the DNC can broker a deal, but if not those delegations should not be seated.

c. Hillary has won more big states, which will be what matters in the electoral college. Once again the rules are the rules, and both campaigns have been playing by them. Besides which, Clinton has won a lot of big states that McCain has no chance at - New York, Massachusetts, and California, for example. So it is far from clear whether Obama or Clinton's electoral college situation is better. The fact that Clinton is polling better than Obama in Florida and Michigan is particularly meaningless since Obama has not had a chance to campaign there yet.

I am sure that I missed some of the arguments, but overall there was nothing very convincing here. Obama is ahead and Clinton has a difficult road to change that. Hypotheticals like those presented here don't prove anything.

Here's a nice story highlighting the depths of the fear some people have of the trans-gendered - http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hRM8TuoUDOrMtqw1uM5VuMGqyNvwD8VSOJOG0

(clicky link in my sig below)

A Christian radio network has encouraged it listeners to hound a school where the students dressed as the opposite sex one day as part of a "Wacky Week" celebration.

Is it really that scary if students cross-dress? Are these same people afraid of comedy skits and movies where cross-dressing occurs.

We had these sorts of days in school when I was growing up, and I don't think that there we ended up with a particularly high number of "deviants" in any of my classes. These people really need to get a grip.