Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Huge Newsgroups: comp.misc Subject: Re: Damned Windows Bloat Date: 18 Sep 2016 17:07:31 GMT Organization: Piglet's Pickles & Preserves Lines: 30 Message-ID: References: <87twdepefn.fsf@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> <20160918105111@news.eternal-september.org> Reply-To: usenet@huge.org.uk X-Trace: individual.net lhqeD7gR/cl9+6y0uVIvLQGWvAnvl9Dy0fZfZEZXK9znAe5pTO Cancel-Lock: sha1:Nse2W4UbTcDEfP2DCvHvxNl9p3I= X-No-Archive: Yes X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett User-Agent: slrn/1.0.1 (Linux) Xref: csiph.com comp.misc:12070 On 2016-09-18, Peter Mc Donough wrote: > Am 18.09.2016 um 16:54 schrieb Roger Blake: >> On 2016-09-18, Kerr Mudd-John wrote: >>> But why? when the alternatives (can be) brighter and cheaper to run? >> >> We prefer the quality of light given off by incandescents and they are >> very inexpensive. I stocked up when the enviro-wackos started making noises >> about using the government mafia to force them off the store shelves. >> I'll probably not have to buy another light bulb for the rest of my life. > > If you calculate the complete costs of incandescent light sources to > LEDs, the LEDs become cheaper after 500 to 1000 hours. From there on > they earn money, No they don't. They may *save* money, but they do not "earn" it. The only people who "earn" money from LED lighting are the people who made and sold it to you. [snippage] > In other words, you would still save money and the world if you throw > new incandescents away an replace them with LEDs where it makes sense;-) Which is what I have done. -- Today is Sweetmorn, the 42nd day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3182 I don't have an attitude problem. If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.