Click on a label to read posts from that part of the world.
Sep 13th 2010 4:27PM I would choose the Apollo Green
May 13th 2010 4:31PM I've got four CFLs in my outdoor lighting -- two of the curly 'standard' replacement bulbs and two of the 65W flood replacements. I live in Alaska and get months of below zero (Fahrenheit) weather every winter. I was concerned whether the cold would be a problem, but the bulbs work.
I think they're a little slow to reach full brightness when it's cold, but I've got them on a timer - they come on before we get home - so we're not around to notice.
Apr 19th 2010 2:26AM I saw another explanation for a plane that went down. I think it was the same one that this article mentioned included frozen bodies. The problem with the flight was that the crew had put the pressurization on 'manual.' An alarm sounded during take-off, but the crew mis-diagnosed it as something to do with take-off and turned off the alarm. The cabin and cockpit were never pressurized. By the time the crew started to realize that something was wrong, they were too groggy to think straight (or put on their oxygen masks). Everyone, including the crew, passed-out. Eventually the plane crashed. The article did not say how long the plane stayed up, but if the crew had engaged the autopilot, I imagine it could have been up for hours - with no pressurization, oxygen, or heat.
Tragic, but not an example of explosive depressurization, and not an example of freezing instantly.
Apr 18th 2010 1:14AM Visiting Grandma and Grandpa in Idaho.
Apr 12th 2010 10:10PM Instantly freezing skin at -40 F is an exageration. I attended college in Fairbanks, AK. We saw -40 for about a week every winter I was there. Yes, it was cold, but lots of people crossed from one building to another wearing no more than a standard shirt and jeans. I used to do it in a T-shirt and socks (and jeans). The cold doesn't soak in that quickly - and my socks stayed dry since the time it takes to take one step is too quick for the snow to melt. Some warm-weather folks will think this is impossible -- all I can say is this is what I saw and did.
Aug 9th 2008 2:20AM So you think we would be safer if we set traffic laws according to the stupidity of self-indulgent drivers?
That is wrong in so many ways!
If common sense is so common, why are there so many idiots?
Do you take the speed of the most reckless? Maybe the guy going 100 mph in a residential area. Maybe you set the speed according to the guy that skids off the corner. Maybe you set the speed according to the guy that kills a car full of kids.
If your prejudice against careful consideration were true then it follows that we should let drunks drive (and kill people) -- just set the limit according to the level of "prevailing drunkeness." Or we could allow thievery, assault, corruption - any number of social problems - with limits set according to the level of "prevailing crookedness."
Lastly, in Alaska at least, the law is that the state can not set a speed limit without doing a traffic study. Then they're limited to setting the speed no slower than 85% of the average. They can slow the flow a little, but they can't pick any arbitrary speed. Sorry to disappoint you, but speed limits are not created to personally piss you off.