https://climatepledgearena.com/news-archive/ilficertification
It’s right there on the webpage that they are LED.
But the justification seems pretty weak to me:
The lights of the sign are LED and choosing faux-neon uses 30 percent less power than neon.
“Neon is an energy hog and high maintenance because you have to change out the lights,” said Goodfellow. “LED will last tens of thousands of hours. This is a vanguard step for the [Climate Pledge] movement rather than the signs of old. It’s better for the planet.”
If they used (say) just 30% the energy of neon, maybe demonstrating the technology could be a good idea. But 70%?
Wouldn’t it send a better message to say that we just don’t need huge glowing signs like this at all? Even if the energy budget is somehow offset, what about light pollution?
Right, it was meant as a rhetorical question to @eschereal’s assertion that they were “massive neon signs”.
It did not take me long to find this out, I did not expect someone to come back a week later to assume that I was the one who was confused on this.
30% less is 30% less. That’s not a bad improvement. I don’t see on there that they will be lit up all night. There are two schools of thought on leaving neon signs on 24/7, but most seem to think that they last longer if you do. I’m not sure the jury is in on that. But, LEDs do not have that controversy, and can definitely be turned off, or even turned down.
The question you asked had not been clarified in the thread, I was just doing so and expanding the discussion. I really couldn’t care less how much you personally (secretly) knew or didn’t know, and I wasn’t commenting on that.
Not, it was clarified in the link in the post to which I was responding, as you ever so patronizingly pointed out.
Your expansion was solely to opine that 30% didn’t seem a very good savings to you.
So, you didn’t recognize a rhetorical question for what it was, and rather than admit that, you double down. It was no secret, I used the word LED because I was aware that it used LEDs, according to the article that was linked to in the post to which I responded.
You’re the one doubling down. I believe you when you say you intended it to be rhetorical, but nothing indicates that in what you actually wrote. Objectively, it reads as a straightforward question.
My response wasn’t intended to be patronizing, I was just stating that the source of my answer to your apparent question was the original article, and continuing the discussion.
Anyway, I’m done here, feel free to have the last word if you’re so determined to take a straightforward discussion of a mundane issue so personally.
I wonder how many b-ball fans are going to want to buy season tickets to watch the Seattle Climate Pledgers.
Okay this might qualify. I certainly understand the motivation, but if this report is accurate (I haven’t checked for other sources) this is a bad liberal idea.
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, signed legislation on Tuesday prohibiting the sale of Confederate flags on public property, including at state and local fairs.
ETA: here’s a less biased source,but the gist remains the same.
Are you kidding? This appears to me to be the equivalent of “you can’t sell swastika flags in front of the Holocaust museum”.
I’m surprised the state doesn’t have the right to regulate what gets sold from their own property, and at events they organize.
I’m not sure I would support that kind of law either. I hate the confederate flag (and Nazi symbols) as much as some people hate seeing someone burn the American flag. Nonetheless, protected speech is protected speech.
On state property? I think that’s a bit different.
The Government can’t (generally) base speech restrictions on content. Private parties can.
It is a bit different, but not too much.
The public forum doctrine is an analytical tool used in First Amendment jurisprudence to determine the constitutionality of speech restrictions implemented on government property. Courts employ this doctrine to decide whether groups should have access to engage in expressive activities on such property.
Most scholars trace the lineage of the public forum doctrine to Justice Owen J. Roberts’s opinion in Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization (1939), in which he wrote: “Wherever the title of streets and parks may rest, they have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions. Such use of the streets and public places has, from ancient times, been a part of the privileges, immunities, rights, and liberties of citizens.”
Offering a thing for sale differs from using that thing as a means of expression. They are not talking about you may not wear your stars&bars duster to the fair, you just have to go somewhere else to get one. Government puts all manner of constraints on vending, rarely running afoul of the Constitution. Well, except guns, you can do anything you want wrt guns.
In my younger days I spent a lot of time researching first amendment issues exactly like this one. I firmly believe that allowing the sale of NY state flags and outlawing the sale of politically obnoxious flags at the NY state fair would violate the first amendment. The State is under no obligation to stock the flags themselves and offer them for sale, but they cannot prohibit certain items based on content of the message.
Having concluded that the New Mexico State Fair is a limited public forum, the Court must next determine whether the restrictions Defendants placed on Ultra Health are valid. “Once it has opened a limited forum … the State must respect the lawful boundaries it has itself set.” Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 829 (1995). The State may regulate the boundaries of the limited public forum it has created, but any government restriction on speech must be (1) reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum and (2) viewpoint neutral. Cornelius , 473 U.S. at 806. “In other words, although content-based discrimination is permissible in a limited or nonpublic forum if it preserves the purpose of the forum, when the government moves beyond restricting the subject matter of speech and targets ‘particular views taken by speakers on a subject,’ such viewpoint discrimination is ‘presumed impermissible.’ ”*
New Mexico Top Organics-Ultra Health, Inc. v. Kennedy, 1:17-CV-00599-JAP-LF, 2019 WL 211530, at *10 (D.N.M. Jan. 16, 2019),
Cite? As I said, I’ve never seen it used that way.
Also, note that you’re the one saying this, and not the poster who actually took offense at its usage. They had every opportunity to make the claim that the term is specifically used to antagonize Americans, but did not. So, even if true, this does not appear to be why they got upset.
(Sorry it’s been so long since I opened this thread.)
Yep.
If the prohibition extended to all flags, or all items for sale, the state might be able to argue that it was a viewpoint-neutral business regulation, or a time-place-manner restriction. But when the ban is on a specific message (in the form of a specific flag), and when some flags are allowed and others are banned, it will be subject to strict scrutiny, and will be very unlikely to survive.
Liberals trebucheted this weasel, made by gluing together moss into the shape of Buttigieg, into government.
Where do they find people this age who have the ghoulish disregard for life of a Mr Burns?
Do you support Medicare for all? No. Do you support a green new deal? No.
That’s about the most progressive someone can be and still get elected, barely, statewide in Georgia. What a relief for progressive values that he won! With the Senate under Democratic control, so many of Bernie’s policies, like a 15$/hr minimum wage, now have a chance to become law.