rharris50’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  I appreciate the useful information, and I appreciate the constructive comments.  Forgive me for being a curmudgeon, but could we please get away from referring to food incorrectly as "healthy?"  Clearly, organic food is not healthy--it's dead!  Unless you are eating your food while it is still alive (and thriving), it cannot be healthy.  In fact, food could be healthy (alive) and still full of chemicals that are toxic to us, so it can be healthy without being healthful to those who eat it.  We want food that will make US healthy.  The proper word is "healthful!"

  On The obvious advantage of organic food over conventional posted 2 months, 4 weeks ago 16 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  I guess objectivity is in the eye of the beholder.  I too have been involved with the media, but in many interviews and other stories I haven't observed that bias.  It's pretty hard to imagine that reporters inherently "desire to make industry look as bad as possible without being sued."  First of all, reporters are a heterogenous bunch, so generalization is dangerous (and typically wrong).  Second, the rules regarding libel are pretty loose, so that libel generally requires deliberate intent to defame, not just simple misstatements.  Third, if they do have a common goal it is to break a story first.  This is very frustrating to business people who are used to their media relations departments issuing press releases.  Except on Fox News, that is not the purpose of the news media.  Of course, there is a tendency to suppress a story if it will alienate a big advertiser whose revenues are important for the survival of the media source.  But that is the opposite of the bias to which you refer. 

  <!--Session data-->

  <!--Session data-->

  On How the 'OMB memo' non-story happened posted 5 months, 3 weeks ago 19 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Palin distorting the truth again

  I hate to keep piling on, since this isn't even one of the lies (like the repeated fib about not supporting the "Bridge to Nowhere"), but isn't it interesting that she actually challenged Gibson when he reminded her that she has changed her position on the human influence on global warming.  She twisted his statement, pointing out that she had never said "there's absolute proof that nothing that man has ever conducted or engaged in has had any effect...on global warming."  Nice try, but obviously, that's not what Gibson said.  Where did the "absolute proof" nonsense come from?  It was a disingenuous way to perpetuate an untruth about her clear earlier denial of human involvement in global warming. How ridiculous, and nobody has called her on it.  I guess she gets a free pass again, in spite of the right-wing claim that she is being persecuted when she is asked about her positions.On Palin parries with Charles Gibson on climate change posted 1 year, 1 month ago 15 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  CFL's have come a long way

  I'm puzzled by Nyx's statement that "CFL's don't work in timers" (because the ballasts require more current). I have been using them with timers for quite a while without problems.  I also use them with electric eyes to turn them on and off automatically, depending on ambient light.  My understanding is that unlike timers, these sensors may reduce the current available to the light, but again, I have had no problems (as long as I use a sensor with a time delay to avoid the "flicker" problem at dawn or dusk, when the ambient lighting is marginal.On Umbra on mercury in CFLs posted 2 years, 3 months ago 17 Responses