Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Power United States Technology

US To Extinguish (Most) Incandescent Bulb Sales By 2012 1106

Engadget has noted a report in the New York Times that that the US has "passed a law barring stores from selling incandescent light bulbs after 2012. 'Course, the EU and Australia have already decided to ditch the inefficient devices in the not-too-distant future, but a new energy bill signed into law this week throws the US into the aforementioned group. Better grab a pack of the current bulbs while you still can — soon you'll be holding a sliver of history."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US To Extinguish (Most) Incandescent Bulb Sales By 2012

Comments Filter:
  • What? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by tripwirecc ( 1045528 ) on Monday December 24, 2007 @10:30AM (#21805290)
    Until there's full spectrum fluorescent lights, you're not going to pry incandescent bulbs out of my hands!
  • the poor reptiles (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Coraon ( 1080675 ) on Monday December 24, 2007 @10:30AM (#21805292)
    All reptile heat lights are incandesiant, there the only bulbs that produce the right kinds of heat and light for alot of exotic pets (like my bearded dragon) I hope your law makers made an exception. "wont someone please think of the lizards!"
  • Impressive.... (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 24, 2007 @10:34AM (#21805314)
    Consider the amount of materials going into a compact fluorescent light like copper. They weigh approximately half a pound. Now think of the current incandescent package. Now think of how long a compact fluorescent lasts in reality, which in my tests--yes, I have dated the bulbs that I have installed--have lasted more like eighteen to twenty-four months.

    LED's aren't produced large-scale, and nothing other than incandescent can provide the transient light response or color. Try creating a fake transient when you turn on the light by pulsing it. You can tell when a light is pulsed, even to hundreds of pps, and it hurts most people's eyes. Think of modern-day tail lights. This just isn't going to be a nice solution!
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 24, 2007 @10:35AM (#21805328)
    And they all suck. I've bought at least 6 different dimming CF bulbs, and they all suck at dimming. They can't dim very far at all, tend to flicker and go out, and if you dim them too quickly, most all of them go out.

    I have at least 30 or 40 bulbs that I would replace in a heartbeat if they would support dimming in any reasonable fashion whatsoever. They don't, so I can't. ;(
  • by effigiate ( 1057610 ) on Monday December 24, 2007 @10:36AM (#21805332)
    I've been using 240V / 250W bulbs in my house for a while now. The filament life is related to the how hot it gets and for how long it is on. 250W bulbs have a MUCH larger filament than 60W bulbs because they're supposed to get brighter. If you run a 240V bulb at 120V, you get out about 1/4 of the wattage, making that 250W bulb look like 50W and also lasting at least four times as long.
  • by MikeB0Lton ( 962403 ) on Monday December 24, 2007 @10:37AM (#21805354)
    "Congress has not specifically outlawed incandescent bulbs, only inefficient ones."

    Thankfully I'll still be able to get newer more efficient incandescent bulbs, and LED is slowly becoming reasonable. Fluorescent bulbs shining on an active table saw can give the impression that the blade has stopped, which is really not good for my fingers. Incandescent doesn't do that to me.
  • by TheMeuge ( 645043 ) on Monday December 24, 2007 @10:42AM (#21805408)
    That's true, although it'll be hard to get incadescents to meet those energy standards.

    However, I am again disturbed by the ability of our politicians to play the "ban it" game in order to appear capable of taking action. They are getting exquisitely efficient at banning various things we use in everyday life. Really, if politicians ban something every time they need to raise $100'000, in a couple of decades they probably will have banned procreation.

    Seriously though, if they really cared about the efficiency of the bulbs, and wanted to spend more than a passing gaze at dealing with the problem, I think they would've refrained from such massive ridiculousness. Granted, incadescents are not efficient, but CFLs don't yet have as complete and warm a spectrum (I use them everywhere though), and many decorative light fixtures simply require incadescents.

    Wouldn't it have made more sense, to pressure the market economically, rather than legally, and simply levy enough of a tax on the incadescent bulbs, to make them more expensive than the fluorescents, while at the same time using the money to subsidize the LED and CFL technologies?
  • Re:Lead in CFL Bulbs (Score:2, Interesting)

    by afedaken ( 263115 ) on Monday December 24, 2007 @10:43AM (#21805422) Homepage
    The last time Slashdot featured this topic, IIRC it was started that the amount of mercury contained in a CFL was far less than the equivalent mercury released to the atmosphere by coal-powered energy produced to light an incandescent of equivalent brightness.
  • Re:wow (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BVis ( 267028 ) on Monday December 24, 2007 @10:44AM (#21805444)
    This is typical of the 'magic bullet' theory of energy conservation. CFLs are just another small way that we can all use less energy. They are not a cure-all. You still need to get your boiler serviced, seal your windows in the winter, insulate your house, trade in your stupid-ass SUV for something more efficient, turn off lights you're not using, install a programmable thermostat, purchase energy-star rated appliances when it's time to replace them, carpool, set your computers to go to sleep when idle, etc etc etc.

    There's no one-step easy solution. CFLs save energy, yes, but they're not perfect. They won't cure the world's ills.

    I for one am glad to see legislation forcing energy conservation, because without it, there's a significant portion of the US population that will refuse to conserve energy because it requires effort on their part, and another (overlapping) portion that do the opposite of what people suggest that they do, because they're rebels and good 'merkins who'll do the opposite of what people say "because they can". People need to be protected from their own stupidity sometimes.
  • Re:What? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by KillerBob ( 217953 ) on Monday December 24, 2007 @10:45AM (#21805456)

    Until there's full spectrum fluorescent lights, you're not going to pry incandescent bulbs out of my hands!

    There... are. I have a 32W full spectrum CF light in a lamp by my computer that I affectionately call my "artificial sun". With an effective brightness equivalent to a 120W incandescent, it's quite good at keeping me awake long hours.
  • by cheebie ( 459397 ) on Monday December 24, 2007 @10:48AM (#21805494)
    ...need to use light bulbs outside, since fluorescents don't
    tolerate cold well. ...need a light that turns on and off frequently (like traffic
    lights), cause that uses a lot MORE energy in a fluorescent. ...want dimmer switches, since fluorescents don't work with them.

    This is just silly. Sure, use the more efficient fluorescents
    where they make sense, but don't ban all incandescents just because
    the commercials on HGTV keep telling you it will save the universe.
  • by BVis ( 267028 ) on Monday December 24, 2007 @10:56AM (#21805560)
    You've got a couple good ideas, but there's some issues there:

    If the bulbs were not made unavailable (banned) then there are those that would continue to use them because of either some perceived benefit of incandescents over CFLs, an irrational aversion to change, or for no other reason than to be contrary.

    The additional market for CFLs that this will generate will create consumer demand for CFLs with as identical a color spectrum as physically possible to an incandescent bulb. I've got several of these bulbs in my house and the light is plenty warm enough for me.

    Passing a ban on inefficient technology is orders of magnitude easier than passing a 'new tax'. Try that and you'll get the GOP all up your ass about increasing the tax burden on the working class. Besides, CFLs have enough critical mass for the industry to innovate without requiring government subsidy, and the market for LED lighting is potentially so ginormous that industry will take the chance on the investment required.
  • Re:wow (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Machtyn ( 759119 ) on Monday December 24, 2007 @11:05AM (#21805658) Homepage Journal
    The problem I have with these new bulbs is that they promise five years worth of use before burning out. I have yet to have a bulb last more than 6 months.
  • by GnarlyDoug ( 1109205 ) on Monday December 24, 2007 @11:08AM (#21805692)
    I can only guess that yet another variation of the mis-reading of the Commerce Clause is used to justify Congress somehow having the power to ban the sale of certain classes of incandescent light bulbs. Why don't we just get it over with and repeal the whole Constitution? No one's paying attention to it anyway.

    I wonder what the profit margins for the fluorescents are? I bet they're higher. Congress rarely does anything unless money changed hands somewhere. Personally I've been buying the fluorescents becuase they are supposed to last a lot longer and I hate having bulbs burn out on me, and I've found them ok for the most part anyway. However I have not bought them to replace all of my light bulbs. There are a few places where the incandescents are better suited such as my dimmer lights and in the bathroom.

    The market would have sorted this all out eventually and we would have wound up with better bulbs of both types. Instead now the game has been called off and we'll wind up with more expensive crappier products. Eventually they'll ban all incandescents except for speciality applications and the pressure for the fluorescents to have to compete and improve and become cheaper to displace incandescents will be gone.

    *Sigh* Once again it is shown that we (in America) are all now living under a regime of soft fascism.

  • by e**(i pi)-1 ( 462311 ) on Monday December 24, 2007 @11:10AM (#21805706) Homepage Journal
    I like the warmer light of light bulb. The spectral distribution of fluorescent light is different and I personally consider it more aggressive light. It might be due to higher spikes in the spectral distribution. Hallogen light is the worst. I find it aggressive. Banning incandescant light makes sense but I want to be able to buy alternatives which have a similar feel and spectral distribution. When comparing fluorescent, incandescant and LED light one always focuses on the cost and efficiency and not also on the effect it has on people.
  • Re:wow (Score:4, Interesting)

    by 4D6963 ( 933028 ) on Monday December 24, 2007 @11:26AM (#21805866)

    You still need to get your boiler serviced, seal your windows in the winter, insulate your house, trade in your stupid-ass SUV for something more efficient, turn off lights you're not using, install a programmable thermostat, purchase energy-star rated appliances when it's time to replace them, carpool, set your computers to go to sleep when idle, etc etc etc.

    Just wondering, if where I live (in France) all the power I consume comes from a nuclear power plant, does it still matter if I do all of that?

  • by denzacar ( 181829 ) on Monday December 24, 2007 @11:31AM (#21805914) Journal
    Not the Cheapo brand.

    I've managed to convince my family to replace all but 3 light bulbs with CF ones.
    Main problem was the initial cost - something like $9-10 per CF light bulb.
    With incandescent ones costing around $0.40 - its obvious why everyone was against wasting money on fancy light bulbs. It took a lot of talking and I only got to replace them one at a time.

    Ahh... but since we are using these CF light bulbs (Philips 100W and 75W ones) none of them has burned out. They are going through their second year now.
    Those other 3 incandescent light bulbs have been burning out at a steady rate of about 6 months of use. Philips or "brand X" - the same thing.

    Now, with these CF bulbs in place, our electric bill is so low that my father thought that something was wrong with the meter. The number of kWh was just too low.
    Thing is... for every kWh of electricity used on lights we spend now - we used to spend five before.

    On the other hand... cheap Chinese CF bulbs... I am not really keen on trying those out.
    They cost about 2-3 times less then the brand names, but when I see that they have misspelled the land of origin (PRC was spelled LRC)... ummm.. something makes me doubt their quality control.
  • Re:wow (Score:3, Interesting)

    by BVis ( 267028 ) on Monday December 24, 2007 @11:31AM (#21805916)
    Do you heat your house with that electricity as well? If not, servicing your heating system will still save fossil fuel.

    And using less energy is always a better idea, if for no other reason than your electric bill goes down.
  • Re:What? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by blincoln ( 592401 ) on Monday December 24, 2007 @11:48AM (#21806102) Homepage Journal
    I have a 32W full spectrum CF light in a lamp by my computer

    Fluorescents by their nature are not full-spectrum. They have tall, narrow spikes right in the middle of where our eyes are sensitive to red, green, and blue, and virtually no output anywhere else in the spectrum.
    It's enough to fool human eyes, and not much else. I wouldn't be surprised if pets had trouble seeing by fluorescent light.
  • by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Monday December 24, 2007 @11:59AM (#21806244) Homepage
    * CFLs do contain mercury, but it is only a problem if the bulbs are broken or disposed of improperly. The amount of mercury in an average CFL is about 1/100 the amount contained in one of those old mercury thermometers. Also, the largest man-made source of mercury pollution is coal-fired power plants, which CFL usage will reduce. In addition, newer CFLs are being released that contain much less mercury than current ones (source [pdf] []).

    I guarentee that 90% of all CFL bulbs that have been disposed of over the past 5 years by consumers went into the trash bin and NOT a special bulb recycle bin. This is a trend that will not change as people are lazy.

      * It is true that some CFLs don't live up to their rated life. All Energy Star compliant bulbs are required to include at least a two-year manufacturer warranty (source []).

    Most bulbs bought by americans are in the local stores and home improvement stores, they dont order high quality, they grab what is cheapest on the display. Most cheap crap CFL's die early and overall suck with long warm up times and nasty coloration.

      * CFLs are available in all sorts of variants, including candle (regular and candelabra base) [], globe [], reflector [], three-way [], etc.
            * CFLs are available in a wide range of color temperatures, from 2700K ("warm" incandescent) to 5100K ("daylight"). Many CFLs are indistinguishable from their incandescent equivalents (that is, until you touch them and don't get burned).

    Really? then why do most CFL's get hot enough to be painful? EVERY SINGLE CFL in my home is at least 150 degrees at the ballast, bulb base.

    * Dimmable CFLs [], which work on standard dimmer switches, exist. While they do not have exactly the same dimming behaviors as incandescents, I've found them to be more than adequate.

    I call BS, I have tried to find dimmable CFL's that dont suck. and have yet to find any. even the specalty $49.99 each dimmables from the specalty online shops are no better than the crap GE bulb for $9.25 at Walmart. None ofthese work in home automation or normal dimmers. Give me make and model numbers of what you have that work perfect in dimmers and I'll try it to prove you right.

    I would LOVE to have CFL's out there and reccomend them to clients. but I cant. I cant find ANY CFL lamps that are worth using in a upscale home or even a home where people like dimmers and instant on light. the biggest savings would be in outdoor lighting wher you have 500 watt bulbs as the norm and CFL still fails. I need motion lights to be on at 80% bright in -5C in less than .5 seconds. NONE of the CFL's on the market do this. only the $95.00 each 9 watt LED nichaLED PAR40 bulbs I have do this. multiply that by 8 bulbs and only the incredibly rich can afford them.
  • Business Opportunity (Score:3, Interesting)

    by phorest ( 877315 ) on Monday December 24, 2007 @12:09PM (#21806386) Journal

    Just like going to a hamfest -or- vintage electronics show/flea market, you too can set up shop next to the vintage vacuum tube sellers...

  • Re:mod parent up. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by darjen ( 879890 ) on Monday December 24, 2007 @12:09PM (#21806398)
    And why, exactly, should I believe in social contract theory? Second, what happens when the government is making it possible for the "sociopathic greedheads" to do this? (as in the easy money policies of the federal reserve making this profitable for big lending houses)
  • Re:wow (Score:4, Interesting)

    by UbuntuDupe ( 970646 ) * on Monday December 24, 2007 @12:33PM (#21806706) Journal
    These debates frustrate me more than anything else. All of you are asking the wrong question. It shouldn't be:

    "Does the government have the right to ban incandescents for the public good?"

    It shouldn't even be:

    "What things are inefficient enough to justify banning?"

    It should be:

    "Do all people appropriately incorporate the environmental externalities of their decisions?"

    Any attempts to address the problem that avoid that question, are going to be haphazard -- and probably counterproductive -- approximations of what we do want. The reason is that when you say something is "wasteful" -- and thus hurting the environment -- you're making a judgment you literally cannot be qualified to make. Efficiency is "benefit provided per cost expended". I accept that you can tell me the cost expended, but the benefit provided exists purely in the mind of the user.

    With that in mind, proposing a ban on incandescents is no different from:

    -Banning all foods except enriched gruel.
    -Banning PS3s since "You can just get a Wii and BluRay isn't that good anyway."
    -Banning living more than 20 miles from work since, hey, not many people use public transportation.

    Furthermore a ban on one thing you deem "wasteful" does not change the incentive structure for the infinite number of other changes people could be making in their lives. If all you do is save me money on lighting, I'll get extra free money and just waste fossil fuels in some other way. What energy-free thing do you think people are going to do with the extra money?

    A far more robust and less annoying solution is to just assess the total environmental cost per unit of fuel consumed, add it in the form of a tax, and apply the proceeds toward sinks and abatement. Then, all decisions throughout the entire economy adjust, and you don't need to think about banning individual items. You don't need to debate which things people *really* get a benefit from. You don't need to carve out exceptions for French people who get the power from their incandescents from nuclear, or movie stars that "really" need their SUV or movie lighting. You don't need to go to environmental high priests to calculate the "total cost" of what you do, since the retail price would already do that. You don't even need to raise public awareness.

    A ban on incandescents is just typical BS feel-good legislation.


    Prediction: based on past threads, people will read this ALTERNATE SOLUTION as global warming denial, or the claim that government should do nothing.
  • Tax, don't ban (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Monday December 24, 2007 @12:57PM (#21806956) Journal
    There are some legitimate uses for old-style bulbs. For example, we have a few spots in our house that don't fit the newer kind. There's simply not space in that area. Rather than outright ban them, why not just tax them heavily. That would discourage use without removing the choice altogether. Plus, it's nice revenue for the gov't. I thought they liked that. It's like a "sin tax" that you find on cigarettes, booze, etc.
  • by PietjeJantje ( 917584 ) on Monday December 24, 2007 @01:15PM (#21807186)
    I wonder how you got modded 5 Interesting. There is no such thing as "the warmer light of the light bulb". Light bulbs and CFLs come in a variety of color temperatures. You can have a warmer CFL than your normal light bulb. Hey, I don't think computers will get anywhere with their low resolution displays, only 32 colors and little memory. Oh wait, that was 15 years ago. It's funny how people that should be technology savvy become twits when it comes to CFLs. Yet, the lack of knowledge didn't seem to stop you from posting. If you showed such ignorance about, say, Linux here, you'd have tarred and feathered. Alas, +5 for you. But no, CFLs aren't the cold colored, slow starting, undimmable, large affairs they were when introduced way back in the dark ages.
  • Re:wow (Score:2, Interesting)

    by dhanson865 ( 1134161 ) on Monday December 24, 2007 @01:17PM (#21807214)
    Have you ever broken a CFL? Have you ever seen one burn out?

    I have something like 15 or 20 of them and I've moved from apartment to apartment, from state to state. I haven't lost any of them that I've dropped to breakage and I haven't damaged any of them during the moving process. Furthermore I've had CFLs so long I'm not sure the exact year I got the first one. I'm thinking it was between 1999 and 2001. Lets say my oldest CFL has seen regular use for 6 years. I have seen them get dimmer but I've never seen one stop working entirely and I've never seen one flicker like the old long tube fluorescents did.

    I'm sure at some point I'll have to dispose of some of them but they so far have outlived my concern about their ruggedness.
  • Re:wow (Score:4, Interesting)

    by LoadWB ( 592248 ) * on Monday December 24, 2007 @01:58PM (#21807664) Journal
    The issue of Hg content in CFLs is pretty well known. The real problem is that people are not educated about the recycling which can be done, and a sub-problem is cost. I take all of my electronics to the landfill where several types of hazardous waste products are recycled (supposedly, but that is out of my hands and another source of conspiracy theory altogether.) But I am only one of two people in my group of friends that does this.

    So instead, most households will just throw the bulbs away like the do incandescents. It also comes up to cost. Now, the local landfill does not charge for household waste, but I am aware that some do. For ones that do charge, there should be some way to subsidize the cost so that people are encouraged to recycle. I have often proposed a small recycling fee added to hazardous waste products, like $1 each for consumer electronics, $.25 each for CFLs, etc., that is built into the price of the product.

    My experience with CFLs versus old computers has been a harsh one. I no longer use CFLs in my computer lab because of the quickness of plastic yellowing which it appears to cause. Case in point, I had a Commodore 1080 monitor sitting on a desk in the room which had advanced yellowing on surfaces exposed to the fluorescent light, including lines where shadows fell. The front of my Commodore 128D suffered the same, as did a fairly young beige Antec PC case. No more. I use a halogen now and have not noticed any yellowing in this light.

    I take issue with a legislative ban on incandescents period rather than a specific energy efficiency rating. General Electric announced a technology which increases the efficiency of incandescents. I wonder if this technology ever made it out of the lab and into the market.

    I want to also quickly address two of your points. Firstly, lighting color (temperature) is a big issue for photography and videography, as well as make-up. Secondly, I have included here a link to a reliable source about fluorescent lighting and depression [] -- but in all seriousness, since different CFLs have different temperatures, it should not be a difficult leap to link those colors to psychological states.

    On a personal note, I have found that cheaper fluorescents (CFL or otherwise) have a flicker which cause me to experience headaches, and that a brand available at The Home Depot called n:vision produces a series with a higher temperature and therefore whiter light which I enjoy.
  • Re:wow (Score:3, Interesting)

    by tylernt ( 581794 ) on Monday December 24, 2007 @02:08PM (#21807794)

    Also CFL's have NASTY coloration
    I don't get this. I switched to CFLs 5 or 6 years ago, and the color has never bothered me, even back when CFLs were in their infancy. In fact, I even have a few of the "blue" 6500K "daylight" bulbs and I love the cleaner whiter color. It's a little surprising at first but I actually prefer them to the dirty dingy yellow that incandescents produce.

    Admittedly, CFLs don't work with motion sensors, as I found out the hard way. However, by 2012 the people making motion sensors (and presumably, home automation devices) are going to change their circuitry design to work with CFLs, so this will be non-issue eventually.
  • Re:wow (Score:3, Interesting)

    by arminw ( 717974 ) on Monday December 24, 2007 @02:24PM (#21807972)
    .......People need to be protected from their own stupidity sometimes.....

    Yes, and the ones doing the protecting are a million times stupider, since they appointed themselves to protect the unwashed masses from themselves. It's that big brother mentality carried to the nth degree of stupidity and is a major reason why so many are refusing to take responsibility for themselves.

    These CFL bulbs make people look like death warmed over, contain mercury, one of the most toxic heavy metals known and other poisonous chemicals. They don't work with dimmer switches, which allow lights to use less power when they are not needed at full power. They also don't work in refrigerators and ovens. Those outdoors in cold places die soon and don't give much light until warmed up. Those who use electricity for heat, will be running their heater more, to make up for the heat the lights don't give off.

    Maybe LED lights will become bright and inexpensive enough, but for most applications, CFLs are crap. But then when have the elites that run much of our government and those from some environmental groups ever considered what is practical?

    There are other, much more significant ways of saving larger amounts of energy. For example, turning down the thermostat on a 5000 watt water heater will save a lot more power than a few lights using some hundreds of watts.

    In most of life, there are trade offs, and CFLs is one of the worst to come along in a long time.
  • Re:wow (Score:3, Interesting)

    by cellocgw ( 617879 ) <cellocgw@g[ ] ['mai' in gap]> on Monday December 24, 2007 @02:26PM (#21807988) Journal
    Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
    C. S. Lewis (1898 - 1963)

    Given Lewis' position on religions and the rather obvious interpretation of that statement as a description of an all-powerful God Is My Shepherd figure, I'd be interested in knowing what Lewis actually intended (as opposed to this out of context use in /.)

  • Re:wow (Score:3, Interesting)

    by hedwards ( 940851 ) on Monday December 24, 2007 @04:08PM (#21808826)
    I disagree, this particular initiative is wrong headed and a little bit cruel.

    Speaking as somebody that has issues dealing with fluorescent lighting, this is a step in the wrong direction. It hurts my eyes, causes migraines, encourages people to leave their lights on constantly, causes huge headaches when it comes to disposal. In general it is just a poor solution to the problem.

    A better solution would be to invest money in solar energy, or allow individuals that do have solar arrays to use whatever lighting they feel like.

    I personally would be willing to pay an additional tax to keep using incandescent lighting until such a time as they have a reasonable alternative to it. I'm not about to suffer acute physical pain, and have to take days off of work, so that some feel good environmentalists can get their pat on the back.

    It would make far more sense to just introduce a form of congestion pricing on electricity, to encourage people to figure out for themselves how to fix the problem. The biggest issue with these types of things is that we in the US pay far less for our coal, and gasoline than people do in other countries, and as such we over use them. Place a higher cost on the commodities and people figure out on their own how to cut their usage. Kind of like magic, if you think about it.

    It isn't a coincidence that the majority of the Red states have much lower fuel costs than the Blue states do, or how the environmentalists are much more common in the areas with high fuel costs. Not to suggest that there is necessarily a moral superiority or anything like that, but there is more than a little correlation there.

Thus spake the master programmer: "Time for you to leave." -- Geoffrey James, "The Tao of Programming"