• Adventures in Ethics and Science: Equal Pay Day 2011: There is Power in a Union
• The Difference Engine: Good Hair Day, Fair Pay Day
• The Spandrel Shop: Equal Pay Day!
• Fumbling Towards Tenure: Equal Pay Day Epic FAIL
• This Scientific Life: Penis Parity Day
• WhizBANG! $16,819 for a Penis
• Balanced Instability: WTF?! “Equal” Pay Day
• Everyday Biology: Equal Pay Day: Why Don’t Women Just Ask for More?

Edward Wyatt wrote an article in the New York Times on Friday titled “Give Up Familiar Light Bulb? Not Without Fight, Some Say.”

A 2007 bill, passed overwhelmingly by both houses of Congress and signed into law by George W. Bush, will make the familiar incandescent bulb subject to strict efficiency standards next year.

The effect will be to make current 100-watt bulbs obsolete — and that has sent conservative lawmakers, libertarians, some environmental activists … into a frenzy of activity to get the law repealed or, at least, to stockpile the bulbs before they disappear from store shelves.

A big part of the problem is that CFLs cost more than incandescent light bulbs, and they are more difficult to dispose of because they contain a few milligrams of mercury. Another part of the problem is that some CFLs produce harsh, seemingly unnatural light when compared to the soft glow of the traditional incandescent bulb. (However, I have discovered that I quickly get used to the light produced by CFLs.) And a third problem is that the bulbs are ugly, especially in sconces that do not have shades.

So some people are stockpiling old-style light bulbs so they can keep using them.

But regular light bulbs are low-quality, obsolete products with short lifetimes and poor energy efficiency, and any simple analysis—apparently beyond the capabilities of some people—demonstrates that if you pay more up front, you’ll save more money in the long run. We have converted almost entirely to CFLs at home, and our electricity bill has dropped noticeably.

Shervin Pishevar contributed a post today on TechCrunch about how to overcome this problem. Pishevar, the founder of the OpenMesh Project, is looking to provide network access to people living in such countries where the government has turned off the Internet and blocked mobile wireless networks.

OpenMesh’s basic idea is that we could use some new techniques to create a secondary wireless Internet in countries like Libya, Syria, Iran, North Korea and other repressive regimes to allow citizens to communicate freely. By creat[ing] mobile routers that connect together we could create a wireless network that mobile phones and personal computers can connect to.

Readers have made useful comments about the feasibility of this approach and have pointed out some alternatives that are already under way.

Not that the universities in Oregon are all that good. I grew up in Oregon, and I earned two baccalaureate degrees from Portland State University (the largest university in the state). Oregon’s tax structure is not very good, and the universities are inadequately supported. In the 1960s, the University of Oregon had a reputation as one of the academically finest schools in the country. I’m afraid this reputation is long gone.

Football is bad for universities, but because football is so entertaining, there is no getting rid of it. Why should football coaches be paid millions of dollars when the best professors are underpaid? Why do universities damage the ability of their athletes to succeed academically by allowing their teams to play more games each season? Why do universities accept abysmally low graduation rates of their student athletes? Why do universities pour millions of dollars into football but not provide enough classes for their students? The answer is the corrupting influence of money.

So I say to Oregonians, “We’ve had our thrills and big moments this season. Now let’s turn back to what it really important, educating our young people.” Let’s hope that football teams in Oregon return to being mediocre and that Oregon spends its money on something important and useful, not football.

A study commissioned by the institute said that decades of experience had proved that the system could not reconcile the twin goals of individualized decisions about who should be executed and systemic fairness. It added that capital punishment was plagued by racial disparities; was enormously expensive even as many defense lawyers were underpaid and some were incompetent; risked executing innocent people; and was undermined by the politics that come with judicial elections.

The death penalty is never just, and it’s time to eliminate it.