Slashdot Mirror
Response To California's Large-Screen TV Regulation
An anonymous reader writes "It's great that unelected bureaucrats in California are clamoring to save energy, but when they target your big-screen TVs for elimination, consumers and manufacturers are apt to declare war. CEDIA and the CEA are up in arms over this. Audioholics has an interesting response that involves setting the TVs in 'SCAM' mode to meet the energy criteria technically without having to add additional cost or increase costs to consumers. 'In this mode, the display brightness/contrast settings would be set a few clicks to the right of zero, audio would be disabled and backlighting would be set to minimum. The power consumption should be measured in this mode much like an A/V receiver power consumption is measured with one channel driven at full rated power and the other channels at 1/8th power.' This is an example of an impending train wreck of unintended consequences, and many are grabbing the popcorn and pulling up chairs to watch."
Actually that's not funny. After all, the pigs already use infrared sensors to search homes without a warrant looking to bust up harmless pot farms. Maybe they'll add cool televisions to their targets when they invade our privies.
When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.
Actually, the goal of saving energy/reducing pollution from energy generation would be better served by taxing energy. You wouldn't have to have a TV set power consumption regulation office, you just take whatever the electric company charges and slap a percentage on top of that. Then you except commercial uses, and give everyone a standard tax rebate so that it's possible for nearly everyone to avoid the the tax by using electricity moderately.
Yes, it's another case of using the tax code to achieve something other than bringing in revenue, but it does the same thing that *regulation* would do, only across *all* uses of electric power, and without forcing anybody to change anything. If you absolutely MUST have that gigantic plasma TV, and absolutely DON'T want to pay without tax, you can go without lights or a refrigerator.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I think nothing could be better for the people of California. Tell the Federal Empire which robs us blind, kills our young men, and embroils us in endless overseas conflict to get lost. California would save tens of billions a year not paying taxes to the Empire, which we could turn around and use on our own infrastructure and defense. We have the eighth largest economy on our own, we don't need the American albatross hanging around our neck.
When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.
No, states don't have the right to leave the Union.
The United States Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869), that while the Union was "perpetual" and that secession ordinances were "absolutely null."
The thought that states can leave is just another misconception, like that Texas can go if they want. They can't, but they can be split into five states.
Alternatively, build another power plant.
Moderation : -1 Conservative Viewpoint
Disclaimer: I'm all for "green" and the environment when it makes sense. [cents?]
The problem with "green" is that it is not always the right time to do it. California's economy is in serious trouble. (Not the serious like.. Oh my, we need a new governor; I mean serious like in a few years we may not have a higher education system or any small businesses left. I'm employed in what's left of our higher education system and I see federal receivership as a real possible end.)
But what does this have to do with television regulation? I'm renovating a house. I want to improve my home, my neighborhood and California. But we have a piece of regulation called "Title 24" that is a lot like the Television regulation proposed. What does this mean for my renovation... Lighting costs 500% of what it should. You must have high efficacy lighting. This means compact fluorescent and, no, you can't get cheap Type A incandescent fixtures and screw in a retrofit CFL bulb. You have to use the plug socketed CFL fixtures. So "green" lighting for my house costs $6000 while older incandescent would have cost $1000.
This is a serious impediment to purchasing these lights. The same is going to be true for the televisions. They will be more expensive because they will have to be built with more sophisticated technology. People will balk at buying them. Oh.. wait... they don't have a choice because it's a draconian state law; so the only choice is not to buy a TV... or move to where you can. More people will move to any other state to avoid this crap (we are currently having a mass exodus of talented, skilled people and families). Manufacturers will move their manufacturing and marketing to areas more conducive to sales (again... already happening without, yet another, regulation).
And the end result is that California's economy and culture will slip into an even deeper disaster.
"Green" regulation gets myopic... "Since it's better for the environment it MUST be done, at all costs." Well, other factors of equal and greater importance, such as "will we be able to educate our children", exist and should be considered first. It might be the right time to regulate the banking industry but it is certainly not the time to regulate, yet another, consumer oriented product that in the last decade has already seen leaps and bounds of improvements in efficiency just based on natural evolution of the product's technology. Remember tube TVs?
I will never live for sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
Well as all monarchies eventually corrupt by sheer weight of power... Would you rather live in a corrupt monarchy or a corrupt democracy?
California's problems are self created. They spend more than they take in, it's just that simple. Removing themselves from the union would just add additional costs for subsidies that they currently get at the federal level.
Their problems stem mostly from social services run amok and loss of tax income revenue. They have a huge illegal problem (some estimates as high as 10 percent of their workforce) according to a recent non-partisan study, where folks earn money, and then simply send it back to Mexico. Same on the health care front. They end up offering social services not only to tax payers, but to the large illegal population. They also spend millions on wasteful social services they simply can't afford. I found it odd that everyone was screaming when they put those services on the chopping block in order to get a budget that would pass muster. They simply don't realize that you can't spend what you don't have. They've been in that sort of spend cycle for years, and it finally came to a breaking point.
Public schools are a biggie. They actually tried to deny illegal children the right to attend public schools but a federal judge blocked that. The illegal population can collect welfare, as well as take advantage of health services all on the taxpayer dollar. Many of these are also avoiding taxes simply because they are paid cash for day labor. I'm generally about as left as you can go, but I have to stop short on giving a free ride to illegals. Unfortunately most border states suffer from the same issues.
Add on top of all that their tax system, which relies almost heavily on income taxes (over half of their budget money comes from this). Every time the economy tanks, so does their revenue.
They have a lot of problems that have to be addressed both in their taxation, and spending. Succeeding from the union won't fix them.