Slashdot Mirror


EU Accepts Resolution Abolishing Planned Obsolescence, Making Devices Easier to Repair (retaildetail.eu)

Long-time Slashdot reader AmiMoJo writes: The European Parliament accepted a resolution to lengthen consumer goods and software's longevity, a counter to the alleged planned obsolescence process built into a lot of products. The European Parliament now wants the European Commission to create a clear definition of the term "planned obsolescence" and to develop a system to track that aging process. It also wants longer warranty periods and criteria to measure a product's strength. Each and every device should also have a mention of its minimal life expectancy.

Devices should also be easier to repair: batteries and other components should be freely accessible for replacement, unless safety dictates otherwise. Manufacturers will also need to give other companies access to their components so that consumers can visit those companies for repairs.

223 of 342 comments (clear)

  1. As a European, by zennyboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I say About Bloody Time.

    1. Re:As a European, by AC-x · · Score: 5, Informative

      The first? What about the USB charger law that put a stop to this nonsense?

    2. Re:As a European, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hey idiot... the UK is paying for that.

      We are net contributors by a long way.

    3. Re:As a European, by tsa · · Score: 1

      You're not from around here I guess.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    4. Re:As a European, by xonen · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As European, i say labor costs are the primary factor why repairs are often infeasible.

      It's not like our salary is that high. It's all the added taxes - starting with sales tax (also on repairs and other services) and not ending with labor taxes.

      To bring home a $15 salary a technician would have to charge at least $65 / hour. And that's excluding the costs he or she might have for the shop, shipping, components etc. In effect it means that even a small 20-minute repair on, say, a smartphone will put you down at least a $120.

      Any repair that is labor intensive will be costly. Component costs are only a fraction of the repair costs. And it happens that repairs are inherently labor intensive. Fix the tax system and repairs would get more affordable. But that's not gonna happen anytime soon.

      --
      A glitch a day keeps the bugs away.
    5. Re:As a European, by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      Granted, although I had not heard of that before now.

    6. Re:As a European, by Freischutz · · Score: 1

      This is the first good thing I have ever known to come out of the EU; pity they left it till now as the UK is just leaving.

      Yeah, you must really miss the good old days before the EU put a stop to people being ripped off with excessive mobile roaming charges. Maybe you'll get the extortionate roaming charges back after Brexit? Hope springs eternal...

    7. Re:As a European, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    8. Re:As a European, by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      FYI, the major UK mobile networks have stated that they don't have current plans to increase the roaming charges again post-Brexit. Given the commercial connections between them and their counterparts elsewhere in the EU and with an obvious PR disaster waiting for anyone who tried it first, that position seems unlikely to change any time soon either.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    9. Re: As a European, by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2

      Yeah, that happens if you only read British media.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    10. Re:As a European, by dhaen · · Score: 1

      As European, i say labor costs are the primary factor why repairs are often infeasible.

      It's not like our salary is that high. It's all the added taxes - starting with sales tax (also on repairs and other services) and not ending with labor taxes.

      To bring home a $15 salary a technician would have to charge at least $65 / hour. And that's excluding the costs he or she might have for the shop, shipping, components etc. In effect it means that even a small 20-minute repair on, say, a smartphone will put you down at least a $120.

      Any repair that is labor intensive will be costly. Component costs are only a fraction of the repair costs. And it happens that repairs are inherently labor intensive. Fix the tax system and repairs would get more affordable. But that's not gonna happen anytime soon.

      I don't disagree with you but consider: Often a large proportion of the repair cost is diagnosing the faulty part. I was repairing stuff in the 60s 70s and 80s when we fixed a lot. The fact was that failures weren't random - it was mostly the same parts that failed in any given piece of kit. That knowledge streamlined repairs enormously along with the "muscle memory" we developed for dismantling and reassembling.

      I think this will add costs to the manufacturer so the prices will rise, but that just makes the kit more valuable and worth repairing. It's also more ecologically sound.

    11. Re:As a European, by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      Don't forget the unified product standards that allow electrical goods, cars and food products to be manufactured that can be sold in every country in the EU, rather than needing a plethora of slight variations because various additives are allowed in one country but banned in another, or because they have different requirements for where the brake lights need to be positioned.

    12. Re:As a European, by thegarbz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is the first good thing I have ever known to come out of the EU

      That says more about you than it does the EU.

    13. Re:As a European, by Freischutz · · Score: 1

      FYI, together with improved repairability, banning roaming charges makes two good things to come out of the EU and they are not the only ones.

    14. Re:As a European, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah thing is the EU doesn't provide that. There is a plethora of "slight variations". It's usually that the british product is better, fire retardant in furnature is a fantastic example of that.

    15. Re:As a European, by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      This is the first good thing I have ever known to come out of the EU

      Then you're wilfully ignorant. The EU has done tons of good things, the fact that you've manged to avoid remembering any says a lot more about you than the EU.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    16. Re:As a European, by blackest_k · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Now accepting that as true, and it is UK money returning to the UK. It returns without a political bias.

      Tories are not keen on spending money in non tory areas and you can probably say the same about Labour too. The EU has put money into economically deprived areas without political bias So you get nice things when the government of the day would rather cut spending to areas that support the "opposition". Think thats true of most countries to be fair.

    17. Re:As a European, by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No, the first was in the late 90's when they forced consumer electronics to have power factor corrected power supplies and limited harmonic distortion. The amount of money and resources wasted because of cheap power supplies requiring building electrical infrastructure upgrades was stupefying.

      It is good to keep the US in check as the default standards-bearer. They have shown this repeatedly.

    18. Re: As a European, by mikael · · Score: 1

      In France, you can buy PAYG Mobicarte, but when you top up that SIM card, you have to use the money up within six months, otherwise the mobile phone company deactivates that SIM card and confiscates the money.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    19. Re: As a European, by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      I suspect that having now all said they have no plans and such a change shouldn't be necessary, they'd have little defence if they tried this and the UK regulator then immediately told them not to.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    20. Re: As a European, by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      Bro, stop defending Apple. Jesus Christ man. You must be high.

      Did my post even ONCE mention Apple?

      My hypothetical applies to ANY product line with significant competition and updatable firmware, and was deliberately written to be agnostic to both product and embedded OS platform (if any).

    21. Re: As a European, by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1

      I am sure they are quaking in their boots at this very minute with the thought of a slap on the wrist with a chicken feather from the UK regulator.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    22. Re:As a European, by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Your numbers are way off. The local computer repair place (which has been going since 1998) charges 1/10th what you project.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    23. Re:As a European, by AC-x · · Score: 1

      The law only applies to data-enabled phones so that first one is by design, the transition from micro-USB to USB-C is an awkward phase but it'll happen, and while Apple basically got away with it they were "forced" to sell micro-USB to Lightning adapters in Europe and are rumored to be switching to USB-C at some point.

    24. Re:As a European, by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Did you know the EU was basically founded by the CIA? Yeah, that's right, the same organization that was overthrowing the elected government of Iran and killing Allende used those same talents to pull strings behind the scenes to make it all happen. Is this known, or not? How must we re-evaluate the EU now that we know the hands that founded it were drenched in the blood of innocents?

      Papers show that it treated some of the EU's 'founding fathers' as hired hands, and actively prevented them finding alternative funding that would have broken reliance on Washington.

      A memo dated June 11, 1965, instructs the vice-president of the European Community to pursue monetary union by stealth, suppressing debate until the "adoption of such proposals would become virtually inescapable".

      https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/04/27/the-european-union-always-was-a-cia-project-as-brexiteers-discov/

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    25. Re:As a European, by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Well there is absolutely nothing stopping the UK having another referendum to join the EU, after they have adhered to the current one and leave the EU.

      If they had half a brain and were not just crap Tory con artists, they would be working on EU2 a democratic EU where the electorate gets to decide and not corporate stooges and seek to win other EU countries over ie leave one to join the other, I'll guess everyone will just have to wait to see what Corbyn does. Mayday and Bo Bo, what a clown show, I know it's Russia's fault. The poms are really disappearing right up their Khyber pass.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    26. Re:As a European, by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Is this known, or not? How must we re-evaluate the EU now that we know the hands that founded it were drenched in the blood of innocents?

      I'll bite leaving aside the quality of your news source.

      Is it know or not? Better question: is it relevant? The way something is founded is completely irrelevant to its current operation. You talk of Iran because it turned into a shitshow. You wouldn't talk about it if something good came out of it. America was founded on war and bloodshed. Should we re-evaluate you as murdering bastards as a result? (I mean more-so than the world thinks you already are). Likewise the group that founded it does not carry its blood across in the process of founding something else.

      Your entire post is an extension of the ad hominem fallacy. Just in this case applied to the creation of an institution rather than an ability to make an argument. Assuming anyone believed a word of the drivel in the Telegraf the CIA creating the EU has no bearing on the work the institution itself does.

    27. Re:As a European, by Dustie · · Score: 1
      >Despite your best efforts

      Bwhahahahah. You must be a huge Apple-fan. The drop in performance you mention was planned. Get out of your bubble bro.

    28. Re: As a European, by Dustie · · Score: 1

      Not it didn't...... fakeTIMCOOK -_-

    29. Re:As a European, by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      So, you're OK with the fact that the EU was basically founded by the CIA. WTF? I thought the CIA was the enemy, right along with the deplorables. Explain how you're suddenly on the side of the Deep State (unelected US government).

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    30. Re:As a European, by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      To bring home a $15 salary a technician would have to charge at least $65 / hour. And that's excluding the costs he or she might have for the shop, shipping, components etc. In effect it means that even a small 20-minute repair on, say, a smartphone will put you down at least a $120.
      That is complete nonsense.
      First of all: all costs are deductible from your income. They are not taxed. Secondly, even with helth insurance and pension, you hardly hit the 50% barrier.
      Fixing an iPhone in Paris, e.g. replacing the battery, costs $20 ... 10 - 20 minutes waitig, or you go for lunch while they fix it.
      The screen is below $50 ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    31. Re:As a European, by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

      Well that problem will soon be solved. Great Britain has decided to leave, and good bye from the rest of us (German here). Now you won't have to pay your tax money to the EU anymore.

      If you want to (and can) come to a new agreement with the EU, fine. But don't think we owe you anything at this point. In principle, negotiations start over like for a new member now. And from what I get in the news, they have not progressed that much either.

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
    32. Re:As a European, by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The EU is democratic.
      No idea why you think otherwise.
      Every position except the 'ministers' is elected.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    33. Re:As a European, by dave420 · · Score: 1

      You seem confused.

    34. Re:As a European, by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      So, you're OK with the fact that the EU was basically founded by the CIA.

      If I believed it yes I would be. I would be okay if it were founded by Stalin or Mao too. Hell I just finished driving on the autobahn, a creation of Hitler's. You see who founded something is irrelevant in the face of the institution's actions.

      Explain how you're suddenly on the side of the Deep State (unelected US government).

      I'm not, and even if the CIA founded the EU I still wouldn't be.

    35. Re:As a European, by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1
      CIA was instrumental in the formation of the EU. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/bu...

      If you're going to call the media liars, you're just aping Trump.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    36. Re:As a European, by antdah · · Score: 1

      Indeed. And this could be further developed by having e.g. phones self-diagnose and report suspected failed components.

    37. Re:As a European, by dhaen · · Score: 1

      That would need further legislation, no equipment manufacturer will do it voluntarily.

    38. Re:As a European, by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

      Starting with the Greek bailout:
      The Treaty Establishing the European Stability Mechanism of 2012 was signed by all EU members, states could have refused. GB signed, so it was voluntary on your part. If you don't like it, you should have grown a spine then and refused.

      This said, I think that my own country (Germany) should have done so and let Greece go bankrupt.
      The Greek had swindled themselves into the EU several years before by falsifying their economic data, with the aid of Goldman Sachs. In every other context it is NOT customary to help the failed fraudster by lending him more money.

      And in the negotiations so far, it looks like GB wants a lot of concessions that would let it keep free access to the EU market without paying its part of the budget. Now trying to re-negotiate a deal is legitimate, but I don't think you have a moral right to get it your way. And not a legal right at all.

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
    39. Re:As a European, by KingBenny · · Score: 1

      yea, i think they're trying to appease the angry mob over the internet filters they're pushing through despite about EVERYONE but the overlords and copylobby being against it

      --
      Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
  2. This new is from last year. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Article posted summer 2017.

    1. Re:This new is from last year. by mrkoot · · Score: 1

      Exactly. This all happened last year, not recently -- unless there is a development that I'm not aware of and is neither referenced in the Slashdot post nor its source article. Here's the European Parliament's case history about this: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/...

  3. Re:Regulations never backfire by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Energy Star has been a massive success, at least in appliances. It lets people who care compare relative energy consumption. It's meaningless when it comes to monitors and such, but quite useful for air conditioning or refrigerators.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  4. Re:"Should"? by Macfox · · Score: 1

    With strong language like this, what could go wrong?

    --
    Area51 - We are watching...
  5. Re:Regulations never backfire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Yes, it's clear a lack of regulations works just fine, there's never been a consequence from snake oil, investment hoaxes, or free building.

    Heck, safety belts, fire codes, and handwashing signs probably kill more people. After all, somebody probably died from soap allergies.

  6. Radio Shack by glitch! · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I remember that pretty much anything electronic from Radio Shack had a schematic at the back of the user manual. Nice to have if you want to fix it years later (and still have the manual.)

    I have a Radio Shack clock radio with a huge LED time display. Have had it for maybe twenty years, and it recently decided to show random LED segments instead of the time. Yesterday, I opened it up to look for any obvious smoked transistors or leaky capacitors. No, looks fine. Playing the odds, I replaced the largest (power supply) capacitor, and now it works again. I saved the cost of a new one and saved the landfill from one more piece of e-garbage.

    --
    A dingo ate my sig...
    1. Re:Radio Shack by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      That's the way everything should be. Granted everything is integrated now, but since a battery doesn't last forever it should be the one component that is required to be easily replaced.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    2. Re:Radio Shack by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      Almost everything that takes power is using up some sort of filament that will hit zero eventually... which is why computers need to be replaced every 5 years or so.

      Filament? As in thermionic valves? I am afraid I tossed my ENIAC into landfill (irresponsible, I know) about 15 years ago and got a microchip based one instead, but I'm still using some of those 15 year-old bits today. I dont think there is anything I'm using right now that is less than 5 years old.

    3. Re:Radio Shack by avandesande · · Score: 1

      i just use my phone as alarm clock

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    4. Re:Radio Shack by tsa · · Score: 1

      All the TVs I owned also had schematics on separate sheets of paper added to the manual. Very handy!

      --

      -- Cheers!

    5. Re:Radio Shack by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Which planet are you from? You can still take a Color Computer 3 or a Commodore 64 from decades ago, plug them in and they will start instantly just like they did when they were brand new.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    6. Re:Radio Shack by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

      People like you, putting a dollar sign at the expense of everything else is exactly why we're having so many problems today, both environmentally and as a society.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    7. Re:Radio Shack by robsku · · Score: 1

      I have waaaay older computers than that.

      --
      In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
    8. Re:Radio Shack by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      this is the most ignorant thing I have read today, thanks for that

    9. Re:Radio Shack by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Well good for you and good for the environment, but is it useful for anything more than an anecdote? I'm not saying it to be rude, but if you put a dollar value on your time and factor in the time you took inspecting it, the odds that it would work and that even though you expanded the life span you probably didn't give it another 20 years was it rational?

      Humans don't on the whole care nearly as much about money as they think they do. We're certainly not rational machines who would substitute the weekend tinkering fixing an old alarm clock for an equal amount of time spent earning money so we could buy a new clock and have some left over money.

      That's not how people work, so yes, I'd say his actions were as rational as any other.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    10. Re:Radio Shack by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Humans don't on the whole care nearly as much about money as they think they do. We're certainly not rational machines who would substitute the weekend tinkering fixing an old alarm clock for an equal amount of time spent earning money so we could buy a new clock and have some left over money. That's not how people work, so yes, I'd say his actions were as rational as any other.

      Landfill disagree with you, as much as the "-1, I disagree" votes say otherwise.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    11. Re:Radio Shack by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      No it doesn't. You asked if it was rational for him to repair it. I claim it is. Doesn't mean it's rational for everyone. Maximising money isn't rational if you don't care all that much about the stuff. I don't think you should be down modded for a perfectly reasonable discussion point, but welcome to slashdot, eh.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    12. Re:Radio Shack by sit1963nz · · Score: 1

      I suggest you go look at Nasa and their voyager space probes. These things are in a hostile environment, but were engineered to last.
      Voyager 2 is currently 35 years old.

      My TRS-80 from the late 1970's is also working just fine.

      Engineering is all about which compromises you are willing to make.

    13. Re:Radio Shack by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Which planet are you from? You can still take a Color Computer 3 or a Commodore 64 from decades ago, plug them in and they will start instantly just like they did when they were brand new.

      No. you'll smoke them. Especially the C64. The power supplies the things use tend to go bad and when they go bad, they lose regulation and output a higher voltage. You do this and you'll actually likely kill the C64.

      It's why they make devices that can be used inline of the power supply output that will detect this condition and basically go open so the C64 will not be powered.

      And why they make 3rd party replacement power supplies based on modern technology where this won't happen again, runs much cooler (since they use modern switching technology instead of the old school linear power supplies).

      And no, more advancecd systems like Amigas, original Macs, etc., are more than likely to be dead because these units had their own form of "planned obsolescence" - they had batteries on the mainboard. If they leaked, they often corroded the main PCB requiring a tedious repair of replacing broken tracks, replacing corroded components, etc.

      And that's provided they didn't use devices with embedded batteries - it was very popular to use Dallas (now Microchip) all-in one RTCs and SRAMs with batteries built in. These units are generally good for 20 years, but that's it.

      We built a lot of things to blow up in the past. "Suicide boards" are actually a thing in the arcade community.

    14. Re:Radio Shack by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      That is the biggest nonsense I ever heard.
      What exactly is a power supply?
      A transformator and some AC to DC converter and an out let with a few different voltages.
      How exactly should that degenerate or fail?
      My Apple ][ is nearly 40 years old ... powers up just fine ... I guess a C64 is just the same.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    15. Re:Radio Shack by vandamme · · Score: 1

      Read up on electrolytic capacitors some time.

      I got my start in 1963 replacing those dual caps in 5 tube AC-DC radios that dried out and produced a terrible hum. With a quick replacement they were good as new. 50-30 MF, 180 volts.

      Today it's computer motherboards that can have crappy power supply electrolytics.

    16. Re:Radio Shack by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      And no, more advancecd systems like Amigas, original Macs, etc., are more than likely to be dead because these units had their own form of "planned obsolescence" - they had batteries on the mainboard. If they leaked, they often corroded the main PCB requiring a tedious repair of replacing broken tracks, replacing corroded components, etc.

      As old as those machines are now, most of them will require recapping as well as cleanup from the leaky battery.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    17. Re:Radio Shack by strikethree · · Score: 1

      Playing the odds, I replaced the largest (power supply) capacitor, and now it works again. I saved the cost of a new one and saved the landfill from one more piece of e-garbage.

      It is people like you who destroyed Radio Shack. You monster! /s

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
  7. Oh come on, false flag shill! Make an effort! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It has been a long time since I saw a false flag provocation troll that half-assed and pathetic.

  8. Re:For software also? by The+New+Guy+2.0 · · Score: 1

    The current subscription model for new editions of Quicken requires you pay every year or two years or the software stops working...

  9. Re:"Unless safety dictates otherwise" by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    "It's unsafe to try to open our products because of the glue. You could hurt yourself."

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  10. "Success" by alternative_right · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Appliances are all junk now that require you to buy insurance from the store just to ensure that they make it to five years of operation.

    Very few of them work well; for example, the energy-efficient dryer that requires you to run it twice, instead of once, or the energy-efficient refrigerator which specializes in spoiling food during its frequent "defrost" cycles.

    Stuff worked better in the past. Toilets flushed. Refrigerators lasted for forty years. Washing machines actually produced clean clothes.

    I am all for ecology, but the way we go about it is silly, mainly because it is an excuse to avoid seeing the real problems.

    1. Re:"Success" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Appliances are all junk now that require you to buy insurance from the store just to ensure that they make it to five years of operation.

      Extended warranties are scams created by stores to fleece the customers.

      Very few of them work well; for example, the energy-efficient dryer that requires you to run it twice, instead of once, or the energy-efficient refrigerator which specializes in spoiling food during its frequent "defrost" cycles.

      You should probably clean out your lint trap, and possibly the duct. And you should actually close your refrigerator door, rather than leave it open.

      Stuff worked better in the past. Toilets flushed. Refrigerators lasted for forty years. Washing machines actually produced clean clothes.

      Toilets wasted water so much that it overwhelmed ill-designed sewer systems, refrigerators used more power in a year than replacing them every five years costs, and the components in the laundry detergents managed to combine with the excess in water usage to destroy even more sewer systems as well as contaminate the environment even further.

      I am all for ecology, but the way we go about it is silly, mainly because it is an excuse to avoid seeing the real problems.

      Yes, we let idiots strawman arguments, and pretend that they suddenly have a valid objection even though they're just being tendentious.

    2. Re:"Success" by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Very few of them work well; for example, the energy-efficient dryer that requires you to run it twice, instead of once, or the energy-efficient refrigerator which specializes in spoiling food during its frequent "defrost" cycles.

      Stop overloading your dryer. They work fine if you don't overload them. Of course, in this season, I hang up my clothes and don't dry them at all. A 50' line lets me hang an entire wash load. Before self-defrosting freezers, your food was spoiled by being frozen into place, and it took all damned day to defrost the freezer even during the summer.

      Stuff worked better in the past. Toilets flushed. Refrigerators lasted for forty years. Washing machines actually produced clean clothes.

      Fridges from then had non-encapsulated compressors and were loud AF. You could cheaply replace the compressor, but they didn't necessarily last a long time. You can still replace compressors, but nobody bothers any more. They just buy a new fridge. Toilets used more than twice as much water, so even if you have to flush twice sometimes you're still coming out ahead. Washers from then were not even slightly better than the ones we have now.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:"Success" by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      The idea that old appliances lasted longer is something of a myth. It persists because people keep seeing appliances built in the sixties and seventies that keep on going, built solid and in the highest quality. What you don't see is all the appliances built in the sixties and seventies that ended up on a landfill site because they fell apart after a year.

    4. Re:"Success" by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Appliances are all junk now that require you to buy insurance from the store just to ensure that they make it to five years of operation.

      Huh? Maybe you should come to the EU where there are mandatory minimum warranty periods and things generally seem to be of higher quality (comparing to your comment anyway).

    5. Re:"Success" by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      The idea that old appliances lasted longer is something of a myth.

      I partly agree with you: there's a clear case of selection bias going on. On the other hand stuff then was much, much more expensive as well and processes were not nearly as good so it was necessary to make them both overbuild and repairable to last any time at all.

      If your modern appliance only lasts 1/4 as long it's still substantialy cheaper over all and probably does a much better job as well.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    6. Re:"Success" by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

      Modern front-loading washers really DO beat up on their passive components a lot harder than old ones. Old washing machines mostly rotated in one direction (or paused between changing directions), and had a fairly limited repertoire of motions. New ones, with digitally-controlled motors capable of acting like huge stepper motors constantly make radical changes to both direction and speed put ENORMOUSLY more stress on things like bearings, as well as the motors themselves. They also generally spin a LOT faster than old ones ever did, which doesn't just stress out the bearings and springs from increased use... it ALSO increases the likelihood that a slightly-unbalanced load will beat up on those components as it tries to accelerate up to its target rotation speed.

      Seriously, just WATCH a modern front-load washer go through its motions in a typical load, then go to a laundromat & compare it to the typical motions of a 5-10 year old commercial front-loading washer. It's almost a miracle that home washing machines are capable of lasting for FIVE years without breaking catastrophically, given the forces they're subjected to when operating.

      Combine the increased demands put upon their components with a general trend towards cost-reduction, and the breakage rate of modern washers is no great surprise.

    7. Re:"Success" by darth.hunterix · · Score: 1

      Double so for stuff manufactured beyond the Iron Curtain. Depending on alcohol consumption by workers in any factory in USSR you could get a product that falls apart during unpacking or something people passed to their grandkids in perfect working condition.

      --
      What is best in life? Hot water, good dentishtry and shoft lavatory paper.
    8. Re:"Success" by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Except for military parts. They did not mess around when it came to fighting the capitalist pigs.

    9. Re:"Success" by darth.hunterix · · Score: 1

      I don't know about USSR itself, but I know several people who served in satellite state militaries and they all had the same story to tell: aside from "Potemkin Villages" units almost nothing worked, and if something did it was immediately stolen or cannibalized for parts.

      --
      What is best in life? Hot water, good dentishtry and shoft lavatory paper.
  11. EU Parliament resolutions are non-binding by Luckyo · · Score: 4, Informative

    Literally, the headline. European Parliament has no actual legislative power. It just has a power of veto. All legislation must come from European Commission, which European Parliament gets to vote on. It's a "yes/no" vote with no right to modify the package and vote on the modified legislation. This is a power comparable to a veto power, and by definition is not a legislative power as the name "Parliament" and its supposedly being a "legislative branch" would imply. In most states, this is a power comparable to one of the powers held by the executive, who gets to veto legislative packages or approve them by signing.

    It's also the only actual power European Parliament has, and of the key issues with EU's legislative system and why EU is routinely criticised for being undemocratic. It's something closer to an early Roman Senate, where unelected aristocrats selected by other members of aristocracy similar to the current state of European Commission gets to decide on what legislation to run through, and the plebeian Tribune of the latter days of Roman Republic (the European Parliament) can either block the legislative package or accept it, but has no legal ability to change the contents of the legislation.

    As a result, unless it's a Commission's legislative initiative, it's not worth the paper it's printed on.

    1. Re:EU Parliament resolutions are non-binding by jonfr · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is wrong. All legislation must be approved by the EU parliament before it can have any legal force. European Commission only has power suggest laws to the EU parliament.

      You can read about EU law processes here.

      https://europa.eu/european-uni...
      http://www.europarl.europa.eu/...

      There is also some legislative power in Council of the European Union.

      https://europa.eu/european-uni...

    2. Re:EU Parliament resolutions are non-binding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, the European parliament does NOT have to approve a law. The system was setup that on purpose... the law cannot go into effect without the EP having given its opinion on it - but that opinion means nothing.

      Read your own fucking links. EU worshippers are pitiful. They like to think they are a cut above... but actually, they are the worst kind of useful idiots for a corporate state.

    3. Re:EU Parliament resolutions are non-binding by Luckyo · · Score: 2

      Those links confirm everything I said, as does your preface. Literally, every single point I made. How the fuck did you start your statement with "this is wrong" and then go to agree with every single point I made, just dressing them up to be slightly better sounding?

    4. Re:EU Parliament resolutions are non-binding by jonfr · · Score: 1

      You are wrong because you claim that EU parliament only has a veto power. EU Parliament has the right according to treaties to approve or deny any legislation that is being worked on by the EU. You are also wrong when you claimed that all EU laws must come from the European Commission. The other body that can issue laws for approval or rejection is Council of the European Union (ministers of the EU member states) based on suggestions by the European Commission.

      This is all explained here.

      https://europa.eu/european-uni...

    5. Re:EU Parliament resolutions are non-binding by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      So literally, you again agree with everything I said, while pretending to disagree, then pretend extra hard that adding an extra step of European Council between Commission and Parliament constitutes a meaningful difference.

      Ok. Nice trolling.

    6. Re:EU Parliament resolutions are non-binding by jonfr · · Score: 1

      You didn't show any the source for your claim. EU runs on a co-decision or a majority decision when it comes to EU laws. What system is used depends on what type of laws or decisions are being discussed.

      If any EU law is rejected by any of the three legal bodies that are required (EU commission, Council of the European Union, EU Parliament) for an approval of an EU law it cannot enter into force as is the requirement of the EU treaties. This is why it takes such a long time for new EU laws to happen and enter into force.

    7. Re:EU Parliament resolutions are non-binding by Dorianny · · Score: 1

      Each state get one Commissioner appointed by the elected government of the State. Germany has one vote and so does Malta. Not a Democracy but very fair to all member states, much like the idea behind the U.S Senate. In fact U.S Senators were appointed by States until the 17th amendment was passed. To ensure that smaller States don't have too much power, legislation must be approved by the European Parliament which has representation based on population, just like the U.S Congress

    8. Re:EU Parliament resolutions are non-binding by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      The source is literally in your links.

      Which is why you are now desperately trying to spin this the way you are. First you lied about what your links said. Second you tried to pretend that I said something different.

      Now you're trying to pretend that "everyone can reject legislation" is somehow relevant to the point I made. It is not.

    9. Re:EU Parliament resolutions are non-binding by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Each major ruling family got a senator in the early Roman Senate. Hence the comparison. Please stop pretending that this is somehow "undemocratic but fair". Especially considering that you follow up is that "sovereign states cannot have too much power" which indicates that you are anti-sovereignty of the states in addition to being anti-democratic.

      A common view for Pan-European supremacists.

      For those ignorant of history, people who are against sovereignty of the European states are the people who drowned continent in blood every time they managed to rise to power in a significantly powerful power structure.

    10. Re:EU Parliament resolutions are non-binding by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      I guess Commission folks weren't kidding when they said that they're going to need a disinformation body of their own to counter Russian propaganda a few days back. You're far less competent than Russians though. Russians aren't dumb enough to post links which confirm the position of people you're trolling and fully debunk your position, and then just keep doubling down on pretending that contents of your links aren't debunking your bullshit.

      I know EU bureaucracy is generally known for being among the more inept in terms of their organisational efficiency, but you could at least try being more competent than people you're supposed to compete with and defeat. Fuck's sake, you're being paid from my tax money. You could at least pretend to have some basic competence in trolling.

    11. Re:EU Parliament resolutions are non-binding by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      "Days" was supposed to be "years" in original. Statement was from 2014 or so.

    12. Re:EU Parliament resolutions are non-binding by Dorianny · · Score: 1
      Where the hell do you see "sovereign states cannot have too much power" in my post?

      As everyone can clearly see, in my post I wrote "smaller States don't have too much power"

      Everyone is turning into a Trump

    13. Re:EU Parliament resolutions are non-binding by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      >To ensure that smaller States don't have too much power, legislation must be approved by the European Parliament which has representation based on population, just like the U.S Congress

      US Congress represents the state sovereign. States themselves are not sovereign in US.

      EU is not sovereign, nor does its parliament represent state sovereignty. National parliaments do. Making the statement you made requires you to be anti state-sovereignty. This has nothing to do with Trump, just like it has nothing to do with US.

      Anti state sovereignty, Pan-European supremacists however are well documented for using US systems as an example of how they want EU to supercede and consume the sovereignty of European nation states in the future.

    14. Re:EU Parliament resolutions are non-binding by Dorianny · · Score: 1
      I'm calling you out as a liar!

      I will give you one last chance to explain in this public forum how you ended up misquoting

      "sovereign states cannot have too much power"

      into "smaller States don't have too much power"

    15. Re:EU Parliament resolutions are non-binding by bazorg · · Score: 1

      Literally, the headline. European Parliament has no actual legislative power. It just has a power of veto. All legislation must come from European Commission, which European Parliament gets to vote on. It's a "yes/no" vote with no right to modify the package and vote on the modified legislation.

      Rather than linking to the source, maybe pointing at the right part of that document would have been more useful.
      From the link:

      How does the Parliament work?
      Parliament's work comprises two main stages:
      Committees - to prepare legislation.
      The Parliament numbers 20 committees and two subcommittees, each handling a particular policy area. The committees examine proposals for legislation, and MEPs and political groups can put forward amendments or propose to reject a bill. These issues are also debated within the political groups.

      To look at this and conclude that the parliament does not have legislative power is a bit of a stretch.

      This is a power comparable to a veto power, and by definition is not a legislative power as the name "Parliament" and its supposedly being a "legislative branch" would imply.

      IDK.

      In most states, this is a power comparable to one of the powers held by the executive, who gets to veto legislative packages or approve them by signing.

      The EU is not a state and is not a federation (at the time of writing). Their rules and ways of working can be compared but really it's not fair to disqualify what goes on in Brussels/Strasbourg just because it does not match exactly what works in a national context.

      It's also the only actual power European Parliament has, and of the key issues with EU's legislative system and why EU is routinely criticised for being undemocratic.

      People do like to moan and the EU and that kind of comment sound to me like the kind of thing that people repeat rather than understand or care much about. In any case, yes, people do say that the EU is undemocratic. Is there a point is measuring and comparing democratic-ness? What guarantees could ever be that having the EU legislate in the same way as the USA, India, Australia, Germany, Russia or any other federation would be suitable for this unique organisation?

      It's something closer to an early Roman Senate, where unelected aristocrats selected by other members of aristocracy similar to the current state of European Commission gets to decide on what legislation to run through

      I particularly dislike this comparison as it suggests that the EC is unfairly appointed, or that somehow they are not elected by the people. The European Commission is appointed by the governments of member states and those have been elected according to the rules of each member state. The role of the commissioner has similarities with that of ministers for specific areas. I don't know about other countries, but in the UK people don't vote for "who should be the minister for education". No, people vote for a party and while there are candidates that are expected to become ministers, nobody really knows in advance whether Boris Johnson or Lord Buckethead are going to be appointed.

      [...] and the plebeian Tribune of the latter days of Roman Republic (the European Parliament) can either block the legislative package or accept it, but has no legal ability to change the contents of the legislation.

      The text linked earlier suggests that there is a production line between the commission, council and parliament. It does not look that clear cut that the parliament is unable to make changes or propose changes before there is a vote by MEPs.

      As a result, unless it's a Commission's legislative initiative, it's not worth the paper it's printed on.

      Harsh.

    16. Re:EU Parliament resolutions are non-binding by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      European Parliament has no actual legislative power. It just has a power of veto. All legislation must come from European Commission, which European Parliament gets to vote on. It's a "yes/no" vote with no right to modify the package and vote on the modified legislation
      That is nonsense.
      All laws are voted in by the parliament.
      The 'commision' is only a fancy name for 'cabinet', consisting of the european 'ministers'.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    17. Re:EU Parliament resolutions are non-binding by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The guy who is trying to spin everything is you. EU laws are made by the EU parliament, like country laws are made in any countries parliament. I have no funking clue why you want to twist that.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    18. Re:EU Parliament resolutions are non-binding by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      You're missing the point. The document presents a pretty tale, as is common in EU documentation. Cut through the romanticised and irrelevant bullshit and distil the facts. What can parliament actually do that can legally compel action?

      And you'll arrive at the facts. Parliament has only one actually compelling power: vote on legislation package passed to it from Commission, as is. It cannot do anything else that is legally binding. If it so much as chances a comma in any package sent by Commission, it can no longer have a vote on the package that is legally compelling. The vote becomes just a pointless declaration with no ability to compel anyone to follow it.

      Which is exactly like this declaration, which it seems was written in one of those many romantic and utterly pointless committees that European Parliament has. It sounds pretty, makes for good pro-EU PR, and it has absolutely no ability to compel anyone to do anything. As I posted above, it's not worth the paper its printed on.

      Which is sadly exactly how the system works today. Something that even many of the most pro-EU elites in the Commission readily agree is a major problem. But in the previous negotiations for how EU should work, they essentially used this as an ultimatum to get nation state sovereignty removed and moved to parliament to even greater extent than it is today. This obviously didn't pass, because EU is under increasing pressure to repatriate sovereignty from EU, rather than cede even more of it.

      So essentially, it came down to an ultimatum. If you want something other than aristocratic rule in EU, you have to cede more power to the EU aristocracy. Then they'll agree to more oversight by the parliament. Sovereign nation states had enough people who could read the writing on the wall for such demands, and EU aristocracy was unwilling to concede that their project may not be in the interests of European sovereign nations they wanted to rule over. So we ended up with what EU is infamous for. An agreement that everyone could sorta, kinda afford to sign and not utterly lose support among their own, that satisfied no one and made a lot of things much worse. We can see this structural problem with EU in most of the other major crises its suffering from today. EU aristocracy will not accept anything but sovereign power over nations states they wish to rule over. Nation states can no longer afford to cede any more sovereignty without facing a massive popular revolt.

      And so, we have the status quo.

    19. Re:EU Parliament resolutions are non-binding by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      The desperation, lies, misleading and just plain false claims in this thread are truly entertaining at this point.

      It's like looking at where Russians probably were with their trolling efforts a decade ago, if they were ever this bad at it. Please keep it up. Not even too much karma among you, considering you can't even manage to push my initial statement into negative score in spite of your massive -1 troll brigading.

      Good luck! I wish you'll actually get on their level quickly, because frankly, all of us Europeans will probably need it in a few years, when we'll need any and all means available to keep people believing that Central European banks are even remotely solvent. Because without confidence in them, most of the states in Europe and genuinely and truly fucked.

      Until then, I'll continue being thoroughly entertained by these low effort trolling attempts and help you get better at them.

    20. Re:EU Parliament resolutions are non-binding by dave420 · · Score: 1

      The desperation, lies, misleading and just plain false claims in this thread are truly entertaining at this point.

      If they're really upsetting you, stop posting them.

    21. Re:EU Parliament resolutions are non-binding by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      >Until then, I'll continue being thoroughly entertained by these low effort trolling attempts and help you get better at them.

      Yes, I'm just terribly, awfully upset about them. Just like I don't know what powers various institutions of EU have.

      You truly are entertaining in being so damnably awful at trolling.

    22. Re:EU Parliament resolutions are non-binding by Dorianny · · Score: 1
      When cough in a lie, turn up the fake outrage.

      It doesn't work, you don't have a shred of dignity left!

    23. Re:EU Parliament resolutions are non-binding by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Your trolling quality across two posts got WORSE. I believe I clearly instructed you to try to IMPROVE.

      Get cracking.

    24. Re:EU Parliament resolutions are non-binding by Dorianny · · Score: 1

      When caught in a lie call other people trolls for calling you out. It doesn't work

    25. Re:EU Parliament resolutions are non-binding by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      You're not doubling down on being awful. Seriously. Call your manager and have them look at this thread for your career advisory.

    26. Re:EU Parliament resolutions are non-binding by Dorianny · · Score: 1

      If you don't want people calling your lies then perhaps you should stop faking quotes

    27. Re:EU Parliament resolutions are non-binding by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Discussion with manager went well I take it? This is a new accusation, so I guess they gave you training and a new cheat sheet.

      You have a decent manager. Shame you're still awful at trolling in spite of his/her efforts.

    28. Re:EU Parliament resolutions are non-binding by Dorianny · · Score: 1
      Your lies are evident for everyone to see. If you can explain how

      "sovereign states cannot have too much power" in my post

      turned into your quote of "smaller States don't have too much power"

      then go ahead. Otherwise go waste your time on some other message board. You are completely discredited on Slashdot

    29. Re:EU Parliament resolutions are non-binding by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I think they'll have to get rid of you after they see you do this. Even your manager didn't get it in your head that once you hit a wall on your trolling line, you should be going for a new direction.

      Such a shame. You almost made it.

    30. Re:EU Parliament resolutions are non-binding by Dorianny · · Score: 1

      Your childish attempts at personal insults are pathetic. The facts are you are a liar and a troll.

    31. Re:EU Parliament resolutions are non-binding by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Truly, such a shame. It took you this long to notice I'm actively mocking you for being a compelte and utter idiot.

      But hey, you have "the facts". How alternative are your facts, on the scale from "totally alternative" to "opinions of an idiot are the same thing as a fact"?

    32. Re:EU Parliament resolutions are non-binding by Dorianny · · Score: 1

      The shame is that even after being proven to be a liar you continue trolling. You have no credibility left, move on.

    33. Re:EU Parliament resolutions are non-binding by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      I do enjoy you talking about your beliefs. It's like watching someone just keep walking into a wall, then point at it and scream "you don't exist", and then walk into it again.

      Please continue. Your utter idiocy is enjoyable.

    34. Re:EU Parliament resolutions are non-binding by Dorianny · · Score: 1
      I have asked several time for you to explain how

      "sovereign states cannot have too much power" in my post

      turned into your quote of "smaller States don't have too much power"

      You have no credibility left, you are just a liar and a troll

    35. Re:EU Parliament resolutions are non-binding by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      This is so fun to watch. You're literally like a low end dogmatic Christian fundamentalist type, who's just so stuck on his dogma, he can't even think. So he just defaults to repeating his chants.

      You really should look into organised religion and cults. They always look for people as dumb and as fanatical as you.

    36. Re:EU Parliament resolutions are non-binding by Dorianny · · Score: 1

      The only thing more pathetic then your fake quotes is your trolling

    37. Re:EU Parliament resolutions are non-binding by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Please tell us more about your beliefs! They're so interesting, unoriginal and hilarious.

    38. Re:EU Parliament resolutions are non-binding by Dorianny · · Score: 1
      "sovereign states cannot have too much power" in my post

      turned into your quote of "smaller States don't have too much power"

      That's the facts

    39. Re:EU Parliament resolutions are non-binding by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      I love how you think your inane beliefs are "facts". Just like a true fanatic. "Christ rose up on the third day after dying, and that's a fact!"

    40. Re:EU Parliament resolutions are non-binding by Dorianny · · Score: 1
      Fact: my post:

      "Each state get one Commissioner appointed by the elected government of the State. Germany has one vote and so does Malta. Not a Democracy but very fair to all member states, much like the idea behind the U.S Senate. In fact U.S Senators were appointed by States until the 17th amendment was passed. To ensure that smaller States don't have too much power, legislation must be approved by the European Parliament which has representation based on population, just like the U.S Congress"

      Fact: your post

      Each major ruling family got a senator in the early Roman Senate. Hence the comparison. Please stop pretending that this is somehow "undemocratic but fair". Especially considering that you follow up is that "sovereign states cannot have too much power" which indicates that you are anti-sovereignty of the states in addition to being anti-democratic. A common view for Pan-European supremacists. For those ignorant of history, people who are against sovereignty of the European states are the people who drowned continent in blood every time they managed to rise to power in a significantly powerful power structure.

      Fact: you fake quoted "sovereign states cannot have too much power"

    41. Re:EU Parliament resolutions are non-binding by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      And now we're back to the desperate, hopeless nitpicking spin. You're just a well of hilarious stupidity that keeps on giving.

    42. Re:EU Parliament resolutions are non-binding by Dorianny · · Score: 1

      facts are facts. Since you can't refute them, I guess the only thing you can do is hurl insults. Pathetic!

    43. Re:EU Parliament resolutions are non-binding by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      You definitely remind me of that creationist lady being interviewed by Dawkins. She also confused "my belief" with "facts".

      She was much more interesting than you though.

    44. Re:EU Parliament resolutions are non-binding by Dorianny · · Score: 1
      Fact: you fake quoted "sovereign states cannot have too much power"

      Now tell me about your "beliefs"

    45. Re:EU Parliament resolutions are non-binding by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      I know, and that lady was "you don't have evidence for evolution and that's a fact". Just like you. Non stop, ad nauseam. Fanatical, like you. Stupid, like you.

      Also, hilarious, like you.

    46. Re:EU Parliament resolutions are non-binding by Dorianny · · Score: 1
      evidence: You turned my post of "sovereign states cannot have too much power"

      into your fake quote of "sovereign states cannot have too much power"

      It is all in the thread for everyone to see, but obviously facts and evidence don't mean anything to you

      Since you can't refute the facts you just troll with pointless posts about creationists. You are not fooling anyone

    47. Re:EU Parliament resolutions are non-binding by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      I know right? Just like that lady was absolutely certain that she has facts on her side, so do you. I wonder if you also have her creepy laugh and dishonest smile?

    48. Re:EU Parliament resolutions are non-binding by Dorianny · · Score: 1
      You can try to deflect all you want. facts remain:

      You turned my post of "sovereign states cannot have too much power"

      into your fake quote of "sovereign states cannot have too much power"

    49. Re:EU Parliament resolutions are non-binding by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      You know, you're getting boring. We get it, you have strong faith in your absurd beliefs.

      But you have to spice it up eventually. Just repeating "kneel and pray to allah until your forehead caves in" ad nauseam can't entertain people forever. It's funny for a while, but eventually, they'll get tired and drone strike you. You have to do something to spice it up, like invent another lie.

    50. Re:EU Parliament resolutions are non-binding by Dorianny · · Score: 1
      It is pretty amazing watching you come up with irrelevant nonsense post after post so you can avoid owning up to the truth that:

      You turned my post of "sovereign states cannot have too much power"

      into your fake quote of "sovereign states cannot have too much power"

    51. Re:EU Parliament resolutions are non-binding by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Yes, you already told us about your absurd beliefs many times. It's not getting any more interesting over time. In fact, it was somewhat entertaining at first, but it's just plain sad and boring now how desperately you are grasping to some imaginary infraction you think I made.

      You need to invent something new if you want to keep entertaining me.

  12. warranty need to start when the end user get it by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    warranty need to start when the end user get it not when it's shipped to the store / distributor

  13. English? by JBMcB · · Score: 1

    The article is a blurb about another article written in Dutch. It would be nice to know exactly what they are talking about.

    --
    My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    1. Re:English? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Relax, Hans, the article is not about you, that's for sure.

  14. Re:Regulations never backfire by El+Cubano · · Score: 2

    That is absolutely true regarding EnergyStar. However, regulations requiring EnergyStar compliance at worst might slightly increase the cost of the appliance or device. A regulation "abolishing" planned obsolescence is likely to have unintended consequences.

    I get that 50 or 100 years ago planned obsolescence would have been almost unquestionably wrong. However, technology moves much faster today. Forcing companies to provide very long term support for long outdated technologies will decidedly tilt the playing field in favor large players at the expense of small innovative companies.

    I find it interesting, since the EU tends to favor the little guy over the big guy in business/commerce. This regulation favors the big guy in order to "help" the consumer. (I put "help" in quotes since I do not think it will actually be as helpful to consumers as the regulators think it will be.)

  15. Re:Effectively by nukenerd · · Score: 1

    Deliberate wind-up here. If you are that paranoid go ahead and change your gadgets every year; I have better things to do with my cash. But in fact the older the gadget the less spyware it likely to have in it - that crap increases all the time.

  16. Re:Regulations never backfire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Lack of regulations only works in 3rd world countries.
    Do you know that removing regulations under the Bush Administration cause the economic collapse?
    Did you know that the Obama Administration had to spend $trillions of dollars to bail out lots of corporations like banking sector, housing sector, finance sector, etc.???

  17. Re:Regulations never backfire by nukenerd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Forcing companies to provide very long term support for long outdated technologies will decidedly tilt the playing field in favor large players at the expense of small innovative companies.

    Thanks, but I don't want an innovative fridge, hair drier or cooker. I just want them to fucking work, and keep working.

  18. Re:Effectively by AC-x · · Score: 2

    You don't need to download spyware on to peoples' devices if it already comes preinstalled at the factory (points finger at forehead)

  19. No no no by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Truly, Beau, that's just nonsensical.

    If we put the onus on manufacturers (and programmers) to maintain their products instead of abandoning them, it's absolutely no different than them giving us a new product with whatever imaginary, or actual, malware you have in mind. If they're black hats, they're black hats.

    The important objective in that case is keeping an eye on them, and a more stable / less ephemeral product line can only work in our favor in such undertakings. If product maker X is found to have shipped flaw or problem Y, then they are obligated to fix it, instead of just leaving it in the dust and whipping out a new model (I'm thinking of OS vendors here as well as supporting devs and hardware manufacturers.)

    Requiring manufacturers and software operations to maintain their products or lose IP rights to them could be a very strong component of bringing some of the more obnoxious operations into line with actually benefiting the public with their work. If I, as a developer, stop supporting it, or won't remedy a detected flaw, then the public owns the product and that's the end of my revenue stream and my rights to the ideas and inventions incorporated in the product are now gone.

    Our software and hardware IP system is badly broken, and IMHO that's a fundamental underpinning of why our products are such throwaways. There's no reason for a manufacturer / developer to keep working on X. We need to give them good reason to stay with it.

    These days, almost any product can be flashed with completely new code; at least, if the designers aren't idiots. Everything from a smart light bulb to a router, firewall, or car should be updatable and should have updates. Likewise, you write software like I do, then you should fix the problems it has, particularly so in the case of security issues, but anything else, too. There's no adequate excuse to not fix broken code. From the OS end, there are almost no good excuses to break existing applications, security being the one exception.

    We should recognize our obligation to not just produce product, but to produce good product that doesn't shaft the end user, either initially or later.

    The culture of disposable hardware and software we've fallen into is bad on just about very level one might consider. Ending it, or at least, ameliorating it, would be the very best thing for every consumer out there.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re: No no no by fyngyrz · · Score: 3, Informative

      You're confusing the emergence of new technology with the maintenance of existing technology. They are separate issues. There is every reason to create a more advanced product; there is no reason not to provide for a replaceable battery in an old one.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    2. Re: No no no by RhettLivingston · · Score: 1

      You seem to want to punish manufacturers for wanting to stay in business. What you propose is all stick with no carrot and would greatly increase the cost of new products to the detriment of the buyers (possibly majority) who don't really want to have the product last for more than a relatively short time.

      It is not new technology that drives the cycle. It is primarily more evolved application of old technology, and it happens fast - much faster than devices usually wear out even when non-repairable.

      Most manufacturers want to stay in business with a product long term. To do this, they must continually improve the product. There will always be new versions that incorporate lessons learned or engineering development that was not ready at the time of an earlier product release. Even if the gains are fully in software, how do the companies get paid for the work of making them if they just give those gains to the old products forever? With the current system, they only gain via new sales.

      Most consumers want those new features. Many, if not most, throw away or sell/trade their old devices for pennies on the dollar to get those new features - even when the old devices are in "perfect" working condition. This is because they aren't in perfect working condition. They are broke because they don't have the new features. There may be a scratch or two or some minor annoyances like the battery doesn't have quite the umph it used to. But if they look at the cost of fixing those versus getting a new device without those flaws AND with the new features, most will talk themselves into a pricier trade-in deal instead of a cheaper repair. Why? Because they feel they are wasting their money on the cheaper repair that leaves them missing out on new capabilities.

      So, from both the manufacturers' and most consumers' point of view, the system is not broken. It is only broken when you throw society's legitimate desire to reduce waste or some individuals' desire to be more frugal with their expenditures and use products for a longer period into the equation.

      The question is, how do we serve those interests without slowing development, reducing the manufacturers' profit, or increasing product lifecycle costs to those consumers that would like to have the new best thing every year?

      The manufacturer will incur additional costs both in manufacturing for repairability and in supporting older devices. It is unfair for the initial consumer to have to pay those costs unless they do keep the device long term.

      So any solution that fairly handles this situation must provide the manufacturer some means of deriving a revenue stream from the continued usage of the device beyond the point where many consumers want the new device. The only way I can think of to do this is to support some system where the manufacturer profits from every repair or software upgrade delivered to the old devices. That means even cheap third party repair centers must in some way be forced to pay back. Anything else simply isn't fair to all parties.

      Also, though I write this primarily thinking of smartphones, it is really applicable to just about everything from the lowly Instant Pot up to the latest car models. Most who buy new cars do so because they want a new car, not because the old one is already broke.

    3. Re: No no no by RhettLivingston · · Score: 1

      I can buy a renting model. It does serve the purpose of providing an incentive to the manufacturer to make devices last longer, sacrifice the space efficiency required to allow a battery to be replaced, etc.

      Whether America in general can handle this, I have doubts. For example, I'm all for Transportation as a Service (TaaS). I'd love to see a world with large fleets of autonomous vehicles that can pick me up and take me wherever I need to go at a moments notice. It would be awesome. No spending my time or money to maintain a vehicle. No need to waste valuable under-roof space for a garage. No need for auto insurance. No need to pay for tags or driver's licenses. No need to waste travel time driving. If one breaks down, it would automatically have another there in minutes to pick me up without my having to deal with AAA for hours plus repair bills later. And on and on and on.

      From a societal point of view, one of the biggest gains of TaaS would be that million mile cars would become the norm. Without TaaS, there really is no reason for cars to go further than they do now. At 12,500 miles a year, it takes around 15 years to run a modern car into the ground. Most people want new cars sooner. But, put that car on the road for 100K or more miles a year, and the need for greater reliability and maintainability becomes great enough to justify adding a bit of cost to the car. So TaaS could dramatically reduce the overall cost of our transportation in many ways, including requiring far fewer cars to be produced, not just because those cars are shared, but because they also last much longer.

      The industry would likely become fully vertically integrated with car manufacturers becoming transportation providers building the vehicles for their own consumption (and their own energy and maintenance to be truly successful). As they are both manufacturer and consumer, all incentive for planned obsolescence disappears.

      Sadly, almost everyone I talk to about TaaS says they would never give up there car, even if TaaS were a reality and had an effective cost half as much as owning their own vehicle.

    4. Re: No no no by next_ghost · · Score: 1

      Consumers have chosen the disposable over the enduring.

      How, pray tell, are consumers supposed to choose a feature that isn't available on the market in the first place?

    5. Re: No no no by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

      Most consumers want those new features. Many, if not most, throw away or sell/trade their old devices for pennies on the dollar to get those new features - even when the old devices are in "perfect" working condition. This is because they aren't in perfect working condition. They are broke because they don't have the new features. There may be a scratch or two or some minor annoyances like the battery doesn't have quite the umph it used to. But if they look at the cost of fixing those versus getting a new device without those flaws AND with the new features, most will talk themselves into a pricier trade-in deal instead of a cheaper repair. Why? Because they feel they are wasting their money on the cheaper repair that leaves them missing out on new capabilities.

      There are also a lot of people (like me) who want to use their stuff longer than, for instance, two years (which seems a common life cycle in electronics). That does not mean the manufacturer has to give away the new features for free, just make it possible for the customer to get a reasonably cheap repair. I'll use two examples from the smart phone world to illustrate this:

      1) Glued-in batteries (hello Apple, you did it first). Batteries are one of those components that tend to break down over time even when you handle your phone carefully. Now if you just could open a hatch and swap out the battery... Admittedly, it would cost a few cent more per phone and perhaps the phone could not be quite as thin. The new battery can come from a third party manufacturer, no burden on the original manufacturer there to keep the model in stock.

      2) Phones with a locked boot loader so you cannot load a different operating system. May not be a problem with a new phone (although some people would like to switch to CyanogenMod right away). But the problem comes at the point when the manufacturer does not provide security upgrades any more. The hardware is in perfect working condition. For many models, there is even alternative software available, at no cost to the manufacturer. Such as the CyanogenMod mentioned above. Mandating an unlock option seems fair to me here.

      The question is, how do we serve those interests without slowing development, reducing the manufacturers' profit, or increasing product life cycle costs to those consumers that would like to have the new best thing every year?

      If development is slowed down a bit, so what? It is a legitimate interest of society to reduce trash and exhaustion of natural resources. There are much more severe restrictions in other sectors by the way. Ever worked in medical technology?

      The manufacturer will incur additional costs both in manufacturing for repairability and in supporting older devices. It is unfair for the initial consumer to have to pay those costs unless they do keep the device long term.

      Correct for the repairability. But I dispute that the extra cost would be unreasonable. Supporting older devices may not be a burden for the manufacturer at all, depending on how the legislation is designed.
      Besides, and coming back to society's interest in protecting the environment, the initial consumer can damn well shoulder a bit of the burden here.

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
    6. Re: No no no by Voyager529 · · Score: 1

      You seem to want to punish manufacturers for wanting to stay in business. What you propose is all stick with no carrot and would greatly increase the cost of new products to the detriment of the buyers (possibly majority) who don't really want to have the product last for more than a relatively short time.

      Because the intent isn't to punish manufacturers. The intent is to punish bad practices. If a company sells a product that is subsidized by my future spending, then they aren't selling the product at a sustainable price point.

      It is not new technology that drives the cycle. It is primarily more evolved application of old technology, and it happens fast - much faster than devices usually wear out even when non-repairable.

      Most manufacturers want to stay in business with a product long term. To do this, they must continually improve the product.

      The only way these two thoughts are harmonious is with planned obsolescence. If a product is improved enough, people will purchase them for that reason. That seems to be your logic here.

      There will always be new versions that incorporate lessons learned or engineering development that was not ready at the time of an earlier product release.

      ...So then sell the improved product? If they are truly improvements, then let the public buy them. Eventually, the product will have enough cumulative improvements to warrant a purchase.

      Even if the gains are fully in software, how do the companies get paid for the work of making them if they just give those gains to the old products forever?

      I concur with this...but really it seems that this is only a problem in the context of operating systems. Sure, we can argue if the most recent Android release should be free, free-X-years-from-purchase-date, or a paid upgrade...but the bigger issue I have in this particular example is that it's very difficult to find a phone with an unlocked bootloader, and there's no Google-supplied analog to iTunes that allows end users to back up and upgrade their OS manually. The "OTA-only, un-declinable, only once carriers and OEMs agree" update process is a complete mess.

      With the current system, they only gain via new sales.

      Most consumers want those new features.

      And some don't...but even if they did, the antiquated idea of "selling software" had been working for software vendors since the Reagan administration. I don't think it's impossible for most people to justify having to buy the new features.

      Many, if not most, throw away or sell/trade their old devices for pennies on the dollar to get those new features - even when the old devices are in "perfect" working condition.

      ...and they're bought by people who are willing to put up with the current feature set.

      This is because they aren't in perfect working condition. They are broke because they don't have the new features. There may be a scratch or two or some minor annoyances like the battery doesn't have quite the umph it used to. But if they look at the cost of fixing those versus getting a new device without those flaws AND with the new features, most will talk themselves into a pricier trade-in deal instead of a cheaper repair. Why? Because they feel they are wasting their money on the cheaper repair that leaves them missing out on new capabilities.

      I'm pretty sure approximately 100% of iPhone owners weren't expecting FaceID to be retroactively added to their iPhone, but the golden 'duh' award here is that selling an iPhone with a new battery would improve its resale value to someone who is upgrading from an even-older iPhone.

      So, from both the manufacturers' and most consumers' point of view, the system is not broken.

      If you paint with a broad enough brush and cite no examples...yeah. However, the real issue is that there are a who

  20. Subs are planned obsolescence via threats by fyngyrz · · Score: 2

    Subscriptions are, in a nutshell, planned obsolescence via threats. The only way you can keep such tempware working is a continual drain on your resources - it's designed to fail you otherwise.

    I wouldn't buy subscription software under any circumstances, nor will I ever offer it (I'm a developer.)

    You invest in my stuff, it'll keep working - it's yours now. I don't "license" it to you, I don't tell you what you can or cannot do with it, and I won't break it. If I offer a paid upgrade, then you get new stuff. It won't break your previous stuff, and it also won't turn into dead bytes on your computer.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Subs are planned obsolescence via threats by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      There must be more to that story than you're saying. Software companies can't just unilaterally update their EULAs after you've already bought a permanent copy of their product. At best, it would have no legal weight at all, and they'd look like idiots for trying, and it's hard to believe that the big ones like Microsoft are that naive.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    2. Re:Subs are planned obsolescence via threats by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      I think there is a reason for subscriptions getting more popular. Software lasts longer.

      Just look how many people still use Office 2000 - it's getting near twenty years old now, but it still runs, it still does everything most users want. But there was a time when you needed new software every few years because the old stuff just wouldn't run on modern hardware and operating systems. We've reached the point where companies are having a very hard time competing with the products they sold five or ten years ago. If they can't keep selling updates, they have to sell subscriptions.

  21. Agreed by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

    New efficient washing machines that take two hours to complete a cycle but hey they only use a cup of water. Every fucking appliance at the store has those yellow stickers. What is the point?

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:Agreed by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      They compare the relative energy usage of the appliances.

      ...under conditions that will apply to almost no-one, because people have jobs and families and other major commitments, and they can't wait 3-4 hours for every load of washing to complete.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    2. Re:Agreed by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      ...under conditions that will apply to almost no-one, because people have jobs and families and other major commitments, and they can't wait 3-4 hours for every load of washing to complete.

      Well they should just put them on last thing at night like I do and then set it drying in the morning. No problem.

      Just kidding!

      What I actually do is leave the laundry for ages then do tons in one day on the quick wash cycle.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    3. Re:Agreed by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      How is a timer going to help me put 4-5 loads of my family's washing through the machine in a day, if each wash takes 3-4 hours?

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    4. Re:Agreed by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      What I actually do is leave the laundry for ages then do tons in one day on the quick wash cycle.

      In my experience, that's what almost everyone does, except that with larger families "leave for ages" just means "want to put a normal week's worth of clothes through within a single free day at the weekend".

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    5. Re:Agreed by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      In my experience, that's what almost everyone does, except that with larger families "leave for ages" just means "want to put a normal week's worth of clothes through within a single free day at the weekend".

      I don't have a large family, but that's precisely what I do, which is at least an improvement over what I used to do. I used to live in an apartment with 3 washing machines and two of those colossal dryers.

      Then I really could leave it for absolutely ages. There's a certain efficiency to be had by having all the machines running simultenaously for three complete cycles.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    6. Re: Agreed by k2r · · Score: 1

      My Bosch washing machine I bought this summer needs exactly 1:53 hours for a 60C cycle.
      I find it very hard to believe that I accidentally bought a super fast model and that the average washing machine today needs 3-4 hours per cycle as you say.

    7. Re:Agreed by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm happy for you that your family, job and other commitments are so convenient and regular, but not everyone is in that position.

      I don't know where you got this idea that I was talking about 4-5 loads per day from. That's a weekly load. The point is that we often have limited time available for household chores, and need to be efficient about using it. We have better things to do with our limited free time than interrupt it throughout an entire day to change washing around.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    8. Re: Agreed by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      Depending on the settings, our machine will also do much faster cycles. It looks like about an hour for the 30-40C washes, a bit more if you go hotter. However, its default for any given settings seems to be 2-3x longer than the fastest time-saving option. Those defaults are the "eco" options driven by the regulations we're talking about.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    9. Re:Agreed by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      What kind of palaces do you people live in, where you have enough space to keep a family's worth of washing sorted into the separate types all the time, and you can run a washing machine overnight without it waking up everyone whose bedroom is above the kitchen? And how do you vacuum it properly while a cup of tea brews? Something about your claims doesn't add up.

      You know nothing about my lifestyle and commitments, so it's odd that you feel yourself qualified to judge me. Certainly I am not alone in the concerns I have about these things; plenty of my friends and family seem to have the same view.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  22. Re: Regulations never backfire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Did you know, repealing Glassâ"Steagall Banking Laws separating commercial and investment banking, that was Clinton in 1999, not Bush.

    Clinton was President, the actual law was written by Gramm, Leach, and Bliley.

    Don't let that fact get in your way. Or the fact that Republicans blamed Obama for the very same stimulus they passed.

  23. As an American by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I am fucking jealous right now.

  24. That's great - just one problem by jenningsthecat · · Score: 2

    These days obsolescence, (even among the highest-tech goods), is as much a matter of fashion as it is of product failure, unrepairability, etc. People expect and demand the latest 'innovation', even if it's only a small change in size, the lack of a bezel, or some other frivolity. The population at large is addicted to having the latest and greatest, with no thought for future generations. It's kind of a 'chicken and egg' situation: planned obsolescence and flashy advertising make unnecessary purchases more compelling, while the resultant increased demand further encourages manufacturers to make products that inherently don't last and can't easily be repaired. So along with legislation against planned obsolescence, we need mass education to help turn the tide of rampant consumerism.

    Of course, taking these actions will have negative consequences for 'The Economy'. Personally, I don't think that's a bad thing - hence my sig. As a species, we need to start living within our means, and to abandon the notion that uncurtailed economic growth is anything other than a social cancer. Instead, we keep "borrowing", (or, more accurately, stealing), the resources that fuel our (largely) hollow and soul-suckingly luxurious lifestyle from future generations. The early investors live the high life, while the later ones, (many of whom either have no choice or haven't even been born yet), get screwed. Population growth makes even mere survival of mankind an iffy proposition in the long term, so we really need to stop treating the Earth as though it's a broken freezer that needs to have all of its contents consumed before they go bad. Our current habits are making us fat and lazy, and they they may eventually bring about the end of mankind.

    --
    'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    1. Re:That's great - just one problem by robsku · · Score: 1

      Very good.

      --
      In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
    2. Re:That's great - just one problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      People expect and demand the latest 'innovation', even if it's only a small change in size, the lack of a bezel, or some other frivolity.

      People expect it. They don't demand it. The same with stuff breaking very quickly. We've become accustom to manufacturers refusing to do updates and having colleges who think it's sane to just buy the new system because "the old was getting slow, anyways" and strongly encourage you to do the same. Most of us have neither the money nor the inclination to follow every product update. Some of us even wait for the obsolete to fall into massive depreciation in "value", where $1000 systems become $50 ebay items.

      The think that irks me is not the obsolescence. It's the unrepairabiilty and the general shoddy construction that results in parts breaking. USB plugs having a 10,000 insertion lifetime is insane. That such a thing was considered an acceptable minimal part of a standard is beyond absurd.

    3. Re:That's great - just one problem by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Planned obsolescence for style reasons is opt-in. It let's people choose to replace or not. Planned obsolescence via build quality is something else. Heck, even if for style reasons, better build quality means higher resale value.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    4. Re:That's great - just one problem by Whibla · · Score: 1

      These days obsolescence, (especially among the highest-tech goods), is as much a matter of fashion as it is of product failure

      Sorry, but FTFY...

      The population at large is addicted to having the latest and greatest, with no thought for future generations.

      I'm guessing you don't feel that you're speaking for yourself, and you're certainly not speaking for me. If / when I buy something durability (of use) is just about my primary concern. For example the washing machine I bought was chosen based on the 21+ years (and still going) lifespan of my parents' machine. And you'd probably laugh if I told you how old my mobile phone is...

      Of course, taking these actions will have negative consequences for 'The Economy'. Personally, I don't think that's a bad thing - hence my sig. As a species, we need to start living within our means, and to abandon the notion that uncurtailed economic growth is anything other than a social cancer. Instead, we keep "borrowing", (or, more accurately, stealing), the resources that fuel our (largely) hollow and soul-suckingly luxurious lifestyle from future generations. The early investors live the high life, while the later ones, (many of whom either have no choice or haven't even been born yet), get screwed. Population growth makes even mere survival of mankind an iffy proposition in the long term, so we really need to stop treating the Earth as though it's a broken freezer that needs to have all of its contents consumed before they go bad. Our current habits are making us fat and lazy, and they they may eventually bring about the end of mankind.

      Well said! 'The Economy' is as much a social construct as it is a science detailing the actions needed to keep everyone fed, clothed, housed, and 'gainfully employed'. And fortunately societies can choose to change...

  25. Re:Effectively by robsku · · Score: 1

    Seriously!?

    --
    In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
  26. Re:Regulations never backfire by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The EU has similar measures to let you compare the efficiency and running costs of various appliances. For example a vacuum cleaner has to have a sticker that shows how well it cleans on carpet and on hard floors, how much noise it makes, how well it cleans the air before expelling it (really important for people with allergies) and how much it costs to run.

    https://ec.europa.eu/energy/si...

    This new proposal is a great idea. The manufacturer will have to list the lowest MTBF of all components in the machine based on a standardized usage pattern. So if a washing machine has a belt with an MTBF of only 5 years then the label has to say "5 years" on it.

    Video games should be interesting. "Servers guaranteed to run until 2019" could be pretty interesting on the next EA Sportsball game.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  27. Less Glue Please by beckett · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If this means that manufacturers will be encouraged to use screws instead of glue then it's a win for the planet.

    Apple and others - please stop gluing your fucking products together. I would rather buy displays i can fix, than thinner displays. I am keeping my computers for far longer than i used to, and need easy upgrade paths for internal components. why is this so hard to grasp for some?

    1. Re:Less Glue Please by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Apple and others - please stop gluing your fucking products together. I would rather buy displays i can fix, than thinner displays. I am keeping my computers for far longer than i used to, and need easy upgrade paths for internal components. why is this so hard to grasp for some?

      Apple: "Keeping computers longer? But how will you get the new shiny that we focus on selling? We designed the machines to be shiny, not to last a long time, why would you have bought them in the first place if you didn't just want the shiny shiny?"

      Others: <basically the same thing, only slightly less so>

      Their job security depends on failing to understand you.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  28. Hans says... by JBMcB · · Score: 1

    But these rats keep gnawing at my toes. Certainly we need to go to the store for ketchup.

    --
    My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
  29. Re:"Unless safety dictates otherwise" by robsku · · Score: 1

    Yeah, like that's going to happen.

    --
    In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
  30. Re:Just pay more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    FUD. Products don't suddenly become cheaper when planned obsolescence is introduced (quite the opposite, in fact), and don't suddenly become expensive when going back to normal practice.

    Longer warranties is a different matter, but that should have minimal effect on expected costs because the entire point of a warrantee period is to cover the time in which defective items are likely to fail. Anything that makes it to the end of its regular warrantee period is extremely unlikely to suffer from a warrantee-covered fault if the warrantee period is extended, because if it was defective it would have failed already.

  31. As long as it includes software by sad_ · · Score: 2

    As long as this resolution also includes software and not only hardware it should be good.
    These days you're nothing with an android phone from 4 years ago that you can still repair but is running android 4.0 filled with security holes.
    And let's not start with all the IoT devices.

    Software obsolescence is just as big a problem.

    --
    On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
  32. Re:Just pay more by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This proposal is quite clever. They will have to put a sticker on the box that says "average time before something fails is X years", which instantly does two things:

    1. Consumers know how long something will likely last, rather than just guessing based on brand reputation or anecdotes.

    2. Longevity will become a selling point. Before they had stickers on vacuum cleaners showing how well they actually cleaned people just tended to buy the most powerful one, but now they make a more intelligent and informed decision.

    Selling price isn't based cost of manufacture, it's based on what the market will stand. So for example goods often cost about the same in Europe as they do in the US (factoring in tax), but in Europe you get a much longer statutory warranty.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  33. Re:Effectively by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Of course not.
    https://slashdot.org/~BeauHD the editor is a very different account from
    https://slashdot.org/~BeauHD+(... which is a troll account.

  34. Re:"Should"? by Luckyo · · Score: 1

    Even if language was "musts", no company would give a fuck. It's European Parliament's resolution. It has no legal power to compel anything, and is worth less than paper it's printed on.

    That's why it states in the OP that they're now going to beg and plead that Commission notices Parliament for once. Because unless it's something Commission proposes, there's nothing compelling that Parliament can do. At all. It's literally the way system is set. Which is why Parliament passes these "resolutions", which are nothing more than proverbial getting on their knees and begging for unelected aristocrats of the Commission to give them some legislative package that would even remotely meet what they're begging for. It's a desperate attempt of elected MPs who have no practical legislative power in spite of the big name of the organisation they're elected to, to pretend they have some actual legislative ability for the public.

    Which usually ends up filed in the nearest trash bin in the Commission bureaucracy, because why on earth would Commission care about pathetic whining of elected and utterly powerless plebs at the Parliament. It has no power to compel them. And once Parliament is done posturing in the media, no one will remember it, just like no one remembers countless other similar Parliament resolutions on various topics.

  35. Re: Effectively by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

    Are you seriously afraid of Belarus?

    --
    "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  36. Re:Just pay more by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

    This proposal is quite clever. They will have to put a sticker on the box that says "average time before something fails is X years", which instantly does two things:

    1. Consumers know how long something will likely last, rather than just guessing based on brand reputation or anecdotes.

    2. Longevity will become a selling point. Before they had stickers on vacuum cleaners showing how well they actually cleaned people just tended to buy the most powerful one, but now they make a more intelligent and informed decision.

    Selling price isn't based cost of manufacture, it's based on what the market will stand. So for example goods often cost about the same in Europe as they do in the US (factoring in tax), but in Europe you get a much longer statutory warranty.

    The problem with MTBF is that for most consumer electronic products it will be so long that most people will say "I'll replace it way before them." Even if 5% of the iPhones fail prematurely the sheer number made will make MBTF look good. Just look at HD MBTF's as an example. As for "about the same" the delta results from increase regulatory costs; and while I like the protections the EU affords me they are not without a cost. TINSTAAFL.

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  37. Re:Effectively by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    If a device lasts longer then they don't have to go to as much effort as frequently to download their spyware to your phone.

    Medicinal marijuana clearly has side-effects.

  38. Re:Just pay more by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

    I'd also add 3. Companies will start looking for ways to fiddle the number.

  39. Re:Regulations never backfire by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    However, regulations requiring EnergyStar compliance at worst might slightly increase the cost of the appliance or device

    Good. We should collectively stop fucking the environment to save a dollar.

  40. Re:Regulations never backfire by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

    Forcing companies to provide very long term support for long outdated technologies will decidedly tilt the playing field in favor large players at the expense of small innovative companies.

    There is certainly a risk there. That said, up to a point, I suspect mandatory transparency will improve a lot of these problems as much as hard standards.

    I think of this increasingly like the mandatory health warnings we've had on cigarette packets for a long time. If the advertising or packaging for, say, a "smart" TV was allowed to list any third party services it integrated with but also had to state equally prominently how long those services were guaranteed to work for and what would happen to the relevant features of the TV if the services were updated or discontinued and whether and when any updates would be provided and whether those updates might also affect other behaviour rather than simply maintaining compatibility, and then had to give a further prominent disclosure of other owner-hostile behaviours like phoning home after spying on you, and then had to give a further prominent disclosure about any security risks such as included sensors and networking capabilities and the track record of the manufacturer in terms of keeping their devices secure and the minimum amount of time that security updates would be provided for and what would happen to the device when they stopped... Well, you get the idea.

    I do think there has to be room for mandatory minimum standards and levels of support, but ideally as a last resort. The first problem is that people today buy expensive things with wildly inaccurate expectations that are often tacitly accepted or even actively encouraged by the manufacturers and vendors of those things.

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  41. printer ink!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Hopefully they include stop the knuckleheads from adding chips in toner cartridges and inkjet cartridges which expire by time instead of quantity=empty

  42. Re:Just pay more by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

    iPhones aren't really the problem, it's stuff like household appliances. The cheap ones barely last 3 years a lot of the time.

    Also stuff like software that is reliant on some server somewhere. What is the minimum lifetime of that service? A few years ago some smart TVs stopped playing YouTube because they dropped support for old devices. Imagine phones having a sticker that told you the earliest date that they would stop supplying updates.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  43. Re: Regulations never backfire by careysub · · Score: 1

    And that the Gramm, Leach, and Bliley act (all hard right Republicans) was passed by a nearly unanimous Republican vote, and with enough Democrats to make the act veto-proof. Sure Clinton could have just let it pass into law unsigned, but he could not have stopped it. Blaming the act as the work of Clinton is just a deranged lie.

    --
    Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  44. Re:Ban all teslas by careysub · · Score: 1

    Tesla are unrepairable. If it brakes you have to throw it out and buy a new one.

    Wow! Using the brakes ruins the car! Who knew?

    --
    Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  45. I hope this leads to good things by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    ... the intentions are good... let us hope it isn't another brick on the road to hell.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  46. Re:Regulations never backfire by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

    Energy Star has been a massive success, at least in appliances. It lets people who care compare relative energy consumption. It's meaningless when it comes to monitors and such, but quite useful for air conditioning or refrigerators.

    For once, we agree!

  47. Re:Just pay more by Kjella · · Score: 1

    Selling price isn't based cost of manufacture, it's based on what the market will stand. So for example goods often cost about the same in Europe as they do in the US (factoring in tax), but in Europe you get a much longer statutory warranty.

    No, just no. Almost all goods in Europe are somewhere between the US base price and the US price + extended warranty, because some really do fail and it really costs money. It's probably close to the real cost of the warranty though since they have to offer 2/5 years by default. In fact I'm quite sure the reason the US isn't seeing more early failures is because they have to take the EU market into consideration where they need to eat the cost themselves.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  48. Re:Just pay more by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

    iPhones aren't really the problem, it's stuff like household appliances. The cheap ones barely last 3 years a lot of the time.

    Consumers share in the blame as well; your consumer appliance is a good example. People often don't want to pay for quality appliances that will last, they buy on price and hence get cheap junk. There are quality alternatives out there that will last. For example, I have a blender that costs 4 to 5 times that of your average cheap one, but it is built like a tank and will last a lifetime. You don't see it in the most stores because they wouldn't sell because of the price; for most stores it a race to have the cheapest price and you get what you pay for, or at least pay for everything you get.

    Also stuff like software that is reliant on some server somewhere. What is the minimum lifetime of that service? A few years ago some smart TVs stopped playing YouTube because they dropped support for old devices. Imagine phones having a sticker that told you the earliest date that they would stop supplying updates.

    I wish I knew the answer on how to deal with those issues. That will be a whole new challenge as people discover their TV, radio, whatever stopped working because the manufacturer dropped support and updates. As for updates, a company could say 5 years but that would not mean any new features would be added, just that they'd do patches and offer repair parts. It's not reasonable to expect them to add the same features that future versions of the software have and may require more memory and faster processors to run well. As for a 3rd party dropping support for formats your product needs, I think it is unreasonable to expect a manufacturer to maintain 3rd party compatibility. If you're rellying on a server you're taking the risk that server goes away, a company I am working with is developing software that runs on a cloud server but we are making it provider agnostic so we can move it if our vendor goes away.

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  49. Re:Regulations never backfire by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    The slight cost increase is often more than offset by energy savings and making a better informed decision on what to buy.

    When you look at software you can see that it's usually the smaller players who offer better long term support, and the big ones that don't.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  50. Re:Just pay more by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    Consumers tend to make better decisions when they are informed. A sticker with the average lifespan and running cost of the product on should really help.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  51. How you're wrong: by UpnAtom · · Score: 1

    pretend extra hard that adding an extra step of European Council between Commission and Parliament constitutes a meaningful difference.

    It does. And it proves your statement completely incorrect: "All legislation must come from European Commission"

    The second thing you're wrong about is that the European Parliament has "no right to modify the package and vote on the modified legislation." The European Parliament absolutely does have that right and it also has the right to tell the European Commission how to draft the law instead. WP's summary plus source here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    1. Re:How you're wrong: by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Desperation on part of EU troll factory crew is getting real. "If Commission sends package to Council, which then sends it to Parliament, it didn't originate from Commission" according to your BS.

      The hilarity is real.

      And second, no, Parliament cannot modify the package and vote on it. All it can do is veto it, after which it goes back to the Commission. Which was my entire point. They have no ability to modify and vote. Whatever modification that are done must be done by the Commission. It can also whine, cry and beg Commission for "how to draft the law" as much as it wants. It's exactly what it's doing here. There's zero legal obligation for Commission to care about this whining, crying and begging in any way, which is why most of these irrelevant resolutions are filed in the nearest trash bin at the low level bureaucracy of the Commission.

      Where they belong. Alongside your desperately cringy trolling attempts.

    2. Re:How you're wrong: by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Which part of 'the commision is just a fancy name for "board of ministers" ' aka a cabinet, don't you grasp?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  52. Misinformative +5 by UpnAtom · · Score: 1

    The European Parliament doesn't draft laws because it a) speaks a dozen different languages and b) has no real expertise in drafting legislation.

    It would need a thousand translators to translate the dozens of proposals for EU laws as well as waste a lot of the Parliament's time.

    Legislation may also come from the Council of Ministers, who basically represent the elected national govts of the 28 countries.

    The European Parliament vote on the President. The Commissioners are decided between the President and the Council of Ministers, and the European Parliament has a veto.
    Commissioners are generally ex- prime ministers and ministers. There's no point Commissioners proposing laws the Parliament won't pass and they take Resolutions very seriously.

    You're also completely wrong that the European Parliament has "no right to modify the package and vote on the modified legislation." The European Parliament absolutely does have that right and it also has the right to tell the European Commission what to draft. You can read about it, with the actual law here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    You're obviously grossly misinformed, pro-Brexit as a result and quite happy to spread disinformation about the EU.

    1. Re:Misinformative +5 by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Wow I must've hit the nerve. This trolling is getting utterly desperate. "Parliament full of democratically elected politicians doesn't have expertise to pass laws, also they don't speak enough languages to do so".

      Please ignore the whole translation budget of the parliament which allows even for the things like instant translation to all European langauges during sessions, also please ignore the fact that unelected Commission apparently has no problems with languages.

      Seriously. Russians do trolling way better than you. And my opinion of EU as a system that has any ability to employ competent people sinks even further. Well done.

    2. Re:Misinformative +5 by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      Good fucking grief, you Leavers are dumb. Your opponents give you the fucking links to the procedures of the EU, and all you manage to do is repeat Leave talking points. Including, I note, the Brexit and alt-right strategy of accusing your opponents of your own bad-faith arguing techniques.

      Congratulations old chap, you have just failed the Reverse Turing Test: so dumb you're indistinguishable from a bot.

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    3. Re:Misinformative +5 by UpnAtom · · Score: 1

      Please ignore the whole translation budget of the parliament which allows even for the things like instant translation to all European langauges during sessions

      Considering how important legal documents are, no.

      also please ignore the fact that unelected Commission apparently has no problems with languages.

      They only have to speak one, the same one.

      You don't even understand what I'm talking about, do you?

    4. Re:Misinformative +5 by UpnAtom · · Score: 1

      He's cleverer than most Leave voters, which isn't saying much.

      His ego is just so desperate to be right/bash the EU that he doesn't care that he's wrong and misinforming everyone.

    5. Re:Misinformative +5 by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The Commision is not elceted, and so is your cabinet! Or did you vote for the minister of defense, or minister of education (I suppose you have one)?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    6. Re:Misinformative +5 by UpnAtom · · Score: 1

      The Commission is decided through negotiation between 3 elected offices.

  53. Typical libertarian FUD by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    This isn't hard. Let's take Apple as an example - they'd be required to make their phones serviceable and not to try to block repairs with patents. It doesn't mean they'd have to make parts for everything in perpetuity.

  54. The high cost of manufacture and disposal by alternative_right · · Score: 1

    If your modern appliance only lasts 1/4 as long it's still substantialy cheaper over all and probably does a much better job as well.

    Do we want to be creating a bunch of landfill? In addition, the greatest energy expenditure and environmental damage is caused by manufacture, so if you make something that lasts for fifty years it has a lesser impact than a whole bunch of cheaper disposable gadgets that get pitched out after only 12.25 years.

  55. Laboratory conditions by alternative_right · · Score: 1

    under conditions that will apply to almost no-one

    This is my experience, too. The energy efficiency of a washing machine in laundering white towels in a laboratory has little bearing on how it will be used in daily life.

    The real problem here is the equation population times resource use equals impact.

    It is politically correct to focus on resource use, not population. We like to pretend that if we all use EnergyStar dishwashers, a world of seven billion will not end in ecocide and Mad Max style conditions.

    1. Re:Laboratory conditions by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      This is my experience, too. The energy efficiency of a washing machine in laundering white towels in a laboratory has little bearing on how it will be used in daily life.

      It doesn't matter even slightly. See, those stickers have different numbers on them. And by comparing the different numbers, you can gauge relative energy efficiency of one appliance to the next. It doesn't have to tell you how much it's going to cost to operate in order to be useful, because if you can't find a washing machine or dryer in your power budget, you aren't just going to not buy one unless you're working on a small solar system or similar. Then you might buy a lower class of appliance, like a "portable" unit. What the average person will do is buy the cheapest device which meets their needs. In the case where there are multiple devices which can do the job, of about the same price, the buyer may choose one with a lower energy consumption. And the energy star placard, which is only useful if it's on all the units, give them that information in convenient thermometer form.

      When I bought an AC unit, I chose the one with the lowest power consumption for the amount of cooling it provided. Then Sears failed to replace it under warranty with a like unit and I wound up with one with terrible energy consumption, because Sears is a scam. They should be out of business by 2H 2020 though.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  56. Mud huts are green too by alternative_right · · Score: 1

    Stop overloading your dryer. They work fine if you don't overload them.

    Not correct, in my experience and that of others I know.

    Fridges from then had non-encapsulated compressors and were loud AF. You could cheaply replace the compressor, but they didn't necessarily last a long time. You can still replace compressors, but nobody bothers any more. They just buy a new fridge.

    Gotta keep that landfill healthy somehow.

    Washers from then were not even slightly better than the ones we have now.

    The 1980s Kenmore I used to use did a much better job than the last few post-1990s fancypants "green" washers.

    Toilets used more than twice as much water, so even if you have to flush twice sometimes you're still coming out ahead.

    They also worked well and seemed to avoid clogs, even without the dreaded Taco Bell + ate a whole brick of cheese bowel movement.

    You know what uses more water? Making new refrigerators, washers, dryers, and washing machines because they only last a few years.

    Go to a showroom, ask about quality, and you'll get an interesting report. Then do the same with someone who maintains the machines. Quality has fallen along with cost, but disposable machines are more expensive in the long run, both in terms of energy and money.

  57. Government and lawyers by alternative_right · · Score: 1

    Do multiple loads, legislation lawyered energy use and not I have to manage two loads of clothes instead of one.

    Do government, lawyers, and regulations ever do anything but make the situation worse?

    We were better off under the rule that if someone did something wrong to you, you sued them and won big.

    Regulations mostly protect companies, especially from competition by raising the proportionate cost to the little guys. For a big firm, $500k in legal fees is no big deal, but it prevents smaller guys from entering the marketplace and competing with them.

    That ultimately means fewer options and higher prices for the consumer, plus no competition for quality. Thus we get a society of disposable junk that goes straight into the landfill because the cost of recycling this stuff is higher than the value received.

  58. The problem is really the consumer by DarkOx · · Score: 2

    I would like to suggest the problem is actually the consumer. Consumers want neatly little packaged integrated things as products mature. They want their own knowledge requirements for the devices operation to decrease as products mature.

    Consider cars. There was a period of pre-war auto manufacturing where it was non-longer bespoke but at the same time people expected to buy a car and own it for a long time - maybe indefinitely. They anticipated maintaining and repairing it. If you look at engine designs right up thru the early post war periods you see things like lined cylinders and valve guides. Basically all wearing parts were built to be replaceable. Granted it still might have major work in terms of labor but compare that to most modern mass market automobile engines - you'd have machine the block today once things like valve guides or cylinder walls wear or crack etc. Essentially they are now disposable devices. On the other hand you can now own and operate a car with virtually zero knowledge of how it works - they even have built in monitors to tell you when to get the oil changed now.

    Think about how home stereo equipment evolved from 1960 - 2018. Discrete often home assembled components to integrated systems to one giant reciever with everything built in driven by your smart phone to "IoT Speaker"

    We have seen the same thing with computers. Even if you bought something like a Northgate back in the early 90s it was in a standard box. You could replace the motherboard and CPU and retain the chassis and power supply. You might even keep the main board and slap and "overdrive" process on it. Granted you can still get "project box" style cases today and certainly there is a plenty big market for motherboards and stuff in standard sizes - but if you buy a brand name PC odds are pretty good its now some custom miniature case like a Mac min - or similar offering from HP or Dell.

    So lets look at mobile. You use to manually sync your iPaq, Cassiopeia, or Palm with your laptop. You either manually cabled it up or careful started some IR sync tool and line up all the devices. Every application was side loaded; or you had a RIM that just did e-mail. Now yes its all integrated in your phone. You don't need to know how anything works. You don't need to really even learn any software tools - but you have way way less choice about how you are going to manage things. Want to backup your iPhone? - its iTunes or nothing (okay iCloud now). I used to be able to eject the CF card from my Cassiopeia and back it up however I wanted! Which is not say I'd go back!

    What do we do now - we integrated the PDA / portable gaming devices into our phone - its all online - its mostly automagical. The consequence is people don't really know anything about them. I would suggest consumers don't really want replaceable batteries because they don't really want to be at the battery store flipping thru "phone books" of part numbers looking for a suitable replacement on Saturday afternoon - they rather just get a new phone!

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    1. Re:The problem is really the consumer by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Consider cars. There was a period of pre-war auto manufacturing where it was non-longer bespoke but at the same time people expected to buy a car and own it for a long time - maybe indefinitely. They anticipated maintaining and repairing it. If you look at engine designs right up thru the early post war periods you see things like lined cylinders and valve guides.

      Consider reliability. Sleeved engines have more opportunities for leaks. At the time the only reasonable way to rebuild engines with damaged cylinders was if they were lined. Today, we have magna-fluxing, and machines which make machining parent bore engines simple. And it's gotten so cheap to manufacture a cylinder head that most of them have very little machining tolerance anyway. If you take more a few thousandths off of a head, it's out of spec and you can't run it without custom, extra-thick gaskets. This is true both on highly modern engines like the Audi V8, and also on not-so-modern engines like the pre-powerstroke (and push-rod!) 6.9/7.3 liter International diesel. As long as the engine is accessible and lightweight enough to remove, it makes more sense to use a native bore. It's only when it's so heavy that it's a PITA to pull that you care about being able to do an in-frame rebuild, like on a Cummins ISC. That's a 1,500 pound engine when dry.

      An ISB weighs almost 500 pounds less, and that's before you remove the head.

      Think about how home stereo equipment evolved from 1960 - 2018. Discrete often home assembled components to integrated systems to one giant reciever with everything built in driven by your smart phone to "IoT Speaker"

      IoT is missing the letters D and I, but there's nothing wrong with integrating stuff to reduce clutter. Most people don't need a discrete stereo stack; today, most people are only going to play mp3s. The point of the stack was to get all the components people needed, and now they don't need all those components. That means less stuff to go wrong. That's a win, not a loss.

      We have seen the same thing with computers. Even if you bought something like a Northgate back in the early 90s it was in a standard box. You could replace the motherboard and CPU and retain the chassis and power supply. You might even keep the main board and slap and "overdrive" process on it. Granted you can still get "project box" style cases today and certainly there is a plenty big market for motherboards and stuff in standard sizes - but if you buy a brand name PC odds are pretty good its now some custom miniature case like a Mac min - or similar offering from HP or Dell.

      Every vendor still offers standards-based (ATX, etc.) PCs. Even many SFF PCs are now standards-based, which wasn't true when they first appeared on the market.

      So lets look at mobile. You use to manually sync your iPaq, Cassiopeia, or Palm with your laptop. You either manually cabled it up or careful started some IR sync tool and line up all the devices. Every application was side loaded; or you had a RIM that just did e-mail. Now yes its all integrated in your phone. You don't need to know how anything works. You don't need to really even learn any software tools - but you have way way less choice about how you are going to manage things. Want to backup your iPhone? - its iTunes or nothing (okay iCloud now). I used to be able to eject the CF card from my Cassiopeia and back it up however I wanted! Which is not say I'd go back!

      Yes, iPhone is the choice for people who care about shiny shiny more than functionality. But there's no shortage of phones with memory card slots, so long as you don't want one from Apple. I can back up all my apps and data to my SD card, and remove it from my phone.

      What do we do now - we integrated the PDA / portable gaming devices into our phone - its all online - its mostly automagical. The consequence is people don't really know anything about them.

      Most people never knew anything about the computer. They only ever knew about the applications. After the age where computers were homebuilt, most people never opened their computers and they still don't.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  59. Re:Just pay more by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

    Consumers tend to make better decisions when they are informed. A sticker with the average lifespan and running cost of the product on should really help.

    You have greater faith in the average consumer's ability to make rational decisions than I do. You assume they'll even value knowing such things and use it in the decision making process over price. Price already acts as a proxy for quality, and what are the best selling products?

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  60. You're happy to publicly misinform by UpnAtom · · Score: 1

    Desperation on part of EU troll factory crew is getting real. "If Commission sends package to Council, which then sends it to Parliament, it didn't originate from Commission" according to your BS.

    Wrong, the Commission is not involved at any point.

    And second, no, Parliament cannot modify the package and vote on it.

    Wrong, I already proved it can. Read the fucking law.

    There's zero legal obligation for Commission to care about this whining, crying and begging in any way

    Yet the Commission cannot pass any law without Parliament.

    So the only thing you can actually whine about here is that Parliament cannot pass a law that neither the Commission nor the Council of Ministers/heads of govt want.

    which is why most of these irrelevant resolutions are filed in the nearest trash bin at the low level bureaucracy of the Commission.

    Where they belong.

    Your agenda is showing.

  61. Re:Just pay more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    > People often don't want to pay for quality appliances that will last, they buy on price and hence get cheap junk.

    That's the only sane approach. As much as people like to say "you get what you pay for," there's seldom any truth in it. The expensive stuff is the same as the cheap stuff, it just has a higher profit margin. If it looks like it's higher quality, it's often only because it *looks* like it's higher quality. The manufacturers like those high profit margins, but don't want to miss out on sales to people who can't afford the higher price, so they make multiple versions of their products, some which *look* like crap and others which *look* high-quality, even though it's all the same low-quality shit on the inside, so that consumers who don't know any better and assume "you get what you pay for" will buy the most expensive one they can afford. Just pay attention the next time your shopping and ask yourself why lower-priced items are often so damn ugly when there's essentially no additional cost involved in choosing a color and shape for a product that isn't patently offensive to everyone's senses. Its because you're supposed to decide to buy a more expensive product.

  62. Re: Just pay more by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

    Price acts a proxy for quality? Really? I have some Monster Cables to sell you!

    Yes, people believe higher prices indicate higher quality, whether it is true or not.

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  63. Re:"Should"? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    Still trolling with your uninformed anti EU rant?

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  64. 4.5 paragraphs of meaningless waffle by UpnAtom · · Score: 1

    ... punctuated by Express propaganda like "EU aristocracy" whoever the fuck they are.

    1. Re:4.5 paragraphs of meaningless waffle by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Did I cost you your bonus or something when you failed to troll me? You seem to be unable to stop yourself from mindlessly spamming every reply I make with this mindless garbage.

      Get over it. I use "aristocracy" in the exactly same context as I did in my parent post.

      P.S. What's "express"? Your business competitor?

  65. Re:Just pay more by vandamme · · Score: 1

    MTBF: that word does not mean what you think it means.
    Also, that "50,000 hours" you see on LED packages? Complete bullshit.

  66. Re:Just pay more by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    If the manufacturers lie about the MTBF they will get into legal difficulties as the regulators investigate them, and consumers will be able to make a good argument in small claims court that their product lasted much less time than one would reasonably expect.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  67. Re: Bad old car analogy by DarkOx · · Score: 1

    Designs reflect this with easy access (like frame crossmembers permitting in-frame overhaul

    My point exactly they were designed to be maintained and it was assumed that when things wore out they would be replaced and or rebuild.

    Its true they had shorter life spans; but that was not 'planned obsolescence' It was more a function of the manufacturing and materials capability of the era.

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  68. Missing the point by alternative_right · · Score: 1

    It doesn't matter even slightly.

    Yes, it does, because manufacturers compete on the basis of those numbers and yet, those numbers do not reflect real world usage.

    1. Re:Missing the point by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Yes, it does, because manufacturers compete on the basis of those numbers and yet, those numbers do not reflect real world usage.

      It still doesn't matter if those numbers reflect real-world usage, because they can be compared to one another and used to determine which appliances are relatively superior. The dollar amount on the tag is irrelevant, it's the position on the thermometer which matters. This is really not very complicated, so I can only assume that you are willfully refusing to understand.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  69. Not if they are unreal by alternative_right · · Score: 1

    they can be compared to one another and used to determine which appliances are relatively superior

    That establishes relative rank, but does not tell consumers what they actually need, so they are still casting around in the dark.

    In the meantime, nothing has been saved with EnergyStar and related programs which make junky disposable appliances end up in landfills where the older, sturdier versions kept working for decades.

    What is it about the voters that they are so stupid that they think regulations benefit them?

  70. Re:Just pay more by vandamme · · Score: 1

    They don't lie. "Truth is not truth", as Rudy Giuliani said. The lifetime of an LED in ideal laboratory conditions is 50,000 hours, and they just get gradually dimmer but they keep working. I forget what the "lifetime" cutoff is, 70% or something. But they keep glowing.

    Doesn't sound so bad, does it? Well, you put those LEDs in a bulb with an electronic driver, and it's subject to catastrophic failure of any of the components. The you put it in an enclosed fixture where the heat builds up. And you bought the cheapest crap from the dollar store, with unknown reliability and poor manufacturing techniques. Then a power line spike comes along and fries the driver. Did you use it connector up in violation of the instructions? Doesn't matter, the company went out of business before the bulbs got to the USA and a 'different' company makes them.