Don't think it can't get worse. Ask yourself instead, why should you expect it to get any better?
It was pretty much as good as it could get (save a few cultural things such as finally abolishing slavery) back in the beginning, when america had its fundamentals. From there, every law has made more criminals. For ever law you make, you have people that are already breaking it, or will be. Eventually, we are all criminals within some legislative muck. At what point do we decide if it is time to just wipe it all, start from scratch with a large democratic (not the party, the power of peoples) group of educated political scientists and such; have a reassembly, same constitution with a couple amendments, and then the most necessary laws we think must be retained.
As it stands there is no real effort to purge all that we've laid upon each other. We just keep making more people 'wrong'.:/
I'd rather have 4x9hour days, a 10% cut in pay, and 3 days off every week. (Hey, most of the last 10% is taxes anyway, right). If everyone did this, we could avoid tons of layoffs nationwide, lower energy costs (4 days commuting instead of 5), and 3-day weekends every week...
Your plan basically sounds like a European lifestyle.
But apparently not other people's. Saying "You can't create and sell that product unless..." is limiting somebody's freedom.
Maybe I was not clear enough. I like my freedom, and others'. And in this case, I am indifferent (given it does not slip the slope), but that doesn't necessarily oblige me to defend those of others. That doesn't mean I don't like others to have freedom, as you have said, it just means I'm not interested in deliberately protecting them in this case.
"Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior"
Except that it hasn't been.
Your post including the words 'violent media' reminds me that if they will go this far, they ought remember to make all the major news organizations do it as well. Not that there aren't stories otherwise, but pretty much all I (and most people) see on the news is violence.
That warning might make sense, if if it were true that video games actually caused aggressive behaviour. As it stands, there has been no conclusive proof that video games actually do cause aggressive behaviour, and thus this label is actually just a deceptive, nanny state tactic.
Oh, don't worry, there are plenty of other ways to do it. Video games can often lead to cannabis use, and despite the results of thorough research, everyone knows cannabis is da debbil and destroys lives and homes!
Just when I thought maybe elected officials could earn some modicum of respect. Well done, Joe.
I don't really care how they make the package look so long as they still let me buy it. Thats my concern. I don't think its quite a slippery-slope argument to say that this type of action may lead to bans or restrictions in the future. And that would suck... I like my freedom.
Except for the fact that CO2 is a very poor Greenhouse gas (how's the weather by the way? Love that Global warming, don't you?). A far, far superior greenhouse gas is even more common, and when CO2 gets filtered out, it get's replaced with this gas.
Noone mentions it though. Why? Because the Gas which is four to eight times more efficient at reflecting sunlight out into space is O2.
Oxygen
Here's an idea - Let's ban the release of Oxygen into the atmosphere! Maybe get some of the green-peacers out of there boats and start them on burning down forests!/sarcasm
You must not have an education that required the study of chemistry. Go get it, or at least make an effort by reading wikipedia. Once you know what you're talking about, please report back.
FYI: Science is the act of applying the scientific method. A scientist is a person who applies that method to research. Anything else is not science, so it is not very wise to regard it as such. Do not acknowledge pseudoscience as science; it is not. I know that you know this, but it is best not to even use the term, as people who you communicate with may not correctly understand what is truly science (we have a lot of ignorant people on this planet).
Yeah, there are a load of options out there, all of them viable, and once implemented, would receive the level of attention to be made more and more efficient, etc. Nevertheless, they are net positive producers with little to no noteworthy environmental impact.
The net energy factor regarding fossil fuels that is left out of the equation is the level of energy required to return our environment back to normal. When you disregard environmental impact, fossil fuels need to only produce more energy than it took to suck it out and refine it, but once environmental considerations are put into the equation you seriously have to wonder how it could almost ever be a 'smart' choice.
I did, however, see a pretty awesome biocatalytic system that has been recently developed that can (at net positive energy) convert CO2 back to small hydrocarbon chains. If we could run those off the fuel they produce to 'undo' fossil fuels, then we can possibly factor all that back together... etc etc etc.... But then its a matter of 'why go through so much damn to retain old technology?'
When you consider solar/wind/tidal/geothermal, the environmental impacts can usually be localized and have not major 'global' impact whatsoever. This does not make them 'perfect', but if one river in the US is exploited with a hydroelectric dam every quarter mile, but we run everything from the energy produced; well that sure beats pumping ridiculous levels of carbon dioxide and other combustion byproducts into the global atmosphere.
Also, once the nickel is 'mined' it is used in the panels. Then once the panel has seen age or needs to be replaced by a more efficient model, the nickel can be recycled into the system. Most chemical processes that require energy can be done with electricity--electricity that the unit orignially produced, for that matter. So, as I was getting at originally, if the panel puts out more power than it took to get all the materials, and to recycle it, then the energy is sourced pretty much for free. I'm only using the panels as an example. You can apply this to producing wind generators and what it would take to recycle the plastics and metals from the generators to produce new ones.
Opposition usually cites the localized environmental impacts as the reasons not to do so. The problem with that argument is that it is to defend the current system while denouncing better concepts simply because they are not 100% ideal. This is like having a swimming pool and having a group of friends that constantly piss in it, then deciding to switch to an equally large group of friends, but only one of them (Steve) pees in it. The original group then tells you that Steve will still pee in it, so you should just keep the original group. It doesn't make sense, but it does seem to convince a LOT of people.
Someday.. maybe we'll see a world that is led and equipped with the developments of the most intelligent and socially conscious, as opposed to one that is led by those with the most destructive/political power and guns/money.
If everyone, or even a large portion of people, put solar panels on their roofs, it would revolutionize our energy system by requiring far fewer new power plants, and maybe even help the power plants themselves change to using more environmentally friendly methods.
But in this case, unlike the government funding a big coal/natural-gas plant, the interest is upon each individual, and the promotion is limited. This is why you are saying 'if everyone', instead of 'if we'. Thus, the promotion is weak and ineffective because most individuals are not interested, not educated enough, or don't have the initial money to put into the idea.
If everyone recycled, we would be more ecologically responsible too, but unlike europe, we don't recycle for crap. Why? The issue is still left in the hands of the individual. In europe, recycling is mandatory and the government places recycling containers on every block pretty much (I lived there for a few years. Italy/Germany). And because the effort is made at the state level, the action receives the large scale support of the state. If we did the same with new energy, we would find much more adequate results. But like I've said in other posts on this topic, the people who make decisions are influenced by people with money who don't want to lose money by making progress via change. You think big corporate natural gas and coal companies, who get much more respect in politics than us weebles, would want to be replaced?
Sadly, the companies hold strong to their current assets instead of making the smart move of making changes themselves. T.Boone Pickens is an exemption of this criticism, an oil tycoon who is moving to develop large scale wind power fields. This reminds me of the auto industry, which with the influence of big oil, squashed the concept of the electric car in the 90s. Imagine how well off they would be right now if US companies made electric cars instead of gas guzzling SUVs? Why buy some 30mpg toyota when you've got an electric car that costs 50 cents a day!?!
The only problem is that that DOESN'T happen. It takes so much energy to manufacture the panels, that by the time you recycle them; the energy that goes into recycling the components still offsets any savings.
Plus, you have to include the cost of batteries and the energy that goes into producing, maintaining, and finally disposing. Mining nickel is absolutely terrible for the environment, and Li batteries are only now coming to a point where they can be used in cars. I'm not sure of the environmental impact of obtaining Li though, so I can't comment on anything except monetary cost for those.
You must have gotten your facts from false-speaking biased media. Probably from pundits on TV that are critical. What you are regurgitating is not true at all. Current solar panels long outlast the costs of production and batteries can be easily recycled at costs that are nearly irrelevant to the overall net gain of energy that is produced. The barrier to implementing these methods is not scientific, but rather political, which includes large interests misinforming political leaders and the public that attempt to hold them accountable (you).
Not trying to insult you, but do you also think that Canadians hate their healthcare system? If so, that is one of the big flags of blatant media manipulation. Ask a Canadian. I have asked hundreds, none have complained, and many laughed at the fact someone would ask them that.
So in this case, get to know people who have extensive knowledge in solar panels and solar energy generation. They are much more likely to know what they are talking about than some CNN/FoxNews pundit with a paid agenda. Even better, which I usually recommend to people who do not believe scientific research: Get the education and do the research yourself, prove it for yourself.
This is not good at all. So California makes me get a low-energy TV, but what about me running 4 computers in my house at 500w each, 24/7. Can they stop me? Do you think they should?
There is a completely feasible alternative: Produce more energy. This is not hard to do, and anyone with half a brain knows about all the awesome relatively free energy sources such as wind/solar/geothermal/tidal. The energy produced is so much more valuable than the initial costs that the net gains are huge and the base startup costs are almost irrelevant.
To solve energy crises california could either restrict consumption, or promote production. Restriction leads to nanny-state orwellian loss of freedom-ish ways of living. Promotion of production leads to loss of current energy monopoly capitalization and relatively free energy with nearly all work and production costs of businesses state-wide dropping since the energy is now relatively free. PG&E doesn't like that idea, since they are left with slimmer wallets.... And so we see restrictions.
Actually, shouldn't they do both? Wouldn't that be the most effective solution? That way, you tackle the problem from both ends. By increasing the maximum amount of energy available AND cutting down the energy cost of appliances, they win both ways.
I believe my previous sibling post is implying that this is exactly what the State of California and other states are trying to do.
As an aside, I don't think that the state government should be able to tell you to stop running those 4 computers at 500 W if you want to shell out that kind of cash on utilities, but I don't think thats what this law is aiming to do. It's not attempting to force you into making certain decisions regarding your household appliances, its designed to force companies to spend money on designing energy-efficient household appliances , which are then offered to you. You are then allowed to make your choice, as usual, from there.
Don't get me wrong, a big side of me feels and resonates with the "love of power and energy and brightness and Plasma TV's", but that age may be long gone and it's time that people considered that possibility. Many things are going to change in this country in the next two decades, and not just because Barack Obama was elected as POTUS. Unfortunately for our fantasies, we all need to start thinking a little more sensibly. I own a Plasma TV now, and honestly, while it is beautiful, it is probably the last one I will ever own. It's added about 30 bucks to my electric bill a month ever since I've purchased it, and it may not be a viable thing to own sensibly in the future.
I agree that sensible regulation is also a key factor, especially during the transition to my proposed solution. Ultimately, though, we can viably have nearly endless energy available to us in our homes. It is only a matter of breaking our current chains of old-tech influence and revolutionizing our energy sources. I'm not saying we can run megawatts in each home, but we could definitely run way more than what we do now, at a fraction of the price.
The thing that bothers me is that the interest in conserving energy is due to the environmental aspects and limited supply. Both of these factors are due to our reluctance to move forward and our politically-facilitated ties to keep us chained to coal and nuclear power. I'm not even opposed to using nukes while we transition, but goddamn.. 70% of our energy comes from COAL... COAL! This is America. We *should* be better than that. I almost wrote 'we are better than that' but the last couple decades have really taken us in some stupid directions. As a country, we're basically a religiously intolerant, obese, uneducated white trash slob. Even though so many of us want it to be better than that.
They *are* promoting production -- e.g. state and federal solar installation tax credits or deductions. (There are also credits or deductions for energy efficiency improvements.) I think there are some credits or deductions for other production sources like wind, but I'm not positive of that.
Nothing of the scale that our government has put forth for coal and nuclear plants. The solar tax credits are small and aimed at individual people; nothing that would greatly revolutionize our energy system.
If they both have similar specs, but one is rated for 1000W and the other at 500W, would you not choose the latter?
Because I didn't look at that at all when I was buying the TV, just like most people. I was looking at the price tag, the size, the warranty (since you can't trust products to actually be reliable anymore).
Not a lot of people actually focus on the specific energy ratings of things they buy. Most people just buy what they buy and then watch their energy bill to see if they should use things less or not.
Regulation isn't the only answer, though some regulation is good. In this case, California could promote responsible energy production and produce MORE and even in excess of what is needed. All the methods to do so exist and are well understood. It is a shame that despite all these awesome scientific developments, our government sides with the money that lines their pockets and not with the 'motivation to do the right thing' which would be something as simple as tapping into the various low/no-impact energy generation methods that exist.
Energy use is wasteful and bad for the environment because it is mainly produced by coal in this fucked up union of ours. It wouldn't even be an issue if it was by, say, solar panels that can be recycled/reproduced into more solar panels once they age. Most production costs, in all things, are related to the energy required to do the task: in this case, if the solar panels harness/produce more energy than it takes/costs to make them and recycle them into new panels, we have relatively free energy.
Imagine if california did this. If energy were in such abundance because we took the step into the direction of what is intelligent and good instead of what is profitable at current time (PG&E lobby). Overhead costs of all businesses would go down, localized profits would rise, end consumer prices of pretty much all things would go down due to cheap/free energy. People would demand electronic automobiles.... etc...etc...etc. We don't need nuclear fusion to have free energy, we already have methods that produce much much more than it costs to start; we just need our leadership to give a shit.
Recent history of economic crisis: -More Regulation -Education funding cuts.....................
My peers are already too dumb to actually know who goes @ a 4-way stop, and often have a hard time counting out my change at some local store.
It is time for real education. Unfortunately, we won't be seeing it any time soon. Our government LOVES how dumb our citizens are, same with our major religions. And so 'the powers that be' will not let us see.
This is not good at all. So California makes me get a low-energy TV, but what about me running 4 computers in my house at 500w each, 24/7. Can they stop me? Do you think they should?
There is a completely feasible alternative: Produce more energy. This is not hard to do, and anyone with half a brain knows about all the awesome relatively free energy sources such as wind/solar/geothermal/tidal. The energy produced is so much more valuable than the initial costs that the net gains are huge and the base startup costs are almost irrelevant.
To solve energy crises california could either restrict consumption, or promote production. Restriction leads to nanny-state orwellian loss of freedom-ish ways of living. Promotion of production leads to loss of current energy monopoly capitalization and relatively free energy with nearly all work and production costs of businesses state-wide dropping since the energy is now relatively free. PG&E doesn't like that idea, since they are left with slimmer wallets.... And so we see restrictions.
We're getting to a point where items like TVs and game systems should have power consumption ratings on them in the store, like with many kitchen appliances.
Pretty much all electrical devices tell you the watts that they consume.
The real issue here is why California is choosing negative reinforcement (actually, restriction) instead of positive reinforcement regarding power consumption.
To resolve energy issues, the state of california could do two things.
1) Promote generation of energy from the most canonical and easy methods with huge net gains, such as solar/wind/geothermal/tidal.
or
2) Restrict consumption of energy by various methods such as the current issue at hand, thus impacting freedoms and limiting the individual's choices.
Sadly, California is trying to approach this issue negatively. They want to punish our freedoms to solve energy crises. We could very easily do the opposite by establish enormous surpluses of energy by methods that have been well understood for nearly two decades. The positive approach doesn't impact freedoms/choices, but it does impact the energy monopoly/oligopoly (who else do we choose from than PG&E?, lol) ability to charge high rates for energy. If energy were produced at huge net gains to the cost of production such as the methods described, it would be pretty hard for PG&E to keep asking so much for it. And they don't want that, so they push our legislature to make choices that protect their capitalist/monopolist market.
I completely agree. I think by putting serious consequence on the plaintiff if the case does not prevail it would serve to hinder many litigious buffoons from going forward.
I don't know if we'll ever see that here in the US. All our politicians are ex-lawyers or answer to lawyer lobbies; like they would represent the people and their best interest instead... *sigh*
I have played games since I was a kid and it's easy to miss just how appealing the Wii and its lack of 'real games' is to an apparently large majority of people.
It is quite apparent that the majority of people are not 'real gamers' and thus find themselves caught in hip trends and consumerist targeted produces such as the Wii. Thus, the best marketed and advertised (and to the inexperienced buyer, best 'value') console will take the cake. Consumers have mediocre expectations, slim wallets, and a strange materialist form of attention deficiency disorder.
As a 'real gamer' I can name dozens of people who own 360s and PS3s who all still play them after years of owning them. As a person observing, I know of even more people who own Wiis, but the difference is that they rarely fire them up, if at all, after only a few months of ownership.
Nintendo is making a killing with their semi-innovative 'new' console. Its a bummer that the majority we are speaking of do not know better, nor have the attention span to hang around long enough to understand why their product is so relatively inferior -- instead, they've let the Wii collect dust and attentions are currently caught up on the next iGadget from apple or some other material/consumer exploit.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't think it can't get worse. Ask yourself instead, why should you expect it to get any better?
It was pretty much as good as it could get (save a few cultural things such as finally abolishing slavery) back in the beginning, when america had its fundamentals. From there, every law has made more criminals. For ever law you make, you have people that are already breaking it, or will be. Eventually, we are all criminals within some legislative muck. At what point do we decide if it is time to just wipe it all, start from scratch with a large democratic (not the party, the power of peoples) group of educated political scientists and such; have a reassembly, same constitution with a couple amendments, and then the most necessary laws we think must be retained.
As it stands there is no real effort to purge all that we've laid upon each other. We just keep making more people 'wrong'. :/
I'd rather have 4x9hour days, a 10% cut in pay, and 3 days off every week. (Hey, most of the last 10% is taxes anyway, right). If everyone did this, we could avoid tons of layoffs nationwide, lower energy costs (4 days commuting instead of 5), and 3-day weekends every week ...
Your plan basically sounds like a European lifestyle.
But apparently not other people's. Saying "You can't create and sell that product unless..." is limiting somebody's freedom.
Maybe I was not clear enough. I like my freedom, and others'. And in this case, I am indifferent (given it does not slip the slope), but that doesn't necessarily oblige me to defend those of others. That doesn't mean I don't like others to have freedom, as you have said, it just means I'm not interested in deliberately protecting them in this case.
"Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior"
Except that it hasn't been.
Your post including the words 'violent media' reminds me that if they will go this far, they ought remember to make all the major news organizations do it as well. Not that there aren't stories otherwise, but pretty much all I (and most people) see on the news is violence.
So true. When I was 11, it was as if all the albums without those labels weren't worth my time!! Hahaha. So true!
That warning might make sense, if if it were true that video games actually caused aggressive behaviour. As it stands, there has been no conclusive proof that video games actually do cause aggressive behaviour, and thus this label is actually just a deceptive, nanny state tactic.
Oh, don't worry, there are plenty of other ways to do it. Video games can often lead to cannabis use, and despite the results of thorough research, everyone knows cannabis is da debbil and destroys lives and homes!
Just when I thought maybe elected officials could earn some modicum of respect. Well done, Joe.
I don't really care how they make the package look so long as they still let me buy it. Thats my concern. I don't think its quite a slippery-slope argument to say that this type of action may lead to bans or restrictions in the future. And that would suck... I like my freedom.
Nick Burnes would disagree. I can't believe you didn't know that. Geeze.
Except for the fact that CO2 is a very poor Greenhouse gas (how's the weather by the way? Love that Global warming, don't you?). A far, far superior greenhouse gas is even more common, and when CO2 gets filtered out, it get's replaced with this gas.
Noone mentions it though. Why?
Because the Gas which is four to eight times more efficient at reflecting sunlight out into space is O2.
Oxygen
Here's an idea - Let's ban the release of Oxygen into the atmosphere! Maybe get some of the green-peacers out of there boats and start them on burning down forests! /sarcasm
You must not have an education that required the study of chemistry. Go get it, or at least make an effort by reading wikipedia. Once you know what you're talking about, please report back.
The benefits are still huge unless some group of villains deliberately vandalizes solar panels and thus shorten the expected life of the panel.
google.
FYI: Science is the act of applying the scientific method. A scientist is a person who applies that method to research. Anything else is not science, so it is not very wise to regard it as such. Do not acknowledge pseudoscience as science; it is not. I know that you know this, but it is best not to even use the term, as people who you communicate with may not correctly understand what is truly science (we have a lot of ignorant people on this planet).
Yeah, there are a load of options out there, all of them viable, and once implemented, would receive the level of attention to be made more and more efficient, etc. Nevertheless, they are net positive producers with little to no noteworthy environmental impact.
The net energy factor regarding fossil fuels that is left out of the equation is the level of energy required to return our environment back to normal. When you disregard environmental impact, fossil fuels need to only produce more energy than it took to suck it out and refine it, but once environmental considerations are put into the equation you seriously have to wonder how it could almost ever be a 'smart' choice.
I did, however, see a pretty awesome biocatalytic system that has been recently developed that can (at net positive energy) convert CO2 back to small hydrocarbon chains. If we could run those off the fuel they produce to 'undo' fossil fuels, then we can possibly factor all that back together... etc etc etc.... But then its a matter of 'why go through so much damn to retain old technology?'
When you consider solar/wind/tidal/geothermal, the environmental impacts can usually be localized and have not major 'global' impact whatsoever. This does not make them 'perfect', but if one river in the US is exploited with a hydroelectric dam every quarter mile, but we run everything from the energy produced; well that sure beats pumping ridiculous levels of carbon dioxide and other combustion byproducts into the global atmosphere.
Also, once the nickel is 'mined' it is used in the panels. Then once the panel has seen age or needs to be replaced by a more efficient model, the nickel can be recycled into the system. Most chemical processes that require energy can be done with electricity--electricity that the unit orignially produced, for that matter. So, as I was getting at originally, if the panel puts out more power than it took to get all the materials, and to recycle it, then the energy is sourced pretty much for free. I'm only using the panels as an example. You can apply this to producing wind generators and what it would take to recycle the plastics and metals from the generators to produce new ones.
Opposition usually cites the localized environmental impacts as the reasons not to do so. The problem with that argument is that it is to defend the current system while denouncing better concepts simply because they are not 100% ideal. This is like having a swimming pool and having a group of friends that constantly piss in it, then deciding to switch to an equally large group of friends, but only one of them (Steve) pees in it. The original group then tells you that Steve will still pee in it, so you should just keep the original group. It doesn't make sense, but it does seem to convince a LOT of people.
Someday.. maybe we'll see a world that is led and equipped with the developments of the most intelligent and socially conscious, as opposed to one that is led by those with the most destructive/political power and guns/money.
If everyone, or even a large portion of people, put solar panels on their roofs, it would revolutionize our energy system by requiring far fewer new power plants, and maybe even help the power plants themselves change to using more environmentally friendly methods.
But in this case, unlike the government funding a big coal/natural-gas plant, the interest is upon each individual, and the promotion is limited. This is why you are saying 'if everyone', instead of 'if we'. Thus, the promotion is weak and ineffective because most individuals are not interested, not educated enough, or don't have the initial money to put into the idea.
If everyone recycled, we would be more ecologically responsible too, but unlike europe, we don't recycle for crap. Why? The issue is still left in the hands of the individual. In europe, recycling is mandatory and the government places recycling containers on every block pretty much (I lived there for a few years. Italy/Germany). And because the effort is made at the state level, the action receives the large scale support of the state. If we did the same with new energy, we would find much more adequate results. But like I've said in other posts on this topic, the people who make decisions are influenced by people with money who don't want to lose money by making progress via change. You think big corporate natural gas and coal companies, who get much more respect in politics than us weebles, would want to be replaced?
Sadly, the companies hold strong to their current assets instead of making the smart move of making changes themselves. T.Boone Pickens is an exemption of this criticism, an oil tycoon who is moving to develop large scale wind power fields. This reminds me of the auto industry, which with the influence of big oil, squashed the concept of the electric car in the 90s. Imagine how well off they would be right now if US companies made electric cars instead of gas guzzling SUVs? Why buy some 30mpg toyota when you've got an electric car that costs 50 cents a day!?!
The only problem is that that DOESN'T happen. It takes so much energy to manufacture the panels, that by the time you recycle them; the energy that goes into recycling the components still offsets any savings.
Plus, you have to include the cost of batteries and the energy that goes into producing, maintaining, and finally disposing. Mining nickel is absolutely terrible for the environment, and Li batteries are only now coming to a point where they can be used in cars. I'm not sure of the environmental impact of obtaining Li though, so I can't comment on anything except monetary cost for those.
You must have gotten your facts from false-speaking biased media. Probably from pundits on TV that are critical. What you are regurgitating is not true at all. Current solar panels long outlast the costs of production and batteries can be easily recycled at costs that are nearly irrelevant to the overall net gain of energy that is produced. The barrier to implementing these methods is not scientific, but rather political, which includes large interests misinforming political leaders and the public that attempt to hold them accountable (you).
Not trying to insult you, but do you also think that Canadians hate their healthcare system? If so, that is one of the big flags of blatant media manipulation. Ask a Canadian. I have asked hundreds, none have complained, and many laughed at the fact someone would ask them that.
So in this case, get to know people who have extensive knowledge in solar panels and solar energy generation. They are much more likely to know what they are talking about than some CNN/FoxNews pundit with a paid agenda. Even better, which I usually recommend to people who do not believe scientific research: Get the education and do the research yourself, prove it for yourself.
This is one more way to put profit over people!
The world needs a new idea. The old ones are making us sick and we're too used to them to truly see where our problems are coming from.
Actually, shouldn't they do both? Wouldn't that be the most effective solution? That way, you tackle the problem from both ends. By increasing the maximum amount of energy available AND cutting down the energy cost of appliances, they win both ways.
I believe my previous sibling post is implying that this is exactly what the State of California and other states are trying to do.
As an aside, I don't think that the state government should be able to tell you to stop running those 4 computers at 500 W if you want to shell out that kind of cash on utilities, but I don't think thats what this law is aiming to do. It's not attempting to force you into making certain decisions regarding your household appliances, its designed to force companies to spend money on designing energy-efficient household appliances , which are then offered to you. You are then allowed to make your choice, as usual, from there.
Don't get me wrong, a big side of me feels and resonates with the "love of power and energy and brightness and Plasma TV's", but that age may be long gone and it's time that people considered that possibility. Many things are going to change in this country in the next two decades, and not just because Barack Obama was elected as POTUS. Unfortunately for our fantasies, we all need to start thinking a little more sensibly. I own a Plasma TV now, and honestly, while it is beautiful, it is probably the last one I will ever own. It's added about 30 bucks to my electric bill a month ever since I've purchased it, and it may not be a viable thing to own sensibly in the future.
I agree that sensible regulation is also a key factor, especially during the transition to my proposed solution. Ultimately, though, we can viably have nearly endless energy available to us in our homes. It is only a matter of breaking our current chains of old-tech influence and revolutionizing our energy sources. I'm not saying we can run megawatts in each home, but we could definitely run way more than what we do now, at a fraction of the price.
The thing that bothers me is that the interest in conserving energy is due to the environmental aspects and limited supply. Both of these factors are due to our reluctance to move forward and our politically-facilitated ties to keep us chained to coal and nuclear power. I'm not even opposed to using nukes while we transition, but goddamn.. 70% of our energy comes from COAL... COAL! This is America. We *should* be better than that. I almost wrote 'we are better than that' but the last couple decades have really taken us in some stupid directions. As a country, we're basically a religiously intolerant, obese, uneducated white trash slob. Even though so many of us want it to be better than that.
They *are* promoting production -- e.g. state and federal solar installation tax credits or deductions. (There are also credits or deductions for energy efficiency improvements.) I think there are some credits or deductions for other production sources like wind, but I'm not positive of that.
Nothing of the scale that our government has put forth for coal and nuclear plants. The solar tax credits are small and aimed at individual people; nothing that would greatly revolutionize our energy system.
If they both have similar specs, but one is rated for 1000W and the other at 500W, would you not choose the latter?
Because I didn't look at that at all when I was buying the TV, just like most people. I was looking at the price tag, the size, the warranty (since you can't trust products to actually be reliable anymore).
Not a lot of people actually focus on the specific energy ratings of things they buy. Most people just buy what they buy and then watch their energy bill to see if they should use things less or not.
Regulation isn't the only answer, though some regulation is good. In this case, California could promote responsible energy production and produce MORE and even in excess of what is needed. All the methods to do so exist and are well understood. It is a shame that despite all these awesome scientific developments, our government sides with the money that lines their pockets and not with the 'motivation to do the right thing' which would be something as simple as tapping into the various low/no-impact energy generation methods that exist.
Energy use is wasteful and bad for the environment because it is mainly produced by coal in this fucked up union of ours. It wouldn't even be an issue if it was by, say, solar panels that can be recycled/reproduced into more solar panels once they age. Most production costs, in all things, are related to the energy required to do the task: in this case, if the solar panels harness/produce more energy than it takes/costs to make them and recycle them into new panels, we have relatively free energy.
Imagine if california did this. If energy were in such abundance because we took the step into the direction of what is intelligent and good instead of what is profitable at current time (PG&E lobby). Overhead costs of all businesses would go down, localized profits would rise, end consumer prices of pretty much all things would go down due to cheap/free energy. People would demand electronic automobiles.... etc...etc...etc. We don't need nuclear fusion to have free energy, we already have methods that produce much much more than it costs to start; we just need our leadership to give a shit.
Recent history of economic crisis: .....................
-More Regulation
-Education funding cuts
My peers are already too dumb to actually know who goes @ a 4-way stop, and often have a hard time counting out my change at some local store.
It is time for real education. Unfortunately, we won't be seeing it any time soon. Our government LOVES how dumb our citizens are, same with our major religions. And so 'the powers that be' will not let us see.
This is not good at all. So California makes me get a low-energy TV, but what about me running 4 computers in my house at 500w each, 24/7. Can they stop me? Do you think they should?
There is a completely feasible alternative: Produce more energy. This is not hard to do, and anyone with half a brain knows about all the awesome relatively free energy sources such as wind/solar/geothermal/tidal. The energy produced is so much more valuable than the initial costs that the net gains are huge and the base startup costs are almost irrelevant.
To solve energy crises california could either restrict consumption, or promote production. Restriction leads to nanny-state orwellian loss of freedom-ish ways of living. Promotion of production leads to loss of current energy monopoly capitalization and relatively free energy with nearly all work and production costs of businesses state-wide dropping since the energy is now relatively free. PG&E doesn't like that idea, since they are left with slimmer wallets.... And so we see restrictions.
We're getting to a point where items like TVs and game systems should have power consumption ratings on them in the store, like with many kitchen appliances.
Pretty much all electrical devices tell you the watts that they consume.
The real issue here is why California is choosing negative reinforcement (actually, restriction) instead of positive reinforcement regarding power consumption.
To resolve energy issues, the state of california could do two things.
1) Promote generation of energy from the most canonical and easy methods with huge net gains, such as solar/wind/geothermal/tidal.
or
2) Restrict consumption of energy by various methods such as the current issue at hand, thus impacting freedoms and limiting the individual's choices.
Sadly, California is trying to approach this issue negatively. They want to punish our freedoms to solve energy crises. We could very easily do the opposite by establish enormous surpluses of energy by methods that have been well understood for nearly two decades. The positive approach doesn't impact freedoms/choices, but it does impact the energy monopoly/oligopoly (who else do we choose from than PG&E?, lol) ability to charge high rates for energy. If energy were produced at huge net gains to the cost of production such as the methods described, it would be pretty hard for PG&E to keep asking so much for it. And they don't want that, so they push our legislature to make choices that protect their capitalist/monopolist market.
Fucking lobbies.
I completely agree. I think by putting serious consequence on the plaintiff if the case does not prevail it would serve to hinder many litigious buffoons from going forward.
I don't know if we'll ever see that here in the US. All our politicians are ex-lawyers or answer to lawyer lobbies; like they would represent the people and their best interest instead... *sigh*
The land of too many lawyers without enough viable work to find.
Oh the opportunities that have been missed or shut down for fear of litigious people and the grinning lawyers that represent them.
As true as this is, I will probably be modded a flamer.
I have played games since I was a kid and it's easy to miss just how appealing the Wii and its lack of 'real games' is to an apparently large majority of people.
It is quite apparent that the majority of people are not 'real gamers' and thus find themselves caught in hip trends and consumerist targeted produces such as the Wii. Thus, the best marketed and advertised (and to the inexperienced buyer, best 'value') console will take the cake. Consumers have mediocre expectations, slim wallets, and a strange materialist form of attention deficiency disorder.
As a 'real gamer' I can name dozens of people who own 360s and PS3s who all still play them after years of owning them. As a person observing, I know of even more people who own Wiis, but the difference is that they rarely fire them up, if at all, after only a few months of ownership.
Nintendo is making a killing with their semi-innovative 'new' console. Its a bummer that the majority we are speaking of do not know better, nor have the attention span to hang around long enough to understand why their product is so relatively inferior -- instead, they've let the Wii collect dust and attentions are currently caught up on the next iGadget from apple or some other material/consumer exploit.
Boy are we predictable.