Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The bolded part above...
under FCC guidelines, a company can "self certify" their product.
Not entirely accurate.. Anything operating at frequencies higher than 9khz requires FCC verification testing. Meaning you test it if you want but they have to confirm it somehow and you get a certificate of compliance which you must keep on file. And the product must have the phrase "This product complies with FCC requirements for a Class B device..
ItFitzme:
My sentence;;
Why couldnt Underwriter's Laboratory (UL) do the certification?
Is not an observation that UL doesn't do Energy Efficiency certs. Never indicated that UL doesn't. I design electronic products for people.. I take their designs to UL for them..*
My phrase is literally a question.. As in why do we NEED Energy Star at DOE when this could be done in the marketplace. The answer is --- because there's a huge flow of tax benefits attached to the Energy Star cert..*
How it all came began with what I THOUGHT was you making those links to SUPPORT Govt programs that you loved and needed. Calm down.. Let's try something else..
Then you know what "self certification" is and that under FCC guidelines, a company can "self certify" their product. So when you say
as a question, my answer is
is literally an answer. *In fact, I put a question mark after it because I really was a bit confounded as to why you even asked.
So I apologize if I didn't catch your meaning. *But, I can only go on what you specifically write.
Perhaps you should calm down a bit and present your points more clearly as you do with;
Calming down also helps in being clear on the context of someone's presentation of just specific facts, details, like
because you take the time to read the previous posts that give it context. That way you don't go using the second person pronoun as in;
based on;
I would think, as an engineer, you would recognize the importance of being specific about the details.
I do understand, as an enginner, you have spent alot of time focused on things. So let me give you a hint.*
When you say things like;
Calm down..
it actually just pisses people off. Not me... but it's pretty common knowledge that it's a common reaction. It's so common that a comedian had her audience in stitches over it. (It especially pisses off women. Never say it to a women.)
And when you move the focus to the person, away from the object, by using the second person pronoun "you", followed by a statement that describes them, what you will get back is a defensive response. *The cause isn't that they were not calm. The cause is what preceeded, YOU using the word "YOU".
But, back to your point that
The answer is --- because there's a huge flow of tax benefits attached to the Energy Star cert..
You don't suppose that the idea is that the gov't discovered they were burning a s$&t load of energy with all these electrical and electronic devices that are always powered up, do you? I know some folks, quite conservative, that started unplugging all their appliances when not in use.*
They buy energy efficient appliances. Do you suppose, lacking some sort of certification, a sanctioned sticker like "Intel Inside", or "Energy Star" that some companies would cheat like they have with "Organic" and "Lite"?
Surely, as a designer, you understand that power is expensive and it adds up. *All those idle computers sitting on gov't workers desks must have been costing the tax payer a lot of money.
Surely cheeting isn't exclusive to just govt legislators. *Businesses cheat, private individuals cheat. *Why have safety regs? *Why have FCC regs? FDA regs? *Why not just let the market work all those out?
Or do you think the process was;
1) GE wanted tax benifits.
2) GE said, "we have a plan".
3) GE went to Fed regulators and said, *"If you give us a tax break, we'll design energy efficient devices."
4) Legislators thought, "Yeah, if we do this, it'll fool the public into thinking were working on their behalf and we will also get awesome contributioms from GE."
?
I'm just askin'. *I'm not implying I think it's one or the other. *
Problem is, the economy runs on money. *It's correlated with everything. *It buys political advertisements. *It funds campaigns. *Companies use it to buy supplies, labor, and equipment. *Everyone uses it to buy food. *It functions as an incentive. *It functions as a disincentive. *It is in all aspects of public, private and commercial life so it doesn't work as an indicator of any specific motivation.
For every change in $, there are costs and benefits. *For every alternative program, there are multiple costs qnd benefits. *It is foolish to look at just the benefit of one alternetive and then reach a conclusion. *It is all about the details and it is about all the details.
I was asking the previous poster to be specific. *S/he seemed to known what s/he was talking about. *Lacking that, I had to make my best guess as to what the exact details were, so I posted them.*
Is it a requirement? Or is it an incentive? *Is the government forcing the manufacturers to only manufacture CFLs? *Is it even really for the private market or is it actually motivated by the govt wanting its facilities to have and use them? *Is there a large public benefit to the gov saving energy dollars? *Is it motivated by the concept of the tragedy of the commons?
After all, if in the market place, selfish interests and pursuits benefit the many, why should it be any different in the competition betwee government, commercial, and consumer interests? *Just a thought.
ItFitzme:
My sentence;;
Why couldnt Underwriter's Laboratory (UL) do the certification?
Is not an observation that UL doesn't do Energy Efficiency certs. Never indicated that UL doesn't. I design electronic products for people.. I take their designs to UL for them..*
My phrase is literally a question.. As in why do we NEED Energy Star at DOE when this could be done in the marketplace. The answer is --- because there's a huge flow of tax benefits attached to the Energy Star cert..*
How it all came began with what I THOUGHT was you making those links to SUPPORT Govt programs that you loved and needed. Calm down.. Let's try something else..
Then you know what "self certification" is and that under FCC guidelines, a company can "self certify" their product. So when you say
as a question, my answer is
is literally an answer. *In fact, I put a question mark after it because I really was a bit confounded as to why you even asked.
So I apologize if I didn't catch your meaning. *But, I can only go on what you specifically write.
Perhaps you should calm down a bit and present your points more clearly as you do with;
Calming down also helps in being clear on the context of someone's presentation of just specific facts, details, like
because you take the time to read the previous posts that give it context. That way you don't go using the second person pronoun as in;
based on;
I would think, as an engineer, you would recognize the importance of being specific about the details.
I do understand, as an enginner, you have spent alot of time focused on things. So let me give you a hint.*
When you say things like;
Calm down..
it actually just pisses people off. Not me... but it's pretty common knowledge that it's a common reaction. It's so common that a comedian had her audience in stitches over it. (It especially pisses off women. Never say it to a women.)
And when you move the focus to the person, away from the object, by using the second person pronoun "you", followed by a statement that describes them, what you will get back is a defensive response. *The cause isn't that they were not calm. The cause is what preceeded, YOU using the word "YOU".
But, back to your point that
The answer is --- because there's a huge flow of tax benefits attached to the Energy Star cert..
You don't suppose that the idea is that the gov't discovered they were burning a s$&t load of energy with all these electrical and electronic devices that are always powered up, do you? I know some folks, quite conservative, that started unplugging all their appliances when not in use.*
They buy energy efficient appliances. Do you suppose, lacking some sort of certification, a sanctioned sticker like "Intel Inside", or "Energy Star" that some companies would cheat like they have with "Organic" and "Lite"?
Surely, as a designer, you understand that power is expensive and it adds up. *All those idle computers sitting on gov't workers desks must have been costing the tax payer a lot of money.
Surely cheeting isn't exclusive to just govt legislators. *Businesses cheat, private individuals cheat. *Why have safety regs? *Why have FCC regs? FDA regs? *Why not just let the market work all those out?
Or do you think the process was;
1) GE wanted tax benifits.
2) GE said, "we have a plan".
3) GE went to Fed regulators and said, *"If you give us a tax break, we'll design energy efficient devices."
4) Legislators thought, "Yeah, if we do this, it'll fool the public into thinking were working on their behalf and we will also get awesome contributioms from GE."
?
I'm just askin'. *I'm not implying I think it's one or the other. *
Problem is, the economy runs on money. *It's correlated with everything. *It buys political advertisements. *It funds campaigns. *Companies use it to buy supplies, labor, and equipment. *Everyone uses it to buy food. *It functions as an incentive. *It functions as a disincentive. *It is in all aspects of public, private and commercial life so it doesn't work as an indicator of any specific motivation.
For every change in $, there are costs and benefits. *For every alternative program, there are multiple costs qnd benefits. *It is foolish to look at just the benefit of one alternetive and then reach a conclusion. *It is all about the details and it is about all the details.
I was asking the previous poster to be specific. *S/he seemed to known what s/he was talking about. *Lacking that, I had to make my best guess as to what the exact details were, so I posted them.*
Is it a requirement? Or is it an incentive? *Is the government forcing the manufacturers to only manufacture CFLs? *Is it even really for the private market or is it actually motivated by the govt wanting its facilities to have and use them? *Is there a large public benefit to the gov saving energy dollars? *Is it motivated by the concept of the tragedy of the commons?
After all, if in the market place, selfish interests and pursuits benefit the many, why should it be any different in the competition betwee government, commercial, and consumer interests? *Just a thought.
Okay, your the expert.The bolded part above...
under FCC guidelines, a company can "self certify" their product.
Not entirely accurate.. Anything operating at frequencies higher than 9khz requires FCC verification testing. Meaning you test it if you want but they have to confirm it somehow and you get a certificate of compliance which you must keep on file. And the product must have the phrase "This product complies with FCC requirements for a Class B device..
Someone has to act responsibly towards our limited resources. Conservatives believe that it should be others. Responsible people believe that it should be everyone.
ItFitzme:
My sentence;;
Is not an observation that UL doesn't do Energy Efficiency certs. Never indicated that UL doesn't. I design electronic products for people.. I take their designs to UL for them..*
My phrase is literally a question.. As in why do we NEED Energy Star at DOE when this could be done in the marketplace. The answer is --- because there's a huge flow of tax benefits attached to the Energy Star cert..*
How it all came began with what I THOUGHT was you making those links to SUPPORT Govt programs that you loved and needed. Calm down.. Let's try something else..
Then you know what "self certification" is and that under FCC guidelines, a company can "self certify" their product. So when you say
as a question, my answer is
is literally an answer. *In fact, I put a question mark after it because I really was a bit confounded as to why you even asked.
So I apologize if I didn't catch your meaning. *But, I can only go on what you specifically write.
Perhaps you should calm down a bit and present your points more clearly as you do with;
Calming down also helps in being clear on the context of someone's presentation of just specific facts, details, like
because you take the time to read the previous posts that give it context. That way you don't go using the second person pronoun as in;
based on;
I would think, as an engineer, you would recognize the importance of being specific about the details.
I do understand, as an enginner, you have spent alot of time focused on things. So let me give you a hint.*
When you say things like;
it actually just pisses people off. Not me... but it's pretty common knowledge that it's a common reaction. It's so common that a comedian had her audience in stitches over it. (It especially pisses off women. Never say it to a women.)
And when you move the focus to the person, away from the object, by using the second person pronoun "you", followed by a statement that describes them, what you will get back is a defensive response. *The cause isn't that they were not calm. The cause is what preceeded, YOU using the word "YOU".
But, back to your point that
The answer is --- because there's a huge flow of tax benefits attached to the Energy Star cert..
You don't suppose that the idea is that the gov't discovered they were burning a s$&t load of energy with all these electrical and electronic devices that are always powered up, do you? I know some folks, quite conservative, that started unplugging all their appliances when not in use.*
They buy energy efficient appliances. Do you suppose, lacking some sort of certification, a sanctioned sticker like "Intel Inside", or "Energy Star" that some companies would cheat like they have with "Organic" and "Lite"?
Surely, as a designer, you understand that power is expensive and it adds up. *All those idle computers sitting on gov't workers desks must have been costing the tax payer a lot of money.
Surely cheeting isn't exclusive to just govt legislators. *Businesses cheat, private individuals cheat. *Why have safety regs? *Why have FCC regs? FDA regs? *Why not just let the market work all those out?
Or do you think the process was;
1) GE wanted tax benifits.
2) GE said, "we have a plan".
3) GE went to Fed regulators and said, *"If you give us a tax break, we'll design energy efficient devices."
4) Legislators thought, "Yeah, if we do this, it'll fool the public into thinking were working on their behalf and we will also get awesome contributioms from GE."
?
I'm just askin'. *I'm not implying I think it's one or the other. *
Problem is, the economy runs on money. *It's correlated with everything. *It buys political advertisements. *It funds campaigns. *Companies use it to buy supplies, labor, and equipment. *Everyone uses it to buy food. *It functions as an incentive. *It functions as a disincentive. *It is in all aspects of public, private and commercial life so it doesn't work as an indicator of any specific motivation.
For every change in $, there are costs and benefits. *For every alternative program, there are multiple costs qnd benefits. *It is foolish to look at just the benefit of one alternetive and then reach a conclusion. *It is all about the details and it is about all the details.
I was asking the previous poster to be specific. *S/he seemed to known what s/he was talking about. *Lacking that, I had to make my best guess as to what the exact details were, so I posted them.*
Is it a requirement? Or is it an incentive? *Is the government forcing the manufacturers to only manufacture CFLs? *Is it even really for the private market or is it actually motivated by the govt wanting its facilities to have and use them? *Is there a large public benefit to the gov saving energy dollars? *Is it motivated by the concept of the tragedy of the commons?
After all, if in the market place, selfish interests and pursuits benefit the many, why should it be any different in the competition betwee government, commercial, and consumer interests? *Just a thought.
As to the misunderstanding. It's a very weird practice to toss random links on the table to support the OTHER SIDE of the argument. I went with the odds..
And to be brief (for once)..
1) Yes I doubt the Govt ability and motives to move energy policy with silly programs like Energy Star. As witnessed by the $Mill ad campaigns to get people to pull 1W chargers out of the wall when in another room, they are spending $BILLs on Electric vehicles which could EASILY add 50% or more to grid demand. Or in the complete lack of science in persecuting incandescent bulbs which are 100% energy efficient whenever the HVAC system is heating a room. That's 4 to 7 months a year, that doesn't EVER show up their calculations..
2) No company should EVER recieve tax breaks for crap which is an EXISTING commodity item on the market.. My heart aches at allowing the Feds to blow money on even TRUE R&D, but I'd rather see it go there.
3) I DO believe in that GE scenario and you should too given that Obama's "hi-tech jobs liason is currently their CEO.. Or did you forget that? Not to mention the mileage they get from happy baby elephant commercials dancing in the forest. Green as a tree frog they WERE. THEY know that gig is up..
4) Yu seem to be a huge cheerleader for NEGAWATT generation.. That's the "Let's make energy RARE and EXPENSIVE" crowd by conserving ourselves into the dark. Rather than my buds in the market who want energy to be PLENTIFUL and CHEAP.. Do I suspect some dark baggage motivates that? You bet I do.. ((After sitting in SFO airport frantically waving my hands to keep the lights on while I read, I hate you guys))\
Someone has to act responsibly towards our limited resources. Conservatives believe that it should be others. Responsible people believe that it should be everyone.
How valuable did you really think that post was??
Low flush toilets
Low-flush toilet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-109hr6enr/pdf/BILLS-109hr6enr.pdf
http://www.ferc.gov/legal/maj-ord-reg/epa.pdf
Wiki has pros and cons. In this case, it appears to be required. I'm not surprised as we do experience droughts, often severe. Water is a precious resource.
It is a tragedy of the commons problem.
Low flush toilets
Low-flush toilet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-109hr6enr/pdf/BILLS-109hr6enr.pdf
http://www.ferc.gov/legal/maj-ord-reg/epa.pdf
Wiki has pros and cons. In this case, it appears to be required. I'm not surprised as we do experience droughts, often severe. Water is a precious resource.
It is a tragedy of the commons problem.
What's your thoughts on traffic regs?Someone has to act responsibly towards our limited resources. Conservatives believe that it should be others. Responsible people believe that it should be everyone.
How valuable did you really think that post was??
Low Flush Toilets
It is a tragedy of the commons problem.
Glad you're so diligient. That's admirable. But it's not a tragedy of the commons. It's a Travesty of reason. *Its a suspendtion of common sense and analysis.. When people have to have plungers sitting in their bathroom and have to flush 2 or 5 times instead of once --- it's an overreach of Biblical proportions for the sake of religious fervor from the eco-left..
Why would anyone not want a low-flush toilet? Just got mine. Flushes just as well, clogs less often, refills faster, and saves water and money. Early versions may have been troublesome, but the latest versions are great.
Put another way, why do the denialists doubt the ability of the free market to come up with solutions? With every gas mileage increase mandate, the same crowd says it's impossible to increase mileage like that. And yet every time, those increased mileage standards are met.
An intrusive, militarized police state, and massive amounts of propaganda and brainwashing can easily solve the problem of drunk drivers.Drunk drivers.Why would anyone not want a low-flush toilet? Just got mine. Flushes just as well, clogs less often, refills faster, and saves water and money. Early versions may have been troublesome, but the latest versions are great.
Put another way, why do the denialists doubt the ability of the free market to come up with solutions? With every gas mileage increase mandate, the same crowd says it's impossible to increase mileage like that. And yet every time, those increased mileage standards are met.
Low flush toilets
Low-flush toilet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-109hr6enr/pdf/BILLS-109hr6enr.pdf
http://www.ferc.gov/legal/maj-ord-reg/epa.pdf
Wiki has pros and cons. In this case, it appears to be required. I'm not surprised as we do experience droughts, often severe. Water is a precious resource.
It is a tragedy of the commons problem.
What would motivate a toilet manufacturer to figure out how to flush better with 1.28 gal than 3.5 gallons? The answer is, nothing. Yet they did. What would motivate car manufacturers to reduce the complete wasting of half of the fuel cars consume? Yet they did.
Was it the marketplace? Or was it government responsible to all of the people, now and future, or was it conservatives?
Why would anyone not want a low-flush toilet? Just got mine. Flushes just as well, clogs less often, refills faster, and saves water and money. Early versions may have been troublesome, but the latest versions are great.
Put another way, why do the denialists doubt the ability of the free market to come up with solutions? With every gas mileage increase mandate, the same crowd says it's impossible to increase mileage like that. And yet every time, those increased mileage standards are met.
Low flush toilets
Low-flush toilet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-109hr6enr/pdf/BILLS-109hr6enr.pdf
http://www.ferc.gov/legal/maj-ord-reg/epa.pdf
Wiki has pros and cons. In this case, it appears to be required. I'm not surprised as we do experience droughts, often severe. Water is a precious resource.
It is a tragedy of the commons problem.
What would motivate a toilet manufacturer to figure out how to flush better with 1.28 gal than 3.5 gallons? The answer is, nothing. Yet they did. What would motivate car manufacturers to reduce the complete wasting of half of the fuel cars consume? Yet they did.
Was it the marketplace? Or was it government responsible to all of the people, now and future, or was it conservatives?
Seat belts, airbags.
The mfgs of vans use to spray asfault inside the van walls, floor, ceiling. The desgner, telling the story, laughed at how they just didn't care about the weight and fuel milage.
I recently had someone warn me about local street that is a "speed trap", as they said. When I drove down the street, I realized that to them, getting a speeding ticket while going by an elementary school above the clearly posted speed limit made it a "speed trap".
Funny how people that don't speed, don't complain or even notice.
An intrusive, militarized police state, and massive amounts of propaganda and brainwashing can easily solve the problem of drunk drivers.GWhy would anyone not want a low-flush toilet? Just got mine. Flushes just as well, clogs less often, refills faster, and saves water and money. Early versions may have been troublesome, but the latest versions are great.
Put another way, why do the denialists doubt the ability of the free market to come up with solutions? With every gas mileage increase mandate, the same crowd says it's impossible to increase mileage like that. And yet every time, those increased mileage standards are met.
Drunk drivers.
.
