Communist California to require Solar Panels on all new homes

[otto105]

Then just move to a new place asshole.


Sounds like freedom to me.

So you should uproot, move out of state away from your family and friends, all because your state government is becoming tyrannical?

Not many wars were won by running.

It that not the answer to all conservatives answer to having an unsatisfactory job?


Just get a new one?


You have the “freedom” of choice?

In most cases you don't have to sell your home and move out of state to get another job.

So you’re point is to pass on he freedom choice issue and whine about hardship?

You are confused.

If you are walking down the street, and a masked man pulls a gun on you demanding your money, you have two choices: One is to simply give him your money, and two is to get shot and possibly killed and he takes your money. Do you consider that freedom of choice?

No government in the union should be so tyrannical that they are able to force people to buy items that they want to promote. Solar panels have nothing to do with safety, they have to do with one or more leaders phony belief in global warming. That's as un-American as it can get.

Before we go further, give me an example of the country you envision.


Because nobody else has ever seen it.

 

[otto105]

So you should uproot, move out of state away from your family and friends, all because your state government is becoming tyrannical?

Not many wars were won by running.

It that not the answer to all conservatives answer to having an unsatisfactory job?


Just get a new one?


You have the “freedom” of choice?

In most cases you don't have to sell your home and move out of state to get another job.

So you’re point is to pass on he freedom choice issue and whine about hardship?

You are confused.

If you are walking down the street, and a masked man pulls a gun on you demanding your money, you have two choices: One is to simply give him your money, and two is to get shot and possibly killed and he takes your money. Do you consider that freedom of choice?

No government in the union should be so tyrannical that they are able to force people to buy items that they want to promote. Solar panels have nothing to do with safety, they have to do with one or more leaders phony belief in global warming. That's as un-American as it can get.

That's the liberal conception of freedom of choice. Do you think they realize that they are unmasking themselves as Stalinists?

No because reading of your posts.

 

[MaryL]

Of all the things California has done this isn't a problem . Sanctuary cities, when did anyone actually get to vote on that? From whence did that come from? What acts, what laws, what little tinny little actual tiny tiny little act by the local voters led up to enabling state or local government to give illegal aliens all this power, WHEN ? WHO? When did this happen? I never saw this on any ballot. Suddenly, it's "let's kiss illegal's ass". It's not happening. Who is kidding who here?

 

[Rexx Taylor]

Slippery slope?

They let the homeless shit in the streets. Now THAT'S a slippery slope!

they should also require all californians to have a portable toilet on thier person all of the time

 

[kaz]

It's still not an investment unless government pays for most of it. And like I stated earlier, if you ran the numbers, you would find much more money in your pocket after 20 years if you invested that 25K into a growth fund or perhaps some good real estate, so if your goal is to save money, buying solar panels is probably the worst way to accomplish that goal.

So, you’re not looking forward, but stuck in the old world thinking.


Why is that?

It's pretty sick how you think government should prevent citizens from using guns to defend themselves and their families while at the same time you believe it's an appropriate use of guns for government to force us to buy solar panels we don't want

Dude, if I actually wanted to engage a 17 year old...it would not be you.

Obviously if you engaged with a 17 year old, they would win.

So you can't address the point of course

You haven’t shown a point of course.

You haven’t shown the future of energy of acknowledged it’s direction.


Why would I engage with that?

I made a pretty clear point. You're recognizing that since you're sending fur flying rather than address it. Here it is again:

It's pretty sick how you think government should prevent citizens from using guns to defend themselves and their families while at the same time you believe it's an appropriate use of guns for government to force us to buy solar panels we don't want

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So you should uproot, move out of state away from your family and friends, all because your state government is becoming tyrannical?

Not many wars were won by running.

It that not the answer to all conservatives answer to having an unsatisfactory job?


Just get a new one?


You have the “freedom” of choice?

In most cases you don't have to sell your home and move out of state to get another job.

So you’re point is to pass on he freedom choice issue and whine about hardship?

You are confused.

If you are walking down the street, and a masked man pulls a gun on you demanding your money, you have two choices: One is to simply give him your money, and two is to get shot and possibly killed and he takes your money. Do you consider that freedom of choice?

No government in the union should be so tyrannical that they are able to force people to buy items that they want to promote. Solar panels have nothing to do with safety, they have to do with one or more leaders phony belief in global warming. That's as un-American as it can get.

Before we go further, give me an example of the country you envision.


Because nobody else has ever seen it.

Oh, it's been here, perhaps before your time, but it's been here.

I would say anything before 1970 was when this was a free country, maybe a little earlier. Most people took care of themselves. There was welfare, but it didn't pay much and only went to people who truly needed it. Not that many people wanted it. Americans used to have much more pride than today.

It was a time of less laws, two-parent families unless a tragedy occurred to one of the parents. It was a time when people looked forward to going to church and stayed holy on the Lords day. It was a time when people went outside during the summer and mingled with their neighbors every evening. You used to be able to sleep at night with your doors wide open.

Mom made dinner every night, and McDonald's was a two or three times a year treat. If Dad had some money left after paying the bills, you went to the drive-in and watched a movie together in the car with the rest of your family.

People used to go to the bar and walk home without anybody bothering them. If they were driving and got caught, the officer would usually just follow the patron home until his car was parked safely in the drive. When the family went out, the kids sat in the backseat with no seatbelt or government mandated child seat. Government allowed parents to make those decisions for their own kids instead of them.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So you should uproot, move out of state away from your family and friends, all because your state government is becoming tyrannical?

Not many wars were won by running.

It that not the answer to all conservatives answer to having an unsatisfactory job?


Just get a new one?


You have the “freedom” of choice?

In most cases you don't have to sell your home and move out of state to get another job.

So you’re point is to pass on he freedom choice issue and whine about hardship?

You are confused.

If you are walking down the street, and a masked man pulls a gun on you demanding your money, you have two choices: One is to simply give him your money, and two is to get shot and possibly killed and he takes your money. Do you consider that freedom of choice?

No government in the union should be so tyrannical that they are able to force people to buy items that they want to promote. Solar panels have nothing to do with safety, they have to do with one or more leaders phony belief in global warming. That's as un-American as it can get.

That's the liberal conception of freedom of choice. Do you think they realize that they are unmasking themselves as Stalinists?

It's so funny. If you don't like your job, the conservative solution is to find a better job. If government becomes tyrannical and forces things down your throat, you have the choice to move, like those are comparable.

 

[Flopper]

The mandate creates the demand. That's the point. To move the population toward solar. Just as we moved from analog to digital.

IF the people want to move towards solar, they'll do it of their own accord. The don't need Stalinist douchebags like you forcing them

Did you move toward digital, dope?

Of course not. You were led there.

I wasn't led there by the government, moron.

Actually, you were. In fact, you were pushed into it. The FCC mandated the conversion to HD and thus digital broadcasts. In order to receive over the air TV you had to buy a converter or buy a new digital TV. Today there are only a few analog stations left in the US and they are special purpose low power stations. Analog TV is now obsolete in the US. Government forced it on the people but in the end it was far better than the old system.

I've never used over-the-air HD tv. I've always had cable or satellite.

Your belief that government is required to set a standard is baseless. VHS became the standard video format without any government input whatsoever. ASCII is a standard. JPG is a standard.

Your cable TV is digital because the FCC mandated the digital broadcasts back in 2006 making possible sub- channels and high def. This opened the gate for wide spread development and usage of the DVR (Digital Video Recorders). Today 64% of pay TV service customers have DVR's which have replaced the VCR in most homes.

Yes, VHS and ASCII, and JEG were all commercially developed as were many application specific protocols but they all pale in comparison to the importance of government funded research and development in computers and Internet.

The first electronic computer was built by John Vincent Atanasoff at University of Iowa funded by a government grant in 1942. The military developed the first computer used to solve problems, code breaking in 1943. In 1946, the first general purpose computer, ENIAC was funded by the US government to the tune of 100 million dollars. Congress called it a huge waste with the intelligence of a snail that would never amount to anything.

The TCP/IP protocol suite which is the foundation protocol of the Internet was developed by two DARPA scientists—Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn, persons most often called the fathers of the Internet. Sir Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web in 1989 at CERN, a large particle physics laboratory near Geneva, Switzerland funded by 21 governments including the US. He also invented HTTP, Hypertext Transfer Protcol, which is used to exchange text between nodes. You see http:// everyday when you look at the address box of web pages. He also invented hypertext protocol, the language used to create web pages. The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) which oversaw globally, IP address assignments and eventually became responsible for registering all web site domains was government funded.

Private industry has done a wonderful job of developing application technologies and associated standards for the market place but government is and always has been a key element in providing leadership and funding for basic research and initial development of totally new technologies that often have no foreseeable commercial value.

 

[HenryBHough]

Digital TV has also made streaming video easily available and relatively cheap.

Cable TV is dying at about three (that's "3", liberals; "III", progressives) times the speed most experts predicted. They brought it on themselves.

 

[Flopper]

The mandate creates the demand. That's the point. To move the population toward solar. Just as we moved from analog to digital.

IF the people want to move towards solar, they'll do it of their own accord. The don't need Stalinist douchebags like you forcing them

Did you move toward digital, dope?

Of course not. You were led there.

I wasn't led there by the government, moron.

Actually, you were. In fact, you were pushed into it. The FCC mandated the conversion to HD and thus digital broadcasts. In order to receive over the air TV you had to buy a converter or buy a new digital TV. Today there are only a few analog stations left in the US and they are special purpose low power stations. Analog TV is now obsolete in the US. Government forced it on the people but in the end it was far better than the old system.

And it all came for free, right?

Any advanced technology has to be paid for by somebody. Usually that somebody is the consumer. And do you really believe without government, the industry wouldn't have eventually went to HD on their own? Industry is always looking to create more things to sell. Right now they are selling televisions with ultra HD. The problem is that there are few stations that broadcast ultra-high, but that will change on it's own timeframe and not the governments.........hopefully.

A business has only one goal, profit. Given a choice of sinking money into an application with a well defined market and profit potential, over a definable time frame or a new technology with no market, no customers, and no practical application, company money will almost always follow the money.

The internet was created with government and university funding over a 20 year period with little no interest from the major computer manufacturers. By the 1980's there was email running on ARPANET, document transfers programs, and shared data storage. The non-proprietary TCP/IP protocol suite was developed and introduced, and a network spanning the country connected universities and government. Yet it was not until the World Wide was developed with government funding did private industry show any real interest in the Internet. Today, the Internet is the backbone of world wide commerce and it all started with government and university funded research.

 

[Rustic]

IF the people want to move towards solar, they'll do it of their own accord. The don't need Stalinist douchebags like you forcing them

Did you move toward digital, dope?

Of course not. You were led there.

I wasn't led there by the government, moron.

Actually, you were. In fact, you were pushed into it. The FCC mandated the conversion to HD and thus digital broadcasts. In order to receive over the air TV you had to buy a converter or buy a new digital TV. Today there are only a few analog stations left in the US and they are special purpose low power stations. Analog TV is now obsolete in the US. Government forced it on the people but in the end it was far better than the old system.

And it all came for free, right?

Any advanced technology has to be paid for by somebody. Usually that somebody is the consumer. And do you really believe without government, the industry wouldn't have eventually went to HD on their own? Industry is always looking to create more things to sell. Right now they are selling televisions with ultra HD. The problem is that there are few stations that broadcast ultra-high, but that will change on it's own timeframe and not the governments.........hopefully.

A business has only one goal, profit. Given a choice of sinking money into an application with a well defined market and profit potential, over a definable time frame or a new technology with no market, no customers, and no practical application, company money will almost always follow the money.

The internet was created with government and university funding over a 20 year period with little no interest from the major computer manufacturers. By the 1980's there was email running on ARPANET, document transfers programs, and shared data storage. The non-proprietary TCP/IP protocol suite was developed and introduced, and a network spanning the country connected universities and government. Yet it was not until the World Wide was developed with government funding did private industry show any real interest in the Internet. Today, the Internet is the backbone of world wide commerce and it all started with government and university funded research.

The federal government sucks...

 

[Flopper]

The govt built the interstate highway system that made the market for cars boom.
The govt built or subsidized every bit of large infrastructure in this country, including the internet, which allowed for massive business expansion around them. The govt has always been the driver of progress.

I have not problem with government doing things that benefit most if not ALL people. But forcing somebody to pay and use solar panels is not benefiting anybody but the saps that believe in global warming.

California is not like most other states in many ways. What is the right thing for California may well not be the right thing for other states.

Minimum wage is 35% higher than most states. The average price of a home is 48% higher than the national average. Per Capital Personal income is 6th highest in the nation. California ranks 4th highest in the nation for higher education and in the top 40% for K-12. The Median age is one of the lowest in the country.

A survey conducted in California about Global Warning and the state response revealed:
A majority of Californians say the effects of global warming are already occurring.
80% said global warming was a serious threat to the state.
67% supported the state efforts
Most Californians (56%), including majorities across all age and income groups, say they would be willing to pay more for electricity generated by renewable sources to reduce global warming.

The state is not cramming renewable energy down the throats of citizens but rather responding to demand from Californians that government take actions. I'm sure this is not the situation in many other states and what California is doing would not be appropriate.
Californians' Views on Climate Change - Public Policy Institute of California

Well then why doesn't Cali produce this more expensive energy instead of forcing people to buy solar panels? Make half of the state windmills for all I care.

The state is doing what vast majority of people want.

The govt built the interstate highway system that made the market for cars boom.
The govt built or subsidized every bit of large infrastructure in this country, including the internet, which allowed for massive business expansion around them. The govt has always been the driver of progress.

I have not problem with government doing things that benefit most if not ALL people. But forcing somebody to pay and use solar panels is not benefiting anybody but the saps that believe in global warming.

California is not like most other states in many ways. What is the right thing for California may well not be the right thing for other states.

Minimum wage is 35% higher than most states. The average price of a home is 48% higher than the national average. Per Capital Personal income is 6th highest in the nation. California ranks 4th highest in the nation for higher education and in the top 40% for K-12. The Median age is one of the lowest in the country.

A survey conducted in California about Global Warning and the state response revealed:
A majority of Californians say the effects of global warming are already occurring.
80% said global warming was a serious threat to the state.
67% supported the state efforts
Most Californians (56%), including majorities across all age and income groups, say they would be willing to pay more for electricity generated by renewable sources to reduce global warming.

The state is not cramming renewable energy down the throats of citizens but rather responding to demand from Californians that government take actions. I'm sure this is not the situation in many other states and what California is doing would not be appropriate.
Californians' Views on Climate Change - Public Policy Institute of California

Well then why doesn't Cali produce this more expensive energy instead of forcing people to buy solar panels? Make half of the state windmills for all I care.

The cost of producing solar power has fallen by 73% since 2010. By 2020, it will be cheaper than generating power by fossil fuel. California is faced with increasing the production of electric power. The choice is spending many billions on additional power plants in the 21st century or to look to other alternatives.

Solar generation in the home or business makes a lot of sense.

• The cost of generating the power will be cheaper than fossil fuels in the 21st century.
• It puts the primary responsibility for generation at the place of consumption making public utilities a secondary source reducing the number of power plants needed as well as power transmission facilities.
• Solar generation not only reduces green house gases but reduces air and water pollution.
• Since power generation in the home or business distributes the production of power, electric power plants become less of a target for terrorist as well earthquakes and other natural and man made disasters.
• Since there is no fuel other than sunlight, outages caused by world fuel shortage and interruption in delivery of fuel has no effect on production.

It's still not an investment unless government pays for most of it. And like I stated earlier, if you ran the numbers, you would find much more money in your pocket after 20 years if you invested that 25K into a growth fund or perhaps some good real estate, so if your goal is to save money, buying solar panels is probably the worst way to accomplish that goal.

It's an investment but not the kind you're think of. It's an investment by the people and the dividends are not just saving on an electric bill. It's knowing you are doing something that will make life better for the community, your kids, and your grand kids. I know for someone like you that seems completely ridiculous but believe or not there are lots of people in this world that care about the environment and in California a lot more that in most places.

 

[Flopper]

IF the people want to move towards solar, they'll do it of their own accord. The don't need Stalinist douchebags like you forcing them

Did you move toward digital, dope?

Of course not. You were led there.

I wasn't led there by the government, moron.

Actually, you were. In fact, you were pushed into it. The FCC mandated the conversion to HD and thus digital broadcasts. In order to receive over the air TV you had to buy a converter or buy a new digital TV. Today there are only a few analog stations left in the US and they are special purpose low power stations. Analog TV is now obsolete in the US. Government forced it on the people but in the end it was far better than the old system.

I've never used over-the-air HD tv. I've always had cable or satellite.

Your belief that government is required to set a standard is baseless. VHS became the standard video format without any government input whatsoever. ASCII is a standard. JPG is a standard.

HD wasn't a government standard either. Flooper's so dumb he actually believes that we only use it because government forced it. It would have happened anyway. In that narrow case more slowly. But far faster if government hadn't been sucking at corporate tits for centuries and they could invest more in serving their customers instead of feeding the dragon

No it wouldn't happen, probably not in my lifetime. You really think 1600 television stations and all networks would have willing switch to digital along with TV manufactures in a coordinated manner.

One of the main reasons for the switch was to eliminate UHF channels above 38 and reduce the range of broadcast so more stations across the country could share the same channel. This made additional bandwidth available for other uses such as cell phones. Had we not done the switch, we would have had serve limitations due to the lack of bandwidth.

Something like this is so complex with so many different entities involved it has to be coordinated by goverment. Since it required stations to change broadcast frequencies, it had to be coordinated with all other stations and once the frequencies were changed the TV receivers had to be changed or converted at same time.

Was it worth it?
A 42 in Non-HD plasma TV in 2004 sold for about $2400.
This weekend I saw and ad for a 49 inch flat LCD HD TV with wi-fi for $179 plus tax.

 

[OnePercenter]

Here are the real numbers.....

California residential solar power headed toward $1/W and 2.5¢/kWh

California residential solar power headed toward $1/W and 2.5¢/kWh

 

[tigerred59]

No more free choice. They decide, you kneel.

Fortune: California to Require Solar Panels for All New Homes

THIS COMING FROM A GUY WHO SUPPORTS A PRESIDENT THAT IS BEING BUTT FUCKED BY THE BIGGEST COMMUNIST IN THE WORLD, PUTIN.....shut the **** up!!

 

[kaz]

Did you move toward digital, dope?

Of course not. You were led there.

I wasn't led there by the government, moron.

Actually, you were. In fact, you were pushed into it. The FCC mandated the conversion to HD and thus digital broadcasts. In order to receive over the air TV you had to buy a converter or buy a new digital TV. Today there are only a few analog stations left in the US and they are special purpose low power stations. Analog TV is now obsolete in the US. Government forced it on the people but in the end it was far better than the old system.

I've never used over-the-air HD tv. I've always had cable or satellite.

Your belief that government is required to set a standard is baseless. VHS became the standard video format without any government input whatsoever. ASCII is a standard. JPG is a standard.

HD wasn't a government standard either. Flooper's so dumb he actually believes that we only use it because government forced it. It would have happened anyway. In that narrow case more slowly. But far faster if government hadn't been sucking at corporate tits for centuries and they could invest more in serving their customers instead of feeding the dragon

No it wouldn't happen, probably not in my lifetime. You really think 1600 television stations and all networks would have willing switch to digital along with TV manufactures in a coordinated manner.

One of the main reasons for the switch was to eliminate UHF channels above 38 and reduce the range of broadcast so more stations across the country could share the same channel. This made additional bandwidth available for other uses such as cell phones. Had we not done the switch, we would have had serve limitations due to the lack of bandwidth.

Something like this is so complex with so many different entities involved it has to be coordinated by goverment. Since it required stations to change broadcast frequencies, it had to be coordinated with all other stations and once the frequencies were changed the TV receivers had to be changed or converted at same time.

Was it worth it?
A 42 in Non-HD plasma TV in 2004 sold for about $2400.
This weekend I saw and ad for a 49 inch flat LCD HD TV with wi-fi for $179 plus tax.

I bought a 55 inch HDTV for about $1500 in 2003 or 2004.

Government points to a barn and calls it the Taj Mahal, you see the Taj Mahal. But all hail government. If we don't have corrupt politicians managing corrupt bureaucrats, then you think evolution and progress will stop. You can't fix an ideologue. When the time comes, you'll cut in line to get your share of the kool-aid faster.

Here's a fun fact. Government didn't produce those TVs that dropped 90% in cost ...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I have not problem with government doing things that benefit most if not ALL people. But forcing somebody to pay and use solar panels is not benefiting anybody but the saps that believe in global warming.

California is not like most other states in many ways. What is the right thing for California may well not be the right thing for other states.

Minimum wage is 35% higher than most states. The average price of a home is 48% higher than the national average. Per Capital Personal income is 6th highest in the nation. California ranks 4th highest in the nation for higher education and in the top 40% for K-12. The Median age is one of the lowest in the country.

A survey conducted in California about Global Warning and the state response revealed:
A majority of Californians say the effects of global warming are already occurring.
80% said global warming was a serious threat to the state.
67% supported the state efforts
Most Californians (56%), including majorities across all age and income groups, say they would be willing to pay more for electricity generated by renewable sources to reduce global warming.

The state is not cramming renewable energy down the throats of citizens but rather responding to demand from Californians that government take actions. I'm sure this is not the situation in many other states and what California is doing would not be appropriate.
Californians' Views on Climate Change - Public Policy Institute of California

Well then why doesn't Cali produce this more expensive energy instead of forcing people to buy solar panels? Make half of the state windmills for all I care.

The state is doing what vast majority of people want.

I have not problem with government doing things that benefit most if not ALL people. But forcing somebody to pay and use solar panels is not benefiting anybody but the saps that believe in global warming.

California is not like most other states in many ways. What is the right thing for California may well not be the right thing for other states.

Minimum wage is 35% higher than most states. The average price of a home is 48% higher than the national average. Per Capital Personal income is 6th highest in the nation. California ranks 4th highest in the nation for higher education and in the top 40% for K-12. The Median age is one of the lowest in the country.

A survey conducted in California about Global Warning and the state response revealed:
A majority of Californians say the effects of global warming are already occurring.
80% said global warming was a serious threat to the state.
67% supported the state efforts
Most Californians (56%), including majorities across all age and income groups, say they would be willing to pay more for electricity generated by renewable sources to reduce global warming.

The state is not cramming renewable energy down the throats of citizens but rather responding to demand from Californians that government take actions. I'm sure this is not the situation in many other states and what California is doing would not be appropriate.
Californians' Views on Climate Change - Public Policy Institute of California

Well then why doesn't Cali produce this more expensive energy instead of forcing people to buy solar panels? Make half of the state windmills for all I care.

The cost of producing solar power has fallen by 73% since 2010. By 2020, it will be cheaper than generating power by fossil fuel. California is faced with increasing the production of electric power. The choice is spending many billions on additional power plants in the 21st century or to look to other alternatives.

Solar generation in the home or business makes a lot of sense.

• The cost of generating the power will be cheaper than fossil fuels in the 21st century.
• It puts the primary responsibility for generation at the place of consumption making public utilities a secondary source reducing the number of power plants needed as well as power transmission facilities.
• Solar generation not only reduces green house gases but reduces air and water pollution.
• Since power generation in the home or business distributes the production of power, electric power plants become less of a target for terrorist as well earthquakes and other natural and man made disasters.
• Since there is no fuel other than sunlight, outages caused by world fuel shortage and interruption in delivery of fuel has no effect on production.

It's still not an investment unless government pays for most of it. And like I stated earlier, if you ran the numbers, you would find much more money in your pocket after 20 years if you invested that 25K into a growth fund or perhaps some good real estate, so if your goal is to save money, buying solar panels is probably the worst way to accomplish that goal.

It's an investment but not the kind you're think of. It's an investment by the people and the dividends are not just saving on an electric bill. It's knowing you are doing something that will make life better for the community, your kids, and your grand kids. I know for someone like you that seems completely ridiculous but believe or not there are lots of people in this world that care about the environment and in California a lot more that in most places.

Well at least that would be honest. But people coming here saying how much money they are going to save in the next 25 years is ridiculous. First of all we don't know what electric rates will be in the next couple of decades. Secondly, even if you end up saving money, it won't be anything substantial. Third, you still risk losing money if the panels become defective, you need a roof repair, or again, electric rates decrease.

Now if somebody says they bought alternative power sources because of the environment and there are no real benefits other than that, then I can't argue with them. Good for you.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

IF the people want to move towards solar, they'll do it of their own accord. The don't need Stalinist douchebags like you forcing them

Did you move toward digital, dope?

Of course not. You were led there.

I wasn't led there by the government, moron.

Actually, you were. In fact, you were pushed into it. The FCC mandated the conversion to HD and thus digital broadcasts. In order to receive over the air TV you had to buy a converter or buy a new digital TV. Today there are only a few analog stations left in the US and they are special purpose low power stations. Analog TV is now obsolete in the US. Government forced it on the people but in the end it was far better than the old system.

And it all came for free, right?

Any advanced technology has to be paid for by somebody. Usually that somebody is the consumer. And do you really believe without government, the industry wouldn't have eventually went to HD on their own? Industry is always looking to create more things to sell. Right now they are selling televisions with ultra HD. The problem is that there are few stations that broadcast ultra-high, but that will change on it's own timeframe and not the governments.........hopefully.

A business has only one goal, profit. Given a choice of sinking money into an application with a well defined market and profit potential, over a definable time frame or a new technology with no market, no customers, and no practical application, company money will almost always follow the money.

The internet was created with government and university funding over a 20 year period with little no interest from the major computer manufacturers. By the 1980's there was email running on ARPANET, document transfers programs, and shared data storage. The non-proprietary TCP/IP protocol suite was developed and introduced, and a network spanning the country connected universities and government. Yet it was not until the World Wide was developed with government funding did private industry show any real interest in the Internet. Today, the Internet is the backbone of world wide commerce and it all started with government and university funded research.

Not really because without private industry that created the computer in the first place, government would have never taken an interest. And remember that government only provided the funds--not the technology.

In comparison to the topic, government didn't force people to buy computers or pay for the internet. When it comes to things people really want, government doesn't need to coax them. Those items sell themselves. Most people don't want solar panels mainly because of the cost, not to mention they are ugly as hell. So people build this beautiful 600K house, and then the government forces them to stick solar panels on it and ruin the beauty of the structure.

Bottom line is it's one thing for government to help out (and I don't mean subsidies, but technology) but another thing to force people to buy things they may not want.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I wasn't led there by the government, moron.

Actually, you were. In fact, you were pushed into it. The FCC mandated the conversion to HD and thus digital broadcasts. In order to receive over the air TV you had to buy a converter or buy a new digital TV. Today there are only a few analog stations left in the US and they are special purpose low power stations. Analog TV is now obsolete in the US. Government forced it on the people but in the end it was far better than the old system.

I've never used over-the-air HD tv. I've always had cable or satellite.

Your belief that government is required to set a standard is baseless. VHS became the standard video format without any government input whatsoever. ASCII is a standard. JPG is a standard.

HD wasn't a government standard either. Flooper's so dumb he actually believes that we only use it because government forced it. It would have happened anyway. In that narrow case more slowly. But far faster if government hadn't been sucking at corporate tits for centuries and they could invest more in serving their customers instead of feeding the dragon

No it wouldn't happen, probably not in my lifetime. You really think 1600 television stations and all networks would have willing switch to digital along with TV manufactures in a coordinated manner.

One of the main reasons for the switch was to eliminate UHF channels above 38 and reduce the range of broadcast so more stations across the country could share the same channel. This made additional bandwidth available for other uses such as cell phones. Had we not done the switch, we would have had serve limitations due to the lack of bandwidth.

Something like this is so complex with so many different entities involved it has to be coordinated by goverment. Since it required stations to change broadcast frequencies, it had to be coordinated with all other stations and once the frequencies were changed the TV receivers had to be changed or converted at same time.

Was it worth it?
A 42 in Non-HD plasma TV in 2004 sold for about $2400.
This weekend I saw and ad for a 49 inch flat LCD HD TV with wi-fi for $179 plus tax.

I bought a 55 inch HDTV for about $1500 in 2003 or 2004.

Government points to a barn and calls it the Taj Mahal, you see the Taj Mahal. But all hail government. If we don't have corrupt politicians managing corrupt bureaucrats, then you think evolution and progress will stop. You can't fix an ideologue. When the time comes, you'll cut in line to get your share of the kool-aid faster.

Here's a fun fact. Government didn't produce those TVs that dropped 90% in cost ...

When super HD came out, one of my coworkers was the first to get it. He paid something like $2,500 for a 40" set. At the time, I recently purchased a 80" HD big screen. So he asked the salesman what a ultra HD television like mine would cost? The guy looked it up and said probably about 35K.

It was only a couple of years later UHD became more popular, and a UHD set similar to mine is only like a hundred bucks more than I paid for my set five years ago. Now almost all sets sold today are UHD.

 

[there4eyeM]

It was not 'communism' that required automakers to reduce pollution, just wise regulation. That's what government is for. Some things get done collectively, such as national defense. Difficult to see the difference between defending people from enemies and defending them from illness, for example.