[Phil A]

Here is something on the size of their economy - http://en.wikipedia....y_of_California

I don't agree with what they are doing at all. It's just a fact of life that they use their market to dictate certain things. A company is left with the dilemma of giving in or losing sales or taking it to court with no certainty of the outcome (not to mention the costs and the PR) and getting into a process that will take a very long time. Unfortunately it may impact the rest of us who don't live in California. They may make the sets with different power supplies that don't perform as well or last as long.

[pixiedust]

This is ridiculous. I always fear what our country will become if legislation such as this continues to be introduced and accepted. In 100 years will "big brother" have control of how many times you're allowed to use the bathroom each day?

[Giradi]

This is crazy, and I thought only NY was crazy lately with our wonderful Govenor Patterson. I think it's a bit much telling people what TV they can buy. Only in Cali!

[poorcollegeguy]

I live in California, these things happen all the time. I remember a little while back they were going to ban fireplaces because they caused too much pollution. I think people living in rural areas fought pretty hard and this never ended up passing.

[kurt]

This is the first I've heard of this possible ban, but I have been hearing about California's financial problems.

I haven't heard this suggested here in Ontario, Canada but there is pressure for homes to get rid of any secondary fridges or "beer fridges" because of power consumption. I bet plenty of people who have a nice TV system also have a beer fridge around here.

[Brian]

Nooooooo, not beer fridges! That combined with power sucking HD panels would be a nice one-two combo to the groin. That said, I don't have a second fridge yet, but I think I'll be safe here in Ohio - we have a long brewing history. I think that will protect us

[Phil A]

Brian, on 24 November 2009 - 09:37 AM, said:

Nooooooo, not beer fridges! That combined with power sucking HD panels would be a nice one-two combo to the groin. That said, I don't have a second fridge yet, but I think I'll be safe here in Ohio - we have a long brewing history. I think that will protect us

Or at least if you drink enough, you won't know if you are protected or not Please don't report me to the Governator for the Fridge, Telephone or ...

Attached File(s)

•  IM000998.JPG (79.97K)
  Number of downloads: 4

[Phil A]

The audio components wired to the other side of the room - otherwise I'll be banished to that horrible section of the planet Mars

Attached File(s)

•  IM000999.JPG (93.78K)
  Number of downloads: 3

[TVrelax]

I guess I would be in favor when I read Brian's response about saving energy and electricity and such. I don't like the fact that they are telling people what they can and can't buy though. I'm ok with the government telling companies how to do things, if it makes them safer.

[Phil A]

TVrelax, on 26 November 2009 - 03:39 PM, said:

I guess I would be in favor when I read Brian's response about saving energy and electricity and such. I don't like the fact that they are telling people what they can and can't buy though. I'm ok with the government telling companies how to do things, if it makes them safer.

I concur. I just put in new windows (36 plus 4 sliders and a french door) for the energy credit and for saving energy. My house is not horrible old (12 yrs.). I had builder's grade crappy windows. Some were showing initial signs of leaking of window seals and I guess I could have gotten by for 5-7 yrs. before it was more serious and what I had would be approaching the end of its life. I'm hoping they extend (2011 and subsequent) the credit since I've used mine. I have 2 zone heating and air cond. My bedroom is on the 1st floor though. If there is another credit, I would consider replacing the furnish for the main level (and basement) for efficiency reasons.

[ilykme]

Phil A, on 20 November 2009 - 03:54 PM, said:

They could just as easily impose a small extra sales tax on things that consumed over a certain level of energy and it would encourage to some extent the purchase of things more energy efficient and also bring in additional revenue for those who buy it.

This is the best possible option for the ban.

Banning extra large TV's is outrageous. The CEC is thinking to cut losses but they are actually adding up their losses in the long term. It might solve the energy shortage for a short time but it will worsen their financial problem. And just like what Phil already explained, people will still buy large screen TV's but through illegal imports.

[Chasity]

pixiedust, on 21 November 2009 - 03:01 PM, said:

This is ridiculous. I always fear what our country will become if legislation such as this continues to be introduced and accepted. In 100 years will "big brother" have control of how many times you're allowed to use the bathroom each day?

My concern is that they will regulate how many breaths we can take a day. Heaven forbid you have respiratory problems requiring you to take several shallow breaths instead of one deep breath.

[tucker]

"It's just a fact of life that they use their market to dictate certain thing" - I thought that always came into play when you allow idiots in office? I am never really surprised when we put people in office and then expect them not to become power hungry fools. And yes, fully agree, no go on that, regulation to the fullest I foresee before I die.

[treasurelife]

This is absolutely ridiculous! Honestly, banning big screen tvs? We live in America! It's a free country, right? I believe I then have the right to load my wall up with big screens, if I wished to do so. I understand wanting to save electricity, but doing this will only make select Americans upset. I can understand limiting ones use of power (sort of like when Florida is in a drought and they have water restrictions) and then add a fee for households that go over the limit, but trying to rid a certain tv is going to be nearly impossible for them. Good luck California =)

[BluRay]

I grew up in Los Angeles, and honestly, my first thought when I heard this was also "Um, hello, why not just impose taxes?" With all of the things that already can't be sold in California, it's no wonder that population movement has shifted from everyone moving in to everyone moving out.

[Smuckers]

As a Californian, I'm not at all happy about this situation. I'm hoping that it will be overturned or changed somehow. It is going to force me to buy a TV in 2010. After that, I'll have do it in Nevada or over the internet. It's just a ridiculous situation.

[tucker]

Just about anything I think of anything gov related, the above is what my mind tells me to do. I wonder how soon surrounding states are going to attempt this. Welcome the USA the place where you can sue anyone for anything and the gov will attempt to ban anything from everyone. You know they want to ban esmokes now too?

[forumaddict]

Quote

This is ridiculous. I always fear what our country will become if legislation such as this continues to be introduced and accepted. In 100 years will "big brother" have control of how many times you're allowed to use the bathroom each day?

I hope the people in California are fighting that ridiculous proposal! Sadly, if people across this nation don't speak up and fight proposals like that one, it's not going to take 100 years to have big brother telling us how many times we can go to the bathroom each day.

[Moxy]

I think that is totally silly! I understand trying to save energy but really how much energy does an Energy Star rated television put out? If I want to buy a big screen television then I should be able to buy one.

[Bami]

Just heard this rumour from a totally impossible to verify source.

The next thing that the government is going to restrict is your height. That's right. Any and every person over 6 feet in height will be banned. Totally absolutely outright banned with no recourse whatsoever to any kind of appeal or repeal.

Seriously, though, I think the government is getting too full of itself. I remember Plato saying that the best man to be made king is he who does not wish to be king. There's some logic in that. Maybe the next time we go to the polls we should be asking ourselves why we want someone who seems all too eager to get the job. I know for a certainty that any reputable company would look askance at an applicant who seemed too eager become staff.