California to pass bill giving them ability to set your house temperature
 

Whew, finally, some other state has taken over from Massachusetts as the most communist state in America :p :rolleyes:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/...rica/calif.php

SAN FRANCISCO: The conceit in the 1960s show "The Outer Limits" was that outside forces had taken control of your television set.

Next year in California, state regulators are likely to have the emergency power to control individual thermostats, sending temperatures up or down through a radio-controlled device that will be required in new or substantially modified houses and buildings to manage electricity shortages.

The proposed rules are contained in a document circulated by the California Energy Commission, which for more than three decades has set state energy efficiency standards for home appliances, like water heaters, air conditioners and refrigerators.

The changes would allow utilities to adjust customers' preset temperatures when the price of electricity is soaring. Customers could override the utilities' suggested temperatures. But in emergencies, the utilities could override customers' wishes.

Final approval is expected next month.

Kinda scary.

Then again, when there's a typo in the first sentence, it's hard to take the article seriously.

SI

While I certainly agree that I don't want the government involved in even one part of my life, this is not exactly Big Brother making us exercise. It sounds like the little piece I have to take out of my shower head to make it powerful again. The utility company thermostat says "Your house should be set at 75" I type in "Override" "Are you Sure?" "Yes." "In the case of an emergency the State of California can override your setting" Then I set my house at 60 degrees and never see the message again. :D

panerd, here's the thing.

California utilities already offer a rebate program for homeowners who sign up for the override option.

What this is going to do is require all homeowners to have and to use it, and I'm pretty sure there isn't going to be a benefit to the homeowners, such as reduced electric bills.

And, of course, it's going to be regressive in use, because those who can't afford to live by the beach are going to be hit with the overrides disproportionately to those who can.

For something that is expected to be approved next month, the topic is strangely missing from the agenda of any recent California Energy Commission meetings. And from any media coverage. My gut feeling is that the article is mostly a bunch of BS.

No, then you set your house at 60, and the State decides it doesn't like that, and jacks it up regardless of what you want.

Be lovely for law enforcement, too. Got someone who won't come out of their house? Roast em till they get out.

Nah.. gets too hot, flip the circuit breaker. :D

actually, the original is a New York Times article, so I have a strange feeling that yes, it means it exactly what it says it does.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/11/us...c6e&ei=5087%0A

See, this is where it all starts....

It starts with something small and supposedly innocent like their being able to control the thermostat.... Next thing we know we're calling all our women Ofsomemansname and giving head to Big Brother every morning for warmup exercises

Annnnnd the California folks have admitted that yes, their hands WERE in the cookie jar, and that it's been removed. This time. It's still fucking nuts that they could force your thermostat as high as 88 degrees.

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2008...1801_11_08.txt

The California Energy Commission will remove a proposed mandatory control feature from thermostats required in new homes, Claudia Chandler, the commission's assistant executive director, said Friday.

The control feature, specified in an upcoming revision to building codes, would have required so-called Programmable Communicating Thermostats to be installed with the air conditioning systems of new homes. These thermostats would have deferred in emergencies to a radio signal broadcast by utilities, removing control from customers.

After public protests, Chandler said, the commission decided to remove the mandatory provision from the proposal for the "Title 24" energy efficiency standards. Staff will make the recommendation at the energy commission's Jan. 30 meeting, and the new proposal would be taken up at a later meeting.

"The consumer or customer can overrride the emergency control," with the change, Chandler said. The system would notify customers of an emergency. If the customer did nothing, utilities could reset the thermostat to a higher temperature, but no higher than 88 degrees.

If customers don't want to give control of the thermostat to the utility, they can override the control, Chandler said.

Wouldn't this be the same state that's dictating what sort of light bulbs consumers can use?

in the name of SCIENCE!, of course.. er.. SCIENCE! or Energy Efficiency, one of the two. ;)

More like Maxmium Efficiency v1.52

Screw the TV being taken over. If you haven't heard, Zanti is sending their misfits to California.

If only California would repeal their 30 year old moratorium on nuclear power plants. Until that happens, the state will have to do things like this because of the lack of power.

You could easily hire or know an electrican/HVAC guy and just put a standard thermostat in...

If its ever an issue, "My thermostat broke and I had a new one installed. Cant find the paperwork on the guy that did the work, and I paid him in cash. Im sorry."

No real surprise here. The one guy running for President citing the U.S. Constitution is rerided as a 'nut' and a 'kook.' Socialism (i.e. control of the masses by a small elite) is what the ruling rich and powerful see as only 'common sense.' Why should individuals be afforded any choices? Individuals are too dumb to know what is good for them anyways.

This is one of those times in which I have to wonder if I have gone off the deep end because I pretty much agree with something Bubba has said.

I admit though, I didn't see the post before it was edited. ;)

Careful, standing up for individual rights may get you tagged as 'radical.' Wouldn't want that now...

I know it's Bubba and I should know better, but could someone buy this man a dictionary.

SI

This could be great news for the space heater and portable a/c unit industry.

The big lie taught in government (i.e. public) schools today is that liberalism is different than facism. Actually its one in the same, just two sides of the same coin. Real liberty comes from small, non-intrusive government. Anything else is just semantic masterbation.

We have other options.

Hmmm, I must be missing something. These two philosophies seem diametrically opposed to me.

hxxp://www.answers.com/topic/fascism?cat=biz-fin


hxxp://www.answers.com/topic/liberalism

If Bubba can't figure out that most rich people don't like socialism, he's not going to be able to recognize the difference between fascism and liberalism, either.

I doubt that you have even a remote awareness of what is taught in public schools.

Yes, the problem with this is that it describes classic liberalism, based on individual rights, as opposed to today's brand of liberalism based on socialism. Points 2 and 3, anyway. Tammy Bruce talks alot about this. Course, wouldn't mean a thing to you.

California even has issues with building "standard" power plants. I remember when I was living in the Bay Area, there was enormous opposition to building a natural gas plant in South San Jose that would have provided power to about 100,000 homes. They finally ended up building a much smaller one that provided power to 30,000 homes, but during the time it took to argue and build it, they now need to generate power for about 150,000 homes.

I remember back during the rolling blackouts, I was immune because I was on a power grid that had a military base and a federal prison on it. It would seem to make more economic sense to simply raise the rewards for opting-in to a program like this, rather than simply forcing it on people.

Key phrase here: " A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a ...dictator..." Problem here is that 'dictator' is a pretty subjective term. I mean, is Hugo Chavez a 'dictator' or elected official? Adolph Hitler, the usual poster child for 'dictator' was freely elected to office by a democratic majority.

So while one man's 'dictator' can be another man's 'freely elected official', the real meat of the discription here comes in the first part of the definition...'...centralization of authority'... and anytime you 'centralize authority' you are basically giving up your individual rights.

That is, btw, the whole idea behind U.S. Federalism. Want to see a socialist/facist dictator at heart? Just listen to anyone who doesn't like or agree with the concept of Constitutional Federalism. That would be a Democratic politician of a liberal Republican one.

I agree, if this plan was real (and it appears it was), it was a horrible idea. And I know exactly the power plant you are talking about in South San Jose - I used to visit a test lab in Morgan Hill regularly in my old job, and would drive right by the site where the plant was being built to go lunch quite often. And to tell you the truth, if I lived near there (because it was very close to existing housing developments), I'd be really annoyed by the project, too. Power plants should not be built that close to residential neighborhoods.

And actually, the option I was talking about was green building design that includes solar panels. My neighbor put solar panels on her home, and her meter runs backwards all summer. California's power shortage problem is basically during peak power demand on hot days in the summer - the state has plenty of power at other times. And when does solar power work best? Hot summer days. Furthermore, they have become inexpensive enough that it would not be add significantly to the cost of a new home (especially the upscale homes California builders like to build) to require them to be installed in all new housing developments, and on new commercial office buildings.

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/25078

No, he wasn't. He lost the election to Paul von Hindenburg, but in the idea of "keep your enemies closer", Hindenburg granted Hitler the position of Chancellor. From that postion, he got the Enabling Act passed, which gave legislative powers to the cabinet, and when Hindenburg died, the cabinet passed a law giving Hitler all of the powers of the president instead of calling for new elections.

Seems like a classic defintion of "ditactor" to me.

So, he was actually "appointed' by an elected official, then consolidated power and created policy by fiat...kind of like a modern-day U.S. judge. I stand corrected on the trivial, but the fact that Hitler rose to power legitimately in the first place under a democratic reign still makes the original point valid.

Did you get a PM for your funny?

Well... it's very interesting what Mr. Racist puts on his web page. Thomas Jefferson was also an advocate of public schools. That video featuring Mr. Gatto was interesting in that, other than a brief mention of state standards and standardized testing, he mostly was talking about what happened a century or more ago. There have been some changes since then.

Anyway, I'm in a public school every day. Would you like to take a guess what the biggest issue/objective within the school is? What we talk about most in faculty meetings, etc.?

Teacher pension plans?

Not even close.

BTW, Dailypaul.com is run by Dr. Paul's supporters, not an official site.

Please, please tell me you're not thinking conceit should be concept. Aargh


hxxp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceit

Sorry, nerd nitpick but hell, if I'm gonna take the time to know what something means, I might as well educate when I can. ;)


[edit]
a tip off is, had the word been concept it would have been 'concept of' not 'concept' in so two errors which should give you pause. 'Conceit in', in this context is perfectly correct.

So Samuel Alito = Hitler?

Your original point was that the term "dictator" is subjective. It isn't. Hitler's rise to power fits the definition perfectly. There's nothing in the defintion of what a dictator is that says the person has to have gained their powers through illegal means.

Get to learn something new every day :)

SI

You can take a piece out of your shower head to improve the flow?

Don't feel bad. I mean, I had to learn it somehow too.

Actually, I was lucky enough to read or hear Roger Ebert mention the term and I kinda figured he wouldn't make that big a mistake so I got to look the word up before I could make the same mistake. :)


Plus, it's not like any of the other yahoos here disagreed with you either. :p

Well, that definitely rules me out. I certainly have no faith in the natural goodness of humans but I do think that the natural evil of absolute power is far, far worse than several selfish people having to pretend not to be so that each of them can get something out of the deal.

That is a mouthful. Have to chew on that one...

Thanks for saying that. I had typed out a whole lot of weak explanations but ultimately felt that just throwing the raw thought out there would be more thought provoking.

Well, I believe my point was just the opposite, that a dictator is many times actually first installed thru legal means.

Having said that, and to go back to the original point of this thread, cannot thank the California legislators who thought this one up enough. Like the person at work I told about the NAFTA highway 1 year ago who responded '...no way that will be allowed to happen!", this latest episode just continues to prove that the people no longer run this country.

You must have missed the memo that the NAFTA/I-35 corridor in now God's Highway.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBmFrYWPoG8

Buc, keep playing the fool. It suits you.

You really did miss the memo, didn't you?