100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: 'We have the right to violate your rights' | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
They are kinda silly as is anyone who believes these meters are a danger to their privacy. The only difference is these can be read from the street by a wireless device instead of them having to come into the yard or having to search for them. You are in the same "danger" from wifi. OOOOOOOOOHHHHHH scary 
Now, now, why be logical when hysteria will suffice? Yeh just be one of the sheeple and agree to every contract they force at you. and pay the extra charges for reading your meter with no objections.  That great old comeback when you've got Jack Chit! Sheeple!!! Ooooh!!!!!
Natural News said so.... FFS!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I know we are under no obligation to pretty much any law we are told to obey. Problem of course is, most don't, much less do they know how to fight against the laws if they argue against them at all which again some do not, making their own graves.
Fmotl? See how that works for you when you need it. Good luck!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't have a 'cable box' so they don't know what channels I watch on television. you can't pick up any television channel service without a cable box... yes you can their are still ""for now anyway"" free over the air stations you would still need a digital (cable) box to decode the signal only if you dont have a digital t v and if you do...then the digital television becomes the cable box... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Tue 02/12/13 08:32 AM
|
|
Opposition and concerns
Some people and organized groups have expressed concerns regarding the cost, health, fire risk,[13] security and privacy effects of smart meters and the remote controllable "kill switch" that is included with most of them. Many of these concerns regard wireless-only smart meters with no home energy monitoring or control or safety features (see below under "smart meter backlash"). Metering-only solutions, while popular with utilities because they fit existing business models and have cheap up-front capital costs, often result in such "backlash". Often the entire smart grid and smart building concept is discredited in part by confusion about the difference between home control and home area network technology and AMI. The attorneys general of both Illinois and Connecticut have stated that they do not believe smart meters provide any financial benefit to consumers,[14] however, the cost of the installation of the new system will be absorbed by those customers. During 2011 in "Why Smart Meters Might Be a Dumb Idea", Consumers Digest documented several concerns including, that pricing of the utility may become scheduled and become detrimental to users unable to adapt their use and equipment to meet new policies.[15] The need to purchase equipment and appliances designed to interface effectively with the new meters might be an additional financial burden to customers, especially those least able to afford new equipment when their present equipment works. Smart meters in some countries also can deny service or charge premiums to customers who exceed limits set by the company. The publication also suggests that the smart meters may never curtail electricity use and that customers will never see the energy and cost savings being promoted during a projected 23-year analysis in return for the investments they will be required to bear. Hardware and software upgrades will be required at the expense of customers. Additionally they cite that it might cost customers thousands of dollars to replace appliances and equipment with the new smart appliances being designed now to interface with the proposed meters. Other concerns relate to a remote controller "kill switch" incorporated into most smart meters. Smart meter backlash Most health concerns about the meters arise from the pulsed radiofrequency (RF) radiation emitted by wireless smart meters.[16] Privacy concerns focus upon the collection of detailed energy data from customers, the accessibility of that data through the utility and possibly, at the site of the meter as well as the potential for sharing of this energy data without the knowledge or desire of customers.[citation needed] These concerns have been rather less for small North American utilities run by towns (public power districts) or rural electric co-operatives which have achieved about three times more penetration of these technologies with less resistance[citation needed]. Most security concerns center on the inherent hack-ability of wireless technology, combined with the remotely controllable "kill switch" incorporated into smart meters. Others have accused agencies of hiding smart meter plans under the term "smart grid" to avoid public input and obtain approval. Reviews of smart meter programs, moratoriums, delays, and "opt-out" programs are some of the responses arising in response to the concerns of customers and government officials. In response to concerns and a lawsuit, in June 2012 a utility in Hawaii changed their smart meter program to "opt in" [17] After receiving numerous complaints about health, hacking, and privacy concerns with the wireless digital devices, the Public Utility Commission of the US state of Maine voted to allow customers to opt out of the meter change at a cost of $12 a month.[18] In Connecticut, another US state to consider smart metering recently, regulators declined a request by the state's largest utility, Connecticut Light & Power, to install 1.2 million of the devices, arguing that the potential savings in electric bills do not justify the cost. CL&P already offers its customers time-based rates. The state's Attorney General George Jepsen was quoted as saying the proposal would cause customers to spend upwards of $500 million on meters and get few benefits in return, a claim that Connecticut Light & Power disputed.[19] Concerns are real. Not just conspiracy theorist material either. Consumer Digest weighs in. http://www.consumersdigest.com/special-reports/why-smart-meters-might-be-a-dumb-idea |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What if you install solar panels in your roof and provide your own power? Sorry I am completely uninformed about the subject....but it sounds completely shady. Good idea |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What if you install solar panels in your roof and provide your own power? Sorry I am completely uninformed about the subject....but it sounds completely shady. Good idea People should be more interested in creating energy independent homes with wind and solar energy and even water collectors. The problem is, the electric company wants us all to be dependent on them, when the housing industry should be building more energy efficient or completely independent homes. http://www.conergy.us/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-147/362_read-590/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Opposition and concerns
Some people and organized groups have expressed concerns regarding the cost, health, fire risk,[13] security and privacy effects of smart meters and the remote controllable "kill switch" that is included with most of them. Many of these concerns regard wireless-only smart meters with no home energy monitoring or control or safety features (see below under "smart meter backlash"). Metering-only solutions, while popular with utilities because they fit existing business models and have cheap up-front capital costs, often result in such "backlash". Often the entire smart grid and smart building concept is discredited in part by confusion about the difference between home control and home area network technology and AMI. The attorneys general of both Illinois and Connecticut have stated that they do not believe smart meters provide any financial benefit to consumers,[14] however, the cost of the installation of the new system will be absorbed by those customers. During 2011 in "Why Smart Meters Might Be a Dumb Idea", Consumers Digest documented several concerns including, that pricing of the utility may become scheduled and become detrimental to users unable to adapt their use and equipment to meet new policies.[15] The need to purchase equipment and appliances designed to interface effectively with the new meters might be an additional financial burden to customers, especially those least able to afford new equipment when their present equipment works. Smart meters in some countries also can deny service or charge premiums to customers who exceed limits set by the company. The publication also suggests that the smart meters may never curtail electricity use and that customers will never see the energy and cost savings being promoted during a projected 23-year analysis in return for the investments they will be required to bear. Hardware and software upgrades will be required at the expense of customers. Additionally they cite that it might cost customers thousands of dollars to replace appliances and equipment with the new smart appliances being designed now to interface with the proposed meters. Other concerns relate to a remote controller "kill switch" incorporated into most smart meters. Smart meter backlash Most health concerns about the meters arise from the pulsed radiofrequency (RF) radiation emitted by wireless smart meters.[16] Privacy concerns focus upon the collection of detailed energy data from customers, the accessibility of that data through the utility and possibly, at the site of the meter as well as the potential for sharing of this energy data without the knowledge or desire of customers.[citation needed] These concerns have been rather less for small North American utilities run by towns (public power districts) or rural electric co-operatives which have achieved about three times more penetration of these technologies with less resistance[citation needed]. Most security concerns center on the inherent hack-ability of wireless technology, combined with the remotely controllable "kill switch" incorporated into smart meters. Others have accused agencies of hiding smart meter plans under the term "smart grid" to avoid public input and obtain approval. Reviews of smart meter programs, moratoriums, delays, and "opt-out" programs are some of the responses arising in response to the concerns of customers and government officials. In response to concerns and a lawsuit, in June 2012 a utility in Hawaii changed their smart meter program to "opt in" [17] After receiving numerous complaints about health, hacking, and privacy concerns with the wireless digital devices, the Public Utility Commission of the US state of Maine voted to allow customers to opt out of the meter change at a cost of $12 a month.[18] In Connecticut, another US state to consider smart metering recently, regulators declined a request by the state's largest utility, Connecticut Light & Power, to install 1.2 million of the devices, arguing that the potential savings in electric bills do not justify the cost. CL&P already offers its customers time-based rates. The state's Attorney General George Jepsen was quoted as saying the proposal would cause customers to spend upwards of $500 million on meters and get few benefits in return, a claim that Connecticut Light & Power disputed.[19] Concerns are real. Not just conspiracy theorist material either. Consumer Digest weighs in. http://www.consumersdigest.com/special-reports/why-smart-meters-might-be-a-dumb-idea Thanks!! Good information. Some people see conspiracy theorist every where they look. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
not if you do not subscribe to cable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/25/nyc-mayor-bloomberg-government-has-right-infringe-/
NYC Mayor Bloomberg: Government has right to ‘infringe on your freedom’ By Cheryl K. Chumley - The Washington Times Monday, March 25, 2013 New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said on Sunday: Sometimes government does know best. And in those cases, Americans should just cede their rights. “I do think there are certain times we should infringe on your freedom,” Mr. Bloomberg said, during an appearance on NBC. He made the statement during discussion of his soda ban — just shot down by the courts — and insistence that his fight to control sugary drink portion sizes in the city would go forth. SEE RELATED: N.Y. Mayor Bloomberg: ‘I think I have a responsibility … to try to make this country safer’ “We think the judge was just clearly wrong on this,” he said, on NBC. “Our Department of Health has the legal ability to do this. … [They’re] not banning anything.” Mr. Bloomberg’s remaining months in office have included a firestorm of regulations and policy pushes on wide range of issues. Aside from the soda size ban and a well-publicized call for tighter gun control, another contentious policy he pushed: Nudging hospitals to lock up baby formula to force mothers to breast-feed newborns. © Copyright 2013 The Washington Times |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
JustDukkyMkII
on
Thu 03/28/13 04:57 AM
|
|
Sometimes government does know best. That's why I used to call them "Those Mothers in government."...That "sometimes" is getting less & less frequent. Unfortunately, everyone got used to being a child of the state and stopped growing up to make their own decisions. Even more unfortunately, the Mothers in government have turned into incestuous motherfu((%r$ and are screwing the kids silly. I'm afraid it is up to the more adult siblings to fill Mom & Dad in regarding what they can and can't get away with in terms of child abuse. Raising a stink is only gonna get you spanked. It makes more sense to ask them stuff like "Why is the sky blue?", or "Are they SURE they aren't violating the precautionary principle with those meters, fluoridation or GMOs?" Being all grown up & so wise & knowing, of course Mom & Dad know They are fully responsible (liable) for the way they treat the kids, but sometimes Dad's hung over from drinking & speculating on CDOs, and Mom's all caught up in skipping the housework so she can watch soaps & eat chocolates while she waits for the plumber; so like anyone, they forget things & have to be reminded of their proper responsibilites. It's best not to complain or throw a tantrum (especially if they're drunk), just remind them (in the proper, nice, and legally binding way) that helping the kids grow up is their proper job and they are responsible to do just that. If instead, Dad continues to take most of Billy's paper route money so he can buy liquor, & Mom kick's the kids out of the house so she & the plumber can be alone, you'll have their written agreement that they are child abusers and you can take it to Grandma, Grandpa & Uncle Sam. Mom & Dad will be lucky to see daylight again unless it's thru bars. |
|
|
|
|
