From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Mon Jul 08 2002 - 19:49:16 MDT
Alfio Puglisi wrote:
>
> On Mon, 8 Jul 2002, Brian Atkins wrote:
>
> >Think about it a bit more Alfio. What I imagine is that I would only buy
> >products that had some symbol on them showing they are "ok", and I would
> >likely shop only at stores that actively advertise the fact that they
> >stock "good" items. In other words, the "regulation" will be done by
> >the retail chain in order to increase its own sales. Not as many people
> >will want to shop at the "Ye ole piece of crap" store. The stores and
> >products that develop long term trust with the consumers will do the
> >best.
>
> Ok, now you need some kind of organization that approves the "ok" labels
> on products (in a free market, a for-profit one? I'll have problems
> trusting them). Almost no one will buy products without this
> certification, and for good reasons.
Yet they do so all the time. What are you using right now to communicate
with me? It (the computer, the hardware components, the software, the
internet protocol, the web browser) uses certifications and standards
developed by industry groups, and which do the job excellently. No
government mandated them.
> I see little difference with the present situation: a set of minimum
> requirements mandated by government, and additional symbols by whoever
> cares. Usually, the "minimum" is actually quite a lot (i.e. electric
> devices). I don't have any problems with this.
Government doesn't mandate minimum requirements for UL standards, they
are entirely a private concern. Government does mandate how such devices
pollute their property, the electromagnetic radio spectrum, but that
doesn't limit or mandate how such devices perform their own functions.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:15 MST