Problems? See this thread at archive.org.
Has anyone order it yet, and if so will you be doing a review?
-
-
-
-
-
me too... oh well, back to gaming on my HP nc8430
-Coors916
-
-
I think it's crazy. So long as the neighboring states don't put the same type of policy in place it won't keep unregistered laptop manufacturers out. People will just buy out of state to save $ and bring it into the state. Then it will still wind up in the trash and disposed of.
Good idea on their part but hard to implement imo. -
-
-
Since I saw that you`re from Nevada, Donald,isn`t that were they test alien technology?
(area 51 anyone?)
I`m also looking forward to a 9262 review, I am expecting a solid 14-15k in 3dmark06s.... -
That is one heck of an as***ine piece of legislation - of course, considering who's pushing it (MD PIRG - aka the MD Public Interest Research Group, better known as just another special interest group with its hands in the public trough) that's not particularly surprising.
The inanity of this legislation should be obvious when one realizes that it puts absolutely no onus on the consumer (or other computer end-user) to actually make any use of the "return for disposal" policy; since people are, in general, creatures of habit and lazy (I mean, efficiency-minded) too boot, absent any "incentive" to use a "return for disposal" policy, consumers who are today sending their dead systems to the local landfill will simply continue to do so because that's the easiest means of disposing of an old system (as compared to, e.g., calling up the original manufacturer of the old system, which may be a corporation the consumer has never had any dealings with - think of how many HPs, Toshibas, etc., are purchased through Circuit City, Best Buy, etc, and keep in mind that it's the manufacturer, not the retailer, who is required to make this "return for disposal" policy available).
In short, just ask yourself, how many people in MD who bought an HP from BestBuy this Christmas will, in three years' time when that system is ready for retirement, call up HP, with whom they've never had any dealings, arrange to get a shipping bill with freight paid, box the thing up, and carry it down to the post office to send off to HP? Since the members of MD PRIG (sorry, spelling mistake, I meant "PIRG") undoubtedly use Macs, not pcs, the most likely answer is: zero.
Second, one need only keep in mind that most of MD's population is fairly close to DC and Virginia, both of which are also chock full of computer retailers. Since the MD legislation cannot have any impact on a retailer in DC or VA who makes a sale to a MD resident in DC or VA (i.e., outside of MD), irrespective of whether or not the systems sold by that retailer have been "offered for sale" to MD residents by means of advertising targetted to MD residents within MD, any manufacturer who sells a system to a MD resident through a DC or VA retailer will have no obligation to make a "return for disposal" policy available to any person, whether a MD resident or not, who purchases one of that manufacturer's systems from a retailer in DC or VA, irrespective of whether or not that manufacturer has otherwise complied with the MD legislation and made such a policy available to persons who purchase that manufacturer's systems from a retailer within MD. As a result, notwithstanding that, e.g., HP may pay the "grease" money to MD, and may establish a "return for disposal" policy within the requirements of the legislation, it is extremely unlikely that any HP system purchased by a MD resident from a retailer located in DC or VA will either qualify for HP's "return for disposal" policy, or in fact be returned to HP by that MD resident.
Third, the legislation itself contains a number of other significant loopholes that, put together, are big enough to drive a Circuit City tractor-trailer through. For example, focusing on the provisions aimed at retailers (which is really where enforcement will be targetted - do you really think MD is going to send its AG over to Taiwan with a bunch of assistant AGs to take on Clevo?), the legislation only applies to a retailer who sells, or offers to sell, a "new" computer to any person in MD.
Initially, it should be noted that the legislation does not contain a definition of "new." Now, in all likelihood, a court reviewing that provision would import into the legislation the basic meaning of "new" taken from the retail sales tax provisions, which generally means an item that has not, as of the date of the sale in question, been sold or transferred to, or owned by, a consumer or other end-user. However, that leaves a lot of room for bad-faith game-playing; for example, suppose that Powernotebooks decided to set up a continuing SETI@Home search program where each computer system they received was set up and then used for 1 week as part of that program before being packed back up and shipped off to a purchaser in MD - would that system still constitute a "new" system given it's pre-existing non-retail use? (not be unfair to Powernotebooks or cast aspersions on them, but because they would never act in bad faith and their lack of bad faith stands in distinct contrast to the manifest bad-faith exhibited by MD PRIG (typo again, I meant "PIRG" ) and MD Delegates Morhaim, Bobo, and Montgomery (the MD legislators who introduced the bill)).
However, that's small potatoes compared to the "sale in the State" provision. Apparently, the drafters of this legislation have only a nodding acquaintance with the concepts of where a "sale" occurs for most legal purposes. Absent a special definition that defines the place of sale as the place where the purchaser resides in all cases, the place of a "sale" is likely to be interpreted consistent with the sales and use tax provisions, under which a "sale" generally takes place where the binding agreement underlying the sale is made, and where the first significant event of performance under that contract occurs, which is usually the place where payment is made. The mere fact that, subsequent to the making of the sales contract and the purchaser's performance by payment, the seller then arranges for shipment of the purchased goods to the buyer's location is of little relevance.
Since the MD legislation only applies to sales that occur within MD, and since a "sale" generally occurs at the place of agreement or payment, a retailer such as powernotebooks (just to pick on them, for the same reasons as above ) that takes steps to make sure that its servers are located outside of MD, that none of its advertising is targetted to MD residents and contains a disclaimer stating that it shall not be construed as an offer to buy made to any person within MD and that any terms contained therein shall not apply to any person who, at the time of viewing the advertising, is located within MD, that no person who has any authority to approve or make a sales contract does so while within MD, and that payment is to be made to an account located outside of MD, and is not treated as received until it clears into that non-MD account and is made available for powernotebooks to draw upon without restriction) will most likely never, in fact, make a "sale" within MD, irrespective of the fact that many a MD resident, sitting in their Tacoma Park, MD home, might use their old computer to surf the internet over to powernotebooks.com, place an order for an NP9262, and pay for it with a wire transfer from their bank account located at a MD branch of, say, Bank of America, to powernotebook's account at the local bank in Nevada (I'm just guessing here), and if powernotebooks then shipped that NP9262 to that MD resident via UPS delivered to the buyer's home address in Tacoma Park, MD.
Basically, unless a retailer actually has a physical presence in MD and makes a "sale" at that physical location, there is no requirement under the MD legislation that any computer sold to a MD resident be covered by a free "return for disposal" policy - in this day and age, that means that most of the computers sold to residents of MD will simply not be required to be covered by a "return for disposal" policy.
Also interesting to note is the fact that, aside from being ambiguous, the legislation is also overbroad. For example, suppose that a VA resident makes the mistake of stumbling across the MD/VA state line, buys a computer from a bricks-n-mortar retailer located physically in MD, and then takes that computer back to his home in Reston, VA, from whence it never leaves until it is sent to the Lorton CDD Landfill located in Lorton, VA. Under the terms of this legislation, that computer must be subject to a "return for disposal" policy issued by the manufacturer thereof, and must permit that VA resident to send her/his computer back to the manufacturer for free for disposal purposes - how in God's good name does requiring a computer manufacturer such as HP to pay for a VA resident to ship back to HP for disposal a computer that would otherwise have ended up in a landfill in VA?
Now, obviously, I haven't gone and done a whole bunch of research on all of the various issues here, so I could certainly be wrong on one or more of the details, and, for CYA purposes, I will state my own required disclaimer here:
This post, including the text herein provided above and below this disclaimer (such text the "Posting" and such disclaimer the "Disclaimer") does not constitute legal advice to any person, place, or thing, including without limitation any person, place, or thing domiciled, resident, or located, either physically or within the meaning of any applicable federal, state, local, or other law, rule, regulation, or any other legislative, executive, judicial, or administrative document, pronouncement or statement, whether in writing or oral, within the state of Maryland, and cannot be relied upon by any person, place, or thing in any manner with respect to any issue discussed, or not discussed, in this Posting.
Enough said?
Basically, what this legislation amounts to is nothing more nor less than a legalized shake-down scheme designed to squeeze payments that are tantamount to the protection money the mob (whomever that might be/have been ) used to demand from small shop-owners in a gentler, kinder age
and to make Delegates Morhaim, Bobo, and Montgomery, and the MD PRIG (whoops, really butter-fingered today, I meant "PIRG"
) look like they really "Care" about the environment and that they're really taking "strong, affirmative, constructive" action to "speak truth to power" and force the evil corporate computer manufacturers to pay for the environmental footprint (carbon and otherwise) of the products they manufacture.
If you want to see MD PRIG's (oopsey, I meant "PIRG's") "statement" to the MD legislature regarding this farce of legislative "action," try here:
http://www.marylandpirg.org/advocac...hb-488statewide-electronics-recycling-program
More evidence that this bill is nothing more than a shake-down is the fee structure, particularly the fact that a manufacturer who does not have a "return for disposal" policy in place need only pay MD a grand total of $5,000 per year (after the initial $10,000 outlay) in order to make, or offer to make, sales in MD. Assuming a large manufacturer such as HP would amortize the initial $10,000 over 10 years, that amounts to an additional cost of doing business in MD for HP of $6,000 per year. Since HP most likely sells substantially more than 6,000 computers to consumers/end-users in MD, that amounts to a price increase of less than $1 per computer.
Let's take a possible fact scenario: assume HP sells 60,000 computers in MD next year (and that includes everything, servers, proprietary systems, not just home desktops and notebooks), HP would have to increase its prices by $0.10 per computer (yes, that's right, ten cents) in order to continue selling computers in MD without having a "return for disposal" program in place.
Conversely, assume that a large common-carrier such as UPS or FedEx is going to charge HP $20 per computer returned to HP under the "return for disposal" program, and that it costs HP another $80 per computer to make arrangements for disposal of those computers, for a total of $100 per returned computer, and finally suppose that MD residents send back 600 computers a year to HP (i.e., just 1% of HP's annual sales unit volume in MD) under this program - that amounts to a total annual cost to HP of $60,000 for the program itself, plus $1,000 for the ten-year amortization of the initial registration cost, plus $500 for each annual registration (for companies that have a "return for disposal" program in place), or a total of $61,500 per year, which reduces to a per-unit cost of a little over $1 per computer sold in MD. And that's just taking the variable marginal costs into account and intentionally ignoring the additional overhead costs HP would incur.
Let me ask you, which alternative do you think HP is going to pick?
On the other hand, if one happens to be a little boutique manufacturer of computers with the bad luck to be located in MD, who builds 1 computer a day, 5 days a week, 50 weeks a year, and sells all 250 computers within the same year, the required price increase (assuming the same amortization schedule) is $24 per computer. On top of that, since this little guy is also a "retailer," if he doesn't properly register as a manufacturer, then he risks up to $5,000 per year in fines for non-compliance - that's another $20 per computer sold.
Just whose interests are Delegates Morhaim, Bobo, and Montgomery, and the MD PRIG (really, really, it was just an accident, I meant "PIRG" ) really taking care of (other than their own)? This legislation will (a) have little or no effect on the amount of computers going to MD landfills, (b) interfere with interstate commerce, by limiting the number of retailers willing to sell to persons who have the misfortune of living in MD, and (c) favor the big manufacturers like HP and Dell over the little boutique guys who actually put the system together and know what they're doing.
All in all, this is one of the more as***ine pieces of "environmental" legislation I've seen in a while, and it ought to be nipped in the bud before it's allowed to become a permanent part of the landscape (like the computers that'll still be going to landfills).Last edited by a moderator: May 8, 2015 -
-
@Eleron911:
No, that's New Mexico (Roswell, to be precise)
-
-
I wish!!
-Coors916
-
I doubt many will recieve it before January, but hopefully some will recieve it next week with single 8800m GTX orders. Would be really nice though
-
-
Any 9262 reviews?
Discussion in 'Sager and Clevo' started by ronaldheld, Dec 23, 2007.
