There is no failure to communicate here. There are no semantics.
The definition of "screen" in this context is absolutely clear, as there is no other definition of screen that would apply in context. You asked for exactly what I gave you, here let me post it again:
Josh, would you be so kind as to state which, what and when the screen was passed by the FCC? Us monumental assholes ain't got a clue as to how the FCC site works and desperately need your expertise in helping us find the info.
Your failure to understand what you are asking for is not a failure to communicate. It's your failure to understand the situation, which has been what you've been doing for the past 3 months. It is not a failure on my part. Pay up and shut up, or are you going to weasel out of this commitment, too?
-->
http://buttcoin.org/butterfly-labs-mini-rig-is-a-huge-broken-unstable-piece-of-shitAlso, if you didn’t notice, the LCD/Phone thingy in the front has been replaced by … a piece of cardboard spray painted black. Wonderful.
You don't need an FCC cert for a piece of cardboard.
Oh please, buttcoin as a reference? Pass.....
To those yelling about the FCC and CE stuff, keep this in mind. Bring one to the attention of the authorities and you will bring them all to their attention. This would be trouble for ALL ASIC manufacturers, not just BFL.
What happens if one sells or imports non-compliant digital devices?
As explained earlier, the form of authorization that is required for a digital device depends on how the device will be marketed. The FCC rules are designed to control the marketing of digital devices and, to a lesser extent, their use. If someone purchases a non-compliant digital device, uses it, causes interference to authorized radio communications, and is the subject of an FCC interference investigation, the user will be told to stop operating the device until the interference problem is corrected.
However, the person (or company) that sold this non-compliant digital device to the user has violated the FCC marketing rules in Part 2 as well as federal law and may be subject to an enforcement action by the Commission's Field Operations Bureau that could result in one or more of the following:
Section 15.5
Section 2.803
Section 2.805
Section 2.806
Section 2.1203
47 U.S.C. 501
and 503
18 U.S.C. 3571
o forfeiture of all non-compliant equipment
o $100,000/$200,000 criminal penalty for an individual/organization
o a criminal fine totalling twice the gross gain obtained from sales of the non-compliant equipment
o an administrative fine totalling $10,000/day per violation
It is the act of selling or leasing, offering to sell or lease, or importing a digital device that has not gone through the appropriate FCC equipment authorization procedure that is a violation of the Commission's rules and federal law
Now, this aspect of the law is more designed to protect against devices that push out a whole pile of radio noise that interferes with your phones, tvs, radio, GPS devices, etc. Pretty much if a device screws with legitimate services they will get pissed about it. Now as far as I know, the Jalapenos don't seem to emit any RF noise whatsoever when operated in the box. Nothing in the case operates at a particularly high frequency (1ghz+) as far as I could see, instead we've got an MCU clocked at some multiple of 16 MHz, and ASICs clocked at maybe 250-300MHz? The gaps on the fan slots are narrow enough to reflect that kind of RF noise and keep it inside the box.
Anyway, back on topic. If you did want to get one manufacturer taken out by the FCC, all of the others would not be far behind. That would mean no more legal imports or US based manufacturing without the FCC certifications, and the possibility of all US based customers being told to shut their devices down.
Might be a good way to put a huge dent in the US based mining game... Pretty stupid really I think. It certainly won't get anyone their mining gear any faster.
