Topic: Time to sue ButterflyLabs - Big Single-SC owner let's league for class action - page 18. (Read 39351 times)

I don't like how this situation goes, but at least you ppl have daily basis answers from BFL team. Good or bad, but you have them.
You know that Inaba or someone else will most likely read your comments, to some of them respond.

This is no win-win situation from long time ago, but you actually have someone to argue with.

You're no fun! Where did everybody else go? 

Depends who is doing the sticking, and in what country!

According to Josh, he did. See red bold statement above.


The last sentence is in reference to the first sentence. The MR sentence was clearly injected to misdirect/misled for the sole purpose to garner more sales and pacify the naysayers.

Somebody answer me this: Is threatening to stick a crowbar up some rainbow-colored poodle's ass considered a terrorist threat or should one be more concerned about PETA?

If BFL kit was FCC certified, I'd suspect it would be the ONLY bitcoin mining equipment out there with a certification. If anyone out there has an Avalon, or various asicminer kit, go looking for the FCC logo and ID.

Pasted from the same source as before:

Certification
The certification procedure requires that tests be performed on the device to be authorized. These tests measure the levels of radio frequency energy that are radiated by the device into the open air or conducted by the device onto the power lines. After these tests are performed, a report must be produced showing the test procedure, the test results, and some additional information about the device including design drawings.
The specific information that must be included in a certification report is detailed in Part 2 of the FCC Rules.
Sections 2.1031
through 2.1045
Certified digital devices are required to have a compliance label affixed to them.
They also must have an information statement regarding the interference potential of the device and information about any special accessories needed to ensure FCC compliance included in their instruction manuals. The applicant for a grant of certification is responsible for having the compliance label produced, and for having it affixed to each device that is marketed or imported. However, the compliance label and FCC ID label (see below) may not be attached to any devices until a grant of certification has been obtained for the devices. The wording for the compliance label
and the information statement is included in Part 15.
Section 2.909
Section 15.19
Section 15.21
Section 15.27
Section 15.105
Certified devices are also required to have an FCC ID label attached to them. The FCC ID label must
be permanently marked (etched, engraved, indelibly printed, etc.) either directly on the device, or on a tag that is permanently affixed (riveted, welded, etc.) to the device. The FCC ID label must be readily visible to the purchaser at the time of purchase.

You think you are so sleek, don't you Josh? For the past 10 months you know exactly what I, among others, have been asking for, and it has nothing to do with my statement earlier today (maybe it was late yesterday) about screens that now turn out to be the obsolete forerunner of the Nexus 7, for everybody on this forum, sans Dank, would know that it would have been submitted and probably approved.

Back in November, 2012, you could have easily stated that one peripheral device has already been FCC certified, and today acknowledge that what you were in reference to was the Raspberry Pi. Same motherfuckin' thing!

There is no fuckin' way you would let somebody feed you such a line of shit, yet here you are trying to spoonfeed and telling us to open wide while you cram it down our throats.

Is this is not the sign of a true scam operation, then I don't know what is.

And, this has nothing to do with that damn $200 either, for I'll tell you what I'll do in regards to that issue. You get one mod... JUST ONE... to come here and state that you have successfully address the FCC issue with your Nexus 7 claim, and Ill' gladly send you that $200 via BTC. I'm betting that not a single mod on this forum will put himself it that position unless he's an idiot and is willing to take heat (probably not from me) for making such a stance. But, even if I have to pay up, I'm not letting this issue die for it clearly has not been resolved.

Boy! You ain't right!

Once again

Crickets.....

Oh good. Josh is linking documents from the FCC.
Please link the ones that correspond to this statement you made in November of 2012:

Damnit PG..........I think he got ya...............I am SOOO disillusioned...........which way is up........down...........my head is spinning   

Just did a simple test myself on some typical target frequencies (the primary being the 32mhz range, and a few harmonics of such) using a simple RTL-SDR.
Picked up a touch of RF coming from it, but nothing huge. Most was coming off the case, which was grounded to the PC I was testing from. The PC itself was putting out much more spurious RF, but nothing outside the limits. It definitely wouldn't be detectable from more than a few metres away without specialist equipment.
The included PSU which I tested with was putting off a heck of a lot more RF noise, just hash and noise rather than a specific signal.

None of this is particularly scientific, but with the gear I have there seems to be precious little RF that I could detect leaking from the units. Most likely due to the all metal case being grounded.

I have the funds, bud, but thanks anyway. I also now see what Wolf is in reference to.

Josh, you damn well the FCC issue has always been centered around BFL devices and not the Nexus phone you referred to a screen. Of course that would have been submitted for approval, just like any other phone BFL would have chosen if it rooted properly.


To recap, a direct question was asked: When is the Jalepeno getting FCC approval?

In which you kindly replied with... "Maybe two weeks?"

So far, so good.

Then you stated, "We are waiting for the test lab to issue the test report."

Fine! Until we proved that nothing was submitted to the FCC.

Then you go on and state that you had to make changes to the MR (MiniRig).

Of which the new screen is already certified.

At that penning, nobody outside of BFL knew what screen you were in reference to until the reveal at CES2012. You could've easily claimed then stuck a CB radio from the 70's in that box and claim that it too was certified by the FCC.

Then you go on and state that you are doing all the boards at once since they are similar (paraphrased).

There's not a single person on this forum that should come to your defense and state you were indeed speaking of two separate things--BFL miners and a smartphone.

How goes the suit OP?

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:


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?

Thank you for the clarification and correction. This articulates what I was trying to get at very clearly.

You are correct, Wolf, but we can assume he simply misspoke.

A piece of toast? eh?

Nexus 7 is in Fact the Cancelled ASUS ME370T, In a Revamped Version




What we have here is failure to communicate due to semantics.

Chips don't need an FCC certification, devices do.

Reference:

3
Subassemblies of a Digital Device
Circuit boards, integrated circuit chips, and other components that are completely internal to a digital device are subassemblies of the digital device. (Note, however, that circuit boards or cards that are connected to external devices or increase the operating or processing speed of a digital device are considered peripherals.) Examples of subassemblies include internal memory expansion boards, internal disk drives, internal disk drive controller boards, CPU boards, and power supplies.
Section 15.101(e)
Subassemblies may be sold to the general public or to manufacturers for incorporation into a final product. While subassemblies are not directly subject to FCC technical standards or equipment authorization requirements, digital devices containing subassemblies must still comply with the FCC's technical requirements. Accordingly, manufacturers of subassemblies should design their products so the digital devices into which they are installed will comply with the technical standards.

 I'm not sure what the $200 issue is, but if this is all that's holding up the release of information pertaining to FCC certification of your ASIC chips, I would happily fund Bruno $200 USD equivalent in Bitcoin to enable him to satisfy whatever seems to be the crux of this dispute between you two.

 EDIT: To be clear, "chips" is a general term used to describe the electronics/components built around controlling and powering your ASIC processors, including the SHA256 ASIC processing chip itself.

Actually, its rather hilarious... He did mention screen. I took it to mean part of the PCBs, but what it actually meant was the head device (aka screen/monitor/display device)....

I see what you did there!

Are you seriously trying to say you didn't know the Minirig used a Nexus 7 as it's display?  Seriously?  You. Can't. Possibly. Be. That. Stupid.  Nothing else in our devices is an emitter, it's the only thing that *has* to be filed with the FCC. Our PSUs are FCC approved.  Our devices only require a DoC from an NVLAP, which we have.  Dumbass, heh.