| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
D-fund NPR ??
So, many people are calling for the defunding of NPR. After all, why
should Americans have to pay for something that's so fundamentally anti-American? Let's face it: they didn't fire Juan Williams for expressing an independent opinion, they fired Juan Williams for expressing an independent opinion that didn't jibe with theirs. And it was worse, because he did it on Fox News - two words that bring a pained sneer across the faces of the already contorted NPR listener. But, hell, everyone can see NPR's duplicity. They never police their lefty employees, and suddenly, Juan Williams is fired? If it wasn't because of his views, what was it then? Was it because he's black? Or because he's black and didn't do what he was told? Anyway, I'm one of the few to say, keep funding NPR. Because if we don't, they go away. And we can't have that. We need them around to remind ourselves what subsidized failure looks like. As long as NPR drones listlessly on, we can point to it and say, "yeah, we're letting them live." It's like allowing the drunk at the pub to wipe down the tables for pocket change. It's more out of pity, than anything. Which leads me to that thing with Rachel Maddow. Remember, she accused a man of having advanced knowledge of the Oklahoma bombing. When exposed for her error, she blamed it on an "editing" mistake - and then angrily mocked those who corrected her. If you want to see the face of the angry and the entitled, that was it. How else can you explain someone assuming her mistakes are above reproach? But hey - what do you expect from someone who had a heads-up on 9/11? (I kid, Rachel - we'll fix that in edit) And if you disagree with me, you're a racist, homophobic, editphobe. http://dailygut.com/ ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food. |
D-fund NPR ??
On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 02:33:22 -0500, flipper wrote:
On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 11:07:59 -0700, Jim Thompson So, many people are calling for the defunding of NPR. After all, why should Americans have to pay for something that's so fundamentally anti-American? That shouldn't be a consideration. Freedom of the Press, you know. Freedom of the press, sure, but NOT ON MY DIME! In other words, don't confiscate my money (i.e., tax) to pay a bunch of socialist propagandists to spew their redistributionist dogma. Let them spew their dogma at their OWN expense, not mine. Thanks, Rich |
D-fund NPR ??
"flipper" wrote in message
... Fact of the matter is, even without consulting the Constitution there is no compelling reason whatsoever for government to fund NPR. NPR actually obtains the vast majority of its funding from non-government sources these days (what does come from the government mostly comes through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting) -- this might explain while they figure it's OK if they're clearly a bit liberally biased these days --, so I expect that if you completely removed government funds most of the stations would still survive. Indeed, this was tried during the '70s and '80s, weaning them off of goverment funds... but it looked like they really were about to die completely in 1983 -- having amassed a $7M debt -- and that was some shuffling of people and policies (and restored government funding) to keep them around -- presumably with at least a bit of tacit approval from the reigning Reagan administration. Clearly popular conservative talk shows like Rush Limbaugh's far overstrip anything NPR has to offer in terms of the number of listeners and revenue. All of this started back in 1967 -- LBJ's administration -- with the Public Broadcasting Act. Quoting from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_..._Act_of_1967): --- When Lyndon B. Johnson signed the act into law on November 7, 1967, he described its purpose: It announces to the world that our Nation wants more than just material wealth; our Nation wants more than a "chicken in every pot"[1]. We in America have an appetite for excellence, too. While we work every day to produce new goods and to create new wealth, we want most of all to enrich man's spirit. That is the purpose of this act.[2] More concretely: It will give a wider and, I think, stronger voice to educational radio and television by providing new funds for broadcast facilities. It will launch a major study of television's use in the Nation's classrooms and their potential use throughout the world. Finally - and most important - it builds a new institution: the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. --- More recently, the CPB has been used for "technology trials" as well -- it's no accident that in many smaller venues the public radio stations are the only ones broadcasting in so-called "HD radio:" They were given a grant to change over their transmitters, to "demonstrate" HD radio's (really not that great) technology and hence try to expedite its adoption by commercial radio stations. ---Joel |
D-fund NPR ??
On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 14:23:15 -0500, flipper wrote:
On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 10:45:16 -0700, Rich Grise On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 02:33:22 -0500, flipper wrote: On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 11:07:59 -0700, Jim Thompson So, many people are calling for the defunding of NPR. After all, why should Americans have to pay for something that's so fundamentally anti-American? That shouldn't be a consideration. Freedom of the Press, you know. Freedom of the press, sure, but NOT ON MY DIME! In other words, don't confiscate my money (i.e., tax) to pay a bunch of socialist propagandists to spew their redistributionist dogma. Let them spew their dogma at their OWN expense, not mine. And in the parts you snipped out I said there is no compelling reason for government to fund NPR so you are arguing to no purpose. Yeah, OK, I reacted first thing; but if you're going to say something inflammatory like that, it'd be polite to give the disclaimers first. Thanks, Rich |
D-fund NPR ??
On Mon, 1 Nov 2010 11:10:38 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
wrote: "flipper" wrote in message .. . Fact of the matter is, even without consulting the Constitution there is no compelling reason whatsoever for government to fund NPR. NPR actually obtains the vast majority of its funding from non-government sources these days (what does come from the government mostly comes through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting) -- this might explain while they figure it's OK if they're clearly a bit liberally biased these days --, so I expect that if you completely removed government funds most of the stations would still survive. I think you're wrong. Most of NPR's funding is via operation by universities... OUR tax funds via a different route. I don't see any reason for publicly funded universities. Fund education via [competitive] scholarships. As for PBS, nothing fit to watch except during "gimme" campaigns. [snip] ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I can see Election Results and Dismembered Democrats :-) |
D-fund NPR ??
Joel Koltner wrote: "flipper" wrote in message ... Fact of the matter is, even without consulting the Constitution there is no compelling reason whatsoever for government to fund NPR. NPR actually obtains the vast majority of its funding from non-government sources these days (what does come from the government mostly comes through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting) -- this might explain while they figure it's OK if they're clearly a bit liberally biased these days --, so I expect that if you completely removed government funds most of the stations would still survive. Indeed, this was tried during the '70s and '80s, weaning them off of goverment funds... but it looked like they really were about to die completely in 1983 -- having amassed a $7M debt -- and that was some shuffling of people and policies (and restored government funding) to keep them around -- presumably with at least a bit of tacit approval from the reigning Reagan administration. Clearly popular conservative talk shows like Rush Limbaugh's far overstrip anything NPR has to offer in terms of the number of listeners and revenue. All of this started back in 1967 -- LBJ's administration -- with the Public Broadcasting Act. Quoting from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_..._Act_of_1967): --- When Lyndon B. Johnson signed the act into law on November 7, 1967, he described its purpose: It announces to the world that our Nation wants more than just material wealth; our Nation wants more than a "chicken in every pot"[1]. We in America have an appetite for excellence, too. While we work every day to produce new goods and to create new wealth, we want most of all to enrich man's spirit. That is the purpose of this act.[2] More concretely: It will give a wider and, I think, stronger voice to educational radio and television by providing new funds for broadcast facilities. It will launch a major study of television's use in the Nation's classrooms and their potential use throughout the world. Finally - and most important - it builds a new institution: the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. --- More recently, the CPB has been used for "technology trials" as well -- it's no accident that in many smaller venues the public radio stations are the only ones broadcasting in so-called "HD radio:" They were given a grant to change over their transmitters, to "demonstrate" HD radio's (really not that great) technology and hence try to expedite its adoption by commercial radio stations. On the bright side, there aren't people screaming to buy HD radios to listen to them. :) -- Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is enough left over to pay them. |
D-fund NPR ??
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m... On the bright side, there aren't people screaming to buy HD radios to listen to them. :) Indeed. As with HDTV, it seems that HD radio was rolled out a bit too quickly without enough field trials or good engineering behind it (i.e., HDTV doesn't handle multi-path distortion very well, HD radio doesn't handle picket fencing -- as commonly experienced in an automobile! -- very well). It's actually rather fantastic when you consider that the FCC handed a monopoly on the technology to one company (iBiquity) for all time -- every single HD radio receiver and transmitter made requires royalty payments to iBiquity. That being said, for city dwellers, at least in a stationary environment HD radio is a nice little upgrade to traditional AM/FM. ---Joel |
D-fund NPR ??
"flipper" wrote in message
... Terrific but it doesn't alter the fact that the Constitution does not grant the power and there's no compelling reason for government funding. Well, yes, but after some of the massive entitlement programs such as Medicare, it shouldn't be much of a surprise there's tons of little programs like the CPB around. Clearly popular conservative talk shows like Rush Limbaugh's far overstrip anything NPR has to offer in terms of the number of listeners and revenue. So what? I was just agreeing with Jim that one might consider funding them on the basis of pity :-) -- Rush sure doesn't need any government support. [LBJ's quote] Read those excuses again. First the arrogance that government is going to "enrich man's spirit" but the "most important" is it builds a new institution. Are you kidding me? This is a 'goal': building institutions? A lot of people relate to those beliefs, and while I agree some of the results may be constitutionally questionable, I believe the supreme court ruled a few times that that isn't the case. If anyone is going to try to re-open that issue, then, it's going to have to be the Tea Party folks -- the Republicans and Democrats have been going along with it for many decades now. More recently, the CPB has been used for "technology trials" as well -- Since when did Congress ever have the slightest inkling about 'technology' and what should be made or not made? Congress empowers the FCC to conduct technology trials. In theory the FCC is supposed to create technological mandates that are in the best interest of the people, although in actuality that often doesn't seem to happen. I'll tell you when: never. Someone comes in and 'sells' an 'idea' that Congress 'buys' with your money whether you want it or not. If it works then fine and if it doesn't work then fine because they have no money or risk in the damn thing anyway. It's YOUR friggin money that's hurled down the toilet and, casara, there's more where that came from. Agreed, that does seem to have happened -- to a certain extent -- with HDTV and HD radio. There was a time when the FCC was filled largely with engineers, but these days I'm told it's mostly all lawyers. That explains a few things... As if commercial stations can't figure out if it works or not so government has to turn on a 'public' transmitter to show, see, it works, eh? They're trying to avoid a Catch-22 problem -- commercial broadcasters are very risk-adverse critters by nature. :-) ---Joel |
D-fund NPR ??
Joel Koltner wrote: "Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message m... On the bright side, there aren't people screaming to buy HD radios to listen to them. :) Indeed. As with HDTV, it seems that HD radio was rolled out a bit too quickly without enough field trials or good engineering behind it (i.e., HDTV doesn't handle multi-path distortion very well, HD radio doesn't handle picket fencing -- as commonly experienced in an automobile! -- very well). It's actually rather fantastic when you consider that the FCC handed a monopoly on the technology to one company (iBiquity) for all time -- every single HD radio receiver and transmitter made requires royalty payments to iBiquity. That being said, for city dwellers, at least in a stationary environment HD radio is a nice little upgrade to traditional AM/FM. Sure, if you want 57 stations with the same talk radio. :( -- Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is enough left over to pay them. |
D-fund NPR ??
Joel Koltner wrote: "flipper" wrote in message ... Terrific but it doesn't alter the fact that the Constitution does not grant the power and there's no compelling reason for government funding. Well, yes, but after some of the massive entitlement programs such as Medicare, it shouldn't be much of a surprise there's tons of little programs like the CPB around. Clearly popular conservative talk shows like Rush Limbaugh's far overstrip anything NPR has to offer in terms of the number of listeners and revenue. So what? I was just agreeing with Jim that one might consider funding them on the basis of pity :-) -- Rush sure doesn't need any government support. [LBJ's quote] Read those excuses again. First the arrogance that government is going to "enrich man's spirit" but the "most important" is it builds a new institution. Are you kidding me? This is a 'goal': building institutions? A lot of people relate to those beliefs, and while I agree some of the results may be constitutionally questionable, I believe the supreme court ruled a few times that that isn't the case. If anyone is going to try to re-open that issue, then, it's going to have to be the Tea Party folks -- the Republicans and Democrats have been going along with it for many decades now. More recently, the CPB has been used for "technology trials" as well -- Since when did Congress ever have the slightest inkling about 'technology' and what should be made or not made? Congress empowers the FCC to conduct technology trials. In theory the FCC is supposed to create technological mandates that are in the best interest of the people, although in actuality that often doesn't seem to happen. I'll tell you when: never. Someone comes in and 'sells' an 'idea' that Congress 'buys' with your money whether you want it or not. If it works then fine and if it doesn't work then fine because they have no money or risk in the damn thing anyway. It's YOUR friggin money that's hurled down the toilet and, casara, there's more where that came from. Agreed, that does seem to have happened -- to a certain extent -- with HDTV and HD radio. There was a time when the FCC was filled largely with engineers, but these days I'm told it's mostly all lawyers. That explains a few things... As if commercial stations can't figure out if it works or not so government has to turn on a 'public' transmitter to show, see, it works, eh? They're trying to avoid a Catch-22 problem -- commercial broadcasters are very risk-adverse critters by nature. :-) Not really. You should see the risks they take by not spending money on proper maintainence. -- Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is enough left over to pay them. |
D-fund NPR ??
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m... Joel Koltner wrote: They're trying to avoid a Catch-22 problem -- commercial broadcasters are very risk-adverse critters by nature. :-) Not really. You should see the risks they take by not spending money on proper maintainence. Ha... good point! When things do break they probably figure that "management by telling at the nearest tech" is the way to go, too... |
D-fund NPR ??
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m... Sure, if you want 57 stations with the same talk radio. :( At least it'll scroll the name of the talking head across the radio's display? :-) |
D-fund NPR ??
"Joel Koltner" wrote in message
... When things do break they probably figure that "management by telling at the nearest tech" is the way to go, too... ^^^ Should be YELLING at the nearest tech |
D-fund NPR ??
Joel Koltner wrote: "Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message m... Joel Koltner wrote: They're trying to avoid a Catch-22 problem -- commercial broadcasters are very risk-adverse critters by nature. :-) Not really. You should see the risks they take by not spending money on proper maintainence. Ha... good point! When things do break they probably figure that "management by telling at the nearest tech" is the way to go, too... No, they have to track down their 'contract engineer' and see when he can get them back on the air. Thanks to 'Broadcast deregulation' most radio stations under 50 KW don't have any engineers on staff. Allowing stations to eliminate their engineering staff created the problems of 'Investor owned' radio stations that milked them of every cent they could. When they get too run down, companies like Clear Channel buy them and turn them into satellite fed clones. I know of one transmitter site that shares one engineer for five FM radio stations. He is on salary, and has to live in the transmitter building because he is on call 24/7. That is, whenever they can keep someone there. -- Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is enough left over to pay them. |
D-fund NPR ??
Joel Koltner wrote: "Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message m... Sure, if you want 57 stations with the same talk radio. :( At least it'll scroll the name of the talking head across the radio's display? :-) Maybe. If you can keep your eyes open long enough. That's why I bought a Sanyo Internet radio. Nothing left to listen to around here. -- Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is enough left over to pay them. |
D-fund NPR ??
Joel Koltner wrote: "Joel Koltner" wrote in message ... When things do break they probably figure that "management by telling at the nearest tech" is the way to go, too... ^^^ Should be YELLING at the nearest tech Sadly, there are no techs left in broadcasting, outside the OEM sites. -- Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is enough left over to pay them. |
D-fund NPR ??
On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 20:49:57 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote: Joel Koltner wrote: "Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message m... Sure, if you want 57 stations with the same talk radio. :( At least it'll scroll the name of the talking head across the radio's display? :-) Maybe. If you can keep your eyes open long enough. That's why I bought a Sanyo Internet radio. Nothing left to listen to around here. I love my Roku Soundbridge. 50's rock-n-roll, commercial free ;-) ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I can see Election Results and Dismembered Democrats :-) |
D-fund NPR ??
Jim Thompson wrote: On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 20:49:57 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" wrote: Joel Koltner wrote: "Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message m... Sure, if you want 57 stations with the same talk radio. :( At least it'll scroll the name of the talking head across the radio's display? :-) Maybe. If you can keep your eyes open long enough. That's why I bought a Sanyo Internet radio. Nothing left to listen to around here. I love my Roku Soundbridge. 50's rock-n-roll, commercial free ;-) The commercials on WSM don't bother me. Most are for businesses too far away to care. :) -- Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is enough left over to pay them. |
D-fund NPR ??
Fred Abse wrote: On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 14:47:12 -0400, Michael A. Terrell wrote: ? On the bright side, there aren't people screaming to buy HD radios to ? listen to them. :) WTF is HD radio, anyway? I can understand high definition images, but sound? Marketing hype for another overpriced and unwanted technology. -- Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is enough left over to pay them. |
D-fund NPR ??
On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 09:45:35 -0700, Fred Abse
wrote: On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 14:47:12 -0400, Michael A. Terrell wrote: On the bright side, there aren't people screaming to buy HD radios to listen to them. :) WTF is HD radio, anyway? I can understand high definition images, but sound? AM radio for audio-phools :-) ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I can see Election Results and Dismembered Democrats :-) |
D-fund NPR ??
"Fred Abse" wrote in message
d... WTF is HD radio, anyway? I can understand high definition images, but sound? The official (iBiquity, courtesy of CEO Bob Struble) party line is that HD stands for "nothing at all" -- although some people claim that early-on it officially stood for "high definition" (gee, 'ya think?) or "hybrid digital" (since it's transmitted simultaneously with the traditional analog signals). In fact, there's some law firm trying hard to drum up a lawsuit against iBiquity, and one of their claims is that consumers were misled to think "HD" implies "high definition" audio quality when, in actuality, the quality on FM is not always that much better than a good analog FM signal. (The chances of this lawsuit ever going forward are pretty much nil IMO, though.) HD Radio has something like 300kbps total -- probably about half that after error-coding/control channel info is subtraced -- and use some kissing cousin-of the AAC codec. Now, ~128kbps AAC actually sounds quite good... but then they added [initally] a 2nd and 3rd channel and these days they can support up to 7 channels... so every additional channel they add (if a station chooses to use them -- and from an advertising revenue point of view, many do) compromises the quality of the main ["HD1"] channel.) ---Joel |
D-fund NPR ??
On Tue, 2 Nov 2010 11:08:31 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
wrote: You have a lot of good points there, flipper, but for the sake of brevity (busy day) I'll just address a couple: "flipper" wrote in message .. . Now, I'm not suggesting that means another world war. We can simply go bankrupt and, at the Obama rate, 20 years should be plenty enough. Voting results today might delay it a bit? I expect there's a leftist-liberral-weenie roast BBQ at Jim's tonight? :-) Celebration? Yes! Leftist weenie roast? No! They're too stringy to even feed to the dogs :-) [snip] Make the world a better place, dismember a Democrat. ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I can see Election Results and Dismembered Democrats :-) |
D-fund NPR ??
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
... Fred Abse wrote: WTF is HD radio, anyway? Marketing hype for another overpriced and unwanted technology. It's wanted by the folks who stand to profit from it. :-) Interesting history -- if of course rather slanted, being on a web site called "StopIBOC.Com"! -- he http://stopiboc.com/ibocstory.html |
D-fund NPR ??
"Jim Thompson" wrote in
message ... On Tue, 2 Nov 2010 11:08:31 -0700, "Joel Koltner" wrote: I expect there's a leftist-liberral-weenie roast BBQ at Jim's tonight? :-) Celebration? Yes! Leftist weenie roast? No! They're too stringy to even feed to the dogs :-) Darn. Maybe a few pickings suitable for your owls? :-) Although I don't always agree with your politics, Jim, I can appreciate that today probably will be a pretty happy one for you and hope you have an enjoyable celebration. And just maybe going forward here the government will be better off than it is today. We'll see... ---Joel |
D-fund NPR ??
"Jim Thompson" wrote in
message ... On Tue, 2 Nov 2010 11:08:31 -0700, "Joel Koltner" wrote: I expect there's a leftist-liberral-weenie roast BBQ at Jim's tonight? :-) Celebration? Yes! Leftist weenie roast? No! They're too stringy to even feed to the dogs :-) Darn. Maybe a few pickings suitable for your owls? :-) Although I don't always agree with your politics, Jim, I can appreciate that today probably will be a pretty happy one for you and hope you have an enjoyable celebration. And just maybe going forward here the government will be better off than it is today. We'll see... ---Joel |
D-fund NPR ??
On Tue, 2 Nov 2010 11:19:43 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
wrote: "Jim Thompson" wrote in message ... On Tue, 2 Nov 2010 11:08:31 -0700, "Joel Koltner" wrote: I expect there's a leftist-liberral-weenie roast BBQ at Jim's tonight? :-) Celebration? Yes! Leftist weenie roast? No! They're too stringy to even feed to the dogs :-) Darn. Maybe a few pickings suitable for your owls? :-) Although I don't always agree with your politics, Jim, I can appreciate that today probably will be a pretty happy one for you and hope you have an enjoyable celebration. And just maybe going forward here the government will be better off than it is today. We'll see... ---Joel We can only hope. I seriously fear a lame-duck Congress passing some vindictive ****. Unless we carry the Senate as well as the House, Repub-Teas are pretty much limited to trying to defund Obama's hare-brained schemes. I pray for run-away office taking. Then we can impeach Obama and Bite-me; then criminalize the czars, and any lame-duck actions :-) ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | Make the world a better place, dismember a Democrat. |
D-fund NPR ??
On Tue, 2 Nov 2010 11:19:43 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
wrote: "Jim Thompson" wrote in message ... On Tue, 2 Nov 2010 11:08:31 -0700, "Joel Koltner" wrote: I expect there's a leftist-liberral-weenie roast BBQ at Jim's tonight? :-) Celebration? Yes! Leftist weenie roast? No! They're too stringy to even feed to the dogs :-) Darn. Maybe a few pickings suitable for your owls? :-) Although I don't always agree with your politics, Jim, I can appreciate that today probably will be a pretty happy one for you and hope you have an enjoyable celebration. And just maybe going forward here the government will be better off than it is today. We'll see... ---Joel We can only hope. I seriously fear a lame-duck Congress passing some vindictive ****. Unless we carry the Senate as well as the House, Repub-Teas are pretty much limited to trying to defund Obama's hare-brained schemes. I pray for run-away office taking. Then we can impeach Obama and Bite-me; then criminalize the czars, and any lame-duck actions :-) ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | Make the world a better place, dismember a Democrat. |
D-fund NPR ??
On Tue, 2 Nov 2010 11:15:00 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
wrote: "Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message ... Fred Abse wrote: WTF is HD radio, anyway? Marketing hype for another overpriced and unwanted technology. It's wanted by the folks who stand to profit from it. :-) Interesting history -- if of course rather slanted, being on a web site called "StopIBOC.Com"! -- he http://stopiboc.com/ibocstory.html Don't know that it matters. Internet radio is where the action is... I have 18 presets from all over the world :-) ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | Make the world a better place, dismember a Democrat. |
D-fund NPR ??
"Jim Thompson" wrote in
message ... Don't know that it matters. Internet radio is where the action is... I have 18 presets from all over the world :-) The main niche for HD radio is folks in their cars who don't want to pony up for satellite radio (and, as with sat. radio, prefer a broadcast to just listening to their own recordings). And perhaps for those looking for the local news/sportscasts (although for that traditional AM/FM works just fine -- little need to upgrade). It's not a very big niche. It suffers from "too little, too late" -- that's why a lot of people have never even heard of it. (Over time cell phones will eat into this niche as well -- depends on how big of a city you're on and how far you're driving and all. Where I live streaming audio over a cell phone is not at all viable yet, nor will it likely be for another decade or so.) ---Joel |
D-fund NPR ??
On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 09:45:35 -0700, Fred Abse wrote:
On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 14:47:12 -0400, Michael A. Terrell wrote: On the bright side, there aren't people screaming to buy HD radios to listen to them. :) WTF is HD radio, anyway? I can understand high definition images, but sound? I think "HD" is just the latest marketing hype - I recently saw an ad for "HD" sunglasses. ?:-/ Cheers! Rich |
D-fund NPR ??
Joel Koltner wrote: "Jim Thompson" ? wrote in message ... ? On Tue, 2 Nov 2010 11:08:31 -0700, "Joel Koltner" ? ? wrote: ??I expect there's a leftist-liberral-weenie roast BBQ at Jim's tonight? :-) ? Celebration? Yes! Leftist weenie roast? No! They're too stringy to ? even feed to the dogs :-) Darn. Maybe a few pickings suitable for your owls? :-) Although I don't always agree with your politics, Jim, I can appreciate that today probably will be a pretty happy one for you and hope you have an enjoyable celebration. And just maybe going forward here the government will be better off than it is today. We'll see... I was hoping for dancing in the street after the polls close, but it just started raining. :( -- Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is enough left over to pay them. |
D-fund NPR ??
Joel Koltner wrote: "Jim Thompson" ? wrote in message ... ? On Tue, 2 Nov 2010 11:08:31 -0700, "Joel Koltner" ? ? wrote: ??I expect there's a leftist-liberral-weenie roast BBQ at Jim's tonight? :-) ? Celebration? Yes! Leftist weenie roast? No! They're too stringy to ? even feed to the dogs :-) Darn. Maybe a few pickings suitable for your owls? :-) Although I don't always agree with your politics, Jim, I can appreciate that today probably will be a pretty happy one for you and hope you have an enjoyable celebration. And just maybe going forward here the government will be better off than it is today. We'll see... I was hoping for dancing in the street after the polls close, but it just started raining. :( -- Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is enough left over to pay them. |
D-fund NPR ??
"flipper" wrote in message
... Progressives-liberal-socialists learned a number of 'slow heat' methods, not the least of which being to never reveal their true intent, and, well, once you have 'one' then you have 'precedent': a variation of the same "considering all the others what's one more?" argument you posed. Surely it can go the other way as well, though? Turn the heat down a little... everyone's a bit more comfortable... makes it easier to turn it down some more, and so on; I think this is realistically the only way to return to the more "constitutionally-respecting" state you're advocating here. Well, OK, maybe Jim's comment about a 9mm could work too, but most people would sure like to avoid that route! See he http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/1..._n_776490.html You had argued funding CPR HD was for 'field trials' so commercial stations would adopt the technology. It's that I was saying was ridiculous. You're right, my logic there was off -- by the time CPB was being funded, the FCC had already ruled that iBiquity's HD Radio standard was "the one." The funding of the CPB was to demonstrate the results of HD Radio to both the public and commercial stations, in an attempt to drive both demand and supply. Such "technology stimulus" packages aren't anything new, of course -- look at the Rural Electrification Act of 1936. Another FDR boondoggle, in your opinion? ---Joel |
D-fund NPR ??
"flipper" wrote in message
... Progressives-liberal-socialists learned a number of 'slow heat' methods, not the least of which being to never reveal their true intent, and, well, once you have 'one' then you have 'precedent': a variation of the same "considering all the others what's one more?" argument you posed. Surely it can go the other way as well, though? Turn the heat down a little... everyone's a bit more comfortable... makes it easier to turn it down some more, and so on; I think this is realistically the only way to return to the more "constitutionally-respecting" state you're advocating here. Well, OK, maybe Jim's comment about a 9mm could work too, but most people would sure like to avoid that route! See he http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/1..._n_776490.html You had argued funding CPR HD was for 'field trials' so commercial stations would adopt the technology. It's that I was saying was ridiculous. You're right, my logic there was off -- by the time CPB was being funded, the FCC had already ruled that iBiquity's HD Radio standard was "the one." The funding of the CPB was to demonstrate the results of HD Radio to both the public and commercial stations, in an attempt to drive both demand and supply. Such "technology stimulus" packages aren't anything new, of course -- look at the Rural Electrification Act of 1936. Another FDR boondoggle, in your opinion? ---Joel |
D-fund NPR ??
"flipper" wrote in message
... The problem is the people don't 'jump' unless the left turn up the high enough so you only get chances to roll back when they unleash their natural arrogance and attempt 'progressing' too fast, like Obama. Except the 'roll back' is seldom more than a percentage of the increase so there's still a net loss. For the sake of argument, I'll accept that this often happens. The interesting question, then, is... can it continue? Or are we doomed to fall as did Rome, and it's just a question of whether it's 20 years or 40 or whatever? As I recall, you're predicting the later, right? Life tenure makes the SCOTUS even worse so the odds of it becoming Constitutional during our lifetime is remote. Agreed, although I have to imagine the framers of the constitution were very much aware of just how much power they were granting the judges when they set up the life tenure system. Nonsense. You have a partial answer in the FDR question below, except there's no 'vital utility' to HD radio. But that's how the left 'progresses'. You start with the argument it's a 'vital utility', so 'charitable' government should fund it (you're a 'good person', aren't you?). Next time you leave out 'vital utility' and just government fund since that's (sorta but we don't mention sorta) 'like the precedent'. Eventually you disavow 'charity' and claim it's a 'entitlement'. I agree, that is largely how it's progressed; I believe this reflects the fact that our country has been so spectacularly successful in addressing the truly vital needs of food, shelter, clothing, and so on. Constitutional questions aside for a moment, I'm not bothered if the government has done such a good job of providing "basic infrastructure" that these days some tax dollars go towards coming up with (ostensibly) better TV systems, better Internet connections, etc. (Of course the sticky point is always how much money to throw at those things -- it's clear that as of late we've been spending far more money than we should be on many government programs.) I'm old enough to remember how "The Great Society" was 'sold'. It was argued as charitable 'help the poor' and "there but for the grace of God go I," which was an argument it was not a 'transfer of wealth' but akin to 'insurance' since you too might find yourself in need some day. Nowadays they don't bother with the pretense. Any reason you can't view it as both a transfer of wealth as well as insurance? I do. Good technology doesn't need a 'stimulus'. Oh, I dunno... look at places such as Mumbai: The (very good and these days very, very mature) technology of proper sanitation insfrastructure is completely inadequate largely because, even though people know that living in such a horrible situation is not healthy (Indians are quite well-educated!), they'd rather spend their money on cell phones (very sexy technology -- no stimulus needed there) than basic infrastructure. See http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll...957/-1/SANNEWS : "The Mumbai slum of Rafiq Nagar has no clean water for its shacks made of ripped tarp and bamboo. No garbage pickup along the rocky, pocked earth that serves as a road. No power except from haphazard cables strung overhead illegally. And not a single toilet or latrine for its 10,000 people. Yet nearly every destitute family in the slum has a cell phone. Some have three." Sounds like a government stimulus could sure help there! ---Joel |
D-fund NPR ??
On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 10:13:08 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
wrote: "flipper" wrote in message .. . The problem is the people don't 'jump' unless the left turn up the high enough so you only get chances to roll back when they unleash their natural arrogance and attempt 'progressing' too fast, like Obama. Except the 'roll back' is seldom more than a percentage of the increase so there's still a net loss. For the sake of argument, I'll accept that this often happens. The interesting question, then, is... can it continue? Or are we doomed to fall as did Rome, and it's just a question of whether it's 20 years or 40 or whatever? As I recall, you're predicting the later, right? Life tenure makes the SCOTUS even worse so the odds of it becoming Constitutional during our lifetime is remote. Agreed, although I have to imagine the framers of the constitution were very much aware of just how much power they were granting the judges when they set up the life tenure system. Nonsense. You have a partial answer in the FDR question below, except there's no 'vital utility' to HD radio. But that's how the left 'progresses'. You start with the argument it's a 'vital utility', so 'charitable' government should fund it (you're a 'good person', aren't you?). Next time you leave out 'vital utility' and just government fund since that's (sorta but we don't mention sorta) 'like the precedent'. Eventually you disavow 'charity' and claim it's a 'entitlement'. I agree, that is largely how it's progressed; I believe this reflects the fact that our country has been so spectacularly successful in addressing the truly vital needs of food, shelter, clothing, and so on. Constitutional questions aside for a moment, I'm not bothered if the government has done such a good job of providing "basic infrastructure" that these days some tax dollars go towards coming up with (ostensibly) better TV systems, better Internet connections, etc. (Of course the sticky point is always how much money to throw at those things -- it's clear that as of late we've been spending far more money than we should be on many government programs.) I'm old enough to remember how "The Great Society" was 'sold'. It was argued as charitable 'help the poor' and "there but for the grace of God go I," which was an argument it was not a 'transfer of wealth' but akin to 'insurance' since you too might find yourself in need some day. Nowadays they don't bother with the pretense. Any reason you can't view it as both a transfer of wealth as well as insurance? I do. Good technology doesn't need a 'stimulus'. Oh, I dunno... look at places such as Mumbai: The (very good and these days very, very mature) technology of proper sanitation insfrastructure is completely inadequate largely because, even though people know that living in such a horrible situation is not healthy (Indians are quite well-educated!), I wouldn't call 66% adult literacy "well-educated". The US claims 99%. they'd rather spend their money on cell phones (very sexy technology -- no stimulus needed there) than basic infrastructure. See http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll...957/-1/SANNEWS : "The Mumbai slum of Rafiq Nagar has no clean water for its shacks made of ripped tarp and bamboo. No garbage pickup along the rocky, pocked earth that serves as a road. No power except from haphazard cables strung overhead illegally. And not a single toilet or latrine for its 10,000 people. Yet nearly every destitute family in the slum has a cell phone. Some have three." Sounds like a government stimulus could sure help there! ---Joel |
D-fund NPR ??
"Spehro Pefhany" wrote in message
... [Mumbai] I wouldn't call 66% adult literacy "well-educated". The US claims 99%. Ah, I didn't realize it was that low; my mistake. That's really too bad. ---Joel |
D-fund NPR ??
Bizarre bit of trivia courtesy of Wikipedia: "With a literacy rate of 69%, the
slums in Mumbai are the most literate in India." Wow... |
D-fund NPR ??
Bizarre bit of trivia courtesy of Wikipedia: "With a literacy rate of 69%, the
slums in Mumbai are the most literate in India." Wow... |
D-fund NPR ??
On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 11:00:02 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
wrote: Bizarre bit of trivia courtesy of Wikipedia: "With a literacy rate of 69%, the slums in Mumbai are the most literate in India." Wow... They man the call centers ;-) ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | Make the world a better place, dismember a Democrat. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:17 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter