Walking Shtick wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:05:27 GMT, AllEmailDeletedImmediately wrote:

Somebody is watching WAY too much Fox News.

i don't have cable, so obviously i don't watch fox news.

"Alric Knebel" wrote in message
...
George wrote:

Walking Shtick wrote:

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:05:27 GMT, AllEmailDeletedImmediately wrote:

"Jim" Windswept@Home wrote in message
...

snip
Thank you, Big Brother.

it's thank you, bill clinton. the analog spectrum was sold on his
watch to balance his budget. of course, it's unlikely that any money
actually changed hands at that point. and did he get what they're
worth today due to providers vying for the spectrum as opposed to
inflation? probably not. the american people get screwed again.

Somebody is watching WAY too much Fox News.
What would Foxnews have to do with it? Clinton authorized the spectrum
sale for the reason the OP described:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...-century-.html
And the comment from the Motorola guy is accurate. The "auction" is
nothing but smoke and mirrors because it is nothing but a prepaid tax
which operators of the spectrum will need to collect from the users. So
taxes don't go down at all.

That's a ridiculous article in my estimation. It starts out with the
accusation that it was auctioned to balance the budget deficit. The thing
is you had to sell those off some kind of way. What are you supposed to
do with them? Just let anybody claim them, just by the fact that they'd
have the equipment? How would you settle ownership?

they could have waited until later so that they could have gotten top dollar
for it.
lots of companies want a piece of the analog spectrum.

----------------------
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice
cannot sleep forever."--Thomas Jefferson

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide
everything." -- Josef V. Stalin

www.myspace.com/bodybuildinggranny

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Alric Knebel wrote:


You could have kept control over them like, oh say, the current
model of that very same part of spectrum. You could have allocated them
for free to public safety or some other worthy group. Any number of
other possibilities if they had wanted to go that way.
If you look at the history, the auction was largely a justification
for taking the spectrum away from TV and not staying with a dual system
for a few more years.

What do you mean, a dual system? I'm not up on the term you're using,
and since it's so specific, it must be critical to understanding your
point.

In the current system (during the transition) we have the old
system and the new both being used. At the timeCongress was considering
the changeover, we could have just as easily kept both going if there
was a desire on the part of Congress.



And what is the current model for controlling that part of the spectrum?
I thought that part of the spectrum was sold off?

The original part I was replying to was the alternatives available
when the Congress was making the law on how to handle that spectrum way
back in the day. Thus, they could have, if they wanted to at that time,
mandated that the spectrum remain in the control of the government and
that it licensed much like it was in the past. Legally (probably not
politically) they could probably suspend the auction by refunding
downpayments, etc., right up until the spectrum is actually vacated and
transfered next Feb.

downpayments? what stinkin' downpayments? do you seriously believe anyone
put up any actual money at that time? may not even pay for them before
they get
them. ya know how the govt works.

(AllEmailDeletedImmediately) wrote in
news:1b4Sj.4103$_v1.1568@trndny06:

Walking Shtick wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:05:27 GMT, AllEmailDeletedImmediately
wrote:

Somebody is watching WAY too much Fox News.

i don't have cable, so obviously i don't watch fox news.

http://fox43.trb.com/

Fox, Harrisburg.

Near enough? Enjoy.

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:29:47 -0400, Michael Black
wrote:


but if you were capable at 20 why should you
be less capable at 80?

Well, at 20, ..... that was 1964. Don't recall VCRs from then.

Actually, I've had a VCR since 1982.

But I believe that the problem has been diagnosed.

The default channel settings for the converter box have a .1 after
them. So, for example, when you punch channel 22, it comes up 22.1,
and so forth. There is a decimal point on the remote and you can get
22.2 and even 22.3.

BUT, the VCR has whole numbers only. So you cannot program a 22.1.
Instead, you can only punch in 22.

In other words, the two ****ing machines are not compatible.

And yet this particular VCR is not all that old.

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, AllEmailDeletedImmediately wrote:

"Alric Knebel" wrote in message
...
George wrote:

Walking Shtick wrote:

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:05:27 GMT, AllEmailDeletedImmediately wrote:

"Jim" Windswept@Home wrote in message
...

snip
Thank you, Big Brother.

it's thank you, bill clinton. the analog spectrum was sold on his
watch to balance his budget. of course, it's unlikely that any money
actually changed hands at that point. and did he get what they're
worth today due to providers vying for the spectrum as opposed to
inflation? probably not. the american people get screwed again.

Somebody is watching WAY too much Fox News.
What would Foxnews have to do with it? Clinton authorized the spectrum
sale for the reason the OP described:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...-century-.html
And the comment from the Motorola guy is accurate. The "auction" is
nothing but smoke and mirrors because it is nothing but a prepaid tax
which operators of the spectrum will need to collect from the users. So
taxes don't go down at all.

That's a ridiculous article in my estimation. It starts out with the
accusation that it was auctioned to balance the budget deficit. The thing
is you had to sell those off some kind of way. What are you supposed to
do with them? Just let anybody claim them, just by the fact that they'd
have the equipment? How would you settle ownership?

they could have waited until later so that they could have gotten top dollar
for it.
lots of companies want a piece of the analog spectrum.


And they wanted it thirty years ago too. Just because it's convenient
for those who don't want to move into the 21st century is not a good
reason for postponing. Buy anything, and chances are good the price
may go down the next week. Indeed merely buying it devalues it. But
people can use it as an excuse, "I won't do this now because I'm waiting
for a better price" and then decades go by and they still haven't moved
forward.

Michael

Cindy Hamilton wrote
Alric Knebel wrote

I know this thread is about converters, but I have to say, I can't
believe anybody is still using VCRs. I know some old recorded
programs are fun to archive, with the commercial breaks and all
intact, and the watching a broadcast show from ten years ago
is like time traveling. What I did was transfer a couple of these
things over to DVD. I can't see this affection for VHS.

And it should be noted that those tapes will eventually lose
their image. Tapes will glitch up, even if you don't watch them.

I use my VCR to tape stuff to watch later.

Wota dinosaur.

It's cheap, I already have the stuff, and the technology is adequate to my purpose.

You can say the same thing about snail mail instead of the net.

Once I've watched the show, I reuse the tape for something else.

You can do the same thing with the modern digital alternative, much easier.

Amusing though Dirty Jobs is, I can't see archiving them for posterity.

That said, when my VCR dies I'll probably get a digital recorder of
some sort, just so I don't get "the look" from the kid at Best Buy.

He'll be kicking away your walking frame soon.

Michael Black wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, Bill Steele wrote:

In article , Windswept@Home
(J) wrote:

I was clueless then and am clueless today.

Exactly. Show me a senior citizen who can't work a VCR and I'll show
you a citizen who couldn't have worked a VCR at age 20.

That's my point. There are lots of clueless people when it comes to
technology, but chances are good they've always been clueless in
that area.

Last year, there was an article in the paper about some teenager who
had a small business helping people with their computers. It started
with
"Baby-boomer parents are well aware that if they need someone to
tweak their home computers, the best people to ask are their own
teenage children."

And since I know baby boomers were responsible for home computers, it
rang false.

The writer is in awe of the teenager because she avoids technology.
That's not an age thing, that's the way certain people approach
technology or new things, and it never changes. Their very approach
makes it difficult, which may mean they manifest it in a rant
against technology or the cliche about older people being technology
clueless.

Build up a stereotype, and people start believing it. One sad thing
about getting old is that too many people take clues about how they
should act from those around them. "Oh, I'm fifty years old, it's
time to act my age. I'm sixty years old, it's time to wear pastels".
The older you get, the harder it is to do things, because your body
starts slowing down, but if you were capable at 20 why should you
be less capable at 80?

Because quite a few of the brain cells die between 20 and 80.

In spades with Altzhiemers etc.

"Bert Hyman" wrote in message
...
(AllEmailDeletedImmediately) wrote in
news:1b4Sj.4103$_v1.1568@trndny06:

Walking Shtick wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:05:27 GMT, AllEmailDeletedImmediately
wrote:

Somebody is watching WAY too much Fox News.

i don't have cable, so obviously i don't watch fox news.

http://fox43.trb.com/

Fox, Harrisburg.

Near enough? Enjoy.

not anything like fox news.

Jerry wrote
David Johnston wrote
Windswept@Home (Jim) wrote

Yeah, if you're one of the 15% who still have an antenna and
analog TV, it works great. But God forbid you should have a
VCR or DVD recorder that was made prior to 3/07. Won't work.

They didn't tell you that because it isn't true. The output
from a converter shouldn't pose any problem for a vcr.

Only 2 downsides that I can see to using a digital
converter box with an analog-tuner VCR:

- No more watching one channel while recording another.

You can still do that, just get 2 converters.

- Not possible to program your VCR to record shows on
different channels at different times. You gotta leave the
VCR on channel 3 (or 4). Unless they start selling converter
boxes that you can program to change channels at specific times,

Those have been around for a long time now.

or you buy a fancy universal remote that can learn
your converter box codes and do the job for you.

And those in spades.

"Alric Knebel" wrote in message
...

snip

I know this thread is about converters, but I have to say, I can't believe
anybody is still using VCRs. I know some old recorded programs are fun to
archive, with the commercial breaks and all intact, and the watching a
broadcast show from ten years ago is like time traveling. What I did was
transfer a couple of these things over to DVD. I can't see this affection
for VHS.

And it should be noted that those tapes will eventually lose their image.
Tapes will glitch up, even if you don't watch them.

we still use vcr tapes for all of our recording. have had them for yrs.
waiting until they wear out to start in on the dvd-r.

----------------------
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice
cannot sleep forever."--Thomas Jefferson

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide
everything." -- Josef V. Stalin

www.myspace.com/bodybuildinggranny

"David" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 09:54:46 -0500, Alric Knebel
wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 09:22:05 -0500, Alric Knebel
wrote:


I can't
see this affection for VHS.

And it should be noted that those tapes will eventually lose their
image. Tapes will glitch up, even if you don't watch them.


In my case, it is movies that are on VHS and never made it to DVD.
BTW the "losing image" problem is very much over hyped. When I finally
trashed my last Beta machine I transferred some tapes I made in 1976

Do you have a lot of those movies on VHS? I stopped buying them when I
realized you just can't prevent stuff from happening to them. I
remember exactly what movie it was that made me see it was a hopeless
collector's investment. It was THE GODFATHER. After a couple of years
after initially watching the tape I bought, I watched it again, and sure
enough, there was this glitch in it. I owned at that time about twenty
movies on VHS. I decided then that the movies wouldn't really last that
long, and their was the fullscreen formatting, and image quality just
isn't that good, and I could see on the distant horizon this DVD thing
coming. So I just stopped investing in the tapes. And to this day,
DVDs are still a bang, with all the extra features and the commentary
and so on. It's a movie buff's dream come true.

Anyway, you must have some pretty obscure stuff to commit to holding on
to them like that. Would you mind if I ask what those titles are? I'm
just curious.

I'm guessing most of these movies can be found online (illegally,
though as I understand it it's legal if you own a "hard copy"? Or is
that a myth?

i've wondered that, as well. it used to be you could make a copy for your
own use in order to preserve the original. i'm not sure you can legally do
that anymore. the fbi warning would seem to indicate no.

----------------------

"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice
cannot sleep forever."--Thomas Jefferson

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide
everything." -- Josef V. Stalin

www.myspace.com/bodybuildinggranny

Alric Knebel wrote:
Michael Black wrote:

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, J wrote:

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 09:22:05 -0500, Alric Knebel
wrote:

I know this thread is about converters, but I have to say, I can't
believe anybody is still using VCRs


A lot of us electronically-clueless elderly people on fixed incomes
are still using VCRs.

Why not simply "electronically-clueless"?

Everyone wants to portray older people as inept, but that's just
seeing them as they are now. Start subtracting from their age, and
you'll find people who were young and capable.

I saw an add for a program to help "seniors" learn to use the
internet, and the lower age limit was 55. But subtract 30 and you
have a 25 year old in 1978 when small computers were well on their
way. It would take quite the person to live thirty years while
ignoring computers, and then suddenly want to learn at 55 or older.

I'll be fifty next year. I was ten when I wanted a computer, and
they didn't even exist in anything smaller than a minicomputer (and
way too expensive) at the time.

The first vcr I ever saw was when a friend bought his first one in
the fall of 1980, 28 years ago. That's a long time to adapt.

No, most of this "the elderly are inept" comes from other people.

If you're saying what I think you're saying, I agree. I'm 55,

I'm quite a bit older than that.

and I have no trouble at all keeping up with technological changes,

Me neither.

and I'm in fact always excited about new things. I learn about it, and make the most of it. I'm never on the
vanguard with it, but I trail just behind that group.

I have never trailed behind at all.

And when I showed up at my dad's place when he was in his 90s,
I discovered that he had a big pile of orders that he had printed out
on his Mac, and faxed to the licensed restaurant that had specials
in his retirement village, which they delivered using golf buggy etc.

We did have a problem trying to fax him the details about when we
were going to show up, he kept picking the phone up instead of letting
the fax answer it. He also had some wierd theory about the fridge door
needing to be open for an incoming fax to be recieved too. We gave up
on that, never did manage to fax the details.

"J" Windswept@Home wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 09:22:05 -0500, Alric Knebel
wrote:

I know this thread is about converters, but I have to say, I can't
believe anybody is still using VCRs

A lot of us electronically-clueless elderly people on fixed incomes
are still using VCRs.

But I fear the same may be the case with DVD recorders that have NTSC.

The people in this thread have said that if the digital converters
work with analog TVs, then they should work with analog VCRs and DVDs.

Makes perfect sense. Maybe I screwed up yesterday and will try again
today, because the TV reception is GREAT! I was somehow able to get
that to work.


dh is a broadcast engineer. he says the ntsc vcr should work; something
about rf and video input and output (that's all i can remember).

----------------------
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice
cannot sleep forever."--Thomas Jefferson

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide
everything." -- Josef V. Stalin

www.myspace.com/bodybuildinggranny

heavy on the country music. if you don't like country, scroll down for
some surprises.
but at least start the songs: some are funny and some aren't at all.

"J" Windswept@Home wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:58:37 -0400, Bill Steele
wrote:

In article , Windswept@Home (J)
wrote:

I was clueless then and am clueless today.

Exactly. Show me a senior citizen who can't work a VCR and I'll show you
a citizen who couldn't have worked a VCR at age 20.

I could work it the day before yesterday.

But then came the converter.

hehe

"J" Windswept@Home wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:51:09 -0400, Michael Black
wrote:

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, J wrote:

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 09:22:05 -0500, Alric Knebel
wrote:

I know this thread is about converters, but I have to say, I can't
believe anybody is still using VCRs

A lot of us electronically-clueless elderly people on fixed incomes
are still using VCRs.

Why not simply "electronically-clueless"?

Everyone wants to portray older people as inept, but that's just seeing
them as they are now. Start subtracting from their age, and you'll
find people who were young and capable.

I saw an add for a program to help "seniors" learn to use the internet,
and the lower age limit was 55. But subtract 30 and you have a 25 year
old in 1978 when small computers were well on their way. It would take
quite the person to live thirty years while ignoring computers, and
then suddenly want to learn at 55 or older.

I'll be fifty next year. I was ten when I wanted a computer, and they
didn't even exist in anything smaller than a minicomputer (and way too
expensive) at the time.

The first vcr I ever saw was when a friend bought his first one in the
fall of 1980, 28 years ago. That's a long time to adapt.

No, most of this "the elderly are inept" comes from other people.

Michael

I wrote disability regulations and they didn't put a PC into our
dept.'s cubicles until 1991 (age 47). They were used mostly by us for
word processing because no one wanted to be a typist or secretary
anymore. No internet connection at work even at the time of early
retirement in 1997 (53).

First home PC in 1998. I was clueless then and am clueless today.

There are many people in my age group who are in the same boat.

Now, back to the converter box and VCR and see what shakes.


just dive in there. 85 yr old auntie does pretty good with a computer.
she installs hardware and software, does pictures, email, geneology.
pay someone to give you the basics.

----------------------
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice
cannot sleep forever."--Thomas Jefferson

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide
everything." -- Josef V. Stalin

www.myspace.com/bodybuildinggranny

"J" Windswept@Home wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:29:47 -0400, Michael Black
wrote:


but if you were capable at 20 why should you
be less capable at 80?

Well, at 20, ..... that was 1964. Don't recall VCRs from then.

Actually, I've had a VCR since 1982.

one that didn't program on the tv screen? i really hated it.

----------------------
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice
cannot sleep forever."--Thomas Jefferson

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide
everything." -- Josef V. Stalin

www.myspace.com/bodybuildinggranny
..

"Jerry" wrote in message
...
On Apr 29, 9:53 pm, David Johnston wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 01:09:53 GMT, Windswept@Home (Jim) wrote:
Yeah, if you're one of the 15% who still have an antenna and analog
TV, it works great. But God forbid you should have a VCR or DVD
recorder that was made prior to 3/07. Won't work.

They didn't tell you that because it isn't true. The output from a
converter shouldn't pose any problem for a vcr.

Only 2 downsides that I can see to using a digital converter box with
an analog-tuner VCR:

- No more watching one channel while recording another.

correct.

- Not possible to program your VCR to record shows on different
channels at different times. You gotta leave the VCR on channel 3 (or
4).

correct.

----------------------
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice
cannot sleep forever."--Thomas Jefferson

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide
everything." -- Josef V. Stalin

www.myspace.com/bodybuildinggranny

"Michael Black" wrote in message
ample.org...
snip

they could have waited until later so that they could have gotten top
dollar
for it.
lots of companies want a piece of the analog spectrum.


And they wanted it thirty years ago too. Just because it's convenient
for those who don't want to move into the 21st century is not a good
reason for postponing. Buy anything, and chances are good the price
may go down the next week. Indeed merely buying it devalues it. But
people can use it as an excuse, "I won't do this now because I'm waiting
for a better price" and then decades go by and they still haven't moved
forward.

i think there's a lot more competition for it now than 10 yrs. ago. but,
analog
was supposed to drop out several yrs ago. it had to be extended because
the
cost of the digital equipment was too much for most stations and they
couldn't
comply in time.

In article , Alric

The first vcr I ever saw was when a friend bought his first one in the
fall of 1980, 28 years ago. That's a long time to adapt.

No, most of this "the elderly are inept" comes from other people.

Michael

If you're saying what I think you're saying, I agree. I'm 55, and I
have no trouble at all keeping up with technological changes, and I'm in
fact always excited about new things. I learn about it, and make the
most of it. I'm never on the vanguard with it, but I trail just behind
that group.

How 'bout people who just don't give a ****. TV with antenna works
*fine* for me. I bought a VCR used a long time ago and it plays the
tapes I get from the public library fine.

I plan on getting a digi-box and calling it good. I might get a new TV
and DVD/Blueray player/recorder sometime in the next few years but I'm
stumblin' along just fine like I am.

If it weren't for the goddamn WWW, I'd still be usin' my computer from
1992. As it is, this 9 year old machine (with a few tweeks) is still
chuggin' along fine. I guess I'm not a 'first adopter' I want someone
else to find out how ****ty a piece of technology is before adopting it
myself.

In article ,
says...
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
Alric Knebel wrote:


You could have kept control over them like, oh say, the current
model of that very same part of spectrum. You could have allocated them
for free to public safety or some other worthy group. Any number of
other possibilities if they had wanted to go that way.
If you look at the history, the auction was largely a justification
for taking the spectrum away from TV and not staying with a dual system
for a few more years.
What do you mean, a dual system? I'm not up on the term you're using,
and since it's so specific, it must be critical to understanding your
point.

In the current system (during the transition) we have the old
system and the new both being used. At the timeCongress was considering
the changeover, we could have just as easily kept both going if there
was a desire on the part of Congress.

TV stations have no desire to transmit two of everything. It's a waste
of power and money.

How about letting them decide that? The point is still valid.

And what is the current model for controlling that part of the spectrum?
I thought that part of the spectrum was sold off?

The original part I was replying to was the alternatives available
when the Congress was making the law on how to handle that spectrum way
back in the day. Thus, they could have, if they wanted to at that time,
mandated that the spectrum remain in the control of the government

The spectrum is leased. The spectrum is quite large, so I'm not sure
what else the gov't would do with it.

Read the answer.


--
Keith

In article cD4Sj.8728$r12.4385@trndny03,
says...
"Bert Hyman" wrote in message
...
(AllEmailDeletedImmediately) wrote in
news:1b4Sj.4103$_v1.1568@trndny06:

Walking Shtick wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:05:27 GMT, AllEmailDeletedImmediately
wrote:

Somebody is watching WAY too much Fox News.

i don't have cable, so obviously i don't watch fox news.

http://fox43.trb.com/

Fox, Harrisburg.

Near enough? Enjoy.

not anything like fox news.

Not fair and balanced, eh? ;-)

--
Keith

In article ,
says...
aemeijers wrote:

Jim wrote:

Yeah, if you're one of the 15% who still have an antenna and analog
TV, it works great. But God forbid you should have a VCR or DVD
recorder that was made prior to 3/07. Won't work.
SOLUTION #1: Get a new DVD recorder or DVD recorder/VHS combo that
has a digital tuner.

SOLUTION #2: Wait until July and get a special digital converter that
is not eligible for the govt. rebate.

SOLUTION #3: Subscribe to cable, if it's available in your area, or a
satellite dish.

RESULT: More old electronic junk thrown into the landfill and more
expense for the consumer, many of whom are elderly and on fixed
incomes, or else they wouldn't still be using antennas.

Thank you, Big Brother.


Oh, stuff and nonsense. VCR mostly could care less what feeds signal to
it. Only thing I have EVER seen that didn't work right was
daisy-chaining a DVD player and a VCR, for an old TV with single inputs.
It came up in black and white, due to to copy-protect on the DVD.

Just for laughs, 2 minutes ago I hooked a cable from my converter box to
the 'line2' inputs on my 5-year old Sony VCR- it worked and recorded
just fine and played back just fine. Were you using an RF connection, or
video cables? If RF, did you have the converter and VCR set on the same
channel? (Usually a toggle between 3 and 4)

I know this thread is about converters, but I have to say, I can't
believe anybody is still using VCRs. I know some old recorded programs
are fun to archive, with the commercial breaks and all intact, and the
watching a broadcast show from ten years ago is like time traveling.
What I did was transfer a couple of these things over to DVD. I can't
see this affection for VHS.

I just bought a VHS machine (to go with the 42" plasma TV ;-).

And it should be noted that those tapes will eventually lose their
image. Tapes will glitch up, even if you don't watch them.

But when you have a pile of tapes...

--
Keith

In article ,
says...
wrote:

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 09:22:05 -0500, Alric Knebel
wrote:


I can't
see this affection for VHS.

And it should be noted that those tapes will eventually lose their
image. Tapes will glitch up, even if you don't watch them.


In my case, it is movies that are on VHS and never made it to DVD.
BTW the "losing image" problem is very much over hyped. When I finally
trashed my last Beta machine I transferred some tapes I made in 1976

Do you have a lot of those movies on VHS? I stopped buying them when I
realized you just can't prevent stuff from happening to them. I
remember exactly what movie it was that made me see it was a hopeless
collector's investment. It was THE GODFATHER. After a couple of years
after initially watching the tape I bought, I watched it again, and sure
enough, there was this glitch in it. I owned at that time about twenty
movies on VHS. I decided then that the movies wouldn't really last that
long, and their was the fullscreen formatting, and image quality just
isn't that good, and I could see on the distant horizon this DVD thing
coming. So I just stopped investing in the tapes. And to this day,
DVDs are still a bang, with all the extra features and the commentary
and so on. It's a movie buff's dream come true.

Anyway, you must have some pretty obscure stuff to commit to holding on
to them like that. Would you mind if I ask what those titles are? I'm
just curious.

My wife has a bunch of the old MGM musicals that never made it to
DVD. The "plan" (someday, when I have time) is to move them to DVD,
though.

--
Keith

AllEmailDeletedImmediately wrote:
"David" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 09:54:46 -0500, Alric Knebel
wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 09:22:05 -0500, Alric Knebel
wrote:


I can't
see this affection for VHS.

And it should be noted that those tapes will eventually lose their
image. Tapes will glitch up, even if you don't watch them.


In my case, it is movies that are on VHS and never made it to DVD.
BTW the "losing image" problem is very much over hyped. When I
finally trashed my last Beta machine I transferred some tapes I
made in 1976

Do you have a lot of those movies on VHS? I stopped buying them
when I realized you just can't prevent stuff from happening to
them. I remember exactly what movie it was that made me see it was
a hopeless collector's investment. It was THE GODFATHER. After a
couple of years after initially watching the tape I bought, I
watched it again, and sure enough, there was this glitch in it. I
owned at that time about twenty movies on VHS. I decided then that
the movies wouldn't really last that long, and their was the
fullscreen formatting, and image quality just isn't that good, and
I could see on the distant horizon this DVD thing coming. So I
just stopped investing in the tapes. And to this day, DVDs are
still a bang, with all the extra features and the commentary and so
on. It's a movie buff's dream come true. Anyway, you must have some pretty obscure stuff to commit to
holding on to them like that. Would you mind if I ask what those
titles are? I'm just curious.

I'm guessing most of these movies can be found online (illegally,
though as I understand it it's legal if you own a "hard copy"?

Yep.

Or is that a myth?

Nope.

i've wondered that, as well. it used to be you could make a copy for your own use in order to preserve the original.

You are welcome to change the media format of what you own too.

i'm not sure you can legally do that anymore.

You are legally welcome to change the media format of what you own.

the fbi warning would seem to indicate no.

No it doesnt.

In article ,
says...
Michael Black wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, Bill Steele wrote:

In article , Windswept@Home
(J) wrote:

I was clueless then and am clueless today.

Exactly. Show me a senior citizen who can't work a VCR and I'll show
you a citizen who couldn't have worked a VCR at age 20.

That's my point. There are lots of clueless people when it comes to
technology, but chances are good they've always been clueless in
that area.

Last year, there was an article in the paper about some teenager who
had a small business helping people with their computers. It started
with
"Baby-boomer parents are well aware that if they need someone to
tweak their home computers, the best people to ask are their own
teenage children."

And since I know baby boomers were responsible for home computers, it
rang false.

The writer is in awe of the teenager because she avoids technology.
That's not an age thing, that's the way certain people approach
technology or new things, and it never changes. Their very approach
makes it difficult, which may mean they manifest it in a rant
against technology or the cliche about older people being technology
clueless.

Build up a stereotype, and people start believing it. One sad thing
about getting old is that too many people take clues about how they
should act from those around them. "Oh, I'm fifty years old, it's
time to act my age. I'm sixty years old, it's time to wear pastels".
The older you get, the harder it is to do things, because your body
starts slowing down, but if you were capable at 20 why should you
be less capable at 80?

Because quite a few of the brain cells die between 20 and 80.

Listen up folks! Ronny knows all about this subject!

In spades with Altzhiemers etc.

Yep!


--
Keith

In article ,
FDR wrote:

Let's see. I can really see a company wanting to spend double. Why
hire one truck when you can spend on two. Yup, makes sense. You
should be a CEO.


Wouldn't be spending double since the old stuff was there anyway.
You would be looking only at the marginal costs. Much of the equipment,
probably except for the transmitters themselves, would be compatible.
Don't know if that makes any more sense, but would be closer.
r

FDR wrote:
krw wrote:
In article ,
says...
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
Alric Knebel wrote:


You could have kept control over them like, oh say, the
current model of that very same part of spectrum. You could have
allocated them for free to public safety or some other worthy
group. Any number of other possibilities if they had wanted to go
that way. If you look at the history, the auction was largely
a justification for taking the spectrum away from TV and not
staying with a dual system for a few more years.
What do you mean, a dual system? I'm not up on the term you're
using, and since it's so specific, it must be critical to
understanding your point.

In the current system (during the transition) we have the old
system and the new both being used. At the timeCongress was
considering the changeover, we could have just as easily kept both
going if there was a desire on the part of Congress.
TV stations have no desire to transmit two of everything. It's a
waste of power and money.

How about letting them decide that? The point is still valid.

Let's see. I can really see a company wanting to spend double. Why
hire one truck when you can spend on two. Yup, makes sense. You
should be a CEO.



And what is the current model for controlling that part of the
spectrum? I thought that part of the spectrum was sold off?
The original part I was replying to was the alternatives
available when the Congress was making the law on how to handle that
spectrum way back in the day. Thus, they could have, if they wanted
to at that time, mandated that the spectrum remain in the control of
the government
The spectrum is leased. The spectrum is quite large, so I'm not sure
what else the gov't would do with it.

Read the answer.


Public safety? Well that's a 24 hour a day spectrum hog. Yeah, let's
do that. What's the programming going to be to fill that across 100+
stations? Wait, won't that cost the taxpayer?

Yes it will cost the taxpayers if the spectrum is retained for public
safety use. Radio Equipment that is suitable for public safety use is
not inexpensive. So I suppose to save you from having to pay taxes the
firefighters should have to crawl down long snotty hallways dragging a
Dixie cup and a string. As to programming to fill it "Engine 791 on the
scene with a two story and basement type five well involved give me the
second alarm and have the next due reverse lay from me with dual lines"
does not take a lot of effort to program. Whatever your smoking please
don't be sharing it.
--
Tom Horne

Well we aren't no thin blue heroes but we aren't no blackguards to.
We're just working men and women most remarkable like you.

With apologies to the Kipling trust for the paraphrasing.

Windswept@Home (J) wrote in :

The default channel settings for the converter box have a .1 after
them. So, for example, when you punch channel 22, it comes up 22.1,
and so forth. There is a decimal point on the remote and you can get
22.2 and even 22.3.

BUT, the VCR has whole numbers only. So you cannot program a 22.1.
Instead, you can only punch in 22.

In other words, the two ****ing machines are not compatible.

And yet this particular VCR is not all that old.

What in the world are you trying to do? The VCR should not be set to
channel 22. It should be set to channel 3!

The converter box receives chanel 22.1

The converter box sends a signal to your VCR over channel 3.

You set your VCR to channel 3, and it receives the signal from your
converter box.

Michael Black wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, Alric Knebel wrote:
You could have kept control over them like, oh say, the current
model of that very same part of spectrum. You could have allocated
them for free to public safety or some other worthy group. Any number
of other possibilities if they had wanted to go that way. If you
look at the history, the auction was largely a justification for
taking the spectrum away from TV and not staying with a dual system
for a few more years.

What do you mean, a dual system? I'm not up on the term you're using,
and since it's so specific, it must be critical to understanding your
point.

And what is the current model for controlling that part of the
spectrum? I thought that part of the spectrum was sold off?

Surely it means leaving the old tv system in place while allocating more
of the spectrum for digital tv, and running them in parallel.

The auctioning, once again, is a smoke and mirror for the conspiracists.

The issue is whether to continue using 70 year old technology, or move
ahead. The changeover does require some sacrifices, but as someone
pointed out, they do get things with the switchover. A really
inefficient allocation of the radio spectrum gets to be recycled into
other uses. If you can't make a radical break with the past, you
are stuck in that past.

The same conspiracists continue to spew their theories, complete with
the same misspelling of "government". They can't add anything to
the discussion because someone has already spelled out the party line.

They don't know that tv has been around since the late 1930's, even though
at least some of the participants in this thread have spewed before
and I've mentioned it. TV got an allocation then, and then after the
war got a bigger allocation, most of the prime real estate. Eventually
they had 82 channels, six megaHertz wide, and I've done the math before
on how much that adds up. Yet, the reason for so many channels was
not because there'd be so much content, but because you had to space
the stations out in any given local, and any nearby stations needed
different channels. So in any given location, most of the hoarded
spectrum is unused, certainly unuseable by other radio services.

These conpiracists don't talk about how commercial broadcast stations
hog the AM broadcast band, and then end up serving up a lot of
syndicated programming that we could find anywhere else up and down
the dial. They don't talk about how commercial broadcast stations
hog the FM broadcast band, and then serve up basically the same
music up and downt he dial.

They think the "government" did all this for the revenue from the
auction, yet no word on how the "government" took control of the radio
spectrum almost a hundred years ago, because back then everything was
concentrated into a very small area due to technology restrictions,
and everyone wsa fighting for the same space. But that same "government"
let the commercial broadcasters have massive amounts of space, and it
may be entertaining but is is the most important "public good"?

Like I've said before, cellphones are the thing that has popularized
radio. Far more people today use radio as a communication device, rather
than passively sitting at home watching tv or listening to the radio, than
ever before. The cellphone gives that, and while I don't have one, I
suspect is as valuable to the users as the people spouting off about
the "government taking away their tv sets".

So TV has hoarded a massive slice of the spectrum for fifty years, and
meanwhile all kinds of developments have come along that make use of
radio. Yet, there is tv with the prime real estate. The move to digital
releases some of that spectrum. But once something is in demand, how
do you allocate it, especially when it's just another commercial concern
(no different from all those tv stations, I should point out)? Why not
acution it off, get some revenue rather than merely letting some
commercial concern profit off the "public airwaves".

But of course, they are conspiracists, so the truth doesn't get in the
way.

So once the decision is made to make a radical change, instead of
hemming and hawing like they did over "am stereo" so eventually it
was "everything goes" instead of a standard and nothing much happened,
then the question is, "how do we make the transition without making
too big a wave".

That's where the certificates come from, making sure that everyone
gets the new tv signals so the old can be turned off at a definite
date. No more wishy washy leaving the old in place while hoping
people move to the new. No more building a new standard on the old,
which means the new can't be too different from the old. Throw out
the old and begin again.

There is very little around that wsa in use 70 years ago,

Michael


Michael Michael Michael
This is the internet. If you start talking sense here the black
helicopters will surely come and; um, what is it the UN black
helicopters are supposed to be doing again?
--
Tom Horne

Well we aren't no thin blue heroes but we aren't no blackguards to.
We're just working men and women most remarkable like you.

With apologies to the Kipling trust for the paraphrasing.

Alric Knebel wrote:
Cindy Hamilton wrote:

On Apr 30, 10:22 am, Alric Knebel wrote:


I know this thread is about converters, but I have to say, I can't
believe anybody is still using VCRs. I know some old recorded programs
are fun to archive, with the commercial breaks and all intact, and the
watching a broadcast show from ten years ago is like time traveling.
What I did was transfer a couple of these things over to DVD. I can't
see this affection for VHS.

And it should be noted that those tapes will eventually lose their
image. Tapes will glitch up, even if you don't watch them.


I use my VCR to tape stuff to watch later. It's cheap, I already have
the
stuff, and the technology is adequate to my purpose. Once I've
watched
the show, I reuse the tape for something else. Amusing though Dirty
Jobs is, I can't see archiving them for posterity.

That said, when my VCR dies I'll probably get a digital recorder of
some
sort, just so I don't get "the look" from the kid at Best Buy.

Cindy Hamilton

LOL!!!!!

About recording stuff, I had a VCR since around the mid-80s. I used to
record tons of stuff, and sometimes I'd break the tab out so as not to
record over it. Then I took enjoyment from the sheer fact that some of
these tapes were so old. Some of them would have just tidbits of
things; a segment from an obscure late-night syndicated comedy show, for
instance. The fun was the unedited broadcasts, commercials and all.

And then there's this other thing. Like you, I'd use the same tapes
over and over. Because I recorded so much stuff, I had a lot of tapes,
so I could change them out if one became full and there were still
programs on it that I hadn't watched yet. I rarely watched a show
during the actual broadcast and I've watched and recorded C-SPAN's
WASHINGTON JOURNAL since the early 90s, day after day, and I'd fill
these tapes up. Then when I recorded over them, maybe the newer program
wouldn't completely cover the previous program. As I made the
transition from VHS recording to DVD recording, I began going through
all of these tapes to find if I wanted to transfer anything to DVD. Man,
it was like an archeological dig. When a recording would end, the image
would fall downward, revealing a segment of a previously recorded
program. I found C-SPAN recordings of interviews with guests going back
to 1996. There were two intact episodes of THE FLASH, commercials and
all, from, like, 1990. And the fact that some of the tapes were
glitched up -- you know, that ribbon that appears across the image, and
drops through it -- was part of the charm. I thought all of this would
be cool to preserve, so I began transferring entire tapes to DVD.

But, alas, Katrina came along and destroyed most of the tapes.

Yes, yes, I know all this is geeky as hell, but it was so much fun.

Well let me give you joy of having survived Katrina even if your stuff
did not. I fervently hope that is also true of the rest of your family.
--
Tom Horne

Well we aren't no thin blue heroes but we aren't no blackguards to.
We're just working men and women most remarkable like you.

With apologies to the Kipling trust for the paraphrasing.

In article ,
says...
krw wrote:
In article ,
says...
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
Alric Knebel wrote:


You could have kept control over them like, oh say, the current
model of that very same part of spectrum. You could have allocated them
for free to public safety or some other worthy group. Any number of
other possibilities if they had wanted to go that way.
If you look at the history, the auction was largely a justification
for taking the spectrum away from TV and not staying with a dual system
for a few more years.
What do you mean, a dual system? I'm not up on the term you're using,
and since it's so specific, it must be critical to understanding your
point.

In the current system (during the transition) we have the old
system and the new both being used. At the timeCongress was considering
the changeover, we could have just as easily kept both going if there
was a desire on the part of Congress.
TV stations have no desire to transmit two of everything. It's a waste
of power and money.

How about letting them decide that? The point is still valid.

Let's see. I can really see a company wanting to spend double. Why
hire one truck when you can spend on two. Yup, makes sense. You
should be a CEO.

It's eminently clear that *you* haven't the first clue. Hint:
businesses don't like losing customers. Choice is good, though you
leftists/statists hate the concept.

And what is the current model for controlling that part of the spectrum?
I thought that part of the spectrum was sold off?
The original part I was replying to was the alternatives available
when the Congress was making the law on how to handle that spectrum way
back in the day. Thus, they could have, if they wanted to at that time,
mandated that the spectrum remain in the control of the government
The spectrum is leased. The spectrum is quite large, so I'm not sure
what else the gov't would do with it.

Read the answer.


Public safety? Well that's a 24 hour a day spectrum hog. Yeah, let's
do that. What's the programming going to be to fill that across 100+
stations? Wait, won't that cost the taxpayer?

I know it must be hard, but do try to follow along.

--
Keith

Rod Speed wrote:



I have never trailed behind at all.

I don't trail behind them in comprehending it. I just don't rush out
and buy the newest thing all the time.
--
_________________
Alric Knebel

http://www.ironeyefortress.com/C-SPAN_loon.html
http://www.ironeyefortress.com

Tom Horne wrote:

Alric Knebel wrote:

Cindy Hamilton wrote:

On Apr 30, 10:22 am, Alric Knebel wrote:


I know this thread is about converters, but I have to say, I can't
believe anybody is still using VCRs. I know some old recorded programs
are fun to archive, with the commercial breaks and all intact, and the
watching a broadcast show from ten years ago is like time traveling.
What I did was transfer a couple of these things over to DVD. I can't
see this affection for VHS.

And it should be noted that those tapes will eventually lose their
image. Tapes will glitch up, even if you don't watch them.



I use my VCR to tape stuff to watch later. It's cheap, I already have
the
stuff, and the technology is adequate to my purpose. Once I've
watched
the show, I reuse the tape for something else. Amusing though Dirty
Jobs is, I can't see archiving them for posterity.

That said, when my VCR dies I'll probably get a digital recorder of
some
sort, just so I don't get "the look" from the kid at Best Buy.

Cindy Hamilton


LOL!!!!!

About recording stuff, I had a VCR since around the mid-80s. I used
to record tons of stuff, and sometimes I'd break the tab out so as not
to record over it. Then I took enjoyment from the sheer fact that
some of these tapes were so old. Some of them would have just tidbits
of things; a segment from an obscure late-night syndicated comedy
show, for instance. The fun was the unedited broadcasts, commercials
and all.

And then there's this other thing. Like you, I'd use the same tapes
over and over. Because I recorded so much stuff, I had a lot of
tapes, so I could change them out if one became full and there were
still programs on it that I hadn't watched yet. I rarely watched a
show during the actual broadcast and I've watched and recorded
C-SPAN's WASHINGTON JOURNAL since the early 90s, day after day, and
I'd fill these tapes up. Then when I recorded over them, maybe the
newer program wouldn't completely cover the previous program. As I
made the transition from VHS recording to DVD recording, I began going
through all of these tapes to find if I wanted to transfer anything to
DVD. Man, it was like an archeological dig. When a recording would
end, the image would fall downward, revealing a segment of a
previously recorded program. I found C-SPAN recordings of interviews
with guests going back to 1996. There were two intact episodes of THE
FLASH, commercials and all, from, like, 1990. And the fact that some
of the tapes were glitched up -- you know, that ribbon that appears
across the image, and drops through it -- was part of the charm. I
thought all of this would be cool to preserve, so I began transferring
entire tapes to DVD.

But, alas, Katrina came along and destroyed most of the tapes.

Yes, yes, I know all this is geeky as hell, but it was so much fun.


Well let me give you joy of having survived Katrina even if your stuff
did not. I fervently hope that is also true of the rest of your family.

Well . . . thank you so much. No one I know died in the storm. And
when I mentioned Katrina, I didn't think really about how it might
appear to people who'd seen it only on the news.

--
_________________
Alric Knebel

http://www.ironeyefortress.com/C-SPAN_loon.html
http://www.ironeyefortress.com

In article ,
says...
krw wrote:
In article ,
says...
krw wrote:
In article ,
says...
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
Alric Knebel wrote:


You could have kept control over them like, oh say, the current
model of that very same part of spectrum. You could have allocated them
for free to public safety or some other worthy group. Any number of
other possibilities if they had wanted to go that way.
If you look at the history, the auction was largely a justification
for taking the spectrum away from TV and not staying with a dual system
for a few more years.
What do you mean, a dual system? I'm not up on the term you're using,
and since it's so specific, it must be critical to understanding your
point.

In the current system (during the transition) we have the old
system and the new both being used. At the timeCongress was considering
the changeover, we could have just as easily kept both going if there
was a desire on the part of Congress.
TV stations have no desire to transmit two of everything. It's a waste
of power and money.
How about letting them decide that? The point is still valid.
Let's see. I can really see a company wanting to spend double. Why
hire one truck when you can spend on two. Yup, makes sense. You
should be a CEO.

It's eminently clear that *you* haven't the first clue. Hint:
businesses don't like losing customers. Choice is good, though you
leftists/statists hate the concept.

And what is the current model for controlling that part of the spectrum?
I thought that part of the spectrum was sold off?
The original part I was replying to was the alternatives available
when the Congress was making the law on how to handle that spectrum way
back in the day. Thus, they could have, if they wanted to at that time,
mandated that the spectrum remain in the control of the government
The spectrum is leased. The spectrum is quite large, so I'm not sure
what else the gov't would do with it.
Read the answer.

Public safety? Well that's a 24 hour a day spectrum hog. Yeah, let's
do that. What's the programming going to be to fill that across 100+
stations? Wait, won't that cost the taxpayer?

I know it must be hard, but do try to follow along.


Following nonsense that isn't going to happen?

You're as big of an idiot as you nym would imply.

--
Keith

"krw" wrote in message
t...
In article cD4Sj.8728$r12.4385@trndny03,
says...
"Bert Hyman" wrote in message
...
(AllEmailDeletedImmediately) wrote in
news:1b4Sj.4103$_v1.1568@trndny06:

Walking Shtick wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:05:27 GMT, AllEmailDeletedImmediately
wrote:

Somebody is watching WAY too much Fox News.

i don't have cable, so obviously i don't watch fox news.

http://fox43.trb.com/

Fox, Harrisburg.

Near enough? Enjoy.

not anything like fox news.

Not fair and balanced, eh? ;-)

i don't watch much tv news, only what i happen to see at the doctors, gym,
etc. afaict, they're not alike. i'd guess foxnews would have more time to
do in-depth stuff, just like cnn. but i just read that a good chunk of cnn
is kinda fluffy.

"Tom Horne" wrote in message
newsD6Sj.8823$e26.4802@trnddc02...
snip

Michael Michael Michael
This is the internet. If you start talking sense here the black
helicopters will surely come and; um, what is it the UN black helicopters
are supposed to be doing again?

spying.

----------------------
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice
cannot sleep forever."--Thomas Jefferson

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide
everything." -- Josef V. Stalin

www.myspace.com/bodybuildinggranny

In article ,
FDR wrote:



I'm thinking that the cost of electricity to run the transmitters is
going to roughly double the cost, as well as maintenance on two sets of
equipment.

So? The marginal cost of electricity for the extra transmitter
(remember they still have to run one no matter) is going to be very
small. Transmitter electricity is a small part of their budget compared
to things like salaries, buildings, all those satellite trucks,
printing, etc., etc., etc.
Similarly with the maintenance of the other system. Remember, pretty
much everything but the transmitter (and probably the antennae) can run
both with no problems currently. The marginal cost, which would be the
constraint, would be small overall.
Now, whether or not it is worth it, is another story altogether.

In article ,
FDR wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
FDR wrote:


I'm thinking that the cost of electricity to run the transmitters is
going to roughly double the cost, as well as maintenance on two sets of
equipment.

So? The marginal cost of electricity for the extra transmitter
(remember they still have to run one no matter) is going to be very
small.

Oh really? Megawatts used daily is small?
When compared to the entire cost of running a station, yeah.
Running both sides of transmitter does not even remotely double the
costs of running the entire station. Especially when you are talking
only the marginal costs (those specific to the second transmitter).
Again, whether or not these marginal costs are such that they make
any sense to run the second station, don't know. Merely talking about
possible options the FCC had at the time.

On Apr 30, 12:51*pm, Michael Black wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, J wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 09:22:05 -0500, Alric Knebel
wrote:

I know this thread is about converters, but I have to say, I can't
believe anybody is still using VCRs

A lot of us electronically-clueless elderly people on fixed incomes
are still using VCRs.

Why not simply "electronically-clueless"?

Everyone wants to portray older people as inept, but that's just seeing
them as they are now. *Start subtracting from their age, and you'll
find people who were young and capable.

I saw an add for a program to help "seniors" learn to use the internet,
and the lower age limit was 55. *But subtract 30 and you have a 25 year
old in 1978 when small computers were well on their way. *It would take
quite the person to live thirty years while ignoring computers, and
then suddenly want to learn at 55 or older.

I'll be fifty next year. *I was ten when I wanted a computer, and they
didn't even exist in anything smaller than a minicomputer (and way too
expensive) at the time.

The first vcr I ever saw was when a friend bought his first one in the
fall of 1980, 28 years ago. *That's a long time to adapt.

No, most of this "the elderly are inept" comes from other people.

That's the truth. My mother is 74 this year, and uses her computer
a ton.

Cindy Hamilton