Many if not most homeowners who are trying to now get over the air HDTV
reception are finding that indoor antennas are not adequate and often need
to use expensive outdoor antennas.



Ironically, the entire problem could have been avoided if the FCC had proper
engineering people who had chosen / demanded higher transmitter power and
transmitting antenna type and site choices.



By increasing the effective radiated power by another 6 to 9 dB, they would
have put a much smaller burden on the homeowner antenna, and lowered the
deployment cost and risk for the homeowner tremendously.



I gotta' believe that the choices they made were driven by sparing the
broadcasters the extra operating costs of consuming all the extra kilowatt
hours.



The FCC would, if challenged, probably claim that they kept the ERP to a
small number to prevent co-channel interference between neighboring cites.



But in the UHF spectrum, they have so vastly more spectrum to allocate that
they could have very, very easily chosen clear channels for every neighbor,
and allowed homeowners to use simple rabbit ears and bow ties rather than
need outdoor directional antennas even in urban and suburban areas to get
all the local programming.



Colin Powell's son, an attorney, headed the FCC during the HDTV planning and
transition. Talk about technical qualifications for the job.............



Smarty

Smarty wrote:
Many if not most homeowners who are trying to now get over the air
HDTV reception are finding that indoor antennas are not adequate and
often need to use expensive outdoor antennas.



Ironically, the entire problem could have been avoided if the FCC had
proper engineering people who had chosen / demanded higher
transmitter power and transmitting antenna type and site choices.



Uh, no. Fewer people would be able to receive TV signals due to the
interference by neighboring, higher-powered, transmitters.

On Jan 15, 10:50�am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Smarty wrote:
Many if not most homeowners who are trying to now get over the air
HDTV reception are finding that indoor antennas are not adequate and
often need to use expensive outdoor antennas.

Ironically, the entire problem could have been avoided if the FCC had
proper engineering people who had chosen / demanded higher
transmitter power and transmitting antenna type and site choices.

Uh, no. Fewer people would be able to receive TV signals due to the
interference by neighboring, higher-powered, transmitters.

Well UHF doesnt pass tyhru walls etc nearly as well as VHF.

Bunny ears arent going to work for many

Its a typical government FIASCO

On Jan 15, 9:44*am, "Smarty" wrote:
Many if not most homeowners who are trying to now get over the air HDTV
reception are finding that indoor antennas are not adequate and often need
to use expensive outdoor antennas.

Ironically, the entire problem could have been avoided if the FCC had proper
engineering people who had chosen / demanded higher transmitter power and
transmitting antenna type and site choices.

By increasing the effective radiated power by another 6 to 9 dB, they would
have put a much smaller burden on the homeowner antenna, and lowered the
deployment cost and risk for the homeowner tremendously.

I gotta' believe that the choices they made were driven by sparing the
broadcasters the extra operating costs of consuming all the extra kilowatt
hours.

The FCC would, if challenged, probably claim that they kept the ERP to a
small number to prevent co-channel interference between neighboring cites..

But in the UHF spectrum, they have so vastly more spectrum to allocate that
they could have very, very easily chosen clear channels for every neighbor,
and allowed homeowners to use simple rabbit ears and bow ties rather than
need outdoor directional antennas even in urban and suburban areas to get
all the local programming.

Colin Powell's son, an attorney, headed the FCC during the HDTV planning and
transition. Talk about technical qualifications for the job.............

Smarty

Oddly enough I find that I get the best reception with rabbit ears and
bow ties. I've tried several fancier antennas and they've all been
worthless junk. I think the only thing that would likely give an
improvement, from what I've read, is either a) a homemade bow tie
array (I may try this) b) either a "silver sensor" or Winegard SS-3000
type antenna or c) a proper roof or attic mounted antenna.

It seems that there is a LOT of junk on the market at the moment, and
if someone buys a new "amplified antenna" and then finds that they
only get one channel, they may bitch and moan about how crappy DTV is
but they may find that if they just try an old bowtie they get 20+
channels. I know that that's been my experience, I've returned
several medium-priced antennas because they didn't work any better
than a piece of wire jammed in the F-connector on the back of the box.

nate

"HeyBub" wrote in message
news
Smarty wrote:
Many if not most homeowners who are trying to now get over the air
HDTV reception are finding that indoor antennas are not adequate and
often need to use expensive outdoor antennas.



Ironically, the entire problem could have been avoided if the FCC had
proper engineering people who had chosen / demanded higher
transmitter power and transmitting antenna type and site choices.



Uh, no. Fewer people would be able to receive TV signals due to the
interference by neighboring, higher-powered, transmitters.


Makes no sense at all to me. Cheap attenuators, no more that 3 resistors
configured in a "Tee" attenuator pad, provide whatever attenuation if any is
necessary for a total cost of less than a buck, if front-end converter
overload is what you are referring to. Another 6 to 9 dB of transmitter ERP
would not create overload....it would extend coverage to those who now need
outdoor yagis and sometimes rotors as well.

Unlike the VHF TV era where only 13 channels were available and legitimate
concern existed for co-channel interference between cities spaced 50 to 100
miles apart, there are many more channels available in the UHF band. A good
and well established method for placing transmitters in the optimum pattern
of "re-use" was developed for placing cell sites, and could have easily been
applied to choosing far more optimal UHF TV assignments than the ones
selected presently.

The bottom line is that the FCC is managed by beaurecrats, not engineers,
and that the public interest is not foremost in their agenda.

I have helped scores of people get over the air reception HD, and the mess
and unnecessary expense created by very poor legislation and planning is
outrageous, in my view.

Smarty

On Jan 15, 11:52*am, "Smarty" wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message

news




Smarty wrote:
Many if not most homeowners who are trying to now get over the air
HDTV reception are finding that indoor antennas are not adequate and
often need to use expensive outdoor antennas.

Ironically, the entire problem could have been avoided if the FCC had
proper engineering people who had chosen / demanded higher
transmitter power and transmitting antenna type and site choices.

Uh, no. Fewer people would be able to receive TV signals due to the
interference by neighboring, higher-powered, transmitters.

Makes no sense at all to me. Cheap attenuators, no more that 3 resistors
configured in a "Tee" attenuator pad, provide whatever attenuation if any is
necessary for a total cost of less than a buck, if front-end converter
overload is what you are referring to. Another 6 to 9 dB of transmitter ERP
would not create overload....it would extend coverage to those who now need
outdoor yagis and sometimes rotors as well.

Unlike the VHF TV era where only 13 channels were available and legitimate
concern existed for co-channel interference between cities spaced 50 to 100
miles apart, there are many more channels available in the UHF band. A good
and well established method for placing transmitters in the optimum pattern
of "re-use" was developed for placing cell sites, and could have easily been
applied to choosing far more optimal UHF TV assignments than the ones
selected presently.

The bottom line is that the FCC is managed by beaurecrats, not engineers,
and that the public interest is not foremost in their agenda.

I have helped scores of people get over the air reception HD, and the mess
and unnecessary expense created by very poor legislation and planning is
outrageous, in my view.

Smarty- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Since you seek to impugn the qualifications and decision making
process of the transition, one can only ask exactly what your
qualifications are, what tests you conducted, what cost/benefit
analysis you went through, etc to arrive at what you claim is a
superior solution? Or let me guess, you're just throwing rocks?

wrote in message
...
On Jan 15, 11:52 am, "Smarty" wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message

news




Smarty wrote:
Many if not most homeowners who are trying to now get over the air
HDTV reception are finding that indoor antennas are not adequate and
often need to use expensive outdoor antennas.

Ironically, the entire problem could have been avoided if the FCC had
proper engineering people who had chosen / demanded higher
transmitter power and transmitting antenna type and site choices.

Uh, no. Fewer people would be able to receive TV signals due to the
interference by neighboring, higher-powered, transmitters.

Makes no sense at all to me. Cheap attenuators, no more that 3 resistors
configured in a "Tee" attenuator pad, provide whatever attenuation if any
is
necessary for a total cost of less than a buck, if front-end converter
overload is what you are referring to. Another 6 to 9 dB of transmitter
ERP
would not create overload....it would extend coverage to those who now
need
outdoor yagis and sometimes rotors as well.

Unlike the VHF TV era where only 13 channels were available and legitimate
concern existed for co-channel interference between cities spaced 50 to
100
miles apart, there are many more channels available in the UHF band. A
good
and well established method for placing transmitters in the optimum
pattern
of "re-use" was developed for placing cell sites, and could have easily
been
applied to choosing far more optimal UHF TV assignments than the ones
selected presently.

The bottom line is that the FCC is managed by bureaucrats, not engineers,
and that the public interest is not foremost in their agenda.

I have helped scores of people get over the air reception HD, and the mess
and unnecessary expense created by very poor legislation and planning is
outrageous, in my view.

Smarty- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Since you seek to impugn the qualifications and decision making
process of the transition, one can only ask exactly what your
qualifications are, what tests you conducted, what cost/benefit
analysis you went through, etc to arrive at what you claim is a
superior solution? Or let me guess, you're just throwing rocks?


Trader4,

I am a retired broadcast engineer with 3 FCC licenses, 40 years of broadcast
engineering experience, a graduate electrical engineer, a ham radio
enthusiast since the 1950's, and a harsh critic of government policies which
ignore solid science and engineering principles.

Regrettably, the FCC in recent years is a good example of decision making by
lawyers and politicians rather than by good engineers.

What you call "throwing rocks" suggests a haphazard and ill-conceived,
perhaps unjustified attack.

I ask you what your basis is for that accusation?

Smarty

On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 22:02:33 -0500, against all advice, something
compelled "Smarty" , to say:

I am a retired broadcast engineer with 3 FCC licenses, 40 years of broadcast
engineering experience, a graduate electrical engineer, a ham radio
enthusiast since the 1950's, and a harsh critic of government policies which
ignore solid science and engineering principles.



You must be lots of fun at parties.




--

Real men don't text.

"Steve Daniels" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 22:02:33 -0500, against all advice, something
compelled "Smarty" , to say:

I am a retired broadcast engineer with 3 FCC licenses, 40 years of
broadcast
engineering experience, a graduate electrical engineer, a ham radio
enthusiast since the 1950's, and a harsh critic of government
policies which
ignore solid science and engineering principles.



You must be lots of fun at parties.




--

Real men don't text.

If your comment was intended to imply that I have some lack of social
skills, I will also mention that I spent 7 years a a division vice president
of a large U.S. aerospace company with 18 offices under my management. I
have a great deal of comfort with large and small groups, have been guest
speaker and organizer for many national and a few international events, and
had the good fortune to be both high school class president (of a class of
480 people) as well as many other socially outstanding achievements.

You must be a rude clod.

Smarty

On Jan 15, 10:11�pm, "Smarty" wrote:
"Steve Daniels" wrote in message

...





On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 22:02:33 -0500, against all advice, something
compelled "Smarty" , to say:

� � I am a retired broadcast engineer with 3 FCC licenses, 40 years of
broadcast
� � engineering experience, a graduate electrical engineer, a ham radio
� � enthusiast since the 1950's, and a harsh critic of government
policies which
� � ignore solid science and engineering principles.

You must be lots of fun at parties.

--

Real men don't text.

If your comment was intended to imply that I have some lack of social
skills, I will also mention that I spent 7 years a a division vice president
of a large U.S. aerospace company with 18 offices under my management. I
have a great deal of comfort with large and small groups, have been guest
speaker and organizer for many national and a few international events, and
had the good fortune to be both high school class president (of a class of
480 people) as well as many other socially outstanding achievements.

You must be a rude clod.

Smarty- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

so do you believe the analog feeds bshould and will be cut off?

On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 22:11:37 -0500, against all advice, something
compelled "Smarty" , to say:

"Steve Daniels" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 22:02:33 -0500, against all advice, something
compelled "Smarty" , to say:

I am a retired broadcast engineer with 3 FCC licenses, 40 years of
broadcast
engineering experience, a graduate electrical engineer, a ham radio
enthusiast since the 1950's, and a harsh critic of government
policies which
ignore solid science and engineering principles.



You must be lots of fun at parties.




--

Real men don't text.

If your comment was intended to imply that I have some lack of social
skills,


snore


I'm sure your social skills are just fine.



But, you're boring.




--

Real men don't text.

"Steve Daniels" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 22:11:37 -0500, against all advice, something
compelled "Smarty" , to say:

"Steve Daniels" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 22:02:33 -0500, against all advice, something
compelled "Smarty" , to say:

I am a retired broadcast engineer with 3 FCC licenses, 40
years of
broadcast
engineering experience, a graduate electrical engineer, a ham
radio
enthusiast since the 1950's, and a harsh critic of government
policies which
ignore solid science and engineering principles.



You must be lots of fun at parties.




--

Real men don't text.

If your comment was intended to imply that I have some lack of social
skills,


snore


I'm sure your social skills are just fine.



But, you're boring.




--

Real men don't text.

Steve,

You have added nothing worthwhile or interesting to this topic.

Your only comments have been a personal attack.

Why not either offer an intelligent opinion, or just shut the **** up...

Smarty

wrote in message
...
On Jan 15, 10:11�pm, "Smarty" wrote:
"Steve Daniels" wrote in message

...





On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 22:02:33 -0500, against all advice, something
compelled "Smarty" , to say:

� � I am a retired broadcast engineer with 3 FCC licenses, 40 years of
broadcast
� � engineering experience, a graduate electrical engineer, a ham radio
� � enthusiast since the 1950's, and a harsh critic of government
policies which
� � ignore solid science and engineering principles.

You must be lots of fun at parties.

--

Real men don't text.

If your comment was intended to imply that I have some lack of social
skills, I will also mention that I spent 7 years a a division vice
president
of a large U.S. aerospace company with 18 offices under my management. I
have a great deal of comfort with large and small groups, have been guest
speaker and organizer for many national and a few international events,
and
had the good fortune to be both high school class president (of a class of
480 people) as well as many other socially outstanding achievements.

You must be a rude clod.

Smarty- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

so do you believe the analog feeds bshould and will be cut off?

Just one man's opinion, but I believe that the analog feeds will be delayed
and extra dollars will be added to the coupon program, both to appease
critics who (in my opinion, wrongfully) complain that the transition time
and coupon program have not been adequately carried out. This is purely a
guess on my part, not based on any inside information. It just seems to be
the way government works. I hope I am wrong.

Smarty

On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 23:09:18 -0500, against all advice, something
compelled "Smarty" , to say:

Why not either offer an intelligent opinion, or just shut the **** up...



Blow me, bitch.





--

Real men don't text.

"Steve Daniels" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 23:09:18 -0500, against all advice, something
compelled "Smarty" , to say:

Why not either offer an intelligent opinion, or just shut the ****
up...

On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 23:58:01 -0500, against all advice, something
compelled "Smarty" , to say:

"Steve Daniels" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 23:09:18 -0500, against all advice, something
compelled "Smarty" , to say:

Why not either offer an intelligent opinion, or just shut the ****
up...



Blow me, bitch.




--

Real men don't text.

"Steve Daniels" wrote in message
...

Blow me, bitch.


Steve,

How about acting like a grown-up instead of a child?

Let's see if you can offer an opinion on the topic of this thread.......

Don't the schools in Hood River teach you kids how to think?

Smarty wrote:

I am a retired broadcast engineer with 3 FCC licenses, 40 years of
broadcast engineering experience, a graduate electrical engineer, a
ham radio enthusiast since the 1950's, and a harsh critic of
government policies which ignore solid science and engineering
principles.
Regrettably, the FCC in recent years is a good example of decision
making by lawyers and politicians rather than by good engineers.


I think you misunderstand the roles various people play. It is the role of
the politician to decide on goals and the role of the engineer to make them
come true. Let me give you another example:

If a lawyer or accountant says "what you want cannot be done," the next
words from your mouth should be "you're fired." Lawyers, accountants, and
engineers are STAFF positions, not LINE positions. Politicians are
commanders, engineers are administrators.

When things turn out well, the politician gets the credit for setting and
achieving the goals. When things turn out poorly, the engineers will get the
blame for the failure. This is the way it has always been, this is the way
it always will be, this is the way the world works.

I don't own this railroad,
I don't ring the bell,
But let this sucker jump the tracks,
And see who catches hell.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


When things turn out well, the politician gets the credit for setting and
achieving the goals. When things turn out poorly, the engineers will get the
blame for the failure. This is the way it has always been, this is the way
it always will be, this is the way the world works.

I used to find it mildly amusing that the committees on the Hill that
second guess everybody else were called "The Oversight Committees".
Then I realized that they were using the second definition as in "I
should have seen that coming but didn't. It was an Oversight on my
part". THEN things made abundant sense.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Smarty wrote:

I am a retired broadcast engineer with 3 FCC licenses, 40 years of
broadcast engineering experience, a graduate electrical engineer, a
ham radio enthusiast since the 1950's, and a harsh critic of
government policies which ignore solid science and engineering
principles.
Regrettably, the FCC in recent years is a good example of decision
making by lawyers and politicians rather than by good engineers.


I think you misunderstand the roles various people play. It is the role of
the politician to decide on goals and the role of the engineer to make
them come true. Let me give you another example:

If a lawyer or accountant says "what you want cannot be done," the next
words from your mouth should be "you're fired." Lawyers, accountants, and
engineers are STAFF positions, not LINE positions. Politicians are
commanders, engineers are administrators.

When things turn out well, the politician gets the credit for setting and
achieving the goals. When things turn out poorly, the engineers will get
the blame for the failure. This is the way it has always been, this is the
way it always will be, this is the way the world works.

In our government, what you say is largely true. But this is NOT the way the
world works. Many organizations including both hugely successful businesses
as well as foreign governments chose leaders who understand more than merely
the political aspects of goal setting and decision making. They understand
that better decisions are made when more information and understanding is
applied.

It is not a coincidence that many countries have deployed and enjoy much
more advanced transportation systems, health delivery systems, and
manufacturing infrastructures than the U.S. There is a very good reason why
we are getting our asses kicked in world competition, and it stems directly
from bad leadership and bad decision making, primarily in Washington.

On Jan 16, 1:25*am, "Smarty" wrote:
"Steve Daniels" wrote in message

...

Blow me, bitch.

Steve,

How about acting like a grown-up instead of a child?

Let's see if you can offer an opinion on the topic of this thread.......

I offered an opinion on the topic, but you didn't like it much. And
that is, even if you are qualified technically, which I accept, you
can't make a snap judgement that "the entire problem could have been
avoided if the FCC had proper
engineering people who had chosen / demanded higher transmitter power
and
transmitting antenna type and site choices. "

As I asked before, what tests did you conduct, data did you collect,
cost/benefit analysis, transmitter site selection realities in the
real world, etc. did you go through before coming to your
conclusion? Did you look at what the FCC looked at? If not, then
how can you make this judgement?

It would seem that as an engineer with management experience, you
would realize that there is a process you have to go through to review
all the pertinent data, issues, cost/benefits, etc instead of making a
snap judgement. I think the FCC and the broadcasters did go through
that process.







Don't the schools in Hood River teach you kids how to think?

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


When things turn out well, the politician gets the credit for setting and
achieving the goals. When things turn out poorly, the engineers will get
the
blame for the failure. This is the way it has always been, this is the
way
it always will be, this is the way the world works.

I used to find it mildly amusing that the committees on the Hill that
second guess everybody else were called "The Oversight Committees".
Then I realized that they were using the second definition as in "I
should have seen that coming but didn't. It was an Oversight on my
part". THEN things made abundant sense.

It certainly does!!

Maybe an even better name might be the "Lack of Foresight Committee".

On Jan 16, 10:41*am, "Smarty" wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message

m...





Smarty wrote:

I am a retired broadcast engineer with 3 FCC licenses, 40 years of
broadcast engineering experience, a graduate electrical engineer, a
ham radio enthusiast since the 1950's, and a harsh critic of
government policies which ignore solid science and engineering
principles.
Regrettably, the FCC in recent years is a good example of decision
making by lawyers and politicians rather than by good engineers.

I think you misunderstand the roles various people play. It is the role of
the politician to decide on goals and the role of the engineer to make
them come true. Let me give you another example:

If a lawyer or accountant says "what you want cannot be done," the next
words from your mouth should be "you're fired." Lawyers, accountants, and
engineers are STAFF positions, not LINE positions. Politicians are
commanders, engineers are administrators.

When things turn out well, the politician gets the credit for setting and
achieving the goals. When things turn out poorly, the engineers will get
the blame for the failure. This is the way it has always been, this is the
way it always will be, this is the way the world works.

In our government, what you say is largely true. But this is NOT the way the
world works. Many organizations including both hugely successful businesses
as well as foreign governments chose leaders who understand more than merely
the political aspects of goal setting and decision making. They understand
that better decisions are made when more information and understanding is
applied.

It is not a coincidence that many countries have deployed and enjoy much
more advanced transportation systems, health delivery systems, and
manufacturing infrastructures than the U.S. *There is a very good reason why
we are getting our asses kicked in world competition, and it stems directly
from bad leadership and bad decision making, primarily in Washington.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


So, for example, do you think the near failure of GM, Ford, Chrysler
are due to bad leadership and bad decision making in Washington? And
if so, how is that foreign competitors, eg Honda, BMW, that build cars
in the USA are not in anywhere near as bad shape? And how is it
that US companies like Intel, Microsoft, Boeing, are very successful
world competitors? You think Washington is responsible for Intel's
success and management?

Smarty wrote:

In our government, what you say is largely true. But this is NOT the
way the world works. Many organizations including both hugely
successful businesses as well as foreign governments chose leaders
who understand more than merely the political aspects of goal setting
and decision making. They understand that better decisions are made
when more information and understanding is applied.

It is not a coincidence that many countries have deployed and enjoy
much more advanced transportation systems, health delivery systems,
and manufacturing infrastructures than the U.S. There is a very good
reason why we are getting our asses kicked in world competition, and
it stems directly from bad leadership and bad decision making,
primarily in Washington.

I agree that there's bad decision making in Washington. As long as it's
confined to locating a statute of some obscure general from the Phillipine
Insurrection, no problem. But when the decision affects our lives, watch
out! For example, a new law going into effect February 1st requires
commercial products for children under ten to be independently tested for,
inter alia, lead is obscene. Guess what will have to be tested? Clothing,
including used clothing distributed by charity centers. Linens, shoes,
crayons, car seats. Books. Yes, children's books will have to be certified!

Nothing exists in a vacuum - things are different elsewhere. Much of what we
do here is dictitated by our size. Transportation? At any instant, we have
upwards of 4,000 aircraft aloft in the United States. Anybody close?
Likewise, Americans own 125 million cars and all of them are on the road
during rush hour here in Houston. Anybody close? You may point to high-speed
rail and this works in countries like Japan with a high-density population
or France where the rail system is owned (and loses money) by the
government.

Manufacturing? The U.S. is the world's leader in manufactured products - of
course, again, our size has a lot to do with it.

Health care delivery? Giggle. There are more MRI machines just in Seattle
than in any other country in the world. Those who trot out statistics in an
attempt to prove country "X" is better at "Y" than the United States almost
never provide a critical metric: Wait-time to see a physican or obtain a
procedure. I can get an appointment to see my internist within 24 hours and
schedule an elective procedure (i.e., knee joint replacement) within three
days.

Asses kicked in world competition? Hardly. Just the growth in the U.S. GDP
is larger than the entire GDP of China.

On 1/16/2009 9:38 AM HeyBub spake thus:

Manufacturing? The U.S. is the world's leader in manufactured products - of
course, again, our size has a lot to do with it.

I doubt that's true anymore. If it is, it won't be for long, after we're
eclipsed by China, India, et al.


--
In order to embark on a new course, the only one that will
solve the problem: negotiations and peace with the Palestinians,
the Lebanese, the Syrians. And: with Hamas and Hizbullah.

Because it's only with enemies that one makes peace.

- Uri Avnery, Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom.
(http://counterpunch.org/avnery08032006.html)

On Jan 15, 10:06*pm, Steve Daniels wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 22:02:33 -0500, against all advice, something
compelled "Smarty" , to say:

* * I am a retired broadcast engineer with 3 FCC licenses, 40 years of broadcast
* * engineering experience, a graduate electrical engineer, a ham radio
* * enthusiast since the 1950's, and a harsh critic of government policies which
* * ignore solid science and engineering principles.

You must be lots of fun at parties.

--

Real men don't text.

Real men don't text.

OMG UKTR C&G G2G B4N

On Jan 16, 2:22*pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 1/16/2009 9:38 AM HeyBub spake thus:

Manufacturing? The U.S. is the world's leader in manufactured products - of
course, again, our size has a lot to do with it.

I doubt that's true anymore. If it is, it won't be for long, after we're
eclipsed by China, India, et al.

--
In order to embark on a new course, the only one that will
solve the problem: negotiations and peace with the Palestinians,
the Lebanese, the Syrians. And: with Hamas and Hizbullah.

Because it's only with enemies that one makes peace.

So, I guess you think you could negotiate with Hitler, Idi Amin, Pol
Pot, Bin Laden, and a whole long list of similar rational guys,
right?

In the case of the current Palestinian problem, let's review what
recently happened. Israel unilateraly withdrew from Gaza. In
return, the Palestinians elected Hamas, a terror group dedicated to
the destruction of Israel. In essence they had the opportunity to
choose between becoming Singapore or Somalia. They chose the later.
And you think you can just talk and negotiate with them. Maybe you
should visit Charlie Manson and reason with him too.





- Uri Avnery, Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom.
(http://counterpunch.org/avnery08032006.html)

wrote in message
...
On Jan 16, 10:41 am, "Smarty" wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message

m...





Smarty wrote:

I am a retired broadcast engineer with 3 FCC licenses, 40 years of
broadcast engineering experience, a graduate electrical engineer, a
ham radio enthusiast since the 1950's, and a harsh critic of
government policies which ignore solid science and engineering
principles.
Regrettably, the FCC in recent years is a good example of decision
making by lawyers and politicians rather than by good engineers.

I think you misunderstand the roles various people play. It is the role
of
the politician to decide on goals and the role of the engineer to make
them come true. Let me give you another example:

If a lawyer or accountant says "what you want cannot be done," the next
words from your mouth should be "you're fired." Lawyers, accountants,
and
engineers are STAFF positions, not LINE positions. Politicians are
commanders, engineers are administrators.

When things turn out well, the politician gets the credit for setting
and
achieving the goals. When things turn out poorly, the engineers will get
the blame for the failure. This is the way it has always been, this is
the
way it always will be, this is the way the world works.

In our government, what you say is largely true. But this is NOT the way
the
world works. Many organizations including both hugely successful
businesses
as well as foreign governments chose leaders who understand more than
merely
the political aspects of goal setting and decision making. They understand
that better decisions are made when more information and understanding is
applied.

It is not a coincidence that many countries have deployed and enjoy much
more advanced transportation systems, health delivery systems, and
manufacturing infrastructures than the U.S. There is a very good reason
why
we are getting our asses kicked in world competition, and it stems
directly
from bad leadership and bad decision making, primarily in Washington.-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


So, for example, do you think the near failure of GM, Ford, Chrysler
are due to bad leadership and bad decision making in Washington? And
if so, how is that foreign competitors, eg Honda, BMW, that build cars
in the USA are not in anywhere near as bad shape? And how is it
that US companies like Intel, Microsoft, Boeing, are very successful
world competitors? You think Washington is responsible for Intel's
success and management?




The automobile industry partially illustrates my point. Both German and
Japan have formulated specific strategic plans to produce high fuel
efficiency vehicles, hybrids in Japan, and low emission diesels in Germany.
Both German and Japanese governments subsidized and facilitated these
programs, making the R&D investments and strategic focus very concerted and
very explicit as national priorities. They put the U.S. automakers at a
disadvantage competitively.

The semiconductor, aerospace, and computer industry in the U.S. derived
enormous R&D benefits from U.S. government investments in military and
industrial research and development starting many years ago. The Space
Program and Cold War defense spending had tremendous "spin-off"
contributions to making the U.S. a leader in these areas of technology, and
virtually all of the propulsion and jet engine development, avionics, flight
control systems, as well as integrated circuit / LSI technology owes its
origin to government sponsorship.

So yes....I think a lot of today's mature industry is directly or indirectly
a beneficiary of these investments. It is the future I am concerned about,
since these R&D efforts are no longer substantially done by government
support, And moreover, those who are leading the efforts appear to lack the
foresight or vision or technical competence to place our long term national
growth strategy on a competitive path.

On 1/16/2009 11:45 AM spake thus:

On Jan 16, 2:22 pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 1/16/2009 9:38 AM HeyBub spake thus:

Manufacturing? The U.S. is the world's leader in manufactured products - of
course, again, our size has a lot to do with it.

I doubt that's true anymore. If it is, it won't be for long, after we're
eclipsed by China, India, et al.

--
In order to embark on a new course, the only one that will
solve the problem: negotiations and peace with the Palestinians,
the Lebanese, the Syrians. And: with Hamas and Hizbullah.

Because it's only with enemies that one makes peace.

So, I guess you think you could negotiate with Hitler, Idi Amin, Pol
Pot, Bin Laden, and a whole long list of similar rational guys,
right?

Well, I didn't make that statement; Uri Avnery did. But I agree with
everything he said.

In the case of the current Palestinian problem, let's review what
recently happened. Israel unilateraly withdrew from Gaza. In
return, the Palestinians elected Hamas, a terror group dedicated to
the destruction of Israel. In essence they had the opportunity to
choose between becoming Singapore or Somalia. They chose the later.
And you think you can just talk and negotiate with them. Maybe you
should visit Charlie Manson and reason with him too.

Wrong.

Israel only "withdrew" from Gaza on paper. Since the "withdrawal", they
have maintained what most international observers, including the UN,
term a "siege". They control almost everything that goes in or out of
Gaza by land or sea (excluding what little has been transported through
tunnels to Egypt).

They also intentionally provoked the current situation by assassinating
Hamas leaders *during the cease fire*, and by maintaining intolerable
living conditions in the Strip, where food, fuel, water and medical
supplies are scarce to nonexistent. No human population would be able to
live under such conditions without provoking anger and rage.

At least you got one thing right: Hamas was elected in what were
determined to be "free and fair" elections by international observers.
It's true that Hamas' charter still calls for the destruction of Israel,
and that it has not yet been modified. However, in the last year, Hamas
has moderated its stance towards Israel in several significant ways, and
has shown a willingness to negotiate that the Israelis have responded to
with "go **** yourselves".


--
In order to embark on a new course, the only one that will
solve the problem: negotiations and peace with the Palestinians,
the Lebanese, the Syrians. And: with Hamas and Hizbullah.

Because it's only with enemies that one makes peace.

- Uri Avnery, Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom.
(http://counterpunch.org/avnery08032006.html)

On Jan 16, 4:36*pm, "Smarty" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Jan 16, 10:41 am, "Smarty" wrote:





"HeyBub" wrote in message

om...

Smarty wrote:

I am a retired broadcast engineer with 3 FCC licenses, 40 years of
broadcast engineering experience, a graduate electrical engineer, a
ham radio enthusiast since the 1950's, and a harsh critic of
government policies which ignore solid science and engineering
principles.
Regrettably, the FCC in recent years is a good example of decision
making by lawyers and politicians rather than by good engineers.

I think you misunderstand the roles various people play. It is the role
of
the politician to decide on goals and the role of the engineer to make
them come true. Let me give you another example:

If a lawyer or accountant says "what you want cannot be done," the next
words from your mouth should be "you're fired." Lawyers, accountants,
and
engineers are STAFF positions, not LINE positions. Politicians are
commanders, engineers are administrators.

When things turn out well, the politician gets the credit for setting
and
achieving the goals. When things turn out poorly, the engineers will get
the blame for the failure. This is the way it has always been, this is
the
way it always will be, this is the way the world works.

In our government, what you say is largely true. But this is NOT the way
the
world works. Many organizations including both hugely successful
businesses
as well as foreign governments chose leaders who understand more than
merely
the political aspects of goal setting and decision making. They understand
that better decisions are made when more information and understanding is
applied.

It is not a coincidence that many countries have deployed and enjoy much
more advanced transportation systems, health delivery systems, and
manufacturing infrastructures than the U.S. There is a very good reason
why
we are getting our asses kicked in world competition, and it stems
directly
from bad leadership and bad decision making, primarily in Washington.-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So, for example, do you think the near failure of GM, Ford, Chrysler
are due to bad leadership and bad decision making in Washington? * And
if so, how is that foreign competitors, eg Honda, BMW, that build cars
in the USA are not in anywhere near as bad shape? * *And how is it
that US companies like Intel, Microsoft, Boeing, are very successful
world competitors? * *You think Washington is responsible for Intel's
success and management?

The automobile industry partially illustrates my point. Both German and
Japan have formulated specific strategic plans to produce high fuel
efficiency vehicles, hybrids in Japan, and low emission diesels in Germany.
Both German and Japanese governments subsidized and facilitated these
programs, making the R&D investments and strategic focus very concerted and
very explicit as national priorities. They put the U.S. automakers at a
disadvantage competitively.

And hybrids are exactly what % of the US or worldwide market for autos
and profits to any of the car companies? So small today as to be
insignificant. Diesel autos are a significant market in Europe, but
certainly not in the US. In other words, the sad state that the big 3
find themselves in today has nothing to do with hybrids or diesels.
In fact, had they been building those cars, they would have been
bankrupt 5 years ago, because nobody would have bought themm An
actual factor that puts the big 3 at a disadvantage is their labor
costs, which are $40 an hour more than their competitors like BMW and
Honda pay workers at their plants in the USA.



The semiconductor, aerospace, and computer industry in the U.S. derived
enormous R&D benefits from U.S. government investments in military and
industrial research and development starting many years ago. The Space
Program and Cold War defense spending had tremendous "spin-off"
contributions to making the U.S. a leader in these areas of technology, and
virtually all of the propulsion and jet engine development, avionics, flight
control systems, as well as integrated circuit / LSI technology owes its
origin to government sponsorship.


No doubt that govt spending played a role, early on, especially during
the 60's. But that doesn't account for how some companies, with
superior management and ideas succeeded beyond anyone's expectations
and others failed or went by the wayside. Why are Intel, MSFT,
Boeing where they are today, while Digital Equipment, DataGeneral,
Shockley Semiconductor, etc are gone? It wasn't govt involvement or
action that made the difference. It was the management of the
companies.

And if you want to look at industries that benefitted from the same
technology, you'd have to put the auto manufacturers on that list.
Everything from robotics and computers in the factories, to the
computer technology in the autos themselves has benefitted them.
Yet, the big 3 are on their collective ass. And it has little to do
with govt, and a lot to do with poor management and high labor costs.



So yes....I think a lot of today's mature industry is directly or indirectly
a beneficiary of these investments. It is the future I am concerned about,
since these R&D efforts are no longer substantially done by government
support, And moreover, those who are leading the efforts appear to lack the
foresight or vision or technical competence to place our long term national
growth strategy on a competitive path.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


It worries me MORE when you have some govt bureaucrats sitting in
Washington deciding what the R&D priorities of the country should be
and taking our money to support it. I'd much rather have those
decisions made by the likes of Bill Gates, Andy Grove, Steve Jobs,
etc. Weren't you the one bitching about the FCC being Colin Powell's
son? And even if you had some technocrats instead of a political
hack, it's naive to assume some govt committee is going to come up
with great strategies as opposed to the private sector.

Two of the big pure research brain farms we've lost are Bell Labs,
gone completely, and to a lesser extent, IBM, which no longer can
afford the huge pure research they did decades ago. Yet, there is no
sign that high tech is suffering in the USA. In fact, the rate of
tech progress is faster today than it was in the 60s at the peak of
the govt spending and involvement.

On 1/16/2009 11:23 AM DerbyDad03 spake thus:

On Jan 15, 10:06 pm, Steve Daniels wrote:

Real men don't text.

OMG UKTR C&G G2G B4N

Translation?

I looked for a text-to-English translator (like a Javascript app) but
couldn't find one. Someone out there has gotta have written one by now.

D "clueless, never texted in my life" N


--
In order to embark on a new course, the only one that will
solve the problem: negotiations and peace with the Palestinians,
the Lebanese, the Syrians. And: with Hamas and Hizbullah.

Because it's only with enemies that one makes peace.

- Uri Avnery, Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom.
(http://counterpunch.org/avnery08032006.html)

On Jan 16, 5:02*pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 1/16/2009 11:45 AM spake thus:





On Jan 16, 2:22 pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 1/16/2009 9:38 AM HeyBub spake thus:

Manufacturing? The U.S. is the world's leader in manufactured products - of
course, again, our size has a lot to do with it.

I doubt that's true anymore. If it is, it won't be for long, after we're
eclipsed by China, India, et al.

--
In order to embark on a new course, the only one that will
solve the problem: negotiations and peace with the Palestinians,
the Lebanese, the Syrians. And: with Hamas and Hizbullah.

Because it's only with enemies that one makes peace.

So, I guess you think you could negotiate with Hitler, Idi Amin, Pol
Pot, Bin Laden, and a whole long list of similar rational guys,
right?

Well, I didn't make that statement; Uri Avnery did. But I agree with
everything he said.

In the case of the current Palestinian problem, let's review what
recently happened. *Israel unilateraly withdrew from Gaza. * In
return, the Palestinians elected Hamas, a terror group dedicated to
the destruction of Israel. *In essence they had the opportunity to
choose between becoming Singapore or Somalia. * They chose the later.
And you think you can just talk and negotiate with them. * Maybe you
should visit Charlie Manson and reason with him too.

Wrong.

Israel only "withdrew" from Gaza on paper. Since the "withdrawal", they
have maintained what most international observers, including the UN,
term a "siege". They control almost everything that goes in or out of
Gaza by land or sea (excluding what little has been transported through
tunnels to Egypt).


Apparently they don't control everything coming into or out, or Hamas
wouldn't have those rockets they've been firing at Israel for the last
year, would they?




They also intentionally provoked the current situation by assassinating
Hamas leaders *during the cease fire*, and by maintaining intolerable
living conditions in the Strip, where food, fuel, water and medical
supplies are scarce to nonexistent. No human population would be able to
live under such conditions without provoking anger and rage.

Yep, like I said, the Palestinians had a choice. They could choose
to become like Singapore or Somalia. Following Israel's withdrawl,
which was a positive first step toward the Palestinians, they returned
the overture by electing the terrorists Hamas. They chose Somalia.
So no surprise that they are living in war, chaos and shortages of
food.




At least you got one thing right: Hamas was elected in what were
determined to be "free and fair" elections by international observers.
It's true that Hamas' charter still calls for the destruction of Israel,
and that it has not yet been modified.

Gee, what reasonable and tolerant people. Makes me want to
negotiate.



However, in the last year, Hamas
has moderated its stance towards Israel in several significant ways, and
has shown a willingness to negotiate that the Israelis have responded to
with "go **** yourselves".


As well they should, with rockets being indiscriminantly launched from
Gaza into Israel. Firing rockets for months at Israel is catagorized
as moderation? I guess with Hamas that IS moderation.



--
In order to embark on a new course, the only one that will
solve the problem: negotiations and peace with the Palestinians,
the Lebanese, the Syrians. And: with Hamas and Hizbullah.

Because it's only with enemies that one makes peace.


Sounds like Neville Chamberlain with Hitler or Jimmy Carter's approach
to the USSR. And we know where it got them. Notice you avoided my
question if you would have negotiated with Hitler, Bin Laden, Idi
Amin, Pol Pot?



- Uri Avnery, Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom.
(http://counterpunch.org/avnery08032006.html)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On 1/16/2009 2:40 PM spake thus:

On Jan 16, 5:02 pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 1/16/2009 11:45 AM spake thus:

Wrong.

Israel only "withdrew" from Gaza on paper. Since the "withdrawal", they
have maintained what most international observers, including the UN,
term a "siege". They control almost everything that goes in or out of
Gaza by land or sea (excluding what little has been transported through
tunnels to Egypt).

Apparently they don't control everything coming into or out, or Hamas
wouldn't have those rockets they've been firing at Israel for the last
year, would they?

Read what I wrote up there in parentheses.

However, in the last year, Hamas
has moderated its stance towards Israel in several significant ways, and
has shown a willingness to negotiate that the Israelis have responded to
with "go **** yourselves".

As well they should, with rockets being indiscriminantly launched from
Gaza into Israel. Firing rockets for months at Israel is catagorized
as moderation? I guess with Hamas that IS moderation.

You make it sound as if Hamas has been launching rockets into Israel
(which they have) with absolutely no provocation, while the Israelis
have simply been going about their business, not bothering the
Palestinians at all.

Absolute bull****. But as I said before, you can be forgiven for
believing this because of the thorough job Israeli propagandists (and
their U.S. stenographers) have done.

In fact, even during the "cease fire", Israel continued its program of
"targeted assassinations" (read: killing anyone anywhere in the Occupied
Territories for any reason whatsoever), embargoing (read: holding the
entire civilian population hostage), house demolitions, etc., etc.

And let's look at the proportion here, which does matter (i.e., one
doesn't use a nuclear bomb to kill a fly). How many people have been
killed by Hamas' rockets? Over the last 8 years, about 20 people. How
many Palestinians has Israel killed? Over the same period, *thousands*
(and certainly not all militants or Hamas fighters as the IDF claims).

The Palestinians are the Warsaw Ghetto fighters to Israel's storm troopers.

Sounds like Neville Chamberlain with Hitler or Jimmy Carter's approach
to the USSR. And we know where it got them. Notice you avoided my
question if you would have negotiated with Hitler, Bin Laden, Idi
Amin, Pol Pot?

I don't take bait.

So tell us: have you stopped beating your wife yet?


--
In order to embark on a new course, the only one that will
solve the problem: negotiations and peace with the Palestinians,
the Lebanese, the Syrians. And: with Hamas and Hizbullah.

Because it's only with enemies that one makes peace.

- Uri Avnery, Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom.
(http://counterpunch.org/avnery08032006.html)

On Jan 16, 6:48*pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 1/16/2009 2:40 PM spake thus:

On Jan 16, 5:02 pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 1/16/2009 11:45 AM spake thus:

Wrong.

Israel only "withdrew" from Gaza on paper. Since the "withdrawal", they
have maintained what most international observers, including the UN,
term a "siege". They control almost everything that goes in or out of
Gaza by land or sea (excluding what little has been transported through
tunnels to Egypt).

Apparently they don't control everything coming into or out, or Hamas
wouldn't have those rockets they've been firing at Israel for the last
year, would they?

Read what I wrote up there in parentheses.

However, in the last year, Hamas
has moderated its stance towards Israel in several significant ways, and
has shown a willingness to negotiate that the Israelis have responded to
with "go **** yourselves".

As well they should, with rockets being indiscriminantly launched from
Gaza into Israel. * Firing rockets for months at Israel is catagorized
as moderation? * I guess with Hamas that IS moderation.

You make it sound as if Hamas has been launching rockets into Israel
(which they have) with absolutely no provocation, while the Israelis
have simply been going about their business, not bothering the
Palestinians at all.

Absolute bull****. But as I said before, you can be forgiven for
believing this because of the thorough job Israeli propagandists (and
their U.S. stenographers) have done.

In fact, even during the "cease fire", Israel continued its program of
"targeted assassinations" (read: killing anyone anywhere in the Occupied
Territories for any reason whatsoever),

occupied? they withdrew from Gaza. assassinations? If you mean
targeting terrorists, well good for them



embargoing (read: holding the
entire civilian population hostage),

good idea, or there would be even MORE rockets being fired by the
Hamas terrorists, who have as their stated goal the destruction of
Israel


house demolitions, etc., etc.

And let's look at the proportion here, which does matter (i.e., one
doesn't use a nuclear bomb to kill a fly). How many people have been
killed by Hamas' rockets? Over the last 8 years, about 20 people. How
many Palestinians has Israel killed? Over the same period, *thousands*
(and certainly not all militants or Hamas fighters as the IDF claims).


Ah yes, and now we have the ultimate liberal line: proportionality
The last refuge of a bunch of losers. Did we use proportionality in
WWII? Why Japan only blew up Pearl Harbor. I guess we should have
just blown up one of their military installations and called it
even. Or how about when we bombed Afghanistan after 911 and took out
their whole govt and military capability. Should we have just
dropped a few bombs and called it even?


The Palestinians are the Warsaw Ghetto fighters to Israel's storm troopers.

Spoken like a true anti-semite. There is no legitimate comparison
between the plight of the Palestinians and what the jews endured under
the Nazis. See any gas chambers lately?

What's going on now in Gaza is totally self inflicted. Israel
unilaterally did exactly what the Palestinians wanted. They
withdrew. The Palestinians could have responded by electing
reasonable leaders and behaving responsibly. If they acted decently
for a number of years, and built up some trust, Israel would be happy
to be done with the whole thing. What did they do instead? Why
they elected the Hamas terrorists, who are little more than Iranian
puppets and then lobbed rockets at Israel. So, now they are getting
what they deserve.



Sounds like Neville Chamberlain with Hitler or Jimmy Carter's approach
to the USSR. * And we know where it got them. * Notice you avoided my
question if you would have negotiated with Hitler, Bin Laden, Idi
Amin, Pol Pot?

I don't take bait.

No bait, just legitimate questions, as Hamas is about as worthy of
negotiations as Hitler, Idi Amin, Pol Pot or Charles Manson. But
obviously you won't answer it, because the answer is obvious.




So tell us: have you stopped beating your wife yet?

--
In order to embark on a new course, the only one that will
solve the problem: negotiations and peace with the Palestinians,
the Lebanese, the Syrians. And: with Hamas and Hizbullah.

Because it's only with enemies that one makes peace.

- Uri Avnery, Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom.
(http://counterpunch.org/avnery08032006.html)

On 1/16/2009 5:14 PM spake thus:

On Jan 16, 6:48 pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:

The Palestinians are the Warsaw Ghetto fighters to Israel's storm troopers.

Spoken like a true anti-semite. There is no legitimate comparison
between the plight of the Palestinians and what the jews endured under
the Nazis. See any gas chambers lately?

What's going on now in Gaza is totally self inflicted. Israel
unilaterally did exactly what the Palestinians wanted. They
withdrew. The Palestinians could have responded by electing
reasonable leaders and behaving responsibly. If they acted decently
for a number of years, and built up some trust, Israel would be happy
to be done with the whole thing. What did they do instead? Why
they elected the Hamas terrorists, who are little more than Iranian
puppets and then lobbed rockets at Israel. So, now they are getting
what they deserve.

In exactly what bizarro-world does one punish an *entire civilian
population* for "choosing the wrong leaders", as you claim the
Palestinians have done? Even if they did, in what book of international
law is it written that bombs and tanks is a legitimate response?


--
In order to embark on a new course, the only one that will
solve the problem: negotiations and peace with the Palestinians,
the Lebanese, the Syrians. And: with Hamas and Hizbullah.

Because it's only with enemies that one makes peace.

- Uri Avnery, Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom.
(http://counterpunch.org/avnery08032006.html)

David Nebenzahl wrote:

Absolute bull****. But as I said before, you can be forgiven for
believing this because of the thorough job Israeli propagandists (and
their U.S. stenographers) have done.

In fact, even during the "cease fire", Israel continued its program of
"targeted assassinations" (read: killing anyone anywhere in the
Occupied Territories for any reason whatsoever), embargoing (read:
holding the entire civilian population hostage), house demolitions,
etc., etc.
And let's look at the proportion here, which does matter (i.e., one
doesn't use a nuclear bomb to kill a fly). How many people have been
killed by Hamas' rockets? Over the last 8 years, about 20 people. How
many Palestinians has Israel killed? Over the same period, *thousands*
(and certainly not all militants or Hamas fighters as the IDF claims).

The Palestinians are the Warsaw Ghetto fighters to Israel's storm
troopers.

I've BEEN to both Gaza and Israel. What you have been led to believe is
absolute rubbish.

For many years, the residents of Gaza had almost unrestricted travel between
Israel and their homes. Many worked in Israel during the day and returned to
Gaza at night. "Sandbacks," I think they were called.

As for the 20 Israeli dead compared to the "thousands" of Palestinians...
sounds reasonable.

Look, nobody likes the Palestinians. Certainly not the Israelis. The Pals
have been kicked out of Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Cyprus, Morocco, Kuwait, and
just about everywhere else they've turned up. When Israel returned the Sinai
to Egypt, Egypt said "Thanks, but we don't want Gaza. It's got Palestinians
in it." For sixty years not one single Arab or Muslim country has accepted
Palestinian refugees.

So, I ask you, can EVERYBODY be wrong about the worth of the Palestinians?

On Jan 15, 9:02*pm, "Smarty" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Jan 15, 11:52 am, "Smarty" wrote:





"HeyBub" wrote in message

news

Smarty wrote:
Many if not most homeowners who are trying to now get over the air
HDTV reception are finding that indoor antennas are not adequate and
often need to use expensive outdoor antennas.

Ironically, the entire problem could have been avoided if the FCC had
proper engineering people who had chosen / demanded higher
transmitter power and transmitting antenna type and site choices.

Uh, no. Fewer people would be able to receive TV signals due to the
interference by neighboring, higher-powered, transmitters.

Makes no sense at all to me. Cheap attenuators, no more that 3 resistors
configured in a "Tee" attenuator pad, provide whatever attenuation if any
is
necessary for a total cost of less than a buck, if front-end converter
overload is what you are referring to. Another 6 to 9 dB of transmitter
ERP
would not create overload....it would extend coverage to those who now
need
outdoor yagis and sometimes rotors as well.

Unlike the VHF TV era where only 13 channels were available and legitimate
concern existed for co-channel interference between cities spaced 50 to
100
miles apart, there are many more channels available in the UHF band. A
good
and well established method for placing transmitters in the optimum
pattern
of "re-use" was developed for placing cell sites, and could have easily
been
applied to choosing far more optimal UHF TV assignments than the ones
selected presently.

The bottom line is that the FCC is managed by bureaucrats, not engineers,
and that the public interest is not foremost in their agenda.

I have helped scores of people get over the air reception HD, and the mess
and unnecessary expense created by very poor legislation and planning is
outrageous, in my view.

Smarty- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Since you seek to impugn the qualifications and decision making
process of the transition, one can only ask exactly what your
qualifications are, what tests you conducted, what cost/benefit
analysis you went through, etc to arrive at what you claim is a
superior solution? * Or let me guess, you're just throwing rocks?

Trader4,

I am a retired broadcast engineer with 3 FCC licenses, 40 years of broadcast
engineering experience, a graduate electrical engineer, a ham radio
enthusiast since the 1950's, and a harsh critic of government policies which
ignore solid science and engineering principles.

Regrettably, the FCC in recent years is a good example of decision making by
lawyers and politicians rather than by good engineers.

What you call "throwing rocks" suggests a haphazard and ill-conceived,
perhaps unjustified attack.

I ask you what your basis is for that accusation?

Smarty- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

My kind of guy.

I agree with you...it's a train wreck.

TMT

On Jan 16, 9:06*pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 1/16/2009 5:14 PM spake thus:





On Jan 16, 6:48 pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:

The Palestinians are the Warsaw Ghetto fighters to Israel's storm troopers.

Spoken like a true anti-semite. * There is no legitimate comparison
between the plight of the Palestinians and what the jews endured under
the Nazis. *See any gas chambers lately?

What's going on now in Gaza is totally self inflicted. * Israel
unilaterally did exactly what the Palestinians wanted. *They
withdrew. * The Palestinians could have responded by electing
reasonable leaders and behaving responsibly. * If they acted decently
for a number of years, and built up some trust, Israel would be happy
to be done with the whole thing. * What did they do instead? * Why
they elected the Hamas terrorists, who are little more than Iranian
puppets and then lobbed rockets at Israel. * So, now they are getting
what they deserve.

In exactly what bizarro-world does one punish an *entire civilian
population* for "choosing the wrong leaders", as you claim the
Palestinians have done?


I think the German civilian population got punished rather badly for
choosing the wrong leaders. Same with Italy and Japan. Add Russia
to the list. Need I go on?



Even if they did, in what book of international
law is it written that bombs and tanks is a legitimate response?


I guess you'd prefer the Israelis send tea and biscuits as a response
to rocket attacks launched under the direction of Hamas, who the
Palestinians chose as their leaders? When Lybia sponsored
terrorists who blew up a few US servicemen in Germany, Ronald Reagan
dispatched a squadron of F-111B's to pay a visit on Colonle Khadafi.
And rightfully so. He didn't need to consult some book of
international law to know what to do.

When Afghanistan sponsored Al-Qaeda, Bush blew the living crap out of
the Taliban. In both cases, the responses had some unfortunate
civilian casualties. So be it. Same thing is happening with the
Israeli response. They are not bombing civilians in Gaza. They are
targeting the leadership, as well they should. It's the terroists
running Gaza, the proxies of Iran, who are sponsoring indiscriminate
rocket attacks and suicide bombers.

This is a whole new concept the libs have dreamed up. Proportionate
response. I ask you again, what should the US have done in response
to the attack on Pearl Harbor? Just find a similar Japanese military
base and call it a day? For an example of where proportional
response thinking gets you, look at what Clinton did. For every
terrorist attack, he'd come up with a proportional response. They
blow up a US ship, he launced a few cruise missles. He had an
excellent opportunity to launch a strike at Bin Laden himself. A
predator drone had unmistakable video of him in a camp in
Afghanistan. He declined because of the possibility of some
collateral damage. That's where this kind of logic gets you.

And if you want to go further, Sudan had Bin Laden in custody and
offered to give him to the US. Clinton freely admits he tried to get
Saudi Arabia to take him. They declined. So, Clinton, in
consultation with Janet Reno and other experts, declined too, because
they decided they didn't have legal authority to act.





--
In order to embark on a new course, the only one that will
solve the problem: negotiations and peace with the Palestinians,
the Lebanese, the Syrians. And: with Hamas and Hizbullah.

Because it's only with enemies that one makes peace.

- Uri Avnery, Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom.
(http://counterpunch.org/avnery08032006.html)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Jan 17, 11:35*pm, Red Green wrote:
DerbyDad03 wrote in news:18d1f91c-dfa4-4b28-b0b0-
:





On Jan 16, 5:28*pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 1/16/2009 11:23 AM DerbyDad03 spake thus:

On Jan 15, 10:06 pm, Steve Daniels wrote:

-- * Real men don't text.
-
-- OMG UKTR C&G G2G B4N
-
- Translation?

Oh My God! You know that's right. Chuckles and Grins. Got to go. Bye
for now.

http://www.hendrixsite.com/acronyms.htm

FWIW, now that we have a family texting plan, I'm in contact with my
kids more than ever. Often, in the middle of the day, I'll get things
like:

*- Got an A on the math test. Thanks for your help
*- Practice cancelled
*- I'm bored
*- Hi!
*- What was that song we heard last night?
*- I've got a ride home. C U later.

Short quick bursts of conversations, sometimes 5 - 6 times a day.
Things that aren't worth a long conversation, but can always be
followed up with a phone call if needed.

Ever tried to carry on a cell phone conversation with someone at a
Varsity basketball game? A text conversation is a piece of cake -
especially when your kid is sitting on the other side of the raucus
gym. "How are you getting home?" "With you!" "I'll meet you out
front." "K"

Nothing from dMrs?

- u want bj 2nite- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

dMrs sends pictures

On Jan 15, 11:28*am, N8N wrote:
On Jan 15, 9:44*am, "Smarty" wrote:





Many if not most homeowners who are trying to now get over the air HDTV
reception are finding that indoor antennas are not adequate and often need
to use expensive outdoor antennas.

Ironically, the entire problem could have been avoided if the FCC had proper
engineering people who had chosen / demanded higher transmitter power and
transmitting antenna type and site choices.

By increasing the effective radiated power by another 6 to 9 dB, they would
have put a much smaller burden on the homeowner antenna, and lowered the
deployment cost and risk for the homeowner tremendously.

I gotta' believe that the choices they made were driven by sparing the
broadcasters the extra operating costs of consuming all the extra kilowatt
hours.

The FCC would, if challenged, probably claim that they kept the ERP to a
small number to prevent co-channel interference between neighboring cites.

But in the UHF spectrum, they have so vastly more spectrum to allocate that
they could have very, very easily chosen clear channels for every neighbor,
and allowed homeowners to use simple rabbit ears and bow ties rather than
need outdoor directional antennas even in urban and suburban areas to get
all the local programming.

Colin Powell's son, an attorney, headed the FCC during the HDTV planning and
transition. Talk about technical qualifications for the job..............

Smarty

Oddly enough I find that I get the best reception with rabbit ears and
bow ties. *I've tried several fancier antennas and they've all been
worthless junk. *I think the only thing that would likely give an
improvement, from what I've read, is either a) a homemade bow tie
array (I may try this) b) either a "silver sensor" or Winegard SS-3000
type antenna or c) a proper roof or attic mounted antenna.

It seems that there is a LOT of junk on the market at the moment, and
if someone buys a new "amplified antenna" and then finds that they
only get one channel, they may bitch and moan about how crappy DTV is
but they may find that if they just try an old bowtie they get 20+
channels. *I know that that's been my experience, I've returned
several medium-priced antennas because they didn't work any better
than a piece of wire jammed in the F-connector on the back of the box.

nate

Discovered something annoying last night... was watching the playoff
game (go stillers) and decided to watch it OTA rather than off cable
so I could see it in widescreen (well, letterboxed, but whatever) I am
using a Channel Master CM7000 tuner box with aforementioned wabbit
ears and bowtie. Every couple minutes the audio would drop out for a
second or so then come back in, sometimes with some pixellation
sometimes not. I thought it might be a problem with the station's sat
feed because I have not noticed this on any other channels that I
watch. But the same thing happened with the news this AM as I left it
on Channel 9 (WUSA) rather than one of the other channels. Now I
never watch Channel 9, so I have not noticed this before, but it
doesn't appear to be a problem with my setup as I can leave the "info"
menu on the screen and see that the signal strength remains pegged at
100% while it drops out. Also ran a long piece of coax up the stairs
just to see if it was antenna position but with the antenna upstairs
it still does this. Have not seen this with any other channels... if
this is going to be permanent this kinda puts a damper on my TV
watching experience, and I may just keep my cable and not install a
roof mounted antenna like I'd originally planned. Based on the
coverage maps I'm just outside the "red" zone for WUSA so this should
not be a problem at all.

nate