"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
...

"Leon" wrote:

We have had the capability to record 2 programs at one time for 6 or 7
years IIRC, Uverse allows 4 programs and oddly that would be better for
us. U'd think 2 would be plenty. LOL

Just what the hell is worth recording as presented in what Newton Minnow
defined as "A Vast Wasteland" more than 40 years ago?

Lew

TOH, NYW, vs. what my wife wants to watch vs. what my son likes to watch.
Or you are too tired to catch the night time news but there is a segment
that you wanted to hear about. Or a movie comes on at 3:00 AM.

The beauty to being able to record is that if something does come on that
you want to watch is that you watch it when it is convenient for "you" to
watch, not the time that the network thinks is the best time for you to
watch it. We no longer have to be in front of the TV to watch anything at
any specific time and can record up to 200 hrs of regular and or up to 50
hours of HD TV.

We could literally not watch TV for several weeks and not miss seeing
anything. We watch TV and what we want when it suits us.

Not using the recorder means you have to wait for commercials and being a
submissive to the networks if you want to watch what they are broadcasting.
With out the recorder you "do" have to work around all of the Vast Wasteland
to view a particular broadcast here and there. With a recorder you probably
watch less TV because you only turn it on when you have time to watch it and
you are only watching exactly what you intend to watch.

You have to really try it to understand the efficiency. I know 4 or 5
people that pretty much made the same comments that you did. They said we
don't watch much TV we don't need it. I explained, you don't watch much TV
because the shows you want to watch are not on when you want to watch. When
you learn that you have total access regardless of broadcast time or channel
to the 10% of worth while viewing, you look at the multi channel recorder a
bit differently. They now have the recorders and wonder how they ever did
with out them. They spend less time in front of the TV but see more of what
they want.

The beauty of a DVR is that it will search typically 2 weeks in advance for
content that you are interested in . You search by show name, persons name,
type programming, time or day. Additionally it will remember your
preferences and automatically record them regardless of day or time,
automatically changes if the show is moved to another day or time. And it
will not record repeats if you don't want it to do so, so my DVR only
records NYW about 15 times a year and If I choose to do so I can watch the
entire season in 1 day.

"Leon" wrote

TOH, NYW, vs. what my wife wants to watch vs. what my son likes to watch.
Or you are too tired to catch the night time news but there is a segment
that you wanted to hear about. Or a movie comes on at 3:00 AM.

The beauty to being able to record is that if something does come on that
you want to watch is that you watch it when it is convenient for "you" to
watch, not the time that the network thinks is the best time for you to
watch it. We no longer have to be in front of the TV to watch anything at
any specific time and can record up to 200 hrs of regular and or up to 50
hours of HD TV.

We could literally not watch TV for several weeks and not miss seeing
anything. We watch TV and what we want when it suits us.

Not using the recorder means you have to wait for commercials and being a
submissive to the networks if you want to watch what they are
broadcasting. With out the recorder you "do" have to work around all of
the Vast Wasteland to view a particular broadcast here and there. With a
recorder you probably watch less TV because you only turn it on when you
have time to watch it and you are only watching exactly what you intend to
watch.

You have to really try it to understand the efficiency. I know 4 or 5
people that pretty much made the same comments that you did. They said we
don't watch much TV we don't need it. I explained, you don't watch much
TV because the shows you want to watch are not on when you want to watch.
When you learn that you have total access regardless of broadcast time or
channel to the 10% of worth while viewing, you look at the multi channel
recorder a bit differently. They now have the recorders and wonder how
they ever did with out them. They spend less time in front of the TV but
see more of what they want.

The beauty of a DVR is that it will search typically 2 weeks in advance
for content that you are interested in . You search by show name, persons
name, type programming, time or day. Additionally it will remember your
preferences and automatically record them regardless of day or time,
automatically changes if the show is moved to another day or time. And
it will not record repeats if you don't want it to do so, so my DVR only
records NYW about 15 times a year and If I choose to do so I can watch the
entire season in 1 day.

--
I will add these remarks to Leon's comments.

As my wife says, "Thank God for fast forward." Thee is somg good programs
that would be unwatchable if you had to endure the commercials. Recording
them makes it possible to watch it.

If you find a series that you like, and it is available in repeats, the DVR
allows you to "catch up". And if you really like the series, catching up
can be fun.

If you are a movie buff, there is gold in mining some of the offerings on
odd hours on obscure channels. I regularly score a good scifi, golden oldie
or foreign flick this way.

As for my better half, she loves anything about animals and geology
(earthquakes, volcanos, etc). There are literally hours of programming each
day on these topics. Hell, there is a whole channel devoted to animals.
There is also the National Geographic channel.

Me, I am a history, technology and military buff. And, of course, I like
woodworking too!! I like the discovery channel.

There is no doubt that there is a great wasteland on TV. But if you search
for some good stuff, it is there. It is like the internet. Lots of stuff
out there. And there is that subset of good stuff that you like. You just
got work a little to find it. And WANT to find it.

You can not function well in a digital environment withut some basic search
skills.
--

On Apr 24, 9:52*am, "Lee Michaels"
wrote:
"Leon" *wrote



TOH, NYW, vs. what my wife wants to watch vs. what my son likes to watch.
Or you are too tired to catch the night time news but there is a segment
that you wanted to hear about. *Or a movie comes on at 3:00 AM.

The beauty to being able to record is that if something does come on that
you want to watch is that you watch it when it is convenient for "you" to
watch, not the time that the network thinks is the best time for you to
watch it. *We no longer have to be in front of the TV to watch anything at
any specific time and can record up to 200 hrs of regular and or up to 50
hours of HD TV.

We could literally not watch TV for several weeks and not miss seeing
anything. *We watch TV and what we want when it suits us.

Not using the recorder means you have to wait for commercials and being a
submissive to the networks if you want to watch what they are
broadcasting. With out the recorder you "do" have to work around all of
the Vast Wasteland to view a particular broadcast here and there. *With a
recorder you probably watch less TV because you only turn it on when you
have time to watch it and you are only watching exactly what you intend to
watch.

You have to really try it to understand the efficiency. *I know 4 or 5
people that pretty much made the same comments that you did. *They said we
don't watch much TV we don't need it. *I explained, you don't watch much
TV because the shows you want to watch are not on when you want to watch.
When you learn that you have total access regardless of broadcast time or
channel to the 10% of worth while viewing, you look at the multi channel
recorder a bit differently. *They now have the recorders and wonder how
they ever did with out them. *They spend less time in front of the TV but
see more of what they want.

The beauty of a DVR is that it will search typically 2 weeks in advance
for content that you are interested in . *You search by show name, persons
name, type programming, time or day. *Additionally it will remember your
preferences and automatically record them regardless of day or time,
automatically *changes if the show is moved to another day or time. *And
it will not record repeats if you don't want it to do so, so my DVR only
records NYW about 15 times a year and If I choose to do so I can watch the
entire season in 1 day.

--
I will add these remarks to Leon's comments.

As my wife says, "Thank God for fast forward." *Thee is somg good programs
that would be unwatchable if you had to endure the commercials. Recording
them makes it possible to watch it.

If you find a series that you like, and it is available in repeats, the DVR
allows you to "catch up". *And if you really like the series, catching up
can be fun.

If you are a movie buff, there is gold in mining some of the offerings on
odd hours on obscure channels. *I regularly score a good scifi, golden oldie
or foreign flick this way.

As for my better half, she loves anything about animals and geology
(earthquakes, volcanos, etc). *There are literally hours of programming each
day on these topics. Hell, there is a whole channel devoted to animals.
There is also the National Geographic channel.

Me, I am a history, technology and military buff. *And, of course, I like
woodworking too!! *I like the discovery channel.

There is no doubt that there is a great wasteland on TV. *But if you search
for some good stuff, it is there. *It is like the internet. *Lots of stuff
out there. And there is that subset of good stuff that you like. You just
got work a little to find it. *And WANT to find it.

You can not function well in a digital environment withut some basic search
skills.
--

Mythbusters, Keith and Rachel, Daily Planet, Formula 1, Entourage...
that's about it...

On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 08:02:09 -0500, "Leon"
wrote:


"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
...

Just what the hell is worth recording as presented in what Newton Minnow
defined as "A Vast Wasteland" more than 40 years ago?

Lew

To sum up Leon's (snipped) remarks:

DVR has changed the way we watch TV. Rarely do we ever watch anything
live. On the odd occasion when we do, we can't stand it and typically
pause at an opportune spot and go kill 15 or 20 minutes doing
something else (no, that would be 10). Then we'll come back and pick
up where we left off, fast forwarding through the commercials as we
go.

Of course we also have the option of saying, "this sucks," deleting
the recording thus far, and then pursuing something else--TV or
otherwise.

To repeat: we virtually never watch live TV. DVR makes that possible.

And by the way, among the treasures I found was a series called "The
Mechanical Universe" which airs a couple of times a day on the
University House channel (or something like that) on our Dish
satellite. I saw it back in the '80s, remembered it as outstanding,
and see now that I was right. I have about 32 of the 52 episodes on
the hard drive and will convert all to DVD at some point.



--
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net
http://www.normstools.com

Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997

email addy de-spam-ified due to 1,000 spams per month.
If you can't figure out how to use it, I probably wouldn't
care to correspond with you anyway.

"Leon" wrote in message
...
We could literally not watch TV for several weeks and not miss seeing
anything.

Period. Full stop.

Mike O. wrote:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 05:44:24 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote:


DirecTV has finally started blaming the Air Force Base some 30 miles away.
Basically they have given up on trying to cure a week signal problem.

I can't wait for Uverse.

Some clown cut through a fibre-optic cable, one of those "Dig Before
You Call" incidents.


Two weeks ago my neighbor was replacing some old fencing. He called
and had the area flagged and the guy who flagged the ATT stuff told
him "that cable can be 5' on either side of the flags".

What the hell is the point...???

Mike O.

For main backbone and ring feeds AT&T the cable is located using two
very low frequencies referred to as "CD" and "ACID". Anomalies such as
water and power lines can skew the locating receiver.

New York State laws gives me a 3' buffer on either side of the cable
before it's considered a mis-locate. Usually the marks are within a few
inches but I'm not going to tell that to the contractor. I've been on
one dig where my marks were 5' off as the cable was running parallel to
a buried 25 KV power line. The indication I got made me suspect the
locate was not accurate and I worked with the contractor to resolve the
problem.

On the long distance (trans-continental) cables a technician is required
to be on site if the dig is within 5' of the cable.

In my area no phone company that I'm aware of locates POTS (Plain Old
Telephone Set) lines to a building.

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA

"Leon" wrote:


TOH, NYW, vs. what my wife wants to watch vs. what my son likes to
watch.

Around here you either get begging of 5-7 year old reruns in those
time slots.

Or you are too tired to catch the night time news but there is a
segment that you wanted to hear about. Or a movie comes on at 3:00
AM.

With 24/7 news cycle NBD, it will repeat in 20 minutes.

If the movie is on a 3:00AM, it wil run again.

The beauty to being able to record is that if something does come on
that you want to watch is that you watch it when it is convenient
for "you" to watch, not the time that the network thinks is the best
time for you to watch it.

Agreed, but what's to watch?

We no longer have to be in front of the TV to watch anything at any
specific time and can record up to 200 hrs of regular and or up to
50 hours of HD TV.

Agreed.

We could literally not watch TV for several weeks and not miss
seeing anything. We watch TV and what we want when it suits us.

I miss several weeks of "crap" on a regular basis with no ill effects.

Not using the recorder means you have to wait for commercials and
being a submissive to the networks if you want to watch what they
are broadcasting.

I can selectively ignore most anything, especially commercials.

"Mute" is a great function.

you are only watching exactly what you intend to watch.

If the program it will run again, it's a matter of filling time since
there is so much total trash being broadcast.

I have a great deal of difficulty finding more than a couple of
programs a week that I'm willing to sit down and watch.

If I miss one, it will rerun soon enough.

Lew

On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 19:43:44 GMT, "Lew Hodgett"
wrote:

I have a great deal of difficulty finding more than a couple of
programs a week that I'm willing to sit down and watch.

So much so, in fact, that I've found the difficulty to so outweigh the
benefit that it's been years since I've suffered through any TV
offering at all. If my wife didn't have a couple of "police
procedural" shows that she enjoys, I would be quite content without a
TV in the house.

Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
...

"Leon" wrote:


TOH, NYW, vs. what my wife wants to watch vs. what my son likes to watch.

Around here you either get begging of 5-7 year old reruns in those time
slots.

Or you are too tired to catch the night time news but there is a segment
that you wanted to hear about. Or a movie comes on at 3:00 AM.

With 24/7 news cycle NBD, it will repeat in 20 minutes.

If the movie is on a 3:00AM, it wil run again.

The beauty to being able to record is that if something does come on that
you want to watch is that you watch it when it is convenient for "you" to
watch, not the time that the network thinks is the best time for you to
watch it.

Agreed, but what's to watch?

We no longer have to be in front of the TV to watch anything at any
specific time and can record up to 200 hrs of regular and or up to 50
hours of HD TV.

Agreed.

We could literally not watch TV for several weeks and not miss seeing
anything. We watch TV and what we want when it suits us.

I miss several weeks of "crap" on a regular basis with no ill effects.

Not using the recorder means you have to wait for commercials and being a
submissive to the networks if you want to watch what they are
broadcasting.

I can selectively ignore most anything, especially commercials.

"Mute" is a great function.

you are only watching exactly what you intend to watch.

If the program it will run again, it's a matter of filling time since
there is so much total trash being broadcast.

I have a great deal of difficulty finding more than a couple of programs a
week that I'm willing to sit down and watch.

If I miss one, it will rerun soon enough.

Lew

Most all of your responses to TV programming would improve with a DVR.
Until you let "it" do the hunting you really don't know what you are
missing.
I have heard all of you responses time and again from those that "thought"
the same way. Now they actually like watching the TV. LOL

On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:43:25 -0500, "Leon"
wrote:

Actually ATT had been doing my phones for a long time, DSL about 10 years.
Cell just over 1 year. TV is all they are not gestating now.

When the Uverse guy comes they are going to want to switch
you to VOIP phone instead of your land-line. I think the unlimited LD
package is $30.
It doesn't really affect your Internet and TV package price from
Uverse but does affect the initial rebate by $50 I think.
Some people don't want VOIP for various reasons but that's where the
most savings are....at least in this area.

We have had the capability to record 2 programs at one time for 6 or 7 years
IIRC, Uverse allows 4 programs and oddly that would be better for us. U'd
think 2 would be plenty.

You'll be able to record 4 feeds 2 in HD and 2 in SD. That's the
normal initial bandwidth when they move into an area. Plus you can
record or watch recordings from any of your set top boxes.

Mike O.

Mike O. wrote:
You'll be able to record 4 feeds 2 in HD and 2 in SD. That's the
normal initial bandwidth when they move into an area. Plus you can
record or watch recordings from any of your set top boxes.

Mike O.

I think you have that backwards - they currently only claim two
simultaneous HD channels (whether recording or watching, it doesn't
matter). However, you may not even get THAT. The first thing the tech
did when he came to install U-Verse was to check the signal quality, and
he immediately said it was very borderline and that I'd only be able to
get ONE HD channel at any given time; apparently, my house is at the
very fringe of the distance limit from the box where the signal
originates. At the time I thought "No problem, I only have one HD TV
and no immediate plans to get another", but it didn't take long at all
to discover that my wife likes to record EVERYTHING, and while she's got
an HD show recording I have to watch my 52" LCD in standard definition...

--
As an artist, I like to work in many different
mediums, but my favorite (by far!) is VAPORS.
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 21:32:26 -0500, Steve Turner
wrote:

You'll be able to record 4 feeds 2 in HD and 2 in SD. That's the
normal initial bandwidth when they move into an area. Plus you can
record or watch recordings from any of your set top boxes.

Mike O.

I think you have that backwards - they currently only claim two
simultaneous HD channels (whether recording or watching, it doesn't
matter).

Didn't I say 2 in HD and 2 in SD..??

Here they claim you can get 4 simultaneous channels but only 2 in HD
and the other 2 in SD. The service guy also claimed that the number
feeds will increase over time as the network is developed in a
specific area. In a nearby larger market (KC) where this guy
normally works he said that some areas there have up to 6 simultaneous
channels.

Mike O.

"Steve Turner" wrote in message
...
Mike O. wrote:
You'll be able to record 4 feeds 2 in HD and 2 in SD. That's the
normal initial bandwidth when they move into an area. Plus you can
record or watch recordings from any of your set top boxes.

Mike O.

I think you have that backwards - they currently only claim two
simultaneous HD channels (whether recording or watching, it doesn't
matter). However, you may not even get THAT. The first thing the tech
did when he came to install U-Verse was to check the signal quality, and
he immediately said it was very borderline and that I'd only be able to
get ONE HD channel at any given time; apparently, my house is at the very
fringe of the distance limit from the box where the signal originates. At
the time I thought "No problem, I only have one HD TV and no immediate
plans to get another", but it didn't take long at all to discover that my
wife likes to record EVERYTHING, and while she's got an HD show recording
I have to watch my 52" LCD in standard definition...

--
As an artist, I like to work in many different
mediums, but my favorite (by far!) is VAPORS.
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

"Leon" wrote:

Most all of your responses to TV programming would improve with a DVR.
Until you let "it" do the hunting you really don't know what you are
missing.
I have heard all of you responses time and again from those that "thought"
the same way. Now they actually like watching the TV. LOL

This is the problem that TiVo has had from the beginning. It is very difficult
to explain that TiVo (or DVR's) make a fundamental change in a viewer's
relationship with television. I've had a TiVo since 2001 and would never go
back to regular TV.

Now, I'm in control of what I watch and when. Before, I could control what I
watched, or when I watched it, but not both.

-- Doug

Mike O. wrote:
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 21:32:26 -0500, Steve Turner
wrote:

You'll be able to record 4 feeds 2 in HD and 2 in SD. That's the
normal initial bandwidth when they move into an area. Plus you can
record or watch recordings from any of your set top boxes.

Mike O.
I think you have that backwards - they currently only claim two
simultaneous HD channels (whether recording or watching, it doesn't
matter).

Didn't I say 2 in HD and 2 in SD..??

Well By Golly Gee, I guess you did! Sorry about that, I don't read so
good sometimes. :-)

--
See Nad. See Nad go. Go Nad!
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

"Douglas Johnson" wrote:

This is the problem that TiVo has had from the beginning. It is
very difficult
to explain that TiVo (or DVR's) make a fundamental change in a
viewer's
relationship with television. I've had a TiVo since 2001 and would
never go
back to regular TV.

Now, I'm in control of what I watch and when. Before, I could
control what I
watched, or when I watched it, but not both.

Your basic assumption is that there is something worth saving to watch
at a time of your convenience.

Not necessarily an accurate assumption.

I must be in the minority, but IMHO, the bulk of TV is little more
than white noise.

Lew

On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 15:58:15 GMT, "Lew Hodgett"
wrote:

"Douglas Johnson" wrote:

Now, I'm in control of what I watch and when. Before, I could
control what I watched, or when I watched it, but not both.

Your basic assumption is that there is something worth saving to watch
at a time of your convenience.

Not necessarily an accurate assumption.

I must be in the minority, but IMHO, the bulk of TV is little more
than white noise.

I don't think I understand your problem with making TV watching
convenient. Your own statement, "...the bulk of TV is little more than
white noise," logically parses to mean that there is something more
substantive than white noise in at least some TV (which, by the way,
does indeed make Doug's assumption accurate).

That's the whole point of DVRs. YOU pick what (if anything) YOU want
to watch. YOU pick when to watch IF YOU picked something. YOU get to
FF through the unwanted stuff (ads are essentially white noise).
What's the problem?

The beauty, as stated in several different ways, is that YOU can
easily ignore the TV as much as you want. But if some gem crops up
(and there are some, by your own admission), YOU get to enjoy it
without having to sift through a lot of white noise.



--
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net
http://www.normstools.com

Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997

email addy de-spam-ified due to 1,000 spams per month.
If you can't figure out how to use it, I probably wouldn't
care to correspond with you anyway.

"LRod" wrote:

I don't think I understand your problem with making TV watching
convenient.

I don't have a problem making TV watching more convenient.

I start with a personal filter:

No sitcoms.
No CSI anything
No Reality TV.
Forget Trump and all his derivatives.
No American Idol.
No fake hospital shows.
No made for TV sports broadcasts.

After that, take a look at what's left.

If I had cable, probably leave set tuned to C-Span and forget it.

As it is, have local station doing a CNN type broadcast.

Usually leave TV set to that channel and the sound becomes white noise
while I do something else.

If something happens, "Flashes" across the screen.

Plenty of time to look then to catch the endless repeats.

Lew

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in news:fZPIl.2870$b11.977
@nwrddc02.gnilink.net:


I don't have a problem making TV watching more convenient.

I start with a personal filter:

No sitcoms.
No CSI anything
No Reality TV.
Forget Trump and all his derivatives.
No American Idol.
No fake hospital shows.
No made for TV sports broadcasts.

After that, take a look at what's left.

If I had cable, probably leave set tuned to C-Span and forget it.

As it is, have local station doing a CNN type broadcast.

Usually leave TV set to that channel and the sound becomes white noise
while I do something else.

If something happens, "Flashes" across the screen.

Plenty of time to look then to catch the endless repeats.

Lew


How about woodworking shows? If your PBS station is accurate with their
program guide information, a DVR could catch the occasional episode of
NYW or TOH. (I've got my mother's DVR set to record the Woodwright's
Shop. We don't get it from the PBS station here.)

I don't watch local networks very much... They show what's basically on
your list. If we could pull in Fox 43 for the occasional baseball game,
I wouldn't see any reason to give Dish $5/mo for locals. (Especially
because they don't have the digital sub channels!)

Puckdropper
--
"The potential difference between the top and bottom of a tree is the
reason why all trees have to be grounded..." -- Bored Borg on
rec.woodworking

To email me directly, send a message to puckdropper (at) fastmail.fm

"Douglas Johnson" wrote in message
...
"Leon" wrote:

Most all of your responses to TV programming would improve with a DVR.
Until you let "it" do the hunting you really don't know what you are
missing.
I have heard all of you responses time and again from those that "thought"
the same way. Now they actually like watching the TV. LOL

This is the problem that TiVo has had from the beginning. It is very
difficult
to explain that TiVo (or DVR's) make a fundamental change in a viewer's
relationship with television. I've had a TiVo since 2001 and would never
go
back to regular TV.

That is about when we got out first TiVO also, the first DirecTV DVR's were
2 tuner TiVo's

And then we switched to HD and the new DirecTV DVR's were no longer TiVo
units and the reliability went out the door. Almost 4 years later they have
made enough software upgrades to the DVR that it is tolerable.

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
...

Your basic assumption is that there is something worth saving to watch at
a time of your convenience.

There is plenty worth saving to watch at a later time, you just have to look
at every hour of broadcast 24/7 for the next 2 weeks. Or let the DVR do
that for you. I mean you invest in a new LCD to watch TV you might as well
make the most of your investment and find stuff worth watching.


Not necessarily an accurate assumption.

I must be in the minority, but IMHO, the bulk of TV is little more than
white noise.


If you are confined to what is currently being broadcast, you do get a lot
of crap. If you use a DVR to seek and record the type shows you would watch
you will probably find much more to watch. You just don't realize how much
you would probably enjoy until you have a DVR locate and record. You send a
little time setting it up telling it what you want to watch, who you want to
watch, what kind of programming you want to watch and a few days later you
have a line up of recordings. And it continues to do this until you tell
it to change or stop. And you watch the programming when you "want" to sit
down and watch TV.

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
...

"LRod" wrote:

I don't think I understand your problem with making TV watching
convenient.

I don't have a problem making TV watching more convenient.

I start with a personal filter:

No sitcoms.
No CSI anything
No Reality TV.
Forget Trump and all his derivatives.
No American Idol.
No fake hospital shows.
No made for TV sports broadcasts.


Yeah I pretty much don't watch that crap either.

Add to your filter, NO Commercials,

Because you can fast forward through a commercial a 1 hour show is now a 40
minute show and and the show you like to watch does not take as much of your
time to watch..
Add to the filter, NO SPORTS except for the occasional Golf tournament that
may interest me. I can filter on that too. I choose the tournament with a
specific player or players.

Now consider that of all the filters you personally filter daily, the DVR
now does it for you automatically. You don't have to waste time when you
turn the TV to apply your filter.

Your openion of TV programming is not unique to you. I felt the same way,
as did most every one that I know that now have DVR's. We assuredly watch
more TV that we want to watch in less time than it took to watch fewer
programs.








After that, take a look at what's left.

If I had cable, probably leave set tuned to C-Span and forget it.

As it is, have local station doing a CNN type broadcast.

Usually leave TV set to that channel and the sound becomes white noise
while I do something else.

If something happens, "Flashes" across the screen.

Plenty of time to look then to catch the endless repeats.

Lew

Leon wrote:
"Douglas Johnson" wrote in message
...
"Leon" wrote:

Most all of your responses to TV programming would improve with a DVR.
Until you let "it" do the hunting you really don't know what you are
missing.
I have heard all of you responses time and again from those that "thought"
the same way. Now they actually like watching the TV. LOL
This is the problem that TiVo has had from the beginning. It is very
difficult
to explain that TiVo (or DVR's) make a fundamental change in a viewer's
relationship with television. I've had a TiVo since 2001 and would never
go
back to regular TV.

That is about when we got out first TiVO also, the first DirecTV DVR's were
2 tuner TiVo's

And then we switched to HD and the new DirecTV DVR's were no longer TiVo
units and the reliability went out the door. Almost 4 years later they have
made enough software upgrades to the DVR that it is tolerable.

I had to have one replaced after one year of use - bad disc drive. Got
the new one hooked up to my broadband router using powerline ethernet
connectors. Gives you access to "Demand" over the internet which gives
another recording path other than the 2 tuners. Some of the demand
programming from DirecTV is now in 1080p format. You can also play
slide shows, movies and audio from your PC. I put the TVersity Windoze
media server app on the OverLords PC which has all our
audio/picture/video data on it. To go with my 46" 1080p Mitsubishi LCD,
a 5.1 sound system is a must. The speakers that come in these new HDTV
sets are unbearably bad.

Cut a piece of 300 ohm twin lead 60" long

was told that this dimension was related to the bandwidth one
expected to receive. If so, wouldn't there be a difference in required
length for UHF vs VHS, vs FM, say?
.

"Doug Winterburn" wrote in message
...


I had to have one replaced after one year of use - bad disc drive. Got
the new one hooked up to my broadband router using powerline ethernet
connectors.

We went through 5 replacement DirecTV HD DVR's before they decided that it
was the software. The Tivo unit to this day still works like a charm, It is
bullet proof. Some time this year DirecTV is suppose to offer an new Tivo
HF DVR. Uverse is probably going to get my business before that happens.

Gives you access to "Demand" over the internet which gives
another recording path other than the 2 tuners. Some of the demand
programming from DirecTV is now in 1080p format.

I tried it once in the beginning but have not gone back to look at what's
out there.

You can also play
slide shows, movies and audio from your PC. I put the TVersity Windoze
media server app on the OverLords PC which has all our
audio/picture/video data on it. To go with my 46" 1080p Mitsubishi LCD,
a 5.1 sound system is a must. The speakers that come in these new HDTV
sets are unbearably bad.

Yeah, I have been using 5.1 since about ummmmmm 1994 IIRC. That said
however I have a Sony Bavia and it has remarkably good speakers. I have no
idea where the bass comes from as the speakers openings behind the grill
appear to be 2" x 6". But still it is cool to hear some one enter on the
right side of the room and then see him appear on the right side of the
screen. Or hear a helicopter approaching from the rear speakers and finally
appear at the top of the screen and going away from you.

"Lew Hodgett" wrote:

I start with a personal filter:

No sitcoms.
No CSI anything
No Reality TV.
Forget Trump and all his derivatives.
No American Idol.
No fake hospital shows.
No made for TV sports broadcasts.

After that, take a look at what's left.

That's more or less my filter as well. The cool thing about TiVo is you can
mine what's left. I got interested in Clint Eastwood as a director, so set TiVo
to record any movie he directed. At this point, I've seen them all, so I
cancelled that.

I have it set up to record the local news, but just keep one show. So I can
watch it when I want, but don't get a backlog. Our local PBS does a lot of good
shows late at night. I can see them with no loss of sleep.

Don't forget the value of skipping commercials. You can watch a one hour show
in 40 minutes.

-- Doug

wrote:

was told that this dimension was related to the bandwidth one
expected to receive. If so, wouldn't there be a difference in
required
length for UHF vs VHS, vs FM, say?

I'll let any Hams on list answer your question; however, 60" covers
everthing including FM in my area.

SFWIW, Radio Shack sells a factory made unit which is 60".

Lew

"Leon" wrote

Add to the filter, NO SPORTS except for the occasional Golf tournament
that may interest me. I can filter on that too. I choose the tournament
with a specific player or players.

GOLF???? Did you say GOLF????? Watching paint dry is more exciting than
golf. I am falling asleep just thinking about it. :-)

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
...
wrote:

was told that this dimension was related to the bandwidth one
expected to receive. If so, wouldn't there be a difference in required
length for UHF vs VHS, vs FM, say?

I'll let any Hams on list answer your question; however, 60" covers
everthing including FM in my area.

SFWIW, Radio Shack sells a factory made unit which is 60".

The "accepted" (on FCC tests) simplified equation for a half-wave dipole
wire length is:
feet = 468/MHz.

A folded dipole simply folds each leg of the dipole back to the center.
Effectively, the 5' long folded dipole has 10' of wire. Its resonant
frequency is thus 46.8 MHz according to the formula. Interestingly, this
works out to about a full wave for the 100 MHz FM band. It might be worth
experimenting with slightly shorter lengths, moving the resonant frequency
to, say, 75 MHz. The gains will be minimal, if measurable at all (let alone
noticeable).

The simplified formula differs from the theoretical value in a vacuum by the
velocity factor of the wire, in this case apparently about 95% (from 492/MHz
in a vacuum). I wouldn't worry much about it. The antenna's resonant
frequency is not nearly so important for receive-only operations as it is
for transmitters. A mismatch on a transmitter presents a very high
impedance, causing the feedline to also radiate, and plays all kinds of
havoc to equipment in the vicinity.

A dipole is also somewhat directional, with about 2 dB of gain in its
broadside direction compared to a point radiator. This implies the same 2 dB
attenuation in its side lobes, off the ends. Given a choice, I would face
the antenna toward the signal and the ends toward the local RF noise.
However, if reception is so marginal that this is enough to make or break
the chain, consider it broken and get a tuned, multi-element, directional
antenna. The same goes fiddling with the wire length.

Lee Michaels wrote:
"Leon" wrote

Add to the filter, NO SPORTS except for the occasional Golf tournament
that may interest me. I can filter on that too. I choose the tournament
with a specific player or players.

GOLF???? Did you say GOLF????? Watching paint dry is more exciting than
golf. I am falling asleep just thinking about it. :-)




Golf is one of the most spectacular sporting events ever. The only event
more exciting is watching grass grow...

"Lee Michaels" wrote:

GOLF???? Did you say GOLF????? Watching paint dry is more exciting
than golf. I am falling asleep just thinking about it. :-)

If you have never played the game, your comments are understandable;
however, watching todays touring pros "do their thing" is a display of
totally remarkable talent enhanced by endless hours of practice.

Lew

On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 13:42:28 -0500, MikeWhy wrote:
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
...
wrote:

was told that this dimension was related to the bandwidth one
expected to receive. If so, wouldn't there be a difference in required
length for UHF vs VHS, vs FM, say?

I'll let any Hams on list answer your question; however, 60" covers
everthing including FM in my area.

SFWIW, Radio Shack sells a factory made unit which is 60".

The "accepted" (on FCC tests) simplified equation for a half-wave dipole
wire length is:
feet = 468/MHz.

That is the "accepted" formula because it yields the proper length for
any half-wave long wire antenna, including a folded dipole.

A folded dipole simply folds each leg of the dipole back to the
center. Effectively, the 5' long folded dipole has 10' of wire. Its
resonant frequency is thus 46.8 MHz according to the formula.
Interestingly, this works out to about a full wave for the 100 MHz FM
band.

Not correct. The resonant frequency of a half-wave dipole, folded or
otherwise, at 60 inches long is 93.6MHz. That is a little below the
center of the FM broadcast band (98MHz).

The effect of making the half-wave antenna in this manner is twofold;
(1) it raises the feedpoint impedance to 300 ohms, as compared to a
single-wire half-wave dipole at about 75 ohms; and (2) it increases the
useful bandwidth of the antenna somewhat over that of a single-wire
half-wave dipole.

As with any antenna, the actual resonant frequency, feed point impedance
and bandwidth will all be somewhat dependent upon the environment around
the antenna.

The simplified formula differs from the theoretical value in a vacuum
by the velocity factor of the wire, in this case apparently about 95%
(from 492/MHz in a vacuum).

Yes. In free space (vacuum), the wavelength of a radio wave is found by
the equation 300/(Frequency in MHz). For example, 50MHz has a wavelength
of 6 meters in free space. Converting this to feet, where 1 meter is
3.28 feet, gives 984/(Frequency in MHz). Divide by two for a half
wavelength and you get 492/(Frequency in MHz). So you see, the equation
used to compute the length of a half-wave antenna takes into account
fact that we are computing the length of a physical antenna, rather than
free space wavelength. It is resonably accurate so long as the diameter
of the conductor is very small compared to the operating wavelength.

I wouldn't worry much about it. The antenna's resonant frequency is
not nearly so important for receive-only operations as it is for
transmitters. A mismatch on a transmitter presents a very high
impedance, causing the feedline to also radiate, and plays all kinds
of havoc to equipment in the vicinity.

Very oversimplified, but probably appropriately so for this discussion.
However, I would not go so far as to say that the frequency an antenna
is "cut" to isn't important for receiving operations. The antenna will
not perform as well if it is mistuned, and that effect can be dramatic,
depending upon how far off resonance the antenna is.

A dipole is also somewhat directional, with about 2 dB of gain in its
broadside direction compared to a point radiator. This implies the
same 2 dB attenuation in its side lobes, off the ends.

I think you're referring to an isotropic radiator? The gain of a dipole
(folded or not) is around 3dbi IIRC. This is the ideal gain broadside to
(perpendicular to) the antenna. The actual gain will be very much a
function of height above ground, the conductivity of the ground, and the
proximity and type of of surrounding opjects.

The gain "off the ends" can be very low, much worse than 2 or 3db below
the maximum.

Given a choice, I would face the antenna toward the signal and the
ends toward the local RF noise. However, if reception is so marginal
that this is enough to make or break the chain, consider it broken
and get a tuned, multi-element, directional antenna. The same goes
fiddling with the wire length.

Often the proper orientation of any antenna with a small to moderate
amount of directivity, such as a dipole, is a compromise. We can't
always arrange for an interfering source to be 90 degrees away from the
direction of the transmitter we are trying to receive signals from.

--
Art Greenberg
artg at eclipse dot net

"Art Greenberg" wrote in message
m...

A dipole is also somewhat directional, with about 2 dB of gain in its
broadside direction compared to a point radiator. This implies the
same 2 dB attenuation in its side lobes, off the ends.

I think you're referring to an isotropic radiator? The gain of a dipole
(folded or not) is around 3dbi IIRC. This is the ideal gain broadside to
(perpendicular to) the antenna. The actual gain will be very much a
function of height above ground, the conductivity of the ground, and the
proximity and type of of surrounding opjects.

The gain "off the ends" can be very low, much worse than 2 or 3db below
the maximum.

Since we care about nits today, 2.15 dBi, actually, and not entirely
applicable due to the parasitic coupling you mentioned. The end nulls will
certainly be considerably different from a simple wire dipole because the
end current nodes do not fall to zero as they must on the simple wire.

Given a choice, I would face the antenna toward the signal and the
ends toward the local RF noise. However, if reception is so marginal
that this is enough to make or break the chain, consider it broken
and get a tuned, multi-element, directional antenna. The same goes
fiddling with the wire length.

Often the proper orientation of any antenna with a small to moderate
amount of directivity, such as a dipole, is a compromise. We can't
always arrange for an interfering source to be 90 degrees away from the
direction of the transmitter we are trying to receive signals from.

Apparently, you were not then "given a choice."

Douglas Johnson wrote:

Our local PBS does a lot of good
shows late at night. I can see them with no loss of sleep.

You watch Red Green too? :-)

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
...

"Lee Michaels" wrote:

GOLF???? Did you say GOLF????? Watching paint dry is more exciting than
golf. I am falling asleep just thinking about it. :-)

If you have never played the game, your comments are understandable;
however, watching todays touring pros "do their thing" is a display of
totally remarkable talent enhanced by endless hours of practice.

Lew

Absolutely! And unlike most all other sports with big money pay, a golfer
only gets paid if he plays well enough to place. Can a baseball, football,
soccer, basketball, or hockey player say that?
A golfer normally gets no help from team mates. He is 100% responsible for
his score.

"Leon" wrote:

Yeah I pretty much don't watch that crap either.

Add to your filter, NO Commercials,

Because you can fast forward through a commercial a 1 hour show is
now a 40 minute show and and the show you like to watch does not
take as much of your time to watch.

It's 23 minutes program, 7 minutes commercial per 30 minutes on the
clock; however, what I find a much larger PITA is what the networks do
with their 23 minutes.

It goes something like this:

1) Summarize what we just told you.
2) Tell you what we are going to tell you.
3) Tell you what we told you we were going to tell you.
4) Summarize what we just told you.
5) Tell you a commercial is coming and they will return after it.

Basic outline of a speech, it hasn't changed in years.

If you are lucky, #5, which is the new material, might reach 10-12
minutes per 30 minute segment.

A communication rate of about 30%-35% is a total waste of my time.

Don't get me wrong, in times of emergency, broadcasting does a
fantastic job.

OTOH, the product they try to sell to pay the bills is not a very good
product IMHO.

I'm not about to invest resources in equipment nor my time to use it
in order to create something that my make it to mediocre status.

As the old saying goes, a sows ear does not a silk purse make.

Lew

Lew Hodgett wrote:

.... snip

It goes something like this:

1) Summarize what we just told you.
2) Tell you what we are going to tell you.
3) Tell you what we told you we were going to tell you.
4) Summarize what we just told you.
5) Tell you a commercial is coming and they will return after it.

Basic outline of a speech, it hasn't changed in years.

If you are lucky, #5, which is the new material, might reach 10-12
minutes per 30 minute segment.

A communication rate of about 30%-35% is a total waste of my time.

Don't get me wrong, in times of emergency, broadcasting does a
fantastic job.

OTOH, the product they try to sell to pay the bills is not a very good
product IMHO.


Well, that's close. However, that is not really the product. *You* are
the product that they deliver to the advertisers to pay the bills. The
product you cite above is really the bait to deliver you to the
advertisers.



--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
...


It's 23 minutes program, 7 minutes commercial per 30 minutes on the clock;
however, what I find a much larger PITA is what the networks do with their
23 minutes.

It goes something like this:

1) Summarize what we just told you.
2) Tell you what we are going to tell you.
3) Tell you what we told you we were going to tell you.
4) Summarize what we just told you.
5) Tell you a commercial is coming and they will return after it.



LOL

I hate those celebrity magazine shows.

AND the local news does that.

World Coming To A END! Listen to details on Friday's late night news.

On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 17:47:02 -0500, "MikeWhy"
wrote:

"Art Greenberg" wrote in message
om...

A dipole is also somewhat directional, with about 2 dB of gain in its
broadside direction compared to a point radiator. This implies the
same 2 dB attenuation in its side lobes, off the ends.

A dipole is not "somewhat directional"--it's absolutely directional.
It has its major lobes perpendicular to its axis. It has extreme nulls
off the ends. It is, by definition, directional.

I think you're referring to an isotropic radiator? The gain of a dipole
(folded or not) is around 3dbi IIRC. This is the ideal gain broadside to
(perpendicular to) the antenna. The actual gain will be very much a
function of height above ground, the conductivity of the ground, and the
proximity and type of of surrounding opjects.

The gain "off the ends" can be very low, much worse than 2 or 3db below
the maximum.

A dipole has no gain. In fact, it is the real world reference to which
other antennas are compared to determine their gain. The isotropic
radiator, while interesting to consider in a theoretical sense,
doesn't (and can't) exist. While useful for theoretical modeling, it's
sole purpose in the real world is to make an antenna with gain (Yagi,
LPDA, rhombic, etc.) seem like it has more gain by making the
comparison not legitimately to a dipole, but hyperbolically, to an
isotropic radiator.

Since we care about nits today, 2.15 dBi, actually, and not entirely
applicable due to the parasitic coupling you mentioned. The end nulls will
certainly be considerably different from a simple wire dipole because the
end current nodes do not fall to zero as they must on the simple wire.

Nothing more amusing to me than to see the theoretical dBi (decibels
of gain in reference to an isotropic radiator, which doesn't exixt)
applied to a dipole. Geez, it's a dipole. It has no gain. dBi,
particularly when discussing a dipole, is essentially a worthless
"value." And to further make the point, when one tosses out the
calculated dBi, the antenna used as a reference is almost universally
the dipole (dBd). That's why it's so amusing. One might as well say a
dipole has zero gain when compared to a...dipole. Duh! can anyone
spell tautology?





--
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net
http://www.normstools.com

Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997

email addy de-spam-ified due to 1,000 spams per month.
If you can't figure out how to use it, I probably wouldn't
care to correspond with you anyway.

"LRod" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 17:47:02 -0500, "MikeWhy"
wrote:

"Art Greenberg" wrote in message
news:49udnSEkFIc5SGnUnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@supernews. com...

A dipole is also somewhat directional, with about 2 dB of gain in its
broadside direction compared to a point radiator. This implies the
same 2 dB attenuation in its side lobes, off the ends.

A dipole is not "somewhat directional"--it's absolutely directional.
It has its major lobes perpendicular to its axis. It has extreme nulls
off the ends. It is, by definition, directional.

I think you're referring to an isotropic radiator? The gain of a dipole
(folded or not) is around 3dbi IIRC. This is the ideal gain broadside to
(perpendicular to) the antenna. The actual gain will be very much a
function of height above ground, the conductivity of the ground, and the
proximity and type of of surrounding opjects.

The gain "off the ends" can be very low, much worse than 2 or 3db below
the maximum.

A dipole has no gain. In fact, it is the real world reference to which
other antennas are compared to determine their gain. The isotropic
radiator, while interesting to consider in a theoretical sense,
doesn't (and can't) exist. While useful for theoretical modeling, it's
sole purpose in the real world is to make an antenna with gain (Yagi,
LPDA, rhombic, etc.) seem like it has more gain by making the
comparison not legitimately to a dipole, but hyperbolically, to an
isotropic radiator.

Since we care about nits today, 2.15 dBi, actually, and not entirely
applicable due to the parasitic coupling you mentioned. The end nulls will
certainly be considerably different from a simple wire dipole because the
end current nodes do not fall to zero as they must on the simple wire.

Nothing more amusing to me than to see the theoretical dBi (decibels
of gain in reference to an isotropic radiator, which doesn't exixt)
applied to a dipole. Geez, it's a dipole. It has no gain. dBi,
particularly when discussing a dipole, is essentially a worthless
"value." And to further make the point, when one tosses out the
calculated dBi, the antenna used as a reference is almost universally
the dipole (dBd). That's why it's so amusing. One might as well say a
dipole has zero gain when compared to a...dipole. Duh! can anyone
spell tautology?

Zero similarly doesn't exist in older number systems. Even they learned the
errors of their ways, or at least succumbed to natural selection pressures
in their own way.

Dipoles have non-uniform directivity. It would make a lousy basis of
reference.