| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
TV Stand is coming along
On 2/28/2013 8:33 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
If those ads were served by a third party (e.g. google ads), then it's because you've allowed them. What an ignorant, bull**** attitude and remark ... what ****ing planet you been living on? Of course most websites with blogs these days ALLOW, and for heaven's sake, ENCOURAGE, advertisers gasp ... especially those who produce and/or stream video. Bandwidth cost money, and monetizing a site, via advertising ... in case that is something besides unmitigated ignorance you're exhibiting above .... is an everyday occurrence on the Internet these days Get a ****ing clue, Bubba ... or No more Amazon, Lee Valley, Rockler, YouTube, or any other modern website/blog for you. -- eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net https://plus.google.com/114902129577517371552/posts http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/ KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious) |
TV Stand is coming along
On 2/27/2013 8:14 PM, Mike M wrote:
Looks good Brian, using Firefox there is an addon called no script which lets you select what sites can run script. It's amazing how many sites just don't work with out java. It is nice to only turn on as much as you need to. Mike M Do you mean Java or JavaScript? I haven't had Java installed for a couple of years and have yet to hit a site that doesn't work because it is missing. JavaScript on the other hand is all over the place. The bill pay system on every bank I have used uses JavaScript. The local utilities use JavaScript to present your bill online. Many companies use Java for their intranet apps. From what I have read, that was the original intent for Java. I know the intranet where I used to work was eat up with it. Mike |
TV Stand is coming along
On 2/28/2013 9:48 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 2/28/2013 8:33 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote: If those ads were served by a third party (e.g. google ads), then it's because you've allowed them. What an ignorant, bull**** attitude and remark ... what ****ing planet you been living on? Of course most websites with blogs these days ALLOW, and for heaven's sake, ENCOURAGE, advertisers gasp ... especially those who produce and/or stream video. Bandwidth cost money, and monetizing a site, via advertising ... in case that is something besides unmitigated ignorance you're exhibiting above ... is an everyday occurrence on the Internet these days Get a ****ing clue, Bubba ... or No more Amazon, Lee Valley, Rockler, YouTube, or any other modern website/blog for you. Sounds like one of your feet is liberal (little regard for privacy) and the other is conservative (show me the money). As usual, I guess, the right answer lies in between. Bill |
TV Stand is coming along
On 2/28/2013 9:25 AM, Bill wrote:
On 2/28/2013 9:48 AM, Swingman wrote: On 2/28/2013 8:33 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote: If those ads were served by a third party (e.g. google ads), then it's because you've allowed them. What an ignorant, bull**** attitude and remark ... what ****ing planet you been living on? Of course most websites with blogs these days ALLOW, and for heaven's sake, ENCOURAGE, advertisers gasp ... especially those who produce and/or stream video. Bandwidth cost money, and monetizing a site, via advertising ... in case that is something besides unmitigated ignorance you're exhibiting above ... is an everyday occurrence on the Internet these days Get a ****ing clue, Bubba ... or No more Amazon, Lee Valley, Rockler, YouTube, or any other modern website/blog for you. Sounds like one of your feet is liberal (little regard for privacy) and the other is conservative (show me the money). As usual, I guess, the right answer lies in between. Ignorance is no excuse ... in that regard, and in a nutshell, and without getting too technical: Websites/blogs do NOT, as a rule, keep the advertiser's "media" (image/photo/banner adverts/etc) on their servers. Scripts served up (which your browser ALLOWS, then executes, usually by default), by the website/blogs you visit, contain links to the ADVERTISER'S domain, on the advertiser's server. That media (image/photo/banner ad/etc) is served up, by request (by an http "get" in the ADVERTISER'S script when it is executed, client side, which you ALLOW, or not), to _your_ web browser when you visit the website/blog containing the adverts. It is when that Advertiser's image/photo/banner ad/whatever is served up on your screen (at the request of YOUR browser with that http "Get" in the script, and that _you_ ALLOWED to be executed, client side) that the "third party" cookie is also left. So, in effect, it is YOUR browser _requesting (AND ALLOWING)_ the media offered by the ADVERTISER (including executing the client side scripts containing the links to advertisers domains), so you can view it on your monitor. Again, if you don't want the scripts and cookies, disable the scripts from being executed on your (client) side, and the disable the ability to leave the cookies, in _your_ browser, and live with any consequences, if that is what YOU chose. It is the way the "world wide web" works ... you either live with it and learn to do so at your convenience; don't use it; or be subjected, like a sheep, to the manipulation of others. Your choice ... labels like "liberal", "conservative" or otherwise are merely foolish contrivances which serve NO purpose in this regard. -- eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net https://plus.google.com/114902129577517371552/posts http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/ KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious) |
TV Stand is coming along
Swingman writes:
On 2/28/2013 8:33 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote: If those ads were served by a third party (e.g. google ads), then it's because you've allowed them. What an ignorant, bull**** attitude and remark ... what ****ing planet you been living on? I'm not sure why you felt it necessary to rant. I made no value judgement, just stated a simple fact. I do recall Brian once stating that he didn't use third-party ads, when he first started posting his webpage to this newsgroup. |
TV Stand is coming along
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 9:33:20 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
writes: On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 11:06:07 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote: wrote: Paste the url here. You've changed your page tonight. It's not there now. Please! It never was there. You are living up to my original thoughts of you up in the thread. Trim your posts, please. When I went to your homepage, I was served a selection of adverts on the right hand side. Only two ads for woodworking magazines. (Mainly for woodworking mags). ONLY woodworking mags. Since I don't have the ability to view videos here, I didn't bother to try your videos. If those ads were served by a third party (e.g. google ads), then it's because you've allowed Nope. No google ads on my site. Those mag ads are served by me via agreements set up with the publishers. them. scott |
TV Stand is coming along
On 2/28/2013 10:25 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Swingman writes: On 2/28/2013 8:33 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote: If those ads were served by a third party (e.g. google ads), then it's because you've allowed them. What an ignorant, bull**** attitude and remark ... what ****ing planet you been living on? I'm not sure why you felt it necessary to rant. I made no value judgement, just stated a simple fact. Why? Because you made an accusatory, smug declaration, as "fact", and which contains NO basis in "fact" whatsoever. The "fact" is that it is the client side execution of a script is what ALLOWED those "ads to be served by a third party" to the web browser in question. Brian himself said there are no Google ads, another "fact" which you clearly assumed? Brian serves a banquet, from caviar (video content with value), to conversation (comment section). There is also a ham sandwich available ... but no one is forcing you to eat the ham sandwich but ignorance of the "fact" that Brian is not forcing you to. That is a "fact" ... -- eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net https://plus.google.com/114902129577517371552/posts http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/ KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious) |
TV Stand is coming along
On 2/28/2013 12:07 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 2/28/2013 10:25 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote: There is also a ham sandwich available ... but no one is forcing you to eat the ham sandwich but ignorance of the "fact" that Brian is not forcing you to. That is a "fact" ... Not used to seeing "ignorance" used as a noun, it took me a while to digest that! ; ) I always appreciate the efforts anyone makes to inform! Bill |
TV Stand is coming along
On 2/28/2013 11:32 AM, Bill wrote:
On 2/28/2013 12:07 PM, Swingman wrote: On 2/28/2013 10:25 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote: There is also a ham sandwich available ... but no one is forcing you to eat the ham sandwich but ignorance of the "fact" that Brian is not forcing you to. That is a "fact" ... Not used to seeing "ignorance" used as a noun, it took me a while to digest that! ; ) I always appreciate the efforts anyone makes to inform! LOL ... sound as if you mean it, Bill! :) BTW, Scott "wrote" none of the above ... he will likely not appreciate the attribution. ;) -- eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net https://plus.google.com/114902129577517371552/posts http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/ KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious) |
TV Stand is coming along
On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 10:04:41 -0500, Mike wrote:
On 2/27/2013 8:14 PM, Mike M wrote: Looks good Brian, using Firefox there is an addon called no script which lets you select what sites can run script. It's amazing how many sites just don't work with out java. It is nice to only turn on as much as you need to. Mike M Do you mean Java or JavaScript? I haven't had Java installed for a couple of years and have yet to hit a site that doesn't work because it is missing. JavaScript on the other hand is all over the place. The bill pay system on every bank I have used uses JavaScript. The local utilities use JavaScript to present your bill online. Many companies use Java for their intranet apps. From what I have read, that was the original intent for Java. I know the intranet where I used to work was eat up with it. Mike Probably java script. It hurts but I'll plead ignorance. |
TV Stand is coming along
Mike M wrote:
On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 10:04:41 -0500, Mike wrote: On 2/27/2013 8:14 PM, Mike M wrote: Looks good Brian, using Firefox there is an addon called no script which lets you select what sites can run script. It's amazing how many sites just don't work with out java. It is nice to only turn on as much as you need to. Mike M Do you mean Java or JavaScript? I haven't had Java installed for a couple of years and have yet to hit a site that doesn't work because it is missing. JavaScript on the other hand is all over the place. The bill pay system on every bank I have used uses JavaScript. The local utilities use JavaScript to present your bill online. Many companies use Java for their intranet apps. From what I have read, that was the original intent for Java. I know the intranet where I used to work was eat up with it. Mike Probably java script. It hurts but I'll plead ignorance. Plead, hell, my wife will testify to itg She reminds me all the time, too |
TV Stand is coming along
Swingman wrote:
Not used to seeing "ignorance" used as a noun, it took me a while to digest that! ; ) I always appreciate the efforts anyone makes to inform! LOL ... sound as if you mean it, Bill! :) I wasn't even sure I understood the verbage I was replying to above, and even less so once I posted. However, I still apprecriate the efforts anyone makes to inform/explain, unless they are clueless (I'm censoring myself). BTW, Scott "wrote" none of the above ... he will likely not appreciate the attribution. ;) Well, he was arguing for the side of the issue I was on at one point, and I appreciated his help. I'll apologize to him for for anything he "doesn't appreciate"! I sort of hate to bring it up, but if anyone publishes content of a 3rd party, then they are reponsible for it's content if they are familiar with it--and I think they have a duty to become familiar with it with the passage of time. The publisher ought not to be able to say, "Well, my head was in the sand" and over there I wrote that I am "not responsible". At least, I suspect that a court would rule that way if real damages were incurred. Bill |
TV Stand is coming along
On 2/28/2013 6:18 PM, Bill wrote:
Swingman wrote: Not used to seeing "ignorance" used as a noun, it took me a while to digest that! ; ) I always appreciate the efforts anyone makes to inform! LOL ... sound as if you mean it, Bill! :) I wasn't even sure I understood the verbage I was replying to above, and even less so once I posted. However, I still apprecriate the efforts anyone makes to inform/explain, unless they are clueless (I'm censoring myself). BTW, Scott "wrote" none of the above ... he will likely not appreciate the attribution. ;) Well, he was arguing for the side of the issue I was on at one point, and I appreciated his help. I'll apologize to him for for anything he "doesn't appreciate"! I sort of hate to bring it up, but if anyone publishes content of a 3rd party, then they are reponsible for it's content if they are familiar with it--and I think they have a duty to become familiar with it with the passage of time. The publisher ought not to be able to say, "Well, my head was in the sand" and over there I wrote that I am "not responsible". At least, I suspect that a court would rule that way if real damages were incurred. If I understand you correctly. Unless there has been a recent change (and this stuff changes at the whim of the DOJ, the toadies at the MPAA and RIAA, and the congressman they have bought at the moment) but no ... normally if someone uploads copyrighted content to a site the owner of the site is not liable for a breach of copyright, and actually has immunity under the DCMA. Under the DCMA, there are provisions where the copyright owner can issue a Takedown Notice to the ISP and/or website, and the ISP or website must respond or lose their immunity under the DCMA. There are specific procedures for doing that, but it is still abused quite often by copyright owners mistakenly confusing their copyrights with the concept of Fair Use. If you paid attention, many of the videos on YouTube of the meteorite taken in dashboard camera's in Russian's cars were taken down because of the few seconds of copyrighted music that was playing on the car radio when the video was taken during the meteorite's imminent crash. Although that is not Fair Use, it does illustrate just how ridiculous, and assinine the copyright situation has gotten. -- eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net https://plus.google.com/114902129577517371552/posts http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/ KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious) |
TV Stand is coming along
On 2/28/2013 7:28 PM, Swingman wrote:
normally if someone uploads copyrighted content to a site the owner of the site is not liable for a breach of copyright, and actually has immunity under the DCMA. DMCA, not DCMA, sorry ... -- eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net https://plus.google.com/114902129577517371552/posts http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/ KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious) |
TV Stand is coming along
Swingman wrote:
If you paid attention, many of the videos on YouTube of the meteorite taken in dashboard camera's in Russian's cars were taken down because of the few seconds of copyrighted music that was playing on the car radio when the video was taken during the meteorite's imminent crash. Although that is not Fair Use, it does illustrate just how ridiculous, and assinine the copyright situation has gotten. I missed that one. It's difficult to legislate against incentives that people have...we live in a world of "angle-shooters"--people who seek to find paths around rules prescribed by others. It may make more sense to look at the "economics" involved if one wishes to predict how things are going to play-out, instead of the rules. Bill |
TV Stand is coming along
On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 09:38:04 -0600, Swingman wrote:
On 2/28/2013 9:25 AM, Bill wrote: On 2/28/2013 9:48 AM, Swingman wrote: On 2/28/2013 8:33 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote: If those ads were served by a third party (e.g. google ads), then it's because you've allowed them. What an ignorant, bull**** attitude and remark ... what ****ing planet you been living on? Of course most websites with blogs these days ALLOW, and for heaven's sake, ENCOURAGE, advertisers gasp ... especially those who produce and/or stream video. Bandwidth cost money, and monetizing a site, via advertising ... in case that is something besides unmitigated ignorance you're exhibiting above ... is an everyday occurrence on the Internet these days Get a ****ing clue, Bubba ... or No more Amazon, Lee Valley, Rockler, YouTube, or any other modern website/blog for you. Sounds like one of your feet is liberal (little regard for privacy) and the other is conservative (show me the money). As usual, I guess, the right answer lies in between. Ignorance is no excuse ... in that regard, and in a nutshell, and without getting too technical: Websites/blogs do NOT, as a rule, keep the advertiser's "media" (image/photo/banner adverts/etc) on their servers. Scripts served up (which your browser ALLOWS, then executes, usually by default), by the website/blogs you visit, contain links to the ADVERTISER'S domain, on the advertiser's server. That media (image/photo/banner ad/etc) is served up, by request (by an http "get" in the ADVERTISER'S script when it is executed, client side, which you ALLOW, or not), to _your_ web browser when you visit the website/blog containing the adverts. It is when that Advertiser's image/photo/banner ad/whatever is served up on your screen (at the request of YOUR browser with that http "Get" in the script, and that _you_ ALLOWED to be executed, client side) that the "third party" cookie is also left. So, in effect, it is YOUR browser _requesting (AND ALLOWING)_ the media offered by the ADVERTISER (including executing the client side scripts containing the links to advertisers domains), so you can view it on your monitor. Again, if you don't want the scripts and cookies, disable the scripts from being executed on your (client) side, and the disable the ability to leave the cookies, in _your_ browser, and live with any consequences, if that is what YOU chose. It is the way the "world wide web" works ... you either live with it and learn to do so at your convenience; don't use it; or be subjected, like a sheep, to the manipulation of others. Your choice ... labels like "liberal", "conservative" or otherwise are merely foolish contrivances which serve NO purpose in this regard. +1 It is entirely up to the end user to allow or disallow any content, and whether or not to tolerate the lack of functionality attached to that content. Websites can't "make" you do or accept anything. basilisk |
TV Stand is coming along
On Sat, 2 Mar 2013 10:40:47 -0600, basilisk
It is entirely up to the end user to allow or disallow any content, and whether or not to tolerate the lack of functionality attached to that content. Websites can't "make" you do or accept anything. What you say is absolutely true, but in this digital world unless you want to isolate yourself completely, you're almost forced or at the very least coerced into letting that content in. |
TV Stand is coming along
On 3/2/2013 11:03 AM, Dave wrote:
On Sat, 2 Mar 2013 10:40:47 -0600, basilisk It is entirely up to the end user to allow or disallow any content, and whether or not to tolerate the lack of functionality attached to that content. Websites can't "make" you do or accept anything. What you say is absolutely true, but in this digital world unless you want to isolate yourself completely, you're almost forced or at the very least coerced into letting that content in. Lots of absolutely idiotic things we put up with for convenience. I mean, just imagine the idiot who will put up with paying a TV cable company for a Prepackaged lineup of channels, so each channel can show you 15 minutes of commercials every 30, while you are paying for the privilege. Go figure ... :) -- eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net https://plus.google.com/114902129577517371552/posts http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/ KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious) |
TV Stand is coming along
Swingman wrote:
On 3/2/2013 11:03 AM, Dave wrote: On Sat, 2 Mar 2013 10:40:47 -0600, basilisk It is entirely up to the end user to allow or disallow any content, and whether or not to tolerate the lack of functionality attached to that content. Websites can't "make" you do or accept anything. What you say is absolutely true, but in this digital world unless you want to isolate yourself completely, you're almost forced or at the very least coerced into letting that content in. Lots of absolutely idiotic things we put up with for convenience. I mean, just imagine the idiot who will put up with paying a TV cable company for a Prepackaged lineup of channels, so each channel can show you 15 minutes of commercials every 30, while you are paying for the privilege. Go figure ... :) About 6 months ago I bought an $11 antenna at Best Buy, clipped the cable cord (and their phone cord), and my wife and I have been happier ever since. I/We wish I would have done it sooner. |
TV Stand is coming along
On 3/2/2013 12:20 PM, Bill wrote:
Swingman wrote: On 3/2/2013 11:03 AM, Dave wrote: On Sat, 2 Mar 2013 10:40:47 -0600, basilisk It is entirely up to the end user to allow or disallow any content, and whether or not to tolerate the lack of functionality attached to that content. Websites can't "make" you do or accept anything. What you say is absolutely true, but in this digital world unless you want to isolate yourself completely, you're almost forced or at the very least coerced into letting that content in. Lots of absolutely idiotic things we put up with for convenience. I mean, just imagine the idiot who will put up with paying a TV cable company for a Prepackaged lineup of channels, so each channel can show you 15 minutes of commercials every 30, while you are paying for the privilege. Go figure ... :) About 6 months ago I bought an $11 antenna at Best Buy, clipped the cable cord (and their phone cord), and my wife and I have been happier ever since. I/We wish I would have done it sooner. Been trying like hell to get the other inmates here to agree to the same action ... but it's not an easy sell to females who want to watch things like Greys Anatomy on demand, especially when you succumbed, in a weak moment, to agreeing to let the lead TV sled dog buy a 60" HDTV in exchange for giving up her recliner ... so I could build the sofa table I always wanted while I still had the chops. :( -- eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net https://plus.google.com/114902129577517371552/posts http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/ KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious) |
TV Stand is coming along
Swingman wrote:
On 3/2/2013 12:20 PM, Bill wrote: Swingman wrote: On 3/2/2013 11:03 AM, Dave wrote: On Sat, 2 Mar 2013 10:40:47 -0600, basilisk It is entirely up to the end user to allow or disallow any content, and whether or not to tolerate the lack of functionality attached to that content. Websites can't "make" you do or accept anything. What you say is absolutely true, but in this digital world unless you want to isolate yourself completely, you're almost forced or at the very least coerced into letting that content in. Lots of absolutely idiotic things we put up with for convenience. I mean, just imagine the idiot who will put up with paying a TV cable company for a Prepackaged lineup of channels, so each channel can show you 15 minutes of commercials every 30, while you are paying for the privilege. Go figure ... :) About 6 months ago I bought an $11 antenna at Best Buy, clipped the cable cord (and their phone cord), and my wife and I have been happier ever since. I/We wish I would have done it sooner. Been trying like hell to get the other inmates here to agree to the same action ... but it's not an easy sell to females who want to watch things like Greys Anatomy on demand, especially when you succumbed, in a weak moment, to agreeing to let the lead TV sled dog buy a 60" HDTV in exchange for giving up her recliner ... so I could build the sofa table I always wanted while I still had the chops. :( Just for fun, I went looking: Maybe this will strengthen your case next time you approach the bargaining table. http://www.sidereel.com/Greys_Anatomy With what you'll save on cable, you ought to be able to buy *2* new recliners in a short while--to say nothing of things with blades. |
TV Stand is coming along
Swingman wrote in
: On 3/2/2013 12:20 PM, Bill wrote: Swingman wrote: On 3/2/2013 11:03 AM, Dave wrote: On Sat, 2 Mar 2013 10:40:47 -0600, basilisk It is entirely up to the end user to allow or disallow any content, and whether or not to tolerate the lack of functionality attached to that content. Websites can't "make" you do or accept anything. What you say is absolutely true, but in this digital world unless you want to isolate yourself completely, you're almost forced or at the very least coerced into letting that content in. Lots of absolutely idiotic things we put up with for convenience. I mean, just imagine the idiot who will put up with paying a TV cable company for a Prepackaged lineup of channels, so each channel can show you 15 minutes of commercials every 30, while you are paying for the privilege. Go figure ... :) About 6 months ago I bought an $11 antenna at Best Buy, clipped the cable cord (and their phone cord), and my wife and I have been happier ever since. I/We wish I would have done it sooner. Been trying like hell to get the other inmates here to agree to the same action ... but it's not an easy sell to females who want to watch things like Greys Anatomy on demand, especially when you succumbed, in a weak moment, to agreeing to let the lead TV sled dog buy a 60" HDTV in exchange for giving up her recliner ... so I could build the sofa table I always wanted while I still had the chops. :( snicker -- Best regards Han email address is invalid |
TV Stand is coming along
On 3/2/2013 12:44 PM, Bill wrote:
Swingman wrote: Just for fun, I went looking: Maybe this will strengthen your case next time you approach the bargaining table. http://www.sidereel.com/Greys_Anatomy Amongst the inmates are two Netflix accounts, and one Apple TV, so no shortage of $ane options ... $uffice it to $ay that does not $way them in the lea$t. With what you'll save on cable, you ought to be able to buy *2* new recliners in a short while--to say nothing of things with blades. No more recliners, was glad to get rid of them ... can't put a sofa table behind a recliner, and now I don't have to be rude to the company when they presume to sit in _mine_. Besides, I almost killed one of the pup with those jaws of death when it weighed less than a bag of sugar. -- eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net https://plus.google.com/114902129577517371552/posts http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/ KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious) |
TV Stand is coming along
On 3/2/2013 12:20 PM, Bill wrote:
Swingman wrote: On 3/2/2013 11:03 AM, Dave wrote: On Sat, 2 Mar 2013 10:40:47 -0600, basilisk It is entirely up to the end user to allow or disallow any content, and whether or not to tolerate the lack of functionality attached to that content. Websites can't "make" you do or accept anything. What you say is absolutely true, but in this digital world unless you want to isolate yourself completely, you're almost forced or at the very least coerced into letting that content in. Lots of absolutely idiotic things we put up with for convenience. I mean, just imagine the idiot who will put up with paying a TV cable company for a Prepackaged lineup of channels, so each channel can show you 15 minutes of commercials every 30, while you are paying for the privilege. Go figure ... :) About 6 months ago I bought an $11 antenna at Best Buy, clipped the cable cord (and their phone cord), and my wife and I have been happier ever since. I/We wish I would have done it sooner. What's an antenna? |
TV Stand is coming along
On 3/2/2013 12:37 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 3/2/2013 12:20 PM, Bill wrote: Swingman wrote: On 3/2/2013 11:03 AM, Dave wrote: On Sat, 2 Mar 2013 10:40:47 -0600, basilisk It is entirely up to the end user to allow or disallow any content, and whether or not to tolerate the lack of functionality attached to that content. Websites can't "make" you do or accept anything. What you say is absolutely true, but in this digital world unless you want to isolate yourself completely, you're almost forced or at the very least coerced into letting that content in. Lots of absolutely idiotic things we put up with for convenience. I mean, just imagine the idiot who will put up with paying a TV cable company for a Prepackaged lineup of channels, so each channel can show you 15 minutes of commercials every 30, while you are paying for the privilege. Go figure ... :) About 6 months ago I bought an $11 antenna at Best Buy, clipped the cable cord (and their phone cord), and my wife and I have been happier ever since. I/We wish I would have done it sooner. Been trying like hell to get the other inmates here to agree to the same action ... but it's not an easy sell to females who want to watch things like Greys Anatomy on demand, especially when you succumbed, in a weak moment, to agreeing to let the lead TV sled dog buy a 60" HDTV in exchange for giving up her recliner ... so I could build the sofa table I always wanted while I still had the chops. :( Buy a TIVO DVR. Monthly subscription about $15 IIRC unless you buy the life time service. |
TV Stand is coming along
On Sat, 02 Mar 2013 13:20:29 -0500, Bill
wrote: Swingman wrote: On 3/2/2013 11:03 AM, Dave wrote: On Sat, 2 Mar 2013 10:40:47 -0600, basilisk It is entirely up to the end user to allow or disallow any content, and whether or not to tolerate the lack of functionality attached to that content. Websites can't "make" you do or accept anything. What you say is absolutely true, but in this digital world unless you want to isolate yourself completely, you're almost forced or at the very least coerced into letting that content in. Lots of absolutely idiotic things we put up with for convenience. I mean, just imagine the idiot who will put up with paying a TV cable company for a Prepackaged lineup of channels, so each channel can show you 15 minutes of commercials every 30, while you are paying for the privilege. Go figure ... :) About 6 months ago I bought an $11 antenna at Best Buy, clipped the cable cord (and their phone cord), and my wife and I have been happier ever since. I/We wish I would have done it sooner. Kudos, but why the antenna? There's -nothing- TV worth watching. I gave up TV 6 years ago last month, and I have never missed it. I gave up broadcast radio about the same time. Now I hear no more stupid, loud, and screaming advertisements unless I'm working in someone else's home. Luckily, that's only 1% of my time. I got a subscription to Netflix and have been happy with movies as my sole video entertainment. The USPS is going to make that investment FIFTY PERCENT WORTHLESS next month, when they cut out Saturday deliveries, unless they deep to deliver movies that day, too. I may just give up Netflix delivery, too, while retaining their streaming option to watch on the computer. Maybe Redbox can take up some of the slack. -- If more sane people were armed, crazy people would get off fewer shots. Support the 2nd Amendment |
TV Stand is coming along
"Bill" wrote: About 6 months ago I bought an $11 antenna at Best Buy, clipped the cable cord (and their phone cord), and my wife and I have been happier ever since. I/We wish I would have done it sooner. ---------------------------------------------------------- Damn, the price of folded dipole's has sure gone up. Didn't know 10 ft of twin lead could be so expensive. Lew |
TV Stand is coming along
Swingman wrote in
: No more recliners, was glad to get rid of them ... can't put a sofa table behind a recliner, and now I don't have to be rude to the company when they presume to sit in _mine_. Besides, I almost killed one of the pup with those jaws of death when it weighed less than a bag of sugar. Love my 20+ year-old backsaver. I wish I knew a reasonable way to repair the leather cushion. The leather is OK, but the filling is escaping and the cushion doesn't stay put anymore so I continuously have to get out of the chair and pull it up. Kids and grandkids love it. Spouse doesn't grin. -- Best regards Han email address is invalid |
TV Stand is coming along
On Sat, 02 Mar 2013 13:14:01 -0600, Swingman wrote:
On 3/2/2013 12:44 PM, Bill wrote: Swingman wrote: Just for fun, I went looking: Maybe this will strengthen your case next time you approach the bargaining table. http://www.sidereel.com/Greys_Anatomy Amongst the inmates are two Netflix accounts, and one Apple TV, so no shortage of $ane options ... $uffice it to $ay that does not $way them in the lea$t. With what you'll save on cable, you ought to be able to buy *2* new recliners in a short while--to say nothing of things with blades. No more recliners, was glad to get rid of them ... can't put a sofa table behind a recliner, and now I don't have to be rude to the company when they presume to sit in _mine_. Besides, I almost killed one of the pup with those jaws of death when it weighed less than a bag of sugar. Hauled my only recliner to the dump a couple of years ago. Down to a Morris Chair and matching rocker, and an old sofa which is gone when I build the matching love seat. No room for anyone to sleep on furniture. Mike M |
TV Stand is coming along
Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Bill" wrote: About 6 months ago I bought an $11 antenna at Best Buy, clipped the cable cord (and their phone cord), and my wife and I have been happier ever since. I/We wish I would have done it sooner. ---------------------------------------------------------- Damn, the price of folded dipole's has sure gone up. Didn't know 10 ft of twin lead could be so expensive. Lew All I know is that the payment to Comcast is $90 per month less than it was. $90 here and $90 there, it adds up! And the difference between the "nothing" that is on TV is negligible. We still have more than 20 channels to flip through. |
TV Stand is coming along
Lew Hodgett wrote:
Damn, the price of folded dipole's has sure gone up. Didn't know 10 ft of twin lead could be so expensive. ----------------------------------------------- "Bill" wrote: All I know is that the payment to Comcast is $90 per month less than it was. $90 here and $90 there, it adds up! And the difference between the "nothing" that is on TV is negligible. We still have more than 20 channels to flip through. -------------------------------------------- Isn't digital TV wonderful. After the switch to digital TV, must have access to at least 100 channels. Too bad I don't speak Korean, Vietnamese, Mandarin Chinese, Japanese, Spanish and a few others. They represent at least 40-50 channels combined. Still leaves about 50 channels. BTW, for $11.00, was it a rabbit ears? Lew |
TV Stand is coming along
Lew Hodgett wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote: Damn, the price of folded dipole's has sure gone up. Didn't know 10 ft of twin lead could be so expensive. ----------------------------------------------- "Bill" wrote: All I know is that the payment to Comcast is $90 per month less than it was. $90 here and $90 there, it adds up! And the difference between the "nothing" that is on TV is negligible. We still have more than 20 channels to flip through. -------------------------------------------- Isn't digital TV wonderful. After the switch to digital TV, must have access to at least 100 channels. Too bad I don't speak Korean, Vietnamese, Mandarin Chinese, Japanese, Spanish and a few others. They represent at least 40-50 channels combined. Still leaves about 50 channels. BTW, for $11.00, was it a rabbit ears? Lew Here ya go: http://www.bestbuy.com/site/RCA+-+In...8280834&st=RCA - Indoor Off-Air HDTV Antenna&cp=1&lp=1 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:27 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter