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)

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

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

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)

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.

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

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)

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

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)

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.

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

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

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)

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)

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

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

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.

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.

Sorta like a EULA - either Agree, or... oh well...

--

-Mike-

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)

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.

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)

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.

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

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)

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?

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.

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

"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

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

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

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.

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

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