| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340205 is a reply to message #340197] |
Sat, 25 March 2017 10:44   |
mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2017-03-25, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Saturday, March 25, 2017 at 4:22:47 AM UTC-6, ma...@mail.com wrote:
>
>> Big TV, Netflix, sixpacks, what more does a man want.
>
> Just _one_ more thing, though it isn't really a thing; rather, she
> is a person. A mate.
Easily hired in :) You _have_ seen net pornography?
>
> That is why it is not as simple as one might like to produce
> universal contentment. Given an economy that prevents many men
> from being good enough providers for a family with children, given
> the rise to women to equality, which means they can opt to take
> jobs themselves and not be dependent on any man they can find...
> in today's climate, the pornography industry, however much it is
> sneered at, serves a useful purpose.
>
> It has helped to prevent some demagogue or other from overthrowing
> the democracies, plunging us into a new dark age. Unfortunately,
> it hasn't been enough to prevent Donald Trump.
Umm, some do not see it that way.
>
> John Savard
--
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340206 is a reply to message #340197] |
Sat, 25 March 2017 10:48 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 04:49:02 -0700 (PDT)
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> It has helped to prevent some demagogue or other from overthrowing
> the democracies, plunging us into a new dark age. Unfortunately,
> it hasn't been enough to prevent Donald Trump.
I'm hoping (because I have to find something to hope for) that he
will serve as effective aversion therapy and prevent the US from ever
electing anyone like him again. The trouble with aversion therapy is that
it tends to be unpleasant.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340207 is a reply to message #340186] |
Sat, 25 March 2017 10:44 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 25 Mar 2017 10:29:37 GMT
mausg@mail.com wrote:
> On 2017-03-24, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>> The thing about it is that the money from the license goes to
>> fund the state broadcaster (BBC in the UK and RTE in Ireland), and
>> AFAIK none of the other broadcasters see any of it.
>
> RTE has been buying in programs for years, I once tried to organize
> TV coverage of a protest about something, well down the country, RTE
> basically refused to send a crew further than 30 miles from Montrose.
> There _are_ proposals to divide out the licence fee between the
> broadcasting companies, why, I cannot imagine.
Yes I tend not to speculate on what RTE spend the money on.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340210 is a reply to message #340193] |
Sat, 25 March 2017 11:09 |
Michael Black
Messages: 2799
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sat, 25 Mar 2017, mausg@mail.com wrote:
> On 2017-03-24, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Mar 2017, Quadibloc wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, March 24, 2017 at 6:49:41 AM UTC-6, Osmium wrote:
>>>
>>>> I wish the USA had followed the fee model of the UK. Television in the
>>>> US is becoming more and more useless and unwatchable because of the high
>>>> commercial content.
>>>
>>> Some people expressed that wish in Canada as well, in a column in
>>> Macleans I remember reading, at least.
>>>
>> Actually, Canada had some sort of receiving license at some point.
>>
>> My grandfather's radio had some license stapled in the back, it was
>> probably from WWII era. But it was a receiving license, and I assume
>> similar to the UK. I think I looked for information on the internet, but
>> now I can't remember if I never found something, or forgot what I found.
>>
>> Michael
>
> I read years ago that Soviet radios were hardwired to only receive
> State radio, however around 1993, I bought one at a country market, and
> its coverage of FM went well below 89. Police calls could be heard.
> It was probably changed over the years.
>
They may have had a different FM band, I can't remember. I have a Sony
SW-1 very small shortwave radio, and the FM band in it tunes down to
76MHz, because in Japan the FM broadcast band is lower than in North
America. But it still tunes up to 108MHz, the top of the FM band over
here.
I gather initial attempts at "broadcasting" used wires, sending out
musical programs that way, so the "radio" was just an amplifier, but it
sure meant total control.
I also gather that in the US (and maybe Canada) during WWII, the
shortwave bands of some people's radios were supposed to be disabled. I
can't remember who qualified, but the intent was that they might be actual
spies.
Michael
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340214 is a reply to message #340206] |
Sat, 25 March 2017 14:36 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Lawrence Statton NK1G
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
> I'm hoping (because I have to find something to hope for) that he
> will serve as effective aversion therapy and prevent the US from ever
> electing anyone like him again. The trouble with aversion therapy is that
> it tends to be unpleasant.
I'm not so sure -- it's more like drinking a few gallons of turps to rid
oneself of a tapeworm infection. As likely to kill the host as the
parasite.
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340215 is a reply to message #340193] |
Sat, 25 March 2017 14:41 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Lawrence Statton NK1G
mausg@mail.com writes:
> On 2017-03-24, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Mar 2017, Quadibloc wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, March 24, 2017 at 6:49:41 AM UTC-6, Osmium wrote:
>>>
>>>> I wish the USA had followed the fee model of the UK. Television in the
>>>> US is becoming more and more useless and unwatchable because of the high
>>>> commercial content.
>>>
>>> Some people expressed that wish in Canada as well, in a column in
>>> Macleans I remember reading, at least.
>>>
>> Actually, Canada had some sort of receiving license at some point.
>>
>> My grandfather's radio had some license stapled in the back, it was
>> probably from WWII era. But it was a receiving license, and I assume
>> similar to the UK. I think I looked for information on the internet, but
>> now I can't remember if I never found something, or forgot what I found.
>>
>> Michael
>
> I read years ago that Soviet radios were hardwired to only receive
> State radio, however around 1993, I bought one at a country market, and
> its coverage of FM went well below 89. Police calls could be heard.
> It was probably changed over the years.
The Soviet Union (and most of their satellite countries) used an
entirely different band for FM radio ... 65-74 MHz ...
My geek friend Vlad had a rather nice collection of post-war radios in
his apartment in St. Peterburg ... about half of the tri-band SW/MW/LW
radios were "channelized", in that they had selector buttons for the
various programs, and when sold by a dealer would come pre-tuned to the
Officially Sanctioned Programs for your community. On the other hand,
it was a trivial operation to open it and retune any of the presets to
some other frequency.
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340218 is a reply to message #340214] |
Sat, 25 March 2017 15:47 |
Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Saturday, March 25, 2017 at 12:36:03 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Statton NK1G wrote:
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>> I'm hoping (because I have to find something to hope for) that he
>> will serve as effective aversion therapy and prevent the US from ever
>> electing anyone like him again. The trouble with aversion therapy is that
>> it tends to be unpleasant.
>
> I'm not so sure -- it's more like drinking a few gallons of turps to rid
> oneself of a tapeworm infection. As likely to kill the host as the
> parasite.
Would a turpentine enema be less hazardous?
John Savard
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340220 is a reply to message #340153] |
Sat, 25 March 2017 16:14 |
Alfred Falk
Messages: 195
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote in
news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1703241904190.32459@darkstar.example.org:
> On Fri, 24 Mar 2017, Alfred Falk wrote:
>
>> Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote in
>> news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1703241553370.32082@darkstar.example.org:
>>
>>> On Fri, 24 Mar 2017, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Friday, March 24, 2017 at 6:49:41 AM UTC-6, Osmium wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > I wish the USA had followed the fee model of the UK. Television in
>>>> > the US is becoming more and more useless and unwatchable because of
>>>> > the high commercial content.
>>>>
>>>> Some people expressed that wish in Canada as well, in a column in
>>>> Macleans I remember reading, at least.
>>>>
>>> Actually, Canada had some sort of receiving license at some point.
>>>
>>> My grandfather's radio had some license stapled in the back, it was
>>> probably from WWII era. But it was a receiving license, and I assume
>>> similar to the UK. I think I looked for information on the internet,
>>> but now I can't remember if I never found something, or forgot what I
>>> found.
>>
>> Yes, Canada had such licencing. When I was a kid in the 50's I
>> noticed the warning on the back of old radios that you had to have a
>> license to operate them. My father explained it to me. In the early
>> days of radio it was easy for inspectors to spot your external antenna
>> and knock on your door if you weren't listed as having a license. The
>> advent of internal loop antennas for AM radios, made it a lot less
>> convenient to enforce, so the laws changed.
I should add that at least one of the radios with "needs a license" warning
was a tabletop unit with a plastic case and internal loop antenna. One of
them even had a printed circuit board instead of wiring. All with tubes, of
course. We had a lot of them kicking around as my father had some skill
with repair. We even got an old floor-standing model working again - for a
while.
> Thanks. So that gives an indication of when it went away. Yes, this
> was a wooden cased radio with antenna terminals. Though, it just had a
> length of wire hanging off that terminal. It had a shortwave band, and
> in 1970, I was able to receive various shortwave broadcast stations.
>
> In retrospect, it was a better radio than the shortwave radio I got the
> next year, which wsa real junk.
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340222 is a reply to message #340215] |
Sat, 25 March 2017 16:32 |
|
|
Originally posted by: JimP.
On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 12:41:39 -0600, Lawrence Statton NK1G
<lawrence@senguio.mx> wrote:
> mausg@mail.com writes:
>
>> On 2017-03-24, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 24 Mar 2017, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Friday, March 24, 2017 at 6:49:41 AM UTC-6, Osmium wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > I wish the USA had followed the fee model of the UK. Television in the
>>>> > US is becoming more and more useless and unwatchable because of the high
>>>> > commercial content.
>>>>
>>>> Some people expressed that wish in Canada as well, in a column in
>>>> Macleans I remember reading, at least.
>>>>
>>> Actually, Canada had some sort of receiving license at some point.
>>>
>>> My grandfather's radio had some license stapled in the back, it was
>>> probably from WWII era. But it was a receiving license, and I assume
>>> similar to the UK. I think I looked for information on the internet, but
>>> now I can't remember if I never found something, or forgot what I found.
>>>
>>> Michael
>>
>> I read years ago that Soviet radios were hardwired to only receive
>> State radio, however around 1993, I bought one at a country market, and
>> its coverage of FM went well below 89. Police calls could be heard.
>> It was probably changed over the years.
>
> The Soviet Union (and most of their satellite countries) used an
> entirely different band for FM radio ... 65-74 MHz ...
>
> My geek friend Vlad had a rather nice collection of post-war radios in
> his apartment in St. Peterburg ... about half of the tri-band SW/MW/LW
> radios were "channelized", in that they had selector buttons for the
> various programs, and when sold by a dealer would come pre-tuned to the
> Officially Sanctioned Programs for your community. On the other hand,
> it was a trivial operation to open it and retune any of the presets to
> some other frequency.
There are ham radio ooperators who look for, and repair, old 'boat
anchor' radios, i.e. vacuum tube/valve versions with Rather Large
power supplies. At least the transformer is heavy. Nowadays, radios
like the one I bought have external power supplies.
--
Jim
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340229 is a reply to message #340218] |
Sat, 25 March 2017 17:06 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Lawrence Statton NK1G
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
> On Saturday, March 25, 2017 at 12:36:03 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Statton NK1G wrote:
>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>>> I'm hoping (because I have to find something to hope for) that he
>>> will serve as effective aversion therapy and prevent the US from ever
>>> electing anyone like him again. The trouble with aversion therapy is that
>>> it tends to be unpleasant.
>>
>> I'm not so sure -- it's more like drinking a few gallons of turps to rid
>> oneself of a tapeworm infection. As likely to kill the host as the
>> parasite.
>
> Would a turpentine enema be less hazardous?
>
Not sure. But I sure wouldn't want to rip a fart near any open flames
aftewards.
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340231 is a reply to message #340222] |
Sat, 25 March 2017 17:17 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Lawrence Statton NK1G
JimP. <solosam90@gmail.com> writes:
> There are ham radio ooperators who look for, and repair, old 'boat
> anchor' radios, i.e. vacuum tube/valve versions with Rather Large
> power supplies. At least the transformer is heavy. Nowadays, radios
> like the one I bought have external power supplies.
> --
I had rather a large collection of tube gear that I sold and/or gave
away when I left the US ... plus some later "hybrid" stuff, like the
PRC-47 ... Plus several hundredweight of vintage test equipment ( HP
signal generators from AF through 8GHz, Tek 547 with a whole shelf of
plug-in modules, the HP 5245L freq counter, *with* the "VHF" plug-in
adapter )
The only bit of kit I actually wish I hadn't divested was a (much more
modern than boat-anchor) set of Icom all-mode xceivers , 251, 451, and
especially the rather rare 551.
--NK1G
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340233 is a reply to message #340206] |
Sat, 25 March 2017 18:15 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 04:49:02 -0700 (PDT)
> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> It has helped to prevent some demagogue or other from overthrowing
>> the democracies, plunging us into a new dark age. Unfortunately,
>> it hasn't been enough to prevent Donald Trump.
>
> I'm hoping (because I have to find something to hope for) that he
> will serve as effective aversion therapy and prevent the US from ever
> electing anyone like him again. The trouble with aversion therapy is that
> it tends to be unpleasant.
>
I suspect he will lead to someone even worse from the other side.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340261 is a reply to message #340233] |
Sun, 26 March 2017 03:11 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 15:15:35 -0700
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 04:49:02 -0700 (PDT)
>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> It has helped to prevent some demagogue or other from overthrowing
>>> the democracies, plunging us into a new dark age. Unfortunately,
>>> it hasn't been enough to prevent Donald Trump.
>>
>> I'm hoping (because I have to find something to hope for) that
>> he will serve as effective aversion therapy and prevent the US from ever
>> electing anyone like him again. The trouble with aversion therapy is
>> that it tends to be unpleasant.
>>
>
> I suspect he will lead to someone even worse from the other side.
This and the possibility that he might do too much damage are
among the reasons I am hoping not expecting.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340264 is a reply to message #340206] |
Sun, 26 March 2017 04:41 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Brian Reay
On 25/03/2017 14:48, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 04:49:02 -0700 (PDT)
> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> It has helped to prevent some demagogue or other from overthrowing
>> the democracies, plunging us into a new dark age. Unfortunately,
>> it hasn't been enough to prevent Donald Trump.
>
> I'm hoping (because I have to find something to hope for) that he
> will serve as effective aversion therapy and prevent the US from ever
> electing anyone like him again. The trouble with aversion therapy is that
> it tends to be unpleasant.
>
Trump won because people got tired of the cycle of nonsense from those
on the gravy train.
The same reason we voted for Brexit and others European countries are
turning against the status quo.
The woolly nonsense that has sustained the gravy train and those who
support it, are no longer welcome. They can call Trump and others names,
brand people racists, ..... the bottom line is ordinary people are tired
of your bovine muck.
--
Suspect someone is claiming a benefit under false pretences? Incapacity
Benefit or Personal Independence Payment when they don't need it? They
are depriving those in real need!
https://www.gov.uk/report-benefit-fraud
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340270 is a reply to message #340222] |
Sun, 26 March 2017 05:08 |
mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2017-03-25, JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 12:41:39 -0600, Lawrence Statton NK1G
> <lawrence@senguio.mx> wrote:
>
>> mausg@mail.com writes:
>>
>
> There are ham radio ooperators who look for, and repair, old 'boat
> anchor' radios, i.e. vacuum tube/valve versions with Rather Large
> power supplies. At least the transformer is heavy. Nowadays, radios
> like the one I bought have external power supplies.
> --
> Jim
i remember the family having a picnic in the 50's, summer, we had a radio
that you could carry, worked on batteries. Zenith, in the states, made a
similiar one, that could receive SW MW. Around that time, my cousin who
was serving in the US army in Germany, visited, and brought one of the
transistor radios, I bought one the same size a few years, works still, even as
the `better' one die. Around that time, (from possibly faulty memory), the
papers were full of the possibilites of the transistor.
--
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340274 is a reply to message #340210] |
Sat, 25 March 2017 17:44 |
Morten Reistad
Messages: 2108
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1703251106270.1398@darkstar.example.org>,
Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Mar 2017, mausg@mail.com wrote:
>
>> On 2017-03-24, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 24 Mar 2017, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Friday, March 24, 2017 at 6:49:41 AM UTC-6, Osmium wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > I wish the USA had followed the fee model of the UK. Television in the
>>>> > US is becoming more and more useless and unwatchable because of the high
>>>> > commercial content.
>>>>
>>>> Some people expressed that wish in Canada as well, in a column in
>>>> Macleans I remember reading, at least.
>>>>
>>> Actually, Canada had some sort of receiving license at some point.
>>>
>>> My grandfather's radio had some license stapled in the back, it was
>>> probably from WWII era. But it was a receiving license, and I assume
>>> similar to the UK. I think I looked for information on the internet, but
>>> now I can't remember if I never found something, or forgot what I found.
>>>
>>> Michael
>>
>> I read years ago that Soviet radios were hardwired to only receive
>> State radio, however around 1993, I bought one at a country market, and
>> its coverage of FM went well below 89. Police calls could be heard.
>> It was probably changed over the years.
>>
> They may have had a different FM band, I can't remember. I have a Sony
> SW-1 very small shortwave radio, and the FM band in it tunes down to
> 76MHz, because in Japan the FM broadcast band is lower than in North
> America. But it still tunes up to 108MHz, the top of the FM band over
> here.
>
> I gather initial attempts at "broadcasting" used wires, sending out
> musical programs that way, so the "radio" was just an amplifier, but it
> sure meant total control.
Also used to keep up morale in the siege of Leningrad. They were
so desperatly short of everything, but they managed to string
wires around town to have a "radio" (broadcasting was out of the
question, both for military reasons and for pure shortage reasons).
The orcestra in town played "radio" performances. According to
several sources I have read it made a whole difference to hear
music in the middle of the grisly war.
> I also gather that in the US (and maybe Canada) during WWII, the
> shortwave bands of some people's radios were supposed to be disabled. I
> can't remember who qualified, but the intent was that they might be actual
> spies.
WW2 was way too advanced in hobby electronics that anyone competent
could build a shortwave transmitter/resceiver from slaughterd radios.
This would perhaps have worked in WW1, only barely.
And in North Korea they still have the radios that only tune to
government stations. And South Korea regularly broadcasts on those
frequencies.
-- mrr
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340276 is a reply to message #340264] |
Sun, 26 March 2017 06:27 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Bob Eager
On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 09:41:43 +0100, Brian Reay wrote:
> On 25/03/2017 14:48, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 04:49:02 -0700 (PDT)
>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> It has helped to prevent some demagogue or other from overthrowing the
>>> democracies, plunging us into a new dark age. Unfortunately, it hasn't
>>> been enough to prevent Donald Trump.
>>
>> I'm hoping (because I have to find something to hope for) that he
>> will serve as effective aversion therapy and prevent the US from ever
>> electing anyone like him again. The trouble with aversion therapy is
>> that it tends to be unpleasant.
>>
>>
> Trump won because people got tired of the cycle of nonsense from those
> on the gravy train.
>
> The same reason we voted for Brexit and others European countries are
> turning against the status quo.
>
> The woolly nonsense that has sustained the gravy train and those who
> support it, are no longer welcome. They can call Trump and others names,
> brand people racists, ..... the bottom line is ordinary people are tired
> of your bovine muck.
Unfortunately, the reasons for the Trump and Brexit votes are also woolly
nonsense - dangerous woolly nonsense.
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340280 is a reply to message #340261] |
Sun, 26 March 2017 06:19 |
Morten Reistad
Messages: 2108
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <20170326081105.c938ab3a24e41b791f4a6421@eircom.net>,
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 15:15:35 -0700
> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 04:49:02 -0700 (PDT)
>>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It has helped to prevent some demagogue or other from overthrowing
>>>> the democracies, plunging us into a new dark age. Unfortunately,
>>>> it hasn't been enough to prevent Donald Trump.
>>>
>>> I'm hoping (because I have to find something to hope for) that
>>> he will serve as effective aversion therapy and prevent the US from ever
>>> electing anyone like him again. The trouble with aversion therapy is
>>> that it tends to be unpleasant.
>>>
>>
>> I suspect he will lead to someone even worse from the other side.
>
> This and the possibility that he might do too much damage are
> among the reasons I am hoping not expecting.
The checks and balances seem to be working. Both travel bans
have largely been thrown out in court. Obamacare seems to stand,
by a majority of ~20. The links to the russians are being throughly
investigated. And the republican party is becoming quite independent,
especially in the Senate.
So the appropriations bill for the southern fence will meet with
quite a bit of resistance.
All the aid cuts to abortion-allowing organisations are mostly being
absorbed by other nations and NGOs.
And Angela Merkel is now the Leader Of The Free World.
-- mrr
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340281 is a reply to message #340264] |
Sun, 26 March 2017 06:24 |
Morten Reistad
Messages: 2108
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <ob7umn$9hm$1@dont-email.me>, Brian Reay <no.sp@m.com> wrote:
> On 25/03/2017 14:48, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 04:49:02 -0700 (PDT)
>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> It has helped to prevent some demagogue or other from overthrowing
>>> the democracies, plunging us into a new dark age. Unfortunately,
>>> it hasn't been enough to prevent Donald Trump.
>>
>> I'm hoping (because I have to find something to hope for) that he
>> will serve as effective aversion therapy and prevent the US from ever
>> electing anyone like him again. The trouble with aversion therapy is that
>> it tends to be unpleasant.
>>
>
> Trump won because people got tired of the cycle of nonsense from those
> on the gravy train.
>
> The same reason we voted for Brexit and others European countries are
> turning against the status quo.
>
> The woolly nonsense that has sustained the gravy train and those who
> support it, are no longer welcome. They can call Trump and others names,
> brand people racists, ..... the bottom line is ordinary people are tired
> of your bovine muck.
It is a matter of getting the GINI factor back down. (This is a
measure of economic inequality, high factor=high inequality). The FDR
administration had a solution to this that largely fixed this in a
decade. This was called a tax. A quite high tax, on individual
persons, not corporations (initially, before WW2). At very high levels
of consumptions it became more or less confiscatory. It will come
now. ~80% income tax for the 1-percenters will fix this GINI
factor quite fast.
Perhaps not in the US first.
-- mrr
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340283 is a reply to message #340276] |
Sun, 26 March 2017 07:34 |
Morten Reistad
Messages: 2108
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <ejpjc5Fesu5U2@mid.individual.net>,
Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 09:41:43 +0100, Brian Reay wrote:
>
>> On 25/03/2017 14:48, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>> On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 04:49:02 -0700 (PDT)
>>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It has helped to prevent some demagogue or other from overthrowing the
>>>> democracies, plunging us into a new dark age. Unfortunately, it hasn't
>>>> been enough to prevent Donald Trump.
>>>
>>> I'm hoping (because I have to find something to hope for) that he
>>> will serve as effective aversion therapy and prevent the US from ever
>>> electing anyone like him again. The trouble with aversion therapy is
>>> that it tends to be unpleasant.
>>>
>>>
>> Trump won because people got tired of the cycle of nonsense from those
>> on the gravy train.
>>
>> The same reason we voted for Brexit and others European countries are
>> turning against the status quo.
>>
>> The woolly nonsense that has sustained the gravy train and those who
>> support it, are no longer welcome. They can call Trump and others names,
>> brand people racists, ..... the bottom line is ordinary people are tired
>> of your bovine muck.
>
> Unfortunately, the reasons for the Trump and Brexit votes are also woolly
> nonsense - dangerous woolly nonsense.
When the public discource has been so tainted already it is a
slippery slide down to current levels and beyond.
But they US seems to be waking up now.
-- mrr
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340285 is a reply to message #340280] |
Sun, 26 March 2017 08:40 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote:
> In article <20170326081105.c938ab3a24e41b791f4a6421@eircom.net>,
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 15:15:35 -0700
>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 04:49:02 -0700 (PDT)
>>>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > It has helped to prevent some demagogue or other from overthrowing
>>>> > the democracies, plunging us into a new dark age. Unfortunately,
>>>> > it hasn't been enough to prevent Donald Trump.
>>>>
>>>> I'm hoping (because I have to find something to hope for) that
>>>> he will serve as effective aversion therapy and prevent the US from ever
>>>> electing anyone like him again. The trouble with aversion therapy is
>>>> that it tends to be unpleasant.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I suspect he will lead to someone even worse from the other side.
>>
>> This and the possibility that he might do too much damage are
>> among the reasons I am hoping not expecting.
>
> The checks and balances seem to be working. Both travel bans
> have largely been thrown out in court. Obamacare seems to stand,
> by a majority of ~20. The links to the russians are being throughly
> investigated. And the republican party is becoming quite independent,
> especially in the Senate.
>
> So the appropriations bill for the southern fence will meet with
> quite a bit of resistance.
>
> All the aid cuts to abortion-allowing organisations are mostly being
> absorbed by other nations and NGOs.
>
> And Angela Merkel is now the Leader Of The Free World.
I Had hoped, however, that the Democrats would look at the election results
and move toward the center to pick up the voters they should have won
there. However, they seem to be doing the opposite and becoming more
rabidly "progressive" what kinds of candidates can we expect next time?
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340287 is a reply to message #340113] |
Sun, 26 March 2017 09:38 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Osmium wrote:
> On 3/24/2017 5:04 AM, mausg@mail.com wrote:
>> On 2017-03-23, Joe Makowiec <makowiec@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 23 Mar 2017 in alt.folklore.computers, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>>
>>>> I would like to add "BBC Television received in New York - November
>>>> 1938" due to some freak atmospheric conditions.
>>>>
>>>> < https://archive.org/details/BbcTelevisionReceivedInNewYork-1 938>
>>> Yabbut - did the people in New York pay their license fee?
>>>
>> One of the more obscure reasons for the American Colonists breaking away :)
>>
>>
> I wish the USA had followed the fee model of the UK.
It wouldn't have worked. How are you going to divvy up the collections
via states? Or do you really want the Fecs to be in charge of what
is on TV?
Take a look at PBS' mess; their programming is 1-1/2 months of commercials
out of 3 months; and PBS gets funding from the Federal government.
> Television in the
> US is becoming more and more useless and unwatchable because of the high
> commercial content. By television I mean to include cable since I
> rarely watch actual broadcast television. It is not uncommon to see
> content blocks as short as six or even five minutes. To have to pay
> *them* for this 'service' is just adding insult to injury. Old
> commercial; programs are being repackaged so a 30 minute episode takes
> 35 minutes now on some channels.
I'd like to be able to understand the commercials which are airing.
I have no idea what ~25% of them are selling. These are ussually
the ones which emulate the MTV model of filming.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340291 is a reply to message #340281] |
Sun, 26 March 2017 09:38 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Morten Reistad wrote:
> In article <ob7umn$9hm$1@dont-email.me>, Brian Reay <no.sp@m.com> wrote:
>> On 25/03/2017 14:48, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>> On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 04:49:02 -0700 (PDT)
>>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It has helped to prevent some demagogue or other from overthrowing
>>>> the democracies, plunging us into a new dark age. Unfortunately,
>>>> it hasn't been enough to prevent Donald Trump.
>>>
>>> I'm hoping (because I have to find something to hope for) that he
>>> will serve as effective aversion therapy and prevent the US from ever
>>> electing anyone like him again. The trouble with aversion therapy is that
>>> it tends to be unpleasant.
>>>
>>
>> Trump won because people got tired of the cycle of nonsense from those
>> on the gravy train.
>>
>> The same reason we voted for Brexit and others European countries are
>> turning against the status quo.
>>
>> The woolly nonsense that has sustained the gravy train and those who
>> support it, are no longer welcome. They can call Trump and others names,
>> brand people racists, ..... the bottom line is ordinary people are tired
>> of your bovine muck.
>
> It is a matter of getting the GINI factor back down. (This is a
> measure of economic inequality, high factor=high inequality). The FDR
> administration had a solution to this that largely fixed this in a
> decade. This was called a tax. A quite high tax, on individual
> persons, not corporations (initially, before WW2). At very high levels
> of consumptions it became more or less confiscatory. It will come
> now. ~80% income tax for the 1-percenters will fix this GINI
> factor quite fast.
>
> Perhaps not in the US first.
Why do you think that the revenue from those taxes will solve the
GINI factor? The stream of money will go to the US government
with a little bit trickling down through bureaucracies and finally
a few cents will be disbursed to some people. The propaganda
supporting this tax change will train the low and middle income
class (note the use of the word _income_) that everything should
be "free". This will finish demolishing the work ethic which
made the US strong. The majority of people will no longer
be self-reliant and expect the "government" to solve all
of their financial and basic needs problems.
That tax revenue would be better used in the private sector
building manufacturing plants and encouraging small business
start-ups.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340300 is a reply to message #340287] |
Sun, 26 March 2017 11:28 |
osmium
Messages: 749
Registered: April 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 3/26/2017 8:38 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:
> Osmium wrote:
>> On 3/24/2017 5:04 AM, mausg@mail.com wrote:
>>> On 2017-03-23, Joe Makowiec <makowiec@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 23 Mar 2017 in alt.folklore.computers, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > I would like to add "BBC Television received in New York - November
>>>> > 1938" due to some freak atmospheric conditions.
>>>> >
>>>> > < https://archive.org/details/BbcTelevisionReceivedInNewYork-1 938>
>>>> Yabbut - did the people in New York pay their license fee?
>>>>
>>> One of the more obscure reasons for the American Colonists breaking away :)
>>>
>>>
>> I wish the USA had followed the fee model of the UK.
> It wouldn't have worked. How are you going to divvy up the collections
> via states? Or do you really want the Fecs to be in charge of what
> is on TV?
>
> Take a look at PBS' mess; their programming is 1-1/2 months of commercials
> out of 3 months; and PBS gets funding from the Federal government.
Their story is that they only get partial funding; if they got full
funding the pledge drive wouldn't be needed. I think it is about 13
days out of 90 days.
I can live with the current management, it's not what I would choose but
I can live with it. When I watch TV about 80% of the time it is PBS.
ISTM there should be more Canadian and Australian content than what we
see - near zero
>
>> Television in the
>> US is becoming more and more useless and unwatchable because of the high
>> commercial content. By television I mean to include cable since I
>> rarely watch actual broadcast television. It is not uncommon to see
>> content blocks as short as six or even five minutes. To have to pay
>> *them* for this 'service' is just adding insult to injury. Old
>> commercial; programs are being repackaged so a 30 minute episode takes
>> 35 minutes now on some channels.
> I'd like to be able to understand the commercials which are airing.
> I have no idea what ~25% of them are selling. These are ussually
> the ones which emulate the MTV model of filming.
>
> /BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340301 is a reply to message #340281] |
Sun, 26 March 2017 11:34 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
In article <gfhkqd-1gd.ln1
@sambook.reistad.name>, first@last.name.invalid
says...
>
> In article <ob7umn$9hm$1@dont-email.me>, Brian Reay <no.sp@m.com> wrote:
>> On 25/03/2017 14:48, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>> On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 04:49:02 -0700 (PDT)
>>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It has helped to prevent some demagogue or other from overthrowing
>>>> the democracies, plunging us into a new dark age. Unfortunately,
>>>> it hasn't been enough to prevent Donald Trump.
>>>
>>> I'm hoping (because I have to find something to hope for) that he
>>> will serve as effective aversion therapy and prevent the US from ever
>>> electing anyone like him again. The trouble with aversion therapy is that
>>> it tends to be unpleasant.
>>>
>>
>> Trump won because people got tired of the cycle of nonsense from those
>> on the gravy train.
>>
>> The same reason we voted for Brexit and others European countries are
>> turning against the status quo.
>>
>> The woolly nonsense that has sustained the gravy train and those who
>> support it, are no longer welcome. They can call Trump and others names,
>> brand people racists, ..... the bottom line is ordinary people are tired
>> of your bovine muck.
>
> It is a matter of getting the GINI factor back down. (This is a
> measure of economic inequality, high factor=high inequality). The FDR
> administration had a solution to this that largely fixed this in a
> decade. This was called a tax. A quite high tax, on individual
> persons, not corporations (initially, before WW2). At very high levels
> of consumptions it became more or less confiscatory. It will come
> now. ~80% income tax for the 1-percenters will fix this GINI
> factor quite fast.
>
> Perhaps not in the US first.
If income inequality was an issue in US politics
do you really think that enough people would
have voted for a billionaire to get him elected?
You're right that taxing the rich into the same
poverty as everyone else will fix income
inequality but what will it actually accomplish
that the poor people care about?
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340302 is a reply to message #340291] |
Sun, 26 March 2017 11:35 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
In article
<PM00054BA25674404E@aca402c9.ipt.aol.com>,
See.above@aol.com says...
>
> Morten Reistad wrote:
>> In article <ob7umn$9hm$1@dont-email.me>, Brian Reay <no.sp@m.com> wrote:
>>> On 25/03/2017 14:48, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 04:49:02 -0700 (PDT)
>>>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > It has helped to prevent some demagogue or other from overthrowing
>>>> > the democracies, plunging us into a new dark age. Unfortunately,
>>>> > it hasn't been enough to prevent Donald Trump.
>>>>
>>>> I'm hoping (because I have to find something to hope for) that he
>>>> will serve as effective aversion therapy and prevent the US from ever
>>>> electing anyone like him again. The trouble with aversion therapy is that
>>>> it tends to be unpleasant.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Trump won because people got tired of the cycle of nonsense from those
>>> on the gravy train.
>>>
>>> The same reason we voted for Brexit and others European countries are
>>> turning against the status quo.
>>>
>>> The woolly nonsense that has sustained the gravy train and those who
>>> support it, are no longer welcome. They can call Trump and others names,
>>> brand people racists, ..... the bottom line is ordinary people are tired
>>> of your bovine muck.
>>
>> It is a matter of getting the GINI factor back down. (This is a
>> measure of economic inequality, high factor=high inequality). The FDR
>> administration had a solution to this that largely fixed this in a
>> decade. This was called a tax. A quite high tax, on individual
>> persons, not corporations (initially, before WW2). At very high levels
>> of consumptions it became more or less confiscatory. It will come
>> now. ~80% income tax for the 1-percenters will fix this GINI
>> factor quite fast.
>>
>> Perhaps not in the US first.
>
> Why do you think that the revenue from those taxes will solve the
> GINI factor? The stream of money will go to the US government
> with a little bit trickling down through bureaucracies and finally
> a few cents will be disbursed to some people. The propaganda
> supporting this tax change will train the low and middle income
> class (note the use of the word _income_) that everything should
> be "free". This will finish demolishing the work ethic which
> made the US strong. The majority of people will no longer
> be self-reliant and expect the "government" to solve all
> of their financial and basic needs problems.
>
> That tax revenue would be better used in the private sector
> building manufacturing plants and encouraging small business
> start-ups.
Unfortunately the US private sector builds its
manufacturing plants in China.
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340303 is a reply to message #340285] |
Sun, 26 March 2017 11:40 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
In article
<964749650.512224439.271478.peter_flass-
yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>,
peter_flass@yahoo.com says...
>
> Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <20170326081105.c938ab3a24e41b791f4a6421@eircom.net>,
>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 15:15:35 -0700
>>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>>> > On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 04:49:02 -0700 (PDT)
>>>> > Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> It has helped to prevent some demagogue or other from overthrowing
>>>> >> the democracies, plunging us into a new dark age. Unfortunately,
>>>> >> it hasn't been enough to prevent Donald Trump.
>>>> >
>>>> > I'm hoping (because I have to find something to hope for) that
>>>> > he will serve as effective aversion therapy and prevent the US from ever
>>>> > electing anyone like him again. The trouble with aversion therapy is
>>>> > that it tends to be unpleasant.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> I suspect he will lead to someone even worse from the other side.
>>>
>>> This and the possibility that he might do too much damage are
>>> among the reasons I am hoping not expecting.
>>
>> The checks and balances seem to be working. Both travel bans
>> have largely been thrown out in court. Obamacare seems to stand,
>> by a majority of ~20. The links to the russians are being throughly
>> investigated. And the republican party is becoming quite independent,
>> especially in the Senate.
>>
>> So the appropriations bill for the southern fence will meet with
>> quite a bit of resistance.
>>
>> All the aid cuts to abortion-allowing organisations are mostly being
>> absorbed by other nations and NGOs.
>>
>> And Angela Merkel is now the Leader Of The Free World.
>
> I Had hoped, however, that the Democrats would look at the election results
> and move toward the center to pick up the voters they should have won
> there. However, they seem to be doing the opposite and becoming more
> rabidly "progressive" what kinds of candidates can we expect next time?
Quite possibly the kind that make Trump look
good enough to get reelected.
The electoral system seems to be badly broken.
Politicians are too distanced from the
constituencies to allow the voters to get any
real idea what the candidate is about--all we
have is campaign rhetoric and marketing and the
pathetic efforts of what used to be the press.
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340304 is a reply to message #340287] |
Sun, 26 March 2017 11:42 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
In article <PM00054B8EB8CB57F8
@aca41bb2.ipt.aol.com>, See.above@aol.com
says...
>
> Osmium wrote:
>> On 3/24/2017 5:04 AM, mausg@mail.com wrote:
>>> On 2017-03-23, Joe Makowiec <makowiec@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 23 Mar 2017 in alt.folklore.computers, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > I would like to add "BBC Television received in New York - November
>>>> > 1938" due to some freak atmospheric conditions.
>>>> >
>>>> > < https://archive.org/details/BbcTelevisionReceivedInNewYork-1 938>
>>>> Yabbut - did the people in New York pay their license fee?
>>>>
>>> One of the more obscure reasons for the American Colonists breaking away :)
>>>
>>>
>> I wish the USA had followed the fee model of the UK.
>
> It wouldn't have worked. How are you going to divvy up the collections
> via states? Or do you really want the Fecs to be in charge of what
> is on TV?
>
> Take a look at PBS' mess; their programming is 1-1/2 months of commercials
> out of 3 months; and PBS gets funding from the Federal government.
>
>> Television in the
>> US is becoming more and more useless and unwatchable because of the high
>> commercial content. By television I mean to include cable since I
>> rarely watch actual broadcast television. It is not uncommon to see
>> content blocks as short as six or even five minutes. To have to pay
>> *them* for this 'service' is just adding insult to injury. Old
>> commercial; programs are being repackaged so a 30 minute episode takes
>> 35 minutes now on some channels.
>
> I'd like to be able to understand the commercials which are airing.
> I have no idea what ~25% of them are selling. These are ussually
> the ones which emulate the MTV model of filming.
>
> /BAH
The ads for medications are the ones that puzzle
me. "snakeolix has side effects including
blindness, paralysis, and death, ask your doctor
about snakeoilix" with happy attractive people
cavorting in the background and no clue what
condition it is supposed to address.
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340307 is a reply to message #340270] |
Sun, 26 March 2017 11:50 |
Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sunday, March 26, 2017 at 3:08:31 AM UTC-6, ma...@mail.com wrote:
> Around that time, (from possibly faulty memory), the
> papers were full of the possibilites of the transistor.
Oh, indeed. After all, it did what a vacuum tube did, but
it was smaller, lighter, and didn't use up lots of
electricity for the heater filament.
It led to radios people could carry in their pockets, it
led to larger and more powerful computers - compare the
Control Data 6600 or the STRETCH to the IBM 709 - or
smaller and more economical ones, like the PDP-8 and the
PDP-8/S.
So the transistor was something worth getting excited
about!
John Savard
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340308 is a reply to message #340281] |
Sun, 26 March 2017 11:52 |
Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sunday, March 26, 2017 at 5:13:15 AM UTC-6, Morten Reistad wrote:
> It is a matter of getting the GINI factor back down. (This is a
> measure of economic inequality, high factor=high inequality). The FDR
> administration had a solution to this that largely fixed this in a
> decade. This was called a tax. A quite high tax, on individual
> persons, not corporations (initially, before WW2). At very high levels
> of consumptions it became more or less confiscatory. It will come
> now. ~80% income tax for the 1-percenters will fix this GINI
> factor quite fast.
Why do you think that the wealth of the rich, rather than
the poverty of the poor, is the problem?
John Savard
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340309 is a reply to message #340301] |
Sun, 26 March 2017 11:55 |
Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sunday, March 26, 2017 at 9:34:00 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
> You're right that taxing the rich into the same
> poverty as everyone else will fix income
> inequality but what will it actually accomplish
> that the poor people care about?
I agree with your criticism, but I suppose there is still
an answer to the question. Relative wealth and poverty do
have their significance, as it gives the wealthy an
advantage over the poor - material toys aren't what is
most important in life, after all.
But yes, envy is destructive. One wants jobs, and that
means one wants to encourage businessmen to invest, not
punish them for doing so.
John Savard
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340319 is a reply to message #340264] |
Sun, 26 March 2017 15:29 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2017-03-26, Brian Reay <no.sp@m.com> wrote:
> Trump won because people got tired of the cycle of nonsense from those
> on the gravy train.
It's quite ironic that Trump can claim to be speaking for "the people"
when he himself is getting a cushy ride on said gravy train. Oh well,
I guess CEOs are people too...
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340321 is a reply to message #340280] |
Sun, 26 March 2017 15:29 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2017-03-26, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote:
> The links to the russians are being throughly investigated.
At least now that Trump's accusations of Obama wiretapping him
have been debunked. I suspect that it was all just an attempt
to distract people's attention from the Russian connection.
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340323 is a reply to message #340307] |
Sun, 26 March 2017 15:29 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2017-03-26, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Sunday, March 26, 2017 at 3:08:31 AM UTC-6, ma...@mail.com wrote:
>
>> Around that time, (from possibly faulty memory), the
>> papers were full of the possibilites of the transistor.
>
> Oh, indeed. After all, it did what a vacuum tube did, but
> it was smaller, lighter, and didn't use up lots of
> electricity for the heater filament.
And it switched on instantly, which was quite a novelty at the time.
Ironically, with modern computerized gadgets becoming increasingly
complex, the time it takes for one of them (e.g. a modern TV) to boot
up is about the same as the time it took for an old tube model to start
working. I've gone back to talking about "waiting for it to warm up".
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340325 is a reply to message #340287] |
Sun, 26 March 2017 15:29 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2017-03-26, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
> I'd like to be able to understand the commercials which are airing.
> I have no idea what ~25% of them are selling.
You don't have to. You're just supposed to buy it.
> These are ussually the ones which emulate the MTV model of filming.
Why not? Their target audience watches MTV.
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340326 is a reply to message #340308] |
Sun, 26 March 2017 15:43 |
Morten Reistad
Messages: 2108
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <228cef6c-11a6-41de-a797-9d5db6e23c1b@googlegroups.com>,
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Sunday, March 26, 2017 at 5:13:15 AM UTC-6, Morten Reistad wrote:
>
>> It is a matter of getting the GINI factor back down. (This is a
>> measure of economic inequality, high factor=high inequality). The FDR
>> administration had a solution to this that largely fixed this in a
>> decade. This was called a tax. A quite high tax, on individual
>> persons, not corporations (initially, before WW2). At very high levels
>> of consumptions it became more or less confiscatory. It will come
>> now. ~80% income tax for the 1-percenters will fix this GINI
>> factor quite fast.
>
> Why do you think that the wealth of the rich, rather than
> the poverty of the poor, is the problem?
>
> John Savard
Both.
-- mrr
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340331 is a reply to message #340307] |
Sun, 26 March 2017 16:01 |
Andreas Kohlbach
Messages: 1456
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 08:50:48 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc wrote:
>
> On Sunday, March 26, 2017 at 3:08:31 AM UTC-6, ma...@mail.com wrote:
>> Around that time, (from possibly faulty memory), the
>> papers were full of the possibilites of the transistor.
>
> Oh, indeed. After all, it did what a vacuum tube did, but
> it was smaller, lighter, and didn't use up lots of
> electricity for the heater filament.
>
> It led to radios people could carry in their pockets, it
> led to larger and more powerful computers - compare the
> Control Data 6600 or the STRETCH to the IBM 709 - or
> smaller and more economical ones, like the PDP-8 and the
> PDP-8/S.
>
> So the transistor was something worth getting excited
> about!
The next step (tinier though) when the micro processor was out in 1971,
which caused the computer revolution in the mid/late 70s.
I think the transistor was more important than the CPU.
Next step of course when we switched to Quantum Computing in the year
*&*%($#%&*&(&^ 'Connection lost'
--
Andreas
You know you are a redneck if
your family tree does not fork.
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340333 is a reply to message #340326] |
Sun, 26 March 2017 16:06 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
In article <d8ilqd-fmk.ln1
@sambook.reistad.name>, first@last.name.invalid
says...
>
> In article <228cef6c-11a6-41de-a797-9d5db6e23c1b@googlegroups.com>,
> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> On Sunday, March 26, 2017 at 5:13:15 AM UTC-6, Morten Reistad wrote:
>>
>>> It is a matter of getting the GINI factor back down. (This is a
>>> measure of economic inequality, high factor=high inequality). The FDR
>>> administration had a solution to this that largely fixed this in a
>>> decade. This was called a tax. A quite high tax, on individual
>>> persons, not corporations (initially, before WW2). At very high levels
>>> of consumptions it became more or less confiscatory. It will come
>>> now. ~80% income tax for the 1-percenters will fix this GINI
>>> factor quite fast.
>>
>> Why do you think that the wealth of the rich, rather than
>> the poverty of the poor, is the problem?
>>
>> John Savard
>
> Both.
How is the wealth of the rich, in and of itself,
a problem?
And how will impoverishing the rich help the
poor?
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340335 is a reply to message #340222] |
Sun, 26 March 2017 16:39 |
Michael Black
Messages: 2799
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sat, 25 Mar 2017, JimP. wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 12:41:39 -0600, Lawrence Statton NK1G
> <lawrence@senguio.mx> wrote:
>
>> mausg@mail.com writes:
>>
>>> On 2017-03-24, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 24 Mar 2017, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > On Friday, March 24, 2017 at 6:49:41 AM UTC-6, Osmium wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> I wish the USA had followed the fee model of the UK. Television in the
>>>> >> US is becoming more and more useless and unwatchable because of the high
>>>> >> commercial content.
>>>> >
>>>> > Some people expressed that wish in Canada as well, in a column in
>>>> > Macleans I remember reading, at least.
>>>> >
>>>> Actually, Canada had some sort of receiving license at some point.
>>>>
>>>> My grandfather's radio had some license stapled in the back, it was
>>>> probably from WWII era. But it was a receiving license, and I assume
>>>> similar to the UK. I think I looked for information on the internet, but
>>>> now I can't remember if I never found something, or forgot what I found.
>>>>
>>>> Michael
>>>
>>> I read years ago that Soviet radios were hardwired to only receive
>>> State radio, however around 1993, I bought one at a country market, and
>>> its coverage of FM went well below 89. Police calls could be heard.
>>> It was probably changed over the years.
>>
>> The Soviet Union (and most of their satellite countries) used an
>> entirely different band for FM radio ... 65-74 MHz ...
>>
>> My geek friend Vlad had a rather nice collection of post-war radios in
>> his apartment in St. Peterburg ... about half of the tri-band SW/MW/LW
>> radios were "channelized", in that they had selector buttons for the
>> various programs, and when sold by a dealer would come pre-tuned to the
>> Officially Sanctioned Programs for your community. On the other hand,
>> it was a trivial operation to open it and retune any of the presets to
>> some other frequency.
>
> There are ham radio ooperators who look for, and repair, old 'boat
> anchor' radios, i.e. vacuum tube/valve versions with Rather Large
> power supplies. At least the transformer is heavy. Nowadays, radios
> like the one I bought have external power supplies.
If you go back far enough, radios, both receivers and transmitters, tended
to have separate power supplies. It does spread the weight a bit, and
having the power supply separate keeps the radio cooler.
When transceivers came along to amateur radio, many did use a separate
power supply, the advantage being that you could choose a 12VDC supply for
mobile operation, or 120VAC for home use. I think some did have dual
supplies, but they were rare. The COllins KWM-2 transceiver had the
choice of a power supply that sat in the external speaker box, or one that
in effect bolted onto the back. A friend had one like that complete with
the custom suitcase for carrying it.
So in the early seventies, it was a fairly big thing for the Yaesu FT-101
to come along, it had the power supply built in, but was still not too
heavy to carry, and had a handle on the side to make it carryable. Even
my Kenwood TS-830S has a handle on the side.
Nichael
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: articles on commercial television debut, 1939 [message #340337 is a reply to message #340274] |
Sun, 26 March 2017 16:54 |
Michael Black
Messages: 2799
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sat, 25 Mar 2017, Morten Reistad wrote:
> In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1703251106270.1398@darkstar.example.org>,
> Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Mar 2017, mausg@mail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On 2017-03-24, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 24 Mar 2017, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > On Friday, March 24, 2017 at 6:49:41 AM UTC-6, Osmium wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> I wish the USA had followed the fee model of the UK. Television in the
>>>> >> US is becoming more and more useless and unwatchable because of the high
>>>> >> commercial content.
>>>> >
>>>> > Some people expressed that wish in Canada as well, in a column in
>>>> > Macleans I remember reading, at least.
>>>> >
>>>> Actually, Canada had some sort of receiving license at some point.
>>>>
>>>> My grandfather's radio had some license stapled in the back, it was
>>>> probably from WWII era. But it was a receiving license, and I assume
>>>> similar to the UK. I think I looked for information on the internet, but
>>>> now I can't remember if I never found something, or forgot what I found.
>>>>
>>>> Michael
>>>
>>> I read years ago that Soviet radios were hardwired to only receive
>>> State radio, however around 1993, I bought one at a country market, and
>>> its coverage of FM went well below 89. Police calls could be heard.
>>> It was probably changed over the years.
>>>
>> They may have had a different FM band, I can't remember. I have a Sony
>> SW-1 very small shortwave radio, and the FM band in it tunes down to
>> 76MHz, because in Japan the FM broadcast band is lower than in North
>> America. But it still tunes up to 108MHz, the top of the FM band over
>> here.
>>
>> I gather initial attempts at "broadcasting" used wires, sending out
>> musical programs that way, so the "radio" was just an amplifier, but it
>> sure meant total control.
>
> Also used to keep up morale in the siege of Leningrad. They were
> so desperatly short of everything, but they managed to string
> wires around town to have a "radio" (broadcasting was out of the
> question, both for military reasons and for pure shortage reasons).
>
I wsa thinking about much earlier, before radio broadcasting.
But now that you mention it, I think I have heard about that in Leningrad.
It makes sense, it's easier to send audio through wires than broadcasting
over radio.
> The orcestra in town played "radio" performances. According to
> several sources I have read it made a whole difference to hear
> music in the middle of the grisly war.
>
>> I also gather that in the US (and maybe Canada) during WWII, the
>> shortwave bands of some people's radios were supposed to be disabled. I
>> can't remember who qualified, but the intent was that they might be actual
>> spies.
>
> WW2 was way too advanced in hobby electronics that anyone competent
> could build a shortwave transmitter/resceiver from slaughterd radios.
>
> This would perhaps have worked in WW1, only barely.
>
But a rule doesn't have to have sense to it. Various people were interned
in Canada and the US, simply because they were of a certain heritage.
That didn't mean they were spies. So I can imagine rules in place that
would limit listening to foreign stations which weren't effective because
the ones who really were spies either had equipment, or the means of
building it.
Michael
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
