|
pc
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TV programs may be copy protected - by hardware requirementGreat article. Interesting as to where this is heading. I believe
that the broadcasters have taken over, and are the real ones in charge. Politicians cannot afford to cross them, as they are dependent on television coverage for re-election. (Just because I am paranoid, doesn't mean that they aren't after us!) Copyright laws were never intended to create "intellectual property". This is a new term, indicating that the copyright holder has the right to hoard that to which they have title to. This is a new concept as well. Copyright was not the sole right to copy, but the right to market and distribute. People have been copying passages from books for centuries, for their purpose, or for quoting in support or rebuttals to arguments. The purpose of copyright is to encourage people to create, but for the benefit of the consumer and intellectual thought. When the product no longer has marketable value, then it becomes public domain. Thomas Jefferson never believed that patents or copyrights should last more than 19 years, what he had calculated to be the duration of a genration. Most are concerned about distribution of copyrighted material over the internet without the permission of the author. This should be troubling to us all. It is patently wrong, and could bring about a reduction of new material in the future. But there are so many reasons for a person to be able to archive his own material, get rid of troublesome menus, remove offensive scenes and language, &c that fall under the fair use doctrine. As a final thought, think of all of the great old films that have fallen into disrepair due to lack of attention from the "copyright holders". Very often, films are restored from private copies, that have been protected by others for decades. I do not trust that the DVD that I purchase today will be available ten or twenty years from now. Oh well, I am off to save my VHS copy of "ET" to DVD. The current release of the DVD has the shotguns that the cops were threating the kids with mambie pambie walkie talkies. I want to save a little bit of political incorrectness for the record. Wind me up Alpha, and off I go.....
Show quote
"Mark Burns" <marcus520***@yahoo.com> wrote in message LOL. Actually, the DVD has both versions.news:1109135860.423858.201800@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > Great article. Interesting as to where this is heading. I believe > that the broadcasters have taken over, and are the real ones in charge. > Politicians cannot afford to cross them, as they are dependent on > television coverage for re-election. > > (Just because I am paranoid, doesn't mean that they aren't after us!) > > Copyright laws were never intended to create "intellectual property". > This is a new term, indicating that the copyright holder has the right > to hoard that to which they have title to. This is a new concept as > well. > > Copyright was not the sole right to copy, but the right to market and > distribute. People have been copying passages from books for > centuries, for their purpose, or for quoting in support or rebuttals to > arguments. The purpose of copyright is to encourage people to create, > but for the benefit of the consumer and intellectual thought. When the > product no longer has marketable value, then it becomes public domain. > Thomas Jefferson never believed that patents or copyrights should last > more than 19 years, what he had calculated to be the duration of a > genration. > > Most are concerned about distribution of copyrighted material over the > internet without the permission of the author. This should be > troubling to us all. It is patently wrong, and could bring about a > reduction of new material in the future. > > But there are so many reasons for a person to be able to archive his > own material, get rid of troublesome menus, remove offensive scenes and > language, &c that fall under the fair use doctrine. > > As a final thought, think of all of the great old films that have > fallen into disrepair due to lack of attention from the "copyright > holders". Very often, films are restored from private copies, that > have been protected by others for decades. I do not trust that the DVD > that I purchase today will be available ten or twenty years from now. > > Oh well, I am off to save my VHS copy of "ET" to DVD. The current > release of the DVD has the shotguns that the cops were threating the > kids with mambie pambie walkie talkies. I want to save a little bit of > political incorrectness for the record. > > Wind me up Alpha, and off I go..... > In article <1109135860.423858.201***@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
marcus520***@yahoo.com says... > Oh well, I am off to save my VHS copy of "ET" to DVD. The current The original DVD release has BOTH the shotguns and the walkie-talkies..> release of the DVD has the shotguns that the cops were threating the > kids with mambie pambie walkie talkies. I want to save a little bit of > political incorrectness for the record. > -- Larry Lynch Mystic, Ct. Larry:
Thanks. I actually own the DVD release since it came out, but have not even broken the plastic on it. I was unaware, but shall have a look. I was being tounge-in-cheek in the post. I remember when I read the Spielberg had done this that he was also the one who ranted about the colorizing of old films and testified to that before Congress. Not that I disagree, but digital touch up is digital touch up. Cheers, Mark "Alpha" <log***@trip.net> wrote in message For what it is worth, here in the UK many digital TV programmes (especiallynews:111o1c5ga6nlec@corp.supernews.com... > > > http://apnews.excite.com/article/20050222/D88DOU0G0.html > > > > per per view) are already protected from recording either on tape or DVD. DaveB UK It would be nice if you could justify this statement - I have a Sky+ box
with a HDD record facility, and occasionally record programs on the Digi box, then later record them into the PC, and can easilly make DVD's from the recorded material. I've yet to see any protection. Are you talking Macrovision protection or something else? Show quote >> http://apnews.excite.com/article/20050222/D88DOU0G0.html > > For what it is worth, here in the UK many digital TV programmes > (especially > per per view) are already protected from recording either on tape or DVD. I am not certain - it looks like the typical macromedia protection with the
rolling pictures and light and dark. This is on Telewest Cable on Front Row Movies that are pay per view. So it may not be the case with Sky+ It could have been "dropped" from Telewest as I haven't tried to record from Front Row for a little while knowing what happened last time. All the free programmes appear OK though recently. DaveB UK Show quote "Alan Shepherd" <spam@awshepherd.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:421c4e03$0$5554$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com... > It would be nice if you could justify this statement - I have a Sky+ box > with a HDD record facility, and occasionally record programs on the Digi > box, then later record them into the PC, and can easilly make DVD's from the > recorded material. I've yet to see any protection. > > Are you talking Macrovision protection or something else? > > >> http://apnews.excite.com/article/20050222/D88DOU0G0.html > > > > For what it is worth, here in the UK many digital TV programmes > > (especially > > per per view) are already protected from recording either on tape or DVD. > > Dunno about this, but never tried the Pay Per view films, the normal film
channels work fine, and I was talking Sky+, not the normal sky box, also I connect the PC to the S-Video output on the box, using a Pinacle Movie Box. Show quote >I am not certain - it looks like the typical macromedia protection with the > rolling pictures and light and dark. > > This is on Telewest Cable on Front Row Movies that are pay per view. > > So it may not be the case with Sky+ > > It could have been "dropped" from Telewest as I haven't tried to record > from > Front Row for a little while knowing what happened last time. All the free > programmes appear OK though recently. >> It would be nice if you could justify this statement - I have a Sky+ box >> with a HDD record facility, and occasionally record programs on the Digi >> box, then later record them into the PC, and can easilly make DVD's from > the >> recorded material. I've yet to see any protection. >> >> Are you talking Macrovision protection or something else? >> >> >> http://apnews.excite.com/article/20050222/D88DOU0G0.html >> > >> > For what it is worth, here in the UK many digital TV programmes >> > (especially >> > per per view) are already protected from recording either on tape or > DVD. "Alpha" <log***@trip.net> wrote in message I'm glad my brand-new TV is all analog!news:111o1c5ga6nlec@corp.supernews.com... > http://apnews.excite.com/article/20050222/D88DOU0G0.html "Margrave of Brandenburg" <lhorwin***@usa.com> writes: You won't be when the FCC orders that analog broadcasting cease!> "Alpha" <log***@trip.net> wrote in message > news:111o1c5ga6nlec@corp.supernews.com... >> http://apnews.excite.com/article/20050222/D88DOU0G0.html > > I'm glad my brand-new TV is all analog! -- Forte International, P.O. Box 1412, Ridgecrest, CA 93556-1412 Ronald Cole <ron***@forte-intl.com> Phone: (760) 499-9142 President, CEO Fax: (760) 499-9152 My GPG fingerprint: C3AF 4BE9 BEA6 F1C2 B084 4A88 8851 E6C8 69E3 B00B "Ronald Cole" <ron***@forte-intl.com> wrote in message I don't use broadcast signals. Haven't since I got cable in 1983.news:m3r7j0fdbl.fsf@yakisoba.forte-intl.com... > "Margrave of Brandenburg" <lhorwin***@usa.com> writes: > > "Alpha" <log***@trip.net> wrote in message > > news:111o1c5ga6nlec@corp.supernews.com... > >> http://apnews.excite.com/article/20050222/D88DOU0G0.html > > > > I'm glad my brand-new TV is all analog! > > You won't be when the FCC orders that analog broadcasting cease! In article <0gRUd.113$w85***@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, lhorwin***@usa.com
says... Show quote > "Ronald Cole" <ron***@forte-intl.com> wrote in message While paying my cable bill yesterday, I asked about it and was told: "IF > news:m3r7j0fdbl.fsf@yakisoba.forte-intl.com... > > "Margrave of Brandenburg" <lhorwin***@usa.com> writes: > > > "Alpha" <log***@trip.net> wrote in message > > > news:111o1c5ga6nlec@corp.supernews.com... > > >> http://apnews.excite.com/article/20050222/D88DOU0G0.html > > > > > > I'm glad my brand-new TV is all analog! > > > > You won't be when the FCC orders that analog broadcasting cease! > > I don't use broadcast signals. Haven't since I got cable in 1983. > > > (note the word IF) it comes to pass that the analog signals are shut down, the cable company will be issuing decoders to all customers that dont currently need one (I believe the charge for that is around $2 a month but I didn't ask). They will be "down converting" the signal for analog TVs. -- Larry Lynch Mystic, Ct. Soon may be the time to learn!
Here are a couple of interesting links concerning broadcast flags: http://www.eff.org/broadcastflag/cookbook/buildin.php Bookmark that one! A glimmer of hope here as judges warn the FCC that they are not omnipotent: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-02-22-tv-piracy_x.htm Cheers... Ronald Cole <ron***@forte-intl.com> wrote:
> You won't be when the FCC orders that analog broadcasting cease! Which will spark popular protest so intense that the FCC will quicklycave in or be overruled by Congress, thus ending this silly French-inspired exercise in progress by decree. "Neill Massello" <neillmasse***@earthlink.net> wrote in message Not likely. The bandwidth currently being used by analog TVnews:1gspogy.1r70fsv1blst93N%neillmassello@earthlink.net... > Ronald Cole <ron***@forte-intl.com> wrote: > > > You won't be when the FCC orders that analog broadcasting cease! > > Which will spark popular protest so intense that the FCC will quickly > cave in or be overruled by Congress, thus ending this silly > French-inspired exercise in progress by decree. is supposed to be allocated for other purposes. "Mark Jones" <noem***@mindspring.com> writes: The translator group I volunteer for has already abandoned channels 63> "Neill Massello" <neillmasse***@earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:1gspogy.1r70fsv1blst93N%neillmassello@earthlink.net... >> Ronald Cole <ron***@forte-intl.com> wrote: >> > You won't be when the FCC orders that analog broadcasting cease! >> >> Which will spark popular protest so intense that the FCC will quickly >> cave in or be overruled by Congress, thus ending this silly >> French-inspired exercise in progress by decree. > > Not likely. The bandwidth currently being used by analog TV > is supposed to be allocated for other purposes. and 69. Now we're preparing to abandon all channels above 51, because the FCC is champing at the bit to "rent" that spectrum (because 700 MHz is so attractive to wireless). -- Forte International, P.O. Box 1412, Ridgecrest, CA 93556-1412 Ronald Cole <ron***@forte-intl.com> Phone: (760) 499-9142 President, CEO Fax: (760) 499-9152 My GPG fingerprint: C3AF 4BE9 BEA6 F1C2 B084 4A88 8851 E6C8 69E3 B00B Neill Massello wrote:
> Ronald Cole <ron***@forte-intl.com> wrote: Too late...it Was Congress's IDEA .. The Frequencies that Channel 2 > > >>You won't be when the FCC orders that analog broadcasting cease! > > > Which will spark popular protest so intense that the FCC will quickly > cave in or be overruled by Congress, thus ending this silly > French-inspired exercise in progress by decree. thru 66 Have been auctioned off to The CELL PHONE INDUSTRY Cell Phone companies Get Full use of those Freq's on JULY 1, 2006 Show quote > On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 01:29:00 -0500, no one <no***@lost.cat> wrote:
Show quote > Dammit, my little battery TV won't work after that, unless I get a> >Neill Massello wrote: >> Ronald Cole <ron***@forte-intl.com> wrote: >> >> >>>You won't be when the FCC orders that analog broadcasting cease! >> >> >> Which will spark popular protest so intense that the FCC will quickly >> cave in or be overruled by Congress, thus ending this silly >> French-inspired exercise in progress by decree. > > >Too late...it Was Congress's IDEA .. The Frequencies that Channel 2 >thru 66 Have been auctioned off to The CELL PHONE INDUSTRY > >Cell Phone companies Get Full use of those Freq's on JULY 1, 2006 battery operated HDTV/Terrestral-Digital decoder that can supply it an analog signal again. -- Owamanga! On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 17:30:31 GMT, Owamanga <nom***@hotmail.com> wrote:
Show quote >On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 01:29:00 -0500, no one <no***@lost.cat> wrote: Well, at least it was auctioned. The spectrum the broadcast networks> >> >> >>Neill Massello wrote: >>> Ronald Cole <ron***@forte-intl.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>You won't be when the FCC orders that analog broadcasting cease! >>> >>> >>> Which will spark popular protest so intense that the FCC will quickly >>> cave in or be overruled by Congress, thus ending this silly >>> French-inspired exercise in progress by decree. >> >> >>Too late...it Was Congress's IDEA .. The Frequencies that Channel 2 >>thru 66 Have been auctioned off to The CELL PHONE INDUSTRY >> >>Cell Phone companies Get Full use of those Freq's on JULY 1, 2006 > >Dammit, my little battery TV won't work after that, unless I get a >battery operated HDTV/Terrestral-Digital decoder that can supply it an >analog signal again. use was basically given to them. I'd say they owed the public something back. -Rich Hasn't been auctioned yet, I don't believe.
I am with Neill on this, I think that Congress will cave. I can't see half the country going out and buying a digital to analog converter at $300+ each. Don't know what the cable/satellite penetration is, but would guess less than 1/2. Most people that I know do not get cable or satellite. We are generally talking about $35 per month and up for basic service. I know very vew with HD television. Mark Burns <marcus520***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Don't know what the cable/satellite penetration is, but would guess The last figure I saw was that more than 70% of American households had> less than 1/2. Most people that I know do not get cable or satellite. > We are generally talking about $35 per month and up for basic service. > I know very vew with HD television. cable or satellite. The problem is that, even in those households, there are sets that aren't connected to the cable or satellite -- in bedrooms, kitchens, etc -- and almost none with digital tuners. What the FCC is doing in regard to digital TV is analogous to having approved a color TV standard in the late 1950s that wasn't compatible with existing black and white sets, allowing the continued sale of non-compatible sets, and then banning color broadcasts in the early 1960s when most sets still weren't color. It's nutty. ----------
In article <1109709450.921473.124***@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, "Mark Burns" <marcus520***@yahoo.com> wrote: > Hasn't been auctioned yet, I don't believe. Geez, I didn't know you even had TVs out in those Ozark backwoods.> > I am with Neill on this, I think that Congress will cave. I can't see > half the country going out and buying a digital to analog converter at > $300+ each. > > Don't know what the cable/satellite penetration is, but would guess > less than 1/2. Most people that I know do not get cable or satellite. "Mark Burns" <marcus520***@yahoo.com> wrote in message How do you get $300 each. In Australia which is not known for the lowest news:1109709450.921473.124820@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > Hasn't been auctioned yet, I don't believe. > > I am with Neill on this, I think that Congress will cave. I can't see > half the country going out and buying a digital to analog converter at > $300+ each. prices the cost is down to about US$85. Just guessing from the cost of an HDTV tuner and what I remember
someone on television saying a while back... There aren't many HDTV tuners arround. Here is the Best Buy selection of two. http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?id=cat03022&type=category To date I haven't seen a set top DTV/Analog converter box for sale. I don't know why a DTV converter would be that much cheaper than an HDTV receiver. They are both going to require a digital tuner. One can get a fairly inexpensive HD tuner for the computer, but the set top boxes are going to cost more. I would expect the price to come down, but probably not for a while. Maybe we'll all just give up on television and throw out both the Republicans and Democrats and their fat media money friends, electing true libertarian champions of the people. And maybe pigs will fly... Camper wrote: Show quote > "Mark Burns" <marcus520***@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:1109709450.921473.124820@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > > Hasn't been auctioned yet, I don't believe. > > > > I am with Neill on this, I think that Congress will cave. I can't see > > half the country going out and buying a digital to analog converter at > > $300+ each. > > How do you get $300 each. In Australia which is not known for the lowest > prices the cost is down to about US$85.
Show quote
"Mark Burns" <marcus520***@yahoo.com> wrote in message They started off dear here a couple of years ago but have steadily come down news:1109878204.859912.99560@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > Just guessing from the cost of an HDTV tuner and what I remember > someone on television saying a while back... > > There aren't many HDTV tuners arround. Here is the Best Buy selection > of two. > > http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?id=cat03022&type=category > > To date I haven't seen a set top DTV/Analog converter box for sale. I > don't know why a DTV converter would be that much cheaper than an HDTV > receiver. They are both going to require a digital tuner. > > One can get a fairly inexpensive HD tuner for the computer, but the set > top boxes are going to cost more. > > I would expect the price to come down, but probably not for a while. > > Maybe we'll all just give up on television and throw out both the > Republicans and Democrats and their fat media money friends, electing > true libertarian champions of the people. > > And maybe pigs will fly... in price to make it affordable. One big benefit of digital if you have a widescreen Tv is that they broadcast in widescreen Camper wrote:
> "Mark Burns" <marcus520***@yahoo.com> wrote in message Thats FOR ONE TV..> news:1109709450.921473.124820@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > >>Hasn't been auctioned yet, I don't believe. >> >>I am with Neill on this, I think that Congress will cave. I can't see >>half the country going out and buying a digital to analog converter at >>$300+ each. > > > How do you get $300 each. In Australia which is not known for the lowest > prices the cost is down to about US$85. 3 Tv's Means 3 decorder's is close to the $300.00 figure Show quote > > Where have you seen these set top converter boxes? I can't find them.
Mark Mark Burns wrote:
> Where have you seen these set top converter boxes? I can't find them. I Agree!!> > Mark No one is Manufacturing Them that I can see Either . Another bush Administration Ploy... Whoops sorry it is July 1, 2006 and I forgot to push for Set top decoders,, Now you MUST help My Business people Thrive and PURCHASE a DIGITAL TV ( $500 t0 $7,000 INVESTMENT) if you want to watch TV ! Show quote > "no one" <no***@lost.cat> wrote in message Are TVs produced from oil?news:8O6dnQ22bO8PXbrfRVn-hQ@comcast.com... > > Mark Burns wrote: > > Where have you seen these set top converter boxes? I can't find them. > > No one is Manufacturing Them that I can see Either . > Another bush Administration Ploy... Whoops sorry it is July 1, 2006 and > I forgot to push for Set top decoders,, Now you MUST help My Business > people Thrive and PURCHASE a DIGITAL TV ( $500 t0 $7,000 INVESTMENT) > if you want to watch TV !
Show quote
"no one" <no***@lost.cat> wrote in message So you networks must not be broadcasting in digital yet? Here in Australia news:8O6dnQ22bO8PXbrfRVn-hQ@comcast.com... > > > Mark Burns wrote: >> Where have you seen these set top converter boxes? I can't find them. >> >> Mark > > I Agree!! > > No one is Manufacturing Them that I can see Either . > Another bush Administration Ploy... Whoops sorry it is July 1, 2006 and I > forgot to push for Set top decoders,, Now you MUST help My Business > people Thrive and PURCHASE a DIGITAL TV ( $500 t0 $7,000 INVESTMENT) if > you want to watch TV ! the analogue network is also to be shut down (in 2007 I think) but all the networks having been also broadcasting in digital for at least 2 years. The idea was to give people time to move across before they had no choice. They just started. We also are scheduled to be shut down in Dec 2006,
last that I recall reading. There appears to be a caveat though, 85% of households have been converted over or have reaonable access to digital. I still am amazed that a desktop receiver for converting digital signals to analog can be had for $85. I can't find anything available here in the states. Not much even for receiving digital signals to a digital ready set, which cost on average $300. Can you post a link to one that is for sale? I would just like to see what they are going to look like! I own one DRS, the other three are analog. And I only purchased that one last November. The government wants to auction off the VHF and UHF bands to communication companys. There has been talk of government subsidizing the cost of converters for tv's for the poor, but the laughable economics of that has discouraged any more discussion of it. Basicaly we have a deadline, that the broadcasters remind us of from time to time, that the public is largely unaware of. In the mean time, we continue to sell the majority of televisions that will require a converter. They would neet to be banned first, with a ten year transition, imho. Maybe your politicians are smarter than ours... Cheers, Mark "Mark Burns" marcus520***@yahoo.com wrote in message
news:1109934213.147275.211270@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com A UK B&M and online retailer with one for US$66:> > I still am amazed that a desktop receiver for converting digital > signals to analog can be had for $85. http://www.argos.co.uk/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?&productId=120975 Amazon sell them too - start from US$95: http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/tg/browse/-/560880/ref=br_bx_1_c_1_0/202-6005996-8391858
Show quote
"no one" <no***@lost.cat> wrote in message But that's over the air, not on cable.news:eOydnV3z94oxlrnfRVn-uw@comcast.com... > > > Neill Massello wrote: > > Ronald Cole <ron***@forte-intl.com> wrote: > > > > > >>You won't be when the FCC orders that analog broadcasting cease! > > > > > > Which will spark popular protest so intense that the FCC will quickly > > cave in or be overruled by Congress, thus ending this silly > > French-inspired exercise in progress by decree. > > > Too late...it Was Congress's IDEA .. The Frequencies that Channel 2 > thru 66 Have been auctioned off to The CELL PHONE INDUSTRY > > Cell Phone companies Get Full use of those Freq's on JULY 1, 2006 If the cable industry were to lose those allocations, they'd scream bloody murder. (They're a powerful lobby. Why else would we be stuck paying such high prices for cable?) --
X-No-archive: yes "Neill Massello" <neillmasse***@earthlink.net> wrote in message Keep on dreaming!news:1gspogy.1r70fsv1blst93N%neillmassello@earthlink.net... > Ronald Cole <ron***@forte-intl.com> wrote: > >> You won't be when the FCC orders that analog broadcasting cease! > > Which will spark popular protest so intense that the FCC will quickly > cave in or be overruled by Congress, thus ending this silly > French-inspired exercise in progress by decree. > ================================= The bandwidth has already been committed for other uses. It will happen.
Show quote
"Richard C." <post-age@spamcop.net> wrote in message Nothing is certain. Digital TV was SUPPOSED to happen years ago. Thenews:4225d8fc$0$3199$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... > -- > X-No-archive: yes > > "Neill Massello" <neillmasse***@earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:1gspogy.1r70fsv1blst93N%neillmassello@earthlink.net... > > Ronald Cole <ron***@forte-intl.com> wrote: > > > >> You won't be when the FCC orders that analog broadcasting cease! > > > > Which will spark popular protest so intense that the FCC will quickly > > cave in or be overruled by Congress, thus ending this silly > > French-inspired exercise in progress by decree. > > > ================================= > Keep on dreaming! > The bandwidth has already been committed for other uses. > It will happen. > dreamers had to wait for reality to set in. --
Show quote
X-No-archive: yes "Margrave of Brandenburg" <lhorwin***@usa.com> wrote in message But Digital TV IS happening..........NOW!news:zFsVd.45093$u87.2964@bignews6.bellsouth.net... > > "Richard C." <post-age@spamcop.net> wrote in message > news:4225d8fc$0$3199$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... >> -- >> X-No-archive: yes >> >> "Neill Massello" <neillmasse***@earthlink.net> wrote in message >> news:1gspogy.1r70fsv1blst93N%neillmassello@earthlink.net... >> > Ronald Cole <ron***@forte-intl.com> wrote: >> > >> >> You won't be when the FCC orders that analog broadcasting cease! >> > >> > Which will spark popular protest so intense that the FCC will quickly >> > cave in or be overruled by Congress, thus ending this silly >> > French-inspired exercise in progress by decree. >> > >> ================================= >> Keep on dreaming! >> The bandwidth has already been committed for other uses. >> It will happen. >> > Nothing is certain. Digital TV was SUPPOSED to happen years ago. The > dreamers had to wait for reality to set in. > ================================== All the TV I watch is DTV/HDTV OTA. --
X-No-archive: yes "Ronald Cole" <ron***@forte-intl.com> wrote in message And the day gets closer...........news:m3r7j0fdbl.fsf@yakisoba.forte-intl.com... > "Margrave of Brandenburg" <lhorwin***@usa.com> writes: >> "Alpha" <log***@trip.net> wrote in message >> news:111o1c5ga6nlec@corp.supernews.com... >>> http://apnews.excite.com/article/20050222/D88DOU0G0.html >> >> I'm glad my brand-new TV is all analog! > > You won't be when the FCC orders that analog broadcasting cease! > ============================ On 3/2/2005, Richard C. managed to type:
Show quote > -- If you take the two hyphens out of your post, most newsreaders will > X-No-archive: yes > > "Ronald Cole" <ron***@forte-intl.com> wrote in message > news:m3r7j0fdbl.fsf@yakisoba.forte-intl.com... >> "Margrave of Brandenburg" <lhorwin***@usa.com> writes: >>> "Alpha" <log***@trip.net> wrote in message >>> news:111o1c5ga6nlec@corp.supernews.com... >>>> http://apnews.excite.com/article/20050222/D88DOU0G0.html >>> >>> I'm glad my brand-new TV is all analog! >> >> You won't be when the FCC orders that analog broadcasting cease! >> > ============================ > And the day gets closer........... think it's a post instead of a signature. Mine, for one, shows your whole post in miniature italics, because the pair of hyphens (as it should!) signals it that all that follows is a signature file. Gino -- Gene E. Bloch (Gino) letters617blochg3251 (replace the numbers by "at" and "dotcom") Gene E. Bloch wrote:
Show quote > On 3/2/2005, Richard C. managed to type: That is odd. If the dash dash was a valid sig delimiter then most > >> -- >> X-No-archive: yes >> >> "Ronald Cole" <ron***@forte-intl.com> wrote in message >> news:m3r7j0fdbl.fsf@yakisoba.forte-intl.com... >> >>> "Margrave of Brandenburg" <lhorwin***@usa.com> writes: >>> >>>> "Alpha" <log***@trip.net> wrote in message >>>> news:111o1c5ga6nlec@corp.supernews.com... >>>> >>>>> http://apnews.excite.com/article/20050222/D88DOU0G0.html >>>> >>>> >>>> I'm glad my brand-new TV is all analog! >>> >>> >>> You won't be when the FCC orders that analog broadcasting cease! >>> >> ============================ >> And the day gets closer........... > > > If you take the two hyphens out of your post, most newsreaders will > think it's a post instead of a signature. > > Mine, for one, shows your whole post in miniature italics, because the > pair of hyphens (as it should!) signals it that all that follows is a > signature file. > newsreaders would strip anything after them from the reply, which obviously did not happen. My newsreader (Mozilla) treated the post wail the dash dash as normal text, and not a delimiter. The correct delimiter is dash dash space newline. -- Cheers Oldus Fartus --
Show quote
X-No-archive: yes "Gene E. Bloch" <spamfree@nobody.invalid> wrote in message Sounds like a problem....................news:mn.13a07d5338410cac.1980@nobody.invalid... > On 3/2/2005, Richard C. managed to type: >> -- >> X-No-archive: yes >> >> "Ronald Cole" <ron***@forte-intl.com> wrote in message >> news:m3r7j0fdbl.fsf@yakisoba.forte-intl.com... >>> "Margrave of Brandenburg" <lhorwin***@usa.com> writes: >>>> "Alpha" <log***@trip.net> wrote in message >>>> news:111o1c5ga6nlec@corp.supernews.com... >>>>> http://apnews.excite.com/article/20050222/D88DOU0G0.html >>>> >>>> I'm glad my brand-new TV is all analog! >>> >>> You won't be when the FCC orders that analog broadcasting cease! >>> >> ============================ >> And the day gets closer........... > > If you take the two hyphens out of your post, most newsreaders will think > it's a post instead of a signature. > > Mine, for one, shows your whole post in miniature italics, because the > pair of hyphens (as it should!) signals it that all that follows is a > signature file. > ======================== Richard C. wrote:
Show quote > -- They all look normal here .> X-No-archive: yes > > "Gene E. Bloch" <spamfree@nobody.invalid> wrote in message > news:mn.13a07d5338410cac.1980@nobody.invalid... > >>On 3/2/2005, Richard C. managed to type: >> >>>-- >>>X-No-archive: yes >>> >>>"Ronald Cole" <ron***@forte-intl.com> wrote in message >>>news:m3r7j0fdbl.fsf@yakisoba.forte-intl.com... >>> >>>>"Margrave of Brandenburg" <lhorwin***@usa.com> writes: >>>> >>>>>"Alpha" <log***@trip.net> wrote in message >>>>>news:111o1c5ga6nlec@corp.supernews.com... >>>>> >>>>>>http://apnews.excite.com/article/20050222/D88DOU0G0.html >>>>> >>>>>I'm glad my brand-new TV is all analog! >>>> >>>>You won't be when the FCC orders that analog broadcasting cease! >>>> >>> >>>============================ >>>And the day gets closer........... >> >>If you take the two hyphens out of your post, most newsreaders will think >>it's a post instead of a signature. >> >>Mine, for one, shows your whole post in miniature italics, because the >>pair of hyphens (as it should!) signals it that all that follows is a >>signature file. >> > > ======================== > Sounds like a problem.................... Show quote > > On 3/4/2005, Richard C. managed to type:
Show quote > -- Yeah, I finally concluded it's either a bug in my newsreader or in the > X-No-archive: yes > > "Gene E. Bloch" <spamfree@nobody.invalid> wrote in message > news:mn.13a07d5338410cac.1980@nobody.invalid... >> On 3/2/2005, Richard C. managed to type: >>> -- >>> X-No-archive: yes >>> >>> "Ronald Cole" <ron***@forte-intl.com> wrote in message >>> news:m3r7j0fdbl.fsf@yakisoba.forte-intl.com... >>>> "Margrave of Brandenburg" <lhorwin***@usa.com> writes: >>>>> "Alpha" <log***@trip.net> wrote in message >>>>> news:111o1c5ga6nlec@corp.supernews.com... >>>>>> http://apnews.excite.com/article/20050222/D88DOU0G0.html >>>>> >>>>> I'm glad my brand-new TV is all analog! >>>> >>>> You won't be when the FCC orders that analog broadcasting cease! >>>> >>> ============================ >>> And the day gets closer........... >> >> If you take the two hyphens out of your post, most newsreaders will think >> it's a post instead of a signature. >> >> Mine, for one, shows your whole post in miniature italics, because the pair >> of hyphens (as it should!) signals it that all that follows is a signature >> file. >> > ======================== > Sounds like a problem.................... user (that's me!). It is not consistent, showing in certain of your posts and not in others. I don't see any difference in the source between the ones that act like that and the others. I apologize for a thoughtless post. Gino -- Gene E. Bloch (Gino) letters617blochg3251 (replace the numbers by "at" and "dotcom") Gene E. Bloch wrote:
Show quote > On 3/4/2005, Richard C. managed to type: -- No, it was not a thoughtless post. I have deliberately top posted, and with the start of this post being a valid sig delimiter. (dash dash space newline) If someone with a fully compliant newsreader clicks on reply, all text from the delimiter onwards should be missing from the reply window. -- Cheers Oldus Fartus > > > Yeah, I finally concluded it's either a bug in my newsreader or in the > user (that's me!). It is not consistent, showing in certain of your > posts and not in others. I don't see any difference in the source > between the ones that act like that and the others. > > I apologize for a thoughtless post. > > Gino > -- Cheers Oldus Fartus I meant apologies for MY thoughtless post; I'm not sure from your reply
below if you thought I meant you. Or do you mean my post wasn't so bad after all? Oh joy, if so! As for top posting, I don't much care myself, I just reply the same as the current post to keep my reply near the last previous reply. These days I default to bottom for a first reply, but truth to tell, I like top posting much better. As you see below, nothing has disappeared from the reply window after the delimiter (at least this time). I vaguely recall that it's a configuration item in some newsreaders, but I can't find it here. I'm currently using MesNews (as header readers already know), and perhaps it's not fully compliant. However, at the moment, it's the reader that I'm most comfortable with. Gino On 3/7/2005, Oldus Fartus managed to type: Show quote > Gene E. Bloch wrote: >> On 3/4/2005, Richard C. managed to type: > > -- > > No, it was not a thoughtless post. I have deliberately top posted, and with > the start of this post being a valid sig delimiter. (dash dash space > newline) > > If someone with a fully compliant newsreader clicks on reply, all text from > the delimiter onwards should be missing from the reply window. > > -- > Cheers > Oldus Fartus > >> >> >> Yeah, I finally concluded it's either a bug in my newsreader or in the user >> (that's me!). It is not consistent, showing in certain of your posts and >> not in others. I don't see any difference in the source between the ones >> that act like that and the others. >> >> I apologize for a thoughtless post. >> >> Gino >> -- Gene E. Bloch (Gino) letters617blochg3251 (replace the numbers by "at" and "dotcom")  |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Other interesting topics