Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile

Advanced

Re: Luddite thoughts I

ANAL-LOG
January 20, 2009 11:38PM
your girl knows what I('m really not) mean.



Post Edited (01-20-09 19:38)
Re: ANAL-LOG
January 24, 2009 04:21AM
perhaps i should elaborate.
I was listening to another one of those adverts telling you to buy one of those analog to digital converters with your redeemable coupon deals.

anyway, so they been scrolling this bar all day long across my tv. Sayin how this is the end of the world for you unless you go & get this gear right?

then it happened.
this womans voice comes on DURING the previous mentioned scrolling overlays and enunciates the following word.
analog.
My, my, how something so inherently innocent can quickly decompose to basic elementary level reading.
Nevermind, pronunciation for this 'overeager vioce' as full of pride equal to its shriek of joy uttered THE WORD anal log!
Re: ANAL-LOG
January 24, 2009 01:36PM
Quote

this is the end of the world for you unless you go & get this gear right?

It IS the end of the world for television.

As far as I am concerned, the entire Television Industry has tripped over it's collective wiener on this unprecedented, uninvited switch to all-digital (read: higher resolution image of the same steaming pile of crap) broadcasting. This has got to be the biggest, lamest unfunded mandate ever in the entire history of media. I can't think of another example that even comes close. Call me a Luddite, but I fail to see how this benefits me or anyone I know who isn't an executive for a company that makes televisions ... or runs a landfill.

I take issue with the invasion of privacy (digitalization means that essentially, everyone's viewing habits will be traceable, right?) ... I take issue with the unfunded mandate ... I take issue with the usurpation of the public airwaves by private business ... I take issue with being FORCED to do anything.

The only saving grace for me is that there are only a few months a year that I bother to watch television at all. My yearly average is (((breaks out calculator))) about 13 minutes a day. Ballpark figure, of course. That is after I reach behind the TV and manually switch the coaxial cable from DVD player to rabbit-ears. During football season. After Monday Night Football went to cable.

So what? No more football. Boo-!@#$%^&-hoo. If they ever find a way to make the NFL profitable "sans fans" you can bet your sweet butt they'll do it.

When some genius invents robots that can shop, we're all dead meat.

What television has essentially done is made itself even more irrelevant to me than it already was. It has pulled an industry-wide Howard Stern and banished itself from normal existence.

But just watch. Other industries are paying attention and will eventually follow suit. Not only will products be "upgraded" in ways that don't mean anything, the new version will be THE ONLY OPTION.

Coming soon ... The Trouser Press Message Board ...
.
.
.
.
.

... Exclusively in Esperanto!

"Learn Esperanto" DVD available for $49.99 from Cloaca Media Group
(“The company that brought you the Digital Dump Toilet!”).
Re: ANAL-LOG
January 24, 2009 02:09PM
Here, here, Hollowbody! Technology is really a cruel master. You follow him in lockstep, buying every new device, repeatedly abandoning everything you used to love, or you get left behind. The metaphor of a "marketplace" is a cruel joke. I, personally, will not follow TV into the all-digital era. Nor will I ever own an iPod. Nor will I ever own a touch-screen phone. And there is not one chance in 10 billion, that I will ever buy a Blue-Ray DVD player. (Can you believe the audacity of the electronics executives trying to squeeze out one more packaged format before the Internet finishes its conquest of all media?) Really, what options does this relentless march of digital technology leave us? We sit on the bloated carcass of a civilization, with no bookstores, no music stores, no newspapers, no magazines, no local talk radio, no television, and no libraries -- with physical media obsolete, knowledge itself obsolete, geography conquered, playing real instruments a quaint throwback, even meeting other people naturally and spontaneously at common gathering places a rarity. Resist the best you can, I say. God Bless, Kay!



Post Edited (01-24-09 10:11)
Re: Luddite thoughts I
January 25, 2009 01:14AM
Something's amiss. Let's clear up some mythology.

"As far as I am concerned, the entire Television Industry has tripped over it's collective wiener on this unprecedented, uninvited switch to all-digital (read: higher resolution image of the same steaming pile of crap) broadcasting."

It's not the idea of the "television industry", they have resisted it. It's being done by the FCC in order to free up frequency bandwidth. The transition has been planned since the 90s and in every area I've lived, broadcasters have been sending a digital signal for years (if you have cable, you're already using a digital stream). We're simply coming to the date when the analog companion signal is being turned off so that we can better use that bandwidth. Television has been broadcast in a very large analog frequency bandwidth, taking up lots of room. With the abandoning of analog delivery by network-based (those that "cast broad" on public airwaves) television stations, all of the broadcast channels can be compressed in to a much narrower bandwidth.

"This has got to be the biggest, lamest unfunded mandate ever in the entire history of media. I can't think of another example that even comes close."

The FCC previously re-assigned bandwidth in the transition when TV was added to radio bandwidths and then re-allocated bandwidth again to deal with color and UHF. They already freed-up the bandwidth in Europe by going to digital signals. Canada and China are doing it, too. What would the advantage be for the USA to stick to obsolete technology and bandwidth assignments over half a century old?

"Call me a Luddite, but I fail to see how this benefits me or anyone I know who isn't an executive for a company that makes televisions ... "

It doesn't benefit any of us who already get a digital stream from our cable provider but there are people out there who do not have cable TV.
How many people watch content exclusively delivered by network broadcast television anyway? I have a couple hundred channels and spend almost no time with ABC, CBS, NBC or FOX. That shrinking segment of the industry has to work worth with shrinking funds and is forced to work with formulas, less risk, and less innovation; it has a hard time competing against cable content for those reasons. Look at the the most influential content on television in the last 10 years - how much of it was produced by companies that rely on broadcasting? Whether that broadcast signal is delivered in analog or digital waveforms is irrelevant to any of this, particularly since those relying on broadcast are <2% of television users.

A few of the benefits are:
+There are multiplexing needs that analog can not meet because there's not enough room in the bandwidth. Japan tried to deliver those needs in analog and the price was enormous
+program guides
+cheaper in the long-run
+No interference, ghosting, fuzz, etc.
+Signal can deliver pixel demands of modern sets
+Television is half "vision" and half "tele". The sound portion will go hi-fi
+The amount of bandwidth that's been used to broadcast analog signal for television is not only huge but it's scattered checkerboard-like and shoehorned into slots across the spectrum. Since a digital broadcast signal uses only one of these slots, the others are freed up. The FCC began assigning these "new" spaces in 1994. It will be used by cellular, marine, police, fire, schools, military, space, traffic control, etc. (plus uses we haven't even thought of yet, we're looking ahead!).

Take a look at how the bandwidth assignments evolved in the USA; which is not the same way other countries assigned frequencies (opens in PDF):
Re: Luddite thoughts I
January 25, 2009 11:24AM
i like 30 rock when baldwin is in the scene
Re: Luddite thoughts I
January 25, 2009 12:15PM
If the FCC allowed spread-spectrum technology out of the pandora's box this wouldn't even be an issue and "crowded airwaves" would be a moot point. But the "crowded bandwidth" notion was the whole justification (going back to the 1920s) for the government to "regulate" the airwaves in the first place. The FCC is a failed and outdated agency that has facilitated unprecedented media consolidation over 3 decades (and monopolies and oligopolies), screwing up democracy (yeah, I'm still a believer. So fucking what?) while swallowing tax dollars for multi-year deliberations over whether butts and boobs on network TV are presented in context as "sexual or excretory organs" (exact guidelines language). The fact that the handful of people who make up the FCC allows the kind of consolidation and sluggish markets that the FTC would never allow is pretty good control group evidence that that agency needs a complete restructuring or tabula-freaking-rasa and start all over again with a better idea. (On a side note: Despite being somewhat of a liberal, I also think Obama's idea to reinstate Fairness Doctrine is misguided. That's not the kind of regulation we need.) The Internet, which has kept media innovation and upstart entrepeneurship alive, was only the first karmic backlash against FCC's failed execution of their mandates.



Post Edited (01-25-09 08:18)
Re: Luddite thoughts I
January 25, 2009 05:25PM
Quote

I also think Obama's idea to reinstate Fairness Doctrine is misguided.

Please provide a citation where Obama says he wants to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. Here is a citation for an official statement from Obama's press secretary denying precisely what you assert:

From:

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/114322-Obama_Does_Not_Support_Return_of_Fairness_Doctrine.php

Quote

Obama Does Not Support Return of Fairness Doctrine

There may be some Democrats talking about reimposing the Fairness Doctrine, but one very important one does not: presumptive presidential nominee Barack Obama.
By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 6/25/2008 12:25:00 PM MT


Related: Complete Election 2008 Coverage

There may be some Democrats talking about reimposing the Fairness Doctrine, but one very important one does not: presumptive presidential nominee Barack Obama.
Barack Obama

The Illinois senator’s top aide said the issue continues to be used as a distraction from more pressing media business.

"Sen. Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters," press secretary Michael Ortiz said in an e-mail to B&C late Wednesday.

"He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible," Ortiz added. "That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets."

The Fairness Doctrine issue flared up in recent days after reports that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was talking about a Democratic push to reinstate it, although it was unclear at press time whether that was a new pledge or the restating of a long-held position.

Conservative paper Human Events reported that Pelosi was not planning to bring to a vote a bill to block the reimposition of the doctrine.

The paper went on to say that Pelosi “added that ‘the interest in my caucus is the reverse’ and that New York Democratic Rep. ‘Louise Slaughter has been active behind this [revival of the Fairness Doctrine] for a while now.’”

But it was unclear whether Pelosi was talking about a push, or simply restating her long-held view that the doctrine should return.

President George W. Bush pledged to veto any attempt to legislatively establish the doctrine, and Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) told B&C in an interview last fall that there were no plans to try to bring the doctrine back.

One year ago, the House passed a bill, from Indiana Republican and former radio talker Mike Pence, that put a one-year moratorium on funding any Federal Communications Commission reimposition of the doctrine. Democrats, led by David Obey (D-Wis.), suggested that the amendment was a red herring, a nonissue and that it was being debated, such as it was -- no Democrats stood to oppose it -- to provide sound bites for conservative talkers and "yap yap TV," who had ginned up the issue.

In a Shakespearian mood, Obey said the amendment was "much ado about nothing" and "sound and fury, signifying nothing."

It was a permanent version of that moratorium, also pushed by Pence, that Pelosi was reportedly saying would have no chance.

But other Democrats suggested that the sticking point was the current administration, and some big names, including Sen. John Kerry (Mass.), talked about the possibility of bringing it back. Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) went so far as to say he would make the doctrine part of his media agenda.

The Fairness Doctrine required broadcasters to air both sides of controversial issues. The FCC found the doctrine unconstitutional back in 1987, and President Reagan vetoed an attempt by congressional Democrats to reinstate it.

It is a sensitive topic with Republicans, who fear that Democrats will use it to try and rein in conservative talk radio, the rise of which followed the scrapping of the doctrine.

In the wake of press reports about Pelosi's comments, Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio), a longtime foe of the doctrine, said its return would be "nothing less than a sweeping takeover by Washington bureaucrats of broadcast media, and it is designed to squelch conservative speech on the airwaves."

Pelosi's office had not returned calls at press time on what she said, and meant, by her comments to the paper.

Re: Luddite thoughts I
January 25, 2009 05:44PM
I say that the Dems should drop all pretense of reinstating the Fairness Doctrine if the lunatic right-wingers who dominate the terrestrial air waves shut the bleep up about media bias. As someone who is exposed to more talk radio than any other media because of a long commute, this oft-repeated claim is truly a farce.
No Subject
January 25, 2009 06:06PM
Post Edited (02-15-10 20:24)



Post Edited (02-15-10 20:25)
Re: Luddite thoughts I
January 25, 2009 06:19PM
Quote

I say that the Dems should drop all pretense of reinstating the Fairness Doctrine if the lunatic right-wingers who dominate the terrestrial air waves shut the bleep up about media bias.

Oh yeah...that will SURELY shut them right up. They'll turn into darling little purring kittens without a complaint in the world. They will give up their ranting and raving and end their careers of making a living by voicing and reinforcing the frustration, disaffection and seething disgust felt by their listeners.

Because everyone knows that changing the topic of conversation is an effective way to shut up a raving lunatic, especially one that is pampered and well fed. Good luck with that.
Re: Luddite II
January 25, 2009 01:16AM
Don't call yourself a Luddite if you really mean "all technology that existed in the first 20 years I was alive is still OK". I'll call you a Luddite when you use no technology from the past century (of course it's probable you wouldn't still be alive). Plus, if you were really a Luddite, why would you care how frequency bandwidth is reassigned and fine-tuned? the problem with the so-called Luddite phenomena is that it's usually somebody that readily embraces technology that advanced when the complainer was under the age of 30 yet somehow all advancements made after that point are useless and unnecessary. Luddite #1 thinks all technology before 1994 is A-OK. Luddite #2 thinks that all technology before May 2001 is fine. It's actually cranky old geezer phenomena. (I knew a guy who inexplicably forced his kids- or so he thought - to repel all technology before 1999 for no logical reason and it negatively effected their educations).

"or runs a landfill."
Rather than get a box to convert the digital stream to analog, you think that antenna users that bought their set before 1999 will stop watching TV and dispose of their sets? Or you think that everybody else will abandoned their sets in some sort of protest for the antenna users?

"I take issue with the invasion of privacy (digitalization means that essentially, everyone's viewing habits will be traceable, right?)"
Nope. Antenna-based TVs do not send a signal back to the TV station. If you have cable, habits are analyzed when somebody buys a survey. (It's what happens in a free-market system but that has nothing to do with the issue of broadcast signals.)

I take issue with the unfunded mandate ...
It's well funded.

I take issue with the usurpation of the public airwaves by private business
Which happened when the first radio station went live in 1920...
There are some countries where only the government gets to broadcast on the "public" spectrum. Former Soviet Bloc countries come to mind. Frequencies are a function of the physics of the universe itself. We just assign some of them "public" and then allow people to broadcast. But, as pointed out, on public airwaves you don't have freedom of speech which is why the vast majority of us prefer the privacy of cable for signal delivery instead of broadcast.

... I take issue with being FORCED to do anything.
Nobody's forcing you to turn on your TV set. Nor is anyone forcing you to abandon the use of antique sets. My dad loved antique sets and he had a room full of his hobby tinkerings. Modern sets have so few parts that when they go kaput they're usually not cost-effective to repair and we buy new ones. And since new ones can receive digital signals, most antenna-users won't notice the dropping of analog over-air signals.

Re: Luddite III
January 25, 2009 01:17AM
The majority of us like to see the world move forward; particularly since we just went through 8 years of endarkenment. Technology has made our lives better for centuries now. It's the reason lifespans have increased. The next few hours of your life were made possible by technology. From your food to your clothing, everything but the air you breathe. it's technology that created the concept of leisure time.

I, personally, will not follow TV into the all-digital era.
Hmmm, yet you're using a computer....

Nor will I ever own an iPod.
Because carting around piles of digital information in 50 plastic cases is so much more fun than carting around the exact same digital information in your pocket?

Nor will I ever own a touch-screen phone.
Cellular technology is A-okay but your draw the line at the exact type of menu interface?

(the script length filter has apparently been turned on so I posted in 3 parts)
Re: Luddite III
January 25, 2009 08:29AM
Hey Paganizer,

Good rebuttal and explanation of the technology. It doesn't benefit anyone to be needlessly reactionary about new technologies. Certainly there are always landmines, misdirections and dead ends to avoid in the pathway to innovation. But sometimes our old toys are so pathetically worn out, threadbare and obsolete it's best to just toss them so we may start to reap the benefits of the new, improved models. There is nothing to be gained by being a Luddite martyr at the shrine of some obsolete technology.

Digital video is a vast improvement over NTSC analog. Beyond the improvements in image and audio quality it also helps conserve a valuable and limited resource--the public airwaves. We should focus our attention on the real issues: 1) ensuring the digital broadcasts are accessible to at least as many people as currently receive analog broadcasts, and 2) ensuring that the data streams aren't shackled with restrictive and rights-inhibiting encryption and access control technologies like DRM (Digital Rights Management) that take away all our options and choices.
Re: ANAL-LOG
January 27, 2009 07:52PM
Paganizer ...

Your comments on my post were so far misguided in scope and intent that I had to re-read the original to see what you were on about.

That flurry of technobabble failed to address the "unfunded" issue beyond noting that the mandate is "well-funded." Did I miss the check from Sony for one of these new digital sets?

Some people might simply plunk down the bread for a converter box but I'll reckon that scads of otherwise perfectly good television sets will get junked over the next few years because of this wonderful, new technological "advance." 8-Track and Betamax jokes aside, has there ever been a rush to junk a technology so swiftly? I won't claim to be any "greener" than the next person, but just imagine the mass of garbage that will pile up as we all play kissy-face with our new toys. People throw away "old" stuff willy-nilly for a lot less. In fact, you could furnish an entire apartment with other people’s cast-offs. People do it. Maybe you don’t, but that doesn’t mean that it never happens.

Cheaper in the long run? Are you kidding me? When is anything ever cheaper in the long run? Remember how compact discs were going to be cheaper than vinyl? Even given wiggle room for economic changes since the introduction of the compact disc, I fail to see how that particular promise was anything more than another hollow lie. Oh! I forgot. “Cheaper to produce?” Check. “Cheaper to stock?” Check. “Cheaper for the consumer?” Never mind.

And as far as who gets to call who what, I'll thank you to keep your hands off my vocabulary. I shouldn't have to take anyone aside and explain that the term "Luddite" was used in a wholly (you guessed it!) figurative sense. If we have to couch all terminology in anticipation that some hapless poindexter is going to take everything we say literally, we need to start a new board. By "board," I mean a forum wherein we might "post" electronically transmitted messages.

I start to spin the tale ... you complain of my DICK-SHUN. You gimme F-R-I-C-T-I-O-N.
Re: ANAL-LOG
January 27, 2009 07:56PM
ahm crazeeee bout frikshun
Re: ANAL-LOG
January 29, 2009 09:35PM
thought i might conjure up some nekked wimmen or sumthin round here, ya know to spice things up...
jesus christ,
music,music,music!
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login