While I comprehend Jonathan's explanation of "The AOL Ruling", etc. I totally and completely agree with Ty in that the ISPs are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
First it's Newgroups. WHAT will be NEXT????? No, I don't use a newsgroup.... ... ...don't even know how or have any interest in them. But what I do know is that Draconian laws like the AOL Ruling are what ISPs should be fighting, not us...their PAYING customers!!!
<Steps up onto soapbox>
Think about this:
Back in the day, the internet was a GREAT thing!!! People could _*freely*_ learn and exchange ideas with ease. The Genie had been let out of the bottle!!! Now, govs all around the world are desperately trying to re-bottle that Genie!
Simply look at _*all*_ the new laws being drawn up and put into place to stiffle the internet in just about every country in the world. It doesn't stop with the internet, either.
Look at TV programing and the way that Cable and Satellite companies "tier" their channels into sections with the least educational channels being at the cheapest levels while the most educational channels are a lot more expensive.
NOW, with DTV becomming *law* the poorest must pay just to get what is SUPPOSED to be FREE and has been since its inception. Yet _more_ 'censorship'/whatever you want to call it.
Radio is coming next. Just watch and see..........
It seems that with all of this, the NWO is becoming closer and closer to completely shutting down the freedom of electonic expression except for their own nefarious purposes.
After all, a dumb population is an EASIER population to CONTROL!!!!!
Yes, Ty, I'll call TW and rant the daylights out of them. But ya know what? MOST people probably don't even know their libertys are being taken away from them in this way. Therefore, the few of us who do AND *ACTUALLY* let our voices be heard are going to seem somewhat moot. In addition, where are we to go to get back what we lost? Just look at the way we have runaway gov "victimizing" our Constitutional Rights as it is and you'll see the answer clearer than you already $do.
<Steps down off of soapbox now>
Please excuse the rant, but I feel better now. ; )
Freedom means you are free to be responsible ~ Russell Means 'Free to be Responsible' Speech: http://www.russellmeans.com/%C2%A0 ("Speeches" button > scroll down - wink)
If you talk to the animals they will talk with you and you will know each other. If you do not talk to them you will not know them, and what you do not know you will fear. What one fears one destroys. ~ Chief Dan George: http://www.indigenouspeople.net/dangeorg.htm Everything the Power of the World does is done in a circle. ~ Black Elk, Oglala Lakota Holy Man: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Black_Elk
Or, perhaps it's the fact that 99% of USENET is spam, virii, and porn now.
I think it's going a bit overboard into making this about The Man Keeping Us Down. I think the only real issue is that an individual state passed a ruling which has national impact.
Those companies ditched USENET because very few people still use it and most of them are people are looking for pornography. A few legitimate folks still use USENET, but let's be honest here - it's been 8 years or so since it was relevant.
I don't blame them for dropping their support, they don't want to have to filter access based upon their customer's location, and USENET isn't a money-making service for them.
If you're going to pick a cause to fight for, it shouldn't be to save USENET, especially since I doubt many of you here actually use it any more (unless you're looking for porn, but then again most of those folks have moved to Torrents).
Jeffrey.
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 3:18 PM, Julie betelgeuse67stang@yahoo.com wrote:
While I comprehend Jonathan's explanation of "The AOL Ruling", etc. I totally and completely agree with Ty in that the ISPs are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
First it's Newgroups. WHAT will be NEXT????? No, I don't use a newsgroup.... ... ...don't even know how or have any interest in them. But what I do know is that Draconian laws like the AOL Ruling are what ISPs should be fighting, not us...their PAYING customers!!!
<Steps up onto soapbox>
Think about this:
Back in the day, the internet was a GREAT thing!!! People could _*freely*_ learn and exchange ideas with ease. The Genie had been let out of the bottle!!! Now, govs all around the world are desperately trying to re-bottle that Genie!
Simply look at _*all*_ the new laws being drawn up and put into place to stiffle the internet in just about every country in the world. It doesn't stop with the internet, either.
Look at TV programing and the way that Cable and Satellite companies "tier" their channels into sections with the least educational channels being at the cheapest levels while the most educational channels are a lot more expensive.
NOW, with DTV becomming *law* the poorest must pay just to get what is SUPPOSED to be FREE and has been since its inception. Yet _more_ 'censorship'/whatever you want to call it.
Radio is coming next. Just watch and see..........
It seems that with all of this, the NWO is becoming closer and closer to completely shutting down the freedom of electonic expression except for their own nefarious purposes.
After all, a dumb population is an EASIER population to CONTROL!!!!!
Yes, Ty, I'll call TW and rant the daylights out of them. But ya know what? MOST people probably don't even know their libertys are being taken away from them in this way. Therefore, the few of us who do AND *ACTUALLY* let our voices be heard are going to seem somewhat moot. In addition, where are we to go to get back what we lost? Just look at the way we have runaway gov "victimizing" our Constitutional Rights as it is and you'll see the answer clearer than you already $do.
<Steps down off of soapbox now>
Please excuse the rant, but I feel better now. ; )
Freedom means you are free to be responsible ~ Russell Means 'Free to be Responsible' Speech: http://www.russellmeans.com/ ("Speeches" button > scroll down - wink)
If you talk to the animals they will talk with you and you will know each other. If you do not talk to them you will not know them, and what you do not know you will fear. What one fears one destroys. ~ Chief Dan George: http://www.indigenouspeople.net/dangeorg.htm
Everything the Power of the World does is done in a circle. ~ Black Elk, Oglala Lakota Holy Man: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Black_Elk
Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
--- On Sat, 6/28/08, Jeffrey Watts jeffrey.w.watts@gmail.com wrote:
A few legitimate folks still use USENET, but let's be honest here - it's been 8 years or so since it was relevant.
Which is a statement about as accurate as "640k is enough for anybody." Usenet may not have been relevant to *you* for eight years, but many thousands of people use the text-only portion of Usenet.
It's the last kind of text-only message board on the Internet, and if you say that web-based message forums are a drop-in replacement then you've clearly never used (or supported a user of) a screen reader for the blind.
If you're going to pick a cause to fight for, it shouldn't be to save USENET, especially since I doubt many of you here actually use it any more (unless you're looking for porn, but then again most of those folks have moved to Torrents).
I'm sure the rich and vibrant community on rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated would be somewhat insulted to discover that we're just there for the "porn" (right now we're mostly there for the current "Battlestar Galactica" discussions, and the fact that JMS and other SciFi writers pop in from time to time). I've seen web message boards which would be happy for 100 new interesting (the key word is "interesting") messages a week, but rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated gets over 600 a month.
The fact is that Usenet thrives (among people who may not even know about the alt.binaries.* hierarchy) precisely because it is text-only. Not everyone wants to have to upgrade to broadband just to discuss stuff on a graphics-intensive and Flash-intensive web-based message board. If you leave out the alt.binaries.* hierarchy there's still a lot of active text-only Usenet left over, which many thousands of people still use on a regular basis.
Flawed comparison. The size of an address space is an integer which can only grow as time goes on. Individual network protocols become obsolete as new ones supersede the functions of the old. It's called progress. Usenet has tangible and irreconcilable flaws. That is why it was retired, and replaced with what is commonly referred to as "the web", http and https. In the coming years, as 'cloud computing' happens, people won't have "computers". They will have browsers. (Even if their browser "came with" an OS, and some shiny hardware.)
Several thousand people doesn't sound like all that large a number in contrast to 'everyone else', most of whom have never heard of usenet.
Web-based message forums, or email lists are a replacement. They don't "drop in". They're different. Things change. Get over it. How the entire world is obligated to stop in its tracks because of the inabilities of the blind is beyond reason. It's unfair that the blind can't drive cars, but they shouldn't be allowed to either. Cell phones are bad enough. Sight is simply a requisite of a lot of things.
I'm don't think usenet should go away, and I don't think an ISP should just stop providing services without compensation. That said, you don't need broadband to use google groups, or phpBB. That assertion is false. You can EASILY turn graphics, scripting, and flash off if you'd prefer not to load them for some reason. While it's taken forever for broadband to get where it is today, and America's broadband is still some of the worst in the world, it will only get faster and cheaper as time goes on. Claiming dialup is cheaper is like saving money by buying a dollar of gasoline at a time. You get a much better price with broadband.
For what it's worth, anywhere in the Kansas City area you can get Road Runner cable broadband, you can also get Earthlink, AOL, and what used to be planetKC. There may be other options as well. Time Warner pulling their own usenet plug likely would not affect the competition. If you use usenet, you can speak with your wallet, and switch service providers. And gee, you shouldn't need broadband if you just use the text only groups, and no images or flash.
I propose that the members of this mailing list are probably more likely than any other group to actually use usenet, and so propose we take a tally. Do you use usenet: More often than once a year and via a usenet client and server and for something other than pornography and for something other than piracy.
I bet that even though the numbers will be skewed in favor of usenet given the audience, it will STILL be obvious that usenet is rarely used.
I will start the poll off putting myself in the NO column, and you in the YES column:
As of 2008-06-29 04:55: YES:1 NO:1
On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 00:51, Leo Mauler webgiant@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Sat, 6/28/08, Jeffrey Watts jeffrey.w.watts@gmail.com wrote:
A few legitimate folks still use USENET, but let's be honest here - it's been 8 years or so since it was relevant.
Which is a statement about as accurate as "640k is enough for anybody." Usenet may not have been relevant to *you* for eight years, but many thousands of people use the text-only portion of Usenet.
It's the last kind of text-only message board on the Internet, and if you say that web-based message forums are a drop-in replacement then you've clearly never used (or supported a user of) a screen reader for the blind.
If you're going to pick a cause to fight for, it shouldn't be to save USENET, especially since I doubt many of you here actually use it any more (unless you're looking for porn, but then again most of those folks have moved to Torrents).
I'm sure the rich and vibrant community on rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated would be somewhat insulted to discover that we're just there for the "porn" (right now we're mostly there for the current "Battlestar Galactica" discussions, and the fact that JMS and other SciFi writers pop in from time to time). I've seen web message boards which would be happy for 100 new interesting (the key word is "interesting") messages a week, but rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated gets over 600 a month.
The fact is that Usenet thrives (among people who may not even know about the alt.binaries.* hierarchy) precisely because it is text-only. Not everyone wants to have to upgrade to broadband just to discuss stuff on a graphics-intensive and Flash-intensive web-based message board. If you leave out the alt.binaries.* hierarchy there's still a lot of active text-only Usenet left over, which many thousands of people still use on a regular basis.
On Sunday 29 June 2008, Billy Crook wrote:
Individual network protocols become obsolete as new ones supersede the functions of the old. It's called progress. Usenet has tangible and irreconcilable flaws. That is why it was retired, and replaced with what is commonly referred to as "the web", http and https.
Actually, Usenet is NOT a network protocol. That's NNTP, and has no viable replacement in sight. About the closest you could come to replacing NNTP would be some kind of permissions-based anonymous IMAP mailbox, but that would be more difficult to setup (with the existing clients, anyhow) than it's worth.
E-mail distribution lists have numerous differences (which I consider flaws) from NNTP: 1. Nobody, not even the author or moderator, can delete/retract a message once it has been posted. 2. Messages are delivered in their entirety to every subscriber. (NNTP only sends headers until you view it) 3. New subscribers only get new messages, they cannot browse archives from their client.
Web forums and such are similar, but are not a real protocol in themselves. You are tied to a single (web-based) client to read, post, etc. Usually, these clients do not even track details such as which messages you have read (on an individual basis). With NNTP, you can use any client you like which often are much more featureful than these web-based forums.
--- On Sun, 6/29/08, Billy Crook billycrook@gmail.com wrote:
Flawed comparison. The size of an address space is an integer which can only grow as time goes on. Individual network protocols become obsolete as new ones supersede the functions of the old. It's called progress. Usenet has tangible and irreconcilable flaws. That is why it was retired
Ummm, Usenet is still around and has been for the "8 years" Jeffrey claims its been "irrelevant". If it had been "retired" then we wouldn't have started this discussion in the first place.
Web-based message forums, or email lists are a replacement. They don't "drop in". They're different. Things change. Get over it. How the entire world is obligated to stop in its tracks because of the inabilities of the blind is beyond reason. It's unfair that the blind can't drive cars, but they shouldn't be allowed to either. Cell phones are bad enough. Sight is simply a requisite of a lot of things.
I'm almost surprised you didn't go the logical extension of all that and suggest that once a person turns blind they should simply be taken out back and SHOT.
The entire world isn't obligated to stop in its tracks to help the blind use technology, but it is certainly enlightened self-interest as blindness is something you can "catch" or "receive" as life goes on. I find it humorous that you are betting that you will NEVER be blind.
That said, you don't need broadband to use google groups, or phpBB. That assertion is false. You can EASILY turn graphics, scripting, and flash off if you'd prefer not to load them for some reason.
And if the message board is WRITTEN in Flash, or as is more common uses scripting to perform basic functions? Shutting off Flash or scripting often shuts off the message board.
While it's taken forever for broadband to get where it is today, and America's broadband is still some of the worst in the world, it will only get faster and cheaper as time goes on. Claiming dialup is cheaper is like saving money by buying a dollar of gasoline at a time. You get a much better price with broadband.
Again with the flawed comparisons. If all you're doing is E-mail and text-based stuff, broadband is a WASTE. Its like buying in bulk: buying 12 pounds of of strawberries and then eating four while the rest rot is wasting money, no matter how much cheaper the price per pound is at bulk rates.
And gee, you shouldn't need broadband if you just use the text only groups, and no images or flash.
<SARCASM> But that would be wasting money on dialup!!! </SARCASM>
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 1:36 AM, Leo Mauler webgiant@yahoo.com wrote:
Ummm, Usenet is still around and has been for the "8 years" Jeffrey claims its been "irrelevant". If it had been "retired" then we wouldn't have started this discussion in the first place.
Well, if you recall the original post, it was about the fact that some major ISPs are dropping News. Some (like you) are railing against The Man That's Keeping Blind People Down, while others (like myself) are pointing out that this is the beginning of the end, and that the real reason is that it's bad tech (because it's too expensive).
I'm almost surprised you didn't go the logical extension of all that and suggest that once a person turns blind they should simply be taken out back and SHOT.
It's not a logical extension. In fact, what you just said is extremely illogical and hyperbolic, and has no place in a reasoned debate. Reductio ad absurdum.
The entire world isn't obligated to stop in its tracks to help the blind use technology, but it is certainly enlightened self-interest as blindness is something you can "catch" or "receive" as life goes on. I find it humorous that you are betting that you will NEVER be blind.
Please get off your high horse. You're lowering the quality of this discussion. Your entire argument is a red herring. You've made the point that News is blind-friendly, and that retiring it may have impact to the blind. Others have pointed out that there are alternatives on the web. Claiming that these alternatives aren't _good enough_ for you is a red herring, and is not germane to the discussion. Please move on.
And if the message board is WRITTEN in Flash, or as is more common uses scripting to perform basic functions? Shutting off Flash or scripting often shuts off the message board.
So, let me get this straight. You're saying that blind communities will write message boards for the blind in Flash? Somehow I think that the blind community is smart enough to figure out how to NOT use a technology that doesn't work for them.
Anyhow,
Again with the flawed comparisons. If all you're doing is E-mail and text-based stuff, broadband is a WASTE. Its like buying in bulk: buying 12 pounds of of strawberries and then eating four while the rest rot is wasting money, no matter how much cheaper the price per pound is at bulk rates.
Don't buy it then. Don't install Flash in your browser. Use a message board that has RSS feeds (or other such method to make it more friendly for the blind). Tell your blind friends to go there. Problem solved.
Anyhow, as I've stated many times before, USENET News is no longer a good technology. I've given some broad reasons why. Please feel free to debate those with me or ask for clarification, but please stop with the hyperbole. This issue really doesn't have much to do with the blind. There are much larger forces at play.
Jeffrey.
--- On Mon, 6/30/08, Jeffrey Watts jeffrey.w.watts@gmail.com wrote:
The entire world isn't obligated to stop in its tracks to help the blind use technology, but it is certainly enlightened self-interest as blindness is something you can "catch" or "receive" as life goes on. I find it humorous that you are betting that you will NEVER be blind.
You've made the point that News is blind-friendly, and that retiring it may have impact to the blind. Others have pointed out that there are alternatives on the web. Claiming that these alternatives aren't _good enough_ for you is a red herring, and is not germane to the discussion.
Did you even READ the link I posted, where the American Federation for the BLIND (yes thats right, ACTUAL BLIND PEOPLE) says that your suggested alternatives DON'T WORK?
You're essentially saying that blind people should be forced to give up their bus passes and ride bicycles instead, and when I try to point out that this is stupid, you say "red herring red herring red herring".
And if the message board is WRITTEN in Flash, or as is more common uses scripting to perform basic functions? Shutting off Flash or scripting often shuts off the message board.
So, let me get this straight. You're saying that blind communities will write message boards for the blind in Flash?
No, I'm suggesting that communities are creating message boards with topics that blind people may be interested in, but writing those message boards in FLASH and not providing an alternative.
What, you think topics involving things which have an element of sight don't interest the blind?
Don't buy it then. Don't install Flash in your browser. Use a message board that has RSS feeds
What, you mean the SINGLE message board the American Federation for the BLIND found was compatible with their screen readers?
And thats only if you can get past the CAPTCHA which will prevent the blind user from getting a user account. Usenet NEWS has no such stupid CAPTCHA.
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 9:36 AM, Leo Mauler webgiant@yahoo.com wrote:
Did you even READ the link I posted, where the American Federation for the BLIND (yes thats right, ACTUAL BLIND PEOPLE) says that your suggested alternatives DON'T WORK?
No I didn't, and I didn't because this is not a discussion about blind people and how they interact with the Internet. This was a discussion about how big ISPs are turning off Netnews services and whether or not that's because they're The Man or because USENET is outdated tech, not used by enough people, and costs too much to support.
You're essentially saying that blind people should be forced to give up their bus passes and ride bicycles instead, and when I try to point out that this is stupid, you say "red herring red herring red herring".
Your arguments are a red herring because THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ORIGINAL DISCUSSION. They're a red herring because you're basing your entire argument based upon the experiences of blind users, which are a tiny percentage of the total traffic on Netnews, and while affected by these changes, are not CAUSAL, nor are they PARTY to them.
Your concerns, while a valid concern for the blind community (apparently), don't make USENET News technically sound, they don't make it not be a resource hog, and they don't make it not be a den of virii, spam, and porn. You can argue how important Netnews is to you, but that's not a valid basis for debate.
I'm still scratching my head about the Aioe thing. If there's a free, public NNTP server out there why are you crying so much about this? Sounds like there are some like-minded folks out there who you can News it up with.
No, I'm suggesting that communities are creating message boards with topics that blind people may be interested in, but writing those message boards in FLASH and not providing an alternative.
Okay, I've never heard of any message board written in Flash. Perhaps some really bored guy wrote one once, but I highly doubt there are major communities using it. If there are Flash ads on the page you can prevent them from loading. Yes, this will prevent you from using sites like Youtube. Sorry.
But here's the real question: what does that have to do with News being shut down? You already have that problem, and as the Internet grows Netnews will not, so more and more content will only be found on the web. Again, this is a red herring. It is not a germane point.
What, you think topics involving things which have an element of sight don't interest the blind?
What, you mean the SINGLE message board the American Federation for the BLIND found was compatible with their screen readers?
And thats only if you can get past the CAPTCHA which will prevent the blind user from getting a user account. Usenet NEWS has no such stupid CAPTCHA.
You need to get a serious grip. You've gone so far off the deep end on this issue. Instead of either debating the original discussion or taking it off on a reasonable, collegial tangent, you've chosen to instead freak out on the list and rant at people that haven't attacked you and aren't your enemy because you may be personally affected by this change.
Perhaps instead of just yelling at everyone about it, maybe you ought to start a _reasonable_, _mature_ conversation about how to make websites blind-friendly? Perhaps you could then actually add to the conversation instead of just derailing it.
Good day sir. Jeffrey.
Wow! Turned into a "testy" topic! I have a lot of thoughts on things I've read. I'm not sure I could summarize properly so I won't try.
My beef with TW directly has to do with them reducing the service I (we) have been paying for without reducing the cost. I don't care if YOU don't use Usenet News, your loss. However I do, and it's a service that I have enjoyed for years. But this is kinda beside the point. TW has been collecting (I forget exactly how much I pay monthly for TW Internet) ~$45.00 / month from me and eveyone else and has been able to maintain a News server (or pay for outsourcing this service) with our money just fine for years now. For them to drop this service without asking me (or anyone else) and then pocketing the extra money without dropping our rates, is what gripes me. It's certainly not fair and borderline stealing in my opinion. This is the reason I called and complained to TW and it's the reason I encourage everyone else to do the same. Not because you participate in Newsgroups, but because your getting ripped off another few dollars.
I have friends that are in the ISP business. I know that Usenet News is expensive either by maintaining your own server or outsourcing the service. Good point.
I also know that it's an old technology. This doesn't mean crap to me though. Drum brakes are old technology but we still put them on brand new cars, trucks, and semi's. FTP is old technology too.
So what then? How do you convert a whole Newsgroup from NNTP to what? Forums? How do you get a thousand people from all over the globe to stop posting to the "old" group and start posting threads to some forum somewhere? It's hard to see that happening but I guess it's possible.
Not enough people? Well, how many do you need man? I realize that the Internet is global, and it seems that your thinking about numbers globally. So, not that many people use (or know about) Usenet News. That *not so many* is still a very significant number. 1% of a billion is still ten million people!
If your blind or almost blind, that sucks. A decent point I agree, but not really the topic. I'm gonna try and stay on the topic. 'Nuff said.
rt.
On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 12:51 AM, Leo Mauler webgiant@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Sat, 6/28/08, Jeffrey Watts jeffrey.w.watts@gmail.com wrote:
A few legitimate folks still use USENET, but let's be honest here - it's been 8 years or so since it was relevant.
Which is a statement about as accurate as "640k is enough for anybody." Usenet may not have been relevant to *you* for eight years, but many thousands of people use the text-only portion of Usenet.
Haha! "Thousands." That reminds me of that Nike commercial from a few years ago where the basketball scout is leading a budding player from the court, arm out-reached and up over the lad's shoulder...
"Son, you can make hundreds of dollars a year in professional basketball!"
On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 12:51 AM, Leo Mauler webgiant@yahoo.com wrote:
Which is a statement about as accurate as "640k is enough for anybody." Usenet may not have been relevant to *you* for eight years, but many thousands of people use the text-only portion of Usenet.
It's the last kind of text-only message board on the Internet, and if you say that web-based message forums are a drop-in replacement then you've clearly never used (or supported a user of) a screen reader for the blind.
Well, go ahead and circle your wagons, partner.
I appreciate that you like USENET. But here's the facts: USENET is _bad_ technology. It was designed at a time when Internet connections were intermittent. That is no longer the case, and its architecture does NOT SCALE. I ran a USENET server for an ISP 11 years ago, and 11 years ago it was a troubled service. 11 years ago ISPs were outsourcing USENET services en masse because it was a pain in the ass to run and ate up lots of resources. In 11 years it's only gotten worse.
It is dying not just because folks want more of a media-rich environment, it's dying because it's technologically unsound and because it's extremely expensive to run. The porn, spam, and virii just act as a catalyst. You're going to have to find another place to go, I'm afraid to say.
Jeffrey.
I'm sure the rich and vibrant community on rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated would be somewhat insulted to discover that we're just there for the "porn" (right now we're mostly there for the current "Battlestar Galactica" discussions, and the fact that JMS and other SciFi writers pop in from time to time). I've seen web message boards which would be happy for 100 new interesting (the key word is "interesting") messages a week, but rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated gets over 600 a month.
Look dude, are you claiming that the majority of USENET is still relevant? My wager is that only 1% is still. Also, there is no reason why the Babylon 5 fans can't move to another forum technology. Heck, I would have figured that they'd be excited about it, as USENET's architecture often results in lost postings.
As far as your arguments about blind access, you do realize that you can have these boards utilize RSS to make it easier on them?
The fact is that Usenet thrives (among people who may not even know about the alt.binaries.* hierarchy) precisely because it is text-only. Not everyone wants to have to upgrade to broadband just to discuss stuff on a graphics-intensive and Flash-intensive web-based message board. If you leave out the alt.binaries.* hierarchy there's still a lot of active text-only Usenet left over, which many thousands of people still use on a regular basis.
I'm sorry man, but you can wave your stick at the kids on your lawn all day long, but USENET's had a death sentence for a long time now. It's about time that you made your peace and moved on.
Jeffrey.
--- On Sun, 6/29/08, Jeffrey Watts jeffrey.w.watts@gmail.com wrote:
I'm sure the rich and vibrant community on rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated would be somewhat insulted to discover that we're just there for the "porn" (right now we're mostly there for the current "Battlestar Galactica" discussions, and the fact that JMS and other SciFi writers pop in from time to time). I've seen web message boards which would be happy for 100 new interesting (the key word is "interesting") messages a week, but rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated gets over 600 a month.
Look dude, are you claiming that the majority of USENET is still relevant? My wager is that only 1% is still.
I'm not saying that the majority of Usenet NEWS is relevant, but that the majority of text-based Usenet NEWS is still active enough to warrant keeping it around. Cutting out binaries newsgroups shouldn't be that much of a problem.
I found a few statistics on Usenet News from NewsAdmin, at http://www.newsadmin.com/usenet.asp.
Yes, 0.3% of Usenet NEWS consists of text-only messages, the rest being binary file postings. However, total Usenet NEWS traffic is 11 million messages a day. This means that the text-only groups have a daily traffic of about 33,000 messages, or about 12,045,000 messages a year.
There is a public news server which is intentionally kept open called Aioe.org (http://news.aioe.org/). Aioe.org allows open access only to text-only newsgroups, and no binary newsgroup access at all. Their statistics show a consistent daily posting number of 2,000 to 3,000 posts a day just through their single Usenet News server. Most people have access through their ISP's Usenet server and don't need the Aioe.org news server.
Also, there is no reason why the Babylon 5 fans can't move to another forum technology.
...other than a general desire to avoid unnecessarily bloated user interfaces? Usenet NEWS "pages" load practically instantly, don't have advertising attached to pay for the "page serving", and don't require the end user to manually switch back and forth between "no images/scripting" and "allow images/scripting".
I can't believe I'm hearing a bunch of Linux users telling me that a GUI is *always* better than a CLI.
As far as your arguments about blind access, you do realize that you can have these boards utilize RSS to make it easier on them?
Why yes, if blind users can circumvent all of the roadblocks set up between them and their access to the RSS Feed, they can then use the RSS Feed, provided their RSS Feed Reader isn't inaccessible as well. People seem to assume that once their website has RSS, blind people can just come in and use their RSS Feed. People frequently forget that a graphical image showing you how to use their RSS Feed, and no accompanying text information, means the RSS Feed might as well not exist as far as the blind person is concerned.
You may want to read some information from Blind People, instead of some soundbite news item that mentioned what you heard about RSS but didn't give the whole story. The American Federation for the Blind's page on RSS Feeds and Feed Readers may enlighten you as to why your statement was only half-true (http://tinyurl.com/5crnh8).
However, RSS Feeds aren't two-way message boards, so this is somewhat immaterial to a discussion about two-way message boards.
The fact is that Usenet thrives (among people who may not even know about the alt.binaries.* hierarchy) precisely because it is text-only. Not everyone wants to have to upgrade to broadband just to discuss stuff on a graphics-intensive and Flash-intensive web-based message board. If you leave out the alt.binaries.* hierarchy there's still a lot of active text-only Usenet left over, which many thousands of people still use on a regular basis.
I'm sorry man, but you can wave your stick at the kids on your lawn all day long, but USENET's had a death sentence for a long time now. It's about time that you made your peace and moved on.
Tell you what, I'll let you in on a little secret: I'm just barely this side of being legally blind, with a good chance of reaching that point and going past it into "blind".
Thats right, I have whats known as a "personal stake" in the Internet being accessible to the blind. I've lucked out every decade or so with new assistive contact lens technology helping keep me away from needing what you refer to as a "stick" just to get around in the real world. My eye doctor says I might be lucky enough to avoid disabling blindness, but he can't be sure.
So quite frankly, I can't "make my peace and move on" because I'm way too close to the point where I will be one of those blind people you so cavalierly toss into the "has no good access to Internet" human discard pile.
There are 1.3 million blind people and 9 million who are severely vision-impaired, and all you have to suggest as a replacement for plain-text Usenet NEWS is RSS technology which is not a replacement for Usenet NEWS (and frequently implemented in a way which is inaccessible to the blind), and web-based forums which are frequently designed in a way which makes them inaccessible to screen readers (and thus inaccessible to blind people).
Leo, you're just ranting here. You've made all of this debate into being about you. Last I looked we weren't talking about you.
Here is the current discussion: * The recent court ruling in New York came up, and comments were made that the large corporate ISPs were using it as an excuse to drop their News servers, thus screwing over their customers out of pure greed. * Others, like myself, pointed out that News is an outdated technology, doesn't scale, and is extremely expensive considering how few use it for legitimate purposes. Our position is that folks using News should move to newer technology.
Anyhow, here are what I feel are logical angles to a discussion on this: * Argue that the technology is in fact good, and does scale, and is not expensive * Argue that the big ISPs were in fact doing something nefarious * Argue that there are no alternatives
As far as Aioe.org goes, if there's a public NNTP server you can use, what's your beef then? Why do you care if ISPs are dropping News? I don't care personally if some group of people somewhere want to run DinosaurTech on their own servers, paying their own bills. My point is that I understand why companies like TWC don't want to, and it's not because they're evil. My point is that they're dropping it for a reason, and that smart people will move on, or will make a new community that is good tech and does work for them.
The rest of your post here went completely off the rails, man. I don't see how any of this has anything to do with the mainstream discussion. I appreciate that you have concerns here, but nothing you've said has much to do with the actual discussion.
Jeffrey.
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 2:57 AM, Leo Mauler webgiant@yahoo.com wrote:
I'm not saying that the majority of Usenet NEWS is relevant, but that the majority of text-based Usenet NEWS is still active enough to warrant keeping it around. Cutting out binaries newsgroups shouldn't be that much of a problem.
I found a few statistics on Usenet News from NewsAdmin, at http://www.newsadmin.com/usenet.asp.
Yes, 0.3% of Usenet NEWS consists of text-only messages, the rest being binary file postings. However, total Usenet NEWS traffic is 11 million messages a day. This means that the text-only groups have a daily traffic of about 33,000 messages, or about 12,045,000 messages a year.
There is a public news server which is intentionally kept open called Aioe.org (http://news.aioe.org/). Aioe.org allows open access only to text-only newsgroups, and no binary newsgroup access at all. Their statistics show a consistent daily posting number of 2,000 to 3,000 posts a day just through their single Usenet News server. Most people have access through their ISP's Usenet server and don't need the Aioe.org news server.
Also, there is no reason why the Babylon 5 fans can't move to another forum technology.
...other than a general desire to avoid unnecessarily bloated user interfaces? Usenet NEWS "pages" load practically instantly, don't have advertising attached to pay for the "page serving", and don't require the end user to manually switch back and forth between "no images/scripting" and "allow images/scripting".
I can't believe I'm hearing a bunch of Linux users telling me that a GUI is *always* better than a CLI.
As far as your arguments about blind access, you do realize that you can have these boards utilize RSS to make it easier on them?
Why yes, if blind users can circumvent all of the roadblocks set up between them and their access to the RSS Feed, they can then use the RSS Feed, provided their RSS Feed Reader isn't inaccessible as well. People seem to assume that once their website has RSS, blind people can just come in and use their RSS Feed. People frequently forget that a graphical image showing you how to use their RSS Feed, and no accompanying text information, means the RSS Feed might as well not exist as far as the blind person is concerned.
You may want to read some information from Blind People, instead of some soundbite news item that mentioned what you heard about RSS but didn't give the whole story. The American Federation for the Blind's page on RSS Feeds and Feed Readers may enlighten you as to why your statement was only half-true (http://tinyurl.com/5crnh8).
However, RSS Feeds aren't two-way message boards, so this is somewhat immaterial to a discussion about two-way message boards.
The fact is that Usenet thrives (among people who may not even know about the alt.binaries.* hierarchy) precisely because it is text-only. Not everyone wants to have to upgrade to broadband just to discuss stuff on a graphics-intensive and Flash-intensive web-based message board. If you leave out the alt.binaries.* hierarchy there's still a lot of active text-only Usenet left over, which many thousands of people still use on a regular basis.
I'm sorry man, but you can wave your stick at the kids on your lawn all day long, but USENET's had a death sentence for a long time now. It's about time that you made your peace and moved on.
Tell you what, I'll let you in on a little secret: I'm just barely this side of being legally blind, with a good chance of reaching that point and going past it into "blind".
Thats right, I have whats known as a "personal stake" in the Internet being accessible to the blind. I've lucked out every decade or so with new assistive contact lens technology helping keep me away from needing what you refer to as a "stick" just to get around in the real world. My eye doctor says I might be lucky enough to avoid disabling blindness, but he can't be sure.
So quite frankly, I can't "make my peace and move on" because I'm way too close to the point where I will be one of those blind people you so cavalierly toss into the "has no good access to Internet" human discard pile.
There are 1.3 million blind people and 9 million who are severely vision-impaired, and all you have to suggest as a replacement for plain-text Usenet NEWS is RSS technology which is not a replacement for Usenet NEWS (and frequently implemented in a way which is inaccessible to the blind), and web-based forums which are frequently designed in a way which makes them inaccessible to screen readers (and thus inaccessible to blind people).
Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 4:31 AM, Jeffrey Watts jeffrey.w.watts@gmail.com wrote:
Leo, you're just ranting here.
Exactly. Leo, you're clearly a very bright person. You could do better than you have in this discussion. It's not necessary to show the level of contempt that you do to the people who argue with you. It's not going to win the other adults in your life over to your side. Please, turn down the heat.
Adrian
Sorry to get pedantic, folks, but we're talking about Usenet NEWS, here, not Usenet, in general. Usenet News was simply one of the services available through that UUCP/dialup connected network of systems called Usenet. Usenet, itself, is even closer to being dead than Usenet News, now that this news system has switched mainly to being carried by NNTP over the Internet.
And now back to your regularly scheduled discussion..
Adrian
On Sunday 29 June 2008 11:25:58 am Adrian Griffis wrote:
Sorry to get pedantic, folks, but we're talking about Usenet NEWS, here, not Usenet, in general. Usenet News was simply one of the services available through that UUCP/dialup connected network of systems called Usenet. Usenet, itself, is even closer to being dead than Usenet News, now that this news system has switched mainly to being carried by NNTP over the Internet.
Usenet still runs a majority of backbone connections in the U.S. - but I know of no dial-up UUCP connections that are still in use.
On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Jonathan Hutchins hutchins@tarcanfel.org wrote:
Usenet still runs a majority of backbone connections in the U.S. - but I know of no dial-up UUCP connections that are still in use.
I'm not immune to making mistakes, but this claim of your seems contrary to my understanding of the term, Usenet. You see, Usenet arose as a kind of poor man's Internet, back in the days when the Internet was still to expensive for a lot of universities, and far too expensive for most individuals. UUCP offered a ways of giving email and discussion forum access to a lot of organizations that couldn't afford to connect to the expensive research network that DARPA was starting to use to support its research. A bunch of academic sites started using UUCP to connect to each other, and they called it Usenet. Each site on Usenet simply had to connect to a small number (possibly only one) other Usenet site, and then files could be transferred, hop by hop, to any other Usenet site. There were maps of Usenet connections, and programs that would facilitate building "bang paths", which were used to route files along Usenet's UUCP connections. The whole point of Usenet was that it was a cheap alternative to the Internet.
I guess what I'm pointing out to the group as a whole is that the word "Usenet" has a meaning that is related to "Usenet News" but is not at all the same as "Usenet News" I think most people who use the word "Usenet" these days are using it incorrectly, and I'm guessing that you are, also. It would be correct to say, "Usenet News still runs" on a lot of servers on the Internet in the US. A lot can still be said about "Usenet News". But Usenet, itself, was inherently UUCP/dialup based. The whole point of Usenet was to give people a communication alternative to the Internet, back when it was still far to expensive for most of us. The services that Usenet used to provide have migrated over to the Internet, and I think this confuses people. Also, since most people have no experience with Usenet, itself, but they do have experience with Usenet News, they don't see the harm in shortening "Usenet News" to "Usenet". But "Usenet" does have a related but distinct meaning.
I don't mean to pick on you, Jonathan, or on Jeffrey. Almost everyone who uses the word "Usenet" uses it wrong, these days. It makes it hard to even talk about the old Usenet days, because most people think, incorrectly, that they already know what the word means.
Adrian
On Sunday 29 June 2008, Adrian Griffis wrote:
Sorry to get pedantic, folks, but we're talking about Usenet NEWS, here, not Usenet, in general. Usenet News was simply one of the services available through that UUCP/dialup connected network of systems called Usenet. Usenet, itself, is even closer to being dead than Usenet News, now that this news system has switched mainly to being carried by NNTP over the Internet.
What? Who's talking about some UUCP/dialup thing that I've never even heard of? Isn't Time Warner dropping Usenet (general) access via NNTP over the Internet (or at least their intranet)?
On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 2:49 PM, Luke -Jr luke@dashjr.org wrote:
On Sunday 29 June 2008, Adrian Griffis wrote:
Sorry to get pedantic, folks, but we're talking about Usenet NEWS, here, not Usenet, in general. Usenet News was simply one of the services available through that UUCP/dialup connected network of systems called Usenet. Usenet, itself, is even closer to being dead than Usenet News, now that this news system has switched mainly to being carried by NNTP over the Internet.
What? Who's talking about some UUCP/dialup thing that I've never even heard of? Isn't Time Warner dropping Usenet (general) access via NNTP over the Internet (or at least their intranet)?
The thing that you're calling "Usenet" is really "Usenet News". The "UUCP/dialup thing" that you've never even heard of was Usenet, and one of the services that Usenet used to carry was Usenet News. Usenet News has now migrated to the Internet, for the most part.
This thing you've never even heard of, Usenet, was a fascinating part of the early history of the culture that you are now a part of. Twenty-five years ago, you could not easily have managed email and Usenet News without being aware of Usenet. I would be happy to help you learn about this history, if you want me to, but as long as you continue to assume I mean Usenet News, every time I say "Usenet", my efforts to help you learn this history will only confuse you.
Usenet and Usenet News are two different things. When most people use the term "Usenet", they are usually talking about "Usenet News".
Adrian
http://www.fidonet.org/genlinfo.html
it is not clear if fidonet is still going or not; the link to "list of active nodes" is all web-fungus now.
While I must concede that I would find it highly amusing for some arcane, dialup-only, steam powered network to exist mostly seperate from and parallel to the internet in this day and age when just about every phone call itself goes over the internet at some point, I'm not sure it's something I want to pay for the cost of interoperating with it from my Internet bill. It is unfortunate we didn't all get a discount when they shut down their NNTP servers.
I guess this is the opportunity for those of you hardcore enough, to get out your accoustic couplers, and find a UUCPNET provider. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UUCP#UUCPNET_and_mapping
It might be a little difficult though, given people stopped keeping track of the layout of the network in 2000. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UUCP#Decline Certainly though, it shouldn't be any trouble. I've not done it myself, but hey, it it was difficult, it would have been replaced, oh, say ten years ago, with web based forums.
On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 19:45, David Nicol davidnicol@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.fidonet.org/genlinfo.html
it is not clear if fidonet is still going or not; the link to "list of active nodes" is all web-fungus now.
On Saturday 28 June 2008 05:15:08 pm Jeffrey Watts wrote:
Or, perhaps it's the fact that 99% of USENET is spam, virii, and porn now.
Those companies ditched USENET because very few people still use it and most of them are people are looking for pornography.
Thousands of posts by tens of thousands of people on tens of thousands of topics clearly indicate your own complete ignorance of the subject.
Complete ignorance? I ran a USENET server professionally eleven years ago. And it was a dead-end technology back then.
I don't care how many people use it, it does not scale. It's no longer a good technology, and it is fundamentally unsound. It can not be patched up to be relevant. I don't think you realize that you can put a coat of fresh paint on a piece of poop but it will still smell.
There are viable alternatives to USENET NEWS (happy now Adrian? :). They can even be made blind / low-bandwidth / grumpy old man friendly. I suggest you start moving to them now.
Jeffrey.
P.S. By the way, your methods of debate are rather stale - using "ad hominem" over and over again makes you look a bit one-dimensional. The "complete ignorance" line you use has been seen too often, I suggest that you either learn how to debate using facts and learned methods or at least come up with newer insults. Ciao.
On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 11:43 AM, Jonathan Hutchins hutchins@tarcanfel.org wrote:
Thousands of posts by tens of thousands of people on tens of thousands of topics clearly indicate your own complete ignorance of the subject.
On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 12:31 PM, Jeffrey Watts jeffrey.w.watts@gmail.com wrote:
There are viable alternatives to USENET NEWS (happy now Adrian? :).
Absolutely! 8-)
Adrian
A few points of error here:
On Saturday 28 June 2008 03:18:36 pm Julie wrote:
But what I do know is that Draconian laws like the AOL Ruling are what ISPs should be fighting, not us...their PAYING customers!!!
The Common Carrier rule, as it is more correctly known, is an ANTI-censorship law, saying that if the Carrier (AOL) doesn't meddle in the content, they are not responsible for it.
Back in the day, the internet was a GREAT thing!!! People could _*freely*_ learn and exchange ideas with ease. The Genie had been let out of the bottle!!! Now, govs all around the world are desperately trying to re-bottle that Genie!
This is because "the internet" is reaching _more_ people in countries that didn't use to have to worry about it.
Look at TV programing and the way that Cable and Satellite companies "tier" their channels into sections with the least educational channels being at the cheapest levels while the most educational channels are a lot more expensive.
This is because advertising carries the bulk of the expense on the cheaper tiers.
NOW, with DTV becomming *law* the poorest must pay just to get what is SUPPOSED to be FREE and has been since its inception.
What has been legislated is that free, broadcast television move to the new technology. It will still exist, with new options for quality and diversity. You should look at what local, free broadcast stations are doing with the new technology. We are getting more for free, not less. Yes, you need a $40 converter, and probably an antenna, which are not free, but no subscription is required.
NOW, with DTV becomming *law* the poorest must pay just to get what is SUPPOSED to be FREE and has been since its inception.
What has been legislated is that free, broadcast television move to the new technology. It will still exist, with new options for quality and diversity. You should look at what local, free broadcast stations are doing with the new technology. We are getting more for free, not less. Yes, you need a $40 converter, and probably an antenna, which are not free, but no subscription is required.
I'm amazed at the way people are looking at the DTV Transition. One huge point here: That regular analog TV you use to get the current free analog over-the-air TV broadcasts wasn't free. Neither is a new TV that gets DTV. The only change is the broadcast standard/frequencies for over-the-air, and that's already been in place and functional for a couple years. Everyone could be on DTV right now if they paid attention, but now that the cutoff is coming up people are screaming "NOOO!!!11one!!! They can't do this to me!" but, they really aren't doing anything. Back in the 50's TV weren't cheap to buy and colors TVs even more expensive. Did people get over having to buy a new TV to get COLOR? Yep. Will people get over having to buy a (relatively) cheap convertor and not even need a whole new TV? Yep. Has every TV sold for the last year needed a placard that stated the type of reciever it has, so consumers can make an informed decision? Pretty much (lawsuits over the failuers to do so are on going)
I think there is more FUD over DTV than there really should be.
Jon.
--- On Sat, 7/5/08, Jon Pruente jdpruente@gmail.com wrote:
NOW, with DTV becomming *law* the poorest must pay just to get what is SUPPOSED to be FREE and has been since its inception.
What has been legislated is that free, broadcast television move to the new technology. It will still exist, with new options for quality and diversity. You should look at what local, free broadcast stations are doing with the new technology. We are getting more for free, not less. Yes, you need a $40 converter, and probably an antenna, which are not free, but no subscription is required.
Back in the 50's TV weren't cheap to buy and colors TVs even more expensive. Did people get over having to buy a new TV to get COLOR? Yep. Will people get over having to buy a (relatively) cheap convertor and not even need a whole new TV? Yep.
There's a difference between *wanting to* buy a new TV to get color, instead of having to watch the color programming on a B&W TV (and *being able to do so*), and *having to* buy a new TV/convertor just to watch TV.
The difference is that what is happening now is like suddenly requiring everyone who owns a PC to buy a Mac to be able to get on the Internet. What happened in the 1950s was that (to extend the above analogy) PCs could still get on the Internet, but Macs could get faster Internet. The PC could still get on the Internet by itself without anything extra, and for all practical purposes had the same basic Internet as the Mac.
One detail I think needs to be answered is the fact that a weak analog signal was still viewable, even if you had to get your little brother to stand on a chair next to the TV and grab the antenna while he stuck out his leg. Will a weak digital signal be viewable, or will so many packets be lost that the signal becomes completely unwatchable? Will "one bar" be as impossible to use on your TV as it is on your wireless phone?
Because if weak digital signals aren't watchable, then we're *losing* a lot in the switchover. We will have gone from *some* TV in remote areas to *NO* TV in remote areas. Shrinking the broadcast region is a loss, no matter how much you try to tart up the switchover as a "gain".
On Sun, Jul 6, 2008 at 8:52 AM, Leo Mauler webgiant@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Sat, 7/5/08, Jon Pruente jdpruente@gmail.com wrote:
One detail I think needs to be answered is the fact that a weak analog signal was still viewable, even if you had to get your little brother to stand on a chair next to the TV and grab the antenna while he stuck out his leg. Will a weak digital signal be viewable, or will so many packets be lost that the signal becomes completely unwatchable? Will "one bar" be as impossible to use on your TV as it is on your wireless phone?
A weak signal is not viewable, instead of normal static you get blocky video and little to no audio (no hard to hear audio it is ether on or off)
Because if weak digital signals aren't watchable, then we're *losing* a lot in the switchover. We will have gone from *some* TV in remote areas to *NO* TV in remote areas. Shrinking the broadcast region is a loss, no matter how much you try to tart up the switchover as a "gain".
Currently one problem I have, since I use broadcast TV, is that the power on the digital stations is much lower than the analog in most cases. That alone shrinks the broadcast region, but hopefully when the analog is turned off the digital will be amplified.
example (taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KCPT ): KCPT Kansas City, Missouri Channels Analog: 19 (UHF) Digital: 18 (UHF) Affiliations PBS Transmitter Power 1150 kW (analog) 55 kW (digital)
On Sun, Jul 6, 2008 at 8:52 AM, Leo Mauler webgiant@yahoo.com wrote:
There's a difference between *wanting to* buy a new TV to get color, instead of having to watch the color programming on a B&W TV (and *being able to do so*), and *having to* buy a new TV/convertor just to watch TV.
Yes, sometimes people using dinosaur tech get obsoleted. It's happened before, believe it or not:
1) People who used Edison's direct current systems (yup, long time ago) 2) People who used software on TRS-80s, Commodore 64s, etc 3) Anyone who used DOS, Win95 4) Anyone who used cellular phones (NOT wireless) 5) 8-track tapes, VHS, audio cassettes, DVDs (soon) 6) ISA, AGP cards
Stop crying already. Go to https://www.dtv2009.gov. This has been known about for a while now, and is a very good thing, as we do not want to keep using analog shit forever.
Because if weak digital signals aren't watchable, then we're *losing* a lot in the switchover. We will have gone from *some* TV in remote areas to *NO* TV in remote areas. Shrinking the broadcast region is a loss, no matter how much you try to tart up the switchover as a "gain".
What's this "we" shit, white man? LOL I'm willing to bet that almost everyone on this list has cable, satellite, or that lame AT&T thing. I highly doubt that we're "losing a lot". You sure like to cry about crap, don't ya?
Besides, is losing a television signal really that bad of a thing for people? Last I looked all of the stuff on broadcast television was crap.
J
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 8:04 AM, Jeffrey Watts jeffrey.w.watts@gmail.com wrote:
I'm willing to bet that almost everyone on this list has cable, satellite, or that lame AT&T thing.
you like to whine about people whining, don't you.
I for one have neither cable, satellite, or that lame AT&T thing. ( a telegraph? yeah I agree morse code is lame. don't have it. )
I'm willing to bet that almost everyone on this list has cable, satellite, or that lame AT&T thing.
you like to whine about people whining, don't you.
I for one have neither cable, satellite, or that lame AT&T thing. ( a telegraph? yeah I agree morse code is lame. don't have it. )
I don't have cable, satellite, or that lame AT&T thing either. But I do heat my house with this new-fangled thing called Natural Gas. Morse code? Isn't that sort of a "digital" thing? So wouldn't it be "better"? I believe the National Weather Service (or whoever) uses some sort of morse code like thing when they broadcast the test of the Emergency Broadcast System.
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 10:21 AM, James Sissel jimsissel@yahoo.com wrote:
I heat my house with this new-fangled thing called Natural Gas.
I don't know how I would ever get to sleep in the winter if I wasn't exhausted from shoveling to fill my coal hopper. Get off my lawn!
Morse code? Isn't that sort of a "digital" thing? So wouldn't it be "better"?
Morse code uses pulse-length modulation and static huffman tables.
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 10:31 AM, David Nicol davidnicol@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 10:21 AM, James Sissel jimsissel@yahoo.com wrote:
I heat my house with this new-fangled thing called Natural Gas.
I don't know how I would ever get to sleep in the winter if I wasn't exhausted from shoveling to fill my coal hopper. Get off my lawn!
I work in the construction industry, specifically on fireplaces. It still boggles my mind how people think they can save money by burning their 13% efficient open fireplace all winter (and actually costs them more money), rather than pick up a few days of overtime and pay the increase in their heating bill for their 80-90%+ efficient furnace. One saying I like to tell people is that "Mankind created the automatic forced air central heating system for a damn good reason. We got tired of burning all the pretty trees." Seriously, look at places in Pennsylvania and elsewhere that used to have nearly all the trees near the towns gone- cut for heating fuel. Anyway, this does tie into the semi-OT DTV thing: The govt mandates that no new furnace shall be installed at less than 80% efficient. Govt regulations mean that the old clunker heaters being babied along in in some poor persons home, that is lucky to be running 50-60% efficient, be replaced with a decent model of furnace, like it or not. It's better in the long run but it's a chunk of change to get a new furnace. It's not an apples to apple comparasion to the DTV switch, but it is an example of the govt mandating something that is actually good overall in the big picture.
Burning your fireplace in the winter is a stupid move unless the power goes out. And stay off my lawn too!
Jon.
--- On Mon, 7/7/08, Jon Pruente jdpruente@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 10:31 AM, David Nicol davidnicol@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 10:21 AM, James Sissel
jimsissel@yahoo.com wrote:
I heat my house with this new-fangled thing called Natural Gas.
I don't know how I would ever get to sleep in the winter if I wasn't exhausted from shoveling to fill my coal hopper. Get off my lawn!
I work in the construction industry, specifically on fireplaces. It still boggles my mind how people think they can save money by burning their 13% efficient open fireplace all winter (and actually costs them more money), rather than pick up a few days of overtime and pay the increase in their heating bill for their 80-90%+ efficient furnace.
Open fireplaces, sure. Modern wood stoves, however, routinely exceed 70% efficiency and sometimes hit 80% efficiency.
Burning your fireplace in the winter is a stupid move unless the power goes out. And stay off my lawn too!
Well, burning a fire in your open fireplace in the winter is a stupid move only if you think it will save you money. If you know darn well you're only doing it for the look of the thing, and are prepared to pay a little extra on the gas bill that month for one night's open fire, its not that stupid. Its like Christmas lights when you do it for the look and not for some imagined cost savings.
Anyway, this does tie into the semi-OT DTV thing: The govt mandates that no new furnace shall be installed at less than 80% efficient. Govt regulations mean that the old clunker heaters being babied along in in some poor persons home, that is lucky to be running 50-60% efficient, be replaced with a decent model of furnace, like it or not. It's better in the long run but it's a chunk of change to get a new furnace.
I volunteer at a local non-profit arts center which is forced to shut down all operations during the winter months (the somewhat lucrative charity-giving Holiday months) precisely because of this mandate. Their furnace is too old to run at all, and would cost about $25,000 to replace. No Halloween specials, no "Winter Holiday" pageants, no Valentine's Day festivals. Thats a lot of fundraising opportunities lost, somewhat ironic as the money would have gone to buy a new furnace.
It's not an apples to apple comparasion to the DTV switch, but it is an example of the govt mandating something that is actually good overall in the big picture.
The difficulty I see here is that sometimes the government puts in a mandate without the alternatives existing for people in outlying areas of the country. New furnaces replacing old ones is a mandate with a solution available all over the country. The DTV switchover will essentially chop off broadcast TV to many rural areas (through reducing the broadcast area), areas unconnected to cable TV and underserved by satellite TV.
Mandates about furnaces mean that tax dollars paid by farmers are being used to force farmers to improve their lot in life. The DTV conversion means that tax dollars paid by farmers are being used to force farmers to give up TV, a government-mandated loss. Sort-of like "rural de-electrification".
Yes, my baby has been keeping me from sleeping, and Leo's meandering ranting has attracted my ire. :)
J.
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 9:40 AM, David Nicol davidnicol@gmail.com wrote:
you like to whine about people whining, don't you.
--- On Mon, 7/7/08, Jeffrey Watts jeffrey.w.watts@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 6, 2008 at 8:52 AM, Leo Mauler webgiant@yahoo.com wrote:
Because if weak digital signals aren't watchable, then we're *losing* a lot in the switchover. We will have gone from *some* TV in remote areas to *NO* TV in remote areas. Shrinking the broadcast region is a loss, no matter how much you try to tart up the switchover as a "gain".
What's this "we" shit, white man? LOL You sure like to cry about crap, don't ya?
Jeffrey, you're clearly a very bright person. You could do better than you have in this discussion. It's not necessary to show the level of contempt that you do to the people who argue with you. It's not going to win the other adults in your life over to your side. Please, turn down the heat.
Besides, is losing a television signal really that bad of a thing for people? Last I looked all of the stuff on broadcast television was crap.
PBS is still a broadcast station. Analog PBS stations were a little fuzzy some of the time in Lawrence, KS, but the "crap" stations (the only ones you seem to know about) came in quite clearly. Essentially analog-to-digital will make Lawrence, KS, lose all the good broadcast TV while still retaining all the crap broadcast TV. Personally I consider being denied good TV while being allowed crap TV to be a loss.
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 4:33 AM, Leo Mauler webgiant@yahoo.com wrote:
Jeffrey, you're clearly a very bright person. You could do better than you have in this discussion. It's not necessary to show the level of contempt that you do to the people who argue with you. It's not going to win the other adults in your life over to your side. Please, turn down the heat.
I only show this contempt for you, as your rants are typically devoid of logic and are full of fallacies. Perhaps it's immature, but I guess I'm kind of done trying to debate with you. Perhaps I've slipped into ad hominem, but at least I'm not trying to claim it as a valid debate point.
However, as in the other thread, I'll concede so as to spare the others.
PBS is still a broadcast station. Analog PBS stations were a little fuzzy some of the time in Lawrence, KS, but the "crap" stations (the only ones you seem to know about) came in quite clearly. Essentially analog-to-digital will make Lawrence, KS, lose all the good broadcast TV while still retaining all the crap broadcast TV. Personally I consider being denied good TV while being allowed crap TV to be a loss.
Time to get cable, or a better antenna. It's time to progress. You'll have to cope. This isn't my opinion, it's everyone's, as represented by our government. You had your time to complain and do something about this, it's been known about for a very long time.
Jeffrey.
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 10:27 AM, Jeffrey Watts jeffrey.w.watts@gmail.com wrote:
This isn't my opinion, it's everyone's, as represented by our government.
Leo, I think you may have been mistaken when you asserted that Jeffrey is clearly a bright person.
LOL, touche!
Jeffrey.
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 12:20 PM, David Nicol davidnicol@gmail.com wrote:
Leo, I think you may have been mistaken when you asserted that Jeffrey is clearly a bright person.
--- On Tue, 7/8/08, David Nicol davidnicol@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 10:27 AM, Jeffrey Watts jeffrey.w.watts@gmail.com wrote:
This isn't my opinion, it's everyone's, as represented by our government.
Leo, I think you may have been mistaken when you asserted that Jeffrey is clearly a bright person.
I see that now, though at the time I made that comment I was allowing for the possibility that sleep deprivation or caffeine overdosing might be causing some emotional strain.
--- On Tue, 7/8/08, Jeffrey Watts jeffrey.w.watts@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 4:33 AM, Leo Mauler webgiant@yahoo.com wrote:
PBS is still a broadcast station. Analog PBS stations were a little fuzzy some of the time in Lawrence, KS, but the "crap" stations (the only ones you seem to
know about) came in quite clearly. Essentially analog-to-digital will make Lawrence, KS, lose all the good broadcast TV while still retaining all the crap broadcast TV. Personally I consider being denied good TV while being allowed crap TV to be a loss.
Time to get cable, or a better antenna.
Ahh, the "let them eat cake" attitude. The "last mile" still hasn't been covered yet, and a weak digital signal is like no analog signal whatsoever.
It's time to progress.
So you're agreeing that a loss is occurring?
You'll have to cope. This isn't my opinion, it's everyone's, as represented by our government. You had your time to complain and do something about this, it's been known about for a very long time.
Don't give me this "everyone's opinion counts in government" crap. That hasn't been true for decades. Corporations have been wanting extra bandwidth for decades and there was nothing Joe Average was going to be able to say to keep some analog frequencies in place, that would compare to the $$$ in campaign contributions from corporations.
-
Adrian Griffis -
Billy Crook -
Christofer C. Bell -
David Nicol -
James Sissel -
Jeffrey Watts -
Jon Pruente -
Jonathan Hutchins -
Julie -
Leo Mauler -
Luke -Jr -
Philip Dorr -
Ty Unes