Conroy - Public Enemy #1 - Re: Turn your Rigol DS1052E Oscilloscope into a 100MHz DS1102E
in [Design]
|
From: Michael A. Terrell on 6 Apr 2010 12:58 Hammy wrote: > > On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 13:17:40 GMT, David Segall <david(a)address.invalid> > wrote: > > > > >I don't believe you. Would you really allow the screening of sadism or > >bestiality in the 3:30pm to 6:00pm time slot on free to air TV? > > Something that some people have a hard time grasping is this thing > called an off button if you push it you don't have to watch things > that conflict with your morals/beliefs. Another novel suggestion is > how about you watch your own kids instead of expecting the TV to > babysit them. > > As long as what they are doing on the TV isn't illegal what's the > problem. In the case of bestiality it's illegal so they wouldn't be on > air to long before the cops broke down the door. So it is an asinine > analogy. Switching is generally done at the transmitter site these days, and is inside at least one fence protected with barb or concertina wire. It is a federal crime to break into a transmitter site, and that includes local police. There are signs with warnings, and the FCC site ID. TV stations are generally concrete buildings with several locked doors between the lobby and the studios. This was required after a nut job walked into a Cincinnati TV station during a newscast and held a gun to the news anchor while he read a rambling letter written by the gunman. Someone had propped a door to the outside open, and he just walked in. The news anchor was Al Schottelkotte. After that, the FCC demanded better security at TV stations. Now that Homeland Security is involved, it is even tighter. -- Lead free solder is Belgium's version of 'Hold my beer and watch this!'
From: krw on 6 Apr 2010 18:12 On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 15:28:47 +0200, "fritz" <yaputya(a)microsoft.com> wrote: > >"David Segall" <david(a)address.invalid> wrote in message >news:sqamr5hqs03umb25s1404epb55mrkf4t55(a)4ax.com... >> "David L. Jones" <altzone(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>Conroy is totally wrong. The Internet is an entirely different beast to >>>products you buy on the shelf. >>>The act of banning a book or video game for instance does not affect >>>anything else in any other way the way filtering the Internet can. >> >> I note you used "can" not "does" in that sentence. The Internet filter >> is a simple list of banned web sites that delays your download by a >> few microseconds. In contrast, submitting a film or book to the >> censors delays its release by days or even weeks. > >The filter excludes all 'unclassified' sites - determined by a bunch of >faceless and unaccountable >people. > >>> >>>> Personally, I am against any censorship, >> >> I don't believe you. Would you really allow the screening of sadism or >> bestiality in the 3:30pm to 6:00pm time slot on free to air TV? > >A totally stupid analogy, grow up. NO, it really isn't. The statement was *any* censorship.
From: Hammy on 6 Apr 2010 18:46 On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 08:32:20 +1000, keithr <keith(a)nowhere.com.au> wrote: >Andrew wrote: >> "David Segall" <david(a)address.invalid> wrote in message >> news:sqamr5hqs03umb25s1404epb55mrkf4t55(a)4ax.com... >>> "David L. Jones" <altzone(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Conroy is totally wrong. The Internet is an entirely different beast to >>>> products you buy on the shelf. >>>> The act of banning a book or video game for instance does not affect >>>> anything else in any other way the way filtering the Internet can. >>> I note you used "can" not "does" in that sentence. The Internet filter >>> is a simple list of banned web sites that delays your download by a >>> few microseconds. In contrast, submitting a film or book to the >>> censors delays its release by days or even weeks. >>>>> Personally, I am against any censorship, >>> I don't believe you. Would you really allow the screening of sadism or >>> bestiality in the 3:30pm to 6:00pm time slot on free to air TV? >> >> There is no such thing as "free TV". Someone has to paid to the TV station >> to operate. This someone would not get paid by advertisement if such things >> will be shown. >> >That is censorship, the only difference being the nature of the censor No its not. You have the choice to pay for it if you want it. Censorship is when someone is making that choice for you. If you want someone to tell you what you can and cant watch I hear China is accepting immigrants. They will even be kind enough to tell you where you can live, how many kids you can have, where you can work..................and at what times of the day you can flatulate.
From: Hammy on 6 Apr 2010 18:56 On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 17:12:27 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 15:28:47 +0200, "fritz" <yaputya(a)microsoft.com> wrote: > >> >>"David Segall" <david(a)address.invalid> wrote in message >>news:sqamr5hqs03umb25s1404epb55mrkf4t55(a)4ax.com... >>> "David L. Jones" <altzone(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>Conroy is totally wrong. The Internet is an entirely different beast to >>>>products you buy on the shelf. >>>>The act of banning a book or video game for instance does not affect >>>>anything else in any other way the way filtering the Internet can. >>> >>> I note you used "can" not "does" in that sentence. The Internet filter >>> is a simple list of banned web sites that delays your download by a >>> few microseconds. In contrast, submitting a film or book to the >>> censors delays its release by days or even weeks. >> >>The filter excludes all 'unclassified' sites - determined by a bunch of >>faceless and unaccountable >>people. >> >>>> >>>>> Personally, I am against any censorship, >>> >>> I don't believe you. Would you really allow the screening of sadism or >>> bestiality in the 3:30pm to 6:00pm time slot on free to air TV? >> >>A totally stupid analogy, grow up. > >NO, it really isn't. The statement was *any* censorship. I think it is. The OT was Censorship. Bestiality is Illegal; in most developed countries anyways. He might just as well have said how you would like to see a snuff film on prime time. Neither has any bearing on the original topic of censorship. It's like comparing apples with peas they are two different things, ones a fruit the others a vegetable. One has to do with an act that society has deemed illegal. Censorship isn't about allowing illegal acts to be performed. It's about not letting one group decide what should and shouldn't be available for public consumption. I don't like a lot of the things I see and hear but those people should still have the right to do it as long as they aren't breaking any laws. If he would have said; how would you like a Satanist cult program on during primetime? That would be more relevant to the topic of censorship.
From: krw on 6 Apr 2010 19:06
On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 18:56:52 -0400, Hammy <spam(a)spam.com> wrote: >On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 17:12:27 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" ><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > >>On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 15:28:47 +0200, "fritz" <yaputya(a)microsoft.com> wrote: >> >>> >>>"David Segall" <david(a)address.invalid> wrote in message >>>news:sqamr5hqs03umb25s1404epb55mrkf4t55(a)4ax.com... >>>> "David L. Jones" <altzone(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>Conroy is totally wrong. The Internet is an entirely different beast to >>>>>products you buy on the shelf. >>>>>The act of banning a book or video game for instance does not affect >>>>>anything else in any other way the way filtering the Internet can. >>>> >>>> I note you used "can" not "does" in that sentence. The Internet filter >>>> is a simple list of banned web sites that delays your download by a >>>> few microseconds. In contrast, submitting a film or book to the >>>> censors delays its release by days or even weeks. >>> >>>The filter excludes all 'unclassified' sites - determined by a bunch of >>>faceless and unaccountable >>>people. >>> >>>>> >>>>>> Personally, I am against any censorship, >>>> >>>> I don't believe you. Would you really allow the screening of sadism or >>>> bestiality in the 3:30pm to 6:00pm time slot on free to air TV? >>> >>>A totally stupid analogy, grow up. >> >>NO, it really isn't. The statement was *any* censorship. > >I think it is. The OT was Censorship. Bestiality is Illegal; Fine, sadism is not. >in most >developed countries anyways. He might just as well have said how you >would like to see a snuff film on prime time. Neither has any bearing >on the original topic of censorship. It's like comparing apples with >peas they are two different things, ones a fruit the others a >vegetable. Certainly it's censorship. It's a prior restraint on publication. >One has to do with an act that society has deemed illegal. Censorship >isn't about allowing illegal acts to be performed. It's about not >letting one group decide what should and shouldn't be available for >public consumption. performance <> publication. >I don't like a lot of the things I see and hear but those people >should still have the right to do it as long as they aren't breaking >any laws. If there is a law against showing a boob on TeeVee, you're fine with it? You're fine with the law against the seven words? >If he would have said; how would you like a Satanist cult program on >during primetime? That would be more relevant to the topic of >censorship. No, it's one example of censorship. The position taken was *ANY* censorship. |