Conroy - Public Enemy #1 - Re: Turn your Rigol DS1052E Oscilloscope into a 100MHz DS1102E
in [Design]
|
From: JosephKK on 7 Apr 2010 22:51 On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 13:38:12 -0400, Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP(a)interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote: >On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 21:15:49 -0700, >"JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>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; 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. >> >>It has been tried in the US, it only lasted a few weeks, crappy ratings. > >Denver 2008? > Actually the preceding century, before the term wardrobe malfunction was invented.
From: David Segall on 8 Apr 2010 12:01 "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. Nonsense. The filter only excludes sites that the faceless and unaccountable people deem unacceptable. There is no requirement to submit a site for classification. Unlike films, every site is rated G until the censors find it and feel it necessary to block it. > >>> >>>> 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. Check out the meaning of analogy. My response was certainly not one. The poster said he was against _any_ censorship. I provided an example of censorship that you seem to favour and I thought the poster would too.
From: David Segall on 8 Apr 2010 12:13 "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 13:17:40 GMT, David Segall <david(a)address.invalid> wrote: > >>"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? > >Not speaking for anyone else, but, yes, i would. It would never happen >anyway. There is not enough market for it. Why did you feel the need to include two out of your three sentences to reassure me that the programs _would_ be censored?
From: fritz on 8 Apr 2010 17:07 "David Segall" <david(a)address.invalid> wrote in message news:mmurr5phlhevc3cnq8t9134idv5t6h9mmm(a)4ax.com... > "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. > > Nonsense. The filter only excludes sites that the faceless and > unaccountable people deem unacceptable. There is no requirement to > submit a site for classification. Unlike films, every site is rated G > until the censors find it and feel it necessary to block it. Are you sure about that ? I have heard that the 'moral majority Xtians' think the filter works exactly the opposite. Banned until approved. I hope you are right, but any filter is a step towards a dictatorship where the state controls the media. RESIST IT ! >>>> >>>>> 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. > > Check out the meaning of analogy. My response was certainly not one. By my dictionary....The Macquarie... An agreement, likeness or correspondence between the relations of things to one another, a partial similarity in particular circumstances... Sounds familiar ? > The poster said he was against _any_ censorship. I provided an example > of censorship that you seem to favour and I thought the poster would > too. I am totally opposed to censorship. If YOU want to restrict the peoples' access to information please explain why your policies are any different to those of North Korea or China. Awaiting your reply.... It is clearly puerile on your part to suggest that adult programs need to be banned from 3:30 till 6, actually it shows you are completely ignorant about the way the real world (free-to-air-TV) functions without any need for more censorship.
From: brent on 8 Apr 2010 17:21
On Apr 8, 5:07 pm, "fritz" <yapu...(a)microsoft.com> wrote: > I am totally opposed to censorship. Censorship is a concept that is measured in degrees, not black and white. To summarize your position by stating that you are completely against it , demonstrates that you have not really given much thought to the topic. |