How do you design these days?
in [Design]
|
From: Joerg on 9 Jan 2010 19:03 Jim Thompson wrote: > On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 13:20:32 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> > wrote: > > [snip] >> Federal law trumps state law, and most certainly county regs. So, there. >> > [snip] > > ONLY if not Constitutionally forbidden from infringing State's rights. > Highly doubtful assertion. Case in point: California has rather loose regs in terms of "medicinal" pot use but the feds don't. There have regularly been raids here and the local authorities could do nothing about that. Now I can't recall reading anything about pot in the constitution ;-) As for your question in the other post, amendment 1, quote "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Freedom of speech means that the listeners also may not be unduly restricted from hearing such speech. The constitution is not meant to be a book the size of the tax code, that's why there are federal laws, regs, codes and so on that (should) take care of the details :-) -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: Joerg on 9 Jan 2010 19:16 Michael A. Terrell wrote: > Joerg wrote: >> Michael A. Terrell wrote: >>> Joerg wrote: >>>> Haven't followed it lately but isn't there some sort of constitutional >>>> right to access broadcast channels within reasonable means? I can't >>>> speak to that off the top of my hat but I can tell you this: Local >>>> authorities are often very mistaken as to what (little) rights they >>>> really have to twist your arms using they local rules. A community board >>>> here had to learn that the hard way and I was one of the reasons why >>>> they did. >>> >>> http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/92802 >>> >> Ok, but that doesn't say that they are thinking about curbing the right >> to your own antenna by some local authority. Freedom of information has >> a rather high place in our country and that's a good thing. > > > What good is the right to erect any antenna, if they give the > spectrum to someone else? Those special interest groups are out to take > everything they think they can possibly use. Wi-Fi on Channel 2? Give > me a break! > I think that TV and other stuff as we know it will slowly go away anyhow and that much of the investment into HDTV equipment will not have the expected return (as in ad revenue). Look at the kids. Many that I know have little or no interest in TV, unlike 5-10 years ago. They get the news on the web or not at all because they don't care for it. Movies come via Netflix. Music via iTunes et cetera. > If they get their way there will be no 'Free TV'. You will have to > use cable or a sat service to get anything at all. > Sometimes I have the feel that was part of the game when the switch to DTV was made. Because obviously there weren't adequate field tests done for multipath situations. So that forces large swath of the land into the fangs of the "providers". > Where is 'Freedom of information' if you have to pay for it every > month? What is there to stop continuous rate increases if local TV is > removed from the equation? HTH will you get information about local > events or emergencies when a storm blocks reception of the Ku band? > We have a NOAA radio and regular radios. It's the only way left after the switch to DTV because thick rolling clouds will freeze most channels into a blocky Picasso. OTOH our forefathers didn't have any of this high-faluting radiowave and ether stuff. When an emergency came up they just dealt with it as best as they could ;-) > BTW, it looks like WOGX moved their studios to Gainesville recently. > I will be near the old studio site in a few days and will see if it's > still in use. > How's that water line trench coming? If it's any consolation I took out the last little tree and chopped it up this morning, courtesy of global warming. The snow load had toppled it, roots and all. Sad, it was still green and wanted to grow but 90 degrees out of angle. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: Jim Thompson on 9 Jan 2010 19:22 On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 16:03:31 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >Jim Thompson wrote: >> On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 13:20:32 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >> wrote: >> >> [snip] >>> Federal law trumps state law, and most certainly county regs. So, there. >>> >> [snip] >> >> ONLY if not Constitutionally forbidden from infringing State's rights. You need to read up. There are _specific_ things SUPPOSED to be left to state's rights. Unfortunately the Constitution has basically become a worthless document :-( Until the next great war. Then "progressives" may be shot on sight... I can hardly wait ;-) (That must be the reason for today's hostility toward me posted here... they know I'm eventually going to get them. What galls them is that they know it'll be legal ;-) >> > >Highly doubtful assertion. Case in point: California has rather loose >regs in terms of "medicinal" pot use but the feds don't. There have >regularly been raids here and the local authorities could do nothing >about that. Now I can't recall reading anything about pot in the >constitution ;-) > >As for your question in the other post, amendment 1, quote "Congress >shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or >prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of >speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to >assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." > >Freedom of speech means that the listeners also may not be unduly >restricted from hearing such speech. The constitution is not meant to be >a book the size of the tax code, that's why there are federal laws, >regs, codes and so on that (should) take care of the details :-) ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
From: invalid on 9 Jan 2010 19:27 On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 16:16:52 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >Michael A. Terrell wrote: >> Joerg wrote: >>> Michael A. Terrell wrote: >>>> Joerg wrote: >>>>> Haven't followed it lately but isn't there some sort of constitutional >>>>> right to access broadcast channels within reasonable means? I can't >>>>> speak to that off the top of my hat but I can tell you this: Local >>>>> authorities are often very mistaken as to what (little) rights they >>>>> really have to twist your arms using they local rules. A community board >>>>> here had to learn that the hard way and I was one of the reasons why >>>>> they did. >>>> >>>> http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/92802 >>>> >>> Ok, but that doesn't say that they are thinking about curbing the right >>> to your own antenna by some local authority. Freedom of information has >>> a rather high place in our country and that's a good thing. >> >> >> What good is the right to erect any antenna, if they give the >> spectrum to someone else? Those special interest groups are out to take >> everything they think they can possibly use. Wi-Fi on Channel 2? Give >> me a break! >> > >I think that TV and other stuff as we know it will slowly go away anyhow >and that much of the investment into HDTV equipment will not have the >expected return (as in ad revenue). Look at the kids. Many that I know >have little or no interest in TV, unlike 5-10 years ago. They get the >news on the web or not at all because they don't care for it. Movies >come via Netflix. Music via iTunes et cetera. > > >> If they get their way there will be no 'Free TV'. You will have to >> use cable or a sat service to get anything at all. >> > >Sometimes I have the feel that was part of the game when the switch to >DTV was made. Because obviously there weren't adequate field tests done >for multipath situations. So that forces large swath of the land into >the fangs of the "providers". > > >> Where is 'Freedom of information' if you have to pay for it every >> month? What is there to stop continuous rate increases if local TV is >> removed from the equation? HTH will you get information about local >> events or emergencies when a storm blocks reception of the Ku band? >> > >We have a NOAA radio and regular radios. It's the only way left after >the switch to DTV because thick rolling clouds will freeze most channels >into a blocky Picasso. OTOH our forefathers didn't have any of this >high-faluting radiowave and ether stuff. When an emergency came up they >just dealt with it as best as they could ;-) > > >> BTW, it looks like WOGX moved their studios to Gainesville recently. >> I will be near the old studio site in a few days and will see if it's >> still in use. >> > >How's that water line trench coming? If it's any consolation I took out >the last little tree and chopped it up this morning, courtesy of global >warming. The snow load had toppled it, roots and all. Sad, it was still >green and wanted to grow but 90 degrees out of angle. -- THIS POSTING HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ELECTRONICS WHERE ARE THE THOUGHT POLICE WHEN YOU NEED THEM?
From: invalid on 9 Jan 2010 19:28
On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 17:22:35 -0700, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)My-Web-Site.com/Snicker> wrote: >On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 16:03:31 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >wrote: > >>Jim Thompson wrote: >>> On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 13:20:32 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>> wrote: >>> >>> [snip] >>>> Federal law trumps state law, and most certainly county regs. So, there. >>>> >>> [snip] >>> >>> ONLY if not Constitutionally forbidden from infringing State's rights. > >You need to read up. There are _specific_ things SUPPOSED to be left >to state's rights. > >Unfortunately the Constitution has basically become a worthless >document :-( > >Until the next great war. Then "progressives" may be shot on sight... >I can hardly wait ;-) > >(That must be the reason for today's hostility toward me posted >here... they know I'm eventually going to get them. What galls them >is that they know it'll be legal ;-) > >>> >> >>Highly doubtful assertion. Case in point: California has rather loose >>regs in terms of "medicinal" pot use but the feds don't. There have >>regularly been raids here and the local authorities could do nothing >>about that. Now I can't recall reading anything about pot in the >>constitution ;-) >> >>As for your question in the other post, amendment 1, quote "Congress >>shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or >>prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of >>speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to >>assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." >> >>Freedom of speech means that the listeners also may not be unduly >>restricted from hearing such speech. The constitution is not meant to be >>a book the size of the tax code, that's why there are federal laws, >>regs, codes and so on that (should) take care of the details :-) > > ...Jim Thompson -- THIS POSTING HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ELECTRONICS WHERE ARE THE THOUGHT POLICE WHEN YOU NEED THEM? |