He doesn't watch the news on tv or read the news in magazines or newspapers either, as news of union strikes in France, in both industries you mention, that cripple transportation by rail, road, or shipping in the entire country are quite common here in the US. He's got his head stuck up his ass and won't admit to it.
I've been reading, or watching stories on tv, about this for decades. It's not like this is some kind of secret known only to Frenchmen/Europeans.
This entire line of thought is showing how your assertion that every home sold since the 80's has a built-in antenna and good tv reception isn't true. That's all this entire conversation was meant to show. And just for the record, over-the-air transmission is difficult, at best, in many areas. That's what I was talking about when referring to translator locations and how many are needed for 100% coverage in a lot of areas.
BTW, not everyone considers tv reception to be a must in considering where they are going to live. If I could afford to live in the mountains 50 miles or more from town I'd take that over watching tv any day of the week. I'd take the peace and quiet, the sound of the breeze sighing through the trees, the deer and elk walking through the yard in the early mornings and evenings, the native trout in the streams, and all the rest of the wild life that shows up in remote home locations on a regular basis. It's a much less stressful life style and you get clean air to breathe and fresh water to drink that hasn't been treated with chemicals.
Getting away from civilization has quite a few benefits, but it is a lot different that living in town and a lot of people couldn't do it. I grew up doing it so it feels natural to me.
The cable companies here are the same way. They cover the towns they consider financially viable, but once you get outside of city limits a short distance their coverage stops. Once outside their coverage it's antenna or satellite, and in rough country that means very spotty coverage. In real small towns it's translators on a hill above the town and no cable: antenna or satellite only. Usually that means only a very few channels if you don't go with a satellite dish.
Things just aren't like that here in the US. Many people don't live in towns. There are people in the western US who live 50 or more miles away from a town. In a lot of areas even radio reception is non-existent unless you pay for something like Sirius.
Yes, most towns with a population of a few hundred have a translator, but that translator still doesn't cover the surrounding area 100%. The terrain is so rough that intervening hills and canyons create areas shadows where the signal cannot reach.
For example, the geography where I live is a rolling prairie with deep canyons running in all directions. I live on the edge of what is known as the "Palouse" in a canyon. The elevation of the river at the bottom of the canyon here is 740' above sea level. The closest town on the prairie is 2530' above sea level. Just to climb the canyon wall in your car is a 5 mile drive on the main road out of here(built in late 70's)and it is built on filled-in draws and is cut through ridges to straighten it out, and that's measured from the beginning of the climb. The old highway out of here is three times as long due to how crooked it is as it follows the contours of the canyon wall.
The Palouse is an agricultural prairie with rolling hills, but it also has canyons ranging from 200 to over 1000' feet deep running in all directions and many draws running off the main canyons with ranch houses in many of them. The canyons and draws aren't straight by any stretch of the imagination either, and the sides are very steep. Some of them require you to do some rock climbing, and others have areas steep enough that you climb them on your hands and knees if you want to climb out of them. None of them are gradual slopes.
Just to the east of us(20 miles) the land becomes mountainous with deep winding valleys running all directions. Much of this land is timbered, and there are homes throughout the entire area. As you should be able to see, this makes for spotty tv, as well as radio, signal coverage for the rural homes located in the canyons and on the hillsides opposite the direction of the transmitters.
To get 100% coverage there would sometimes have to be several transmitters to cover the entire length of just one canyon, and on top of most hills/mountains to eliminate any shadow areas. That just isn't financially feasible as in many areas the cost of running power and roads to those transmitters is very prohibitive, and the environmentalists would be filing lawsuit after lawsuit over all the road building.
The point is, your assertion is untrue. And, it isn't bad planning. It's that the terrain makes 100% coverage next to impossible. I'd bet you've never lived in the Pacific Northwest, Montana or Idaho or you would never had made such an assertion. Much of these areas are mountainous terrain with widely scattered towns. It's not uncommon to have to drive 50-100 miles between small towns and have to climb a few hills and drop into a couple of canyons between them.
All of this means TV reception can range from none at all to satellite only, to snowy UHF only using large directional antennas that must be adjusted to get different channels because the signals come from various directions. Even then the antennas and satellite dishes are not always mounted on the houses. Many are mounted remotely, sometimes quite a ways away from the house, where they can see the signals.
There's a reason Radio Shack still sells large tv antennas.
Every house sold in perhaps the last 30 years (perhaps not in the US?) has had a quality antenna and has required no fiddling or maintenance.
This is so far from reality it isn't funny. Do you belong to the flat earth society, lived only in big cities, or have lived on only flat country? In the real world there are homes in mountainous areas, canyons, timber, etc... that block signals.
In the western US there are many homes in locations where neither satellite nor broadcast tv are available. These homes are in canyons, on hillsides, or in heavily timbered areas, and many are 100 miles or more from their "local" tv stations.
Personally, I've lived in a house where the previous owner had put the antenna more than a mile away from the house on top of a hill and ran a line to house. That was the only way to get tv reception. I wouldn't have gone to those lengths to get reception, but he did.
I've also lived in other houses, or knew people who did, where there was no signal at the house itself due to the terrain, and if there was an existing tv antenna it was anywhere from 100 feet to a 100 yards from the house, and it was mounted on top of a pole mounted on the roof of a building or on a 50' or so pole set in the ground. The antennas were adjustable because you couldn't point the antenna in one direction and get more than 1 or 2 channels. You had to be able to turn the antenna to get all the channels. Directional antennas were the only antennas that could pick up the signals because they were so weak. Even then you had to have a signal amplifier to get reception.
One more question. Since I've never stated anything about implementing what I believe to be the best political philosophy and you've condemned my implementation of them, how about you telling me what you think my implementation is going to be?
The burden on you is to say what it is you're condemning, since you're condemning something you've never seen, read about, or heard about. I'll be waiting.... I'm really curious to see what kind of mind reader you are.
I've specifically stated it's not your views, but methods to implement them.
My response:
Hmmmm.... What I think are the correct methods of implementing my political views? And just when have I said anything about what I consider to be the correct way to implement political philosophy? I haven't. The subject hasn't even been mentioned in this conversation until you just brought it up.
You said in response:
Are you for a balanced budget? If so, did you vote for Clinton? If you did not vote for him, why not?
My response:
What does my voting, or not voting, for Clinton have to do with how I think a political philosophy should be implemented? I see no relationship between them.
You said in response:
So, your argument is "who I vote for is irrelevant to my political philosophy or how I'd choose to implement it."
That's your response to a logical question? You don't even say what you think the relationship is. You just accuse me of not responding. You're the one that doesn't respond. You're the one that keeps changing the subject. I show that very clearly in what I've quoted. You start by saying that what I believe isn't relevant, then go on to accuse me of saying that what I believe isn't relevant. I never said that. You did.
You're highly confused and not following any kind of logical thought process. I ask a question for clarification of what you're asking, what your train of thought is because I see no relevance in your question, and you accuse me of ducking the question. How is asking for clarification ducking anything? If anyone is to give an accurate answer to any question they have to understand exactly what is being asked. You seem to not be able to grasp that concept.
Do you understand the difference between implementing an idea and the idea itself? There's a huge difference, and you seem to be incapable of understanding that by your responses.
What does my voting, or not voting, for Clinton have to do with how I think a political philosophy should be implemented? I see no relationship between the them.
You brought the subject up out of left field. I just responded to the way it the idea was presented.
For the record, I'm against corporate welfare, and I'd imagine most Tea Party supporters are too, although I can't speak for them. Corporate welfare always comes with government rules, regulations, and large bureaucracies to manage them so they mean larger government, more spending higher taxes, and result in greater inefficiencies in the system. I'm against it. If an industry or a business is going to fail, let it fail, and it will rebuild itself into a more efficient means of producing whatever it produces if there is a market for it's products.
Hmmmm.... What I think are the correct methods of implementing my political views? And just when have I said anything about what I consider to be the correct way to implement political philosophy? I haven't. The subject hasn't even been mentioned in this conversation until you just brought it up.
Once again. Go check into your local mental health facility because you're hallucinating. You're imagining a conversation that hasn't taken place.
LOL. How am I working to destroy the US? Disagreeing with you and Obama? Wanting to return to the principles of government that this country was founded on, and under the guidance of which it became the wealthiest, most powerful nation on earth, and had the highest immigration rates in the history of the world?
Wow. The US sure was a total failure under that type of government. Funny how under the progressive ideas we are now almost bankrupt financially, morally, and of political will.
Who says I'm for corporate welfare? Who says the Tea Party is for corporate welfare?
Our nation became the biggest economic powerhouse in the history of the world without entitlements of any kind. It was the the place where people came to have the opportunity to succeed by the millions, and they didn't come here to have the government control ever aspect of their lives. They came for the freedom to live their dreams in ways they weren't allowed to anywhere else. America was known as the Land of Opportunity a couple of centuries before the US government ever thought of dishing out entitlements to anyone, business or person....
Is any nation perfect? Nope. It's made up of imperfect people. But, what we used to be was the best anyone had ever seen. How can I say that? Because the rates of immigration to the US from its inception through the early 1900's prove it.
Who says I'm for the corn subsidy? Who says the Tea Party is for the corn subsidy?
I've never seen anything that says they are for it. They, and I, want the government's nose out of things. We want a smaller government and all it implies. We want government back to what it was designed to be by our founding fathers, and they didn't design it to be a welfare state for business or people. Our government was designed to allow both business and people to have the opportunity to succeed. That has been corrupted very badly, and both the Tea Party and I both want to reverse all that crap that's destroying our country.
We became the biggest economic powerhouse on earth and a place where people wanted to come, and did by the millions from every nation on earth, without any kind of welfare, without any kind of entitlements for any anybody or anything. No nation on earth has ever had people emigrate to it in the numbers people have to the US before we became the type of nation we are now. That is what we need to get back to. We need to get back to what is proven to work and leave all the current crap behind.
Let's see. I don't agree with you, and you don't agree with me. You start off with the swearing and the name calling of anyone you disagree with, and I'm the divisive one? Really? In what kind of a reality do you exist?
Yes, that's you destroying the American Way. When we enter hyperinflation to pay off our debt, it will be your fault. Thanks.
LOL. Talk about nutjobs..... Reduced spending, a balanced budget, and smaller government will be the cause of hyperinflation.... You need to check into your local mental health facility.
The problem with the position you've taken is that the Republican party is endorsing the Tea Party candidates and putting most of what the Tea Party wants in their platform. They are taking them seriously.
I'm an independent, and I am in agreement with what the Tea Party is promoting, and there are polls saying 70% of the country agrees with their platform. If the only people you're talking to are other leftists then you're getting a very slanted view of what is going on in this country.
You're wrong. Take a look at just what is happening with the Tea Party. They are effecting change already by exerting great influence in the election cycle. Free-spending, i.e. progressive, Republicans aren't even making it out of their primary races, and they are going to lead a change in the balance of power in the Congress by defeating a lot of Democrat politicians.
The entrenched party, the Democrats, are smearing them, but it isn't working. People are wise to those games. They've seen those tactics used for decades and it's not going to work this time.
On the one hand, doing things like this makes 'Anonymous' look bad, and by association, then makes what they are supporting look bad and hands ammunition to the MafiAA and bully groups whose perspective is "fuck the consumer, down with consumer rights."
They do far more harm than that. They make opposing current copyright laws look bad in the eyes of the average citizen. To get any real change you must have a majority of the citizenry on your side. Then real political pressure can be applied in a legit manner. Pulling stupid stunts like this paints anyone advocating change in this area in a negative light.
I know you're either trolling, or joking, but these images are made by taking an orderly group of images of small parts of the painting by rows and columns to get complete coverage with a professional dslr and good lens, and then stitching the images together with software. There are many, many examples of these types of images out on the internet. You can find pictures of this type of cities, mountains in the Alps, and many other subjects by Googling for giga-pixel images.
This is a ridiculous claim. Anyone who drives a manual shift transmission for any amount of time shifts by feel. It's an automatic response that happens without thinking, and as such is not a distraction of any kind. The only people who would claim it is a distraction are those who have never driven them and are lost getting into a vehicle with a standard transmission.
The same goes for command line usage. Once you know how to use it, it's a more powerful, more flexible, faster, and more efficient way to get things done. Using the text based tools in Linux becomes habitual and easy over time, and you get more work done in a shorter amount of time.
A case in point. I worked for a guy that just hated text-based tools. He had a project on which he had spent parts of 2 days getting about 1/2 the job done using gui-based tools. I told him to email me the files and finished the job in 30 minutes using sed.
Slashdot Mirror
and then cry fowl,
DUCK!
*ducks* ;)
GOOSE!
*Sits down.*
He doesn't watch the news on tv or read the news in magazines or newspapers either, as news of union strikes in France, in both industries you mention, that cripple transportation by rail, road, or shipping in the entire country are quite common here in the US. He's got his head stuck up his ass and won't admit to it.
I've been reading, or watching stories on tv, about this for decades. It's not like this is some kind of secret known only to Frenchmen/Europeans.
putz
This entire line of thought is showing how your assertion that every home sold since the 80's has a built-in antenna and good tv reception isn't true. That's all this entire conversation was meant to show. And just for the record, over-the-air transmission is difficult, at best, in many areas. That's what I was talking about when referring to translator locations and how many are needed for 100% coverage in a lot of areas.
BTW, not everyone considers tv reception to be a must in considering where they are going to live. If I could afford to live in the mountains 50 miles or more from town I'd take that over watching tv any day of the week. I'd take the peace and quiet, the sound of the breeze sighing through the trees, the deer and elk walking through the yard in the early mornings and evenings, the native trout in the streams, and all the rest of the wild life that shows up in remote home locations on a regular basis. It's a much less stressful life style and you get clean air to breathe and fresh water to drink that hasn't been treated with chemicals.
Getting away from civilization has quite a few benefits, but it is a lot different that living in town and a lot of people couldn't do it. I grew up doing it so it feels natural to me.
The cable companies here are the same way. They cover the towns they consider financially viable, but once you get outside of city limits a short distance their coverage stops. Once outside their coverage it's antenna or satellite, and in rough country that means very spotty coverage. In real small towns it's translators on a hill above the town and no cable: antenna or satellite only. Usually that means only a very few channels if you don't go with a satellite dish.
Things just aren't like that here in the US. Many people don't live in towns. There are people in the western US who live 50 or more miles away from a town. In a lot of areas even radio reception is non-existent unless you pay for something like Sirius.
Yes, most towns with a population of a few hundred have a translator, but that translator still doesn't cover the surrounding area 100%. The terrain is so rough that intervening hills and canyons create areas shadows where the signal cannot reach.
For example, the geography where I live is a rolling prairie with deep canyons running in all directions. I live on the edge of what is known as the "Palouse" in a canyon. The elevation of the river at the bottom of the canyon here is 740' above sea level. The closest town on the prairie is 2530' above sea level. Just to climb the canyon wall in your car is a 5 mile drive on the main road out of here(built in late 70's)and it is built on filled-in draws and is cut through ridges to straighten it out, and that's measured from the beginning of the climb. The old highway out of here is three times as long due to how crooked it is as it follows the contours of the canyon wall.
The Palouse is an agricultural prairie with rolling hills, but it also has canyons ranging from 200 to over 1000' feet deep running in all directions and many draws running off the main canyons with ranch houses in many of them. The canyons and draws aren't straight by any stretch of the imagination either, and the sides are very steep. Some of them require you to do some rock climbing, and others have areas steep enough that you climb them on your hands and knees if you want to climb out of them. None of them are gradual slopes.
Just to the east of us(20 miles) the land becomes mountainous with deep winding valleys running all directions. Much of this land is timbered, and there are homes throughout the entire area. As you should be able to see, this makes for spotty tv, as well as radio, signal coverage for the rural homes located in the canyons and on the hillsides opposite the direction of the transmitters.
To get 100% coverage there would sometimes have to be several transmitters to cover the entire length of just one canyon, and on top of most hills/mountains to eliminate any shadow areas. That just isn't financially feasible as in many areas the cost of running power and roads to those transmitters is very prohibitive, and the environmentalists would be filing lawsuit after lawsuit over all the road building.
The point is, your assertion is untrue. And, it isn't bad planning. It's that the terrain makes 100% coverage next to impossible. I'd bet you've never lived in the Pacific Northwest, Montana or Idaho or you would never had made such an assertion. Much of these areas are mountainous terrain with widely scattered towns. It's not uncommon to have to drive 50-100 miles between small towns and have to climb a few hills and drop into a couple of canyons between them.
All of this means TV reception can range from none at all to satellite only, to snowy UHF only using large directional antennas that must be adjusted to get different channels because the signals come from various directions. Even then the antennas and satellite dishes are not always mounted on the houses. Many are mounted remotely, sometimes quite a ways away from the house, where they can see the signals.
There's a reason Radio Shack still sells large tv antennas.
This is so far from reality it isn't funny. Do you belong to the flat earth society, lived only in big cities, or have lived on only flat country? In the real world there are homes in mountainous areas, canyons, timber, etc... that block signals.
In the western US there are many homes in locations where neither satellite nor broadcast tv are available. These homes are in canyons, on hillsides, or in heavily timbered areas, and many are 100 miles or more from their "local" tv stations.
Personally, I've lived in a house where the previous owner had put the antenna more than a mile away from the house on top of a hill and ran a line to house. That was the only way to get tv reception. I wouldn't have gone to those lengths to get reception, but he did.
I've also lived in other houses, or knew people who did, where there was no signal at the house itself due to the terrain, and if there was an existing tv antenna it was anywhere from 100 feet to a 100 yards from the house, and it was mounted on top of a pole mounted on the roof of a building or on a 50' or so pole set in the ground. The antennas were adjustable because you couldn't point the antenna in one direction and get more than 1 or 2 channels. You had to be able to turn the antenna to get all the channels. Directional antennas were the only antennas that could pick up the signals because they were so weak. Even then you had to have a signal amplifier to get reception.
One more question. Since I've never stated anything about implementing what I believe to be the best political philosophy and you've condemned my implementation of them, how about you telling me what you think my implementation is going to be?
The burden on you is to say what it is you're condemning, since you're condemning something you've never seen, read about, or heard about. I'll be waiting.... I'm really curious to see what kind of mind reader you are.
You said:
My response:
You said in response:
My response:
You said in response:
That's your response to a logical question? You don't even say what you think the relationship is. You just accuse me of not responding. You're the one that doesn't respond. You're the one that keeps changing the subject. I show that very clearly in what I've quoted. You start by saying that what I believe isn't relevant, then go on to accuse me of saying that what I believe isn't relevant. I never said that. You did.
You're highly confused and not following any kind of logical thought process. I ask a question for clarification of what you're asking, what your train of thought is because I see no relevance in your question, and you accuse me of ducking the question. How is asking for clarification ducking anything? If anyone is to give an accurate answer to any question they have to understand exactly what is being asked. You seem to not be able to grasp that concept.
Do you understand the difference between implementing an idea and the idea itself? There's a huge difference, and you seem to be incapable of understanding that by your responses.
What does my voting, or not voting, for Clinton have to do with how I think a political philosophy should be implemented? I see no relationship between the them.
You brought the subject up out of left field. I just responded to the way it the idea was presented.
For the record, I'm against corporate welfare, and I'd imagine most Tea Party supporters are too, although I can't speak for them. Corporate welfare always comes with government rules, regulations, and large bureaucracies to manage them so they mean larger government, more spending higher taxes, and result in greater inefficiencies in the system. I'm against it. If an industry or a business is going to fail, let it fail, and it will rebuild itself into a more efficient means of producing whatever it produces if there is a market for it's products.
Hmmmm.... What I think are the correct methods of implementing my political views? And just when have I said anything about what I consider to be the correct way to implement political philosophy? I haven't. The subject hasn't even been mentioned in this conversation until you just brought it up.
Once again. Go check into your local mental health facility because you're hallucinating. You're imagining a conversation that hasn't taken place.
LOL. How am I working to destroy the US? Disagreeing with you and Obama? Wanting to return to the principles of government that this country was founded on, and under the guidance of which it became the wealthiest, most powerful nation on earth, and had the highest immigration rates in the history of the world?
Wow. The US sure was a total failure under that type of government. Funny how under the progressive ideas we are now almost bankrupt financially, morally, and of political will.
I see. I disagree with you so I'm a traitor. You're so reasonable.
Who says I'm for corporate welfare? Who says the Tea Party is for corporate welfare?
Our nation became the biggest economic powerhouse in the history of the world without entitlements of any kind. It was the the place where people came to have the opportunity to succeed by the millions, and they didn't come here to have the government control ever aspect of their lives. They came for the freedom to live their dreams in ways they weren't allowed to anywhere else. America was known as the Land of Opportunity a couple of centuries before the US government ever thought of dishing out entitlements to anyone, business or person....
Is any nation perfect? Nope. It's made up of imperfect people. But, what we used to be was the best anyone had ever seen. How can I say that? Because the rates of immigration to the US from its inception through the early 1900's prove it.
Who says I'm for the corn subsidy? Who says the Tea Party is for the corn subsidy?
I've never seen anything that says they are for it. They, and I, want the government's nose out of things. We want a smaller government and all it implies. We want government back to what it was designed to be by our founding fathers, and they didn't design it to be a welfare state for business or people. Our government was designed to allow both business and people to have the opportunity to succeed. That has been corrupted very badly, and both the Tea Party and I both want to reverse all that crap that's destroying our country.
We became the biggest economic powerhouse on earth and a place where people wanted to come, and did by the millions from every nation on earth, without any kind of welfare, without any kind of entitlements for any anybody or anything. No nation on earth has ever had people emigrate to it in the numbers people have to the US before we became the type of nation we are now. That is what we need to get back to. We need to get back to what is proven to work and leave all the current crap behind.
Let's see. I don't agree with you, and you don't agree with me. You start off with the swearing and the name calling of anyone you disagree with, and I'm the divisive one? Really? In what kind of a reality do you exist?
LOL. Talk about nutjobs..... Reduced spending, a balanced budget, and smaller government will be the cause of hyperinflation.... You need to check into your local mental health facility.
The problem with the position you've taken is that the Republican party is endorsing the Tea Party candidates and putting most of what the Tea Party wants in their platform. They are taking them seriously.
I'm an independent, and I am in agreement with what the Tea Party is promoting, and there are polls saying 70% of the country agrees with their platform. If the only people you're talking to are other leftists then you're getting a very slanted view of what is going on in this country.
You're wrong. Take a look at just what is happening with the Tea Party. They are effecting change already by exerting great influence in the election cycle. Free-spending, i.e. progressive, Republicans aren't even making it out of their primary races, and they are going to lead a change in the balance of power in the Congress by defeating a lot of Democrat politicians.
The entrenched party, the Democrats, are smearing them, but it isn't working. People are wise to those games. They've seen those tactics used for decades and it's not going to work this time.
Because they created too much gas....
They do far more harm than that. They make opposing current copyright laws look bad in the eyes of the average citizen. To get any real change you must have a majority of the citizenry on your side. Then real political pressure can be applied in a legit manner. Pulling stupid stunts like this paints anyone advocating change in this area in a negative light.
I know you're either trolling, or joking, but these images are made by taking an orderly group of images of small parts of the painting by rows and columns to get complete coverage with a professional dslr and good lens, and then stitching the images together with software. There are many, many examples of these types of images out on the internet. You can find pictures of this type of cities, mountains in the Alps, and many other subjects by Googling for giga-pixel images.
This is a ridiculous claim. Anyone who drives a manual shift transmission for any amount of time shifts by feel. It's an automatic response that happens without thinking, and as such is not a distraction of any kind. The only people who would claim it is a distraction are those who have never driven them and are lost getting into a vehicle with a standard transmission.
The same goes for command line usage. Once you know how to use it, it's a more powerful, more flexible, faster, and more efficient way to get things done. Using the text based tools in Linux becomes habitual and easy over time, and you get more work done in a shorter amount of time.
A case in point. I worked for a guy that just hated text-based tools. He had a project on which he had spent parts of 2 days getting about 1/2 the job done using gui-based tools. I told him to email me the files and finished the job in 30 minutes using sed.