And you ignored the fact that the converter box was already doing RF output. WHY would I need a modulator to modulate something that was already modulated?
And you've still ignored the detail that the TV had one RF input, which means I could not connect both the antenna (connected to the adapter) and the adapter to the TV at the same time. Add in more cables, a switch box, a modulator, etc etc and it is no longer just a simple case of "$10 for a converter" that you claim makes cable such a bad alternative.
If the converter box is already doing RF output (on a single channel), you can buy a notch filter (to filter Channel 3/4 noise from the antenna) and then combine the two signals (turn a splitter around) into one RF cord to go into the TV. Tune to channel 3 and use the converter box and flip through digital channels, and use the TV remote to hit all of the analog channels. You're right - an RF Modulator is not necessary, but it's a little easier for most people to buy at Wal-Mart, and has the antenna passthrough and notch filter built-in.
I'm sorry you're sore about losing your analog broadcasts. But the majority of people favored the move to HD/digital. And other people are enjoying their Verizon LTE enabled by the freed up spectrum. How far away do you live from the major networks? I've lived 50 miles away from a major city and still received good digital signal from an indoor antenna location.
would know your article would draw more violence and assault
My point exactly. In the Gawker case, it's drawing more infringement. I guess it doesn't matter whether it's illegal. It's not very ethical in either case.
D'oh. Yeah, if I wanted to go back to analog, I'd have to dive behind the TV and change the connections. Perhaps you don't see that having a remote control that allows changing channels is a convenience, but I do. The remote isn't much good if I have to not only go over to the TV to change channels, but rewire the connections.
Hey, here's a solution. Cable. Not only do I get all the networks (two versions of some) but the picture is good and I don't have to rewire anything when I change channels. And I get more things than just the local stations. But according to some, getting cable wasn't the answer. I guess having to swap cables around was better after all.
That's a long rant to ignore my suggestion that you just get an RF modulator to run the converter box through. And did you have a local analog channel on VHF 3 AND 4? Probably not.
And a signal amplifier won't help the digital signals when they suffer from multipath or are too weak to start with.
If you're suffering from multipath, then you're going to have bigger problems with analog (ghosting).
Not exactly synonyms. Codecs don't have to include compression.
No, which is why I was more specific. If you did 1080i without compression, you'd need 150MHz per channel - and that's without error correction. We wouldn't even have room for one channel between VHF and UHF combined.
So, you went from five networks to one (likely with 4 digital subchannels, each of which are a better picture than analog). But if you're living at the edge of the signal, nobody cared. The local advertisers on the network certainly don't care, because you're not going to drive far enough to buy their services.
I am an apartment dweller, and I use a broken half of an outdoor antenna. Works great, and got it for free. I did this when living 50 miles away just fine. You can hide them really well if you try. A quality amplifier is the biggest part of the equation.
What on earth are you talking about? The TV needs an RF input for the antenna, and preferably composite (RCA style) input for the converter box - yes, the $50 converters had composite. I bought one for my mother-in-law. If your TV is even older with nothing but antenna input, you need to manually switch the cables when you want to switch between analog and digital (or sacrifice VHF channel 3 or 4 which is likely unused and buy an RF modulator for the converter box output). You use an RF splitter that yes, cuts signal level in half, so that you connect one to the TV and one to the converter box. But cutting the signal in half isn't that important if you have a decent signal amplifier and a good antenna and aren't way out in the fringes.
codec = digital compression scheme. Two ways of saying the same thing.
For a counterexample, it's like posting the street address of a victim in a news article. It's going to lead to illegal activity and that activity does not benefit the journalism itself.
I'll add that for people like me, it's what finally made cord-cutting make sense. I have no idea why people dropping their cable subscriptions aren't at least hooking up an antenna. I guess they don't understand how good it is.
Most of america was already on cable or satellite. I think that a lot of people just made it a convenient excuse to switch. I actually switched to antenna when digital TV was finally working right. And Netflix to supplement that. A lot of the stations didn't upgrade enough hardware early, so something as simple as a Thunderstorm Warning crawl dropped the entire feed to 480p. But once all of that was worked out, I jumped to HD OTA and never looked back.
Unfortunately, the standards for the rebate units did not initially include analog passthrough, so if you put one of those converters on your TV before the cut-off date you lost access to analog channels.
Not if you put in a splitter and kept the antenna connected to your TV's tuner as well.
I went from being able to get all five major networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX and PBS) to one (PBS).
True - to preserve bandwidth, they used a bandwidth optimized codec that was all or nothing. With more bandwidth, they could make it robust with error correction and reduced quality at poorer reception.
They could have chosen a digital broadcast TV standard that was backwards-compatible with the older signalling system.
And how on earth do you propose a digital TV standard that's backwards compatible and still uses only 6MHz? We optimized our bandwidth usage and gained a whole block of frequencies for LTE.
In the US, it cost maybe $10 (after government rebate) to buy a converter box during the rebate program. After, it was $40-50. That's maybe one month of fees for cable TV. And the picture was better than cable. If anyone spent more to switch to cable rather than pay a small one-time fee, they weren't making the best choice.
And surprisingly there were still games in the store for it then. A great system. But mostly, I stuck with software from the era it was released. And most of the incompatibility I ran into could be solved by booting to a non-OEM copy of DOS (as legal or not as it was).
Would love to hear the story on which compatibility problems he had- if you remember anything.
I was 13 when I got my hands on a 10 year old Tandy 1000. My first computer, and I didn't care that it was outdated because Windows 95 hadn't quite come out yet. Deskmate really was great for the time.
Deskmate doesn't need real Tandy DOS to run. What you need is DOSBox. It has support for emulating the Tandy 1000 hardware: http://www.vogons.org/viewtopi...
I've had good success even with some of the full color games with 16-color Tandy graphics support and 3-voice sound (e.g. Sierra adventure games)
Yes. My first computer was a Tandy 1000HX (but in the mid-90's after it was obsolete). I loved that thing - and there was no shortage of software that had a special mode for Tandy/Jr. graphics and the great 3-voice sound. Space Quest II looked and sounded outstanding for its time.
I never had any problems, though, and most of my games had special support for Tandy graphics/sound (few of them called it PC Jr. support - just Tandy).
Again - I'm not saying the home experience is a bad one - just not superior to the theater in every respect. I still save money going to the theater over spending to get a larger screen that makes the image as visually large as a theater screen relative to the viewing distance.
Since you have a right to representation, I'd assume they'd be legally forced to wait until you've found one before continuing. Of course they can't wait forever, but if the delay is a logistic one and not stalling, then why wouldn't they be forced to wait?
He really shouldn't have warn a camera into a place of business where there are signs saying the use of cameras is against the law - by bringing his (google glass) camera into the theater, he became responsible for proving that he wasn't using the camera during the movie..
The use of cameras is against the law, sure. Possessing one that's turned off is not. Yes, the theater can ask you to leave if you have a camera out (determine you as an unwanted guest and therefore trespassing if you stay). That does not mean he is guilty until proven innocent regarding using the recording device.
Hmm...I don't know about the looks and sounds better. Blu-Ray is great, but it's only about 2K. My local theater projects in 4K. If you have active shutter 3D, then I can't handle the flickering unless maybe it's flickering at 240Hz or above. If you have passive 3D, then you're only getting 540p vertical resolution.
At home, the sound is better (no talking; closer speakers), the lighting is better (I can go darker), and the screen is potentially sharper (but a bit smaller in my field of view).
4K TV's and content have a long way to come before a 3D 4K movie looks good at home.
Yeah - it was hilarious. It had a link to a sign up page that warned:
Be wary of calls or email scams that may appear to offer protection but are really trying to get personal information from you. Please navigate directly to websites rather than clicking on links within emails.
Straight from an email that appeared to offer protection and asked for personal information. At least the link showed the URL in plain text so you could copy/paste or retype it easily.
Slashdot Mirror
And you ignored the fact that the converter box was already doing RF output. WHY would I need a modulator to modulate something that was already modulated?
And you've still ignored the detail that the TV had one RF input, which means I could not connect both the antenna (connected to the adapter) and the adapter to the TV at the same time. Add in more cables, a switch box, a modulator, etc etc and it is no longer just a simple case of "$10 for a converter" that you claim makes cable such a bad alternative.
If the converter box is already doing RF output (on a single channel), you can buy a notch filter (to filter Channel 3/4 noise from the antenna) and then combine the two signals (turn a splitter around) into one RF cord to go into the TV. Tune to channel 3 and use the converter box and flip through digital channels, and use the TV remote to hit all of the analog channels. You're right - an RF Modulator is not necessary, but it's a little easier for most people to buy at Wal-Mart, and has the antenna passthrough and notch filter built-in.
I'm sorry you're sore about losing your analog broadcasts. But the majority of people favored the move to HD/digital. And other people are enjoying their Verizon LTE enabled by the freed up spectrum. How far away do you live from the major networks? I've lived 50 miles away from a major city and still received good digital signal from an indoor antenna location.
would know your article would draw more violence and assault
My point exactly. In the Gawker case, it's drawing more infringement. I guess it doesn't matter whether it's illegal. It's not very ethical in either case.
D'oh. Yeah, if I wanted to go back to analog, I'd have to dive behind the TV and change the connections. Perhaps you don't see that having a remote control that allows changing channels is a convenience, but I do. The remote isn't much good if I have to not only go over to the TV to change channels, but rewire the connections.
Hey, here's a solution. Cable. Not only do I get all the networks (two versions of some) but the picture is good and I don't have to rewire anything when I change channels. And I get more things than just the local stations. But according to some, getting cable wasn't the answer. I guess having to swap cables around was better after all.
That's a long rant to ignore my suggestion that you just get an RF modulator to run the converter box through. And did you have a local analog channel on VHF 3 AND 4? Probably not.
And a signal amplifier won't help the digital signals when they suffer from multipath or are too weak to start with.
If you're suffering from multipath, then you're going to have bigger problems with analog (ghosting).
Not exactly synonyms. Codecs don't have to include compression.
No, which is why I was more specific. If you did 1080i without compression, you'd need 150MHz per channel - and that's without error correction. We wouldn't even have room for one channel between VHF and UHF combined.
So, you went from five networks to one (likely with 4 digital subchannels, each of which are a better picture than analog). But if you're living at the edge of the signal, nobody cared. The local advertisers on the network certainly don't care, because you're not going to drive far enough to buy their services.
http://www.antennaweb.org/
No, it's more like providing the address of the prostitute.
I am an apartment dweller, and I use a broken half of an outdoor antenna. Works great, and got it for free. I did this when living 50 miles away just fine. You can hide them really well if you try. A quality amplifier is the biggest part of the equation.
What on earth are you talking about? The TV needs an RF input for the antenna, and preferably composite (RCA style) input for the converter box - yes, the $50 converters had composite. I bought one for my mother-in-law. If your TV is even older with nothing but antenna input, you need to manually switch the cables when you want to switch between analog and digital (or sacrifice VHF channel 3 or 4 which is likely unused and buy an RF modulator for the converter box output). You use an RF splitter that yes, cuts signal level in half, so that you connect one to the TV and one to the converter box. But cutting the signal in half isn't that important if you have a decent signal amplifier and a good antenna and aren't way out in the fringes.
codec = digital compression scheme. Two ways of saying the same thing.
Well sure - you can hardly collect "damages" for this infringement if it ever becomes a successful movie.
For a counterexample, it's like posting the street address of a victim in a news article. It's going to lead to illegal activity and that activity does not benefit the journalism itself.
I'll add that for people like me, it's what finally made cord-cutting make sense. I have no idea why people dropping their cable subscriptions aren't at least hooking up an antenna. I guess they don't understand how good it is.
Most of america was already on cable or satellite. I think that a lot of people just made it a convenient excuse to switch. I actually switched to antenna when digital TV was finally working right. And Netflix to supplement that. A lot of the stations didn't upgrade enough hardware early, so something as simple as a Thunderstorm Warning crawl dropped the entire feed to 480p. But once all of that was worked out, I jumped to HD OTA and never looked back.
Unfortunately, the standards for the rebate units did not initially include analog passthrough, so if you put one of those converters on your TV before the cut-off date you lost access to analog channels.
Not if you put in a splitter and kept the antenna connected to your TV's tuner as well.
I went from being able to get all five major networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX and PBS) to one (PBS).
True - to preserve bandwidth, they used a bandwidth optimized codec that was all or nothing. With more bandwidth, they could make it robust with error correction and reduced quality at poorer reception.
They could have chosen a digital broadcast TV standard that was backwards-compatible with the older signalling system.
And how on earth do you propose a digital TV standard that's backwards compatible and still uses only 6MHz? We optimized our bandwidth usage and gained a whole block of frequencies for LTE.
In the US, it cost maybe $10 (after government rebate) to buy a converter box during the rebate program. After, it was $40-50. That's maybe one month of fees for cable TV. And the picture was better than cable. If anyone spent more to switch to cable rather than pay a small one-time fee, they weren't making the best choice.
And surprisingly there were still games in the store for it then. A great system. But mostly, I stuck with software from the era it was released. And most of the incompatibility I ran into could be solved by booting to a non-OEM copy of DOS (as legal or not as it was).
Would love to hear the story on which compatibility problems he had- if you remember anything.
I was 13 when I got my hands on a 10 year old Tandy 1000. My first computer, and I didn't care that it was outdated because Windows 95 hadn't quite come out yet. Deskmate really was great for the time.
Deskmate doesn't need real Tandy DOS to run. What you need is DOSBox. It has support for emulating the Tandy 1000 hardware:
http://www.vogons.org/viewtopi...
I've had good success even with some of the full color games with 16-color Tandy graphics support and 3-voice sound (e.g. Sierra adventure games)
Yes. My first computer was a Tandy 1000HX (but in the mid-90's after it was obsolete). I loved that thing - and there was no shortage of software that had a special mode for Tandy/Jr. graphics and the great 3-voice sound. Space Quest II looked and sounded outstanding for its time.
I never had any problems, though, and most of my games had special support for Tandy graphics/sound (few of them called it PC Jr. support - just Tandy).
laundry list
I see what you did there.
Especially if that's a fee to one movie studio. How many major studios are there? It's kind of a big business.
Again - I'm not saying the home experience is a bad one - just not superior to the theater in every respect. I still save money going to the theater over spending to get a larger screen that makes the image as visually large as a theater screen relative to the viewing distance.
#1 - in most states, you can be lawfully detained without charge for up to 24-48 hours. The real question is - "am I being detained?"
Since you have a right to representation, I'd assume they'd be legally forced to wait until you've found one before continuing. Of course they can't wait forever, but if the delay is a logistic one and not stalling, then why wouldn't they be forced to wait?
He really shouldn't have warn a camera into a place of business where there are signs saying the use of cameras is against the law - by bringing his (google glass) camera into the theater, he became responsible for proving that he wasn't using the camera during the movie..
The use of cameras is against the law, sure. Possessing one that's turned off is not. Yes, the theater can ask you to leave if you have a camera out (determine you as an unwanted guest and therefore trespassing if you stay). That does not mean he is guilty until proven innocent regarding using the recording device.
So someone should carry around multiple pairs at all times just in case they decide to spontaneously go see a movie?
Hmm...I don't know about the looks and sounds better. Blu-Ray is great, but it's only about 2K. My local theater projects in 4K. If you have active shutter 3D, then I can't handle the flickering unless maybe it's flickering at 240Hz or above. If you have passive 3D, then you're only getting 540p vertical resolution.
At home, the sound is better (no talking; closer speakers), the lighting is better (I can go darker), and the screen is potentially sharper (but a bit smaller in my field of view).
4K TV's and content have a long way to come before a 3D 4K movie looks good at home.
That wouldn't help - In a completely dark theater, even a tiny OLED screen at eye level would flood the area with light.
Yeah - it was hilarious. It had a link to a sign up page that warned:
Be wary of calls or email scams that may appear to offer protection but are really trying to get personal information from you. Please navigate directly to websites rather than clicking on links within emails.
Straight from an email that appeared to offer protection and asked for personal information. At least the link showed the URL in plain text so you could copy/paste or retype it easily.