Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: tyme on January 08, 2011, 02:38:06 PM
-
http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/tv/bottoms_up_TVD8XC31Te6v2kQTNAWc0J#ixzz1AM2dCtnY
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2011/01/07/court-ruling-opens-door-nudity-network-tv/?test=faces
The 2nd Circuit has vacated a fine for some nudity on NYPD blue 7 years ago, saying "nudity itself is not per se indecent."
So... is nudity unacceptable on network TV? What about the violence that's pervasive on TV these days? What justification is there for allowing one but not the other?
-
Why is the government regulating this at all? That's the real question I have, not the particular way they are regulating it.
-
You have a remote control. Failing that, if you find content offensive for any reason, you can disconnect from the channel or the network altogether. Failing that, you don't have to own a television at all. They are in no way a necessity of life.
-
So... is nudity unacceptable on network TV? What about the violence that's pervasive on TV these days? What justification is there for allowing one but not the other?
It is the opinion of the US government that they own the entire electromagnetic spectrum. Ok, since it's government property, obviously the Constitution applies. Is nudity considered free speech? Does the government have the right to infringe it if it does?
I do recall various politicians ranting about "obscenity", often with a statue of Justice in the background with an exposed breast. I doubt the government would arrest someone for filming a government PR thing. So why would an exposed breast be acceptable in that case, but not in a late night broadcast TV show?
-
Regarding prevalent network nudity, be careful what you wish for. I still have nightmares about my first exposure to a nude beach when I visited Yugoslavia. They're not at all like the postcards. [barf]
-
Regarding prevalent network nudity, be careful what you wish for. I still have nightmares about my first exposure to a nude beach when I visited Yugoslavia. They're not at all like the postcards. [barf]
True, but sex sells on TV, very well as you know, and most people prefer to look at attractive people so it seems logical to me that the networks would primarily show attractive naked people just to earn more money.
I'm in favor of easing the restrictions on TV nudity. I will vote with my remote if things get too raunchy for my tastes.
-
I recall NYPD Blue gifting us with Dennis Franz's backside.
Here's his front side:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fia.media-imdb.com%2Fimages%2FM%2FMV5BMTMxMDE5MjY0MV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwMDg4Njk2._V1._SX432_SY285_.jpg&hash=2efd4dc02d14764fe3e15806e9a3c04c38ea01e4)
Please excuse me for not being overjoyed at the ruling.
-
I'm in favor of easing the restrictions on TV nudity. I will vote with my remote if things get too raunchy for my tastes.
I agree.
-
I object to all this sex on the telly. I mean... I keep falling off!
-
I recall NYPD Blue gifting us with Dennis Franz's backside.
Here's his front side:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fia.media-imdb.com%2Fimages%2FM%2FMV5BMTMxMDE5MjY0MV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwMDg4Njk2._V1._SX432_SY285_.jpg&hash=2efd4dc02d14764fe3e15806e9a3c04c38ea01e4)
Please excuse me for not being overjoyed at the ruling.
You know what the great thing about nudity on TV is?
You can change the channel or turn it off if you have a personal objection to it.
You can even write to the production team and network and voice your objections, even after turning it off! Just because they CAN show something doesn't mean they HAVE to, and if their viewers let them know that they don't want to see it, they won't film or show it.
I understand that a lot of people object to televised nudity, though I do not myself. I don't particularly understand why nudity - or even explicit sex - is considered to be worse than implied or explicit violence by our country. Why is the latter acceptable on news and public network broadcast while the former is not? Isn't it worse to glorify infliction of pain, suffering, torture, and death than to show two people sharing a loving relationship - or even just screwing? Why is Jack Bauer acceptable for network primetime when, say, 'Red Shoe Diaries' is not? Don't get me wrong, I loves me a good car chase or gunfight on TV or in the movies - but why are those no issue, where depiction of a loving or even simply consensual sexual encounter is (or at least is more problematic)?
-
I object to all this sex on the telly. I mean... I keep falling off!
Monty Python is good for soooo many occasions.
-
So... is nudity unacceptable on network TV? What about the violence that's pervasive on TV these days? What justification is there for allowing one but not the other?
What justification is there for comparing the two? They're not the same thing, so why would we expect them to be handled in the same way?
-
What justification is there for comparing the two? They're not the same thing, so why would we expect them to be handled in the same way?
We (American society, that is) freak out over seeing a nude human body, or even a credible suggestion of consensual sexual interaction, on publically-accessible broadcast television. We (again, American society) have far less of an issue seeing fairly-graphic suggestions on those same channels of human bodies being riddled with bullets, sliced to ribbons, or blown to shreds. The former is healthy and typically harms no one, even in the story - the latter, at least in the story, KILLS people, and frequently (in the real world) glorifies violence and death being inflicted on people who frequently do not deserve such. But we're okay with that. Something which is, arguably, far worse - and we have far less of a problem with exposing children to it, while freaking out over showing nudity. We DON'T handle them in the same way - we handle the less-harmful depiction as though it were far worse. That's what I'm finding puzzling.
-
What justification is there for comparing the two? They're not the same thing, so why would we expect them to be handled in the same way?
Why shouldn't they? I'd think freedom of speech should always apply, whatever topic you're addressing.
-
Well, I want to see Dennis Franz naked while beating a suspect.
-
I recall NYPD Blue gifting us with Dennis Franz's backside.
Here's his front side:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fia.media-imdb.com%2Fimages%2FM%2FMV5BMTMxMDE5MjY0MV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwMDg4Njk2._V1._SX432_SY285_.jpg&hash=2efd4dc02d14764fe3e15806e9a3c04c38ea01e4)
Please excuse me for not being overjoyed at the ruling.
You just need to be more sex positive. :D
-
while beating a suspect.
Is that what the kids call it nowadays?
-
Is that what the kids call it nowadays?
ROTFLMAO!!!!
Chris
-
You have a remote control. Failing that, if you find content offensive for any reason, you can disconnect from the channel or the network altogether. Failing that, you don't have to own a television at all. They are in no way a necessity of life.
A-men!
IMHO, if the GOP really loved freedom, they would defund the FCC, and try to dismantle it altogether. Obama is trying to use it as a tool to limit access to free speech. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see the potential impact of net neutrality.
-
A-men!
IMHO, if the GOP really loved freedom, they would defund the FCC, and try to dismantle it altogether. Obama is trying to use it as a tool to limit access to free speech. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see the potential impact of net neutrality.
Tangent moment!
Chucking the FCC in its entirety seems like a rather bad idea to me. It should absolutely be gutted of any content censoring ability they are trying to use it for, but for other purposes, such as delineating portions of the EM spectrum to allow systems to function without conflict is actually rather important.
How would you feel about your airline flight making an instrument only landing approach to O'Hare International and suddenly the ILS beacon and ATC voice channels are being stepped on and blocked by someone else with a transmitter who didn't bother to check if the frequencies they are trying to use were already occupied. Or possibly couldn't know they were inadvertently jamming another signal because their receiver can only receive one particular kind of modulation while the very important other system (the one telling your airplane it's course and descent path so it doesn't slam into the ground and explode) is using an entirely different system.
-
Tangent moment!
Chucking the FCC in its entirety seems like a rather bad idea to me. It should absolutely be gutted of any content censoring ability they are trying to use it for, but for other purposes, such as delineating portions of the EM spectrum to allow systems to function without conflict is actually rather important.
How would you feel about your airline flight making an instrument only landing approach to O'Hare International and suddenly the ILS beacon and ATC voice channels are being stepped on and blocked by someone else with a transmitter who didn't bother to check if the frequencies they are trying to use were already occupied. Or possibly couldn't know they were inadvertently jamming another signal because their receiver can only receive one particular kind of modulation while the very important other system (the one telling your airplane it's course and descent path so it doesn't slam into the ground and explode) is using an entirely different system.
I didn't even think of those functions of FCC. I'm wondering if there is another agency they could be combined with, while stripping out the censoring abilities.
Many agencies have alot of redundancy with other agenices. Were I King, one of the first things would be figuring out which ones could be combined and then eliminated.
-
I didn't even think of those functions of FCC.
The FCC also regulates the emissions from non-broadcasting equipment so it doesn't cause interference with other devices in your home (power supplies for example). They do a lot more than the censorship activities most people think of when they hear FCC.
Chris
-
Well, I want to see Dennis Franz naked while beating a suspect.
Right after you get those nudies of Walter Brennan? =D
-
We (American society, that is) freak out over seeing a nude human body, or even a credible suggestion of consensual sexual interaction, on publically-accessible broadcast television. We (again, American society) have far less of an issue seeing fairly-graphic suggestions on those same channels of human bodies being riddled with bullets, sliced to ribbons, or blown to shreds. The former is healthy and typically harms no one, even in the story - the latter, at least in the story, KILLS people, and frequently (in the real world) glorifies violence and death being inflicted on people who frequently do not deserve such. But we're okay with that. Something which is, arguably, far worse - and we have far less of a problem with exposing children to it, while freaking out over showing nudity. We DON'T handle them in the same way - we handle the less-harmful depiction as though it were far worse. That's what I'm finding puzzling.
So we agree that sex and violence are different things, and showing one on TV doesn't "justify" showing the other. So far so good. But it simply isn't true that Americans "freak out" about sex and nudity on TV, and we are "okay with" violence on TV. The two subjects are almost uniformly combined in the popular discussion, as if they were the same issue. You are overplaying the objections to televised sexuality, while completely downplaying the objections to televised violence.
Nor will you be able to claim that sex, especially the sort of sex lurid enough to build TV ratings, is "healthy and typically harms no one." We all know the risks of sex, and that riskier sex makes better TV. Despite any talk of Americans freaking out, our airwaves are loaded with everything short of full nudity, and even that is available on the paid TV channels that so many Americans receive. So let's not pretend that present-day America is Puritan New England.
-
Oh no - sax and violins on TV :lol:
-
Right after you get those nudies of Walter Brennan?
Oh no - sax and violins on TV
A prize to anyone who can identify what the quips about Walter Brennan and sax and violins refer to.
-
Nor will you be able to claim that sex, especially the sort of sex lurid enough to build TV ratings, is "healthy and typically harms no one." We all know the risks of sex, and that riskier sex makes better TV. Despite any talk of Americans freaking out, our airwaves are loaded with everything short of full nudity, and even that is available on the paid TV channels that so many Americans receive. So let's not pretend that present-day America is Puritan New England.
1. The "risks of sex" are overstated. And they are getting lower every year as the prevalence of STDs gets lower, and lower, and lower. Typically, as in in the majority of cases, sex indeed hurts no one. ( I mean, of course, in the health sense. If your wife leaves you, or you're left upset by something you did, that's certainly not something the government should protect you from.
2. Sex is exactly like violence in the moral sense. Sex, like violence, is morally neutral. (Nobody here is a pacifist or opposed completely to all sex). There are circumstances where violence is morally right and deserves to be glorified. People like Zaitsev, Patton, I want to hear about them more on television. With sex it seems to be the same. Certain kinds of sex are okay, and others are not (personally I think all consensual sex is okay). Certainly I don't think the moral rightness of sex is what gives TV ratings. Do you think if we showed a film about, say, the sex life of a married woman and her husband (with the married woman played by, uh, Mila Jovovich or Summer Glau), with explicit erotic scenes, it would somehow fail to grow ratings?
-
Ideologically, I generally think it should be looser then it is now. Totally unregulated? Maybe, but that would require a huge culture shift. Parents would actually have to start monitoring what their kids watch.
Personally, I wouldn't be very interested. It's like organized sports - Fun to do in person, but not much fun to watch other people do.
-
Why shouldn't they? I'd think freedom of speech should always apply, whatever topic you're addressing.
Uh, why?
Assuming the FCC runs up and prevents nudie bits or violence, why ought a business corporation have identical 1st Amendment rights as a flesh & blood citizen? Especially if the debate is not about the FCC enforcing political content.
Some things, like the means of communication (broadly speaking: roads, railroads, airwaves) are most certainly legitimate spheres for gov't to provide some sort of order other than, "I have a bigger transmitter than you, so suck it," or "I bought the Stryker, so get the hell outta my way or I'll run your puny Chevy Rentabu off the road."
The proliferation of paid TV (cable, satellite, FIOS, broadband) has gutted the argument on the regulators' side that they must control political content for "fairness" as well as the libertines' side that we can not restrict non-political content due to some sort of censorship argument preventing the content from being viewed.
Ideologically, I generally think it should be looser then it is now. Totally unregulated? Maybe, but that would require a huge culture shift. Parents would actually have to start monitoring what their kids watch.
It is actually a pretty regular topic of conversation amongst actual parents.
-
1. The "risks of sex" are overstated. And they are getting lower every year as the prevalence of STDs gets lower, and lower, and lower.
So we agree that sex is not always healthy.
Typically, as in in the majority of cases, sex indeed hurts no one. ( I mean, of course, in the health sense. If your wife leaves you, or you're left upset by something you did, that's certainly not something the government should protect you from.
So we agree that sex involves risks to physical health and to emotional well-being. This thread is not about govt. protecting people from hurt feelings or marital problems, so I'm not sure why you bring it up.
2. Sex is exactly like violence in the moral sense. Sex, like violence, is morally neutral. (Nobody here is a pacifist or opposed completely to all sex). There are circumstances where violence is morally right and deserves to be glorified. People like Zaitsev, Patton, I want to hear about them more on television. With sex it seems to be the same. Certain kinds of sex are okay, and others are not (personally I think all consensual sex is okay).
So we agree that sex and violence* can be used for good or evil.
Certainly I don't think the moral rightness of sex is what gives TV ratings. Do you think if we showed a film about, say, the sex life of a married woman and her husband (with the married woman played by, uh, Mila Jovovich or Summer Glau), with explicit erotic scenes, it would somehow fail to grow ratings?
It certainly would not do as well as a story about people who aren't married. It's too predictable, and too hard for the writers to make it interesting. Usually, the viewer wants to be kept guessing about will they or won't they, or will the husband/wife find out, etc. This is just a basic truth about fiction.
*I usually reserve the word "violence" for illicit or excessive force, but I'll use the term in a morally-neutral sense here. Seems to be convenient.
-
It is actually a pretty regular topic of conversation amongst actual parents.
i see what you did there.... >:D and i understand :facepalm:
-
So we agree that sex and violence are different things, and showing one on TV doesn't "justify" showing the other. So far so good. But it simply isn't true that Americans "freak out" about sex and nudity on TV, and we are "okay with" violence on TV. The two subjects are almost uniformly combined in the popular discussion, as if they were the same issue. You are overplaying the objections to televised sexuality, while completely downplaying the objections to televised violence.
Nor will you be able to claim that sex, especially the sort of sex lurid enough to build TV ratings, is "healthy and typically harms no one." We all know the risks of sex, and that riskier sex makes better TV. Despite any talk of Americans freaking out, our airwaves are loaded with everything short of full nudity, and even that is available on the paid TV channels that so many Americans receive. So let's not pretend that present-day America is Puritan New England.
Whether or not it's okay to show those things isn't the question: Is it right for the government to interfere in what should be a free market decision? If enough people don't want to see the sex or violence, they will tune out. The free market will swing to follow what pople want.
-
Assuming the FCC runs up and prevents nudie bits or violence, why ought a business corporation have identical 1st Amendment rights as a flesh & blood citizen? Especially if the debate is not about the FCC enforcing political content.
Because we both know that corporations are the extensions of flesh and blood citizens. Nor is there a poltical-only exemption in the 1st Amendment.
-
nudie bits or violence
Why do we have to choose between the two? =D
-
Whether or not it's okay to show those things isn't the question: Is it right for the government to interfere in what should be a free market decision? If enough people don't want to see the sex or violence, they will tune out. The free market will swing to follow what pople want.
Actually, tyme asked a question about the supposed similarity between sex and violence on television. That's what I'm responding to.
-
It certainly would not do as well as a story about people who aren't married. It's too predictable, and too hard for the writers to make it interesting. Usually, the viewer wants to be kept guessing about will they or won't they, or will the husband/wife find out, etc. This is just a basic truth about fiction.
Please.
There are plenty of classic artworks involving post-marital sex. I recommend you start with Shakespeare.
The proliferation of paid TV (cable, satellite, FIOS, broadband) has gutted the argument on the regulators' side that they must control political content for "fairness" as well as the libertines' side that we can not restrict non-political content due to some sort of censorship argument preventing the content from being viewed.
That is fairly illogical. On this argument, the government could censor a given means on media, as long as you were free to use another. Of course, the First Amendment does not have any mention of 'political' content.
-
Please.
There are plenty of classic artworks involving post-marital sex. I recommend you start with Shakespeare.
I thought we were talking about sex and nudity on TV. How is Shakespeare relevant?
-
I thought we were talking about sex and nudity on TV. How is Shakespeare relevant?
Shakespearean plots are a relevant example of how a show would incorporate post-marital sex.
Of course, I am not clear on why we need to focus on that anyway. The whole point of free speech is that different people will advocate - and let's be fair, art always promotes one message or another -different forms of sexual ethics. Let's have the religious produce She's too young (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0385278/), the liberals produce Beverly Hills 90210, the libertarians produce a full screen adaptation of Athlas Shrugged, sex and all. Let's see who wins.
-
You are aware that Shakespeare did not write for TV, and that most who do are not Shakespeare? ???
-
You are aware that Shakespeare did not write for TV, and that most who do are not Shakespeare? ???
I am also aware that Shakespearean plots have been adapted for TV hundreds of times.
I also am aware that Shakespeare wrote for the stage, for consumption by all levels of society. It was the TV of his day.
-
That is fairly illogical. On this argument, the government could censor a given means on media, as long as you were free to use another. Of course, the First Amendment does not have any mention of 'political' content.
No, it takes on the logic of the fairness doctrine regulators and the libertines straight-on, as both argument from scarcity.
Fairness doctrine assumes that viewers have no other televisual means to get political opinion and will be overly influenced by a single POV. The television libertines cry "censorship" and that their "art" will have no outlet if they can't access the airwaves. Well, with hundreds of channels and tens of thousands of web sites, scarcity is no longer a problem. You can get every stripe of political commentary and you can get the "art" of the most clinical and fetishistic pornography piped into your home, with bells on it.
The fringe freaks can find what they want, nowadays, and there is no need to stuff it in the majority's face. How's about we leave the one medium that is easiest for the most to obtain to reflect the mores of the majority who are not into clinical close-ups or Denniz Franz's ass at any leve of magnification?
-
The 'majority' can use a remote control. If it is really so vast, no doubt the Free market will do its work.
-
Oh no - sax and violins on TV :lol:
What?....no oboes?.... =|
Please.
There are plenty of classic artworks involving post-marital sex. I recommend you start with Shakespeare.
Go back further than that....look at Chaucer's Canterbury Tales and most of the ancient Greek myths....they make Desperate Housewives look tame.... :O
-
Yes, but we were discussing sex where the partners were married.
Maybe go straight to the Bible and recreate the story of David's marriage. Complete with severed foreskins in bags.
-
And the foreskins had what to do with graphic depictions of David and his wives getting it on?
And I haven't read or seen all of Shakespeare's plays. Which ones include play-by-play accounts of married people having sex?
Look, Micro. Everybody who watches TV or movies knows that illicit sex makes more money. I'm sorry you never got the memo, but there's no need to keep desperately defending your view from a minor point that doesn't work out in your favor.
-
Anywhere you can work in an explicit description of sex between two handsome people, it will make money, even if they're married. It is unconnected to the context where they have sex. THe will-they-or-won't-they tension can, conversely, make money even without explicit sex, see all the hundredds of shows built on that rhethoric.
-
The will-they-or-won't-they tension can, conversely, make money even without explicit sex, see all the hundredds of shows built on that rhethoric.
Precisely.
-
What?....no oboes?.... =|
What about the ominous cellos?
-
Precisely.
You've omitted half of my post.
Mind, may it be that this means that a lot of people want to see that?
-
If people don't want to see it, they won't watch the shows. If people don't watch the shows, the networks will put something else on.
-
If people don't want to see it, they won't watch the shows. If people don't watch the shows, the networks will put something else on.
Per-zactly.
-
If people don't watch the shows, the networks will put something else on.
Clothes...? =D
-
If people don't want to see it, they won't watch the shows. If people don't watch the shows, the networks will put something else on.
....and yet 60 Minutes is still on the air..... ;/
-
You've omitted half of my post.
Mind, may it be that this means that a lot of people want to see that?
Yes, I omitted half of your post. I quoted the half where we agreed that fiction tends to focus on relationships outside of marriage, rather than in. That settles the question we were debating. Thanks.
I don't quite understand the question at the end of that post. What is it that people want to see? If you mean non-marital relationships, then yes. Again, we agree.
-
So why does the government need to be involved, again? If there are people who want to watch that, by what right do you think the majority can limit their access to that?
-
So why does the government need to be involved, again? If there are people who want to watch that, by what right do you think the majority can limit their access to that?
Didn't argue for that. I was just responding to one question that tyme asked about the different treatment of sex vis-a-vis violence.
-
The FCC also regulates the emissions from non-broadcasting equipment so it doesn't cause interference with other devices in your home (power supplies for example).
Thanks for reminding me that there's an even better example of the FCC's unwillingness and/or inability to perform its basic functions than CB.
-
Keep the ratings system and pre-show content warnings, perhaps even increase their visibility in some way the more "objectionable" the content, and let that be that. Violence, nudity, sex, etc. should be the choice of the network and production company, not the government. Watching it should be the consumers choice, not the government saying when and where they can or can not.
Beyond that, if you don't like it, DON'T watch. If you see the little rating in the corner that shows you wont like something that's going to be included, change the channel to a program that more suits your tastes. If you don't want you kid's watching it, monitor their TV time. Show me a TV that is anything short of a dinosaur and it almost certainly has parental controls. Take five minutes and set it to block certain ratings.
Just because they can show it, doesn't mean they have to, and it doesn't mean you have to watch it.
-
So why does the government need to be involved, again? If there are people who want to watch that, by what right do you think the majority can limit their access to that?
Been covered several times:
* RF spectrum allocation is the most important, IMO
* Gov't/Taxpayers supposedly own the RF spectrum on the USA
There are plenty of means for folks to see nudie bits and ultraviolence in their home. The access limitation is only via one media of several and (given the free and openly accessible nature of OTA TV) is roughly equivalent to the public spaces, which also have reasonable limits on violence & nudie bits.
No one is limiting what sort of sex & violence you can get via one of several other means that are somewhat more private in nature: dialup, cable broadband, cable TV, DSL, FIOS, satellite broadband, satellite TV, microwave broadband, your neighbor's WiFi, 3G & 4G cellular broadband, etc.
I see the issue as analogous to one group wanting sex & nudity in public spaces to be hunky dory and the other group saying, "Get a room."
-
No one is limiting what sort of sex & violence you can get via one of several other means that are somewhat more private in nature: dialup, cable broadband, cable TV, DSL, FIOS, satellite broadband, satellite TV, microwave broadband, your neighbor's WiFi, 3G & 4G cellular broadband, etc.
That could be coming next, since the FCC has ruled that they have authority of the Internet.
-
Been covered several times:
* RF spectrum allocation is the most important, IMO
* Gov't/Taxpayers supposedly own the RF spectrum on the USA
And that is in itself a faulty principle. All the problems with FCC overregulation come from here. A property-based system has already been advocated by men like Hayek and Friedman.
-
That could be coming next, since the FCC has ruled that they have authority of the Internet.
Expect to see the FCC get spanked by Congress, both Dems and Repubs.
Also, there are practical problems to scanning every data bit for naughty nudie bits.
And that is in itself a faulty principle. All the problems with FCC overregulation come from here. A property-based system has already been advocated by men like Hayek and Friedman.
Faulty is debatable (especially WRT freq alloc). More to the point, it is current reality. You are not Adam Savage.
Get a room. ;)
-
Since when are you of all people a political 'realist'?
-
Since when are you of all people a political 'realist'?
Hey, if you have a path to privatize the airwaves that does a better job than the FCC, run with it. Until that comes to fruition, talk about privatizing the sidewalks airwaves has some realism constraints.
In this case, the constraints are pretty darned light, as one can do an end-run around the FCC and not restrict oneself to OTA transmissions. Nobody who really wants T&A and violent entertainment is denied it.
I am not ignorant of the FCC's shortcomings as a RF frequency arbiter, either. I think its greatest failing is how it has stifled some technologies. I do, however, have some doubts about the application of libertarian theory in the face of physical reality where RF interference is a serious problem.
-
What is the problem? Why is it not possible to have a company own, say frequency X, Y, or Z in a certain area, and then have the government enforce it by punishing people who 'trespass', so to speak, onto that frequency with their pirate transmissions? The mechanism would be much the same as it is today, except the legal basis would be different.
My technical knowledge is limited, so feel free to explain why am I wrong.
-
Radio waves propagate strangely. In my area, a certain radio station comes in clearly during the day. When night comes, this english-speaking station signal is completely overwhelmed by some kind of spanish-speaking station, whose signal is filled with mostly static. Maybe the ESS cuts power down at night, maybe the SSS ups their power.
-
Radio waves propagate strangely.
understatement!
-
That could be coming next, since the FCC has ruled that they have authority of the Internet.
Umm, no. The FCC has jurisdiction over ISPs, and to the extent ISPs are selectively promoting or blocking some standards-compliant internet traffic, they need to be stomped on.
-
Radio waves propagate strangely.
understatement!
Back in 1995 or so, an Arkansas AM station was bought up by a big-time NY City station. No, the New Yawkers did not take up a sudden interest in Arkansas market. They bought it out of their petty cash because some new solar or atmospheric activity caused the low-powered Arkie AM station to blast out the New York AM station at night (up in New York) and the New Yorkers were tired of listening to high school basketball games taking place in the Ozarks when they really wanted to listen to the NY City AM station's programming.
Oh, I might add that the AM station was bought out and shut down.
-
Radio waves propagate strangely. In my area, a certain radio station comes in clearly during the day. When night comes, this english-speaking station signal is completely overwhelmed by some kind of spanish-speaking station, whose signal is filled with mostly static. Maybe the ESS cuts power down at night, maybe the SSS ups their power.
AM stations have to reduce their output wattage to certain levels at sunset to reduce the amount of interference. I forget why the signal is more prone to do that after sunset.
-
AM stations have to reduce their output wattage to certain levels at sunset to reduce the amount of interference. I forget why the signal is more prone to do that after sunset.
Something about bouncing it off of a thermocline in the atmosphere, which is higher in the cooler hours of darkness... =|
-
what i want to know, is who are these "illiterate?" people that can't change a channel, or setup they're Lewinsky chip.(hey it was done in prez billy bob's term, i stand by the pun :laugh:) [popcorn]
hah! google has four hits for "Lewinsky chip" =D
hmm, quite the example of government working right. :laugh: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-chip#Lack_of_supporting_research)
-
Something about bouncing it off of a thermocline in the atmosphere, which is higher in the cooler hours of darkness... =|
You're thinking of ionospheric bounce. The particular layers of the ionosphere are heavily ionized during the day from solar radiation in various wavelengths, this allows radio signals to be refracted or "bounced" back down, like a racket ball rebounding. At night some of these layers lose their charge and others merge, changing which frequencies bounce where, thus certain radio waves are able to reach a much higher altitude before refracting back towards the earth (and are also able to achieve bounce at different angles than usual) and thus achieve a much longer "hop" at night, giving them a longer broadcast distance for the same given power output.
There's a lot more to it and a lot of math dealing with angle of incidence, frequency used, power output, the particular ionization state of the different layers at a given time, et cetera ad naseum, but that's the cliff notes version for ya.
-
I knew someone here would know why radio waves bounce more at night. I also knew it wouldn't be me. ;)
-
What?....no oboes?.... =|
Pervert! =D
Every once in awhile when I was on the boat doing ops in the SOCal are I could pick up good ole KVOO out of Tulsa.
That station used to save my butt alot when I was a kid. In the evenings in winter they would change their beam at 5:15pm and we would loose the signal, all that came across was a soft hiss of static. Mom's car had a hideously noisey, RF wise, ignition system. We could hear her coming 3 blocks away. If you listend close you could even tell where she was by the RPM changes when the transmission shifted.
-
Regarding prevalent network nudity, be careful what you wish for. I still have nightmares about my first exposure to a nude beach when I visited Yugoslavia. They're not at all like the postcards.
Yugoslavia
I found your problem, my friend.
Although I did think one topless woman in Barcelona was an obese, middle-aged man for a good 30 minutes.
-
Huh. When I was in Bosnia, the going joke was the girls were smokin' hot until you saw their teeth. And this was fairly accurate. =)