Dihydrogen Monoxide is no laughing matter.
Neither is hydrogen hydroxide
Compromise is not a good thing. We're in the mess we're in now because our rights have been compromised.
Compromise is impossible to avoid. We will never be in a situation where everyone's interests align. We will never be in a situation where one priority has no competing priorities.
However, your elected officials agree with you 100%. But, in one area only. They absolutely will not compromise when it comes to decisions that might affect their electability. And because of this, they will compromise everything else.
We are not in this mess because of compromise. We are in this mess because of what won't be compromised. We are in this mess because the next election is the only thing consistently on the minds of our representatives.
Where you refuse to compromise will only dictate where do compromise. Compromise will happen anyway.
Legislators often back legislation that is not supported by the majority of their constituents. Often they represent those who make the most noise (or contribute the most money). That is often not the majority. So, clearly they are often not representing the majority. If that is their function, they do a very poor job of it.
my elected representative was elected to represent MY (and my neighbors') interests
So, when you and your neighbor's 'interests' don't coincide, who are they representing? (Of course, I'm sure that never happens)
but then I imagined them working from a remote town hall and surrounded by their constituants instead of their peers and lobbyies
Never having to leave their 'one viewpoint', 'no compromise required', gerrymandered home district will surely increase their awareness of others, empathy towards others, and enhance that necessary ability to find common ground and compromise when legislating.
Clearly one of congress' biggest problems until now has been that members are entirely too familiar with each other and each other's constituents and that extreme familiarity is what breeds all of this contention that keeps them from getting anything done..
Yep, Sure sounds like a great idea to me!
First, I like to remember my life the way I remember it - not from some video recording.
My wife and I absolutely forbid anyone from having a video camera at our wedding. It always seemed that when people watched the videos they always noticed things that went wrong (ex: someone not standing in the right place). As far as we remember, our wedding was perfect.
If people want to get all religious about things, one of the worst sins has to be willful ignorance.
There is a difference between something being "public information" but requiring specific action to discover and a 3rd party collecting that information and publicly publishing it.
This happens all of the time. Salaries for county employees are posted here by the local newspaper every year. And I do mean individual employees (by name - not just position).
So, any expectation of restraint by others in making public information easily available is delusional. If there is money to be made, it will happen.
Yes, the user will have to pick the antenna appropriate for their situation. If your antenna didn't receive UHF before, it will need to now. But there is nothing new here. You had to pick the antenna appropriate for your situation when the stations were analog as well.
Like I said before:
"Just look up your local stations and pick an antenna based on band(s) and distance."
I guess I could add pick it based on direction as well. In my case, all of the transmitters were in the same general direction and they were nearby. So, I used low gain antennas with a broad reception path.
I don't think the power reductions are much of a factor. And yes, the maximum effective radiated power has been reduced. For example, on UHF from 5000kW to 1000kW. But that is 5000kW pep vs 1000kW avg. So, that difference is much smaller than it looks on first inspection.
Even with my low gain antennas, I am astounded at the stations I can pick up. Any loss in broadcaster output power seems to be more than made up in the reduced signal to noise ratio requirements.
It is true that in fringe conditions you will probably get a good picture or no picture. Where with analog you might have gotten a noisy but usable picture.
Concerning preamps. if you buy a good preamplifier (mine is a winegard that is mounted up at the antenna) it really can help. My favorite channel changed from unwatchable to a good rock solid picture.
My problem with the marketing is the following:
Companies market these antennas implying there is something different about digital TV signals and the newer antennas are designed for these differences. But, the reality is that the radio signal really doesn't care whether the antenna was marketed as a digital TV antenna or not. The antenna is designed to capture radio waves and it does. The radio waves themselves are no different than before. It is the information that they carry that has changed.
To answer your question about digital TV antennas:
Despite the marketing implications, there really is nothing different about antennas for Digital TV. The encoding is not important. The frequency is the main factor and that has not changed substantially. Most digital TV stations are on the UHF band around where I live. So, if you are lucky, you can get by with just a simple UHF antenna if the stations are nearby.
Here is where you can find your nearby stations:
I built a simple 4 bay bow tie antenna for UHF. Mine looks like the one pictured at the top of this thread.
Here is a really nice example of one:
I also built a folded dipole for VHF: Here is an example:
My stations were fairly close by. These two antennas are not high gain antennas. I added a Winegard preampt to bring up the signal a bit. I have been very pleased. So, in summary, there is nothing different. Just look up your local stations and pick an antenna based on band(s) and distance.
Charlotte, NC. My polling place usually runs like clockwork. Today was no exception. Poll workers are great. Even had chairs in the hallway leading to the voting machines so people could sit while they waited for the poll to open.
I arrived 25 minutes before the poll opened. I was about the 40th person in line. The poll opened exactly on time. In 15 minutes I was out.
The line had backed up while I was voting. Looked to be about an hour wait.
We have LCD touch screens and a human readable printed paper entry is logged every time you touch a button. The system seems to work pretty well.
I have been keeping up with the campaigns. I research every person I vote for. But, I always find myself holding my nose when I pull the trigger. However, a good friend of mine was running for a judge seat. That one was an easy choice.
I see you have email.
Don't forget: You also have a browser.
You can do useful things with a browser.
(like fact check political emails)
Ah, the 'executive orders' email. The number of people that take these emails as gospel just astounds me. This 'Executive Orders' baloney was forwarded to me by my dad. I never ever read a political email and just assume it is factual. And indeed, they are almost always not. This one certainly falls in the 'pants on fire' category.
So far, Obama has issued 138. That is less than 'W' and from a brief inspection everyone else all of the way back to Grover Cleveland (if you average the per term numbers for those with multiple terms). For example Bush issued 173 the first term and 118 the second for an average of about 145.