Author Topic: Pedro Picasso against progress  (Read 1507 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline franksolich

  • Scourge of the Primitives
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 57265
  • Reputation: +2174/-171
  • ^^^apres moi, le deluge
Pedro Picasso against progress
« on: January 22, 2008, 03:39:19 AM »
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2736126

Oh my.

Quote
Atman  (1000+ posts)       Mon Jan-21-08 06:07 PM
Original message
 
What was the last product that was SO GOOD the Govt. FORCED you to buy it?

Can you think of any consumer product which was of such an advancement over a competing product that the Government required you to throw away the inferior competitor and purchase the new, "superior" product?

Did the government mandate that you stop driving Ford Tauruses and purchase Mercedes Benz automobiles instead?

Did the government mandate that you stop trying to make Windows function properly and buy a Mac instead?

Did the government mandate that you stop purchasing pressed, formed turkey roll and purchase only fresh sliced turkey breast instead?

I'm trying to think of any product in American history where the government said "This new product is just so damned good, you simply have to have it or else you can't have one at all." I can't think of one...except for digital television.

If you don't actually watch television you've likely missed the heavy-rotation advertisements running on many cable systems touting the new digital cable tv standard due to go online in 2009. The message doesn't simply say the standard is changing, the message says "Digital television is so much better than analog that the government is requiring all viewers to switch to digital television."

Really? Is that actually the reason? It's just so damn good that the government wants to make sure we don't miss out on its goodness? Are they ****ing serious?

Of course, there is no way they'd tell you why they REALLY are requiring you to go digital -- so that they can a) have the ability to pull the plug and shut down communication at a moment's notice, something which cannot be done with an over-the-air analog broadcast signal, and b) require DRM-like copy protection on your digital devices, as a stroke to their big-media contributors.

No, you won't hear any of that. The only message being repeated ad nauseam is that it's all being done because digital tv is so awesome, so much better. If you don't have cable and rely on rabbit ears, I guess you don't deserve to watch television at all after 2009, Mr. & Mrs. Luddite. Oh, and we'll even give you $40 to buy a new converter box, another give-away to the industry.

The ramifications are scary enough without the blatant lying about why. Lots of people here recommend turning off your television and stop listening to the media lies. 2009 might be the perfect opportunity to do just that. **** 'em.

(edited for typo)

It's an enthusiastically-blazing campfire, so only a few primitive comments, selected at random:

Quote
Atman  (1000+ posts)       Mon Jan-21-08 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #10

15. How much did they pay for our airwaves? To whom?

Just curious. But the fundamental question I asked you ignored. Why are we being told it's because the quality is just do damned good that we just have to have it? What if I don't give a shit and don't mind a fuzzy, blurry image of American Idol? The airwaves are supposedly owned by The People.

Quote
Atman  (1000+ posts)       Mon Jan-21-08 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #6

11. I did, sorry to disappoint you.

If you already have a set, it will be unusable. Who is paying for those $40 vouchers (us) and who is receiving the hundreds of millions of dollars they represent (them). Who do you think is getting this "freed up" spectrum, the airwaves which we the people theoretically own? How much are these multi-billion dollar corporations paying for our airwaves so that they can increase their profits? Did YOU vote on it? Don't be condescending...I know all about the available broadcast spectrum and why it's being given away to the big corporate donors to Washington.

Quote
Atman  (1000+ posts)       Mon Jan-21-08 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #8
 
16. Not "nothing." Boxes will cost $50-70. Coupons are for $40.

Some big corporations are making huge money off this. Google it. You'll see find articles about spurring tv sales to help flagging retailers, all sorts of fun stuff. Huge money involved.

Quote
Atman  (1000+ posts)       Mon Jan-21-08 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #24
 
27. That's the official government link. I urge you to Google it instead.

"Why digital tv" works, but you have to keep digging a few pages deep to get past the "official" pages to the CNET article and the discussion pages.

If the link ends in .gov, you can pretty much be certain it's not telling you the whole story.

Quote
Atman  (1000+ posts)       Mon Jan-21-08 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #14
 
17. Good, because seatbelts was a pretty silly comeback.

If you have an old car that didn't come with seat belts and it still runs, you're exempt because you get an antique plate.

Quote
Atman  (1000+ posts)       Mon Jan-21-08 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #20
 
25. No one told you to drop Allstate and buy Geico because Geico was better.

Maybe I've overplayed the "whys and wherefores" for some. To be sure, it's a massive give-away to the media conglomerates who propped up BushCo. You don't hear about the copy-protection schemes Congress mandated as part of the conversion bill, another give-away that helps you and me exactly how? You won't hear about how much the industry is paying for all this new capacity to make money (virtually nothing). What you hear on the ads is that this is sooooo good, the government has decided everyone should have to switch. Literally, that's what the ads say.

Quote
Atman  (1000+ posts)       Mon Jan-21-08 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #49
 
51. 600 Skee Ball tickets, good for a Kewpie doll or a Harley-Davison cig lighter!

No one in this thread seams to grasp that concept.

Ooops, Pedro Picasso should have edited that one for a typo.
Democrats: A bunch of rich people convincing poor people to vote for rich people by telling poor people that other rich people are the reason they are poor

Life is short, and suddenly you're not there any more.

Offline franksolich

  • Scourge of the Primitives
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 57265
  • Reputation: +2174/-171
  • ^^^apres moi, le deluge
Re: Pedro Picasso against progress
« Reply #1 on: January 23, 2008, 08:54:00 AM »
Oh my.

This campfire, started by the media analyst Pedro Picasso, is still blazing, and it looks as if Pedro Picasso got owned by the primitives.

Anyway; an old favorite shows up:

Quote
Ladyhawk (1000+ posts)       Tue Jan-22-08 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #65
 
108. Has it been three or four years since I opted out?

I couldn't afford cable and, like you, chose the Internet. There are is no cable access to the Internet in my area.

It's been so long I've complete gotten out of the habit. After many years, I've started drawing again and I've improved my musical talents as well.

I would like to stay abreast of "what's cool" but I really don't have the money to pay a cable TV bill. I'm wondering if today's grocery bill put me in the hole this month.

The squawking primitive must still be taking singing lessons, paid for--of course--by her much-maligned mother.

Quote
nancyharris (484 posts)     Mon Jan-21-08 06:25 PM
Response to Original message
 
6. You may want to do some research on this

The government is not forcing you to "buy" anything. it is forcing broadcasters to switch their broadcasting signal from analog to digital. You don't have to "buy" anything. New TVs (since 1999) come with digital tuners to receive digital information and old TVs can fitted with a converter (for which you can get a free voucher ($40.00). The reason for the change from analog to digital has to do with the available broadcast spectrum. Switching to digital TV will free up that spectrum for public safety communications (fire, police, rescue) as well as wireless broadband. Large cities have a serious problem with gaining access to the narrow and congested broadcast spectrum.

After which other primitives try patiently explaining to Pedro Picasso that the idea frees up airwaves for more stuff, but it's no use; Pedro Picasso remains adamantly and assheadedly Pedro Picasso.

Quote
Atman  (1000+ posts)       Mon Jan-21-08 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #10
 
15. How much did they pay for our airwaves? To whom?

Just curious. But the fundamental question I asked you ignored. Why are we being told it's because the quality is just do damned good that we just have to have it? What if I don't give a shit and don't mind a fuzzy, blurry image of American Idol? The airwaves are supposedly owned by The People.

Quote
Atman  (1000+ posts)       Mon Jan-21-08 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #6
 
11. I did, sorry to disappoint you.

If you already have a set, it will be unusable. Who is paying for those $40 vouchers (us) and who is receiving the hundreds of millions of dollars they represent (them). Who do you think is getting this "freed up" spectrum, the airwaves which we the people theoretically own? How much are these multi-billion dollar corporations paying for our airwaves so that they can increase their profits? Did YOU vote on it? Don't be condescending...I know all about the available broadcast spectrum and why it's being given away to the big corporate donors to Washington.

Quote
Atman  (1000+ posts)       Mon Jan-21-08 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #24
 
27. That's the official government link. I urge you to Google it instead.

"Why digital tv" works, but you have to keep digging a few pages deep to get past the "official" pages to the CNET article and the discussion pages.

If the link ends in .gov, you can pretty much be certain it's not telling you the whole story.

Quote
Atman  (1000+ posts)       Mon Jan-21-08 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #18
 
22. Are you sure that was "Real Time?" 

Sounds like "Meet The Press," even on a regular television!

Quote
Atman  (1000+ posts)       Mon Jan-21-08 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #20
 
25. No one told you to drop Allstate and buy Geico because Geico was better.

Maybe I've overplayed the "whys and wherefores" for some. To be sure, it's a massive give-away to the media conglomerates who propped up BushCo. You don't hear about the copy-protection schemes Congress mandated as part of the conversion bill, another give-away that helps you and me exactly how? You won't hear about how much the industry is paying for all this new capacity to make money (virtually nothing). What you hear on the ads is that this is sooooo good, the government has decided everyone should have to switch. Literally, that's what the ads say.

Quote
Atman  (1000+ posts)       Tue Jan-22-08 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #62

87. I was mixing things up, sorry.

I was, in fact, thinking "cable" with that comment, but by the time it was pointed out my editing period had expired.

Quote
Atman  (1000+ posts)       Tue Jan-22-08 09:25 PM
Response to Reply #105
 
116. I'd agree with you, except for that I don't.

The BULK of my post was debunked? You mean that one sentence? How about the GIST of my post, and the part about the advertisements on the tv claiming that the government is forcing this change on us because digital television has such a superior picture quality that we absolutely MUST have it? Did you miss that part of my post while you were composing your snark?

Quote
Atman  (1000+ posts)       Tue Jan-22-08 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #82
 
86. None of those are apropos

No one told you you had to throw away your old car or install seat belts. As I pointed out up-thread, the government mandated that new cars have seat belts, but if you actually have a car that's so old it doesn't have seat belts, it's most likely registered as an antique and is exempt. As for helmets, they're not required everywhere, and what exactly were the intended to replace anyway? You're talking about safety features added to vehicles...why don't you add in brake lights and mirrors, too? They're required by law. You missed the point of my op. I have a perfectly fine, fully functioning 30 year old RCA 19" color TV. Still has a great picture. But the ad I referenced specifically and unequivocally states that "digital tv is so much better that the government wants you to switch by 2009." I haven't seen one person on this thread state any such thing, simply that the government is mandating it for bandwidth concerns and emergency response networks. What does that have to do with the claims the ads are making?

Quote
Atman  (1000+ posts)       Tue Jan-22-08 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #110

117. And you post a .gov URL as your source.
 
Yeah. Like BushCo is so reliable when it comes to telling us the straight story.

Did you even read my OP? Have you seen the ads running 24/7 on cable? So you're telling me that this is happening because the picture quality is SO AWESOME that the government doesn't want us to miss out? Are you really taking that position?

Democrats: A bunch of rich people convincing poor people to vote for rich people by telling poor people that other rich people are the reason they are poor

Life is short, and suddenly you're not there any more.

Offline Lord Undies

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11388
  • Reputation: +639/-250
Re: Pedro Picasso against progress
« Reply #2 on: January 23, 2008, 09:06:18 AM »
I guess Pedro is just fine with the new light bulb thingy which is about to come into his life.  Or maybe he will get on that in 2011.

Offline franksolich

  • Scourge of the Primitives
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 57265
  • Reputation: +2174/-171
  • ^^^apres moi, le deluge
Re: Pedro Picasso against progress
« Reply #3 on: January 23, 2008, 09:09:54 AM »
I guess Pedro is just fine with the new light bulb thingy which is about to come into his life.  Or maybe he will get on that in 2011.

What caught my eye is his 30-year-old 19" RCA color television set.

Very odd, because I still have a 19" Sears, Roebuck color television set, manufactured according to the serial number, in 1977.  I don't use it much, but it still has a sharp, clear, picture.
Democrats: A bunch of rich people convincing poor people to vote for rich people by telling poor people that other rich people are the reason they are poor

Life is short, and suddenly you're not there any more.

Offline lastparker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1437
  • Reputation: +93/-10
Re: Pedro Picasso against progress
« Reply #4 on: January 23, 2008, 09:11:27 AM »
Oh my!

I read on and on until I got to:

Quote
Pedro Picasso remains adamantly and assheadedly Pedro Picasso.

That was so brilliant, I didn't have to read another word.  :-)
Cursing is the crutch of the inarticulate mother****er, DUmmies.   -NHSparky

Deadbeats eating mushroom duxelles and dandelion salad with a shallot vinaigrette are still deadbeats.    -GOBUCKS

Offline Rebel

  • Stick a fork in us. We're done.
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16127
  • Reputation: +987/-215
Re: Pedro Picasso against progress
« Reply #5 on: January 23, 2008, 09:17:39 AM »
Aren't these the same sillyass liberals that want the government to force us into hybrids and start using fluorescent bulbs?
NAMBLA is a left-wing organization.

Quote
There's a reason why patriotism is considered a conservative value. Watch a Tea Party rally and you'll see people proudly raising the American flag and showing pride in U.S. heroes such as Thomas Jefferson. Watch an OWS rally and you'll see people burning the American flag while showing pride in communist heroes such as Che Guevera. --Bob, from some news site




Offline franksolich

  • Scourge of the Primitives
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 57265
  • Reputation: +2174/-171
  • ^^^apres moi, le deluge
Re: Pedro Picasso against progress
« Reply #6 on: January 23, 2008, 10:38:28 AM »
Oh my.

This just keeps going on and on and on, Pedro Picasso getting his head--er, his ass--handed to him on a silver platter, by the primitives.

Quote
Atman  (1000+ posts)       Wed Jan-23-08 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #139
 
142. How do those things equate to your existing television?

My post didn't ask "What does the government force you to purchase." Read my op again. Were getting vaccinations all on your own just because you like injections and then the government said "We think you'll like this other vaccination even more, so we're going to mandate that you switch!"

That is what my post stated...There are ads running in heavy rotation on cable stating that the picture quality is so good that the government wants everyone to be able to experience it, and that is why we're switching to digital. Your examples simply don't have anything to do with such a scenerio.

Quote
Atman  (1000+ posts)       Wed Jan-23-08 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #145
 
152. What does that have to do with my post?

My post had no mention of taxes to pay for government services. They have absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked, which Onenote, especially, can't seem to grasp...

A much better analogy would be CD's vs. cassettes...did the government ever come out and say "CD's sound so much better than cassettes that we're stopping all production of cassettes."? No, market forces, consumers, made the ultimate decision as to what they preferred and cassettes simply died out.

Onenote is hung up on false assertion that I said the government was running ads, which simply isn't the case. I discussed the ads running on cable which claim the government is mandating the switch because it wants us all to be able to experience the great quality of digital tv. The ADS say it...you can see them yourself just by tuning into CNN or MSNBC for a couple of hours.
Democrats: A bunch of rich people convincing poor people to vote for rich people by telling poor people that other rich people are the reason they are poor

Life is short, and suddenly you're not there any more.

Offline miskie

  • Mailman for the VRWC
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10369
  • Reputation: +962/-54
  • Make America Great Again. Deport some DUmmies.
Re: Pedro Picasso against progress
« Reply #7 on: January 23, 2008, 01:57:03 PM »
The first things that come to my mind are Unleaded Gasoline and Catalytic Converters. Ever since EPA regs tightened, we are forced to pay for both on every new Gasoline-based vehicle since. If you remove or run a straight-pipe through your converter, you are in violation of the law.

Offline PatriotGame

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4285
  • Reputation: +226/-96
  • Look at my BIG feet! Woof!
Re: Pedro Picasso against progress
« Reply #8 on: January 23, 2008, 02:21:55 PM »
Quote
Atman  (1000+ posts)       Mon Jan-21-08 06:07 PM
Original message
 
What was the last product that was SO GOOD the Govt. FORCED you to buy it?


Unleaded gas
Catalytic Converters
New LP gas tanks for my gas BBQ
Social programs to buy votes from the dregs of society funded by EXTORTING money from my paycheck
Pesticides and herbicides for lawn care that don't work worth a shit
Low flow toilets that don't flush worth a shit
Lumber from Canada and South America because the moonbat-moonbat enabled enviro-wackos won't allow any trees cut in this nation.

On the lighter side, Bush did make Cindy 'Moonbat' Sheehan buy property in Crawford:

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2006/07/29/cindy-sheehan-bush-forced-me-t.php

Heh..
« Last Edit: January 23, 2008, 02:24:37 PM by PatriotGame »
           ►☼Liberals Are THE Root of ALL Evil!☼◄