RE: [Swprograms] Re: The cutting of radio before when we mayactuallyneed it the most

["Scott Royall" <royall@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I shudder to think of the QSL the pigeon sent.


-----Original Message-----
From: swprograms-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:swprograms-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John Figliozzi
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 10:07 PM
To: Shortwave programming discussion
Subject: Re: [Swprograms] Re: The cutting of radio before when we
mayactuallyneed it the most

I QSLed a carrier pigeon once.....    but it's a long story.

:-)))

John Figliozzi

On Tuesday, January 4, 2005, at 10:46  PM, Scott Royall wrote:

> We are getting dangerously off-topic, but let me say this. I just 
> re-watched
> "Three Days of the Condor", and it's the same tired mantra now being
> chanted. Even if your scenario came to past, shortwave would be just 
> as dead
> as the wire telegraph. It is a technology that, in its current form 
> anyway,
> has no future. Satellites are just too easy to lob up, and they don't 
> want
> constant TLC. Transmitter farms do. Shortwave exists today because 
> tubes had
> to come before LNAs on chips. Now, LNAs are kid stuff. Sirius and XM 
> are
> just baby steps compared to what's coming. If I were a government and I
> wanted to get my word to a specific region, shortwave would rank just 
> above
> carrier pigeons on my list of choices.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: swprograms-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:swprograms-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Kevin 
> Anderson
> Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 7:57 PM
> To: SWPrograms list
> Subject: [Swprograms] Re: The cutting of radio before when we may
> actuallyneed it the most
>
> Richard, Joe, and Scott:
>
> Thanks for reading and commenting on my post, even though I'm
> sure you all think I'm off my rocker (a fourth person told me as
> such in a direct reply).  Maybe I am, but only time will tell.
> <grin>
>
> Let me provide a few more comments, starting with those more on
> topic.
>
> I would agree with Joe, should economics go the negative way I
> suggest, that thousands of local AM (MW) and FM (VHF) radio
> stations don't make sense.  The combined used of electricity for
> transmitters alone, as you point out, plus all the energy use
> for programming, just doesn't seem sustainable.  Satellite
> distribution (which Richard also acknowledged) does certainly
> make sense (I may someday indeed get Sirius so I can get BBC,
> WRN, and CBC from one source), although I don't believe the
> private or corporate use of satellites will likely continue.  (I
> think space will once again become the domain of only
> governments trying to protect their interests.)
>
> And while I will hope that the Internet (or its future
> replacement) might remain viable (providing all the news and
> "radio" we need), and indeed the governments may step in to do
> so for their own security, I am doubtful that individuals in
> great numbers will remain computer users.  If electricity
> becomes unreliable, or the availability of computers becomes
> more scarce, I doubt they/we will have the time or priority to
> use computers.
>
> So I come back to the idea of shortwave being a viable
> broadcasting means for most people.  And if it remains analog,
> then all the more who can receive it, including with simple
> solar-powered or wind-up radios.  To me, any further "erosion"
> now of international broadcasters and open sources of
> information will mean much less available to us later when times
> get tough.
>
> Now onto the oil future (stop reading now for those who don't
> want to go off topic):
>
> Joe, I've heard of that research by Gold as well.  It has been
> commented on by lots of people in regard to Peak Oil
> discussions.  While I don't discount that oil can be made this
> way, my reading of the research suggests the rate of production
> is no where sufficient to generate enough, or to have created
> the volume of oil in the earth except over a long period of
> time.  That is the crux of the matter - no matter how oil is
> first produced (by compression of organic matter or by other
> methods), we are pumping too much of it.
>
> Richard and Scott, I don't doubt that more alternative energy
> sources are here and coming, and higher oil and transportation
> prices will certainly help in making them happen.  The more the
> better - alternatives, as well as more conservation of energy
> use, will soften the blow and postpone the worst times.  But my
> reading is that there isn't enough time left, nor are the
> replacements as viable as oil, for meeting all the
> transportation, energy, and production needs that are currently
> met by oil.  Plus the population of the earth is just too large.
>  (The carrying capacity of the earth, which is long term,
> sustainable use, suggests that between 1 and 2 billion can be
> comfortably supported globally.  At 6 billion on the Earth, this
> suggests we are 4 to 5 billion too populated.  We passed 2
> billion people just before 1930, which is also when the
> oil-based economy of today really took off, suggesting that the
> extra population is only here because oil had provided the
> means.  Some would say that the gains we experienced in our
> lifestyle weren't supportable to begin.  And our dependence on
> oil to produce food means all the more problems for people to
> get food later, so things go as I interpret will happen.)
>
> I hope you take the time to actually read the books and webpages
> that are mentioned in the blog articles I referenced.  I used to
> be optimistic and positive thinking as you folks are.  But I
> guess all the reading I've bein doing in earnest since 1990, and
> particularly in the last two years, has convinced me otherwise.
> I can certainly respect where each of you are coming from (as I
> was there once too), and all others wanting to ignore what I
> say.  It is hard to accept this kind of news.
>
> Now I apologize to the group as this took things too far astray,
> and return you to our regular programming.  I'll gladly talk
> with folks offline.  And I will be on topic the next time I
> might post again.
>
> Cheers/73,
> Kevin
> Dubuque, IA
>
>
> =====
> -- 
> -------------------------------------
> Kevin Anderson, Dubuque IA USA, K9IUA
> k9iua (at) yahoo (dot) com
> -------------------------------------
>
>
> 		
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> _______________________________________________
> Swprograms mailing list
> Swprograms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://dallas.hard-core-dx.com/mailman/listinfo/swprograms
>
> To unsubscribe:  Send an E-mail to
> swprograms-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe, or visit the 
> URL
> shown above.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Swprograms mailing list
> Swprograms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://dallas.hard-core-dx.com/mailman/listinfo/swprograms
>
> To unsubscribe:  Send an E-mail to  
> swprograms-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe, or visit the 
> URL shown above.
>

_______________________________________________
Swprograms mailing list
Swprograms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://dallas.hard-core-dx.com/mailman/listinfo/swprograms

To unsubscribe:  Send an E-mail to
swprograms-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe, or visit the URL
shown above.


_______________________________________________
Swprograms mailing list
Swprograms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://dallas.hard-core-dx.com/mailman/listinfo/swprograms

To unsubscribe:  Send an E-mail to  swprograms-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe, or visit the URL shown above.