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

[atlsvo@xxxxxxxxx (maryanne kehoe)]

Hey Scott, hubby was watching that tonite also! 





 
E-mail message   
 
Sender: swprograms-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx From:
royall@xxxxxxxxxxxx(Scott Royall) Date: Tue, Jan 4, 2005, 11:17pm
(EST-1) To: swprograms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ('Shortwave programming
discussion') Subject: RE: [Swprograms] Re: The cutting of radio before
when we mayactuallyneed it the most Reply to:
swprograms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Shortwave programming discussion) 
This message is not marked with a green dot  in your Mail list because
it is not from a known sender. To make this a known sender, choose one
of these links: 
? Add sender to Address book
? Add sender to approved senders list 
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. 


_______________________________________________
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.