Posted on 05/07/2010 3:04:32 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
I neither own an expensive home-theater system nor do I spend $20 at the movies, so I guess this doesn't affect me.
From Wikipedia:
"A 4-D film (sometimes written 4D film) is a marketing term that describes an entertainment presentation system combining a 3-D film with physical effects in the theatre, which occur in synchronization with the film."
“I’m a movieholic, but I’ve virtually stopped going (as have most people I know, including those who like movies) for that very reason”
This is really surprising to me. But like I said, I don’t much mind if people flip open their phones. I can always move my head. As for chatters, mostly people tell them to shut up. Anyone who loves movies but stopped going because of phones seems suspiciously sensitive to me.
“And if you think the audience will ‘shame’ someone, think again. You might very well get your lights punched out.”
I’ve never been in a movie theater fight. I don’t live in a very violent neighborhood, though. Anyway, you’d be surprised how weak and conformist people are, once you threaten them. You’ll face people stronger than you, of course, but you can usually spot them beforehand.
“From Wikipedia:
‘A 4-D film (sometimes written 4D film) is a marketing term that describes an entertainment presentation system combining a 3-D film with physical effects in the theatre, which occur in synchronization with the film’”
Oh, right, I forgot people are stupid and misuse terms. Especially marketers, who in addition to being stupid think we’re all even stupider.
By the way, shaky seats suck. Waste of time. Better to introduce beer, or something.
I’ve got an idea. How about the government butting out and letting the market decide.
I stopped going into theatres when they started putting that foul smelling oleo/margarine on the popcorn. It would nauseate me.
We have a few theatres (art films) in our neighborhood that still use REAL butter!!
Communication between two devices suffers from a few things including but not limited to noise, interference, and multipath distortion. The first, noise, is the easiest to deal with. This comes primarily from antennae being imperfectly designed, but it also comes from background emissions from the sun, random leakages that can occur. Other designing better transmitters and receivers, this is usually dealt with by choosing a transmission scheme. The last, multipath distortion cannot be overcome by hardware, so is usually dealt with on a software end. When transmitting, not only does the line of sight path from your phone to a base station get received by the base station, but also any random bounces off of another object, say a building get picked up. This would not be a problem if the additional time from the bounce from a building was very very very short, or most of the energy in the signal got absorbed by the building. With low data rates, this is not a problem. However, at high data rates, the amount of time to transmit each additional bit, smallest possible unit of information, is getting close to the additional time from the delay on the path that bounces off the building.
Both of these can be dealt with by increasing power, assuming there is no dependence of the noise or multipath distortion on power.
Interference comes from other wireless transmitters. If they are seperated in frequency, again this is not a problem, and this seperation method is known as frequency division multiplexing. However, if two transmitters are on the same frequency they interfere with each other. And the solution to the above problems makes this problem harder. This is what the FCC is supposed to do, prevent wireless transmitters from interfering with each other; however, doing that as a living is not sexy after 20-30 years, so they move onto fattening themselves by other means.
The unfortunate problem with regulation is that after 20-30 years people forget the wisdom that went into establishing such a regulation, and so become overzealous. This is assuming that there was wisdom in the law to begin with.
In the absence of the FCC, that would be common place, and detrimental to the public. Think of all the huge metropolitan areas located in multi-state areas. The eastern corridor alone would be a mess, if it were not for federal regulation of television/radio waves.
Also, the federal government has an obligation to manage radio communication in the interest of national security, which is something else that the FCC does, but is seldom recognized. And of course, there's aviation communications which are inherently interstate. Of course, managing the broadcast spectrum is one thing. What the FCC has to do with alternative movie distribution channels is an absolute mystery.
Actually, we have international treaties going back to the 30's that regulate precisely what you've mentioned. They didn't "leave it up to adults". They negotiated and codified these regulations.
You also looked past the military and its requirements. Without a federal agency, the military would be out of communication.
This tells me all I need to know.
You missed the point. Nobody made the US, Canada and Mexico adhere to a regulation handed to them. Adults in each agreed what they would do. So why couldn’t, say, New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania do the same? If they couldn’t, that is where commerce comes in.
The military has its own bands. The federal government would certainly have emminent domain for the frequencies it uses. It did not have to take over and dole out the rest KELO-like to private interests.
Think this through, and especially Art I, Sec 10 of the Constitution. The states are prohibited from entering into treaties. Therefore, it was the federal government had to enter into a treaty with both Mexico and Canada. Who enforces federal law, and ensures compliance by the state? The federal government, known as the FCC in this instance.
The Founders certainly understood that there was a role for some government regulation, and they explicitly understood and provided for certain kinds of commerce regulation. If radio waves had been around, I'm pretty comfortable both Jefferson and Madison - both not big fans of federal power - would have been comfortable with the FCC.
You are reaching for a justification. This has nothing to do with treaties. People would meet, reach a consensus on standards, report back to their legislatures and each legislature would regulate its own broadcasters.
The FCC on the other hand, controls a 5W transmitter in the geographic center of Wyoming as “interstate commerce”, ignoring free speech, and has some FReepers justifying it!
What happens when the MO legislature approves AM 700 in STL to broadcast at 2M watts, effectively swamping the signal broadcast on AM 700 in Cincinnati - some two states away. Without a federal regulatory agency for radio waves, that is precisely what you'd have.
Federal regulation, international treaties and conventions are precisely what has allowed radio to flourish, not the other way around.
I would say that Missouri should get with the consensus if it doesn’t want a 5MW transmitter in Cincinatti.
Federal regulation made radio flourish???
How was that Fairness Doctrine working for you?
Sure, that's a perfectly logical accusation /s
I'm pretty sure I wasn't, nor was anyone else on this thread advocating regulation of content. If you're weren't being intellectually dishonest, you'd realize that.
But, there's nothing wrong with the federal government being the referee and controlling authority for the technical management of radio waves that don't recognize state or international boundries.
Oh, you just said “federal regulation” and asserted that radio “flourished” and content regulation was and always has been part of it. Still can’t say seven words.
And you really haven’t shown me that federal regulation for 90 years has been necessary or authorized.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.