A Sky, cable and digital tv forum. Digital TV Banter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » Digital TV Banter forum » Digital TV Newsgroups » uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General) (uk.tech.digital-tv) Discussion of all matters technical in origin related to the reception of digital television transmissions, be they via satellite, terrestrial or cable. Advertising is forbidden, with no exceptions.

Samsung TV's "bricked"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old August 27th 17, 05:06 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
charles[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 618
Default Samsung TV's "bricked"

In article , Huge
wrote:
On 2017-08-27, Robin wrote:
On 26/08/2017 13:28, Jim Lesurf wrote:


[An inaccurate diatribe mostly based on initial bigotry that anything a
Tory Government does is wrong.]


In article , Huge
wrote:
On 2017-08-25, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 25/08/2017 20:15, Huge wrote:
On 2017-08-25, wrote:

De-Beechingise the railway.

Why? Much of what Beeching did was a good idea at the time. In 1961
the railways were losing 300,000 a day.

That could have been improved by timetabling change, adjustment to
freight rates so that short trains cost more, and increases in fares
on oversubscribed routes.

In some fantasy world, maybe.

In the real world - if Beeching hadn't ensured it wouldn't happen by
destroying the infrastructure


Which he didn't want to do.


rather than developing it. His assumptions and figures have repeatedly
since been shown to be based on short-sighted wilful ignorance.


Post hoc.


And reality has since shown this as the demand for rail transport has
risen.


Post hoc.


But as already explained, it suited the road transport lobby (which
paid the Tory party)


Bigotry.


and people like Marples who made loadsa money out of pushing traffic
onto the new roads that got built.


Rail was already losing market to road.


But we could have adopted the Swiss system wheree road haulage licences
were only allowed from railheads and not between them.

[Snip]

Precisely. Like I said, Beeching is all part of the Lefty fantasy world
that everything is Maggie's fault and the world would be a perfect place
if they ran it.


Sorry, but as someone who has never voted Labour, I strongly disagree with
you.

-


--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
  #42  
Old August 27th 17, 05:39 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Indy Jess John
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,226
Default Samsung TV's "bricked"

On 27/08/2017 17:28, Huge wrote:
On 2017-08-27, wrote:
In , Huge
wrote:


[45 lines snipped]

Rail was already losing market to road.


But we could have adopted the Swiss system wheree road haulage licences
were only allowed from railheads and not between them.


On what grounds? Why should rail be protected from market forces just
because a lot of people like it? I've seen figures that it is not
cost effective to use rail freight (other than for bulk goods like coal,
which is increasingly irrelevant) for distances less than the approximate
size of the UK.

So have I, but most of them date from the Beeching era when most of the
rail traffic was steam powered. Diesel was then brought in because it
was cheaper than steam power, and now electric power is replacing
diesel. I reckon in the modern world the traffic jams and the price of
diesel powered lorry transport would make the cost effectiveness of rail
freight a lot more attractive, except the lines that used to be ideal
for freight transport were the main targets of Beeching's cuts.

Jim
  #43  
Old August 27th 17, 05:42 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 201
Default Samsung TV's "bricked"

On Friday, 25 August 2017 22:32:10 UTC+1, Indy Jess John wrote:
That suggests that the economies are all down to reduced wind resistance
due to the fast computer reaction time allowing the convoy to drive
closer than humans could. That concept would fall flat if the one at
the back was heavier than the one ahead and therefore could not match
the braking distance of the one in front in the event of an emergency stop.


It should be self-learning and be able to adjust the gaps to reflect varying stopping distances.

Owain


  #44  
Old August 27th 17, 06:22 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Robin[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 458
Default Samsung TV's "bricked"

On 26/08/2017 16:16, Indy Jess John wrote:


We now have the dearest rail journeys in Europe despite all Beeching's
cuts of the unprofitable lines,



That is often stated - and often supported by cherry-picking commuter
journeys (and without allowing for the different patterns of commuting
as opposed to city dwelling - where the UK's bl***y housing market comes
into play).

For a different insight have a look at the comparisons at

https://www.seat61.com/uk-europe-tra...omparison.html

"Conclusion..

So the next time someone says (or you read) "Britain has the highest
rail fares in Europe", you'll know this is only 15% of the story. The
other 85% is that we have similar or even cheaper fares, too. The big
picture is that Britain has the most commercially aggressive fares in
Europe, with the highest fares designed to get maximum revenue from
business travel, and some of the lowest fares designed to get more
revenue by filling more seats. This is exactly what airlines have
known, and been doing, for decades. But don't take my word for it, see
for yourself, check some UK train fares at www.nationalrail.co.uk... "




--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid
  #45  
Old August 27th 17, 06:47 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
NY
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,214
Default Samsung TV's "bricked"

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2017-08-27, charles wrote:
In article , Huge
wrote:


[45 lines snipped]

Rail was already losing market to road.


But we could have adopted the Swiss system wheree road haulage licences
were only allowed from railheads and not between them.


On what grounds? Why should rail be protected from market forces just
because a lot of people like it? I've seen figures that it is not
cost effective to use rail freight (other than for bulk goods like coal,
which is increasingly irrelevant) for distances less than the approximate
size of the UK.


I suppose you have to factor in the hidden "cost" of lots of slow lorries
causing congestion on busy motorways because they reduce the speed of most
of the lanes to lorry speed. On a three+ lane motorway, you get at least
*some* lanes that can still carry traffic at 70, but on a two-lane road (eg
A1 between M18 and Ferrybridge, or A34 between M4 and M40, or M42 between
M40 in Birmingham and M1 at Donnington) you often find that you have to
travel all the way at lorry speed because one lorry and then another pulls
out to overtake one that is doing only a couple of mph slower that they want
to go.

Anything which keeps lorries off roads for the majority of the journey has
got to be a good thing *from the car-driver's point of view*. However it
suffers in today's just-in-time mentality where goods are only dispatched
from the warehouse x hours before they are needed in the factory, where x is
the estimated journey time, which doesn't fit in with scheduled timetabled
trains that may be carrying goods for many different customers in many
different destinations, with shunting of individual wagons. Storage of goods
in intermediate railway warehouses or in wagons in intermediate sidings
along the way, for later delivery on the next train to the required
destination, is a thing of the past.

The thing that really needs to be addressed with HGVs is the use of them in
city centres, negotiating small roads that can barely take them. All too
often you hear of HGVs getting stuck in narrow roads or at tight junctions
because they have taken an unsuitable route. That's down to not using
smaller lorries that are more suited to the roads that they have to
negotiate for the final delivery to the shop.

  #46  
Old August 27th 17, 06:55 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Ian Field
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 160
Default Samsung TV's "bricked"



"Bill Wright" wrote in message
news
On 26/08/2017 19:04, Ian Field wrote:

Loadsa humans drive that close - that's how you spot the stupid one's.


I also spot them by their misuse of apostrophes.


Still loads smarter than the dumb****s with nothing better to
do......................

  #47  
Old August 27th 17, 07:32 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
NY
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,214
Default Samsung TV's "bricked"

"Huge" wrote in message
...
I'm getting really bored with "post hoc" arguments. Haven't you got
anything better?


The problem is that if you are going to make a momentous, irreversible
decision like the closure of a line (as opposed to the ceasing of services
on a line that remains mothballed) you need to have a *very* big crystal
ball to be able to predict a long way into the future and to ask questions
such as "what happens if these fantastic motorways that we have built become
so popular that they get clogged with traffic?" and "what happens if they
encourage people to move out of the towns and cities to nicer rural
locations and then need to commute further than they used to do?".

Yes, we are looking back to the past from what was a long way into the
future in 1963. But did the planners *really* look far enough ahead before
they closed lines? If they had done so, "post hoc" arguments wouldn't be
necessary.

As I see it, the big mistake with Beeching was not that BR stopped services
on lines which were lightly used (at the time) but that they then went one
stage further and put those lines out of any chance of economical reopening,
by demolishing bridges and viaducts, flattening embankments, filling in
cuttings and selling off land for housing and industrial, instead of
mothballing it in case things changed - or at least converting trackbeds to
a form that benefited the private citizen, by making them footpaths and
cycle tracks. At least with lines that have been closed more recently,
mothballing and protecting the route is now an important factor, showing
that they are taking a more cautious long-term view.

Looking very selfishly, it is a crying shame that the closure of the
railways happened 20 years too early, when cine film was still very
expensive; nowadays any line that was due to be closed would have saturation
video filming from trackside, train window and cab to preserve at least the
*memory* of what it was like to travel on the route.

One line that I would kill to be able to travel is the Saltburn to
Scarborough line with its fantastic sea views from the summit at Ravenscar
and the seaside at Sandsend. If only the section from Sandsend tunnel to
Whitby West Cliff had been available as a cycle track like the section
southwards from there.

If I was given a time machine I'd go back to 1963, armed with footage of
modern-day traffic jams and reports of how congested roads are, and the
changes in the sort of journeys which are now common, and say to Beeching
and Marples "look what you will cause in 50 years' time", and armed with a
video camera and a pass to travel in driver's cabs I'd film everything for
posterity. On a personal note, I'd also be able to see myself being born :-)

  #48  
Old August 27th 17, 09:53 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Vir Campestris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 404
Default Railfreight (was Samsung TV's "bricked")

On 27/08/2017 17:28, Huge wrote:
On what grounds? Why should rail be protected from market forces just
because a lot of people like it? I've seen figures that it is not
cost effective to use rail freight (other than for bulk goods like coal,
which is increasingly irrelevant) for distances less than the approximate
size of the UK.


Rail is the only sane way to move large numbers of commuters into London
- and much as I hate the place, it does generate lots of tax revenues.

I also doubt whether there are no cases for rail freight. An obvious one
would be to dump containers at Felixstowe straight onto trains for
Birmingham etc. rather than jamming them all onto the A14 and have some
inland container distribution centres.

Andy
  #49  
Old August 27th 17, 10:54 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Indy Jess John
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,226
Default Samsung TV's "bricked"

On 27/08/2017 17:50, Huge wrote:

I'm getting really bored with "post hoc" arguments. Haven't you got
anything better?

I don't mind if you are bored. I didn't set out to entertain you.

Jim
  #50  
Old August 27th 17, 11:07 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Indy Jess John
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,226
Default Samsung TV's "bricked"

On 27/08/2017 18:22, Robin wrote:
On 26/08/2017 16:16, Indy Jess John wrote:


We now have the dearest rail journeys in Europe despite all Beeching's
cuts of the unprofitable lines,



That is often stated - and often supported by cherry-picking commuter
journeys (and without allowing for the different patterns of commuting
as opposed to city dwelling - where the UK's bl***y housing market comes
into play).

For a different insight have a look at the comparisons at

https://www.seat61.com/uk-europe-tra...omparison.html

"Conclusion..

So the next time someone says (or you read) "Britain has the highest
rail fares in Europe", you'll know this is only 15% of the story. The
other 85% is that we have similar or even cheaper fares, too. The big
picture is that Britain has the most commercially aggressive fares in
Europe, with the highest fares designed to get maximum revenue from
business travel, and some of the lowest fares designed to get more
revenue by filling more seats. This is exactly what airlines have
known, and been doing, for decades. But don't take my word for it, see
for yourself, check some UK train fares at www.nationalrail.co.uk... "


It is an interesting comparison, but I note that it doesn't cover season
tickets.

When I was commuting into London I discovered that the cheapest annual
rate was three quarterlies and a monthly, with home working or holiday
entitlement filling in the gaps between. It was still expensive though
and ate up nearly all of the London pay differential.

Jim


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.SEO by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2017 Digital TV Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.