> I was surprised to hear from Myke that the USA had done everything
> the UK had, only faster, better, cheaper etc. .... I can't imagine
> good arguments for engineering talent being blessed upon one nation
> more than another.
Keith:
I can't think of any good arguments for it, either.
Nevertheless, it DOES seem to be true... For proof, you merely need
to own both a British car and a real car.
> > I was surprised to hear from Myke that the USA had done everything
> > the UK had, only faster, better, cheaper etc. .... I can't imagine
> > good arguments for engineering talent being blessed upon one nation
> > more than another.
>
> Keith:
>
> I can't think of any good arguments for it, either.
>
> Nevertheless, it DOES seem to be true... For proof, you merely need
> to own both a British car and a real car.
One of my partners drives a Jag XJR - If there was any doubt that the UK
sporting spirit that gave us the Morgan, the AC, the TF and the Sprite
produces real cars - You haven't strapped one of those babies on.
>
> One of my partners drives a Jag XJR - If there was any doubt that
> the UK sporting spirit that gave us the Morgan, the AC, the TF and
> the Sprite produces real cars - You haven't strapped one of those
> babies on.
> One of my partners drives a Jag XJR - If there was any
doubt that
> the UK sporting spirit that gave us the Morgan, the AC,
the TF and
> the Sprite produces real cars - You haven't strapped one
of those
> babies on.
| Uh... Yeah, Tom, but Jaguar's owned by Ford now.
|
| -Andy
I'm surprised that Ford would have to go to such extreme
lengths to acquire the ability to build a real car :-).
And look who owns Lamborghini! (Maybe it will be for sale
cheap very shortly!)
Yeah Andy I'm supprised that you write Ford and real car
on the same page
As an Englishman I am not defending the French out of any loyalty
but talking of real cars I've had only Citroens since 1981
(when I first discovered them)
Please don't think I include the rubbish that Peugeot turn out with
Citroen badges
Since 1934 Citroen have only produced front wheel drive cars,
vans, trucks and busses
The double chevron logo represented their very early use of
double helix gears (silent and no backlash)
Their suspension and braking system has also been fitted as standard
to RollsRoyce cars since 1972
>
> | Uh... Yeah, Tom, but Jaguar's owned by Ford now.
> |
> | -Andy
>
> I'm surprised that Ford would have to go to such extreme
> lengths to acquire the ability to build a real car :-).
>
> And look who owns Lamborghini! (Maybe it will be for sale
> cheap very shortly!)
Andrew Warren wrote:
>
> Tom Mariner <PICLISTspam_OUTMITVMA.MIT.EDU> wrote:
>
> > One of my partners drives a Jag XJR - If there was any doubt that
> > the UK sporting spirit that gave us the Morgan, the AC, the TF and
> > the Sprite produces real cars - You haven't strapped one of those
> > babies on.
>
> Uh... Yeah, Tom, but Jaguar's owned by Ford now.
>
> -Andy
In message <@spam@199802101735.LAA03002KILLspamdfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com>>
KILLspamPICLISTKILLspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU writes:
> Keith Howell <RemoveMEPICLISTTakeThisOuTMITVMA.MIT.EDU> wrote:
>
> > I was surprised to hear from Myke that the USA had done everything
> > the UK had, only faster, better, cheaper etc. .... I can't imagine
> > good arguments for engineering talent being blessed upon one nation
> > more than another.
>
> Keith:
>
> I can't think of any good arguments for it, either.
>
> Nevertheless, it DOES seem to be true... For proof, you merely need
> to own both a British car and a real car.
I don't think there are any British cars left. Even Jaguar are owned
by Ford and Rolls looks like it's ownership is heading for Germany.
I don't know why we let it happen.
>
> -Andy
>
> P.S. Just kidding...
Maybe, but you've made this joke before without the "just kidding"
let out. :-)
>One of my partners drives a Jag XJR - If there was any doubt that the UK
>sporting spirit that gave us the Morgan, the AC, the TF and the Sprite
>produces real cars - You haven't strapped one of those babies on.
How did I get into this? ;) /Morgan
BTW, as there live a very lot of people in US compared top other countries,
it would be a shame if they did not also do a lot of inventions...
I love British cars.. as a mechanic you could count on them like clock work
to be in your shop
every couple of months !
Andy.. I worked on Porches for 14 years, they are definatly the best of
all I worked on !
>>
>> > I was surprised to hear from Myke that the USA had done everything
>> > the UK had, only faster, better, cheaper etc. .... I can't imagine
>> > good arguments for engineering talent being blessed upon one nation
>> > more than another.
>>
>> Keith:
>>
>> I can't think of any good arguments for it, either.
>>
>> Nevertheless, it DOES seem to be true... For proof, you merely need
>> to own both a British car and a real car.
>
>I don't think there are any British cars left. Even Jaguar are owned
>by Ford and Rolls looks like it's ownership is heading for Germany.
>
>I don't know why we let it happen.
>
>>
>> -Andy
>>
>> P.S. Just kidding...
>
>Maybe, but you've made this joke before without the "just kidding"
>let out. :-)
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Mike Watson
>
In message <000301bd3c9c$3aba6220$spamBeGone621c8ed1spamBeGonebcannon.sfsu.edu>, Bruce
Cannon <TakeThisOuTbcannonEraseMEspam_OUTJPS.NET> writes
>Sorry, getting into this late, has anyone mentioned the one British
>motorcycle enthusiasts have passed around for decades:
>
>"Q: Why didn't the British ever manufacture a television set?
>A: Because they couldn't figure out how to make it leak oil."
As a British (English) TV service engineer who used to ride motorbikes I
thought I better reply to this :-).
I can't say much about British bikes leaking oil (as they used to), but
at least our TV's are FAR! superior to the American versions :-). We
have teletext, high quality digital NICAM sound, and a decent colour
(not color) system. Perhaps that's the problem with American TV, if they
can't spell 'colour' correctly. what chance have the actual pictures got
:-).
--
In NZ our TV is better still.
We have PAL, NICAM, teletext AND the sets leak oil :-).
>>"Q: Why didn't the British ever manufacture a television
set?
>>A: Because they couldn't figure out how to make it leak
oil."
>
>As a British (English) TV service engineer who used to ride
motorbikes I
>thought I better reply to this :-).
>
>I can't say much about British bikes leaking oil (as they
used to), but
>at least our TV's are FAR! superior to the American
versions :-). We
>have teletext, high quality digital NICAM sound, and a
decent colour
>(not color) system. Perhaps that's the problem with
American TV, if they
>can't spell 'colour' correctly. what chance have the actual
pictures got
>:-).
>Nigel.
>
>
/-----------------------------------------------------------
---\
> | Nigel Goodwin | Internet : nigelgEraseME.....lpilsley.demon.co.uk |
> | Lower Pilsley | Web Page : http://www.lpilsley.demon.co.uk |
> | Chesterfield |
|
> | England |
|
>
\-----------------------------------------------------------
---/
>
>I can't say much about British bikes leaking oil (as they used to), but
>at least our TV's are FAR! superior to the American versions :-). We
>have teletext, high quality digital NICAM sound, and a decent colour
>(not color) system. Perhaps that's the problem with American TV, if they
>can't spell 'colour' correctly. what chance have the actual pictures got
>:-).
PAL beats NTSC in resolution, but 50 HZ!
HDTV and digital broadcasting are happening.
Andy
==================================================================
Andy Kunz - Montana Design
==================================================================
Nigel Goodwin wrote:
SNIP
> but
> at least our TV's are FAR! superior to the American versions :-). We
> have teletext, high quality digital NICAM sound, and a decent colour
> (not color) system. Perhaps that's the problem with American TV, if they
> can't spell 'colour' correctly. what chance have the actual pictures got
And don't forget NTSC is short for Never The Same Colo r
>In message <000301bd3c9c$3aba6220$RemoveME621c8ed1EraseMEEraseMEbcannon.sfsu.edu>, Bruce
>Cannon <RemoveMEbcannonspam_OUTKILLspamJPS.NET> writes
>>Sorry, getting into this late, has anyone mentioned the one British
>>motorcycle enthusiasts have passed around for decades:
>>
>>"Q: Why didn't the British ever manufacture a television set?
>>A: Because they couldn't figure out how to make it leak oil."
>
>As a British (English) TV service engineer who used to ride motorbikes I
>thought I better reply to this :-).
>
>I can't say much about British bikes leaking oil (as they used to), but
>at least our TV's are FAR! superior to the American versions :-). We
>have teletext, high quality digital NICAM sound, and a decent colour
>(not color) system. Perhaps that's the problem with American TV, if they
>can't spell 'colour' correctly. what chance have the actual pictures got
>:-).
The programmes on British TV's are also usually better too 8-)
____ ____
_/ L_/ Mike Harrison / White Wing Logic / RemoveMEwwlTakeThisOuTspamnetcomuk.co.uk _/ L_/
_/ W_/ Hardware & Software design / PCB Design / Consultancy _/ W_/
/_W_/ Industrial / Computer Peripherals / Hazardous Area /_W_/
>>I can't say much about British bikes leaking oil (as they used to), but
>>at least our TV's are FAR! superior to the American versions :-). We
>>have teletext, high quality digital NICAM sound, and a decent colour
>>(not color) system. Perhaps that's the problem with American TV, if they
>>can't spell 'colour' correctly. what chance have the actual pictures got
>>:-).
>
>PAL beats NTSC in resolution, but 50 HZ!
Not really a problem, unlike with computer monitors, as you watch from
further away, so the image is well away from your peripheral vision
area which is much more sensitive to flicker, and also the increased
amount of on-screen movement makes flicker pretty much unnoticeable.
Looking at a wall of TV's in a shop is another matter - can be very
annoying.
____ ____
_/ L_/ Mike Harrison / White Wing Logic / EraseMEwwlspamspamBeGonenetcomuk.co.uk _/ L_/
_/ W_/ Hardware & Software design / PCB Design / Consultancy _/ W_/
/_W_/ Industrial / Computer Peripherals / Hazardous Area /_W_/
In message <RemoveME3.0.1.32.19980219072002.006b5718KILLspampop.fast.net>, Andy Kunz
<montanaSTOPspamspam_OUTFAST.NET> writes
>>I can't say much about British bikes leaking oil (as they used to), but
>>at least our TV's are FAR! superior to the American versions :-). We
>>have teletext, high quality digital NICAM sound, and a decent colour
>>(not color) system. Perhaps that's the problem with American TV, if they
>>can't spell 'colour' correctly. what chance have the actual pictures got
>>:-).
>
>PAL beats NTSC in resolution, but 50 HZ!
I don't think we better start the mains frequency thread again :-). But
PAL beats NTSC on other things besides resolution, it's a far better
colour system, none of the NTSC colour tint changes that occur in NTSC.
Basically it's very similar to NTSC really, but it was improved to
remove the phase problems.
BTW, as for resolution, the PAL system only has half the colour
resolution of NTSC - assuming the same line/field rates.
As for 50Hz field, what's the problem, it gives 25 pictures a second,
film only gives 24 :-).
>HDTV and digital broadcasting are happening.
What's the state of things in the USA, digital MPEG2 is due to start
later this year in the UK - both terrestrial and satellite. It remains
to be seen how good it is!.
--
In message <KILLspam3.0.1.32.19980219072002.006b5718spamBeGonepop.fast.net>>
EraseMEPICLISTEraseMEMITVMA.MIT.EDU writes:
> >I can't say much about British bikes leaking oil (as they used to), but
> >at least our TV's are FAR! superior to the American versions :-). We
> >have teletext, high quality digital NICAM sound, and a decent colour
> >(not color) system. Perhaps that's the problem with American TV, if they
> >can't spell 'colour' correctly. what chance have the actual pictures got
> >:-).
>
> PAL beats NTSC in resolution, but 50 HZ!
>
I always find it instructive to find out what the initials stand for:
Nigel Goodwin writes:
>As for 50Hz field, what's the problem, it gives 25 pictures a second,
>film only gives 24 :-).
That's true, but film projectors usually show each frame three
times so the flicker is actually 72 flashes per second.
The flicker that one actually sees on the screen is at twice the frame
rate because of the interlace factor. I do not have enough vision to
report on this first hand, but some people say that there is just enough
difference between the 50 and 60 HZ field rate to make it slightly
noticeable.
I was a technician in the Audio Visual Center here before my
present job and we, one day, got a little PAL/NTSC crash course.
One of the things we did was to help customers with their video
problems and we had a man whose daughter lived in Australia and who wanted
to be able to exchange videos with his daughter and her family.
The man had bought a multi standard VCR which could play just about
any video format there was as long as you had a monitor meant for that
format. His daughter had nicely bought a little monochrome TV from a
store in Australia. The trouble was that the VCR's RF modulator worked
in the UHF channels and the TV had no UHF.
Just for fun, we borrowed a NTSC monitor meant for a C64 computer
and twiddled the vertical and horizontal sync until it matched the PAL
signal. We had a perfect monochrome picture with a little overscan
probably due to the lower vertical frequency. The sync and luminance
signals for PAL are exactly the same as for NTSC, but of course there was
no color at all due to the different color burst frequency and even if
that had matched, no telling what the screen would have looked like with
half the lines reversed for red and blue.
The documentation said that some 3.58 MHZ-based PAL systems used
in Latin America might produce color but it would be wrong if received on
an NTSC set.
By the way, our customer bought a multi standard Panasonic monitor
and his daughter did the same in Australia and so that's how they solved
their video problems.
>What's the state of things in the USA, digital MPEG2 is due to start
>later this year in the UK - both terrestrial and satellite. It remains
>to be seen how good it is!.
I just called the four major television stations in Oklahoma City
and asked them when they expected to start MPEG2 broadcasting. The Public
Broadcaster said that they have an additional year on everything compared
with the commercial broadcasters so they are looking at 1999 to bring up
their UHF transmitter. The two commercial stations who gave me an answer
both gave times in late 1999. They must vacate their present VHF
assignment by 2006.
I am guessing that this is fairly representative of what most of
the United States will be dealing with. The largest cities will start
broadcasting MPEG2 this year and it will trickle down to smaller areas in
the next several years. There are eight levels of video quality ranging
from about 400 lines up to 1100 lines so it won't all be HDTV by any means.
MITVMA.MIT.EDU> wrote:
