New TV - Samsung or Panasonic?

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 01:29:20 +0100, Andy Burns
wrote:

Max Demian wrote:

"Martin" wrote:

Especially with Iran and N Korea spinning centrifuges to make WMDs.

That's all right, as long as the "weapons of mass destruction" are like the
ones the Boston marathon bomber is charged with setting off.

It did strike me that calling the Boston bombs WMDs devalued the term.
Apparently when dealing with civilians, the FBI class anything with more
than 1/4 ounce of explosive as a WMD, it's only when dealing with the
military that the normal CBRN type devices are called WMDs.

The FBI is not responsible for defining WMD. The phrase "Weapon 0f Mass
Destruction" is defined in the relevant federal law. When someone is
accused of a crime the accusation has to be in terms of the wording of
the law.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2332a

18 USC § 2332a - Use of weapons of mass destruction
....
the term "weapon of mass destruction" means—
(A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title;
(B) any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or
serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or
impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors;
(C) any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector (as
those terms are defined in section 178 of this title); or
(D) any weapon that is designed to release radiation or
radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life; and

18 USC § 921 - Definitions:

The term "destructive device" means—
(A) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas—
(i) bomb,
(ii) grenade,
(iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces,
(iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than
one-quarter ounce,
(v) mine, or
(vi) device similar to any of the devices described in the
preceding clauses;
(B) any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell
which the Attorney General finds is generally recognized as
particularly suitable for sporting purposes) by whatever name
known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a
projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and
which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in
diameter; and
(C) any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in
converting any device into any destructive device described in
subparagraph (A) or (B) and from which a destructive device may be
readily assembled.


--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

On 26/04/2013 20:54, Chris Youlden wrote:
On 25/04/2013 12:38, Paul D Smith wrote:
So, it's picture quality, support etc that I'm
interested in here -
thoughts?

Nothing about sound quality which says it all,
really. No wonder the set
makers get away with not bothering.
++++++++++++++
The optical out is for my 7.1 surround system.


My 42in Panny Viera (around 5 years old) doesn't seem
to output Dolby from its optical out. Only 2 ch
stereo. Can't figure out why.

It's a pain because it would be the lazy man's way of
feeding 5.1 etc from the Sky boxes and DVD player to
the surround sound system.

Older Samsungs are the same. They downmix
multi-channel audio from external sources. It only
works from the internal tuner, but then UK Freeview
doesn't carry any multi-channel.

Not sure if there's some licencing issue involved.

On 29/04/2013 18:02, Jim wrote:



My 42in Panny Viera (around 5 years old) doesn't seem
to output Dolby from its optical out. Only 2 ch
stereo. Can't figure out why.

It's a pain because it would be the lazy man's way of
feeding 5.1 etc from the Sky boxes and DVD player to
the surround sound system.

Older Samsungs are the same. They downmix multi-channel audio from
external sources. It only works from the internal tuner, but then UK
Freeview doesn't carry any multi-channel.

Not sure if there's some licencing issue involved.



my sony from the last couple of years will gladly output 5.1 - i use
hdmi audio return channel, very helpful but I just wish it would do the
same for dts - and lossless dolby and dts too.



--
Gareth.
That fly.... Is your magic wand.

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 22:37:11 +0100, "Max Demian"
wrote:

That's all right, as long as the "weapons of mass destruction"

Weapon of Mast Reduction - chainshot.

On 26/04/2013 12:21, Bill Wright wrote:
Chris J Dixon wrote:

Personally, as I always watch via the PVR, even when viewing
live, the details of the TV EPG become pretty academic.

Chris
As a person committed to saving the planet I implore you not to do that.
It wastes electricity.


You don't have to worry about saving the planet if you drive your
windmill in the back garden with the solar panels on the roof of the
your house.


--
mailto:news{at}admac(dot}myzen{dot}co{dot}uk

On 27/04/2013 01:29, Andy Burns wrote:
Max Demian wrote:

"Martin" wrote:

Especially with Iran and N Korea spinning centrifuges to make WMDs.

That's all right, as long as the "weapons of mass destruction" are
like the
ones the Boston marathon bomber is charged with setting off.

It did strike me that calling the Boston bombs WMDs devalued the term.
Apparently when dealing with civilians, the FBI class anything with more
than 1/4 ounce of explosive as a WMD, it's only when dealing with the
military that the normal CBRN type devices are called WMDs.


As the bomber obtained all of their explosives from a few fireworks
perhaps we should have a ban on WMD sold in supermarkets around November
time

--
mailto:news{at}admac(dot}myzen{dot}co{dot}uk