Scratch

fire219 wrote:

You have a point with the cooking people, though whoever has the resources or skills to set up a radio station would most likely know how to broadcast without microwaving people to a crisp.

And who says you would be broadcasting copyrighted music? You might just be broadcasting free-domain music, or music you made yourself. If someone broadcasts copyrighted music, they should expect to be sued, and that is between that person and the recording studio (or whoever sues the person), and none of the FCC's business.

Oh, and I don't know about anyone else, but I don't want to pay a few thousand dollars for a license to use a 50 (or 90, depending on if it is AM or FM) year old technology.

A Ham licence test only costs $13 in the U.S.

Well, the radio stations don't care what music you broadcast, they just want "no compition" besides other stations.  And it's easier than you think to kill someone with radio waves, as they are radiation.  That's what a Ham licence if for.  It's so that people don't get killed, and so that you don't cause Harmful Interference.  This can cause the undisired operation of many devices.

sanddude wrote:

Rexpup wrote:

sanddude wrote:

It saddens me that at this point in time, we still have an attitude of "you have to say the right things at the right time". It's quite embarrassing. The FCC is part of this. They're forcing everybody to have to have their favorite songs, television shows, radio programs, etc. because they might offend some people. This blatantly ignores the fact that people can change the channel or station if they find the material offensive, or not let their children listen or watch it if they find the material unsuitable for them. I find this policy to be both an infringement on the content provider's free speech and a listener who wouldn't be offended's personal freedom.

And also the way this is set up, material that is sexist, racist, homophobic, anti-Semetic, etc. can get broadcasted, but swear words cannot. This means that content that's actuay offensive can air, but simple words can't. "Oh poo" is no different than another similar word, yet one is considered more offensive than the other. Euphemisms ("the F word", "the N word", etc.) are pointless, because technically it means the same thing as the actual word.

The bottom line is, I despise censorship of pretty much any kind, especially if it's infringing on my freedom (I can't hear my favorite songs normally on the radio, I can't watch my favorite shows normally, etc.).

But those words' definitions have given them different social statuses.  One means "solid waste"  and the other means something not apropriate for Scratch.  Saying things like that is not nessacary, anyways.  If you like that than I suggest going to another country where it's legal to broadcast that stuff in daytime hours.  Besides, the radio is dying from the internet's song pirating, so it soon won't matter.  Homophopia means being afraid of ALL members of your species.  Homo means same, and Phobos means fear.  Fear of the Same.  Noone is afraid of ALL other humans.

Facepalm.

Homophobia means the fear or hatred of homosexuals.

And poop and the similar word do both mean solid waste. It's pointless that one is considered taboo, but one is not. It doesn't matter that it's unnecessary to say it, what matters it that people should be allowed to say it.

Facepalm.

Do you know any latin?  I am meerly taking apart the word at its root.

It's not pointless.  It's Society, and it WORKS.  Or we'd all be in caves, hunting deer with rocks.

Rexpup wrote:

fire219 wrote:

You have a point with the cooking people, though whoever has the resources or skills to set up a radio station would most likely know how to broadcast without microwaving people to a crisp.

And who says you would be broadcasting copyrighted music? You might just be broadcasting free-domain music, or music you made yourself. If someone broadcasts copyrighted music, they should expect to be sued, and that is between that person and the recording studio (or whoever sues the person), and none of the FCC's business.

Oh, and I don't know about anyone else, but I don't want to pay a few thousand dollars for a license to use a 50 (or 90, depending on if it is AM or FM) year old technology.

A Ham licence test only costs $13 in the U.S.

Well, the radio stations don't care what music you broadcast, they just want "no compition" besides other stations.  And it's easier than you think to kill someone with radio waves, as they are radiation.  That's what a Ham licence if for.  It's so that people don't get killed, and so that you don't cause Harmful Interference.  This can cause the undisired operation of many devices.

That is HAM radio. I am talking about FM or AM, as in what you can pick up on a standard radio you can get for $5 from Wal-Mart that can receive it. HAM has more in common with walkie-talkies than FM/AM. A FM license is about $1000.