In article
. rogers.com,
"Pierre L" wrote:

Somewhat the same situation is going on now in photography, with the growing
popularity of digital. However, I think the same arguments against can be
made as with shortwave. If it's digital, it's somewhat exclusive to those
who can pay, and it requires a fairly steep investment in equipment that is
rapidly superceded. It might be better in performance, but to keep up with
it, the user pretty much becomes a slave to the technology. Shortwave, on
the other hand, just needs a cheap receiver, and it's free for the taking.
Just like an expensive digital camera gives you the picture but takes all
the fun out of actually taking it, satellite radio is good, and just a
button press away, but is there any fun in it? Where's the fun in listening
to "radio" on the internet?

How does an expensive digital camera take all the fun out of taking
pictures? You can still fiddle with exposure and focus and f-stops and
all the other things that serious photographers want/need.

Dan

Drake R8, Radio Shack DX-440,
Grundig Satellit 650, Satellit 700, YB400
Tecsun PL-230 (YB550PE), Kaito KA1102
Hallicraters S-120 (1962)
Zenith black dial 5 tube Tombstone (1937)
E. H. Scott 23 tube Imperial Allwave in Tasman cabinet (1936)