dxAce wrote:

BCBlazysusan wrote:

On Jan 18, 9:10 pm, Telamon
wrote:
What's wrong with these "the future is digital" guys? When the editorial
staff of a SW magazine advocates all things digital with advice like
listening to SW stations over the web makes it apparent that my dollars
should buy someone else's magazine that actually follows the hobby.

In the Jan 09 issue I was greeted with we are going to "greatly increase
our digital content" so I guess I'll have to go someplace else for real
SW news instead of this digital is wonderful BS. If I want to read about
computers there are several I can think of that do a much better job
then the amateurs that write in MT.

There is no excuse for being a cheerleader for DRM either. We all know
DRM sucks. Why anyone would want old digital technology to replace old
analog technology and think it progress needs to take another look at it.

Even HAM's don't want DRM polluting bands they use but the dunderheads
at MT think DRM is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Pathetic.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California
I agree Telamon. FWIW I haven't look at a MT in yearssss. I just don't
like the writers as much as I do with Pop.Comm.

I haven't seen an issue of either in eons as better, faster info is available on
the net.

Didn't MT cater more to scanning when they started out?



I always thought they favored HF Utes, but the shortwave broadcast
schedules were the ****, 15 years ago.

Dave wrote:
dxAce wrote:

BCBlazysusan wrote:

On Jan 18, 9:10 pm, Telamon
wrote:
What's wrong with these "the future is digital" guys? When the
editorial
staff of a SW magazine advocates all things digital with advice like
listening to SW stations over the web makes it apparent that my dollars
should buy someone else's magazine that actually follows the hobby.

In the Jan 09 issue I was greeted with we are going to "greatly
increase
our digital content" so I guess I'll have to go someplace else for real
SW news instead of this digital is wonderful BS. If I want to read
about
computers there are several I can think of that do a much better job
then the amateurs that write in MT.

There is no excuse for being a cheerleader for DRM either. We all know
DRM sucks. Why anyone would want old digital technology to replace old
analog technology and think it progress needs to take another look
at it.

Even HAM's don't want DRM polluting bands they use but the dunderheads
at MT think DRM is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Pathetic.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California
I agree Telamon. FWIW I haven't look at a MT in yearssss. I just don't
like the writers as much as I do with Pop.Comm.

I haven't seen an issue of either in eons as better, faster info is
available on
the net.

Didn't MT cater more to scanning when they started out?



I always thought they favored HF Utes, but the shortwave broadcast
schedules were the ****, 15 years ago.

I have a brown covered copy of the Confidential Frequency List, Second
Edition, First Printing
__ 1972 by R. B. Grove, West Pam Beach, FL. It's mostly all Ute freq's.
Jim