Pat's Note: As you can see, the vets internationally are determined to continue to allow international live movements, despite inadequate or non-existent surveillance - in some cases the deliberate non reporting of swine flu in pigs encouraged by national veterinary authorities' nudges and winks.
That has to be a mistake. If there is a mutation in pigs it will spread unhindered worldwide.
You would have thought that they might have learned something from the circovirus disasters, but it seems not.
OIE Monitors Global Pandemic H1N1 2009 Situation GLOBAL - The OIE is closely monitoring the world animal health situation including with regard to infections of all susceptible animals with the pandemic H1N1 2009 virus...
...For this reason, the OIE considers that it is sufficient to certify the healthy state of animals for international trade during the relevant period before their exportation and maintains its position that no specific measures, including laboratory tests, are required for international trade in live pigs and other susceptible animal species and/or their products.
> Pat's Note: As you can see, the vets internationally are determined to > continue to allow international live movements, despite inadequate or > non-existent surveillance - in some cases the deliberate non reporting > of swine flu in pigs encouraged by national veterinary authorities' > nudges and winks.
> That has to be a mistake. If there is a mutation in pigs it will > spread unhindered worldwide.
> You would have thought that they might have learned something from the > circovirus disasters, but it seems not.
> OIE Monitors Global Pandemic H1N1 2009 Situation > GLOBAL - The OIE is closely monitoring the world animal health > situation including with regard to infections of all susceptible > animals with the pandemic H1N1 2009 virus...
> ...For this reason, the OIE considers that it is sufficient to certify > the healthy state of animals for international trade during the > relevant period before their exportation and maintains its position > that no specific measures, including laboratory tests, are required > for international trade in live pigs and other susceptible animal > species and/or their products.
So far, Pat, even though it's been posted out.....this news hasn't been put out. Exceptional. Nobody wants to touch it. Scared stiff. Just know this. the veterinary communities want to substantiate research before anything is said. They're all a bunch of leeches. The Germans have one-upped the American Veterinarians this time. WWII continues.
Ike thought he did his best. Who woulda thunk it would take some 65 years for the Reich to resurrect itself? In the form of the EU?
Ike thought he did his best. Who woulda thunk it would take some 65 years for the Reich to resurrect itself? In the form of the EU?
I think you will find it is a French concept with serious backing from Napoleon.
Once a United States of America came into existence a United States of Europe became inevitable. Although ironically by the time the USE is fully formed the USA will have broken back to a loose association of Spanish speaking countries affiliated to the Greater Mexican economic area and English French speaking states associated with the mineral wealthy Canadian power.
>Ike thought he did his best. Who woulda thunk it would take some 65 >years for the Reich to resurrect itself? In the form of the EU?
> I think you will find it is a French concept with serious backing from >Napoleon.
> Once a United States of America came into existence a United States of >Europe became inevitable. > Although ironically by the time the USE is fully formed the USA will have >broken back to a loose association of Spanish speaking countries >affiliated to the Greater Mexican economic area and English French speaking >states associated with the mineral wealthy Canadian power.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarh!
You should not have said that! It was supposed to be a big secret.
-- Peter Duncanson, UK (in uk.business.agriculture)
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 18:57:18 -0000, "Buddenbrooks"
> Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarh!
> You should not have said that! It was supposed to be a big secret.
Sorry, I though Burkies reference to the Reich meant he was aware of it.
He only has to google 'Angela Merkel has agreed with U.S. President Barack Obama to coordinate on the future' to find the plans for Obama's second 4 years in office.
> Ike thought he did his best. Who woulda thunk it would take some 65 > years for the Reich to resurrect itself? In the form of the EU?
> I think you will find it is a French concept with serious backing from > Napoleon.
> Once a United States of America came into existence a United States of > Europe became inevitable. > Although ironically by the time the USE is fully formed the USA will have > broken back to a loose association of Spanish speaking countries > affiliated to the Greater Mexican economic area and English French speaking > states associated with the mineral wealthy Canadian power.
One may note that the German Supreme Court has ruled that the Lisbon Treaty section that allow the EU laws to overrule national laws is alien to the German constitution, therefore has to be ignored. Two tier EU, Tier (Hah!) ein is Germany, tier two is the rest.
It is curious that in Europe Germany is both the richest and most influential state, while in the US the status of California as the richest state does not reflect on any significant influence at the federal level.
You do realize that when Tony gets to be President of the EU that England, Wales Scotland and Ireland will again be united under one King ! :)
> It is curious that in Europe Germany is both the richest and most >influential state, while in the US the status of California as the richest >state >does not reflect on any significant influence at the federal level.
> You do realize that when Tony gets to be President of the EU that England, >Wales Scotland and Ireland will again be united under one King ! :)
It's a long time since we had a satisfying regicide.
-- Peter Duncanson, UK (in uk.business.agriculture)
> It is curious that in Europe Germany is both the richest and most > influential state, while in the US the status of California as the richest > state > does not reflect on any significant influence at the federal level.
California is so full of s***, nobody takes it serious.
> You do realize that when Tony gets to be President of the EU that England, > Wales Scotland and Ireland will again be united under one King ! :)
Peculiar situation; after the treaty in 1921, there was a position, vague, that the King of the UK had a, again vague, authority over the 26counties (which only became a republic in 1948 or so). When Edward VIII abdicated as King of the UK, nobody considered the position in the Free State, so technically, he was king here until he died.. Did the former Mrs. Simpson survive him?. Present person best suited to be the next King of Ireland is a retired City (of London) stockbroker, cut glass accent, who lived outside or Roscommon town. (drone, snooze).. Oh, Tony?. I think that it is going to have to be the stake through the heart, or a silver bullet.
>One may note that the German Supreme Court has ruled that the Lisbon Treaty >section that allow the EU laws to overrule national laws is alien to the German >constitution, therefore has to be ignored. Two tier EU, Tier (Hah!) ein is >Germany, tier two is the rest.
Whats that to do with winwood & claptom on channel 4????
> greyma...@mail.com writes >>One may note that the German Supreme Court has ruled that the Lisbon Treaty >>section that allow the EU laws to overrule national laws is alien to the German >>constitution, therefore has to be ignored. Two tier EU, Tier (Hah!) ein is >>Germany, tier two is the rest. > Whats that to do with winwood & claptom on channel 4????
Claptom?. Person with undiscriminating sexual tastes?
In article <moNGysALvL9KF...@OzHome.com>, O...@mailcatch.com says...
> greyma...@mail.com writes > >One may note that the German Supreme Court has ruled that the Lisbon Treaty > >section that allow the EU laws to overrule national laws is alien to the German > >constitution, therefore has to be ignored. Two tier EU, Tier (Hah!) ein is > >Germany, tier two is the rest. > Whats that to do with winwood & claptom on channel 4????
very good, unfortunately I only caught the end of it (on BBC4 in this neck of the woods). Happily, I did see the Cream reunion one that was on a little while back :)
> >>Oz > >> Whats that to do with winwood & claptom on channel 4????
> >very good, unfortunately I only caught the end of it (on BBC4 in this neck of > >the woods).
> Here too.
I'm thinking that I'll have to get one of these hdtv flat screen jobs one of these days. Surround sound and all that. There again, a good pair of stereo headphones would probably do just as well. Somebody developed a holophonic system a few years back, but it doesn't seem to have come very far.
> >Happily, I did see the Cream reunion one that was on a little while > >back :)
> Yes, not quite what it could have been but they were never quite as good > live as reports (possibly chemically modified) would have them.
I thought they were in very good shape, even more so for a bunch of OAP's re chemical modification, they don't make chemicals like they used to in the '60's (so I am told)
Oz wrote: > Steve B <st...@wayback.org.uk> writes >> I'm thinking that I'll have to get one of these hdtv flat screen jobs one of >> these days.
> Helpful as one gets older. Cheaper in real terms than your first TV!
Err, no.
Bought my first television around 1960 for £5 (second hand 9" Bush TV 22 black and white, with a converter for ITV). In today's money that would be around £35 to £40. Cheapest general flat screen I can quickly find is £100 with a 7" battery powered model costing £92.49.
I think you are right had I bought new though.
-- Old Codger e-mail use reply to field
What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]
> these days. Surround sound and all that. There again, a good pair of > stereo > headphones would probably do just as well. Somebody developed a holophonic > system a few years back, but it doesn't seem to have come very far.
By the time you can afford a decent top of the range audio system, your hearing will not appreciate it.
On Tuesday, in article <2fiKm.148432$R52.140...@newsfe24.ams2> knightstemp...@budweiser.com "Buddenbrooks" wrote:
> "Steve B" <st...@wayback.org.uk> wrote in message > news:MPG.25611c04a31d4b33989709@news.freedom2surf.net... > > I'm thinking that I'll have to get one of these hdtv flat screen jobs one > of > > these days. Surround sound and all that. There again, a good pair of > > stereo > > headphones would probably do just as well. Somebody developed a holophonic > > system a few years back, but it doesn't seem to have come very far.
> By the time you can afford a decent top of the range audio system, your > hearing will not appreciate it.
Surround sound usually comes from the DVD player, and can make a big difference. Briefly, it give a better seperation between character speech and the rest of the audio.
Movies broadcast with stereo sound can be encoded in the non-digital Dolby system, which was designed to sound good in ordinary stereo, but give enhanced spatial seperation.
Unfortunately, TVs with built-in Freeview decoders--digital ready--may be missing any way of getting the sound out to any external amplifier. An external box, feeding the TV through SCART, can be rigged to send the line-level sound to an external amplifier
The usual arrangement is to have a centre-channel speaker close to the TV, which will carry character speech. The speakers in the conventional stereo positions will carry most of the music and on-screen effects sounds. The rear speakers are more for the general atmosphere, and maybe the it's-behind-you moments.
If you can still tell where a sound is coming from, surround sound shouldn't be dismissed as part of your answer.
Incidentally, a good pair of stereo speakers shouldn't need a sub- woofer. They're a way of getting away with the tiny speakers you see sold with surround-sound DVD players.
-- David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
On the horizon, a carrier task force of the Salvation Navy was turning into the wind, preparing to launch Zeppelins.
When I started buying HiFi large speaker boxes with at least two speakers, a bass and a tweeter was essential. Now speakers are smaller than the old tweeters and called bass boxes.
I presume Nu Labour brought in a new set of audio physics.
>Surround sound usually comes from the DVD player, and can make a big difference. >Briefly, it give a better seperation between character speech and the rest of >the audio.
Yes, but needs speakers and cables liitered all over the place.
>Movies broadcast with stereo sound can be encoded in the non-digital Dolby >system, which was designed to sound good in ordinary stereo, but give enhanced >spatial seperation.
Yes.
>Unfortunately, TVs with built-in Freeview decoders--digital ready--may be >missing any way of getting the sound out to any external amplifier. An external >box, feeding the TV through SCART, can be rigged to send the line-level sound to >an external amplifier
This is pretty well always possible but not ideal because you then have two volume controls, one for the TV and one for the hifi. If the latter is oldish then remote sound may not be available and in any case is likely to require a separate remote which is tedious.
>Incidentally, a good pair of stereo speakers shouldn't need a sub- woofer. >They're a way of getting away with the tiny speakers you see sold with surround- >sound DVD players.
Now that's not entirely true. Its actually quite hard to get decent sound below about 200Hz without a large box/speaker. Even if you have a small speaker with a decent resonance (say under 70Hz) the deliverable output power (not to be confused with input power) will be rather modest even with large code excursions. Having a refelex enclosure helps somewhat, but with poor transient and noticeable ringing (inevitable).
So it really is worthwhile to have a single whoofer system simply for space and cost reasons. Mine is (from memory) 220L with a 240mm long- throw speaker.
> When I started buying HiFi large speaker boxes with at least two speakers, a >bass and a tweeter was essential.
Absolutely!
Actually its more complex than that even. To get good dispersion the speaker needs to be small compared to the wavelength of the sound, that way you get a spherical wave with no 'beaming'.
A 10kHz soundwave has a wavelength of 300,000/10,000 mm or 30mm. So a tweeter aiming to go to 10kHz wants to be smaller than this, perhaps 25mm. Its probably asking a bit much for such a small tweeter to deliver enough power below 3kHz (which is into fundamental frequencies for instruments) to match the other components. 3kHz needs about 100mm cone speaker but will x-over from the tweeter so you can get away with a 100mm mid-range (probably a 150mm overall) which are available in very long throw (at a price) and deliver decent power down to about 200Hz.
The enclosures for the above are quite modest, even sealed box designs.
Then you are into bother if you want to get below 70Hz at decent power. Note the cone areas and crudely relate them:
30mm = 700mm^2; @ 3kHz = 2100 mm^2-khz
100mm = 8000mm^2; @ 200Hz = 1600 mm^2-Hz
200mm = 32000mm^2; @ 50Hz = 1600 mm^2-Hz
These are roughly well matched. In practice, using loudspeaker software, you find need a much bigger throw (or much bigger area) for the low frequencies as well at any given output sound power.
> Now speakers are smaller than the old tweeters and called bass boxes.
In article <2fiKm.148432$R52.140...@newsfe24.ams2>, knightstemp...@budweiser.com says...
> "Steve B" <st...@wayback.org.uk> wrote in message > news:MPG.25611c04a31d4b33989709@news.freedom2surf.net... > > I'm thinking that I'll have to get one of these hdtv flat screen jobs one > of > > these days. Surround sound and all that. There again, a good pair of > > stereo > > headphones would probably do just as well. Somebody developed a holophonic > > system a few years back, but it doesn't seem to have come very far.
> By the time you can afford a decent top of the range audio system, your > hearing will not appreciate it.
EH? Whazzat you said?
no problem, just up the volume :]
Since the top note of a piano is at 5kHz (ish)?, I don't see that the higher frequencies afforded by hi-fi systems are that useful. Perhaps they are necessary for harmonic texture.
>Since the top note of a piano is at 5kHz (ish)?, I don't see that the higher >frequencies afforded by hi-fi systems are that useful. Perhaps they are >necessary for harmonic texture.
> In article <2fiKm.148432$R52.140...@newsfe24.ams2>,
> Since the top note of a piano is at 5kHz (ish)?, I don't see that the > higher > frequencies afforded by hi-fi systems are that useful. Perhaps they are > necessary for harmonic texture.
Looks like pianos should really have another 3 octaves and pianists longer arms
|
