Newton N. Minow

Television and the Public Interest

delivered 9 May 1961, National Association of Broadcasters, Washington, DC
=====
rest, with audio and a transcription:

https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/newtonminow.htm

_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

Now we can all read the full context of those two legendary words.

Thanks a bundle for digging it up and posting, Danny!

BRYAN STYBLE/Florida

Oh, and for those of us who are so pitifully cybertech-challenged, what in Hades is "double rot-13 encoding"...or, for that matter, Danny, SINGLE-rot-13 encoding?

Thanks in advance.

STYBLE/Florida

In <58048801-78a9-4b53-a7c7-12d921d8491bn@googlegroups.com> "radioacti...@gmail.com" <radioactiveseattle@gmail.com> writes:

>Oh, and for those of us who are so pitifully cybertech-challenged, what in Hades is "double rot-13 encoding"...or, for that matter, Danny, SINGLE-rot-13 encoding?

>Thanks in advance.

info sent by direct e-mail

--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

radioacti...@gmail.com <radioactiveseattle@gmail.com> wrote:
> Oh, and for those of us who are so pitifully cybertech-challenged, what in
> Hades is "double rot-13 encoding"...or, for that matter, Danny, SINGLE-rot-13
> encoding?

Your computer-geek credentials must be frighteningly deficient
if you don't get this...at least you admit that.

> Thanks in advance.
>
> STYBLE/Florida

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

Sorry, Louis, but my cyber-techno skills are INDEED that primitive.

But am I to understand that language such as the cited "double-rot-13 encoding" phraseology is so commonplace that pretty much everyone except me knows what that means (much less how it WORKS) ?!?

That is, is pretty much everyone with a smartphone, laptop or desktop computer so up to speed on such things that such Chinese-to-me phrases like "double-rot-13 encoding" is second-nature, without having a programming (or other cyber-engineering) background? Of those three cited digital techs (cell, tablet/laptop or desktop), nowadays only the third applies in my case, as after wasting upwards of $2000 on smart phones which NOBODY ever trained me to use*--even to point of answering a call without inadvertently finding myself talking to someone calling on the second, call-waiting line--I do all my admittedly-ponderous posting hereto via my Mac desktop, which thank G-d still comes with a keyboard (that touch-and-swipe-left-or-right tech in phones and tablets completely fazes me, cyber-dullard that I am). Well, at least I can type 90 words/minute.

Meanwhile, I seem to be just too dumb for so-called smart phones; I always ANYWAY detested being reached on my various flip-phones through the decades while out shopping, dining or (especially) driving, so I don't miss being cell-less in the least. Years ago I happily reverted to my good ol' reliable home-office landline--that's right, Louis, 19th Century technology. (No, it's not QUITE an Alexander Graham Bell-autographed model, for it's even got that Space Age auto-dial function!...except no one's ever trained me how to use even THAT simple feature either, so I just punch all 10 digits whenever I'm calling anyone anyway.) And please don't suggest "reading the manual"; those all seem to be translated--POORLY--by Asian writers who don't know how to explain things understandably for non-tech folk.

Look, I even understand Special Relativity pretty thoroughly (though only the basics and hardly any of the details of General Relativity, granted) and even a good deal of quantum mechanics--but those three complex physics disciplines mostly on my own**, not much from high school or college). But that's because in those exotic realms I was TRAINED (self-trained, but nonetheless trained).

But NO one has EVER trained me on ANY of my computers--the C-64, three or four Microsoft-driven PCs, and now, my third Apple, a 27-inch "retina" desktop, which IS clearly an AMAZING machine. That is, I've little doubt it could even fetch my pipe and slippers at night, IF I could only figure out to use its many dozens--or many hundreds, even?--of features, commands and file-managing screens. (Alas, every one of my galpals over the years were less cyber-adept than even me, so I was always helping THEM with THEIR machines, believe it or not). No, for me at the hardware and software stores, it's always been some variation of "just play with it, you'll pick it up soon enough."

Nope.

BRYAN STYBLE/Florida
==================* The salespeople for those two smart phones gave me the same schtick that the people at the Apple Store told me when selling me my current, large Mac desktop, each saying some variation of, "I can tell you're clearly a smart fellow..."--as I'd informed them I understand advanced algebra, astronomy and even a lot of nuclear physics, but seem constantly frustrated by even the simpler commands of those seven or eight computers I've owned all the way back to my Commodore 64 in the mid-'80s-- "...so I'm sure you'll figure it out quickly." Well, they were each SERIOUSLY mistaken...presuming they weren't flat-out lying, just to close their sales.
** Well, St. Asimov was HUGELY helpful, having read at least major portions (if not the entirety) of probably 80 or so of his 450-odd nonfiction books.. Which of course is why I so often promote his body of work herein at alt-obits. (Although I gather YOU, Louis, probably started with Asimov's nonfiction even earlier than I did, which was as a 7th Grader in 1967.)

radioacti...@gmail.com <radioactiveseattle@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry, Louis, but my cyber-techno skills are INDEED that primitive.
>
> But am I to understand that language such as the cited "double-rot-13
> encoding" phraseology is so commonplace that pretty much everyone except me
> knows what that means (much less how it WORKS) ?!?

That doubling it cancels it out is at the absolute core of what it is,
so the joke is crushingly obvious to anyone who knows.

> That is, is pretty much everyone with a smartphone, laptop or desktop
> computer so up to speed on such things that such Chinese-to-me phrases like
> "double-rot-13 encoding" is second-nature, without having a programming (or
> other cyber-engineering) background? Of those three cited digital techs

rot-13 encoding is MUCH older than smartphones...

> (cell, tablet/laptop or desktop), nowadays only the third applies in my case,
> as after wasting upwards of $2000 on smart phones which NOBODY ever trained
> me to use*--even to point of answering a call without inadvertently finding
> myself talking to someone calling on the second, call-waiting line--I do all
> my admittedly-ponderous posting hereto via my Mac desktop, which thank G-d
> still comes with a keyboard (that touch-and-swipe-left-or-right tech in
> phones and tablets completely fazes me, cyber-dullard that I am). Well, at
> least I can type 90 words/minute.
>
> Meanwhile, I seem to be just too dumb for so-called smart phones; I always
> ANYWAY detested being reached on my various flip-phones through the decades
> while out shopping, dining or (especially) driving, so I don't miss being
> cell-less in the least. Years ago I happily reverted to my good ol' reliable
> home-office landline--that's right, Louis, 19th Century technology.

I proudly use the landline number that's been in 3 generations of my family
over my whole life,and my flip-phone that I reluctantly got to replace an
older one has been unserviced for months because of a change in package rules.
I have never used or wanted a smartphone.
I have a few rotary-dial phones.

But I have used personal computers since 1977 (Processor Tech Sol-20)
and have read newsgroups since the mid-1990s with a reader that rot-13
encodes what you're reading if you so desire.

> (No, it's not QUITE an Alexander Graham Bell-autographed model, for it's
> even got that Space Age auto-dial function!...except no one's ever trained me
> how to use even THAT simple feature either, so I just punch all 10 digits
> whenever I'm calling anyone anyway.) And please don't suggest "reading the
> manual"; those all seem to be translated--POORLY--by Asian writers who don't
> know how to explain things understandably for non-tech folk.
>
> Look, I even understand Special Relativity pretty thoroughly (though only
> the basics and hardly any of the details of General Relativity, granted) and
> even a good deal of quantum mechanics--but those three complex physics
> disciplines mostly on my own**, not much from high school or college). But
> that's because in those exotic realms I was TRAINED (self-trained, but
> nonetheless trained).
>
> But NO one has EVER trained me on ANY of my computers--the C-64, three or
> four Microsoft-driven PCs, and now, my third Apple, a 27-inch "retina"
> desktop, which IS clearly an AMAZING machine. That is, I've little doubt it
> could even fetch my pipe and slippers at night, IF I could only figure out to
> use its many dozens--or many hundreds, even?--of features, commands and
> file-managing screens. (Alas, every one of my galpals over the years were
> less cyber-adept than even me, so I was always helping THEM with THEIR
> machines, believe it or not). No, for me at the hardware and software
> stores, it's always been some variation of "just play with it, you'll pick
> it up soon enough."
>
> Nope.
>
> BRYAN STYBLE/Florida
> ===================
> * The salespeople for those two smart phones gave me the same schtick that
> the people at the Apple Store told me when selling me my current, large Mac
> desktop, each saying some variation of, "I can tell you're clearly a smart
> fellow..."--as I'd informed them I understand advanced algebra, astronomy and
> even a lot of nuclear physics, but seem constantly frustrated by even the
> simpler commands of those seven or eight computers I've owned all the way
> back to my Commodore 64 in the mid-'80s-- "...so I'm sure you'll figure it
> out quickly." Well, they were each SERIOUSLY mistaken...presuming they
> weren't flat-out lying, just to close their sales.
> ** Well, St. Asimov was HUGELY helpful, having read at least major portions
> (if not the entirety) of probably 80 or so of his 450-odd nonfiction books.

I met him a few times...if you did,would he be our closest degree of
separation?

> Which of course is why I so often promote his body of work herein at
> alt-obits. (Although I gather YOU, Louis, probably started with Asimov's
> nonfiction even earlier than I did, which was as a 7th Grader in 1967.)

I don't remember my first exposure to his nonfiction,though I recall
reading The Foundation Trilogy as a 7-year-old in 1968.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.