Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:
wrote
Michael Coslo wrote:
And I know some people in their 60's who have just bought a house.
They
may or may not finish their mortgage.
My point is that a new demographic is emerging. It is one of a mature
person who has decided to get into a hobby as they start to have a
bit
more leisure time. For myself, that started when I was in my mid-late
40's, as my son graduated high school and the travel hockey wound
down.
All that tends to free up the finances a bit also.
I think that demographic has been around for at least 2-3 decades. But
your point is well taken.
And it has unforeseen effects, like driving the "average age" of US
hams upwards.
Local access TV may bring in a few folks, but not like network TV.
Of course. But it would still be getting a message out.
Maybe PBS could do a special? Imagine if Ken Burns did a
documentary on
amateur radio...
Now your talking! hehe.
'zactly
Yet the NCVEC folks say the solution is to create a class of
ham
that can't use rigs with more than 30 volts on the
electronics...
Goofy, goofy, goofy!
Tell it to NCVEC. They think they know better than you.
From what I gather, their underlying concern was actually that
they think their VE's were having to work too hard.
Perhaps. Also, the "Amateur Radio in the 21st Century" paper
equated passing the code test with winning the Tour de France or
painting
the Mona Lisa,
Wow! now I feel really great about passing!!! ;^)
Didja read that paper, and my rebuttal?
I read the paper (don't know if I should say *yawn* or *ick*. I
didn't
read your comment tho'.
Please see the links I posted in my reply to K8MN earlier today.
The NCVEC proposal is derived almost word-for-word from that paper.
Interesting to note the mistakes in the paper and its 'we know better
than you' tone from an author who *brags* he can't even pass the
current tests!
Makes the ARRL proposal look like a work of genius by comparison.
and described the stress of dealing with grown people crying
because they'd flunked the code test....boo-hoo....
Funny you should mention that. the first time I took element 1...
and
flunked... I was not pleased, but Figured I'd do it again, the
person
who was the most upset was the VE. I felt worse for him than
myself.
Lessee...I was 14 and flunked 13 wpm the first go because the
examiner
couldn't read my longhand. What the sadistic IHM nuns called
"Palmer
Method", for some reason.
So you went to the catholic school at Our Lady of the Perpetual
Responsibility, eh?
Yep. Only they weren't so nice as Sister Arvonne
Shrub says hydrogen is the answer. Oh the humanity.
Hydrogen's energy density issues make for some problems. That
Excursion will have to tack on another 10 miles per hour on trips
to make up
for all the fuel stops needed.
Naw, just liquefy the stuff.
Yoiks! Liquid H? Even if, the energy density is still quite a bit
less than gasoline. something like 25 percent.
Storage concerns are a big problem with the stuff. In a similar
fashion We have Natural gas buses in our area. Their tanks are on
the bus
roof, and run the length of the bus. You just can't get as much
energy out
of the stuff.
Didja know the USA is now *importing* LNG from the Middle East and
other places?
Ever stop to think about how much of that stuff used to be burned off
at
the well head as "useless"? One more Yoiks!
Not useless, just not economically competitive to recover and transport
at the time.
The big problems a
- Handling a fuel that is a gas at STP is more complex than one
that is a liquid.
- Danger of fire and leaking pressure tanks
- Where's all the hydrogen supposed to come from?
Yup. While seawater might seem like the obvious way out,
hydrolysis
of seawater produces interesting byproducts.
Yep. Plus - where do you get the electricity to hydrolyze the
seawater?
I'm a big fan of nuclear energy, when it is done in a smart and safe
way. And there are smart and safe ways to do it.
The plants are obvious terror targets. The long term problem is the
waste.
One solution being explored in places like Australia is the solar tower
concept. Uses desert land.
Now tell the people in the western US that you want to take a huge
amount of their fresh water!! 8^) It is in short enough supply as
it
is.
Might as well develop electric cars...
Welcome back to nuc energy!
One thing I am adamant about is that we should never try to extract
the
energy needed to run our country from materials that humans need to
support life. Biofuels such as corn based ethanol, and hydrogen taken
from fresh water are big no-nos in my book.
A point well taken! Hwoever, if fuels can be extracted from waste
products (TDP, for example) that's a win-win.
If we go down that road, we
may some day have to choose between propulsive energy and human life.
We already make that choice when we import oil from certain countries
and turn a blind eye to what else they do. Like the way the Reagan
administration and Shake Hands dealt with SH back in the '80s.
You mean like dragging the gay marriage issue into the Social
Security problem? 8^)
Yep. The interesting thing is that allowing gay civil unions
would
*increase* tax revenue.
And speaking of marriage: One thing I find interesting is that
the
divorce rates in the "red" states are consistently and clearly
higher than the rates in "blue" states. Seems those folks who
rant and
rave about "family values" and "covenants" can't seem to stay
hitched
very long.
All you have to do is meet some of the "reds", and you'll
immediately understand why they have such a high divorce
rate......
Ya gotta be more specific than that!
hehe, when I think of the modern conservative, I keep getting this
vision of Old man Newt.
You mean the "family values" guy who had divorce papers served on
his
first wife (who had supported him through law school and the early
struggles of his political career) while she was *in the hospital
undergoing cancer treatment*?
ah yes, you've heard of him?
Yeah - nice guy, huh? NOT!
"It's all about values"
I notice he's being resurrected even now.
Look up how many times Rush Limbaugh has been married...
Here's the kind of thinking being put forth:
One plan being suggested in DC is for the USA to create a
special
savings account for each baby born in the USA, starting on a
certain date. The Feds would put $2000 into each account each
year until
the kid reaches 18. Total investment $36,000. Assuming about 6%
annual
interest, each account would be worth over a million dollars
when
the "baby" reached 65.
Nice retirement package, huh? Except it won't work for several
reasons
completely obvious to anyone with common sense.
Who pays that 6 percent interest?
That's the first problem.
The last time I checked, the rate
wasn't anywhere near that.
Bingo!
Taxes on that money? Capital gains?
The money would be tax exempt until the person began to draw upon
it.
Inflation?
That's a BIG one!
~30 years ago, when I was entering the job market out of college,
entry-level engineers with degrees were making about what *minimum
wage* is now. Go back 50 years, and a $5000/yr income put the
average person on Easy Street, able to support a middle-class
family in a
way that $50,000/yr won't do today.
Even if inflation stays low over the next 65 years, $1 million
won't be enough to retire on. What really matters, of course, is
what I call
"differential interest" - the difference between inflation and the
apparent interest rate. If you get interest of 6% and inflation of
2%, your money is really only growing at a rate of 4%.
Your going to have to have some sort of way that the guvmint
pays interest on the account when the prime is low, or you will
be
creating a powerful incentive for citizens to want a high
interest
rate which is counterproductive to the economy......The list goes
on and
on.
Yep.
Also interesting how everyone in the US will retire a
millionaire!
Sounds good until the reality cuts in. There are lots of
millionaires today - on paper anyway.
Ain't gonna work!
Yet that isn't some wild-eyed idea - it's something our alleged
leadership has suggested!
Hey yeah! The stock Market always goes up over the long term,
right?
Yep. Whether it keeps up with inflation is another issue.
Even if it does, if you are using a market based system, the
important
part is what the market is doing right before you retire.
Not really, unless you intend to pull all your money out the day you
retire.
While that may be true, people keep applying it to irrelevant
issues.
This case is just one of using interest in a way that sounds good
if
you don't look too deep.
By the way, did you know the producer of the "Swiftboat Veterns"
is
now producing smear videos and literature against the AARP? The
same
people they eagerly worked with a year or two earlier.
The Swift Boat dude has been playing that game for decades. Never
mind
that lots of other vets, who served *with* Mr. Kerry, tell a
completely
different story.
no shame, at long last, no shame.
Didn't AARP lose membership for supporting Shrub's prescription
plan?
Not sure....
Consider these other problems:
If there are, say, 4 million births per year, the govt. will need
to put $8 billion into the accounts the first year, $16 billion
the
second year, $24 billion the third year, etc. This won't
stabilize until
the 18th year, when it reaches $144 billion per year being put
aside in
these accounts. Most of that money would have to come from *new*
revenue sources, because the existing Social Security system would
have to continue to exist for a while. And that's based on *no*
increase
in baby production!
Where's all that money supposed to come from?
Tax cuts.
HAW!
Seriously, if we reduce the tax rate all problems will go away!
Until tomorrow!
73 de Jim, N2EY