Larry Roll K3LT wrote:
In article , Radio Amateur KC2HMZ
writes:
The only no-coders I bother to "ridicule" are those who offer the typically
inane arguments that code testing is somehow detrimental to the future
of the ARS -- usually by discouraging the involvement of computer-
literate, technically-involved young people. The truth about these
people is that they just want to get on HF phone and yak away -- and for
the most part, haven't a clue as to what's happening inside their off-the-
shelf ham radio appliance.
I'm sure that's true for some. I'm also sure it's not true for all.
The funny thing is, John, that the ones for which it isn't true are apparently
nowhere to be found among the typical newcomers to the ARS these days.
The average computer-literate, technically involved people tend to be
able to, for example, assemble a computer from its basic elements
(case, power supply, motherboard and perhaps some daughterboards),
connect the peripherals, install an OS and other software without a
dozen calls to a tech support hotline, and end up with a viable
working machine.
I could do all that, and I don't consider myself to be particularly "technical"
as far as computers are concerned. That's just simple assembly -- a mainly
mechanical skill.
Folks who can do this are technically involved in comparison to the
folks who don't even know which port the monitor plugs into. They
aren't technically involved in comparison to the guy who designed the
motherboard in the first place. However, even in the industry, very
few people do component level repairs on motherboards and
daughterboards any more. What of it? Who do you know that's designed
and built a multi-band HF rig lately? Some have, of course...most of
them work for Kenwood, Icom, Yaesu, Alinco, etc.
Component-level repairs aren't done these days mainly for economic
reasons. The labor cost involved in trouble-shooting a board at the
component level would exceed the value of the component probably
long before the fault was diagnosed.
Of those that are able to do component level repairs on computer
equipment, they probably have much of the knowledge needed to pass our
written exams, except they lack the specialized knowledge of RF.
Certainly, though, it would seem they have the capacity to learn it -
but when the first thing we do is hit them with something over a
hundred years old and tell them this is our lowest common denominator,
I have no doubt that it causes a lot of people to think, "@#$&%^*
that!" and find another hobby...perhaps they already have one.
Well, that reaction to having to learn Morse code would only indicate
that they're not at all serious about becoming fully capable as radio
amateurs. Nothing new there.
Those with genuine technical skills, who come into ham radio with
or without Morse code, are perfectly OK by me. My problem begins
when they go out of their way to whine about the code testing
requirement, and make all the usual inane NCTA arguments about
the code itself causing technical ignorance. If they simply go about
the business of pursuing ham radio to the extent that they desire, and
leave out the childish whining, I am more than willing to stand in awe
of the advanced technical skill they demonstrate -- when and where
it is, in fact, demonstrated.
You have to keep one thing in mind here, John -- I didn't start the
code testing debate. The anti-code test whiners did, with their
specious arguments and inane comparisons of Morse code proficiency
to everything antiquated and obsolete -- without having any first-
had knowledge or experience to give them a basis for their self-serving,
usually parroted commentary. If any of them had been willing to invest
a fraction of the time and effort in learning the code as they did in
railing against it, they may be singing a different tune, indeed.
73 de Larry, K3LT
JJ take note- this post is redirected to YOU
|