"John Smith" wrote in message
...
JB wrote:

...
The Forrestal disaster was attributed to druggies. The enemy was no
doubt
there on board. Many people have yet to figure out about the mechanics
of
such disasters. I submit that there will be 2 sides to every story to
come
out of the Vietnam war, and that sufficient truth is often left out to
allow
that.

I wrecked a few cars before I learned how to drive. Have you ever been
tortured for information? or just for the hell of it? People who sit
around
and talk about it over tea aren't fit to judge who a hero is but they
are
often left to talk about it. Let's just call him "experienced". I
really
don't consider Obama to be the "Black Messiah" either.

I feel that both candidates were potential disasters, showing the idiots
had
prevailed before the election. The vote only served as an international
"poll" on how best to proceed to our doom. It seems the election has
tried
to set the clock back to what it was before 9/11. Let's see what
develops
this time around.

Along the way, though college, it is pointed out to you that any great
story (or, at least a believable one) has a protagonist and an
antagonist (sometimes more of them, sometimes less of them); i.e. a
"good guy" and a "bad guy." It is based on a storyline where great
adversity is found, great sacrifice and energy extended and exerted, and
finally the defeat of the enemy is had ... funny, but we will fall for
this same line though uncounted books by uncounted authors. Read any
great Greek tragedies/novels/plays, Shakespeare knew this and you find
it in his offerings. (Or, turn on Rush, "... bad democrats, good
republicans ...", this is simply recited over-and-over again to keep
idiots in line and massage the weak minds into the hypnotic/religious
lies which got us here ... some still have futures which hinge on
keeping the insanity alive. Indeed, real change will bring collapse ...)

Such is also how our political system is arranged, good guy vs. bad guy
(and, you just pick who is good and who is bad, or toss a coin. Or have
you allegiances bought and paid for ...) And, so is our foreign policy
applied, we are the good guy, they are the bad guy and these are our
friends who help us in our great adventure ... fear gets the whole ball
rolling, even unjustified fear(s) will work ...

Someday, all will see the truth, become ashamed of living such a shallow
"truth(s)", and be shamed into higher standards and goals ... until that
time, a few can control the minds of many ... and ultimately the world.

Regards,
JS


I had considered the "good cop", "bad cop" routine, but I really think it
goes back to the "demoralization" and "destabilization" process that you
yourself (and myself) admit to in lost faith, but healthy distrust along
with a sense of reality is vital, but not to the point of being crippled.

Rush noticed that what's "good" for the Country is "bad" for the democrats
and what's "bad" for the Country is "good" for the democrats. It isn't lost
on me that "when it bleeds it leads". Who for example is responsible for
those who apply psychological pressure to "known" gun owners to induce them
to random mass murder? Who would that benefit? There are many cynical
people out there with a sick sense of humor. Your assertion that real
change would bring collapse is too cynical and I wouldn't set myself up to
be wrong unless there is a complete failure. That just gives us the wrong
goal. Seek God. I know you hate "religion" but rather than seeking as a
blind follower, seek as a researcher. Set those things aside that you don't
immediately understand but don't entirely dismiss them. That is simply
arrogance. The intellectual is a fathead who completely dismisses that
which he doesn't understand or what is related to him by the unschooled.
Those who do that operate contrary to the scientific method. Even a failed
experiment shouldn't be thrown out, but learned from. Or saved until the
failure is understood.

In light of that, "The Interview" link I posted earlier, the true threat is
the cynicism that developed that whole school of thought. It is a process
of destruction. Not only that, but of unchecked destruction.

JB wrote:

...
I had considered the "good cop", "bad cop" routine, but I really think it
goes back to the "demoralization" and "destabilization" process that you
yourself (and myself) admit to in lost faith, but healthy distrust along
with a sense of reality is vital, but not to the point of being crippled.

Rush noticed that what's "good" for the Country is "bad" for the democrats
and what's "bad" for the Country is "good" for the democrats. It isn't lost
on me that "when it bleeds it leads". Who for example is responsible for
those who apply psychological pressure to "known" gun owners to induce them
to random mass murder? Who would that benefit? There are many cynical
people out there with a sick sense of humor. Your assertion that real
change would bring collapse is too cynical and I wouldn't set myself up to
be wrong unless there is a complete failure. That just gives us the wrong
goal. Seek God. I know you hate "religion" but rather than seeking as a
blind follower, seek as a researcher. Set those things aside that you don't
immediately understand but don't entirely dismiss them. That is simply
arrogance. The intellectual is a fathead who completely dismisses that
which he doesn't understand or what is related to him by the unschooled.
Those who do that operate contrary to the scientific method. Even a failed
experiment shouldn't be thrown out, but learned from. Or saved until the
failure is understood.

In light of that, "The Interview" link I posted earlier, the true threat is
the cynicism that developed that whole school of thought. It is a process
of destruction. Not only that, but of unchecked destruction.

"What is good for the country" is a religious term, the way it is being
used lacks any real meaning ...

"The country" is its' citizens. It is not the buildings, it is not the
wealth, it is not plots of dirt ... when our public servants carry out
the majority of the people wills, while preventing great harm to
minorities, it is doing its' job. Government was created to serve the
people. It was never created to be an institution of "leaders" who set
policy, define monetary systems, influence the people, etc. It was
created to provide what the people requested, it is ONLY a tool which is
only valid when it is suffer-able to the people.

Government does a good job when it provides public transportation
systems, public roads, public sewer system, public water supplies,
public electric/gas/heating/etc. Public schools with high standards,
and those standards controlled by the people, is a good thing. Public
health is another good example, it protects us from ill individuals who
are threats to innocents lives. You get the point--only involved in
things which provide equal services/protections to EACH-AND-EVERY-SINGLE
citizen.

Government does NOT do its' job when it takes religions marriage and
redefines it for a minority which break the very meaning of the word
(indeed, it breaks the separation of church and states powers from the
get-go ...)

What is "good for the country" is good for ALL peoples (poor, rich,
educated, uneducated, white, black, young, old, etc.), what is good for
a minority is NOT good for the country.

Government should be like toilet paper, it is appreciated by all and
servers all equally well ... grin

Regards,
JS

On Nov 27, 12:58 pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Nov 25, 11:26 am, Jim Lux wrote:


Jim
IEEE state that if papers were open source it would threaten the
presence of the IEEE?

No.. it's that a significant part of IEEE's budget derives from
publishing copyrighted standards and journals. One argument for the
copyrighting of standards is that it provides a legal club to go after
someone publishing an adulterated version. I'm not sure that really
holds water, but there it is.
The cost of actually printing the journals is significant, and has to
come from somewhere. They're not exactly huge circulation, and mostly
have no advertising, but are printed on high quality stock with good
quality typesetting.


This statement was in regard to the high costs of obtaining copies
from the IEEE without
having to pay the high costs of belonging .

The cost to get a single copy is quite high compared to the cost to
get access to thousands by being a member (check out those CCC prices
at the bottom of the first page.. they're fairly pricey.. a dozen
papers a year and you've just paid for your membership and access to
Xplore)


I understand the need for
peer review by academics but not necessarily a private entity
and the IEEE rights to publish such so, are the IEEE demanding SOLE
ownership of presented papers?

IEEE performs a useful function by organizing all those peer reviewers
(finding them, getting the papers to them, haranguing them for their
reviews, etc.).. Being an editor is a lot of work, and is often done
as a labor of love by the editor (or, as "part of your job" in
academe), as is being a decent reviewer. IEEE requests copyright
transfer to them for papers published in their journals for a variety
of reasons, and with a variety of exceptions.
1) Makes sure that you're not publishing the same thing in multiple
places at the same time..
2) If your work was done, e.g., on gov't contract, often, the contract
requires that the paper be public domain, and the IEEE is cool with
that.
3) The author can publish the paper on their own website with an
appropriate disclaimer.

I am assuming that all papers presented by the Universities as well as
thesis papers belong to the parent university
based on a recent antenna patent awarded to a University derived from
a student dissertation.

Not necessarily ("all" is pretty all-encompassing).. A lot depends on
the funding source for the work.


This leaves
an outstanding question !. If the university a public entity,
reserves the rights of all papers arrived at the university
then what rights do they hold that allows transference from the public
domain of those rights to a private institution to the detriment of
the public
that finance them?

Those rights were never in the public domain to begin with. One might
argue that the underlying idea is in the public domain, but the
written description of has a copyright that belongs to the author
(except for a "work for hire") and the author gets to decide what they
do with it. And, I would argue that arranging for the publication of
the work in a "learned journal" is a pretty effective way of
disseminating the work to the general public. The fact that IEEE (or
Inst of Physics or AAAS, etc.) get an assignment of copyright as part
of the process is part of the cost of doing that publication. And
it's a fact that as online publication becomes easier, work IS being
disseminated by these means.

However, one should not disregard the significant value brought to the
process by the formalized peer review system. Yes, it has flaws and
can be (and has been) subverted, but it works moderately well.

Compare to the situation a hundred or two hundred years ago. I don't
complain that "the system" isn't moving as rapidly as technology might
allow, because the system has a fairly long time constant, which is
actually a good thing, since it prevents rapid whipsawing to follow
fashion. A printed journal will still be readable 100 or 200 years
from now. The same cannot necessarily be said of djvu or pdf or tiff
or other elecronic forms.

One should also not complain too loudly about the lack of heritage
journals on line for free. It costs a LOT to scan thing and put them
online, particularly if they're searchable. If you could convince
Congress to do it as a service to mankind, that would be a worthy
goal, but for now, someone's got to pay for it.


Regards
Art Unwin

On Nov 29, 6:46*pm, wrote:
On Nov 27, 12:58 pm, Art Unwin wrote:

On Nov 25, 11:26 am, Jim Lux wrote:

Jim
IEEE state that if papers were open source it would threaten the
presence of the IEEE?

No.. it's that a significant part of IEEE's budget derives from
publishing copyrighted standards and journals. One argument for the
copyrighting of standards is that it provides a legal club to go after
someone publishing an adulterated version. I'm not sure that really
holds water, but there it is.
The cost of actually printing the journals is significant, and has to
come from somewhere. *They're not exactly huge circulation, and mostly
have no advertising, but are printed on high quality stock with good
quality typesetting.

This statement was in regard to the high costs of obtaining copies
from the IEEE without
having to pay the high costs of belonging .

The cost to get a single copy is quite high compared to the cost to
get access to thousands by being a member (check out those CCC prices
at the bottom of the first page.. they're fairly pricey.. a dozen
papers a year and you've just paid for your membership and access to
Xplore)

*I understand the need for

peer review by academics but not necessarily a private entity
and the IEEE rights to publish such so, are the IEEE demanding SOLE
ownership of presented papers?

IEEE performs a useful function by organizing all those peer reviewers
(finding them, getting the papers to them, haranguing them for their
reviews, etc.).. Being an editor is a lot of work, and is often done
as a labor of love by the editor (or, as "part of your job" in
academe), as is being a decent reviewer. IEEE requests copyright
transfer to them for papers published in their journals for a variety
of reasons, and with a variety of exceptions.
1) Makes sure that you're not publishing the same thing in multiple
places at the same time..
2) If your work was done, e.g., on gov't contract, often, the contract
requires that the paper be public domain, and the IEEE is cool with
that.
3) The author can publish the paper on their own website with an
appropriate disclaimer.

I am assuming that all papers presented by the Universities as well as
thesis papers belong to the parent university
based on a recent antenna patent awarded to a University derived from
a student dissertation.

Not necessarily ("all" is pretty all-encompassing).. A lot depends on
the funding source for the work.

This leaves

*an outstanding question !. If the university a public entity,
reserves the rights of all papers arrived at the university
then what rights do they hold that allows transference from the public
domain of those rights to a private institution to the detriment of
the public
that finance them?

Those rights were never in the public domain to begin with. One might
argue that the underlying idea is in the public domain, but the
written description of has a copyright that belongs to the author
(except for a "work for hire") and the author gets to decide what they
do with it. *And, I would argue that arranging for the publication of
the work in a "learned journal" is a pretty effective way of
disseminating the work to the general public. The fact that IEEE (or
Inst of Physics or AAAS, etc.) get an assignment of copyright as part
of the process is part of the cost of doing that publication. *And
it's a fact that as online publication becomes easier, work IS being
disseminated by these means.

However, one should not disregard the significant value brought to the
process by the formalized peer review system. Yes, it has flaws and
can be (and has been) subverted, but it works moderately well.

Compare to the situation a hundred or two hundred years ago. *I don't
complain that "the system" isn't moving as rapidly as technology might
allow, because the system has a fairly long time constant, which is
actually a good thing, since it prevents rapid whipsawing to follow
fashion. * A printed journal will still be readable 100 or 200 years
from now. *The same cannot necessarily be said of djvu or pdf or tiff
or other elecronic forms.

One should also not complain too loudly about the lack of heritage
journals on line for free. *It costs a LOT to scan thing and put them
online, particularly if they're searchable. *If you could convince
Congress to do it as a service to mankind, that would be a worthy
goal, but for now, someone's got to pay for it.

Regards
Art Unwin

If the paper is under the auspices of the University it belongs to the
University.Period
Same goes for doctorate dissertations plus patent rights if applicable
to disertations.
Since it is a public University I question their rights to with hold
information
from the public at large. This is a great inconvenience to those laid
off,
unemployed that wish to stay up to date while searching for
employment.
To with hold information from the general public can be seen as a
crime against the Country
and there are other ways of obtaining reviews without non revealment
to the public.
Universities already prevent online useage of their technical
libraries but there is not one good reason why
studies paid for by the public taxes should not be placed on the
INTERNET.
To deprive the unemployed, retired, teachers and those under license
by federal authorities in pursuit of
science advancement is a crime against the Country by denying it a
path to a better society.
If there is a need for overview by one's peers then Universities and
education bodies should be able
to handle things for themselves instead providing papers to a private
institution for personal benefits.
It is time for CHANGE in the US where the ability for its people to
access any means that is to the
countries benefit as well as it constituents.If a patent holder or
applicant has no rights with regard to dissemination of his studies
then there is no real need for concealment by public entities
When public papers are handled by those elected by the people the
present professional bodies will have to allow the market to decide
whether there is a place for them
I suppose eventually there will be a request in federal court that
such information must be released for the press or the publiwhich can
be hastened by
informing your Congressman or Senator of the

THEFT OF PUBLIC FUNDS
BY PRIVATE ENTITIES
Art

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
THEFT OF PUBLIC FUNDS BY PRIVATE ENTITIES

so go file a criminal complaint... even at 'public' universities not all
research work is paid for by the public. many projects are funded by
private companies and other entities who retain the right to such work and
any patents that may result. now of course most patents are publicly
available, but not all of them... go figure that one out. of course how
much more are you willing to be taxed to support electronic publishing of
everything written at a public university? that service doesn't come for
free, and the sheer volume of that stuff would make it downright expensive.

On Nov 30, 4:47*am, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

THEFT OF PUBLIC FUNDS BY PRIVATE ENTITIES

so go file a criminal complaint... *even at 'public' universities not all
research work is paid for by the public. *many projects are funded by
private companies and other entities who retain the right to such work and
any patents that may result. *now of course most patents are publicly
available, but not all of them... go figure that one out. *of course how
much more are you willing to be taxed to support electronic publishing of
everything written at a public university? *that service doesn't come for
free, and the sheer volume of that stuff would make it downright expensive.

I have asked the trusties what the policy is regarding this before I
proceed.
I am in the rujst belt and there are many engineers that have and are
going to be laid off.
They will not be able to afford to stay abreast of things and thus
will be hurtin the coming depression.
Not good for the Countries future I would say
Art

On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 02:51:59 GMT, "JB" wrote:

... my blind belief that men in power would honor their
duties and responsibilities to the American people has been destroyed.

The time when our nation stood on infallible principals, morals, ethics,
honors and commitments has slowly disappeared until such territories are
loath to intellectuals--other than to demand a return to sanity, truth
in government and the publics right to know, and a fair and just system.


This is actually where I have stood since the first grade. Except that the
public seems to have abdicated it's right to know by entrusting that to
advertisers and spokesman.

1. Vote no when there is too much verbiage in legislation
2. Vote such that politicians will tend wear themselves out (on each other)
before doing harm which often results from an unchallenged decision. This
also gives the public more of a swing vote in their decisions.

The only infallible is God. Our country takes a tumble every time we lose
our moral compass. Aside from that, NO country or system has ever been
infallible. We could be disappointed under any system that we entrust all
power to men (or women). Be very afraid when they are all in complete
agreement, because they won't need us for anything anymore.

Defecation on your non-existent deity.

On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 03:47:46 GMT, "JB" wrote:


"John Smith" wrote in message
...
JB wrote:

...
The Forrestal disaster was attributed to druggies. The enemy was no
doubt
there on board. Many people have yet to figure out about the mechanics
of
such disasters. I submit that there will be 2 sides to every story to
come
out of the Vietnam war, and that sufficient truth is often left out to
allow
that.

I wrecked a few cars before I learned how to drive. Have you ever been
tortured for information? or just for the hell of it? People who sit
around
and talk about it over tea aren't fit to judge who a hero is but they
are
often left to talk about it. Let's just call him "experienced". I
really
don't consider Obama to be the "Black Messiah" either.

I feel that both candidates were potential disasters, showing the idiots
had
prevailed before the election. The vote only served as an international
"poll" on how best to proceed to our doom. It seems the election has
tried
to set the clock back to what it was before 9/11. Let's see what
develops
this time around.

Along the way, though college, it is pointed out to you that any great
story (or, at least a believable one) has a protagonist and an
antagonist (sometimes more of them, sometimes less of them); i.e. a
"good guy" and a "bad guy." It is based on a storyline where great
adversity is found, great sacrifice and energy extended and exerted, and
finally the defeat of the enemy is had ... funny, but we will fall for
this same line though uncounted books by uncounted authors. Read any
great Greek tragedies/novels/plays, Shakespeare knew this and you find
it in his offerings. (Or, turn on Rush, "... bad democrats, good
republicans ...", this is simply recited over-and-over again to keep
idiots in line and massage the weak minds into the hypnotic/religious
lies which got us here ... some still have futures which hinge on
keeping the insanity alive. Indeed, real change will bring collapse ...)

Such is also how our political system is arranged, good guy vs. bad guy
(and, you just pick who is good and who is bad, or toss a coin. Or have
you allegiances bought and paid for ...) And, so is our foreign policy
applied, we are the good guy, they are the bad guy and these are our
friends who help us in our great adventure ... fear gets the whole ball
rolling, even unjustified fear(s) will work ...

Someday, all will see the truth, become ashamed of living such a shallow
"truth(s)", and be shamed into higher standards and goals ... until that
time, a few can control the minds of many ... and ultimately the world.

Regards,
JS


I had considered the "good cop", "bad cop" routine, but I really think it
goes back to the "demoralization" and "destabilization" process that you
yourself (and myself) admit to in lost faith, but healthy distrust along
with a sense of reality is vital, but not to the point of being crippled.

Rush noticed that what's "good" for the Country is "bad" for the democrats
and what's "bad" for the Country is "good" for the democrats. It isn't lost
on me that "when it bleeds it leads". Who for example is responsible for
those who apply psychological pressure to "known" gun owners to induce them
to random mass murder? Who would that benefit? There are many cynical
people out there with a sick sense of humor. Your assertion that real
change would bring collapse is too cynical and I wouldn't set myself up to
be wrong unless there is a complete failure. That just gives us the wrong
goal. Seek God. I know you hate "religion" but rather than seeking as a
blind follower, seek as a researcher. Set those things aside that you don't
immediately understand but don't entirely dismiss them. That is simply
arrogance. The intellectual is a fathead who completely dismisses that
which he doesn't understand or what is related to him by the unschooled.
Those who do that operate contrary to the scientific method. Even a failed
experiment shouldn't be thrown out, but learned from. Or saved until the
failure is understood.

In light of that, "The Interview" link I posted earlier, the true threat is
the cynicism that developed that whole school of thought. It is a process
of destruction. Not only that, but of unchecked destruction.



Just everything Rush wanted was worse than what we had.

On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 12:00:06 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 15:48:50 GMT, "JB" wrote:

Excellent post.

Thanks. I'll add one more notch on my LCD frame.

The problem with QEX is not enough submissions.

Well, they rejected one of mine many years ago. The problem was they
never really said why. When I pressed the editor, he replied that he
had enough submissions of sufficient quality. I tried again later and
had it rejected because I wasn't an ARRL member at the time (because I
was broke). I don't know what was going on, but I wasn't thrilled and
never bothered again.

As for the
QST AM mods, I was thinking that was ATV, but maybe you were talking about
something else.

Something else was converting commercial land mobile FM radios from
WBFM or later NBFM to AM (A3A) modulation. Mostly, it was adding a
low level modulation circuit, and converting the power stages from
Class C to Class A or AB. To me, it was a little like publishing an
article today on converting a Prius Hybrid automobile to only run on
gasoline.

The same applies to QST. If there aren't enough
submissions, the only recourse is to hire writers to do columns or fill the
empiness with drivel and ads like 73.

Probably true. I submitted an article in about 2002 on using the
audio time delay through a repeater to do hyperbolic (Loran A style)
vehicle location. I forgot why it was rejected because I ended up in
the hospital and my memory from that period is rather muddled. When I
inquired about the submission a year later, they said that they
couldn't find it or that it was lost. Then, I mentioned that I still
wasn't an ARRL member and all communications ceased.

The best things to come out of 73 was
the Star Trek communicator clone and Byte magazine. I hate how Ham Radio
magazine died out.

73 published Joe Moell's column on amateur radio direction finding. To
me, it was worth the price of a subscription. Before I tossed my
archives, I ripped out and saved most of these issues. Wanna build a
rotating antenna direction finder? The only references in ham radio
land you'll find are in these 73 magazine issues. Same with various
microwave columns. I could have done without Wayne Green's endless
editorials.

I was President of the local ham club for a while, and
wound up doing the newletter too. For the three or four years of that, I
only got 3 submissions from the membership. All the rest I had to either
pull out of my A** every month or go around like a reporter and interrogate
people.

Our current newsletter editor complains about the same thing.
http://www.k6bj.org
Still, he manages to produce a superior ham radio newsletter. I used
to submit irregular technical articles and obnoxious opinionated radio
politix articles. However, one article that I spend considerable time
writing was butchered beyond recognition. When I asked for an
explanation, I got nothing. So, no more articles from me.

On the other hand - What neat inventions can we come up with to share with
the World, so it can be exploited and give reason to take more of our
spectrum?

It probably shouldn't be an invention. More likely, an unusual or
interesting application of some existing technology. Your ATV camera
for disaster services is a good example. Direction finding is still a
common problem (i.e. stuck public safety transmitters). Perhaps
demonstrating how some of the dumb|great ideas originating out FCC can
be made to work (i.e. white space, ultra narrow band FM, on the fly
TDMA, etc). I could think of lots of useful things to build, design,
buy, or analyze.

Interesting to note how public safety volunteers showed Los
Angeles Sheriff how neat ATV was and they turned around and petitioned the
FCC for those frequencies.

We had some floods a few years ago. The levee broke along the Pajaro
river. One of our members has a helicopter and volunteered to fly an
ATV camera over the area for the sheriff. On screen was GPS position
in APRS format. Everything worked and everyone was suitably
impressed. Then, nothing. No clue exactly why, but my guess is that
homebrew is not funded by Homeland Security.

Oh well, we will probably all be shot in head by the next regime because we
are an irritation.

Nope. We will all be promoted to a position of responsibility, where
we will be setup to fail, thus demonstrating that technologists are no
better at running the country than politicians, crooks, bureaucrats,
and thugs.

How very weird. I am the pretty much acknowledged top technologist in
my workplace. Yet i cannot get promoted.

YMMV

On Nov 30, 6:55*pm, JosephKK wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 12:00:06 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:



On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 15:48:50 GMT, "JB" wrote:

Excellent post.

Thanks. *I'll add one more notch on my LCD frame.

The problem with QEX is not enough submissions.

Well, they rejected one of mine many years ago. *The problem was they
never really said why. *When I pressed the editor, he replied that he
had enough submissions of sufficient quality. *I tried again later and
had it rejected because I wasn't an ARRL member at the time (because I
was broke). *I don't know what was going on, but I wasn't thrilled and
never bothered again.

As for the
QST AM mods, *I was thinking that was ATV, but maybe you were talking about
something else.

Something else was converting commercial land mobile FM radios from
WBFM or later NBFM to AM (A3A) modulation. *Mostly, it was adding a
low level modulation circuit, and converting the power stages from
Class C to Class A or AB. *To me, it was a little like publishing an
article today on converting a Prius Hybrid automobile to only run on
gasoline.

The same applies to QST. *If there aren't enough
submissions, the only recourse is to hire writers to do columns or fill the
empiness with drivel and ads like 73.

Probably true. *I submitted an article in about 2002 on using the
audio time delay through a repeater to do hyperbolic (Loran A style)
vehicle location. *I forgot why it was rejected because I ended up in
the hospital and my memory from that period is rather muddled. *When I
inquired about the submission a year later, they said that they
couldn't find it or that it was lost. *Then, I mentioned that I still
wasn't an ARRL member and all communications ceased.

The best things to come out of 73 was
the Star Trek communicator clone and Byte magazine. *I hate how Ham Radio
magazine died out.

73 published Joe Moell's column on amateur radio direction finding. To
me, it was worth the price of a subscription. *Before I tossed my
archives, I ripped out and saved most of these issues. *Wanna build a
rotating antenna direction finder? *The only references in ham radio
land you'll find are in these 73 magazine issues. *Same with various
microwave columns. *I could have done without Wayne Green's endless
editorials.

I was President of the local ham club for a while, and
wound up doing the newletter too. *For the three or four years of that, I
only got 3 submissions from the membership. *All the rest I had to either
pull out of my A** every month or go around like a reporter and interrogate
people.

Our current newsletter editor complains about the same thing.
http://www.k6bj.org
Still, he manages to produce a superior ham radio newsletter. *I used
to submit irregular technical articles and obnoxious opinionated radio
politix articles. *However, one article that I spend considerable time
writing was butchered beyond recognition. *When I asked for an
explanation, I got nothing. *So, no more articles from me.

On the other hand - What neat inventions can we come up with to share with
the World, so it can be exploited and give reason to take more of our
spectrum?

It probably shouldn't be an invention. *More likely, an unusual or
interesting application of some existing technology. *Your ATV camera
for disaster services is a good example. *Direction finding is still a
common problem (i.e. stuck public safety transmitters). *Perhaps
demonstrating how some of the dumb|great ideas originating out FCC can
be made to work (i.e. white space, ultra narrow band FM, on the fly
TDMA, etc). *I could think of lots of useful things to build, design,
buy, or analyze.

Interesting to note how public safety volunteers showed Los
Angeles Sheriff how neat ATV was and they turned around and petitioned the
FCC for those frequencies.

We had some floods a few years ago. *The levee broke along the Pajaro
river. *One of our members has a helicopter and volunteered to fly an
ATV camera over the area for the sheriff. *On screen was GPS position
in APRS format. *Everything worked and everyone was suitably
impressed. *Then, nothing. *No clue exactly why, but my guess is that
homebrew is not funded by Homeland Security.

Oh well, we will probably all be shot in head by the next regime because we
are an irritation.

Nope. *We will all be promoted to a position of responsibility, where
we will be setup to fail, thus demonstrating that technologists are no
better at running the country than politicians, crooks, bureaucrats,
and thugs.

How very weird. *I am the pretty much acknowledged top technologist in
my workplace. *Yet i cannot get promoted.

YMMV

If you exercise free speech then you divulge to all what you are and
who you are.!