|
Fractenna lashes out at hams using BPL
He and his fractal antenna crap have been ridiculed so much on this
forum (rightly so) that he feels compelled to use the BPL issue against fellow hams as a weapon. |
He and his fractal antenna crap have been ridiculed so much on this
forum (rightly so) that he feels compelled to use the BPL issue against fellow hams as a weapon. My dear friend, This is not the case. I work with hams and have hams on my board. And, of course, I am a ham. There is no 'weapon'. The issue is the following: Does ham radio accept the wireless /telecom revolution, or does it live in the past? Dual use of spectrum with the proper guidelines and thoughtful restrictions is the way to go, so that millions of folks can share in this evolving radio landscape. BPL will be only one of many adopted technologies in this mix. What's happened is that a very few vocal hams have gone totally ballistic and used any and all tactics possible to try to kill a new technology called BPL. My point is that those of us who dissent (relative to those such as yourself) on this matter , and in fact we have a logical, rational, and objective view, should have our opportunity to voice our opinion as well. The few radical hams who have tried to represent radio amateurs in the United States as a whole, do not,in fact, represent that body. The FCC must represent the people of the United States, and more specifically in this case, the WHOLE radio amateur service. They watch out and do what's best for the SERVICE--not a few very vocal hams. I think the latest modifications to Part 15 are a brilliant roadmap to allowing new technologies to be a viable dual user of spectrum with licensed services. That includes the BPL use of the HF spectrum. I'm also very enthusiastic about the other technologies that have been discussed here, including, among others, Wi-Max. Obviously there will be some markets where BPL does well, and others where it won't. But for a few vocal hams to try to kill a new technology only focuses the spotlight back on us, as, in fact, it has this past Summer and Spring (for example, the front page Wall Street Journal article). And that focus makes us look antiquated and silly to the outside world. I don't feel (and am not) antiquated and silly. Are you? Hams need to move ahead--not just anecdotally-- with new modes and technologies. There is HUGE resistance to that, and the world has and is passing us by. I think this is very sad, and I cannot condone that. So this is how one very informed radio amateur feels. With Best wishes, Chip N1IR |
So this is how one very informed radio amateur feels. With Best wishes, Chip N1IR Oh, not this sh1t again! Go away troller!!! BUm |
|
Don't forget, he's STILL not giving straight answers to the questions
posed to him, nor providing independent sources for verification of his answers. -SSB jj wrote: He and his fractal antenna crap have been ridiculed so much on this forum (rightly so) that he feels compelled to use the BPL issue against fellow hams as a weapon. |
You know what the trouble is with us amateurs is ?
We are stuck in the analogue age... We should all be using digital communications by now.. Wasn't there a time when amateurs were ahead of commercial design? Now all we do is complain when the commercial world brings out new technology that causes a problem with our old technology. Look at the big picture people... We are still using analogue communications.. Blimey , even my home phone is digital. My CD player is digital, my TV is digital. That's my 2 pence worth ( about 4 cents... ) |
Don't forget, he's STILL not giving straight answers to the questions
posed to him, nor providing independent sources for verification of his answers. -SSB Chris, It is important that you express care when making statements that are false. It's quite OK with me if you take a strong tone or attitude. It's not in your best interest, however, to posit things in a false light for the sake of taking things over the top against me as an individual. You seem to have concerns about fractal antennas, which I have been forthcoming about and dead honest. I have no continued interest in 'defending' fractal antennas in this forum, for the simple reason that the technology and the science are proven, accepted, and well beyond this point. You asked me about a specific design, and I provided you the info. I also provided you info on how it was tested, but you chose not to accept that info. That's all there is, Chris. Now, be the nice guy you are and don't seek to be a defamer or propagandist. As for BPL, it would be wonderful if all the (few) uppity hams upset with BPL could target an individual to accomplish their goal. The reality is that the battle is lost, for the simple reason that there is no battle, and attacking me only, apparently makes ham radio look bad in general; IMO. I am not the only one who feels, or notices, how backward we are as a group of communicators from a applied use of technology viewpoint. We need to understand that HF communications needs to be advanced by hams AS hams, and not revered in the same mold from 1967. BPL will now be decided in the marketplace, not the histrionic hyperbole of a few hams. Accept it. I hope you will agree with me that this was always the case, but a few emboldened amateurs failed to grasp that reality. Have a pleasant day. 73, Chip N1IR |
I made no false statements.
You did, indeed, provide the "data", but you never answered when I asked you for contact information for the range that performed the tests, or a website not owned or run by your "company" which can verify the figures you gave. I can type out db gains off the cuff, too.. The fact is you didn't respond to that question. You also didn't respond to the question about who had so much information on me. You got the callsign right. You have internet access. You know where to go to look up a HAM's email address, if they have one. You apparently refuse to understand why someone wouldn't put their real email address on usenet. And finally, you apparently refuse to take the steps necessary to accurately and completely answer questions posed to you, without evasion of any sort. So where's the lie? -SSB Fractenna wrote: Don't forget, he's STILL not giving straight answers to the questions posed to him, nor providing independent sources for verification of his answers. -SSB Chris, It is important that you express care when making statements that are false. It's quite OK with me if you take a strong tone or attitude. It's not in your best interest, however, to posit things in a false light for the sake of taking things over the top against me as an individual. You seem to have concerns about fractal antennas, which I have been forthcoming about and dead honest. I have no continued interest in 'defending' fractal antennas in this forum, for the simple reason that the technology and the science are proven, accepted, and well beyond this point. You asked me about a specific design, and I provided you the info. I also provided you info on how it was tested, but you chose not to accept that info. That's all there is, Chris. Now, be the nice guy you are and don't seek to be a defamer or propagandist. As for BPL, it would be wonderful if all the (few) uppity hams upset with BPL could target an individual to accomplish their goal. The reality is that the battle is lost, for the simple reason that there is no battle, and attacking me only, apparently makes ham radio look bad in general; IMO. I am not the only one who feels, or notices, how backward we are as a group of communicators from a applied use of technology viewpoint. We need to understand that HF communications needs to be advanced by hams AS hams, and not revered in the same mold from 1967. BPL will now be decided in the marketplace, not the histrionic hyperbole of a few hams. Accept it. I hope you will agree with me that this was always the case, but a few emboldened amateurs failed to grasp that reality. Have a pleasant day. 73, Chip N1IR |
I made no false statements.
Yes sir, you did. 73, Chip N1IR |
Back that statement up, with evidence.
You've made the accusation, now prove it. Innocent until proven guilty, and all that. If (and when) you can't. I'll accept your apology. -SSB Fractenna wrote: I made no false statements. Yes sir, you did. 73, Chip N1IR |
Then again, the regs and band plans have us bound up pretty tightly.
Not a whole lot of room left to experiement with modulation schemes. Antennas are still wide open, but it seems a lot like aerodynamics, all the good work was done in wwII, and not much progress since, except for tweaks. -- KC6ETE Dave's Engineering Page, www.dvanhorn.org Microcontroller Consultant, specializing in Atmel AVR |
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 10:43:03 +0100, "Mark"
wrote: You know what the trouble is with us amateurs is ? Hi Mike, Sure, some of them don't know what "digital" is, your posting contains examples which follow below. We are stuck in the analogue age... We should all be using digital communications by now.. As an isolated statement that is true. There are more modulation modes now than there were 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago, and many of them are digital based - BPL is baseband, not modulation, however I will let that pass for further discussion. There are also digitally based methods of generating an RF frequency of a purity that exceeds all the current Ham radio equipment commercially available, but those methods are not widebanded trash generators. Clearly, digital methods are not necessarily interfering methods - except in the hands of commercial interests with less than amateur talent in marketing dominating their engineer's efforts. Wasn't there a time when amateurs were ahead of commercial design? This is called being stuck in the time warp of 1928 innovation and WWII's need to draft both the Ham and his transmitter because of a shortfall of equipment. Since then, except for rare achievements like exploring Spread Spectrum (which the FCC hamstrung) it has been follow the market. The Amateur community is not about being a class of inventors, but rather a resource pool of savvy and experienced technicians and engineers who could be relied upon to reign in the self-interests of decadent commercialism. This dialogue is one clear and obvious example of both that talent's exercise, and the stonewalling of a crypto-fascist administration. Now all we do is complain when the commercial world brings out new technology that causes a problem with our old technology. I presume by the inclusive nature of "we" that you are against new technology? If not, then your argument contains its own self-negation. If so, then your argument is what psychology calls "projection" WE do not necessarily share YOUR problem. Look at the big picture people... We are still using analogue communications.. Blimey , even my home phone is digital. My CD player is digital, my TV is digital. And in this last statement, "we" find your poor understanding of the problem in general, and the concept of what digital is, in particular. Your TV is analogue even if your remote tuner is digital. Even there, your remote tuner is not digital, it is CW (albeit with a different code set). CW is one of the oldest modes around. That IR beam that communicates with your big bottle across the room sends a chopped light beam that is in now way OCTAL nor HEXIDECIMAL but closer to Baudot. This is about as close to "digital" as you are in the living room, and Amateur equipment has had this advantage for quite a long time now (Baudot has been with amateur service for at least 60 years). As for your home phone or CD player, if you have any impression that you are actually listening to "digital" you are indeed the product of genetic manipulation and should rush a sample of your DNA to the nearest patent office to claim your birthright is actually intellectual property. Again, any "digital" property found in these commonplace AND LINEAR devices is and has been found in Amateur equipment for a very long time now. If this is news to you, you can then appreciate your unique problem of "projecting" your lack of understanding on others and calling them out for being against technology. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 15:36:34 GMT, sideband wrote:
If (and when) you can't. I'll accept your apology. Hi OM, You will have to get in line behind the fellow he named as the Wakefield Killer.... If needs be, the archive contains the explicit information to this act against Amateur Radio Operators and its COMPLETE context can be provided if any ignorance or dissembling is presented. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Richard:
Thanks for the heads up. I know Fracky from way back. I've been here awhile, but mostly I just read, because I don't have much "on topic" to contribute that those who are much more learned (such as yourself) haven't already shared. Occasionally I can relate an experience I've had with mobile operations that might be helpful, or rebut idiocy and malformed opinions as they're stated. So thanks for the concern. Keep up the good work here in the NG. -SSB Richard Clark wrote: On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 15:36:34 GMT, sideband wrote: If (and when) you can't. I'll accept your apology. Hi OM, You will have to get in line behind the fellow he named as the Wakefield Killer.... If needs be, the archive contains the explicit information to this act against Amateur Radio Operators and its COMPLETE context can be provided if any ignorance or dissembling is presented. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Mark wrote:
You know what the trouble is with us amateurs is ? We are stuck in the analogue age... We should all be using digital communications by now.. Wasn't there a time when amateurs were ahead of commercial design? Now all we do is complain when the commercial world brings out new technology that causes a problem with our old technology. Look at the big picture people... We are still using analogue communications.. Blimey , even my home phone is digital. My CD player is digital, my TV is digital. That's my 2 pence worth ( about 4 cents... ) There are some serious limitations to digital voice comms that make it not work so well for our purposes. Bandwidth issues, believe it or not. Another problem I note is that I was reading a review of a unit that will interface between the microphone and xciever. I was reading along with interest - it sounded pretty good - then at the end of the article they note that you have to receive the whole transmission, or you receive nothing. No tuning across the bands looking for a signal. Perhaps the ARS should be channelized like CB? Comparisons with cell phones are amusing because the quality of those little POC's is by and large unacceptable IMO. "Can you hear me now?" 8^) |
Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 10:43:03 +0100, "Mark" wrote: You know what the trouble is with us amateurs is ? Hi Mike, Sure, some of them don't know what "digital" is, your posting contains examples which follow below. We are stuck in the analogue age... We should all be using digital communications by now.. As an isolated statement that is true. There are more modulation modes now than there were 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago, and many of them are digital based - BPL is baseband, not modulation, however I will let that pass for further discussion. There are also digitally based methods of generating an RF frequency of a purity that exceeds all the current Ham radio equipment commercially available, but those methods are not widebanded trash generators. Clearly, digital methods are not necessarily interfering methods - except in the hands of commercial interests with less than amateur talent in marketing dominating their engineer's efforts. Why aren't we using them then? Is the nasty need for channelizing going to rear up? Wasn't there a time when amateurs were ahead of commercial design? This is called being stuck in the time warp of 1928 innovation and WWII's need to draft both the Ham and his transmitter because of a shortfall of equipment. Since then, except for rare achievements like exploring Spread Spectrum (which the FCC hamstrung) it has been follow the market. The Amateur community is not about being a class of inventors, but rather a resource pool of savvy and experienced technicians and engineers who could be relied upon to reign in the self-interests of decadent commercialism. This dialogue is one clear and obvious example of both that talent's exercise, and the stonewalling of a crypto-fascist administration. Now all we do is complain when the commercial world brings out new technology that causes a problem with our old technology. I presume by the inclusive nature of "we" that you are against new technology? If not, then your argument contains its own self-negation. If so, then your argument is what psychology calls "projection" WE do not necessarily share YOUR problem. If there is a digital mode that uses less bandwidth, sounds at least acceptable to enough people, and allows me to tune my radio in a normal fashion, I'll hop right on it. And of course, we have to remember that there is an inertia based on the need to have people to talk to. If I have the nifty new digital mode of communications, how much fun is it going to be if I only have three other people to QSO with? These things take time, and I may assume that Mark has a digital rig? Look at the big picture people... We are still using analogue communications.. Blimey , even my home phone is digital. My CD player is digital, my TV is digital. And in this last statement, "we" find your poor understanding of the problem in general, and the concept of what digital is, in particular. I guess I hadn't looked at it from that perspective, but I agree, there must be some confusion as to what exactly digital is. Your TV is analogue even if your remote tuner is digital. Even there, your remote tuner is not digital, it is CW (albeit with a different code set). CW is one of the oldest modes around. That IR beam that communicates with your big bottle across the room sends a chopped light beam that is in now way OCTAL nor HEXIDECIMAL but closer to Baudot. This is about as close to "digital" as you are in the living room, and Amateur equipment has had this advantage for quite a long time now (Baudot has been with amateur service for at least 60 years). As for your home phone or CD player, if you have any impression that you are actually listening to "digital" you are indeed the product of genetic manipulation and should rush a sample of your DNA to the nearest patent office to claim your birthright is actually intellectual property. Again, any "digital" property found in these commonplace AND LINEAR devices is and has been found in Amateur equipment for a very long time now. If this is news to you, you can then appreciate your unique problem of "projecting" your lack of understanding on others and calling them out for being against technology. I have a nice mid-80's IC745 that is indeed digital in all the places where it serves the purpose! - Mike KB3EIA - |
Mark wrote:
You know what the trouble is with us amateurs is ? We are stuck in the analogue age... We should all be using digital communications by now.. Wasn't there a time when amateurs were ahead of commercial design? Now all we do is complain when the commercial world brings out new technology that causes a problem with our old technology. Look at the big picture people... We are still using analogue communications.. Blimey , even my home phone is digital. My CD player is digital, my TV is digital. That's my 2 pence worth ( about 4 cents... ) There are some serious limitations to digital voice comms that make it not work so well for our purposes. Bandwidth issues, believe it or not. Another problem I note is that I was reading a review of a unit that will interface between the microphone and xciever. I was reading along with interest - it sounded pretty good - then at the end of the article they note that you have to receive the whole transmission, or you receive nothing. No tuning across the bands looking for a signal. Perhaps the ARS should be channelized like CB? Comparisons with cell phones are amusing because the quality of those little POC's is by and large unacceptable IMO. "Can you hear me now?" 8^) Modern digital HF voice can be hi fidelity; narrow bandwidth, and experience few dropouts. It is superior to SSB, in any case. I don't see why it is not a superior solution for amateur service HF needs. The next trend will be software defined radios/cognitive radios, for which we have already got a simple taste of in recent years with Kachina, and so on. The thing that will be new to us is the incredible flexibility of the choice of waveform and frequency. It IS a real shame that hams, as hams, have not led the telecom revolution/evolution in the last decade. We had a shot at being the first practical and major adopters of spread spectrum a generation ago--that fizzled. It may very well be that changes in the mode allowances on HF will encourage some major innovation. Do you now realize that SSB has had a longer run than AM as the dominant mode in the ham community? Other than legacy use in military and public service, where else will you find such an allegiance to SSB? SSB is noisy; not optimized in bandwidth; and of poor fidelity. CW even beats it for S/N for a given link. SSB is especially prone to broadband low noise levels. All the more reason to move it aside for better modes. 73, Chip N1IR |
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 13:30:45 -0400, Mike Coslo
wrote: There are also digitally based methods of generating an RF frequency of a purity that exceeds all the current Ham radio equipment commercially available, but those methods are not widebanded trash generators. Clearly, digital methods are not necessarily interfering methods - except in the hands of commercial interests with less than amateur talent in marketing dominating their engineer's efforts. Why aren't we using them then? Is the nasty need for channelizing going to rear up? Hi Mike, Heavens no. There are several means to generate a clean RF source digitally. These devices (a chip with a rock) can change phase, or frequency in the time it takes to change a register (microseconds). These are largely based on look-up tables feeding D/A converters. Memory is cheap you may well know, I habitually carry a 128MB flash drive in my pocket as my briefcase, and a 64MB voice recorder as my stenographer, and my 32MB Palm Pilot as secretary. Grand total cost for my "digital" office is under $300. Another method of high purity RF source generation is direct feed of a pulse train into amps with only the slightest of filtering. These pulse trains are weighted to look like a binary sine wave (a few bits on early, a lot on in the middle, and a few on in the late stage). This work has been long available in the pages of Steve Ciarcia's magazine "Circuit Cellar." http://www.circellar.com/ I believe it was written up by Don Lancaster (a name that should be resourced for ideas that approach problems obliquely). The length of the pulse train, and the weighting of the bit positions leads to exceptionally pure RF (spurs at least 60dB down). The only problem here in this last method is moving that pulse train fast enough for HF (128 bit trains to drive at HF will require you to clock them through at UHF rates). The only problem with the look-up/ADC method is that with my last look at these products, they were roughly limited to 16MHz (with 0.1Hz resolution) - so perhaps some mixing is called for at the higher bands. If there is a digital mode that uses less bandwidth, sounds at least acceptable to enough people, and allows me to tune my radio in a normal fashion, I'll hop right on it. You need to look at Digital AM (specifically Harris transmitters). And of course, we have to remember that there is an inertia based on the need to have people to talk to. If I have the nifty new digital mode of communications, how much fun is it going to be if I only have three other people to QSO with? This is why Spread Spectrum died in Ham radio. The FCC mandated we transmit on a specific "gold code" and painted the research into an isolated technical corner. I guess I hadn't looked at it from that perspective, but I agree, there must be some confusion as to what exactly digital is. It is a Marketing term like fractal antenna - wholly spun from the imagination to create the impression of advanced technology when it has been around since the early 1800s (anyone ever here of Ada?). I have a nice mid-80's IC745 that is indeed digital in all the places where it serves the purpose! Exactimundo! 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
(Fractenna) wrote in message ...
. . . . Obviously there will be some markets where BPL does well, and others where it won't. But for a few vocal hams to try to kill a new technology only focuses the spotlight back on us, as, in fact, it has this past Summer and Spring (for example, the front page Wall Street Journal article). And that focus makes us look antiquated and silly to the outside world. Speaking of news articles chew on this one Chipster: http://www.technewsworld.com/story/37378.html So no, I'm not horribly worried about BPL running on the lines around here. Us "Luddites" who have been proactive in the fight against BPL have realized for a long time that it's business model is fundamentally unworkable and that it's very likely gonna be another dot.bomb. Like any number of the recent-era "marvelous new technologies" which went down the pipe when the bubble popped. Chip N1IR Brian w3rv |
Don't forget, he's STILL not giving straight answers
to the questions posed to him, nor providing independent sources for verification of his answers. "Fractenna" It is important that you express care when making statements that are false. Did anyone ever get to the bottom of who discovered radiocarbon dating ???? MK: You may not be antiquated, but you are without a doubt, one of the silliest *******s I've ever come across on usenet. ... I'm sure many will back me up on this conclusion. Amen! |
"Richard Clark"
...the "Last Mile" connectivity. This means the mile from subscriber to the nearest terabit optical pipeline that could pump video on demand for everyone - in both directions. 'video on demand' - it has been noted that one of the greatest drivers of many technologies is the p0rn industry (so I've read). Anyway... Personally I'd be happy to write a cheque for $1k (or even $2k) to have the fibre line run all the way into my basement. $1k one-time is small potatoes as compared to $50 per month access fee (or $600 per year, NPV cash value of about $6k - YMMV). Oh well, www.Wildblue.com is coming soon. Followed closely by Wi-Max. BTW - Wi-Max will put local radio broadcasters (AM/FM) in competition with Internet radio for mobile listeners (in cars). I wish them good luck smirk. |
Richard Clark wrote: On 18 Oct 2004 14:38:24 -0700, (Brian Kelly) wrote: Speaking of news articles chew on this one Chipster: http://www.technewsworld.com/story/37378.html Hi Brian, From that story: "Lastly, the commission indicated that access to BPL would facilitate the ability of electric companies to manage the power grid by delivering remote diagnosis of electrical failures." This is one of those benefits, tarted up with a fresh paint job to convince ignorant investors of a remarkable accomplishment. In fact the industry has had this ability to perform remote diagnostics remotely for generations. The first time they sold it honestly to the investors as SCADA. Basically, the article describes the utter failure of the FCC's ineptitude in refusing to standardize the design of the "Last Mile" connectivity. This means the mile from subscriber to the nearest terabit optical pipeline that could pump video on demand for everyone - in both directions. In other words, the best of BPL is a technological joke as a promise and bait and switch routine for an existing service that is better and closer, but fails to rise in the Neanderthalic imagination of Powell. The "Party of Business" has been an abysmal failure as evidenced by the flat lined Dow for YEARS. The neo-cons in charge have added more layers of government bureaucracy than a frothing liberal signing laws to "help us." That is because Neo-Con's are a mutant form of liberal. Kind of like liberals that have drank waaay too much coffee and turned mean! 8^) But they are still liberals. - Mike KB3EIA - |
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 23:27:29 -0400, Mike Coslo
wrote: That is because Neo-Con's are a mutant form of liberal. Kind of like liberals that have drank waaay too much coffee and turned mean! 8^) But they are still liberals. Hi Mike, You and I are probably the only two to understand that point, but when a right-winger who's been hood-winked into taking them into their fold.... They will swallow a lot of swill and proclaim it Champagne before admitting the lie. After-all, the pay off is so rewarding when the neocons leave the financial tap running for them (helps the swill go down). We need only look at Nader embracing the only group that would carry him into elections and they are the resurrection of the American Nazi party. Now there's a principle of reciprocity that is truly comic. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 22:34:16 GMT, Richard Clark
wrote: On 18 Oct 2004 14:38:24 -0700, (Brian Kelly) wrote: Speaking of news articles chew on this one Chipster: http://www.technewsworld.com/story/37378.html Hi Brian, From that story: "Lastly, the commission indicated that access to BPL would facilitate the ability of electric companies to manage the power grid by delivering remote diagnosis of electrical failures." More likely so they can monitor usage so you have to get up at 3:30 am to do the laundry so business interests have daytime power to themselves. They'll likely also use it to shut off power for late paynment without the nuisance of a truck roll. |
Richard Clark" wrote in message
... On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 10:43:03 +0100, "Mark" wrote: You know what the trouble is with us amateurs is ? Hi Mike, Sure, some of them don't know what "digital" is, your posting contains examples which follow below. SNIP 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Oh dear, my generalisations have yet again confused those of electronics academia and has caused interpretation problems with a gargantuan proportion. Maybe my sentence " You know what the trouble is with us amateurs is? " should be changed to " You know what the trouble is with all those on this list is: " ( followed by a list of every amateur in the world , but filtering out those who don't reply to an extensive survey to find out if they would like to be included in the generalisation "we". ) He casts... he waits... ( not long ) , and he reels them in... |
wrote in message . ..
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 22:34:16 GMT, Richard Clark wrote: On 18 Oct 2004 14:38:24 -0700, (Brian Kelly) wrote: Speaking of news articles chew on this one Chipster: http://www.technewsworld.com/story/37378.html Hi Brian, From that story: "Lastly, the commission indicated that access to BPL would facilitate the ability of electric companies to manage the power grid by delivering remote diagnosis of electrical failures." More likely so they can monitor usage so you have to get up at 3:30 am to do the laundry so business interests have daytime power to themselves. They'll likely also use it to shut off power for late paynment without the nuisance of a truck roll. The power utilities have been remotely monitoring and controlling their infrastructures for at least a couple decades with the SCADA systems Clark mentioned. It's all political smoke & mirrors BS. w3rv |
Mark wrote:
Oh dear, my generalisations have yet again confused those of electronics academia and has caused interpretation problems with a gargantuan proportion. Maybe my sentence " You know what the trouble is with us amateurs is? " should be changed to " You know what the trouble is with all those on this list is: " ( followed by a list of every amateur in the world , but filtering out those who don't reply to an extensive survey to find out if they would like to be included in the generalisation "we". ) He casts... he waits... ( not long ) , and he reels them in... What digital rig do you use, Mark? - Mike KB3EIA - |
Richard Clark wrote: On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 23:27:29 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote: That is because Neo-Con's are a mutant form of liberal. Kind of like liberals that have drank waaay too much coffee and turned mean! 8^) But they are still liberals. Hi Mike, You and I are probably the only two to understand that point, but when a right-winger who's been hood-winked into taking them into their fold.... They will swallow a lot of swill and proclaim it Champagne before admitting the lie. There's the one about Yellow Dog Democrats and Second Coming Republicans... There are some Democrats that would vote for a yellow dog before voting Republican, and some Republicans that wouldn't vote for a Democrat if he came down from heaven to trumpet blasts from a heavenly host! 8^) After-all, the pay off is so rewarding when the neocons leave the financial tap running for them (helps the swill go down). But the bills always come due, don't they? We need only look at Nader embracing the only group that would carry him into elections and they are the resurrection of the American Nazi party. Dunno if you heard the debate between Howard Dean and Ralphie boy. Now THAT is what a debate is supposed to be. Dean was pretty civil for the first part, and Nadar actually wasn't boring. But when Dean brought up Ralph's dubious buddies, it turned really exciting! |
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 23:19:50 -0400, Mike Coslo
wrote: Dunno if you heard the debate between Howard Dean and Ralphie boy. Now THAT is what a debate is supposed to be. Dean was pretty civil for the first part, and Nadar actually wasn't boring. But when Dean brought up Ralph's dubious buddies, it turned really exciting! Hi Mike, That is like watching grannies mud wrestle yawn My best view of a debate was during the '68 election cycle, CBS news, Democratic Convention, ringside color commentators by Bill Buckley and Gore Vidal. On network TV, coast to coast all day coverage (or maybe it only felt like it), limited channels (the only game on the tube) and if looks could kill, the space between them would have run redder than Cambodia swimming in blood (waiting for Kissinger to spring that genocide). They parried back and forth in verbal jousts and Gore upped the ante by calling Bill a Crypto-Fascist. Bill sprang across the coffee table between them and tried to throttle him. The moderator was so surprised he watched them struggle on the floor. A quick knee to the groin would have settled it post-haste, but neither had anything to lose. Today we get candy-asses like Buchasneer and Limabean who couldn't fight a swish with his limp wrists tied behind his back. :-) 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
What digital rig do you use, Mark? - Mike KB3EIA - Errr... who me... use digital... you must be joking.... :-) |
Fractenna antennas are a joke , just another way to suck money from dumb
investors. "Bob McBeth" wrote in message ... Don't forget, he's STILL not giving straight answers to the questions posed to him, nor providing independent sources for verification of his answers. "Fractenna" It is important that you express care when making statements that are false. Did anyone ever get to the bottom of who discovered radiocarbon dating ???? MK: You may not be antiquated, but you are without a doubt, one of the silliest *******s I've ever come across on usenet. ... I'm sure many will back me up on this conclusion. Amen! |
Richard Clark wrote:
Today we get candy-asses like Buchasneer and Limabean who couldn't fight a swish with his limp wrists tied behind his back. :-) 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC I would suggest you stick to what you are expert at, nitpicking EM, rather than what you aren't good at, which is attempting to be being cute. tom K0TAR |
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 20:57:04 -0500, Tom Ring
wrote: Richard Clark wrote: Today we get candy-asses like Buchasneer and Limabean who couldn't fight a swish with his limp wrists tied behind his back. :-) 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC I would suggest you stick to what you are expert at, nitpicking EM, rather than what you aren't good at, which is attempting to be being cute. tom K0TAR And you are Shirley Temple? No doubt I stepped on your fat icons pudgy toes and those oinkers squeeled Ossama. :-) 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Richard Clark wrote:
And you are Shirley Temple? No doubt I stepped on your fat icons pudgy toes and those oinkers squeeled Ossama. :-) 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC I _do_ have her hair. tom K0TAR |
So the truth finally emerges. Fracky advocates (and practices) lying with
precision. "Bob McBeth" wrote in message news:Y4Ycd.2332$% "Fractenna" It is important that you express care when making statements that are false. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:12 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com