Now that CW is gone there will be more ham to non-ham conflicts.
 

The code hating losers were too stupid and lazy to learn and use CW,
they're also probably going to be too stupid and lazy to solve TVI
and interference problems with their neigbhors. There will be more
amateur to amateur and amateur to non-amateur conflicts. Hams will look
bad and the FCC will regulate the service more because of all the retards
we let have HF privledges. CQ Breaker, CQ Breaker.

Welcome to CB everybody.

Now that CW is gone there will be more ham to non-ham conflicts.
 

In article t,
o (known to some as Retard Invasion) scribed...

Drivelectomy

Troll-o-Meter

0----5----10
^
|
|
|

Better luck next time, bunky.

*PLONK!*

--
Dr. Anton T. Squeegee, Director, Dutch Surrealist Plumbing Institute
(Known to some as Bruce Lane, KC7GR)
http://www.bluefeathertech.com -- kyrrin a/t bluefeathertech d-o=t calm
"Salvadore Dali's computer has surreal ports..."

Now that CW is gone there will be more ham to non-ham conflicts.
 

Retard Invasion wrote:
The code hating losers were too stupid and lazy to learn and use CW,
they're also probably going to be too stupid and lazy to solve TVI
and interference problems with their neigbhors. There will be more
amateur to amateur and amateur to non-amateur conflicts. Hams will look
bad and the FCC will regulate the service more because of all the retards
we let have HF privledges. CQ Breaker, CQ Breaker.

This is a good argument to strongly tighten up the technical requirements
for the license, not an argument in favor of CW requirements.

And I do agree that we need to strongly tighten up the technical part of
the tests.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Now that CW is gone there will be more ham to non-ham conflicts.
 

"Scott Dorsey" wrote:

This is a good argument to strongly tighten up the technical requirements
for the license, not an argument in favor of CW requirements.

I've been in favor of this stance for almost a decade.

In my Y2K restructuring comments, I argued for a reduction in the number of
license classes to only 2 (One 50MHZ only, one all privileges), ultimate
elimination of the code test (I favored a 5wpm reduction with eventual
'sunset clause' once the treaty requirement was changed), and strengthing
the theory examinations.

The problem I see with the theory examinations, as currently structured, is
they do not require applicants to demonstrate a full understanding of the
topical material.

For example, the way the current examinations are structured, you could get
wrong each and every question on rules and regulations -- yet still pass the
examination because you have good math skills.

Instead, I feel each applicant should be required to pass every sub-element,
with a score of 70% or higher. So, you would have to get 70%+ on the rules
and regs, 70%+ on antenna theory, etc. I made many of these points in my Y2K
restructuring comments.

However, it is highly unlikely that the FCC will ever adopt such a strategy.
The trend is to make licensing easier and easier. I suspect over the next 2
decades you'll see a further push to weaken the theory examinations.
Probably not for the next 5 years or so, but eventually some people will
start to make the claim that the "hard" theory exams are keeping "potential"
people away from the ARS.

This is unfortunate, because in the long term I do not think it helps the
amateur radio service. Our knowledge of things "radio" -- propagation,
electronics, etc. -- is what has set us apart from other "consumer"-type
radio services.

73
kh6hz

Now that CW is gone there will be more ham to non-ham conflicts.
 

"KH6HZ" wrote in message
...
"Scott Dorsey" wrote:

This is a good argument to strongly tighten up the technical requirements
for the license, not an argument in favor of CW requirements.

I've been in favor of this stance for almost a decade.

In my Y2K restructuring comments, I argued for a reduction in the number
of license classes to only 2 (One 50MHZ only, one all privileges),
ultimate elimination of the code test (I favored a 5wpm reduction with
eventual 'sunset clause' once the treaty requirement was changed), and
strengthing the theory examinations.

The problem I see with the theory examinations, as currently structured,
is they do not require applicants to demonstrate a full understanding of
the topical material.

For example, the way the current examinations are structured, you could
get wrong each and every question on rules and regulations -- yet still
pass the examination because you have good math skills.

Instead, I feel each applicant should be required to pass every
sub-element, with a score of 70% or higher. So, you would have to get 70%+
on the rules and regs, 70%+ on antenna theory, etc. I made many of these
points in my Y2K restructuring comments.

However, it is highly unlikely that the FCC will ever adopt such a
strategy. The trend is to make licensing easier and easier. I suspect over
the next 2 decades you'll see a further push to weaken the theory
examinations. Probably not for the next 5 years or so, but eventually some
people will start to make the claim that the "hard" theory exams are
keeping "potential" people away from the ARS.

This is unfortunate, because in the long term I do not think it helps the
amateur radio service. Our knowledge of things "radio" -- propagation,
electronics, etc. -- is what has set us apart from other "consumer"-type
radio services.

73
kh6hz


These Q&A manuals don't do dick for "teaching". All they do is give the
possible answers, the right answer and a hair off a nats ass of an
explanation as to WHY it is the answer. I've got FCC study guides that were
VAGUE to say the least - one sheet of paper - front and back. They didn't
give you the "exact" questions which "might" be found - only samples of the
types of questions. Years ago - when you took the FCC exams, if you didn't
know electronics - either from school OR some decent "Heathkit" Ham Prep
Courses, you were pretty much destined to fail. Many today are just studying
these Q&A guides to get their license and letting the ball drop there -
UNLESS they want to move up - then they buy the next Q&A and repeat the same
process - not really learning the ins and outs. YES - they learn what a
resistor looks like - what it is supposed to do and so on - but NOT in depth
as they should. Same with many other parts. And even at that - they learn
only a small fraction of what any "electronics tech" is in need to know to
try to function at least half way decent.

I welcome new hams - but they really SHOULD learn the ropes to get maximum
benefit out of their hobby.
Only THEN can they enjoy many of the things ham radio affords the hobby.

Just my 2 cents.

Lou

Now that CW is gone there will be more ham to non-ham conflicts.
 

I have to agree.... I am surprised at the wholly naive (and incredibly
basic) questions I get from not a few newly licensed Extras. Of course,
I give the best info I can and try to help. But, I am still surprised
and maybe a bit disappointed.... Hopefully, and with time, they'll
assimilate the requisite knowledge. Dunno... maybe I'm expecting too much?

de K3HVG


These Q&A manuals don't do dick for "teaching". All they do is give the
possible answers, the right answer and a hair off a nats ass of an
explanation as to WHY it is the answer.

I welcome new hams - but they really SHOULD learn the ropes to get maximum
benefit out of their hobby.
Only THEN can they enjoy many of the things ham radio affords the hobby.

Just my 2 cents.

Lou

Now that CW is gone there will be more ham to non-ham conflicts.
 

Radiosrfun wrote:
Years ago - when you took the FCC exams, if you didn't
know electronics - either from school OR some decent "Heathkit" Ham Prep
Courses, you were pretty much destined to fail.

When I took the General Class exam in 1953, I didn't
know anything except high school algebra. I *memorized*
the ARRL License Manual in order to pass the exam and
I just *memorized* the new frequency allocations 54
years later. Human memory should not be underestimated.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Now that CW is gone there will be more ham to non-ham conflicts.
 

K3HVG wrote:
I have to agree.... I am surprised at the wholly naive (and incredibly
basic) questions I get from not a few newly licensed Extras. Of course,
I give the best info I can and try to help. But, I am still surprised
and maybe a bit disappointed.... Hopefully, and with time, they'll
assimilate the requisite knowledge. Dunno... maybe I'm expecting too much?

Maybe you are forgetting the time when you couldn't
tell your posterior from a hole in the ground?
Amateur radio exams are *entrance* exams, not
diplomas.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Now that CW is gone there will be more ham to non-ham conflicts.
 

Nope.... I don't think I'm forgetting anything (regarding this
discussion, of course). In past times, the Extra did, indeed, connote
something more than the passing ability to zero the ohms scale on a
Simpson 260 or use of a U-Test-Em tube checker at the local drug store.

Now that CW is gone there will be more ham to non-ham conflicts.
 

I too agree! I'm a lowly tech class op,I have more fun with a soldering iron
in hand than with a mike.I went to electronics school when the I.C. chip was
on the cover of Popular Electronics :-)
"Radiosrfun" wrote in message
...
"KH6HZ" wrote in message
...
"Scott Dorsey" wrote:

This is a good argument to strongly tighten up the technical
requirements
for the license, not an argument in favor of CW requirements.

I've been in favor of this stance for almost a decade.

In my Y2K restructuring comments, I argued for a reduction in the number
of license classes to only 2 (One 50MHZ only, one all privileges),
ultimate elimination of the code test (I favored a 5wpm reduction with
eventual 'sunset clause' once the treaty requirement was changed), and
strengthing the theory examinations.

The problem I see with the theory examinations, as currently structured,
is they do not require applicants to demonstrate a full understanding of
the topical material.

For example, the way the current examinations are structured, you could
get wrong each and every question on rules and regulations -- yet still
pass the examination because you have good math skills.

Instead, I feel each applicant should be required to pass every
sub-element, with a score of 70% or higher. So, you would have to get
70%+
on the rules and regs, 70%+ on antenna theory, etc. I made many of these
points in my Y2K restructuring comments.

However, it is highly unlikely that the FCC will ever adopt such a
strategy. The trend is to make licensing easier and easier. I suspect
over
the next 2 decades you'll see a further push to weaken the theory
examinations. Probably not for the next 5 years or so, but eventually
some
people will start to make the claim that the "hard" theory exams are
keeping "potential" people away from the ARS.

This is unfortunate, because in the long term I do not think it helps
the
amateur radio service. Our knowledge of things "radio" -- propagation,
electronics, etc. -- is what has set us apart from other "consumer"-type
radio services.

73
kh6hz


These Q&A manuals don't do dick for "teaching". All they do is give the
possible answers, the right answer and a hair off a nats ass of an
explanation as to WHY it is the answer. I've got FCC study guides that
were
VAGUE to say the least - one sheet of paper - front and back. They didn't
give you the "exact" questions which "might" be found - only samples of
the
types of questions. Years ago - when you took the FCC exams, if you didn't
know electronics - either from school OR some decent "Heathkit" Ham Prep
Courses, you were pretty much destined to fail. Many today are just
studying
these Q&A guides to get their license and letting the ball drop there -
UNLESS they want to move up - then they buy the next Q&A and repeat the
same
process - not really learning the ins and outs. YES - they learn what a
resistor looks like - what it is supposed to do and so on - but NOT in
depth
as they should. Same with many other parts. And even at that - they learn
only a small fraction of what any "electronics tech" is in need to know to
try to function at least half way decent.

I welcome new hams - but they really SHOULD learn the ropes to get maximum
benefit out of their hobby.
Only THEN can they enjoy many of the things ham radio affords the hobby.

Just my 2 cents.

Lou

Now that CW is gone there will be more ham to non-ham conflicts.
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
K3HVG wrote:
I have to agree.... I am surprised at the wholly naive (and incredibly
basic) questions I get from not a few newly licensed Extras. Of course,
I give the best info I can and try to help. But, I am still surprised
and maybe a bit disappointed.... Hopefully, and with time, they'll
assimilate the requisite knowledge. Dunno... maybe I'm expecting too much?

Maybe you are forgetting the time when you couldn't
tell your posterior from a hole in the ground?
Amateur radio exams are *entrance* exams, not
diplomas.

Right, but the original notion was that someone would get a Novice, operate
for a while, get a General, operate for a while, and gradually work their
way up the ladder while taking an "entrance exam" at each one. This no
longer really happens... we get folks coming in as Generals or Extras.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Now that CW is gone there will be more ham to non-ham conflicts.
 

"K3HVG" wrote in message
...
Nope.... I don't think I'm forgetting anything (regarding this discussion,
of course). In past times, the Extra did, indeed, connote something more
than the passing ability to zero the ohms scale on a Simpson 260 or use of
a U-Test-Em tube checker at the local drug store.

Are you familiar with the current 4b question pool? There are 500 questions
selected for a 50 question test. I am a BSEE and I believe that the
questions are by and large very good and not particularly easy considering
that one is not trying the get a degree or pass a PE exam. I scored 100% on
the test the first time I took it; however, I put in several hours of study
because it covered several areas that I needed to review and/or catch up on.
I would not characterize it as trivial. In theory the 500 questions could be
memorized by I think that would be much more difficult than learning the
material as a way to pass the test.Also, rote memorizing will cause one to
learn more than one might think. In College chemistry I had to memorize the
activity series of the periodic table, something that has benefitted me
greatly during my EE career (because many EE's get invoved in so many other
areas than EE). Either method is valid but I would think that most learn the
real material these days and the questions are not insignificant. They don't
compare to operating a tube tester or zeroing an ohm meter. Element 3b is
another story and that one does need a little work

Now that CW is gone there will be more ham to non-ham conflicts.
 

"Stefan Wolfe" wrote in message
...

"K3HVG" wrote in message
...
Nope.... I don't think I'm forgetting anything (regarding this
discussion, of course). In past times, the Extra did, indeed, connote
something more than the passing ability to zero the ohms scale on a
Simpson 260 or use of a U-Test-Em tube checker at the local drug store.

Are you familiar with the current 4b question pool? There are 500
questions selected for a 50 question test.

The current Extra exam is simply Element 4 and encompasses the material from
the old Advanced and Extra. There are over 800 questions in the current
Extra question pool.

Dee, N8UZE

Now that CW is gone there will be more ham to non-ham conflicts.
 

"Stefan Wolfe" wrote:

In theory the 500 questions could be memorized by I think that would be
much more difficult than learning the material as a way to pass the test.

It is highly unlikely anyone "rote memorizes" the question pool.

When people use the term "memorize", they more than likely mean "word
associate".

Via word association, they are able to recognize the correct answer to the
question simply out of habit... much the same way you "memorize" the way to
travel to different places, even though you may not know all the street
names along the route of travel.

Increasing the size of the question pool does not eliminate this. All it
does is increase the amount of time someone has to spend reading thru the
question pool before they become adequately familiar with the material.

Furthermore, with the way the exams are structured (70% overall grade),
someone could simply opt to skip an entire sub-element, because there are
only 2 or 3 questions from it on the exam, and it isn't worth the effort to
even review that material.

73
kh6hz

Now that CW is gone there will be more ham to non-ham conflicts.
 

"KH6HZ" wrote in message
...
"Stefan Wolfe" wrote:

When people use the term "memorize", they more than likely mean "word
associate".

Via word association, they are able to recognize the correct answer to the
question simply out of habit... much the same way you "memorize" the way
to travel to different places, even though you may not know all the street
names along the route of travel.

OK, I disagree. Try this:

E4C14: If a receiver tuned to 146.70 MHz receives an intermodulation-product
signal whenever a nearby transmitter transmits on 146.52MHz, what are the
two most likely frequencies for the other modulating signal?

A. 146.34 and 146.61 MHz
B. 146.88 and 146.34 MHz
C. 146.10 and 147.30
D. 73.35 and 239.40 MHz

To answer this question, you either rote-memorize the answer, which would be
unlikely due to the size of the question pool, or you aquire at least a
basic understanding of 3rd order IMD to be able to answer the question.

Now that CW is gone there will be more ham to non-ham conflicts.
 

In article , KH6HZ wrote:
"Stefan Wolfe" wrote:

In theory the 500 questions could be memorized by I think that would be
much more difficult than learning the material as a way to pass the test.

It is highly unlikely anyone "rote memorizes" the question pool.

When people use the term "memorize", they more than likely mean "word
associate".

Via word association, they are able to recognize the correct answer to the
question simply out of habit... much the same way you "memorize" the way to
travel to different places, even though you may not know all the street
names along the route of travel.

Increasing the size of the question pool does not eliminate this. All it
does is increase the amount of time someone has to spend reading thru the
question pool before they become adequately familiar with the material.

When I took the First Class, there were a huge number of people who had
basically word-associated the question pool, and who were passing the test
with basically no technical knowledge at all. I am told that at some point
there was an oral examination as well required of First Class operators.

(The First Class is _not_ an entrance examination, the way the ham radio
license tests are... it is... well, it WAS an attempt to make sure
commercial radio engineers met a certain standard.)

I do not think a pure multiple-choice test is ever all that effective, in
part because it's possible to pass it that way.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Now that CW is gone there will be more ham to non-ham conflicts.
 

"Scott Dorsey" wrote:

When I took the First Class, there were a huge number of people who had
basically word-associated the question pool, and who were passing the test
with basically no technical knowledge at all.

This happens on a daily basis in the ARS too, unfortunately.


I do not think a pure multiple-choice test is ever all that effective, in
part because it's possible to pass it that way.

Multiple choice exams are not a bad thing.

Imagine what your GPA would have been in college if all your professors gave
multiple-choice examinations AND gave you the question pool from which the
exams would be derived, at the beginning of the semester.

73
kh6hz

Now that CW is gone there will be more ham to non-ham conflicts.
 

"KH6HZ" wrote in message
...
"Scott Dorsey" wrote:

When I took the First Class, there were a huge number of people who had
basically word-associated the question pool, and who were passing the
test
with basically no technical knowledge at all.

This happens on a daily basis in the ARS too, unfortunately.


I do not think a pure multiple-choice test is ever all that effective, in
part because it's possible to pass it that way.

Multiple choice exams are not a bad thing.

Imagine what your GPA would have been in college if all your professors
gave multiple-choice examinations AND gave you the question pool from
which the exams would be derived, at the beginning of the semester.

73
kh6hz


Multiple choice tests are ok, but I understand the point being made. Yes it
is possible to do word association - I've done it on exams I was taking with
NO WAY to study for. It does help tremendously though - to have a clue about
the content. I studied for every test other than that one. I like to give
myself the best possible chance to pass. I for one - don't like handing my
cash over on a whim. IF I have to pay to take a damned test, I want to make
sure I get my monies worth. As a VE team leader for both Amateur Radio and
Commercial exams (almost useless) - I've seen lots of people come and go.
You can usually tell who knows their stuff or at least are trying.

Now that CW is gone there will be more ham to non-ham conflicts.
 

Radiosrfun wrote:
"KH6HZ" wrote in message
...
"Scott Dorsey" wrote:

When I took the First Class, there were a huge number of people who had
basically word-associated the question pool, and who were passing the
test
with basically no technical knowledge at all.
This happens on a daily basis in the ARS too, unfortunately.


I do not think a pure multiple-choice test is ever all that effective, in
part because it's possible to pass it that way.
Multiple choice exams are not a bad thing.

Imagine what your GPA would have been in college if all your professors
gave multiple-choice examinations AND gave you the question pool from
which the exams would be derived, at the beginning of the semester.

73
kh6hz


Multiple choice tests are ok, but I understand the point being made. Yes it
is possible to do word association - I've done it on exams I was taking with
NO WAY to study for. It does help tremendously though - to have a clue about
the content. I studied for every test other than that one. I like to give
myself the best possible chance to pass. I for one - don't like handing my
cash over on a whim. IF I have to pay to take a damned test, I want to make
sure I get my monies worth. As a VE team leader for both Amateur Radio and
Commercial exams (almost useless) - I've seen lots of people come and go.
You can usually tell who knows their stuff or at least are trying.

I had a professor, the late great Dave Simons, who would make EE tests that
were multiple choice, and had partial credit.

He had taught for so long, that he knew virtually all of the mistakes that
the kids would make, and would put the answers that would result from the
different wrong paths as the different choices.

-Chuck