Vinnie S. wrote:

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 11:45:07 -0400, Scott in Baltimore
wrote:

I still always travel with channel 19 in the truck. It still works
better
than a radar detector. Today, I'm frustrated with hams. Back then, my
ham
friends were techies. It's hard to find a techie on the ham bands
now-a-days.

How do hams become techies when all they have to do is memorize some
answers to a preprinted test? I'm for making it an essay/fill-in-the-blank
test. Drop the code. Don't do away with code-only portions of the band.

I used the answers in the book method. I learned quite a bit just from
that. Now that I passed the tests, I will get the standard ARRL tech and
general books, before I go on the air.

I think the problem with essay, it time and age. I studied for a month,
almost every night. Having no kids, that wasn't a problem. Get a kid or 2,
and you will have a harder time. Also, it seems the youth are so
preoccupied with the Net, IPODs and cell phones, making the tested harder
is not going to get any new members. Most of the hams I talked to want to
get more young people interested in ham, because it appears to be on it's
way out with that age group.

Code shouldn't be forced on you, but it shouldn't be brushed away.


Code is a complete waste. I studied for a month, passed the test, and
already have forgotten the letters. What they should do if make it
optional for code users. Give a real test, and give out licenses for code
users. IOW, those who want to use it, test for it.

Vinnie S.

Why should people who *want* to use it have to test for it?

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 20:54:39 -0500, Guy wrote:

Code is a complete waste. I studied for a month, passed the test, and
already have forgotten the letters. What they should do if make it
optional for code users. Give a real test, and give out licenses for code
users. IOW, those who want to use it, test for it.

Vinnie S.

Why should people who *want* to use it have to test for it?

Because it's the opposite right now. People who don't use it, test for it. Might
as well right that ship.

Vinnie S.

Vinnie S. wrote:

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 20:54:39 -0500, Guy wrote:

Code is a complete waste. I studied for a month, passed the test, and
already have forgotten the letters. What they should do if make it
optional for code users. Give a real test, and give out licenses for
code users. IOW, those who want to use it, test for it.

Vinnie S.

Why should people who *want* to use it have to test for it?

Because it's the opposite right now. People who don't use it, test for it.
Might as well right that ship.

Vinnie S.

Why not just do away with the morse code test? WRC-03 did away with the
international requirement.

As a matter of fact, can you think of a reason to have *any* testing
requirements to operate in the ham bands these days?

You say code is a complete waste. I could say the same about memorizing
things like the frequencies of a particular ham band, or answering "yes" to
radio waves travelling at the speed of light in a vacuum, or which
ionospheric region is closest to earth, or the meaning of the term "73", or
the meaning of the Q-Signal "QRS", or how much voltage is there from an
automobile battery, or the difference between microfarad and picofarad, or
how to figure out a 1/4 wavelength, or ... I just finished looking through
the element 2 question pool and I can't think of a reason why people are
tested on this stuff anymore.

Can't buy any ham gear today that operates outside the ham bands. Why not
just make it illegal to modify store-bought ham gear and then just call it
the Citizen's Bands (bandS -- plural).

A few decades ago, you had to have a little bit of knowledge to
build/operate home brew equipment, and a little less knowledge to operate
store-bought gear and keep it inside the ham bands and prevent
unintentional interference. Now-a-days, it's not economically feasible to
home-brew your own ham gear anymore. It's cheaper to buy it from a store.
And the stuff you buy from the store today almost can't be made to operate
outside the ham bands or un-intentionally interfere with others unless you
pop the lid and screw it up with silly modifications.

Element 4 has questions like, "What's the audio frequency of the color Black
in amateur SSTV?" Who cares? Why would knowing this make you more
qualified to download MMSSTV, hook up your computer sound card to your
radio (using a store bought interface) and start exchanging pictures?

If CW has been superceded by technology, couldn't you say the same thing
about all of amateur radio?

Heck, I just saw an advertisement for a cell phone that accepts broadband TV
now.

I don't mean to sound combative to you or anyone else, I just woke up a few
days ago and started having some epiphanies on this subject.

Guy

On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 16:10:06 -0500, Guy wrote:

..
Because it's the opposite right now. People who don't use it, test for it.
Might as well right that ship.

Vinnie S.

Why not just do away with the morse code test? WRC-03 did away with the
international requirement.

You'd have to ask a morse guy. I don't know.

As a matter of fact, can you think of a reason to have *any* testing
requirements to operate in the ham bands these days?

Yeah, regulation. Clearly, there is working regulation on ham bands. And there
is no regulation on CB band, unless you are running 10,000 watts.

So, you already have both. If you don't want to test for anything, there is CB.

You say code is a complete waste. I could say the same about memorizing
things like the frequencies of a particular ham band, or answering "yes" to
radio waves travelling at the speed of light in a vacuum, or which
ionospheric region is closest to earth, or the meaning of the term "73", or
the meaning of the Q-Signal "QRS", or how much voltage is there from an
automobile battery, or the difference between microfarad and picofarad, or
how to figure out a 1/4 wavelength, or ... I just finished looking through
the element 2 question pool and I can't think of a reason why people are
tested on this stuff anymore.

Well, they ask you 35 questions. I read the queston pool book 3 times. There had
to be hundreds of questions. So to answer your question, ye, I think they should
keep the test. Clearly, I learned from it.

Can't buy any ham gear today that operates outside the ham bands. Why not
just make it illegal to modify store-bought ham gear and then just call it
the Citizen's Bands (bandS -- plural).

A few decades ago, you had to have a little bit of knowledge to
build/operate home brew equipment, and a little less knowledge to operate
store-bought gear and keep it inside the ham bands and prevent
unintentional interference. Now-a-days, it's not economically feasible to
home-brew your own ham gear anymore. It's cheaper to buy it from a store.
And the stuff you buy from the store today almost can't be made to operate
outside the ham bands or un-intentionally interfere with others unless you
pop the lid and screw it up with silly modifications.

Element 4 has questions like, "What's the audio frequency of the color Black
in amateur SSTV?" Who cares? Why would knowing this make you more
qualified to download MMSSTV, hook up your computer sound card to your
radio (using a store bought interface) and start exchanging pictures?

If CW has been superceded by technology, couldn't you say the same thing
about all of amateur radio?

Heck, I just saw an advertisement for a cell phone that accepts broadband TV
now.

I don't mean to sound combative to you or anyone else, I just woke up a few
days ago and started having some epiphanies on this subject.


You don't sound combative. You have a different opinion. You make some valid
points. But as I said before, there is a licensed and unlicensed option. Now,
what you might be asking it to expand the CB band to have more unlicensed
frequencies. I would not have a problem with that.

I did actually enjoy reading those books. So whether the questions are dumb or
not, I did learn a few things.

Vinnie S.

"Guy" wrote in message
news:TKMqe.15606$mC.3822@okepread07...
wrote:

Why should people who *want* to use it have to test for it?


Why not? If you want to drive, you have to take a test, if you want to
get into college you have to take a test, so what's wrong with if you are
going to use code only about taking a test?

Landshark

Landshark wrote:


"Guy" wrote in message
news:TKMqe.15606$mC.3822@okepread07...
wrote:

Why should people who *want* to use it have to test for it?


Why not? If you want to drive, you have to take a test, if you want to
get into college you have to take a test, so what's wrong with if you are
going to use code only about taking a test?

Landshark

I don't understand the logic in what you're saying.

Are there other tests that we should introduce into society?

Should we implement taking a test before you are deemed qualified to open a
credit card account?

Should we implement taking a test before you are deemed qualified to take
the mail out of your mailbox and bring it into your house for further
sorting, opening, and reading?

Should we implement taking a test before you are deemed qualified to operate
a gas pump to fill your car with gasoline?

Should we implement taking a test before you are deemed qualified to
reproduce?

Ok, I'm stating some crazy things here to try to make a point...

How about just leaving some space in the ham bands for CW? If it gets used,
fine, keep it. If CW dies out (and it will eventually--us old timers who
got their ham ticket the hard way will eventually RIP) then reallocate it
for other modes.

By the way, I don't remember having to take a test to get into college. I
have a BS in Computer Science and a Masters in Computer Information
Systems. As long as I paid my bill, they allowed me to go to class.

And the reason for the test to drive a car is to show something in the way
of being able to drive a car and not kill someone else while doing it. I
can understand the reason for the test to drive a car. I can explain valid
reasons for some of my crazy examples above also.

So why test for CW? It's not like anyone who attempts to operate CW without
knowing all the letters at an arbitrary speed will endanger anyone or
themselves while doing it.

Why have a test to operate any mode in any ham band these days?

Guy

"Guy" wrote in message
news:F64re.15840$mC.13248@okepread07...
Landshark wrote:


"Guy" wrote in message
news:TKMqe.15606$mC.3822@okepread07...
wrote:

Why should people who *want* to use it have to test for it?


Why not? If you want to drive, you have to take a test, if you want to
get into college you have to take a test, so what's wrong with if you are
going to use code only about taking a test?

Landshark

I don't understand the logic in what you're saying.

Are there other tests that we should introduce into society?

Should we implement taking a test before you are deemed qualified to open
a
credit card account?

Should we implement taking a test before you are deemed qualified to take
the mail out of your mailbox and bring it into your house for further
sorting, opening, and reading?

Should we implement taking a test before you are deemed qualified to
operate
a gas pump to fill your car with gasoline?

Should we implement taking a test before you are deemed qualified to
reproduce?

Ok, I'm stating some crazy things here to try to make a point...

A little, but a couple might have possibilities



How about just leaving some space in the ham bands for CW? If it gets
used,
fine, keep it. If CW dies out (and it will eventually--us old timers who
got their ham ticket the hard way will eventually RIP) then reallocate it
for other modes.

Good, no problem there either.


By the way, I don't remember having to take a test to get into college. I
have a BS in Computer Science and a Masters in Computer Information
Systems. As long as I paid my bill, they allowed me to go to class.


Maybe not a community or Some state college's, but most want some
sort of aptitude test to make sure you are not wasting the teachers
& university's time.

And the reason for the test to drive a car is to show something in the way
of being able to drive a car and not kill someone else while doing it. I
can understand the reason for the test to drive a car. I can explain
valid
reasons for some of my crazy examples above also.

So why test for CW? It's not like anyone who attempts to operate CW
without
knowing all the letters at an arbitrary speed will endanger anyone or
themselves while doing it.

If you can read 20 to 30 WPM, would you want to here somebody
pounding out only 5 WPM? Otherwise would you want to see the bands
allocated to certain speeds? Point being, it would be called a qualifying
test, to make sure you are able to operate in the mode you test for.


Why have a test to operate any mode in any ham band these days?

Most modes you are correct, but CW is almost an art, as such is
dieing out.


Guy

Landshark


--
Some of them are living an illusion
Bounded by the darkness of their minds,
In their eyes it's nation against nation,
With racial pride, sad hearts they hide,
Thinking only of themselves,
They shun the light,
They think they're right
Living in the empty shells.

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 13:27:31 GMT, "Landshark" wrote:


By the way, I don't remember having to take a test to get into college. I
have a BS in Computer Science and a Masters in Computer Information
Systems.

I am sorry, but this is a poor example. First off, some colleges require a basic
math/algebra and English test. Even where you don't have to take a test to get
into college, you still have to take a ton of tests to graduate.

If your point is that you don't need a test to start something, then you are
correct. But in many skilled professions, jobs, etc, most require some sort of
test taking or licensing procedure. Please find me a college you can attend that
will give you a degree for just showing up, and not taking tests.


As long as I paid my bill, they allowed me to go to class.

So what? Are they going to give you a degree because you paid your bill? Were
you allowed to sit in on advanced classes without passing earlier
pre-requisites, just because you paid your bill?




Vinnie S.

Vinnie S. wrote:

As long as I paid my bill, they allowed me to go to class.

So what? Are they going to give you a degree because you paid your bill?
Were you allowed to sit in on advanced classes without passing earlier
pre-requisites, just because you paid your bill?




Vinnie S.

No, to both questions.

"Vinnie S." wrote in message
...
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 13:27:31 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote:


By the way, I don't remember having to take a test to get into college.
I
have a BS in Computer Science and a Masters in Computer Information
Systems.

I am sorry, but this is a poor example. First off, some colleges require a
basic
math/algebra and English test. Even where you don't have to take a test to
get
into college, you still have to take a ton of tests to graduate.


I agree and yes you are correct on basic requirements.

If your point is that you don't need a test to start something, then you
are
correct. But in many skilled professions, jobs, etc, most require some
sort of
test taking or licensing procedure. Please find me a college you can
attend that
will give you a degree for just showing up, and not taking tests.


As long as I paid my bill, they allowed me to go to class.
So what? Are they going to give you a degree because you paid your bill?
Were
by pass the class. you allowed to sit in on advanced classes without
passing earlier
pre-requisites, just because you paid your bill?

Agreed. In 76 when I was at college, for one computer class I had to take
trig or pass a test to take the class.



Vinnie S.

You were answering Guy, correct? You used my post as a qoute, I hope you
know that I agree with you. I'll take resonable arguements, like the one
with Guy
any day of the week over the BS, the others have tried spew.

Landshark