A New Concept: Virtual Spectrum
 

Let me get this staright.
I have Internet with "terminal" - my computer which can display color movies,
sound, etc.
Now "Virtual Spectrum" will allow me to use piece of crappy radio over
Internet?
Why?
Seems like having Rolls-Royce, but instead of riding in it, I'd rather just
push it around?
Far out!

Yuri

Let me get this staright.
I have Internet with "terminal" - my computer which can display color movies,
sound, etc.
Now "Virtual Spectrum" will allow me to use piece of crappy radio over
Internet?
Why?
Seems like having Rolls-Royce, but instead of riding in it, I'd rather just
push it around?
Far out!

Yuri

Yuri Blanarovich wrote in message .
Now "Virtual Spectrum" will allow me to use piece of crappy radio over
Internet?
Why?

It's similar to something Lewis Armstrong once said, Yuri:
If you have to ask "why," you'll never understand.
David S.

Yuri Blanarovich wrote in message .
Now "Virtual Spectrum" will allow me to use piece of crappy radio over
Internet?
Why?

It's similar to something Lewis Armstrong once said, Yuri:
If you have to ask "why," you'll never understand.
David S.

Oh, my....*sigh*

No, I don't work for the power companies,
and no, I don't lobby for BPL.

charlesblabham wrote:

..it encourages us all to be discouraged....
Now *that* is an interesting concept..


I am sorry to hear that this invasion of non-ham stuff
into the hobby does not bother you.
I thought innovating, finding new ways around problems, etc.
*was* "ham stuff." We used to do that alot.

So far, the idea of using non-ham links in order to "improve" the
performance of amateur radio has been 100% consistent. In every case where
it has been applied, it has managed to set back
and denigrate the hobby, to some extent or another.

When CW replaced spark, it was going to
"make the hobby too complicated and expensive to continue."

When SSB came on the ham scene, "Donald Duck"
was going to "destroy the hobby."

When FM and repeaters came along, they were
"against the spirit of ham radio. You might as well use a telephone!"

When Packet appeared, they brayed:
"those 'brrrrappp!' signals are denigrating the hobby!"

Throughout our history, hecklers and naysayers have been full of beans.
And they're full of beans now.

In the next rewrite, I'm taking out all references to BPL.
It was just one aspect of many; a way to dodge one giant
hairball the FCC is about to cough up on us.
But when you say "BPL," a few people go into some sort of "brain lock."
They can't even hear anything else.
Oh well... back to building the 611 QSO transverters...
73 Dave S.

Oh, my....*sigh*

No, I don't work for the power companies,
and no, I don't lobby for BPL.

charlesblabham wrote:

..it encourages us all to be discouraged....
Now *that* is an interesting concept..


I am sorry to hear that this invasion of non-ham stuff
into the hobby does not bother you.
I thought innovating, finding new ways around problems, etc.
*was* "ham stuff." We used to do that alot.

So far, the idea of using non-ham links in order to "improve" the
performance of amateur radio has been 100% consistent. In every case where
it has been applied, it has managed to set back
and denigrate the hobby, to some extent or another.

When CW replaced spark, it was going to
"make the hobby too complicated and expensive to continue."

When SSB came on the ham scene, "Donald Duck"
was going to "destroy the hobby."

When FM and repeaters came along, they were
"against the spirit of ham radio. You might as well use a telephone!"

When Packet appeared, they brayed:
"those 'brrrrappp!' signals are denigrating the hobby!"

Throughout our history, hecklers and naysayers have been full of beans.
And they're full of beans now.

In the next rewrite, I'm taking out all references to BPL.
It was just one aspect of many; a way to dodge one giant
hairball the FCC is about to cough up on us.
But when you say "BPL," a few people go into some sort of "brain lock."
They can't even hear anything else.
Oh well... back to building the 611 QSO transverters...
73 Dave S.

David Stinson wrote:

When CW replaced spark, it was going to
"make the hobby too complicated and expensive to continue."

Who said that?

When SSB came on the ham scene, "Donald Duck"
was going to "destroy the hobby."

Who said that?

When FM and repeaters came along, they were
"against the spirit of ham radio. You might as well use a telephone!"

Who said that?

When Packet appeared, they brayed:
"those 'brrrrappp!' signals are denigrating the hobby!"

Who said that?

Throughout our history, hecklers and naysayers have been full of beans.
And they're full of beans now.

So if people are not "for" whatever comes along is full of beans?

In the next rewrite, I'm taking out all references to BPL.

And when BPL appeared, those naughty naysayers thought it was a bad
thing too.

So I guess those who don't like BPL are full of beans?

- Mike KB3EIA -

David Stinson wrote:

When CW replaced spark, it was going to
"make the hobby too complicated and expensive to continue."

Who said that?

When SSB came on the ham scene, "Donald Duck"
was going to "destroy the hobby."

Who said that?

When FM and repeaters came along, they were
"against the spirit of ham radio. You might as well use a telephone!"

Who said that?

When Packet appeared, they brayed:
"those 'brrrrappp!' signals are denigrating the hobby!"

Who said that?

Throughout our history, hecklers and naysayers have been full of beans.
And they're full of beans now.

So if people are not "for" whatever comes along is full of beans?

In the next rewrite, I'm taking out all references to BPL.

And when BPL appeared, those naughty naysayers thought it was a bad
thing too.

So I guess those who don't like BPL are full of beans?

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote:


So I guess those who don't like BPL are full of beans?

See? Whaddya tell'ya... brain lock.

Mike Coslo wrote:


So I guess those who don't like BPL are full of beans?

See? Whaddya tell'ya... brain lock.