Michael A. Terrell wrote:


I was a volunteer advisor for the Lake county Florida Vo-Tec
electronics program, till it was shut down. Right now I am trying to
find the money to finish repairs to my four car garage and convert it
into a 1200 sq ft electronics shop to teach basic electronics to the
kids who are still interested. Its not easy when you're 100% disabled
and living on a tiny pension, but I don't give up too easy.

Good luck with finding money for your garage. Sorry about Vo-tech
shutting down and your your disability and tiny pension.
Was there anything positive you wanted to say?

-Bill

John Smith wrote:
Decades have brought us moon landing, mars landings,masers, lasers, lets,
fets, mosfets, computers, etc...

But the shape of radio equip. has remained virtually stagnant.

One "innovation" would be to just copy what the IBM clone has taught us.

Build a radio of "cards." Just like the computer, a standard case which you
can plugin various power supplies, frontend board "cards", intermediate
board "cards", buffer amp board "cards", IF board "cards", audio board
"cards", xmitter board "cards", final amp board "cards", etc.... I think
you get the pic

One radio case can/could virtually be any radio you can imagine.... new
design in a frontend? Plug in a new front end "card", new audio offering?
Plug in a new audio board "card."

Someone really should get off a dead duff somewhere and DO IT!!!!

Kinda makes ya wonder why not? Doesn't it?

You can get a software defined radio. Front end, and pipe it into your
computer, and there ya go! Ten Tec also manufactured the Pegasus a few
years back, close to what you are thinking of.

Personally, I don't think that the PC computer paradigm is any way to
go. It's just how PC's evolved. Despite years of progress, plug and play
is not universal, and just another PC promise.

- Mike KB3EIA -

You can get a software defined radio. Front end, and pipe it into your
computer, and there ya go! Ten Tec also manufactured the Pegasus a few
years back, close to what you are thinking of.
=======================
The Ten Tec Pegasus is very much alive . It is now called Jupiter ( the
Pegasus with 'knobbed' front panel and a display and a nice enclosure like
other traditionally looking radios)

Frank GM0CSZ / KN6WH

Is it "open source" and do they encourage others to innovate off their
platform, if not, totally different idea then what I present/envision...
can you buy just a case and basic powersupply?

Warmest regards,
John
--
When Viagra fails to work--you are DOOMED!!!

"Pipex News Server" wrote in message
...
| You can get a software defined radio. Front end, and pipe it into your
| computer, and there ya go! Ten Tec also manufactured the Pegasus a few
| years back, close to what you are thinking of.
| =======================
| The Ten Tec Pegasus is very much alive . It is now called Jupiter ( the
| Pegasus with 'knobbed' front panel and a display and a nice enclosure like
| other traditionally looking radios)
|
| Frank GM0CSZ / KN6WH
|
|

I can get a TV card for my computer, I can get software to make my computer
a cd/dvd player, I can get hardware/software to replace my stereo,
etc...--I, along with the rest of the world, have not gone this route
yet--perhaps in the future... I am open to this...

Warmest regards,
John
--
When Viagra fails to work--you are DOOMED!!!

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
| John Smith wrote:
| Decades have brought us moon landing, mars landings,masers, lasers,
lets,
| fets, mosfets, computers, etc...
|
| But the shape of radio equip. has remained virtually stagnant.
|
| One "innovation" would be to just copy what the IBM clone has taught us.
|
| Build a radio of "cards." Just like the computer, a standard case which
you
| can plugin various power supplies, frontend board "cards", intermediate
| board "cards", buffer amp board "cards", IF board "cards", audio board
| "cards", xmitter board "cards", final amp board "cards", etc.... I
think
| you get the pic
|
| One radio case can/could virtually be any radio you can imagine.... new
| design in a frontend? Plug in a new front end "card", new audio
offering?
| Plug in a new audio board "card."
|
| Someone really should get off a dead duff somewhere and DO IT!!!!
|
| Kinda makes ya wonder why not? Doesn't it?
|
| You can get a software defined radio. Front end, and pipe it into your
| computer, and there ya go! Ten Tec also manufactured the Pegasus a few
| years back, close to what you are thinking of.
|
| Personally, I don't think that the PC computer paradigm is any way to
| go. It's just how PC's evolved. Despite years of progress, plug and play
| is not universal, and just another PC promise.
|
| - Mike KB3EIA -

All:

Please don't feed the troll.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

I am afraid I view "Please don't feed the troll" as "Tim Wescott thinks
everyone not agreeing with him IS a troll"...

That is NOT the proper definition of a "Troll!"

Regards,
John
--
When Viagra fails to work--you are DOOMED!!!

"Tim Wescott" wrote in message
...
| All:
|
| Please don't feed the troll.
|
| --
|
| Tim Wescott
| Wescott Design Services
| http://www.wescottdesign.com

So we might all get on the same page, here is a list of "troll definitions."

1) a newsgroup post that is deliberately incorrect, intended to provoke
readers; or a person who makes such a post

2) From the fishing term. As a noun, synonymous with flamebait. As a verb,
to post controversial or provocative messages in a deliberate attempt to
provoke flames.

3) to fish with a bait or lure trailed on a line behind a slowly moving
boat.

4) From the fishing term. As a noun, synonymous with flamebait. As a verb,
to post controversial or provocative messages in a deliberate attempt to
provoke flames.

5) This is the Scandanavian term for elf. Sometimes they are described as
being hairy and ugly, although they are able to change their shape into
anything they please. They are said to have lots of treasure, and live in
beautiful palaces.

6) SCA term for gatekeeper or door warden at a feast or other event. This
name has no historical basis. "Porter" was atypical medieval name for this
job.

7) a race of giants. They appear in various Northern mythologies. In Norse
mythology Trolls are represented as a type of goblin.

I assume you are meaning definition 1) as your definition of me being a
"troll."

Do you feel anyone opening a discussion is a troll? Is there always a
"troll" at the center of every discussion? Is the only discussion without a
"troll" one where no one has made a statement to open it--and therefore--it
is really a "silent discussion?"

Is a "troll'less discussion" one where everyone agrees with you?

Your accusing me of being a "troll" is, in my opinion, really "character
assassination" on your part--although you cloak this knife in velvet, the
gleem of its' blade is still seen...

Regards,
John
--
When Viagra fails to work--you are DOOMED!!!

"Tim Wescott" wrote in message
...
| All:
|
| Please don't feed the troll.
|
| --
|
| Tim Wescott
| Wescott Design Services
| http://www.wescottdesign.com

In article ,
John Smith wrote:

Do you feel anyone opening a discussion is a troll? Is there always a
"troll" at the center of every discussion?

No, not all discussions are trolls.

Some of the things which tend to make me consider a posting to be a
"troll" rather than a "discussion", are indications that the original
poster isn't really interested in an honest discussion. Typical signs:

- Poster shows up with a big dose of attitude on his/her shoulder.
Phrases like "You people are all laughable idiots" (fairly common
among spammers posting in the anti-spam newsgroups), or "Obviously,
anybody who has a brain will agree that xxxx is true" are red flags.

- Posters who respond to criticisms of their proposal by ignoring the
technical validity of the criticisms, or by attacking the critic
rather than the criticism (ad hominem responses), or by glossing
over the criticisms without a serious response (hand-waving).

- Posters who seem to fail to "think through" the consequences, and
costs, of their own proposals and ideas.

Is the only discussion without a
"troll" one where no one has made a statement to open it--and therefore--it
is really a "silent discussion?"

Is a "troll'less discussion" one where everyone agrees with you?

No. A troll-less discussion is where everyone involved engages in an
intellectually honest debate about the merits, disadvantages, and
costs of the suggested ideas(s). There are plenty of such troll-less
discussions, on USENET and elsewhere, where the debaters disagree
quite strongly!

Your accusing me of being a "troll" is, in my opinion, really "character
assassination" on your part--although you cloak this knife in velvet, the
gleem of its' blade is still seen...

Well, here's a third-party opinion. It's free, take it for what it's
worth to you.

From where I sit, it seems to me that your style of proposal and
debate are somewhere in the middle. They are not blatantly
"troll-ish" (in the sense of someone who is posting purely for the joy
of stirring up a fracas), but neither do they seem to be a completely
serious attempt to discuss the actual merits of your ideas (as
compared to the alternatives).

The somewhat troll-flavored signs I observe: well, there's the rather
inflammatory and biased declaration you made in the subject of "No
progress in decades." I call this trollish, because it *presumes* the
validity of the very idea that you are proposing (i.e. that a modular,
card-based radio architecture is the best one) and because it
ignores all of the progress that radio systems have made in other
areas of implementation. It seemed more inflammatory than
communicative.

I also see your response to some of the criticisms posted (including
my own) as somewhat trollish, because you seem to have responded to
serious counters by either handwaving around them, or by condemning
the poster's effort to respond to you (e.g. your comment that you
"aren't looking for people who'll tell [you] why it won't work, you're
looking for people who'll tell [you] why it will.")

One of the essentials in any scientist (and, I think, in any good
researcher or proponent) is intellectual honesty, including the
ability and willingness to figure out the weaknesses and limitations
of any theory or proposal, as well as the strengths. I think you'd
find your proposals received rather better, if you showed more clearly
that you were willing to think them out to this degree in advance of
posting them, and were open to receiving honest criticism.

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

Dave:


Surprisingly, we agree on most of ALL of this!!!



However, do not consider myself a troll if my methods are simply different
than others are accustomed to either; neither do I think I am a troll if I
do not wish to the “standard operating procedure” which some newsgroup of
“good ole buddies” has adopted—secret handshakes, phrases, etc. I have
outgrown…



Although common decency and respect for the right of another to hold an
opinion, belief or view contrary to ones own is necessary—I don’t see these
exchanges—when composed of overly narrow methods of exchange and interaction
as being beneficial to any…



Warmest regards,

John

--
When Viagra fails to work--you are DOOMED!!!

"Dave Platt" wrote in message
...
| In article ,
| John Smith wrote:
|
| Do you feel anyone opening a discussion is a troll? Is there always a
| "troll" at the center of every discussion?
|
| No, not all discussions are trolls.
|
| Some of the things which tend to make me consider a posting to be a
| "troll" rather than a "discussion", are indications that the original
| poster isn't really interested in an honest discussion. Typical signs:
|
| - Poster shows up with a big dose of attitude on his/her shoulder.
| Phrases like "You people are all laughable idiots" (fairly common
| among spammers posting in the anti-spam newsgroups), or "Obviously,
| anybody who has a brain will agree that xxxx is true" are red flags.
|
| - Posters who respond to criticisms of their proposal by ignoring the
| technical validity of the criticisms, or by attacking the critic
| rather than the criticism (ad hominem responses), or by glossing
| over the criticisms without a serious response (hand-waving).
|
| - Posters who seem to fail to "think through" the consequences, and
| costs, of their own proposals and ideas.
|
| Is the only discussion without a
| "troll" one where no one has made a statement to open it--and
therefore--it
| is really a "silent discussion?"
|
| Is a "troll'less discussion" one where everyone agrees with you?
|
| No. A troll-less discussion is where everyone involved engages in an
| intellectually honest debate about the merits, disadvantages, and
| costs of the suggested ideas(s). There are plenty of such troll-less
| discussions, on USENET and elsewhere, where the debaters disagree
| quite strongly!
|
| Your accusing me of being a "troll" is, in my opinion, really "character
| assassination" on your part--although you cloak this knife in velvet, the
| gleem of its' blade is still seen...
|
| Well, here's a third-party opinion. It's free, take it for what it's
| worth to you.
|
| From where I sit, it seems to me that your style of proposal and
| debate are somewhere in the middle. They are not blatantly
| "troll-ish" (in the sense of someone who is posting purely for the joy
| of stirring up a fracas), but neither do they seem to be a completely
| serious attempt to discuss the actual merits of your ideas (as
| compared to the alternatives).
|
| The somewhat troll-flavored signs I observe: well, there's the rather
| inflammatory and biased declaration you made in the subject of "No
| progress in decades." I call this trollish, because it *presumes* the
| validity of the very idea that you are proposing (i.e. that a modular,
| card-based radio architecture is the best one) and because it
| ignores all of the progress that radio systems have made in other
| areas of implementation. It seemed more inflammatory than
| communicative.
|
| I also see your response to some of the criticisms posted (including
| my own) as somewhat trollish, because you seem to have responded to
| serious counters by either handwaving around them, or by condemning
| the poster's effort to respond to you (e.g. your comment that you
| "aren't looking for people who'll tell [you] why it won't work, you're
| looking for people who'll tell [you] why it will.")
|
| One of the essentials in any scientist (and, I think, in any good
| researcher or proponent) is intellectual honesty, including the
| ability and willingness to figure out the weaknesses and limitations
| of any theory or proposal, as well as the strengths. I think you'd
| find your proposals received rather better, if you showed more clearly
| that you were willing to think them out to this degree in advance of
| posting them, and were open to receiving honest criticism.
|
| --
| Dave Platt AE6EO
| Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
| I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
| boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!