|
No progress in decades...
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? Warmest regards, John -- I AM ONE-IN-A-MILLION!!!!! Too bad the other 999,999 got there first.. frown |
John Smith wrote:
. . . Someone really should get off a dead duff somewhere and DO IT!!!! Kinda makes ya wonder why not? Doesn't it? I sure seem to hear that a lot. Some *other* lazy bum oughtta get off his duff and do it. Why don't you do it? If the problem is that you don't have the technical know-how, well, how do you think those people who have it, got it? By being lazy? Typing a few sentences and hitting Send sure is easier than studying, isn't it? Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
Roy Lewallen wrote:
John Smith wrote: . . . Someone really should get off a dead duff somewhere and DO IT!!!! Kinda makes ya wonder why not? Doesn't it? I sure seem to hear that a lot. Some *other* lazy bum oughtta get off his duff and do it. Why don't you do it? If the problem is that you don't have the technical know-how, well, how do you think those people who have it, got it? By being lazy? Typing a few sentences and hitting Send sure is easier than studying, isn't it? So it would appear is attacking another's comment . Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
"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? Warmest regards, John Sounds just like a Drake TR-7. Too bad there isn't enough money to be made to the ham market to have allowed this to be developed. Russ -- Russ "Two-fifteen, no ambulance needed!" (G. J. Golden, ECPD) Subtract all nines to reply |
Someone really should get off a dead duff somewhere and DO IT!!!!
Kinda makes ya wonder why not? Doesn't it? Warmest regards, John Sounds just like a Drake TR-7. Too bad there isn't enough money to be made to the ham market to have allowed this to be developed. Russ Actually, sounds a lot more like the Elecraft K2. Nothing new with the approach. Better spent, would be the time and effort to improve the operational performance. In-band dynamic range could stand some improvement, and oscillator phase noise is an abomination both on RX and TX of most every radio out there. Someone COULD, if only he would. Too busy dreaming up defunct ideas. W4ZCB |
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? Warmest regards, John Sounds just like a Drake TR-7. Too bad there isn't enough money to be made to the ham market to have allowed this to be developed. Russ I, too, suspect that it does indeed come down to market forces. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Roy Lewallen wrote:
John Smith wrote: . . . Someone really should get off a dead duff somewhere and DO IT!!!! Kinda makes ya wonder why not? Doesn't it? I sure seem to hear that a lot. Some *other* lazy bum oughtta get off his duff and do it. Why don't you do it? If the problem is that you don't have the technical know-how, well, how do you think those people who have it, got it? By being lazy? Typing a few sentences and hitting Send sure is easier than studying, isn't it? Yoiks, Roy! That was a little caustic wasn't it? - Mike KB3EIA - |
Ahhhh, the *others* just don't understand you meant that in "the best
possible way", I do... Actually, I agree with you!!! Well, as long as you didn't include me in that "*other* lazy bum" of yours... grin Warmest regards, John -- I AM ONE-IN-A-MILLION!!!!! Too bad the other 999,999 got there first.. frown "Roy Lewallen" wrote in message ... | John Smith wrote: | . . . | Someone really should get off a dead duff somewhere and DO IT!!!! | | Kinda makes ya wonder why not? Doesn't it? | | I sure seem to hear that a lot. | | Some *other* lazy bum oughtta get off his duff and do it. | | Why don't you do it? If the problem is that you don't have the technical | know-how, well, how do you think those people who have it, got it? By | being lazy? | | Typing a few sentences and hitting Send sure is easier than studying, | isn't it? | | Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
Russ:
That is my point! Too many look at ham radio as "special" and "separate." What I suggested was gov't, commercial and, yes, even CB in that suggestion. I am just guessing, but you market to that wide a group and you are just bound to sell a dozen--or two! grin And, having the design so others can purchase rights (reasonably charged!) to use "your case", then the innovation brought to the market by "the many manufacturers" (and thousands of minds) gives your product real "SEX APPEAL!" Warmest regards, John -- I AM ONE-IN-A-MILLION!!!!! Too bad the other 999,999 got there first.. frown 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? | | Warmest regards, | John | | Sounds just like a Drake TR-7. Too bad there isn't enough money to be | made to the ham market to have allowed this to be developed. | | Russ | -- | Russ | "Two-fifteen, no ambulance needed!" (G. J. Golden, ECPD) | Subtract all nines to reply |
Typing a few sentences and hitting Send sure is easier than studying, isn't it? Yoiks, Roy! That was a little caustic wasn't it? - Mike KB3EIA - Considering what has gone before, it's unduly tame. W4ZCB |
This may be the answer to your dreams. A SOFTWARE DEFINED RADIO!
http://www.flex-radio.com/ This radio is basically controlled by software. Selectivity not good enough? A new program is written and distributed (the programs are free!)... New band authorized? New software is written to include the new band... A new digital mode invented? Yup, new software is written to give the radio that capability... Scott N0EDV 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? Warmest regards, John |
Well, if what I see coming on the horizon is what I think it is--American
dominance in "innovation" is dying.... With China, India, etc. "coming online", even the American consumer will soon be of small importance... even our auto manufacturers will soon be selling more cars there, than to citizens here... as these countries continue to "harvest our bucks" and upgrade, soon we will not even be able to compete over the cost of oil--it will go where it is more important--manufacturing over-seas... Tying the hands of ourselves with overly restrictive rules and regulations which hamper our ability to compete has been taxing too--some of these ideas can only be instituted over-seas--where they will soon see the idea of promoting innovation and forward progress is conductive to even their self-serving interests... Not everyone sees salvation in a new regulation, law or restriction… But, we will see... Warmest regards, John -- I AM ONE-IN-A-MILLION!!!!! Too bad the other 999,999 got there first.. frown "John Smith" wrote in message ... | 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? | | Warmest regards, | John | | -- | I AM ONE-IN-A-MILLION!!!!! | Too bad the other 999,999 got there first.. frown | | |
On Sun, 8 May 2005 06:25:45 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote: Russ: That is my point! Too many look at ham radio as "special" and "separate." What I suggested was gov't, commercial and, yes, even CB in that suggestion. I am just guessing, but you market to that wide a group and you are just bound to sell a dozen--or two! grin And, having the design so others can purchase rights (reasonably charged!) to use "your case", then the innovation brought to the market by "the many manufacturers" (and thousands of minds) gives your product real "SEX APPEAL!" Intriguing idea, but how would this work with varying licensing requirements on some of your proposed bands, maximum power differences, as well as the "type acceptance" or certification required for operation? Would changing cards within such a unit count as a mod, presently only allowed for licensed amateurs transmitting on amateur frequencies? You are on the right track as far as getting marketable numbers, but the rules are so different for the various bands you mention, I am not sure that can be resolved, even if all of the technical issues can be. Happy trails, Gary (net.yogi.bear) -- At the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom |
On Sun, 08 May 2005 18:39:36 +1000, atec wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote: John Smith wrote: . . . Someone really should get off a dead duff somewhere and DO IT!!!! Kinda makes ya wonder why not? Doesn't it? I sure seem to hear that a lot. Some *other* lazy bum oughtta get off his duff and do it. Why don't you do it? If the problem is that you don't have the technical know-how, well, how do you think those people who have it, got it? By being lazy? Typing a few sentences and hitting Send sure is easier than studying, isn't it? So it would appear is attacking another's comment . Perhaps it is because Roy is, like your's truly, getting a bit tired of seeing "John Smith's" conversations with himself. I don't use any software filters on my newsreader but I've sure engaged a mental filter. |
It would work like EVERYTHING else in the world works!!! am I the only one
realizing that You can buy a diesel truck if you want to--but can't drive it unless you are licenced. You can build/buy a car with a thousand-horsepower engine--but have to be careful how fast you go on highways... You can buy a handgun and use it to protect yourself--but suffer the wrath of "God" if you error... You can buy poison--but can't poison your neighbor... you can buy razor blades--but can't put them in the apples you handout at Halloween... you can buy gasoline--but can't use it to burn down anothers property... you can buy a car--but can't use it as a weapon and run down people on the street... Yanno, they USED to teach this stuff in school!!!! Warmest regards, John -- I AM ONE-IN-A-MILLION!!!!! Too bad the other 999,999 got there first.. frown "Gary S." Idontwantspam@net wrote in message ... | On Sun, 8 May 2005 06:25:45 -0700, "John Smith" | wrote: | | Russ: | | That is my point! Too many look at ham radio as "special" and "separate." | | What I suggested was gov't, commercial and, yes, even CB in that suggestion. | I am just guessing, but you market to that wide a group and you are just | bound to sell a dozen--or two! grin | | And, having the design so others can purchase rights (reasonably charged!) | to use "your case", then the innovation brought to the market by "the many | manufacturers" (and thousands of minds) gives your product real "SEX | APPEAL!" | | Intriguing idea, but how would this work with varying licensing | requirements on some of your proposed bands, maximum power | differences, as well as the "type acceptance" or certification | required for operation? | | Would changing cards within such a unit count as a mod, presently only | allowed for licensed amateurs transmitting on amateur frequencies? | | You are on the right track as far as getting marketable numbers, but | the rules are so different for the various bands you mention, I am not | sure that can be resolved, even if all of the technical issues can be. | | Happy trails, | Gary (net.yogi.bear) | -- | At the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence | | Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA | Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom |
Well, I just hope you are not getting to the point of contemplating
"Un-American Activities", you still support free speech--don't you? Warmest regards, John -- I AM ONE-IN-A-MILLION!!!!! Too bad the other 999,999 got there first.. frown "Wes Stewart" wrote in message ... | On Sun, 08 May 2005 18:39:36 +1000, atec wrote: | | Roy Lewallen wrote: | John Smith wrote: | | . . . | Someone really should get off a dead duff somewhere and DO IT!!!! | | Kinda makes ya wonder why not? Doesn't it? | | | I sure seem to hear that a lot. | | Some *other* lazy bum oughtta get off his duff and do it. | | Why don't you do it? If the problem is that you don't have the technical | know-how, well, how do you think those people who have it, got it? By | being lazy? | | Typing a few sentences and hitting Send sure is easier than studying, | isn't it? | So it would appear is attacking another's comment . | | Perhaps it is because Roy is, like your's truly, getting a bit tired | of seeing "John Smith's" conversations with himself. I don't use any | software filters on my newsreader but I've sure engaged a mental | filter. | | |
"John Smith" wrote in message
... 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!!!! Your comments are interesting. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the amateur market did begin down this road. Look at: The Heathkit SB-104(A) and the Yaesu FT-ONE. there were a number of "lessons learned" from those experiences - but the "state of the art" has also moved from "thru-hole" construction to surface mount. This concept is not unique to amateur radio, network equipment manufacturers have gone back and forth between "chassis based" equipment and "appliance" at least 5 times over past 20 years. Each has their unique attributes, advantages and disadvantages .... w9gb |
gb:
Well, we certainly need to examine the "bottle neck" and remove it... before we are doomed... If we can't institute this "radical" idea here, we need to look at Canada, Mexico, So. America, China, India, etc... When there are as many functional radios (or "cards") hitting the dumpster as there are functional computers and related equip. (replaced with upgrades) we will know the right idea has prevailed and radio has come home... I would think there must be some EXCELLENT argument/reasoning serving as a road block, or else, others are simply going to pass us by... John -- When Viagra fails to work--you are DOOMED!!! "gb" wrote in message ... | "John Smith" wrote in message | ... | 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!!!! | | Your comments are interesting. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the | amateur market did begin down this road. | | Look at: The Heathkit SB-104(A) and the Yaesu FT-ONE. there were a number | of "lessons learned" from those experiences - but the "state of the art" has | also moved from "thru-hole" construction to surface mount. | | This concept is not unique to amateur radio, network equipment manufacturers | have gone back and forth between "chassis based" equipment and "appliance" | at least 5 times over past 20 years. Each has their unique attributes, | advantages and disadvantages .... | | w9gb | | |
John Smith wrote:
gb: Well, we certainly need to examine the "bottle neck" and remove it... before we are doomed... If we can't institute this "radical" idea here, we need to look at Canada, Mexico, So. America, China, India, etc... When there are as many functional radios (or "cards") hitting the dumpster as there are functional computers and related equip. (replaced with upgrades) we will know the right idea has prevailed and radio has come home... I would think there must be some EXCELLENT argument/reasoning serving as a road block, or else, others are simply going to pass us by... John I've considered this sort of a radio before. There are a few problems, however: First, there is a fundamental difference between digital systems and analog systems that prevents this sort of thing working with the success of a PC. The basic difference is that with a digital system you either end up with a clean signal or a useless signal. In an analog system the character and purity of the signal must be carefully guarded, at least until you manage to digitize it. This means that there will be a much greater chance that adding a new card to the radio will degrade not only the function of the new card, but the function of all the other cards. Second, the PC market is a huge one, with great advantages to be derived from common equipment and software, and much smaller advantages to be derived from commonality. This is the exact obverse of the radio market, including homebrew radios. To make a "card" radio would be to define a basic radio architecture, probably down to the IF frequency (or at least to the point of forcing you to match your IF and front end). While improvements could be made within this structure an independent experimenter couldn't play around with such things as direct-conversion, different IF schemes, etc., without extensive modification. In this way the radio market is more like the market for computing devices as a whole. The PC market doesn't account for the most processors sold, or even the most dollars of all computing devices. The largest segment of the market is in embedded computing devices ranging from things as visible and obvious as your PDA, through cell phones, and down to burglar alarms and TV remotes. Take apart a new home thermostat or TV remote and there's a good chance that you'll find a processor that implements most of its functionality in software -- but a very slim chance indeed that its PC compatible! -- Tim Wescott Wescott Design Services http://www.wescottdesign.com |
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 - |
Wes Stewart wrote:
On Sun, 08 May 2005 18:39:36 +1000, atec wrote: Roy Lewallen wrote: John Smith wrote: . . . Someone really should get off a dead duff somewhere and DO IT!!!! Kinda makes ya wonder why not? Doesn't it? I sure seem to hear that a lot. Some *other* lazy bum oughtta get off his duff and do it. Why don't you do it? If the problem is that you don't have the technical know-how, well, how do you think those people who have it, got it? By being lazy? Typing a few sentences and hitting Send sure is easier than studying, isn't it? So it would appear is attacking another's comment . Perhaps it is because Roy is, like your's truly, getting a bit tired of seeing "John Smith's" conversations with himself. I don't use any software filters on my newsreader but I've sure engaged a mental filter. You might want to check out the idea of filtering. Cleans up the newsgroups right fine. - Mike KB3EIA - |
John Smith wrote:
gb: Well, we certainly need to examine the "bottle neck" and remove it... before we are doomed... If we can't institute this "radical" idea here, we need to look at Canada, Mexico, So. America, China, India, etc... When there are as many functional radios (or "cards") hitting the dumpster as there are functional computers and related equip. (replaced with upgrades) we will know the right idea has prevailed and radio has come home... I hope you are kidding, John. That is the absolutely worst part of the PC paradigm. Thousands of perfectly good electronics thrown out, often made obsolete due to software that is bloated and poorly written (mostly OS software. At least old radios are still useable I would think there must be some EXCELLENT argument/reasoning serving as a road block, or else, others are simply going to pass us by... The PC paradigm is a poor one, and not to be emulated. PC's will finally be mature when we don't have to replace them on almost a yearly basis. At that point, software writers will be able to write good software. - Mike KB3EIA - |
On Sun, 08 May 2005 14:23:22 -0400, Mike Coslo
wrote: Wes Stewart wrote: On Sun, 08 May 2005 18:39:36 +1000, atec wrote: Perhaps it is because Roy is, like your's truly, getting a bit tired of seeing "John Smith's" conversations with himself. I don't use any software filters on my newsreader but I've sure engaged a mental filter. You might want to check out the idea of filtering. Cleans up the newsgroups right fine. I use Free Agent. It doesn't do filtering, but as I said, I turn on my mental filter that says, "When you see a post by 'John Smith'", ignore it. I used the same filter for "Fractenna." Works fine. |
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 |
Mike Coslo wrote:
Yoiks, Roy! That was a little caustic wasn't it? - Mike KB3EIA - I do tend to be that way. And because of the couple of negative comments about my posting I've thought it over a fair amount to see if, on reflection, I think it was out of line. But I don't think so, unless I mininterpreted what "John Smith" said. What he seemed to be saying is that he has this great idea, and the only reason it's not being impelemented is that *the other people* are too lazy to do it. As one of the "other people", I find it kind of insulting. Do you really think his is a valid point of view, that everyone else should jump up and implement his great idea, while this anonymous person's job is to tell us what we should do? I really do think that a caustic comment was appropriate. Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
Roy Lewallen ) writes: Mike Coslo wrote: Yoiks, Roy! That was a little caustic wasn't it? - Mike KB3EIA - I do tend to be that way. And because of the couple of negative comments about my posting I've thought it over a fair amount to see if, on reflection, I think it was out of line. But I don't think so, unless I mininterpreted what "John Smith" said. What he seemed to be saying is that he has this great idea, and the only reason it's not being impelemented is that *the other people* are too lazy to do it. As one of the "other people", I find it kind of insulting. Do you really think his is a valid point of view, that everyone else should jump up and implement his great idea, while this anonymous person's job is to tell us what we should do? I really do think that a caustic comment was appropriate. Roy Lewallen, W7EL He gave the impression of being someone who'd been here before, though at least it wasn't cross-posted to the UK newsgroup. It just struck me as "well what's it doing here?". This newsgroup isn't about commercial equipment, though we seem to have a slow slide to where such things do appear here. Yet the poster seemed to be talking about commercial equipment, and whether or not that was the point, making your own equipment shouldn't be quite about building a copy of something someone else built. Had he posted in rec.radio.amateur.equipment I think perhaps the tone of the response should be different. But here, at the very least it should be a discussion of modularization rather than subject header that is bound to alienate, and an expectation of how things should be. The talk of modularization, which seems better fitted to radio than "plug in boards", has been discussed quite a bit over the years. But of course, rather than some universal system (which has had some articles in the ham magazines) the focus has been on breaking things down to smaller portions so you can experiment, or you can change things without having to change everything. And yes, solid state devices, because of their small size, low price and even function allows a better implementation. When you can switch with DC it is much easier to do modularization than if you have to have everything hanging off a bandswitch. Michael VE2BVW |
I really do think that a caustic comment was appropriate. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Quite agree, particularly since the "idea" was so poorly thought out to begin with. Personally, I'd be glad to own a box that was seriously better in performance that any current offering, even if it were spread all over the table and housed in a cardboard box. I'd then be wishing all my neighbors had one as well so I wouldn't be stuck with THEIR radios shortcomings. Even be willing to buy the things for the two closest ones. W4ZCB |
To make a positive posting about why the "board" receiver doesn't exist.
.. . First, I consider my PC. While my very first PC had a bunch of cards, my current one has none except the RAM. The video adapter, Ethernet capability, sound system, modem, serial, parallel, and USB ports are all on a single board, built in. Why? Simple -- it's cheaper. I worked at Tektronix for many years. During that time, Tek made both portable scopes and laboratory scopes, the latter having a mainframe and plug in modules. For a given configuration with the same features, the lab scope was always considerably more expensive than the equivalent portable. Why? Well, the lab scope was always overdesigned for any particular job. The bandwidth of the interface had to handle the highest frequency plugin. The power supplies had to handle the highest current plugins, in any combination -- enough current at 5 volts for a digital analyzer plugin, enough higher supply voltage current for a spectrum analyzer plugin, and so forth. There had to be enough connector pins and supporting circuitry to handle all possible controls on all possible plugins. No single configuration ever used more than a fraction of the built-in mainframe capability. While the portable scope's stages could have optimal gain, in the lab scopes, the signals always had to be normalized to the levels specified for the interface. This often required an extra stage or two for each of the signals being passed (vertical, Z axis, horizontal, and many controls). Power supplies had to be decoupled in each plugin at the interface. And finally, good quality, reliable connectors are much more difficult to find, much more expensive to buy than you'd think -- and even so, they can easily be the least reliable components in the system. Then there's the problem of trying to predict what would be developed in the future when you design the mainframe, so you can build in the necessary interface circuitry. And every new plugin (I've designed them) has to be compatible with every tweak and trick used by all plugins in the past which it might be used with. The fact is that hams, for sure, wouldn't pay all the extra money a well designed plug in system would cost. Of course, I might be wrong -- anyone who thinks so (one particular person comes to mind) should get busy designing and developing one. Perhaps there's a fortune to be made. Certainly there's a market for a much simpler plug in system with much less versatility than the oscilloscope system I described, as a few manufacturers have shown. The question is, how far can this be taken before the market dries up due to the increased cost? Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
Yes, I use my filter too--and support and expect others to use them as they
see fit... I certainly do mine!!! I can help if some are having difficulty; I support filtering and have an understanding how to apply them... However, the very vocal ones--I am always left wondering if they really are remarking about filtering their own content--or their wish to filter the content of others (and, for what purpose would they do this?)... if that goes on too far (controlling others), yanno, it leads to attempted thought control--a guy wrote a book about that--George Orwell... Was that in 1984, or was that about 1984? .. anyway, if you ask me--he was more a prophet, some have already grown to accept what he (we?) feared... Warmest regards, John -- When Viagra fails to work--you are DOOMED!!! "Wes Stewart" wrote in message ... | On Sun, 08 May 2005 14:23:22 -0400, Mike Coslo | wrote: | | Wes Stewart wrote: | On Sun, 08 May 2005 18:39:36 +1000, atec wrote: | | Perhaps it is because Roy is, like your's truly, getting a bit tired | of seeing "John Smith's" conversations with himself. I don't use any | software filters on my newsreader but I've sure engaged a mental | filter. | | You might want to check out the idea of filtering. Cleans up the | newsgroups right fine. | | I use Free Agent. It doesn't do filtering, but as I said, I turn on my | mental filter that says, "When you see a post by 'John Smith'", ignore | it. I used the same filter for "Fractenna." Works fine. | | |
Hmmm, I thought it "right in line."
If such equip. was adopted, then just as with computers, you could buy/cut/etch a "card" with the expectation it could be inserted right into the bus of that radio and function, taking on responsibilities--for say an audio amp (just as that EXACT capability exists with a computer bus).... Indeed, this idea does NOT bypass homebrewers, it encourages them and provides them MUCH more opportunity to participate in constructing their own equip.... I see it as EMPOWERING homebrewers--far from the opposite!!! Indeed, if some were as gifted as all that, they need only buy the case and some foil boards/components--when they emerged from the basement--I'd expect to see a radio of their OWN design in their hands!!! Warmest regards, John -- When Viagra fails to work--you are DOOMED!!! "Michael Black" wrote in message ... | | Roy Lewallen ) writes: | Mike Coslo wrote: | | Yoiks, Roy! That was a little caustic wasn't it? | | - Mike KB3EIA - | | I do tend to be that way. And because of the couple of negative comments | about my posting I've thought it over a fair amount to see if, on | reflection, I think it was out of line. | | But I don't think so, unless I mininterpreted what "John Smith" said. | What he seemed to be saying is that he has this great idea, and the only | reason it's not being impelemented is that *the other people* are too | lazy to do it. | | As one of the "other people", I find it kind of insulting. Do you really | think his is a valid point of view, that everyone else should jump up | and implement his great idea, while this anonymous person's job is to | tell us what we should do? | | I really do think that a caustic comment was appropriate. | | Roy Lewallen, W7EL | | He gave the impression of being someone who'd been here before, | though at least it wasn't cross-posted to the UK newsgroup. | | It just struck me as "well what's it doing here?". This newsgroup | isn't about commercial equipment, though we seem to have a slow | slide to where such things do appear here. Yet the poster seemed | to be talking about commercial equipment, and whether or not | that was the point, making your own equipment shouldn't be quite | about building a copy of something someone else built. | | Had he posted in rec.radio.amateur.equipment I think perhaps | the tone of the response should be different. But here, at | the very least it should be a discussion of modularization rather | than subject header that is bound to alienate, and an expectation | of how things should be. | | The talk of modularization, which seems better fitted to radio | than "plug in boards", has been discussed quite a bit over the years. | But of course, rather than some universal system (which has had | some articles in the ham magazines) the focus has been on breaking | things down to smaller portions so you can experiment, or you | can change things without having to change everything. And yes, | solid state devices, because of their small size, low price and | even function allows a better implementation. When you can | switch with DC it is much easier to do modularization than if | you have to have everything hanging off a bandswitch. | | Michael VE2BVW | | |
.... make sure you see my post, above, it points out what you missed...
Warmest regards, John -- When Viagra fails to work--you are DOOMED!!! "Harold E. Johnson" wrote in message news:bUtfe.66752$c24.56615@attbi_s72... | | | I really do think that a caustic comment was appropriate. | | Roy Lewallen, W7EL | | Quite agree, particularly since the "idea" was so poorly thought out to | begin with. Personally, I'd be glad to own a box that was seriously better | in performance that any current offering, even if it were spread all over | the table and housed in a cardboard box. I'd then be wishing all my | neighbors had one as well so I wouldn't be stuck with THEIR radios | shortcomings. Even be willing to buy the things for the two closest ones. | | W4ZCB | | |
"John Smith" wrote in message
... gb: Well, we certainly need to examine the "bottle neck" and remove it... before we are doomed... If we can't institute this "radical" idea here, we need to look at Canada, Mexico, So. America, China, India, etc... JS - "... before we are all doomed". The only way doom happens is if you don't do your part in averting that projection. Or are you saying the future is hopeless? So, what are you doing to be part of the "solution" rather than being the "profit of bad things to come?" How many hours over the past year have you worked with middle or high schools students volunteering your time? Donating materials, time or money for educational programs targeted for the audience that will make a difference? As George S. Kaufman wrote about money and knowledge in the 1930s - "You Can't Take it with You". gb |
Tim:
I agree, there is a "divergence" of most other devices, with radio in the "lag." The technology of the 1920's-1930's has been bypassed--we are too late to halt progress at that point--the question is--do we wish to halt radio technology at this point--realizing--we will NOT halt those around us... in the end, leaving us, really, no choice anyway... Name a large business still using calculators and slide rules, as opposed to the computer, and you will point out that what I am stating is a fallacy... Warmest regards, John -- When Viagra fails to work--you are DOOMED!!! "Tim Wescott" wrote in message ... | John Smith wrote: | | gb: | | Well, we certainly need to examine the "bottle neck" and remove it... before | we are doomed... | | If we can't institute this "radical" idea here, we need to look at Canada, | Mexico, So. America, China, India, etc... | | When there are as many functional radios (or "cards") hitting the dumpster | as there are functional computers and related equip. (replaced with | upgrades) we will know the right idea has prevailed and radio has come | home... | | I would think there must be some EXCELLENT argument/reasoning serving as a | road block, or else, others are simply going to pass us by... | | John | | I've considered this sort of a radio before. There are a few problems, | however: | | First, there is a fundamental difference between digital systems and | analog systems that prevents this sort of thing working with the success | of a PC. | | The basic difference is that with a digital system you either end up | with a clean signal or a useless signal. In an analog system the | character and purity of the signal must be carefully guarded, at least | until you manage to digitize it. This means that there will be a much | greater chance that adding a new card to the radio will degrade not only | the function of the new card, but the function of all the other cards. | | Second, the PC market is a huge one, with great advantages to be derived | from common equipment and software, and much smaller advantages to be | derived from commonality. This is the exact obverse of the radio | market, including homebrew radios. To make a "card" radio would be to | define a basic radio architecture, probably down to the IF frequency (or | at least to the point of forcing you to match your IF and front end). | While improvements could be made within this structure an independent | experimenter couldn't play around with such things as direct-conversion, | different IF schemes, etc., without extensive modification. | | In this way the radio market is more like the market for computing | devices as a whole. The PC market doesn't account for the most | processors sold, or even the most dollars of all computing devices. The | largest segment of the market is in embedded computing devices ranging | from things as visible and obvious as your PDA, through cell phones, and | down to burglar alarms and TV remotes. Take apart a new home thermostat | or TV remote and there's a good chance that you'll find a processor that | implements most of its functionality in software -- but a very slim | chance indeed that its PC compatible! | | -- | | Tim Wescott | Wescott Design Services | http://www.wescottdesign.com |
Exactly my point....
We break into two groups of thought here... Halt at this point, and lay all plans on that halting (and, if ALL the others don't agree--be bypassed anyway)... Or, stay with the pack, realizing if that day ever comes (technology ceases to innovate/obsolete)--we will regret it... Progress, obsolete equip., is the most desirable thing I can imagine! It is a given, not all will agree... Indeed, at 52 years of age, my place in the "scope of the world" is becomming smaller--it only gets worse from now on--I am not ready to quit and attempt to force others to that "quitting" with me... When the "Dick Tracy Wrist Radio" is finally designed and implemented--perhaps there will be a "death of homebrewers" (I myself am NOT much of a 'watchbuilder')--but until then we can have fun! Warmest regards, John -- When Viagra fails to work--you are DOOMED!!! "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... | John Smith wrote: | gb: | | Well, we certainly need to examine the "bottle neck" and remove it... before | we are doomed... | | If we can't institute this "radical" idea here, we need to look at Canada, | Mexico, So. America, China, India, etc... | | When there are as many functional radios (or "cards") hitting the dumpster | as there are functional computers and related equip. (replaced with | upgrades) we will know the right idea has prevailed and radio has come | home... | | I hope you are kidding, John. That is the absolutely worst part of the | PC paradigm. Thousands of perfectly good electronics thrown out, often | made obsolete due to software that is bloated and poorly written (mostly | OS software. At least old radios are still useable | | I would think there must be some EXCELLENT argument/reasoning serving as a | road block, or else, others are simply going to pass us by... | | The PC paradigm is a poor one, and not to be emulated. PC's will | finally be mature when we don't have to replace them on almost a yearly | basis. At that point, software writers will be able to write good software. | | - Mike KB3EIA - |
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 - |
In article ,
John Smith wrote: Hmmm, I thought it "right in line." If such equip. was adopted, then just as with computers, you could buy/cut/etch a "card" with the expectation it could be inserted right into the bus of that radio and function, taking on responsibilities--for say an audio amp (just as that EXACT capability exists with a computer bus).... Indeed, this idea does NOT bypass homebrewers, it encourages them and provides them MUCH more opportunity to participate in constructing their own equip.... I see it as EMPOWERING homebrewers--far from the opposite!!! As others have (I think) pointed out, there are some very valid technical and regulatory problems which might make this approach less than popular. Here in the U.S., at least, transmitters in most of the radio services have to be "certificated" (previously "type accepted") by their manufacturer, demonstrating that they comply with the operational and emissions rules for that service. In these services, almost any physical modification of the radio will invalidate the certification, and make it technically illegal to use it to transmit. Modifications which don't violate the certification can only be made by technicians or organizations with a specific license, and (I believe) may require a significant amount of re-testing to demonstrate that the radio still meets the requirements. The FCC rules don't provide for the arbitrary swapping around of radio cards in such transmitters. Also, there's a tradeoff between modularity, and cost/performance. The more modular a radio (or computer) is, the greater the number of gozintas and comesoutas (i.e. signal connectors, busses, etc.). These add cost, they decrease reliability (compared to a soldered connection), and they limit the degree to which one can take advantage of increasing degrees of device integration at the chip level. The highly-modular PC infrastructure has gotten to where it is, in terms of price and flexibility, because of the extremely large number of units produced - there's a lot of "economy of scale". This is due in large part to the fact that consumer, business, and industrial applications can all use the same architectures. People have also been extremely eager to take advantage of higher-performance components and have been willing to accept relatively short product lifetimes as a result... and this increases the demand for a "change out part of the system and keep the rest" solution which demands modularity. I don't think that the same environment exists for radios. Commercial and public-safety radios have a long lifetime, they have the need for physical ruggedness which may discourage the use of a "plug-in" architecture with lots of connectors that can shake loose, they're rather cost-sensitive, and for regulatory reasons they probably cannot adopt a "Users may change out components" architecture. In these radio services, a "You buy it, and it never changes" shrink-wrapped monolithic radio design simply makes more business and economic sense. Things may become a bit more friendly in this regard, at least for base stations, with the newer "software defined radio" architectures. However, in commercial and business services, the FCC insists that the systems be designed and built in a way which prevents users from making arbitrary changes to the configuration which could violate regulations. One example of this is the Atheros 802.11a/b/c wireless radio cards... their behavior is very strongly defined by their firmware, and the vendor says that they *cannot* release the firmware or low-level drivers in source-code form for fear of violating the FCC's software-radio rules. Frankly, I think that the amateur radio service is probably one of the few services (and perhaps the only one) in which a general-purpose "radio card plug-in" architecture or system could be generally useful, and the resulting radios would probably be significantly more expensive than monolithic-board or proprietary-bus radios of similar capabilities. Due to the limited size of this market (compared to business and public safety) I doubt that you'll see the big manufacturers invest the time and money required to develop and promote and market such an architecture. No sense in their doing so. Without the leverage of being able to use the same technology in other radio services, it's be a big investment for no return. Indeed, if some were as gifted as all that, they need only buy the case and some foil boards/components--when they emerged from the basement--I'd expect to see a radio of their OWN design in their hands!!! And there, I think, you've defined the only market to which such an architecture would be strongly attractive - hobbyists. There might be enough of a community there to support the development of such an architecture, just as there are communities supporting the GNU software radio, the RockMite, and other specialized radios. Feel free to propose a design, John Smith! If it's as overwhelmingly good an idea as you seem to think, maybe it'll take over the world by storm! In short, John, I don't think it's fair to say that there has been "no progress". Rather, I'd say that things haven't gone in the direction you suggest, because your solution is one which solves a problem which most people don't feel is worth solving, and comes with a cost that most people don't care to pay. -- 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! |
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 | | |
Well, things have not gone as one would expect...
And, they may well be due to rules, regulations, and mindsets... and, specifically, ones generated from an "American mindset." Now, there is the "rest of the world" as we move to "globalization" these ideas here will hardly set the course--I have afraid our part will be more of passenger, as opposed to a captain... the best I can see is, using our "paddle" we are able to affect a slight course change in our favor... If one of your arguments is, don't propose any ideas until you have a complete working design--I see that as more an answer to my original observation... progress remains slow-to-halted, that simply being one of the contributing factors... If you seek to give a list of "why it can't work", that is helpful, but, bear in mind, I was looking more for a list of "why it can." Warmest regards, John -- When Viagra fails to work--you are DOOMED!!! "Dave Platt" wrote in message ... | In article , | John Smith wrote: | | Hmmm, I thought it "right in line." | | If such equip. was adopted, then just as with computers, you could | buy/cut/etch a "card" with the expectation it could be inserted right into | the bus of that radio and function, taking on responsibilities--for say an | audio amp (just as that EXACT capability exists with a computer bus).... | | Indeed, this idea does NOT bypass homebrewers, it encourages them and | provides them MUCH more opportunity to participate in constructing their own | equip.... I see it as EMPOWERING homebrewers--far from the opposite!!! | | As others have (I think) pointed out, there are some very valid | technical and regulatory problems which might make this approach less | than popular. | | Here in the U.S., at least, transmitters in most of the radio services | have to be "certificated" (previously "type accepted") by their | manufacturer, demonstrating that they comply with the operational and | emissions rules for that service. In these services, almost any | physical modification of the radio will invalidate the certification, | and make it technically illegal to use it to transmit. Modifications | which don't violate the certification can only be made by technicians | or organizations with a specific license, and (I believe) may require | a significant amount of re-testing to demonstrate that the radio still | meets the requirements. | | The FCC rules don't provide for the arbitrary swapping around of radio | cards in such transmitters. | | Also, there's a tradeoff between modularity, and cost/performance. | The more modular a radio (or computer) is, the greater the number of | gozintas and comesoutas (i.e. signal connectors, busses, etc.). These | add cost, they decrease reliability (compared to a soldered | connection), and they limit the degree to which one can take advantage | of increasing degrees of device integration at the chip level. | | The highly-modular PC infrastructure has gotten to where it is, in | terms of price and flexibility, because of the extremely large number | of units produced - there's a lot of "economy of scale". This is due | in large part to the fact that consumer, business, and industrial | applications can all use the same architectures. People have also | been extremely eager to take advantage of higher-performance | components and have been willing to accept relatively short product | lifetimes as a result... and this increases the demand for a "change | out part of the system and keep the rest" solution which demands | modularity. | | I don't think that the same environment exists for radios. Commercial | and public-safety radios have a long lifetime, they have the need for | physical ruggedness which may discourage the use of a "plug-in" | architecture with lots of connectors that can shake loose, they're | rather cost-sensitive, and for regulatory reasons they probably cannot | adopt a "Users may change out components" architecture. | | In these radio services, a "You buy it, and it never changes" | shrink-wrapped monolithic radio design simply makes more business and | economic sense. | | Things may become a bit more friendly in this regard, at least for | base stations, with the newer "software defined radio" architectures. | However, in commercial and business services, the FCC insists that the | systems be designed and built in a way which prevents users from | making arbitrary changes to the configuration which could violate | regulations. One example of this is the Atheros 802.11a/b/c wireless | radio cards... their behavior is very strongly defined by their | firmware, and the vendor says that they *cannot* release the firmware | or low-level drivers in source-code form for fear of violating the | FCC's software-radio rules. | | Frankly, I think that the amateur radio service is probably one of the | few services (and perhaps the only one) in which a general-purpose | "radio card plug-in" architecture or system could be generally useful, | and the resulting radios would probably be significantly more | expensive than monolithic-board or proprietary-bus radios of similar | capabilities. | | Due to the limited size of this market (compared to business and | public safety) I doubt that you'll see the big manufacturers invest | the time and money required to develop and promote and market such an | architecture. No sense in their doing so. Without the leverage of | being able to use the same technology in other radio services, it's be | a big investment for no return. | | Indeed, if some were as gifted as all that, they need only buy the case and | some foil boards/components--when they emerged from the basement--I'd expect | to see a radio of their OWN design in their hands!!! | | And there, I think, you've defined the only market to which such an | architecture would be strongly attractive - hobbyists. | | There might be enough of a community there to support the development | of such an architecture, just as there are communities supporting the | GNU software radio, the RockMite, and other specialized radios. | | Feel free to propose a design, John Smith! If it's as overwhelmingly | good an idea as you seem to think, maybe it'll take over the world by | storm! | | In short, John, I don't think it's fair to say that there has been "no | progress". Rather, I'd say that things haven't gone in the direction | you suggest, because your solution is one which solves a problem which | most people don't feel is worth solving, and comes with a cost that | most people don't care to pay. | | -- | 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! |
John Smith wrote:
However, the very vocal ones--I am always left wondering if they really are remarking about filtering their own content--or their wish to filter the content of others (and, for what purpose would they do this?)... if that goes on too far (controlling others), yanno, it leads to attempted thought control- I don't know you "Mr. Smith" or have any bone to pick with you but I use filters to avoid what I find as either offensive or provocative. I invoke enough cat-fights of my own on Usenet and don't need to be drawn into others. Some posters have a tendency to attract fire, and I have a weakness to jump in sometimes. I'd really rather just avoid it. My sanity and blood-pressure will be the better. So, thats why I filter out the provocateurs if I feel that strongly. My filters don't prevent anyone from saying what they want to say. But historically, some posters can be counted upon to say what I'd rather not have to read and wind up being diverted from the topic or grappling to bite my tongue, etc. Its easier just to filter them away. Call me Ostrich-Man. Its my means of finding satisfaction with Usenet. For my part, feel free to choose to speak. And respect my freedom to choose whether or not to listen. -Bill M |
Ohhh, well, you are correct. I am rather blind to "politics" and come from
areas where new thought, conversation--indeed, even argument and debate are encouraged and viewed as "good things." While not attempting to invoke "havoc", "discord" and "chaos", I view the manner in which topics are handled as being the deciding factor--foul language, character assassinations and promoting outwardly dangerous evils which threaten the moral fabric of society are as disgusting to me as the next guy... If the material is just gauged on whether it provokes debate, argument and thought--and if the measure of this is simply how many posts are invoked as responses--with the desirable number set as one or NONE--then further delays in progress should be expected... A silent discussion is beneficial to no one... and certainly don't view such as desirable! Warmest regards, John -- When Viagra fails to work--you are DOOMED!!! "-exray-" wrote in message ... | John Smith wrote: | | | However, the very vocal ones--I am always left wondering if they really are | remarking about filtering their own content--or their wish to filter the | content of others (and, for what purpose would they do this?)... if that | goes on too far (controlling others), yanno, it leads to attempted thought | control- | | I don't know you "Mr. Smith" or have any bone to pick with you but I use | filters to avoid what I find as either offensive or provocative. | I invoke enough cat-fights of my own on Usenet and don't need to be | drawn into others. Some posters have a tendency to attract fire, and I | have a weakness to jump in sometimes. I'd really rather just avoid it. | My sanity and blood-pressure will be the better. So, thats why I | filter out the provocateurs if I feel that strongly. | | My filters don't prevent anyone from saying what they want to say. But | historically, some posters can be counted upon to say what I'd rather | not have to read and wind up being diverted from the topic or grappling | to bite my tongue, etc. Its easier just to filter them away. Call me | Ostrich-Man. Its my means of finding satisfaction with Usenet. | | For my part, feel free to choose to speak. And respect my freedom to | choose whether or not to listen. | | -Bill M |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:53 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com