| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#121
October 10th 06, 04:33 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
Part B, Is the code requirement really keeping good people out?
|
|
#123
October 10th 06, 06:16 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
Part B, Is the code requirement really keeping good people out?
wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Sun, Oct 8 2006 4:28 am wrote: From: on Sat, Oct 7 2006 6:39 am Dave Heil wrote: wrote: Dave Heil wrote: wrote: From: on Tues, Oct 3 2006 3:25 pm wrote: Tsk, tsk, you've TOLD ME what I should have done in the military... What did Jim TELL YOU that you should have been doing, Len? It's in the archives where Jimmie likes to live. :-) That you chose not to provide that information is noted. :-) You can see and read what I did for three years there via: http://sujan.hallikainen.org/Broadca...s/My3Years.pdf 6 MB in size, takes about 19 minutes download on a dial-up connection. Twenty pages with many photo illustrations. High-power HF transmitters. 1953 to 1956. Reruns of "Look what I did". Not "I," old soldier-statesman, what *we* in the battalion did. 8235th Army Unit. The rest of 'em aren't posting here, Len. There's just you. It's for historical interest purposes. Any historical interest in it here seems to have dried up with the repeated tellings. The only other one (a much larger one) is at www.usarmygermany.com that was put together by Walter Elkins about the Signal effort in Europe. I'm a little more interested in the ON4UN 160m signal efforts in Europe. If you sneer too much at the My3Years.pdf, then feel free to substitute AlphabetSoup.pdf, a copy of my battalion's own production of its mission tasks circa 1962. That courtesy of Mr. James Brendage, a retired civilian engineer who worked at ADA when I was serving there. I have no real interest in looking at them, Len. Thanks just the same. If you don't like either of those, then substitute either one of the two remaining, one on microwave radio relay, the other on the SCR-300, both from a technical standpoint. The SCR-300 was the first walkie-talkie, a backpack VHF transceiver, introduced during WW2, designed and built by Galvin Mfg (later to be renamed Motorola). No thanks, Len. It's all about RADIO and COMMUNICATIONS. That's nice. This is all about amateur radio communications. Your ADA sojourn began about fifty-three years back, didn't it, Len? Why do you live in the past so much? 1. I live for the now and the future, not the past. Your frequent references to what you did at ADA say otherwise. 2. There is no copyright restriction on government works, therefore no need to get written permission. So you regale this newsgroup with the same tired tale because there's no copyright? 3. There is no security classification on the material I've presented...neither from the DoD nor private company non-disclosure agreements. That's too bad. Greenlee is still a corporation in Rockford, IL, but they seem to have stopped making "chassis punches" for radio hobbyists. There's another of your factual errors. My bad. :-) Does Greenlee take out ads in QST, QEX? Get your own copies. Your error noted. How about Popular Communications? Any ads in there? You can pick it up at newsstands or subscribe. Greenlee still sells chassis punches--round ones, square ones, those shaped for D-connectors, power sockets. There's even a hydraulic punch set. The U.S. Government buys loads of them. The company's "hole making" product information can be downloaded--all 7.9 mb of it. http://www.greenlee.com/product/index.html Are you on commission from Greenlee? :-) I used to be. :-) That's one of the lines I've sold in the past. No sweat, old soldier-statesman, I've been IN Greenlee on a visit, have seen the little corner of one building where two guys were making punches and files. Superfluous minutiae. Send your download to Lowes or Home Depot corporate head- quarters, see if they are interested. I no longer sell industrial electronic parts. I still have old Greenlee chassis punches from before the 60s, still wrapped in oily paper, get checked now and then for rust. They were all used decades ago...only two have been reground on the edges (did that myself, no problem). I have two different sets, with some overlap in sizes. The difference between yours and mine are that mine are used pretty frequently. Not much use for those punches now in the solid-state era. That is simply another of your factual errors. Anyone who uses DB connectors, power connectors, holes for rocker switches or meters, can use a set of the punches. Especially when there are so many KITS available for those who claim to design their own. :-) And here we have another of your factual errors. You really do make quite many. Jimmie ever do any "programming in machine language?" At any time? I have. Want me to list them? :-) That's not necessary, Len. Why not tell us any of the things you've done in amateur radio? You mean the software mods I made for two other hams don't apply? [Microchip Corp. PIC microcontrollers] No, I don't mean those. How about a series of bandpass filters for the HF bands where I did the toroid windings, capacitor selection, assembly, shielding, and alignment? Using my own computer program "LCie4"? No, I don't mean that. Oh, be still my heart, the great soldier-statesman has put me down! :-) It isn't the first time. Only a fraction of the American people are watching HDTV. Most aren't even aware of what will hit them in a couple of years. People are still running out to K-Mart and Wally World and buying new *analog* TV sets. Thank you for the attempt at being an electronics industry "insider." It is nice to know that someone cares. I think you'll find that I'm pretty well up to date on consumer, industrial and computer electronics items as well as the amateur radio market. Is there anything specific, other than the Greenlee product line, that you wish to know more about? There'll be a big learning curve for the non-city dwelling owners of new HDTV receivers. They'll find that they have to use antennas with fairly high gain, preamps and rotators. They'll be using those rotators quite often. I ended up buying a Channel Master rotator with remote control and memory. That's nice. Are you going for some kind of amateur HDTV award or contest? I'm pretty sure that there are no consumer-PROFESSIONALS in HDTV. No, Len, I'm pointing to the fact that quite a number of others are going to find themselves in the same boat. I have two "locals" but one of them is forty-five miles away near Steubenville, Ohio. The other HD stations are in Athens, Ohio; Pittsburgh and Johnstown, Pennsylvania--a goodly distance away. The only way to see them is to turn the antenna. He knows very little about me and has resorted to wild speculation and untruths for a long time. Tsk. Typical bluffmanship on Jimmie's part. It was an accurate statement, Leonard. You don't know much about Jim. You have resorted to wild speculation and untruths. How can something be "untrue" if there is NO basis to judge? A number of your statements begin, "You have never...", when you do not, in fact, know if Jim has ever done something. Id est, as in his never saying...but you MUST call a speculation a LIE? "You have never..." does not indicate speculation. Sounds like the old Waffen SS trick again. If the shoe fits... ARRL carefully OMITS certain items of history and IMPLIES amateurs are 'responsible' for all advances. :-) You've made another untruthful statement. My apology for offending your religious beliefs. However, the TRUTH is not heresy. ....and your inaccuracies do not represent the truth. Jimmie wanna see my home workshop? Have it digitized, was sent to three others. Wanna see the HP 608D and the 606 signal generators, the 60 MHz dual-channel scopes (note plural), the 1 KW Variac below the bench? You're kind of light in the Variac department, Len. Don't you have anything which will handle real power? Yes...it's labeled "4 Stacks" on aeronautical sectional charts. BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [pilot joke, old soldier-statesman] Then you'll want to remember it for the "I wanted to be a pilot, but never did that either" newsgroup. You're a pathetic and childish geezer, Len. Awwww...you are TOO sweet... :-) Only you could take it as a compliment. :-) You really need a way to fill your idle hours. "Idle?" BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yes, Len, your idle hours. You shouldn't be bothering military recruiters and haunting newsgroups which deal with things in which you aren't a participant. Paul didn't say anything about a background check, Len. He addressed the IEEE Code of Ethics. YOU addressed the IEEE Code of Ethics, failing to write all of it. Yes, I addressed it. Paul addressed it. I included those portions which you regularly violate here. Paul picked up on that and wanted to get in some kind of "fight" about it. You see it as a fight. I see it as his concern. YOU have the mailing address of the IEEE. Feel free to write them and complain about my behavior in the news- group and how that "violates" the Professional Code of Ethics about engineering WORK. If you feel that it is something you only need to observe while working, fine. Be sure and document everything from BOTH sides, such as your own name- calling ("You're a pathetic and childish geezer"). Both sides? I'm not an IEEE member, Len. My statement toward you was a direct comment on your behavior in this newsgroup. I believe it to be accurate. Tell the IEEE that your "soldier-statesman" image has been "tarnished" by "insults" in here. Go ahead, make your day. I've never called myself a "soldier-statesman", Len. That's just something else you've done. Are you discussing your tiny, dusty Johnson? No, but you seem to have overmuch interest in it. "Overmuch" Is that some sort of PROFESSIONAL writer term? I don't find your little Johnson interesting at all, Leonard. I have a big Johnson. Did you munch a lot of nuts while in Guinea-Bisseau? Why sure, Len. We roasted them in oil and salted them. Don't you roast your nuts? [cashews are their biggest export...] Superfluous minutia. As always to you, ByteBrothers famous phrase invoked... Maybe you'll get around to spelling it out someday. Dave K8MN |
|
#124
October 10th 06, 07:07 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
Part B, Is the code requirement really keeping good people out?
wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Sat, Oct 7 2006 11:52 pm wrote: Dave Heil wrote: wrote: Dave Heil wrote: wrote: From: on Tues, Oct 3 2006 3:25 pm wrote: It appears that Len expects me to reply to his "you have never..." statements by saying what I have done in non-amateur radio. Old trick, doesn't work. It works! :-) Jimmie just hasn't done anything outside. There you go again, Mr. Anderson. You've told another untruth. He has never been IN the military. He has never been IN government. He has never stated what he does for a living. "Id est, as in his never saying...but you MUST call a speculation a LIE?" --Len Anderson Your statements don't indicate speculation. You have no information of the first two. I know for a fact that the third in false because he has stated to me what he does for a living. I'm aware of at least one other who knows what he does for a living. I guess you've been left out of the loop. It hasn't stopped him from trying. He has never become a radio amateur despite his several decades of self-declared "interest" in amateur radio. How about that? I became a professional BEFORE anything else! :-) I've never found it necessary to so limit myself. I was capable of being a professional in electronics and a radio amateur as well. I've have dozens of friends who've managed to do the same. If he tries a "you have never" and someone refutes it with details, Len simply clams up. Ah! "Justification" for that Imposter Robeson...a licensed amateur extra and a pro-coder! Did you ever find that web page, Len? My, my, these pro-coders sure do hang together. Cosier that way. They would otherwise hang separately. :-) Same tired line, presented on at least six or seven separate occasions. If they voluntarily post material describing something they've done, Len uses that as an opportunity for insulting the poster. I will insult any poster of Che Guevara I see. :-) Most political posters glued to vertical spaces are themselves insulting... You are juvenile. ...and like ENIAC, Fessendon's feat was an advancement over what had previously been possible. "...had previously been possible." :-) It makes sense to me. What fault did you find with the statement? I'm glad we don't need that sort of thing today. I don't have room for an ENIAC. Sure you do in that rambling country antenna farm. You think someone would place a room-sized computer in the middle of a field? But, there's only ONE ENIAC and it is now a museum piece. Defunct. Good only for show-and-tell. That pretty wells sums up your current situation, doesn't it? I wonder if Len ever saw or touched ENIAC. Why is that "necessary?" :-) Who said it was necessary, Len? ...and a high quality, tube-type BC set from the 1950's sounds every bit as good as its modern, LSI counterpart. Enjoy your vacuum tube set...until one of the tubes burns out. :-) Yeah, I guess I'd have to walk out to the barn and get another one. I have hundreds and hundreds of vacuum tubes, Len and if I didn't, there are still quite a number of places selling them. He knows very little about me and has resorted to wild speculation and untruths for a long time. I'm sure you have an idea of his reasons for digging for information. You WILL reveal to the forum your "reasons," won't you? Do I need to do so? It is pretty obvious from your decade of posts to the newsgroup. Of course you will, you both are pro-code amateur extras, the 'superior' ones who know everything. :-) I don't know everything, Len. I'm superior to you in a number of ways. You MUST "profile" all those who don't agree with you. No person who favors the retention of Morse testing has profiled anyone but you. White's is very good - for what it covers. It essentially stops long before WW2. Its treatment is heavy on broadcasting, light on amateurs and nonbroadcasting commercial operation. IMHO. But Len refers to it as if it is the Bible. Not at all. Thomas H. White's radio history in the USA is large, illustrated, and readily accessible on the web. It was mentioned only because of its accessibility. McGraw-Hill's ELECTRONICS magazine of April 17, 1980, had a special commemorative Issue on their 50th anniversary. Volume 53, Number 9, 650 pages, excellent overview with many details, photographs from before Marconi's time to 1980. They didn't emphasize amateur radio because amateur radio was really a small player in that bigger game of electronics technology. Unless one was a subscriber to Electronics magazine or has access to a technical library, it isn't that easy to use as a reference. Something contained in a single magazine cannot begin to cover much of the history of radio. Hugh G. J. Aitken's "The Continuous Wave: Technology and American Radio," 1900-1932, Princeton University Press, 1985, 588 pages, soft cover, is a scholarly work, quite complete and sponsored by the National Science Foundation. Again, there isn't the highlighting of amateur radio a la ARRL but that is for the real reason that amateur radio wasn't considered a 'big player' in the technological development of radio. Again with the "real reason"! Where in the book is that statement made, Leonard? Aitken's earlier work, "Syntony and Spark: The Origins of Radio" was done in 1976, reprinted in 1985 by Princeton University Press. I don't have that handy at the moment so I can't describe its size but it is another soft- cover. Neither is readily available except from a technical library. What some amateurs call "The Collins Sideband Book," or "Single Sideband Principles and Circuits," Pappenfus, Bruene, and Schoenike, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1964, 382 pages, has a good bit of HF communications history in Chapter 1 up to copyright date of the book, more in following chapters on various early SSB systems. I have it and it isn't much of a history at all. He usually follows one of those references with some sniping at the American Radio Relay League. There is no denying that the publications output of the ARRL is very large. They must do that in order to get the income necessary to perform all their "free" services to members. What's it to you? The ARRL has a virtual monopoly on amateur- interest publications in the USA...no denying that, either. That is simply a false statement, Len. It is easily denied if one knows anything about publications available to the radio amateur. But, the ARRL is also a political organization, maintaining both a legal firm and a lobbying organization in DC on retainer. As a political entity, they come under the good old American tradition of being a target for anyone who cares to comment. ....and in the good old American tradition of having it not matter whether the comments are untruths. The League is NOT without fault...except in the minds of its faithful followers, the disciples of the Church of St. Hiram. I've had differences of opinion with League policy and League officers and staffers. What is any of that to you. You aren't a radio amateur and you aren't an ARRL member. Having a virtual monopoly on radio-amateur-interest publications also gives them a psychological power to mold readers' opinions to those of the League hierarchy. Good boy, Len. If you start with a false premise, you can always make your claim turn out the way you want it to. To deny that is to deny the power of marketing techniques, of psychological propaganda activities that go on daily in nearly all human activities. To deny your statement is to point out that your mind is made up about the ways things are and that you aren't going to let fact stand in your way. Nobody markets more than TV and radio. I can't tell you the last time I drank a soft drink, ate at Applebee's or shopped at Target because of a radio or TV ad. I've never bought a car based upon a magazine ad nor bought a suit because of a newspaper ad. Those virtual monopolies aren't getting their money's worth out of me. Do you need to review the profile? Len needs to review the profile. No. "Profiles" work both ways. ....only if they are factual. Those you wrote were cobbled together and fashioned after Jim's style. They didn't stick. Heil and Miccolis have both been "profiled" in here, not just by me but by many others. Many others? Where are they? It is the Nature of the (newsgroup) Beast. ....and you *are* the newsgroup beast. Len seldom lets the truth get in the way of one of his monologues. Tsk, Heil speaks an untruth. That's simply incorrect, Len. OPINIONS are not "facts," just opinions. I didn't write "opinions". I wrote "truth". You seldom let truth get in the way of one of your monologues. Miccolis tries to manuever all opinion statements as "facts" written by those he has problems with...thus garnering the "accusations" of "untruth" or "error" when some just plain don't like him. "Maneuver", Len. Your statement doesn't make sense. Don't you like Jim? Are the non-factual statements you issue done to show Jim that you don't like him? That he often comes across as an arch- typical "mother superior" (complete with spanking ruler) is lost on him. If you could see yourself as others see you, Len... Prissy, as if sucking on sourballs when writing up "error" "error" on those disagreeing with him. I'm sure it seems that way to a guy who makes a great many factual errors. Heil comes across as a stereotypical WW2 propaganda movie Waffen SS officer, ordering others around, telling them what they "should" do (his way, naturally). You have a rich fantasy life. What, pray tell, is your view of an individual who is not involved in any way in amateur radio, telling radio amateurs that regulations should be changed (ordering others around, telling them what they "should" do (his way naturally)? One can almost see the sneer on his face, the monocle ready to drop as his face gets more livid with order-barking, the heels clicking. Godwin will getcha if you don't watch out! What orders have been given, Len? I've noticed the talk of his workshop, but nothing about what comes out of it. Why should it? It is for MY enjoyment for myself, not some "hey-look-at-me-and-what-marvelous-things-I've-done" self promotion on some website. :-) That hasn't stopped your frequent self-promotion in this newsgroup. I've had it for four decades. Those I know have been in it and we've talked mutual interest stuff about any project then on-going. Material like that has been exchanged privately. No need to make it public. Do you recall the things you've said about Jim's work? I'm not going to do as you do and turn those words back toward you. You might want to think about what you typically do. For sure. SS is coming up fairly soon. "Waffen?" Jahwhol! [click, click] :-) You're a juvenile geezer, Len. Dave K8MN |
|
#125
October 10th 06, 11:40 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
Morsemanship and other things
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote: From: Dave Heil on Sun, Oct 8 2006 3:22 am wrote: Poor baby. Upset are you? There there, just cry in Mother Superior's habit and you'll feel better... Len never attended a Roman Catholic parochial school. Was never taught by nuns or smacked around by them. Why not, poor baby. I've pointed out that your post wasn't funny and wasn't worthy of an adult male. Wasn't worthy of a grade schooler. First Rule of Comedy: The audience determines what's funny. If the audience doesn't think it's funny, it's not funny. No sweat, senior, we can ALL do that to YOUR posts now. We? You have a Vibroplex in your pocket? Len thinks he is either the Pope or royalty. He's all about "rank, status, and privilege". It is sarcastic and it is juvenile. It isn't worthy of an adult in his eighth decade. Ah, you are the "judge" of that, old-timer? :-) I'm permitted to make judgements, Len. I judged your post. Your permission wasn't required. :-) First Rule of Comedy invoked. Morsemanship makes you superhuman. Well, since Len won't describe what "morsemanship" is, here's a working definition: "Morsemanship" is a collection of skills and knowledge, typically associated with Amateur Radio: 1) Morsemanship includes a working knowledge of the rules and regulations of the Amateur Radio Service, good Amateur operating practices, and adherence to them. 2) Morsemanship includes a working knowledge of the technologies used in the Amateur Radio Service, both old and new. 3) Morsemanship includes the skill to speak clearly, concisely and distinctly, at a steady rate, level and tone, appropriate for radio transmission. 4) Morsemanship includes the skill to listen carefully and understand a transmission in voice or Morse Code under both good and poor conditions. 5) Morsemanship includes the skill to judge radio conditions on a given frequency over a given path, how they are changing, and how to adjust transmissions for best results. 6) Morsemanship includes the skill to recognize the mode of a received signal by ear or other means. 7) Morsemanship includes the skill to properly tune in a signal for best reception. 8) Morsemanship includes the skill to tune up and operate transmitter/antenna systems so as to maximize effectiveness and minimize interference. 9) Morsemanship includes the skill to correctly judge the skills of other operators and adjust transmissions for best results. 10) Morsemanship includes the skill to communicate effectively in less than optimum settings (heat, cold, lack of sleep, etc.) with less than perfect equipment, and under less than optimum radio conditions. 11) Morsemanship includes the skill to use the standard phonetic alphabet, appropriate abbreviations, and prosigns smoothly and effectively, and to judge when their use is needed. 12) Morsemanship includes the skill to write down received transmissions legibly and neatly so that others can easily read them. 13) Morsemanship includes the skill to write clear, coherent formal messages in standard form. 14) Morsemanship includes the skill to type, error free, at a rate that makes best use of the transmission mode. 15) Morsemanship includes the skill to deal with hostile and/or illegally operated stations. 16) Morsemanship includes the skill to do several things at once while on the air. 17) Morsemanship includes the skill to have situational awareness in all operating situations. 18) Morsemanship includes knowledge and skill in the use of Morse Code. 19) Morsemanship includes the knowledge and skill to help other amateurs and prospective amateurs develop their technical and operating skills and knowledge. 20) Morsemanship includes the skill to project a welcoming, friendly and helpful attitude on the air. Note that "macho morseman" is redundant, like "PIN number", "ATM machine" or "pizza pie". I use a number of modes in my amateur radio operation. I don't confine myself to a single one. I'm completely human. I'm just not the kind of human who declares that he is interested in something and then lets it lie for decades. I'm not the sort of fellow who boasts that he is going for an "Extra right out of the box" and fails to follow through. See IEEE Code of Ethics If you have ANY evidence of PROFESSIONAL impropriety, you just go ahead and report me to the IEEE. It is funny that the Code of Ethics doesn't seem to restrict itself to PROFESSIONAL matters. There's nothing that says that. Len is the kind of person that thinks it's OK to behave one way "PROFESSIONALLY" and another way outside his PROFESSION. I think it's called "compartmentalization". Like the person who can sit in church and act all pious on Sunday, but manages to violate all 10 Commandments the rest of the week. You know the type. I gave you their mailing address and URL here in public. I already had the url, Len. The mailing address appears on the web site. You fail to understand that the IEEE is a Professional Association. Don't you mean PROFESSIONAL association? I don't fail to understand that. Don't worry about it. Continue to post as you do and keep using that " e-mail address. It does you and the IEEE proud. It isn't a scouting organization nor is it religious organization such as the Church of St. Hiram. I don't think anyone believes it to be a scouting organization, Len. Were you ever a Boy Scout? I don't know of any religious organization called the "Church of St. Hiram". The IEEE Code of Ethics is for a WORK ethic, not the entirety of life as an individual. So, when you retire, you are no longer required to act ethically? You misunderstand, Dave. Len means he isn't required to act ethically when he's not working. Compartmentalization. But, you WANT to use every little scrap you can get hold of in order to besmirch some imagined 'enemy' don't you? Oh, you were besmirched a long, long time ago, Len. Len besmirches himself. His mistakes and errors would almost qualify him to be the Cliff Clavin of rrap. Except that Cliff was funny. Len isn't. |
|
#126
October 10th 06, 02:53 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
Part B, Is the code requirement really keeping good people out?
Dave Heil wrote: wrote: From: Dave Heil on Sat, Oct 7 2006 11:52 pm wrote: Dave Heil wrote: wrote: Dave Heil wrote: wrote: From: on Tues, Oct 3 2006 3:25 pm wrote: It appears that Len expects me to reply to his "you have never..." statements by saying what I have done in non-amateur radio. Old trick, doesn't work. It works! :-) Jimmie just hasn't done anything outside. There you go again, Mr. Anderson. You've told another untruth. No...Not LENNIE! He CAN'T tell a lie...He's a *PROFESSIONAL*... ! ! ! He has never been IN the military. He has never been IN government. He has never stated what he does for a living. "Id est, as in his never saying...but you MUST call a speculation a LIE?" --Len Anderson Your statements don't indicate speculation. You have no information of the first two. I know for a fact that the third in false because he has stated to me what he does for a living. I'm aware of at least one other who knows what he does for a living. Make it two. I guess you've been left out of the loop. Say it isn't so, Dave ! ! ! Lennie...?!?! "Out of the loop"...?!?!? Impossible! It hasn't stopped him from trying. He has never become a radio amateur despite his several decades of self-declared "interest" in amateur radio. How about that? I became a professional BEFORE anything else! I've never found it necessary to so limit myself. I was capable of being a professional in electronics and a radio amateur as well. I've have dozens of friends who've managed to do the same. Lennie's preoccupation with money being noted. No doubt the reason he married a woman with TWO correspondence degrees.... If he tries a "you have never" and someone refutes it with details, Len simply clams up. Ah! "Justification" for that Imposter Robeson...a licensed amateur extra and a pro-coder! Did you ever find that web page, Len? Lennie continues the "imposter" claim despite having been given detail private and public. Only further proof of his dishonesty and deceit. BIG SNIP But, there's only ONE ENIAC and it is now a museum piece. Defunct. Good only for show-and-tell. That pretty wells sums up your current situation, doesn't it? "Defunct" can sure be applied to a LOT of Lennie's issues. ANOTHER HUGE SNIP There is no denying that the publications output of the ARRL is very large. They must do that in order to get the income necessary to perform all their "free" services to members. What's it to you? Because there are "mere amateurs" who are making money publishing in the electronics field whereas Lennie is NOT. That's gotta leave a huge mark on the little guy's big ego. The ARRL has a virtual monopoly on amateur- interest publications in the USA...no denying that, either. That is simply a false statement, Len. It is easily denied if one knows anything about publications available to the radio amateur. CQ Magazine has a far greater offering of texts. But whoa-be-it to Lennie to actually get one of his anti-ARRL rants right..... AND AGAIN... Heil and Miccolis have both been "profiled" in here, not just by me but by many others. Many others? Where are they? Lennie's including his may alter-ego's... Miccolis tries to manuever all opinion statements as "facts" written by those he has problems with...thus garnering the "accusations" of "untruth" or "error" when some just plain don't like him. "Maneuver", Len. Your statement doesn't make sense. Don't you like Jim? Are the non-factual statements you issue done to show Jim that you don't like him? At least he didn't refer to Jim with a name ending, " -ie", Dave...Quite a step for him. That he often comes across as an arch- typical "mother superior" (complete with spanking ruler) is lost on him. If you could see yourself as others see you, Len... To her credit, his wife probably makes him wash it off outside, before he can get to a mirror to see what it looks like. Prissy, as if sucking on sourballs when writing up "error" "error" on those disagreeing with him. I'm sure it seems that way to a guy who makes a great many factual errors. Heil comes across as a stereotypical WW2 propaganda movie Waffen SS officer, ordering others around, telling them what they "should" do (his way, naturally). You have a rich fantasy life. And ocne again Lennie can't make headway with any rational comments, so he slides off into Naziland once again... What, pray tell, is your view of an individual who is not involved in any way in amateur radio, telling radio amateurs that regulations should be changed (ordering others around, telling them what they "should" do (his way naturally)? I could hear the hammer hitting that nail on the head from here, Dave. Why should it? It is for MY enjoyment for myself, not some "hey-look-at-me-and-what-marvelous-things-I've-done" self promotion on some website. That hasn't stopped your frequent self-promotion in this newsgroup. "Hey! Look at me! I bought a 1970-s era SWL receiver and scanner at the local ham shop and didn't need a license!" just isn't very inspiring, now is it, Dave...?!?! I've had it for four decades. Those I know have been in it and we've talked mutual interest stuff about any project then on-going. Material like that has been exchanged privately. No need to make it public. Do you recall the things you've said about Jim's work? I'm not going to do as you do and turn those words back toward you. You might want to think about what you typically do. Of course it's OK for Lennie to keep his affairs "private", yet when you, Jim or I do it, there's some conspiracy to hide something... How bogus, eh? For sure. SS is coming up fairly soon. "Waffen?" Jahwhol! [click, click] :-) You're a juvenile geezer, Len. TWO nails, Dave. 73 Steve, K4YZ |
|
#127
October 11th 06, 05:11 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.scanner,rec.radio.swap
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ping
Sorry I am late in replying. Holiday weekend here in Canada. On 5 Oct 2006 17:05:58 -0700, spake thusly: Opus- wrote: On 5 Oct 2006 04:26:28 -0700, spake thusly: Opus- wrote: The statement is quite simple...a voice on the airwaves can convey much more information than just the words spoken but CW can only convey the words. Morse Code can convey more than the words - if the operators are skilled in it. One of those old timers once told me that he recognized another operators "hand" back when I watched him operate. Yup. Little things about an op's sending can make it as recognizable as a familiar voice. btw, the term "fist" is used in the same context as "hand" was used by that op. Never heard the term "fist" used in this context but it's been a while since I have spent much time with a coder. I am not sure how much more a person can get out of code. The words, of course. How they are sent can tell a lot, too. It takes a bit of experience to recognize all the subtleties of Morse Code. The main point is that skilled Morse Code operators can convey more than 'just the words'. It's not the same thing as a voice, though. I think that is your main point. More than words, but how much more? I also have to believe that code is slower than speech. Not usually a big issue but an issue none the less. It's a different communications experience, just as the written word is a different experience from the spoken word. Fair enough. Exactly. Since the medium and usually the hardware is exactly the same weather or not a microphone or a key is used, why bother with a key that is much more limited? Several reasons: 1) It's often *not* the same hardware. You can use much simpler equipment for Morse Code than for voice modes. Well, I did say "usually". Of course. But wouldn't simpler equipment limit you to code only? That depends on the exact situation. The important point is that once you have Morse Code skills, using code-only equipment isn't really a limitation in most cases. Simplicity of equipment can be very important in some situations. For example, if someone wants to actually build their HF Amateur Radio equipment, it's much simpler and easier to build a Morse Code station than an equivalent-performance voice station. In portable operations, the power requirement, size and weight of a Morse Code station can be less than that of the equivalent voice station. With todays electronics, size and weight really aren't much of an issue. 2) It's a different communications experience. (see above). For many of us, that alone makes it worthwhile. I am curious as to what would make it worthwhile. All sorts of things: A) You can communicate without talking or typing. (In a world where a lot of us spend a lot of time on the telephone and computer, being able to communicate another way can be a real treat!) I dunno..I guess I like hearing things like gender or a foreign accent to add spice to communication. B) The exercise of a skill is fun. Consider the person who learns how to play a musical instrument: do you think making music (performing) is the same experience as listening to recorded music? Hmm..well..not really a good analogy. Listening to music is only a one way street while both performing music, as well as radio communications, is naturally a two way street. C) Once you have the skills, communicating with Morse Code can be as easy - or even easier - than using voice. Not quite sure how, but I'll take your word for it. D) You can use Morse Code in situations where voice could not be used. For example, suppose you are in a small house, apartment, RV, tent, etc., and you want to operate without disturbing others (who might be sleeping, talking, etc.). Of course you can put on headphones so they don't hear the received signals, but in order to transmit, you have to talk. Even if you keep your voice down, it can bother others. How many times have you heard people complain about folks using cell phones in public? But with Morse Code and a good pair of cans, you can operate and make less noise than someone typing on a keyboard. Not really a common circumstance, but I see your point here. 3) It takes up much less spectrum. With good equipment, five to ten Morse Code signals can fit in the same spectrum space required by just one single-sideband voice signal. AM and FM take up even more space on the band. Some very valid points here. None of which mean that there *must* be a Morse Code test for an amateur radio license. I happen to think such a test is a good idea, but that's just my opinion. 4) It's more effective under adverse conditions. A Morse Code signal typically has about 10-13 dB of advanatage over single-sideband voice. That's about 2 S-units. Under conditions that make SSB unusable, or barely usable, Morse Code will often be solid copy with good signals. I could see the challenge in this. I remember a certain thrill back when I was a kid, whenever I managed to make out a distant signal and recognize where it was broadcast from. Exactly! The very fact that it takes some skill is part of the fun and attraction. But some here seem to suggest that if no or little skill is required then it's really not worth pursuing. I strongly dispute that. There are other reasons, but those four come to mind right now. Here's one mo 5) The amount of "bad behavior" problems resulting in FCC enforcement actions is much less from radio amateurs using Morse Code. Just look at the FCC enforcement letters that address violations of deliberate interference, obscenity, exceeding license privileges, and other "bad behavior" problems. Almost all of them are for violations committed using voice modes, not Morse Code. The difference is much greater than would be expected from the relative popularity of the modes. This doesn't mean all voice ops are problems or all Morse Code ops are saints! All it means is that there's a lot less enforcement problems from hams actually using Morse Code. Perhaps the typical ages of people who prefer code could be a factor. It does tend to be considerably older people who prefer code. Somehow, this relates to pixels on my screen but I have yet to understand why my opponent felt the need to misdirect, misrepresent and misquote. Lots of that going around - on both sides. Don't let it bother you - I sure don't. I just don't like the snotty attitude that makes the ARS look so bad. Agreed! There's too much of that type of attitude on *both* sides of the debate. I am still waiting for my government handout. Never had any government handouts in the 44 years I have been around. How does one define "handout"? Based on the comments, it would seem that the offending poster was referring to something that was unique to Canada. About the only thing I can think of is our medical care system. And THAT'S not really free at all, as I will explain further below. For example, is public education of children a government handout? Yes, many parents with kids in public school pay school taxes, but in most districts those taxes paid by parents do not cover all of the costs of the public schools. And the level of taxation does not depend on how many children the parents have in school. Is public school a government handout to people with lots of kids? Or how about tax deductions? Are they a form of government handout? If you have a mortgage or home equity loan, the interest is deductible. If you rent, you don't get that deduction. Is that a government handout to homeowners? Now as for mortgages and home equity loans, the interest is NOT a tax deduction here in Canada. That could be considered a handout that Americans enjoy, something Canadians can't enjoy. Also, Canada is the second highest taxed nation in the world. Renters get a wee bit of a break in some provinces but not here in Alberta, Canada's "Texas". Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to get a clear idea of what is a handout and what isn't. Can none of the pro-coders make a valid point? I just made a couple of valid points. That doesn't mean there *must* be a Morse Code test, just that the mode has some good points. Thank you for making some points in a nice, civilized manner. My pleasure. Thanks for reading. My neighbor, when I was about 12 or younger, had a nifty tower setup. He had 2 tall telephone poles in the ground with enough space between them for a third pole bolted in near the top, adding almost the full length of another pole, save for about 6 feet where all three were bolted together. I was self-supporting. Cool! I recently saw a similar setup used for a repeater antenna in a wooded area. It blended in much better than metal tower. Drove by many many years later. Tower gone. Different house on same lot. I guess you can never go back. |
|
#128
October 11th 06, 11:38 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.scanner,rec.radio.swap
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ping
Opus- wrote:
Sorry I am late in replying. Holiday weekend here in Canada. I hope it was a good one. On 5 Oct 2006 17:05:58 -0700, spake thusly: Opus- wrote: On 5 Oct 2006 04:26:28 -0700, spake thusly: Opus- wrote: The statement is quite simple...a voice on the airwaves can convey much more information than just the words spoken but CW can only convey the words. Morse Code can convey more than the words - if the operators are skilled in it. One of those old timers once told me that he recognized another operators "hand" back when I watched him operate. Yup. Little things about an op's sending can make it as recognizable as a familiar voice. btw, the term "fist" is used in the same context as "hand" was used by that op. Never heard the term "fist" used in this context but it's been a while since I have spent much time with a coder. Both terms are used. Some folks use the term "swing" as well, but that's not exactly a compliment. I am not sure how much more a person can get out of code. The words, of course. How they are sent can tell a lot, too. It takes a bit of experience to recognize all the subtleties of Morse Code. The main point is that skilled Morse Code operators can convey more than 'just the words'. It's not the same thing as a voice, though. I think that is your main point. More than words, but how much more? Quite a bit, but obviously not as much as a voice. The main point is that skilled operators get more than 'just the words'. It's a bit similar to the way that one's perception of the written word is affected by the font, punctuation, capitalization, etc. Not exactly the same, but similar. I also have to believe that code is slower than speech. Not usually a big issue but an issue none the less. Like many things, "it depends". The raw speed of the spoken word is obviously faster. But when you really listen to the way most people speak, the speed is limited by many things. There's a lot of redundancy in the way many people speak, pauses, repeats, "ums" and "ahs', and little phrases tossed in while the person thinks of what to say next. Meanwhile, the skilled Morse Code operator is using abbreviations and other shortcuts that effectively increase the speed way beyond the raw wpm. For example, the first response in a voice QSO might go like this: "VE6QRM, victor-echo-six-quebec-romeo-mike, this is N2EY, november-two-echo-yankee, thanks for the call. You're five and nine, five-nine here, good clear signals. I am in Wayne, Pennsylvania, that's Wayne, whiskey-alpha-yankee-november-echo, Pennsylvania, papa-alpha. Name here is Jim, john-ida-mike, Jim. How do you copy me?....." while using Morse Code, the same exchange could be: "VE6QRM DE N2EY TNX CL BT UR 599 599 GUD SIG IN WAYNE PA WAYNE PA BT OP JIM JIM BT HW?...." Same information, two different modes. If the Morse Code ops are reasonably fast, the time is comparable. It's a different communications experience, just as the written word is a different experience from the spoken word. Fair enough. Exactly. Since the medium and usually the hardware is exactly the same weather or not a microphone or a key is used, why bother with a key that is much more limited? Several reasons: 1) It's often *not* the same hardware. You can use much simpler equipment for Morse Code than for voice modes. Well, I did say "usually". Of course. But wouldn't simpler equipment limit you to code only? That depends on the exact situation. The important point is that once you have Morse Code skills, using code-only equipment isn't really a limitation in most cases. Simplicity of equipment can be very important in some situations. For example, if someone wants to actually build their HF Amateur Radio equipment, it's much simpler and easier to build a Morse Code station than an equivalent-performance voice station. In portable operations, the power requirement, size and weight of a Morse Code station can be less than that of the equivalent voice station. With todays electronics, size and weight really aren't much of an issue. I disagree to a point! Look at the size, weight and performance of HF rigs that you can carry with you. Is there any HF ham rig that's SSB-capable that can compete with the Elecraft KX-1? For fixed-station use, there isn't much size/weight difference, if any. But when you need to carry the rig and batteries any real distance, the differences become apparent. This is also when you will find that the difference in low power performance really matters. 2) It's a different communications experience. (see above). For many of us, that alone makes it worthwhile. I am curious as to what would make it worthwhile. All sorts of things: A) You can communicate without talking or typing. (In a world where a lot of us spend a lot of time on the telephone and computer, being able to communicate another way can be a real treat!) I dunno..I guess I like hearing things like gender or a foreign accent to add spice to communication. Of course. And that's part of the point: different communications experiences. B) The exercise of a skill is fun. Consider the person who learns how to play a musical instrument: do you think making music (performing) is the same experience as listening to recorded music? Hmm..well..not really a good analogy. Listening to music is only a one way street while both performing music, as well as radio communications, is naturally a two way street. I was thinking of the person who performs the music for themselves vs. listening to a recording. Either way, it's still a different experience. Or consider this analogy: It's one thing to drive a car with all the modern conveniences - power steering, automatic transmission, power brakes, cruise control, climate control, etc., and doing it on a smooth straight highway. It's a different experience to drive a car without all those things, on a winding country road where the driver's skill makes a big difference. C) Once you have the skills, communicating with Morse Code can be as easy - or even easier - than using voice. Not quite sure how, but I'll take your word for it. D) You can use Morse Code in situations where voice could not be used. For example, suppose you are in a small house, apartment, RV, tent, etc., and you want to operate without disturbing others (who might be sleeping, talking, etc.). Of course you can put on headphones so they don't hear the received signals, but in order to transmit, you have to talk. Even if you keep your voice down, it can bother others. How many times have you heard people complain about folks using cell phones in public? But with Morse Code and a good pair of cans, you can operate and make less noise than someone typing on a keyboard. Not really a common circumstance, but I see your point here. I think it depends on the amateur's situation. I know plenty of hams with small children in the house, or with limited space for a shack, where the sound issue is a big one. Being able to operate quietly can be the difference between operating and not operating. 3) It takes up much less spectrum. With good equipment, five to ten Morse Code signals can fit in the same spectrum space required by just one single-sideband voice signal. AM and FM take up even more space on the band. Some very valid points here. None of which mean that there *must* be a Morse Code test for an amateur radio license. I happen to think such a test is a good idea, but that's just my opinion. 4) It's more effective under adverse conditions. A Morse Code signal typically has about 10-13 dB of advanatage over single-sideband voice. That's about 2 S-units. Under conditions that make SSB unusable, or barely usable, Morse Code will often be solid copy with good signals. I could see the challenge in this. I remember a certain thrill back when I was a kid, whenever I managed to make out a distant signal and recognize where it was broadcast from. Exactly! The very fact that it takes some skill is part of the fun and attraction. But some here seem to suggest that if no or little skill is required then it's really not worth pursuing. I strongly dispute that. I'm not sure what you mean by "if little or no skill is required, then it's really not worth pursuing". There are other reasons, but those four come to mind right now. Here's one mo 5) The amount of "bad behavior" problems resulting in FCC enforcement actions is much less from radio amateurs using Morse Code. Just look at the FCC enforcement letters that address violations of deliberate interference, obscenity, exceeding license privileges, and other "bad behavior" problems. Almost all of them are for violations committed using voice modes, not Morse Code. The difference is much greater than would be expected from the relative popularity of the modes. This doesn't mean all voice ops are problems or all Morse Code ops are saints! All it means is that there's a lot less enforcement problems from hams actually using Morse Code. Perhaps the typical ages of people who prefer code could be a factor. It does tend to be considerably older people who prefer code. I disagree - for two reasons! First I have found amateurs of all ages who are interested in Morse Code. I have found that young people are interested *if* Morse Code is presented correctly. Some say that, in the modern world, young people who grew up with cell phones and the internet aren't going to sit still for something like Morse Code - or amateur radio. And many won't. However, the very fact that Morse Code is unusual is a big attraction to some of them - *because* it's so different and unusual. They've seen voice comms - they all have cellphones! Typing on a keyboard and reading a screen is something they've seen since they were babies. But Morse Code is completely different. That's what draws many young people - just look at the acceptance of the Harry Potter books. The second reason is that the 'bad behavior' of amateurs on the air doesn't seem to decrease with age. In fact, it may be the opposite! One of the worst offenders here in the USA was a Californian named Jack Gerritsen (ex-KG6IRO). He was found guilty of multiple repeated offenses, all of which involved on-air behavior like jamming, not 'technical' violations. His bad behavior started on the ham bands but spread to public service bands as well, giving amateur radio a black eye. Enforcement efforts up to revoking his license didn't stop him. The guy was totally out of control, a real problem case. So now he is going to prison for seven years and has to pay a fairly serious fine ($21,000US, IIRC). Gerritsen used only voice modes. He is now 70. Somehow, this relates to pixels on my screen but I have yet to understand why my opponent felt the need to misdirect, misrepresent and misquote. Lots of that going around - on both sides. Don't let it bother you - I sure don't. I just don't like the snotty attitude that makes the ARS look so bad. Agreed! There's too much of that type of attitude on *both* sides of the debate. I am still waiting for my government handout. Never had any government handouts in the 44 years I have been around. How does one define "handout"? Based on the comments, it would seem that the offending poster was referring to something that was unique to Canada. About the only thing I can think of is our medical care system. And THAT'S not really free at all, as I will explain further below. I've lost track of who was using the term "handout". I don't think it was you. For example, is public education of children a government handout? Yes, many parents with kids in public school pay school taxes, but in most districts those taxes paid by parents do not cover all of the costs of the public schools. And the level of taxation does not depend on how many children the parents have in school. Is public school a government handout to people with lots of kids? I don't know how Canadian public education is funded, but I suspect that it's not that much different than in the USA - at least to the extent that parents don't pay the full amount, nor does the tax level increase with the number of children in school. Is public education a government handout to people with several children? Or how about tax deductions? Are they a form of government handout? If you have a mortgage or home equity loan, the interest is deductible. If you rent, you don't get that deduction. Is that a government handout to homeowners? Now as for mortgages and home equity loans, the interest is NOT a tax deduction here in Canada. That could be considered a handout that Americans enjoy, something Canadians can't enjoy. Exactly - if one uses the term "handout". A lot of US homeowners would say that they 'deserve' the tax deduction. I would say that the USA uses tax policy as a form of social engineering. By making mortgage and home-equity interest count as a tax deduction, the government is supporting home ownership over renting. Also, Canada is the second highest taxed nation in the world. Really? Who is #1 - Sweden? Renters get a wee bit of a break in some provinces but not here in Alberta, Canada's "Texas". Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to get a clear idea of what is a handout and what isn't. One person's handout is another's entitlement. One more "handout": some (not all) Social Security benefits. Most Americans make payments into Social Security all their working lives. Some never collect a penny, because they die young. But if a person receiving Social Security benefits lives long enough, they will eventually receive more in benefits than they paid into the system - including reasonable interest. Is that a "handout"? Can none of the pro-coders make a valid point? I just made a couple of valid points. That doesn't mean there *must* be a Morse Code test, just that the mode has some good points. Thank you for making some points in a nice, civilized manner. My pleasure. Thanks for reading. My neighbor, when I was about 12 or younger, had a nifty tower setup. He had 2 tall telephone poles in the ground with enough space between them for a third pole bolted in near the top, adding almost the full length of another pole, save for about 6 feet where all three were bolted together. I was self-supporting. Cool! I recently saw a similar setup used for a repeater antenna in a wooded area. It blended in much better than metal tower. Drove by many many years later. Tower gone. Different house on same lot. I guess you can never go back. (sigh) For many years there was a landmark ham tower near here. Custom rotating steel pole, over 100 feet high, with multiple HF Yagis and a full size 2 element 80/75 meter quad. (That's not a typo). All on a typical suburban lot of less than an acre.... It was built by one ham, and when he passed away another one bought the place. But when the second ham passed, the big tower and antennas needed serious work and nobody stepped up to take on the task. So the tower is all gone and the house is like all the others in the area... But some things can be preserved - values, skills, culture. Even if the people and places change. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#129
October 13th 06, 04:19 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some Computer History - Military & Otherwise
From: on Mon, Oct 9 2006 6:20 pm
wrote: From: on Sun, Oct 8 2006 5:29 am wrote: From: on Sat, Oct 7 2006 6:39 am Try as hard as I can, I can't find ANY relatively modern computer that needs 6SN7s (a dual triode, octal base), not even 12AU7s. You didn't look very hard: http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,10...1/article.html ERROR on "correction," Jimmie. That's a 2002 ad-promo, four years OLD. A click on the link for more data turns up blank with the small advisory of no suppliers for this item. :-) Search all you want of the HP, Dell, Compaq, the independents such as PC Club...or the big warehouse suppliers such as CDC or Frys. You won't find any with vacuum tubes in them on the market this year or the year before. Now try to be a MAN, Jimmie, acknowledge your failure to followup on the one-time "deal" of a single audio output tube in a single specialty personal computer. So what? It's only been 60 years since ENIAC was announced... Tsk. You've been around for a decade less and your THINKING is obsolete and self-centered. BTW, what did ENIAC have to do with AMATEUR RADIO? Anything at all? ENIAC and the amateur code test deserve a place in MUSEUMS, not the reality of life in today's world. Please direct any more hero worship of ENIAC to the ACM historian. You DO have an ACM membership, don't you? |
|
#130
October 13th 06, 04:22 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.scanner,rec.radio.swap
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ping
From: on Wed, Oct 11 2006 3:38 am
Opus- wrote: On 5 Oct 2006 17:05:58 -0700, spake thusly: Opus- wrote: On 5 Oct 2006 04:26:28 -0700, spake thusly: Opus- wrote: But when you really listen to the way most people speak, the speed is limited by many things. There's a lot of redundancy in the way many people speak, pauses, repeats, "ums" and "ahs', and little phrases tossed in while the person thinks of what to say next. Meanwhile, the skilled Morse Code operator is using abbreviations and other shortcuts that effectively increase the speed way beyond the raw wpm. A comparison between a poor speaker and a skilled radiotelegrapher is worthy HOW? To shine up the "skilled radiotelegrapher?" [of course...] Compare a good speaker and a poor, unskilled radio- telegrapher's sending and speech becomes way, way faster. With todays electronics, size and weight really aren't much of an issue. I disagree to a point! Look at the size, weight and performance of HF rigs that you can carry with you. Is there any HF ham rig that's SSB-capable that can compete with the Elecraft KX-1? AN/PRC-104...back-pack HF SSB transceiver, operational since 1984. Built by (then) Hughes Aircraft Ground Systems (Hughes purchased by Raytheon). For civilian-only, try the SGC 2020 SSB HF transceiver used by private boat owners as well as hams. For fixed-station use, there isn't much size/weight difference, if any. But when you need to carry the rig and batteries any real distance, the differences become apparent. This is also when you will find that the difference in low power performance really matters. The PRC-104 has an integral automatic antenna matching package (to the right of the transceiver itself). This insures that the manpack set's whip antenna is always tuned for optimum radiated transmission power. SGC has several antenna autotuner models available; separate equipments. Or consider this analogy: It's one thing to drive a car with all the modern conveniences - power steering, automatic transmission, power brakes, cruise control, climate control, etc., and doing it on a smooth straight highway. It's a different experience to drive a car without all those things, on a winding country road where the driver's skill makes a big difference. You have much experience on "winding country roads?" :-) [of course you do, you are an amateur extra morseman...] Are you advocating "no-frills" personal vehicles? Why? I learned to drive in a 1939 Ford, NO automatic trans- mission, NO power steering, NO power brakes, No cruise control, NO "climate control" other than the standard heater. Training ground was an abandoned army camp, one which DID have a few "winding (dirt) roads." If you think for one minute that I would give up a nice, comfortable, well-equipped 2005 Chevy Malibu MAXX just to "rough it" for SOMEONE ELSE'S IDEA of what constitutes "good driving," you've got your head up your ass. Having earned my Army driving license, I will personally challenge you to a Jeep gymkhana (Jeep circa 1940s-1960s) at everything from "smooth straight highways" through "winding country roads" on to OFF-ROAD ANYTHING. I will WIN. Been there, did that, got T-shirts, etc. That standard issue Jeep had NO amenities except for the post-1950 winch and cable over the front bumper. "Climate control" was whatever the climate was outside. The "power transmission" was a couple gear shifts operated by arm strength and experienced clutch operation. Ptui. HOW MANY personal vehicles have YOU DESIGNED and BUILT? Include auto kits if you need to. HOW MANY thousands of miles have YOU driven? Over "winding country roads?" [I don't think so unless you count the old driveway to the Doylestown Barn Cinema...] I've driven the VERY winding country road (rough surface) to a Wyoming working ranch (cattle brand registered in Wyoming is "B-1 Bomber") from/to highway. Perhaps the typical ages of people who prefer code could be a factor. It does tend to be considerably older people who prefer code. I disagree - for two reasons! First I have found amateurs of all ages who are interested in Morse Code. If all you have is a hammer, naturally everything looks like a nail to you... I have found that young people are interested *if* Morse Code is presented correctly. Sado-masochism is still prevalent in the human condition. Some say that, in the modern world, young people who grew up with cell phones and the internet aren't going to sit still for something like Morse Code - or amateur radio. And many won't. Unquantified numbers. You are waffling on your emotional reasons. However, the very fact that Morse Code is unusual is a big attraction to some of them - *because* it's so different and unusual. They've seen voice comms - they all have cellphones! Typing on a keyboard and reading a screen is something they've seen since they were babies. One in three Americans has a cell phone. Census Bureau said so in a public statement in 2004. Back in the late 1940s - a time well before cell phones, personal computers, with (mostly) only sound broadcasting - there was NO great "novelty" or "interest" in morse code communications. Been there, seen that, see no difference now. But Morse Code is completely different. That's what draws many young people - just look at the acceptance of the Harry Potter books. So, write the author of the "Harry Potter" series and have her (J. K. Rowling) "introduce" morse code as "magic." :-) BWAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! * M A G I C M O R S E * BWAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But some things can be preserved - values, skills, culture. Even if the people and places change. Preservation of the Past is the job of MUSEUMS. Why do you insist on keeping a "living museum" in amateur radio through federal license testing for morse code in only AMATEUR radio? YOU had to test for it so everyone else has to... Fraternal order HAZING having NO tangible value except to amuse those ALREADY tested for code. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| shortwv | Shortwave | |||
| 178 English-language HF Broadcasts audible in NE US | Shortwave | |||
| Amateur Radio Newslineâ„¢ Report 1402 Â June 25, 2004 | Shortwave | |||
| Amateur Radio Newslineâ„¢ Report 1402 Â June 25, 2004 | General | |||
| 214 English-language HF Broadcasts audible in NE US (09-APR-04) | Shortwave | |||
Linear Mode
