|
Part B, Is the code requirement really keeping good people out?
|
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 |
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 |
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. |
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 |
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. |
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 |
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? |
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. |
Morsemanship and other things
From: on Tues, Oct 10 2006 3:40 am
Dave Heil wrote: wrote: From: Dave Heil on Sun, Oct 8 2006 3:22 am wrote: Len never attended a Roman Catholic parochial school. Was never taught by nuns or smacked around by them. Was the parochial school *required*...like morse code ability *required* to transmit on HF? :-) Lutherans don't go to parochial schools, Jimmie. :-) Jimmie ever nail some theses to church doors? :-) Jimmie NEVER served in any military, not even as chaplain. Not even as Charlie Chaplin. Poor Jimmie can't stand the mental picture his own mind generated. :-) 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. True, it IS worthy of grown-up sarcasm tossed at smug, arrogant, self-defined amateur extra morsemen gods of radio. :-) First Rule of Comedy: The audience determines what's funny. If the audience doesn't think it's funny, it's not funny. Jimmie is "expert" in show business?!? Jimmie can come out west and tell Mitzi Shore how to run her Comedy Store Club. :-) When Jimmie be on Letterman's show? (all should know so they can tune in to Leno instead...) Jimmie have SAG card? SEG card? AFTRA card? Len thinks he is either the Pope or royalty. Neither. :-) I am for DEMOCRACY...all to be heard on subjects. Such will end soon as "moderation" begins in here. He's all about "rank, status, and privilege". YES! TO the smug, arrogant, self-defined gots of radio, better known as the amateur extra morsemen. Poor amateur extra morsemen have no sense of humor about their own selves and their life work. Tsk. First Rule of Comedy invoked. ByteBrothers famous phrase invoked. Morsemanship makes you superhuman. Well, since Len won't describe what "morsemanship" is, here's a working definition: NOT the correct "definition." I coined the word. YOU don't get to mint copies (knockoffs). You can try, but it will be in ERROR as your usual failure to recognize that others don't think like you do. A MORSEMAN lives, breathes, eats morse code as the main topic of his/her life. A MORSEMAN wants to freeze time back in the 1930s when code was king of small station communications. A typical MORSEMAN has the callsign K4YZ, N2EY, or K8MN but those are otherwise indistinguishable from one another. Anonymous MORSEMEN are represented by "Slow Code" and his general angry attitude towards anyone not worshipping him. As always to you, ByteBrothers famous phrase invoked. |
Some Computer History - Military & Otherwise
wrote:
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," Yes, *you* made an error, Len. That's a 2002 ad-promo, four years OLD. You wrote: "I can't find ANY relatively modern computer that needs 6SN7s (a dual triode, octal base), not even 12AU7s." 2002 is certainly "relatively modern" compared to 1946. You made a mistake, Len. A click on the link for more data turns up blank with the small advisory of no suppliers for this item. :-) You specified "relatively modern", not "current production". 2002 is "relatively modern" compared to 1946. And that system was brand-new in 2002. 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. So what? You specified "relatively modern", not "current production". 2002 is "relatively modern" compared to 1946. And that system was brand-new in 2002. You cannot change the criteria after the fact. 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. You mean, like someone who doesn't want the zoning in their neighhborhood to change in any way at all? Who wants the standards of the very early 1960s to be enshrined forever in his neighborhood? Like someone who wants to stop development of land he does not own? BTW, what did ENIAC have to do with AMATEUR RADIO? That it was practical in its time. What do your ramblings about non-amateur-radio subjects have to do with amateur radio, Len? Anything at all? Oh yes. Many of those who worked on ENIAC were hams. You did not work on ENIAC and have never been a ham.... ENIAC and the amateur code test deserve a place in MUSEUMS, not the reality of life in today's world. In your *opinion*. Please direct any more hero worship of ENIAC to the ACM historian. Why deal with second handers when the real stuff is out there? Did you finish reading the US Army historical monograph I linked to? Here are the links again: Electronic Computers Within the Ordnance Corps Historical Monograph from 1961 Karl Kempf Historical Officer Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD November 1961 Index: http://ftp.arl.mil/~mike/comphist/61ordnance/index.html Chap 2 on ENIAC: http://ftp.arl.mil/~mike/comphist/61ordnance/chap2.html Tree of Computing: http://ftp.arl.mil/~mike/comphist/61ordnance/chap7.html That's the real stuff, straight from the Army. Covers not only ENIAC but its successors. Read what the US Army Historical Officer wrote in the official US Army documents. The "Tree of Computing" sums it up nicely. btw, the "Ordnance Corps" are the nice folks who take care of things like how to do artillery barrages.... |
Some Computer History - Military & Otherwise
From: on Fri, Oct 13 2006 3:44am
wrote: 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," Yes, *you* made an error, Len. That's a 2002 ad-promo, four years OLD. You wrote: "I can't find ANY relatively modern computer that needs 6SN7s (a dual triode, octal base), not even 12AU7s." 2002 is certainly "relatively modern" compared to 1946. You made a mistake, Len. Only under Jimmie's whiny little REdefinition of the word "mistake." :-) The original IBM PC that debuted in 1980 (26 years ago) did NOT have any vacuum tubes in it. Neither did any subsequent IBM PC...right on up to the total emptying of IBM's Boca Raton, FL, PC operations. Did IBM ever produce any AMATEUR RADIO products? No? Then why do you go on and on and on and on about this niche subject and the "glory" that was ENIAC? Did ENIAC ever serve AMATEUR RADIO in any way? If you look back at personal computing, you will NOT find any vacuum tubes used in them...except in your absolute world a couple of short-lived PC systems that incorporated a CRT (a vacuum tube) into the PC package. [CP/M OS systems using an 8080 or Z80 CPU] The original Apple (6502 processor based) didn't use vacuum tubes. The original Apple Macintosh packaged a CRT into the Mac's box since it brought out the icon- based GUI display that was possible only with CRTs at that time. Did ANY of the Apple computers use a vacuum tube for SOUND output? No? Look to the earlier personal computers such as the Commodore, Atari, Sinclair, etc., etc., etc. NONE had any vacuum tubes in them for SOUND output. NONE of the pocket calculators had vacuum tubes. Some of the earlier desktop calculators had GAS displays for alphanumerics; HP and Tektronix both had PCs with incorporated CRTs (in which the very earliest models had some vacuum tubes for the CRT HV supply circuits). NONE had any tubes for SOUND output. There's a niche area of guitarists who prefer tubes for the particular "warm sound" (distorted) they associate with over-driving amplifiers. That "tube sound" MYTH has been 'over-driven' to the point of nausea, about like the "gold-coated speaker cable" myth that is claimed to produce "golden sound" from music amplifiers. :-) Tube amps and gold-coated "monster cable" is a triumph of Public Relations bull**** warping the minds of the buying public. Not unlike the mythos of morse that was CREATED in earlier radio. :-) A click on the link for more data turns up blank with the small advisory of no suppliers for this item. :-) You specified "relatively modern", not "current production". 2002 is "relatively modern" compared to 1946. And that system was brand-new in 2002. That ONE system was DEFUNCT before 2005. :-) Go back to the personal computer bellweather year of 1980. Any of those personal computers on the market use vacuum tubes? No? 26 years ago is NOT "current production" nor is it hardly "relatively modern." :-) 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. So what? You specified "relatively modern", not "current production". 2002 is "relatively modern" compared to 1946. And that system was brand-new in 2002. You cannot change the criteria after the fact. Your whining, foot stamping, and crying out "mistake! mistake!" about a SINGLE exception in the millions upon millions of personal computers based on the original IBM architecture PC of 26 years ago is a lot of your bull****, Jimmie. That your SINGLE exception went DEFUNCT after a year on the market only proves that you are a whiny, foot-stamping, cryer who is bound and determined to attempt humiliation of anyone disagreeing with you. You've proved that activity for years in here. :-) BTW, what did ENIAC have to do with AMATEUR RADIO? That it was practical in its time. ENIAC did something for RADIO? [I don't think so...] What do your ramblings about non-amateur-radio subjects have to do with amateur radio, Len? "Non-amateur-radio subjects?" Like ENIAC? An early mainframe computer that was really a programmable calculator? :-) Anything at all? Oh yes. Many of those who worked on ENIAC were hams. Name them. :-) Did they become hams JUST to work on ENIAC? How was ENIAC used in RADIO? You did not work on ENIAC and have never been a ham.... I've never claimed to... :-) However, I was alive in 1946 and you were not. :-) YOU never worked on ENIAC. You've never claimed to have worked on ANY computer, main-frame, minicomputer, nor personal computer. Are you a member of the ACM? [Association for Computing Machinery, the first and still-existing professional association for computing and information technology] I was a voting member of the ACM for a few years. Jimmie is NOT a military veteran. Jimmie can never be a military veteran. Jimmie has never done anything on computers except to operate personal computers in endless tirades against no-coders. ENIAC and the amateur code test deserve a place in MUSEUMS, not the reality of life in today's world. In your *opinion*. ...yes, an OPINION shared by thousands and thousands and thousands of others. As of 2004 the US Census Bureau stated that 1 out of 5 Americans had SOME access to the Internet. That involves access via a personal computer (or its cousin, the "work- station"). That is roughly 50 to 60 MILLION Americans. The original (and only) ENIAC used an architecture that is NOT common to present-day personal computers. About the only term that IS common is that ENIAC used "digital circuits." That's about the end of it for commonality with MILLIONS and MILLIONS of personal computers in the daily use worldwide. The ONLY radio service in the USA still requiring tested morse code skill to permit operation below 30 MHz is the AMATEUR radio service. ALL of the other radio services have either dropped morse code for communications or never considered it when that radio service was formed. There is NO wired or wireless communications service in the USA that uses manual telegraphy means today. Defunct. Kaput. Please direct any more hero worship of ENIAC to the ACM historian. Why deal with second handers when the real stuff is out there? "Real stuff?!?" ENIAC is a MUSEUM PIECE, Jimmie. It is NOT "real stuff" except in your mind. It serves ONLY the Moore School of Engineering as an EXHIBIT for PR purposes. It is a dinosaur. Defunct. Kaput. Did you finish reading the US Army historical monograph I linked to? No. I rank that along with some "US Army historical" things that described George Armstrong Custer as a "hero" of the June 1876 Battle of the Little Big Horn. Some "hero." A loose cannon who was LAST in his West Point class, a poor tactician who made a tragic, fatal mistake for the 7th Cavalry. Thank you, but NO, I'd rather read the NON-PR historical references that described things as the REALLY were without the orgasmic after-glow of hero worship. ENIAC never saw battle, Jimmie. It was never close to the battlefields like the Brit's Colossus nor did it "solve ciphers" (decryption) like Colossus did. The US military DOES have fielded computers (plural) and systems which ARE useable today and ARE in use. You can read about those if you wish...but you won't since none of them are directly related to ENIAC. Indeed, NONE of today's computers are related to ENIAC any more than WE are "related" to some proto-humans of Africa. btw, the "Ordnance Corps" are the nice folks who take care of things like how to do artillery barrages.... No, Jimmie Noserve, the "ordnance" folks maintain the ammunition and weaponry. The ARTILLERY folks do the actual laying-in and firing. Really. Had you ever served in the military (you didn't) you would be informed of that. In the US Army, the "line" (those who are the most involved with actual battle) units are INFANTRY, ARTILLERY, and ARMOR. All other units exist to serve them. As ever to you, the ByteBrothers famous phrase is invoked. |
Some Computer History - Military & Otherwise
wrote btw, the "Ordnance Corps" are the nice folks who take care of things like how to do artillery barrages.... Nope. The Ordnance Corps counts and stores the 'bullets' and such chores. The Artillery folks take care of pointing and shooting 'em. Sunnuvagun! boom boom de Hans, K0HB |
Some Computer History - Military & Otherwise
KØHB wrote:
wrote btw, the "Ordnance Corps" are the nice folks who take care of things like how to do artillery barrages.... Nope. The Ordnance Corps counts and stores the 'bullets' and such chores.. The Artillery folks take care of pointing and shooting 'em. But somebody has to tell them *how* and *where* to point 'em and shoot 'em, right? From what it says in "Electronic Computers Within the Ordnance Corps" Index: http://ftp.arl.mil/~mike/comphist/61ordnance/index.html the computation/preparation of firing tables was the primary official reason for the design and construction of ENIAC. Did the Historical Officer at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds get it wrong? Sunnuvagun! HAW! Perfect setuo! boom boom 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Some Computer History - Military & Otherwise
wrote:
From: on Fri, Oct 13 2006 3:44am wrote: 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," Yes, *you* made an error, Len. That's a 2002 ad-promo, four years OLD. You wrote: "I can't find ANY relatively modern computer that needs 6SN7s (a dual triode, octal base), not even 12AU7s." 2002 is certainly "relatively modern" compared to 1946. You made a mistake, Len. Only under whiny little REdefinition of the word "mistake." :-) Nope. You made a mistake, pure and simple. That is, unless you deliberately wrote an untruth with the intent to deceive, in which case it was a lie. The original IBM PC that debuted in 1980 (26 years ago) did NOT have any vacuum tubes in it. The display that came with it had a CRT. The portable IBM PC, with built-in display, had a CRT as well. Neither did any subsequent IBM PC...right on up to the total emptying of IBM's Boca Raton, FL, PC operations. But you didn't ask about the "IBM PC" You wrote that you "can't find ANY relatively modern computer" with vacuum tubes. Not just IBM PCs, but "ANY relatively modern computer". Did IBM ever produce any AMATEUR RADIO products? No? Then why do you go on and on and on and on about this niche subject and the "glory" that was ENIAC? To prove a point, Len: That a thing can be practical in its time even if it is considered impractical in other times, and even if it is never repeated. That's true whether the device is ENIAC, Fessenden's early AM voice work with modulated alternators, or something completely different. I proved my point. You are now trying to misdirect, rather than admit you were flat-out wrong. Did ENIAC ever serve AMATEUR RADIO in any way? Yes. If you look back at personal computing, you will NOT find any vacuum tubes used in them...except in your absolute world a couple of short-lived PC systems that incorporated a CRT (a vacuum tube) into the PC package. [CP/M OS systems using an 8080 or Z80 CPU] The computer I referenced used a vacuum tube. The portable IBM PC used a CRT, too. The original Apple (6502 processor based) didn't use vacuum tubes. The original Apple Macintosh packaged a CRT into the Mac's box since it brought out the icon- based GUI display that was possible only with CRTs at that time. Did ANY of the Apple computers use a vacuum tube for SOUND output? No? You didn't ask about the "original Apple" You wrote that you "can't find ANY relatively modern computer" with vacuum tubes. Not just Apples, but "ANY relatively modern computer". Look to the earlier personal computers such as the Commodore, Atari, Sinclair, etc., etc., etc. NONE had any vacuum tubes in them for SOUND output. NONE of the pocket calculators had vacuum tubes. Some of the earlier desktop calculators had GAS displays for alphanumerics; HP and Tektronix both had PCs with incorporated CRTs (in which the very earliest models had some vacuum tubes for the CRT HV supply circuits). NONE had any tubes for SOUND output. Doesn't matter, Len. You could have found the link I provided with just a few keystrokes. There's a niche area of guitarists who prefer tubes for the particular "warm sound" (distorted) they associate with over-driving amplifiers. Are you a musician, Len? That "tube sound" MYTH has been 'over-driven' to the point of nausea, about like the "gold-coated speaker cable" myth that is claimed to produce "golden sound" from music amplifiers. :-) Tell it to those who actually play the things. Tube amps and gold-coated "monster cable" is a triumph of Public Relations bull**** warping the minds of the buying public. You are confusing audiophools with audiophiles. Not unlike the mythos of morse that was CREATED in earlier radio. :-) By whom? As I have shown, voice radio was practical as early was 1906, and in regular use for broadcasting by 1921. Yet Morse Code on radio was used by many radio services for many more decades after 1921. The use of Morse Code by the US Coast Guard and the maritime radio services lasted well into the 1990s. That's more than 90 years after Fessenden's voice transmissions, and more than 75 vears after 1921. Morse Code is still in wide use in Amateur Radio today - almost 100 years after Fessenden. It wasn't "mythos" that kept Morse Code in use. A click on the link for more data turns up blank with the small advisory of no suppliers for this item. :-) You specified "relatively modern", not "current production". 2002 is "relatively modern" compared to 1946. And that system was brand-new in 2002. That ONE system was DEFUNCT before 2005. :-) How do you know? Are there none in use today? Go back to the personal computer bellweather year of 1980. Why? Any of those personal computers on the market use vacuum tubes? Yes - in the CRTs. No? Are you confused? 26 years ago is NOT "current production" nor is it hardly "relatively modern." :-) 2002 is relatively modern, Len. 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. So what? You specified "relatively modern", not "current production". 2002 is "relatively modern" compared to 1946. And that system was brand-new in 2002. You cannot change the criteria after the fact. Your whining, foot stamping, and crying out "mistake! mistake!" about a SINGLE exception in the millions upon millions of personal computers based on the original IBM architecture PC of 26 years ago is a lot of your bull****, Gee, Len, you're the one carrying on like an overtired two-year-old. I'm calm, cool and collected. Not whining, foot stamping, or crying out anything. I'm just correcting your mistakes with facts. Basic Logic 101, Len: If you make an absolute statement that something never happens, does not exist, or always happens, and someone provides one or more exceptions, your statement is proved false. That's all there is to it. Doesn't matter if there is just one exception or many, the absolute statement is proved false - invalid - a mistake - if there is an exception. That your SINGLE exception went DEFUNCT after a year on the market only proves that you are a whiny, foot-stamping, cryer who is bound and determined to attempt humiliation of anyone disagreeing with you. It seems that you consider any correction of your mistakes to be a humiliation. Why is that? You've proved that activity for years in here. :-) You keep making mistakes and I keep correcting some of them. BTW, what did ENIAC have to do with AMATEUR RADIO? That it was practical in its time. ENIAC did something for RADIO? [I don't think so...] Actually, it did. What do your ramblings about non-amateur-radio subjects have to do with amateur radio, Len? "Non-amateur-radio subjects?" Yes. Like ENIAC? Like your experiences in Japan, real estate, "computer modem communications", and a host of other non-amateur-radio subjects. An early mainframe computer that was really a programmable calculator? :-) Did the Aberdeen Proving Ground Historical Officer get it wrong? "ELECTRONIC COMPUTERS WITHIN THE ORDNANCE CORPS CHAPTER II -- ENIAC The World's First Electronic Automatic Computer" http://ftp.arl.mil/~mike/comphist/61ordnance/chap2.html You did not work on ENIAC and have never been a ham.... I've never claimed to... :-) However, I was alive in 1946 and you were not. :-) YOU never worked on ENIAC. You've never claimed to have worked on ANY computer, main-frame, minicomputer, nor personal computer. You are mistaken. Are you a member of the ACM? [Association for Computing Machinery, the first and still-existing professional association for computing and information technology] I was a voting member of the ACM for a few years. And now you're not? ENIAC and the amateur code test deserve a place in MUSEUMS, not the reality of life in today's world. In your *opinion*. ...yes, an OPINION shared by thousands and thousands and thousands of others. Yet when it came time to express that opinion to FCC, there were *more* who held the opinion that the Morse Code test should remain as a requirement for at least some US amateur radio licenses. Do you believe in democracy, Len? The majority of those who expressed an opinion on the Morse Code test to FCC want at least some Morse Code testing to remain. As of 2004 the US Census Bureau stated that 1 out of 5 Americans had SOME access to the Internet. That involves access via a personal computer (or its cousin, the "work- station"). That is roughly 50 to 60 MILLION Americans. Old news. Are you still tied to dialup? The original (and only) ENIAC used an architecture that is NOT common to present-day personal computers. About the only term that IS common is that ENIAC used "digital circuits." That's about the end of it for commonality with MILLIONS and MILLIONS of personal computers in the daily use worldwide. Nope. Wrong. See: The Tree of Computing: http://ftp.arl.mil/~mike/comphist/61ordnance/chap7.html The ONLY radio service in the USA still requiring tested morse code skill to permit operation below 30 MHz is the AMATEUR radio service. Because the amateur radio service *uses* the mode extensively. ALL of the other radio services have either dropped morse code for communications or never considered it when that radio service was formed. So what? Amateurs use it. Why should the test for an amateur license not cover what amateurs actually do? There is NO wired or wireless communications service in the USA that uses manual telegraphy means today. Are you sure? And even if it's true - so what? That's not amateur radio. Please direct any more hero worship of ENIAC to the ACM historian. Why deal with second handers when the real stuff is out there? "Real stuff?!?" Yes - like this: "ELECTRONIC COMPUTERS WITHIN THE ORDNANCE CORPS CHAPTER II -- ENIAC The World's First Electronic Automatic Computer" http://ftp.arl.mil/~mike/comphist/61ordnance/chap2.html ENIAC is a MUSEUM PIECE, Now it is. But for almost a decade it was used by the US Army for a wide variety of calculations. And it was the root of the Tree of Computing. Didn't you read the monograph? It is NOT "real stuff" except in your mind. It's real, Len. A part of it still works, too. It serves ONLY the Moore School of Engineering as an EXHIBIT for PR purposes. It is a dinosaur. Defunct. Kaput. Part of it still works, though. Did you finish reading the US Army historical monograph I linked to? No. Then you are hiding from the truth. I rank that along with some "US Army historical" things that described George Armstrong Custer as a "hero" of the June 1876 Battle of the Little Big Horn. Some "hero." A loose cannon who was LAST in his West Point class, a poor tactician who made a tragic, fatal mistake for the 7th Cavalry. Custer had nothing to do with ENIAC. And if you didn't read the monograph, how do you know what it says? Thank you, but NO, I'd rather read the NON-PR historical references that described things as the REALLY were without the orgasmic after-glow of hero worship. I think you're afraid of reading a history that disproves your cherished opinions and biases, Len. The facts presented in the monograph are too upsetting to you for you to even read them. ENIAC never saw battle, Why should it? It was never close to the battlefields like the Brit's Colossus nor did it "solve ciphers" (decryption) like Colossus did. The US military DOES have fielded computers (plural) and systems which ARE useable today and ARE in use. You can read about those if you wish...but you won't since none of them are directly related to ENIAC. They're all directly related to ENIAC because they are its descendants. Indeed, NONE of today's computers are related to ENIAC any more than WE are "related" to some proto-humans of Africa. More than 95% of human DNA is identical to that of chimpanzees, Len. btw, the "Ordnance Corps" are the nice folks who take care of things like how to do artillery barrages.... No, the "ordnance" folks maintain the ammunition and weaponry. Then who makes up the firing tables? The ARTILLERY folks do the actual laying-in and firing. The Ordnance Corps tells them how to do that. Firing tables - remember? Really. Had you ever served in the military (you didn't) you would be informed of that. In the US Army, the "line" (those who are the most involved with actual battle) units are INFANTRY, ARTILLERY, and ARMOR. All other units exist to serve them. As ever to you, the ByteBrothers famous phrase is invoked. What phrase is that, Len? "Klaatu barada necto"? "All your base are belong to us"? "Shut the hell up, you little USMC feldwebel"? Which phrase is it? |
Morsemanship and other things
|
Ping
|
Morsemanship and other things
wrote Lutherans don't go to parochial schools, Jimmie. :-) Gee, I wonder who goes to these schools...... ****copalians? http://www.faithlutheran.net/phpw/ph...e &PAGE_id=14 http://www.stpetermodesto.org/mainschool.htm http://stmarkslutheran.com/School/index.htm http://www.stpaulsfirst.org/school_index.cfm (Just a few of thousands you could Google up.) Beep beep de Hans, K0HB |
Some Computer History - Military & Otherwise
|
Ping
wrote:
wrote: 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...] Listen to the way *most people* speak, Len. 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. Not mentioned are the fact that voice mode radio ops often do repeats and phonetic spellings. "My name is Mike--Mike(??????) India Kilo Echo--Mike." Compare a good speaker and a poor, unskilled radio- telegrapher's sending and speech becomes way, way faster. So? Most people don't speak like they're reading a script. 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?" :-) Yes. Do you? Note that Len seems to think he is making a joke. [of course you do, you are an amateur extra morseman...] Lots of people who aren't radio amateurs, drive on winding country roads. Are you advocating "no-frills" personal vehicles? Why? Why not? Why not indeed? 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. Sounds like the car I learned to drive in. It sounds better than my first car, though mine had advanced climate control--a dashboard vent, crank windows and vent windows. 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. It's not about *you*, Len. To Len, it is always about Len. 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. Why would you give up a nice, comfortable, well-equipped 2005 Chevy Malibu MAXX just to "rough it", Len? It doesn't matter, Jim. Len has thrown the gauntlet. He's out for blood. I will WIN. Maybe. Maybe not. You don't really know, you're just bragging because you know it won't happen. You saw through the bluster? Been there, did that, got T-shirts, etc. That doesn't mean you would win. It just means that Len has some really old T-shirts. 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. What's your point - that you spit at Jeeps? He thought they were technologically challenged then and he still thinks so? HOW MANY personal vehicles have YOU DESIGNED and BUILT? Include auto kits if you need to. What does it matter? I could tell you about the time I took two junker cars and made one good one out of them, but you'd find fault with that, somehow. But that doesn't answer the question "HOW MANY". HOW MANY thousands of miles have YOU driven? Gosh, Len, I don't really know. Probably more than you, though. I think I've driven more miles in the past six years than Len has logged over the past twenty. Is there a prize for miles driven? Over "winding country roads?" Enough. Three quarters of mine have been over winding and hilly country roads. Then again, I live in the country. Go figure. What's the prize? [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. What does that have to do with anything, Len? That was a detour on a winding country road. 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've got a lot more tools than just a hammer. I know how to use them, too. If you're a nail, everything headed your way appears to be a hammer. I have found that young people are interested *if* Morse Code is presented correctly. Sado-masochism is still prevalent in the human condition. And yet you claim you have no problem with people using Morse Code.... But we knew from his past posts, that simply isn't true. 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. "Amateur" is derived from the Latin word for "love". Means to do something for the love of the thing alone. Emotional reasons, IOW. Len is primarily motivated by those things which generate money. The fact is that there are plenty of young people who like Morse Code and learn it readily. I think that's one reason you want an age limit for an amateur radio license - so those code-skilled young folks can't get a license until they're 14. 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. So what? The "so" is that two out of three American *don't* have a cellular phone. When I was a teenager, practically everyone had a telephone. Why should anyone have a ham rig at home when they can just talk on the telephone? My dad discouraged me from talking on the phone when I was a teen. He didn't do that with amateur radio unless I was trying to operate on 15m and there was a football game on TV. 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. Sure there was. Ham radio was growing by leaps and bounds then. You were not part of it. Len must have missed a couple of decades. Been there, seen that, see no difference now. IOW, nobody should do what *you* don't enjoy. I'm more concerned that Len thinks that because he is ignorant of the historical facts of amateur radio in the late 1940's, everyone is ignorant. 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 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ?? It's a California thing. 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. Preservation of values, skills and culture is everyone's job. Len doesn't seem to think that it is his job. Why do you insist on keeping a "living museum" in amateur radio through federal license testing for morse code in only AMATEUR radio? It's not a living museum. Far from it. Radio amateurs use many modes daily. CW is one of 'em. YOU had to test for it so everyone else has to... Nope. Morse Code should be a license requirement because amateurs use it. The skill is part of being a qualified radio amateur. Simple as that. There are thousands and thousands of morse QSOs taking place on the ham bands daily. Fraternal order HAZING having NO tangible value except to amuse those ALREADY tested for code. It's not about hazing, Len. It's about being qualified. You're not qualified. There's been enough false material penned here about hazing, hoops, rituals and the like to last a lifetime. Len may use all the cellular phones, cordless phones, Family Radio Service HT's and Citizen's Band transceivers he likes. He isn't a radio amateur and likely will never become a radio amateur. All of his talk has been bluster and boast. Dave K8MN |
Pong
Dave Heil wrote: wrote: wrote: From: on Wed, Oct 11 2006 3:38 am Fraternal order HAZING having NO tangible value except to amuse those ALREADY tested for code. It's not about hazing, Len. It's about being qualified. You're not qualified. There's been enough false material penned here about hazing, hoops, rituals and the like to last a lifetime. and they are told by the MM in isnsiting the Morse Code testing is nohing but a frat house game |
Some Computer History - Military & Otherwise
From: "KØHB" on Sat, Oct 14 2006 4:15am
wrote Lutherans don't go to parochial schools, Jimmie. :-) Gee, I wonder who goes to these schools...... ****copalians? http://www.faithlutheran.net/phpw/phpw/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_pag e&PAGE_id=14 http://www.stpetermodesto.org/mainschool.htm http://stmarkslutheran.com/School/index.htm http://www.stpaulsfirst.org/school_index.cfm (Just a few of thousands you could Google up.) Beep beep de Hans, K0HB Tsk, I was thinking of the "parochial school" run by the Church of St. Hiram. You can Google it at: http://www.arrl.org Beepity beep |
Morsemanship and other things
From: "KØHB" on Sat, Oct 14 2006 4:15am
wrote Lutherans don't go to parochial schools, Jimmie. :-) Gee, I wonder who goes to these schools...... ****copalians? http://www.faithlutheran.net/phpw/phpw/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_pag e&PAGE_id=14 http://www.stpetermodesto.org/mainschool.htm http://stmarkslutheran.com/School/index.htm http://www.stpaulsfirst.org/school_index.cfm (Just a few of thousands you could Google up.) Beep beep de Hans, K0HB Tsk, I was thinking of the "parochial school" run by the Church of St. Hiram. You can Google it at: http://www.arrl.org Beepity beep |
Some Computer History - Military & Otherwise
|
Morsemanship and other things
From: on Fri, Oct 13 2006 6:27 pm
wrote: From: on Tues, Oct 10 2006 3:40 am Dave Heil wrote: wrote: From: Dave Heil on Sun, Oct 8 2006 3:22 am wrote: Len never attended a Roman Catholic parochial school. Was never taught by nuns or smacked around by them. Was the parochial school *required*... How many kids get to choose what school they attend? Some 14-year-olds chose the "parochial school" run by the Church of St. Hiram. Google it at www.arrl.org :-) Then you cannot know what Roman Catholic parochial school was like, Len. Is it a deep, dark SECRET, Jimmie? :-) Something like the Masons? Is it something like a NON-serving civilian telling a real veteran "all about" the military? That's right. You're just not funny, Len. Awwww...you got hit by a ripe tomato of sarcasm? Tsk, tsk. No, it's just pathetic. Nein, alte doppleganger...it was RIGHT ON THE MONEY. :-) can come out west and tell Mitzi Shore how to run her Comedy Store Club. :-) She will tell you that the First Rule applies. If the audience doesn't laugh, the act isn't funny. Tsk, tsk, Mitzi let her son Pauly do stand-up there and he BOMBED. :-) Not once but several times. His "films" were kept alive only by PR. Have you EVER been to a comedy club, Jimmie? An Improv group? Ever DO stand-up comedy? [obviously not...:-) ] A couple of Morse-code-skilled radio amateurs were on Leno a while back. They made mincemeat of the *world champion* text messager. "World champion?!?" BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No "mincemeat" occurred, Jimmie. Really. If it did then NBC and KNBC-TV (where the show is taped) would have made headlines on page 1 with civil suits against them. Then why do you use the first person plural pronoun to refer to yourself? Is Mother Superior warming up her knuckle-spanking ruler again? :-) Yes, she IS! Bad habit, Jimmie. Recently you said you wanted rrap to be shut down for an indefinite length of time. Is that the action of someone who really believes that all should be heard? Considering the ANARCHY that has happened in this newsgroup it sure as hell is NOT "democracy." :-) Every freedom carries with it a related responsibility. No problem with me. I volunteered for US Army military service. You have NEVER volunteered for any military service. You have NEVER volunteered for any government service as a civilian. Do you see enjoying your radio hobby as a "service to the nation?" Does your license say you are "defending the Constitution of the United States? Freedom of Speech carries with it the Responsibility of Truth. Who said so (besides yourself)? Have you knuckle-spanked any Political Party member lately? :-) You really should do that, Jimmie. Their "responsibility of truth" is stretched way beyond even your strict REdefinitions of "truth!" :-) I *have* several radios.... Ech. MATERIAL things, Jimmie. Can you communicate on them simultaneously by yourself? "Who is John Galt?" I don't know (Ayn Rand did, but she is dead). What was his (or her) call? I coined the word. But you didn't define it, even after several requests. It should be SELF-DEFINING to anyone with more than four working neurons. Language is constantly evolving, Len. You got left behind. Morse code is a STATIC representation of the English language, numbers, and common punctuation. It hasn't "evolved." :-) I think more people agree with my definition than with yours. Tsk, your EGO is bigger than your bread box... :-) Well, that leaves me out. Morse Code is just one small part of my life. Tsk, tsk. You are OBSESSED with keeping that morse code test for a US amateur radio license having below-30-MHz privileges. That and attempting to defame any no-code-test advocate in here seem to be the highlight of your free time. :-) Not me. I'm right here in 2006. Really? I thought you were still back in 1946 worshipping ENIAC... chant "Hail ENIAC, full of grace, wonder of the world..." As always to you, ByteBrothers famous phrase invoked. What phrase is that, Len? "If you don't know that information, all of your latest diatribe is rather pointless." Just do a few keystrokes, Jimmie, you will eventually turn it up. You DO know how to use a search engine, don't you? Of course you do...you are an "engineer." :-) Here's a hint: You might - if searching properly - turn up the common asterisk-spaced acronym of it. Since you were never a ByteBrother you will have to ask one. :-) Ptui. |
Ping
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote: wrote: 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...] Listen to the way *most people* speak, Len. 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. Not mentioned are the fact that voice mode radio ops often do repeats and phonetic spellings. "My name is Mike--Mike(??????) India Kilo Echo--Mike." Of course. Also, if the transmission is something that needs to be written down, like a formal message, the effective speed drops to the writing speed of the person receiving the message. Compare a good speaker and a poor, unskilled radio- telegrapher's sending and speech becomes way, way faster. So? Most people don't speak like they're reading a script. 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?" :-) Yes. Do you? Note that Len seems to think he is making a joke. Len does not accept the First Rule of Comedy, even though it applies to him. He seems to think that putting a smiley at the end makes something funny, even when it doesn't. [of course you do, you are an amateur extra morseman...] Lots of people who aren't radio amateurs, drive on winding country roads. Are you advocating "no-frills" personal vehicles? Why? Why not? Why not indeed? 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. Sounds like the car I learned to drive in. It sounds better than my first car, though mine had advanced climate control--a dashboard vent, crank windows and vent windows. The car I learned on didn't have vent windows. 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. It's not about *you*, Len. To Len, it is always about Len. And being better than anyone else. 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. Ah, a "challenge" - one that has nothing to do with amateur radio. Why would you give up a nice, comfortable, well-equipped 2005 Chevy Malibu MAXX just to "rough it", Len? It doesn't matter, Jim. Len has thrown the gauntlet. He's out for blood. What if he got hurt doing this gymkhana thing? He seems ready to bust a gasket just posting here. What would he do if I actually bested him at it? I will WIN. Maybe. Maybe not. You don't really know, you're just bragging because you know it won't happen. You saw through the bluster? Pretty transparent. Been there, did that, got T-shirts, etc. That doesn't mean you would win. It just means that Len has some really old T-shirts. I've probably got more than he does. Mine say things like "Philadelphia Independence Marathon" and "Broad Street 10 miler" and such. 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. What's your point - that you spit at Jeeps? He thought they were technologically challenged then and he still thinks so? I dunno. Len's living in the past - again. HOW MANY personal vehicles have YOU DESIGNED and BUILT? Include auto kits if you need to. What does it matter? I could tell you about the time I took two junker cars and made one good one out of them, but you'd find fault with that, somehow. But that doesn't answer the question "HOW MANY". As many as Len has, probably. HOW MANY thousands of miles have YOU driven? Gosh, Len, I don't really know. Probably more than you, though. I think I've driven more miles in the past six years than Len has logged over the past twenty. Is there a prize for miles driven? Over "winding country roads?" Enough. Three quarters of mine have been over winding and hilly country roads. Then again, I live in the country. Go figure. What's the prize? Who knows? [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. What does that have to do with anything, Len? That was a detour on a winding country road. Where's John Denver when ya need him? Now about challenges: Here's one for Len - tell me what ya think: Field Day 2007. Entry class 1B-1 (one transmitter, one operator). The challenge is to assemble, transport, set up, operate, and take down a complete FD station - singlehanded, no outside help - and make the highest score. Field Day location must not be owned or rented by the participant and must not be a licensed amateur station location. All equipment used must be legitimately owned by the operator. All FCC regulations and ARRL rules that apply to Field Day must be complied with by all involved. Results report must be submitted to ARRL before the deadline. Highest official score wins. Now of course this would mean that Len would actually have to get his license out of the box. How's that for a challenge? 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've got a lot more tools than just a hammer. I know how to use them, too. If you're a nail, everything headed your way appears to be a hammer. Yup. I have found that young people are interested *if* Morse Code is presented correctly. Sado-masochism is still prevalent in the human condition. I think we just found out what Len is *really* all about! And yet you claim you have no problem with people using Morse Code.... But we knew from his past posts, that simply isn't true. Y'know, for somebody who claims to have such a good life, Len does an awful lot of complaining. 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. "Amateur" is derived from the Latin word for "love". Means to do something for the love of the thing alone. Emotional reasons, IOW. Len is primarily motivated by those things which generate money. I am reminded of the chant from "In Living Color"... The fact is that there are plenty of young people who like Morse Code and learn it readily. I think that's one reason you want an age limit for an amateur radio license - so those code-skilled young folks can't get a license until they're 14. 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. So what? The "so" is that two out of three American *don't* have a cellular phone. Who cares? It's a short-range radio transceiver that connects to the telephone network. When I was a teenager, practically everyone had a telephone. Why should anyone have a ham rig at home when they can just talk on the telephone? My dad discouraged me from talking on the phone when I was a teen. He didn't do that with amateur radio unless I was trying to operate on 15m and there was a football game on TV. HAW! 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. Sure there was. Ham radio was growing by leaps and bounds then. You were not part of it. Len must have missed a couple of decades. Len doesn't like having his version of history shown to be mistaken Been there, seen that, see no difference now. IOW, nobody should do what *you* don't enjoy. I'm more concerned that Len thinks that because he is ignorant of the historical facts of amateur radio in the late 1940's, everyone is ignorant. It's all about Len. 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 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ?? It's a California thing. Maybe. More like a Lanark thing. 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. Preservation of values, skills and culture is everyone's job. Len doesn't seem to think that it is his job. Nothing is Len's job unless it pays money. Why do you insist on keeping a "living museum" in amateur radio through federal license testing for morse code in only AMATEUR radio? It's not a living museum. Far from it. Radio amateurs use many modes daily. CW is one of 'em. YOU had to test for it so everyone else has to... Nope. Morse Code should be a license requirement because amateurs use it. The skill is part of being a qualified radio amateur. Simple as that. There are thousands and thousands of morse QSOs taking place on the ham bands daily. Fraternal order HAZING having NO tangible value except to amuse those ALREADY tested for code. It's not about hazing, Len. It's about being qualified. You're not qualified. There's been enough false material penned here about hazing, hoops, rituals and the like to last a lifetime. Len may use all the cellular phones, cordless phones, Family Radio Service HT's and Citizen's Band transceivers he likes. He isn't a radio amateur and likely will never become a radio amateur. All of his talk has been bluster and boast. Well, maybe. I think that Len equates being corrected with being humiliated. When he posts something that is incorrect, and someone corrects it, he feels humiliated and angry. It's even worse when the person doing the correcting is someone he considers to be inferior to him - which is almost everybody. Thus he behaves according to the profile, driven by anger and humiliation at being proved wrong. Really quite sad, when you think about it..... 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
wrote in message oups.com... Opus- wrote: On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:19:27 -0400, jawod spake thusly: Who the **** are YOU to make such a statement? You snot nosed, arrogant PRICK! You do NOT know the kind of person that I am!! Wake up and smell the cappuccino! Code is obsolete! Knowing code does NOTHING to make somebody an "asset to the service". And, could you explain what makes a person an "asset to the service"? Jeez, Chill out, eh? Sorry, but I get upset with people who make statements that are easily taken as personal insults. "Stuff happens." BTW, this "Jawod" signed a message on rec.radio.amateur.homebrew as "AB8O." I found a blank on that call sign at QRZ. Yes it's obsolete. Yes, it's fun. I found it to be cold and impersonal. I agree. Manual radiotelegraphy has NONE of the body language or tone of voice or much of anything that is normal in everyday person-to-person contacts. Using this monotonic form of very early radio allows any user to be anything they want with no real references to anything but the ability to send telegraphy. Should it be used to qualify? Let the FCC decide (soon). Here in Canada, they already have. I believe the FCC will soon. If it is eliminated, will that change the "Service"? Maybe. Probably not. Heh heh...if the test is eliminated the expressed outrage, anguish, and horror will be a horrendous wail never to be silenced until the last code key is pried from cold, dead fingers! :-) Will CW disappear? Probably not. Historically, it defined ham radio, so it has a special place in the hearts of very many hams. It's natural that they sort of cling to it. Let them cling, they are free to do so. I'd say "clog" as in cholesterol clogging those "hearts." "Jawod" uses "many" AS IF it were quantitative. Not so much in the USA now. The US Technician class licensees now number about 49% of all, twice as large a number as the General class. I doubt they want to hear such facts. Will CW's elimination be the end of ham radio? Of course not. Ham radio will cease when all the hams die off. New hams are needed, with or without code. I totally agree. In the USA the number of newcomers is not able to keep pace with the expirations of licensees. That trend has been evident for more than a year. [see www.hamdata.com] The majority of new licensees are Technician class. Novice class, the supposed traditional "beginner" license has been expiring at a steady rate for years before the US changes in 2000. My personal hope is that a significant minority of these new hams will take up CW and learn to enjoy this mode. It truly is a fun mode. I hope people will WANT to learn it. I always found it to be boring. "Jawod" and other morsemen think that all will "like" what they like. They really don't understand what other citizens want. Compulsory things are seldom welcome,,,some are necessary. Is CW a good requirement for ham radio? I guess it has probably outlived its day. A requirement related to other digital modes would make a good replacement. True? I completely agree. If you want to filter out the less serious, then use a relevant method. Here in Canada, in order to get a no-code licence, you must get at least 80% on the technical. And technical prowess will always be important regardless of the mode of communication. That sounds fair. In general I've approved what Industry Canada does on communications regulations...a bit more than what the FCC does for US civil radio services. Im sure the numbers would look even wose if the licenses expired sooner. Most of the new hams I know lose interest in a couple of years, long befor the licence expires. |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
Jimmie D wrote: Im sure the numbers would look even wose if the licenses expired sooner. Most of the new hams I know lose interest in a couple of years, long befor the licence expires. Those darned new hams. They never should have been licensured in the first place. Didn't have the ooomph to get licensed when the tests were harder so they weren't really that innerested in the first place. Didn't show the proper dedication. |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
|
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
an_old_friend wrote: wrote: Jimmie D wrote: Im sure the numbers would look even wose if the licenses expired sooner. Most of the new hams I know lose interest in a couple of years, long befor the licence expires. Those darned new hams. They never should have been licensured in the first place. Didn't have the ooomph to get licensed when the tests were harder so they weren't really that innerested in the first place. Didn't show the proper dedication. and of course none of the failure of hams to reamin hams is due to bull**** they must endure from other hams Of course not! Ham radio is a swell fellowship of men. What you see on RRAP n't ham radio. |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
wrote: an_old_friend wrote: wrote: Jimmie D wrote: and of course none of the failure of hams to reamin hams is due to bull**** they must endure from other hams Of course not! Ham radio is a swell fellowship of men. What you see on RRAP n't ham radio. realy it isn't that much different from what i encounters on air with a sad frequency |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
"an_old_friend" wrote in message ups.com... wrote: an_old_friend wrote: wrote: Jimmie D wrote: and of course none of the failure of hams to reamin hams is due to bull**** they must endure from other hams Of course not! Ham radio is a swell fellowship of men. What you see on RRAP n't ham radio. realy it isn't that much different from what i encounters on air with a sad frequency Well then Mark, do you think, just for a second, that possibly, just maybe, that it could be YOU that brings out the best in everyone? |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
"Jimmie D" wrote in
: wrote in message oups.com... Opus- wrote: On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:19:27 -0400, jawod spake thusly: Who the **** are YOU to make such a statement? You snot nosed, arrogant PRICK! You do NOT know the kind of person that I am!! Wake up and smell the cappuccino! Code is obsolete! Knowing code does NOTHING to make somebody an "asset to the service". And, could you explain what makes a person an "asset to the service"? Jeez, Chill out, eh? Sorry, but I get upset with people who make statements that are easily taken as personal insults. "Stuff happens." BTW, this "Jawod" signed a message on rec.radio.amateur.homebrew as "AB8O." I found a blank on that call sign at QRZ. Yes it's obsolete. Yes, it's fun. I found it to be cold and impersonal. I agree. Manual radiotelegraphy has NONE of the body language or tone of voice or much of anything that is normal in everyday person-to-person contacts. Using this monotonic form of very early radio allows any user to be anything they want with no real references to anything but the ability to send telegraphy. Should it be used to qualify? Let the FCC decide (soon). Here in Canada, they already have. I believe the FCC will soon. If it is eliminated, will that change the "Service"? Maybe. Probably not. Heh heh...if the test is eliminated the expressed outrage, anguish, and horror will be a horrendous wail never to be silenced until the last code key is pried from cold, dead fingers! :-) Will CW disappear? Probably not. Historically, it defined ham radio, so it has a special place in the hearts of very many hams. It's natural that they sort of cling to it. Let them cling, they are free to do so. I'd say "clog" as in cholesterol clogging those "hearts." "Jawod" uses "many" AS IF it were quantitative. Not so much in the USA now. The US Technician class licensees now number about 49% of all, twice as large a number as the General class. I doubt they want to hear such facts. Will CW's elimination be the end of ham radio? Of course not. Ham radio will cease when all the hams die off. New hams are needed, with or without code. I totally agree. In the USA the number of newcomers is not able to keep pace with the expirations of licensees. That trend has been evident for more than a year. [see www.hamdata.com] The majority of new licensees are Technician class. Novice class, the supposed traditional "beginner" license has been expiring at a steady rate for years before the US changes in 2000. My personal hope is that a significant minority of these new hams will take up CW and learn to enjoy this mode. It truly is a fun mode. I hope people will WANT to learn it. I always found it to be boring. "Jawod" and other morsemen think that all will "like" what they like. They really don't understand what other citizens want. Compulsory things are seldom welcome,,,some are necessary. Is CW a good requirement for ham radio? I guess it has probably outlived its day. A requirement related to other digital modes would make a good replacement. True? I completely agree. If you want to filter out the less serious, then use a relevant method. Here in Canada, in order to get a no-code licence, you must get at least 80% on the technical. And technical prowess will always be important regardless of the mode of communication. That sounds fair. In general I've approved what Industry Canada does on communications regulations...a bit more than what the FCC does for US civil radio services. Im sure the numbers would look even wose if the licenses expired sooner. Most of the new hams I know lose interest in a couple of years, long befor the licence expires. That's what happens when something gets dumbed down. It cheapens it, and people find no value in maintaining or continuing with it. SC |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
wrote in
ups.com: an_old_friend wrote: wrote: Jimmie D wrote: Im sure the numbers would look even wose if the licenses expired sooner. Most of the new hams I know lose interest in a couple of years, long befor the licence expires. Those darned new hams. They never should have been licensured in the first place. Didn't have the ooomph to get licensed when the tests were harder so they weren't really that innerested in the first place. Didn't show the proper dedication. and of course none of the failure of hams to reamin hams is due to bull**** they must endure from other hams Of course not! Ham radio is a swell fellowship of men. What you see on RRAP n't ham radio. But if you and Markie ever get full HF privledges, God & Hiram Help us. SC |
Is the no-code license letting really stupid people into ham radio?
"an_old_friend" wrote in
ups.com: wrote: an_old_friend wrote: wrote: Jimmie D wrote: and of course none of the failure of hams to reamin hams is due to bull**** they must endure from other hams Of course not! Ham radio is a swell fellowship of men. What you see on RRAP n't ham radio. realy it isn't that much different from what i encounters on air with a sad frequency Yes. |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
Slow Code wrote: wrote in ups.com: an_old_friend wrote: wrote: Jimmie D wrote: Im sure the numbers would look even wose if the licenses expired sooner. Most of the new hams I know lose interest in a couple of years, long befor the licence expires. Those darned new hams. They never should have been licensured in the first place. Didn't have the ooomph to get licensed when the tests were harder so they weren't really that innerested in the first place. Didn't show the proper dedication. and of course none of the failure of hams to reamin hams is due to bull**** they must endure from other hams Of course not! Ham radio is a swell fellowship of men. What you see on RRAP n't ham radio. But if you and Markie ever get full HF privledges, God & Hiram Help us. Why? Do you fear us working out of band Frenchmen? We could do that just as well on 6 Meters. |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
wrote: Slow Code wrote: wrote in ups.com: an_old_friend wrote: But if you and Markie ever get full HF privledges, God & Hiram Help us. Why? Do you fear us working out of band Frenchmen? We could do that just as well on 6 Meters. BB I belieeve you have mentioned passing a code test at some point that would allow you fullaccess to hf today I could look up your license or you could tell me |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
wrote in message ... On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 19:27:33 -0500, Nada Tapu wrote: On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 16:39:47 -0400, wrote: And you probably answered some theory questions about modes you'll never use and formulas you'll never see again. Maybe we should just eliminate the theory exam, too. and what do we gain by doing that it is certainly an option when eleimate code testing we eleimate something that makes the ARS look stpuid obviously we gain by that Look stupid? Oh, excuse me! yes you are stupid and anothe rof the usenet cowards There are a lot of people who don't want to be bothered with the theory exam, either. And when it comes right down to it, what do we really need a theory exam for? you tell me I think it benifits the ARS by insuring that new hams reconize the term and the rules involved in the ARS don't you think it does that? Most CB'ers and electronic hobbyists have the technical expertise to put a multi-band rig and antenna on the air and start operating without any trouble at all. and many so Indeed we could despense with the technical question sif it was found to be to our benifit They feel they shouldn't need to take a test in order to do that, and a good case may be made in favor of that approach. Homebrew and experiment? Sure, why not? They can do that too. I did when I was on CB, so why can't others? Why should I take a test that includes superflous questions about operating modes and aspects of electronics and computers that I have absolutely no intention of employing in my day to day station operation? Now allow me to put on the "other hat". pput on such hats as you please CW is a part of amateur radio's heritage and history. agreed One has to embrace the past to realize where one is today. that is merely one method but one is not required to emabrace the past or to real;ize where we are today Having said that, CW is not an obsolete mode by any means; it is obslete it is timeless. It was a viable communications mode 50 years ago, it still is today, and it will still be perfectly viable 10,000 years from now. which does not prevent it from being oselte the Longbow it is still a vaible weapon today will be for some time to come it is none the less obeslete It's spectrum efficient and highly effective under adverse conditions. So what if it happens to be dated? There is absolutlely nothing wrong with the preservation and continued use of old but perfectly good technologies. and I don't object to YOU doing so but I do object to your insistance on public specturm being used to do as a complution on all those that wish to use it It's just too bad if some operators feel that a certain operating mode reflects badly on the amateur community solely because it's been around for a long time. There is nothing "stupid" about this issue. what is stupid is this insistance that I must help to preserve some thing that YOU value and wish preserved and that I think we would be better off leting it go the way of Spark Am I supporting the elimination of the theory exam and promoting the testing of morse skills? Of course not, although I can see how one would reach that conclusion from my statements. I'm being purposely obtuse. and insulting What amateur radio needs is BALANCE. which it will lack as long as the ARS insist on worshiping the ONE mode CW above the rest of the ARS combined as the leicense system does today It needs operators with a rich set of skills and traits that will set it apart from the other radio services. When those skills and traits cease to exist, the service will perish, and eventually the spectrum will be sold to the highest bidder. My $.02 Draw your own conclusions. my conclusion is that you will twist truth and logic anyway you like to achive your end for that matter so will I - - . . . . . . - - NT http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/ -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Indeed we could dispense with much of the technical qualifications some day. The technical part is basically an attempt to make sure the amatuer is competent enough to operate their equipment in a maner that does not interfere with other services outside of his designated allocation of spectrum, in other words, within FCC regulations. At such a time when all equipment is made idiot proof and all hams use store bought idiot proofed gear we may see this.So far the one experiment at this has failed. You think you have something idiot proof and then guess what, someone makes a better idiot. So I am not worried about requirement of theory going away. As far a CW is concerned to gain the privledges hams have today they had to show they were a national asset. Part of being that asset was our ability to process emergency traffic should the need arrive. At the time CW was needed to accomplish this. It is no longer needed to meet our obligation of service. OF course this begs the question, can we fullfil our obligation. To this I believe we can, but are we really needed. CW has been replaced by other technologies, it would make more sense to require typing skills than CW, an idea I dont think is so bad even though I may have trouble with twenty wpm on a keyboard. |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
wrote in message ups.com... From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, wrote: no slow code the number are down because with Code testing looks so stpupid The numbers are down for a variety of reasons, but I suspect that computers and the internet are the major factors, not the CW requirement. The ready-built Personal Computer first appeared in 1976, 30 years ago (the "IBM PC" debuted in 1980, 26 years ago). The Internet went public in 1991, 15 years ago. "Restructuring" to drop the morse test rate to 5 WPM for all such tests happened only 6 years ago. The peak licensing of 737,938 happened on 2 Jul 03, just 3 years ago. [they've been dropping at an average of 7K per year ever since] I disagree on your reasons stated in your quote above. When I ask technical people about why they haven't acquired an interest in amateur radio, I never get the CW requirement as a response. Strange, I hear that response. Having been IN radio- electronics for over a half century, I DO know some "technical people." :-) Manual radiotelegraphy was a MUST to use early radio as a communications medium. The technology of early radio was primitive, simple, and not yet developed. On-off keying was the ONLY practical way to make it possible to communicate. Morse code was then already mature and a new branch of communications was open to use by downsized landline telegraphers. They simply view the whole service as outmoded in the face of modern telecommunications. PART of that IS true. NOT all of it. What IS outmoded (technically) is sitting only on HF and "working" other stations with morse radiotelegraphy. Amateur radio is the ONLY radio service still using morse radiotelegraphy for communications purposes. Another thing outmoded is the strict "necessity" to use a formalism in "procedure" AS IF it was "professional" radio. That formalism was established between 50 to 70 years ago. Amateur radio, by definition, is NOT professional. Too many olde-tymers want to PRETEND they are pros in front of their ham rigs. But, there is still an enormous area of the EM spectrum that is still open for experimentation, for just the fun of doing something out of the ordinary above 30 MHz. That can be a very different RF environment, much much different than the technology available in the 20s and 30s. It has exciting possibilities...except for the rutted and mired olde-tymers unable to keep up with new things, secure in their own dreams of youth and simple technological environment. Let's face it.. the romance is gone. Oh, boo hoo...the "romance" of the 1930s is gone? Yes, it IS. The "pioneering of the airwaves" below 30 MHz has been DONE...mostly by the pros of radio (despite what the ARRL claims). DONE a long time ago. The solid-state era came into being about 45 years ago and has revolutionized ALL electronics (radio is a subset of that). Except as memorabilia trinkets of the past, GONE is the analog VFO, GONE is the one-tube regenerative receiver, GONE is the single-crystal-single-frequency Tx, GONE is the big, bulky AM modulator amplifier, GONE is the not- knowing-when-the-bands-are-open (solar activity and ionosonding solved that and HF MUF is a predictable item that can be found by a computer program). Except for the boatanchor afficionados, vacuum tubes are GONE for nearly everything but high-power transmitters. The radio world of today is NOT that of 1950, nor of 1960, nor 1970, nor even 1980s. It keeps changing, advancing, the state of the art never static. For the stuck-in-the-mud olde tymers that is terrible...they feel insecure on not being able to keep up, become aggressive to newcomers ("no kids, lids or space cadets") and retreat to the "secure" mode of their youth, "CW." But, they want to make sure They get the respect they feel they've "earned" (as if) so they try and try and try to bring all down to THEIR level...the code test MUST stay..."because." There are 100 million two-way radios in use in the USA alone, millions more in other countries. Those are the cellular telephones. There are millions of VHF and UHF transceivers in the USA, working daily for public safety agencies, ships, private boats, air carriers as well as private airplanes. There are tens of thousands of HF transceivers in use in the USA, users being everyone from government agencies to private boat owners, ALL exclusive of amateur radio users. Where is the "romance" in all this Plenty from a cornucopia that all have grabbed? It is GONE, yes. But, NEW "romances" await. DIFFERENT ones, I'd say a helluva lot more complex than old, simple "radio." We can't relive old "romances" except in our minds and we can't grow physically younger. Only person-to-person romance is TRUE, the other "romance" is of the imagination, of the fantasy of what was once there. This fantasy "romance" can't be brought back. It can't be legislated into remaining static. The rules and regulations have to change to keep up with the NOW. Total agreement here, our obligation of service to to earn our privlegdes doesnt end with what we have done but with what we have done lately. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:12 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com