One way to promote learning of code ...
 

Stefan Wolfe wrote:
I personally ignore computer CW...

I personally ignore any electronically assisted CW.
I don't see much difference between an electronic
keyer and a PC. Some hams had the audacity to use
electronic keys on straight key night.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

One way to promote learning of code ...
 

in a rerun, wrote:
From: "Carl R. Stevenson" on Sun, Jan 7 2007 10:14 am

wrote in message
Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith I wrote:
No, the new generation of hams will make it obsolete and history!
Like AM?
--
The invention of the motorcycle did not make the bicycle obsolete. The
invention of the car did not make walking obsolete. Power boats did not
make all sailboats obsolete, although many sailboats were replaced by
power boats.

However, in the wider view of ALL world radio, manual morse
code radiotelegraphy HAS become obsolete.

There's not any reason why radio amateurs should concern themselves with
what the wider world of radio does. The Morse Code is used for
thousands of QSOs daily in amateur radio. That you don't like it,
doesn't matter.

The ONLY radio
service using it for (alleged) communications...

It isn't being used for alleged communications, Len. It absolutely *is*
being used for communications. Deal with it.

...is the ARS
(Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society).

No such animal exists, Leonard.

There will still be people who CHOOSE to use Morse if it's presented to them
as fun and they're allowed to make the choice without intimidation (and
without berating them)

Soon-to-be-legal R&O 06-178 is about the *TEST*, Carl. :-)

Unlike you, with your stuck record, Carl chose to address the use of
Morse Code.

[in case you've forgotten...possibly since the NCI web
site didn't appear to know it until after a week had
passed after the FCC announcement...just a deduction]

You often make poor deductions, Leonard.

Is there any earth-shaking regulation changes about
morse code USE in FCC 06-178? I don't think so...

Let us know when you've made up your mind.

Except for a few people who learned Morse Code elsewhere, most would-be
hams don't have any prior Morse Code skill.
True ...

That exchange is rather worthless.

....to you. The statement was, however, factual.

Miccolis phrased
his statement to imply that would-be hams "must" have
morsemanship skill. Miccolis is good at such...:-)

No, Anderson, he didn't phrase it in such a way. You simply read that
into it.

If anyone wants to bother checking the numbers of NEW
radio amateur licensees - other than via the AH0A pro-
morse-uber-alles website -...

You've made a factual error. There is nothing to indicate that AH0A's
site promotes morse code or morse code testing over everything else.


...they would find that NEW
ham licensees were coming via the no-code-test Tech
class. By a ratio of five to one (give or take).

Tell us, Len: What are we to make of it--that people generally take the
easiest route to something?

The code test acts as a sort of Great Equalizer,
Absurd ... ALL that a code test does is indicate that you can copy Morse at
some specified speed. Nothing more, nothing less.

I have to call Miccolis' statement something different.
"Absurd" is too understated. It is *bull***** fresh
from the bovine enclave.

There we have it from the salty, wizened one.

because almost
everyone starts out as a clueless newbie with the mode.
True ...

Not quite, Carl. Miccolis' implication is once again
that morsemanship is the "true" measure of "ham."

That simply isn't stated, Len. You're attempting to gather information
from between the lines.

The use of the label "clueless newbie" is the sneering
look-down-the-nose from the arrogance of superiority.

You seem to worry a lot over the idea that anyone might look down his
nose at you, Len. When and if you ever obtain an amateur radio license,
you'll be a newbie, a neophyte, a novice.

Morse Code cannot be learned by simply reading a
book, visiting some websites or picking up a little bit here and
there. A newcomer cannot cut-and-paste his/her way to a
new skill, or rely on past achievements or claims to get around it.

There's that wonderful implication again...all 'true'
hams will want to learn morsemanship, that it MUST
be learned. :-)

That's not stated at all, Len. Jim's statement was factual. Nothing he
wrote is incorrect or erroneous.

It's a skill that is easily measured and cannot be faked. And it puts
a Final Authority wannabe on the same footing as a Young Squirt.

It may be precisely this equalizing effect that makes some folks want
to get rid of it.
The implication above that everything about ham radio except Morse is
"cut-and-paste" is also absurd.

Just more *bull***** from the "master", Carl. :-)

Are you critiquing your own words, Leonard? :-)

The signs are there (almost in neon brightness) of his
being 'wounded' in the great word war in here. [note his
choice of labels...:-) ]

How has Jim been wounded? Is he supposed to have been wounded by
something or a number of somethings which you've written?

I was talking night before last with Ed Hare - remember the 3 page study
guide that he had for his novice test and compare that, as he does, to the
200+ pages of "Now You're Talking" - there has been NO "dumbing down" for
entry into ham radio. How anyone could assert with honesty and a straight
face that 200+ pages of material is "dumbed down" compared to 3 pages is
something that simply is unfathomable.

"Dumbed down" = Lack of morse code skill.

That's not right, Leonard. The dumbing down has been done by reducing
the code testing speed to five words per minute for any class of HF
amateur radio license. That will soon be changed to having no morse
exam at all. The dumbing down of amateur radio includes easier
questions in the written tests and fewer questions in the written exams.

That's been how it has been used by the morseodists
in here. They equate intelligence with morsemanship.

I know many intelligent people who are not radio amateurs at all. I
know a number of intelligent people who hold amateur radio licenses
which included no Morse Code testing.

Please don't expect them to use such "intelligence" in
figuring out reality... :-(

I have some reality for you, Len: You never acted upon your
decades-long self-declared interest in amateur radio. You've not acted
upon your self-declared interest in amateur radio during the more than
one decade you've posted here. You are still not a radio amateur.

I think it's time to stop trying to attribute mythical powers to the soon to
be history Morse test. To continue only perpetuates the falsehood that
Morse skill is essential to being a good ham, capable of contributing, etc.

WHOA! *HERESY* alert! [thou defilest thy maker!]

Say 50 Hail Hirams, go thee and sin no more!

Have fun with Morse and promote it in a kind and polite way if you wish, but
please lose the attitude that Morse somehow is the measure of a "REAL ham."

Only the Food and Drug Administration determines
which are "real hams" and which are not... :-)

Tsk, to reiterate, FCC 06-178 is about morse code TESTING,
not its use.

Skip the FCC, Len. Tell us what the FDA says. :-) [Tsk, tsk and a
"poor baby" thrown in for good measure]

To Morseodists this newsgrope is all about their LOSING
their ability to "lead" amateur radio...as they've become
accustomed (with all the superiority of royalty).

Are you leading amateur radio, Len? Do you have anything to do with
leading or participating in it?

Their
fantasy world of "control" is about to collapse. Poor
things. snif snif

What difference does it make when a fantasy collapes, Len?

Not to worry, Marie A. is sending them some cake... :-)

How will she accomplish that, Len?


See IEEE Code of Ethics

Dave K8MN

One way to promote learning of code ...
 

Dave Heil wrote:
What are we to make of it--that people generally take the
easiest route to something?

When one is dealing with a governmental licensing
bureau, there is no "easiest route". Only one route
is offered by the rule *makers* for each license
class. The *takers* of the exam cannot be blamed
for the present licensing structure. How can a new
general class ham be considered to be inferior to
an older general class ham when each ham took the
one and only exam available at his particular time
of testing?

Incidentally, mice that take the easiest route
to the cheese hidden in a maze are considered
to be the most intelligent. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

One way to promote learning of code ...
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
What are we to make of it--that people generally take the easiest
route to something?

When one is dealing with a governmental licensing
bureau, there is no "easiest route". Only one route
is offered by the rule *makers* for each license
class.

That's correct, but almost everyone *starts* with a license class having
less difficult requirements. You did it. I did it. Jim did it.

The *takers* of the exam cannot be blamed
for the present licensing structure.

....and I haven't blamed them. They took the exams which were available
to them.

How can a new
general class ham be considered to be inferior to
an older general class ham when each ham took the
one and only exam available at his particular time
of testing?

Now you're asking something different. Such a General Class licensee
could easily be considered to have learned less material since less
material is required in order to pass the exam. Surely you can see that.

Incidentally, mice that take the easiest route
to the cheese hidden in a maze are considered
to be the most intelligent. :-)

The easiest way might not be the fastest way--and mice don't take
amateur radio exams.

Dave K8MN

One way to promote learning of code ...
 

Dave Heil wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
How can a new
general class ham be considered to be inferior to
an older general class ham when each ham took the
one and only exam available at his particular time
of testing?

Now you're asking something different. Such a General Class licensee
could easily be considered to have learned less material since less
material is required in order to pass the exam. Surely you can see that.

Certainly I can see that - times change. But should the
new General Class licensee be forever relegated to the
untouchable "nocode CBer" caste simply because of the
timing of his birth?

What if he has a PhD in RF engineering to go with his
brand new General Class Amateur Radio License? What if
he is ex-military and can do 40 wpm in Morse code? Isn't
that worth anything or is he predestined to be forever
shunned by older amateur radio operators because his
exam was easier through no fault of his own?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

One way to promote learning of code ...
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
What are we to make of it--that people generally take the
easiest route to something?

When one is dealing with a governmental licensing
bureau, there is no "easiest route". Only one route
is offered by the rule *makers* for each license
class.

Actually, that's not always true.

For example, from 1990 to 2000, there were medical waivers
for the 13 and 20 wpm Morse Code tests. Those who wanted
a General, Advanced or Extra class license had the choice
of passing the required test *or* getting a waiver. Depending
on the individual, one route could be easier than the other.

Similarly, for a couple of decades now the Morse Code test(s)
could be passed by either one-minute-solid-copy or fill-in-the-blank
route - whichever was easier for the individual.

The *takers* of the exam cannot be blamed
for the present licensing structure.

In general, that's true. However, if a particular individual worked for

changes in the licensing structure....

How can a new
general class ham be considered to be inferior to
an older general class ham when each ham took the
one and only exam available at his particular time
of testing?

One person's *knowledge* may be less than another's,
depending on what was on the tests at the time.

However, a test is simply one data point, not the whole picture.

There's a big difference between pointing out changes in the
license tests and making sweeping generalizations about those
who passed them.

Incidentally, mice that take the easiest route
to the cheese hidden in a maze are considered
to be the most intelligent. :-)
--
All mice take the easiest route.

Some just do it faster than others.

73 es KC de Jim, N2EY

Dave aronagence contiues
 

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 18:35:48 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
What are we to make of it--that people generally take the easiest
route to something?

When one is dealing with a governmental licensing
bureau, there is no "easiest route". Only one route
is offered by the rule *makers* for each license
class.

That's correct, but almost everyone *starts* with a license class having
less difficult requirements. You did it. I did it. Jim did it.

so what?

The *takers* of the exam cannot be blamed
for the present licensing structure.

...and I haven't blamed them. They took the exams which were available
to them.

bull**** Dave

you blamed them 2 layers back in this thread

How can a new
general class ham be considered to be inferior to
an older general class ham when each ham took the
one and only exam available at his particular time
of testing?

Now you're asking something different.

no he is not

Such a General Class licensee
could easily be considered to have learned less material since less
material is required in order to pass the exam. Surely you can see that.

so what? that is not the same as inferior Dave your use of langage is
slipshod


Incidentally, mice that take the easiest route
to the cheese hidden in a maze are considered
to be the most intelligent. :-)

The easiest way might not be the fastest way--and mice don't take
amateur radio exams.

meaning you don't value intelgence you value only your hazing ritual

Mark snipes with,
"Dave your use of langage is slipshod"
"you don't value intelgence "

Mark, you idiot. Your spelling is slipshod and your "intelgence" is lacking.

One way to promote learning of code ...
 

wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
What are we to make of it--that people generally take the
easiest route to something?

When one is dealing with a governmental licensing
bureau, there is no "easiest route". Only one route
is offered by the rule *makers* for each license
class.

Actually, that's not always true.

For example, from 1990 to 2000, there were medical waivers
for the 13 and 20 wpm Morse Code tests. Those who wanted
a General, Advanced or Extra class license had the choice
of passing the required test *or* getting a waiver. Depending
on the individual, one route could be easier than the other.

not true the VE's according to Rbeson are free to disregard the
signature of MD's at their SOLE WHIM so these medical waivers were
always a mostly therictical option like the alleegded accomadations
avable to the 5 wpm test

The *takers* of the exam cannot be blamed
for the present licensing structure.

In general, that's true. However, if a particular individual worked for

changes in the licensing structure....

you object to indiviaul asserting their CONSTITUTIONAL rights for
redress of greivences

How can a new
general class ham be considered to be inferior to
an older general class ham when each ham took the
one and only exam available at his particular time
of testing?

One person's *knowledge* may be less than another's,
depending on what was on the tests at the time.

However, a test is simply one data point, not the whole picture.

not acording ot Heil certainly and not according to YOU if the
indivigaul dared to assert his rights to petion the Govt

There's a big difference between pointing out changes in the
license tests and making sweeping generalizations about those
who passed them.

Incidentally, mice that take the easiest route
to the cheese hidden in a maze are considered
to be the most intelligent. :-)
--
All mice take the easiest route.

Some just do it faster than others.

73 es KC de Jim, N2EY

Dave aronagence contiues
 

DeLorean wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 18:35:48 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

meaning you don't value intelgence you value only your hazing ritual

Mark snipes with,
"Dave your use of langage is slipshod"
"you don't value intelgence "

Mark, you idiot. Your spelling is slipshod and your "intelgence" is lacking.
my spelling is slipshod always has been and always will and you logic
lacking in assuming that spelling (or code skill) is conceted to
intelgence
my spelling ym slipshod but I use words corectly dave does not

dave say that claiming ALL new hams are inferior to him becuase is not
blaming them for the tests

that is simply bull**** much like you "not naybody"

One way to promote learning of code ...
 

"John Smith I" wrote in message
...
Stefan Wolfe wrote:

I think you are serious...you think computer-generated/received CW is
really some advanced technology of the new millenium and you got your
first taste of it in 1996. Have you ever thought that that there were far
more "advanced" digital modes, superior to and more efficinet than CW, as
long as one decided to connect a PC to a radio? I personally ignore
computer CW....CW is not meant for a computer nor will it ever be...it is
a human mode that has a "body language" to it that computers are not good
at reading. For computers, PSK31 is a very simple, far superior machine
mode to computer CW in every way. If you said "PSK31, welcome to the new
millenium" I could go along with that. But computer generated CW? Sort of
like attaching a lawn mower engine to a bicycle and calling it a
motorcycle, isn't it? But far be it from me to criticize your toys. ;-)



PSK31 is obsolete ... and much too slow to be useful.

What software do you use to encode/decode and xfer mp3's and videos with
on the bands? What encryption method (algorithm) do you prefer? mp3?
ogg-vorbis? Do you use the same method for your speech packets? Do you
use variable bit encoding? Are you aware that ogg-vorbis is open source
and can be freely used?

You have missed the whole point, does the above help clarify it for you?

You missed my point. Psk31 is an example of a computer mode that connects
directly to a PC sound card, like "computer" CW. I did not need to go into
more sophisticated modes to trump your example of electronic CW as being new
millenium high technology. It was a very poor example.

Psk31 is just one a newer mode that is simpler than computer CW and better.

BTW, it is not obsolete. Check 14.070 MHz when the band is open (or not)
when you get a chance.

Anyway, I do not understand your query; are you saying that mp3 is an
"encryption" method? I thought it was an audio codec (like ogg vorbis). Yes,
I am aware that ogg vorbis is open source. Do you wish to change the thread
to discuss audio codecs?

If you intended to discuss encryption as a separate topic, you had better
not be planning on sending "encypted" communications over the bands unless
you are controlling satellite telemetry from your earth station.

Or are you saying that sending audio codecs over the bands is your best
example of new millenium high technology? That is being done right now and
you can buy it pre-packaged in the latest Kenwood rice box if you wish.