| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#181
February 17th 07, 12:22 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
Quantity Over Quality (Was: Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...)
On Feb 16, 3:10�pm, Leo wrote:
On 14 Feb 2007 22:43:58 -0800, " wrote: From: Leo on Wed, 14 Feb 2007 17:50:23 -0500 wrote: On Feb 13, 7:15?pm, Leo wrote: On 13 Feb 2007 16:43:31 -0800, wrote: On Feb 13, 5:13?pm, Leo wrote: On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 15:12:59 -0500, Leo wrote: On 8 Feb 2007 18:01:57 -0800, wrote: If 250,000 miles isn't accurate enough for you, then you must fault your buddy Len too. Because he stated the distance as a quarter million miles.... Hiding behind Len now, are we....? Never thought I'd see the day! (him too, I'd reckon.....) * TRUE! *Maybe it's because tomorrow (the 14th) is Valentine's * Day and he has a crush on me? *:-( * *[horrors!] Gaaaaaaaaaah! *What an image that created!!! Quick....pass the mental floss! *  * Ech...I have these moments every time I come in to this * Din of Inequity... *:-( Quite natural, that..... * Well, it's cheaper than going to those fake Hollywood horror movies and I can have my own popcorn. That was quite odd. * I thought it quite SOP (Standard Operating Practice) of him. It seems to be......it's odd, though. * True, but you have to realize where you are and what he is. And where he is......still hiding (behind you? - hey, move over and let's see! *hee hee!) , unable to face reality. Well, he lost his cool yesterday and gave K4YZ a slap on the wrist with a wet noodle. He do dat 'bout twice a year (perhaps to show off his "manliness"?). There are quite a few lines in the preceeding posts that he has chosen not to comment on......no rebuttal, no contest. *Guess he figured that no one would notice! I'll be happy to point them out again when he returns with another load of chaff..... * No matter to me. Hey, the guy has a "judge roy bean" complex and wants to be "all the law east of the Pecos." Let him. shrug * Mental picture of Cranky Spanky trying to "correct" the * guys at JPL, especially their QC folks. *:-) He once claimed that Industry Canada was wrong......look out, JPL! * I'll pass the warning on to them. *JPL is just a whoop and * a holler from my place...been there...:-) Do they have a wind tunnel? *They could null him out with a bit of Newton's Third.... They 'borrow' one from another NASA agency. That was the one they rigged to test the Mars Rover's "bouncing balloon" deployment system. That was shown on a recent TV cable documentary. While JPL started out with JATO bottle design in WW2, they drifted off into unmanned spacecraft by the 1960s and stayed in that field of work, divorced organizationally from California Institute of Technology (their origin) and established somewhat close to Pasadena's Rose Bowl. Note: "Somewhat" is an Angeleno term and "somewhat close" could be several miles to us down here. :-) Too approximate. *You're either precise or approximate - you can't have it both ways! * He wants to have his cake and eat anyone who says he can't! Heh.....that's fer sure! *More bark than bite, though...... * "The squeaky wheel gets de grease" as the old saying goes. * He gottum two degrease, collitch degrease. *From a * university that was the SECOND one to build an electronic * computer... Without his help, fortunately.... * Yes! :-) But Eckert and Mauchly DID crib ideas from Atanasof at Iowa State...as was proven in the federal copyright trial held in the US much after ENIAC had been sold off. Stopped watch theory. *See above. * Cranky ought to apply for a job at NIST. *He's got an Allan * Variance no one would believe! now THAT'S funny! *Best one yet! * Watch. *Cranky will search for "Allan Variance," then start * lecturing about it...("he knew it all along") Maybe not....he's got enough balls in the air already, figuratively speaking.... ...or maybe literally speaking! :-) * Note: *You can lead a horologist to water but you can't * make him prostitute himself... True...but if he fell in, would he be a clock soaker? * Heeeeee! *Five Stars for that one! *Superb. *:-) Thanks! You're welcome. A nice variant on the stock packer at a hosiery maker: A sock tucker. Ba-dum-bump! [Heil off to one side, muttering, "You're not funny, Leonard."] LA [No electrons were annhilated in the writing of this message...] |
|
#182
February 17th 07, 01:27 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quantity Over Quality (Was: Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...)
On 16 Feb 2007 16:22:45 -0800, "
wrote: On Feb 16, 3:10?pm, Leo wrote: On 14 Feb 2007 22:43:58 -0800, " wrote: From: Leo on Wed, 14 Feb 2007 17:50:23 -0500 wrote: On Feb 13, 7:15?pm, Leo wrote: On 13 Feb 2007 16:43:31 -0800, wrote: On Feb 13, 5:13?pm, Leo wrote: On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 15:12:59 -0500, Leo wrote: On 8 Feb 2007 18:01:57 -0800, wrote: If 250,000 miles isn't accurate enough for you, then you must fault your buddy Len too. Because he stated the distance as a quarter million miles.... Hiding behind Len now, are we....? Never thought I'd see the day! (him too, I'd reckon.....) TRUE! aybe it's because tomorrow (the 14th) is Valentine's Day and he has a crush on me? :-( horrors!] Gaaaaaaaaaah! hat an image that created!!! Quick....pass the mental floss! Ech...I have these moments every time I come in to this Din of Inequity... :-( Quite natural, that..... Well, it's cheaper than going to those fake Hollywood horror movies and I can have my own popcorn. That was quite odd. I thought it quite SOP (Standard Operating Practice) of him. It seems to be......it's odd, though. True, but you have to realize where you are and what he is. And where he is......still hiding (behind you? - hey, move over and let's see! (ee hee!) , unable to face reality. Well, he lost his cool yesterday and gave K4YZ a slap on the wrist with a wet noodle. He do dat 'bout twice a year (perhaps to show off his "manliness"?). Mucho macho! Guess we need to add "putz" to the list of personal accolades that he's acquired here on the battlefield! That kind of answers your question in an earlier post, though - why isn't he on the radio doing DX with CW? - or something along those lines. There's something here that keeps on drawing him in - something that is missing in his radio hobby. Otherwise, he's be there! He says that he spends quite a bit of time on the radio - but who knows? (he's always here on the NG's, furiously pounding the beejezus out of his keyboard!). Wonder wassup wi' dat? There are quite a few lines in the preceeding posts that he has chosen not to comment on......no rebuttal, no contest. uess he figured that no one would notice! I'll be happy to point them out again when he returns with another load of chaff..... No matter to me. Hey, the guy has a "judge roy bean" complex and wants to be "all the law east of the Pecos." Let him. shrug That's Mr. Bean to you.... Mental picture of Cranky Spanky trying to "correct" the guys at JPL, especially their QC folks. :-) He once claimed that Industry Canada was wrong......look out, JPL! I'll pass the warning on to them. PL is just a whoop and a holler from my place...been there...:-) Do they have a wind tunnel? hey could null him out with a bit of Newton's Third.... They 'borrow' one from another NASA agency. That was the one they rigged to test the Mars Rover's "bouncing balloon" deployment system. That was shown on a recent TV cable documentary. While JPL started out with JATO bottle design in WW2, they drifted off into unmanned spacecraft by the 1960s and stayed in that field of work, divorced organizationally from California Institute of Technology (their origin) and established somewhat close to Pasadena's Rose Bowl. Note: "Somewhat" is an Angeleno term and "somewhat close" could be several miles to us down here. :-) I didn't realize that JPL's first project was the JATO - thanks for that! (makes sense!). Too approximate. ou're either precise or approximate - you can't have it both ways! He wants to have his cake and eat anyone who says he can't! Heh.....that's fer sure! ore bark than bite, though...... "The squeaky wheel gets de grease" as the old saying goes. He gottum two degrease, collitch degrease. rom a university that was the SECOND one to build an electronic computer... Without his help, fortunately.... Yes! :-) But Eckert and Mauchly DID crib ideas from Atanasof at Iowa State...as was proven in the federal copyright trial held in the US much after ENIAC had been sold off. Got a chance to see some of the remaining parts of ENIAC at the Smithsonian a few years back. Amazing machine - and an incredible piece of engineering in the vacuum tube era. After seeing what a BC-221 can do when properly modified, I have no doubt that Jim could have made a pretty nifty antenna switch out of it! Stopped watch theory. ee above. Cranky ought to apply for a job at NIST. e's got an Allan Variance no one would believe! now THAT'S funny! est one yet! Watch. ranky will search for "Allan Variance," then start lecturing about it...("he knew it all along") Maybe not....he's got enough balls in the air already, figuratively speaking.... ...or maybe literally speaking! :-) Maybe! Note: ou can lead a horologist to water but you can't make him prostitute himself... True...but if he fell in, would he be a clock soaker? Heeeeee! ive Stars for that one! uperb. :-) Thanks! You're welcome. A nice variant on the stock packer at a hosiery maker: A sock tucker. Ba-dum-bump! That's pretty witty too! [Heil off to one side, muttering, "You're not funny, Leonard."] ......speaking of damp horologists..... LA [No electrons were annhilated in the writing of this message...] ....just moved around a bit 73, Leo |
|
#183
February 17th 07, 04:53 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quantity Over Quality (Was: Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...)
On Feb 16, 5:27�pm, Leo wrote:
On 16 Feb 2007 16:22:45 -0800, " wrote: On Feb 16, 3:10?pm, Leo wrote: On 14 Feb 2007 22:43:58 -0800, " wrote: From: Leo on Wed, 14 Feb 2007 17:50:23 -0500 wrote: On Feb 13, 7:15?pm, Leo wrote: On 13 Feb 2007 16:43:31 -0800, wrote: On Feb 13, 5:13?pm, Leo wrote: On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 15:12:59 -0500, Leo wrote: On 8 Feb 2007 18:01:57 -0800, wrote: If 250,000 miles isn't accurate enough for you, then you must fault your buddy Len too. Because he stated the distance as a quarter million miles.... Hiding behind Len now, are we....? Never thought I'd see the day! (him too, I'd reckon.....) *TRUE! aybe it's because tomorrow (the 14th) is Valentine's *Day and he has a crush on me? :-( * horrors!] Gaaaaaaaaaah! *hat an image that created!!! Quick....pass the mental floss! *Ech...I have these moments every time I come in to this *Din of Inequity... :-( Quite natural, that..... * Well, it's cheaper than going to those fake Hollywood horror * movies and I can have my own popcorn. That was quite odd. *I thought it quite SOP (Standard Operating Practice) of him. It seems to be......it's odd, though. *True, but you have to realize where you are and what he is. And where he is......still hiding (behind you? - hey, move over and let's see! (ee hee!) , unable to face reality. * Well, he lost his cool yesterday and gave K4YZ a slap on * the wrist with a wet noodle. *He do dat 'bout twice a year * (perhaps to show off his "manliness"?). Mucho macho! *Guess we need to add "putz" to the list of personal accolades that he's acquired here on the battlefield! That kind of answers your question in an earlier post, though - why isn't he on the radio doing DX with CW? - or something along those lines. *There's something here that keeps on drawing him in - something that is missing in his radio hobby. *Otherwise, he's be there! *He says that he spends quite a bit of time on the radio - but who knows? *(he's always here on the NG's, furiously pounding the beejezus out of his keyboard!). Wonder wassup wi' dat? We will never know, I suppose, he be very close-mouthed about anything of his off-newsgroup life. So much so that he is close to the style of K4YZ of the "I've got it [document] in my wallet and it's nobody's business to see it..." school of 'referencing' what he says. There are quite a few lines in the preceeding posts that he has chosen not to comment on......no rebuttal, no contest. *uess he figured that no one would notice! I'll be happy to point them out again when he returns with another load of chaff..... * No matter to me. *Hey, the guy has a "judge roy bean" complex * and wants to be "all the law east of the Pecos." *Let him. * shrug That's Mr. Bean to you.... * Jawohl! click, click *Mental picture of Cranky Spanky trying to "correct" the *guys at JPL, especially their QC folks. :-) He once claimed that Industry Canada was wrong......look out, JPL! *I'll pass the warning on to them. PL is just a whoop and *a holler from my place...been there...:-) Do they have a wind tunnel? *hey could null him out with a bit of Newton's Third.... * They 'borrow' one from another NASA agency. *That was the * one they rigged to test the Mars Rover's "bouncing balloon" * deployment system. *That was shown on a recent TV cable * documentary. * While JPL started out with JATO bottle design in WW2, * they drifted off into unmanned spacecraft by the 1960s * and stayed in that field of work, divorced organizationally * from California Institute of Technology (their origin) and * established somewhat close to Pasadena's Rose Bowl. * Note: *"Somewhat" is an Angeleno term and "somewhat * close" could be several miles to us down here. *:-) I didn't realize that JPL's first project was the JATO - thanks for that! (makes sense!). JPL's most-notable achievement (in my book) is the Deep Space Net (all located well outside of the Montrose- Pasadena area) with its stable PLLs and cryogenic front-ends plus the DSP and software to make all the received data as "clean" as possible. That and the really deep advance planning on design of the space probes and rovers...with knowledge that some of controls and instrumentation and probe computers might malfunction therefore lots and lots of safeguards have to be added. Once in a great while, they do screw up...which gets a lot of negative publicity. Like their orbital mechanics folks mistakenly using a metric "wrench" instead of an English one. A rather expensive screw up but we humans are kind of noted for that. :-( *"The squeaky wheel gets de grease" as the old saying goes. *He gottum two degrease, collitch degrease. *rom a *university that was the SECOND one to build an electronic *computer... Without his help, fortunately.... * Yes! *:-) * But Eckert and Mauchly DID crib ideas from * Atanasof at Iowa State...as was proven in the federal * copyright trial held in the US much after ENIAC had * been sold off. Got a chance to see some of the remaining parts of ENIAC at the Smithsonian a few years back. Amazing machine - and an incredible piece of engineering in the vacuum tube era. On the University of Pennsylvania self-promotion section about ENIAC they show an internal project of putting the entirety of the ENIAC architecture on a single IC! :-) Humans be too impressed by physical bigness, I think, certainly when it comes to electronics. They don't, generally, appreciate the amazing amount of functionality that can be done with micro-circuits. Of course, some like to do things just for the fun of it. A professor up in Oregon state has built an all-RELAY microcomputer function-alike. Fills a half dozen tall, shallow glass-front cabinets in one room of his house. Appears to be built of all-new parts. Rather slow, of course, but the "clock" can be slowed down to show human senses how the sequencing and logic paths behave when instructed to do certain tasks. Outside of being an instruction aid, it has no practical use except to entertain him and anyone getting a demo. After seeing what a BC-221 can do when properly modified, I have no doubt that Jim could have made a pretty nifty antenna switch out of it! * Cranky aside, I personally think that the BC-221 "Frequency Meter" was over-praised. Yes, it has a VERY stable tunable oscillator and the accompanying book of numbers allows one to "read" (heterodyne, really) out to five places, maybe six. But, it never "metered" anything. Still, it was better than nothing back in WW2 times. One had to wait until around 1955 (?) to get a true frequency meter that read out directly any input directly up to 10 MHz. HP 524. BUFF...Big Ugly Fat Fellow of an oversized cabinet. Used to calibrate those things. :-( Did you know the WW2 SCR-300 Walkie-Talkie (FM, low VHF range) was VFO-controlled? UK had a near copy but with a different nomenclature. Used an internal crystal oscillator to spot-check dial calibrations, allow mechanical corrections of the pointer on the dial. The post-war PRC-8 family did the same sort of thing, "channels" were VFO-ed and spot-checked with an internal crystal oscillator. No BC-221 needed to set frequencies with those, no box of crystals needed to set up a new network. Incredible engineering design for the terrible operating temperature ranges encountered.. * [Heil off to one side, muttering, "You're not funny, Leonard."] .....speaking of damp horologists..... * *"We Vulcans have a saying, 'Only Nixon can go to China'." [line from one of the Star Trek movies...:-) has absolutely NO relevance to anything we were talking about, but then neither have the morsemen in here busy trying to assasinate characters] * [No electrons were annhilated in the writing of this message...] ...just moved around a bit "Green" newsgrouping. :-) LA |
|
#184
February 17th 07, 01:57 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quantity Over Quality (Was: Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...)
On 16 Feb 2007 20:53:46 -0800, "
wrote: On Feb 16, 5:27?pm, Leo wrote: On 16 Feb 2007 16:22:45 -0800, " wrote: On Feb 16, 3:10?pm, Leo wrote: On 14 Feb 2007 22:43:58 -0800, " wrote: From: Leo on Wed, 14 Feb 2007 17:50:23 -0500 wrote: On Feb 13, 7:15?pm, Leo wrote: On 13 Feb 2007 16:43:31 -0800, wrote: On Feb 13, 5:13?pm, Leo wrote: On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 15:12:59 -0500, Leo wrote: On 8 Feb 2007 18:01:57 -0800, wrote: snip After seeing what a BC-221 can do when properly modified, I have no doubt that Jim could have made a pretty nifty antenna switch out of it! Cranky aside, Good place for him! ...I personally think that the BC-221 "Frequency Meter" was over-praised. Yes, it has a VERY stable tunable oscillator and the accompanying book of numbers allows one to "read" (heterodyne, really) out to five places, maybe six. But, it never "metered" anything. Still, it was better than nothing back in WW2 times. Interesting point - I've wondered myself why it was called a 'frequency meter' when it did not actually meter anything.....why not a 'frequency standard', or a 'frequency calibrator'? snip LA 73, Leo |
|
#185
February 17th 07, 07:48 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quantity Over Quality (Was: Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...)
On Feb 17, 5:57�am, Leo wrote:
On 16 Feb 2007 20:53:46 -0800, " wrote: On Feb 16, 5:27?pm, Leo wrote: On 16 Feb 2007 16:22:45 -0800, " wrote: On Feb 16, 3:10?pm, Leo wrote: On 14 Feb 2007 22:43:58 -0800, " wrote: From: Leo on Wed, 14 Feb 2007 17:50:23 -0500 wrote: On Feb 13, 7:15?pm, Leo wrote: On 13 Feb 2007 16:43:31 -0800, wrote: On Feb 13, 5:13?pm, Leo wrote: On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 15:12:59 -0500, Leo wrote: On 8 Feb 2007 18:01:57 -0800, wrote: snip After seeing what a BC-221 can do when properly modified, I have no doubt that Jim could have made a pretty nifty antenna switch out of it! * Cranky aside, Good place for him! * * ...I personally think that the BC-221 "Frequency * Meter" was over-praised. *Yes, it has a VERY stable tunable * oscillator and the accompanying book of numbers allows one * to "read" (heterodyne, really) out to five places, maybe six. * But, it never "metered" anything. *Still, it was better than * nothing back in WW2 times. Interesting point - I've wondered myself why it was called a 'frequency meter' when it did not actually meter anything.....why not a *'frequency standard', or a 'frequency calibrator'? Well, considering when it was designed (probably some time around 1940 or thereabouts), the name sounded good. There just wasn't any sort of "meter" device around except for an audio-range unit or so and it didn't have all that great and accuracy. The "frequency standards" of that time all involved stabilized crystal oscillators. Decimal or binary indicators on front panels just weren't there, no Dekatrons, no Nixies, no "thermometer" displays using neon bulbs. The flip-flop was known but there wasn't much call for support circuitry to drive it (Schmitt triggers, sharp rise-time drivers, etc.). It was difficult to get an oscilloscope to reach 1 MHz bandwidth through amplification; had to be direct to the deflection plates! I'd like to find out the setup used to make the Tables in the little book that came with BC-221s. Obviously some form of automation involved from the type face and format in the book (typed in on printed blank pages). The "electric typewriters" were in existance and were no doubt used, plus servo motor systems to drive the tuning dial, but how did they coordinate the precise heterodynes to dial position and then type it on the book form pages? Must have been some clever engineering innovation to do that on a production basis back in the 1940s. The early General Radio "Frequency Standards" (up to around 1960) were just very big work-alikes to the little BC-221 with more bells and whistles. A circa-1950 version was at Army station ADA's Receiver site and always checking Transmitter site carrier frequencies (reported on the TTY order-wire). A circa-1955 version was in the Ramo-Wooldridge Calibration Lab where I got a tiny bit of overtime to check the time-position of one-second ticks against WWV HF ticks on week-ends. Had to do that due to varying propagation delays from Maryland (? old WWV site) to southern California. Had a big set of marine wet cells to act as an uninterruptible power supply...BIG ones in a separate room. The stable 1 MHz output of that GR standard went to a secondary standard HP-524 Frequency Counter that was used for routine frequency checks of other RF gear. Much, much easier to measure frequencies on a routine basis that way! An acquaintence down here made a little PIC micro version frequency counter in a tiny wood box that used a 9 V dry cell for a power supply...with a Hitachi LCD panel display, back-lit with an LED. I checked the TCXO against the 60 KHz WWVB carrier for him. Now, thinking about that, the progress in just a half century of my experience in electronics is nothing short of phenomenal. Back in 1950 the electronic counter was a NEW thing and couldn't reach more than about 1 MHz. Transistors were just a curiosity and not fully into any production...ICs hadn't been born and the Microprocessor was a science-fiction dream. There weren't any LCD display panels and no LEDs to back-light them then. "Digital" back then involved counting on fingers. Powering a "complex" counter and display by a small 9 VDC battery would have sent the claimant out of the room amidst the sound of raucous laughter...claims of operation up beyond 30 MHz would have added to the hooting and hollering. And today some olde-tyme hammes insist that manual morse code is "essential" to radio communications! I shake my head in wonderment at these ancient radio dinosours of pursed, disapproving lips. |
|
#186
February 25th 07, 06:57 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quantity Over Quality (Was: Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...)
|
|
#187
February 26th 07, 06:10 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quantity Over Quality (Was: Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...)
From: Leo on Sun, Feb 25 2007 10:57 am
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 22:15:28 -0500, Leo wrote: On 13 Feb 2007 16:43:31 -0800, wrote: On Feb 13, 5:13?pm, Leo wrote: On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 15:12:59 -0500, Leo wrote: On 8 Feb 2007 18:01:57 -0800, wrote: The Technician class is *not* now bigger than all other US license classes combined. And if present trends continue, it never will be. Perhaps! Perhaps not. Hmmm.....no rebuttal comments regarding the points listed above for 12 days now. Hope you enjoyed the math lesson - we'll do it again soon! I don't think he did...probably because he can't control the subject being argued, especially the comparisons he insists on using. :-) Just in looking at www.hamdata.com figures from 22 Feb to 25 Feb, the barest trend might be showing up. Overall USA totals went from 721,781 (22nd) to 721,745 (25th), a loss of 42. That was despite a tiny peak on the 24th to 721,839. Club calls increased by 6 from 10,349 (22nd) to 10,355 (25th)...so thats a small stabilizing influence. :-) The number of no-code-test Techs went from 311,851 (22nd) to 311,948 (25th) for a gain of 97. That despite a drop of 30 between 311,978 (24th) to 311,048 (25th) which may explain the slight rise in General class: 142,031 (22nd) to 142,043 (25th) for an increase of 12. Extra class went from 111,464 (22nd) to 111,497 (25th) for a gain of 33. That raises a question of just WHERE did those increases come from? His (apparent) home-made software just doesn't tell him from where. He keeps implying that "no-code-test Techs are all dropping out after 12 years" but yet those same numbers are RISING. Since that is apparent, then the number of new licensees coming in that way must be LARGER than the 97 gain indicated by raw hamdata.com numbers! At present data on the 25th, the total of no-code-test Techs to Tech-Plus is 352,210 (40,262 Tech Plus). The number of INDIVIDUAL licensees (less Club calls) on the 25th is 711,390. Combined, Tech and Tech-Plus are 49.51% of the total. Yes, that is NOT 50.01% but it is so damn close to 50% that only an unreasonable pedant would make a case for it "not being larger!" :-) What hasn't been made clear is EXACTLY where and with what Miccolis gets his data, data that he posts with implied "accuracy." I just go to www.hamdata.com and get their raw numbers...no sweat, no bother tying up a line (one needs DSL or equivalent to handle multi-MB files daily) and there is inherent TRUST with their numbers. On the other hand, there ain't no "trust" with Miccolis data. Does he use raw FCC database files and do sorting/tabulating from that? Or does he crib from some other, as yet unidentified source? Miccolis claims to "know" which and how many licensees are still within the 10-year license period. If he can "know" that, then a few days of raw data comparison can show "upgrades" from a "lower" class to a "newer." That would be a good indicator of WHERE the changes come from. He doesn't do that. He just makes noises implying that "all the decreases" are coming from the no-code-test class "dropouts." Yet the raw hamdata numbers show increases in that class. He hasn't been able to explain that yet. Miccolis keeps talking about the "not counting" those in the 2-year grace period. He hasn't explained HOW he determines this. It is possible to determine since the data fields ARE there in the database...just as there are indicators of not having been licensed before, thus are newbie entries. The once-newbies in no-code-test Tech who actually drop out after 12 years can be determined but all we get from him is the unquantified general-case ambiguous stuff about "they are just dropping out." :-( Regardez, LA |
|
#188
February 26th 07, 11:38 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quantity Over Quality (Was: Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...)
On 26 Feb 2007 10:10:20 -0800, "
wrote: From: Leo on Sun, Feb 25 2007 10:57 am On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 22:15:28 -0500, Leo wrote: On 13 Feb 2007 16:43:31 -0800, wrote: On Feb 13, 5:13?pm, Leo wrote: On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 15:12:59 -0500, Leo wrote: On 8 Feb 2007 18:01:57 -0800, wrote: The Technician class is *not* now bigger than all other US license classes combined. And if present trends continue, it never will be. Perhaps! Perhaps not. Hmmm.....no rebuttal comments regarding the points listed above for 12 days now. Hope you enjoyed the math lesson - we'll do it again soon! I don't think he did...probably because he can't control the subject being argued, especially the comparisons he insists on using. :-) Good point! Just in looking at www.hamdata.com figures from 22 Feb to 25 Feb, the barest trend might be showing up. Overall USA totals went from 721,781 (22nd) to 721,745 (25th), a loss of 42. That was despite a tiny peak on the 24th to 721,839. Club calls increased by 6 from 10,349 (22nd) to 10,355 (25th)...so thats a small stabilizing influence. :-) The number of no-code-test Techs went from 311,851 (22nd) to 311,948 (25th) for a gain of 97. That despite a drop of 30 between 311,978 (24th) to 311,048 (25th) which may explain the slight rise in General class: 142,031 (22nd) to 142,043 (25th) for an increase of 12. Extra class went from 111,464 (22nd) to 111,497 (25th) for a gain of 33. That raises a question of just WHERE did those increases come from? His (apparent) home-made software just doesn't tell him from where. He keeps implying that "no-code-test Techs are all dropping out after 12 years" but yet those same numbers are RISING. Since that is apparent, then the number of new licensees coming in that way must be LARGER than the 97 gain indicated by raw hamdata.com numbers! At present data on the 25th, the total of no-code-test Techs to Tech-Plus is 352,210 (40,262 Tech Plus). The number of INDIVIDUAL licensees (less Club calls) on the 25th is 711,390. Combined, Tech and Tech-Plus are 49.51% of the total. Yes, that is NOT 50.01% but it is so damn close to 50% that only an unreasonable pedant would make a case for it "not being larger!" :-) Agreed. What hasn't been made clear is EXACTLY where and with what Miccolis gets his data, data that he posts with implied "accuracy." I just go to www.hamdata.com and get their raw numbers...no sweat, no bother tying up a line (one needs DSL or equivalent to handle multi-MB files daily) and there is inherent TRUST with their numbers. On the other hand, there ain't no "trust" with Miccolis data. Does he use raw FCC database files and do sorting/tabulating from that? Or does he crib from some other, as yet unidentified source? ....as Mark Twain* said - "there are lies, damn lies, and statistics". Too bad he never got the chance to discover RRAP - he never knew how right he was! * (or Benjamin Disraeli.....who knows?) Regardless of the source of the numbers, the results would be more believable if the calculations were shown for each category.....otherwise, the numbers are just that - numbers. Numbers which can be tailored to support one's own agenda, should they wish to do so.... Plus, our resident - ahem - statistician does not have much of a track record here in the rigorous calculations area......lol Miccolis claims to "know" which and how many licensees are still within the 10-year license period. If he can "know" that, then a few days of raw data comparison can show "upgrades" from a "lower" class to a "newer." That would be a good indicator of WHERE the changes come from. He doesn't do that. He just makes noises implying that "all the decreases" are coming from the no-code-test class "dropouts." Yet the raw hamdata numbers show increases in that class. He hasn't been able to explain that yet. Agreed. Refer to the 'average distance to the Moon' that I called him on......I presented detailed reasoning to show his error - he simply restated his position over and over, as if doing do made it correct! Looks like a familiar pattern. Miccolis keeps talking about the "not counting" those in the 2-year grace period. He hasn't explained HOW he determines this. It is possible to determine since the data fields ARE there in the database...just as there are indicators of not having been licensed before, thus are newbie entries. The once-newbies in no-code-test Tech who actually drop out after 12 years can be determined but all we get from him is the unquantified general-case ambiguous stuff about "they are just dropping out." :-( There appears to be a belief amongst some here that the removal of code testing will open the floodgates, resulting in an influx of new hobbyists who saw code as a barrier, and up to now stayed out of Amateur Radio. I don't believe that this is likely to happen. Of course, there are some who may have been held back by Morse code testing alone (which may have been true in 1960, but not in communications rich 2007) - but I'd say that the vast majority of people interested in becoming hams have already done so. Considering the paradoxical manner in which Morse code testing was dropped in the US, new wannabe hams still have the hurdle of two exams to pass before they hit the General level and have significant access to the HF voice subbands. The Tech and Tech Plus licensees gained very little when code was dropped - a small voice allotment on 10m (not worth the expense of setting up an HF station for...), and (here's the paradox...) access to three HF CW subbands, which are useless to them without the ability to use Morse code! For this reason alone, I would expect to see a decrease in the Tech categories, and a proportionate increase in the General category (and to a lesser degree, Extra), representing the Techs who wish to take advantage of the Morse-free HF access at that level. After this correction, it should level off - then it's dead guys and decreases for the forseeable future, unless the younger members of society get r-e-a-l-l-y bored with the Internet, cellphones, text messaging and IM! Regardez, LA 73, Leo |
|
#189
February 27th 07, 01:44 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quantity Over Quality (Was: Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...)
From: Leo on Mon, Feb 26 2007 3:38 pm
wrote: From: Leo on Sun, Feb 25 2007 10:57 am On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 22:15:28 -0500, Leo wrote: On 13 Feb 2007 16:43:31 -0800, wrote: On Feb 13, 5:13?pm, Leo wrote: On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 15:12:59 -0500, Leo wrote: On 8 Feb 2007 18:01:57 -0800, wrote: The Technician class is *not* now bigger than all other US license classes combined. And if present trends continue, it never will be. Perhaps! Perhaps not. Hmmm.....no rebuttal comments regarding the points listed above for 12 days now. Hope you enjoyed the math lesson - we'll do it again soon! I don't think he did...probably because he can't control the subject being argued, especially the comparisons he insists on using. :-) Good point! CONTROL is everything in this medium. :-) Miccolis has the annoying habit of trying to solidify his comparisons of His making, then saying another's comparison are "wrong" or "mistaken" or some such. For example, he keeps OMITTING all USA licensees from totals if they are in the US 2-year grace period. Since he hasn't presented HOW he determines this (it can be done from FCC database data fields), everyone has to take his data on face value. I mean how many have the time and high-speed connections to grab a daily 80 MB+ data file and sort it? :-) Now, on this "grace period:" Contrary to implied belief, the FCC still considers those licensees to be licensees. Why would they hold the callsigns in abbeyance until they are renewed? US Regulations state that licensees cannot operate when in the grace period until renewed, but they are still "hams" other- wise. Over a long period of licensing, one can simply take 5/6th of the totals for a class and say those are "in the grace period" and not be far off the actual, exact, uber-pedantic grace period. At present data on the 25th, the total of no-code-test Techs to Tech-Plus is 352,210 (40,262 Tech Plus). The number of INDIVIDUAL licensees (less Club calls) on the 25th is 711,390. Combined, Tech and Tech-Plus are 49.51% of the total. Yes, that is NOT 50.01% but it is so damn close to 50% that only an unreasonable pedant would make a case for it "not being larger!" :-) Agreed. In looking at the www.hamdata.com figures by class for 26th February and comparing it with the 22nd (day before the sky fell on morsemen), there's the barest smidgen of a trend. Overall US individual licensee totals fell by 44 (711,432 minus 711,388). Technician class (the evil no-code-test one that is 'supposed' to be causing all the drop-outs) went from 311,851 on the 22nd to 311,966 on the 26th. That's a gain of 115! Except for that short one-day drop (24th to 25th) of 30, no-code-test Technician class has been steadily INCREASING. Extras went from 111,464 on the 22nd to 111,500 on the 26th, a gain of 36 and Generals went from 142,031 on the 22nd to 142,051 on the 26th, another gain, of 20. ALL the other classes showed losses. By the way, the combined Tech and Tech-Plus classes (352,199) now make up 49.51% of all USA individual amateur radio licensees. Slow but inexorable growth trend (albeit very small) despite Tech-Plus losses of 147 from 22nd to 26th. There's a higher-than-even probability that many Tech-Plusses upgraded to other classes since the 22nd. Just the same, individual licensee grand-sum total shows a small decrease in just five days. Regardless of the source of the numbers, the results would be more believable if the calculations were shown for each category.....otherwise, the numbers are just that - numbers. Numbers which can be tailored to support one's own agenda, should they wish to do so.... Plus, our resident - ahem - statistician does not have much of a track record here in the rigorous calculations area......lol Well, let's just say that NASA won't be consulting him anytime soon to help plot Earth to Moon or Earth to Mars space trips... :-) Agreed. Refer to the 'average distance to the Moon' that I called him on......I presented detailed reasoning to show his error - he simply restated his position over and over, as if doing do made it correct! Looks like a familiar pattern. VERY - unfortunately - familiar pattern. :-( There appears to be a belief amongst some here that the removal of code testing will open the floodgates, resulting in an influx of new hobbyists who saw code as a barrier, and up to now stayed out of Amateur Radio. That's the PRO-code-testing rationale. It is wrong, of course, but if that is repeated often enough by lots of morsemen, it will become "CW" (Conventional Wisdom). I don't believe that this is likely to happen. Of course, there are some who may have been held back by Morse code testing alone (which may have been true in 1960, but not in communications rich 2007) - but I'd say that the vast majority of people interested in becoming hams have already done so. I agree with you there. But it's almost impossible to convince the olde-tymers that. :-( Having observed US amateur radio since the late 1940s until now, the amount of "real" publicity given about amateur radio OUTSIDE of the amateur radio community is limited to the occasional "filler" piece in the newspapers on weekends or slow news days. It is a quaint hobby thing done by either kids or retirees from the general newspaper stories. That overlooks some REAL efforts done by experimenters (such as a home-made, precision Vector Network Analyzer) or the emergency communicators (a group in Arizona having modified RVs ready-to-roll in very quick notice). The USA ARRL has simply failed to get any substantive network and newspaper attention about amateur radio for YEARS. If they do, it will prominently feature 'officers' of the League...which is itself indicative of what They seem to have wanted all along. :-( It is nice that respected newsman Walter Cronkhite has narrated a special video. Big problem is that such a video is USELESS to the purpose of attracting anyone in the general public to ham radio if it airs in the wee small hours of morning or on "community channel" cable. Considering the paradoxical manner in which Morse code testing was dropped in the US, new wannabe hams still have the hurdle of two exams to pass before they hit the General level and have significant access to the HF voice subbands. The Tech and Tech Plus licensees gained very little when code was dropped - a small voice allotment on 10m (not worth the expense of setting up an HF station for...), and (here's the paradox...) access to three HF CW subbands, which are useless to them without the ability to use Morse code! I know, but *I* wasn't going to fight that after trying to drop code testing for over 15 years... So, the newbies get some (however slight) "action space" for "CW"...which is really a sop or compromise to the stridency of olde-tyme hamme morsemen. Maybe some try it out and do it for a while. It's a safe bet that the 'establishment' (hard-core morsemen) aren't going to be kind to them. :-( For this reason alone, I would expect to see a decrease in the Tech categories, and a proportionate increase in the General category (and to a lesser degree, Extra), representing the Techs who wish to take advantage of the Morse-free HF access at that level. I disagree a bit based on my observations in one corner of a large urban area of the southwestern USA. The interest of newbies here seems to be for the Technician class. Given an urban population of roughly 8 million in a 120 by 60 mile area, VHF and up works out very well for contacts that they can actually meet in-person. Of course, the Greater L.A. Area is one where the auto rules what happens and that may not apply to other USA locations. Again, by direct observation, Techs seem to be younger in age than the other classes (discounting Novice) and prefer the company of those nearer their own age. One could see the same thing two decades ago on the "social" BBSs (those that had regular in-person gatherings of members). The "age" group is NOT necessarily just chronological...those who are bright, lively, alert, flexible with differing mores and opinions have a "younger" mental age. The stodgy olde-tymer will take umbrage to that since they maintain They are bright, lively, etc., but they overlook the fact that They are holding to thoughts of a bygone era, three to four decades ago when They were chronologically young. Social mores CHANGE and They can't always adapt to that, preferring the company of those with like minds (or 'hive minds'). After this correction, it should level off - then it's dead guys and decreases for the forseeable future, unless the younger members of society get r-e-a-l-l-y bored with the Internet, cellphones, text messaging and IM! I agree with the "dead guys and decreases." I don't quite agree with the others. Yes, the Internet and cell phone has become the new phenomenon of NOW. Folks of now ARE affluent enough to afford cell phones and unlimited-service 'Net accounts. NOW is NOT the wind-coils-on-round-oatmeal-containers style of pre- WW2 times or futzing with "crystal sets" and pi-net two-tube MOPAs in the "most economical manner." NOW is NOT the 1960s or the 1950s with attendant monetary values. The USA pushed a "radio panic button" with 11m CB back in 1958. A decade later the off-shore makers of inexpensive but fully-functional, all-channel mobile or fixed transceivers for the UNlicensed was the lift- off for communicating. The DESIRE to communicate was always there. The growth of the BBS and BBS networks is a different thing but still indicative of a desire to communicate. That worked until the Internet went public just 16 years ago...competition in means, a way that forced most BBSs to just give up. Cell phones are slightly older but not much...again the DESIRE to communicate is there and evident from supermarkets to sidewalks. Amateur radio CAN help that DESIRE to communicate. But, it will just shoot itself down if it stays mired in what was "gee-whiz technology" four decades ago...or the competition to collect as much wallpaper as possible (which isn't real communication, just an odd contest). Amateur radio just can't get anywhere if all the cheering sections just spend all their time giving each other high-fives on "how good we are" or "we are the pioneers of radio" (very, very past tense). Self- praise is something done here in moom pitchas (see Sunday's Oscar Awards). The difference is that the motion picture industry THRIVES on publicity; amateur radio publicity outside of itself is almost nil. 73, LA |
|
#190
February 27th 07, 10:29 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quantity Over Quality (Was: Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...)
On 26 Feb 2007 17:44:22 -0800, "
wrote: From: Leo on Mon, Feb 26 2007 3:38 pm wrote: From: Leo on Sun, Feb 25 2007 10:57 am On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 22:15:28 -0500, Leo wrote: On 13 Feb 2007 16:43:31 -0800, wrote: On Feb 13, 5:13?pm, Leo wrote: On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 15:12:59 -0500, Leo wrote: On 8 Feb 2007 18:01:57 -0800, wrote: The Technician class is *not* now bigger than all other US license classes combined. And if present trends continue, it never will be. Perhaps! Perhaps not. Hmmm.....no rebuttal comments regarding the points listed above for 12 days now. Hope you enjoyed the math lesson - we'll do it again soon! I don't think he did...probably because he can't control the subject being argued, especially the comparisons he insists on using. :-) Good point! CONTROL is everything in this medium. :-) Miccolis has the annoying habit of trying to solidify his comparisons of His making, then saying another's comparison are "wrong" or "mistaken" or some such. For example, he keeps OMITTING all USA licensees from totals if they are in the US 2-year grace period. Since he hasn't presented HOW he determines this (it can be done from FCC database data fields), everyone has to take his data on face value. I mean how many have the time and high-speed connections to grab a daily 80 MB+ data file and sort it? :-) Now, on this "grace period:" Contrary to implied belief, the FCC still considers those licensees to be licensees. Why would they hold the callsigns in abbeyance until they are renewed? US Regulations state that licensees cannot operate when in the grace period until renewed, but they are still "hams" other- wise. Over a long period of licensing, one can simply take 5/6th of the totals for a class and say those are "in the grace period" and not be far off the actual, exact, uber-pedantic grace period. At present data on the 25th, the total of no-code-test Techs to Tech-Plus is 352,210 (40,262 Tech Plus). The number of INDIVIDUAL licensees (less Club calls) on the 25th is 711,390. Combined, Tech and Tech-Plus are 49.51% of the total. Yes, that is NOT 50.01% but it is so damn close to 50% that only an unreasonable pedant would make a case for it "not being larger!" :-) Agreed. In looking at the www.hamdata.com figures by class for 26th February and comparing it with the 22nd (day before the sky fell on morsemen), there's the barest smidgen of a trend. Overall US individual licensee totals fell by 44 (711,432 minus 711,388). Technician class (the evil no-code-test one that is 'supposed' to be causing all the drop-outs) went from 311,851 on the 22nd to 311,966 on the 26th. That's a gain of 115! Except for that short one-day drop (24th to 25th) of 30, no-code-test Technician class has been steadily INCREASING. Extras went from 111,464 on the 22nd to 111,500 on the 26th, a gain of 36 and Generals went from 142,031 on the 22nd to 142,051 on the 26th, another gain, of 20. ALL the other classes showed losses. By the way, the combined Tech and Tech-Plus classes (352,199) now make up 49.51% of all USA individual amateur radio licensees. Slow but inexorable growth trend (albeit very small) despite Tech-Plus losses of 147 from 22nd to 26th. There's a higher-than-even probability that many Tech-Plusses upgraded to other classes since the 22nd. Just the same, individual licensee grand-sum total shows a small decrease in just five days. Regardless of the source of the numbers, the results would be more believable if the calculations were shown for each category.....otherwise, the numbers are just that - numbers. Numbers which can be tailored to support one's own agenda, should they wish to do so.... Plus, our resident - ahem - statistician does not have much of a track record here in the rigorous calculations area......lol Well, let's just say that NASA won't be consulting him anytime soon to help plot Earth to Moon or Earth to Mars space trips... :-) Agreed. Refer to the 'average distance to the Moon' that I called him on......I presented detailed reasoning to show his error - he simply restated his position over and over, as if doing do made it correct! Looks like a familiar pattern. VERY - unfortunately - familiar pattern. :-( There appears to be a belief amongst some here that the removal of code testing will open the floodgates, resulting in an influx of new hobbyists who saw code as a barrier, and up to now stayed out of Amateur Radio. That's the PRO-code-testing rationale. It is wrong, of course, but if that is repeated often enough by lots of morsemen, it will become "CW" (Conventional Wisdom). I don't believe that this is likely to happen. Of course, there are some who may have been held back by Morse code testing alone (which may have been true in 1960, but not in communications rich 2007) - but I'd say that the vast majority of people interested in becoming hams have already done so. I agree with you there. But it's almost impossible to convince the olde-tymers that. :-( Having observed US amateur radio since the late 1940s until now, the amount of "real" publicity given about amateur radio OUTSIDE of the amateur radio community is limited to the occasional "filler" piece in the newspapers on weekends or slow news days. It is a quaint hobby thing done by either kids or retirees from the general newspaper stories. That overlooks some REAL efforts done by experimenters (such as a home-made, precision Vector Network Analyzer) or the emergency communicators (a group in Arizona having modified RVs ready-to-roll in very quick notice). The USA ARRL has simply failed to get any substantive network and newspaper attention about amateur radio for YEARS. If they do, it will prominently feature 'officers' of the League...which is itself indicative of what They seem to have wanted all along. :-( It is nice that respected newsman Walter Cronkhite has narrated a special video. Big problem is that such a video is USELESS to the purpose of attracting anyone in the general public to ham radio if it airs in the wee small hours of morning or on "community channel" cable. True enough - the only time that I have seen that video is when I downloaded it from the ARRL website. Considering the paradoxical manner in which Morse code testing was dropped in the US, new wannabe hams still have the hurdle of two exams to pass before they hit the General level and have significant access to the HF voice subbands. The Tech and Tech Plus licensees gained very little when code was dropped - a small voice allotment on 10m (not worth the expense of setting up an HF station for...), and (here's the paradox...) access to three HF CW subbands, which are useless to them without the ability to use Morse code! I know, but *I* wasn't going to fight that after trying to drop code testing for over 15 years... So, the newbies get some (however slight) "action space" for "CW"...which is really a sop or compromise to the stridency of olde-tyme hamme morsemen. Maybe some try it out and do it for a while. It's a safe bet that the 'establishment' (hard-core morsemen) aren't going to be kind to them. :-( Probably an accurate assessment...  For this reason alone, I would expect to see a decrease in the Tech categories, and a proportionate increase in the General category (and to a lesser degree, Extra), representing the Techs who wish to take advantage of the Morse-free HF access at that level. I disagree a bit based on my observations in one corner of a large urban area of the southwestern USA. The interest of newbies here seems to be for the Technician class. Given an urban population of roughly 8 million in a 120 by 60 mile area, VHF and up works out very well for contacts that they can actually meet in-person. Of course, the Greater L.A. Area is one where the auto rules what happens and that may not apply to other USA locations. Again, by direct observation, Techs seem to be younger in age than the other classes (discounting Novice) and prefer the company of those nearer their own age. One could see the same thing two decades ago on the "social" BBSs (those that had regular in-person gatherings of members). The "age" group is NOT necessarily just chronological...those who are bright, lively, alert, flexible with differing mores and opinions have a "younger" mental age. Interesting perspective - I hadn't thought of that! The stodgy olde-tymer will take umbrage to that since they maintain They are bright, lively, etc., but they overlook the fact that They are holding to thoughts of a bygone era, three to four decades ago when They were chronologically young. Social mores CHANGE and They can't always adapt to that, preferring the company of those with like minds (or 'hive minds'). A favourite quote on that subject: "A man must consider what a rich realm he abdicates when he becomes a conformist." ~Ralph Waldo Emerson After this correction, it should level off - then it's dead guys and decreases for the forseeable future, unless the younger members of society get r-e-a-l-l-y bored with the Internet, cellphones, text messaging and IM! I agree with the "dead guys and decreases." I don't quite agree with the others. Yes, the Internet and cell phone has become the new phenomenon of NOW. Folks of now ARE affluent enough to afford cell phones and unlimited-service 'Net accounts. NOW is NOT the wind-coils-on-round-oatmeal-containers style of pre- WW2 times or futzing with "crystal sets" and pi-net two-tube MOPAs in the "most economical manner." NOW is NOT the 1960s or the 1950s with attendant monetary values. Good point. The USA pushed a "radio panic button" with 11m CB back in 1958. Thanks for saying 11m! A decade later the off-shore makers of inexpensive but fully-functional, all-channel mobile or fixed transceivers for the UNlicensed was the lift- off for communicating. The DESIRE to communicate was always there. The growth of the BBS and BBS networks is a different thing but still indicative of a desire to communicate. That worked until the Internet went public just 16 years ago...competition in means, a way that forced most BBSs to just give up. Cell phones are slightly older but not much...again the DESIRE to communicate is there and evident from supermarkets to sidewalks. Amateur radio CAN help that DESIRE to communicate. But, it will just shoot itself down if it stays mired in what was "gee-whiz technology" four decades ago...or the competition to collect as much wallpaper as possible (which isn't real communication, just an odd contest). Amateur radio just can't get anywhere if all the cheering sections just spend all their time giving each other high-fives on "how good we are" or "we are the pioneers of radio" (very, very past tense). Self- praise is something done here in moom pitchas (see Sunday's Oscar Awards). The difference is that the motion picture industry THRIVES on publicity; amateur radio publicity outside of itself is almost nil. On that point we agree completely. 73, LA 73, Leo |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
