On Mar 19, 3:28 pm, John Smith I wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:

...

It is more productive if these progressive people understand the
present methodologies and their strengths and weaknesses. The
strengths need to be conserved and the weaknesses eliminated,
hopefully without introducing new weaknesses.
...
Dee, N8UZE

Dee:

This whole stance-proposal of yours is quite ridiculous, preposterous
and obviously only formed to put forth your own personal preferences ...

SSTV is but one GLARING example, sstv is stupid in the age of .mpg,
.avi, .divx, etc. with real-time encoding ...


In this particular subpost, I am not addressing any one mode per se.
I am discussing the issue of ignoring old methods and old people
simply because they are old. Much is lost if one takes that approach.

Often the best results are obtained with a mix of the old and new and
the synergy between new peopl and old people.

You are simply denying this possiblity.

As far as personal preferences go, the digital modes are of no
interest to me. I've experimented with what's available so I can help
the beginners get started. Hopefully one of these people will go on
to develop the new and better modes that you want.

The least you could do is take a class or read a few good books on data
compaction of speech, text, images, movies, etc. ...

You appear as a child discussing college physics ...


Perhaps so. However, I do know that the compacted mpgs, avis, etc
that I download from the internet are large even when compacted and
that's for short files. Files of several megabytes take minutes even
on a high speed cable connection. I'd hate to think how that would
slow down over an HF path with all the path noise, interference,
static, etc. Afterall, error checking would be required for any
critical messages.

Don't even attempt to BS a fellow BS'er! 8-)


I can believe you're a BS'er!

You repeatedly imply or outright state that this is simple. Well
publish the software and algorithm. If you don't have the skills,
find someone who does and get them to do it. Get it out in the public
so people can give it a field trial. I'd be more than willing to try
it out.

This is an area where we would be HAPPY to be proved wrong.

The so-called "naysayers" are simply pointing out the issues that must
be considered and overcome to make this happen.

Dee, N8UZE

Dee Flint wrote:

... [snipped for size/time]
Dee, N8UZE


No one is advocating ignoring/dismissing/discarding "something" just
because of age ... rather, the only way I would chuck technology is if
it has outlived it usefulness ... however, a museum may be suitable for
a WHOLE BUNCH of it!

There is really NO reason to develop anything to set a standard and
start using efficient digital communications tomorrow ... as I have
pointed out, Ogg Vorbis is open source code/algorithms, it offers
excellent compression and is way more than is needed for mere speech.
In fact, many open source utilities are already open to use/modification
and suitable for adaptation to amateur needs ...

It is kind of like when Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs founded desktop
computing on a desktop sized computer--all the hardware was already
there in place, most of the software existed as examples from other HUGE
computers which were predecessors ... so is it here, set up a simple
interface from sound card output to mike or line in on an xceiver and an
interface from rig out to sound card line in, load up some software and
off you go into digital speech--no einsteins needed, you can pull most
everything off a shelf or download it from the internet (in the amateur
tradition, would be nice if you knew enough to homebrew the
interfaces!), get a high school/college programmer interested in your
project--off ya go!

The nit-picking naysayers will keep attempting to chuck a stick in the
spokes of progress, of course this does provide MAJOR HUMOR while
SERIOUSLY degrading their credibility--use "stick chucking" at your own
discretion!

Regards,
JS

On Mar 19, 4:26�pm, "Dee Flint" wrote:
On Mar 19, 3:28 pm, John Smith I wrote:





Dee Flint wrote:

* ...

It is more productive if these progressive people understand the
present methodologies and their strengths and weaknesses. *The
strengths need to be conserved and the weaknesses eliminated,
hopefully without introducing new weaknesses.
...
Dee, N8UZE

Dee:

This whole stance-proposal of yours is quite ridiculous, preposterous
and obviously only formed to put forth your own personal preferences ...

SSTV is but one GLARING example, sstv is stupid in the age of .mpg,
.avi, .divx, etc. with real-time encoding ...

In this particular subpost, I am not addressing any one mode per se.
I am discussing the issue of ignoring old methods and old people
simply because they are old. *Much is lost if one takes that approach.

Often the best results are obtained with a mix of the old and new and
the synergy between new peopl and old people.

You are simply denying this possiblity.

As far as personal preferences go, the digital modes are of no
interest to me. *I've experimented with what's available so I can help
the beginners get started. *Hopefully one of these people will go on
to develop the new and better modes that you want.

The least you could do is take a class or read a few good books on data
compaction of speech, text, images, movies, etc. ...

You appear as a child discussing college physics ...

Perhaps so. *However, I do know that the compacted mpgs, avis, etc
that I download from the internet are large even when compacted and
that's for short files. *Files of several megabytes take minutes even
on a high speed cable connection. *I'd hate to think how that would
slow down over an HF path with all the path noise, interference,
static, etc. *Afterall, error checking would be required for any
critical messages.

Don't even attempt to BS a fellow BS'er! *8-)

I can believe you're a BS'er!

You repeatedly imply or outright state that this is simple. *Well
publish the software and algorithm. *If you don't have the skills,
find someone who does and get them to do it. *Get it out in the public
so people can give it a field trial. *I'd be more than willing to try
it out.

This is an area where we would be HAPPY to be proved wrong.

The so-called "naysayers" are simply pointing out the issues that must
be considered and overcome to make this happen.

Dee, N8UZE- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dee is an elietest bitch to put it mildly and one those that has
brought ham radio to edge of extintion where it stands now and who
willing prolonged the code wars twhile agreing NoCode victory was
certain at some point.

On Mar 19, 4:10 pm, John Smith I wrote:

. . . so is it here, set up a simple
interface from sound card output to mike or line in on an xceiver and an
interface from rig out to sound card line in, load up some software and
off you go into digital speech--no einsteins needed, you can pull most
everything off a shelf or download it from the internet (in the amateur
tradition, would be nice if you knew enough to homebrew the
interfaces!), get a high school/college programmer interested in your
project--off ya go!

A piece of cake eh? That's good. When do you expect to post a beta
version?

. . . .

Regards,
JS

w3rv

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 15:49:04 -0400, wrote:



youmst admit its prepetitious.

On 20 Mar 2007 10:22:28 -0700, an old friend wrote:
On Mar 20, 12:59 pm, wrote:
On Mar 19, 4:10 pm, John Smith I wrote:

. . . so is it here, set up a simple
interface from sound card output to mike or line in on an xceiver and an
interface from rig out to sound card line in, load up some software and
off you go into digital speech--no einsteins needed, you can pull most
everything off a shelf or download it from the internet (in the amateur
tradition, would be nice if you knew enough to homebrew the
interfaces!), get a high school/college programmer interested in your
project--off ya go!

A piece of cake eh? That's good. When do you expect to post a beta
version?
beta of what? it is well past a beta edtion in most case
onlyin your dreams

On Mar 19, 11:49�am, wrote:
On 19 Mar 2007 10:07:30 -0700, "

wrote:
On Mar 19, 7:45?am, "an_old_friend" wrote:
On Mar 19, 1:26 am, John Smith I wrote: John Smith I wrote:

Over in RRAM there seems to be much debate on the need for HS data
communications, strange ...

debate I call it whing maybe you are being polite

* Not "whining." *It's a technical barrier to reach "high speed"
* approaching T1 rates on small slices of bandwidth. *ALL radio
* services face that same problem.

well I plead a matter dates at first it did just seem to be whing more
debate like discussion seems to ensued

Mark, please slow down on replies and try to think of
what you wrote. Now, I'm fairly good at interpreting
what was written, including intent, but that single
sentence has me baffled.

I will repeat. RATE of information conveyed in ANY radio
or wired communications service is a function of the
comm circuit BANDWIDTH. That is a definite law of
information theory.

Except for the amateur 10m band, the bandspace on
amateur HF frequencies is LIMITED for any "high speed"
(presumably Internet-quality data) communications.
That presents a technical barrier that is immune to
human legislation, emotions, desires, whatever.

"High speed" information transfer is itself a subjective
label. An adaptation of the common 56 KBPS method
used by most modems might put such rates into US
amateur radio but right now the regulations hold it to
an equivalent 300 WPM rate. Now, to some that is
"high speed." To someone selling DSL or "better"
service it is very low speed.

Just saying "high speed" without quantifying it doesn't
make it an argument pro or con. Saying one "must have
high speed" isn't an argument or debate or discussion,
it is just a troll, a phrase looking to be a flame war
igniter.

73, Len AF6AY

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Mar 19, 11:49?am, wrote:
On 19 Mar 2007 10:07:30 -0700, "

wrote:
On Mar 19, 7:45?am, "an_old_friend" wrote:
On Mar 19, 1:26 am, John Smith I wrote:
John Smith I wrote:

Over in RRAM there seems to be much debate on the need for HS data
communications, strange ...

debate I call it whing maybe you are being polite

Not "whining." It's a technical barrier to reach "high speed"
approaching T1 rates on small slices of bandwidth. ALL radio
services face that same problem.

well I plead a matter dates at first it did just seem to be whing more
debate like discussion seems to ensued

Mark, please slow down on replies and try to think of
what you wrote.

with the punce gotcha he wonders why I simple don't bother to ty impoving my
spelling do u hav anyting cognet two say?



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"John Smith I" wrote in message
.com...
Dee Flint wrote:

... [snipped for size/time]
Dee, N8UZE


No one is advocating ignoring/dismissing/discarding "something" just
because of age ... rather, the only way I would chuck technology is if it
has outlived it usefulness ... however, a museum may be suitable for a
WHOLE BUNCH of it!

There is really NO reason to develop anything to set a standard and start
using efficient digital communications tomorrow ... as I have pointed out,
Ogg Vorbis is open source code/algorithms, it offers excellent compression
and is way more than is needed for mere speech. In fact, many open source
utilities are already open to use/modification and suitable for adaptation
to amateur needs ...

It is kind of like when Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs founded desktop
computing on a desktop sized computer--all the hardware was already there
in place, most of the software existed as examples from other HUGE
computers which were predecessors ... so is it here, set up a simple
interface from sound card output to mike or line in on an xceiver and an
interface from rig out to sound card line in, load up some software and
off you go into digital speech--no einsteins needed, you can pull most
everything off a shelf or download it from the internet (in the amateur
tradition, would be nice if you knew enough to homebrew the interfaces!),
get a high school/college programmer interested in your project--off ya
go!

The nit-picking naysayers will keep attempting to chuck a stick in the
spokes of progress, of course this does provide MAJOR HUMOR while
SERIOUSLY degrading their credibility--use "stick chucking" at your own
discretion!

Regards,
JS
pure whine and pure BS
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

only in your dreams woger


http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/

--