Dee Flint wrote:

...
You are overlooking the digital modes already available, for example,
SSTV and Fax for images. Although not fast, how many pictures of the
same item do you really need immediately for example? It is not going
to be a hardship if it takes a couple of minutes for the image to
transfer rather than a couple of seconds.

Text data (documents, instructions, directions, etc) are easily
handled by error correcting modes now available. Granted these modes
aren't used much but all the sender and recipient have to do is agree
on which mode.

Yes, like the "Model A" built by Ford, time to move up to new standards!
Surely time for the "Model B" anyway!

Depends on how hard up for power you are. In some cases, no problem.
In other cases, power will be so limited that you would only send the
most urgent of messages.

Well if you are that hardup for power, you darn well are NOT going to
let some waste it hammering out CW for EXTENDED periods of time,
transmitting data at LOW speeds or attempting to use voice and wasting
BOTH time AND power!


There are tools that will meet these needs today. They are not as
fast as you would like them to be but they do work.

There are still horses around but I'd rather drive a car ...

To shape the future, we need to understand the abilities of the
present. I'd suggest getting out there and working SSTV (ATV on UHF),

To shape the future we need progressive people to deal with it, the old,
the lame, the outdated, the slow, etc. must be moved aside. However,
when it comes to "antique people" they can be quite stubborn and
difficult to move aside! Gentle force must be applied ...

One can't just wave a magic wand and say "let it be so."

No, and we are working on the changes ... well, some are just arguing
that all is impossible, not worth doing, or is a waste of time ... but
what doesn't have its' "Nay Sayers?"

The future comes ... today it seems one day closer ...

JS

On Mar 19, 2:41 pm, John Smith I wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:


[snip]

To shape the future, we need to understand the abilities of the
present. I'd suggest getting out there and working SSTV (ATV on UHF),


To shape the future we need progressive people to deal with it, the old,
the lame, the outdated, the slow, etc. must be moved aside. However,
when it comes to "antique people" they can be quite stubborn and
difficult to move aside! Gentle force must be applied ...


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.

Sometimes those "antique people" have valuable insights. Shoving them
aside could actually be detrimental to the development of new modes.
They are the ones who have the experience to supply information on
what weaknesses may need to be addressed. From a less altruistic
point of view, they may be the ones to have the money to fund the
progressive people.

Dee, N8UZE

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 ...

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 ...

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

Regards,
JS

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, 4:10 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

"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

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.

Dee Flint wrote:

[A WHOLE bunch ...]

Dee:

There are a few notable examples of forward thinking men. Only a fool
would NOT recognize Cecil as a GLARING example--an older gentleman with
an open mind, exploratory nature, apparently good mechanical, "present
theory", math and other skills. And, look at Roy with his program
EZNEC--a NOTABLE offering! Even Richard with his cryptic, antagonistic
and provoking posts helps spur complex thought and useful responses.

Age doesn't negate a single thing, necessarily ...

You, yourself, have at least suggested a moderate willingness to assist
and welcome newbies, you probably have an affect on others who engage
you--together, as a team, we will work this all out ... much discussion
usually takes place before meaningful advancements are accomplished.

There isn't really anything wrong with "boat-anchor maintainers" and
appliance users--often they offer interesting facts and chat--not all
here needs be dead serious, some can be enjoyed with a glass of wine ...
one can spend an enjoyable hour or two just rag-chewing ... even a
cocktail party is best when "there is someone for everyone."

Regards,
JS