Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #401   Report Post  
Old July 21st 03, 04:56 PM
Dan/W4NTI
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Brian" wrote in message
om...
"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message

...
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"William H. O'Hara, III" wrote in message
.61...
Kim,

I don't think that you mentioned the
only practical use for CW, today. In
an emergency operation one can use CW
almost as a cipher. If Newsreporters, whom
possess "investigative skills", were to
attempt their intercepts by a scanner,
then they would simply have no
comprehension.


With all due respect, William (or is it Bill), seems that deliberately
coding/encrypting on the amateur bands is contrary to the R&R, if ya

know
what I mean. And, it also seems to me that any reporter with really

good
investigative skills would be well aware of your scenario, above.



Now Ive heard everything. CW is now a method of encryption. Oh good

grief.

That is a first. I never thought Id live so long as to see so much

idiocy
about the Morse Code. Unbelievable

Dan/W4NTI


Dan, its not a first, its a second.

One ham on rrap has suggested that he would not only use Morse/CW but
that he would send the characters so atrociously that it could not be
read by a computer code reader so that the NCTs couldn't know what he
was saying.

You have DICK to thank for that.


Ive been know to do that in some situations. I.E. When the returning
station is sending perfect cw and cant copy a thing I sent to him. Must be
on a reader and a keyboard. I just screw up the character spacing, or go to
a bug. Works every time.

Dan/W4NTI



  #402   Report Post  
Old July 21st 03, 11:32 PM
Len Over 21
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Dwight Stewart
writes:

"William H. O'Hara, III" wrote:

Opsec happens to mean Operation Security.
I guess that everyone loves Delta
Force and the terms endeared by SFOD-1D.


The acronym "OPSEC" has been around for many decades - long before Delta
Force or whatever. I first heard it from my father when I was just a young
child. And I've seen the acronym in very old books about WWII.


Well, Dwight, some in here still think there was CW used in the First
Gulf War to send intel data "from behind enemy lines." :-)

I've never heard the term "OPSEC" in the 1950s while on active duty or
any time as a civilian from the 1960s on through the end of the 1980s
while visiting different military branch installations.

COMSEC or COMmunications SECurity is the current buzzword (of the
last decade or so) and refers to any means of encryption in military
communications.

Oddly, "ICOM" or "Integrated COMSEC" is applied to later models of the
SINCGARS R/T that includes hardware for voice/data encryption and
decryption. That does not refer to the Japanese designer-manufacturer
of communications equipment Icom.

Perhaps some have seen too many Chuck Norris movies? :-)

LHA
  #403   Report Post  
Old July 21st 03, 11:32 PM
Len Over 21
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , "Ryan, KC8PMX"
writes:

There is a little bit over 50Mhz of frequencies they could do alot with
there, and I almost would accept the loss of those bands if and only if we
had a guarantee that the rest of our bands will never be altered again.
What the hell, we sure aren't doing much with those bands as a hobby as a
whole.


The US government is more aware about VHF and higher frequency use
than you think. The NTIA periodically conducts wideband recording of
ALL RF emitters from VHF and up in many urban centers. You can see
such reports with full information on equipment, maps of coverage, etc.
at the NTIA website.

So-called line-of-sight bands aren't going to sound the same as HF ham
bands due to different propagation effects. For example, you could not be
expected to hear anything of the Condor Net in Michigan despite the
Condor Net operating over three western states (CA-NV-AZ). The Condor
Net began in 1978 and is still running with 14 stations in three states, all
done under private ownership with free access to any licensed amateur
with 220 equipment having PL/CTCSS tone capability. A quarter century
of service, all done voluntarily, says to me that there sure as hell is
something going on in the bands above 30 MHz.

LHA


  #404   Report Post  
Old July 22nd 03, 01:52 AM
Kim W5TIT
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message
...

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message
...

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"William H. O'Hara, III" wrote in message
.61...
Kim,

I don't think that you mentioned the
only practical use for CW, today. In
an emergency operation one can use CW
almost as a cipher. If Newsreporters, whom
possess "investigative skills", were to
attempt their intercepts by a scanner,
then they would simply have no
comprehension.


With all due respect, William (or is it Bill), seems that

deliberately
coding/encrypting on the amateur bands is contrary to the R&R, if ya

know
what I mean. And, it also seems to me that any reporter with really

good
investigative skills would be well aware of your scenario, above.



Now Ive heard everything. CW is now a method of encryption. Oh good

grief.

That is a first. I never thought Id live so long as to see so much

idiocy
about the Morse Code. Unbelievable

Dan/W4NTI


Dan, you really should stop being so reactionary. Perhaps you'll

re-read
the comment "In an emergency operation one can use CW almost as a

cipher."
Then, perhaps you'll look at my response in a different light. I was
remarking on the fact that William (Bill) was promoting the idea that CW
is/can be used as a cipher. That would not be legal in any way, and
promoting the idea of CW as being a way to "cipher" information is quite
misleading, don't you think?

Sheesh, take some time off...

Kim W5TIT


---
Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net
Complaints to


Yes you are right.

Cypher/Incrypting is used to hide the intelligence in the communication.
Morse Code is not that. Morse Code is used to transmit plain text

(English
in this example) which can be 'decoded' by a real ham anywhere on this
planet.

Of course I understand his initial meaning. That the general public and
MOST ham operators cant copy Morse Code. So it would be equivilant to
incryption.

Dan/W4NTI



Thank you.

Kim W5TIT


---
Posted via
news://freenews.netfront.net
Complaints to
  #405   Report Post  
Old July 22nd 03, 02:08 AM
Kim W5TIT
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Kim W5TIT wrote:

Actually, the good test for good manners and courtesy and respect on the
air, is the acid test. Every person I have witnessed being in the class

the
majority calls an "idiot" operator, has soon disappeared from the FM

side of
ham radio. They get tired of "being encouraged" to talk right, operate
right, etc., or they get tired of being ignored. Guess where some have
disappeared to?


Here?

- Mike KB3EIA -


HF.

Kim W5TIT


---
Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net
Complaints to


  #406   Report Post  
Old July 22nd 03, 04:20 AM
Dave Heil
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Len Over 21 wrote:


COMSEC or COMmunications SECurity is the current buzzword (of the
last decade or so) and refers to any means of encryption in military
communications.


The last decade or so? I can confirm that the military used the term at
least as far back as 1968. It appears in DOS material dating back at
least forty years. COMSEC refers not only to "any means of encryption"
but the equipment used for carrying out the secure communications.

Dave K8MN
  #407   Report Post  
Old July 22nd 03, 04:36 AM
Dwight Stewart
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Len Over 21" wrote:

I've never heard the term "OPSEC" in the 1950s
while on active duty or any time as a civilian
from the 1960s on through the end of the 1980s
while visiting different military branch
installations. (snip)



I guess it depends on the MOS or where you were working. Where I worked,
we had mandatory "OPSEC" classes (in Germany in the early 70's), covering
need-to-know procedures, document and material control, and so on. We had to
attend these classes every six months or so to keep our security clearance
valid.


(snip) COMSEC or COMmunications SECurity is the
current buzzword (of the last decade or so) and
refers to any means of encryption in military
communications.



You were in military communications, right? If so, surely you were around
a COM-SHACK or COM-CENTER. By the mid-60's, I think every radio room in the
military (certainly in the Army) was called "COM" something. Out of that
came many acronyms with "COM" in it, including COMSEC. When I went through
training in 1970, I had a binder with "COMSEC" stamped on it (contained
basic security procedures).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

  #408   Report Post  
Old July 22nd 03, 04:48 AM
Radio Amateur KC2HMZ
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 10:56:47 -0500, "Dan/W4NTI"
wrote:


One ham on rrap has suggested that he would not only use Morse/CW but
that he would send the characters so atrociously that it could not be
read by a computer code reader so that the NCTs couldn't know what he
was saying.

You have DICK to thank for that.


Ive been know to do that in some situations. I.E. When the returning
station is sending perfect cw and cant copy a thing I sent to him. Must be
on a reader and a keyboard. I just screw up the character spacing, or go to
a bug. Works every time.

Dan/W4NTI


I imagine it does "work" provided that your intention is to render
your transmission unintelligible to the receiving station. What I
don't understand is why anyone would want to deliberately do that. Has
ARRL or someone recently started handing out a new award that I
haven't heard of - for QSOs *not* in the logbooks?

73 DE John, KC2HMZ

  #409   Report Post  
Old July 22nd 03, 06:42 AM
Radio Amateur KC2HMZ
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Been awhile since this was posted, but you'll recall that I had to cut
my session short on that day in order to participate in a public
service event...so time now to catch up:

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 21:02:12 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote:

Yeah, I remember when I first discovered there was "newsgroups" and then
found this one. I thought to myself, "Self, this is great. Meet more hams
and have great ham discussions." NOT. Pretty much the first exposure I had
to anyone on the newsgroup was Larry Roll, with his obsession about my
callsign...blah, blah, blah.


I was here when you first began to post here. I was off doing
non-internet related activities for about two years. Upon getting back
on the internet and checking the then-current postings to this NG, the
very first thread my newsreader downloaded contained a post where
Larry was making some of his usual comments about your call. I think
what surprised me was not that he was making the comments, but rather
that you were still in here putting up with it. I'd have either
killfiled him long ago, or just quit reading this NG.

Then I learned that many of this newsgroup's participants can't have any
kind of discussion without pulliing some kind of ego trip up out of their
pants.


Heh...Let's just say that, for reasons that I won't bother to explain
here, I try not to pull things out of my pants in public.

The long and short is that this newsgroup became a way for me to take the
day's frustrations out and pretend that my targets were this boss, or that
boss, or this co-worker or that co-worker...heh heh


I never harbored any illusions that my participation in this NG would
relieve any frustrations. In fact, it often adds to them. Fortunately,
my job isn't very stressful, so I can read some of the drivel that
gets posted in here without blowing up on people the way I might have
done a few years back.

Nevertheless, you have an interesting concept there. I can't help but
wonder about the person you imagine Larry being - given the friction
between you two in here, it's rather surprising that a real-world
version of him within range of you in real life hasn't been shot,
stabbed, strangled, and buried in armadillo dung by now, with you
holdfing the gun, knife, piano wire, and shovel. But then, you just
posted in another thread that you don't believe in killing, so...

I think the public service aspect is one of the greatest things about ham
radio...although I'm not much involved any more. Around here, one spends
more time dealing with political garbage than getting any real constructive
stuff done. I wasn't in it just for the sake of getting out there and being
in the middle of storms--I also wanted to see this area become really great
and one to be looked up to.


My involvement in the emergency/public service aspect of the ARS is
basically twofold.

On the one hand, the club I belong to has had a longstanding
relationship with the emergency management department in the city
where our club meetings happen to be held - although we serve a much
wider area than just that one suburban city - and I'm currently
co-coordinator of that club's emergency/public service communications
team. The emergency management EOC doubles as a club station during
contests, which we treat as drills in that it gives us a chance to get
our people, particularly the newer ops, into the EOC for some valuable
hours using the same equipment they would be using if they were
helping to staff the EOC during an activation.

Our last activation for emergency purposes was a severe ice storm in
February 2002 (with attendant power outages, shelters set up for folks
whose homes were without power, etc.). We not only handled our own
responsibilities within the city, but were also able to help out the
county ARES in getting some comms up their chain of command as well (a
task made easier by the fact that we had an assistant director of
emergency management from the county in the EOC with us, serving as
the liason between the city and the county). We also did some damage
assessment on the power grid in addition to our normal duties.

On the other hand, I'm also a member of the county ARES/RACES in the
county where I currently reside (which borders the one in which the
city our club serves is located), and thus also enjoy the status of
being a volunteer disaster assistant in that county's disaster
preparedness office, a part of the county emergency services
department. I'm not in a leadership role in that organization, but of
course have been called out on activations with them as well.

If we have a storm that gets us activated, it tends to be severe
winter weather, not the kind of thing you want to be outside in.
Suffice to say, we're within spitting distance of Buffalo, New York.
It gets pretty nasty up here during the winter sometimes...to the
point of causing deaths of people who can't get inside for whatever
reason. I'm dedicated to this aspect of the ARS, but I'm not really
anxious to get myself killed while doing it!

You folks down there, on the other hand, can get more tornadoes in a
month than we'll see in ten years. We get downbursts, we get wall
clouds, but we don't usually see tornadoes (waterspouts, yes, but not
many funnel clouds over land). I guess I'd prefer to deal with what we
get here. I can take care of cold, wind, and snow by dressing
appropriately...but when a tornado comes along, it doesn't matter much
what you have on.

Thank you. Not used to someone being able to read between the lines
here...LOL


It's a very useful communications skill. Maybe we should have a test
for it in the ARS?

Know what? It's Tuesday and I'm still tired...


I work Thursday thru Monday. Tuesdays are my Saturdays. That means on
Monday when everybody else is grumbling about how much they hate
Mondays, I'm generally in TGIF mode. It also means I'm generally more
tired on Monday than any other day of the week. So, been there, done
that, bought the t-shirt, spilled coffee on the t-shirt. :-)

73 DE John, KC2HMZ

  #410   Report Post  
Old July 22nd 03, 06:42 AM
Radio Amateur KC2HMZ
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 14 Jul 2003 11:56:26 -0700, (N2EY) wrote:

Radio Amateur KC2HMZ wrote in message . ..
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 11:58:29 -0500, "Kim"
wrote:

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...


You are not a
CW operator, so you are not even qualified to judge any "proof" offered.


You are not a cow, Larry, therefore you are not even qualified to
judge whether McDonald's or Wendy's makes better cheeseburgers.


You may not be too fond of CW, and CW ops, but contrary to rumor we do
not eat each other.


I'm not all that fond of CW, insofar as it's not one of the things I
personally enjoy doing. CW ops, like any other fellow ham, are welcome
around here any time. As for not eating each other, someone else's
comment about CQ WPX seems to be as good or better a retort than I can
think of at the moment.

Those of us who are proficient CW operators with adequate on-the-air
experience have certainly had this fact proven to them to their
satisfaction,


Hitler had the collective guilt of Jews, Jehovah's Witnesses, and
homosexuals proven to his satisfaction, too.


Usenet 101: First person to call their opposition "nazis" or compare
them to Hitler loses the argument. (Godwin's Law)


The comparison was valid to the extent that Hitler was wrong, but was
blinded by zeal and therefore unable to see past the end of his nose,
so to speak. Larry is wrong, but is blinded by zeal and therefore
unable to see past the end of his straight key. That is where the
similarity ends, as I have already explained to Larry in another post.

but a no-coder will always claim that it isn't proven simply because they
have no way of discerning and analyzing the evidence, and they have an
agenda which would cause them to deny the outcome.


Incorrect. They could always accept the evidence presented by an
experienced CW operator.


Larry posted that, I didn't - however, I have not disputed that CW is
a useful communications skill. Any communications skill is useful in a
communications hobby, and any technical skill is useful in a technical
hobby. For me to claim otherwise would be illogical. What I am
disputing is the notion put forth by K3LT that one needs to have
acquired CW proficiency in order to form an opinion as to whether one
wishes to pursue that aspect of the hobby or not...an assertion which
I find equally illogical.

Actually, all that's really required is a receiver.


With an antenna.


Although on occasion I have managed to receive signals with a radio
that had no antenna connected to it - and have actually even found it
very useful indeed to try to do so - I'll concede that one gets a much
better handle on current conditions on an HF band by listening to a
receiver that has at least a reasonable facsimile of an antenna
connected to it.

If there are a few
dozen CW QSOs going on at the bottom of the band, but nobody in the
phone portion of the band...


How about if there are more CW QSOs going on than 'phone?


To use a phrase that I have always found oxymoronic: same difference.

well, why would you think that would
happen, unless there's a CW contest going on?


Coupla possible reasons:

1) Propagation isn't so hot. (CW really does have an advantage over
all commonly-used forms of analog 'phone in this regard)


....which was exactly my point...

2) There's a 'phone contest going on, and most of the 'phone ops are
working the contest - on another band.


....where conditions are apparently better since they support phone on
that band? Then why haven't the CW guys moved there as well, to take
advantage of the better band conditions? After all, they have the
bottom part of that band to themselves too...

3) The 'phone bands become obnoxious enough that folks go to CW just
to have a decent QSO.


Well, if we're going to clutch at straws here, then we might as well
also include:

4) One has tuned to the 30 meter band, where phone is not permitted.


You couldn't even offer the contribution that N2EY
made. An excellent example, I might add.


Thanks - there are more. Like the student in Grenada during the
invasion/revolution (1983?) whose mike broke.


Again, the material you quoted there was posted by Larry.

And, apparently you have no
proof--only your rhetorical blathering idiocy, as usual.


Somehow I doubt that such rhetoric will convince the loyal opposition.


....which is another point I have been trying to make - again, you
quoted Larry's material rather than mine.

Larry gets rather emotional over the topic, whereas Jim looks at
things a bit more objectively. But then, I think you noticed that.


Just "a bit more"? ;-)


Just call me the master of understatement. ;-)

When you get as good as N2EY at knowing CW and examples of its tremendous
cabability, get back to us, won't you?


There are plenty of examples which prove the point of CW/Morse's
usefulness. Whether those examples constiute "proof" of the necessity
of a TEST is a matter of opinion.


I agree. Larry, whose material is quoted here, doesn't.

Knowing them and being able to articulate them in this forum are two
different things.


If someone "knows" something but cannot articulate to someone who
doesn't, does the first person really "know" it?


I believe so. I know how to get to a certain hamfest from my house. I
doubt that I could give someone directions that would allow them to
arrive at that hamfest without getting further directions from someone
else. I may not be able to articulate how to get there, but I "know"
how to get there, and will prove it this Sept. 27 when I again hop
into my van and drive there, just as I have every year since getting
my ham license (it's only a three-hour ride).

Kinda like the old
saying "if you have a thing 'someplace', but you can't find it when
you need it, then you don't really have it, do you?"


No, you don't. However, what we're discussing here isn't a material
thing, but rather, an idea. How does one manage to misplace an idea?
"Sunuvagun, it was right here in my cerebellum a minute ago!" :-)

73 DE John, KC2HMZ



Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:21 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017