In article , Radio Amateur KC2HMZ
writes:

The only no-coders I bother to "ridicule" are those who offer the typically
inane arguments that code testing is somehow detrimental to the future
of the ARS -- usually by discouraging the involvement of computer-
literate, technically-involved young people. The truth about these
people is that they just want to get on HF phone and yak away -- and for
the most part, haven't a clue as to what's happening inside their off-the-
shelf ham radio appliance.

I'm sure that's true for some. I'm also sure it's not true for all.

The funny thing is, John, that the ones for which it isn't true are apparently
nowhere to be found among the typical newcomers to the ARS these days.

The average computer-literate, technically involved people tend to be
able to, for example, assemble a computer from its basic elements
(case, power supply, motherboard and perhaps some daughterboards),
connect the peripherals, install an OS and other software without a
dozen calls to a tech support hotline, and end up with a viable
working machine.

I could do all that, and I don't consider myself to be particularly "technical"
as far as computers are concerned. That's just simple assembly -- a mainly
mechanical skill.

Folks who can do this are technically involved in comparison to the
folks who don't even know which port the monitor plugs into. They
aren't technically involved in comparison to the guy who designed the
motherboard in the first place. However, even in the industry, very
few people do component level repairs on motherboards and
daughterboards any more. What of it? Who do you know that's designed
and built a multi-band HF rig lately? Some have, of course...most of
them work for Kenwood, Icom, Yaesu, Alinco, etc.

Component-level repairs aren't done these days mainly for economic
reasons. The labor cost involved in trouble-shooting a board at the
component level would exceed the value of the component probably
long before the fault was diagnosed.

Of those that are able to do component level repairs on computer
equipment, they probably have much of the knowledge needed to pass our
written exams, except they lack the specialized knowledge of RF.
Certainly, though, it would seem they have the capacity to learn it -
but when the first thing we do is hit them with something over a
hundred years old and tell them this is our lowest common denominator,
I have no doubt that it causes a lot of people to think, "@#$&%^*
that!" and find another hobby...perhaps they already have one.

Well, that reaction to having to learn Morse code would only indicate
that they're not at all serious about becoming fully capable as radio
amateurs. Nothing new there.

Those with genuine technical skills, who come into ham radio with
or without Morse code, are perfectly OK by me. My problem begins
when they go out of their way to whine about the code testing
requirement, and make all the usual inane NCTA arguments about
the code itself causing technical ignorance. If they simply go about
the business of pursuing ham radio to the extent that they desire, and
leave out the childish whining, I am more than willing to stand in awe
of the advanced technical skill they demonstrate -- when and where
it is, in fact, demonstrated.

You have to keep one thing in mind here, John -- I didn't start the
code testing debate. The anti-code test whiners did, with their
specious arguments and inane comparisons of Morse code proficiency
to everything antiquated and obsolete -- without having any first-
had knowledge or experience to give them a basis for their self-serving,
usually parroted commentary. If any of them had been willing to invest
a fraction of the time and effort in learning the code as they did in
railing against it, they may be singing a different tune, indeed.

73 de Larry, K3LT

Larry Roll K3LT wrote:

In article , Radio Amateur KC2HMZ
writes:

The only no-coders I bother to "ridicule" are those who offer the typically
inane arguments that code testing is somehow detrimental to the future
of the ARS -- usually by discouraging the involvement of computer-
literate, technically-involved young people. The truth about these
people is that they just want to get on HF phone and yak away -- and for
the most part, haven't a clue as to what's happening inside their off-the-
shelf ham radio appliance.

I'm sure that's true for some. I'm also sure it's not true for all.

The funny thing is, John, that the ones for which it isn't true are apparently
nowhere to be found among the typical newcomers to the ARS these days.

The average computer-literate, technically involved people tend to be
able to, for example, assemble a computer from its basic elements
(case, power supply, motherboard and perhaps some daughterboards),
connect the peripherals, install an OS and other software without a
dozen calls to a tech support hotline, and end up with a viable
working machine.

I could do all that, and I don't consider myself to be particularly "technical"
as far as computers are concerned. That's just simple assembly -- a mainly
mechanical skill.

Folks who can do this are technically involved in comparison to the
folks who don't even know which port the monitor plugs into. They
aren't technically involved in comparison to the guy who designed the
motherboard in the first place. However, even in the industry, very
few people do component level repairs on motherboards and
daughterboards any more. What of it? Who do you know that's designed
and built a multi-band HF rig lately? Some have, of course...most of
them work for Kenwood, Icom, Yaesu, Alinco, etc.

Component-level repairs aren't done these days mainly for economic
reasons. The labor cost involved in trouble-shooting a board at the
component level would exceed the value of the component probably
long before the fault was diagnosed.

Of those that are able to do component level repairs on computer
equipment, they probably have much of the knowledge needed to pass our
written exams, except they lack the specialized knowledge of RF.
Certainly, though, it would seem they have the capacity to learn it -
but when the first thing we do is hit them with something over a
hundred years old and tell them this is our lowest common denominator,
I have no doubt that it causes a lot of people to think, "@#$&%^*
that!" and find another hobby...perhaps they already have one.

Well, that reaction to having to learn Morse code would only indicate
that they're not at all serious about becoming fully capable as radio
amateurs. Nothing new there.

Those with genuine technical skills, who come into ham radio with
or without Morse code, are perfectly OK by me. My problem begins
when they go out of their way to whine about the code testing
requirement, and make all the usual inane NCTA arguments about
the code itself causing technical ignorance. If they simply go about
the business of pursuing ham radio to the extent that they desire, and
leave out the childish whining, I am more than willing to stand in awe
of the advanced technical skill they demonstrate -- when and where
it is, in fact, demonstrated.

You have to keep one thing in mind here, John -- I didn't start the
code testing debate. The anti-code test whiners did, with their
specious arguments and inane comparisons of Morse code proficiency
to everything antiquated and obsolete -- without having any first-
had knowledge or experience to give them a basis for their self-serving,
usually parroted commentary. If any of them had been willing to invest
a fraction of the time and effort in learning the code as they did in
railing against it, they may be singing a different tune, indeed.

73 de Larry, K3LT

JJ take note- this post is redirected to YOU

Dick Carroll wrote:

Larry Roll K3LT wrote:


In article , Radio Amateur KC2HMZ
writes:


The only no-coders I bother to "ridicule" are those who offer the typically
inane arguments that code testing is somehow detrimental to the future
of the ARS -- usually by discouraging the involvement of computer-
literate, technically-involved young people. The truth about these
people is that they just want to get on HF phone and yak away -- and for
the most part, haven't a clue as to what's happening inside their off-the-
shelf ham radio appliance.

I'm sure that's true for some. I'm also sure it's not true for all.

The funny thing is, John, that the ones for which it isn't true are apparently
nowhere to be found among the typical newcomers to the ARS these days.


The average computer-literate, technically involved people tend to be
able to, for example, assemble a computer from its basic elements
(case, power supply, motherboard and perhaps some daughterboards),
connect the peripherals, install an OS and other software without a
dozen calls to a tech support hotline, and end up with a viable
working machine.

I could do all that, and I don't consider myself to be particularly "technical"
as far as computers are concerned. That's just simple assembly -- a mainly
mechanical skill.


Folks who can do this are technically involved in comparison to the
folks who don't even know which port the monitor plugs into. They
aren't technically involved in comparison to the guy who designed the
motherboard in the first place. However, even in the industry, very
few people do component level repairs on motherboards and
daughterboards any more. What of it? Who do you know that's designed
and built a multi-band HF rig lately? Some have, of course...most of
them work for Kenwood, Icom, Yaesu, Alinco, etc.

Component-level repairs aren't done these days mainly for economic
reasons. The labor cost involved in trouble-shooting a board at the
component level would exceed the value of the component probably
long before the fault was diagnosed.


Of those that are able to do component level repairs on computer
equipment, they probably have much of the knowledge needed to pass our
written exams, except they lack the specialized knowledge of RF.
Certainly, though, it would seem they have the capacity to learn it -
but when the first thing we do is hit them with something over a
hundred years old and tell them this is our lowest common denominator,
I have no doubt that it causes a lot of people to think, "@#$&%^*
that!" and find another hobby...perhaps they already have one.

Well, that reaction to having to learn Morse code would only indicate
that they're not at all serious about becoming fully capable as radio
amateurs. Nothing new there.

Those with genuine technical skills, who come into ham radio with
or without Morse code, are perfectly OK by me. My problem begins
when they go out of their way to whine about the code testing
requirement, and make all the usual inane NCTA arguments about
the code itself causing technical ignorance. If they simply go about
the business of pursuing ham radio to the extent that they desire, and
leave out the childish whining, I am more than willing to stand in awe
of the advanced technical skill they demonstrate -- when and where
it is, in fact, demonstrated.

You have to keep one thing in mind here, John -- I didn't start the
code testing debate. The anti-code test whiners did, with their
specious arguments and inane comparisons of Morse code proficiency
to everything antiquated and obsolete -- without having any first-
had knowledge or experience to give them a basis for their self-serving,
usually parroted commentary. If any of them had been willing to invest
a fraction of the time and effort in learning the code as they did in
railing against it, they may be singing a different tune, indeed.

73 de Larry, K3LT


JJ take note- this post is redirected to YOU

So why is is redirected to me, I read it the first time Larry
posted it. So what?

I agree with Larry on one point, about those who whine about the
code testing requirement. When I taught Novice classes there would
for certain be at least one student who would complain about
having to learn the code and would always ask, "why do we have to
learn this code stuff, I don't ever plan to use it," My reply was,
"because it is one of the requirements to obtain a license, if you
want the license then learn the code, if you don't want to put
forth the effort ot learn the code then you don't want a ham
license, you would probably be happier on cb."

But then again, some of the biggest complainers, eventually became
the best CW operators.

JJ wrote in :



Dick Carroll wrote:

Larry Roll K3LT wrote:


In article , Radio Amateur
KC2HMZ writes:


The only no-coders I bother to "ridicule" are those who offer the
typically inane arguments that code testing is somehow detrimental
to the future of the ARS -- usually by discouraging the involvement
of computer- literate, technically-involved young people. The truth
about these people is that they just want to get on HF phone and yak
away -- and for the most part, haven't a clue as to what's happening
inside their off-the- shelf ham radio appliance.

I'm sure that's true for some. I'm also sure it's not true for all.

The funny thing is, John, that the ones for which it isn't true are
apparently nowhere to be found among the typical newcomers to the ARS
these days.


The average computer-literate, technically involved people tend to be
able to, for example, assemble a computer from its basic elements
(case, power supply, motherboard and perhaps some daughterboards),
connect the peripherals, install an OS and other software without a
dozen calls to a tech support hotline, and end up with a viable
working machine.

I could do all that, and I don't consider myself to be particularly
"technical" as far as computers are concerned. That's just simple
assembly -- a mainly mechanical skill.


Folks who can do this are technically involved in comparison to the
folks who don't even know which port the monitor plugs into. They
aren't technically involved in comparison to the guy who designed the
motherboard in the first place. However, even in the industry, very
few people do component level repairs on motherboards and
daughterboards any more. What of it? Who do you know that's designed
and built a multi-band HF rig lately? Some have, of course...most of
them work for Kenwood, Icom, Yaesu, Alinco, etc.

Component-level repairs aren't done these days mainly for economic
reasons. The labor cost involved in trouble-shooting a board at the
component level would exceed the value of the component probably
long before the fault was diagnosed.


Of those that are able to do component level repairs on computer
equipment, they probably have much of the knowledge needed to pass
our written exams, except they lack the specialized knowledge of RF.
Certainly, though, it would seem they have the capacity to learn it -
but when the first thing we do is hit them with something over a
hundred years old and tell them this is our lowest common
denominator, I have no doubt that it causes a lot of people to think,
"@#$&%^* that!" and find another hobby...perhaps they already have
one.

Well, that reaction to having to learn Morse code would only indicate
that they're not at all serious about becoming fully capable as radio
amateurs. Nothing new there.

Those with genuine technical skills, who come into ham radio with
or without Morse code, are perfectly OK by me. My problem begins
when they go out of their way to whine about the code testing
requirement, and make all the usual inane NCTA arguments about
the code itself causing technical ignorance. If they simply go about
the business of pursuing ham radio to the extent that they desire, and
leave out the childish whining, I am more than willing to stand in awe
of the advanced technical skill they demonstrate -- when and where
it is, in fact, demonstrated.

You have to keep one thing in mind here, John -- I didn't start the
code testing debate. The anti-code test whiners did, with their
specious arguments and inane comparisons of Morse code proficiency
to everything antiquated and obsolete -- without having any first-
had knowledge or experience to give them a basis for their
self-serving, usually parroted commentary. If any of them had been
willing to invest a fraction of the time and effort in learning the
code as they did in railing against it, they may be singing a
different tune, indeed.

73 de Larry, K3LT


JJ take note- this post is redirected to YOU

So why is is redirected to me, I read it the first time Larry
posted it. So what?

I agree with Larry on one point, about those who whine about the
code testing requirement. When I taught Novice classes there would
for certain be at least one student who would complain about
having to learn the code and would always ask, "why do we have to
learn this code stuff, I don't ever plan to use it," My reply was,
"because it is one of the requirements to obtain a license, if you
want the license then learn the code, if you don't want to put
forth the effort ot learn the code then you don't want a ham
license, you would probably be happier on cb."


If that isn't hazing, then nothing is

But then again, some of the biggest complainers, eventually became
the best CW operators.

Alun Palmer wrote:


If that isn't hazing, then nothing is

No, it isn't hazing, hazing is attempting to force someone to do
something unnecessary to acheive a goal. Learning and passing the
code test is necessary to obtain a ham license. I simply stated
that fact. The choice was entirely up to the student.

On 14 Jul 2003 07:33:27 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT)
wrote:

In article , Radio Amateur KC2HMZ
writes:

The average computer-literate, technically involved people tend to be
able to, for example, assemble a computer from its basic elements
(case, power supply, motherboard and perhaps some daughterboards),
connect the peripherals, install an OS and other software without a
dozen calls to a tech support hotline, and end up with a viable
working machine.

I could do all that, and I don't consider myself to be particularly "technical"
as far as computers are concerned. That's just simple assembly -- a mainly
mechanical skill.

There's more to assembling a computer than mechanical skill. For one
thing, you have to know what's compatible with what. When you choose
the motherboard you'd better make sure that, for example, the RAM
modules you buy to go along with it are compatible with that
particular mommyboard, or you can forget having a working machine when
you've bolted everything together. Many motherboards support a variety
of CPU chips and have jumpers which must be set to compensate for the
chosen chip - set the jumpers wrong and you wind up with a
paperweight, possibly one containing a grilled silicon sandwich.
There's a lot of mechanical assembly type bullwork involved, sure, but
there is specialized knowledged involved too. You might be able to
train a monkey to physically assemble it, but said monkey probably
wouldn't produce a machine that actually works - merely one that
*looks* like it *should* work because all the parts appear to be in
their proper locations.

Component-level repairs aren't done these days mainly for economic
reasons. The labor cost involved in trouble-shooting a board at the
component level would exceed the value of the component probably
long before the fault was diagnosed.

This factor is also largely responsible for a decline in homebrewing,
in my opinion. In this day and age, Americans work more hours than
ever - more than in any other country in the industrailized world, in
fact, according to material I've seen reported in the media recently -
and have less and less time to spend breathing solder smoke while
assembling a widget that can be purchased assembled, tested, and
working for less than it would cost to buy the parts and a roll of
solder. Even if you or I had the knowledge and skills to build a
Kenwood TS-2000 from a bag of parts, we'd never be able to buy the
parts for less than Kenwood can because we'd be buying in much smaller
quantities and paying a lot more than Kenwood buying in bulk. The time
spent building it...well, by the time *I* finished assembling mine it
would probably be obsolete.

This doesn't apply to certain other components of a ham station. One
can still often build his/her own antennas for much less than the cost
of buying a commercial offering of similar design. Thus it is no
surprise that antennas are one area in which there continues to be
much homebrewing activity in the ARS. I've built a few myself -
including a J-pole made of 450-ohm twinlead that I can Roll (pun
intended) up and put into a sandwich bag and drop into my emergency
comms jump kit (which is where it currently is located).

I also have a 5/8-wave 2m ground plane in my stash of emergency gear,
along with about 20 feet of masting and a couple of different mounting
options...but the rolled up J-pole can be hung practically anywhere,
its bandwidth is wider than the whole 2m band, and like the GP, it
beats a rubber duck hands down.

SNIP

Those with genuine technical skills, who come into ham radio with
or without Morse code, are perfectly OK by me. My problem begins
when they go out of their way to whine about the code testing
requirement, and make all the usual inane NCTA arguments about
the code itself causing technical ignorance. If they simply go about
the business of pursuing ham radio to the extent that they desire, and
leave out the childish whining, I am more than willing to stand in awe
of the advanced technical skill they demonstrate -- when and where
it is, in fact, demonstrated.

Once again, current testing requirements include a no-code license
(Technician). Thus, the code requirement does not keep people out of
ham radio, it merely keeps them off of the HF bands. This was not the
case prior to the creation of the no-code license, and apparently,
this will not be the case for very much longer, either...in some
countries, it already is no longer the case, in fact.

Of course, since Technician is an entry level license, it's not really
to be expected for a newly licensed Tech to posess advanced technical
skill, though there's no reason why some wouldn't. In the end, though,
I keep coming back to the same conclusion - it isn't the license class
that matters, it's what one does with the privileges the license
conveys. Rhetorical question: Who makes the more meaningful
contribution to the hobby, the BSEE with a 20 WPM Extra who hasn't
been on the air in years, or the no-code Tech who is active in the
local ham radio club, pays his ARRL dues regularly, shows up for Field
Day and works his tail off all weekend, and is halfway to VUCC on six
meters?

You have to keep one thing in mind here, John -- I didn't start the
code testing debate. The anti-code test whiners did, with their
specious arguments and inane comparisons of Morse code proficiency
to everything antiquated and obsolete -- without having any first-
had knowledge or experience to give them a basis for their self-serving,
usually parroted commentary. If any of them had been willing to invest
a fraction of the time and effort in learning the code as they did in
railing against it, they may be singing a different tune, indeed.

As far as I know, the code testing debate started in the mid-1970s
when FCC first proposed what was then known as a Communicator class
license. If I recall correctly, that license basically would have
conveyed privileges on 70cm sans a code test. The idea was shot down
in flames, primarily because of strong opposition from ARRL.

Well, times have certainly changed. We've had a no-code license for a
long time now, we're on the verge of having no code testing at all,
and even ARRL hasn't registered any strong opposition - that
opposition seems to come from primarily either (1) people who feel
that if I had to do it this way so should everybody else, and (2)
people who seem to feel that code proficiency somehow makes them more
qualified technically to operate a ham station than people who aren't
code proficient.

I happen to disagree on both counts. CW is a valid skill, and I'll be
one of the first to disagree with anyone who claims otherwise, but the
lack of Morse proficiency does not affect the ability of any ham to
operate in any of the other modes we're permitted under Part 97.
Furthermore, being a practical operating skill, it has no more bearing
on a ham's technical proficiency than knowing (or not knowing) how to
bust a pileup (for example)...you don't really need to know Morse
unless you're going to operate CW. You don't really need to know how
to bust a pileup unless you're going to try to do so - and not knowing
how to do so won't make it any harder for a ham to engage in casual
ragchewing.

I agree with you entirely on one point, though...every minute that we
spend arguing the point in this NG is a minute we could have spent on
ham radio. In the case of those who find it necessary to post hateful
comments about their fellow hams based on a lack of tolerance with
respect to others having interests in the hobby that differ from their
own, I'd say that's definitely a good thing - better to have their
drivel here on Usenet than on the airwaves.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ