| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#11
July 14th 03, 03:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Threaded Mode
