Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#391
|
|||
|
|||
"N2EY" wrote:
(snip) I disagree. It's not a mistake to keep certain values. Like old-fashioned manners, courtesy and respect on the air. But there's no good test for that! I absolutely agree, Jim. Things are not necessarily bad simply because they're old-fashioned. There are many old-fashioned ideals that could clearly help this country be much better place to live if continued today. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
#392
|
|||
|
|||
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
... "N2EY" wrote: (snip) I disagree. It's not a mistake to keep certain values. Like old-fashioned manners, courtesy and respect on the air. But there's no good test for that! I absolutely agree, Jim. Things are not necessarily bad simply because they're old-fashioned. There are many old-fashioned ideals that could clearly help this country be much better place to live if continued today. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ 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? You got it: HF. They can have a lot more anonymity there, and they have less chance of running into the same people over and over again. Kim W5TIT --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net Complaints to |
#393
|
|||
|
|||
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. At a EMA ARES training session, the one of the ARES officials told us that CW should be considered for passing of vital information solely to keep the opsec tight. Opsec happens to mean Operation Security. I guess that everyone loves Delta Force and the terms endeared by SFOD-1D. At the Boston Marathon I was given a code key for authentication purposes. Bill KB1IUB |
#394
|
|||
|
|||
"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. However, CW is definitely a practical skill, and a needed one, in EmCom. I've never, ever disputed that. And, I encouraged openings and training for CW whenever I have been in a position of leadership in the EmCom world. I've also encouraged and trained with openings to HF, etc. The only thing we never were able to accommodate is SSTV and ATV. We had every other check-in. We would call from FM (2M *AND* 70cm) to the net participants we knew had HF points. They would call to all net participants on all bands we could cover at any particular training net; then those individuals would relay to CW for any CW net participants. Then it would all be relayed back into the 2M/70cm nets. What would have happened "in an actual emergency" (GRIN), was all FM operations would have then become tactical with local Emergency Services; and we--as amateur radio operators--would "set up" the rest of the operations, as needed, for net operations. The goal was to have all H&W set up and operating via relay (on different freqs than the local operation freqs) from FM to HF/CW capability. We also had PSK ops in that arena. For "relief" portions of the net (those ops that would be looking for food and refreshment, extra batteries, more equipment, more cars, chainsaws...what-have-you) was relayed from FM to FM capable hams that also had FRS/GMRS, etc. They would relay those ops needs out to non-hams (we called it the auxilliary service) and that included, by the way, anyone who needed babysitters, animals fed, home needs. It was our desire to have as much of the community/families involved as we could--regardless of their amateur radio license status. At a EMA ARES training session, the one of the ARES officials told us that CW should be considered for passing of vital information solely to keep the opsec tight. I understand the concept, and I know that in an emergency the R&R may very well go out the window--as you know, all that is debatable. BUT, that given, there are ways to handle sensitive information by using other means than CW; although CW is a fine choice also! Opsec happens to mean Operation Security. I guess that everyone loves Delta Force and the terms endeared by SFOD-1D. We were "aware" of any lingo that might be used by our served agencies (that was also done and learned by actually visiting the served agencies and seeing/learning how they operate). However, on the support ops part of the net--we didn't get into using all that fancy stuff, we pretty much used plain language. At the Boston Marathon I was given a code key for authentication purposes. Bill KB1IUB Uh, you mean strictly to "please" some public service official, or because you actually used it? Honest question. Kim W5TIT --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net Complaints to |
#395
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#396
|
|||
|
|||
"William H. O'Hara, III" wrote in message . 3.61...
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. At a EMA ARES training session, the one of the ARES officials told us that CW should be considered for passing of vital information solely to keep the opsec tight. Opsec happens to mean Operation Security. I guess that everyone loves Delta Force and the terms endeared by SFOD-1D. At the Boston Marathon I was given a code key for authentication purposes. Bill KB1IUB Bill, then there's COMSEC and MILSPEC. ;^) Brian |
#397
|
|||
|
|||
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ...
"Dick Carroll" wrote in message ... NOdoudaboudit! Oh, hey, Dick! I still missed the intelligent response you were going to post...or that I thought you were capable of posting, anyway. Did you post it yet? Kim W5TIT Kim, you are forever the optimist. I've been reading his posts since about '95, and he hasn't come up with one yet. I'm not so sure if he's incapable, or if he's worried that he'll taint that "Stubborn Missouri Mule" image that he's developed over the years and tears. In any case, he just ain't right. Brian |
#398
|
|||
|
|||
In article m, "Dee D. Flint"
writes: Actually the biggest problem is lack of activity by the current hams. Agreed! If we take the figure of 600,000+ hams and calculate the number of QSOs per day if each one had one QSO per YEAR (assume it takes two hams for a qso), thats 300,000 exchanges per year or nearly 1000 per day. That would keep the bands pretty busy. Whoa, hold on a sec, Dee. Let's look at that 1000 QSOs/day. Say a QSO lasts a half-hour on average - that's 500 QSO-hours per day. Or, to put it another way, there would be about 21 QSOs going on at any one time. Now if we just consider the bands 160 through 70 cm., we have 13 bands. Might work out to one QSO on each HF/MF band and three QSOs each on 6, 2, 222 and 70 cm. Hardly enough to keep the bands pretty busy! If you meant to say "one QSO per DAY", then things are much different. But instead we hear the same people over and over on the VHF and HF frequencies. We have 150 members or so in our club and I only hear about a dozen on the repeater regularly. It's the same dozen that do VHF simplex and SSB. We need to get those already licensed more involved. Agreed! 73 de Jim, N2EY |
#399
|
|||
|
|||
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. -- Ryan, KC8PMX FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!) --. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-. ... --. .... - . .-. ... "Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message ... In article , "Ryan, KC8PMX" writes: 220Mhz, 902Mhz, and 1.2Ghz bands are desolate, at least around here. I wouldn't be surprised if we lost the 220 and 902 bands. Ryan: I wouldn't be surprised if you're right! The "commercial interests" obviously have little or no use for HF, otherwise we'd have never even heard of BPL. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
#400
|
|||
|
|||
"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. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|