"Dee D. Flint" wrote in
y.com:


"Alun Palmer" wrote in message
...
(Len Over 21) wrote in
:

In article , Alun Palmer
writes:

I'm against that too. BTW, I got my EE degree in England, and you
don't have to go through any of that wholly irrelevant stuff. No
English, no social studies of any kind, no chemistry (which I
understand is oftem required over here).

Alun, California state undergraduate requirements in the 1960s
had two semesters of American History. Considering our history,
like from the 1776 breakaway, that isn't comparable to what you
had to do in the UK. :-) :-) :-)

I don't know why there is such a fervor of the PCTAs to equate an
academic degree with an amateur radio license class that requires
a demonstrated skill at morsemanship. Maybe the PCTA have a need
to stay with the King Kode rulers of the ARS kingdom? :-)

LHA


I don't beleive either academic degrees or ham licences should require
unnecessary stuff, that's all.

Since there is no way to predict where your future interests may lie,
it's impossible to say unequivocally what is unnecessary stuff.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE



Well, here's an idea. Should you find later that you need to learn about
something, have you ever heard of books? I find them very useful.

Alun Palmer wrote in message . ..
(Brian) wrote in
om:

Alun Palmer wrote in message
. ..

Well, he's clearly Indian, and I'm British, so it wouldn't surprise me
if we share some views in common and don't buy into the received
wisdom of the US of A.

Alun, what a curious statement. What does being Indian and British,
and not American, that allows you to have some views in common?

Brian


Well who do you think ruled India during the Raj? I'm not proud of it, but
it does give us a certain common heritage.

Who do you think may have rules America prior to our independance?

Alun Palmer wrote in message . ..
(Brian Kelly) wrote in
om:


I do not beleive that it is necessary to make people study unwanted
classes to qualify as an institution of higher learning, more that it
disqualifies the college.

I'll believe that when the U.K approach to technical professional
education programs is better that the U.S. approaches when U.K.
technological leadership comes even close to the U.S. on a per capita
or on any other basis.

w3rv


Brian, I can't even understand that sentence. Can you try again?

I screwed that one to the wall good din I? It was late. The Scotch was
lousy.

Don't duck the bullet Alun, I don't have to try again, you bloody well
know what I mean.

God help science, engineering and western civilization the day
American universities don't have license to pound at least some
modicum of literacy into the thick skulls of the geeklets.

w3rv

Alun Palmer wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote in
:

You must be related to our friend Vipul! At least you think alike.

- Mike KB3EIA -



Well, he's clearly Indian,

That isn't clear at all.

and I'm British, so it wouldn't surprise me if
we share some views in common and don't buy into the received wisdom of the US of A.

That wouldn't surprise me either but both of you seem to prefer feeding
at the American trough.

Dave K8MN

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"Brian Kelly" wrote in message
The "strawman designs" that Gary and I postulated did NOT contemplate
the use of SS across the whole band as an "underlay." The modulation was
completely different, with a fair amount of coding.

That's not my recollection at all but for absolute certain any type of
HF SS would require some bandwidth far in excess of the bandwidths
currently permissable under the regs or acceptable by the users of the
so-called legacy modes on HF. The inherent bandwidth characteristic of
SS has made it destructively non-compatible with the modes currently
in use in HF ham bands. Ain't gonna happen in our lifetimes, ham HF SS
is a non-sequiter.


all sorts of simulated channel impairments into the system to make
copying
as hard as you want ... without having to trash the underlying, reliable
communications system." Still rejected.)

Exactly and none of it flew then and it never will.

Why? ... if it looks to the user EXACTLY as "traditional Morse" one would
not be able to tell the difference (and therefore should have no logical,
rational
reason for rejecting it).

Your term IF is the Achilles heel of your whole argument. We've been
down this road, i.e., the problem with logical/rational being the
primanry drivers in ham radio. Ham radio is not a commercial service
where logic is the driver. The standard issue ham is into ham radio
for it's recreational value and the rest flows from there.


they're neat electronic ping-pong games but IT AIN'T FRIGGING RADIO.
Nobody is gonna go play electronic ping-pong so that you and Coffman
can play band edge to band edge.

I *was* talking about RADIO ... a system that would communicate over
distances via radio ... just more reliably ... and THEN adding the
impariments
("challenge") at the receiving end to satisfy those who "like to dig the
weak
ones out of the noise/QRM."

Then you better find a like-minded programmer who has extensive
real-world actual experience with weak-signal DXing and contesting CW
and otherwise to write the code. You sure as hell are not qualified to
do that.

You're snapping around the edges of needing AI to pull off any such
code. We all know how easy that is (?!). IBM has a well-funded crew of
their comp sci & math geniuses and a mainfarme dedicated to
periodically trying to beat one human chess player's brain. And chess
is just a two-dimensional board game with rigid rules of play which
allows large chunks of time to make the decisions on each move. HF CW
contesting in particular has more dimensions than I can even start to
count and decsions are routinely made several times a second. Just for
openers. How ya gonna do it Carl? A bit of C++ and VB in a ham shack
PC? Yeah, right. Not even a decent pipe dream.

transmit data reliably over transcontinental distances ... with power
outputs on the order of 10 mW ... as an "underlay" to existing services
that don't even notice that they are there.

Times how many stations?

Quite a few, but to be honest I don't know the exact number (and if I
did, I couldn't say).

Bullet = Ducked

I notice that TAPR has given up trying to get spread spectrum on the
air. Nobody in TAPR cares enough about SS to work thru the bugs.
There's a loud statement about ham SS.

IMHO, TAPR's SS effort was doomed from the start by being overly
complex.

You're pretty good at that yourself.

Carl - wk3c

w3rv

In article , Alun Palmer
writes:

(Brian Kelly) wrote in
. com:

Alun Palmer wrote in message
. ..

I beleive in free choice. If someone wants to study a broad programme
they can, but I don't beleive in forcing people to study things they
don't want to, at least not beyond the age of 16, and even then only
to avoid illiteracy and innumeracy.

My own interests are not atall narrow, but they are eclectic. They
include poetry, archaeology and languages, for example. If, however, a
poetry class were to be compulsory in an EE curriculum, I feel
strongly that it would be wrong. You can't force people to become
well-rounded. Force feeding is a poor sort of education.

I do not beleive that it is necessary to make people study unwanted
classes to qualify as an institution of higher learning, more that it
disqualifies the college.

I'll believe that when the U.K approach to technical professional
education programs is better that the U.S. approaches when U.K.
technological leadership comes even close to the U.S. on a per capita
or on any other basis.

w3rv

Brian, I can't even understand that sentence. Can you try again?

Ahem, I think he already provided a graphic example... :-)

LHA