|
"Arnie Macy" wrote in message ...
"Brian" wrote ... Bill, welp, I brought out the fine-toothed comb and swept it through the citation. Nowhere did I pick up the words "reduced technical material" or anything remotely like it. Exams that "Rationally and Directly relate to priveleges" could be quite difficult, making some of these long-time hams glad that retesting isn't required every 10 years. It is a PCTA ploy that they continue to cry for no exams. Since we won't let them take their ball and go home, they want to damage the ARS for all. They're tring to scuttle the ship rather than let it fall into unworthy hands. __________________________________________________ ________________________ "This will permit a practical combination of existing study guides and testing materials to be used until such time as such materials are REVISED and will result in REASONABLE tests for the three new classes of license contemplated in these comments." Arenie, does REVISED and REASONABLE mean "reduced technical material" to you? I guess if we asked for UNREASONABLE exams, that would make you happier? Probably not, but your intention is restore an UNREVISED amateur service, which you aren't going to get. First, please show me where I said that NCI wants to END testing. You did not, but chimed in when (see subject header) other PCTA were suggesting "No Test International." You can't because I never said it. See above. Become enlightened. Second, please explain what "revised" and "reasonable" mean within the context of the above quote from NCI? (that you conveniently snipped from my answer) I read it in its entirety then stated that "Exams that "Rationally and Directly relate to priveleges" could be quite difficult..." If I didn't mean that, why would I state it? You're welcome to repost it if you think I changed the context. Does it mean that NCI wants to make the test MORE difficult? Even a blind man could see where this is going. Arnie - Arnie, it means an exam level of difficulty commensurate with priveleges, not punitive exams for the pleasure of those who want Morse testing. Brian |
On 11 Jul 2003 09:55:05 -0700, Brian wrote:
This whole flap has been based on the "need" for the FCC to bail away from the labor (cost) associated with governing the code tests, dealing with waivers, the VEs on code test issues, etc. and nothing more. Do you have an FCC policy letter stating that? (a) Every FCC-watcher in the last 15 years knows that from public statements made by top brass (especially Reed Hundt) about cost-cutting. (b) There was an internal policy memo circulated to staff talking about the need to privatize as many functions as possible in order to cut agency spending. This was not made public and is not available under FOIA because it dealt strictly with internal management issues. I did not retain a copy of same (because to do so would have been illegal). (c) Every FCC-watcher in the last 15 years recognizes that in every "privitization" move by the FCC - or else they should be in some other line of work. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 11:29:41 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:
Last time I checked, we were allowed to voice our opinions. No one doubts it will be dropped, but we don't have to like it. In the spirit of "privitization", why don't you and some like-dedicated folks set up a table at some place and run code tests, granting an appropriate certificate for whatever speed the passer-by ham copies. Oh, I'm sorry - the "anti-code-test" ARRL has already done it. It's called the Code Proficiency Award, instead of the CSRC or whatever the VEs used to call theirs. I'll have to find my certificate somewhere so I can put a few higher-speed stickers on it when the time comes. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane ARRL Life Member |
"Arnie Macy" wrote in message ...
"Penny Traytion" wrote ... No Test International. __________________________________________________ ________ Dang it, Penny. You took my answer. ;-) Arnie - KT4ST Member of "Know Code" International Dang it! It would appear that Arnie -almost- authored "No Test International," as the next step for NCI, but Penetration stole his answer. But he was thinking it. He says so above. He denies it elsewhere. bb |
"Arnie Macy" wrote in message
... "Bill Sohl" wrote ... Well Arnie, nice of you to take my text out of context. You try to imply by my stating the obvious, that I am saying we should end tests and that is BUNK. The point I was making was simply that even a multiple choice test is sufficient a barrier to keep 99% of the population from even considering becoming a ham... that said, the statement does not then lead to any position or support by me of ending written testing. __________________________________________________ _________________________ "Not so fast there, Brian. NCI has been on the record as saying that the tests should be made less technical. Not a far leap at all to presume they will try and "dumb" them down even more." - Arnie (7-8-2003) Arnie ... your statement is JUST PLAIN FALSE. NCI has NEVER said any such thing. -- Carl R. Stevenson - wk3c Grid Square FN20fm http://home.ptd.net/~wk3c ------------------------------------------------------ NCI-1052 Executive Director, No Code International Fellow, The Radio Club of America Senior Member, IEEE Member, IEEE Standards Association Chair, IEEE 802.18 Radio Regulatory Technical Advisory Group Member, Wi-Fi Alliance Spectrum Committee Co-Chair, Wi-Fi Alliance Legislative Committee Member, QCWA (31424) Member, ARRL Member, TAPR Member, The SETI League ------------------------------------------------------ Join No Code International! Hams for the 21st Century. Help assure the survival and prosperity of ham radio. http://www.nocode.org |
Phil Kane wrote: On 11 Jul 2003 05:30:06 -0700, Brian wrote: Please cite the manual giving explicit directions for gaining permission to operate amateur radio in a country w/o a government, and now without an occupying military force that has jurisdiction over my person. Ah, effendi, you are starting to understand. - Verily, I truly doubt it. |
"Phil Kane" wrote in message t.net...
On 11 Jul 2003 05:30:06 -0700, Brian wrote: Please cite the manual giving explicit directions for gaining permission to operate amateur radio in a country w/o a government, and now without an occupying military force that has jurisdiction over my person. Ah, effendi, you are starting to understand. That would be a milestone. |
Alun Palmer wrote: Mike Coslo wrote in : Carl R. Stevenson wrote: I fail to find the humor ... it must be you. Having been licensed for over 25 years, having learned Morse, passed a test (albeit 5 wpm, but my skill increased as I *used* it in the early days), then losing interest in using Morse, seeing Morse keep many of my engineering colleagues from becoming hams over the years, and being involved in this issue for a number of years, both before the FCC and in the WRC prep process, I knew all the background, the issues, the US position, etc. I also knew the postions of many/most other administrations and regional groups. What's so funny about that? I await the influx of all these engineers and the advances they will bring Amateur Radio. Did anyone seriously say they were really interested in Ham radio, but the Morse Code test kept them out? just har dto imagine that someone really interested would do that. As an engineer myself, I can verfiy that lots of engineers have told me exactly that. Whether they would get a licence once code testing is abolished might be another matter. You're right about that last part. Kind of like the excuses that people make for lots of things. Didya ever notice people tend to be kind of indirect in their excuses? - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote ...
Arnie ... your statement is JUST PLAIN FALSE. NCI has NEVER said any such thing. __________________________________________________ ______________________ And the moon is made of cheese, Carl. I suppose I could go back five years and research everything NCI Directors have said on the NG, but I just suspect that you would say I misunderstood those statements. I recall quite a few remarks by NCI Directors saying that the entry level tests were too technical and that revisions were in order. Of course, NCI was never in favor of removing the digital/CW sub bands either, right? Arnie - |
"Brian" wrote ...
[Arnie], does REVISED and REASONABLE mean "reduced technical material" to you? I guess if we asked for UNREASONABLE exams, that would make you happier? Probably not, but your intention is restore an UNREVISED amateur service, which you aren't going to get. You did not, but chimed in when (see subject header) other PCTA were suggesting "No Test International." I read it in its entirety then stated that "Exams that "Rationally and Directly relate to priveleges" could be quite difficult..." If I didn't mean that, why would I state it? You're welcome to repost it if you think I changed the context. Arnie, it means an exam level of difficulty commensurate with priveleges, not punitive exams for the pleasure of those who want Morse testing. __________________________________________________ _________________________ First, I accept your premise that you were not talking about me saying that NCI wanted to end testing. And, yes, revised and reasonable mean reduced standards to me. Like most codewords, when asked about them, they (NCI) can put whatever interpretation (spin) they want on them. How convenient. As to the Morse testing theory of yours. They don't state "Morse Testing" because they are speaking of the "written" exams. Look at their NPRM reply comments in that particular section and you will see this. Arnie - KT4ST |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Bill Sohl wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message a whole bunch of snippage to trim this one up Whether or not the Morse Code is an anachronism, whether or not it should or should not be tested for, the elimination of the Morse code test *is* a reduction in the amount of knowledge needed for a amateur radio license; undeniable unless a person wants to look silly. The problem with your analysis is that you are attempting to apply some mystical "amount of knowledge" criteria which is NOT what licensing is about. Certainly, as a separate knowledge base, the end of morse testing reduces one speciifc piece of knowledge and testing. BUT, that is all it does. Nope, just stating the obvious. No mysticism either. Those responsible for such a reduction in knowledge needed for a license, regardless of their reasons, now find themselves in league with those who propose even less knowledge needed for that ticket. Politics makes for strange bedfellows. FALSE - As Jim will attest, I have been an advocate of better written testing for a long time. Working to eliminate an unneeded (IMHO...but shared by WRC) requirement does not automatically put me or anyone else inleague with those that have a desire to lower or eliminate written tests. No one is doubting your personal convictions, Bill. Related example: Those who oppose elimination of smoking in public places because of personal "rights" issues, and those who oppose it because they want to smoke in public are on the same side of the fence. I understand that Carl and Bill do not support lessening of the knowledge needed. But that does not really matter. Sure it matters. Our opinions are as valued as ayone else in the dialog. Yes they are. Nice out of context quote there too! Clip there and it means one thing, put it next to the sentence it was suposed to be in, and it means something else entirely. Those who want the tests to consist of nothing but sending in an application (if that) **applaud their efforts** That is another thing that is pretty hard to deny. You deny that people who want the tests reduced or even eliminated don't think it is a good thing that the Morse code test is being eliminated? PLEASE tell us who the "just send in an application" advocates are? I haven't seen any semblence of support for that stand anywhere. Well, I haven't taken a poll or collected names, but I've read enough from people who think that the tests are too hard now. If I get the gumption, I could google them out. Please do, since I've been in this newsgroup since day 1 and can't recall even handful. Let's put it this way: Those who do not believe that the tests should be radically simplified or eliminated, but believed the Morse code requirement should have been eliminated may some day find themselves on the losing end of the proposition, just as those who support Morse code testing have lost the battle at this time. Agreed, but it'll be a long wait to see if that pans out (IMHO). I remember when you had to have a license to use CB. So? CB, even then, had NO testing to get that license. And now there is not even that.... Even what? There NEVER was any CB testing. The license was nothing but an administrative excersize. Look, I seriously doubt that there will ever come a time when there is no test at all. We would probably lose the spectrum allotment before that happens. That is just some slippery slope stuff. But I have NO doubt whatsoever that there will be pressure to simplify and reduce the difficulty of the testing process. Its all conjecture, so we'll just have to wait and see. Fair enough, but you know my position on lowering written testing. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
Carl R. Stevenson wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Carl R. Stevenson wrote: I fail to find the humor ... it must be you. Having been licensed for over 25 years, having learned Morse, passed a test (albeit 5 wpm, but my skill increased as I *used* it in the early days), then losing interest in using Morse, seeing Morse keep many of my engineering colleagues from becoming hams over the years, and being involved in this issue for a number of years, both before the FCC and in the WRC prep process, I knew all the background, the issues, the US position, etc. I also knew the postions of many/most other administrations and regional groups. What's so funny about that? I await the influx of all these engineers and the advances they will bring Amateur Radio. Did anyone seriously say they were really interested in Ham radio, but the Morse Code test kept them out? just har dto imagine that someone really interested would do that. I have reported that, in my over 32 years in the RF communications business, I have worked with MANY very competent engineers who would be interested in ham radio, but can't/won't be bothered with wasting their time jumping through a silly Morse code "hoop." Some have become hams since they could get meaningful HF privs for "only" 5 wpm ... I'm sure that more will once they can do the same without having to waste their time on even 5 wpm ... these are folks that could pass a technical test well beyond the Extra. Do you doubt that, even without Morse proficiency, they could/would make good hams and could contribute to the service? I dunno. I doubt it though. I wonder if a person who doesn't want to jump through hoops is going to do much of anything that he/she doesn't want to do. The Morse requirement is GONE from the ITU Radio Regs ... administrations are free to drop Morse testing (many are planning to do so with surprising rapidity ... we in the US are used to government moving slowly, so the speed with which some administratons plan to allow access to HF by no-code hams seems surprising to us ...) These are facts that you can't change, so I suggest you simply learn to live with them. Last time I checked, we were allowed to voice our opinions. No one doubts it will be dropped, but we don't have to like it. I'm not saying you have to *like* it ... just that your disapproval of the facts won't change them and suggesting that you stop "crying over spilled milk." :-) Umm, Carl.... you are here! You have have achieved your goal, at least will be very soon. I'm going to have to assume the reason is to engage in a little gloating? So you're getting what you want on all counts. You really wouldn't have to hear all us PCTA's crying if you didn't want to. In other words, if you want to discuss it, we're here. Lessay we all do what you want, and "just live with it". I guess that means we're supposed to shut up. Then you wouldn't have the fun of discussing it with us, or even telling us to "just live with it". I don't think you would like that very much.. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Arnie Macy wrote: "JJ" wrote ... You mean you and Larry boy don't know semaphore Dick? Why that is just plain LAZINESS. You know, when conditions are so bad that you and Larry have to rely on CW and your faithful CW rigs gives up the ghost or conditions get SO bad that CW can't even get through you and Larry could save the world by using semaphore, if you had that skill, that is. __________________________________________________ _____________________ I have to presume by your comment, JJ that you indeed know semaphore. Otherwise, you look stupid when you chastise them for a skill you don't possess. And, of course -- I'm sure it's just plain LAZINESS on your part. What else could it be? No, I don't know semaphore, and I don't tout it as being some ancient mode of communication that will save the world either. |
"Guessing" wrote in
news:QWCPa.913$Bd5.644@fed1read01: Someone squawked As an engineer myself, I can verfiy that lots of engineers have told me exactly that. Whether they would get a licence once code testing is abolished might be another matter. Nonsense and a big copout It happens to be the truth, whether you like it or not If you want a BS/MS/PHD Degree -- pass the tests Want a driver license -- take a test Want a job - take a drug test and physical exam and perhaps a professional test Want insurance -- take a physical exam Want to be an apprentice (JourneyPerson) -- take the test Want to advance in the Military -- take the test Pass the Bar (Legal that is) Pass Da Test Nurses CPR for sure and maybe ACLS Tests Sobriety Test -- Try to dodge this one et al tests Want an HF Ham license -- take the code and Technical/Rules et al test Code won't be included in that for much longer. I assume that since you just say 'take the test' about everything, that you must have no problem with that. I certainly don't! Otherwise we have CB and FRS. And one who listens on these bands ought to be totally inspired to get a Ham Ticket !!! Simple as that. You live in a 'black and white' world, don't you? Anyone who used the code as an excuse for not becoming a ham, just wasn't serious about it. An unsupported assertion, and untrue If 10 to 17 year olds can do it, why can't an engineer or any other college grad ??? Code aptitude and IQ are completely unrelated Did any of those "Engineers" get a No-Code Tech license ?? Yes, I did (although I did code eventually) Didn't think so !! |
Carl R. Stevenson wrote: Fred Maia, W5YI, was quoted as saying something along that line WRT the Tech test ... but Fred is just *one* of the Directors of NCI, and I can state that his view in that regard is NOT NCI policy and is not shared by me or the rest of the NCI board. (IIRC, Fred also said he'd like to make the Extra test more rigorous ...) Having known Fred Maia personally in the past, I would not put much stock in anything he has to say. |
Mike Coslo wrote in
: Alun Palmer wrote: Mike Coslo wrote in : Carl R. Stevenson wrote: I fail to find the humor ... it must be you. Having been licensed for over 25 years, having learned Morse, passed a test (albeit 5 wpm, but my skill increased as I *used* it in the early days), then losing interest in using Morse, seeing Morse keep many of my engineering colleagues from becoming hams over the years, and being involved in this issue for a number of years, both before the FCC and in the WRC prep process, I knew all the background, the issues, the US position, etc. I also knew the postions of many/most other administrations and regional groups. What's so funny about that? I await the influx of all these engineers and the advances they will bring Amateur Radio. Did anyone seriously say they were really interested in Ham radio, but the Morse Code test kept them out? just har dto imagine that someone really interested would do that. As an engineer myself, I can verfiy that lots of engineers have told me exactly that. Whether they would get a licence once code testing is abolished might be another matter. You're right about that last part. Kind of like the excuses that people make for lots of things. Didya ever notice people tend to be kind of indirect in their excuses? - Mike KB3EIA - Well, it's certainly possible that it was their excuse to make me go away and quit bothering them! All the same, these are people who could pass the Extra theory without too much effort, so once there is no longer a code test we probably _will_ see some of them on the air. |
Mike Coslo wrote in
: Dwight Stewart wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote: (snip) Whether or not the Morse Code is an anachronism, whether or not it should or should not be tested for, the elimination of the Morse code test *is* a reduction in the amount of knowledge needed for a amateur radio license; undeniable unless a person wants to look silly. Isn't Code more of a skill than a knowledge? Any person can look at a piece of paper with a code chart on it and translate code, but that doesn't mean they have the skill to send or receive code over a radio. Wasn't the latter the ultimate purpose of the code test? One must know the Morse code to send and recieve it. - Mike KB3EIA - But not vice versa |
In article , "Bill Sohl"
writes: Bill: Hmmm -- impressive. I wish I could say the same about Nancy Kott. 73 de Larry, K3LT Who is Nancy Kott? My memory thinks it is someone involved with FISTS? Cheers, Bill K2UNK Bill: Yes, that's right. She's involved in the "non-political" CW Operator Awards Program for Retired Geezer Brass Bashers known as FISTS. She is, in fact, the North American "Secretary" of that organization. She is also the new editor of WorldRadio. At least she has found something useful to do. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
Mike Coslo wrote: eschew obtuseness And if you can't eschew it, then chew on it! |
"Mike Coslo" wrote:
Dwight Stewart wrote: Isn't Code more of a skill than a knowledge? Any person can look at a piece of paper with a code chart on it and translate code, but that doesn't mean they have the skill to send or receive code over a radio. Wasn't the latter the ultimate purpose of the code test? One must know the Morse code to send and recieve it. You're right. Perhaps memorizing the individual sequence of sounds associated with a letter of the alphabet is knowledge on some very basic level, similar to a young child memorizing the sounds associated with the letters of the alphabet. Amazing that this would become a key focus of testing in ham radio for so many years. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
Dwight Stewart wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote: Dwight Stewart wrote: Isn't Code more of a skill than a knowledge? Any person can look at a piece of paper with a code chart on it and translate code, but that doesn't mean they have the skill to send or receive code over a radio. Wasn't the latter the ultimate purpose of the code test? One must know the Morse code to send and recieve it. You're right. Perhaps memorizing the individual sequence of sounds associated with a letter of the alphabet is knowledge on some very basic level, similar to a young child memorizing the sounds associated with the letters of the alphabet. Amazing that this would become a key focus of testing in ham radio for so many years. \ Mygawd, Dwight, are you really licensed as a ham? And *that's* all you know of radiotelegraphy? You been hiding out in the wilderness somewhere, in a cave? What do you think it was that started radio in the first place, semaphores? |
"Dick Carroll" wrote:
Dwight Stewart wrote: (snip) Amazing that this would become a key focus of testing in ham radio for so many years. (snip) What do you think it was that started radio in the first place, semaphores? Radio's start was a very long time ago, Dick. And I can understand that. However, it is the "for so many years" part of my comment that I find amazing. Here we are so many, many, years later still focused on that. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
Dick Carroll wrote in :
Dwight Stewart wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote: Dwight Stewart wrote: Isn't Code more of a skill than a knowledge? Any person can look at a piece of paper with a code chart on it and translate code, but that doesn't mean they have the skill to send or receive code over a radio. Wasn't the latter the ultimate purpose of the code test? One must know the Morse code to send and recieve it. You're right. Perhaps memorizing the individual sequence of sounds associated with a letter of the alphabet is knowledge on some very basic level, similar to a young child memorizing the sounds associated with the letters of the alphabet. Amazing that this would become a key focus of testing in ham radio for so many years. \ Mygawd, Dwight, are you really licensed as a ham? And *that's* all you know of radiotelegraphy? You been hiding out in the wilderness somewhere, in a cave? What do you think it was that started radio in the first place, semaphores? Phone goes back a long way. Yes, Marconi started out with Morse code, but AM was only a few years behind. There was phone even when people used spark. A circuit patented by Elihu Thomson to keep arc lamps burning was adapted by Prof Duddell FRS to keep a spark going continously for this purpose. This type of transmitter was used by DeForrest in his famous voice coverage of the yacht race from New York harbour. His 'Audion' (triode) was not used in the transmitter as most assume, but in the regenerative receiver used to pick up his spark AM signals on shore. This was because he hadn't figured out that it could be used to amplify, so it predated TRF receivers even. Even before DeForrest, the first transmission of AM over one mile took place on Cobb Island, Maryland, on December 12, 1900. The system was designed by Fessenden, a Canadian whose research was funded by the weather service in the US. He used a spark gap driven by a high frequency alternator, commonly used to produce Morse at several kW of RF back then, but he had an 80 kHz alternator specially made for him by Poulsen, another pioneer in his own right. By exciting the gap with an alternator running at a frequency _above_ audio he was able to make maybe a kW of AM, whereas the Thomson/Dudell design made far less power (a few watts). Unfortunately he had to rely on some sort of rectifier with no amplification or regeneration for the receiver, hence only being able to hear a kW of AM no more than one mile away. Moving on just a couple more years, the earliest published circuits I have seen for continuous wave transmitters, such as those by John Scott- Taggart, show a mic as well as a key. They would, of course, as phone was known for spark transmitters. CW, of course, originally stood for continuous wave in the sense of 'not spark', and was applied to AM as well as Morse. I do use that kind of CW! |
"JJ" wrote ...
You mean you and Larry boy don't know semaphore Dick? Why that is just plain LAZINESS. You know, when conditions are so bad that you and Larry have to rely on CW and your faithful CW rigs gives up the ghost or conditions get SO bad that CW can't even get through you and Larry could save the world by using semaphore, if you had that skill, that is. __________________________________________________ _____________________ I have to presume by your comment, JJ that you indeed know semaphore. Otherwise, you look stupid when you chastise them for a skill you don't possess. And, of course -- I'm sure it's just plain LAZINESS on your part. What else could it be? Arnie - KT4ST |
"Arnie Macy" wrote in
: "Alun Palmer" wrote ... Well, it's certainly possible that it was their excuse to make me go away and quit bothering them! All the same, these are people who could pass the Extra theory without too much effort, so once there is no longer a code test we probably _will_ see some of them on the air. __________________________________________________ ______________________ __ No we won't. At least not in any great numbers. We've had a 'codeless' license in the ARS for quite a while, and I'm yet to see the great influx of EEs and the like. The code requirement were reduced -- still nothing. If they were truly interested in the ARS, they would be here already (lots of technical stuff to do under the entry license). Old argument, Alun -- not good then, not good now. Arnie - KT4ST How do you know they are not here? Do you really know what each of us majored in? I really don't think so. |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Carl R. Stevenson wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Carl R. Stevenson wrote: I have reported that, in my over 32 years in the RF communications business, I have worked with MANY very competent engineers who would be interested in ham radio, but can't/won't be bothered with wasting their time jumping through a silly Morse code "hoop." Some have become hams since they could get meaningful HF privs for "only" 5 wpm ... I'm sure that more will once they can do the same without having to waste their time on even 5 wpm ... these are folks that could pass a technical test well beyond the Extra. Do you doubt that, even without Morse proficiency, they could/would make good hams and could contribute to the service? I dunno. I doubt it though. I wonder if a person who doesn't want to jump through hoops is going to do much of anything that he/she doesn't want to do. Mike, Do you seriously believe that just because someone is not interested in Morse that they could not be interested in, and contribute in valuable ways to, other aspects of ham radio? "Elmering" new hams who are not technical on the technical aspects designing new modes writing useful ham software building networks public service communications emergency/disaster communications "SKYWARN" etc., etc. Just because someone isn't interested in jumping through the Morse hoop, doesn't mean that they are so selfish that they can't/won't contribute. Umm, Carl.... you are here! You have have achieved your goal, at least will be very soon. I'm going to have to assume the reason is to engage in a little gloating? So you're getting what you want on all counts. You really wouldn't have to hear all us PCTA's crying if you didn't want to. In other words, if you want to discuss it, we're here. Lessay we all do what you want, and "just live with it". I guess that means we're supposed to shut up. Then you wouldn't have the fun of discussing it with us, or even telling us to "just live with it". I don't think you would like that very much.. I'm not here to gloat ... I'm here to make sure that newcomers hear the news and aren't overly tainted by being totally awash in PCTAs to the point that they think all hams are that way and decide that ham radio isn't really for them after all, because of a false perception that it's totally populated with the sort of folks that they'd really not like to associate. :-) Carl - wk3c |
Alun Palmer wrote: "Arnie Macy" wrote in : "Alun Palmer" wrote ... Well, it's certainly possible that it was their excuse to make me go away and quit bothering them! All the same, these are people who could pass the Extra theory without too much effort, so once there is no longer a code test we probably _will_ see some of them on the air. __________________________________________________ ______________________ __ No we won't. At least not in any great numbers. We've had a 'codeless' license in the ARS for quite a while, and I'm yet to see the great influx of EEs and the like. The code requirement were reduced -- still nothing. If they were truly interested in the ARS, they would be here already (lots of technical stuff to do under the entry license). Old argument, Alun -- not good then, not good now. Arnie - KT4ST How do you know they are not here? Do you really know what each of us majored in? I really don't think so. That's an easy one. The numbers didn't rise accordingly after restructuring. |
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Carl R. Stevenson wrote: I await the influx of all these engineers and the advances they will bring Amateur Radio. Don't hold your breath waiting for either. Did anyone seriously say they were really interested in Ham radio, but the Morse Code test kept them out? just har dto imagine that someone really interested would do that. Right on the money. I have reported that, in my over 32 years in the RF communications business, I have worked with MANY very competent engineers who would be interested in ham radio, but can't/won't be bothered with wasting their time jumping through a silly Morse code "hoop." Some have become hams since they could get meaningful HF privs for "only" 5 wpm ... I'm sure that more will once they can do the same without having to waste their time on even 5 wpm ... these are folks that could pass a technical test well beyond the Extra. Do you doubt that, even without Morse proficiency, they could/would make good hams and could contribute to the service? Brings up a question Carl: You're a seasoned EE and have been a ham for many years. What technology-based contributions have you made to the service? w3rv |
Dick Carroll wrote in :
Arnie Macy wrote: "JJ" wrote ... You mean you and Larry boy don't know semaphore Dick? Why that is just plain LAZINESS. You know, when conditions are so bad that you and Larry have to rely on CW and your faithful CW rigs gives up the ghost or conditions get SO bad that CW can't even get through you and Larry could save the world by using semaphore, if you had that skill, that is. __________________________________________________ _____________________ I have to presume by your comment, JJ that you indeed know semaphore. Otherwise, you look stupid when you chastise them for a skill you don't possess. And, of course -- I'm sure it's just plain LAZINESS on your part. What else could it be? Arnie, if learning semaphores had been a licensing requirement for the ARS, I would have learned it along with lots of others, like it or not. I sure wouldn't have sat on my backside for most of my lifetime carping about how 'unnecessary' it all was to make me jump through some "useless" hoop. But of course semaphores have no application to radiocommunications, as I inferred, and JJ knows that, it's just all he could grope around and come up with. No true, what if the sound fails on your ATV setup and you are aboard a sinking vessel? ROTFL |
I still maintain it is all a matter of achieve or cop out. Make excuses or
meet a challenge. And you are correct "Code aptitude and IQ are completely unrelated" So much for the "Engineer copout" It has nothing to do whether you or I like or dislike the code. It has nothing to do with "Antiquated technology" It has nothing to do with "I'll never use code" It has everything to do with "Want HF Ham Ticket -- Pass the Test "(at the moment) If dropped is all OK with me. Times and requirements change as they should. Black and white -- yep sure is -- society, government, et al make it that way. Don't Drink and Drive, 3 strikes you are outta here -- Pass the Test -- pretty black and white to me. As for Anyone who used the code as an excuse for not becoming a ham, just wasn't serious about it. An unsupported assertion, and untrue I have talked with hundreds and I mean hundreds of folks and VE's over the years and here are the copouts. I don't have time. The most common one. VE's here have found that 15 min a day EVERY day practice and in a month --90%+ pass the code test BUT the other 10% spend all night on the boob tube. I'll never use code. (You may never have to parallel park either) (if they still require that) I can't take tests (Has Drivers License and a BSEE) Its a lot easier to get on CB Its too expensive (has $1000 computer, can't afford a Swan 350 at $250) Its so illogical (so is a job interview at times) Notice I didn't even mention whether I am a Ham or not -- Tech no-code or Extra ---pro or anti-code -- cause that ain't got nothing to do with -- PASS THE TEST "Alun Palmer" wrote in message ... "Guessing" wrote in news:QWCPa.913$Bd5.644@fed1read01: Someone squawked As an engineer myself, I can verfiy that lots of engineers have told me exactly that. Whether they would get a licence once code testing is abolished might be another matter. Nonsense and a big copout It happens to be the truth, whether you like it or not If you want a BS/MS/PHD Degree -- pass the tests Want a driver license -- take a test Want a job - take a drug test and physical exam and perhaps a professional test Want insurance -- take a physical exam Want to be an apprentice (JourneyPerson) -- take the test Want to advance in the Military -- take the test Pass the Bar (Legal that is) Pass Da Test Nurses CPR for sure and maybe ACLS Tests Sobriety Test -- Try to dodge this one et al tests Want an HF Ham license -- take the code and Technical/Rules et al test Code won't be included in that for much longer. I assume that since you just say 'take the test' about everything, that you must have no problem with that. I certainly don't! Otherwise we have CB and FRS. And one who listens on these bands ought to be totally inspired to get a Ham Ticket !!! Simple as that. You live in a 'black and white' world, don't you? Anyone who used the code as an excuse for not becoming a ham, just wasn't serious about it. An unsupported assertion, and untrue If 10 to 17 year olds can do it, why can't an engineer or any other college grad ??? Code aptitude and IQ are completely unrelated Did any of those "Engineers" get a No-Code Tech license ?? Yes, I did (although I did code eventually) Didn't think so !! |
"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
... Dwight Stewart wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote: Dwight Stewart wrote: Isn't Code more of a skill than a knowledge? Any person can look at a piece of paper with a code chart on it and translate code, but that doesn't mean they have the skill to send or receive code over a radio. Wasn't the latter the ultimate purpose of the code test? One must know the Morse code to send and recieve it. You're right. Perhaps memorizing the individual sequence of sounds associated with a letter of the alphabet is knowledge on some very basic level, similar to a young child memorizing the sounds associated with the letters of the alphabet. Amazing that this would become a key focus of testing in ham radio for so many years. \ Mygawd, Dwight, are you really licensed as a ham? And *that's* all you know of radiotelegraphy? You been hiding out in the wilderness somewhere, in a cave? What do you think it was that started radio in the first place, semaphores? No doubt what started ham radio was an experiment using the best of what was around then. Perhaps you'd like to move into the most recent century, Dick. If ham radio were "invented" today, it would never even get near CW. Kim W5TIT --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net Complaints to |
"Guessing" wrote in
news:bXVPa.1425$Bd5.445@fed1read01: I still maintain it is all a matter of achieve or cop out. Make excuses or meet a challenge. And you are correct "Code aptitude and IQ are completely unrelated" So much for the "Engineer copout" It has nothing to do whether you or I like or dislike the code. I disagree. If someone doesn't like CW, why on earth should they be forced to train as a CW operator to get accesss to phone frequencies? This is a hobby. It has nothing to do with "Antiquated technology" I don't think CW can match PSK or TOR, so it is somewhat antiquated, IMHO It has nothing to do with "I'll never use code" On the contrary. I don't use code, so why did I have to learn to use it? It has everything to do with "Want HF Ham Ticket -- Pass the Test "(at the moment) If dropped is all OK with me. Times and requirements change as they should. So you have no trouble with the oncoming changes, then? Black and white -- yep sure is -- society, government, et al make it that way. Don't Drink and Drive, 3 strikes you are outta here -- Pass the Test -- pretty black and white to me. So you don't beleive anyone should try to change any of the rules? As for Anyone who used the code as an excuse for not becoming a ham, just wasn't serious about it. An unsupported assertion, and untrue I have talked with hundreds and I mean hundreds of folks and VE's over the years and here are the copouts. I don't have time. The most common one. VE's here have found that 15 min a day EVERY day practice and in a month --90%+ pass the code test BUT the other 10% spend all night on the boob tube. Usually that is just an excuse, I agree. My XYL uses it all the time! I'll never use code. (You may never have to parallel park either) (if they still require that) No, that one is valid. I can't take tests (Has Drivers License and a BSEE) Its a lot easier to get on CB Its too expensive (has $1000 computer, can't afford a Swan 350 at $250) That one makes me smile too Its so illogical (so is a job interview at times) Notice I didn't even mention whether I am a Ham or not -- Tech no-code or Extra ---pro or anti-code -- cause that ain't got nothing to do with -- PASS THE TEST "Alun Palmer" wrote in message ... "Guessing" wrote in news:QWCPa.913$Bd5.644@fed1read01: Someone squawked As an engineer myself, I can verfiy that lots of engineers have told me exactly that. Whether they would get a licence once code testing is abolished might be another matter. Nonsense and a big copout It happens to be the truth, whether you like it or not If you want a BS/MS/PHD Degree -- pass the tests Want a driver license -- take a test Want a job - take a drug test and physical exam and perhaps a professional test Want insurance -- take a physical exam Want to be an apprentice (JourneyPerson) -- take the test Want to advance in the Military -- take the test Pass the Bar (Legal that is) Pass Da Test Nurses CPR for sure and maybe ACLS Tests Sobriety Test -- Try to dodge this one et al tests Want an HF Ham license -- take the code and Technical/Rules et al test Code won't be included in that for much longer. I assume that since you just say 'take the test' about everything, that you must have no problem with that. I certainly don't! Otherwise we have CB and FRS. And one who listens on these bands ought to be totally inspired to get a Ham Ticket !!! Simple as that. You live in a 'black and white' world, don't you? Anyone who used the code as an excuse for not becoming a ham, just wasn't serious about it. An unsupported assertion, and untrue If 10 to 17 year olds can do it, why can't an engineer or any other college grad ??? Code aptitude and IQ are completely unrelated Did any of those "Engineers" get a No-Code Tech license ?? Yes, I did (although I did code eventually) Didn't think so !! |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in
: "Dick Carroll" wrote in message ... Dwight Stewart wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote: Dwight Stewart wrote: Isn't Code more of a skill than a knowledge? Any person can look at a piece of paper with a code chart on it and translate code, but that doesn't mean they have the skill to send or receive code over a radio. Wasn't the latter the ultimate purpose of the code test? One must know the Morse code to send and recieve it. You're right. Perhaps memorizing the individual sequence of sounds associated with a letter of the alphabet is knowledge on some very basic level, similar to a young child memorizing the sounds associated with the letters of the alphabet. Amazing that this would become a key focus of testing in ham radio for so many years. \ Mygawd, Dwight, are you really licensed as a ham? And *that's* all you know of radiotelegraphy? You been hiding out in the wilderness somewhere, in a cave? What do you think it was that started radio in the first place, semaphores? No doubt what started ham radio was an experiment using the best of what was around then. Perhaps you'd like to move into the most recent century, Dick. If ham radio were "invented" today, it would never even get near CW. Kim W5TIT --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net Complaints to Do you know why, though Kim. Morse intended his system to be 100% automated. Sending by hand and receiving by ear only came about because the electro-mechanical systems of the day were unreliable. This happened even before radio was invented. So you're right, now we use computers for data modes a chain of events like that would be impossible. |
"Alun Palmer" wrote in message ... "Guessing" wrote in news:bXVPa.1425$Bd5.445@fed1read01: Alun I respect you opinions. Just like I don't like some laws (blue or otherwise) and CC&R's in the HOA in which I live -- I can express a personal emotion or opinion as you have. But my point is that thousands who hate the code have passed the code test because they had to in order to achieve their goals. If one's desire to get on HF is high enough, the code should not be a deterrent as many have proved. And they didn't like proving it. I still maintain it is all a matter of achieve or cop out. Make excuses or meet a challenge. And you are correct "Code aptitude and IQ are completely unrelated" So much for the "Engineer copout" It has nothing to do whether you or I like or dislike the code. I disagree. If someone doesn't like CW, why on earth should they be forced to train as a CW operator to get accesss to phone frequencies? This is a hobby. Because the FCC sez so -- don't mix emotions with the law. It is not a hobby -- FCC Part 97 sez it is a Service. (That ought to stir up a hornets nest!!) It has nothing to do with "Antiquated technology" I don't think CW can match PSK or TOR, so it is somewhat antiquated, IMHO Besides the point It has nothing to do with "I'll never use code" On the contrary. I don't use code, so why did I have to learn to use it? FCC sez so -- you are making an excuse to avoid the requirement. Logic has nothing to do with it -- its the law. Ask a lawyer about that one. Hey I want to be a BSEE, why do I have to take History classes ???? It has everything to do with "Want HF Ham Ticket -- Pass the Test "(at the moment) If dropped is all OK with me. Times and requirements change as they should. So you have no trouble with the oncoming changes, then? None at all. Black and white -- yep sure is -- society, government, et al make it that way. Don't Drink and Drive, 3 strikes you are outta here -- Pass the Test -- pretty black and white to me. So you don't beleive anyone should try to change any of the rules? Of course change is inevitable. But for now -- buckle up As for Anyone who used the code as an excuse for not becoming a ham, just wasn't serious about it. An unsupported assertion, and untrue I have talked with hundreds and I mean hundreds of folks and VE's over the years and here are the copouts. I don't have time. The most common one. VE's here have found that 15 min a day EVERY day practice and in a month --90%+ pass the code test BUT the other 10% spend all night on the boob tube. Usually that is just an excuse, I agree. My XYL uses it all the time! Mine Too !! I'll never use code. (You may never have to parallel park either) (if they still require that) No, that one is valid. Try telling that to the FCC -- meantime Pass The Test I can't take tests (Has Drivers License and a BSEE) Its a lot easier to get on CB Its too expensive (has $1000 computer, can't afford a Swan 350 at $250) That one makes me smile too Its so illogical (so is a job interview at times) Notice I didn't even mention whether I am a Ham or not -- Tech no-code or Extra ---pro or anti-code -- cause that ain't got nothing to do with -- PASS THE TEST "Alun Palmer" wrote in message ... "Guessing" wrote in news:QWCPa.913$Bd5.644@fed1read01: Someone squawked As an engineer myself, I can verfiy that lots of engineers have told me exactly that. Whether they would get a licence once code testing is abolished might be another matter. Nonsense and a big copout It happens to be the truth, whether you like it or not If you want a BS/MS/PHD Degree -- pass the tests Want a driver license -- take a test Want a job - take a drug test and physical exam and perhaps a professional test Want insurance -- take a physical exam Want to be an apprentice (JourneyPerson) -- take the test Want to advance in the Military -- take the test Pass the Bar (Legal that is) Pass Da Test Nurses CPR for sure and maybe ACLS Tests Sobriety Test -- Try to dodge this one et al tests Want an HF Ham license -- take the code and Technical/Rules et al test Code won't be included in that for much longer. I assume that since you just say 'take the test' about everything, that you must have no problem with that. I certainly don't! Otherwise we have CB and FRS. And one who listens on these bands ought to be totally inspired to get a Ham Ticket !!! Simple as that. You live in a 'black and white' world, don't you? Anyone who used the code as an excuse for not becoming a ham, just wasn't serious about it. An unsupported assertion, and untrue If 10 to 17 year olds can do it, why can't an engineer or any other college grad ??? Code aptitude and IQ are completely unrelated Did any of those "Engineers" get a No-Code Tech license ?? Yes, I did (although I did code eventually) Didn't think so !! |
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 00:19:01 -0400, "Bill Sohl"
wrote: Ask a lawyer about that one. Hey I want to be a BSEE, why do I have to take History classes ???? You don't have to take history classes in some schools to get a BSEE. Correct...but, in my opinion, still misses one major point, namely that an amateur radio license and a BSEE are entirely different. A BSEE is a degree awarded at the *end* of an academic pursuit for the purpose of recognizing successful completion thereof and to certify that the recipient has acquired significant knowledge in the field. By the time you get a BSEE, you're supposed to have forgotten more about electrical engineering than most people have ever learned. It'll get you a decent job even if you bluffed your way through and really don't know shinola. It's supposedly proof of an accomplishment, that being a well-rounded education, with particular emphasis in a specialized field. That's why most (not all) institutes of higher learning require classes in things like history, literature, and other stuff that would seem unrelated. If I were Larry Roll, I'd lament that I've seen so many people with college degrees that still couldn't fill out a job application properly, that the requirements for a college degree must have been seriously dumbed down over the past thirty years, but I'm not, so I won't. Nevertheless, I have worked with people who held engineering degrees yet could not compose a coherent memo for circulation in their own department. An amateur radio license is a document awarded at the *beginning* of one's participation in the hobby for the purpose of granting operating privileges and to certify that the recipient has demonstrated entry level knowledge at the class of license thus received. It won't get you a job bagging groceries. As for the accomplishments, those come afterward when you actually start to make use of the privileges the license conveys by putting Qs in your logbook. It is not, and is not intended to be, comparable to a college degree...no matter how much some people would like it to be so. 73 DE John, KC2HMZ |
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 00:19:01 -0400, "Bill Sohl"
wrote: Ask a lawyer about that one. Hey I want to be a BSEE, why do I have to take History classes ???? You don't have to take history classes in some schools to get a BSEE. Correct...but, in my opinion, still misses one major point, namely that an amateur radio license and a BSEE are entirely different. A BSEE is a degree awarded at the *end* of an academic pursuit for the purpose of recognizing successful completion thereof and to certify that the recipient has acquired significant knowledge in the field. By the time you get a BSEE, you're supposed to have forgotten more about electrical engineering than most people have ever learned. It'll get you a decent job even if you bluffed your way through and really don't know shinola. It's supposedly proof of an accomplishment, that being a well-rounded education, with particular emphasis in a specialized field. That's why most (not all) institutes of higher learning require classes in things like history, literature, and other stuff that would seem unrelated. If I were Larry Roll, I'd lament that I've seen so many people with college degrees that still couldn't fill out a job application properly, that the requirements for a college degree must have been seriously dumbed down over the past thirty years, but I'm not, so I won't. Nevertheless, I have worked with people who held engineering degrees yet could not compose a coherent memo for circulation in their own department. An amateur radio license is a document awarded at the *beginning* of one's participation in the hobby for the purpose of granting operating privileges and to certify that the recipient has demonstrated entry level knowledge at the class of license thus received. It won't get you a job bagging groceries. As for the accomplishments, those come afterward when you actually start to make use of the privileges the license conveys by putting Qs in your logbook. It is not, and is not intended to be, comparable to a college degree...no matter how much some people would like it to be so. 73 DE John, KC2HMZ |
Arnie Macy wrote:
"JJ" wrote ... You mean you and Larry boy don't know semaphore Dick? Why that is just plain LAZINESS. You know, when conditions are so bad that you and Larry have to rely on CW and your faithful CW rigs gives up the ghost or conditions get SO bad that CW can't even get through you and Larry could save the world by using semaphore, if you had that skill, that is. __________________________________________________ _____________________ I have to presume by your comment, JJ that you indeed know semaphore. Otherwise, you look stupid when you chastise them for a skill you don't possess. And, of course -- I'm sure it's just plain LAZINESS on your part. What else could it be? And yaknow what? If knowing semaphore was a requirement for a Ham ticket, I'd learn it. - Mike KB3EIA - |
In article , Dwight Stewart
writes: Isn't Code more of a skill than a knowledge? Dwight, You may find the following definitions useful, I do, anyhow. "Knowledge" in this context really means anything that can be learned and known consciously by a person. There are at least three different kinds of knowledge - facts, concepts and skills. Facts are concrete pieces of information, and are learned by pure memorization. "1 plus 1 equals 2 in base 10" is an arithmetic fact. A person can know all sorts of facts with no understanding of what they mean. Concepts are understandings of how things work and what they mean. Such as the concept of addition, which requires understanding. Of course without facts, very little can be done with pure concepts. Skills are the abilities to actually do useful things. Such as being able to add numbers and get the right answer. Usually, but not always, skills require facts and concepts. Skills are only learned through practice. You can know all the facts about bicycles, and thoroughly understand the concepts behind bicycle design, but you won't be able to ride one until you practice. Most of what is on the written test is facts. The Morse test is almost pure skill. Concepts get the short end. 73 de Jim, N2EY Any person can look at a piece of paper with a code chart on it and translate code, but that doesn't mean they have the skill to send or receive code over a radio. Wasn't the latter the ultimate purpose of the code test? |
In article , Alun Palmer
writes: No true, what if the sound fails on your ATV setup and you are aboard a sinking vessel? Use ASL (American Sign Language) 73 de Jim, N2EY |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:56 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com