Alun Palmer wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote in
:


Dee D. Flint wrote:

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
...


"Guessing" wrote in message
news:kTWPa.1427$Bd5.928@fed1read01...


"Alun Palmer" wrote in message
.4...


"Guessing" wrote in
news:bXVPa.1425$Bd5.445@fed1read01:

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.



Broaden the category to Socio-Humanistic electives or whatever
equivalent term that your college uses and you will find that you do
have to take a certain amount of them. And everyone regardless of
major has to take English even though they should already be
proficient at that before they get there. You have to take quite a
few "unnecessary" courses in college to get a degree in any field.

Unless you are a "non-traditional student" at old PSU, you have to
take
Physical Education classes. My son is taking Karate this semester, as a
required course.

It has no bearing on his eventual carreer, yet he may elect to not
take
it, and not graduate. He has to take some history, to and there are
plenty of other classes that have a questionable relevence to his
eventual carreer.

Even the Electrical engineers have to take these classes.

The idea is actually sound, as it helps produce a more well
rounded
individual. It also takes into account that a person may not have the
same "core competencies" their entire career. A narrowly focused
education may prepare a person for a carreer that eventually
dissapears.

- Mike KB3EIA -




I might have known that you would think it was a good idea - I don't

Thanks, Alun! I've switched fields 5 times in the course of one career.
If I hadn't had a broad education, I wouldn't have been able to.

I've always jumped on every educational opporunity I could.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Dick Carroll wrote:

JJ wrote:


Dick Carroll wrote:



JJ you're about as dippy as they're made these days. One of us says he beleives
that it's important for hams to learn to do morse code because it's a good, really
simple and viable communications mode for hams, and suddenly you've got us all
packaged up as ogres. You haven't a single clue, and you'r so far off that
you have no clue that you have no clue. Probably a good thing, dipschitz like you,
if intelligent, might be something of an annoyance. As it is you come in somewhere
below a gnat.

I haven't packaged anyone who supports CW mode as an ogre, just
those who choose to use derogatory terms to describe fellow hams
who choose not to learn or use CW or put the importance on it you
do, you know, like those dumbed-down lowly, not "real hams"
good-for-nothing, no-techical knowledge, no-coders.

I must really get under your skin Dickie.


JJ it's just another minor rrap irritant that you're another dip**** who spouts off
without
having a hint of a clue. No problem,we've had plenty of them here on rrap to date.
You and Kim fit really well together.

Oh, don't think just because you try to be anonymous that no one can find out who
you are. That's been tried here before. If I was interested at all I'd already know.
I'm not, but some others will probably be.

Speaking of which, where is our resident ferret, Steve? I haven't heard
from him in a while.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote in :

Alun Palmer wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote in
:


Dee D. Flint wrote:

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
...


"Guessing" wrote in message
news:kTWPa.1427$Bd5.928@fed1read01...


"Alun Palmer" wrote in message
. 1.4...


"Guessing" wrote in
news:bXVPa.1425$Bd5.445@fed1read01:

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.



Broaden the category to Socio-Humanistic electives or whatever
equivalent term that your college uses and you will find that you do
have to take a certain amount of them. And everyone regardless of
major has to take English even though they should already be
proficient at that before they get there. You have to take quite a
few "unnecessary" courses in college to get a degree in any field.

Unless you are a "non-traditional student" at old PSU, you have
to take
Physical Education classes. My son is taking Karate this semester, as
a required course.

It has no bearing on his eventual carreer, yet he may elect to
not take
it, and not graduate. He has to take some history, to and there are
plenty of other classes that have a questionable relevence to his
eventual carreer.

Even the Electrical engineers have to take these classes.

The idea is actually sound, as it helps produce a more well
rounded
individual. It also takes into account that a person may not have the
same "core competencies" their entire career. A narrowly focused
education may prepare a person for a carreer that eventually
dissapears.

- Mike KB3EIA -




I might have known that you would think it was a good idea - I don't

Thanks, Alun! I've switched fields 5 times in the course of one
career.
If I hadn't had a broad education, I wouldn't have been able to.

I've always jumped on every educational opporunity I could.

- Mike KB3EIA -



And learning history in an EE degree somehow helped you to do that???

JJ wrote in :



Dick Carroll wrote:

Bill Sohl wrote:


"Radio Amateur KC2HMZ" wrote


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.


And since the Extra class license is awarded to illiterates today,
your point is at
least partly
valid. In past times the Extra class license wasn't issued to people
whom the FCC wasn't pretty sure had the knowledge and ability to
function at the top level of ham radio. The Extra class license, at
its inception, was never intended to be a entry level license at all.
That you "modernists" conclude otherwise serves to confirm just how
far the "dumbing down" of the ARS has gone.




It won't get

you a job bagging groceries.


And definitely that was not always the case. I've landed a couple
jobs in
electronics on
the strength of my ham ticket, and later partially so, since by that
time I also held a commercial
license. But knowledgble administraters used to consider a ham to be
knowledgable in electronics.; Again, that it isn't so these days
speaks to just how far toward CB the ARS has slid. Youi never saw
CBers beiong viewed as technically competent because of their
participation in ratchetjawing. Sure looks like the same applies to
today's voice-only hams!

So are you suggesting that the ham tests should be upgraded to
include chip design and surface mount technology? Those are the
technical skills required today.



Not a bad idea. Let's do 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.

Phil, I noticed you didn't cite the manual. Perhaps you are starting to understand.

Brian

Dwight Stewart wrote in message ...
"N2EY" wrote:

"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.

Is there significant knowledge in using a hammer skillfully?

Yep, if you accept that skill is a type of knowledge. Besides the
skill of actually hammering, there's knowing what hammer to use for a
particular job, knowing how to hold the hammer and thing to be
hammered, and what safety precautions to take.

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.

(snip) Most of what is on the written test is facts.
The Morse test is almost pure skill. Concepts get the
short end.

Why snip the skills definition?

I'm not sure I can fully agree with that since the written tests do
require at least rudimentary understanding of scientific concepts like radio
waves, RF exposure, atmospheric affects on radio waves, and so on (all found
in even college level science textbooks, including Ohm's Law).

Not really, Dwight.

Many of the written test questions are about the rules and regs, such
as band edges and power limits. Also symbol identification,
definitions, and other facts. One doesn't have to know what a kHz is
to know that the 40 meter band is 7000 to 7300 kHz. Nor does it
require an understanding of the operation of electronic components to
correctly identify which symbol is, say, a JFET.

More importantly, since the Q&A are all in the public domain, all that
is needed to get an answer correct is to identify which of the 4
answers is correct. How this is done by the testee and how much
understanding is involved is not a concern of the FCC or VEs as long
as there's no cheating involved. Rote memorization, word association,
and random guessing are all accepted ways of getting an answer
correct. Get enough answers correct and the license is issued.

For example, suppose a question asks for the length of a 40 meter
dipole made of wire and offers 4 answers. Someone could learn about
dipoles and get the correct answer. Or they could simply learn "40
meter dipole wire 66 feet" with absolutely no understanding of what a
dipole is other than that a 40 meter one is 66 feet long. In fact,
thinking about that one too much could get you in trouble because '40
meters' is actually about 131 feet.

I never saw much if anyhting about radio in any of the science
textbooks I had, grade school through college. I did see some stuff in
my engineering textbooks, though. But by then I had been a ham for 5
years.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Scientists dream of doing great things. Engineers do them." (usually
attributed to Wehrner Von Braun)

WWHD

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 21:24:18 GMT, 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."

Gee, I went to grad school, took all the courses that I thought I
would like, didn't take any that I thought I wouldn't need, and
refused to do a dissertation or thesis because such things were
just a silly "hoop".

Why didn't they give me a PhD ?? I deserved it. ggg

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?

Could they pass a snap test on operating procedure and regulations,
possibly an oral challenge (here we go with grad school again) before
that ogre, Examiner Kane?

Don't get me wrong, Cecil - you read my input to the Restructuring
Docket and you know that I was in favor of eliminating the code test.

Just not for the reasons that you are proffering.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...


. . . amongst NCI's membership, and it should be pointed out
that this is the norm in the rest of the world and no real harm seems to
have come from the lack of restrictive sub-band-by-mode limitations such
as
those currently embodied in the Commission's Rules."

Simply stating the facts as perceived in terms of the membership's views.
This
is NOT NCI's issue though ... though, as I have said over and over, I
*personally*
would hate to see the digital/CW sub-bands overrun by SSB.


Carl check me here but wasn't it you who advocated the abandonment of
all mode setasides in order to be able to run wall-to-wall spread
spectrum on 20M?


Carl - wk3c

w3rv

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...


Dwight Stewart wrote:

"N2EY" wrote:

"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.

Is there significant knowledge in using a hammer skillfully?



Dwight your ignorance is showing again--OF COURSE there is!


Absolutely. First of all you have to select the rightr hammer for the job.
Secondly if you are going to be hammering a lot, you need to know how to
select a hammer with the proper weight and balance to maximize the
effectivity of the hammer with a minimum of energy expenditure. Then there
is an art to swinging the hammer. Beginners manage to hit a lot of fingers
and hands.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ...
"Brian Kelly" wrote in message
om...

And of that 11,000 how many do you 'spose are engineers who wouldn't
have become hams unless the code test was dropped to 5 wpm? And of
those, how many of these newly minted ham engineers will ever make any
"contribution to the service"?


I don't think that's a very fair question. How many long-licensed/current
hams have ever made a contribution to the service? I suspect not many by
your definition, so it's not even a good question, let alone a fair one.

I absolutely did mean it within my narrow definition because the
ongoing argument has been based on a narrow definition. But I should
have been more specific in my post.

It's a very fair & appropriate question as a rhetorical response to
the NCTAs who have been claiming forever that eliminating the code
tests for HF access will result in a new influx of technically astute
engineers. Bilge. Who will put their expertise to work and come up
with "advances in the state of the art" now that they won't have to
jump thru the "code test hoops". More bilge and you know that as well
as I do.


w3rv

Kim W5TIT

w3rv

"N2EY" wrote:

Yep, if you accept that skill is a type of
knowledge. Besides the skill of actually
hammering, there's knowing what hammer to
use for a particular job, knowing how to
hold the hammer and thing to be hammered,
and what safety precautions to take.


Obviously building something with a hammer requires knowledge, but even a
two year old child can learn to hit a nail with a hammer - the skill.


Many of the written test questions are about
the rules and regs, such as band edges and
power limits. Also symbol identification,
definitions, and other facts. One doesn't
have to know what a kHz is to know that the
40 meter band is 7000 to 7300 kHz. Nor does
it require an understanding of the operation
of electronic components to correctly
identify which symbol is, say, a JFET.


All requiring far more knowledge than the skill of hitting a nail with a
hammer.


More importantly, since the Q&A are all
in the public domain, all that is needed
to get an answer correct is to identify
which of the 4 answers is correct. (snip)


Then you dispute the multiple choice method of testing, which means you
must also dispute this method of testing when employed by schools and
colleges throughout this country and around the world (and the studies once
used by those schools to determine this is a sufficient means of testing for
educational purposes).


How this is done by the testee and how much
understanding is involved is not a concern
of the FCC or VEs as long as there's no
cheating involved. Rote memorization, word
association, and random guessing are all
accepted ways of getting an answer correct.
Get enough answers correct and the license
is issued.


If the FCC is not concerned, why are you? Obviously, the FCC has
determined this method of testing is sufficient to meet the goals it has for
Amateur Radio license testing. Perhaps you're dissatisfied with this method
because you don't truly understand the goals of those license exams. Again,
the exams are an entrance exam to get into Amateur Radio, not a final exam
to determine ultimate skills and knowledge. In Amateur Radio, the primary
develop of skills and knowledge comes after those entrance exams through
actual experience.


I never saw much if anyhting about radio in
any of the science textbooks I had, grade
school through college. I did see some stuff
in my engineering textbooks, though. But by
then I had been a ham for 5 years.


You're out of date, Jim. Many college science textbook used throughout the
US cover these subjects (radio and electronics). For example;

The Sciences, An Integrated Approach, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Chapter 5 (pg. 115), Electricity and Magnetism (electromagnetic force,
electric circuits, ampere, voltage, resistance, ohm's law).
Chapter 6 (pg. 127), the Nature of Waves (wavelength, frequency and
velocity).
Chapter 6 (pg. 139), the Electromagnetic Spectrum (radio waves,
induction, radio waves and the atmosphere, ducting).
Chapter 11 (pg. 241), Electrical Properties of Materials (conductors,
insulators, semiconductors, and superconductors).
Chapter 11 (pg. 240), Technology (diodes, semiconductors, transistors).

Even many high school science textbooks cover the basics. For example;

Physical Science, Holt/Harcourt Publishing.
Chapter 17 (pg. 420), Introduction to Electricity (electric current,
conductors, insulators, ac/dc, resistance, resistors, Ohm's Law, electric
circuits, series and parallel circuits).
Chapter 19 (pg. 480), Electronic Technology (semiconductors, diodes,
transistors, integrated circuits).
Chapter 20 (pg. 508), The Energy of Waves (amplitude, frequency,
wavelength).
Chapter 22 (pg. 568), The Electromagnetic Spectrum (radio waves, am/fm
modulation, induction, destructive and constructive interference, the
ionosphere).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

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


"Alun Palmer" wrote in message
...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in
.com:


"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
...

"Guessing" wrote in message
news:kTWPa.1427$Bd5.928@fed1read01...

"Alun Palmer" wrote in message
...
"Guessing" wrote in
news:bXVPa.1425$Bd5.445@fed1read01:

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.


Broaden the category to Socio-Humanistic electives or whatever
equivalent term that your college uses and you will find that you do
have to take a certain amount of them. And everyone regardless of
major has to take English even though they should already be
proficient at that before they get there. You have to take quite a
few "unnecessary" courses in college to get a degree in any field.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE



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).

It depends on whether you consider colleges and universities as
institutions of higher learning or as job training schools. If the
former then the various non-degreee specific classes are appropriate.
If the latter, then they are not.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE



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.

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...


Alun Palmer wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote in
:

Dee D. Flint wrote:
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
...

"Guessing" wrote in message
news:kTWPa.1427$Bd5.928@fed1read01...

"Alun Palmer" wrote in message
. 4...

"Guessing" wrote in
news:bXVPa.1425$Bd5.445@fed1read01:

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.



Broaden the category to Socio-Humanistic electives or whatever
equivalent term that your college uses and you will find that you do
have to take a certain amount of them. And everyone regardless of
major has to take English even though they should already be
proficient at that before they get there. You have to take quite a
few "unnecessary" courses in college to get a degree in any field.

Unless you are a "non-traditional student" at old PSU, you have
to
take
Physical Education classes. My son is taking Karate this semester, as
a
required course.

It has no bearing on his eventual carreer, yet he may elect to
not
take
it, and not graduate. He has to take some history, to and there are
plenty of other classes that have a questionable relevence to his
eventual carreer.

Even the Electrical engineers have to take these classes.

The idea is actually sound, as it helps produce a more well
rounded
individual. It also takes into account that a person may not have the
same "core competencies" their entire career. A narrowly focused
education may prepare a person for a carreer that eventually
dissapears.

- Mike KB3EIA -



I might have known that you would think it was a good idea - I don't

When my son-in-law(a ham) was deciding which engineering discipline to
major in (he
later graduated
cum laude in civil engineering) he discussed it with my daughter who
suggested that
transportation
was a industry that isn't going away, so he became a highway engineer,
working on
interstate and tollway projects. He has been steadily employed with a
large stable
national company, and
does very well.
On the other hand, I read a number of electrical and digital engineers
lamenting
the shipping of their work to offshore areas like India and the middle
east (I read
that Microsoft is doing that - I wonder who they plan to sell their wares
to when all
the good jobs here are gone?) where such engineering can be done at far
less expense
than in the US.

Meanwhile, it's difficult to engineer a road project from the other side
of the
planet!

Dick,

Wow, something we agree on. The exportation of development
engineering is quite widespread. Software development
is also wholesaled to India by many companies (perhaps you
meant that too in reference to digital engineering).

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
.net...

Don't get me wrong, Cecil - you read my input to the Restructuring
Docket and you know that I was in favor of eliminating the code test.

begin quote

COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY PHILIP M. KANE

MANUAL MORSE CODE TESTING

13. From the inception of both commercial (marine) and amateur radio
in the early years of this century, Manual Morse Code was the first and
"simplest" method of communication, requiring operators trained and
experienced in the use of this mode at all points in the circuit. At the
time, equipment used by all services was rather crude, and in some cases
the amateur service shared large amounts of spectrum with the governmental
and private commercial services. It was essential that the amateur
operator be qualified in Manual Morse Code in order to recognize signals
from other stations with higher priority informing the amateur operator of
technical interference and in some cases exercising authority to order the
amateur operator to stop communicating.

14. At the present stage in the development of communications, those
early-year requirements no longer are valid and Manual Morse Code is
considered an obsolete method of communication. Amateur operators are no
longer advised of problems "on the air" by governmental and commercial
operators, and indeed the amateur radio service is the only such service
still using Manual Morse Code for communications.

15. The United States is a signatory on the International Radio
Regulations ("IRR") of the International Telecommunications Union ("ITU")
which still specifies that each Administration require proof of proficiency
in receiving by ear and sending by hand of Manual Morse Code for amateur
operators using portions of the spectrum below 30 MHz. The IRR does not
specify any particular speed for such certification, and indeed, one major
Administration (Japan) has been issuing amateur radio licenses in
derogation of this regulation (by the "exception" process).

16. It is expected that a proposal will be made to eliminate this
requirement at an ITU World Radiocommunications Conference to be held
within the next few years. This commenter urges the Commission to take a
leadership position among the ITU member Administrations to eliminate this
requirement as no longer necessary.

17. Additionally, this commenter urges the Commission to eliminate
all such code testing requirements at the earliest opportunity, by the
"exception" method if feasible, and if not feasible, in the interim to
require testing in Manual Morse Code to be at a speed of no greater than
five (5) words per minute.

end quote

The FCC must have agreed, they changed all code test to 5 wpm.


Just not for the reasons that you are proffering.

If your reason is because it is "unnecessary",
I agree, it is unnecessary [arbitrary, not in conformity with
5 USC 706(2)(A)].

Ok, we agree on the decision, now who gets writes the majority opinion?

I do like that "exception" thing. Dam, did I take a lot of flake
for proposing that to the NCI board.

La.rry....

"Brian Kelly" wrote in message
om...
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"Brian Kelly" wrote in message
om...

And of that 11,000 how many do you 'spose are engineers who wouldn't
have become hams unless the code test was dropped to 5 wpm? And of
those, how many of these newly minted ham engineers will ever make any
"contribution to the service"?


I don't think that's a very fair question. How many
long-licensed/current
hams have ever made a contribution to the service? I suspect not many
by
your definition, so it's not even a good question, let alone a fair one.

I absolutely did mean it within my narrow definition because the
ongoing argument has been based on a narrow definition. But I should
have been more specific in my post.

It's a very fair & appropriate question as a rhetorical response to
the NCTAs who have been claiming forever that eliminating the code
tests for HF access will result in a new influx of technically astute
engineers. Bilge. Who will put their expertise to work and come up
with "advances in the state of the art" now that they won't have to
jump thru the "code test hoops". More bilge and you know that as well
as I do.


w3rv

Kim W5TIT

w3rv


Well, if you're going to use what appears to be an honest question to lash
out at whomever it is you are targeting, please forgive the confusion on my
part. I didn't realize you were being rhetorical to the NCTAs.

By the way, isn't stating that NCTAs "have been claiming forever that
eliminating the code tests for HF access. . ." rolling us all into one
"neat" little package? I don't think people who'd like to see an end to CW
testing all think alike at all. Have you ever seen me accuse you of being
like Larry or Dick? They are two PCTAs and you are a PCTA also.

We all have our own opinions about why we think something is a good idea.

Kim W5TIT

On 14 Jul 2003 17:31:44 GMT, Alun Palmer wrote:

And learning history in an EE degree somehow helped you to do that???

It taught me to think. It taught me that we live in a culture, not
on a circuit board. It taught me not appear as an ignoramus before
non-technical folk.

At a very intensive (i.e. tough to get into and tough to stay in)
engineering school, not only did we have to take two semesters of
"American and World Civilization" in freshman year, which disguised
a course in Cultural Anthropology which we all hated, and two
semesters of "American and World Literature" in junior year, a
required "Humanities" sequence which we all regarded as a waste of
our valuable nerd time and geek energy (and to add insult to injury
taught by the same professor as the freshman year course), we also
had to take a course in General Economics, which I wished I had paid
more attention to because until this day the subject still remains
mumbo-jumbo to me. At least Atomic Physics (taught by one of the
Manhattan Project physicists) which also seemed like mumbo-jumbo
finally made sense when sometime after I took the course I finally
figured it out with the help of my brother who is also a ham and has
a Masters degree in Physics but hasn't worked in that field for 35
years.

To further broaden my background, while I was in engineering graduate
school at one university, I was attending another university studying
Jewish history, philosophy, liturgy, Hebrew language, and culture,
subjects I had "kissed off" in my younger years. Was I forced to?
Not by the school involved (it wasn't a degree program), but by the
need to be a well-educated person in my community.

I can almost say the same for my law school (doctorate level)
education. Some of the courses seemed like a waste of time....but
in practice I find that the background that I got from the "unnecessary"
specialty courses was really necessary for the proper practice of my
legal specialty.

Substitute "the humanities" for the string of courses I cited above, and
they are still necesary for one to be a well-rounded and well-educated
person. One can't "figure out" humanities - either one learns it or one
doesn't.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

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


"Alun Palmer" wrote in message
. ..

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


"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
...

"Guessing" wrote in message
news:kTWPa.1427$Bd5.928@fed1read01...

"Alun Palmer" wrote in message
. 1.4...

"Guessing" wrote in
news:bXVPa.1425$Bd5.445@fed1read01:

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.


Broaden the category to Socio-Humanistic electives or whatever
equivalent term that your college uses and you will find that you do
have to take a certain amount of them. And everyone regardless of
major has to take English even though they should already be
proficient at that before they get there. You have to take quite a
few "unnecessary" courses in college to get a degree in any field.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE



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).

It depends on whether you consider colleges and universities as
institutions of higher learning or as job training schools. If the
former then the various non-degreee specific classes are appropriate.
If the latter, then they are not.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE




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.

Ahh, now your starting to qualify yourself and are no longer pure!

Why should someone have to learn ANYTHING they don't want to. If a
person wants to remain illiterate, then so be it. Why should children be
forced to go to school if they don't want to. Why should I have to take
any training whatsoever, just call myself an engineer.


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.

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

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

I've always jumped on every educational opporunity I could.

Didn't you at least buy them dinner first? :-)

LHA

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

In article bXVPa.1425$Bd5.445@fed1read01, "Guessing" Djorkland's
writes:

I still maintain it is all a matter of achieve or cop out. Make excuses or
meet a challenge.

Stuff it, sausage.

I've "met" more challenges than you have, citizen of Djorkland. I have the
evidence...and a comfortable retired life with a career that still manages
to continue.

Considering I was actively operating and maintaining HF 24/7
communications a half century ago WITHOUT ever having to use ANY
morse codings then or since doesn't make you sound anything more
than a Djork.

Title 47 CFR Part 97 is NOT entiteled "Archaic Radiotelegraphy Service"
and it is NOT a federal requirement to love, honor, and obey morsemanship.

And you are correct "Code aptitude and IQ are completely unrelated" So much
for the "Engineer copout"

There IS some hope, Djork. At least one of your synapses closed. :-)

It has nothing to do whether you or I like or dislike the code.

It has to do with the TEST being there, stupid Djork.

It has nothing to do with "Antiquated technology"

Bulll****! It has EVERYTHING to do with a skill that was first used in
1844...and the ONLY skill that could have been used to make radio
any sort of communications means in 1896.

It has nothing to do with "I'll never use code"

WRONG!

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.

They DON'T "change as they should." That code test should have been
tossed long ago, longer than 13 years ago.

Black and white -- yep sure is -- society, government, et al make it that
way.

Color television was made broadcasting law back in the early 1950s.

You've FAILED your Ishihara color vision tests, haven't you?

Don't Drink and Drive, 3 strikes you are outta here -- Pass the Test --
pretty black and white to me.

OK, you've struck out. Now getoutahere! Bye...

LHA

How about a different parallel?? Drivers licenses! How many here have
earned ALL endorsements/license classes for their drivers license? i.e.
motorcycle operators permit etc.

Those that haven't must just be lazy too eh?


--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...
"JJ" wrote in message
...


Dick Carroll wrote:



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?

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.

In article m, "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

Absolutely. First of all you have to select the rightr hammer for the job.
Secondly if you are going to be hammering a lot, you need to know how to
select a hammer with the proper weight and balance to maximize the
effectivity of the hammer with a minimum of energy expenditure.

At most, one hour of practice, no audible wetware skills involved.

Real professional construction folks use electric and air hammers.
Saves time, money, and insures a better job of nailing.

Then there is an art to swinging the hammer.

When all you have is a nail, everything looks like a hammer.

Maybe you want to give construction workers and cabinetmakers HF
access for having a high art in hammer swinging?

Go for it. But, watch out at getting nailed on all that...

LHA

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

Some people want to be narrowly focused. If you are that way, so be it.

But don't dismiss those of us who think there is more out there.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...those of you who think like you do are dismissing everyone
who doesn't think like you.

The old double standard still flies proudly over the PCTA camp!

LHA

On 16 Jul 2003 03:02:10 GMT, Alun Palmer wrote:

I must get around to learning Latin one of these days

I'm tempted to compose a post comparing Latin to Morse and chastise
you for not knowing it, concluding of course with the statement that
since you don't know Latin you are not a "real" man and are less
qualified than someone who knows Latin. I'm not going to do so,
because I've never used Latin since graduating high school and have
forgotten most of it, so I'm in no better shape with Len's statement
in latin than you are.

Besides which, Latin is a dead language, while Morse at this point
hasn't reached that stage...although it does seem to be running a
slight fever lately.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

Absolutely. First of all you have to select
the rightr hammer for the job. Secondly if
you are going to be hammering a lot, you need
to know how to select a hammer with the proper
weight and balance to maximize the effectivity
of the hammer with a minimum of energy
expenditure. Then there is an art to swinging
the hammer. Beginners manage to hit a lot of
fingers and hands.


You also need to know when and how to cuss properly when the hammer is not
applied properly. Different situations mandate a difference response - a
polite "ouch" when you don't want someone to hear such language to throwing
the hammer into the next neighborhood as you employ a string of cuss words
rash enough to make a sailor blush when it really hurts.

You can always tell when a neighborhood has a lot of people who like to
build or work on things - it is amazing how many tools (of all types) can be
seen flying around. Because of this, area officials should clearly re-zone
some neighborhoods as "hard hat" areas.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Phil Kane" wrote in message t.net...
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.

Ah, I see. "Everybody knows..."

lk wrote:
"Phil Kane" wrote in message
.net...


Don't get me wrong, Cecil - you read my input to the Restructuring
Docket and you know that I was in favor of eliminating the code test.


begin quote

COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY PHILIP M. KANE

MANUAL MORSE CODE TESTING


14. At the present stage in the development of communications, those
early-year requirements no longer are valid and Manual Morse Code is
considered an obsolete method of communication. Amateur operators are no
longer advised of problems "on the air" by governmental and commercial
operators, and indeed the amateur radio service is the only such service
still using Manual Morse Code for communications.

Heavens!! Did I actually read above that someone else also
suggests that Manual Morse Code is consider obsolete?

Mike Coslo wrote in
:

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


"Alun Palmer" wrote in message
...

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


"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
.. .

"Guessing" wrote in message
news:kTWPa.1427$Bd5.928@fed1read01...

"Alun Palmer" wrote in message
.1.4...

"Guessing" wrote in
news:bXVPa.1425$Bd5.445@fed1read01:

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.


Broaden the category to Socio-Humanistic electives or whatever
equivalent term that your college uses and you will find that you do
have to take a certain amount of them. And everyone regardless of
major has to take English even though they should already be
proficient at that before they get there. You have to take quite a
few "unnecessary" courses in college to get a degree in any field.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE



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).

It depends on whether you consider colleges and universities as
institutions of higher learning or as job training schools. If the
former then the various non-degreee specific classes are appropriate.
If the latter, then they are not.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE




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.

Ahh, now your starting to qualify yourself and are no longer pure!

Why should someone have to learn ANYTHING they don't want to. If a
person wants to remain illiterate, then so be it. Why should children
be forced to go to school if they don't want to. Why should I have to
take any training whatsoever, just call myself an engineer.


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.

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

- Mike KB3EIA -



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.

"Phil Kane" wrote in
.net:

On 14 Jul 2003 17:31:44 GMT, Alun Palmer wrote:

And learning history in an EE degree somehow helped you to do that???

It taught me to think. It taught me that we live in a culture, not
on a circuit board.

That hardly needs formal education. Besides, didn't you do history in high
school?

It taught me not appear as an ignoramus before
non-technical folk.


Aha, so it's useful in cocktail parties!

At a very intensive (i.e. tough to get into and tough to stay in)
engineering school, not only did we have to take two semesters of
"American and World Civilization" in freshman year, which disguised
a course in Cultural Anthropology which we all hated, and two
semesters of "American and World Literature" in junior year, a
required "Humanities" sequence which we all regarded as a waste of
our valuable nerd time and geek energy (and to add insult to injury
taught by the same professor as the freshman year course), we also
had to take a course in General Economics, which I wished I had paid
more attention to because until this day the subject still remains
mumbo-jumbo to me. At least Atomic Physics (taught by one of the
Manhattan Project physicists) which also seemed like mumbo-jumbo
finally made sense when sometime after I took the course I finally
figured it out with the help of my brother who is also a ham and has
a Masters degree in Physics but hasn't worked in that field for 35
years.


I graduated from Loughborough University, which is also quite hard to get
into and stay in. We did have to do Economics and Atomic Physics, but I
don't put those in the same category as arts subjects.

To further broaden my background, while I was in engineering graduate
school at one university, I was attending another university studying
Jewish history, philosophy, liturgy, Hebrew language, and culture,
subjects I had "kissed off" in my younger years. Was I forced to?
Not by the school involved (it wasn't a degree program), but by the
need to be a well-educated person in my community.

I can almost say the same for my law school (doctorate level)

It used to be an LLB, as I'm sure you know.

education. Some of the courses seemed like a waste of time....but
in practice I find that the background that I got from the
"unnecessary" specialty courses was really necessary for the proper
practice of my legal specialty.

I reckon you must be a patent attorney, Phil. If so, that is a major
understatement. I'm a patent agent, BTW.


Substitute "the humanities" for the string of courses I cited above,
and they are still necesary for one to be a well-rounded and
well-educated person. One can't "figure out" humanities - either one
learns it or one doesn't.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon



I guess by your definition I'm not a well-rounded or well-educated person.
The USPTO reckoned my EE degree was good enough, though.

73 de Alun, N3KIP

(Reg. No. 47,838)

Alun Palmer wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote in
some snippage

Alun Palmer wrote:

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.

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

- Mike KB3EIA -


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.

Come on, Alun. Let's not go all nationalistic on us here.


Can you predict what you will make use of in your career? Right now, I
am making full use of my art classes, my technical classes, my
careerlong professional development, and all the other classes I took,
even though some seemed irrelevant at the time.


- Mike KB3EIA -

Alun Palmer wrote:


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

Tell me what shouldn't be taught.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"Brian Kelly" wrote in message

Carl check me here but wasn't it you who advocated the abandonment of
all mode setasides in order to be able to run wall-to-wall spread
spectrum on 20M?

No ... I have pointed out that most countries of the world do not have
"by-mode" sub-band allocations in their amateur regulations and it doesn't
seem to cause any real problem.

Not the point and most of us were well aware of the differences in
band/mode edges.

I also (as did Gary Coffman, independently)

'nother sweetheart . . .

postulate a strawman design
(but something feasible, never the less) for a system that, in the 150 kHz
of CW/data sub-band on 20m could support a very large number of
20 wpm Morse-equivalent QSOs with virtually no interference.
That was immediately rejected by Morse fanatics,

What's this frigging "Morse fanatic" nonsense? I'm certainly no "Morse
fanatic", I probably spend as much time on an annualized basis with a
mic in my mouth as I do running CW. I use Morse and I support the use
of and testing for Morse.

This particular non-fanatic immediately spotted the fallacies and
impossibilities in your posts on the topic as they relate to any mode
which occupies an entire ham band and is overlaid/underlaid on narrow
modes particularly under weak signal condx. This is not fanaticism.
This is the same reaction some hugely overwheming majority of the
active hams today would reject on smell or sight. Including the
technically savvy amongst us. More like *particularly* the technically
savvy.

who said something
like:
"We don't want no stinking keyboard mode." (My response was to
make Morse I/O a user interface option. Still rejected.)
"The fun of it is digging the weak ones out of the noise." (My response
was, "You want channel impairments? No problem. I can program
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. The big apparent
dent in your mindset is that where you come from logic rules all. Not
an unusual problem one runs into in linear thinkers like engineers
many of whom are well known for both their technical brillance *and*
their, shall we say, ocialization "issues".

If logic drove everything we chose to do Carl nobody in their right
minds would get married let alone have kids. But we do get married and
we do have kids. Thus it also is with 99.99% of all hams. Hell, when
ya get right down to it getting into ham radio is illogical for
several reasons I can toss out. But we do it anyway, right?

You don't have to worry yourself about writing any simulators,
sophisticated contest simulator programs have been around for years,
all the predicatble parameters can be adjusted to suit the intensity
of the pileups, QSB, QRN, code speeds, whacky callsigns, helluva lotta
fun to play with. They also serve a very valuable role as contest
logger and computer station control traininmg wheels. In the end
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.

If you don't get it's your problem. But you actually do get it dontcha
strawman?


Some folks just WANT to do things the hard way and want to insist
that others should be similarly constrained.

What "hard way"?? Morse on the air? You jest.

There are instances where it would have been a lot easier for me to
get from here to there by driving on the sidewalk but I'm "constained"
from doing that. Damned good thing too eh?

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?

QRPP PSK31 has done the same tricks. But PSK doesn't clobber the whole
band, doesn't require the development of new equipment, didn't require
a radical R&O to get on the air and can be done for the cost of some
audio cables at most ham stations.

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.

But I have always said that I would not like to see the CW/data sub-bands
(whether by rule or by gentleman's agreement) completely over-run with SSB.


Carl - wk3c

w3rv

In article , Alun Palmer
writes:

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.

Alun:

Perhaps there would be fewer illiterate, innumerate, and indigent people
in this world if they WERE pushed to learn more and gain useful skills.

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.

So, you don't believe that a well-rounded background in the Arts and
Humanities creates people who are better able to think for themselves?
This attitude probably explains why Great Britain is welfare state about
to be crushed under the weight of it's enormous, dependant underclass.

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.

Well, if you want to ensure that there is an endless supply of crude,
intellectually impotent people in the world, I can understand why you
may think that way. You should run for a seat as a Labour Party MP.
You seem to have the right qualifications.

73 de Larry, K3LT
Ex: G0LYW

In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes:

It's a very fair & appropriate question as a rhetorical response to
the NCTAs who have been claiming forever that eliminating the code
tests for HF access will result in a new influx of technically astute
engineers. Bilge. Who will put their expertise to work and come up
with "advances in the state of the art" now that they won't have to
jump thru the "code test hoops". More bilge and you know that as well
as I do.


w3rv

Kim W5TIT

w3rv


Well, if you're going to use what appears to be an honest question to lash
out at whomever it is you are targeting, please forgive the confusion on my
part. I didn't realize you were being rhetorical to the NCTAs.

Kim:

You were confused because, as usual, you were reading for the purpose
of finding something negative to react to, as opposed to objectively
evaluating what was said.

By the way, isn't stating that NCTAs "have been claiming forever that
eliminating the code tests for HF access. . ." rolling us all into one
"neat" little package?

No -- Brian (that's MISTER Kelly to you, little girl!) was merely stating the
facts about what the NCTA have promised what would happen when code
testing was taken "out of the way" of all the eager young geniuses who
are going to save ham radio from our present state of technical insolvency.

I don't think people who'd like to see an end to CW
testing all think alike at all.

Neither do I. I only go after the ones who whine about it.

Have you ever seen me accuse you of being
like Larry or Dick? They are two PCTAs and you are a PCTA also.

You just don't like Dick and myself because we won't pander to your
inane, childish, and illogical parroting of what other people say, or to
your callsign which Mr. Hollingsworth himself said has the potential to
take the ARS "...one step closer to extinction." IOW, you're just fine
with anyone who strokes your horrendous ego.

We all have our own opinions about why we think something is a good idea.

And unlike yours, most of those opinions are being made by people with
genuine operating experience. Sorry about the truth, Kim -- I know it
hurts you, but I'm not going to look at a pile of crap on the floor and call
it a bowl of cherries.

73 de Larry, K3LT