| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message ...
Yep, I considered it, then rejected it as inaccurate. Nocoders aren't about to dole out $34 per year for *nothing* That's exactly what most of then see of value to them in ARRL membership, since they really aren't into ham radio beyond their HT, and have no use for al the many ARRL "bennies". Gee... I have more than just the "HT" as you elude to and still don't believe in the value of the membership at the rates it currently is now. Other than a really expensive magazine subscription, these "bennies" as you elude to have yet to be proven. What I Said! |
"N2EY" wrote in message m... I think you meant "rationale" And here it is: 1) Morse code is widely used in the ARS, particularly HF/MF amateur radio. So??? That use is purely a matter of choice ... those who chose to use Morse should have the freedom of choice to learn it and to so ... however, at the same time, those who are not interested in using Morse should not be forced to learn it in order to gain HF privileges ... 2) Knowledge of morse code can only be measured by a practical skill test. Excuse me ... I think you mean "proficiency in " not "knowledge of" ... those are important distinctions ... I have no problem with test questions on the theory of OOK Morse ("What's the necessary bw for x wpm?" "What are "key-clicks" and how can they be prevented?" etc.) But a proficiency requirement as a condition of access to HF is totally out of line. 3) Morse code offers unique advantages to the radio amateur, but these advantages are only available if Morse code skills are learned. Other modes also offer "unique advantages" ... those advantages are in the eye of the beholder and largely subjective ... those who believe that it is advantageous to learn/use Morse will do so ... those who don't should not be forced. 4) All of the above support the Basis and Purposes of the ARS. The FCC disagrees ... [snipped the remainder of debate on privs vs. license class as irrelevant to the Morse question] Carl - wk3c |
Floyd Davidson wrote in message ...
"Bill Sohl" wrote: "charlesb" wrote in message igy.com... I don't have any strong preference about the Code / No Code issue, but I have a well developed opinion about the group of hams who have endlessly repeated the same tired flamewar crapola for years on this newsgroup, over the Code / No Code issue. Less than a dozen "hams" have used this issue as an excuse to turn this newsgroup into a running flame war that has gone on for years, much to the detriment of the hobby. People look at this newsgroup to see what hams are like - and what they see would reflect poorly on any hobby. Charles Brabham, N5PVL Historically Charles, this newsgroup was formed specifically to take the code/nocode debate out of rec.radio.amateur.misc. That was about 8-10 years ago. Cheers, Bill K2UNK Which is all the more support for his point that it does not advertise hams well. Floyd, I suggest you look up any post by K2UNK and see if his manner of conducting civil debate "does not advertise hams well". I mention Bill specifically because although I disagree with many things he writes here, he is able to debate effectively without being insulting or derogatory to the other side. IOW, "gentlemen can disagree without being disagreeable". He is not the only one, just the one that comes quickest to mind. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
... "N2EY" wrote in message m... 2) Knowledge of morse code can only be measured by a practical skill test. Excuse me ... I think you mean "proficiency in " not "knowledge of" ... those are important distinctions Those are inaccurate distinctions, Carl. Element 1 is IN NO WAY a test of one's Morse code "proficiency." The 5-wpm test is just barely sufficient to test the applicant's "knowledge of" the 43 required characters. IOW, did s/he memorize the required character set. Are you intentionally trying to spread this mistruth to rationalize NCI's "goal" or do you really consider a newbie whose Element 1 CSCE hasn't even dried yet Morse "proficient?" Why don't you just tap into the knowledge base, Carl? Ask the OT's and learn from them That's what they're there for. ... I have no problem with test questions on the theory of OOK Morse ("What's the necessary bw for x wpm?" "What are "key-clicks" and how can they be prevented?" etc.) With the answers unpublished? But a proficiency requirement as a condition of access to HF is totally out of line. I agree. I'm glad we don't currently have one. 3) Morse code offers unique advantages to the radio amateur, but these advantages are only available if Morse code skills are learned. Other modes also offer "unique advantages" ... those advantages are in the eye of the beholder and largely subjective ... those who believe that it is advantageous to learn/use Morse will do so ... those who don't should not be forced. "Forced?" Lol! 4) All of the above support the Basis and Purposes of the ARS. The FCC disagrees ... I wonder how much you'd support the "big brother knows best" if they agreed? Luckily, they too wish to reduce their work. [snipped the remainder of debate on privs vs. license class as irrelevant to the Morse question] Carl - wk3c -- 73 de Bert WA2SI |
N2EY wrote:
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message ... some snipage I'm ALSO going on the demographic of all those nocode techs Which demographic? The ARRL/READEX poll of 1996 showed that the youngest hams were the most procodetest. Bert Craig, WA2SI, has told you here that he does not consider Element 1 a "barrier" or "hoop". Other newcomers have said the same thing. Don't they count? The ONLY thing that counts Hold on a sec, Bill. We've been told that: - we have to get rid of the code test to increase growth in the ARS - (most) young people aren't interested in learning the code - The future is newcomers and young hams - The current 5 wpm test is an unreasonable burden on the VECs and new hams but written tests aren't and the big one: "the demographic is heavily tilted towards the no code test side" Now, do these things matter or not? It's all opinion and marketing. Marketing is what brings us milkshakes that are so thick you can't get them through a straw. Marketing is what gives us Ketchup that you can't get out of the bottle. but then "thicker and richer" sells don't it. Marketing is what causes convenience stores to sell "Ultra Mega" soda's with 144 ounces of soda and the resulting calories, and fast food restaraunts to prepare us "Super doopersize" 2000 calorie meals when all we need is 300 calories. The relation is that the marketing words (or contramarketing words) thrown around sound like they might be a good thing. Here the NCTA's have the edge too. Look at the words used and it s pretty clear, "Outdated" "Future" all the marketing words are there. And as anyone familiar with marketing knows, It does not make a damn bit of difference if you are right or not. The truth does *not matter* in this case, and besides, what exactly is the truth? I guess it is who you hang out with. PCTA's haven't done enough proper marketing of their product IMO. is the answer to the question: What is the rational for retaining any code test now that the ITU treaty has eliminated the requirement from the treaty? I think you meant "rationale" And here it is: 1) Morse code is widely used in the ARS, particularly HF/MF amateur radio. 2) Knowledge of morse code can only be measured by a practical skill test. 3) Morse code offers unique advantages to the radio amateur, but these advantages are only available if Morse code skills are learned. 4) All of the above support the Basis and Purposes of the ARS. Does that constitute an irrefutable proof? Of course not. Neither does the 20 pages of the NCI petition. NCI pettition is all opinion. The FCC answered that in their R&O for 98-143. The FCC indicated none of the arguments, comments or suggested reasons put forth by pro-code test advocates were of sufficient rational or justification. to keep any testing of morse. Sure. And this is the same FCC that thinks BPL is a good idea. Take a look at the 120 page ARRL report and the videos, then tell me what kind of "expert agency" should give such a system the time of day. Note that the BPL'rs want the Part 15 levels RAISED! This is also the same FCC that wanted to allow media giants to become practical monopolies so that radio and TV programming become even more homogenized. This is the FCC that "solved" the freebander linear problem by restricting the manufacture and sale of HF amplifiers, which ties the hands of legitimate ARS manufacturers but hasn't kept one amp out of any illegal's hands. "Expert agency", they're called, right? who could get on HF were it not for a stupid Morse requirement ... Hmmm...."stupid Morse requirement"? It's been passed by elementary school children, old people, people with severe disabilities, and everything in between. Heck, under the old rules we had at least one 8 year old Extra! The fact is that if Element 1 is dropped, all those non-code-tested Techs will gain some SSB on 10 meters and four slices of HF CW. (Ironic) In order for them to get more, they have to jump through another hoop...I mean, pass another written exam.....;-) You may not think the General or Extra writtens are very hard, nor that they are "unreasonable", but the fact remains that they have not been shown to be necessary for safe and legal operation of an amateur station. Just where has that been shown and by whom? It's self evident. Common sense. FCC considers a Tech to be competent to design/build/repair/align/maintain and most of all OPERATE an amateur transmitter on any authorized frequency above 30MHz, using any authorized mode, at full legal power. But it requires a General license for the FCC to consider someone to be competent to design/build/repair/align/maintain and most of all OPERATE an amateur transmitter on most authorizeds frequency below 30MHz, using any authorized mode, at full legal power. In fact, Techs-with-HF are only authorized to use two modes and small slices of four bands. Why is a Tech considered competent to run a 1500 W transmitter on 51 MHz but not 29 MHz? Why is a Tech considered competent to use CW, SSB, AM, FM, FSK, PSK, and a host of other modes above 30 MHz but only CW and SSB below 30 MHz? What is in the General written (besides a few regs) that is so essential that it MUST be tested? One of the reasons I heard was that the VHF bands are more localized, and therefore the technician, if he or she did commit rules violations, would at least confine it to frequencies that were not globe spanning. Now consider the Extra vs. General written. There's no difference between what a General can do and what an Extra can do on the air except that the Extra has a little more spectrum to do it in. Why is a General considered competent to run a 1500 W transmitter on 3.530 MHz but not 3.520 MHz? Who knows what the rationale is? Maybe a little bit less crowding for the Extras? The FCC certainly hasn't been convinced of that. See above about convincing FCC. Why is a Tech considered qualified to use any authorized mode/freq above 30 MHz but unqualified to use all but CW and SSB on a few narrow slices of HF? You are now arguing privileges, not code testing. I am arguing that focusing on the code test as a "stupid" requirement opens up the same can of worms on the writtens. Bingo! I've been saying that for while now. It's a fact that you do not need to be tested at all to operate high power levels on HF. CB'ers do it all the time. Let's try a little marketing talk .............. "The written tests are an obsolete throwback to an earlier time when Amateurs HAD to know how to put a station together using a lot of their own handicraft. Now that HF rigs are no more complicated to put on the air than hooking up a VCR to a television, it is pointless to insist on the hazing requirement of forcing the prospective amateur to spend countless hours learning things that he or she may have no use for." There is nothing wrong with an Amateur having knowledge of the things covered in the present and obsolete written examinations, but why should a person who has no intention of ever doing anything but using his ready made rig to talk to other hams be forced to learn these things that he or she will never use. Those who wish to know things like Ohms law, and various arcane laws are encouraged to do so, but to require all hams to know such things is a form of hazing, or is this a case of "I had to learn the band edges, so by gaw, everyone has to"! The written examinations are keeping people out of the ARS who refuse to jump through these arbitray hoops set up by those who want to see the ARS as some kind of elite service. Those elite people are destroying the ARS by discouraging participation by all Americans. Sound about right Jim? Reasonable arguments I think. Wrong, but reasonable. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... PCTA's haven't done enough proper marketing of their product IMO. It's really HARD to market a product that few want ... that's why the PCTA's feel the need for a government-sponsored support system. NCI pettition is all opinion. No ... the NCI petition is loaded with the facts about how any legitimate need for a government-mandated Morse test evaporated years ago, how the FCC has determined that it does not comport with the purpose of the ARS, how the test serves no regulatory purpose, how it doesn't "make for a better, more well-behaved, more technically competent operator, etc., etc. The petition is chock-full of facts ... [snipped the rest because I refuse to get drawn into unrelated debates about privs vs. license class, etc. that have nothing to do with the Morse test issue ...] Carl - wk3c |
Carl R. Stevenson wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... PCTA's haven't done enough proper marketing of their product IMO. It's really HARD to market a product that few want ... that's why the PCTA's feel the need for a government-sponsored support system. NCI pettition is all opinion. No ... the NCI petition is loaded with the facts about how any legitimate need for a government-mandated Morse test evaporated years ago, how the FCC has determined that it does not comport with the purpose of the ARS, how the test serves no regulatory purpose, how it doesn't "make for a better, more well-behaved, more technically competent operator, etc., etc. The petition is chock-full of facts ... Well, that's your opinion anyhow! 8^) But seriously, if I could offer some advice. It is okay to have an opinion. You have your's and I have mine. It's even okay to try to turn your opinion into the law of the land. If enough people agree, it will happen. But there is a mistake of hubris in believing that ones own personal opinion is fact. [snipped the rest because I refuse to get drawn into unrelated debates about privs vs. license class, etc. that have nothing to do with the Morse test issue ...] Probably a good idea... - Mike KB3EIA - |
"DickCarroll" wrote in message om... "Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message ... Yep, I considered it, then rejected it as inaccurate. Nocoders aren't about to dole out $34 per year for *nothing* That's exactly what most of then see of value to them in ARRL membership, since they really aren't into ham radio beyond their HT, and have no use for al the many ARRL "bennies". Gee... I have more than just the "HT" as you elude to and still don't believe in the value of the membership at the rates it currently is now. Other than a really expensive magazine subscription, these "bennies" as you elude to have yet to be proven. What I Said! So let's hear about these alleged 'bennies" Dick! -- Ryan, KC8PMX FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!) --. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-. ... --. .... - . .-. ... |
C'mon Charles,
Don't you realize, some people just are not happy unless they are bitching about someone. And the others are the kind that like to watch others bitch. Why do you think talk shows like Jerry Springer etc. do so well? This is just another version in a different form. Do you honestly think that an actual intelligent debate over a topic could actually occur here? -- Ryan, KC8PMX FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!) --. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-. ... --. .... - . .-. ... "charlesb" wrote in message gy.com... I don't have any strong preference about the Code / No Code issue, but I have a well developed opinion about the group of hams who have endlessly repeated the same tired flamewar crapola for years on this newsgroup, over the Code / No Code issue. Less than a dozen "hams" have used this issue as an excuse to turn this newsgroup into a running flame war that has gone on for years, much to the detriment of the hobby. People look at this newsgroup to see what hams are like - and what they see would reflect poorly on any hobby. Charles Brabham, N5PVL |
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Carl R. Stevenson wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... PCTA's haven't done enough proper marketing of their product IMO. It's really HARD to market a product that few want ... that's why the PCTA's feel the need for a government-sponsored support system. NCI pettition is all opinion. No ... the NCI petition is loaded with the facts about how any legitimate need for a government-mandated Morse test evaporated years ago, how the FCC has determined that it does not comport with the purpose of the ARS, how the test serves no regulatory purpose, how it doesn't "make for a better, more well-behaved, more technically competent operator, etc., etc. The petition is chock-full of facts ... Well, that's your opinion anyhow! 8^) But seriously, if I could offer some advice. It is okay to have an opinion. You have your's and I have mine. It's even okay to try to turn your opinion into the law of the land. If enough people agree, it will happen. But there is a mistake of hubris in believing that ones own personal opinion is fact. How can citing FCC statements from public documents and quoting law be considered "one's own personal opinion" ... again, the Petition is "chock-full" of FACTS. Sure, there are facts in it, but the core assumptions are opinions. Take any paragraph that has "we believe" in it. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message ...
C'mon Charles, Don't you realize, some people just are not happy unless they are bitching about someone. And the others are the kind that like to watch others bitch. Why do you think talk shows like Jerry Springer etc. do so well? This is just another version in a different form. Do you honestly think that an actual intelligent debate over a topic could actually occur here? I told PCTA Kurt on here years ago, "a happy sailor is a bitching sailor." |
(Brian) wrote in message . com...
(DickCarroll) wrote in message . com... (Brian) wrote As for eHam, I'm sorry but I've never heard of them. Well,well... Who was that satirest who used to write a column entitled "Pardon, your slip is showing"? Never heard of him, either. I just read in another venue, this from a OT ham who was first licensed morehan a half-century ago.. --------- "review on eHam.net, a ham radio grand central station which I financially support, although that is optional.." --------- I thought QRZ and AC6V were the Grand Central Station and Yankee Stadium of amateur radio. So we can easily see why it is you "never heard of it". You've been sorta distracted for the past couple decades, what with dodging all those hoops and such. Poor little DICK, still requiring other people to accept his version of life. Brian: There's 'life', then there's your perception of life. Most readers here know too well that the two are not congruent. Perhaps there's still time for you to learn the difference. |
|
"charlesb" wrote in message igy.com...
I don't have any strong preference about the Code / No Code issue, but I have a well developed opinion about the group of hams who have endlessly repeated the same tired flamewar crapola for years on this newsgroup, over the Code / No Code issue. Less than a dozen "hams" have used this issue as an excuse to turn this newsgroup into a running flame war that has gone on for years, much to the detriment of the hobby. People look at this newsgroup to see what hams are like - and what they see would reflect poorly on any hobby. What a hypocrite. You have been doing virtually the same crap on rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc for years... debating endlessly and meaninglessly... bringing up a need to revive long dead HF-based PBBS systems, and denouncing any attempts at modernization. So - what brings you over here? Is it the fact that your ilk has run everyone off rradm, and that you've got nobody to argue with there anymore? (they've all moved on to more productive forums and applications). You and that kook from Oregon are just as thick-skulled as these CODE-obsessed fruits... you BELONG here. - Stewart |
On 16 Aug 2003 08:44:00 -0700, N2EY wrote:
What did it take - six weeks? Not really long at all. Plus there was always the chance FCC would have simply dumped Element 1 on its own, instead of doing the whole NPRM thing. Bill Cross (FCC) was heard to mumble that he wasn't sure that the FCC could do so "on its own", so SOMEONE had to percuss the pendulum, right ??? -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
(DickCarroll) wrote in message . com...
(Brian) wrote in message . com... (DickCarroll) wrote in message . com... Brian: There's 'life', then there's your perception of life. Most readers here know too well that the two are not congruent. Perhaps there's still time for you to learn the difference. DICK, I'm talking about you, not "most readers." As per your usual, you have no idea what you're talking about. Then why did I start the sentence with "DICK?" |
"Brian" wrote in message
om... (DickCarroll) wrote in message . com... (Brian) wrote in message . com... (DickCarroll) wrote in message . com... Brian: There's 'life', then there's your perception of life. Most readers here know too well that the two are not congruent. Perhaps there's still time for you to learn the difference. DICK, I'm talking about you, not "most readers." As per your usual, you have no idea what you're talking about. Then why did I start the sentence with "DICK?" I think it's kind of a way of admitting he's a nothing and a nobody... :o Kim W5TIT |
"WA3IYC" wrote in message ... Would you agree with this statement: however, at the same time, those who are not interested in building radios should not be forced to learn how they work in order to gain amateur radio privileges ... No ... because, even if you don't build your own radios, you are responsible for their proper operation. How could you possibly know something was wrong if you had no knowledge of how the radio worked? This is an interference control issue ... a technical matter ... and knowledge of this IS required in order to be competent to operate a station in full compliance with the rules. 2) Knowledge of morse code can only be measured by a practical skill test. Excuse me ... I think you mean "proficiency in " not "knowledge of" ... No, I mean "knowledge of". Skills are a form of knowledge, as are facts and concepts. Perhaps it would be better to write "practical knowledge" No, it's proficiency that the test measures ... proficiency in decoding Morse in one's head at some specified speed. And that's ALL it is according to the FCC (see the "No Code Technician" decision from 1990 and the R&O in 98-143 ... you'll see EXACTLY that in both documents). The Morse test which is Element 1 tests the skill of receiving Morse code at a very basic level. Exactly, it measures a specific level of proficiency. Element 1 is in no way a test of "proficiency". It's a skill test at a very basic level. To call it a proficiency test is to demonstrate ignorance of the word proficiency. Proficiency is measured against some "yardstick" ... in the case of Morse, the FCC has (currently) determined the yardstick to be 5 wpm. You can argue all you want, but that's the way it is ... Yet they wouldn't include a sunset clause back in 2000 True ... they didn't include a sunset clause. and they're making all of us go through an NPRM cycle all over again. How the FCC will handle this is yet to be determined ... If FCC thinks there really is "no regulatory purpose" to a code test, WHY are they dragging their feet and doing the whole circus AGAIN? See my last sentence ... [snipped unrelated discussion of BPL] Carl - wk3c |
WA3IYC wrote:
No, I mean "knowledge of". Skills are a form of knowledge, as are facts and concepts. Perhaps it would be better to write "practical knowledge" For example, consider base 10 natural number arithmetic "2 + 2 = 4" is a fact. "Addition is a mathematical operation in which two numbers are combined to get a third number which is never less than either of the first two numbers" is a concept. Not quite. What if the numbers are 2 and -8? Negative numbers are valid numbers..... Mathematicians have fun with this sort of thing. Called "proofs", which I never did really understand in calculus class anyway. |
Phil Kane wrote:
On 16 Aug 2003 08:44:00 -0700, N2EY wrote: What did it take - six weeks? Not really long at all. Plus there was always the chance FCC would have simply dumped Element 1 on its own, instead of doing the whole NPRM thing. Bill Cross (FCC) was heard to mumble that he wasn't sure that the FCC could do so "on its own", so SOMEONE had to percuss the pendulum, right ??? -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane Which the FCC didn't lose much sleep over, as they knew someone would file a petition for rule making on it anyway. So that issue goes away nicely, which pleases bureaucrats endlessly. |
A thought just occurred to me......
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... "WA3IYC" wrote in message ... Would you agree with this statement: however, at the same time, those who are not interested in building radios should not be forced to learn how they work in order to gain amateur radio privileges ... No ... because, even if you don't build your own radios, you are responsible for their proper operation. How could you possibly know something was wrong if you had no knowledge of how the radio worked? I'm responsible for the proper operation of any motor vehicles I operate, but I'm not required to know how they work. Or pass any exams on how they work, even to build or repair my own vehicles. This is an interference control issue ... a technical matter ... and knowledge of this IS required in order to be competent to operate a station in full compliance with the rules. Motor vehicle operation is a life-and-death public safety issue, and an environmental issue. It's certainly a technical matter. Yet there is no exam for technical knowledge of motor vehicle operation. There IS a skill test, though.... Some states require that vehicles pass periodic inspections - but not all states. And even in states that have inspection (like Pennsylvania), a lot can go wrong between inspections. PA inspections are annual, and a car that was perfectly fine at inspection time can have all kinds of things go wrong in a year. Tires and brakes wear out, shocks fail, fluids leak, alignment goes out, etc., etc. Yet PA DMV trusts us to keep our vehicles in shape even though we are not tested on how they work. Most people nowadays don't build their own cars and most hams nowadays don't build their own rigs. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , Robert Casey
writes: WA3IYC wrote: No, I mean "knowledge of". Skills are a form of knowledge, as are facts and concepts. Perhaps it would be better to write "practical knowledge" For example, consider base 10 natural number arithmetic "2 + 2 = 4" is a fact. "Addition is a mathematical operation in which two numbers are combined to get a third number which is never less than either of the first two numbers" is a concept. Not quite. Yes, quite. "Base 10 natural number arithmetic" does not include negative numbers. What if the numbers are 2 and -8? Negative numbers are valid numbers..... Not in the arithmetic of natural numbers... Now if you want to talk about real numbers, or integers, or rational numbers... Mathematicians have fun with this sort of thing. Called "proofs", which I never did really understand in calculus class anyway. Ah yes.. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
N2EY wrote:
A thought just occurred to me...... "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... "WA3IYC" wrote in message ... Would you agree with this statement: however, at the same time, those who are not interested in building radios should not be forced to learn how they work in order to gain amateur radio privileges ... No ... because, even if you don't build your own radios, you are responsible for their proper operation. How could you possibly know something was wrong if you had no knowledge of how the radio worked? I'm responsible for the proper operation of any motor vehicles I operate, but I'm not required to know how they work. If I were responsible for the drivers exams, you would be.. Or pass any exams on how they work, even to build or repair my own vehicles. If I were responsible for the drivers exams, you would be... This is an interference control issue ... a technical matter ... and knowledge of this IS required in order to be competent to operate a station in full compliance with the rules. Motor vehicle operation is a life-and-death public safety issue, and an environmental issue. It's certainly a technical matter. Yet there is no exam for technical knowledge of motor vehicle operation. There IS a skill test, though.... If I were... oh heck you know.... Some states require that vehicles pass periodic inspections - but not all states. And even in states that have inspection (like Pennsylvania), a lot can go wrong between inspections. PA inspections are annual, and a car that was perfectly fine at inspection time can have all kinds of things go wrong in a year. Tires and brakes wear out, shocks fail, fluids leak, alignment goes out, etc., etc. Yet PA DMV trusts us to keep our vehicles in shape even though we are not tested on how they work. Most people nowadays don't build their own cars and most hams nowadays don't build their own rigs. If...... At any rate, I would have the prospective driver change a tire, check their oil, do all kinds of stuff that prove they know something about the vehicle they are driving. There would even be test questions about how an engine works. I suppose that's hazing, or why should they learn that. They can just call AAA on their cell. Remind me to tell y'all about the night I darn near froze to death (seriously) waiting for AAA to get me out of a vehicle breakdown. Fortunately, a fellow ham ended up saving my cute butt. - Mike KB3EIA - 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
Len Over 21 wrote: Make up your mind. You just said that motor vehicle operation CERTAINLY IS A TECHNICAL MATTER. Now you say it is just a "skill test." My wife can drive just fine, that definitely proves that driving is NOT a technical matter. |
"Nancy D Fell" wrote in message ... The FCC has a long history of suppressing the advancement of females and minorities. Nancy Really? I'm at the FCC often enough to have a permanent photo ID "Frequent Visitor" badge ... Have you noticed that the Chairman is a black man? Did you know that there's a female Commissioner? (And that she's not the first?) In fact, I deal on a regular basis, professionally, with many, many "minorities" and women who hold high positions in the FCC. How do you propose to reconcile all of this against your statement above, Nancy??? Carl - wk3c |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ...
"Brian" wrote in message om... (DickCarroll) wrote in message . com... (Brian) wrote in message . com... (DickCarroll) wrote in message . com... Brian: There's 'life', then there's your perception of life. Most readers here know too well that the two are not congruent. Perhaps there's still time for you to learn the difference. DICK, I'm talking about you, not "most readers." As per your usual, you have no idea what you're talking about. Then why did I start the sentence with "DICK?" I think it's kind of a way of admitting he's a nothing and a nobody... :o Kim W5TIT Perhaps subconsciously. In the year 2525, if man is still alive... ....an alien scientist will start reading DICK's r.r.a.p. postings and declare, "Captain, I find it quite illogical. This specimen is a nothing and a nobody, but believes he is a giant. Fascinating!" |
On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 08:12:59 -0400, Harry Hacker wrote:
The "guest speaker"was an FCC Bureau Chief, who admitted that she didn't know how from where the FCC gets jurisdiction over radio transmissions from a US-registered aircraft "way up in the sky" in international airspace. This "guest speaker" was a graduate of Harvard Law School and held professional degrees in engineering. The only thing she lacked was membership in the "Old Guard" of white males. Wrong on two of the three. She was not a Harvard Law grad, she did not have ANY technical education or degrees. She was not a member of the "Old Guard" of white males because God made her female and she did come from "outside" and therefore didn't know what she was 'sposed to if she held that position nor did she bother to learn. She was more interested in establishing cell networks and auctioning off spectrum. I had to teach her basic Communications Act law.... Sounds like you are bitter that women had broken the "Glass Ceiling," in an agency that was for so long and one of the last to be dominated by white males. I am bitter that someone is appointed a Bureau Chief who is ignorant in the basic jurisdiction and authority of the agency. One of the people I worked with and for at the agency whom I respected the most was a "minority" lady - a "lady" in every sense of the word - who came from "outside" and learned comm law very quickly. She passed through the non-existent "glass ceiling" at the agency very rapidly, served several years at a high position inm the agency, and today holds a very high non-political career position in another Federal agency, which she certainly EARNED. 'Bye "Harry"..... -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 08:29:55 -0400, TRE wrote:
Sounds like you are bitter that women had broken the "Glass Ceiling," in an agency that was for so long and one of the last to be dominated by white males. Shhhhhhhh, I heard she was even a "REPUBLICAN." Wrong. She was a "I have no clue as to her party and care less" in a Democratic administration. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 16:17:26 GMT, Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
Have you noticed that the Chairman is a black man? As was his predecessor (Bill Kennard). Did you know that there's a female Commissioner? (And that she's not the first?) The first (Frieda Hennock) served about 45 years ago, IIRC. Since that time, it was rare that one of the Commissioners wasn't a woman. In fact, I deal on a regular basis, professionally, with many, many "minorities" and women who hold high positions in the FCC. And I worked for and greatly respected several of the same..... and my "deputy" throughout all the years was a first-generation "minority", (sorry, Nancy, God made him male) and one of the sharpest FCC engineers is a Vietnamese refuge who at age 11 escaped being sunk by pirates when his family fled Vietnam for America. So much for generalities. How do you propose to reconcile all of this against your statement above, Nancy??? Yup..... -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 10:03:54 -0400, D. Feldstein wrote:
Chairman Reed Hundt, an internationally recognized authority on Communications Law, was instrumental in dismantling the Old White Guard at the Commission and appointing minorities & women to management positions in the commission. D. Feldstein ***The below space is reserved for Phil to bad mouth Reed Hundt*** Reed Hundt didn't have the first clue on what communication law was, is, or should be, as evidenced by how he raped the Field Operations Bureau - the only hope that the agency had in preserving regulatory compliance enforcement - while building up a very ineffective Cable Bureau mired in words and theories that amounted to political mumbo-jumbo. His field prior to coming to the Commission was anti-trust and his appointment by Clinton had all the earmarks of redemption of some political IOU. He was, and is, all politics, as has been every chairman since Mad Man Mark Fowler, certainly up to and including the present one. His "internationally recognized authority" status and value as a partner in his Chicago big-fee law firm is in the political and industry contacts that he can make, not in knowledge of or insight into what proper communications regulatory law should be. The monitoring techs that he RIFfed (with the exception of one particular one) know more about the realities of communication regulatory compliance than he did. And that's my personal opinion based on being there...... -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
Nancy D Fell wrote:
The FCC has a long history of suppressing the advancement of females and minorities. You do have the citations for this? - Mike KB3EIA - |
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 12:58:31 -0400, Michael L Teter wrote:
Heard Mr. Hundt speak a while back at an industry get together, a very impressive individual and speaker, for sure! He could always spew it out by the yard.... He was also good at ignoring or disrespecting those of us in the field who were knowledgeable and involved in enforcing the FCC regulations, even those regs that he himself was pushing through. Perhaps he thought that FCC Regs could be complied with by some magical process. He came out to San Francisco for "an industry get together" and didn't have the decency to stop by the field office to show his face to the staff members there as other Commissioners and Chairmen usually do - part of having that rank. But his staff bag-carriers sure insisted that the field staff do all sorts of "gofer" and "fetch-it" jobs "for the Chairman", including motorcade security. We didn't mind doing it - that was -our- job - but loyalty, like respect, has got to be a two way street. Spoke at length about his tenure at the FCC. Did you ever hear Dick Wiley speak about -his- tenure at the Commission? He was the last decent Chairman, excepting for Jim Quello who was a damn good Commissioner and served a very short time as Acting Chairman only because the Prez was too embarassed not to designate him as such just before he retired. Both of the above knew how to run the Commission to get the work done properly and were very conscious of the fact that it was the technical staff that supported the Commissioners. IIRC Mr. Quello was the last Commissioner to have an Engineering Advisor as a full-time staff assistant. What an eye opener! Most noteworthy were his comments on the resistance to change at a dinasour of an agency. The changes that he wanted to make (and finally bludgeoned through) were to get the agency out of the technical spectrum management business as its primary function and into the "auction it off to the highest bidder" business as its primary function. If you consider that as the role of a telecommunications regulatory and spectrum management agency, I feel sorry for your ignorance. When enough of the pros who believed in proper professional spectrum management finally gave up in disgust, he succeeded. The resulting state of regulatory anarchy on "the airwaves" is the result. He would have been far more respected if he would have split the agency in two, getting The Congress to place the technical management and enforcement function - which he didn't understand - into an agency such as NTIA (as Canada did with DoC, now IC) and keeping the rest - which apparently he did understand - as a separate entity to play the political and auction games (as Canada does with its CRTC). Mike Teter, P.E., M.B.A., Ph.D Sumisunsansorg LTD I got letters too. Phil Kane, P.E., B.E.E., J.D..... CSI Telecommunications Communications Law Center FCC (retired) |
And I worked for and greatly respected several of the same..... and my "deputy" throughout all the years was a first-generation "minority", (sorry, Nancy, God made him male) and one of the sharpest FCC engineers is a Vietnamese refuge who at age 11 escaped being sunk by pirates when his family fled Vietnam for America. Had to think for a moment what sort of pirates those were. Not the type that set up unlicensed broadcast stations...... |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:46 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com