|
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:20 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com