|
No Heaven for CW coders
the PCTA crowd just said "six mega what ???"
you screwed up and mentioned something modern and applicable in the real world.... they're trapped in 1952. Clint KB5ZHT -- -- Facts are to socialists what crosses are to vampires Top nations that fund UN treasury, in descending order... United States: 22% Japan: 19.6% Germany: 9.8% France: 6.5% UK: 5.6% Italy 5.1% Canada: 2.6% Spain: 2.5% Russia isn't even in this top 8 list. France, Russia and Germany, COMBINED, do not contribute as much to the UN as does the United States...... -- "Franz Weigel" wrote in message ... The last CW coder who died was sentenced to Hell for eternity in order to transmit 6 Megapixels 24-bit color pictures in CW. God bless you from CW ! |
In article , "Clint"
rattlehead@computronDOTnet writes: the PCTA crowd just said "six mega what ???" you screwed up and mentioned something modern and applicable in the real world.... they're trapped in 1952. Clint: In exactly what way is transmitting 6 megapixel color images using CW "applicable in the real world?" I'm an avid CW operator, but I've never heard of any way to do that using Morse code. However, since you seem to think you're some sort of technical genius, I guess you've got it figured out! BTW -- if I'm "trapped in 1952" -- the year I was born, BTW, why isn't a gallon of gasoline selling for 24 cents? Damn those time traps -- they're never around when you need them! 73 de Larry, K3LT |
"Clint" wrote ...
the PCTA crowd just said "six mega what ???" you screwed up and mentioned something modern and applicable in the real world.... they're trapped in 1952. __________________________________________________ _______ Gee, you got us there, Clint. All of us knuckle-dragging CW'ers are just caught in a time warp. We don't know a thing about modern communications technology. Gosh, I'll bet you can tell me all about the "new" technologies like SATLink, VTC Scottie, trunked spread spectrum FM and closed networking, right? Not that I'd ever use all that stuff at work or anything ... right? Arnie - KT4ST |
In article , "Arnie Macy"
writes: "Clint" wrote ... the PCTA crowd just said "six mega what ???" you screwed up and mentioned something modern and applicable in the real world.... they're trapped in 1952. _________________________________________________ ________ Gee, you got us there, Clint. All of us knuckle-dragging CW'ers are just caught in a time warp. Yes. We don't know a thing about modern communications technology. Not enough to indicate you "know" them. Memorizing the latest advertisements in QST is not enough. Gosh, I'll bet you can tell me all about the "new" technologies like SATLink, VTC Scottie, trunked spread spectrum FM and closed networking, right? Indicate TRUE proof of your involvement with those. Not that I'd ever use all that stuff at work or anything ... right? You aren't even in SHARES. The only ALE you are in is at the local pub. Here Isabel is about to make landfall and Big Arnie is making all the boasting in this newsgroup without being Out There helping to Save The Day Through Ham Band CW. LHA |
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message ... In article , "Clint" rattlehead@computronDOTnet writes: the PCTA crowd just said "six mega what ???" you screwed up and mentioned something modern and applicable in the real world.... they're trapped in 1952. Clint: In exactly what way is transmitting 6 megapixel color images using CW "applicable in the real world?" This shouldn't take long. I shall use short words with few syllables so that you can understand what I had said. Obviously you flew over it without any REAL discrimination to the actual wording. I never claimed you COULD send that with CW. What I was saying is that the majority of the CW-using crowd is trapped in a time warp that keeps them set back 30 years or so (evident by thier "hell bent for leather" desire to keep cw testing around), and wouldn't understand the concept of anything modern (such as updating the various requirements in ham radio). BTW -- if I'm "trapped in 1952" -- the year I was born, BTW, why isn't a gallon of gasoline selling for 24 cents? Damn those time traps -- they're never around when you need them! and, likewise, the cost of living along with the average wages were considerably less. My advice, in the future, is to think before you talk, lest your foot winds up in your mouth and you look silly. "better to keep your mouth shut and have people WONDER if your stupid, than to open it and remove all doubt." Clint KB5ZHT |
"Arnie Macy" wrote in message ... Gee, you got us there, Clint. All of us knuckle-dragging CW'ers are just caught in a time warp. Yep. pretty much. |
"Clint" rattlehead@computronDOTnet wrote [ transmitting a 6 mega-pixel image] I never claimed you COULD send that with CW. Well, actually, you _could_. I don't have all the tech stuff handy to determine just how large a 6 mega-pixel 24-bit color image would actually _be_, so let's just call it a 6 megabyte file, making it, what, 48 million bits? Now, how many bits in a 'word' of Morse, average? A dozen, maybe? So, sending at, let's say, 20 wpm gives us a hypothetical bit-rate of 240 bits/min or 4 bits/sec, so we come out with a mere 12 million seconds to transmit the image (I _swear_ I did not intend for that answer to come out that simple!). It would only take 138.88 days..... --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.518 / Virus Database: 316 - Release Date: 9/11/2003 |
"Len Over 21" wrote ...
I snipped the rest because it is well known that my Emergency Management Agency *uses* every piece of technology I listed -- and Len knows it too Here Isabel is about to make landfall and Big Arnie is making all the boasting in this newsgroup without being Out There helping to Save The Day Through Ham Band CW. __________________________________________________ _________________ Even after a year of killfile, I see that you have the same mantra, Len. Ho Hum boring -- as usual. Don't you ever get tired of being so wrong, so mad, and so bitter all the time? Arnie - KT4ST |
This shouldn't take long. I shall use short words with few syllables so that you can understand what I had said. Obviously you flew over it without any REAL discrimination to the actual wording. I never claimed you COULD send that with CW. What I was saying is that the majority of the CW-using crowd is trapped in a time warp that keeps them set back 30 years or so (evident by thier "hell bent for leather" desire to keep cw testing around), and wouldn't understand the concept of anything modern (such as updating the various requirements in ham radio. My advice, in the future, is to think before you talk, lest your foot winds up in your mouth and you look silly. "better to keep your mouth shut and have people WONDER if your stupid, than to open it and remove all doubt." Clint KB5ZHT Clint my man .....you should have followed your own advice and not posted that glittering generality of a Mongolian Cluster ...... I really think your are able to do better than that pathetic attempt to ruffle the CWist's feathers ... The fellows who I know who operate CW do so in addition to digital modes and various ones at that. I don't operate HF fone for various reasons but I can say in all honesty that the primary reason is that I talk all day. It is a refreshing break for me to get on an avocal mode and communicate with a fellow ham ....but Clint I know you also never operate fone as you know the superiority of digital modes and the inherent moderness therein. God Bless 72&7/8ths Tom KI3R Belle Vernon Pa. Beeping along since '65 amongst other things ..... |
Arnie Macy wrote:
"Clint" wrote ... the PCTA crowd just said "six mega what ???" you screwed up and mentioned something modern and applicable in the real world.... they're trapped in 1952. __________________________________________________ _______ Gee, you got us there, Clint. All of us knuckle-dragging CW'ers are just caught in a time warp. We don't know a thing about modern communications technology. Gosh, I'll bet you can tell me all about the "new" technologies like SATLink, VTC Scottie, trunked spread spectrum FM and closed networking, right? Not that I'd ever use all that stuff at work or anything ... right? Heck, we don't even use 1/4 wave dipoles, Arnie! - Mike KB3EIA - |
In article , "Clint"
rattlehead@computronDOTnet writes: "Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message ... In article , "Clint" rattlehead@computronDOTnet writes: the PCTA crowd just said "six mega what ???" you screwed up and mentioned something modern and applicable in the real world.... they're trapped in 1952. Clint: In exactly what way is transmitting 6 megapixel color images using CW "applicable in the real world?" This shouldn't take long. I shall use short words with few syllables so that you can understand what I had said. Clint: Ah, the old "start off with an insult to the intelligence to the poster" opening. A classic on Usenet, particularly on rrap. Well done -- you've already lost your argument! Obviously you flew over it without any REAL discrimination to the actual wording. Not really, but if it gives you comfort to think so, who am I to deny you your little pleasure? I never claimed you COULD send that with CW. Ah Ha! That makes one wonder why you mentioned it, then… What I was saying is that the majority of the CW-using crowd is trapped in a time warp that keeps them set back 30 years or so (evident by thier "hell bent for leather" desire to keep cw testing around), and wouldn't understand the concept of anything modern (such as updating the various requirements in ham radio). Well, we all know that this isn't true, just another specious non-argument by a whining NCTA. BTW -- if I'm "trapped in 1952" -- the year I was born, BTW, why isn't a gallon of gasoline selling for 24 cents? Damn those time traps -- they're never around when you need them! and, likewise, the cost of living along with the average wages were considerably less. True enough. I guess what we need is a selective "time trap" that just "traps" prices. My advice, in the future, is to think before you talk, lest your foot winds up in your mouth and you look silly. Yeah -- good thing I wasn't "talking." "better to keep your mouth shut and have people WONDER if your stupid, than to open it and remove all doubt." And, you even finish with an insult to my intelligence. I'll say one thing for you, my friend, you really have this Usenet thing dialed in! 73 de Larry, K3LT |
In article , "Arnie Macy"
writes: "Len Over 21" wrote ... I snipped the rest because it is well known that my Emergency Management Agency *uses* every piece of technology I listed -- and Len knows it too Here Isabel is about to make landfall and Big Arnie is making all the boasting in this newsgroup without being Out There helping to Save The Day Through Ham Band CW. _________________________________________________ __________________ Even after a year of killfile, I see that you have the same mantra, Len. You never had me "killfiled," hypocrite. You were busy "working to track Isabel for a year" or something similar. You never did check out a working US Army field communications center or even investigate the how and why of US Army comm use when you were supposedly working for the US Army. You had ample time to do so. But you never did and you had far more/easier access than most. You must have found out an awful truth...that the US military does NOT use any morse code for communications now! Poor baby. Still bitter about that, huh? You are trying to turn that bitterness around by making up more BS about the morse code. Doesn't work, Ah-nold...you aren't the Codinator from the future. You are only carrying on a relic of the past. "Ahl be back." LHA Ho Hum boring -- as usual. Don't you ever get tired of being so wrong, so mad, and so bitter all the time? |
|
Vince Fiscus, KB7ADL wrote:
# The kill-filer poses a much more insidious threat to # # the troll. Not posing a direct threat to the troll per # # se, the kill-filer simply deprives the troll of yet # # another source of nourishment. Some trolls have # # developed counter measures to thwart the kill-filers, # # usually this takes the form of a type of camoflage. # Isn't there a category for the person who reads the troll's posts, and then gives them the response they deserve, namely none? - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Robert" wrote in message ... "Clint" rattlehead@computronDOTnet wrote [ transmitting a 6 mega-pixel image] I never claimed you COULD send that with CW. well, I was just responding to his words he tried to shove in my mouth. It would only take 138.88 days..... hey, we're rock'n! Clint KB5ZHT |
"Clint" rattlehead@computronDOTnet wrote in message ... "Robert" wrote in message ... "Clint" rattlehead@computronDOTnet wrote [ transmitting a 6 mega-pixel image] I never claimed you COULD send that with CW. well, I was just responding to his words he tried to shove in my mouth. It would only take 138.88 days..... hey, we're rock'n! Clint KB5ZHT It continues to amaze me how these no knowledge, no experience, code haters think they know so much about the mode. Dan/W4NTI |
I don't know hardly any code haters myself. I myself aren't one, I
enjoy using it. Most the hams I know either love it or are indifferent towards it, that is, they have no opinion on the use of CW one way or the other. It's the testing of a skill that you may or may not elect to use that I think meets rejection. Clint KB5ZHT |
In article k.net,
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes: It continues to amaze me how these no knowledge, no experience, code haters think they know so much about the mode. Dan/W4NTI It continues to amaze me how those no-knowledge, no-experience, code lovers of amateur radio cannot get on the ball and overcome their ignorance of all the other modes of communictions! LHA |
Ya PUTZ! I like the part in the previous thread where the PCTA's accuse the NCTA's of name calling. OOPS, you're the one that just did that. My bad. Clint KB5ZHT |
In article , "Robert" writes:
"Clint" rattlehead@computronDOTnet wrote [ transmitting a 6 mega-pixel image] I never claimed you COULD send that with CW. Well, actually, you _could_. I don't have all the tech stuff handy to determine just how large a 6 mega-pixel 24-bit color image would actually _be_, so let's just call it a 6 megabyte file, making it, what, 48 million bits? Now, how many bits in a 'word' of Morse, average? A dozen, maybe? So, sending at, let's say, 20 wpm gives us a hypothetical bit-rate of 240 bits/min or 4 bits/sec, so we come out with a mere 12 million seconds to transmit the image (I _swear_ I did not intend for that answer to come out that simple!). It would only take 138.88 days..... Ah, but you forget an important step in the analysis! One picture is worth a thousand words. Therefore, the time required to send a "Morse picture" at 20 wpm is equal to 1,000/20 = 50 minutes with no compression. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:14 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com