|
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 19:00:21 GMT, Keith wrote: I had the pleasure of watching the documentary by Michael Moore called, "Bowling for Columbine". In the opening segment Michael goes into a Michigan Bank and gets a free shotgun for opening a CD account. In the documentary he discusses the fact that the tenage mass killers bought their ammo at Kmart and obtained guns at gun shows. The thought occurred to me, Why in the hell can a teenager in America buy a weapon of mass destruction with no test or license, A shotgun is not a weapon of mass destruction. Chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons are weapons of mass destruction. A shotgun is classified as "small arms" - even fully automatic small arms are not weapons of mass destruction. 73 DE John, KC2HMZ Tonawanda, New York -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= *** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! *** http://www.usenet.com Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= |
Radio Amateur KC2HMZ wrote in message . ..
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com **** On 23 Sep 2003 00:40:54 GMT, "Dick Carroll;" wrote: Far better to concentrate testing on operating - to include as many modes as feasable. INCLUDING radiotelegraphy, **the second most used mode in ham radio**. It occurs to me that, after "making a legitimate withdrawal" as number one, the second most used method of obtaining money from the bank happens to be a felony. It also occurs to me that in sports, they refer to the player(s) who finish anywhere below #1 as the LOSERS. 73 DE John, KC2HMZ Tonawanda, New York John, I like the way you think. |
|
"N2EY" wrote in message ... I think Clint has already said he only sees a need for regs and safety testing. There's "the future". 73 de Jim, N2EY Given the detail and extent of the rules, we could right a killer test on rules and regs. Then require people to take and pass that before taking any of the elements for specific licenses. i.e. They have to know the rules in detail before being tested on the theory, technical knowledge, and operating practices for the licenses classes. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Good idea. When I passed the Basic test (Canadian licence, same type
of questions and format as the entry-level US one - Technician, I think...?), I walked out of the room with two things: A licence. And no real practical idea on how to operate a radio station. I had the theory, and legally what not to do, but how to set up a station and initiate a QSO? On-air procedures and etiquette? Missing details galore.... I bought a used 2M HT and the RAC Operating Guide, downloaded a repeater list, listened on-air for a while, and figured out how to get through the first few QSOs. From there, the kind folks on the air guided me through the process, overlooking my frequent errors. Trial by fire. No I=E/R stuff to help me through here! Going on HF was worse - passed the morse test, then...learning curve again (and still - 6 months later) - some of the VHF knowledge worked, but new skills were required. And the equipment is more complex to set up and use than my HT....had to build an antenna (a Big Antenna !), and go from there. And a dummy load. And an SWR meter. Etcetera. Still learning, but the folks on 40M have been great, and got me up to speed pretty quickly. Personally, I'd like to see practical operating knowledge become part of the licence procedure. Not for the sake of testing , or making the licence harder to get, or screening out the incompetent and unmotivated - but to ensure that when you do get the licence, you have an excellent idea what is required to actually use it. Like driving a car, for example - if folks got their licence based entirely on the written test, we might not all be reading this post right now.....:). And the best possible resource for creating a syllabus like that - the experienced amateur user community. (not me - I'm still learning! Maybe later....) Just my .02.... 73, Leo On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 23:24:06 GMT, "Dee D. Flint" wrote: "N2EY" wrote in message ... I think Clint has already said he only sees a need for regs and safety testing. There's "the future". 73 de Jim, N2EY Given the detail and extent of the rules, we could right a killer test on rules and regs. Then require people to take and pass that before taking any of the elements for specific licenses. i.e. They have to know the rules in detail before being tested on the theory, technical knowledge, and operating practices for the licenses classes. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... I think Clint has already said he only sees a need for regs and safety testing. There's "the future". 73 de Jim, N2EY Given the detail and extent of the rules, we could right a killer test on rules and regs. Not really. All questions and answers are filtered through the QPC and again through the FCC. "Killer" Q&A can be rejected. Then require people to take and pass that before taking any of the elements for specific licenses. i.e. They have to know the rules in detail before being tested on the theory, technical knowledge, and operating practices for the licenses classes. Better yet - split the test into different subelements and require a passing grade in each. No getting all the regs questions wrong and all the theory questions right (or vice versa) and still passing. I suggested that in my comments to 98-143. FCC went the other way. Tells ya somethin'. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
|
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message ... In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: However, the requirements for licensure should be reasonable and rational, and while the written tests meet that criteria, the requirement for Morse proficiency no longer does. Carl - wk3c Carl: Jim, N2EY, just said, in so many words, that since today's amateur radio equipment can no longer be designed, built, or serviced by any but the tiny handful of hams who possess professional-grade technical knowledge, skill, and facilities, that most of the technical knowledge in the present written tests can also be eliminated as a licensing requirement. I totally agree. In what way is it "reasonable and rational" for someone to know Ohm's Law or even the most basic digital theory, if they'll never have to use it in their actual practice as a radio amateur? I say it isn't, and nothing could prove this better than eliminating the code testing requirements for the same reason. After all, code testing has the effect of exposing prospective radio amateurs to what is always going to be a practical and useful communications tool which allows radio amateurs to practice basic radio communication with only entry-level skill and technology. I would not necessarily totally agree with that statement as even though I am not a master electronics tech, I still can debug a problem with a few basic pieces of equipment and a schematic. Also, the electronics/electricity knowledge is important in dealing with alot of different things in amateur radio, not just "debugging" a Icom 706 (or other radio) radio problem. If we eliminate the code testing requirement, we therefore demonstrate that basic communications skills are no longer necessary to be a licensed amateur radio operator. I, for one, would like to think that the present syllabus of the written tests still represents "basic communications skills." So, which will it be? Code testing, written testing, both, or neither? I personally believe that the written tests need to be more stringent, as most of the tests I have had to take were definitely more than 35-50 questions, more like 100-250 range. As far as the question pool, I have no problem with the questions themselves being released, but the answers shouldn't. At least if the question pool (questions only) was that way, it would encourage people to research the correct answer. That is what I did as a final study tool, after reading and re-reading many times....... They could also incorporate "scenario" questions as well. -- Ryan, KC8PMX FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!) --. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-. ... --. .... - . .-. ... |
In article , "Ryan, KC8PMX"
writes: "Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message ... In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: However, the requirements for licensure should be reasonable and rational, and while the written tests meet that criteria, the requirement for Morse proficiency no longer does. Carl - wk3c Carl: Jim, N2EY, just said, in so many words, that since today's amateur radio equipment can no longer be designed, built, or serviced by any but the tiny handful of hams who possess professional-grade technical knowledge, skill, and facilities, that most of the technical knowledge in the present written tests can also be eliminated as a licensing requirement. I totally agree. In what way is it "reasonable and rational" for someone to know Ohm's Law or even the most basic digital theory, if they'll never have to use it in their actual practice as a radio amateur? I say it isn't, and nothing could prove this better than eliminating the code testing requirements for the same reason. After all, code testing has the effect of exposing prospective radio amateurs to what is always going to be a practical and useful communications tool which allows radio amateurs to practice basic radio communication with only entry-level skill and technology. I would not necessarily totally agree with that statement as even though I am not a master electronics tech, I still can debug a problem with a few basic pieces of equipment and a schematic. Also, the electronics/electricity knowledge is important in dealing with alot of different things in amateur radio, not just "debugging" a Icom 706 (or other radio) radio problem. Ryan, I suggest you read what I actually wrote, rather than Larry's interpretation. You may have read it already. My point was not that hams *cannot* take care of their equipment, but rather that there is not much of an absolute *need* for theory testing compared to years ago because of the changes in typical modern amateur equipment. That you can troubleshoot equipment is admirable, but I bet most of that knowledge and skill came from your own interest, not from having to pass written tests. If we eliminate the code testing requirement, we therefore demonstrate that basic communications skills are no longer necessary to be a licensed amateur radio operator. I, for one, would like to think that the present syllabus of the written tests still represents "basic communications skills." So, which will it be? Code testing, written testing, both, or neither? I personally believe that the written tests need to be more stringent, as most of the tests I have had to take were definitely more than 35-50 questions, more like 100-250 range. I agree - but the FCC thinks the opposite. Try to convince them that they're wrong. As far as the question pool, I have no problem with the questions themselves being released, but the answers shouldn't. At least if the question pool (questions only) was that way, it would encourage people to research the correct answer. That is what I did as a final study tool, after reading and re-reading many times....... They could also incorporate "scenario" questions as well. Wouldn't work. Somebody would do the Dick Bash thing and get the answers. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:04 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com