In article , "Arnie Macy"
writes:

"Len Over 21" wrote ...

Isn't it awful? Gosh, he ought to contact the other Steve, Colonel
Austin (the one with the bionic VTC), and, with the aid of a ham
in Iowa, they can straighten all this out to assure their amateur
god-hood.

I just have to laugh. This very same technology that you make fun of (I
presume because you don''t have a clue) is the same technology that might
very well save your butt some day.

Actually, it might. You get all those FAR and DFAR documents
together, epoxy them into nice walls (using COTS epoxy, of course)
and you will create a Maginot-style impregnable fortress to protect
everyone!

Yup, a VTC will allow the participants to TALK terrorists out of
attacking the USA again! Scare them witless with video bytes!
Posture, preen, show them who's Boss! Right on!

------

Now what has your ranting to say about the NCVEC petition
(RM-10870) and their proposed "Communicator" class license?

Hint...that's in the thread title and the subject of the thread
origin...

LHA / WMD

In article , "Arnie Macy"
writes:

"Len Over 21" wrote ...

"Len Over 21" wrote ...

Sheesh, Leonard. We don't use much in the way of milspec electronics
anymore. The new theory adopted by the armed services in 1994 relies
heavily on commercially available gear.

Are you sleeping on your COTS?

The day of everything having to be milspec is long gone.

Bravo Sierra. Those are still here. So are Military
Specifications,
abbreviated "Mil Spec" among those of us who still have to use
them.

The Bravo Sierra is yours, Leonard. Since you don't actually work with
the
military anymore, you are forced to search things out on the net and hope
they are up to date.

Actually, I'm working for a company that is contracting to another
company who has a contract to supply electronics for the DoD.
Not full time. But the MIL STDs of many kinds are in both places
with many different dash number "Mil Specs" called out.

Then you should know that if the product (or service) cannot be obtained
commercially, even the components should be commercial or adapted for
military use.

So, if a product isn't available commercially, the commercial
product must be used anyway? :-)

Makes for very lightweight products. Those would have lots of
things not there. :-)

As you know, many "commercial" products already meet or
exceed what we would commonly refer to as Milspec.

They do? Gosh. All this time thousands of design engineers
have been "wrong" according to His Majesty with the bionic VTC!

Thanks for the heads-up.


The FAR is the Federal Aquisition Regulation (15 and 42) and the DFAR is the
defense version. If you are a contractor and or sub-contractor on a
government contract, you are required to be familiar with it.

I am? We are? I suppose. That's what the "bean-counters" are
for, Arnie. Not my area. I'm intimately into the product itself
and its very specific specifications. We are very familiar with
those specific specifications.

The managerial levels and the accountants can handle the
administrative details. Us design folk aren't required to be legal
beagles sniffing out things in the financial-contract half of an
award, just the engineering-contract part of it. [those specific
specifications mentioned]

Seriously,
you might want to tell your employer to supply you a copy since you and I
both are bound by what it says.

My contractor, not my "employer." There's a difference, but the
difference is a petty detail that you Pentagon lords of the Rings
don't bother with. :-)

I'm not worried about the contract administration tasks. So far,
to the best of my observation, no contract regulation has ever
been able to communicate by radio, search for a submarine, or
test out another electronic unit. Maybe you know of some
contract document that has?

I'm sure that you need only imply you always tell the truth
in here and that is the Final Word. :-)

Do you know what COTS is? Ask around. Don't sleep on the job.

COTS = Commercial Off The Shelf.

I'm quite familiar with the term COTS. I didn't respond because it was a
moronic question to ask someone who works in the system.

Riiiight. And all the contract administrators can "work on the board,"
do the designs, get their hands dirty in the labs, monitor the
environmental testing, troubleshoot failures, and, in general, make
the PRODUCT work. Suuuuure.

Just who do you think specifies whether or not a commercial, off
the shelf component will WORK in a PRODUCT? Here's a clue,
bionic one, it's NOT the contract administration side of a contract.


"Millions" in contract awards have been awarded since WW2. The
dollar amounts, normalized for the COLA, serve only to indicate the
size of a particular project. That's a manager and bean-counter
thing; us folks with the dirtier hands concentrate on the works of a
project in order to fulfill a contract.

And as the COR, I make sure that you do.

Not HERE, sweetie. Your name on the corporate visitor's list at
the lobby ain't there nor did security ever give you a pass for
visitor access.

The COR (Contract Officer Representative or COTR (technical added)) IS the
person in the weeds, Leonard. We surveille, inspect, rate, and coordinate
with the contractor concerning every aspect of the contract for the CO. The
6 million dollar contract (for which I am still the COR) extends over a
period of 2 years. We are only 3 months into it at this point, and have
just completed our first quarterly performance rating for them. They did
quite well.

Okay, I'll have my dentist erect a plaque with your name on it.

It would be fun to have you visit the main plant and watch you
"surveille" the work on the prototypes. I'll bet all your morse code
and amateur experience would make you very knowledgeable
about the work being "surveilled."

Oh, and leave the weeds at the entrance. There's lots of clean
rooms here and we can't allow dirt or vegetation into them.

New stuff, Leonard. Doesn't even remotely resemble what you did in 1955. I
gave you the web site to research. What, did the BIG words stump you?

"BIG" is also an acronym now? [what will they think of next?]

Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious? Antidisestablishmentarianism?

I'm working with HEMT, PHEMT, and GaSP devices. For radio
purposes...and some of that will bleed over to WiFax, one of the
IEEE 802 standard systems for broadband (it ain't "Wi-Fi" but one
of the families within the standard). DoD will own the plans per
terms of the overall contract, but the techniques and notebook
data aren't owned by da gubmint.

I bet you a dollar to a donut that the military specific application of that
technology is quite proprietary.

"Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious" is probably proprietary to Walt
Disney Productions. I don't know the details but the Disney
corporate buildings are at the corner of Verdugo and Buena Vista
in Burbank. "Antidisestablishmentarianism" is free for public
use, in some dictionaries. HEMT, PHEMT, and GaSP are
non-copyrighted process terms in the RF-electronics industry.

I'll meet you at the Krispy Kreme at the Empire Center in Burbank.
You bring the money, I'll bring the appetite.

--------

Now, how does your "COR" superiorness relate to the NCVEC
petition (RM-10870) and the term "Communicator" class of
amateur radio license? :-)

LHA / WMD

Subject: Wrong Again, Len! (Communicator Power)
From: (Len Over 21)
Date: 3/28/2004 3:32 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article , "Arnie Macy"
writes:

"Len Over 21" wrote ...

Isn't it awful? Gosh, he ought to contact the other Steve, Colonel
Austin (the one with the bionic VTC), and, with the aid of a ham
in Iowa, they can straighten all this out to assure their amateur
god-hood.

I just have to laugh. This very same technology that you make fun of (I
presume because you don''t have a clue) is the same technology that might
very well save your butt some day.

Actually, it might. You get all those FAR and DFAR documents
together, epoxy them into nice walls (using COTS epoxy, of course)
and you will create a Maginot-style impregnable fortress to protect
everyone!

Yup, a VTC will allow the participants to TALK terrorists out of
attacking the USA again! Scare them witless with video bytes!
Posture, preen, show them who's Boss! Right on!

------

Now what has your ranting to say about the NCVEC petition
(RM-10870) and their proposed "Communicator" class license?

Hint...that's in the thread title and the subject of the thread
origin...

Once thought to have Arnie's back against the wall, and therefore MORE
than willing to rant off-topic on his own, Lennie finds himself up against a
formidable and well prepared "opponent" and NOW wants to move back on target.

Uh huh.

Steve, K4YZ

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ...
Subject: Clarification, was: Wrong Again, Len! (Communicator Power)
From: (Len Over 21)
Date: 3/27/2004 11:45 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(William) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...

Besides, the gunnery nurse keeps hollering "HE LIES, HE LIES!"

He's nuts. Pay no attention.

I don't...but it's like QRM, there, noisy, with no intelligence content
and it distracts from real discussions.

In the last four years, I have seen you post exactly THREE posts that I
would classify as "real discussions", Lennie. The last one being this past
week on the importance of filing comments with the FCC on BPL.

The rest are your ususal smatterings of rhetorical antagonism, spiced with
profanity and "personal perjorative".

Same Putzy Lennie...

Steve, K4YZ


Didn't he help you find a schematic or a manual?

Subject: Wrong Again, Len! (Communicator Power)
From: (Len Over 21)
Date: 3/28/2004 3:32 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Now, how does your "COR" superiorness relate to the NCVEC
petition (RM-10870) and the term "Communicator" class of
amateur radio license?

I love seeing Lennie backed into corners.

Funny how being there suddenly makes him want to get "on topic", even
though only one day ago he was perfectly happy to ramble on about off-topic
stuff when he thought it was going to make him look "smart". Lennie went
one-acromym too far and found himself bested by a federal employee...Not even a
"radio engineer"...THAT had to hurt!

Sheeesh. What a creep.

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: Clarification, was: Wrong Again, Len! (Communicator Power)
From: (William)
Date: 3/28/2004 4:02 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

The rest are your ususal smatterings of rhetorical antagonism, spiced
with
profanity and "personal perjorative".

Same Putzy Lennie...

Steve, K4YZ


Didn't he help you find a schematic or a manual?

Sure he did. And Hitler got the trains running and revitalized a
devastated economy. The point being that even the worst scoundrels of
civilization can do SOMETHING right once in a while.

When he did those things, I said "Thanks, Len", and I meant it.

When he resorts to profanity and the usual misrepresentations about
Amateur Radio, it's "back to work""...

Steve, K4YZ

"Len Over 21" wrote ...

So, if a product isn't available commercially, the commercial
product must be used anyway? :-)

Makes for very lightweight products. Those would have lots of
things not there. :-)


The next step would be to modify a commercial product to meet the standard
or specification. If that is not possible, then R&D it and produce the
product through a specific contract with the developer.

As you know, many "commercial" products already meet or
exceed what we would commonly refer to as Milspec.

They do? Gosh. All this time thousands of design engineers
have been "wrong" according to His Majesty with the bionic VTC!

Thanks for the heads-up.


The FAR is the Federal Aquisition Regulation (15 and 42) and the DFAR is
the
defense version. If you are a contractor and or sub-contractor on a
government contract, you are required to be familiar with it.

I am? We are? I suppose. That's what the "bean-counters" are
for, Arnie. Not my area. I'm intimately into the product itself
and its very specific specifications. We are very familiar with
those specific specifications.

The managerial levels and the accountants can handle the
administrative details. Us design folk aren't required to be legal
beagles sniffing out things in the financial-contract half of an
award, just the engineering-contract part of it. [those specific
specifications mentioned]


You, as the "developer" of the product (as a sub-contractor) would not be
directly responsible, but the general contractor "is". Therefore, it is in
their best interest to provide you with those regulations. Whether the
mistake is yours or the contractor's, the government can and will assess
interest, damages, or cancel the contract for non-performance.


Seriously,
you might want to tell your employer to supply you a copy since you and I
both are bound by what it says.

My contractor, not my "employer." There's a difference, but the
difference is a petty detail that you Pentagon lords of the Rings
don't bother with. :-)

In this case, the contractor is acting as your employer. You, as the
sub-contractor have legal obligations to perform to the standards outlined
in the contract.

I'm not worried about the contract administration tasks. So far,
to the best of my observation, no contract regulation has ever
been able to communicate by radio, search for a submarine, or
test out another electronic unit. Maybe you know of some
contract document that has?

Documents no, but a breach of a contract regulation (as designated through
the Contract Officer) can result in the assessment of interest, damages, or
cancellation of the contract for non-performance

I'm sure that you need only imply you always tell the truth
in here and that is the Final Word. :-)

Do you know what COTS is? Ask around. Don't sleep on the job.

COTS = Commercial Off The Shelf.

I'm quite familiar with the term COTS. I didn't respond because it was a
moronic question to ask someone who works in the system.

Riiiight. And all the contract administrators can "work on the board,"
do the designs, get their hands dirty in the labs, monitor the
environmental testing, troubleshoot failures, and, in general, make
the PRODUCT work. Suuuuure.

The term COTR is exactly as it implies. A technical expert. That is why I
administer contracts concerning security issues, and others administer your
contract. I guarantee, the COTR on YOUR contract is an expert in that field
and can perform the technical surveillance as necessary. They probably
already have.


Just who do you think specifies whether or not a commercial, off
the shelf component will WORK in a PRODUCT? Here's a clue,
bionic one, it's NOT the contract administration side of a contract.

The producer of that component MUST certify that is is within contract
specifications. The COTR, a technical expert, will also determine through
surveillance, inspections, or various other means, if the component meets
the technical specifications of the contract. It's a check and balance
system to insure the product works as promised.


"Millions" in contract awards have been awarded since WW2. The
dollar amounts, normalized for the COLA, serve only to indicate the
size of a particular project. That's a manager and bean-counter
thing; us folks with the dirtier hands concentrate on the works of a
project in order to fulfill a contract.

And as the COR, I make sure that you do.

Not HERE, sweetie. Your name on the corporate visitor's list at
the lobby ain't there nor did security ever give you a pass for
visitor access.

It was a rhetorical answer, Leonard. I work as the COTR on a security
contract. In that area, I am the technical expert. Your COTR is also a
technical expert in electronics.

We surveille, inspect, rate, and coordinate
with the contractor concerning every aspect of the contract for the CO.
The
6 million dollar contract (for which I am still the COR) extends over a
period of 2 years. We are only 3 months into it at this point, and have
just completed our first quarterly performance rating for them. They did
quite well.

Okay, I'll have my dentist erect a plaque with your name on it.

It would be fun to have you visit the main plant and watch you
"surveille" the work on the prototypes. I'll bet all your morse code
and amateur experience would make you very knowledgeable
about the work being "surveilled."

I won't be doing that anytime soon, not my contract. But I guarantee that
YOUR COTR has already made such a visit. Known to you or not.

Oh, and leave the weeds at the entrance. There's lots of clean
rooms here and we can't allow dirt or vegetation into them.

New stuff, Leonard. Doesn't even remotely resemble what you did in
1955. I
gave you the web site to research. What, did the BIG words stump you?

"BIG" is also an acronym now? [what will they think of next?]

Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious? Antidisestablishmentarianism?

I'm working with HEMT, PHEMT, and GaSP devices. For radio
purposes...and some of that will bleed over to WiFax, one of the
IEEE 802 standard systems for broadband (it ain't "Wi-Fi" but one
of the families within the standard). DoD will own the plans per
terms of the overall contract, but the techniques and notebook
data aren't owned by da gubmint.

I bet you a dollar to a donut that the military specific application of
that
technology is quite proprietary.

"Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious" is probably proprietary to Walt
Disney Productions. I don't know the details but the Disney
corporate buildings are at the corner of Verdugo and Buena Vista
in Burbank. "Antidisestablishmentarianism" is free for public
use, in some dictionaries. HEMT, PHEMT, and GaSP are
non-copyrighted process terms in the RF-electronics industry.

I'll meet you at the Krispy Kreme at the Empire Center in Burbank.
You bring the money, I'll bring the appetite.

I didn't say the terms, Leonard, I said the "specific" application of them.
My bet still stands.

--------

Now, how does your "COR" superiorness relate to the NCVEC
petition (RM-10870) and the term "Communicator" class of
amateur radio license? :-)

I am an extra class amatuer radio operator. The changes in the NCVEC,
testing, or any other myriad issues won't effect me in the least. I'll
concentrate on the danger that BPL is posing. The issue of Morse testing is
long since over. Time to move on.

Arnie -




LHA / WMD

"Len Over 21" wrote ...

"Len Over 21" wrote ...

Isn't it awful? Gosh, he ought to contact the other Steve, Colonel
Austin (the one with the bionic VTC), and, with the aid of a ham
in Iowa, they can straighten all this out to assure their amateur
god-hood.

I just have to laugh. This very same technology that you make fun of (I
presume because you don''t have a clue) is the same technology that might
very well save your butt some day.

Actually, it might. You get all those FAR and DFAR documents
together, epoxy them into nice walls (using COTS epoxy, of course)
and you will create a Maginot-style impregnable fortress to protect
everyone!

Yup, a VTC will allow the participants to TALK terrorists out of
attacking the USA again! Scare them witless with video bytes!
Posture, preen, show them who's Boss! Right on!


The Scotty can send picture, data or both simultaneously. It has a remote
camera capability, which alows us to send real-time data and pictures during
emergencies. Of course, I'm sure you see no importance in that. After all,
who would want that capability in an emergency, right?

Arnie -


------

Now what has your ranting to say about the NCVEC petition
(RM-10870) and their proposed "Communicator" class license?

Hint...that's in the thread title and the subject of the thread
origin...

LHA / WMD

"Steve Robeson K4CAP" wrote ...

Once thought to have Arnie's back against the wall, and therefore MORE than
willing to rant off-topic on his own, Lennie finds himself up against a
formidable and well prepared "opponent" and NOW wants to move back on
target. Uh huh.
__________________________________________________ ___________

Leonard came to my ballpark and wanted to play. The problem he faces is
simple. I am the expert in this particular arena. Unfortunately, he just
doesn't seem to realize that.

Arnie -

In article , (Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Funny how being there suddenly makes him want to get "on topic", even
though only one day ago he was perfectly happy to ramble on about off-topic
stuff when he thought it was going to make him look "smart".

Steve,

Look at the subject line.

73 de Jim, N2EY