NCI representing it's views is one thing, but I think that when a
membership supports an idea that is actually harmful to the ARS, it is
time to kinda step back from it.



Who determines what is "harmful"?

Robert Casey wrote:


NCI representing it's views is one thing, but I think that when a
membership supports an idea that is actually harmful to the ARS, it is
time to kinda step back from it.




Who determines what is "harmful"?


I wrote a couple sentences/questions to that effect, that you snipped out.


Nothing is ever improved by making it simpler. Despite what marketing
wonks may tell us, nothing is. Give me what you think is an example,
and I can quickly tell you why it isn't.

Nothing is improved by lowering the bar. If most General hams have only
taken the Technician test, then the average tested level is brought down
to somewhere between Technician and General.

None of this is subject to spin, it is just how it is. Simple
mathematics is all it is.

If it isn't improving things, or at least neutral, then it is harming
things.

Database administration isn't a good excuse at all. just imagine how
much database administration would be eased if there were only one
class. So why don't we simply "one time adjust" every ham in the country
to Extra? Everyone will have all the same privileges, so no wondering
what ham is supposed to be at what frequency. That would make
administration EASY.


Would one time adjusting *everyone* to the Extra level be harmful to
the ARS?

Adjusting the Technicians to the next level is an incremental
adjustment of the same. At what level is incrementalism not harmful?


Quick note here. I do not oppose one license class. But it would be at
the Extra level at least.

- mike KB3EIA -

Subject: Hans' views/complaints about NCI and the ARRL and NCVEC
petitions
From: Mike Coslo
Date: 4/29/2004 2:41 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Nothing is ever improved by making it simpler.

I dunno about that, Mike...I kinda liked the velcro-closed bikini bra my
former g/f used to wear!

73

Steve, K4YZ

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ...
Subject: Hans' views/complaints about NCI and the ARRL and NCVEC
petitions
From: Mike Coslo
Date: 4/29/2004 2:41 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Nothing is ever improved by making it simpler.

I dunno about that, Mike...I kinda liked the velcro-closed bikini bra my
former g/f used to wear!

73

Steve, K4YZ

Former?

You sure got a lot of "former's" in your life.

Why am I not suprised?

Subject: Hans' views/complaints about NCI and the ARRL and NCVEC
petitions
From: (William)
Date: 4/29/2004 9:28 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: Hans' views/complaints about NCI and the ARRL and NCVEC
petitions
From: Mike Coslo
Date: 4/29/2004 2:41 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Nothing is ever improved by making it simpler.

I dunno about that, Mike...I kinda liked the velcro-closed bikini bra
my
former g/f used to wear!

73

Steve, K4YZ

Former?

You sure got a lot of "former's" in your life.

Why am I not suprised?

You've only had one woman in your entire life, Brain?

You met and dated one and only one woman your ENTIRE life?

Yes, there a lot of "former" girlfriends. A bit jealous, are you?
Perhaps it's that residual fecal material behind your ears from plugging and
unplugging your head in the wrong orifice all the time...

You might try toothpaste, too....

Steve, K4YZ

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ...
Subject: Hans' views/complaints about NCI and the ARRL and NCVEC
petitions
From: (William)
Date: 4/29/2004 9:28 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: Hans' views/complaints about NCI and the ARRL and NCVEC
petitions
From: Mike Coslo
Date: 4/29/2004 2:41 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Nothing is ever improved by making it simpler.

I dunno about that, Mike...I kinda liked the velcro-closed bikini bra
my
former g/f used to wear!

73

Steve, K4YZ

Former?

You sure got a lot of "former's" in your life.

Why am I not suprised?

You've only had one woman in your entire life, Brain?

You met and dated one and only one woman your ENTIRE life?

Yes, there a lot of "former" girlfriends. A bit jealous, are you?
Perhaps it's that residual fecal material behind your ears from plugging and
unplugging your head in the wrong orifice all the time...

You might try toothpaste, too....

Steve, K4YZ

Steve, I happen to be married. Out of respect for my wife I don't
dredge up the velcroed past. But you do.

bb

Subject: Hans' views/complaints about NCI and the ARRL and NCVEC
petitions
From: (William)
Date: 5/1/2004 10:18 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: Hans' views/complaints about NCI and the ARRL and NCVEC
petitions
From: (William)
Date: 4/29/2004 9:28 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: Hans' views/complaints about NCI and the ARRL and NCVEC
petitions
From: Mike Coslo
Date: 4/29/2004 2:41 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Nothing is ever improved by making it simpler.

I dunno about that, Mike...I kinda liked the velcro-closed bikini
bra
my
former g/f used to wear!

73

Steve, K4YZ

Former?

You sure got a lot of "former's" in your life.

Why am I not suprised?

You've only had one woman in your entire life, Brain?

You met and dated one and only one woman your ENTIRE life?

Yes, there a lot of "former" girlfriends. A bit jealous, are you?
Perhaps it's that residual fecal material behind your ears from plugging
and
unplugging your head in the wrong orifice all the time...

You might try toothpaste, too....

Steve, K4YZ

Steve, I happen to be married. Out of respect for my wife I don't
dredge up the velcroed past. But you do.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh....I see.

You can make such aspurgences against others, however vague or
insinuating, but it's not OK for others...Uh huh...

BTW...You were the one who opened THAT can of worms, so sit down and get
you a plate full, Puppet Boy.

YOU are the one making insinuating comments about how many "former"
girlfriends I may or may not have had...That it's more than one probably makes
you jealous. Too bad for you, eh...???

Sucks to be you, Brian.

Steve, K4YZ

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
Robert Casey wrote:

Nothing is ever improved by making it simpler. Despite what marketing
wonks may tell us, nothing is. Give me what you think is an example,
and I can quickly tell you why it isn't.

OK, here goes:

Way back in the 1930s, hams began to replace their "blooper"
(regenerative) receivers with "super-hets" (superheterodynes). The
added complexity of the "super" was justified by the invention of the
single signal crystal filter, which gave improved adjacent-channel
selectivity.

Those early ham supers almost all used an IF around 455 kHz, because
the available crystal filter systems worked best around that
frequency. The better ones had one or preferably two RF stages before
the mixer, to reduce image response and override the mixer noise. A
top receiver of those days might have two RF stages and three IF
stages, plus a couple of audio stages and the mixer and detector. And
even so, image response was a problem.

After WW2, the trend moved towards "double conversion". The first IF
was typically in the low HF region, to reduce images, and the second
IF much lower, to get selectivity. Some designs like Collins kept the
455 kHz second IF, while many others (National, Hallicrafters) used a
first IF around 1700 or 2215 kHz and a second IF of 50-60 kHz. Such a
low second IF meant that LC circuits could be used for the
selectivity.

Such receivers were arguably "better" - and unarguably more complex.
Compare the prewar National NC-101X with the mid-50s NC-300, or a
typical homebrew super of the '30s with an HBR. And while better in
some ways, they were worse in others.

Then packaged high-frequency crystal filters were developed (about
1957), followed by improved mixer designs such as the Pullen mixer. It
became possible to design receivers with a high IF for image
rejection, no RF stages and a much reduced parts count. The Squires
Sanders SS-1R is an example of such a design. It is simpler than, say,
an NC-300, as well as smaller, lighter and less power-hungry.

There are lots of other examples. Compare an Elecraft K2 with almost
any other current amateur HF transceiver - then compare the specs and
features. In many ways its high performance is a direct result of the
relative simplicity.

Simplification can be an improvement. But simplicity isn't always
simple, or easy.

73 de Jim, N2EY