Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
"Bathrooman" wrote in message oups.com... Language replaced grunting, burping and farting as forms of communication. I'll have to take exception to that. - Ask my wife! Charles Brabham, N5PVL Director: USPacket http://www.uspacket.org Admin: HamBlog.Com http://www.hamblog.com Weblog: http://www.hamblog.com/blog_n5pvl.php |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
"Cmd Buzz Corey" wrote in message ... Todd Daugherty wrote: I'm running an information bulletin you dickhead and no matter what the **** you think their ****ing legal so get over it! Toddyboy, why don't you go away until you pass through puberty and become mature enough to post something of revelance without the use of jr. highschool language? Well if I didn't have to talk to a bunch of morons I wouldn't have to uses such language.And FYI I'm currently in college working on my degree what about you? Do you really think that makes anyone take your rantings more seriously? NOT!!!!!!!! Do you REALLY think I care what a bunch of appliance using CB operators think....HELL NO! Todd N9OGL ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
"Cmd Buzz Corey" wrote in message ... Todd Daugherty wrote: I'm running an information bulletin you dickhead and no matter what the **** you think their ****ing legal so get over it! Toddyboy, why don't you go away until you pass through puberty and become mature enough to post something of revelance without the use of jr. highschool language? Do you really think that makes anyone take your rantings more seriously? NOT!!!!!!!! Well it's not my fault if that dumb ass doesn't know the different between a "broadcast" and a "information bulletin". I also sick of repeating myself to a bunch of dumb asses morons who can't tell the difference between the two. I will repeat it one more time; I'm running a information bulletin and information bulletins are LEGAL wither you like it or not.. Todd N9OGL ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
"Language replaced grunting, burping and farting as forms of communication."
Huh? That is a common form of syntax used on 75 meters provided it's broken into Morse(L) sized bites. -- For music, news and commentary you are not allowed to hear on corporate owned radio: http://www.live365.com/stations/pascoradio To see what's currently scheduled: http://www.live365.com/broadcast/sch...ame=pascoradio First Time Users May Be asked To Do A 1 Time Setup. The service and the player are FREE. Email me if you have problems listening. |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
Todd Daugherty N9OGL wrote:
"Cmd Buzz Corey" wrote in message ... Todd Daugherty wrote: I'm running an information bulletin you dickhead and no matter what the **** you think their ****ing legal so get over it! Toddyboy, why don't you go away until you pass through puberty and become mature enough to post something of revelance without the use of jr. highschool language? Well if I didn't have to talk to a bunch of morons I wouldn't have to uses such language. None of those you refer to as "a bunch of morons" use such language to you. If I understand you, you are being forced to use the language because others aren't taking your ideas seriously. And FYI I'm currently in college working on my degree what about you? You were able to graduate from high school with your writing skills and were accepted into a college? Do you really think that makes anyone take your rantings more seriously? NOT!!!!!!!! Do you REALLY think I care what a bunch of appliance using CB operators think....HELL NO! CB operators? You're in the wrong newsgroup. Appliance ops? Almost all of us use some or all commercial equipment these days, Todd. For me to build the equivalent of just my primary transceiver, it would need to be housed in a garden shed and would take up several years of spare time. Just so we know, what sets you aside from the rest of us? What gear do you currently use which you've designed or built yourself? Dave K8MN |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
Todd Daugherty wrote:
"Dave Heil" wrote in message ... N9OGL wrote: The old modes of communication isn't going to cut it anymore. They seem to be cutting it just fine, Todd. What new mode do you use in your clandestine "broadcasts"? I'm running an information bulletin you snipped and no matter what the snipped you think their snipped legal so get over it! Wow! That's quite a vocabulary, Todd. You've referred a number of times to your "broadcast". Your information bulletins are apparently quite hard to find. That would apparently limit their usefulness. Care to answer the question about what new modes you are using in delivering your broadcasts/information bulletins? The vast majority of people would rather get on the internet instead of getting into a hobby which has nothing to really offer in terms new modes of communication. The vast majority of people are never going to become hams. It has always been that way and will always be that way. No, not all people well get into amateur radio, but unless you can come up with new idea's the service will die. Not even a significant segment of "all people" has ever been a part of amateur radio. Do you see anything wrong with that? I was talking to other amatuers about this subject odd of the internet and agree that amateur radio will probably die off in a few years. Some people believe that we'll be ruled by a "New World Order" and that they should start hoarding can goods and MRE's. That doesn't mean that it is likely to happen. Your term "odd of the internet" might be a good description of the folks who believe such things. Many amateur radio operators can face the fact that amateur radio is slowly falling behind in technology and thus in turn is slowly dying off. You've managed to dump a couple of false premises in one sentence. You're wrong about technology and about amateur radio dying. Oh really, what NEW technologies has amatuer radio come up with worth getting into? Amateur are falling behind that's the truth. How about defending one wild idea at a time before moving on to the next? You didn't write anything earlier about amateur radio coming up with new technologies worth getting into, you wrote about amateur radio falling behind in technology. It isn't. Individual people who happen to be radio amateurs have often been on the cutting edge of technological development. "Amateur Radio" as a whole doesn't create technology. Individuals do. Amateur radio will not grow if you can't get people into the service. Amateur radio licensing numbers are near an all time high. Not true, according to the statistics last year amateur radio went up and down in the number of people entering the service. last month it was down by over 1,000 people. What percentage of 600,000 or so individuals is 1,000? Do you think that 599,000 people is near an all time high number of American radio amateurs? You can drop the licensing structure down to nothing but no one will come into a hobby without dated modes of communication. I'm too busy laughing at your sentence to give you a serious reply, Todd. Anything further on those hobbies without dated modes of communication? Dave K8MN |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
N9OGL wrote: The point of the argument is for amateur's radio to grow amateurs are going to have to compete with the internet. Nothing new about that! Amateur radio has always had to compete with other pastimes ... TV, video games, baseball, stamp collecting, chasing girls (boys), skateboarding, fishing, ..... It's not an "either/or" deal. I have many pastimes .... amateur radio doesn't get tossed out the window because I gain some other new interest. Your point doesn't hold water. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
Todd Daugherty N9OGL wrote:
"Cmd Buzz Corey" wrote in message ... Todd Daugherty wrote: I'm running an information bulletin you dickhead and no matter what the **** you think their ****ing legal so get over it! Toddyboy, why don't you go away until you pass through puberty and become mature enough to post something of revelance without the use of jr. highschool language? Well if I didn't have to talk to a bunch of morons I wouldn't have to uses such language. I think you have it backwards on just who the moron is. And FYI I'm currently in college working on my degree What degree is that, "how to be jerk"? what about you? Did that a long time ago toddyboy, but unlike you, I grew up before I did it too. Do you really think that makes anyone take your rantings more seriously? NOT!!!!!!!! Do you REALLY think I care what a bunch of appliance using CB operators think....HELL NO! Todd N9OGL Obviously you don't care what anyone thinks, but that's your problem, however your silly immature rantings do not impress anyone. Like I say, get through pimples and puberty, grow up to the point you can communicate like a mature adult without all the jr. highschool vulguarities, then maybe someone will take you half-way seriously. |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
From: "Dan/W4NTI" on Thurs, Feb 24 2005 10:08 pm
Hams do contribute to the state of the art. Where do you think SSTV came from ? Just one example. Bell Labs and the "PicturePhone"? :-) Went into service on the Bell System over four decades ago, got deleted for lack of interest/use some years ago. Worked on a very limited bandwidth. The genesis of Slow-Scan TV began in several places. One could say its start was the first Facsimile...very slow data rate. A very close cousin was early television, also done at a very slow data rate considering their dependency on mechanical scanning. A few amateurs tried to advance into professional ranks with the mechanical scanning TV but none were successful. All that was before the USA got into WW2. During WW2, TV was rather limited but "wirephoto" facsimile got popular on wired communications circuits. A medium-scan-rate TV system was used on some experimental guided bombs late in WW2. "FAX" got its acronym-name during that war and was used for graphics such as weather maps sent out over HF radio circuits. With the end of WW2 began the virtual explosion of broadcast television and the availability of TV camera tubes, TV picture tubes, newer circuit technology (DuMont "flying spot" system, a sort of reversed light-subject-camera arrangement) and wide- band modulation (6 MHz in the USA, included audio). There began lots of research into Information Theory and Bandwidth in the late 1940s which resulted in insight to necessary bandwidths to maintain low error rates ("Shannon's Law" of 1948). Many different experiments began to send "live" TV at reduced bandwidths and the Bell "PicturePhone" was just such a system which did go into service in the NYC area. Information Theory got a few boosts from greater efforts of cryptologists during the Cold War trying to devise better codes for sensitive communications. Information Theory eventually morphed into the Motion Picture Experts Group (MPEG) which had formed about the same time as the explosion of the desktop personal computer during the 1980s. MPEG was based on earlier work using "blocks" of picture elements and their examination of redundancies plus the availability of new and better digital logic circuits to process the image blocks. Nearly all amateur "slow-scan TV" is little more than high-rate facsimile...on the order of the "PicturePhone" imaging. None of it is the moving picture quality found on the modern enhanced cellular telephones using MPEG compression-expansion of image data. "Modern television" (defined as all-electronic scanning) is wide bandwidth to preserve image quality. What is broadcast, even with old-style black-and-white "original" NTSC standards, is quite good. Any "NEMO" watcher (NEtwork MOnitor) viewing the direct input from a microwave relay link can tell you that. The same with the "air monitor" checking transmitted video. Early domestic-production TV receivers deliberately limited bandwidth to reduce costs, resulting in receiver picture quality being awful to poor compared with what was transmitted. The picture quality on amateur SSTV is approximately the same as early domestic-production TV receivers, but SSTV cannot handle motion nearly as well. Modern FAX standards use some data compression but that is limited. Picture quality there is reduced compared to what was possible with older, uncompressed facsimile. Amateur SSTV is NOT an "original" thing from hams but rather an adaptation to stay within shrinking RF spectrum on VHF and above available to amateurs. If it were ever standardized as to scan rates and bandwidth, there would be a chance for improvement. As it is, it remains a novelty, something good for the editors of QST to crow about. "PicturePhone" went into the dumpster long ago and SSTV will probably wind up there. |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
|
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Amateur Radio Newslineâ„¢ Report 1415 Â September 24, 2004 | Broadcasting | |||
Amateur Radio Newslineâ„¢ Report 1400 Â June 11, 2004 | General | |||
209 English-language HF Broadcasts audible in NE US (04-APR-04) | Shortwave | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1379 – January 16, 2004 | Shortwave | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1379 – January 16, 2004 | Dx |