|
Dee Flint wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Phil Kane wrote: On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 12:55:51 -0400, Michael Coslo wrote: If you don't have room for good food then you don't have room for junk. Dessert is junk???? Not when K0CKB puts it on the dining table! Maybe you need some of her recipes, if your desserts are "junk"! Refined sugar is indeed junk. No matter how good it tastes. One of my wife's avocations is specialty dessert and cake catering (she's taught that for years and at times has even made money doing it commercially). Her specialty is diabetic-safe products (I'm a diabetic) - low fat and no refined (or unrefined) sugar. She duplicates about 95% of what one can find on a fancy "sweet table" (marshmellow requires the crystalline structure of "real" sugar) and I most certainly do not suffer from a lack of "goodies" all year round. Sounds awfully yummy, Phil. I'm not anti-sweet, just anti-sugar. Dessert is one of the basic food groups..... ggg In my family, desserts were not really all that big a thing. Some sweets around the holidays, but otherwise we were (are) big meat eaters. Kinda like leftover hunter gatherers... 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - I understand the feeling. When I was growing up, we had "meat, potatoes, and gravy" as our main staple. For a change, we had "potatoes, gravy, and meat!" Dee D. Flint, N8UZE In the Army chow halls, you're actually allowed to tell them to "hold the gravy." Otherwise... |
"bb" wrote in message
oups.com... KØHB wrote: "Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... No other part of the testing is a skill. My point EXACTLY, Mike. While there are many skills associated with our hobby, only one of those skills is singled out for a required demonstration. Interestingly, if that skill is so vital as to need a skill demonstration, it would seem that no-one who had not been tested would be allowed to use it on the air. Yet a basic Technician licensee is perfectly free to use Morse on the air without having passed a Morse test. So much for the need for a demonstration before a license grant! 73, de Hans, K0HB I wonder how VE Dee would accomodate the disabled in the Tower Climbing pass/fail skill exam? Not that Tower climbing will likely ever become an issue with the exam, but if it were, then I'd suggest there would be questions relating to the proper safety techniques of doing such a job, wherein "actual" "physical" demonstration is not needed nor required. Given that - a wheel chair bound person "could" pass those parts of an exam. I can't fathom tower climbing becoming a major issue. There is a question or so relating to wearing a "hard hat" when working "near" a tower in case someone drops a tool or other item. So, there ya go. Perhaps you can consider that as a step in the "tower" safety process. It would be only "questions" relating to such things, what's the big deal about pass/fail? You either answer the question correctly as you would be expected to with any other - or you don't! We have to count the number of correct answers given and see it they add up to a passing grade, if not - too bad! It won't matter if they're handicapped or not. We can accommodate them as to taking the exam, we don't accommodate them as to giving them the "answers". cl |
Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in news:1114118689.984407.281600 @f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com: Alun L. Palmer wrote: wrote in news:1113743129.236382.299700 @l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com: Mel A. Nomah wrote: "Hamguy" wrote in message ... : http://www.hamwave.com/cgi-bin/index...iewnews&id=689 That link supposes that the fcc will delete the Morse requirement. Other insiders suggest fcc will NPRM will delete Morse only for General license, and will INCREASE the test to 20WPM for renewed Extra class, downgrading all current "Extra Lite" licenses to resurrected Advanced license (the second time this license has risen from the ashes). ARRL giveaway program will be denied. All it really says is that the FCC is working on an NPRM that may be out as soon as next month or as late as July. That NPRM will obviously contain what FCC wants to do as a result of WRC 2003 and the 18 restructuring petitions. Once the NPRM becomes public, there will be a comment period, then a reply comment period. Couple of months at least, maybe longer. Probably the end of 2005 before comments close. This is based on what FCC has done in the past. Then FCC will decide what to do and formulate a Report and Order. Last time they did this it took almost a year. Which translates to fall 2006. Then a couple months before the new rules become effective - maybe end of 2006. Of course it could take even longer, or maybe a bit less. But I wouldn't expect any changes before summer 2006 - and wouldn't be surprised if it were summer 2007. 73 de Jim, N2EY You're being a Jonah again, Jim. Hello Alun, I'm not sure what you mean by "being a Jonah". Does it have anything to do with the bible story of Jonah and the whale - aka "You Can't Keep A Good Man Down"? It means someone preaching doom Well, I wasn't trying to do that! But the way FCC has worked in the past, I wouldn't count on fast changes. That's the reality of how the process works. 73 de Jim, N2EY the announcement guesstimates all done within a year, i.e. by spring '06. So they meant *next* summer (2006), not *this* summer (2005). Sounds about right to me. Granted that the comments about what the FCC might do (and the title of the post) were all the poster's own, and not Hamwave's. Exactly. My time estimates are based on what FCC has done in the past on a number of issues. FCC doesn't seem to be in any big hurry to change the rules - heck, it's been over 5 years since the last restructure, over 21 months since WRC 2003 ended, and yet there's no NPRM on the street yet. My own crystal ball guess is that the FCC will just delete the code test and rearrange some subbands around this time next year. That's still much longer than I originally thought. My guess is there will be some more-substantive changes, and that the code test deletion isn't a done deal - yet. I base the above on the fact that FCC could have simply dumped Element 1 back in summer 2003, without an NPRM, comments, or any of the rest. They received at least two proposals to do just that. All it would take is for FCC to say, in effect: "This subject was discussed thoroughly back in 1998-1999, and we kept Element 1 only because of the treaty. Now the treaty's gone, so we're dropping Element 1." Or some such verbiage - the basic idea is still the same. There's a procedure for such changes. Yet there have been no changes yet, just proposals *to* FCC, and comments. Last time FCC did a restructure, the comment period was what - six-seven months or more? Then it took about 11 months for the Report and Order, and another four months or so before the rules changed. That's over 20 months from NPRM to new rules in effect. 21 months from summer 2005 is spring 2007. Maybe FCC will say something at Dayton. Maybe not. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
KØHB wrote:
"Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... No other part of the testing is a skill. My point EXACTLY, Mike. While there are many skills associated with our hobby, only one of those skills is singled out for a required demonstration. Interestingly, if that skill is so vital as to need a skill demonstration, it would seem that no-one who had not been tested would be allowed to use it on the air. Yet a basic Technician licensee is perfectly free to use Morse on the air without having passed a Morse test. So much for the need for a demonstration before a license grant! I see it as a license progression thing. The Morse code is the skill demonstration, and HF access is the carrot. I know someone who is going to bust my chops now!!! 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... KØHB wrote: "Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... No other part of the testing is a skill. My point EXACTLY, Mike. While there are many skills associated with our hobby, only one of those skills is singled out for a required demonstration. Interestingly, if that skill is so vital as to need a skill demonstration, it would seem that no-one who had not been tested would be allowed to use it on the air. Yet a basic Technician licensee is perfectly free to use Morse on the air without having passed a Morse test. So much for the need for a demonstration before a license grant! I see it as a license progression thing. The Morse code is the skill demonstration, and HF access is the carrot. But the skill demonstration should bear relationship to the privilege granted as a RESULT of that demonstration. In other words, USE of Morse should be restricted only to those who have successfully demonstrated their skill. Or to use your example, the USE of Morse should be the carrot offered as a result of passing a Morse test. But by FCC regulation, a code-free Technician is allowed to use Morse on the air WITHOUT a successful Morse demonstration, and the "demonstrate BEFORE privilege" model is disconnected; ergo the demonstration is not vital to the successful use of the mode and serves no rational regulatory purpose. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
"cl" wrote in message o.verio.net... "bb" wrote in message oups.com... [snip] I wonder how VE Dee would accomodate the disabled in the Tower Climbing pass/fail skill exam? Tower climbing is not a basic skill so there is no need to test for it. One can put up a wide variety of antennas without a tower. On the other hand, I've often thought that a person (unless handicapped) should demonstrate putting a simple PL-256 on coax. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Dee Flint wrote: "cl" wrote in message o.verio.net... "bb" wrote in message oups.com... [snip] I wonder how VE Dee would accomodate the disabled in the Tower Climbing pass/fail skill exam? Tower climbing is not a basic skill so there is no need to test for it. One can put up a wide variety of antennas without a tower. On the other hand, I've often thought that a person (unless handicapped) should demonstrate putting a simple PL-256 on coax. Blasphemy! Off with your head! Dee D. Flint, N8UZE w3rv |
cl wrote: "bb" wrote in message oups.com... K=D8HB wrote: "Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... No other part of the testing is a skill. My point EXACTLY, Mike. While there are many skills associated with our hobby, only one of those skills is singled out for a required demonstration. Interestingly, if that skill is so vital as to need a skill demonstration, it would seem that no-one who had not been tested would be allowed to use it on the air. Yet a basic Technician licensee is perfectly free to use Morse on the air without having passed a Morse test. So much for the need for a demonstration before a license grant! 73, de Hans, K0HB I wonder how VE Dee would accomodate the disabled in the Tower Climbing pass/fail skill exam? Not that Tower climbing will likely ever become an issue with the exam, I'm going to advocate it during the next NPRM. but if it were, then I'd suggest there would be questions relating to the proper safety techniques of doing such a job, No questions. They need to climb a 60 foot tower, haul up the coax and an HF-tribander, fasten it, point it north, and make the connections. wherein "actual" "physical" demonstration is not needed nor required. But it is. Otherwise, how would we know they could do it? Given that - a wheel chair bound person "could" pass those parts of an exam. I can't fathom tower climbing becoming a major issue. Yet Morse Code has become a major issue. Just because not everyone is going to have a tower is no excuse for not being able to demonstrate the ability. |
K=D8HB wrote: "Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... K=D8HB wrote: "Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... No other part of the testing is a skill. My point EXACTLY, Mike. While there are many skills associated with our hobby, only one of those skills is singled out for a required demonstration. Interestingly, if that skill is so vital as to need a skill demonstration, it would seem that no-one who had not been tested would be allowed to use it on the air. Yet a basic Technician licensee is perfectly free to use Morse on the air without having passed a Morse test. So much for the need for a demonstration before a license grant! I see it as a license progression thing. The Morse code is the skill demonstration, and HF access is the carrot. But the skill demonstration should bear relationship to the privilege granted as a RESULT of that demonstration. In other words, USE of Morse should be restricted only to those who have successfully demonstrated their skill. Or to use your example, the USE of Morse should be the carrot offered as a result of passing a Morse test. But by FCC regulation, a code-free Technician is allowed to use Morse on the air WITHOUT a successful Morse demonstration, and the "demonstrate BEFORE privilege" model is disconnected; ergo the demonstration is not vital to the successful use of the mode and serves no rational regulatory purpose. =20 73, de Hans, K0HB We deserve logical regulations. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:18 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com