From: Mike Coslo on Thurs 26 May 2005 22:04


Should I be mad at the person who spends $500 today because s/he got a
new Dell for 1/4 what I paid 8 years ago?

Obviously some do!

I just like to tweak some of the folk who *know* that the hams of old
were so superior. As time goes on, I hear of old time 20 meter and 80
meter shenanigans, and there was no no-coders to blame it on, just
people who passed their difficult tests in front of a steely eyed F.C.C
agent, after having to travel 5000 miles in a blizzard or monsoon or
dust storm or whatever with cardboard tied to their feet and two hot
potatoes in their pockets for sustenance... ;^)

[don't forget uphill both ways... :-) ]

Things like that are for the most part just examples of how time has
changed.

Ah, but some PEOPLE don't change that much, Mike! :-)

Everything has to be to THEIR WAY when they "made their mark"
as valiant Radio Pioneers of HF the "hard way," they thought
they were the only ones who "worked for it!" [all others got
it "free" or something, never ever actually working for
anything]

In 1945 a young "unknown" writer got an article published in
Wireless World magazine about a revolutionary new idea of using
three satellites in geosynchronous orbits to relay communications
around the globe. Of course, nobody had yet put any satellites
UP there, much less develop rockets that could place them there.
"Experts" in radio of that time generally thought it too "blue
sky" to be practical, a few saying it was "preposterous." About
1998 (give or take) there was a lot of argument about who could
be alloted the LAST of the equatorial orbits for communications
satellites...the spaces had been FILLED. 24/7 communications
satellites have been a common thing for over two decades now,
none of them bothered by the vagaries of the ionosphere.

The young writer had worked for the RAF during WW2 developing
GCA (Ground Controlled Approach) or "blind landing system."
He was a junior "boffin" or technical engineer, had never built
such a communications system before, never even worked on
rockets. He sort of dropped out of the electronics field and
became a novelist, concentrating on science-fiction. He's still
living, in Sri Lanka, still writing, still active. His name is
Arthur C. Clarke, author of dozens of best-selling novels.

If Clarke had such an "interest" in radio and communications,
then he should have become a licensed radio amateur in the
UK FIRST according to the Political Correctness of some in
here. Can't have any of that speculative nonsense about the
future! Everything "best" can only be done on HF bands and
the "best" way to do that is by morse code! [that's why all
the other radio services on HF still use morse code? :-) ]

I guess it is VITAL and IMPORTANT that ALL amateurs KEEP all
the anachronisms of the past alive, as A Living Museum of
Radio, doing EXACTLY as the pioneers did it over a half
century ago. NO deviations, everything according to
Procedure, By the Book, Tradition held to the nth degree,
Marching In Ranks to the Morse Drumbeat, etc., just as
these other expert gurus of amateur radio did in Their youth.

All that for a HOBBY...?

bit, bit

wrote:

I guess it is VITAL and IMPORTANT that ALL amateurs KEEP all
the anachronisms of the past alive, as A Living Museum of
Radio, doing EXACTLY as the pioneers did it over a half
century ago. NO deviations, everything according to
Procedure, By the Book, Tradition held to the nth degree,
Marching In Ranks to the Morse Drumbeat, etc., just as
these other expert gurus of amateur radio did in Their youth.

You keep making this assertion, Lennie, and it's just stone cold
proof of MY assertion that you're an unrelenting liar without one bit
of fact, substantiation or corroboration.

Thanks for proving me right...again...

Steve, K4YZ

Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

wrote:

Michael Coslo wrote:


Cmd Buzz Corey wrote:


John Smith wrote:

So it's really immaterial what the old exams were like, other than to
point out the differences. Newer hams have no choice in the matter -
they can't take the old tests even if they wanted to.

Indeed, what would be the reason? Those old tests aren't really
relevant today.

The subject matter, maybe. Replace questions about mercury-vapor
rectifiers with ones about silicon diodes, for example.

One poster asked questions about push-pull amps and
obscure modulation schemes. (except to a few AM'ers) While all this is
very interesting - it isn't relevant to most of hamming today.

The point is that, in the opinion of a number of people, the old exams
- actually the old exam *methods* - required a different sort of
understanding of the material covered than today's exams.

One more difference about the old tests, though: Judging by the
study guides, the old tests focused on a few subject areas in depth,
while the new tests cover more subject areas but in much less detail.

Take the subject of, say, Ohm's Law for DC circuits. With the exam
methods used today, we know the exact form and content of each question
that could appear on the test. No surprises. If someone can get the
right answer to the Ohm's Law problems in the pool, they're all set,
regardless of their understanding.

But in the old test methods, we did not know the exact form of the
Ohm's Law questions. We only knew there would be some. So most
prospective hams learned how to solve all sorts of problems with Ohm's
Law.

There were study guides with sample questions, but no
questions pools with the exact answer available for memorization.

Now if you want *really* hard, make it no study guide, no question
pool, and the applicant has to do all the learning research with NO
idea of what is on the test! 8^)


The old study guides were essay-type Q&A that outlined the general area
of knowledge. One question could cover a *lot* of ground. The old Extra
study guide was as much as 279 questions at one point.



If you
did not know the theory, then you probably weren't going to pass.
Again john smith knows not of what he speaks.

I took the tests from the question pools. For me, they were all
pretty easy. They were not easy because of the question pools. They were
easy because they were fairly basic material.


But you had seen the exact Q&A before, right?

Weell, the key word is "exact". I noticed that when I took my Extra
exam, many of the answers appeared in a different order than they were
in the question pool. I came away convinced that the person who
memorized the question pool was actually doing things the hard way.


The way most people would set out to "memorize" the Q&A is to simply
learn to associate the right answer with the question by any means
possible. You don't need a verbatim memorization nor any info about the
distractors.

That's a lot different than actually understanding the material.


Do you really think "most" people would do that?

If they want to memorize the pool, yes. I don't know how many people
want to do that.

I would expect that I
have something in common with most who want to become a ham, which is to
say an abiding interest in the subject. As a person who came up through
the pool system, it didn't take much time to figure out that I was going
to spend a lot more time memorizing the test than I would just learning
the material.

Memorizing in this context doesn't mean being able to regenerate the
questions and answers verbatim. It just means remembering enough to
connect the right answer to the question, after having seen both
before.

For the Extra, I spent a week taking the on-line tests. Questions
that I knew the answer to, I got right of course.

Those that I got wrong earned me a trip to the books or online to
find out why I got it wrong. By the time I was finished, I aced the test
just about every time on line, and then in the actual test.

And I knew the material.

Elapsed time, one week.


For you.

Absolutely.


But I bet you had more than a little electrical/radio knowledge before
you ever looked at a ham radio study guide.

Yup. I think that my level of expertise was just a little skewed. I got
sidelined onto computers fairly early in the 1970's. Then I worked
mostly in digital, then changed careers, going into photography,
videography, and 3-d animation (waaayy too many hats to wear, but
whatever) But I did have a good bit of electrical experience


So you knew most of the material already! And what you didn't know was
more of
an extension to your existing knowledge base in the electricity area,
rather
than a completely new field.


Now the Morse code was another thing entirely. That was hard.


Besides your auditory situation, it was hard for another reason: It was
new,
and did not represent an extension of your existing knowledge base the
way
learning some more electronic/radio theory did.


But then I'm just a dum nickel extra! ;^)


I bet it says the same thing on your license as it does on mine. With
no mention of dumb or nickles, Mike.

Each of us met the requirements in force at the time of being licensed.
That the requirements changed over time isn't usually due to the people taking
the new tests.

Yup. My comment was mostly sarcasm. The only way that anyone knows my
"vintage" is by my callsign


Sort of. I know hams with 2x3 callsigns who have been Extras for 30+
years. They
just never went for a vanity call.


Looking down on somebody today because they didn't take the same tests
you took years ago is kind of like getting mad at someone who paid less
for a VCR last week than you paid 20 years ago....

HAR!


But isn't that true?

Back in 1997 I paid over $2k for a new Dell system. 200 MHz 32 MB
Pentium II, 17" Trinitron monitor, HP 820 printer, etc. Today you
couldn't get $50 for it (if you
could even find someone to buy it!) - in part because for $500 you
could buy a new Dell system that was an order of magnitude more
computer in almost every way.

Should I be mad at the person who spends $500 today because s/he got a
new Dell for 1/4 what I paid 8 years ago?

Obviously some do!

But not me.

I just like to tweak some of the folk who *know* that the hams of old
were so superior.

Some were, some weren't.

As time goes on, I hear of old time 20 meter and 80
meter shenanigans, and there was no no-coders to blame it on, just
people who passed their difficult tests in front of a steely eyed F.C.C
agent, after having to travel 5000 miles in a blizzard or monsoon or
dust storm or whatever with cardboard tied to their feet and two hot
potatoes in their pockets for sustenance... ;^)

I recall a time when it was extremely rare to hear an intentional
violation on the ham bands. Things like the "L1berty Net", W6NUT and
14.313 simply did not exist. There was nothing on the ham bands that
wasn't "G rated". A very large part of the reason was that hams had a
culture - a tradition - of keeping it that way. PArt of that tradition
was that the license was valued as an achievement and an investment of
time and effort.

Things like that are for the most part just examples of how time has
changed.

Here's another way to look at it:

Suppose you trained (like I did) to run a 26.22 mile marathon. And
suppose you completed a couple of them, earning the right to describe
yourself as a marathon runner.

Now suppose some people complained that the marathon distance was too
long, and kept out too many. So they get the marathon distance changed
to 5 miles, and call themselves marathon runners too.

How would that make you feel?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Scott in Baltimore" wrote in message
...
-.-. --.- ?


Hello, Scott

Where the heck have you been of late? I gotta laugh, I have to make the
sounds to copy the -.-. stuff on the computer. Dots and dashes make little
sense to me - sounds, however, are something else.

I'm back on a DSL account again. Whew! Dial-up was a killer.

73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

"K4YZ" wrote in message
oups.com...


wrote:

I guess it is VITAL and IMPORTANT that ALL amateurs KEEP all
the anachronisms of the past alive, as A Living Museum of
Radio, doing EXACTLY as the pioneers did it over a half
century ago. NO deviations, everything according to
Procedure, By the Book, Tradition held to the nth degree,
Marching In Ranks to the Morse Drumbeat, etc., just as
these other expert gurus of amateur radio did in Their youth.

You keep making this assertion, Lennie, and it's just stone cold
proof of MY assertion that you're an unrelenting liar without one bit
of fact, substantiation or corroboration.

Thanks for proving me right...again...

Steve, K4YZ


Steve,

Where does Lennie come up with all this tripe? I read most of what is going
on here with the knife fighting. But I certainly don't see where those that
enjoy CW and HF are "stuck in the mud" so to speak.

This is a sincere question. I guess I just don't understand his mindset.

Dan/W4NTI

Jim Hampton wrote:
-.-. --.- ?
Where the heck have you been of late? I gotta laugh, I have to make the
sounds to copy the -.-. stuff on the computer. Dots and dashes make little
sense to me - sounds, however, are something else.


I'm around, just not here. I can't believe that alpha-hotel is still at it!


I'm back on a DSL account again. Whew! Dial-up was a killer.


Dial-up is like connecting a piece of fish tank airhose to a fire
hydrant and trying to get a glass of water when you're really thirsty!

From: on Fri 27 May 2005 15:19

Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

Here's another way to look at it:

Suppose you trained (like I did) to run a 26.22 mile marathon. And
suppose you completed a couple of them, earning the right to describe
yourself as a marathon runner.

Now suppose some people complained that the marathon distance was too
long, and kept out too many. So they get the marathon distance changed
to 5 miles, and call themselves marathon runners too.

How would that make you feel?

Awwwwwwww...ain't that a darn shame?!?

Outside of starting with the letter M, I don't see ANY
comparison of marathon running to morse code.

The FCC doesn't require ANY athletic skill/talent/expertise
to get ANY radio operator license.

Sunnuvagun! [TM Hans Brakob, more or less]

Suppose you were an original radio amateur like thousands that
came before you, training and working real hard to learn and
be expert in SPARK transmitter technology...then the nasty
federal authorities BANNED SPARK forever! And those darn feds
had the NERVE to allow newcomers into ham radio without ANY
knowledge or experience of SPARK! SPARK was the BEGINNING
for hundreds of early radio amateurs in the USA! BASIC!

FAX me your TS card, I'll punch it...you poor baby...

wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:


wrote:


Michael Coslo wrote:


Cmd Buzz Corey wrote:


John Smith wrote:

So it's really immaterial what the old exams were like, other than to
point out the differences. Newer hams have no choice in the matter -
they can't take the old tests even if they wanted to.

Indeed, what would be the reason? Those old tests aren't really
relevant today.


The subject matter, maybe. Replace questions about mercury-vapor
rectifiers with ones about silicon diodes, for example.

No argument there.


One poster asked questions about push-pull amps and
obscure modulation schemes. (except to a few AM'ers) While all this is
very interesting - it isn't relevant to most of hamming today.


The point is that, in the opinion of a number of people, the old exams
- actually the old exam *methods* - required a different sort of
understanding of the material covered than today's exams.

Yes.


One more difference about the old tests, though: Judging by the
study guides, the old tests focused on a few subject areas in depth,
while the new tests cover more subject areas but in much less detail.


Take the subject of, say, Ohm's Law for DC circuits. With the exam
methods used today, we know the exact form and content of each question
that could appear on the test. No surprises. If someone can get the
right answer to the Ohm's Law problems in the pool, they're all set,
regardless of their understanding.

But in the old test methods, we did not know the exact form of the
Ohm's Law questions. We only knew there would be some. So most
prospective hams learned how to solve all sorts of problems with Ohm's
Law.

Okay. Now comes the question of how to reconcile the in-depth
questioning of the old tests with the large amount of new material that
would be needed to accommodate what has transpired since the good old days.

About the only way I can think of to accomplish this would be to add a
LOT of questions to the test.


There were study guides with sample questions, but no
questions pools with the exact answer available for memorization.

Now if you want *really* hard, make it no study guide, no question
pool, and the applicant has to do all the learning research with NO
idea of what is on the test! 8^)


The old study guides were essay-type Q&A that outlined the general area
of knowledge. One question could cover a *lot* of ground. The old Extra
study guide was as much as 279 questions at one point.




If you
did not know the theory, then you probably weren't going to pass.
Again john smith knows not of what he speaks.

I took the tests from the question pools. For me, they were all
pretty easy. They were not easy because of the question pools. They were
easy because they were fairly basic material.


But you had seen the exact Q&A before, right?

Weell, the key word is "exact". I noticed that when I took my Extra
exam, many of the answers appeared in a different order than they were
in the question pool. I came away convinced that the person who
memorized the question pool was actually doing things the hard way.


The way most people would set out to "memorize" the Q&A is to simply
learn to associate the right answer with the question by any means
possible. You don't need a verbatim memorization nor any info about the
distractors.

That's a lot different than actually understanding the material.


Do you really think "most" people would do that?


If they want to memorize the pool, yes. I don't know how many people
want to do that.

Right. I think that most people that want to learn above the Technician
level *want* to know the material.

And frankly, there were enough bad eggs let in under the old system,
that I think that those who tout the superior Hams produced by the old
system might want to consider the subject before yapping about folks
like me.


I would expect that I
have something in common with most who want to become a ham, which is to
say an abiding interest in the subject. As a person who came up through
the pool system, it didn't take much time to figure out that I was going
to spend a lot more time memorizing the test than I would just learning
the material.


Memorizing in this context doesn't mean being able to regenerate the
questions and answers verbatim. It just means remembering enough to
connect the right answer to the question, after having seen both
before.


For the Extra, I spent a week taking the on-line tests. Questions
that I knew the answer to, I got right of course.

Those that I got wrong earned me a trip to the books or online to
find out why I got it wrong. By the time I was finished, I aced the test
just about every time on line, and then in the actual test.

And I knew the material.

Elapsed time, one week.


For you.

Absolutely.



But I bet you had more than a little electrical/radio knowledge before
you ever looked at a ham radio study guide.

Yup. I think that my level of expertise was just a little skewed. I got
sidelined onto computers fairly early in the 1970's. Then I worked
mostly in digital, then changed careers, going into photography,
videography, and 3-d animation (waaayy too many hats to wear, but
whatever) But I did have a good bit of electrical experience


So you knew most of the material already! And what you didn't know was
more of
an extension to your existing knowledge base in the electricity area,
rather
than a completely new field.


Now the Morse code was another thing entirely. That was hard.


Besides your auditory situation, it was hard for another reason: It was
new,
and did not represent an extension of your existing knowledge base the
way
learning some more electronic/radio theory did.



But then I'm just a dum nickel extra! ;^)


I bet it says the same thing on your license as it does on mine. With
no mention of dumb or nickles, Mike.

Each of us met the requirements in force at the time of being licensed.
That the requirements changed over time isn't usually due to the people taking
the new tests.

Yup. My comment was mostly sarcasm. The only way that anyone knows my
"vintage" is by my callsign


Sort of. I know hams with 2x3 callsigns who have been Extras for 30+
years. They
just never went for a vanity call.



Looking down on somebody today because they didn't take the same tests
you took years ago is kind of like getting mad at someone who paid less
for a VCR last week than you paid 20 years ago....

HAR!


But isn't that true?

Back in 1997 I paid over $2k for a new Dell system. 200 MHz 32 MB
Pentium II, 17" Trinitron monitor, HP 820 printer, etc. Today you
couldn't get $50 for it (if you
could even find someone to buy it!) - in part because for $500 you
could buy a new Dell system that was an order of magnitude more
computer in almost every way.

Should I be mad at the person who spends $500 today because s/he got a
new Dell for 1/4 what I paid 8 years ago?

Obviously some do!


But not me.

I just like to tweak some of the folk who *know* that the hams of old
were so superior.


Some were, some weren't.


As time goes on, I hear of old time 20 meter and 80
meter shenanigans, and there was no no-coders to blame it on, just
people who passed their difficult tests in front of a steely eyed F.C.C
agent, after having to travel 5000 miles in a blizzard or monsoon or
dust storm or whatever with cardboard tied to their feet and two hot
potatoes in their pockets for sustenance... ;^)


I recall a time when it was extremely rare to hear an intentional
violation on the ham bands. Things like the "L1berty Net", W6NUT and
14.313 simply did not exist. There was nothing on the ham bands that
wasn't "G rated". A very large part of the reason was that hams had a
culture - a tradition - of keeping it that way. PArt of that tradition
was that the license was valued as an achievement and an investment of
time and effort.

Things like that are for the most part just examples of how time has
changed.


Here's another way to look at it:

Suppose you trained (like I did) to run a 26.22 mile marathon. And
suppose you completed a couple of them, earning the right to describe
yourself as a marathon runner.

Now suppose some people complained that the marathon distance was too
long, and kept out too many. So they get the marathon distance changed
to 5 miles, and call themselves marathon runners too.

How would that make you feel?

Well, of course there are many different distances that can be run.

But your point as I see it is that things have been made so much easier
that people such as myself can just step in easily, following in the
footsteps of people who had to really *earn* their licenses.

Those who came before are therefore justified in resenting the
newcomers because we didn't have to prove ourselves (take the harder test)

That there are people out there that feel that way is of no doubt.
Personally, I think they are a much greater threat to the health of the
ARS than us nickel types. I've watched them belittle the new guys to
their face. Thats no way to encourage folks.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:
Cmd Buzz Corey wrote:
John Smith wrote:
So it's really immaterial what the old exams were
like, other than to
point out the differences. Newer hams have no choice
in the matter -
they can't take the old tests even if they wanted to.

Indeed, what would be the reason? Those old tests
aren't really relevant today.

The subject matter, maybe. Replace questions about
mercury-vapor
rectifiers with ones about silicon diodes, for example.

No argument there.

That sort of replacement has been going on continuously.

One poster asked questions about push-pull amps and
obscure modulation schemes. (except to a few AM'ers)
While all this is
very interesting - it isn't relevant to most of hamming today.

The point is that, in the opinion of a number of people,
the old exams
- actually the old exam *methods* - required a
different sort of
understanding of the material covered than today's exams.

Yes.

That's really the crux of the whole issue.

One more difference about the old tests, though:
Judging by the
study guides, the old tests focused on a few subject
areas in depth,
while the new tests cover more subject areas but
in much less detail.

Take the subject of, say, Ohm's Law for DC circuits.
With the exam
methods used today, we know the exact form and content
of each question
that could appear on the test. No surprises. If someone
can get the
right answer to the Ohm's Law problems in the pool,
they're all set, regardless of their understanding.

But in the old test methods, we did not know the exact
form of the
Ohm's Law questions. We only knew there would be some. So most
prospective hams learned how to solve all sorts
of problems with Ohm's Law.

Okay. Now comes the question of how to reconcile the in-depth
questioning of the old tests with the large amount of new
material that
would be needed to accommodate what has transpired since
the good old days.

Part of the solution is the replacement mentioned above. Another
is to enlarge the question pools, not just in quantity but in
variety of questions.

About the only way I can think of to accomplish this
would be to add a LOT of questions to the test.

FCC policy disagrees.

Consider the written testing required to step from
General to Extra. In the really bad
old days (before 1967, when the Advanced was closed off)
a prospective Extra had to take a written test of ~100 questions.

After 1967, that test was split into two tests (Advanced and
Extra) totalling about the same number of questions.

Before the 2000 restructuring, the step took two tests totalling 90
questions.

Now it takes one 50 question test.

See the pattern?


Right. I think that most people that want to learn above
the Technician level *want* to know the material.

Depends entirely on the person. And the point is what
the *system* tends to reward.

And frankly, there were enough bad eggs let in under
the old system,
that I think that those who tout the superior Hams
produced by the old
system might want to consider the subject before
yapping about folks like me.

How many bad eggs? And what kind? I was there - nothing like
W6NUT, 3950 or 14.313 existed back then. Nothing like ex-KG6IRO
and the guy on the West Coast who sent false distress signals
on the marine VHF band.

Yes, some hams back
then did break the rules. But compare the violations of those
days to the violations of today, in both number and quantity.

*No* test, code or written, can be a perfect "bad egg filter".
Particularly not a one-shot test that confers privileges that
are renewable indefinitely.

But that doesn't mean there's no difference between tests and
test methods.

Back in 1997 I paid over $2k for a new Dell system. 200 MHz 32 MB
Pentium II, 17" Trinitron monitor, HP 820 printer, etc.
Today you
couldn't get $50 for it (if you
could even find someone to buy it!) - in part because
for $500 you
could buy a new Dell system that was an order of
magnitude more computer in almost every way.

Should I be mad at the person who spends $500 today
because s/he got a
new Dell for 1/4 what I paid 8 years ago?

Obviously some do!

But not me.

I just like to tweak some of the folk who *know* that the
hams of old were so superior.

Some were, some weren't.

I recall a time when it was extremely rare to
hear an intentional
violation on the ham bands. Things like the
"L1berty Net", W6NUT and
14.313 simply did not exist. There was nothing
on the ham bands that
wasn't "G rated". A very large part of the reason
was that hams had a
culture - a tradition - of keeping it that way.
PArt of that tradition
was that the license was valued as an achievement
and an investment of time and effort.

Things like that are for the most part just
examples of how time has changed.

Here's another way to look at it:

Suppose you trained (like I did) to run a 26.22 mile
marathon. And
suppose you completed a couple of them, earning the
right to describe yourself as a marathon runner.

Now suppose some people complained that the marathon
distance was too
long, and kept out too many. So they get the marathon
distance changed
to 5 miles, and call themselves marathon runners too.

How would that make you feel?

Well, of course there are many different distances that
can be run.

How would it make you *feel*, Mike?

But your point as I see it is that things have been made
so much easier
that people such as myself can just step in easily,
following in the
footsteps of people who had to really *earn* their licenses.

No, that's not the point.

The point is that such a change would breed resentment in those
who had met the old standard.

The problem is that the resentment should be against the *system*,
not the people, unless they had something to do with changing
the system.

Those who came before are therefore justified in resenting the
newcomers because we didn't have to prove ourselves (take the
harder test)

They may be justified in resenting the *system*, but not the
*people*. Big difference.

That there are people out there that feel that way is of
no doubt.
Personally, I think they are a much greater threat to the
health of the
ARS than us nickel types. I've watched them belittle the
new guys to their face.

That's just wrong.

Thats no way to encourage folks.

Agreed.

But at the same time it's important to understand how the
system has changed.

73 de Jim, N2EY