|
Kelly:
Well, you certainly know enough that you wish to have your great knowledge put forth--let's have a go at it... What percentage of amateurs are women, it is 1% or 2% I have forgotten? ROFLOL John wrote in message ups.com... Phil Kane wrote: On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 17:21:00 -0700, John Smith wrote: ... all the women I have ever tried to interest in radio... all have declined doing anything towards getting a license... once they even see a key and a code practice oscillator they look at me as if I am crazy and ask, "You are kidding, right?" Tell that to our friend Claire who is the NCS of the Beaver State (CW) Traffic Net - high-speed CW. And she's no dummy - retired PhD in a specialized field of the biological sciences. . . . then there was the legendary traffic handler Mae Burke W3CUL who was a neighborhood housewife . . So much for generalizations. Gotta love it. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane w3rv |
N2EY:
I am afraid that task of inducting enough women is beyond me--no one has ever succeeded... Just what percentage of amateurs are women? Do you even know? I bet you damn well know they are rarer then space aliens sightings!!! ROFLOL!!! John wrote in message ups.com... John Smith wrote: ... all the women I have ever tried to interest in radio... all have declined doing anything towards getting a license... once they even see a key and a code practice oscillator they look at me as if I am crazy and ask, "You are kidding, right?" With all due respect, perhaps your skill at getting them interested needs some improvement.... Given your attitude towards Morse Code, you'd be as effective as the chairman of the National Beef Council trying to get people to be vegetarians.. Then they grab their net-to-phone and/or keyboard and being chatting with canadians, so americans, mexicans, asians, aussies, brits, etc... Which takes no radio and no license. So it's not about Morse Code, but about different interests. ... and at this point it is hard for me to pose a logical argument-- ;-) women are just smarter than men... you can't fool them... Not about fooling, but about what people are interested in. wrote in message oups.com... John Smith wrote: ... the amateur tests are a trivial problem to men with real educations... What about women with real educations? Would you consider someone with a BSEE from the University of Pennsylvania and an MSEE from Drexel University to have "a real education"? ... the cw part Is an amateur test. And is a trivial problem to people with real educations.. makes as much sense as learning to play a "jew's harp"--a lot of sense if you wish to, none if you don't... Then why require someone with no interest in VHF-UHF to learn those techniques in order to operate on HF? Why require knowedge of FSK, PSK and other data modes to operate voice? Why require knowledge of transistors and ICs to operate vacuum-tube equipment? IOW, why require anyone to learn anything about a subject they are not interested in, just to get a license to do the things they *are* interested in? -- Perhaps what bothers some people the most about the code test is that it isn't something most people already know. And it isn't something that can be learned by reading a book, watching a video, etc. It's a skill, not "book learning". In learning the code, a Ph.D in EE has to start at the same place as a grade-schooler. And the grade schooler may learn faster and do better! Perhaps it is this characteristic of the test - its ability to act as a Great Equalizer - that causes some to resent it so much. -- Warmest regards, John wrote in message oups.com... John Smith wrote: It was never about anyone stopping you from sending cw was it... A few anticode folks have stated they want Morse Code *use* by hams to end, not just the test. They are a small minority, but they do exist. It is about stopping you from forcing others to learn cw when they would never use it... Who is "forced" to learn Morse Code? It's a requirement if someone wants an FCC-issued amateur license with HF privileges, that's all. Always when one is being forced to do something they do not wish to, they should question everything in sight... just as you began when you thought someone was going to force you to quit... The argument you present boils down to this: If someone doesn't want to use Morse Code in ham radio, they shouldn't be required to learn it just to pass a test (even a simple, basic test) to get a ham radio license. Those who choose to use it can learn it on their own. Is that about right? The problem is that the same argument can be made against almost everything in the written tests. For example, if someone doesn't intend to use certain bands, why are they forced to learn the band edges of every band their license allows? If someone doesn't intend to use more than a few watts of transmitted power, why must they learn all that RF exposure stuff? Indeed, if someone doesn't intend to homebrew, why are they *forced* to learn all that theory stuff? Sure, the written tests look easy to someone with a background in radio, electronics, computers or other related fields. But to someone from an unrelated field, they're not easy. Suppose you met a retired gentleman who had been a radioman in the military 50+ years ago. He'd always wanted to be a ham but never had the time or resources. Now he finds that ham radio still exists, and he wants in. The gent can still do code well, and remembers the basics of theory as it was 50+ years ago. He gets an HF receiver and listens to the lovely Morse Code signals on the low ends of the HF bands. But in order to join the folks on 7010 or 3520, he needs an Extra. And the written test is full of stuff he's never seen before, and that he will never use. Why must he learn all that stuff he will never use just to pass the tests? Sure, the stuff is easy for *you*, but not for *him*. ... let's at least keep my comment about the drums straight... Let's see... Warmest regards, John "Jim Hampton" wrote in message ... "John Smith" wrote in message ... ... that almost makes me miss the ancient drums my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-etc. ancestors used to use to communicate with in the primordial jungles... I wonder if we could bring those back to? Invalid analogy. Drums for communication aren't in wide use. Morse Code for communication is in wide use in ham radio. Doesn't need to be brought back because it's right here. ... perhaps require the new licensees to beat out a fancy tempo on one of those turkeys before we gave 'em a license! evil-grin Warmest regards, John Perhaps, John But consider that some of us can send and receive cw faster than most folks can type. Yup. I know you may be good at "cut and paste", but that doesn't necessarily cut it LOL. Sure, voice appears faster, but when you get names and addresses that are hard to pronounce .... Bingo. For any message that needs to be written down, the speed limitation is usually the writing speed of the receiving op. The fact that someone can theoretically talks 150 wpm doesn't mean anything if the person on the receiving end can only write legibly at 15 wpm. Text modes are great if you have the hardware for them and if you are in a situation where you can look at a screen to read them. Not saying that CW is the best, but some folks better come up with something superior to AM and FM. There are a number of modes, but most folks want to "talk". That won't cut it for 85 watt moonbounce on 24 GHz. :) 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA ps - when I talk send and receive cw faster than some folks type, I'm not talking a nice, leisurely chat at 30 or 35 words per minute ... Yup. Good Morse ops can chat at speeds approaching those of voice ops because they use abbreviations and eliminate redundancies. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
I think first you would have to get a noticeable number of women into
ham radio--then argue if they are being treated fairly--at this point they have been effectively banned!!! John "Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... wrote: With all due respect, perhaps your skill at getting them interested needs some improvement.... Given your attitude towards Morse Code, you'd be as effective as the chairman of the National Beef Council trying to get people to be vegetarians.. Wouldn't that be better the other way around, Jim? A vegetarian who hates meat trying to get people to come to say a pig roast? ;^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
I just support removing code because no new hams are using it in any
meaningful numbers. The new state of the art hams are interested in hooking a modem up and interfacing the radio to the computer... Hook up a code key and they loose interest immediately... Now, a bunch of old guys who are computer illiterate have no choice than to try to amuse themselves with a damn key... John "Jim Hampton" wrote in message ... John, You could make the same assertion about a driver's license. Memorize some rules and take a road test. Do you support eliminating motor vehicle tests? Perhaps only for college educated folks? Might it make sense to require folks to know where the band edges are, or would you think it doesn't matter. If you travel to the U.K., do you think it might be smart to understand that they drive on the *left* side of the road rather than the right? Even if you are a pedestrian? I suspect you'd be upset if someone started transmitting on your Direct Tv frequencies and killed your reception. There are rules and folks wishing licenses are supposed to demonstrate some knowledge of those rules. These rules do not require the calculus, yet even a college grad has to demonstrate some knowledge of them. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA "John Smith" wrote in message ... ... the amateur tests are a trivial problem to men with real educations... ... the cw part makes as much sense as learning to play a "jew's harp"--a lot of sense if you wish to, none if you don't... Warmest regards, John |
John Smith wrote:
Kelly: Well, you certainly know enough that you wish to have your great knowledge put forth--let's have a go at it... What percentage of amateurs are women, it is 1% or 2% I have forgotten? You're such a total crock, you have no idea what the stats are. ROFLOL John wrote in message ups.com... Phil Kane wrote: On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 17:21:00 -0700, John Smith wrote: ... all the women I have ever tried to interest in radio... all have declined doing anything towards getting a license... once they even see a key and a code practice oscillator they look at me as if I am crazy and ask, "You are kidding, right?" Tell that to our friend Claire who is the NCS of the Beaver State (CW) Traffic Net - high-speed CW. And she's no dummy - retired PhD in a specialized field of the biological sciences. . . . then there was the legendary traffic handler Mae Burke W3CUL who was a neighborhood housewife . . So much for generalizations. Gotta love it. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane w3rv |
Kelly:
Now I really worry about you--you pose an argument which really starts to define you as a fool! Are you claiming I can't tune through all the ham bands in relatively short order and be stuck numb with the fact that there are ALMOST NO WOMEN to be heard? Gesus man, you need some type of medication to even stay relevant! John wrote in message ups.com... John Smith wrote: Kelly: Well, you certainly know enough that you wish to have your great knowledge put forth--let's have a go at it... What percentage of amateurs are women, it is 1% or 2% I have forgotten? You're such a total crock, you have no idea what the stats are. ROFLOL John wrote in message ups.com... Phil Kane wrote: On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 17:21:00 -0700, John Smith wrote: ... all the women I have ever tried to interest in radio... all have declined doing anything towards getting a license... once they even see a key and a code practice oscillator they look at me as if I am crazy and ask, "You are kidding, right?" Tell that to our friend Claire who is the NCS of the Beaver State (CW) Traffic Net - high-speed CW. And she's no dummy - retired PhD in a specialized field of the biological sciences. . . . then there was the legendary traffic handler Mae Burke W3CUL who was a neighborhood housewife . . So much for generalizations. Gotta love it. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane w3rv |
Michael Coslo wrote:
wrote: . . . then there was the legendary traffic handler Mae Burke W3CUL who was a neighborhood housewife . . I can't imagine any person becoming a Ham because they simply want to "chat with someone around the world". Whew, that brings up a tale Michael . . I know at least one ham who has done just that for decades. About the time WW2 ended I got into building crystal sets then I moved into cobbling together simple tube-type receivers based on articles in Pop Science and Pop Mechanics. The DXing bug had already bitten based on my fascination with finding far off stations in the high end of the AM BC band with the BC radios my folks had. The die was cast: I was into radio big time but I was basically clueless about ham radio until I eventually started SWLing and found scads of hams yakking on 75 & 40 AM. I was also a Cub Scout around that point in time. One night there was a civil defense drill which I discovered would include ham radio communications and the Cub pack. That opportunity really rang my chimes and I wormed my way into becoming a messenger boy for one of the mobiles. The ham and I motored around town passing traffic back and forth amongst the hams and the simulated "disaster sites", etc. That was my first exposure to hands-on ham radio. The ham was Gene Reynolds W3EAN who went out of his way to answer my unending stream of questions that night. I probably drove him nuts but I think he enjoyed it. There was no turning back after that night, I was gonna become a ham. A number of years later I ran into Gene again amongst the DXing and contesting crowd around here. In addition to being a DXer Gene was also a fundamentalist "radio missionary" who used his station to "take the word" particularly to Russians by "chatting with someone around the world" as you put it. Thousands of times! Check his bio in QRZ.com, I think you'll enjoy it. In the first place most of my DX contacts are pretty terse, and don't fulfill any "chatting needs". Not that I have chatting needs! It's also considered impolite to tie up dx stations with chats unless they initiate them. There certainly are women in Ham radio, and although a minority, they are probably no more of a minority than women's representation in other technical fields. This would mean that any problem is shared with those other technical fields, and not a Ham radio specific problem. Exactly. Let's hope this "Smith" clown has the same short attention span others of his ilk have demonstrated in the past and wanders off the list. He's even posting his mindless drivel in the Mech Eng and dot.antennas NGs for gawd's sake. . - Mike KB3EIA - w3rv (PS) Yo Micollis: Duty beckons. One of Gene's OLD and I mean *old* dxing buddies is Nate W3CNP, the guy you sat with when he ran a few Qs on 20CW at the last of our Clayton Park FD "experiences". Check his particulars in QRZ.com. I ran into him a few weeks ago at K3PAQ's memorial service, he's fine. Nate's ticket is floating in the grace period. I got EAN set up to renew, now it's *your* turn, launch Nate on his way. We need all the far-end geezers we can get properly licensed to keep the average age up in the hobby. |
Do they think that their sweat doesn't stink???? They poop ice cream.... :-) |
their gifted IQ's... ... but who see no reason to learn code... I do too... They're called "lazy". I'd say that they weighed the task of learning code and decided it wasn't worth their time. It's not like grammar or high school where you have no choice but to learn the stuff some curriculum committee decided you had to learn. So far I never had need for Spanish or knowing about King Louie the 7th of France since high school 33 years ago. As to code, it's "required" if you want an HF capable ham license. Some people will decide not to bother and go do something else. |
Perhaps what bothers some people the most about the code test is that it isn't something most people already know. And it isn't something that can be learned by reading a book, watching a video, etc. It's a skill, not "book learning". That makes it a real PITA to people who are good at book learnin' and not so hot at motor skills. In learning the code, a Ph.D in EE has to start at the same place as a grade-schooler. And the grade schooler may learn faster and do better! Perhaps it is this characteristic of the test - its ability to act as a Great Equalizer - that causes some to resent it so much. That makes ham radio that much harder to "sell" to the PhDs and such people. Code is something that can be outperformed by various signaling and signal processing methods (JPL doesn't use Morse code to communicate with their deep space probes). Sure, Morse code requires a bare minimum of technology, but today technology is cheap and reliable. Not like 50 years ago with vacuum tubes. No other radio service uses Morse code for anything beyond some automatic IDers. So why require it anymore. |
John Smith wrote:
N2EY: I am afraid that task of inducting enough women is beyond me--no one has ever succeeded... The fact that something is beyond *you* doesn't mean it's beyond others. Just what percentage of amateurs are women? Do you even know? I know it's at least 5% of US hams. Probably more like 8%. Which is many times the 1-2% you cited. I bet you damn well know they are rarer then space aliens sightings!!! Not where I live. Not on the air, either - if you check out modes other than voice. Right here in rrap, we have Kim, W5TIT, and Dee, N8UZE. W3RV mentioned W3CUL, Mae, perhaps *the* premier amateur radio traffic handler of her time. I did not know her, but I did know Lou, W3WRE, quite well in the 1970s. She had been a commercial operator as well as amateur, knew both the landline and radio codes, and was a topnotch operator who had many nonradio interests. The fact that she was a half century my elder did not prevent us from becoming friends. I learned a heck of lot from Lou, not all of it radio, either. I've also had the pleasure of working the youngest person ever to earn the Amateur Extra license. She got that license at age 8, while in the third grade, a few years ago. Good CW operator - she's a regular in the contests, and turns in very respectable scores. wrote in message ups.com... John Smith wrote: ... all the women I have ever tried to interest in radio... all have declined doing anything towards getting a license... once they even see a key and a code practice oscillator they look at me as if I am crazy and ask, "You are kidding, right?" With all due respect, perhaps your skill at getting them interested needs some improvement.... Given your attitude towards Morse Code, you'd be as effective as the chairman of the National Beef Council trying to get people to be vegetarians.. Then they grab their net-to-phone and/or keyboard and being chatting with canadians, so americans, mexicans, asians, aussies, brits, etc... Which takes no radio and no license. So it's not about Morse Code, but about different interests. ... and at this point it is hard for me to pose a logical argument-- ;-) women are just smarter than men... you can't fool them... Not about fooling, but about what people are interested in. wrote in message oups.com... John Smith wrote: ... the amateur tests are a trivial problem to men with real educations... What about women with real educations? Would you consider someone with a BSEE from the University of Pennsylvania and an MSEE from Drexel University to have "a real education"? ... the cw part Is an amateur test. And is a trivial problem to people with real educations.. makes as much sense as learning to play a "jew's harp"--a lot of sense if you wish to, none if you don't... Then why require someone with no interest in VHF-UHF to learn those techniques in order to operate on HF? Why require knowedge of FSK, PSK and other data modes to operate voice? Why require knowledge of transistors and ICs to operate vacuum-tube equipment? IOW, why require anyone to learn anything about a subject they are not interested in, just to get a license to do the things they *are* interested in? -- Perhaps what bothers some people the most about the code test is that it isn't something most people already know. And it isn't something that can be learned by reading a book, watching a video, etc. It's a skill, not "book learning". In learning the code, a Ph.D in EE has to start at the same place as a grade-schooler. And the grade schooler may learn faster and do better! Perhaps it is this characteristic of the test - its ability to act as a Great Equalizer - that causes some to resent it so much. -- Warmest regards, John wrote in message oups.com... John Smith wrote: It was never about anyone stopping you from sending cw was it... A few anticode folks have stated they want Morse Code *use* by hams to end, not just the test. They are a small minority, but they do exist. It is about stopping you from forcing others to learn cw when they would never use it... Who is "forced" to learn Morse Code? It's a requirement if someone wants an FCC-issued amateur license with HF privileges, that's all. Always when one is being forced to do something they do not wish to, they should question everything in sight... just as you began when you thought someone was going to force you to quit... The argument you present boils down to this: If someone doesn't want to use Morse Code in ham radio, they shouldn't be required to learn it just to pass a test (even a simple, basic test) to get a ham radio license. Those who choose to use it can learn it on their own. Is that about right? The problem is that the same argument can be made against almost everything in the written tests. For example, if someone doesn't intend to use certain bands, why are they forced to learn the band edges of every band their license allows? If someone doesn't intend to use more than a few watts of transmitted power, why must they learn all that RF exposure stuff? Indeed, if someone doesn't intend to homebrew, why are they *forced* to learn all that theory stuff? Sure, the written tests look easy to someone with a background in radio, electronics, computers or other related fields. But to someone from an unrelated field, they're not easy. Suppose you met a retired gentleman who had been a radioman in the military 50+ years ago. He'd always wanted to be a ham but never had the time or resources. Now he finds that ham radio still exists, and he wants in. The gent can still do code well, and remembers the basics of theory as it was 50+ years ago. He gets an HF receiver and listens to the lovely Morse Code signals on the low ends of the HF bands. But in order to join the folks on 7010 or 3520, he needs an Extra. And the written test is full of stuff he's never seen before, and that he will never use. Why must he learn all that stuff he will never use just to pass the tests? Sure, the stuff is easy for *you*, but not for *him*. ... let's at least keep my comment about the drums straight... Let's see... Warmest regards, John "Jim Hampton" wrote in message ... "John Smith" wrote in message ... ... that almost makes me miss the ancient drums my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-etc. ancestors used to use to communicate with in the primordial jungles... I wonder if we could bring those back to? Invalid analogy. Drums for communication aren't in wide use. Morse Code for communication is in wide use in ham radio. Doesn't need to be brought back because it's right here. ... perhaps require the new licensees to beat out a fancy tempo on one of those turkeys before we gave 'em a license! evil-grin Warmest regards, John Perhaps, John But consider that some of us can send and receive cw faster than most folks can type. Yup. I know you may be good at "cut and paste", but that doesn't necessarily cut it LOL. Sure, voice appears faster, but when you get names and addresses that are hard to pronounce .... Bingo. For any message that needs to be written down, the speed limitation is usually the writing speed of the receiving op. The fact that someone can theoretically talks 150 wpm doesn't mean anything if the person on the receiving end can only write legibly at 15 wpm. Text modes are great if you have the hardware for them and if you are in a situation where you can look at a screen to read them. Not saying that CW is the best, but some folks better come up with something superior to AM and FM. There are a number of modes, but most folks want to "talk". That won't cut it for 85 watt moonbounce on 24 GHz. :) 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA ps - when I talk send and receive cw faster than some folks type, I'm not talking a nice, leisurely chat at 30 or 35 words per minute ... Yup. Good Morse ops can chat at speeds approaching those of voice ops because they use abbreviations and eliminate redundancies. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
John Smith wrote:
I just support removing code because no new hams are using it in any meaningful numbers. I've seen plenty of new hams use Morse Code on the air. And plenty who use other modes. What information do you have to show that "no new hams are using it in any meaningful numbers." The new state of the art hams are interested in hooking a modem up and interfacing the radio to the computer... Some are - some aren't. Hook up a code key and they loose interest immediately... Depends on how you present it. And the word is "lose".... Now, a bunch of old guys who are computer illiterate have no choice than to try to amuse themselves with a damn key... Well, that leaves me out, because I'm neither old nor computer illiterate. "Jim Hampton" wrote in message ... John, You could make the same assertion about a driver's license. Memorize some rules and take a road test. Do you support eliminating motor vehicle tests? Perhaps only for college educated folks? Might it make sense to require folks to know where the band edges are, or would you think it doesn't matter. If you travel to the U.K., do you think it might be smart to understand that they drive on the *left* side of the road rather than the right? Even if you are a pedestrian? I suspect you'd be upset if someone started transmitting on your Direct Tv frequencies and killed your reception. There are rules and folks wishing licenses are supposed to demonstrate some knowledge of those rules. These rules do not require the calculus, yet even a college grad has to demonstrate some knowledge of them. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA "John Smith" wrote in message ... ... the amateur tests are a trivial problem to men with real educations... ... the cw part makes as much sense as learning to play a "jew's harp"--a lot of sense if you wish to, none if you don't... Warmest regards, John |
Robert:
Yes, well, here in calif--you must have noticed the "freebanders." At least every major city has a club of them... I used to be on a e-mailing list of theirs and kept up with their activities--they now have went underground and clamped up--just hear 'em on the bands now... Warmest regards, John "robert casey" wrote in message ink.net... their gifted IQ's... ... but who see no reason to learn code... I do too... They're called "lazy". I'd say that they weighed the task of learning code and decided it wasn't worth their time. It's not like grammar or high school where you have no choice but to learn the stuff some curriculum committee decided you had to learn. So far I never had need for Spanish or knowing about King Louie the 7th of France since high school 33 years ago. As to code, it's "required" if you want an HF capable ham license. Some people will decide not to bother and go do something else. |
I'd say those figures are certainly pressing the envelope... either way,
you don't see 'em on the bands in those numbers... your 1-in-20 seems more like a 1-in-a-hundred-or-better to me! John wrote in message oups.com... John Smith wrote: N2EY: I am afraid that task of inducting enough women is beyond me--no one has ever succeeded... The fact that something is beyond *you* doesn't mean it's beyond others. Just what percentage of amateurs are women? Do you even know? I know it's at least 5% of US hams. Probably more like 8%. Which is many times the 1-2% you cited. I bet you damn well know they are rarer then space aliens sightings!!! Not where I live. Not on the air, either - if you check out modes other than voice. Right here in rrap, we have Kim, W5TIT, and Dee, N8UZE. W3RV mentioned W3CUL, Mae, perhaps *the* premier amateur radio traffic handler of her time. I did not know her, but I did know Lou, W3WRE, quite well in the 1970s. She had been a commercial operator as well as amateur, knew both the landline and radio codes, and was a topnotch operator who had many nonradio interests. The fact that she was a half century my elder did not prevent us from becoming friends. I learned a heck of lot from Lou, not all of it radio, either. I've also had the pleasure of working the youngest person ever to earn the Amateur Extra license. She got that license at age 8, while in the third grade, a few years ago. Good CW operator - she's a regular in the contests, and turns in very respectable scores. wrote in message ups.com... John Smith wrote: ... all the women I have ever tried to interest in radio... all have declined doing anything towards getting a license... once they even see a key and a code practice oscillator they look at me as if I am crazy and ask, "You are kidding, right?" With all due respect, perhaps your skill at getting them interested needs some improvement.... Given your attitude towards Morse Code, you'd be as effective as the chairman of the National Beef Council trying to get people to be vegetarians.. Then they grab their net-to-phone and/or keyboard and being chatting with canadians, so americans, mexicans, asians, aussies, brits, etc... Which takes no radio and no license. So it's not about Morse Code, but about different interests. ... and at this point it is hard for me to pose a logical argument-- ;-) women are just smarter than men... you can't fool them... Not about fooling, but about what people are interested in. wrote in message oups.com... John Smith wrote: ... the amateur tests are a trivial problem to men with real educations... What about women with real educations? Would you consider someone with a BSEE from the University of Pennsylvania and an MSEE from Drexel University to have "a real education"? ... the cw part Is an amateur test. And is a trivial problem to people with real educations.. makes as much sense as learning to play a "jew's harp"--a lot of sense if you wish to, none if you don't... Then why require someone with no interest in VHF-UHF to learn those techniques in order to operate on HF? Why require knowedge of FSK, PSK and other data modes to operate voice? Why require knowledge of transistors and ICs to operate vacuum-tube equipment? IOW, why require anyone to learn anything about a subject they are not interested in, just to get a license to do the things they *are* interested in? -- Perhaps what bothers some people the most about the code test is that it isn't something most people already know. And it isn't something that can be learned by reading a book, watching a video, etc. It's a skill, not "book learning". In learning the code, a Ph.D in EE has to start at the same place as a grade-schooler. And the grade schooler may learn faster and do better! Perhaps it is this characteristic of the test - its ability to act as a Great Equalizer - that causes some to resent it so much. -- Warmest regards, John wrote in message oups.com... John Smith wrote: It was never about anyone stopping you from sending cw was it... A few anticode folks have stated they want Morse Code *use* by hams to end, not just the test. They are a small minority, but they do exist. It is about stopping you from forcing others to learn cw when they would never use it... Who is "forced" to learn Morse Code? It's a requirement if someone wants an FCC-issued amateur license with HF privileges, that's all. Always when one is being forced to do something they do not wish to, they should question everything in sight... just as you began when you thought someone was going to force you to quit... The argument you present boils down to this: If someone doesn't want to use Morse Code in ham radio, they shouldn't be required to learn it just to pass a test (even a simple, basic test) to get a ham radio license. Those who choose to use it can learn it on their own. Is that about right? The problem is that the same argument can be made against almost everything in the written tests. For example, if someone doesn't intend to use certain bands, why are they forced to learn the band edges of every band their license allows? If someone doesn't intend to use more than a few watts of transmitted power, why must they learn all that RF exposure stuff? Indeed, if someone doesn't intend to homebrew, why are they *forced* to learn all that theory stuff? Sure, the written tests look easy to someone with a background in radio, electronics, computers or other related fields. But to someone from an unrelated field, they're not easy. Suppose you met a retired gentleman who had been a radioman in the military 50+ years ago. He'd always wanted to be a ham but never had the time or resources. Now he finds that ham radio still exists, and he wants in. The gent can still do code well, and remembers the basics of theory as it was 50+ years ago. He gets an HF receiver and listens to the lovely Morse Code signals on the low ends of the HF bands. But in order to join the folks on 7010 or 3520, he needs an Extra. And the written test is full of stuff he's never seen before, and that he will never use. Why must he learn all that stuff he will never use just to pass the tests? Sure, the stuff is easy for *you*, but not for *him*. ... let's at least keep my comment about the drums straight... Let's see... Warmest regards, John "Jim Hampton" wrote in message ... "John Smith" wrote in message ... ... that almost makes me miss the ancient drums my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-etc. ancestors used to use to communicate with in the primordial jungles... I wonder if we could bring those back to? Invalid analogy. Drums for communication aren't in wide use. Morse Code for communication is in wide use in ham radio. Doesn't need to be brought back because it's right here. ... perhaps require the new licensees to beat out a fancy tempo on one of those turkeys before we gave 'em a license! evil-grin Warmest regards, John Perhaps, John But consider that some of us can send and receive cw faster than most folks can type. Yup. I know you may be good at "cut and paste", but that doesn't necessarily cut it LOL. Sure, voice appears faster, but when you get names and addresses that are hard to pronounce .... Bingo. For any message that needs to be written down, the speed limitation is usually the writing speed of the receiving op. The fact that someone can theoretically talks 150 wpm doesn't mean anything if the person on the receiving end can only write legibly at 15 wpm. Text modes are great if you have the hardware for them and if you are in a situation where you can look at a screen to read them. Not saying that CW is the best, but some folks better come up with something superior to AM and FM. There are a number of modes, but most folks want to "talk". That won't cut it for 85 watt moonbounce on 24 GHz. :) 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA ps - when I talk send and receive cw faster than some folks type, I'm not talking a nice, leisurely chat at 30 or 35 words per minute ... Yup. Good Morse ops can chat at speeds approaching those of voice ops because they use abbreviations and eliminate redundancies. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Bert Craig" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... Perhaps what bothers some people the most about the code test is that it isn't something most people already know. And it isn't something that can be learned by reading a book, watching a video, etc. It's a skill, not "book learning". In learning the code, a Ph.D in EE has to start at the same place as a grade-schooler. And the grade schooler may learn faster and do better! Perhaps it is this characteristic of the test - its ability to act as a Great Equalizer - that causes some to resent it so much. It was never really about the actual test, but rather the effort required to successfully prepare for the test. -- Vy 73 de Bert WA2SI FISTS #9384/CC #1736 QRP ARCI #11782 Snagged a TA2 and a 4X5 last night... IOW, the effort was well worth it. Yup, I've got several that I've never come across or even seen listed on voice. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Oh, my automatic ID'er which "water marks" my communications is the ONLY
valid use of morse... John "robert casey" wrote in message ink.net... Perhaps what bothers some people the most about the code test is that it isn't something most people already know. And it isn't something that can be learned by reading a book, watching a video, etc. It's a skill, not "book learning". That makes it a real PITA to people who are good at book learnin' and not so hot at motor skills. In learning the code, a Ph.D in EE has to start at the same place as a grade-schooler. And the grade schooler may learn faster and do better! Perhaps it is this characteristic of the test - its ability to act as a Great Equalizer - that causes some to resent it so much. That makes ham radio that much harder to "sell" to the PhDs and such people. Code is something that can be outperformed by various signaling and signal processing methods (JPL doesn't use Morse code to communicate with their deep space probes). Sure, Morse code requires a bare minimum of technology, but today technology is cheap and reliable. Not like 50 years ago with vacuum tubes. No other radio service uses Morse code for anything beyond some automatic IDers. So why require it anymore. |
N2EY:
You should be ashamed of yourself--you damn well know young cw'ers are rarer than female breasts on a boar! Most are no-code licenses! John wrote in message ups.com... John Smith wrote: I just support removing code because no new hams are using it in any meaningful numbers. I've seen plenty of new hams use Morse Code on the air. And plenty who use other modes. What information do you have to show that "no new hams are using it in any meaningful numbers." The new state of the art hams are interested in hooking a modem up and interfacing the radio to the computer... Some are - some aren't. Hook up a code key and they loose interest immediately... Depends on how you present it. And the word is "lose".... Now, a bunch of old guys who are computer illiterate have no choice than to try to amuse themselves with a damn key... Well, that leaves me out, because I'm neither old nor computer illiterate. "Jim Hampton" wrote in message ... John, You could make the same assertion about a driver's license. Memorize some rules and take a road test. Do you support eliminating motor vehicle tests? Perhaps only for college educated folks? Might it make sense to require folks to know where the band edges are, or would you think it doesn't matter. If you travel to the U.K., do you think it might be smart to understand that they drive on the *left* side of the road rather than the right? Even if you are a pedestrian? I suspect you'd be upset if someone started transmitting on your Direct Tv frequencies and killed your reception. There are rules and folks wishing licenses are supposed to demonstrate some knowledge of those rules. These rules do not require the calculus, yet even a college grad has to demonstrate some knowledge of them. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA "John Smith" wrote in message ... ... the amateur tests are a trivial problem to men with real educations... ... the cw part makes as much sense as learning to play a "jew's harp"--a lot of sense if you wish to, none if you don't... Warmest regards, John |
"John Smith" wrote in message ... Len: Did I miss something here, if you know morse it gives you the ability to speak and read french? No but there is a standardized set of Q signals and other widely adopted abbreviations that permit one to carry on a very basic albeit limited conversation even though neither of you knows the other one's language. As in many activities, there is a "standardized vocabulary" if you will. For example, music generally uses Italian terms (although the French & Germans tend to resist) that. I do not speak Italian but if the conductor says "rubato" or "accelerando", I know what he wants us to do. He might not speak a word of English and I might not speak a word of his native language but we can communicate in a limited fashion with the standardized music vocabulary. Similarly, ballet terminology is in French. Because of that, the student and teacher can communicate regarding ballet movements even if neither speaks French and neither speaks the others language. Hell, I know morse and still can't speak to the french, unless they morse in english!!! Same with the Germans, Dutch, Spanish, etc.... See above. ROFLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! John Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Phil Kane" wrote in message ganews.com... On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 10:20:13 -0700, John Smith wrote: .... absolutely not... I work with young men who take great pride in their ability to pass difficult tests with ease... who are thankful for their gifted IQ's... .... but who see no reason to learn code... indeed, the courses which they take, and their level of education make any amateur exam look trivial... Do they think that their sweat doesn't stink???? Wait 'till they hit the course or assignment that throws them back into the mortal realm. We've all hit that point at one time or another.... And it's a real shock the first time it happens. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Phil Kane" wrote in message ganews.com... On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 17:21:00 -0700, John Smith wrote: ... all the women I have ever tried to interest in radio... all have declined doing anything towards getting a license... once they even see a key and a code practice oscillator they look at me as if I am crazy and ask, "You are kidding, right?" Tell that to our friend Claire who is the NCS of the Beaver State (CW) Traffic Net - high-speed CW. And she's no dummy - retired PhD in a specialized field of the biological sciences. So much for generalizations. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane Definitely avoid generalizations. I originally got interested in ham radio because my husband of the time asked me to be involved with him. Code was part of the class and test. I didn't particularly have any feelings against it or for it. However now I enjoy it. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
|
"John Smith" wrote in message ... ... oh, I love that argument!!! Let me see if I have it correctly, either: 1) Women are too stupid for the technical fields. How you managed to twist Mike's words to come up with this interpretation is amazing. He neither said nor implied anything of the sort. 2) We are no worse than any other technical field about baring women. He said nothing about barring women from technical fields. Again how you managed to come up with this inverted interpretation is one of the mysteries of the world. Women choose not to go into technical fields for their own reasons. That includes hobby activities like ham radio. ROLL!!!!! John Dee D. Flint, N8UZE "Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... wrote: Phil Kane wrote: On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 17:21:00 -0700, John Smith wrote: ... all the women I have ever tried to interest in radio... all have declined doing anything towards getting a license... once they even see a key and a code practice oscillator they look at me as if I am crazy and ask, "You are kidding, right?" Tell that to our friend Claire who is the NCS of the Beaver State (CW) Traffic Net - high-speed CW. And she's no dummy - retired PhD in a specialized field of the biological sciences. . . . then there was the legendary traffic handler Mae Burke W3CUL who was a neighborhood housewife . . I can't imagine any person becoming a Ham because they simply want to "chat with someone around the world". In the first place most of my DX contacts are pretty terse, and don't fulfill any "chatting needs". Not that I have chatting needs! There certainly are women in Ham radio, and although a minority, they are probably no more of a minority than women's representation in other technical fields. This would mean that any problem is shared with those other technical fields, and not a Ham radio specific problem. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"John Smith" wrote in message ... I think first you would have to get a noticeable number of women into ham radio--then argue if they are being treated fairly--at this point they have been effectively banned!!! John Not hardly. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE "Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... wrote: With all due respect, perhaps your skill at getting them interested needs some improvement.... Given your attitude towards Morse Code, you'd be as effective as the chairman of the National Beef Council trying to get people to be vegetarians.. Wouldn't that be better the other way around, Jim? A vegetarian who hates meat trying to get people to come to say a pig roast? ;^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
"John Smith" wrote in message ... N2EY: I am afraid that task of inducting enough women is beyond me--no one has ever succeeded... Just what percentage of amateurs are women? Do you even know? I bet you damn well know they are rarer then space aliens sightings!!! ROFLOL!!! John I'd bet the Young Ladies Radio League could come up with a pretty good estimate. Also the Buckeye Bells may be able to do the same. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE wrote in message ups.com... John Smith wrote: ... all the women I have ever tried to interest in radio... all have declined doing anything towards getting a license... once they even see a key and a code practice oscillator they look at me as if I am crazy and ask, "You are kidding, right?" With all due respect, perhaps your skill at getting them interested needs some improvement.... Given your attitude towards Morse Code, you'd be as effective as the chairman of the National Beef Council trying to get people to be vegetarians.. Then they grab their net-to-phone and/or keyboard and being chatting with canadians, so americans, mexicans, asians, aussies, brits, etc... Which takes no radio and no license. So it's not about Morse Code, but about different interests. ... and at this point it is hard for me to pose a logical argument-- ;-) women are just smarter than men... you can't fool them... Not about fooling, but about what people are interested in. wrote in message oups.com... John Smith wrote: ... the amateur tests are a trivial problem to men with real educations... What about women with real educations? Would you consider someone with a BSEE from the University of Pennsylvania and an MSEE from Drexel University to have "a real education"? ... the cw part Is an amateur test. And is a trivial problem to people with real educations.. makes as much sense as learning to play a "jew's harp"--a lot of sense if you wish to, none if you don't... Then why require someone with no interest in VHF-UHF to learn those techniques in order to operate on HF? Why require knowedge of FSK, PSK and other data modes to operate voice? Why require knowledge of transistors and ICs to operate vacuum-tube equipment? IOW, why require anyone to learn anything about a subject they are not interested in, just to get a license to do the things they *are* interested in? -- Perhaps what bothers some people the most about the code test is that it isn't something most people already know. And it isn't something that can be learned by reading a book, watching a video, etc. It's a skill, not "book learning". In learning the code, a Ph.D in EE has to start at the same place as a grade-schooler. And the grade schooler may learn faster and do better! Perhaps it is this characteristic of the test - its ability to act as a Great Equalizer - that causes some to resent it so much. -- Warmest regards, John wrote in message oups.com... John Smith wrote: It was never about anyone stopping you from sending cw was it... A few anticode folks have stated they want Morse Code *use* by hams to end, not just the test. They are a small minority, but they do exist. It is about stopping you from forcing others to learn cw when they would never use it... Who is "forced" to learn Morse Code? It's a requirement if someone wants an FCC-issued amateur license with HF privileges, that's all. Always when one is being forced to do something they do not wish to, they should question everything in sight... just as you began when you thought someone was going to force you to quit... The argument you present boils down to this: If someone doesn't want to use Morse Code in ham radio, they shouldn't be required to learn it just to pass a test (even a simple, basic test) to get a ham radio license. Those who choose to use it can learn it on their own. Is that about right? The problem is that the same argument can be made against almost everything in the written tests. For example, if someone doesn't intend to use certain bands, why are they forced to learn the band edges of every band their license allows? If someone doesn't intend to use more than a few watts of transmitted power, why must they learn all that RF exposure stuff? Indeed, if someone doesn't intend to homebrew, why are they *forced* to learn all that theory stuff? Sure, the written tests look easy to someone with a background in radio, electronics, computers or other related fields. But to someone from an unrelated field, they're not easy. Suppose you met a retired gentleman who had been a radioman in the military 50+ years ago. He'd always wanted to be a ham but never had the time or resources. Now he finds that ham radio still exists, and he wants in. The gent can still do code well, and remembers the basics of theory as it was 50+ years ago. He gets an HF receiver and listens to the lovely Morse Code signals on the low ends of the HF bands. But in order to join the folks on 7010 or 3520, he needs an Extra. And the written test is full of stuff he's never seen before, and that he will never use. Why must he learn all that stuff he will never use just to pass the tests? Sure, the stuff is easy for *you*, but not for *him*. ... let's at least keep my comment about the drums straight... Let's see... Warmest regards, John "Jim Hampton" wrote in message ... "John Smith" wrote in message ... ... that almost makes me miss the ancient drums my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-etc. ancestors used to use to communicate with in the primordial jungles... I wonder if we could bring those back to? Invalid analogy. Drums for communication aren't in wide use. Morse Code for communication is in wide use in ham radio. Doesn't need to be brought back because it's right here. ... perhaps require the new licensees to beat out a fancy tempo on one of those turkeys before we gave 'em a license! evil-grin Warmest regards, John Perhaps, John But consider that some of us can send and receive cw faster than most folks can type. Yup. I know you may be good at "cut and paste", but that doesn't necessarily cut it LOL. Sure, voice appears faster, but when you get names and addresses that are hard to pronounce .... Bingo. For any message that needs to be written down, the speed limitation is usually the writing speed of the receiving op. The fact that someone can theoretically talks 150 wpm doesn't mean anything if the person on the receiving end can only write legibly at 15 wpm. Text modes are great if you have the hardware for them and if you are in a situation where you can look at a screen to read them. Not saying that CW is the best, but some folks better come up with something superior to AM and FM. There are a number of modes, but most folks want to "talk". That won't cut it for 85 watt moonbounce on 24 GHz. :) 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA ps - when I talk send and receive cw faster than some folks type, I'm not talking a nice, leisurely chat at 30 or 35 words per minute ... Yup. Good Morse ops can chat at speeds approaching those of voice ops because they use abbreviations and eliminate redundancies. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Dee:
Michael's own words: "There certainly are women in Ham radio, and although a minority, ..." What does that mean--they are being held out by the old farts? The women too want no-code? Just what is the reason he was claiming? John "Dee Flint" wrote in message ... "John Smith" wrote in message ... ... oh, I love that argument!!! Let me see if I have it correctly, either: 1) Women are too stupid for the technical fields. How you managed to twist Mike's words to come up with this interpretation is amazing. He neither said nor implied anything of the sort. 2) We are no worse than any other technical field about baring women. He said nothing about barring women from technical fields. Again how you managed to come up with this inverted interpretation is one of the mysteries of the world. Women choose not to go into technical fields for their own reasons. That includes hobby activities like ham radio. ROLL!!!!! John Dee D. Flint, N8UZE "Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... wrote: Phil Kane wrote: On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 17:21:00 -0700, John Smith wrote: ... all the women I have ever tried to interest in radio... all have declined doing anything towards getting a license... once they even see a key and a code practice oscillator they look at me as if I am crazy and ask, "You are kidding, right?" Tell that to our friend Claire who is the NCS of the Beaver State (CW) Traffic Net - high-speed CW. And she's no dummy - retired PhD in a specialized field of the biological sciences. . . . then there was the legendary traffic handler Mae Burke W3CUL who was a neighborhood housewife . . I can't imagine any person becoming a Ham because they simply want to "chat with someone around the world". In the first place most of my DX contacts are pretty terse, and don't fulfill any "chatting needs". Not that I have chatting needs! There certainly are women in Ham radio, and although a minority, they are probably no more of a minority than women's representation in other technical fields. This would mean that any problem is shared with those other technical fields, and not a Ham radio specific problem. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"John Smith" wrote in message ... Kelly: Now I really worry about you--you pose an argument which really starts to define you as a fool! Are you claiming I can't tune through all the ham bands in relatively short order and be stuck numb with the fact that there are ALMOST NO WOMEN to be heard? Gesus man, you need some type of medication to even stay relevant! John Many of us do not call CQ but will answer them. Many others stay on CW where you cannot tell if we are women unless we tell you or you look us up and ASSUME based on our names that we are women. I work several other women in every voice contest in which I participate and they are NOT the same ones each time. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Dee:
That is another interesting statistic--most women in radio are the wives of hams--there is certainly some interesting reasons behind that, I am sure... I think it directly relates to "Good-Old Boy's Club" but them accepting the wife, daughter, relative of a member of the club... John "Dee Flint" wrote in message ... "Phil Kane" wrote in message ganews.com... On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 17:21:00 -0700, John Smith wrote: ... all the women I have ever tried to interest in radio... all have declined doing anything towards getting a license... once they even see a key and a code practice oscillator they look at me as if I am crazy and ask, "You are kidding, right?" Tell that to our friend Claire who is the NCS of the Beaver State (CW) Traffic Net - high-speed CW. And she's no dummy - retired PhD in a specialized field of the biological sciences. So much for generalizations. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane Definitely avoid generalizations. I originally got interested in ham radio because my husband of the time asked me to be involved with him. Code was part of the class and test. I didn't particularly have any feelings against it or for it. However now I enjoy it. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"robert casey" wrote in message ink.net... Perhaps what bothers some people the most about the code test is that it isn't something most people already know. And it isn't something that can be learned by reading a book, watching a video, etc. It's a skill, not "book learning". That makes it a real PITA to people who are good at book learnin' and not so hot at motor skills. Conversely the written is a real PITA to people who are good at physical skills but not at book learning. We've got a few around here who breezed through the 5, 13, and 20 wpm code test but had to take each of the writtens multiple times and they had studied hard each time. They were not allowed to get out of the written or plead diminished capacity or anything else. They had to do it. In learning the code, a Ph.D in EE has to start at the same place as a grade-schooler. And the grade schooler may learn faster and do better! Perhaps it is this characteristic of the test - its ability to act as a Great Equalizer - that causes some to resent it so much. That makes ham radio that much harder to "sell" to the PhDs and such people. Code is something that can be outperformed by various signaling and signal processing methods (JPL doesn't use Morse code to communicate with their deep space probes). Well those PHDs had to learn the simplest of basics in their chosen fields when they started their journeys. There is "obsolete" information in every field that is often required learning as part of a basic understanding of the field. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Dee:
Now you are the official spokesmen for ALL these women, I'd rather hear that directly from all the other girls here... John-listens-to-the-echoes-from-this-silent-and-empty-room-and-Dee-speaking-for-ALL-the-other-females John "Dee Flint" wrote in message ... "John Smith" wrote in message ... Kelly: Now I really worry about you--you pose an argument which really starts to define you as a fool! Are you claiming I can't tune through all the ham bands in relatively short order and be stuck numb with the fact that there are ALMOST NO WOMEN to be heard? Gesus man, you need some type of medication to even stay relevant! John Many of us do not call CQ but will answer them. Many others stay on CW where you cannot tell if we are women unless we tell you or you look us up and ASSUME based on our names that we are women. I work several other women in every voice contest in which I participate and they are NOT the same ones each time. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Dee:
Well, you have me there, those TEN girls may be of that mind! ROFLOL... John "Dee Flint" wrote in message ... "John Smith" wrote in message ... N2EY: I am afraid that task of inducting enough women is beyond me--no one has ever succeeded... Just what percentage of amateurs are women? Do you even know? I bet you damn well know they are rarer then space aliens sightings!!! ROFLOL!!! John I'd bet the Young Ladies Radio League could come up with a pretty good estimate. Also the Buckeye Bells may be able to do the same. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE wrote in message ups.com... John Smith wrote: ... all the women I have ever tried to interest in radio... all have declined doing anything towards getting a license... once they even see a key and a code practice oscillator they look at me as if I am crazy and ask, "You are kidding, right?" With all due respect, perhaps your skill at getting them interested needs some improvement.... Given your attitude towards Morse Code, you'd be as effective as the chairman of the National Beef Council trying to get people to be vegetarians.. Then they grab their net-to-phone and/or keyboard and being chatting with canadians, so americans, mexicans, asians, aussies, brits, etc... Which takes no radio and no license. So it's not about Morse Code, but about different interests. ... and at this point it is hard for me to pose a logical argument-- ;-) women are just smarter than men... you can't fool them... Not about fooling, but about what people are interested in. wrote in message oups.com... John Smith wrote: ... the amateur tests are a trivial problem to men with real educations... What about women with real educations? Would you consider someone with a BSEE from the University of Pennsylvania and an MSEE from Drexel University to have "a real education"? ... the cw part Is an amateur test. And is a trivial problem to people with real educations.. makes as much sense as learning to play a "jew's harp"--a lot of sense if you wish to, none if you don't... Then why require someone with no interest in VHF-UHF to learn those techniques in order to operate on HF? Why require knowedge of FSK, PSK and other data modes to operate voice? Why require knowledge of transistors and ICs to operate vacuum-tube equipment? IOW, why require anyone to learn anything about a subject they are not interested in, just to get a license to do the things they *are* interested in? -- Perhaps what bothers some people the most about the code test is that it isn't something most people already know. And it isn't something that can be learned by reading a book, watching a video, etc. It's a skill, not "book learning". In learning the code, a Ph.D in EE has to start at the same place as a grade-schooler. And the grade schooler may learn faster and do better! Perhaps it is this characteristic of the test - its ability to act as a Great Equalizer - that causes some to resent it so much. -- Warmest regards, John wrote in message oups.com... John Smith wrote: It was never about anyone stopping you from sending cw was it... A few anticode folks have stated they want Morse Code *use* by hams to end, not just the test. They are a small minority, but they do exist. It is about stopping you from forcing others to learn cw when they would never use it... Who is "forced" to learn Morse Code? It's a requirement if someone wants an FCC-issued amateur license with HF privileges, that's all. Always when one is being forced to do something they do not wish to, they should question everything in sight... just as you began when you thought someone was going to force you to quit... The argument you present boils down to this: If someone doesn't want to use Morse Code in ham radio, they shouldn't be required to learn it just to pass a test (even a simple, basic test) to get a ham radio license. Those who choose to use it can learn it on their own. Is that about right? The problem is that the same argument can be made against almost everything in the written tests. For example, if someone doesn't intend to use certain bands, why are they forced to learn the band edges of every band their license allows? If someone doesn't intend to use more than a few watts of transmitted power, why must they learn all that RF exposure stuff? Indeed, if someone doesn't intend to homebrew, why are they *forced* to learn all that theory stuff? Sure, the written tests look easy to someone with a background in radio, electronics, computers or other related fields. But to someone from an unrelated field, they're not easy. Suppose you met a retired gentleman who had been a radioman in the military 50+ years ago. He'd always wanted to be a ham but never had the time or resources. Now he finds that ham radio still exists, and he wants in. The gent can still do code well, and remembers the basics of theory as it was 50+ years ago. He gets an HF receiver and listens to the lovely Morse Code signals on the low ends of the HF bands. But in order to join the folks on 7010 or 3520, he needs an Extra. And the written test is full of stuff he's never seen before, and that he will never use. Why must he learn all that stuff he will never use just to pass the tests? Sure, the stuff is easy for *you*, but not for *him*. ... let's at least keep my comment about the drums straight... Let's see... Warmest regards, John "Jim Hampton" wrote in message ... "John Smith" wrote in message ... ... that almost makes me miss the ancient drums my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-etc. ancestors used to use to communicate with in the primordial jungles... I wonder if we could bring those back to? Invalid analogy. Drums for communication aren't in wide use. Morse Code for communication is in wide use in ham radio. Doesn't need to be brought back because it's right here. ... perhaps require the new licensees to beat out a fancy tempo on one of those turkeys before we gave 'em a license! evil-grin Warmest regards, John Perhaps, John But consider that some of us can send and receive cw faster than most folks can type. Yup. I know you may be good at "cut and paste", but that doesn't necessarily cut it LOL. Sure, voice appears faster, but when you get names and addresses that are hard to pronounce .... Bingo. For any message that needs to be written down, the speed limitation is usually the writing speed of the receiving op. The fact that someone can theoretically talks 150 wpm doesn't mean anything if the person on the receiving end can only write legibly at 15 wpm. Text modes are great if you have the hardware for them and if you are in a situation where you can look at a screen to read them. Not saying that CW is the best, but some folks better come up with something superior to AM and FM. There are a number of modes, but most folks want to "talk". That won't cut it for 85 watt moonbounce on 24 GHz. :) 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA ps - when I talk send and receive cw faster than some folks type, I'm not talking a nice, leisurely chat at 30 or 35 words per minute ... Yup. Good Morse ops can chat at speeds approaching those of voice ops because they use abbreviations and eliminate redundancies. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
wrote in message ups.com... John Smith wrote: I just support removing code because no new hams are using it in any meaningful numbers. I've seen plenty of new hams use Morse Code on the air. And plenty who use other modes. What information do you have to show that "no new hams are using it in any meaningful numbers." The new state of the art hams are interested in hooking a modem up and interfacing the radio to the computer... Some are - some aren't. Hook up a code key and they loose interest immediately... Depends on how you present it. And the word is "lose".... Now, a bunch of old guys who are computer illiterate have no choice than to try to amuse themselves with a damn key... Well, that leaves me out, because I'm neither old nor computer illiterate. He does not realize that it was this "bunch of old guys who are computer illiterate" who developed several of the digital modes and were some of the earliest amateurs to interface computers and radios. At work it is not the "bunch of old guys who are computer illiterate" who cannot find their way around a computer but instead the new kids fresh out of school. It's the kids who cannot seem to figure out how to use the advanced features of the spreadsheets, wordprocessors, etc until someone leads them by the hand through it. The "bunch of old guys who are computer illiterate" are the ones who explore the software and become proficient in its many features. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Dee:
"Physical skills?" You use this in reference to banging a key... you josh right, the weakest woman in the world finds that no real task... It is more akin to being able to whittle wood, throw a baseball or play a musical instrument... .... well, not even that, it is in a class all itself and deserves a burial into history... John "Dee Flint" wrote in message ... "robert casey" wrote in message ink.net... Perhaps what bothers some people the most about the code test is that it isn't something most people already know. And it isn't something that can be learned by reading a book, watching a video, etc. It's a skill, not "book learning". That makes it a real PITA to people who are good at book learnin' and not so hot at motor skills. Conversely the written is a real PITA to people who are good at physical skills but not at book learning. We've got a few around here who breezed through the 5, 13, and 20 wpm code test but had to take each of the writtens multiple times and they had studied hard each time. They were not allowed to get out of the written or plead diminished capacity or anything else. They had to do it. In learning the code, a Ph.D in EE has to start at the same place as a grade-schooler. And the grade schooler may learn faster and do better! Perhaps it is this characteristic of the test - its ability to act as a Great Equalizer - that causes some to resent it so much. That makes ham radio that much harder to "sell" to the PhDs and such people. Code is something that can be outperformed by various signaling and signal processing methods (JPL doesn't use Morse code to communicate with their deep space probes). Well those PHDs had to learn the simplest of basics in their chosen fields when they started their journeys. There is "obsolete" information in every field that is often required learning as part of a basic understanding of the field. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"John Smith" wrote in message ... ... the young person of today has a much great education than his/her counterpart of even twenty years ago... John I don't know about that. Around here there are more and more dropping out, even student's whose parents have college degrees. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE "Phil Kane" wrote in message ganews.com... On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 10:20:13 -0700, John Smith wrote: .... absolutely not... I work with young men who take great pride in their ability to pass difficult tests with ease... who are thankful for their gifted IQ's... .... but who see no reason to learn code... indeed, the courses which they take, and their level of education make any amateur exam look trivial... Do they think that their sweat doesn't stink???? Wait 'till they hit the course or assignment that throws them back into the mortal realm. We've all hit that point at one time or another.... -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
Dee:
Certainly everyone over 50 needs to step back and let the younger men have a go--we are stagnated right now--I won't argue that point--it is MUCH too obvious... What "modes" are you using? I am using a 56k modem my son modified to modulate a transmitter... any other person able to interface an old 56k modem to their computer can get the data... now a nice 10mbs per second mode would be nice, where is some cheap equipment? John "Dee Flint" wrote in message ... wrote in message ups.com... John Smith wrote: I just support removing code because no new hams are using it in any meaningful numbers. I've seen plenty of new hams use Morse Code on the air. And plenty who use other modes. What information do you have to show that "no new hams are using it in any meaningful numbers." The new state of the art hams are interested in hooking a modem up and interfacing the radio to the computer... Some are - some aren't. Hook up a code key and they loose interest immediately... Depends on how you present it. And the word is "lose".... Now, a bunch of old guys who are computer illiterate have no choice than to try to amuse themselves with a damn key... Well, that leaves me out, because I'm neither old nor computer illiterate. He does not realize that it was this "bunch of old guys who are computer illiterate" who developed several of the digital modes and were some of the earliest amateurs to interface computers and radios. At work it is not the "bunch of old guys who are computer illiterate" who cannot find their way around a computer but instead the new kids fresh out of school. It's the kids who cannot seem to figure out how to use the advanced features of the spreadsheets, wordprocessors, etc until someone leads them by the hand through it. The "bunch of old guys who are computer illiterate" are the ones who explore the software and become proficient in its many features. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
|
Dee Flint wrote:
"Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... wrote: Phil Kane wrote: On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 17:21:00 -0700, John Smith wrote: ... all the women I have ever tried to interest in radio... all have declined doing anything towards getting a license... once they even see a key and a code practice oscillator they look at me as if I am crazy and ask, "You are kidding, right?" Tell that to our friend Claire who is the NCS of the Beaver State (CW) Traffic Net - high-speed CW. And she's no dummy - retired PhD in a specialized field of the biological sciences. . . . then there was the legendary traffic handler Mae Burke W3CUL who was a neighborhood housewife . . I can't imagine any person becoming a Ham because they simply want to "chat with someone around the world". In the first place most of my DX contacts are pretty terse, and don't fulfill any "chatting needs". Not that I have chatting needs! There certainly are women in Ham radio, and although a minority, they are probably no more of a minority than women's representation in other technical fields. This would mean that any problem is shared with those other technical fields, and not a Ham radio specific problem. - Mike KB3EIA - Actually I know more women in ham radio than women in engineering. Me too, now that you mention it. During the PAQSO party, I have worked quite a few women, including the twins from Erie County, PA. (sorry, I don't recall the callsigns at the moment. They even work in tandem. After working the first, she will ask you to standby to work the other one. It's confusing the first time, but now I look forward to at as two quick QSO's! 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
"John Smith" wrote in message ... Dee: Michael's own words: "There certainly are women in Ham radio, and although a minority, ..." What does that mean--they are being held out by the old farts? The women too want no-code? He is not claiming anything of the sort. Once again you see what isn't there. Just what is the reason he was claiming? He is not claiming any reason but simply stating that the same factors that cause women not to choose technical careers also cause them not to choose technical hobbies. He has made no statement about what those factors may be. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"John Smith" wrote in message ... Dee: That is another interesting statistic--most women in radio are the wives of hams--there is certainly some interesting reasons behind that, I am sure... I think it directly relates to "Good-Old Boy's Club" but them accepting the wife, daughter, relative of a member of the club... John Most hams (male or female) got into ham radio because they were the relatives and/or friends of hams. New hams get into the hobby by contact with existing hams for the most part. My brother became a ham because I was one. I've not seen any "Good-Old Boy's Club" attitude at all. When I joined the local club after moving to this area, I was single and none of the members had ever met or talked to my ex. They accepted me immediately as a fellow ham. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Dee:
That maybe and it may NOT be... I go with the later, you are correct... .... and, you guess is NO better than mine--if you call it anything other than a guess or "sticking up for him"--I'll call you a liar... John "Dee Flint" wrote in message ... "John Smith" wrote in message ... Dee: Michael's own words: "There certainly are women in Ham radio, and although a minority, ..." What does that mean--they are being held out by the old farts? The women too want no-code? He is not claiming anything of the sort. Once again you see what isn't there. Just what is the reason he was claiming? He is not claiming any reason but simply stating that the same factors that cause women not to choose technical careers also cause them not to choose technical hobbies. He has made no statement about what those factors may be. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:25 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com