Phil Kane wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 21:11:41 GMT, robert casey wrote:

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.

Those are the same people who get As in Chemistry but Ds in Chem
Lab.....

Then we have the Tau Beta Pi MEs drilling holes . .


--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

w3rv

John Smith wrote:
N2EY:

Apparently you don't understand IQ scores...

I understand them quite well, thank you. Including what the tests try
to measure, and what they cannot measure.

IQ is measured by you

*your*

ability to extrapolate off

*extrapolate from*

common knowledge and
use the products of such to solve new solutions which the "test'ee"

*testee*

is unfamiliar with... it is the ability of the mind to adapt to new
situations, new conditions, new ideas and come up with new solutions...

It is also pattern recognition...

That's right. And within the confines of the testing areas and methods,
the results are fairly accurate. But IQ is not the entire picture.

My point is that intelligence goes far beyond what is measured by IQ
scores. Intelligence is a vector with many variables, not a scalar.

It is NOT a "religious beliefs"

*belief*

in existing knowledge, it is NOT
upholding traditions and methods for historical reasons...

It is also not changing things merely for the sake of change. It is
not a blind acceptance of "newer is better" or "ending is better
than mending". It is not a wholesale rejection of past experience
and wisdom simply because of age.

One thing it is NOT is wrote

*rote*

learning...

Yes, it is. The ability to learn and recall facts is part of
intelligence.
Not the whole thing, obviously, but an important part.

Then there's the role of skills, which are often undervalued but which
are a vital part of intelligence as well.

a chimpanzee can do that...

Some insects can do pattern recognition.

--

I sense a certain level of IQ chauvinism in your reply. Looks like
you consider only certain kinds of mental processes to be worthwhile,
and the others don't count for much with you.

That's a very shortsighted view of things, John.

--

I find it interesting that you do not reply to direct questions,
and that you insist on top-posting in a newsgroup where
everyone else inserts their comments into the post they are
responding to.

Is there a reason for those behaviors?

wrote in message
oups.com...
wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:
"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.

That claim is incorrect.

But it reveals something about its writer.

Some people still believe the idea that intelligence can be
meaningfully measured/expressed as a single numeric quantity.
As if IQ scores told all.

The fact of the matter is that there are a number of different
types of intelligence - at least seven different, distinct
kinds have been identified. A person can be a genius in one
intelligence area and barely functional in another.

The phrase "are too stupid for the technical fields" reveals
that its author still believes the single-quantity concept.


Uh-Huh. You trump all of 'em in that game.

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.

Exactly.

2) We are no worse than any other technical field about baring
women.

Spelling doesn't seem to be a strong suit, though..

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.

He's another Burke Dee, a male ditz/troll, he isn't worth the effort,
ignore the goofball.

Thank you. I work with a number of female engineers, and they seem
to
have no problem working with me. My opinion on the issue is based
on
conversations with them.

I smell an oddity here. Dee is an engineer who apparently works in
academia. You also work in academia and know some number of woman
engineers who are also in academia. I've been out here in the
commercial side for decades and per previous have had very few
encounters with woman engineers. Is it possible that the woman
engineers I don't see out here are operating in academia instead??
Would not surprise me a bit if that's the case.

Here's what I've observed:

1) Most technical fields have been predominatly male for a whole bunch
of reasons. That's changing but it takes a long time, because you
don't
become a senior engineer overnight.

2) "Technical field" covers a lot of ground. Medical technology - is
that
technical or medical?

3) The factors involving career choice are many and varied. Just one
example:

Back in the
1970s, when I was in high school, a lot of girls I knew who would have
excelled in the technical fields were essentially dequalified by the
schools they went to. The boys' high schools offered lots of math and
science courses at all levels, while the girls' high schools did not,
focusing more on languages, social studies, and related fields. The
division was subtle but effective - very few girls from those schools
went into technical fields in college, while lots of boys did.

Especially one who bristles at being called a
"female" engineer. She says "Just call me an engineer, if you don't
mind!"

Works for me.

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY:

I have noticed one thing, people who "DON'T have what it takes" always
"try to make it something else."

Either you have it or you don't, and industry will find out, one way or
another...

.... one more thing, people who don't have what it takes are always more
than willing to fall into an argument of just what it takes--the rest
which have what it takes usually have completed the job by then...

John

wrote in message
ups.com...


John Smith wrote:
N2EY:

Apparently you don't understand IQ scores...

I understand them quite well, thank you. Including what the tests try
to measure, and what they cannot measure.

IQ is measured by you

*your*

ability to extrapolate off

*extrapolate from*

common knowledge and
use the products of such to solve new solutions which the "test'ee"

*testee*

is unfamiliar with... it is the ability of the mind to adapt to new
situations, new conditions, new ideas and come up with new
solutions...

It is also pattern recognition...

That's right. And within the confines of the testing areas and
methods,
the results are fairly accurate. But IQ is not the entire picture.

My point is that intelligence goes far beyond what is measured by IQ
scores. Intelligence is a vector with many variables, not a scalar.

It is NOT a "religious beliefs"

*belief*

in existing knowledge, it is NOT
upholding traditions and methods for historical reasons...

It is also not changing things merely for the sake of change. It is
not a blind acceptance of "newer is better" or "ending is better
than mending". It is not a wholesale rejection of past experience
and wisdom simply because of age.

One thing it is NOT is wrote

*rote*

learning...

Yes, it is. The ability to learn and recall facts is part of
intelligence.
Not the whole thing, obviously, but an important part.

Then there's the role of skills, which are often undervalued but which
are a vital part of intelligence as well.

a chimpanzee can do that...

Some insects can do pattern recognition.

--

I sense a certain level of IQ chauvinism in your reply. Looks like
you consider only certain kinds of mental processes to be worthwhile,
and the others don't count for much with you.

That's a very shortsighted view of things, John.

--

I find it interesting that you do not reply to direct questions,
and that you insist on top-posting in a newsgroup where
everyone else inserts their comments into the post they are
responding to.

Is there a reason for those behaviors?

wrote in message
oups.com...
wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:
"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.

That claim is incorrect.

But it reveals something about its writer.

Some people still believe the idea that intelligence can be
meaningfully measured/expressed as a single numeric quantity.
As if IQ scores told all.

The fact of the matter is that there are a number of different
types of intelligence - at least seven different, distinct
kinds have been identified. A person can be a genius in one
intelligence area and barely functional in another.

The phrase "are too stupid for the technical fields" reveals
that its author still believes the single-quantity concept.


Uh-Huh. You trump all of 'em in that game.

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.

Exactly.

2) We are no worse than any other technical field about baring
women.

Spelling doesn't seem to be a strong suit, though..

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.

He's another Burke Dee, a male ditz/troll, he isn't worth the
effort,
ignore the goofball.

Thank you. I work with a number of female engineers, and they
seem
to
have no problem working with me. My opinion on the issue is
based
on
conversations with them.

I smell an oddity here. Dee is an engineer who apparently works in
academia. You also work in academia and know some number of woman
engineers who are also in academia. I've been out here in the
commercial side for decades and per previous have had very few
encounters with woman engineers. Is it possible that the woman
engineers I don't see out here are operating in academia instead??
Would not surprise me a bit if that's the case.

Here's what I've observed:

1) Most technical fields have been predominatly male for a whole
bunch
of reasons. That's changing but it takes a long time, because you
don't
become a senior engineer overnight.

2) "Technical field" covers a lot of ground. Medical technology -
is
that
technical or medical?

3) The factors involving career choice are many and varied. Just
one
example:

Back in the
1970s, when I was in high school, a lot of girls I knew who would
have
excelled in the technical fields were essentially dequalified by
the
schools they went to. The boys' high schools offered lots of math
and
science courses at all levels, while the girls' high schools did
not,
focusing more on languages, social studies, and related fields. The
division was subtle but effective - very few girls from those
schools
went into technical fields in college, while lots of boys did.

Especially one who bristles at being called a
"female" engineer. She says "Just call me an engineer, if you
don't
mind!"

Works for me.

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote in message
oups.com...
John Smith wrote:
Dee:


[snip]

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


[snip]


So what you really needed was exposure - publicity - examples - demos.

Were you attracted to amateur radio because it was like the internet,
or because it was something very different?

Yes I needed to know what it was all about before developing an interest in
radio for it's own sake. The Novice/Tech class I took along with my husband
at the time filled that role.

Once I had some basic knowledge about ham radio, I was attracted by the fact
that it was NOT like the internet. What attracted me was that I could talk
around the world with NO INFRASTRUCTURE. That communications was totally
dependent on me and my skills and my knowledge of propagation once I had the
basic radio and antenna. Here I, just an average citizen, could put a radio
signal around the world and even beyond if I wanted to pursue it.

If it had been like the internet, I'd probably have lost interest.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee:

Down load Mirc (it is free) if you have a windows machine (if apple
there are other programs)and learn to IRC... you will find you have been
missing a lot..

John

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...
John Smith wrote:
Dee:


[snip]

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


[snip]


So what you really needed was exposure - publicity - examples -
demos.

Were you attracted to amateur radio because it was like the internet,
or because it was something very different?

Yes I needed to know what it was all about before developing an
interest in radio for it's own sake. The Novice/Tech class I took
along with my husband at the time filled that role.

Once I had some basic knowledge about ham radio, I was attracted by
the fact that it was NOT like the internet. What attracted me was
that I could talk around the world with NO INFRASTRUCTURE. That
communications was totally dependent on me and my skills and my
knowledge of propagation once I had the basic radio and antenna. Here
I, just an average citizen, could put a radio signal around the world
and even beyond if I wanted to pursue it.

If it had been like the internet, I'd probably have lost interest.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

wrote in message
oups.com...

[snip]

Im convinced that events in the future will prove us right. Today we
have a "bloat the numbers at any cost" game which is doomed to backfire
eventually. The big question is how badly it will backfire and how much
damage will have been be done before it happens. The history of this
country over last couple decades is chock full of eamples of backing
away from failed giveaways. It's only a matter of time until ham radio
gets it's turn.


The "bloat the numbers at any cost" will backfire for the simple reason that
too many with no real interest will get in and then drop out. Then we will
see once again a decline in numbers that will panic people just as the
relatively small drop off from the peak is panicing people now.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

wrote in message
oups.com...

Mike Coslo wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:
"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.

Uh-Huh. You trump all of 'em in that game.

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.

He's another Burke Dee, a male ditz/troll, he isn't worth the effort,
ignore the goofball.


Thank you. I work with a number of female engineers, and they seem to
have no problem working with me. My opinion on the issue is based on
conversations with them.

I smell an oddity here. Dee is an engineer who apparently works in
academia. You also work in academia and know some number of woman
engineers who are also in academia. I've been out here in the
commercial side for decades and per previous have had very few
encounters with woman engineers. Is it possible that the woman
engineers I don't see out here are operating in academia instead??
Would not surprise me a bit if that's the case.


I work out in the trenches of the automotive industry and stated that I did
NOT see very many female engineers but that I see more female hams than
female engineers.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Phil Kane wrote:
On 15 Jun 2005 17:01:18 -0700, wrote:


In all my 43 years in engineering I've met a grand total of four woman
engineers, two MEs, one EE and a Chem E.


In my 50 years in engineering I've =dated= more women engineers than
you seem to have met, was engaged to one (nuclear engineer) and
married another (EE). In my wife's office alone there are more than
4 =PEs= on her floor, including the chief of the structural engineering
section (imagine that, a lady tower engineer). Had my wife gone
through the paperwork as she talked about twenty years ago she, too,
would have been a PE.


Our contesting club alone has
three female members, an old girlfriend is a ham and I met W3CUL. Out
of Lord only knows how many engineers and hams I've met over the years.


In our club, the largest radio club in the state if not in the
Pacific Northwest, about 1/3 of the hams are women, and of them,
about half are active on the air in some fashion or other.

That IS a significant number, Phil.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Dee:

You miss a very important reality.

If the youngsters are not introduced to amateur radio--then most of
those interested in RF uses will go the Ghz freqs of lans/wans and setup
various neighborhood or city/town/county computer communication
networks, and when they look back at amateur radio and the code
requirement--they will laugh and become freebanders!!!

Much better to get 'em started right up front--although the oldsters
here act like radio is a big thing, the kids don't think so--they have
been chatting the world for a big percentage of their lifetimes on the
internet... they don't have to wait for conditions to improve, they
don't have to buy expensive equipment or set up large antennas or run
linears--they chat 24/7 with total and complete reliability...

they don't have to find someone with a license to chat with, anyone able
to obtain a computer they can and do chat with... there are NO
BARRIERS, compare that to amateur radio...

.... then there is the data throughput capabilities of the net which the
narrow rf spectrum amateur radio provides will never allow for...

The lack of them here proves there is some REAL problem, and that is
what I have been saying--AMATEUR RADIO WILL HAVE TO CHANGE AND COME OUT
OF THE PAST AND JOIN THE NEW TECHNOLOGIES WITH DYNAMIC MINDS TO MEET
THESE CHALLENGES OR DIE...

.... one or the other is inevitable, surely a blind person can see
that... I would think you might be free of the DINOSAUR SIZED EGOS of
the males here and able to grasp this immediately...

John

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...

[snip]

Im convinced that events in the future will prove us right. Today we
have a "bloat the numbers at any cost" game which is doomed to
backfire
eventually. The big question is how badly it will backfire and how
much
damage will have been be done before it happens. The history of this
country over last couple decades is chock full of eamples of backing
away from failed giveaways. It's only a matter of time until ham
radio
gets it's turn.


The "bloat the numbers at any cost" will backfire for the simple
reason that too many with no real interest will get in and then drop
out. Then we will see once again a decline in numbers that will panic
people just as the relatively small drop off from the peak is panicing
people now.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

John Smith wrote:

Dee:



[snip]


"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...



[snip]


So what you really needed was exposure - publicity - examples - demos.

Were you attracted to amateur radio because it was like the internet,
or because it was something very different?


Yes I needed to know what it was all about before developing an interest in
radio for it's own sake. The Novice/Tech class I took along with my husband
at the time filled that role.

I have to note that in an earlier post where you disagreed with me
about a person "knowing" they wanted to be a ham, after reading this, I
have to agree that the things that I most enjoy now are nothing like
what I thought I wanted to do when first becoming a ham.

Which of course is a powerful argument for keeping the Morse code test.

Once I had some basic knowledge about ham radio, I was attracted by the fact
that it was NOT like the internet. What attracted me was that I could talk
around the world with NO INFRASTRUCTURE. That communications was totally
dependent on me and my skills and my knowledge of propagation once I had the
basic radio and antenna. Here I, just an average citizen, could put a radio
signal around the world and even beyond if I wanted to pursue it.

If it had been like the internet, I'd probably have lost interest.

Although I use the Internet a lot (probably waay too much) I love Ham
radio precisely because it ISN'T the Internet.

- Mike KB3EIA -

John Smith wrote:
Dee:

Down load Mirc (it is free) if you have a windows machine (if apple
there are other programs)and learn to IRC... you will find you have been
missing a lot..

DIfferent strokes for different folks, John. Internet Relay Chat is for
some of us just about the *least* interesting facet of the Internet.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

[snip]

Im convinced that events in the future will prove us right. Today we
have a "bloat the numbers at any cost" game which is doomed to backfire
eventually. The big question is how badly it will backfire and how much
damage will have been be done before it happens. The history of this
country over last couple decades is chock full of eamples of backing
away from failed giveaways. It's only a matter of time until ham radio
gets it's turn.



The "bloat the numbers at any cost" will backfire for the simple reason that
too many with no real interest will get in and then drop out.

Easy one Dee, cuz I think that is just what happened recently!


Then we will
see once again a decline in numbers that will panic people just as the
relatively small drop off from the peak is panicing people now.

The ability of middle aged and older men to become incredibly agitated
and angry about trivial things.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Dee:

If you download mirc, study it and how to use it, hook to the dalnet
server and pick a room like #australia - #40+friends #30-60friends -
#California - #Sweden - etc - etc -etc...

.... you will get lost for hours chatting, you can instantly send and
receive pictures and documents with other room members, the chat happens
in real time--you can go voice-to-net with another free application and
chat to the other countries for free in speech... after you have seen
and experienced all this--tell me amateur radio doesn't have to "GET
REAL!" I doubt if these old buggers here could even get Mirc installed
on their machines, learn to use it and find out what they are
missing--these old boy are just too plum SLOW!!!
grin

download mirc for free here == http://www.mirc.com

Warmest regards,
John

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
Dee:

You miss a very important reality.

If the youngsters are not introduced to amateur radio--then most of
those interested in RF uses will go the Ghz freqs of lans/wans and
setup various neighborhood or city/town/county computer communication
networks, and when they look back at amateur radio and the code
requirement--they will laugh and become freebanders!!!

Much better to get 'em started right up front--although the oldsters
here act like radio is a big thing, the kids don't think so--they have
been chatting the world for a big percentage of their lifetimes on the
internet... they don't have to wait for conditions to improve, they
don't have to buy expensive equipment or set up large antennas or run
linears--they chat 24/7 with total and complete reliability...

they don't have to find someone with a license to chat with, anyone
able to obtain a computer they can and do chat with... there are NO
BARRIERS, compare that to amateur radio...

... then there is the data throughput capabilities of the net which
the narrow rf spectrum amateur radio provides will never allow for...

The lack of them here proves there is some REAL problem, and that is
what I have been saying--AMATEUR RADIO WILL HAVE TO CHANGE AND COME
OUT OF THE PAST AND JOIN THE NEW TECHNOLOGIES WITH DYNAMIC MINDS TO
MEET THESE CHALLENGES OR DIE...

... one or the other is inevitable, surely a blind person can see
that... I would think you might be free of the DINOSAUR SIZED EGOS of
the males here and able to grasp this immediately...

John

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...

[snip]

Im convinced that events in the future will prove us right. Today we
have a "bloat the numbers at any cost" game which is doomed to
backfire
eventually. The big question is how badly it will backfire and how
much
damage will have been be done before it happens. The history of this
country over last couple decades is chock full of eamples of backing
away from failed giveaways. It's only a matter of time until ham
radio
gets it's turn.


The "bloat the numbers at any cost" will backfire for the simple
reason that too many with no real interest will get in and then drop
out. Then we will see once again a decline in numbers that will
panic people just as the relatively small drop off from the peak is
panicing people now.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
Dee:

Down load Mirc (it is free) if you have a windows machine (if apple there
are other programs)and learn to IRC... you will find you have been missing
a lot..

John


Tried it and didn't like it. The magic of ham radio is that you don't need
an infrastructure such as the internet.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
Dee:

If you download mirc, study it and how to use it, hook to the dalnet
server and pick a room like #australia - #40+friends #30-60friends -
#California - #Sweden - etc - etc -etc...

... you will get lost for hours chatting, you can instantly send and
receive pictures and documents with other room members, the chat happens
in real time--you can go voice-to-net with another free application and
chat to the other countries for free in speech... after you have seen and
experienced all this--tell me amateur radio doesn't have to "GET REAL!" I
doubt if these old buggers here could even get Mirc installed on their
machines, learn to use it and find out what they are missing--these old
boy are just too plum SLOW!!!
grin

download mirc for free here == http://www.mirc.com

Warmest regards,
John

Not interested in internet chat. Tried it and it's dull. Too much
infrastructure and not enough independence to make it a fun hobby.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee:

Well, at least you prove my point, the world moves on--some stay... but
as it has always been-it will wait for no man or woman... new mindsets
will now have to move us up-to-date, which has been my argument all
along... it will be a pleasure to see this happen in my lifetime...

John

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
Dee:

If you download mirc, study it and how to use it, hook to the dalnet
server and pick a room like #australia - #40+friends #30-60friends -
#California - #Sweden - etc - etc -etc...

... you will get lost for hours chatting, you can instantly send and
receive pictures and documents with other room members, the chat
happens in real time--you can go voice-to-net with another free
application and chat to the other countries for free in speech...
after you have seen and experienced all this--tell me amateur radio
doesn't have to "GET REAL!" I doubt if these old buggers here could
even get Mirc installed on their machines, learn to use it and find
out what they are missing--these old boy are just too plum SLOW!!!
grin

download mirc for free here == http://www.mirc.com

Warmest regards,
John

Not interested in internet chat. Tried it and it's dull. Too much
infrastructure and not enough independence to make it a fun hobby.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Mike:

Yanno, back in the horse and buggy days--when the horse was king--same
thing--some waited with their horses for other to come to their senses
and get rid of their autos... it never happened...

I think this is very much the same where those so religiously and
historically tied to the past and what has always been will remain blind
to the fact that change is inevitable...

I know the question is not "if it will happen?" but rather, "how long is
this going to take?"

I feel like I am back at Kitty Hawk saying, "Now it is only a matter of
time, men WILL FLY THE EARTH AS EAGLES!" grin

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

[snip]

Im convinced that events in the future will prove us right. Today we
have a "bloat the numbers at any cost" game which is doomed to
backfire
eventually. The big question is how badly it will backfire and how
much
damage will have been be done before it happens. The history of this
country over last couple decades is chock full of eamples of backing
away from failed giveaways. It's only a matter of time until ham
radio
gets it's turn.



The "bloat the numbers at any cost" will backfire for the simple
reason that too many with no real interest will get in and then drop
out.

Easy one Dee, cuz I think that is just what happened recently!


Then we will see once again a decline in numbers that will panic
people just as the relatively small drop off from the peak is
panicing people now.

The ability of middle aged and older men to become incredibly agitated
and angry about trivial things.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Dee:

Like the "magic of traveling is the horse?"

I think not, but I see the small group here is all centered about
this... not surprising really... but way out of mainstream...

John

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
Dee:

Down load Mirc (it is free) if you have a windows machine (if apple
there are other programs)and learn to IRC... you will find you have
been missing a lot..

John


Tried it and didn't like it. The magic of ham radio is that you don't
need an infrastructure such as the internet.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Mike Coslo wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
John Smith wrote:
Dee:

[snip]

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...



[snip]


So what you really needed was exposure - publicity - examples - demos.

Were you attracted to amateur radio because it was like the internet,
or because it was something very different?

Yes I needed to know what it was all about before developing an interest in
radio for it's own sake. The Novice/Tech class I took along with my husband at the time filled that role.

"Radio for its own sake" - that's the key to amateur radio. If
someone is turned on by that, they may want to be a ham. If not,
it's highly doubtful.

I have to note that in an earlier post where you disagreed
with me
about a person "knowing" they wanted to be a ham,
after reading this, I
have to agree that the things that I most enjoy now
are nothing like
what I thought I wanted to do when first becoming a ham.

Which of course is a powerful argument for
keeping the Morse code test.

Exactly.

When I first got started with a shortwave receiver (homemade),
I was attracted to ham radio by the folks on 75 meter AM. I
wanted to join them, so I set about getting a license.

In those days, that meant at least a General Class license,
so I set about learning the code and theory, and setting up
a station. Got the Novice at age 13 in 1967 and went on the
air with Morse Code.

Now originally the plan was to use Morse Code on the air until
I could get the General. But a funny thing happened on the way -
I discovered how much fun Morse Code was, and how much could be
done with very simple equipment using Morse Code. And it became my
favorite mode.

Once I had some basic knowledge about ham radio, I was
attracted by the fact
that it was NOT like the internet. What attracted me
was that I could talk
around the world with NO INFRASTRUCTURE. That
communications was totally
dependent on me and my skills and my knowledge of
propagation once I had the
basic radio and antenna. Here I, just an average citizen,
could put a radio
signal around the world and even beyond if I wanted to
pursue it.

That's the hook for me, too. Plus doing it with equipment I
designed and built myself.

If it had been like the internet, I'd probably have lost
interest.

Although I use the Internet a lot (probably waay too much) I
love Ham
radio precisely because it ISN'T the Internet.

Same here.

The big difference is that the 'net is a means to an end. Ham radio is
an end in itself.

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY:

When there was some mystery to radio, perhaps, no longer... most even
listen to shortwave on the internet...

Check out radio australia, BBC, etc. webpages... they even make note of
it... and you can get their broadcasts though your computer with audio
quality which is remarkable...

No, we are just watching the end of an era, like the horse and buggy...
no one stuck in the past can ever see the future coming, and they all
end up dreaming of halting progress... even from their rest homes...

If you stay active with the youngsters and an important part of your
community activities it is much easier to accept change and have the
skills to adapt...

.... staying current is a real chore, popping into a college now and
grabbing a course to stay current is beyond what some can will or
want...

Many are just too old to be able to incorporate the computer into their
lives, the current generation can't live without them--but then, neither
can I and I consider myself an old fart...

John

wrote in message
oups.com...
Mike Coslo wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
John Smith wrote:
Dee:

[snip]

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...



[snip]


So what you really needed was exposure - publicity - examples -
demos.

Were you attracted to amateur radio because it was like the
internet,
or because it was something very different?

Yes I needed to know what it was all about before developing an
interest in
radio for it's own sake. The Novice/Tech class I took along
with my husband at the time filled that role.

"Radio for its own sake" - that's the key to amateur radio. If
someone is turned on by that, they may want to be a ham. If not,
it's highly doubtful.

I have to note that in an earlier post where you disagreed
with me
about a person "knowing" they wanted to be a ham,
after reading this, I
have to agree that the things that I most enjoy now
are nothing like
what I thought I wanted to do when first becoming a ham.

Which of course is a powerful argument for
keeping the Morse code test.

Exactly.

When I first got started with a shortwave receiver (homemade),
I was attracted to ham radio by the folks on 75 meter AM. I
wanted to join them, so I set about getting a license.

In those days, that meant at least a General Class license,
so I set about learning the code and theory, and setting up
a station. Got the Novice at age 13 in 1967 and went on the
air with Morse Code.

Now originally the plan was to use Morse Code on the air until
I could get the General. But a funny thing happened on the way -
I discovered how much fun Morse Code was, and how much could be
done with very simple equipment using Morse Code. And it became my
favorite mode.

Once I had some basic knowledge about ham radio, I was
attracted by the fact
that it was NOT like the internet. What attracted me
was that I could talk
around the world with NO INFRASTRUCTURE. That
communications was totally
dependent on me and my skills and my knowledge of
propagation once I had the
basic radio and antenna. Here I, just an average citizen,
could put a radio
signal around the world and even beyond if I wanted to
pursue it.

That's the hook for me, too. Plus doing it with equipment I
designed and built myself.

If it had been like the internet, I'd probably have lost
interest.

Although I use the Internet a lot (probably waay too much) I
love Ham
radio precisely because it ISN'T the Internet.

Same here.

The big difference is that the 'net is a means to an end. Ham radio is
an end in itself.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Top Posting John Smith wrote:
Kelly:

Yep. I think you are unaware that some of us out here have our licenses,
got our radios fired up, tune the bands--and it is nothing but the same
old, same old...

We do see all the rag chews, boring rants, same operators, same gripes,
same rants, same little groups, same ideas, same conversations as
yesterday--day, after day, after day...

So what do you want them to talk about? I thought hams could converse
about whatever pleases them. I don't see anything in the FCC regulations
that says hams can only talk about this and can't talk about that. Do you?

I am sure a lot of 'em are sitting there waiting for us poor ignorant
ops to "get with it" and "come to the realization" of just how vital and
interesting this all is and SHOULD BE to us...

If you aren't interested no one is holding a gun to your head to make
you listen. Have enough sense to either change to another frequency/band
or turn the damn radio off and find something else to do.


Well I am one which does not and cannot appreciate it... if the fault
lies with me and my interests and views--so be it...

Thank goodness not everyone has to share your views or interests.


If I am wrong and all these young guys just can't wait to get a license
and startup a QSO so they hear these old guys fart and rant--well, that
is just a short coming of mine--and, those young dynamic guys who are
running the world right now and providing new ideas, designs and methods
are probably on the way here right now to find the old farts.... I'll
just sit here and wait for 'em, I need a change... maybe I can chat
with one or two of 'em--if they can quit their hero worship of you guys
long enough... grin

John

Sure sounds like ham radio isn't for you. Maybe you should go back to cb
and the 'freeband'.

Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
.. . .

encounters with woman engineers. Is it possible that the woman
engineers I don't see out here are operating in academia instead??
Would not surprise me a bit if that's the case.


I work out in the trenches of the automotive industry

Got it, misimpression on my part, I think you've mentioned "your
students" in the past and I assumed the rest.

and stated that I did
NOT see very many female engineers but that I see more female hams than
female engineers.

I did get this part of it right.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

w3rv

From: "Phil Kane" on Thurs 16 Jun 2005 12:28

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 21:03:51 -0400, Cmd Buzz Corey wrote:

How many women get their pilots license as compared to men?

I don't know. I'll have to ask our friend Jane who owns and flys
her own air taxi service....

The "Grace L. Ferguson Storm Door and Airline Company?" :-)

Find any local Ninety-Nines chapter and ask around there.
Good for another lop-sided opinion.



Ever go to an antique radio swap meet? You will find a lot more men
collecting and fixing old radios than women.

One of the more prominent collectors and restorers of WW-II-era
military radios is a woman - who is also the communications chief
for one of the major California cities.

MINOR city, Phil. Tsk, tsk.

If you like butch lesbians, she's the gal for you...

She isn't old enough (by photos) to be born until at
least 1965 or later...

Do you collect dolls, tea sets, china dishes? No? Lots of women do.

As do most of the dealers in that field, who are overwhelmingly male.

Tsk, tsk, you need to watch more HGTV, Phil. Especially
the "Carol Duvall Show." :-)

Or walk into any Michael's chain outlet any hour of the day.

Bye.

Phil Kane wrote:
On 15 Jun 2005 17:01:18 -0700, wrote:

In all my 43 years in engineering I've met a grand total of four woman
engineers, two MEs, one EE and a Chem E.

In my 50 years in engineering I've =dated= more women engineers than
you seem to have met, was engaged to one (nuclear engineer) and
married another (EE). In my wife's office alone there are more than
4 =PEs= on her floor, including the chief of the structural engineering
section (imagine that, a lady tower engineer). Had my wife gone
through the paperwork as she talked about twenty years ago she, too,
would have been a PE.

Our contesting club alone has
three female members, an old girlfriend is a ham and I met W3CUL. Out
of Lord only knows how many engineers and hams I've met over the years.

In our club, the largest radio club in the state if not in the
Pacific Northwest, about 1/3 of the hams are women, and of them,
about half are active on the air in some fashion or other.

This topic is getting interesting, I'd like to take it a bit further.
I'm at a complete loss to understand why there's such an obvious
disparity in the numbers of woman hams & engineers in this part of the
country vs. in your part of the country.

With respect to the socioeconomicpolitical mindsets Oregon is well
known for marching to it's own occasionally quirky liberal drummer
while PA is a typical old-form mid-Atlantic centrist sort of place. I
'spose there are some of the usual left coast / right coast differences
which sort of favor left coast women and might explain part of it. But
good grief, we're not talking Albania and Sweden here.

I've mulled the matter off and on for a few hours and it occurs to me
that maybe, just maybe our exposures to women engineers in particular
have been quite different. As in where you've churned your coin vs.
where I've gotten mine over the years. I've only spent a total of ten
years working for large entities, six as a Navy employee back when
woman engineers simply didn't exist for all practical purposes, then
much later I did four with the DuPont central engineering center in the
mid-1980s. Three of the four woman engineers I've met and cited were
DuPont employees, the fourth was a short-time part timer I ran into on
a specific small-biz project whose real job was with some large firm or
another.

Except for the six I did with the Navy, a gig I loved and was enormous
fun I've spent most of the rest of my career in smokestack small-medium
size busineses. I have allergic reactions to huge employers for a
number of reasons and generally avoid them. I despise corporate beige
with a purple passion

If I have it right you spent most of your career with the FCC, another
huge entity. Is it possible that women in engineering tend to gravitate
in large numbers to major entities where fair employment practices are
actually practiced and you've gotten involved with more of them than
I've ever managed to meet?

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

w3rv

Out here in the smokestacks of Delaware County PA

wrote:
wrote:

Phil Kane wrote:

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 21:11:41 GMT, robert casey wrote:


Actually, I wrote the following paragraph:

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.

Those are the same people who get As in Chemistry but Ds in Chem
Lab.....


Yup.

Then we have the Tau Beta Pi MEs drilling holes . .


My frat was I Phelta Thi....

I belonged to Signa Phi Nothing......

- Mike KB3EIA -

John Smith wrote:

Mike:

Yanno, back in the horse and buggy days--when the horse was king--same
thing--some waited with their horses for other to come to their senses
and get rid of their autos... it never happened...

I think this is very much the same where those so religiously and
historically tied to the past and what has always been will remain blind
to the fact that change is inevitable...

I know the question is not "if it will happen?" but rather, "how long is
this going to take?"

I feel like I am back at Kitty Hawk saying, "Now it is only a matter of
time, men WILL FLY THE EARTH AS EAGLES!" grin


Remember though, that there is no rule that disallows enjoyment of
heritage technology *and* more recent technology. (I hesitate to call
things like the internet, and digital modes as cutting edge - they are not)

I spend a lot of my hobby time doing psk31, using antenna design
programs, and I am starting to fool around with tube equipment as a lark
too. It's all good, man! 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

Michael:

Exactly... nothing is a "whole world onto itself."

There are just different points of views and interests/goals. How one
discusses the subjects eventually draws a picture of the authors
minds--some have only self-serving interests and goals in mind and are
not interested in anything else--some are willing to look at the bigger
picture, plan for the future and try to encompass everyone in the future
plans and goals...

Hey, it is a free country...

John

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...
John Smith wrote:

Mike:

Yanno, back in the horse and buggy days--when the horse was
king--same thing--some waited with their horses for other to come to
their senses and get rid of their autos... it never happened...

I think this is very much the same where those so religiously and
historically tied to the past and what has always been will remain
blind to the fact that change is inevitable...

I know the question is not "if it will happen?" but rather, "how long
is this going to take?"

I feel like I am back at Kitty Hawk saying, "Now it is only a matter
of time, men WILL FLY THE EARTH AS EAGLES!" grin


Remember though, that there is no rule that disallows enjoyment of
heritage technology *and* more recent technology. (I hesitate to call
things like the internet, and digital modes as cutting edge - they are
not)

I spend a lot of my hobby time doing psk31, using antenna design
programs, and I am starting to fool around with tube equipment as a
lark too. It's all good, man! 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

That makes it a real PITA to people who are good at book
learnin' and not so hot at motor skills.


Those are the same people who get As in Chemistry but Ds in Chem
Lab.....


Most colleges make Chem class 3 credits but Chem Lab 1 credit,
and some others just lump the two together for 4 credits.
and the grades are usually weighed so labs rate for about 25%
of the final grade.

Similar things happen with Calculus class, I learned how
to solve exam problems but never did figure out how to
actually USE calculus to solve a real world problem.

In undergraduate college, if it doesn't show on the tests,
there's no point in learning it (unless you find something
interesting on its own).

Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:


. . . Is it possible that the woman
engineers I don't see out here are operating in academia instead??
Would not surprise me a bit if that's the case.

I work with 5 or so regularly.

I think you are probably correct regarding their increased presence in
academia, compared to industry.

My thoughts on why that is so are based on two ideas. First is that the
academic world is sensitive to gender issues, due to groups that bust on
them if they are not.

The Harvard guy . . . . Yee-haw! SPANK!

This leads to the second reason. That is that
until there are a lot more women graduating in the engineering fields,
the academic world will scap them up pretty quickly.

No particular comment here, I've been completely out of touch with the
innards of academia for years.

Some have noted that women tend to think differently than men, and may
not want to go into the engineering fields as a result of that
difference. (note that this is as a trend- not as the circumstances
regarding any one woman) I am not sure if the differences are
instinctual, or culture based. Time will tell. And it will probably be
quite a long time.

Certainly women think differently than men and it's good thing they do
in several respects. As far as the timing of the emergence of large
numbers of woman engineers goes. Hell, I know scads of women
contemporaries of mine whose parents never gave them a chance to go
into higher education "because the woman's place is in the home
barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen". Never mind support their
daughters desires to become engineers. Society has come a long way
since those days but it's gonna take a few more generations before this
thinking actually prevails.

Of course she had "problems" with this male chauvinist pig.
Finally got
down to me suggesting that instead of differentiating by the man/woman
thing we differtiate by using "X-Chromosone people" and "Y-Chromosone
people" instead. Only got me about ten seconds of peace before she
recovered and got all over me again.

Yoiks!

Yeah yoicks . . she drove me batty, you would not believe it. 15 years
later she glomed two degrees before she turned 21, has four kids, a big
home in a cushy neighborhood and votes Republican . . . I recently told
her 13-year-old son about his Mom riding with Warlocks when she was 14.
I dunno how I survived but I have so now it's payback time for Pop-pop.
Her two sisters weren't cakewalks either.


In fairness to the particular engineer, she is not particularly
obnoxious. Mostly just wants to get her work done.

- Mike KB3EIA -

w3rv

wrote in message
oups.com...

Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
. . .

encounters with woman engineers. Is it possible that the woman
engineers I don't see out here are operating in academia instead??
Would not surprise me a bit if that's the case.


I work out in the trenches of the automotive industry

Got it, misimpression on my part, I think you've mentioned "your
students" in the past and I assumed the rest.


Ham radio students.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

wrote:
wrote:

Which was in a much different regime than we have today. The Novice
license was a stick and carrot ticket with the emphasis on the stick.
We had 365 days from the date the license was issued to upgrade to a
13WPM General or get booted out of ham radio.

Or you could get a Technician ticket - but that had no HF and the
written
was the same as General.

The Tech ticket was next to useless in the mid-'50s because VHF/UHF ham
radio didn't exist for all practical purposes. There were a few far-end
experimenters on the air and a few hams using some commercial gear on
6M and some using WW2 surplus gear on 2M like the SCR-522 TX. Novices
had acess to 2M phone but Techs were restricted to freqs above 220Mhz.
It was a really scewball situation. The result was that probably 98% of
the Techs were Novices who took the test for the General and passed the
writtens but flunked the 13WPM code test.

Of the dozens of local
Novices I knew I don't recall of any who failed to upgrade or bitched
about the code tests.

Me neither. In my time the Novice was 2 years but the same one-shot
no renewal no second chance ticket.

Biggest cause of dropouts in those days was lack of gear.

I didn't see much of that. The norm then was to have a station already
up and running before one went for the test. The 365 day window of
opportunity was tough and wasting time by not being ready to roll when
the ticket arrived was not a good idea.

Im convinced that events in the future will prove us right. Today we
have a "bloat the numbers at any cost" game which is doomed to backfire
eventually. The big question is how badly it will backfire and how much
damage will have been be done before it happens. The history of this
country over last couple decades is chock full of eamples of backing
away from failed giveaways. It's only a matter of time until ham radio
gets it's turn.

We're seeing it already. The restructuring of 2000 reduced both the
code
*and written* test requirements. Net result was a short-term peak in
numbers followed by a drop to below where we were in 2000 or even 1997.

Maybe FCC sees that - they could have dropped Element 1 back in 2003,
or any
time since, but they haven't seen fit to do so.

The longer they sit on the upcoming NPRM . . . !


A local oldster was inquiring as to when his license expired, because
he couldn't find his F.C.C. Wallpaper. We help him figure it out. We
need to keep the geezers on the air. I love talking to them. I hope
someone is looking out for me when I'm 91!

They're all treasures we have a responsibilty to protect. Often from
themselves. Heh.

Yep.

Is 'CNP online or should I use regular mail?

QRZ.com doesn't show an e-mail address for him. On the other hand that
info could be 'way out of date. I wouldn't mess with snail mail, he's a
local, I'd look up his phone number and call him then take it from
there. All he should need is the hard-copy renewal package which you
can order for him via e-mail or phone.


73 de Jim, N2EY
w3rv

w3rv

wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:




Certainly women think differently than men and it's good thing they do
in several respects. As far as the timing of the emergence of large
numbers of woman engineers goes. Hell, I know scads of women
contemporaries of mine whose parents never gave them a chance to go
into higher education "because the woman's place is in the home
barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen". Never mind support their
daughters desires to become engineers. Society has come a long way
since those days but it's gonna take a few more generations before this
thinking actually prevails.

Arrrgh! Change "prevails" to "dies out"!

John Smith wrote:
... the young person of today has a much great education than his/her
counterpart of even twenty years ago...

Yeah, some of 'em can't even make change without an electronic cash
register. Many of them read below the high school level. They have
little in the way of cultural literacy. Most are woefully inadequate in
geography. They're all sharp.

Dave K8MN

Cmd Buzz Corey wrote:
Top Posting John Smith wrote:

You know, Buzz, I wonder why he top posts when everyone
else here in rrap does the interactive thing.

Kelly:

Yep. I think you are unaware that some of us out here have
our licenses,
got our radios fired up, tune the bands--and it is nothing
but the same old, same old...

Obviously only tunes the 'phone subbands...

We do see all the rag chews, boring rants, same operators,
same gripes,
same rants, same little groups, same ideas, same
conversations as
yesterday--day, after day, after day...

So what do you want them to talk about? I thought hams could
converse
about whatever pleases them. I don't see anything in the FCC
regulations
that says hams can only talk about this and can't talk about
that. Do you?

Actually there are a few limitations. Hams are not
allowed to use amateur radio to discuss:

- Anything of "pecuniary interest", meaning something that
would result in a monetary profit for those in the discussion.
(K1MAN got into hot water
with that recently - he kept mentioning his website and
stuff that could be bought there.)

- Anything that could aid in the violation of local, state, or
federal laws. (Discussing ways to jumper your electric meter
in order to reduce your bill, for example, is prohibited.)

- Anything that meets FCC's legal definition of obscenity.

I don't recall any other subjects that hams aren't allowed to
discuss on the ham bands.

I am sure a lot of 'em are sitting there waiting for us
poor ignorant
ops to "get with it" and "come to the realization" of
just how vital and
interesting this all is and SHOULD BE to us..

If you aren't interested no one is holding a gun
to your head to make
you listen. Have enough sense to either change to another
frequency/band
or turn the damn radio off and find something else to do.

I think you're missing an important point, Buzz.

John is complaining about the content of what he hears on
the ham bands (actually the 'phone subbands) but doesn't tell
us what *he* would find interesting to talk about. Nor does
he seem to be setting an example.

Well I am one which does not and cannot appreciate it...
if the fault
lies with me and my interests and views--so be it...

Thank goodness not everyone has to share your views or
interests.

If I am wrong and all these young guys just can't wait
to get a license
and startup a QSO so they hear these old guys fart
and rant--well, that
is just a short coming of mine--and, those young dynamic guys who are
running the world right now and providing new ideas, designs and methods
are probably on the way here right now to find the old
farts.... I'll
just sit here and wait for 'em, I need a change... maybe I can chat
with one or two of 'em--if they can quit their hero worship
of you guys
long enough... grin

John

Sure sounds like ham radio isn't for you. Maybe you should go
back to cb and the 'freeband'.

Sounds like ageism to me.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:

Please continue to praise the military morse ops, ,
especially those of the USN. The USN is NOT a branch of the
military you were in. Indeed, you weren't in ANY branch of the
military. You "served in other ways."


The Amateur Radio Service is not something in which you are a
participant. Perhaps you served in other ways.

game, set, match!

- Mike KB3EIA -