|
So Much For "Digital Is Better"
QUOTE FROM YAHOO! NEWS
FORT PIERRE, S.D. - Johnny Smith has a new digital cell phone, but he relies on an older analog bag phone when he travels the wide open spaces in the western part of the state to line up cattle for sale at a local livestock auction. In rural areas where cellular towers are far apart, analog phones often work when digital models can't get a signal. With the Federal Communications Commission pushing the move to all-digital phone service across the country, Smith and others in rural areas are urging the agency to wait until more towers are built to improve service. "I carry a bag phone just because I can get so much better reception with it," Smith said. "If you're out in the middle of no place, it's nice to be able to call somebody." END QUOTE (Let's see how long it takes Lennie & Co to make this a "code test" or "Mighty Morsemen" thread....) Steve, K4YZ |
K4YZ wrote: QUOTE FROM YAHOO! NEWS cutting all non ham content |
an_old_friend wrote: So Much for stevie staying near the topic K4YZ wrote: QUOTE FROM YAHOO! NEWS The topic, blockhead, is what the SUBJECT line was. As for what it is or is not, well, that was dues to YOU changing it. cutting all non ham content The implementation of digital over analog IS a policy debate, pumpkinhead. (The Idiot's Defense League won't let me call you an idiot anymore, so I'll expand the list of options.) Steve, K4YZ |
K4YZ wrote: an_old_friend wrote: So Much for stevie staying near the topic K4YZ wrote: QUOTE FROM YAHOO! NEWS The topic, blockhead, is what the SUBJECT line was. the topic here is rec.radio.amateur.policy As for what it is or is not, well, that was dues to YOU changing it. nope I ever changed the title of the newsgroup cutting all non ham content The implementation of digital over analog IS a policy debate, pumpkinhead. (The Idiot's Defense League won't let me call you an idiot anymore, so I'll expand the list of options.) but one having nothing to do with ham radio Dafur is policy debate too as is Iraq but they have no place here either Steve, K4YZ |
an_old_friend wrote: K4YZ wrote: an_old_friend wrote: So Much for stevie staying near the topic K4YZ wrote: QUOTE FROM YAHOO! NEWS The topic, blockhead, is what the SUBJECT line was. the topic here is rec.radio.amateur.policy No, that's the title of the newsgroup...Not the "topic". However the implementation of digital technology IS a policy issue in ALL radio services with there being some reasonable doubt as to the efficacy of digital. As for what it is or is not, well, that was dues to YOU changing it. nope I ever changed the title of the newsgroup You changed the title of the thread. The thread is about digital technology. YOU changed it to "more stevie wandering" which has absolutely NO radio-related reference at all. So who's instigating the "personal attack" now, Markie? cutting all non ham content The implementation of digital over analog IS a policy debate, pumpkinhead. (The Idiot's Defense League won't let me call you an idiot anymore, so I'll expand the list of options.) but one having nothing to do with ham radio Sure it is. There's debate about the efficacy of digital over analog. Here's a perfect example of analog being superior to digital. Dafur is policy debate too as is Iraq but they have no place here either However digital communications techniques are. Please provide the newsgroup your Letter of Appointment that assigns you as "Apppointer Of Appropriatness for NG Discussions" Steve, K4YZ |
K4YZ wrote:
QUOTE FROM YAHOO! NEWS FORT PIERRE, S.D. - Johnny Smith has a new digital cell phone, but he relies on an older analog bag phone when he travels the wide open spaces in the western part of the state to line up cattle for sale at a local livestock auction. In rural areas where cellular towers are far apart, analog phones often work when digital models can't get a signal. With the Federal Communications Commission pushing the move to all-digital phone service across the country, Smith and others in rural areas are urging the agency to wait until more towers are built to improve service. I think that the biggest reason that they work better is not an inherent digital problem, but that the old analog phones tend to have a lot more power. IIRC some of the bag phones were pumping out 5 watts, some may have been more. Today's cell phones have been reduced in power quite a bit. "I carry a bag phone just because I can get so much better reception with it," Smith said. "If you're out in the middle of no place, it's nice to be able to call somebody." END QUOTE (Let's see how long it takes Lennie & Co to make this a "code test" or "Mighty Morsemen" thread....) And we'll also see that I have just disagreed with you, and I suspect that we'll continue to get along just fine, as usual...... - Mike KB3EIA - |
K4YZ wrote:
QUOTE FROM YAHOO! NEWS In rural areas where cellular towers are far apart, analog phones often work when digital models can't get a signal. With the Federal Communications Commission pushing the move to all-digital phone service across the country, Smith and others in rural areas are urging the agency to wait until more towers are built to improve service. I would be remiss if I didn't note that I do agree with you that digital is not better. While it performs well under many circumstances, it has it's own set of shortcomings. Certainly digital voice is of no particular advantage in Amateur Radio, from what I have seen so far. - Mike KB3EIA - |
an_old_friend wrote:
K4YZ wrote: QUOTE FROM YAHOO! NEWS cutting all non ham content Digital voice is an acceptable ham radio topic, Mark. We may use it some day. And in it's present form, it isn't terribly applicable to Ham radio. The present systems available for us to use do sound very nice, giving "FM-like quality" (note that means quality akin to 2 meter FM, not Broadcast radio) with no noise. That part is good. But there are some nasty flaws, such as having to essentially have a "sked" in order to use it. If you don't catch the transmission from the beginning, you don't catch the transmission. There are no particular BW advantages either. Comparisons with the outside world and what they do and use are instructive, and in the end, on-topic. - Mike KB3EIA - |
One reason, the newer digital phone probably puts out 1/10 of the power of the
analog. Increase the power of the digital and the problem will most likely disappear... John "K4YZ" wrote in message oups.com... QUOTE FROM YAHOO! NEWS FORT PIERRE, S.D. - Johnny Smith has a new digital cell phone, but he relies on an older analog bag phone when he travels the wide open spaces in the western part of the state to line up cattle for sale at a local livestock auction. In rural areas where cellular towers are far apart, analog phones often work when digital models can't get a signal. With the Federal Communications Commission pushing the move to all-digital phone service across the country, Smith and others in rural areas are urging the agency to wait until more towers are built to improve service. "I carry a bag phone just because I can get so much better reception with it," Smith said. "If you're out in the middle of no place, it's nice to be able to call somebody." END QUOTE (Let's see how long it takes Lennie & Co to make this a "code test" or "Mighty Morsemen" thread....) Steve, K4YZ |
Michael Coslo wrote: an_old_friend wrote: K4YZ wrote: QUOTE FROM YAHOO! NEWS cutting all non ham content Digital voice is an acceptable ham radio topic, Mark. We may use it digital voice certainly is but the text did not conern digital voice or ham radio in the slightest some day. And in it's present form, it isn't terribly applicable to Ham radio. The present systems available for us to use do sound very nice, giving "FM-like quality" (note that means quality akin to 2 meter FM, not Broadcast radio) with no noise. That part is good. But there are some nasty flaws, such as having to essentially have a "sked" in order to use it. If you don't catch the transmission from the beginning, you don't catch the transmission. There are no particular BW advantages either. Comparisons with the outside world and what they do and use are instructive, and in the end, on-topic. but no comparsion was made by stevie just another of his troling attacks - Mike KB3EIA - |
John Smith wrote: One reason, the newer digital phone probably puts out 1/10 of the power of the analog. Increase the power of the digital and the problem will most likely disappear... indeed comapring apples to apples was on the biggest flaws in the piece Power level are different, and the simple factdigital cell phones are newer therefore the infrasturcture is less developed John "K4YZ" wrote in message oups.com... QUOTE FROM YAHOO! NEWS FORT PIERRE, S.D. - Johnny Smith has a new digital cell phone, but he relies on an older analog bag phone when he travels the wide open spaces in the western part of the state to line up cattle for sale at a local livestock auction. In rural areas where cellular towers are far apart, analog phones often work when digital models can't get a signal. With the Federal Communications Commission pushing the move to all-digital phone service across the country, Smith and others in rural areas are urging the agency to wait until more towers are built to improve service. "I carry a bag phone just because I can get so much better reception with it," Smith said. "If you're out in the middle of no place, it's nice to be able to call somebody." END QUOTE (Let's see how long it takes Lennie & Co to make this a "code test" or "Mighty Morsemen" thread....) Steve, K4YZ |
an_old_friend wrote:
John Smith wrote: One reason, the newer digital phone probably puts out 1/10 of the power of the analog. Increase the power of the digital and the problem will most likely disappear... indeed comapring apples to apples was on the biggest flaws in the piece Power level are different, and the simple factdigital cell phones are newer therefore the infrasturcture is less developed Of course, we probably don't want the new digital phones to be running at the power levels the old bag phones run. Especially for the lenght of time that people hold the things to their head nowadays. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Michael:
Then let none complain of reduced areas of coverage... you simply cannot have it both ways... John "Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... an_old_friend wrote: John Smith wrote: One reason, the newer digital phone probably puts out 1/10 of the power of the analog. Increase the power of the digital and the problem will most likely disappear... indeed comapring apples to apples was on the biggest flaws in the piece Power level are different, and the simple factdigital cell phones are newer therefore the infrasturcture is less developed Of course, we probably don't want the new digital phones to be running at the power levels the old bag phones run. Especially for the lenght of time that people hold the things to their head nowadays. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Michael Coslo wrote: an_old_friend wrote: John Smith wrote: One reason, the newer digital phone probably puts out 1/10 of the power of the analog. Increase the power of the digital and the problem will most likely disappear... indeed comapring apples to apples was on the biggest flaws in the piece Power level are different, and the simple factdigital cell phones are newer therefore the infrasturcture is less developed Of course, we probably don't want the new digital phones to be running at the power levels the old bag phones run. Especially for the lenght of time that people hold the things to their head nowadays. why not sounds like it be would evoltuion in action, but I would like havinga digtial bag phone or a cordless remote to car mounted phone of the higher powere we had with the bag phones - Mike KB3EIA - |
"K4YZ" wrote (Let's see how long it takes Lennie & Co to make this a "code test" or "Mighty Morsemen" thread....) QRO rules! QRP is for sissies. dit dit de Hans, K0HB |
K4YZ:
Heck, now I'm a noin' ya'll ain't meanin' me! (maybe a relation though) Hell, I'd just fire up the old chicken band rig on channel 19 and BS with a trucker! John "K4YZ" wrote in message oups.com... QUOTE FROM YAHOO! NEWS FORT PIERRE, S.D. - Johnny Smith has a new digital cell phone, but he relies on an older analog bag phone when he travels the wide open spaces in the western part of the state to line up cattle for sale at a local livestock auction. In rural areas where cellular towers are far apart, analog phones often work when digital models can't get a signal. With the Federal Communications Commission pushing the move to all-digital phone service across the country, Smith and others in rural areas are urging the agency to wait until more towers are built to improve service. "I carry a bag phone just because I can get so much better reception with it," Smith said. "If you're out in the middle of no place, it's nice to be able to call somebody." END QUOTE (Let's see how long it takes Lennie & Co to make this a "code test" or "Mighty Morsemen" thread....) Steve, K4YZ |
From: Michael Coslo on Thurs 28 Jul 2005 09:52
K4YZ wrote: QUOTE FROM YAHOO! NEWS In rural areas where cellular towers are far apart, analog phones often work when digital models can't get a signal. With the Federal Communications Commission pushing the move to all-digital phone service across the country, Smith and others in rural areas are urging the agency to wait until more towers are built to improve service. I would be remiss if I didn't note that I do agree with you that digital is not better. You've had experience with a lot of digital voice, have you? I can show you were MOST folks in here have had experience with digital voice. Bet you won't know where, though... While it performs well under many circumstances, it has it's own set of shortcomings. Such as? The U.S. military doesn't think so. [but, what do they know, right?] The WLAN users and installers don't think so. [but, what do they know, right?] The commercial and government radio users don't think so. [but, what do they know, right?] How about the telephone people...do they think so? [but, what do they know, right?] Certainly digital voice is of no particular advantage in Amateur Radio, from what I have seen so far. What have you "seen so far?" Do your ears see? Or is all your "experience" with digital voice that of others' writings in here? 'Fess up, Mikey. You HAVE used digital voice and aren't aware you are using it when you do. shrug There's not even a STANDARD for digital voice on amateur radio bands yet. There's no way it can be directly compatible with old-time analog voice...it will need both encoders and decoders as peripherals with purely-analog radios...or it will need a radio that has such things built-in. Building-in digital voice (and data or whatever) will incur a development charge which has to be recouped by amortizing that over a specific time in the manufactured equipment sales prices. That you can't envision such a thing is of no surprise to me. Few radio amateurs are either flexible enough or experienced enough with new modes and methods, therefore are extreme conservatives when it comes to new developments...if QST hasn't run an article on it, then "it doesn't exist" and "can't be done!" :-) doo dah |
From: John Smith on Jul 28, 8:48 pm
Don't tell them that digital voice is really a "stream" of numbers which describe your voice/words/tone/etc really, and the other phone (computer really) decodes the instructions and recreates a "clone" of the original analog signal which you will hear. TOO LATE!!! I did that a few years ago. Morsemen would have NONE of that..."morse code gets through when nothing else will"...blah, blah, blah, blah, blech. Tsk, these mighty "experimenters" and "state of the art" advancers don't realize that CDs of music and DVDs of motion pictures are (horrors) DIGITALLY RECORDED!!! They don't realize that POTS (Plain Old Telephone System) is digitized between exchanges...and sometimes inside the same exchange. Even morsemen's heavy breathing is digitized. Also, skip the part about these numbers being encased in packets with a CRC (cyclic redundancy code, read about it on the net, simple to the point of being boring--think "error checking" here) and if there is a "error worth noting" the packet is discarded and a copy of it resent (if it can't be done within a reasonable length of time--microseconds, a defective packet is "played" hoping you can "decode" the error with your ear), so that digital audio can be about as close to perfect as can be obtained (indeed, it can be perfect, if that is what you want--or not at all!) Also, the phones have loads of memory (the good ones) so that packets can be stored and ordered and time spent holding one packet while a previous is being "error corrected." Irrelevant to here. Morsemen, mighty and macho as they wannabe, have told us that "CELL PHONES ARE *USELESS* IN ANY EMERGENCY!" That's that. No goodnik. The telephone system GOES DOWN in any emergency situation, can't be used at all! Well, in a nutshell description, that is... but just don't mention all that, too confusing for "Neanderthal hams", and the few others here probably already know... Sorry, John, implying that SOME in here are IGNORANT brings on accusations of "hating ham radio!!!" Can't have that! All have to LOVE ham radio as the ARRL taught everbody sometime...(hic) Too bad there's no "surplus" SINCGARS radios...the largest field radio production for U.S. land forces ever...a quarter million produced since the first went operational in 1989.* Digital voice with (now) built-in communications security or COMSEC with on-line encryption/decryption. NATO allies have the same system, compatible with U.S. SINCGARS radios. * Some CASES of older SINCGARS have turned up on EBay, but none with intact electronic guts. Those must have been from the "SIP" (SINCGARS Improvement Program) by ITT Fort Wayne, IN. Heck, not a one in here is familiar with Peterson and Weldon's "Error-Correcting Codes" (MIT Press, nice red hardcover). THE reference for digital coding with/without error correction. I'd rather reference Brian Burke's statement: "Morse code gets through when everything else will." dit dot |
|
K4YZ wrote:
.. Lennie belittles Amateurs for "saving the radio world", yet at every opportunity we're lambasted with yet another round of how a MILITARY systems is the "know all-end all" of radio communication.... Lennieboy, while in the military, once walked by an Army radio van and he thinks that made him an expert on communication. |
an old friend wrote: Michael Coslo wrote: an_old_friend wrote: John Smith wrote: One reason, the newer digital phone probably puts out 1/10 of the power of the analog. Increase the power of the digital and the problem will most likely disappear... indeed comapring apples to apples was on the biggest flaws in the piece Power level are different, and the simple factdigital cell phones are newer therefore the infrasturcture is less developed Of course, we probably don't want the new digital phones to be running at the power levels the old bag phones run. Especially for the lenght of time that people hold the things to their head nowadays. why not sounds like it be would evoltuion in action, but I would like havinga digtial bag phone or a cordless remote to car mounted phone of the higher powere we had with the bag phones Hey Mark, I wouldn't call it evolution in action - but perhaps Darwinism in action! 8^) The RF isn't ionizing radiation, so it wouldn't mutate any cells, giving rise to evolvement. But the idea of holding 5 or more watts if UHF RF against my temple is a scary one. Related item. I was on vacation last weekend, and a couple weekends before that. I was very nearly killed several times by cell phone users who nearly rear-ended me, were engaged in some sort of animated argument, and nearly side swiped me, or just generally drove like a complete idiot. Seeing as how truck drivers and Hams have been using radios for years and years with out (apparently) nasty incidents, I wonder if exposure to the near field of near GHz radiation makes people temporarily stupid. I believe that we need to treat people who drive and use cell phones in the same manner that we treat people who drive intoxicated. Proof that an intelligent person can be made stupid by a cell phone would go a long way in that direction. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Michael Coslo wrote: an old friend wrote: Michael Coslo wrote: an_old_friend wrote: John Smith wrote: One reason, the newer digital phone probably puts out 1/10 of the power of the analog. Increase the power of the digital and the problem will most likely disappear... indeed comapring apples to apples was on the biggest flaws in the piece Power level are different, and the simple factdigital cell phones are newer therefore the infrasturcture is less developed Of course, we probably don't want the new digital phones to be running at the power levels the old bag phones run. Especially for the lenght of time that people hold the things to their head nowadays. why not sounds like it be would evoltuion in action, but I would like havinga digtial bag phone or a cordless remote to car mounted phone of the higher powere we had with the bag phones Hey Mark, I wouldn't call it evolution in action - but perhaps Darwinism in action! 8^) The RF isn't ionizing radiation, so it wouldn't mutate any cells, giving rise to evolvement. I hear the jury is out out on mutagenc effects But the idea of holding 5 or more watts if UHF RF against my temple is a scary one. you Have a 440 HT? and you are afraid of it? Related item. I was on vacation last weekend, and a couple weekends before that. I was very nearly killed several times by cell phone users who nearly rear-ended me, were engaged in some sort of animated argument, and nearly side swiped me, or just generally drove like a complete idiot. Seeing as how truck drivers and Hams have been using radios for years and years with out (apparently) nasty incidents, I wonder if exposure to the near field of near GHz radiation makes people temporarily stupid. I believe that we need to treat people who drive and use cell phones in the same manner that we treat people who drive intoxicated. Proof that an intelligent person can be made stupid by a cell phone would go a long way in that direction. - Mike KB3EIA - |
From: an old friend on Aug 2, 9:01 am
Michael Coslo wrote: an old friend wrote: Michael Coslo wrote: an_old_friend wrote: John Smith wrote: The RF isn't ionizing radiation, so it wouldn't mutate any cells, giving rise to evolvement. I hear the jury is out out on mutagenc effects Not really, Mark. It's just that a couple dozen research facilities have NOT YET uncovered anything harmful in low- level radiation in at least 3 decades of study on the subject. But the idea of holding 5 or more watts if UHF RF against my temple is a scary one. you Have a 440 HT? and you are afraid of it? It's a SOCIAL STIGMA fear, Mark. No "real" ham is supposed to have a "shack on the belt" sort of radio. If a PCTA is seen by other PCTAs using a handheld, he is subject to immediate excommunication. No one is allowed to beep to him again. Related item. I was on vacation last weekend, and a couple weekends before that. I was very nearly killed several times by cell phone users who nearly rear-ended me, were engaged in some sort of animated argument, and nearly side swiped me, or just generally drove like a complete idiot. Tsk, tsk, tsk. Did Mike get a Warrant for their arrest? Attempted manslaughter is felony in most states. Seeing as how truck drivers and Hams have been using radios for years and years with out (apparently) nasty incidents, I wonder if exposure to the near field of near GHz radiation makes people temporarily stupid. No, some hams are naturally stupid. Tsk, tsk. The strongest effect on human tissue of RF radiation is in the low-VHF spectrum. That is much reduced above 300 MHz and on up... I believe that we need to treat people who drive and use cell phones in the same manner that we treat people who drive intoxicated. Proof that an intelligent person can be made stupid by a cell phone would go a long way in that direction. There is considerably more "proof" that ham radio makes supposedly intelligent persons go stupid just from all the comments in here... bar nut |
an old friend wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote: an old friend wrote: Michael Coslo wrote: an_old_friend wrote: John Smith wrote: One reason, the newer digital phone probably puts out 1/10 of the power of the analog. Increase the power of the digital and the problem will most likely disappear... indeed comapring apples to apples was on the biggest flaws in the piece Power level are different, and the simple factdigital cell phones are newer therefore the infrasturcture is less developed Of course, we probably don't want the new digital phones to be running at the power levels the old bag phones run. Especially for the lenght of time that people hold the things to their head nowadays. why not sounds like it be would evoltuion in action, but I would like havinga digtial bag phone or a cordless remote to car mounted phone of the higher powere we had with the bag phones Hey Mark, I wouldn't call it evolution in action - but perhaps Darwinism in action! 8^) The RF isn't ionizing radiation, so it wouldn't mutate any cells, giving rise to evolvement. I hear the jury is out out on mutagenc effects Yup. The jury was out on cigarettes causing cancer until the recent past. And yet I have seen documents from the late 1800's that link the two. But the idea of holding 5 or more watts if UHF RF against my temple is a scary one. you Have a 440 HT Why yes I do. and you are afraid of it? Nope. Transmissions are kept short, and I use an earpieces mic almost all the time. If the earpieces isn't handy, I hold the thing several inches away from me while I talk. I'm not particularly afraid of anything. I do take necessary precautions. Related item. I was on vacation last weekend, and a couple weekends before that. I was very nearly killed several times by cell phone users who nearly rear-ended me, were engaged in some sort of animated argument, and nearly side swiped me, or just generally drove like a complete idiot. Seeing as how truck drivers and Hams have been using radios for years and years with out (apparently) nasty incidents, I wonder if exposure to the near field of near GHz radiation makes people temporarily stupid. I believe that we need to treat people who drive and use cell phones in the same manner that we treat people who drive intoxicated. Proof that an intelligent person can be made stupid by a cell phone would go a long way in that direction. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Mike:
Nothing has changed with denials by corps making profits. Global warming, lung diseases caused by the burning of fossil fuels, pollution of the food supply and the water by toxins enter the system, etc, etc.... Years from now they will laugh that we remained ignorant, even when we had the lessons of cigarettes to learn from... John "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... an old friend wrote: Michael Coslo wrote: an old friend wrote: Michael Coslo wrote: an_old_friend wrote: John Smith wrote: One reason, the newer digital phone probably puts out 1/10 of the power of the analog. Increase the power of the digital and the problem will most likely disappear... indeed comapring apples to apples was on the biggest flaws in the piece Power level are different, and the simple factdigital cell phones are newer therefore the infrasturcture is less developed Of course, we probably don't want the new digital phones to be running at the power levels the old bag phones run. Especially for the lenght of time that people hold the things to their head nowadays. why not sounds like it be would evoltuion in action, but I would like havinga digtial bag phone or a cordless remote to car mounted phone of the higher powere we had with the bag phones Hey Mark, I wouldn't call it evolution in action - but perhaps Darwinism in action! 8^) The RF isn't ionizing radiation, so it wouldn't mutate any cells, giving rise to evolvement. I hear the jury is out out on mutagenc effects Yup. The jury was out on cigarettes causing cancer until the recent past. And yet I have seen documents from the late 1800's that link the two. But the idea of holding 5 or more watts if UHF RF against my temple is a scary one. you Have a 440 HT Why yes I do. and you are afraid of it? Nope. Transmissions are kept short, and I use an earpieces mic almost all the time. If the earpieces isn't handy, I hold the thing several inches away from me while I talk. I'm not particularly afraid of anything. I do take necessary precautions. Related item. I was on vacation last weekend, and a couple weekends before that. I was very nearly killed several times by cell phone users who nearly rear-ended me, were engaged in some sort of animated argument, and nearly side swiped me, or just generally drove like a complete idiot. Seeing as how truck drivers and Hams have been using radios for years and years with out (apparently) nasty incidents, I wonder if exposure to the near field of near GHz radiation makes people temporarily stupid. I believe that we need to treat people who drive and use cell phones in the same manner that we treat people who drive intoxicated. Proof that an intelligent person can be made stupid by a cell phone would go a long way in that direction. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... [snip] Yup. The jury was out on cigarettes causing cancer until the recent past. And yet I have seen documents from the late 1800's that link the two. Yeah it was our grandparents and great-grandparents who coined the nickname "coffin nails" for cigarettes. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
|
"John Smith" wrote Global warming, lung diseases caused by the burning of fossil fuels, pollution of the food supply and the water by toxins enter the system, etc, etc.... "Bergeron's epitaph for the planet, I remember, which he said should be carved in big letters in a wall of the Grand Canyon for the flying-saucer people to find, was this: WE COULD HAVE SAVED BUT WE WERE TOO DOGGONE CHEAP Only he didn't say 'doggone.' " - Kurt Vonnegut in "Hocus Pocus" |
"KØHB" wrote Make that: WE COULD HAVE SAVED IT BUT WE WERE TOO DOGGONE CHEAP beep beep de Hans, K0HB |
Mike Coslo wrote: wrote: From: an old friend on Aug 2, 9:01 am Michael Coslo wrote: an old friend wrote: Michael Coslo wrote: an_old_friend wrote: John Smith wrote: The RF isn't ionizing radiation, so it wouldn't mutate any cells, giving rise to evolvement. I hear the jury is out out on mutagenc effects Not really, Mark. It's just that a couple dozen research facilities have NOT YET uncovered anything harmful in low- level radiation in at least 3 decades of study on the subject. But the idea of holding 5 or more watts if UHF RF against my temple is a scary one. you Have a 440 HT? and you are afraid of it? It's a SOCIAL STIGMA fear, Mark. No "real" ham is supposed to have a "shack on the belt" sort of radio. If a PCTA is seen by other PCTAs using a handheld, he is subject to immediate excommunication. No one is allowed to beep to him again. I have two handhelds myself. K3LT and his hanger's on would not approve. You might have to let the door hit you... Related item. I was on vacation last weekend, and a couple weekends before that. I was very nearly killed several times by cell phone users who nearly rear-ended me, were engaged in some sort of animated argument, and nearly side swiped me, or just generally drove like a complete idiot. Tsk, tsk, tsk. Did Mike get a Warrant for their arrest? Attempted manslaughter is felony in most states. Felonius Monk was one of the drivers.. Was he wearing a collar? Seeing as how truck drivers and Hams have been using radios for years and years with out (apparently) nasty incidents, I wonder if exposure to the near field of near GHz radiation makes people temporarily stupid. No, some hams are naturally stupid. Tsk, tsk. The strongest effect on human tissue of RF radiation is in the low-VHF spectrum. That is much reduced above 300 MHz and on up... hmmm, a number of Hams think that the "takeoff angle of an antenna is where all the energy goes too. I wonder where I got the idea that freq's ~2.45 GHz had some effect on tissue? Litton Industries? Amana Radarrange? I believe that we need to treat people who drive and use cell phones in the same manner that we treat people who drive intoxicated. Proof that an intelligent person can be made stupid by a cell phone would go a long way in that direction. There is considerably more "proof" that ham radio makes supposedly intelligent persons go stupid just from all the comments in here... Apparently. Where's Quitefine when you need a perfectly anonymous comment? |
b.b. wrote: Where's Quitefine when you need a perfectly anonymous comment? Where's the scoop on unlicensed devices having a "major role" in emergency communications? Where did you get "ARES won't respond in an emergency" from? Who gave you permission to operate from a UN controlled zone? Steve, K4YZ |
K4YZ wrote: b.b. wrote: Where's Quitefine when you need a perfectly anonymous comment? Where's the scoop on unlicensed devices having a "major role" in emergency communications? phone are unlicensed CB and FRS are unlicensed cell phones are licensed to their users all play major roles in emergencies Where did you get "ARES won't respond in an emergency" from? round here Ares can't effectively respond, hopefully the completion of certain building projects will fix that Who gave you permission to operate from a UN controlled zone? Steve, K4YZ |
K4YZ wrote: b.b. wrote: Where's Quitefine when you need a perfectly anonymous comment? Where's the scoop on unlicensed devices having a "major role" in emergency communications? Where's those 7 hostile actions? Where did you get "ARES won't respond in an emergency" from? Where's that "A" NCOIC letter of appointment? Who gave you permission to operate from a UN controlled zone? Where's that disability check going? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:56 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com