| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
PGP encryption of data on amateur radio?
Anyone aware of any court challenges to the FCC banning the use of "codes"
(encryption/decryption) on radio. It seems insane that encrypted data is exchanged freely on the internet and yet regulations prevent its use on amateur radio, how such can be prevented on one specific form of communications seems insane. Very sophisticated means are even used to embed text/voice data in video and binary pictures which is virtually impossible to detect/decrypt with the even the fastest computers--within practical time periods (like millions of years--let alone lifetimes.) John |
John Smith wrote: Anyone aware of any court challenges to the FCC banning the use of "codes" (encryption/decryption) on radio. No I am not It seems insane that encrypted data is exchanged freely on the internet and yet regulations prevent its use on amateur radio, how such can be prevented on one specific form of communications seems insane. As I understand the matter it comes in part from concerns that Spies would use Ham radio to do thier deeds Today with al queada I can't see the FCC budging on this one Very sophisticated means are even used to embed text/voice data in video and binary pictures which is virtually impossible to detect/decrypt with the even the fastest computers--within practical time periods (like millions of years--let alone lifetimes.) I have heard of this never studied it could something like that be used to embed same in something like SSTV John OTOH Your mention PGP I suppose based on the discusions of the USE of PSK 31 and other modes you could argue the use PGP would be legal is the non encoded parts of the tranmision in addition to your Call sign contained the addresses where both of the keys could be found. The addresses would have to be acesable over say the internet but it should be legal Alothough the FCC is liable to try to make a fight of it, one that isn't worth it to me at anyrate |
Are you joking man?
Why would terrorists use radio, even with the narrowest directive antennas and broadcast to who-knows-who? The FCC thinks them too ignorant to figure out the internet is a much better vector? I suspect there is much more on Al Jazerras' website than meets the eye... but, who knows? John "an old friend" wrote in message ups.com... John Smith wrote: Anyone aware of any court challenges to the FCC banning the use of "codes" (encryption/decryption) on radio. No I am not It seems insane that encrypted data is exchanged freely on the internet and yet regulations prevent its use on amateur radio, how such can be prevented on one specific form of communications seems insane. As I understand the matter it comes in part from concerns that Spies would use Ham radio to do thier deeds Today with al queada I can't see the FCC budging on this one Very sophisticated means are even used to embed text/voice data in video and binary pictures which is virtually impossible to detect/decrypt with the even the fastest computers--within practical time periods (like millions of years--let alone lifetimes.) I have heard of this never studied it could something like that be used to embed same in something like SSTV John OTOH Your mention PGP I suppose based on the discusions of the USE of PSK 31 and other modes you could argue the use PGP would be legal is the non encoded parts of the tranmision in addition to your Call sign contained the addresses where both of the keys could be found. The addresses would have to be acesable over say the internet but it should be legal Alothough the FCC is liable to try to make a fight of it, one that isn't worth it to me at anyrate |
John Smith wrote: Are you joking man? I wish I was But nothing that a hare brained sheme could say they might do will be granted now Why would terrorists use radio, even with the narrowest directive antennas and broadcast to who-knows-who? Is it? After all the FCC can't seem to find the folks breaking the rules now and doing something that looks stupid is a classic in threat analisys work Good examples of it are in "the longest day" a german general was pointing out how silly his plan for wining a wargame was Normandy bad wether and low tide, which turned out to be what the Allies did Using radio would be a soft target approuch The FCC thinks them too ignorant to figure out the internet is a much better vector? I suspect there is much more on Al Jazerras' website than meets the eye... but, who knows? Only Al quaeda knows for sure, if even they do John "an old friend" wrote in message ups.com... John Smith wrote: Anyone aware of any court challenges to the FCC banning the use of "codes" (encryption/decryption) on radio. No I am not It seems insane that encrypted data is exchanged freely on the internet and yet regulations prevent its use on amateur radio, how such can be prevented on one specific form of communications seems insane. As I understand the matter it comes in part from concerns that Spies would use Ham radio to do thier deeds Today with al queada I can't see the FCC budging on this one Very sophisticated means are even used to embed text/voice data in video and binary pictures which is virtually impossible to detect/decrypt with the even the fastest computers--within practical time periods (like millions of years--let alone lifetimes.) I have heard of this never studied it could something like that be used to embed same in something like SSTV John OTOH Your mention PGP I suppose based on the discusions of the USE of PSK 31 and other modes you could argue the use PGP would be legal is the non encoded parts of the tranmision in addition to your Call sign contained the addresses where both of the keys could be found. The addresses would have to be acesable over say the internet but it should be legal Alothough the FCC is liable to try to make a fight of it, one that isn't worth it to me at anyrate |
Ohhh, those boys in the NSA are smart alright (well, unless they got the job
because they are a relative/friend of someone who is somebody) and, I am sure they have their tools, but if they even move to claim that encryption of data by methods such as PGP and its equiv--I am afraid I would have to consider the possibility they were lying... John "an old friend" wrote in message ups.com... John Smith wrote: Are you joking man? I wish I was But nothing that a hare brained sheme could say they might do will be granted now Why would terrorists use radio, even with the narrowest directive antennas and broadcast to who-knows-who? Is it? After all the FCC can't seem to find the folks breaking the rules now and doing something that looks stupid is a classic in threat analisys work Good examples of it are in "the longest day" a german general was pointing out how silly his plan for wining a wargame was Normandy bad wether and low tide, which turned out to be what the Allies did Using radio would be a soft target approuch The FCC thinks them too ignorant to figure out the internet is a much better vector? I suspect there is much more on Al Jazerras' website than meets the eye... but, who knows? Only Al quaeda knows for sure, if even they do John "an old friend" wrote in message ups.com... John Smith wrote: Anyone aware of any court challenges to the FCC banning the use of "codes" (encryption/decryption) on radio. No I am not It seems insane that encrypted data is exchanged freely on the internet and yet regulations prevent its use on amateur radio, how such can be prevented on one specific form of communications seems insane. As I understand the matter it comes in part from concerns that Spies would use Ham radio to do thier deeds Today with al queada I can't see the FCC budging on this one Very sophisticated means are even used to embed text/voice data in video and binary pictures which is virtually impossible to detect/decrypt with the even the fastest computers--within practical time periods (like millions of years--let alone lifetimes.) I have heard of this never studied it could something like that be used to embed same in something like SSTV John OTOH Your mention PGP I suppose based on the discusions of the USE of PSK 31 and other modes you could argue the use PGP would be legal is the non encoded parts of the tranmision in addition to your Call sign contained the addresses where both of the keys could be found. The addresses would have to be acesable over say the internet but it should be legal Alothough the FCC is liable to try to make a fight of it, one that isn't worth it to me at anyrate |
From: "John Smith" on Thurs 28 Jul 2005 09:45
Anyone aware of any court challenges to the FCC banning the use of "codes" (encryption/decryption) on radio. Only in the applicable parts of Title 47 C.F.R. It seems insane that encrypted data is exchanged freely on the internet and yet regulations prevent its use on amateur radio, how such can be prevented on one specific form of communications seems insane. The National Telecommunications and Information Agency (NTIA) handles the specific formats and contents of the Internet. The FCC can only govern the "common carrier" aspects of ISPs and data line tariffs. As to "codes," the FCC has sometimes (by some) been considered "insane" for requiring a morse code test for any license having below-30-MHz operating privileges. Especially so when the same FCC did NOT require those privileged to operate using morse code over and above any other mode. That, in itself, is a bit daft. In Part 97 you will find TRULY DAFT requirements on Spread Spectrum...STILL there. [Hans Brakob will furnish the correct Parts and sub-parts for the edification of all] Very sophisticated means are even used to embed text/voice data in video and binary pictures which is virtually impossible to detect/decrypt with the even the fastest computers--within practical time periods (like millions of years--let alone lifetimes.) Radio amateurs and the "amateur community" have for yarns and yarns considered themselves very legal. They OBEY THE LAW. The LAW says that encryption is a no-no for radio amateurs. Hold up example: The late Colonel Rudolph Abel of the KGB, under a cover name as an "artist" with a "hobby of amateur radio" operating in NYC around the late 1950s-early 1960s. His HF radio was used to send-receive encrypted information from the KGB. He was exchanged for Francis Gary Powers, the missle-shot-down pilot of a U-2. Abel used "one-time pads" for encipherment, virtually unbreakable by anything since the encryption key was obtained from natural random noise (or of "noisy" KGB clerk-typists)(take your pick). It's irrelevant whether Abel actually held any sort of amateur radio license (he probably had a cover for one, no details on that) but that was his cover excuse for having/using an HF radio when arrested. Amateur radio in espionage activities! Not a good PR thing but so long ago that most have forgotten it or never knew. The FCC just doesn't "trust" radio amateurs. :-) To radio amateurs those "spies" are really "CBers," the spawn of satan and are all responsible. :-) bit bat |
From: John Smith on Jul 28, 8:17 pm
Well, it is going to be difficult to argue with you, we seem to be in agreement on a couple of points, and not so far distant on a couple of others where we could not work out some common grounds, however, since you answered the "call of the WILD TROLL" (don't be afraid--just kidding :) here goes... That's about all I've "heard" in this newsgroup...calls of the wild trolls! :-) I just turned over my wireless lan, and yep, there is a type acceptance tag with an VERY impressive FCC notation on it and some VERY impressive numbers, I am in awe! (like a war, all shock and awe, yep, that is me.) But, and back to the real world, I communicate over this device in "encrypted code" so that others cannot read the data off my wan/lan, or gain access and send data over it... I choose a key for all of this and it is a 2048 bit code (million years or so and a bank of supercomputers could gain access to my net, if they got lucky, avg time.) Yes, and...? Why WOULD anyone "spy" on your WLAN? Now, the important question here, just what kind of felony am I guilty of here, feel free to list titles, paragraphs and sub-paragraphs--heck, if I am going to be a criminal here, I'd enjoy hearing about it in vivid detail. If possible, make it read like a Jessie James novel from the wild west! PLEASE!!!! I am a sucker for old westerns! grin No, I'm not going to strip off certain sub-Parts and make like a communications lawyer. For one, Phil Kane would get a hissy fit and make rude noises. Hans Brakob would put on his manager's hat and try to be a snarly manager type by taking things out of context and making OTHER rude noises. All othere would just make ruder noises. It's all in Part 97, Title 47 C.F.R. Part 97 is one of the smallest of all Parts. The up-to-date version (supposedly) is at the ARRL website. The last version published (printed with real ink on real paper) is viewable at the Government Printing Office website...and you can get the appropriate updates as printed in the Federal Register there also... Well, murder mysteries are good to... For fun reading, try the Janet Evanovich series on "Stephanie Plum." The latest softcover is "Ten Big Ones." The new hardcover is "Eleven on Top." Funny, funny stuff, lots better than some of the fantasies parading around in here. dad mom |
Anyone aware of any court challenges to the FCC banning the use of "codes"
(encryption/decryption) on radio. It seems insane that encrypted data is exchanged freely on the internet and yet regulations prevent its use on amateur radio, how such can be prevented on one specific form of communications seems insane. Very sophisticated means are even used to embed text/voice data in video and binary pictures which is virtually impossible to detect/decrypt with the even the fastest computers--within practical time periods (like millions of years--let alone lifetimes.) John Don't know of any court cases, But The FCC rules do permit unspecified codes on the amateur band. Todd N9OGL |
an old friend wrote: John Smith wrote: Anyone aware of any court challenges to the FCC banning the use of "codes" (encryption/decryption) on radio. No I am not It seems insane that encrypted data is exchanged freely on the internet and yet regulations prevent its use on amateur radio, how such can be prevented on one specific form of communications seems insane. As I understand the matter it comes in part from concerns that Spies would use Ham radio to do thier deeds Today with al queada I can't see the FCC budging on this one Very sophisticated means are even used to embed text/voice data in video and binary pictures which is virtually impossible to detect/decrypt with the even the fastest computers--within practical time periods (like millions of years--let alone lifetimes.) I have heard of this never studied it could something like that be used to embed same in something like SSTV John OTOH Your mention PGP I suppose based on the discusions of the USE of PSK 31 and other modes you could argue the use PGP would be legal is the non encoded parts of the tranmision in addition to your Call sign contained the addresses where both of the keys could be found. The addresses would have to be acesable over say the internet but it should be legal You're only problem here, Mark, is that PSK31 is not an encryption technique. Otherwise I agree with your above assessment (esp w/reference to Al-Queda) Alothough the FCC is liable to try to make a fight of it, one that isn't worth it to me at anyrate Probably true. 73 Steve, K4YZ |
K4YZ wrote: an old friend wrote: John Smith wrote: Anyone aware of any court challenges to the FCC banning the use of "codes" (encryption/decryption) on radio. No I am not It seems insane that encrypted data is exchanged freely on the internet and yet regulations prevent its use on amateur radio, how such can be prevented on one specific form of communications seems insane. As I understand the matter it comes in part from concerns that Spies would use Ham radio to do thier deeds Today with al queada I can't see the FCC budging on this one Very sophisticated means are even used to embed text/voice data in video and binary pictures which is virtually impossible to detect/decrypt with the even the fastest computers--within practical time periods (like millions of years--let alone lifetimes.) I have heard of this never studied it could something like that be used to embed same in something like SSTV John OTOH Your mention PGP I suppose based on the discusions of the USE of PSK 31 and other modes you could argue the use PGP would be legal is the non encoded parts of the tranmision in addition to your Call sign contained the addresses where both of the keys could be found. The addresses would have to be acesable over say the internet but it should be legal You're only problem here, Mark, is that PSK31 is not an encryption technique. Otherwise I agree with your above assessment (esp w/reference to Al-Queda) PSK31 is an encryption/encoding method as is morse encoded cw both legal becuase they are published (and morse is of course enshined by name in the rule book) the rules are rather vague on where the line drwn in these matters esp as technolgy advances so fast to make one year unbreakable code, todays public key Alothough the FCC is liable to try to make a fight of it, one that isn't worth it to me at anyrate Probably true. 73 Steve, K4YZ |
"an old friend" wrote PSK31 is an encryption/encoding method PSK31 is a modulation method, not an encryption method. No cryptography is involved. Good luck on this one now! 73, de Hans, K0HB |
K=D8HB wrote: "an old friend" wrote PSK31 is an encryption/encoding method PSK31 is a modulation method, not an encryption method. No cryptography = is involved. gee I need more than the word of the people who developed it and when are you going to stop taking things out of context? never? =20 Good luck on this one now! =20 73, de Hans, K0HB |
"an old friend" wrote gee I need more than the word of the people who developed it The people who developed it did not call it an encryption method. (For the simple reason that no cryptology is involved.) 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Len:
They would "spy" on my wireless lan to get my credit card number, bank account info, passwords, etc.... .... now don't disappoint me man, there is good reason to hide your business other than the fact I am an Al Qaeda member... I know you just had a moment of confusion there because of all the guys playing "secret radio spy police here." ROFLOL!!!!! John wrote in message oups.com... From: John Smith on Jul 28, 8:17 pm Well, it is going to be difficult to argue with you, we seem to be in agreement on a couple of points, and not so far distant on a couple of others where we could not work out some common grounds, however, since you answered the "call of the WILD TROLL" (don't be afraid--just kidding :) here goes... That's about all I've "heard" in this newsgroup...calls of the wild trolls! :-) I just turned over my wireless lan, and yep, there is a type acceptance tag with an VERY impressive FCC notation on it and some VERY impressive numbers, I am in awe! (like a war, all shock and awe, yep, that is me.) But, and back to the real world, I communicate over this device in "encrypted code" so that others cannot read the data off my wan/lan, or gain access and send data over it... I choose a key for all of this and it is a 2048 bit code (million years or so and a bank of supercomputers could gain access to my net, if they got lucky, avg time.) Yes, and...? Why WOULD anyone "spy" on your WLAN? Now, the important question here, just what kind of felony am I guilty of here, feel free to list titles, paragraphs and sub-paragraphs--heck, if I am going to be a criminal here, I'd enjoy hearing about it in vivid detail. If possible, make it read like a Jessie James novel from the wild west! PLEASE!!!! I am a sucker for old westerns! grin No, I'm not going to strip off certain sub-Parts and make like a communications lawyer. For one, Phil Kane would get a hissy fit and make rude noises. Hans Brakob would put on his manager's hat and try to be a snarly manager type by taking things out of context and making OTHER rude noises. All othere would just make ruder noises. It's all in Part 97, Title 47 C.F.R. Part 97 is one of the smallest of all Parts. The up-to-date version (supposedly) is at the ARRL website. The last version published (printed with real ink on real paper) is viewable at the Government Printing Office website...and you can get the appropriate updates as printed in the Federal Register there also... Well, murder mysteries are good to... For fun reading, try the Janet Evanovich series on "Stephanie Plum." The latest softcover is "Ten Big Ones." The new hardcover is "Eleven on Top." Funny, funny stuff, lots better than some of the fantasies parading around in here. dad mom |
K=D8HB wrote: "an old friend" wrote gee I need more than the word of the people who developed it The people who developed it did not call it an encryption method. (For t= he simple reason that no cryptology is involved.) they found it nessary to to say why it was not an Ilegal method of encryption and the subject of enryption comes up about anytime anyone discusses the mode in detail esp when it was introduced and nobdy but you is talking about crptology=20 =20 73, de Hans, K0HB |
"an old friend" wrote they found it nessary to to say why it was not an Ilegal method of encryption ..... Well there you have it! It's not a method of encryption. The developers agree with me! Thanks for making my case. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
From: K=D8=88B on Jul 29, 12:46 pm
"an old friend" wrote gee I need more than the word of the people who developed it The people who developed it did not call it an encryption method. (For the simple reason that no cryptology is involved.) Tsk, tsk, TSK! You FORGOT to mention the "papers" on the ARRL website describing Peter Martinez' PSK31. [that's not like you] You are skirting a very grey line on "cryptology." PSK31 is NOT about "intentional obscuration of the meaning of a communications," the boilerplate statement in Part 97 on what can be sent or not sent by radio amateurs. On the other hand, PSK31 is sufficiently UNLIKE conventional TTY codings that it cannot be decoded by any TTY machinery or even Hellschreiber. Too many have the emotional labeling of "cryptology" in regards to secrets and spies. In checking out Webster's New World Dictionary, Prentice-Hall 1989, it defines "cryptography" as "the art of writing or deciphering messages in code." Tsk, that would apply to morse codes, wouldn't it? :-) =20 dit bit |
wrote: From: K=D8=88B on Jul 29, 12:46 pm "an old friend" wrote gee I need more than the word of the people who developed it The people who developed it did not call it an encryption method. (For = the simple reason that no cryptology is involved.) Tsk, tsk, TSK! You FORGOT to mention the "papers" on the ARRL website describing Peter Martinez' PSK31. [that's not like you] You are skirting a very grey line on "cryptology." PSK31 is NOT about "intentional obscuration of the meaning of a communications," the boilerplate statement in Part 97 on what can be sent or not sent by radio amateurs. On the other hand, PSK31 is sufficiently UNLIKE conventional TTY codings that it cannot be decoded by any TTY machinery or even Hellschreiber. and most artical I have read deal quickly with showing the PSK 31 which Is a modulation different than most and an encoding of the character different than most, that everyond kept talking about why is wasn't an ilgeal code Too many have the emotional labeling of "cryptology" in regards to secrets and spies. In checking out Webster's New World Dictionary, Prentice-Hall 1989, it defines "cryptography" as "the art of writing or deciphering messages in code." Tsk, that would apply to morse codes, wouldn't it? :-) indeed it does as has been pointed out to hands in this or other threads to Hans a point or 2 about Morse as it compares to PSK 31 When someone says PSK 31 they mean the modulation and the character set much like Morse Code you have the modulation which is assumed to be OOKed CW, but doesn't have to realy (we have MCW sounds of dit and dah on FM voice, or maybe alsoused to ID anautoumatic SSB to for all I know)and the letter set One could send Morse by FSK keying makeing it sound more like RTTY than anything any ham would reconize and Morse, but one always means int eh ARS the very specail mode/letter set =20 dit bit |
an_old_friend:
Really, deep inside, I am a decent human being, or would like to think I am. Your text has degraded here old friend, if you live alone, time to see a doctor and get a check-up, you may have suffered a light stroke... I am not being flippant about this, and all joking has been set aside, but I really do get a sense something is wrong, and fear for your health... You may ignore my advice if you choose, but I have a real concern... If I had just sat here without mentioning this, and something undesirable would happen to you, it would truly cause me great grief to know, so no need to flame me back. I really have considered my own mental health in all this too... Warmest regards, John "an old friend" wrote in message oups.com... wrote: From: K?B on Jul 29, 12:46 pm "an old friend" wrote gee I need more than the word of the people who developed it The people who developed it did not call it an encryption method. (For the simple reason that no cryptology is involved.) Tsk, tsk, TSK! You FORGOT to mention the "papers" on the ARRL website describing Peter Martinez' PSK31. [that's not like you] You are skirting a very grey line on "cryptology." PSK31 is NOT about "intentional obscuration of the meaning of a communications," the boilerplate statement in Part 97 on what can be sent or not sent by radio amateurs. On the other hand, PSK31 is sufficiently UNLIKE conventional TTY codings that it cannot be decoded by any TTY machinery or even Hellschreiber. and most artical I have read deal quickly with showing the PSK 31 which Is a modulation different than most and an encoding of the character different than most, that everyond kept talking about why is wasn't an ilgeal code Too many have the emotional labeling of "cryptology" in regards to secrets and spies. In checking out Webster's New World Dictionary, Prentice-Hall 1989, it defines "cryptography" as "the art of writing or deciphering messages in code." Tsk, that would apply to morse codes, wouldn't it? :-) indeed it does as has been pointed out to hands in this or other threads to Hans a point or 2 about Morse as it compares to PSK 31 When someone says PSK 31 they mean the modulation and the character set much like Morse Code you have the modulation which is assumed to be OOKed CW, but doesn't have to realy (we have MCW sounds of dit and dah on FM voice, or maybe alsoused to ID anautoumatic SSB to for all I know)and the letter set One could send Morse by FSK keying makeing it sound more like RTTY than anything any ham would reconize and Morse, but one always means int eh ARS the very specail mode/letter set dit bit |
John Smith wrote: an_old_friend: Really, deep inside, I am a decent human being, or would like to think I am. since you haven't been around all of the last seven years I'll answer you I suffer from Both Dyslexia and Dyslexiod Aphasia, the degree to which eithe ror both bother me and affect my writing avries over time, Indeed it is strongly affected by How much I need to take any med Esp My alegeies meds (which can cause drouseyness, and how recently I have taken thoose meds. so literly My abilty does vary from one minte to the next Indeed these 2 related to why I never was able to pass a code test back in the 70's, to 2 condictions affect me differently at deferent time resulting in being able some days to as a reception test, and not transmit it well enough and sometime the reverse, but always with extreme headaches. I could spend the effort to contorl it better but the RRAP is not worth those kinds of headaches My professional work is recorded verbaly and then typed by someone else. I am one of the persona for whom the written word is a challange, always would, My harshest critics in the Newsgroup, esp Stevie know this, and choose to make an issue of it Your text has degraded here old friend, if you live alone, time to see a doctor and get a check-up, you may have suffered a light stroke... if you are seeing particular problem then likely I was typing about 45 to 60 minutes after taking the stronger allergy meds that this part of the season me forces me to. Indeeed that a certain plant in bloom (one farmed by my neighboor means I am spending more time inside dealing with usenet) I am not being flippant about this, and all joking has been set aside, but I really do get a sense something is wrong, and fear for your health... You may ignore my advice if you choose, but I have a real concern... If I had just sat here without mentioning this, and something undesirable would happen to you, it would truly cause me great grief to know, so no need to flame me back. I really have considered my own mental health in all this too... I hope you don't take this as Flaming you back, I am aware you have not been arround for the whole show Warmest regards, John "an old friend" wrote in message oups.com... wrote: From: K?B on Jul 29, 12:46 pm "an old friend" wrote gee I need more than the word of the people who developed it The people who developed it did not call it an encryption method. (For the simple reason that no cryptology is involved.) Tsk, tsk, TSK! You FORGOT to mention the "papers" on the ARRL website describing Peter Martinez' PSK31. [that's not like you] You are skirting a very grey line on "cryptology." PSK31 is NOT about "intentional obscuration of the meaning of a communications," the boilerplate statement in Part 97 on what can be sent or not sent by radio amateurs. On the other hand, PSK31 is sufficiently UNLIKE conventional TTY codings that it cannot be decoded by any TTY machinery or even Hellschreiber. and most artical I have read deal quickly with showing the PSK 31 which Is a modulation different than most and an encoding of the character different than most, that everyond kept talking about why is wasn't an ilgeal code Too many have the emotional labeling of "cryptology" in regards to secrets and spies. In checking out Webster's New World Dictionary, Prentice-Hall 1989, it defines "cryptography" as "the art of writing or deciphering messages in code." Tsk, that would apply to morse codes, wouldn't it? :-) indeed it does as has been pointed out to hands in this or other threads to Hans a point or 2 about Morse as it compares to PSK 31 When someone says PSK 31 they mean the modulation and the character set much like Morse Code you have the modulation which is assumed to be OOKed CW, but doesn't have to realy (we have MCW sounds of dit and dah on FM voice, or maybe alsoused to ID anautoumatic SSB to for all I know)and the letter set One could send Morse by FSK keying makeing it sound more like RTTY than anything any ham would reconize and Morse, but one always means int eh ARS the very specail mode/letter set dit bit |
an_old_friend:
Well buddy, we can't give you any special treatment, here you stand on your own two feet. However, I am glad you are aware of your condition and have tools to deal with it. I will take in to consideration that you have a bit of disability. Frankly, I am able to get the gist of your posts, if I misunderstand, I suppose you will be more than willing to place me back on track... Hip, hip, cheerio old bean, forward we go... John "an old friend" wrote in message ups.com... John Smith wrote: an_old_friend: Really, deep inside, I am a decent human being, or would like to think I am. since you haven't been around all of the last seven years I'll answer you I suffer from Both Dyslexia and Dyslexiod Aphasia, the degree to which eithe ror both bother me and affect my writing avries over time, Indeed it is strongly affected by How much I need to take any med Esp My alegeies meds (which can cause drouseyness, and how recently I have taken thoose meds. so literly My abilty does vary from one minte to the next Indeed these 2 related to why I never was able to pass a code test back in the 70's, to 2 condictions affect me differently at deferent time resulting in being able some days to as a reception test, and not transmit it well enough and sometime the reverse, but always with extreme headaches. I could spend the effort to contorl it better but the RRAP is not worth those kinds of headaches My professional work is recorded verbaly and then typed by someone else. I am one of the persona for whom the written word is a challange, always would, My harshest critics in the Newsgroup, esp Stevie know this, and choose to make an issue of it Your text has degraded here old friend, if you live alone, time to see a doctor and get a check-up, you may have suffered a light stroke... if you are seeing particular problem then likely I was typing about 45 to 60 minutes after taking the stronger allergy meds that this part of the season me forces me to. Indeeed that a certain plant in bloom (one farmed by my neighboor means I am spending more time inside dealing with usenet) I am not being flippant about this, and all joking has been set aside, but I really do get a sense something is wrong, and fear for your health... You may ignore my advice if you choose, but I have a real concern... If I had just sat here without mentioning this, and something undesirable would happen to you, it would truly cause me great grief to know, so no need to flame me back. I really have considered my own mental health in all this too... I hope you don't take this as Flaming you back, I am aware you have not been arround for the whole show Warmest regards, John "an old friend" wrote in message oups.com... wrote: From: K?B on Jul 29, 12:46 pm "an old friend" wrote gee I need more than the word of the people who developed it The people who developed it did not call it an encryption method. (For the simple reason that no cryptology is involved.) Tsk, tsk, TSK! You FORGOT to mention the "papers" on the ARRL website describing Peter Martinez' PSK31. [that's not like you] You are skirting a very grey line on "cryptology." PSK31 is NOT about "intentional obscuration of the meaning of a communications," the boilerplate statement in Part 97 on what can be sent or not sent by radio amateurs. On the other hand, PSK31 is sufficiently UNLIKE conventional TTY codings that it cannot be decoded by any TTY machinery or even Hellschreiber. and most artical I have read deal quickly with showing the PSK 31 which Is a modulation different than most and an encoding of the character different than most, that everyond kept talking about why is wasn't an ilgeal code Too many have the emotional labeling of "cryptology" in regards to secrets and spies. In checking out Webster's New World Dictionary, Prentice-Hall 1989, it defines "cryptography" as "the art of writing or deciphering messages in code." Tsk, that would apply to morse codes, wouldn't it? :-) indeed it does as has been pointed out to hands in this or other threads to Hans a point or 2 about Morse as it compares to PSK 31 When someone says PSK 31 they mean the modulation and the character set much like Morse Code you have the modulation which is assumed to be OOKed CW, but doesn't have to realy (we have MCW sounds of dit and dah on FM voice, or maybe alsoused to ID anautoumatic SSB to for all I know)and the letter set One could send Morse by FSK keying makeing it sound more like RTTY than anything any ham would reconize and Morse, but one always means int eh ARS the very specail mode/letter set dit bit |
John Smith wrote: an_old_friend: Well buddy, we can't give you any special treatment, here you stand on your own two feet. However, I am glad you are aware of your condition and have tools to deal with it. I will take in to consideration that you have a bit of disability. Frankly, I am able to get the gist of your posts, if I misunderstand, I suppose you will be more than willing to place me back on track... Indeed I am I also reservse to right with Folks when I think what is happening is trying to pull chain to try and shoove that back some where of my choice and so if you look carefully you should see I respond to different people differently, based on experence with them Dan's "Inability" to understand my typing countries once he made clear he though he knew what I was saying I blew him off, was politier with Jim N2EY, becuase he IMO merits it. Stevie well esp with being profesionaly medical and enaging the me the way he I does I give hi realy short shift, and the effort I put into a post depends on who I am repliing to as well Hip, hip, cheerio old bean, forward we go... John "an old friend" wrote in message ups.com... John Smith wrote: an_old_friend: Really, deep inside, I am a decent human being, or would like to think I am. since you haven't been around all of the last seven years I'll answer you I suffer from Both Dyslexia and Dyslexiod Aphasia, the degree to which eithe ror both bother me and affect my writing avries over time, Indeed it is strongly affected by How much I need to take any med Esp My alegeies meds (which can cause drouseyness, and how recently I have taken thoose meds. so literly My abilty does vary from one minte to the next Indeed these 2 related to why I never was able to pass a code test back in the 70's, to 2 condictions affect me differently at deferent time resulting in being able some days to as a reception test, and not transmit it well enough and sometime the reverse, but always with extreme headaches. I could spend the effort to contorl it better but the RRAP is not worth those kinds of headaches My professional work is recorded verbaly and then typed by someone else. I am one of the persona for whom the written word is a challange, always would, My harshest critics in the Newsgroup, esp Stevie know this, and choose to make an issue of it Your text has degraded here old friend, if you live alone, time to see a doctor and get a check-up, you may have suffered a light stroke... if you are seeing particular problem then likely I was typing about 45 to 60 minutes after taking the stronger allergy meds that this part of the season me forces me to. Indeeed that a certain plant in bloom (one farmed by my neighboor means I am spending more time inside dealing with usenet) I am not being flippant about this, and all joking has been set aside, but I really do get a sense something is wrong, and fear for your health... You may ignore my advice if you choose, but I have a real concern... If I had just sat here without mentioning this, and something undesirable would happen to you, it would truly cause me great grief to know, so no need to flame me back. I really have considered my own mental health in all this too... I hope you don't take this as Flaming you back, I am aware you have not been arround for the whole show Warmest regards, John "an old friend" wrote in message oups.com... wrote: From: K?B on Jul 29, 12:46 pm "an old friend" wrote gee I need more than the word of the people who developed it The people who developed it did not call it an encryption method. (For the simple reason that no cryptology is involved.) Tsk, tsk, TSK! You FORGOT to mention the "papers" on the ARRL website describing Peter Martinez' PSK31. [that's not like you] You are skirting a very grey line on "cryptology." PSK31 is NOT about "intentional obscuration of the meaning of a communications," the boilerplate statement in Part 97 on what can be sent or not sent by radio amateurs. On the other hand, PSK31 is sufficiently UNLIKE conventional TTY codings that it cannot be decoded by any TTY machinery or even Hellschreiber. and most artical I have read deal quickly with showing the PSK 31 which Is a modulation different than most and an encoding of the character different than most, that everyond kept talking about why is wasn't an ilgeal code Too many have the emotional labeling of "cryptology" in regards to secrets and spies. In checking out Webster's New World Dictionary, Prentice-Hall 1989, it defines "cryptography" as "the art of writing or deciphering messages in code." Tsk, that would apply to morse codes, wouldn't it? :-) indeed it does as has been pointed out to hands in this or other threads to Hans a point or 2 about Morse as it compares to PSK 31 When someone says PSK 31 they mean the modulation and the character set much like Morse Code you have the modulation which is assumed to be OOKed CW, but doesn't have to realy (we have MCW sounds of dit and dah on FM voice, or maybe alsoused to ID anautoumatic SSB to for all I know)and the letter set One could send Morse by FSK keying makeing it sound more like RTTY than anything any ham would reconize and Morse, but one always means int eh ARS the very specail mode/letter set dit bit |
an old friend wrote:
I suffer from Both Dyslexia and Dyslexiod Aphasia, the degree to which eithe ror both bother me and affect my writing avries over time, Indeed it is strongly affected by How much I need to take any med Esp My alegeies meds (which can cause drouseyness, and how recently I have taken thoose meds. so literly My abilty does vary from one minte to the next I have noticed that one post may be very readable and the next very difficult to decipher. I looked up Aphasia, and you are laboring under a very difficult disability. Thus please accept my apology for the comments I have made and it shant happen again. I applaud you for hanging in there, this can be a tough bunch. |
commander:
Don't do that, just when I think I can hate (well, moderate dislike possibly) you, you go and pull a fast one like that and show a good side to your character? My gawd, can't find enough decent enemies these days, good enemies are turning out to be rarer than hams! John "Cmdr Buzz Corey" wrote in message ... an old friend wrote: I suffer from Both Dyslexia and Dyslexiod Aphasia, the degree to which eithe ror both bother me and affect my writing avries over time, Indeed it is strongly affected by How much I need to take any med Esp My alegeies meds (which can cause drouseyness, and how recently I have taken thoose meds. so literly My abilty does vary from one minte to the next I have noticed that one post may be very readable and the next very difficult to decipher. I looked up Aphasia, and you are laboring under a very difficult disability. Thus please accept my apology for the comments I have made and it shant happen again. I applaud you for hanging in there, this can be a tough bunch. |
John Smith wrote:
commander: Don't do that, just when I think I can hate (well, moderate dislike possibly) you, you go and pull a fast one like that and show a good side to your character? My gawd, can't find enough decent enemies these days, good enemies are turning out to be rarer than hams! John I know, it's a sick world out there. |
Cmdr Buzz Corey wrote:
an old friend wrote: I suffer from Both Dyslexia and Dyslexiod Aphasia, the degree to which eithe ror both bother me and affect my writing avries over time, Indeed it is strongly affected by How much I need to take any med Esp My alegeies meds (which can cause drouseyness, and how recently I have taken thoose meds. so literly My abilty does vary from one minte to the next I have noticed that one post may be very readable and the next very difficult to decipher. I looked up Aphasia, and you are laboring under a very difficult disability. Thus please accept my apology for the comments I have made and it shant happen again. I applaud you for hanging in there, this can be a tough bunch. It'd be easier to deal with Mark if he didn't claim that 1) his earlier newsreader didn't have a spell checker 2) he can't be bothered to use the spellchecker in his current newsreader, 3) proofreading his material is just too much bother for the likes of us and 4) his mistakes are *our* problem, not his. There is special equipment available to those with his handicap: electronic spellers and dictionaries word processors talking calculators It is evident that he does not choose to use them. Finally, we have his past fabrications on his military service and why he needs to keep a low profile. Mark has sought victim status here on numerous occasions. Dave K8MN |
Dave:
Thank you for your insight, it is well taken. However, I don't read tea leaves well and I don't have a psychic brain cell to my name--therefore, I error upon the side of caution. I have been taken advantage of before. Being "made a fool of" will not be a new experience to me, it has happened before. Still, just in case, I give the benefit of the doubt... John "Dave Heil" wrote in message nk.net... Cmdr Buzz Corey wrote: an old friend wrote: I suffer from Both Dyslexia and Dyslexiod Aphasia, the degree to which eithe ror both bother me and affect my writing avries over time, Indeed it is strongly affected by How much I need to take any med Esp My alegeies meds (which can cause drouseyness, and how recently I have taken thoose meds. so literly My abilty does vary from one minte to the next I have noticed that one post may be very readable and the next very difficult to decipher. I looked up Aphasia, and you are laboring under a very difficult disability. Thus please accept my apology for the comments I have made and it shant happen again. I applaud you for hanging in there, this can be a tough bunch. It'd be easier to deal with Mark if he didn't claim that 1) his earlier newsreader didn't have a spell checker 2) he can't be bothered to use the spellchecker in his current newsreader, 3) proofreading his material is just too much bother for the likes of us and 4) his mistakes are *our* problem, not his. There is special equipment available to those with his handicap: electronic spellers and dictionaries word processors talking calculators It is evident that he does not choose to use them. Finally, we have his past fabrications on his military service and why he needs to keep a low profile. Mark has sought victim status here on numerous occasions. Dave K8MN |
"Dave Heil" wrote in message nk.net... Cmdr Buzz Corey wrote: an old friend wrote: I suffer from Both Dyslexia and Dyslexiod Aphasia, the degree to which eithe ror both bother me and affect my writing avries over time, Indeed it is strongly affected by How much I need to take any med Esp My alegeies meds (which can cause drouseyness, and how recently I have taken thoose meds. so literly My abilty does vary from one minte to the next There is special equipment available to those with his handicap: electronic spellers and dictionaries word processors talking calculators It is evident that he does not choose to use them. Finally, we have his past fabrications on his military service and why he needs to keep a low profile. Mark has sought victim status here on numerous occasions. Dave K8MN The above described disorders could easily define a certain Cretin from the West Virginia area. As the saying goes, "You can lead an ignoramus to a dictionary, but you can't teach him to use it." Or something along those lines. |
John Smith wrote: Why would terrorists use radio, even with the narrowest directive antennas and broadcast to who-knows-who? Simple, John. Hide in plain sight. Make it look like a duck, sound like a duck and quack like a duck, everyone thinks it's just another duck. Just like 20 middle eastern guys did at flight schools around the United States a few years back and then perpetrated one of the most heinous acts of terrorism the world had ever seen. Just my 0.02.... 73 Steve, K4YZ |
Johnny B Goode wrote: "Dave Heil" wrote in message nk.net... Cmdr Buzz Corey wrote: an old friend wrote: I suffer from Both Dyslexia and Dyslexiod Aphasia, the degree to which eithe ror both bother me and affect my writing avries over time, Indeed it is strongly affected by How much I need to take any med Esp My alegeies meds (which can cause drouseyness, and how recently I have taken thoose meds. so literly My abilty does vary from one minte to the next There is special equipment available to those with his handicap: electronic spellers and dictionaries word processors talking calculators It is evident that he does not choose to use them. Finally, we have his past fabrications on his military service and why he needs to keep a low profile. Mark has sought victim status here on numerous occasions. Dave K8MN The above described disorders could easily define a certain Cretin from the West Virginia area. Or You, Kevin. As the saying goes, "You can lead an ignoramus to a dictionary, but you can't teach him to use it." Shall we search out your numerous misspellings? Or something along those lines. Oh, so you *admit* you don't know what the hell you are talking about. |
K4YZ:
Exactly, the duck idea is excellent. And, that is exactly why I was pointing out the "code" would be buried in a graphic on a website, maybe Al Jazerra's(sp?), or any other, and can be read from any library or other computer across the nation... Also, music broadcasts from sw stations would be good... John "K4YZ" wrote in message oups.com... John Smith wrote: Why would terrorists use radio, even with the narrowest directive antennas and broadcast to who-knows-who? Simple, John. Hide in plain sight. Make it look like a duck, sound like a duck and quack like a duck, everyone thinks it's just another duck. Just like 20 middle eastern guys did at flight schools around the United States a few years back and then perpetrated one of the most heinous acts of terrorism the world had ever seen. Just my 0.02.... 73 Steve, K4YZ |
Dave Heil wrote: Cmdr Buzz Corey wrote: an old friend wrote: I suffer from Both Dyslexia and Dyslexiod Aphasia, the degree to which eithe ror both bother me and affect my writing avries over time, Indeed it is strongly affected by How much I need to take any med Esp My alegeies meds (which can cause drouseyness, and how recently I have taken thoose meds. so literly My abilty does vary from one minte to the next I have noticed that one post may be very readable and the next very difficult to decipher. I looked up Aphasia, and you are laboring under a very difficult disability. Thus please accept my apology for the comments I have made and it shant happen again. I applaud you for hanging in there, this can be a tough bunch. It'd be easier to deal with Mark if he didn't claim that 1) his earlier newsreader didn't have a spell checker 2) he can't be bothered to use the spellchecker in his current newsreader, 3) proofreading his material is just too much bother for the likes of us and 4) his mistakes are *our* problem, not his. you know Dave you just don't seem to like the truth neverfound newreader writer that had an easy to use spell checker there is NO spel check in my current set up go to google and try it if you still don't believe me There is special equipment available to those with his handicap: electronic spellers and dictionaries and you realy ahven't had to try to what is out there, something for which you thank whatever diety you pray to word processors talking calculators It is evident that he does not choose to use them. Finally, we have his past fabrications on his military service and why he needs to keep a low profile. Mark has sought victim status here on numerous occasions. Dave K8MN |
Cmdr Buzz Corey wrote: an old friend wrote: I suffer from Both Dyslexia and Dyslexiod Aphasia, the degree to which eithe ror both bother me and affect my writing avries over time, Indeed it is strongly affected by How much I need to take any med Esp My alegeies meds (which can cause drouseyness, and how recently I have taken thoose meds. so literly My abilty does vary from one minte to the next I have noticed that one post may be very readable and the next very difficult to decipher. I looked up Aphasia, and you are laboring under a very difficult disability. Thus please accept my apology for the comments I have made and it shant happen again. I applaud you for hanging in there, this can be a tough bunch. and worse yet as Long as I remember a something I have written I see what I intended, not what is there, my mind and memory. gnag up trying to be helpful but jst making things worse, and as you have noticed the degree varies constantly, but esp on other aspects of my health, or if I get angery, and so the medical pro Steve who claims to know about these condictions does his best to provoke and make me angery so he can continue to make fun of me |
an_old_friend:
Let us now move away from this... Don't keep it going, you will just end up defeating your own best interests... John "an old friend" wrote in message ups.com... Cmdr Buzz Corey wrote: an old friend wrote: I suffer from Both Dyslexia and Dyslexiod Aphasia, the degree to which eithe ror both bother me and affect my writing avries over time, Indeed it is strongly affected by How much I need to take any med Esp My alegeies meds (which can cause drouseyness, and how recently I have taken thoose meds. so literly My abilty does vary from one minte to the next I have noticed that one post may be very readable and the next very difficult to decipher. I looked up Aphasia, and you are laboring under a very difficult disability. Thus please accept my apology for the comments I have made and it shant happen again. I applaud you for hanging in there, this can be a tough bunch. and worse yet as Long as I remember a something I have written I see what I intended, not what is there, my mind and memory. gnag up trying to be helpful but jst making things worse, and as you have noticed the degree varies constantly, but esp on other aspects of my health, or if I get angery, and so the medical pro Steve who claims to know about these condictions does his best to provoke and make me angery so he can continue to make fun of me |
From: "an old friend" on Fri 29 Jul 2005 18:02
wrote: From: K0HB on Jul 29, 12:46 pm "an old friend" wrote gee I need more than the word of the people who developed it The people who developed it did not call it an encryption method. (For the simple reason that no cryptology is involved.) Tsk, tsk, TSK! You FORGOT to mention the "papers" on the ARRL website describing Peter Martinez' PSK31. [that's not like you] You are skirting a very grey line on "cryptology." PSK31 is NOT about "intentional obscuration of the meaning of a communications," the boilerplate statement in Part 97 on what can be sent or not sent by radio amateurs. On the other hand, PSK31 is sufficiently UNLIKE conventional TTY codings that it cannot be decoded by any TTY machinery or even Hellschreiber. and most artical I have read deal quickly with showing the PSK 31 which Is a modulation different than most and an encoding of the character different than most, that everyond kept talking about why is wasn't an ilgeal code That's in regard to the FCC regulations on permissible codings. IF A CODING HAS BEEN PUBLISHED (and supposedly well-enough known) then it is okay to use by radio amateurs. That ties into the basic warning of amateur radio communications shall not be intended to obscure the true meaning (as with 'secret' codes). Too many have the emotional labeling of "cryptology" in regards to secrets and spies. In checking out Webster's New World Dictionary, Prentice-Hall 1989, it defines "cryptography" as "the art of writing or deciphering messages in code." Tsk, that would apply to morse codes, wouldn't it? :-) indeed it does as has been pointed out to hands in this or other threads to Hans I'm of the understanding that Hans DOES understand it, but is trying some wordplay. "Cryptic" as in "cryptology" or "cryptography" carries with it some emotional baggage for many in being related to espionage activities. "Morse code" of course is absolutely not (in more emotional baggage of morsemen) any "code" of any kind...ahem...yet morse code is IS a CODE of aperiodic on-off states representing the English alphabet, numerals, and some punctuation marks. That morse code is an "international language" is more nonsense by morsemen. The CCITT and later ITU-R simply STANDARDIZED the "International Morse Code" as being the standard for radio amateurs. Has NO relation to a "language" other than being a representation of the English language characters. a point or 2 about Morse as it compares to PSK 31 When someone says PSK 31 they mean the modulation and the character set much like Morse Code you have the modulation which is assumed to be OOKed CW, but doesn't have to realy (we have MCW sounds of dit and dah on FM voice, or maybe alsoused to ID anautoumatic SSB to for all I know)and the letter set Peter Martinez' innovation (he is G3PLX) uses PHASE modulation which can be picked up with an FM demodulator. Peter goes one step further in the character coding...that of - in effect - altering the modulation spectrum by the CHOICE of bits and bit lengths. [there's a very long explanation of the effect on spectral content which can't be done in here without some pictures or whiteboard sketching] Phase modulation has some definite advantages insofar as very low received signal levels are concerned. [again, that gets to a complex explanation involving some statistics knowledge] It CAN actually work BETTER than on-off-keyed CW at very low signal levels, aided by only a simple hardware expansion of the detector system in a receiver. Conservative traditionalist radio amateurs are horrified at such upstart ideas (only four decades or so old) and will have NONE of that! As long as a message/communications is being sent, the transmitter MUST be on for PM or FM. The carrier is always present. Again, the conservative traditionalists argue that this is "inefficient" and other ill-informed horse pucky, not counting on the added electronic stress on the power supply or final amplifier or the resulting shock to the primary power source. [I've seen some truly marvelous rationalizations on that, little more than nonsensical imaginings of those that haven't learned enough of FM and PM] One could send Morse by FSK keying makeing it sound more like RTTY than anything any ham would reconize and Morse, but one always means int eh ARS the very specail mode/letter set FSK and PSK "sound" almost identical. Their modulation spectra are VERY close, almost exact if only magnitude of the spectral components are considered (the difference is in the phase of their sidebands relative to the carrier phase and modulation phase). With a binary (two-state) modulation signal, PSK is a tiny bit easier to implement on a transmitter than FSK. But, on regulatory matters, the FCC is quite firm on the "public knowledge" aspect of ANY coding. For OOK CW, they reference the CCITT/ITU-T standard on commercial telegraphy as the International Morse Code. For RTTY they reference the 5-level so-called Baudot code and the 7-level-plus- parity ASCII code. PSK31 was allowed for use (followed up by specific communications from the FCC) when it was new due to extensive publication in Europe for years before it was published in QST. On Spread Spectrum techniques, there's still a gray area in the regulations. FCC regulations have allowed a greater range in the pseudo-random sequences for direct-sequence spreading (than the original regs) but they still require some form of "recording" of EVERY transmission for "later" use! [that's the interpretation of that very general regulation on SS] On the other hand, there's a difficulty in obtaining the EXACT nature of just about EVERY commercial SS sequence in commercial use...from keyless auto entry fob transmitters to garage door openers to LANs and WLANs* to remote electrical meter useage transmitters. Millions of commercial SS sequences being sent but there are NO regulatios imposed on THEIR transmission recordings! * I'm classifying all those "cordless" devices from 'phones to remote TV monitors to home networking gadgets in the WLAN category...that's a few million or so more devices. |
Len:
So then, you have decided that free speech is only allowed if the government can understand it (decrypt it.) Interesting, my idea of free speech is that they (my public servants--from bush on down) don't have anything to say about what I say, nor who I say it to, nor need to be aware of the contents of my messages (unless they find me yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre)... however, I am an american citizen... now if they want to hassle some other individual in another country, I guess they can, depending if they get a pencil shoved in their ear or not, I suppose... Not only that, but the constitution of my forefathers demands I keep an eye on my "public servants", maintaining a constant vigil, and if they even look like they are attempting to limit and/or subvert the liberties and freedoms of the citizens here, I am demanded to use whatever means necessary to halt and prevent them, it is how I repay those individuals who gave their lives to win my freedoms and liberties--that is a REAL "GENTLEMAN's AGREEMENT!"... .... now I would be a damn fool to tell them what I would have planned in such an necessity, wouldn't I? Sometimes, I think we have already lost a battle, at this point, and a foreign influence is in some kind of control of this country... .... perhaps the time approaches to repay that debt, much quicker than I would like ... When a government begins to fear its' very own citizens--the problem is NEVER the citizens... John wrote in message ups.com... From: "an old friend" on Fri 29 Jul 2005 18:02 wrote: From: K0HB on Jul 29, 12:46 pm "an old friend" wrote gee I need more than the word of the people who developed it The people who developed it did not call it an encryption method. (For the simple reason that no cryptology is involved.) Tsk, tsk, TSK! You FORGOT to mention the "papers" on the ARRL website describing Peter Martinez' PSK31. [that's not like you] You are skirting a very grey line on "cryptology." PSK31 is NOT about "intentional obscuration of the meaning of a communications," the boilerplate statement in Part 97 on what can be sent or not sent by radio amateurs. On the other hand, PSK31 is sufficiently UNLIKE conventional TTY codings that it cannot be decoded by any TTY machinery or even Hellschreiber. and most artical I have read deal quickly with showing the PSK 31 which Is a modulation different than most and an encoding of the character different than most, that everyond kept talking about why is wasn't an ilgeal code That's in regard to the FCC regulations on permissible codings. IF A CODING HAS BEEN PUBLISHED (and supposedly well-enough known) then it is okay to use by radio amateurs. That ties into the basic warning of amateur radio communications shall not be intended to obscure the true meaning (as with 'secret' codes). Too many have the emotional labeling of "cryptology" in regards to secrets and spies. In checking out Webster's New World Dictionary, Prentice-Hall 1989, it defines "cryptography" as "the art of writing or deciphering messages in code." Tsk, that would apply to morse codes, wouldn't it? :-) indeed it does as has been pointed out to hands in this or other threads to Hans I'm of the understanding that Hans DOES understand it, but is trying some wordplay. "Cryptic" as in "cryptology" or "cryptography" carries with it some emotional baggage for many in being related to espionage activities. "Morse code" of course is absolutely not (in more emotional baggage of morsemen) any "code" of any kind...ahem...yet morse code is IS a CODE of aperiodic on-off states representing the English alphabet, numerals, and some punctuation marks. That morse code is an "international language" is more nonsense by morsemen. The CCITT and later ITU-R simply STANDARDIZED the "International Morse Code" as being the standard for radio amateurs. Has NO relation to a "language" other than being a representation of the English language characters. a point or 2 about Morse as it compares to PSK 31 When someone says PSK 31 they mean the modulation and the character set much like Morse Code you have the modulation which is assumed to be OOKed CW, but doesn't have to realy (we have MCW sounds of dit and dah on FM voice, or maybe alsoused to ID anautoumatic SSB to for all I know)and the letter set Peter Martinez' innovation (he is G3PLX) uses PHASE modulation which can be picked up with an FM demodulator. Peter goes one step further in the character coding...that of - in effect - altering the modulation spectrum by the CHOICE of bits and bit lengths. [there's a very long explanation of the effect on spectral content which can't be done in here without some pictures or whiteboard sketching] Phase modulation has some definite advantages insofar as very low received signal levels are concerned. [again, that gets to a complex explanation involving some statistics knowledge] It CAN actually work BETTER than on-off-keyed CW at very low signal levels, aided by only a simple hardware expansion of the detector system in a receiver. Conservative traditionalist radio amateurs are horrified at such upstart ideas (only four decades or so old) and will have NONE of that! As long as a message/communications is being sent, the transmitter MUST be on for PM or FM. The carrier is always present. Again, the conservative traditionalists argue that this is "inefficient" and other ill-informed horse pucky, not counting on the added electronic stress on the power supply or final amplifier or the resulting shock to the primary power source. [I've seen some truly marvelous rationalizations on that, little more than nonsensical imaginings of those that haven't learned enough of FM and PM] One could send Morse by FSK keying makeing it sound more like RTTY than anything any ham would reconize and Morse, but one always means int eh ARS the very specail mode/letter set FSK and PSK "sound" almost identical. Their modulation spectra are VERY close, almost exact if only magnitude of the spectral components are considered (the difference is in the phase of their sidebands relative to the carrier phase and modulation phase). With a binary (two-state) modulation signal, PSK is a tiny bit easier to implement on a transmitter than FSK. But, on regulatory matters, the FCC is quite firm on the "public knowledge" aspect of ANY coding. For OOK CW, they reference the CCITT/ITU-T standard on commercial telegraphy as the International Morse Code. For RTTY they reference the 5-level so-called Baudot code and the 7-level-plus- parity ASCII code. PSK31 was allowed for use (followed up by specific communications from the FCC) when it was new due to extensive publication in Europe for years before it was published in QST. On Spread Spectrum techniques, there's still a gray area in the regulations. FCC regulations have allowed a greater range in the pseudo-random sequences for direct-sequence spreading (than the original regs) but they still require some form of "recording" of EVERY transmission for "later" use! [that's the interpretation of that very general regulation on SS] On the other hand, there's a difficulty in obtaining the EXACT nature of just about EVERY commercial SS sequence in commercial use...from keyless auto entry fob transmitters to garage door openers to LANs and WLANs* to remote electrical meter useage transmitters. Millions of commercial SS sequences being sent but there are NO regulatios imposed on THEIR transmission recordings! * I'm classifying all those "cordless" devices from 'phones to remote TV monitors to home networking gadgets in the WLAN category...that's a few million or so more devices. |
John Smith wrote: Len: So then, you have decided that free speech is only allowed if the government can understand it (decrypt it.) The FCC does at least with respect to Ham radio, Len is only describing the state of ARS rules Interesting, my idea of free speech is that they (my public servants--from bush on down) don't have anything to say about what I say, nor who I say it to, nor need to be aware of the contents of my messages (unless they find me yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre)... however, I am an american citizen... now if they want to hassle some other individual in another country, I guess they can, depending if they get a pencil shoved in their ear or not, I suppose... Not only that, but the constitution of my forefathers demands I keep an eye on my "public servants", maintaining a constant vigil, and if they even look like they are attempting to limit and/or subvert the liberties and freedoms of the citizens here, I am demanded to use whatever means necessary to halt and prevent them, it is how I repay those individuals who gave their lives to win my freedoms and liberties--that is a REAL "GENTLEMAN's AGREEMENT!"... ... now I would be a damn fool to tell them what I would have planned in such an necessity, wouldn't I? Sometimes, I think we have already lost a battle, at this point, and a foreign influence is in some kind of control of this country... ... perhaps the time approaches to repay that debt, much quicker than I would like ... When a government begins to fear its' very own citizens--the problem is NEVER the citizens... John wrote in message ups.com... From: "an old friend" on Fri 29 Jul 2005 18:02 wrote: From: K0HB on Jul 29, 12:46 pm "an old friend" wrote gee I need more than the word of the people who developed it The people who developed it did not call it an encryption method. (For the simple reason that no cryptology is involved.) Tsk, tsk, TSK! You FORGOT to mention the "papers" on the ARRL website describing Peter Martinez' PSK31. [that's not like you] You are skirting a very grey line on "cryptology." PSK31 is NOT about "intentional obscuration of the meaning of a communications," the boilerplate statement in Part 97 on what can be sent or not sent by radio amateurs. On the other hand, PSK31 is sufficiently UNLIKE conventional TTY codings that it cannot be decoded by any TTY machinery or even Hellschreiber. and most artical I have read deal quickly with showing the PSK 31 which Is a modulation different than most and an encoding of the character different than most, that everyond kept talking about why is wasn't an ilgeal code That's in regard to the FCC regulations on permissible codings. IF A CODING HAS BEEN PUBLISHED (and supposedly well-enough known) then it is okay to use by radio amateurs. That ties into the basic warning of amateur radio communications shall not be intended to obscure the true meaning (as with 'secret' codes). Too many have the emotional labeling of "cryptology" in regards to secrets and spies. In checking out Webster's New World Dictionary, Prentice-Hall 1989, it defines "cryptography" as "the art of writing or deciphering messages in code." Tsk, that would apply to morse codes, wouldn't it? :-) indeed it does as has been pointed out to hands in this or other threads to Hans I'm of the understanding that Hans DOES understand it, but is trying some wordplay. "Cryptic" as in "cryptology" or "cryptography" carries with it some emotional baggage for many in being related to espionage activities. "Morse code" of course is absolutely not (in more emotional baggage of morsemen) any "code" of any kind...ahem...yet morse code is IS a CODE of aperiodic on-off states representing the English alphabet, numerals, and some punctuation marks. That morse code is an "international language" is more nonsense by morsemen. The CCITT and later ITU-R simply STANDARDIZED the "International Morse Code" as being the standard for radio amateurs. Has NO relation to a "language" other than being a representation of the English language characters. a point or 2 about Morse as it compares to PSK 31 When someone says PSK 31 they mean the modulation and the character set much like Morse Code you have the modulation which is assumed to be OOKed CW, but doesn't have to realy (we have MCW sounds of dit and dah on FM voice, or maybe alsoused to ID anautoumatic SSB to for all I know)and the letter set Peter Martinez' innovation (he is G3PLX) uses PHASE modulation which can be picked up with an FM demodulator. Peter goes one step further in the character coding...that of - in effect - altering the modulation spectrum by the CHOICE of bits and bit lengths. [there's a very long explanation of the effect on spectral content which can't be done in here without some pictures or whiteboard sketching] Phase modulation has some definite advantages insofar as very low received signal levels are concerned. [again, that gets to a complex explanation involving some statistics knowledge] It CAN actually work BETTER than on-off-keyed CW at very low signal levels, aided by only a simple hardware expansion of the detector system in a receiver. Conservative traditionalist radio amateurs are horrified at such upstart ideas (only four decades or so old) and will have NONE of that! As long as a message/communications is being sent, the transmitter MUST be on for PM or FM. The carrier is always present. Again, the conservative traditionalists argue that this is "inefficient" and other ill-informed horse pucky, not counting on the added electronic stress on the power supply or final amplifier or the resulting shock to the primary power source. [I've seen some truly marvelous rationalizations on that, little more than nonsensical imaginings of those that haven't learned enough of FM and PM] One could send Morse by FSK keying makeing it sound more like RTTY than anything any ham would reconize and Morse, but one always means int eh ARS the very specail mode/letter set FSK and PSK "sound" almost identical. Their modulation spectra are VERY close, almost exact if only magnitude of the spectral components are considered (the difference is in the phase of their sidebands relative to the carrier phase and modulation phase). With a binary (two-state) modulation signal, PSK is a tiny bit easier to implement on a transmitter than FSK. But, on regulatory matters, the FCC is quite firm on the "public knowledge" aspect of ANY coding. For OOK CW, they reference the CCITT/ITU-T standard on commercial telegraphy as the International Morse Code. For RTTY they reference the 5-level so-called Baudot code and the 7-level-plus- parity ASCII code. PSK31 was allowed for use (followed up by specific communications from the FCC) when it was new due to extensive publication in Europe for years before it was published in QST. On Spread Spectrum techniques, there's still a gray area in the regulations. FCC regulations have allowed a greater range in the pseudo-random sequences for direct-sequence spreading (than the original regs) but they still require some form of "recording" of EVERY transmission for "later" use! [that's the interpretation of that very general regulation on SS] On the other hand, there's a difficulty in obtaining the EXACT nature of just about EVERY commercial SS sequence in commercial use...from keyless auto entry fob transmitters to garage door openers to LANs and WLANs* to remote electrical meter useage transmitters. Millions of commercial SS sequences being sent but there are NO regulatios imposed on THEIR transmission recordings! * I'm classifying all those "cordless" devices from 'phones to remote TV monitors to home networking gadgets in the WLAN category...that's a few million or so more devices. |
an_old_friend:
I assure you, I am just "bantering" with Len... no need to stand to his defense... John "an old friend" wrote in message oups.com... John Smith wrote: Len: So then, you have decided that free speech is only allowed if the government can understand it (decrypt it.) The FCC does at least with respect to Ham radio, Len is only describing the state of ARS rules Interesting, my idea of free speech is that they (my public servants--from bush on down) don't have anything to say about what I say, nor who I say it to, nor need to be aware of the contents of my messages (unless they find me yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre)... however, I am an american citizen... now if they want to hassle some other individual in another country, I guess they can, depending if they get a pencil shoved in their ear or not, I suppose... Not only that, but the constitution of my forefathers demands I keep an eye on my "public servants", maintaining a constant vigil, and if they even look like they are attempting to limit and/or subvert the liberties and freedoms of the citizens here, I am demanded to use whatever means necessary to halt and prevent them, it is how I repay those individuals who gave their lives to win my freedoms and liberties--that is a REAL "GENTLEMAN's AGREEMENT!"... ... now I would be a damn fool to tell them what I would have planned in such an necessity, wouldn't I? Sometimes, I think we have already lost a battle, at this point, and a foreign influence is in some kind of control of this country... ... perhaps the time approaches to repay that debt, much quicker than I would like ... When a government begins to fear its' very own citizens--the problem is NEVER the citizens... John wrote in message ups.com... From: "an old friend" on Fri 29 Jul 2005 18:02 wrote: From: K0HB on Jul 29, 12:46 pm "an old friend" wrote gee I need more than the word of the people who developed it The people who developed it did not call it an encryption method. (For the simple reason that no cryptology is involved.) Tsk, tsk, TSK! You FORGOT to mention the "papers" on the ARRL website describing Peter Martinez' PSK31. [that's not like you] You are skirting a very grey line on "cryptology." PSK31 is NOT about "intentional obscuration of the meaning of a communications," the boilerplate statement in Part 97 on what can be sent or not sent by radio amateurs. On the other hand, PSK31 is sufficiently UNLIKE conventional TTY codings that it cannot be decoded by any TTY machinery or even Hellschreiber. and most artical I have read deal quickly with showing the PSK 31 which Is a modulation different than most and an encoding of the character different than most, that everyond kept talking about why is wasn't an ilgeal code That's in regard to the FCC regulations on permissible codings. IF A CODING HAS BEEN PUBLISHED (and supposedly well-enough known) then it is okay to use by radio amateurs. That ties into the basic warning of amateur radio communications shall not be intended to obscure the true meaning (as with 'secret' codes). Too many have the emotional labeling of "cryptology" in regards to secrets and spies. In checking out Webster's New World Dictionary, Prentice-Hall 1989, it defines "cryptography" as "the art of writing or deciphering messages in code." Tsk, that would apply to morse codes, wouldn't it? :-) indeed it does as has been pointed out to hands in this or other threads to Hans I'm of the understanding that Hans DOES understand it, but is trying some wordplay. "Cryptic" as in "cryptology" or "cryptography" carries with it some emotional baggage for many in being related to espionage activities. "Morse code" of course is absolutely not (in more emotional baggage of morsemen) any "code" of any kind...ahem...yet morse code is IS a CODE of aperiodic on-off states representing the English alphabet, numerals, and some punctuation marks. That morse code is an "international language" is more nonsense by morsemen. The CCITT and later ITU-R simply STANDARDIZED the "International Morse Code" as being the standard for radio amateurs. Has NO relation to a "language" other than being a representation of the English language characters. a point or 2 about Morse as it compares to PSK 31 When someone says PSK 31 they mean the modulation and the character set much like Morse Code you have the modulation which is assumed to be OOKed CW, but doesn't have to realy (we have MCW sounds of dit and dah on FM voice, or maybe alsoused to ID anautoumatic SSB to for all I know)and the letter set Peter Martinez' innovation (he is G3PLX) uses PHASE modulation which can be picked up with an FM demodulator. Peter goes one step further in the character coding...that of - in effect - altering the modulation spectrum by the CHOICE of bits and bit lengths. [there's a very long explanation of the effect on spectral content which can't be done in here without some pictures or whiteboard sketching] Phase modulation has some definite advantages insofar as very low received signal levels are concerned. [again, that gets to a complex explanation involving some statistics knowledge] It CAN actually work BETTER than on-off-keyed CW at very low signal levels, aided by only a simple hardware expansion of the detector system in a receiver. Conservative traditionalist radio amateurs are horrified at such upstart ideas (only four decades or so old) and will have NONE of that! As long as a message/communications is being sent, the transmitter MUST be on for PM or FM. The carrier is always present. Again, the conservative traditionalists argue that this is "inefficient" and other ill-informed horse pucky, not counting on the added electronic stress on the power supply or final amplifier or the resulting shock to the primary power source. [I've seen some truly marvelous rationalizations on that, little more than nonsensical imaginings of those that haven't learned enough of FM and PM] One could send Morse by FSK keying makeing it sound more like RTTY than anything any ham would reconize and Morse, but one always means int eh ARS the very specail mode/letter set FSK and PSK "sound" almost identical. Their modulation spectra are VERY close, almost exact if only magnitude of the spectral components are considered (the difference is in the phase of their sidebands relative to the carrier phase and modulation phase). With a binary (two-state) modulation signal, PSK is a tiny bit easier to implement on a transmitter than FSK. But, on regulatory matters, the FCC is quite firm on the "public knowledge" aspect of ANY coding. For OOK CW, they reference the CCITT/ITU-T standard on commercial telegraphy as the International Morse Code. For RTTY they reference the 5-level so-called Baudot code and the 7-level-plus- parity ASCII code. PSK31 was allowed for use (followed up by specific communications from the FCC) when it was new due to extensive publication in Europe for years before it was published in QST. On Spread Spectrum techniques, there's still a gray area in the regulations. FCC regulations have allowed a greater range in the pseudo-random sequences for direct-sequence spreading (than the original regs) but they still require some form of "recording" of EVERY transmission for "later" use! [that's the interpretation of that very general regulation on SS] On the other hand, there's a difficulty in obtaining the EXACT nature of just about EVERY commercial SS sequence in commercial use...from keyless auto entry fob transmitters to garage door openers to LANs and WLANs* to remote electrical meter useage transmitters. Millions of commercial SS sequences being sent but there are NO regulatios imposed on THEIR transmission recordings! * I'm classifying all those "cordless" devices from 'phones to remote TV monitors to home networking gadgets in the WLAN category...that's a few million or so more devices. |
John Smith wrote: an_old_friend: I assure you, I am just "bantering" with Len... no need to stand to his defense... well hard to tell and well It can't be that conforable to bee seen as defending the FCC's rules as making sense Personal I don't think the whole rule (no encryption would stand up to a court challange at least away from the current security charged paranoia but that isn't a cause I am willing to risk the treasure to do John "an old friend" wrote in message oups.com... John Smith wrote: Len: So then, you have decided that free speech is only allowed if the government can understand it (decrypt it.) The FCC does at least with respect to Ham radio, Len is only describing the state of ARS rules Interesting, my idea of free speech is that they (my public servants--from bush on down) don't have anything to say about what I say, nor who I say it to, nor need to be aware of the contents of my messages (unless they find me yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre)... however, I am an american citizen... now if they want to hassle some other individual in another country, I guess they can, depending if they get a pencil shoved in their ear or not, I suppose... Not only that, but the constitution of my forefathers demands I keep an eye on my "public servants", maintaining a constant vigil, and if they even look like they are attempting to limit and/or subvert the liberties and freedoms of the citizens here, I am demanded to use whatever means necessary to halt and prevent them, it is how I repay those individuals who gave their lives to win my freedoms and liberties--that is a REAL "GENTLEMAN's AGREEMENT!"... ... now I would be a damn fool to tell them what I would have planned in such an necessity, wouldn't I? Sometimes, I think we have already lost a battle, at this point, and a foreign influence is in some kind of control of this country... ... perhaps the time approaches to repay that debt, much quicker than I would like ... When a government begins to fear its' very own citizens--the problem is NEVER the citizens... John wrote in message ups.com... From: "an old friend" on Fri 29 Jul 2005 18:02 wrote: From: K0HB on Jul 29, 12:46 pm "an old friend" wrote gee I need more than the word of the people who developed it The people who developed it did not call it an encryption method. (For the simple reason that no cryptology is involved.) Tsk, tsk, TSK! You FORGOT to mention the "papers" on the ARRL website describing Peter Martinez' PSK31. [that's not like you] You are skirting a very grey line on "cryptology." PSK31 is NOT about "intentional obscuration of the meaning of a communications," the boilerplate statement in Part 97 on what can be sent or not sent by radio amateurs. On the other hand, PSK31 is sufficiently UNLIKE conventional TTY codings that it cannot be decoded by any TTY machinery or even Hellschreiber. and most artical I have read deal quickly with showing the PSK 31 which Is a modulation different than most and an encoding of the character different than most, that everyond kept talking about why is wasn't an ilgeal code That's in regard to the FCC regulations on permissible codings. IF A CODING HAS BEEN PUBLISHED (and supposedly well-enough known) then it is okay to use by radio amateurs. That ties into the basic warning of amateur radio communications shall not be intended to obscure the true meaning (as with 'secret' codes). Too many have the emotional labeling of "cryptology" in regards to secrets and spies. In checking out Webster's New World Dictionary, Prentice-Hall 1989, it defines "cryptography" as "the art of writing or deciphering messages in code." Tsk, that would apply to morse codes, wouldn't it? :-) indeed it does as has been pointed out to hands in this or other threads to Hans I'm of the understanding that Hans DOES understand it, but is trying some wordplay. "Cryptic" as in "cryptology" or "cryptography" carries with it some emotional baggage for many in being related to espionage activities. "Morse code" of course is absolutely not (in more emotional baggage of morsemen) any "code" of any kind...ahem...yet morse code is IS a CODE of aperiodic on-off states representing the English alphabet, numerals, and some punctuation marks. That morse code is an "international language" is more nonsense by morsemen. The CCITT and later ITU-R simply STANDARDIZED the "International Morse Code" as being the standard for radio amateurs. Has NO relation to a "language" other than being a representation of the English language characters. a point or 2 about Morse as it compares to PSK 31 When someone says PSK 31 they mean the modulation and the character set much like Morse Code you have the modulation which is assumed to be OOKed CW, but doesn't have to realy (we have MCW sounds of dit and dah on FM voice, or maybe alsoused to ID anautoumatic SSB to for all I know)and the letter set Peter Martinez' innovation (he is G3PLX) uses PHASE modulation which can be picked up with an FM demodulator. Peter goes one step further in the character coding...that of - in effect - altering the modulation spectrum by the CHOICE of bits and bit lengths. [there's a very long explanation of the effect on spectral content which can't be done in here without some pictures or whiteboard sketching] Phase modulation has some definite advantages insofar as very low received signal levels are concerned. [again, that gets to a complex explanation involving some statistics knowledge] It CAN actually work BETTER than on-off-keyed CW at very low signal levels, aided by only a simple hardware expansion of the detector system in a receiver. Conservative traditionalist radio amateurs are horrified at such upstart ideas (only four decades or so old) and will have NONE of that! As long as a message/communications is being sent, the transmitter MUST be on for PM or FM. The carrier is always present. Again, the conservative traditionalists argue that this is "inefficient" and other ill-informed horse pucky, not counting on the added electronic stress on the power supply or final amplifier or the resulting shock to the primary power source. [I've seen some truly marvelous rationalizations on that, little more than nonsensical imaginings of those that haven't learned enough of FM and PM] One could send Morse by FSK keying makeing it sound more like RTTY than anything any ham would reconize and Morse, but one always means int eh ARS the very specail mode/letter set FSK and PSK "sound" almost identical. Their modulation spectra are VERY close, almost exact if only magnitude of the spectral components are considered (the difference is in the phase of their sidebands relative to the carrier phase and modulation phase). With a binary (two-state) modulation signal, PSK is a tiny bit easier to implement on a transmitter than FSK. But, on regulatory matters, the FCC is quite firm on the "public knowledge" aspect of ANY coding. For OOK CW, they reference the CCITT/ITU-T standard on commercial telegraphy as the International Morse Code. For RTTY they reference the 5-level so-called Baudot code and the 7-level-plus- parity ASCII code. PSK31 was allowed for use (followed up by specific communications from the FCC) when it was new due to extensive publication in Europe for years before it was published in QST. On Spread Spectrum techniques, there's still a gray area in the regulations. FCC regulations have allowed a greater range in the pseudo-random sequences for direct-sequence spreading (than the original regs) but they still require some form of "recording" of EVERY transmission for "later" use! [that's the interpretation of that very general regulation on SS] On the other hand, there's a difficulty in obtaining the EXACT nature of just about EVERY commercial SS sequence in commercial use...from keyless auto entry fob transmitters to garage door openers to LANs and WLANs* to remote electrical meter useage transmitters. Millions of commercial SS sequences being sent but there are NO regulatios imposed on THEIR transmission recordings! * I'm classifying all those "cordless" devices from 'phones to remote TV monitors to home networking gadgets in the WLAN category...that's a few million or so more devices. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:56 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com