wrote:

The International Morse Code test for United States amateur
radio license classes General and Extra have NEVER GONE AWAY.

Well now. How about that!


Klein fears CHANGE and, perhaps, feelings of obsolescence.

I fear that Leonard H. Anderson will go to his reward without ever
having obtained an amateur radio license.

Someone who has been a regular worker in electronics (radio is a
subset of electronics) ought to damn well know and recognize
that the state of the art in electronics has been CONSTANTLY
changing. It's sometimes a chore to keep up, whether it be
1950 or 2000 or any time in-between.

Don't let us stop you from tending to your chores, Len.


When in doubt of an effective reply, these Fundamentalist
Morseodists
must resort to some form of denigration. Sigh, they never learn...

That's all you've done since your recent reappearance here, Major Hoople.




Some of these Olde Fahrts seem to think their amateurism is on
some kind of "higher plane" than ordinary, plebian, work.

Obtaining an amateur radio license *is* work, Len. Some of the amateur
radio activities we partcipate in are *are* work. The work isn't
compensated. It is performed for the love of it. If you ever hope to
obtain an amateur radio license, you'll have to indulge in some
ordinary, plebian work.

Dave K8MN

On 10 Aug 2006 20:05:25 -0700, wrote:

You denigrate the resistor code.

Not at all. It's a lot better than having the value printed on the
resistor in numbers. Even with MIL quality and transparent coatings,
the numbers on 1/8 watt resistors are kind of hard to read.

On 11 Aug 2006 07:57:47 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

the issue is simple some folks want to claim other folks that took and
passed the tests equire by by law are somehow "cheating"

If you can't even understand the issue, why do you keep opening your
mouth and proving it?

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 14:55:09 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

It is hard to understand how anyone could develop that correct
answer from first principles or formulas.

No one but you even mentioned "first principles" in this discussion.
It's certainly not part of the discussion.

I memorized the
correct answer and it still exists in my memory as something
I once memorized long before I ever knew there was a man named
Ohm after whom the unit of electrical resistance was named.

You still don't understand (or want to acknowledge) the difference
between learning that Ohm was a scientist after whom the unit of
resistance was named, and "the answer to the question with the 10k
resistor is 'greater'".

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 07:15:55 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 23:56:05 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:

On 10 Aug 2006 18:53:36 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
On 10 Aug 2006 15:47:00 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

earth is the only earthlike planet with a heavyside layer effect

Is that a statement or a question?

yes it is a stament and yes it is a question

And on what do you base your statement? Your extensive familiarity
with dozens of Earth-like planets?
made no such claim

You said, "earth is the only earthlike planet with a heavyside layer
effect". What did you base that claim on?

you passion for efaration of statment

Who of which? I know the internet is an international thing, but
could we keep it to HUMAN languages, please? Or at least languages
used by mobile beings? I don't speak Tree.

lid wrote:
wrote:

: Lots of memorization was required in your day. It's only a bad thing
: in 1992 to present. I think I get your drift...

You are failing (or choosing) to understand/acknowledge the difference
between understanding the principles and simply rote memorising the
answers. It used to be that there weren't a set of questions with
corresponding answers - there was a syllabus from which the questions
were set. It took understanding of the syllabus to apply the formulae
that had been learnt to calculate the answer.

--
73 Chris Cox, N0UK, G4JEC

I learned the formulas and worked the probs longhand. Trying to
memorize all those answers was just too much work.

Al Klein wrote:
wrote:
You denigrate the resistor code.

Not at all. It's a lot better than having the value printed on the
resistor in numbers. Even with MIL quality and transparent coatings,
the numbers on 1/8 watt resistors are kind of hard to read.

Even with the resistor color code, most of us *MEMORIZED*
a jingle like:
Bad Boys Rape Our Young Girls But Violet Gives Willingly
I believe the military used to teach their technicians
to *MEMORIZE* that jingle. Exactly how does one develop
the resistor color code from first principles?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Al Klein wrote:
wrote:
the issue is simple some folks want to claim other folks that took and
passed the tests equire by by law are somehow "cheating"

If you can't even understand the issue, why do you keep opening your
mouth and proving it?

The issue is that if there's something wrong with the tests,
that is not the fault of the test takers. It is the fault
of the test designers. Given a person with a PhD in electronics,
50 years experience, and capable of doing 50 wpm in Morse code,
all he can do presently is pass the present day test requirements
and then be belittled by people like you who are inferior to him
in every way.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Al Klein wrote:
On 11 Aug 2006 07:57:47 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

the issue is simple some folks want to claim other folks that took and
passed the tests equire by by law are somehow "cheating"

If you can't even understand the issue, why do you keep opening your
mouth and proving it?

"My test was better than your test and that makes me a better ham."

Al Klein wrote:
You still don't understand (or want to acknowledge) the difference
between learning that Ohm was a scientist after whom the unit of
resistance was named, and "the answer to the question with the 10k
resistor is 'greater'".

Of course I understand. When I took my Conditional exam,
I didn't know Mr. Ohm from a hole in the ground. I simply
*MEMORIZED* that the ohm was the unit of resistance. I
had no idea how to know that except by *MEMORIZATION*.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp