wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:

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


How did capacitors escape getting color coded?

The answer is that they didn't, Pup.

Dave K8MN

Cecil Moore wrote:
lid wrote:

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.


It is true that the 1950's License Manuals were not multiple
choice but the exams were. The License Manuals went like this:

Q: What is the unit of electrical resistance?

A: The unit of electrical resistance is the ohm.

The exam then had multiple choices, one of them being "ohm".

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

The difference between memorizing the question pool answers
from the 1950's License Manuals and memorizing the question
pool answers of today is just splitting hairs. I used exactly
the same memorizing techniques to ace the Extra exam in
2000 as I did to pass the Conditional exam in 1953.
Here here (!)
Cecil, I'm happy to agree with you.

Modern testing techniques are intended to be transparent. This is true
for FCC exams, Postal exams, any and all government qualification exams.
(And because of this, all qualifying exams in the private sector, as
well.)

It took a lot of litigation to get there. Government agencies had to
prove that their qualifying exams were directly linked to the specific
tasks required of the given position for which the individual was applying.

A Postal Carrier needn't know Pythagorus' theorum to deliver the mail.
I took the Postal Carrier exam 35 years ago and did not do well. I
wasn't good at sorting on a timed basis.

This notion of a "cheapening" of FCC requirements because the question
pool is open to the public is a red herring: transparency is the rule.
If you look at the question pool and study it, you will gain the
necessary expertise to pass the exam. This is not cheating, nor is it
short-circuiting the "REAL" ham radio "requirements" that some view as
sacrosanct.

I used ARRL manuals to pass the Extra Exam and I do not defer to anyone
in this regard. Does this make me a ham radio genius? Not AT ALL. Man,
I have SO MUCH to learn. This newsgroup is "potentially" very helpful!
For that, I give thanks.

You know, I love ham radio. I'm happy so many join the ranks each year.
If there still is a concern out there, be an Elmer and address it.

John
AB8O (yeah, I changed my call)

To me, MENSA is a sort of "Who's Who". As such, one can value it
appropriately or ignore it completely. To me, it's a sort of conundrum:
If you are confident in your intelligence, why do you need validation?
Is it the obverse of the T-shirt "I'm with stupid"?

My apologies for adding to this old and fraying thread.

John
AB8O

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...


--
Say no to institutionalized interference.
Just say NO to HD/IBOC!
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
news
L. wrote:
I'm done arguing with someone who is "too" lazy to "learn". I'd prefer
to talk to those who have "intelligence" to refer to - to stimulate the
conversation.

My MENSA membership number is 1006281.
What's your MENSA membership number?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

A MENSA membership means you have a high intelligence quotient. A high
intelligence quotient does not necessarily mean you know anything, only
that if you apply yourself that you have the ability to learn more easily
than an average person. I know some very lazy MENSA members that can't
even spell a large number of the words they use.

In other words, even people above average intelligence can be and often
are too lazy to learn. They do manage to apply what they do know better
than most.


Mensa - who gives a damned? Most of the "brilliant" people I've ever met -
had their thumbs up their ass when it came to doing the basic things in
life - they can't do them. What the hell good is a "brilliant" person if
they're too stupid to know how or lazy to do "basic" things? If having a
Mensa number means you're bankrupt in common sense or "lazy", I'd rather not
be a member - thank you. Often, it is "common sense" which gets you
through - NOT "brilliance". From all I've ever heard and /or seen -
"brilliance" and "common sense" don't go hand in hand. Sitting in a chair
with a bunch of books behind you to make you "appear" smart and not getting
off your lazy ass to use it or to further your education - is not a
"productive" person. I know a few welfare bums who fall into that
description- "appear" smart, "act" smart - lazy as hell. Being in the center
of a University Library with books on most any subject - is NOT going to
make you any more intelligent if you don't venture to "learn". Even at that,
if you don't use it, you lose it.

This is funny as all hell....... some shmuck "claiming" to be a "genious"
coming in here and trying to make the rest of us seem inferior to him. No
one is any better than the rest of us. Their crap doesn't stink any less
than ours. Just when he starts losing his grip on the argument, he pulls
this so called mensa number out - just like a race card. So, what, we're
supposed to take pity? Bow down? I don't think so! The answer to that is
"PLONK".
There was another party a few years ago tried that - and after about a
month - him and his self proclaimed "geniousness" - disappeared. The idea
here is to come in - share ideas, thoughts, "help" if possible - NOT try to
place yourself on a throne above all. I can assure you the majority of us
don't tolerate that attitude. You can agree or agree to disagree on any use
of words, theories, laws, principles, strategies, etc. But when you put
yourself on a pedestal....... the game is over - you'll either find one of
your mensa friends to keep you company or be an awful lonely person on here.

To respond to a statement regarding me in a previous post - Hams like "me"
NEVER kept or attempted to keep any one off the air. If anything, I've
gotten people "involved" in Amateur Radio - with one (12 years old at the
time) going on to higher education once out of high school - and getting a
very good job from it. His parents couldn't thank me enough. Even if that is
the only good example of the good I am/was able to do - in Amateur Radio,
then I'm satisfied. But I haven't stopped there........ I teach Amateur
Radio classes when asked - and on other occasions - I've taught basic
electronics - taking those folks beyond the Study Guide.
It is nice to be able to "use" and "impart" that knowledge so that others
can benefit.

"jawod" wrote in message ...
Cecil Moore wrote:
lid wrote:

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.


It is true that the 1950's License Manuals were not multiple
choice but the exams were. The License Manuals went like this:

Q: What is the unit of electrical resistance?

A: The unit of electrical resistance is the ohm.

The exam then had multiple choices, one of them being "ohm".

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

The difference between memorizing the question pool answers
from the 1950's License Manuals and memorizing the question
pool answers of today is just splitting hairs. I used exactly
the same memorizing techniques to ace the Extra exam in
2000 as I did to pass the Conditional exam in 1953.
Here here (!)
Cecil, I'm happy to agree with you.

Modern testing techniques are intended to be transparent. This is true for
FCC exams, Postal exams, any and all government qualification exams.
(And because of this, all qualifying exams in the private sector, as
well.)

It took a lot of litigation to get there. Government agencies had to
prove that their qualifying exams were directly linked to the specific
tasks required of the given position for which the individual was
applying.

A Postal Carrier needn't know Pythagorus' theorum to deliver the mail.
I took the Postal Carrier exam 35 years ago and did not do well. I wasn't
good at sorting on a timed basis.

This notion of a "cheapening" of FCC requirements because the question
pool is open to the public is a red herring: transparency is the rule. If
you look at the question pool and study it, you will gain the necessary
expertise to pass the exam. This is not cheating, nor is it
short-circuiting the "REAL" ham radio "requirements" that some view as
sacrosanct.

I used ARRL manuals to pass the Extra Exam and I do not defer to anyone in
this regard. Does this make me a ham radio genius? Not AT ALL. Man, I
have SO MUCH to learn. This newsgroup is "potentially" very helpful!
For that, I give thanks.

You know, I love ham radio. I'm happy so many join the ranks each year.
If there still is a concern out there, be an Elmer and address it.

John
AB8O (yeah, I changed my call)

I don't know if there is actually any truth to this BUT - the dumbing down
"allegedly" started back in Reagan's day or was it George Srs? - when
someone here in the U.S. apparently couldn't pass the exam - and being he
was in good relations with the then King of Jordan, the King of Jordan asked
Reagan or Bush Sr to do something to help out. I've heard that story a few
times. True or not - the tests have changed drastically.

The tests really (in my opinion) aren't meant to "teach" anything or shall
we say - show any "in depth proficiency". The study guides give you "just"
enough to pass the exam - without going into a lot of information. You
certainly can't pass a novice OR extra exam and instantly qualify yourself
as an Electronics Technician. The material just isn't that in depth. For
that matter, the GROL tests and accompanying manuals don't do a hell of a
lot either for "teaching" - or showing "proficiency". They're merely meant
to get you in the door - period. The latter is scary - considering that the
GROL though diminished in need in most cases as of this point in time - IS
still required in "some" cases - as a sign of "knowledge" of the subject.
That is why many places that I know of, produce their own exams - designed
to actually test your knowledge. One guy I know - been in 2 way radio for
years, good at it, smart as a whip - took an entry exam to get a new job.
Said that was the most in depth - "drilling" - organized test he ever took,
considering he had his Commercial license "pre- GROL" and his amateur
license.

I have read articles from a leading publication in the industry that there
is a move afoot to get the FCC Commercial License - some teeth put back in.
Why? - Due to an increasing issue with interference and so on. Seems to me,
though in some cases - the horses are already out of the barn and "maybe"
too late to try to close the doors, changes "could" be made. What gets me,
is that article spoke of another agency doing the testing and licensing.
So - in other words - the FCC - our "RADIO" governing agency has lost its
grip on this? IF the FCC can't control it, how the hell is some "private"
agency? Not that it would happen, but I have to wonder just "how" they may
want to try to differentiate between those with GROLs and any subsequent
endorsements - of those who just read a "study guide" enough to pass - from
those who have "actual" electronics schooling?

As an examiner for FCC Commercial AND Amateur exams, I've seen many folks
come through. You can usually pick out those who know their stuff and those
who do not. You can also usually pick out those who DO know the stuff but
freeze on exams. For what it is worth - at least in my experience here, most
who have "schooling" do NOT usually bring any type of "study guide". I've
tested whole groups of School students and not one study guide was to be
seen. Same goes for those who are "comfortable" with their knowledge of Ham
radio. They simply feel - if they don't know it by test time - then no sense
testing. For the GROL, it is an expensive proposition if you don't know your
stuff or haven't been able to grasp the study guide material. Back in the
day - it was usually the cost of a LONG trip (maybe lodging too) to an FCC
office, now they're more local but cost is still there - pass or fail. Come
to think of it, if the current rate increases stay the same - soon - the
Amateur Exams will cost almost if not as much as the GROL! They're almost
half way there now - depending on which VEC/TCM you go through.

Yes, it is going to be very interesting indeed to see how things progress
not only in the Amateur Licensing area, but also the "Commercial" side as
well - for the next few years at least.

L.

"Olie" nospam@nobody wrote in message ...


My MENSA membership number is 1006281.
What's your MENSA membership number?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

A MENSA membership means you have a high intelligence quotient. A high
intelligence quotient does not necessarily mean you know anything, only
that if you apply yourself that you have the ability to learn more easily
than an average person. I know some very lazy MENSA members that can't
even spell a large number of the words they use.

In other words, even people above average intelligence can be and often
are too lazy to learn. They do manage to apply what they do know better
than most.


Mensa - who gives a damned? Most of the "brilliant" people I've ever met -
had their thumbs up their ass when it came to doing the basic things in
life - they can't do them. What the hell good is a "brilliant" person if
they're too stupid to know how or lazy to do "basic" things? If having a
Mensa number means you're bankrupt in common sense or "lazy", I'd rather
not
be a member - thank you. Often, it is "common sense" which gets you
through - NOT "brilliance". From all I've ever heard and /or seen -
"brilliance" and "common sense" don't go hand in hand. Sitting in a chair
with a bunch of books behind you to make you "appear" smart and not
getting
off your lazy ass to use it or to further your education - is not a
"productive" person. I know a few welfare bums who fall into that
description- "appear" smart, "act" smart - lazy as hell. Being in the
center
of a University Library with books on most any subject - is NOT going to
make you any more intelligent if you don't venture to "learn". Even at
that,
if you don't use it, you lose it.

.............
This is funny as all getout angry diatribe snipped

Obviously the person claiming to be a Mensa member has poked a figurative
finger into your soft spot. Sensitive, are you? Taking umbrage? Apparently
you feel that the alleged Mensa member has slighted you either directly or
indirectly, ergo your lengthy and uncalled-for diatribe.
Of course, in your self-righteous response you probably did not consider
the
possibility that the "Mensa" person was a troll. Makes no difference, does
it? He certainly set you off on a rant.
I give him five stars for that.

Sit back, read the post again and view it with a bit of a tongue-in-cheek
sense of humor. It will lower your blood pressure. Even if the guy IS a
Mensa member, by the simple fact of him bragging about same shows that he
is
a blowgut braggart whose ego has gotten in the way of common sense.
I doubt he is what he says he is, but he certainly elicited a wordy
response
from you.
He wins. You lost.


Eh, not really........... I'm "agreeing" with you as to his content. As to
mine, I was basically replying to what Brenda Ann had said. He didn't hit a
"soft spot". People like that - I just find very ignorant. You're right, it
is funny! My exchange with him died with my last contact with him. I'm
merely replying to others. AND giving my opinion about people like that. Him
get to me? THAT IS FUNNY! I've had better people try. So, in that regard
I'll disagree with you. He didn't budge my blood pressure - one iota. So,
sorry - he gets no stars. I've just agreed to disagree with him and am
agreeing with the others - YOU included (to the point mentioned).

L.

My MENSA membership number is 1006281.
What's your MENSA membership number?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

A MENSA membership means you have a high intelligence quotient. A high
intelligence quotient does not necessarily mean you know anything, only
that if you apply yourself that you have the ability to learn more easily
than an average person. I know some very lazy MENSA members that can't
even spell a large number of the words they use.

In other words, even people above average intelligence can be and often
are too lazy to learn. They do manage to apply what they do know better
than most.


Mensa - who gives a damned? Most of the "brilliant" people I've ever met -
had their thumbs up their ass when it came to doing the basic things in
life - they can't do them. What the hell good is a "brilliant" person if
they're too stupid to know how or lazy to do "basic" things? If having a
Mensa number means you're bankrupt in common sense or "lazy", I'd rather not
be a member - thank you. Often, it is "common sense" which gets you
through - NOT "brilliance". From all I've ever heard and /or seen -
"brilliance" and "common sense" don't go hand in hand. Sitting in a chair
with a bunch of books behind you to make you "appear" smart and not getting
off your lazy ass to use it or to further your education - is not a
"productive" person. I know a few welfare bums who fall into that
description- "appear" smart, "act" smart - lazy as hell. Being in the center
of a University Library with books on most any subject - is NOT going to
make you any more intelligent if you don't venture to "learn". Even at that,
if you don't use it, you lose it.

..............
This is funny as all getout angry diatribe snipped

Obviously the person claiming to be a Mensa member has poked a figurative
finger into your soft spot. Sensitive, are you? Taking umbrage? Apparently
you feel that the alleged Mensa member has slighted you either directly or
indirectly, ergo your lengthy and uncalled-for diatribe.
Of course, in your self-righteous response you probably did not consider the
possibility that the "Mensa" person was a troll. Makes no difference, does
it? He certainly set you off on a rant.
I give him five stars for that.

Sit back, read the post again and view it with a bit of a tongue-in-cheek
sense of humor. It will lower your blood pressure. Even if the guy IS a
Mensa member, by the simple fact of him bragging about same shows that he is
a blowgut braggart whose ego has gotten in the way of common sense.
I doubt he is what he says he is, but he certainly elicited a wordy response
from you.
He wins. You lost.

jawod wrote:
If you are confident in your intelligence, why do you need validation?

In my case, my wife's best friend's husband, who was a member
of MENSA, made a bet with me that I couldn't qualify for MENSA.
If I won, he would pay for the exam and my first year's dues.
If I lost, I was out the cost of the exam and dinner for 4.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

L. wrote:
Mensa - who gives a damned?

Some of the same people who give a damn about the definition of words.

Most of the "brilliant" people I've ever met -
had their thumbs up their ass when it came to doing the basic things in
life - they can't do them. What the hell good is a "brilliant" person if
they're too stupid to know how or lazy to do "basic" things? If having a
Mensa number means you're bankrupt in common sense or "lazy", I'd rather not
be a member - thank you.

This is one of the best examples of sour grapes that I have ever seen.

This is funny as all hell....... some shmuck "claiming" to be a "genious"
coming in here and trying to make the rest of us seem inferior to him.

Exactly as you are trying to use your Morse code skill to make nocode
techs feel inferior to you "real hams". (Incidentally, what good is
Morse code skill when one can't even spell "genius"?)

No one is any better than the rest of us.

Strange words from a man who has been pounding his chest because knowing
Morse code makes him so superior.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

L. wrote:
I don't know if there is actually any truth to this BUT - the dumbing down
"allegedly" started back in Reagan's day or was it George Srs? - when
someone here in the U.S. apparently couldn't pass the exam - and being he
was in good relations with the then King of Jordan, the King of Jordan asked
Reagan or Bush Sr to do something to help out. I've heard that story a few
times. True or not - the tests have changed drastically.

If I remember correctly, the incident had nothing to do with
dumbing down technical issues. It was all about the outdated
Morse code testing requirement which a lot of countries have
indeed dropped.

The tests really (in my opinion) aren't meant to "teach" anything or shall
we say - show any "in depth proficiency".

Of course not. They are entrance exams, not university degrees.

They're merely meant to get you in the door - period.

Exactly! That is their entire purpose. They open the door to
a lifetime of learning.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp