Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#431
|
|||
|
|||
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
From: an old friend on Sat, Aug 19 2006 2:18 pm
wrote: Slow Code wrote: " wrote in ups.com: Mark, Just ignore them. Hey, "Slow," you might want to check your message headers a bit more carefully. I am not Mark. Neither am I a "mark" for con games. :-) it seems that Slowcode think I am some secret maniolator (or is just realy stupid about programing jammer bots He seems CONFUSED. Maybe that's a result of hearing all that beeping morse code? :-) He sent his "reply" to me TWICE... tsk,tsk :-) "Slow," I've been involved in radio for 53 years. Most of that time as a professional. As a part of that, I once "worked" a station ON the moon. No bounce needed. Quarter million mile DX. Can you top that as an amateur? :-) I csn about match that Lenn not quite but close Noooooo. I worked a STATION on the moon, namely one of the ALSEP (Apollo Lunar Surface Experiment Package). Sent a command to the SWS (Solar Wind Spectrometer) part, got the response back on earth. Two-way. The ALSEPs are now silent, nobody can work them. :-) |
#432
|
|||
|
|||
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that persondie?
|
#433
|
|||
|
|||
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
|
#435
|
|||
|
|||
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: Had you wanted to be "civil" about it, you could have simply acknowledged your mistake, stopped trying to build a Mt. Everest out of a teaspoon of sand, and gone on with life. You did not. You have MANUFACTURED a dispute, insulted your challengers, and implied a number of things, all without any referencible data. Very Robesonesque. Hello Brian, This "dispute manufacturing" technique probably predates Robeson by centuries... :-) Anyway, it is an old, old technique of computer-modem comms and was seen on ARPANET back before the first BBSs existed. It's a way of bluff by the "manufacturer" to get around actually replying to some challenge made by others. That's usually accompanied by the manufacturer's veiled or outright personal insults levelled against the challenger. Robeson uses the latter more than the former. His, "Sorry Hans, MARS IS Amateur Radio." would make a good, quick, clean case study for some grad student of psychology. It has all of the elements of that pathology and google serves it up in seconds. Quite true, Brian. Those of us who were here 1 to 2 years ago had an eyefull of his continuous - but faulty - efforts to "tell" us all about His fantasy of things. :-) Mainly it was his abject refusal to back down when faced with definitive directives by the government (DoD) in regard to the Military Affiliate Radio System. Weeks went by without his admitting that the Directive existed. His final communication on the subject would NOT openly admit to error but was laced with more personal insults on his challengers. Sad. |
#436
|
|||
|
|||
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
wrote: On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 03:10:22 GMT, Dave Heil wrote: wrote: Here's a suggestion: Drop the "outraged" act and start thinking about the SUBJECT, not your own emotionalism. Are you prepared to address the SUBJECT, Len? The subject is: "If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?" Go for it. I will address it certianly not I myself with now skill at the mode could save a life if it came to that Mark, caution on Heil and his - usual - attempt at misdirection by manufacturing a dispute over personalities. Heil does this repeatedly as a means of attempting to discredit and humiliate his "opponents." This whole 500+ message thread was started by the usual imaginative pipe-dream of morse code "saving lives" (as opposed to any other mode) thereby "justifying" its existance as an AMATEUR radio license test. In the USA the amateur radio service is NOT specifically or mainly involved in "life-saving" activities. The Public Safety sub-parts of the PLMRS (Private Land Mobile Radio Service) (non-amateur) define that. A look into Part 1 of Title 47 C.F.R. will show that - for the safety of life - ANY mode of communication on ANY part of the EM spectrum by ANYONE can be used for the purposes of safety of life. The "argument" over hypothetical scenarios formulated by someone biasing their "proposed" condition is a pointless exercise. No one can foresee the future clearly or definitively. The morse code test was originally instituted in amateur radio licensing testing after such testing was begun by the first federal radio regulating agency in the USA. It was there because that agency felt it was necessary for their radio-regulating purposes (it was, essentially, the ONLY mode for amateurs at the time). Morse code testing has remained in the USA regulations concerning below-30-MHz amateur radio privileges ever since the FCC was created in 1934...principally at the lobbying of the ARRL to pacify their old-time membership. Well before the WRC-03 beginning, the IARU had already taken a position that morse code testing was NOT essential to obtaining an amateur radio license. The ARRL refused to go along with that position (it was the ARRL against the world). The ARRL still refuses to take sides long after WRC-03 was finished, saying (obliquely) that amateurs must obey regulations [in the USA]; good words but they don't take any side in the code test v. no code test issue. That morse code skill is NOT considered essential to safety of life should be evident on some international regulations (both via WRC and with individual nations' radio regulations): Those radio services designated as Public Safety (as in medical as well as police and fire services) do NOT require testing for morsemanship. The new (relatively, since 1999) GMDSS (designed-specified by international maritime SOLAS community) requires NO morsemanship skills or demonstration of same to call for help at sea. The old 500 KHz international distress and safety frequency (and morsemanship needs to use it) were eliminated. The United States Coast Guard announced (some years ago) that it had stopped monitoring 500 KHz. International airspace communications is carried out on HF using voice modes (agreement by ICAO, a UN body like the ITU). The long-time pro-coders' arguments to preserve code testing in last year's FCC NPRM Comment period had only these essential arguments to preserve it: Ability to communicate with the least transmitter power; some kind of 'unbreakable' system to thwart terrorists; some fancied that amateur (CW) communications would be the 'only' possible means available during emergencies. All of those are invalid and were shown as such by Replies to Comments. All that was left was the EMOTIONALISM of the long-timers having to take the test, their rising to the 'top' of the amateur ranking by means of that demonstrated ability, and a refusal to change from their self-righteous views on amateur radio. Some long-timers achieved rank-position-title-privileges under old rules (that were lobbied for by ARRL) that gave the most privileges to morsemen; they fear loss of 'prestige' and privilege if the morse code test goes away, yet are too proud to admit their fear (which is almost palpable in some of these messages). As a counterpoint to elimination of the code test, many of the more 'vocal' pro-coders have taken their 'side' to rather severe (and highly misplaced) lengths. They accuse the 'no-coders' of everything from homosexuality to perversion to unpatriotic activies to bestiality. Most of the personal-insult pro-coder group use pseudonyms on newsgroups, possibly afraid of revealing their true identity; none the less these 'anony-mousies" behave in immature fashion, more like middle-school males trying to assert their machismo even though they try to hide via anonymity. --- Heil, a pro-coder, tries to misdirect things by attempting to make a flame war about personalities: How do you know how many see Al as an arbiter? How many do you believe think you'd make a good arbiter in discussions of amateur radio? "Arbeit macht frei" - sign over one of the entrances to Auschwitz. ["work sets you free"] Let's everyone WORK for that amateur radio license!!! :-) |
#437
|
|||
|
|||
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: Had you wanted to be "civil" about it, you could have simply acknowledged your mistake, stopped trying to build a Mt. Everest out of a teaspoon of sand, and gone on with life. You did not. You have MANUFACTURED a dispute, insulted your challengers, and implied a number of things, all without any referencible data. Very Robesonesque. Hello Brian, This "dispute manufacturing" technique probably predates Robeson by centuries... :-) Anyway, it is an old, old technique of computer-modem comms and was seen on ARPANET back before the first BBSs existed. It's a way of bluff by the "manufacturer" to get around actually replying to some challenge made by others. That's usually accompanied by the manufacturer's veiled or outright personal insults levelled against the challenger. Robeson uses the latter more than the former. His, "Sorry Hans, MARS IS Amateur Radio." would make a good, quick, clean case study for some grad student of psychology. It has all of the elements of that pathology and google serves it up in seconds. Quite true, Brian. Those of us who were here 1 to 2 years ago had an eyefull of his continuous - but faulty - efforts to "tell" us all about His fantasy of things. :-) Little Billy Beeper had him pegged - he's nuts. Mainly it was his abject refusal to back down when faced with definitive directives by the government (DoD) in regard to the Military Affiliate Radio System. Such complete ignorance of MARS, yet somehow, he claims that he was the Assistant NCOIC of a NMC MARS Station on Okinawa. Simply unbeleivable. Weeks went by without his admitting that the Directive existed. His final communication on the subject would NOT openly admit to error but was laced with more personal insults on his challengers. Sad. Accusations and insults. Whichever grad student locks on to him first is one lucky SOB. All the work is done. |
#438
|
|||
|
|||
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
wrote: wrote: On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 03:10:22 GMT, Dave Heil wrote: As a counterpoint to elimination of the code test, many of the more 'vocal' pro-coders have taken their 'side' to rather severe (and highly misplaced) lengths. They accuse the 'no-coders' of everything from homosexuality to perversion to unpatriotic activies to bestiality. Most of the personal-insult pro-coder group use pseudonyms on newsgroups, possibly afraid of revealing their true identity; none the less these 'anony-mousies" behave in immature fashion, more like middle-school males trying to assert their machismo even though they try to hide via anonymity. --- Heil, a pro-coder, tries to misdirect things by attempting to make a flame war about personalities: he is better than Robeson but that is saying little How do you know how many see Al as an arbiter? How many do you believe think you'd make a good arbiter in discussions of amateur radio? "Arbeit macht frei" - sign over one of the entrances to Auschwitz. ["work sets you free"] yes I know Let's everyone WORK for that amateur radio license!!! :-) indeed |
#439
|
|||
|
|||
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
wrote: From: on Thurs, Aug 10 2006 8:48 pm Groups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna, rec.radio.amateur.policy, rec.radio.scanner, rec.radio.swap Al Klein wrote: On 9 Aug 2006 19:14:54 -0700, wrote: You couldn't be more wrong. If there were practical exams for SSB, FM, AM, FSTV, SSTV, RTTY (which is pretty darned old), packet, PSK, etc, then it would be CRYSTAL clear that a Morse Code exam is valid. However, there are no such practical exams for the other modes. So there need be no exam for Morse Code, either. That's my point - there's no test any longer. For anything more than the ability to memorize answers. Lots of memorization was required in your day. It's only a bad thing in 1992 to present. I think I get your drift... Selective amnesia. "No one had to memorize anything" prior 1992. Not in grade school, not in college, not in industry, not in real life. Strange perception... Selective amnesia... With the advent of the No-Code Technician license, memorization became a bad, bad thing. Ummm? There's no Morse Code test anymore? The International Morse Code test for United States amateur radio license classes General and Extra have NEVER GONE AWAY. That is especially true in the perception of the ARRL which still manages to insert the "necessities" for morsemanship in nearly everything it publishes. It's been six decades since Hiram Percy became ultimate DX but they still keep on with their demand that all [US] amateurs be proficient in that old mode. Most issues of QST have a minimum of at least one walk down memory lane, usually with a key or keyer in one hand. The Conditional was whatever class was being tested for, but not at an FCC office. It had nothing to do with the class, only with the location. What current exam? Memorizing answers and writing them down isn't a test. So what is it that you fear? Klein fears CHANGE and, perhaps, feelings of obsolescence. I think everyone has some of that to one degree or another. It's unhealthy to allow that fear to paralyze you. 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. There will be new challenges before us tomorrow, but we won't know about them. We will still be arguing if a morse code exam is necessary. You'd probably be weeded out pretty quickly. I doubt it - if I couldn't pass an Extra theory exam - a real one, not the nonsense that passes for one these days - I'd lose my job in a second. Mmmm. I see. You are a careerist in the electronics industry and it ****es you off that hobbyists have equal "status" as you in amatuer radio. I've run across a lot of that in the past 20 years... I've run across a lot of that my entire life. :-) I think Klein wants recognition as a "professional amateur" or "amateur professional." I'm not sure which... He's a professional whiner. What if you addressed what I said when you answer me? Your dishonest tactics are transparent. You're the one that forgot the circuit, not me. Get ****ed at your own self. When in doubt of an effective reply, these Fundamentalist Morseodists must resort to some form of denigration. Sigh, they never learn... My dishonest, transparent tactics... Odd, saying what you mean and meaning what you say have become dishonest. Quit putting words in my mouth. I wasn't complaining to anyone, and we weren't discussing remembering 50 year old tests. Correct. "WE" weren't discussing it. YOU were. YOU were discussing how you can't draw what you can't remember. This is an indicator that Klein isn't used to computer-modem communications. He isn't looking beyond his own screen and understanding that others are separated from it in time and space. "He" was obviously talking about "old days" of "His." He is not considering that others do not share his viewpoints. I regret to inform Mr Klein that I do not agree with him. Considering the Type of Oscillator and "names," he has put Names as somehow "essential" to the circuit. NO SUCH THING. An oscillator is simply an amplifier of just-barely-past-unity gain with positive feedback. The Names were tacked on by academics long, long ago as IDENTIFICATION of the general form of amplification-with-positive-feedback. I'm surprised that Klein allows any feedback in his oscillator circuits. One can build a Colpitts oscillator, make it work, and continue calling it a Hartley. Won't make a bit of difference to the circuit...electrons don't give a damn about human labels. They work by THEIR laws, not humans' with their imperative labels. By the way, on a quick bit of checking, I've got text references to about 11 different oscillator forms, not just two (with his unknown third type)...and I'm not counting free-running multi- vibrators which are also very much an "oscillator." Talk of any kind of vibrator might draw inuendo from robesin. Maybe we should have one - show the ability to put a clean PSK signal on the air. Show the ability to interpret a waterfall display. Show the ability to tell the difference between various digital modes. The bands would be pretty QRM-free. YES!!! [ no... ] Huh? Lets let the FCC tell us that it is impractical to have everyone take mode exams. Or lets let the council of VECs tul us the same thing. If you are ever going to save your beloved Morse Code test, this is the only way you're going to do it. The only way to "save his beloved morse code test" is to have the ARRL exercise some BETTER brainwashing than it has been doing for decades. The League is still trying to use its old persuasion and, so far, hasn't been able to get memberships from the 3/4 of all licensed US radio amateurs who are NOT ARRL members... If the league pushes the morse testing issue too hard, it will become obvious to the 25% that are members. I think it is you who don't know where you're going with this discussion. It's gone beyond your having grief over your favorite mode to actually having to think about the future of the service. Conggrats. Another couple of years of RRAP tutoring and you just might become a rational being. I disagree, Brian. Klein is a MORSEMAN. They don't change. They are rooted in old days long gone, brainwashed early into thinking that morsemanship is "essential" to "best" radio communication. It isn't...easily proved by ALL the OTHER radio services giving up on morse code as a mode (if they had it once) or never requiring it since a radio service began. Actuarial tables abound to deal with that kind of thinking. Who said that? We absolutely NEED relevant exams. That is my whole argument! So you're in favor of exams that test knowledge of theory? "Draw the schematic of ..."? "Explain why long path 2400 bps is impossible on 14 MHz"? That kind of relevance? Sure. But you have to ask yourself one question. Can the average VE administer such an exam? If not, can your average GS-7 FCC employee administer such an exam? If you set up an exam that only an engineer can administer, then your government isn't going to accept it. So be realistic in your zeal. Klein hasn't considered the simple fact that, by law, the VEs do NOT have to be trained test-adminsters. They are simply VOLINTEERS who have the requisite license class and GIVE OF THEIR OWN TIME to adminster tests. VEs are accountable only to the FCC in that volunteer testing. VEs' only "penalty" in mis-administering an amateur test is a reduction in license class or forteiture of their amateur license. Klein and his "tests aren't like they were in 'my' time" bitchers and moaners HAD their chance to keep privatization in testing from happening long ago. Legal means to stop it by NPRM Commentary didn't make their case. Privatization happened for BOTH amateur and commercial licenses. Now their whine is long past its time and has turned to vinegar. Yep. Testing must become more "legitimate" for hobbyists than for professionals. Or the "pick the answer with the resistor like we showed you in the example" kind of relevance? The exam can be anything your VEC wants it to be. We learned this when the ARRL went from administering a Morse Code Exam at 5WPM to administering a Farnsworth Exam at 13-15WPM. True enough, Brian, but expect ten kinds of flak from the other morsepersons in here on that... :-) Quack, Quack! Water off a duck's back. The VEC can LEGALLY generate a Question Pool with ONE HUNDRED times the minimum required number of questions. With electronic transmittal over the Internet the Question Pool can be updated within 24 hours to ALL VE groups. But everytime the NCVEC solicits for questions and participants for the QP revisions, guys like Klein are silent; absent. Say the FCC requires a minimum of 50 questions on a written test element. If the VEC QPC generates the Question-Answer pool with FIVE THOUSAND QUESTIONS (and answers), it should be obvious that mere "memorization" sufficient to pass that written test element is out of the question. Anyone who CAN memorize that prodigious amount is already gifted as an eidetic and those are extremely rare among humans. Klein will claim that all are eidetic, and the new QP is unfair. What all that concentration on the "written tests" is about is just a DIVERSION to keep from replying on the singular morse code test continuation. The morsemen just haven't been able to come up with sufficently-valid reasons to keep the morse test (other than the emotional ones) so they smoke-screen by bringing up the writtens. Old tactic of theirs. Old and tired. How do you draw a schematic Memorization. Correct. and explain the functions of parts by memorizing answers? Memorization. Correct again. You can't explain phase shift by memorizing "10k" or "coil". You can't memorize the def of phase shift? C'mon, aren't you supposed to be in the industry? We don't know WHERE, Brian, or for WHOM. :-) Sounds like Jim. I used radios in the military. I never used a CW key in the military. I never jammed another operator, although Brandywine asked me to reduce power once. But you had to learn how to use the radios. I did? They just gave you a radio and said "use it"? On/Off and PTT. What else is there??? [ ahem..."volume" and "squelch" to name two... :-) ] Oh, yeh, a magnetic compass and a chart where the satellite is. Darn you "kids!" Weren't any of those newfangled gizmos like "satellites" when I was in the Army. :-) 1957. The Russians. Sputnik. CW beacon signal on 20M. And I wasn't born yet. But the technilogy was worthwhile and moved forward - without morse code. The AN/PRC-8 backpack VHF transceivers (one of which I wore in PIP Training) also had VFO frequency control along with a built-in "crystal calibrator." Nothing like the "channel selection" of a later synthesized AN/PRC-25 (also FM on VHF). Interesting engineering feat with that VFO control over a military temperature and vibration environment. Copied from the old SCR-300 "walkie-talkie" of WW2, devised by Motorola (also FM on VHF). But, I digress, that was Practical Theory as applied by professional engineering, used by professional military people...didn't have the majesty of AMATEURISM and all its nobility (and class distinctions). Now we've got FM repeater satellites getting kicked out by the dozens. Hams today don't - they memorize a few answers, buy equipment and get on the air - with no understanding of what they're doing, and no desire to learn. Then it hasn't changed much since you were first licensed. When I was licensed you had to show an understanding of theory, by answering questions that were more than just multiple choice from a published answer pool. Yes, you had to memorize paragraphs instead of multiple choices. Big deal. Good grief, all that crying and wailing over Test Privatization! Maybe we should take up a collection to send him some Kleenex? Robesin will interpret that as some kind of sexual inuendo. Seems to me that COLLEGE-level course tests that I took had a LOT of memorization. Maybe we should all slam the academic world for doing the same "memorization?" Hey, why not, all those who failed college level courses can get a Wailing Wall! Bill Gates at the wailing wall? My state drivers' license testing is done from multiple-choice and that requires MUCH memorization of the applicable laws. While the CA DMV does not publish the EXACT answers, the have lots and lots of examples, not only well-publicized but available free in little booklets at each DMV office. Maybe Klein wants me to take an ME degree course in automotive engineering just to drive our Malibu MAXX? :-) I sure hope he doesn't answer that question. You may, but I can see from many of the comments that have been posted here that a lot of people don't. They don't want to learn, they want to get on the air. Period. W3RV didn't wait to get a ham license before operating! He just wanted to get on the air. Period. Point? All you wonderful OF's taking trips down memory lane forget that some of your brother hams were bootleggers. It's only the unwashed No-code Techs that operate illegally. Hi!!! What a stinking load. Brian, if you check out the "official" history of the ARRL you will find out that they BEGAN in trying to circumvent the commercial telegram system with a relaying of messages past the commercial boundaries and FEES. If that were reported today, the journalists would call it "hacking." Oh, oh. If you must retain a Morse Code Exam, then you must also administer practical exams for SSB, FM, AM, FSTV, SSTV, RTTY (which is pretty darned old), packet, PSK, etc. I have no problem with that. Then go for it. It is the ONLY legitimate recourse you have for retaining the Morse Code exam. Best of luck. I hope he tries it. I'm anxious to find out how much hostility he will engender from his fellow amateurs who are VEs...how they have to spend many more hours (of their own time) in testing each license applicant (separately). Ought to go over like a concrete balloon... Forced learning of Morse Code... Trained as an EE. Spent years designing RF circuitry, then went into digital design. "Is", not yet "was" - I'm still alive. Are you drawing a pension from it? "Was." Are you drawing a paycheck from it? "Is." And it's so typical for Old Timers to forget that not everyone in the ARS are CAREERIST PROFESSIONALS. Bitching and Moaning about how everyone else doesn't know as much as them. Klein has yet to define his own label, whether it is "professional amateur" or "amateur professional." He seems undecided. I'm one of the (chronological) Olde Fahrts in this group but I pray to God that I won't ever get as bad as some of them with their retro attitudes and fixations with modes of their long- ago youth, the ultra importance of CLASS and RANK. Geez. You'd think that some of them regard amateur radio like the USMC! ["the few, the ultra proud (of morsemanship)"] I'm just a beginner. Passed my Novice Exam in November 1986. Let's have a test that shows whether the testee knows anything. Remember that you are handsomely compensated for your professional knowledge. Amateur Radio is a non-compensated hobby. Some of these Olde Fahrts seem to think their amateurism is on some kind of "higher plane" than ordinary, plebian, work. They be BETTER than the pros and keep reinforcing each other with that pipe-dream. After all, the ARRL keeps reminding them of their greatness, their "service to their country" (by having their hobby). To hear them talk the nation would immediately fall apart without these federally-licensed hobbyists! Don't know if you've heard yet, but the ARRL and robesin announced that MARS and TSA have an agreement for armageddon communications. We'll have to get Mr. Webster to work coming up with a better definition of the hobby. Is it "professional amateurism" or "amateur professionalism?" I opt for the latter but others may differ. Beep, beep... Didit. |
#440
|
|||
|
|||
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? - Mark, Just ignore them.
"an old friend" wrote in
oups.com: wrote: wrote: On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 03:10:22 GMT, Dave Heil wrote: As a counterpoint to elimination of the code test, many of the more 'vocal' pro-coders have taken their 'side' to rather severe (and highly misplaced) lengths. They accuse the 'no-coders' of everything from homosexuality to perversion to unpatriotic activies to bestiality. Most of the personal-insult pro-coder group use pseudonyms on newsgroups, possibly afraid of revealing their true identity; none the less these 'anony-mousies" behave in immature fashion, more like middle-school males trying to assert their machismo even though they try to hide via anonymity. --- Heil, a pro-coder, tries to misdirect things by attempting to make a flame war about personalities: he is better than Robeson but that is saying little How do you know how many see Al as an arbiter? How many do you believe think you'd make a good arbiter in discussions of amateur radio? "Arbeit macht frei" - sign over one of the entrances to Auschwitz. ["work sets you free"] yes I know Let's everyone WORK for that amateur radio license!!! :-) indeed Mark, Just ignore them. They only tease you because of the stupid things you say when you follow up. Just ignore them and they'll give up. Stop giving them reasons to tease you. It only makes you look more stupid. Take a break from the radio groups for a while, Maybe work on your moon bounce some more. SC |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Persuing a Career in Electronics, HELP! | Homebrew | |||
Bonafied Proof of LIFE AFTER DEATH -- Coal Mine Rescue | Shortwave |