RadioBanter

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)
-   Scanner (https://www.radiobanter.com/scanner/)
-   -   Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable? (https://www.radiobanter.com/scanner/103770-could-you-support-making-no-code-license-one-year-non-renewable.html)

[email protected] September 10th 06 11:32 PM

Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 

Fred Hambrecht wrote:
So are you saying that CW no longer works? Not to be judgmental, but your an
idiot.

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 18:35:14 -0400, "Fred Hambrecht"
wrote:
in the begining it conveyed data other radio radio services as well as
the ars today it does not
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/


Even if spelled correctly [you're, not your] Fred is definitely NOT
saying his thing with civility. :-)

Freddie, Mark was saying that - IN THE BEGINNING - ALL radio
services used morse code...and the first US radio regulating
agency wanted all to show competency in this common mode
so that the agency to communicate with all users. That era has
long since passed into oblivion. Just ain't no other radio services
using manual morse code for communications now.




Slow Code September 11th 06 12:22 AM

Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 
Cecil Moore wrote in
om:

funkbastler wrote:
... I gotta think that if I managed to learn Morse code, then so
can "they".


I'm sure that drivers licenses applicants can
learn to use buggy whips on their horseless
carriages, but should they be required to?



They should if they want to be good back seat drivers.

SC

Slow Code September 11th 06 12:22 AM

Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 
wrote in
ups.com:


Slow Code wrote:
I could support that.

SC


I support licensing for life.



Whimp!

SC

Tom Ring September 11th 06 12:39 AM

Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 
Dee Flint wrote:


Someone skilled in driving a vehicle with a manual transmission and actually
using it can reap a number of performance benefits. These include improved
gas mileage, better passing performance, better performance in hilly
terrain, etc. If people were required to learn how to drive vehicles with
manual transmissions, more of them might actually choose to drive such
vehicles.

Dee, N8UZE


Not all of those statements are always true. As fond as I am of manual
transmissions, sometimes automatics have the advantage. A hydraulic
torque converter with a manually controlled "automatic" transmission is
better at drag racing than a manual gearbox under many conditions.

This is less true under road race conditions where the lower torque
needed to be handled by the transmission allows the newer style "manual"
transmissions to change gears in milliseconds. The secret is 2
transmissions, one for the odd gears, one for the even, and 2 clutches,
you are literally in 2 gears at the same time for a short period of
time. Takes a lot of computer control. That's one way to do it, there
are others.

The landscape is very blurred nowadays concerning what is a manual and
what is an automatic transmission, with "manuals" in modern race cars
being more automatic than "automatics" in non-race cars.

And the state of CW vs digital is about the same. Except CW can always
be beat if your PC works. You just need to select the correct mode.

tom
K0TAR

[email protected] September 11th 06 01:06 AM

Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:


I support licensing for life.


Do you have something against dead people?


Is that some kind of Robesin-like inuendo?


[email protected] September 11th 06 01:10 AM

Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 

Slow Code wrote:
wrote in
ups.com:

Slow Code wrote:


I could support that.

SC


I support licensing for life.


Whimp!

SC


Whimp???

I'll thumb wrestle you for it.


Dee Flint September 11th 06 01:11 AM

Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 

"Tom Ring" wrote in message
.. .
Dee Flint wrote:


Someone skilled in driving a vehicle with a manual transmission and
actually using it can reap a number of performance benefits. These
include improved gas mileage, better passing performance, better
performance in hilly terrain, etc. If people were required to learn how
to drive vehicles with manual transmissions, more of them might actually
choose to drive such vehicles.

Dee, N8UZE


Not all of those statements are always true. As fond as I am of manual
transmissions, sometimes automatics have the advantage. A hydraulic
torque converter with a manually controlled "automatic" transmission is
better at drag racing than a manual gearbox under many conditions.


Never said they were always true. And most of us do not put racing
equipment in our personal, daily use street vehicles.

This is less true under road race conditions where the lower torque needed
to be handled by the transmission allows the newer style "manual"
transmissions to change gears in milliseconds. The secret is 2
transmissions, one for the odd gears, one for the even, and 2 clutches,
you are literally in 2 gears at the same time for a short period of time.
Takes a lot of computer control. That's one way to do it, there are
others.

The landscape is very blurred nowadays concerning what is a manual and
what is an automatic transmission, with "manuals" in modern race cars
being more automatic than "automatics" in non-race cars.


Again this does not affect the ordinary driver.

And the state of CW vs digital is about the same. Except CW can always be
beat if your PC works. You just need to select the correct mode.

tom
K0TAR


That last statement is a fallacy. The digital modes are wiped out by
conditions that will still permit CW to be used. Even SSB can sometimes be
used when conditions wipe out the digital. I have repeatedly said and now I
am emphasizing: EVERY MODE HAS ITS UNIQUE ADVANTAGES AND UNIQUE
DISADVANTAGES. It seems that people wish to deny that whatever mode they
don't want to deal with has any advantages whatsoever. They also wish to
attribute magic properties to whatever is their favorite mode. Both points
of view are foolish.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE



Cecil Moore September 11th 06 01:21 AM

Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 
Tom Ring wrote:
And the state of CW vs digital is about the same. Except CW can always
be beat if your PC works. You just need to select the correct mode.


PACTOR II works for me when I cannot even hear the signal.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Tom Ring September 11th 06 01:22 AM

Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 
Dee Flint wrote:


That last statement is a fallacy. The digital modes are wiped out by
conditions that will still permit CW to be used. Even SSB can sometimes be
used when conditions wipe out the digital. I have repeatedly said and now I

snip
Dee D. Flint, N8UZE



Wrong. There are digital modes that handle every distortion type that
exists. You just have to pick the correct one.

tom
K0TAR

Cecil Moore September 11th 06 01:25 AM

Could you support making the No-code license one year non-renewable?
 
Dee Flint wrote:
The digital modes are wiped out by
conditions that will still permit CW to be used.


CW is wiped out by conditions that will still permit
PACTOR II to be used, e.g. I cannot hear any signals
at all on an apparently dead band and a friend in
Germany pops up on the screen.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:49 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com