Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, wrote: no slow code the number are down because with Code testing looks so stpupid The numbers are down for a variety of reasons, but I suspect that computers and the internet are the major factors, not the CW requirement. The ready-built Personal Computer first appeared in 1976, 30 years ago (the "IBM PC" debuted in 1980, 26 years ago). The Internet went public in 1991, 15 years ago. "Restructuring" to drop the morse test rate to 5 WPM for all such tests happened only 6 years ago. The peak licensing of 737,938 happened on 2 Jul 03, just 3 years ago. [they've been dropping at an average of 7K per year ever since] I disagree on your reasons stated in your quote above. When I ask technical people about why they haven't acquired an interest in amateur radio, I never get the CW requirement as a response. Strange, I hear that response. Having been IN radio- electronics for over a half century, I DO know some "technical people." :-) Manual radiotelegraphy was a MUST to use early radio as a communications medium. The technology of early radio was primitive, simple, and not yet developed. On-off keying was the ONLY practical way to make it possible to communicate. Morse code was then already mature and a new branch of communications was open to use by downsized landline telegraphers. They simply view the whole service as outmoded in the face of modern telecommunications. PART of that IS true. NOT all of it. What IS outmoded (technically) is sitting only on HF and "working" other stations with morse radiotelegraphy. Amateur radio is the ONLY radio service still using morse radiotelegraphy for communications purposes. Another thing outmoded is the strict "necessity" to use a formalism in "procedure" AS IF it was "professional" radio. That formalism was established between 50 to 70 years ago. Amateur radio, by definition, is NOT professional. Too many olde-tymers want to PRETEND they are pros in front of their ham rigs. But, there is still an enormous area of the EM spectrum that is still open for experimentation, for just the fun of doing something out of the ordinary above 30 MHz. That can be a very different RF environment, much much different than the technology available in the 20s and 30s. It has exciting possibilities...except for the rutted and mired olde-tymers unable to keep up with new things, secure in their own dreams of youth and simple technological environment. Let's face it.. the romance is gone. Oh, boo hoo...the "romance" of the 1930s is gone? Yes, it IS. The "pioneering of the airwaves" below 30 MHz has been DONE...mostly by the pros of radio (despite what the ARRL claims). DONE a long time ago. The solid-state era came into being about 45 years ago and has revolutionized ALL electronics (radio is a subset of that). Except as memorabilia trinkets of the past, GONE is the analog VFO, GONE is the one-tube regenerative receiver, GONE is the single-crystal-single-frequency Tx, GONE is the big, bulky AM modulator amplifier, GONE is the not- knowing-when-the-bands-are-open (solar activity and ionosonding solved that and HF MUF is a predictable item that can be found by a computer program). Except for the boatanchor afficionados, vacuum tubes are GONE for nearly everything but high-power transmitters. The radio world of today is NOT that of 1950, nor of 1960, nor 1970, nor even 1980s. It keeps changing, advancing, the state of the art never static. For the stuck-in-the-mud olde tymers that is terrible...they feel insecure on not being able to keep up, become aggressive to newcomers ("no kids, lids or space cadets") and retreat to the "secure" mode of their youth, "CW." But, they want to make sure They get the respect they feel they've "earned" (as if) so they try and try and try to bring all down to THEIR level...the code test MUST stay..."because." There are 100 million two-way radios in use in the USA alone, millions more in other countries. Those are the cellular telephones. There are millions of VHF and UHF transceivers in the USA, working daily for public safety agencies, ships, private boats, air carriers as well as private airplanes. There are tens of thousands of HF transceivers in use in the USA, users being everyone from government agencies to private boat owners, ALL exclusive of amateur radio users. Where is the "romance" in all this Plenty from a cornucopia that all have grabbed? It is GONE, yes. But, NEW "romances" await. DIFFERENT ones, I'd say a helluva lot more complex than old, simple "radio." We can't relive old "romances" except in our minds and we can't grow physically younger. Only person-to-person romance is TRUE, the other "romance" is of the imagination, of the fantasy of what was once there. This fantasy "romance" can't be brought back. It can't be legislated into remaining static. The rules and regulations have to change to keep up with the NOW. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
wrote: On 30 Sep 2006 22:36:54 -0700, " wrote: From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, wrote: no slow code the number are down because with Code testing looks so stpupid The numbers are down for a variety of reasons, but I suspect that computers and the internet are the major factors, not the CW requirement. The ready-built Personal Computer first appeared in 1976, 30 years ago (the "IBM PC" debuted in 1980, 26 years ago). The Internet went public in 1991, 15 years ago. "Restructuring" to drop the morse test rate to 5 WPM for all such tests happened only 6 years ago. The peak licensing of 737,938 happened on 2 Jul 03, just 3 years ago. [they've been dropping at an average of 7K per year ever since] I disagree on your reasons stated in your quote above. When I ask technical people about why they haven't acquired an interest in amateur radio, I never get the CW requirement as a response. Strange, I hear that response. Having been IN radio- electronics for over a half century, I DO know some "technical people." :-) Manual radiotelegraphy was a MUST to use early radio as a communications medium. The technology of early radio was primitive, simple, and not yet developed. On-off keying was the ONLY practical way to make it possible to communicate. Morse code was then already mature and a new branch of communications was open to use by downsized landline telegraphers. They simply view the whole service as outmoded in the face of modern telecommunications. PART of that IS true. NOT all of it. What IS outmoded (technically) is sitting only on HF and "working" other stations with morse radiotelegraphy. Amateur radio is the ONLY radio service still using morse radiotelegraphy for communications purposes. Another thing outmoded is the strict "necessity" to use a formalism in "procedure" AS IF it was "professional" radio. That formalism was established between 50 to 70 years ago. Amateur radio, by definition, is NOT professional. Too many olde-tymers want to PRETEND they are pros in front of their ham rigs. But, there is still an enormous area of the EM spectrum that is still open for experimentation, for just the fun of doing something out of the ordinary above 30 MHz. That can be a very different RF environment, much much different than the technology available in the 20s and 30s. It has exciting possibilities...except for the rutted and mired olde-tymers unable to keep up with new things, secure in their own dreams of youth and simple technological environment. Let's face it.. the romance is gone. Oh, boo hoo...the "romance" of the 1930s is gone? Yes, it IS. The "pioneering of the airwaves" below 30 MHz has been DONE...mostly by the pros of radio (despite what the ARRL claims). DONE a long time ago. The solid-state era came into being about 45 years ago and has revolutionized ALL electronics (radio is a subset of that). Except as memorabilia trinkets of the past, GONE is the analog VFO, GONE is the one-tube regenerative receiver, GONE is the single-crystal-single-frequency Tx, GONE is the big, bulky AM modulator amplifier, GONE is the not- knowing-when-the-bands-are-open (solar activity and ionosonding solved that and HF MUF is a predictable item that can be found by a computer program). Except for the boatanchor afficionados, vacuum tubes are GONE for nearly everything but high-power transmitters. The radio world of today is NOT that of 1950, nor of 1960, nor 1970, nor even 1980s. It keeps changing, advancing, the state of the art never static. For the stuck-in-the-mud olde tymers that is terrible...they feel insecure on not being able to keep up, become aggressive to newcomers ("no kids, lids or space cadets") and retreat to the "secure" mode of their youth, "CW." But, they want to make sure They get the respect they feel they've "earned" (as if) so they try and try and try to bring all down to THEIR level...the code test MUST stay..."because." There are 100 million two-way radios in use in the USA alone, millions more in other countries. Those are the cellular telephones. There are millions of VHF and UHF transceivers in the USA, working daily for public safety agencies, ships, private boats, air carriers as well as private airplanes. There are tens of thousands of HF transceivers in use in the USA, users being everyone from government agencies to private boat owners, ALL exclusive of amateur radio users. Where is the "romance" in all this Plenty from a cornucopia that all have grabbed? It is GONE, yes. But, NEW "romances" await. DIFFERENT ones, I'd say a helluva lot more complex than old, simple "radio." We can't relive old "romances" except in our minds and we can't grow physically younger. Only person-to-person romance is TRUE, the other "romance" is of the imagination, of the fantasy of what was once there. This fantasy "romance" can't be brought back. It can't be legislated into remaining static. The rules and regulations have to change to keep up with the NOW. a nice peice of writing stored I may lift a peice or for something I am working on Thank you. Feel free to use any part. I would be nice to get credit for it, a common courtesy. but yes their is still magaic I play with it (although yes acess to HF would be a help as I learn the ins and out of EME and other VHF+ modes pity that progress in the ARS is opposed at every turn by hams themslves "Magic" is a subjective term. The "magic" of HF worldwide comms dissolved into reality for me in 1953 on seeing such wholesale "magic" working 24/7 in tying US Army (and other military) into the large network going back to the states. "Different strokes for different folks." ARRL is still fixated on HF and the "magic" of morse. Since they influence (if not brainwash) as many US hams as they can with their huge publishing effort, we aren't supposed to negatively critique them. That's "not nice" to those who've had their brains washed in that way. I've seen "real" magic at the Magic Castle in Hollywood, CA. That's mainly a professional association of magicians/illusionists. One can't gain entrance without being admitted by a member. I've had the marvelous opportunity to go in three times there...and be totally fascinated by the illusions. Whenever I see some ham bring up "magic" I think of the Magic Castle. A lot of hams ascribe "magic" to HF comms but that is their own private illusion (or delusion, as the case may be). Shrug. To each his own but I don't like others trying to cram Their delusions into everyone. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
Cecil Moore wrote: wrote: What IS outmoded (technically) is sitting only on HF and "working" other stations with morse radiotelegraphy. Amateur radio is the ONLY radio service still using morse radiotelegraphy for communications purposes. Actually Len, almost all amateur radio operation has been outmoded by advancing technology which has made amateur radio first to be redundant and later to be obsolete. I'm still using the same modes for amateur radio that I used more than half a century ago. That is true in essence for all those who "work DX on HF with CW." :-) Some will point to modern techniques in radio (DDS, PLL frequency control, solid-state PAs that need no tuning controls, etc.) as being advancements. Trouble is, those advancements came from the designers-manufacturers, advancements to capture market share of ham consumer electronics. Using only on-off keying with a state-of-the- art transceiver seems a waste of available resources in that equipment. My daughter lives in New York state. 50 years ago, I would have tried to talk her into getting a ham license. Today, Sprint cellphones allow the two of us to communicate any time, day or night, for free. One in three Americans has a cell phone now according to the US Census Bureau. Each cell phone is basically a little two-way radio. No "CW" test is needed to use a cell phone. :-) I just completed an exchange of files (including hi- resolution photographs) this morning with another in Europe. Took only a few minutes. The Internet stretches over most of the globe, is unaffected by any ionospheric variation. Those files couldn't be exchanged via "CW" on HF. [maybe the "phase shift" impairs such information transfer...:-) ] No "CW" test is needed to use the Internet. :-) But, in 2006 the FCC regulations still require any radio amateur to test for "CW" in order to operate on bands below 30 MHz. None of the other radio services require that. shrug |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
wrote: From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, wrote: no slow code the number are down because with Code testing looks so stpupid The numbers are down for a variety of reasons, but I suspect that computers and the internet are the major factors, not the CW requirement. The ready-built Personal Computer first appeared in 1976, 30 years ago (the "IBM PC" debuted in 1980, 26 years ago). The Internet went public in 1991, 15 years ago. "Restructuring" to drop the morse test rate to 5 WPM for all such tests happened only 6 years ago. The peak licensing of 737,938 happened on 2 Jul 03, just 3 years ago. [they've been dropping at an average of 7K per year ever since] I disagree on your reasons stated in your quote above. Ronald Reagan once said, "Facts are stupid things." When I ask technical people about why they haven't acquired an interest in amateur radio, I never get the CW requirement as a response. Strange, I hear that response. Having been IN radio- electronics for over a half century, I DO know some "technical people." :-) It IS the Code. Manual radiotelegraphy was a MUST to use early radio as a communications medium. The technology of early radio was primitive, simple, and not yet developed. On-off keying was the ONLY practical way to make it possible to communicate. Morse code was then already mature and a new branch of communications was open to use by downsized landline telegraphers. Telegraph. They simply view the whole service as outmoded in the face of modern telecommunications. PART of that IS true. NOT all of it. What IS outmoded (technically) is sitting only on HF and "working" other stations with morse radiotelegraphy. Amateur radio is the ONLY radio service still using morse radiotelegraphy for communications purposes. Another thing outmoded is the strict "necessity" to use a formalism in "procedure" AS IF it was "professional" radio. That formalism was established between 50 to 70 years ago. Amateur radio, by definition, is NOT professional. Too many olde-tymers want to PRETEND they are pros in front of their ham rigs. But, there is still an enormous area of the EM spectrum that is still open for experimentation, for just the fun of doing something out of the ordinary above 30 MHz. ABOVE 30 mhz? Hmmmm? http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/09/26/101/?nc=1 That can be a very different RF environment, much much different than the technology available in the 20s and 30s. It has exciting possibilities...except for the rutted and mired olde-tymers unable to keep up with new things, secure in their own dreams of youth and simple technological environment. Let's face it.. the romance is gone. Oh, boo hoo...the "romance" of the 1930s is gone? Yes, it IS. The "pioneering of the airwaves" below 30 MHz has been DONE...mostly by the pros of radio (despite what the ARRL claims). DONE a long time ago. Then why are we: http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/09/26/101/?nc=1 The solid-state era came into being about 45 years ago and has revolutionized ALL electronics (radio is a subset of that). Except as memorabilia trinkets of the past, GONE is the analog VFO, GONE is the one-tube regenerative receiver, GONE is the single-crystal-single-frequency Tx, GONE is the big, bulky AM modulator amplifier, GONE is the not- knowing-when-the-bands-are-open (solar activity and ionosonding solved that and HF MUF is a predictable item that can be found by a computer program). Except for the boatanchor afficionados, vacuum tubes are GONE for nearly everything but high-power transmitters. The radio world of today is NOT that of 1950, nor of 1960, nor 1970, nor even 1980s. It keeps changing, advancing, the state of the art never static. For the stuck-in-the-mud olde tymers that is terrible...they feel insecure on not being able to keep up, become aggressive to newcomers ("no kids, lids or space cadets") and retreat to the "secure" mode of their youth, "CW." But, they want to make sure They get the respect they feel they've "earned" (as if) so they try and try and try to bring all down to THEIR level...the code test MUST stay..."because." There are 100 million two-way radios in use in the USA alone, millions more in other countries. Those are the cellular telephones. There are millions of VHF and UHF transceivers in the USA, working daily for public safety agencies, ships, private boats, air carriers as well as private airplanes. There are tens of thousands of HF transceivers in use in the USA, users being everyone from government agencies to private boat owners, ALL exclusive of amateur radio users. Where is the "romance" in all this Plenty from a cornucopia that all have grabbed? It is GONE, yes. But, NEW "romances" await. DIFFERENT ones, I'd say a helluva lot more complex than old, simple "radio." We can't relive old "romances" except in our minds and we can't grow physically younger. Only person-to-person romance is TRUE, the other "romance" is of the imagination, of the fantasy of what was once there. This fantasy "romance" can't be brought back. It can't be legislated into remaining static. The rules and regulations have to change to keep up with the NOW. Ore even to move us into the future... Leadership. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
wrote:
wrote: From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, wrote: no slow code the number are down because with Code testing looks so stpupid The numbers are down for a variety of reasons, but I suspect that computers and the internet are the major factors, not the CW requirement. The ready-built Personal Computer first appeared in 1976, 30 years ago (the "IBM PC" debuted in 1980, 26 years ago). The Internet went public in 1991, 15 years ago. "Restructuring" to drop the morse test rate to 5 WPM for all such tests happened only 6 years ago. The peak licensing of 737,938 happened on 2 Jul 03, just 3 years ago. [they've been dropping at an average of 7K per year ever since] I disagree on your reasons stated in your quote above. Ronald Reagan once said, "Facts are stupid things." Heh. But, in here, coders are the only ones with "facts." Anything a no-coder says is "wrong," "in error" and other endearments. :-) When I ask technical people about why they haven't acquired an interest in amateur radio, I never get the CW requirement as a response. Strange, I hear that response. Having been IN radio- electronics for over a half century, I DO know some "technical people." :-) It IS the Code. True enough. But...the coders HAVE their rank-status- privileges and seem to enjoy looking down on no-coders. All must do as they did or be called "wrong" or "in error." Manual radiotelegraphy was a MUST to use early radio as a communications medium. The technology of early radio was primitive, simple, and not yet developed. On-off keying was the ONLY practical way to make it possible to communicate. Morse code was then already mature and a new branch of communications was open to use by downsized landline telegraphers. Telegraph. Early radio was just a telegraph system without poles and wires between stations. Mythical tales have turned early radio into something greater than rocket science. They simply view the whole service as outmoded in the face of modern telecommunications. PART of that IS true. NOT all of it. What IS outmoded (technically) is sitting only on HF and "working" other stations with morse radiotelegraphy. Amateur radio is the ONLY radio service still using morse radiotelegraphy for communications purposes. Another thing outmoded is the strict "necessity" to use a formalism in "procedure" AS IF it was "professional" radio. That formalism was established between 50 to 70 years ago. Amateur radio, by definition, is NOT professional. Too many olde-tymers want to PRETEND they are pros in front of their ham rigs. But, there is still an enormous area of the EM spectrum that is still open for experimentation, for just the fun of doing something out of the ordinary above 30 MHz. ABOVE 30 mhz? Hmmmm? http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/09/26/101/?nc=1 Ah, yes, the Great 500 KHz "Experiment." AS IF the 500 KHz region hasn't ALREADY had 80 years plus of determining whether or not it works for communications! :-) Good old League, leading all "Back to the Future." :-) That can be a very different RF environment, much much different than the technology available in the 20s and 30s. It has exciting possibilities...except for the rutted and mired olde-tymers unable to keep up with new things, secure in their own dreams of youth and simple technological environment. Let's face it.. the romance is gone. Oh, boo hoo...the "romance" of the 1930s is gone? Yes, it IS. The "pioneering of the airwaves" below 30 MHz has been DONE...mostly by the pros of radio (despite what the ARRL claims). DONE a long time ago. Then why are we: http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/09/26/101/?nc=1 It's about the same as those who love to Re-Enact the American Civil War or the American Revolutionary War. Play-acting at "pioneering" over 8 decades after that frequency region was picked for the first maritime distress and safety reserved frequency. The solid-state era came into being about 45 years ago and has revolutionized ALL electronics (radio is a subset of that). Except as memorabilia trinkets of the past, GONE is the analog VFO, GONE is the one-tube regenerative receiver, GONE is the single-crystal-single-frequency Tx, GONE is the big, bulky AM modulator amplifier, GONE is the not- knowing-when-the-bands-are-open (solar activity and ionosonding solved that and HF MUF is a predictable item that can be found by a computer program). Except for the boatanchor afficionados, vacuum tubes are GONE for nearly everything but high-power transmitters. The radio world of today is NOT that of 1950, nor of 1960, nor 1970, nor even 1980s. It keeps changing, advancing, the state of the art never static. For the stuck-in-the-mud olde tymers that is terrible...they feel insecure on not being able to keep up, become aggressive to newcomers ("no kids, lids or space cadets") and retreat to the "secure" mode of their youth, "CW." But, they want to make sure They get the respect they feel they've "earned" (as if) so they try and try and try to bring all down to THEIR level...the code test MUST stay..."because." There are 100 million two-way radios in use in the USA alone, millions more in other countries. Those are the cellular telephones. There are millions of VHF and UHF transceivers in the USA, working daily for public safety agencies, ships, private boats, air carriers as well as private airplanes. There are tens of thousands of HF transceivers in use in the USA, users being everyone from government agencies to private boat owners, ALL exclusive of amateur radio users. Where is the "romance" in all this Plenty from a cornucopia that all have grabbed? It is GONE, yes. But, NEW "romances" await. DIFFERENT ones, I'd say a helluva lot more complex than old, simple "radio." We can't relive old "romances" except in our minds and we can't grow physically younger. Only person-to-person romance is TRUE, the other "romance" is of the imagination, of the fantasy of what was once there. This fantasy "romance" can't be brought back. It can't be legislated into remaining static. The rules and regulations have to change to keep up with the NOW. Ore even to move us into the future... Leadership. "Ore" from a mine. The pro-coders say "I've got mine, nya-nya." It's getting to be "Back to the Future, Part Infinity" if things like the Great 500 KHz Experiment is a sign of things to come from the "representative of all amateurs" in Newington. Their other "Experiment" is a "contest" to see who can best come up with a whole ham station for LESS than $50 in new part costs. Whoever "wins" that gets a really hefty prize of $100 cash and Publication in QST! Oh, and it is 40 meters only, but "allows" SSB voice to be included. :-) |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
wrote:
From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, wrote: no slow code the number are down because with Code testing looks so stpupid The numbers are down for a variety of reasons, but I suspect that computers and the internet are the major factors, not the CW requirement. The ready-built Personal Computer first appeared in 1976, 30 years ago (the "IBM PC" debuted in 1980, 26 years ago). The Internet went public in 1991, 15 years ago. Basically true, but that's not the whole story by any means. Until rather recently, personal computers were rather expensive. The IBM PC (introduced in August 1981) cost over $1500 in its basic configuration - which works out to about $3500 in 2006 dollars for a machine with very limited capabilities. As recently as 10 years ago, a complete PC system with reasonable performance cost over $2000 - and its depreciation curve was very steep. "The internet" was originally rather limited and not simple to access for the non-technically minded. That's all changed now. On top of all this is the evolution of the PC from an expensive techno-toy to an everyday tool in most workplaces, schools, and homes. "Computer literacy" is now *expected* in most jobs. The synergy of low cost, easy-to-use computers, easy and fast online access, and a reasonably computer-literate public has only come together within the past 10 years. "Restructuring" to drop the morse test rate to 5 WPM for all such tests happened only 6 years ago. In that time, the number of US amateurs has actually dropped by over 17,000. The peak licensing of 737,938 happened on 2 Jul 03, just 3 years ago. [they've been dropping at an average of 7K per year ever since] It should be noted that the number 737,938 includes not only those licenses which were current at the time, but also those which were expired but in the 2 year grace period. The number of then-current licenses was about 50,000 lower. I disagree on your reasons stated in your quote above. When I ask technical people about why they haven't acquired an interest in amateur radio, I never get the CW requirement as a response. Strange, I hear that response. It's an echo? Having been IN radio- electronics for over a half century, I DO know some "technical people." :-) But you have never been "IN" amateur radio, Len. Manual radiotelegraphy was a MUST to use early radio as a communications medium. The technology of early radio was primitive, simple, and not yet developed. On-off keying was the ONLY practical way to make it possible to communicate. Yet some pioneers (like Reginald Fessenden) were using voice communication as early as 1900, and had practical lomg-distance radiotelephony by 1906. AM broadcasting was a reality by 1920. Morse code was then already mature and a new branch of communications was open to use by downsized landline telegraphers. While some radio operators came from the ranks of landline telegraph operators, most did not, as it was predominantly young men who pioneered radio in the early part of the 20th century. The Morse Code used on landlines was "American" Morse, while that used on radio after 1906 was predominantly "International" or "Continental" Morse. They simply view the whole service as outmoded in the face of modern telecommunications. PART of that IS true. NOT all of it. What part is not? What IS outmoded (technically) is sitting only on HF and "working" other stations with morse radiotelegraphy. Why is that "outmoded"? What has replaced it? Amateur radio is the ONLY radio service still using morse radiotelegraphy for communications purposes. So what? Amateurs choose the mode they want to use. What is wrong with choosing Morse Code and HF operation? Some may say the Morse Code *test* is outmoded. But you are saying the *use* of Morse Code is outmoded! FM broadcasting is the only radio service that uses stereo multiplex FM - is it outmoded? Another thing outmoded is the strict "necessity" to use a formalism in "procedure" AS IF it was "professional" radio. That formalism was established between 50 to 70 years ago. What "formalism" do you mean, Len? The use of call signs? Signal reports? Using only first names? Amateur radio is among the least formal radio services I know. How would you have amateurs operate? Amateur radio, by definition, is NOT professional. So what's the problem with a standard procedures? Too many olde-tymers want to PRETEND they are pros in front of their ham rigs. Not true, Len. We're amateurs - but that doesn't mean we have no standards and no procedures. The use of standard procedures makes it more fun and easier on everyone involved. But, there is still an enormous area of the EM spectrum that is still open for experimentation, for just the fun of doing something out of the ordinary above 30 MHz. That can be a very different RF environment, much much different than the technology available in the 20s and 30s. And a license to use a good chunk of that spectrum has been available without a Morse Code test for more than 15 years. But you have not taken advanatage of it. It has exciting possibilities...except for the rutted and mired olde-tymers unable to keep up with new things, secure in their own dreams of youth and simple technological environment. Do you have a problem with youth, Len? Or simplicity? Let's face it.. the romance is gone. Oh, boo hoo...the "romance" of the 1930s is gone? Yes, it IS. The "pioneering of the airwaves" below 30 MHz has been DONE...mostly by the pros of radio (despite what the ARRL claims). Who pioneered the use of the HF spectrum, Len? Who first established two-way HF radio contact? DONE a long time ago. The solid-state era came into being about 45 years ago and has revolutionized ALL electronics (radio is a subset of that). The transistor was invented in 1948 - 58 years ago. Amateurs were using them in receivers and transmitters by the late 1950s. Except as memorabilia trinkets of the past, GONE is the analog VFO, Not really. GONE is the one-tube regenerative receiver, GONE is the single-crystal-single-frequency Tx, GONE is the big, bulky AM modulator amplifier, Well, those things are not common, but they're still around. GONE is the not- knowing-when-the-bands-are-open (solar activity and ionosonding solved that and HF MUF is a predictable item that can be found by a computer program). Yet the predictions are not always correct. Openings happen when no opening is predicted, and predicted openings do not always happen. Except for the boatanchor afficionados, vacuum tubes are GONE for nearly everything but high-power transmitters. And high-end audio... So what? Those things are only one part of amateur radio. There's a lot more. The radio world of today is NOT that of 1950, nor of 1960, nor 1970, nor even 1980s. It keeps changing, advancing, the state of the art never static. Of course not. That doesn't mean old things are all bad. For the stuck-in-the-mud olde tymers that is terrible...they feel insecure on not being able to keep up, become aggressive to newcomers ("no kids, lids or space cadets") and retreat to the "secure" mode of their youth, "CW." The phrase was "no kids, no lids, no space cadets, Class A operators only". It was used by a now-dead radio amateur who had the callsign W2OY. He did not use CW - he was an AM-only operator of the 1950s and 1960s. The phrase is remembered because it was so unusual. "CW" (aka Morse Code) is popular with many radio amateurs, not just "old timers". But, they want to make sure They get the respect they feel they've "earned" (as if) so they try and try and try to bring all down to THEIR level...the code test MUST stay..."because." Is there something wrong with the *use* of Morse Code, Len? There are 100 million two-way radios in use in the USA alone, millions more in other countries. Those are the cellular telephones. Actually that number is probably low, considering how many more go into use every day. There are millions of VHF and UHF transceivers in the USA, working daily for public safety agencies, ships, private boats, air carriers as well as private airplanes. Millions? There are tens of thousands of HF transceivers in use in the USA, users being everyone from government agencies to private boat owners, ALL exclusive of amateur radio users. Amateur radio *operators*. And there lies the difference: Almost all other radio services require the use of only certified, channelized, no-user-adjustments-possible equipment. Most of those "millions" or transceivers cited are very low power and use only a single mode and a few channels. The user has almost no real control over the operation of the radio. This is most true in the case of the cell phone/ Where is the "romance" in all this Plenty from a cornucopia that all have grabbed? It is GONE, yes. Maybe for you, Len. Not for hundreds of thousands of radio amateurs. But, NEW "romances" await. DIFFERENT ones, I'd say a helluva lot more complex than old, simple "radio." We can't relive old "romances" except in our minds and we can't grow physically younger. Only person-to-person romance is TRUE, the other "romance" is of the imagination, of the fantasy of what was once there. This fantasy "romance" can't be brought back. It can't be legislated into remaining static. The rules and regulations have to change to keep up with the NOW. In other words, Len, you want to tell us what we should like and what we should not like. What we should enjoy and what we should not enjoy. What is wrong with live and let live? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Jimmie the "Historian" of Personal Computing
From: on Tues, Oct 3 2006 3:25 pm
wrote: From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, wrote: The ready-built Personal Computer first appeared in 1976, 30 years ago (the "IBM PC" debuted in 1980, 26 years ago). The Internet went public in 1991, 15 years ago. Basically true, but that's not the whole story by any means. I wrote a chronological synopsis. If you need more material, you can crib from Robert X. Cringely and/or dozens of others. If you need a "whole story" then WRITE one and get it published. You are the self-styled knowitall "expert" who tells everyone else what to write correctly and not correctly, what to like and not like. You know everything, yes? Of course you do...you are a code- tested amateur extra. Until rather recently, personal computers were rather expensive. Define "recently." The prices for complete personal computer systems, components have been constantly dropping since the beginning of 1982. Five years ago a complete PC sold for $500 plus tax at Lowes near Gig Harbor, Washington. Hewlett-Packard brand no less! :-) Complete PCs - and laptop portables - can be purchased today at Fry's on the west coast for $500; go to www.outpost.com to see their mail-order products. The IBM PC (introduced in August 1981) cost over $1500 in its basic configuration - which works out to about $3500 in 2006 dollars for a machine with very limited capabilities. The IBM representative showing off their PC at Rocketdyne in early 1982 was NOT taking orders in "2006 dollars." The Treasury Departement would have arrested both reps and IBM Corporation had they done so. "Limited capabilities?" Only by today's standard. In the early 1980s the first IBM PCs were the EQUAL in power of any 16-bit minicomputer then on the market. Try to keep your time frame focussed. And cite your hands-on experience with either designing, building, or using minicomputers for a comparison. Feel free to indulge everyone on your 64-bit mainframe computer expertise. As recently as 10 years ago, a complete PC system with reasonable performance cost over $2000 - and its depreciation curve was very steep. You did not do any "dumpster diving" for parts to build your own PC? Why not? Can't you build a functional IBM PC clone for just $100 in parts? Do you think you need morse code skills to program computer code? I know a few folks who have built whole new PC-compatible computers for LESS than $250 in parts cost. Three years ago. "The internet" was originally rather limited and not simple to access for the non-technically minded. That's all changed now. Neither the Internet ("world wide web") nor commands for browsers accessing the Internet have changed in 15 years. Define "technically minded." Did PC users need university degrees to access the world wide web? I don't think so. On top of all this is the evolution of the PC from an expensive techno-toy to an everyday tool in most workplaces, schools, and homes. "Computer literacy" is now *expected* in most jobs. Jailhouse guards, housewives, nannies don't need "computer literacy." They can all be amateur radio licensees, though. The synergy of low cost, easy-to-use computers, easy and fast online access, and a reasonably computer-literate public has only come together within the past 10 years. Yawn. Robert X. Cringely you are NOT. :-) Why are you trying to tell me what to believe and not believe? Why do you think YOUR "computer history" is "more accurate" than mine? Have you built ANY personal computer from scratch? No? I have. Two of them, in fact. It was fun to do so for me. Why are you trying to tell me what I "should" be having fun with? You are not a member of the IEEE, a Professional Association. I am a Life Member of the IEEE. Are you or have you ever been a voting member of the ACM (Association for Computing Machinery)? I have. [got the stupid T-shirt "Dragon in a Member" slogan on the front...but it was free...shrug] Why are you always telling me what to like, not like, enjoy, not enjoy, what to post, what not to post? What is wrong with live and let live? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Jimmie the "Historian" of Personal Computing
wrote:
From: on Tues, Oct 3 2006 3:25 pm wrote: From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, wrote: The ready-built Personal Computer first appeared in 1976, 30 years ago (the "IBM PC" debuted in 1980, 26 years ago). The Internet went public in 1991, 15 years ago. Basically true, but that's not the whole story by any means. I wrote a chronological synopsis. If you need more material, you can crib from Robert X. Cringely and/or dozens of others. Is that where you obtained yours? If you need a "whole story" then WRITE one and get it published. You are the self-styled knowitall "expert" who tells everyone else what to write correctly and not correctly, what to like and not like. You know everything, yes? Of course you do...you are a code- tested amateur extra. You wrote one and submitted it here for free? I don't think the reviews are going to be good on this one, Len. It has some gaping holes and some factual errors. Until rather recently, personal computers were rather expensive. Define "recently." The prices for complete personal computer systems, components have been constantly dropping since the beginning of 1982. No kidding? The only thing is, they didn't drop very fast until the past five or six years. Five years ago a complete PC sold for $500 plus tax at Lowes near Gig Harbor, Washington. Hewlett-Packard brand no less! :-) Why the smiley? Was that a joke? Complete PCs - and laptop portables - can be purchased today at Fry's on the west coast for $500; go to www.outpost.com to see their mail-order products. The IBM PC (introduced in August 1981) cost over $1500 in its basic configuration - which works out to about $3500 in 2006 dollars for a machine with very limited capabilities. The IBM representative showing off their PC at Rocketdyne in early 1982 was NOT taking orders in "2006 dollars." The Treasury Departement would have arrested both reps and IBM Corporation had they done so. No smiley here? "Limited capabilities?" Only by today's standard. That's not correct. The 1981 PC had limited capabilities compared to the XT available not too long afterward. Both had limited capabilities in terms of processor speed, memory and storage compared to the PC's of the early 1990's. In the early 1980s the first IBM PCs were the EQUAL in power of any 16-bit minicomputer then on the market. Try to keep your time frame focussed. Were there things that the IBM couldn't do at that point, Len? If not, why were so many folks designing, building and selling systems to allow those early PC's to network with minicomputers? And cite your hands-on experience with either designing, building, or using minicomputers for a comparison. Feel free to indulge everyone on your 64-bit mainframe computer expertise. There's a big difference between designing or building and using minicomputers. I've never designed or built any minicomputer but I have plenty of experience in using and working as systems manager on Wang VS systems. Now what? As recently as 10 years ago, a complete PC system with reasonable performance cost over $2000 - and its depreciation curve was very steep. You did not do any "dumpster diving" for parts to build your own PC? Why not? Can't you build a functional IBM PC clone for just $100 in parts? Do you think you need morse code skills to program computer code? I know a few folks who have built whole new PC-compatible computers for LESS than $250 in parts cost. Three years ago. Now what? "The internet" was originally rather limited and not simple to access for the non-technically minded. That's all changed now. Neither the Internet ("world wide web")... Would you like additional time to rethink your statement? ...nor commands for browsers accessing the Internet have changed in 15 years. Define "technically minded." Did PC users need university degrees to access the world wide web? I don't think so. Does everyone who is technically minded need a university degree at any time, Len? On top of all this is the evolution of the PC from an expensive techno-toy to an everyday tool in most workplaces, schools, and homes. "Computer literacy" is now *expected* in most jobs. Jailhouse guards, housewives, nannies don't need "computer literacy." They can all be amateur radio licensees, though. That's odd. Our regional jail uses plenty of PC's. I don't know any nannies but I know plenty of housewives who use PCs. I didn't see anything incorrect in Jim's statement. Where are you going with yours? The synergy of low cost, easy-to-use computers, easy and fast online access, and a reasonably computer-literate public has only come together within the past 10 years. Yawn. Robert X. Cringely you are NOT. :-) If you aren't, did you crib from him without giving credit? :-) Why are you trying to tell me what to believe and not believe? Why do you think YOUR "computer history" is "more accurate" than mine? Relax, Len. It was probably due to his having had prior experiences with you. Have you built ANY personal computer from scratch? No? I have. Two of them, in fact. It was fun to do so for me. Why are you trying to tell me what I "should" be having fun with? I'll bet it took you years to solder the parts on those mother boards. How long did it take you to assemble that hard drive? Awwwww! I'll bet you meant that you assembled the motherboard into a case, screwed in the power supply, slid in a drive or two, perhaps added a CD or DVD burner, plugged in a couple of PCI boards, attached the monitor, keyboard and mouse and called it a day. You are not a member of the IEEE, a Professional Association. I am a Life Member of the IEEE. Yessir. I know about the IEEE Code of Ethics, too. What has all this talk of the IEEE to do with amateur radio? Does anyone need an IEEE member to assemble a computer or use it? Are you or have you ever been a voting member of the ACM (Association for Computing Machinery)? I have. [got the stupid T-shirt "Dragon in a Member" slogan on the front...but it was free...shrug] That's great, Len. It looks as if you've found your niche. Why are you always telling me what to like, not like, enjoy, not enjoy, what to post, what not to post? I say, if it is computers you like, it is with computers you should stick. Have a blast, Leonard. You can take 'em apart and put 'em back together again. You can impress those with less knowledge than yourself. What is wrong with live and let live? You've been allowed to live. Dave K8MN |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Accuracy, Facts and Opinions
wrote:
From: on Tues, Oct 3 2006 3:25 pm wrote: From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, wrote: The ready-built Personal Computer first appeared in 1976, 30 years ago (the "IBM PC" debuted in 1980, 26 years ago). The Internet went public in 1991, 15 years ago. Basically true, but that's not the whole story by any means. I wrote a chronological synopsis. You left out important information and included a few mistakes. The information you left out disproves your conclusions. If you need a "whole story" then WRITE one and get it published. You are the self-styled knowitall "expert" I've never claimed to be an expert, Len. I do know some things that you do not know. That seems to really bother you. who tells everyone else what to write correctly and not correctly, what to like and not like. I point out some of your mistakes. That's how things go in a newsgroup. You can have any opinion you want, Len. You can believe the earth is flat, the moon made of green cheese, that "acceptable" has the letter "i" in it, or that the IBM PC was introduced in 1980. If you express such "opinions", it's possible someone else will point out your mistakes. Your opinion does not make something a fact. You know everything, yes? Oh no, I don't know nearly everything. But I do know some things that you do not know. That seems to really bother you. you are a code-tested amateur extra. There's no other kind. You aren't even a Novice, though. Until rather recently, personal computers were rather expensive. Define "recently." In the context of the PC, about the past 7 years. The prices for complete personal computer systems, components have been constantly dropping since the beginning of 1982. Of course. But until about 7 years ago, most complete systems were well over $1000. Five years ago a complete PC sold for $500 plus tax at Lowes near Gig Harbor, Washington. Hewlett-Packard brand no less! :-) That's relatively recently, Len. Did it include a monitor? Printer? Supplies for the printer? Complete PCs - and laptop portables - can be purchased today at Fry's on the west coast for $500; go to www.outpost.com to see their mail-order products. That's my point, Len. The prices *now* are far below what they were even 8 years ago. The IBM PC (introduced in August 1981) cost over $1500 in its basic configuration - which works out to about $3500 in 2006 dollars for a machine with very limited capabilities. The IBM representative showing off their PC at Rocketdyne in early 1982 was NOT taking orders in "2006 dollars." The Treasury Departement would have arrested both reps and IBM Corporation had they done so. Ever hear of something called "inflation", Len? How about "inflation adjusted"? You know, how the value of money declines in an inflationary economy? "2006 dollars" is a valid way of describing that. "Limited capabilities?" Only by today's standard. No, by any reasonable standard. Heck, the original IBM PC was considered obsolete long before 1990. In the early 1980s the first IBM PCs were the EQUAL in power of any 16-bit minicomputer then on the market. And by the late 1990s they had been eclipsed by much more powerful PCs. Try to keep your time frame focussed. And cite your hands-on experience with either designing, building, or using minicomputers for a comparison. Feel free to indulge everyone on your 64-bit mainframe computer expertise. The point is that those early machines were expensive and limited in their capabilities. The original 1981 IBM PC did not include a hard drive, color display, network interface, modem or mouse as standard equipment. The software available for it was limited and expensive. As recently as 10 years ago, a complete PC system with reasonable performance cost over $2000 - and its depreciation curve was very steep. You did not do any "dumpster diving" for parts to build your own PC? It's not about me, Len. It's about what computers used to cost, and what they could do. Why not? Can't you build a functional IBM PC clone for just $100 in parts? Actually, Len, I'm quite good at assembling PCs. For a lot less than $100. In many cases, for no money at all. My specialty is collecting older machines and utilizing the best parts from them to assemble a "new" one. Usually I get them before they reach the dumpster, but sometimes I have to reach in and pick something out. It's amazing what computer hardware individuals and businesses throw away these days. 17" monitors that work perfectly. Pentium II class machines complete with CD burners, NICs, modems, etc. Sometimes the OS is still on the hard drive. Cables, keyboards, printers, and more. It is not at all unusual for me to find working but discarded computers that cost more than $2500 new. Do you think you need morse code skills to program computer code? Who needs to "program computer code", Len? Why do you live in the past? I know a few folks who have built whole new PC-compatible computers for LESS than $250 in parts cost. Three years ago. But *you* haven't done it. I have. It's also besides the point: Until rather recently (7 years ago, approximately), PCs were quite expensive. Spending a couple of thousand dollars is a different thing than spending a couple of hundred. "The internet" was originally rather limited and not simple to access for the non-technically minded. That's all changed now. Neither the Internet ("world wide web") nor commands for browsers accessing the Internet have changed in 15 years. Not the point. What is the point is that there is much more content available. And it's much easier and less expensive to access. Define "technically minded." Did PC users need university degrees to access the world wide web? I don't think so. They did need some understanding of how to set up and use a PC. That sort of thing used to be fairly unusual - not anymore. On top of all this is the evolution of the PC from an expensive techno-toy to an everyday tool in most workplaces, schools, and homes. "Computer literacy" is now *expected* in most jobs. Jailhouse guards, housewives, nannies don't need "computer literacy." Sure they do, Len. They can all be amateur radio licensees, though. If they pass the tests and earn the license. You haven't passed the tests and you haven't earned the license. The synergy of low cost, easy-to-use computers, easy and fast online access, and a reasonably computer-literate public has only come together within the past 10 years. Yawn. Robert X. Cringely you are NOT. :-) I don't claim to be. Why are you trying to tell me what to believe and not believe? Because you got the facts wrong, Len. Why do you think YOUR "computer history" is "more accurate" than mine? Because it is, Len. You got the dates wrong. You left out how much PCs used to cost, and how little they used to be able to do. If PCs have had an effect on the number of US radio amateurs, most of that effect has happened in the past 8 years or less. Have you built ANY personal computer from scratch? I've assembled several from components. No? Yes. I have. That's nice. Were they IBM-compatible PCs? Or were they simple systems from 25-30 years ago?, and you're playing word games with "personal" and "computer" Two of them, in fact. It was fun to do so for me. That's nice, Len. Why are you trying to tell me what I "should" be having fun with? I'm not - if you want to build computers, go ahead. But if you want to discuss the effects of PCs on amateur radio, you're going to see rebuttals to your mistaken assertions. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
shortwv | Shortwave | |||
178 English-language HF Broadcasts audible in NE US | Shortwave | |||
Amateur Radio Newslineâ„¢ Report 1402 Â June 25, 2004 | Shortwave | |||
Amateur Radio Newslineâ„¢ Report 1402 Â June 25, 2004 | General | |||
214 English-language HF Broadcasts audible in NE US (09-APR-04) | Shortwave |