RadioBanter

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)
-   Scanner (https://www.radiobanter.com/scanner/)
-   -   Trade Modded DX-398 For Scanner (https://www.radiobanter.com/scanner/34433-trade-modded-dx-398-scanner.html)

Jeff Renkin October 15th 03 01:43 AM

CW wrote:

This whole argument is pointless. The code requirement will be eliminated.
No thinking person would dispute that.


You would think so, wouldn't you? Yet this thread proves that people are
either not thinking, or their way of thinking makes no ****ing sense.

(Since the FCC says you can now use the word "****ing" on radio and TV, then we
can now use it on newsgroups too.)

The only reason we still have it now
is international agreement.


And that finally is now gone. So the real reason we have it now in the US when
other countries got their act in gear and already eliminated it, is that in the
US government moves really slow unless it is something unimportant like renaming
french fries to freedom fries, that they can move really fast on legislating.

I firmly believe that if people feel that a code
requirement is necessary, that they should go ahead and require it.


Right, those that want to learn the code should by all means learn it. Those
that want to use microphones and don't like to use code, don't have to learn it.

But what about affirmative action? Since people who didn't want to use code
had to learn it all this time, perhaps now the government should make those that
want to use code to learn something else they don't like before they can get
licenses now. You know, just like the reverse discrimination and racism of
affirmative action to make up for the past mistakes.

I say if you want to use morse code on HF, you have to learn and be tested on
Egyptian Hieroglyphics.




N8KDV October 15th 03 01:51 AM



Jeff Renkin wrote:

CW wrote:

This whole argument is pointless. The code requirement will be eliminated.
No thinking person would dispute that.


You would think so, wouldn't you? Yet this thread proves that people are
either not thinking, or their way of thinking makes no ****ing sense.

(Since the FCC says you can now use the word "****ing" on radio and TV, then we
can now use it on newsgroups too.)

The only reason we still have it now
is international agreement.


And that finally is now gone. So the real reason we have it now in the US when
other countries got their act in gear and already eliminated it, is that in the
US government moves really slow unless it is something unimportant like renaming
french fries to freedom fries, that they can move really fast on legislating.

I firmly believe that if people feel that a code
requirement is necessary, that they should go ahead and require it.


Right, those that want to learn the code should by all means learn it. Those
that want to use microphones and don't like to use code, don't have to learn it.

But what about affirmative action? Since people who didn't want to use code
had to learn it all this time, perhaps now the government should make those that
want to use code to learn something else they don't like before they can get
licenses now. You know, just like the reverse discrimination and racism of
affirmative action to make up for the past mistakes.

I say if you want to use morse code on HF, you have to learn and be tested on
Egyptian Hieroglyphics.


You are truely an idiot.



Jeff Renkin October 15th 03 01:52 AM

The point just keeps flying over your head. What if someone kept
saying to you, if
you want a driver's license, you have to learn Egyptian Hieroglyphics

first?

Actually Jeff, you don't get the point.


Crap, why the hell can't any of you just concentrate and deal with that point
before you avoid it and jump to something else???

When you get the license for HF amateur operation, you get privileges that
include code.


No, you have the privileges to use code on VHF and UHF if you want to and don't
ever have to pass a code test. In case you are not aware, parts of those
bands are set aside for code as well.

Code proficiency is part of the requirement.


It was part of the requirement to get a technician's class license too, wasn't
it? But that was dropped, right? It would have been dropped all across
the board for every class of license, but the international agreement between
countries was the ONLY reason it had to stay with the HF licenses. Now that
the world finally got to vote on this, they did away with the requirement.
The requirement is NO LONGER. Other countries were quick to remove the
requirement from their local laws, the US is just very slow at changing
laws. It will happen, it just takes a government like ours months of boring
useless discussion to come to an obvious conclusion. Have you ever watched
C-span? Then you would know how ****ed up our government is.

Code does happen
to represent a significant part of HF operation.


So does voice.

It has to do with demonstrating you know what you are doing in areas that
are pertinent to the license.


"Knowing what you are doing" is a technical reasoning since you are dealing
with equipment that can cause interference and even death if not used
properly. Not knowing how to send morse code properly is not going to
interfere with any other licensed services or cause anyone to die.

Now, try to answer this without avoiding it....

What if to get a driver's license, you had to learn Egyptian Hieroglyphics
first?




N8KDV October 15th 03 02:01 AM



Jeff Renkin wrote:

The point just keeps flying over your head. What if someone kept

saying to you, if
you want a driver's license, you have to learn Egyptian Hieroglyphics

first?

Actually Jeff, you don't get the point.


Crap, why the hell can't any of you just concentrate and deal with that point
before you avoid it and jump to something else???

When you get the license for HF amateur operation, you get privileges that
include code.


No, you have the privileges to use code on VHF and UHF if you want to and don't
ever have to pass a code test. In case you are not aware, parts of those
bands are set aside for code as well.

Code proficiency is part of the requirement.


It was part of the requirement to get a technician's class license too, wasn't
it? But that was dropped, right? It would have been dropped all across
the board for every class of license, but the international agreement between
countries was the ONLY reason it had to stay with the HF licenses. Now that
the world finally got to vote on this, they did away with the requirement.
The requirement is NO LONGER. Other countries were quick to remove the
requirement from their local laws, the US is just very slow at changing
laws. It will happen, it just takes a government like ours months of boring
useless discussion to come to an obvious conclusion. Have you ever watched
C-span? Then you would know how ****ed up our government is.

Code does happen
to represent a significant part of HF operation.


So does voice.

It has to do with demonstrating you know what you are doing in areas that
are pertinent to the license.


"Knowing what you are doing" is a technical reasoning since you are dealing
with equipment that can cause interference and even death if not used
properly. Not knowing how to send morse code properly is not going to
interfere with any other licensed services or cause anyone to die.

Now, try to answer this without avoiding it....

What if to get a driver's license, you had to learn Egyptian Hieroglyphics
first?


What if to learn Morse code, you finally had to pull your head out of your ass
Jeff?

The sound would probably equal that of Krakatoa erupting!

Steve
Holland, MI

Proficient in Morse code.



Stinger October 15th 03 03:02 AM

Bottom line, it's too bad the trend is toward dropping the requirement.

Until now, the morse code requirement served the dual purpose as a de facto
"intelligence test" to get in to ham radio, and it also required some
committment (which in turn gets hams to respect the medium).

What I think worries everyone is that without this requirement, the bar will
be lowered to the extent of becoming glorified Citizens Band radio.

And that would be a shame.

-- Stinger

"N8KDV" wrote in message
...


Jeff Renkin wrote:

The point just keeps flying over your head. What if someone

kept
saying to you, if
you want a driver's license, you have to learn Egyptian

Hieroglyphics
first?

Actually Jeff, you don't get the point.


Crap, why the hell can't any of you just concentrate and deal with that

point
before you avoid it and jump to something else???

When you get the license for HF amateur operation, you get privileges

that
include code.


No, you have the privileges to use code on VHF and UHF if you want to

and don't
ever have to pass a code test. In case you are not aware, parts of

those
bands are set aside for code as well.

Code proficiency is part of the requirement.


It was part of the requirement to get a technician's class license too,

wasn't
it? But that was dropped, right? It would have been dropped all

across
the board for every class of license, but the international agreement

between
countries was the ONLY reason it had to stay with the HF licenses.

Now that
the world finally got to vote on this, they did away with the

requirement.
The requirement is NO LONGER. Other countries were quick to remove

the
requirement from their local laws, the US is just very slow at changing
laws. It will happen, it just takes a government like ours months of

boring
useless discussion to come to an obvious conclusion. Have you ever

watched
C-span? Then you would know how ****ed up our government is.

Code does happen
to represent a significant part of HF operation.


So does voice.

It has to do with demonstrating you know what you are doing in areas

that
are pertinent to the license.


"Knowing what you are doing" is a technical reasoning since you are

dealing
with equipment that can cause interference and even death if not used
properly. Not knowing how to send morse code properly is not going to
interfere with any other licensed services or cause anyone to die.

Now, try to answer this without avoiding it....

What if to get a driver's license, you had to learn Egyptian

Hieroglyphics
first?


What if to learn Morse code, you finally had to pull your head out of your

ass
Jeff?

The sound would probably equal that of Krakatoa erupting!

Steve
Holland, MI

Proficient in Morse code.





Mark Keith October 15th 03 05:36 AM

Jeff Renkin wrote in message

Actually the lowering of the speed has NOTHING to do with it. If you ARE going to
learn the code, it makes more sense to learn it at the fastest speed right away. If
you learn it at 5 wpm, it makes it much harder later to go faster with it.


Nope, it doesn't. If that were the case, I would be in the same speed
league as you.
If you are going to take a 20 wpm test, and ditch the code upon
passing the test, it might make sense, but to someone that intends to
actually use the code, it does not. You would be a "one speed wonder"
.. The first person that came along at 9 wpm would cause you to vapor
lock. I started at -5 wpm and went up.
Quickly. It sure didn't seem to hurt me, being I peaked at my limits
of "clean" manual "paddle" keying. My abilty to send cleanly using a
paddle determined my real world limit. Not my abilty to receive. I
can't send cleanly with a paddle over about 55-60 wpm and thats
pushing it to the edge. After that I get too sloppy for my tastes.
Being I refuse to use a keyboard, which I hate, that was my limit. If
I used the keyboard, I probably could have eventually hit 70-75-80
wpm. The dots are so fast at those speeds, even at 60, that you don't
really listen for individual dots. You gauge from the length in ms of
the string. It's almost a blur. To be a decent CW operator, you must
gradually work through all the speeds. Your theory does not hold
water. But to be expected from someone who doesn't work cw.

Lowering the speed to 5 wpm was idiotic. As if that made it easier or
something.


Well, being many upgraded to extra in one fell swoop after they
dropped speed, it must have made some difference if the rest couldn't
get 13 or 20 wpm. Of course, I suspect the vast majority of those
didn't really practice enough.

Ever hear of the Farnsworth system?


Duh...

Learning the code is like
learning a language, you hear the musical sounds of the letters and words, slowing it
down only makes it harder.


Slowing it down only makes it harder to keep track of previously sent
letters, if head copying. That makes it harder to make words out of
the copy. You have to copy behind a bit. But slowing it down does not
make it harder to copy the characters. Trust me, for a rank beginner,
it's easier to learn and pass 5 wpm, than it is to learn and pass 20
wpm. That is, unless they alter the proper timing, and leave huge gaps
between letters on the test. And thats not 20 wpm any more. The
farnsworth method teaches incorrect character spacing, and overall
lousy timing. You learn lousy timing from day one, and that is no way
to live. Not what I consider good. An *actual* 20 wpm at normal
spacing will cause a beginner to vapor lock when they test, if they
learned with the improperly spaced farnsworth method. The Farnsworth
method is NOT a good method to use for people that intend to use the
code in the real world. MK

Mark Keith October 15th 03 05:49 AM

Jeff Renkin wrote in message

When you get the license for HF amateur operation, you get privileges that
include code.


No, you have the privileges to use code on VHF and UHF if you want to and don't
ever have to pass a code test. In case you are not aware, parts of those
bands are set aside for code as well.


In case you are not aware, the international treaty did not include
VHF.

Code proficiency is part of the requirement.


It was part of the requirement to get a technician's class license too, wasn't
it? But that was dropped, right?


In case you are not aware, it was only dropped because international
treaty did not include VHF.

Next...MK

w4jle October 15th 03 06:32 AM

I find my self in agreement with you Stinger. The worth of anything in life
is only how hard was it to obtain?

Why would anyone buy a Rolex when a Timex does the exact same thing an order
of magnitude cheaper? The Rolex is a sign of achievement by the wearer.

Those of us who worked to learn the code hate to see our Rolex turned in to
a Timex by a group of people who can't afford a Rolex.

I guess in a world where achievement is disdained, because it makes the
under-achiever feel bad, the move is not unexpected.

Fred W4JLE Ex V3CB V31GR
(Hamming for over 47 years and still loving it!)


"Stinger" wrote in message
...
Bottom line, it's too bad the trend is toward dropping the requirement.

Until now, the morse code requirement served the dual purpose as a de

facto
"intelligence test" to get in to ham radio, and it also required some
committment (which in turn gets hams to respect the medium).




Mark Keith October 15th 03 11:17 AM

"w4jle" W4JLE(remove this to wrote in message

Those of us who worked to learn the code hate to see our Rolex turned in to
a Timex by a group of people who can't afford a Rolex.


It doesn't really bother me. The only bummer part is there will be
fewer and fewer CW ops in the next years. I could really care less if
they drop the code tests. With 5 wpm, for all practical purposes, they
already have. I just can't stand the whiners...Whine, whine,
whine....Such a waste of energy, particularly being they are wasting
it in the totally wrong direction. They should tell it to the fcc, not
other hams, or SWL's on NG's. It's like whining about the broken
cruise control in your Ford truck at a J.C. Penny's. :/
We don't have any control over it, so whining to us is a total waste
of time.
It makes me laugh that someone would spend so much time and energy
trying to convince people that have absolutely no control over the
matter. Better than the freaking comedy channel if you ask me.
MK

John S. October 15th 03 06:04 PM

amateur radio is going to survive if the gatekeepers continue to limit
access to those who can prove a working knowlege of morse code. The
code was at one time one of several useful tools for communicating,
but it has been outpaced by other faster technologies that are easier
to learn. Military and commercial use of the code has all but ceased.
So who's left - HAM's.

Is there a need for HAM's to use the code in emergency situations?
Posssibly, but I haven't heard of any recent successes. Several years
ago I tried to listen in on a logjam of ham's trying to run an H&W net
after one particularly nasty carribean hurricane. It was a babble of
voice and code - everyone running over one another. Sorting out the
multiple code transmissions was all but impossible. I truly think
managment of emergency communications is best left to the
professionals with up-to-date tools.

Should amateur radio licenses be subject to passing a test?
Absolutely. However the test should require knowlege of skills that
are appropriate for todays world. Knowlege of radio technology and
electronics are an absolute must for safe operation of poetntially
lethal equipment. Proficiency in communicating by voice and one or
more digital modes on several bands should be a requirement. The
Morse code should not be one of those required digital skills however,
because it has little useful application in todays world.

The gatekeepers of the hobby should be looking for ways to reduce the
average age of the licensed ham by enticing new entrants into the
hobby. Requiring them to learn a technology that is slower than a
78rpm record played at 33rpm is not the way.



(Mark Keith) wrote in message . com...
Jeff Renkin wrote in message

Actually the lowering of the speed has NOTHING to do with it. If you ARE going to
learn the code, it makes more sense to learn it at the fastest speed right away. If
you learn it at 5 wpm, it makes it much harder later to go faster with it.


Nope, it doesn't. If that were the case, I would be in the same speed
league as you.
If you are going to take a 20 wpm test, and ditch the code upon
passing the test, it might make sense, but to someone that intends to
actually use the code, it does not. You would be a "one speed wonder"
. The first person that came along at 9 wpm would cause you to vapor
lock. I started at -5 wpm and went up.
Quickly. It sure didn't seem to hurt me, being I peaked at my limits
of "clean" manual "paddle" keying. My abilty to send cleanly using a
paddle determined my real world limit. Not my abilty to receive. I
can't send cleanly with a paddle over about 55-60 wpm and thats
pushing it to the edge. After that I get too sloppy for my tastes.
Being I refuse to use a keyboard, which I hate, that was my limit. If
I used the keyboard, I probably could have eventually hit 70-75-80
wpm. The dots are so fast at those speeds, even at 60, that you don't
really listen for individual dots. You gauge from the length in ms of
the string. It's almost a blur. To be a decent CW operator, you must
gradually work through all the speeds. Your theory does not hold
water. But to be expected from someone who doesn't work cw.

Lowering the speed to 5 wpm was idiotic. As if that made it easier or
something.


Well, being many upgraded to extra in one fell swoop after they
dropped speed, it must have made some difference if the rest couldn't
get 13 or 20 wpm. Of course, I suspect the vast majority of those
didn't really practice enough.

Ever hear of the Farnsworth system?


Duh...

Learning the code is like
learning a language, you hear the musical sounds of the letters and words, slowing it
down only makes it harder.


Slowing it down only makes it harder to keep track of previously sent
letters, if head copying. That makes it harder to make words out of
the copy. You have to copy behind a bit. But slowing it down does not
make it harder to copy the characters. Trust me, for a rank beginner,
it's easier to learn and pass 5 wpm, than it is to learn and pass 20
wpm. That is, unless they alter the proper timing, and leave huge gaps
between letters on the test. And thats not 20 wpm any more. The
farnsworth method teaches incorrect character spacing, and overall
lousy timing. You learn lousy timing from day one, and that is no way
to live. Not what I consider good. An *actual* 20 wpm at normal
spacing will cause a beginner to vapor lock when they test, if they
learned with the improperly spaced farnsworth method. The Farnsworth
method is NOT a good method to use for people that intend to use the
code in the real world. MK



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:56 PM.

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