John Smith wrote:
Peter:

Really, you don't expect to take one or two simple points, stretch
them to a whole book with gobs of un-necessary text, then expect
someone to read it to the end, do you? Well, if so, this is just to
inform you I am not... bet I am not the only fool who just doesn't
get how important your long winded rants are! grin

John



Actually, I would expect nothing less. But then, I also realize that
in today's soundbyte world of communication, expecting anyone to go the
distance is pretty much a fantasy.

But then, that's precisely the heart of this discussion, isn't it.








"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...

John S. wrote:

Unfortunately a large portion of the ham community has chosen to
ignore
the fact that morse code is not used in any significant
communications
in the western world.


In fact, you are incorrect about this.


Repeating our message from earlier this week:


Morse Code is used to identify every VOR station in the US. VOR
station identification takes place every 30 seconds. Every VOR radio
has an ident switch that permits the pilot to hear the Morse Code
identifier for the VOR station he's monitoring when navigating by
radio. When flying under IFR conditions, this identifier is
essential for correct location of the aircraft on the grid by the
pilot, and identification of the correct course.

I would hardly call that insignificant. So, your premise on it's
face is incorrect.


Now, to be thorough, here....the Morse identifier for a given
station is printed on the sectional chart for that given region of
airspace, so, it's not necessary that a pilot actually know the
code, but if you've ever tried to read a sectional chart in flight,
solo in the cockpit while trying to navigate it can be an
unnecessary and unwanted distraction, especially when flying under
less than optimum conditions. But many pilots, having learned their
Morse Code as Boy Scouts, or in the military, or as part of the
Amateur service, find it much simpler to simply hear and understand
the code, than to take the time to read and then try to translate it
into audible intelligence.

You may also be unaware that many V/UHF repeaters also identify by
Morse Code, so while it's not exactly a requirement that an operator
know the code, even non Code required licensees will find that
knowing the code actually facilitates their operations. Especially
under unusual propagation conditions, as we're experiencing now in
Northern Illinois, where VHF signals are skipping in from greater
distances than local repeaters' operating areas would normally fall.
In which case, the Morse identifier permits an operator to know if
he's actually hearing the correct repeater, or if he's actually
hearing a repeater skipping in on anomalous propragation.

Again, not insignificant. Especially where operation on a repeater
is by membership only and freeloaders are not welcome.

And again, to be thorough, non code licensees would still have to
be able to hear and understand the code to prevent freeloading, or
take the time to look up and translate the audible signal into
understandable language for identification.

So, there you have two significant and relevant, current
applications of Morse Code in the US, alone. There are more, to be
sure.



For the record, this debate has been going on for decades. And it
laways boils down to the unwilling badgering the authority to be
granted the privileges that have been otherwise earned through
diligent skill acquisition. Even when I was in Jr High, the code
test was a bone of contention between members of the Ham Radio Club
and applicants. And that was 40 years ago. The fight has only gotten
more shrill.

And the code requirement itself was widely misunderstood. It was
assumed that one had to take one's tests in order of rank and that
before one could have phone access to the bands, one was required to
spend no less than two years pounding brass. This alone ran off a
lot of applicants. Truth is that one only had to know the code to
get a license. Which license was largely a matter of preference,
with one exception. I know many hams who never went through the
Novice or Technician classes, but went straight to General and
above.

In my own circles, this misunderstood abhorrence of the code drove
my friends to CB, rather than to the more exciting and more useful
world of the Amateur service. I took a different path, learning the
code so I could hear and understand what was on my receiver, but
since I had little interest in actually conversing...most of the
people I'd want to talk to were in the skip zones anyway, I never
pursued it further. I've always enjoyed the listening more than the
talking. But, as with many things in life, I've learned that a
skill acquired is never without practical application, and have
found myself brushing up on my code frequently over the years, for
everything from shortwave and ham band listening, to aviation
monitoring, to emergency communications monitoring, to silly things
like movie/tv watching. There is always a relevant application to
the knowledge of Morse Code.

Simply abandoning knowledge of something because there are newer,
better ways is only smart if the newer better ways can and will
never fail. This is fantasy at best. In which case having a fall
back, especially in communications, is prudent, even if it does seem
like filling up your head with useless baggage at the time.
Considering how times emergency communications have failed because
of a poor microphone, high noise, or even partial failure of a
radio, OOK in Morse Code is often the only option left in an
emergency. And, as has been explained here numerous times, unlike
any other form of communication which requires ever increasing
layers of technology to get the job done, all that's required in
Morse Code is one human operator on each end, and the ability to
create a signal, regardless of how or what that signal is.

Personally, when my ass is on the line, I'd much rather rely on an
experienced operator than any piece of technology.

Now, like the person sitting in the exitway on an airliner you may
be unable, or unwilling to assist in the event of an emergency, and
that's your right. But have the decency to get out of the way and
let those who are willing and able to assist to do so.


Your premise that "morse code is not used in any significant
communications in the western world," is patently false.

D Peter Maus wrote:
John S. wrote:

Unfortunately a large portion of the ham community has chosen to ignore
the fact that morse code is not used in any significant communications
in the western world.


In fact, you are incorrect about this.


Repeating our message from earlier this week:


Morse Code is used to identify every VOR station in the US. VOR
station identification takes place every 30 seconds. Every VOR radio has
an ident switch that permits the pilot to hear the Morse Code identifier
for the VOR station he's monitoring when navigating by radio. When
flying under IFR conditions, this identifier is essential for correct
location of the aircraft on the grid by the pilot, and identification of
the correct course.

As mentioned earlier, what possible relevance does that have to
requiring a ham radio operator to pass a more code exam.


I would hardly call that insignificant. So, your premise on it's face
is incorrect.
You are way out in left field with this comparison.



Now, to be thorough, here....the Morse identifier for a given station
is printed on the sectional chart for that given region of airspace, so,
it's not necessary that a pilot actually know the code, but if you've
ever tried to read a sectional chart in flight, solo in the cockpit
while trying to navigate it can be an unnecessary and unwanted
distraction, especially when flying under less than optimum conditions.
But many pilots, having learned their Morse Code as Boy Scouts, or in
the military, or as part of the Amateur service, find it much simpler to
simply hear and understand the code, than to take the time to read and
then try to translate it into audible intelligence.

You may also be unaware that many V/UHF repeaters also identify by
Morse Code, so while it's not exactly a requirement that an operator
know the code, even non Code required licensees will find that knowing
the code actually facilitates their operations. Especially under unusual
propagation conditions, as we're experiencing now in Northern Illinois,
where VHF signals are skipping in from greater distances than local
repeaters' operating areas would normally fall. In which case, the Morse
identifier permits an operator to know if he's actually hearing the
correct repeater, or if he's actually hearing a repeater skipping in on
anomalous propragation.

So what. There are some police comm systems that still send a morse
identifier. I suppose it is entertaining and marginally useful to be
able to decode the id's by oneself, but that's about all.


Again, not insignificant. Especially where operation on a repeater is
by membership only and freeloaders are not welcome.

And again, to be thorough, non code licensees would still have to be
able to hear and understand the code to prevent freeloading, or take the
time to look up and translate the audible signal into understandable
language for identification.

So, there you have two significant and relevant, current applications
of Morse Code in the US, alone. There are more, to be sure.



For the record, this debate has been going on for decades. And it
laways boils down to the unwilling badgering the authority to be granted
the privileges that have been otherwise earned through diligent skill
acquisition. Even when I was in Jr High, the code test was a bone of
contention between members of the Ham Radio Club and applicants. And
that was 40 years ago. The fight has only gotten more shrill.

Yes, yes, I know and in every junior and high school there was once a
radio club with lots of junior sparkies having a lot of fun. But my
friend, along with narrow lapel natural shoulder grey flannel suits,
narrow dark ties and white buck shoes those times are long since gone.


And the code requirement itself was widely misunderstood. It was
assumed that one had to take one's tests in order of rank and that
before one could have phone access to the bands, one was required to
spend no less than two years pounding brass. This alone ran off a lot of
applicants. Truth is that one only had to know the code to get a
license. Which license was largely a matter of preference, with one
exception. I know many hams who never went through the Novice or
Technician classes, but went straight to General and above.

In my own circles, this misunderstood abhorrence of the code drove my
friends to CB, rather than to the more exciting and more useful world of
the Amateur service. I took a different path, learning the code so I
could hear and understand what was on my receiver, but since I had
little interest in actually conversing...most of the people I'd want to
talk to were in the skip zones anyway, I never pursued it further. I've
always enjoyed the listening more than the talking. But, as with many
things in life, I've learned that a skill acquired is never without
practical application, and have found myself brushing up on my code
frequently over the years, for everything from shortwave and ham band
listening, to aviation monitoring, to emergency communications
monitoring, to silly things like movie/tv watching. There is always a
relevant application to the knowledge of Morse Code.

Simply abandoning knowledge of something because there are newer,
better ways is only smart if the newer better ways can and will never
fail. This is fantasy at best. In which case having a fall back,
especially in communications, is prudent, even if it does seem like
filling up your head with useless baggage at the time. Considering how
times emergency communications have failed because of a poor microphone,
high noise, or even partial failure of a radio, OOK in Morse Code is
often the only option left in an emergency. And, as has been explained
here numerous times, unlike any other form of communication which
requires ever increasing layers of technology to get the job done, all
that's required in Morse Code is one human operator on each end, and the
ability to create a signal, regardless of how or what that signal is.

But there is nobody of consequence to talk with using morse code.
Other than other hams. If you send morse code signals to some federal
or state agency during an emergency there is a high likelihood they
won't even hear you. If an operator happens to hear you there is every
chance you will not be understood. The world has moved on from buggy
whips and horse drawn carriages.


Personally, when my ass is on the line, I'd much rather rely on an
experienced operator than any piece of technology.

Now, like the person sitting in the exitway on an airliner you may be
unable, or unwilling to assist in the event of an emergency, and that's
your right. But have the decency to get out of the way and let those who
are willing and able to assist to do so.


Your premise that "morse code is not used in any significant
communications in the western world," is patently false.

My, my you do like to write long and windy posts don't you.
Obfuscation by volume or something similar. The supposed justification
for requiring a morse code test of prospective hams is to establish a
corps of citizen communicators who can communicate with authgorities,
rescure agencies, etc., during some local, regional or national
emergency. Guess what...none of the agencies who those hams are
supposed to communicate with still use morse code. Sure, a ham can
passively decode VOR or other id's. I suppose that is fun for a while.
The only other real world use for morse code is a handful of hams to
communicate with one another. They can't talk to anyone else using
morse code because nobody else uses it to 2 way comms.

D Peter Maus wrote:


So, there you have two significant and relevant, current applications
of Morse Code in the US, alone.

D Peter,

I am going to have to respectfully disagree with you.

For the VOR issue,

a) most (or at least many) pilots do not know the code (this from my
avionics days in the Air National Guard 30 years ago and my current
pilot friends)--and anyway, pilots aren't necessarily hams and thus
would not be directly affected by the current FCC issue.

b) as you say, it's on the chart.

c) they can tell the station by the frequency that they dial in; i.e.,
if they already know enough to dial in the frequency, they already know
the station).

d) many use GPS anyway

As a member of the Board of Directors for three big city repeaters , I
believe it's a real stretch to call a CW repeater ID "significant and
relevant"; I would say it's more like "incidental".

73,
Carter K8VT

P.S. I *like* CW--it's about 80% of my operating.

I guess some people would rather the hobby die than for it to get new members, just so they can point with PRIDE............WE KILLED HAM RADIO! ISN'T THAT GREAT! I feel the written exams are a better way. what if we had to have hams tested in CW, RTTY, Slow scan, PSK, ad. nauseum, before they could get a license. End of my rant.

Carter-K8VT wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote:



So, there you have two significant and relevant, current applications
of Morse Code in the US, alone.


D Peter,

I am going to have to respectfully disagree with you.

For the VOR issue,

a) most (or at least many) pilots do not know the code (this from my
avionics days in the Air National Guard 30 years ago and my current
pilot friends)--and anyway, pilots aren't necessarily hams and thus
would not be directly affected by the current FCC issue.


Points I already made. I didn't say it was a necessity. Or that
it was required or even suggested. But the statement to which I
responded asserted that the code was not in use in any significant
application. That's not true. It's used regularly.



b) as you say, it's on the chart.


It IS on the chart. Knowing the code, however saves a lot of time
and when things are not going well in the cockpit. Especially when
VFR rules do not apply.



c) they can tell the station by the frequency that they dial in; i.e.,
if they already know enough to dial in the frequency, they already know
the station).



Not always true. Especially in very dense areas. Confirmation by
ident of the station is essential.





d) many use GPS anyway



Far fewer than you thinl.




As a member of the Board of Directors for three big city repeaters , I
believe it's a real stretch to call a CW repeater ID "significant and
relevant"; I would say it's more like "incidental".




We may disagree on that, as well.





73,
Carter K8VT

P.S. I *like* CW--it's about 80% of my operating.

Reloader wrote:

I guess some people would rather the hobby die than for it to get new
members, just so they can point with PRIDE............WE KILLED HAM
RADIO! ISN'T THAT GREAT! I feel the written exams are a better way.
what if we had to have hams tested in CW, RTTY, Slow scan, PSK, ad.
nauseum, before they could get a license. End of my rant.

Better to die a quick death than a slow one! Oh my gawd, the hobby will die if
we don't drop CW, oh my gawd!

Damn stupid 'tards who are too lazy and stupid to learn the code, who needs 'em?
The hobby certainly doesn't!

dxAce
Michigan
USA

http://www.iserv.net/~n8kdv/dxpage.htm

-=jd=- wrote:
On Sat 23 Jul 2005 05:10:16p, "John S." wrote in message
ps.com:



D Peter Maus wrote:

{snippage}
You may also be unaware that many V/UHF repeaters also identify by
Morse Code, so while it's not exactly a requirement that an operator
know the code, even non Code required licensees will find that knowing
the code actually facilitates their operations. Especially under unusual
propagation conditions, as we're experiencing now in Northern Illinois,
where VHF signals are skipping in from greater distances than local
repeaters' operating areas would normally fall. In which case, the Morse
identifier permits an operator to know if he's actually hearing the
correct repeater, or if he's actually hearing a repeater skipping in on
anomalous propragation.

Well actually the very long post did make that point. And I'm sure
that being able to decode the designator would be useful. I hope that
is not the sole reason the ARRL has remaining to justify the code test
however.


So what. There are some police comm systems that still send a morse
identifier. I suppose it is entertaining and marginally useful to be
able to decode the id's by oneself, but that's about all.

{snippage}

From my own related personal experience, that automated morse identifier
satisfies the FCC requirement for periodic identification. It's cheap and
reliable and the dispatchers don't have to keep track of ID'ing. Other than
that, I doubt more than 1 out of 200,000 potential listeners would have the
slightest clue what the Beep-Beeps were.

But on the thread topic, I don't have a problem with the morse requirement
to get a certain class of license. As long as I'm not asked to do anything
unreasonable, I don't see any problem. It's not like they are requiring
folks to stand on one hand and juggle two kittens in the other hand while
they take the test...

I have an idea. Instead of just requiring morse code lets modernize
the test and make it truly relevant. Lets give prospective hams a menu
of tests to pick one from: Morse code; Kitten juggling; Controlling a
horse and carriage with a buggywhip; Riding a 5 foot wave on a
longboard; Completing the 5 borough bike ride in NYC. Any one would be
as helpful in identifying prospective hams.

Heaven forbid that the prospective hams would actually be tested in the
safe and courteous operation of radio equipment by requiring them to go
live under a tutor for a couple of hours.



-=jd=-
--
My Current Disposable Email:

(Remove YOUR HAT to reply directly)

I found D Peter Maus's comments very interesting.I took the time to read
every word.
cuhulin

John S.:

I'd rather them make them learn to play the violin. Then at least
they could play us something as they keep up the crying...

John

"John S." wrote in message
oups.com...


-=jd=- wrote:
On Sat 23 Jul 2005 05:10:16p, "John S." wrote in
message
ps.com:



D Peter Maus wrote:

{snippage}
You may also be unaware that many V/UHF repeaters also
identify by
Morse Code, so while it's not exactly a requirement that an
operator
know the code, even non Code required licensees will find that
knowing
the code actually facilitates their operations. Especially under
unusual
propagation conditions, as we're experiencing now in Northern
Illinois,
where VHF signals are skipping in from greater distances than
local
repeaters' operating areas would normally fall. In which case,
the Morse
identifier permits an operator to know if he's actually hearing
the
correct repeater, or if he's actually hearing a repeater
skipping in on
anomalous propragation.

Well actually the very long post did make that point. And I'm sure
that being able to decode the designator would be useful. I hope
that
is not the sole reason the ARRL has remaining to justify the code
test
however.


So what. There are some police comm systems that still send a
morse
identifier. I suppose it is entertaining and marginally useful
to be
able to decode the id's by oneself, but that's about all.

{snippage}

From my own related personal experience, that automated morse
identifier
satisfies the FCC requirement for periodic identification. It's
cheap and
reliable and the dispatchers don't have to keep track of ID'ing.
Other than
that, I doubt more than 1 out of 200,000 potential listeners would
have the
slightest clue what the Beep-Beeps were.

But on the thread topic, I don't have a problem with the morse
requirement
to get a certain class of license. As long as I'm not asked to do
anything
unreasonable, I don't see any problem. It's not like they are
requiring
folks to stand on one hand and juggle two kittens in the other hand
while
they take the test...

I have an idea. Instead of just requiring morse code lets modernize
the test and make it truly relevant. Lets give prospective hams a
menu
of tests to pick one from: Morse code; Kitten juggling; Controlling
a
horse and carriage with a buggywhip; Riding a 5 foot wave on a
longboard; Completing the 5 borough bike ride in NYC. Any one would
be
as helpful in identifying prospective hams.

Heaven forbid that the prospective hams would actually be tested in
the
safe and courteous operation of radio equipment by requiring them to
go
live under a tutor for a couple of hours.



-=jd=-
--
My Current Disposable Email:

(Remove YOUR HAT to reply directly)

"John S." wrote:

-=jd=- wrote:
On Sat 23 Jul 2005 05:10:16p, "John S." wrote in message
ps.com:



D Peter Maus wrote:

{snippage}
You may also be unaware that many V/UHF repeaters also identify by
Morse Code, so while it's not exactly a requirement that an operator
know the code, even non Code required licensees will find that knowing
the code actually facilitates their operations. Especially under unusual
propagation conditions, as we're experiencing now in Northern Illinois,
where VHF signals are skipping in from greater distances than local
repeaters' operating areas would normally fall. In which case, the Morse
identifier permits an operator to know if he's actually hearing the
correct repeater, or if he's actually hearing a repeater skipping in on
anomalous propragation.

Well actually the very long post did make that point. And I'm sure
that being able to decode the designator would be useful. I hope that
is not the sole reason the ARRL has remaining to justify the code test
however.


So what. There are some police comm systems that still send a morse
identifier. I suppose it is entertaining and marginally useful to be
able to decode the id's by oneself, but that's about all.

{snippage}

From my own related personal experience, that automated morse identifier
satisfies the FCC requirement for periodic identification. It's cheap and
reliable and the dispatchers don't have to keep track of ID'ing. Other than
that, I doubt more than 1 out of 200,000 potential listeners would have the
slightest clue what the Beep-Beeps were.

But on the thread topic, I don't have a problem with the morse requirement
to get a certain class of license. As long as I'm not asked to do anything
unreasonable, I don't see any problem. It's not like they are requiring
folks to stand on one hand and juggle two kittens in the other hand while
they take the test...

I have an idea. Instead of just requiring morse code lets modernize
the test and make it truly relevant. Lets give prospective hams a menu
of tests to pick one from: Morse code; Kitten juggling; Controlling a
horse and carriage with a buggywhip; Riding a 5 foot wave on a
longboard; Completing the 5 borough bike ride in NYC. Any one would be
as helpful in identifying prospective hams.

It's always hilarious to see just how ridiculous the no-coders can get. The above
paragraph is a prime example.

Once again, if one can't learn at least 5 WPM then they are either incredibly
lazy, incredibly stupid, or a combination of the two. In which case they have no
business what so ever on ANY of the ham bands.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

http://www.iserv.net/~n8kdv/dxpage.htm

Are you by nature a jerk, or did you have study and pass a test for that, too?

Referring to dxace

Reloader wrote:

Are you by nature a jerk, or did you have study and pass a test for
that, too?

The truth hurts, does it not, 'tard boy?

Run along...

dxAce
Michigan
USA

http://www.iserv.net/~n8kdv/dxpage.htm

dxAce wrote:
Joel Rubin wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 19:33:36 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-05-143A1.doc

John

Code ability should be one alternative among other technical tests.
It seems very odd to freeze a technical test in a museum of bygone
technology.

If one cannot learn at least a minimal 5 WPM code then they have
absolutely no business obtaining an amateur license.

dxAce
Michigan
USA


That's like saying that if you don't know how to do octal math you have no
business using a computer. Where is the logic (no pun intended) ? Most new
amateurs have no interest in cw. If they have the theory down (and the
bucks for the equipment), let 'em join! If they are too stupid, they'll
electrocute themselves anyway.

--
Brian Denley
http://home.comcast.net/~b.denley/index.html

Reloader wrote:

Are you by nature a jerk, or did you have study and pass a test for
that, too?


Funny you should ask. I thought it was perfectly obvious. He needs no test as he
got in under the 'grandfather' provisions of the Asinine Association.

He's very repetitious. 'LMFAO' and 'tard come to mind. It's all he knows, poor
soul. That and collecting insurance settlements.




mike

m II wrote:

Reloader wrote:

Are you by nature a jerk, or did you have study and pass a test for
that, too?

Funny you should ask. I thought it was perfectly obvious. He needs no test as he
got in under the 'grandfather' provisions of the Asinine Association.

He's very repetitious. 'LMFAO' and 'tard come to mind. It's all he knows, poor
soul. That and collecting insurance settlements.

LMFAO at the stupid Canuck.

Keep trying, 'tard boy!

dxAce
Michigan
USA

http://www.iserv.net/~n8kdv/dxpage.htm

Reloader wrote:
Are you by nature a jerk, or did you have study and pass a test for
that, too?


--
Reloader

DXace has three pat responses he has programmed into pf-keys. He
doesn't have to think, but just push the keys and the usual LMFAO and
TARD and CANADUH spew forth. Thus his ability to respond to a large
number of messages in a seemingly short amount of time.

"John S." wrote:

Reloader wrote:
Are you by nature a jerk, or did you have study and pass a test for
that, too?


--
Reloader

DXace has three pat responses he has programmed into pf-keys. He
doesn't have to think, but just push the keys and the usual LMFAO and
TARD and CANADUH spew forth. Thus his ability to respond to a large
number of messages in a seemingly short amount of time.

Amazing, isn't it, 'tard boy?

Keep trying!

dxAce
Michigan
USA

http://www.iserv.net/~n8kdv/dxpage.htm

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
Oh really, funny? Well, yah, funny the cobol'ers/fortran'ers don't
get a clue...

Stating that assembly and C++ are cutting edge is funny.

"Mark S. Holden" wrote in message
...
beerbarrel wrote:


I took a course in COBOL in college and also C++. C++ was by far more
difficult to pick up. COBOL was just too wordy for me. I hated writing
term papers and that is kinda what in reminded me of.

Never took a course in cobol, but used to help students debug their code
at the computer center. Wordy is an understatement.

It seemed they needed about a page of code to get the title up.

At the time, I liked fortran. But it's been years since I had time to
write my own software.

Yes fortran was/is very powerful. Was very easy to bring a high-end
mainframe to its knees with a few lines of code.

dxAce wrote:

Amazing, isn't it, 'tard boy?


I'm starting to understand why your parents moved without telling you where.
What the hell made you the sick and twisted creature you've become? I understand
the later stages of syphilis have the same effects as your symptoms.




mike

dxAce wrote:

Yet again another old and worn out 'tard boy comment!



That one broke irony meters around the world, Bozo...







mike

dxAce wrote:

LOL... Argue all you wish, the fact still remains that ANYONE who cannot at
least learn 5 WPM is either too stupid or too lazy to do so!


Not so. All evidence is against it. You are both, yet seemed to have learned it,
Bozo.

...mind you, being unemployable for as long as you have been, you've had a
LOOOONG time to master it.








mike

running dogg wrote:

I figure that the A+ Certified computer technicians at my vocational
school (whose ranks I hope to join by early next year) know more about
electronics theory and construction than the average appliance operator
ham.


It doesn't look that way on: news:alt.certification.a-plus where I
was told by a regular there that he had worked on computer for 42 years,
and that electrolytic capacitors just don't go bad on motherboards.
Most of the people trying to pass the different a+ tests just memorize
several sets of practice questions and hope to squeak by without really
knowing what they are doing. A good computer tech should have at least
one full year of basic electronics education, along with a year of hands
on electronics troubleshooting before preparing for the A+ tests. Its
hard not to laugh at the low level of skills shown by most of the people
on that group where reformatting the hard drive is considered a
troubleshooting step. I have repaired computers for 22 years. When I
started, you had to use a scope and have good soldering skills to find
and replace the bad chips. I still troubleshoot most motherboards
before I replace them. If it isn't a bad custom chip, I just repair the
board and put it back in service. A+ doesn't guarantee that a tech can
find a bad board on the first try, let alone make effective repairs in a
reasonable amount of time. I tried to explain logical troubleshooting to
one of them and was told it was too much trouble to do things that way.
He would rather stumble through each problem blindly than learn to
follow a set method to let him fix more computers and make more money.
That's OK with me. If I ever get well enough to go back to work I am
going to open a computer store and do things my way. Let him starve if
he wants to.

It seems to me that a lot of hams are old farts who were educated
on tube equipment-all this modern stuff, including microprocessors,
might as well be Chinese to them. I like the idea somebody had of an
over the air test, graded by a panel of judges situated around the
country. Of course, with today's appliance equipment one just has to
plug it in and hook it up. I'd like to see some stuff on electrical
engineering (basic theory and application) and maybe a hands on portion
where the prospective ham builds and operates a simple rig. That would
eliminate the "appliance operator syndrome". Of course, all this would
require a lot more commitment on the part of the FCC than just a written
test where the published answers can be memorized, but the FCC has shown
that they don't give a flying **** about amateur radio. Like the rest of
government, they're in business to give maximum profit to a favored few
(the NAB, in this case) and extract maximum taxes (fines) out of the
rest of us. All the FCC cares about is AM/FM broadcast radio (thus the
hefty fines handed out to FM pirates while SW pirates operate with
impunity for years) and TV. The FCC doesn't control cable or satellites,
which have been and are taking market share away from on air operators,
so the FCC is focusing on what it has control over. But SW? Forget it.
WWCR operates in the tropical bands, WWRB operates out of band, and the
FCC does nothing (and did I mention the pirates?). There's no profit in
SW, no NAB for SW, so the FCC ignores it.


If you don't think CATV operators have to answer to the FCC you know
nothing about the business. They also have to comply with FAA and EPA
regulations and inspections. CATV operates as a closed system over
public service and aircraft frequencies, so any system damage that
causes radiation in those bands must be repaired quickly, or the system
operator gets a stiff fine. Accidentally carry a sporting event that is
blanked in your area, and watch the fines roll in. Pole attachment fees
and right of way fees are governed by FCC rules.

--
?

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

"John S." wrote:

Oh yeah, somebody has to keep those old legacy systems running. The
ones that do the job so well because they are simple for end users.


Mostly mainframe applications. I know one programmer who was retired
who was asked to come back to work to do software maintenance for a
large corporation because they couldn't find anyone with the skills
needed.

--
?

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida