|
FCC proposes to drop CW requirement on HF
|
|
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. |
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 |
"beerbarrel" wrote in message ... On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 07:31:02 -0400, 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 Agreed! Wazziss??? I'm in full agreement with Tracy and Steve on something.. *looks around for the four horsemen of the apocolypse* :) |
"Brenda Ann" wrote in message ... "beerbarrel" wrote in message ... On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 07:31:02 -0400, 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 Agreed! Wazziss??? I'm in full agreement with Tracy and Steve on something.. *looks around for the four horsemen of the apocolypse* :) It would be more of an incentive for me to get my ticket if I could use HF. I have ZERO interest in CW. Maybe open a little HF for techs? |
"MnMikew" wrote:
"Brenda Ann" wrote in message ... "beerbarrel" wrote in message ... On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 07:31:02 -0400, 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 Agreed! Wazziss??? I'm in full agreement with Tracy and Steve on something.. *looks around for the four horsemen of the apocolypse* :) It would be more of an incentive for me to get my ticket if I could use HF. I have ZERO interest in CW. Maybe open a little HF for techs? Many of us had ZERO interest in CW. And it wasn't easy for us either. Learn just enough to pass and never use it again. There should be no free lunch. |
wrote in message ... "MnMikew" wrote: "Brenda Ann" wrote in message ... "beerbarrel" wrote in message ... On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 07:31:02 -0400, 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 Agreed! Wazziss??? I'm in full agreement with Tracy and Steve on something.. *looks around for the four horsemen of the apocolypse* :) It would be more of an incentive for me to get my ticket if I could use HF. I have ZERO interest in CW. Maybe open a little HF for techs? Many of us had ZERO interest in CW. And it wasn't easy for us either. Learn just enough to pass and never use it again. There should be no free lunch. Yes, perhaps. But the CW requirement probably keeps a lot of people out of ham radio. |
MnMikew wrote: wrote in message ... "MnMikew" wrote: "Brenda Ann" wrote in message ... "beerbarrel" wrote in message ... On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 07:31:02 -0400, 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 Agreed! Wazziss??? I'm in full agreement with Tracy and Steve on something.. *looks around for the four horsemen of the apocolypse* :) It would be more of an incentive for me to get my ticket if I could use HF. I have ZERO interest in CW. Maybe open a little HF for techs? Many of us had ZERO interest in CW. And it wasn't easy for us either. Learn just enough to pass and never use it again. There should be no free lunch. Yes, perhaps. But the CW requirement probably keeps a lot of people out of ham radio. The written test probably does as well. Should that also be dropped. If one can't learn even a minimum 5 WPM then they have no business in amateur radio. 5 WPM is incredibly easy, heck, even the 'tards should be able to master that. dxAce Michigan USA |
MnMikew:
Interesting theory. We could propose a test to see if what you say is true. Say, require a person to do 5 WPM before they can use usenet, IRC or IM clients? ROFLOL! Perhaps we would find it is actually a "good thing." Next we could require a person be able to rollerskate 5 miles over rough pavement before we allow them a drivers license? I mean, what if traffic is too heavy or their car breaks down--it will be useful! grin John "MnMikew" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... "MnMikew" wrote: "Brenda Ann" wrote in message ... "beerbarrel" wrote in message ... On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 07:31:02 -0400, 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 Agreed! Wazziss??? I'm in full agreement with Tracy and Steve on something.. *looks around for the four horsemen of the apocolypse* :) It would be more of an incentive for me to get my ticket if I could use HF. I have ZERO interest in CW. Maybe open a little HF for techs? Many of us had ZERO interest in CW. And it wasn't easy for us either. Learn just enough to pass and never use it again. There should be no free lunch. Yes, perhaps. But the CW requirement probably keeps a lot of people out of ham radio. |
beerbarrel wrote: On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 12:21:35 -0400, dxAce wrote: The written test probably does as well. Should that also be dropped. If one can't learn even a minimum 5 WPM then they have no business in amateur radio. 5 WPM is incredibly easy, heck, even the 'tards should be able to master that. dxAce Michigan USA CW is not going to go away just because they drop the requirement. Like Steve says, It's not that hard. Most anyone can learn 5 wpm in as little as a month or less. I think that something worth having is worth earning. As I recall it took me about a month or so back in '69 to learn 5 WPM. Got my first ticket back in 1970. dxAce Michigan USA |
John S. wrote:
Yes, or require that prospective drivers be proficient in the use of a buggy whip in addition to passing a written and practical driving test. If they are going to drive a buggy, it might be a good idea. |
"beerbarrel" wrote in message ... On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 12:21:35 -0400, dxAce wrote: The written test probably does as well. Should that also be dropped. If one can't learn even a minimum 5 WPM then they have no business in amateur radio. 5 WPM is incredibly easy, heck, even the 'tards should be able to master that. dxAce Michigan USA CW is not going to go away just because they drop the requirement. Like Steve says, It's not that hard. Most anyone can learn 5 wpm in as little as a month or less. I think that something worth having is worth earning. I say give techs a piece of HF and if they like HF, they can take the test to get access to the rest of it. I'm half-heartedly studying for the tech test and only really have interest in 2m right now. |
I couldn't agree more with dropping CW from the ham test.
It reminds me of the legal profession here in South Africa. It used to be a requirement that lawyers had to pass Latin in high school and have at least two courses in Latin for their law degree. That was scrapped about ten years ago amid loud protests from the dinosaurs. Today the law profession is flourishing more than ever before with high quality judges and advocates. The only thing I have noticed is that the high and mighty no longer spew out Latin quotations = R.I.P. Our SARL (South African Radio League) ham club is diminishing by the year and the once crowded ham bands are now empty. We need to make it easier for new entrants to come into this wonderful hobby. -- John Plimmer, Montagu, Western Cape Province, South Africa South 33 d 47 m 32 s, East 20 d 07 m 32 s RX Icom IC-756 PRO III with MW mods Drake SW8 & ERGO software Sony 7600D GE SRIII BW XCR 30, Braun T1000, Sangean 818 & 803A. Hallicrafters SX-100, Eddystone 940 GE circa 50's radiogram Antenna's RF Systems DX 1 Pro, Datong AD-270 Kiwa MW Loop http://www.dxing.info/about/dxers/plimmer.dx "John Smith" wrote in message ... MnMikew: Interesting theory. We could propose a test to see if what you say is true. Say, require a person to do 5 WPM before they can use usenet, IRC or IM clients? ROFLOL! Perhaps we would find it is actually a "good thing." Next we could require a person be able to rollerskate 5 miles over rough pavement before we allow them a drivers license? I mean, what if traffic is too heavy or their car breaks down--it will be useful! grin John |
John Smith wrote: MnMikew: Interesting theory. We could propose a test to see if what you say is true. Say, require a person to do 5 WPM before they can use usenet, IRC or IM clients? ROFLOL! Perhaps we would find it is actually a "good thing." Next we could require a person be able to rollerskate 5 miles over rough pavement before we allow them a drivers license? I mean, what if traffic is too heavy or their car breaks down--it will be useful! grin John Yes, or require that prospective drivers be proficient in the use of a buggy whip in addition to passing a written and practical driving test. |
"John S." wrote: John Smith wrote: MnMikew: Interesting theory. We could propose a test to see if what you say is true. Say, require a person to do 5 WPM before they can use usenet, IRC or IM clients? ROFLOL! Perhaps we would find it is actually a "good thing." Next we could require a person be able to rollerskate 5 miles over rough pavement before we allow them a drivers license? I mean, what if traffic is too heavy or their car breaks down--it will be useful! grin John Yes, or require that prospective drivers be proficient in the use of a buggy whip in addition to passing a written and practical driving test. Typical old and tired 'tard boy comment! Keep trying! dxAce Michigan USA Code proficient! |
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 12:41:48 UTC, beerbarrel
wrote: On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 07:31:02 -0400, 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 Agreed! Then you should also learn how to ride a horse in order to deliver the mail on time. -- "What do you mean there's no movie?" |
Yeah. The logic escaped a lot of people the first time. We keep
hoping that in the repeating some common sense will sink into the conceptually challenged minds out there. Hasn't happened yet... John "dxAce" wrote in message ... "John S." wrote: John Smith wrote: MnMikew: Interesting theory. We could propose a test to see if what you say is true. Say, require a person to do 5 WPM before they can use usenet, IRC or IM clients? ROFLOL! Perhaps we would find it is actually a "good thing." Next we could require a person be able to rollerskate 5 miles over rough pavement before we allow them a drivers license? I mean, what if traffic is too heavy or their car breaks down--it will be useful! grin John Yes, or require that prospective drivers be proficient in the use of a buggy whip in addition to passing a written and practical driving test. Typical old and tired 'tard boy comment! Keep trying! dxAce Michigan USA Code proficient! |
Count Floyd wrote: On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 12:41:48 UTC, beerbarrel wrote: On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 07:31:02 -0400, 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 Agreed! Then you should also learn how to ride a horse in order to deliver the mail on time. Yet again another old and worn out 'tard boy comment! Keep trying! dxAce Michigan USA |
John Plimmer wrote: I couldn't agree more with dropping CW from the ham test. It reminds me of the legal profession here in South Africa. It used to be a requirement that lawyers had to pass Latin in high school and have at least two courses in Latin for their law degree. That was scrapped about ten years ago amid loud protests from the dinosaurs. Today the law profession is flourishing more than ever before with high quality judges and advocates. The only thing I have noticed is that the high and mighty no longer spew out Latin quotations = R.I.P. Our SARL (South African Radio League) ham club is diminishing by the year and the once crowded ham bands are now empty. We need to make it easier for new entrants to come into this wonderful hobby. Why does everything need to be made easier? Can't the 'tards learn the code? If so, WHY can't the 'tards learn the code? If ordinary folks could pass the test in years past what is so different today? Laziness? dxAce Michigan USA |
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 17:02:22 UTC, beerbarrel
wrote: On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 12:21:35 -0400, dxAce wrote: The written test probably does as well. Should that also be dropped. If one can't learn even a minimum 5 WPM then they have no business in amateur radio. 5 WPM is incredibly easy, heck, even the 'tards should be able to master that. dxAce Michigan USA CW is not going to go away just because they drop the requirement. Like Steve says, It's not that hard. Most anyone can learn 5 wpm in as little as a month or less. I think that something worth having is worth earning. That might have been true in Samuel F.B.Morse's time. Get real, code is an archaic leftover from the "old days" and has been used merely as a "stumbling block" to keep the hobby a closed society. In fact, radio itself seems to be going the way of the dodo bird, what with satellite, internet, etc. Code is about as useful as C.W. McCall' song about CB radio back in the 70's. I am not sitting at a key, wearing gaiters on my sleeves, a green visor and tapping out code over the air while the ship hits an iceberg. Come into the 21st century for Christ's sake. Should everybody go back to spark controls on an automobile? Attic fans and no A/C? McGuffey's Reader? Face it, people, technology and now rules, have to move on. Of course, I drive a 1940 Chrysler, so what do I know! -- "What do you mean there's no movie?" |
beerbarrel wrote: On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 14:39:12 -0400, dxAce wrote: John Plimmer wrote: I couldn't agree more with dropping CW from the ham test. It reminds me of the legal profession here in South Africa. It used to be a requirement that lawyers had to pass Latin in high school and have at least two courses in Latin for their law degree. That was scrapped about ten years ago amid loud protests from the dinosaurs. Today the law profession is flourishing more than ever before with high quality judges and advocates. The only thing I have noticed is that the high and mighty no longer spew out Latin quotations = R.I.P. Our SARL (South African Radio League) ham club is diminishing by the year and the once crowded ham bands are now empty. We need to make it easier for new entrants to come into this wonderful hobby. Why does everything need to be made easier? Can't the 'tards learn the code? If so, WHY can't the 'tards learn the code? If ordinary folks could pass the test in years past what is so different today? Laziness? dxAce Michigan USA BINGO! It seems everybody wants something for nothing these days. Not everybody... just lazy 'tards. dxAce Michigan USA Code proficient |
Count Floyd wrote:
That might have been true in Samuel F.B.Morse's time. Get real, code is an archaic leftover from the "old days" and has been used merely as a "stumbling block" to keep the hobby a closed society. In fact, radio itself seems to be going the way of the dodo bird, what with satellite, internet, etc. Code is about as useful as C.W. McCall' song about CB radio back in the 70's. I am not sitting at a key, wearing gaiters on my sleeves, a green visor and tapping out code over the air while the ship hits an iceberg. Come into the 21st century for Christ's sake. Should everybody go back to spark controls on an automobile? Attic fans and no A/C? McGuffey's Reader? Face it, people, technology and now rules, have to move on. Of course, I drive a 1940 Chrysler, so what do I know! McGuffey's Reader is still in publication, and folks who do home schooling claim they're better than recent textbooks for teaching the basics. But I'll agree with you on the code. |
All that can be taken care of with new bandwidth allocations. All we
do is benefit from is finally getting some new and interesting minds to communicate with. Chatting with ancients farts gets old quickly... John "beerbarrel" wrote in message ... On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 12:51:10 -0500, "MnMikew" wrote: "beerbarrel" wrote in message . .. On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 12:21:35 -0400, dxAce wrote: The written test probably does as well. Should that also be dropped. If one can't learn even a minimum 5 WPM then they have no business in amateur radio. 5 WPM is incredibly easy, heck, even the 'tards should be able to master that. dxAce Michigan USA CW is not going to go away just because they drop the requirement. Like Steve says, It's not that hard. Most anyone can learn 5 wpm in as little as a month or less. I think that something worth having is worth earning. I say give techs a piece of HF and if they like HF, they can take the test to get access to the rest of it. I'm half-heartedly studying for the tech test and only really have interest in 2m right now. I guess I would never agree to that because I worked to pass the test. It's just like the older guys doing 18 wpm. They don't see 5 wpm as a test. If they gave Tech's a small piece of the HF band can you imagine the crowd on that band? I think that you would wind up hating HF because you would be fighting pile ups all the time. Bottom line, I think that it would make you feel better to earn it rather than have it given to you. It makes you appreciate it more. It's not going to help at all to cut CW. It won't bring more folks into ham radio. It will only serve to create more traffic on the HF bands. As far as 2m goes, It's great for a little while, but it gets boring pretty quick. HF is they way to go. You will see. |
beerbarrel wrote: On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 13:29:37 -0400, Cmdr Buzz Corey wrote: John S. wrote: Yes, or require that prospective drivers be proficient in the use of a buggy whip in addition to passing a written and practical driving test. If they are going to drive a buggy, it might be a good idea. Maybe we should just drop the driving test altogether...well start with your kids. And that's the point. The written and practical drivers test is a measure of whether a prospective driver knows something about the law and theory of driving and has some proficiency in the operation of a motor vehicle. The written amateur test proves that the owner has some knowlege of the theory of radio construction and operation. The morse code test only tests the ability to translate a language for which there is no practical use. It does not shed any light on the ability if the prospective ham to operate a ham radio in a safe and courteous manner. A live on-the-air test of a prospective ham setting up a rig and using voice or one of the digital modes would prove something about his competence as a radio operator. Copying morse code proves nothing. |
On that logic, we should all use sign language. It is silent and
doesn't disturb anyone. John "beerbarrel" wrote in message ... On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 13:40:38 -0500, "Count Floyd" wrote: On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 17:02:22 UTC, beerbarrel wrote: On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 12:21:35 -0400, dxAce wrote: The written test probably does as well. Should that also be dropped. If one can't learn even a minimum 5 WPM then they have no business in amateur radio. 5 WPM is incredibly easy, heck, even the 'tards should be able to master that. dxAce Michigan USA CW is not going to go away just because they drop the requirement. Like Steve says, It's not that hard. Most anyone can learn 5 wpm in as little as a month or less. I think that something worth having is worth earning. That might have been true in Samuel F.B.Morse's time. Get real, code is an archaic leftover from the "old days" and has been used merely as a "stumbling block" to keep the hobby a closed society. In fact, radio itself seems to be going the way of the dodo bird, what with satellite, internet, etc. Code is about as useful as C.W. McCall' song about CB radio back in the 70's. I am not sitting at a key, wearing gaiters on my sleeves, a green visor and tapping out code over the air while the ship hits an iceberg. Come into the 21st century for Christ's sake. Should everybody go back to spark controls on an automobile? Attic fans and no A/C? McGuffey's Reader? Face it, people, technology and now rules, have to move on. Of course, I drive a 1940 Chrysler, so what do I know! CW is efficient because you only have to understand the signal pattern and not the signal audio. The narrow signal also takes up little bandwidth. Not only does this make CW very efficient but also the most reliable form of communication for a person to use. |
"John S." wrote: beerbarrel wrote: On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 13:29:37 -0400, Cmdr Buzz Corey wrote: John S. wrote: Yes, or require that prospective drivers be proficient in the use of a buggy whip in addition to passing a written and practical driving test. If they are going to drive a buggy, it might be a good idea. Maybe we should just drop the driving test altogether...well start with your kids. And that's the point. The written and practical drivers test is a measure of whether a prospective driver knows something about the law and theory of driving and has some proficiency in the operation of a motor vehicle. The written amateur test proves that the owner has some knowlege of the theory of radio construction and operation. The morse code test only tests the ability to translate a language for which there is no practical use. It does not shed any light on the ability if the prospective ham to operate a ham radio in a safe and courteous manner. A live on-the-air test of a prospective ham setting up a rig and using voice or one of the digital modes would prove something about his competence as a radio operator. Copying morse code proves nothing. Sure it does you stupid 'tard... it proves one can do it! I take it that perhaps YOU can't. Keep trying! dxAce Michigan USA Code proficient. |
From the posts which follow this one of yours, it is plain these
fellows last interest is in really getting a lot of people on the bands to communicate with. Indeed, for some strange reason the think themselves "special", just like those latin chanting lawyers you pointed out. In all truth, these guys should have their radios taken away, all they are coming up with is ways to hamper the hobby! John "John Plimmer" wrote in message ... I couldn't agree more with dropping CW from the ham test. It reminds me of the legal profession here in South Africa. It used to be a requirement that lawyers had to pass Latin in high school and have at least two courses in Latin for their law degree. That was scrapped about ten years ago amid loud protests from the dinosaurs. Today the law profession is flourishing more than ever before with high quality judges and advocates. The only thing I have noticed is that the high and mighty no longer spew out Latin quotations = R.I.P. Our SARL (South African Radio League) ham club is diminishing by the year and the once crowded ham bands are now empty. We need to make it easier for new entrants to come into this wonderful hobby. -- John Plimmer, Montagu, Western Cape Province, South Africa South 33 d 47 m 32 s, East 20 d 07 m 32 s RX Icom IC-756 PRO III with MW mods Drake SW8 & ERGO software Sony 7600D GE SRIII BW XCR 30, Braun T1000, Sangean 818 & 803A. Hallicrafters SX-100, Eddystone 940 GE circa 50's radiogram Antenna's RF Systems DX 1 Pro, Datong AD-270 Kiwa MW Loop http://www.dxing.info/about/dxers/plimmer.dx "John Smith" wrote in message ... MnMikew: Interesting theory. We could propose a test to see if what you say is true. Say, require a person to do 5 WPM before they can use usenet, IRC or IM clients? ROFLOL! Perhaps we would find it is actually a "good thing." Next we could require a person be able to rollerskate 5 miles over rough pavement before we allow them a drivers license? I mean, what if traffic is too heavy or their car breaks down--it will be useful! grin John |
I don't think they are going to be driving a buggy, nor using CW!
ROFLOL!!! John "John S." wrote in message oups.com... John Smith wrote: MnMikew: Interesting theory. We could propose a test to see if what you say is true. Say, require a person to do 5 WPM before they can use usenet, IRC or IM clients? ROFLOL! Perhaps we would find it is actually a "good thing." Next we could require a person be able to rollerskate 5 miles over rough pavement before we allow them a drivers license? I mean, what if traffic is too heavy or their car breaks down--it will be useful! grin John Yes, or require that prospective drivers be proficient in the use of a buggy whip in addition to passing a written and practical driving test. |
dxAce wrote:
If one can't learn even a minimum 5 WPM then they have no business in amateur radio. Could you please explain why you say that. To state the obvious, CW is just one of *many* modes available to hams; moon bounce, meteor scatter, lots of digital modes (PSK, MFSK, RTTY, Hellschrieber and probably a few I missed), slow scan TV, fast scan TV, APRS and on and on. CW-just another mode. Why test for it and not test for, say, moon bounce? You probably missed it, but a while ago the FCC said CW was required in the old days when CW was primarily used for marine safety-they didn't want hams to be transmitting over distress calls. That was it. Period. As you are well aware, CW for maritime applications is virtually dead. Before you think I am a whining, sniveling "no coder", I am a 20 wpm Extra who operates 20% digi modes and 80% CW, fairly comfortable at 25-30 wpm. And puh-leze, don't even think about trotting out the old saw that "I had to learn the code so the new guys should too". That's akin to saying everyone should hand crank the engine on their car rather than using those new fangled $#@*^! electric starters. 73, Carter K8VT |
beerbarrel wrote: On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 13:33:52 -0500, "Count Floyd" wrote: On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 12:41:48 UTC, beerbarrel wrote: On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 07:31:02 -0400, 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 Agreed! Then you should also learn how to ride a horse in order to deliver the mail on time. That's apples to oranges....Cw is the most efficient form of communication in ham radio... But it is used by nobody other than a small handfull of hams talking to one another. |
Count:
Give up, these guys are beyond grasping the concept, they cannot or will not even attempt to realize what fools they look, amazing but proven true by their own words... John "Count Floyd" wrote in message news:uPwrWwC05r1j-pn2-8dG301gWvHdw@localhost... On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 12:41:48 UTC, beerbarrel wrote: On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 07:31:02 -0400, 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 Agreed! Then you should also learn how to ride a horse in order to deliver the mail on time. -- "What do you mean there's no movie?" |
beerbarrel wrote: On 21 Jul 2005 11:58:58 -0700, "John S." wrote: beerbarrel wrote: On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 13:29:37 -0400, Cmdr Buzz Corey wrote: John S. wrote: Yes, or require that prospective drivers be proficient in the use of a buggy whip in addition to passing a written and practical driving test. If they are going to drive a buggy, it might be a good idea. Maybe we should just drop the driving test altogether...well start with your kids. And that's the point. The written and practical drivers test is a measure of whether a prospective driver knows something about the law and theory of driving and has some proficiency in the operation of a motor vehicle. The written amateur test proves that the owner has some knowlege of the theory of radio construction and operation. The morse code test only tests the ability to translate a language for which there is no practical use. It does not shed any light on the ability if the prospective ham to operate a ham radio in a safe and courteous manner. A live on-the-air test of a prospective ham setting up a rig and using voice or one of the digital modes would prove something about his competence as a radio operator. Copying morse code proves nothing. It proves that you have basic working knowledge of a very efficient form of communication that is used for emergency communications today and tomorrow. It runs circles around audio communication and can be much more effective. Under certain conditions, having the ability to copy morse can can mean the difference between like and death. Morse code is not used in communications of any consequence in the western world. Try communicating in morse code to FEMA, the Hurricane Hunters, local police, fire or medical workers and see how far you get. Nobody will be listening. |
Carter-K8VT wrote: dxAce wrote: If one can't learn even a minimum 5 WPM then they have no business in amateur radio. Could you please explain why you say that. Because it's so EASY, that's why 'tard boy... and I don't really give a rats ass whether or not you're a 20 WPM man anyway. Point is, if some dumbass 'tard isn't smart enough to learn at least 5 WPM of code then he or she has no damn business being in amateur radio. Get the point dumb****? Keep on trying to dumb things down... we got your number. dxAce Michigan USA |
"John S." wrote: beerbarrel wrote: On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 13:33:52 -0500, "Count Floyd" wrote: On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 12:41:48 UTC, beerbarrel wrote: On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 07:31:02 -0400, 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 Agreed! Then you should also learn how to ride a horse in order to deliver the mail on time. That's apples to oranges....Cw is the most efficient form of communication in ham radio... But it is used by nobody other than a small handfull of hams talking to one another. So what? What kind of excuse is that? Are you to stupid to learn it? It's OK if you are, just go ahead and admit it rather than trying to drag everyone and everything down to your lazy 'tard boy level. dxAce Michigan USA |
beerbarrel wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 13:33:52 -0500, "Count Floyd" wrote: On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 12:41:48 UTC, beerbarrel wrote: On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 07:31:02 -0400, 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 Agreed! Then you should also learn how to ride a horse in order to deliver the mail on time. That's apples to oranges....Cw is the most efficient form of communication in ham radio... That's a truth not limited to ham radio...pilots have known that VOR stations identify in Morse coded since the beginning of VOR. As did/do ADF stations before them. Charts are marked with frequency, station indentifier, and the Morse equivalent. Knowing the code saves a lot of time and helps reduce confusion when navigating by radio. |
beerbarrel wrote: On 21 Jul 2005 11:58:58 -0700, "John S." wrote: beerbarrel wrote: On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 13:29:37 -0400, Cmdr Buzz Corey wrote: John S. wrote: Yes, or require that prospective drivers be proficient in the use of a buggy whip in addition to passing a written and practical driving test. If they are going to drive a buggy, it might be a good idea. Maybe we should just drop the driving test altogether...well start with your kids. And that's the point. The written and practical drivers test is a measure of whether a prospective driver knows something about the law and theory of driving and has some proficiency in the operation of a motor vehicle. The written amateur test proves that the owner has some knowlege of the theory of radio construction and operation. The morse code test only tests the ability to translate a language for which there is no practical use. It does not shed any light on the ability if the prospective ham to operate a ham radio in a safe and courteous manner. A live on-the-air test of a prospective ham setting up a rig and using voice or one of the digital modes would prove something about his competence as a radio operator. Copying morse code proves nothing. break It proves that you have basic working knowledge of a very efficient form of communication that is used for emergency communications today and tomorrow. It runs circles around audio communication and can be much more effective. Under certain conditions, having the ability to copy morse can can mean the difference between like and death. name one? |
Frankly, I don't give a rats behind about CW ability. Unless someone
is interesting to chat with, they can go take a leap. CW masks the voice, speech inflections, emotion in the speech, etc, etc... CW is for anti-social ma'roons, phone is for the educated to have a real exchange of ideas over... Video is good too, but only if it is a lady ham and she is wearing a thong! grin John "dxAce" wrote in message ... Carter-K8VT wrote: dxAce wrote: If one can't learn even a minimum 5 WPM then they have no business in amateur radio. Could you please explain why you say that. Because it's so EASY, that's why 'tard boy... and I don't really give a rats ass whether or not you're a 20 WPM man anyway. Point is, if some dumbass 'tard isn't smart enough to learn at least 5 WPM of code then he or she has no damn business being in amateur radio. Get the point dumb****? Keep on trying to dumb things down... we got your number. dxAce Michigan USA |
John S.:
You will learn, logic will get you no where here, these guys simply have a "religious bent" for CW, if feeds their ego in some weird way I cannot fathom and makes 'em feel "special." Give up, the sum of their combined ignorance is much larger than the pool of logic which available... John "John S." wrote in message oups.com... beerbarrel wrote: On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 13:29:37 -0400, Cmdr Buzz Corey wrote: John S. wrote: Yes, or require that prospective drivers be proficient in the use of a buggy whip in addition to passing a written and practical driving test. If they are going to drive a buggy, it might be a good idea. Maybe we should just drop the driving test altogether...well start with your kids. And that's the point. The written and practical drivers test is a measure of whether a prospective driver knows something about the law and theory of driving and has some proficiency in the operation of a motor vehicle. The written amateur test proves that the owner has some knowlege of the theory of radio construction and operation. The morse code test only tests the ability to translate a language for which there is no practical use. It does not shed any light on the ability if the prospective ham to operate a ham radio in a safe and courteous manner. A live on-the-air test of a prospective ham setting up a rig and using voice or one of the digital modes would prove something about his competence as a radio operator. Copying morse code proves nothing. |
beerbarrel wrote: On 21 Jul 2005 12:08:56 -0700, "John S." wrote: beerbarrel wrote: On 21 Jul 2005 11:58:58 -0700, "John S." wrote: beerbarrel wrote: On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 13:29:37 -0400, Cmdr Buzz Corey wrote: John S. wrote: Yes, or require that prospective drivers be proficient in the use of a buggy whip in addition to passing a written and practical driving test. If they are going to drive a buggy, it might be a good idea. Maybe we should just drop the driving test altogether...well start with your kids. And that's the point. The written and practical drivers test is a measure of whether a prospective driver knows something about the law and theory of driving and has some proficiency in the operation of a motor vehicle. The written amateur test proves that the owner has some knowlege of the theory of radio construction and operation. The morse code test only tests the ability to translate a language for which there is no practical use. It does not shed any light on the ability if the prospective ham to operate a ham radio in a safe and courteous manner. A live on-the-air test of a prospective ham setting up a rig and using voice or one of the digital modes would prove something about his competence as a radio operator. Copying morse code proves nothing. It proves that you have basic working knowledge of a very efficient form of communication that is used for emergency communications today and tomorrow. It runs circles around audio communication and can be much more effective. Under certain conditions, having the ability to copy morse can can mean the difference between like and death. Morse code is not used in communications of any consequence in the western world. Try communicating in morse code to FEMA, the Hurricane Hunters, local police, fire or medical workers and see how far you get. Nobody will be listening. Let's hope I never have to find out, but I'd much rather be safe than sorry. Btw, do a little band surfing through the cw bands sometime and see how many signals you get then compare it the other bands. Cw signals will be there when audio is long gone. At least I will know where to go when I want to hide from the Ham radio wannabes....head to the CW areas and get out of the new CB areas. But surfing through the bands and finding cw only proves one thing: That there is a small band of hams that still enjoy an early form of semi-digital communications. None of the people that do the searching, rescuing, faghting wars, etc., use morse code. It was THE way to communicate under difficult conditions, but no more. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:37 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com