Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
Slow Code
Or just lazy people out?
Sc
kb9r...@hotmail.com
hell yes it is
Allan9
I learned code in 1956 and haven't had to use it yet.
Al
"Slow Code" <my....@no.spam> wrote in message
news:r71Ng.10413$xQ1....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
Allan9 wrote:
> Off the wall comment.
> I learned code in 1956 and haven't had to use it yet.
> Al
I learned in 30 years later. Used it 1.5 times. Not worth the effort.
kb9r...@hotmail.com
and makes the ARS look realy stpupid to most outsiders
captain...@hotmail.com
> and makes the ARS look realy stpupid to most outsiders
Not nearly as stupid as most of the postings of the Inferior Five on
rrap.
You know who I'm referring to.
Ma...@kb9rqz.com
>kb9r...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> and makes the ARS look realy stpupid to most outsiders
>
>Not nearly as stupid as most of the postings of the Inferior Five on
>rrap.
nothing ends the interest of people faster than the ideaof a Morse
tests even those interested in the mode tend to be turned off by the
test
>
>You know who I'm referring to.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Warning: Do not use Ultimate-Anonymity
They are worthless spammers that are running a scam.
Denny
barrier to be overcome by the motivated... If it weren't for such
barriers we would all have certificates as neurosurgeons...
If the feds want to drop CW, fine by me... If you want to discuss it
look for me on the bottom end of 160 and 80...
denny / k8do
Slow Code
news:4504a838$0$6939$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
> Off the wall comment.
> I learned code in 1956 and haven't had to use it yet.
> Al
>
You probably don't remember your callsign either, or do you prefer using a CB
handle?
SC
Ma...@kb9rqz.com
you use your handle code not your name or call
>
>SC
kd5sak
"Slow Code" <my....@no.spam> wrote in message
I learned sufficient code to gain my upgrade to General in 2005 and passed
the written test the same evening. I have no interest in using code further.
I may change my mind on that later, but given my advanced years, the point
may be moot. My primary interest as a Ham is in fiddling with antennas, only
one of the 11 antennas scattered about my 7 acres was purchased. There are 5
at my detached shop/shack and 6 more back at the house to use when I desire
air conditioning while pursuing my hobby. Three of these are indoor dipoles
for use when bad weather threatens, as it often does here in southern
Oklahoma. I hope all you other gentlemen continue to enjoy the access to the
Amateur Bands allowed by what ever license class you possess.
Harold
KD5SAK
ken foshee
much. I plan on upgrading to General once the code issue is settled. I have
always heard that "If you don't use it, you lose it". I have no interest in
the code so why should I not be allowed to enjoy Ham radio. BTW, my CB
license years back was KLW4194..
"kd5sak" <kd5...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:VIoNg.684$IA....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
Ma...@kb9rqz.com
>You should have put as much effort into fighting BPL..
>
>
>
>On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 23:23:03 GMT, Slow Code <my....@no.spam> wrote:
>
>>
>>Or just lazy people out?
>>
>>Sc
would have been a better use of the ffort agreed
nm...@wt.net
Slow Code wrote:
> Or just lazy people out?
>
> Sc
I wish it would keep all you "non antenna related" goofballs
out of the antenna newsgroup. Why don't you all get some
kind of life on a group that pertains to stuff like that. IE: misc..
MK
Slow Code
news:4koOg.31$Af2...@newsfe02.lga:
> I'll agree with you 100%. I have a Tech license and enjoy the hobby very
> much. I plan on upgrading to General once the code issue is settled. I
> have always heard that "If you don't use it, you lose it". I have no
> interest in the code so why should I not be allowed to enjoy Ham radio.
> BTW, my CB license years back was KLW4194..
That's why you'll never be an asset to the ham radio service. You're too
lazy to be an asset.
SC
Ma...@kb9rqz.com
you are too cowardly to be an asset
>
>SC
Opus-
thusly:
Just what makes a person an "asset to the ham radio service"? That
sounds just as stupid as an "asset to the telephone service". Like it
or not, ham radio is just a means of communication that has world-wide
reach. Listen up, the "ham radio service" isn't some illustrious
organization. It's just a means for people around to world to chat
live. It can have great value in some emergencies, but most of it's
use is idle chatter.
Cecil Moore
> I wish it would keep all you "non antenna related" goofballs
> out of the antenna newsgroup. Why don't you all get some
> kind of life on a group that pertains to stuff like that. IE: misc..
I believe that r.r.a.policy was created to keep such
off of r.r.a.misc
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
Denny wrote:
> The Morse test neither helps nor hinders...
You are uninformed and only half-right. It does not help, it hinders.
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
I believe that you are correct.
Slow Code
news:1158527339....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> Denny wrote:
>
>> The Morse test neither helps nor hinders...
>
> You are uninformed and only half-right. It does not help, it hinders.
>
Yes, it hinders.
It keeps out the stupid and lazy. Individuals that really don't what to be
hams if it requires knowledge and skill to get a license.
Make them stay on CB and FRS. They're not an asset to the service.
And neither are you.
SC
Ma...@kb9rqz.com
>hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com wrote in
>news:1158527339....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
>>
>> Denny wrote:
>>
>>> The Morse test neither helps nor hinders...
>>
>> You are uninformed and only half-right. It does not help, it hinders.
>>
>
>
>Yes, it hinders.
then it should be abolished
>
>It keeps out the stupid and lazy. Individuals that really don't what to be
>hams if it requires knowledge and skill to get a license.
no it does notyou have a license after all
>
>Make them stay on CB and FRS. They're not an asset to the service.
nope
>
>
>And neither are you.
>
>SC
Opus-
thusly:
>hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com wrote in
>news:1158527339....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
>>
>> Denny wrote:
>>
>>> The Morse test neither helps nor hinders...
>>
>> You are uninformed and only half-right. It does not help, it hinders.
>>
>
>
>Yes, it hinders.
>
>It keeps out the stupid and lazy. Individuals that really don't what to be
>hams if it requires knowledge and skill to get a license.
BULLSHIT! Code is NOT KNOWLEDGE!!! I have NO problem learning
technical info that helps me use the radio properly. Code is not
needed to do that.
Get off your high-horse already.
>Make them stay on CB and FRS. They're not an asset to the service.
CB and FRS don't have the range.
>And neither are you.
Who the FUCK are YOU to make such a statement? You snot nosed,
arrogant PRICK! You do NOT know the kind of person that I am!! Wake up
and smell the cappuccino! Code is obsolete! Knowing code does NOTHING
to make somebody an "asset to the service". And, could you explain
what makes a person an "asset to the service"?
What fantasy do you hold that you would believe that your tiny-fisted
tantrums would have more weight than that of a leprous desert rat,
spinning rabidly in a circle, waiting for the bite of the snake?
jawod
>
>
> Who the FUCK are YOU to make such a statement? You snot nosed,
> arrogant PRICK! You do NOT know the kind of person that I am!! Wake up
> and smell the cappuccino! Code is obsolete! Knowing code does NOTHING
> to make somebody an "asset to the service". And, could you explain
> what makes a person an "asset to the service"?
>
Chill out, eh?
> What fantasy do you hold that you would believe that your tiny-fisted
> tantrums would have more weight than that of a leprous desert rat,
> spinning rabidly in a circle, waiting for the bite of the snake?
>
Waxing poetic now?
Yes it's obsolete. Yes, it's fun.
Should it be used to qualify? Let the FCC decide (soon).
If it is eliminated, will that change the "Service"? Maybe.
Will CW disappear? Probably not.
Historically, it defined ham radio, so it has a special place in the
hearts of very many hams. It's natural that they sort of cling to it.
Will CW's elimination be the end of ham radio? Of course not.
Ham radio will cease when all the hams die off. New hams are needed,
with or without code.
My personal hope is that a significant minority of these new hams will
take up CW and learn to enjoy this mode. It truly is a fun mode. I
hope people will WANT to learn it.
Compulsory things are seldom welcome,,,some are necessary. Is CW a good
requirement for ham radio? I guess it has probably outlived its day.
A requirement related to other digital modes would make a good
replacement. True?
Opus-
thusly:
>
>>
>>
>> Who the FUCK are YOU to make such a statement? You snot nosed,
>> arrogant PRICK! You do NOT know the kind of person that I am!! Wake up
>> and smell the cappuccino! Code is obsolete! Knowing code does NOTHING
>> to make somebody an "asset to the service". And, could you explain
>> what makes a person an "asset to the service"?
>>
>Jeez,
>Chill out, eh?
Sorry, but I get upset with people who make statements that are easily
taken as personal insults.
>> What fantasy do you hold that you would believe that your tiny-fisted
>> tantrums would have more weight than that of a leprous desert rat,
>> spinning rabidly in a circle, waiting for the bite of the snake?
>>
>
>Waxing poetic now?
>
>Yes it's obsolete. Yes, it's fun.
I found it to be cold and impersonal.
>Should it be used to qualify? Let the FCC decide (soon).
Here in Canada, they already have. I believe the FCC will soon.
>If it is eliminated, will that change the "Service"? Maybe.
Probably not.
>Will CW disappear? Probably not.
>Historically, it defined ham radio, so it has a special place in the
>hearts of very many hams. It's natural that they sort of cling to it.
Let them cling, they are free to do so.
>Will CW's elimination be the end of ham radio? Of course not.
>Ham radio will cease when all the hams die off. New hams are needed,
>with or without code.
I totally agree.
>My personal hope is that a significant minority of these new hams will
>take up CW and learn to enjoy this mode. It truly is a fun mode. I
>hope people will WANT to learn it.
I always found it to be boring.
>Compulsory things are seldom welcome,,,some are necessary. Is CW a good
>requirement for ham radio? I guess it has probably outlived its day.
>
>A requirement related to other digital modes would make a good
>replacement. True?
I completely agree. If you want to filter out the less serious, then
use a relevant method. Here in Canada, in order to get a no-code
licence, you must get at least 80% on the technical. And technical
prowess will always be important regardless of the mode of
communication.
LenAn...@ieee.org
Opus- wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:19:27 -0400, jawod <ja...@fuse.net> spake
> thusly:
>
> >> Who the FUCK are YOU to make such a statement? You snot nosed,
> >> arrogant PRICK! You do NOT know the kind of person that I am!! Wake up
> >> and smell the cappuccino! Code is obsolete! Knowing code does NOTHING
> >> to make somebody an "asset to the service". And, could you explain
> >> what makes a person an "asset to the service"?
> >>
> >Jeez,
> >Chill out, eh?
>
> Sorry, but I get upset with people who make statements that are easily
> taken as personal insults.
"Stuff happens."
BTW, this "Jawod" signed a message on rec.radio.amateur.homebrew
as "AB8O." I found a blank on that call sign at QRZ.
> >Yes it's obsolete. Yes, it's fun.
>
> I found it to be cold and impersonal.
I agree. Manual radiotelegraphy has NONE of the body language
or tone of voice or much of anything that is normal in everyday
person-to-person contacts. Using this monotonic form of
very early radio allows any user to be anything they want with
no real references to anything but the ability to send telegraphy.
> >Should it be used to qualify? Let the FCC decide (soon).
>
> Here in Canada, they already have. I believe the FCC will soon.
>
> >If it is eliminated, will that change the "Service"? Maybe.
>
> Probably not.
Heh heh...if the test is eliminated the expressed outrage,
anguish, and horror will be a horrendous wail never to be
silenced until the last code key is pried from cold, dead
fingers! :-)
> >Will CW disappear? Probably not.
> >Historically, it defined ham radio, so it has a special place in the
> >hearts of very many hams. It's natural that they sort of cling to it.
>
> Let them cling, they are free to do so.
I'd say "clog" as in cholesterol clogging those "hearts."
"Jawod" uses "many" AS IF it were quantitative. Not so much
in the USA now. The US Technician class licensees now
number about 49% of all, twice as large a number as the
General class. I doubt they want to hear such facts.
> >Will CW's elimination be the end of ham radio? Of course not.
> >Ham radio will cease when all the hams die off. New hams are needed,
> >with or without code.
>
> I totally agree.
In the USA the number of newcomers is not able to keep pace
with the expirations of licensees. That trend has been evident
for more than a year. [see www.hamdata.com] The majority of
new licensees are Technician class. Novice class, the
supposed traditional "beginner" license has been expiring at a
steady rate for years before the US changes in 2000.
> >My personal hope is that a significant minority of these new hams will
> >take up CW and learn to enjoy this mode. It truly is a fun mode. I
> >hope people will WANT to learn it.
>
> I always found it to be boring.
"Jawod" and other morsemen think that all will "like" what they
like. They really don't understand what other citizens want.
> >Compulsory things are seldom welcome,,,some are necessary. Is CW a good
> >requirement for ham radio? I guess it has probably outlived its day.
> >
> >A requirement related to other digital modes would make a good
> >replacement. True?
>
> I completely agree. If you want to filter out the less serious, then
> use a relevant method. Here in Canada, in order to get a no-code
> licence, you must get at least 80% on the technical. And technical
> prowess will always be important regardless of the mode of
> communication.
That sounds fair. In general I've approved what Industry Canada
does on communications regulations...a bit more than what the
FCC does for US civil radio services.
K4YZ
LenAn...@ieee.org wrote:
> Opus- wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:19:27 -0400, jawod <ja...@fuse.net> spake
> > thusly:
> >
> > >> arrogant #####! You do NOT know the kind of person that I am!! Wake up
> > >> and smell the cappuccino! Code is obsolete! Knowing code does NOTHING
> > >> to make somebody an "asset to the service". And, could you explain
> > >> what makes a person an "asset to the service"?
> > >>
> > >Jeez,
> > >Chill out, eh?
> >
> > Sorry, but I get upset with people who make statements that are easily
> > taken as personal insults.
>
> "Stuff happens."
>
> BTW, this "Jawod" signed a message on rec.radio.amateur.homebrew
> as "AB8O." I found a blank on that call sign at QRZ.
What a coincidence...I used QRZ's database search engine and found
a blank when I entered "Leonard H. Anderson".
Funny, eh...?!?!
Steve, K4YZ
jawod
I am not "Leonard H. Anderson"
Ma...@kb9rqz.com
<LenAn...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
>Opus- wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:19:27 -0400, jawod <ja...@fuse.net> spake
>> thusly:
>>
>> >> Who the FUCK are YOU to make such a statement? You snot nosed,
>> >> arrogant PRICK! You do NOT know the kind of person that I am!! Wake up
>> >> and smell the cappuccino! Code is obsolete! Knowing code does NOTHING
>> >> to make somebody an "asset to the service". And, could you explain
>> >> what makes a person an "asset to the service"?
>> >>
>> >Jeez,
>> >Chill out, eh?
>>
>> Sorry, but I get upset with people who make statements that are easily
>> taken as personal insults.
>
> "Stuff happens."
>
> BTW, this "Jawod" signed a message on rec.radio.amateur.homebrew
> as "AB8O." I found a blank on that call sign at QRZ.
>
>
>> >Yes it's obsolete. Yes, it's fun.
>>
>> I found it to be cold and impersonal.
>
> I agree. Manual radiotelegraphy has NONE of the body language
> or tone of voice or much of anything that is normal in everyday
> person-to-person contacts. Using this monotonic form of
> very early radio allows any user to be anything they want with
> no real references to anything but the ability to send telegraphy.
and te test lacks even that since there isn't suposed to be any static
>
>
>> >Should it be used to qualify? Let the FCC decide (soon).
>>
>> Here in Canada, they already have. I believe the FCC will soon.
>>
>> >If it is eliminated, will that change the "Service"? Maybe.
>>
>> Probably not.
>
> Heh heh...if the test is eliminated the expressed outrage,
> anguish, and horror will be a horrendous wail never to be
> silenced until the last code key is pried from cold, dead
> fingers! :-)
well I am hopeing some of them will be silenced chlucting at their
hearts when they read the R&O
nor do they care about anything but themselves
>
>
>> >Compulsory things are seldom welcome,,,some are necessary. Is CW a good
>> >requirement for ham radio? I guess it has probably outlived its day.
>> >
>> >A requirement related to other digital modes would make a good
>> >replacement. True?
>>
>> I completely agree. If you want to filter out the less serious, then
>> use a relevant method. Here in Canada, in order to get a no-code
>> licence, you must get at least 80% on the technical. And technical
>> prowess will always be important regardless of the mode of
>> communication.
>
> That sounds fair. In general I've approved what Industry Canada
> does on communications regulations...a bit more than what the
> FCC does for US civil radio services.
>
> LenAn...@ieee.org
indeed if they had been willing say 10 years ago to go along with what
Canada has now (which was proposed by members of NCI) this would be
over long since
LenAn...@ieee.org
Ma...@kb9rqz.com wrote:
> On 22 Sep 2006 20:46:15 -0700, "LenAn...@ieee.org"
> <LenAn...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> >
> >Opus- wrote:
> >> >If it is eliminated, will that change the "Service"? Maybe.
> >>
> >> Probably not.
> >
> > Heh heh...if the test is eliminated the expressed outrage,
> > anguish, and horror will be a horrendous wail never to be
> > silenced until the last code key is pried from cold, dead
> > fingers! :-)
>
> well I am hopeing some of them will be silenced chlucting at their
> hearts when they read the R&O
Careful, Mark, we can't say such things due to "threats" against
the pro-coders. :-) They are muy touchy about threats against
Them.
> > That sounds fair. In general I've approved what Industry Canada
> > does on communications regulations...a bit more than what the
> > FCC does for US civil radio services.
> >
> indeed if they had been willing say 10 years ago to go along with what
> Canada has now (which was proposed by members of NCI) this would be
> over long since
Well, Mark, it is like this: Some of those who have the cool
HOBBY of amateur radio think they are "servicemen" in the
"service of their country" for having that hobby. We can't say
nasty to them because that is not "nice." They rank
themselves as equivalent to soldiers, sailors, and airmen.
They want the ILLUSION that they are doing great and
meritorious SERVICE. Especially the morseketeers. That is
important to them. The illusion, that is. Screw the reality
part of it, that doesn't apply to them (they think).
Never mind that US amateur radio licensee numbers are holding
static with a slight downturn over the past three years. Oldsters
are signing off permanently and newcomers are going in through
the no-code-test Technician class. Most of the latter are STAYING
no-code. [General Of The Amateurs Miccolis says otherwise but
then he loves cooking the stats to suit his own taste]
As time goes on with the code test gone, the amateur bands
WILL change. But, it will be slow since humans are living longer
now. Human attrition will, nonetheless, happen. Oldsters don't
want to think about that but it is inevitable to all of us. The
oldsters want to preserve the illusion that they are still "young,"
believing in the old, antiquated ways they were impressed with.
Why some even believe they are a "service to the country" by
having that hobby.
There's no argument with those ancient morseketeers, certainly
no "discussion." To them, all must be preserved. [read
mummified] Ptui.
Slow Code
news:ia79h21f1uhjc1pd6...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:19:27 -0400, jawod <ja...@fuse.net> spake
> thusly:
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Who the FUCK are YOU to make such a statement? You snot nosed,
>>> arrogant PRICK! You do NOT know the kind of person that I am!! Wake up
>>> and smell the cappuccino! Code is obsolete! Knowing code does NOTHING
>>> to make somebody an "asset to the service". And, could you explain
>>> what makes a person an "asset to the service"?
>>>
>>Jeez,
>>Chill out, eh?
>
> Sorry, but I get upset with people who make statements that are easily
> taken as personal insults.
<SNIP>
It's hilarious watching how violent CB'er hams get. ROFL.
How's your Code practice coming along?
SC
Opus-
thusly:
>Opus- <jbu...@shaw.ca> wrote in
Fuck, but you're stupid. Where is the violence? But that is typical of
bigots. Always deflecting, never answering..usually because they lack
the ability.
>How's your Code practice coming along?
I'm not, nor will I ever. If code means associating with bigots like
you, then I want no part of it. Much rather talk to civilized people.
kb9r...@hotmail.com
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 23:59:03 GMT, Slow Code <my....@no.spam> spake
> thusly:
>
> >It's hilarious watching how violent CB'er hams get. ROFL.
>
> Fuck, but you're stupid. Where is the violence? But that is typical of
> bigots. Always deflecting, never answering..usually because they lack
> the ability.
slow code is prehaps the dumbest of the folks currently online that is
likely why he refuses to give his name
Dave
SNIPPED
>
>
> I'm not, nor will I ever. If code means associating with bigots like
> you, then I want no part of it. Much rather talk to civilized people.
Then we will gladly acknowledge that you desire to leave this NG.
We don't need the profanity, the attitude and the whimpering.
All in favor, say AYE! ...
Slow Code
Ma...@kb9rqz.com
your point?
>
>SC
Opus-
thusly:
>Opus- wrote:
>
>SNIPPED
>>
>>
>> I'm not, nor will I ever. If code means associating with bigots like
>> you, then I want no part of it. Much rather talk to civilized people.
>
>Then we will gladly acknowledge that you desire to leave this NG.
Are you saying that there are no civilized people in this newsgroup?
Talk about attitude.
>We don't need the profanity, the attitude and the whimpering.
Then tell the pro-coders to quit insulting and labeling people.
>All in favor, say AYE! ...
Nay.
Opus-
thusly:
>Dave <W1...@comcast.net> wrote in
What are YOU saying "aye" for? YOU'RE the bigot.
Ma...@kb9rqz.com
>On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 08:43:52 -0400, Dave <W1...@comcast.net> spake
>thusly:
>
>>Opus- wrote:
>>
>>SNIPPED
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not, nor will I ever. If code means associating with bigots like
>>> you, then I want no part of it. Much rather talk to civilized people.
>>
>>Then we will gladly acknowledge that you desire to leave this NG.
>
>Are you saying that there are no civilized people in this newsgroup?
>Talk about attitude.
and stpidityof course since that would include himself
>
>>We don't need the profanity, the attitude and the whimpering.
>
>Then tell the pro-coders to quit insulting and labeling people.
it would be nice but I certainly don't expet it
>
>>All in favor, say AYE! ...
>
>Nay.
Charlie
since and have no intention to ever do so..even if "someone is dying!"
IMHO it is an outdated requirement and will/should be dropped altogether
very very soon....
"Nada Tapu" <us...@host.domain> wrote in message
news:s36ph29jo2t34kn6e...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 23:23:03 GMT, Slow Code <my....@no.spam> wrote:
>
>>
>>Or just lazy people out?
>>
>>Sc
>
> It certainly didn't keep me out, and I wasn't all that crazy about
> learning it, either.
>
> NT
>
Slow Code
news:nn3rh29q703jh7jgp...@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 22:54:46 -0500, Nada Tapu <us...@host.domain> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 23:23:03 GMT, Slow Code <my....@no.spam> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Or just lazy people out?
>>>
>>>Sc
>>
>>It certainly didn't keep me out, and I wasn't all that crazy about
>>learning it, either.
>
> More to the point, are there more licensed amateurs since the code
> requirement was removed years ago?
No, numbers are decreasing because ham radio has been dumbed down so
having a ham license isn't worth anything anymore and people are leaving.
SC
Ma...@kb9rqz.net
no slow code the number are down because with Code testing looks so
stpupid
>SC
Cecil Moore
> No, numbers are decreasing because ham radio has been dumbed down so
> having a ham license isn't worth anything anymore and people are leaving.
Therefore, if the ARS required MENSA membership, there would
be more hams?
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
Ma...@kb9rqz.net wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 00:36:36 GMT, Slow Code <my....@no.spam> wrote:
>
> >No, numbers are decreasing because ham radio has been dumbed down so
> >having a ham license isn't worth anything anymore and people are leaving.
> >
> no slow code the number are down because with Code testing looks so
Code testing is absurd. The government shouldn't be in the merit badge
business.
If you really need a merit badge to hang on the wall, listen to W1AW
during a qualifying run....
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
Guys don't have mensas. If they did, this would be called the "Women's
League of Coders."
;^)
Opus-
thusly:
No, it's dying because of attitudes like yours that scare people away.
Nobody wants to be like you.
an old friend
Opus- wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 00:36:36 GMT, Slow Code <my....@no.spam> spake
> thusly:
>
> >> More to the point, are there more licensed amateurs since the code
> >> requirement was removed years ago?
> >
> >
> >No, numbers are decreasing because ham radio has been dumbed down so
> >having a ham license isn't worth anything anymore and people are leaving.
>
> No, it's dying because of attitudes like yours that scare people away.
not scare or not just scare disgust indeed it was the attitude of
people like sc and Robeson that served as a the major to each newbie I
have helped to obtain a license
> Nobody wants to be like you.
afew do to be fair but not near enough to be usefull nor is the result
desiable
an old friend
Opus- wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 00:36:36 GMT, Slow Code <my....@no.spam> spake
> thusly:
>
> >> More to the point, are there more licensed amateurs since the code
> >> requirement was removed years ago?
> >
> >
> >No, numbers are decreasing because ham radio has been dumbed down so
> >having a ham license isn't worth anything anymore and people are leaving.
>
> No, it's dying because of attitudes like yours that scare people away.
not scare or not just scare disgust indeed it was the attitude of
people like sc and Robeson that served as a the major to each newbie I
have helped to obtain a license
> Nobody wants to be like you.
afew do to be fair but not near enough to be usefull nor is the result
desiable
Ma...@kb9rqz.net
wrote:
>On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 23:02:39 -0500, "Charlie" <cha...@ease.biz>
>wrote:
>
>>Made Extra in 1995 and had to do 20wpm. I did it and have NEVER used CW
>>since and have no intention to ever do so..even if "someone is dying!"
>>IMHO it is an outdated requirement and will/should be dropped altogether
>>very very soon....
>
>And you probably answered some theory questions about modes you'll
>never use and formulas you'll never see again. Maybe we should just
>eliminate the theory exam, too.
and what do we gain by doing that it is certainly an option when
eleimate code testing we eleimate something that makes the ARS look
stpuid obviously we gain by that
>
>NT
an old friend
Nada Tapu wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 16:39:47 -0400, Ma...@kb9rqz.net wrote:
>
> Call me old fashioned, but I think the code makes amateur radio look
> rather quaint and charming myself. It's a legacy mode, and just because it's a relic
which means you agree with my point but lack the guts to say so
it it makes us look like relics
Ma...@kb9rqz.net
wrote:
>On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 16:39:47 -0400, Ma...@kb9rqz.net wrote:
>
>>>And you probably answered some theory questions about modes you'll
>>>never use and formulas you'll never see again. Maybe we should just
>>>eliminate the theory exam, too.
>
>>and what do we gain by doing that it is certainly an option when
>>eleimate code testing we eleimate something that makes the ARS look
>>stpuid obviously we gain by that
>
>Look stupid? Oh, excuse me!
yes you are stupid and anothe rof the usenet cowards
>
>There are a lot of people who don't want to be bothered with the
>theory exam, either. And when it comes right down to it, what do we
>really need a theory exam for?
you tell me
I think it benifits the ARS by insuring that new hams reconize the
term and the rules involved in the ARS
don't you think it does that?
> Most CB'ers and electronic hobbyists
>have the technical expertise to put a multi-band rig and antenna on
>the air and start operating without any trouble at all.
and many so Indeed we could despense with the technical question sif
it was found to be to our benifit
> They feel they
>shouldn't need to take a test in order to do that, and a good case may
>be made in favor of that approach. Homebrew and experiment? Sure, why
>not? They can do that too. I did when I was on CB, so why can't
>others? Why should I take a test that includes superflous questions
>about operating modes and aspects of electronics and computers that I
>have absolutely no intention of employing in my day to day station
>operation?
>
>Now allow me to put on the "other hat".
pput on such hats as you please
>
>CW is a part of amateur radio's heritage and history.
agreed
>One has to
>embrace the past to realize where one is today.
that is merely one method but one is not required to emabrace the past
or to real;ize where we are today
> Having said that, CW
>is not an obsolete mode by any means;
it is obslete
>it is timeless. It was a viable
>communications mode 50 years ago, it still is today, and it will still
>be perfectly viable 10,000 years from now.
which does not prevent it from being oselte
the Longbow it is still a vaible weapon today will be for some time to
come
it is none the less obeslete
> It's spectrum efficient
>and highly effective under adverse conditions. So what if it happens
>to be dated? There is absolutlely nothing wrong with the preservation
>and continued use of old but perfectly good technologies.
and I don't object to YOU doing so but I do object to your insistance
on public specturm being used to do as a complution on all those that
wish to use it
> It's just
>too bad if some operators feel that a certain operating mode reflects
>badly on the amateur community solely because it's been around for a
>long time. There is nothing "stupid" about this issue.
what is stupid is this insistance that I must help to preserve some
thing that YOU value and wish preserved and that I think we would be
better off leting it go the way of Spark
>
>Am I supporting the elimination of the theory exam and promoting the
>testing of morse skills? Of course not, although I can see how one
>would reach that conclusion from my statements. I'm being purposely
>obtuse.
and insulting
> What amateur radio needs is BALANCE.
which it will lack as long as the ARS insist on worshiping the ONE
mode CW above the rest of the ARS combined as the leicense system does
today
> It needs operators with
>a rich set of skills and traits that will set it apart from the other
>radio services. When those skills and traits cease to exist, the
>service will perish, and eventually the spectrum will be sold to the
>highest bidder.
>
>My $.02 Draw your own conclusions.
my conclusion is that you will twist truth and logic anyway you like
to achive your end
for that matter so will I
>
>- - . . . . . . - -
LenAn...@ieee.org
>On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, Ma...@kb9rqz.net wrote:
>>no slow code the number are down because with Code testing looks so
>>stpupid
>
>The numbers are down for a variety of reasons, but I suspect that
>computers and the internet are the major factors, not the CW
>requirement.
The ready-built Personal Computer first appeared in 1976,
30 years ago (the "IBM PC" debuted in 1980, 26 years ago).
The Internet went public in 1991, 15 years ago.
"Restructuring" to drop the morse test rate to 5 WPM
for all such tests happened only 6 years ago.
The peak licensing of 737,938 happened on 2 Jul 03, just
3 years ago. [they've been dropping at an average of 7K
per year ever since]
I disagree on your reasons stated in your quote above.
>When I ask technical people about why they haven't
>acquired an interest in amateur radio, I never get the CW requirement
>as a response.
Strange, I hear that response. Having been IN radio-
electronics for over a half century, I DO know some
"technical people." :-)
Manual radiotelegraphy was a MUST to use early radio
as a communications medium. The technology of early
radio was primitive, simple, and not yet developed.
On-off keying was the ONLY practical way to make it
possible to communicate. Morse code was then already
mature and a new branch of communications was open
to use by downsized landline telegraphers.
> They simply view the whole service as outmoded in the
>face of modern telecommunications.
PART of that IS true. NOT all of it.
What IS outmoded (technically) is sitting only on HF
and "working" other stations with morse radiotelegraphy.
Amateur radio is the ONLY radio service still using
morse radiotelegraphy for communications purposes.
Another thing outmoded is the strict "necessity" to use
a formalism in "procedure" AS IF it was "professional"
radio. That formalism was established between 50 to 70
years ago. Amateur radio, by definition, is NOT
professional. Too many olde-tymers want to PRETEND
they are pros in front of their ham rigs.
But, there is still an enormous area of the EM spectrum
that is still open for experimentation, for just the fun
of doing something out of the ordinary above 30 MHz.
That can be a very different RF environment, much much
different than the technology available in the 20s and
30s. It has exciting possibilities...except for the
rutted and mired olde-tymers unable to keep up with new
things, secure in their own dreams of youth and simple
technological environment.
>Let's face it.. the romance is gone.
Oh, boo hoo...the "romance" of the 1930s is gone? Yes,
it IS. The "pioneering of the airwaves" below 30 MHz
has been DONE...mostly by the pros of radio (despite what
the ARRL claims). DONE a long time ago. The solid-state
era came into being about 45 years ago and has
revolutionized ALL electronics (radio is a subset of that).
Except as memorabilia trinkets of the past, GONE is the
analog VFO, GONE is the one-tube regenerative receiver,
GONE is the single-crystal-single-frequency Tx, GONE is
the big, bulky AM modulator amplifier, GONE is the not-
knowing-when-the-bands-are-open (solar activity and
ionosonding solved that and HF MUF is a predictable
item that can be found by a computer program). Except
for the boatanchor afficionados, vacuum tubes are GONE
for nearly everything but high-power transmitters.
The radio world of today is NOT that of 1950, nor of
1960, nor 1970, nor even 1980s. It keeps changing,
advancing, the state of the art never static. For the
stuck-in-the-mud olde tymers that is terrible...they
feel insecure on not being able to keep up, become
aggressive to newcomers ("no kids, lids or space
cadets") and retreat to the "secure" mode of their
youth, "CW." But, they want to make sure They get
the respect they feel they've "earned" (as if) so
they try and try and try to bring all down to THEIR
level...the code test MUST stay..."because."
There are 100 million two-way radios in use in the USA
alone, millions more in other countries. Those are the
cellular telephones. There are millions of VHF and UHF
transceivers in the USA, working daily for public
safety agencies, ships, private boats, air carriers as
well as private airplanes. There are tens of thousands
of HF transceivers in use in the USA, users being
everyone from government agencies to private boat
owners, ALL exclusive of amateur radio users. Where is
the "romance" in all this Plenty from a cornucopia that
all have grabbed? It is GONE, yes.
But, NEW "romances" await. DIFFERENT ones, I'd say a
helluva lot more complex than old, simple "radio." We
can't relive old "romances" except in our minds and we
can't grow physically younger. Only person-to-person
romance is TRUE, the other "romance" is of the
imagination, of the fantasy of what was once there.
This fantasy "romance" can't be brought back. It can't
be legislated into remaining static. The rules and
regulations have to change to keep up with the NOW.
LenAn...@ieee.org
> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 21:06:23 -0400, Ma...@kb9rqz.net wrote:
>
> >yes you are stupid and anothe rof the usenet cowards
>
> personal and I didn't. I will not engage in a reasoned debate with an
> individual such as you. If you really are an amateur operator, and I
> sincerely doubt that you are, do us all a favor and keep your seething
> hatred and childish foot stomping off of the bands.
>
> NT
If you really are an amateur operator, why can't you give out
your license callsign?
How DOES one have a "reasoned debate" with an anony-mousie
such as "Nada Tapu"?
I've not seen that such is possible in here except for two and
both of them are self-admitted Canadians.
Ma...@kb9rqz.net
wrote:
>On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 21:06:23 -0400, Ma...@kb9rqz.net wrote:
>
>>yes you are stupid and anothe rof the usenet cowards
>
>This discussion is over.
it never began
> You lose.
hardly
> And to prove it, you had to get
>personal and I didn't.
> I will not engage in a reasoned debate with an
>individual such as you.
obviously since you have yet to make a reasoned post
> If you really are an amateur operator, and I
>sincerely doubt that you are
I am certina am a Ham and a good one
>, do us all a favor and keep your seething
>hatred
hatred that is YOUR department
> and childish foot stomping off of the bands.
>
Ma...@kb9rqz.net
<LenAn...@ieee.org> wrote:
a nice peice of writing stored I may lift a peice or for something I
am working on
but yes their is still magaic I play with it (although yes acess to HF
would be a help as I learn the ins and out of EME and other VHF+ modes
pity that progress in the ARS is opposed at every turn by hams
themslves
>
> LenAn...@ieee.org
Ma...@kb9rqz.net
<LenAn...@ieee.org> wrote:
>Nada Tapu wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 21:06:23 -0400, Ma...@kb9rqz.net wrote:
>>
>> >yes you are stupid and anothe rof the usenet cowards
>>
>> This discussion is over. You lose. And to prove it, you had to get
>> personal and I didn't. I will not engage in a reasoned debate with an
>> individual such as you. If you really are an amateur operator, and I
>> sincerely doubt that you are, do us all a favor and keep your seething
>> hatred and childish foot stomping off of the bands.
>>
>> NT
>
> If you really are an amateur operator, why can't you give out
> your license callsign?
I think he just another avatar of Al Klein since al was having trouble
having killfiled everyone
>
> How DOES one have a "reasoned debate" with an anony-mousie
> such as "Nada Tapu"?
>
> I've not seen that such is possible in here except for two and
> both of them are self-admitted Canadians.
>
>
> LenAn...@ieee.org
LenAn...@ieee.org
Thank you. Feel free to use any part. I would be nice to
get credit for it, a common courtesy.
> but yes their is still magaic I play with it (although yes acess to HF
> would be a help as I learn the ins and out of EME and other VHF+ modes
> pity that progress in the ARS is opposed at every turn by hams
> themslves
"Magic" is a subjective term. The "magic" of HF worldwide comms
dissolved into reality for me in 1953 on seeing such wholesale
"magic" working 24/7 in tying US Army (and other military) into
the large network going back to the states.
"Different strokes for different folks."
ARRL is still fixated on HF and the "magic" of morse. Since they
influence (if not brainwash) as many US hams as they can with
their huge publishing effort, we aren't supposed to negatively
critique them. That's "not nice" to those who've had their brains
washed in that way.
I've seen "real" magic at the Magic Castle in Hollywood, CA. That's
mainly a professional association of magicians/illusionists. One
can't gain entrance without being admitted by a member. I've had
the marvelous opportunity to go in three times there...and be
totally fascinated by the illusions. Whenever I see some ham
bring up "magic" I think of the Magic Castle. A lot of hams ascribe
"magic" to HF comms but that is their own private illusion (or
delusion, as the case may be). Shrug. To each his own but I
don't like others trying to cram Their delusions into everyone.
Baloo
> Nada Tapu wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 21:06:23 -0400, Ma...@kb9rqz.net wrote:
>>
>> >yes you are stupid and anothe rof the usenet cowards
>>
>> This discussion is over. You lose. And to prove it, you had to get
>> personal and I didn't. I will not engage in a reasoned debate with an
>> individual such as you. If you really are an amateur operator, and I
>> sincerely doubt that you are, do us all a favor and keep your seething
>> hatred and childish foot stomping off of the bands.
>>
>> NT
>
> If you really are an amateur operator, why can't you give out
> your license callsign?
Probably because it's not safe to go waving around more information than you
have to.
http://www.blogs.oregonlive.com/oregonian/newsupdates/default.asp?item=194639
Dispute On CB Airwaves Leads To Fatal Shooting
Yes, the non-CB amateur bands tend to be a little more mature than the
citizens band (or at least as far as the
Washington/Clark/Multnomah/Clackamas County area is concerned).
Unfortunately, Usenet and the Internet are not. If you don't believe me,
go watch Dateline when they sting Internet weirdos sometime to see the
worst of them.
--
Baloo
email & xmpp: ba...@ursine.ca
Cecil Moore
> What IS outmoded (technically) is sitting only on HF
> and "working" other stations with morse radiotelegraphy.
> Amateur radio is the ONLY radio service still using
> morse radiotelegraphy for communications purposes.
Actually Len, almost all amateur radio operation has
been outmoded by advancing technology which has made
amateur radio first to be redundant and later to be
obsolete. I'm still using the same modes for amateur
radio that I used more than half a century ago.
My daughter lives in New York state. 50 years ago,
I would have tried to talk her into getting a ham
license. Today, Sprint cellphones allow the two of
us to communicate any time, day or night, for free.
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
LenAn...@ieee.org wrote:
> From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm
>
>
> >On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, Ma...@kb9rqz.net wrote:
>
> >>no slow code the number are down because with Code testing looks so
> >>stpupid
> >
> >The numbers are down for a variety of reasons, but I suspect that
> >computers and the internet are the major factors, not the CW
> >requirement.
>
> The ready-built Personal Computer first appeared in 1976,
> 30 years ago (the "IBM PC" debuted in 1980, 26 years ago).
> The Internet went public in 1991, 15 years ago.
> "Restructuring" to drop the morse test rate to 5 WPM
> for all such tests happened only 6 years ago.
>
> The peak licensing of 737,938 happened on 2 Jul 03, just
> 3 years ago. [they've been dropping at an average of 7K
> per year ever since]
>
> I disagree on your reasons stated in your quote above.
Ronald Reagan once said, "Facts are stupid things."
> >When I ask technical people about why they haven't
> >acquired an interest in amateur radio, I never get the CW requirement
> >as a response.
>
> Strange, I hear that response. Having been IN radio-
> electronics for over a half century, I DO know some
> "technical people." :-)
It IS the Code.
> Manual radiotelegraphy was a MUST to use early radio
> as a communications medium. The technology of early
> radio was primitive, simple, and not yet developed.
> On-off keying was the ONLY practical way to make it
> possible to communicate. Morse code was then already
> mature and a new branch of communications was open
> to use by downsized landline telegraphers.
Telegraph.
> > They simply view the whole service as outmoded in the
> >face of modern telecommunications.
>
> PART of that IS true. NOT all of it.
>
> What IS outmoded (technically) is sitting only on HF
> and "working" other stations with morse radiotelegraphy.
> Amateur radio is the ONLY radio service still using
> morse radiotelegraphy for communications purposes.
>
> Another thing outmoded is the strict "necessity" to use
> a formalism in "procedure" AS IF it was "professional"
> radio. That formalism was established between 50 to 70
> years ago. Amateur radio, by definition, is NOT
> professional. Too many olde-tymers want to PRETEND
> they are pros in front of their ham rigs.
>
> But, there is still an enormous area of the EM spectrum
> that is still open for experimentation, for just the fun
> of doing something out of the ordinary above 30 MHz.
ABOVE 30 mhz? Hmmmm?
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/09/26/101/?nc=1
> That can be a very different RF environment, much much
> different than the technology available in the 20s and
> 30s. It has exciting possibilities...except for the
> rutted and mired olde-tymers unable to keep up with new
> things, secure in their own dreams of youth and simple
> technological environment.
>
> >Let's face it.. the romance is gone.
>
> Oh, boo hoo...the "romance" of the 1930s is gone? Yes,
> it IS. The "pioneering of the airwaves" below 30 MHz
> has been DONE...mostly by the pros of radio (despite what
> the ARRL claims). DONE a long time ago.
Then why are we: http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/09/26/101/?nc=1
Ore even to move us into the future... Leadership.
LenAn...@ieee.org
Cecil Moore wrote:
> LenAn...@ieee.org wrote:
> > What IS outmoded (technically) is sitting only on HF
> > and "working" other stations with morse radiotelegraphy.
> > Amateur radio is the ONLY radio service still using
> > morse radiotelegraphy for communications purposes.
>
> Actually Len, almost all amateur radio operation has
> been outmoded by advancing technology which has made
> amateur radio first to be redundant and later to be
> obsolete. I'm still using the same modes for amateur
> radio that I used more than half a century ago.
That is true in essence for all those who "work DX on HF
with CW." :-)
Some will point to modern techniques in radio (DDS, PLL
frequency control, solid-state PAs that need no tuning
controls, etc.) as being advancements. Trouble is, those
advancements came from the designers-manufacturers,
advancements to capture market share of ham consumer
electronics. Using only on-off keying with a state-of-the-
art transceiver seems a waste of available resources in
that equipment.
> My daughter lives in New York state. 50 years ago,
> I would have tried to talk her into getting a ham
> license. Today, Sprint cellphones allow the two of
> us to communicate any time, day or night, for free.
One in three Americans has a cell phone now
according to the US Census Bureau. Each cell
phone is basically a little two-way radio.
No "CW" test is needed to use a cell phone. :-)
I just completed an exchange of files (including hi-
resolution photographs) this morning with another
in Europe. Took only a few minutes. The Internet
stretches over most of the globe, is unaffected by any
ionospheric variation. Those files couldn't be
exchanged via "CW" on HF. [maybe the "phase
shift" impairs such information transfer...:-) ]
No "CW" test is needed to use the Internet. :-)
But, in 2006 the FCC regulations still require any radio
amateur to test for "CW" in order to operate on bands
below 30 MHz. None of the other radio services
require that. <shrug>
LenAn...@ieee.org
> LenAn...@ieee.org wrote:
> > From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm
> >
> > >On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, Ma...@kb9rqz.net wrote:
> >
> > >>no slow code the number are down because with Code testing looks so
> > >>stpupid
> > >
> > >The numbers are down for a variety of reasons, but I suspect that
> > >computers and the internet are the major factors, not the CW
> > >requirement.
> >
> > The ready-built Personal Computer first appeared in 1976,
> > 30 years ago (the "IBM PC" debuted in 1980, 26 years ago).
> > The Internet went public in 1991, 15 years ago.
> > "Restructuring" to drop the morse test rate to 5 WPM
> > for all such tests happened only 6 years ago.
> >
> > The peak licensing of 737,938 happened on 2 Jul 03, just
> > 3 years ago. [they've been dropping at an average of 7K
> > per year ever since]
> >
> > I disagree on your reasons stated in your quote above.
>
> Ronald Reagan once said, "Facts are stupid things."
Heh. But, in here, coders are the only ones with "facts." Anything
a no-coder says is "wrong," "in error" and other endearments. :-)
> > >When I ask technical people about why they haven't
> > >acquired an interest in amateur radio, I never get the CW requirement
> > >as a response.
> >
> > Strange, I hear that response. Having been IN radio-
> > electronics for over a half century, I DO know some
> > "technical people." :-)
>
> It IS the Code.
True enough. But...the coders HAVE their rank-status-
privileges and seem to enjoy looking down on no-coders.
All must do as they did or be called "wrong" or "in error."
> > Manual radiotelegraphy was a MUST to use early radio
> > as a communications medium. The technology of early
> > radio was primitive, simple, and not yet developed.
> > On-off keying was the ONLY practical way to make it
> > possible to communicate. Morse code was then already
> > mature and a new branch of communications was open
> > to use by downsized landline telegraphers.
>
> Telegraph.
Early radio was just a telegraph system without poles and
wires between stations. Mythical tales have turned early radio
into something greater than rocket science.
> > > They simply view the whole service as outmoded in the
> > >face of modern telecommunications.
> >
> > PART of that IS true. NOT all of it.
> >
> > What IS outmoded (technically) is sitting only on HF
> > and "working" other stations with morse radiotelegraphy.
> > Amateur radio is the ONLY radio service still using
> > morse radiotelegraphy for communications purposes.
> >
> > Another thing outmoded is the strict "necessity" to use
> > a formalism in "procedure" AS IF it was "professional"
> > radio. That formalism was established between 50 to 70
> > years ago. Amateur radio, by definition, is NOT
> > professional. Too many olde-tymers want to PRETEND
> > they are pros in front of their ham rigs.
> >
> > But, there is still an enormous area of the EM spectrum
> > that is still open for experimentation, for just the fun
> > of doing something out of the ordinary above 30 MHz.
>
> ABOVE 30 mhz? Hmmmm?
>
> http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/09/26/101/?nc=1
Ah, yes, the Great 500 KHz "Experiment." AS IF the 500 KHz
region hasn't ALREADY had 80 years plus of determining
whether or not it works for communications! :-)
Good old League, leading all "Back to the Future." :-)
> > That can be a very different RF environment, much much
> > different than the technology available in the 20s and
> > 30s. It has exciting possibilities...except for the
> > rutted and mired olde-tymers unable to keep up with new
> > things, secure in their own dreams of youth and simple
> > technological environment.
> >
> > >Let's face it.. the romance is gone.
> >
> > Oh, boo hoo...the "romance" of the 1930s is gone? Yes,
> > it IS. The "pioneering of the airwaves" below 30 MHz
> > has been DONE...mostly by the pros of radio (despite what
> > the ARRL claims). DONE a long time ago.
>
> Then why are we: http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/09/26/101/?nc=1
It's about the same as those who love to Re-Enact the
American Civil War or the American Revolutionary War.
Play-acting at "pioneering" over 8 decades after that
frequency region was picked for the first maritime distress
and safety reserved frequency.
"Ore" from a mine. The pro-coders say "I've got mine, nya-nya."
It's getting to be "Back to the Future, Part Infinity" if things
like the Great 500 KHz Experiment is a sign of things to
come from the "representative of all amateurs" in Newington.
Their other "Experiment" is a "contest" to see who can best
come up with a whole ham station for LESS than $50 in new
part costs. Whoever "wins" that gets a really hefty prize of
$100 cash and Publication in QST! Oh, and it is 40 meters
only, but "allows" SSB voice to be included. :-)
LenAn...@ieee.org
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 22:54:46 -0500, Nada Tapu <us...@host.domain> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 23:23:03 GMT, Slow Code <my....@no.spam> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>Or just lazy people out?
> >>
> >>Sc
> >
> >It certainly didn't keep me out, and I wasn't all that crazy about
> >learning it, either.
>
> was removed years ago?
Yes. In the USA at least.
Since the inception of the no-code Technician class here in 1991,
the growth of the Technician class license numbers in the USA
has been continuous. Those now comprise about 49 % of ALL
licensees. The Technician class license numbers are twice that
of General class, the next-largest license class.
Since the "reconstruction" in FCC amateur radio regulations of
2001, the number of licensees grew to peak in July, 2003. At
that time the maximum code test rate was fixed at 5 WPM, all
classes.
A problem now is the attrition of the older licensees. More old-
timers are leaving/expiring (their licenses) than are being
replaced by new (never before licensed in amateur radio)
licensees. Source: www.hamdata.com. That trend has
persisted for three years.
The code test is not THE factor causing it, just one of the
major factors in slowing the increase of new licensees.
Coupled with the stubborn resistance to change of ANY
regulations by olde-tymers, there is little incentive to enter
olde-tyme amateur radio. Ally that with the huge growth of
the Internet in the 15 years it has been public - an Internet
that has spread worldwide with near-instant communications
over that world - and the traditional standards and practices
of olde-tyme ham radio just don't have the appeal to
newcomers they once had.
Elimination of the code test for any license will cause a
spurt in new licensees. While such elimination is not a
guarantee to far-future growth, it will be the significant act
to being CHANGING regulations to better fit the modern times.
Keeping up with changing times is a NECESSITY in
regulations, regardless of the personal desires of the minority
of amateurs making up the olde-tyme group.
N2...@aol.com
> From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm
> >On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, Ma...@kb9rqz.net wrote:
>
> >>no slow code the number are down because with Code testing looks so
> >>stpupid
> >
> >The numbers are down for a variety of reasons, but I suspect that
> >computers and the internet are the major factors, not the CW
> >requirement.
>
> The ready-built Personal Computer first appeared in 1976,
> 30 years ago (the "IBM PC" debuted in 1980, 26 years ago).
> The Internet went public in 1991, 15 years ago.
Basically true, but that's not the whole story by any means.
Until rather recently, personal computers were rather expensive. The
IBM PC (introduced in August 1981) cost over $1500 in its basic
configuration - which works out to about $3500 in 2006 dollars for a
machine with very limited capabilities.
As recently as 10 years ago, a complete PC system with reasonable
performance cost over $2000 - and its depreciation curve was very
steep.
"The internet" was originally rather limited and not simple to access
for the non-technically minded. That's all changed now.
On top of all this is the evolution of the PC from an expensive
techno-toy to an everyday tool in most workplaces, schools, and homes.
"Computer literacy" is now *expected* in most jobs.
The synergy of low cost, easy-to-use computers, easy and fast online
access, and a reasonably computer-literate public has only come
together within the past 10 years.
> "Restructuring" to drop the morse test rate to 5 WPM
> for all such tests happened only 6 years ago.
In that time, the number of US amateurs has actually dropped by over
17,000.
> The peak licensing of 737,938 happened on 2 Jul 03, just
> 3 years ago. [they've been dropping at an average of 7K
> per year ever since]
It should be noted that the number 737,938 includes not only those
licenses which were current at the time, but also those which were
expired but in the 2 year grace period. The number of then-current
licenses was about 50,000 lower.
> I disagree on your reasons stated in your quote above.
>
> >When I ask technical people about why they haven't
> >acquired an interest in amateur radio, I never get the CW requirement
> >as a response.
>
> Strange, I hear that response.
It's an echo?
> Having been IN radio-
> electronics for over a half century, I DO know some
> "technical people." :-)
But you have never been "IN" amateur radio, Len.
> Manual radiotelegraphy was a MUST to use early radio
> as a communications medium. The technology of early
> radio was primitive, simple, and not yet developed.
> On-off keying was the ONLY practical way to make it
> possible to communicate.
Yet some pioneers (like Reginald Fessenden) were using voice
communication as early as 1900, and had practical lomg-distance
radiotelephony by 1906. AM broadcasting was a reality by 1920.
> Morse code was then already
> mature and a new branch of communications was open
> to use by downsized landline telegraphers.
While some radio operators came from the ranks of landline telegraph
operators, most did not, as it was predominantly young men who
pioneered radio in the early part of the 20th century. The Morse Code
used on landlines was "American" Morse, while that used on radio after
1906 was predominantly "International" or "Continental" Morse.
> > They simply view the whole service as outmoded in the
> >face of modern telecommunications.
>
> PART of that IS true. NOT all of it.
What part is not?
> What IS outmoded (technically) is sitting only on HF
> and "working" other stations with morse radiotelegraphy.
Why is that "outmoded"? What has replaced it?
> Amateur radio is the ONLY radio service still using
> morse radiotelegraphy for communications purposes.
So what? Amateurs choose the mode they want to use. What is wrong with
choosing Morse Code and HF operation?
Some may say the Morse Code *test* is outmoded. But you are saying the
*use* of Morse Code is outmoded!
FM broadcasting is the only radio service that uses stereo multiplex FM
- is it outmoded?
>
> Another thing outmoded is the strict "necessity" to use
> a formalism in "procedure" AS IF it was "professional"
> radio. That formalism was established between 50 to 70
> years ago.
What "formalism" do you mean, Len?
The use of call signs? Signal reports? Using only first names?
Amateur radio is among the least formal radio services I know.
How would you have amateurs operate?
> Amateur radio, by definition, is NOT
> professional.
So what's the problem with a standard procedures?
> Too many olde-tymers want to PRETEND
> they are pros in front of their ham rigs.
Not true, Len. We're amateurs - but that doesn't mean we have no
standards and no procedures. The use of standard procedures makes it
more fun and easier on everyone involved.
> But, there is still an enormous area of the EM spectrum
> that is still open for experimentation, for just the fun
> of doing something out of the ordinary above 30 MHz.
> That can be a very different RF environment, much much
> different than the technology available in the 20s and
> 30s.
And a license to use a good chunk of that spectrum has been available
without a Morse Code test for more than 15 years. But you have not
taken advanatage of it.
> It has exciting possibilities...except for the
> rutted and mired olde-tymers unable to keep up with new
> things, secure in their own dreams of youth and simple
> technological environment.
Do you have a problem with youth, Len? Or simplicity?
> >Let's face it.. the romance is gone.
>
> Oh, boo hoo...the "romance" of the 1930s is gone? Yes,
> it IS. The "pioneering of the airwaves" below 30 MHz
> has been DONE...mostly by the pros of radio (despite what
> the ARRL claims).
Who pioneered the use of the HF spectrum, Len?
Who first established two-way HF radio contact?
> DONE a long time ago. The solid-state
> era came into being about 45 years ago and has
> revolutionized ALL electronics (radio is a subset of that).
The transistor was invented in 1948 - 58 years ago. Amateurs were using
them in receivers and transmitters by the late 1950s.
> Except as memorabilia trinkets of the past, GONE is the
> analog VFO,
Not really.
> GONE is the one-tube regenerative receiver,
> GONE is the single-crystal-single-frequency Tx, GONE is
> the big, bulky AM modulator amplifier,
Well, those things are not common, but they're still around.
> GONE is the not-
> knowing-when-the-bands-are-open (solar activity and
> ionosonding solved that and HF MUF is a predictable
> item that can be found by a computer program).
Yet the predictions are not always correct. Openings happen when no
opening is predicted, and predicted openings do not always happen.
> Except
> for the boatanchor afficionados, vacuum tubes are GONE
> for nearly everything but high-power transmitters.
And high-end audio...
So what? Those things are only one part of amateur radio. There's a lot
more.
>
> The radio world of today is NOT that of 1950, nor of
> 1960, nor 1970, nor even 1980s. It keeps changing,
> advancing, the state of the art never static.
Of course not. That doesn't mean old things are all bad.
> For the
> stuck-in-the-mud olde tymers that is terrible...they
> feel insecure on not being able to keep up, become
> aggressive to newcomers ("no kids, lids or space
> cadets") and retreat to the "secure" mode of their
> youth, "CW."
The phrase was "no kids, no lids, no space cadets, Class A operators
only". It was used by a now-dead radio amateur who had the callsign
W2OY. He did not use CW - he was an AM-only operator of the 1950s and
1960s.
The phrase is remembered because it was so unusual.
"CW" (aka Morse Code) is popular with many radio amateurs, not just
"old timers".
> But, they want to make sure They get
> the respect they feel they've "earned" (as if) so
> they try and try and try to bring all down to THEIR
> level...the code test MUST stay..."because."
Is there something wrong with the *use* of Morse Code, Len?
> There are 100 million two-way radios in use in the USA
> alone, millions more in other countries. Those are the
> cellular telephones.
Actually that number is probably low, considering how many more go into
use every day.
> There are millions of VHF and UHF
> transceivers in the USA, working daily for public
> safety agencies, ships, private boats, air carriers as
> well as private airplanes.
Millions?
> There are tens of thousands
> of HF transceivers in use in the USA, users being
> everyone from government agencies to private boat
> owners, ALL exclusive of amateur radio users.
Amateur radio *operators*.
And there lies the difference: Almost all other radio services require
the use of only certified, channelized, no-user-adjustments-possible
equipment. Most of those "millions" or transceivers cited are very low
power and use only a single mode and a few channels. The user has
almost no real control over the operation of the radio. This is most
true in the case of the cell phone/
> Where is
> the "romance" in all this Plenty from a cornucopia that
> all have grabbed? It is GONE, yes.
Maybe for you, Len. Not for hundreds of thousands of radio amateurs.
>
> But, NEW "romances" await. DIFFERENT ones, I'd say a
> helluva lot more complex than old, simple "radio." We
> can't relive old "romances" except in our minds and we
> can't grow physically younger. Only person-to-person
> romance is TRUE, the other "romance" is of the
> imagination, of the fantasy of what was once there.
> This fantasy "romance" can't be brought back. It can't
> be legislated into remaining static. The rules and
> regulations have to change to keep up with the NOW.
In other words, Len, you want to tell us what we should like and what
we should not like. What we should enjoy and what we should not enjoy.
What is wrong with live and let live?
LenAn...@ieee.org
>LenAnder...@ieee.org wrote:
>> From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm
>> >On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, M...@kb9rqz.net wrote:
>> The ready-built Personal Computer first appeared in 1976,
>> 30 years ago (the "IBM PC" debuted in 1980, 26 years ago).
>> The Internet went public in 1991, 15 years ago.
>
>Basically true, but that's not the whole story by any means.
I wrote a chronological synopsis. If you need more
material, you can crib from Robert X. Cringely and/or
dozens of others.
If you need a "whole story" then WRITE one and get it
published. You are the self-styled knowitall "expert"
who tells everyone else what to write correctly and
not correctly, what to like and not like. You know
everything, yes? Of course you do...you are a code-
tested amateur extra.
>Until rather recently, personal computers were rather expensive.
Define "recently." The prices for complete personal
computer systems, components have been constantly
dropping since the beginning of 1982.
Five years ago a complete PC sold for $500 plus tax
at Lowes near Gig Harbor, Washington. Hewlett-Packard
brand no less! :-)
Complete PCs - and laptop portables - can be purchased
today at Fry's on the west coast for $500; go to
www.outpost.com to see their mail-order products.
>The
>IBM PC (introduced in August 1981) cost over $1500 in its basic
>configuration - which works out to about $3500 in 2006 dollars for a
>machine with very limited capabilities.
The IBM representative showing off their PC at Rocketdyne
in early 1982 was NOT taking orders in "2006 dollars."
The Treasury Departement would have arrested both reps
and IBM Corporation had they done so.
"Limited capabilities?" Only by today's standard. In the
early 1980s the first IBM PCs were the EQUAL in power of
any 16-bit minicomputer then on the market. Try to keep
your time frame focussed. And cite your hands-on
experience with either designing, building, or using
minicomputers for a comparison. Feel free to indulge
everyone on your 64-bit mainframe computer expertise.
>As recently as 10 years ago, a complete PC system with reasonable
>performance cost over $2000 - and its depreciation curve was very
>steep.
You did not do any "dumpster diving" for parts to build
your own PC? Why not? Can't you build a functional IBM
PC clone for just $100 in parts? Do you think you need
morse code skills to program computer code?
I know a few folks who have built whole new PC-compatible
computers for LESS than $250 in parts cost. Three years
ago.
>"The internet" was originally rather limited and not simple to access
>for the non-technically minded. That's all changed now.
Neither the Internet ("world wide web") nor commands for
browsers accessing the Internet have changed in 15 years.
Define "technically minded." Did PC users need university
degrees to access the world wide web? I don't think so.
>On top of all this is the evolution of the PC from an expensive
>techno-toy to an everyday tool in most workplaces, schools, and homes.
>"Computer literacy" is now *expected* in most jobs.
Jailhouse guards, housewives, nannies don't need "computer
literacy." They can all be amateur radio licensees, though.
>The synergy of low cost, easy-to-use computers, easy and fast online
>access, and a reasonably computer-literate public has only come
>together within the past 10 years.
Yawn. Robert X. Cringely you are NOT. :-)
Why are you trying to tell me what to believe and not
believe? Why do you think YOUR "computer history" is
"more accurate" than mine? Have you built ANY personal
computer from scratch? No? I have. Two of them, in
fact. It was fun to do so for me. Why are you trying
to tell me what I "should" be having fun with?
You are not a member of the IEEE, a Professional Association.
I am a Life Member of the IEEE. Are you or have you ever
been a voting member of the ACM (Association for Computing
Machinery)? I have. [got the stupid T-shirt "Dragon in a
Member" slogan on the front...but it was free...<shrug>]
Why are you always telling me what to like, not like,
enjoy, not enjoy, what to post, what not to post?
LenAn...@ieee.org
>LenAnder...@ieee.org wrote:
>> From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm
>> >On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, M...@kb9rqz.net wrote:
>> Amateur radio is the ONLY radio service still using
>> morse radiotelegraphy for communications purposes.
>
>So what? Amateurs choose the mode they want to use. What is wrong with
>choosing Morse Code and HF operation?
Now, now, Jimmie, you are assigning some "blame" on a plain
and simple factual statement: "Amateur radio is the ONLY
[US] radio service still using morse radiotelegraphy for
communications purposes."
What I wrote is a plain and simple fact.
You seem to be in denial, unable to accept a plain and simple
fact. Your problem, not mine.
>Some may say the Morse Code *test* is outmoded. But you are saying the
>*use* of Morse Code is outmoded!
Yes, in every other radio service except amateur.
You seem to be in denial, unable to accept a plain and simple
fact. Your problem, not mine.
>FM broadcasting is the only radio service that uses stereo multiplex FM
>- is it outmoded?
There is NO SUCH THING as "stereo multiplex FM" mode.
FM broadcasting is NOT the "only radio service" using stereophonic
audio modulation. Stereophonic audio modulation is NOT required
by FM band broadcasters. Those broadcasters MAY use stereophonic
audio OR they may use monophonic audio plus a SUBCARRIER separate
audio channel OR they may use stereophonic audio PLUS the
subcarrier audio. The term "multiplex" applies to SEPARATE
information sources, not stereophonic audio. All of that is
very much in use today.
DTV (Digital TeleVision) broadcasting carries QUADRAPHONIC audio
(optional, may be monophonic or stereophonic) with or without
extra separate audio subchannels, with or without audio text
("Teletext") accompanying the video. That is very much in use
today and for the foreseeable future of American TV broadcasting.
Some AM broadcasters are still using the Motorola C-QUAM system
for stereophonic broadcasting where each stereo "channel" takes
one of the two DSB sidebands. While that system works well,
the AM broadcasting listener market has NOT received it well
enough to warrant more than a few broadcasters adopting it or
any similar AM stereophonic system. It appears to be on the
way out due to listener non-acceptance.
"Shortwave" broadcasting is still "testing" Radio Mondial
system which is capable of stereophonic audio transmission.
Technically the system works very well. The increased cost
of receivers and the general downturn in world interest in
"shortwave" broadcasting might result in a future
discontinuance. Note: What was once "shortwave" radio
broadcasting is increasingly shifting over to satellite
relay and VoIP dissemination rather than maintaining the
HF transmitters; program content remains the same.
The International Civil Airways VOR (Very high frequency
Omnidirectional radio Range) system ground stations ALWAYS
broadcast with a subcarrier (9.96 KHz) that is FMed with
the reference magnetic azimuth bearing phase. The RF
output is amplitude modulated with 30% AM so that any
receiver can determine its magnetic bearing to the ground
station by comparing the demodulated reference phase with
the main AM phase. Relatively simple receiver demod that
was devised in vacuum tube architecture times. In use
since 1955 worldwide, no foreseeable discontinuance in the
future despite wider use of GPS.
Multi-channel (many "multis") using FM was once the choice
of trans-continental microwave radio relay, the linkage
across the USA that made national TV and 'dial-anywhere'
long distance telephony possible. It has been largely
replaced by optical fiber relay using digital multiplexing
of voice and TV channels using digital modulation of laser
light. The longest (to date) fiber-optic relay is the
long, long like between London and Tokyo through the
Mediterranean Sea past Saudi Arabia, India, around
southeast Asia, past the Phillippines. Most of it under
water. Optical "pumping" with a second optical wave-
length is used for amplification to avoid electronic
repeater amplifiers. Such optical pumping (amplification)
is not possible with microwave RF radio relay.
There are many different other examples of "FM"-like
modulations at work daily in HF and on up into the micro-
waves. The most common is the various adaptations of the
common dial-up modem using combinatorial amplitude and
phase modulation of an audio carrier wave. Those are the
"TORs" (Teleprinter Over Radio) used for data
communications in maritime service; voice is done via SSB
and may be simultaneous with the data. This is on-going
in use and for the foreseeable future.
The FIRST HF Single Sideband circuits (since the beginning
of the 1930s) used combinatorial modulations. The 12 KHz
bandwidth was composed of four 3 KHz wide separate one-way
channels. Each 3 KHz (voice bandwidth) channel could carry
up to 6 frequency-shift-modulated teleprinter channels.
The common arrangement worldwide (by both commercial and
government users) was to use two 3 KHz channels solely
for voice/telephony and the remaining two for 8 to 12 TTY
circuits (number dependent on the redundancy required to
overcome selective fading). While those "commercial" SSB
circuits were numerous from the 40s on into the 70s, their
number has dwindled due to better throughput and reliability
from satellite radio relay services.
Was there anything else technical about communications
and/or broadcasting that you wanted to erroneously state?
Ma...@kb9rqz.net
<LenAn...@ieee.org> wrote:
>From: N...@AOL.COM on Tues, Oct 3 2006 3:25 pm
>
>>LenAnder...@ieee.org wrote:
>>> From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm
>>> >On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, M...@kb9rqz.net wrote:
>
>>> The ready-built Personal Computer first appeared in 1976,
>>> 30 years ago (the "IBM PC" debuted in 1980, 26 years ago).
>>> The Internet went public in 1991, 15 years ago.
>>
>>Basically true, but that's not the whole story by any means.
>
> I wrote a chronological synopsis. If you need more
> material, you can crib from Robert X. Cringely and/or
> dozens of others.
>
> If you need a "whole story" then WRITE one and get it
> published. You are the self-styled knowitall "expert"
> who tells everyone else what to write correctly and
> not correctly, what to like and not like. You know
> everything, yes? Of course you do...you are a code-
> tested amateur extra.
no one would be able to read his account surely for something so
impoartant he would write in Morse Code
>
>
>>Until rather recently, personal computers were rather expensive.
>
> Define "recently." The prices for complete personal
> computer systems, components have been constantly
> dropping since the beginning of 1982.
>
> Five years ago a complete PC sold for $500 plus tax
> at Lowes near Gig Harbor, Washington. Hewlett-Packard
> brand no less! :-)
I have paid more than 700 in this centrury
>
> Complete PCs - and laptop portables - can be purchased
> today at Fry's on the west coast for $500; go to
> www.outpost.com to see their mail-order products.
>
>>The
>>IBM PC (introduced in August 1981) cost over $1500 in its basic
>>configuration - which works out to about $3500 in 2006 dollars for a
>>machine with very limited capabilities.
>
> The IBM representative showing off their PC at Rocketdyne
> in early 1982 was NOT taking orders in "2006 dollars."
> The Treasury Departement would have arrested both reps
> and IBM Corporation had they done so.
>
> "Limited capabilities?" Only by today's standard. In the
> early 1980s the first IBM PCs were the EQUAL in power of
> any 16-bit minicomputer then on the market. Try to keep
> your time frame focussed. And cite your hands-on
> experience with either designing, building, or using
> minicomputers for a comparison. Feel free to indulge
> everyone on your 64-bit mainframe computer expertise.
and for that matter I have my packet station runing with a 286 today
(my very first pc btw and I borught that in 80's for a about 1000
>
>>As recently as 10 years ago, a complete PC system with reasonable
>>performance cost over $2000 - and its depreciation curve was very
>>steep.
>
> You did not do any "dumpster diving" for parts to build
> your own PC? Why not? Can't you build a functional IBM
> PC clone for just $100 in parts? Do you think you need
> morse code skills to program computer code?
hmm give him that one not I sure I could do for thless 250 but then
maybe you have better dumpsters to dive in out there
>
> I know a few folks who have built whole new PC-compatible
> computers for LESS than $250 in parts cost. Three years
> ago.
1990 under 400 for a 386 (the 486 made the 386 mb so cheap)
it does not advance th e cuase of code testing
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/
Slow Code
news:1160001355.9...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:
Whewww. That was a gassy one.
SC
Opus-
thusly:
>Whewww. That was a gassy one.
We don't need to hear about your sex life.
Opus-
You seem pretty knowledgeable so I need some assistance at
understanding something.
What I can't understand is the the incredibly childish attitude of
some of the pro-coders here. For me, the confusion stems from having
known several old timer hams while growing up. I looked up to them.
They were older gentlemen that had some fascinating knowledge and
great stories to tell about their ham radio hobby. This was back in
the 60's and early 70's so they are all gone now.
I am sure now that they are spinning in their graves, after the spew
puked up by some of the pro-coders.
Not all of them, to be fair, but a few loud ones stand out.
I still can't figure out how a statement about how CW is just beeps[
as opposed to voice on the same hardware] became transmuted into a
requirement that I should hate usenet.
That kind of blatant mis-direction seems to be quite common.
The statement is quite simple...a voice on the airwaves can convey
much more information than just the words spoken but CW can only
convey the words. Since the medium and usually the hardware is exactly
the same weather or not a microphone or a key is used, why bother with
a key that is much more limited? Somehow, this relates to pixels on my
screen but I have yet to understand why my opponent felt the need to
misdirect, misrepresent and misquote. Can none of the pro-coders make
a valid point?
Why do some of them feel that insulting my daughter will make their
point valid? Are their points so weak that they resort to vulgar
insults instead of engaging in debate? I usually don't killfile people
but I have made a few exceptions lately.
Now, there will be some spew directed towards my post. They can go
ahead and prove that turning ham into CB will most certainly be a
great improvement to the ARS. I NEVER knew anybody on CB that was as
rude and vulgar as some of the pro-coders here. I can have a nasty
mouth too, at times, but it's always in response to stupidity that is
obviously not to be taken seriously.
And, ironically, *I* am the one told to grow up. That's just too
funny.
Ma...@kb9rqz.net
when you goign tpo pay off your bet
Ma...@kb9rqz.net
>
>You seem pretty knowledgeable so I need some assistance at
>understanding something.
>
>What I can't understand is the the incredibly childish attitude of
>some of the pro-coders here. For me, the confusion stems from having
>known several old timer hams while growing up. I looked up to them.
>They were older gentlemen that had some fascinating knowledge and
>great stories to tell about their ham radio hobby. This was back in
>the 60's and early 70's so they are all gone now.
>
>I am sure now that they are spinning in their graves, after the spew
>puked up by some of the pro-coders.
I am sure Hiram is spingin or puking over the way the ARRl and
procoders are abusing Ham radio
>
>Not all of them, to be fair, but a few loud ones stand out.
>
>I still can't figure out how a statement about how CW is just beeps[
>as opposed to voice on the same hardware] became transmuted into a
>requirement that I should hate usenet.
>That kind of blatant mis-direction seems to be quite common.
bacause it all they have to try
>
>The statement is quite simple...a voice on the airwaves can convey
>much more information than just the words spoken but CW can only
>convey the words. Since the medium and usually the hardware is exactly
>the same weather or not a microphone or a key is used, why bother with
>a key that is much more limited? Somehow, this relates to pixels on my
>screen but I have yet to understand why my opponent felt the need to
>misdirect, misrepresent and misquote. Can none of the pro-coders make
>a valid point?
>
>Why do some of them feel that insulting my daughter will make their
>point valid? Are their points so weak that they resort to vulgar
>insults instead of engaging in debate? I usually don't killfile people
>but I have made a few exceptions lately.
>
>Now, there will be some spew directed towards my post. They can go
>ahead and prove that turning ham into CB will most certainly be a
>great improvement to the ARS. I NEVER knew anybody on CB that was as
>rude and vulgar as some of the pro-coders here. I can have a nasty
>mouth too, at times, but it's always in response to stupidity that is
>obviously not to be taken seriously.
>
>And, ironically, *I* am the one told to grow up. That's just too
>funny.
Dave Heil
> From: N...@AOL.COM on Tues, Oct 3 2006 3:25 pm
>
>> LenAnder...@ieee.org wrote:
>>> From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm
>>>> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, M...@kb9rqz.net wrote:
>
>>> The ready-built Personal Computer first appeared in 1976,
>>> 30 years ago (the "IBM PC" debuted in 1980, 26 years ago).
>>> The Internet went public in 1991, 15 years ago.
>> Basically true, but that's not the whole story by any means.
>
> I wrote a chronological synopsis. If you need more
> material, you can crib from Robert X. Cringely and/or
> dozens of others.
Is that where you obtained yours?
> If you need a "whole story" then WRITE one and get it
> published. You are the self-styled knowitall "expert"
> who tells everyone else what to write correctly and
> not correctly, what to like and not like. You know
> everything, yes? Of course you do...you are a code-
> tested amateur extra.
You wrote one and submitted it here for free? I don't think the reviews
are going to be good on this one, Len. It has some gaping holes and
some factual errors.
>
>> Until rather recently, personal computers were rather expensive.
>
> Define "recently." The prices for complete personal
> computer systems, components have been constantly
> dropping since the beginning of 1982.
No kidding? The only thing is, they didn't drop very fast until the
past five or six years.
> Five years ago a complete PC sold for $500 plus tax
> at Lowes near Gig Harbor, Washington. Hewlett-Packard
> brand no less! :-)
Why the smiley? Was that a joke?
> Complete PCs - and laptop portables - can be purchased
> today at Fry's on the west coast for $500; go to
> www.outpost.com to see their mail-order products.
>
>> The
>> IBM PC (introduced in August 1981) cost over $1500 in its basic
>> configuration - which works out to about $3500 in 2006 dollars for a
>> machine with very limited capabilities.
>
> The IBM representative showing off their PC at Rocketdyne
> in early 1982 was NOT taking orders in "2006 dollars."
> The Treasury Departement would have arrested both reps
> and IBM Corporation had they done so.
No smiley here?
> "Limited capabilities?" Only by today's standard.
That's not correct. The 1981 PC had limited capabilities compared to
the XT available not too long afterward. Both had limited capabilities
in terms of processor speed, memory and storage compared to the PC's of
the early 1990's.
> In the
> early 1980s the first IBM PCs were the EQUAL in power of
> any 16-bit minicomputer then on the market. Try to keep
> your time frame focussed.
Were there things that the IBM couldn't do at that point, Len?
If not, why were so many folks designing, building and selling systems
to allow those early PC's to network with minicomputers?
> And cite your hands-on
> experience with either designing, building, or using
> minicomputers for a comparison. Feel free to indulge
> everyone on your 64-bit mainframe computer expertise.
There's a big difference between designing or building and using
minicomputers. I've never designed or built any minicomputer but I have
plenty of experience in using and working as systems manager on Wang VS
systems. Now what?
>> As recently as 10 years ago, a complete PC system with reasonable
>> performance cost over $2000 - and its depreciation curve was very
>> steep.
>
> You did not do any "dumpster diving" for parts to build
> your own PC? Why not? Can't you build a functional IBM
> PC clone for just $100 in parts? Do you think you need
> morse code skills to program computer code?
>
> I know a few folks who have built whole new PC-compatible
> computers for LESS than $250 in parts cost. Three years
> ago.
Now what?
>> "The internet" was originally rather limited and not simple to access
>> for the non-technically minded. That's all changed now.
>
> Neither the Internet ("world wide web")...
Would you like additional time to rethink your statement?
> ...nor commands for
> browsers accessing the Internet have changed in 15 years.
>
> Define "technically minded." Did PC users need university
> degrees to access the world wide web? I don't think so.
Does everyone who is technically minded need a university degree at any
time, Len?
>> On top of all this is the evolution of the PC from an expensive
>> techno-toy to an everyday tool in most workplaces, schools, and homes.
>> "Computer literacy" is now *expected* in most jobs.
>
> Jailhouse guards, housewives, nannies don't need "computer
> literacy." They can all be amateur radio licensees, though.
That's odd. Our regional jail uses plenty of PC's. I don't know any
nannies but I know plenty of housewives who use PCs. I didn't see
anything incorrect in Jim's statement. Where are you going with yours?
>> The synergy of low cost, easy-to-use computers, easy and fast online
>> access, and a reasonably computer-literate public has only come
>> together within the past 10 years.
>
> Yawn. Robert X. Cringely you are NOT. :-)
If you aren't, did you crib from him without giving credit? :-)
> Why are you trying to tell me what to believe and not
> believe? Why do you think YOUR "computer history" is
> "more accurate" than mine?
Relax, Len. It was probably due to his having had prior experiences
with you.
> Have you built ANY personal
> computer from scratch? No? I have. Two of them, in
> fact. It was fun to do so for me. Why are you trying
> to tell me what I "should" be having fun with?
I'll bet it took you years to solder the parts on those mother boards.
How long did it take you to assemble that hard drive?
Awwwww! I'll bet you meant that you assembled the motherboard into a
case, screwed in the power supply, slid in a drive or two, perhaps added
a CD or DVD burner, plugged in a couple of PCI boards, attached the
monitor, keyboard and mouse and called it a day.
> You are not a member of the IEEE, a Professional Association.
> I am a Life Member of the IEEE.
Yessir. I know about the IEEE Code of Ethics, too. What has all this
talk of the IEEE to do with amateur radio? Does anyone need an IEEE
member to assemble a computer or use it?
> Are you or have you ever
> been a voting member of the ACM (Association for Computing
> Machinery)? I have. [got the stupid T-shirt "Dragon in a
> Member" slogan on the front...but it was free...<shrug>]
That's great, Len. It looks as if you've found your niche.
> Why are you always telling me what to like, not like,
> enjoy, not enjoy, what to post, what not to post?
I say, if it is computers you like, it is with computers you should
stick. Have a blast, Leonard. You can take 'em apart and put 'em back
together again. You can impress those with less knowledge than yourself.
> What is wrong with live and let live?
You've been allowed to live.
Dave K8MN
N2...@aol.com
> From: N...@AOL.COM on Tues, Oct 3 2006 3:25 pm
> >LenAnder...@ieee.org wrote:
> >> From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm
> >> >On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, M...@kb9rqz.net wrote:
>
> >> The ready-built Personal Computer first appeared in 1976,
> >> 30 years ago (the "IBM PC" debuted in 1980, 26 years ago).
> >> The Internet went public in 1991, 15 years ago.
> >
> >Basically true, but that's not the whole story by any means.
>
> I wrote a chronological synopsis.
You left out important information and included a few mistakes. The
information you left out disproves your conclusions.
> If you need a "whole story" then WRITE one and get it
> published. You are the self-styled knowitall "expert"
I've never claimed to be an expert, Len. I do know some things that you
do not know. That seems to really bother you.
> who tells everyone else what to write correctly and
> not correctly, what to like and not like.
I point out some of your mistakes. That's how things go in a newsgroup.
You can have any opinion you want, Len. You can believe the earth is
flat, the moon made of green cheese, that "acceptable" has the letter
"i" in it, or that the IBM PC was introduced in 1980. If you express
such "opinions", it's possible someone else will point out your
mistakes. Your opinion does not make something a fact.
> You know everything, yes?
Oh no, I don't know nearly everything. But I do know some things that
you do not know. That seems to really bother you.
> you are a code-tested amateur extra.
There's no other kind. You aren't even a Novice, though.
>
>
> >Until rather recently, personal computers were rather expensive.
>
> Define "recently."
In the context of the PC, about the past 7 years.
> The prices for complete personal
> computer systems, components have been constantly
> dropping since the beginning of 1982.
Of course. But until about 7 years ago, most complete systems were well
over $1000.
>
> Five years ago a complete PC sold for $500 plus tax
> at Lowes near Gig Harbor, Washington. Hewlett-Packard
> brand no less! :-)
That's relatively recently, Len.
Did it include a monitor? Printer? Supplies for the printer?
>
> Complete PCs - and laptop portables - can be purchased
> today at Fry's on the west coast for $500; go to
> www.outpost.com to see their mail-order products.
That's my point, Len. The prices *now* are far below what they were
even 8 years ago.
> >The
> >IBM PC (introduced in August 1981) cost over $1500 in its basic
> >configuration - which works out to about $3500 in 2006 dollars for a
> >machine with very limited capabilities.
>
> The IBM representative showing off their PC at Rocketdyne
> in early 1982 was NOT taking orders in "2006 dollars."
> The Treasury Departement would have arrested both reps
> and IBM Corporation had they done so.
Ever hear of something called "inflation", Len? How about "inflation
adjusted"?
You know, how the value of money declines in an inflationary economy?
"2006 dollars" is a valid way of describing that.
>
> "Limited capabilities?" Only by today's standard.
No, by any reasonable standard. Heck, the original IBM PC was
considered obsolete long before 1990.
> In the
> early 1980s the first IBM PCs were the EQUAL in power of
> any 16-bit minicomputer then on the market.
And by the late 1990s they had been eclipsed by much more powerful PCs.
> Try to keep
> your time frame focussed. And cite your hands-on
> experience with either designing, building, or using
> minicomputers for a comparison. Feel free to indulge
> everyone on your 64-bit mainframe computer expertise.
The point is that those early machines were expensive and limited in
their capabilities.
The original 1981 IBM PC did not include a hard drive, color display,
network interface, modem or mouse as standard equipment. The software
available for it was limited and expensive.
> >As recently as 10 years ago, a complete PC system with reasonable
> >performance cost over $2000 - and its depreciation curve was very
> >steep.
>
> You did not do any "dumpster diving" for parts to build
> your own PC?
It's not about me, Len. It's about what computers used to cost, and
what they could do.
> Why not? Can't you build a functional IBM
> PC clone for just $100 in parts?
Actually, Len, I'm quite good at assembling PCs. For a lot less than
$100. In many cases, for no money at all.
My specialty is collecting older machines and utilizing the best parts
from them to assemble a "new" one. Usually I get them before they reach
the dumpster, but sometimes I have to reach in and pick something out.
It's amazing what computer hardware individuals and businesses throw
away these days. 17" monitors that work perfectly. Pentium II class
machines complete with CD burners, NICs, modems, etc. Sometimes the OS
is still on the hard drive. Cables, keyboards, printers, and more. It
is not at all unusual for me to find working but discarded computers
that cost more than $2500 new.
> Do you think you need
> morse code skills to program computer code?
Who needs to "program computer code", Len? Why do you live in the past?
> I know a few folks who have built whole new PC-compatible
> computers for LESS than $250 in parts cost. Three years
> ago.
But *you* haven't done it. I have.
It's also besides the point: Until rather recently (7 years ago,
approximately), PCs were quite expensive. Spending a couple of thousand
dollars is a different thing than spending a couple of hundred.
> >"The internet" was originally rather limited and not simple to access
> >for the non-technically minded. That's all changed now.
>
> Neither the Internet ("world wide web") nor commands for
> browsers accessing the Internet have changed in 15 years.
Not the point. What is the point is that there is much more content
available. And it's much easier and less expensive to access.
> Define "technically minded." Did PC users need university
> degrees to access the world wide web? I don't think so.
They did need some understanding of how to set up and use a PC. That
sort of thing used to be fairly unusual - not anymore.
> >On top of all this is the evolution of the PC from an expensive
> >techno-toy to an everyday tool in most workplaces, schools, and homes.
> >"Computer literacy" is now *expected* in most jobs.
>
> Jailhouse guards, housewives, nannies don't need "computer
> literacy."
Sure they do, Len.
> They can all be amateur radio licensees, though.
If they pass the tests and earn the license. You haven't passed the
tests and you haven't earned the license.
>
> >The synergy of low cost, easy-to-use computers, easy and fast online
> >access, and a reasonably computer-literate public has only come
> >together within the past 10 years.
>
> Yawn. Robert X. Cringely you are NOT. :-)
I don't claim to be.
> Why are you trying to tell me what to believe and not
> believe?
Because you got the facts wrong, Len.
> Why do you think YOUR "computer history" is
> "more accurate" than mine?
Because it is, Len. You got the dates wrong. You left out how much PCs
used to cost, and how little they used to be able to do.
If PCs have had an effect on the number of US radio amateurs, most of
that effect has happened in the past 8 years or less.
> Have you built ANY personal
> computer from scratch?
I've assembled several from components.
> No?
Yes.
> I have.
That's nice. Were they IBM-compatible PCs? Or were they simple systems
from 25-30 years ago?, and you're playing word games with "personal"
and "computer"
> Two of them, in
> fact. It was fun to do so for me.
That's nice, Len.
> Why are you trying
> to tell me what I "should" be having fun with?
I'm not - if you want to build computers, go ahead.
But if you want to discuss the effects of PCs on amateur radio, you're
going to see rebuttals to your mistaken assertions.
N2...@aol.com
> The statement is quite simple...a voice on the airwaves can convey
> much more information than just the words spoken but CW can only
> convey the words.
Morse Code can convey more than the words - if the operators are
skilled in it.
It's not the same thing as a voice, though. It's a different
communications experience, just as the written word is a different
experience from the spoken word.
> Since the medium and usually the hardware is exactly
> the same weather or not a microphone or a key is used, why bother with
> a key that is much more limited?
Several reasons:
1) It's often *not* the same hardware. You can use much simpler
equipment for Morse Code than for voice modes.
2) It's a different communications experience. (see above). For many of
us, that alone makes it worthwhile.
3) It takes up much less spectrum. With good equipment, five to ten
Morse Code signals can fit in the same spectrum space required by just
one single-sideband voice signal. AM and FM take up even more space on
the band.
4) It's more effective under adverse conditions. A Morse Code signal
typically has about 10-13 dB of advanatage over single-sideband voice.
That's about 2 S-units. Under conditions that make SSB unusable, or
barely usable, Morse Code will often be solid copy with good signals.
There are other reasons, but those four come to mind right now.
> Somehow, this relates to pixels on my
> screen but I have yet to understand why my opponent felt the need to
> misdirect, misrepresent and misquote.
Lots of that going around - on both sides. Don't let it bother you - I
sure don't.
> Can none of the pro-coders make
> a valid point?
I just made a couple of valid points. That doesn't mean there *must* be
a Morse Code test, just that the mode has some good points.
Jim, N2EY
Opus-
>Opus- wrote:
>
>> The statement is quite simple...a voice on the airwaves can convey
>> much more information than just the words spoken but CW can only
>> convey the words.
>
>Morse Code can convey more than the words - if the operators are
>skilled in it.
One of those old timers once told me that he recognized another
operators "hand" back when I watched him operate. I am not sure how
much more a person can get out of code.
>It's not the same thing as a voice, though. It's a different
>communications experience, just as the written word is a different
>experience from the spoken word.
Fair enough.
>> Since the medium and usually the hardware is exactly
>> the same weather or not a microphone or a key is used, why bother with
>> a key that is much more limited?
>
>Several reasons:
>
>1) It's often *not* the same hardware. You can use much simpler
>equipment for Morse Code than for voice modes.
Well, I did say "usually". But wouldn't simpler equipment limit you to
code only?
>2) It's a different communications experience. (see above). For many of
>us, that alone makes it worthwhile.
I am curious as to what would make it worthwhile.
>3) It takes up much less spectrum. With good equipment, five to ten
>Morse Code signals can fit in the same spectrum space required by just
>one single-sideband voice signal. AM and FM take up even more space on
>the band.
Some very valid points here.
>4) It's more effective under adverse conditions. A Morse Code signal
>typically has about 10-13 dB of advanatage over single-sideband voice.
>That's about 2 S-units. Under conditions that make SSB unusable, or
>barely usable, Morse Code will often be solid copy with good signals.
I could see the challenge in this. I remember a certain thrill back
when I was a kid, whenever I managed to make out a distant signal and
recognize where it was broadcast from.
>There are other reasons, but those four come to mind right now.
>
>> Somehow, this relates to pixels on my
>> screen but I have yet to understand why my opponent felt the need to
>> misdirect, misrepresent and misquote.
>
>Lots of that going around - on both sides. Don't let it bother you - I
>sure don't.
I just don't like the snotty attitude that makes the ARS look so bad.
I am still waiting for my government handout. Never had any government
handouts in the 44 years I have been around.
>> Can none of the pro-coders make
>> a valid point?
>
>I just made a couple of valid points. That doesn't mean there *must* be
>a Morse Code test, just that the mode has some good points.
Thank you for making some points in a nice, civilized manner.
My neighbor, when I was about 12 or younger, had a nifty tower setup.
He had 2 tall telephone poles in the ground with enough space between
them for a third pole bolted in near the top, adding almost the full
length of another pole, save for about 6 feet where all three were
bolted together. I was self-supporting.
Ma...@kb9rqz.net
>Opus- wrote:
>
>> The statement is quite simple...a voice on the airwaves can convey
>> much more information than just the words spoken but CW can only
>> convey the words.
>
>Morse Code can convey more than the words - if the operators are
>skilled in it.
bullshit
Ma...@kb9rqz.net
>LenAn...@ieee.org wrote:
>> From: N...@AOL.COM on Tues, Oct 3 2006 3:25 pm
>> >LenAnder...@ieee.org wrote:
>> >> From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm
>> >> >On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, M...@kb9rqz.net wrote:
>>
>> >> The ready-built Personal Computer first appeared in 1976,
>> >> 30 years ago (the "IBM PC" debuted in 1980, 26 years ago).
>> >> The Internet went public in 1991, 15 years ago.
>> >
>> >Basically true, but that's not the whole story by any means.
>>
>> I wrote a chronological synopsis.
>
>You left out important information and included a few mistakes. The
>information you left out disproves your conclusions.
no you just feel you have to lecture everybody must be the damage
seting in form your years of code use
N2...@aol.com
> >> The statement is quite simple...a voice on the airwaves can convey
> >> much more information than just the words spoken but CW can only
> >> convey the words.
> >Morse Code can convey more than the words - if the operators are
> >skilled in it.
> One of those old timers once told me that he recognized another
> operators "hand" back when I watched him operate.
Yup. Little things about an op's sending can make it as recognizable as
a familiar voice.
btw, the term "fist" is used in the same context as "hand" was used by
that op.
> I am not sure how
> much more a person can get out of code.
The words, of course. How they are sent can tell a lot, too. It takes a
bit of experience to recognize all the subtleties of Morse Code.
The main point is that skilled Morse Code operators can convey more
than 'just the words'.
> >It's not the same thing as a voice, though.
I think that is your main point.
> >It's a different
> >communications experience, just as the written word is a different
> >experience from the spoken word.
>
> Fair enough.
Exactly.
> >> Since the medium and usually the hardware is exactly
> >> the same weather or not a microphone or a key is used, why bother with
> >> a key that is much more limited?
> >
> >Several reasons:
> >
> >1) It's often *not* the same hardware. You can use much simpler
> >equipment for Morse Code than for voice modes.
>
> Well, I did say "usually".
Of course.
> But wouldn't simpler equipment limit you to code only?
That depends on the exact situation. The important point is that once
you have Morse Code skills, using code-only equipment isn't really a
limitation in most cases.
Simplicity of equipment can be very important in some situations. For
example, if someone wants to actually build their HF Amateur Radio
equipment, it's much simpler and easier to build a Morse Code station
than an equivalent-performance voice station. In portable operations,
the power requirement, size and weight of a Morse Code station can be
less than that of the equivalent voice station.
> >2) It's a different communications experience. (see above). For many of
> >us, that alone makes it worthwhile.
>
> I am curious as to what would make it worthwhile.
All sorts of things:
A) You can communicate without talking or typing. (In a world where a
lot of us spend a lot of time on the telephone and computer, being able
to communicate another way can be a real treat!)
B) The exercise of a skill is fun. Consider the person who learns how
to play a musical instrument: do you think making music (performing) is
the same experience as listening to recorded music?
C) Once you have the skills, communicating with Morse Code can be as
easy - or even easier - than using voice.
D) You can use Morse Code in situations where voice could not be used.
For example, suppose you are in a small house, apartment, RV, tent,
etc., and you want to operate without disturbing others (who might be
sleeping, talking, etc.). Of course you can put on headphones so they
don't hear the received signals, but in order to transmit, you have to
talk. Even if you keep your voice down, it can bother others. How many
times have you heard people complain about folks using cell phones in
public? But with Morse Code and a good pair of cans, you can operate
and make less noise than someone typing on a keyboard.
> >3) It takes up much less spectrum. With good equipment, five to ten
> >Morse Code signals can fit in the same spectrum space required by just
> >one single-sideband voice signal. AM and FM take up even more space on
> >the band.
>
> Some very valid points here.
None of which mean that there *must* be a Morse Code test for an
amateur radio license. I happen to think such a test is a good idea,
but that's just my opinion.
> >4) It's more effective under adverse conditions. A Morse Code signal
> >typically has about 10-13 dB of advanatage over single-sideband voice.
> >That's about 2 S-units. Under conditions that make SSB unusable, or
> >barely usable, Morse Code will often be solid copy with good signals.
>
> I could see the challenge in this. I remember a certain thrill back
> when I was a kid, whenever I managed to make out a distant signal and
> recognize where it was broadcast from.
Exactly! The very fact that it takes some skill is part of the fun and
attraction.
>
> >There are other reasons, but those four come to mind right now.
Here's one more:
5) The amount of "bad behavior" problems resulting in FCC enforcement
actions is much less from radio amateurs using Morse Code. Just look at
the FCC enforcement letters that address violations of deliberate
interference, obscenity, exceeding license privileges, and other "bad
behavior" problems. Almost all of them are for violations committed
using voice modes, not Morse Code. The difference is much greater than
would be expected from the relative popularity of the modes.
This doesn't mean all voice ops are problems or all Morse Code ops are
saints! All it means is that there's a lot less enforcement problems
from hams actually using Morse Code.
> >> Somehow, this relates to pixels on my
> >> screen but I have yet to understand why my opponent felt the need to
> >> misdirect, misrepresent and misquote.
> >
> >Lots of that going around - on both sides. Don't let it bother you - I
> >sure don't.
>
> I just don't like the snotty attitude that makes the ARS look so bad.
Agreed! There's too much of that type of attitude on *both* sides of
the debate.
> I am still waiting for my government handout. Never had any government
> handouts in the 44 years I have been around.
How does one define "handout"?
For example, is public education of children a government handout? Yes,
many parents with kids in public school pay school taxes, but in most
districts those taxes paid by parents do not cover all of the costs of
the public schools. And the level of taxation does not depend on how
many children the parents have in school. Is public school a government
handout to people with lots of kids?
Or how about tax deductions? Are they a form of government handout? If
you have a mortgage or home equity loan, the interest is deductible. If
you rent, you don't get that deduction. Is that a government handout to
homeowners?
Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to get a clear idea of what
is a handout and what isn't.
> >> Can none of the pro-coders make
> >> a valid point?
> >
> >I just made a couple of valid points. That doesn't mean there *must* be
> >a Morse Code test, just that the mode has some good points.
>
> Thank you for making some points in a nice, civilized manner.
My pleasure. Thanks for reading.
> My neighbor, when I was about 12 or younger, had a nifty tower setup.
> He had 2 tall telephone poles in the ground with enough space between
> them for a third pole bolted in near the top, adding almost the full
> length of another pole, save for about 6 feet where all three were
> bolted together. I was self-supporting.
Cool! I recently saw a similar setup used for a repeater antenna in a
wooded area. It blended in much better than metal tower.
--
The question of whether there should be a Morse Code test for an
amateur radio license really boils down to this: Does such a test do
more good than harm? The answer is always an opinion, not a fact.
Jim, N2EY
kd5sak
"Barry OGrady" <god_fre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:da6bi21rkqhhpcm0k...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 00:36:36 GMT, Slow Code <my....@no.spam> wrote:
>
>>No, numbers are decreasing because ham radio has been dumbed down so
>>having a ham license isn't worth anything anymore and people are leaving.
>
> Interesting, because AR offers more than just communication.
>
>>SC
>
> Barry
>
I know the comment about people leaving Amateur radio isn't Barrys comment,
but thought I'd address it anyway. I was 69 when I got my Tech license and
72 by the time I made myself pass the code test and got my General. A lot of
the avid pro-morse Hams are even older than I am. I know of no one locally
who has just quit the hobby and those senior to me are not leaving
on their own at all, when they do stop Hammin' it's 'cause their keys went
silent. I never used code after passing the test. I've got the thought in
the back of my mind that I may sometime
pursue a little CW, but it all depends on when I get my own SK notice.
Harold
KD3SAK
an old friend
> > Some very valid points here.
>
> None of which mean that there *must* be a Morse Code test for an
> amateur radio license. I happen to think such a test is a good idea,
> but that's just my opinion.
and yet you try to impose your opinion on the rest
> The question of whether there should be a Morse Code test for an
> amateur radio license really boils down to this: Does such a test do
> more good than harm? The answer is always an opinion, not a fact.
no the answer is not to be based on wether it does more harm than good
the question that must be answered isfirst what regulatory prupose does
it serve
no regulatory purpose and the test is ilegeal even if it could be shown
to do more good than harm
the other question is does the test serve the PUBLIC interest interest
no Procder ever deals with the issue of how Code testing benifits
memebrs of the public such as Len Anderson
>
> Jim, N2EY
Opus-
Sorry I am late in replying. Holiday weekend here in Canada.
On 5 Oct 2006 17:05:58 -0700, N2...@AOL.COM spake thusly:
>Opus- wrote:
>> On 5 Oct 2006 04:26:28 -0700, N2...@AOL.COM spake thusly:
>> >Opus- wrote:
>
>> >> The statement is quite simple...a voice on the airwaves can convey
>> >> much more information than just the words spoken but CW can only
>> >> convey the words.
>
>> >Morse Code can convey more than the words - if the operators are
>> >skilled in it.
>
>> One of those old timers once told me that he recognized another
>> operators "hand" back when I watched him operate.
>
>Yup. Little things about an op's sending can make it as recognizable as
>a familiar voice.
>
>btw, the term "fist" is used in the same context as "hand" was used by
>that op.
Never heard the term "fist" used in this context but it's been a while
since I have spent much time with a coder.
>> I am not sure how
>> much more a person can get out of code.
>
>The words, of course. How they are sent can tell a lot, too. It takes a
>bit of experience to recognize all the subtleties of Morse Code.
>
>The main point is that skilled Morse Code operators can convey more
>than 'just the words'.
>
>> >It's not the same thing as a voice, though.
>
>I think that is your main point.
More than words, but how much more? I also have to believe that code
is slower than speech. Not usually a big issue but an issue none the
less.
>> >It's a different
>> >communications experience, just as the written word is a different
>> >experience from the spoken word.
>>
>> Fair enough.
>
>Exactly.
>
>> >> Since the medium and usually the hardware is exactly
>> >> the same weather or not a microphone or a key is used, why bother with
>> >> a key that is much more limited?
>> >
>> >Several reasons:
>> >
>> >1) It's often *not* the same hardware. You can use much simpler
>> >equipment for Morse Code than for voice modes.
>>
>> Well, I did say "usually".
>
>Of course.
>
>> But wouldn't simpler equipment limit you to code only?
>
>That depends on the exact situation. The important point is that once
>you have Morse Code skills, using code-only equipment isn't really a
>limitation in most cases.
>
>Simplicity of equipment can be very important in some situations. For
>example, if someone wants to actually build their HF Amateur Radio
>equipment, it's much simpler and easier to build a Morse Code station
>than an equivalent-performance voice station. In portable operations,
>the power requirement, size and weight of a Morse Code station can be
>less than that of the equivalent voice station.
With todays electronics, size and weight really aren't much of an
issue.
>> >2) It's a different communications experience. (see above). For many of
>> >us, that alone makes it worthwhile.
>>
>> I am curious as to what would make it worthwhile.
>
>All sorts of things:
>
>A) You can communicate without talking or typing. (In a world where a
>lot of us spend a lot of time on the telephone and computer, being able
>to communicate another way can be a real treat!)
I dunno..I guess I like hearing things like gender or a foreign accent
to add spice to communication.
>B) The exercise of a skill is fun. Consider the person who learns how
>to play a musical instrument: do you think making music (performing) is
>the same experience as listening to recorded music?
Hmm..well..not really a good analogy. Listening to music is only a one
way street while both performing music, as well as radio
communications, is naturally a two way street.
>C) Once you have the skills, communicating with Morse Code can be as
>easy - or even easier - than using voice.
Not quite sure how, but I'll take your word for it.
>D) You can use Morse Code in situations where voice could not be used.
>For example, suppose you are in a small house, apartment, RV, tent,
>etc., and you want to operate without disturbing others (who might be
>sleeping, talking, etc.). Of course you can put on headphones so they
>don't hear the received signals, but in order to transmit, you have to
>talk. Even if you keep your voice down, it can bother others. How many
>times have you heard people complain about folks using cell phones in
>public? But with Morse Code and a good pair of cans, you can operate
>and make less noise than someone typing on a keyboard.
Not really a common circumstance, but I see your point here.
>> >3) It takes up much less spectrum. With good equipment, five to ten
>> >Morse Code signals can fit in the same spectrum space required by just
>> >one single-sideband voice signal. AM and FM take up even more space on
>> >the band.
>>
>> Some very valid points here.
>
>None of which mean that there *must* be a Morse Code test for an
>amateur radio license. I happen to think such a test is a good idea,
>but that's just my opinion.
>
>> >4) It's more effective under adverse conditions. A Morse Code signal
>> >typically has about 10-13 dB of advanatage over single-sideband voice.
>> >That's about 2 S-units. Under conditions that make SSB unusable, or
>> >barely usable, Morse Code will often be solid copy with good signals.
>>
>> I could see the challenge in this. I remember a certain thrill back
>> when I was a kid, whenever I managed to make out a distant signal and
>> recognize where it was broadcast from.
>
>Exactly! The very fact that it takes some skill is part of the fun and
>attraction.
But some here seem to suggest that if no or little skill is required
then it's really not worth pursuing. I strongly dispute that.
>> >There are other reasons, but those four come to mind right now.
>
>Here's one more:
>
>5) The amount of "bad behavior" problems resulting in FCC enforcement
>actions is much less from radio amateurs using Morse Code. Just look at
>the FCC enforcement letters that address violations of deliberate
>interference, obscenity, exceeding license privileges, and other "bad
>behavior" problems. Almost all of them are for violations committed
>using voice modes, not Morse Code. The difference is much greater than
>would be expected from the relative popularity of the modes.
>
>This doesn't mean all voice ops are problems or all Morse Code ops are
>saints! All it means is that there's a lot less enforcement problems
>from hams actually using Morse Code.
Perhaps the typical ages of people who prefer code could be a factor.
It does tend to be considerably older people who prefer code.
>> >> Somehow, this relates to pixels on my
>> >> screen but I have yet to understand why my opponent felt the need to
>> >> misdirect, misrepresent and misquote.
>> >
>> >Lots of that going around - on both sides. Don't let it bother you - I
>> >sure don't.
>>
>> I just don't like the snotty attitude that makes the ARS look so bad.
>
>Agreed! There's too much of that type of attitude on *both* sides of
>the debate.
>
>> I am still waiting for my government handout. Never had any government
>> handouts in the 44 years I have been around.
>
>How does one define "handout"?
Based on the comments, it would seem that the offending poster was
referring to something that was unique to Canada. About the only thing
I can think of is our medical care system. And THAT'S not really free
at all, as I will explain further below.
>For example, is public education of children a government handout? Yes,
>many parents with kids in public school pay school taxes, but in most
>districts those taxes paid by parents do not cover all of the costs of
>the public schools. And the level of taxation does not depend on how
>many children the parents have in school. Is public school a government
>handout to people with lots of kids?
>
>Or how about tax deductions? Are they a form of government handout? If
>you have a mortgage or home equity loan, the interest is deductible. If
>you rent, you don't get that deduction. Is that a government handout to
>homeowners?
Now as for mortgages and home equity loans, the interest is NOT a tax
deduction here in Canada. That could be considered a handout that
Americans enjoy, something Canadians can't enjoy. Also, Canada is the
second highest taxed nation in the world. Renters get a wee bit of a
break in some provinces but not here in Alberta, Canada's "Texas".
>Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to get a clear idea of what
>is a handout and what isn't.
>
>> >> Can none of the pro-coders make
>> >> a valid point?
>> >
>> >I just made a couple of valid points. That doesn't mean there *must* be
>> >a Morse Code test, just that the mode has some good points.
>>
>> Thank you for making some points in a nice, civilized manner.
>
>My pleasure. Thanks for reading.
>
>> My neighbor, when I was about 12 or younger, had a nifty tower setup.
>> He had 2 tall telephone poles in the ground with enough space between
>> them for a third pole bolted in near the top, adding almost the full
>> length of another pole, save for about 6 feet where all three were
>> bolted together. I was self-supporting.
>
>Cool! I recently saw a similar setup used for a repeater antenna in a
>wooded area. It blended in much better than metal tower.
Drove by many many years later. Tower gone. Different house on same
lot. I guess you can never go back.
N2...@aol.com
> Sorry I am late in replying. Holiday weekend here in Canada.
I hope it was a good one.
> On 5 Oct 2006 17:05:58 -0700, N2...@AOL.COM spake thusly:
>
> >Opus- wrote:
> >> On 5 Oct 2006 04:26:28 -0700, N2...@AOL.COM spake thusly:
> >> >Opus- wrote:
> >
> >> >> The statement is quite simple...a voice on the airwaves can convey
> >> >> much more information than just the words spoken but CW can only
> >> >> convey the words.
> >
> >> >Morse Code can convey more than the words - if the operators are
> >> >skilled in it.
> >
> >> One of those old timers once told me that he recognized another
> >> operators "hand" back when I watched him operate.
> >
> >Yup. Little things about an op's sending can make it as recognizable as
> >a familiar voice.
> >
> >btw, the term "fist" is used in the same context as "hand" was used by
> >that op.
>
> Never heard the term "fist" used in this context but it's been a while
> since I have spent much time with a coder.
Both terms are used. Some folks use the term "swing" as well, but
that's not exactly a compliment.
>
> >> I am not sure how
> >> much more a person can get out of code.
> >
> >The words, of course. How they are sent can tell a lot, too. It takes a
> >bit of experience to recognize all the subtleties of Morse Code.
> >
> >The main point is that skilled Morse Code operators can convey more
> >than 'just the words'.
> >
> >> >It's not the same thing as a voice, though.
> >
> >I think that is your main point.
>
> More than words, but how much more?
Quite a bit, but obviously not as much as a voice. The main point is
that skilled operators get more than 'just the words'.
It's a bit similar to the way that one's perception of the written word
is affected by the font, punctuation, capitalization, etc. Not exactly
the same, but similar.
> I also have to believe that code
> is slower than speech. Not usually a big issue but an issue none the
> less.
Like many things, "it depends".
The raw speed of the spoken word is obviously faster.
But when you really listen to the way most people speak, the speed is
limited by many things. There's a lot of redundancy in the way many
people speak, pauses, repeats, "ums" and "ahs', and little phrases
tossed in while the person thinks of what to say next. Meanwhile, the
skilled Morse Code operator is using abbreviations and other shortcuts
that effectively increase the speed way beyond the raw wpm.
For example, the first response in a voice QSO might go like this:
"VE6QRM, victor-echo-six-quebec-romeo-mike, this is N2EY,
november-two-echo-yankee, thanks for the call. You're five and nine,
five-nine here, good clear signals. I am in Wayne, Pennsylvania, that's
Wayne, whiskey-alpha-yankee-november-echo, Pennsylvania, papa-alpha.
Name here is Jim, john-ida-mike, Jim. How do you copy me?....."
while using Morse Code, the same exchange could be:
"VE6QRM DE N2EY TNX CL BT UR 599 599 GUD SIG IN WAYNE PA WAYNE PA BT OP
JIM JIM BT HW?...."
Same information, two different modes. If the Morse Code ops are
reasonably fast, the time is comparable.
I disagree to a point! Look at the size, weight and performance of HF
rigs that you can carry with you. Is there any HF ham rig that's
SSB-capable that can compete with the Elecraft KX-1?
For fixed-station use, there isn't much size/weight difference, if any.
But when you need to carry the rig and batteries any real distance, the
differences become apparent. This is also when you will find that the
difference in low power performance really matters.
> >> >2) It's a different communications experience. (see above). For many of
> >> >us, that alone makes it worthwhile.
> >>
> >> I am curious as to what would make it worthwhile.
> >
> >All sorts of things:
> >
> >A) You can communicate without talking or typing. (In a world where a
> >lot of us spend a lot of time on the telephone and computer, being able
> >to communicate another way can be a real treat!)
>
> I dunno..I guess I like hearing things like gender or a foreign accent
> to add spice to communication.
Of course. And that's part of the point: different communications
experiences.
>
> >B) The exercise of a skill is fun. Consider the person who learns how
> >to play a musical instrument: do you think making music (performing) is
> >the same experience as listening to recorded music?
>
> Hmm..well..not really a good analogy. Listening to music is only a one
> way street while both performing music, as well as radio
> communications, is naturally a two way street.
I was thinking of the person who performs the music for themselves vs.
listening to a recording.
Either way, it's still a different experience.
Or consider this analogy: It's one thing to drive a car with all the
modern conveniences - power steering, automatic transmission, power
brakes, cruise control, climate control, etc., and doing it on a smooth
straight highway. It's a different experience to drive a car without
all those things, on a winding country road where the driver's skill
makes a big difference.
> >C) Once you have the skills, communicating with Morse Code can be as
> >easy - or even easier - than using voice.
>
> Not quite sure how, but I'll take your word for it.
> >D) You can use Morse Code in situations where voice could not be used.
> >For example, suppose you are in a small house, apartment, RV, tent,
> >etc., and you want to operate without disturbing others (who might be
> >sleeping, talking, etc.). Of course you can put on headphones so they
> >don't hear the received signals, but in order to transmit, you have to
> >talk. Even if you keep your voice down, it can bother others. How many
> >times have you heard people complain about folks using cell phones in
> >public? But with Morse Code and a good pair of cans, you can operate
> >and make less noise than someone typing on a keyboard.
>
> Not really a common circumstance, but I see your point here.
I think it depends on the amateur's situation. I know plenty of hams
with small children in the house, or with limited space for a shack,
where the sound issue is a big one. Being able to operate quietly can
be the difference between operating and not operating.
> >> >3) It takes up much less spectrum. With good equipment, five to ten
> >> >Morse Code signals can fit in the same spectrum space required by just
> >> >one single-sideband voice signal. AM and FM take up even more space on
> >> >the band.
> >>
> >> Some very valid points here.
> >
> >None of which mean that there *must* be a Morse Code test for an
> >amateur radio license. I happen to think such a test is a good idea,
> >but that's just my opinion.
> >
> >> >4) It's more effective under adverse conditions. A Morse Code signal
> >> >typically has about 10-13 dB of advanatage over single-sideband voice.
> >> >That's about 2 S-units. Under conditions that make SSB unusable, or
> >> >barely usable, Morse Code will often be solid copy with good signals.
> >>
> >> I could see the challenge in this. I remember a certain thrill back
> >> when I was a kid, whenever I managed to make out a distant signal and
> >> recognize where it was broadcast from.
> >
> >Exactly! The very fact that it takes some skill is part of the fun and
> >attraction.
>
> But some here seem to suggest that if no or little skill is required
> then it's really not worth pursuing. I strongly dispute that.
I'm not sure what you mean by "if little or no skill is required, then
it's really not worth pursuing".
> >> >There are other reasons, but those four come to mind right now.
> >
> >Here's one more:
> >
> >5) The amount of "bad behavior" problems resulting in FCC enforcement
> >actions is much less from radio amateurs using Morse Code. Just look at
> >the FCC enforcement letters that address violations of deliberate
> >interference, obscenity, exceeding license privileges, and other "bad
> >behavior" problems. Almost all of them are for violations committed
> >using voice modes, not Morse Code. The difference is much greater than
> >would be expected from the relative popularity of the modes.
> >
> >This doesn't mean all voice ops are problems or all Morse Code ops are
> >saints! All it means is that there's a lot less enforcement problems
> >from hams actually using Morse Code.
>
> Perhaps the typical ages of people who prefer code could be a factor.
> It does tend to be considerably older people who prefer code.
I disagree - for two reasons!
First I have found amateurs of all ages who are interested in Morse
Code. I have found that young people are interested *if* Morse Code is
presented correctly.
Some say that, in the modern world, young people who grew up with cell
phones and the internet aren't going to sit still for something like
Morse Code - or amateur radio. And many won't.
However, the very fact that Morse Code is unusual is a big attraction
to some of them - *because* it's so different and unusual. They've seen
voice comms - they all have cellphones! Typing on a keyboard and
reading a screen is something they've seen since they were babies. But
Morse Code is completely different. That's what draws many young people
- just look at the acceptance of the Harry Potter books.
The second reason is that the 'bad behavior' of amateurs on the air
doesn't seem to decrease with age. In fact, it may be the opposite!
One of the worst offenders here in the USA was a Californian named Jack
Gerritsen (ex-KG6IRO). He was found guilty of multiple repeated
offenses, all of which involved on-air behavior like jamming, not
'technical' violations. His bad behavior started on the ham bands but
spread to public service bands as well, giving amateur radio a black
eye. Enforcement efforts up to revoking his license didn't stop him.
The guy was totally out of control, a real problem case. So now he is
going to prison for seven years and has to pay a fairly serious fine
($21,000US, IIRC).
Gerritsen used only voice modes. He is now 70.
> >> >> Somehow, this relates to pixels on my
> >> >> screen but I have yet to understand why my opponent felt the need to
> >> >> misdirect, misrepresent and misquote.
> >> >
> >> >Lots of that going around - on both sides. Don't let it bother you - I
> >> >sure don't.
> >>
> >> I just don't like the snotty attitude that makes the ARS look so bad.
> >
> >Agreed! There's too much of that type of attitude on *both* sides of
> >the debate.
> >
> >> I am still waiting for my government handout. Never had any government
> >> handouts in the 44 years I have been around.
> >
> >How does one define "handout"?
>
> Based on the comments, it would seem that the offending poster was
> referring to something that was unique to Canada. About the only thing
> I can think of is our medical care system. And THAT'S not really free
> at all, as I will explain further below.
I've lost track of who was using the term "handout". I don't think it
was you.
> >For example, is public education of children a government handout? Yes,
> >many parents with kids in public school pay school taxes, but in most
> >districts those taxes paid by parents do not cover all of the costs of
> >the public schools. And the level of taxation does not depend on how
> >many children the parents have in school. Is public school a government
> >handout to people with lots of kids?
I don't know how Canadian public education is funded, but I suspect
that it's not that much different than in the USA - at least to the
extent that parents don't pay the full amount, nor does the tax level
increase with the number of children in school.
Is public education a government handout to people with several
children?
> >Or how about tax deductions? Are they a form of government handout? If
> >you have a mortgage or home equity loan, the interest is deductible. If
> >you rent, you don't get that deduction. Is that a government handout to
> >homeowners?
>
> Now as for mortgages and home equity loans, the interest is NOT a tax
> deduction here in Canada. That could be considered a handout that
> Americans enjoy, something Canadians can't enjoy.
Exactly - if one uses the term "handout". A lot of US homeowners would
say that they 'deserve' the tax deduction.
I would say that the USA uses tax policy as a form of social
engineering. By making mortgage and home-equity interest count as a tax
deduction, the government is supporting home ownership over renting.
> Also, Canada is the
> second highest taxed nation in the world.
Really? Who is #1 - Sweden?
> Renters get a wee bit of a
> break in some provinces but not here in Alberta, Canada's "Texas".
>
> >Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to get a clear idea of what
> >is a handout and what isn't.
One person's handout is another's entitlement.
One more "handout": some (not all) Social Security benefits. Most
Americans make payments into Social Security all their working lives.
Some never collect a penny, because they die young.
But if a person receiving Social Security benefits lives long enough,
they will eventually receive more in benefits than they paid into the
system - including reasonable interest.
Is that a "handout"?
> >> >> Can none of the pro-coders make
> >> >> a valid point?
> >> >
> >> >I just made a couple of valid points. That doesn't mean there *must* be
> >> >a Morse Code test, just that the mode has some good points.
> >>
> >> Thank you for making some points in a nice, civilized manner.
> >
> >My pleasure. Thanks for reading.
> >
> >> My neighbor, when I was about 12 or younger, had a nifty tower setup.
> >> He had 2 tall telephone poles in the ground with enough space between
> >> them for a third pole bolted in near the top, adding almost the full
> >> length of another pole, save for about 6 feet where all three were
> >> bolted together. I was self-supporting.
> >
> >Cool! I recently saw a similar setup used for a repeater antenna in a
> >wooded area. It blended in much better than metal tower.
>
> Drove by many many years later. Tower gone. Different house on same
> lot. I guess you can never go back.
(sigh)
For many years there was a landmark ham tower near here. Custom
rotating steel pole, over 100 feet high, with multiple HF Yagis and a
full size 2 element 80/75 meter quad. (That's not a typo). All on a
typical suburban lot of less than an acre....
It was built by one ham, and when he passed away another one bought the
place. But when the second ham passed, the big tower and antennas
needed serious work and nobody stepped up to take on the task.
So the tower is all gone and the house is like all the others in the
area...
But some things can be preserved - values, skills, culture. Even if the
people and places change.
73 de Jim, N2EY
LenAn...@ieee.org
>Opus- wrote:
>> On 5 Oct 2006 17:05:58 -0700, N...@AOL.COM spake thusly:
>> >Opus- wrote:
> >> On 5 Oct 2006 04:26:28 -0700, N...@AOL.COM spake thusly:
>> >> >Opus- wrote:
>But when you really listen to the way most people speak, the speed is
>limited by many things. There's a lot of redundancy in the way many
>people speak, pauses, repeats, "ums" and "ahs', and little phrases
>tossed in while the person thinks of what to say next. Meanwhile, the
>skilled Morse Code operator is using abbreviations and other shortcuts
>that effectively increase the speed way beyond the raw wpm.
A comparison between a poor speaker and a skilled
radiotelegrapher is worthy HOW? To shine up the
"skilled radiotelegrapher?" [of course...]
Compare a good speaker and a poor, unskilled radio-
telegrapher's sending and speech becomes way, way
faster.
>> With todays electronics, size and weight really aren't much of an
>> issue.
>
>I disagree to a point! Look at the size, weight and performance of HF
>rigs that you can carry with you. Is there any HF ham rig that's
>SSB-capable that can compete with the Elecraft KX-1?
AN/PRC-104...back-pack HF SSB transceiver, operational
since 1984. Built by (then) Hughes Aircraft Ground
Systems (Hughes purchased by Raytheon).
For civilian-only, try the SGC 2020 SSB HF transceiver
used by private boat owners as well as hams.
>For fixed-station use, there isn't much size/weight difference, if any.
>But when you need to carry the rig and batteries any real distance, the
>differences become apparent. This is also when you will find that the
>difference in low power performance really matters.
The PRC-104 has an integral automatic antenna matching
package (to the right of the transceiver itself). This
insures that the manpack set's whip antenna is always
tuned for optimum radiated transmission power.
SGC has several antenna autotuner models available;
separate equipments.
>Or consider this analogy: It's one thing to drive a car with all the
>modern conveniences - power steering, automatic transmission, power
>brakes, cruise control, climate control, etc., and doing it on a smooth
>straight highway. It's a different experience to drive a car without
>all those things, on a winding country road where the driver's skill
>makes a big difference.
You have much experience on "winding country roads?" :-)
[of course you do, you are an amateur extra morseman...]
Are you advocating "no-frills" personal vehicles? Why?
I learned to drive in a 1939 Ford, NO automatic trans-
mission, NO power steering, NO power brakes, No cruise
control, NO "climate control" other than the standard
heater. Training ground was an abandoned army camp, one
which DID have a few "winding (dirt) roads." If you
think for one minute that I would give up a nice,
comfortable, well-equipped 2005 Chevy Malibu MAXX just
to "rough it" for SOMEONE ELSE'S IDEA of what constitutes
"good driving," you've got your head up your ass.
Having earned my Army driving license, I will personally
challenge you to a Jeep gymkhana (Jeep circa 1940s-1960s)
at everything from "smooth straight highways" through
"winding country roads" on to OFF-ROAD ANYTHING. I will
WIN. Been there, did that, got T-shirts, etc.
That standard issue Jeep had NO amenities except for the
post-1950 winch and cable over the front bumper. "Climate
control" was whatever the climate was outside. The "power
transmission" was a couple gear shifts operated by arm
strength and experienced clutch operation. Ptui.
HOW MANY personal vehicles have YOU DESIGNED and BUILT?
Include auto kits if you need to.
HOW MANY thousands of miles have YOU driven? Over "winding
country roads?" [I don't think so unless you count the
old driveway to the Doylestown Barn Cinema...] I've driven
the VERY winding country road (rough surface) to a Wyoming
working ranch (cattle brand registered in Wyoming is "B-1
Bomber") from/to highway.
>> Perhaps the typical ages of people who prefer code could be a factor.
>> It does tend to be considerably older people who prefer code.
>
>I disagree - for two reasons!
>
>First I have found amateurs of all ages who are interested in Morse
>Code.
If all you have is a hammer, naturally everything looks
like a nail to you...
>I have found that young people are interested *if* Morse Code is
>presented correctly.
Sado-masochism is still prevalent in the human condition.
>Some say that, in the modern world, young people who grew up with cell
>phones and the internet aren't going to sit still for something like
>Morse Code - or amateur radio. And many won't.
Unquantified numbers. You are waffling on your emotional
reasons.
>However, the very fact that Morse Code is unusual is a big attraction
>to some of them - *because* it's so different and unusual. They've seen
>voice comms - they all have cellphones! Typing on a keyboard and
>reading a screen is something they've seen since they were babies.
One in three Americans has a cell phone. Census Bureau said
so in a public statement in 2004.
Back in the late 1940s - a time well before cell phones, personal
computers, with (mostly) only sound broadcasting - there was NO
great "novelty" or "interest" in morse code communications. Been
there, seen that, see no difference now.
> But
>Morse Code is completely different. That's what draws many young people
>- just look at the acceptance of the Harry Potter books.
So, write the author of the "Harry Potter" series and have
her (J. K. Rowling) "introduce" morse code as "magic." :-)
BWAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
* M A G I C M O R S E *
BWAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>But some things can be preserved - values, skills, culture. Even if the
>people and places change.
Preservation of the Past is the job of MUSEUMS.
Why do you insist on keeping a "living museum" in amateur
radio through federal license testing for morse code in
only AMATEUR radio?
YOU had to test for it so everyone else has to...
Fraternal order HAZING having NO tangible value
except to amuse those ALREADY tested for code.
N2...@aol.com
> From: N...@AOL.COM on Wed, Oct 11 2006 3:38 am
> >Opus- wrote:
> >> On 5 Oct 2006 17:05:58 -0700, N...@AOL.COM spake thusly:
> >> >Opus- wrote:
> > >> On 5 Oct 2006 04:26:28 -0700, N...@AOL.COM spake thusly:
> >> >> >Opus- wrote:
> >But when you really listen to the way most people speak, the speed is
> >limited by many things. There's a lot of redundancy in the way many
> >people speak, pauses, repeats, "ums" and "ahs', and little phrases
> >tossed in while the person thinks of what to say next. Meanwhile, the
> >skilled Morse Code operator is using abbreviations and other shortcuts
> >that effectively increase the speed way beyond the raw wpm.
>
> A comparison between a poor speaker and a skilled
> radiotelegrapher is worthy HOW? To shine up the
> "skilled radiotelegrapher?" [of course...]
Listen to the way *most people* speak, Len. There's a lot of redundancy
in the way many
people speak, pauses, repeats, "ums" and "ahs', and little phrases
tossed in while the person thinks of what to say next.
> Compare a good speaker and a poor, unskilled radio-
> telegrapher's sending and speech becomes way, way
> faster.
So? Most people don't speak like they're reading a script.
> >> With todays electronics, size and weight really aren't much of an
> >> issue.
> >
> >I disagree to a point! Look at the size, weight and performance of HF
> >rigs that you can carry with you. Is there any HF ham rig that's
> >SSB-capable that can compete with the Elecraft KX-1?
>
> AN/PRC-104...back-pack HF SSB transceiver, operational
> since 1984. Built by (then) Hughes Aircraft Ground
> Systems (Hughes purchased by Raytheon).
Let's see...
The AN/PRC-104 weighs at least 14 pounds, according to the literature.
Some writeups say as much as 28 pounds. It's a pretty big set - you
don't just slip it in a pocket.
How much do the batteries weigh? How long will the set will run on one
set of batteries?
Battery voltage is nominally 24 volts, and the thing draws about 350 mA
on *receive*. So you can't just hook it to a 12 volts source, and the
power consumption on receive is about 8 watts.
Now the biggie: How much does one cost new? I found some for $2500 -
reconditioned.
> For civilian-only, try the SGC 2020 SSB HF transceiver
> used by private boat owners as well as hams.
Weighs 8 pounds without batteries. Not as big as a PRC-104 but still a
lot bigger than a KX-1. Draws over 300 mA on receive, but runs on 12
volts. Costs $800 new, last time I looked. Tuner and such are extra.
The KX-1 weighs under a pound and is much smaller and lighter. Receive
current is less than 50 mA. Costs $299 new.
So the rigs that "compete" with the KX-1 cost a lot more money (twice
to ten times the price or more), are far larger and heavier (8 to 20
times the weight or more), and the battery life is much less.
Thanks for proving my point, Len.
> >For fixed-station use, there isn't much size/weight difference, if any.
> >But when you need to carry the rig and batteries any real distance, the
> >differences become apparent. This is also when you will find that the
> >difference in low power performance really matters.
>
> The PRC-104 has an integral automatic antenna matching
> package (to the right of the transceiver itself). This
> insures that the manpack set's whip antenna is always
> tuned for optimum radiated transmission power.
The KX1 can be equipped with an ATU. Costs a lot less, weighs a lot
less, takes up a lot less space.
>
> SGC has several antenna autotuner models available;
> separate equipments.
All weigh more, use more power, cost more money.
> >Or consider this analogy: It's one thing to drive a car with all the
> >modern conveniences - power steering, automatic transmission, power
> >brakes, cruise control, climate control, etc., and doing it on a smooth
> >straight highway. It's a different experience to drive a car without
> >all those things, on a winding country road where the driver's skill
> >makes a big difference.
>
> You have much experience on "winding country roads?" :-)
Yes. Do you?
> [of course you do, you are an amateur extra morseman...]
>
> Are you advocating "no-frills" personal vehicles? Why?
Why not?
> I learned to drive in a 1939 Ford, NO automatic trans-
> mission, NO power steering, NO power brakes, No cruise
> control, NO "climate control" other than the standard
> heater.
Sounds like the car I learned to drive in.
> Training ground was an abandoned army camp, one
> which DID have a few "winding (dirt) roads." If you
> think for one minute that I would give up a nice,
> comfortable, well-equipped 2005 Chevy Malibu MAXX just
> to "rough it" for SOMEONE ELSE'S IDEA of what constitutes
> "good driving," you've got your head up your ass.
It's not about *you*, Len.
> Having earned my Army driving license, I will personally
> challenge you to a Jeep gymkhana (Jeep circa 1940s-1960s)
> at everything from "smooth straight highways" through
> "winding country roads" on to OFF-ROAD ANYTHING.
Why would you give up a nice, comfortable, well-equipped 2005 Chevy
Malibu MAXX just
to "rough it", Len?
> I will WIN.
Maybe. Maybe not. You don't really know, you're just bragging because
you know it won't happen.
> Been there, did that, got T-shirts, etc.
That doesn't mean you would win.
> That standard issue Jeep had NO amenities except for the
> post-1950 winch and cable over the front bumper. "Climate
> control" was whatever the climate was outside. The "power
> transmission" was a couple gear shifts operated by arm
> strength and experienced clutch operation. Ptui.
What's your point - that you spit at Jeeps?
> HOW MANY personal vehicles have YOU DESIGNED and BUILT?
> Include auto kits if you need to.
What does it matter? I could tell you about the time I took two junker
cars and made one good one out of them, but you'd find fault with that,
somehow.
> HOW MANY thousands of miles have YOU driven?
Gosh, Len, I don't really know. Probably more than you, though.
> Over "winding
> country roads?"
Enough.
> [I don't think so unless you count the
> old driveway to the Doylestown Barn Cinema...] I've driven
> the VERY winding country road (rough surface) to a Wyoming
> working ranch (cattle brand registered in Wyoming is "B-1
> Bomber") from/to highway.
What does that have to do with anything, Len?
>
> >> Perhaps the typical ages of people who prefer code could be a factor.
> >> It does tend to be considerably older people who prefer code.
> >
> >I disagree - for two reasons!
> >
> >First I have found amateurs of all ages who are interested in Morse
> >Code.
>
> If all you have is a hammer, naturally everything looks
> like a nail to you...
I've got a lot more tools than just a hammer. I know how to use them,
too.
> >I have found that young people are interested *if* Morse Code is
> >presented correctly.
>
> Sado-masochism is still prevalent in the human condition.
And yet you claim you have no problem with people using Morse Code....
>
> >Some say that, in the modern world, young people who grew up with cell
> >phones and the internet aren't going to sit still for something like
> >Morse Code - or amateur radio. And many won't.
>
> Unquantified numbers. You are waffling on your emotional
> reasons.
"Amateur" is derived from the Latin word for "love". Means to do
something for the love of the thing alone. Emotional reasons, IOW.
The fact is that there are plenty of young people who like Morse Code
and learn it readily. I think that's one reason you want an age limit
for an amateur radio license - so those code-skilled young folks can't
get a license until they're 14.
> >However, the very fact that Morse Code is unusual is a big attraction
> >to some of them - *because* it's so different and unusual. They've seen
> >voice comms - they all have cellphones! Typing on a keyboard and
> >reading a screen is something they've seen since they were babies.
>
> One in three Americans has a cell phone. Census Bureau said
> so in a public statement in 2004.
So what?
When I was a teenager, practically everyone had a telephone. Why should
anyone have a ham rig at home when they can just talk on the telephone?
> Back in the late 1940s - a time well before cell phones, personal
> computers, with (mostly) only sound broadcasting - there was NO
> great "novelty" or "interest" in morse code communications.
Sure there was. Ham radio was growing by leaps and bounds then. You
were not part of it.
> Been
> there, seen that, see no difference now.
IOW, nobody should do what *you* don't enjoy.
> > But
> >Morse Code is completely different. That's what draws many young people
> >- just look at the acceptance of the Harry Potter books.
>
> So, write the author of the "Harry Potter" series and have
> her (J. K. Rowling) "introduce" morse code as "magic." :-)
>
> BWAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAA
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> * M A G I C M O R S E *
>
> BWAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAA
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
??
>
>
> >But some things can be preserved - values, skills, culture. Even if the
> >people and places change.
>
> Preservation of the Past is the job of MUSEUMS.
Preservation of values, skills and culture is everyone's job.
> Why do you insist on keeping a "living museum" in amateur
> radio through federal license testing for morse code in
> only AMATEUR radio?
It's not a living museum.
> YOU had to test for it so everyone else has to...
Nope. Morse Code should be a license requirement because amateurs use
it. The skill is part of being a qualified radio amateur. Simple as
that.
> Fraternal order HAZING having NO tangible value
> except to amuse those ALREADY tested for code.
It's not about hazing, Len. It's about being qualified. You're not
qualified.
Jimmie D
<LenAn...@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:1158983174.9...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Opus- wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:19:27 -0400, jawod <ja...@fuse.net> spake
>> thusly:
>>
>> >> Who the FUCK are YOU to make such a statement? You snot nosed,
>> >> arrogant PRICK! You do NOT know the kind of person that I am!! Wake up
>> >> and smell the cappuccino! Code is obsolete! Knowing code does NOTHING
>> >> to make somebody an "asset to the service". And, could you explain
>> >> what makes a person an "asset to the service"?
>> >>
>> >Jeez,
>> >Chill out, eh?
>>
>> Sorry, but I get upset with people who make statements that are easily
>> taken as personal insults.
>
> "Stuff happens."
>
> BTW, this "Jawod" signed a message on rec.radio.amateur.homebrew
> as "AB8O." I found a blank on that call sign at QRZ.
>
>
>> >Yes it's obsolete. Yes, it's fun.
>>
>> I found it to be cold and impersonal.
>
> I agree. Manual radiotelegraphy has NONE of the body language
> or tone of voice or much of anything that is normal in everyday
> person-to-person contacts. Using this monotonic form of
> very early radio allows any user to be anything they want with
> no real references to anything but the ability to send telegraphy.
>
>
>> >Should it be used to qualify? Let the FCC decide (soon).
>>
>> Here in Canada, they already have. I believe the FCC will soon.
>>
>> >If it is eliminated, will that change the "Service"? Maybe.
>>
>> Probably not.
>
> Heh heh...if the test is eliminated the expressed outrage,
> anguish, and horror will be a horrendous wail never to be
> silenced until the last code key is pried from cold, dead
> fingers! :-)
>
>
>> >Will CW disappear? Probably not.
>> >Historically, it defined ham radio, so it has a special place in the
>> >hearts of very many hams. It's natural that they sort of cling to it.
>>
>> Let them cling, they are free to do so.
>
> I'd say "clog" as in cholesterol clogging those "hearts."
>
> "Jawod" uses "many" AS IF it were quantitative. Not so much
> in the USA now. The US Technician class licensees now
> number about 49% of all, twice as large a number as the
> General class. I doubt they want to hear such facts.
>
>
>> >Will CW's elimination be the end of ham radio? Of course not.
>> >Ham radio will cease when all the hams die off. New hams are needed,
>> >with or without code.
>>
>> I totally agree.
>
> In the USA the number of newcomers is not able to keep pace
> with the expirations of licensees. That trend has been evident
> for more than a year. [see www.hamdata.com] The majority of
> new licensees are Technician class. Novice class, the
> supposed traditional "beginner" license has been expiring at a
> steady rate for years before the US changes in 2000.
>
>
>> >My personal hope is that a significant minority of these new hams will
>> >take up CW and learn to enjoy this mode. It truly is a fun mode. I
>> >hope people will WANT to learn it.
>>
>> I always found it to be boring.
>
> "Jawod" and other morsemen think that all will "like" what they
> like. They really don't understand what other citizens want.
>
>
>> >Compulsory things are seldom welcome,,,some are necessary. Is CW a good
>> >requirement for ham radio? I guess it has probably outlived its day.
>> >
>> >A requirement related to other digital modes would make a good
>> >replacement. True?
>>
>> I completely agree. If you want to filter out the less serious, then
>> use a relevant method. Here in Canada, in order to get a no-code
>> licence, you must get at least 80% on the technical. And technical
>> prowess will always be important regardless of the mode of
>> communication.
>
> That sounds fair. In general I've approved what Industry Canada
> does on communications regulations...a bit more than what the
> FCC does for US civil radio services.
>
> LenAn...@ieee.org
>
Im sure the numbers would look even wose if the licenses expired sooner.
Most of the new hams I know lose interest in a couple of years, long befor
the licence expires.
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
Jimmie D wrote:
>
> Im sure the numbers would look even wose if the licenses expired sooner.
> Most of the new hams I know lose interest in a couple of years, long befor
> the licence expires.
Those darned new hams. They never should have been licensured in the
first place. Didn't have the ooomph to get licensed when the tests
were harder so they weren't really that innerested in the first place.
Didn't show the proper dedication.
an_old_friend
and of course none of the failure of hams to reamin hams is due to
bullshit they must endure from other hams