Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #52   Report Post  
Old October 28th 06, 04:35 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.scanner,rec.radio.swap
JDB JDB is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Oct 2006
Posts: 11
Default It was a mistake for the ITU to eliminate the CW requirement.

This code argument really gets old. I passed the General 13WPM code. Bidg
deal. Yeah, I like to use CW, but do I think people need to be tested on
CW? Heck NO! Let's end this antiquated test. It's a modern era. If you
want to learn it -fine, but don't push your old and outdated beliefs on
anyone else.

JDB

wrote:

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 17:37:42 -0500, Glen Overby
wrote:

wrote:
till you can explain what value knowing the name has you can begin to
convince me that you went a through a test as realavant as mine


The licensing hierarchy (and the morse code debate) isn't about value,
it's
about status. It's about having a chip on your shoulder that says "I'm
better than you".

well the procoders like to rpetend it is about value
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/


  #53   Report Post  
Old October 28th 06, 07:23 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,614
Default It was a mistake for the ITU to eliminate the CW requirement.

Chris wrote:
If you've never programmed in assembly language, don't talk to me
about being a real programmer.


Real programmers plugged diodes into a matrix to
execute their programs.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com
  #54   Report Post  
Old October 28th 06, 10:32 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.scanner,rec.radio.swap
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Oct 2006
Posts: 64
Default It was a mistake for the ITU to eliminate the CW requirement.


wrote in message
...
On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 17:50:44 GMT, "Chris"
wrote:

On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 17:23:46 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote:


Chris wrote:
If you've never programmed in assembly language, don't talk to me
about being a real programmer.


Real programmers plugged diodes into a matrix to
execute their programs.


Nope. That's hardware manipulation,

no that is prgraming indeed it is basis of all prgraming

but you have to try and distrot and twist any line of logic till
bleeds
.......

So, Mark. Besides being a Colonel and a geophysicist, you are now an
electronics engineer as well?


  #55   Report Post  
Old October 28th 06, 11:10 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,027
Default It was a mistake for the ITU to eliminate the CW requirement.

From: Chris on Sat, Oct 28 2006 9:51 am

Note: The author of this message requested that it not be archived. This message will be removed from Groups in 6 days (Nov 4, 9:51 am).


[Hmmm...its as if "Chris" doesn't want to be identified as
"Slow Code"...can't say I blame him]

It's all about proving that you value a ham license so much that
you'll do some hard work to get it, much like a recruit going through
boot camp.


I never took "boot camp." I took BASIC TRAINING in the Army.
There we learned how to "close with the enemy and destroy him."

Does that mean you think a ham license is some permission to
go out and destroy others?

If you've never programmed in assembly language, don't talk to me
about being a real programmer.


Ah, but *I* have done working Assembler for 6800s, 6502s,
8051s, and, lately, some Microchip PICs...in addition to
FORTRAN 77 and various dialects of BASIC, ADA (the
government's Pascal).

The "real" programmers I know can do high-level and well
as low-level programming. None of them can design and
build a working computer, though. I have.

If you've never passed a Morse code
exam, don't talk to me about being a real ham.


Wouldn't dream of it. :-)

A ham is defined as "the butchered meat of swine." :-)

Ah, but YOU 'define' a "real ham" as one who does
morse code radiotelegraphy!

Strange, but the FCC (the agency that grants those licenses)
doesn't think so. In fact, Part 97 Title 47 C.F.R. doesn't
even mention the word "ham." But, YOU are a "real" one?

If you are a "real" ham, WHAT IS YOUR CALL?






  #56   Report Post  
Old October 28th 06, 11:37 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.scanner,rec.radio.swap
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 183
Default It was a mistake for the ITU to eliminate the CW requirement.

wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 17:50:44 GMT, "Chris"
wrote:


On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 17:23:46 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote:


Chris wrote:

If you've never programmed in assembly language, don't talk to me
about being a real programmer.

Real programmers plugged diodes into a matrix to
execute their programs.


Nope. That's hardware manipulation,


no that is prgraming indeed it is basis of all prgraming

but you have to try and distrot and twist any line of logic till
bleeds
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/


If you want to get into esoteric terms consider:

The man who uses a plotting board to calculate artillery elevations and
azimuths is called a "COMPUTER".


Dave N
  #57   Report Post  
Old October 29th 06, 12:07 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.scanner,rec.radio.swap
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,614
Default It was a mistake for the ITU to eliminate the CW requirement.

Chris wrote:
... machines like the IBM 650 were
considered to be a waste of valuable man hours to set up, ...


Blasphemy! The IBM 650 was the first computer
I ever programmed - in 1958 at Texas A&M.
Bi-Quinary (like an abacus) with a magnetic drum
and tons of air-conditioning to cool the hundreds
of dual triodes.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com
  #58   Report Post  
Old October 29th 06, 01:30 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 248
Default It was a mistake for the ITU to eliminate the CW requirement.

On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 16:51:34 +0000 (UTC), "Chris"
spake thusly:

It's all about proving that you value a ham license so much that
you'll do some hard work to get it, much like a recruit going through
boot camp.


Code has nothing to do with "value". A recruit going thru boot camp is
a laughable analogy.

If you've never programmed in assembly language, don't talk to me
about being a real programmer. If you've never passed a Morse code
exam, don't talk to me about being a real ham.


THAT is the snot-nosed attitude that I have been talking about. An
attitude that makes ham worthless.

(I see you like to "toppsot" -- something Mark Morgan doesn't like at
all. Keep up the good work.)

On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 14:35:19 GMT, JDB wrote:
This code argument really gets old. I passed the General 13WPM code. Bidg
deal. Yeah, I like to use CW, but do I think people need to be tested on
CW? Heck NO! Let's end this antiquated test. It's a modern era. If you
want to learn it -fine, but don't push your old and outdated beliefs on
anyone else.

  #59   Report Post  
Old October 29th 06, 04:59 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Oct 2006
Posts: 64
Default It was a mistake for the ITU to eliminate the CW requirement.

After Mark changed the Subject line again, he said....

"obviously moirse fails to improve your abilitesi as an all round comicator"

As Roger would say, "Oh, the irony."


  #60   Report Post  
Old October 30th 06, 01:55 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.shortwave,rec.radio.swap
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,113
Default It was a mistake for the ITU to eliminate the CW requirement.

"Chris" wrote in
:

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 00:30:14 GMT, Opus- wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 16:51:34 +0000 (UTC), "Chris"
spake thusly:

It's all about proving that you value a ham license so much that
you'll do some hard work to get it, much like a recruit going through
boot camp.


Code has nothing to do with "value". A recruit going thru boot camp is
a laughable analogy.


We're talking about U.S. regulations. It's kind of odd that a
Canadian would worry that much about them.



The Canadian's screwed up their country, now they're looking around for
another one to screw up.

SC
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
It was a mistake for the ITU to eliminate the CW requirement. Slow Code Antenna 37 October 29th 06 12:07 AM
ARRL 20 july, FCC Proposes to Drop Morse Code Requirement for All License Classes Thierry Antenna 0 July 28th 05 09:37 AM
FCC: Broadband Power Line Systems Paul Policy 0 January 10th 05 06:41 PM
Eliminate the CW requirement for General & Extra, BUT THEN... Bill Wright Policy 12 December 9th 03 04:20 AM
NCVEC NPRM for elimination of horse and buggy morse code requirement. Keith Policy 1 July 31st 03 04:46 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:32 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017