| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#181
November 2nd 06, 12:43 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
From: on Tues, Oct 31 2006 6:07 pm
Dave Heil wrote: wrote: Dave Heil wrote: wrote: Dee Flint wrote: wrote in message wrote: Must you put on your stupid face? Can't you take a typo? Brian, it's the usual PCTA "answer" in debate. :-) Lacking any valid response, they resort to misdirective attempts at personal humiliation about minutae that have NO direct bearing on the SUBJECT. Since Heil is bound and determined to find typos and misspellings, all we have to do is scrutinize HIS epic prose in here and make him wallow in his own typographical errors...forever and ever... :-) Our military isn't perfect. Many of those who enlist aren't all that sharp. Most are shoved into a career field in which they have no interest. Most aren't going to make the military a career. You must be remembering the draft years when, even though the Air Force didn't use the draft, the draft generated a significant interest in Air Force service. That and the USN. The USAF and USN weren't considered as direct combat military branches by draftees worried silly about harm to their precious bodies. Back in the Vietnam War era 33 to 50 years ago, that is. Some are lucky enough to have skills obtained prior to military service. Some of those are fortunate enough to serve in a field in which they have some expertise or interest. Some with grave disappointment that they couldn't be hams in particular combat zones. Funny thing, but the military doesn't consider amateur radio "contesting" as a useful skill in maintaining communications 24/7. Military personnel placement types MIGHT give such recruits a nod in the direction of some communications IF (and only IF) there is a directive they have for a communications specialty. When I enlisted in the Army, I was assigned to Signal Corps and Signal Basic Training WITHOUT being a licensed amateur and hitting only the medium percentile in the morse code aptitude test! Sunnuvagun! :-) Oh, yeah, in March 1952 there was a definite WAR going on, but in northeast Asia, not southeast Asia. The Army had definite needs for infantry, artillery, and armor personnel replacements but I was picked for signal. My only license then was an Illinois driver license. :-) What we got there in Heil's (altered?) version of his personal biographic factoids is strangely similar to the undetailed, grandiose CLAIMS of the former "war hero of the USMC," Major Dud (Robeson). :-) No problem on proof for me. I've got my records and some of them are digitized (PDF for universality in viewing) from their original form. The official archives in St. Louis (NARA Military Personnel Records Center) has them for proof by anyone with access. Why aren't the communications billets merely a direct duty assignment after basic training? They can be. That's how I did it. I never set foot in an Air Force technical school. Of course I'd already been a radio amateur for seven years when I joined the military. I was awarded my 3-level right out of basic training. I went directed duty to Barksdale AFB after ten days of leave after Amarillo. Lackland. San Antonio. Yes, Lackland AFB is in San Antonio. Amarillo AFB was in Amarillo. That's where I went through basic training. Amarillo. Amarillo. I see. Wikipedia confirms Amarillo AFB as an inprocessing base. Did you catch what Robesin's got? I have no idea of what you mean, Brian. Stories about the military. Oh, my, here comes Major Dud Robeson the II. :-) Since 54 years ago I've been acquainted with (perhaps) hundreds of military personnel both as one myself and (much longer) as a civilian. I don't know of ANY military personnel who "DIDN'T" receive any specialty training after their Basic Training (or Boot Camp for USN and USMC and USCG). The USAF signals people have a long tradition of keeping comms alive and well 24/7 just as the Army did it (USAF came out of the Army in the later 1940s). "Getting the message through" at any time of the day or night is the watchword for both USA and USAF signals. They don't do it the "amateur way" as a HOBBY. There IS an exception: AFRS and (later) AFRTS. A Special Services branch...entertainment (and, supposedly morale) folks in uniform. Armed Forces Radio (and Television) Service doesn't operate from combat zones, doesn't even "fight" for ratings. It is show biz. MARS might be in the same category as AFRS-AFRTS. It was never essential to military communications despite the civilian hoopla attached to it. From the 1990s onward, MARS has taken on a communications role for most of the US government...and doing good at that...using military MARS personnel. With DSN connection to the Internet, the "boys overseas" don't need to wait for surface mail or use phone patches to talk direct to family and friends. But...in Heil's case WE don't really know in DETAIL what Heil actually did. He hasn't described it in anything but vague generalities and intimations of work performed. To use Major Dud Robeson's "description" Heil was "in one hostile action" action. :-) Heil sounds off real big, smug and arrogant with "facts." Thing is, he just doesn't apply those facts factually to his own (33 to 40 year prior personal history) other than the usual claims of having "expertise" in amateur radio. [he sounds like a verbose Blowcode in drag... :-) ] Whole government agencies gave up on code. Commercial businesses gave up on code. Oracle uses a lot of code. Heil put on his stupid face again. :-( The "code" referred to by you, by me, is COMPUTER (Instruction) "CODE." Sigh...more MISDIRECTION into the general "code." Oracle is a business which didn't give up on code. Bill Gates has an answer for your Oracle. Very much so! :-) A few billion bucks here, a few billion bucks there...might even add up to real money! (paraphrasing Yogi Berra) [thanks to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for all their many chartitable contributions worldwide!] I just don't think Bill Gates (or Paul Allen) much give a **** for morse "code." :-) I know and use a few high-level COMPUTER codes. I know and use a few Assembler-level COMPUTER codes. Those just ain't "morse code." :-) My little Apple ][+ can do a third of a million "words per second." [based on the average number of clock cycles per byte-word instruction Ain't NO morseman that can come close to that. :-) My current computer box is one helluva lot FASTER than that 1980-era Apple ][+ and goes faster per second with 32-bit words. My dial-up connection to the Internet (usually 50 KBPS) does about 50,000 "words per minute" just with the 3 KHz bandwidth telephone line. The new set-top cable TV box we just had installed this morning (has a DVR built-in plus more cable service channels, all on digital) has an incredibly high data rate. [our Samsung 27 inch DTV accepts DTV direct from the new digital service set-top box] But...we must all "respect and honor" the mighty morse expertise of the PCTA amateur extras because they think they typify the "state of the art" in communications mode use. Greater than 20 "words per minute!" Good grief... 1906 thinking in the year 2006. Ptui. |
|
#183
November 2nd 06, 01:37 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.amateur.misc
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: Half of all USA licensed amateurs are licensed under a Code-Free license. You mean the Technician? If so, they are a considerable amount less than half. 40% is more like it. 49.5% according to your very own postings. You are mistaken, Brian. No, I'm not. Yes, you are, Brian. You just won't admit it. The Technician license does not make up 49.5% of US hams. The total of Technicians and Technician Pluses reaches about that level. (All Technician Pluses are Morse Code tested). The FCC did away with the Technician Plus class of license. When? As of October 30, the number of current, unexpired FCC issued amateur radio licenses was: Novice: 24,155 Technician: 287,293 Technician Plus: 34,851 General: 131,966 Advanced: 70,602 Extra: 108,545 Total 657,412. FCC still counts Technician Plus separately from Technician. The current number of Technicians amounts to 43.7006017...% of the total. That's not half. Some of them are code-tested, too. They are all Technicians now. That is an untruth. FCC still counts Technician Plus separately from Technician. Of course they do. They used to be Tech Plusses, a distinctly different class of license. The number of Technician Plus licenses is shrinking as Technician Pluses are renewed as Technician, expire, or upgrade. They're Technicians now, perhaps they just don't know it. They'll find out soon enough The Technician license has no requirement for a code exam. Yet some Technicians have passed a Morse Code test, and have some HF privileges. So? Should a Technician wish to use what were once Technician Plus priveleges, they're on their own to show eligibility. Which requires that they retain a document showing their qualification. Like keeping a copy of their old Technician Plus license. Or a copy of a CSCE 1a. However, that's not the point. FCC still counts Technician Plus separately from Technician. So? They were once a distinctly different license class. No more. The number of Technician Plus licenses is shrinking as Technician Pluses are renewed as Technician, expire, or upgrade. Oh, well. In addition, many hams whose licenses say "Technician" are code tested and have some HF privileges. These include: - all Tech Pluses who have renewed since April 15, 2000 - all Novices who have upgraded to Technician - all Technicians who have passed Element 1, but not the written exam for General Welp, that's something we'll just have to live with. It's also the reason I upgraded to General. Bully for you. Thank you. btw, no US amateur radio license is "code-free". All of them can use Morse Code. And they can all use CWGet. But they don't. And not too many are left that use CW at all. Probably most of the coded licensees never looked back when they learned the code to get past a licensing hurdle, don't use code, and couldn't if their lives depended on it. That's not a given at all. I would expect you to say something like that. Remember the ARRL survey that was debated so much here? The one where as a member, I did not receive a ballot? The one that Mike Deignan characterized as "substantive?" Yes, I recall the survey. Looked as if it had been developed by a bunch of dems hoping to influence the outcome of an election. You mean like this: http://www.rawstory.com/showoutartic...s/15869924.htm btw, next Tuesday I get to choose between Curt Weldon and Joe Sestak. Which do you think I should vote for? Who did you vote for last time? Doesn't matter. The choice last time wasn't the same, anyway. Which candidate do you think I should vote for? Which one do you think you should vote for? It showed that less than 40% of those hams who were asked never used Morse Code. And it included licensees from all license classes, not just those who had passed code tests. Add to that those who rarely used code. Why? Even if someone rarely uses it, that means they still remember it and can use it at some level. It means they don't like it and they have to struggle through it. Not necessarily. Yes, absolutely! ;^) An amateur could "rarely" use Morse Code because they "rarely" get on the air. Or because they use some other mode a lot more. Are you among the Deignan's that call that survey "substantive?" It means they are perfect candidates for CWGet. So? Sure there are those who learned just enough to pass the Morse Code test and then never used it - just as there are those who just enough to pass the *written* tests and then never used it Heck, your buddy Len couldn't even get the length of a 73 MHz quarter-wave whip antenna right, and he's a "PROFESSIONAL"! And you couldn't even get the distance to the moon, You are mistaken. Right. Glad to see you admit your mistake. Like on CW, it's easy to get the wrong message even when you can spell out the whole word in complete sentences. So put all USA licensed amateurs in fron of a station equipped with a morse code key and with CWGet and total their scores. I presume you mean "contest scores" Why? Why not? They're operating in a CW Contest. Why wouldn't you total their scores? What's the point? The same point that you and W3RV are making when you kick around SSB vs CW in your field day and other scores. What point is that? W3RV and I actually participate in Field Day, and actually make the scores we claim. The QSOs are real. Did you standardize operating stations? Why is it that comparing scores is only something that you can do? You can compare scores all you want. Do I dare? How many points did you make in last year's Field Day? Those weren't the score I was going to compare. Who is going to set up and pay for all those stations? What sort of stations would they be - HF, VHF, UHF? What sort of antennas, rigs, computers? Think about it. I did. That's why I'm asking the question. Do you think the taxpayers should subsidize amateur radio stations? Who sets up your field day station? Who pays for it? Depends on whether I'm operating solo, or as part of a group. Both? Either? The Morsemen Who are they? There used to be four of them... can bandy about the CQ WW and Field Day CW vs SSB contest scores all they want without having to standardize station equipment. I bring up a scenario and NOW station equipment must be standardized. Who said anything about standardizing station equipment? Not me. Yes, you. You! That's another untruth. Show where I said that - I don't think you can. This is what I said, including one typo: "So put all USA licensed amateurs in fron of a station equipped with a morse code key and with CWGet and total their scores." I said nothing about standardizing stations. YOU brought it up. I simply want to know where all those stations are supposed to come from. Where do stations come from now? Don't you know? Do you? You asked the question. Any ham who wants to operate Morse Code using CWGet or some other software can do so right now - if they have a station that includes rig, antenna, and computer. Yep. I can finally agree with something you said. So a version of the experiment you describe can happen in every contest. But it doesn't. Many, many, many amateur just aren't interested in morse code, and many, many, many amateurs just aren't interested in contests. Then your experiment won't happen. Of course it won't. It's hypothetical. But if we were able to have have 100% participation and every amateur were offered a manual morse code key and a downloaded copy of CWGet.... Offered by whom? Who would pay for those things and set them up? How would you get 100% participation? Why do you ask? Yet I don't know of any amateur radio contesters who operate that way. Do you? Nobody knew of anyone who operated amateur radio as in Larry Rolls "Only CW can save the situation" but I NEVER ONCE saw your objection to it. So what? I don't read everything written to rrap. Larry hasn't posted here in *years*. Sure he has. He's posted as himself and he's probably posting as someone else. You mean "Slow Code"? That's probably WA8ULX. GrayJL? I bring up a scenario and NOW you have a problems with how contestors operate. Not at all. I just don't see anyone using CWGet to operate a contest - even though they could. Heck *you* could. Why don't you? I don't enjoy morse code. Then what is your point? Put a morse code key and a copy of CWGet in front of every USA licensed amateur, turn them loose in a CW contests, and total their scores. A simple, real-world challenge. What's the problem? The problem is that there isn't 100% participation in field day. So? It fails to meet the requirements of my scenario. It's not about *your* impossible scenario. You allowed Roll/K3LT an impossible scenario... The requirements for US amateur radio license have been slowly but steadily reduced for more than 25 years now. Just 25 years? I wrote "more than 25 years". I guess you forgot about the "Conditional" license where hams get an upgrade from their buddy. What does that mean? Besides, the Conditional stopped being issued about 30 years ago. Yep, but nobody ever claimed that amateur radio was being dumbed down. The USA amateur service has a proud history of it. How was it "dumbing down" to eliminate the Conditional? Jeez you're thick. No, Brian, I'm not "thick". You just did a poor job of explaining. No, you vectored off when it was clear that the creation of the Conditional Class license using the "buddy-system" of testing was the original dumbing down of the ARS. Another untruth by you. You vectored off. Why was the creation of the Conditional a "dumbing down"? It had the same test requirements as General. It wasn't performed in front of a steely-eyed FCC examiner after a 9 hour drive uphill both ways. It was dumbing down to create such a license class. Why? The Conditional and its predecessor Class C go back to before the FCC. So there's a long, long tradition in the dumbing down of the amateur radio service. Why was it a "dumbing down"? It was a change that allowed people who were unwilling to put forth an effort to join the amateur service. Smaller effort means they won't value their license and start misbehaving. It's an extension of the riff-raff argument. Not just the code tests but also the writtens. That's not the fault of those taking the tests. No, of course not. It's not anyones fault except the FCC that they put offices so far away from ham's residences. ?? The reason FCC stopped doing testing was to save money. It doesn't cost the FCC anything for an amateur to show up for testing, unless you want to claim that the examinees got to file a voucher for their travel. Actually it cost FCC a lot of money to do testing. It was the travel distance that was key in the creation of the Conditional license, not the desire for the FCC to save money. I was writing about the reason the FCC stopped doing license testing for *all* license classes. That's part of the reduction in requirements. Then you strayed off the subject. Another untruth. OK, I'll let you slide this once. Don't let anyone tell you that I'm not a nice guy. Try to stay on the subject. I am on the subject. You're trying to change it. If you choose to comment on somthing I say, then confine it to what I said. Why? You're not the moderator. Besides, you don't confine your comments to what someone else said. Why should others confine their comments to what you said? Look, you come on here and try to change the parameters of my "impossible" scenario, you want to tell me all about something I'm not discussing, then you tell my I'm making stuff up and telling untruths. I don't appreciate it. If you can't behave, you'll just have to put me in your killfile. If you stick with that simple concept, you'll do OK. First off, they had to have offices with test facilities. The office they had in Philadelphia back when I took my exams was on the 10th floor of the Custom House at 2nd and Chestnut. Lots of square feet of prime real estate just for the exam room. Then there was the time of the examiners, all of whom worked for FCC. Pay and benefits. At least two people per office, three days a week. Times the number of offices all over the country. Then add the FCC folks who revised the exams, duplicated them, and distributed them to the various offices all over the country. And the cost of doing all that. The VE system eliminated all that expense. All FCC has to do now wrt amateur license testing is to look over the QPC submissions and approve them. And occasionally retest somebody. That's all wunnerful, but you vectored off of the subject. Nope. Maybe next time you'll be able to cut and paste something germane to the subject. The subject was the reduction in license requirements by FCC giving over the testing to VEs. Nope. I twas the creation of the Conditional License. Why was that a "dumbing down"? It produced a reduction in effort, i.e., dumbing down. Eliminating Element 1 will not save the FCC any expense. Keeping it will not cost them anything, either. Maybe that's why it's taking them so long. Maybe. But they didn't even make the effort to define Morse Code in the rules for the last 3 R&Os. Why should they? Is there any doubt? There appears to be. The ARRL VEC and other VECs are giving el 1 exams at 13-15WPM when Part 97 says 5WPM. The Morse Code test consists of 5 minutes of Morse Code. How many words are in those tests? At 5 wpm, there would be 25 At 13 wpm, there would be 65 At 15 wpm, there would be 75 (A word is 5 characters) Not all words are 5 characters, unless your working with random groups of five. Yet they tell you that the exam myst be 5WPM, and you've got all these VEs getting to define what that means. It's not a problem to anyone with common sense. It appears to be a violation of Part 97. Only to someone without common sense. What would you say about someone who intentionally trips over a typo? They replaced their paid examiners with unpaid volunteers. Good thing there wasn't a union. Why? Are you anti-union? No. Are you? Do you favor scabs? Bandages are better. It's basic knowledge, pure and simple. Most of the people I know don't use any of the theory either but it is part of the basic knowledge set. I've used ohm's law only a couple of times in the 14 years I've been licensed. I've used the dipole equation half a dozen times. I've never used smith charts. One could get by without the theory but having learned it, I can choose where I want to focus my attention in amateur ration. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Dee, you have a Ham Husband to take care of the Ohm's Law and Theory end of your station, so it's no wonder you have no real use for it.. Brian, do you think that using a false sexist claim is somehow going to cause you to win the debate? No false sexist claim. It's a sexist claim to assume that Dee's husband takes care of the Ohm's Law and Theory end of her station Why? She said she hardly, if ever, used it. Somebody's got to be doing it? You're presuming she's not doing what needs to be done, and is dependent on someone else to deal with the theory. I don't think that's the case at all. If I considered your opinion to be wrong, do I get to call you a liar? Why would you do that? Have I ever called *anyone* here a liar? You're making that up, right? I'm asking a question. Have I ever called *anyone* here a liar? You're making that up, right? W3RV uses his sister to put up antennas for him these days. That's an untruth. How can you be sure? Where do you get that idea? Hmmm? I've put up antennas with W3RV. Or rather, I helped out a little, since he had it all worked out on his own. No sisters involved. He does know quite a lot about antennas, particularly the practical side. He even knows that a quarter wave at 73 MHz is a lot longer than three and one quarter inches.... Prolly for illegal operation. He has no authorization in that area. Actually, he does. Part 95 remote control, same as your buddy Len. And everybody else. Part 95 requires no authorization, so he doesn't. Incorrect. Part 95 authorizes everyone, as long as they meet the requirements. 99.9% of everyone don't know the requirements. How are they authorized? And knowing his background, he'd probably violate the Part 95 rules. Why? He got his start in amateur radio OPERATION without a license. |
|
#184
November 2nd 06, 02:23 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.swap
|
|||
|
|||
|
I wish RadioGuy would stop humping my leg.
RadioGuy is like a little hyperactive poodle. He runs around, barks, maybe nips at your heels but not much because he scared of his shadow and he craps everywhere, but he's basically harmless and answers to Papa Dog. I just wish he'd stop humping my leg. SC |
|
#185
November 2nd 06, 02:24 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.swap
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
"Dr.Ace" wrote in
: "One Hung Low" wrote in message . net... Would you care to share that with the rest of us? C'mon, spill the beans. We're dying to know if "slow" even has a license. :-) The Magic 8 Ball say's "No Way" . Ace - WH2T 8-Ball, is that what you use on CB? SC |
|
#186
November 2nd 06, 02:27 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
wrote: From: on Tues, Oct 31 2006 6:07 pm Dave Heil wrote: wrote: Dave Heil wrote: wrote: Dee Flint wrote: wrote in message wrote: Must you put on your stupid face? Can't you take a typo? Brian, it's the usual PCTA "answer" in debate. :-) Dipschitt trips all over a typo and can't punctuate his way out of a wet paper bag. Lacking any valid response, they resort to misdirective attempts at personal humiliation about minutae that have NO direct bearing on the SUBJECT. They must be very, very clever. Since Heil is bound and determined to find typos and misspellings, all we have to do is scrutinize HIS epic prose in here and make him wallow in his own typographical errors...forever and ever... :-) I'll point out his punctuation errors a few times and let it go. What Heil is never going to forget is working out of band Frenchmen on 6 Meters. Perhaps when he passes, I start an amateur club memorializes his DX expertise and Operating prowess. It may not be in the same League as the Barry Goldwater station, but it'll be a start. Our military isn't perfect. Many of those who enlist aren't all that sharp. Most are shoved into a career field in which they have no interest. Most aren't going to make the military a career. You must be remembering the draft years when, even though the Air Force didn't use the draft, the draft generated a significant interest in Air Force service. That and the USN. The USAF and USN weren't considered as direct combat military branches by draftees worried silly about harm to their precious bodies. Back in the Vietnam War era 33 to 50 years ago, that is. Has Jim approved your use of 1973 as the end of the war, or was he still tucking tail as late as 1975? Some are lucky enough to have skills obtained prior to military service. Some of those are fortunate enough to serve in a field in which they have some expertise or interest. Some with grave disappointment that they couldn't be hams in particular combat zones. Funny thing, but the military doesn't consider amateur radio "contesting" as a useful skill in maintaining communications 24/7. Military personnel placement types MIGHT give such recruits a nod in the direction of some communications IF (and only IF) there is a directive they have for a communications specialty. Mmmmm. I would worry about someone not receiving standardized training. Could you ever be sure they were getting the job done unsupervised? When I enlisted in the Army, I was assigned to Signal Corps and Signal Basic Training WITHOUT being a licensed amateur and hitting only the medium percentile in the morse code aptitude test! Sunnuvagun! :-) Yeh, I was trained in meteorology which was in the "General" category, my worst area. Somehow I managed dinstinguished grad in both the 3 level and mandatory 7 level schools. Oh, yeah, in March 1952 there was a definite WAR going on, but in northeast Asia, not southeast Asia. The Army had definite needs for infantry, artillery, and armor personnel replacements but I was picked for signal. My only license then was an Illinois driver license. :-) Army needs... What we got there in Heil's (altered?) version of his personal biographic factoids is strangely similar to the undetailed, grandiose CLAIMS of the former "war hero of the USMC," Major Dud (Robeson). :-) Other than being in country, Heil has made no claims of direct action or heroism. No problem on proof for me. I've got my records and some of them are digitized (PDF for universality in viewing) from their original form. The official archives in St. Louis (NARA Military Personnel Records Center) has them for proof by anyone with access. I'm good with what Heil has presented. Why aren't the communications billets merely a direct duty assignment after basic training? They can be. That's how I did it. I never set foot in an Air Force technical school. Of course I'd already been a radio amateur for seven years when I joined the military. I was awarded my 3-level right out of basic training. I went directed duty to Barksdale AFB after ten days of leave after Amarillo. Lackland. San Antonio. Yes, Lackland AFB is in San Antonio. Amarillo AFB was in Amarillo. That's where I went through basic training. Amarillo. Amarillo. I see. Wikipedia confirms Amarillo AFB as an inprocessing base. Did you catch what Robesin's got? I have no idea of what you mean, Brian. Stories about the military. Oh, my, here comes Major Dud Robeson the II. :-) Naw. He's playing tag with Mark. Since 54 years ago I've been acquainted with (perhaps) hundreds of military personnel both as one myself and (much longer) as a civilian. I don't know of ANY military personnel who "DIDN'T" receive any specialty training after their Basic Training (or Boot Camp for USN and USMC and USCG). There were a handful of billets that were DDA. Most of the unskilled work was handled by folks getting kicked out for various non-adaptability issues. The USAF signals people have a long tradition of keeping comms alive and well 24/7 just as the Army did it (USAF came out of the Army in the later 1940s). "Getting the message through" at any time of the day or night is the watchword for both USA and USAF signals. They don't do it the "amateur way" as a HOBBY. I got to visit SAC's "Giant Talk" at Elkhorn, NE. That was so cool. And the Navy broadcast stations on Guam. I used to receive their wx rtty and fax transmissions when in the field with the 2nd ID/ROK. Fun stuff. Later I had to rely on wx rtty only from Diego Garcia, and WEFAX from the orbiters in Somalia. There IS an exception: AFRS and (later) AFRTS. A Special Services branch...entertainment (and, supposedly morale) folks in uniform. Armed Forces Radio (and Television) Service doesn't operate from combat zones, doesn't even "fight" for ratings. It is show biz. Yeh, I watched them once or twice in the ROK, probably once during each tour. I did listen to the radio, and enjoyed the "shadow" and other old-tyme boradcast stuff they would put on autopilot overnight (worked a lot and worked a lot of night shifts). MARS might be in the same category as AFRS-AFRTS. It was never essential to military communications despite the civilian hoopla attached to it. Yeh, when I was a war planner, I used to hit up the message center every morning about 6:30 AM, visit the control center, get an update on wx data flowing from our deployed locations, problems, etc. I'd brief the Colonel when he got in on the contingency locations, we'd go take the wx briefing, then head into the CINCs briefing. MARS had nothing to do with any comm we used. From the 1990s onward, MARS has taken on a communications role for most of the US government...and doing good at that...using military MARS personnel. With DSN connection to the Internet, the "boys overseas" don't need to wait for surface mail or use phone patches to talk direct to family and friends. Or have some creep eavesdrop on husband/wife talk. But...in Heil's case WE don't really know in DETAIL what Heil actually did. He hasn't described it in anything but vague generalities and intimations of work performed. I don't even know if it was fixed or tactical, but that's alright. To use Major Dud Robeson's "description" Heil was "in one hostile action" action. :-) Coulda been. Don't know. He served and isn't claiming to be a hero. Heil sounds off real big, smug and arrogant with "facts." Thing is, he just doesn't apply those facts factually to his own (33 to 40 year prior personal history) other than the usual claims of having "expertise" in amateur radio. [he sounds like a verbose Blowcode in drag... :-) ] The smugness is a bit hard to take. Whole government agencies gave up on code. Commercial businesses gave up on code. Oracle uses a lot of code. Heil put on his stupid face again. :-( The "code" referred to by you, by me, is COMPUTER (Instruction) "CODE." Sigh...more MISDIRECTION into the general "code." He needed an opening to show that he knows more than just amateur radio and guitar. Oracle is a business which didn't give up on code. Bill Gates has an answer for your Oracle. Very much so! :-) A few billion bucks here, a few billion bucks there...might even add up to real money! (paraphrasing Yogi Berra) [thanks to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for all their many chartitable contributions worldwide!] I just don't think Bill Gates (or Paul Allen) much give a **** for morse "code." :-) I think I'll send Bill an email and invite him to become an amateur. I know and use a few high-level COMPUTER codes. I know and use a few Assembler-level COMPUTER codes. Those just ain't "morse code." :-) My little Apple ][+ can do a third of a million "words per second." [based on the average number of clock cycles per byte-word instruction Ain't NO morseman that can come close to that. :-) I'm surprised that Jim doesn't try to force Bill Gates to use morse code as a programming language. Hell, it's digital, right??? My current computer box is one helluva lot FASTER than that 1980-era Apple ][+ and goes faster per second with 32-bit words. My dial-up connection to the Internet (usually 50 KBPS) does about 50,000 "words per minute" just with the 3 KHz bandwidth telephone line. The new set-top cable TV box we just had installed this morning (has a DVR built-in plus more cable service channels, all on digital) has an incredibly high data rate. [our Samsung 27 inch DTV accepts DTV direct from the new digital service set-top box] But...we must all "respect and honor" the mighty morse expertise of the PCTA amateur extras because they think they typify the "state of the art" in communications mode use. Greater than 20 "words per minute!" Good grief... 1906 thinking in the year 2006. Ptui. It will all be over with soon. |
|
#187
November 2nd 06, 04:11 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.amateur.misc
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
|
|
#188
November 2nd 06, 06:27 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
wrote:
From: on Tues, Oct 31 2006 6:07 pm Dave Heil wrote: wrote: Dave Heil wrote: wrote: Dee Flint wrote: wrote in message wrote: Must you put on your stupid face? Can't you take a typo? Brian, it's the usual PCTA "answer" in debate. :-) Lacking any valid response, they resort to misdirective attempts at personal humiliation about minutae that have NO direct bearing on the SUBJECT. "Minutiae", Len. Do the terms "Mother Superior" or "Waffen SS Guy" hold any meaning for you? Do you believe them to be attempts at personal humiliation? Since Heil is bound and determined to find typos and misspellings, all we have to do is scrutinize HIS epic prose in here and make him wallow in his own typographical errors...forever and ever... :-) Oh, I'll make an occasional typo, Len. When you misuse the same term repeatedly, that isn't a typo. You do that often. Now if I were to make frequent *factual errors*, we'd be in the same boat. Our military isn't perfect. Many of those who enlist aren't all that sharp. Most are shoved into a career field in which they have no interest. Most aren't going to make the military a career. You must be remembering the draft years when, even though the Air Force didn't use the draft, the draft generated a significant interest in Air Force service. That and the USN. The USAF and USN weren't considered as direct combat military branches by draftees worried silly about harm to their precious bodies. Back in the Vietnam War era 33 to 50 years ago, that is. I wasn't a draftee, Len. Nobody in the Air Force was a draftee. Nobody in the Navy was a draftee. I enlisted for four years. The minimum Navy hitch was for three. Draftees were non-volunteers who served two years. Now what? Some are lucky enough to have skills obtained prior to military service. Some of those are fortunate enough to serve in a field in which they have some expertise or interest. Some with grave disappointment that they couldn't be hams in particular combat zones. Funny thing, but the military doesn't consider amateur radio "contesting" as a useful skill in maintaining communications 24/7. Oddly enough, I was not in the "amateur radio contesting" AFSC, yet my contesting skills were exactly the same skills I used in my Air Force duties. Military personnel placement types MIGHT give such recruits a nod in the direction of some communications IF (and only IF) there is a directive they have for a communications specialty. Oh, they MIGHT, huh? I suppose those bypassed specialist exam scores had nothing whatever to do with it. When I enlisted in the Army, I was assigned to Signal Corps and Signal Basic Training WITHOUT being a licensed amateur and hitting only the medium percentile in the morse code aptitude test! Sunnuvagun! :-) That's you. Oh, yeah, in March 1952 there was a definite WAR going on, but in northeast Asia, not southeast Asia. The Army had definite needs for infantry, artillery, and armor personnel replacements but I was picked for signal. My only license then was an Illinois driver license. :-) ....but you went through schooling. I was actually working within two days of my arrival at my first assignment. That was about seven-and-a-half weeks after I first entered the Air Force. What we got there in Heil's (altered?) version of his personal biographic factoids is strangely similar to the undetailed, grandiose CLAIMS of the former "war hero of the USMC," Major Dud (Robeson). :-) Altered version, Leonard? What has been altered? Couple that with what military personnel folks MIGHT do and you may have stumbled upon something big. Have a talk with your new pal at your local recruiting office or better yet, have Brian Burke contact those "Stolen Valor" folks. No problem on proof for me. I've got my records and some of them are digitized (PDF for universality in viewing) from their original form. The official archives in St. Louis (NARA Military Personnel Records Center) has them for proof by anyone with access. Have you found people who are interested in seeing your proof, Len? I'm not offering you any proof. I have no intention of providing you digitized anything. Now what? Why aren't the communications billets merely a direct duty assignment after basic training? They can be. That's how I did it. I never set foot in an Air Force technical school. Of course I'd already been a radio amateur for seven years when I joined the military. I was awarded my 3-level right out of basic training. I went directed duty to Barksdale AFB after ten days of leave after Amarillo. Lackland. San Antonio. Yes, Lackland AFB is in San Antonio. Amarillo AFB was in Amarillo. That's where I went through basic training. Amarillo. Amarillo. I see. Wikipedia confirms Amarillo AFB as an inprocessing base. Did you catch what Robesin's got? I have no idea of what you mean, Brian. Stories about the military. Oh, my, here comes Major Dud Robeson the II. :-) Since 54 years ago I've been acquainted with (perhaps) hundreds of military personnel both as one myself and (much longer) as a civilian. That's great, Len. I'm sure that has provided you countless hours of pleasant memories. I don't know of ANY military personnel who "DIDN'T" receive any specialty training after their Basic Training (or Boot Camp for USN and USMC and USCG). See, Leonard, you don't know everything after all. You're about to hose it up in your typical fashion though. I never said that I never received any specialty training after basic training. I wrote that I never attended any military technical school. The USAF signals people have a long tradition of keeping comms alive and well 24/7 just as the Army did it (USAF came out of the Army in the later 1940s). That's all irrelevant, Len. Rest easy, old soldier. The Air Force's long tradition was maintained. "Getting the message through" at any time of the day or night is the watchword for both USA and USAF signals. They don't do it the "amateur way" as a HOBBY. I'm certain that you'll be upset to learn that the message didn't always get through at any time of the day or night, watchword or no. There IS an exception: AFRS and (later) AFRTS. A Special Services branch...entertainment (and, supposedly morale) folks in uniform. Armed Forces Radio (and Television) Service doesn't operate from combat zones, doesn't even "fight" for ratings. It is show biz. That's very interesting, Len. I had nothing to do with AFRS or AFRTS. MARS might be in the same category as AFRS-AFRTS. No, Len, it isn't. MARS never was show biz. I never had a MARS assignment. I've advised you of that a number of times. It was never essential to military communications despite the civilian hoopla attached to it. From the 1990s onward, MARS has taken on a communications role for most of the US government...and doing good at that...using military MARS personnel. With DSN connection to the Internet, the "boys overseas" don't need to wait for surface mail or use phone patches to talk direct to family and friends. That's quite interesting, Len. But...in Heil's case WE don't really know in DETAIL what Heil actually did. No, you don't actually know what I did. He hasn't described it in anything but vague generalities and intimations of work performed. No, I haven't described it in detail. To use Major Dud Robeson's "description" Heil was "in one hostile action" action. :-) That'd be one more hostile action than you've experienced in the military, Len. :-) :-) :-) Heil sounds off real big, smug and arrogant with "facts." I'm sure that it seems that way to a guy with few facts. Thing is, he just doesn't apply those facts factually to his own (33 to 40 year prior personal history) other than the usual claims of having "expertise" in amateur radio. My personal history runs 57 years, Leonard. That you know little of it is of little importance to me. [he sounds like a verbose Blowcode in drag... :-) ] Is this where you "resort to misdirective attempts at personal humiliation about minutae [sic] that have NO direct bearing on the SUBJECT"? Whole government agencies gave up on code. Commercial businesses gave up on code. Oracle uses a lot of code. Heil put on his stupid face again. :-( The "code" referred to by you, by me, is COMPUTER (Instruction) "CODE." Huh? So what Brian really meant is COMPUTER code and that's what you mean too? Sigh...more MISDIRECTION into the general "code." Did Brian write "code" or not? I know and use a few high-level COMPUTER codes. I know and use a few Assembler-level COMPUTER codes. Those just ain't "morse code." :-) My little Apple ][+ can do a third of a million "words per second." [based on the average number of clock cycles per byte-word instruction Ain't NO morseman that can come close to that. :-) Great, Len. Stick with it. Enjoy your niche. :-) :-) My current computer box is one helluva lot FASTER than that 1980-era Apple ][+ and goes faster per second with 32-bit words. My dial-up connection to the Internet (usually 50 KBPS) does about 50,000 "words per minute" just with the 3 KHz bandwidth telephone line. The new set-top cable TV box we just had installed this morning (has a DVR built-in plus more cable service channels, all on digital) has an incredibly high data rate. [our Samsung 27 inch DTV accepts DTV direct from the new digital service set-top box] Fascinating, but totally irrelevant, Len. But...we must all "respect and honor" the mighty morse expertise of the PCTA amateur extras because they think they typify the "state of the art" in communications mode use. Greater than 20 "words per minute!" Good grief... "We must all" accept? Just how are you involved in amateur radio, Len? You needn't accept anything. Just stay on the sidelines and snipe as you've done for the past decade. 1906 thinking in the year 2006. Ptui. I didn't think you were *that* old, Leonard. |
|
#189
November 2nd 06, 06:44 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
wrote:
From: on Tues, Oct 31 2006 5:52 pm wrote: From: on Tues, Oct 31 2006 4:17 am wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: Dee Flint wrote: [ etc., etc., etc.... :-) ] Half of all USA licensed amateurs are licensed under a Code-Free license. You mean the Technician? If so, they are a considerable amount less than half. 40% is more like it. 49.5% according to your very own postings. You are mistaken, Brian. No, I'm not. Half of all USA licensed amateurs are licensed under a Code-Free License. Ooops. Without inserting the word "TEST" in "Code-free" will automatically alert Mighty Macho Morseman Miccolis to run off again with his "helpful correction of mistakes." :-) Let's face fact: Brian was incorrect in his statement. The Technician license does not make up 49.5% of US hams. The total of Technicians and Technician Pluses reaches about that level. (All Technician Pluses are Morse Code tested). The FCC did away with the Technician Plus class of license. They are all Technicians now. The Technician license has no requirement for a code exam. Should a Technician wish to use what were once Technician Plus priveleges, they're on their own to show eligibility. Miccolis can't seem to understand the LAW. No matter how often it is explained to him, he falls back on the Speroni 'definition' of 'What Technicians Are.' Of course, AH0A is a PCTA morseman of unchangeable ideas. Half of all USA licensed amateurs are licensed under a Code-Free License. Tsk, Mighty Macho Morseman Miccolis will HAVE to "reply" with his "helpful correction of mistakes" a la the mighty macho morseman style of "knowing what is best for amateur radio" (as He sees it...). Jim has been a licensed radio amateur for decades. I'd accept his view on how best to regulate amateur radio before I'd accept the word of someone who had never obtained any class amateur radio license. Now what? Half of all USA licensed amateurs are licensed under a Code-Free License. True enough...and the OTHER half had to take a morse code TEST to get that AMATEUR license. Repeating his false statement doesn't make Brian's claim true. Your "true enough" doesn't make it true. Tsk. Miccolis is hell-bent on character-assassination lately. I make a typo in a message and he makes it into a HEADLINE STORY charging some kind of ineptitude! :-) It was obviously a typo. But Jim and Dave put on their stupid face allatime. True enough. They don't have ONE consideration that I saw my error and posted my own correction of it. On every 'QWERTY' keyboard there is one key with an (unshifted) apostrophe and a (shifted) double-quote. Really, Len? Do you know why we have the QWERTY keyboard? In the shorthand version of dimensioning, a foot is denoted by the suffix of an apostrophe while an inch is denoted by the suffix of double quote. As an example, my height can be written 5' 10" or, in longer form, five feet ten inches. In rapid typing (I learned touch-typing in middle school) it is possible to make a mistake in too much pressure on the Shift key and inadvertently type in the double-quote. You must have missed a few lessons during that touch-typing course. You aren't supposed to rest your fingers on any of the keys. Your John Kerry explanation doesn't wash. To type an apostrophe, your finger shouldn't have been on the shift key at all. But...in the Grand Inquisitor manner of the might macho morsemen, a type by an NCTA is a CAPITAL OFFENSE... No, Len, it was simply another error. ...punishable by a lifetime of message comments about that typo...and NEVER acknowledging that it was corrected! When you resort to a preposterous excuse for making a typo--one that is absurd to anyone who knows anything about touch-typing--you'll likely hear more about your error the more you try to explain it. Not only that, his Waffen SS buddie has to chime in like it is a capital offense! :-) Tsk, Miccolis is now under Typo Alert Status, condition Red. Each and every typo HE makes will be FEATURED INEPTITUDES of his own! Regardless of his 'explanations' of his typos, he will be charged with violations of all mankind! :-) Chimes against humanity! HAR!!! :-) [Heil went to 'Ding Dong School'? :-)] Sure, I did, Len. I'm the right age. Miss Frances was a favorite of mine. Now what? Dave K8MN |
|
#190
November 3rd 06, 12:22 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.amateur.misc
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
wrote in message oups.com... [snip] But if we were able to have have 100% participation and every amateur were offered a manual morse code key and a downloaded copy of CWGet.... The people who know Morse code would probably turn it down as they would not want to operate a contest handicapped by using CWGet. Dee, N8UZE |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| hey BB did steve do somethign specail toy uo laely? | Policy | |||
| More News of Radio Amateurs' Work in the Andamans | Shortwave | |||
| Amateurs Handle Emergency Comms in Wake of Hurricane Ivan | Broadcasting | |||
| Amateurs Handle Emergency Comms in Wake of Hurricane Ivan | Shortwave | |||
| Response to "21st Century" Part One (Code Test) | Policy | |||
Linear Mode
