The Day has come....
 

Hey, go for it! Just keep in mind that I may be able to send and receive
Morse faster than you can type ... :)

I love it when folks talk about the speed of the internet. I have
programmed in a number of different languages, but 'cut and paste' doesn't
count in my book. Yes, one guy I worked with used to brag how he 'prepared'
his essays in college using 'cut and paste'. My question is, how fast can
someone actually send a message without cut and paste?

Dang, original thought has reappeared as 'vapourware'.

For the record, 40 per was the fastest test administered by the Navy at
Bainbridge, Md. I had perfect copy. How much faster I could go, I don't
know. I doubt it was much more that 50, however. So, the question is, can
you put 50 words per minute out on your keyboard? Hmmmm ... BTW, I could
hit bursts of 92 words per minute on a 100 word per minute teletype back
when. Ok, so I'm getting slow. Care to bet that I can't do 60? How about
70 on my keyboard? That doesn't matter; the question is, can you do 40 per
with *no* errors.

Your ball!

73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.500 / Virus Database: 298 - Release Date: 7/10/03

In article 3f0e2f6d@shknews01, "LA Davies" writes:

As I knew it always would. I would upgrade my ham license without EVER
taking a CW test. Do I wish CW "Exterminated"- No. You old farts need the
CW to pass the time away. I do not. Something like a CW test, keeps many
good people like me from enjoying the ham bands. This is 2003, not 1955.
Alot has changed.

I speak for many people. They feel the same way I do. We want the CW
requirement dropped SOON. I can live with taking a written test(s) to get
my HF.

I will be e-mailing my ARRL section manager soon. We will get the code
dropped. Then on to bigger things.

Lloyd Davies, N0VFP
Future no-code Extra
FT-817

Well, as always, those that can -- do. Those that can't -- whine about
the requirements and wait for them to be dumbed-down to their level!
I highly suggest that to add to your sense of self-satisfaction, that once
you get your "No-Code Extra" you make a point of telling every Pre-
Restructuring, 20-WPM code-tested Extra you know that you are their
"equal" as a ham radio operator. I'll go so far as to bet that you can
even find a few that might agree with you -- but they'll mostly be phone
operators who outgas into their microphones all day, and haven't touched
a key in who knows how long!

73 de Larry, K3LT

"Vshah101" wrote in message
...
Larry Roll K3LT said:
Those that can't -- whine about
the requirements and wait for them to be dumbed-down to their level!

Well some coders refuse to learn the technical material. Although
time-consuming, Its easy to learn one skill (CW) and claim superiority for
that.
Seems like the requirement was dumbed down to the non-technical Ham's
level.

There are other reasons not to learn code other than "dumbed-down" as you
say.
One is that I don't like code. Another reason is image. It shows that you
put
time into a worthless pursuit (Morse code). Image is NOT the consideration
for
me. I would learn it if I wanted to.

I agree 100% Code should be dropped ASAP. If we want to save Ham Radio.


I don't have to learn Morse code just so I can prove I have the ability
to
learn Morse code. I have learned other skills that are just as
difficult.
Another reason is the "benefit" is not worth the effort. I would put
effort
into those because I can use those skills in real life. I cannot use
Morse
code.

I agree too. What kind of high-paying jobs would you get by learning CW?


I highly suggest that to add to your sense of self-satisfaction, that
once
you get your "No-Code Extra" you make a point of telling every Pre-
Restructuring, 20-WPM code-tested Extra you know that you are their
"equal" as a ham radio operator.

Funny, thats what pro-coders say. They say that a General class that
learned
Morse code is superior because they have a higher license class. I would
say
that the General or Extra that just learned code may not be superior to
the
Technician that wants to have good technical skills, but refuses to learn
code.


It's the "I'm better than you" attitude that is ruining the hobby. People
like Larry and Steve, are old and want the CW to stay, as a "hazing" thing.

I'm afraid thoese days are going the way of the dinosour........

Lloyd Davies, N0VFP

"LA Davies" wrote in message
news:3f10550c@shknews01...

"Vshah101" wrote in message
...
Larry Roll K3LT said:
Those that can't -- whine about
the requirements and wait for them to be dumbed-down to their level!

Well some coders refuse to learn the technical material. Although
time-consuming, Its easy to learn one skill (CW) and claim superiority
for
that.
Seems like the requirement was dumbed down to the non-technical Ham's
level.

There are other reasons not to learn code other than "dumbed-down" as
you
say.
One is that I don't like code. Another reason is image. It shows that
you
put
time into a worthless pursuit (Morse code). Image is NOT the
consideration
for
me. I would learn it if I wanted to.

I agree 100% Code should be dropped ASAP. If we want to save Ham Radio.


I don't have to learn Morse code just so I can prove I have the
ability
to
learn Morse code. I have learned other skills that are just as
difficult.
Another reason is the "benefit" is not worth the effort. I would put
effort
into those because I can use those skills in real life. I cannot use
Morse
code.

I agree too. What kind of high-paying jobs would you get by learning CW?


I highly suggest that to add to your sense of self-satisfaction, that
once
you get your "No-Code Extra" you make a point of telling every Pre-
Restructuring, 20-WPM code-tested Extra you know that you are their
"equal" as a ham radio operator.

Funny, thats what pro-coders say. They say that a General class that
learned
Morse code is superior because they have a higher license class. I
would
say
that the General or Extra that just learned code may not be superior to
the
Technician that wants to have good technical skills, but refuses to
learn
code.


It's the "I'm better than you" attitude that is ruining the hobby. People
like Larry and Steve, are old and want the CW to stay, as a "hazing"
thing.

I'm afraid thoese days are going the way of the dinosour........

Lloyd Davies, N0VFP




Look at it this way LLLLLLoooooooYYYYYYdddddd...if CW stays it will keep you
off of HF. That in itself is a reason to keep it.

Dan/W4NTI

On 13 Jul 2003 05:53:13 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT)
wrote:

In article ,
(Vshah101) writes:

Well some coders refuse to learn the technical material.

Vipul:

If that is so, then they can't be hams, because they never would have
passed the theory part of the written tests, would they?

One word: Bash.

Naturally, this overlooks the fact that virtually every technical advance
created within the ARS has traditionally been achieved by hams who
also met the existing licensing requirements -- including Morse code
proficiency at up to 20 WPM.

And when's the last major technical advance that came from the ARS
rather than the military or industry? Hmmm...about the same time that
incentive licensing got started! What a coincidence...or is it?


Seems like the requirement was dumbed down to the non-technical Ham's level.

Yes, indeed, the technical knowledge requirements are lower now than they
were under the previous, more challenging and comprehensive standards of
the Pre-Restructuring Era.

Why? Because there are no more 13- and 20-WPM code tests?

Must be, because the material in the question pools now is pretty much
the same material that was in there before restructuring. It's
organized somewhat differently, but it's still the same basic
stuff...same cards shuffled in a different order. Same game being
played with those cards, too. Only thing different is that you don't
seem to like the hand you've been dealt this time around.

Can't win 'em all, Larry.

There are other reasons not to learn code other than "dumbed-down" as you
say.
One is that I don't like code.

The fact that you, personally, don't like "code" doesn't serve as a very
compelling argument to eliminate the requirement.

Agreed.

However, in this
New Age of a generally dumbed-down society, that's all it took!

What?

Oh, yes, of course! Vipul got WRC to reqrite S.25 singlehandedly, all
by himself, nobody else had anything to do with it. All the nations
that are signatories to the treaty got together and changed the
international requirement on his say-so alone. Stunning feat of world
leadership on his part...now if we could only get him to go to the UN
and argue on behalf of world peace.....

Another reason is image. It shows that you put
time into a worthless pursuit (Morse code). Image is NOT the consideration
for me. I would learn it if I wanted to.

Unfortunately for you, your circumscription of Morse code proficiency as a
"worthless pursuit" is no more than a highly subjective and flagrantly
self-serving evaluation made by a person with no qualification to render
such a judgment. I challenge you to provide some documentary evidence
that knowledge of the Morse code is somehow detrimental to the "image"
of amateur radio operators.

Picture the local ham radio club at their Field Day setup in a local
public park. Along comes some members of the general public curious
about what's going on. The club's PIO does his job, hands out the
literature from ARRL that talks about working through satellites using
handheld equipment, about digital modes using computers, about packet,
about disaster preparedness.

Then he takes them over to the radios and there sits a small group of
guys with headsets on (or worse, without headsets on and bitching at
everybody to be quiet so they can hear) doing basically the same thing
they did over hardwired telegraph systems 130 years ago.

We tell people we're on the cutting edge of technology, then put our
best foot forward with something that's almost as old as dinosaur
dung...but doesn't smell quite as bad.

Said members of the general public, knowing a hypocrite when they see
one, whip out their can of BS repellant as they beat a hasty retreat
from the area before their conversation can arouse the ire of the CW
ops again. As they're getting into their car, one remarks, "We could
have seen the same thing down at the railroad museum!"

Moral of the story: as is the case with fishing, your success rate is
largely determined by what you use for bait. We're using the wrong
bait. Our success rate at attracting new hams is the documentary
evidence, and we've ignored it long enough.

This is not an argument against learning Morse and encouraging people
to develop CW operating skills. However, we can do that by promoting
the merits of CW *after* we get them to bite first on the more modern
technology that we routinely use in the ARS.

I don't have to learn Morse code just so I can prove I have the ability to
learn Morse code. I have learned other skills that are just as difficult.

Name one. Just one. Please relate how this skill to which you refer
compares with a proven, effective communications skill such as Morse
code proficiency as applied within the ARS. Kindly leave out the usual
apples-to-oranges comparisons to military or commercial radio services.

He didn't say communications skills, just skills.

1. What's more difficult to learn - copying Morse at 5 WPM or flying
the space shuttle?

2. How many current astronauts are no-code Technicians and how many
are Extras that took a 20 WPM code test?

Go ahead, tell us the no-code astronauts are lazy because they can't
meaure up to your standards WRT using CW. Maybe if enough of them hear
you, you can be singlehandedly responsible for putting an end to ham
radio operation from space.

Another reason is the "benefit" is not worth the effort. I would put effort
into those because I can use those skills in real life. I cannot use
Morse code.

Again, this is a judgment that you are not qualified to make. The proof
is your own admission that you cannot use the Morse code. If you could,
you may have an entirely different perspective.

How's he or anyone else going to use Morse code in real life? Outside
of the ARS, who else is still using it?

I think we really need to examine this concept of "technical skill" within
the Amateur Radio Service, and find out just precisely what is meant when
that term is bandied about. It has always been one of the favorite arguments
of the NCTA, but actual experience has shown that new hams who come
into the ARS under relaxed licensing standards tend to be less technically
involved than ever -- to the point where they barely show enough curiosity
to even thoroughly read and understand the operator's manuals for their
off-the-shelf equipment. The concept of "Elmering" has transmuted from
a process of taking a newcomer through the basics of electrical theory up
to the building and operation of simple station equipment, eventually
advancing to more complex projects, and even inspiring formal education
in electronics, to simply showing the New Age No-Code Tech which button
to push to make his HT work.

And to help right this wrong, you're going to volunteer to show up at
the next club meeting and show everybody how to construct a modern,
state-of-the-art, all-mode, all-band transciever? Very good!

If any honest and objective evaluation of
the technical skill levels of ham radio operators were made from an
historical perspective, it would show that code proficiency testing certainly
could be linked to the advancement of technical knowledge, whereas the
elimination thereof has led to a decline in overall technical involvement.

Then why is it that guys who have been hams for fifty years sometimes
need help programming a new 2m handheld?

Whatever new people enter the ARS in the no-code testing future certainly
face a daunting task of proving the claims of those who have, throughout
the code testing debate, attempted to link Morse code knowledge with
technical ignorance. We shall see what the future holds.

You yourself are linking Morse code knowledge with technical
ignorance! You just said yourself one paragraph earlier (and I cut and
paste again here):

If any honest and objective evaluation of
the technical skill levels of ham radio operators were made from an
historical perspective, it would show that code proficiency testing certainly
could be linked to the advancement of technical knowledge, whereas the
elimination thereof has led to a decline in overall technical involvement.

As soon as a no-code Technician learns something (anything at all)
about radio, he or she has immediately disproven your claim. He/she
has advanced his/her own technical knowledge without benefit of any
knowledge of Morse code. Which means that either:

1. Every no-code Tech who has upgraded to General, Advanced, or Extra
in the last 25 years already knew everything they needed to know to
pass the writtens and only needed to learn the code in order to
upgrade, OR

2. Every no-code Tech who has upgraded to General, Advanced, or Extra
in the last 25 years and still holds a license is documented evidence
in the FCC license database that the neither the possession nor the
lack of code proficiency has any bearing on technical
proficiency...which is pretty much what FCC concluded in 1999. It's
now 2003, so you're about four years behind the rest of us.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ

You missed a small point; there were, believe it or not, elements other than
1-C that some of us had to take. Please don't worry; now there are Q&A
manuals to help (that didn't exist back when). Um, what is the proper way
to give your location on a repeater? Um, the 20 is ... er, ahhh ... Very
difficult questions. Don't worry; here in New York State, they threw out
the regents math exam. It was determined to be 'flawed' (read, too
difficult). One valid flaw was that the math exam asked questions
concerning geometry. Well, we can water those tests down next year too.
Maybe we can publish Q&A manuals for the regents math exam - and also make
sure there aren't any questions harder than addition, subtraction,
multiplication, and division. Oh, best keep the numbers less than four
digits. Forget imaginary numbers.

73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

"Vshah101" wrote in message
...

Well some coders refuse to learn the technical material. Although
time-consuming, Its easy to learn one skill (CW) and claim superiority for
that.
Seems like the requirement was dumbed down to the non-technical Ham's
level.

There are other reasons not to learn code other than "dumbed-down" as you
say.
One is that I don't like code. Another reason is image. It shows that you
put
time into a worthless pursuit (Morse code). Image is NOT the consideration
for
me. I would learn it if I wanted to.

I don't have to learn Morse code just so I can prove I have the ability
to
learn Morse code. I have learned other skills that are just as
difficult.
Another reason is the "benefit" is not worth the effort. I would put
effort
into those because I can use those skills in real life. I cannot use
Morse
code.

I highly suggest that to add to your sense of self-satisfaction, that
once
you get your "No-Code Extra" you make a point of telling every Pre-
Restructuring, 20-WPM code-tested Extra you know that you are their
"equal" as a ham radio operator.

Funny, thats what pro-coders say. They say that a General class that
learned
Morse code is superior because they have a higher license class. I would
say
that the General or Extra that just learned code may not be superior to
the
Technician that wants to have good technical skills, but refuses to learn
code.



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.500 / Virus Database: 298 - Release Date: 7/10/03

Well, I just saw a post. Interesting problem from a brand-new 1X2 call.
Seems he had a fairly high SWR on his beam so to keep water out of the
traps, he sealed the holes in the traps. The beam is mounted on conduit 20
feet off the ground and now his SWR is *extremely* high on 20 and 15 meters.
So, someone kindly explain how elimination of any waiting period for the
extra class license and virtual elimination of the code (no, I'm not a
pro-coder; it just forced folks to wait and learn a bit before they were
ready for the 20 words per minute test) has increased the technical
competence of amateur radio.


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.500 / Virus Database: 298 - Release Date: 7/10/03

Jim Hampton wrote:
Well, I just saw a post. Interesting problem from a brand-new 1X2 call.
Seems he had a fairly high SWR on his beam so to keep water out of the
traps, he sealed the holes in the traps. The beam is mounted on conduit 20
feet off the ground and now his SWR is *extremely* high on 20 and 15 meters.
So, someone kindly explain how elimination of any waiting period for the
extra class license and virtual elimination of the code (no, I'm not a
pro-coder; it just forced folks to wait and learn a bit before they were
ready for the 20 words per minute test) has increased the technical
competence of amateur radio.

Those are some of the reasons I advocate a return to the waiting period
before advanced ticket upgrades.

And I say that from personal experience. An Extra *should* be
essentially an expert in the ARS.

Oops, is that a "filter" or "hazing" like Morse code is?

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article 3f10550c@shknews01, "LA Davies" writes:

It's the "I'm better than you" attitude that is ruining the hobby. People
like Larry and Steve, are old and want the CW to stay, as a "hazing" thing.

Lloyd:

Actually, it's the "I couldn't be bothered to become as good as you" attitude
which is ruining our hobby.

I'm afraid thoese days are going the way of the dinosour........

Well, then, once you get your No-Code Extra, we will all be looking forward
to all those amazing technical advances you will personnaly create for the
benefit of the ARS! You see, I am one prehistoric reptile who has never
claimed to have anything more than AMATEUR-level technical skills -- as
has been the traditional requirement for this service. However, since the
NCTA has always claimed that code testing was standing in the way of
technical progress in amateur radio, we shall soon see whether those
claims are, in fact, valid -- or just empty blasts of hot air used to justify
the elimination of a licensing requirement which produced a cadre of
hams with useful, effective communications skills.

73 de Larry, K3LT

From: Mike Coslo

Those are some of the reasons I advocate a return to the waiting period
before advanced ticket upgrades.

I disagree. A waiting period would be unfair. If the person has prepared
themseleves well, they may well have the ability for the upgrade. Why slow down
someone that has the ability for the upgrade?

And I say that from personal experience. An Extra *should* be
essentially an expert in the ARS.

Thats what the license should imply. Each licence upgrade should have higher
skill than the previous license

Most of the clubs don't want to focus on technical skills. Most clubs focus on
contesting, antennas, and CW. Clubs could do homebrewing, tuning, radio
direction finding, or other technical areas.

Oops, is that a "filter" or "hazing" like Morse code is?

- Mike KB3EIA -

Morse code is a bullying tactic to force this skill at the expense of other
skills. Morse code is not a "filter". It blocks entry to the General class
license. It is an irrelevant skill, used as an obstacle.