|
wrote in message ... "Dan/W4NTI" wrote: I like that..sounds plausable. Oh....when I was learning it and I was riding in the car with mom I would sound out the Morse on all the roadsigns I could see. Drove mom nuts, but it helped. Not dot dash.....di dah. Dan/W4NTI Do you want to impress me Dan? Sit shotgun in my Belvedere and tap out some portable CW in a quarter mile launch! You cross posting fart. ;) Cross posting fart you continue to chase him and do the same thing your crying to him about ......Loser |
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 23:20:53 -0600, Rod Anderson wrote:
Sorry Dan you and the ARRL forgot to consider the affect of Americans with Disabilities law, The only reason that the courts have not thrown out the code requirement is the international treaty required it, the treaty overuled US laws. Keep believing that myth....I have a bridge for sale, too. The only reasons that the courts have not thrown out the code requirement a (1) a case has never been brought (Federal courts do not issue advisory rulings, they require an actual case) because: (2) FCC requires that suitable accommodations be made for an applicant's observable or claimed disabilities when tests which do not otherwise discrimninate are given, and (3) the Federal courts in a matter such as this require that the plaintiff exhaust all administrative appeals and in general they defer to the judgment of the regulatory agencies in the area of the agency's expertise such as the requirements for a license as long as the requirements are equitably applied and reasonable accommodations (see #2 above) are made. Shortly after the US ratifies the new treaty which no longer requires the ability to send and receive code the US courts will throw out the FCC's code requirement. Nah... even if such a case is brought, any regulatory attorney worth his/her salt can tie it up pending FCC action in its own sweet time. The courts take a dim view of irrelevant requiremnts, you are going to have a a hard time convincing the courts that ability to receive code at 5 wpm is necessary requirement to "talk over the radio". See #3 above. Morse has much in common with the use of the sliderule. 40 years ago when I was in school engineers spent several weeks of class studying the use of the sliderule and logarithms to simplify calculations. Maybe in your school. In my engineering school - one of the top 3 in the US - one had to know how to use both the sliderule and log tables in order to be admitted, which for me was 50 years ago next month.... I have better ways to spend my time than studying Morse code but I still can find the power of a number using a log log slide rule K+E Log Log Duplex Vector -- I take it out once a year to prove to my computer-geek son that I can still do it..... But as to communications law....leave that to us attorney specialists. This is MY field. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane Registered Professsional Engineer Principal Attorney Communications Law Center San Francisco, CA From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon |
wrote in message ... "Dan/W4NTI" wrote: wrote in message ... "Dan/W4NTI" wrote: I didn't initiate this thread. Track it down moron. Dan/W4NTI Just keep hitting send, you ****ing asshole. -- GO# 40 OK. Just for you I will keep doing it. Over and Over again. Everytime I damn well want. Dan/W4NTI You act like a 9 year old punk. -- GO# 40 Let me try and help you moron. I don't give a rats ass what you think. Clear? Dan/W4NTI |
In article , "Phil Kane"
writes: On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 23:20:53 -0600, Rod Anderson wrote: Sorry Dan you and the ARRL forgot to consider the affect of Americans with Disabilities law, The only reason that the courts have not thrown out the code requirement is the international treaty required it, the treaty overuled US laws. Keep believing that myth....I have a bridge for sale, too. The only reasons that the courts have not thrown out the code requirement a (1) a case has never been brought (Federal courts do not issue advisory rulings, they require an actual case) because: (2) FCC requires that suitable accommodations be made for an applicant's observable or claimed disabilities when tests which do not otherwise discrimninate are given, and (3) the Federal courts in a matter such as this require that the plaintiff exhaust all administrative appeals and in general they defer to the judgment of the regulatory agencies in the area of the agency's expertise such as the requirements for a license as long as the requirements are equitably applied and reasonable accommodations (see #2 above) are made. Shortly after the US ratifies the new treaty which no longer requires the ability to send and receive code the US courts will throw out the FCC's code requirement. Nah... even if such a case is brought, any regulatory attorney worth his/her salt can tie it up pending FCC action in its own sweet time. The courts take a dim view of irrelevant requiremnts, you are going to have a a hard time convincing the courts that ability to receive code at 5 wpm is necessary requirement to "talk over the radio". See #3 above. Morse has much in common with the use of the sliderule. 40 years ago when I was in school engineers spent several weeks of class studying the use of the sliderule and logarithms to simplify calculations. Maybe in your school. In my engineering school - one of the top 3 in the US - one had to know how to use both the sliderule and log tables in order to be admitted, which for me was 50 years ago next month.... 31 years ago, when I entered EE school, everyone knew how to use a sliderule. It was not required, just expected. No class time was spent learning how to use one. I have better ways to spend my time than studying Morse code but I still can find the power of a number using a log log slide rule K+E Log Log Duplex Vector -- I take it out once a year to prove to my computer-geek son that I can still do it..... But as to communications law....leave that to us attorney specialists. This is MY field. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane Registered Professsional Engineer Tell them the JY1 story, Phil. Some folks actually think medical waivers were the result of ADA. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
On 31 Jul 2003 02:21:06 GMT, N2EY wrote:
Tell them the JY1 story, Phil. Some folks actually think medical waivers were the result of ADA. How soon we forget...maybe we ought to replace the Element 1 Morse test with an Element 1 amateur radio history test... Off the top of my head..... In days of yore when George I reigned in Washington, some amateur in Pennsylvania could not pass the 13 wpm test as hard as he tried. So one day whilst in QSO with JY1, he mentioned that what ham radio in the USA really needed more than anything else was a mechanism for him to get an upgraded license without passing the higher speed code test because he had (alleged) medical problems that (allegedly) precluded him from dealing with Morse code above 5 wpm. So when next in QSO with George I, JY1 said (in essence) "Georgie, if you want to quarter your troops in my country - JY1 being King Hussein of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordon - do my dear friend a favor and let him get an upgraded ham license with no higher-speed code test". So George I summoned the Chairman of the FCC ("Mad Man Mark" Fowler or Al "Who the heck is he" Sykes - forget which) to his oval chamber, clapped his hands like the Pasha does in the movies, and said "do it". "So it was written, so it was done." -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon |
|
The training CD's aren't bad for practicing the code if you know the code
and just want to get better. The real situation is that a person needs to still learn the code in the beginning. It would the same as if I was listening to Chinese language and didn't know a word of the Chinese language versus knowing the language on a basic level and listening to Radio China or something like that...... -- Ryan, KC8PMX FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!) --. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-. ... --. .... - . .-. ... "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... C wrote: No I am not doing a memorizing of each dit and dah and converting method. My problem is my brain does not react fast enough to decide what each character is before the next one is sent. I just get further behind. I practice at least 20 to 30 minutes usually twice a day if not more. I use computer programs and ARRL training CDs. I will check "The Art and Skill of Radiotelegraphy". Thanks for the encouragement. Ahh, that training CD! I used it, and failed miserably at it. Turns out I memorized the darn thing. You might try a program that sends out random groups or even makes up QSO's. - Mike KB3EIA - |
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Brian Kelly wrote:
"D. Stussy" wrote in message .org... On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Brian Kelly wrote: False circular logic. Amazing. Welcome to the kinds of thinking which will "take ham radio into the 21st Century". I just cain't frigging wait . . . If you're so smart, then indicate exactly what proof is acceptable for the "international requirement" cited in 47 CFR 97.301(e). Obviously, you will have to also IDENTIFY that requirement to demonstrate the acceptability of the proof.... 97.301(e): "For a station having a control operator who has been granted an operator license of Novice Class or Technician Class *AND* who has recieved credit for proficiency in telegraphy in accordance with international requirements." The FCC sets the license requirements and grants the licenses and the FCC *STILL* requires a a 5wpm code test for HF access specific class of license completely aside. Yes? Of course. That's U.S federal law until such times as the FCC changes the regs regarding Element 1. Which they have not done. If that were true, then where is the requirement to have "element 1 credit" in 47 CFR 97.301(e)? I don't see it anywhere in the text! PS: "Law" usually refers to STATUTE, not agency regulation. The procedures for the creation of each are quite different. The "AND" in 97.301(e) is *not* translatable into an "OR"which is what you're obviously trying to twist it into to suit your own agenda. You couldn't be more wrong! I have not attempted to twist this into an "OR." The originator of the thread, who professed that no-code technicians can now operate HF, is the one who needs this to be an "OR." I clearly have argued that "AND" means "AND" - i.e. BOTH conditions cited are necessary to be met. What I have said is that the second condition is now IMPOSSIBLE TO MEET as it is currently stated, and thus Technicians and Novices LOST THEIR HF PRIVILEGES. It's a brick wall. If ya don't meet the current existing FCC requirements for passing the Element 1 test the rest of 97.301(e) is automatically rendered completely moot PERIOD. Element 1 credit is NOT a requirement for 47 CFR 97.301(e). Compliance with the non-existent international regulation is. No rocket science required, just takes a bit common sense. Which you seem to lack, since you are substituting one requirement for another, but there's no provision elsewhere in the regulations to do so. |
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Alun Palmer wrote:
(Brian Kelly) wrote in om: "D. Stussy" wrote in message .org... On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Brian Kelly wrote: False circular logic. Amazing. Welcome to the kinds of thinking which will "take ham radio into the 21st Century". I just cain't frigging wait . . . If you're so smart, then indicate exactly what proof is acceptable for the "international requirement" cited in 47 CFR 97.301(e). Obviously, you will have to also IDENTIFY that requirement to demonstrate the acceptability of the proof.... 97.301(e): "For a station having a control operator who has been granted an operator license of Novice Class or Technician Class *AND* who has recieved credit for proficiency in telegraphy in accordance with international requirements." The FCC sets the license requirements and grants the licenses and the FCC *STILL* requires a a 5wpm code test for HF access specific class of license completely aside. Yes? Of course. That's U.S federal law until such times as the FCC changes the regs regarding Element 1. Which they have not done. The "AND" in 97.301(e) is *not* translatable into an "OR"which is what you're obviously trying to twist it into to suit your own agenda. It's a brick wall. If ya don't meet the current existing FCC requirements for passing the Element 1 test the rest of 97.301(e) is automatically rendered completely moot PERIOD. No rocket science required, just takes a bit common sense. w3rv You don't get it, do you? Nobody has ever implied it says OR, and it certainly never mentions Element 1. What it does say is: "who has recieved credit for proficiency in telegraphy _in_accordance_with_international_requirements_" (_emphasis_added_). The phrase "international requirements" is a clear reference to s25.5, which now makes code testing optional for each administration, such as the FCC. The code requirement for access to Novice/Tech HF frequencies appears nowhere except in rule 301(e), which in turn only refers back to the optional language in s25.5. If the FCC refer to the international regulations for the code requirement, and it says there that it is optional, then where is the determination from the FCC as required under s25.5 that code is required? Nowhere, that's where! I agree with this analysis, but disagree with the conclusion stated below: Although my interpretation of the rule is that no-code Techs do have access to Novice/Tech HF frequencies, I hesitate to recommend that they do this without some kind of interpretation from the FCC, which it seems could be almost as time consuming to obtain as a clarifying change in the rule. OTOH, in light of the lack of any FCC records as to which Tech is what, I seriously doubt that they care. Mr. Palmer's conclusion is wrong. What we have is an "international requirement" that cannot be complied with. That means that one of the regulatory requirements set by the FCC is not met, NOR CAN IT BE MET by any licensee. Since one of the conditions is impossible to meet, 47 CFR 97.301(e) actually conveys NO PRIVILEGE AT ALL (effective July 5, 2003). It's not that no-code technicians may operate HF. It's that coded-technicians and novices may NOT operate on HF bands. Their privilege was automatically STRIPPED by the FCC's regulation being dependent on the international one. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:48 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com