Phil Kane wrote:

On 16 Aug 2003 08:44:00 -0700, N2EY wrote:



What did it take - six weeks? Not really long at all. Plus there was
always the chance FCC would have simply dumped Element 1 on its own,
instead of doing the whole NPRM thing.



Bill Cross (FCC) was heard to mumble that he wasn't sure that the
FCC could do so "on its own", so SOMEONE had to percuss the
pendulum, right ???

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane




Which the FCC didn't lose much sleep over, as they knew someone would file
a petition for rule making on it anyway. So that issue goes away
nicely, which
pleases bureaucrats endlessly.

A thought just occurred to me......

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"WA3IYC" wrote in message
...
Would you agree with this statement:

however, at the same time, those who are not interested in building radios
should not be forced to learn how they work in order to gain amateur radio
privileges ...

No ... because, even if you don't build your own radios, you are responsible
for their proper operation. How could you possibly know something was
wrong if you had no knowledge of how the radio worked?

I'm responsible for the proper operation of any motor vehicles I
operate, but I'm not required to know how they work. Or pass any exams
on how they work, even to build or repair my own vehicles.

This is an interference control issue ... a technical matter ... and
knowledge
of this IS required in order to be competent to operate a station in full
compliance with the rules.

Motor vehicle operation is a life-and-death public safety issue, and
an environmental issue. It's certainly a technical matter. Yet there
is no exam for technical knowledge of motor vehicle operation. There
IS a skill test, though....

Some states require that vehicles pass periodic inspections - but not
all states. And even in states that have inspection (like
Pennsylvania), a lot can go wrong between inspections. PA inspections
are annual, and a car that was perfectly fine at inspection time can
have all kinds of things go wrong in a year. Tires and brakes wear
out, shocks fail, fluids leak, alignment goes out, etc., etc. Yet PA
DMV trusts us to keep our vehicles in shape even though we are not
tested on how they work.

Most people nowadays don't build their own cars and most hams nowadays
don't build their own rigs.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Robert Casey
writes:

WA3IYC wrote:

No, I mean "knowledge of". Skills are a form of knowledge, as are facts and
concepts. Perhaps it would be better to write "practical knowledge"

For example, consider base 10 natural number arithmetic

"2 + 2 = 4" is a fact.

"Addition is a mathematical operation in which two numbers are combined to
get
a third number which is never less than either of the first two numbers" is
a
concept.


Not quite.

Yes, quite. "Base 10 natural number arithmetic" does not include negative
numbers.

What if the numbers are 2 and -8? Negative numbers are
valid numbers.....

Not in the arithmetic of natural numbers...

Now if you want to talk about real numbers, or integers, or rational numbers...

Mathematicians have fun with this sort of thing. Called "proofs", which
I never did really understand in calculus class anyway.

Ah yes..

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:
A thought just occurred to me......

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...

"WA3IYC" wrote in message
...

Would you agree with this statement:

however, at the same time, those who are not interested in building radios
should not be forced to learn how they work in order to gain amateur radio
privileges ...

No ... because, even if you don't build your own radios, you are responsible
for their proper operation. How could you possibly know something was
wrong if you had no knowledge of how the radio worked?


I'm responsible for the proper operation of any motor vehicles I
operate, but I'm not required to know how they work.

If I were responsible for the drivers exams, you would be..

Or pass any exams
on how they work, even to build or repair my own vehicles.

If I were responsible for the drivers exams, you would be...


This is an interference control issue ... a technical matter ... and
knowledge
of this IS required in order to be competent to operate a station in full
compliance with the rules.


Motor vehicle operation is a life-and-death public safety issue, and
an environmental issue. It's certainly a technical matter. Yet there
is no exam for technical knowledge of motor vehicle operation. There
IS a skill test, though....

If I were... oh heck you know....



Some states require that vehicles pass periodic inspections - but not
all states. And even in states that have inspection (like
Pennsylvania), a lot can go wrong between inspections. PA inspections
are annual, and a car that was perfectly fine at inspection time can
have all kinds of things go wrong in a year. Tires and brakes wear
out, shocks fail, fluids leak, alignment goes out, etc., etc. Yet PA
DMV trusts us to keep our vehicles in shape even though we are not
tested on how they work.

Most people nowadays don't build their own cars and most hams nowadays
don't build their own rigs.

If...... At any rate, I would have the prospective driver change a
tire, check their oil, do all kinds of stuff that prove they know
something about the vehicle they are driving. There would even be test
questions about how an engine works.

I suppose that's hazing, or why should they learn that. They can just
call AAA on their cell.

Remind me to tell y'all about the night I darn near froze to death
(seriously) waiting for AAA to get me out of a vehicle breakdown.
Fortunately, a fellow ham ended up saving my cute butt.

- Mike KB3EIA -



73 de Jim, N2EY

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

A thought just occurred to me......

Not a "thought" but rather another limp rerun of the same old procode stuff.


"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"WA3IYC" wrote in message
...
Would you agree with this statement:

however, at the same time, those who are not interested in building
radios
should not be forced to learn how they work in order to gain amateur
radio
privileges ...

No ... because, even if you don't build your own radios, you are
responsible
for their proper operation. How could you possibly know something was
wrong if you had no knowledge of how the radio worked?

I'm responsible for the proper operation of any motor vehicles I
operate, but I'm not required to know how they work. Or pass any exams
on how they work, even to build or repair my own vehicles.

This is a rather absurd comparison. In normal debate it is called by
the formal name of "reducto ad absurdum," a Latin phrase meaning
it is "reduced to an absurdity."

Perhaps Pennsylvania has very lax driver license examinations, but
California and Illinois and Washington all require prospective driver
licensees to demonstrate knowledge of basic operating functions of a
vehicle...as well as actual operation of that vehicle on the streets.

This is an interference control issue ... a technical matter ... and
knowledge
of this IS required in order to be competent to operate a station in full
compliance with the rules.

Motor vehicle operation is a life-and-death public safety issue, and
an environmental issue. It's certainly a technical matter.

What is "technical" about operating a motor vehicle? Why do you use
the term "certainly a technical matter?" It is no more "technical" than
operating a CB radio or an amateur radio.

Radios can't carry you over the streets and highways to a physical
destination.

Yet there
is no exam for technical knowledge of motor vehicle operation. There
IS a skill test, though....

Make up your mind. You just said that motor vehicle operation
CERTAINLY IS A TECHNICAL MATTER. Now you say it is just a
"skill test."

Some states require that vehicles pass periodic inspections - but not
all states. And even in states that have inspection (like
Pennsylvania), a lot can go wrong between inspections. PA inspections
are annual, and a car that was perfectly fine at inspection time can
have all kinds of things go wrong in a year. Tires and brakes wear
out, shocks fail, fluids leak, alignment goes out, etc., etc. Yet PA
DMV trusts us to keep our vehicles in shape even though we are not
tested on how they work.

...and it's very easy in Pennsylvania to KILL someone using a motor
vehicle. Been there, seen that happen.

Now you want everyone to believe that driver's licenses are just like
amateur radio licenses?

Whatever it is you are on, you should stop taking it...

LHA

Len Over 21 wrote:


Make up your mind. You just said that motor vehicle operation
CERTAINLY IS A TECHNICAL MATTER. Now you say it is just a
"skill test."


My wife can drive just fine, that definitely proves that driving
is NOT a technical matter.

"Nancy D Fell" wrote in message
...

The FCC has a long history of suppressing the advancement
of females and minorities.

Nancy

Really? I'm at the FCC often enough to have a permanent
photo ID "Frequent Visitor" badge ...

Have you noticed that the Chairman is a black man?

Did you know that there's a female Commissioner?
(And that she's not the first?)

In fact, I deal on a regular basis, professionally, with many, many
"minorities" and women who hold high positions in the FCC.

How do you propose to reconcile all of this against your statement
above, Nancy???

Carl - wk3c

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ...
"Brian" wrote in message
om...
(DickCarroll) wrote in message
. com...
(Brian) wrote in message
. com...
(DickCarroll) wrote in message
. com...

Brian:
There's 'life', then there's your perception of life. Most readers
here know
too well that the two are not congruent.

Perhaps there's still time for you to learn the difference.

DICK, I'm talking about you, not "most readers."

As per your usual, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Then why did I start the sentence with "DICK?"

I think it's kind of a way of admitting he's a nothing and a nobody...

Kim W5TIT

Perhaps subconsciously.

In the year 2525, if man is still alive...

....an alien scientist will start reading DICK's r.r.a.p. postings and
declare, "Captain, I find it quite illogical. This specimen is a
nothing and a nobody, but believes he is a giant. Fascinating!"

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 08:29:55 -0400, TRE wrote:

Sounds like you are bitter that women had broken
the "Glass Ceiling," in an agency that was for so long and
one of the last to be dominated by white males.

Shhhhhhhh, I heard she was even a "REPUBLICAN."

Wrong. She was a "I have no clue as to her party and care less" in
a Democratic administration.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 08:12:59 -0400, Harry Hacker wrote:

The "guest speaker"was an FCC Bureau Chief, who admitted that she
didn't know how from where the FCC gets jurisdiction over radio
transmissions from a US-registered aircraft "way up in the sky" in
international airspace.


This "guest speaker" was a graduate of Harvard Law School and
held professional degrees in engineering. The only thing she lacked
was membership in the "Old Guard" of white males.

Wrong on two of the three. She was not a Harvard Law grad, she did
not have ANY technical education or degrees. She was not a member
of the "Old Guard" of white males because God made her female and
she did come from "outside" and therefore didn't know what she was
'sposed to if she held that position nor did she bother to learn.
She was more interested in establishing cell networks and auctioning
off spectrum.

I had to teach her basic Communications Act law....

Sounds like you are bitter that women had broken
the "Glass Ceiling," in an agency that was for so long and
one of the last to be dominated by white males.

I am bitter that someone is appointed a Bureau Chief who is
ignorant in the basic jurisdiction and authority of the agency.

One of the people I worked with and for at the agency whom I
respected the most was a "minority" lady - a "lady" in every sense
of the word - who came from "outside" and learned comm law very
quickly. She passed through the non-existent "glass ceiling" at the
agency very rapidly, served several years at a high position inm the
agency, and today holds a very high non-political career position in
another Federal agency, which she certainly EARNED.

'Bye "Harry".....

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane