"Keith" wrote in message
nk.net...
I had the pleasure of watching the documentary by Michael
Moore called, "Bowling for Columbine". In the opening segment
Michael goes into a Michigan Bank and gets a free shotgun
for opening a CD account. In the documentary he discusses
the fact that the tenage mass killers bought their ammo at Kmart
and obtained guns at gun shows.
The thought occurred to me, Why in the hell can a teenager in America buy
a
weapon of mass destruction with no test or license, but to pick up a
microphone to talk he needs to obtain a license from the federal
government? I
can understand for a vehicle, but isn't it time to do away with Ham Radio
licensing in a nation in which 12,000 people are murdered by untested and
unlicensed gun owners? Just a thought.


--
Best Regards, Keith AOL IM:kilowattradio
NW Oregon Radio http://kilowatt-radio.org/
_Give SCO $699 for using Linux or the Penguin gets it._
Torvalds: _They are smoking crack._


Hey Keith...here is a box of oranges, and over there is a box of apples.
See my point?

Dan/W4NTI

"Keith" wrote in message
nk.net...
I had the pleasure of watching the documentary by Michael
Moore called, "Bowling for Columbine". In the opening segment
Michael goes into a Michigan Bank and gets a free shotgun
for opening a CD account. In the documentary he discusses
the fact that the tenage mass killers bought their ammo at Kmart
and obtained guns at gun shows.
The thought occurred to me, Why in the hell can a teenager in America buy
a
weapon of mass destruction with no test or license, but to pick up a
microphone to talk he needs to obtain a license from the federal
government? I
can understand for a vehicle, but isn't it time to do away with Ham Radio
licensing in a nation in which 12,000 people are murdered by untested and
unlicensed gun owners? Just a thought.


--
Best Regards, Keith AOL IM:kilowattradio
NW Oregon Radio http://kilowatt-radio.org/
_Give SCO $699 for using Linux or the Penguin gets it._
Torvalds: _They are smoking crack._

Another liberal mouthpiece opens his mouth and **** pours out. You and
Michael Moore are both idiots.

But anyone who visits your CB web page can see that. You are just another
wanna-be Ham Radio operator.

10-73's!

"Keith" wrote in message
nk.net...

[snip]
... isn't it time to do away with Ham Radio licensing in a nation
in which 12,000 people are murdered by untested and
unlicensed gun owners? Just a thought.

To answer your question with a single word "No."

Licensing is required by international agreements and federal
law (and for good reason).

However, the requirements for licensure should be reasonable
and rational, and while the written tests meet that criteria, the
requirement for Morse proficiency no longer does.

Carl - wk3c

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

However, the requirements for licensure should be reasonable
and rational, and while the written tests meet that criteria, the
requirement for Morse proficiency no longer does.

Carl - wk3c

Carl:

Jim, N2EY, just said, in so many words, that since today's amateur
radio equipment can no longer be designed, built, or serviced by
any but the tiny handful of hams who possess professional-grade
technical knowledge, skill, and facilities, that most of the technical
knowledge in the present written tests can also be eliminated as
a licensing requirement. I totally agree. In what way is it
"reasonable and rational" for someone to know Ohm's Law or
even the most basic digital theory, if they'll never have to use it
in their actual practice as a radio amateur? I say it isn't, and
nothing could prove this better than eliminating the code testing
requirements for the same reason. After all, code testing has
the effect of exposing prospective radio amateurs to what is
always going to be a practical and useful communications tool
which allows radio amateurs to practice basic radio
communication with only entry-level skill and technology.

If we eliminate the code testing requirement, we therefore
demonstrate that basic communications skills are no longer
necessary to be a licensed amateur radio operator. I, for one,
would like to think that the present syllabus of the written tests
still represents "basic communications skills." So, which will
it be? Code testing, written testing, both, or neither?

73 de Larry, K3LT

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

However, the requirements for licensure should be reasonable
and rational, and while the written tests meet that criteria, the
requirement for Morse proficiency no longer does.

Carl - wk3c

Carl:

Jim, N2EY, just said, in so many words, that since today's amateur
radio equipment can no longer be designed, built, or serviced by
any but the tiny handful of hams who possess professional-grade
technical knowledge, skill, and facilities, that most of the technical
knowledge in the present written tests can also be eliminated as
a licensing requirement. I totally agree. In what way is it
"reasonable and rational" for someone to know Ohm's Law or
even the most basic digital theory, if they'll never have to use it
in their actual practice as a radio amateur? I say it isn't, and
nothing could prove this better than eliminating the code testing
requirements for the same reason. After all, code testing has
the effect of exposing prospective radio amateurs to what is
always going to be a practical and useful communications tool
which allows radio amateurs to practice basic radio
communication with only entry-level skill and technology.

If we eliminate the code testing requirement, we therefore
demonstrate that basic communications skills are no longer
necessary to be a licensed amateur radio operator. I, for one,
would like to think that the present syllabus of the written tests
still represents "basic communications skills." So, which will
it be? Code testing, written testing, both, or neither?

73 de Larry, K3LT

I agree,
How about it Carl, let's do away with the outdated theory crap that's
keeping a lot of engineers and kids out of out hobby. Why I know a Doctor
who would love to be a Ham, but because of the stupid, outdated theory he
can not get his license.
Who would you rather have as a Ham, a Doctor who might save your life, or
another know-it-all who knows out dated electronics theory.

Will you lead Ham Radio out of the darkness and into the light Captain Carl?
Break these shackles that bind us to the old ways! FREE RADIO FOR THE
MASSES!

10-73's!

(Of course I'm kidding, but this will be coming real soon AND YOU KNOW
THIS!)


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.516 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 9/1/2003

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

However, the requirements for licensure should be reasonable
and rational, and while the written tests meet that criteria, the
requirement for Morse proficiency no longer does.

Carl - wk3c

Carl:

Jim, N2EY, just said, in so many words,

With all due respect to Jim, just because he said it doesn't make
it true. (no matter how many words he used :-)

that since today's amateur
radio equipment can no longer be designed, built, or serviced by
any but the tiny handful of hams who possess professional-grade
technical knowledge, skill, and facilities,

That's absurd ... just as those who want to (and don't have a
legitimate physical limitation that prevents it) *could* learn
Morse at some arbitrary speed, anyone who wants to (except,
someone who's truly mentally deficient) can learn the skills
necessary to design, build, and service equipment comparable
in performance to (or better than) off the shelf commercial equipment.

Even "custom ASICs" can be affordably created in the ham's
home workshop with free or inexpensive software tools that
run on any reasonable PC, using FPGAs and other programable
logic devices ... and they can do significant signal processing at
rates higher than can be done in software on a PC (though using
the PC to do some signal processing is useful and practical in
some applications).

Some of the fancy LCD displays require special manufacturing
techniques and equipment and would be prohibitively expensive for
"one off" and small quantities, but they can be replaced by a "soft"
display on a computer screen if those sorts of bells and whistles
are desired ... check out "Ham Radio Deluxe" ... one hell of a
slick control program, that's free by the way, from Simon Brown,
HB9DRV, and Peter Halpin, PE1MHO, (NCI Director Emeritus,
holder of the 1st 6m QRP (=5W) DXCC, and other awards and
omgosh ... a no-coder)
at: http://www.kns.ch/sysgem/hb9drv/HamRadioDeluxe.htm

Building and servicing are simply a matter of technique. SMT
parts can be soldered by hand with a small, low wattage iron
(even 200 pin QFPs ... I've done it many times) or with a simple
hot air reflow soldering system (you can buy one, or could build
one ... I've reflowed modest sized PCBs with a heat gun and
some care.

The techniques are different than the old "thru-hole" methods,
but they are really no more difficult and are certainly within
reach of anyone who cares to learn.

(and, amateur radio is *supposed* to encourage the learning
of useful technical skills, advancing the art, etc.)

that most of the technical
knowledge in the present written tests can also be eliminated as
a licensing requirement. I totally agree.

So, you would prefer that the amateur ranks be centered on
appliance operators (as long as they can beep fast)??? That's
the death warrant for amateur radio if it ever becomes totally
that way.

Reducing the technical skill of amateurs to your level and
keeping "Morse as king" may make you FEEL superior,
Larry, but it's really the TRUE "dumbing down" of the
amateur radio service ...

Other than as a recreational activity in the ARS (which is fine),
the world has passed Morse by.

What's needed in the "pool of trained operators" is no longer
a cadre of Morseists, but folks who have the technical
knowledge and skill to build, field, and maintain systems that
can meet the communications needs of EMS agencies ... and
that's at a level of technology far beyond OOK Morse.

In what way is it
"reasonable and rational" for someone to know Ohm's Law or
even the most basic digital theory, if they'll never have to use it
in their actual practice as a radio amateur?

Ohm's Law is a tool that can be used for many things ... biasing
circuits, figuring out what size wire gauge is necessary to carry
a given current with what voltage drop, and on and on ... and it's
a simple equation, whose permutations can be learned in about
10 minutes ... equally useful are the formulae for inductive and
capacitive reactance, resonance, etc., etc.

These are all basic things that every amateur should know and
understand. (Do they all? No. Should they? Yes!!!)

I say it isn't, and
nothing could prove this better than eliminating the code testing
requirements for the same reason.

That's absurd ...

After all, code testing has
the effect of exposing prospective radio amateurs to what is
always going to be a practical and useful communications tool
which allows radio amateurs to practice basic radio
communication with only entry-level skill and technology.

Certain chemicals are "useful" in agriculture ... should everyone
who wants to eat a salad be required to be sprayed with them
("exposed to them") against his/her will before being allowed to
do so? (Yes, it's an extreme and contrived example, but the
principle is EXACTLY the same.)

If we eliminate the code testing requirement, we therefore
demonstrate that basic communications skills are no longer
necessary to be a licensed amateur radio operator.

Larry ... most folks don't WANT to communicate via Morse.
Nothing prevents you from doing so, but to assert that everyone
must prove they can before they can do anything on HF is
pointless and counter to the interests of the future of ham radio.
(The governments of the world and even the IARU have come
to realize this ... that YOU "don't get it" is irrelevant.)

I, for one,
would like to think that the present syllabus of the written tests
still represents "basic communications skills." So, which will
it be? Code testing, written testing, both, or neither?

The sensible option ... no code testing. Adequate written testing.
That answer is obvious.

Carl - wk3c

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

However, the requirements for licensure should be reasonable
and rational, and while the written tests meet that criteria, the
requirement for Morse proficiency no longer does.

Carl - wk3c

Carl:

Jim, N2EY, just said, in so many words, that since today's amateur
radio equipment can no longer be designed, built, or serviced by
any but the tiny handful of hams who possess professional-grade
technical knowledge, skill, and facilities, that most of the technical
knowledge in the present written tests can also be eliminated as
a licensing requirement. I totally agree. In what way is it
"reasonable and rational" for someone to know Ohm's Law or
even the most basic digital theory, if they'll never have to use it
in their actual practice as a radio amateur? I say it isn't, and
nothing could prove this better than eliminating the code testing
requirements for the same reason. After all, code testing has
the effect of exposing prospective radio amateurs to what is
always going to be a practical and useful communications tool
which allows radio amateurs to practice basic radio
communication with only entry-level skill and technology.

I would not necessarily totally agree with that statement as even though I
am not a master electronics tech, I still can debug a problem with a few
basic pieces of equipment and a schematic. Also, the
electronics/electricity knowledge is important in dealing with alot of
different things in amateur radio, not just "debugging" a Icom 706 (or other
radio) radio problem.



If we eliminate the code testing requirement, we therefore
demonstrate that basic communications skills are no longer
necessary to be a licensed amateur radio operator. I, for one,
would like to think that the present syllabus of the written tests
still represents "basic communications skills." So, which will
it be? Code testing, written testing, both, or neither?


I personally believe that the written tests need to be more stringent, as
most of the tests I have had to take were definitely more than 35-50
questions, more like 100-250 range. As far as the question pool, I have no
problem with the questions themselves being released, but the answers
shouldn't. At least if the question pool (questions only) was that way, it
would encourage people to research the correct answer. That is what I did
as a final study tool, after reading and re-reading many times....... They
could also incorporate "scenario" questions as well.


--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...

In article , "Ryan, KC8PMX"
writes:

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

However, the requirements for licensure should be reasonable
and rational, and while the written tests meet that criteria, the
requirement for Morse proficiency no longer does.

Carl - wk3c

Carl:

Jim, N2EY, just said, in so many words, that since today's amateur
radio equipment can no longer be designed, built, or serviced by
any but the tiny handful of hams who possess professional-grade
technical knowledge, skill, and facilities, that most of the technical
knowledge in the present written tests can also be eliminated as
a licensing requirement. I totally agree. In what way is it
"reasonable and rational" for someone to know Ohm's Law or
even the most basic digital theory, if they'll never have to use it
in their actual practice as a radio amateur? I say it isn't, and
nothing could prove this better than eliminating the code testing
requirements for the same reason. After all, code testing has
the effect of exposing prospective radio amateurs to what is
always going to be a practical and useful communications tool
which allows radio amateurs to practice basic radio
communication with only entry-level skill and technology.

I would not necessarily totally agree with that statement as even though I
am not a master electronics tech, I still can debug a problem with a few
basic pieces of equipment and a schematic. Also, the
electronics/electricity knowledge is important in dealing with alot of
different things in amateur radio, not just "debugging" a Icom 706 (or other
radio) radio problem.

Ryan,

I suggest you read what I actually wrote, rather than Larry's interpretation.
You may have read it already.

My point was not that hams *cannot* take care of their equipment, but rather
that there is not much of an absolute *need* for theory testing compared to
years ago because of the changes in typical modern amateur equipment.

That you can troubleshoot equipment is admirable, but I bet most of that
knowledge and skill came from your own interest, not from having to pass
written tests.

If we eliminate the code testing requirement, we therefore
demonstrate that basic communications skills are no longer
necessary to be a licensed amateur radio operator. I, for one,
would like to think that the present syllabus of the written tests
still represents "basic communications skills." So, which will
it be? Code testing, written testing, both, or neither?

I personally believe that the written tests need to be more stringent, as
most of the tests I have had to take were definitely more than 35-50
questions, more like 100-250 range.

I agree - but the FCC thinks the opposite. Try to convince them that they're
wrong.

As far as the question pool, I have no
problem with the questions themselves being released, but the answers
shouldn't. At least if the question pool (questions only) was that way, it
would encourage people to research the correct answer. That is what I did
as a final study tool, after reading and re-reading many times....... They
could also incorporate "scenario" questions as well.

Wouldn't work. Somebody would do the Dick Bash thing and get the answers.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , (N2EY)
writes:

I suggest you read what I actually wrote, rather than Larry's interpretation.
You may have read it already.

Jim:

If I failed to paraphrase your comments accurately, I apologize. I admit that
I
did add my own "spin."

73 de Larry, K3LT

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Ryan, KC8PMX"
writes:

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

However, the requirements for licensure should be reasonable
and rational, and while the written tests meet that criteria, the
requirement for Morse proficiency no longer does.

Carl - wk3c

Carl:

Jim, N2EY, just said, in so many words, that since today's amateur
radio equipment can no longer be designed, built, or serviced by
any but the tiny handful of hams who possess professional-grade
technical knowledge, skill, and facilities, that most of the technical
knowledge in the present written tests can also be eliminated as
a licensing requirement. I totally agree. In what way is it
"reasonable and rational" for someone to know Ohm's Law or
even the most basic digital theory, if they'll never have to use it
in their actual practice as a radio amateur? I say it isn't, and
nothing could prove this better than eliminating the code testing
requirements for the same reason. After all, code testing has
the effect of exposing prospective radio amateurs to what is
always going to be a practical and useful communications tool
which allows radio amateurs to practice basic radio
communication with only entry-level skill and technology.

I would not necessarily totally agree with that statement as even though
I
am not a master electronics tech, I still can debug a problem with a few
basic pieces of equipment and a schematic. Also, the
electronics/electricity knowledge is important in dealing with alot of
different things in amateur radio, not just "debugging" a Icom 706 (or
other
radio) radio problem.

Ryan,

I suggest you read what I actually wrote, rather than Larry's
interpretation.
You may have read it already.


I was going more on Larry's interpretation for that particular message....


My point was not that hams *cannot* take care of their equipment, but
rather
that there is not much of an absolute *need* for theory testing compared
to
years ago because of the changes in typical modern amateur equipment.


Yes, the equipment has changed, but I still see the need for some knowledge
in that direction.



That you can troubleshoot equipment is admirable, but I bet most of that
knowledge and skill came from your own interest, not from having to pass
written tests.

I would honestly say a little bit of both. I have always been a tinkerer
since almost back in the toddler days, which usually drove my parents
completely nuts!!!!! I just gotta know how something works or I am not
satisfied!!



If we eliminate the code testing requirement, we therefore
demonstrate that basic communications skills are no longer
necessary to be a licensed amateur radio operator. I, for one,
would like to think that the present syllabus of the written tests
still represents "basic communications skills." So, which will
it be? Code testing, written testing, both, or neither?

I personally believe that the written tests need to be more stringent, as
most of the tests I have had to take were definitely more than 35-50
questions, more like 100-250 range.

I agree - but the FCC thinks the opposite. Try to convince them that
they're
wrong.


Actually, the VE groups need to push the issue since they are (for the most
part) the persons responsible for administering the tests etc. That needs
to be a collective effort between the arrl, w5yi and any other VE groups out
there, if they could get together and WORK TOGETHER in that respect at
least.



As far as the question pool, I have no
problem with the questions themselves being released, but the answers
shouldn't. At least if the question pool (questions only) was that way,
it
would encourage people to research the correct answer. That is what I
did
as a final study tool, after reading and re-reading many times.......
They
could also incorporate "scenario" questions as well.

Wouldn't work. Somebody would do the Dick Bash thing and get the answers.


Expand the size of the question pool maybe?? Or is there a better
solution???



--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...