In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
...
Hello, Len

Guess I get my dander up too at times. Certainly it is wrong to paint
"all"
Republicans or "all" Democrates or "all" of any one group with a wide
brush.
Not good at all. Besides, I've gotten led off-topic - not good at all.

I have figured it out, Len. The problem is we are dropping the Morse
requirements. Dang, now my washing machine is going to over-suds again ;)

However, BPL should help the situation. If BPL is going to reduce power
line noise (according to power companies), it should reduce my washer
over-sudsing since it runs from the mains. LOL.

It's not that BPL will reduce power line noise but rather that the companies
must reduce the noise to get BPL to work!!

Dee, it's best you go into the FCC ECFS and look at the text of
NTIA's Phase 2 report. [you can also get it at the NTIA website]
Then look at the Iowa amateur club comment of 21 June 2004
where the test measurements indicated BOTH power line noise
and OFDM BPL signals.

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , (Gonad
the Librarian) writes:

snippage


You lived through the 70's...Jimmy Carter's economics and political
decisions almost bankrupted this nation, both financially and in fact.


Sounds like gunnery nursie didn't get promotion that time...

Sorry to break in on a comment that I didn't see the first time here, Len.

If a person believes that President Carter's economic and political
policies almost bankrupted the country, I would suggest looking up the
historical date of August 15, 1971. See what happened on that date, and
the consequences of that action.


I'll see if anyone knows this one before giving it away.

- Mike KB3EIA -

N2EY wrote:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ...

Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 6/21/2004 6:23 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:



Do I have some sort of "evidence"...?!?! No. But he's already set the
pace and I see no likelyhood he'd get into office then suddenly get a spine.


So it's emotional, not based on objective facts with supporting evidence.

Part emotional, yes, but based on past experience with the Demoncratic
Party.


So it's really not about John Kerry as it is about Democrats vs.
Republicans.


That's not necessarily "wrong" or "right". In the end, what an
election comes down to is "who do you trust more?" Because regardless
of somebody's record, once they're in office it's a matter of trust
because you can't watch every issue and action. And you can't stop
them in time anyway.

That's why folks are/were so ticked off at Clinton and Nixon. They
betrayed the trust.

Do you see the problem?

I do.

I also know Kerry has made public remarks that supported Fonda.


Where? When? What exactly were the remarks?


Someone was a bit creative with a camera...OK...


No, they weren't.

The picture at the Valley Forge VVAW rally is real. (Another photo is
faked, but the one most often seen is real). Kerry is there, three
rows behind Hanoi Jane.

I don't think that Political Photoshopping is a small deal.


The point is that the surrounding information (date of the picture and
HJ's trip) are left out, and the picture presented as being *after*
that trip, rather than 2 years before.

You fell for it. Many others did, too. That's the problem.

Another version of Gore's "Invention of the Internet" lie.


I have an logical disconnect with this sort of thing.


Why is it wrong for a president to lie about having gotten fellatio (
Which I agree is wrong)

YET!

It is perfectly acceptable to continue the LIE about Gore saying he
invented the internet, or showing a faked picture of Kerry and Jane
Fonda together coupled with another LIE about the date on which the
picture was taken - even though that picture was never taken in the
first place. It's perfectly to do a smear campaign on the patriotis

And that is just three examples I can call up without thinking too hard
about it.

Seriously folks, Think for yourself. If you are willing to accept every
story that your "group" sends down the wire, you will be hoodwinked.
Lying to advance your parties agenda is not moral or right. I've lived
around some people that have ruined their lives by lies, starting small,
then turning compulsive. It's where we are today, when so-called
Liberals are the cause of every problem on the face of the planet. They
aren't.

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

The picture at the Valley Forge VVAW rally is real. (Another photo is
faked, but the one most often seen is real). Kerry is there, three
rows behind Hanoi Jane.

I don't think that Political Photoshopping is a small deal.

Nor I. You can see both photos and the surrounding story on the snopes.com
website. The real photo is from the VVAW rally, the faked one shows Kerry and
Fonda at a podium.

The point is that the surrounding information (date of the picture and
HJ's trip) are left out, and the picture presented as being *after*
that trip, rather than 2 years before.

You fell for it. Many others did, too. That's the problem.

Another version of Gore's "Invention of the Internet" lie.

Yep.

I have an logical disconnect with this sort of thing.

Why is it wrong for a president to lie about having gotten fellatio (
Which I agree is wrong)

YET!

It is perfectly acceptable to continue the LIE about Gore saying he
invented the internet, or showing a faked picture of Kerry and Jane
Fonda together coupled with another LIE about the date on which the
picture was taken - even though that picture was never taken in the
first place.

It's not OK. And as bad as Clinton's lie was, it wasn't as bad as Nixon's "I am
not a crook" lie and surrounding coverup.

Note that there are *two* Kerry/Fonda photographs. One is real, the other
faked. The real one seems to prove a point until you find out it was taken 2
years before Fonda went to Hanoi - then it proves a very different point.

It's perfectly to do a smear campaign on the patriotis

Something got cut off there, Mike.

And that is just three examples I can call up without thinking too hard

about it.

Seriously folks, Think for yourself. If you are willing to accept every

story that your "group" sends down the wire, you will be hoodwinked.
Lying to advance your parties agenda is not moral or right. I've lived
around some people that have ruined their lives by lies, starting small,
then turning compulsive. It's where we are today, when so-called
Liberals are the cause of every problem on the face of the planet. They
aren't.

Neither are conservatives the cause of every problem.

Your advice is right on, Mike. But remember that it's a natural human trait to
want easy, quick answers to complex problems, And it's even more attractive if
someone else or some other group can be blamed for a problem.

And there *is* a tie to BPL in all this. BPL advocates are trying to sell it as
a cheap, easy, quick solution to the broadband access problem. The
administration is trying to sell it as a way back to the technoboom of the
'90s, without a lot of tedious mucking about with infrastructure. Trying to tie
it in with homeland security is a classic example of adhomineming those who
oppose it. 'Those dern pinko liberal antenna-huggers!'

Interference? Reliability? Spectrum pollution? Too complicated!

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Steve Robeson K4CAP" wrote in message
...
Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for
truth
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 6/22/2004 7:57 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Point is, they could have overthrown SH any time they wanted to.

Oh? Under threat of being shot by anyone next to you?

Most of those forced into conscription knew that the man next to them
may
be an Agent of the govenment.

Would YOU make so bold an act not knowing if the person right next to
you
might shoot you when you did?


Even worse was that SH would rape, torture and then kill the family of the
suspected person in front of him before then killing him. How many would
risk that?

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


The picture at the Valley Forge VVAW rally is real. (Another photo is
faked, but the one most often seen is real). Kerry is there, three
rows behind Hanoi Jane.

I don't think that Political Photoshopping is a small deal.


Nor I. You can see both photos and the surrounding story on the snopes.com
website. The real photo is from the VVAW rally, the faked one shows Kerry and
Fonda at a podium.


The point is that the surrounding information (date of the picture and
HJ's trip) are left out, and the picture presented as being *after*
that trip, rather than 2 years before.

You fell for it. Many others did, too. That's the problem.

Another version of Gore's "Invention of the Internet" lie.


Yep.

I have an logical disconnect with this sort of thing.

Why is it wrong for a president to lie about having gotten fellatio (
Which I agree is wrong)

YET!

It is perfectly acceptable to continue the LIE about Gore saying he
invented the internet, or showing a faked picture of Kerry and Jane
Fonda together coupled with another LIE about the date on which the
picture was taken - even though that picture was never taken in the
first place.


It's not OK. And as bad as Clinton's lie was, it wasn't as bad as Nixon's "I am
not a crook" lie and surrounding coverup.

Note that there are *two* Kerry/Fonda photographs. One is real, the other
faked. The real one seems to prove a point until you find out it was taken 2
years before Fonda went to Hanoi - then it proves a very different point.


It's perfectly to do a smear campaign on the patriotis


Something got cut off there, Mike.

And that is just three examples I can call up without thinking too hard


about it.

Seriously folks, Think for yourself. If you are willing to accept every


story that your "group" sends down the wire, you will be hoodwinked.
Lying to advance your parties agenda is not moral or right. I've lived
around some people that have ruined their lives by lies, starting small,
then turning compulsive. It's where we are today, when so-called
Liberals are the cause of every problem on the face of the planet. They
aren't.


Neither are conservatives the cause of every problem.

No they are not. But I see that as the difference these days. Everyone
makes mistakes, every group can have a problem and a plan that simply
won't work. I would never blame all the problems on Conservatives or
Republicans. I share too many of their values. (mostly fiscal and
smaller government) But it isn't the other side blaming everything on
them. They (mostly NeoCons) are blaming *everything* on *everyone* else.


Your advice is right on, Mike. But remember that it's a natural human trait to
want easy, quick answers to complex problems, And it's even more attractive if
someone else or some other group can be blamed for a problem.

Simple answers for simple minds. Sounds great until you try to apply it
to the problem at hand.



And there *is* a tie to BPL in all this. BPL advocates are trying to sell it as
a cheap, easy, quick solution to the broadband access problem. The
administration is trying to sell it as a way back to the technoboom of the
'90s, without a lot of tedious mucking about with infrastructure. Trying to tie
it in with homeland security is a classic example of adhomineming those who
oppose it. 'Those dern pinko liberal antenna-huggers!'

Interference? Reliability? Spectrum pollution? Too complicated!


Yup!

- mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote:

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article ,
(Gonad
the Librarian) writes:


snippage


You lived through the 70's...Jimmy Carter's economics and political
decisions almost bankrupted this nation, both financially and in fact.



Sounds like gunnery nursie didn't get promotion that time...


Sorry to break in on a comment that I didn't see the first time
here, Len.

If a person believes that President Carter's economic and political
policies almost bankrupted the country, I would suggest looking up the
historical date of August 15, 1971. See what happened on that date, and
the consequences of that action.


I'll see if anyone knows this one before giving it away.



Nobody have it yet? Jim, you're usually good at this sort of thing.


- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

And there *is* a tie to BPL in all this. BPL advocates are trying to sell it
as
a cheap, easy, quick solution to the broadband access problem. The
administration is trying to sell it as a way back to the technoboom of the
'90s, without a lot of tedious mucking about with infrastructure. Trying to
tie
it in with homeland security is a classic example of adhomineming those who
oppose it. 'Those dern pinko liberal antenna-huggers!'

Interference? Reliability? Spectrum pollution? Too complicated!

Not complicated at all.

BPL will be the demise of low-level-signal HF communications in
urban areas. Kiss off any thoughts of signal-to-noise ratios
required in modern receivers. All that advanced technology will
go to waste. Hams can go back to using one-tube regenerative
receivers, those being as "low-signal-level" as any other in an
RF cesspool of noise on HF.

If BPL makes inroads as a legacy system, it will be very difficult
to remove, let alone stop.

BPL system companies will make money, the whole purpose of
that kind of thing. The rest of the HF communications world can
go away. Simple. A no-brainer.

Michael Powell will have made his small mark on history, unable
to complete his military career or emulate his father much.

"Jim Hampton" wrote in message ...
"William" wrote in message
om...

Thanks for the segway, which brings us right back to the Code Test
argument (which happens a lot with the blind followers of the faith).

A couple of questions beg to be answered; perhaps you'd be kind enough to do
so.

1) Why do we have the highest rate of incarceration in the world?

Good question - I hope you have the answer.

Maybe because we don't hold youngsters accountable, at an age when
they might actually learn a life-long lesson. Then when they become
adults, their behavior is just not cute anymore. We incarcerate them
at that point.

Prison jobs are about the only growth industry in Ohio, even with the
Gov trying to close prisons.

2) What does Morse code have to do with it (other than, of course, causing
my washing machine to over-suds?)

I thought we were talking about what was good for America -and- the
blind followers of the faith. It was a natural turning point to
discuss the Morse Code Exam.

So, is the Morse Code Exam good for America?

Best regards from Rochester, NY - and don't strain the brain

Jim AA2QA

No sweatty-dah.

That's "no sweat" in Korean.

(;^) thought I'd give the peanut gallery some intellect to laugh at.)

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message ...
"William" wrote in message
m...
"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
...
"William" wrote in message
om...
"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
...

What Clinton did was terrible to his
wife and daughter,
I really don't want to know what he did to his wife and daughter. The
details of what he did to Monica was bad enough.

but what damage to the country (other than a major distraction) did it
do?

Our government and our monetary system is a confidence game. When our
leaders go south, our confidence goes south, and our economy goes
south.


What bothered me is that since Clinton lied about something so unimportant,
what might he do to cover up something that was much more important.

He was a security risk. His whole executive branch was a security risk.

At the time, I had several German friends and they were totally baffled
about why he bothered to lie. To some extent, this probably hurt his
standing with foreign leaders though my memory tells me that as a whole
Europe loved Clinton.

There are no Puritans left in Europe. They all left on the Mayflower.

N2EY wrote:

It's perfectly to do a smear campaign on the patriotis


Something got cut off there, Mike.


Oops, sorry about that. That's what I get when I get interrupted and
don't do a spell check,


I was just going to say that I would caution people about how a person
that I consider a patriot - Max Cleland - was attacked as unpatriotic
in a recent election.

Max lost 2 legs and an arm in the service of our country. Problem was,
he didn't have the "correct" politics. If you don't like the man's
political leanings, fine. Challenge his voting record.

But not his patriotism. That makes me want to puke.

All those that serve our country honorably are patriots in my book. Too
bad there is a new breed that ties patriotism to "goodthink" in addition
to the willingness to lay down your life for your country.

Seems political correctness has been reincarnated!

story that your "group" sends down the wire, you will be hoodwinked.
Lying to advance your parties agenda is not moral or right. I've lived
around some people that have ruined their lives by lies, starting small,
then turning compulsive. It's where we are today, when so-called
Liberals are the cause of every problem on the face of the planet. They
aren't.


Neither are conservatives the cause of every problem.

Of course not. I never said they were, nor will I ever. But most I know
now admit to no shortcoming *ever*.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth
From: (N2EY)
Date: 6/23/2004 2:58 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...

And President Bush is not the first to suggest that some scientific
breakthrough was close at hand. Billary made an announcement that there
was a
breakthrough in AIDS research that was about to revolutionalize the care
delivered to those victims.

One mistake doesn't justify another. And as terrible as AIDS is, we
are not dependent on foreign imports in order to deliver care to AIDS
patients.

Oh?

Do you know where much of the "unapproved" but wide used and effeective
drugs for AIDS treatment come from,. Jim?

There's a major influx of theraputics from "illegal" sources" that are
getting to folks...Not that it's a bad thing since most of them are
working...That's why there's been a big move on FDA to loosen it's standards on
AIDS treatments.

Afterall...what can they do? Kill them?

Still, it sounds nice, makes for great photo ops and is a pleasant PopSci
diversion from the reality that the US imports way too much oil, and pays
way
too much for it in the process. That payment isn't just in dollars per
barrel.

Agreed. But as long as we insist on not harvesting OUR reserves yet
are
willing to let the Arabs suck themselves dry, what are we to do.

First off, our reserves are not that large. Nor are they easy or
inexpensive to reach. Look up how much oil we'd get if we allowed
unrestricted drilling in Alaska. It's not nearly enough for us to tell
OPEC to stuff it.

Jim, there are a LOT of things that are not that easy to get to, nor are
they that "Inexpensive" to harvest...UNLESS we just bite the bone and spend the
money on the new infrastructure.

Imagine where we'd be in space travel if we'd continued our push out in
the 70's and 80's, instead of still debating it in the 21st Century...

Imagine where we might be as far as our own oil reserves might be if we
weren't so preoccupied with what it would "cost"...?!?!

What needs to be done is simply to become more efficient and wiser in
our energy use. But that's a complex set of problems that requires
discipline and longterm investment.

I agree.

I am the first one to support greater mass transit and re-invigorating our
railroads in support of this...I'd gladly spend my morning commute to work
reading the paper and sipping coffee rather than dodging Granny and worrying
about how wet the roads are.

Now if we can get the other 299,999,999 Americans to do the same. But do
you think the lobbyists in Detroit, Tokyo and Bonn will go along...?!?!

This isn't news. This "crisis" has been in the wings for decades.
People
a lot wiser than you or I have been promising this was coming, and they
were
right.

Yet our leaders since then simply ignore it. That's one reason Reagan
was so popular - he told us it was OK to have big fast cars, consume,
and not worry about where it all came from.

Our leaders are not "ignoring" it, Jim.

They are mirrors of thier consituencies. And the lobbys are spending
billions of dollars to tell everyone to buy more cars and trucks...And they are
doing it.

I se this on the same par with the "drought" in the SW United States.
To
whom is it a "surprise" that we are millions of acre-feet short of the
needed
water supplies out there?

The proponents of desalianation were hushed up by politicos 20 years
ago
who insisted that present infrastructure would support SW US needs well
into
the 21st Century.

Well, it's the 21st century now...

The problem is technological disconnect. Too many people just don't
think about what keeps everything running, or what it really costs.
And the political leadership keeps them insulated from it.

For example, it is much more safe, clean and efficient to travel by
modern electric railways like France's TGV than by air or car. For
distances up to several hundred miles it's actually faster. But
building such systems costs time and money, plus a commitment from
govt. that just isn't there. (Amtrak's entire capital budget would
build a few new runways at a major airport).

Or another example: There *used to be* considerable tax credits for
installing energy saving equipment in your home. Replace the old HVAC
with more efficient hardware, insulate, replace the windows, etc., and
document it, and the IRS gave you a break. That was in Carter's time.
Reagan's "get the government off your back" tax simplification dumped
it.

And
that we'll have permanent moon colonies and manned missions to Mars in
the
"near future". No mention of how it will be paid for, or what real
benefits
will accrue. Heck, there isn't even a commitment to save the Hubble
space
telescope or replace the shuttle.

Again...all of this "forecasted" in the 50's and 60's.

And it hasn't happened because of the enormous cost and dubious benefits.
But
now Bush talks about it like we should make it a national priority.

And why shouldn't we?

Because it's simply not worth what it will cost to do it.

Oh?

For example, consider the fact that it is estimated to cost $26,000
per pound to deliver freight to the moon. That's based on mass
production of next-generation rockets specifically designed to do the
job. Maybe that price can be shaved a bit, but it is fundamentally
governed by the physics of the situation.

You're assuming that all we are going to do is go up there and look back
at Eart and play moongolf.

Now figure how many *tons* of equipment and supplies need to be
shipped to the moon in order to set up a permanent base.

And it get's MORE expensive to send that stuff up every day.

Remember that
the temperature on the lunar surface varies more than 400 degrees from
day to night, and that each is 2 weeks long. Also remember that the
moon has no significant magnetic field or atmosphere, so there is
absolutely no protection from any of the various forms of solar and
cosmic radiation that constantly bombard it. Satellites in low earth
orbit are afforded some protection by the earth's magnetic field, and
if things get really bad humans in orbit can get back to the earth's
surface in minutes. The moon is a totally different story.

We already have the technology to build adequate shelter for them.

And as crass as it may sound, more Americans are killed in automobile
accidents every MONTH than have been killed in the space program since it's
INCEPTION.

In the tri-county area of Southern Tennessee where I live alone, we've had
enough fatal MVA's since June 1st to staff ISS for the next couple of years.

How many tons of equipment would it take to establish a permanent moon
colony of any size? How many pounds of supplies per year to keep it
stocked?

So we sit around and say "what if" until the sun goes nova?

As for what it "costs", Jim, what about it's rewards? The advancement of
computing technology alone, spurred on by technological developments in the
space program, have moved you and I, the little guys" ahead quantum leaps.

Or look at how much even the scaled-down ISS has cost so far - and
it's only in earth orbit.

And think of what it could accomplish if we'd quit trying to do band-aid
financing of the programs...?!?! Medical research alone could pay for the
thing in less than a decade.

But I guess we'll just sit around and pout about how much it costs
"today"...

73

Steve, K4YZ

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

And there *is* a tie to BPL in all this. BPL advocates are trying to sell
it
as
a cheap, easy, quick solution to the broadband access problem. The
administration is trying to sell it as a way back to the technoboom of the
'90s, without a lot of tedious mucking about with infrastructure. Trying
to
tie
it in with homeland security is a classic example of adhomineming those
who
oppose it. 'Those dern pinko liberal antenna-huggers!'

Interference? Reliability? Spectrum pollution? Too complicated!

Not complicated at all.

It's too complicated for the politiicans and regulators.

BPL will be the demise of low-level-signal HF communications in
urban areas.

FCC and NTIA say differently

Kiss off any thoughts of signal-to-noise ratios
required in modern receivers. All that advanced technology will
go to waste. Hams can go back to using one-tube regenerative
receivers, those being as "low-signal-level" as any other in an
RF cesspool of noise on HF.

Never used a regenerative receiver, have you, Len? That's obvious from your
statement. A good one is as sensitive as a modern superhet on HF.

If BPL makes inroads as a legacy system, it will be very difficult
to remove, let alone stop.

The Iowa case will set a precedent.

BPL system companies will make money, the whole purpose of
that kind of thing.

Maybe. Or maybe not - many technologies that were highly touted never made a
dime and faded away. How many billions were lost on the Iridium system?

The rest of the HF communications world can
go away. Simple. A no-brainer.

President Bush and Commissioner Powell say it's not a problem. NTIA says BPL
can reduce line noise. A lot of "professionals" say we amateurs don't know what
we're talking about. Folks like ARRL have produced voluminuous documentation
and measurements of what BPL interference is like, yet that has not been
convincing to FCC.

How does anyone argue against that?

Michael Powell will have made his small mark on history, unable
to complete his military career or emulate his father much.

You mean his father who presented evidence before the UN that turned out not to
be very accurate? He didn't want to, but his boss insisted. Same thing is going
on with BPL. Shrub wants *anything* that looks good in the techno-world. And
he's goit highly paid *professionals* telling him BPL and HF radio can coexist
peacefully.

So what else can be done? Thousands of hams and others saying "BPL is bad"
hasn't stopped it. FCC doesn't have to go with the majority, or even interpret
its own rules the same way all the time.

devil's advocate mode = ON

Besides, Len, who really uses HF radio much anymore? The important military
stuff all goes by satellite, right? You don't see the Pentagon making trouble
about BPL. Ships use GMDRSS and EPIRB and satellites and such. SWBC is being
replaced by satellites and netcasting. All that's really left on HF are hams,
cbs, freebanders and some backup systems. HF is unreliable at best and useless
at worst. It's slow, error prone and inadequate for things like streaming video
and broadband connectivity. The few services still using it are "living in the
past", aren't they?

Besides, why are *you* upset, Len? You're not a ham.

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

Mike Coslo wrote:

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article ,
(Gonad
the Librarian) writes:


snippage


You lived through the 70's...Jimmy Carter's economics and political
decisions almost bankrupted this nation, both financially and in fact.



Sounds like gunnery nursie didn't get promotion that time...


Sorry to break in on a comment that I didn't see the first time
here, Len.

If a person believes that President Carter's economic and political
policies almost bankrupted the country, I would suggest looking up the
historical date of August 15, 1971. See what happened on that date, and
the consequences of that action.

I'll see if anyone knows this one before giving it away.

Nobody have it yet? Jim, you're usually good at this sort of thing.

I thought I'd let others have a crack at it.

August 15, 1971: USA abandoned the gold standard.

Guess who was president.....

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes:


Mike Coslo wrote:

Len Over 21 wrote:


In article ,
(Gonad
the Librarian) writes:


snippage


You lived through the 70's...Jimmy Carter's economics and political
decisions almost bankrupted this nation, both financially and in fact.



Sounds like gunnery nursie didn't get promotion that time...


Sorry to break in on a comment that I didn't see the first time
here, Len.

If a person believes that President Carter's economic and political
policies almost bankrupted the country, I would suggest looking up the
historical date of August 15, 1971. See what happened on that date, and
the consequences of that action.



I'll see if anyone knows this one before giving it away.


Nobody have it yet? Jim, you're usually good at this sort of thing.


I thought I'd let others have a crack at it.

August 15, 1971: USA abandoned the gold standard.

Guess who was president.....

73 de Jim, N2EY


Good guess, but not quite. We were moving away from the Gold Standard
at that time. It was the date that President Richard Nixon instituted
Wage and Price controls. At that time, inflation was at the 4% level -
something considered intolerable.

We soon found out just how "nice" a measly 4% inflation rate was. The
initial 90 day freeze turned into around 1000 days of "adjustments" that
soon saw the inflation rate at 13 percent in December of 1974. The rate
dropped after that, but what was handed to President Carter was an
economic train wreck, to put it mildly. This all culminated in an
inflation rate of 15 percent in March of 1980.

The Wage and price freeze was what turned me into an fiscal conservative!

Now, was that a "leeberal" mistake?

- Mike KB3EIA -

Shoot.... the power line noise around here is horrendous !!! AM broadcast
radio is spotty at best when driving around and that includes stations that
are actually close (25 miles or less) and the intereference makes listening
to talk radio almost impossible unless you find that "magic spot" to park
and listen. What really burns my bum is that one of the stations I DO like
is WJR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can only imagine what might happen if BPL happens here.....


Ryan KC8PMX


It's not that BPL will reduce power line noise but rather that the
companies
must reduce the noise to get BPL to work!!

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth
From: (N2EY)
Date: 6/24/2004 8:31 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for
truth
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 6/21/2004 6:23 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:


In the 50's and 60's we didn't have the technology.

(to send people to the moon)

We barely had the
technology to get to the moon in the 70s.

Had it by 1969, to be exact. The Soviets sent unmanned probes there
about a decade earlier.

Well, Jim, if you want to get THAT specific we were actually crashing
RANGER probes into the moon in the early 60's...

I thought that "...in the 70's" was fairly generic since we landed there
in 1969 and all of the rest of the landings occured before we were out ov Viet
Nam.

History has shown us that most major "jumps" in technology and society
happen in the wake of war.

Some jumps, yes, but I don't know about "most".

Then some review of American History is in order.

With the exception of the Revolution, most technological advances were
during or immediately after some major conflict, especially since 1860.
(Please note the use of the word "advancements", not necessarily inception)

Civil War: Creation of the present ambulance services, advances in trauma
medicine, advancement of the railroads and wireline telegraphy. Photography
becomes popular.

World War 1: The airplane was just a motor driven kite in 1914, and is
ready to span the Atlantic in 1919. The radio comes of age. New advances in
the treatment of diseases (from the study of sanitation in the trenches).

World War 2: Mass production of antibiotics (developed in the 30's, but
not considered a priority until the war), development of RADAR, the jet engine,
further advancements in air travel as a result of the development of
pressurization. Missle technology emerges. Microwave and X-Ray technology
skyrockets.

Korea: Use of the helicopter for medical evacuation. Proliferation of
the television. Satellite communications.

Viet Nam/Moon Missions: Advancements in microprocessors, additional
advancements in trauma care (MAST pants, use of helicopters in civilian
MEDEVAC, previously considered too expensive due to limitied manufacture of
helos) IR/NVG technology.

SDI/Cold War: Space imaging, proliferation of LASER devices, especially
into medical field.

In many cases those
"jumps" would have happened anyway, or are the result of massive
investment by governments that would be considered "socialistic" in
peacetime.

Oh..."would have happened anyway"...?!?!

I don't think so, Jim. All of the major developments of other
technologies or services only happened where there was major subsidies by
governments. Some, such as the expansion of oil refining, etc, only happened
after the development of the automobile, one of the few exceptions to the
above.

Or they're the result of government programs that are done
to soften the conversion to a peacetime economy.

Uh huh...government subsidies. Again, big influx of cash from taxes. MAY
have happened otherwise, but it didn't.

In any event the cost far exceeds the benefits.

Oh?

How much do you pay for a calculator these days?

How much did you pay for the last Amateur transceiver you bought?

Have you ever had an X-Ray or CT scan?

All of those technologies have benefited from government spending in order
to advance military or space technology.

RECENT history has shown that we made some pretty significant strides
based on the Apollo program alone.

Such as? Tang and Teflon existed before NASA.

And most mathematical or engineering calculations were performed with a
slide rule or pencil and paper.

No one has been back to the moon in 32 years and there are no serious
plans to do so anytime soon. The technology to do it would almost have
to be reinvented.

Why? Did we get stupid in the last 30+ years?

Quick/Cheap/Dirty plan...A lunar lander configured to ride in the Shuttle
bay. The Shuttle carries it to the Moon, the mission drops in, and brings at
least part of the lander home for re-use itself.

For those who insist that "we need to spend the money here", I ask
WHERE
in space are you going to spend that money?

We need to spend the money in ways that will directly benefit people
here. And address problems long-term.

Oh?

NASA doesn't need people who are less-than-engineering qualified...?!?!
If we pump up NASA for a new deep space or lunar program, it means that every
company that contracts with it would be able to

And WHAT problems are NOT being addressed long term BECAUSE of the space
program?

A bit of government subsidising would promote yet another wave of
technical advencement.

Agreed - spent in the right places. That's the principle that drives
those "Tax and Spend Democrats!!!"

Trips to the Moon and Mars will require a lot more than "a bit of
government spending".

But we can also defer that with cooperation with business against futures
for mining, technology development, etc. The opportunities are there...We just
need to have the gonads to take them.

It was in the Nixon/Ford years that the big NASA cutbacks took place.
Too much money, they said. There was supposed to be an Apollo 18 lunar
mission - it was cut and the Saturn V for it became a museum piece.
Literally.

Yep...the public lost interest since there was no "obvious" return on thier
investment other than national pride. However the long terms benefits have
been overwhelming.

NOW...if we were to take the chance on an expedition or perm/semi-perm
base on the Moon to determine it's value to be harvested...?!?!

All of NASA's manned budget went into the shuttle, which is a
marvelous system with a 1 in 75 chance of complete mission failure.
The number of shuttles lost compared to the number of missions flown
verifies the reliability analysis.

Things that are filled with hundreds of tons of volatile combustables are
bound to go boom.

As for your "reliability analysis" try the numbers based on miles
flown...(Just proof that you can make any set of numbers look good/bad)

The reason the USA made the big space commitments was because JFK and
LBJ (guess what party) pushed for them.

Do you think it would have been different with Nixon in the White House in
1960? He was an avowed anit-Communist. Do you think he might not ahve made
the same challenge, faced with the same circumstances...?!?! I bet he would
have made the challenge earlier than JFK did.

They were essentially done to
compete with the Soviets for the "high ground" of space. Recall that
practically all of the important early space firsts (first earth
satellite, first animal in space, first human in space and in orbit,
first woman in space, first mission to another heavenly body, first
pictures of the far side of the Moon...) were done by the Soviet
Union. And most of their early accomplishments were complete surprises
in the West. The USA played catch-up for years. JFK and LBJ knew that
if the Rooskies could orbit a man and bring him back safely, doing the
same with a nuclear weapon would be a piece of cake for them.

Today there is no such need or competition.

There's ALWAYS a need for competition, Jim. No..we don't need to build a
bigger, more deadly nuke, but a bit of friendly rivalry goes a long way towards
building a better and cheaper mouse trap.

The cost was staggering but they had the political clout to do it.
They could sell it to everyone on the national security agenda. And it
didn't hurt that a lot of the money was spent in states like LBJ's own
Texas. (Why is the control center for manned flights in Houston when
the launch facility is in Florida?)

I am sure that having been in LBJ's home state had soemthing to do with
it...But being more-or-less half way between FL and CA helped. Much of
America's space program is out of Edwards and Vandenberg, if you will recall.

Billions were spent on the space program in the '60s but when
Americans needed quality fuel-efficient cars in the '70s they had to
go to Germany and Japan for them.

Because American unions demanded wages that pushed the cost of American
cars through the roof. Also, American tastes in automobiles up until then were
for bigger, heavier and faster..."Small" was not a generally popular concept in
the 50's and 60's, if you'll recall. The Germans and the Japanese were forced
by economics, infrastructure and geography to do "small".

I think the recent events in the Mojave also show that
a bit of entrepenurial spirit and investment can go a long way.

As exciting as that effort is, all of it was done more than 35 years
ago with the X-15.

Not by a private entrepreneur and not with the expectation of being able
to carry two passengers.

Also, despite the similarities in delivery techniques (parasite lifter),
the control and recovery techniques are different.

It took the USAF hundreds of millions of (1960's) dollars to do what these
guys did for under $30M...I wonder what the 1960-to-2004 cost comparisons look
like?

And it was done without government funding. So why do we need NASA for
manned flights at all? Let the private folks do it on a self-funded
basis.

OK...so we sit out manned space flight until private investors can get
up-to-speed with governmental levels of service...?!?!

So why not Mars?

Because the cost and risk is simply too much for the benefits. Do you
have any idea what a mission to Mars would require in terms of how big
and complex the ship(s) would have to be, how long they'd be gone, and
how completely on their own they would be?

Yes, as a matter of fact I do.

And I cannot see those costs getting any less impressive if we wait until
2014 or 2024 to do it.

Mars is orders of magnitude more difficult than the moon. Apollo
missions were no more than two weeks, Mars missions would be over a
year long. The Martian surface is in some ways more hostile than the
lunar surface and the landing physics much more difficult (Martian
gravity is stronger). Look how many unmanned Mars missions have failed
completely.

So again...we bring human exploration and technology to a screaming halt
due to our fear of the cash register?

And as for the failed Mars missions, do you think that maybe if there had
been someone there to fix the problem that the mission could have proceeded?

Heck, figure out radio propagation delay to Mars....

Yep...same 186,000MPS that wew ahve here on Earth...

What benefits would a manned mission to Mars give that could not be
had any other way?

Having a Human Being actually stand on it, for one.

And how much all of it would cost?

Who cares? We poor billions into pork barrel projects that DON'T provide
ANY return every year...why not spend it on something that will...?!?!

Why not research stations on the Moon?

How much are *you* willing to pay for them in tax dollars? That's
really the bottom line. People are all for space exploration and such
until the bills for it show up.

See above. Imagine what the communications possibilites alone would be by
using the moon for alternative wireless technologies...

Unless you want
to ressurect the "world is flat" or the "we never went to the Moon"
conspiracies, what other legit reasons can you think of to NOT do it?

Simple: The costs outweigh the benefits. There are easier, cheaper,
faster ways to get the benefits and solve the problems we have on
earth.

Oh? They are...?!?!

Space and war may help with some things but they are horribly
inefficient means of progress.

So we just wait until a more efficient way is developed? Until they
develop the "transporter"...?!?! Until Zephraim Cochrane develops warp drive?

None of this means we shouldn't go into space, just that we need to do
so in a way that is balanced with other needs and programs.

So we just mark time until...when...?!?!

73

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth
From: Mike Coslo
Date: 6/24/2004 10:11 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

N2EY wrote:

August 15, 1971: USA abandoned the gold standard.

Guess who was president.....

Good guess, but not quite. We were moving away from the Gold Standard
at that time. It was the date that President Richard Nixon instituted
Wage and Price controls. At that time, inflation was at the 4% level -
something considered intolerable.

And please remember that these were the conditions passed to him by a...

(drum roll, please....)

A Demoncrat!

And a Demoncrat before THAT one!

We soon found out just how "nice" a measly 4% inflation rate was. The
initial 90 day freeze turned into around 1000 days of "adjustments" that
soon saw the inflation rate at 13 percent in December of 1974. The rate
dropped after that, but what was handed to President Carter was an
economic train wreck, to put it mildly. This all culminated in an
inflation rate of 15 percent in March of 1980.

The Wage and price freeze was what turned me into an fiscal
conservative!

Now, was that a "leeberal" mistake?

And the last President to have a balanced budget...?!?!

73

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth
From: (N2EY)
Date: 6/24/2004 12:10 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Ronald Reagan pushed the idea that we could have it all and not do
without anything. But it's just not true.

I snipped the rest becasue I really wanted to highlight this one item,
Jim. I'll answer the rest in turn.

When did President Reagan ever make such a statement?

73

Steve, K4YZ

In article , (Goman
the Librarian) writes:

Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth
From: (N2EY)
Date: 6/24/2004 8:31 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for
truth
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 6/21/2004 6:23 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:


In the 50's and 60's we didn't have the technology.

(to send people to the moon)

We barely had the
technology to get to the moon in the 70s.

Had it by 1969, to be exact. The Soviets sent unmanned probes there
about a decade earlier.

Well, Jim, if you want to get THAT specific we were actually crashing
RANGER probes into the moon in the early 60's...

Not quite. :-) What was launched 27 Aug 62?

I thought that "...in the 70's" was fairly generic since we landed there
in 1969 and all of the rest of the landings occured before we were out ov
Viet Nam.

Might have happened in nursieworld but not in reality.

What was launched 5 May 61?

Official USA involvement in Vietnam War was 1962 to 1975.

Apollo 17 (last manned moon mission) was December 1972.

Did your might aerospace involvement in nursieworld have
different dates?

History has shown us that most major "jumps" in technology and society
happen in the wake of war.

Some jumps, yes, but I don't know about "most".

Then some review of American History is in order.

Ah, all sorts of cribs from an almanac? :-)

Nursie was THERE, very INVOLVED since Revolutionary War?

Tsk, tsk, tsk. NOT about amateur radio, is it?

Morse-Vail Telegraph first operated in 1844. Landline.

Radio as communications means first demonstrated in Italy
and Russia 1896.

Amateur radio not there by definition of amateur radio. Had to
wait until 1912 and first U.S. radio regulating agency start, also
first radio amateur licensed.

Nursie need MUCH help from his buddies in aerospace, those
INVOLVED there. No "amateurs" in space biz...until 2004,
then NOT amateur by definition, but "private" developers.
[nursie need to tell tales of Kern County Airport #7 from which
SpaceShipOne was launched and landed?]

Amateurs NOT make launch vehicles to put up ham sats.
Keep that in mind. Ham sats just lab curiosities until launch
vehicle available to put them in orbit.

remaining cut-and-paste omitted...partly for accuracy


I don't think so, Jim. All of the major developments of other
technologies or services only happened where there was major subsidies by
governments. Some, such as the expansion of oil refining, etc, only happened
after the development of the automobile, one of the few exceptions to the
above.

Nursie say in other message that ham radio "different" physics than
all other radio. Must be New Development, only nursie know.

Amateur radio NOT oil drilling/refining, vehicular technology.

Nursie need stick to subject...at least within a light-year.


How much do you pay for a calculator these days?

Hewlett-Packard HP-32 SII is $60 off the shelf, consumer
item. Scientific, programmable.

Nursie have pocket-size calculator of scientific notation?

How much did you pay for the last Amateur transceiver you bought?

Rev. Jimmie Who "builds his own." :-)

Can nursie build his own?

Have you ever had an X-Ray or CT scan?

Ham radio parts might need X-raying, but Computer Tomography
only used on hams.

Nursieworld need Magnetic Resonance Imaged...find all bad
resonances, make resonances stay WITHIN ham bands as
legally approved and licensed by FCC.

All of those technologies have benefited from government spending in
order
to advance military or space technology.

Riiiiight. Nursie describe his many years in aerospace biz?

Nursie INVOLVED in space biz? Properly licensed as rocket
man?

Nursie CANNOT be "interested" in space biz without being
properly licensed by FCC. Heilian logic. Applicable this
newsgrope.


RECENT history has shown that we made some pretty significant strides
based on the Apollo program alone.

Such as? Tang and Teflon existed before NASA.

And most mathematical or engineering calculations were performed with a
slide rule or pencil and paper.

In nursieworld, yes. In REAL world, NO.

Do astrogation problems, nursie. 3-digit accuracy on slide-rule
NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

No one has been back to the moon in 32 years and there are no serious
plans to do so anytime soon. The technology to do it would almost have
to be reinvented.

Why? Did we get stupid in the last 30+ years?

Nursie, yes. :-)

Quick/Cheap/Dirty plan...A lunar lander configured to ride in the Shuttle
bay. The Shuttle carries it to the Moon, the mission drops in, and brings at
least part of the lander home for re-use itself.

What part of mighty nursie plan involves AMATEUR RADIO? :-)

Mission Control moved to Tennessee? To Newington? :-)

more nonsense from "involved" rocketman deleted for sanity


So we just wait until a more efficient way is developed? Until they
develop the "transporter"...?!?! Until Zephraim Cochrane develops warp
drive?

Rocketman nursie watch too many episodes of Star Trek. Star
Trek FICTION, not reality.

Star Trek NOT about amateur radio or ham radio policy.

Nursieworld is defunct for logic, analogies.

None of this means we shouldn't go into space, just that we need to do
so in a way that is balanced with other needs and programs.

Nursie already spaced out. Need help, grounding.

Temper fry...

LHA / WMD

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

And there *is* a tie to BPL in all this. BPL advocates are trying to sell
it as
a cheap, easy, quick solution to the broadband access problem. The
administration is trying to sell it as a way back to the technoboom of the
'90s, without a lot of tedious mucking about with infrastructure. Trying
to tie
it in with homeland security is a classic example of adhomineming those
who
oppose it. 'Those dern pinko liberal antenna-huggers!'

Interference? Reliability? Spectrum pollution? Too complicated!

Not complicated at all.

It's too complicated for the politiicans and regulators.

Then educate them. You have the mighty certificates, you have
the technology..."train" them.

Choo choo. :-)

BPL will be the demise of low-level-signal HF communications in
urban areas.

FCC and NTIA say differently

The FCC has NOT said much technically on Access BPL.

Docket 03-104 asked for input on BPL.

Docket 04-37 asks for comment for a proposed R&O.

NTIA said "A 10 db increase in background noise is acceptible!!!!"

Kiss off any thoughts of signal-to-noise ratios
required in modern receivers. All that advanced technology will
go to waste. Hams can go back to using one-tube regenerative
receivers, those being as "low-signal-level" as any other in an
RF cesspool of noise on HF.

Never used a regenerative receiver, have you, Len? That's obvious from your
statement. A good one is as sensitive as a modern superhet on HF.

Poor baby. Joining in an attempted gang-bang of an NCTA?

My first receiver, built in 1947, was a regenerative. What did
you build in 1947, senior?

Last regenerative receiver I checked out (for son of friend) was in
1968 (give or take). Had an RF stage ahead of detector, too.
Had MAYBE 5 uV input "sensitivity" at best (if one squinted their
ears), was terrible in selectivity, full of intermods from other
strong signals adjacent. Didn't tell friend or son it was that bad,
made nice-nice, gave only technical figures (they were impressed).

Are you going to make a case FOR widespread Access BPL,
Rev. Jimmie Who?!?

Did we see your pearls of technical and economic wisdom in
multi-page Comments on docket 04-37?

Say goodnight.

Temper fry...

LHA / WMD

In article , (Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth
From: (N2EY)
Date: 6/24/2004 8:31 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for
truth
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 6/21/2004 6:23 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:


In the 50's and 60's we didn't have the technology.

(to send people to the moon)

We barely had the
technology to get to the moon in the 70s.

Had it by 1969, to be exact. The Soviets sent unmanned probes there
about a decade earlier.

Well, Jim, if you want to get THAT specific we were actually crashing
RANGER probes into the moon in the early 60's...

Yup - trying to catch up to the Soviets...

I thought that "...in the 70's" was fairly generic since we landed there
in 1969 and all of the rest of the landings occured before we were out ov
Viet Nam.

History has shown us that most major "jumps" in technology and
society happen in the wake of war.

Some jumps, yes, but I don't know about "most".

Then some review of American History is in order.

With the exception of the Revolution, most technological advances were
during or immediately after some major conflict, especially since 1860.
(Please note the use of the word "advancements", not necessarily inception)

Civil War: Creation of the present ambulance services, advances in
trauma
medicine, advancement of the railroads and wireline telegraphy. Photography
becomes popular.

Bloodiest war in USA's history, fought in large part to decide whether it is OK
for the country to split tiself in half so that some people (with light colored
skin) can continue own other people (with dark colored skin). The fact that the
dark colored skin people's ancestors were dragged from their homes by brute
force is conveniently ignored by those who want to continue to own them.

Ambulance service and trauma medicine yes - because of so many wounded.
Railroads were well established before 1861. The main "advancement" was the
standardization of lines in the South when they were rebuilt after beying
heavily damaged during the war.
Wire telegraph had pretty much connected the developed world. The transatlantic
cable was in service *before* Fort Sumter.
Photography was driven by a number of factors, not just the war.

World War 1: The airplane was just a motor driven kite in 1914, and is
ready to span the Atlantic in 1919. The radio comes of age. New advances in
the treatment of diseases (from the study of sanitation in the trenches).

Chemical warfare advances. Unbalance of offensive and defensive weaponry leads
to enormous death toles in trench warfare. Submarine technology increases
hazards of sea travel.

Advances in flight and radio technology are logical outcomes of increased
demand for those technologies.

World War 2: Mass production of antibiotics (developed in the 30's, but
not considered a priority until the war), development of RADAR, the jet
engine,
further advancements in air travel as a result of the development of
pressurization. Missle technology emerges. Microwave and X-Ray technology
skyrockets.

Genocide technology rapidly advanced by Germans. Atomic weapons developed,
permitting both cities and their inhabitants to be incinerated at lower cost
and effort. Digital electronic computer is developed to improve aiming of guns.
50 million dead, entire countries devastated, permitting massive rebuilding and
modernization efforts postwar. War also facilitates Soviet expansion into much
of Europe.

Korea: Use of the helicopter for medical evacuation. Proliferation of
the television. Satellite communications.

Satellite communications? Where?

Viet Nam/Moon Missions: Advancements in microprocessors, additional
advancements in trauma care (MAST pants, use of helicopters in civilian
MEDEVAC, previously considered too expensive due to limitied manufacture of
helos) IR/NVG technology.

Microprocessors first appeared in the early 1970s - developed for civilian
applications.

SDI/Cold War: Space imaging, proliferation of LASER devices, especially
into medical field.

In many cases those
"jumps" would have happened anyway, or are the result of massive
investment by governments that would be considered "socialistic" in
peacetime.

Oh..."would have happened anyway"...?!?!

Yes. There is a logical progression of most technologies. It's called
engineering. You don't need a war to do it.

I don't think so, Jim.

It's true.

All of the major developments of other
technologies or services only happened where there was major subsidies by
governments.

Even if true, why does it take a war? Why not simply solve the problems?

Some, such as the expansion of oil refining, etc, only happened
after the development of the automobile, one of the few exceptions to the
above.

There are *lots* of exceptions. The automobile is one. PCs are another. Modern
construction practices. Fiber optic communications. Lots of others.

Or they're the result of government programs that are done
to soften the conversion to a peacetime economy.

Uh huh...government subsidies. Again, big influx of cash from taxes.

Which those "tax and spend democrats" are usually pushing...

MAY have happened otherwise, but it didn't.

Why spend your own money if Uncle will give you some?

In any event the cost far exceeds the benefits.

Oh?

Yes.

How much do you pay for a calculator these days?

Nothing. Last calculator I bought was in the mid 1980s. I use the Windows
calculator function. Free.

How much did you pay for the last Amateur transceiver you bought?

$589 for the basic Elecraft K2 kit, which I assembled. Also has the ATU and
audio filter options, which I assembled.

The Southgate Type 7 (completed 1995) was built from recycled parts and cost
less than $100. The Type 6 (1985) cost a bit more. I've never owned any non-US
made ham gear.

Have you ever had an X-Ray or CT scan?

Dental Xrays since I was a kid. Never a CT scan. Had my first up-periscope last
year....

All of those technologies have benefited from government spending in
order to advance military or space technology.

Wouldn't it make more sense to just develop the technologies straight out? If
you need better medical Xray machines, develop them.

RECENT history has shown that we made some pretty significant strides
based on the Apollo program alone.

Such as? Tang and Teflon existed before NASA.

And most mathematical or engineering calculations were performed with a
slide rule or pencil and paper.

The PC was not developed for the space program. Nor for the military.

And the Saturn V worked pretty good, didn't it?

No one has been back to the moon in 32 years and there are no serious
plans to do so anytime soon. The technology to do it would almost have
to be reinvented.

Why? Did we get stupid in the last 30+ years?

Actually, yes. Much of the manufacturing technology no longer exists. Anyone
who worked on those systems above a certain level is now retired, or close to
it.

Quick/Cheap/Dirty plan...A lunar lander configured to ride in the
Shuttle bay.

That could work. I had the same idea years ago.

The Shuttle carries it to the Moon,

Won't work. Shuttle system does not have enough fuel to leave Earth orbit, let
alone enter lunar orbit and leave it again. And that's with the cargo bay
*empty*.

If it could be done, NASA would have done it already.

The Shuttle has enough fuel to reach orbits of a few hundred miles but no more.
Going to the moon is a lot more. That's why a Saturn V is so big yet the LM/CSM
combo is so small.

the mission drops in, and brings at
least part of the lander home for re-use itself.

Only ways such a system could work is if the Shuttle stayed in earth orbit and
the lunar package went from there.

And the result would be a short-term visit by a few astronauts, like the Apollo
missions, not a long term base.

For those who insist that "we need to spend the money here", I ask
WHERE
in space are you going to spend that money?

We need to spend the money in ways that will directly benefit people
here. And address problems long-term.

Oh?

Yes.

NASA doesn't need people who are less-than-engineering qualified...?!?!

Not really. They need highly skilled people, mostly. You might check into how
much money it costs to create one NASA job.

If we pump up NASA for a new deep space or lunar program, it means that every
company that contracts with it would be able to

Sure - at a price.

But why not solve our problems directly?

And WHAT problems are NOT being addressed long term BECAUSE of the space
program?

Surface transportation, for one. Energy efficiency and independence. Education.


A bit of government subsidising would promote yet another wave of
technical advencement.

Agreed - spent in the right places. That's the principle that drives
those "Tax and Spend Democrats!!!"

Trips to the Moon and Mars will require a lot more than "a bit of
government spending".

But we can also defer that with cooperation with business against futures
for mining, technology development, etc. The opportunities are there...We
just need to have the gonads to take them.

What opportunities? The only really profitable parts of the space program have
been the Earth-imaging satellites and communications satellites. All unmanned,
and they look back at Mother Earth. And the role of satcomms is dwindling with
the development of fiber optics.

It was in the Nixon/Ford years that the big NASA cutbacks took place.
Too much money, they said. There was supposed to be an Apollo 18 lunar
mission - it was cut and the Saturn V for it became a museum piece.
Literally.

Yep...the public lost interest since there was no "obvious" return on
thier
investment other than national pride. However the long terms benefits have
been overwhelming.

While there have been some benefits, they have not been overwhelming. Most of
them did not require the space program. Or war.

NOW...if we were to take the chance on an expedition or perm/semi-perm
base on the Moon to determine it's value to be harvested...?!?!

What do you think could be harvested from the Moon that can't be had for much
less right here on earth?

All of NASA's manned budget went into the shuttle, which is a
marvelous system with a 1 in 75 chance of complete mission failure.
The number of shuttles lost compared to the number of missions flown
verifies the reliability analysis.

Things that are filled with hundreds of tons of volatile combustables
are bound to go boom.

CNG tankers don't. Railroad tank cars don't.

Sorry, 1 in 75 is simply not good enough reliability.

As for your "reliability analysis" try the numbers based on miles
flown...(Just proof that you can make any set of numbers look good/bad)

Not a valid comparison. In the history of shuttle missions, the result is
binary. Either everybody gets back safe and sound from a mission, or everyone
dies and the mission is a total loss. Doesn't matter how many miles or flown -
the important variable is how many missions are flown. Challenger blew up
before going 100 miles of its last mission, Columbia burned up after going all
but about 2000 miles of its last mission.

The important fact is that about 1 of 75 missions has been a complete loss.

The reason the USA made the big space commitments was because JFK and
LBJ (guess what party) pushed for them.

Do you think it would have been different with Nixon in the White House
in 1960?

Yes. But that's not the point.

He was an avowed anit-Communist. Do you think he might not ahve made
the same challenge, faced with the same circumstances...?!?! I bet he would
have made the challenge earlier than JFK did.

Nope. JFK needed to save face after the Bay of Pigs embarrassment. There was
serious talk of scrapping the whole manned program, maybe even all of NASA,
after the various problems of exploding rockets and the Popped Cork fiasco,
while the Russians were orbiting dogs and taking pictures of the far side of
the moon. (The Rooskies had lots of failures too - they just didn't talk about
them).

There were more than a few people who thought that the Air Force should do
manned space flight. There were plans for followups to the X-15 that would
reach orbit at far less cost and complexity than the ballistic-missile
spam-in-a-can NASA approach. In fact, the X-15 did reach "space" - it exceeded
62.2 miles altitude.

They were essentially done to
compete with the Soviets for the "high ground" of space. Recall that
practically all of the important early space firsts (first earth
satellite, first animal in space, first human in space and in orbit,
first woman in space, first mission to another heavenly body, first
pictures of the far side of the Moon...) were done by the Soviet
Union. And most of their early accomplishments were complete surprises
in the West. The USA played catch-up for years. JFK and LBJ knew that
if the Rooskies could orbit a man and bring him back safely, doing the
same with a nuclear weapon would be a piece of cake for them.

Today there is no such need or competition.

There's ALWAYS a need for competition, Jim.

Who is there to compete with for space?

No..we don't need to build a
bigger, more deadly nuke, but a bit of friendly rivalry goes a long way
towards
building a better and cheaper mouse trap.

The race to the moon wasn't friendly. And it didn't build better mouse traps.

The cost was staggering but they had the political clout to do it.
They could sell it to everyone on the national security agenda. And it
didn't hurt that a lot of the money was spent in states like LBJ's own
Texas. (Why is the control center for manned flights in Houston when
the launch facility is in Florida?)

I am sure that having been in LBJ's home state had soemthing to do with
it...But being more-or-less half way between FL and CA helped. Much of
America's space program is out of Edwards and Vandenberg, if you will recall.

The *only* reason was to put high paying jobs in LBJ's home state.

The launch facility is in Florida for physics reasons. The ideal launch
location would be on the equator, but the continental US doesn't go that far
south. And there should be water or desert to the east of the launch pad so
failed launches don't land on people.

The Houston facility could be anywhere there is communications.

Billions were spent on the space program in the '60s but when
Americans needed quality fuel-efficient cars in the '70s they had to
go to Germany and Japan for them.

Because American unions demanded wages that pushed the cost of American
cars through the roof.

That's pure BS.

Union workers built the spacecraft. If we could afford to have them build
rockets, we could afford to have them build cars.

Also, American tastes in automobiles up until then
were for bigger, heavier and faster..."Small" was not a generally popular
concept in the 50's and 60's, if you'll recall.

That's because the car companies wanted it that way. Here's why:

After WW2, American car manufacturers thought that the way to maximize profits
was simply to sell more and more cars. One way to do that was to have this
year's model be bigger, faster, more powerful or simply 'more' than last
year's. Safety, economy, and pollution were minor concerns - the important
thing was to plant in the public's mind the idea that this year's car was
somehow a lot better - and at the same time, keep manufacturing costs down.

So body styles changed every year - sheet metal is cheap. Fundamental research
into engine design and such was not a high priority at all. The result was cars
that were big, heavy, inefficient, dirty and fell apart or rusted out in a
relatively short time.

Most of all, the focus was short-term. Sell more cars next quarter! Where we'd
get all the fuel to run them wasn't a concern.

The Germans and the Japanese were
forced
by economics, infrastructure and geography to do "small".

Not really - look at Mercedes. What they did was look at *quality* first. They
set out to design cars that were efficient and well built. They improved the
basic technologies, not just the sheet metal.

Ever hear of a guy named Deming? He wound up in Japan because US manufacturers
didn't want him.

The USA could have been developing better surface transportation systems in the
'50s and '60s and '70s. But we didn't because those things weren't given any
priority. That myopia continues today.

Imagine if the commitment had been made back in 1973 for the USA to become
energy independent by the end of the 20th century. Do you doubt that it could
have been done? Imagine being able to tell OPEC to take a hike.

I think the recent events in the Mojave also show that
a bit of entrepenurial spirit and investment can go a long way.

As exciting as that effort is, all of it was done more than 35 years
ago with the X-15.

Not by a private entrepreneur and not with the expectation of being able
to carry two passengers.

Very true. But the X-15 was designed with slide rules. No computers aboard,
either.

Also, despite the similarities in delivery techniques (parasite lifter),
the control and recovery techniques are different.

It took the USAF hundreds of millions of (1960's) dollars to do what
these
guys did for under $30M...I wonder what the 1960-to-2004 cost comparisons
look
like?

And it was done without government funding. So why do we need NASA for
manned flights at all? Let the private folks do it on a self-funded
basis.

OK...so we sit out manned space flight until private investors can get
up-to-speed with governmental levels of service...?!?!

Why not? You just pointed out that they did it for $30 million compared to many
times that for the X-15. Why *not* let the private folks do it?

So why not Mars?

Because the cost and risk is simply too much for the benefits. Do you
have any idea what a mission to Mars would require in terms of how big
and complex the ship(s) would have to be, how long they'd be gone, and
how completely on their own they would be?

Yes, as a matter of fact I do.

OK - let's have the details.

And I cannot see those costs getting any less impressive if we wait
until 2014 or 2024 to do it.

Mars is orders of magnitude more difficult than the moon. Apollo
missions were no more than two weeks, Mars missions would be over a
year long. The Martian surface is in some ways more hostile than the
lunar surface and the landing physics much more difficult (Martian
gravity is stronger). Look how many unmanned Mars missions have failed
completely.

So again...we bring human exploration and technology to a screaming halt
due to our fear of the cash register?

Nope.

We set out a reasonable budget for manned space flight and do what can be done
with that budget. And we focus more on real-world problems.

And as for the failed Mars missions, do you think that maybe if there
had been someone there to fix the problem that the mission could have
proceeded?

Nobody knows. Most of the failures were mission-ending. The probe went silent
and was never heard from again.

Heck, even if the Columbia astronauts had known about the problem that caused
the loss of their ship, there was nothing they could have done about it.

Heck, figure out radio propagation delay to Mars....

Yep...same 186,000MPS that wew ahve here on Earth...

I mean how much time it takes.

What benefits would a manned mission to Mars give that could not be
had any other way?

Having a Human Being actually stand on it, for one.

Besides that.

And how much all of it would cost?

Who cares?

Those of us who have to pay for it.

We poor billions into pork barrel projects that DON'T
provide ANY return every year

Like what? What are you willing to cut in order to fund a Mars mission?

...why not spend it on something that will...?!?!

Sorry - the ROI of a Mars mission just isn't there.

Why not research stations on the Moon?

How much are *you* willing to pay for them in tax dollars? That's
really the bottom line. People are all for space exploration and such
until the bills for it show up.

See above.

You're avoiding the question. How much additional tax are *YOU* willing to pay?

Imagine what the communications possibilites alone would be
by using the moon for alternative wireless technologies...

There aren't any. The moon isn't a good platform for such things. In short, it
sucks.

Geostationary orbit is the way to do that job.

Ham radio connection: Back in the '70s there was something called "Project
Moonray" that was supposed to go on the last Apollo lunar mission. The idea was
that a small package would be deployed on the moon to repeat amateur signals
the way OSCARs did. Except that by being on the moon, it would be easy to
track.

Sounded good at first. But the problems were many. Size and weight were
severely limited, and the package had to be rated for manned flight.

But the big problem was that the results were not worth the requirements. For
example, the moon is roughly 10 times farther away than geostationary and
roughly 100 to 1000 times farther away than low earth orbit. You do the math on
what that does to path loss.

Also, the package would be bked by the sun for 2 weeks, then in darkness for 2
weeks. Temperature variations of over 400 degrees.

It didn't happen.

Unless you want
to ressurect the "world is flat" or the "we never went to the Moon"
conspiracies, what other legit reasons can you think of to NOT do it?

Simple: The costs outweigh the benefits. There are easier, cheaper,
faster ways to get the benefits and solve the problems we have on
earth.

Oh? They are...?!?!

Yes. It's simple: If you want a better mouse trap, study mouse behavior and
trap design, and build one. Don't go off building racecars, hoping that some
development of race car technology will somehow spill over into mouse trap
technology.

Space and war may help with some things but they are horribly
inefficient means of progress.

So we just wait until a more efficient way is developed?

No. We address the problems directly. On a budget.

Until they
develop the "transporter"...?!?! Until Zephraim Cochrane develops warp
drive?

Those are all fantasies, Steve.

None of this means we shouldn't go into space, just that we need to do
so in a way that is balanced with other needs and programs.

So we just mark time until...when...?!?!

We don't mark time. We make a long term plan and reasonable budget.

Heck, let's fund space exploration the way so many other things are funded.
We'll have bake sales and walkathons. Solicit donations of parts and supplies
from manufacturers, and use volunteer labor. Sell advertising space on the
outside of the space vehicles. Lots of ideas like that in use by groups ranging
from Indy 500 racers to the Girl Scouts.

And we'll put real money into education, infrastructure development,
transportation, and energy independence.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:
Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth
From: Mike Coslo
Date: 6/24/2004 10:11 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

N2EY wrote:


August 15, 1971: USA abandoned the gold standard.

Guess who was president.....

Good guess, but not quite. We were moving away from the Gold Standard
at that time. It was the date that President Richard Nixon instituted
Wage and Price controls. At that time, inflation was at the 4% level -
something considered intolerable.


And please remember that these were the conditions passed to him by a...

(drum roll, please....)

A Demoncrat!

And a Demoncrat before THAT one!

And Before that, a Republican that set the wheels in motion for big
deficit spending. And so on and so on...

Been waiting for you to weigh in on this one Steve.

You are 100 percent correct.


Nothing occurs in a vacuum, and life is a continuum. Democrats make
mistakes, and so do Republicans. As time goes on, the groups don't stand
still. They morph and change until some of the old definitions gert a
little muddy. So called conservatives now stand for big government with
more power, and spend money quite easily.


We soon found out just how "nice" a measly 4% inflation rate was. The
initial 90 day freeze turned into around 1000 days of "adjustments" that
soon saw the inflation rate at 13 percent in December of 1974. The rate
dropped after that, but what was handed to President Carter was an
economic train wreck, to put it mildly. This all culminated in an
inflation rate of 15 percent in March of 1980.

The Wage and price freeze was what turned me into an fiscal

conservative!

Now, was that a "leeberal" mistake?


And the last President to have a balanced budget...?!?!

You see Steve, you're trying to put everything into this Republican
good/Democrat bad state.

I'm not either. I'm an independent conservative. I vote for Republican
candidates around 60 percent of the time. Frankly, both parties **** me off.

But you might ask why I seem to be busting Republican chops a lot. It's
because the Pubs have been in power for most of the last 50 years, and
increasingly so in the last 20.

And yet, the blame for all the problems is heaped variously on the
Democrats, and the elusive "liberal".

I say spend less time blaming, and more time fixing.

But of course that takes us back to what I said earlier about
Republicans making mistakes too. Now if they owned up to them. It's a
pity - when you never admit a mistake, you won't learn from the ones you
do make.

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , (Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth
From: (N2EY)
Date: 6/24/2004 12:10 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Ronald Reagan pushed the idea that we could have it all and not do
without anything. But it's just not true.

I snipped the rest becasue I really wanted to highlight this one item,
Jim. I'll answer the rest in turn.

When did President Reagan ever make such a statement?

It's not a quote, Steve. It's a general idea that was front-and-center in
Reagan's campaign and administration.

Remember the theme "Morning in America" from his campaign? Remember yuppies?
"Supply side economics"?

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

And there *is* a tie to BPL in all this. BPL advocates are trying to
sell
it as
a cheap, easy, quick solution to the broadband access problem. The
administration is trying to sell it as a way back to the technoboom of
the
'90s, without a lot of tedious mucking about with infrastructure. Trying
to tie
it in with homeland security is a classic example of adhomineming those
who
oppose it. 'Those dern pinko liberal antenna-huggers!'

Interference? Reliability? Spectrum pollution? Too complicated!

Not complicated at all.

It's too complicated for the politiicans and regulators.

Then educate them.

I tried, Len. They just don't get it. I'm just a poor dumb old amateur anyway.
You've told me time and time again how unqualified I am, how I "live in the
past", how I don't know anything about "big time radio" and such, and how
you're a "professional in radio". I still work regular hours and then some -
I'm not retired like you. I'm not a wordsmith like you. I don't even make up
names to call other people in newsgroups like you. I'm only 50 years old. If
they won't listen to you, why should they listen to me?

My main interests in HF amateur radio are operating Morse code and building ham
radio equipment - either from kits or from my own designs. Three years ago I
bought a kit from a little company in California and built it. Rest of my
projects are what we hams call "homebrew". You've made fun of them so many
times that they must be of no account, right?

BPL will be the demise of low-level-signal HF communications in
urban areas.

FCC and NTIA say differently

The FCC has NOT said much technically on Access BPL.

That's different from saying "BPL will be the demise of low-level-signal HF
communications in urban areas."

They're the professionals and the regulators and the military, Len. I'm just a
poor dumb old amateur anyway. What do I know? Who am I to contradict
professionals who know what's best for me?

FCC has said a Morse code test "serves no regulatory purpose". FCC has reduced
the requirements for a ham radio license again and again for more than 25
years. The same FCC now refuses to interpret Part 15 the same way I do.

Docket 03-104 asked for input on BPL.

I gave them plenty. I also contributed to the ARRL fund to fight BPL.

NTIA said "A 10 db increase in background noise is acceptible!!!!"

Does it say "acceptible" or "acceptable", Len? How do you know it isn't
acceptable? How much communicating on the HF amateur bands have you done in the
past month?

Kiss off any thoughts of signal-to-noise ratios
required in modern receivers. All that advanced technology will
go to waste. Hams can go back to using one-tube regenerative
receivers, those being as "low-signal-level" as any other in an
RF cesspool of noise on HF.

Never used a regenerative receiver, have you, Len? That's obvious from your
statement. A good one is as sensitive as a modern superhet on HF.

Poor baby. Joining in an attempted gang-bang of an NCTA?

No. I'm just commenting on you lack of receiver knowledge and skill. That's
understandable - professionals gave up on regenerative receivers decades ago.

My first receiver, built in 1947, was a regenerative.

Couldn't get it to work, huh? Here's a hint: The tickler coil has to be
connected the right way to get the detector to regenerate. Even I know that.

What did you build in 1947, senior?

Nothing, Len. I wasn't around. I wasn't bootlegging an unlicensed transmitter,
either.

But 20 years later, in 1967, I got an amateur radio license. And began to use
it. Today it's 57 years later than 1947 and you haven't done any of that. .

Senior? Guess what - yesterday I got an application to join AARP. They want me
as a member. So I guess I'm a senior citizen now, huh? Maybe I'll join.

I've built regenerative and superheterodyne receivers. Also transmitters,
transceivers, power supplies, antennas, antenna tuners, station control
systems, test equipment and much more. Most of it from scratch, some kits. But
none of that counts for anything, does it, Len? Homebrewing is "living in the
past", according to you, isn't it? We hams all just buy our factory made
equipment, right?

Last regenerative receiver I checked out (for son of friend) was in
1968 (give or take). Had an RF stage ahead of detector, too.

Then it wasn't "one tube". was it?

Had MAYBE 5 uV input "sensitivity" at best (if one squinted their
ears), was terrible in selectivity, full of intermods from other
strong signals adjacent.

Poorly designed and built, then. Or maybe you couldn't get that one to work
either, huh? Too 'primitive' for you, I suppose.

Didn't tell friend or son it was that bad,
made nice-nice, gave only technical figures (they were impressed).

So you lied to a child. That must be the "professional" thing to do, eh?
Couldn't you do anything to improve it? You're a "professional in radio".

Here's a hint, Len: It's possible to build a very good regenerative receiver
and possible to build a very bad one. And everything in between. A regen that
can't hear the noise level is very bad indeed.

Are you going to make a case FOR widespread Access BPL,
Rev. Jimmie Who?!?

I don't know anyone by that name. To whom do you refer, Len? It can't be me -
Reverends are professionals in religion. I'm just an amateur.

Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 6/24/2004 9:52 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Had it by 1969, to be exact. The Soviets sent unmanned probes there
about a decade earlier.

Well, Jim, if you want to get THAT specific we were actually crashing
RANGER probes into the moon in the early 60's...

Yup - trying to catch up to the Soviets...

And "nothing" we did had ANYthing to do with science, technology or
research...?!?!

You are saying we spent those funds and that effort SOLELY to "catch up
with the Soviets"...?!?!

Civil War: Creation of the present ambulance services, advances in
trauma
medicine, advancement of the railroads and wireline telegraphy. Photography
becomes popular.

Bloodiest war in USA's history, fought in large part...(SNIP)

Yes, Jim...I think we all know WHY the war was fought.

HOW did that negate anything I said?

Ambulance service and trauma medicine yes - because of so many wounded.
Railroads were well established before 1861. The main "advancement" was the
standardization of lines in the South when they were rebuilt after beying
heavily damaged during the war.
Wire telegraph had pretty much connected the developed world. The
transatlantic
cable was in service *before* Fort Sumter.
Photography was driven by a number of factors, not just the war.

So...you are telling me that NONE of the advancements and improvements
occured asa a result of the war.

OK. If you say so.

World War 1: The airplane was just a motor driven kite in 1914, and is
ready to span the Atlantic in 1919. The radio comes of age. New advances
in
the treatment of diseases (from the study of sanitation in the trenches).

Chemical warfare advances. Unbalance of offensive and defensive weaponry
leads
to enormous death toles in trench warfare. Submarine technology increases
hazards of sea travel.

Advances in flight and radio technology are logical outcomes of increased
demand for those technologies.

And the advancement of submarine technology increased our ability to do
further marine research in the following years.

Commercial radio for the masses follows developments of new technology
during the war.

Commercial aviation blossoms after the war.

World War 2: Mass production of antibiotics (developed in the 30's, but
not considered a priority until the war), development of RADAR, the jet
engine,
further advancements in air travel as a result of the development of
pressurization. Missle technology emerges. Microwave and X-Ray technology
skyrockets.

Genocide technology rapidly advanced by Germans. Atomic weapons developed,
permitting both cities and their inhabitants to be incinerated at lower cost
and effort. Digital electronic computer is developed to improve aiming of
guns.
50 million dead, entire countries devastated, permitting massive rebuilding
and
modernization efforts postwar. War also facilitates Soviet expansion into
much
of Europe.

So what you're telling me is that NONE of the POSITIVE things that came
from this era are valid, and that since a lot of bad things DID occur, we
should shun the good ones too...?!?!

Korea: Use of the helicopter for medical evacuation. Proliferation of
the television. Satellite communications.

Satellite communications? Where?

Jim...

We developed new technologies DURING the conflict.

The increased spending and military build-up incidental to the Korean
Conflict and the ensuing "Cold War" DID spur on "satellite"
communications...Did it not?

Viet Nam/Moon Missions: Advancements in microprocessors, additional
advancements in trauma care (MAST pants, use of helicopters in civilian
MEDEVAC, previously considered too expensive due to limitied manufacture of
helos) IR/NVG technology.

Microprocessors first appeared in the early 1970s - developed for civilian
applications.

Applicaitons that were incidental to military spending and research.

SDI/Cold War: Space imaging, proliferation of LASER devices,
especially
into medical field.

In many cases those
"jumps" would have happened anyway, or are the result of massive
investment by governments that would be considered "socialistic" in
peacetime.

Oh..."would have happened anyway"...?!?!

Yes. There is a logical progression of most technologies. It's called
engineering. You don't need a war to do it.

No, you don't.

It's just that we have developed a pattern of spurts of development
coincidental to military spending or conflict. This is a documented fact. It
happens.

I don't think so, Jim.

It's true.

All of the major developments of other
technologies or services only happened where there was major subsidies by
governments.

Even if true, why does it take a war? Why not simply solve the problems?

I agree. Now, what better to way to spur the development of newer
technologies than to advance the space program...?!?!

Some, such as the expansion of oil refining, etc, only happened
after the development of the automobile, one of the few exceptions to the
above.

There are *lots* of exceptions. The automobile is one. PCs are another.
Modern
construction practices. Fiber optic communications. Lots of others.

Jim...Jim...Jim...

The rapid development of automotive technologies came after WW2...As did
developments in aviation and communications.

Or they're the result of government programs that are done
to soften the conversion to a peacetime economy.

Uh huh...government subsidies. Again, big influx of cash from taxes.

Which those "tax and spend democrats" are usually pushing...

MAY have happened otherwise, but it didn't.

Why spend your own money if Uncle will give you some?

In any event the cost far exceeds the benefits.

Oh?

Yes.

You've not proven it, Jim.

We are presently exchanging these comments via a medium that was developed
incidental to yet other military programs.

The proliferation of the Internet has driven communication costs to all
time lows. Cellular technology, based in part on techniques developed for
secure communications for...you-know-who...have put a telephone on the hip of
almost every American.

How much do you pay for a calculator these days?

Nothing. Last calculator I bought was in the mid 1980s. I use the Windows
calculator function. Free.

And you paid how much for your Windows program...Or the computer it was
installed on when you got it?

I remember simple function calculators costing $40 or more when I was in
high school. I can get a decent full function scientific calculator for less
than that now.

How much did you pay for the last Amateur transceiver you bought?

$589 for the basic Elecraft K2 kit, which I assembled. Also has the ATU and
audio filter options, which I assembled.

Uh huh.

And how much will that radio do compared to kit radios of only a decade
earlier, and at what cost comparison...?!?!?!

The Southgate Type 7 (completed 1995) was built from recycled parts and cost
less than $100. The Type 6 (1985) cost a bit more. I've never owned any
non-US
made ham gear.

Have you ever had an X-Ray or CT scan?

Dental Xrays since I was a kid. Never a CT scan. Had my first up-periscope
last
year....

TMI, Jim...Waaaaaaay, waaaaaaaaaay TMI... ! ! !

All of those technologies have benefited from government spending in
order to advance military or space technology.

Wouldn't it make more sense to just develop the technologies straight out? If
you need better medical Xray machines, develop them.

You can argue what OUGHT to be as opposed to WHAT IS all day, Jim.

All you'll do is waste time.

And most mathematical or engineering calculations were performed with a
slide rule or pencil and paper.

The PC was not developed for the space program. Nor for the military.

Who said anything about PC's, Jim?

And the Saturn V worked pretty good, didn't it?

Yep.

Paid for by...?!?!

In pursuit of...?!?!

No one has been back to the moon in 32 years and there are no serious
plans to do so anytime soon. The technology to do it would almost have
to be reinvented.

Why? Did we get stupid in the last 30+ years?

Actually, yes. Much of the manufacturing technology no longer exists. Anyone
who worked on those systems above a certain level is now retired, or close to
it.

So...there's NO technology that exisits today that would allow us to land a
man on the moon in say...two years...if we really wanted to...?!?!

Quick/Cheap/Dirty plan...A lunar lander configured to ride in the
Shuttle bay.

That could work. I had the same idea years ago.

The Shuttle carries it to the Moon,

Won't work. Shuttle system does not have enough fuel to leave Earth orbit,
let
alone enter lunar orbit and leave it again. And that's with the cargo bay
*empty*.

(sheeeesh)

So we can't configue an auxiliary fuel system?

It will take an extra 30 years to figure out how to install the fuel tanks
necessary to do it?

I'll bet you a nickle to a C-Note that Burt Rutan could rough out a
workable method on a napkin in a Mojave restaurant and have itr working in that
two years.

If it could be done, NASA would have done it already.

Oh?

Why?

Just because?

They've had to fight Congress and ignorant laymen for 30 years just to
stay in LEO.

The Shuttle has enough fuel to reach orbits of a few hundred miles but no
more.
Going to the moon is a lot more. That's why a Saturn V is so big yet the
LM/CSM
combo is so small.

Again, We can't figure out a piggyback fuel tank?

We can't park "re-supply" ships along the way or in lunar orbit?

We've already proven that on-orbit rendevous, docking and EVA construction
is a no-brainer.

So again...WHAT new technology do we ahve to develop to go back to the
Moon?

HARDWARE, yes...we need new machines. but so far, Jim, your "arguments"
have not swayed me that we could do it if we wanted to...

the mission drops in, and brings at
least part of the lander home for re-use itself.

Only ways such a system could work is if the Shuttle stayed in earth orbit
and
the lunar package went from there.

Why?

And the result would be a short-term visit by a few astronauts, like the
Apollo
missions, not a long term base.

As long as you keep thinking that, then that's all we'll do.

If you think in terms of "what can this ONE sortie accomplish", you'd be
right. But that's already been addressed by countless suggestions of what we
COULD do if we wanted to.

For those who insist that "we need to spend the money here", I ask
WHERE
in space are you going to spend that money?

We need to spend the money in ways that will directly benefit people
here. And address problems long-term.

Oh?

Yes.

NASA doesn't need people who are less-than-engineering qualified...?!?!

Not really. They need highly skilled people, mostly. You might check into how
much money it costs to create one NASA job.

So...NASA doesn't hire drivers, janitors, security personel, health care
workers, mechanics, etc?

If we pump up NASA for a new deep space or lunar program, it means that
every
company that contracts with it would be able to

Sure - at a price.

Sheeesh.

But why not solve our problems directly?

Sure...Why not.

Let's just go ahead and drop a billion dollars into social welfare
programs to feed and house the poor.

Let's NOT do something to advance our technologies that will create
entirely new classes of jobs, promote our wellness and, hopefully, ultimately
develope technologies that might "liberate" us from poverty.

And WHAT problems are NOT being addressed long term BECAUSE of the space
program?

Surface transportation, for one. Energy efficiency and independence.
Education.

Uh huh.

A bit of government subsidising would promote yet another wave of
technical advencement.

Agreed - spent in the right places. That's the principle that drives
those "Tax and Spend Democrats!!!"

Trips to the Moon and Mars will require a lot more than "a bit of
government spending".

But we can also defer that with cooperation with business against futures
for mining, technology development, etc. The opportunities are there...We
just need to have the gonads to take them.

What opportunities? The only really profitable parts of the space program
have
been the Earth-imaging satellites and communications satellites. All
unmanned,
and they look back at Mother Earth. And the role of satcomms is dwindling
with
the development of fiber optics.

Fiber optics = interruptable infrastructure.

All of NASA's manned budget went into the shuttle, which is a
marvelous system with a 1 in 75 chance of complete mission failure.
The number of shuttles lost compared to the number of missions flown
verifies the reliability analysis.

Things that are filled with hundreds of tons of volatile combustables
are bound to go boom.

CNG tankers don't. Railroad tank cars don't.

ROTMFFLMMFAO ! ! ! ! ! !

Sorry, 1 in 75 is simply not good enough reliability.

And we'll improve that reliability by just not doing it anymore...?!?!

There's ALWAYS a need for competition, Jim.

Who is there to compete with for space?

The Red Chinese for one. They just flew a manned mission a year or so
ago, and they certainly have the resources and the wherewithall to exploit it.

And considering thier track record for flooding markets with cheap
alternatives that have, quite literally, put hundred of thousands if not
millions of Americans out of work, I don't doubt they can do it there, too.

I'd rather know that bright, fast moving light in the sky was carrying
Americans.

Heck, let's fund space exploration the way so many other things are funded.
We'll have bake sales and walkathons. Solicit donations of parts and supplies
from manufacturers, and use volunteer labor. Sell advertising space on the
outside of the space vehicles. Lots of ideas like that in use by groups
ranging from Indy 500 racers to the Girl Scouts.

And we'll put real money into education, infrastructure development,
transportation, and energy independence.

I don't see a whole lot of likelyhood that anything further will be
forthcoming from this exchange, Jim. If you believe that "all that money" is
going to no good use and that it's not a benefit in your daily life today, well
then there's just no use doing it.

I see the benefits of our space and technology programs every day. And as
both an American and as a human with a bit more than average sense of
adventure, I'd like to see us reach out beyond our own celestial home and take
advantage of the opportunities "out there".

Unfortunatley GETTING there will be neither cheap or without risk, but I
for one think the benefits will ultimately be enormous.

73

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 6/25/2004 4:39 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth
From: (N2EY)
Date: 6/24/2004 12:10 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Ronald Reagan pushed the idea that we could have it all and not do
without anything. But it's just not true.

I snipped the rest becasue I really wanted to highlight this one item,
Jim. I'll answer the rest in turn.

When did President Reagan ever make such a statement?

It's not a quote, Steve. It's a general idea that was front-and-center in
Reagan's campaign and administration.

Remember the theme "Morning in America" from his campaign? Remember yuppies?
"Supply side economics"?

So...

Promoting consumer confidence and spending (witch ultimately drives the
economy) was wrong?

Steve, K4YZ

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes:


Mike Coslo wrote:

Len Over 21 wrote:


In article ,
(Gonad
the Librarian) writes:


snippage


You lived through the 70's...Jimmy Carter's economics and political
decisions almost bankrupted this nation, both financially and in fact.



Sounds like gunnery nursie didn't get promotion that time...


Sorry to break in on a comment that I didn't see the first time
here, Len.

If a person believes that President Carter's economic and political
policies almost bankrupted the country, I would suggest looking up the
historical date of August 15, 1971. See what happened on that date, and
the consequences of that action.



I'll see if anyone knows this one before giving it away.


Nobody have it yet? Jim, you're usually good at this sort of thing.


I thought I'd let others have a crack at it.

August 15, 1971: USA abandoned the gold standard.

Guess who was president.....

73 de Jim, N2EY


Good guess, but not quite.

Dang.

We were moving away from the Gold Standard
at that time. It was the date that President Richard Nixon instituted
Wage and Price controls. At that time, inflation was at the 4% level -
something considered intolerable.

Yep.

And Nixon was a Republican, who you would think would be a staunch supporter of
a free market and completely opposed to trying to control the economy byu
government fiat.

We soon found out just how "nice" a measly 4% inflation rate was. The
initial 90 day freeze turned into around 1000 days of "adjustments" that
soon saw the inflation rate at 13 percent in December of 1974. The rate
dropped after that, but what was handed to President Carter was an
economic train wreck, to put it mildly. This all culminated in an
inflation rate of 15 percent in March of 1980.

I was there, I remember. Interest rates went up even higher - I recall friends
paying 17% for home mortgages.

Of course back in those days you could deduct *all* consumer interest payments
so there was a silver lining come tax time.

From all I read, it's clear to me that the sudden jump in oil prices was a
major factor driving that inflation.

The Wage and price freeze was what turned me into an fiscal conservative!

Now, was that a "leeberal" mistake?

Nope.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

[snip]
But you might ask why I seem to be busting Republican chops a lot. It's
because the Pubs have been in power for most of the last 50 years, and
increasingly so in the last 20.


Not really true. Although we've had several Republican presidents, most of
the time the House and Senate had a majority of Democrats.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee D. Flint wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

[snip]
But you might ask why I seem to be busting Republican chops a lot. It's
because the Pubs have been in power for most of the last 50 years, and
increasingly so in the last 20.



Not really true. Although we've had several Republican presidents, most of
the time the House and Senate had a majority of Democrats.


Lets go back to 1981 Using the Senate webpages as a reference, the
majority leaders are chosen on a two year basis. 7 times there was a
Republican Majority leader, and 4 times a Democrat.

There is a small complication from 2001-2003, as a republican switched
parties, giving a temporary Democratic majority.

So if you like, you can make that 6.5 to 3.5 ratio

The house of representatives has been solidly Republican since 1995.
Before that it was indeed, majority Democrat for a good while. Reference
House webpages.

Since 1980, we have had 16 years of Republican Presidents, and 8 years
of a Democratic President.

We are looking at a 2:1 ratio of who's in power when. My advice is to
use that conservative infallibility, and fix the nation's problems
instead of blaming all on the minority.

I could research more, but I think I made my point, and Field day
looms. I hope you can participate, and wish you the best with any
surgery you may need to have.



- Mike KB3EIA -

Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth
From: (N2EY)
Date: 6/25/2004 10:29 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Buying stuff from a tyrant who then uses the money to do bad things
makes you a party to the bad things. That's just wrong.

Jim, try this on for size...

Go through your closet.

Flip up the lables.

Then go through most of your consumer electronics, appliances, dushes,
etc.

What percentage say "Made in China"...?!?!

Steve, K4YZ

Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:

Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth
From: (N2EY)
Date: 6/25/2004 10:29 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


Buying stuff from a tyrant who then uses the money to do bad things
makes you a party to the bad things. That's just wrong.


Jim, try this on for size...

Go through your closet.

Flip up the lables.

Then go through most of your consumer electronics, appliances, dushes,
etc.

What percentage say "Made in China"...?!?!

Steve, K4YZ

Or go to your local Home Depot or just about any store, and see how many
items you can find that aren't manufactured in China.

N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes:


N2EY wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo writes:



Mike Coslo wrote:


Len Over 21 wrote:



In article ,
(Gonad
the Librarian) writes:


snippage


You lived through the 70's...Jimmy Carter's economics and political
decisions almost bankrupted this nation, both financially and in fact.



Sounds like gunnery nursie didn't get promotion that time...


Sorry to break in on a comment that I didn't see the first time
here, Len.

If a person believes that President Carter's economic and political
policies almost bankrupted the country, I would suggest looking up the
historical date of August 15, 1971. See what happened on that date, and
the consequences of that action.




I'll see if anyone knows this one before giving it away.

Nobody have it yet? Jim, you're usually good at this sort of thing.


I thought I'd let others have a crack at it.

August 15, 1971: USA abandoned the gold standard.

Guess who was president.....

73 de Jim, N2EY


Good guess, but not quite.


Dang.


We were moving away from the Gold Standard
at that time. It was the date that President Richard Nixon instituted
Wage and Price controls. At that time, inflation was at the 4% level -
something considered intolerable.


Yep.

And Nixon was a Republican, who you would think would be a staunch supporter of
a free market and completely opposed to trying to control the economy byu
government fiat.

That was one of the most curious things I can remember in politics. At
the time, I was just out of school, so I didn't think much one way or
the other. But the results got my attention. The next deveral years were
just about impossible for me to get a job. 18 years old and single made
me almost unenployable for the next several years. The jobs that were
available were going to people with families, vets, etc I was on the
bottom of the list.


We soon found out just how "nice" a measly 4% inflation rate was. The
initial 90 day freeze turned into around 1000 days of "adjustments" that
soon saw the inflation rate at 13 percent in December of 1974. The rate
dropped after that, but what was handed to President Carter was an
economic train wreck, to put it mildly. This all culminated in an
inflation rate of 15 percent in March of 1980.


I was there, I remember. Interest rates went up even higher - I recall friends
paying 17% for home mortgages.

They must have had jobs too! 8^)


Of course back in those days you could deduct *all* consumer interest payments
so there was a silver lining come tax time.

From all I read, it's clear to me that the sudden jump in oil prices was a
major factor driving that inflation.

The Wage and price freeze was what turned me into an fiscal conservative!

Now, was that a "leeberal" mistake?


Nope.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


Dee D. Flint wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

[snip]
But you might ask why I seem to be busting Republican chops a lot. It's
because the Pubs have been in power for most of the last 50 years, and
increasingly so in the last 20.



Not really true. Although we've had several Republican presidents, most
of
the time the House and Senate had a majority of Democrats.


Lets go back to 1981 Using the Senate webpages as a reference, the
majority leaders are chosen on a two year basis. 7 times there was a
Republican Majority leader, and 4 times a Democrat.

Since you said 50 years (see your comment above), you ought to do your
calculation back to 1954.


There is a small complication from 2001-2003, as a republican switched
parties, giving a temporary Democratic majority.

So if you like, you can make that 6.5 to 3.5 ratio

The house of representatives has been solidly Republican since 1995.
Before that it was indeed, majority Democrat for a good while. Reference
House webpages.


Since all budget bills must originate in the House, that put the Democrats
in a powerful position for a long time regardless of what party the
President or even the Senate leader belonged to. The Dems had control of
the House for decades.

"Golden Rule: He who has the gold makes the rules."

Actually it's necessary to have parties with opposing views as it keeps
either one from going overboard in their approach.


Since 1980, we have had 16 years of Republican Presidents, and 8 years
of a Democratic President.


Again since you said 50 years, you ought to take it back to 1954.


We are looking at a 2:1 ratio of who's in power when. My advice is to
use that conservative infallibility, and fix the nation's problems
instead of blaming all on the minority.


The party in power always blames the other party. That's par for the
course.

I could research more, but I think I made my point, and Field day
looms. I hope you can participate, and wish you the best with any
surgery you may need to have.



Who's in power is often not as clear as we would like to fool ourselves into
believing. If the President is one party and either house of Congress is
the other, who is really in control? Neither can get much done unless the
other cooperates with them. During the Reagan and Bush Sr. years, the House
was controlled by the Democrats. While Reagan was fairly successufl in
working with the Democrats to get things done, Bush Sr. was not. One could
not really say that either party was "in control." Our government, with
it's division of power, was designed to prevent hasty actions on the part of
the government.

Yup should make Field Day if I feel up to it. Right now I am planning to go
but can't help with the setup. Surgery is scheduled for July 7th.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

In article , (Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth
From: (N2EY)
Date: 6/25/2004 10:29 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Buying stuff from a tyrant who then uses the money to do bad things
makes you a party to the bad things. That's just wrong.

Jim, try this on for size...

Go through your closet.

Flip up the lables.

Then go through most of your consumer electronics, appliances, dushes,
etc.

What percentage say "Made in China"...?!?!

Nursie bought bulk cleanser. Ethnic cleanser.

Nursie starts scrubbing. Scrub, nursie, scrub.

Ho, ho, soon all be "white" again. Clean. American white.

Nursie be red in face but not blue.

Temper fry...

LHA / WMD

In article , (Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

I see the benefits of our space and technology programs every day. And
as
both an American and as a human with a bit more than average sense of
adventure, I'd like to see us reach out beyond our own celestial home and take
advantage of the opportunities "out there".

Nursie see space every day. Nursie spaced-out.

Nursie full of adventure, needs "hostile actions" in space.

Nursie need opportunity to unite personalities, seek unity not
have, end hate inside.

Nursie wanna be Weiner von Brawn. Yawn.

Temper fry...

LHA / WMD

In article , (Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Promoting consumer confidence and spending (witch ultimately drives the
economy) was wrong?

Nursie practice magic? Not good.

Get witches barefoot and in kitchen where belong.

Nursie need spell? Call Mavis Bacon.

Nursie nuts.

Temper fry...

LHA / WMD