wrote:
Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in news:1108745797.245365.147250
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in news:1108665611.010471.49400
@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
But emulating Sweden is OK huh?

n3kip

w3rv

Sure, why not?

BINGO: There it is. Old Europe. Sez it all.

Not in your lifetime Alun.

'Bye.

w3rv

We have very different political views.

OBVIOUSLY.

I don't know how you would classify
yourself, but by European standards you are very far to the right
indeed,

I'm a centrist Republican a la Sen. Arlen Specter, a member of a
disapperaing breed.

Sadly disappearing!

Ted Kennedy is a right-winger by Old Europe
standards.

Yup.

Welcome to America.

as by no stretch is Sweden a socialist country.

Blather. It's a country which uses it's outrageous taxes on it's few
monster "capitalist" smokestack industries to hand out socialist
entitlements to it's population on a scale unheard of in any other
country. Entitlments being the heart of socialism in all it's forms.
Sven the fender-hanger at the SAAB plant didn't "feel good" yesterday
so he stayed home and watched the tube. No problem, he got paid
anyway
under Swedish law. SAAB plant payrolls are bloated by 20% percent
per
unit out the door vs. the U.S & Japan because 20% of the SAAB workers
"call in sick" every day. Absolute fact. GM got stupid and bought
SAAB
mostly to save the marque otherwise SAAB would have died years ago
but
GM is now mulling a pullout to cut their losses. The outflow of
capital
from Sweden to other countries has been appalling, check out the
numbers and why it's happening and what the Swedish government is
doing
to stanch the bleeding.

The reason the whole thing didn't collapse right away was that the
smokestacks are/were big exporters, bringing in hard currency.

I can no doubt go ten blocks around the compass from here in the
suburbs of Philadelphia and find more businesses with ten or fewer
employees than you'll find in all of Sweden. Why is that Alun?? Could
it be that Swedish socialist economics stifles entrepreneurial
capitalism which is the engine behind the astounding growth of the
U.S. economy for over two centuries? Of course it is.

As for myself, I used to be a card carrying member of the
Conservative and
Unionist Party in the UK, but I freely admit that I have drifted
leftwards
since then, very likely as a result of seeing at first hand the
huge
social inequalities in the USA.

Certainly there are social inequalities in the U.S. The original
Constitution plus it's Bill of Rights guarantees equality in all
elections and in all courts in this country and nothing more.
Translates into a system in which the fate of individuals depends on
what they freely choose to do or not do with their lives. Those who
choose to be slackers suffer the consequences they freely imposed on
themselves so of course we wind up with "social inequalities" galore.

Equality of rights and opportunities - not equality of outcomes.

Add in some other points about Sweden:

Compared to the USA, it's tiny in both population and land area. Also
virtually homogeneous (again compared to the USA). 'Diversity' means
something very different in Sweden. Heck, they split with Norway after
less than 100 years of alliance IIRC.

It's relatively easy and simple for a community/society to 'work' if
it's small and uniform. USA is neither, and never has been.

By your leftist standards our system has too many freedoms.

If it's called being a socialist to think that the ordinary working
man
should be able to get medical care without courting bankruptcy,
then
I
suppose that makes me a socialist, but if you actually look in a
dictionary, then you will see that I am not, and neither are the
Swedes.

See above.

Health care is only one issue. Is W3RV's info about SAAB accurate or
not?
Should American industry work the same way?

socialism // n.
1 a political and economic theory of social organization which
advocates
that the community as a whole should own and control the means of
production, distribution, and exchange.

Oh**** . . the second coming of Cecil and his friggin' dictionaries .
..
!

2 policy or practice based on this theory.
socialist n. & adj.
socialistic // adj.
socialistically // adv.
[French socialisme (as social)]

"community as a whole" = "the government"

Sure seems to fit!

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:

snip

in a country where a business can get successfully sued for a
woman not knowing that here hot coffee was hot, and burning
herself when trying to hold the darn thing between her legs. (sorry
Phil, but what if she simply ruined her dress because the coffee was
wet?-negligent design of the cup?)


I wrote a lot of the stuff you are commenting on, Jim. It's a hazard
of us not trimming threads!


Same points apply

The case centered around the fact that the coffee was *extremely*
and unreasonably hot.

Ask 10 people, and you'll get ten different answers if that was the
question. I assume that anything in a styro cup is Hot, until I can
examine it.

But hot enough to give you 2nd degree burns?

Hot coffee is meant to be hot, and not poured on your skin, but rather
drunk, and the parts of the body that are supposed to be used are much
more tolerant of heat.

snippage

Who are they going to sue?

The manufacturers of equipment, the VEC that administered the test.
Find some deep pockets and sue, sue, sue.

Then we better just give up, because there's no test to use a microwave
oven or a table saw.

No, we simply make sure that people are *exposed* to safety
information. On the power tool or the oven, there are safety
disclaimers. I bought a chain saw that had an entire safety education as
relates to chain saws in the instruction manual. first page of the book
says that you have to read the entire manual before using the saw.

The Manufacturer has to make a good-faith effort to do safety education
for the tool.

Can that prevent lawsuits? No. But it makes it very difficult to win
that lawsuit when safety information has been provided.


One of the most dangerous substances the average person handles is
gasoline, yet there's no test for how to deal with it.


First, there is plenty of safety info about gasoline's flammability and
carcinogenic status on every pump (that is in legal compliance)

Second, gasoline is the sort of substance that people are used to. If
you told people that you had an idea of a sport where people drove at
each other at combined speeds of 140 miles per hour with a liquid that
was so flammable that it was virtually explosive, they'd say you were
nuts, even if you were telling them this in your car, driving down the
interstate at 70.


As a little example of the mindset, you might recall an accident
along I-80 last year, a few miles from my QTH. Huge horrible pileup, many
vehicles, many people killed, and a fiery mess that took a long time
to clean up. The accident was related to a snow squall that blew up
unexpectedly, and the excessive speed that the whole group was traveling
at. While no charges were filed against anyone at the time, the
families of the deceased are filing suit against the truck drivers *and* the
companies they worked for. Hopefully the trucking companies have a
good safety program.


If someone was following too close for conditions, shouldn't they be
liable?

Of course. Was the trucking company following too closely?


And on what grounds, compared to other

electronic devices?

Most of my appliances have warnings on them of electric shock
potential,

or of cutting, burning, whatever dangers also. There is a reason why
they are there.


Same warnings are on modern ham gear, aren't they?

Sure


Nobody can be protected completely from a lawsuit. But if you are
sued, you are well served to have forewarned potential litigation
adversaries of the possible dangers of the devices they may use.


Couple of stickers on the TS-50 and done. No need for a test, right?

I disagree. I would think that as Hams, we should know WHY something is
dangerous, not just a "ohhh, don't doo that!" mentality.


RF Safety should be the FIRST order of the day, and NO one
should be a Ham until they are tested for RF safety to the
ability to handle full legal limit.


The reason for the RF safety questions is to prevent exposing
*others* to a hazard.

And the FCC has determined that the RF safety requirements of the
Tech test are adequate for hams who use up to 1500 W power output
on "meat-cooking frequencies".


They're the *expert agency*, not the VEs or VECs. Heck, NCVEC wants to
*lower* the written exams - too much math and regs, sez they.

Shall we revisit "Amateur Radio in the 21st Century"? I wonder if Len
Anderson and Brian Burke have read that wonderful piece, and what they
think of it.

I recommend it to all. Tells ya what the next step is.


And those who think that limiting the finals voltage, or
some other weird thing is the answer, are advised to think
about things such as Technician Hams operating under supervision.
It only takes a second to drop a paper and reach behind a Rig.
Less time than the control op can react. I want those Technicians
to be exposed to full power safety requirements. Anything else is
criminally negligent.


But they are already tested on full-power requirements.

Yoiks! We're doing major time/subject shifting here, Jim! My

comments

several iterations of the thread ago were in relation to possible
changing of test requirements, ala the W5YI proposal, where the
newcomers are given a much simpler test, and things that I consider
critically important, such as not having your hobby kill ya, would be
dropped from the testing.


Not the W5YI proposal - trhe NCVEC proposal.

Thanks for the correction!

- Mike KB3EIA -

wrote in news:1109088706.576066.237160
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:


Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in news:1109065656.859950.28030
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:


Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in news:1109009984.323422.143080
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

snip


5wpm isn't very fast, but why is it required to operate phone?

A couple of reasons:

For the same reason hams have to pass written *theory* tests to
use *manufactured* rigs with no critical tuneup adjustments.

For the same reason hams have to pass written tests on VHF/UHF to
operate HF, high-power RF exposure questions to operate QRP, etc.

And because code is a big part of amateur radio, and a ham who
doesn't know any just isn't fully qualified.

73 de Jim, N2EY

I think we can agree to differ on that last point.

Perhaps.

Do you agree that Morse code is a big part of amateur radio? Not that
it needs a test, but just that it is a big part of today's amateur
radio, particularly on HF?

As a matter of fact, even directly after passing the US 20wpm test I
couldn't have passed the UK 12wpm test.

Perhaps. But I thought we were discussing *US* code test requirements.

5wpm is not too difficult, especially the way it is tested in the US,
but until recently it only gave access to the 'novice' subbands in the
US, all of which except for 10m didn't allow phone. From my PoV, it
would only have given me 10m at that time. I never took 5.

Since 1990 it has been possible to get an Extra (or any other
HF-privileges amateur radio license) with just the 5 wpm code test and
a waiver. 15 years - hardly "recently".

I probably could have passed 5 when I came to the US, but I simply
didn't realise how much easier the tests were here. Thinking it would
have been as hard as a UK test I didn't bother to take it.

The test procedures here aren't secret. Never were.

I was operating above 30MHz
on a 610A permit, and when the 'no code' licence was introduced I
decided to get a US call. Having 'aced' the Novice and I think dropped
one question in the Tech paper, I was given the General paper, for
which I hadn't looked at the syllabus or question pool atall, and I
passed that. Ditto the Advanced, but they didn't have a spare Extra
paper. None of this really surprised me, as the UK B licence had the
same theory as the A licence, and I have an EE degree anyway, but it
surprised the VEs.

Why should it? The US writtens were *never* very hard - if you knew a
little radio and some regs.

Back in 1968 I went for General at the FCC office in early summer. Did
not pass 13 wpm code because the examiner couldn't read my longhand.
Got credit for 5 wpm, took the written (which was same as General back
then), walked out with a Tech. Could not use the new privs until the
actual license arrived in the mail, though.

Went home, taught myself Signal-Corps-method block printing and more
practice until I could do 18 wpm W1AW bulletins solid. Went back and
passed 13 wpm code easily, sending and receiving.

Then the examiner says "why not try Advanced while you're here?". Now
in those days the Advanced was supposedly the toughest of the writtens,
with all sorts of math and circuits and such. But one did not say No to
The Man, so I tried, with zero preparation. Passed easily and wound up
with Advanced instead of General.

That was back before question pools, Bash books and computerized
practice tests. Didn't have an EE back then either - I was 14 years old
and it was the summer between 8th and 9th grades.

Two years later I went back to get the Extra. Would have been sooner
but in those days you had to have two years experience as General or
Advanced to even *try* the Extra.

This gave me 12 months to pass 13wpm if I didn't want to have to take
the General and Advanced theory again. With the help of computer
software and slow Morse transmissions I did it in six months.

Bingo.

How long do you think it would have taken to get to 5 wpm, tested the
way the USA does?

Note that Mike got there
in that amount of time from scratch even with hearing problems, and it
took me that long when I wasn't starting from the beginning, and
there's no problem with my hearing. Also, I had a relay of all the VEs
sending code on 2m five nights a week. They saw it a a challenge to
teach me code. I almost passed 20, but I had to come back a couple of
months later.

To get up to 13wpm meant copying whole characters instead of dits and
dahs, no matter how easy the type of test. OK, so that's gone, but
that means the remaining Element 1 doesn't test the ability to copy
complete characters, so on the one hand it's relatively easy, but on
the other hand it's pointless.

Not at all.

If the code uses Farnsworth spacing, you copy characters, not dits and
dahs. This isn't anything new - W1AW has been sending code practice
that way since at least 1966 (first time I heard it, anyway).

Why preserve a test that doesn't test an adequate level of a skill as
a requirement for access to a particular part of the spectrum, when
there's no requirement to use that skill anyway?

Same reason for written tests. Do the writtens guarantee that all who
pass can design/build/modify/repair/operate all amateur equipment they
are authorized to use? Or do they test basic knowledge?

5 wpm is basic Morse skill, that's all.

Why is it too much to ask?

Tradition? That's a
weak reason, but it seems to be the only one. Sure, 40% of HF may be
CW, but I can (and do) operate 100% phone .

And my HF operation is 99% CW on 80/40/20, with 100 watts or less
output, yet I had to learn all kinds of stuff about high power, 'phone
modes, RTTY, SSTV, other HF bands, VHF/UHF, etc. Most of that knowledge
I've never needed, and some of it (like band edges) has changed since I
took the test. So why did I have to learn all that in the first place,
just to operate a QRP rig on 7015 CW?

73 de Jim, N2EY


I'm not sure this is getting us anywhere. This is all old ground.

73 de Alun, N3KIP

wrote in message
ups.com...

Alun L. Palmer wrote:
[snip]
12 wpm random groups with 96% copy

The US requirements for hams have never been anywhere near so
stringent.

The *toughest* they ever were was 1 minute solid copy out of 5 minutes
- plain language. 5, 13 and 20 wpm. That's 20% accuracy! About 20-25
years ago, fill-in-the-blank and multiple choice were added.

Multiple choice exams are no longer allowed for element 1. It's too easy to
guess the answer if you have even minimal copy. As I recall when I took my
20wpm, I was able to successfully deduce that the only possible answer out
of the choices offered was Switzerland. The only letter that I had copied
was the W. Some of us were too good at deduction and guessing.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

wrote in message
oups.com...

Mike Coslo wrote:

[snip]

clean up. The accident was related to a snow squall that blew up
unexpectedly, and the excessive speed that the whole group was
traveling
at. While no charges were filed against anyone at the time, the
families
of the deceased are filing suit against the truck drivers *and* the
companies they worked for. Hopefully the trucking companies have a
good
safety program.

If someone was following too close for conditions, shouldn't they be
liable?


Since both my current and previous husbands are/were truck drivers, I tend
to observe what trucks are doing on the road. Though I cannot speak for
this particular accident, normally it is the CARS following the trucks too
close for conditions. How can the truckers prevent that and the sometimes
tragic consequences?

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Mike Coslo posted on Mon, Feb 21 2005 4:31 pm
Alun L. Palmer wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote in

stuff sinpped for trying to figure out who said what....

most of Coslo-multi-quote-copying snipped as redundant

Funny in a macabre sort of way, but hard to see the connection.

Back when I originally made the "Jump frog jump comment, it was
about
people making an incorrect or bizzare conclusion from plain evidence.

Retention of the morse code test for an amateur radio license
is bizarre, outdated, with NO logical connection.

Where people Might say that the No-Code technicians quit because
The
had a license that didn't have Element 1 as a test requirement.

It would seem that those "who might say" that are PCTA!

PCTAs have been insisting and insisting that the "no-code"
Technicians would be expiring en masse 12 years after the
1991 creation of that class. They didn't! Sunnuvagun!

Fact: The Technician class license number keep INCREASING!

According to www.hamdata.com for 22 Feb 05, the Technician
class is GROWING at an average rate of 27 per day! General
class growth is about 2 per day, Extras about 5 per day.

No-code detractors (such as "N2EY") used to say the Tech
numbers were "meaningless since the Tech-Plus renewals
were being tossed into the Tech category" and that was
supposed to indicate the "meaninglessness." :-) Isn't so.

Hamdata.com's latest tabulation (direct from FCC database,
publicly available) shows that there are 723,551 individual
amateur licenses (732,945 less 9,394 Club licenses). Of
those, 290,874 are Technician class and 58,999 are
Technician-Plus class. Very near 2 out of 5 individual
amateur licenses are Technician class. From the hamdata
tabulation of a year ago, Technician license growth was
9899 and Technician-Plus license decrease was 9521. The
delta is 378 to indicate no-code Technician license minimum
growth or at least 2 every 3 days.

The chief of the numbers-game players ("N2EY") is still
going to insist (if past is truly prologue) the no-code Tech
numbers are "falling"...from some kind of inventive
rationalization. :-) Since it isn't PC to show losses of
any class but the evil no-coders (as AH0A does/did),
he will continue to maintain the no-coder "loss" is
"there." :-) If Tech+ classes were "upgrading" their
license classes, then the no-code Tech numbers would
be increasing even more! [sunnuvagun!]

The sky has NOT fallen on the no-coders...except in
the minds of the Chicken Little PCTAs. Paradigms were
punctured and fell on those mighty instead... :-)

"Dee Flint" wrote in
:


wrote in message
ups.com...

Alun L. Palmer wrote:
[snip]
12 wpm random groups with 96% copy

The US requirements for hams have never been anywhere near so
stringent.

The *toughest* they ever were was 1 minute solid copy out of 5 minutes
- plain language. 5, 13 and 20 wpm. That's 20% accuracy! About 20-25
years ago, fill-in-the-blank and multiple choice were added.

Multiple choice exams are no longer allowed for element 1. It's too
easy to guess the answer if you have even minimal copy. As I recall
when I took my 20wpm, I was able to successfully deduce that the only
possible answer out of the choices offered was Switzerland. The only
letter that I had copied was the W. Some of us were too good at
deduction and guessing.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE



That's how I passed. Never said I was any good at Morse, quite the opposite
in fact. I found that 70% copy was good enough for 7/10 multiple guess. If
there hadn't been multiple guess I would never have passed 20wpm, for sure.
When you're asked was the operator's name Hank, Frank, Bert or Gert, and
you copy _ANK you have got the 50/50 like on Who Wants to be a Millionaire
on TV.

The other trick that I assume still works is listening for .. ,,, (IS),
which precedes every answer. Name is _____, Ant is _____.

And another thing. Copy IS Y____ and you know that either the rig is a
Yeasu or the antenna is a Yagi, and if you know how many characters came
after the Y, you know which of those is right. I miss the beginnings of
words, but I know that ____OOD is Kenwood. It's still Kenwood even if you
miss the D but just copy the OO.

I approached it like a crossword puzzle. I couldn't make a minute solid
copy at 20wpm to save my life.

Michael Coslo wrote on Feb 22 2005 9:58 am
Alun L. Palmer wrote:

5wpm isn't very fast, but why is it required to operate phone?

And there we have the crux of the situation, expressed in a simple

question.

If a person wants to operate phone, and that is it, then what do
they
need to do that?

Nothing. The Citizen's Band is adequate proof of that

So are all branches of the U.S. military operating on HF.
So are all civilian aircrew flying long routes using HF.
So are all private boat owners using HF.
So are various other civilian PLMRS users on HF.

Buy a rig, an antenna, and pay some people to put it up.
Presumably the
only requirement is to know how to read, talk and mash the PTT button.

"Mash" the push-to-talk button? That means those
owners have to know where to get the PTT control
fixed! :-)


The test requirements are there to give us some basic exposure to
elements of the hobby that are considered important by knowledgeable
people. While there may be argument about how well the tests function
for that purpose, there they are.

Right...cast in concrete...protected by armor plate...
forbidden EVER to change!

[time no march on very fast for some...tsk, tsk]



And what of people who only intend to operate phone QRP? The RF
exposure questions are kind of a waste of time for them. Satellite
operations? Just how many Hams do satellite operations? Why test on
band
allocations, we can look them up in a book. Why should a person have
to
do any basic electronics questions if they only want to buy a rig and
antenna and operate phone?

We can eventually argue away most of the test.

Of course to all PCTA, eliminating the morse
code test means "ALL tests are eliminated!"

Oh, my. That old merry-go-round started up!


I was able to overcome my own physical limitations and pass the darn
thing.

Your "hero of the American Amateur Corps" medal is
being struck right now. Watch for the event's
announcement in all leading news sources....

I don't advocate changing the rules because I had trouble with
one of them.

Right..."no gain, no pain." Not to mention NO GUTS
to try eliminating it by lawful means like "democratic
principles guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution."

You wanted to buy into the old beliefs. You did it.
Now you can have fun sneering at all who don't care
to buy that. You're a "somebody" in a radio hobby
activity! [applause, applause...] :-)

The ARRL is proud of you.

Jim, , wrote on Tues, Feb 22 2005 1:47 am
Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in news:1109009984.323422.143080
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:



5wpm isn't very fast, but why is it required to operate phone?

A couple of reasons:

For the same reason hams have to pass written *theory* tests to
use *manufactured* rigs with no critical tuneup adjustments.

1. The FCC decided it needed to test radio amateurs as
part of their task of regulating all U.S. civil radio.

2. The VEC Question Pool Committee decides WHAT
the questions are; FCC only specifies a total number
and the percentage correct for passing.

3. Any other reason is meaningless... ;-)


For the same reason hams have to pass written tests on VHF/UHF to
operate HF, high-power RF exposure questions to operate QRP, etc.

FCC doesn't mandate morse code skill as
being necessary to operate about 30 MHz.

Technician class licensees don't have to take
morse code tests and they are banished to the
radioland above 30 MHz.

And because code is a big part of amateur radio, and a ham who doesn't
know any just isn't fully qualified.

" F U L L Y Q U A L I F I E D ! "

G o t t a l o v e i t !

Olde tymers had to test for morse..."ergo," newbies have
to test for morse code!!!

Excellence in U.S. amateur radio is all about morse code
ability!!!!

"Real" hams are MORSEMEN!

U.S. radio amateurs are the keepers of the
living museum of morsemanship! [all other
radio services have given up on morse code
for main communications]

Olde tyme hamme morsemen need playmates.

Keep the test to subsidize the "CW" playground
for the olde tymers!

Screw the newbies to HF...MAKE them learn
code to please the elitist olde tymers!

Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Mike Coslo wrote:


[snip]


clean up. The accident was related to a snow squall that blew up
unexpectedly, and the excessive speed that the whole group was

traveling

at. While no charges were filed against anyone at the time, the

families

of the deceased are filing suit against the truck drivers *and* the
companies they worked for. Hopefully the trucking companies have a

good

safety program.

If someone was following too close for conditions, shouldn't they be
liable?



Since both my current and previous husbands are/were truck drivers, I tend
to observe what trucks are doing on the road. Though I cannot speak for
this particular accident, normally it is the CARS following the trucks too
close for conditions. How can the truckers prevent that and the sometimes
tragic consequences?

The speeds were well over 70. A truck that was passing the line of
traffic jackknifed and the rest is history. The police did not see fit
to issue any citations. All were traveling over the speed limit, and
when the storm blew up, they were waaayy too fast for the conditions.

As for who is at fault, I have several times had to speed up to
ridiculous speeds to not get run over by truck drivers who want to get a
run for the next hill At speeds of 85 and more, they will get close
enough for you to count how many bugs were caught on their radiators.
I've seen a number of accidents where a truck has simply run right over
the car in front of them

I carry a CB, and I must say that there is an urban myth, believed by
most truck drivers, that they *never* do anything wrong. What was
especially funny was the time a truck jackknifed in front of a line of
cars during a bad snowstorm - about 10 years ago - also on I-80, and by
the time ten minutes had passed, the story passed around by radio was
that a 4 wheeler had passed the truck, and cut him off, causing the
jackknife. The offending 4 wheeler was never found. Not surprising to
those of us who were close enough to see the accident happen!

Truck drivers are professionals, and almost always much better drivers
than those in the automobiles. But that doesn't mean they are never to
blame.

- Mike KB3EIA -