Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 12:36:26 -0400, "J. D. B."
wrote:

Al, you and the rest of the old farts want CW to keep ham radio from
becoming like CB - right?

Wrong. I want ham radio to stop being what it's been for the last
couple of decades - CB on different frequencies.
then give it up along with your hang ups about cb if you please
There are CBers who
are competent communications engineers, but the majority today - CB or
ham band - want to buy a radio and put it on the air.
granted

now what is WRONG with that?
Any license
requirement is just an annoyance they get around any way they can -
except by actually studying and learning enough to pass tests.
then how do they get the lecnse?
they learn enough to pass clearly not more than that in many case I
grant you

Take a close look at a General test from the 50s and one from today.
The difference isn't that the current one dropped old technical
questions and added equivalent questions about modern modes - it's
that the current test has dropped the technical requirement low enough
that it's a joke. Everyone says that CW is old hat and modern modes
have replaced it. Okay - let's see a question asking for a PSK
interface schematic, including full isolation. That's just simple
audio and DC stuff.
why?
Let's have questions on Rayleigh fading and its
effect on maximum usable baud rate at various frequencies, so no one
complains about the FCC not giving us permission to run 9600 bps on
20. Modern stuff.
why do you need to know that in order to operate?
to just get on the air..
Understand in the case you mention is NOT required only obeinace
understanding hopefully comes later

different folks come to different levels of understanding about
different subjects at different time

the license is a permit to learn not proof you have learned
you convince of the need and I will support you

And no more published answers.
NO can do the court have more or less so, along the long standing body
of the FCC not chaleanceing Bash et all years ago to close the
quiestion pools NOW would more or less require an act of Congress or a
change in ITU treaty lang. It took us No Code what 4 or decades to
acheeve the changes we needd in order to bring off No Code


Then let's see how many people talk about "modern" and how many yell
"too difficult - there's no reason to know all this stuff". Which is
why, on SWL fora, you'll see people complaining that they listened all
day on 4.2 MHz and only heard noise. Or tried to get some foreign
broadcast station up above 15 MHz all night and couldn't.

It's the "why doesn't this work, and don't give me any of that
technical BS" syndrome. People don't want to know how things work, or
why they don't work, but they're angry that they don't. And don't you
dare tell anyone it's his fault for trying to receive a 440 repeater
80 miles away with a 1/4 wave antenna 5 feet off the ground. His
friend, just 3 doors down, copies the repeater S9+ (with a dual 11
element beam 75 feet in the air and LMR600 coax). Now, without any
technical BS or monetary expenditure, what does he have to do to
receive it?
never heard such a complaint ever


It's not that no one ever pulled that stuff 50 years ago - but it was
so far in the minority that it was below the noise level. Today it's
the majority of newcomers. "I have a right to use the public
airwaves, and I don't want to have to learn anything."
Funny all I heard of Ham radio for many years was the "wizards of 80M"
all code tested hams

I have never heard any realy bad behavoi r from any ham that hasn't had
his license renewed at least twice (which leaves out ALL No code techs
BTW)

indeed I have never heard the sort of Vile lang I have heard from that
bunch on CB perhaps midwestern Cber are just different prehaps you are
just full of it

Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:36:06 -0500, "H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H"
wrote:

This isn't about creating the best operators, it's about selling the most
junk and having the most votes.

But "the hobby will die" and "we need qualified operators" sounds so
much nicer than "the manufacturers need more money".
the hobyy is dying have you been following the threads about ars
numbers have you looked at the ages of folks at hamfests

although yes the copmanies need a bigg enough market to stay in busness
too

Al Klein wrote:

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:36:06 -0500, "H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H"
wrote:


This isn't about creating the best operators, it's about selling the most
junk and having the most votes.


But "the hobby will die" and "we need qualified operators" sounds so
much nicer than "the manufacturers need more money".

Listen!

"THE MANUFACTURERS NEED MORE MONEY."

"THE MANUFACTURERS NEED BIGGER MARKETS."

"THE MANUFACTURERS NEED MORE ..."

Design and manufacture of any electronics item requires a market to recover
design costs, to recover manufacturing tooling costs, to cover distribution
costs, to provide a return on investment, to provide a return on equity, to
provide net profits to cover medical insurance, to provide net profits for
stock retirement plans, to feed the engine of the economy.

The cost of a single DSP chip that operates at high i.f. frequencies has to be
recovered or the chip designer goes BANKRUPT. How many radios must be sold to
recover a million dollar investment in a single chip?

"THE MANUFACTURERS NEED BIGGER MARKETS."

Follow the money. Understand our hobby/public service!

Finally then, the question becomes not whether we are appliance operators [most
of us are], but do we wish to advance the radio art? "How do we advance the
radio art?" is a complex question with many answers.

Is preserving historic skills part of the art? Is operating AM, when most HF is
SSB, part of the art? Is ragchewing part of the art? Is EME part of the art? Is
old fashioned RTTY part of the art? Is current digital communication part of the
art [most of today's digital is actually ancient]? I say NO!

But, taking the time, using the energy to learn, investing our money in
technology and learning that technology is contributing to the art. Or, is it?

/s/ DD W1MCE

an old idiot wrote:

sure it is a hobby with service related aspects rather the Boy Scouts
are supposed to be

Cite one place in part 97, which defines amateur radio, where it is
called a hobby.

Al Klein wrote:
On 25 Jul 2006 12:12:44 -0700, "an old freind"
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:

There are CBers who
are competent communications engineers, but the majority today - CB or
ham band - want to buy a radio and put it on the air.

granted

now what is WRONG with that?

That's fine - for CB - that's what it's for. Ham radio is NOT CB.
(Or, at least, it wasn't supposed to be.)
no way cb going to do what you can do on 20m man

Any license
requirement is just an annoyance they get around any way they can -
except by actually studying and learning enough to pass tests.

then how do they get the lecnse?

They memorize the answers.
which is learning enough to pass the test


they learn enough to pass

If you call learning how to cheat "learning".
I never call following the rules cheating

Take a close look at a General test from the 50s and one from today.
The difference isn't that the current one dropped old technical
questions and added equivalent questions about modern modes - it's
that the current test has dropped the technical requirement low enough
that it's a joke. Everyone says that CW is old hat and modern modes
have replaced it. Okay - let's see a question asking for a PSK
interface schematic, including full isolation. That's just simple
audio and DC stuff.

why?

Why what? You said we should forget CW and concentrate on more modern
aspects of the hobby. A computer-radio interface is modern.
expect if you want something to work and be stable and movable you are
not going to build a modem


Let's have questions on Rayleigh fading and its
effect on maximum usable baud rate at various frequencies, so no one
complains about the FCC not giving us permission to run 9600 bps on
20. Modern stuff.

why do you need to know that in order to operate?
to just get on the air..

Because if you try to run much over 100 baud on 20 you're just making
interference. the fact that you didn't know that shows that there are
things you need to learn before you start transmitting in "modern
modes".
wrong if I run more than few buads over 100 (or under for that matter)
nobody is going to be answer to since it is not one of the standard
speeds

the why is irelavant In this case I would venture to say you are wrong
I supect you could run 110 on 20m after all rules are normaly set a bit
on the conservsitive side you don't becuase people aren't looking for
that speed and therefore are unlikely to make a concent

if it were just and FCC it means maybe someone would be there to bust
you if it truel is pphysics does not not

what speeds you packet at on 20 requuires NO understanding merely
obeinece to the rules


Understand in the case you mention is NOT required only obeinace
understanding hopefully comes later

How do you begin to understand WHY you can't run more speed on 20 by
just operating?
you don't need to understand

you may choose to learn in which case more power to use, but you are
not required to learn this point

different folks come to different levels of understanding about
different subjects at different time

you're saying that not everyone is equal.
no I am not I am saying everyone will develope differently
we all equal in our rights before the law
then why treat everyone as
if everyone were equal?

the license is a permit to learn not proof you have learned

The license is a permit to operate. Whether you ever learn anything
after you get it is totally irrelevant to the license.
a very grave difference and resaon why the ARS is in trouble this
difinate split in philosophy
but the point is what level is required to operate

that level is easierly obtained with little real understanding

indeed wether you learn anything after matters not to your stauts as a
license holder

And no more published answers.

NO can do the court have more or less so, along the long standing body
of the FCC not chaleanceing Bash et all years ago to close the
quiestion pools NOW would more or less require an act of Congress or a
change in ITU treaty lang.

Which part of any treaty says that the answers have to be published?
I made no such claim
I claimed that amending the treaty was one of the few means to Close
the question pools off
the pools are open becuase the FCC felt it could no longer support
legaly (or practicaly) keeping them closed.

an act of congress closing them or enacting an ITU requirement that be
closed is about the only to close them at this point

Quote it.

It's the "why doesn't this work, and don't give me any of that
technical BS" syndrome. People don't want to know how things work, or
why they don't work, but they're angry that they don't. And don't you
dare tell anyone it's his fault for trying to receive a 440 repeater
80 miles away with a 1/4 wave antenna 5 feet off the ground. His
friend, just 3 doors down, copies the repeater S9+ (with a dual 11
element beam 75 feet in the air and LMR600 coax). Now, without any
technical BS or monetary expenditure, what does he have to do to
receive it?

never heard such a complaint ever

I see it a few times a day on some fora.
hang out with a better grade of ham then

I have not seen one such claim in 8 years

do you go out looking to be offended?

It's not that no one ever pulled that stuff 50 years ago - but it was
so far in the minority that it was below the noise level. Today it's
the majority of newcomers. "I have a right to use the public
airwaves, and I don't want to have to learn anything."

Funny all I heard of Ham radio for many years was the "wizards of 80M"
all code tested hams

And all I heard was hams talking about designing and building things
that everyone knew couldn't be done.
and you are one them "it can not be done" shame on you
I guess you don't remember when
440 MHz was considered much too high a frequency to be useful for
anything.
Indeed I don't since I we TV on UHF if not before I was born at least
before I paying much attantion to such details

but you are tlaking the past
After all, how useful was a frequency you couldn't transmit
on as far as you could read a billboard?

indeed I have never heard the sort of Vile lang I have heard from that
bunch on CB perhaps midwestern Cber are just different prehaps you are
just full of it

And perhaps you just don't know as much as you'd like to think you do.
prehaps I don't
but ulike you I don't claim to know everything or that one needs to try
and know everything

you coment about needing to be able to caluate path loss before trying
an EME qso for example
Let's start with English, shall we? Or do you think you really
communicate well with the mish-mash you use instead of a real
language?
obviously I do commucate wether you want to call it english or not
since we are comucating

with your proven hyperbole why some anyone believ what you type

"an old freind" wrote in
oups.com:


cmdr buzz corey wrote:
an old idiot wrote:

sure it is a hobby with service related aspects rather the Boy Scouts
are supposed to be

Cite one place in part 97, which defines amateur radio, where it is
called a hobby.
red herring alert

Part 97 does not define Ham radio, Part 97 defines the rules

WE define Ham radio


And you want ham radio defined like CB. Ten-Four Good-buddy?

Dumbing things down cheapens it, and destroys others enjoyment. Look at
the childish bull**** you do in RRAP. You and the other rejects drove
everyone away with all your retarded bathroom hummor.

That's want will happen with on our HF bands, as it sounds more and more
like CB, good hams will give up on it and leave. Many already have.

Sc

"J. D. B." wrote in
:

Really? My other hobby is model trains and I have never seen a rift in
model trains in 45 years.


Well that explains everything.

SC

"J. D. B." wrote in
:

Al, you and the rest of the old farts want CW to keep ham radio from
becoming like CB - right? CW does not keep people from using radios, it
keeps people from seeking a amateur radio license. You and the rest of
the crusty old and out-dated hams think that CW is kind of a filter or
the price of admission. It's an over-rated and over-priced ticket.

SNIP


And people shouldn't have to learn multiplication tables because we have
calculators now.


SC

Slow Code wrote:
"an old freind" wrote in
oups.com:


cmdr buzz corey wrote:
an old idiot wrote:

sure it is a hobby with service related aspects rather the Boy Scouts
are supposed to be

Cite one place in part 97, which defines amateur radio, where it is
called a hobby.
red herring alert

Part 97 does not define Ham radio, Part 97 defines the rules

WE define Ham radio


And you want ham radio defined like CB. Ten-Four Good-buddy?
if somebody realy wants to use 10 codes I don't care they make as much
sense as Q codes

Dumbing things down cheapens it, and destroys others enjoyment.
if it isn't worth it to you to deal with the real world then turn in
your license
Look at
the childish bull**** you do in RRAP. You and the other rejects drove
everyone away with all your retarded bathroom hummor.
no guess you were not reading

stev did it (with help from wismen with years of accusing his foes of
various crimes

That's want will happen with on our HF bands, as it sounds more and more
like CB, good hams will give up on it and leave. Many already have.
if you are one of those preparig to leave than good riddance
if you can learn some manners you are welcome to stay of course

Sc

Slow Code wrote:
"J. D. B." wrote in
:

Al, you and the rest of the old farts want CW to keep ham radio from
becoming like CB - right? CW does not keep people from using radios, it
keeps people from seeking a amateur radio license. You and the rest of
the crusty old and out-dated hams think that CW is kind of a filter or
the price of admission. It's an over-rated and over-priced ticket.

SNIP


And people shouldn't have to learn multiplication tables because we have
calculators now.
agreed they should spend their school days learning something more
important than that


SC