How would you like it if . . .

[k0cmh]

How would those berating the no code requirement like it if the FCC required a test in computer proficiency?

Since one of the reasons for the existance of the Amateur Radio Service is to advance the science, CW has been left in the dust, like tubes and descrete components.

All the advances are being made in computer processing applications and micro-printed circuitry.

Maybe a better test is to demonstrate the ability of layout and construction of a printed circuit board. But even that technology is being left behind. How about demonstrating the ability to engineer a micro-printed circiut board which must contain at least 100 circuits and 5000 components, within a one square centimeter area?

I got into Ham radio because I love to work CW.

But the logic to requiring CW to obtain a license makes no sense any more. As the FCC stated in their discussions of the docket, they should not favor one mode over another.

CW is going to be with us for a long, long time. That is because it is liked by many, and will continue to attract many new users. But it is just another mode, of the many that Hams use and enjoy.

I also enjoy and use SSB, and a number of the digital modes. I am extremely impressed by these new digital modes, what they can do, and how fast they can do it.

Let us not forget that having many different things to do in our hobby will be the reason it survives.

As much as I like CW, I must admit that its days as a requirement do not make much sense any more.

And as I have said in other threads, I hear a lot of bad and poor operators who obviously learned the code to get their higher class license who never worked another letter of CW.

[nz3m]

I would do what it takes, like it or not...

[WB2WIK]

Not sure how relevant "computer proficiency" is, but I wouldn't mind this, at all.

I've always felt our written testing program leaves a lot to be desired -- really a lot, even going back 30-40 years, so this isn't a new belief, for me. What makes it worse today than ever before is the completely published question pool with on-line tests using all those questions. I've let my youngest daughter, who has no knowledge of radio or electronics or antennas or anything relevant to this hobby take the Extra class test on-line, and she started out with a score of almost zero; but after taking sample tests about 30 times, her final score was 82%, indicating she could likely pass just fine without actually knowing anything at all. As an active high school student and test-taker, she has a good memory and she's good at tests, even if she doesn't know the subject.

At least "in the old days," although tests were multiple-choice, the question pool was not published and all the study guides had sample questions that might be close to the real questions, but were never actually the same questions. That made it a lot more difficult to simply memorize stuff without knowing anything about the subject.

In any case, I think a more relevant test than "computer proficiency" might be stuff that can actually be used, say, in an emergency. Stuff like "CW," since it's our most primitive mode and requires only the most simplistic circuitry to function. To go alone with that, maybe give prospective licensees a cigar box full of parts, but parts sufficient to build a simple transceiver, and have them assemble it without instructions, in one hour. Those who could do it pass, those who could not, fail.

I'd really be for that! And I've felt this way since I first got my Novice in 1965...

WB2WIK/6

[K0RGR]

Unless the test questions are kept totally secret - and that means no 'similar but different' sample questions as used in the old License Manuals - there is no way for someone to demonstrate 'competence' with a written exam.

To be really effective, instead of sample questions, you publish a required learning path - classes to take, books to read, etc.. This is how we do our internal certification exams, which tend to be extremely tough.

I remember when I took my Novice in 1965 - I fully understood that I needed to use crystal control on my transmitter, just like it said in the book. But I didn't have a clue what that really meant, and I was surrounded by the technology. I can only imagine what strange ideas others had at the time!

What I would MUCH prefer to see for the entry level is a required class - similar to the UK Foundation License.

In a class, you can control what's covered, and what's learned.

A two or three weekend course could be sufficient, but I'd like to include a hands-on project or two.

[W5HTW]

Quote[/b] (AB3BK @ Jan. 25 2007,10:26)]I would do what it takes, like it or not...
Now that'san interesting attitude. As old George Gobel used to say, "You can't hardly get those no more." That attitude is disappearing from society, and has already disappeared from ham radio.

Kinda makes you wonder how so many people became hams years ago. Wonder why they were different from today's people. Oh! Attitude! I bet that's the answer!

Ed

[K7JEM]

Quote[/b] (AB3BK @ Jan. 25 2007,10:26)]I would do what it takes, like it or not...
Then you would slit your wife's throat, or eat a pile of dog crap, if they wanted you to do that.

No, I don't think you'd do "anything". Maybe most anything you were comfortable with.

Joe

[W5IEI]

How about if the FCC announced they were dropping testing altogether,and not issuing licenses any more?
Just get on,and have at it.

Then,you would know how many of us pro-code OF's feel right now.
Mike

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (K0RGR @ Jan. 25 2007,12:46)]Unless the test questions are kept totally secret - and that means no 'similar but different' sample questions as used in the old License Manuals - there is no way for someone to demonstrate 'competence' with a written exam.

To be really effective, instead of sample questions, you publish a required learning path - classes to take, books to read, etc.. This is how we do our internal certification exams, which tend to be extremely tough.
And that, my friends is the 100% truth.

Unfortunately if you implement that you might as well paint a swastika on your sleeve, because you'll have endless cries of, "ITS JUST A HOBBY!!!"

[kc2orw]

I already have my qualifications in computer proficiency I obtained them by working in the industry in addition to an investment in time and money just to keep those skills up to date. I have working qualifications in windows programming VB 6.0-C#, Windows Network Administration, Unix Network Administration, Novell Network Administration, Apache WebServer & IIS/Windows Web Server Development, Perl, PHP, Packaging & Remediation, etc... There is more what are your computer qualifications did someone pay you to use these skills?

I probably dropped the idea of Ham radio due to a desire to become involved in computing back about 1977...
So to me a lot of people sound like Lids when they pontificate about computers.

your question was how would you feel well I think I got an idea...
But most of the time I just ignore someone who talks like they know something about computers and they don't or what they are discussing seems trivial or newb-like to me.

Don't ask, the last thing I want to do is answer elementary tech question about cheap hardware and bad undocumented software.

[K7JEM]

Quote[/b] (W5IEI @ Jan. 25 2007,11:17)]How about if the FCC announced they were dropping testing altogether,and not issuing licenses any more?
Just get on,and have at it.

Then,you would know how many of us pro-code OF's feel right now.
Mike
But thats a far cry from what has happened.

The FCC hasn't proposed any such thing, any rational person would not make that comparison.

If some of the pro-code people feel that way, then they have a problem. I understand how they feel, but it is a totally emotional response, nothing based on rational thought patterns. It's what is called making a mountain out of a molehill. It's no big deal, it won't affect most people one way or the other, just allow more folks into the sandbox. I think that is a good thing.

Joe

[WB2WIK]

While it's actually within "our" power to revise the question pool to make it more relevant, I don't really see this happening.

I see a lot of questions involve who can operate ham radio from outer space, how much bandwidth a PSK31 signal occupies and other stuff that can be looked up in a few minutes and knowledge of which is unimportant. I don't see any questions about how to build a station out of scrap materials laying about (old radio chassis, scraps of wire, parts pulled from junked PCs and such), which might actually be useful information, the knowledge of which might save a life.

I don't see questions about how to get on the air and effectively generate a signal under the most adverse conditions: You're the single operator on a sinking boat, its radio is water damaged and doesn't work, and there are no emergency communications systems operational. But, you have access to wire, a tool kit and the parts from those non-working items, and still have battery power. Can you put something together and get it to transmit a signal in 15 minutes? This is actually "relevant" stuff to ham radio. I don't intend to be an astronaut in my lifetime and doubt I'll be operating from outer space...

WB2WIK/6

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (k0cmh @ Jan. 25 2007,10:15)]How would those berating the no code requirement like it if the FCC required a test in computer proficiency?
Oh fer chrissake! Didn't you hear? The code test is history dude. If QRZ is any indication, the techs (sans a few stunada ones) are ready to go and give it a try, it's the whining "supporters" who won't move on.

[K7JEM]

When did that happen, Charlie?

Did I snooze and miss something?

What will we argue about now?

This is all very distressing.

Joe

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 25 2007,12:18)]When did that happen, Charlie?

Did I snooze and miss something?

What will we argue about now?

This is all very distressing.

Joe
Obviously CMH did.

[K0HWY]

Quote[/b] (k0cmh @ Jan. 25 2007,12:15)]As much as I like CW, I must admit that its days as a requirement do not make much sense any more.
Well, you could always petition the FCC and ask that the code requirement be dropped from testing. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[ai4ep]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif remove the CW requirement ?

1 ) Yea, suuure !!
2 ) Why, the FCC would never do that !!
3 ) We as amateurs wouldnt ever put up with such a notorious idea !!
4 ) When pigs fly !!
5 ) That would / could bring hams & cb operators to nearly the same level ...!!

[k0cmh]

Hey guys, the reference to computer abilities was meant to indicate that a lot of modes these days depend on being able to configure a software program so that it will properly interface with a radio. Also, there are no "new" radios made from descrete parts. They all have propriatary boards that can not be taken out and used with other manufacturer's boards, or even other models of the same manufacturer's boards.

My question is why favor one mode over any other. I found that learning to opeate CW was MUCH easier than leanring how to operate in PSK-31 or packet. For CW, all I had to do was learn the code and work a key. For packet, I had to know and understand how to configure the software packate, how to configure the ports, how to configure a TNC and then how to connect to my radio. That was a LOT of computer learning. And there are a whole bunch of computer driven digital modes out there. And what about the computer operated radios, where you never touch a knob or dial except the power switch. It is all run from a keyboard. And even the radios themselves have miniture computers (microprocessors). No new radios have the big knobs and the big air capacitors for frequency tuning. They are all tuned through microprocessors.

So, my point was that CW is a ton of fun, but actually a rather outmoded, antiquated mode that is loosing more and more relevance to amateur radio.

Yep, back in the "old days" there was only CW and AM voice. Then came stuff like RTTY. But we stuck with CW as "evidence" of proficiency as an amateur radio operator. So, a person could "pass" a general, advanced, and extra test and still splatter their SSTV or psk-31 signal al over the spectrum.

I have to agree with the FCC logic. Why favor one mode. I could agree with "either test for no modes, or test for all modes".

[WB2WIK]

Quote[/b] (k0cmh @ Jan. 25 2007,15:33)]I have to agree with the FCC logic. Why favor one mode. I could agree with "either test for no modes, or test for all modes".
I'd be all for "test for no modes," but make the test relevant to ham radio and some of the primary purposes the service exists, one that is continually pointed out by amateurs, the League and the FCC themselves in justifying the spectrum we're allowed: That we can be of actual service to provide emergency communications. Doesn't matter what mode that is.

However, if you use my sinking ship scenario posted earlier, it's unlikely you'll be configuring a station for PSK31 on the fly. Your PC's underwater and nothing works. You need to configure something quickly before the ship sinks, and have 15 minutes to put out a distress call using parts that can be salvaged from dead electronic equipment.

It won't be PSK31 you'll be using for this.

The sinking ship scenario is a great example, as rare as such occasion might be, of how skilled amateur radio operators really can help when others cannot.

We should be testing for this skill, knowledge and ability or the service won't even have a justification for existence.

WB2WIK/6

[WA7KKP]

I've seen so-called "computer gurus/geeks/experts" fail miserably if you ask them a question outside of the Windows realm. That's all they have to know, so that's all they've learned.

Let us not forget that CW is the simplest way to impart intellegence to an RF carrier. Any other voice mode needs a more complex system (especially SSB), and digital modes require a computer of high complexity.

Let us not forget that foreign hams usually don't have a working knowlege of conversational English, but they can learn a few Q signals and terms to transact a QSO with anglophones, without being self-conscious or hesitant. Morse code makes that quite easy for them.

Maybe we should call Morse an "international" language . . .

Gary WA7KKP

[nz3m]

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 24 2007,12:08)]Quote[/b] (AB3BK @ Jan. 25 2007,10:26)]I would do what it takes, like it or not...
Then you would slit your wife's throat, or eat a pile of dog crap, if they wanted you to do that.

No, I don't think you'd do "anything". Maybe most anything you were comfortable with.

Joe
You're just being absurd.

I would do anything that had to do with radio/electronics theory, hence "amateur radio license".

Sorry you didn't get the answer you wanted from me.

[K7JEM]

Quote[/b] (AB3BK @ Jan. 25 2007,16:54)]Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 24 2007,12:08)]Quote[/b] (AB3BK @ Jan. 25 2007,10:26)]I would do what it takes, like it or not...
Then you would slit your wife's throat, or eat a pile of dog crap, if they wanted you to do that.

No, I don't think you'd do "anything". Maybe most anything you were comfortable with.

Joe
You're just being absurd.

I would do anything that had to do with radio/electronics theory, hence "amateur radio license".

Sorry you didn't get the answer you wanted from me.
Morse code has nothing to do with radio or electronics theory. You could easily have an "amateur radio license" and not involve a lick of code, or even permit its use. The term would still be valid.

If you were talking about an "amateur telegrapher license", then a code test might be appropriate.

Joe

[nz3m]

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 24 2007,18:00)]Morse code has nothing to do with radio or electronics theory. You could easily have an "amateur radio license" and not involve a lick of code, or even permit its use. Joe
You don't get it.

[K7JEM]

Quote[/b] (AB3BK @ Jan. 25 2007,17:08)]Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 24 2007,18:00)]Morse code has nothing to do with radio or electronics theory. You could easily have an "amateur radio license" and not involve a lick of code, or even permit its use. Joe
You don't get it.
What?

That I don't equate "code" with "radio"?

Quote[/b] (K0RGR @ Jan. 25 2007,10:46)]Unless the test questions are kept totally secret - and that means no 'similar but different' sample questions as used in the old License Manuals - there is no way for someone to demonstrate 'competence' with a written exam.

To be really effective, instead of sample questions, you publish a required learning path - classes to take, books to read, etc.. This is how we do our internal certification exams, which tend to be extremely tough.

I remember when I took my Novice in 1965 - I fully understood that I needed to use crystal control on my transmitter, just like it said in the book. But I didn't have a clue what that really meant, and I was surrounded by the technology. I can only imagine what strange ideas others had at the time!

What I would MUCH prefer to see for the entry level is a required class - similar to the UK Foundation License.

In a class, you can control what's covered, and what's learned.

A two or three weekend course could be sufficient, but I'd like to include a hands-on project or two.
i wouldnt like the idea for taking classes . i agree with keeping real test Q&A secret but taking classes no. not everybody who wants to be a amateur radio operator can afford classes .

[nz3m]

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 24 2007,18:11)]Quote[/b] (AB3BK @ Jan. 25 2007,17:08)]Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 24 2007,18:00)]Morse code has nothing to do with radio or electronics theory. You could easily have an "amateur radio license" and not involve a lick of code, or even permit its use. Joe
You don't get it.
What?

That I don't equate "code" with "radio"?
Yes!

The original post was what if we were tested on computers?

I said I would do what it takes.

You said what about slitting my wife's throat?

I said anything radio/electronics.

You said morse code has nothing to do with radio.

I use it every day on the radio!

get it? #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

[N1LAF]

CW is to Amateur Radio as apple pie and baseball is to America. CW was right at the beginning of radio, not AM, not FM, not SSB. Code may not equate directly to radio, but it does to communications, and communications to radio.

CW has a long tradition with Amateur Radio. This is something that should not be taken casually.

[K7JEM]

Quote[/b] (AB3BK @ Jan. 25 2007,17:20)]Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 24 2007,18:11)]Quote[/b] (AB3BK @ Jan. 25 2007,17:08)]Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 24 2007,18:00)]Morse code has nothing to do with radio or electronics theory. You could easily have an "amateur radio license" and not involve a lick of code, or even permit its use. Joe
You don't get it.
What?

That I don't equate "code" with "radio"?
Yes!

The original post was what if we were tested on computers?

I said I would do what it takes.

You said what about slitting my wife's throat?

I said anything radio/electronics.

You said morse code has nothing to do with radio.

I use it every day on the radio!

get it? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
Well then maybe we should test for computers, tower climbing, correct driving, proper pronunciation, typing, soldering, HV safety, AC wiring, generator fueling, grounding techniques, woodworking, metalworking, tree climbing, archery, kite flying, hole digging, ladder usage, teletype operation, ATV operation, tent construction, and a host of other things that could be related to ham radio.

Morse code has nothing to do with radio, any more than a microphone has to do with radio, or a computer, or a TV camera. You can use all of these things with a radio transmitter, but they are not radio. Most are related to electronics, all of them more than a code key or morse code. Any of these objects can be used for wired applications, not involving radio at all.

Radio involves RF radiation, antennas, transmitters, receivers, etc. Morse code is not a part of radio, any more than "singing" is a part of radio. You can sing or send MC over radio, but it is not radio, or even radio related.

Joe

[K7JEM]

Quote[/b] (N1LAF @ Jan. 25 2007,17:29)]CW is to Amateur Radio as apple pie and baseball is to America. CW was right at the beginning of radio, not AM, not FM, not SSB. Code may not equate directly to radio, but it does to communications, and communications to radio.

CW has a long tradition with Amateur Radio. This is something that should not be taken casually.
We're all aware of the history. Morse code was used for 50 years before radio was "invented". It is only natural that it would be the first mode used.

Apple pie and baseball are still around. The general public knows what they are. You can get apple pie at any good eatery, baseball is played in every American town. Morse code was pervasive 100 years ago, but not any more. Although it has history, and we should be aware of that, it doesn't need to be the end-all of communications.

Washboards are a part of laundry history, and were widely used 100 years ago. They are still used today. But we don't revere them. They had their heyday, and it is now gone.

Joe

[N1LAF]

We still remember the importance they had in their day

[K7JEM]

Exactly. I'm not saying otherwise.

[k7mh]

Quote[/b] ]The original post was what if we were tested on computers?

I said I would do what it takes.

You said what about slitting my wife's throat?

I said anything radio/electronics.

You said morse code has nothing to do with radio. #

I use it every day on the radio!

get it?

I think he opened the door for that one. Touche!

Quote[/b] ]just allow more folks into the sandbox. I think that is a good thing.
Bad analogy! We all know what happens in sandboxes!! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif

[w5lda]

Quote[/b] (AB3BK @ Jan. 25 2007,12:20)]Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 24 2007,18:11)]Quote[/b] (AB3BK @ Jan. 25 2007,17:08)]Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 24 2007,18:00)]Morse code has nothing to do with radio or electronics theory. You could easily have an "amateur radio license" and not involve a lick of code, or even permit its use. Joe
You don't get it.
What?

That I don't equate "code" with "radio"?
Yes!

The original post was what if we were tested on computers?

I said I would do what it takes.

You said what about slitting my wife's throat?

I said anything radio/electronics.

You said morse code has nothing to do with radio. #

I use it every day on the radio!

get it? #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif


Dave

You may as well forget arguing with this guy,,,He is a nutcase

[ab8ro]

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 24 2007,12:08)]Quote[/b] (AB3BK @ Jan. 25 2007,10:26)]I would do what it takes, like it or not...
Then you would slit your wife's throat, or eat a pile of dog crap, if they wanted you to do that.

No, I don't think you'd do "anything". Maybe most anything you were comfortable with.

Joe
How much salt and pepper can he have?

Ok, well, seriously, those are the kinds of things that are easy to say and really mean nothing.

[n5gfx]

If we're going to speak of things that make one a poor operator let's look into testing folks for proper use of the English language as well as correct pronunciation.

I don't care how proficient you are with CW. If you talk like a backwood homeschooled yokel you're going to sound like an idiot on phone, and I hear a great deal of that on the air.

No, I did not get around to learning code in order to get my general even though I made a few half-assed efforts. I've been licensed a couple of days more than 1 year, and in that time I've been quite busy with work and life issues. Being very active on the air has made this past year quite memorable in spite of everything else going on with me.

In a way I can feel sympathy for the folks who are angry that the code requirement was dropped.

Here's something that I think is analogous to the gripes from that camp:

I started using computer bulletin board systems in the mid 1980s. Towards the end of the 80s and into the early 1990s I was a big fan of USENET. (That's newsgroups to y'all.)

Back then Internet access (or even just a UUCP feed) was hard to come by, and things were pretty good for those who were able to participate. I had my own UNIX system way back then and thanks to a good deal of learning and work on my part, I had access to that community. (Another example is IRC access around 1990-1991.)

Once Joe Sixpack started getting access things started getting pretty crowded and the signal-to-noise ratio went into the toilet. I was pretty annoyed and sad with the direction things took.

Yet in all fairness I have to admit that were it not for the masses getting access to the Internet it would have never evolved to where it is today. I'm happy with how things have evolved. I also greatly appreciate the fact that everybody has a computer so the prices have never been cheaper and the technology has never been faster. I starved for nearly a year in order to afford a 386SX. Now I have a computer that's worth less than $100.00 but has far more power than I need at the moment.

I'm looking forward to getting onto HF. I hope the people I run into are polite and friendly.

15 years ago I didn't tell folks to get off my Internet nor did I participate in the common sport of bashing them if they happened to get access through a service like AOL.

So hopefully good karma will be with me and I'll be treated with dignity and respect when I get on HF. If not, maybe I'll wish for a "do over" so I can go back in time and belittle folks who have no idea how to write a sendmail.cf file in order to access e-mail.

If nothing else, this turn of events should drive the prices new and used HF gear down as there should be a larger market for the manufacturers to cater to.

I'm a 3rd generation ham radio operator and I've paid the price of admission to get there. That'll still be true even after I take "the easy way out" to get my upgrade to general.

[K3UD]

For years we heard the mantra.....why should I have to test for the code when I will not use it? This was repeated enough that it ended up gaining validity, at least on this forum.

So why should I take a test for computer programs / keyboard modes when in all likelihood I will never use any of them? After all, all I want to do it use AM / FM / CW and SSB and you do not need a computer use these modes. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

73
George
K3UD

[W0LC]

The written tests a joke to start with. You can buy any "answer" book anywhere from WB6NOA that has the answers to exact questions off the exams. Where did they get the questions? From individuals polled and interviewed upon leaving an exam session.

Questions about balanced modulators, sync separators, etc. are about as much of a waste of time as those that whine about not being able to learn 5 wpm.

Who is about to work on any equipment made in the past 5 years or so? Can anyone actually work on the stuf and how has a bench set up to work on SMT devices? I imagine the percentage would be less then 1%.

Have a test that is based on stuff from handbooks from 20-40 years ago makes about as much sense.

Why not revamp and come up with some real information to be tested on and provide a meaningful test criteria?

Not just on computers but on RF Technology, Dynamic range, 3rd orer IMD, etc., etc.

I think the ranks of those thinking that a license will be easy would suddenly shrink.

Nothing advances this hobby, not CW, computers, SSB, etc. What advances this hobby are individuals that are interested in developing and refining new ways of communication and I don't see much of that happening.

[KI4NGN]

Quote[/b] (WB2WIK @ Jan. 25 2007,12:03)]While it's actually within "our" power to revise the question pool to make it more relevant, I don't really see this happening.

I see a lot of questions involve who can operate ham radio from outer space, how much bandwidth a PSK31 signal occupies and other stuff that can be looked up in a few minutes and knowledge of which is unimportant. #I don't see any questions about how to build a station out of scrap materials laying about (old radio chassis, scraps of wire, parts pulled from junked PCs and such), which might actually be useful information, the knowledge of which might save a life.

I don't see questions about how to get on the air and effectively generate a signal under the most adverse conditions: You're the single operator on a sinking boat, its radio is water damaged and doesn't work, and there are no emergency communications systems operational. #But, you have access to wire, a tool kit and the parts from those non-working items, and still have battery power. #Can you put something together and get it to transmit a signal in 15 minutes? #This is actually "relevant" stuff to ham radio. #I don't intend to be an astronaut in my lifetime and doubt I'll be operating from outer space...

WB2WIK/6
The ability to put together a radio from a pile of parts to save a life?

Put together a transmitter from the parts of a broken radio while the boat is sinking? Sounds more like a sensible requirement for maritime service operators!

When was any of this EVER the intent or purpose of ham radio?

[ai4ep]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif yep

k7jem and ai4ep are a lot alike, just different callsigns. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[ai4ep]

...and AB3BK and AI4EP are a lot alike, too...just different callsigns.

Why do I have so many imitators ?

[K7JEM]

Quote[/b] (kd5vsg @ Jan. 25 2007,23:45)]Quote[/b] (AB3BK @ Jan. 25 2007,12:20)]Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 24 2007,18:11)]Quote[/b] (AB3BK @ Jan. 25 2007,17:08)]Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 24 2007,18:00)]Morse code has nothing to do with radio or electronics theory. You could easily have an "amateur radio license" and not involve a lick of code, or even permit its use. Joe
You don't get it.
What?

That I don't equate "code" with "radio"?
Yes!

The original post was what if we were tested on computers?

I said I would do what it takes.

You said what about slitting my wife's throat?

I said anything radio/electronics.

You said morse code has nothing to do with radio.

I use it every day on the radio!

get it? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif


Dave

You may as well forget arguing with this guy,,,He is a nutcase
My name's not Dave, it's Joe. Dave's not here. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[K7JEM]

Quote[/b] (K3UD @ Jan. 26 2007,05:47)]For years we heard the mantra.....why should I have to test for the code when I will not use it? This was repeated enough that it ended up gaining validity, at least on this forum.

So why should I take a test for computer programs / keyboard modes when in all likelihood I will never use any of them? After all, all I want to do it use AM / FM / CW and SSB and you do not need a computer use these modes. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

73
George
K3UD
You SHOULDN'T have to take a test on keyboarding or computers, I think that is the point.

Some questions about computers, code, CW, PSK, SSB, ATV, etc, should be on the test. And they are. But there shouldn't be a complete testing element on any specific mode. And now, there isn't.

Joe

[W0LC]

As in On/Off...log on..password?

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[nz3m]

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 25 2007,09:14)]My name's not Dave, it's Joe. Dave's not here. # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
I'm here now....

It's me Dave
I got the stuff

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[K7JEM]

DAVE'S NOT HERE!!

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 25 2007,19:11)]Quote[/b] (AB3BK @ Jan. 25 2007,17:08)]Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 24 2007,18:00)]Morse code has nothing to do with radio or electronics theory. You could easily have an "amateur radio license" and not involve a lick of code, or even permit its use. Joe
You don't get it.
What?

That I don't equate "code" with "radio"?
You know, I'm sure there are a lot of folks here with at least an undergrad degree, or at the very least an associates, or who have some idea of what it takes to get a degree.

Did you know, Joe, that people who went to college for engineering or other degrees had to take totally unrelated classes such as English literature, music, history and poetry?

What does Shakespeare have to do with Fourier transforms and digital logic?

What does Mozart have to do with C++, Java, data structures or software engineering?

What does World war II have to do with learning to design a bridge?

Absolutely nothing. But anyone who wants to graduate has to take and pass these classes and learn about these things.

Do you or do you not agree?

[K7JEM]

Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Jan. 29 2007,19:02)]Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 25 2007,19:11)]Quote[/b] (AB3BK @ Jan. 25 2007,17:08)]Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 24 2007,18:00)]Morse code has nothing to do with radio or electronics theory. You could easily have an "amateur radio license" and not involve a lick of code, or even permit its use. Joe
You don't get it.
What?

That I don't equate "code" with "radio"?
You know, I'm sure there are a lot of folks here with at least an undergrad degree, or at the very least an associates, or who have some idea of what it takes to get a degree.

Did you know, Joe, that people who went to college for engineering or other degrees had to take totally unrelated classes such as English literature, music, history and poetry?

What does Shakespeare have to do with Fourier transforms and digital logic?

What does Mozart have to do with C++, Java, data structures or software engineering?

What does World war II have to do with learning to design a bridge?

Absolutely nothing. But anyone who wants to graduate has to take and pass these classes and learn about these things.

Do you or do you not agree?
I absolutely agree!

But you will certainly agree that Mozart doesn't equate to Java, and WWII doesn't equate to bridges.

And different degrees will require different courses, some of which do not directly relate to the major. And over the course of years, or generations, someone in charge of those universities may decide that the course work for a degree needs to be revamped. Maybe they decide that 40 hours of humanities is not needed for an engineering degree. Maybe they decide to drop the PE requirement from being necessary for graduation. Maybe they change the level and complexity of the math classes, to reflect current situations.

Latin was a common course for colleges 100 years ago, not so much any more.

So, you are correct. But the required courses can change over the period of a few decades, or even years. That is what has been continually happening with ham radio. The "degree" that someone gets today is equivalent to what was done 50 years ago. Different test, different knowledge, but the same paper and privilege.

The fact that an elective PE class is now not required shouldn't bother anyone. They can still run track or play basketball to their heart's content, they're just not forced to.

Joe

[kn4ds]

I understand the code test is traditional, and the traditional way to start in amateur radio is to get on the air as a Novice and work CW.

It absolutely is the most enduring tradition in ham radio.

I think there's a lot of upset at stopping the tradition. Just like when the family Thanksgiving or Christmas moves to someone else's house... it's changing the tradition, and that's never accepted well (except by those who want to change it).

I won't be hypocritical and say that I wish the tradition wouldn't stop/change. I'm glad it is.

I will also say that the history of 11m doesn't give the folks who've been hams for a long time any real reason to believe the same thing won't happen here.

All I, and all of us, can do is understand that a lot of folks don't like the change, but they'll basically judge those of us who didn't go the same route they did by how we operate.

[al2i]

I would love it if the FCC tested for something difficult. Unfortunately, since I have been building, programming, repairing, and using computers for decades, I probably would not find a computer test very difficult.

What does amaze me however, is the way so many young people who want a job from me seem to think they know computers. It usually takes only a few minutes to determine that they don't know squat about the technology, and I have to tell them that if I hired them I would be doing them a great disservice, as they simply would not be able to work with customer computers.

[kn4ds]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Jan. 29 2007,21:28)]I would love it if the FCC tested for something difficult. Unfortunately, since I have been building, programming, repairing, and using computers for decades, I probably would not find a computer test very difficult.

What does amaze me however, is the way so many young people who want a job from me seem to think they know computers. It usually takes only a few minutes to determine that they don't know squat about the technology, and I have to tell them that if I hired them I would be doing them a great disservice, as they simply would not be able to work with customer computers.
My favorite thing to do with Cisco certified folk who're looking for work with me is to have them describe what happens when you plug one of their routers in for the first time...

The blank looks are fun...

MSCEs are fun, too. Sit 'em in front of a server with intentionally introduced issues, have 'em fix the problem.

Look, when it comes to HF, I know a few things... I know I need to tune the rig up into a dummy load, then listen for a few minutes to make sure I'm not going to tune the antenna in the midst of an ongoing conversation. Listening for a few seconds isn't going to cut it, because I might not hear a station that's in a QSO with a station I can hear... it actually happens quite a bit.

If I don't hear anything after 3 or 4 minutes, I'll tune the antenna and hope I'm not getting into someone's QSO that I just can't hear.

I know that the higher HF bands work better during the day, as a rule, and the lower ones, especially 75 meters, tend to be a local-ish frequency, but that propagation can change constantly and there are no guarantees.

But I don't know very much about most things HF. There are several hundred thousand that do. I hope to learn from them. And I believe that I will.

The little experience with Field Day operations don't matter much, because contesting is so different from everyday operations.

Except for CW (which, as I've said repeatedly, just holds no interest for me today... but that could change... I like to think I have an open mind... leave me that delusion, at least, would ya?), my goal is to be a credit to the no-code group. And to cover several walls with QSL cards.

In order to get on HF, I'll have to prove I know a few things by taking an exam. I'm one that prefers to actually understand how things work, so I'm not doing the "memorize the answers" bit for the General and Extra. I'm working my way through Gordon West's books.