View Full Version : CW Forever.....period!
w0tdh
07-25-2005, 10:08 PM
The FCC has sold out Ham Radio by backing BPL.
Now they are selling out the only thing that seperates the Hams from the Geeks.
The basic buliding blocks of becoming a Ham Radio Operator have not changed. Those wanting to become a "Ham" need to prove themselves. The most basic of the building blocks is CW. Proof that you can communicate when "All Else Fails" is what its all about. You can send "Code" with a rock on a wall, if need be.
Blink your eyes, blink a light....."Tell" someone what needs to told in times of emergencies/disasters when all power is out. " Communicate" when all other forms of communications fail.
This is what we are all about Ladies es Gentlemen.
Our total worth to society is the ability to "Communicate"
CW is the most stable method of communications we will ever have. #
The #"I want it now" #crowd may now leave the room.
I have had it with those who refuse to accept the resposibilty of learning the Code.
You don't have to like it!
Just demonstrate you can be of worth in time of need.
Yes, in my humble opinion, if you can not send es receive Code......you are not worth a plug nickle.
CB, FRS es the like are right up your alley.
By the way, Have you served your Country?
If not, just remember "Freedom is not free"
Tom - KØPJG
KF0RT
07-25-2005, 10:38 PM
I'm not sure I'd put the no-coders in with the geeks, Tom. Most geeks tend to be technically proficient.
Otherwise, well said!
In the race of quality vs quantity, quantity is winning.
Time will tell if this was a huge mistake or if it's "no big deal." I hope (and suspect) it'll be the latter.
73, Rob
kb2vxa
07-25-2005, 10:53 PM
The horse is dead but they keep on beating and bleating.
CODE/NO CODE DEBATE FOREVER! (Or get a life.)
KF0RT
07-26-2005, 12:17 AM
Quote[/b] (kb2vxa @ July 25 2005,16:53)]The horse is dead but they keep on beating and bleating.
CODE/NO CODE DEBATE FOREVER! (Or get a life.)
The "get a life" thread is over in Rag Chew. Yeah, expect this horse to get beaten to a pulp.
73, Rob
KC9EOG
07-26-2005, 12:41 AM
The operators who passed a code test chose not to use cw; they are the ones who are responsible for the decline of the greatest mode available. It is just like my signature says.
I am a computer geek, nay, a Grand Master Jedi, TCP/IP networking/security GOD. I think in TCP/IP, and I use CW.
Not all computer geeks are "ignernt" of the ways of the CW force.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
KF0RT
07-26-2005, 12:58 AM
Quote[/b] (AC0H @ July 25 2005,18:49)]I am a computer geek, nay, a Grand Master Jedi, TCP/IP networking/security GOD. I think in TCP/IP, and I use CW.
Not all computer geeks are "ignernt" of the ways of the CW force.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
That "Jedi / God" stuff takes you out of the "geek" class and puts you right in the "wierdo" class.
Sorry, I calls 'em as I sees 'em. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
73, Rob
KA3RFE
07-26-2005, 01:19 AM
I'd watch what you say about geeks. Who do you think designs and builds our ham sats? And comes up with new digital HF modes?
CW doesn't make the ham. Discipline, study, and the ablility to understand technology - oh, yeah Common Sense, too - make the ham. Not CW. Not any more. You're perfectly able to still do CW. It's not being banned.
It's just being removed from testing. If you feel people with no Morse skill are not hams, you can go hang out in the lower parts of the bands where you won't come into contact with them.
K0RGR
07-26-2005, 02:05 PM
The line for those wishing to pee into the wind is way over there, far downwind...
CW is an important part of ham radio. Hopefully, it will continue to be one. If not, it isn't the end of the world.
There are other things.
And as for geeks, we nerds have a certain amount of network Kung Fu, as well, grasshopper!
ZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.............
kf6rdn
07-26-2005, 02:12 PM
Quote[/b] (AC0H @ July 25 2005,17:49)]I am a computer geek, nay, a Grand Master Jedi, TCP/IP networking/security GOD. I think in TCP/IP, and I use CW.
Not all computer geeks are "ignernt" of the ways of the CW force.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Can you do subnetting in your head? lol
kf6rdn
07-26-2005, 02:18 PM
Houston, we've lost another one..
Quote[/b] (kf6rdn @ July 26 2005,07:12)]Quote[/b] (AC0H @ July 25 2005,17:49)]I am a computer geek, nay, a Grand Master Jedi, TCP/IP networking/security GOD. I think in TCP/IP, and I use CW.
Not all computer geeks are "ignernt" of the ways of the CW force.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Can you do subnetting in your head? lol
Slash notation? SURE! There are a load that I already know the answer to, that makes it simple, but the old pen and papper thing works great for me on the hard ones.
dah dit dit dah dit
Joe
Quote[/b] ]Can you do subnetting in your head?
There aren't a lot of successful network geeks who can't.
N8CPA
07-26-2005, 04:16 PM
I could never be a geek. I lack a face built for celibacy--so my wife tells me.
Quote[/b] (KA3RFE @ July 26 2005,01:19)]I'd watch what you say about geeks. Who do you think designs and builds our ham sats? And comes up with new digital HF modes?
CW doesn't make the ham. Discipline, study, and the ablility to understand technology - oh, yeah Common Sense, too - make the ham. Not CW. Not any more. You're perfectly able to still do CW. It's not being banned.
It's just being removed from testing. If you feel people with no Morse skill are not hams, you can go hang out in the lower parts of the bands where you won't come into contact with them.
This I agree with. I don't use CW, but I consider myself a good amateur. Over time I hope to be one who will advance the state of the art with digital modes, and I believe that digital modes will continue to improve, and become better suited for emergency communications. There is a lot of I have to learn, but I consider myself a computer geek. Most of those my age that are getting into the hobby are, and they are most interested in digital modes. When I say digital modes, I am not talking about Echolink or IRLP, I am talking about PSK, RTTY, and SSTV. Being able to do RTTY with a soundcard, and sending images with PSK63, or with limited power to pass traffic with PSK31. SSTV/ATV allows to sending images/video that can be vital in an emergency.
I hope CW will have a place in ham radio tradition, and I would have liked to see it stick around for testing. Nothing is final, and if everyone voices their thoughts, dropping the CW for testing may not happen. There are several threads already on here about this, beating the horse on QRZ.com is going to change nothing. Send your comments to the FCC.
Quote[/b] ]I have had it with those who refuse to accept the resposibilty of learning the Code.
Yes, in my humble opinion, if you can not send es receive Code......you are not worth a plug nickle.
Well, I have had it with those who have
ABSOLUTELY NO LIFE outside of amateur radio,
or view amateur radio as a religion.
Oh, and I work as a computer programmer. Whether
or not that makes me a "geek" I leave up to you.
kf6rdn
07-26-2005, 04:42 PM
Quote[/b] (AC0H @ July 26 2005,08:57)]Quote[/b] ]Can you do subnetting in your head?
There aren't a lot of successful network geeks who can't.
Yeah, there is that.. heh.. I usually double check though. Nothing like wondering why 2 routers dont talk 'cause you crossed a subnet at 4am. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
kf6rdn
07-26-2005, 04:44 PM
Quote[/b] (W9NGC @ July 26 2005,09:32)]Quote[/b] ]I have had it with those who refuse to accept the resposibilty of learning the Code.
Yes, in my humble opinion, if you can not send es receive Code......you are not worth a plug nickle.
Well, I have had it with those who have
ABSOLUTELY NO LIFE outside of amateur radio,
or view amateur radio as a religion.
Oh, and I work as a computer programmer. Whether
or not that makes me a "geek" I leave up to you.
It does.. heh.. And I am sure more interesting to talk to then someone with a very large chip and/or closed mind.
K0RGR
07-26-2005, 05:17 PM
Most of our customers seemed to go to CIDR, so calculating subnets in my head became a lost art. But, it's been half a decade since I did TCP/IP all day...
KD6NIG
07-26-2005, 05:25 PM
Good job. First all of you CW people get all the NCT's to hate you, now you attack computer geeks.
Are you guys just LOOKING to get everyone against you? I would think looking for allies at this point would be a better tact than just attacking every other group.......
af2cw
07-26-2005, 05:34 PM
Quote[/b] (KD5OWO @ July 26 2005,12:22)]I hope CW will have a place in ham radio tradition, and I would have liked to see it stick around for testing. #Nothing is final, and if everyone voices their thoughts, dropping the CW for testing may not happen. #There are several threads already on here about this, beating the horse on QRZ.com is going to change nothing. #Send your comments to the FCC.
CW IS a tradition in Amateur Radio. #However
most of those wishing it be removed, either the testing or
its use or both, prefer not to learn about it and use it. #They
prefer to learn what they want so they can use what they
want. #Limiting their knowledge thus limiting their experiences.
Seems like the only tradition I'm seeing here is finger pointing and he said, she said.
Not trying to offend anyone, but if we as a collective group spent less time complaining about one and other and more time helping folks try new things (and that includes CW), we would be much better off.
And just for the record, NO TEST has ever motivated me to do anything -- build a radio, antenna or use a specific mode of operation. I set out a personal objective to try something new each year and don't stop until I accomplish it! That, and meeting new friends on the mode I try, is what I believe Amateur Radio is all about.
Rant over...............
N8CPA
07-26-2005, 06:32 PM
Quote[/b] (KD6NIG @ July 26 2005,13:25)]Good job. #First all of you CW people get all the NCT's to hate you, now you attack computer geeks.
Are you guys just LOOKING to get everyone against you? #I would think looking for allies at this point would be a better tact than just attacking every other group.......
Actually it's the technical people who should be angry at anyone who calls them "geek." It's an old carnival term for a sideshow human behavioral oddity, e.g. a glass eater, contortionist, or "idiot savant." It wasn't originally applied to the socially awkward, reclusive, or eccentric knowledgeables as a compliment. At least Amateur Radio embraces and cherishes the share we have of them, for the most part. So we crack a few jokes.
And if you want to see real geeks, go to a Star Trek convention, or Rennaissance fair. Some of those folks get so confused, they show up at a Rennaissance fair in a Klingon uniform, or attend ST conventions dressed as Visigoths. Now those are geeks!
AD5UT
07-26-2005, 06:52 PM
It seems that geek has become the less derogatory term used to describe technical people, so I admit, I am a geek in the modern sense, and I recieve my kernel errors in Morse Code. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif
CW rocks, but the horse is dead, and now smells like troll, so please quit beating it, although these are the most exciting topics on QRZ. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
kf6rdn
07-27-2005, 10:38 AM
Quote[/b] (N8CPA @ July 26 2005,11:32)]Quote[/b] (KD6NIG @ July 26 2005,13:25)]Good job. #First all of you CW people get all the NCT's to hate you, now you attack computer geeks.
Are you guys just LOOKING to get everyone against you? #I would think looking for allies at this point would be a better tact than just attacking every other group.......
Actually it's the technical people who should be angry at anyone who calls them "geek." #It's an old carnival term for a sideshow human behavioral oddity, e.g. a glass eater, contortionist, or "idiot savant." #It wasn't originally applied to the socially awkward, reclusive, or eccentric knowledgeables as a compliment. #At least Amateur Radio embraces and cherishes the share we have of them, for the most part. #So we crack a few jokes.
And if you want to see real geeks, go to a Star Trek convention, or Rennaissance fair. #Some of those folks get so confused, they show up at a Rennaissance fair in a Klingon uniform, or attend ST conventions dressed as Visigoths. #Now those are geeks!
Yes, "geek" used to be the sideshow biting the head off of a chicken.
But much like "apolize" the word has changed to meaning sort of a "dork" or awkward person, and then even more to be sort of an intellectual..
N8CPA
07-27-2005, 10:57 AM
Excuse me, but a/o only 40 years ago, "dork" was considered an obscenity. It's an old Norwegian (or Finnish) term for the dangling modifier of a male whale.
Alright, I know--I'm a word geek.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
n9lya
07-27-2005, 11:09 AM
Gee Guys... File your comments with the FCC and stop your whinning here.. it will change nothing..
File your well worded and thought out comments with the FCC... I will...
73 Jerry N9LYA
I get a kick out of one uninformed poster, whose call I won't post here, stating how outdated CW is because so many individuals use keyboard to keyboard CW.
They do?
Gee, I have to wonder what accuracy ratio would even be possible under adverse band conditions using such a set up with a TNC or computer software?
It has been the actual experience that digital communications is nice, but unless you have a "clear" channel the QSO isn't usually very likely to happen. Whereas, CW to CW using two operators not using a computer set up will more likely have a QSO.
Besides, there aren't many keyboard to keyboard QSOs out there. Many don't use TNCs for CW to start with.
Quote[/b] (KD6NIG @ July 26 2005,10:25)]Good job. #First all of you CW people get all the NCT's to hate you, now you attack computer geeks.
Are you guys just LOOKING to get everyone against you? #I would think looking for allies at this point would be a better tact than just attacking every other group.......
Hate to tell you but I think you have things backward.
NCI hates CW and those that a proponents of CW and if you read some of the posts on the boards by some of their members, you will note it is the no-coders attacking those that like cw, passed cw elements, upper class licensed ops, etc.
The constant categorization (i.e. Extra Lites, Elitests, OF's, Fat White Guys, etc.) are terms coming from many Techs, NCT's and NCI types.
Those immature remarks draw heated comments back and even flames from the pro-code individuals, but if you read the NCI tripe on their website, they basically spew hatred of those that appreciate CW and press on with the "I don't want to" mentality/rhetoric, blah, blah, blah, blah, etc.
These are non-factual statements made by individuals that won't put forth the effort to upgrade the way it is currently set up. They want to get an upgrade without the work. For many that worked to achieve an upgrade, that is a slap in the face and I don't blame them for feeling slighted and irritated by the constant whining and crying over a simple cw test element.
Many of the NCT's have been posting flames at individuals for a long time on QRZ, trolling and posted inflammatory remarks to draw individuals into a fracas rather then being rational and logical and listening to valid arguments for CW. That's too bad that some resort to that type of behavior and that concerns a good many ops of what might be coming onto the HF bands with the instant upgrades that will follow the demise of any CW testing to upgrade. I can only imagine this tripe on 20 and 75. I already hear enough nonsense when I tune around, but to imagine more of this immature behavior is sad.
It seems if one is pro-CW, then they are targeted on many of the posts on the forum with categorizations, name calling (and that goes both ways too), personal attacks, etc. The posting resorts to a heated argument not sticking to logic or rational thought. I choose to ignore the postings and read something else. What is the point? At that point you won't convince or change anyone's mind.
Quote[/b] (W0LC @ July 27 2005,08:03)]What is the point? At that point you won't convince or change anyone's mind.
So true. "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." Their loss. I and many others have posted websites, aids and other help that we can think of. It fell on deaf ears. I feel sorry for them. They will never know the joy of CW and the QRM that will follow them will have them pressing to get rid of the CW portions completely but that will not be a fix for their problems either. I do not think that all the recruiting and good will there is will open a single no-code mind. All I can say is make your voice heard to the FCC.
kf6rdn
07-27-2005, 01:51 PM
Quote[/b] (N8CPA @ July 27 2005,03:57)]Excuse me, but a/o only 40 years ago, "dork" was considered an obscenity. #It's an old Norwegian (or Finnish) term for the dangling modifier of a male whale.
Alright, I know--I'm a word geek. #
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
As long as you're not a word dork..
heh
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
kf6rdn
07-27-2005, 01:54 PM
Quote[/b] (W0LC @ July 27 2005,04:51)]I get a kick out of one uninformed poster, whose call I won't post here, stating how outdated CW is because so many individuals use keyboard to keyboard CW.
They do?
Gee, I have to wonder what accuracy ratio would even be possible under adverse band conditions using such a set up with a TNC or computer software?
It has been the actual experience that digital communications is nice, but unless you have a "clear" channel the QSO isn't usually very likely to happen. #Whereas, CW to CW using two operators not using a computer set up will more likely have a QSO.
Besides, there aren't many keyboard to keyboard QSOs out there. #Many don't use TNCs for CW to start with.
Actually the qso does pretty well under muddy condx. For psk31 that is, cw via computer may not fare as well, it's designed for humans, who can read between the lines.. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif
N8CPA
07-27-2005, 01:55 PM
All the appeal of whiz-bang wireless, and yet, it is the hated code that attracts interest at public AR displays. Such displays will have greater importance in years to come.
kf6rdn
07-27-2005, 01:58 PM
Quote[/b] (N8CPA @ July 27 2005,06:55)]All the appeal of whiz-bang wireless, and yet, it is the hated code that attracts interest at public AR displays. #Such displays will have greater importance in years to come.
My kid, who has NO interest whatsoever in ham radio, upon hearing code in my car, was like, "cooool is that morris code"? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
Quote[/b] (kf6rdn @ July 27 2005,06:54)]Quote[/b] (W0LC @ July 27 2005,04:51)]I get a kick out of one uninformed poster, whose call I won't post here, stating how outdated CW is because so many individuals use keyboard to keyboard CW.
They do?
Gee, I have to wonder what accuracy ratio would even be possible under adverse band conditions using such a set up with a TNC or computer software?
It has been the actual experience that digital communications is nice, but unless you have a "clear" channel the QSO isn't usually very likely to happen. #Whereas, CW to CW using two operators not using a computer set up will more likely have a QSO.
Besides, there aren't many keyboard to keyboard QSOs out there. #Many don't use TNCs for CW to start with.
Actually the qso does pretty well under muddy condx. #For psk31 that is, cw via computer may not fare as well, it's designed for humans, who can read between the lines.. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif
That is correct. However, the statement that many use keyboard to keyboard CW is a farce. In fact, I haven't met anyone yet that does. CW was added to TNCs because it is an easy mode to set up software for. Unfortunately, when a computer meets a hand operated key on the air, the copy becomes trash due to weighting, spacing, etc. of the characters. Human ear/brain still outperforms the computer(s).
WA3KYY
07-27-2005, 04:36 PM
Quote[/b] (W0LC @ July 27 2005,07:28)]Quote[/b] (kf6rdn @ July 27 2005,06:54)]Quote[/b] (W0LC @ July 27 2005,04:51)]I get a kick out of one uninformed poster, whose call I won't post here, stating how outdated CW is because so many individuals use keyboard to keyboard CW.
They do?
Gee, I have to wonder what accuracy ratio would even be possible under adverse band conditions using such a set up with a TNC or computer software?
It has been the actual experience that digital communications is nice, but unless you have a "clear" channel the QSO isn't usually very likely to happen. #Whereas, CW to CW using two operators not using a computer set up will more likely have a QSO.
Besides, there aren't many keyboard to keyboard QSOs out there. #Many don't use TNCs for CW to start with.
Actually the qso does pretty well under muddy condx. #For psk31 that is, cw via computer may not fare as well, it's designed for humans, who can read between the lines.. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif
That is correct. #However, the statement that many use keyboard to keyboard CW is a farce. #In fact, I haven't met anyone yet that does. #CW was added to TNCs because it is an easy mode to set up software for. #Unfortunately, when a computer meets a hand operated key on the air, the copy becomes trash due to weighting, spacing, etc. of the characters. #Human ear/brain still outperforms the computer(s).
You may be correct for general QSOs and even most CW traffic nets. But during contests and DXpeditions most of the sending is computer generated. All of the contest logging programs and even most regular logging programs have the ability to send a variety of set CW messages using computer keying of the rig. This makes it possible for computer decoding to do a fair job but the vast majority of ops copy the code by ear even if it is sent by computer. A key or paddle is kept in line with the computer when the need to send something other than a preset message occurs.
73,
Mike WA3KYY
Mike
It has been my experience that most of the Dxpeditions and contests use a computer to do the logging, but the actual sending and receiving is with the operator and a iambic paddle. Haven't seen any recent expeditions using the computer to copy transmissions sent with inconsistent fists. I may be wrong, but the software just isn't there yet to have that much artificial intelligence to make an assumption of a string of characters sent that are weighted incorrectly or strung together.
N8CPA
07-27-2005, 07:34 PM
One of the reasons so many competitors use computer terminals is that by using an outboard keyer (iambic) or bug, you send a lot of repeats if the fellow receiving is on a terminal--zero beat by ear radio is not necessarily zero beat for software, apparently. If you use a terminal and are receiving machine sent code accurately, you're more likely within the audio pass band of the software on the first try. Fewer repeats = higher rate. In a contest, I'm not a serious competitor, just a participant. I'd use a terminal, but I swore I'd never be a CW "plastic pounder" even in a contest. The promises best to keep are the ones made to oneself.
Quote[/b] (kb2vxa @ July 25 2005,15:53)]The horse is dead but they keep on beating and bleating.
CODE/NO CODE DEBATE FOREVER! (Or get a life.)
Translation: This is the hooker wanting the john to still respect her in the morning! ROFL!
Quote[/b] (KD6NIG @ July 26 2005,10:25)]Good job. First all of you CW people get all the NCT's to hate you, now you attack computer geeks.
Are you guys just LOOKING to get everyone against you? I would think looking for allies at this point would be a better tact than just attacking every other group.......
Joshua, If you "hate" someone based on what you see here on QRZ, you have a thing or two to learn about Amateur Radio. May I offer a word of advice? Never make up your mind about a fellow amateur until you QSO with him/her at least once. QRZ is not amateur radio.
Quote[/b] ]It has been my experience that most of the Dxpeditions and contests use a computer to do the logging, but the actual sending and receiving is with the operator and a iambic paddle.
I guarantee 80% of the code you hear SENT during a CW contest, especially those running faster than 25wpm, is PC generated. It's also perfectly spaced and a joy to copy. Much easier and more efficient to hit a function key on the keyboard to send CQ TEST than using paddles.
They do have paddles hooked up but they only get used once in a great while.
Copying machine generated CW with a computer is a snap as well. The algorithim's in the programs start to fall on their faces when trying to decifer "human CW".
The hardcore contesters are sending computer generated CW usually. But they are listening with their ears. There is no way a computer can pick one signal out of a pileup.
Dave
N8CPA
07-28-2005, 10:46 AM
Something I like to do when visitors are in the shack, is to tune to a rare DX's listening frequency on one radio, and his xmitting freq on another. Most visitors say that the resultant mixture of signals when he sends QRZ sounds like windchimes.
Quote[/b] (KD6NIG @ July 26 2005,10:25)]Good job. First all of you CW people get all the NCT's to hate you, now you attack computer geeks.
Are you guys just LOOKING to get everyone against you? I would think looking for allies at this point would be a better tact than just attacking every other group.......
I have programmed in 8080 assembler, 6502 assembler, Pascal, Modula II, C, and Java. I hold networking certifications, I'm Java certified, I've done multiple databasing projects, I run a computer center, I operate a computer repair business, and at one time I was 9th in the world on the global UT2003 stats server.
In short, I am a computer Geek. If you are geeky, then you should have no problem understanding that with Code you can communicate with more non-English speaking foreigners, lower power, smaller antennas, less bandwidth, fewer interference problems, simpler equipment, longer battery life, and, with your headphones on, silently enough to not bother the other members of your household.
If you are geeky, you should understand that Code is the ultimate in modulation simplicity, and that you can directly form the modulation envelope with your own muscle from the most humble of radio parts to get the job done when nothing more complex is at hand. Of course, the simplicity and direct human input to the modulation means that it may be applied to many different mediums, not just RF.
When I see supposed geeks who do not understand the fundamental importance and unique nature of Code, I do not mentally keep them in the geek category. Geeks are people who understand technology.
73,
Dave/al2i
kf6rdn
07-28-2005, 03:27 PM
Quote[/b] ]In short, I am a computer Geek. #If you are geeky, then you should have no problem understanding that with Code you can communicate with more non-English speaking foreigners, lower power, smaller antennas, less bandwidth, fewer interference problems, simpler equipment, longer battery life, and, with your headphones on, silently enough to not bother the other members of your household.
If you are geeky, you should understand that Code is the ultimate in modulation simplicity, and that you can directly form the modulation envelope with your own muscle from the most humble of radio parts to get the job done when nothing more complex is at hand. #Of course, the simplicity and direct human input to the modulation means that it may be applied to many different mediums, not just RF.
When I see supposed geeks who do not understand the fundamental importance and unique nature of Code, I do not mentally keep them in the geek category. #Geeks are people who understand technology.
73,
#Dave/al2i
" I hold networking certifications"
Thanks for holding my certs, can I have 'em back now?
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
I'm not sure how CW allows you to communicate with foreigners though, if the person doesnt speak English, and you don't speak, say Japanese how can you do anything but exchange standard stuff? #If I sent "HI I AM A COMPUTER GEEK, DO YOU LIKE BATTLELFIELD II" He is still going to see "blah blah blah..."etc.
N8CPA
07-28-2005, 03:45 PM
In short, Reading, speaking, and writing are 3 different aspects of language. Even non-English speaking hams understand the use of English letters, and most CW abbreviations, even though they don't speak our language, at least not fluently. In some countries, you must pass an English test to get licensed for HF. Soviet hams, for example, had to learn Morse in both Roman and Cyrillic alphabets to earn their Extra equivalent. And dots and dashes are far easier to understand than heavy accents.
Quote[/b] (kf6rdn @ July 28 2005,08:27)]I'm not sure how CW allows you to communicate with foreigners though, if the person doesnt speak English, and you don't speak, say Japanese how can you do anything but exchange standard stuff?
I don't know why this is either, but I have held lengthy visits with foreigners on CW where it seemed like talking to Joe from down the street, but with whom I was not able to exchange a decent voice QSO where they seemed like they were from another planet on SSB.
It is really amazing how CW ops worldwide can communicate with other CW ops. If you haven't directly experienced this, it is difficult to convey.
73,
Dave/al2i
Quote[/b] (al2i @ July 28 2005,09:05)]It is really amazing how CW ops worldwide can communicate with other CW ops. If you haven't directly experienced this, it is difficult to convey.
All of the "heavy lifting" across the language barrier seems to happen at the other end. Does anybody know why this is? Did CW ops worldwide conform to communicate with English-speaking CW ops, kind of like pilots needed English for traffic control?
W5MJL
07-28-2005, 05:43 PM
Dave, I think you are starting to lose it. All of your comments are well thought out and expressed very well, but when you start quoting yourself and replying to that quote...well .....You know http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Quote[/b] (w5mjl @ July 28 2005,10:43)]Dave, I think you are starting to lose it. All of your comments are well thought out and expressed very well, but when you start quoting yourself and replying to that quote...well .....You know http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
The sun set for the first time since May last night, and the 19 minutes that it was below the horizon was too much sleep.
W5MJL
07-28-2005, 06:02 PM
I guess you can never say to your kids "Now go run and play, and be back before dark". http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif