Discussion in 'Ham Radio Discussions' started by KX4Z, Jul 31, 2019.
How can he miss you if you won't go away? (from an old country and western song)
wow........you are light years above me. For this projeect I had to write about 6 loops in C. and a few character confersions, store data in one string, pull it back out apropriately, write it out to a disk file.
TOOK ME FIVE DAYS. I would write one line of code....and break the entire project. An hour to figure our my goof. But at least I know a bit more now....then when i started.
thanks for the insights!!!!! Now I know on whom to call for tough stuff...
I had to temporarily unlock my ignore list.....I'm still here but he's not
Too funny! Two of the guys from the city two hours away just pass their extra after taking our course, and neither one of them even owns a ham radio! They did their first CQ on our radios at the course! Now they are asking what to buy? I’ve never seen this before, people get there extra and don’t even own the first radio ——too funny!
If you are already an electronics engineer (or similarly skilled), and you decide to get your ham license, why not go for the Extra? When I was upgrading from Novice about 45 years ago I could have passed the Extra except that I didn't have the code speed. 13 WPM was easy, but 20 WPM was a bridge too far, so I got my Advanced ticket. Strangely enough, years before that I could copy 20 WPM when I was in Junior High school, thanks to Mr. Ball, our "electric shop" teacher. His policy was if we already knew the basics of electricity -- which I did -- we could learn Morse Code and get our ham license instead. I didn't get the license, but did get over 20 WPM speed. I got an "A" in the class. I recently upgraded from Advanced to Extra, just for the bragging rights.
And now it is time for the truth to be spread as far as the false claims were sent. Even the ARRL pointed out how wrong those claims were. A horriible stain. Please read what we learned, what we built, what we proved, and speak the truth in love. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/109191626613689/InconvenientTruths.pdf It is time for people to agree with the truth, and seek healing, which begins with an acknowledgment of the truth.
I’m new here and it’s an interesting topic. The paper seems to have a bitter tone about it, I would have kept it polite and technical, just my opinion.
Not possible for the author. Among his many failings he doesn't seem to understand who his intended audience was for the filing, and consistently misses the entire point of what he is objecting to.
Just read the accusations in order to understand the tone of the paper.
My statements were even called "deceptive" and "disingenuous".
Is that technical and polite?
See section VIIa
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10429199250117/FCC Letter Reply to Comments RM 11831.pdf
I am a technician/scientist. I am not familiar with that kind of arguing.
I would never deliberately publish untrue technical facts.
73 de Peter, DL6MAA
Special for Gordon: I will try once more to explain what you overlook in your zeal to prove you are right. It will be right in front of you again, along with what you did wrong in the filing(s). It's up to you to read and understand what's written. I do have a couple of suggestions 1. invest in spare laptop keyboards, and 2. Don't embarrass yourself further at the FCC, the moderators there are not the same as the Zed mods. On second thought forget #2, you won't take the advice anyway.
Oooooh, another footnote..........my apologies in advance to everyone else for what's coming next. Hey, Gordon an apology!!