|
Well, if you just plan to run down the coast a ways and use sailmail or
check in with the local nets you probably don't need to learn much. But if you are half way to Hawaii and the "eathers" are not right you need to know some about propagation in order to choose a good frequency. There are also several knobs on that black box that can either screw up your signal or make it clear so it is better to know what effect each has and how to use it. A good bit, if not the majority, of the tests these days is about safety and the rules that try to prevent the bands from becoming totally chaotic. Compared to 40 years ago when you pretty well had to know how to build a transmitter out of bailing wire and cow patties the technical part these days is laughable. The only hard part is memorizing the band frequencies. Ham radio is more than a utility. I realize that building boats on the scale that we are turns us into a sort of hermit but sitting out an off season in some foreign anchorage it can become a center of your social life. -- Glenn Ashmore I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com "Lew Hodgett" wrote in message ink.net... Gene Kearns wrote: Hmmmmm...... well, I'm not sure I'm ready to jump on the "good for ham radio" bandwagon. Maybe it will eventually interest some more qualified people.... that would be good, I think. If anybody wishes to make the.... argument that the test is too *hard,* well, I just went deaf. However, I *am* willing to listen to those people that aren't wishing to make things easier (because it's just too hard), but want the test to be more about what they intend to *do* with Amateur Radio. A couple of questions. My only interest in HAM radio is to be able to get necessary weather forecasts and communicate with other sailors who happen to be in my net at the moment, when I'm at sea or in an anchorage. I choose not to want to open up the box and play with what's inside. I choose not to design and build radio equipment. I quit building Heath Kits more than 30 years ago. I think of HAM radio as nothing more than a utility, like electricity or water or sewers. If I have to stop and review operational procedures every time I turn it on, it becomes a bigger PITA than it is worth. Given all of the above, what are my best options? Lew |
Geoff --
"Geoff Schultz" wrote in message 6... "Gerald" wrote in : Worthy of note --- not much of that communications technology did anyone much good around ground zero on 9-11 of the hurricanes in Florida last year, or ... pick your disaster. Cell phone service was pretty much crippled on the east coast (entire country???) on 9-11. Ham radio kept on ticking... [Lots of clipping from the above post] So what did morse code have to do with the above? Absolutly nothing. Just a litttle "pro ham radio" note. How much of the communication during the hurricane(s) was code vs voice? I can guess that it was probably close to 100% voice. I would also point out that cell service was disrupted in the immediate area around the 911 disaster, but the rest of the country wasn't effected, other than perhaps overloaded circuits. And the differnece bwtween overloaded circuits and any other disruption when you need to get a call through and cann't is......? Q: How did the reports from the hijacked plane that crashed into the field come in? A: Cell phones. And your point is?????? I think we are loosing some sense of where this thread came from and is about. -- Geoff |
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message ink.net... A couple of questions. My only interest in HAM radio is to be able to get necessary weather forecasts and communicate with other sailors who happen to be in my net at the moment, when I'm at sea or in an anchorage. SNIP Given all of the above, what are my best options? Lew If the "other sailors who happen to be in my net" include Ham operators, then the answer is obvious, get a license. Otherwise Marine SSB offers various nets for cruisers. If you cruise the east coast/ Bahamas - there is the Cruiseheimers Net every morning at 8:30 local with much of the same information (and people) as on the Waterway Cruising Net (Hams at 7:45). You are free to listen to the Ham nets with out a license. In an emergency, you can do what you need to do. Many mariners will meet up on Cruisheimers (Marine SSB) and establish other smaller nets / get togethers on other Marine SSB channels. Sailmail (as well as other commercial services) is an excellent way to get PACTOR email and weather. Obviously, and decent HF receiver will get you access to the USCG WEFAX data. OCENS (and many others) provides software to get this HF data as well as download sat weather images (hardware obviously costs...images are free). OCENS also provides a highly optimized format of may of the standard weather charts for efficient download over cell phone or Sat Phone. VHF weather from NOAA in the US and various helpful people throughout the Bahamas. Herb Hilgenberg (http://www3.sympatico.ca/hehilgen/vax498.htm) on marine SSB is probably the best weather source available for mariners on the Atlantic. There is always information pertaining to the Bahamas / Bahamas crossing during season. Depending on where you are, Marine VHF is the means of communicating between boats with in VHF range of each other. Other than on HAM nets, I don't hear a lot of HAMs communicating boat-to-boat ---- Not that it doesn't happen, just not the regular local gab line. If traveling within 25 miles of the coast, a No-Code license will get you access to all the Hams / Ham repeaters along your route. I find this useful for local restaurant recommendations. You have many options if you have decided that you don't want to learn code. HF HAM is the only one you have opted out of. |
Glenn Ashmore wrote:
Well, if you just plan to run down the coast a ways and use sailmail or check in with the local nets you probably don't need to learn much. But if you are half way to Hawaii and the "eathers" are not right you need to know some about propagation in order to choose a good frequency. There are also several knobs on that black box that can either screw up your signal or make it clear so it is better to know what effect each has and how to use it. A good bit, if not the majority, of the tests these days is about safety and the rules that try to prevent the bands from becoming totally chaotic. Compared to 40 years ago when you pretty well had to know how to build a transmitter out of bailing wire and cow patties the technical part these days is laughable. The only hard part is memorizing the band frequencies. Ham radio is more than a utility. I realize that building boats on the scale that we are turns us into a sort of hermit but sitting out an off season in some foreign anchorage it can become a center of your social life. Granted my question was a little tongue in cheek, but it has been a slow day at the boat yard. (90+F tends to restrict your glass laying schedule). Along the same "time marches on" theme, it has been announced that the USN will cease using paper charts. Conversion to be complete in this decade. That one will be interestingG. Lew |
"Lew Hodgett" wrote Along the same "time
marches on" theme, it has been announced that the USN will cease using paper charts. Conversion to be complete in this decade. That one will be interestingG. Yeah, but they are running Linux on $100K computers. Are you ready to trust your life to Bill Gates and Gateway? :-) -- Glenn Ashmore I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com |
"Glenn Ashmore" wrote in
news:Xk4Le.17506$Ie.6745@lakeread03: "Lew Hodgett" wrote Along the same "time marches on" theme, it has been announced that the USN will cease using paper charts. Conversion to be complete in this decade. That one will be interestingG. Yeah, but they are running Linux on $100K computers. Are you ready to trust your life to Bill Gates and Gateway? :-) Who's running on a $100K computer? Even the shuttle astronauts are running laptops, which happen to be IBM ThinkPad 760XD specially modified for use in space. The 760XD uses a 166MHz Pentium with 64MB RAM, and a 3.0 GB removable hard drive. They run Windows 95. See: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=213 And yes, I would trust Windows... -- Geoff |
"Geoff Schultz" wrote in message 6... "Glenn Ashmore" wrote in news:Xk4Le.17506$Ie.6745@lakeread03: "Lew Hodgett" wrote Along the same "time marches on" theme, it has been announced that the USN will cease using paper charts. Conversion to be complete in this decade. That one will be interestingG. Yeah, but they are running Linux on $100K computers. Are you ready to trust your life to Bill Gates and Gateway? :-) Who's running on a $100K computer? Even the shuttle astronauts are running laptops, which happen to be IBM ThinkPad 760XD specially modified for use in space. The 760XD uses a 166MHz Pentium with 64MB RAM, and a 3.0 GB removable hard drive. They run Windows 95. See: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=213 And yes, I would trust Windows... -- Geoff They might use laptops for some of their work but the computers flying the shuttle are rather different. According to a book I read some time ago these little boxes (there were 4 of them originally and I guess this has not changed) were built to be bullet-proof. The code was written by IBM and every one of the 100,000 plus lines was verified more than once. The book said it was some of the most expensive code ever written. |
Geoff Schultz wrote:
And yes, I would trust Windows... -- Geoff then you're clueless |
"Gordon Wedman" wrote in
news:OoaLe.175420$9A2.145434@edtnps89: "Geoff Schultz" wrote in message 6... "Glenn Ashmore" wrote in news:Xk4Le.17506$Ie.6745@lakeread03: "Lew Hodgett" wrote Along the same "time marches on" theme, it has been announced that the USN will cease using paper charts. Conversion to be complete in this decade. That one will be interestingG. Yeah, but they are running Linux on $100K computers. Are you ready to trust your life to Bill Gates and Gateway? :-) Who's running on a $100K computer? Even the shuttle astronauts are running laptops, which happen to be IBM ThinkPad 760XD specially modified for use in space. The 760XD uses a 166MHz Pentium with 64MB RAM, and a 3.0 GB removable hard drive. They run Windows 95. See: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=213 And yes, I would trust Windows... -- Geoff They might use laptops for some of their work but the computers flying the shuttle are rather different. According to a book I read some time ago these little boxes (there were 4 of them originally and I guess this has not changed) were built to be bullet-proof. The code was written by IBM and every one of the 100,000 plus lines was verified more than once. The book said it was some of the most expensive code ever written. I wasn't trying to imply that the main computers which control the shuttle (which are 4x redundant) ran Windows! I know full well that those systems probably cost millions. But one has to consider that the laptops which the shuttle astronauts use are Windows based. My Northstar 961 chartplotter is based upon Windows NT. It's extremely stable. I built my first computer (SWTPC 6800) in 1974 from chips. I've spent 20+ years in the software industry of which 5 were spent in DEC's fault tolerant group where I implemented systems with 99.999% uptime. That group later went on to form Marathon Technolgies http://www.marathontechnologies.com/ which based their solutions on Windows platforms and provides 99.999% uptime. You'll find that the vast majority of crashes are caused by I/O system synchronization problems. The next time that you say "OK" to the fact that the drivers haven't been certified by MicroSoft, maybe you should realize that this may be a major contributor to the stability of your system. So yes, people can throw stones at Microsoft, but often they really don't understand many of the underlying issues. Please, let's not make this a religious war and go back to the topic at hand...FCC and code requirements. -- Geoff |
prodigal1 wrote in :
Geoff Schultz wrote: And yes, I would trust Windows... -- Geoff then you're clueless And your momma wears combat boots. Thanks for providing the enlightening commentary. -- Geoff |
In article ,
Geoff Schultz wrote: And yes, I would trust Windows... As one that programs rather sophisticated applications under Windows, I don't. What I have to do at work is primarily why I have a Mac at home: UNIX stability with a wonderful interface is such a lovely experience. -- Jere Lull Xan-a-Deux ('73 Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD) Xan's Pages: http://members.dca.net/jerelull/X-Main.html Our BVI FAQs (290+ pics) http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/ |
In article OoaLe.175420$9A2.145434@edtnps89,
"Gordon Wedman" wrote: [NASA] might use laptops for some of their work but the computers flying the shuttle are rather different. According to a book I read some time ago these little boxes (there were 4 of them originally and I guess this has not changed) were built to be bullet-proof. The code was written by IBM and every one of the 100,000 plus lines was verified more than once. The book said it was some of the most expensive code ever written. NASA's code has been used as a textbook example of how coding shouldn't be done. Computers and programming have evolved greatly since the most recent NASA (almost wrote NACA, since they are that old) OSs were built. Sometimes it's not so much how well the bear dances but that it dances at all. "Glenn Ashmore" wrote in news:Xk4Le.17506$Ie.6745@lakeread03: Who's running on a $100K computer? Even the shuttle astronauts are running laptops, which happen to be IBM ThinkPad 760XD specially modified for use in space. The 760XD uses a 166MHz Pentium with 64MB RAM, and a 3.0 GB removable hard drive. They run Windows 95. Yes, space has special concerns, but it shouldn't take 10 or more years to develop a space-hardened computer. Yes, it's rocket science, but the problem isn't the technicians, but the bureaucrats. Current machines are TWENTY times faster, with hundreds of times more capacity. Hell, I have a supercomputer on my desktop! -- Jere Lull Xan-a-Deux ('73 Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD) Xan's Pages: http://members.dca.net/jerelull/X-Main.html Our BVI FAQs (290+ pics) http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/ |
Actually, there are 5 computers on the shuttle. 4 were programmed by IBM and
one was programmed totally independently by Burroughs I think. Reason was so the a systematic bug in the IBM code would not likely show up in the backup Burroughes code. INteresting that you say that NASA is a good example of how coding shouldn't be done, but the Shuttle project software group was the first to acheive CMM Level 5 certification. It was the target that all groups seeking CMM strove to emulate. Doug "Jere Lull" wrote in message ... In article OoaLe.175420$9A2.145434@edtnps89, "Gordon Wedman" wrote: [NASA] might use laptops for some of their work but the computers flying the shuttle are rather different. According to a book I read some time ago these little boxes (there were 4 of them originally and I guess this has not changed) were built to be bullet-proof. The code was written by IBM and every one of the 100,000 plus lines was verified more than once. The book said it was some of the most expensive code ever written. NASA's code has been used as a textbook example of how coding shouldn't be done. Computers and programming have evolved greatly since the most recent NASA (almost wrote NACA, since they are that old) OSs were built. Sometimes it's not so much how well the bear dances but that it dances at all. "Glenn Ashmore" wrote in news:Xk4Le.17506$Ie.6745@lakeread03: Who's running on a $100K computer? Even the shuttle astronauts are running laptops, which happen to be IBM ThinkPad 760XD specially modified for use in space. The 760XD uses a 166MHz Pentium with 64MB RAM, and a 3.0 GB removable hard drive. They run Windows 95. Yes, space has special concerns, but it shouldn't take 10 or more years to develop a space-hardened computer. Yes, it's rocket science, but the problem isn't the technicians, but the bureaucrats. Current machines are TWENTY times faster, with hundreds of times more capacity. Hell, I have a supercomputer on my desktop! -- Jere Lull Xan-a-Deux ('73 Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD) Xan's Pages: http://members.dca.net/jerelull/X-Main.html Our BVI FAQs (290+ pics) http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/ |
"Geoff Schultz" wrote in message 6... "Gordon Wedman" wrote in news:OoaLe.175420$9A2.145434@edtnps89: "Geoff Schultz" wrote in message 6... "Glenn Ashmore" wrote in news:Xk4Le.17506$Ie.6745@lakeread03: "Lew Hodgett" wrote Along the same "time marches on" theme, it has been announced that the USN will cease using paper charts. Conversion to be complete in this decade. That one will be interestingG. Yeah, but they are running Linux on $100K computers. Are you ready to trust your life to Bill Gates and Gateway? :-) Who's running on a $100K computer? Even the shuttle astronauts are running laptops, which happen to be IBM ThinkPad 760XD specially modified for use in space. The 760XD uses a 166MHz Pentium with 64MB RAM, and a 3.0 GB removable hard drive. They run Windows 95. See: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=213 And yes, I would trust Windows... -- Geoff They might use laptops for some of their work but the computers flying the shuttle are rather different. According to a book I read some time ago these little boxes (there were 4 of them originally and I guess this has not changed) were built to be bullet-proof. The code was written by IBM and every one of the 100,000 plus lines was verified more than once. The book said it was some of the most expensive code ever written. I wasn't trying to imply that the main computers which control the shuttle (which are 4x redundant) ran Windows! I know full well that those systems probably cost millions. But one has to consider that the laptops which the shuttle astronauts use are Windows based. My Northstar 961 chartplotter is based upon Windows NT. It's extremely stable. I built my first computer (SWTPC 6800) in 1974 from chips. I've spent 20+ years in the software industry of which 5 were spent in DEC's fault tolerant group where I implemented systems with 99.999% uptime. That group later went on to form Marathon Technolgies http://www.marathontechnologies.com/ which based their solutions on Windows platforms and provides 99.999% uptime. You'll find that the vast majority of crashes are caused by I/O system synchronization problems. The next time that you say "OK" to the fact that the drivers haven't been certified by MicroSoft, maybe you should realize that this may be a major contributor to the stability of your system. So yes, people can throw stones at Microsoft, but often they really don't understand many of the underlying issues. Please, let's not make this a religious war and go back to the topic at hand...FCC and code requirements. -- Geoff OK, just meant to add to the other posters comment that some applications do employ above average computers and software. It seems you are more aware of that than I am g. Personally I have no quarrel with Windows. There are so many different makes of computers out there, and so many different types of programs to put on them, that only a complete dreamer would expect things to work correctly 100% of the time. If it wasn't for Windows there would be a lot fewer personal computer users and possibly an Internet much less developed. |
"Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote in message ... Actually, there are 5 computers on the shuttle. 4 were programmed by IBM and one was programmed totally independently by Burroughs I think. Reason was so the a systematic bug in the IBM code would not likely show up in the backup Burroughes code. INteresting that you say that NASA is a good example of how coding shouldn't be done, but the Shuttle project software group was the first to acheive CMM Level 5 certification. It was the target that all groups seeking CMM strove to emulate. Doug "Jere Lull" wrote in message ... In article OoaLe.175420$9A2.145434@edtnps89, "Gordon Wedman" wrote: [NASA] might use laptops for some of their work but the computers flying the shuttle are rather different. According to a book I read some time ago these little boxes (there were 4 of them originally and I guess this has not changed) were built to be bullet-proof. The code was written by IBM and every one of the 100,000 plus lines was verified more than once. The book said it was some of the most expensive code ever written. NASA's code has been used as a textbook example of how coding shouldn't be done. Computers and programming have evolved greatly since the most recent NASA (almost wrote NACA, since they are that old) OSs were built. Sometimes it's not so much how well the bear dances but that it dances at all. "Glenn Ashmore" wrote in news:Xk4Le.17506$Ie.6745@lakeread03: Who's running on a $100K computer? Even the shuttle astronauts are running laptops, which happen to be IBM ThinkPad 760XD specially modified for use in space. The 760XD uses a 166MHz Pentium with 64MB RAM, and a 3.0 GB removable hard drive. They run Windows 95. Yes, space has special concerns, but it shouldn't take 10 or more years to develop a space-hardened computer. Yes, it's rocket science, but the problem isn't the technicians, but the bureaucrats. Current machines are TWENTY times faster, with hundreds of times more capacity. Hell, I have a supercomputer on my desktop! -- Jere Lull Xan-a-Deux ('73 Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD) Xan's Pages: http://members.dca.net/jerelull/X-Main.html Our BVI FAQs (290+ pics) http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/ Yes, there are 5 computers and 5th was independently programmed. I had a look in the book again. The 5th computer only has (had?) enough code to fly the shuttle but could not run programs associated with the specific mission. |
"Gordon Wedman" wrote in message news:Vo3Me.134877$wr.84905@clgrps12... "Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote in message ... Actually, there are 5 computers on the shuttle. 4 were programmed by IBM and one was programmed totally independently by Burroughs I think. Reason was so the a systematic bug in the IBM code would not likely show up in the backup Burroughes code. INteresting that you say that NASA is a good example of how coding shouldn't be done, but the Shuttle project software group was the first to acheive CMM Level 5 certification. It was the target that all groups seeking CMM strove to emulate. Doug "Jere Lull" wrote in message ... In article OoaLe.175420$9A2.145434@edtnps89, "Gordon Wedman" wrote: [NASA] might use laptops for some of their work but the computers flying the shuttle are rather different. According to a book I read some time ago these little boxes (there were 4 of them originally and I guess this has not changed) were built to be bullet-proof. The code was written by IBM and every one of the 100,000 plus lines was verified more than once. The book said it was some of the most expensive code ever written. NASA's code has been used as a textbook example of how coding shouldn't be done. Computers and programming have evolved greatly since the most recent NASA (almost wrote NACA, since they are that old) OSs were built. Sometimes it's not so much how well the bear dances but that it dances at all. "Glenn Ashmore" wrote in news:Xk4Le.17506$Ie.6745@lakeread03: Who's running on a $100K computer? Even the shuttle astronauts are running laptops, which happen to be IBM ThinkPad 760XD specially modified for use in space. The 760XD uses a 166MHz Pentium with 64MB RAM, and a 3.0 GB removable hard drive. They run Windows 95. Yes, space has special concerns, but it shouldn't take 10 or more years to develop a space-hardened computer. Yes, it's rocket science, but the problem isn't the technicians, but the bureaucrats. Current machines are TWENTY times faster, with hundreds of times more capacity. Hell, I have a supercomputer on my desktop! -- Jere Lull Xan-a-Deux ('73 Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD) Xan's Pages: http://members.dca.net/jerelull/X-Main.html Our BVI FAQs (290+ pics) http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/ Yes, there are 5 computers and 5th was independently programmed. I had a look in the book again. The 5th computer only has (had?) enough code to fly the shuttle but could not run programs associated with the specific mission. Exactly. It is a last ditch backup in the unlikely event that a bug common to all 4 of the other computers causes a failure. What book are you referring to? I read it an article in Communications of the ACM about 1982. |
On 2005-08-15 12:27:06 +1000, Jere Lull said:
In article , Geoff Schultz wrote: And yes, I would trust Windows... As one that programs rather sophisticated applications under Windows, I don't. What I have to do at work is primarily why I have a Mac at home: UNIX stability with a wonderful interface is such a lovely experience. My wife had laser eye surgery to correct a severe myopia problem. I believe she would have been legally blind without her 'coke bottle bottom' lenses. Anyway, she now does not need glasses period now after the procedure. First time since she was 9 years old and she is now 59 that she has not needed glasses! The scanning of the eye surface, control of the laser beam and tracking applications all run under guess what? WINDOWS. Purpose built systems can achieve greater reliability than general purpose systems. And BTW they are not connected to the internet ;-) I too worked in the IT industry for 30+ years. OS development and software development tools as well as hardware in the early years. A mac user but windows is not as bad as many zealots portray it. Just too damn complex and obfuscated when compared to the Mac;-) -- Regards, John Proctor VK3JP, VKV6789 S/V Chagall |
"Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote in
: Exactly. It is a last ditch backup in the unlikely event that a bug common to all 4 of the other computers causes a failure. What book are you referring to? I read it an article in Communications of the ACM about 1982. Does anyone know how many times the Voyager spacecrafts have been rebooted or have failed? I do know storage is on a tape cassette, of which there are two aboard. Voyager I is running on the same tape drive...the same cassette!!...that it was using in 1967. The other drive is booted weekly and the drive tape is moved to prevent the rubber wheels from getting a dent in them, but has never been used online because Tape One is still running perfectly.....fascinating stuff so many years ago. At the edge of the sun's influence, data rates are in bytes per MINUTE, now, not seconds....(c; http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/ Watch the new movie about it going beyond the termination shock into the heliopause. Every time we contact it, it sets a new DX record....(c; Can you imagine the ATTENUATION between it and us?! Oh, its transmitter uses traveling wave tubes. Both of them are also STILL working fine after 25 years on the air! The spare is still in standby... There used to be a webpage where you could read all the data coming back from Voyager, in near-realtime. But, now that it's so FAR out there, the data only comes back at very long intervals so they dropped the webpage. I tracked the traveling wave tube parameters for years from the website.... -- Larry |
On 8/8/05 2:29 PM, in article , "Larry"
wrote: http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/07/20/100/?nc=1 Good news for boaters! FCC proposes to drop ALL Morse code requirements on ALL licenses! THE TIME OF YOUR HAM LICENSE HAS ARRIVED! The public comment window is open! Tell the FCC to get rid of the code! Now, they should replace the code test with a TYPING test so you can carry on a decent conversation with those dunderheads that can't type 5wpm on packet, pactor, PSK31, RTTY, etc........No typing endorsement, no data modes! As an Extra Class, I also propose to drop the stupid ARRL band segregation on "class" and "modes". How stupid.... 73 DE W4CSC Maybe it is time to say Morse Code has outlived it's usefulness. I have heard that the RadioTelegraph license requirement has been dropped for shipboard radio operators. Could just be it's not needed but I still think there is a place for it. Just as most of the theory you need to know today isn't really used anymore due to the advanced electronics. It's a way though to "earn" your rights to operate and yes provide an educated or somewhat educated pool of radio operators. All that aside I think there still is a place for morse code and to eliminate it all together, I feel, would not be in the best interest of the art of radio operators. As far as the number of operators that use it today, I doubt there are but a handfull. I do think that elimination of the code, except up to the highest levels of Licensed operators would be rational but still I disagree with total elimination of the code requirement. Just my opinion though. Gary - KW4Z PS With the advent of the internet and new technologies, that require more bandwidth, I feel anything we can do to increase the ranks of Amateur Radio operators is a good thing and if that means sacrificing the code to save the hobby then I'm all for that. What we must not give up is education into the rules and operating procedures as well as basic theory and operation. We still need "educated" professional operators. |
"Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote in message ... "Gordon Wedman" wrote in message news:Vo3Me.134877$wr.84905@clgrps12... "Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote in message ... Actually, there are 5 computers on the shuttle. 4 were programmed by IBM and one was programmed totally independently by Burroughs I think. Reason was so the a systematic bug in the IBM code would not likely show up in the backup Burroughes code. INteresting that you say that NASA is a good example of how coding shouldn't be done, but the Shuttle project software group was the first to acheive CMM Level 5 certification. It was the target that all groups seeking CMM strove to emulate. Doug "Jere Lull" wrote in message ... In article OoaLe.175420$9A2.145434@edtnps89, "Gordon Wedman" wrote: [NASA] might use laptops for some of their work but the computers flying the shuttle are rather different. According to a book I read some time ago these little boxes (there were 4 of them originally and I guess this has not changed) were built to be bullet-proof. The code was written by IBM and every one of the 100,000 plus lines was verified more than once. The book said it was some of the most expensive code ever written. NASA's code has been used as a textbook example of how coding shouldn't be done. Computers and programming have evolved greatly since the most recent NASA (almost wrote NACA, since they are that old) OSs were built. Sometimes it's not so much how well the bear dances but that it dances at all. "Glenn Ashmore" wrote in news:Xk4Le.17506$Ie.6745@lakeread03: Who's running on a $100K computer? Even the shuttle astronauts are running laptops, which happen to be IBM ThinkPad 760XD specially modified for use in space. The 760XD uses a 166MHz Pentium with 64MB RAM, and a 3.0 GB removable hard drive. They run Windows 95. Yes, space has special concerns, but it shouldn't take 10 or more years to develop a space-hardened computer. Yes, it's rocket science, but the problem isn't the technicians, but the bureaucrats. Current machines are TWENTY times faster, with hundreds of times more capacity. Hell, I have a supercomputer on my desktop! -- Jere Lull Xan-a-Deux ('73 Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD) Xan's Pages: http://members.dca.net/jerelull/X-Main.html Our BVI FAQs (290+ pics) http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/ Yes, there are 5 computers and 5th was independently programmed. I had a look in the book again. The 5th computer only has (had?) enough code to fly the shuttle but could not run programs associated with the specific mission. Exactly. It is a last ditch backup in the unlikely event that a bug common to all 4 of the other computers causes a failure. What book are you referring to? I read it an article in Communications of the ACM about 1982. What book are you referring to? Sorry, I don't recall the title and the book is at my brother's. It is a hardcover book, 8 1/2 x 11, about 250 pages. I purchased it when I visited KSC in the '90s. It describes early research leading up to the shuttle program, the program itself and the vehicles. Lots of interesting tidbits, for example, those turbo pumps in the main engines run at 30,000 rpm to pump huge amounts of liquid H2 and O2. |
GK User wrote in
: PS With the advent of the internet and new technologies, that require more bandwidth, I feel anything we can do to increase the ranks of Amateur Radio operators is a good thing and if that means sacrificing the code to save the hobby then I'm all for that. What we must not give up is education into the rules and operating procedures as well as basic theory and operation. We still need "educated" professional operators. Ham radio will be lucky if it survives to 2010. Go to any hamfest and figure out the average age of the attendees is around 60, the few ham kids included. Most kids can't figure out why they'd ever want a ham radio when they can simply boot their computers, now with broadband, and talk to their friends in Hong Kong without some old coot bitching at them that they are on his private frequency he's been on since 1948 with his other old coot friends. The old coots are killing ham radio. They hate kids on the air. Naw...Not only has the code outlived itself by 30 years....so hasn't ham radio. 73 DE W4CSC old coot since 1957 NNNN |
In article , Larry
wrote: Oh, its transmitter uses traveling wave tubes. Both of them are also STILL working fine after 25 years on the air! More important: 25 years IN no air. (Loss of "vacuum" is the primary root cause of failures) Didn't one of Edison's first primitive light bulbs recently die after staying lit for many, many years? -- Jere Lull Xan-a-Deux ('73 Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD) Xan's Pages: http://members.dca.net/jerelull/X-Main.html Our BVI FAQs (290+ pics) http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/ |
|
OK Larry!
Let's make a deal (and save me the time of reading through all the commentary). The next time this topic comes up, it will be when the code requirements have been eliminated. Until that day, I won't get my hopes up or refresh for the written exam. Steve s/v Good Intentions |
"Steve" wrote in
: Until that day, I won't get my hopes up or refresh for the written exam. Won't be long, now. The whole world is dumping Morse. -- Larry |
"Larry" wrote in message ... "Steve" wrote in : Until that day, I won't get my hopes up or refresh for the written exam. Won't be long, now. The whole world is dumping Morse. -- Larry But has the ITU changed the treaty? Nothing can happen until then. Doug, k3qt |
|
|
"Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote in
: But has the ITU changed the treaty? Nothing can happen until then. Doug, k3qt Long time ago. ARRL did what it could to prevent ITU from changing its mind, but common sense prevailed. Code hasn't been an ITU requirement in years. ARRL pulled out all the stops to prevent ham radio from having a new flood of new hams without code on the old codgers' HF bands. Now, we need to get rid of this stupid caste system and get down to ONE license with all frequencies available to ALL, without CODE SUBBANDS, which I predict are the next on the chopping block! USA hams may be heard from 14.100-14.150 on SSB before I die! What a concept....joining the rest of the world on this precious slice of frequencies....all on PHONE. -- Larry |
Actually the ITU ended the code requirement in July of 2003 at WRC-03.
-- Glenn Ashmore I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com "Larry" wrote in message ... "Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote in : But has the ITU changed the treaty? Nothing can happen until then. Doug, k3qt Long time ago. ARRL did what it could to prevent ITU from changing its mind, but common sense prevailed. Code hasn't been an ITU requirement in years. ARRL pulled out all the stops to prevent ham radio from having a new flood of new hams without code on the old codgers' HF bands. Now, we need to get rid of this stupid caste system and get down to ONE license with all frequencies available to ALL, without CODE SUBBANDS, which I predict are the next on the chopping block! USA hams may be heard from 14.100-14.150 on SSB before I die! What a concept....joining the rest of the world on this precious slice of frequencies....all on PHONE. -- Larry |
wrote in message . .. On 2005-08-19 dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom said: But has the ITU changed the treaty? Nothing can happen until then. Yep, did that at the last warc conference, I think 1999. 73 I know that isn't true. The code requirement was still in place as of 2 or 3 years ago. Richard Webb, amateur radio callsign nf5b active on the Maritime Mobile service network, 14.300 mhz REplace anything before the @ symbol with elspider for real email -- agood captain is one who is hoisting his first drink in a bar when the storm hits. |
"Larry" wrote in message ... "Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote in : But has the ITU changed the treaty? Nothing can happen until then. Doug, k3qt Long time ago. ARRL did what it could to prevent ITU from changing its mind, but common sense prevailed. Code hasn't been an ITU requirement in years. ARRL pulled out all the stops to prevent ham radio from having a new flood of new hams without code on the old codgers' HF bands. Now, we need to get rid of this stupid caste system and get down to ONE license with all frequencies available to ALL, without CODE SUBBANDS, which I predict are the next on the chopping block! USA hams may be heard from 14.100-14.150 on SSB before I die! What a concept....joining the rest of the world on this precious slice of frequencies....all on PHONE. -- Larry Yea! Welcome to the next generation of CB. |
"Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote in
: Yea! Welcome to the next generation of CB. Nonsense. Marine VHF has no license at all and it's not like CB....well, often....until their drunk. Ham radio is worse than CB when THEY're drunk. -- Larry |
"Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote in
: Yea! Welcome to the next generation of CB. It's also very interesting that a MAJORITY of the FCC offenders written up on HF are not unlicensed stations....they're not General Class operators or Novices....No, the MAJORITY of the FCC offenders are EXTRA Class Operators, their heads swelled with ego puffing out their chests.... The truth about ham radio can be seen in rec.radio.amateur.policy any day. 6-year-olds fighting over the Tonka Truck in a sandbox are more civil. -- Larry |
"Larry" wrote in message ... "Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote in : Yea! Welcome to the next generation of CB. Nonsense. Marine VHF has no license at all and it's not like CB....well, often....until their drunk. Ham radio is worse than CB when THEY're drunk. -- Larry The CG does a fairly good job of policing Marine VHF. No such thing in CB or Ham, at least not like it used to be. Doug |
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 23:19:52 -0400, Larry wrote (with
possible editing): "Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote in : Yea! Welcome to the next generation of CB. It's also very interesting that a MAJORITY of the FCC offenders written up on HF are not unlicensed stations....they're not General Class operators or Novices....No, the MAJORITY of the FCC offenders are EXTRA Class Operators, their heads swelled with ego puffing out their chests.... The truth about ham radio can be seen in rec.radio.amateur.policy any day. 6-year-olds fighting over the Tonka Truck in a sandbox are more civil. No flame, Larry, but can you document that? References, please. I always thought there were far more violations on CB, particularly since callsigns are required and I never heard them. Of course that is anecdotal. Those violators don't seem to be pursued by the FCC, but that doesn't mean they aren't violating the law. Thank you. -- Larry (W1HJF - Amateur Extra Class) Email to rapp at lmr dot com |
"Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote in
: The CG does a fairly good job of policing Marine VHF The CG does a fairly good job policing Channel 16 and 22A. I've never heard them say anything to the cursing shrimpers on the other channels like 10 or the pleasure boat channels. They don't listen to them. -- Larry |
L. M. Rappaport wrote in
: No flame, Larry, but can you document that? References, please. I always thought there were far more violations on CB, particularly since callsigns are required and I never heard them. Of course that is anecdotal. Those violators don't seem to be pursued by the FCC, but that doesn't mean they aren't violating the law. Thank you. -- Larry (W1HJF - Amateur Extra Class) There aren't any violations on CB. FCC gave up...(c; I don't find any "list" I can point you to, even on the FCC's website. Let's see, Richard whatzizname and the other idiots on 14.303, FZ in Puerto Rico's a prime example. If you go through the old ARRL mags where they post the troublemakers and look up the calls, that would give you an indication. -- Larry (W4CSC - Amateur Extra Class) |
"L. M. Rappaport" wrote in message ... On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 23:19:52 -0400, Larry wrote (with possible editing): "Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote in : Yea! Welcome to the next generation of CB. It's also very interesting that a MAJORITY of the FCC offenders written up on HF are not unlicensed stations....they're not General Class operators or Novices....No, the MAJORITY of the FCC offenders are EXTRA Class Operators, their heads swelled with ego puffing out their chests.... The truth about ham radio can be seen in rec.radio.amateur.policy any day. 6-year-olds fighting over the Tonka Truck in a sandbox are more civil. No flame, Larry, but can you document that? References, please. I always thought there were far more violations on CB, particularly since callsigns are required and I never heard them. Of course that is anecdotal. Those violators don't seem to be pursued by the FCC, but that doesn't mean they aren't violating the law. Thank you. -- Larry (W1HJF - Amateur Extra Class) Email to rapp at lmr dot com Larry is just ****ed that he never was able to pass his Extra exam. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:54 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com