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

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.

"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

"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.

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:

And yes, I would trust Windows...
-- Geoff

then you're clueless